"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Mein Kampf, Adolf Hilter, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403
Yesterday, surrounded by children, President Obama called for Congress to "do the right thing" and pass more gun laws that further disarm American citizens and take away the basic right to defend themselves as stated in the 2nd amendment of the Constitution:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. -authenticated by Thomas Jefferson
Obama's decision to use children as photo props is eerily similar to Adolf Hitler's regular exploitation of young people to push his agenda. I've been told it's not fair to compare Hitler and Obama, but let's face it, by and large they stand for several of the same values:
- more socialism,
- more government control,
- more gun control,
- less liberty.
Children are the easiest way to sell a message to a people who would normally consider tyranny to be oppressive and unjust. The image of beautiful children from all different races hugging, applauding, and slapping the President a high-five is so powerfully distracting that we buy the line, "Support my gun control proposals or else you hate children," without hearing what is really being said.
It is precisely because we love our children that we want our God-given responsibility to defend and provide for them, home-school or send them to a private Christian school. This is not the job of the government, it's the job of the parent.
Obama may kiss our babies and plead his cause "for the sake of the children" in one breath and take away liberties with the next, but there's one thing no President or Prime Minister can ever do - take away my responsibility to my children. They do not love them the way I do, nor do they have their best interests in mind. I will fight for the freedom to feed my own children, educate them, protect and defend them because they are God's gifts to me, not the State.
*To answer the oft repeated question, "Why bother with a post like this?": Because, as Edmund Burke wisely quipped, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
I live in Norway and here its illegal with guns. Without for going hunting animals. And I think its a good thing. Soo many people are struggling with their minds and should never ever have a gun.
ReplyDeleteI belive a Christian should never shoot another person!! When I see a Christian with a gun I really think it looks so strange and horrible. Jesus would never have shoot a anyone!! Isn't he our rolemodel?
I believe we as christian come to heaven, who are we to take life and especially unsaved ones!!
I never, ever want to take some one's life either. But I think simple being able to carry a gun is far more effective than creating gun-free zones. Take a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wAFAywYZK-M#!
DeleteI don't think any Christian that owns a gun does so to have the ability to take a life. We are called to defend life and many times in the Bible the sword was to be taken up against the enemy to fight. The word "sword" is used 400 times in the old and new testament. Also, Jesus made sure his disciples had weapons for protection, even commanding them to sell their garments to buy one. It is not our right to take another life to protect possessions but if we are protecting the lives our family and children, it is our right. And if the criminals have guns, they will assuredly use them on those without them. No gun law will stop a criminal from owning a gun and time and time again it has been proven that gun control ESCALATES crime and homocides rather than reduces it.
DeleteSee the following excerpt from http://gracebeliever.com/articles/articles/guns.htm:
"It will be objected that Christians are not to defend themselves or others but to "turn the other cheek." Turning the other cheek is an orientalism. It is a figure of speech that refers to one’s response to a verbal blow. Two of The Twelve would not have been wearing swords on the night of Christ’s betrayal if our Lord had been teaching pacifism for three and one half years. Nor would our Lord, in Luke 22:36 have suggested that believing Jews buy weapons even if they had to sell their coats to afford them."
Exodus 22:2-3 tells us: "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."
In Proverbs 25:26, we read: "A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well." Certainly not having the means to protect our life (which is God given and should be protected) would be faltering. Not protecting our life or the lives of our families would be allowing ourselves to be doormats for evil.
I would never ever want to take a life and can't even imagine doing so but if the lives of any of my family members was threatened, I would defend them no doubt! And who says shooting an assailant that wants to take your life would necessarily have to take his? Simply putting him in a position (shot in leg maybe?) that he is no longer a threat until he can be apprehended is sufficient in some cases and even that would require a weapon, preferably a firearm. We are not advocating taking lives, but protecting them!
Very well said, Heather!
