NRA ad targeting Sasha, Malia is “repugnant, cowardly” (White House)

NRA is Repugnant and Cowardly

We wrote this morning about a new NRA ad / Web site targeting the Obama children in an effort to list-build and fundraise off of the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre. More on that below.

The White House has now responded.

Via Reuters:

“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,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

In the new Web site and ad, the NRA asks why the Obama kids, Sasha and Malia, have Secret Service protection when most American kids go to school and have no gunmen overseeing their safety in class.

Apparently the NRA isn’t familiar with a little thing called “assassination.”

NRA ad targeting Obama kids Sasha Malia

NRA ad targeting Obama kids Sasha Malia

NRA ad targeting Obama kids Sasha Malia

NRA ad targeting Obama kids Sasha Malia

NRA is Fundraising off the Dead at Sandy Hook

NY Daily News on NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre.

NY Daily News on NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre.

The NRA is clearly playing off of their CEO, Wayne LaPierre’s (a bad guy with a gun if there ever was one), roundly rebuked, even by Republicans, suggestion that we pay billions to put armed gunmen in schools across America to protect children (from imminent Soviet attack, fascism, the Borg).

But what’s particularly disturbing, beyond using the President’s under-age children as collateral damage in a political spat with their father, and beyond playing politics with the Sandy Hook massacre and the death of 20 children, is the fact that the NRA is using the Sandy Hook tragedy to list-build and fundraise.

Check out what appears right below the ad on the Web site:

NRA ad targeting Obama kids Sasha Malia

NRA ad: Sasha and Malia are Elitist Rich Kids for Having Secret Service Protection

The ad really is vile. Check out some more of it:

NRA ad targeting Obama kids Sasha Malia

NRA ad targeting Obama kids Sasha Malia

NRA ad targeting Obama kids Sasha Malia

Rich friends and elite schools?  So the Obama kids are spoiled rich kids and elitists for having Secret Service protection against known assassination threats?  Show of hands: Whose kids out there are currently being targeted by Al Qaeda?  Come on, keep em up.

Check out the counter at the bottom right of the screen above.  It keeps growing as the video goes on, suggesting that the NRA has benefited from Sandy Hook, from the mass murder of 20 young children.  And they’re proud of it.  Even gloating.

The NRA is the Face of Gun-nut America

The NRA likes to pretend that they represent reasonable Joe and Jane Gun owner America.  They don’t.  The NRA is to gun owners what the Family Research Council is to Christians.  Both attempt to mainstream extremism by using normal Americans (be they Christians or gun owners) as political beards.

They represent “Sandy Hook hoax” America.  Crazy America.  Violent America.  Gun fetish America.

I think the NRA made a huge mistake in going after the President’s children.

NY Post on NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre

NY Post on NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre

President Obama is rightly criticized for not always sticking to his political guns, as it were.  And some of the criticism is valid.  While I think he’s done a much better job the past few years, the first few of his term were definitely more wobbly.  But one thing we learned early on with this President is that he’s fiercely loyal to those closest to him.  The President may or may not have been truly ginned up for a fight with the NRA post- Sandy Hook, it might have been all for show.  But now that the NRA was invited to his house to talk peace only last week, and has returned the favor by targeting his underage daughters, this may be a whole new ballgame.

To paraphrase LaPierre’s insane, roundly-criticized, press conference following Sandy Hook: The only thing that can stop a bad guy with guns is a good guy with kids.

UPDATE: More vile hate from the NRA, this time by email. They seem to have no clue, nor care, how their extremist over the top language will be taken by some nut with a gun:

From: “Wayne LaPierre”
Subject: They want to blame you for everything
Date: January 15, 2013

It’s not about protecting children. It’s not about stopping crime.

It’s about banning your guns…PERIOD!

Last week, NRA sat in on a White House meeting that was sold to the public as an “open discussion” about how to improve school safety. But that was a dirty lie.

They didn’ listen to gun owners’ concerns…they didn’ consider any real solutions on how we can keep our kids safe…instead Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and their gun ban allies in Congress only want to BLAME you, VILIFY you, BULLY you, and STRIP you of your Second Amendment freedoms.

Right now, they’re steamrolling ahead with legislation that would ban your guns, register your ammunition purchases, and even force you to register the firearms you already own with Obama’s anti-gun bureaucrats.

I warned you this day was coming and now it’s here. This is the fight of the century and I need you on board with NRA now more than ever.

I urge you to renew or upgrade your NRA membership as soon as possible. If it’s more convenient for you to do so online, you can follow this link:
Now is the time when I need you and every gun owner to put an NRA membership card in your wallet and STAND AND FIGHT for our freedom. No one can take your place at the front lines of this battle…if we lose now, we lose everything.

The media has been on a vicious tirade to slander and intimidate you, me, and our fellow NRA members. We’ve been called terrorists and worse. They’ve blamed us and our Second Amendment freedoms for the actions of violent criminals and madmen. Our lives have been threatened.

But I won’ let these brutal and bitterly personal attacks on you and me go unchallenged. I’ll fight freedom’s enemies. I’ll fight to make our schools safer. And I’ll fight for your fundamental right to self-defense and your sacred Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

But my strength, and the strength of our entire NRA organization comes from you and your strong commitment to our membership. I need you in our corner TODAY.

Thank you for your friendship and your support. Your letters and your words of encouragement mean more to me than you could ever imagine.

Together, we will defend our freedom.


Wayne LaPierre
Executive Vice President

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

73 Responses to “NRA ad targeting Sasha, Malia is “repugnant, cowardly” (White House)”

  1. winston says:

    ‘al qaeda’ ? lol..
    Please wake up:

  2. Corey says:

    all politcians are a liitle repugnant…..thats realitty…..but he is less than mittens, palin, mc cain, bush, reagan, nixon, the kkk, the nra….etc

  3. Corey says:

    if obama didnt protect his family, many nra members would take advantage of that, nra knows obama is smart and knows their members are not, there just ur average run of the mill fat, racist, woman hating, xenophobic closet cased homophobes….the 99%-ers of FOX viewers. they voted for palin for gods sake, nra big wigs know there all dumb fucts

  4. NWProf says:

    Rush the Pigman, Wednesday, Jan 16th., was on a crying jag about the children who were invited to the White House. He was crying and moaning like a young child and intimating that the kids were afraid to die, and because of this, stopping gun legislation would be hard. Why is this thing that climbing out of a cesspool still on the air?!

  5. Naja pallida says:

    They’ve had every chance in the world to be reasonable and come to the table with something sensible, and they have decided that setting their hair on fire was a better solution. Which pretty much proves they don’t care about the average gun owner, they just want more people to send them money to continue setting their hair on fire.

  6. Naja pallida says:

    Because the “War on Drugs” has been so effectively implemented. Our pretend efforts to eliminate heroin production in Afghanistan has resulted in a drastic increase. To the point where it would actually be cheaper for us to buy up their entire crop of opium poppies every year, and just destroy it, than it is costing us to pretend to enforce drug trafficking laws.

  7. BeccaM says:

    I defend my family by not living in fear of intruders.

  8. Naja pallida says:

    10 hours and 50 shots at a stationary target gets you a concealed carry permit in Texas. Well, after you fill out the paperwork and show your ID, and get your picture taken.

  9. KingCranky says:

    Yeah, intense combat training isn’t part of getting a conceal carry permit, and paper targets in well lit areas don’t fire back.

  10. americanblogger says:

    Crime victims have attempted to sue police departments for failure to respond and the courts have consistently ruled that the police have no statutory obligation to respond. For example, see the Maria Navarro case in Los Angeles in 1989. From the first 911 calls, until the time the murderer arrived at his victims house, 15 minutes elapsed. Several people were murdered. The survivor’s lawsuit was dismissed under California law section 845 since specifically states that there is no statutory obligation to provide police protection.

  11. karmanot says:

    Those who live above Santa Barbara would argue that Southern California is not California.

  12. karmanot says:

    Except when there’s a sale at Dunkin Donuts or freebies at Crispi Creme.

  13. karmanot says:

    Cops are not always good guys. Try moving to Oakland.

  14. karmanot says:

    Ignore that man behind the curtain.

  15. karmanot says:

    I’m afraid you are spot on, at least in our county, where they kill first and ask questions later.

  16. karmanot says:

    Scratching around in the box again.

  17. americanblogger says:

    We’re not talking about vigilantes. We’re talking about the gun I keep in my bedroom to defend my family against an intruder. How do you defend your family?

  18. americanblogger says:

    What President in his right mind would use Sandy Hook kids on stage with him a political fodder?

  19. americanblogger says:

    Heroin is completely illegal. Yet widely available.

  20. karmanot says:

    Exactly. Obummer can shed real human tears ( and should) for those slaughtered teachers and children, while simultaneously murdering several hundred children and their families by drone.

  21. americanblogger says:

    There should have been anti-aircraft missiles on the WTC.

  22. americanblogger says:

    But there was an ACTUAL attack at Sandy Hook. Not a threat. An ATTACK.

  23. americanblogger says:

    NRA has added 250,000 members since Sandy Hook.

  24. americanblogger says:

    You’ll be dead before the cops arrive. Remember, when “seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”

  25. americanblogger says:

    You have not thought your logic all the way through.

    You claim that Sidwell Friends needs armed guards because of threats against the President’s family. But this entire national discussion is occurring, not because of a threat, but because of an actual attack at Sandy Hook. So, obviously, there can be threats and attacks at any school anywhere.

    So, let’s assume we follow your logic and eliminate guns. In that case, Sidwell Friends would no longer need armed guards since there would be no gun threat. But it could be attacked with a bomb and thus armed guards would be useless. (See “worst school massacre in US history”).

    Furthermore, the worst terrorist attack on US soil on 9/11 was against a civilian, non-government target.

    So, now that I’ve destroyed your argument about SIdwell Friends, let’s move on to your second paragraph.

    I understand why you made your naive point, since you may not have a solid understanding of the origin of the Bill of Rights or the knowledge of the Federalist Papers. But, in short, George Mason, who authored the Second Amendment, said that “militia” was the “whole of the people.” And he also said that to disarm the people was the surest way to enslave them.

    So, you’ve been educated. I fully expect you to delete this post and ban me. I could care less. I’m satisfied knowing that you’ll lay awake at night, struggling to come up some counter-argument. But you won’t be able to.

  26. dakotahgeo says:

    These over-the-top NRA Nazis need to be locked up for the safety and protection of our country. It should certainly be well known that the President and his family have ALWAYS had Secret Service protection around the clock, day in and day out! What is wrong with these gun nut jobs? These are the very people who SHOULD NOT have guns… they are a menace to society!

  27. colleen2 says:

    We don’t need to go back to JFK, the Bush twins had SS protection.

    I reckon the down votes are an expression of widespread repugnance and disgust. Really, the ad is indefensible as are those who pretend it isn’t.

  28. Asterix says:

    Well, the NRA represents gun manufacturers (research where the bulk of their operating budget comes from–it isn’t membership dues). So they’ll do anything they’re told by their “supporters”.

    I’m having a difficult time making sense of the debate though. Is the reason to walk around armed to the teeth to be protected from other gun-carrying citizens? Is it to stage a counter-attack in case of an attempted takeover by the duly elected government? Is is arm oneself in case of a slave rebellion? Or is it because a guy living in Manhattan is afraid that a rampaging moose has him in its sights?

    I’m not aware of any rampaging moose in Manhattan, so the need there isn’t obvious.

    If arming against a government coup, I say let everyone acquire machine guns, antitank weapons, SAMs, RPGs, armed drones, flamethrowers, nerve gas and tactical nukes. Heaven knows, with what the military is capable of throwing at insurgents, we’ll need all of it.

    I figure if you’re anticipating a slave rebellion, selling off your stock of slaves is overdue. After all, it has been illegal to own slaves since, what, 1863?

    If you’re afraid of other gun owners, then I figure with the current arms sales number, you’ll shortly be afraid of anyone over the age of 15.

    A question for you legal people that I’ve been wondering about. Suppose I see a fellow walking up to my home open-carrying an assault rifle. He’s not wearing anything that identifies him as law-enforcement, so I dare not confront him, because there’s a fair chance that I’ll likely be full of lead by the time I get past “hello”. So what do I do? Haul out my shotgun and plug him, claiming that I (reasonably) believed that he represents someone armed and dangerous?

    I think that we’re in for some real “stand your ground” heartbreak…

  29. GoBlue says:

    A president’s minor children have Secret Service protection. Not sure, but I think Onassis may have offered to pay for their guards after he married Jackie.

  30. FLL says:

    I didn’t down-rate, as you can see by the time stamp on my reply. I only have a question, and I really don’t know the answer. Do the minor-aged children of any president get either Secret Service protection or at least an armed guard at their school? I think JFK had minor-aged children when he was president. If so, then it would actually be hypocritical to complain about this in the case of Obama. Beyond the standard used for other presidents and their children, there is the fact that Obama’s children have had their lives threatened, unlike the children of other presidents. I don’t think there were anywhere near the sheer quantity of instances of people making public threats against previous presidents and their children, e.g., “kill that n—– and his monkey children.”

  31. Jimmy says:

    I don’t find this shocking at all. I have several acquaintances on Facebook, who until recently I would never have believed to be so rabid about guns, send me crap like this. It’s as much of a disgrace to the well-trained men and women who put their lives on the line everyday to protect the Leader of the Free World as it is to the president, his children, the victims of Sandy Hook. They’re comparing dedicated men and women to a man who should never had access to guns, but the sad fact is the NRA will literally raise millions off this crap.

  32. Seeker says:

    In 2001, Dick Cheney addressed the NRA at the South Towne Expo in Sandy, UT. All the attendees were required to disarm and leave their weapons outside. So the NRA believes that disarming people is the best means of securing safety for the VP, but everywhere else, they believe that more guns = safety. So much for hypocrisy

  33. Guest says:

    I’ll call him or her an idiot.

  34. Guest says:

    The more hysterical they get in flailing around, the more they justify confiscating all of THEIR guns.

  35. Sweetie says:

    Obama’s drones have killed children, including an American teenager.

  36. msfreeh says:

    I put my trust in law enforcement to protect us, eh?

    CNN exclusive: FBI misconduct reveals sex, lies and videotape

    By Scott Zamost and Kyra Phillips, CNN Special Investigations Unit
    January 27, 2011

    Washington (CNN) — An FBI employee shared confidential information with his girlfriend, who was a news reporter, then later threatened to release a sex tape the two had made.

    A supervisor watched pornographic videos in his office during work hours while “satisfying himself.”

    And an employee in a “leadership position” misused a government database to check on two friends who were exotic dancers and allowed them into an FBI office after hours.

    These are among confidential summaries of FBI disciplinary reports obtained by CNN, which describe misconduct by agency supervisors, agents and other employees over the last three years

  37. Oh Jeebus…”repugnant and cowardly”…you might make the case that it was in poor taste, but to even suggest that Obama was seriously talking about killing any one is pretty repugnant and cowardly in and of itself. I’d be willing to bet that the majority of fathers of teenage girls have made similar jokes about the boys bird-dogging their daughters. I’m tempted to call you an idiot, sweetie…but that would be wrong, so I won’t.

  38. Drew2u says:

    Did you catch that new White House comedy show commercial making that exact same ‘joke’?

  39. Drew2u says:

    Off topic, but relevant to gun control – A survivor from Virginia Tech is on Hardball, Rachel Maddow interviewed parents from Sandy Hook. How many mass-shooting survivors has FOX interviewed? I’m genuinely curious but I loathe looking through FOX archives.

  40. Sweetie says:

    I’d like to see a well-reasoned rebuttal, those who down-rated.

  41. Sweetie says:

    A poor dodge.

    We are talking about using deadly projectile weapons to defend children. Obama’s “joke” was about exactly the same thing.

  42. samizdat says:

    Sersly, where can I get some of them sweet, sweet Patriots?

