You are here: Home / Archives for Susan Stamper Brown

Sandy Hook And The Second Amendment

December 18, 2012 by 12 Comments

second amendment SC Sandy Hook and the Second Amendment

With emotions running high in response to the heart-wrenching events that took place at the Sandy Hook Elementary School December 14, many of my liberal friends and family members believe that now is the perfect time for gun control legislation.

As heartbreaking as it is that 20 children in Connecticut will not have the chance to open Christmas presents, celebrate birthdays, go on a first date, drive a car, graduate, get married, and have kids, there are millions of kids out there who will. And they are the reason why the rest of us need to fight for the freedoms guaranteed to us in the Constitution that Progressives are so predictably willing to give away.

Before Americans were able to corporately exhale upon hearing the news about the Connecticut shooting, liberals hopped on the gun control bandwagon. One of MSNBC’s many loose cannons, Ed Schultz, went on a rant saying, “Hiding behind the Second Amendment doesn’t cut it anymore” and described our founders as slave-owning bigots. It’s real hard to wrap your hands around the hypocrisy of those who cry giant crocodile tears over the loss of these 20 precious children (and they should) but care little about millions of children who will never see the light of day due to abortion.

And here we go again; Progressives are manipulating the Sandy Hook massacre as a way to strike down the Second Amendment. Truth is, gun control is like putting a bandage on a gaping wound. Seems to me a better solution is to do something about the culture of violence currently destroying our society from the inside out — and place armed guards in schools in the meantime. Chances are, had one been at Sandy Hook, I wouldn’t be writing about it today.

I may date myself here, but when I was a kid, I didn’t stay inside playing violent computer games or watching violent movies; I played outside with real people who picked flowers in the spring, climbed trees in the summer, jumped in leaf piles in the fall, and ice skated on frozen ponds in the winter. And I grew up to be a responsible citizen and gun owner.

As I’ve written before, if you listen to liberals long enough, it’s not too long before you find yourself in Bizarro World. And in the case of the Second Amendment, Progressives like Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) pretzel it into something it is not. On “Meet the Press” December 16, Feinstein inferred that arming school guards is a crummy idea because “the rights of the few” (i.e. the millions who own guns) would, in her world, somehow “overcome the safety of the majority.” Say, what? Bizarro.

As brokenhearted as we all are over what happened in Connecticut, gun control will not stop those lacking certain emotional filters from doing bad things to children — and others. Policies in China, for example, make it largely illegal for private citizens to own and sell guns. Possession or sale of a gun can lead to anywhere from a 3 year prison term to the death penalty. I digress to mention that because the Chinese government has little regard for human life, gun laws were devised to protect the tyrannical Chinese government from its citizens rather than the other way around.

Nevertheless, people find a way to do bad things; and in the case of the Chinese, crazy people are still hurting children. Oddly, on the same day the Sandy Hook massacre took place, a knife-wielding Chinese man stabbed almost two dozen children at an elementary school in central China. And he found a way to do it although the Chinese government recently enacted strict knife regulation measures after a spate of deadly knife and cleaver attacks on school children in China in 2010, killing 20 and wounding 50.

Before long, the Chinese will be eating steak with teaspoons; and so will we — if we relinquish our Second Amendment rights to those who would rather steal the rights of the masses than address our society’s moral decline. With that in mind, the best gift we can give our kids this Christmas is a future filled with the promise of freedom.

Photo credit: Rev. Xanatos Satanicos Bombasticos (ClintJCL) (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

Helping Charities And Voluntary Wealth Redistribution

December 13, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Salvation Army SC Helping Charities and Voluntary Wealth Redistribution

With Great Depression-like poverty and homelessness on the rise during this Christmas season, organizations like the Salvation Army are working overtime to make up for the increase worsened by a bloated federal government well on its way to becoming a victim of its own gluttonous appetite. President Obama and Democrats are now in their 6th year of campaigning for one thing or another — the latest is an attempt to bully Republicans into raising taxes and lowering charitable deduction allowances on top wage earners. As if that will help anything.

You’d think Obama would try to mask the animosity he has toward America’s successful. According to the president, the rich can save this country if they would repent of their greed and fork over the money stuffed between the mattresses in their devalued formerly million dollar homes. All the while, the carefully vetted crowds he rouses rant and cheer to the shrewdly-crafted catchphrases obviously meant to rile them.

So let me throw this little piece of wisdom out there pro bono to educate the uniformed: Financial experts including Senate Budget Committee member John Thune, R-S.D., say that raising taxes on job creators would only generate enough revenue to support the president’s spending habit for about a week. Surely something else is at play here.

Without a doubt, in these tough economic times, any policy decision that could harm charitable organizations in turn would hurt the poor. Could it be Obama views charities as an obstacle to universal dependence on government? He shouldn’t because the government has done a lousy job helping the poor thus far. It’s no secret our government has lost the war on poverty. According to the White House’s own website, billions of dollars were designated through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Stimulus) to “alleviate the poverty made worse by the economic crisis.” The result? Drumroll please…

Poverty got worse.

According to The Washington Times, somewhere around one-sixth of our population (or 46.2 million people) have descended into poverty, and 2.5 million of them joined those ranks between 2010 and 2011. And now we hear murmurings that the administration is considering yet another stimulus funded by none other than those repugnant rich people Progressives love to hate (unless their last name is Gates, Buffett, Gore, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, or liberal Hollywood stars).

Oh, the unabashed hypocrisy of those who label the rich as “greedy”, yet believe it morally justifiable to take someone else’s hard-earned money to redistribute according to their own freakish fancy.

The bottom line here is that raising taxes on the successful and tinkering with charitable contributions deductions means less money for organizations — which actually do something to help the poor. I guess that’s how liberals define tough love.

Whatever the case, the Salvation Army needs our help. According to CBS News in Minnesota, the Salvation Army has received a record number of requests for assistance from families this year. Many of these families will receive much needed food, toys, money, and other needs, thanks to the army’s red kettles and a new nationwide “Fill the Truck” campaign co-sponsored by another organization liberals hate: non-unionized Wal-Mart.

I challenge you to do what I’m doing this year to aid their cause by setting aside all the money I would have spent on my liberal friends who think helping the poor is always done with other people’s money. I’m simply putting their words into action by redistributing the money I would have spent on them — to the Salvation Army.

Photo credit: Ryan McFarland and www.zieak.com (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

Secular Humanists Bid All ‘A Merry Un-Christmas’

December 5, 2012 by 4 Comments

Merry Christmas SC Secular Humanists Bid All A Merry un Christmas

That “most wonderful time of the year” has arrived, and with it, most predictably, another round of attacks (yawn) by Secular Humanists doing their best to destroy the season by removing the Christ child from the creche.

Yes, these are the same people who think goodness exists without God (with a capital “G”) and lose their free-thinking minds at courthouse displays of the Ten Commandments. Nothing against all the free thinking atheists out there, but what rational argument can be made against “Thou shalt not kill” or “Honor thy Father and Mother”?

You’d think free thinking would involve thinking outside the box a bit. It would have saved an atheist group time, money, and the embarrassment of recently losing their lawsuit to remove a statue in Whitefish, Montana. One person, out of the countless thousands having skied past the 57-year old statue over the years, found it offensive. Had a little of that “free thinking” been conjured, maybe they would come to the same conclusion that the judge overseeing the case did in late November, deciding the “Jesus” statue should remain because it is of a historical nature having been erected as a World War II memorial for veterans who saw a similar one in Europe during WWII.

Indeed, America’s founders separated church and state because of the tyrannical mess they escaped from and fought against; but it is a ruse to suggest God was removed in the process. Au contraire. Judeo-Christian morality is woven through the very fiber of the U.S. Constitution. The founders under-pinned our nation’s laws with morality to maintain a steady framework that has been systematically chipped away at by individuals, a tiny minority I might add, forcing the masses to conform to their own religion of worshipping themselves (i.e., “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”.)

So now they are going after Charlie Brown. An atheist group is upset an Arkansas school offered students an optional (meaning not required) school field trip to see a production of “Merry Christmas, Charlie Brown” that just happened to be showing at a local church. The November 29 letter sent to the Little Rock Arkansas School District by the Appignani Humanist Legal Center speaks to separation of church and state and complains: “The message of the play is clear: Jesus Christ is the son of God and the messiah, and the real meaning of Christmas is to celebrate the anniversary of his birth. It is completely sectarian in nature and expressly rejects any secular version of Christmas…”.

Well, duh. The group claims they are standing up for the rights of children; but what child after watching “A Charlie Brown Christmas” has a conversion experience? (But… if they do…good for them.) I’m thinking these people might need to deal with their own Christianphobia. Charlie Brown? Come on.

