I thought the “NRA Attack Ad” (as the media calls it) made a great point. But USAToday recently reported on the White House response made an even better point: showing us what kind of self-worshiping elitists the populace of the United States is forced to fight against.
The NRA TV advertisement presented the fact that Obama didn’t think much of setting up armed guards at the nation’s schools. Yet he and those like him had tax-payer funded armed protection for themselves and for their children. The NRA’s point was that, while Obama demanded everyone “pay their ‘fair share.’” He wasn’t willing to support a “fair share” of security for the nation’s children. He was satisfied with special privileges for his own. I thought the ad was brilliant, because it not only covered the NRA’s proposal for armed guards in our schools (which I’m on the fence about) but also, without mentioning it, raised the issue that, by taking guns, the government is taking away what security they can afford.
“The White House attacked the National Rifle Association on Wednesday for an ad that mentioned President Obama's daughters… ‘Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight,’ said White House spokesman Jay Carney. The Obama spokesman added: ‘But to go so far as to make the safety of the president's children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly.’”
Excuse me? Who traveled to Sandy Hook to get photo ops with the sibling children of the victims? Who made his major announcement surrounded by a group of children? Who read letters purportedly authored by children? Whose Vice President introduced him with a litany about the children of Sandy Hook? Who has been trying to disarm Americans in the name of “the children”?
Why aren’t our children “off limits,” Mr. President?
Of course, the accusation is nonsense. The NRA ad doesn’t say that the President or his children should be left without any security. It doesn’t demand that all his guards be disarmed. It never makes “the safety of the president’s children the subject of an attack ad.” Rather, it asks that we be allowed to keep our children safe. It asks the president to show some concern for other people’s children to allow schools and parents to protect them.
The irony of Carney’s words is so amazing. The NRA claims that Obama doesn’t care about our children but only for his own, and the White House responds by saying that Obama’s use of other people’s children doesn’t matter, but that only what is said about his own children really counts. The NRA claims Obama protects his own children, but not other peoples’ children, and the White House responds that only Obama’s children should be protected from being mentioned, but other people’s children can be used in a White House campaign.
Obama is demonstrating exactly what the NRA claims. He is an elitist hypocrite. That is all.
In my opinion, based on Carney’s remarks the NRA would be justified in ending their ad with a voice over from the President: “I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message.