Whether the effort to preserve our liberties, secure our Constitution, and protect our people is called the “Global War on Terror” or “Overseas Contingency Operations,” the result of failure is the same: more terror and death.

Let us stop to reflect on what happened eight years ago and pray for the families of the dead, both civilian and uniformed, and the living serving on the front lines of freedom. As we do, let us also remember the nature of the attacks in far flung places like Mumbai, Islamabad, Jerusalem, Beirut, Baghdad, Kabul, and Sderot.

Lastly, be mindful and thankful for the heroic actions of a free people on Flight 93. These Americans took the initiative. They didn’t wait for government to tell them what to do. They didn’t need instructions. As a free people, comfortable with weighing their options, making decisions and taking appropriate risks, they rushed the terrorist-controlled cockpit. As a result of their actions, the fourth terrorist attack, destined for the U.S. Capitol or the White House, was brought down in rural Western Pennsylvania.

It was with Flight 93 that the American response to 9/11 began only one hour and eleven minutes after Flight 11 was crashed into the World Trade Center’s North Tower. The American counterattack was conceived by civilians who voted to rush the al-Qaeda terrorists.

They voted.

At 9:55 am passenger Todd Beamer was heard saying, “Let’s roll!” Within two minutes, the struggle was on.

As long as the spirit of a free people reigns in America, enemies of all stripes, whether terrorist organizations or nation states, will fail in their deadly and tyrannical designs.

“Basterds,” misspelled the way Brad Pitt’s moonshining Lt. Aldo Raine character carved it into his rifle, takes place in German-occupied France from 1941 to 1944.  Tarantino makes a point of specifying “Nazi-occupied France,” justifying to the film watcher the extreme measures needed to deal with this particular type of human evil.  That National Socialist German Workers’ Party membership never numbered more than about 20 percent of the adult German population is beside the point; the Nazi Party in the guise of Hitler (played by Martin Wuttke) controlled the Wehrmacht from the top.  

“Basterds” follows three characters.  ”Chapter 1″ introduces Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent) a young Frenchwoman whose dairy farmer family is wiped out in 1941 by the Germans and Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), who directs the killing.  Landa is a member of the Sicherheitsdienst (SD), the intelligence service of the SS and the Nazi Party, who considers himself a detective asked by his government to find every last Jewish person in France.  In “Chapter 2″ we meet U.S. Army Lt. Aldo Raine. Raine’s crossed arrows insignia on his collar identifies him as a member of the First Special Service Force, a U.S.-Canadian commando force called the Devil’s Brigade.  Lt. Raine leads a small band of soldiers, all of whom happen to be Jewish, on a mission of retribution, mayhem and terror behind enemy lines, the goal: take 100 “Nazi scalps” each. 

While “Basterds” is pure fiction, it does trace historical actions depicted in “Bodyguard of Lies” by Anthony Cave Brown.  “Bodyguard” details the deadly cloak-and-dagger action surrounding the effort to return Allied forces to the Continent on D-Day.  The scene with Mike Myers’ as British spymaster General Ed Fenech and Rod Taylor as Churchill suggests Major General Sir Stewart Menzies, Britain’s WWII head of the Secret Intelligence Service, as the basis for Myers’ character.  “Bodyguard’s” riveting accounts, such as the German capture and interrogation of British agent Princess Noor Inayat Khan (she was killed in Dachau, her last words being “liberty”), echo parts of “Basterds” – reminding one that “Basterds” may not be real, but it’s true – which brings up an inconvenient truth for some enthusiasts of Mr. Tarantino’s latest work. 

The theme of “Basterds” is revenge.  But revenge in this case takes place in occupied France in 1944.  In this context, Lt. Raine and his encouragement of scalping and other torture methods, violate the Hague Conventions (the forerunner to the Geneva Conventions) to which both the U.S. and Germany agreed.  The Hague’s Article 23 specifically prohibited the “treacherous” killing of an enemy, or harming enemies who had surrendered, or “declar(ing) that no quarter will be given.”  Of course, Raine’s men, usually operating sans uniform, were in violation of The Hague’s Chapter I, The Qualifications of Belligerents, Article 1, reading in part, that proper belligerents must, “have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance” and “conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”  Executing prisoners is, unfortunately, an unspoken reality of swift-moving commando forces operating behind enemy lines.  Beating enemy prisoners of war to death with a baseball bat while not wearing a uniform is an even more obvious violation of the law of war.  Under rules then in effect, if Raines’ men were captured while operating outside of these rules, they could be treated very harshly – even summarily executed. 

