Obama’s Tears fall Hollow

President Barack Obama took to the airwaves, with tears in his eyes, and declared his intent to make buying or owning a firearm more difficult. His words, and tears, are political theater, designed to elicit emotional support for an issue that he’s been pushing for quite some time: gun control.

“Every single year, more than 30,000 Americans have their lives cut short by guns. Thirty thousand. Suicides, domestic violence, gang shootouts, accidents. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost brothers and sisters or buried their own children…

“No matter how many times people try to twist my words around, I taught constitutional law, I know a little bit about this. I get it, but I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.

“We do not have to accept this carnage as the price of freedom,” Obama said.

He invoked children, first graders and every time he thinks of a child being killed… cue the tears.

Let’s break this down a bit.

First, I find his compassion for children just a bit disingenuous for a man who has staunchly supported abortion, up to the final trimester. Putting it into raw numbers, since he loves to tout them as justification for his actions: almost 58 million babies have lost their lives since Roe vs. Wade. Think about that: 58 million brothers, sisters, grandchildren have been killed while in utero, sucked out as if they were nothing more than garbage. And should a baby survive an abortion, President Obama would rather the baby die on a cold hard table or trash bin than have medical care provided, as exhibited by his vote against a Born Alive Act while an Illinois Senator.

I also find it disingenuous considering his town of Chicago is home to some of the most tragic violence in the nation, to include the killing of children, and yet he’s mentioned Chicago once… today… but he failed to mention that it’s not law-abiding citizens gunning down children, it is criminals who don’t give one iota about background checks or gun laws – of which Chicago is the proud city of extremely strict gun laws.

Second, the putrid hypocrisy oozing from this man is malodorous. Aside, from his only valuing life when it suits his purpose, this is the same man who time and time again has fallen over himself to ensure that we, Americans, don’t condemn Islam, touting ad naseum the idea that it’s a religion of “peace” and we shouldn’t make it more difficult for Muslims to enter the United States and we shouldn’t judge the whole because of the few. Yet, there he stands, condemning the whole because of the few when it applies to gun owners.

Third, gun violence has been on a downward trend for many years now, but let’s take his figure and apply the same standard to say, cars. The National Safety Council reported that in 2013, an estimated 35,200 people died in traffic accidents in the United States, and about 3.8 million people in car accidents required medical attention. The cause according to the report: mostly human error.

I’m certain that the people who buried their brothers, sisters, and children who died because of a car were no less hurt and heartbroken than those who buried their brothers, sisters and children who died because of a bullet.

The President’s Executive Order states doctors can now report certain mental illnesses of their patients to the federal government via the National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS). In addition, information on Social Security beneficiaries who meet the arbitrary “criteria” of “mental impairment” to include an inability to manage their own benefits will be added to the NICS and they will be prohibited from buying and owning a gun.

The President, through Executive Order, will require all persons selling guns to be a registered gun seller. That, in essence, puts an end to all private sales.

Again, let’s apply these standards to cars.

If a person is mentally unstable enough, as defined by the federal government, to own a gun, why are they permitted to drive, especially considering there are more car deaths than gun deaths. Also, because there are more deaths due to car accidents than mass shootings, why not require all car sellers to be registered dealers, meaning, no more private car sales.

Then there’s the hypocrisy that this president wants to release terrorists from Guantanamo Bay who will then most assuredly access their guns to kill people, and possibly a few Americans.

Fourth, there’s his assertion that he taught Constitutional Law and therefore, he knows “a little about this… I also believe we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.”

Well, let’s review the Second Amendment.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” PERIOD!

Each provision in his Executive Order is an infringement on that right. It doesn’t state that when the president determines too many people have died at the hands of guns, that restrictions (infringement) can be placed on American citizens. It states, “… shall not be infringed.”

And since he’s such a scholar of the Constitution, why has he circumvented Congress through this Executive Order. Why didn’t he make this impassioned argument to Congress, urging them to change the laws as required by Article I?

Remember, Article I states that Congress is to make law; Article II states that the President is to execute the law. It doesn’t state that the President gets to change laws, add to or take away, because he thinks more – or less – should be done. No, he is to execute the laws that the Legislative Branch has passed and he, or a previous president, has signed into law. That’s not what he did though, is it?

Finally, there’s his statement that “We do not have to accept this carnage as the price of freedom.”

Benjamin Franklin once said:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Which leads me to the conclusion that this President never lets the facts get in the way of a good tale… or to achieve his goal of increasing the power of the federal government, while decreasing the liberties of the American people.

As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Paper 58, “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”

Yet by way of President Obama, along with the complicity of Congress, an elective despotism is now what we have – and I don’t see that changing anytime soon, regardless of who succeeds him.

Hillary’s Lip Service to Women

As a young attorney, Hillary Clinton represented Alfred Taylor in a rape charge against a 12-year-old girl. It was definitely her duty as the selected attorney to offer a vigorous defense but the way in which she discussed how she got Taylor off is most revealing.

In audio recordings, she can be heard laughing about never trusting polygraphs again and light-heartedly discussing how the prosecutor mishandled crucial evidence in the case. Her tone, her nonchalant attitude, the airiness in her voice is void of any seriousness in which the case demands. A young girl’s life was completely destroyed by what this man did to her and while he had a right to counsel, the way Hillary recounted the case is void of any real emotion or concern for the victim. It is also telling of Hillary’s character in the way she went after the child’s character, maligning her on the stand. It wasn’t enough just to defend the man, she stooped to the sub-ground level of attacking a child who had been raped.

At a recent New Hampshire event, Hillary was asked about her recent tweet that all sexual assault survivors deserve to be believed.

“But would you say that about Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and or Paula Jones? Should we believe them as well?” a woman asked Hillary.

Hillary’s response?

“Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”

In other words: believe only when it’s convenient and dismiss when it’s not; take a stand for women when it requires nothing; but when it requires sacrifice, blame the victim.

Evidence of Bill using his position of power for decades to have sex with women abounds, whether they were willing participants such as Monica Lewinsky or not, such as Juanita Broaddrick, who recounted Bill’s flippant remark about icing her gnawed lip after he was done.

It was and has been reported that during the Monica Lewinsky affair, when Bill’s other conquests came out, Hillary went on a warpath, doing everything in her power to eviscerate the women who accused Bill. Blaming them and then blaming it all on some “right-wing conspiracy.”

When Donald Trump recently mentioned that he will go after Bill should Hillary send him out on the campaign trail, the media jumped on the bandwagon of defense for Bill and Hillary. First with stating a candidate’s spouse is off limits and then attempting to downplay the fact that Bill is indeed a man who abused his power to get in the pants of whomever he wanted, with Hillary standing by her man.

CNN anchor Deborah Feyerick began a segment on this topic with,
“First of all, can we set the record straight? Is Bill Clinton sexist or does he simply like women?”

Following that “it’s no big deal” question with, “He had some very high powered women in his cabinet. Everybody from Ruth Bader Ginsburg… Attorney General Janet Reno, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright… So is he sexist? Is that a fair criticism?”

As if having Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, or Janet Reno as the Attorney General and Madeleine Albright as Secretary of State meant he wasn’t a womanizer. Besides, these women didn’t exactly fit the profile of the women Bill sexually sought out.

But it’s a double standard that has been applied since the Clintons burst on the national stage of politics. Dismiss and justify what they do; destroy the victims and Republicans.

Remember during the 2012 election when Mitt Romney was skewered because he stated he had a book full of women he could use to fill cabinet positions?

Remember when Todd Akins, a Republican Senate candidate, was forced to resign because he made a comment about “legitimate rape?”

Remember in 1998 when former Time contributor and White House correspondent Nina Burleigh said, “I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

Well it seems back then there was at least one woman who donned her kneepads to pleasure Bill. A young intern who was publicly humiliated by Hillary, calling her a narcissistic loony toon.

And while Monica was willing, there were far more who weren’t.

Then there is her term as Secretary of State while her husband was the face of their foundation: The Clinton Foundation. While Hillary was supposedly chastising Middle East countries for their lack of rights afforded to women, she and her husband were accepting millions of dollars on the back end from these same countries: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Algeria and Brunei.

She supports women so much that she didn’t ask that Chelsea Clinton work hard to garner that coveted $600,000 annual contract at NBC. How many women were passed over for a Clinton who had no experience in the field of journalism and according to reports, didn’t produce any news worthy pieces?

Of course these are just normal dealings for the Clintons and the media is happy to play along to ensure the first woman, or more clearly, the first Democrat woman gets elected as U.S. President.

So I suppose Hillary does stand for two women: herself and Chelsea.

The rest of us… not so much, because the Clinton’s – especially Hillary’s – dealings with women is how I know she is not serious about women’s issues, especially sexual assault. The media’s and the liberal establishment’s responses are also how I know the two groups aren’t particularly concerned with women’s issues either. It seems the only time they express concern is when they can bash Republican men or women, meaning, the same standard isn’t applied to those within their own ideological sphere – and this is how I know they aren’t concerned at all.

