A few observations about Obama's tearful news conference on gun confiscation:
i) We swim in a shark-infested world. Some of the current sharks include Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea, and ISIS. What message does Obama's tearful news conference send to them? Rather than projecting strength, it's a sign of weakness.
ii) To judge by his teary-eye performance, Obama's position on private ownership of guns isn't merely political cynicism and opportunism; no, he really is that fanatical and deluded. He sincerely believes the problem with attacks like Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon, Denver, Chattanooga, and San Bernardino is access to guns rather than ideology. He really thinks the solution is to disarm the general public.
The gov't won't protect you, and it won't let you protect yourself.
I think it is giving him too much credit by saying he is deluded. Otherwise, why does his secret service carry? He knows that attacks such as Fort Hood for example could had been prevented if soldiers were able to carry. It is all intentional to create chaos and thus implement his transformational plan of disarming Americans so the government has total control.
ReplyDeleteThere's no doubt that Obama has a double standard. But that's consistent with political elites who believe gov't should have a monopoly on the ownership of firearms.
DeleteI doubt Obama is a good enough actor to cry on cue. Maybe Bill Clinton.
Moreover, Obama seems to pride himself on his rationality. I doubt he wants to publicly expose himself as emotionally vulnerable. That's out of character with his carefully cultivated self-image. So I don't think that was premeditated.
Yes, liberals believe in social control. They distrust the general public.
And, yes, there's no doubt that he's been building a case. However, liberals really do have a pathological hatred of private gun ownership. They've convinced themselves of the virtue of their cause.
Obama's tearful message was pandering to the US public, less for actually doing anything substantial for domestic policy, and more for conveying the image of care and concern. However, it not only demonstrates his lack of domestic leadership, but also demonstrates the source of his failure in foreign policy. He doesn't know what to do to maintain stability in volatile regions. He is either incredibly evil or incredibly stupid. There's not much of a middle ground that adequately explains his actions in general. Shedding a tear on camera leads me think it's the latter.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe latter does not negate the former. A person can be both. I believe the former in this case causes the latter. Recall Hitler rejecting Rommel and the generals’ tactical recommendations and plans to the detriment of his own cause.
Delete