Tag Archives: Sandy Hook

Will There Be an ObamaCare Victims’ Memorial?

VictimOriginally posted at American Thinker

So Barack Obama, American firebomber extraordinaire, feels he’s “been burned.”  But if truth be told, it is he who has never had his “feet held to the fire” for the multitude of untruths he’s perpetrated on the entire country — let alone the world.

Even the most casual observer, if he puts down his iPhone long enough to focus on what’s befalling our country, will see that, to the nation’s detriment, the president carefully picks and chooses issues to promote, and does so by exploiting sad stories and faking heartfelt sentiment.

Remember when Obama, in his ongoing effort to dismantle the Second Amendment, said that “if it saves one life,” gun control is worth it?  That must be why with each gun-related death, Obama rushed to the nearest podium to tug on America’s heartstrings.

In defense of his unrelenting campaign to curtail the “right to keep and bear arms,” the man who puts his firm approbation on the slaughter of 3,000 unborn babies per day repeatedly said, “If there’s just one life we can save, we’ve got an obligation to try.”

Here’s the problem with the “if there’s just one life” blather Obama spouts opportunistically: he doesn’t mean it, and he’s proven as much in the way he’s responded to talk of potential fatalities resulting from a policy he not only supports, but refuses to back down from despite its threat to American lives.

As a result of his signature health care reform farce, one by one, gravely ill people are stepping forward, many of whom, thanks to Obama’s lies, will ultimately die after losing their health insurance in the middle of their cancer treatments.  And in response, the only thing the president has to say about such misfortune is that he’s sorry some people are “finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from [him]”?

He probably meant to say “finding themselves lying prone on a gurney in the morgue.”

Either way, imagine if Barack Obama supported the Second Amendment and had spent three years assuring Americans that no one would die as a result of gun violence.  Then, despite his promises, 12 people were shot to death in a Colorado movie theatre.  Based on the anemic response Barack Obama is offering now, it would be like saying he’s sorry some people found themselves dead “based on assurances” he gave about gun safety.

With that in mind, here’s a question for Barack Obama: Mr. President, is lost life tragic only when lost as a result of policies you oppose?  Because it sure seems that easily avoidable death and dying is not a problem for you if the body count grows as a result of the liberal legislation you support.

Unlike the children of the Newtown, Connecticut massacre, after dying at the hands of gunmen wielding “Fast and Furious” weaponry that the Obama administration supplied to Mexican drug cartels, Border agent Brian Terry and ICE agent Jaime Zapata were barely acknowledged by the president.

Therefore, if death occurs as a result of Americans losing their health insurance, does anyone really think Barack Obama will host or attend a Tucson Memorial-type event in their honor?  Will he exploit the victims of the political violence he’s perpetrated like he did gun violence victims, by memorializing them with ‘Together we Thrive” t-shirts?

Will the president solemnly eulogize the innocent by painting word-pictures of them splashing through “rain puddles in Heaven,” like he did Christina-Taylor Green, the child gunned down in the Arizona Gabby Giffords shooting?

If three years’ worth of propaganda followed by the disastrous ObamaCare rollout results in deaths, will Barack Obama admit that his substandard leadership and ongoing deception are to blame?

Will the president suggest that the national tragedy called ObamaCare should “prompt reflection and debate”?  And will he keep the discussion alive by encouraging Americans everywhere to make sure the falsehoods he’s told that have brought misery and trepidation to millions are not lost “on the usual plane of politics and point-scoring and pettiness that drifts away in the next news cycle”?

Is it possible that the president will have executive order-signing ceremonies where he’ll circumvent Congress to ensure that policies are put into place to protect America from his ongoing health care reform disaster?  At those ceremonies, will he showcase frightened schoolchildren and the letters they’ve supposedly written about being traumatized by his signature policy?

Like he did when 15-year-old teen Hadiya Pendleton was shot dead in Chicago’s Vivian Gordon Harsh Park, as time goes on and more people perish, will the president send his emissary wife to the funerals of cancer victims who decided to “let nature take its course” because they couldn’t afford the ObamaCare premiums?

To put a face on the millions adversely affected by Obama’s abysmal policies, when the Bill Elliots and Edie Littlefield Sundbys of the world die before their time, will their devastated families, like Cleo and Nate Pendleton, be given a seat of honor at the next State of the Union address alongside Michelle Obama?

Will both Barack and Michelle personally identify with the dead, like Mrs. Obama did with Hadiya when she said, “Hadiya Pendleton was me, and I was her,” and like her husband did when he uttered those now infamous words: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon [Martin]”?

The answer to all those questions is “no way.”