  43. thaneb says:

    So let’s shout out an important, peripherally related issue as rationale to do nothing about gun violence in the U.S? Brilliant.

  44. Sweetie says:

    In some circumstances the police should be disarmed. At my university, the university police used to carry batons and not guns. Now they’re a paramilitary force. That was not necessary. We still have the town’s police force to deal with extremely rare circumstances that warrant guns.

  45. GoBlue says:

    Years ago, an armed man took hostages at a library in Salt Lake City. One of the hostages was an off-duty cop who had his off-duty gun in an ankle holster. Did he pull it out and start blasting away? No, because he might have been unable to grab it, aim and shoot before the gunman shot him or one of the hostages. Instead, he waited hours for the gunman to start nodding, either from lack of sleep or from drugs. Only after the gunman’s eyes were closed did the cop pull his gun, yell at the hostages to dive for the floor, and shoot the gunman. That’s how a professional does it.

  46. GoBlue says:

    Heard a good point on the Diane Rehm show today: the NRA’s favorite slogan is “If guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns,” and the organization claims that laws can’t stop criminals from buying guns because they can always turn to the black market. As Rehm’s guest said, the NRA itself is CREATING the black market by opposing laws that would allow only licensed dealers to buy and sell guns.

  47. GoBlue says:

    Secret Service protection for the president’s children, as opposed to the president himself, has less to do with assassination than kidnapping, at least before al-Qaeda came along. Kidnapping is MORE of a threat to the children than murder, because as long as the children were alive, the president would be forced to make concessions to the kidnappers to ransom them.

    Susan Ford hated going on dates with chaperones from the Secret Service. Once they explained to her that they were protecting her from kidnappers more than from killers, she was more accepting of their presence.

  48. tweeter says:

    The NRA is really helping the gun control debate.They’re fucking crazy and unreasonable.

  49. BeccaM says:

    Compared to NO training standards for any random yahoo to buy just about any gun out there.

    And actually I do know. My nephew is training to be a state police officer, and enrolled in their academy.

  50. Transient says:

    hahah, police officers highly trained? You clearly don’t know how low the standards are for passing their shooting tests.

  51. Sweetie says:

    I’ll tell you what’s also repugnant and cowardly…

    Obama joking about killing teens with predator drones to protect his daughters from romantic interest. What’s repugnant and disgusting is the audience’s warm laughter and approval. What’s repugnant is that the citizens of the US didn’t throw the bum out for utterly lacking humanity and abusing his position.

  52. KingCranky says:

    I’ve got an uncle who was a Secret Service agent for over 20 years, and I’m thankful he’s now retired, he no longer has to face the crazies the NRA is now trying to incite.

  53. Sweetie says:

    I think the NRA sucks, but I will concede that they are correct to point out that it can be seen as hypocritical to have the president’s daughters protected by armed guards and be against having professional armed guards in schools. I am not interested in the ad hominem aspect of this argument which people love to focus on. I’m more interested in the substantive debate.

    That argument may be hyperbolic, as there is a recognizable difference between people, like the president’s daughters, who are more likely to be specific targets of violence, and random school kids. However, the counterpoint is that students who bring guns to schools often target specific kids, such as the ones that bullied them. I think there is merit to the NRA’s idea of having armed professional guards in schools, although I would rather see our society evolve toward a less violence-obsessed sexually-repressive one. The NRA’s solution (and the government’s) is more guns to deal with more guns. They have more in common than most people realize.

  54. Naja pallida says:

    A potent combination of apathy and ignorance. To most Americans, unless they are directly impacted, they simply don’t care… coupled with the fact that the NRA has spent the last 30 years working very hard to make it as difficult as possible to inform even the people who should be informed on the subject, about the severity of the problems.

    Thankfully, as long as the NRA keeps running their mouths, more and more people are coming to the realization that there is something fundamentally wrong with them.

  55. Obama also has anti-aircraft missiles mounted on top of his house. Why won’t he let me have anti-aircraft missiles on top of my house?!?

    Darned hypocrite! It just isn’t fair!

  56. Albert James says:

    With this ad the NRA has stooped incredibly low. What organization in their right mind would use the president’s kids as political fodder?

  57. Randy Riddle says:

    The NRA isn’t “the Face of Gun-nut America”.

    It’s the Face of the Gun Manufacturing Lobby.

    What amazes me is that individuals are willing to get a free or downright cheap membership in the NRA just for some discounts and the privilege of being used as political pawns for some big companies making money off of blood spilled on America’s streets.

    When you think about it, there’s just no way that the NRA is covering the costs of lobbying, salaries and offers like insurance and discounts for the amount they’re charging individual members – this is funded by gun manufacturers.

    Obama, if he were smart, would be bypassing the NRA and directly attacking the manufacturers instead. Call them out. They have blood on their hands.

  58. judybrowni says:

    I’ve read that President Obama has received 300% times the threats of other presidents.

    The Secret Service stepped in early to protect him — and his family — for that reason.

    The NRA are vile beyond measure.

  59. drdick52 says:

    The ad is intended to intimidate and silence the opponents of the NRA. Typical of the thuggish tactics of modern American conservatives.

  60. BeccaM says:

    Good guys with guns are police officers, secret service and FBI agents and the like. Highly trained, paid, thoroughly-vetted professionals.

    They are NOT wannabe vigilantes like yourself.

  61. nicho says:

    We don’t just call “good guys” at random. My neighbor is a good guy, but I prefer to call the police — who are specially trained and even they make mistakes. The first cops who showed up at the theater shooting in Aurora thought the shooter was another cop. So they could have ended up letting him slip and shooting some other Second Amendment Rambo who thought he was going to help people. No one is suggesting that the police be disarmed

  62. First you need to explain the hypocrisy that you claim is there, before we can disprove it. Let me try. You seem to be suggesting that your kids face assassination threats on a daily basis. They don’t. The Obama kids do. When your kids get daily assassination threats from white supremacists and Al Qaeda, I’ll be happy to consider giving them Secret Service protection.

    I’m also in favor of the US owning nukes. I’m not in favor of you owning them. Hypocrisy? You seem to be again, conveniently, forgetting that well-regulated milita thing. Most of us are form an armed militia. We’re not for self-made Rambos who think the’re a militia.

  63. Quilla says:

    Has the NRA been classified as a Hate Group yet?

  64. UncleBucky says:

    NRA does not “think”. Non compos mentis, I’d say.

  65. UncleBucky says:

    NRAers, on the basis of this ad and if they don’t drop their memberships or switch their memberships to a saner organization, CAN GO TO HELL. There! I said it! Now I can breathe!

  66. FunMe says:

    When someone attacks your kids, then anger increases and the person will do everything to protect his or her children. I think the NRA made a major mistake with that ad as Obama will now AGGRESSIVELY pursue legislation that will protect kids and he will not care one iota what the NRA “thinks”. They really are nuts!

  67. Litterbox says:

    So someone please explain how this is not hypocrisy on the part of Obama. A lot of you guys are hypocrites as well. You abhor guns but when the shit hits the fan, you will pick up the phone and call a “good guy” with a gun to come to your aid.

  68. Gaylib says:

    Not that Obama has a say in the matter anyway. He can’t just tell the secret service to go away

  69. Badgerite says:

    How is it that 4,367.147 anti-government gun-nuts can ride roughshod over the rest of America and sacrifice the well being of its children to their bat shit crazy obsessions?

  70. MyrddinWilt says:

    They are mighty brave when they are waving a gun in people’s faces.

  71. MyrddinWilt says:

    I watched the press conference today.

    When Obama isn’t dealing with your particular pet issue as a priority then you are pretty much SOL and get nothing. But when your pet issue is top of his priority list then you get pretty much 80-90% of what you want.

    In his first term he got pretty much everything on healthcare apart from single payer. LBGT got nothing until the second half when suddenly they end DADT and move behind same sex marriage.

    So now he has taken on the gun lobby and I bet he gets pretty much everything on his list except perhaps for the assault weapons ban which actually matters a lot less than closing the gun show loophole.

  72. nicho says:

    Exactly what about the NRA isn’t repugnant and cowardly?

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS