Tag Archives: gun control

The Liberal Nurturing of Gun Violence

obamawithgunOriginally posted at American Thinker

Of late it seems as though liberals on the whole are incapable of understanding how one thing can affect another.  In this case, it’s the holy grail of abortion’s effect on gun violence.

Whether they recognize it or not, liberal ideology has contributed toward America devolving into a macabre death culture, where rooted in the corporate psyche is the idea that expediency trumps the sanctity of God-given life.  The abortion/gun violence dichotomy arises when pro-choice advocates like Barack Obama seek to limit some weapons made of steel but heartily support an industry that also uses steel to destroy innocent life.

In other words, America is again embroiled in a crisis the left has spent decades nurturing but is now seeking to remedy.

Liberals are adamant about funding the slaughter of 4,000 human beings a day.  Meanwhile, those who seek to advance abortion simultaneously insist that guns, which are inanimate objects, are responsible for killing people whom, if they were still in the womb, the left would be more than happy to exterminate.

Clearly this particular cause-and-effect principle emanates from a lopsided philosophy that discriminates with regard to deadly weapons.  If deadly force is administered via a firearm, liberals are irate.  However, if the weapon is a cannula, forceps, or a dilator, liberals are ecstatic.

Meanwhile, society as a whole has been successfully desensitized to casually accept unnatural death.  Secular humanism views euthanasia as benevolent; barely notices when global jihadis behead, burn, and drown Christians; and for the most part looks the other way as the unborn are slaughtered.

Post-birth abortion is now dismissed with a shrug; the sale of baby organs is justified as benefiting the common good; and right-to-death activists like the late Brittany Maynard, who offed herself with a handful of pills, are viewed as somehow heroic.

Sadly, that line of reasoning is likely the driving force behind the sort of violence that causes a shooter like Chris Harper-Mercer to believe that, for whatever reason, he has the right to stroll onto a college campus and blow ten people away.

Moreover, what liberals fail or refuse to recognize is that actively excising God from the public consciousness, systematically equating murder with women’s health, and spending almost half a century pressing for the right to kill eradicate any credibility they may have had concerning the issue of saving lives.

A blurred line between acceptable and unacceptable murder has developed, yet the ones most responsible for the distortion refuse to acknowledge personal culpability.  Instead, the same people directly responsible for cultivating the chaos have appointed themselves the engineers of legislation that does nothing to resolve the moral abyss.

Take for example Barack Obama.  Mr. Obama approves of sanitized violence in an abortion clinic but decries gun violence when the blood is shed on a college campus.

In the president’s mixed-up world of acceptable death categories, biohazard bags are tolerable, but body bags are not; tenaculums are fine as government-funded implements of death, but Thompson submachine guns should be banned.

Pro-death politicians preaching to us about the horrors of gun violence is sort of like listening to a woman with a forehead full of Botox and filler-enhanced lips pontificate about the virtues of aging gracefully.  In fact, when it comes to the issue of gun control, President Obama has mutated into America’s very own Maggie DeBlock.

Maggie is the portly Belgian minister of social affairs and health, who weighs in at close to 300 pounds.  Miss Maggie is to Godiva Chocolate what Obama is to the abortion industry.  The difference between the two public figures is that DeBlock preaches healthy living with chocolate-stained fingers while Obama, with bloodstained hands, denounces murder – but not all murder.

This brand of hypocrisy undoubtedly aids those who feel justified in disposing of other human beings based on a regrettable personal choice or some other distorted reasoning.

Therefore, whether Obama realizes it or not, the blame for mass shootings should be placed not on the Second Amendment or on those who believe that abortion outside the womb is an acceptable choice, but at the feet of those like himself, who condemn ambushing a roomful of people with a gun but openly approve of ambushing a baby in the womb.

It’s secular progressives who have spent 40-plus years dumbing down the public’s definition of murder.  Therefore, what right do abortion advocates have to get indignant when a deranged person with a gun executes a roomful of people?  Especially since, across town, a taxpayer-funded nutcase in colorful scrubs is concurrently using a liberal-approved weapon to ensure that his or her victim is just as dead as the sheet-covered corpses lined up on the gymnasium floor?

Josh Earnest blames Vester on Congress’s failure to pass legislation that would have a ‘tangible impact in reducing gun violence’

alison-parker-vester-flanagan-adam-ward-640x480Originally posted at American Thinker

A cold-blooded murder has rocked the nation.  In Virginia, 24-year-old WDBJ-TV reporter Alison Parker and her 27-year-old cameraman, Adam Ward, were doing a live interview when a former anchorman named Vester Lee Flanagan II, aka Bryce Williams, gunned them down at close range.

It was reported that both Parker and Ward succumbed at the scene from multiple gunshot wounds.  After fleeing in a previously arranged rental car, Flanagan drove for hours before police closed in on him, at which point Flanagan, in a final paroxysm of self-pity, shot himself in the head and died shortly thereafter at a hospital.

Based on the content of Vester’s hate-filled, racially charged manifesto/suicide note, rather than taking to the streets of Baltimore to vent his anger or marching in the gay pride parade, the disgruntled minority gay man decided to kill two ex-coworkers.

Ironically, the former news anchor took out his aggression on the very media whose agenda includes reminding blacks and gays that they are being mistreated by a homophobic and racist white society.

In turn, after helping to spur a situation they probably thought would never affect them directly, media racial-grievance agitators lost two of their own.  In other words, Alison and Adam became frontline collateral damage.

