Posted on 08/28/2008 8:50:31 AM PDT by IrishMike
What does Barack Obama’s selection of Senator Biden portend for his future appointments and the future of the American family?
Tragically — but true to the radical feminist agenda — the Obama/Biden Democratic ticket portends an escalating war on boys, men, fathers, and families. On Father’s Day 2008, Senator Obama could have spoken on any number of topics. His choice was to castigate African-American fathers and blame fathers, and fathers alone, for the ills of the African-American family.
He called upon African-American fathers to be more involved in their children’s lives (certainly a worthwhile call) but he also castigated them for failing to endorse “responsible fatherhood” which essentially means signing up for 18 years of overly highly calculated child support. Economists understand, but Senator Obama ideologically overlooks, the reality that child support currently is calculated at a level far above what the majority of fathers — including poor and unemployed fathers — actually are capable of paying or that children require (see W. S. Comanor, "The law and economics of child support payments," 2004).
So, what then does Senator Biden bring to the ticket? Senator Biden brings the divisive Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) which he originated, expanded, and vigorously supported in subsequent years. Unfortunately, substantial evidence now indicates that VAWA not only fails to protect women from domestic violence but in many cases increases their risk of harm and contains much fraud (www.mediaradar.org). What VAWA does best, however, is squander billions of taxpayer dollars annually to finance the war on fathers and families.
As promoted by divorce lawyers (see The American Bar Association’s position on Domestic Violence at www.mediaradar.org) and domestic violence shelter operators, mothers are advised that the surest path to fortune and child custody is to obtain a restraining order through VAWA by telling a judge that they are “afraid” of their husband. No physical evidence of violence or abuse is required, only her claim of “fear.” Based on this “evidence,” judges routinely and immediately grant ex-parte temporary restraining orders against husbands.
With the restraining order in hand, Senator Biden’s VAWA removes the father from his home at any hour of the day or night, separates him from his children, requires him to stay away from his wife, and immediately orders him to begin paying child support to his wife based only on her self-reported “fear.” VAWA explicitly denies the father his Constitutionally guaranteed due process protections. Children explicitly are denied the love and companionship of fit fathers. In short, the feminist objective of destroying family life is achieved and the only real beneficiaries are the lawyers.
While Senator Biden’s contribution to the war on fathers and families is clear, much remains to be learned about Senator Obama and his attitudes towards fathers and families. The problem is that Senator Obama’s book Dreams from My Father and material emanating in the media and on the web differ very substantially from one another.
In closing, and of critical importance for the balance of the presidential race, it must be noted that “change” was the seminal issue which propelled Senator Obama from obscurity to the Democratic Nomination. Is it then not fair to ask– after three decades in the Senate — where voters are going to find “change” in Senator Biden? And, above all else, what does Obama’s selection of Senator Biden portend for his future appointments and the future of the American family?
So....to these two guys, it’s all about money to support the children? What about the fatherly support for their children?
Ah yes.
Vote Obama bin Biden - 2008!
It’ll be GREAT fron the country.
What about the fatherly support for their children?
.
.
.
Because Obama’s poppa was a rolling stone, the rest of us must be too !
75% of black kids in the country grow up without a father in their life. Given dire statistics like that I think castigating African-American fathers/sperm donors is in order.
The fish rots from the head. The father is head of the family, whether he is a rolling stone or not.
That said, the “ladies” can help out immeasurably by behaving like ladies.
It’s an honor to be a Father. I have two lovely daughters. They are exceptional.
That's is one or may be the only statement he has made that I applaud because it is true, and just to be fair, not just with his ethnicity, but statistically it seems to be the worst there. The women and mothers also share in the blame though, guess he wouldn't dare attack them.
Still, the men often get a pass or weasel out of their responsibilities, and on the other side there are many men who have been deeply hurt by the shenanigans of women wrt to their children.
Unless and until there is sexual accountability, morality and justice, society will only keep getting worse, and the poor kids will pay the highest price. Plus I don't think people who have made mistakes and try to amend their lives should have to pay the price forever, but some do, but score one for Christianity and a few other religions. With one religion, especially if you happen to be female, one strike and you're not out as in dead.
Still it's hypicritical to the max since fatherhood only applies to kids that manage to get born in his worldview.
