By now, I am sure everyone has the seen the image of the president with what appears to be a tear on his left cheek. It occurred January 5th in the East Room of the White House. I suppose that the image was designed to prove his sincerity or to give him credibility. It could be either or neither; after all I am just guessing about his intent. In his accompanying speech about gun control, he relates how a deranged young man in Connecticut massacred students at Sandy Hook Elementary School and then stated, “Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad.” He went on to say, “And by the way, it happens on the streets of Chicago every day.”
Without appearing cynical, I must ask, did anyone besides me find the message confusing?
What caused my confusion was the statement that he was mad and the accompanying tear. I generally think tears are reserved for sadness, sorrow, and sometimes joy, but he was neither of these; he was mad. I do realize that children often cry out of frustration when they are mad and lack the ability to maintain self-control; however, I am sure this is not the emotion the president was going for. It is most likely just a case of mixed emotion, but his handlers should have advised him that the approach could cause confusion. I was, however, amused by the fact that being mad could make him cry. I imagine he has spent many nights over the last seven years crying. Since taking office, President Obama appears to be mad most of the time. He is mad about our founding fathers, mad about our freedom, mad about our success, mad about the Tea Party, mad about the Constitution, and of course, mad about Sandy Hook. One has to wonder, is there anything he is not mad about?
Actually, with a casual review of recent events, it is easy to find things that did not make him mad. He was not mad about the attack on Benghazi, the attack in San Bernardino, the attack at Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon attack, or the recent attack in Paris for that matter. Where is his outrage, his anger, or his tears? Why is there no serious effort to reduce the risk to our country? Why is he unwilling to curb the influx of Islamic refugees? Why did he bring up the murders in Chicago?
Chicago is known for its strict gun laws and high murder rate, so how does it support the president’s gun control effort? In short, it doesn’t, but the murder statistics for Chicago are interesting and readily available on the Chicago Police website. One statistic that stands out is that 75% of the murders are gang-related. Another interesting fact is that 72% of the murders are committed by the 17-35 year age group. 76.9% of the murderers had a prior arrest. 88% of the murderers were male; 70.5% of the murderers were black. The statistics go on and on. It would seem if the president wanted to tackle the problem of violence, he could start with the Chicago gangs, not law-abiding citizens.
It remains to be seen how effective his speech and display will be, but clearly he intends to overstep his bounds and issue executive orders to calm his mixed emotions.
Until next time…
A citizen of the United States of America, a Texan and a resident of Flour Bluff, Dan Thornton, values enlightened reason and freedom. Dan is a lifelong student of history and philosophy, and a writer of poetry and song. The hallmark of his pursuit is a quest for universal truth. By admission, the answer is illusive, but he is undaunted, and the quest continues.