Translate

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Government-backed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Praises Crude Television Show Mocking Christ; Offered No Similar Commentary on Crude Video That Negatively Portrayed Islam

Government-backed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty posted a column which lavished praise on a crude, American television show that mocked Jesus Christ. The column, by Andy Heil, included the following paragraphs:
With South Parkers scrambling to adopt new causes de jour at a Sneetch-like pace, a newscaster deadpans: “It has become the biggest concern for most people: the farmers of Belarus and their plight against their government. And now one person is taking it upon himself to end the crisis. His name: Jesus.”

Cut to Christ being interviewed with a band of farmers, a line of tanks, and a distinctly Eastern European hamlet in the background.

“These are very troubling times and these farmers are literally fighting for their lives,” he says, adding that after talking to the government and farmers, “I think we have everything just about worked out.”

At that point the tanks open fire on the unarmed protesters, then rumble over them and out of the frame, leaving a flummoxed Jesus.

Yet RFE/RL previously published articles about the online video, “Innocence of Muslims,” some of which used negative verbiage describing the video, and none which offered sympathies or praise.

There is no word of Christians assaulting anyone, rioting, or even protesting over this crude American cartoon. Furthermore, no public figures, defense officials, or civilian officials have yet condemned it or called for it to be banned, or its makers prosecuted.

Sunday, November 4, 2012

Poor Security in Benghazi vs. Poor Security in Iraq

The Daily Caller published an interview with The Finish author Mark Bowden where Bowden answered the following question about the Benghazi assault and the Obama administration’s handling of it:
This is a tragedy that has been spun into a political attack. Once the election is over, the controversy will evaporate. Ambassador Stevens knew he was serving in a very risky place, and would have been the first to argue that surrounding himself with an armored platoon would have made it impossible for him to do his job. Foreign service officers routinely accept such risks. Diplomats rely on host governments for protection, they do not travel with beefed up forces of their own. Where local authority is weak, as in Benghazi, the risks are very high, indeed. But so, too, are the potential rewards.
I challenge multiple points of Bowden’s response. But the only question I will raise about it now is this. The Associated Press just published an article claiming that the federal government has joined in suing Triple Canopy for using “hundreds of poorly trained security guards to protect the Al Asad Airbase” in Iraq. If the poor security at Benghazi is a “non-story” per the Obama administration and Mark Bowden, why is the federal government suing Triple Canopy for so-called poor security at an Iraqi airbase that never experienced a security failure anywhere close to what happened in Benghazi?

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Military Leaders Need to Prove That They Didn’t Leave Fallen Comrades


The Obama administration continues evading important questions about the Islamist assault on the Benghazi mission and its response to it. This in turn has contributed to the erosion of the Obama administration’s credibility and raises further concerns that it denied military assistance to Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the other Americans who eventually died in Libya. However, one of the most important questions remaining unanswered is if military leaders refused to help the Americans when they could have done so. If they did fail to assist when they could have done so, then they will have dishonored themselves and shown that they are unfit to command Troops.

Open source reporting offers conflicting information about what occurred at the Benghazi mission on September 11, 2012.

A Fox News article from October 26 reports that some sources say that the CIA officers who died along with Ambassador Stevens at the U.S. mission in Benghazi disregarded repeated orders from their superiors not to render assistance to the ambassador.

The same article states that some level of the Obama administration denied assistance to them even after they requested it while fighting the Islamist terrorists. This reporting is disturbing and if true raises further questions as to who ordered the refusal of assistance.

Yet the same Fox News article cites a CIA spokeswoman who denied that the CIA refused support to the Americans at the Benghazi mission.

Syria: More Evidence of Terrorist Involvement with Rebels

Open source reporting has shown that Islamists comprise a part of the so-called rebels fighting Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian government. However, new evidence raises the likelihood that many of these Islamists have also fought and killed U.S. Troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other parts of the world. And while this should cause politicians and pundits to pause in considering continued and increased support of the rebels, it likely will not.

