During his 2012 presidential campaign, President Obama laid out his dependency vision for single American women when he chronicled the “Life of Julia.” In this cradle-to-grave vision, Mr. Obama details the life of a young woman who is dependent upon the government for everything, starting with the government-sponsored Head Start program, to the government-sponsored Race to the Top program, to federal student loans, to federal tax credits and later to government small business loans. As part of Julia’s life experience, she becomes a single parent. In her golden years, Julia relies upon Social Security and Medicare for her continued existence, another batch of government dependency programs.
I find it interesting, hypocritical, and dark that in order to secure votes, Mr. Obama has targeted young women with his fantasy vision, which reeks of inequality, control, and disrespect. Such hoodwinking begs the gender question—why is it that Mr. Obama fails to mention James, the father of Julia’s child, Zachary? What about Zachary and his plight? Is Mr. Obama really his brother’s keeper? Is it that he really cares about the welfare of women? Or, is he really interested in orchestrating something far more sinister by engaging in covert gender warfare? I believe this scam will ultimately rival the Enron debacle. It is a deliberate effort to perpetuate the vicious cycle of single parenthood and government control/dependency, thus securing his political party’s future legacy.
Consistent with recent proven false narratives such as, “you can keep your doctor, you can keep your health plan, and you’ll pay less for health care,” the liberal narrative asserting that the right is anti-woman is not only false, it’s a bold-faced lie. Historically, it can be shown that the right led the charge to secure equality for persons of color and to secure equal rights for women. To learn who supports women and who doesn’t, Google “Jeannette Rankin,” the first woman elected to Congress in 1916. Today, the left has changed its narrative from a “pro-choice” narrative to a “pro-women’s health” narrative as a means of improving its image and attacking those who don’t support such false and deceptive narratives as being sexist. Not to worry though, we see them as the liars and charlatans that they are. Let’s examine the facts.
The left attempts to exert influence and control over young, single women by using deception and misinformation to demonize the nuclear family structure. The National Organization of Women (NOW) is assigned the task of carrying out this mission of deception and leading the organized effort of 21st century feminist control. James, on the other hand, is a “throw-away” and is simply a tool to be exploited and then kicked to the curb. However, liberals and NOW need James to further the bogus Julia narrative, but make no mistake, they don’t give a rat’s backside about James’s future or what happens to him. This is because James is part of the “hook-up” culture that is anti-nuclear family, which in turn allows NOW to further its agenda of hatred toward men. If James gets killed or goes to prison, liberals and NOW adherents will express sympathy to Julia and label her a “victim.” In two weeks, they won’t even remember who James was. Control, exploitation, abortion, and government dependency is the life they have planned for Julia. For both the short term and the long term, she is being used to score votes and to create power for men in Washington.
Like Julia, James is a fictional character. However, his poverty is real. Real-world examples abound that demonstrate the ways in which the lack of a father figure in the home has decimated the African-American family. James, for example, is a product of that desperate environment which embraces the “hook-up” culture as a way of life. In fact, James is all about having a good time. Naturally, he supports the “bro-choice” movement—men who are militantly pro-abortion in order to support a lifestyle of commitment-free, casual sex. For more information on the bro-choice movement, paste the link below into your browser:
James has no plans to become a father or a husband. He’s from the street, where he hustles to make some coin. He believes that getting an education, attending church services, and working at a minimum wage job is a drag and for losers. If Julia gets pregnant, that’s her problem. He’s only with her for the free sex, a free place to crash and to get a free meal, all at taxpayer expense. That’s his game.
In April 2011, former President Ronald Reagan famously identified the most terrifying words to be spoken: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” The American people sat up and took notice. Unfortunately, today’s generation has forgotten his warning and instead embraces the idea of free stuff and the government welfare entitlement state. Gone are the individual dreams of reaching for the stars and “pulling one’s own weight” from a social community perspective.
Today, organizations like Planned Parenthood receive taxpayer monies to the tune of $540.6 million annually to perform so-called social outreach services to the needy, the most deadly of which is abortion. As a pro-life person, I find it to be an oxymoron that this government-subsidized organization is called “Planned Parenthood,” when there is nothing “planned” about it other than an ugly means to damage women’s health, to induce minors to watch pornography, and to destroy lives yet to be realized. For this organization, abortion is big business. According to Planned Parenthood’s own Annual Report for 2012-2013, its net revenue increased 5% to total $1.21 billion in its organizational fiscal year ending on June 30, 2013. The government and Planned Parenthood dupe women like Julia into believing that Planned Parenthood exists to help them. By eliminating government-subsidized “health services” grants, all taxpayers would be better off financially. The country could use those tax revenues to take on the real business of this nation without being a nanny state. Do not be deceived—Planned Parenthood’s true mission is not to preserve a woman’s health or the health of the child she is carrying. Its true mission is to generate big bucks, to turn a profit, and to manipulate the voters.
Ever since President Reagan warned the American public about controlling government and people who are government control freaks, there has been an unrelenting pressure to up the ante to control our lives, ergo, the introduction of the “Life of Julia.” However, the authors of the false narrative want the American public to forget about the “Life of James.” In order to distract citizens from James’s plight, they have raised the banner of gun control. In places like Washington DC and Chicago, young men are killing themselves and others at alarming rates. It would certainly appear that the left endorses death and the killing of children, regardless of whether it is in the grisly clinic of the now-convicted serial murderer Dr. Kermit Gosnell or on the streets of our big cities at the hands of young men. In sum, the “Life of Julia” is really about how to achieve a short-sighted life as seen through the lens of a socialist-leaning, controlling government. However, the saddest character in the chronicle is that of “James,” who was abandoned at birth by his mother and later by his government. His life will ultimately be cut short by gang violence, becoming yet another statistic. So, when government says it is here to help or wants to tell you how to live your life, run, don’t walk, because government doesn’t give a damn about you or me.