Obama Vs. What He's Talking About: A Retrospective

Obama and women-owned governments

Former President Barack Obama claimed that governments could be run better if women ran them every couple of years. Obama felt that there would be better standards of living, and that women were "indisputably better" in the leadership department.  

"There would be less war, kids would be better taken care of, and there would be a general improvement in living standards and outcomes," he claimed.

Obama blamed world conflicts on "old men not getting out of the way." He was correct in that presidencies should not be for life, but simply a temporary position, and that backward countries treat women poorly, but he felt it necessary to write language initially appearing to blame "men" instead of corrupt policies or staffers. 

Further, how does he know that women will become "indisputably" better leaders? Plus, what else would you expect besides semantic confusion and idealism that was not based in reality?

So this year, Obama again misrepresented reality in his speeches, with the appearance of trying to be even-handed and progressive, to make a point. This was vaguely similar to other times when he ignored the bigger picture for a talking point. 

2006: Obama and scripture 

In his "Call to Renewal" speech, Obama misunderstood scripture to make his point. He assumed that the Mosaic book of Leviticus suggested slavery is morally acceptable, but the person who became a slave was obligated to be freed during the Year of Jubilee celebration and after a seven-year contract of service, unless he loved his master and wanted to stay in that family.

The slave also should have never been mistreated in any way, but was legally able to have resources from his master to start a new business after the contract ended. In fact, the Bible never comments positively on the slavery construct. Therefore, Obama's argument is weak. 

He spoke of wanting all believers not to have prejudice against one another and recognized that persecuted religious minorities, including Protestants, had a role in stopping the established Catholic or Anglican churches from imposing their views on people. Obama was concerned with people being able to reconcile faith with democracy. The speech appeared quite even-handed. 

Unfortunately, he lost some credibility for misunderstanding Leviticus. How could a religious audience trust him if he lied about biblical doctrine?

2011: Obama and the Defense of Marriage Act 

Later, in 2011, Obama did not support the Defense of Marriage Act. Instead, he distanced himself from traditional marriage, despite using scripture as a talking point. 

Besides Obama ignoring the essence of biblical doctrines on marriage, children who grow up with two moms or two dads are not happy. According to Them Before Us, they could suffer academically and miss perspectives provided by the mother or father figure, depending on whether they only have dads or moms at home. The Defense of Marriage Act was in Congress for 15 years and protected marriages between one man and one woman. It seemed that the basis for pro-LGBT morality was "whatever feels good, as long as it doesn't obviously hurt people, is right." 

Recommended: Adventures in The Patriarchy™: Fostering the Matriarchy – PJ Media

Editor's Note: Do you enjoy PJ Media's conservative reporting exposing the radical left and woke media? Support our work so we can keep bringing you the truth.

Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.