Moreover, despite politically correct pot-stirring by race- and gender-baiters being the likely catalyst that made Flanagan feel justified in gunning down two people, once again, the White House is exploiting a tragedy to advance an anti-gun agenda.

Let’s not forget: the Obama administration has ignored the murder of Kate Steinle at the hands of a five-times-deported illegal felon in the sanctuary city of San Francisco.  Moreover, the White House has chosen to say little or nothing about the undercover exposé of Planned Parenthood, an organization that murders babies, with the president’s approval, and then harvests and sells their organs.

It stands to reason that Obama would avoid acknowledging immigration- and abortion-related controversy, because neither the shipping of severed heads nor the murdering of American sightseers speaks favorably for a progressive agenda.

However, when two victims happen to end up riddled with more than a dozen hollowed-out bullet holes, rest assured that the opportunist in the White House will eventually weigh in.

That’s why, after picking and choosing which murder best benefits the suppression of the Second Amendment and making sure that Vester the Second was not an illegal alien or a former Planned Parenthood employee, White House press secretary Josh Earnest spoke out about the Parker-Ward murders.

Earnest stressed that Congress has yet to pass legislation that would have a “tangible impact in reducing gun violence in this country.”  Therefore, based on those comments, what is clear is that the White House was implicitly trying to place the blame for Parker’s and Ward’s assassination at the feet of a Republican Congress.

And frankly, in a way, the GOP deserves to be blamed.  Here’s why: the right refuse to defend themselves against absurd liberal indictments.  In the same way that Alison and Adam were attacked by Vester, Republicans in Congress allow themselves to be ambushed and assaulted by an administration whose bombast is responsible for the ongoing racial unrest – not guns.

Rather than wrest the conversation away from Obama and use this opportunity to point out that politically correct liberal policies and the president’s incendiary rhetoric incite violence – Republicans just stand there and take it.

Flanagan wrote that he had “every right” to be angry over the sort of race and gender injustices Barack Obama relentlessly insists are still a problem in America.

With that in mind, isn’t there at least one GOP member of Congress who has the temerity to direct the accusations toward those responsible for goading an unstable person like Mr. Flanagan to seek out a gun and then use it to snuff out two young lives?

Sounding like he was quoting from the liberal bible, in his 23-page manifesto, Vester Lee, who was reprimanded for wearing an Obama button on air the day of the 2012 election, lamented being victimized by racial discrimination, sexual harassment, and bullying.  Then the former anchorman said he felt attacked, by black men and white women, for being a gay black man.

Isn’t there anyone in Congress who possesses the intellectual honesty to point out that Flanagan’s “Suicide Note for Friends and Family” included virtually every buzzword used by liberals to incite turmoil?

The White House can accuse Congress and censure guns, but to do so, they’ll have to ignore the fact that Flanagan confessed to killing Alison and Adam in reaction to the racism associated with the same church shooting that Barack Obama, in an effort to keep the fires of racial unrest alive, milked bone-dry.

It was the killer who admitted what incited the bloodbath. “Why did I do it?” he asked.  “The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15 … I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15.”

Clearly a bona fide black racist, Vester bid adieu to the tortured existence that was his life by citing Dylann Roof’s whiteness and an impending race war.  He praised the Columbine killers and then, for successfully murdering 33 people, including himself, paid homage to the Virginia Tech mass murderer Seung Hui Cho.

That’s why in the wake of yet another senseless heartbreak, Congress shouldn’t allow the White House to shift the blame for Alison Parker’s and Adam Ward’s deaths.  Instead, someone with some resolve needs to point out to the president – and the nation at large – that this has more to do with the race war that Obama and his minions are hoping to provoke than background checks and the availability of a gun.

LIVES LOST: The Blood on Barack Obama’s Hands

bloody-hand-300x180Originally posted at Clash Daily

Barack Obama’s hands are covered with quite a bit of blood. Actually, as harsh as it may seem to say, Americans are swimming in oceans of blood thanks to this president, and although he hasn’t been, he should be held fully accountable.

Time and again Obama has proven that when it comes to gun control, child safety arguments are powerful tools to assist him in his mission to dismantle the Second Amendment. However, bloodbaths are not nearly as disturbing to the president if guts and gore assist him in the advancement of the left-wing agenda.

That theory is confirmed by Obama’s lack of outrage, or even interest for that matter, in the deaths resulting from initiatives such as “Fast and Furious,” where his administration purposely put weapons in the hands of drug cartels. Obama’s failed gun-walking scandal resulted in the blood of Border Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jaime Zapata being spilled, as well as hundreds of innocent Mexican citizens whose deaths can be tied directly to the U.S. government, which means the blood flows directly to the Oval Office and is the reason Barack Obama’s hands are stained ruby red.

Speaking of bloodletting, it’s common knowledge that Obama is a committed supporter of abortion, is enthusiastic about destroying partially-born infants, and is an unabashed fan of leaving babies born alive in botched abortions to die in hospital laundry rooms.

Those types of radical pro-choice beliefs are the reasons why the president also has the stagnant blood of unborn babies on his hands.

Barack Obama’s rationalization for such barbarism centers on his claim that he doesn’t want to undermine the original intent of an abortion, the primary goal of which is to have the procedure result in a dead baby. Therefore, if a baby is born alive, denying warmth, oxygen and hydration ensures the original intent is fulfilled.

