Wanted, dead or alive: Children for Obama to use as political pawns
It gets redundant pointing out President Obama’s hypocrisy when it comes to his concern for children.
Yesterday, in the wake of the Newtown massacre, Obama used four children as props to sign 23 executive orders to theoretically curb gun violence….
In signing his EOs Obama stated:
This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe. This is how we will be judged…. [W]hen it comes to protecting the most vulnerable among us, we must act now . . . .
Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association is being criticized for a new ad pointing out the hypocrisy of Obama and Washington elitists when it comes to protecting their own children as opposed to ours…
[youtube]http://youtu.be/zKLA3BODXr0[/youtube]
Recall Obama also used a boy as a prop when he signed Obamacare into law….
Obama has even used his daughters’ future sexual habits, along with his future theoretically aborted grandchildren, to promote comprehensive sex ed, saying in 2008…
I’ve got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.
… and to promote government funding of Planned Parenthood in 2012…
Mr. Romney wants to get rid of funding for Planned Parenthood. I think that’s a bad idea. I’ve got two daughters. I want them to control their own health care choices. We’re not going backwards, we’re going forwards.
Beyond creepy, that’s perverse.
Of course, everyone in the pro-life movement knows this is the same man who supports suctioning the brains out of half-delivered children and crushing their skulls during partial-birth abortions.
In fact, Obama supports all late-term abortions. In fact, Obama supports everything about every abortion and opposes anything about any attempt to curb it.
And should a baby survive one of those late-term abortions, Obama supports killing her, too, as Allan Favish detailed in The American Thinker, and as I well know.
Favish poignantly pointed out:
The babies who were left to die after surviving abortions, for whom Obama worked to deny protection, are in heaven along with the children who were murdered in Newtown.
The babies may be wondering why Obama’s words at the Newtown prayer vigil and today in the District of Columbia do not apply to them.
At the prayer vigil, Obama read the names of the murdered Newtown children. I don’t know how many of the babies who survived abortions and were left to die were given names. I don’t know if Obama would care.
Obama only cares for children insofar as he can exploit them for political gain. If protecting them helps, fine. And if killing them helps, fine.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
He could use Fr. Frank’s Raise your Hand from aborted baby to high five. Just a suggestion.
A more naked grab for power is hardly imaginable. No president should exploit a tragedy to make a power grab, but let’s see how the liberal minions step in or out of line.
I was disappointed when Bush rushed us into Iraq and I knew that besides being a waste of human effort, it was also a public relations disaster. But Bush didn’t have the teflon coating swabbed all over him like the media does with Obama. The same hypocrites who cried ‘assassinate Bush’ all over the internet will be the ones to lap up Obama’s dross like the little sheeple they are. The school shooting was tragic, yes, but that’s no reason to let a president dis-arm his own citizens (while continuing to provide weaponry and money to foreign groups and countries, and while continuing to promote abortion with our tax dollars domestically and worldwide).
The way he uses children as props IS gag-worthy.
How long will you keep swabbing your little emperor in telfon, oh media minions?
phillymiss, you are correct “he has never visited the parents of murdered children in the hood nor even addressed it” What hypocrisy. Only white-black violence (Trayvon Martin) and Aurora CO. Newtown, CT violence need be addressed, they make better political photo ops. His buddy Rahm Emmanuel is in a city that has one of the worst murder rates in the nation along with some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Like his friend Rahm said “never let a crisis go to waste”. I am not at all minimizing the pain of the families involved in the tragedies in CO., CT. and Trayvon’s family.
[W]hen it comes to protecting the most vulnerable among us, we must act now
In the parallel universe of Obamathink the Orwellian doublespeak never ceases to amaze. The MSM are the problem, almost more so than Obama in that they cower like the frightened school children Obama employed as props. They never ask a tough question of him and point out the glaring inconsistencies in his statements and past positions when compared to now.
If Obama and the Dems don’t want to be called hypocrites on the gun issue, then they should not have double standards. If Obama’s kids are important enough to deserve armed protection, so are everybody else’s. If he is important enough to deserve armed protection, then so are people in Chicago and Detroit and Philadelphia and Atlanta and everywhere freaking else. If he doesn’t like being called hypocritical, he should stop being a hypocrite.
Shame on the parents for LETTING him use their children!
@phillymiss
What are you talking about? Chicago has strict gun control, there is no violence there.
So the only choice for guns goes to the criminals, who will find a way to arm themselves no matter what.
Don’t you love the left!
Choice for better schools- no
Choice for an amed citenzenry that can defend themselves- no
Choice for surgical dismemberment of little girl and boy fetuses- absolutely!!
It’s backwards land- esp here in my home state of CA. Sorry, fellow Americans, for the lunacy that comes from CA.
