Sunday, August 28, 2016

Are some Babies more equal than others?

Some 70 years ago George Orwell wrote “Animal Farm,” a fable about animals organizing themselves to establish a self-governing society. The pigs took charge of the undertaking and put down rules, one being that “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others”.

As you can see, there is in that rule at least the aspiration to make all animals equal, even if the saying is tweaked with the “but” qualifier to suggest that equality could be given elasticity when necessary to respond to unspecified contingencies that may arise in the future.

That's what the pigs were able to accomplish. So you'd think that human beings, who don't even like being reviled with the epithet “pig,” can do at least as well when putting down rules that establish a sense of equality among their members. If you thought so, you'll be disappointed to learn that the Weekly Standard has joined the Fox News Channel and others like them in stipulating that some babies are more equal than others.

Don't get it wrong, my friend, those publications are not suggesting that babies are different from one another because they have different skin colors or because they are of one gender or another or because they adhere to different persuasions or because they have determined their sexual orientation at that age. No; that's not the case. Rather, all those babies are born equal, say the Weekly Standard and Fox News, till they get killed. That's when they are placed in one of two categories depending on who killed them.

If the American equipped and financed Israeli military of genocide, murders Palestinian babies and their mothers in bed in the middle of the night with the pinpoint accuracy of smart bombs, it is tough luck for those babies because the folks at the Standard and Fox News will rejoice and celebrate the glorious victory of “our ally in the Middle East.” And they will urge their audiences to drink to that.

But if a Syrian child gets killed by someone (it doesn't matter who because Assad will always be blamed,) that child will cause the staff at the two publications – and others like them – to spill enough crocodile tears to fill the Great Lakes should they evaporate. And these people will urge their audiences to spill more tears in case El Nino causes the Pacific Ocean to evaporate. Thus, we now see the need to amend the pigs' rule, and make it read as follows: All human babies are equal till it can be determined who murdered them.

You can read the article that came under the title: “Deal with the Devil” and see for yourself. It was written by Lee Smith and published on August 27, 2016 in the Weekly Standard. Of course, everything that is written, and everything that is verbalized these days, gets steered in the direction of the Iran nuclear deal, and this article is no exception. But the habit of the Jews is to always turn everything into a springboard from where they launch an attack on who and what is bugging them that day.

Lee Smith did just that in his article, but he stepped long enough on a tangent to include this remark:

“Omran is a 5-year-old Syrian boy whose bloodied and shell-shocked visage was splashed across the media. He was pulled out of the rubble left by a Syrian or Russian bombing run. Omran embodied the waste of a war that has taken thousands of children lives like Omran. 'The babies are dying in Aleppo,' wrote Robin Wright … Sure – they're dying. But who is responsible? The Islamic State has killed lots of people. However, Russia has killed more civilians than ISIS. Either Assad or Russia are dropping bombs that kill babies to prop up Iran's ally, the one Obama left alone to seal his deal with Tehran”.

True to form – as per the well established Jewish habit – Lee Smith tried to have it both ways and in so doing, put a big hole in his own theory. Here is the passage that does it:

“The administration … forced Syrian rebel groups that the United States had trained and armed to sign documents promising they wouldn't attack Assad, the despot ordering the torture and murder of their families and friends. In this way, Obama protected the man who bombs 5-year-olds”.

Lee Smith just admitted that America has been training and arming rebel groups he did not mention as possible culprits in the bombing of the 5-year-old. But since the rebels were forbidden from attacking Assad, is it not logical to assume that they took the war to where children were playing, thus may well have been responsible for what happened to that boy?