Your blog editor is Frank Hurdle. I'm a native of Holly Springs, Mississippi; and a graduate of Ole Miss, B.A. and J.D. I buy and sell rural land and practice law.
My philosophy of life is simple: When society or the free market rewards an activity -- monetarily or through approbation -- then society will get more of that activity. Punish an activity -- through taxation or otherwise -- and you will get less of it. Unfortunately, the geniuses who run this fine country of ours haven't figured this out yet.
Choices our elitist, hypocrite president makes for his children are fair target for scrutiny
The NRA has gone beyond the pale by dragging President Obama's children into the gun control debate, or so claim his leftist supporters and such RINOs as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
If Malia or Sasha Obama should miss a homework assignment, get in trouble at school, or break up with a boyfriend, that's a private matter. But the choices politicians make for their children are a matter of public concern, particularly when these politicians are able to make choices for their children that are denied to most Americans.
For example, Malia and Sasha attend an exclusive private school, Sidwell Friends School. The public schools in Washington, D.C. are pretty dreadful for bright children, and I don't blame the president for sending his children elsewhere.
But I do blame the president for making choices for his children that are denied to most Americans. Obama has consistently opposed efforts to provide vouchers so that all Americans, regardless of income, can enjoy the same choices that he has made for his children. No, vouchers won't gain admittance to elite schools for dull, disruptive children, but they will ensure that every bright, well-behaved child in America can get a decent education.
You see, Obama is a typical liberal elitist. He prattles on about how wonderful public schools are, but he doesn't send his own children to public school. Yet when ordinary Americans seek the same opportunities, Obama slams the door in their face. For him, it's far more important to keep the teachers unions happy than it is to provide a decent education for America's kids. And if huge swaths of American society receive sub-par educations as a result, why should he care? He's got his! Obama and other liberals initially pooh-poohed the idea of having armed guards in our schools, even as the Sidwell Friends Schools has an 11-person security team. These aren't Secret Service employees; they work for Sidwell, albeit in shifts. Not all of these employees are licensed to carry weapons, but some are policemen who presumably are armed.
So once again Obama is happy to enjoy a benefit for his own children while seeking to deny the same rights to ordinary Americans. It's wrong and it's a fair target for public comment. If there are errors in the ad, complain about the errors, not the ad itself.
The Obama administration is now coming around to the idea of encouraging schools to have "resource officers;" presumably such officers will be armed. But when NRA Executive Direct Wayne LaPierre made this suggestion three weeks ago he was treated like a nut.
In any event, the president and his family are certainly entitled to a little bit of privacy. But that curtain of privacy deserves to be raised when the president makes choices for his family or his children that aren't available to ordinary Americans.
Many thanks to the NRA for producing an outstanding advertisement. If the president doesn't like it the solution isn't to stop running these types of ads. The solution is for him to stop being an elitist hypocrite.