Let’s see if we can educate a few women. This is an interesting question to ponder. We all know that women are the majority of the population by about 3%. In other words there are more women then men. So when liberal Obama says he will tax the rich so they can pay their fair share, how many women does Obama expect to pay more in taxes?

I am going to make a hypothetical suggestion here, but there are more rich women out there then there are rich men. Let’s not use the Obama rich threshold of $250,000, let’s use the million dollar mark, which really isn’t all that high today.

If we look at the top ten rich lists thanks to Wall-Mart:  20% of the top ten are women. So we are getting close to 50% without even trying. Most of the men who are worth a great deal of money are married to … Drum roll please… Women!

And some where along the line the rich couples have community property, maybe file jointly but these women own half or almost half of these funds. And factor in the fact that most women outlive the men, the women and their children end up with most of the loot or a controlling interest in the money either by trust or direct control.

So it is real easy to come to the same conclusion, unless most of these men are gay, women control more then 50% of the “rich” money.

Let’s factor in divorce. Trump alone has made at least 2 women rich not counting his children. And at least one of them is a female doing quite well financially.

You get the point, when Obama targets the rich, he is also targeting women. What Obama is really trying to bamboozle you with is the fact that there are some single moms who are struggling because they hooked up with losers. But what about all the women who make or have married into a great deal of money? So this creates a serious problem for Obama. Which women does he want to be fair with? Stupid women who don’t realize there are women like Madonna and Streisand who have a great deal of money. Should they be required to pay more, or should it just be greedy, smelly men that need to pay more to Obama?

Just a side note, if you check on line for health insurance, I don’t see any provision for the pill for women. I thought King Obama ruled that all women will get free pills for contraception with their insurance. No deductible and no co-pay. I guess the insurance companies didn’t get the memo. Looks like there is still a $15 dollar co-pay and a whopping increase in the premiums to do so. I guess that is another Obama plan that has failed. Again it would be cheaper to pay for your own pills then to buy “The Pill” through the insurance company each and every month. Way to go Obama!  If I was a woman, I would vote for you…Not!

There are a lot of ignorant people that think that if Obama raises taxes they will benefit. Now Obama uses big words like fair share and fair this and that. But fair per se is a platitude. It has no quantitative or qualitative value. In other words it is a smoke screen. Like hope and change, it meant nothing and it proved to achieve no results.

The problem with Obama’s big tax plan of communism is that he has not planted the vision in the minds of the voters about how this stolen money will trickle down to them. The average voter believes Obama is a liar but he has said nothing about what he would do with all the rich women’s tax money.

Obama has proved over and over that he can outspend the average presidents like President Bush and Clinton by several trillions of dollars, but what will he do with the rich women’s tax dollars?

Most idiots think that he will pay down the debt. Did you hear him say that? If he really believed in paying down the debt then he would have a plan and a teleprompter to do so. Obamacare is not a plan to pay down the debt, but it is a plan to increase the debt by maybe twofold in a decade or two.

And Obama has told us over and over again how he wants to help the middle class. Well he has screwed the middle class over and over in the last three years, how is he going to help them. I guess with help like that who wants seconds. According to Governor Romney, under Obama 92% of the jobs lost were female jobs. Way to go Obama!

Obama could have fixed the housing industry with an executive order. But instead he lets the middle class women lose their status while the banks foreclose on their assets and their homes.

If Obama’s plan is all that great, if he raises taxes, where will the money go?

The problem with Obama is that he wants to create this class warfare, but he is so unpredictable and all over the board, that no one knows what experimental liberal thought he will have by November. It means one and only one thing, Obama was inexperienced when he became president, and he is still too stupid to come up with a plan that will work.  Is there an Obama plan capable of being held and understood by reasonable people? In so doing, will it create hope that it will help the average citizen?

And Dear Women,  since there are more women then men in this country, no matter what class of people Obama attacks, he is attacking your kind.

So since Obama has not championed a cause to help the old or the poor people but only the middle class, then there is no reason for any old men or women to vote for Obama. There is no reason for the poor women or men to vote for Obama.

Please allow me to let you in on a dirty little secret. The Democrats intentionally destroyed the economy to win the 2008 election. The economy has fallen and it can’t get up. Without a good and prospering economy this country is in trouble. Obama had three almost 4 years to experiment with his liberal ideas like FDR. It is time for all women to see the fallacy and send Obama back toChicagoto be with his liberal buddy Emmanuel!

In this long over looked quote from a radio interview a Pre-President Obama laments the negative liberties he sees as a flaw in the Constitution and waxes eloquent in defense of the redistribution of wealth and the positive power of an intrusive welfare state.

“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”

Unfortunately for this radical interpretation, liberty is a negative.  Personal liberty is always and only possible when and where external control stops.  We have the liberty to think as we wish because no one can control or even know our true inner thoughts.  We do not have the liberty to steal; society has placed limits on that action which are enforced by external control.  The Framers of our Constitution knew this which explains why our foundational document includes restrictions on the power of government not restrictions on individuals.  Unless governmental control over the individual was limited there would be no liberty.

This has been common knowledge in our Republic since John Hancock signed his John Hancock and we declared to the world that the United States of America was going to be something different.  We were determined to break free of the entangling state control stifling the monarchies of Europe.  We would be a new type of nation where individual liberty, opportunity, and free enterprise would unleash the pent-up creativity and ingenuity would make real the genius of a free people.  However, over the years many have fallen asleep, lulled into a trance by the prosperity and security this freedom from state control has fostered.

Slowly the knowledge of what gave vent to this prosperity and security has been lost and generations of Americans have been taught by state schools that free enterprise is evil and state paternalism is good.  Generations have been bred to see governmental support, direction, and control as necessary and proper.  They have ingested the poison of dependence metastasizing the debilitating life on the dole to the point where they see their continued receipt of stolen goods as an entitlement.  So many have fallen for the licentious materialistic hedonism masquerading as life in a post-modern America that when asked, “What is the American Dream?” many will reply “To own your own home.”  A response and a belief which made the congressionally mandated Fannie/Freddie induced housing bubble possible if not inevitable.

This shows the negative results of the positive reinforcement of materialism over intellectualism.  The correct response to the question, “What is the American Dream?” is Individual liberty and opportunity. Once this was common knowledge among an engaged American public who realized that no one fought and died to own a home, people owned homes in America before the revolution.  It was freedom that was the object of the Revolution and it is the individual liberty and opportunity that freedom enables that is the American dream.  And today in America this individual liberty and opportunity has now become the object of ridicule in schools pushing a green agenda and a socialist future.  The demand for a return to individual liberty and opportunity has become the disparaged slogan on signs at Tea Parties.

Our leaders have embraced instead the idea of “Positive Liberty” which is an oxymoron.  By this they mean that the state should actively intervene in the lives of people to provide them with all that is necessary for lives lived as the leaders think they should be.  What they are really New Speaking of is Socialism disguised as democracy.  However, the increase of governmental power over people does not equate to liberty it equates to serfdom and only the progressive newspeak of a post-modern America could call this decrease of freedom an increase of liberty or democracy.

Alexis de Tocqueville said, “Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”

This positive liberty is the handmaiden of the other new positive that our progressive leaders wish to foist upon us: positive equality.  The real equality, the one our ancestors fought and died for is equality of opportunity which is a negative, forcing the government stays out of the way and the people go as far as their investment of time, talent and treasure can take them.  In our new progressive world government is supposed to act to create an equality of outcome so that all are equal all the time.  This type of collective equality is to be advanced and protected by the all powerful state pushing down some, lifting others until all are equal at all times.  This equality of outcome becomes an unlimited reality that is conceived of as the goal of society.  Unfettered democracy defined as the participation of all in the political process either as rulers, dispensers or consumers becomes not only the goal but the means and the end in and of itself.

Thus our Constitutional Scholar-in-Chief is leading us step by step away from the individual liberty and opportunity that are the guardians of the American Dream and into a negative representation of our positive values.  With another four years this administration will succeed in fundamentally transforming America.

One last quote from Alexis de Tocqueville “The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.”

PS: Don’t take the bribe.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8 © 2011 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.

