Don's Tuesday Column

         THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson  Red Bluff Daily News   1/12/2016

         The crocodile tears of a clown

In a speech as well as a town hall, Barack Obama felt compelled to convey his rationalizations, thoughts and feelings, together with some rather minimal actions, on the gun issue. Obama: “It makes me mad,” not angry. Getting angry is a rational reaction to violations of, or threats to, one’s person or family. A group may feel anger over perceived attacks on their collective rights or safety.

Getting “mad,” on the other hand, is an extreme emotional reaction. Dictionary.com: “1. mentally disturbed; deranged; insane; demented. 2. enraged; greatly provoked or irritated. 3. abnormally furious…4. extremely foolish or unwise; imprudent; irrational…5. wildly excited or confused; frantic. 6. overcome by desire, eagerness, enthusiasm…9. an ill-tempered mood, spell.”

All of the above describe Obama’s permutations of “madness” over his political enemies, those who oppose his policies, and the recalcitrant (to him and his allies) segments of the electorate that refuse to accede to his will and desires. Indeed, it is only with tremendous self-control that he channels such emotions into an appearance of reasonableness, when not descending into vituperation, castigation, mischaracterization and thinly veiled bile toward those on the other side.

The famous George Burns/Groucho Marx/Jean Giraudoux quote, “The secret of success is sincerity—once you can fake that, you’ve got it made,” applies to Emperor Obama better than most politicians. Witness the tears that he summoned up for dramatic effect in his speech on gun violence, which were cynically described by some as “crocodile tears,” even “The Tears of a Clown,” by Scott Johnson (searchable by title at Powerlineblog.com). Obama’s faux anger and sorrow are but well-honed tools of persuasion and intimidation, meant to motivate the emotions of his allies while provoking the disbelief and exasperation of his opponents.

In “Don’t Cry for Me, Syria,” writer Rand Simberg noted the emotional plea by Obama and found it strange that so few other tear-filled moments can be found. He first pointed to a typical tweet by leftist Obama-ite John Fugelsang that most readers will find offensive: “People who say Obama fake-cried are essentially accusing him of being as indifferent to mass killings as they are.” Simberg: “Note the false premise in that tweet, and (as usual) the inability of leftists to grant any sort of good faith to their political opponents.” Yes, we can be both horrified at mass killings (I am), and “disagree about the proposed solutions to them.”

Louise Mensch said that he was in tears because, in the last year of his presidency, he has gone from magic to toxic: “…the public sobbing over something he did nothing to fix just strikes America as the tears of a clown.” Simberg finds it revealing that Obama had no tears when “he declared a ‘red line’ over Syria’s use of chemical and biological weapons and Bashir Assad gassed children to death with chlorine…Did he get all weepy when children were being literally crucified by ISIS for not properly fasting during Ramadan?

“This sort of thing isn’t new, of course. Many have noted that when talking about the terror attacks in Paris, or about the Syrian refugee crisis, the only time the normally phlegmatic (Webster’s: sluggish, unexcitable, etc) president seems to show any anger or emotion is when he discusses not the terrorism, but what is, in his mind, the true enemy: Republicans.” In opposing Obama’s legacy and policy paradigms, Republicans alone warrant his ire.

Regarding the substance, if you will, of Obama’s campaign-style event before the assembled multitude of sycophants, it is both under whelming and frightening. “Obama referred to himself one way or another some 76 times in the course of his 33-minute speech.” Acknowledging that no legally binding changes to federal firearms law are possible by executive action, Obama’s (and Attorney General Lynch’s) “common sense gun safety reforms” tweek laws at the edges.

Citing the need (in his alternate reality) to close the “gun show” and “internet” loophole, Obama is determined to apply strict scrutiny to the small-time sellers in casual settings. The premise itself is based on a misnomer, even a misrepresentation. No sale of a firearm by anyone making a living on the sale is allowed without using a “federal firearms licensee” (FFL). Sales initiated through the Internet are still subject to existing law and lawful transfer.

Anyone selling a personal collection at a flea market or gun/knife show is not “in the business”; likewise for someone gifting a firearm to a friend or family member. If someone is not legally allowed to own a gun, they are breaking the law in any case and are already beyond the reach of new laws. Criminals already skirt the prohibition by 1) using someone with no record to buy for them, 2) buying their guns from black market criminal sellers, or 3) stealing them.

So, Obama hasn’t tried to compromise and meet the people’s representatives halfway on legislative changes, or even use his Democrat majorities when he had them. Obama has set in motion a regulatory regimen that threatens to arbitrarily, even retroactively, impose on a small-time, casual—and law abiding—seller the expense and time to become a FFL.

Such individuals risk being deemed criminals through this arbitrary interpretation of otherwise meticulously detailed laws. John Lott pronounces Obama’s actions “dictatorial and unworkable.” I see yet another shameless attempt to intimidate America’s citizens.