The American Humanist Association’s (AHA) website unveiled its latest un-Christmas campaign, “Bias Against Atheists Is Naughty, Not Nice,” which accuses Christians of intolerance and depicts Santa Claus drafting a naughty list in the towns where the AHA claims atheists experienced discrimination because of their disbelief.

At the expense of sounding nit-picky here, on what basis would these particular free thinkers claim discrimination is wrong? In doing so, aren’t they inadvertently acknowledging a belief in Judeo-Christian morality and a fortuitous belief in God? Check out Deuteronomy 10:17, which states God is against partiality (discrimination). Humanists say humans can be “good without God” but fall back into the same trap about the definition of good and how they arrived at that definition.

They claim they want freedom from religion, which they already have because it is one of our founding principles. Besides, Christianity is not a religion. Never was. Never will be. It’s a relationship. A way of life. A choice.

But freedom–from God–is another matter altogether, and that’s something they’ll have to work out with the man upstairs.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports

Union Vultures On The Prowl

November 28, 2012 by 5 Comments

labor unions SC Union Vultures on the Prowl

So what do you get when you cross a community organizer-turned-president with union thugs? No one is really sure — yet. But one thing is for sure: Congressional Democrats have every reason to be afraid. President Obama’s BFFs have them in their sights and promise to strong-arm them into submission should they dare compromise on the fiscal cliff. On MSNBC just before Thanksgiving, United Steelworkers Union boss Leo Gerard said any Democrats compromising with Republicans will suffer the same fate as former senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), the last of a dying breed of moderate Democrats.

Gerard said those who compromise are not “real Democrat[s],” proof that extremists have taken over the Democrat Party. It should come as no surprise to anyone that some of the most frequent White House guests are union bosses. Granted, there was a time when union bosses were considered the “good guys” looking out for the working class; but somewhere along the way, they’ve become the epitome of the very things they once fought against.

Even still, President Obama continues to consult with labor leadership regarding job creation and economic issues as he recently did November 13. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka walked away saying he was pleased with the outcome, and now we hear labor unions are investing big union dollars to promote President Obama’s “tax the rich” propaganda. And, in return? According to the Washington Examiner, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is working on a special rule forcing non-union employers to disclose to union organizers the private contact information of workers in order to facilitate union expansion. So much for a worker’s right to privacy. While we’re at it, why don’t we rename the country “Cuba-West?”

According to Front Page Magazine, Gerard has threatened to “hit the streets, kick some a–, and mobilize” to encourage Obama to move forward in creating big spending plans. Obviously, Gerard’s animosity toward free market capitalism fuels his gangsta’-like comments. According to the magazine, Gerard perceives capitalism as economic “inequality” that “leads to instability and violence.”

Sure wish the Baker’s union had considered the whole economic inequality thing when representing the 18,000 Hostess Brands workers who lost their jobs just before Christmas in part because the union demanded that cake and bread be transported in separate trucks. What does it matter as long as they can turn a profit? The idea that in this country it is somehow acceptable to destroy a company and its workers’ livelihoods in order to prove your point suggests it might be time for organized labor to go by way of the dinosaur.

It should not shock anyone that labor union participation has dwindled to nearly single digits, nor is it a surprise that union vultures continue to target Wal-Mart in hopes of increasing those dwindling numbers. If only this was about bailing workers out of austere conditions. Not even close. Truth be told, a unionized Wal-Mart is a bailout for unions whose pensions for the rank-and-file are currently unfunded by up to 55 percent. It’s a different story for union bosses, most of whom boast six figure salaries, fully-funded pension plans, and perks fit for a king and always find a way to squeeze out money for Democrats.

Wal-Mart workers are much smarter than liberals would make them out to be. Just 50 or so employees bit on Big Labor’s Black Friday bait encouraging workers to join them on the picket lines. Despite the chaos, Wal-Mart fared well. According to Fox Business, on Black Friday, they sold “more than 1.8 million towels, 1.3 million televisions, 1.3 million dolls, and 250,000 bicycles”; and Wal-Mart shares “ticked up 0.15 percent to $68.99.” Obviously, the union vultures failed on Black Friday; but they’ll be back.

But I have a better idea. Since union bosses seem to be so concerned about everyone paying their “fair share,” why don’t they put their money where their mouth is and lobby Congress to eliminate unions’ tax-exempt status and create a union tax?

