If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Sharon Rondeau

Why does Obama smile and pose following the most shocking atrocities?

(Jan. 24, 2013) — Smiling as if for a normal photo-op, Obama and Sandy Hook survivor children are pictured in the first of many photos included in “2012:  A Year in Photos” on the White House website.

Obama traveled to Newtown, CT two days after an alleged crazed gunman broke into an elementary school in the affluent community and killed 20 first-graders and six adults in the second-worst school shooting in American history.  His speech included attempts at inspiration and the statement that the “job of keeping our children safe and teaching them well is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community and the help of a nation.”

Hillary Clinton had said something similar when she had claimed that “it takes a village to raise a child.”  Hillary, too, was smiling and even laughing on Wednesday while Senators and Representatives related how Americans have died in wars overseas and in the CIA compound in Benghazi as Clinton claimed ignorance of the details.  She told the House Foreign Affairs Committee members that she had first termed the incident “an attack,” but she reportedly told family members that the U.S. would prosecute the individuals who had manufactured the internet video which the Obama regime had falsely claimed to be the cause of “spontaneous protests.”

The children in the White House photo are allegedly surviving siblings and other relatives of Emilie Parker, a first-grader who was one of those brutally killed on Friday, December 14.  Conflicting media reports of how the perpetrator entered the school, the number and type of firearms he carried in with him, and the possible motives have not been resolved.  One report states that CNN video footage of police officers running toward the school that morning actually shows a different school.

The same White House photo appears at the bottom of the vertical montage just below one showing Obama purportedly “working on his speech” to be given at Newtown on the evening of December 16.  Writes photographer Pete Souza, “The President works on his Newtown speech at an auditorium in suburban Washington. Two days earlier, I had photographed him when John Brennan first briefed him on the shootings. Throughout that day, he reacted as we all did, which people witnessed when he delivered his statement a few hours later. Before we headed to Newtown for the Sunday night vigil, he went to watch his daughter Sasha, 11, at her rehearsal for the Nutcracker; he would be unable to attend her performance because of the trip to Newtown. During breaks in the rehearsal, he worked on his speech. His expression in this photograph may be subtle to the viewer, but not to me. There is emotion and resolve etched on his face, and he knew the importance of this speech for the nation.”

Since when does a White House photographer give his opinions about the subjects he photographs?  Why the need for any opinions at all?

The caption appearing below the second photo of the Sandy Hook children survivors reads:

Two days after the shootings at Newtown, the President traveled to Connecticut to meet with the victims’ families and give remarks at a prayer vigil. The President spent hours greeting family members. Difficult as that was for everyone, the one moment that helped sooth the pain was when he posed for a photo with the siblings and cousins of Emilie Parker, one of the 20 children who died that day in Newtown. I see both sadness and hope in this photograph, and I know after a lot of tears that day, it meant so much to the President that everyone was able to smile for a moment in this family photo. Thanks to the Parker family for allowing us to show this photograph publicly.

Robbie Parker was the first parent of a Sandy Hook child to make a public statement.  There is video evidence that he was smiling and laughing prior to stepping to a microphone and becoming emotional about the shooting murder of his eldest daughter.

A Connecticut police officer contends that the various media reports of the Sandy Hook attack “don’t add up.”  A professor of journalism at Florida State University maintains that questions remain about the purported medial examiner’s press conference in which he displayed an apparent lack of knowledge about the details of the crime and various early news reports of more than one perpetrator did not reconcile with the official narrative which later emerged.

Why were the Parker children smiling two days after their sister and cousin had been murdered?  Why the photo-op?

An allegedly “devastated” but smiling mother interviewed with CNN’s Anderson Cooper three days after the attack along with her husband, extolling Obama’s visit to Newtown the day before.   Mrs. McDonnell reportedly called Cooper following the interview and told him, “I feel fearless. I’m going to take on the world for my Gracie girl – I have nothing to lose and everything to gain.”

What exactly was Mrs. McDonnell referring to?  What would she “gain,” and how?

Cooper has now ridiculed those who question whether Sandy Hook occurred as reported.

Other families interviewed with left-leaning Katie Couric after the tragedy in the presence of their other young children.  One of the same families spoke with a CBS reporter “exactly one month after the shooting,” during which the reporter shamelessly said to a young girl who had lost her brother, “It didn’t take long for this 11-year-old to realize she had a national platform” to talk about gun control.  The girl then said that guns should be restricted to those going to “a range” and to police officers.

A friend of the same family spoke with Anderson Cooper about the same letter written to “President Obama” by the same girl but described her as “ten years old.” The woman related that she told the girl, “Now you are a member of the White House press corps.”

Whatever could that woman have meant, speaking to Cooper between the funerals of children?

Do any of the reports make sense?

The Sandy Hook shootings became a springboard for the Obama regime to initiate steps toward an assault weapons ban, stricter gun control and a push to reduce the number of clips available for purchase. A new organization of “moms” who believe that stricter gun laws will curb gun violence, joining a chorus of left-wing media who support Obama’s agenda.

In a reflexive move, New York State passed a new law which is now considered the strictest in the nation and did not consider the needs of police officers.

Newtown Schools Superintendent Janet Robinson spoke to congressional Democrats last Wednesday about Sandy Hook, indicating that she knew there was a serious situation because there were “not enough children” for the number of parents who came to the firehouse, which has been designated as an official meeting place afterward.  Robinson wants armed police officers to continue for Newtown students but opposes principals and teachers taking on that responsibility.

A report originally published by Breitbart.com cited stated that the Sidwell Friends School, which Obama’s daughters attend, has 11 armed guards.  An article distributed widely on the internet refutes the claim and says that Breitbart “misread” an advertisement for a security guard.  However, in the refutation, it is acknowledged that the school has security officers but claims that the “associate head of Sidwell Friends” stated that they are not armed.

The school has a security department, unlike many schools in America today, and is currently seeking a “special police officer.”  The Washington Post, which contends that the security officers are not armed, also says:

Under the District of Columbia General Order 308.7, a special police officer is a private commissioned police officer with arrest powers in the area that he or she protects. They may also be authorized to bear firearms — but it is not required. Security officers, by contrast, cannot carry firearms and in effect are watchmen. So five to seven security personnel in theory could be licensed to carry firearms.

But we spoke to parents who said they had never seen a guard on campus with a weapon. And Ellis Turner, associate head of Sidwell Friends, told us emphatically: “Sidwell Friends security officers do not carry guns.” (Note: this includes those listed as special police officers.)

But do they have access to a gun in the event of an emergency?  Is it possible that their weapons are concealed?  The Post & Email has contacted the security department and Ellis Turner for a response.

The NRA does not appear to have retracted its claim that the Obama daughters attend a school with armed guards.

Last Tuesday, Obama used children and the Sandy Hook occurrence to prop up his gun-control agenda, which some states and county sheriffs have vowed to oppose.  Nevertheless, Obama continues to smile.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

  1. Nice summary, Sharon. It looks like the political agenda will overwhelm all of the Sandy Hook story, and we can only count on the truth getting out via the non-mainstream media outlets like The Post & Email.

    My opinion regarding student safety is to arm the teachers and administrators who are willing to be armed – at all schools, not just Sandy Hook. I don’t think a uniformed policeman on campus is the answer.

    As an aside, I am so disgusted with this enemy federal government. It really does appear these outlaws in Washington are setting us up for a civil war, and I only hope that Max Igan’s advice about not drawing first blood is taken seriously. We can win this war, but only if we are more clever than the federal government. We outnumber the feds, but they still have better weapons that we do.

    1. “better weapons”? I think not.
      They are the aggressors, we are fighting for our homeland.
      They can go back to their camels and sand dunes, immigrate to any Communist/Totalitarian/Islamic county; we can’t go anywhere, we’ve nowhere to run. THIS is our home.
      And the kicker? We’ve the brains, they only have ignorance and hate.
      Our “Ace in the hole card”? We’ve the United States Constitution with its Free Speech and the Second Amendment, while they have, again, hate: the book of how to hate, who to hate, and when to hate.
      Here’s a bit of advice: in order to win, you have to be more determined and ruthless than your enemy, give no quarter because surely they’ll give no quarter.
      Obama is “de facto”, “cheap suit”, “usurper”, “fake”, “fraud”. WE don’t have a “President”, heck, WE don’t even have a government.
      It’s up to us to take it back, and, really now, I wouldn’t be concerned who fires the first shot: think of it as a chess match: it doesn’t make any difference who moves first, the only thing that counts is who is left standing when it’s all over and done with.