San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Chick-Fil-A Is The War's First Casualty

With the decision by the Supreme Court of Jokers of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika to give homosexuals "most preferred citizen" status it was only a matter of time until the homosexuals used their new-found power to start killing off the enemy.  The enemy, of course, is anyone who is a Christian.  Bible believing Christians are the only people left in this immoral land who oppose the homosexual agenda.  Many Christian groups, even some which profess to believe in the God of the Bible, have already committed theological hare-kari and abandoned the moral principles of the historic Christian faith.  They are now heretics and apostates and are to be shunned by true Christians.  Others continue the fight against immorality and announce their opposition to flagrant violations of the holy law of God whenever possible.  Chick-Fil-A is an example of a profit-seeking company owned and operated by Christian people who have professed their opposition to homosexuality.  As a result of their stance they ended up presenting a high target for militants and they have now been attacked by the ravenous hoards of murderous homosexuals recently unleashed upon this disgusting and immoral land by the Supreme Joker's decision.  Not only are they a profit-seeking corporation, a hated entity in the socialist country in which we live, they are also publicly anti-homosexual.  This will not do.
The headline article of Thursday's Denver Post declared "City stalls chain at DIA."  This is some of what the report had to say, "Chick-Fil-A's reputation as an opponent of same sex marriage has imperiled the fast food chain's potential return to Denver International Airport, with several City Council members this week passionately questioning a proposed concession agreement.  Councilman Paul Lopez called opposition to the chain at DIA 'really, truly a moral issue....'  Robin Kniech, the council's first openly gay member, said she was most worried about a local franchise generating 'corporate profits used to fund and fuel discrimination.'  She was first to raise Chick-Fil-A leaders' politics during a Tuesday committee hearing."  The final decision has not yet been made, it was delayed for two weeks, but it does not take a sooth-Sayer to see where this process is heading.  Chick-Fil-A will be denied the right to operate a franchise at Denver International Airport because the company's owners oppose homosexuality.  The Denver City Council will immorally and illegally discriminate against Chick-Fil-A simply because it has homosexuals on the council who are at war with Christians and who are operating under the protection of the federal government.
The Supreme Court of the SDA ruled that the Constitution contains a provision in it somewhere which either granted or recognized the civil right of same sex people to "marry," whatever that means.  That means it is the duty of the federal government to uphold and enforce that right.  Now please help me to understand.  How does one get from the federal government forcing Christian ministers to perform homosexual weddings, which is what the Supreme Court ruling will now require,  to a local city government not permitting a profit-seeking company from operating a franchise on city property because some of the owners of the company have exercised their First Amendment rights and expressed verbal opposition to homosexuality?   I can see no logical pathway that would bring about the conclusions being drawn by the two City Council members mentioned above.
