As one acts and conducts himself, so does he become. The doer of good becomes good. The doer of evil becomes evil. One becomes virtuous by virtuous action, bad by bad action.
- Upanishads, Hindu Poetic Dialogues on Metaphysics (c. B.C. 800)
Despite launching a gun control agenda that threatens to disarm the American people, on January 10, 2013, President Obama signed a bill that would afford him armed Secret Service protection for life.
“The legislation, crafted by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected,” reports Yahoo News.
The new bill, which will cost American taxpayers millions of dollars, is a reinstatement of a 1965 law which will see presidents protected for life as well as their children up to age 16.
The irony of Obama seeking to surround himself with armed men for the rest of his life while simultaneously working to disarm the American people via a gun control agenda that is likely to be enforced via executive decree represents the height of hypocrisy.
It’s not the first time that Obama has lauded the notion of responsible Americans using firearms to protect himself and his family while concurrently eviscerating that very same right for the American people. During an ABC Nightline interview broadcast on December 26 yet recorded before the Sandy Hook shooting, Obama said one of the benefits of his re-election was the ability “to have men with guns around at all times,” in order to protect his daughters.
In addition, the school attended by Obama’s daughters in Washington D.C. has no less than 11 armed security guards on duty at all times, yet the idea of arming teachers and school officials to prevent school massacres has been dismissed by gun control advocates who want school campuses to remain “gun free zones” where victims are disarmed and shooters are free to carry out their rampage unimpeded.
The hypocrisy of gun control advocates who feverishly work to create victim disarmament yet surround themselves with armed men is rampant among the political class.
There’s one set of rules for Obama and the ruling elite, now let’s contrast that with Obama’s set of rules for the rest of us.
Hale DeMar, a 52-year-old Wilmette resident, was arrested and charged with misdemeanor violations for shooting, in the shoulder and leg, a burglar who broke into his home not once, but twice. Cook County prosecutors dropped all charges against DeMar.
In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to DeMar’s case, with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.
Governor Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill. On Nov. 9, 2004, the Illinois Senate voted 40-18 to override Blagojevich’s veto. Again, Obama acted against the bill.
On Nov. 17, the Illinois House voted overwhelmingly, 85-30, to override the governor’s veto and Senate Bill 2165 became law.
Talk about being out there on the radical fringe of gun control, in a state where Democrats have a lock on both houses of the legislature, Obama was one of only 48 members who voted against the 125 who overrode Blagojevich’s veto and passed the bill.
Obama actually voted twice against the right of homeowner to shoot in self-defense during a home invasion. Unbelievable.
At a fundraiser with millionaire donors in San Francsico, we got a glimpse of the real Obama, away from the teleprompter and speaking off the cuff, totally unaware that a hidden tape recorder was rolling as Obama said, “You go into some of these small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them, Each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Gotta love the attitude of the Condescender-in-Chief here. Remember, Obama isn’t speaking about the “enemy” Republicans here, he’s belittling his own fellow Democrats who dared to support Hillary in the primaries. Obama’s describing his own fellow Democrats as a bunch of dimwitted, knee-jerk reactionaries for daring to disagree with him on policies that are well worthy of an honest debate. Far be it for Obama to imagine there could be legitimate philosophical convictions held by thoughtful people who consider the Second Amendment as an unassailable pillar of freedom in America.
“I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.” – Barack Obama, 2008 Philadelphia primary debate.
Wow, for a man who has gone on to spend his whole presidential career handing down executive orders from his ivory tower and pushing for grand, sweeping federal laws and regulations, quite the surprise that in this case, Obama suddenly has a moment of respect for adhering to the Tenth Amendment. The only other time I can remember Obama playing the states’ rights card was when he came out in support of gay marriage, which was laughable because gay marriage has always been played out by the states and The District ever since D.C. recognized domestic partnerships twenty years ago in in 1992.
Obama lied when he said that it wasn’t his handwriting on a 1996 document where he endorsed a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Years later when he was asked about it, Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
Actually, Obama’s writing was on the document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Obama denied it was his handwriting on the questionnaire saying he supported a ban on possessing a handgun, and he said he has never taken that position. Actually, his writing does appear on one of two versions of the questionnaire.
From a 2008 Politico interview:
Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets.
A revealing slip of the tongue there as Obama states quite clearly the most important fact here: the violence on the streets is “the result of illegal handgun usage.” If the vast majority of these shootings are already the result of criminals using illegal handguns, what the hell are more gun control laws going to do to solve the problem? The only thing more gun control laws will do is prevent law abiding citizens from defending themselves against criminals and their illegal handguns.