Ethics Quote of the Day: Blogger Jeff Dunetz

“One thing the POTUS missed…there is no executive order preventing the Federal Government from selling weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels…everyone would support that one.”

—- Jeff Dunetz on his blog “The Lid,” criticizing President Obama’s list of 23 Executive Orders as “a pile of nothing.”

Obama And Biden Unveil Proposal To Decrease Gun Violence In U.S.There was a lot to dislike about today’s cynical exercise by President Obama on the topic of gun control. I already mentioned, in a post yesterday, its offensive exploitation of young children as props. James Taranto visited that issue today in his “Best of the Web,” pointing out the hypocrisy of White House spokesman Jay Carney going into high dudgeon and attacking the NRA for alluding, in a recent advocacy ad, to the fact that the President sends his own children to a private school that employs armed guards, and that his daughters are the beneficiaries of armed protection from the Secret Service. Said Carney:

“Most Americans agree that a president’s children should not be used as pawns in a political fight. But to go so far as to make the safety of the President’s children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly.”

Taranto, who does not agree with NRA’s reasoning in the ad, writes of today’s White House performance,

“If the president wants his critics to refrain from even indirectly referring to his daughters, he ought to stop exploiting ordinary people’s children in this manner. Even if the NRA missed the mark in accusing him of elitist hypocrisy over school guards, his display today makes him a fair target for such a charge.”


The dishonesty and fear-mongering were striking too. “This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe,” Obama said. “This is how we will be judged. And their voices should compel us to change.” Of course, “our children” are not actually endangered, the Sandy Hook shooting was an anomaly, and there is little reason to believe any of the measures proposed by the President would have changed the events in Newtown. But “we must keep our Batman movie audiences safe” just doesn’t have the same emotional thwack, does it? The transparent sense of  looming opportunity created by an elementary school tragedy that anti-gun activists have been radiating is so distasteful and dishonest, and the President’s words fit the chorus nicely.

Then there is the President’s the complete lack of responsible priorities. Gun control isn’t the priority now: reaching a responsible accord on the budget, the deficit, the debt ceiling and the debt are, and the likely futures of those children on the stage with Obama are far more likely to be blighted by the government’s failure to deal with those imminent crises than with the threat of gun violence in their schools. The President should be seeking solutions through negotiation and compromise, not diversions, distractions, and political grandstanding, but, you know, that would require skill, courage, focus, diligence,and humility. And, naturally, his gun safety initiative will also have a at least a half a billion dollar price tag attached, but hey, whose counting? Gotta protect those movie-goers, er, precious kids!

Meanwhile, Attorney General Holder is being welcomed back for Term #2 with open arms. The man responsible for endangering Mexican kids by delivering assault weapons into the hands of murderous criminals across the border, only one of the highlights of his incompetent reign, still isn’t being held accountable by his boss.  You should read Dunetz’s annotated list of the much-feared 23 Executive Orders, which are indeed a pile of nothing. It is hard not to suspect that the ominously large list was trumpeted in advance to prompt the pro-gun Republicans and conservatives to soil themselves or to make idiotic threats about revolution and impeachment, which naturally they did. That, and to convince a sadly large percentage of the public, who won’t bother to actually read the measures, to be convinced that their President is being pro-active and leader-like, as the nation edges ever closer to fiscal disaster.

Gotta save those kids first, though!



Pointer: Instapundit

Sources: Wall Street Journal, Christian Science Monitor, The Lid

5 thoughts on “Ethics Quote of the Day: Blogger Jeff Dunetz

  1. The biggest thing I worry about is that, individually, they are indeed nothing. Taken together, they can be worrying. For instance, the ACA forbids doctors from making records about gun ownership, but number 16 tells doctors to talk about it, and share info (#17) when they’re concerned. If the doctors do make a note in your file, that goes into consideration when a background check is run (#1 and 2). They want background checks to be run more often (#6) and as a precursor to returning a weapon seized by police (#5), who already have such loose seizure standards that they can already grab pretty much anything they want.

    And who decides what ‘alarming’ behavior should be noted (but not recorded! That would be illegal!) by those doctors? Eric Holder and Nanny Sebelius. (#4 and 23)

    Paranoid? Probably. But is it really paranoia when they’ve already repeatedly proven they’ll ignore the law, break the law, encourage others to break the law, change the laws as they see fit-legislative and judicial branches be damned, use dead Americans (and possibly kill some themselves) to score political points, and boast about it all as they stroll arm-in-arm through the wreckage?

    • Wait, if I visit a doctor I might lose one of my rights? I guess I’m not going to a dr. anytime soon. You can repeal the ACA now that I won’t need any medical insurance at all.

      • Easily the dumbest of the Exec. Orders. My doctor can ask about my sex life and my baseball team preferences too, and nothing can stop me from telling him, “Mind your own damn business.” More lives would be saved if doctors actually explained to elderly patients what they were prescribing, and why.

  2. I always find it troubling when someone uses the sentence “If it just saves one life, it is worth [giving up one of our rights and freedoms]”. There is no way to say it without dishonoring the memory of the many people who have died to uphold those freedoms, to establish those freedoms. How many people have died to preserve these rights and freedoms? Will we willingly give them away so cheaply?

    As far as our problems go here are some causes of death:

    Total deaths: 2,500,000/year
    Murders by firearm : 11,000/year
    Suicides by firearm: 20,000/year
    (For contrast) Usage of firearms in self defence: 1.5 million/year (according to a 1994 Clinton-era DOJ study)
    Murders caused by “assault rifle”: Less than 500/year committed with ANY rifle
    Heart Disease: 600,000/year
    Cancer: 570,000/year (brain cancer, 15,000/year)
    Death by Medical error: 100,000-300,000/year
    Death by car accident: 30,000/year
    Influenza and pneumonia: 50,000/year
    Appendicitis: 500/year
    Illegal drugs: 40,000/year
    Alcohol: 25,000/year
    Pregnancy: 1600/year
    Tuberculosis: 500/year
    Intestinal infections: 10,000/year

    So will we give our freedoms away and bring our federal and state government to a standstill when our economy is teetering and our debt is a a crucial stage, just to try to work on a problem that kills as many people as tuberculosis or appendicitis? We could save a lot more lives than are taken will all firearms if we would just get the doctors and nurses to put their disease-ridden cell phones away and wash their hands! Hey, pregnancy causes three times as many deaths as rifles, ban pregnancy!

    Anyone who thinks controlling ‘scary looking guns’ is the problem we need to focus our time and energy on is either delusional, or has an ulterior motive. They definitely should not be in any decision-making role in any organization. They are just wasting your money trying to regulate my 1896 Swedish Mauser that I have no ammunition for (but it is a military rifle with bayonet lugs!).

    Now, I need to get back to eBay. There are a lot of Civil War era Springfield muskets for sale cheap from New York now that they are banned “assault rifles”.

  3. Did anyone see where the only guns used at Sandy Hook were handguns?

    Just waiting for the next revelation that he only had 7 rounds of ammunition in each clip and standard ammunition.

    But yes. Lets continue this discussion on Assault Rifles.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.