Chick-Fil-A has had a franchise at DIA since the airport was opened.  To deny a renewal of the seven year deal that is rubber-stamped for all other restaurant franchisees at DIA simply because the owners of the chicken restaurant have publicly expressed opposition to homosexuality is not a "moral issue," as one City Council member described it.  Or, at least, it is not a moral issue in the way he means "moral issue."  Paul Lopez believes that it would be a sin, a criminal act, an unethical behavior and an offense against both natural law and the law of God if the city were to grant Chick-Fil-A an extension on its contract to operate a franchise at the airport.  Mr. Lopez, please explain how that is.  The only possible immoral action I can see here is the City Council making the decision to not grant a permit to the restaurant as punishment for the fact that the owners of the restaurant have exercised their First Amendment right of free speech.  Chick-Fil-A has not been charged, tried or found guilty of discriminating against anyone or anything up until this point in time.  How can you justify discriminating against the company when it is innocent of all charges?  How can you justify discriminating against the company on the basis of its alleged "thought crimes" which allegedly make the company immoral simply because some of its owners hold to different ideas than you do?  What arrogance and abuse of power is being displayed by the Denver City Council.
Lesbian Council member Robin is behaving even worse than Paul.  As a committed socialist Robin opposes the idea of corporations operating anywhere in the world and she also despises profits.  If Robin could have her way all restaurants operating at DIA would operate under taxpayer financed subsidies, paid by the evil top 49% of the income population, and sell nothing that anyone would ever want to purchase.  If people actually like what is being sold it is possible an item could become popular and then, horror of horrors, a profit might actually be made.  This will not do.
Lesbian Robin hates profits simply because they are profits but she hates them even more in this instance because the profits will be made by a company she personally despises.  Why does she despise Chick-Fil-A?  Is it because the company has been found guilty of discriminating against homosexuals?  No, that hasn't happened.  Is it because the company has informed the Council that it will discriminate against homosexuals in the future?  No, that has not happened.  Is it because the company once refused to serve her?  No, that did not happen.  Lesbian Robin hates Chick-Fil-A simply because some of the owners of the company do not share her opinion about homosexuality.  In other words, Lesbian Robin believes Chick-Fil-A has committed a thought crime against her and must be punished for the offense.  Because she believes the Supreme Court has given her most preferred citizen status she quite naturally believes she is free to prosecute others for thought crimes anytime their thoughts do not line up with hers.  How tolerant of her!
Lesbian Robin's belief that Chick-Fil-A would use "corporate profits to fund and fuel discrimination" is about as stupid of an assertion as I have read in recent days.  Does she honestly believe that Chick-Fil-A has a department dedicated to discriminating against homosexuals?  Does she sincerely believe that if I were to examine the company's financial statements I would see cash flow being dedicated to discriminating against homosexuals?  Even she can't be that stupid.  No, I suspect what she is trying to say here is that when the company makes profits the owners of the company also make profits.  Since the owners of the company oppose homosexuality she does not believe they have a right to make profits and she is going to do everything within her power to make sure they don't.  That is intolerance to the highest degree.  That, my friends, is nothing but bold-faced discrimination.  That, my friends, is nothing but precisely what Lesbian Robin claims to be trying to prevent.  And that, my friends, is nothing but more homosexual hypocrisy. 

