Last April 17th, after the Obama administration’s attempt to impose more background checks on those purchasing firearms was defeated, President Obama delivered a speech [https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=mK-XF4oG4uE] outside of the White House. President Obama opened his speech saying,
“A few months ago—in response to too many tragedies—including the shootings of a Congresswoman, Gabby Gifford, who’s here today, and the murder of twenty innocent school children and their teachers—this country took up the cause of protecting more of our people from gun violence. Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their leaders, not just to honor the memory of their children, but to protect the lives of all of our children. A few minutes ago, a minority in the US Senate decided it wasn’t worth it. They blocked commonsense gun reforms . . . .”
It was an interesting speech. Several of Obama’s aids were present and visibly depressed. Vice President Biden was so distraught that he appeared to weep. Even the normally ebullient Obama seemed fundamentally defeated and forlorn.
Perhaps Obama sensed that he’d just become a lame duck.
In any case, there was no joy in Mudville; mighty Obama—and gun control—had struck out.
Notice that the mighty Obama based his case for increased gun control on the shooting of one Congresswoman (Gabby Gifford) and “twenty innocent school children and their teachers” [at Sandy Hook Elementary School, remember? How quickly we forget.]. Obama certainly implied that the “too many tragedies” included far more than the twenty-one shootings of Mrs. Gifford and Sandy Hook children and teachers.
I’m left to wonder if Mr. Obama and his administration (or anyone else in Washington DC) are truly concerned about “too many tragedies” and the deaths of several dozen children, or if they’re just faking their concern to disarm the American people and gain more power.
Part of the cause for my concern about the true motives of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Obama in particular and Washington DC in general is the Iraq War.
As you may recall (how quickly we forget?), our government invaded Iraq in A.D. 2003 and stayed until A.D. 2011.
Why did our government invade? Purportedly, to find and destroy Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs).
What was our government’s strategy? “Shock and Awe”. Iraqis would be bombed and shot like never before. In the name of finding and destroying Saddam’s WMDs and as a staunch anti-terrorist, our government would terrify the Iraqi people into submission by subjecting them to a shocking and awesome display of the enormous military power of the world’s only remaining “super-power”.
How many Iraqis do you suppose died in the first wave of “Shock and Awe”? I don’t know. How many of those victims were children?
Do you think that the number of dead Iraqi children was even more than the number of children who were shot and killed at Sandy Hook Elementary? Do you suppose that the deaths of Iraqi children are any less tragic than the deaths of American children?
How many Iraqis died during the entire 8.5 year “war”? No one knows. But estimates range from at least 150,000 to over 1 million. How many do you suppose were Iraqi children? Do you suppose that the deaths of what are certainly tens of thousands of Iraqi children were any less tragic than the “too many tragedies” that purportedly inspired Obama to seek more gun control?
More, according to a 2013 report from Brown University, 70% of the Iraqi casualties were “civilians”. Some unknown number of those “civilians” were Iraqi children. Of the children who’ve survived war, some reports indicate that 60–70% are suffering from psychological problems brought on by the war.
The difference, if any, between the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi children (and the traumatization of tens of thousands more) by means of bombs or gunfire—and the deaths of several dozen American children by means of privately owned firearms—is that the Iraqi deaths were justified by the need to find and destroy Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Except there was problem, wasn’t there? Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction. Thus, there was no remotely-plausible justification for the murders of tens of thousands of Iraqi children.
If the deaths by gunfire of several dozen American children constitute “too many tragedies” and thus justify more individual gun control, don’t the deaths of tens of thousands of murdered Iraqi children constitute even greater evidence of “too many tragedies” and thus a need for greater governmental “gun control”? How is it OK for the US government to casually murder, traumatize and terrorize tens of thousands of Iraqi children, and then go on to build more, better bombs and bullets—while that same government claims the deaths of a several dozen American children ultimately justifies disarming the American people?
And how can Obama, Biden and their aids weep over their inability to impose more gun control in this country and not give a damn about helping to cause or justify the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi children?
Their hypocrisy is evident, astonishing and shameful.
