Bush didn’t Lie but President Obama Did

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 31st, 2013

 Politics 101

Bill Clinton said in a 2005 Interview that the 1981 Israeli Bombing of an Iraqi Nuke Plant was a Good Thing

“Bush lied people died.”  You heard that a lot all during President Bush’s presidency.  The left was shouting it from the mountain top.  “Bush lied people died!”  Saying that the dumbest man ever to occupy the White House fooled the most brilliant people in the world—liberal Democrats—into voting for the invasion of Iraq.  Because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Saddam Hussein used WMDs on March 16, 1988.  It was the closing days of the Iran-Iraq War.  In the Kurdish town of Halabja in Northern Iraq.  Hussein was no friend of the Kurds.  And the Kurds had no love for Hussein.  Which is why Kurdish guerillas fought with the Iranians against Saddam Hussein.  And after the Iranians took this Kurdish town in northern Iraq Hussein had no problem with committing an act of genocide in Halabja.  Which he did on March 16, 1988.  The largest chemical attack against a civilian population in history.

On June 7, 1981, Israel carried out a surprise bombing of an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction.  For they feared a Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons.  During the Persian Gulf War the Americans bombed what was left of that nuclear reactor.  For they, too, feared a Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons.  Though publicly condemned by pretty much everyone at the time of the bombing most were probably happy the Israelis did that unpleasant task for them.  Even Bill Clinton said in a 2005 interview that the bombing was a good thing.

Saddam Hussein violated the Terms of the Gulf War Cease Fire by not Documenting the Destruction of his WMDs

The Congress saw the same intelligence the Bush administration saw in the run-up to the Iraq War.  It was so convincing that Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Harry Reid voted to give George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq.  Who all feared a Saddam Hussein with WMDs.  For as bad as 9/11 was it could have been worse if the terrorists had WMDs.  Hussein had WMDs.  And he had no moral compunction against using them.  As proven by Halabja.  Making him a very dangerous man in a world where terrorists who hate America are in the market for WMDs.

So there was a very strong case against Saddam Hussein.  Especially when you throw in his violation of the terms of the Gulf War cease fire agreement.  In particular the documentation of his destruction of his WMDs that he agreed to do.  Which was a tantamount admission of having them.  WMDs.  But he didn’t document the destruction of his WMD stockpiles.  Because he did not destroy them.  Which meant one thing.  He still had weapons of mass destruction.  Which is probably why Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Harry Reid voted to give George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq.  For they were terrified…of being on the wrong side of history when those WMDs they knew he had were found.

Well, we found no WMDs in Iraq.  Probably because Hussein shipped them off to Syria for safekeeping.  Assuming he would remain in power after the Iraq War.  Just as he remained in power after the Gulf War.  After the invasion nonsense was done he could go to Syria and take his WMDs back.  And perhaps get them into the hands of a terrorist for use against an American city.  To retaliate for the big headache George W. Bush gave him.  Of course his subsequent capture and execution put a wrench into all future plans he may have had.

Liberals play Fast and Loose with the Truth as Telling the Truth rarely helps the Liberal Agenda

President Obama made some promises about Obamacare during the Affordable Care Act debate.  Because the people were against it.  They didn’t want anything near quasi national health care.  So he kept saying that Obamacare wasn’t a government takeover of our health care system.  And that it would actually make the private health insurance industry better.  It would cover more.  While costing less.  And the best thing about the Affordable Care Act was this (see Obama’s pledge that ‘no one will take away’ your health plan by Glenn Kessler posted 10/30/2013 on The Washington Post).

“That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

The Fact Checker on The Washington Post gave this statement Four Pinocchios.  Their highest level of dishonesty.   Or ‘whoppers’.  As About The Fact Checker calls Four Pinocchios.  Basically saying the president lied about Obamacare to get the Affordable Care Act passed into law.  And lied again to win reelection.  For the election results may have been different if he had told the truth.  If he had said that some will lose their doctors and some will lose their health-care plan.  If he had said that premiums and deductibles would rise.  If he had would the people who had insurance and doctors they liked vote for him?  No.  Probably not. 

So President Obama and the Democrats told lies that deceived a great many people to get what he couldn’t get by telling the truth.  Obamacare.  One of the most divisive pieces of legislation ever passed in Congress.  Passed on purely partisan lines.  No Republicans voted for the Affordable Care Act.  Unlike the legislation that gave George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq.  Which had bipartisan support.  With both Republicans and Democrats voting for it.  Yet the left said, “Bush lied people died.”  But when it comes to President Obama’s flagrant lies about the Affordable Care Act all you hear are crickets from the left.  Because for them the truth is whatever they say it is.  And a lie is whatever they say it is.  For the only way to pass their liberal agenda is to play fast and loose with the truth.  As telling the truth rarely helps the liberal agenda.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Human Rights Violations are Worse in North Korea but Liberals would rather punish Syria for Theirs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 7th, 2013

Week in Review

The Syrian civil war began in March of 2011.  And is still ongoing.  Some two and a half years later.  And over 100,000 killed.  While displacing close to 3 million refugees.  It is a devastating conflict.  But President Obama made no attempt to help the opposition topple the Assad government.  Despite it being a close ally of Iran.  No, President Obama did nothing to intervene just as he chose to sit out Iran’s Green Revolution.  Another regime that can be pretty cruel to its people.  Yet President Obama told Hosni Mubarak that he had to leave Egypt.  And he used U.S. airpower to help topple Colonel Gaddafi from power in Libya.  Both men were U.S. allies at the time when President Obama helped unseat them from power.  Yet two countries that can’t be considered friends of the United States in any way (Iran and Syria) he does nothing.  Odd.

The Syrian civil war has been going on for so long that al Qaeda joined in.  Looking to fill that power vacuum should the Assad regime fall.  As the civil war intensified and the opposition begged for foreign aid President Obama stood firm.  Not wishing to get involved.  Unless the Syrians crossed the red line.  And used chemical weapons.  Well, someone used chemical weapons.  We’re not sure who did.  It may well have been the opposition to get the U.S. to bomb a stubborn Assad government out of power.  But people died from the use of chemical weapons.  Perhaps as many as 1,500.  Of which about 500 have been children.  A tragedy too great to even contemplate.  And one that made President Obama go to Congress to get permission to wage war on those responsible.  With many on the left supporting his call for a military response.  Which is highly unusual to say the least.

Now chemical weapons are horrible and frightening.  But an additional 1,500 dead after 100,000 already lost their lives?  Those chemical deaths are only about 1.5% of the total dead.  When Saddam Hussein killed 3,200-5,000 Kurds and Iranians in a Chemical attack on the town of Halabja there wasn’t quite the same response from the left.  In fact, when Saddam Hussein failed to document the destruction of his chemical stock piles per the treaty that ended the Gulf War they still showed little concern.  Though they did vote to give George W. Bush permission to wage war against Iraq as the polls showed they were on the wrong side of the issue when they at first opposed the measure.  Even calling for a second vote to get their vote on the record.  But when no weapons of mass destruction were found they were both embarrassed and elated.  Saying that Bush lied to get the country into war.  Due to flawed intelligence reports.  And a strong desire to go to war.  To finish what his dad started in the Gulf War.  They have attacked Bush mercilessly ever since.  But now the shoe is on the other foot.  And here they are wanting to go to war because of weapons of mass destruction.  Many of which could be from Iraq.  Delivered on trucks seen leaving Iraqi weapons dumps on the eve of war.  Or flown to Syria (see Syria’s Chemical Weapons Came From Saddam’s Iraq posted 7/19/2013 on IBD).

But none of that matters now.  What does is that someone in Syria crossed the red line.  And because innocent men, women and children died from poison gas we have to do something.  Even though we haven’t done a damn thing to help people suffering under worse tyrants for about half a century in North Korea (see Up to 20,000 North Korean prison camp inmates have ‘disappeared’ says human rights group by Julian Ryall posted 9/5/2013 on The Telegraph).

There are fears that up to 20,000 may have been allowed to die of disease or starvation in the run-up to the closure of the camp at the end of last year…

The report, North Korea’s Hidden Gulag: Interpreting Reports of Changes in the Prison Camps, reveals that two camps have been shut down in the last year but that 130,000 individuals are still being held in penal labour colonies across the country.

“Through this vast system of unlawful imprisonment, the North Korean regime isolates, banishes, punishes and executes those suspected of being disloyal to the regime,” the report states.

“They are deemed ‘wrong-thinkers’, ‘wrong-doers’, or those who have acquired ‘wrong-knowledge’ or have engaged in ‘wrong-associations’…”

Reports suggest that a severe food shortage meant that little was passed on to inmates and that numbers dwindled rapidly from 30,000 to 3,000…

“North Korea’s 2009 currency devaluation (whereby camp authorities were reportedly unable to purchase food in markets to supplement the crops grown in the camps), combined with bad harvests, resulted in the death of large numbers of prisoners after 2010,” the report states…

Inmates – who can be imprisoned for life, along with three generations of their families, for anything deemed to be critical of the regime – are forced to survive by eating frogs, rats and picking corn kernels out of animal waste.

Activists say that as many as 40 percent of inmates die of malnutrition, while others succumb to disease, sexual violence, torture, abuse by the guards or are worked to death. Men, women and children are required to work for up to 16 hours a day in dangerous conditions, often in mines or logging camps.

Things are bad in Syria.  But North Korea has just about the poorest record on humans rights in the world.  And this has been going on for decades.  You almost have to go back to Nazi Germany to see oppression on this scale.  But do we attack North Korea?  More women and children have suffered and died in North Korea than they have in Syria.  So why Syria and not North Korea?

North Korea does have nuclear weapons.  And a border with China.  Are these the things that eliminate principles?  Killing women and children is wrong in Syria but it’s okay in North Korea?  Is this all it takes to devalue the lives of women and children?  If so God help the women and children of the Middle East when Iran gets their nuclear weapons.

A lot of liberals hate the military.  And jocks.  As these people bullied a lot of liberals back in high school.  Which is why a lot of them go into government.  To have power over other people that they never had before.  But they’re still that kid in high school.  They’ll push around Egypt and Libya when it seems everyone in the area is against them.  Nations they feel they can bully without any repercussions.  But an Iran or a North Korea?  That’s like walking up to and punching the big bully in high school.  Something they were too frightened to do in High School.  And are still too frightened to do now.

Except in Syria.  Which is now more of a religious conflict along the great Sunni-Shia divide of Islam.  With the extreme elements of both sides fighting it out in Syria.  Perhaps this is why the president and the left are willing to intervene now.  Because whoever wins now in Syria will likely be anti-American.  Just like Libya turned out with four dead Americans in Benghazi.  And just like Egypt fell to the Muslim Brotherhood after President Obama told Hosni Mubarak he had to go.  Perhaps they’ll feel safer because they helped our enemies a little.  And because of that our enemies will now like us.  And they will stop giving us wedgies and noogies.  Figuratively, of course.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama Going all George W. Bush in the Middle East?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 19th, 2011

Fighting Wars on the other Side of the World

In 1775, the shooting in the American Revolutionary War began.  The world’s superpower, the British Empire, had planned on taking some arms away from local rebels.  Some shots were exchanged at Lexington and Concord.  And the small British force retreated to Boston.  The rebels harassed the British column the entire way.  The war did not begin well for the British.  And it would end like it began.  Not well.  The British formally recognized the United States of America 8 years later with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

The British outclassed the Americans in every way but one.  Lines of communications.  The British lines were some 3,000 miles back to Great Britain.  About a 6 hour flight today.  Then, a couple of months by ship.  By contrast the Americans held the advantage of short, interior lines.  We could ‘hit and run’ and melt back into the surrounding country.  Like we did in 1775 during that British retreat.  As we did throughout the war.  Though General Washington wanted to defeat the British in a decisive battle, he would not get the chance to meet the British in such a battle until 6 long years later at Yorktown.  Unable to win a decisive battle, he did the only thing he could.  Not lose a decisive battle.  The American Revolutionary War was a war of attrition.  The British sued for peace when the cost of continuing the war was greater than the British people were willing to pay.  As wars are wont to be with such long lines of communications.

Military planners have learned this lesson.  You are probably familiar with a more recent war that was similar.  Where a world superpower was involved in a war of attrition half way across the world.  In South Vietnam.  The Americans came into the conflict to support South Vietnam from Communist North Vietnam.  There is no South Vietnam today.  Like the British some 200 years earlier, we won the military engagements but just couldn’t win the war.  When the cost in blood and treasure became too great, we met in Paris, too, to end the war.  We signed the Paris Peace Accords in 1973.  And we learned the British lesson of 1783.

Winning the War is Easier than Winning the Peace

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, George H. W. Bush assembled an international coalition and threw the Iraqis out of Kuwait.  Operation Desert Storm was an overwhelming victory.  However, Bush was heavily criticized for ‘not finishing the job’ in the Gulf War.  His critics said we should have gone on to Baghdad to remove Hussein from power.  We didn’t.  For a couple of good reasons.  First of all, the coalition included Arab nations.  They only joined to repel Hussein from Kuwait.  Not to remove him from power.  The other reason was that if we toppled Hussein we would own Iraq.  And we would probably end up there for years trying to ‘win the peace’.

Following the Gulf War there were uprisings throughout Iraq.  The world watched hopeful that he would be overthrown by his own people and democracy would break out.  It didn’t.  He suppressed the rebellions brutally.  So brutally that no-fly zones were established in the north over the Kurds and in the south over the Shiite population.  But we didn’t invade.  And he remained a thorn in our side.  And his people suffered.

After 9/11, the US invaded Afghanistan.  Then Iraq.  The official reason was his weapons of mass destruction that he never documented destroyed.  He had used chemical weapons against the Iranians.  And the Kurds.  Being a ‘supporter’ of terrorism there was worry he might provide these weapons to a terrorist.  So there was that reason.  The other reason was a little more convoluted.  Osama bin Laden was a Wahhabi Sunni.  He had ties in Saudi Arabia.  And there was a large Wahhabi population in Saudi Arabia providing funding to al Qaeda.  The Saudis were reluctant to shut down this funding for fear of a rebellion by the Wahhabis against the House of Saud.  But there was one thing that worried them more than the Wahhabis.  Shiite Iran.  By invading Iraq we forced their hand.  They had a vested interest in seeing us succeed in Iraq.  And in our war against al Qaeda.  We made progress against al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts in Afghanistan.  And the Saudi started to shut down their funding.  The Iraq War was a success.  But the one drawback was that we now owned Iraq.  And winning the peace was nowhere as easy as winning the war.  As George W. Bush learned.

Obama Commits Military Force in Libya

The US has some very important friends in the Middle East and North Africa.  Among these are Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.  To name a few.  These are nations with Sunni populations and/or Sunni governments unfriendly to Iran.  Egypt made peace with Israel and kept the Suez Canal open for international trade for decades.  Saudi Arabia peacefully coexists with its neighbors and is the largest oil exporter in the world.  Except for the oil embargo of 1973, they have maintained the flow of that oil at market prices to Western economies.  The US Navy’s 5th Fleet is headquartered in Bahrain.

These nations aren’t perfect.  Saudi women can’t drive a car, for example.  But they’re stalwart US allies.  One of these nations was pretty progressive as well as being a staunch US friend.  Egypt.  Egyptian women were about the freest in the Middle East, second only to Tunisia.  Egypt and Tunisia, though, were suffering economically.  Had high unemployment.  And a Muslim opposition unhappy with their ‘Western’ ways.  The largest organized opposition group is the Muslim Brotherhood.  And they can be best described as being more simpatico with Iran.  When Egypt had their uprising, the Obama administration called it a democracy uprising and called for Hosni Mubarak to give up power.  Without considering who would step into that power void.  Which did not go over well with Mubarak.  Or the Saudis.

Now Libya is burning.  Qaddafi is attacking his own people.  The US dithered for weeks.  While the Libyans cried for help.  Even other Arab nations cried for our help.  But we did nothing.  Even though Qaddafi is not a US friend.  And was a sponsor of terrorism.  As the carnage mounted, though, someone took action.  The French of all people (see U.S. Missiles Strike Libyan Air-Defense Targets by David Kirkpatrick, Steven Erlanger and Elisabeth Bumiller posted 3/19/2011 The New York Times).

American and European forces began a broad campaign of strikes against the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi on Saturday, unleashing warplanes and missiles in a military intervention on a scale not seen in the Arab world since the Iraq war…

The campaign began with French warplane missions even before the end of an emergency summit meeting in Paris, where leaders, reacting to news that Colonel Qaddafi’s forces were attacking the rebel capital city of Benghazi on Saturday morning despite international demands for a cease-fire, said they had no choice but to act to defend Libyan civilians and opposition forces.

France has a Muslim problem.  They had some riots a few years back in some Paris Muslim suburbs.  Where young Muslims were unemployed.  Unhappy.  And not all that willing to assimilate into French culture.  Though they want to live in France.  So there’s been tensions between the French and their Muslim population.  So it says a lot that France was on point in this attack on a Muslim country.  Yes, at this time the international community, including some Arab states, approve of this action.  But you play with fire whenever you attack a Muslim country.  Especially if they have oil.  And Libya has oil.  In fact, it’s some of the finest oil in the Middle East.  A low-sulfur sweet crude.

When the international community was coming together against him, Qaddafi was defiant.  Warned us to stay out of their internal affairs.

“Libya is not yours. Libya is for all Libyans,” he wrote in one letter, read to the news media by a spokesman. “This is injustice, it is clear aggression, and it is uncalculated risk for its consequences on the Mediterranean and Europe.

“You will regret it if you take a step toward intervening in our internal affairs.”

Colonel Qaddafi addressed President Obama as “our son,” in a letter jarring for its familiarity. “I have said to you before that even if Libya and the United States enter into war, God forbid, you will always remain my son and I have all the love for you as a son, and I do not want your image to change with me,” he wrote. “We are confronting Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, nothing more. What would you do if you found them controlling American cities with the power of weapons? Tell me how would you behave so that I could follow your example?”

Could this be why the Obama administration was so reluctant to act?  Because of a father-son relationship between Obama and Qaddafi?  You gotta admit this is a strange thing for Qaddafi to say.  Makes you wonder just what was the extent of Obama’s apology tour in the Middle East.  One thing for sure, it will give fuel to those who think Obama is a Muslim.  I mean, it just doesn’t help when the bad guy calls you a son.

Regret?  We should take that threat seriously.  After some military encounters with Libyan losses in the Gulf of Sidra Qaddafi retaliated with the bombing of a German disco frequented by US troops.  When we discovered his connection to that bombing we bombed Tripoli.  In retaliation for that bombing he had a bomb smuggled aboard a 747.  Pan Am Flight 103.  Brought down on Lockerbie, Scotland.  So he has a history of getting even.  Which we need to be on guard for.

Obama now Owns Libya

So it’s war.  Missiles are flying.  People are dying (see Libya: British forces launch missile attacks on Gaddafi by Colin Freeman, in Benghazi and Sean Rayment posted 3/20/2011 on the UK’s Telegraph).

Explosions were reported at an airport east of Tripoli as a British Trafalgar Class submarine and US Navy ships and submarines stationed off Libya fired 110 Tomahawk missiles at 20 targets in what one source described as a “night of carnage”.

The missiles targeted Libyan command and control centres, radar installations and surface-to-air missile sites. Libyan officials said the attacks were “barbaric” and causing civilian casualties…

British sources and Pentagon officials said Nato would undertake a “battle damage assessment” of Libya’s military during daylight hours and would decide whether to continue with further attacks.

Sources at the Elysée Palace said Britain, France and the United States had assumed the “leadership” of the coalition in early talks between the Prime Minister, Mr Sarkozy and Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State. The “extremely purposeful conclusion” of the early talks was endorsed by the full meeting, where speakers included Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations secretary general.

Well, President Obama has his third war.  Pretty impressive for a guy that said he would get us out of Iraq (he didn’t).  That he would fully prosecute the Afghanistan War to victory (he hasn’t).  And he wouldn’t nation-build like his predecessor.  George W. Bush.  He now may.  There’s no way Qaddafi can withstand the military force now aligned against him.  So he will lose.  But what then?  Who will fill that power vacuum?  In an already unstable and changing Middle East?  He can say what he wants about Iraq and Afghanistan, but it’s different with Libya.  This happened on his watch.  And he now owns it.  It will be up to him to win the peace.  Or lose it.

Those naval operations against Libya will be based out of Bahrain.  I sure hope he doesn’t encourage any more ‘democracy’ uprisings while we’re using that base for combat operations.  It would be a shame to lose that base during the middle of these operations.  And by a shame I mean a complete and utter disaster.  Because that would greatly extend our lines of communications.  And history has shown what that can do in war.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #31: “Islam and guns are a lot alike. And yet when something bad happens, we try to ban one and forgive the other.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 14th, 2010

INSTRUMENTS OF PEACE

Yes, people with guns do kill people.  And, yes, extreme Islamic fundamentalist fanatics do kill people.  But guns keep the peace.  As does less fanatical Islam.

Societies have formed militias (armed with guns) to protect themselves from aggressors who did not wish to cohabitate in peace.   Thomas Jefferson used guns to stop the piracy along the Barbary Coast.  The Allies used guns to stop Adolf Hitler.  The NATO nations used guns to balance the Soviet threat in Eastern Europe.  An American led coalition used guns to first prevent Saddam Hussein from invading Saudi Arabia.  They then used guns to force him out of Kuwait.

Islam, and religion in general, provides a code of morality.  Religion can unite an otherwise diverse people.  It is this common faith that lets a diverse people to live together in peace and harmony.

GUNS DON’T KILL; PEOPLE DO

Guns don’t kill people.  And it’s not the bullets, either.  You can place a loaded handgun on a table with the safety off and it won’t do anything.  You can call it a name, sleep with its wife or impregnate its daughter (figuratively, of course) and it will just lay there.  For that gun to do something, a person has to pick it up.  Place their finger on the trigger.  Aim.  And shoot.  Until a person does, a gun will never harm a soul.

ISLAM DOESN’T KILL; PEOPLE DO

You can read about Islam in a book.  You can put that book on a table and it won’t do anything.  You can insult it, profane it and denounce it and it will just lay there.  For this religion to do something, someone has to read the book.  If they cannot read, a person who has read the book has to explain it to the illiterate one.  And then act.  Only when a person makes a conscious choice to commit some action can a religion harm anyone.  And if these people choose peace there will be peace.  If they choose violence there will be violence. 

ZYKLON B DOESN’T KILL; PEOPLE DO

The Nazis used to shoot undesirables (Jews, gypsies, Slavs, etc.).  They’d make a mother hold a child so one bullet could kill two.  But as the killing increased, bullets just proved to be inefficient.  And costly.  So they developed the extermination camps.  The death chamber.  And Zyklon B.  This poison could be stored and handled safely.  When it was time, a person would open a canister and pour the chemical into the gas chamber.  If left undisturbed in the canisters, Zyklon B never would have harmed a soul.  It only killed when a person placed it in into an environment where it could.

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION DON’T KILL; PEOPLE DO

The Kurds are a lot like the Palestinians, only without Jewish neighbors.  After the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, everyone in Mesopotamia got a nation-state except the Kurds.  With the new national borders, the nomadic Kurds could no longer move freely through the lands they once did.   And, well, this caused problems.  Conflicts.  And bitter feelings.  The Kurds supported the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war.  Saddam Hussein was not amused.  The Iraqis had stockpiles of chemical weapons.  Hussein decided to use them.  On the Kurdish town of Halabja.  He killed some 5,000 Kurds.  Injured about 10,000 more.  Mostly civilians.  If these weapons were not loaded on aircraft, then flown over and dropped on Halabja, they would not have harmed a soul.  But when orders were given, and carried out, by people, they did.

PEOPLE DON’T KILL; IDEOLOGY DOES

Yeah, so it’s pretty clear that guns, religion and chemicals are pretty benign when left alone.  Unless a person gets involved, these things just won’t hurt anyone.  It’s the people.  They’re the problem.

There are a lot of gun owners in the United States.  Few use their guns to hurt others, though.  And Muslims tell us their religion is a religion of peace.  Only a small minority perverts it to harm others.  And there’re many national leaders.  Few have committed chemical genocide.  So it’s not all people.  Just some.  That are the problem.

So what, then, makes some people do these things while others do not?  Ideology.  Some people are passionate about their ideology.  And some are so passionate that they do not permit an alternative ideology.  This is when things get dangerous.  Because they kill for their ideology.

WE KEEP GUNS OFF OF AIRPLANES AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED

The Left wants to take away our guns.  They point to gun violence and say, “See?”  But law-abiding gun owners don’t commit these crimes.  Criminals commit these crimes.  Using guns obtained on the black market.  And denying law-abiding citizens from owning guns won’t shut down the black market.  Just as illegalizing drugs hasn’t made drugs unavailable.  Make something illegal and a thriving black market will develop.  Which will be lucrative for criminals.  So much so that they will use extreme violence to maintain their market share.

Let’s imagine a fictional world where we ban all guns.  Would it be a better, more peaceful world?

On September 11, 2001, Islamic fundamentalists armed with box cutters hijacked 4 commercial jetliners.  Two of these planes crashed into the Twin Towers.  One crashed into the Pentagon.  The passengers on one plane fought back with what weapons they could find.  The plane crashed.  They died.  But they prevented the terrorists from successfully completing their mission.

Since 9/11, some people carry guns on airplanes.  You know why?  Because a gun can stop a passionate ideologue with a box cutter.

DON’T IMPOSE YOUR VALUES ON ME

Ideology is far more dangerous than guns.  And yet, when something bad happens with a gun the Left wants to enact another level of gun control.  But when a militant Islamic fundamentalist kills Americans, the Left cautions us not to rush to judgment.  Because we may anger the Muslim world.  Who appear only to get angrier however we may try to appease them.  And yet we continue to try.  Even if it compromises our national security.  There comes a point where you have to ask yourself, why?  Why do we adhere to a lose-lose policy?

They don’t like us.  They never will like us.  Trying to make them like us only portrays us as weak.  Which makes them feel more contempt for us.  And emboldens them.  For they respect strength.  And only strength.  Which is something the Left does not understand.  Nor will they ever.  For they think that if you just apologize enough people will like you.

Of course, the Left has no compunction about attacking Christianity.  They have no problem with pornographic films with priests and nuns.  A movie where Jesus Christ has an affair with Mary Magdalene.  Or placing a crucifix in a jar of urine and calling it art.  But they would never, ever, show such disrespect to Islam.  Why?

The Left does not like the Christian Right imposing their values on them.  So they attack Christianity.  And support Islam.  In the name of religious freedom.  Christianity must accommodate Islam.  And we must forgive every transgression of Islam.  Anyone who disagrees is a right-wing extremist.  Intolerant.  And un-American.  The Left couldn’t ask for a better group of people to exploit.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,