What Did Obama Know & When Did He Know It?

This is a summary of a Hannity segment I came across in a blog I know nothing about – and honestly, looks a little weird – but it’s an accurate representation of what was said, and what was said is important – despite Hannity’s involvement 😉

The first guest, Sara Carter of Circa keeps showing up in my reading on this whole Trump/Obama Spygate affair and she seems to have some good sources or instincts or both.

The other guest, attorney Jay Sekulow, has been a great champion for those targeted and abused by the Obama regime. I’ve seen him speak & testify many times and he’s a bulldog.

As for Hannity… well… he’s not the brightest bulb and even if he were, he’s so far up Trump’s butt you’d never see the light, but Sara & Jay carry the segment anyway, so, enjoy.

Sara Carter and Jay Sekulow joined Sean Hannity as the anticipation for “smoking gun” revelations proving that Obama spied on President Trump mounts. Hannity notes that every day, everything Carter said is coming true. He asks her what she thinks about what Devin Nunes has said and also about a James Rosen article just posted.

She predicts it’s not going to be  “just one little piece of evidence but an accumulation of evidence that’s going to expose what’s been going on” with the Obama regime spying on citizens. She recognizes that after the information is delivered to chairman Nunes [Friday March 24, 2017] we’ll be much better informed. She notes the expansion by Obama of the intelligence sharing under executive order 12333, wondering why and what changed.

She asks, “If it was legal to collect all of this evidence, not the unmasking of all of these names, but if this was collected legally, was there something else that happened before this that we’re not aware of yet?” She felt Chairman Nunes was dancing around that question a little bit in his earlier interview with Hannity.

Sekulow talks about the statement by Chairman Nunes that some of this information was obtained prior to the expansion of executive order 12333 and that the implication is that this information could have been disclosed without any “perceived or claimed” legitimacy under that illegitimate executive order.

Sekulow says, “You know what I think we’ve got here Sean? I think we’ve got a Constitutional crisis of James Comey’s making. So this is a Constitutional crisis from Comey and Comey was an administration official also under ‘president’ Obama. And this idea that ‘president’ Obama did not order it does not answer the question of was the Obama administration responsible for this because the fact is, and this is clear, they were the administration in power.”

Carter thinks it goes past Comey to the highest levels of the Obama regime. “We need to find out who unmasked these names,” she says, “and it wasn’t just Director Comey. There were other people who had access to this and the NSA can unmask these names. So who requested that? That’s one of the most important, important questions here Sean, and why. And I think once those questions start to get answered, just like Chairman Nunes said, then we’ll know, was there political espionage? And if there was, Sean, this is the greatest civil liberties violations that we have seen in our country in a long time.”

Sekulow recommends subpoenaing Obama directly, compeling him to answer the questions directly. “You want to find out what he knew and when he knew it? Ask him, especially if this was not anything outside the scope of legitimacy. So if this was ‘a legal surveillance,’ but they unmasked this information, ask the ‘president’ directly.”

He also believes that Attorney General Sessions should impanel a grand jury. He added, “Number two, for the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, he needs to get the background data, because what he saw in those reports shocked him, obviously. Not just because it named President Trump potentially and his associates, but also the nature of the dissemination itself. And that dissemination, that unmasking can well be a crime, so they need to get the background data.”

Once again he stresses that President Trump can get the information they need to pursue this. He needs to get it “and Jeff Sessions needs to be working on it tonight.”

Hannity adds that James Comey now needs to come clean with the American people and tell us what he knows.” That is an area where Comey might opt to plead the 5th, Sean, like so many Democrats eventually find themselves doing. His conduct over the past year or so indicates that is a very strong possibility, once his Teflon of “an ongoing investigation” is removed.

*I made some extremely minor corrections to the text/punctuation for ease of reading.