DeleteNO Christian WANTS to shoot another person, that is not what it's about. Of course we don't want to take another life! But having the means to PROTECT the lives of our loved ones is important. There are 400 verses in the Bible using the word "sword". How many battles were fought for God using weapons? Even Jesus recognized the right of His disciples to own swords, so much so that He urged them to sell the clothes off their backs to do so! (Luke 22:36).
DeleteSee the following excerpt from http://gracebeliever.com/articles/articles/guns.htm:
"It will be objected that Christians are not to defend themselves or others but to "turn the other cheek." Turning the other cheek is an orientalism. It is a figure of speech that refers to one’s response to a verbal blow. Two of The Twelve would not have been wearing swords on the night of Christ’s betrayal if our Lord had been teaching pacifism for three and one half years. Nor would our Lord, in Luke 22:36 have suggested that believing Jews buy weapons even if they had to sell their coats to afford them."
Exodus 22:2-3 tells us: "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."
Proverbs 25:26 "A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well."
It is not the government's role to try to protect my family, it is my husband's and mine. Besides, who thinks that gun laws will stop evil from owning guns or using them? It simply disarms the innocent and makes them easier targets for those that would wish to do them harm. Banning guns never reduces crime or homicides, it actually ESCALATES them for the very reason I just stated: the innocent are left unprotected and easy prey. Criminals will never pay heed to laws, that's why they are called criminals.
I would never want to take a life but if the lives of any of my family members were to be threatened, you better believe I would defend them or die doing so and I am a 100% God-fearing Christian.
I agree, very well said.
DeleteI couldn't agreed more...
ReplyDeleteAmen! The right to bear arms, isn't about the right to kill people...it's the right {as our forefathers saw} to protect ourselves, whether from our government, other governments or individuals bent on harming us, and to provide for our families {hunting}.
ReplyDeleteThe government wants us disarmed so that they can bulldoze over the people without fear of our revolting. In WW2, the Japanese did not attack the continental US because of their fear of the number of American citizens owning guns.
Legislation only ever infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.
Excellent post, Jacinda. I completely agree with you.
ReplyDeletecompletely agree, Jacinda!
ReplyDeleteHave you seen this pro-life video? http://conservativebyte.com/2013/01/pro-life-video-narrated-bypresident-obama/
ReplyDeletewhat a great video!
DeleteI would never compare the two - Hitler and Obama. Hitler's desire was to rule the world and would do anything (including killing pretty much anyone) while Obama, though a poor leader, is not doing so (though you could argue that abortion is doing so. But then you'd have to include pretty much every president since roe vs. wade who didn't try that hard to stop it). I just think the comparison is a pretty big stretch. Also, about gun laws, I believe restricting the use of SOME guns is a good thing. Why in the world do civilians need certain guns that are strictly meant to be used in the military and cause massive destruction?
ReplyDeleteNicolette, Hitler didn't start killing everyone right away. He waited until he had gained complete power over everything: education, healthcare, guns, etc. THEN he started rounding up the "sub-humans" and tucked them neatly away (out of sight, out of mind). THEN he started killing them. It's only a matter of time. Obama's ego is certainly large enough...
DeleteNicolette, I must say I agree with you.
DeleteI do NOT agree with MUCH of President Obama's presidency or what he stands for. But comparing Hitler and Obama is taking it a bit too far, in my opinion. (And this is coming from a woman of color who did NOT vote for Obama because of my Christian convictions!)
I also thoroughly agree that civilians do NOT need military style weapons. How many hunters do you know that NEED a military style machine gun to provide food for their families or even to protect their families? It literally only takes ONE bullet to harm or kill. Military style weapons (meant for swift, mass destruction) are a bit much in the hands of civilians.
So, restricting the use of some guns, not ALL guns, is something that needs to strongly be considered. Our forefathers were not dealing with the technology that we are dealing with today. Some things need to be updated. Our forefathers were MEN, meaning HUMAN, meaning they were NOT perfect (remember, they thought SLAVERY was okay and wrote that into law, too!!!!) So just because our forefathers said it or wrote it doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be changed or ammended or updated.
