Only Lives That Can Be Used to Advance His Anti-Gun Agenda Matter to Obama

Barb Wire

Though he’s exploited the Umpqua murders shamelessly, Barack Obama has a few things in common with Christopher Harper-Mercer.

The Oregon shooter singled out Christians (so did the Columbine killers), an animus Obama shares. The president who has become the Ayatollah of Apologists for Islam, once compared the Crusades and Inquisition to al-Qaeda and the Taliban – as if something that happened 1,000 years ago or 500 years ago was comparable to the holy war going on now. In his 2008 bitter-clinger comment, Obama equated Christianity with racism and xenophobia and, even worse in his mind, gun ownership.

Rage defined the life of 26-year-old Harper-Mercer, who died after killing 9 people on the campus of Umpqua Community College last week. He was angry because he couldn’t find a girlfriend (how could any young woman resist such a charmer?), and “bitter at a world that he believed was working against him,” in the words of one news account.

The worst mass-murderer in the state’s history was raised by a single mother who babied him. In Torrance, California, where the family lived before moving to Oregon in 2013, Mrs. Harper would complain to neighbors about dogs barking or children playing too loud, saying they disturbed her son. The mainstream media pamper the president and try to silence his critics.

Trending: This week on Vocal Point with Jerry Newcombe

Barack Obama is the angriest man to occupy the White House. He’s angry that voters – who clearly don’t appreciate him – gave the GOP a Congressional majority in 2010, which they expanded in 2014. He’s furious that Republicans have the temerity to oppose his Iran deal. He claims his critics, driven by partisan politics, misrepresent his policies and impugn his motives. In other words, he’s bitter at a world that he believes is working against him.

He’s incensed that – in the face of mass shootings – an apathetic public won’t pressure an irresponsible Congress to pass “common sense” gun control, an intentionally vague term. “Our thoughts and prayers are not enough,” the president inveighed in the aftermath of the Oregon slaughter at yet another gun-free campus. (Even the lone security guard was unarmed.) “It does nothing to prevent this carnage from being inflicted somewhere else in America – next week or a couple of weeks from now. ”

It’s a betrayal of the victims and their families, the president charged. “This is a political choice to allow this to happen every few months. We are collectively answerable to those families, who lose their loved ones, because of our inactivity.” It’s no longer just the wicked NRA, but a blasé majority that don’t threaten their elected representatives with evisceration for not passing new gun-control measures.

The president asks why America can’t be more like Britain and Australia. “We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours – Great Britain and Australia, countries like ours.” These countries have crafted laws that almost eliminate the private ownership of guns. Little good it does. The day after Umpqua, two were shot dead outside a police headquarters in a suburb of Sydney.

Gun controllers tell us that restricting access to firearms works, but understandably avoid details. In 2011, California, one of the most restrictive states, had a firearms murder rate of 3.25 per 100,000 residents. In ownership-friendly Texas, the rate was 2.91 and in Utah, which the prohibitionist Brady Campaign designates the state with the least gun control, the firearms murder rates was 0.97, less than a third of California’s.

Obama often compares multiple gun homicides to terrorism, noting that we “spend over a trillion dollars and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil… And yet we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how we could potentially stop gun deaths.” Not that it matters, but collecting data would have done nothing to stop Harper-Mercer, who was never arrested or committed and had no record of mental illness.

Would that the president cared about controlling terrorism even a fraction as much as he does about gun control. Initially, his first Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano (whose home address is somewhere beyond our galaxy) couldn’t even say the word terrorism. In a 2009 interview with Der Spiegel, Napolitano went PC, calling terrorist incidents “man-caused disasters” – those being disasters caused by Muslim men.

For a week after the 2012 Benghazi butchery, the president, his Secretary of State and his National Security Advisor lied about the cause, attributing the attack to spontaneous outrage over an Internet video, when they knew it to be a premeditated act of terrorism. In his UN speech that year, Barrack Hussein Obama intoned: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” and not “The future must not belong to those who behead hostages, crucify Christians and kill rabbis and their wives in the name of the prophet of Islam.”

In November 2009, 10 soldiers and one civilian were murdered at Fort Hood, Texas by an army psychiatrist who called himself a “soldier of Allah.” Nidal Malik Hasan, the American-born son of Palestinians, corresponded with homicidal cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and told colleagues that the U.S. was committing war crimes in Afghanistan. Obama steadfastly refused to call this terrorism. The Army termed it “workplace violence.”

In a service for victims of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing (perpetrated by Chechen Muslims granted refugee status), the president in his you-will-run-again-Boston homily wouldn’t even consider the possibility that “this heinous act,” was in fact an act of terrorism. Unlike Umpqua, in Boston prayers and consolation were enough, and to there were no demands for additional measures to control terrorism.

The execution-style murders of police officers in New York City and Houston in the past year are also acts of terrorism. While the president has condemned them, there are no calls to counter the Black Lives Matter movement, whose creeps march around chanting, “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” and “What do we want? Dead cops now!” Black Lives Matter is funded by Obama donor George Soros.

To honor those who died at Umpqua, Obama ordered White House flags flown at half-staff. The gesture was absent last July, when an illegal immigrant who’d been deported from this country five times shot and killed 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco, one of more than a dozen sanctuary cities across the U.S.

The only lives that matter to the president are those of victims whose deaths allow him to beat his hollow chest and get self-righteous about the need for gun confiscation.

Among the many lives that don’t count, because they don’t fit Obama’s political agenda, are the victims of Muslim terrorism (whether they’re killed with a gun or pressure-cooker bombs, on an Army base or at the finish line of the Boston Marathon), cops murdered by radical killers whipped to a frenzy by his friends in the New Black Panther Party and the Black Lives Matter movement, and Americans murdered, tortured and raped by the illegal aliens whose entry the president facilitates.

You might say this is a political choice to allow this – terrorist slaughter, cop-killing, murder by illegal aliens – to happen every few months. Indeed, are we not collectively answerable to those families, who lost loved ones, because of our inactivity?

First published at

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.

Don Feder
Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains his own website,

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.