Obama: I didn’t lie about supporting gay ‘marriage,’ you just didn’t understand

However, Obama admitted he supported government-enforced recognition of homosexuality, and “it was frustrating to me” that he had to “square that with what were a whole bunch of religious sensitivities out there.”

Obama's close campaign operative and senior adviser David Axelrod wrote that Obama always favored redefining marriage but lied about it in order not to alienate black pastors and voters in North Carolina.

Obama strongly supported same-sex “marriage” in his 1996 run for Illinois state Senate, responding to a questionnaire by saying, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

But he changed his stance, because “oposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church,” Axelrod wrote in his new memoir, Believer: My Forty Years in Politics.

By 2004, when he ran for U.S. Senate against Alan Keyes, Obama said, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

He maintained his public opposition to gay “marriage” – and backing of civil unions – through the 2008 campaign. But Axelrod wrote that he did so because his campaign manager, Jim Messina, warned that swing state North Carolina would not elect a candidate who favored redefining marriage.

Axelrod wrote that he had “no doubt” that Obama had stated his “heartfelt belief” in the 1996 campaign, and that Obama's noises, beginning in late 2010, that his attitudes might "evolve” on gay “marriage” was a purely calculated political stance.

“If Obama’s views were 'evolving' publicly, they were fully evolved behind closed doors,” Axelrod wrote. “The president was champing at the bit to announce his support for the right of gay and lesbian couples to wed.”

In an interview yesterday, Obama said that Axelrod got it all wrong. He never lied.

“I think David is mixing up my personal feelings with my position on the issue,” he told Ben Smith of BuzzFeed. “I think the notion that somehow I was always in favor of marriage per se isn’t quite accurate.”

“I always felt that same-sex couples should be able to enjoy the same rights, legally, as anybody else, and so it was frustrating to me not to, I think, be able to square that with what were a whole bunch of religious sensitivities out there,” he said.

While his campaign previously claimed that someone else wrote the 1996 statement on behalf of redefining marriage, Obama apparently did not make that claim in the interview. Instead, he told Smith that “the old questionnaire…is an example of struggling with what was a real issue at the time, which is, how do you make sure that people’s rights are enjoyed and these religious sensitivities were taken into account?”

That point bolsters critics, who say Obama's references to religion are a political ploy. Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson of The Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny (BOND), a strong voice for traditional values in the black community, told LifeSiteNews.com, “A lot of Christians wouldn’t vote for him if they didn’t think he was a Christian.”

But if Obama's views have changed, has his faith changed, too? Columnist David Harsanyi wondered why no one in the media asked about this apparent contradiction in 2010. “Why doesn’t someone ask Obama what’s changed about his Christianity that brought about this evolution?” he asked. “What’s clear is that Obama isn’t shy about pulling in religion when it suits his political needs. Christianity is a means of bolstering progressive ideals.”

Writer Dan Calabrese blamed mainstream media bias, especially on social issues. “Why won't the media ask him about it? Two reasons.”

“1. They already know the answer. He lied to fool people like black pastors into getting out the vote for him,” he wrote. “2. They don't see anything wrong with it. They think it's the job of black pastors to support Democrats and not to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, so if they stubbornly insist on doing the latter at the expense of the former, then they deserve to be lied to.” (Emphasis in original.)

Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives
Frontpagemag.com ^ | 9-2-2014 | Mallory Millett
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3200158/posts

“When women go wrong men go right after them.” – Mae West

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill wrote this over a century ago.

During my junior year in high school, the nuns asked about our plans for after we graduated. When I said I was going to attend State University, I noticed their disappointment. I asked my favorite nun, “Why?” She answered, “That means you’ll leave four years later a communist and an atheist!”

What a giggle we girls had over that. “How ridiculously unsophisticated these nuns are,” we thought. Then I went to the university and four years later walked out a communist and an atheist, just as my sister Katie had six years before me.

Sometime later, I was a young divorcee with a small child. At the urging of my sister, I relocated to NYC after spending years married to an American executive stationed in Southeast Asia. The marriage over, I was making a new life for my daughter and me. Katie said, “Come to New York. We’re making revolution! Some of us are starting the National Organization of Women and you can be part of it.”

I hadn’t seen her for years. Although she had tormented me when we were youngsters, those memories were faint after my Asian traumas and the break-up of my marriage. I foolishly mistook her for sanctuary in a storm. With so much time and distance between us, I had forgotten her emotional instability.

And so began my period as an unwitting witness to history. I stayed with Kate and her lovable Japanese husband, Fumio, in a dilapidated loft on The Bowery as she finished her first book, a PhD thesis for Columbia University, “Sexual Politics.”

It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:

“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”

Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?

“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women. It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society. The upshot was that the only way to do this was “to invade every American institution. Every one must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’”: The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system.

It fell on my ears as a ludicrous scheme, as if they were a band of highly imaginative children planning a Brinks robbery; a lark trumped up on a snowy night amongst a group of spoiled brats over booze and hashish.

To me, this sounded silly. I was enduring culture shock after having been cut-off from my homeland, living in Third-World countries for years with not one trip back to the United States. I was one of those people who, upon returning to American soil, fell out of the plane blubbering with ecstasy at being home in the USA. I knelt on the ground covering it with kisses. I had learned just exactly how delicious was the land of my birth and didn’t care what anyone thought because they just hadn’t seen what I had or been where I had been. I had seen factory workers and sex-slaves chained to walls.

How could they know? Asia is beyond our ken and, as they say, utterly inscrutable, and a kind of hell I never intended to revisit. I lived there, not junketed, not visited like sweet little tourists — I’d conducted households and tried to raise a child. I had outgrown the communism of my university days and was clumsily groping my way back to God.

How could twelve American women who were the most respectable types imaginable — clean and privileged graduates of esteemed institutions: Columbia, Radcliffe, Smith, Wellesley, Vassar; the uncle of one was Secretary of War under Franklin Roosevelt — plot such a thing? Most had advanced degrees and appeared cogent, bright, reasonable and good. How did these people rationally believe they could succeed with such vicious grandiosity? And why?

I dismissed it as academic-lounge air-castle-building. I continued with my new life in New York while my sister became famous publishing her books, featured on the cover of “Time Magazine.” “Time” called her “the Karl Marx of the Women’s Movement.” This was because her book laid out a course in Marxism 101 for women. Her thesis: The family is a den of slavery with the man as the Bourgeoisie and the woman and children as the Proletariat. The only hope for women’s “liberation” (communism’s favorite word for leading minions into inextricable slavery; “liberation,” and much like “collective” – please run from it, run for your life) was this new “Women’s Movement.” Her books captivated the academic classes and soon “Women’s Studies” courses were installed in colleges in a steady wave across the nation with Kate Millett books as required reading...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.