by Paul Holt:

President Barack Hussein Obama has once again issued an executive order that advances the cause of tyranny and limits the rights of individual citizens under the guise of stopping gun violence.

In the parlance of football the president has advanced the ball with nothing to stop him but a symbolic defense. Whether you believe he achieved a first down or something less he really saw no opposition from congressional leaders.

Many are dismissing this executive order as little more than political theater but they are failing to see the forest for the trees. True, nothing in the president’s order would have any effect on the types of mass murders we have seen in recent years but what the president has done is greatly expanded the powers of government agencies.

Case in point, very little is being said about the new authority this Executive Order gives the Social Security Administration. It is beyond the scope of their charter to look into the files of American citizens for anything more than to determination their benefits and yet if this executive order is allowed to stand it is the Social Security Administration that would determine if a citizen is qualified to own a firearm.

Where does this authority come from? The president of the United States is not granted such power to give to a government agency, it is beyond his constitutional authority.

What criteria will they use to determine if a person is worthy of gun ownership? You might answer that a person with a disability would be disqualified, but I would answer how much of a disability? Understand, that once a power has been given to a government agency it is doubtful that it will ever be removed.

And what about the power given to doctors under this executive order to turn people over to the FBI? Is there a limiting criteria or can people be reported just for being grouchy? Again, by what authority is the president able to give doctors such power?

The president is also expanding the authority of the ATF beyond with the statute allows when limiting the ability of individual citizens the right to sell privately owned firearms. Now, most progressive liberals think that this is wonderful but how wonderful is it to have the federal government micromanage your transactions?

The bottom line is that this goes far beyond gun control and while we should be concerned at the incremental loss of liberty and the undermining of the Constitution there are greater concerns at stake.

Now I cannot end this update without commenting on the president’s use of emotion to justify his actions.

While it is not my place to judge the intent of his heart I would like to point out that it was policies like his that created the conditions that allowed these mass shootings to happen.

He cited Sandy Hook and shootings in Chicago as reasons for his tears and anger, when Sandy Hook is a gun free zone where security guards are not even allowed to carry a weapon and Chicago is among the most gun restrictive cities in America. These arguments and this logic are lost on progressive liberals because they are more focused on restricting liberty and the rights of people to lawfully protect themselves.

So let us not be so easily fooled by the emotional argument that robs us of our freedom. We should not buy into the liberal drivel that something must be done, because that is only misdirection used to move the football a little closer to the goal of a tyrannical dictatorship where only the elites are allowed to protect themselves.

Remember, where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty but where the devil is allowed to reign there is slavery.