The second amendment was NOT written for hunting or personal defense purposes. It was written so that citizens would be armed in case of a tyrannical government takeover. That's obvious just from reading the language of the amendment, and also from any amount of study into the amendments to the constitution. Also, the wording about what kind of weapons we could own was purposefully left blank, the writers knowing that times and technology would change. Point being this, we as citizens are supposed to be able to bear arms such that we can defend ourselves against a tyrannical government takeover. We could not do that if citizenry was not allowed to have "military style" weapons. The men that wrote the constitution were in a much better place to decide what our citizens should hold as rights than you are. When you've just had to fight for it, you know what you're talking about. When you sit safely in your home when others gave sacrificially for your freedom, not so much.
DeleteWell said!
ReplyDeleteGreat post Jacinda! History is repeating itself and the masses are following blindly along.
ReplyDeleteMedia propaganda--most of them don't understand the guns they are describing and they are misleading. As parents, we are the only body guards our children have! Waiting for police protection is too late most of the time. As far as Hitler--what Germans realized how evil he was the first few years he was leader? Obama's agenda is unknown, and then it may be too late if we don't hold him to the Constitution now.
ReplyDeleteYou are right on! I don't know why more people don't see the comparison!
ReplyDeleteAgreed!! All you have to do is listen to that 911 call swirling around with the husband coaching his wife as an intruder is breaking in and finds her and her children in the closet. Do you think the intruder would have been willing to talk it over? Just glad she had means to protect herself and her sweet children. Heaven help our nation! Time for the "silent majority" to not stay so silent. I'm glad to see your post and it only spurs me to make sure I stand for right get involved!
ReplyDeleteDefinitely true! How many dictators use children to push their agenda? Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, Hugo Chavez, pretty much all of them! Gun control doesn't stop criminals from owning guns. Never has, never will. No matter what measures they take to try to prevent criminals or mentally ill individuals from owning them, they will find a way to get them and use them. It makes it easier for them to take the lives of the innocent if the innocent are unarmed!! But it just boils down to control. If we can't defend ourselves against criminals we can't defend ourselves against a tyrannical government either. It has nothing to do with stopping homicides and mass shootings. More legislation just means more control and fewer freedoms for our nation that was once the most free nation in the world.
ReplyDeleteAll politicians are known for "kissing babies" - So I don't think photos like the one you have above is necessarily worse than any other photo of any other president holding a baby. That said, I do question his decision to surround himself with children for the signing of the 23 executive actions. Makes you wonder and think. And I question a lot of his other decisions, too. He does seem bent on overlooking the constitution in a lot of ways (as do a lot of other politicians, he's not the only one, he's just the head politician at the moment, disregarding the constitution right and left..)
ReplyDeleteABSOLUTELY AGREE, Jacinda! Couldn't believe the audacity he had to put those children behind him for the photo! Don't know if you have also seen one of his election campaign ads where he has a bunch of kids singing for him. It's so ridiculous and reeks of propaganda.
ReplyDeleteGreat post!
I don't agree with the Hitler and Obama comparison. And I don't feel like restricting the type of weapons certain people may have is a bad thing. I also feel that we as Christians have an obligation to pray for those in leadership and not talk bad about them. We can't change who is in office but we can do everything in our power to change our direct communities and to prepare our children for the world they will have to live in. Things are only going to get worse and it will not only have to do with the President in leadership but because that is what God has told us it will be until his return. Hitler was evil. While we may not like his views thats a low blow to call a person a family man like Hitler. Obama is not evil to me. But overall still an interesting topic of conversation.