The Daily Mail (UK) published an article on October 23 about the Syrian rebels. The article is sympathetic to the rebels and gushed over their creation and use of improvised weapon systems.

The Daily Mail article includes photographs of these improvised weapon systems, including improvised rocket launchers.

Monday, July 2, 2012

The Defeat of Conservatism and the End of Foundational America

An Analysis and Commentary Paper from the Foreign and Domestic Intelligencer


July 04, 2012

The Supreme Court’s unconstitutional ruling that Obamacare is legal (Paul 2012) is the final battle the left needed to win to complete its revolution and defeat of conservatives. Foundational American effectively is finished.

The Supreme Court ruling is utterly fraudulent. The Democrats argued in public that Obamacare wasn’t a tax. (Stephanopoulos 2009) Yet the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare is “constitutional” because it is a tax. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare is both a tax and not a tax. (York 2012) This is on its face nonsense and obviously fraudulent. Nevertheless, conservatives will abide by this nonsensical, illegal, unjust, and outright immoral ruling.

Some conservative pundits have suggested that the ruling by Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court is a win for conservatives. (Rahe 2012) They at times mention that it strengthens the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and federalism in general. This is more nonsense. Leftists prove time and time again that they aren’t bound by the law or constitutionality, and they will simply ignore any precedence the Obamacare ruling has on the Commerce Clause [if there is any—see what Mark Levin has to say on this (Lopez 2012)] even as conservatives will follow the law the Obamacare ruling sets and any other illegal laws the left sets.

In fact, conservatives will take no legal action to overturn this illegality. And that is a major difference between leftists and conservatives: while the left will do everything—legally and illegally—to get what it wants, conservatives don’t even have enough fight in them to do legal things to accomplish what is right. Nor will conservatives break illegal laws the left creates and they even will insist that other conservatives follow illegal laws. Thus, while conservatives will not bring any consequences against the left for breaking any legal laws and rules, they at the same time will allow the left to create illegal laws and rules, and then join with them in ensuring that everyone follows those illegal laws and rules. 1 This obviously is a recipe for defeat and slavery.

Victor Davis Hanson appears to observe this insanity as well at “The Corner” on National Review Online when he writes:

We now live in a country where a state that tries to follow and enforce federal law is seen as a usurping power, while those government entities, such as the sanctuary cities, which deliberately seek to undermine federal immigration law are, for all practical purposes, exempt. Add that Arizona is now supposedly acting unconstitutionally in trying to close its borders, and the president is apparently acting constitutionally as he sidesteps Congress and implements de facto amnesty by fiat, doing far more damage to the notion of federal law than any conceivable action by Arizona. That is surreal. (Hanson 2012)


Some conservatives also have argued that since the Supreme Court deemed Obamacare a tax that Obamacare becomes illegal since the bill originated in the Senate. Other conservatives have argued that the bill didn’t actually originate in the Senate; it originated in the House with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid then gutting that bill and putting Obamacare in its place. But it’s really irrelevant which way one looks at it. The Supreme Court declared an unconstitutional law constitutional. Conservatives will simply go along with this illegal ruling. This is a strategy of surrender. Another case study of this strategy of surrender exists in what is happening with the sodomization of the Armed Forces.

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Patriotism Is Propaganda to the Left


The Evening Sun (Hanover, Pennsylvania) reported that a self-described liberal tried to get products bearing the Gadsden flag at a Gettysburg souvenir store banned because he deemed those products propaganda. The Evening Sun quoted the liberal as saying the following:
“It isn’t sold in a historically relevant context,” said Paul Gioni, a battlefield enthusiast from Mahwah, N.J., who contacted the National Park Service and The Evening Sun after visiting the park recently. “This is blatantly political merchandise.”
Yet The Evening Sun article reveals that Gioni’s charge is false on its face.
The nonprofit Gettysburg Foundation operates the bookstore and a spokeswoman said the Gadsden flag merchandise serves a goal of representing the broader context of American history. Furthermore, Cindy Small said, there remain connections between the Gadsden flag and fighting at Gettysburg.

“During the Civil War, the flag was used in some Southern states as a symbol of secession,” she said.

Federal regulations call for all merchandise sold at National Parks to be approved in writing by a park superintendent. At Gettysburg, the Gadsden flag merchandise has received approval from park officials, according to spokeswoman Katie Lawhon.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Which Laws Am I Allowed to Ignore?

Those who despise American sovereignty demand that we find a so-called pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens who broke American law by illegally coming here, and disregarded the already in existence legal pathway to citizenship for anyone who cares to follow the law. And it is through this demand for further concessions that the advocates for illegal aliens reveal their utter contempt for me and other law-abiding citizens since first they demand that we not deport illegal aliens as we should, and then that they punish we law-abiding citizens further by granting the illegal aliens citizenship. In short, they hold the position that illegal aliens have a right to invade and occupy our nation.

Saturday, June 23, 2012

The Armed Forces Must Force Men and Women to Live and Shower Together

The Department of Justice has forced a branch of the University of Arkansas to allow a man to use female restrooms. So be it. Then there should be no more excuses for why the government should not force the Department of Defense to require male and female Servicemen to live and shower together.

The government decided to repeal morality from the Armed Forces in December 2010 when it discontinued the misnamed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Some people noted at the time that the revoking of that policy should also have ended the segregated living and showering conditions for men and women in the Armed Forces. After all, since we now require men to live and shower with other men who are sexually attracted to them, and women to live and shower with other women who are sexually attracted to them, then there is no reason to continue the apparently outdated and backwards practice of segregating living and showering conditions for men and women who might be sexually attracted to one another. Yet this change didn’t occur following the legislation of December 2010.

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Would Pro-lifers Be Happy If More Boys Were Aborted?

I’m seeing various articles and columns from conservatives (such as this) on the so-called atrocity of sex-selective abortion. I don’t get this line of thinking. I mean, sure I understand how this fact is useful in throwing in the faces of leftists, who have deemed themselves enlightened and for equality and women’s rights. But beyond that, I don’t see any value in working to enact legislation to ban sex-selective abortion. After all, how is bringing about equity in abortion any better than aborting a girl just because she is a girl? It’s murder either way.

Besides, if I was on the left, I would respond to this particular charge from conservatives simply by promising to abort more boys in the future. And if the left does choose to do this, what then will be the response from conservatives? After all, the left would have logically responded to the apparent grievance that too many girls are being murdered by promising to murder more boys.

Of course, beyond this, one has to ask: Why shouldn’t there be a bias towards aborting girls? After all, if we are looking for equity in murder, then the number of girls being murdered should be higher than the number of boys being murdered since in one hundred percent of the cases the person doing the murdering is a woman. In fact, until we get the percentages of abortions being 100% girls and 0% boys, there always will be a “sexist gender gap” in abortion.

What Happens If Romney Wins?

When the Democrats lost the congressional election in 2010 they wasted no time in taking advantage of their lame-duck congressional session to inflict harm on the nation (such as repealing morality from the Armed Forces). So let’s say that Mitt Romney prevails in the 2012 presidential election. What will the Democrats do?

Have any prominent Republican leaders taken this into consideration and if so, what are their plans for dealing with a lame-duck Democrat Party (not just Congress) following such a scenario? What have they considered the Democrats possibly doing during the time between November 2012 and late January 2013? Sure, the Democrats don’t control the entire Congress. But they control the executive branch. And one could possibly argue that that branch currently is more powerful than both the other branches.

I don’t suggest anyone taking a Romney victory for granted. And who knows, maybe the Democrats won’t even be all that disappointed if he does win. (He is, after all, Democratic candidate B for 2012.) Even still, I wonder if someone in the upper echelons of political power is considering the consequences if he emerges victorious. What courses of action do the Democrats have planned should they lose the election and what contingencies do the Republicans have planned for response?

Saturday, April 7, 2012

Feast Then Famine

The left has increased its rhetoric about people being denied health care if the Supreme Court overturns the unconstitutional life control law. But apart from this rhetoric being an outright lie (people won’t be denied health care, they just will have an ounce of freedom restored to them), it highlights an important point that conservatives need to remember and emphasize.