In order to accomplish their goals, the left must denigrate the man’s role in the family and society.
It is necessary to remove the Father from the family and replace him with the state.
Larry Sinclair and ObamaBiden Gate is the topic
Tonight at 11 est.
http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/
from Larry Sinclair
Hello I just wanted to remind everyone to join me tomorrow August 28, 2008 at 11PM eastern, 10PM Central, 9PM Mountain and 8PM Pacific for my radio show. Tonight at 11 est.
http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/
Have a great evening and I will see everyone on BLOGTALK RADIO tomorrow night at www.blogtalkradio.com/Larry-Sinclair, please join us as we continue to expose the TRUTH about Barack Obama.
must be the truth since it is not denied at the fightthesmears.com site
Call-in Number: (347) 237-4890
How is that different from conservatives deliberately forming fatherless families?
On an individual basis? That would be lack of individual character.
However, every bit of leftist ideology and policy is geared toward the destruction of the institution of the family. And they use the force of government to further their agenda.
I could not agree more.
I just worry about consistency (see my tagline).
Hypocrisy.
What about prominent voices on the right who deliberately form families with no father?
Like who? I can't really think of any; nevertheless, there's no point in trying to defend the every action of every single conservative, prominent or otherwise. People across all ideological boundaries make mistakes and do wrong.
Laura Ingraham.
I am not suggesting you are a hypocrite. Not at all. I’m simply pointing out that there are PLENTY of people here who have defended her actions and you KNOW they would be all over her if she were NOT one of our own.
I was wondering who you were talking about, as I couldn’t think of one example myself.
In an adoption situation, you’re looking at a relatively BETTER situation for a child. And we really don’t know what male influences her child will have.
In most situations, though, people irresponsibly procreate without any intention of forming a family or having a father around. And this choice is supported, subsidized, and therefore encouraged by leftist policies.
I disagree. I was going to further nail you down on the issue before I mentioned her name but that felt too much like a trap. I was trying to be Socratic.
The issue is the deliberate creation of fatherless families. If Laura was truly thinking ONLY of the little girl and truly believed that a father in the home was critical (as she has claimed in the past) she could have used her wealth and influence to find a loving, two parent environment for the girl.
But that would not do you see because this was really about Laura and her need for a child.
So how does that make her different that the lib feminist or lesbian who seeks a child sans daddy?
Your argument seems to be using the rhetorical device of “attributing motive”, and then attacking that.
Just the facts, as we know them, or don’t know them -
the girl is better off now than she was (net increase in situation),
and we don’t know what male/father influences she has.
And the “value” difference between being raised by a conservative that recognizes the need for a father
and being raised by a feminist or lesbian that rejects this need
should be obvious. The single conservative will seek out male influences for the child.
I agree that the girl is not in the best situation possible, but she’s in a comparatively better situation compared to
third world orphanage,
American orphanage,
raised by a gay couple,
raised by a single feminist.
Try not to make the perfect the enemy of the good.
This is not about making perfect the enemy of good. This is about credibility. Hypocrisy. Consistency. Cogitative dissonance. Practicing what you preach.
It is about a conservative claiming time and time again that the best situation is a two-parent, nuclear, traditional family, and then going out and deliberately creating a single parent, non-traditional family when she had other options.
As far as the point on “attributing motive” you have never drawn a conclusion based on the evidence?
Just the facts? Okay.
Laura Ingrahm is relatively wealthy and very well connected and influential.
She is a lawyer.
She is a celebrity.
If Laura believes what she preaches, and if her sole motivation was to help this child, she could have set the child up in a two parent home and set herself up as the loving, caring, dotting, supportive Aunt who creates a nice trust fund for the kid and is active in her life, but still leaves her in a traditional family setting.
THAT would be selfless and conservative and in keeping with her positions.
Instead what she does is she say to the world “a father is not a nice idea but, really, not ESSENTIAL”.
Of course the child is better off with her than in a 3rd world orphanage.
That is a straw man.
She’d be even better off with two parents and if the 3rd word orphanage is the real issue, the child could be rescued from that situation without Laura doing so in a way which makes it publicly clear that a dad is just a nice afterthought.
Why is the Digg link in the keywords of this post, but no Digg link to be found anywhere?
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.