ReplyDeleteI am so glad you had the courage and wisdom to share this post. We must be a wise people and not simply follow. Nor should we allow our emotions over a very tragic event dictate our actions. Kirk Cameron shared some very interesting statistics about how many shootings actually have occurred without being publicized. This was because the shooters were stopped by "good" gun owners.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your bravery, Jacinda! Like someone else said, when Hitler first came into power, Germany didn't fully realize how evil he was either. The propaganda being put forth by the media (and yes, school systems) is eerily similar to Hitler's regime. We must pray for our nation and stay alert and prepared.
ReplyDeleteAll I can say is, "Amen, Jacinda." Thank you for posting this.
ReplyDeleteWhoever says Obama and Hitler are nothing alike has never taken one gander at Nazi propaganda films or literature, have they?
ReplyDeleteI have. I have studied it in detail. And I ask you who said the following phrase:
"Hope and Change for the [country] people!"
Obama? Yes. In 2007. And Hitler. Yes. In 1939. What's that phrase about those refusing to learn from history repeating it? Obama literally makes my stomach turn. Those who believe he's a good man enrage me. He is copying Hitler's playbook, nearly word for word, and ignorant people are eating it up! Become educated, people!
"Never forget that everything Hitler did was legal." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
I am Hebrew. Well, I guess that's the best description I can come up with. My mom's mom was born to Jewish parents who, when her mother passed away, gave her to her Christian aunt and uncle to raise. Call it whatever you want. I can't trace half of my family history before 1945. Guess why. Because that's where it ends; along with 6 million other innocent lives because nobody had the ability to stand up to Hitler. Because of a power hungry man who fed on the insecurities of weak-minded citizens who thought that "it was okay" and that "nobody should NEED weapons". When Nazis came to clear out the ghettos, nobody could fight back. They had nothing to fight a military power with. Why should we need military grade weapons, you ask? To fight a tyrannical dictator with millions of military grade weapons. We aren't that far removed from Communism. The last Communist Bloc country fell in 1990. I remember it. Why doesn't anybody else?
Because they don't want to. We, as a society, have fallen away from our true Leader and now, blindly like sheep, follow a man who cannot prove his identity and commits acts of treason to get what he wants (Executive Orders to get around Congress is treason, still punishable by death in the U.S.). As a nation, we would rather follow a man we KNOW is evil and corrupt (I mean, c'mon, how many more instances of lying and deceit are necessary before people see this?), than think for ourselves. We are lazy. We are selfish. We are stupid. And we as a nation, TWICE, handed our fate over to a power-hungry petulant man-child.
You can but your bum I think we, as a people, have the right to have firearms. And as someone who can take apart all the firearms in my house, there is nothing dangerous about them except the person on the opposite end of the barrel.
Anybody who has a clue about guns is angry over this recent travesty. I ask the rest of you, how many times have you seen, in person, or touched a gun with a "military feature"? You want them banned because they scare you. There's nothing to be scared about! The parts are exactly the same as the parts on a wooden-stock hunting gun. EXACT same parts. They just look different.
This is not about gun control. This is about fearful people willing to give up the liberty of others so THEY feel safer. My liberties are not yours to give away. Period. If you're scared of guns, don't own them. I'm scared of motorcycles, so we don't own one. I don't demand that other people give up theirs "for the children". Yet, blind sheeple are demanding that I give up something designed to protect THEM. Those of us who carry weapons aren't out to kill anybody. We're out to defend ourselves AND OTHERS against a hostile person.
Let's try to make decisions based on facts, not emotions. Chicago, D.C., and NYC have all had total gun bans for decades. Guess which are the top three most dangerous cities for innocent civilians! You got it! Chicago, D.C., and NYC. If gun bans work so well, why do statistics tell us that the places where gun bans are enacted become, within 10 years, some of the highest gun-related crime cities in the country?
Sorry. Rant over.
Good post! BUT, one small correction: the quote you ended the post with was from a man named George Santayana. I think you may have been confusing the famous quote by Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,"
ReplyDelete