LISTEN to BLACK MAN THINKIN’


Beware the Presidential Pledge…

Among the more interesting things about President Barack Obama is his ability to use words. He is able to electrify audiences during big moments: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2pZSvq9bto[/youtube]

Or “rally the troops” to big challenges: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8noNGSy67_g[/youtube]

Or sound the right tone during difficult times: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LB2YSRjc1A[/youtube]

That those are scripted moments does not diminish the president’s effectiveness with words. However, his ineffectiveness, even incoherence, sans teleprompter, is painful to watch: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSVPAx8xc[/youtube]

There is also discomfort when the president fails vary his script, whether with monotonous evaluations of “friendly” foreign countries: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erYpXzE9Pxs[/youtube]

Or regarding the largely ineffective focus on U.S. employment: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwn4dJcl08[/youtube]

Which serves as a lead-in to a larger discussion about Barack Obama’s words. That discussion is not whether his words carry any weight; every U.S. President’s words have weight, at least when he speaks them. The discussion is whether Obama’s words lead to anything meaningful after he speaks them, especially when he says something to the effect of, “we are going to do everything in our power…”

Consider the recent Navy Shipyard mass shooting in Virginia: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PY5GK7-HxQ[/youtube]

The president indicated “we will do everything in our power” to hold the shooter accountable. Of course, the Obama team did not need to do much, after the fact, since the shooter was among those who died. However, if Obama sincerely desired to limit/prevent mass shootings in the U.S., then why did Marines at the Navy Yard not have live ammunition in their weapons? In this case, the president’s policy, before the incident, had greater impact than anything he said once the shooting ended.

One could look to immigration, which was an important factor in the 2008 campaign and afterward. Candidate Obama made it clear that passing the “Dream Act” was something that could be done immediately and would be a “top priority”: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GwNVo7siFA[/youtube]

However, despite large majorities in both Houses of Congress during his 1st two years as president, Obama not only accomplished nothing immediately on immigration legislation, he accomplished nothing at all, prompting this assessment, during his re-election campaign: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBVLiqU2gTg[/youtube]

Hmmm…

On another domestic front, the president clearly promised an all-out, expedited federal aid effort to the victims of Hurricane Sandy: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gTP4c8aTRY[/youtube]

However, a New Jersey woman whom Obama hugged, on camera, and promised to help: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wamAkUzYIKo[/youtube]

received no assistance, more than a month after the president’s pledge: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CykNLy8cAbA#t=34[/youtube]

More than a year after the storm hit, the lack of money and urgency from the federal government extends the tragedy for those in New York and New Jersey.

Regarding a different tragedy, the president spoke after the Sandy Hook shooting which killed 20 elementary school children and implored Congress to pass gun control legislation, telling an assembled audience, “we have an obligation to try”: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLOIR390zyE[/youtube]

While the president expected opposition from the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, the Democrat-controlled Senate failed to support the measures. Though 4 GOP Senators voted in favor, 5 Democrat Senators stood in opposition, and gun control failed in the Democrat-controlled Senate by 8 votes.

Anyone beginning to see a pattern?

Those concerned about anti-American terrorism, domestic and foreign, certainly might. Following the failed 2010 Times Square Bombing attempt, the president reiterated his administration’s commitment to do “everything in our power” to protect the American people: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlTt7IekMZ4[/youtube]

The president credited federal and local law enforcement, and ordinary citizens, with foiling the attempt. Somehow, he did not credit the real cause of the bombing’s failure – Faisal Shahzad’s incompetence; he fashioned a device that ignited but did not explode.

He also said the government would look into Shahzad’s possible connections to terrorist organizations, then gave Miranda protection to Shahzad, so that he need not say a word. Was that consistent with “doing everything in our power” to protect Americans from terror? Or was it the reason the president would, later, pledge to “get to the bottom of” another domestic terror incident: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS4ya_01jig[/youtube]

Who can say that the ease with which America was attacked at home did not embolden terrorists abroad? Clearly, killing bin Laden did not deter Al-Qaeda in Benghazi. And once again, the president pledged action, saying “justice will be done”: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDSHYlv5gSk[/youtube]

However, more than a year after those attacks, the U.S. government can neither find nor arrest a man who the international media interviews with regularity: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okx0-0PT7Zc[/youtube]

It appears the more this president says about a matter, the less likely what he says may actually occur. Which brings us to: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCUpJDzyRnY[/youtube]

Well, there are at least 5 million Americans (and growing) who, looking at their individual health insurance cancellation notices, might take issue with the president. That, by the way, is in addition to roughly 4.5 million who lost employer-sponsored insurance within 18 months of Obamacare being signed into law.

An overpriced, under-performing website took the blame for the cancellations, which brought yet another pledge of (swift) action from the president: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMD_4F6sR88[/youtube]

However, one month after its opening day debacle, there was no fix in sight. Even after calling in high-tech heavyweights, the president’s Chief Technology Officer Todd Park was unwilling to commit to November 30th as the date the website would be ready.

This is more than a pattern; it is a mode of mode of operation.

Today, the president said, again, “we will do everything we can to fix this problem”: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwCugL0_PQ4[/youtube]

referring to the millions of canceled health insurance policies, but offered a fix that simply shifts the responsibility to state insurance commissioners and health insurance companies, leaving out the fact the administration’s implementing regulations made those cancellations predictable and necessary. The president did not indicate what, if any, changes might be made to those regulations.

Once again, the president has pledged to do something about a problem. Given his track record, it is difficult to believe anything meaningful will occur. It seems the best way to guarantee inaction from the federal government is to have this president pledge to take action.

Consequently, a true “fix” for Obamacare is unlikely, and those who have lost and will lose health insurance policies they liked have little more than a snowball’s chance of seeing that coverage again.

Much Ado About Guns?

They’re ba-ack! Anti-gun activists, axes in hand, looking to fell the Second Amendment tree, spurred on by the recent spate of mass shootings, including:

    • Newtown, CT school shooting (14 Dec 2012): 26 dead, 2 wounded,
    • Aurora, CO theater shooting (20 Jul 2012): 12 dead, 58 wounded,
    • Tucson, AZ shooting (8 Jan 2011): 6 dead, 13 wounded, and
    • Ft. Hood, TX Massacre (5 November 2009): 13 dead, 30 wounded.

Mother Jones compiled a list of US mass shootings, going back to 1982. They found 62 occurrences, which killed 513 and injured 494, 1,007 victims total…in 30 years.

However, gun control supporters could argue the “problem” has worsened…since Obama became president. Since 2009, 15 shootings killed 139 and wounded another 129; more than one-quarter of the deaths of the last 3 decades have occurred in just the last four years.

Still, the “problem,” for which some want new federal legislation, kills 35 people….per year…in a nation of more than 310 million. While the low numbers comfort no one who lost a loved one, they do call into question the true urgency of the matter.

Interestingly, 513, the number of US mass shooting fatalities in the last 3 decades matches the number of Chicago homicides in 2012; guns killed 441 of the victims. This carnage occurred, despite Illinois gun laws which forbid concealed or open carry, and prohibit the transport of loaded firearms. No one seeks to explain how gun laws which allowed Chicago to kill, in one year, as many people as died nationally from mass shootings in 30 years, would reduce deaths nationwide. However, this is liberal politics; logic is not a prerequisite.

Using the time-honored “compassion” chant of “we must do something,” liberals have bum-rushed the national legislature, trotting out a sympathetic mass shooting victim (conveniently, a gun-owner) to testify before the Senate, saying “we must do something”, without saying what “something” should be. Chicago Mayor (and former Obama chief of staff) Rahm Emanuel wants banks to boycott gun manufacturers, as though that removes any of the more than 300 million guns already made from anyone’s hands.

Obama dutifully made his proposals, announcing them with elementary-school-aged gun control advisers present, and an expanded “we must do something” mantra: “…if there’s even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try…”

The president then signed 23 Executive Orders that, had they been in place on 14 December 2012, would have spared no one in Newtown, Connecticut….or Aurora, Colorado before that….or Tucson, Arizona before that.

Perhaps gun control advocates are unaware that they want as law has been the law since the Gun Control Act of 1968. The act made it illegal, more than 4 decades ago, to sell weapons or ammunition to anyone the seller knows or has reason to believe:

    1 – is indicted for, or convicted of, a crime punishable by a prison term exceeding one year,
    2 – is a fugitive from justice,
    3 – is a substance abuser or addict
    4 – is ruled a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution,
    5 – is an illegal immigrant,
    6 – is dishonorably discharged from the military,
    7 – is an American that renounced his citizenship,
    8 – is subject to a restraining order, or
    9 – is convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

Despite the law, Newtown, Aurora, and Tucson occurred. If that could not prevent the tragedies, then what would, aside from dismantling the 2nd Amendment itself? Despite all assurances to the contrary, logic dictates that to be the aim of gun control advocates. In the meantime, more workable issues receive short shrift:

    Adam Lanza’s mother sought to commit him to a mental facility, but the ACLU has fought hard to make sure that committing a person against their will is a long and difficult process.

    The man who shot Gabby Giffords was a known loon, but it is not “politically correct” to remove a nut job from among us, so 6 people are dead and a U.S. Congressperson nearly became a vegetable.

    James Holmes had 3 folks shrinking his head before he opened fire in Colorado, but they apparently told no one, and Mr. Holmes may have used federal grant money from the National Institutes of Health to buy his weapons and ammo.