Update:  September 2, 2015

The Denver Council bowed to overwhelming public pressure and agreed to continue the lease of Chick-Fil-A at the Denver International Airport.  Lesbian Robin stated that she had carefully examined the policies of the profit seeking restaurant and decided that they did not currently pose a threat to her lifestyle.  Good for her.  

Socialized College Education Is Next

Now that Obamacare is entrenched in the society of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika the question for the socialists is what to socialize next.  The Republicans talk a big talk about repealing Obamacare but their proposals all contain the provision to replace it with some form of Republicancare.  No Republican has the guts or the brains to declare that government should not be in the health care or health insurance business at all.  There is no missing the fact that in the SDA both Republicans and Democrats are committed to the principles of socialism. 
Socialism can perhaps best be defined as the belief that the top 49% of the income population has a moral responsibility to provide an ever increasing list of things to the lower 51% of the income population.  Things get added to the list when they come to be known as "rights."  Nobody in his right mind ever asserted that health insurance was a right until the socialists decided to make it one.  Expect that something that heretofore has not been a problem will suddenly become a horrendous and embarrassing social problem that only socialism can fix.  Indeed, that has already happened.  The next part of SDA society to be socialized will be college education.
Democratic candidate for the next King of the SDA Bernie Sanders is committed to a full program of college education socialism.  He believes that the top 49% of the income population in this country is morally required to provide a four year college degree to any dimwit who wants to go to school.  Any "rich" person who thinks that is unfair is part of the evil corporate system that runs this country and needs to be shut down by the oppressed majority that populates the lower 51% of the income population.  To learn more about Colonel Sanders, go here.
Denver Mayor Michael Hancock has proposed a new "College Affordability Program."  One would think that would mean getting the government out of the college financing business but that is not the case.  He has asked theDenver City Council to put the issue on the ballot and voters would have to decide if they want to add .08% to the sales tax collected in Denver.  The good mayor estimates that such a tax would raise over $10 million/year which would then be distributed to politically connected individuals who would ostensibly use it to repay their student loans that were incurred as are a result of matriculation in a Colorado school.  Exactly how the process of distributing the largess would be conducted was not described. 
The next Queen of the SDA, Hillary Clinton, has launched a similar program.   Go here for the full story.  Future Queen Hillary, according to the article on CNN, "has announced what her campaign is calling the 'New College Compact,' a pledge to tackle the cost of college, making low interest grants and loans more available and ensure the federal government 'will never again profit off student loans for college students.' She touted the plan as a way to lower college costs while at the same time making it easier for American families to send their children to school. Clinton said college affordability is 'one of the most important ways we can ease the burden on families and one of the single biggest ways we can actually raise incomes, by making college affordable and available to every American.'  Clinton will do this,she says, by providing incentives to states that agree to provide 'no-loan tuition at four-year public colleges and universities.' States that agree, under the Clinton plan, will win grants from the federal government.'  Her plan is expected to cost $350 billion but will undoubtedly come in at least three or four times that once approved.
Everything about the Clinton proposal is wrong.  Did you notice the typical socialist hatred of profits evidenced in her statement?  She stupidly believes that the government has somehow profited off student loans.  Apparently she does not realize that student loans are made by various banking institutions that are in cahoots with the federal government and which provide low interest rate loans subsidized by the taxpayers to students.  How that process can be described as one in which the government makes a profit off the backs of poor, struggling students is a mystery to me.  Nevertheless she introduces the concept of profit into the process of student loans because she knows her socialist compatriots will use it as an excuse to hate something that already exists and develop a strong desire to replace it with something more consistent with their aberrant concept of social justice.
Like all socialists, Clinton believes that her program of taking $350 billion plus from the top 49% of the income population and giving it to politically favored groups, in exchange for a vote for her of course, will magically accomplish the twin goals of lowering education costs and increasing the GDP of the SDA.  What fantasy land do these people live in?  The reason college education expenses are rising faster than any category of expense in this envy-filled country is none other than the fact that the government's student loan program has incentivized schools to raise tuition and idiots to go to college.  Giving people taxpayer dollars to go to school does not cause the cost of school to decline.  Giving stupid people the ability to extend their four years of high school partying into four more years of college partying does not create smarter individuals who enter the marketplace and raise the GDP of the country.  In fact, just the opposite is the case.  People who graduate high school who are not scholars go to college these days because government incentives allow them to do so.  After four, or five, or six years of college and the amassing of an enormous amount of taxpayer subsidized debt, many of those same college graduates go home to live with their parents, without a job and without any desire to go to work.  Or, according to recent statistics, at least 43% of them do this.  Queen Hillary's program will make this situation even worse.
Politicians are jumping upon the socialized education model because they perceive it can buy them a lot of votes.  Usually included in the various proposals is some provision to forgive some or all of current outstanding student loan debt.  Politicians know that telling the millions of people who have taken out student loans that they will create a new law that allows them to never pay their loans back will guarantee political success and career politician status.  
It took a few years for the Obamacare train to get on track with sufficient steam to become law.  That is always the case with new civil rights.  When the citizens of this immoral country first heard that a woman had the civil right to kill her unborn baby most people were aghast.  Then, just a decade or so later, it was law.  The same was true of the right to universal health insurance.  I don't expect free universal college education to be law by the end of Hillary's first term but I believe it is a definite possibility for her second.  Mark my words, free college education for all is coming and the top 49% of the income population is going to be forced to pay the bill, just like we always do. 

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Lock Your Doors, Stay Inside And Let The Government Protect You

I live in a community that has a homeowners association.  I made the voluntary decision to live in such a community because I like the fact that I have a mediator at my disposal to resolve disputes with my neighbor when he leaves two or three old washing machines in his front yard.  I pay a small monthly fee for the costs associated with running the complex and I get, among other things, access to a small open space area with trails for hiking and mountain biking.  I also have access to a couple of swimming pools but, being Welsh, avoid them like the plague.  As a member of the association I get a weekly newspaper that is mostly filled with ads promoting yuppie businesses in the area.  Every once in a while an interesting article will appear in the paper.  That was the case this past week.
A couple of weeks ago a resident in another part of my development came home and was surprised by a knife-wielding intruder inside his house.  When confronted the robber immediately fled without any further incident.  The homeowner called the cops and a CodeRED alert was issued.  I had never heard of a CodeRED alert before but fortunately there was another article, on the next page of the paper, exhorting me to "sign up for CodeRED alerts."  Intrigued, I looked into it.  Here is what I learned:
"Residents are encouraged to sign up for CodeRED alerts, which allow the County to contact citizens to warn of danger such as inclement weather or criminal activity.  With CodeRED the County can simultaneously call, text or email multiple phones within a designated area to warn residents of flood, fire, tornadoes, chemical spills, or dangerous suspects.  Within moments, calls reach the affected community to deliver warnings and critical safety instructions."
I thought about the CodeRED alert for a while.  Several thoughts came to mind. Have we all regressed to childhood status?  Is nobody capable of acting like a responsible adult anymore?  Must the government be there to cater to my every need?  I don't know about non-Welsh people but we Welsh people have no problem knowing when our homes are about to be carried away by a flood.  Yep, we pay attention to the sky.  When it rains a whole lot and the river rises we start thinking about flooding.  Of course we were smart enough to not build our shacks on the floodplain so planning for a flood mostly consists of finding a high place to sit down and watch as the Scots and the Irish float by in their fancy homes down the newly created river, waving wildly as they go.  We return their frantic waves with a smile and shout of encouragement.  We will usually say things like, "Did you remember to pay the insurance premium, you cheap Scotsman?"
The same is true for fires.  Every single Welshman is able to recognize a fire and not jump into it.  As far as I am aware no Welshman has ever voluntarily jumped into a fire.  I once jumped into a fire, when I was a much younger man, but that was only because I had miscalculated how far I was able to go in a standing jump.  Tornadoes are no different.  When we see a tornado we watch it for a while to see what it is going to do.  If it gets too close we go somewhere else.  It is amazingly effective as a means of not being hurt or killed by a tornado.  Chemical spills hardly even interrupt our day.  Truth be told the primary reason for that is no Welshman has ever been caught in a chemical spill, unless you count the day Ian's spittoon tipped over.  I guess we Welsh just don't see the universe as such a dangerous place as the yuppies I live with do. 
Dangerous suspects are another issue entirely.  We Welsh are accustomed to having people call the cops and report us as dangerous suspects simply because we are seen in public.  I recognize that the CodeRED alert is designed to help people who believe they have seen a dangerous suspect but being on the receiving end of that program gives me an entirely different perspective about its effectiveness.  Notwithstanding the multiple times I have suffered police harassment for being seen in public I can't understand the response of my yuppie neighbors to a "dangerous suspect," whatever or whomever that might be.
Going back to the burglary story...the article went on to say that, "A CodeRED alert was launched for the immediate area asking residents to stay inside and lock their doors."  Fortunately not everyone followed that advice.  One local resident was out jogging on one of the aforementioned paths when he came across a man who was clearly a bum and who was equally as clearly squatting on the association's property.  The resident quickly figured out that this was our armed robber and managed to convince the poor fellow to surrender to the cops, probably by promising him three squares and a cot.  The armed men in blue soon arrived and carried him off to their station where he was charged with first degree burglary and felony menacing.
As I read the story about the CodeRED exhortation to lock our doors and stay inside while the taxpayer financed professional protectors rounded up a drunken bum who was camping on our open space I could not help but think of Boston shortly after the bombing.  Have we all become so infantile that we believe we are incapable of defending ourselves?  Are we truly all so weak and frail that we must rely exclusively upon jack-booted thugs to protect us?  My experience with the police forces in this terrified and cowering country is that they are far more interested in protecting themselves, government buildings and doughnut shops than they are in protecting my life and property.  Under most circumstances I believe the police would be the last group of people I would call in a pinch, unless my intention was to escalate the situation and get an innocent civilian killed.
So I don't think I am going to be signing up for CodeRED.  I don't have any PEDs (personal electronic devices) that could receive a message from my government anyway.  If I see a suspicious fellow prowling about my neighborhood I will invite him into my garage for a Boddingtons.  Only after he has consumed a couple of those will I be able to determine if he is a legitimate threat to my life and property and, if he is, he will be in no condition to do anything about it by then. 

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Homosexual Advocates Just Don't Get It

