The Difference Between Obama and Me

by / on June 18, 2015 at 8:19 pm /
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on TumblrDigg ThisDigg ThisShare via emailShare via email Share

Obama_Church_shootingThe difference  between Obama and me is that I care when a “human being” has fallen victim to senseless violence or any other crime against them.  I think “All Lives Matter”, not just ones that have my skin tone or are politically beneficial to me and my agenda or career climbing.  Does the O-Man feel likewise?  I think not.  I don’t hear him coming forward when it is black on white violence such as he does when the perp is white and especially a white perp with black victims.  It’s a difference I notice and I’m not happy with.

Obama made it sound as though gun restrictions would have stopped the deaths at the church in South Carolina.  According to what I read, the gun involved was a gift from the dad to the son.  If true… the son didn’t go out and buy the gun, so gun regulations or restrictions are not the issue in this case.  What is at issue is that nine people died at the hands of someone and the suspect has been arrested.

Additionally,  according to CNN’s report, “The only reason someone would walk into a church and shoot people that were praying is hate,” Charleston Mayor Joe Riley said.  (Charleston church shooting suspect arrested in North Carolina — June 18, 2015)

Ted Cruz 2016

ADVERTISEMENT

What about the hate of Christians by ISIS?  What about the mass murder of Christians at the hands of ISIS?  The silence or whispered response by those in power is deafening.  It suggests that only some deaths matter.  Only some violence is unacceptable.  That only some victims matter.

What about when the New Black Panthers (or those claiming to be of that group) intimidated voters?  Were the individuals responsible held accountable?

What about all the news coverage of blacks dying or hurt at the hands of officers?  Are we seeing the full story or only the part that goes along with the current agenda and rating getting effort?

Woodrow Wilcox

ADVERTISEMENT

Are there any white victims of abusive officers?  Are there abusive officers that are black?  Are the three black officers in Maryland the only ones in the land that are abusive or accused of being abusive?  Do we even truly know they are abusive?  Does the prosecutor truly have a case or is she another potential Mike Nifong in-waiting?

The point is…

Skin tone should never be the issue that creates more outrage than some other time.  If the act is wrong — it is wrong no matter the color of the skin.  A true victim is the victim and should be treated with equal respect as all other victims.  Likewise, pretend victims of any skin tone should be held accountable for the fraud they perpetrate on others and our society.

Being selective in outrage (or the level thereof), finger-pointing without proof and even the very lack of acknowledgment a wrong took place, eventually paints a picture of those involved.  It suggests a wrong may only matter depending on who did the wrong and who was the victim of the wrong.

What happened in South Carolina is horrendous.  We should all morn because it happened to any.  It shouldn’t only matter because a young white man took away the lives of people who weren’t of his skin tone.  It shouldn’t be a tragedy “used” to further someone’s personal agenda, such as gun control efforts or accusation that all things are based on race just because this particular case might have been.

South Carolina is in mourning because of the deaths of innocent people.  Their race should not make it more or less tragic than any other like case.  It is tragic simply because it is.

Does Obama see it as I?  Has he publicly mourned or gotten “angry” likewise for all the Christians who have died at the hands of ISIS?

I notice important differences that I’m not happy with.  Neither should any be.  Wrong should simply matter because it is wrong — not because who it is done unto!

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.
Carrie K. Hutchens
View all articles by Carrie K. Hutchens
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly

CareNet

  • DCM7

    According to Democrat logic, it seems that “black lives” only matter if (1) they’re killed by someone white; and (2) they’re already born.

    As for racism: It’s not just racism when whites oppress blacks, or the other way around. It’s racism whenever someone makes an issue of race (a meaningless, superficial quality) as anything beyond a simple physical descriptor.

    • Carrie_K_Hutchens

      So true!

    • Thisoldspouse

      And, according to the same Democrat “logic,” black lives matter even if they are felons attacking police or innocent civilians.

  • ConCrap

    “so gun regulations or restrictions are not the issue in this case”. Well, in any other country a father can’t simply give a gun to a son. Maybe you need that as a regulation. Wonderful how this is a shocking event and all you want to talk about is other things. A little embarrassing that one of your own did this, isn’t it?

    • franklinb23

      I’m not entirely convinced that more regulations would have the desired effect. Many drugs are illegal, but people get their hands on them nonetheless. Completely banning the sale of guns would only ensure that those who care nothing about the law possess them.

      Canada may have fewer violent crimes simply because you have far fewer sociopaths wandering around than we do.

      • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

        I agree, Franklin.

        What you said in your last paragraph reminds me of something I’ve reflected on for many years now, something I believe John Adams hit on over 200 years ago:

        While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays I have received from Major-General Hull and Brigadier, General Walker your unanimous address from Lexington, animated with a martial spirit, and expressed with a military dignity becoming your character and the memorable plains on which it was adopted. in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the Nvorld; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, • would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

        To play off what he said and to paraphrase a bit, only a people who can and will restrain their own base impulses and desires can be a truly free people, and only a moral and religious people can hope to restrain their base impulses and desires.

        A nation (like ours) that set out enjoying an unparalleled level of freedom (because we had the virtue to restrain ourselves), once it stop restraining itself in that free environment, greater chaos will ensure.

        There are then two choices: (1) this people can get their act together, choose a moral revival, and have more freedom because they will restrain themselves from immoral acts, or (2) ready themselves for the reality Benjamin Franklin warned us about:

        Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

        There really are no other choices. Me? I’m all-in for #1. The unequaled-in-history success of the United States proves the investment in self-restraint is worth it.

      • ConCrap

        The difference is, protestations of gun rights supporters aside, increased firearm ownership rates are associated with higher rates of homicide. According to science, developed countries with more guns generally have more homicide; states within the US with more guns have more homicide; people with access to guns — particularly women — are more likely to be victims of homicide than those without access. You are part of the problem if you can’t even understand that so many guns and easy access is a big part of the issue. But hey, you are all militia and no law…

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          Washington D.C. has some of the strictest if not the strictest gun control laws in the country…yet it is always at or near the top of the murder rate list. Something wrong with the gun-grabbing math there, but then, Leftist “ideas” (translation: fantasies) has never been about hard math, or facts, or logic, or reason).

          http://www.americanclarion.com/firearms-rates-murder-rates-35960

          As crime expert John Lott has pointed out, “With just a single exception, the attack in Tucson last year, every public shooting in the U.S. in which three or more people have been killed since at least 1950 has occurred in a place where people are not allowed to carry their own firearms.” If banning firearms was the answer, virtually none of these murders would have happened. Newsflash: the immoral aren’t concerned with laws. Disarming law-abiding people only provides plenty of sheep for the wolves.

          As Lott has also pointed out: “There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.”

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/

          If one or two people in this church in South Carolina had been packing, the death toll would have been a lot lower. Sadly, no one there was armed.

          If you really want to save lives, you should ban access to hammers. Far more people are killed by hammers than are killed by guns.

          While you’re at it, cut off everyone’s hands, because far more people are killed with fists than with guns.

          How many people are killed by cars? We could save a whole lot of lives if we’d just ban cars.

          But freedom would be gutted.

          I lived in strict-gun-control England for three years and remember being struck during my first few months there by all the news reports of people being stabbed, slashed and strangled. Since Leftists have incredible difficulty making logical conclusions, the moral of the story is: if people are lacking in the moral foundation for respecting another person’s property and life, they’ll find a way to do violence to them.

          The answer is NOT to limit gun ownership of law-abiding citizens (and this scumbag certainly wasn’t, already being disqualified for gun ownership due to his previous felony charges). Laws don’t mean jack to someone who is morally deficient enough to break the law, and people intent on murder aren’t known for their morality.

          We should also return to swift and harsh punishment for convicted murderers. None of this taking forever to get a murderer to trial, and none of this psychobabble BS that allows him to escape justice, and none of this pansy allowing him to live off the taxpayers for the rest of his life in a prison. If the evidence indicates guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, administer the death penalty swiftly and surely. Certain punishment will deter a lot of scumbags.

          The answer is to return to an embrace of the Christian moral values that produced the greatest and most free nation in history, including harsh punishment for those who demonstrate contempt for the rights and lives of others. Of course, Leftists loathe both morality and freedom, so I understand that you’ll never accept what really works. Hopefully, good and rational people will eventually do so, though.

          http://liberallogic101.com/?p=26605

        • Carrie_K_Hutchens

          Well, I don’t know about that “science” you are referring to, but I think it is full of flaws. I’m from an area that has an overwhelming number of firearms, and homicides are a rarity and I mean “rarity”! Kinda messes with your so-called science results, don’t you think? “Militia and no law”? I’ve never been part of a militia, but I am a former law enforcement officer and female.

        • Thisoldspouse

          Might as well ban the ownership of cars as well, as they contribute to one of the highest number of deaths in society. Not to mention knives, illicit drugs, and (gasp) homosexual behavior, which has contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, many not even engaging in that deviant behavior.

      • ConCrap

        Why have a speed limit, many speed. The kid had a pending felony charge so he would not have passed a background check. But you want the law abiding Dad to be allowed to give him the gun.

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      No other country is remotely as free (or as successful, or as powerful, or as prosperous, or as influential) as the United States. (But I can see that you’re not even from here, living instead in a country that has benefited greatly from the protection and innovation of the neighboring United States, without having to put your own blood and sweat on the line).

      My father gave me my first gun when I was 12, and a number of my friends’ fathers gave them guns even younger, and NONE of us went around shooting people. That’s because in those days, society behaved in a more grownup, responsible fashion, considering it more important to instill values and respect for life, not taking the Leftist bent of teaching children they are nothing but highly evolved animals who are only alive at the indulgent “convenience” of their mothers, and a general cheapening of respect for the rights and lives of others.

      Oh, and the murderer in question isn’t “one of ours.” Maybe you missed it, but he’s a druggie racist nutcase, which (since the Left is vastly more pro-drug while the Right is known for promoting sober-minded lawfulness, has a worldwide history of racism while the Right/Republican Party is the party that fought to end slavery and discrimination in America, and isn’t grounded in reality-i.e. anti-science evolution and global warming fantasies, calling people who were born with a penis and are genetically male “female”-as the Right is) makes him one of yours. Leftist policies made him, by golly you can claim him.

      • ConCrap

        Of course being outside the US means you can write off anything I say, it’s the way you role. I see today some prominent scientist predicted the demise of the human race in 100 years. He is from Australia, so you can ignore him. He is wrong for two reasons, he is a scientist and he is not an American. I have a feeling the greater the evidence of something is the more you dig your heels in.

        • WXRGina

          Your senseless, baseless insinuations against Bob and your leftist, anti-gun lunacy, bolstered with false “science” stats won’t do you any good here.

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          Frankly, people who haven’t figured out how to be moral or free have no business lecturing people who do value such things. So yes, I’m going to write off anything that comes from a tyranny-embracing, hysterical Leftist (I believe many major cities were supposed to be under water by now, if we were listening to the typical Leftist drivel), especially when there are solutions available which respect the God-given right to keep and bear arms in self-defense.

          Just because Leftists loathe morality and freedom is no reason for good people to abandon morality and freedom in favor of tyranny.

    • Carrie_K_Hutchens

      One of my own? This young man is a stranger to me. I hold no responsibility for what he did. Secondly, creating more restrictions for the law-abiding citizen is NOT going to fix things such as this. (Boston bombing comes to mind. Weren’t “nails” involved in that? Will you then ban nails?) The means… the gun… is NOT the source of the problem in this case. Whatever led the young man to act out is the “source of the problem” and what we should be focusing on. That’s where we start fixing the problem. Additionally, IT IS time to talk about OTHER THINGS! It is time to care about actually fixing problems. That means looking at people and situations honestly, rather than seeing tragedy as a tool to further personal agenda. You see, some care more about the opportunity to call for more gun control or the chance to push a theme that all things happen because of race/racism. I truly care about the lives lost! What category do you fall into?

  • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis
    • Carrie_K_Hutchens

      This is a good example! Those prone to injure or kill, will find a means and method. The car and knife were not the problem. Whatever was going on with the perp is what needed (needs) attention and fixing.