HILLARY & MICHELLE … THE ODIFEROUS PROGRESSIVISM OF AMERICA’S MOST HYPOCRITICAL (POLITICAL) FEMINISTS!

God save our new Canadian king!

CULTURAL RELATIVISM AND OBAMA
The West Is Most Assuredly At War With Islam. This Is Not A Religious War. This Is A War Between Two Diametrically Opposed Ethical Systems That Can’t Live Together!

By Diane Weber Bederman, with permission of the author

Obama has been busy implementing a world-view which resonates with a variety of Marxist philosophy called Cultural Marxism. “Critics have seen Cultural Marxism and its influence as an important cause of political correctness and as an important cause of a perceived decline of humanities, social sciences, culture, and civilization in the Western world. Cultural Marxists often try to remove these inequalities by more or less subtle manipulation and censorship of culture.”

He’s demeaning the West, opening America to values that will destroy her, and at the same time elevating a far different culture: Islam, which has an ethic that’s anathema to the West.

He said in his speech, of February 2016, to the Baltimore Islamic Society: “For more than a thousand years, people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace. And the very word itself, Islam, comes from salam—peace. The standard greeting is as-salamu alaykum—peace be upon you. And like so many faiths, Islam is rooted in a commitment to compassion and mercy and justice and charity. Whoever wants to enter paradise, the Prophet Muhammad taught, “let him treat people the way he would love to be treated.”

There is a problem with this statement. The meaning of “Peace” in Islam is not the same as the meaning of peace in the West. In Islam there will only be peace when all the world accepts Allah and Sharia law.

Modern-day Islamic scholar, Ibrahim Sulaiman, says submission and peace can be very different concepts, even if a form of peace is often brought about through forcing others into submission: “Jihad is not inhumane, despite its necessary violence and bloodshed, its ultimate desire is peace which is protected and enhanced by the rule of law.”

Armed responses are only permitted when all peaceful possibilities have failed. And once armed resistance begins it doesn’t stop “until the war lays down its burden” as Allah has mentioned in the Qur’an 47.

For a man who considers himself worldly, how is it that Barack Obama is not aware of this different meaning?

Or is he?

Obama also said “Groups like al Qaeda and ISIL, they’re not the first extremists in history to misuse God’s name. We’ve seen it before, across faiths. But right now, there is an organized extremist element that draws selectively from Islamic texts, twists them in an attempt to justify their killing and their terror. They combine it with false claims that America and the West are at war with Islam… First, at a time when others are trying to divide us along lines of religion or sect, we have to reaffirm that most fundamental of truths: We are all God’s children. We’re all born equal, with inherent dignity.”

I fear this President is hiding from, or distorting, the facts on the ground in order to promote cultural relativism.

The West is most assuredly at war with Islam. But this is not a religious war. This is a war between two diametrically opposed ethical systems that cannot live together.

Islam does not say that we are all born equal, with inherent dignity as is stated in the Judeo/Christian ethic that underpins America and the West.

Islam is a type of caste system: It treats women like chattel. It teaches that those who believe in Islam are superior to others --Jews and Christians-- who are viewed as inferior, lesser-than"dhimmis".

Indeed, in the times of Mohammed, Jews and Christians were singled out for persecution. And so it remains, today.

“Sharia law was put into place and the Christian dhimmis continued to have their “protected” status as People of the Book who lived under the Sharia law. The dhimmi paid heavy taxes, could not testify in court, hold a position of authority over Muslims and was humiliated by social rules. A dhimmi had to step aside for the Muslim, offer him his seat, could not carry a weapon, and had to defer to a Muslim in every way. In all matters of society the dhimmi had to yield to the Muslim.

Over the centuries, the degradation, lack of rights and the dhimmi tax caused the Christian to convert. It is the Sharia that destroys the dhimmis.

Additionally, Jews are often forbidden from living in Muslim countries. In 1948, after five Arab/Muslim countries tried to annihilate the nascent state of Israel, eight hundred & fifty thousand Jews -- despite living for more than 2000 years in the Muslim countries -- were exiled.

Where, President Obama, is that foundational belief of tolerance, inclusion, accommodation and inherent dignity for all?

Does President Obama believe that Muslims coming to America leave their beliefs of superiority behind? Their lack of tolerance and inclusion?

Does he really believe that Imams trained outside of America don’t preach these values in America?

Only one who believes in and promotes cultural relativism could have these views. And the rest of Obama's foreign policy speaks even louder to cultural relativism.

If he is going to prove that all cultures are equal he must elevate other cultures while demeaning America. Under Obama’s presidency America has diminished in the eyes of the world -- exacerbated by his apologizing for America’s actions.

In 2009, “Mr.” Obama told the French (the French!) that America ‘has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive’ toward Europe.

In Prague, he said America has ‘a moral responsibility to act’ on arms control because only the U.S. had ‘used a nuclear weapon.’