Communists and socialists promise a utopia if society gives in to them. And while they may seem to fulfill their promises in the immediacy (“See? Now everyone is covered by health care!”), in the long term they always fail.

A great example of this is how the socialist utopia of the United Kingdom is starving those children it has been able to ensnare into the socialist system. The Guardian story, “Pupils going hungry as school meals shrink, teachers warn” tries to blame the failure on outsourcing to private firms, but it cannot obscure the truth: when the state takes over so that all can be cared for, the long term effect is that all will suffer (with the exception of the bureaucrats who rule).

The same will be true when universal life control becomes ingrained in the U.S.: everyone will seemingly have “free” health care at first, but as time wears on it will become clear that all will be equally enslaved in a life control system that will deem who lives and who dies . . . all, of course, except for the bureaucrats who rule over us.

Friday, April 6, 2012

An Amusing Moment from the Bigots of Pennsylvania

The Patriot-News reported on bigots assembling in Carlisle, PA and Harrisburg, PA for “hoodie marches” that will exploit the death of Trayvon Martin and contribute to the racial hysteria sweeping the country by the now discredited civil rights movement.

I was going to write about this and compare it to all the other bigoted nonsense being perpetuated by the professional racists throughout the nation. But after I read this comment by “robo80” (April 03, 2012 at 6:32PM) in the Comments section of, “Rep. Thaddeus Kirkland organizes ‘Hoodie on the Hill’ event to call for justice in Trayvon Martin case,” I decided that I had to forgo that plan:

He looks like the love child of Donovan McNabb and Stanly from the Office (in that picture).
Look at Kirkland’s photo and see what “robo80” is saying. That humorous observation is a better than anything I could have written on this subject at the moment.

Harrisburg Bigots Say Blacks, Other Minorities Too Stupid to Get an ID

Conservatives advocate for voter ID because we want fair elections. We are against the election theft racket that is an integral part of the Democrat-Media complex, and that is threatening this nation. And because we are for law and order, the Democrat-Media complex and their leftist allies label us as “racists” and other nasty names. And it is this utter contempt for truth and any desire for understanding that informs my headline, my following column, and how I will address the left from now on in regards to this matter.

The Patriot-News published, “Harrisburg-area religious leaders say voter ID law will hinder poor, racial minorities.” The article states:

In a meeting Monday with The Patriot-News editorial board, a group of local religious leaders that included African-Americans and whites said the voter ID laws are part of a national agenda pursued by Republicans to suppress voting by racial minorities and the poor. 
“We firmly believe a lot of what is happening with the voter ID will set us back five decades or more,” said A.E. Sullivan Jr., president of the Interdenominational Ministers Conference of Greater Harrisburg.
I firmly believe in honest elections and not in bigots who think that doing the right thing is racist. I also believe that bigots who think that the poor, blacks, the old, and other so-called minorities are unable to get an ID should be publicly shamed and reprimanded for essentially saying that the poor, blacks, the old, and other so-called minorities are too stupid to be able to get an ID.

I personally know that the accusations of the Harrisburg bigots are untrue as I moved to Pennsylvania after I returned from Iraq in 2010. I had to go through the steps named in the story to get an ID and I honestly don’t consider myself to be superior to the next person. These so-called local leaders, aided by The Patriot-News and its sympathetic coverage of them, are bigots who are working to perpetuate the Democrat-Media complex’s election theft industry by slandering Republicans and conservatives. I have nothing but contempt for them.

I Thought We Weren’t Supposed to Worry about the Social Issues?

Pundits from the left and Right repeatedly insist that we aren’t supposed to worry about the so-called social issues. They claim that they are a distraction and that they’re a losing issue for conservatives.

So why am I still hearing about how we have to do something about Joseph Kony? He isn’t a threat to the United States and likely isn’t much of a threat to anyone else anymore. So why the clamor? (Especially since the U.S. already is in Uganda, supposedly assisting it with capturing or killing Kony.) But why is the U.S. doing this in the first place? What responsibility is it of ours?

You may ask how Kony and our war against him relate to the so-called social issues. Simple. The Kony 2012 video (and now its sequel) are all about highlighting Kony and the atrocities he is alleged to have committed against children—including using them to fight wars. Thus, the outrage generated at Kony stems from the alleged abuse and killing of children. And as we all know, whenever conservatives bring up the U.S. atrocity of murdering millions of children through abortion, we are told to shut up and that we are primitives who want to restrict freedom. Therefore, I want to know why I am supposed to be outraged at the atrocities that Kony allegedly has done.

I’ve lived with the institutionalized slaughter of children in America all my life and I’m constantly told to drop any outrage I have at this. So if anyone thinks I’m going to become outraged at Kony because of his alleged atrocities against children, he is wrong. If anyone thinks I’m going to demand more waste of American blood and treasure to go after a guy who is not a threat to the U.S., who likely isn’t a threat to Ugandans any longer, and who already may be dead, again, he is wrong.

Furthermore, I demand to know why both the left and Right aren’t loudly condemning this hysteria about Kony—a hysteria about a “social issue”—when we have so many “real” and “important” things to address.

Thursday, April 5, 2012

Amnesty Advocates for Pussy Riot

Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) ran a story the other day with the following headline, “Amnesty Calls For Release of Pussy Riot Members.”

The story describes Pussy Riot as a female punk group and reports that:

The three were detained shortly after members of the group stormed a church in Moscow on February 21 and performed a song criticizing what they see as the Orthodox Church’s support of Prime Minister and president-elect Vladimir Putin.

RFE/RL continues:
The three admit to being members of the larger group, but deny taking part in the action at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior.
Amnesty said even if they did take part, Russia’s response -- including a possible seven year jail sentence for hooliganism -- was not “a justifiable response to the peaceful -- if , to many, offensive -- expression of their political beliefs.”
Assuming the facts are correct (and that is a big assumption), I have no sympathy for the accused who acted in an Occupy-like fashion. Yet Amnesty International sees a need to call for their release. I (generally) have no time for so-called human-rights organizations. I see them (again, generally) as advocates for terrorists, criminals, and anarchists—the true victims don’t concern them. The world would be better off if these NGOs / NPOs simply disbanded.

Muslims Playing the Victim as a Weapon

The York Daily Record (York, PA) recently ran a story called, “Workplace discrimination claims from Muslims spike in York County.” I read it and immediately thought of the news about Shaima Alawadi. I’ll explain why in just a bit. First, here’s a bit of information about Alawadi.

You might not have heard about Shaima Alawadi and maybe you never will. But if you do, it’s because the legacy media will use her to fan the flames of anti-American and anti-Christian hatred.

The Guardian (UK) published an entirely irresponsible story on the death of Shaima Alawadi (“Savage killing of Iraqi woman in California investigated as hate crime”), complete with reliance on quotes from the disreputable Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), insinuations on the non-existent “Islamophobia” in the U.S., and an utterly despicable attempt to link Alawadi’s death to the Trayvon Martin killing. In short, The Guardian’s story is complete disinformation.

The discovery of the disinformation produced about George Zimmerman may have caused the rest of the Democrat-Media complex to hold back somewhat on Alawadi’s death. They may be frightened that the truth about her death won’t fit their narrative, causing them to be disappointed yet again, and forcing them to continue searching for “Islamophobia” and a “Christian extremist” threat elsewhere. But rest assured, if authorities do determine that someone murdered Alawadi for the “right” reasons, leftists will exploit her death for all they can, using the “hate crime” to attack conservatives and intimidate us further.

Where’s the Outrage Over U.S. Deaths in Afghanistan?

Forget about the crisis of Afghanis slaughtering U.S. Troops for a moment. Forget about the overall problems with the stated U.S. strategy in Afghanistan for a moment. And forget about the fact that war always causes deaths and other casualties for a moment. Instead view the following paragraphs in light of the way the media behaved when George W. Bush was president.

