Why women are so over Obama

The Oba­macare de­ba­cle opened many eyes to a be­trayal

The Washington Times Daily - - Opinion - By Emily Miller By R. Em­mett Tyrrell Jr. By Tammy Bruce

The 1,800 or so crim­i­nals who have killed, robbed or as­saulted in­no­cent peo­ple in the Dis­trict of Columbia so far this year were hauled into the po­lice sta­tion to be fin­ger­printed, pho­tographed and forced to un­dergo a crim­i­nal-back­ground check. Now le­gal gun own­ers who have com­mit­ted no crime are get­ting the ex­act same treat­ment. It’s not fair.

The lat­est gun-con­trol scheme that starts on Jan. 1 will force ev­ery le­gal firearm owner in the na­tion’s cap­i­tal to go in per­son to po­lice head­quar­ter to re­new their reg­is­tra­tion cer­tifi­cates.

The Met­ro­pol­i­tan Po­lice Depart­ment filed pro­posed rules last week, and cit­i­zens have un­til Dec. 15 for com­ment. To avoid be­com­ing a felon, any­one with a gun reg­is­tered be­fore 2011 will have to go to po­lice head­quar­ters to be fin­ger­printed, pho­tographed, pro­vide proof of ad­dress, pay a fee and con­firm they may still legally pos­sess the firearm. The Firearms Reg­is­tra­tion Sec­tion will then cre­ate a new reg­is­tra­tion cer­tifi­cate — now in the form of an ID card — for each gun.

This op­er­a­tion could end up mak­ing the roll­out of Oba­macare look smooth and easy. The po­lice pro­pose sched­ul­ing ev­ery­one in three-month win­dows based on their birth­day. The eight win­dows start on Jan. 1 and go through 2015. They in­tend to set up an online sys­tem to make an ap­point­ment.

The depart­ment is try­ing to set up a sys­tem to ac­cept credit cards for the $13-per-gun fee, but that has not been fi­nal­ized. Ge­orge Lyon, who was a plain­tiff in the orig­i­nal Heller case, pointed out that it will cost him $104 to re-reg­is­ter his eight guns. “I don’t see that they need a re-reg­is­tra­tion sys­tem at all,” the Wash­ing­ton lawyer told me. “But if they do, this whole thing ought re­ally to be done online, au­to­mated and with­out adding more fees.”

The reg­is­tra­tion-re­newal re­quire­ment is al­ready be­ing chal­lenged in court. Heller v. Dis­trict of Columbia — com­monly known as “Heller II” — takes on the en­tire reg­is­tra­tion law that was en­acted in 2009 af­ter the Supreme Court over­turned the Dis­trict’s 30-year-old hand­gun ban in the orig­i­nal Heller de­ci­sion.

Dick Heller, the lead plain­tiff, told me of the re­quire­ment, “What’s the point? Will that make the bad guys come down and reg­is­ter? Nope, just the law-abid­ing.”

Heller II is pend­ing in fed­eral dis­trict court with each side fil­ing mo­tions for sum­mary judg­ment this month and next. “Re-reg­is­tra­tion is oner­ous and com­pletely un­nec­es­sary and is a trap for the un­wary,” said Stephen P. Hal­brook, the lead at­tor­ney for Heller II. “Fail to rereg­is­ter for what­ever rea­son, and you’re com­mit­ting a crime — pos­ses­sion of an un­reg­is­tered firearm. This is plain ha­rass­ment for ex­er­cise of a con­sti­tu­tional right.”

The re­newal process was sup­posed to be done online and by mail and start in 2012, but the po­lice were not able to cre­ate a sys­tem to do it in time. Met­ro­pol­i­tan Po­lice Chief Cathy L. Lanier tes­ti­fied be­fore the D.C. Coun­cil’s Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee in Jan­uary 2012 against keep­ing the three-year limit on cer­tifi­cates be­cause her depart­ment did not have the re­sources, and so it “may cost more than the po­ten­tial ben­e­fit.” City Coun­cil Chair­man Phil Men­del­son re­fused to let it drop, but passed a law to give D.C. po­lice a two-year ex­ten­sion. In an in­ter­view late Wed­nes­day, Mr. Men­del­son said that, “The rea­son for re­newals is to make sure peo­ple don’t be­come dis­qual­i­fied to own a firearm.”

The whole con­vo­luted scheme will not do a sin­gle thing to make the city safer. Fin­ger­prints don’t change. The only rea­son for forc­ing a res­i­dent reg­is­ter all over again is the po­lice didn’t use a sys­tem that was able to re­tain the fin­ger­prints un­til March of this year.

It is un­nec­es­sary to prove your home ad­dress or own­er­ship be­cause the law al­ready dic­tates that a gun owner must no­tify the reg­istry of­fice with a change of ad­dress or gun sale, so the reg­is­tra­tion does not change oth­er­wise.

Most im­por­tantly, the po­lice can eas­ily check if a reg­is­trant is still legally able to pos­sess a gun by run­ning his name and So­cial Se­cu­rity num­ber through the FBI’s back­ground-check sys­tem.

A po­lice spokesman es­ti­mates there are ap­prox­i­mately 30,000 firearms reg­is­tered to pri­vate cit­i­zens in D.C. This num­ber is re­mark­ably low for a city of 600,000 be­cause most law-abid­ing peo­ple won’t go through the 11 steps nec­es­sary to reg­is­ter. As Mr. Heller pointed out, the crim­i­nals aren’t show­ing up at po­lice head­quar­ters to of­fer up their fin­ger­prints or take a writ­ten test be­fore buy­ing guns.

Gun reg­is­tra­tion is a clear vi­o­la­tion of the Found­ing Fa­thers’ in­tent that the Sec­ond Amend­ment would pre­vent gov­ern­ment tyranny. Once the gov­ern­ment knows about ev­ery sin­gle gun owned by each cit­i­zen, then an armed pop­u­lace is no longer a de­ter­rent.

DTur­ing a six-week pe­riod of time that no one could have imag­ined, Pres­i­dent Obama be­came the man who fell to earth. Much of the com­men­tary since the launch of Oba­macare has right­fully cen­tered on the re­mark­able col­lapse of the pro­gram and the even more shock­ing and ut­ter man­age­ment fail­ure of this pres­i­den­tial-legacy is­sue by Mr. Obama and his in­ner cir­cle. While the down­ward shift in sup­port by most Amer­i­cans in light of the fi­asco is not sur­pris­ing, the re­treat of women from the pres­i­dent is most sig­nif­i­cant.

Why are women fi­nally be­gin­ning to re­ject Mr. Obama? Be­cause he be­trayed their trust. It’s per­sonal. With the truth of Oba­macare on the ta­ble for all to see, in­clud­ing the higher premi­ums, the can­celed poli­cies, the ex­cluded doc­tors and hos­pi­tals, the orig­i­nal tar­geted mar­ket­ing of Oba­macare to women has now been ex­posed as the cyn­i­cal and ma­nip­u­la­tive fraud it re­ally was. It would have been bad enough, but per­haps for­giv­able, had Mr. Obama sim­ply been wrong or made a ma­jor mis­take. To have fla­grantly lied, though, about an is­sue fun­da­men­tal to our health and fu­ture, is par­tic­u­larly un­ac­cept­able to women — the very peo­ple on whom he has re­lied for his elec­tions and for sup­port of his leg­isla­tive agenda.

Large parts of the Amer­i­can pub­lic have been dis­il­lu­sioned to dis­cover that Mr. Obama is not the man they thought him to be. It could hardly have been oth­er­wise, given the cold re­al­ity that he has fum­bled or grossly mis­han­dled a va­ri­ety of se­ri­ous do­mes­tic and for­eign-pol­icy is­sues (jobs at home, the econ­omy, the debt, a “red line” for Syria, sup­port for the Mus­lim Brother­hood in Egypt, Iran and the bomb). Dis­il­lu­sion­ment is de­gen­er­at­ing to dis­trust, as a ma­jor­ity of Amer­i­cans are com­ing to the con­clu­sion that he lied about the es­sen­tial premise of Oba­macare, his sig­na­ture leg­is­la­tion.

While Mr. Obama’s al­ready cra­ter­ing ap­proval rat­ings have grown worse across the board with Oba­macare’s dis­as­trous roll­out and its mil­lions of pol­icy cancellations, what has sur­prised pun­dits and the main­stream me­dia the most is the dra­matic drop of sup­port for Mr. Obama among women as well. It shouldn’t have, be­cause it is noth­ing new. In the heat of the af­ter­math of Mr. Obama ini­tially cram­ming Oba­macare down Amer­i­cans’ throats, the 2010 midterms set many records, in­clud­ing a ma­jor­ity of women vot­ing for Repub­li­cans for the first time since 1982, when exit polls be­gan track­ing that de­mo­graphic. De­spite all of Mr. Obama’s pan­der­ing to women about birth con­trol and abor­tion, women voted for Repub­li­cans who unan­i­mously voted against Oba­macare and promised to “re­peal and re­place” or de­fund it.

From the be­gin­ning, many women on both sides of the aisle saw Oba­macare as a threat to their health care free­dom of choice. Their votes in 2010 he hap­less Richard Co­hen has done it again. He was act­ing like a good scout in slan­der­ing Amer­i­cans “with con­ven­tional views,” and in the course of his noble en­deavor, he brought down on him­self the full force of the virtue pa­trol. Well, he has only him­self to blame.

In the course of writ­ing a col­umn as­sess­ing Gov. Chris Christie’s 2016 pres­i­den­tial chances, Mr. Co­hen went off on a play­ful scherzo, to wit: “Peo­ple with con­ven­tional views must re­press a gag re­flex when con­sid­er­ing the mayor-elect of New York — a white man mar­ried to a black woman and with two bira­cial chil­dren. (Should I men­tion that Bill de Bla­sio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be les­bian?) This fam­ily rep­re­sents the cul­tural changes that have en­veloped parts — but not all — of Amer­ica. To cul­tural con­ser­va­tives, this doesn’t look like their coun­try at all.”

No sooner did Mr. Co­hen’s col­umn ap­pear last week than the virtue pa­trol was at him. The Huff­in­g­ton Post ran a head­line by his pic­ture: “Dear Wash­ing­ton Post: Please Fire This Man.” The mob fol­lowed — Salon, Slate, even The Wash­ing­ton Post’s Wonkblog, if there is such a word. It could al­ways be a ty­po­graph­i­cal er­ror. Why the mob did not fol­low Mr. Co­hen’s lead and at­tack “peo­ple with con­ven­tional views” per­plexes both me and, I as­sume, Mr. Co­hen. As he put it, “I don’t un­der­stand it. What I was do­ing was ex­press­ing not my own views, but those of ex­treme right-wing Repub­li­can tea party peo­ple. I don’t have a prob­lem with in­ter­ra­cial mar­riage or same­sex mar­riage.” He went on, “This is just be­low the belt. It’s a pur­pose­ful mis­read­ing of what I wrote.”

Well, I agree with Richard. Should we not be on a first-name ba­sis by now? I am de­fend­ing him against a mob ac­tion. There is noth­ing in the afore­men­tioned pas­sage to in­di­cate he is op­posed to the mayor-elect’s mar­riage. He is a man of the left in good stand­ing, and he was en­gaged con­firmed a re­jec­tion of the ef­fort to na­tion­al­ize that most pri­vate as­pect of our lives — our re­la­tion­ship with our doc­tors. What was Mr. Obama’s re­ac­tion to that re­jec­tion? De­ter­mined to quell women’s fears of higher prices and losses of choice and pri­vacy, he dou­bled down on the rhetoric we now know was a lie — that not only would the law make health care “more af­ford­able,” but “You can keep your doc­tor if you want to, and you can keep your plan if you like it. Pe­riod.” As many crit­ics of Oba­macare pre­dicted, how­ever, in or­der to curb costs, mas­sive num­bers of doc­tors are not in­cluded in a ma­jor­ity of the Obama-com­pli­ant insurance plans, and ma­jor hos­pi­tals through­out the coun­try have ei­ther opted out or are not in­cluded in the new sys­tem. Like ev­ery­one else in the in­di­vid­ual insurance mar­ket, preg­nant women are be­ing thrown off their ex­ist­ing poli­cies and told to choose another “bet­ter” plan. The prob­lem is not just the higher pre­mium cost, but, in many cases, the re­al­iza­tion that they’re los­ing their doc­tors and pre­ferred hos­pi­tal. This is a mat­ter of ut­most im­por­tance to women, who uti­lize the med­i­cal sys­tem more than men, and thus are more likely to have longer, es­tab­lished re­la­tion­ships with their doc­tors. Whether they’re deal­ing with preg­nancy, a heart con­di­tion, pain is­sues or the phys­i­cal im­pact of menopause, women have doc­tors who have likely seen them through many stages of life.

