About Me

My photo
Paul Hair is a national security expert and an author. He writes under his own name and as a ghostwriter. Connect with him at http://www.liberateliberty.com/. Contact him at paul@liberateliberty.com.

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Netflix Plans Lesbian POTUS Movie. ‘The First Transgender Superhuman’ Beat It to the Punch.

Netflix Logo

Netflix announced in May that it is planning to debut First Ladies, a movie about a female president and her lesbian lover. And while the concept of a sodomite president is meant to be groundbreaking, it really isn’t. “The First Transgender Superhuman” featured a U.S. president strongly hinted to be a sodomite.

The Daily Caller reported on May 18 that “Jennifer Aniston Will Be Playing Lesbian President in New Netflix Original.” The article said that Aniston will portray “the first woman and lesbian President of the United States.” It added that “Her partner will be played by Tig Notaro as the first lady. The two of them will be portraying Beverly and Kasey Nicholson as the president and first lady.”

I wrote the three short stories for my book Mortal Gods: Ignition, which Freedom Press International published in 2016. “The First Transgender Superhuman” was the second tale in the anthology and featured the following passage:

The President looked back at his body man who was sitting with the dignitaries. His body man looked back and shrugged his shoulders. He wore a navy suit with a white shirt and pink tie, complete with the small lapel pin he always wore.

So no wife for the President but he does have a body man sporting a pink tie and an unidentified “lapel pin he always wore.” Hmmm. What is that hinting at about the president and his body man?

There’s a reason the President is so obsessed with finding the first transgender superhuman, and there’s a reason he’s so obsessed with sodomy in general (complete with a cabinet-level Secretary of Equality who uses “zir” as a pronoun): he’s a sodomite.

Netflix and the people producing First Ladies may think they’re doing something new with the concept of a sodomite POTUS. They aren’t. I featured one as a main character in “The First Transgender Superhuman,” a story published over two years ago.

Monday, June 18, 2018

I’m Doing the Opposite of What DC’s Vertigo Comics & Everyone Else Are Doing

Excerpt of “Safe Sex” #1 Cover.
In early June, Vertigo (an imprint of DC Comics) announced that it was doing a “line-wide relaunch,” which would be headlined by seven comic books. These comic books will feature stories focusing on white supremacy, subservient housewives, lesbian sex workers, an irreverent story about God and Jesus, and similar topics. A lot of people were unimpressed with the announcement, similar to how they are unimpressed with the way creators are treating established intellectual property such as Star Wars, Marvel Comics and so forth. Many of these same people vocally encourage creators to change what they are doing. I’m not among these people. Instead, I am focused on creating my own intellectual property, full of new characters, universes, and stories that are entirely the opposite of what Vertigo and everyone else are doing.

The official press release announcing the Vertigo relaunch provides summaries of all seven of the new titles. It also has previews of first-issue covers. Industry trade publications greeted the announcement with enthusiasm. But again, many other people did not.

I’ve written a lot about culture over the years. If you’ve followed me, you can guess what my view is on the announcement. If you haven’t followed me, suffice it to say that nothing in the Vertigo press release appeals to me.

In the same way, all I have to say about the directions that Star Wars, Marvel Comics, Nancy Drew, and pretty much every other popular IP are taking is that I disagree with them. But I don’t care if they don’t change those directions. And that’s because my focus is on creating my own fiction.

And my fiction is entirely different than what you find in mainstream arts and entertainment.

I’m not making a hyperbolic statement. Again, read the Vertigo press release. I can almost guarantee you that however the seven different comic books present white supremacy, subservient housewives, sexual behavior, theology, and so forth, my views on all such topics will be the opposite of the creators writing stories about them.

In fact, stories I’m working on (or have already written) incorporate the issues of black supremacy, illegal aliens, good little housewives, and more.

You see, I’m no longer interested in “rescuing” someone else’s IP, or “dialoguing” with people who don’t share my views and who openly hate me and everything I believe. Contrary to the popular saying that “we need to find common ground,” we actually need to go our separate ways.

Going our separate ways involves multiple steps. One such step is beginning to create our own culture. And that’s exactly what I’m doing.

I don’t like anything that Vertigo, DC Comics, or other big companies are doing. But I don’t want them to stop. I hope they destroy themselves. Meanwhile, I’m creating new characters, new worlds, and new tales—new things that are entirely the opposite of what you’ll find everyone else doing.

And if that appeals to you, I encourage you to give my fiction a shot.

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

CIA Director Pompeo Confirms U.S. Killed ‘Couple Hundred’ Russians in Syria

CIA Director Mike Pompeo.
Official CIA Photo.
CIA Director Mike Pompeo confirmed in an April 12 Senate hearing that U.S. forces killed “a couple hundred Russians” in Syria in early February. Media had reported the same thing for weeks but provided no official sourcing. SCI previously assessed that the media reports likely were wrong because of the lack of sourcing and other details. However, with the CIA director saying in official testimony that the U.S. did indeed kill hundreds of Russian mercenaries in Syria in early February, SCI revises its assessment.

SCI published, “Why that Story You Heard about the U.S. Killing Russian Mercenaries in Syria Likely Is Wrong, on March 5. The assessment noted that the account the media were providing “was suspect from the start.”

One of the reasons SCI doubted the veracity of the media reports was because of a claim made by Polygraph.info (a propaganda website run by government-supported Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty). Polygraph.info said it had audio recordings, provided by a source inside the Russian government, that backed up the claim that hundreds of Russian mercenaries were killed in Syria. The SCI assessment said:

Is it possible that a U.S. government propaganda network would be able to develop a human intelligence source close to the Kremlin without Russia figuring it out? A HUMINT source who would feed Polygraph.info audio recordings that would then be publicly disclosed without compromising his identity in the process? Maybe. But it would be very difficult—and that makes the Polygraph.info report highly suspect. In fact, I’d lean towards saying that someone played the people at Polygraph.info.

A second reason SCI doubted media reports was because they acknowledged that no government official would confirm their allegations. From the SCI assessment:

The final sentence from The Washington Post article should have raised alarms for anyone following the story. That sentence indicates two things: (1) if the Post was indeed receiving actual intelligence from U.S. officials, that in itself would appear to be an illegal act. And it subsequently calls into question what the motivation is of those officials disclosing the intelligence. (2) The same (or other) government officials refused to say what they thought of the apparently illegally disclosed intelligence, indicating that they might not be ready to make an analytical judgment on what it means, or that they were using it to manipulate public opinion.

Monday, April 16, 2018

Media Downplayed Chinese Espionage & Pro-Clinton Election Interference in 1990s

Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Photo by PO1 Dominique A. Pineiro.
China engages in massive espionage against the U.S. and has done so for decades. On top of this, the media have known of it for nearly as long. But they downplayed explosive reports on it in the 1990s because they reflected negatively on then President Bill Clinton, and because they showed how the Chinese interfered in the 1996 presidential election in favor of Clinton. This stands in blunt contrast to the hysteria the media have ginned up over Russian conspiracy theories today.

China is the top, long-term national security threat to the United States of America. And it’s been so for many years. One of the reasons it threatens the U.S. is because it successfully engages in wide-ranging espionage against America. Nearly every week brings new stories of Chinese spying operations against the U.S.

But the media have always downplayed this threat, particularly so during the 1990s.

In 1999, the U.S. House of Representatives published a report called the “U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People’s Republic of China.” Then U.S. Rep. Christopher Cox chaired the report and it subsequently became known as the Cox Report. It is a monstrous, three-volume tome containing nearly 1,000 pages, and it documents how the Chinese stole U.S. weapons systems information, including “design information on the United States’ most advanced thermonuclear weapons.”

Even worse, the Cox Report concluded that, “The PRC has proliferated weapons systems and components to other countries including Iran, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, and North Korea” (page xiii, Adobe page 28). . . .

Read the entire article at The Loftus Party.

Note: The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.

Sunday, April 8, 2018

Why Aren’t Conservatives Hiring Progressives Just So They Can Fire Them?

Barb Wire Logo
Pundits and other political junkies are either outraged or delighted with The Atlantic firing former National Review writer Kevin Williamson right after it hired him. But as people cry or rejoice over this, the better thing to do is ponder a simple question that leads to a whole new line of thinking: Why aren’t conservatives hiring progressives just so they can fire them?

To understand why one should ponder such a question, he must understand why The Atlantic firing Williamson is significant. Williamson is a member of the conservative ruling class, and as such he has consistently opposed Donald Trump and anyone who supported him for the presidency. And if Williamson is like other conservative ruling class members, he also desperately wants progressives to respect him. He probably was quite thrilled when The Atlantic hired him.

The first piece Williamson wrote for The Atlantic (which turned out to be the only one as far as I know) took a shot at a former National Review colleague and at the magazine itself. Right after that The Atlantic fired him, supposedly for things he said in the past.

This means that the conservative Williamson is now without a job, and is without one after burning the bridge to his previous job. That’s a pretty big win for progressives.

So why aren’t conservatives going after progressives with just as much passion and dedication? Why aren’t conservatives hiring progressives away from their current jobs just so they can fire them, and leave them unemployed and humiliated? . . .

Read the entire column at Barb Wire.

Thursday, March 8, 2018

The Oscars Show How Much Hollywood Hates God

BarbWire Logo
One of the responses I regularly receive to columns like this is, “Just because people don’t believe the same things you do about what is right and wrong doesn’t mean they hate God or aren’t Christian.”

That’s wrong. And it’s not wrong because people disagree with me. It’s wrong because of the belief that people can make God and Christianity be whatever they want them to be. Of course, whenever I mention this, I expect to receive the, “But why do you think YOUR interpretations of God and Christianity are correct,” reply. And so it goes.

People will either like this column or hate it; don’t expect many to be in between about it.

So with this short introduction, go read, “The Oscars Show How Much Hollywood Hates God,” at BarbWire.

Monday, March 5, 2018

Why that Story You Heard about the U.S. Killing Russian Mercenaries in Syria Likely Is Wrong

Syria. Map Courtesy of CIA World Factbook.
During the past month or so, media reported that Russian-backed mercenaries participated in an early February attack on U.S.-backed forces, with the U.S. responding with an overwhelming counterattack that killed hundreds of Russians. Yet that account was suspect from the start. And a new report from Der Spiegel provides even more evidence that the story might be partially or entirely wrong.

A website called Polygraph.info reported on Feb. 16 that, “Zakharova Downplays Armed Clash with Americans in Syria, Kremlin-linked Audio Recordings Contradict Her Story.” Here is how Polygraph.info led off its report.

Maria Zakharova
Press secretary, Russian Foreign Ministry
“Material about the deaths of dozens and hundreds of Russian citizens – it is classic disinformation. It was not 400, not 200, not 100 and not 10. Preliminary figures indicate that as a result of the armed clash that took place, the causes of which are now being investigated, we can talk about the deaths of five people, presumably citizens of Russia. There are also wounded, but all this needs to be verified – in particular, and first and foremost, [their] citizenship; whether they are citizens of Russia or other countries.”
Source: Russian Foreign Ministry website, February 15, 2018
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova is the only Russian government official who has publicly confirmed that five people, “presumably” Russian citizens, were killed in an armed clash with U.S. forces near Deir el-Zour in Syria.
Opposition leaders inside Russia, as well as Russian and Western media reports, dispute Zakharova’s comments.

Then, on Feb. 22 The Washington Post reported that, “Putin ally said to be in touch with Kremlin, Assad before his mercenaries attacked U.S. troops.”

A Russian oligarch believed to control the Russian mercenaries who attacked U.S. troops and their allies in Syria this month was in close touch with Kremlin and Syrian officials in the days and weeks before and after the assault, according to U.S. intelligence reports.
In intercepted communications in late January, the oligarch, Yevgeniy Prigozhin, told a senior Syrian official that he had “secured permission” from an unspecified Russian minister to move forward with a “fast and strong” initiative that would take place in early February. . . .
The intelligence reports provide additional information about an incident that remains only murkily described by all concerned, with the Pentagon providing few details and the Russians offering changing accounts.
U.S. intelligence agencies declined to comment on the reports, excerpts of which were shared with The Washington Post.

The final sentence from The Washington Post article should have raised alarms for anyone following the story. That sentence indicates two things: (1) if the Post was indeed receiving actual intelligence from U.S. officials, that in itself would appear to be an illegal act. And it subsequently calls into question what the motivation is of those officials disclosing the intelligence. (2) The same (or other) government officials refused to say what they thought of the apparently illegally disclosed intelligence, indicating that they might not be ready to make an analytical judgment on what it means, or that they were using it to manipulate public opinion.