Previous post:

Next post:

The NRA’s Despicable Use of the Obama Girls

by Keith Koffler on January 17, 2013, 2:42 pm

The National Rifle Association gave a disgusting performance the other day with its ad that used President Obama’s daughters to make its point in favor of putting armed guards in schools.

In case you haven’t seen it, the NRA accuses Obama of being a hypocrite for allowing armed guards for his daughters at their school but opposing them in schools nationwide:

Not only is it abhorrent to unnecessarily bring these innocent children into the debate, it doesn’t make any sense.

I think it may be a good idea to put armed guards in schools. With the proliferation of violent video games that inure children to violence, these attacks are going to get more frequent.

But the arguments against putting armed guards in schools have to do with whether it makes things more dangerous to put a gun in a school than not to, and whether the policy is affordable.

Sasha and Malia are protected by trained Secret Service agents because they in particular are potential targets, whereas the chances of anything happening at any one school somewhere in the nation are extremely low.

That said, the Obamas themselves have invited this kind of irresponsible focus on their kids by constantly highlighting them for political purposes. Obama refers to them in remarks, they appear in official White House photos, and a picture of the family was even used during the campaign to promote the president and raise money.

This is because the White House knows that a source of Obama’s political strength is his likability as a dad. The White House made a cold and irresponsible decision to use the Obama children.

The Clintons and the Bushes made it clear that their kids were off limits, and they didn’t talk about them or use them for political ends. And I don’t remember their children incurring any of the kinds of nonsense perpetrated by the NRA.

Hopefully, with the election past them, the Obamas will keep their children off the stage.

{ 46 comments }

srdem65 January 17, 2013 at 2:46 pm

The whole point of the ad was that our children are as valuable as the Obamas. The President himself is quoted as saying how happy he was that his children were protected by “men with guns”.

Suck it up Dems. We’re taking the gloves off.

Susan January 17, 2013 at 2:51 pm

Amen, srdem!

Star January 17, 2013 at 3:10 pm

Also SS are not the only armed guards there…

Lizzy January 17, 2013 at 3:15 pm

The Obama’s sadly have used the girls in photo ops so they can’t
have it both ways. The children are off limits then it means totally
off limits.

Star January 17, 2013 at 3:26 pm

And it’s a Quaker school.

Joe Ryan January 17, 2013 at 2:53 pm

What you miss Mark is the school the Obama girls attend has their own armed security above and beyond the Secret Service that guard the President’s daughters. Yet when Wayne LaPierre brought the idea of armed personnel in schools he was made a mockery of by the left and the President.

Pocono Chuck January 17, 2013 at 3:00 pm

I support the NRA, but this ad missed its’ mark (pardon the pun).

As stated above, the children of *any* US President deserve protection, from a national security point-of-view; on this, I believe, we can all agree. Sidwell Friends school has had armed guards for years, and they (presumeably) compliment the Secret Service.

So why do the kids of MSNBC’s David Gregory deserve that level of protection (at Sidwell Friends), and mine kids don’t? THAT is the question.

Julie Brueckheimer January 17, 2013 at 3:18 pm

I disagree with you this time. The ad says that every child’s safety and welfare is just as important to that parent as the Obama children are to their parents. Just because the rest of the children in the United States are unknowns and not celebrities does not mean that they don’t deserve equal protection under the law.

The NRA suggestion was a good one, and Obama threw cold water on it. He is indeed a hypocrite because his children are protected while the others are not. Besides, if you’re looking to add more jobs, this would be a bona fide job in comparison to the growth in bureaucracy Obama is making in his suggestions.

Susan January 17, 2013 at 3:24 pm

Preezy Revenge was elected to the highest public office in America. He is nothing more than a public servant to the American people, just like all the other politicians in DC. He, along with his wife, children, and her mooching mother are provided free food and free lodging in one of the most historic buildings in America, courtesy of the generosity of the American people. My point being, the Obama family is not royalty. They are only temporary residents in what was once a grand and magical place.

He pimps his kids out for photo ops – “Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?” – we can mention they’re more well-protected than our children.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoQhH9srELA

Julie Brueckheimer January 17, 2013 at 3:39 pm

As a matter of fact, I think this would be a good issue for the Republicans in the House to promote legislatively, and let’s see how obstructionist the Democrats would be. Who could argue that all children do not deserve such protection? I’m not suggesting, let me stress, that Republicans mention the daughters by name but that they take the NRA suggestion of one armed law enforcement officer be placed in each public school and promote it legislatively.

Soquel Creek January 17, 2013 at 3:29 pm

So, apparently exploiting the President’s children for political reasons is wrong.