In London, he said that decisions about the world financial system were no longer made by ‘just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy"—as if that were a bad thing.

And in Latin America, he said the U.S. had not “pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors” because we “failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas.”

According to Black “The high points of his foreign policy have been allowing the Western alliance to atrophy; failure to render any assistance to Ukraine, abruptly departing Iraq and ensuring its disintegration and the near-capture of Baghdad by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, drawing a ‘red line’ against the Assad regime in Syria gassing its own civil population and then abdicating military command to Congress, and dropping the issue into the inhospitable lap of Russia. His solemn pledge to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear military power evolved into a green light for Iran to put nuclear warheads on its missiles in 10 years… American irresolution has been the chief cause of an immense humanitarian crisis.”

That humanitarian crisis has led to the movement of hundreds of thousands of Muslims into Europe, and now Canada and America -- many of whom, rather than integrating, are making onerous demands of their new countries. For example, according to journalist Soeren Kern: “Asylum seekers are increasingly using tactics such as hunger strikes, lawsuits and threats of violence, in efforts to force German authorities to comply with an ever-growing list of demands.”

And let us not forget Obama’s shabby, disrespectful treatment of Israel, the people and the country, that for 3500 years gave the west the ethic that underpins democracy (and now the only Jewish state, 1/19th the size of California, surrounded by 22 hostile Arab/Islamic dictatorships 640 times her size).

It is one of disdain.

The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, lamented: “For too long we have been self-conscious and even ashamed about British identity. By embracing multiculturalism and the idea that every culture and belief is of equal value, we have betrayed our own traditions of welcoming strangers to our shore. Multiculturalism . . . has led to [honor] killings . . . and Sharia law.”

I suggest that under Obama, America, too, has betrayed her own traditions.

DIANE BEDERMAN BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION:

Diane Weber Bederman is a blogger for "Times of Israel," a contributor to "Convivium", a national magazine about faith in our community, and also writes about family issues and mental illness. She is a multi-faith endorsed hospital trained chaplain. And you can now order Diane's new book: "Back to The Ethic --Reclaiming Western Values": http://www.amazon.com/Back-Ethic-Reclaiming-Western-Values/dp/1927618053/
You can e-mail Diane at: dbederman@hotmail.com

CLICK ONCE BELOW TO ACCESS THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THIS GUEST EDITORIAL:

http://canadafreepress.com/article/cultural-relativism-and-obama#
ELECTING PRESIDENT HILLARY, troche IN NOVEMBER, WILL GUARANTEE AN ECONOMIC DISASTER FOR “FLY-OVER COUNTRY”AMERICA!

By Murray Soupcoff

All right folks, the die has been cast: it’s The Donald versus Crooked Hillary in the November presidential election.

However, in my opinion, if America’s would-be American Queen is somehow elected President in November, the United States could be endure yet another disastrous economic recession -- even though the Obama years’ many economic setbacks still haven’t dissipated (including 0.5% growth, a real-world 17% unemployment rate, as well as record unemployment among young black males)

Why do I make this damning assertion against the Democrats’ alleged girl wonder?

Well, for one thing, because American feminists’ dream candidate has already promised -- if she is elected president – to call on her husband Bill’s supposed economic savvy to guide her in making major economic decisions (so long as he doesn’t hire Monica Lewinsky as an aide).

Of course, the mainstream media’s constant spin -- since Mr. Clinton left office -- has been that his enlightened leadership propelled America into a time of economic growth and prosperity.

But did he really?

In fact, America’s most notorious Presidential cigar-wielding adulterer really owed his lamestream-media image -- as America’s economic savior – to a series of disastrous economic initiatives that ultimately boomeranged during the term of President George H.W. Bush.

And that’s notwithstanding Bush’s own proliferate overspending to win the votes of liberal Americans who continued to vote for the Democrat opposition.

So where did the Arkansas wonder screw up, in his drive to win over avaricious American voters?

Well for one thing, he insisted that every American had a right to his or her own home – no matter how economically-deprived their circumstances.

So with the help of Barney Frank he helped mortgage lenders come up with ever more “creative” mortgage initiatives to permit almost any US. citizen – no matter how poor -- buy his or her own home.

The result?

A pseudo housing boom that had positive impacts on the rest of the American economy.

After all, building more homes generated a demand for more materials to construct and furnish those houses. And it meant more jobs not only in construction but in manufacturing too (e.g., roofing or furniture for new homes).

A virtuous feedback loop of one spending commitment leading to another and then another, etc.

And that meant more jobs in various construction and manufacturing related industries, resulting in more spending money for workers employed in those jobs.

Of course, the American economy launched into full gear; and what turned out to be the myth -- of America’s presidential economic savior -- was born.

“The myth” you angrily ask, especially if you’re a devoted Clintons supporter.

Well, yes, that’s exactly what it was.

