Trickle Down Tyranny (10 page)

Jack Bauer would listen in and so would you.

Don’t you think we should know what the terrorists inside our country were planning?

That same year, the
Times
published the details of CIA secret prisons.
³⁰
Allied governments stopped cooperating and all prisoners had to be shifted to Gitmo, effectively ending all interrogations. Without those secret prisons and severe methods, all usable intelligence from al Qaeda prisoners stopped.

In 2009, the
Times
published secret Bush-era Justice Department memos on interrogation and said the CIA were “torturers.” Some CIA officials retired while others now face criminal prosecution. They will win, but their colleagues won’t be pushing the envelope to uncover terror plots.

Why should they risk their careers?

Jack Bauer should just go home.

In fact, the Espionage Act—section 793(e) of U.S. Code Title 18—does apply to the editors of the
New York Times
, and they could be prosecuted. Those editors could face up to ten years in prison or tens of thousands of dollars in fines. The
New York Times
appears to have specifically violated Section 793(e) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. The relevant section clearly applies:

Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.

The case is clear-cut enough. The newspaper is not cleared to receive classified documents, yet they received them and even published them. The paper also failed to promptly turn over the secret papers to the proper government officials and even used those illegally obtained documents “to the injury of the United States.”

Case closed.

Think the First Amendment’s free-speech protections mean the law doesn’t apply to the
New York Times
?

Think again.

The United States Supreme Court considered that very question shortly after the law was adopted during World War I. In
Schenck v. United States
, the Supreme Court held that those who were convicted under the law had no shield under the First Amendment. The Constitution was designed to protect people who wanted to help America’s enemies during a shooting war.

And what about the Pentagon Papers case?

Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo were working for the Pentagon in 1970 when they decided to secretly photocopy thousands of pages of classified intelligence about the Vietnam War. Justice Department prosecutors won a grand jury indictment against the pair in 1971, for allegedly violating the Espionage Act. They appealed, ultimately landing before the U.S. Supreme Court. In the
New York Times Co. v. the United States,
the high court held that government could not stop the newspaper from publishing the illegally gotten documents, but—and this is the key part of the finding—the government could still constitutionally try, convict, and punish editors for violating the Espionage Act if they did publish the classified material. So the Supreme Court said that no one has a constitutional right to publish secret documents.

Why did Ellsberg and Russo later get let off?

The official story is that the judge declared a mistrial. In reality, the Government-Media Complex protects its own.

So while the
New York Times
is champing at the bit for the government to go after Murdoch, the “paper of record” has done far worse things itself.

But don’t expect the FBI, which opened an investigation into Murdoch, to expand its inquiry into the activities of the
New York Times
. Why? Because the Government-Media Complex always wins in the end.

The Tyranny of Blame: Norway’s Christian Killer

Let me give you a vivid example of the Government-Media Complex at work.

Remember Anders Breivik, the Norwegian nut who killed more than 90 people in a bombing of Norway’s prime minister’s office in Oslo and the grisly gunning down of scores of teenagers on an island retreat?

First, let’s remember some hard truths. Not all Muslims are terrorists and not all terrorists are Muslims.

Think about it. If all Muslims were terrorists there would be 1.1 billion Muslims at war with everyone else on earth. Muslims may hate you, but they’re not terrorists, just as you may hate others, but you’re not a terrorist. Don’t tell me you’ve got a halo on your head just because you have a cross and go to church.

Look within your own heart and you will know I am right. I expect many of you are angry with me right now. You think I’m totally wrong. But after you have a chance to reflect on this incident, you’ll say, “Savage, you were right.”

You need to understand the danger of certain ideas and where they can lead you.

Now, given all this, Breivik wrote about al Qaeda with admiration, and that explains why this madman killed his own kind, hunted down young Norwegian children like rabbits. His mass murder was the most dastardly, Nazi-like act I’ve seen in my time. It’s the same as I’ve seen here in America with guys in the black raincoats. I am talking about the Columbine High School killings in Littleton, Colorado, in 1999, when two youths who called themselves the “trench coat mafia” hunted down fellow students and shot them.

I don’t understand that mentality.

These tactics would have been used by Adolf Hitler in the death camps, or by one of the
Einsatzgruppen
, the Nazi death squads that cheerfully shot innocent civilians.

Human nature does not change. In all of our hearts lurk ancient temptations and eons-old evils. I guarantee that many people—too many people—would kill their neighbors if their government told them to do it. That is the danger of this type of thinking. Many people, if given a uniform and the authority, would round up innocent citizens who happen to belong to an unpopular political party or religious sect and kill them.

Our history is stained with examples of this.

Ask the Jews or the American Indians.

Don’t assume that it couldn’t happen again. It could. And I am telling you, when it appears, no matter what the symbol is, no matter the associated religion, you must understand that evil exists, and stand up to it and say, “No, that’s not me.”

It doesn’t mean you have to surrender your religious beliefs. Evil men disguise themselves in the saintly robes of religion. It doesn’t mean your religion is evil; it means he’s evil. And so in casting out his evil, you make sure you yourself don’t fall into that well.

Is Norway’s suspected murderer Anders Breivik a Christian terrorist?

Some would say yes, and so would I. Not to slam Christianity, but as a warning to those of you who think that it can’t happen within your own ranks. It can and it did, and it will happen again. Remember the words of Senator Barry Goldwater, speaking at the 1964 Republican National Convention, in San Francisco’s Cow Palace: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

I’m a Goldwater conservative. Those are the truest words ever spoken in my lifetime, next to Eisenhower’s “beware the government military-industrial complex.” However, it doesn’t mean you have to slaughter innocent people if you believe that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. It doesn’t mean you blow up parliament buildings. It doesn’t mean you go out and kill children.