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With:

Unholy Trio: Gun Control, The UN, And Obama

November 21, 2012 by 5 Comments

Guns SC Unholy Trio: Gun Control, the UN, and Obama

Welcome to President Obama’s second term, America — that special place where ridiculousness replaces raison d’etre, and presidents give us things like gun control a’ la United Nations.

Obviously, Obama understood he would never get the support needed for a gun control bill from Congress, so the astute Constitutional professor chose to skirt around the Constitution by signing on to the United Nations (UN) Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) shortly after his re-election. Liberals certainly know how to get what they want, ethics aside. Remember in 2010, when former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi described how liberals would circumvent the electorate to pass Obamacare? Pelosi said they would “…go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in.” And parachute they did.

Now Obama’s doing the same thing with gun control. On one hand, we have the administration telling us they are committed to protecting our Second Amendment rights; while on the other hand, the president is joining alliances with UN gun-grabbers by giving them the green light for the ATT. In the real world, presidents work in conjunction with Congress to pass laws; but in Obama Land, anything goes.

The administration claims that the ATT primarily applies to exporting weapons, thus posing zero threat to gun ownership domestically. ATT’s verbiage, instructing nations to “take the necessary legislative and administrative measure to adapt, as necessary, national laws and regulations to implement the obligations of this treaty”, is too gray, hence leaving room to dilute or supersede the Second Amendment.

It is clear Obama’s been a gun control advocate all along, although he was too cowardly to admit it before re-election. According to the Washington Post, Obama last year told gun control activist Sarah Brady, whose husband Jim was shot during the Reagan assassination attempt in 1981, that gun control was “very much on his agenda…but under the radar.” History will not be kind to America’s 44th president, who promised transparency but governed mostly under the radar.

Of course, the UN wants us to believe that global gun control is for our own good; and granting them authority to force us to register our guns with them will prevent weapons from getting into the “wrong people’s” hands and will somehow make the world a safer place. For whom might it be safer? The easy answer is criminals.

In reality, government is the real problem. Case in point: that little scandal affectionately code-named “Fast and Furious,” wherein the Justice Department made the injudicious decision to sell weapons to those linked to the Mexican drug cartel in Arizona. Their plan backfired when the weapons “walked” across the border into Mexico and into the hands of cartel thugs. It should have been code-named “Dumb and Dumber.” And more than 50 million Americans voted to give them a second term.

The United Nations needs to mind its own business and stay out of ours, thank you. And President Obama needs to get over his attitude about those who, as he once put it, are bitter because they “cling to guns or religion.” Before he came along, we had the Constitution; need I say more? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, or even this blond columnist, to deduce that if the UN is given an open door into our personal lives by way of the ATT, gun confiscations will, at some point, follow.

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , ,

Who Benefits When Top Military Brass Fall

November 14, 2012 by 6 Comments

General David Petraeus SC Who Benefits When Top Military Brass Fall

Everyone is preoccupied with the events surrounding the juicy sex scandal involving now-former CIA Director David Petraeus to the point they may not have noticed a pattern — a shake-down — that is taking place in our military top brass, much like the one currently happening in Russia under President Vladimir Putin.

Curiously, the shake-down here in the U.S. began just after the September 11 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, begging the question: Who benefits when great military leaders like Petraeus fall?

According to ABC News on October 27, “In an unusual move”, the Navy replaced Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette, who commanded a task group near Benghazi. Gaouette is under investigation for “allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment” they say is “not related to personal conduct.”

A few days later on November 2, the captain of the frigate Vandegrift, Commander Joseph Darlak, was also relieved of his duties for “alleged drunkenness,” according to Fox5 in San Diego.

In addition, the Commander of United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), General Carter Ham, who was at the center of the Benghazi incident on September 11, was precipitously scheduled for early retirement, according to the Washington Times.

If those losses are not devastating enough, enter the rapidly developing story about ISAF Commander General John R. Allen, whose promotion is currently on hold until investigators can make sense of thousands of emails purportedly shared between Allen and an attractive Tampa socialite Jill Kelley, who, according to the UK Daily Mail, “flirt[ed] outrageously with senior military figures invited to lavish parties at her $1.3 million Tampa mansion.”