Because five to 7 years later, millions of Americans who were the beneficiaries of those creatively-crafted mortgages (thanks to the now notorious derivatives swaps dreamed up by recently-graduated nerds employed by Americn banks) discovered the payments increased beyond their ability to pay.

The truth & consequences?

Millions of foreclosures and bankruptcies which crashed the housing market and every other related market.

Not only were millions of houses lost, but millions of jobs were also lost and the nation’s economy tanked

All during the term of George H.W. Bush,

BUT ALL DUE TO THE ECONOMICS OF BILL CLINTON!

The lesson learned from all of the above?

America cannot afford another Clinton as president – especially if she (as promised) appoints her husband as her number-one economic advisor!

Nuff said on this subject matter, I would think.

 

MICHELL OBAMA ... IDIOT HOLDING KINDNAPPED GIRLS SIGN ... BRING THEM BACK PHOTO

MICHELLE OBAMA: IT’S OK FOR BOYS TO CRY AND FOR GIRLS TO BE ‘BOSSY’
--Count On Hillary Clinton Using Both Obamas To Further The Progressive Cause After Winning The Election

By Judi McLeod, clinic with permission of the author

Isn’t it downright sexist to suggest that all little boys must be taught that it’s alright for them to cry and that it’s alright for little girls to be bossy?

That kind of thinking goes all the way back to the ignorant days when girl babies and boy babies in nurseries were identified by pink and blue colors.

But that’s the ignorant message Michelle Obama delivered to hundreds of school girls and women in mostly Catholic Spain recently.

Stretching like a newly awakened dog to drive home her pro-choice message, advising her audience about how to raise children “if you choose to have them” (and don’t chose to abort them as do enlightened feminists) her advice came straight out of the Old Wives category:

“Maybe it means telling your sons that it’s OK to cry, and your daughters that it’s OK to be bossy.”

All mothers who have children can tell you that little boys cry as loudly as do little girls when they don’t get their way, and that little girls are not always sugar and spice.

Growing-up issues have a lot more to do with human behavior than gender obsession. Claiming otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of school girls and women.

“Speaking to hundreds of young girls and women in Madrid, Mrs. Obama urged her audience to change “inequalities in our cultures” that hold back women in their daily lives (according to the June 30th issue of “The Washington Times).

Here’s how the “Washington Times” summarized Mrs. Obama’s address to her captive audience:

“U.S. first lady Michelle Obama gives a speech on her “Let Girls Learn” initiative to a group of girls and young women in Madrid, Spain, Thursday June 30, 2016. President Barack Obama and the first lady launched the initiative last year to address the barriers that keep more than 62 million girls around the world out of school.”

[My own editorial footnote: Given her husband the president’s preoccupation with transgendered school-bathroom issues, the name of the “Let Girls Learn” initiative should be re-named: “Let Girls Have Privacy and Protection from Males Posing as Transgenders in their own Bathrooms”.]

Regardless, the “Washington Times” report continues:

“Referring to historical progress for women in the U.S., Mrs. Obama referred to Hillary Clinton, saying, “I’m proud to say that this year, for the first time in history, we might just elect a president — a female president of the United States.”

“Mrs. Obama told her audience that too many girls around the world are forced to abandon an education at a very young age to get married and have children. She said her initiative is “about whether families and communities think that girls are even worthy of an education in the first place.”

“It’s about whether girls are valued only for their bodies — for their labor, for their reproductive capacities — or are they valued for their minds as well,” the first lady said.

“In the U.S. and Spain, she said, despite progress on women’s equality, “men and women are often held to very different standards.”

[Of course, the most pertinent question is, why doesn’t Michelle give this speech in Saudi Arabia?]

The "Washington Times" report ends as follows:

“Changes in our laws haven’t always translated to changes in our cultures,” Mrs. Obama said. “And many of us still struggle with outdated norms and assumptions about the proper role for women, especially when it comes to our families and our workplaces.”

My own interpretation of Michelle Obama’s remarks?

Today’s progressive pop culture has done everything humanly possible to demonize and feminize boys and men.

Telling boys “it’s OK to cry” is part of it.

Men who don’t burst into tears in the public domain like ex-House Leader John Boehner are accused of being authoritarian – although never “bossy”, know-it-all women like Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton.

And there’s no coming relief for graduating classes addressed by Barack and Michelle Obama after January 2017 -- since Obama himself admitted, in recent days, that he will continue on in some form of public service when he leaves the White House.

So count on Hillary Clinton using both Obamas to further the progressive cause if she wins the November election.

Meanwhile how is it that Michelle Obama is a one hundred percent expert on both boys and girls?

Could it possibly be that Michelle knows something the rest of us don’t?

JUDI MCLEOD’S BIO:

Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.

Judi can be emailed at:judi@canadafreepress.com

Proudly powered by WordPress   Premium Style Theme by www.gopiplus.com