Heidelberger’s hatred toward men & fathers

First we have a report on the every expanding welfare state of America:

Federal stimulus money is headed for South Dakota. Overall, the Rushmore State will get $3.2 million from a federal grant, part of the Economic Recovery Act. In Sioux Falls, Minnehaha County will be asking for almost $1.9 million.

Some of the local agencies that could be seeing some of that money will be the St. Francis House, Lutheran Social Services, Volunteers of America and Goodwill.

However, in tough times its not just big agencies that are hurting. As unemployment rates continue to be on the rise, some people are finding themselves in trouble when it comes to hanging on to their home. Those who need financial assistance typically go to the Minnehaha County Human Services Department and now they'll have more money to tap in to.

Action News spoke today with Kayla Severson, a young lady in her mid 20s with a 2 year old son who came for assistance. When she was asked what it's like to have assistance when she needs it she sad awesome, then said "knowing i have some place to go, knowing i have help with rent and a place for my kid is great, i really can't describe the feeling."

What about the kids father? The report does not mention him. The Progressive left hates men and would rather see women dependent on their welfare state. Cory Heidelberger gives us more insight into the Progressive’s hate men agenda with this analysis of Thad Wasson:

In a 2007 Mount Blogmore post on SCHIP, Wasson comments, "All of this talk about uninsured children makes it seem as if they appeared out of nowhere. Most have two parents and it is the Fathers responsibility to provide care for his children." The red meat blogger in me says, "Yes! Please! Run more rank fundagelical patriarchy against Stephanie!" The good neighbor in me says, "Please, spare us."

Cory goes on and says this:

And before he starts making big speeches, he might want to practice answering questions about sexual equality and public policy.

Sexual equality…like Sotomayor’s belief the Latinas are more qualified to be judge than white men? And that public policy should be created by Latina judges? The only problem is that the constitution stands in the way. And that is why the Progressives hate America’s founding principles.

And where did this hatred toward men come from? I found this in Mitchell’s High School History book:

While many Americans embraced the new morality, others feared that the country was losing traditional values. They viewed the consumer culture, released ethics, and changing roles of women as evidence of the nation’s moral decline. Man of these people, especially in rural towns, responded by joining a religious movement known as Fundamentalism, a name derived from a series of Christian religious pamphlets title "The Fundamentals."

Fundamentalist Beliefs Fundamentalists believed that the Bible was literally true and without error. They rejected the idea that human beings derived their moral behavior from society and nature, not God. In particular they rejected Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which said that human beings had developed from lower forms of life over the course of millions of years. Instead, they believed in creationism.—the belief that God created the world as described in the Bible.

The textbook goes into the Scopes trial in an effort to demonize those who believe in the Bible. And note the reference to "changing roles of women as evidence of the nation’s moral decline". This is how the radical left attacks both men and Christians. The textbook instead promotes the Progressives as good, but leaves out their anti-American agenda that wants to destroy the constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The founding principles stand in their way to establish the administrative laws of a welfare state that is to span our lives from cradle to grave.

On Monday two Mitchell school board members took an oath of office that included protecting the constitution. I gave them this insight about Progressives that was not found in the high school history textbook:

More than anyone, Woodrow Wilson advanced the new Progressive theory of human nature and human institutions and the corresponding Progressive critique of the principles of the American Founding and the Founders' Constitution. Wilson, who was president of Princeton and of the American Political Science Association before becoming President of the United States, was the first Chief Executive to openly criticize the Constitution, once comparing it to "political witchcraft." So hostile was he to the self evident truths of the Founding that in a 1911 address he remarked, "if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface."

After which I reminded the school bard about their oath and the fulfilling it meant doing something about the American history textbooks that are being used by Mitchell schools.

And Progressive RINOs like Pat Powers refuse to understand this:

Wilson above all others deserves credit for the notion that the Constitution is a "living" or "evolving" document. As he wrote in 1908, "Government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin." Insisting that the Constitution does not contain any theories or principles, Wilson argued that the Constitution has a "natural evolution" and is "one thing in one age, another in another." "Living political constitutions," he wrote, "must be Darwinian in structure and in practice."

I wonder what Pat Powers’ Educrat wife would say about that?

Comments

[caheidelberger]

Hatred against men? Come on, Steve. That's complete hyperbole. What I oppose is anyone who declares women are not capable of assuming positions of authority. That's something I look forward to asking Mr. Wasson about as he hits the campaign trail... assuming he can figure out the laws that govern campaigns.

[Steve Sibson]

Cory,

The hyperbole is far less than your black helicopter BS.

And in regard to authority given to women…should we give the authority of judge over to a women who thinks men are inferior?

And yes, campaign finance laws are meant to keep citizens, who are not paid off by special interests, out of contention.

[caheidelberger]

That wasn't campaign finance law I was talking about: I was referring to Wasson's illegal criculation of a nominating petition five and a half months before SDCL 12-6-4.1, which prohibits circulating any nominating petition prior to January 1 of the election year.

On authority of judges: let me guess, are you referencing Judge Sotomayor? Show me documentation that Judge Sotomayor supports excluding men from positions of authority, and I'll raise as much heck against her as I will against Wasson (pending his explanation of his position on patriarchy).

Kevin Woster's note on Wasson's gun-jumping: http://blogs.rapidcityjournal.com/politicalblog/?p=3736

SDCL 12-6-4.1: http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=12-6-4.1

[Steve Sibson]

Cory,

So it was just campaign law then. I stand corrected, but my point still stands.

I did not say she excluded men, she considers then inferior.

And patriarchy applies to the family sphere, not the political sphere. At least that was whay my study of Christain worldview concluded.