Credit: Susan Walsh/AP

Credit: Susan Walsh/AP

What could possibly cause the White House, the Lamestream Media, Progressive bloggers and talking heads, and even conservative commentators Steven Hayes and Charles Krauthammer to agree?  Why, the NRA, of course!

The NRA recently released an ad that coincidentally parallels my thinking, and as it turns out, the thinking of millions of other Americans.  The text:

“Are the President’s kids more important than yours?

Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?

Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite.

Protection for their kids, and gun free zones for ours.”

Presidential Press Secretary Jay Carney said:

“Most Americans agree that a president’s children should not be used as pawns in a political fight,’ Carney said just prior to a press conference in which the president unveiled his plan to combat gun violence. ‘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.”

It might be worthwhile to note that in that press conference, Mr. Obama used four children–of appropriately diverse gender and race, of course–as props.

And on the January 16th edition of Brett Bair’s All Star Panel, progressive Juan Williams–and this is no surprise–was less than complimentary about the ad.  According to the Free Republic, he called it “a mistake, vile and repugnant.”  But what might be surprising to some is that conservatives Steve Hayes and Charles Krauthammer entirely agreed with Williams.

Agreeing with Williams was also New Jersey Governor and “I-play-one-on-TV” conservative, Chris Christie:

“Speaking in a press conference, the outspoken governor decried the move as ‘reprehensible’ and argued the group lost some credibility by making the ad.

‘And I think for any of us who are public figures, you see that kind of ad and you cringe. You cringe because it’s just not appropriate in my view to do that,’ he said. ‘They’ve got real issues to debate on this topic. Get to the real issues. Don’t be dragging peoples’ children into this. It’s wrong.”

Reprehensible?  An unfair attack on Mr. Obama’s children?  Lost credibility?  NRA President David Keene was succinct:

“Defending the ad, NRA President David Keene said Wednesday on CNN that the ad wasn’t specifically about Obama’s two daughters, but about all children who attend schools with private security.

‘What we’re talking about is folks who have protection for their own children…and then pooh-pooh the idea that the average American’s children shouldn’t have the same sort of protection,’ he said on ‘The Situation Room.”

Just so.  The ad clearly is not an attack on Mr. Obama’s children, but on his obvious hypocrisy.  No rational person would argue that the children of the POTUS not only deserve but need security.  The ad does not so much as suggest they shouldn’t have armed security; it does make clear every child deserves it.  The ad also shows the images of a number of other famous politicians, making the point that their children–as well as the Obama children–attend schools with substantial armed security, yet those same Democrats actively deny it to the children of “common” Americans.

One might observe, as I did in a recent article that at least one of Mr. Obama’s anti-gun proposals might seem to be supportive of the NRA’s call for armed security in schools, but speaking for himself and Mr. Obama, Vice President Joe “the Sheriff” Biden, speaking after Mr. Obama’s release of those measures, disabuses us of that silly notion:

“Responding to calls from the National Rifle Association to have armed guards at schools, Biden says, ‘We don’t want rent-a-cops in schools armed.”

It should be remembered that Mr. and Mrs. Obama have frequently used their children as political props, just as he did the four children standing behind him–later the on-camera recipients of presidential hugs–during his anti-gun press conference.  And as if this was not sufficiently exploitative, the White House released videos of those children reading their anti-gun letters.  Some have had the temerity to suggest their letters might have been encouraged rather than the spontaneous urgings of 8 and 10 year-old consciences.  Call Louis Renault, because I’m shocked, shocked!

The NRA seeks to shame Mr. Obama into supporting armed security in the schools of all children and does not trot children who have no understanding of the issues before the cameras.  Mr. Obama uses children as props and as pre-programmed mouthpieces in multiple media venues to trick adults into depriving them of that protection.  Who is being exploitative, vile, cowardly and reprehensible?

But more, this manufactured controversy shows just how out of touch even mainstream beltway conservatives can be.  People the NRA obviously intended to reach have responded positively to the ad, and to the NRA.  To them, the ad was not only reasonable, but very much to the point.  Joe and Josephine God and gun clinger in flyover country saw in the ad what I saw: the exposure of a man whose lies and hypocrisy on this, and a great many issues, has become legendary.  They know the difference between exploiting children and calling attention to those who actually do exploit them, even if some conservatives do not.

What’s that?  You want proof?  In the last month, the NRA has gained 250,000 new members, bringing total membership to 4.25 million, a new record.  Those membership gains show no sign of abating.

And according to the latest Gallup, poll, the NRA has never been more popular.  John Nolte at Brietbart.com reports:  

“According the latest Gallup survey, which was taken after the Sandy Hook murders and Wayne LaPierre’s press conference, the NRA, despite being demonized 24/7 in the media, enjoys a favorability rating of 54%. Today, according to Gallup, Obama’s approval rating sits at 53%.

Moreover, only 38% of those polled have an unfavorable opinion of the NRA. Obama’s disapproval rating sits three points higher at 41%.

Part of the reason the White House, Democrats, and the corrupt media are losing their battle to marginalize and destroy the political power of the NRA might have to do with the fact that a new CNN poll released today shows that an overwhelming majority of the America people agree with the NRA’s proposal to put armed guards in schools, 54% to 45%.”

Despite fevered attempts by the White House, the Lamestream Media, the Congress, and with able assists by some notable–perhaps now notorious–conservatives, hysterical attempts to demonize the NRA and law-abiding gun owners are failing miserably.  For the moment, and in this single area, it would seem that Mr. Obama’s routine attempts to cover his hypocrisy and to foist outrageous lies on the public are failing.  Today, at least, is a good day for liberty–and children.

UPDATE, 1725, 11-19-13:  It seems even The Washington Post recognizes a reality Beltway denizens–including some conservatives–have a hard time even imagining.  In an article titled “How the NRA is Winning,”  it notes:

“There’s little doubt that the inside-the-Beltway crowd and those who have been longtime advocates of more gun control laws are outraged by the brash style that the NRA has adopted following the shootings in Newtown, Conn.

But, there’s also plenty of evidence to suggest that the NRA is regarded entirely differently in the country at large.”

Nice to see that at least this Lamestream Media outlet is catching up to this scruffy little blog.  By all means, read the whole article.

About these ads