But, exploiting other people’s children for political reasons is just fine if you’re the President. This is what the President calls a “level playing field.”
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/2013/01/barack_obama_gun_control.jpg

President Obama isn’t called the Stagecraft President for nothing. Need examples?

http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2009/08/health-care-reform-are-we-really-this.html

http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2011/09/stage-craft-president-stages-more.html

Sharon Rondeau January 17, 2013 at 3:29 pm

I do not find it offensive that the NRA stated a fact: that the Obama girls attend a school which is guarded by ten armed officers. Other prominent Washington politicos and news anchors have sent their children to the same school. It proves that a private, expensive education footed by the parents of those attending can buy safety when that is a priority.

I have reported on the same thing at The Post & Email, and I do not believe any of my readers was offended at the reporting of a fact that Obama publicly stands against that which he pays for in regard to his daughters.

cincycinco January 18, 2013 at 9:07 am

“…that which he pays for…” – Sharon Rondeau

HE pays for? Silly, Democrats don’t pay for stuff themselves!! That’s all US!

zaraa January 17, 2013 at 3:36 pm

The Clintons and the Bushes made it clear that their kids were off limits, and they didn’t talk about them or use them for political ends.

Bill often spoke about Chelsea and the bush daughters actively campaigned and even spoke at the rnc convention.

Hopefully, with the election past them, the Obamas will keep their children off the stage.
the girls were barely visible during the election, only attended appeared at the end of the convention and didn’t go to any debates unlike romney grandchildren

Jeff1000 January 17, 2013 at 3:36 pm

If the Obama children didn’t attend that school, the children there would still be protected by armed security, just not Secret Service.

No more Mr. Nice Guy for conservatives: what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

The outrage over this ad just means that the NRA is on the right track, totally.

Margaret January 17, 2013 at 3:37 pm

Obama obliterated a good man’s reputation during the campaign. Mr. Romney was accused of being a tax-cheating felon, of killing a guy’s wife and a host of other atrocities. If you play dirty, you’ll get dirty. I don’t agree with politicizing the President’s children, but if a candidate has an “anything goes” campaign strategy, then the other side has every right to stoop to their level. The NRA did. Part of me is pleased that someone on the right will at least sling the mud back in their faces. The time of being ladies and gentlemen is over. If the left throws something at us, we pick it up and throw it back at them twice as hard.

And while I’m on a roll:

Dear leaders of the Republican Party, it’s not “tax the rich,” it’s “punish the successful for working harder and smarter than everyone else.”

It’s not “reasonable gun regulations and an end to gun violence,” it’s “taking away the right to defend your home, family and everything you hold dear to your soul.”

It’s not “Touching social security hurts the elderly,” it’s “The system is broke. If we don’t make changes NOW!, the elderly will be left to starve. ”

Stop being nice. Get mean. Get ugly. Right now.

Shaky Jake January 17, 2013 at 7:24 pm

Oh Margaret you are SO right! “The Rich” is a negative phrase coined by the Libs to slander the successful. Rather than change it to “The Successful” the Republicans use the Rich term furthering their agenda. “The Rich” is great for class warfare though.

The “Health Care Crisis” is NOT a health care crisis, it’s a “Too Expensive” crisis. Our healthcare is terrific, but it’s too expensive. it should be a “Health Cost” crisis. “Health Care Crisis” is more all-encompassing and sounds much more dire.

Ending “Gun Violence” is another example of the all-encompassing Dire Emergency verbiage. NOTHING proposed yesterday will address the hundreds of murders each year in Chicago, New York and other major cities. “Gun Violence” sure sounds great though. Shouldn’t it be School Violence?

The Republican party needs a marketing person to rename all these over-the-top issues, and the party needs to start using better terminology in regular conversations, on TV, and other public appearances.

FredB January 17, 2013 at 3:45 pm

Punch back twice as hard. Where did we learn that?

Lizzy January 17, 2013 at 3:59 pm

Sadly Obama and his coven of evil crossed the line in the election so all bets
are off. Also as it seems we are now in a battle for our Constitution and our
rights are being taken away at the whim of a petty little man with delusions
of creating a utopian paradise. We have to fight a battle and he’s already
shown it won’t be a fair fight. This is a battle we cannot loose.

Not Nabob January 17, 2013 at 10:57 pm

I hear you and agree with the coven but am surprised you did not include the hag herself.

Rod January 17, 2013 at 4:20 pm

I can’t claim the same indignance as you on this one Keith. I’m sick and tired of politicians (at ALL levels) standing there claiming to do something for the “public good” (and contrary to my opinion) behind MY KID’S “best interest.” If someone wants to turn the tables on the King then sucks for the skin-flint.

