Translate

Monday, September 23, 2013

The Consequences of Making Morality a “Crime against Humanity”

Media outlets widely reported on a man who became the focus of state and national condemnation, a , calls from the NAACP for the Secret Service and FBI to investigate him, and ultimately a public destruction of his reputation. And what horrible crime did he commit to warrant this punishment? He wore a mask of President Obama while performing as a rodeo clown.
Photograph © Paul Hair, 2011
lifetime ban from the Missouri State Fair

Some people have defended the man and said that the reaction against him was an overreaction. It’s good to see people defend normal free speech but the use of the word “overreaction” in defending the man is an odd choice. Would any sort of negative reaction against him have been warranted? Did he do something that had never been done before and which hasn’t been publicly acceptable for anyone to do with any other president in history? Of course not. Yet the damage has been done. I wonder if any other rodeo clown will ever think of doing such a thing again.

And even as some people disapprove of how the rodeo clown has been treated, there is no national movement to condemn his condemnation, or intense outrage that will form an ongoing effort to destroy attempts to destroy people’s livelihoods and reputations for engaging in free speech that has always previously been acceptable. There is no large-scale genuine moral outrage at the large-scale phony moral outrage leveled at the rodeo clown.

In other words, America has been remade.

And the rodeo clown is not the only one who has experienced this fundamental change in America. Nor is the demonization of legitimate free speech the only fundamental change. Morality itself is being attacked and destroyed.

Sunday, August 11, 2013

After Sodomy: I Was Right

F&DI published, “Incest: Something Progressive When Leftists Do It,” on March 31, 2013, and referenced a column I wrote years earlier at The Daily Caller. Evidence continues mounting as to how polygamy and incest will eventually be normalized and legalized.

It really won’t take much to normalize and legalize polygamy. It has a long history in the world and never disappeared from it. There really is no ethical argument against it in the U.S. any longer. If society thinks that sodomy-based “marriage” is fine, then there is absolutely no argument against polygamy—a practice that is much more normal and healthy than sodomy.

Incest might seem to be harder to legalize and normalize at first but it probably won’t take as long as some people think. A law professor has already written on it and included the following lines:
You know those opponents of marriage equality who said government approval of same-sex marriage might erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages? They’re right.
Once America legalizes these things, even worse things will follow.

Sunday, June 30, 2013

U.S. Supreme Court on Marriage: I Warned of What Was Coming . . . and Is Yet to Come

Those of us who have been following culture for years are not surprised by the U.S. Supreme Court
Photograph © Paul Hair, 2011
destroying marriage.

But some culture followers are surprised at the hostility rendered in the Supreme Court decision. As Justice Scalia wrote in his dissent:
It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.
But I was not surprised.

In fact, I warned at least as early as 2011 that the so-called social issues were the most important of issues.

Furthermore, I warned of the danger of Big Sodomy. I correctly identified sodomites as enemies years before the U.S. Supreme Court identified people like me as, “Hostes Humani Generis.” (In fact, I had called them, “Hostis Humani Generis,” but that was deemed “too extreme” at the time and thus was edited out of the final version.)

Some might say that I was no better in calling sodomites what they truly are. Yet there is nothing wrong with correctly identifying people as something they are, just as there is something wrong with incorrectly identifying people as something they are not. In short, it is right to condemn evil; it is wrong to condemn good.

It is similar to the whole debate raging over when it is right—moral—to kill versus when it isn’t.
I mentioned that I warned in 2011 that the so-called social issues were the most important of issues. Obviously the majority of people (on the right, at least) thought differently.

Yet now that the U.S. Supreme Court killed marriage, maybe people will change their mind.

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Did Assad Really Use WMD in Syria?

Politicians and pundits are claiming that the intelligence community (IC) has confirmed that Bashar al-Assad has used WMD in Syria and that the U.S. must now act. But did the IC really confirm the use of WMD in Syria? And if so, did the IC really confirm that Assad used them?

After weeks of people speculating that someone used WMD in Syria (including some people suggesting that Iraqi WMD might have been used in Syria), several foreign governments began alleging this as well.

The White House recently sent identical letters to Senators Carl Levin and John McCain, saying that, “Our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin.”

Some politicians and media seem to have taken this to mean that this is proof that the Assad regime, or elements of it, has used WMD in Syria. However, the letter specifically states that the White House is seeking more evidence. One of the issues the White House letter cites is chain-of-custody issues with the supposed evidence of WMD use in Syria.

Also, the IC assessment only has “varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons.” This is a critically important statement.

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Assassinating U.S. Citizens vs. Assassinating Foreign Leaders

The topics of the federal government massing ammunition, purchasing armored vehicles, using unmanned aerial systems (UAS) on U.S. soil, and generally militarizing the United States have been hot topics since Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) filibustered in the Senate in March.

And while Senator Paul received some praise for filibustering until the Obama administration explicitly stated that the Constitution does not authorize the government to assassinate a U.S. citizen (who poses no imminent threat to life or safety) on U.S. soil, others deemed his concerns as ill-founded.

Yet Senator Paul’s concerns seem to be resonating with the American people—including his questioning of if the government would assassinate U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without due process and/or just cause.

And perhaps this concern is not as unfounded as some believe.

Those involved with the intelligence community (IC) are well aware of Executive Order 12333. They receive training (or at least a briefing) on it at least once per year, sometimes more. EO 12333 plays a part in letting the intelligence community know what it can and cannot do.