What’s also unlikely is that President Obama will use his old “If there’s just one life we can save, we’ve got an obligation to try” line, because it would mean rectifying a deadly situation he knowingly initiated in his mission to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America.

 

Obama, the Sultan of Sob Stories

Slide1Originally posted at American Thinker

In order to advance his agenda, Barack Obama has become the sultan of sob stories.  For every unpopular policy he endeavors to impose, the president has busloads of individuals to fit every occasion.

Take for instance the president’s enthusiastic desire to curtail Second Amendment rights.  To address that issue, he has mentioned and put on display shooting survivor and former Arizona congresswoman Gabby “deserves a vote” Giffords many times.

Mr. Obama has spoken at prayer memorials, exploited the grieving families of the Sandy Hook victims, and given seats of honor at the State of the Union speech to slain Chicago teen Hadiya Pendleton’s parents, Cleo and Nat.  The president has read letters from terrified albeit amazingly articulate schoolchildren convinced that without drastic gun control measures they’ll be gunned down in school, and even went so far as to assume symbolic parenthood of shooting victim Trayvon Martin.

For immigration reform, we now know all about DREAM actors, those fresh-faced illegal immigrants that any American would be proud to see marry their son or daughter. In addition, we’ve heard stories about innocent Latinos just trying to buy ice cream cones for their children being harassed for their “papers” by mean xenophobes in Arizona.

On the subject of government-funded contraception, after she gave a lengthy breakdown of her yearly birth control expenses and shared harrowing stories of polycystic ovary syndrome, America was subjected to President Obama’s publicity stunt/conference call to comfort the maligned Sandra Fluke.

On healthcare reform, Barack Obama would be wise to make short work of the “life-or-death stuff” by hosting a Jerry Lewis-style telethon.  Then, in hopes of convincing America to submit to further government control out of pure guilt, Obama can sponsor a procession of heartrending tales ranging from multiple sclerosis to brain tumors.

Barack Obama abusing stories of hardship has reduced the leader of the free world into a kind of carnival barker whose masterful art of psychological manipulation involves showcasing the maladies of suffering people as if they were sideshow freaks.

Now, as the government shutdown drags on, the White House is falling back on that old standby: marshaling groups of people adversely affected by it.

Posted on the White House blog, acting Director of Digital Strategy for the Obama administration, Nathaniel Lubin, asked the following question: “How has the government shutdown affected you?  Share your story.”

But veterans in wheelchairs attempting to access the WWII Memorial only to find gates reinforced with chicken wire need not bother to register a complaint.

For everyone else, although the White House website is closed for business “Due to Congress’s failure to pass legislation to fund the government,” the White House blog will remain open in order to trawl for sob stories to be used as an emotional billy club to beat the Republican leadership into political submission.

By searching far and wide, it’s likely Democrats will be able to dig up stories of bawling children, desperate mothers, and demoralized federal workers cracking open their kid’s piggy banks to feed the family.  If that doesn’t work, there’s always people infected by rotaviruses because the CDC has furloughed researchers, as well as all manner of horrific examples of how a government shutdown has affected those that Barack Obama – the one who orchestrated it – is purposely attempting to make miserable.

And so, as the government shutdown drags on, and especially if John Boehner and Co. continue to listen to the wishes of the American people, expect to see catastrophic calamities as a backdrop for every statement Barack Obama makes in his typical efforts to blame a situation he caused on the Republicans.

‘Climate Change’: Pres. Flat-Wrong Scolds the ‘Flat-Earth Society’

flat-earth2Originally posted at Clash Daily

Gearing up to further damage the U.S. economy, the president presented his energy policy speech from Georgetown University, home of famous alumnus Sandra “Free Contraceptives” Fluke and Barack’s infamous crucifix-covering event.

Sporting his usual smug, sarcastic attitude, foolish flathead Barack Obama chose to mock climate-change skeptics by calling them the “flat-Earth society.”

Emotionally overheated and sounding like he huffed jet fuel fumes on his trip back from Ireland and Germany, the President vilified climate-change skeptics and admitted that he lacks “patience for anyone who denies that this problem is real.”

Although he would never admit it, impatient is pretty much how Obama behaves towards anyone who disagrees with him or with any progressive policy initiative he seeks to impose on America.

During his speech the president, who dragged his feet when responding to Benghazi, costing four Americans their lives, implied that the Earth was warming at such a rapid rate that “We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society.”

Obama then said that “Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.”

Speaking of feeling safer and needing protection from coming storms, I wonder if the president was referring to his flat-wrong liberal friends who spend most of the time with their flatheads up their … never mind.

After the reference to sticking your head up — or into — dark places and warning of impending weather-related uproars, things got confusing when Obama said that the “overwhelming judgment of science, of chemistry, of physics, and millions of measurements” put “to rest” questions of pollution affecting the environment.