Send in the Drones
And then there’s the drones which President Obama uses to murder those on his “kill list”. Since A.D. 1901, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded 93 times to 124 Nobel Laureates—one of whom was President Obama. Other than President Obama, how many other Nobel Peace Prize winners do you suppose had their own “kill lists”? Nary a one, I’d wager.
According to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism [http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/04/11/secret-us-documents-show-brennans-no-civilian-drone-deaths-claim-was-false/], since 2004 in Pakistan alone there have been 368 drone strikes of which 316 (86%) are identified as “Obama strikes” and were therefore launched on President Obama’s orders or at least during Obama’s administration. The total reportedly killed ranges from 2,541 to 3,533 of which 411 to 884 were “civilians” and somewhere between 168 and 197 were children.
I assume that each of the 316 “Obama strikes” were launched for the primary purpose of killing one individual. That assumption might not be true in every case, but may still be generally true. If that assumption is true, every time there’s an “Obama strike” aimed at one man, there will be an average of about eight fatalities (the target and seven others)—some of whom must be nothing more than innocent bystanders. This implies that Obama is, on average, knowingly killing seven innocent people for each purported “terrorist”.
Insofar as Obama authorized 86% of those drone strikes, it should follow that Obama is personally culpable in 86% of the 168-197 deaths of Pakistani children. If so, Obama could be accused of killing somewhere between 144 and 169 Pakistani children. Therefore, Obama knows or has reason to know that for every two drone strikes that he authorizes, at least one child will die.
According The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the drone strikes caused between 1,173 and 1,472 Iraqis to be injured. We can chalk 86% of those injuries and resultant trauma to President Obama—the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and enemy of global terrorism everywhere. But, do you suppose the Pakistanis aren’t terrorized by the “Obama strikes”.
Is it possible for a man to be truly troubled by the “too many tragedies” of over a dozen children’s deaths Sandy Hook, and yet be indifferent to his personal responsibility for causing the deaths of roughly 155 children in Pakistan? Is Obama (or Biden, or any of Obama’s aides) truly motivated by compassion for murdered children? Or are many, most or even all of them simply psychopaths putting on a “show” to deceive the American people?
(Note that, according to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, there’ve been additional drone strikes into Yemen and Somalia where additional children have also been killed.)
Liar, Liar, Pants On Eternal Fire
Jeremiah Wright is the controversial minister of the Chicago church Obama attended before he was elected President. It’s been reported that in order to distance himself from political liability associated with Reverend Wright, one of Obama’s closest friends offered Wright $150,000 to keep his mouth shut during the 2008 election. When Wright refused, he said he got a phone call a few days later from the candidate himself, asking to meet with him privately in some “secure location.”
According to Wright, at that meeting, Obama asked him, for the good of his campaign, to refrain from controversial remarks while he ran for President. Wright said he couldn’t make that promise. He said Obama then told him, “The problem with you, Rev, is that you’ve got to tell the truth.” Wright said he replied, “That’s not a bad problem to have. Maybe you should try it.”
I believe that story. If it’s true, it exposes Obama as a man who doesn’t merely lie, but does so regularly without shame or scruple for the express purposes of advancing his agenda and/or increasing his own power. Obama depends on lies. Obama is untroubled by lying. For him, the end justifies the means—any means.
I’m reminded of Revelation 21:8 which provides of a “laundry list” of those destined for damnation:
“But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”
If the Bible is true, based on his complicity in the murders of Iraqi children and propensity to lie to America and the world, President Obama is headed for that “fiery lake”. Do you think he’ll get any special treatment for having won the Nobel Peace Prize?
Don’t be fooled any politician or aid who weeps at the deaths of American children and used those deaths to advocate gun control. You can bet that they’re frauds, hypocrites, liars and in some instances accomplices in murder.
Therefore, while President Obama has failed in his attempt to cause private Americans to undergo background tests before they can purchase a firearm, maybe it’s time for politicians to undergo a “background check” (including a psychoanalysis designed to discover their psychopathic tendencies) before they can run for office and especially before they can authorize assassinations. If we can’t trust Joe Sixpack to own an “assault rifle,” how can we trust the con-artists and psychopaths who routinely rise to power in our government to control drones and even nuclear weapons?