Follow Barack Obama prior and during his tenure as the 44th President of the United States. Read about my personal observations along with every day facts as they happen. This blog will only submit factual information about the first black President, now in his 2nd term of office.


Send E-mail to the Editor at:

Search This Blog

White House Controversies Scrutinized by the Conservative Base

Saturday, May 18, 2013

The Republican base including 'tea party' supporters seem to be digging in to all of the controversies that are facing the President. At the same time, the Presidents Chief-of-Staff, "Dennis McDonough is telling the White House staff to devote no more than 10% of their time to the controversies involving the Internal Revenue Service, the Justice Department and the terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, a Democrat aware of McDonough's instructions confirmed to CNN," as presented on 'Political Tracker' under 'Politic's on the CNN webpage.
Clearly, the present times are some of the most trying times in the Obama Presidency, but the President realizes that he 'must stay in his game' and not let any single problem or a variety of them to affect his ability to govern within the Executive branch as the 'PONTUS'.
Endless criticism seems to be coming from the Republican party, and a few prominent Republicans have called for the impeachment of President Obama. Some from the conservative base are even calling the present situation in Washington even more serious than 'Watergate'. They are also pushing high awareness on the present issues in an attempt to tie up the news with reports that they want to control, again with the ultimate goal of not allowing the President to promote his plan of running the Executive Branch of government.
President Obama was not born yesterday, nor is he new to the office as President of the United States. In case his Republican critics forgot, the President was re-elected to his second term, and has 3 years to go.  The President plans on turning up awareness centered around issues of the economy and gun control. In the meantime, the President will also take time out from his job as President by playing a round of golf as he has done today.
Of course, the right wing conservative base will criticize the President endlessly in the coming weeks just has they have done during his entire Presidency to date. Talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin will no doubt have their broadcasts full of the White House controversies, along with the President deciding to take off to play golf during these trying times at the White House.


Proposed Bi-Partisan Immigration Bill

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

The Senators in Washington haven't had much luck lately on getting bills passed. It seems so difficult for them to agree on anything, and then pass legislation that is truly supported on both sides of the isle. The bills usually just pass by a few votes if it passes at all. Never does it seem that both political parties agree on much of anything, especially the legislation that they are bidding to put into law.
The topic now floating around in Washington that seems to be of interest of both parties is the topic of immigration reform. Does anyone think that this Congress has any ability to do some real good as far as immigration. Yet, it deserves a mention here. This may be as far as it gets in Congress.
  Eight Senators devised and released a comprehensive immigration reform plan that they say will stop illegal immigration. It also address approximately 11 million immigrants who are now in the country illegally. Imagine, 11 million immigrants. Because it is not practical to have all of these illegal immigrants go back to where they came from at once, mostly from Mexico, there must be a way to systematically work with illegal immigrants. Some of them have illegal parents, but the offspring were born in America. Is it right to deport anyone who was born in this country, whether their parents were illegal or not? It wasn't their choice to be born here, but they may have already been here going into their adult lives. They haven't been able to legally contribute to society, because they haven't even had the ability to hold a Social Security Card so that they can work legally. They deserve a shot to become legal citizens if they are willing to go about what it takes to become legal. If not, and if they do not take advantage of doing what it takes to become a legal citizen by a certain period of time, then they truly need to be deported. Some illegal aliens that have been born here and lived in this country their whole lives and are the first to be considered for legal immigration and possible citizenship and should have to take easier steps to reach their goal.
My opinion here obviously is not the opinion of every citizen of this country, and I'm sure that there is a good portion of people that disagree with my reasoning, especially the mainstream conservative party.
Still the bi-partisan group of Senators now have devised a bill that the Congress must consider to more forward.
Still, I have no faith in the present Congress. If their desire is to shoot down every bill that is thought of by a Democratic senator, then not much will get passed in President Obama's second term in office.
One of the reasons why bills did not get passed in the past was because of the elections of 2010. The Democrats lost control of the Senate. Now just about every time the vote gets close in the Senate, and even in many cases where the majority of Senators agrees on a bill, a filibuster is introduced and the bill still does not pass. So truthfully now with the present Congress, I see no way that the Congress will ever pass ANY type of immigration legislation. If it passes, I will present an article with details from the bill as it will then stand.


Children Killing Children by Guns

Saturday, May 11, 2013

The topic of guns in the hands of children continues. One very consistent talking point made during a Senate debate in April was that expanded background checks would not have prevented the Newtown massacre. This statement was published in an article by Michael Allen on May 10, 2013 on the website. But you can only truly agree with the parents of the slain Newtown children that it's no longer about their children, but it's about future children who may be killed by guns. 
The number continues to rise, as a minimum of 71 children have been killed by guns since the Newtown school tragedy. 

According to Mother Jones, the statistics for children being killed by guns breaks down as follows:
40 killings were unintentional and 31 were alleged homicides.
The most common scenario was kid-on-kid: At least 29 of the accidental deaths occurred when a kid under 17 pulled the trigger.
The average age of the victims was just under six years old.
20 victims were girls and 51 were boys.
 The problem was worst in the South: Florida had the most kids killed (four accidents, five alleged homicides), followed by Ohio and Tennessee (four accidents and two alleged homicides in each state), followed by Alabama (two accidents, two alleged homicides) and South Carolina (four accidents).