While none of what President Flat-wrong said about the Earth’s rising temperature was followed up with verifiable data, what was truly amazing is that the pro-choice champion of late-term and even post-term hands-off style abortion shamelessly cited science to support his climate-change claims.

Isn’t this the guy who said answering questions about when life begins was way “above [his] pay grade”? And doesn’t he stick his flathead in wherever when it comes to undeniable proof that life begins at conception? Yet whenever he’s pushing bogus science, he instantly goes technical on us.

Then again, isn’t that sort of what the president does with the Constitution, especially as it relates to the First, Second and Fourth Amendments? One minute it’s a “fundamentally flawed” document and then, when anyone dares to threaten the “right” to kill the unborn, Obama becomes the upholder of America’s founding document.

Meanwhile, back at Georgetown, Jabber Jaws single-handedly added to the rising temperature of the planet in real time by doing what he does best, spewing megatons of hot air and proclaiming that “[t]he planet is warming [and] human activity is contributing to it.”

Then, a man who heartily approves of America’s grand total of 60 million abortions and whose failed policies have cost millions of jobs, said “We know that the costs of these [weather] events can be measured in lost lives and lost livelihoods.”

In the doom and gloom portion of the speech, Barack Obama rattled off a laundry list of 12 warm years, inclement weather, Hurricane Sandy, dead crops in the mid-West, and subsequent high food prices. Doing everything short of dragging out the Sandy Hook families, Obama said, “In a world that’s warmer than it used to be, all weather events are affected by the warming planet.”

And because the bottom line is that he’s never met a regulation he didn’t like, President Flat-wrong announced a schedule for setting new environmental regulations that will limit how much carbon pollution can be emitted from both new and existing power plants.

In other words, Obama is anxious to eliminate more jobs, burden industry further, soak taxpayers, and hamstring an already struggling economy.

Without mentioning best flat-wrong friend Chris Christie, Barack chided naysayers again when he stressed the urgent response of “those who are feeling the effects of climate change.” According to Obama, those who are feeling it “don’t have time to deny it [because] they’re busy dealing with it.”

Dealing with it? Hopefully, the president of the “Flat-Wrong Society” wasn’t counting himself in the “dealing with it” group because if four years of hemming and hawing have taught Americans anything it’s that Barack Obama pretty much makes a mess of everything!

For example, the president apparently tries to minimize the effects of climate change by burning up enormous amounts of fuel flying Air Force One on vacations, golf trips, and fundraisers.

Barack Obama also deals with the carbon emission problem by hauling security personnel, limos, bulletproof glass panels for speeches, and the wife and kids on endless globetrotting jaunts. Not to mention the carbon footprint President Flat-wrong imposes on the planet every time he transports the gargantuan Beast, his eight-ton armored tank-car. Not to mention Bo the family dog – who travels on a separate flight accompanied by a back-up Teleprompter and a handler, of course.

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

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.

Are Politics at Fault for the ‘War Zone at Mile 26?’

gty_boston_marathon_bystanders_jef_130416_wmain-300x168As Republicans and Democrats, like the Capulets and the Montagues, battle for political power while innocent people die, poignant words come to mind from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, spoken by Mercutio as he lay dying: “A plague a’ both your houses!”

After the Boston Marathon bombing, the general consensus was that politicizing tragedy is crassly inappropriate.  The night before David Axelrod revealed that the president thought the carnage was a result of Tax Day, many felt the more suitable reaction would be to heed the politicized platitude Obama extended when he said “on days like this there are no Republicans or Democrats — we are Americans, united in concern for our fellow citizens.”

Yet, without minimizing the misery being experienced by more than 150 people and their families, it’s hard to deny that Boston has everything to do with politics.  It is long past the time that America should have already admitted that we now live in a country where our leaders are more concerned with not offending anyone than they are about the people they’ve vowed to protect.

Boston is about politics, because we have a Department of Homeland Security that is headed up by a woman who reassured America that the border is more secure than ever, knowing full well that it is not.

Instead of monitoring the nation’s safety, Janet ‘Big Sis’ Napolitano squanders resources on pricey hollow-point bullets, chases down “dangerous hairdryers,” and writes accusatory reports neutralizing the threat of true adversaries while demonizing ex-military personnel, raising suspicions about all right-leaning conservatives, and insinuating that many Christians are white supremacists.

What happened in the Hub is political because the president’s supposedly heartfelt speech after the Newtown shootings contained a paragraph concerning federal resources, caring for victims, and counseling the families that was copied verbatim and pasted into the scripted comments he delivered following the marathon bombing.