CNSNews.com reports that, “Afghan Forces Have Killed 7 U.S. Troops This Year; 69% of Afghan War Casualties Have Come in Obama’s 3 Years.” Where is the legacy media outrage over this? And where is the mainstream Democrat outrage over this? Where is the daily hysteria? Where are all the condemnations of U.S. leaders? And where are the calls for prosecutions (and worse) of U.S. leaders? The silence and hypocrisy is astounding. I utterly resent the Democrat-Media complex because of their abandonment of their First Amendment duties, and their outright contempt and hatred for foundational America.

But while I have long resented and held in contempt the Democrat-Media complex, I am growing increasingly resentful of conservatives and other non-leftists who interact with the media for any other purpose than to expose them for the frauds they are, and to defeat them.

How much longer conservatives can continue viewing the Democrat-Media complex for anything other than the enemies they truly are?

Political Speech and U.S. Troops, Part II

I recently wrote about the seeming double standard that the U.S. has for some Troops over others. The good news is that I’m not the only one who is concerned with this.

Marine veteran and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) wrote a letter to the Marine Corps requesting that it stop the discharge of Gary Stein (the Marine who expressed his opinions regarding the President online).

Rep. Hunter’s letter specifically states:
As you are well aware, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued Directive Number 1344.10 regarding First Amendment rights to speech and other activities. However, this policy is both vague and contradictory in the context of new “social media.” In fact, nothing in the directive actually mentions social media and what activity is or is not approved for active duty servicemembers.
I can vouch from an Army perspective that military guidelines on free speech and Servicemen are vague and contradictory at best. Furthermore, enforcement of any such rules seems arbitrary. Consider the Soldier the Army punished for appearing on stage at a Ron Paul rally. It’s true that the Army could cite the following portion (Section 1-10) of AR 670-1 (“Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia”) to back its decision:

Friday, March 30, 2012

Political Speech and U.S. Troops

U.S. Troops have been getting in trouble for political speech during the past few months. First, there was the Soldier who appeared on stage in uniform at a Ron Paul rally. Then, a Marine got in trouble for his opinions.

It’s interesting how things change in just a few years. You see, a few years back U.S. Muslim soldier Nasser Abdo appeared on Al-Jazeera TV (in full uniform) to denounce the U.S. Abdo never got in trouble for doing this; he only got in trouble after the government allegedly found him in possession of child porn and later still after he allegedly planned to massacre U.S. Troops a la Nidal Hasan.



On or about the same time, U.S. Muslim soldier Zachari Klawonn went on Al-Jazeera TV (in full uniform) to denounce the U.S.




Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Welfare = Slavery

Conservatives get nervous when someone on our side makes a comparison of something being like slavery. But there’s nothing wrong with doing so when the comparison is correct. Hence, the welfare state we’ve become is modern-day slavery.

But since we have so restricted ourselves with adherence to political correctness (despite our wailings and writings against PC) most of us can only acknowledge this truth when it is pointed out by the correct (i.e. non-white) people. So it’s refreshing when someone like Walter E. Williams makes note of this truth on repeated occasions.

But it’s even more refreshing when an enemy, during a moment of smugness, outright states the same and does so in such a clear manner.

Mark Steyn noted such a moment while filling in as host of The Rush Limbaugh Show on April 28, 2011. He pointed to a story in The Telegraph and cited the following quote:

As the group accused the Royal Family of being responsible for war crimes, onlookers shouted: “You’re all on benefits anyway” and “Long live the Queen”.

One of the Muslims retorted: “You paid for this camera, you pay for my benefits, you’re basically my slave.”

The Muslim is exactly right. Welfare and wealth redistribution are slavery. And none of us should hesitate to say so.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Sandra Fluke vs. Gianna Jessen

** Adapted from a Column Previously Published at WND **

Conservatives have long noted the truism that whatever the Democrat-Media complex accuses us of being guilty, the opposite is true (and to a much worse degree). This is especially true in the Democrat-Media complex attack on Rush Limbaugh for his standing up to Sandra Fluke’s attempt to quash freedom. The Democrat-Media complex claims that Limbaugh is an example of conservatives’ “War on Women.” This accusation immediately informs us that the Democrat-Media complex actually is warring on women. And we can see a great example of the Democrat-Media complex War on Women by looking at the case of Gianna Jessen.

Jill Stanek followed the story of Gianna Jessen during the 2008 presidential campaign. Jessen is a woman whose mother aborted her at birth. (And the recent film, October Baby, is in part inspired by her story.) Jessen managed to survive the abortion but it left her with cerebral palsy. As one might imagine, the murder attempt had a profound impact on her life.

So Jessen participated in an advertisement during the 2008 campaign, explaining then Senator Obama’s position on human life. This ad garnered national attention, with the left becoming furious with her for having the audacity to defy their sacrament of abortion and then to speak out against it. Her insolence could not go unpunished and so they swore revenge on this private citizen . . . just like they swore revenge on private citizen Joe Wurzelbacher.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Fluke vs. Freedom: A Pattern of Leftist Intimidation and Subversion

So there’s this story of a woman who despises the Catholic Church and Christianity. Yet she decided to take part in a Catholic institution and after she did, she intentionally undermined it and demonized it because it wouldn’t adhere to her decidedly un-Catholic behavior. And then she demanded that authorities act on her wishes and they consented.

Sound familiar? It’s the Sandra Fluke story. Right? Well, yes. But it’s also the story of sodomite Barbara Johnson.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Voter Fraud and What It Truly Means

Everyone knows that voter fraud means disenfranchisement. Not everyone admits this, but everyone knows it.

But voter fraud doesn’t just disenfranchise voters during individual elections. It has over time affected the core of our nation and become one of the great contributors to our current downward trajectory.

The forces that favor voter fraud don’t just want to win individual elections—they want to change the electorate. They accomplish this by breaking immigration laws and having America invaded, occupied, and taken over by a people who more eagerly accept their agenda and share their disdain for the foundational United States.

Disarmed Marines: Leaders Distrust Afghan, Not U.S. Troops

** Originally Published at Big Peace on March 16, 2012 **

Media outlets have reported that military leaders ordered Troops in Afghanistan to disarm prior to attending a speech by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

Some have analyzed this as meaning that the Department of Defense doesn’t trust its own Troops. I disagree.

The real reason for the order to disarm U.S. Troops in a war zone likely comes from what Fox News and other sources have reported:
The official said the decision was made out of respect for troops from other countries, such as the Afghans, who are never allowed to bring guns into an event. It was not a request from Panetta or his security team, the official said.

If all this is true then it is very revealing for multiple reasons, some of which others have already noted.

However, I haven’t seen anyone note this reason: It now appears that while our top leaders continue publicly stating that the Afghanis are our trusted allies, privately they do not believe the same.

In other words, we continue partnering our Troops with fully armed Afghanis and are willing to risk their lives as part of achieving our mission. At the same time, we apparently do not allow armed Afghanis to be in the presence of important U.S. personnel.

I have no comment on this and am merely noting what message this story apparently sends if it is true. However, Big Peace readers are welcome to comment if they would like to do so.

Monday, January 16, 2012

Urinating on Your Enemy versus Negotiating with Him

The media and government officials will continue crying over and denouncing the Marines who videotaped themselves urinating on the enemies they defeated. I just noted other incidents which are not considered urinating on corpses or graves—instances that the media, government officials, and the American People treat as acceptable. I also noted that these Marines, and all other Servicemen who have been prosecuted and imprisoned for killing or attacking the enemy, should be immediately pardoned.

Yet there is another angle at which to view this story; yet another reason to ask why the American People have not become outraged at the anger generated at the Marines.

Both the Associated Press and the Long War Journal have reported that the Taliban have vowed to continue jihad (read: war) even as it negotiates with the U.S. for so-called peace.