### end ###

Democrat Spook to Obama: WAKE UP

christian-muslim-symbolsChristians underwent their Reformation. It’s time Muslims do too. It’s time. Way past time. That’s what this Democrat intelligence official is saying here, in essence. It’s so obvious to me I’m sort of stunned more people don’t talk about it in those terms. Perhaps they’re afraid framing it in that way would lend oxygen to the Left’s whole “Crusade” accusation of the “radical Right.” Whatever. I’m tired of worrying about what the Left will say. [Bleep] ’em. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Say it plainly. We’re not a stupid people (mostly;). Our deep sense of fairness will more than make up for whatever stupid bubbles up. We’re good at fair, we Americans. We have a remarkably good sense of it. So let’s trust the people, hm?

You can read my excerpts below or the whole thing here.

I’m a Former CIA Officer and a Democrat. Here’s What Obama Still Doesn’t Get About Terrorism

…Islam is a faith in crisis.
President-elect Donald Trump’s chosen national security advisor, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, has tried explaining this — albeit in impolite terms — by saying that “Islam is a political ideology based on a religion.”
Flynn’s poorly worded warning stems from experience, and he knows what happens when religious leaders take over governments. Women face widespread discrimination. Gay people are imprisoned or killed. Dancing, music and other forms of art are banned. And those who criticize Islam or convert to Christianity face prison or death.
However, what causes the most alarm to national security experts is the Wahhabi objective of global conquest. Islamic State and Al Qaeda are terrorist groups built on Wahhabi ideology. They want to govern the world under sharia law, and they are more than willing to achieve their goals through force. Islamic State is known for beheading its victims or burning them alive. And as we saw in Columbus, they’re inspiring legions of supporters. …

The United States has also suffered the consequences of Islamist extremism and those inspired by the radical ideology. We remember San BernardinoBostonFt. HoodLittle RockGarlandChattanoogaFt. DixOrlando. Shanksville. New York. Washington.

Muslims have every right to sit at the American table if they support the Constitution. We should all proudly acknowledge brave women and men like my former CIA colleague who led our nation’s war on terrorism for more than 15 years; he’s Shiite Muslim. This officer — whom I can’t name because he’s still officially under cover— was ruthless in his hunt for radical killers, and he deserves a medal for his years of sacrifice.

Are we at war with the whole of Islam, or should we be? Of course not. But Islam is a faith in crisis, and to deny that certain strains of the religion are contributing to global instability is to deny reality.

After eight years as president, Obama still doesn’t understand that.


What Not “Oppressing” Hath Wrought


Obama’s “leading from behind,” i.e., not “oppressing” other countries with our nasty-ass, white, colonial imperialism has had profound consequences – but not in a good way. The misery told in this chart is unimaginable.

Total 34.46M “persons of concern” were “displaced” at the end of 2008 (You can click the little tabs in the graphic). Refugees, basically. People who had to leave home, against their will, because staying meant death, either fast or slow.

By the end of 2015*? (Nearly) DOUBLED. 63.91M.

Perspective? 34.46M is roughly the total population of America’s top 20 biggest cities. (Via the U.S. Census, accurate as of 2015.)


CHANT IT WITH ME: “This is what colonialism looks like!”

Thank GOD they’re not “oppressed” anymore.

Heckuva job, Barry.


*The latest report available as of this writing.

Orange is the New Black


“Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.”

Glenn Greenwald, hard-core progressive gay American ex-pat in Brazil is a relentlessly consistent warrior against the Imperial Executive and the abuse and encroachments on your privacy. We disagree on things, but on these things, he’s 100% right. His article, presented in full below, describes what we are facing.

Obama set a terrible precedent. The Orange King is about to get his hands on the IRS, the NSA, and God knows how many weaponized agencies. And since Trump is neither Republican nor Democrat merely… Trump, no-one is safe.

Good luck, America.

November 11, 2016 The Washington Post
“Trump Will Have Vast Powers. He Can Thank Democrats for Them”
by Glenn Greenwald

Liberals are understandably panicked about what Donald Trump can carry out. “We have a president-elect with authoritarian tendencies assuming a presidency that has never been more powerful ,” Franklin Foer wrote this past week in Slate. Trump will command not only a massive nuclear arsenal and the most robust military in history, but also the ability to wage numerous wars in secret and without congressional authorization; a ubiquitous system of electronic surveillance that can reach most forms of human communication and activity; and countless methods for shielding himself from judicial accountability, congressional oversight and the rule of law — exactly what the Constitution was created to prevent. Trump assumes the presidency “at the peak of its imperial powers,” as Foer put it.