Jill Stanek, your incessant hammering at Obama is unfair. I’m no Obama idolator by any means but you have and are treating him very unfairly. Of course, Obama cares about children. As the father of female children, he has a certain special protectiveness of teen girls and young women because our sex is vulnerable to traumas that are — tragically — associated with pregnancy. I hope for a world in which the only females who get pregnant are those who welcome the pregnancy but the fact is that pregnancy is often feared. You might say, “It should never be feared.” The fact is that it is. Dealing with pregnancy related anxiety and trauma is something that concerns all decent people — including Obama.
I watched a documentary about young women who had thrown babies in trash cans. One had a mother who was unable to care for her due to health issues (IIRC in part drug abuse). She was in the custody of her grandparents. Her grandmother had told the girl as she was growing, “Don’t come home with any babies!”
When this young lady had her baby, she put the girl in a nearby trash can. Luckily, someone heard the baby crying and the life was saved. The young woman is now a mother raising her daughter.
An expert said, “These young women put throw babies away because that is what they believe their families will do to them for having babies.”
A woman who had an abortion when it was illegal said the question of adoption was “quite irrelevant” because “I just wasn’t going to complete the pregnancy.”
You might believe no one should ever fear pregnancy — but they do.
You might believe no one should ever reject pregnancy — but they do.
We don’t live in the best of all possible worlds. In the world we live in, issues around pregnancy are both confused and tormenting.
No one has all the answers but it is completely unfair to suggest that Obama does not care about children. Of course he does.
Mary Ann, there already is school choice–the debate is whether taxpayers will fund private schools through vouchers via property or sales taxes. Should taxpayers fund a Cadillac for me because I can only afford a Kia?
Denise, I don’t call someone who thinks its okay to put a baby who survives her abortion in a utility closet and let her die a “decent person.” And this guy uses his lovely daughters to shill for Planned Parenthood, which is truly sickening.
Liberals care less about pre-born children than children after they are born.
Conservatives care less about children after they are born than pre-born children.
So there – seems equal!
Having observed the comments about ‘obama’s hypocrisy’ demonstrated here since the Newtown massacre, I can only conclude that if talking to the parents of the victims, some of you would declare their grief to be “well, just that little bit less than the others” if they were pro-choice and “well, your grief is obviously bogus” if they had actually had an abortion in the past.
The children with obama are children who wrote to him asking him to do something about gun control.
Well said Ex-GOP! I know which position makes more sense.
Liberals couldn’t care less about un-born children or children after they are born.
Conservatives are nurturers of children from conception to adulthood.
If liberals cared about unborn children they would not rally in support of the choice to kill unborn children. If liberals cared about children after they were born then they would not support our government deficit spending our children’s futures away so they can personally live like heathen; fat on cronyism and entitlements and pensions.
Give a liberal a choice between stimulus and denying themselves anything and they will ALWAYS choose a little stimulus.
Ex-RINO says: June 10, 2012 at 11:08 pm “For the record, I have three kids, my wife and I would never ever have considered an abortion, and I’m against it as I equate it to murder.”
Ex-RINO says: June 11, 2012 at 7:56 am“…at the end of the day, I’m more likely than not to vote democrRAT…”
Ex-RINO says September 6, 2012 at 8:41pm “I’ve actually started to seriously think about not voting this election.”
Ex-RINO says September 9, 2012 at 8:27pm “I’ve far from decided what I’m going to do this election… I can’t vote for Romney. But beyond that, I’m still deciding.”
Ex-RINO says: January 5, 2013 at 12:58pm “I think all kindergarten classes, by order of the state, should have a day in which they go see a live birth, go view an abortion, go to a funeral home and watch some prep work, and watch live sex in action.”
Ex-RINO says: June 10, 2012 at 11:08 pm “For the record, I have three kids, my wife and I would never ever have considered an abortion, and I’m against it as I equate it to murder.”
Ex-RINO says: January 5, 2013 at 12:58pm “I think all kindergarten classes, by order of the state, should have a day in which they go see a live birth, go view an abortion, go to a funeral home and watch some prep work, and watch live sex in action.”
Ex-RINO says: January 17, 2013 at 7:02pm “Liberals care less about pre-born children than children after they are born. Conservatives care less about children after they are born than pre-born children. So there – seems equal! “
This conservative categorically rejects your premise. But keep looking in the mirror an reciting this bit of inanity if bolsters your delusion.
The ‘props’ that were missing from the obamateurs fantasy were the families of the dead soldiers and wounded soldiers who survived Nadal Hassans rampage at Killen, Texas. Though they were trained in the use of the weapons money can buy schoole in the tactics of urban warfare, they fared no better than kindergarteners at Sandy Hook Elementary when they were confronted with an armed Jew hating jihadist in a ‘gun free zone’.
The Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder provided funds for criminals to purchase weapons that would be banned under mr. bo-jangles assaut on the second ammendment and then watched as they were smuggled into Mexico where they were used to kill inocent people and then the guns were smuggled back across they border into the USA where they were used to kill Border Patrol agents.
United States Marines who are tasked with guarding our embassies are forced to stand their watch with assault rifles with empty magazines.
This is the kind of leadership you get when you vote with your lady parts.
Ex-GOP says:
Conservatives care less about children after they are born than pre-born children.
Proof? And I sure hope you don’t bring political parties into it. All conservatives are not Republicans, nor can a person’s level of caring be determined by their economic policy.
Lrning –
If 100 conservatives are given the option on either cutting $10 from education, food stamp programs that are shown to impact children heavily, or health care programs for kids – or increase taxes $10 on the rich – 99 of those conservatives will cut.
“nurturers of children”
Seriously truth? Did you write that with a straight face?
1) show me the poll
2) true caring is not shown primarily through government policies
http://www.infowars.com/other-tyrants-who-have-used-children-as-props/
“This is the kind of leadership you get when you vote with your lady parts” – what category of offensive are you aiming for here? Or are you aiming for more than one?
Lrning – there’s no ‘poll’, and it is silly to suggest that there would be.
Take a look at some votes though – follow some budget battles. You’ll see where the priorities lie.
And I agree – there are individual conservatives that don’t fit the mold of political conservatives.
Reality says:
“This is the kind of leadership you get when you vote with your lady parts” – what category of offensive are you aiming for here? Or are you aiming for more than one?
It’s a reference to an Obama campaign message that said “Vote like your lady parts depend on it”. And yes, it was offensive.
Ex-GOP says: You’ll see where the priorities lie.
Yeah, I figured you wouldn’t be able to envision that very caring people can differ from you when it comes to government fiscal policy. There is no doubt that politicians disagree on what the priorities of the federal government should be. Belief in the principle of subsidiarity does not mean someone is uncaring.
So, according to the logic displayed on this blog:
Legal restrictions = effective at curbing abortion rates.
Legal restrictions = ineffective at curbing rates of gun violence.
Public healthcare option = waste of taxpayer money.
Militarization of public schools = excellent use of taxpayer money.
Abortion-seeking women = mindless, manipulable idiots.
Contraception-using women = cunning, selfish monsters.
This would be great material for an LSAT problem.
Ah, thanks Lrning, now that I see it in context it makes sense.
The campaign message makes sense because under the GOP, ladies parts are under threat.
And ken’s statement made sense as well because any woman who valued her lady parts wouldn’t vote GOP.
So, not so offensive but quite accurate.
Lrning -
I simply disagree with that. If the government has $1 million dollars to either spend on a tank, or feeding kids, whatever they pick is where they are placing their priorities.
If you look at somebody’s checkbook, you’ll be able to tell their priorities. Same thing for the government.
Another politician and a child-prop:
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=21563
Uh, that’s her own child Blue Velvet.
Those aren’t Obama’s kids in the picture above. At least not that he knows of anyway. He only admits to being punished with two kids.
Blue Velvet –
I agree with much of your 9:01 post – but yeah, the Palin thing is different.
Bush did sign no-child left behind, and other bills, with kids around him.
I’m sure that was different though, somehow.
Ex-GOP says: If the government has $1 million dollars to either spend on a tank, or feeding kids, whatever they pick is where they are placing their priorities.
Sure. It can’t possibly have anything to do with differing views on the role of government and a belief that subsidiarity is a superior principle. If a federal politician chooses to spend tax dollars on national security instead of feeding children, they are automatically uncaring. And if that same politician donates $1 million of their own dollars on feeding those kids, nope, that doesn’t count. Caring can only be determined by a person’s votes on government fiscal policy. Got it.
“He only admits to being punished with two kids.” – can you provide any – valid - supporting evidence for this statement? Or does it also fall into the ‘ludicrously extreme and outlandish claims’ area of your cv?
Lrning-
There’s no reason to put words in my mouth – we’re having a civil conversation here.
I never said that a person who gives of their money is uncaring.
You and I both know though that if somebody came out tomorrow saying that they wanted to cut defense spending, people would freak out that they didn’t care about defense. If somebody said they wanted to cut spending for adoption programs (which Obama did), people would freak out and say he didn’t care about adoption programs (which people did). And you can spin it however you want, but when politicians say they can’t raise taxes, but must instead cut health care, food programs, and education, that says something about their priorities.
Everyone,
The Newtown massacre was a gift thrown into Obama’s lap. I saw what it was from the first crocodile tear to the bouncing of cute little white kids on his knees and comforting their parents to the presence children as he issues his imperial edicts; Master manipulation.
phillymiss, the complete disregard for black and Latino schoolchildren who are gunned down by gangs is obvious, they don’t serve Obama’s agenda. Much like women who die of legal abortion. The little white kids gunned down by a deranged shooter in Newtown do, and Obama was going to go through whatever actions and “emotions” necessary to serve his goal: Gun control. He has no more concern for the white children of Newtown than he does the black children of Chicago. Its who is better going to serve his purpose.