Personally, I’m tired of these fool liberals telling me that they know better than I how to raise, educate, cloth, feed, protect, mentor, encourage, and impart a moral standard to MY OWN KIDS (not only telling me, taxing me so they can implement their foolish ideas, too).

LIBERALS – keep away from MY kids and spend more time raising your OWN freaking off-spring and if you don’t have any offspring, then spend your counterproductive do-gooder energy on your PETS or earthworms or endangered beetles and save the rest of us from the empty vacuum of your pointless lives you try to fill with your condescending, annoying, self-righteous, self-serving advise on how to the raise children you tend not to have yourselves.

Susan January 17, 2013 at 4:25 pm

The Bush twins were never off limits to the paparazzi. Although they were much older than the Obama girls, leftist news organizations hounded them and reported ridiculous, uncorroborated stories about them as news stories of the day…

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2006/11/us_embassy_asks/

gracepmc January 17, 2013 at 4:28 pm

I don’t like it but Obama brought this on himself. He has hurt this country so badly that I can no longer overlook what he himself invites.

gracepmc January 17, 2013 at 4:32 pm

Doubledip. Sorry. But I had posted earlier snarkily that we hadn’t heard from Obama yet on the hostages but I suspected he was simply gathering children of hostages, previous hostages or had been hostages themselves to accompany him on stage and serve the state. Now with the NRA hitting back I guess we won’t be seeing that. So, the silence on the hostages is just Obama being Obama.

MichelleIndependent January 17, 2013 at 4:34 pm

Diisagree with you, Keith. The ad does not even use any images of Obama’s children.

however, the dictator uses other people’s children, in person, as a backdrop or wallpaper to push his agenda.

also, The Sidwell school has armed guards that are not Secret Service.

Quintus Arrius January 17, 2013 at 4:39 pm

Another great post, Keith. As uncomfortable as it to witness the lowering of the attack bar down to bringing in the Preezy’s kids, it allows the right in this country to flex some of the same methodology the Left uses with nauseating regularity.
see Alinsky rule #4 and 5:…the fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
…the fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

joelc January 17, 2013 at 5:33 pm

I do think the NRA rushed the ad. However I believe they intended to show the libs they weren’t going to stand by and take their nonsense.

As I said yesterday, background checks for everyone….Obama goes first.

JBH January 17, 2013 at 5:35 pm

We live in a suburb of Memphis, Tn and we have had one armed local policeman and one sheriff’s deputies at all of our school for years. It is a typical peaceful suburb. I am glad they are there and see absolutely no problem with this practice and as the ad states, all children, regardless of who their parents are deserve this level of protection.

Paul January 17, 2013 at 6:08 pm

You’re wrong here. The ad did not in any way target Obama’s kids. It targeted Obama’s hypocrisy in arguing that guns should not be in schools to protect the kids. Obama takes the position that guns are not only desirable but necessary to protect his kids, but not your kids. He’s fine having Secret Service (at your expense, for the rest of his life!) follow him around and protect him with guns, but not you.

It is completely irrelevant that Obama’s kids are the President’s kids, and are therefore “more of a target”. Even if true, that is beside the point. The point is that EVERY American has the same rights to protect their kids.

Does anyone read Animal Farm anymore? Do they assign that book in our liberal-run schools? Obama’s creed: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

Guillermo Grande January 17, 2013 at 6:09 pm

I rather thought it was on point. There are no lines anymore this president has seen to that.
Best of the Web has a thoughtful analysis of a different add from the NRA. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323968304578245912823713052.html

Well Duh January 17, 2013 at 7:11 pm

Tough sh!t. It’s game on and we’re not giving quarter. Besides, they’re going to grow up to be good little authoritarians like their worthless parents.

FredB January 17, 2013 at 7:11 pm

Seeing Obama’s use of children in his press conference I had a flashback to Saddam’s display of child hostages in August, 1990 on Iraq State TV.

Darkangel January 17, 2013 at 10:09 pm

Respectfully, Keith, you may be missing the point.

While it is proper for the girls to have a protective detail, what Obama is doing is “armed security for me but not for thee.” He doesn’t have to worry about HIS kids, oh no no no. Mr. and Mrs. America from Anytown, USA, are still worrying about the safety of their own young ones, but Obama need not worry about his own, all while demanding that We the People be less armed than the political class–the first step of almost every dictatorship in history.

He’s put his kids in play more than once, and so they are fair game. And if he wants to fight like the street thug he is, then Marquis of Queensbury rules need to get the heave-ho. And if that means taking shots at Malia and Sasha, oh, well.