The plot thickens when you add to the mix that Kelley and her husband purportedly had financial troubles. According to TampaBay.com, Kelley and her husband were “subjects of lawsuits nine times”, including “an indebtedness case from Chase Bank; a foreclosure case from Regions Bank, a credit card case from FIA Card Services,” and “an $11,000 judgment against them” from when they lived in Pennsylvania.

Petraeus and Allen share much in common in that they are married, are highly decorated generals, are under investigation for inappropriate behavior, and also share a friendship with Jill Kelley. According to the UK Daily Mail, Kelley and Petraeus exchanged non-romantic “near-daily emails and instant messages” while Petraeus was commander in Afghanistan. The same thing allegedly happened to Allen.

We are told Petraeus’ alleged mistress perceived Kelley as a threat and sent disturbing emails to Kelley who then contacted a “friend” at the FBI; and the next thing we know, prominent military leaders are dropping like dominoes. While there is no justification for inappropriate behavior, it is fair to question if Petraeus and Allen were set up.

All this drama reminds me of a historical event that took place in 1941 when Joseph Stalin purged the Soviet Union’s Red Army of its best officers and leaders because he feared a military coup due to growing opposition to his highly unpopular policies. Putin’s doing the same thing today, save the bloodshed — we hope.

Hopefully, in our case, it’s a bit less nefarious; Obama is sitting idle while the Benghazi scandal makes its way through the ranks and does nothing to slow it down. Or, maybe, we are dealing with something as simple as a convenient distraction, wherein Obama hopes the more we focus on sexy, the less we’ll search for truth. Either way, Obama benefits and we lose.

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

We Reap What We Sow

November 8, 2012 by 3 Comments

Mitt Romney We Reap What We Sow

So, guess what? I’m disappointed, along with the other 57 million people who voted for Mitt Romney. Even still, disappointment and failure is never an excuse for any of us to give up. From that first big slug in my gut after my husband was killed in 2001 until this day, the one thing that has kept me grounded is my faith in God and the knowledge that things will get better over time.

“Mindboggling” is the word that comes to mind when I swallow the fact that a majority — almost 60 million people — voted to affirm the antithesis of America’s Judeo-Christian values and sound economic reform. It is as if people checked their brains at the door prior to pulling the polling booth’s curtain.

The chickens will most certainly be coming home to roost in America, so it sure would be nice if there were a way to protect those of us who voted with all our faculties intact from the looming collateral damage. But it doesn’t work that way. Until the bottom drops out and we become Greece West, we are still America, and Americans do not give up just because times are tough.

Failure is not a bad word — just as long as it is followed by a comma or semicolon and not a period. History is filled with examples of failure transformed into achievement. The 2012 election should serve as an opportunity for introspection as well as inspiration because conservatives can do better.

One takeaway from Romney’s defeat is we conservatives must invest our time and energy on America’s youth. Analysts say more youth voted in 2012 than in 2008, and Obama was the recipient of more than 60 percent of the youth vote.

While many of us have been preoccupied making big bucks and moving up the corporate ladder, liberalism has wormed its way into our school systems and universities, hence infiltrating our children’s minds. We’ve been too busy for family dinners during the week and no time for worship on the weekend. We’ve sent our kids onto the battlefield unarmed and defenseless. No wonder so many of them voted for Barack Obama.

How easy it is to cast blame on everyone but ourselves when bad things happen. Sure, 60 million people decided to give Obama a second chance; but until conservatives take responsibility for their own missteps, they will never become the better version of themselves America’s children deserve.

I can’t help but wonder had we done our job, maybe the youth would have noted an inconsistency in a president who blatantly betrayed the Christian faith he claims to be part of when he mandated a plaque with Jesus’ name on it be covered during his Georgetown University speech in 2009. And they should have at least questioned why a smart Harvard graduate would strategically omit the word “Creator” from the Declaration of Independence in recent years. And if we’d taught them sound economic values like balancing a budget or how to balance a checkbook, maybe they wouldn’t have been so mesmerized by one who uses taxpayer funds like Monopoly money and offers handouts as if they grow on trees on the White House lawn.

Elections have consequences, and we will reap what we sow, so we may as well busy ourselves in the meantime investing in something that will undoubtedly pay off in the future — our children. The Republican Establishment will say it’s time to go back to the drawing board, but I think we need to go back to the dining room table.

Photo credit: davelawrence8 (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

Obama’s ‘Soulless’ Responses To Benghazi And Fort Hood

October 31, 2012 by 5 Comments

Obama Car Libya Flag SC Flicker.com CC 5914760451 0281079446 z Obamas Soulless Responses to Benghazi and Fort Hood

During times of crisis, Americans rightfully expect their president to be many things, including an Empathizer-in-Chief.

Given that his presidency has been a complete failure when it comes to the economy, foreign policy, transparency, and job creation, one could only hope Obama would have tried a little harder to show us he can feel our pain. But, some things can’t be faked. Empathy is one of them.

Ask Charles Woods, the father of the slain Navy Seal hero Tyrone Woods, who was killed during the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

Sure, Obama appeared to be empathetic when standing near the four flag-draped caskets at the highly publicized memorial service at Andrews Air Force Base, but behind-the-scenes — not so much. Mr. Woods went public to say Obama refused to make eye contact with him at the service and said Obama mumbled a “totally insincere, more of a whining type, ‘I’m sorry.”‘

Woods said Obama’s handshake was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.”

Dead fish. Okay, I get the lack of eye contact, considering certain facts and emails continue to surface pointing toward a full-fledged cover-up, but a “dead fish” handshake? Wow.

According to an interview with Fox News last weekend, retired Intelligence Officer Lieutenant Colonel Tony Shaffer claims, according to his sources, President Obama was watching the attack go down “in real time.” According to the Weekly Standard, Mr. Woods concurs, alleging “the White House situation room was watching our people die in real time.”

We now know the CIA was denied the help they needed, although assistance was not far away. Presumably under the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, the CIA put out a statement on October 26 clarifying that the CIA had nothing to do with the decision to deny help, hence bouncing the blame back in the lap of the one whom the buck is always supposed to stop (the president).

After being told to “stand down” twice, Tyrone (and five others) made the gutsy decision to disobey orders to rescue those in harm’s way. Tyrone’s father told Fox News, “For seven hours the cowards in the White House were watching something they knew that was going to potentially kill those 30 people and potentially kill my son…they had a moral duty to send support and they chose not to…”

Hours later, President Obama hopped on his jet to entertain followers at a campaign rally in Las Vegas. He began his remarks speaking to the “tough day we had today…” How nice it would have been if Tyrone Woods and three others could have lived to talk about theirs.

Soulless.

Lest you think President Obama’s bizarre handling of Benghazi is an anomaly, think again. Remember Fort Hood?

Just hours after the attack and while Americans were glued to their TVs in shock as death tolls and injury numbers rose — an obviously disconnected and fairly jovial Obama made his first public statement about the shootings.

Obama’s short statement sounding much like an afterthought about “a tragic shooting,” came after his two minute lighthearted “shout out” (his words) to an audience member and talk about the necessity for healthcare reform.

The obvious disconnect between what happened at Fort Hood and the words flowing from the president’s mouth was shocking. Jolting, even.

Providence, by way of Hurricane Sandy, has granted Obama one last chance to show us that he is not the heartless clod he comes across as during times of crisis. I was almost impressed to see him at FEMA headquarters Sunday — just up until he jetted off to Florida for a campaign rally Sunday night; he was “coming early to try to beat the storm” according to the Huffington Post. Sure, he returned to DC hours later, but isn’t that the least he could do after four years of campaigning?

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With:

Time To Lead From The Middle

October 24, 2012 by 1 Comment

Republican Democrat SC Time to Lead from the Middle

Someone once said that history repeats itself because no one was listening the first time. All one needs to do is look at the ever-widening ideological divide and partisan bickering going on in America to understand that Americans are slow learners. And, unless a Lincolnesque figure rises to the occasion, America is headed for another Civil War sans the bloodshed.

Sure, today’s ideological war is waged with words rather than muskets and canons, but it still reaps similar results when extremists on both sides of the political aisle refuse to consider any common ground –simply because they want to get their way. All this tugging left and yanking right does is extend the already-gaping hole in the middle. The only way we will ever experience relief from the partisan gridlock in Washington is if we choose a president who will help us find common ground by leading us from the middle. (There is nothing wrong with compromise, just as long as sound principle is not forfeited along the way.)

Before he was president, Abraham Lincoln spoke to the value of compromise. During a speech to the House of Representatives in 1848 Lincoln said, “The true rule, in determining to embrace, or reject anything is not whether it has any evil in it; but whether it has more of evil than of good.”