We are just pawns to be used to ensure her coronation. Nothing more.

And then there’s her wonderful love of the military… but that’s a topic for another musing.

Symbols matter… or so they say

Now that the New Orleans City Council has voted to remove statues of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, with the support of Mayor Mitch Landrieu, it is time these leaders ask themselves if the same standard will be applied to other institutions.

As reported in the Louisiana Weekly, during the meeting held to discuss removing the statues of Lee and Jefferson, it was stated that the time has come to remove the symbols of hate and slavery. On that note, the meeting ended with activist Pat Bryant leading the audience in a rendition of “Oh Freedom,” with his final words being, “And before I’d be a slave, I’ll be buried in my grave.”

According to http://www.nola.com, Mayor Landrieu stated “Symbols really do matter. Symbols should reflect who we really are as a people.”

Located at 2701 General Pershing St is the Women’s Health Care Center which provides, “Expert, Confidential and Respectful abortion care.”

What’s respectful about a medical procedure that ends the live of a baby in utero, I don’t know.

Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States was founded by Margaret Sanger, a symbol of birth control and abortion.
Will these institutions, or symbols, likewise be removed in New Orleans or Louisiana?

If Mr. Byrant and Mayor Landrieu applied these same principles to other institutions, they would begin their fight to end every abortion that eradicates the lives of Black babies.

In 2010, Black Americans accounted for 12.6% of the U.S. population, yet Black American women accounted for 35.4% of all abortions; four times the number of abortions for white women. More Planned Parenthood or abortion clinics exist in low-income Black neighborhoods than any other group of American neighborhoods. Why is this? Why do leaders such as Mr. Byrant and the New Orleans City Council and the Mayor turn a blind eye to a monstrosity that is far greater than two statues? Why not is the Black community in an uproar over the slaughter of their babies while those infants are in their most helpless state, in utero?

Margaret Sanger, a white woman and the founder of Planned Parenthood envisioned birth control and legalized abortion as means to eliminate society’s unwanted: the poor, the illiterate, the minority, i.e. Black child. Her ideas were framed as a way to help women plan their families and to discard those children who didn’t quite fit into that narrative or plan.

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race,” Sanger wrote in 1922.

What was she speaking of when she wrote and spoke of a “cleaner race?” It surely wasn’t in reference to the elite and rich white members of society. Again, it was her definition of undesirables she wanted applied to society: the poor, the illiterate, the Black child; as if these qualities meant the poor person, the illiterate person, the Black person was of lesser value than her white counterparts.

In a letter to Dr. Gamble, she wrote that Black pastors should be recruited to help educate Black women about birth control and abortion, but they needed to be careful to not allow their true intent to be known.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

It’s been argued that Sanger wasn’t speaking of exterminating Black children but rather offering birth control to Black women and that they (Sanger and company) would be accused of doing exactly what she stated should not get out. It might be a credible argument if it weren’t for the fact that she also said,

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

While history is set to be removed from New Orleans under the guise of not having statues (“symbols”) that depict “racist” individuals such as Lee and Jackson, the silence is deafening as Black babies are killed in utero.

Why this silence of the biggest killer of Black children?

President Barack Obama is on record as being one of the staunchest supporters for abortions, even late term abortions. He voted against a Born Alive Act while in the Illinois Senate that would require doctors to provide medical care to babies who survive an abortion because it would be too inconvenient for the doctor.

Does he know the history of this “evil” he supports? Or does he just not care?

Why do other prominent Black leaders, elected or otherwise, not decry the slaughter that is happening to their very own? Why is a statue of Robert E. Lee more offensive than the killing of thousands of Black babies? Why are people more concerned with perceived past visages of racism than they are about the overt racism that exists in their very neighborhoods?

“I’m not signing that **** thing!”

I have chosen to write about party politics for my first post because it is something I have been spending a lot of time pondering these last few months.

Before I begin, I must write, in full disclosure, that I am a registered Republican. So… for those who wish to stop reading now because of that, I would challenge you to read on… as you might just find yourself pondering party politics as well.

This past year, I ran for county commissioner. For those who do not know the process, in Florida, a candidate can pay a filing fee or get a set number of petitions signed. The petition method is one many candidate choose; it requires a registered voter in the district or area to print their name, enter their date of birth or voter registration number, address, signature and date. It is nonpartisan as the only requirement is the person completing the petition be a registered voter in the district or area – in my case, it was Santa Rosa County.

So away I went, attending events and going door-to-door to get petitions signed.

One Saturday morning, I walked a small neighborhood and came to a nice house. Before I could push the door bell, a man of about 55 answered the door. This startled me and the man laughed when he saw my expression.

