Should human lives be considered partisan things or a partisan issue? After hurricane Sandy devastated New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie requested and received government assistance for the citizens of New Jersey. All the liberals were thoroughly excited over it. Two liberals commented on twitter about Christie's "bi-partisanship" as if human lives are somehow a partisan issue. But this has nothing to do with politics and nothing to do with being bi-partisan. The fate and the basic survival of humans are a completely non-partisan issue irrelevant to politics. And yet, liberals are regarding this as a partisan matter.
The hurricane had halted both campaigns temporarily. The hurricane's approach forced Mitt Romney to cancel some events. Obama returned to Washington D.C and did his job. Romney donated campaign buses to carry supplies and then transformed Tuesday campaign rallies into relief events. The liberal media did not appreciate Romney's relief efforts.
An article from the Christian Post mentioned Christie as dismissing both candidates and both campaigns in favor of caring for his citizens.
In an appearance Tuesday morning on Fox News, reporters attempted to ask New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie about potential visits by Obama or Romney. But an impatient Christie quickly brushed off any further questions regarding VIP visits.
"If you think I care about anything campaign related at the moment, then you don't know me very well," said Christie. "I have a job to do here and that's all I'm thinking about right now."
Referring back to that twitter comment, complimenting Christie for "bi-partisanship" because he cares about and values human life strongly implies harsh and vulgar beliefs that liberals harbor against conservatives. The liberals think that conservatives hate human life. The liberals think that human life is a political and partisan subject. Hence, the "bi-partisan" comment because Chris Christie values the human lives of his New Jersey citizens. Liberals believe that only they care about the partisan topic of human life.
Now, readers, if you think I'm making a big deal out of a little tweet, take a look at this clip from MSNBC:
This woman accuses him of politicizing human lives. Why Ohio? Well, it was already scheduled, so it would be quicker for donations for disaster relief. Mitt Romney took a campaign rally and turned it into a food and clothing drive for the survivors of hurricane Sandy. Charitable donations always need food and clothing. Food and clothing are more vital for survival than shelter. Instead of regarding Romney as someone who values human life, this liberal reporter immediately presumes that the people do not need food or clothing. There is no consideration and not even any speculation that Romney values human life.
KETTERING, Ohio — Some supporters came ready for a rally, but Mitt Romney gave them what his campaign called a “storm relief event.”
The GOP nominee used a 5-minute speech here Tuesday to offer sympathy for the victims of Sandy, remind voters that he dealt with the fallout of humanitarian disasters as governor of Massachusetts and to acknowledge that donations can only help so much.
There were no Romney signs inside the arena in this Dayton suburb, but it had many of the touchstones of a normal campaign rally. All the same warm-up songs blasted over the speakers as the crowd filed in.
The press passes handed out to arriving reporters called it a Dayton “Victory Rally.” Signs — printed before the schedule change — at the entrances to the arena warned that the venue would be closed for a “Republican campaign rally.” They prompted journalists to wonder just how far Romney will veer away from the normal program they’re used to seeing multiple times a day.
Wearing blue jeans and a shirt with his sleeves rolled up, Romney didn’t take the main stage. He entered with no introduction and hopped onto a trunk in front of a row of tables covered with cans of food and cases of bottled water
I've been poor and impoverished during parts of my life. I've been employed in a job for only one year. During these past fours years, I know from experience what it means to worry about having shelter or to worry about if there is enough to eat. I know from experience that food and clothing are much appreciated by people who have nothing.
KETTERING, Ohio — Mitt Romney kicked off an event here in the battleground of Montgomery County, Ohio, on Tuesday morning, one day after Hurricane Sandy made landfall on the East Coast, devastating parts of New Jersey and New York.
The stop was billed as a “storm relief” event, and attendees were asked to bring non-perishable foods and other items for those affected by the storm. Long white tables to one side of the cavernous James S. Trent Arena were piled high with flashlights, batteries, diapers, toothbrushes, mini-deodorants, fleece blankets, cereal, toilet paper and canned goods.
Two large TV screens at the front of the venue bore the logo of the American Red Cross and the message: “Sandy: Support the Relief Effort. Text ’REDCROSS’ to 90999 to make a $10 donation.”
All charitable organizations need these items. I cannot recall a single item that any charity would prohibit. And yet the bias politicizing human necessities goes further into where people suffer.
New York Times wrote an article titled "A Big Storm Requires Big Government" and accused Romney of wanting to destroy FEMA. Eliminating or reducing FEMA beauracracy is probably a response against the Bush administration during hurricane Katrina. FEMA failed then, so is it necessary?
Would disaster relief be more efficient if the big government beaurcracy were reduced? Obama bypassed the big government beaucrats, which just validates Romney’s claim against big government as unnecessary and which proves that big government interferes - not helps - with disaster relief. It also contradicts the NYT condemnation of Romney. In that sense, disaster relief has already been shifted to the states - which Romney promoted during a small part of his campaign.
Not to mention that Obama plans to reduce FEMA’s budget to pay for his military sequester. Obama cannot claim to champion the poor and the suffering through FEMA when he actually cuts funding to FEMA. Go to this link and read pages 94-96, 106-108 pdf in the section titled "Reduction in Sequestrable Budgetary Resources." The Breibart website explains what this means in terms of money.
And now, we have another liberal making the automatic conclusion that human lives exist for partisan intent. When they accuse conservatives of politicizing the issue, they make it a politized issue. Romney said nothing about Obama and expressed only concern for the survivors of hurricane Sandy. And it is not just a twitter or a liberal reporter. This bias and this belief that human lives are a partisan issue exist within the Democratic party itself.
Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern on Tuesday accused Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney of politicizing Hurricane Sandy with a Dayton event that was billed as storm relief but also had characteristics of a campaign rally.
Romney spoke only briefly at the event, to encourage donations to storm victims, and volunteers collected canned goods to send to those suffering in New Jersey. But Romney’s biographical video, routinely played at campaign rallies, was used to introduce the event, as was his routine rally music.
“I think Gov. Romney ought to be focused on things he could do and say on behalf of the victims, rather than going to Dayton Ohio — the most important swing state in the country — and taking advantage of a tragedy,” Redfern said.
“Look, I’m a partisan. I’ll let others judge this,” [Redfern] continued.
If he wants others to judge Romney's actions, why is he even commenting about them? And he admits his comments are blinded by partisanship! Because this partisan-blinded Democrat chose to voice his opinion against a candidate who actively helped disaster survivors, he has turned human lives into a political and partisan issue.
Now, Obama returned to Washington D.C to do his job. That is good. Although I would appreciate it and thank him if I were a disaster survivor, I would still vote for Romney on the basis of the economy. Going to Washington D.C and getting into the situation room is Obama's job. However, the economy continues to affect the vast majority of Americans. Once the disaster recovery is complete, the citizens still need economic security for their survival.
And there remains the matter of the Benghazi massacre. With the approach of hurricane Sandy, Obama immediately went to do his job and entered the situation room to discuss the aftermath. Why was he not in the situation room during the Benghazi massacre? That is also part of his job. If Obama did not deny help to Christopher Stevens and did not give the order to stand down, then Obama must have never been in the situation room to discuss the ongoing attack. And yet, Obama never displayed any outrage about his absence in the situation room. Obama never displayed any outrage at administration officials or our national forces.
President Obama said that "if we find out that there was a big breakdown and somebody didn't do their job" regarding the attack on the U.S. outposts in Benghazi, Libya, "then they'll be held responsible."
The president made his comment on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." The president acknowledged that "there's all kinds of legitimate questions to ask because any time a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans who are serving our country get killed we have to figure out what happened and fix it - and most importantly we have to bring those folks who carried it out to justice."
Instead of outrage at his administration or not being present in the situation room, Obama displayed outrage at a YouTube video for two weeks. Obama and his administration attempted to placate the rioting Middle East by condemning a YouTube video. Obama sought solidarity with the Middle East at the U.N. Obama never displayed any anger at being locked out of the situation room. Certainly, he would have known he was locked out on Sept 12. Due to his lack of anger, the only logical explanation is that Obama was present in the situation room during the Benghazi massacre.
Why is Obama reacting so differently between hurricane Sandy and the Benghazi massacre? Why is he active in the situation room for Sandy and inactive for Benghazi? What is the difference? Why is he finally doing this job this time, but last time in the situation room, he planned a trip to Las Vegas?
If it were not for the Benghazi massacre, then I would not question this. But now that I find his actions so different and contrary between the two, I do wonder why his behavior is so different.
12:47 - the computer was behaving strangely, so I restarted the computer. Then, I realized the media clip was missing, so I added it again.