Benjamin Hochman is a sports columnist for the Denver Post.  He is leaving the paper to take another job this week.  Today was his penultimate column for the paper.  Rather than dedicating the column to sports or his greatest memories of the Denver sports scene, he decided to issue a plea to homophobic people, pleading with them to be more kind toward homosexuals.  In particular, he singled out those he described as "religious."  I think we all know that means Christians.  Ben is sick and tired of Christians saying homosexuality is displeasing to God.  Ben does not want Christians to "bully" homosexuals anymore.  Ben just does not get it.
Either God exists or He does not.  Either God is immutable or He is not.  Either God has communicated with men or He has not.  Either the Bible is the communication of God to men or it is not.  Either the moral law contained in the Bible is easy to comprehend or it is not.  Everything I have written in this paragraph is necessarily true.  Christians believe, for very good reasons, that God exists, that He is immutable (does not change), that He has communicated with men, that the Bible is the communication of God to men and that God's moral law is easy to comprehend.  What I have just written, in many respects, defines what it means to be a Christian (Christology not withstanding).  At the very least it is not possible to be a Christian and deny any of the things I have written in this paragraph.  Why can't unbelievers like Ben understand that?
God's unchanging moral law found in the Bible is easy to understand.  Everybody agrees that murder is wrong.  Everybody agrees that adultery is wrong.  Everybody agrees that stealing is wrong.  Everybody agrees that lying is wrong.  But only Christians agree that homosexuality is morally wrong.  Christians do not agree that homosexuality is wrong because they want to make people angry.  Neither do they believe that homosexuality is wrong because they are homophobic.  Nor do they believe that homosexuality is wrong because it disgusts them, although it might.  Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong because God says that it is wrong and what God says is more important than anything any man can ever say. Why can't unbelievers get that?
People like to talk about Jesus a lot.  People will ask, "what would Jesus do?" in attempts to solve various ethical arguments.  We should do that about the topic of homosexuality.  What would Jesus do with a homosexual?  He would command him to repent of his sin.  What would Jesus say should be the punishment for a homosexual who refuses to repent?  He would say it should be death.  Christians actually believe this stuff, not because it gives us the ability to go around hating others and declaring ourselves to be morally superior but for the simple reason God is God and we are not.  What God declares to be true is true and our opinion about His truth, other than to agree and conform to it, is irrelevant. Why don't unbelievers understand that?
Ben writes, "Life is short.  We are all going to die.  Don't be a jerk to gay people.  Force yourself to be more accepting and tolerant...If your feelings are religious-based I just want to implore you to be more accepting."  Ben does not understand a thing about being a Christian.  First, Christian's "feelings" are irrelevant.  Christians should not behave based upon how they feel.  Nor should Christians develop doctrine based upon how any particular doctrine feels.  Doctrines come from the Word of God and should be believed because they represent God's opinion on a matter, not because they make a Christian feel any particular way.  God says that homosexuality is a sin and a capital offense.  That is all that matters.  My opinions and my feelings about the issue are irrelevant.  Why don't unbelievers understand that?
I find it fascinating that Ben is incapable of turning his doctrine of acceptance around.  He pleads with Christians to commit apostasy and deny the God they believe in by accepting homosexuality as morally proper.  He seems to be quite comfortable calling upon Christians to deny their faith and adopt doctrines in support of behaviors that are contrary to historic Christian teaching.  Ben finds it very simple to bully Christians into going against the dictates of their consciences and denying everything they have based their lives upon.  Ben exhorts Christians to suppress their knowledge of the truth, no matter how much psychological and spiritual harm that might bring upon them.  Why does that not bother him?  When Christians declare that they are incapable of doing that he does not plead with homosexuals, many of whom are held out as heroic and courageous figures, to force themselves to be more accepting and tolerant of Christians.  Ben does not implore homosexuals to be more accepting of Christians.  I wonder why not?
Ben, and other advocates for homosexuality, just don't get it.  They are either unwilling or unable to understand that Christians do not declare homosexuality to be a sin because we enjoy being intolerant, although some of us might.  Christians declare homosexuality to be a sin because that is God's opinion on the matter and nothing else matters to a Christian but the opinion of God.  Ben is unwilling or unable to understand that Christians can no more tolerate homosexuality than they can morally tolerate adultery, theft, murder and lying.
The question as to why God-hating unbelievers hate Christians and command them to tolerate sin is an interesting one.  I go back and forth between the opinions that they are either incapable of understanding why we oppose homosexuality or that they are unwilling to understand why we oppose homosexuality.  Ultimately I have to settle on the position that God-hating unbelievers are truly incapable of understanding the Christian position on homosexuality.  They are all moral reprobates, utterly sold into bondage to sin and utterly incapable of a non-sinful thought.  As Paul wrote in the Bible about unregenerate men, "There are none who seek after God, not even one.  There are none who are righteous, not even one.  There is none who does good, not even one."  That gives me a lot of compassion for them.  Just like I have a lot of compassion for homosexuals.  Apart from the grace of God in their lives they are doomed to live lives of complete and total sinfulness.  And they are all completely incapable of understanding why Christians oppose homosexuality.  They just don't get it. 

