14 May 2013
Twenty six people were killed by a madman at the Sandy Hook School. The media was all over the story. The response from liberals: Ignore the Constitution which explicitly states that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the people. Instead, ban all firearms. Keep a list of every gun bought and sold, even gifts from parent to child, and do everything possible to disarm law-abiding citizens, all in the name of protecting innocent lives. After all, if everyone is allowed to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, deaths will follow. Criminals don’t kill people, guns kill people. Legislate guns out of existence (except those in the hands of the government). Laws making gun crimes punishable by stiff jail terms won’t do, the Liberals cried. We have to stop people from getting their hands on guns.
Kermit Gosnell, MD, a physician in West Philadelphia murdered 3 innocent babies, whose only offense was to survive botched late term abortions. In the United States, over a million innocent babies are killed by abortionists each year. Until Fox News raised the question of why the trial was not being covered, the media was silent and the screens dark. Abortion rights groups also contend the problems at Gosnell’s clinic reflected a lack of enforcement, not a lack of regulation. A few deaths are a small price to pay to protect the "constitutional right" to abortion on demand.
“There were regulations on the books over there,” Eric Ferrero, vice president for communications for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said recently. “Pennsylvania officials should have enforced those regulations better. But when you’re talking about someone who’s a criminal, you’re talking about someone who’s going to break laws.”
In other words, don’t outlaw abortions. Just go after the folks who do their killing in a sloppy way. And by the way, the "constitutional right" to abortion is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. Can you spell “double standard.”
“The [squad leader, platoon commander, Company Commander, Battalion Commander, Regimental Commander, Commanding General] is responsible for everything his unit does or fails to do.” FMFM6-1, et seq. This sentence is identical in the Fleet Marine Force Manual series on the role of the units which make up a Marine Division. That is why command is so exciting and professionally rewarding. With the absolute authority of command comes the absolute responsibility for the commander’s decisions and leadership. Unless, apparently, you are the President and Commander-in-Chief.
The Obama White House is famous for insisting that anything good that happens on his watch be credited to him alone. Good news may not be announced by the departments and agencies; it must come from the President.
“What about bad news,” you say? That’s another story. The last seven days have not been fun for the President and the Nation.
First, last fall, it was impossible to escape hearing the President’s campaign claim that he was responsible for getting Osama bin Laden and getting rid of Moammar Ghaddafi and protecting American soil from terrorist attacks. That’s fine—he was President when it happened and he is responsible for everything that happens on his watch.
Then came Benghazi. The airwaves were full of claims that the attack came out of nowhere, with no advance warning, and all due to some fifth rate con man (I apologize to other fifth rate con men, but I had to pick a number) who made a “movie” that displeased Muslim fanatics. The attack was so sudden that nothing could have been done to save our people. And it simply wasn’t an attack by terrorists.
Now we learn that bad news was covered up. Why? In the midst of a heated campaign, State (“the leadership in my buildings”) needed to cover, so as not to embarrass the President. One of Secretary Clinton’s hatchet women insisted that the CIA not give a true accounting of the background of the attack, including the fact that the warning signs were there that real live, honest-to-god terrorists were planning to do us harm on the tenth anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and Washington did nothing before the attack to beef up security. Then, during the attack, our guys were hung out to dry.
Next, we learned that the IRS, the outfit that will be a lead agency in implementing Obamacare (which is a tax) of which the President is so proud, intentionally targeted conservative political action groups, delaying their applications for tax-free status and actually demanding to see their membership lists. You know this is bad when top-level Democrats are appalled. They have donor lists, too. But the President says, “if” it happened, he will look into it. Not his fault. The White House had no clue it was happening (except the White House Counsel’s office, we now learn).
Finally, we learn that the Department of Justice executed an unprecedented collection of information about two-month’s-worth of telephone records of the Associated Press and many of its employees. Why? To discover sources who leaked information that the White House did not want leaked. (As opposed to information that the White House wanted to leak, an old and bi-partisan practice in Washington.) Seems the current administration has an equal lack of respect for both the first and the second amendments.
So, where does this lead us? I suggest that this administration is just what it wanted to be. It took a liberal agenda, shoved it down the people’s throats, used the press to cover its tracks, and then ran from its record when things went bad. The people don’t want health care to be nationalized if it costs them their current insurance and raises premiums substantially? Use the press to deny that information. Lie about it, and use the IRS to go after groups that are trying to get at and get out the truth.
Want to gut the national defense in order to fund bread and circuses (through redistribution of the wealth)? Tell everyone that the war is over, and when the enemy doesn’t get that message, cover up that inconvenient truth.
When the press does anything other than parrot your line, get them and their sources. (Disclaimer: In the past, I have wished that we could go after a “hate America first” press that often actually went out of its way to hurt our national defense. I still do, but embarrassing the President is not such a case.)
The question, then, is this. Will the American people let him once more get away with this kind of manipulation that damages our Constitution, or will they finally stand up and say “Enough!”