Food for thought: Lincoln’s “rule” was the measuring stick used by former President Bill Clinton, when he signed the sweeping welfare reform bill in 1996. After signing, Clinton said, “I signed this bill because this is an historic chance, where Republicans and Democrats got together… We should not have passed this historic opportunity to do what is right”. And Mitt Romney did the same thing when he, as a Republican governor in a Democratic state, passed a healthcare bill in partnership with the late Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy. Dissimilarly, what could have been his shining legacy, Obamacare, became a conspicuous black eye on the one, President Obama, who chose partisanship over compromise to deliver healthcare legislation.

In sharp contrast, Romney has promised to carry a Lincolnesque spirit back to Washington. During the first debate, Romney said, “We have to work on a collaborative basis…we need to have leadership…that will actually bring people together and get the job done….I’ve done it before and I’ll do it again…”.

Two candidates. Two records: One led from the middle and promises to do it again, and one consistently leads from the left, behind, or in some cases, from an island all by himself. One promises unity; the other delivers discord.

The choice is ours.

In 1861, Lincoln said the future of our nation is “with you, and not with politicians, not with Presidents, not with office-seekers, but with you, is the question, ‘Shall the Union and shall the liberties of this country be preserved to the latest generation?’”

Suddenly feeling a heavy burden? This country is worth it.

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

To Tell The Truth

October 17, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Obama Truth Slips Away SC To Tell the Truth

Watching the recent Obama/Romney debate brought to mind a YouTube video I saw of an old TV game show called “To Tell the Truth” where the emcee began by welcoming the audience “to our game of deliberate misrepresentation….”

The 1957 clip I saw featured three contestants each claiming to be a letter carrier. Four panelists had the task of questioning the contestants to sift out the two imposters who were allowed to lie while the actual mail carrier was sworn to tell the truth. In the particular clip I viewed, all four panelists were hoodwinked by the two imposters and missed out on the real deal because they made assumptions and asked the wrong questions. The panelists said they voted for the wrong guy mainly because of his appearance and the way he spoke. They were shocked when the real letter carrier stood up to reveal himself at game’s end.

Thus far, President Obama’s debate performance has been astoundingly weak and Mitt Romney’s — strikingly strong. David versus Goliath. Substance versus fluff. Straight talk versus talking points. Most peculiarly, and much like the “To Tell the Truth” panelists, debate moderators and most of the mainstream media have not asked Obama the right questions and have done their best to protect his presidential image.

Even still, that isn’t enough to mask voters from the truth. Obama’s poor performance filled with platitudes and cliches reminded me of a quote by Mark Twain, “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to — remember…” You truly don’t. Obama performed poorly because telling the truth about his failed first term would pretty much repudiate his lofty promises of hope and change. And that is why the Obama campaign has resorted to a strategy of all-out mudslinging.

Why discuss job creation when you can lie about Bain Capital? Why talk about tax policies when you can yuck it up about Romney’s taxes? Why carry on an adult conversation about Benghazi when you can falsely accuse Romney of exploitation of the matter? Why participate in a cerebral conversation about the economy when you can talk about Big Bird? Why discuss the fact that our senior citizens are about to lose certain Medicare benefits under Obamacare when you can twist the facts about Romneycare in Massachusetts? Why discuss job creation and high unemployment when you can alter the meaning of Romney’s “47 percent” statement and create a fake war on women? Why discuss your policies that hurt the middle class when you can pin your opponent as out of touch?

In an attempt to regain lost momentum, operatives sequestered Vice President Blabbermouth, I mean Biden, for six days to prepare for the Vice Presidential debate with Paul Ryan. When he wasn’t rudely interrupting and behaving condescending, Biden acted as if he’d overdosed on nitrous oxide. In my opinion, Biden lost the debate — by an arrogant grin. You can’t fix stupid. Nor should one try because it’s futile. Proverbs 29:9 nails it: “If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.” Hah.

We are witnessing Gotham City, err, Chicago politics, in all its glory here: When all else fails, shift focus, change the subject, and assassinate your opponent’s character. The Obama team is hoping it will work because — they’ve….got…nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

The reason why Romney comes across as competent, believable, and consistent is because he is. The same Romney who came out for the first debate will be present at each one following. All the while, the Obama team and its mainstream media cohorts are in scramble mode doing their best to prop up an empty suit wearing golf shoes that sits in an empty chair in an empty Oval Office. And the electorate cries out: “Will the real American president please stand up!”

To tell you the truth, I believe he already has.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,