Armchair Quarterback Theories

Yesterday Breitbart posted an article about a recent comment by Pope Francis about the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that essentially ended World War II.

The article reports:

“I will soon visit Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where I will offer prayers for the victims of the catastrophic bombing of these two cities, and echo your own prophetic calls for nuclear disarmament,” the pope told an assembly of the nation’s bishops in Tokyo Saturday evening, shortly after his arrival in the country.

“I wish to meet those who still bear the wounds of this tragic episode in human history, as well as the victims of the triple disaster,” he said. “Their continued sufferings are an eloquent reminder of our human and Christian duty to assist those who are troubled in body and spirit, and to offer to all the Gospel message of hope, healing and reconciliation.”

“Evil has no preferences; it does not care about people’s background or identity,” he continued. “It simply bursts in with its destructive force, as was the case recently with the devastating typhoon that caused so many casualties and material damage.”

This past week, Francis sent a video message to the people of Japan, denouncing the use of nuclear weapons as “immoral” just prior to his departure for a six-day visit to Asia, including Thailand and Japan.

“Your country is very aware of the suffering caused by war,” said the pope in reference to the U.S. bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in August 1945. “Together with you, I pray that the destructive power of nuclear weapons will never be unleashed again in human history.”

“Using nuclear weapons is immoral,” he said, speaking in his native Spanish.

The only part of that statement I agree with is his prayer that nuclear weapons will never be unleashed again. Unfortunately nuclear weapons are a scientific fact in our world. Unfortunately not everyone in our world cares about the human toll involved in using one.

I went to a website called Quora to find the other side of the story:

The Japanese Army effectively was the civilian government of Japan. They intended to make the war as costly as possible so that at some level they would remain in power after the war, if in a chastened, more peaceful form. They were probably right, as the US population and military was very war-weary and may have settled for a negotiated peace at some point.

The Allies, quite reasonably, thought that scenario would lead to a later war and an eventual return to conquest as Japanese foreign policy. It certainly would not have led to a free, democratic society.

This doesn’t really answer the question however. The war would definitely have been prolonged. By August 1945 the Japanese population was already on minimal rations, every harbor they had was mined and/or patrolled by submarines and larger ships. They had no real way to import oil, rubber, and the other necessities of war. They had dozens of divisions on the Asian mainland that would slowly wither away. Without the bomb, the Japanese would likely have tried to hold out longer, look for more favorable terms, and the starving Japanese population would have suffered even more greatly from privation, firebombing of all the major and most medium sized cities, and the US invasion in Operation Downfall, along with a Northern front of invading Soviet forces. If the US invasion failed, they would have maintained the bombing and blockade for a long time.

By the end of WW2 all sides had so dehumanized the enemy that it’s hard to say where the bottom was, but it would have been very bad and almost certainly worse for all sides than the state of affairs after the surrender.

World peace is a wonderful idea as is a world without nuclear weapons, but neither idea is rooted in reality. Reality is that there are those among us who want unlimited power and are not necessarily concerned about how they get it. Throughout history we have seen examples of that–Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, etc. Until human nature changes (which it won’t), the good guys need the best weapons to protect the world from tyranny.

Why America Needs To Preserve Its Freedom

The information in this post is taken from a CBN News article posted today.

CBN News reported:

Alfie Evans, the sick British toddler whose parents won support from Pope Francis during a protracted legal battle over his treatment, died early Saturday. He was 23 months old.

Kate James and Tom Evans made the announcement on social media, saying they were “heartbroken.” The death of Alfie, who had a rare degenerative brain condition that left him in a “semi-vegetative state” with almost no brain function, came five days after doctors removed life support.

Doctors overseeing Alfie’s care in the city of Liverpool said further treatment was futile and not in his best interests, and that he should be allowed to die. But his parents fought for months to try to convince judges to allow them to take him to the Vatican’s children’s hospital so he could be kept on life support. The parents’ campaign was backed by the pope and Christian groups, which helped draw international attention to the case.

The hospital withdrew Alfie’s life support Monday after a series of court rulings sided with the doctors and blocked further medical treatment.

“My gladiator lay down his shield and gained his wings at 02:30,” Evans, 21, said in Facebook post decorated with a broken heart and crying emojis.

The article explains why the courts were able to overrule the parents about the Alfie’s care:

Under British law, courts are asked to intervene when parents and doctors disagree on the treatment of a child. In such cases, the rights of the child take primacy over the parents’ right to decide what’s best for their offspring.

The health and care of a child should be between the parents and the doctor unless there is some form of abuse involved. This case is an illustration of what can go wrong when the government decides medical treatment. I don’t know what Alfie’s chances of survival were, but there were people willing to cover the expense of trying to make him well. I am sorry that the life of a young child is not valued in Britain. That is a sad reflection of where western civilization is and the direction it is going.

Vetting The Candidates

Tim Kaine is the Democratic candidate for Vice-President. He is a former governor of Virginia and seems to be well-liked. However, there are some elements of his background that are troubling.

The Center for Security Policy reminds us that in 2010 then Democratic National Chairman Tim Kaine attended the annual fundraising banquet of the Islamic Center Dar Al Hijrah in the Washington DC suburbs.

The article reports:

The reasons the others (seven elected officials were “invited”: former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, now Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA), Sen. James Webb (D-VA), Fairfax Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Sharon Bulova, Fairfax Supervisor Penny Gross, and Virginia State Delegate Kaye Kory….Within a few days, Senator James Webb and State Delegate Kaye Kory‘s names were removed from the invitation.)  should not legitimate the Dar Al-Hijrah fundraiser, we had written them, included the Islamic Center’s continued support for the Dar al-Hijrah imam in 2001, Anwar Al-Awlaki, the senior al-Qaeda recruiter for three 9/11 hijackers, imam and mentor to the accused 2009 Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan who killed 13 people, and online mentor to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the suspect in the Christmas Day 2009 attempt to blow up  Northwest Airlines Flight 253.   We described several other Dar Al-Hijrah leaders linked to terrorism and supporting violent jihad against America, including the current imam who will host the April 3 event.

This is not the kind of company American political leaders should be keeping.

The Hill posted a story about some of Tim Kaine’s background and beliefs on Friday.

Here are some excerpts:

According to the mediaTim Kaine took a life transforming “mission” trip to Latin America in 1980. Conveniently left out of these stories, are the radical reality of the Cold War in Latin America and Tim Kaine’s Soviet sympathizing mentors. In fact, whatever Kaine’s intentions, he more likely met Karl Marx than Jesus Christ while there. 

Connect the dots with a little history, and an alarming picture emerges of Kaine’s adventures with radicals and revolutionaries in 1980s Latin America.

Reports indicate that in Honduras, “Mr. Kaine embraced an interpretation of the gospel, known as liberation theology…”

Liberation theology is not standard Catholic doctrine–it is more in line with the preaching of President Obama’s friend Reverend Wright.

The article reports:

Journalistic and academic research has now shown that Liberation Theology itself was quite possibly a product of a Kremlin disinformation campaign designed to undermine the Church and bring Catholic countries into the Soviet sphere. The top-ranking Soviet Bloc defector of the Cold War, Gen. Ion Pacepa admits that he was personally involved in the operation.

And contrary to the myth, this was never Pope Francis’ theology of choice.

The article concludes:

In Virginia he ran as a moderate and ruled as a liberal. Today he runs as a “Pope Francis” Catholic but on abortion and marriage, Kaine opposes Francis.

On the conscience rights of groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor, Kaine sided with Obama. Francis sided with the Little Sisters, whom he visited in Washington a year ago to publicly show his support.

As in the 1980s, Kaine’s “Catholicism” serves neither his Church nor his country, but a Leftist political agenda that has proven to be on the wrong side of the Church, on the wrong side of history, and against the interests of freedom and the United States.

I struggle with people who claim to be Catholic and support abortion. The Catholic Church has been on the front lines of the abortion issue since Roe v. Wade. They have set an example that I wish the other churches in America would embrace–the idea that your faith influences your moral and political choices. Tim Kaine may call himself a Catholic, but it is obvious that he does not believe the teachings of the Catholic faith.

Why Is The Pope Getting Involved In An American Presidential Race?

The headline today is that the Pope says that Donald Trump is ‘not a Christian.’ Big Whoop. Are Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz Christians? Is it possible to be a Christian and support abortion? Is it possible to be a Christian and demand that the Little Sisters of the Poor pay for contraception that includes abortion-inducing pills? Is it Christian to oppose Israel every step of the way and not defend them when they are attacked? Is it Christian to sit in Jeremiah Wright‘s church and hear racist shouting week after week? Who knows if Donald Trump is or is not a Christian? If he says he is, we need to take him at his word. We also need to evaluate his actions in light of what he says.

Sean Hannity posted what is essentially the essence of the story:

Specifically, the pontiff takes issue with Donald’s plan to build a border wall with Mexico. When asked about Trump, the Pope was quoted by The New York Times saying:

A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not of building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the Gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not getting involved in that. I say only this man is not Christian if he has said things like that.

Just for the record, this is a picture of the Vatican posted by a friend on Facebook:

PopeAndDonaldTrumpPeople who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

 

Strange Priorities

Yesterday Paul Mirengoff posted an article at Power Line about the upcoming visit to America by the Pope. President Obama will be welcoming the Pope and has made some interesting choices as to who his guests for the occasion will be. These guests include transgender activists, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, and a nun who criticizes church policies on abortion and euthanasia. I would consider the current Pope someone who leans to the liberal side of things, but this is definitely not a tactful move on the part of President Obama.

On Friday, The Washington Post commented:

What struck us as we read about this small controversy is the contrast between the administration’s apparent decision to risk a bit of rudeness in the case of the pope and its overwhelming deference to foreign dictators when similar issues arise. When Secretary of State John F. Kerry traveled to Havana to reopen the U.S. Embassy recently, he painstakingly excluded from the guest list any democrat, dissident or member of civil society who might offend the Castro brothers.

And when Chinese President Xi Jinping comes to the White House next week, shortly after the pope leaves town, it’s a safe bet that he won’t have to risk being photographed with anyone of whom he disapproves. Chen Guangcheng, the courageous blind lawyer, for example, lives nearby in exile, but he probably won’t be at the state dinner. Neither will Falun Gong activists, democracy advocates or anyone else who might, well, give offense.

That is truly sad. You would think that basic manners would prevent this sort of behavior. We really need to think about the character of the people we elect to the Presidency. I truly think this is a character issue. A religious leader certain deserves at least as much respect as a ruthless dictator.

The Pope Is Catholic

It seems like an obvious statement, “The Pope is Catholic,” but the American news media almost seems surprised at his Biblical views.

NBC News posted an article about some of the ‘firsts’ the new Pope represents. Pope Francis is the first Latin American pope and the first Jesuit pope. He also is a believer in traditional Catholic theology–not to be swayed by what those outside the Church are doing or saying.

The article reports:

George Weigel, a senior fellow at the nonprofit Ethics and Public Policy Center who is a Vatican analyst for NBC News, agreed that the choice of Bergoglio “speaks to the church’s commitment to the poor of the world and compassion in a world that often needs a lot of healing.”

At the same time, “this is a John Paul II guy,” Weigel said, referring to Pope John Paul II, who elevated Bergoglio to archbishop in 1998 and cardinal in 2001. As archbishop of Buenos Aires, “he tried to call that community back to orthodoxy,” Weigel said.

The new pope has been a vocal opponent of abortion and especially of same-sex marriage, saying in 2010 that its role was to “seriously injure the family.” He said the practice deprived children of “the human growth that God wanted them given by a father and a mother.”

The Church (regardless of denomination) is supposed to stand for something. Right and wrong do not change, regardless of what society decides to do. It will be interesting to watch how Pope Francis expresses this view. It is also wonderful to see a pope who cares so deeply about the poor and is willing to adopt a humble, simple lifestyle. I am not Catholic, but I think Pope Francis is the right man for the job.

Enhanced by Zemanta