The Ruler’s Lieutenants

by

Gadfly

         On July 29, 2021, Paul Jay interviewed Mikey Weinstein on his program, a Canadian-based podcast, The Analysis.News.  Here is the headline: “Full Interview – Powerful Christian Nationalists in Military See Trump as Vehicle for Authoritarian Religious State – Mikey Weinstein.”  The entire interview with adjoining transcript is available here.

         Here is how Weinstein was introduced: 

Now joining us is Mikey Weinstein. He’s the founder and president of the seven-time Nobel Peace Prize-nominated Military Religious Freedom Foundation, the MRFF. Mikey was named one of the 100 most influential people in U.S. Defense by Defense News, which is a major publication read by just about everybody in the “defense industry.” Mikey represents nearly 75,000 active and retired reserve service members.  He himself is an honor graduate of the United States Air Force Academy and formerly worked in and for the West Wing as a legal counsel in the Reagan White House. 

         The introduction alone begs questions.

First, how does Jay know the MRFF was nominated seven times for the Nobel Peace Prize?  Mikey told him?  Who nominated the MRFF for the Nobel Prize?  Perhaps a Freedom of Information Act request might answer this question.

Second, named one of the most influential people in U.S. Defense by Defense News, was this a compliment?  Here are some of the individuals selected Person of the Year by Time Magazine:  Adolph Hitler, 1938; Joseph Stalin, 1939 and 1942; Nikita Khrushchev, 1957; Ayatollah Khomeini, 1979; Deng Xiaoping, 1985; Vladimir Putin, 2007; and Greta Thunberg, 2019.  Mikey is in good company.

Third, Mikey represents 75,000 active and retired reserve service members.  Really?  Of course, like the Nobel Peace Prize nominations, we must take his word for it.  Moreover, he’ll claim lawyer-client confidentiality.  Which brings us to the last achievement.

Finally, Mikey was an honor graduate of the United States Air Force Academy.  It is ironic that he achieved success in an honor code-based institution he denigrates for its alleged religious proselytizing while making dubious claims about the Nobel Peace Prize and the number of clients he represents, let alone all those he denigrates in the interview.

         If you are following my suspicion about Mikey’s intentions let alone his honesty, please watch the interview.  It begs many more questions. 

         Mikey represents the worst of what threatens America today—an anti-Judeo Christian ideology grounded in atheistic Marxism.  Sadly, the last war America won was the Second World War.  The following public domain picture from Normandy, France, which is representative of all American cemeteries in Europe and the Pacific stemming from WWII sacrifices, speaks volumes about the moral grounding of those who gave their lives to protect American style liberty and to liberate others under the oppression of ideological totalitarianism.

Who or what is Mikey’s moral inspiration?  Satan’s lieutenants (obedient to the “ruler of the world,” see John 12:  31-36) are working hard to suppress our understanding of natural law and its inspiration for the Declaration of Independence, codified in a self-governing Constitution and Bill of Rights.

If we do not recognize the danger and do what we can to stem this movement (do you recall what happened to the Tsar Nicholas II family at the hands of the Bolshevik movement?  See my article here.), we will slide into the same totalitarian fate of other nations during the Twentieth Century.  For an excellent analysis and implied prophecy, read Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism.  Conditions are ripe for a repeat of history.

Newsflash:  Trump was the antithesis of this movement.  This should explain why he was so thoroughly demonized by the left and their blatant socialist impulses.   

Two Michaels

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  Gadfly, as a 1970 United States Air Force Academy graduate, I am perplexed by the recent assault on one 1975 graduate by a 1977 graduate.

Old Gadfly:  You’re referring to Weinstein and Rosebush.  Recall, I too graduated from that institution in 1973; and, while I have known Rosebush since 1979, I had only a brief encounter with Weinstein about five years ago at the Academy Superintendent’s quarters during a social gathering.

 

            IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  This is interesting.  The public narrative so far seems pretty nasty.  Weinstein has sent a letter to the Acting Secretary of the Air Force demanding Rosebush be fired from his position at the Academy.  Of course, when I read the article that talked about the letter, I noticed it was written by Pam Zubeck, who used to be a journalist for the Colorado Springs Gazette but has since had her talents shifted to the Colorado Springs Independent—perhaps a discussion for another day.  How do you weigh the public narrative in light of your personal knowledge and experiences?

Old Gadfly:  Two mothers each gave birth to a son.  Each named their son, Michael.  One now goes by Mikey and the other Mike.  Both attended the Air Force Academy.  One became a lawyer and political activist.  The other became a pilot and counselor/therapist.

AM:  Ok, ok . . . what are your impressions?

Old Gadfly:  With an assault such as this, it is very difficult to remain bounded by political correctness.  So, here is a candid evaluation.  Mike Rosebush made a positive impression on me and my family in 1979 when our families were stationed together at Sembach Air Base, West Germany.  He cared about people.  He was a good man, full of love and compassion.  I know Mike to be a very spiritual person, yet he never proselytized with me or others in our unit.  While I have remained in contact with Mike over all these years, I know of nothing in his background to suggest he had lost his enduring love and compassion for others.  On the other hand, five years ago, I had about a 15-minute encounter with Mikey Weinstein.  He had no idea who I was or what I did.  For that matter all the individuals in our group were invisible to him.  The conversation was one-sided, and it was all about Mikey—his impressive contacts, his movie project, his nonprofit and all the issues he was taking on.  I later discovered Barry Fagin, a faculty member at the Academy, is one of his network allies.  Quite frankly, despite his ample girth, I saw a very small man who was all about power and taking power away from others.  In other words, we have two Michaels, one a giver and the other a taker.

AM:  Have you seen some of the trash being published?

Old Gadfly:  Yes I have.  And when I try to get through these attacks, it only reinforces the bigotry being perpetrated in the name of science.

IM:  Tell us more.

Old Gadfly:  Let’s start with Mikey’s letter to the openly gay Acting Secretary of the Air Force.  Here is the first paragraph of the letter:

With great shock and an enormous sense of disgust, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) has been informed of the notorious anti-gay bigot Dr. Mike Rosebushʼs employment at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA). Needless to say, the employment of a fundamentalist Christian, “gay conversion therapy” advocate comes as a grave insult and palpable threat to USAFAʼs lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) cadets, staffers, and faculty members, including MRFFʼs 27 LGB clients at the Academy. Accordingly, MRFF demands that USAFA immediately terminate the employment of the notorious homophobe Rosebush.

Notice, the language is far from objective.  Look at the hyperbolic expressions:  “great shock,” “enormous sense of disgust,” “notorious anti-gay bigot,” “fundamentalist Christian,” “grave insult,” “palpable threat,” and “notorious homophobe.”  So, what is it exactly that Dr. Rosebush has done that has violated any laws, rules, or policies in his current posting?  Is there evidence that he has imposed his views on cadets, faculty, or staff?

Then, there is Dr. Barry Fagin’s column in the Colorado Springs Gazette.  Dr. Fagin’s biography claims he is “a committed scientist and critical thinker.”  Yet, in his public prosecution of Dr. Rosebush, Fagin makes, what is called in the world of science, unwarranted assertions.  He stated, “Far from being harmless, reparative therapy has done unconscionable harm to gay men.”  Yet, he offers no evidence to support the claim.  He further stated, “Practicing it on minors is illegal in many states.”  In fact, only two states make it illegal:  California and, most recently, New Jersey.  See our discussion on this action in our conversation, “A Progressive Republican?”  Then Fagin goes on to ask some good questions, something a critical thinker does:

But where is the engagement with "ex ex-gays," their heartrending stories of emotional abuse, the systematic denial of their ability to live a whole, integrated life? Where is the study that measures how many people who attempt reparative therapy are actually helped?

At this point in the article, I began to credit Fagin for critical thinking.  But, then he adds the following:

Where are the longitudinal follow-up studies that measure relapse rates? What are we supposed to make of the enormous body of scientific evidence against it?

Are we supposed to believe the infamous gay agenda has somehow co-opted the entire psychological community? I had no idea homosexuals in America had so much power. You would think they'd use it to avoid getting beaten up.

This is when Fagin displayed his skills at sophistry.  If he could not find “longitudinal follow-up studies that measure relapse rates,” then how can he logically follow that question with, “What are we supposed to make about the enormous body of scientific evidence against it?”  He just made an assertion:  that there is scientific evidence against it.  Against what—relapses or success?  If there is evidence, what is it?  Share it with the reader.  Finally, he mocks segments of our society by joking about who has power and who does not.

AM:  As you laid out your observations and arguments, I recalled an article by the Academy’s Superintendent about the importance of respecting others, in light of concerns about sexual assaults.  I especially noticed the thoughtfulness she demonstrated in the ultimate impact of rape:  “Research has proven that rape is about power, control and domination.  Rape is not about sex, though it is a violent crime expressed sexually. The victim has not ‘asked for it’ and does not enjoy it. Rape is often life-altering and can be life-threatening. In some cases, it can severely traumatize the victim.”

IM:  In this case, it looks like a gang rape of Dr. Mike Rosebush.  The perpetrators are Mikey Weinstein, Dr. Barry Fagin, Rachel Maddow, Chris Rodda (while visiting this article, I also noticed one by the Editor of Gay Voices at Huffington Post—this one spoke well for the pro-gay community), Sunnivie Brydum, Evan Hurst, John Aravosis, among others.  With the exception of Weinstein and Fagin, the people mentioned here are all gay.

Old Gadfly:  The major disappointment here is that those who are attacking Mike Rosebush want the public to believe individuals were victimized by those who have tried to help them.  To my knowledge, the programs designed to help are available for those who choose to use them when needed or desired.  Mike Rosebush did not coerce any individual into seeking his assistance.  Even Academy graduate Scott Hines, Academy Class of 1992, who was interviewed by Rachel Maddow, took the initiative to seek help; and, those involved during the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” era exercised admirable discretion in protecting Hines’ privacy and dignity. 

The irony is that those who accuse Mike Rosebush of being anti-gay also reveal their own capacity for bigotry and hatred.  Mike is not anti-gay.  He believes that certain behaviors, whether consciously chosen or passively acquired through imitation, can become habitual over time and may reach a point where an individual lacks the capacity to control them.  Mike’s expertise is in addiction counseling, which includes all forms of addiction.  I might like to gamble.  If I do it too much and become addicted, then I might need assistance in getting beyond the addiction.  In terms of addiction counseling for sexual orientations, whatever label people want to use, whether reparative, conversion, curative, or so forth obscures the helper’s (counselor, coach, or whatever label) intentions.  For those who want to change their behavior, as in moving from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation, current forces are working hard to discourage such a free choice.  Mikey Weinstein and others who are “raping” Mike Rosebush are also denying the freedom to choose for those who would want to make such a choice.  Those forces are examples of the secular progressivism that is trampling tradition.  In The Fatal Conceit, F. A. Hayek provided a compelling argument about such forces when they attack traditional values that have emerged from the trial and error of human behavior over time.  These traditional values balance the paradox of impulse versus reason.

AM:  That concept, progressivism, rears its ugly head again, Gadfly.

Old Gadfly:  It is an idea that is ubiquitous and insidious in penetrating our social conscience.  In 2005, Lee Harris authored an interesting article, “The Future of Tradition.”  At the time, a push for same-sex marriage was prominent in the news.  Harris argued that such a major change in modern culture would significantly tamper with time-tested tradition; thus, he was not in favor of such change.  I thought the article was bold and well-argued.  But, what really impressed me about Harris’s analysis is that at the end of the article he disclosed that he was gay and anticipated history would look back on this phase (homosexuality in general and same-sex marriage in particular) in the evolution of the human condition as a mere experiment that would not survive the test of time and the enduring and stabilizing influence of tradition.

AM:  Obamacare might make it very costly for those who opt out of reparative or conversion therapy for smoking.  Maybe we’ll soon see a list of addictions that are eligible for reparative or conversion therapy.  But, then again, reparative or conversion therapy might be mandated for certain behaviors or political views.  North Korea and China still provide such services.

IM:  What can be done?

          Old Gadfly:  We must do three things.  First, we must challenge bigotry in all forms.  What Weinstein and his cohort are engaged in is bigotry.  Second, we must have the strength and courage to model the opposite of bigotry:  demonstrating respect for others (to include different views) through love and compassion.  Mike Rosebush is a model for this approach.  Third, we must continue to alert our friends, family, and strangers to the threat of secular progressivism.  This movement represents an ideology that seeks “power, control, and domination,” and is raping what used to be a liberty-loving society.

President Epimenides

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  AM (an American seasoned combat aviator with an inquiring mind), last month, Gadfly and I discussed a segment on The O’Reilly Factor.  The gist of our discussion was how easy it is to spin reality even when one is critical of any such spin.

Old Gadfly:  Did you see spin in yesterday’s press conference with the President?

IM:  Absolutely!  Especially the part about Benghazi.  In fact, the rhetoric went well beyond spin.

Old Gadfly:  Tell AM about Epimenides.

IM:  Epimenides was a philosopher from Crete.  There is a modern paradox based on Epimenides and it refers to self-referential logic.  It starts with the premise, all Cretans are liars.  Epimenides then declares himself to be a Cretan.  He appears to be honest in his declaration.  Yet, if the premise is true, then he must be lying.  Do you see the paradox?  The premise is critical in self-referential logic.

AM:  Yes, but I’m trying to see how this links to Benghazi.

IM:  The President called the Benghazi investigations “political circuses,” “political sideshows,” and “politically motivated.”  Yet, it is clear now that the Susan Rice talking points during the five Sunday news programs were deliberately spun to present a false narrative.

AM:  I remember Rice wanted viewers to believe what happened was the result of a spontaneous mob motivated by an anti-Muslim video.  What initially struck me about this scenario is why was Rice the one selected to deliver the narrative.  The combat mission planner in me quickly realized this action was straight out of a chapter in Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, on tactical dispositions.[1]  Sun Tzu said, “The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.”[2]  Rice is African American and a woman.  To attack Rice would be an attack on African Americans and women.  Symbolically, any such attack would be labeled racist and misogynist.  Thus, the incumbent and his lieutenants were placing a shield around the “premise,” or narrative told by Rice.  Jonah Goldberg explains this tactic in The Tyranny of Clichés:  How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas.

Old Gadfly:  Excellent analysis, AM.  The tactic described by Sun Tzu implies a temporal context when he said, “and waited for the opportunity of defeating the enemy,” obviously Romney in this case.  Did context shape the tactic?

AM:  Shack!

IM:  What do you mean by “shack”?

AM:  It’s aviator jargon for “bulls-eye.”  Keep in mind, the attack on Benghazi was on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.  So, there are two “shacks” in what happened here.  The first was on the part of the terrorists who demonstrated that “terrorists are not on the run,” which was a major campaign argument in favor of the incumbent in the presidential campaign.  Despite these circumstances and given the incumbent was within two months of the general election, it was existentially important to keep the terrorist victory (and the false premise) a secret until after the election.  If this tactic worked, then who would care about what happened at that point?  After all, the spoils of victory go to the winner.  This was certainly demonstrated by Hillary’s “what difference does it make” declaration.

Old Gadfly:  So, would you conclude that the spinning of Rice’s talking points was politically motivated?

IM:  Yes, and the irony is that the president-elect, perhaps more justly named President Epimenides, accuses Republicans of engaging in a dishonest investigation based on political maneuvering.  He wants the public to believe Republicans are Cretans, which is why the public is so confused.  If the premise that Republicans are liars is true and they advance arguments that the Administration is guilty of presenting a false narrative, then Republicans are lying which by default makes the narrative advanced by Rice true.

Further, President Epimenides shows little diversity in his tactics.  When his gun control legislation went nowhere, he blamed a lot of his opponents (which should have included Democrats who also were against the legislation) as liars.  President Epimenides was confident that the “gun control” premise, shielded by family props, would be sufficient to pass in a Democrat-controlled Senate and then fail in the Republican House.  This would have been powerful “ammunition” for demonizing the GOP.  As analysts have already indicated this was part of a broader strategy to position the political battlefield for 2014 elections.

AM:  As for me, having served with great Americans who demonstrated outstanding leadership during tough circumstances, I am embarrassed to see an amateur diminish the greatness of a once great office of leadership.  And, when I think about one of the two investigators of the Accountability Review Board being a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and now a board director for General Motors, I cannot help but smell “conflict of interest” when the incumbent and his sidekick loved to brag “bin Laden dead, GM alive” throughout the presidential campaign.

Old Gadfly:  It looks like Americans are getting a potentially lethal dose of Lord Acton’s dictum:  “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  What happens next?

AM:  It will be difficult to connect all the dots.  Remember, when Congressman Issa’s Government Oversight Committee was getting close to a smoking gun on the Fast and Furious Operation that killed two Border Patrol Agents and hundreds of Mexican citizens, President Epimenides imposed executive privilege.  This action indicated either (a) prior knowledge of the operation when publicly claiming no such knowledge or (b) abuse of executive privilege power.  Now, we hear about the IRS targeting certain conservative groups and the Justice Department secretly seizing phone records of Associated Press editors and reporters.

IM:  Unless the liberal media realizes and attempts to mitigate how they have been duped beyond their ideological complicity, people will agree with President Epimenides, who shrugged off what happened in Benghazi as a speed bump.

AM:  Complicating any attempt to find a moral compass to navigate these politically rough seas are attempts to eliminate or emasculate any spiritual inspiration or set of principles.  I was disappointed, and quite concerned, to see current efforts to criminalize expressions of faith within the military.  Being a fellow Air Force Academy graduate, I just do not understand Mikey Weinstein’s motivation for what he does.

Old Gadfly:  Ironically, just last weekend, a friend encouraged me to check out the Mexican Constitution and its history.  Religion was completely suppressed until the 1990s.  In the 1930s, “socialist education” was mandated for all schools, public and private.  It makes me wonder about the political orientation and logical affiliations of our Latino immigrants, legal and illegal.  It may explain certain behaviors stemming from our own political ideologies.  Perhaps we can discuss this topic at greater length in a future conversation.

IM:  Meanwhile, remember:  President Epimenides went to a Christian church in Chicago.

AM:  You mean the church whose Pastor declared, “God Damn America”?

Old Gadfly:  It looks like we have a lot to discuss.  I look forward to our next conversation.      

---

[1] Sun Tzu, The Art of War (Edited by James Clavell), (New York, NY:  Delacourt Press, 1983).

 

[2] Ibid, p. 19.