Monday, August 17, 2015

Japanese Angst Over WWII

I was reading my Denver Post over the weekend when I came across an article that threw me into an immediate rage.  I don't know about you but I am enraged by people who don't believe in personal responsibility.  I am also enraged by hypocrisy.  The article that I read combined both a lack of understanding of personal responsibility with an extreme level of hypocrisy.  I fussed and fumed as I read a story entitled "Sincere Condolences" that carried the by-line "Japan avoids apologizing over WWII."
Could someone please tell me how a geo-political entity is capable of apologizing?  The last time I checked Japan was a sovereign nation somewhere in Asia.  How does a sovereign nation somewhere in Asia evolve the ability to speak?  Moreover, how does that same nation evolve the ability to consider the words that it is about to speak and somehow avoid saying particular things?  Apparently "Japan," whatever it is, managed to develop the gift of language and utter the words "sincere condolences" last week while some other people are upset that it did not say something else.
Last week marked the 70th anniversary of the surrender of Japanese authorities and the end of WWII.  Other than being a point of historical interest, I don't care that last week represented the 70th anniversary of the end of another imperialistic war.  I wasn't alive then and it did not impact me or anyone that I know.  Why should I care about wars of foreign expansion conducted by nations being led by rulers intent upon dominating the world?  Yes, I am writing about the Socialist Democracy of Amerika here, as well as Japan, China, Russia, Germany and Italy.  All of those countries used WWII as an excuse to attempt to rule, control and dominate other nations.  But that is all ancient history.  Thoughts about that devastatingly destructive war should have disappeared into the dustbin long ago.  Sadly, they haven't.
A photograph accompanying the article I read showed a Japanese woman "praying for Taiwan's 'comfort women,' forced by the Japanese to work as sex slaves during WWII."  The woman praying could not be more than 30 years old.  The "comfort women" she is allegedly praying for are all long dead.  Yet somehow she is moved to tears as she prays for people she never knew and who are now long dead.  The clear intimation of the photograph is that this poor, guilt-ridden Japanese woman is displaying extreme sorrow over something she had nothing to do with on behalf of people who are no longer alive.  Has everyone gone insane?
The article began by informing me that "Prime Minister Shinzo Abe acknowledged that Japan inflicted "'immeasurable damage and suffering' on innocent people in World War II but stopped short of offering his own apology, drawing criticism from China and South Korea."   Apparently every year the rulers of Japan are expected to hold a public meeting and apologize to the world for the things that their ancient military did during WWII.  It is also apparent that the wording of the public apology must be precisely what the citizens and rulers in other countries that engaged the Japanese military want to hear.  If the wording is not precisely what they want to hear they express outrage.  Abe was castigated for the fact that he declared that, "Japan's repeated past heartfelt apologies would remain unshakable but that future Japanese generations should not have to keep apologizing."   He did not explain how a geo-political entity called "Japan" had developed the ability to speak and issue apologizes.  Nor did anyone ask how that happened.  But his comment did outrage people around the world. 
Chinese officials said that Abe's apology was "evasive" and asserted that "Japan should have made an explicit statement on the nature of the war of militarism and aggression and its responsibility on the wars, made a sincere apology to the people of victim countries, and made a clean break with the past of militarist aggression."  Maybe I am missing something here but I don't recall the Japanese military being involved in any wars over the past seventy years.  Why does some Chinese ruler feel the need to order Japanese politicians to pledge to not engage in militaristic behavior when no militaristic behavior has been evidenced by the Japanese in over seventy years?  And speaking of militaristic behavior and examples of atrocious and brutal behavior against their fellow man.... has anyone ever heard about the Chinese doing bad things to their enemies?  Is it only the Japanese who are responsible for immoral behavior?  And if we are going to discuss that favorite whipping boy known as "war crimes," who can forget what the SDA forces did in the Philippines during the Spanish/Amerikan war?  Go here if you have already forgotten.
My point is a simple one.  I am unaware of any war waged in the history of mankind that was not immoral.  I am not aware of any war waged in the history of mankind that did not involve atrocities being committed upon both the soldiers and the civilians of all the countries at war with each other.  No armed force has ever behaved morally.  None.  The only reason Japan is forced to grovel in front of the Chinese, the South Koreans and the citizens of the SDA annually is because they lost WWII when the SDA blew two of their cities to smithereens with atomic bombs.  The SDA's decision to drop the bombs was, of course, totally moral and correct.  Amerikans remained convinced that God directed those bombs to the ground where they vaporized disgustingly evil people who were worthy of death so that the paragons of moral virtue in the SDA military might live to a ripe old age.  You just keep right on believing that.
No Japanese citizen and no Japanese career politician owes any person in the world an apology for the things done by the Japanese military during WWII.  Abe is right, no Japanese person should be required to issue an annual public apology.  He is also wrong.  "Repeated past heartfelt apologies" delivered by Japanese career politicians were equally unnecessary and stupid.  There is nobody left alive who is personally responsible for any of the sins committed by the Japanese military during WWII.  Therefore, there is nobody alive who can issue a genuine apology.  Career politicians in other countries who believe they are due an apology need to grow up and mind their own business.  Meanwhile, a heartfelt apology from the career politicians who are still alive and who rule the SDA issued to the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan would be nice. Ha! Ha! Ha!