Sen. Barack Obama certainly saw it that way when he first ran for president in 2008. Limiting executive-power abuses and protecting civil liberties were central themes of his campaign. The former law professor repeatedly railed against the Bush-Cheney template of vesting the president with unchecked authorities in the name of fighting terrorism or achieving other policy objectives. “This administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide,” he said in 2007. Listing an array of controversial Bush-Cheney policies, from warrantless domestic surveillance to due-process-free investigations and imprisonment, he vowed: “We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers.”

Yet, beginning in his first month in office and continuing through today, Obama not only continued many of the most extreme executive-power policies he once condemned, but in many cases strengthened and extended them. His administration detained terrorism suspects without due process, proposed new frameworks to keep them locked up without trial, targeted thousands of individuals (including a U.S. citizen) for execution by drone, invoked secrecy doctrines to shield torture and eavesdropping programs from judicial review, and covertly expanded the nation’s mass electronic surveillance.

Blinded by the belief that Obama was too benevolent and benign to abuse his office, and drowning in partisan loyalties at the expense of political principles, Democrats consecrated this framework with their acquiescence and, often, their explicit approval. This is the unrestrained set of powers Trump will inherit. The president-elect frightens them, so they are now alarmed. But if they want to know whom to blame, they should look in the mirror.

Obama’s approach to executive power flipped so quickly and diametrically that’s it is impossible to say if he ever believed his campaign-era professions of restraint. As early as May 2009, Jack Goldsmith, a Justice Department official under George W. Bush, celebrated Obama’s abandonment of his promises to rein in these authorities, writing that “the new administration has copied most of the Bush program, has expanded some of it, and has narrowed only a bit.” He added that the “Obama practices will be much closer to late Bush practices than almost anyone expected in January 2009.”

By putting a prettier liberal face on these policies, and transforming them from a symbol of GOP radicalism into one of bipartisan security consensus, the president entrenched them as permanent fixtures of the American presidency. As Goldsmith put it, Obama’s actions were “designed to fortify the bulk of the Bush program for the long-run.”

Liberals vehemently denounced these abuses during the Bush presidency. From 2001 through 2008, Democrats called them the embodiment of tyranny, an existential threat to democracy, a menacing expression of right-wing radicalism. “America’s Constitution is in grave danger,” Al Gore warned in a widely praised 2006 speech on civil liberties. Bush had become “the central threat that the founders sought to nullify in the Constitution, an all-powerful executive, too reminiscent of the king from whom they had broken free.” In one 2007 poll, 57 percent of Democrats said they wanted the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to be closed.

But after Obama took office, many liberals often tolerated — and even praised — his aggressive assertions of executive authority. It is hard to overstate how complete the Democrats’ about-face on these questions was once their own leader controlled the levers of power. According to a 2012 Washington Post-ABC News poll, 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats and 67 percent of moderate or conservative ones now supported keeping Guantanamo Bay open. After just three years of the Obama presidency, liberals sanctioned a system that allowed the president to imprison people without any trial or an ounce of due process.

In fact, a new Democratic Party orthodoxy took hold under Obama: the right of a president to detain people, or even assassinate them, without charges or a whiff of judicial oversight. This included even American citizens. “We do not believe that [Anwar] al-Aulaqi’s U.S. citizenship imposes constitutional limitations that would preclude the contemplated lethal action” by the military or the CIA, a Justice Department memo proclaimed in 2010.

Democrats (who had bitterly complained in 2005 about mere eavesdropping without court approval) not only failed to contest this assassination program but ultimately expressed their support for it. “Fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones,” according to the write-up of that 2012 Post-ABC poll. Support drops “only somewhat when respondents are asked specifically about targeting American citizens living overseas, as was the case with Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni American killed in September in a drone strike in northern Yemen.”