The un­fold­ing re­al­i­ties of Oba­macare and its de­struc­tion of health insurance plans and per­sonal, pa­tient-doc­tor re­la­tion­ships con­firm women’s fears that health insurance un­der Oba­macare is not su­pe­rior, but is quite in­fe­rior to health care they were free to choose be­fore this re­gret­table law was in force. What women voted against in 2010 has come true, and we’re not happy about it. This may come as sur­prise to Mr. Obama and the peo­ple in his in­ner cir­cle, but women’s health care in­volves more than sound bites and pithy one-liners.

With all the bad news de­scend­ing on Mr. Obama as a di­rect re­sult of his high­hand­ed­ness and de­ceit on Oba­macare, surely noth­ing could come as a greater shock to him than that women, the one con­stituency he has re­lied on the most, other than blacks, refuse to be swin­dled out of their

health care free­doms and to be used to help per­pe­trate this mas­sive fraud on the Amer­i­can peo­ple. in the left’s great en­ter­prise of slur­ring con­ser­va­tives de­spite the fact that in prac­ti­cally ev­ery Tea Party gath­er­ing, there is at least a mi­nor­ity of blacks. More­over, among the lead­er­ship of the

As to whether the virtue pa­trol’s mis­read­ing of Mr. Co­hen was pur­pose­ful, I am in doubt. The left wing has turned the Amer­i­can melt­ing pot with all its be­nign diver­sity into a land full of buga­boos and acts of hate — mostly imag­ined, thank God. Such buga­boos and acts of hate are left to the virtue pa­trol to com­pre­hend. The Amer­ica they live in is rather like the Balkans, where Serbs and Croats, Bos­ni­ans and Slove­ni­ans and lesser clans all live in un­easy dishar­mony un­til a war breaks out, and then neigh­bor slaugh­ters neigh­bor. In Amer­ica’s melt­ing pot, the virtue pa­trol en­vi­sions race against race, eth­nic group against eth­nic group, even sex against sex. In the event of war break­ing out, the car­nage could be ter­ri­ble, but, as I say, the real Amer­ica is a rel­a­tively peace­ful place. Thank God.

As for Mr. Co­hen, he is un­lucky. He aroused the tran­sient wrath of the virtue pa­trol, as have oth­ers: foot­ball play­ers Ri­ley Cooper and Richie Incog­nito, celebrity chef Paula Deen, and now ac­tor Alec Bald­win. Most of th­ese wretches will prob­a­bly sur­vive af­ter pass­ing through their vale of tears. In Mr. Co­hen’s case, his suf­fer­ing could have ended years ago. I re­mem­ber very well my ed­i­tor at The Wash­ing­ton Post, Meg Green­field, telling me in the late 1970s that she would never have him on her op-ed page. I could never un­der­stand why. He writes quite well, but Meg prob­a­bly rec­og­nized he had a tin ear for con­tro­versy. At any rate, he did end up on her page. He is un­lucky, but some­one up there loves him. con­ser­va­tives, there are black lead­ers of colos­sal heft and dig­nity. Even in the Old South, there are black con­ser­va­tive lead­ers; for in­stance, Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina and Her­man Cain of Ge­or­gia. Their num­ber only grows.

ILLUSTRATION BY HUNTER

ILLUSTRATION BY HUNTER

Richard Co­hen

ILLUSTRATION BY HUNTER

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.