Share This Page

Obama's ideology & citizens' rights

| Friday, Jan. 25, 2013, 9:08 p.m.

Here is an uncomfortable pop quiz: Who has killed more children — Adam Lanza or Barack Obama?

We'll hold off on the answer for a few paragraphs while we look at the state of governmental excess — including killing — in America. But you can probably guess the correct answer from the manner in which I have posed the question.

We all know that the anchor of our liberties is the Declaration of Independence. In his inaugural address earlier this week, President Obama, himself, quoted Thomas Jefferson's most famous line. Obama recognized that all men and women are created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

No doubt Obama would like to modify the word “created” to read “shall be maintained,” since his presidency seems dedicated to keeping us equal, not in terms of equality of rights and opportunity but of outcome. He has dedicated himself to using the coercive power of the federal government to take from those who have and give to those who don't.

Under the Constitution, charity is a decision for individuals to make, not the government.

There is simply no authority in the Constitution for the feds to tax Americans or to borrow money in their names to rebuild private homes in New Orleans or at the Jersey Shore.

This shows how far we have come from the Constitution the Founders gave us. They “constituted” a government of limited powers, and they did so because they wanted the government to protect our freedoms, since they understood that personal responsibility and freedom — not government handouts — are the soundest routes to prosperity.

Obama is not only the head of the executive branch of the federal government, but he is also the head of one of the two dominant political parties. That party has dedicated itself to making certain killing legal.

The president himself has killed about 176 children in Pakistan by the use of CIA drones. These drones have been dispatched by him alone — not pursuant to any congressional declaration of war. At least two of these murdered children were Americans. But since the cameras were kept away and since the survivors are legally and politically helpless, no one here hears the Pakistani children's cries of pain and anguish.

One of the reasons we have the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms is to enable us to resist a drone sent to the path of our children by shooting it down, no matter who sent it. Hence, the need for serious firepower in the hands of ordinary Americans — to give tyrants pause and to stop tyrants when they don't pause.

The president wants to use Lanza's horrific slaughter in Connecticut as an excuse to restrict the freedoms of all law-abiding gun-owning Americans, any one of whom would have stopped Lanza in a heartbeat with a lawful gun.

Now back to our pop quiz: Who has killed more children, Lanza or Obama? Does a president with blood on his hands have any moral standing to infringe upon the natural right to self-defense of those whose hands are clean? Would you sacrifice your liberty to defend yourself and your children so that the government can kill whom it pleases?

The answers are obvious.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.

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.