“I saw you walk up,” he said.

I thought this was a good start since he seemed to be in a good mood. I laughed and began my introduction.

“Hi, my name is Yvonne Harper and I’m running for District 4 County Commissioner and if you are a registered voter, would you sign a petition for me. It’s doesn’t mean you will vote for me, only that my name can be put on the ballot.”

“Are you a Republican?” he asked.

“Yes, I am,” I replied.

“You’re a liar!” he harshly said.

At that moment I was taken aback because we had never met. I knew nothing of him and he knew nothing of me, yet there he stood, calling me a liar.

“No, I’m not,” I offered.

“You’re a Republican and you’re all liars,” he shot back.

“Well, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I do not lie,” said I.

This did not nothing to assuage his passion and he stated, with conviction, that the most liberal person ever wrote the Constitution. I could tell this conversation was going to get interesting and as I love discussing America’s Founding Fathers, I thought that maybe there was hope for this conversation and the dialogue would be one of exchanging ideas. I replied, “And who would that be?”

“James Madison,” he said, as if I was the biggest idiot on the planet.

I can never resist correcting people who think this, so I calmly stated, “James Madison did not write the Constitution as there were 55 men at the Constitutional Convention. He drafted it because he was the Secretary and kept impeccable notes. However, he wasn’t the only one with input. Also, Gouverneur Morris wrote the preamble.”

“No! James Madison wrote it and he was a liberal!,” he said.

Trying to get on the same page, I asked him to explain what he meant by “liberal” and he replied that Madison favored a big federal government.

“Well, actually, according to the Federalist Papers, of which he wrote many, (“I know, I’ve read them,” he interjected) then you know while he favored a stronger federal government, he believed it should be limited in scope and nature and that it would rely on the people, not that the people would rely on the government. And this is what I believe. I believe government should be limited and first and foremost exists to protect our liberties.”

To this he replied that I didn’t know what I was talking about and then he began a tirade about how evil Republicans are and how corrupt they are in Washington. I attempted to tell him that as county commissioner, I would not be responsible for federal law and that is as far as I got, because at that point, my husband walked up and he spat out,

“I’m not signing that damn thing!”

With that he walked into his house and slammed the door.

Well, so much for that, I thought.

Now before you get too upset, it must be noted that there were many people whose first question was, “Are you a Republican? Because if you’re not, I’m not signing it.”

Over the months, leading up to the Primary, I was blessed to meet many wonderful people, but sadly, many considered my party affiliation over more important matters, such as the kind of person I am, what I believed or what I thought was important for the county.

After the primary, I found that I could not support the winner. For those who do not know, Florida has a closed primary system, meaning only registered Republicans could vote for the six Republican candidates. Now if anyone other than the the winner had won, I could’ve supported the candidate, but I couldn’t not support the winner. The reasons at this point are not relevant.

Well, because I believe in standing for what is right and supporting the best candidate, I supported the Libertarian candidate for the General Election. Again, another conversation took place that left me wondering just what country I lived in.

At a Republican meeting, I was told by a woman, “If you can’t vote for the Republican candidate, then don’t vote.”

Not sure if I correctly heard her, I asked, “So what you’re telling me is that if I can’t vote for the Republican, I should not vote at all?”

“Yes,” she said, without the slightest hesitation.

I stood there, stunned into silence – which at that time was a good thing – that I would be told not to vote if I couldn’t vote “Republican.” It didn’t matter that the Libertarian candidate was ethical and had  a history of working hard and holding local government officials accountable – all that matter was she wasn’t a Republican.

Fast forward to election day. As I stood outside one of the polls supporting another candidate, several voters came out and asked me about the candidate whose shirt I wore.

Having to remind myself that I was representing this great candidate, I told them about her. In my head I was thinking, “What?!? Are you kidding?!? You just voted – what difference does it make now?”

However, I kept it professional and after telling the person about the candidate, I asked, “So who did you vote for?”

“I don’t know, I voted straight Republican.”

Wow!!! In other words, the voters who said this didn’t know who they voted for, they merely looked at party affiliation and voted accordingly. Now, before you think, “Yeah, just like a Republican,” unfortunately this happens in both parties. The one deciding factor when it comes to voting for a person, the one that tops all others, is party affiliation.

My next post will attempt to explain why this way of voting is bad for our country, but for now, I will leave you with words from a man who understood human nature and warned against dividing ourselves into party.

“Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally…

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind. It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controuled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; And sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

…the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it…

It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection…

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.”

– George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Until next post… happy thinking.