We are talking about the future of our Republic. And if that means not letting Dear Leader put his daughters in play when it suits him and then turn right around and use them as political human shields when the heat gets too high, then by all means, the kids are in play.

drk January 17, 2013 at 10:15 pm

My two cents- NRA made their point, and the NRA is right.

Jeff January 17, 2013 at 10:48 pm

Tough for them.. This is the man who sent his 13 year old daughter to a war torn country(onthe no go list in fact)for spring break.. And he uses kids all the time,and don’t tell me the ads obama released on YouTube today with kids talking about why there should be strict gun laws are no different and are infact beyond despicable,like the parade at the presser yesterday..What about those political pawns? It’s ok when king Barry does it but anyone else it’s bad.. Whatever Barry.. Let’s hope he don’t end up like Il Duce, swinging from a lamp post,cause he is ticking the country off good

Jeff January 17, 2013 at 10:49 pm

And that school has armed security besides the secret service,who I’m sure is busy ordering out for hookers

Not Nabob January 17, 2013 at 10:52 pm

As Maury would say, Barack you are not the Father.

Google it January 17, 2013 at 11:08 pm

Keith – The Sidwell Friends School (which caters to the liberal elite) hires 11 armed school guards. These 11 armed guards are outside of the scope of the Secret Service Agents that are also at the school, protecting the Obama’s children.

Annie January 18, 2013 at 3:34 am

I’m *stunned* the response to this ad by many so-called conservatives. Perhaps I’m missing something but I find *nothing* wrong with this ad. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. NRA didn’t “use” the Obama children. They’re not pictured. They’re not named. It’s not like it’s a secret where they go to school. NOTHING about their security was revealed. It was a PERFECT, direct comparison. “Thee not me” as it were. It is *exactly* what we fought against to found this country – that the ruling class be afforded special rights the rest of us do not have. Extrapolated out to its logical end, the only way the Obama gun policy can play out is for people who can afford to hire someone to *hold* the gun to have their natural right to self-protection preserved and the rest of us only able to afford the gun *itself* SCR*WED.

Francisco Almeida January 18, 2013 at 4:33 am

hummmm … I see … So Obama can use children in his PR stunts, wipe his invisible tears on TV screen, and this is all fair and balanced.

But when it’s time to claim for similarity in principles of protection towards tens of millions of children in all US territory, then … well , it’s despicable indeed, considering than those a servant’s children, just ordinary people, cannon fodder, useless eaters, AND their lives do not worth a penny, correct mr Keith ?

Despicable use of the image of the sacred holly princesses, the holly daughthers of our venerable and honorable Emperor, erm, I meant , our President.

Meg January 18, 2013 at 8:46 am

Did I miss your blog on Obama using kids? What the NRA did was truth. Yet Obama uses kids and you say nothing?

TimW January 18, 2013 at 5:37 pm

Meg,

Keith wrote about that on Wednesday after Obama paraded the kids about at the signing ceramony.

Danceswithtruth January 18, 2013 at 10:29 am

Sorry Keith, going to have to disagree with you on this one.

I liken this to court testimony. When the witness opens the door to further testimony/questioning, it’s fair game. This is exactly what “dear leader” did when he stated he was happy his children were protected by “men with guns”. You open the door, then be prepared to walk through it. He may think he can have it both ways, but sooner or later it will catch up to him.

TimW January 18, 2013 at 5:15 pm

I am at a loss as to why this ad is “abhorrent” and “despicable”. Those are pretty strong words for a fairly benign add. It does not denigrate them or even show their pictures.

My problem with the add is that it is more “preaching to the choir” rather than persuading new converts.

TheRealBillybob January 19, 2013 at 11:54 pm

Well the fact is that the Sidwell Friends school has it’s own armed security division and has before the Obama spawn attended school there. The school employed its own security division to protect the children of the parents who send them there, it is a fact that person like David Gregory has his children protected by Sidwell Friends School armed security division and not by the US Secret Service detail assigned to protect the Presidents children while they attend the same school.

Obama is a hypocrite because if he where not the President and did not have a US Secret Service detail assigned to protect his children, if his children attended Sidwell Friends they would still be defended by the armed security division of the school itself just like David Gregory’s children are.

The point the NRA makes is that Obama and his MSM propagandist fellow travelers like David Gregory enjoy, expect and are willing to pay for armed security to protect their children while they attend school but they question, object to, or deny the same level of armed protection of the taxpayer’s children while they attend school.

how zetaclear treat nail fungus June 7, 2013 at 10:00 am

I do not know whether it’s just me or if everybody else experiencing problems with your blog. It appears like some of the written text in your posts are running off the screen. Can somebody else please provide feedback and let me know if this is happening to them as well? This may be a problem with my browser because I’ve had this happen previously.
Thank you zetaclear zetaclear reviews