As for the unfettered slaughter of 3,000-4,000 babies a day, the president, who is known to view the U.S. Constitution as a “flawed document”, would likely argue that despite the carnage, at least in this case, Roe v. Wade is settled law.

Then there’s Benghazi; Hillary Clinton’s outburst of “what difference does it make” exposes the indifference those liable for the murders of four Americans have toward the blood that spilt in Libya on September 11th, 2012. Why? Because if the details surrounding the loss of life were exposed in their entirety, the truth that would be revealed would undercut Obama’s real Middle East agenda and possibly put a damper on Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations.

That sort of indifference is deadly coming from an administration that refers to terrorist attacks that result in the death of thirteen troops as “workplace violence.”

Then there’s illegal immigration, which is causing Americans to die from imported viruses and resulting in Americans being killed or maimed by violent illegals who freely roam our nation’s streets with Barack Obama’s implicit approval.

Look around. The tide is rising higher each day. To avoid getting his pant cuffs stained with the blood he’s responsible for spilling, Barack Obama may have to shorten his pant legs by pulling his Mom jeans up tightly under his armpits.

Mom jeans and bloody hemorrhagic viruses aside, thus far, there is no argument that Enterovirus 68 is directly responsible for 796 Americans in 46 states being sickened. Some of Obama’s victims have suffered to the point of needing breathing tubes; some are paralyzed; and seven are now dead and buried. Absent from within the U.S. for 50 years, Enterovirus D68 originated in Latin America, and was delivered via minors who crossed the border accompanied only by a contagious virus that the U.S. government was well aware existed in Latin America since 2010.

So suffice it to say that despite the knowledge that unaccompanied minors could cause American children to fall ill, Barack Obama still encouraged the influx of illegal children and has plans to usher in thousands more who could be harboring a whole new breed of Third World diseases.

And, even more disturbingly, some of the blood on the president’s hands belongs to tiny infant Lancen Kendall, 4-year-old Eli Waller, 21-month-old Madeline Reid, and 10-year-old Emily Otrando, all of whom died from an Enterovirus they never should have been exposed to in the first place.

And all that bloodshed doesn’t even begin to broach what the release of hardened illegal criminals who are rapists, pedophiles, and murderers portends for America’s future.

In the coming months, Obama granting amnesty to 34 million illegals will not only make America unrecognizable, it will also contribute greatly to the deluge of blood to which we will all be subjected.

ISIS members will be granted amnesty, MS-13 gang members will be granted amnesty, and thousands of criminals who were let out of prison will be granted amnesty. All this despite the blood spillage that has resulted from illegal immigrants killing Americans, killings that include more recently two sheriff’s deputies in California being shot in the face by an illegal alien who was deported twice, had a long list of aliases and a drug conviction and who, if not arrested, after the midterm elections, would have been among the millions slated to be granted amnesty.

Scarier than diseases, murders, illegal criminals, open border permeation and much, much more are the “lone wolf” terrorists who, thanks to Obama, have crossed our border and could be wandering the highways and byways of America right now, looking for police and military to hatchet to death and unsuspecting grandmothers to behead in the name of Allah.

After all is said and done, there are many more examples of how, as a result of Obama’s diabolical quest to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America, innocent blood is being spilled.

That’s why, whether he recognizes his culpability or not, the river of blood currently drenching America flows directly toward the White House into both of Barack Obama’s hands.

‘Kid Props’ Hinna and Zea Save the Day!

Originally posted at The Blacksphere

Okay, call me a skeptical, cynical, conspiracy theorist if you must, but these two letters were supposedly from two 9-year-old girls who both wrote unsolicited correspondence to the president in support of his anti-gun and then anti-gun, pro-public education, pro-gay marriage agenda.

Letters! in response to her letter, Hinna Zeejah of Oceanside, NY was one of four ‘kid props’ invited last January to provide a backdrop to the president’s signing of 23 executive orders to tighten gun control.

Then, Zea the letter writer and her twin sister Luna, daughters of two mommies, flew in from Humboldt, California to introduce and help Mr. Obama kick off LGBT Pride month with a reception at the White House.

Now about the letters!

Aside from the liberal use of exclamation points and artistic embellishment in both, the similarities between the two are almost uncanny.

The introductions are virtually identical: both girls are “sad” about gun violence (how convenient), both mention dead students, and both third graders are for gun ownership limitations.  And then coincidentally, both Zea and Hinna both sign off with “Happy” vibes and a cartoonish closing.

Now not for nothing, but the whole letter writing campaign seems a bit fishy.  Two third grade girls write similar letters, with comparable penmanship, artwork included, get invited to the White House to high-five Barack Obama as he systematically dismantles the American Constitution?

Sorry!  I don’t buy it.

Now either, Hinna and Zea collaborated, some White House goon did a little cross-country coaching, or Barack Obama’s penmanship and artistic abilities have vastly improved between January and June.

LGBT Pride ‘Children as Props Day’ at the White House

BMrqlxBCQAAOepc-300x450Originally posted at The Blacksphere

Just like annual Iftar* dinners for Muslims and $4-million vacations in Martha’s Vineyard for Michelle, each year, in an attempt “to reflect upon the progress [LGBTs have] made and recommit to the work that lies ahead,” Barack Obama makes it a priority to host a White House gala for the gay community.

This year, as the President gears up to tear down the institution of marriage, just as he’s also about the business of doing the same to the First, Second, and Fourth Amendment, the ploy is to shamelessly pretend that he’s doing it on behalf of innocent victims like Zea and Luna Weiss-Wynne.

Zea and Luna are two adorable little girls who are the daughters of Lara Weiss and Nora Wynne, two lesbian marriage equality activists, and a sperm donor friend.  Zea and Luna of Humboldt, California are the latest additions to the Barack Obama ‘Cute Children Props’ collection because the cutie pies are the ones who introduced the President at this year’s LGBT Pride celebration at the White House on June 13th.

That’s right – while the nation is embroiled in scandals that threaten every American’s liberty and while the drums of war thump away in Syria, Barack Obama took an afternoon to fête alternative lifestyles on the taxpayers’ dime flanked by Joe Biden and surrounded by a room full of gay lesbians, gay gays, gay bisexuals and really gay transgenders.

Wait! Was Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts also on the guest roster?  Not because he’s LGBT, but because with his historical influence over the Obamacare debate, having Roberts mingle with the crowd and dip into the hors d’oeuvres would have certainly lent an air of twisted Constitutional optimism to the same-sex marriage argument.

John Roberts or no John Roberts, the president clearly thought it would be fitting to commemorate atypical sexual preferences by having two eight-year-old girls, whose parents are both women, introduce his comments.

Which White House staffer was assigned the job of explaining to the cherubs why the tall lady in the glittery pink hot pants has a huge Adam’s apple and a man’s voice was not made public.

Way back in January when Obama signed 23 executive orders on gun control, he had four guests about Zea and Luna’s age at the ceremony, all of whom were supposedly chosen based on the heartfelt letters they wrote to him about how they wanted him to implement tighter gun controls.  It was a real tearjerker.

At the time, the president’s goal was to make weakening the Second Amendment more palatable to the American public by having children in attendance while he dramatically maintained that “[o]ur first task as a society… [is to] …keep children safe.”

Now, to undermine the traditional meaning of marriage, the president decided that Zea and Luna Weiss-Wynne, as well as seven other authors of inspiring letters about gay issues, would guilt America into agreeing with the gay lobby ‘for the sake of the children.’

The hope is that America will believe the lil’ darlins’ were uncoached when they begged in writing for Obama to assist their activist mothers in their starry-eyed quest to officially become Mrs. and Mrs. Weiss-Wynne, or vice versa

In other words, if you didn’t agree with Obama on gun control, you wanted to see children shot and killed. And if you don’t agree with Obama on the same sex marriage issue, you’re a hardhearted beast who wants to deprive children like Zea and Luna the simple joy of being part of a legitimate loving family.

Nonetheless, subjecting children to an afternoon where sexual preference is the crux of the discussion is not even the most disturbing part of the Pride Month get-together at the White House.

Why? Because suddenly Barack ‘LGBT’ Obama has time to chit-chat around the buffet table with a gaggle of gays, that’s why.

Isn’t he the guy who hasn’t had time to comment on more pressing issues like where he was on the night Ambassador Christopher Stevens was being sodomized and murdered in Libya?  Shouldn’t the gay lobby be pressing him for an answer to that question?

Or why, after mocking and castigating President GW Bush for counterterrorism surveillance, is the president suddenly accelerating the process of ‘fundamentally transforming’ the United States of America into Oceania?

And what exactly were he and Doug Shulman discussing those other 149 times when they weren’t busy rolling Easter eggs?

Meanwhile, as America careens headlong into a vortex of adversity, it’s clear that the LGBT community’s ‘best man’ is Barack Obama.

And Best Man Barack’s top priority is to promote Zea and Luna as two little girls who just want to don hair ribbons, dress up like flower girls, and walk their two mommies down the aisle into a future of LGBT legally-wedded bliss.

__________________________

*a meal eaten by Muslims to break their fast after sunset every day during Ramadan

Michelle Obama Supports Gun Control that Doesn’t Work

041013-national-michelle-obama-chicago-gun-violence-300x168First Lady Michelle Obama recently headed home to the Southside of Chicago where she dipped her perfectly exercised toe into the gun violence debate.

Mrs. O arrived in the city that has enacted the most stringent gun-control laws in America to address local business leaders on the problem of gun violence.  Oddly, Michelle forgot to consider the possibility that  gun legislation is the reason for the high percentage of gun-related deaths in Chicago.

Richard A. Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, believes that “The gun laws in Chicago only restrict the law-abiding citizens and they’ve essentially made the citizens prey.”

Yet the anti-gun Left keeps on keeping on in the push to make it even more dangerous for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.  The Left’s argument is that stricter gun laws outside of Chicago would ensure that fewer illegal guns make it into Chicago.  It’s sort of like the liberal argument that freezing weather is proof of global warming.

David Spielfogel, senior adviser to Hizzoner Rahm Emanuel, agrees and argues that “Chicago is not an island.  We’re only as strong as the weakest gun law in surrounding states.”  So in other words, if nothing else works to convince Americans to willingly relinquish their Second Amendment rights, what might do the trick is having Michelle Obama stress that dead children in Chicago are only dead because of relaxed gun laws in other states.

That sort of rationale coincides with the bizarre legalistic belief that if you remove junk food from school cafeterias and vending machines, when the chubby kids leave school grounds, rather than mainlining Fluffernutter, raw string beans will become their after-school snack of choice.

And so it seems that the anti-gun lobby is firmly convinced that the cure for gun violence is to nationalize what has failed so miserably in Chicago. Which raises the question: What is it about the Obamas that if something isn’t working, they work on it even harder?

Even more stunning is that supporters of an administration that purposely funneled guns into Mexico are now blaming Chicago’s crime rate on guns making their way into the Windy City from outside the city limits.

That must be why Michelle gave up her fantasy of being Beyoncé for the day, and rather than equate herself with Brian Terry and Jamie Zapata and hundreds of dead Mexicans shot with Eric Holder-provided high-power weapons, said this: “Hadiya Pendleton was me, and I was her.”

Speaking to concerned business leaders, Mama Obama compared herself to “a walking angel” who, soon after attending Obama’s Second Inauguration, was tragically cut down while talking with friends in Vivian Gordon Harsh Park.

After Hadiya’s murder, Michelle rushed to Chicago to attend the teen’s funeral and invited her parents Nate and Cleo to sit beside her in the State of the Union sky box.  Excelling at the liberal practice of exploiting death for political purposes, Mrs. Obama reminded her audience that in Chicago burying a child is not unusual and that young people are killed after “wandering onto the wrong street… [or]… standing on their own porch.”

About Hadiya’s funeral, Michelle said:

Let me tell you, it is hard to know what to say to a room full of teenagers who are about to bury their best friend…I told them that there is a reason that we’re here on this earth, that each of us has a mission in this world, and I urged them to use their lives to give meaning to Hadiya’s life.

Clearly, Mrs. Obama believes she has a “mission in this world,” and that that self-appointed mission involves assisting her husband in mitigating the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans.  So to accomplish that goal, posing as an anti-gun raconteur Michelle relayed the heart-wrenching story of Hadiya’s untimely death.

According to Shelley O, “Hadiya’s family did everything right, but she still didn’t have a chance.” And so, because Cleo and Nate couldn’t keep their child safe, liberals like Michelle Obama who hold the collective view that our children are their children plan to step in to implement legislation they mistakenly believe saves lives.

Hey somebody, please tell Michelle Obama that while she was in Chicago speaking to business leaders about eliminating gun violence, an unarmed lunatic in Texas stabbed 14 people with a knife.

In Chicago, the first lady’s work was to get business leaders to agree that in the long run the survival of a future little Michelle Obama far outweighs the preservation of the tenets and freedoms that have abided for two centuries in the US Constitution.

The first lady’s purpose in going to Chicago was not to discuss reality, nor was it to reveal intriguing autobiographical insights about how she and Hadiya Pendleton are a lot alike. Instead, the true purpose of the trip was to prod America further along the road toward a society whose power-hungry government claims it’s attempting to eradicate gun violence by disarming its people.

Barack Obama Couldn’t Care Less about Dead Children

imagesOriginally posted at American Thinker

President Barack Obama is firmly committed to pushing an anti-gun agenda.  He’s so steadfast in his conviction that he was willing to  fly, on his $180K per hour magic carpet, the families of the children and school workers that perished in Newtown, Connecticut all the way to Washington DC.  After breakfast, Sandy Hook family members participated in a mini anti-gun-violence, sympathy-fueled arm-twisting sessionwhere, in an effort to persuade reluctant senators to sway his way on the issue of gun control, the grieving were exploited.

The president’s current argument is that sweeping legislation is needed because 32,000 people in America die each year from gun-related violence, many of whom are children. Yet, Obama’s carelessness with the truth omits the fact that 32,000 people make up only 0.01% of the American population.

Pressing the Senate to pass a bill whose ultimate goal is to curtail gun ownership because children die from gunshot wounds would be like lobbying for a bill to outlaw household cleaning products because every year thousands of children die as a result of accidental poisoning.

The truth is that in comparison to other causes of death, guns are responsible for a relatively small percentage of fatalities. Even so, the president remains focused like a laser on passing unpopular legislation and using the prevention of death as an excuse to restrict constitutional freedom and limit the sale of firearms and firearm accessories.  For good measure, Obama also insinuates that any American unwilling to acquiesce to his anti-gun viewpoint might be harboring nefarious intentions.

And so to accomplish his goal of watering down the power of the U.S. Constitution, Barack Obama thinks portraying himself as the compassionate champion of dead children is his best bet.  Yet isn’t it true that Obama couldn’t even save the lives of four adults in Benghazi, let alone 20 little ones in Newtown? For Barack Obama to portray himself as some sort of thwarter of untimely death is ludicrous.  Moreover, an avid abortion advocate talking in memoriam about the lost lives of children is another example of this president’s use of disingenuousness to divert attention from failed policies whose ramifications affect the 99.99% of those whose lives will never be touched by gun violence.

If preventing death were really Obama’s goal, then he’d address the much larger number of Americans who die for reasons other than lethal gunfire.

For instance, what about the 600,000 Americans who perish annually from heart disease, or the 575,000 who succumb to cancer?  On behalf of all the American children whose lives are negatively impacted (if not snuffed out) by these diseases, why hasn’t children’s advocate/gun-control crusader Obama stressed the urgent need to fund cancer and heart disease research?

Thus far, even though there are approximately 120,000 deaths each year from all kinds of accidents, to date the families of the 32,000 dead car accident victims have not been invited to fly on Air Force One to Washington DC to address the US Senate about preventing fatal car crashes.

And then there are the 50,000 Americans a year who succumb to pneumonia and flu and the 30,000 who die annually from a little-known but highly preventable hospital-acquired bacterium called C-Diff, or Clostridium Difficile.

If Barack Obama believes that 0.01% of the population is too many to die from gun violence, then the same should hold true for seasonal flu and C-Difficile. But it’s 10 weeks into his second term and so far Barack has yet to campaign on behalf of controlling the growing problem of deadly super bugs.

If the families of the Sandy Hook victims earned a ride on Air Force One and had an opportunity to plead their case before the Senate for stricter controls on gun ownership, why not also fly the grieving parents of 8-month-old Charlee Mackenzie Ratliff, who, while recovering from surgery to repair a hole in her heart, died in May of 2010 after acquiring a deadly case of C-Diff?

Charlee’s mom and dad could come to Capitol Hill to address controlling the spread of bacterial infections that are killing the very young, those with weakened immune systems, and the elderly in hospitals and nursing homes across America.  Why not invite the Ratliffs to raise awareness on how, in the coming years, limited Obamacare monies will inevitably lead to an increase in the threat of fatalities resulting from hospital-acquired infections?

Speaking wholly about curtailing Second Amendment rights, at the University of Hartford in Connecticut, Barack Obama delivered an ardent plea for Americans to pressure their local representatives to support stricter gun-control legislation. The president’s words could have also been applied to the heartbreaking deaths of victims who’ve lost their lives from causes other than gun violence.

Entreating the nation to reach an agreement with him on gun-control, Obama said:

If you’re an American who wants to do something to prevent more families from knowing the immeasurable anguish that these families know, now is the time to act. Now is the time to get engaged, to get involved, to push back on fear, frustration, and misinformation. Now is the time to make your voice heard from every state house to the corridors of Congress.

Based on those sentiments alone, the only conclusion one can glean from the president’s selective concern is that either Obama only cares about the lives of specific children, or what we’ve surmised all along is being confirmed: the president is exploiting the gun-death issue with an explicit goal that has nothing to do with averting premature death. In other words, once again, Obama is blatantly lying by omission, which is just a fancy way of saying that in the overall scheme of advancing progressive policy, the president couldn’t care less about who dies or how.

The Children’s Hour

Obama-unveils-gun-law-changesOriginally posted at American Thinker

Thus far, the criticism surrounding the president’s shameless exploitation of schoolchildren at the recent White House 23-Executive-“Actions” performance has focused largely on how wrong it was to use little kids as political props. Even more reprehensible though is staged propaganda falsely promoted as unsolicited ‘Letters to the President’ written from the hearts of vulnerable children.

Therefore, based on the content, style, and an odd mix of childlike misspellings and decidedly unchildlike opinions featured in the letters, it’s highly probable that four children were used as political pawns recruited to assist President Obama in “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Here’s an interesting coincidence: little Julia Stokes hailed from the Democrats’ home base, Washington DC. Master Grant Fritz traveled from the blue state of Maryland; the vivacious Hinna Zeejah came to the nation’s capitol from Oceanside, NY, where 55% of the residents historically vote Democrat; and Taejah Goode flew north from Douglasville, Georgia, located 20 miles west of Atlanta in the solidly Democratic 13th congressional district.

Then there’s the issue of suggesting that eight-, 10- and 11-year-old children have policy opinions apart from the influence of their parents. Isn’t it when teenagers individuate that they stop parroting what they hear at home and are less apt to want to be seen as agreeing with mom and dad?

Therefore, it’s unlikely that the racially-diverse foursome on exhibit at the White House were so disturbed by the Sandy Hook events that, without adult coaching or a 45-cent stamp, all penned and mailed thoughtful handwritten letters to Barack Obama.

Moreover, the content of the letters suggests that either these kids seriously lack basic writing skills, or someone thought it would be more believable if the anti-gun messages were presented in a childlike writing style. Think “Toys Я Us.”

Either way, the one thing that can be gleaned from the correspondence is that Barack Obama should pay less attention to attacking the Constitution and more time admitting that federally-funded public education is an abysmal failure.

One of the four writers is the daughter of pediatrician Theophil Stokes. Julia Stokes is in her first year of junior high school, yet her letter was sloppy and filled with crossed out and misspelled words. So either Julia inherited her physician-like handwriting from Dad or the carelessness was deliberate.

One standout in Julia’s letter was the word “safty.” Little Julia, bless her heart, also shared that “There are no word to explain how sad I am.”

Are Americans supposed to believe that an 11-year-old girl — who apparently doesn’t know that there’s an apostrophe in “I’m” or that Washington DC shouldn’t be written as “dc” — expresses herself so eloquently? For most preteen girls the only thing they “would not be able to bear the thought of losing” are Justin Bieber concert tickets.

Moreover, despite Julia’s deficiency in 7th grade English and even though she did say, “I may not that into politics,” she sure was well-versed on gun control. It was Julia’s “opinon” that the “only thing [guns] do is harm or kill and …should only be used in most horrible event where others will get hurt if they are not” used. Yes, sort of like Aurora, Newtown, and Tucson.

Although Julia’s not interested in politics, she did remember from civics class that “laws have to be passed by congress.” Whether Congress will be involved or not, Miss Stokes did beseech the Constitutional renegade living in the White House to save America by making “guns not allowed.”

Then there was 10-year-old Taejah Goode. Taejah, who identified himself as a “You American,” is a man of few words. Based on the limited content of his letter, Taejah seemed wholeheartedly convinced that Barack Obama possesses the superhuman power to singlehandedly “STOP” gun violence.

Next up was eight-year-old Grant Fritz. Grant, like every third grade boy, apparently spends most of his free time thinking about: changing “the law with guns.” Grant knows that America is a “free country, but…” in light of the danger those freedoms sometimes pose, he recommended Obama establish “a limit with guns.”

In addition to commenting on restricting the Second Amendment, Fritz begged the President: “Please don’t let people own machine guns or other powerful guns like that.” Then he signed off with a suspiciously correct use of “you’re/your,” saying “P.S.: I know you’re doing your best.”

The little girl in the red dress was Hinna Zeejah, a “3rd Grader in School #8” on Long Island. To drive home a point, Hinna exhibited even more affection for capital letters than Taejah Goode.

The high-fiving Hinna wrote that on the day of the Sandy Hook shootings, “after wacthing the News all day…one question poped” into her head: “Can we stop using Guns?”

Hinna said she’d be happier and feel safer in the country she loves “if they are no Guns on the street,” so that “no one could get hurt” — unless of course they’re thrown off a subway platform, slashed with a razor blade, beaten with a hammer, or randomly stabbed at Bed, Bath and Beyond.

Hinna went on to declare that “BULLETS DON’T HAVE EYES.” It was probably that thoughtful statement that, together with her “No Guns” artwork, made her letter stand out amongst the thousands Obama supposedly received.

It’s clear that President Obama expects the nation to believe that a man who accepts counsel from absolutely no one is suddenly soliciting legislative advice from eight-, 10- and 11-year-olds. All things considered, it’s very hard to accept as true that the White House event was not a calculated attempt on Obama’s part to further convince the nation to acquiesce to his anti-gun agenda. Thinking otherwise would be like expecting us to buy Michelle Obama’s 2011 shopping trip to Target as spur-of-the-moment.

The president expecting intelligent people to accept that, completely without adult influence, four children had the wherewithal to independently write, edit, stamp, and mail letters to him about the Second Amendment makes the whole event look like another patented Barack Obama dog-and-phony show.

Obama Defiles Reagan Stagecraft

C41247-10

Originally posted at American Thinker

In 2011 in Time Magazine, while President Obama’s job approval was dropping like a rock, Ronald Reagan’s daughter and faithful Obama supporter Patti Davis wrote an article entitled “Perception and Reality: What Obama Really Needs Right Now.”

Davis addressed Barack Obama’s poor public image and did so by pointing out that Mike Deaver, White House Chief of Staff under President Reagan, helped shape America’spositive impression of her father by crafting patriotic theatre that enhanced the public’s perception of the former president.

Romesh Ratnesar, author of the book Tear Down This Wall, agreed with the premise that Mike Deaver’s “true talent was stagecraft,” and that he was the “most powerful force in the molding of President Reagan’s public image.”

In her “perception and reality” article it was easy for Davis to stir up memories of the “windy promontory called Pointe du Hoc and the soft light over the English Channel as [her] father honored the 40th anniversary of D-Day,” and resurrect images of Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate challenging, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

Two decades later, the current president’s idea of a Brandenburg Gate moment is to have a group of mind-numbed acolytes clap uncontrollably when he announces that he’ll be punishing the rich for being successful.

Despite the potential for a public relations disaster, Barack Obama even golfed during an oil disaster and vacationed with the “family at exactly the same time that Japan was suffering through a nuclear disaster, Libya had been bombed, and there was a threat of a government shutdown.” Also seared into America’s mind’s eye are images of Barack Obama body surfing in Hawaii as the nation teetered dangerously close to the edge of the fiscal cliff. Then, after very public, very heated negotiations concerning the ominous economic future of the country, Obama brazenly spent $7 million just flying back and forth to Hawaii for vacation.

Over the last four years Barack Obama has shown that indeed he is a theatrical phenom, proving Patti Davis’s impression to be far afield. After all, what other president consistently dispatched a message of defiance to his detractors, smiled while giving the middle finger to his critics, and did it all while further enamoring his sycophants? That’s a level of proficiency even Reagan lacked.

The difference between Reagan and Obama is that instead of doing what the Gipper did, which was to impart a measure of his own patriotic optimism to the country, Obama openly exposes his resentment by dragging around the disgruntled and downtrodden as props to help convey a message that divides rather than unifies the nation.

Case in point — recently, White House pool boy/press secretary Jay Carney announced that Obama would be unveiling a “concrete package” sure to give the U.S. Constitution the Jimmy Hoffa treatment.

The $500 million gun violence ‘package’ included 23 executive actions addressing “gun control proposals including assault weapons bans, high capacity ammunition magazine bans, and closing loopholes on background checks.” In other words, the same guy who claims he can’t find millions of illegal aliens has miraculously found a way to track down and register 300 million guns.

In pseudo-Reaganesque mode, the president’s anti-Second Amendment effort was made public while armed Secret Service agents stood in the wings ensuring his personal safety. In place of a huge American flag billowing in the breeze, a stalwart Vice President Joe Biden, overseer of Obama’s commission on gun violence, was also in attendance to provide moron — oops — moral support.

To set the tone, the absolutely shameless Barack Obama misused small “children from around the country” who, after the Newtown shootings, supposedly wrote to him expressing concerns about “gun violence and school safety.” Accompanying the kids were their clueless parents, all of whom most assuredly supported Obama in 2012.

The only thing missing from the anti-gun violence show were a few of the kids openly weeping in the background as Obama stressed the nation’s moral duty to spare the little ones from fear and harm.

Weeping or not, President Obama lost all credibility when he decided to use children as props. Again, despite the melodrama, this man does not care one iota about child safety. Barack Obama believes in partial birth abortion and gladly provides unlimited government funding to terminate as many unborn children as Planned Parenthood can possibly snuff out.

Yet, while unveiling his executive actions the president said, “This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe. This is how we will be judged.” If NARAL darling Barack Obama were to be judged honestly on his child safety record, then living, breathing youngsters would not have graced the White House ceremony.

That is why, when it comes to utilizing the power of acting, clearly, Ronald Reagan’s daughter Patti Davis misjudged Time Magazine’s Person of the Year’s ability to compete with her father. Hence, Obama’s well thought-out attempt to fortify his gun control argument by having young children flock around a man who would have unblinkingly aborted them is just another attempt to woo America into viewing him as something he is not.

Even so, Obama seems unfazed by the paradox he projects. After all, why should he be? Despite his horrendous first term, lethal tendencies, and blatant Constitutional breaches, he managed to manipulate the public into granting him another four years. Therefore, transparent theatrics being used as a substitute for conviction and character is an apropos reward for an electorate who’ve willingly forfeited truth for Obama-orchestrated displays of propaganda.

And so, surrounded by giggling children, as Barack Obama censured Congress and with a pen as his weapon of choice aborted the Second Amendment, the image he successfully conveyed was that nothing and no one can prevent him from “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” into a vision Ronald Reagan would have demanded he tear down.

Whatever Happened to ‘They’re Gonna Do it Anyway?’

tumblr_mctd62n0101r3y2nqo1_1280Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Rest assured that if Americans are participating in an activity that liberals applaud, encouragement and financial facilitation are certain. However, if the uncooperative citizenry tends toward an activity that the left condemns, guilt, denunciation, and rebuke commence, and monitoring, restriction, and regulations follow.

Generally, if it involves the lusty side of human nature, liberals believe that self-control is an attribute most individuals lack. Ask anyone on the left why condoms should be made available to schoolchildren and standard answer is “They’re gonna to do it anyway.”

By and large, when it comes to sensual delights, Democrats tend to argue that nothing can be done to alter a person’s drive to satiate that primal urge. If hormones are raging, liberals are convinced that free birth control should be made available without limit. If prophylactic precautionary measures fail, government-funded abortion should be there to rectify inconvenient situations.

As a group, progressives seem to be convinced that the human libido is so intense that it overpowers free will. So, rather than discourage immoral behavior, to ensure “safe sex” and to save lives, they prod government to facilitate promiscuity at taxpayers’ expense.

Enabling heroin enthusiasts to avoid HIV and Hepatitis C with clean needle programs is another thing the left champions. As for marijuana, many ganja-loving liberals believe legalization is a great idea because not only are they “gonna to do it anyway,” but “everybody’s doing it,” so why miss out on the fun?

What’s confusing about this attitude is that the “They’re gonna to do it anyway” mantra does not apply to things like eating food and owning firearms, two activities leftists love to police.

Think about it. Who can name a more “They’re gonna to do it anyway” activity than eating? Eating is so much a part of our lives that at a minimum most of us eat at least three times a day which, for anyone other than Bill Clinton, is more than can be said about sex.

Michelle Obama, who’d probably support providing minors with birth control and dopers with needles, is busily swapping out candy for carrot sticks in vending machines. The first lady is totally convinced that nagging reins in appetite. However, the nudge approach seems to lack common sense, because if sexual impulses are impossible to regulate, how do you control a survival instinct like eating?

Don’t try to answer that question; liberals don’t make sense because they always attempt to have it both ways. Someone should inform progressives that, regardless of the pursuit, either human craving can be harnessed, or it’s pretty much impossible to force anyone to do anything against their will.

At present, freewheeling condom cheerleaders have turned their attention toward gun violence. The same people who declare that beginning at age 13 a person’s sex drive has a mind of its own also believe that violent lunatics hell-bent on chaos can have their impulses thwarted simply by limiting the types of weapons available to sane people.

If it is impossible to curtail sexual behavior in normal folks, how can hiding guns from the mentally ill affect irrational behavior? If the left’s condom logic were to be applied to the Second Amendment, gun lovers could get unlimited access to firearms. Then, in order to ensure public safety, someone would have to invent a condom specifically for guns.

In all seriousness, the misguided notion that gun control will curb violence makes almost as much sense as Michelle Obama believing that supervising food choices will convince high school athletes that they can survive on quinoa and sautéed spinach. Just because the Twinkies are no longer on school premises doesn’t mean that 250-pound football players are going to submit and agree to survive on 800 calories a day. Rest assured, neither will psychotics be deterred from murder and mayhem if that’s their aspiration.

Thus, once again, liberal contradiction proves that attempting to constrain truly uncontrollable people keeps no one safe and places unnecessary restrictions on everyone else.

Therefore, as the gun control debate heats up, Americans should note the liberal paradox that approves of granting irresponsible children the ability to exercise absolute free will in matters of the flesh, but wants to give government the role of ultimate micromanager in areas that affect responsible adults.

%d bloggers like this: