Author Archives: Atarah Golden
Former presidential nominee Mitt Romney has a new addition to the family, a beautiful baby boy adopted by his son, Ben, and his daughter-in-law, Andelynne. Like any typically proud grandfather, he made the announcement of his 22nd grandchild to the world via Twitter. But there is one slight problem: Mitt Romney’s grandson is black.
In accordance to the vile diatribe spewed by the Left, rich, white Republicans have no business adopting black babies. Although Mitt Romney’s run for president has long been over, comments from the Left on the child’s adoption imply that Romney’s family is simply trying to improve his image among black Americans by adopting a black baby:
Will someone tell these people that Mitt Romney’s campaign ended back in November of 2012!
It is not just Twitter users attacking the Romney family. TheGrio, an adjunct of MSNBC and a news source popular amongst black Americans, recently published an article titled “Mitt Romney reveals adopted black grandson, name translates to ‘little dark one’”. In the article, writer Kunbi Tinuoye makes the case for subtle racism by making the meaning of Romney’s grandson’s name Kieran, a widely popular name in Ireland which means “black” or “little dark one,” the focal point of his article.
While we are all tribal by nature (i.e. oriented around the family unit), the problem with referring to blacks as a collective (e.g., the black community) and not as individuals is that a mob mentality can be formed against those outside of the community. In this case, the Romney family’s recent adoption is the target of that mentality. When a white family in the public eye adopts a black baby, blacks feel the need inject their input as if their approval is needed simply because the baby is black. The baby is not an individual, but is—-was–-a part of the black community, and has now been sabotaged by a man who is a part of a political party who would (in their thinking) like nothing more than to see the demise of the black community as a whole.
Given the disturbing fact that well over fifteen million black babies have been aborted or left to die after a botched abortion, one would think that the black community would view this child’s happy beginning in life as something to be celebrated. But, apparently, the adoption of a black baby by a family of white Republicans is something far more heinous than the demise of the forty million who face death each year.
In several of President Obama’s speeches on Syria, he emphasized the wellbeing of Syrian children. In his address on Tuesday night, he pleaded specifically with Progressives (contrary to popular belief, conservatives are not the only ones who oppose war with Syria): “I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor.” In other words, “if nothing else, do it for the sake of the children.”
As emotionally appealing as the president’s speech was, his objective in Syria has absolutely nothing to do with the sake of the children. It was nothing more than a strategic political ploy.
In October of 2011, President Obama bypassed Congress and signed a Presidential memorandum which waived the Child Soldiers Prevention Act, a bill introduced by Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Sam Brownback (R-KS). It was signed into law by former President George Bush in 2008. The law penalized countries that recruited children in war and combat, a practice common in African and Middle Eastern countries. In addition to forbidding military assistance and financial aid of any kind to countries who enlist child soldiers, the law gave the United States the authority to “prosecute, deport or deny entry to individuals who have knowingly recruited children as soldiers.” The sanctions were first waived in 2010, which, ironically, was the first year the law was to go into effect.
Now, Libya, Yemen, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (the Congo was granted a partial waiver), four of six countries on the State Department’s list of countries that recruit child soldiers, are now being advocated for by the United States courtesy of our tax dollars. President Obama signed these waivers not once, not twice, but three times.
In the memo, President Obama states,
I hereby determine that it is in the national interest of the United States to waive the application of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the CSPA with respect to Libya, South Sudan, and Yemen; and further determine that it is in the national interest of the United States to waive in part the application of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the CSPA with respect to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to allow for continued provision of International Military Education and Training funds and nonlethal Excess Defense Articles, and the issuance of licenses for direct commercial sales of U.S. origin defense articles; and I hereby waive such provisions accordingly.
President Obama’s actions blatantly contradict the very act he rightfully labeled “modern slavery” in a thunderous speech he gave at the annual Clinton Global Initiative in 2012: “When a little boy is kidnapped, turned into a child soldier, forced to kill or be killed — that’s slavery. It is barbaric, and it is evil, and it has no place in a civilized world.” The president condemns child slavery while funding it. A red line was drawn when the bill was introduced by two senators and signed into law by then-President Bush. President Obama took it upon himself to undo the red line which had already been set in place by enabling the very countries we placed sanctions upon.
Waging war with a country already engaged in a civil war under the guise of concern of innocent women and children is not reconcilable given President Obama’s record. In addition, the president’s claim that “the world set a red line” is merely histrionics, completely false and a terrible effort to get his way.
President Obama made the claim that “the world set a red line when governments representing 98% of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent, and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war.” Surely, if 98% of the world were in sync with the president’s call to action against Syria, he would not be feeling nearly as much domestic and international solitude as he is now.