Our Comforter-in-Chief: The Emperor's New Tears

Since our President has made a tearful entreaty for change in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy, and since there doesn't seem to be much that is remotely conservative about the positions he takes, I think it is fair game to question where he's coming from.

This statement on its own bothers me:

"I know there's not a parent in America who doesn't feel the same overwhelming grief that I do."

Actually, Mr. President, parents in America are experiencing some deep sympathy and mostly fear--fear that the unthinkable could happen to them as well.  Some parents who have been through the unthinkable tragedy already are re-experiencing their pain.  But there are parents in Connecticut right now whose grief actually is overwhelming them, suffocating them, and your natural sympathy (and that of most of the rest of us as well) is not even close to that.  We don't have overwhelming grief!  Those parents do!  We are in shock, in fear, and have a secondhand hurt and horror at the thought of what it must be like for those devastated parents.  But our grief isn't crippling us like it is them.  Not even close.  That grief is so paralyzing, it is painful to look at.  But you can look away.  You can be distracted. Those parents can't. You have no idea, Mr. President, and I truly hope you never do.







For those who have seen the movie Broadcast News, and for those who haven't, I rewatched that press conference a few times looking closely at Obama's eyes.  Obama wipes the underpart of his eyes which is the natural reaction when your eyes have welled up and then overflowed.  If the eye has not yet overflowed, you have to make near-contact with the eye to check the impending tear, and there is a trail.  There is no glossy smear under his eye after he wipes, there is no visible welling in his eyes leading up to wiping.  To me, it really looks suspicious as an conscious attempt to get people to stop thinking about the issue and emote on the issue instead.  It just doesn't look real.  I'm not saying the Obama doesn't feel bad about this massacre; I just don't think he's as emotionally moved as he leads us to believe.  He's warming up the audience for "we have got to do something about this."

Obama is President.  His children have been (unfortunately) potential targets since he took office--it's an unfortunate problem with that job.  They are constantly protected and they have to be.  He fears as parents do (although our children are much less protected).  But I've lived firsthand watching the day-to-day grief of parents that have lived through the unthinkable, and what I just saw is not someone who is remotely sharing in that grief.

When I wipe my eyes, as I have had to do several times since I started this post, it is a messy affair.  One wipe smears the saltiness around producing wetness and salty irritation and I end up having to press my hand into my eyes to clear the mess.

But only the wise can see The Emperor's New Tears.

Obama's Orwellian manipulations about Benghazi

An interesting thing happened in response to the Benghazi debacle.  For weeks afterward, people had the impression that it happened because of a mob that got out of control.   A couple of Muslims gathered around an iPad and were horrified at the ill treatment of their holy Prophet, and got together their pitchforks and torches to storm the castle.  Meanwhile, Achmed broke out his stockpile of assault weapons, and Abdul finally found a use for those 150 hand grenades he had been saving for a suicide bombing.

[UN Ambassador Susan] Rice’s account directly contradicts that of Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf, who said this weekend that he had “no doubt” the attack was pre-planned by individuals from outside Libya.  “It was planned, definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their arrival,” Magariaf told CBS News.* [emphasis mine]

What an inefficient State Department to take weeks to figure out that unlike the Cairo event (which didn't result in American deaths) there was no corresponding demonstration.  The administration avoided saying for a long time that it was a terrorist attack because of a supposed ongoing investigation. The Susan Rice narrative instead played out in people's imagination.

How is it that instead of talking about terrorists invading American soil, the administration got everyone talking about a riot that started over a videotape?  If it was acknowledged from the beginning that it was a concerted effort of terrorists, how did the idea take over that it was an angry mob that got out of control?

Could it be because Obama equivocated in his Rose Garden speech that "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation"? That sounds like a warning. It follows a discussion of the events of 9/11/2001 and is general.  The Benghazi events are referred to as "outrageous attack," "brutal acts," and "terrible act." but "acts [plural] of terror" is reserved for America's position on terror (the Obama Doctrine?).

Could this be the reason that the press did not hold  this administration accountable when they subsequently avoided calling it a terrorist attack?  Could it possibly? Or did the press simply forget that it had been called a terrorist attack?