Why women are so over Obama
The Obamacare debacle opened many eyes to a betrayal
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.