And a little child shall lead us…Politics

This week President Obama nailed his 23 Theses to the door of the National Archives. He’s apparently got some problems with the Constitution. He did this in the company of children who had written to him asking him to do something about guns, saying “Their voices should compel us to change.”

Look it’s understandable that children get scared. After all, we adults get scared as well. Children get emotional. Children tug at our heart strings. No one is denying that the events in Sandy Hook wreaked havoc on our emotions.

But while our children (yes, I’m a father) are many wonderful things in our lives, they are not Hollywood props. Nor are they policy advisors.

As Rich Lowry wrote: We can safely assume that the kids onstage with Obama don’t have a fine-grained sense of the limits of gun control or a proper regard for the Second Amendment. That’s OK, though — neither does he.

With this week’s event, Barack Obama has completed his transition into Jimmy Carter. After all, Carter turned to young Amy for advice about nookular weapons.


It’s hard, really, not to compare Obama to other self-important men who have used children as marketing props to spread their propaganda. But in fairness, the comparison to Carter is bad enough.

It’s rather callous to suggest that the Obama Administration welcomes events such as Sandy Hook, but they certainly wasted no time in standing on the graves of 26 children and adults to advance their Constitution destroying agenda. After all, you can only kill Osama bin Laden so many times.

The larger point is that nothing in his list of 23 executive actions would really have stopped what happened in Connecticut.

Meanwhile, we’ve never really heard all the truth about Benghazi and no one is really sure what’s going on in Algeria.

No one in the main stream media will call Obama out for this, any more than they did for telling his campaign supporters “if they bring a knife, we bring a gun.” No, they’d rather spend their time castigating Sarah Palin for shopping at Target. Work with me.

What we’ve heard instead is the President whining about the conservative media being mean to him.

The President didn’t just surround himself with children this week. He surrounded himself with his peers.

I miss the days when grownups were in charge.

  • Scout

    Which one(s) of the “23 Theses” is “constitution-destroying”? None of them leaps out at me as particularly aggressive as a matter of policy, and certainly none strike me as having any particular impact on existing constitutional rights. Maybe I was reading too fast. In any event, if any of these do have anti-constitutional impacts, the courts will sort it out quite quickly, I’m sure. But the NRA and other gun rights groups have been very careful about avoiding legal fights that are not stark. In the Heller case, DC had an absolute ban on ownership, even within one’s residence. The Supreme Court wasn’t having any of that, even though the decision recognized that reasonable regulation of firearms ownership was completely consistent with Second Amendment rights. The Obama proposals appear to be part of an effort to regulate, not a ban on ownership. As such, I doubt that any of the mainline gun rights groups would challenge them in court. And it doesn’t really matter whether all of them or any of them would have prevented Sandy Hook. Sandy Hook was a catalyst that awakened public opinion to the incontrovertible fact that there are a lot of guns out there doing a lot of damage. The Administration is reading that public sentiment far better than its opponents.

    To be taken seriously on the national political level, Republicans and conservatives have to step back from all this Chicken Little hysteria, whether on this issue or others. It isn’t working. There are plenty of real issues where reasoned, analytical criticism is necessary and will be welcomed by the citizenry. The fiscal issues facing the country are the primary example. Foreign and defense policy are close behind. But, when the Administration takes a relatively modulated stance on an issue that has the country pretty much on fire (i.e., gun regulation), public hyper-ventilation from our side of the spectrum about stuff that isn’t there further degrades the “conservative” image. We don’t need that.

    Let’s dismount from this old nag. We rode her into the ground. Shame on us. Time to put her out of her misery (a lawful use of a firearm). She can’t be salvaged. Time for us to grow up.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mrfletcher58 Michael Fletcher

      While none of these executive actions may necessarily violate the Constitution, it is simply naive to listen to this Administration and not think this is just a foot in the door. But the larger point here is not Chicken Little hysteria, but the exploitation of children to score political points.

      • http://www.southsidecentral.com/ Bruce Hedrick

        Wow. You just put “it is simply naive to listen to this Administration and not think this is just a foot in the door” in the same paragraph with “not Chicken Little hysteria”. My mind has been boggled.

    • http://www.facebook.com/alton.foley Alton Foley

      “there are a lot of guns out there doing a lot of damage.” Actually people are doing that damage. The rest of us gun owners are NOT those people.

  • Scout

    The logic of your response, Michael, seems to be that because the Administration’s proposals appear to be respectful of the Constitution, we have proof that they’re up to some anti-constitutional scheme.

    It’s important that we try not to look like loonies. Not good for the image, you know.

    It seems that they are serving very strong coffee down in Williamsburg GOP retreat. We foot soldiers out here in the blogosphere probably ought to have some of that ourselves. The years of tripping out on nonsense are coming to an end.

    • MD Russ

      Scout,

      Michael nailed it with this sentence: “The larger point is that nothing in his list of 23 executive actions would really have stopped what happened in Connecticut.”

      The fact that Obama is trying to jam through new gun control measures that would do little or nothing to solve the problem of gun violence is what I would call “Chicken Little Hysteria.” Can we have universal background checks? Why not, but how are you going to enforce that without a national gun registry? Should we ban assault rifles and high-capacity magazines? Perhaps, but what good did it do the last time we tried it from 1994 to 2004? And if the ban doesn’t stop gun violence, then what will be do next? Repeal the ineffective ban or ban even more types of guns? I think that we all know the answer to that one.

      My personal read on this is that Obama, having failed miserably to solve our economic problems for four years, is now looking for a cause that he can use not to solve a problem but to distract the voters from his failed first term and the fact that his second term offers no more promise. “Never waste a crisis.” Indeed.

  • Scout

    The distraction is no doubt intended to help him secure a third term, MD.

    I think, in this context at least, the Administration correctly senses that Sandy Hook has been a cathartic event for the population as a whole. There’s no doubt that many, perhaps even all, of the measures would have very little direct impact on the next Sandy Hook mass killing. I think that is a relatively small point, not the larger issue, as you suggest. The issue is how do we choose to live in a country with 300 million guns in circulation. We can’t confiscate them, we can’t make them disappear, we can’t make people be smart or judicious in what they do with them, but we can nibble around the edges to try to bring down the 30K per annum body count. My guess is that the pols and advisors around the President are telling him (and he believes it) that if he makes an earnest effort to address, however imperfectly, this situation, the bulk of the American people will be relieved.

    • http://www.facebook.com/alton.foley Alton Foley

      Can you name one mass assault that did not result from a mental starting line? Why attack guns when the real issue is so blindingly obvious.

  • Scout

    Alton: I think the “blindingly obvious” fact is that if these demented people didn’t have guns, particularly the more sophisticated weapons, the body counts would be lower. If your point is that mass murderers are not psychologically normal, I think we can all hop on board. The current national discussion, however, is what to do to prevent these types from getting hold of guns. If a nut with a ping-pong paddle shows up at a school, church, or movie theatre, his impact will be much less sever than if he show up with the kind of firearms that have been showing up in Blacksburg, Aurora, and Newtown.

  • Pingback: Our Long National Nightmare is a Re-Run | Bearing Drift