Children Killed by Guns

Will it ever end? That is the 50 million dollar question. It is a very vague question, so maybe it's important now to elaborate on it now in this article.

The question refers to guns, specifically in the hands of children. Recently, the NRA has stated that the best way to stop the tragic deaths would be to make sure that the good people with guns can protect themselves from the bad people who have guns. This may generally sound OK, but what do you say when a sibling kills another sibling. Is that 2 or 3 year old a bad kid because he shoots and kills someone? I don't think you would ever have to ask this question of a parent who lost a child due to another one of their children accidentally firing a  gun. Is it an accident? Yes, it may be called an accident of the child who pulled the trigger, but I can assure you that it is no accident of the parent who allowed a gun to be reachable to the sibling who pulls the trigger. Guns should never be in reach of children, and it should be a crime punishable to the adult that made that gun available to the child, not necessarily the parent. But if a parent purchases a real gun with real bullets and is dumb enough to allow that gun to be in reach of a child, then that parent needs to take full responsibility of his/her actions and should pay the consequences of such an irresponsible act that takes the life of a child.  There should be no pity here. You should not forgive a parent just because he/she is in grief of their dead child. Just because they are the parent of an action of their sibling does not excuse them for being responsible for what they do, just because they are really grieving over the result of the shooting.

If you believe that the words just stated are harsh, then how about some real stories of children getting killed because of loaded guns within reach of children.

Kinsler Allen Davis
As reported in the 'Corsicana Daily Sun', a 2-year old boy named Kinsler Davis was killed in what is being described as an accidental shooting when he found a handgun that was supposed to be hidden from reach in a bedroom. He shot himself in the head. Again, it is said that the gun was accidentally discharged, but the fact is that the child actually pulled the trigger and the gun fired, so it was not a weapon that accidentally fired. Someone pulled the trigger, namely the 2-year old boy who may have been looking into the barrel when he pulled the trigger. How sick is that. I can hardly imagine that when my boys were 2 years old that they would have access to a gun, let alone a loaded gun. Yes, it is a tragic incident (not accident) when such a tragedy happens to a child, but the real tragedy here is the fact that parents continue to allow guns to be within reach of children, loaded guns, and some of them even purchased for their siblings, who really don't even understand the fact that the gun purchased for them by their mom or dad can kill.

Earlier this past week, in Houston Texas, it was a 5 year old by who shot his 7 year old brother with a rifle. It was just a normal day for the two boys, when they happened to be taking a bath together. The mother steps away for a moment, and the 5-year old boy finds an old and rusty bolt-action .22 caliber rifle, aims it at his brother and pulls the trigger. This time, the bullet goes through the back of the child. "If you have weapons -- guns, knives, anything that a child can hurt themselves with or hurt someone else -- the parents secure them, put them in a place where a child can't get to them. If your children are older, perhaps training for them to understand what a gun is," said Gwen Carter with CPS.
Could this be considered pre-meditation?  Luckily the 7 year old boy is still alive, but this dumb action by the parents caused an injury to one of their children. Now, the 5-year old boy was taken from his home and is now staying with his uncle.

This may be considered an accident, but it should also be treated as a crime, because child safety was compromised by a parent who kept loaded guns within reach of a child, and an injury occurred because of it.
But in a recent AP article concerning a shooting that occurred in  Tyler Texas back in February, where a 2-year old boy shot himself in the chest, it was only luck that the boy didn't shoot himself in the head. "Authorities say the boy's mother was the only other person home at the time. She is not facing charges," according an article from the AP(Associated press)

Just last Tuesday on May 7th, a 3 year old boy kills himself with his uncle's gun, which happened to be in a backpack in the room that both the uncle and 3 year old boy shared. This time, the uncle, Jeffrey D. Walker, 29, was arrested for culpable negligence charges.. Why was this man arrested, and the others mentioned above were not? What makes him special to get arrested. Maybe it's because he is a black man! Was this a racial incident?

You can just about visit any daily newspaper from any normal sized city, and find tragic stories like the ones mentioned in this article. Still, there are no new Federal laws passed since the horror that happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, regardless of what mainstream society wants. The NRA, only concerned about protecting the Second Amendment of the Constitution, will not back down and let some common sense legislation pass so that less people would die because of a gun.  Why? Do the Congressional leaders in our Nation's Capital not give a damn? If you are a Republican, have an 'A' rating with the NRA, then only do what you believe is going to save your job, and that's not to back more gun safety. The rating reflects their voting record on gun rights in Congress, and God forbid, they wouldn't be wanted to be rated with an 'F'. In case they don't know it yet, the present 113th Congress of the United States sports one of the lowest ratings in Congressional history, so who really cares how they are rated with the gun lobby. 

Please leave your comments to this article and they will be published, regardless of your stance concerning guns. ALL COMMENTS FOR THIS ARTICLE WILL BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT EXCEPTION!


Children Killed by Other Children Using Guns - Who should be blamed for this?

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

A story that was highlighted on many news outlets is one that noone either supporting gun control or NOT supporting gun control wants to hear.
As quoted from a CNN news story today, "A Kentucky mother stepped outside of her home just for a few minutes, but it was long enough for her 5-year-old son to accidentally shoot and kill his 2-year-old sister with the .22-caliber rifle he got for his birthday, state officials said."

Boy, 5, Fatally Shoots 2-Year-Old Sister | Video - ABC News

What can you say when you hear of such a sad thing. A 5-year old kills his 2-year old sister with a gun. Who in their right mind would buy a real gun for a 5-year-old boy, and then load it with bullets. Did the parents expect the boy not to touch the gun, or better yet not point it until he was of age to actually be able to purposely  aim at a target then shoot, or did they think that even though the gun was real and was loaded with bullets, that the boy had no idea on how to aim the gun and pull the trigger. How ignorant was the mother in this case? Yes, this is very unfortunate for the boy, who will grow up now knowing that he actually killed his younger sister.
Was the boy in the wrong for pointing the gun and actually trying to fire the gun. In my opinion, absolutely not. It was not a premeditated act, but in this killing as in ALL killings, someone needs to be responsible for it.
The parents may not be in the room, therefore you may think that they couldn't be responsible because they were nowhere near the gun. But what they actually did was allow their son to be able to grab a loaded weapon and shoot it. The boy could have just likely aimed the gun at himself, looking down the barrel and pulled the trigger. He just could not seriously realize that he could kill someone with the gun.
There is no question that this is a very sad thing for the family, but to make things worse, the parents or at least one of them, namely the mother who was supposed to be watching her son, and who purchased the gun for their 5 year old boy, need to be accountable for the 5 year-old's actions.
Someone needs to be accountable for the girls death. So this means that it is possible that the 5 year-old boy may have to grow up without one of his parents or maybe even both, besides not growing up with his sister.  The defense for the mother if tried for the death would be that the 'Cricket rifle' was defective, because it was supposed to have a child safety. Even though, did that give the parents the right to load the gun with live bullets and leave the gun within reach of the boy.
I wanted to find out more about this cricket rifle that the CNN article talks about. Here is a picture of the kidscorner page, which can be found at Just checkout the pictures and leave your comments on this blog. Please read on after checking out the pictures of the children highlighted on the webpage. Maybe it's just a thing that I'm totally against personally owning any type of gun. My age is 61. Some of the subjects in the pictures on this website cant even be of age 10.

If I am wrong with my thinking, someone let me know. I do believe that someone of legal age, someone who is competent enough to be able to fire a gun responsibly, someone who is not a prior criminal, be responsible for going through proper background checks. Do the children in these pictures look to be of age to purchase a gun? Absolutely not.

And then there are testimonials....   Check this out, from the testimonial page of the website....

Here's what our customers have to say about our products:
"I recently purchased one of your Davey Crickett rifles (My First Rifle) from my 7 yr. old daughter and I would like to say that i have nothing but positive things to say about it. To put it simply, she loves it and looks forward to going shooting with me at every opportunity. It is obvious that a good deal of time was spent in the development of this product as it is perfectly designed for kids in regards to length and weight. My daughter is rapidly improving her marksmandship and takes the responsibility of a firearm very seriously. She is also looking forward to going squirrel hunting with me this upcoming season. In closing, I will recommend your product to everyone that might be interested in it. This pink polymer stock was an excellent tought, I might add. P.S. I am going to take the liberty of sending a note to Field & Stream magazine recommending your product, as well."
Jessie--From Ohio

Note, that in the first line in the testimonial says "from my 7 yr. old daughter" and clearly the line should read "for my 7 year old daughter." Does the typo make it right to print such a testimonial about a 7 year old. To me, this is absolutely sick. Another typo.... 'marksmandship'.   How professional is this website. This is supposed to be a business.

How about these testimonials....

"Thank you for supporting the next generation of recreational shooters. My 4 1/2 year old daughter thought the "pink one" was far superior to a black synthetic stock,who am i to argue? I never would have thought that a pink rifle would be sitting in the rack in the gun room. I look forward to when my daughter is a bit older and ready to begin her journey in the great sport of shooting."  

'who am i to argue?'  Another mispelling

Is it right for this 4 1/2 old girl should be anywhere near a rifle just because it was of "pink" stock?

And then there is this story....

"I bought this as a first rifle for my 9 year old daughter who's name is Dakota.She is thrilled and so am I as I never thought one of my daughters would take an interest in shooting which is one of my favorite hobbies. I will get to spend a lot more time with her now because of it. Thanks"

How revealing is that statement. The father actually believes that just because a rifle for his 9 year old daughter, that now he's going to be able to spend more time with her. Does this mean that if she decided that she wanted to play with dolls instead of guns, that he would spend less time with her? That seems to be exactly what he is saying.

Anyone reading this article really doesn't have to take my word on this. I invite anyone and anyone that takes the slightest interest in this article go directly to the 'Cricket' website and check it out for yourself at at

The full CNN story can be found right here on their website....


  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by 2008

Back to TOP