In 1949, the Geneva Conventions updated the Hague Conventions. The Third Geneva Convention, Part I, Article 4, parallels The Hague’s Article 23 in specifying the attributes of a legitimate prisoner of war who is deserving of protection by his captor.  It is this part of the law of war that the Bush Administration cited when justifying their treatment of men captured as part of the Global War on Terror (now called “overseas contingency operations”), i.e. al-Qaeda didn’t fight with “a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance” or carry “arms openly” or conduct “their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war” therefore they were “unlawful combatants.” 

It is interesting indeed to see those who applaud Tarantino’s latest, admittedly excellent work, revel in the unbridled revenge against Nazis who get what’s coming to them.  Many of whom, without batting an eye, view al-Qaeda killers as deserving of respect, protection, and the benefit of civilian law.  Since all that separates al-Qaeda from the Nazis is the means – industrial power, modern education, and an organized national base – one wonders why a certain amount of cognitive dissonance wouldn’t kick in after a liberal enjoyed screening “Basterds.” 

To the point, what would a liberal think of the scene where Lt. Raine interrogates a captured German sergeant, demanding the location of a German outpost and its supporting artillery?  As the German NCO refuses to talk, Raine orders one of his men to kill the prisoner with a baseball bat.  When the two remaining German prisoners see this, one runs in horror and is shot down, while the other is brought over and threatened with the same deadly treatment.  He talks, saving the lives of the American commandos.  For the prisoner’s troubles, Raines carves a swastika into his forehead.  By comparison, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during interrogation seems rather pedestrian. 

Were Lt. Aldo Raine unleashed in Waziristan today, he and his men (all from New York City to provide the needed element of justifiable revenge) would no doubt relish taking al-Qaeda and Taliban scalps.  Alas, were Tarantino to make this flick, it would end prematurely just as Osama bin Laden was about to be relieved of his wavy locks by Raine’s massive knife.  The unsatisfying closing sequence would have a shocked Raine arrested by FBI agents after the Basterds’ cover was blown by the New York Times.  The credits would roll on Raine’s trial by Attorney General Holder’s Department of Justice with bin Laden in protective custody as a witness to Raine’s heinous war crimes. 

I don’t see Tarantino making that film – it might not be real, but it’s too true for Hollywood.

The Second Annual Troop-a-thon is a wonderful chance for an entire industry to raise money online to send needed care packages to those Americans overseas who are defending our Constitution and our way of life.  Any deployment can be an intense and lonely experience.  Mail can be scarce.  Contact with home is sporadic.  Receiving a package from a stranger who cared enough about your mission can be a big boost in morale – literally, a life-saver.  

The men and women serving us overseas cared enough about you to join the military.  Your support of their choice to serve won’t cost you much in the way of time or money or inconvenience or danger – but it will mean much to them.  

Please support those who serve as they are already supporting you. Participate in the Troop-a-thon. 

Chuck DeVore

California State Assemblyman
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army retired Reserve

Set in 1986 Iran – the Islamic Republic of Iran – Stoning is a gut-wrenching film with haunting music.  Nowrasteh’s movie, set to open June 26, is based on a book about the crime by French-Iranian journalist Freidoune Sahebjam. 

The film opens with Freidoune (James Caviezel) breaking down in his car on his way to the border.  Spending unwanted hours in a small village, he is approached by Zahra (Shohreh Aghdashloo), a woman the villagers try to shoo away as they call her crazy.  But Zahra has a terrible secret.  She does all she can to get word to the journalist about a terrible injustice committed in the village the previous day when her niece, Soraya M. (Mozhan Marnò), falsely accused of adultery by her cheating husband, Ali (Navid Negahban), was stoned to death per Islamic law. 

Stoning’s premise, repeated with numbing regularity around the world today, is made all the more pressing by the masses of Iranians protesting in the streets today while the brutal Basij militia tries to beat them into submission.  But it’s one thing for a stoning of an accused “adulteress” to occur in Somalia, and quite another for it to happen in the soon-to-be-nuclear-armed Islamic Republic of Iran.  If a nation thinks nothing of stoning women to death for the “crime” of adultery while killing peaceful protesters, it takes no imagination to think of what they will do when in possession of a nuclear bomb.  

The film is tightly put together and the acting is natural and intense.  The actors mostly speak Farsi throughout the film, but they communicate volumes, relegating the captions to a supporting role.  Nowrasteh effortlessly allows his film to unfold.  He gradually builds tension, while adding depth to the main characters’ soul.  The end is inevitable as it is jarring, with the males of the village engaging in the collective guilt of the stoning while most of the women watch and wail.  The act of stoning takes away the village’s “dishonor” one stone at a time, according to the mullah. 

It is no small task to adapt a book to the screen, especially a book of the intensity of Sahebjam’s work, but Betsy Giffen Nowrasteh and Cyrus Nowrasteh have done the job with the precision of a brain surgeon.  The husband and wife team add nothing more than needed, while everything needed remains.   

Lastly, a note about John Debney’s music: it is beyond superb.  With a cast and crew of Iranian expatriates making a film about life in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Nowrasteh could have easily settled for a selection of traditional Persian folk music.  This would have been true to form, but likely would have missed the opportunity to tightly tailor the music to the requirements of film while appealing to wider audiences.  It is interesting to see that Debney worked on “Passion of the Christ” (for which Debney was nominated for an Academy Award) along with Caviezel five years ago.  Clearly Debney has developed a talent for producing Mideast-themed music for the big screen. 

Cyrus Nowrasteh’s “The Stoning of Soraya M.” could not have come at a better time for the world.  While Iranians struggle to transcend tyranny and most Americans, including our President, remain rooted in inaction, Stoning proves that Hollywood’s capacity to combat evil is still intact.

–

Liberal contempt towards those who take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States has deep roots in the hard left that Boxer epitomizes.  Look at how Boxer manipulates concern for the casualties of war to ram home her political attack against former President Bush in this email from 2007: 

U.S. troops stayed in Vietnam, in the middle of a civil war, for more than ten long and painful years. More than 50,000 of our young people died, countless wounded mentally and physically. Suicides and homelessness still follow too many of our Vietnam veterans. How many more would have died if George W. Bush had been President in the 1970’s? How many more of our troops and innocent Iraqis will die if we don’t finally end this war? 

One wonders how many of the suicides Boxer mentions were due to the hostile reception the left gave our returning veterans… 

Today the left “loves the soldier” but “hates the war” – this is a cop-out.  You cannot separate the soldier from his mission.  Perhaps that’s why Boxer’s ideological allies “honor” our heroic fallen who return in caskets by using them as political symbols to attack the very thing our heroes were fighting for: our liberty and our safety.  Evidence of the left’s scorn for the military is manifold: the widespread effort to ban ROTC from campuses and in San Francisco’s perennial effort to eject any military presence in their city (the City by the Bay approved a “College, Not Combat” measure in 2005 telling military recruiters to stay out of the city’s high schools). 

Why are liberals uncomfortable with the military?  Why do some liberals apparently despise our military?  Is it because the armed services remind them that not every international dispute can be solved with soothing words uttered by a diplomat?  Is it because they view military expenditures as taking money away from greater health and welfare spending?  Do the heroes who serve show them that the world is not perfect and can never be made so by trillions of dollars of new government handouts? 

Boxer dressing down of a U.S. Army general in public unfolded during a hearing on the Army Corps of Engineers’ work in New Orleans.  When General Walsh, recently returned from Iraq, addressed California’s junior senator as “Ma’am” – a perfectly acceptable sign of military respect to both a U.S. Senator or a senior female officer, Boxer immediately responded, “I had a… You know… do me a favor, could you say ‘Senator’ instead of ‘Ma’am’ – it’s just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title so I’d appreciate it, yes thank you.” 

According to the U.S. Army’s own guide to protocol, Members of the U.S. Senate should be verbally addressed as “Sir,” “Ma’am” or “Senator.”  So, General Walsh was simply following longstanding tradition.  

When addressing senior officers, with the exception of generals whom most junior officers and enlisted personnel usually call “General” more than “Sir” the most respectful form of address is “Sir” or “Ma’am.”  Ironically, use of the actual rank in address  is oftentimes used in situations when the senior officer has not yet earned respect from an enlisted person, as in “Yes, Lieutenant!” as opposed to “Yes, Ma’am!” 

Of course, this wasn’t Barbara Boxer’s first confrontation with the U.S. military – not by a long shot.  Boxer cut her political teeth on the anti-Vietnam war protests back in the day and never really changed her outlook on the uniformed defenders of the Constitution of the United States.  Who can forget her confrontation with American hero Gen. David Petraeus back in 2007?   Boxer called Gen. Petraeus a liar and then wrote a blog for the Huffington Post on September 14, 2007 which she headlined, “General Petraeus, Take Off the Rose-Colored Glasses.”  Seen through the lens of time Boxer’s blog rant can almost be laughable were its implications not so injurious to our national security in calling for an immediate end (read: “defeat”) to the war in Iraq.

Perhaps it’s time for the Barbara Boxer to have a new title: “Ex-Senator.” 

