America’s Selective Compassion with North Korea, Iran, Religion, and the Environment

A Voice of Sanity - RobertRinger.com

By Robert Ringer - Monday, March 5, 2012

One of the current questions in an endless barrage of moral dilemmas that politicians are constantly debating is whether we should send food to North Korea in exchange for its promise to shut down its nuclear program. And it’s not particularly comforting to know that a twenty-eight-year-old kid, Kim Jung-un (affectionately referred to by his barber as “Chublet II”), is now ostensibly running things.

The Korean War was the first in what has become a long string of losing U.S. wars. Harry Truman’s decision to stop General Douglas MacArthur from finishing the job in Korea has resulted in nearly six decades of slavery for North Koreans.

It is believed that as many as a quarter of a million people, most found guilty of “political crimes,” are housed in concentration camps that make the Soviet gulag look like an Arnold Palmer retirement community.

Of course, the oppression of the North Koreans is really much longer than sixty years, because the Japanese ruled all of the Korean peninsula from 1910 through the end of World War II. But when the war ended, the United States went into a fast and furious mode in divvying up the spoils with the Evil Empire.

That resulted not only in the U.S. turning over Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union, but also subjecting all Koreans living above the 38th parallel to a lifetime of brutal slavery that has since cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars and decades of heartburn.

For the far left, however, capitulation to the Russkies was a victory for progressives. They cheered our display of compassion toward Uncle Joe and his murderous henchmen in the Soviet Union. After all, progressives believe that if we give our enemies what they want, they will like us more.

But for North Koreans, who today still live in stark poverty and for whom starvation, disease, and fear of torture and death is a way of life, American compassion seems to be in short supply. Strange concept, this thing we call compassion. It seems to lend itself to selectivity quite well.

The Soviet Union, for whom we showed a great deal of compassion, is long gone, but we didn’t have the compassion to free the North Korean people when we had the chance to do so in 1953. And we still don’t have the compassion to free them today (which we could do, if we really wanted to, in about an hour and seventeen minutes).

Our dear leader in the White House is quite selective about employing compassion even when dealing with his favorite world citizens, Mid-East Muslims. He cheered the protestors in Egypt, yet ignored pro-Western protestors in Iran who were hoping to at least receive his moral support.

Most recently, he’s been showing a lot of compassion for those emotionally injured souls in Afghanistan who believe that the Koran is such a holy book that anyone who desecrates it must be put to death (except for prisoners who use it to pass notes to each other). They feel so strongly about the issue that they’ve taken matters into their own hands and are randomly killing Americans.

Of course, the Old and New Testaments, which are the foundations for Judaism and Christianity, are no big deal. Muslims are allowed to destroy them at will, burn the American flag, shout “Death to America,” and generally insult everything about our way of life without fear of retribution. Yet, not a peep from Der Fuhrbama about compassion toward Jews, Christians, or Americans.

Speaking of American haters, wasn’t it a heart-wrenching display of compassion when the powers that be decided to put you in hock for another $750,000 to build a soccer field for GITMO’s celebrity guests? You may have lost your job … your house may be under water … you may be on the verge of bankruptcy … but you’ll have to look for compassion elsewhere. The government has its hands full showing compassion toward those who have sworn to destroy America.

Then there’s compassion for the environment, even though the environment has no human traits. But, hey, doesn’t the Constitution say something about “environmental rights?”

That’s why, when oil spills occur, we are obliged to display our compassion for the environment by immediately shutting down as much oil exploration as possible. Thousands may be put out of work and millions of people may have to pay higher prices to gas their cars and heat their houses, but, by golly, it’s the environmentally compassionate thing to do.

And what about the enormous compassion the omnibenevolent folks in Washington showed when they took your money and bailed out General Motors and Chrysler? Where was the compassion for the bondholders and shareholders who were stripped of their legal rights?

But BHO has outdone himself with his latest compassion crusade, insisting that religious institutions must provide free contraception to women even if it violates an institution’s religious teachings. The capper to this anti-constitutional mandate came when that classy little Georgetown University lass, Sandra Fluke, complained about the university’s refusal to provide her with free contraception.

What’s this world coming to, anyway? Doesn’t compassion call for us to pay for college co-eds to have sex? Barack Obama, who is too busy to get a budget passed, found the time to telephone the sex-focused young student from Georgetown, who said that he told her to “tell my parents that they should be proud.” Wouldn’t you be proud of your daughter if she complained that her college wasn’t paying for her sex life?

But, remember, government compassion is selective. We are admonished to have compassion for a woman’s “right to choose,” but no compassion is warranted when it comes to killing unborn babies who have no way of defending themselves from being Tillerized.

I think we can all agree that compassion is a good thing. But when it’s employed selectively by politicians, it has a tendency to play havoc with liberty. True compassion comes voluntarily from individuals, not from political mandates.

The Constitution does not assign politicians the task of being compassionate with your money. To the extent the role of politicians can be justified at all, their function is limited to protecting your life and liberty.

It’s true that some politicians may have good intentions. But history has shown that the best intentions all too often result in the most reprehensible human atrocities imaginable — especially when they are used as an excuse for violating the rights of those who are not violating anyone else’s rights.

The reality is that in the world of politics, compassion is a propaganda tool used to press for “social justice,” and social justice is a euphemism for taking control of people’s lives. Personally, if given a choice, my position vis a vis the government would be: You keep your compassion and I’ll keep my freedom.



You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:

Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.