|
|||||||||
|
|
|
Recent Blog Posts |
His Disturbing PatternBy KENNETH BLACKWELL Senator Obama recently gave us a disturbing foretaste of the contradictory doublespeak we could expect under an Obama presidency. 
Last week, a deeply disturbed young man went on a criminal rampage at Northern Illinois University, murdering several innocent people before taking his own life. Mr. Obama spoke out last Friday about the tragic event, and exposed the crucial disconnect between his rhetoric and his politics. Speaking of his determination to do "whatever it takes" to end gun violence, Mr. Obama acknowledged that the Second Amendment secures an citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Noting that some argue that the Second Amendment only grants state governments the power to arm National Guard units, Mr. Obama said he rejected that view in favor of the widely held belief that the Second Amendment — like the rest of the Bill of Rights — involves rights held by American citizens. The Drudge Report last week carried the story with the title, "Obama Supports Individual Gun Rights." But that title was wrong. Because later in that same story it says that in the same news conference where he spoke about an individual's right and the Second Amendment, Mr. Obama also said he supports the D.C. gun ban. This is the absolute ban on handguns and readily usable firearms in the city of Washington D.C. that is at issue in the case District of Columbia v. Heller, currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. I've written about the case before. The D.C. gun ban is a complete ban on having any sort of readily usable gun in your own home in D.C. to protect yourself or your family. He went on to say that local governments should be able to enact any gun control laws they consider necessary to end gun violence, and that any such measures are constitutional. What kind of gun rights does he supposedly support? What kind of "right" do you have, when the government can completely rob you 100% of the exercise of that right, anytime they decide they have a good reason? That's like saying you have the right to worship as you choose, but the government has the power to ban attending church. Or that you have the right to free speech, but that government has the power to stop you from speaking about any subject it wants. Or that you have the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, but that anything the government wants to search at your house is automatically reasonable. A right that the government can completely take away at any time is no right at all. To say that the Second Amendment means you can own guns, but that the city where you live can ban all gun ownership, means you have no Second Amendment rights at all. Last week I wrote that I have never in my lifetime seen a major presidential candidate whose rhetoric is so far removed from his policy record. Little did I know that he would give me a perfect illustration of that point the very next day. This is what Americans can expect from a President Obama. He'll wax eloquent about your rights, but then say government can take away whatever part of them — or all of them — that it wants. It's a disturbing pattern that's starting to emerge in Mr. Obama when he announces a principle or a goal, but then endorses policies that are the exact opposite. It's political doublespeak. It's Orwellian. In fact, it's Clintonian. Look for this pattern across the board. This is how he'll empower private markets, by increasing government control. He'll preserve our private market health care system, by having government take it over. He'll lower taxes, by raising them. He'll cut government, by increasing government spending. He'll create jobs, by raising taxes and fees on business. He'll protect our results in Iraq, by abandoning that country. He'll defeat the terrorists, by stopping attacks against them and sitting down to negotiate. He'll support our allies in Pakistan, by invading them with military force. He'll do whatever it takes to stop threats to our nation, by immediately announcing that he'll never use our ultimate weapons and by stopping our government from listening in on terrorists' phone calls. I hope nine months is enough time for the Americans to catch on to his rhetorical sleight of hand. Mr. Obama has shown what he thinks of your Second Amendment rights by endorsing the D.C. gun ban last week. I wonder what he'll say next week. It's a long time until November.
Reader comments on this article
|
RELATED SUN STORIES > 
RELATED SUN TOPICS > Dog Days of Summer Study Sought Of Test Score Gains in N.Y. Rochester Billionaire Targets Silver With New PAC Crane Inspector Pleads Not Guilty New York Moves To Defend Gun Law Hedge Fund Scammer Tells NY Judge He Tried Suicide Murder, Rape Numbers Mar Positive Crime Statistics 'Paradise Is Burning': Fires Prompt California Evacuations FARC Hostages Return to America White House Says Ruling Could Free Detainees in America McCain Extols Free Trade in Colombia Race Profiling Considered In FBI Terrorist Probes Bush Vows More Troops in Afghanistan Painting for Eternity: Pietre Dure at the Met America's Birth Papers at the NYPL Phillip Pearlstein, Objectifying the Nude |
 |