Well, I have to admit the guy is smooth. I saw him on Jay Leno, and I was very impressed with his persona. He was funny, self-deprecating, and able to banter back and forth with Leno. He is able to engage in small talk without immediately mounting the bully pulpit as many politicians are prone to do. In this respect he reminds me a lot of Bill Clinton. He seems like a regular guy. How much of that is an act, I have no idea. He did graduate from Harvard Law which tends to tarnish your regular guy credentials. But much of politics is an act, and he seems pretty good at it.

A big question is how long he will be able to pull off the “can’t we just all get along?” act. Will the Democratic primary voters tolerate that shtick in the hope of victory, or will they force him to more clearly articulate where he stands on the issues? Despite all the talk that he is a bridge between left and right, his positions are cookie-cutter liberal. If the Democratic primary voters don’t force him to reveal his hand, I’m sure the Republican campaign machine will if he becomes the Democratic nominee.

But why is cookie-cutter liberal Senator Obama considered a potential bridge? Primarily because he is very open about his faith and is not reluctant to use religious language and discuss values. Coming from a liberal Democrat, this is definitely against the recent grain.

Usually you hear liberals denouncing conservatives for wanting to “shove their values down other people’s throats.” Or they are all in a lather that the religious right is trying to abolish the “wall of separation between Church and State,” a phrase that the well informed know is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Despite the utter lack of progress on social issues, they claim the GOP is a captive of the religious right. (Yeah, I wish.) In fact, it is the other way around. The religious right is a captive of the GOP.

Of course, the liberal candidates (Pelosi, Kerry) speak openly of their faith since atheistic candidates in America go over like a . . . err . . . in church. Well, you know what I mean. But we are assured that their faith will have no impact on how they govern. You know, “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but . . .” One could ask, “What good is such a faith,” but we won’t go there in this essay.

However, this sort of opposition to the open discussion of faith on the Left is a fairly recent development, historically, and it seems to be partially a reaction to faith being used effectively by conservatives and the GOP. But it has not always been so. Faith, especially Christian faith, has historically been used to justify all sorts of progressive initiatives, from government involvement in relief for the poor to federal Civil Rights legislation. Currently, some supposedly conservative Christians such as Senator Brownback, Governor Huckabee, and World Magazine’s Marvin Olasky are trying to use a progressive understanding of Christianity to justify support of “guest workers,” (read amnesty) and lax enforcement.

This leftist use of Christianity was facilitated by the advent of something called the Social Gospel. Northern Puritanism was theologically conservative – orthodox is probably a better term. (Some theologians, especially Catholic and conservative Anglicans would dispute this, but that is a discussion for a different day.) Suffice it to say that Puritanism upheld the historic essential doctrines of Christianity. For whatever reason — and again there is much theological and historical opinion to explain this — the theologically orthodox Puritans morphed into advocates of the Social Gospel. (They were joined by a Quaker element in the Mid-Atlantic States.) They rejected many of the historic beliefs of Christianity to a greater or lesser degree. For some, the idea of Christ dying on the cross for our sins was rejected in favor of a new explanation. Jesus came to show us the way, to serve as our example, but not as our sacrifice. For some, Christ was no longer the Son of God, but a very good man and a profound teacher. This interpretation lends itself very well to progressive crusading. Instead of Jesus coming to die on the cross for our sins, He came to teach us the importance of being kind to the poor, oppressed, and downtrodden. He did both, although it is highly debatable that being kind to the poor mandates a particular position on government Food Stamps; but the Social Gospel advocates deemphasized that whole sacrifice thing. The Catholic version, called Liberation Theology, had its day as well and often adopted outright Marxist terminology.

As an aside, a good case could be made that the Social Gospel advocates get it exactly backwards. The Jews were expecting a political Savior who was going to liberate Israel from the clutches of Rome. But Jesus did not come here to fundamentally alter the social order. He altered the moral order. For example, Jesus’ claim that thinking about fornicating makes one guilty of fornication or that hating one’s brother makes one guilty of murder is harsh and impossible to uphold, hence the universal need for a Savior. But He left unarguably unjust Roman rule intact.

