Tag Archives: Second Amendment

Obama Is Going to Train More Americans?

1891164_10152022627472336_451581248_nOriginally posted at The Blacksphere

Barack Obama the Train Wreck said that the United States (also known as “we”) “need to train more Americans.”

Obama prefaced his training shocker with an advisory to the Central Connecticut State University audience in New Britain, Connecticut: they needed to “bend [their] knees” so they don’t swoon (as people tend to do) while he’s speaking.

What kind of training does the president think Americans need?

The seemingly potty-trained backdrop audience who clapped like trained seals seemed very well trained. One thing he’s right about, though: training is definitely necessary if Obama wants people to cheer when he talks about job creation in a state with 7.9% unemployment.

Other than those sorts of things, Americans probably could be better ‘trained’ to be more obedient and less questioning.  How about government-funded tutoring programs that “train” Americans to ignore the truth and simply swallow lies?

Even better, how about some sort of presidential commission to brainwash, er…train Americans to ignore what happened in Benghazi, forget about the IRS scandal, and praise Obamacare, even if they’re among the unfortunate six million who lost their health insurance?

How about ‘training’ Americans to embrace the prospect of all-encompassing NSA spying, applaud drone strikes on American citizens, enthusiastically relinquish our sovereignty, and give up our Second Amendment rights while arming drug cartels?

There needs to be an indoctrination program that can train Americans to think it’s a great idea to leave the borders open, use tax dollars to finance the first lady’s vacations, and fund the slaughter of the unborn.

Yes – more training for stuff like that.

Barack Obama has made it quite clear that, from where he sits, he and his cohort of trainers “need to train more Americans.”

The problem is, Obama wants to train “We the People” to be LESS American and be MORE Socialist, and a problematic document called the Constitution may get in the way.

 

Barack Obama Celebrates the Slaughter of 55 Million Americans

55 million

Originally posted at The Blacksphere

Today marks the 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade: 41 years over which 55 million human beings have been systematically slaughtered.

And on this infamous occasion, Barack Obama, abortion’s most ardent advocate, had a few words to say in favor of disposing of 3,000 American babies a day.

Here’s the president’s full statement:

Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health.

We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom. And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children.

Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.

And THIS from the man who has severely impacted the right of Americans to exercise choice in every area besides abortion.

Just like his definition for ‘Hope and Change’ is nothing of the sort, his definition for health is Baby-killing.

While access to healthcare is slowly being frittered away, Barack Obama is doubling down on his commitment to ensure access to abortion. Moreover, as he circumvents the fidelity of the US Constitution, he exploits the right to privacy, which has nothing to do with destroying the unborn, just to give credibility to bad law.

Then, like an executioner pretending to have a vested interest in the living, the president “resolves to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies” with taxpayer dollars. In addition, he vows to “support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children.”

Translation: Push free contraception and deny Second Amendment rights.

Why?

Because according to Barack Obama, ” this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams” — as long as the freedoms and opportunities are controlled by Government Central.

And as long as the dreams yet to be fulfilled don’t belong to the unborn.

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.

%d bloggers like this: