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.

Monday, April 1, 2013

The DIA and Fashion Advice

The media reported that someone in the DIA gave a presentation on how to look and dress for work. Reportedly, this person included in the presentation some tips for women:
‘Makeup makes you more attractive’ they were told, and the advice included a reminder on the importance of painting fingernails. 
‘A sweater with a skirt is better than a sweater with slacks,’ the presenter recommended, adding ‘no flats.’ 
‘Don’t be a plain Jane,’ attenders were told, in addition to ‘brunettes have more leeway with vibrant colors than blondes or redheads.’
In a civilized and sane world, this would be normal and welcome advice. And therefore the advice was not welcome. The same media reported that the DIA was embarrassed by this:
DIA director Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn also wrote a letter to his staff to apologize for the style advice, which had sexist overtones. 
He called the incident an ‘unnecessary and serious distraction’ and ‘highly offensive.’ 
‘Even smart people do dumb things sometimes. That said, no one is going to be taken to the wood shed over this. They’ll require some counseling (to be sure) on what it means to think before you act.’
Of course, the U.S. military isn’t offended by all dress tips. Such as when it’s telling its female troops to wear hijabs out of deference to Muslims.

And the military and government isn’t always offended by highly offensive things. Such as when the U.S. embassy in Nairobi hosts a sin pride event, or when the U.S. embassy in Pakistan does the same thing. Or when the U.S. government uses foreign aid to promote sin (even as foreign nations tell them how offensive this is). Or when the CIA actively seeks to hire people boasting of practicing sin.

And, of course, no one is offended when the leftist mayor of New York City tells a female sodomite cohort essentially the same thing that the DIA voluntary fashion advice presentation said . . . even if the mayor later denies he said what he is alleged to have said.

But once again, we don’t live in a civilized or sane world any longer.


While Christians and conservatives can’t even bring themselves to forcefully denounce sodomy—or even call it “sodomy”—or even mildly defend what is right—and instead insist that we “drop the social issues” since they are “distractions” and “turn people off to our message,” the left is busy at work waging war on pronouns.

Thus we see who is committed to their cause and who isn’t.

Thus we see who truly is obsessed with the “social issues” and who is willing to surrender on them.

Sunday, March 31, 2013


One of the subversives of the conservative movement is Jimmy LaSalvia, a leader of GOProud.

He is loved by conservatives and Republicans, of course.

And while no Christian could get away with telling a sodomite that he should commit suicide, the same standard is not applied to sodomites telling other sodomites to kill themselves.

Thus, there was no outcry that LaSalvia would appear on fellow sodomite Michelangelo Signorile’s radio show as a guest, only months after Signorile told another sodomite to commit suicide.

Then again, perhaps it is not ironic. Supporting immorality and allowing double standards on the left is the new standard of modern society.

Incest: Something Progressive When Leftists Do It

The Daily Caller published a column of mine back in 2010 called, “Incest: Something ‘progressive’ . . . when ‘conservative, racist hicks’ aren’t imagined doing it”. The editor was not too thrilled about it. I don’t know if any of it was edited but it was eventually published.

But the bottom line is, I was right in what I wrote: CNSNews, March 06, 2013: “Yale Hosts ‘Sex Week’ to Explore ‘Sexual Culture,’ Including Incest and Prostitution.”

Saturday, March 30, 2013

Department of Defense Wonders Why It Has a Professionalism Problem

There are various stories in the press and coming out of official military institutions that talk about military professionalism or state that the military has a professionalism problem.

Yet before the DOD repealed morality from the armed forces and sodomized our troops, and even to this day, it bragged about how it ignored the law that banned sodomites from being in the armed forces and thus subverting our defense.

“Gay colonel recalls ‘don’t ask’ investigation” ran this month in The Army Times (a huge cheerleader for sodomizing the armed forces) and it tells of how even when the DOD found out that one of its senior leaders was a sodomite they ignored it. And now he draws a retirement pension.

And the DOD wonders why is has a professionalism problem.


TIME Magazine has published an openly communist article called, “Marx’s Revenge: How Class Struggle Is Shaping the World.”

Also of interesting note: the article is ostensibly written by Michael Schuman yet at the end it states, “With reporting by Bruce Crumley / Paris; Chengcheng Jiang / Beijing; Shan-shan Wang / Shenzhen”.

Two “reporters” from communist China contributed to this propaganda? Interesting.

Friday, March 29, 2013

“Banning Birth Control” vs. Actually Banning Constitutionally Protected Rights

Republicans and conservatives still feel the need to defend against the baseless accusation that they’re “waging a war on women” just as they felt the need to defend against the baseless accusation that they wanted to “ban birth control” during the 2012 election.

At the same time, the Democrats and leftists don’t have to defend themselves at all from their actual attempts to ban the constitutionally protected right of the Second Amendment, as well as other basic rights.

In fact, the Democrats and leftists say that those who rightly identify their attempts to ban basic rights are lying and the people believe them . . . and at other times they say they have a right to infringe on your freedom, and the people have no problem with this either.

This is what has become of our culture.

U.S. Troops Continue Facing Threat of Prosecution from Rules of Engagement

The Associated Press published a story on March 11 describing an insider attack in Afghanistan which resulted in the deaths of two U.S. troops.

The same AP story included information about a separate incident where U.S. troops in a convoy used lethal force to defend themselves.

The AP contacted U.S. spokesman Jamie Graybeal about that incident. “‘The convoy took appropriate measures to protect themselves and engaged the vehicle killing two individuals and injuring one,’ Graybeal said in an email. He said an assessment is under way,” the AP repoted.

However, the next paragraph in the AP story said that, “Associated Press video shows a U.S. major cursing at one of his soldiers and slapping him over the head with his cap as Afghans pulled dead bodies from the truck. In the video, the major appears to be upbraiding the soldier for not using a laser warning device to signal the approaching truck.”

This shows that even as an initial account from an Army spokesman indicates that U.S. troops took appropriate measures to protect themselves, a senior Army officer apparently berated them for doing so.

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Plans for Women in Combat Foretell New Problems for U.S. Armed Forces

The Department of Defense (DOD) is moving forward with plans to place women into combat military occupational specialties (MOS).

And these plans show that the U.S. armed forces will face a whole new slew of problems and degraded readiness.

The Soldiers magazine website published, “Women in combat: Education, leadership keys to success,” on March 15. Soldiers is the official U.S. Army magazine.

This article quoted Army Women’s Health Task Force chairperson, Colonel Anne Naclerio, who spoke on a study the Army conducted on female soldiers.

“‘We found that many of the women downrange didn’t know about urinary diversion devices — they called them FUDDs, female urinary diversion devices — and . . . they would withhold urine, try not to drink as much, try not to have to go to the bathroom. And by doing so, maybe they predisposed themselves to poor health,’ Naclerio said.”

This reveals that when complications arise from the physical differences between men and women the Army will respond that it needs to change, not that women are not suitable for combat.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Rand Paul and Militarizing U.S. Soil

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) filibustered in the Senate until the Obama administration provided an explicit statement that the U.S. government does not have the right to assassinate (with an unmanned aerial systems—UAS) a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil when that person is not deemed to pose an imminent threat to anyone’s life or physical safety.

Senator Paul’s victory garnered some support for his action. Yet he gained criticism as well—and not just from the political left.

Senators McCain and Graham criticized Senator Paul’s arguments. Former federal prosecutor and conservative pundit Andrew McCarthy also criticized his arguments.

But concerns about the safety of law-abiding U.S. citizens on U.S. soil have not come merely from the use of UAS and assassinating U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

Saturday, February 9, 2013

Everything from the Left Is a Lie

The American Spectator published a post on how the Boy Scouts are considering surrendering to those who have hated it and tried to destroy it. As people commented on it, one person wrote the following:

RCV| 1.28.13 @ 4:42PM 
Scouting was started by Lord Baden-Powell .... who was gay.

This is a lie that the left often uses—call someone a sodomite who wasn’t, and then back up that assertion with comments about him having close relationships with men although there is no evidence that those relationships were sexual. (Just like leftists do with Lincoln.) And for some reason, the right accepts that it is okay for leftists to allege that someone engaged in evil without any evidence. (That is, the right accepts that it is okay for leftists to make these false allegations even if they disagree with them; the right doesn’t demand that leftists be expunged from “polite” society.)

At the same time, if I allege that Obama is a sodomite—and cite contemporary evidence which actually could be investigated for validity—I would be condemned as being “mean-spirited” and “damaging” to the right because of my “shrill and baseless accusations,” and the contemporary evidence wouldn’t only go un-investigated, it would be buried and anyone who seriously attempts to verify it would be mocked.

Everything about the left is a lie and yet the right refuses to acknowledge this and force the issue.

Friday, February 8, 2013

How Conservatives Committed Suicide By Denigrating the “Social Issues”: Part I

Conservatives are desperately trying to defend the Second Amendment and other natural rights, saying that we aren’t responsible for the Newtown deaths.

At the same time the left makes abortion ever more sacrosanct and a so-called human right. And it proudly implements other tenets of its murder agenda as well (reducing the global population, enacting death panels, promoting infanticide, etc.).

In other words, conservatives have bought the premise that we need to defend ourselves from charges that we are murderers when we had nothing to do with Newtown, and even as it is we who defends life while the left has made murder a central part of who it is.

This inability to identify and promote the truth is characteristic of the subverted mindset of conservatives, and shows how the conservative decision to denigrate those who stand up for the so-called social issues has contributed to its very public suicide.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Cutting Law-abiding Servicemen While Reinstating Law-breaking Ones

The news that the Defense Department will reduce its combat readiness and uniformed services by tens of thousands over the next few years (the Army alone may cut its active duty force by 70,000 – 80,000 Soldiers) is old news.

And it’s old news that tens of thousands of Servicemen who have fought in the various wars of the U.S. over the past ten years will be separated (voluntarily and involuntarily) sooner than they had planned. The Defense Department is unapologetic about this. The Army Times reported that the Sergeant Major of the Army (the top enlisted Soldier in the nation) had essentially said that he only wants to keep the best Soldiers.

I found the decision to cut the Armed Forces cynical in light of what the anti-morality forces told us before they repealed morality (read: DADT) from the Armed Forces. They told us that we had to stop removing sodomites from the Armed Forces because we desperately needed their skills during two (actually more) wars. Looks like we were chumps.

But I find the decision to cut the Armed Services even more cynical now that I witness leftist activists working with the Department of Defense to give sodomites preferential treatment—including those who broke the law when same-sex relations were illegal.

Obama Only Supports Some of the Men and Women Who Wear the Uniform of the United States

Last year, the President of the United States accused Republican audiences of booing ‘gay’ soldiers. People disputed that accusation and others noted that even if it did occur, Republicans and conservatives shouldn’t apologize for it since we don’t accept the premises that the left sets:

Nevertheless, Republican candidates and pundits quickly said that they should have stood up for the sodomite soldier. The Army Times also covered Obama’s remarks on the incident:

“You want to be commander in chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it’s not politically convenient,” Obama said during remarks at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights organization.

Flash forward to the present day when Obama and Biden welcomed anti-American entertainer PSY. PSY wished a slow and painful death on American Troops and their families.

The rampant hypocrisy doesn’t matter, though. Even had PSY not issued a non-apology apology on his anti-American ways, the fact is, no one cares when someone rages against non-sodomite Troops.

Therefore, while Obama claims that the commander-in-chief has an obligation to stand up for all the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States—“even when it’s not politically convenient”—he actually only believes in supporting sodomites and other certain individuals within the Armed Forces.


Susan G. Komen-ing the Boy Scouts

Donations to both the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Charity and Planned Parenthood reportedly increased in an approximately 72-hour period last year after Komen announced that it intended to reduce funding of Planned Parenthood. That announcement was quickly rescinded because the left quickly denounced Komen for considering reducing the amount of money it would give to Big Abortion (even as the planned decision had nothing to do with abortion).

And while many people have covered just how ugly this leftist attack was, no one noticed a critical part of this important leftist victory: they succeeded in getting conservatives to fund their cause.

While it is likely impossible to say for sure who was responsible for the reported increase in donations to Komen during the approximately 72 hours last year, it is reasonable to assume that conservatives would have been largely responsible for it.

And if that was indeed the case, the end result of the fiasco was that not only did the left haul Komen back to Big Abortion, but it gained access to all the money that conservatives had donated to Komen during that brief time.

In other words, by Komen momentarily appearing to have changed to a position that was seemingly suitable to conservatives, the left was able to get conservatives to fund one of its own groups.

The left will use this tactic (or a variation of it) successfully in the future. The Boy Scouts of America might be the next notable victim of a variation on this tactic.

Monday, January 14, 2013

Leftists Reveal That They Would Be Brutal in War against Americans, Unlike against Foreign Terrorists

After over a decade at war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other parts of the world we have refused to defeat our primitive enemy despite our overwhelming military superiority, including nuclear weapons. In fact, our primitive enemy has defeated us with mere guns and other small arms.

Yet as the left continues with its jihad to confiscate our firearms, it persists in insisting that the Second Amendment is obsolete, and that our firearms wouldn’t allow us to protect ourselves from a tyrannical U.S. government which has nuclear weapons and other advanced weaponry.

So what leftists apparently are saying is that while they successfully ensured American defeat against Islamic, foreign terrorists (armed only with rudimentary weapons) by insisting that we fight a “humane” war (no nuclear weapons, restrictive rules of engagement, submission to our enemies’ culture, etc.), they expect that no such quarter will be given to us.

Leftists will wage total war against us if given the opportunity. This is telling and shows just how evil our leftist enemies are.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Leftist Subversion Tactic

Mike Adams wrote a column last month called, “A Queer Need for Rejection.” In it he wrote:

But homosexual politics is not about logic. It is about end results. Activists need to be subjected to ‘discrimination’ in order to advance their cause. So they join conservative Christian groups they do not like, engage in advocacy they know offends and disrupts the group, get kicked out of the group, and then claim to have been discriminated against. Finally, they lobby for stronger anti-discrimination rules that put them on a par with blacks and women. . . .
. . . After they join the group they don’t want to be in – and deny the stated principles of the group they never agreed with – the unable-to-coexist homosexual activist goes to the administration with a complaint. When the Christian group is expelled from campus under the anti-discrimination clause people ask ‘Why did the Christian group have to expel the homosexual?’ Stated another way, the question becomes ‘Why can’t Christians coexist with homosexuals?’
In the end, the homosexual activist has made the group whose very existence he refuses to tolerate look intolerant. Another public relations victory!

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Attacking the State Department and Rice

Partisan voices attacked the State Department and a black, female, U.S. government official by the name of Rice regarding a State Department incident involving a “death sentence” for State employees forced to work overseas.

A political party, its pundits, and its supporters then cheered these partisan voices.

Only this story didn’t happen in 2012 over the attack on the State Department installation in Benghazi, Libya, resulting in the deaths of four Americans.

Instead, this story happened in 2007 over the announcement that the State Department would possibly require some of its employees to do their job in Baghdad, Iraq.

And the black, female, U.S. government official named “Rice” was then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and not U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice.

Furthermore, the partisan voices in 2007 were attacking a Republican administration.