I find this amazing. I realize that information reported in the news is subject to verification. Even still, supposing the basic premise is true I am stunned that ten-plus years after September 11 there would come a day when the U.S. would not seek the destruction of the Taliban and victory in Afghanistan, but instead would seek to negotiate with the Taliban for how it is going to leave Afghanistan. You can interpret this how you wish. In fact, some people already have.

I would think that this story of the Taliban vowing not to end jihad and violence even after conducting so-called peace talks with the U.S. would have the nation outraged; not Marines urinating on the enemy that has been killing and maiming Servicemen for the past ten years. Then again, I have long since lost touch with what will outrage people and what won’t.

Pissing on Corpses

The video of U.S. Marines urinating on the corpses of those who have been maiming and killing them for the past ten years following the al Qaeda / Taliban / Iranian attacks of September 11 continues to make the news.

Outrage over this incident has reached feverish pitches in the media and top levels of government. (I’m assuming it will become even worse if it is learned that those depicted in the video did not piss in a direction away from Mecca.) Yet the most disturbing part of this video is that all the outrage over it could have easily been avoided if the men had (instead of urinating on their enemies) sodomized them while they were alive and then killed them. Then, they would have been hailed as heroes and their mission declared an overwhelming success. Their mission would have been declared even more of a success if they could have found the village of the men they killed and installed al Qaeda leadership in the village.

Nevertheless, with this incident serving as an example of how people should not act, I will now list examples of acceptable behavior—examples that aren’t pissing on corpses or graves—so we all can know how we should act with regards to American Troops being at war.

It is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to be the president of Afghanistan and openly say that your country would side with Pakistan in a war against America. We most assuredly know this is true since an American general who criticized this statement and defended his Troops was subsequently punished for doing so.

We also know that it is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to be the president of Afghanistan—someone the U.S. installed and keeps alive with our blood and presence—and demand an end to U.S. night raids, accusing them of being inhumane. Furthermore, it is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to say that the U.S. abuses Afghani prisoners and then demand that the U.S. turns over the prisoners and prison to the Afghanis.


It is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to be a U.S. servicemember and denigrate U.S. Troops as monsters committing war crimes, giving aid and comfort to the enemy during war time. No. In fact, that gets you elected to the U.S. Senate. Furthermore, it is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to denigrate U.S. Troops by saying that they are terrorizing civilians. That nearly gets you elected to the White House.


It is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to be U.S. government representatives who work with a known American anti-American group that works to aid the enemy and kill American Troops. No one cares that you do this and they will in fact continue voting you into office.


It is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to be a Democrat, 20% of whom wanted the U.S. to lose the war in Iraq when President Bush was in office.

It is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to be President of the United States and release terrorists from imprisonment so they can return to the battlefield and maim and kill American Troops again.

It is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave for the government (and by extension, the American People) to care more about the lives of our enemies that its own Troops.

It is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to write a column called, “Fuck the Troops.” Doing so is fine and is nothing to prevent CNN from gushing over how you fooled Scott Walker into thinking you were one of the Koch brothers.

It is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to be part of #OccupyWallStreet and desecrate war memorials. Nor is it pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to be part of the #Occupy insurgency and burn the American flag.

It is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave when it is Afghanis treating Taliban corpses with apparent disrespect; then it is “just their culture.”

It is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave when you support the person accused of betraying state secrets to enemy agents because you believe that he is guilty of doing so (as opposed to believing that he didn’t do it). It’s even acceptable for presidential candidates to support this.

And it is not pissing on anyone’s grave by pardoning terrorists and criminals who have slaughtered American citizens. Nor is it pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to be Rep. Leon Panetta (now Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta) and sign a letter of support for clemency for convicted murderers of FBI agents.

This last paragraph is particularly good news, because now we can all justly expect whoever is the President of the United States to grant full pardons to these Marines (who inevitably will be punished and possibly imprisoned) and all the other Servicemen who currently are rotting in jail for so-called war crimes. After all, if we can pardon and free domestic and foreign terrorists, then surely we can pardon and free those who are imprisoned for killing our enemies . . . on second thought, maybe not.