'Pro Life' Hypocrisy

 After the horrific slaughter of innocent children and adults in Texas last week,  the responses of most Republican congressional leaders in Washington, along with the NRA, centered around the ideology of getting more guns into the hands of ‘good people’ to help protect us from the ‘bad people’ with guns.  

Ironically, these are the same individuals that champion the cause of ‘Pro Life.’  They are fanatical about protecting the life of the unborn, but apparently couldn’t care less about life after birth for children and adults. The stark reality being, as Senator Ted Cruz of Texas was recently asked by a British journalist, “Why does this (mass shootings) only happen in your country? .... Why only in America? Why is this American exceptionalism so awful?”   Cruz responded with “You know, I’m sorry you think American exceptionalism is awful. You’ve got your political agenda. God love you,” and stormed off.

Sadly, Cruz’s reaction probably summed up what will occur regarding the possibility of implementing any meaningful minimalistic regulation of gun sales in this country; not one single thing.

As has happened so many times before, when something like the Texas’ slaughter occurs, the old phrase ‘Guns don’t kill people, people kill people’ will arise once again as the battle cry for prohibiting gun sale regulation. However, please note, the biggest selling point of a gun is that it can kill people.

The latest poll indicates that the majority of the people in the U.S. want tighter gun control legislation, but Republican legislators, like Cruz, who receives more money from gun lobbyist groups than any other member in the U.S. Senate, will have none of that. And, apparently our state Republican legislators will have none of that either, as they are set to pass less restrictions on gun ownership.

One of my biggest personal pet peeves is ‘hypocrisy,’ defined by the Webster Dictionary as, “the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.”

So please don’t tell me your ‘Pro Life’ if you, do in fact, oppose gun regulation in our country.  Protect the unborn, sacrifice all others?

Questionable Backgrounds of Little Importance to New Orleans for Its Officials

Residents of New Orleans perceive crime as out of control in their fair city.   They are repulsed by the shootings and car jackings that now plague the city almost daily.  However, strangely, their abhorrence of crime seems to take a back seat regarding ‘white collar’ crime as it relates to elected city officials. 

They overwhelmingly elected a D.A. that allegedly committed tax fraud.  And now his law partner is accused of Medicaid fraud.   N.O. ‘s mayor not only had ethical questions raised about her use of a city credit card while serving on the city council , but also had federal tax obligations resulting in liens being placed on her home and other properties. More recently, questions have been raised regarding the mayor about possible improprieties regarding awarding a contract to expand internet services within the city.

And let’s not forget the recently elected city council member who served time for taking bribes and kickbacks while previously serving on the council.  He was also arrested for driving with a suspended driver’s license and having an outstanding warrant for failure to appear in court regarding a traffic incident.

Granted, with the exception of the recently elected councilman’s brush with the law, the other city officials were not, or have yet to be, formally convicted of a crime.  However, their behaviors all raise ‘red flags’ about their ethical beliefs regarding obeying the law.

And, contrary to popular belief in New Orleans, there are individuals in the city that have no suspicious behaviors associated with their pasts.   Why not take a ‘bite out of crime,’ and elect these individuals to guide the city?   Too progressive an idea for ‘the city that care forgot’?

Reckless Justification of Second Amendment Rights

Sadly, after the horrific event in Uvalde, Texas, the random slaughter of 19 elementary students and two teachers, we continue to hear even stronger support among our most vocal pro guns Congressional legislators, and citizenry, for upholding one's rights for gun ownership with very minimal restrictions.

In fact, our esteemed Louisiana state legislators are, at this very moment, pushing legislation relaxing even more restrictions for carrying a weapon. 

However, it is important to note that the justification for all this ideology is the Second Amendment, amendment  to the Constitution of the United States.  It was adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

These are the firearms available at the time of that adoption:

These are just some of the firearms available now:

Need I say more? Seems like a recklessly flawed ideological justification.

How Much More Pathetic Can Louisiana House Rep. Steve Scalise Get?

It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to figure out that the only agenda that U.S. House Minority Whip Steve Scalise has for the next 4 years is to impede every legislation proposed by the Biden administration whether it is beneficial to the country or not.

He wants to make sure that the present administration fails. However, I never thought that his obstructionist role would be so pervasive and demented that he would risk the lives of newborns just to prove a point. 

Last week, Scalise sent a memo to all House GOP offices recommending that members vote against the legislation that was proposed to address the baby formula shortage. He argued that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) brought up the bill “in hopes of covering up the administration’s ineptitude by throwing additional money at the FDA with no plan to actually fix the problem, all while failing to hold the FDA accountable.”

Whether that point was valid or not, the crisis needed to be addressed immediately because newborns and babies would die without a solution.  He proposed no solution himself.

 Apparently, his obsession as an obstructionist is so pervasive now that he is willing to let babies die just to prove a point and embarrass the present administration. Thankfully, the legislation passed and does seem to address the problem. What a pathetic individual Rep. Scalise has become.

Hypocrisy, Alive and Well in Supreme Court Selection

The hypocrisy and grandstanding at the recent confirmation hearing for the potential Supreme Court Justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, was truly amazing. Senators Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz led the charge bashing Judge Jackson on everything from her decisions as a trial lawyer and judge, her definition of a woman, and her school board seat at her children’s school.

It would seem to me that one of the most important qualifications for a Supreme Court justice should be ‘on hand’ experience with the law.  Judge Jackson’s qualifications include serving as a supreme court clerk, a public defender trial lawyer, and presently a federal judge; items sorely missing from the most recent person appointed to the Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett.  Hypocritically, both Senator Cruz and Senator Graham found no problem with her law inexperience and quickly approved her nomination with no objections.  They must both feel proud that they nominated Justice Barrett, who has the distinction of being the least experienced Supreme Court nominee in 30 years.  She had spent almost all her professional life in academia until Trump nominated her to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017.  She had never worked as a prosecutor, defense lawyer, solicitor general, attorney general, or even served as counsel to any legislative body.  By almost any objective measure, Judge Barrett is the most inexperienced person nominated to the Supreme Court since 1991, when President George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas.

Jackson, on the other hand, served in several of these positions which to her misfortune, served as ‘raw meat’ for the predatory appetites of Cruz, Graham and other Republican committee members to bash her on her clients she was assigned to defend as a public defender, and the sentences she handed down as a judge.  They may not have liked her decisions, or felt they weren’t severe enough, but at least she practiced law in a court room setting.  And, contrary to what Cruz, Graham and some other Republicans would have you believe, according to national court sentencing averages, Ms. Jackson’s  sentencings were not ‘out of line’ with those averages.

Next up for display was Senator Ted Cruz’s taking up the charge for Republicans against anti-racism efforts at a private school in Washington where Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson serves as a school board member. He produced a book available for reading in the district and listed the school’s policy regarding race relations as both problematic.  However, what Senator Cruz failed to note was leaders at the private school in Houston where he sends his two daughters have articulated a similar race commitment, and the exact same book is available for reading. Apparently, he has no problem with his own daughters’ immersion in that school’s philosophies, only when it somewhat remotely applies to Ms. Jackson as being one of several school board members.

Space does not permit the other hypocrisies which arose in the selection committee meeting. However, I would like to address one other Republican hypocrisy.  President Biden had been accused of engaging in ‘selective bias’ by several Republicans because he pledged up front that he would choose a Black female for the next Supreme Court justice.  They clamored that that would systematically eliminate all the qualified males and white females from the selection process.  Need I remind these folks that former President Trump pledged up front that he would nominate a female for his Supreme Court person?  No Cruz, Graham, and other Republican complaints regarding that ‘selective bias’ edict.

Hypocrisy: the false profession of desirable or publicly approved qualities, beliefs, or feelings, esp. a pretense of having virtues, moral principles, or religious beliefs that one does not really possess. (The Online Free Dictionary)  Or as I like to define it in the present day, ‘POLITICS.’