Foreign and Domestic Intelligencer

Urinating on Your Enemy versus Negotiating with Him

2012-01-16T12:41:00.000-05:00

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

2012-01-16T12:32:00.000-05:00

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 when the vice president of the United States says (and the Afghani president agrees) that the Taliban is not the enemy of the United States (per se).

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 Jane Fonda and outright side with the enemy in the enemy nation where American Troops are being held prisoner of war.

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 the Chief of Staff of the Army and say that diversity becoming a casualty would be a greater tragedy than a Muslim slaughtering Troops and U.S. citizens at Fort Hood.

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.

Bill Ayers and Occupy Harrisburg: Debate Is Done

2011-12-16T14:24:00.002-05:00

Bill Ayers speaking to a crowd at the Midtown Scholar Bookstore in Harrisburg, PA on December 14, 2011. Occupy Harrisburg invited Ayers to speak. Photograph © Paul Hair, 2011.

This is the second time I have covered Occupy Harrisburg.

Bill Ayers spoke at the Midtown Scholar Bookstore in Harrisburg, PA on December 14 at the invitation of the militant Occupy Harrisburg. I estimated between 100 and 200 people attended the event.

Eric Papenfuse owns the Midtown Scholar Bookstore. Papenfuse, a former public school teacher, previously invited Ayers to speak in south-central Pennsylvania in 2010. He wrote an OP-ED explaining why he did so and The Patriot-News published it, revealing his radical, anti-capitalist views.

I summarize the night in a list of bullet points in the following section but I don’t go into extremely thorough commentary because there is a bigger point here than Bill Ayers and Occupy Harrisburg.

One final note: I break this document into two parts: the first part contains the summarization of the event. The second part is where I discuss the bigger point than Bill Ayers and the anti-free-market Occupy Harrisburg. Those who wish for a shorter read may only wish to read the first part.

PART I:

Event Summary:

Ayers said he has been to about 14 Occupy events. This admission helps to unravel the narrative that the Occupy insurgency is some sort of grassroots movement of people who are disadvantaged and who have had their wealth stolen. The Occupy insurgency is well-funded and being led and/or supported by hardcore, powerful leftists. (See “Corporate Collaborators” by Mark Steyn, “The Rich Are Not Conservative” by Bruce Walker, and “Meet the Staff of Occupy Wall Street’s Downtown Manhattan Offices” by Lachlan Markay for additional consideration.)
I found Ayers far less articulate and convincing that I had expected he would be—certainly far less than John Luciew of The Patriot-News found him when he wrote his glowing puff piece on Ayers and his appearance at Dickinson College in nearby Carlisle during February 2011. The so-called facts that Ayers presented were clearly false and his rhetoric amusingly immature.
The mainstream media, the Democrats, and Barack Obama supposedly aren’t leftist enough for Bill Ayers, Occupy Harrisburg, and other hard leftists. This isn’t a surprising revelation to anyone who has any knowledge of leftists—they are, after all, never satisfied no matter how much they get. However, while Ayers repeatedly complained of the mainstream media (even citing institutions such as NPR, The New York Times, etc. by name), the Democratic Party, and the president as not being leftist enough and as being part of the problem, I don’t think he truly believes that.

I don’t doubt that Ayers would like a more communist nation than what we already have. Yet I also don’t think he views the mainstream media, the Democrats, and the president with as much contempt as he displays. I think it is an act. If one understands Ayers and his comrades, and understands that their goal simply is to destroy the system so as to create a power vacuum into which they and the other communists can fill (see the Cloward-Piven strategy, or the Muslim Brotherhood and the Arab Spring), then one understands that it is advantageous to them all to encourage hatred of whomever holds national power. In other words, they want to collapse the national government in order to fulfill their revolution. And so it suits Ayers and the other communists’ purpose to say that the mainstream media, the Democrats, and the president aren’t leftist enough.

What furthers my belief that this is the case is the fact that a “William Ayers” has been seen on White House dumps of visitor logs. There is no way to “prove” that the “William Ayers” on the logs are indeed Bill Ayers, but it’s too big of a coincidence to think otherwise. (See what Andrew Breitbart had to say about “false positives” in the White House visitor logs.)

So while Ayers publicly disparages the mainstream media, the Democrats, and the president, in truth he very much allies with them.
Ayers and the Occupy insurgency openly associate with the Arab Spring and their revolutions which overthrew their national governments. Ayers mentioned how he had worked with the Egyptians who eventually helped overthrow the Egyptian government. I realize that this is not new information but it further demonstrates just how close the ties of these revolutionaries are.
Ayers and the Occupy insurgency promoted every leftist cliché possible (the U.S. persecutes sodomites and they don’t have equal rights; communism might not have worked in the Soviet Union, China, and elsewhere but that’s just because it wasn’t done right—meanwhile, capitalism has proved that it is a failure and cannot succeed no matter what; anarchy is a legitimate political philosophy; suburbia is bad; the U.S. Armed Forces are evil; the U.S. should eliminate the DOD; the U.S. should eliminate all prisons, etc.).
Ayers lies easily. Case in point: he repeated the oft-told lie that the poor are unjustly drawn to serve in the Armed Forces. So while he claims (when asked) that he agrees that the communism that the Soviet Union and China tried failed, I doubt he really believes that. I believe that he would eagerly embrace a Soviet Union in America and that he only doesn’t admit so now because he feels it is advantageous for him not to do so.

The Midtown Scholar Bookstore in Harrisburg, PA, located at the intersection of 3^rd Street and Verbeke Street. Photograph © Paul Hair, 2011.

PART II:

Bill Ayers Is Mainstream:

I mentioned at the start of this piece that there was a bigger point to the night than Bill Ayers and Occupy Harrisburg. And here it is: America has generally accepted Bill Ayers as an upstanding member of society; he no longer is recognized as an extremist. In short, he is the mainstream. America and the American People are not what they once were.

Read what Mike Adams wrote in, “Judging Mrs. White,” or the transcript and referenced links from a segment of The Rush Limbaugh Show on April 05, 2010 entitled, “Is It Conservatism’s Finest Hour?” for other perspectives on how much America and its People have changed. (I particularly recommend, “Uplifting,” by April Gavaza and “Paul Rahe’s America doesn’t exist anymore” by Kathy Shaidle—both referenced in Rush’s transcript.)

Debate Is Done:

Ayers being mainstream reveals that debate is done. The left has used “debate” to distract conservatives and other non-leftists from doing anything useful and to instead spend our time endlessly writing (such as I am doing now) and appearing on TV to defend our very existence. Meanwhile, the left has spent decades implementing its goals into public policies and social acceptance, and it continues doing so ruthlessly and without apology. That’s why Bill Ayers is mainstream. The left doesn’t apologize for what it believes and what it does. Immorality and murder are perfectly fine with leftists if they advance their goal. Thus, Ayers is a good guy to them and they’re not even going to “debate” that point—they are simply going to force the public to accept it. In fact, that is why Ayers is a “martyr” to them when someone opposes him. (Meanwhile, the Right can’t even make martyrs out of the people Ayers murdered. This shows the heart of the problem: the left is passionate; the Right is not.)

Writing and appearing on TV are fine and serve a purpose, but if that’s all conservatives and other non-leftists do—if we don’t actually start implementing our goals into public policies and social acceptance—then there is zero chance of us ever reversing what now is our disastrous defeat. Here are examples of what I mean when I say that debate is done and that the left has simply implemented its agenda as public policies and social acceptance.

EXAMPLE 1: Murder Is a Virtue—Life Can Even Be Morally Wrong:

We aren’t really debating abortion and other murder in our society. We have legalized abortion and turned it into “Respectable Baby Killing.” And we’re legitimizing and legalizing other murders too. Thus, we write books about how we killed our parents. And we will defend these murders at all costs.

Remember how, earlier in 2011, the nation demonized Republicans and those who were willing to shut down the government in order to save the nation from death by bankruptcy? That was simply calculated political rhetoric that leftists knew would cause the Republicans to cave and give them what they wanted. Of course, when it comes to shutting down the government in order to preserve abortion, leftists have no problems in doing so. In fact, the left is willing to shut down the government and destroy everything if it means protecting abortion. Hence, we get stories like the following:

“Reid: Planned Parenthood Matters More Than the Troops,” Human Events, April 08, 2011
“Pelosi: ‘Women Can Die On The Floor’ If GOP Stops Obamacare Abortion Funding,” CNSNews, October 13, 2011
“Obama Defends Planned Parenthood Funding; Says GOP Wants to ‘Turn Back the Clock’ for Women,” CNSNews, November 10, 2011

Indeed, those who murder and promote murder are “heroes” and praised in our society; the only thing we’re “debating” with regards to legalized murder is whether we should tolerate “backwards” people who oppose it. And while conservatives and other non-leftists “debate” whether we should be silenced, the left has moved on to implementing new public policy and social change on the matter: now our nation believes that life itself can be morally wrong. Thus, we have established in law that there is such a thing as a “wrongful birth,” and those who are “victims” of wrongful births are entitled to millions of dollars in compensation. (See, “Couple who would have aborted disabled son awarded $4.5 million for ‘wrongful birth’,” for example)

EXAMPLE 2: Using the Lie of Global Warming to Implement Worldwide Communism Is a Virtue:

Global warming / global climate change is a lie—a hoax created in order to redistribute wealth and implement global communism. Yet the left moves forward with this and denounces those of us who point out the truth. And not only have conservatives and non-leftists refused to put an end to the nonsense and reverse all the communism implemented by it, the left is moving yet further ahead with even worse tyranny. Thus, by January 2012, the 100-watt light bulb will become illegal to sell. We have made light bulbs political—it now is “controversial” to support incandescent light bulbs. I cannot put into words the full stupidity of this. And yet conservatives and other non-leftists still don’t have the guts to reverse this regression brought on by the self-proclaimed progressives.

EXAMPLE 3: Health Care Is a Right:

We have universal health care—the government now decides who lives, who dies, and who gets what. You can dispute what I just wrote and claim that it hasn’t been fully implemented yet but the fact remains that the left has made their agenda into official policy. And leftists did it by saying that, “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.” This once again shows that while conservatives and other non-leftists are “debating” as to why universal health care (better termed, universal life control) is wrong, the left laughs at us all the while successfully focusing on moving public policy and social acceptance beyond this.

EXAMPLE 4: Immorality Is Morality; Morality Is Immorality:

The “debate” over sodomy is over. We have implemented it in our Armed Forces and we have made it a top public policy priority that is promoted at the highest levels of our government.

EXAMPLE 5: Law Is Immoral; Lawlessness Is Moral:

I am a “bigoted, xenophobic” pariah worthy of condemnation for saying that I want the law followed, and millions of illegal aliens deported from my nation. Yet Jose Antonio Vargas can boast of breaking the law and being an illegal alien and still not be deported for it. Our government outright ignores the law and national security. Worse still, our government outright boasts of breaking the law to advance the leftist agenda—to make it public policy. In the words of Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.):

“We had a president of the United States that recently was speaking at National Council of La Raza who said during his speech, ‘There are those who simply wish me to bypass Congress when it comes to immigration,’ and many in the audience clapped, saying, ‘Yup, bypass Congress…’” Gutierrez told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI) conference on Monday.

“He (Obama) said, ‘But I can’t bypass Congress,’ and people in the audience said, ‘Yes you can,’ and you want to know something? They were right -- he could and he did, and I want to thank the President of the United States, and I want to thank all of those that work at the White House for issuing new guidance when it comes to deportations,” Gutierrez added.

See? We’re not debating the issue of the illegal alien invasion and occupation, or law and order; the left is implementing its lawlessness as public policy. Yet conservatives and other non-leftists refuse to do the same.

Ryan James Girdusky wrote, “If President Obama Can Ignore Immigration Law, President Bachmann Can Ignore Abortion Law,” on August 26, 2011 at Townhall. And while his column title is exactly right, who actually thinks a President Bachmann or any other non-leftist president would indeed do that? They wouldn’t . . . because conservatives and other non-leftists don’t ever move our agenda forward or make it public policy; we simply “debate” it.

EXAMPLE 6: Food Is Evil; Raping and Mutilating Children Is a Virtue:

Leftists have been so successful with distracting conservatives and other non-leftists with the idea of “debate” while they change society that they have implemented their agenda on food, sex, and children as public policy and social acceptance.

After I read, “Recommended New York sex ed site offers middleschoolers tips on eating feces, bestiality, fetishes,” from LifeSiteNews, I realized that we have crossed the point-of-no-return. We now live in a society where we believe that we can’t stop children from having sex—that we can’t even stop them from eating feces—and therefore we must provide them with “resources” so they know what they are doing and so they can know the “safest” practices. We don’t necessarily recommend eating feces, of course (why, that would just be extreme) but we have surrendered on the idea that we can prevent it. At the same time, our nation is on a war to end “obesity” and to keep kids (and everyone else) from eating the “wrong” foods. In other words, while we don’t believe that we can stop kids from having sex and eating feces, we believe that we can eventually stop them from eating too much salt, or drinking chocolate milk at all, or from eating Happy Meals entirely—because these are all such dangerous things that we MUST and CAN eliminate them.

And perhaps nothing better defines the wickedness of where the American People now are than the fact that the same government that will punish you for spanking your children and take your children away from you because they are too fat, will at the same time allow you to keep your children if you begin injecting your son with male-blocking hormones and allow him to “live as a girl,” all the while you look forward to the day when you can inject him with female hormones and cut off his perfectly healthy genitals to replace them with a pseudo-vagina so that you can complete your mutilation of him. Indeed, not only will the government not take your children away from you for doing this, it will actively encourage you to do this.

I’ll let the reader look through the below links on his own for more information on the depth of the leftist takeover of our society. The only caveat I’ll add is that while the inclusion of the B4U-Act conference may seem like it is not an action that advances the leftist agenda but is instead a debate on whether we should legalize the rape of children, it actually is an action that moves the leftist agenda forward. The B4U-Act conference was not a debate on whether or not the rape of children should be legal; rather it was a conference on the best way to move forward the process of normalizing society to the idea of raping children so that the legalization process can follow . . . just as was done with society and sodomy.

“B4U-Act’s Rogue’s Gallery,” Pajamas Media, August 22, 2011
“‘Evil’: Attendees at prominent pro-pedophilia conference horrified by sessions,” LifeSiteNews, August 23, 2011
“Subtly Eroding Disapproval of Pedophilia,” National Review Online, November 14, 2011
“Boston Globe celebrates sex-changes for children by major hospital on front page of Sunday edition.” MassResistance, December 12, 2011

And So It Goes:

And so it goes.

The left has so subverted the Right and taken control of the national mindset that conservatives and other non-leftists now truly believe that leftists have a right to advance their hatred with whatever means they choose. Conservatives and other non-leftists have bought into the argument that the left’s extremism is mainstream. Meanwhile, conservatives and other non-leftists believe that conservatives who promote a truly conservative viewpoint in “debate” are “extremists.” And a conservative who actually tries to implement his beliefs as public policy and social acceptance is simply someone who needs excluded from polite society.

Hence, we now live in a world where we believe that it is okay for the left’s legalized murder (abortion, euthanasia, etc.) and that it is even okay (or at least, “debatable”) for leftists to illegally murder (Ayers, Mumia abu Jamal, etc.). At the same time, we absolutely forbid anyone on the Right to sympathize with those who abort abortionists or who “murder” enemies on the battlefields of war. And we wouldn’t even think of allowing anyone associated with the Right to suggest that we should promote the idea of legalizing the abortion of aborters and other leftists. After all, if we did, we would be guilty of being “extreme” and guilty of “driving away moderates” to the Democratic Party, communists, anarchists, and other now mainstream American ideology.

This Is a Fight and It’s Long Past Time to Acknowledge It:

Leftists will never change their minds—they will settle for nothing less than our destruction and hell on earth.

But I don’t want to continue whining about the left’s takeover of America. I’m as tired as everyone else with conservatives and other non-leftists whining about it. Let’s just act. Every attack of the left needs to be met with (at minimum) an equally hard attack and preferably an even harder attack—and there should be no apologies.

I’m also tired of the cries to “end the divisiveness” and that “we need to come together on common ground.” Nonsense. Where is the honor in ending divisiveness with evil? Where is the honor in coming together on “common ground” with evil? I want divisiveness with evil. And let’s stop being distracted by “debate” with the left as they turn their agenda into public policy and social acceptance.

It is time for us to play by the same rules. Therefore, from now on, I will do so.

The Military and Bestiality

2011-12-10T15:55:00.001-05:00

Stars and Stripes, which has been an absolute cheerleader for the repeal of morality from the Armed Forces, ran a piece called, “Sex with animals still not okay in U.S. military,” in which it joins in the derision of those who have called attention to the fact that the Senate has voted to repeal the prohibition against bestiality in the Armed Forces.

I have one question for Stars and Stripes and everyone else doing the mocking: If the repeal of the prohibition against bestiality within the Armed Forces doesn’t in fact legalize bestiality, then why did our legislature originally put the prohibition in place?

Court Decision on Military Uniforms in Porn Picks Away at Order and Discipline

2011-12-07T15:31:00.001-05:00

** Originally Published at Big Peace on December 07, 2011 **

A few weeks ago I wrote about McClatchy’s “Suits & Sentences” publishing a post called “Court case a reminder to Marines not to wear full uniforms during porn shoot.” I mentioned how the story made it seem like the court opinion in United States of America v. Matthew W. Simmons said it was okay for currently serving Servicemembers (a Marine in this particular case) to wear parts of their uniforms while performing in pornography productions and being paid to do so.

I looked into this further by contacting two Navy public affairs officers. Both officers were courteous and promptly answered my questions. They acknowledged that they were not legal specialists and offered to provide me with further assistance if I wanted a more in depth explanation of the opinion. I declined. Any errors I make in my analysis of it (or use of terminology) are my own.

I read the court opinion and confirmed with the Navy public affairs officials that it didn’t completely vacate the original ruling. Nor does it say that it is okay to wear a partial uniform while producing pornography.

However, although the opinion doesn’t state that it is okay to wear a partial uniform while producing pornography, it does seem to be another incremental strike at the Armed Forces and their ability to use the uniform to keep order and discipline within their ranks.

For instance, as was mentioned in the “Suits & Sentences” blog, the opinion states:

We are also not satisfied, on the basis of this record, that the appellant’s statements or wear of uniform items may create an inference of service endorsement of the activities depicted. The appellant never wore a complete ‘uniform,’ so the general public could never receive ‘visual evidence of the authority and responsibility vested in the individual by the United States Government.’ He did not voice any Marine support for what he was doing or any service views on the propriety or impropriety of his conduct.

Such language muddies the waters and now puts into question everything any Serviceman has ever thought he knew about wear and appearance of the uniform. After all, for the Army, AR 670-1 (the manual governing the wear and appearance of the uniform in the Army) explicitly states (on Page 1, Adobe Page 24):

… Further, soldiers are not authorized to wear distinctive uniforms or uniform items of the U.S. Army or of other U.S. Services with, or on civilian clothes, except as provided in chapters 27 through 30 of this regulation.

I can find no exception to this regulation for Soldiers who are producing pornography. I’m assuming the other branches of the Armed Forces have similar regulations.

And while the opinion of the military court in United States of America v. Matthew W. Simmons doesn’t expressly contradict the Army regulation, it does what leftism does well: it creates doubt and uncertainty; it challenges common knowledge and order. I’ve previously argued that the repeal of the misnamed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” wouldn’t be the end of things—only the beginning—and this small but important attack on the uniform is just one example of what I meant. More attacks are yet to come.

One final thing: in case anyone thinks I am stretching my analysis of how this court opinion will affect things in the future, consider what has already happened in California when a corrections officer with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) decided he wanted to wear his work uniform to a gay pride parade even as official regulations prohibited it. OneNewsNow reported the following during June of this year*:

CDCR officials caved after Andrew Johnson, a correctional officer at the California Institution for Women in Chino, said he would file a discrimination lawsuit against the state of California for prohibiting him from attending the West Hollywood parade in his uniform. The Department decided the operation manual, which they now deem “outdated” and “ambiguous” concerning matters like this, requires revision. Currently, the regulation bars wearing a uniform in settings that could “discredit” the Department, including bars, gambling halls, nightclubs, political protests, and picket lines.

So even though California has (or had) actual, written policy that prohibited anyone from wearing the CDCR uniform in certain situations, because a gay employee didn’t like it, he was able to unilaterally abolish it by saying that it was discriminatory and declaring he would sue if he didn’t get his way, and the state of California bowed to his wishes. It’s only a matter of time before the U.S. Armed Forces follows the same path.

* The official blog of the CDCR confirms this report.

Federal Government Pepper Sprays (Non) Occupiers!

2011-12-07T15:20:00.001-05:00

** Originally Published at Big Government on December 06, 2011 **

The news of UC Davis police pepper spraying innocent #OccupyUCDavis revolutionaries shocked and outraged the nation. One can only imagine how outraged the nation will be once it learns of a shockingly underreported story that the Digital Video and Imagery Distribution System published last week. “Marines face OC spray” details the following:

One at a time, instructors lined up the augmentees, stood three paces away and sprayed real OC in their faces. The spray ran down their foreheads and into their eyes, causing them to immediately close. The Marines exhibited uncontrollable tearing, coughing, choking plus an extreme burning sensation on any exposed skin from the OC spray.

Outraged yet? If not, you will be soon! And if you are, well you may just want to stop reading now lest the next sentences drive you into uncontrollable hysteria.

After being sprayed, the augmentees had to navigate through an obstacle course of Marines holding pads, representing potential attackers. The SAF Marines fought through the course blindly throwing punches, knee strikes and baton strikes.

So, it wasn’t enough torture just to spray American citizens in the face with pepper spray, the federal government then forced them to run through an obstacle course even as they were incapacitated! Clearly, the legacy of George W. Bush lives on.

Some people might argue that since the Marines signed up to be Marines they volunteered to be pepper sprayed. But that’s nonsense! After all, other people might argue that the #OccupyUCDavis revolutionaries volunteered to be pepper sprayed when they antagonized the police and even provoked them. And we all know that that’s just not true!

Please help me in spreading the word about the federal government pepper spraying American citizens. Make this story go viral so we can further enrage the sensibilities of the 99% of this nation that are fighting to overthrow the last remnants of a free society and replace it with the wonderful tyranny of communism!

The U.S. Armed Forces Are Apparently Okay with #OccupyWallStreet

2011-11-16T21:07:00.001-05:00

** Originally Published at Big Peace on November 16, 2011 **

Third Army / U.S. Army Central (ARCENT) / the Combined Forces Land Component Command (CFLCC) operates the Army’s Digital Video and Imagery Distribution System (DVIDS). DVIDS describes itself on its FAQ page:

The Digital Video and Imagery Distribution System (DVIDS) is provided as a public service operated by Third Army/U.S. Army Central (ARCENT) on behalf of the Department of the Army in support of all branches of the U.S. military and its Coalition partners serving in the U.S. Forces Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility. . . .

In short, DVIDS is an official public affairs outlet of the Army and the Department of Defense.

DVIDS recently published an article titled “Veterans take up new ‘occupation’,” and the first two paragraphs read as follows:

SAN DIEGO — “You see people waving the flag, but you never see anyone waving the Constitution,” said Muhammed Abdullah, an Occupy San Diego protester and Marine Corps Persian Gulf War veteran.

Amid the boldly scrawled signs calling for change, Guy Fawkes masks and curious onlookers, camouflage uniform items and brightly-printed hats recalling military service dotted the scene at the San Diego Civic Center, Nov. 8…

Thus, a component of the U.S. Department of Defense has issued a friendly press release on the Occupy Wall Street insurgency and all that it stands for, going so far as to note the anarchist masks of Guy Fawkes and not batting an eye about it or all the purported former and current servicemembers supporting this extremist group.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, though. After all, the U.S. government-funded Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) regularly run friendly pieces on the #OWS insurgency.

RFE/RL: “In United States, ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Movement Gains Supporters” (Oct. 5)
RFE/RL: “Protesters March Globally Against Corporate Greed” (Oct. 16)
RFE/RL: “New York Police Raid ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Camp” (Nov. 15)
VOA: “‘Occupy Wall Street’ Movement Gains Size, Support” (Oct. 17)
VOA: “Grassroots, Labor Support for ‘Occupy Wall Street’” (Oct. 19)
VOA: “Muslim Groups Back Occupy Wall Street Protesters” (Oct. 22)
VOA: “Occupy Wall Street Protesters Reflect US Diversity” (Oct. 28)
VOA: “Minority Groups Show Solidarity With ‘Occupy’ Protest Movement” (Nov. 8 )
VOA: “Faith Plays Role in Occupy Wall Street Sense of Morality” (Nov. 15)

Even when VOA runs a story with a headline that might indicate that it’s revealing the true nature of the #OWS insurgency (“Occupy Wall Street Neighbors: ‘We’re Under Siege’”), the actual story makes sure to counterpoint those who object to #OWS.

What this all means is that the U.S. Armed Forces and government apparently see nothing wrong with an avowed group of anarchists and communists who have openly aligned with the Arab Spring (HT: Big Government), the Middle Eastern movement that has violently toppled governments. The U.S. government apparently sees nothing wrong with an avowed group of anarchists and communists who are openly supported by those who run Islamic theocracies overseas, who are mass criminals, and who have stated that they want violence and wish to overthrow the Constitution so they can replace it with absolute tyranny. [Follow the link to AR 600-20 (“Army Command Policy”) and go to section, “4-12. Extremist organizations and activities,” and then consider how the #OWS insurgency relates to this regulation.]

All this is good to know, of course. After all, I now no longer need to worry that anything I write might be used against me because I have never come anywhere close to suggesting or endorsing the overthrow of the U.S. government. But then again, maybe I do need to worry, because it is people such as me who play by the rules, abide by the law, and who never resort to violence or illegality no matter what is done to us who end up being demonized and persecuted precisely because of this—because leftists know that we are not lawless or violent and thus will allow them to do anything they want to us without fear of retribution or consequence to them.

Robert Spencer wrote a column called “Useful Idiots’ Stockholm Syndrome” in which he rightfully criticized the American hikers freed from Iran. But while one normally thinks of Stockholm Syndrome as being induced by the hostage takers, as Spencer hints (but does not explicitly say), it was leftist Americans that induced the Stockholm Syndrome of the hikers. In fact, the left has induced Stockholm Syndrome in the entire nation (thus the Democratic Party remains a viable and legitimate political party). And a nation that has Stockholm Syndrome is indeed a nation in trouble.

One final thought for any real servicemembers (that’s an intentional lowercase “s”) who support #OWS—this group of anti-foundational-American creeps who hate you and want to destroy you. Why don’t you go join Code Pink too and help yet another group that hates you, one that is actively and openly working to defeat, maim, and kill you? Think this is absurd to suggest? Not at all. After all, Code Pink supports #OWS.

Occupying Harrisburg

2011-10-17T05:23:00.001-04:00

Introduction:

Occupy Wall Street came to south-central Pennsylvania by way of Occupy Harrisburg. Occupy Harrisburg began its occupation of the Capitol at 12:01 a.m. on October 15, 2011 and ran through the day. Various media outlets reported that the group would extend its occupation through October 16, 2011, although they would legally be required to move from the Capitol. This report offers a brief reference list of how local media coverd Occupy Harrisburg and then provides my firsthand account of what happened along with analysis of the event.

How Local Media Covered Occupy Harrisburg:

Various south-central Pennsylvania media outlets reported on Occupy Harrisburg. Some of the stories are written by the local media outlets and others are AP feeds. I did not do an exhaustive search to see if the media outlets that ran AP feeds did stories of their own. Also, I did not check every single local media outlet, although I tried to choose some of the major ones. I’m linking to some of their reports so that the reader can compare and contrast how these media outlets reported on Occupy Harrisburg with how my report on it is.

The Patriot-News: Harrisburg, PA:

York Daily Record: York, PA:

October 15: “Occupy York helps occupy Harrisburg”
October 15: “Wall Street protests reach Pittsburgh, Harrisburg” (An AP Feed)

The Sentinel: Carlisle, PA:

October 15: “Protests in Pittsburgh, Harrisburg and Philly” (An AP Feed)

ABC 27, WHTM: Harrisburg, PA:

October 15: “‘Occupy Harrisburg’ protesters hit Capitol steps”

FOX 43, WPMT: York, PA:

October 15: “Occupy Wall Street, Now Occupies Harrisburg”

My Coverage and Analysis:

I went to Harrisburg and watched the 12:01 a.m. (October 15, 2011) start of the Occupy Harrisburg event. The Capitol building in Harrisburg is located at the intersections of North Third Street and State Street. I estimated that there were between 100 and 125 people during the time I remained there. This intrigued me. I thought that such a relatively large number of people at the event for that time of day could indicate that Occupy Harrisburg might grow into something rather large by the time daylight hours arrived. However, I don’t think that occurred. (I’ll explain later why I say this.)

I left the event after an hour or so and then returned during daylight hours. The crowd now was smaller than the one at midnight. I estimated that approximately 60 people stood on the steps.

Occupy Harrisburg on October 15, 2011. This view is from State Street looking northeast towards North Third Street at the front of the Capitol. The Occupy Harrisburg participants are just visible at the lower part of the Capitol steps. Photograph © Paul Hair, 2011.

The relatively small amount of people is particularly significant when considering that York Daily Record reported that Occupy York combined with Occupy Harrisburg for this event. My own photograph shows one of the participants holding up an “Occupy York” sign.

Occupy York Combined with Occupy Harrisburg. A single person holds up an “Occupy York” sign, showing that the 60 or so people at the event during late Saturday morning consisted of two cells of the “Occupy” movement. Photograph © Paul Hair, 2011.

It’s possible that there were larger numbers of people at the event at other times of the day. (The group initially planned to stay at the Capitol for 24 hours.) However, even when looking at the photographs from local media outlets that documented the participants walking to Wells Fargo, the photographs don’t seem to indicate that a significantly larger amount of people were there. And the walk to Wells Fargo should have been one of the peak points of the event (if not the peak). Furthermore, while The Patriot-News claimed on October 16 that 750 people were at the Capitol on Saturday, commenters in the comment section disputed that, citing (at times) figures closer to mine. York Daily Record also backs up my estimated numbers, writing that, “Organizers said the crowd peaked at about 150 about 1:30 a.m. Saturday, and numbered about 80 at 11 a.m.” One possibility for the 750 count that The Patriot-News presented could be that it was the total number of people who were at the Capitol on all of Saturday—not the total number of people at the Capitol at any one time.

The Occupy Harrisburg participants were largely silent and looked quite apathetic and bored when I first got there. However, when I (and others) began taking photographs, the group started trying some chants. The main chant they kept returning to was, “Show me what democracy looks like!”

This Is What the 99% Looks Like. The Occupy Harrisburg cell has adopted the claim of the larger Occupy Wall Street movement, saying that they represent 99% of the population. Photograph © Paul Hair, 2011.

I photographed each direction along North Third Street. I did so because I wanted to capture an accurate representation of how people near this event reacted to it. The two photographs below look in opposite directions along North Third Street in front of the Capitol. The few people in the immediate area of the Capitol on October 15 went about their business and largely ignored the Occupy Harrisburg participants.

Looking South on North Third Street. This view looking towards Walnut Street and Strawberry Square shows a few cars and some construction workers in the distance. If you look closely, you can see one pedestrian on the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street. Other than these things, the area was largely void of people. Photograph © Paul Hair, 2011.

Looking North on North Third Street.. Photograph © Paul Hair, 2011.

The Occupy Harrisburg participants held honk-if-you-support-us signs. Several people in vehicles did honk but in reality this showed nothing. Some people undoubtedly honked because they supported the Occupy Harrisburg cell but others likely honked simply because they saw a sign telling them to honk. Furthermore, some honked because they didn’t like the protestors. (For instance, occupants of one vehicle that honked called the Occupy Harrisburg participants, “assholes.”) So it was impossible for me to assess how many people who drove by or were in the area supported the Occupy Harrisburg cell.

Occupy Harrisburg: Who Are They?

The web site for Occupy Harrisburg is http://occupyharrisburg.org/. I am going to post some links to specific pages on the site and explain why I am linking to them.

Who We Are: The “Who We Are” page claims that Occupy Harrisburg is, “In defense of the 99% of Americans who are wrongfully taken advantage of by the richest 1% of Americans, Occupy Harrisburg will bring about social change through radical, peaceful protest and organization.” The page closes by saying, “We, the people of the United States of America, considering the crisis at hand, now reassert our sovereign control of our land. Solidarity Forever!”
Spread the Word: The “Spread the Word” page contains posters for the “Occupy” movement, created by Occupy Together. The posters look like something you would expect from a radical leftist group. Of particular note is the poster that has the raised fist, something often associated with communism.
Occupy Harrisburg’s Facebook Page: If you have the time, scroll through the posts and look for the ones that link to news reports of riots and chaos occurring in the U.S. and the world. Now imagine if, for instance, the Tea Party started worldwide riots and destruction. Would the Tea Party highlight reports on them? Would the formerly mainstream media allow Tea Partiers to get away with it?

Occupy Harrisburg Leaders:

I want to highlight three people who seem to be among the leaders of Occupy Harrisburg: Alex Knapp, Alix Jay Bitzer, and Jefferson Pepper.

Alex Knapp:

The Patriot-News article, “Occupy Harrisburg holds first organizational meeting, allied with Occupy Wall Street movement,” on October 5 and the ABC 27, WHTM news report, “Occupy Harrisburg group holds first meeting,” on October 6 identified Alex Knapp as an organizer of Occupy Harrisburg.

A Google search reveals that Occupy Harrisburg previously had a page at http://occupyharrisburg.org/about/. This page no longer is active. However, a Google cache page shows that Occupy Harrisburg initially listed Knapp as a co-leader (with an Alix Jay Bitzer being the other).

I did another quick web search and found that Alex Knapp is on Change.org. His page confirms that he is a hard leftist.

Alix Jay Bitzer:

The Google cache page mentioned above shows that Alix Jay Bitzer initially was listed as a co-leader of Occupy Harrisburg. She may still be one of the leaders but the Occupy Harrisburg movement has been trying to present itself as a leaderless, grassroots movement. This may be why the Occupy Harrisburg “About” page no longer is active.

Occupy Harrisburg having Alex Knapp and Alix Jay Bitzer as their co-leaders is significant. So is the fact that the Occupy Harrisburg movement was started at the Metropolitan Community Church of the Spirit. That church name stuck out to me because any time I hear the words “Metropolitan Community Church” I automatically think of the Metropolitan Community Churches denomination which is openly heretical and embraces sodomy. So I did a quick search and found the Metropolitan Community Church of the Spirit along Jefferson Street in Harrisburg. The Metropolitan Community Church of the Spirit’s website states that, “. . . We are an intentionally diverse spiritual community reaching across barriers of gender, race, sexuality, disabilities, and religious backgrounds.”

The above information means that the Occupy Harrisburg cell was started at a sodomite church by two promoters of the sodomite movement. (Alex Knapp’s Change.org page shows that he backs the sodomite movement. Bitzer’s Twitter account shows that she is a backer of the sodomite movement.)

Furthermore, the ABC 27, WHTM news report, “Occupy Harrisburg group holds first meeting,” from October 6 shows that one of the first things that the Occupy Harrisburg organizers (which would be Knapp and Bitzer) wanted to do was, “Organizers said before the meeting that their first plan of action was to protest and call for the resignation or impeachment of Harrisburg Mayor Linda Thompson.” ABC 27 says that Occupy Harrisburg wanted to call for Thompson’s removal because of fiscal reasons. However, the leaders of Occupy Harrisburg actually probably wanted to do so because Mayor Thompson (Democrat) has been accused of being “homophobic.” (Google the terms, "linda thompson" homophobic.) I do not believe that this proposal ever happened because the people who joined with Knapp and Bitzer did not want to do so.

Therefore, what this all means is that the launching point of Occupy Harrisburg is the sodomite movement. Most people will want to overlook this at all costs but it cannot be ignored. The sodomite movement is normally a key component of any radical leftist group.

Jefferson Pepper:

The Occupy Harrisburg website lists Pepper as the contact person for Occupy Harrisburg.

Jefferson Pepper identifies as a musician. He also identifies as a landscaper. He has a Wikipedia page. His Wikipedia page says:

Pepper spent the winters of 2006 and 2007 holed up in his cedar-sided home studio in the Conewago Mountains of southern Pennsylvania, sometimes going for weeks at a time without leaving the house. Disillusioned with the social, religious and political climate of the U.S., he became obsessed with the question “What has happened to my country?” He was inspired in part by Howard Zinn’s landmark book A People’s History of the United States and by the Dover Intelligent Design Trial (Kitzmiller vs Dover School Board) which played out in his backyard of Dover, PA. The result was American Evolution, a 50-song, 3-CD series which traces the evolution of culture, society and music, as well as the evolution of the individual in America. Spanning over 500 years of history, Pepper tells the story of America as seen through the eyes of working people, as opposed to politicians and moneyed elites.

I wouldn’t normally trust Wikipedia without outside verification but the history page of Pepper’s Wikipedia page shows that a “Jeffersonpepper” contributed to the contents of the page. It’s also reasonable to assess that the content (not formatting) added by someone other than Pepper likely was someone friendly to Pepper. Therefore, I assess that the remarks about Zinn’s, A People’s History of the United States, inspiring Pepper are true. Accuracy in Media has reported on Zinn’s communist ties, and explained how A People’s History of the United States is leftist propaganda.

Pepper’s biography on his MySpace profile page (slightly down from the top of the page and on the right side) reads like what you would expect from a typical, self-absorbed leftist musician. He also has a YouTube video of the title track from his anti-American military album, Christmas in Fallujah. Pepper spends the majority of the song singing about how American Servicemen unjustly kill and terrorize Iraqis, but then ends the song by crooning that we shouldn’t blame the Serviceman, apparently thinking that such a throwaway line will somehow cover up the message of the rest of the song.

Pepper also recently appeared on The Rick Smith Show which identifies itself as progressive talk broadcasting on the radio in south-central Pennsylvania. The interview of Pepper lasts for approximately 15 minutes and is available for download or streaming audio. I listened to the entire segment but will not offer an itemized analysis of it. However, I will note that the segment begins with the host of the radio show referring to Tea Partiers as “teabaggers” and from there on plays like what you would expect from a left-wing radio show.

Therefore, the Occupy Harrisburg cell also possesses two more key components of radical leftist groups: anti-American military elements (when the American military is used positively for American interests) and communist influence.

Conclusion:

I do not yet know what the long-term effectiveness of Occupy Harrisburg will be. However, the group should be viewed as a radical leftist group and a potential security threat. (The larger Occupy Wall Street is a clear national security threat. See my, “Occupying Wall Street and the Leftist National Security Threat” at Big Peace for additional details on that.)

Why Should Occupy Harrisburg Be Viewed as a Potential Security Threat?

My initial and non-comprehensive investigation into Occupy Harrisburg already reveals common connections that radical, dangerous leftists normally have: sodomites / anti-morality proponents, Marxism and / or communist influence, anarchists (see also the Harrisburg City Councilman’s quote on anarchists being at an Occupy Harrisburg meeting and his seeming lack of concern about this), and anti-American military sentiments. The Occupy Wall Street movement has openly compared itself to the Arab Spring (which overthrew national governments) and is becoming increasingly violent in the U.S. and across the world. Furthermore, the Nazi Party and Communist Party of the USA now openly support the Occupy Wall Street movement. It would be irresponsible to fail to treat Occupy Harrisburg, which aligns itself with the Occupy Wall Street movement, as a potential security threat as well. The group warrants careful monitoring and investigation.

Long-term Effectiveness of Occupy Harrisburg:

The turnout of Occupy Harrisburg was low during the time I witnessed them. They also seemed rather directionless. This could indicate that the group won’t last long or won’t be effective. The fact that Occupy Harrisburg actually consisted of two groups (Occupy Harrisburg and Occupy York) and still could only draw small numbers is another indicator that the cell might not last long or be very effective. Furthermore, while Occupy Harrisburg drew significant media attention on October 15, 2011, the “Making Strides Against Breast Cancer” event (located in Harrisburg on City Island) clearly drew more people as photographic evidence indicates. In other words, while Occupy Harrisburg drew a lot of media attention, it wasn’t that popular and at least one other event in the area drew a larger crowd.

However, it should not be assumed that Occupy Harrisburg will disappear soon or that it will not have a significant impact. The initial Occupy Wall Street movement began slowly but gained ground. Occupy Harrisburg could grow and gain momentum, especially if the group receives backing and resources, such as the AFL-CIO promised as seen in a video posted at The Blaze.

Furthermore, a small but determined group can make a huge difference. We should not underestimate the Occupy Wall Street movement or the Occupy Harrisburg movement. Furthermore, our public officials have an obligation to investigate the threat of the national Occupy Wall Street movement, which openly identifies with the Arab Spring and openly expresses desires that run counter to foundational America and its interests.

Countering the “Occupy” Movements:

Here are two brief suggestions for how private citizens can counter the “Occupy” movements that are raging across the nation.

Hold Public Officials Accountable for Upholding the Law: Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media wrote an interesting column on how the officials in Washington, DC have failed to enforce the law by allowing the October 2011 movement (not affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street movement but endorsing of it) to occupy public areas illegally, thus trampling on the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens who should be able to enjoy such public areas free of threat and harassment. Public officials respond to those who are the loudest. And if private citizens continue remaining silent and continue to allow public officials to shirk their duties, then public officials will continue pandering to the law breakers at the expense of the law abiders.
Peel Off Those Who Don’t Realize That the Government Is Responsible for Our Fiscal Problems: In other words, Herman Cain is right—the Occupy Wall Street movement should be protesting the government. Some of those involved with the Occupy Harrisburg and Occupy Wall Street movements undoubtedly don’t realize this. If some of them are willing to listen to reason, then the facts will persuade them that they are protesting the wrong people and the wrong institutions.

This concludes the report for now. If Occupy Harrisburg makes the news again, I may issue another report on it.

Arguing Against Waterboarding in the Absence of Reality

2011-09-28T22:01:00.001-04:00

The following column originally appeared at Big Peace on September 24, 2011:

I read “NBC’s Lauer to Cheney: You’re the ‘Most Divisive Political Figure in This Country in a Century’” at Newsbusters and was struck by Lauer’s inability to comprehend reality.

The relevant portion of the Newsbusters’ transcript of the televised interview includes the following exchange:

LAUER: Enhanced interrogation techniques: In your book, you state bluntly you have no regrets about being in favor of things like waterboarding – I think you say even if circumstances were the same today you’d make the same decisions....If an American citizen were to be taken into captivity in Iran, for example, and the government of Iran were to look at that person and say, ‘We think you’re a spy for the U.S. or you’re here to carry out a covert operation. Would it be okay for the Iranian government to waterboard that American citizen?

CHENEY: Well, we probably would object to it.

LAUER: On the grounds that it’s torture?

CHENEY: On the grounds that we have obligations towards our citizens. And that we do everything we can to protect our citizens and to put them through a process that we think is appropriate.

LAUER: So why was it okay for us to use what most people would say was torture against terror suspects?

CHENEY: Well, remember, first of all, these were not American citizens. We weren’t dealing with American citizens in the enhanced interrogation program. Secondly, it was people like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, there were a handful, two or three, for example, that actually got waterboarded. Third, we had good reason to believe they had information that we could only get from them and that they knew more than anybody else.

LAUER: But if the government of Iran were capture someone and say, ‘We have reason to believe that you’re a spy or you’re carrying out an operation that could be damaging to our country, would you object or would you say they did what they had to do to get the information they needed at the time?

CHENEY: Well, I think we would object because we wouldn’t expect an American citizen to be operating that way. When you’re dealing with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, for example, a man who was the self-admitted mastermind of 9/11, killed 3,000 Americans. And at a time when we had very little knowledge and understanding about Al Qaeda and what they were doing. And after we’d gone through a lot of other procedures and interrogation efforts, then at the end of that process, he was subjected to the program. It was very carefully supervised. None of the techniques used were things that we hadn’t already used on our own people in training.

Lauer’s questioning comes out of a reality where the attacks of September 11, 2001 never occurred. I’m not saying that that is what Lauer believes, but I am saying that his line of questioning sounds as if it is coming from someone pre-September 11, 2001 or from someone who doesn’t acknowledge that September 11, 2001 actually happened.

Asking how Cheney (or the U.S.) would respond to Iranians waterboarding and torturing U.S. citizens is inane. In doing so Lauer does two things: he effectively ignores the September 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S.—the events that led us to waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed and a select few others for the moral purpose of saving the lives of others—and he supposes that the Iranians would have a legitimate reason for waterboarding U.S. citizens. And it is this moral relativity—a denial of objective good and evil—that largely contributes to Lauer’s (and other moral relativists on the left and Right) denial of reality.

Lauer also ignores the fact that our enemies constantly torture us and never have to worry about being interrogated by their own people or getting into legal trouble for what they do. Furthermore, Lauer ignores that there are people like me who think we actually should torture terrorists if that’s what it takes to save lives.

Here are some questions I would like to ask Matt Lauer:

--- If waterboarding is “torture” and “immoral,” how much more is it torture and immoral to shoot an unarmed man in the face?

--- Is abortion torture? If not, what crime have the unborn committed that justifies the horrendous butchering of them?

--- If your answer to the above question is that, “Not all people believe that the unborn are people or that abortion is wrong,” then why can’t I say in answer to your questioning that “torturing” terrorists is wrong, “Not all people believe that terrorists are people or that waterboarding them is wrong,” and feel the same smug sense of self-satisfaction that you and others of the anti-life movement feel?

--- Speaking of abortion, was Gianna Jessen tortured when doctors tried to execute her with a saline solution that burned her while alive? What do you think of President Obama who not only supports such practices, but has publicly voted against medical care and protection for babies who survive failed abortion attempts?

--- Does the fact that we now know that Khalid Sheik Mohammed personally beheaded Daniel Pearl (HT: The Washington Post) make you feel any better over our “torturing” of same said terrorist?

--- Does the fact that waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques used on terrorists, such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, were designed specifically not to torture them but to make it feel as if they were being tortured in order to appeal to their culture and beliefs make you feel any better about our “torturing” of same said terrorists?

--- Why do you defend the immoral position of not waterboarding (and truly torturing) terrorists in order to save the lives of innocent people?

--- If I guarantee to you that I would never “torture” any terrorist in order to find out information that might save the life of you, your family, or anyone else on the left, would you accept that as a bipartisan compromise on which we all could agree?

The bottom line is that we live in an evil world where the employment of force is necessary, where the bad guys don’t play by the rules, and where the rules and agreements of the Geneva Convention are long outdated. Perhaps no one else better expressed this than Warren Kozak when he wrote, “The Real Rules of War” in The Wall Street Journal in 2009. Kozak wrote:

You don’t have to dig too deep to understand that war brings out behavior in people that they would never demonstrate in normal life. In Paul Fussell’s moving memoir, “The Boys’ Crusade,” the former infantryman relates a story about the liberation of Dachau. There were about 120 SS guards who had been captured by the Americans. Even though the Germans were being held at gunpoint, they still had the arrogance—or epic stupidity—to continue to heap verbal abuse and threats on the inmates. Their American guards, thoroughly disgusted by what they had already witnessed in the camp, had seen enough and opened fire on the SS. Some of the remaining SS guards were handed over to the inmates who tore them limb from limb. Another war crime? No doubt. Justified? It depends on your point of view. But before you weigh in, realize that you didn’t walk through the camp. You didn’t smell it. You didn’t witness the obscene horror of the Nazis.

Rules of war are important. They are something to strive for as they separate us from our distant ancestors. But when only one side follows these rules, they no longer elevate us. They create a very unlevel field and more than a little frustration. It is equally bizarre for any of us to judge someone’s behavior in war by the rules we follow in our very peaceful universe. We sit in homes that are air-conditioned in the summer and warmed in the winter. We have more than enough food in our bellies and we get enough sleep. The stress in our lives won’t ever match the stress of battle. Can we honestly begin to decide if a soldier acted in compliance with rules that work perfectly well on Main Street but not, say, in Malmedy or Fallujah?

In his book, Mr. Fussell probably sums up the feelings of many soldiers when he quotes a British captain, John Tonkin, who experienced a great deal of the war. “I have always felt,” Capt. Tonkin said, “that the Geneva Convention is a dangerous piece of stupidity, because it leads people to believe that war can be civilized. It can’t.”

War can’t be civilized.

That’s good advice for all of us to remember as we fight against foreign enemies, and as we fight against domestic enemies who live in a fantasy land where those who praise evil are the good guys, while those of us who want to defeat evil are the bad guys.

Rick Santorum Was Right

2011-09-08T15:23:00.000-04:00

Rick Santorum recently made the wise observation that if we aren’t going to execute the rapist that impregnated his victim, then there is no excuse for executing the child either. But this isn’t the only moral issue for which he should be praised. Indeed, the other moral issue for which he should be praised and for which he should receive mass apologies is his insightful speculation on what else would follow the decriminalization of sodomy.

People ridiculed and denounced Santorum in 2003 when he speculated that the legalization of sodomy could lead to the legalization / normalization of many other things. Yet as we now know, he was absolutely right. Nothing underscores this more than the recent news that a pedophile / pederast organization (B4U-Act) held a conference in Baltimore, discussing ways to normalize pedophilia / pederasty.

The process of normalization is slow. The sodomite lobby used normalization to get society to accept sodomy. Now they are using normalization to get society to accept the rape of children. So while there aren’t overt calls to legalize the rape of children yet, it is only because we are at the beginning stages of the game. This is evil.

But I am not calling for condemnation of B4U-Act or those who attended the pedophile / pederast conference in Baltimore. I don’t have enough influence to do so and even if I did I still probably would not. If Americans can’t become outraged on their own at this, then I don’t even have the desire to try to persuade them. Instead, I am going to accept that society now believes it legitimate to discuss the legalization / normalization of the rape of children. And on that note, I must assume that everything else is on the table for discussion as well (without having to worry about anyone condemning me). In other words, I’m assuming that I’m now free to discuss topics such as:

· Re-criminalizing Sodomy

· Legalizing the Abortion of Convicted Sodomites: If society can discuss legalizing / normalizing the rape of children, why can’t we discuss reinstituting abortion for convicted sodomites?

· Banning the Abortion of the Unborn: As Ryan James Girdusky put it at Townhall, “If President Obama Can Ignore Immigration Law, President Bachmann Can Ignore Abortion Law”.

· Aborting Our Enemies: Why don’t we just devastate Afghanistan, Iraq, and the rest of the nations we’re sending our Servicemen to die for instead of creating and building them into officially Islamic theocracies?

· Enforcing the Rule of Law: Why aren’t we prosecuting our public officials for failing to stop the Mexican invasion, colonization, and conquest of the U.S.?

And of course I could go on.

But even if one doesn’t agree with everything I have written, these things are clear: Rick Santorum was right in 2003, morality and the so-called social issues should now be the number one priority for all presidential candidates in 2012, and Democrats and other leftists are a national security threat that need to be investigated and prosecuted. After all, if the safety of our children isn’t a national security issue, then nothing is.

Paul Hair serves in the U.S. Army Reserve as a non-commissioned officer. He is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and wrote or contributed to approximately 50 reports and assessments while in Iraq on an eight-month deployment during 2009-2010. He has worked as a civilian in both the government and private sectors. His columns and commentaries have appeared at Big Peace, Champion News, The Daily Caller, WND, and other outlets. His views are his own and he in no way represents the Army Reserve or any other part of the U.S. government.