Barack Obama Couldn’t Care Less about Dead Children

Originally posted at American Thinker.

President Barack Obama is firmly committed to pushing an anti-gun agenda.  He’s so steadfast in his conviction that he was willing to  fly, on his $180K per hour magic carpet, the families of the children and school workers that perished in Newtown, Connecticut all the way to Washington DC.  After breakfast, Sandy Hook family members participated in a mini anti-gun-violence, sympathy-fueled arm-twisting sessionwhere, in an effort to persuade reluctant senators to sway his way on the issue of gun control, the grieving were exploited.

The president’s current argument is that sweeping legislation is needed because 32,000 people in America die each year from gun-related violence, many of whom are children. Yet, Obama’s carelessness with the truth omits the fact that 32,000 people make up only 0.01% of the American population.

Pressing the Senate to pass a bill whose ultimate goal is to curtail gun ownership because children die from gunshot wounds would be like lobbying for a bill to outlaw household cleaning products because every year thousands of children die as a result of accidental poisoning.

The truth is that in comparison to other causes of death, guns are responsible for a relatively small percentage of fatalities. Even so, the president remains focused like a laser on passing unpopular legislation and using the prevention of death as an excuse to restrict constitutional freedom and limit the sale of firearms and firearm accessories.  For good measure, Obama also insinuates that any American unwilling to acquiesce to his anti-gun viewpoint might be harboring nefarious intentions.

And so to accomplish his goal of watering down the power of the U.S. Constitution, Barack Obama thinks portraying himself as the compassionate champion of dead children is his best bet.  Yet isn’t it true that Obama couldn’t even save the lives of four adults in Benghazi, let alone 20 little ones in Newtown? For Barack Obama to portray himself as some sort of thwarter of untimely death is ludicrous.  Moreover, an avid abortion advocate talking in memoriam about the lost lives of children is another example of this president’s use of disingenuousness to divert attention from failed policies whose ramifications affect the 99.99% of those whose lives will never be touched by gun violence.

If preventing death were really Obama’s goal, then he’d address the much larger number of Americans who die for reasons other than lethal gunfire.

For instance, what about the 600,000 Americans who perish annually from heart disease, or the 575,000 who succumb to cancer?  On behalf of all the American children whose lives are negatively impacted (if not snuffed out) by these diseases, why hasn’t children’s advocate/gun-control crusader Obama stressed the urgent need to fund cancer and heart disease research?

Thus far, even though there are approximately 120,000 deaths each year from all kinds of accidents, to date the families of the 32,000 dead car accident victims have not been invited to fly on Air Force One to Washington DC to address the US Senate about preventing fatal car crashes.

And then there are the 50,000 Americans a year who succumb to pneumonia and flu and the 30,000 who die annually from a little-known but highly preventable hospital-acquired bacterium called C-Diff, or Clostridium Difficile.

If Barack Obama believes that 0.01% of the population is too many to die from gun violence, then the same should hold true for seasonal flu and C-Difficile. But it’s 10 weeks into his second term and so far Barack has yet to campaign on behalf of controlling the growing problem of deadly super bugs.

If the families of the Sandy Hook victims earned a ride on Air Force One and had an opportunity to plead their case before the Senate for stricter controls on gun ownership, why not also fly the grieving parents of 8-month-old Charlee Mackenzie Ratliff, who, while recovering from surgery to repair a hole in her heart, died in May of 2010 after acquiring a deadly case of C-Diff?

Charlee’s mom and dad could come to Capitol Hill to address controlling the spread of bacterial infections that are killing the very young, those with weakened immune systems, and the elderly in hospitals and nursing homes across America.  Why not invite the Ratliffs to raise awareness on how, in the coming years, limited Obamacare monies will inevitably lead to an increase in the threat of fatalities resulting from hospital-acquired infections?

Speaking wholly about curtailing Second Amendment rights, at the University of Hartford in Connecticut, Barack Obama delivered an ardent plea for Americans to pressure their local representatives to support stricter gun-control legislation. The president’s words could have also been applied to the heartbreaking deaths of victims who’ve lost their lives from causes other than gun violence.

Entreating the nation to reach an agreement with him on gun-control, Obama said:

If you’re an American who wants to do something to prevent more families from knowing the immeasurable anguish that these families know, now is the time to act. Now is the time to get engaged, to get involved, to push back on fear, frustration, and misinformation. Now is the time to make your voice heard from every state house to the corridors of Congress.

Based on those sentiments alone, the only conclusion one can glean from the president’s selective concern is that either Obama only cares about the lives of specific children, or what we’ve surmised all along is being confirmed: the president is exploiting the gun-death issue with an explicit goal that has nothing to do with averting premature death. In other words, once again, Obama is blatantly lying by omission, which is just a fancy way of saying that in the overall scheme of advancing progressive policy, the president couldn’t care less about who dies or how.