But Mark!  Just yesterday you were criticizing those who compared Obama to Hitler for using children for a photo op!

Yes.  That’s correct.  That’s because Obama is not Hitler.  Here’s the thing: The universe is not divisible into Hitler/Not Hitler=Evil/Good.  Politicians have surrounded themselves with children since forever.  It’s what you do when you are campaigning.  Since Sandy Hook was the impetus for Obama taking some modest action to limit the access of child-murdering maniacs to the technology of gun slaughter, he did what any politician as concerned about his ego as Obama is (that is, all of them) would do: he used kids for the photo op.  That makes him “an American politician”, not Hitler.

But as Gutfeld points out, it also makes him, along with the rest of the Dem leadership, a rank hypocrite.  Again, not Hitler, but also not anything to write home about since he continues to defend with fanatical zeal the current regime in which We the People–not a centralized secret SS–enthusiastically murder our innocent sons and daughters.  That’s why he’s not Hitler or Stalin.  The genius of the American system is that we have privatized our Holocaust and made it a product of American individualist pluck and know how, not the work of some secret superforce under the command of a totalitarian centralized economy.  Obama is a champion of American “liberty”, which we Americans use to murder innocents so that good may come of it.  And so he changes places in the “My Sacred Freedom” vs “Dead Innocents!” argument depending on which side of our perverted culture is arguing about guns and which side is arguing about abortion. He is not without many partners in that dance.

  • http://www.thyselfolord.blogspot.com Pedro Erik

    Yeah, excellent phrase by Gutfeld. He surprised me once and while.
    Dems will use woman in pro-choice rally, but not even a pregnant woman.

  • Bob

    The problem with this remark …

    “The genius of the American system is that we have privatized our Holocaust … Obama is a champion of American ‘liberty’, which we Americans use to murder innocents so that good may come of it.”

    … is that inevitably people will inevitably interpret it to mean “Obama (and other pro-choicers) are not Hitler, OK, but that’s only because Hitler wasn’t clever to ‘privatize’ his Holocaust.” I’m aware that that’s not what you meant. And I commend your efforts (in vain, I fear) to chastise those on both sides who must always invoke the Third Reich to characterize their opponents.

    But when you, yourself, describe abortion as a “holocaust,” can your really be surprised when people on your side of that argument go just a teensy weensy bit further and compare the other side to Nazis?

    • Hezekiah Garrett

      You know ‘holocaust’ had its current meaning long before the Third Reich was a gleam in the Little COrporal’s eye, right?

  • http://justformyboys.blogspot.com/ Tom Locker

    One of the most revolting things I’ve ever seen was at a Walk for Life in SF a few years ago. A very-late-in-her-pregnancy woman had written, across her swollen belly, “My Baby is Pro-Choice.”

  • KM

    Good post. Both sides (Democrats and Republicans) are guilty of hypocrisy. It has been argued in various conservative blogs that abortion is the Democrats’ sacred rite for the pagan god, Moloch. But on the other (liberal) side, people have noted that gun worship is the Republicans’ Moloch equivalent: (SEE: http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/dec/15/our-moloch/ for an interesting opinion on this.)

    Perhaps this “Moloch” observation is the equivalent of the “Hitler” card but it is food for thought.
    Regardless, both sides claim to be pro-life and pro-children, depending on the circumstance and argument. Both sides are indeed hypocrites, as pointed out in the post.

    Disclaimer: I am not endorsing any pro- or anti-gun views here, so anyone wishing to respond to this post with attacks please realize I am only pointing out two opposing viewpoints of our American culture of death.

    • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

      The dominant defensive gun use in America is to intimidate bad people, scare them away from doing bad things. The extra confidence that you walk down the street with that translates to “not an easy victim” to the predators looking for prey in rough neighborhoods will never be captured in official statistics but it is a real effect and well documented. How is that particular use in any way, shape, or form, a Republican Moloch equivalent? Even more open uses like brandishing or threatening use or warning shots are widely used and often don’t hit the stats.

      I am not entirely sure that the coiner of “Mater si, magistra no” is someone I should be uncritically swallowing here on moral matters. And when I look critically and start fact checking, I find that he is just not telling the truth, and conclusions based on false facts are not to be trusted.

      We do, in fact, question and limit the uses that ordinary civilians may have of guns, contrary to Mr. Wills breezy assertion that we do not. We have done so for decades. It is this sober, circumscribed use of weapons, with licensing and training requirements put both into law and custom that is being libeled as some unquestioning worship to a malign god.

      I have yet to see any serious gun control advocates address the unorganized militia statutes. To do so would force the examination of why such a structure exists, what the societal goals of it are, and how to tailor weapons regulations to improve its legitimate civic function. This is gun regulation that the NRA has no problem with and it is precisely this sort of regulation that is not on offer by the gun control lobby. Mr. Wills does not engage in this analysis here either.

      If the gun is truly our sacrifice to Moloch, striking one bit of law, the definition of the unorganized militia, perhaps along with the state draft (bet you didn’t even know your state had draft statutes) would be the right way to reject Moloch. But gun controllers are not so serious. They just like to pout and call names.

      Finally, regarding your disclaimer, setting up “scorpions in a bottle” false equivalences does not leave you blameless.

      • KM

        “You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun.” — Rush Limbaugh, 1/16/13

        I’m not the one setting up false equivalences in this debate. The above quote by Rush Limbaugh is representative of some people on various comboxes I’ve read, in more measured tones of course.

        Mark’s point is that neither side is helping reasonable discourse. Rush Limbaugh’s recent statement makes matters worse.

  • KM

    Some further thoughts:

    Democrats say that abortion can *save* the lives of women who suffer from life-threatening medical conditions during pregnancy, and of children who suffer from poverty and neglect the more children a family must take care. So Democrats/liberals cannot see how anyone can take away a woman’s “right” to abortion since they consider it “pro-life.”

    Republicans say that guns can save the lives of women and children too via self-protection. So they cannot see how anyone can take away a person’s “right” to own guns since they consider it “pro-life” too.

    This is how both sides see *their* position as moral and pro-women/pro-children. Then when arguments begin, it’s easy to see how each quickly condemns the other side.

    Again, I am not condoning either view. I am presenting the Democratic/Republican positions on these issues and how the debate is influenced and obstructed by these views.

    • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

      The Democrat definition of abortion differs from that of the Church. You should be careful in gliding over the two definitions.

      There is no definitional difference in gun uses. There is a difference in the accepted facts. This makes the gun situation different because only one of those sets of facts can be correct.

      • KM

        I’m Catholic by the way and am very much anti-abortion. I’m trying to point out how each side is setting itself up as pro-freedom and has moral arguments to defend their position. (Secular) Democrats view abortion as a “women’s freedom (choice)” argument and Republicans view gun rights as a “second amendment freedom” argument. There are “moral” arguments made on both sides to defend these “freedoms.”

        The false equivalence is constantly made on every combox I’ve visited, and in various articles. Rush Limbaugh recently had a caller make the comparison between, yes yet again, abortion and guns. Sadly this commentary is fairly typical of the secular sites I visit.

        “CALLER: …It’s just terrible that 26 people died in Sandy Hook and 20 of them were children. Terrible. Very sad, coming up to Christmas. Hopes and dreams the young children had, their parents and weddings and congratulations that will never occur. However, on any given day in America, more than 3,000 children are killed from abortion, and we have no problems with that. We’re okay with that; it’s not an issue.” http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/01/16/revenge_on_the_bitter_clingers