Crying is a natural human reaction to many different events. Babies cry when they are tired, wet, hungry, lonesome………..or, just to get attention.
The rest of us often cry for the same reasons, or maybe for joy, shock………..or, just to get attention.
President Obama is no different than the rest of us and, I assume that like me or my family, he cries in private, too. Usually, though, he has not cried in public. He didn’t cry when Al Quiada beheaded a journalist, nor the multitude of others similarly murdered. All those Christian men lined up on a beach and systematically and ruthlessly beheaded were not enough to make Obama cry in public. The massacre at Charlie Hebdo did NOT make Obama cry. The random and relentless assassination of Parisians did NOT make Obama cry. Even his cause celebre of climate change did NOT make him cry.
But, gun control? Well, that made him cry.
He pretended that he wants gun control to stop the tragedies that occur when someone guns down helpless people in restaurants, or any public place. Those horrendous occasions cause all of us to cry. The difference between Obama and most of us is that we don’t blame the gun. We blame the person shooting the gun. Murdering a group of people is always a cause for grief, but it does not make us want to ban the weapon. After all, when suicide bombers drive into a United States barracks, setting off their bombs and killing our sons and daughters, Obama does not call for us to ban cars, or limit who can have a car……..NOR does he cry!
I believe that his tears in this particular public forum did come partially from sadness. The loss of loved ones is absolutely a reason to cry. But, I also believe that he went out of his way to cry for political purposes. Why is there this pessimistic view of Obama’s tears? Because he did NOT cry for other mass tragedies, it is out of character for him to cry in this instance. The obvious conclusion is that his tears served some ulterior purpose and, I believe that purpose was to create the impression that gun control is so important that even the President of the United States cries in public about it. Trying to appear emotionally engaged on an issue is not a new tactic for Democrats. Remember when Hillary Clinton cried in public,? Her poll numbers went up, thanks to the media reporting those tears as proof that Hillary was a “truly wonderful and emotionally engaged woman”.
Ironically, when another politician cried in public, he was insulted and derided for not being able to control his emotions. The media claimed that THAT politician was an immature hack and unqualified to hold his position. That politician, of course, was Republican Representative Boehner, the Speaker of the House.
Why is it that both men, and Hillary, cried in public and, yet, the media’s reaction is so different?
Obama was lauded for feeling so deeply about an issue. Hillary tears were proof that she was not the robot she appeared to be. Boehner was characterized as a buffoon and, according to the media, his lack of control of his feelings made him not worthy to hold the Speakership.
The plain truth is that the media never lets a “tragedy go to waste”, as Rahm Emmanuel once infamously said. And, politician’ tears are just so useful in advancing a point of view.
It’s no wonder that the American electorate increasingly believes that the media has leaned so far to the left and Lieberalism that the media no longer recognizes honest men and women nor honest emotions. The media manipulates issues, reports, and even TEARS to enable Lieberals to continue taking more power, money, and control of our lives. Lieberals do NOT believe in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness………….unless THEY can define those Constitutional guarantees. They now even “define” tears.
So, it’s no wonder that the American electorate senses that we need a new President, like Trump or Cruz, or Rubio, or Christie, or Fiorina. We need men and women in politics who are honest….honest with themselves and honest with us. We do NOT need another President who manipulates policy or their public persona to gain political stature, as the Obama and the Clintons have done on multiple occasions, or who use emotions to further their agenda.
It’s too bad that the Democrats can’t find at least one, solid, honest person to run for President. They rely upon a woman who has been involved in scandal after scandal, from Whitewater, to Foster’s death, to the multitude of women whom have been sexually abused by Governor and then President Clinton and, the women who have been consistently abused by Hillary in her attempts to disguise, hide, and minimize her husband’s sexual perversions.
It’s easy to understand a baby’s tears and even for us to understand and empathize with adults crying. And, if those abused women cry, we would surely understand. But, to see Obama or Hillary get teary eyed in public is just an obvious, and sickening, ploy for political gain. Whether the media can bring themselves to couch the big O’s or the Big Hill’s tears as just another useful tool in their political tool box is unlikely. More likely is that the media will laud them for their tears and pretend that the tears makes these politicians real people.
We should not fall for that lie. If we do, THAT would be a real CRYING SHAME!