I’ve heard no call to ease the process of institutionalizing the mentally unstable; to look at how mental health professionals evaluate warning signs, and decide which ones to report and which ones to ignore; to keep federal grants from financing weapons purchases.

All emphasis is upon reducing the rights of those who do no wrong, and have nothing wrong with them, from exercising a constitutional right, and a right put in place precisely to protect people from a government that would seek to infringe upon that right. Consequently, the government wants to change the subject when it comes to the 2nd Amendment’s purpose.

When Andrew Cuomo screams, “No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer”, and Obama says gun control advocates should be sensitive to hunting traditions, they restate and mis-state the entire debate.

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or firing at targets. It is about resisting government tyranny. Heck, even Ice-T knows that.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPMfWqLhFGU[/youtube]

How can a rapper have clarity on the issue, yet the smartest man ever to be president seems confused?

Obama’s not confused. He has an agenda – to increase government power at the expense of individual liberty. He knows an armed citizenry will not bow to government, even if outgunned by law enforcement or the military (has the Arab Spring taught us nothing?). And Americans do not back down from “unwinnable” conflicts. However, a people unable to defend themselves are much more pliable.

This is not about guns, never has been. It is about whether we remain a government of, by, and for the people, or become a people of, by, and for the government. And, while Obama deflects with gun control and immigration, the economy that escaped recession before any of his policies took hold is contracting under Obamanomics.

Obama’s attack on the economy will last much longer than any mass shooting and is poised to make victims of us all.

Do Y’all Know What Ice-T Got Just About Right?

Comments: 1 Comment
Published on: July 25, 2012

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txuTBE6QQzQ[/youtube]

Ice T, soundin’ a bit like a Foundin’ Father.

Tracy Marrow, also known as Ice T, went on TV in the UK after the “Batman Rises” shooting in Colorado to defend the 2nd amendment. Check out the video above.

What got my attention were these words: “The right to bear arms is because that’s the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt. It’s to protect yourself from the police.” The brotha sounds downright Jeffersonian. In fact, Thomas Jefferson said, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

Our current gun laws serve the purpose of making it more difficult for the law-abiding citizen who wants a gun to keep and bear one. Of course, the idea is to make people safer by having guns in the hands of very few people…outside the government. Does anyone believe that works?

When the SCOTUS, in 2008, declared Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban unconstitutional and sent Chicago’s gun ban back to a lower court, the local governments went into overdrive to keep their cities safe from guns and gun violence. Predictions were for blood to run in the streets as everyone turned already violent cities into a re-incarnation of the Wild West.

But a funny thing happened while the politicians were wringing their hands, telling us to fear…we wound up with less to fear.

It seems that where you have more gun-toting, law-abiding citizens, you also have more law-abiding, period. Perhaps because good people can only be made into victims when outgunned, either by the government, or by other people who aren’t so good.

So why do politicians fight so hard to limit gun ownership? To stop incidents like the one in Aurora, Colorado? As if the guy could not have used his government assistance to buy illegal weapons and ammo, instead of the legal ones he used in the massacre? Yeah, right.

Try this: maybe politicians fear being pushed around by a citizenry that not only does vote, but also is armed to protect itself from governmental excesses. Maybe Ice T got it just about right.

Finally Jefferson also said, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” I live in a nation where people are afraid of the IRS, the EPA, the ATF, the CIA, and the FBI – each of those government organizations are packin’ (yes, the IRS has armed agents.). I also live in a nation where many fear outlaws who break the law to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, while they themselves are discouraged from even having a gun. It’s clear to see who is under tyranny. It is also clear to me what we should do. What’s clear to you?

25 July 2012, 1:52 AM, Pacific Time

Copyright 2012. blackmanthinkin.com

What do you see in this face?

Categories: ... 'bout Politics
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: July 23, 2012

Saw this image on Facebook:

Mass Murderers come in all colors. All of them have an ideology, political or otherwise, that allows them to do the horrific things they do. Whether you shoot up a college campus, strap a bomb to yourself to blow up others, fly an airplane into skyscraper, park a truck full of fertilizer in front of a federal building, or take guns and tear gas into movie theater, you are evil.

Not surprisingly, we always have, among our people, SOMEBODY who wants to say “if a black man had done it, then they would think….” Looking for a label to put on evil in accordance with the ETHNICITY through which it comes upon its victims serves the same purpose as re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Everything is not about what a black person would do, or how something would be seen if a black person had done it. Somehow, I don’t think those who survived being shot, or the families of those who did not survive, care a great deal for the color of the man who tried to kill them all.

I know what he looks like, but all I can see is what he’s done. All I can see is evil.

23 July 2012, 11:10 PM Pacific Time

Copyright 2012. blackmanthinkin.com

page 1 of 1

The World of Black Man Thinkin’
ARTICLE ARCHIVES
WDFP Radio Show Archives

Welcome , today is Friday, November 15, 2024