People saw tears and heard flowery words, I saw Obama rubbing his hands together with glee.
Obama has made his disdain known for people of faith and who own guns, I believe he called them “bitter clingers”. I’ve often wondered if the HHS mandate was his way of sticking it to people he despises. Maybe his EOs on guns are another. But then, a dictator wannabe is a lot of things, but stupid doesn’t head the list. To get people under control they must be disarmed. Oh and it must be gradual, for their “own good” and for “the children”.
Folks, these children are just another attempt at manipulation and emotional appeal, nothing more.
BTW, that “boy” with Obama as he signs Obamacare into law is a grown man who’s growth was stunted by kidney disease.
But Praxades 9:17PM
Which ones would look like him if he had another daughter or son?
Ex-GOP says: when politicians say they can’t raise taxes, but must instead cut health care, food programs, and education, that says something about their priorities.
So you deny that it might be saying they do not believe “health care, food programs, and education” should be the function of the federal government, yes? You deny that it might be a statement of their view of the function of the federal government and not about a lack of caring, yes?
Ex-GOP says: Conservatives care less about children after they are born than pre-born children.
You believe that you can tell a level of a person’s caring by their position on government fiscal policy alone, yes? How else could you say this about conservatives? You are aware that conservatives give more to charity, yet you think they care less about children because of how they vote on the federal budget, yes?
Lrning –
Have you seen a politician cut ALL funding for food stamps or education or other social programs as a matter of principle? Maybe if that was the case, it would backup your theory. I haven’t seen that – what I do see is that they say ‘we can’t raise taxes on anybody else more, so we’ll cut this to less funding’. Again, I’ve never seen it based on principle – maybe it has happened – I just haven’t seen it.
This blog seems to boil down one’s view on pre-born children simply based on one’s political position – so why are you hammering me for doing the same for those after they were born?
I’m just making a basic observation. I think it is a huge black eye on the left their position on aboriton – I think it is wrong. I also think the priorities of the right are misguided and is a black eye as well.
One last thing – there’s a newer study from MIT that says charitible giving is pretty equal among the two groups – Margolis and Sances did the research if you want to look it up.
Lovely little dribble of conspiracy theories and twisted logic Mary.
Are you referring to this – http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_was_the_young_boy_standing_with_Barack_Obama_when_he_signed_the_health_care_bill
what I do see is that they say ‘we can’t raise taxes on anybody else more, so we’ll cut this to less funding’.
Subsidiarity. National defense doesn’t lend itself to this principle. Food, education, and social programs do.
Look, when it comes to children – American adults are hypocritical, period. Children are more likely to thrive in homes where they are being raised by their biological mother and father who have made a lifelong commitment to each other. Yet we treat marriage like it is some sort of public statement by two adults that they love each other, instead of recognizing marriage for being the institution which honors a child’s right to know and be cared for by his or her mother and father.
We say we love our children but we insist that our government provide entitlement programs that we are not willing to pay for, personally – preferring to shift the burden onto future generations.
And we treat children like a commodity – we will purchase one when we choose and if we don’t like what we get, we will discard “it”.
Reality,
LOL. I tell it like I see it, not really any conspiracy, just good observation.
Concerning Gary Coleman, I stand corrected. I guess Obama was using a child for a prop after all.
Lrning – again, I could support that theory if there seemed to be the purpose – if people said “hey, we’re going to cut this program back, but give funds to that lower level - or even coordinate resources”.
But all I’m seeing is dumps. Let’s just dump this and let somebody else deal with it.
Hey, if you are convinced that conservatives care more about people, then that’s great. I’m sure you saw the polls though regarding the last election and which side people felt cared for the more – that perception is certainly out there.
LOL,
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-names-8-citizens-highlight-successes-040100625–politics.html
It figures! I bet he looked long and hard to find them too!
“hey, we’re going to cut this program back, but give funds to that lower level - or even coordinate resources”
Subsidiarity doesn’t involve funding and coordination at the federal level. I don’t know what motivates any given politician, but when I read the Republican platform I see glimpses of subsidiarity in many places. I’m not convinced that conservatives care more about people, it’s you that’s convinced they care less. And, sorry, I haven’t seen the polls you’re talking about. I don’t care much for polls.
Come on Reality,
Even you have to admit Obama wasted no time between the deaths of those children and issuing his EOs. He has yet to go to Chicago and express any sympathy to the parents of murdered black and Latino children, and bounce any black and latino children on his knees.