What I want you to understand is that you can be an extremist without being a murderer or terrorist. You can be an extremist in what you do, and work around the clock to save this nation without having to resort to what this lunatic did in Norway.

That’s the whole point of my show, which is not to withdraw from the field of battle with multiculturalism, not to shrink from combat with socialism, not to retreat from fighting cultural and economic Marxism, but to redouble your efforts to fight them with everything in your power—but without resorting to violence.

Do not resort to terrorism, do not become a murderer, but be an extremist.

I’m trying to tell you, you can be an extremist without being a terrorist.

Being rational and being right doesn’t often engender love from the people, but I have a job to do. My job is like Casey Stengel’s: I’ve got to call them the way I see them, and I’m telling you this guy is a Christian and is a terrorist.

Accept the truth when you hear it.

But he’s not the only terrorist among the religious, is he?

There are many others in many religions and I have pointed them out to you. We don’t have to go through the Muslims, do we? They are too many to count. You should understand that there are Buddhist terrorists, Hindu terrorists, and in every country there are terrorists who wrap themselves in every religion.

So put aside the big lie that there was no Christianity in what he did. Well, maybe there’s no Christian theology in what he did, I’ll agree with that. Christian theology certainly doesn’t teach that thou shall kill thy neighbor if you disagree with their politics. But in the age in which we’re living, people try to find justification for their insanity and violence. The devil can quote scripture and too often he does. Certainly, he did in Norway.

Breivik was fascinated with the crusades and considered himself a member of the Knights Templar, a Crusader army of a thousand years ago. You can see this. Much can be said about the other side of the aisle, Muslim extremists and murderers like bin Laden and his number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Bin Laden was a businessman and engineer; Zawahiri was a medical doctor in Egypt. Neither was a theologian or member of the clergy, yet they self-identified as Muslims. It doesn’t mean that all Muslims espouse what they espouse. Unfortunately, too many Muslims do, like ones who cheered after 9/11. Many of you don’t want to accept that Breivik was a Christian or that any Muslims who say they don’t believe in terrorism aren’t telling the truth.

Many of you can rightly quote the Koran and its instruction that you shall smite an infidel and put a knife to his neck. It doesn’t mean that all Muslims follow that radical or Salafi brand of Islam, although many of them do.

If you look at the Old Testament of the Bible, it has similar edicts. Most Christians don’t read or follow the Old Testament (which includes the kosher dietary laws), but instead follow what they call the New Testament of Jesus Christ. But you won’t argue that the poor old Orthodox Jew is walking around wanting to kill people because he believes the Old Testament. They understand that though it was God’s word for those times, that doesn’t mean it’s God’s word for these times.

I’ve heard Orthodox rabbis say to me: Who is it for us to decide which commandments we should or shouldn’t follow? Where are you going with that one? Are you going to stone an adulterer? If you see your father’s nakedness, you’re supposed to slay the person who uncovers his nakedness?

Read Leviticus, which is unbelievably full of murder for moral offenses. I don’t believe Orthodox Jews murder adulterers or homosexuals, do you? Therefore no one is following the Old Testament in every aspect or to the fullest degree.

How do you interpret this if you’re a theologian? That’s why I’m not religious. Do I believe in God? Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. Sometimes I believe for days or weeks or years at a time, and some days I don’t believe anything except in survival. The one credo I’ve found most operational and inspirational for me is survival. If that’s religion, then I’m a religious man. That means survive, survive, survive and don’t let anyone stand in your way, short of killing him.

On the other hand, I don’t know if a religion is of any value unless it teaches you how to survive. I’ve felt that for a long time, going back to my belief system. I’ve been in temples, churches, and synagogues and I’ve never really felt at home in any of those houses of worship. It doesn’t mean they’re bad or don’t serve a social purpose. They do. But do they teach people survival skills? Maybe they did for you, but not for me.

When I see stories of ancient Buddhist temples that taught young acolytes martial arts, so the monks with shaved heads living in the mountains of China and Tibet could defend themselves against invading armies using hoes and sticks, that is a religious teaching I can relate to. Is it a religious teaching to teach someone to fight with a hoe or a fishing rod or a chair? They decided that the young men shouldn’t go to the gas chambers like the Jews did in World War II. I respect that of the Buddhists who teach their men to kill the enemy. If the Jews did that at the beginning, there wouldn’t have been a Holocaust. I’ve studied it inside and out. I don’t care how many times you quote the Bible, what good is it if a man comes to kill you, your wife, and children?

The Jews who went into the sewers and woods of Poland are the Jews I respect. They cut Nazi throats, bombed their rail lines, and burned their supply depots. Those are the Jews I respected, not the Jews who sat begging for their lives and got only slaughter and humiliation in return.

With Breivik we’re talking about the slaughter of innocent children, albeit the children of the Labor Party, at the core of Norway’s cultural identity. But they were unarmed teenagers. Where’s the nobility in Breivik’s act? How can anyone say it was justifiable? How can you understand this? You don’t go kill children because they belong to the Labor Party.

Those of you who served in Iraq know this. They tried to kill as many children as possible. Why would Muslims want to kill Muslims? I understand why they’d kill American soldiers—I hate them for it and would kill them for it—but what’s their thinking? Their twisted logic is that unless you’re an extremist, you’re a collaborator—then, you side with the crusaders, the Americans.