President

At one time in the United States, when storied leaders like Thomas Jefferson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan walked the corridors of the White House, the annual State of the Union actually meant something. Whether delivered as a written report, or in person to a joint session of Congress, the ceremonial act was, as Article II of the U. S. Constitution mandates, an opportunity for the President to “give to the Congress information of the state of the union,” as well as recommend policies to fix the issues currently facing the nation. Most importantly, given the stature and respect of those delivering the remarks, State of the Union addresses were events that Americans looked to for real substance, reassurance, and even inspiration.

Today — and especially since Bill Clinton discovered that States of the Union provided an excellent opportunity to present a political laundry list for his Party’s supporters — we are lucky to get just one genuine fact that has not first been put through the ringer of highly paid speechwriters, political consultants, and Party apparatchiks. Even guests of the First Family have become political pawns, carefully chosen to serve as human exclamation points to punctuate the cause du jour featured in the President’s speech.

This year, the theatrics that accompanied Barack Obama’s final State of the Union took a new twist, with one visitor’s seat left vacant as a contrived “memorial” to the victims of gun violence; used by the President to shame Congress for its supposed inaction on gun control.

The real “empty seat,” however, is the one behind the President’s Oval Office desk.

For seven years, we have been held captive as Obama periodically bloviates about the need for tighter gun control, notably after each devastating tragedy involving firearms. A perfect example of this was Obama’s firearms “town hall” last week, in which carefully screened questions served up to the President repeated opportunities to deliver long screeds about gun control, with virtually no substance, but much smoke and mirrors.

Obama, it is well-established, never has been loathe to point fingers and uses his presidential bully pulpit to try to shame supporters of the Second Amendment — often the National Rifle Association by name as a proxy for all firearms owners as a whole. The sheer paranoia of this Administration toward the NRA and its perceived omnipotence, helps Obama perpetuate the myth that the NRA’s five million, dues-paying members are but a front for a secretive and unaccountable “vast Right-wing conspiracy,” controlled by “the gun industry.”

Obama’s fantastical notions about the NRA would be laughable but for the fact that Obama’s acerbic propaganda signals just how far removed he is from the sentiment of the nation, while providing him an excuse for why he must “go it alone” in forging anti-gun policies by non-legislative Executive Actions.

In reality, the only person Obama has to blame for a lack of “meaningful action” on gun crime, is himself. And, the facts lend no support to his efforts either.

Despite the heated rhetoric about gun crime following isolated mass shootings, for example, a 2014 audit of federal prosecutions shows a dramatic decrease in federal gun-crime prosecutions under Obama. Moreover, firearms investigations by Obama’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms also are in decline. Obama loves to explain away this drop in prosecutions of actual gun crime – such as straw man purchases, and possession of firearms by felons – as a matter of cuts to ATF funding forced on him by a hostile Republican Congress. However, it is his own Department of Justice that sets law enforcement and prosecutorial priorities for federal prosecutions — including for firearms violations — and, when it comes to taking violent criminals off the street, it simply has not been a priority for Obama.

In the words of one gun control historian at George Washington University commenting on shifting priorities at the Justice Department under Obama, “there’s more ideological cache harassing Bubba at the gun show than getting a handle on gun crime.” And, with the further confusion created by Obama’s recent Executive Actions about who needs a Federal Firearms License to sell a firearm, this harassment will only increase without any positive effect on gun violence.

It was always unlikely that, in his waning days as President, Obama would somehow come to terms with the reality about firearms ownership (up) and firearms crimes (down); or, that in the areas where he could have actually made a tangible impact on gun violence, Obama would finally take responsibility for failing because of his unwillingness to set aside politics and actually lead. So, while the Mainstream Media and the left-wing Blogosphere will gush over Obama’s “vacant seat” metaphor during his State of the Union, the only seat that reallymatters when it comes to protecting American citizens against individuals using guns with which to commit crimes, is the one behind the President’s desk in the Oval Office.

Originally published here via townhall.com

On December 31st, people gathered across America and the world to welcome the New Year with joyous festivities, hopeful resolutions, and cheerful optimism about fresh starts. Bucking the trend, President Obama opted against such new beginnings and vowed instead to do in 2016 as he has the last seven years: Whatever he wants, regardless of what the Constitution, Congress, the Courts, or the public, has to say about it.

Using his vehicle of choice, Obama this week announced – with a flood of presidential tears – several “Executive Actions” aimed at restricting gun sales and ownership in the United States. Similar to his past moves, which range from further regulating healthcare to (illegally) expanding work permits for illegal immigrants, the President justified his unilateral policy decrees on a need to bypass an “ineffectual” Congress. Rather than actually traveling a few blocks up Pennsylvania Avenue to meet personally with congressional leaders, Obama chose again to chastise Congress for being held “hostage” by the “gun lobby.” Obama’s teary-eyed efforts to rally supporters to his gun-control agenda every time a publicized mass-shooting occurs, has become something of a broken record. While the latest proposals – like those unveiled three years ago following the Newtown tragedy — appear on the surface to be largely benign, we had best take them seriously. As Ross Perot cautioned us, “the devil is in the details”; there is a relevant corollary to Perot’s maxim – “it’s often not what’s on the lines count; it’s what between the lines that matters most.” Of most concern among the proposals is the Administration’s attempt to broaden the definition of who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms; a classification which requires cumbersome licensing from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, in addition to dramatically enhanced penalties for violating the myriad regulations and conditions attendant to being a firearms dealer (a “Federal Firearms Licensee” or “FFL”). Yet, even the Administration is not clear on who would qualify. According to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, selling even one firearm could qualify an individual as a federal dealer, “depending on the circumstances” – vagueness not welcome from the person supposed to be the nation’s top lawyer.

In examining Monday’s decrees, Obama’s failure to propose even harsher gun control schemes as demanded by the Left, should not be viewed as a victory for Second Amendment supporters. The eventual goal of gun control advocates is not necessarily “gun control” per se, but ultimately reducing the number of firearms in circulation, and undermining the strength and authority of the Second Amendment. By simply making firearms more expensive to manufacture, and more complicated (and legally treacherous) to own or sell, the president’s “modest” proposals are every bit as dangerous as a move to outlaw certain categories of guns or ammunition; without the fuss of more direct measures that would never actually secure congressional approval. Much like his Democratic predecessor Bill Clinton, Obama remains chronically apathetic towards the heavy-lifting required to work with Congress in order to pass his agenda through the regular constitutional process. But unlike Clinton, Obama detests the glad-handing, negotiations, and compromises with those he sees as beneath him; and finds it is far easier to use the “stroke of the pen” to accomplish his goals, regardless of the damage thereby done to such vital principles as limited presidential power and separation of powers between the branches of government. Whereas Clinton was relatively open with his Second Amendment agenda and proposed mostly symbolic policies designed to score political points, Obama has chosen to work in the shadows via non-legislative means that strike more calculated blows to heart of gun rights. And his efforts in this regard are many. Consider the Obama Administration’s signing of the “Arms Trade Treaty” (ATT), which even without ratification by Congress, means the U.S. is “obligated” not to act “contrary to” the gun-control efforts proffered by the treaty explicitly or in ancillary documents. Or, “Operation Choke Point” in 2014, when Obama ordered the Department of Justice and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to pressure banks to dry up financial funding critical to firearms transactions and firearms-related companies. Or, how Obama has attempted to shoehorn the Centers for Disease Control into the gun control debate in an ongoing attempt to make gun violence a “public health” crisis; thereby subject to Food and Drug Administration regulatory control. These are but a few examples of the many calculated moves by the Obama Administration over the last seven years designed to circumvent Congress, and gut the Second Amendment without subjecting himself or his proposals to real debate. The new round of executive actions is more of the same, regardless of how “modest” the President and his allies claim them to be. Each step down this path opens the door wider for subsequent administrations to take the same approach regarding other issues. Whether this Congress, unlike its predecessors, recognizes this long-term damage and takes steps to stop the Administration, is – unfortunately – unlikely.

Originally published here via townhall.com