“I tell it like I see it, not really any conspiracy, just good observation.” – well I think that needs to be called into question since “Concerning Gary Coleman, I stand corrected” is still wrong :-)
“I guess Obama was using a child for a prop after all” – hm, and what are those short statured people I see when the self-appointed, anti-choice vigilantes are blocking people from going about their business?
Reality,
I was just agreeing with you, he was using a child as a prop after all. I have certainly seen celebrities(Susan Sarandon, Sally Field) bring their children to PA demonstrations and rallies… because they are mothers. Their words not mine.
Now tell me Reality, do you think Obama wasted much time between the deaths of those children and signing his EOs. Geez, you’d almost think he was rarin’ to go from day 1. Also, do you know of his visiting Chicago when black and Latino children have been gunned down to console their families? Has he given any speeches or shed any tears on their behalf?
“Now tell me Reality, do you think Obama wasted much time between the deaths of those children and signing his EOs” – I do. He should have acted sooner. He’s still allowing everyone (apart from identified crazies) to have guns. But why anyone needs a military style armament with high capacity magazine is very suspicious.
“Also, do you know of his visiting Chicago when black and Latino children have been gunned down to console their families?” – I don’t know actually. Maybe he was busy trying to get something done about gun controls?
“Has he given any speeches or shed any tears on their behalf?” – was there a mass shooting? Was he busy talking and shedding a tear over the numerous similar events that take place every day? Did the nation mourn? Was there an article about it (or two or three) on this site? How would you and others here have acted if he had? Would it have been another round of ‘hypocrisy, hypocrisy!’?
Reality,
By sooner do you mean when black and Latino children were being gunned down?
http://aareports.com/2012/12/where-were-calls-for-en-black-and.html
Apparently I’m not alone in my observations.
Now come on Reality, there is a double standard, right? Murdered black and Latino children are crime stats, murdered upper class white children generate a greater emotional response and thus better serve Obama’s agenda. He wastes no time issuing his EOs. Of course he had to go through the motions first, you know the tears, visiting parents, etc. All the better to keep the momentum going. Hardly any conspiracy theory on my part.
But wait, I always give credit where its due, Obama did see fit to mention children killed on Chicago street corners.
“there is a double standard, right?” – wrong. It’s not just black and latino kids who are murdered on a regular and ongoing basis.
Newtown didn’t provoke the response it did because the kids were white and middle class. It provoked the response it did because 20 young children and 6 teachers were shot in a school.
How many people are killed on the roads each day? When does it cause major headlines and political responses? When a large number are killed in a bus accident, thats when.
“He wastes no time issuing his EOs. Of course he had to go through the motions first, you know the tears, visiting parents, etc. All the better to keep the momentum going. Hardly any conspiracy theory on my part.” – that is all conspiracy theory.
http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2012/08/24/28085/Who-gives-more-to-charity-Democrats-or-Republican/
““nurturers of children”
Seriously truth? Did you write that with a straight face?”
Yes, we are donating our time to CPC’s and single women with children while you are donating your time with abortuaries and Democratic campaigning. Does that make you smile?
“Newtown didn’t provoke the response it did because the kids were white and middle class. It provoked the response it did because 20 young children and 6 teachers were shot in a school.”
Not really. Caylee Anthony was only one child and she got tons of media exposure. So did that one beauty pageant girl who was murdered when I was a kid, I don’t remember her name. I can think of a lot of missing or murdered white kids who got a lot of media attention. Meanwhile, stories about missing minority kids end up ignored and don’t get the attention even nearly as much (though I do believe that if 20 of them were gunned down at once that there would be an uproar), I just think it’s weird that people blame it on Obama. It’s not like he invented the phenomenon of favoring white kids in the media.
How many people are killed on the roads each day? When does it cause major headlines and political responses? When a large number are killed in a bus accident, thats when.
Take away the buses then.
phillymiss says:
January 17, 2013 at 6:31 pm
And this guy uses his lovely daughters to shill for Planned Parenthood, which is truly sickening.
(Denise) Being the father of a female child means wanting to protect someone who is vulnerable to problem pregnancies. This is part of what it is to be a Dad to a girl-child. When she hits puberty, she takes on the possibility of getting pregnant when she isn’t ready or prepared to handle the consequences. Like all responsible and caring Dads, Obama wants his daughters protected from pregnancy before they are ready and willing to have babies.
@Lrning: I agree with you. Furthermore, I’d like to point out, cutting spending somewhere, wherever that ends up being, is the only way to get the budget in order. And I know this for a cold fact, because we’ve done the math. Raising taxes won’t do it, no matter how much Ex-GOP wishes that it would.
Reality 12:17am
Oh, so if black and latino kids are killed on a regular basis, that’s not as bad as white children being shot in their school. Who cares if black and latino children are shot walking to school, while playing with friends, or selling girl scout cookies.
Live with it Reality, Obama knew exactly how to play this tragedy to his advantage. He manipulated this whole thing masterfully. You fell for the tears and flowery prose, as did some other posters here, I didn’t for a minute.
Oh, and lest you think when I call him a dictator wannabe that I am twisting logic or inventing conspiracies.
http://stevenbirnspeaks.com/2011/03/11/obama-desires-dictatorial-powers-like-chinas-president/
Hi Jack,
Sorry, I have to disagree. Yes Caylee got a lot of attention, but I would suspect that was due more to the bizarre nature of the case. Certainly any number of children of every race, never get such coverage.
I remember complaints about the OJ Simpson case getting so much media attention because Nicole was white. Uh no folks, its because her husband was a celebrity. My mother certainly didn’t that kind of attention or concern when she was abused, but then she was only married to a white refrigeration repair guy.
No Obama didn’t invent the phenomenon of white kids getting more media attention, which I believe to some extent they do, but he has exploited this to his advantage and to further his agenda, which is gun control.
As I said Jack, from day one I never fell for the crocodile tears and flowery prose.
Proof? And I sure hope you don’t bring political parties into it. All conservatives are not Republicans, nor can a person’s level of caring be determined by their economic policy
There are plenty of prolifers like myself who are not conservative or Republican, and support programs to help the poor and needy. And according to this article, conservatives are actually more likely to give to charity than liberals:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
It’s not like he invented the phenomenon of favoring white kids in the media.
No, he didn’t, Jack. But it seems as a person of color he would be a little more sensitive. And I’m not the only person who feels this way. Read this article by Cornell West:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/cornell-west-on-sandy-hook-we-cant-just-shed-tears-for-those-on-the-vanilla-side-of-town/
His choice of the words “vanilla side of town” is unfortunate but he makes some good points.
Jack, Jonbenet Ramsey was the girl in CO. She was murdered when you were a KID?? Reality ALWAYS makes me feel smart, but you just made me feel OLD. LOL!
Lol I just googled her now, I guess she died when I was eight years old. I actually barely remember it.
Wow I shouldn’t have googled that case, it’s depressing as hell. Poor little kid.
That was another bizarre case. Shoddy police work. The parents were persecuted with a vengence. The police were convinced they were guilty. Their wealth and being white did little to spare them.
Another set of parents who were hounded mercilessly for years were those of Sabrina Rosenberg, an infant kidnapped from her parents’ Florida home during the nite. The police pursued them for years, trying every trick in the book to convict them.
My brother and Big Joe, both former cops, told me years ago that if the police determine you “have” to be guilty, they will pursue you with a vengence. Scary thought.
“so if black and latino kids are killed on a regular basis, that’s not as bad as white children being shot in their school” – I’d say you’re good at making stuff up but actually you’re not. If 20 black or latino kids had been shot in a school, or even a mix of black, latino and white kids, the reaction would have been the same. I also said “It’s not just black and latino kids who are murdered on a regular and ongoing basis.” but of course you chose to ignore that didn’t you.
“Obama knew exactly how to play this tragedy to his advantage. He manipulated this whole thing masterfully. You fell for the tears and flowery prose, as did some other posters here, I didn’t for a minute.” – yep, keep regurgitating the same lurid conspiracy theory. And thanks for the laughs from the lead conspiracy constructor you cite.
Since a few people seem interested – here is an article on the MIT study – pretty recent:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/21/study-conservatives-and-liberals-are-equally-charitable-but-they-give-to-different-charities/
Reality,
The reaction would have been the same? Did you hear about the 5 black summer school children gunned down by gangs in Detroit? It occured around the time Tiller was killed so naturally a white abortionist being killed garnered more attention. 2011-2012, 319 students were shot, 24 died in Chicago. Did you hear about them Reality? Where are white kids being gunned down like this on a “regular basis”?
Live with it. Obama exploited the situation in Newtown for his own agenda, not out of any compassion for America’s murdered schoolchildren, whatever their color.
Conspiracy theory? LOL. Yeah right. Reality, you are obviously among the many fooled by Obama.
If Obama didn’t care at all, like you claim Mary, then I think we add “actor of the year” award next to the ‘Best President of our lifetime’ award that he already has.
:-)
EGV,
Actor of the year award. Now on that we definitely agree. Maybe it should go next to his Nobel Peace Prize which he “won” for doing….what?
Still you persist in relating the tales of numerous, small number murders in various places rather than acknowledge that it was simply the size of the event which made it such headline news! I suppose what you choose to ignore fits hand in glove with your barmy conspiracy theories.
Come on, tell us what you really believe, obama arranged the massacre so he could restore his image after going around ripping fetuses from every pregnant woman he could get his hands on and so he could outlaw weapons so he could continue to do so without anyone being able to stop him. That’s how it goes isn’t it?
“319 students were shot, 24 died in Chicago. Did you hear about them Reality?” – maybe some, maybe not others.
“Where are white kids being gunned down like this on a “regular basis”?” – I dunno Mary, Did you hear about them Mary?
“Obama exploited the situation in Newtown for his own agenda, not out of any compassion for America’s murdered schoolchildren, whatever their color.” – balderdash and hogwash. Simply wishfull thinking on your behalf. Accepting that he felt the same grief as so many others just doesn’t fit your agenda.
“Conspiracy theory? LOL. Yeah right. Reality, you are obviously among the many fooled by Obama.” – no, you’re amongst a minority fooled by yourself under the influence of few leading nutjobs who paint pictures of lunacy for you.
Live with it.
Reality,
Since you are obviously unable to give an intelligent argument and are frankly beginning to babble, I think it is time to invoke Big Joe’s great words of wisdom.
Good idea Mary, you listen to “Big Joe” dear. Maybe eventually he’ll whisper in your ear that you’ve been listening to the wrong people and they’ve been putting funny ideas in your head. Maybe you could ask him why the media and the populace in general show a greater reaction to 26 people being killed in one place at one time compared to one or two at a time here and there.
Politicizing inner city violence IS a losing proposition — because the handgun’s sacrosanct.
Also, wasn’t it just last week that our president the Uncle Tom was making passes at Jeremiah Wright in the back of the annual Nation of Islam rally? And personally handing out EBT cards like candy in Detroit?
Okay that was actually funny BV. But you forgot the top of the line smart phones he is handing out to the homeless. Can’t forget the Obamaphones.
You know, I hate to say this, but I’m also not convinced we would have heard so much about this if the victims had been largely minority kids. Reality’s complaining that we’ve got apples to oranges comparisons going on with Sandy Hook versus other shootings with fewer victims, and this may be true. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t an apples to apples comparison that can be made. Missing White Woman Syndrome (the tendency to play white, female victims as more important) is so prevalent it has its own TVTropes page with numerous examples, from fiction and actual news coverage of real events. There are multiple examples on that page, but I’m going to grab just one, because it so beautifully illustrates this trend.
Not even the US Army is free of this trope. Compare the treatment of captured white Pfc. Jessica Lynch with black Spc. Shoshana Johnson. Both were captured in the same ambush, but Lynch received national media attention, a made-for-TV movie, a larger disability payment and was celebrated as a hero fighting to the last bullet. Even Lynch herself thinks she received too much exposure and accused the Army of fabricating her Hold the Line moment for good PR. Her real heroism was when she sat in front of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and, point by point, dissected the myths that had been created around her. Johnson did receive recognition and accolades, but only after this discrepancy was brought up.
SPC Lori Piestewa (Native American) was at the same attack that Lynch and Johnson were in. She was wounded and taken prisoner, but died from wounds sustained during the attack. She was the first Native American woman to die in combat while serving in the U.S. military, and received the Purple Heart. Ever heard of her? Probably only because you read or saw an interview where Lynch brought Piestewa up. She credited Piestewa with saving her life and has repeatedly named her as the “true hero” of that battle. So it was semi-averted: Piestewa did get a mountain in Phoenix, Arizona named after her, though (formerly called Squaw Peak), and her parents and children received a new home courtesy of Extreme Makeover Home Edition. And Lynch named her daughter in honor of her.
I hate that this happens, because it shouldn’t. And certainly no one wants to turn a tragedy into Oppression Olympics, or claim that it isn’t bad when white people are victims. But the media does treat white victims of tragedies as more important and I can’t help but wonder if that isn’t playing a part in the Sandy Hook coverage.
Accepting that he felt the same grief as so many others just doesn’t fit your agenda.
Obama doesn’t feel the same grief as we do for the preborn children so why would we think he would feel the same grief for postborn children?
You have never shed tears for aborted children either Reality so you don’t have the same capabilities and capacity to feel grief as we do. That is the reality of the situation.
You are merely incapable of feeling the range of emotions that we do.
Hi Alice,
Very sadly I think you are right. I find it all the more ironic that the media is for the most part liberal and who view themselves as such bastions of enlightenment and tolerance, as do most liberals.
I remember some people complained that Becky Bell’s alleged “illegal abortion” death received so much “outrage” and attention while the “legal abortion” death of Dawn Ravenell,13, who was black, received none. They attributed it to race, I attributed it to agenda. Becky’s death served an agenda, better yet that she was blond and pretty. Dawn’s was an inconvenient embarassment.
I see the same situation here. As I and others have pointed out, and sourced, the deaths of black and Latino children by gang gun violence amount to little more than crime stats. The fact that the mass shooting of white children generates far more outrage is apparent and yes, a definite double standard. However, it is a mentality Obama was able to use to his advantage to promote his agenda, and did.
Obama’s “grief” also served his agenda.
“Obama doesn’t feel the same grief as we do for the preborn children” – neither do most people.
“so why would we think he would feel the same grief for postborn children?” – so according to you over 50% of the population doesn’t really feel grief for postborn children because they don’t have your fetus fetish.
“you don’t have the same capabilities and capacity to feel grief as we do. That is the reality of the situation.” – no, that is your dreamt up asinine concept to try to attribute unreal attributes to fetuses.
“You are merely incapable of feeling the range of emotions that we do.” – such bs.
So I was obviously right on the money when I said earlier on this thread –
I can only conclude that if talking to the parents of the victims (Newtown), some of you would declare their grief to be “well, just that little bit less than the others” if they were pro-choice and “well, your grief is obviously bogus” if they had actually had an abortion in the past.
I’m right, aren’t I.
Reality,
When I was at the March for Life rally today a man and a woman pulled up and rolled down their window and shouted out their window at me “how many have you adopted”. They were obviously feeling grief because of a child they had aborted; so yes they were capable of feeling some degree of grief over the killing of unborn children. But liberals are much more capable of cold actions without conscience in order to avoid responsibility or apparent (pun intended) difficulty in their lives. Liberals do not live principled lives.
“They were obviously feeling grief because of a child they had aborted’ – and you base this on what exactly?
“Liberals do not live principled lives” – head-desk! What a truly ludicrous statement.
““They were obviously feeling grief because of a child they had aborted’ – and you base this on what exactly?”
I could hear in the inflection of their voices and the way they addressed me. In your ‘reality’ what else do you imagine their reason for stopping?
Man, that is one huge streeeeetch of imagination and a giant dose of assumption based on your wishful thinking.
They probably stopped so they could play ‘wind up the nutter’.
You are wrong ‘Reality’. Why do you find it so hard to believe that this couple could have felt grief for a past unborn child that they had aborted?
“They probably stopped so they could play ‘wind up the nutter’.”
I think the above post by you explains why none of your other posts ever seems logical or make any sense. You don’t come here to have any kind of rational discourse on abortion or anything else. Your only reason for coming here is just to try and ‘wind up the nutter’.
Because there is not a shred of evidence for it in any way under any guise. It is simply your desire to reflect such a scenario on them to make yourself feel better and justify your stance. They were probably actually just trying to point out how selective and ill-considered your stance is. You don’t have a personal situation in regards to abortion from which you can garner ‘grief’ so you desperately search for anyone you think you might be able to ascribe post-abortive grief to.
I’ve stated numerous times why I am here and it’s not to ‘wind up the nutter’.
Some of the anti-choicers who post here are far from being ‘nutters’ anyway, they’ve just taken the wrong position in regards to abortion.
Reality, you are merely incapable of feeling the range of emotions that we do.
There is simply no rational. logical, scientific or factual basis on which to make your claim Praxedes.
It is simply your need and desire to paint pro-choice people as somehow missing something that only the super-heroic, all goodness, so righteously right anti-choice brigade possess. Bad luck, it isn’t so.
If you truly believe that pro-choice people don’t feel the same range of emotions, go tell some Newtown parents their grief isn’t real.
“Because there is not a shred of evidence for it in any way under any guise.”
This coming from the person who wasn’t even there and saw or heard nothing about what happened. It shows what a blowhard you really are.
You stated that “a man and a woman pulled up and rolled down their window and shouted out their window at me “how many have you adopted” and then claimed that you could tell from “the inflection of their voices and the way they addressed me” that they were grieving post-aborts.
Did both shout? Or just one? At the same time? Or one after the other? Did they shout exactly the same words?
And you call me a blowhard, that’s funny.
Looks like we wound up the nutter, TS.
Keep on, keeping on, friend.
Yes some of you usually do wind up being the nutter in these discussions :-)
But then again it probably doesn’t matter to someone with an EQ as low as yours ;-)
It is simply your need and desire to paint pro-choice people as somehow missing something that only the super-heroic, all goodness, so righteously right anti-choice brigade possess.
To champion the killing of very young children by a doctors at the behest of the children’s parent(s) requires some sort of personal malfunction. Whether that be ignorance or depravity depends on the person. Many times it’s a revolting combination of both.
“To champion the killing of very young children” – yet another example of what I was saying. There aren’t too many people who ‘champion’ abortion. And ‘killing of very young children’ is a subjective and emotive selection of words designed to do more of the same. It is ‘the terminating of fetuses’ to the rational majority.
By fighting so hard to keep it legal, it’s being championed. “…killing of very young children” is NOT subjective, it is objectively factual, as “killing” means the same as “terminating” in this instance, and “fetuses” are children at a very young/early stage of life. The “rational majority”…more like the “rationalizing majority”.