Read the rest of the article at The Blacksphere

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.

Whittling Away our Freedoms

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

America’s Throwaway Children

newtown-victim-400It is heartbreaking to think about the horror that ensued in that small Connecticut town where 28 innocent people were gunned down, eighteen of whom were the most innocent of innocents – wide-eyed, angelic first graders – and one of whom was the shooter’s own mother.

Babies – little munchkins who came to school to learn to count, read and sit cross-legged on the floor during story hour – these were the victims of a terror too unspeakable to comprehend.

Nonetheless, while America takes in and tries to process the sights, sounds and anguish of a tragedy of this magnitude, it’s hard for those who are committed to the sanctity of life to ignore the hypocrisy currently afoot in the aftermath surrounding the ordeal.

Some may argue that it is highly inappropriate and insensitive, while 20 first-graders are being prepared for burial, to tie human suffering to the topic of abortion.  But since liberals “never want to let a serious crisis to go to waste,” why not follow that lead by using this tragedy as a “teachable moment?”

For starters, it’s important to recognize that some do not understand that for most conservatives it’s the babies that drive our politics.  A problem arises whenever little ones are hurt and liberals respond by condemning violence against children. Instantly, the prolife community is criticized for recognizing the absurd paradox and pointing out the left’s hypocrisy.

As pint-sized bodies are shuttled away from the Connecticut crime scene, it’s important to remember that our nation legalized the slaughter of innocents more than 40 years ago.  Then, recently we put our approbation on continuing the carnage by reelecting the most radical advocate for abortion rights in our nation’s history. Five weeks later, in broad daylight, when slaughter and carnage come out of hiding we wonder why?

The brutality of senseless violence is hard to comprehend, especially when a high-powered rifle mows down precious little ones. But daily, Americans ignore the fact that weaponry like scalpels, saline, and suction exterminate far many more children than those who die in classrooms.

In essence, what happened in Newtown merely pulled back the curtain and revealed the spirit behind the everyday viciousness perpetrated against America’s children.  The difference is that normally the bloody massacre is hidden from the public’s eye.

As for those on the left who now weep for the lost, nice try, but not convincing.  Prochoice advocates shedding tears for the loss of the pure and the blameless just doesn’t fly. Neither does hearing partial birth abortion backers pontificate about preserving and protecting life. Doing so is comparable to the world’s most famous butcher, Dario Cecchini, lending his face to a PETA ad.

And while no one can, or should, judge the heart of a man, it is also quite perplexing to see infanticide supporter Barack Obama crying over the demise of small children when, if they were 6½ months in utero versus 6½ years old in a classroom, he’d be defending an individual’s right to terminate their lives.

Furthermore, after earning a 100% voting record score from NARAL, it’s also mindboggling at best to hear President Obama utter the following words about a select group of children: “The majority of those who died today 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.”

The only difference between the dead Obama wept for on national television and those that Planned Parenthood deprives daily of “birthdays, graduations, weddings [and] kids of their own” is that the latter are victims of the kind of violence the President approves of.

Nonetheless, in response to the tragedy Obama is now talking about “meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.”  What he’s really talking about is taking “meaningful action” to institute more stringent gun control laws that will restrict law-abiding gun owners

Someone should remind Planned Parenthood’s presidential cheerleader that on the same day children were sprayed with bullets in a Connecticut elementary school, 3,500 innocent babies died at the hands of abortionists – and not one gun was involved in those murders.

Moreover, the words “regardless of politics,” are being used to support the gun control argument. Yet, while claiming to omit politics from the ‘violence against children’ issue, Obama is predictably using politics to retain his prochoice political base by conveniently disregarding the fact that in America every 10 days, 35,000 viable infants are victims of feticide.

As America deals with the horror in Connecticut, it’s clear to some that what happened in Newtown, Connecticut is the heartbreaking symptom of a national disease where to some the life of a child is nothing more than a disposable throwaway.

The sad truth is that the small and defenseless die horrific deaths everyday in America – some huddled under a desk and others under cold florescent lights in an abortion clinic.  Either way, the formula is the same: violence and the intent to kill which, regardless of the method, both deliver the same result – dead babies.  In a first grade classroom there are 20; in a clinic across town there could be 220.

What’s stunning is that this truth has not deterred the disingenuous from campaigning for the right to kill the unborn on Monday and then publicly quoting Scripture, weeping, and lighting memorial candles for murdered children on Friday.

And so, as usual, liberals try to have it both ways. Yet, for those who recognize hypocrisy it will be painful to watch as a nation in mourning accepts the feigning of grief from those who, under different circumstances, would heartily support killing the children they now weep for.

%d bloggers like this: