Tag Archives: Newtown

Obama’s ‘Saving Even One Child’ Policy Falls Short

Published / by jeannieology / Leave a Comment

obama1Originally posted at American Thinker

Something happened between the time the president talked about Christina Taylor Green, the 9-year-old girl shot dead in the Tucson Gabrielle Giffords shooting, jumping through rain puddles in heaven, and the country finding out that Sara Murnaghan, a 10-year-old Pennsylvania child with cystic fibrosis, is being denied a life-saving lung because of government regulations dictating age restrictions on organ transplants.

Sara Murnaghan does qualify for pediatric lungs.  However, there are currently none available.  Without transplanting adult lungs into Murnaghan’s body, the little girl has about five weeks to live and will qualify for a transplant one year and eleven months too late.

Lately, America has been subjected to radically pro-choice Barack attempting to advance an anti-gun agenda by pretending to care about saving the lives of children he’d have otherwise been fine with aborting had they still been in utero.

Undermining Second-Amendment rights is why the president shows up at memorials, fake-cries on camera, hugs grieving parents, signs legislation surrounded by high-fiving youngsters, and repeatedly vows that saving the life of one child is worth the effort.

Piling it on, Michelle Obama even flew to Chicago to attend the funeral of 15-year-old gun violence victim Hadiya Pendleton and then invited the dead girl’s parents, Cleo and Nathaniel, to grace the State of the Union skybox, just to add a good dose of parental bereavement to the anti-gun atmosphere.

Now, after hearing Kathleen Sebelius make the cold comment that “someone lives and someone dies” in response to questions about why she refuses to intervene in the Sara Murnaghan emergency lung transplant case, it’s clear that anti-gun political pragmatism is at the root of concern over the saving of some lives and not others.

It’s clear that in the Obama administration, if gun violence kills a child, it matters.  However, if cystic fibrosis is the killer, oh well — as Kathleen Sebelius says, “someone lives and someone dies.”

In response to the Sandy Hook shooting where 20 children and six adults lost their lives in Newtown, Connecticut, the president stressed that “if there is a step we can take that will save even one child from what happened in Newtown, we should take that step.”

Yet, during a recent House hearing, when Lou Barletta (R-Pa) implored HHS Secretary Sebelius to “take that step” so that a little girl can have a shot at life, and to “please, suspend the [lung transplant] rules until we look at this policy,” Sebelius, who does have the authority to waive the rule on Sara’s behalf, refused.

At the Tucson Memorial, Scripture-quoting Barack Obama said, “If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate, as it should, let’s make sure it’s worthy of those we have lost. Let’s make sure it’s not on the usual plane of politics and point scoring and pettiness that drifts away with the next news cycle.”

At the Newtown Vigil, Obama reaffirmed those sentiments when he said that “[t]his job of keeping our children safe…is something we can only do together … we bear a responsibility for every child because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours; that we’re all parents; that they’re all our children.”

Then, while signing executive orders aimed at curbing gun violence, flanked by four anti-gun youngsters, Obama said, “This is our first task as a society. Keeping our children safe. This is how we will be judged. And their voices should compel us to change.”

So if saving children’s lives are “not on the usual plane of politics” when an opportunity to fulfill “our first task — caring for our children,” arises for one little girl, why does Kathleen Sebelius respond by coldly reminding Congressman Barletta that although it’s an “incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies … 40 [other] people in Pennsylvania are on the ‘highest acuity list’ for lung transplants”?

And while caution is in order because the government changing the rules for the benefit of the one sets a dangerous precedent — in the future, the government could be inclined to change the rules to detriment of the many — there is a huge amount of liberal hypocrisy afoot here.

Why?  Because in the end, little Sara Murnaghan will likely die, and not as the result of a gunshot wound, so Barack Obama won’t care.  Moreover, Michelle Obama will not attend Sara’s funeral, and neither will Sara’s mom and dad, Janet and Fran, be sitting beside the first lady next year in the State of the Union skybox as representatives of the need to change organ transplant laws.

Rest assured, in the short time that Sara has left, Barack Obama will not be reminding America that “we bear a responsibility” for Sara.  Nor will he sign a middle-of-the-night executive order overriding Kathleen Sebelius’s stubborn refusal to waive the adult lung transplant rule in time to save the child’s life.

It’s also unlikely that health care reformer Barack “Doesn’t Care” Obama will be on hand to shed one fake tear or quote a single out-of-context Scripture passage at Sara’s funeral.

Instead, as a result of refusing to “take that step … [to] save even one child,” Barack Obama and his self-serving administration have exposed the true nature of an agenda that has nothing to do with shielding the lives of helpless children from harm and everything to do with advancing a progressive anti-gun agenda.

Barack Obama Couldn’t Care Less about Dead Children

Published / by jeannieology / Leave a Comment

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.

Whittling Away our Freedoms

Published / by jeannieology / Leave a Comment

whittling

Originally posted at American Thinker

In the aftermath of the tragic murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Barack Obama, together with a supportive left-wing media, has called for “meaningful action” to address the problem of mass shootings. Since that heartbreaking episode, the president has been publicly weeping, praying, pontificating, quoting Scripture, and poetically sharing verbal vignettes on the responsibilities of fatherhood. He’s been so convincing that pro-gun Democrats are abandoning their former commitment to the Second Amendment, crossing over, and siding with liberals on gun laws.

Meanwhile, despite all the passionate rhetoric, except for passing blame, Obama has yet to fully acknowledge his administration’s participation in the failed gun-walking operation called “Operation Fast and Furious.”

The orchestrated scheme called “Fast and Furious” started in the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency. That year, federal officials decided to allow straw buyers to visit gun stores in Arizona and Texas, load up vans with weapons like the AK-47 and drive them back across the border into México, straight into the hands of vicious cartels.

Rather than arrest the “trafficking kingpins” and confiscate the guns, the federal authorities that conducted the operation were instructed to allow “straw gun buyers for a smuggling ring to walk away from gun shops in Arizona with weapons,”so they could then be tracked. The problem is that, as usual, inept government bureaucracy lost track of the weaponry and the guns purchased illegally have been showing up at crime scenes along with dead bodies ever since.

The gun used in the shooting death of former Marine/U.S. Border agent Brian Terry was traced back to an Arizona gun shop. ICE agent Jamie Zapata was murdered by a drug cartel and the gun that took his life was traced to a gun shop in Dallas.

In total, “Operation Fast and Furious” allegedly allowed approximately 2,000 still unaccounted-for weapons to walk across the southern border. México’s former Attorney General Victor Humberto Benítez Treviño guesstimates that “Fast and Furious” guns, to date, have also killed more than 300 Mexicans.

The irony is that Mexican drug cartels sought out guns in the U.S. because Mexican gun laws are restrictive. Cartel members from a country with the same kind of laws currently being proposed murdered two U.S. Border agents and shot to death hundreds of Mexican civilians and soldiers with firearms obtained with the full knowledge and permission of the U.S. government.

At the Sandy Hook vigil, a teary-eyed Barack Obama stressed that “[t]he majority of those who died were children — beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old. They had their entire lives ahead of them — birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own.”

Yet, after tugging at America’s heartstrings, it appears the president’s gun safety concerns remain exclusive to American guns, gun owners, and people.

If that weren’t true, then why, in 2010 when “Fast and Furious” weapons gunned down 14 teenagers and wounded 20 attending a birthday party in Ciudad Juarez, didn’t Barack Obama — who is now so concerned about missed “birthdays, graduations, weddings” — address the Mexican bloodbath? Why hasn’t the Obama administration accepted any responsibility or even suggested locating the still missing U.S. weapons?

As Obama manipulates tragedy to advance Second Amendment restrictions in the U.S., guns walked across the border with his approval are still taking lives.

Case in point: another “Fast and Furious” gun was recently found at the scene where a beauty queen died as a result of a shootout between a Mexican drug cartel and soldiers.

The day after Thanksgiving, in the mountainous area of Sinaloa, México, home to México’s most powerful Sinaloa drug cartel, 20-year-old Maria Susana Flores Gamez’s body was found together with an assault rifle that has since been revealed was walked across the border.

In February, the beauty pageant winner was awarded the title of 2012 Woman of Sinaloa. By November she was riding in a vehicle that engaged Mexican soldiers in a gun battle. Just as the 20 children who died in Newtown, Connecticut had nowhere to hide from Adam Lanza’s bullets, neither could Maria Susana Flores Gamez hide. Police believe she was used as a human shield and perished when Mexican police returned fire on gang members using an illegal firearm provided compliments of the gun-control obsessed Obama administration.

In the meantime, for four months, former U.S. Marine Jon Hammar is chained to a bed in México’s notorious CEDES prison. Jon is being held for declaring a legal antique Sears Roebuck shotgun to Mexican customs officials on his way to surf and hunt in Costa Rica. What is curious about Hammar’s situation is that after México was systematically flooded with illegal weaponry, the Obama State Department now claims they are powerless to help.

Maybe that’s because after the horrendous nature of the shooting in Connecticut, Barack Obama would rather not spoil the mood by calling attention to a legal gun owner rotting away in a Mexican jail on trumped-up gun charges. After all, why chance losing the emotional capital he needs to convince America that it’s time to moderate firearms?

Nonetheless, for the president to exploit tragedy for political gain while knowing full well that innocent people are being killed with the guns his administration placed in the hands of dangerous gang members is downright reprehensible. Someone needs to ask President Obama to clarify how he justifies condemning assault weapons, especially after his administration intentionally armed Mexican drug kingpins with the weaponry he now blames for the chaos and death we recently witnessed in Connecticut.

Therefore, rather than sitting idly by while freedom continues to be whittled away, it’s up to Americans to demand accountability. It’s time that Time magazine’s Person of the Year explains why he continues to insist that stricter gun control laws will save American lives when he’s well aware that his Justice Department, headed up byAttorney General Eric Holder, purposely and illegally furnished lethal firearms to murderers in México.

 

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook