ShareThis Page

Pawns of Obama's power grab

| Friday, Jan. 25, 2013, 9:08 p.m.

Not one of the 23 executive orders that President Obama signed — flanked by schoolchildren before an audience that included relatives of murdered schoolchildren — would have prevented the massacre at Sandy Hook.

Did people realize that the president's latest orders would not have stopped the heavily armed monster who entered a Connecticut school last month and killed 20 children and six adults? Or were their brains overwhelmed by anxiety signals arising from the imagery of vulnerable youngsters?

The overwhelming imagery is no accident. It's emotional manipulation, and I've never seen a more lowdown exercise of it than the White House's “gun violence” event last week.

Such pandering, of course, fails to address the cultural factors — godlessness, fatherlessness, a pornographically violent “entertainment”-media complex — that drive this most transgressive form of violence.

Do Americans want happy, healthy children or some old constitutional provision? Do members of Congress — the president's main target along with the Constitution — want an “‘A' grade from the gun lobby,” as he put it, or to give parents “peace of mind when they drop their child off for first grade”?

Gazing into the shiny button-eyes of the four children on stage, America heard the president say: “If there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try.”

Yes, yes, yes, we reply. Yes, Mr. President, go ahead and sign the executive orders that put in place what amounts to a national database of kooks as defined by federal bureaucrats who consider conservative beliefs and military personnel to be crazy automatically.

Yes, empower and encourage our doctors to add to that registry innocent patients who have committed no crime but who, like returning veterans, may have sought counseling. Outlaw the sale of high-powered guns and ammunition — equalizers in the face of home invaders, terrorists, drug gangs and, yes, a democratic government turned tyrannical.

But I am looking away from the hearts and bunnies at the White House. I am supposed to be concentrating on the letters from little ones who, in the wake of Sandy Hook, asked the president to take such measures, Obama said. As the president put it: “On the letter that Julia wrote me, she said, ‘I know that laws have to be passed by Congress, but I beg you to try very hard.'”

There was a burst of laughter, perhaps unexpected, given that the president was winding up for a solemn pledge. “Julia, I will try very hard,” Obama continued, taking up his gauntlet against Congress on behalf of Julia and her four brothers and sisters.

Outside the claustrophobic White House bubble — definitely not a gun-free zone — Americans are as concerned as the president with protecting their children. Even more so, I think, since schools attended by the president's daughters and other children of privilege are protected by armed guards.

Why one solution for elites and one solution for everyone else?

Diana West is the author of “The Death of the Grown-up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization” and blogs at dianawest.net.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.