Unless you’ve given in to temptation and have been spending January under your duvet you will by now have read about or seen President Obama’s “tearful” address in which he announced his executive actions to tighten gun controls in the U.S. Unsurprisingly, it has made headlines around the world. But let’s tune in to sanity FM for a moment, shall we.
The death toll from Obama’s military drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, which runs into thousands, is ample evidence alone to demonstrate this man’s lack of regard for human life. Yet the American public and world’s media choose to ignore it. Why? Because that’s not the Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Obama, that so many people want to see.
Instead, in his apparent uncontainable sorrow at the thought of victims of domestic gun violence, they see an Obama who possesses a Jesus-like sensitivity to human suffering and an uncommon zeal to save human lives and generally make the world a better place. Who could possibly deny the will of such a man?
For all they know Obama could have rubbed vapor rub in his eyes before his address to make himself cry, or thought about his beloved dog that died when he was a kid. How do actors make themselves cry on demand? I wouldn’t be surprised if the next time Obama appears on our screens he will be nailed to a cross or draped over the lap of Mother Mary as he delivers another masterfully convincing performance.
By the way, contrary to his and his supporters’ claims, Obama’s executive order is an abuse of his powers as President of the US and is unconstitutional. By defining what an “occasional seller” of guns is, the president is essentially interpreting the law, which is a job that is supposed to be reserved for the courts.
As Judge Andrew Napolitano explained in a piece on Obama’s Executive Action:
“The Supreme Court has made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental liberty. Under the Constitution, fundamental liberties are accorded the highest protection from governmental intrusion [e.g. interpretations of the law by the President]…President Obama can no more write his own laws or impose his own interpretations upon them than the Congress or the courts can command the military.” But he is. And the American people seem to support him.
It seems that a majority of the American public today does not object to giving up the very freedom that made it possible for a small group of rugged individuals to build the society that they now live in. A nation built on the idea that the purpose of The Law is to limit the government’s powers, to limit the use of force – and not to control the peaceful actions of peaceful people.
This turned the blueprint for a nation completely upside down. The foundational principle didn’t say Man has only the freedoms his Ruler grants him, like every other nation and empire did at the time. It said government has only the freedom that Man’s rights allow it to have. This was a first in the history of human civilisation.
If public approval for enlarging government power and shrinking individual liberty doesn’t reverse, then the American people will only increase the chances of a totalitarian State emerging in the future. The very outcome the founders of the Constitution thought they had accounted for and made impossible.
In theory they had, and for a long time they did. But what they were unable to conceive of was a future American people, so generally propagandised, indoctrinated and lacking in critical thinking skills, that they would support a president who introduced legislative laws that restricted people’s right and freedom to defend themselves with firearms.
While America’s President gently weeps, Americans lose more liberty, law-abiding people become less safe, and criminals become safer.