This same dynamic — Democrats endorsing vast expansions of executive powers — repeated itself time and again, both within the national security realm and outside it. Obama issued numerous signing statements purporting to nullify legal obligations, invoked radical secrecy privileges to avoid lawsuits, eroded long-standing Miranda rights for terrorism suspects, waged a war in Libya even after Congress voted against its authorization and pioneered novel means of using executive orders to circumvent congressional (i.e. democratic) approval in a wide array of domestic policy arenas.

And of course, Obama aggressively expanded the system of mass surveillance, including on U.S. soil, that had been secretly implemented by the National Security Agency after 9/11. Once Edward Snowden showed the world what had been created, many Democrats became the leaders in protecting this spying system from meaningful limits, reform or oversight. When, in the immediate aftermath of the Snowden revelations, a bipartisan coalition of House members headed by Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.) sought to impose serious limits on the NSA’s domestic spying, the White House turned to then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to lead the successful effort to stop them.

Civil liberties advocates and proponents of limited executive authority tried everything they could think of to persuade and cajole Democrats to rediscover their concerns about these abuses and once again become allies in the battle to constrain government power. But those efforts were largely futile. Partisan loyalties easily subordinated any commitment to the principles that they had purported, in the Bush years, to support.

The problem such advocates encountered was the same one they’d faced during the Bush presidency when trying (and failing) to persuade putatively small-government conservatives to oppose these expansions of presidential power: namely, many people are perfectly content to have such authority vested in leaders they trust, and fear them only when a politician from the opposing party wields them.

As such, the tactic of last resort to induce Democrats and liberals to oppose such policies was to ask them to think about how, one day, these powers could be in the hands of someone other than a benevolent, kind-hearted, trustworthy progressive like Barack Obama. Instead, Democrats were urged, imagine that a right-wing authoritarian, or a lawless demagogue, or a petty, vindictive tyrant won the presidency and inherited the framework of unrestrained, unchecked powers that Republicans implemented and Democrats expanded.

That day has arrived. With Trump looming, there is much talk of uniting across ideological and partisan lines to impose meaningful limits on executive authority, and those efforts are justified. But, as progressives were repeatedly warned, a matrix of power that has been defended and legitimized for 15 years by both parties will be very difficult to uproot.

November 11, 2016 The Washington Post “Trump Will Have Vast Powers. He Can Thank Democrats for Them – Liberals liked executive authority as long as Obama wielded it. Now they’ve set a precedent.” by Glenn Greenwald “co-founder of The Intercept (which) led the NSA reporting that won the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for The Guardian (UK).”


What Hiroshima Stopped

We call it “Trumpbart” now because under Stephen K. Bannon’s “leadership” it has devolved into bile, but this once great torch-blower-of-truth used to do reporting like this on a regular basis. It honors Andrew Breitbart’s name that this popped up from the muck.

The writer, like so many of us, was appalled, embarrassed, outraged, and disgraced by that thing’s remarks this week. I can’t even speak his name right now. I just can’t. I don’t even know what he is anymore, but I know I’ve never been so ashamed of my country’s leadership. That, I know.

I present it here without any editing, but please, give it a click. (That’s how sites “score” themselves for purposes of setting advertising rates, etc.) 

War Crimes of Imperial Japan: A Lesson In Moral Equivalence for Mr. Obama

By John Hayward
May 27, 2016


President Obama made a single, vague reference to “evil” during his prepared remarks in Hiroshima: “We may not be able to eliminate man’s capacity to do evil, so nations and the alliances that we form must possess the means to defend ourselves. But among those nations like my own that hold nuclear stockpiles, we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them.”

He spoke at length about the horrors experienced by the populace of Hiroshima:

We stand here in the middle of this city and force     ourselves to imagine the moment the bomb fell. We forceourselves to feel the dread of children confused by 
what they see. We listen to a silent cry. We remember  all the innocents killed across the arc of that 
terrible war and the wars that came before and the warsthat would follow.

Mere words cannot give voice to such suffering. But we have a shared responsibility to look directly into the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to  curb such suffering again.

“Let all the souls here rest in peace, for we shall not repeat the evil,” he said, when reading the inscription on a monument at the Peace Memorial Park.

He somehow forgot to mention the evils perpetrated by Imperial Japan or the unspeakable suffering it inflicted upon POWs and civilians who fell into its clutches.

Let’s correct that oversight, to help the President understand why moral equivalence is the dim refuge of lazy minds, and equating American troops with the Axis forces they defeated is an outrage.

Pearl Harbor

We can start with the one everybody knows about: the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. That was a war crime, Mr. Obama, as very clearly stated in the relevant international laws of the day. It was accompanied by equally illegal bombings against Singapore, Hong Kong, and the Philippines, as part of a very deliberate Japanese strategy. In Hiroshima, Obama’s sole criticism of the Empire of Japan was some mumbled mush about “mistakes of the past,” and that wasn’t even exclusively directed at the Japanese. Nothing they did was a mistake.

Pearl HarbourA small boat rescues sailors from the USS ‘West Virginia’ after she had suffered a hit in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The USS Tennessee (BB-43) is inboard of the sunken battleship. (Photo by Fox Photos/Getty Images)

Mr. Obama, who claims to be a lawyer and devotee of international law, may be interested to know that every single one of the 3,581 casualties at Pearl Harbor (according to the National WWII Museum tally) were considered non-combatants, including the 2,403 military personnel who were killed, because Japan did not declare war before the attack. If it happened today, it would be rightly denounced as a terrorist attack.

The Bataan Death March

Here’s another one every American school kid should know about: the Bataan Death March. There was no swift death for the thousands of Americans and Filipinos under siege by Japanese forces in the Philippines. They were already sick and starving when they surrendered to the Japanese.

"This picture, captured from the Japanese, shows American prisoners using improvised litters to carry those of their comrades who, from the lack of food or water on the march from Bataan, fell along the road." Philippines, May 1942. (Wikimedia Commons)“This picture, captured from the Japanese, shows American prisoners using improvised litters to carry those of their comrades who, from the lack of food or water on the march from Bataan, fell along the road.” Philippines, May 1942. (Wikimedia Commons)

In an act of pure, deliberate sadism, because they were enraged by stiff American resistance during the siege, the Japanese forced their prisoners to march a hundred miles to a prison camp on foot. Many of the prisoners were killed out of hand, including anyone who dared to ask for water… and anyone who collapsed from dehydration. POWs reported Japanese soldiers taking away their meager supply of water and feeding it to horses while they watched. Starving men were tortured with false offers of food. Prisoners who accepted gifts of food from civilians along the route were murdered.

Some were murdered merely for possessing Japanese items, including currency. They were killed by beheading and run through with bayonets, as well as gunshots. Bayonet victims died from orgies of frenzied stabbing, not clean and swift impalement. Some of the captives were reportedly driven insane by exposure to the sun.  They were also crammed into barbed-wire pens were malaria, dengue fever, dysentery, and other diseases ran wild.

It has been estimated that between 5,000 and 11,000 of Japan’s prisoners were killed during the Bataan Death March. That wasn’t the only death march the Empire perpetrated, either. The prisoners of Sandakan were subjected to multiple forced marches, once the Japanese lost interest in using them as slave labor. By the time they were finished, only six of the original 2,390 prisoners were still alive.

One of the Japanese torture methods recounted by survivors of Sandakan involved pouring water down a prisoner’s throat until his stomach became distended, and then kicking him in the stomach.

About half of Japan’s captives in the Pacific died before the end of the war. Brave men who survived the experience spent the rest of their lives refusing to talk about what they went through.

The Rape of Nanking

Citizen of the World Barack Obama doesn’t much care for the idea of “American exceptionalism,” so he might want to consider the atrocities Imperial Japan perpetrated against the people of other countries, too. In Bataan and other POW atrocities, for example, the Japanese were even more brutal toward Filipinos than Americans. China, of course, still remembers the Rape of Nanking.

That was a literal rape, involving up to 80,000 sexual assaults. The once-prosperous city of Nanking, capital of Nationalist China at the time, was laid waste. Japanese conquerors murdered men, women, and children by the thousands, leaving bodies piled up along the streets. The Yangtze River turned red from all the blood.

Bodies of victims along Qinhuai River out of Nanking's west gate during Nanking Massacre. (Wikimedia Commons)Bodies of victims along Qinhuai River out of Nanking’s west gate during Nanking Massacre. (Wikimedia Commons)

The death toll ran into the hundreds of thousands, leaving some modern observers to speak of genocide. The exact body count remains a matter of political dispute between Japan and China to this day. The figure generally accepted at post-war trials was over 200,000, but some think the total number is closer to 400,000.

Japanese troops massacre Chinese soldiers and civilians along the Yangtze River and burned the dead. Nanjing, China, 1937. (Wikimedia Commons)Japanese troops massacred Chinese soldiers and civilians along the Yangtze River and burned the dead. Nanjing, China, 1937. (Wikimedia Commons)

Imperial Japan approached its Chinese foes with the same strategy ISIS uses against its enemies today: maximum carnage and savagery, to terrorize the foe into submission. They used some of the exact same methods ISIS does, including burning captives alive, beheading them, and burying them alive in slaughter pits.

Chinese prisoners being buried alive by their Japanese captors outside the city of Nanking, November 1938Chinese prisoners being buried alive by their Japanese captors outside the city of Nanking, November 1938.

A seven-year-old child bayoneted to death by Japanese. (Wikimedia Commons)A seven-year-old child bayoneted to death by the Japanese. (Wikimedia Commons)

Also like ISIS, the Japanese occupiers were fond of taking triumphant photos of their atrocities, which is the only reason we know about many of them. They didn’t have Twitter or YouTube, of course, but Chinese working in photo shops smuggled out copies of photographs the Japanese government later attempted to destroy.

International visitors to Nanking tried to establish a safe zone for Chinese civilians, but it didn’t hold the Japanese at bay for long. One important chronicle of the occupation was the diary of an American woman named Minnie Vautrin, who wrote of girls as young as 12 being dragged away for rape, and piles of corpses burned to erase evidence of Japan’s crimes. Vautrin was one of the last victims of the Rape of Nanking. She killed herself in 1941.

Also horrified by what he saw was the man who wound up leading the unsuccessful effort to maintain an international safe zone in Nanking, John Rabe. He was the head of the local Nazi Party.

Unsurprisingly, China’s state-run media is very upset that Barack Obama didn’t mention Nanking, or other Japanese offenses against China, during his Hiroshima speech. “The death of Japanese civilians in the Hiroshima atomic bomb attack deserves global sympathy, but the tragedy was of Japan’s own making. Its then militarist government turned the city into the site of military headquarters, arsenals and camps and a vital part of its war machine that killed tens of millions in other countries,” writes Xinhua in a fiery editorial.

The Empire’s war on women was not limited to Nanking. For decades afterward, Japan has dealt with the legacy of the “comfort women,” girls forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese Army. Only last year, Japan and South Korea reached an agreement for roughly $8 million dollars in reparations to South Korean victims.

Murdering Doctors and Nurses

Working in a hospital afforded no protection from Imperial Japanese forces. When 65 Australian Army nurses tried to escape from Singapore ahead of Japanese occupation, Japanese planes blew their overloaded boat out of the water, then strafed the survivors. Many of those who made it ashore to Bangka Island were shot or bayoneted by Japanese troops, despite the nurses showing their Red Cross armbands when they surrendered.

The nurses had an opportunity to escape, but matron Irene Drummond would have none of it, because they had injured men to take care of. “Girls, we have run away from the wounded once,” she declared. “We are not going to do it again.”

Drummond’s last words, as she and 21 of her nurses were marched into the surf on Bangka Island for a machine-gun massacre by Japanese soldiers, were: “Chin up, girls! I’m proud of you all, and I love you all.”

We know this because one of the nurses, the Vivian “Bully” Bullwinkel, survived her gunshot wound and testified against the murderers at their war-crimes trial. She was captured by the Japanese again after she walked off the beach, and realized they might slaughter all of their prisoners if they knew she was eyewitness to such a war crime, so she hid her bullet wound from her captors and quietly treated it herself… even though she had been shot in the back.

At St. Stephen’s College in Hong Kong, which was serving as a relief hospital, Japanese troops murdered doctors, slaughtered their injured patients, and raped the nurses. The massacre at St. Stephen’s began on Christmas Day.

Imperial Japan deliberately attacked hospital ships on several documented occasions, including the Manunda and Centaur of Australia. Japan did not formally admit to sinking the Centaur until 1979.

Cannibalism and Medical Experiments

Imperial Japan was infamous for torturing and killing its prisoners, in defiance of all international laws. Sometimes execution was the best-case scenario for its prisoners.

In the 1990s, documents were uncovered that described widespread cannibalism by Japanese troops. The Japanese academic who collected these papers, Toshiyuki Tanaka, said the cannibalism was not primarily due to a shortage of food, but “to consolidate the group feeling of the troops.”

Tanaka documented at least 100 cases of cannibalism against Australian and Indian soldiers, and forced laborers in New Guinea, plus evidence of more such atrocities in the Philippines.

“A Pakistani, who was captured when Japan overran Singapore and taken to New Guinea, testified that in his area Japanese soldiers killed and ate one prisoner a day for ‘about 100’ days. The corporal said he saw flesh being cut from prisoners who were still alive,” reported the UK Telegraph in 1992.

A later Telegraph article cites research that suggests that four of the eight American airmen captured after bombing raids on Chichi Jima island, south of Tokyo, were cannibalized after all eight were tortured and executed with swords, bayonets, and bamboo stakes. A ninth pilot who had to bail out of his plane during the raids managed to evade capture by the Japanese. His name was Lt. George Bush.

Imperial Japan also conducted horrifying medical experiments on its prisoners, including the removal of their organs while they were still alive, without anesthesia. Some of these crimes were concealed with false claims by the Japanese government that American test subjects had been transferred to Hiroshima as POWs and vaporized in the atomic bomb blast.

The now-infamous Imperial Army Unit 731 conducted medical experiments on thousands of POWs and civilians, including chemical and biological warfare research. These weren’t just laboratory experiments – they field-tested “plague bombs” on Chinese towns. Plans were made to deploy these biological weapons against American cities with balloons and kamikaze attacks. Imperial Japan was very interested in developing and using weapons of mass destruction.

A veteran of Unit 731 recounted the story of vivisecting a live Chinese prisoner in 1995, as recounted by the New York Times

The fellow knew that it was over for him, and so he 
didn’t struggle when they led him into the room and 
tied  him down. But when I picked up the scalpel, 
that’s when he began screaming.

I cut him open from the chest to the stomach, and he   screamed terribly, and his face was all twisted in     agony. He made this unimaginable sound, he was         screaming so horribly. But then finally he stopped.    This was all in a day’s work for the surgeons, but it  really left an impression on me because it was my      first time.

Unit 731’s headquarters was straight out of a horror movie, with pieces of POW displayed in jars labeled by their nationality.


This list could be ten times as long as it is. Apologies to all those who lost family to Imperial Japanese atrocities that were not listed individually.

The purpose of this list is not to keep score on the horrors of war. It is the business of madmen to debate whether dying from radiation exposure is “better” than dying in a firebomb attack, or live burial alongside a few dozen friends and family members.

This is also not an assault on Japanese citizens of today. Japan is a good friend of the United States now, and that is the happiest ending one could ask from a story this horrible. The Empire of Japan is gone. It had to go. People who think like Barack Obama have no idea how to fight a war like that. God help us all if they are in power when the next such war is forced upon us.

This is, rather, an effort to help understand what was destroyed by the right, proper, and absolutely necessary bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is the horror that would have claimed countless more victims if Japan had not been forced to surrender. It is very easy for callow politicians in 2016 to say that more Americans, and more Japanese, should have died in battle during a conventional invasion of Japan, to spare it the fury of the atomic bomb. Not many people felt that way at the time, especially if they were aware of the atrocities chronicled here.

Barack Obama treats the bombing of Hiroshima as a unique “evil.” No, sir. It was the end of an evil.

Some brave men – tragically, some good men – died fighting for Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Memorial Day is about showing our gratitude and respect to the heroes who had no choice but to kill them, including the crew of the Enola Gay. They saved a hell of a lot of lives, and souls, on that terrible day.