Some theologically liberal Social Gospel advocates were upfront about their rejection of the orthodox view, but others were not. Regardless, they continued to use entirely Christian terminology. However, they invested much of the terminology with new meaning. The term fundamentalist is a reference to the fundamentalist/modernist controversy that rocked the Church around the first few decades of the last century. The modernists won the debate within the mainline denominations, but the Fundamentalists arguably won the war for the hearts and minds of most American Christians. The mainline denominations are declining while the conservative churches over the same period of time have grown. Despite all of the modernist silliness embraced by evangelicals, such as praise and worship music, modern evangelicalism remains theologically conservative. A story for another day is how thoroughly the modernists won the institutions such as academia and the media, and how totally they dominate the culture. One could argue that the reason surveys indicate that evangelicals live lives similar to the rest of the decadent culture (similar divorce rates, for example) while embracing a conservative theology is because the evangelicals have not opposed cultural modernism to the same degree that they opposed theological modernism.

There was a recent dust up among some evangelicals and Catholics because mega church pastor and author of the best-selling Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren, invited Senator Obama to speak at his Church for a conference on AIDS. Here is some of what Senator Obama said:

My faith also tells me that – as Pastor Rick has said – it is not a sin to be sick. My Bible tells me that when God sent His only Son to Earth, it was to heal the sick and comfort the weary; to feed the hungry and clothe the naked; to befriend the outcast and redeem those who strayed from righteousness. Living His example is the hardest kind of faith – but it is surely the most rewarding. It is a way of life that can not only light our way as people of faith, but guide us to a new and better politics as Americans.

In light of my discussion above, does anyone recognize this? It is pure, unadulterated Social Gospel. I would not question Senator Obama’s faith, that is between him and God; but he left out that icky dying on the cross for our sins part. There is nothing objectionable about what Senator Obama said, but it is what he didn’t say that is perhaps illuminating. Such is always the case with the theological liberal. The terminology is there: “God sent His only Son.” But does it mean the same thing when Senator Obama says it, that it does when an evangelical says it? I don’t know. The evangelicals who are warming to Senator Obama because of his open embrace of faith need to ask him that.

There really is nothing new under the Sun. What is surprising is that people would be shocked that a liberal is embracing liberal Christianity. Historically, this is par for the course. As I said, the fundamentalist/modernist controversy has already covered this ground. Is Christianity primarily about the Gospel of the Bible and saving souls, or is it about liberal social transformation?
Note, I am not suggesting that Senator Obama is opportunistically embracing the Social Gospel to deflect criticism or entice “values voters.” He may be since he is a politician after all, but I have no real reason to question his sincerity. I am suggesting that Senator Obama’s embrace of Christianity is not a new phenomenon on the Left. It is a tried and true strategy.

Many prominent Black Christians such as the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson have been peddling this alternative gospel with no break between them and the progressive Social Gospel advocates of the past. The Rev. Jackson and the Rev. Sharpton are quick to invoke Christianity when crusading against alleged oppression, but when was the last time you heard either man say publicly that someone needs to “repent, turn from his wicked ways, and get saved,” or say “Jesus died for your sins” instead of “Jesus cared for the poor?” It need not, and should not be either or, but if the message of sin and sacrifice is not preached, the Gospel is not preached. Instead both men are fighting their way to the front of the latest pro-choice parade. I really don’t see Jesus marching in a pro-choice parade, and I’m not sure what advocating consequence free recreational sex has to do with healing the sick or caring for the poor, especially since we all agree that Jesus is on record as against even thinking about fornication. Maybe one of the good Reverends could walk me through that logic. Interestingly, Rev. Jackson used to be pro-life before he decided to seek the Democratic nomination.

I am not afraid that Senator Obama will manage to chip off a significant number of evangelical voters, partially because evangelical voters are joined at the hip to the GOP, and also because I have enough faith in evangelical voters that they will not support a candidate who is openly pro-choice, especially a Democrat. Whether they would support a pro-choice Republican nominee like Rudy Giuliani is another story. I certainly hope not. I’m pretty sure many would balk.

What is more likely is that Senator Obama will by his open embrace of faith immunize himself from some of the scrutiny a liberal Democratic candidate would normally receive. With a lack of traditional conservative candidates so far in the GOP primary, Governor Romney’s Mormonism, and Senator Obama embracing his faith, it is going to be very interesting to see how all this develops among evangelical voters. I hope they ask Senator Obama some tough questions about the nature of his faith.