Mr. DeVore (R.-Irvine) represents about 500,000 people in Orange County California. He retired as a lieutenant colonel after 24-years of service in the Army National Guard and is a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010 against Barbara Boxer.

For context, see BlogDeVore.

A 10-year-old California law makes parents of children desiring to work in the entertainment field gather information from one part of government to present to another part of government to obtain a permission slip to work.  Now, this paper shuffle adds little to nothing of value – no added safety for children or oversight of employers.  But, rather than terminate this self-perpetuating paperwork drill, Democrats what to charge for it – taxing minors who want to work before they even work an hour. 

This Kafkaesque scenario is almost reality in the form of Assembly Bill 402 (AB 402) in Sacramento.  As summarized by the Assembly Republican Caucus bill analysis, AB 402, “Requires a fee of $50 to be submitted at the time a minor applies for an Entertainment Work Permit in order to offset the costs of administering the Entertainment Work Permit program.”  In other words, AB 402 is the ultimate in self-sustaining bureaucracy.  You need government permission to work and the government will only give you permission if you pay for it. 

The stated purpose of the bill, curiously supported by the Screen Actors Guild, is to increase protections for children working in the entertainment industry.  The main intended protection is to ensure compliance with the Coogan Act, a 1999 law designed to set aside a portion of a minor’s earnings until age 18.  

The problem with existing practice is that the California State Industrial Relations Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement (DLSE) doesn’t perform any follow up for the Entertainment Work Permits they issue to children.  In fact, until last year, Entertainment Work Permits didn’t even have a tracking number on them.  This meant they could easily be spoofed by parents not wanting to go through the effort of coordinating with their child’s school to obtain a proof of school attendance, adequate grades, and health records then schlepping down to the local Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement office to get an Entertainment Work Permit.  Now that Entertainment Work Permits have serial numbers, it is not at all clear that the numbers really mean anything as there is no way to tie into a database anyway (and why should they when about 12 percent of all the Social Security numbers reported by employers to California tax agencies are false or stolen).  

AB 402 might make sense if the government was spending a lot of money to actually follow up “for the children,” but the whole Entertainment Work Permit program only costs $1.1 million a year while the proposed fee would raise $3 million a year.  

Fortunately, the studios and talent managers appear to have matters well in hand.  My own daughters have worked as extras for the past year.  Our family’s experience shows the industry to be highly conscientious.  Further, the studios hire and have credentialed teachers on site to ensure that minors doing “background work” are diligently doing school work between shooting scenes.  

Lisa Santillan runs STUDIO KIDS Management and specializes in advising and guiding talent for studios who need it.  Ms. Santillan observes, “The Labor Board rarely verifies grades, proper schools, (or) date of birth” while, she notes, it often takes eight weeks to receive a response from the bureaucracy.  

Ms. Santillan opposes AB 402 for a number of reasons.  She says the proposed fee for an Entertainment Work Permit would imply that the Labor Board was guaranteeing work as if they were an employment agency, when, in fact, the fee guarantees nothing of the sort. She also notes that many families applying for work permits are lower income and single parent households.  Ms. Santillan’s commonsense suggestion for the California Legislature, “…the work permit should be abolished completely” as it has “…never proven to be a positive enforced document.”  She concludes by saying, “I do not believe charging a fee is the answer to our economy’s financial crisis through attacking the workingman or, in this case, minor child.” Ms. Santillan also points out that a typical background extra works only a couple times in a six month period, if that, and makes only $130.00 day.  Take away Social Security, disability, FICA, Agent fee, 15% into the Coogan account, gas, clothing, and now the proposed $50.00 fee for work permit and there won’t be much leftover.

Short of abolishing the Entertainment Work Permit, Republicans have suggested an alternative solution would be to obtain the permits through the studio teachers who already maintain the paperwork. The minor could still be required to bring their school verification form to the prospective employer, with the studio teacher verifying their grades, attendance and health, to comply with existing law. Ms. Santillan would rather see the permits processed through the minor’s own public or private schools as is the case for other types of employment.

AB 402 passed out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 28 on a 12-5 vote, with all Democrats voting for the tax on child actors and all Republicans voting against it.   It comes up for a vote in the full Assembly in the first week of June.

[Ed. note: This piece was updated late Monday morning with additional information.]

One wouldn’t immediately associate comedian and actor Paul Rodriguez with a serious issue such as water.  But, as Mark Twain said: “Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over.”  

Rodriguez is so concerned about water that he helped create the California Latino Water Coalition, led marches with several thousand people in recent weeks, and spoke Saturday night to a convention of the conservative California Republican Assembly in Bakersfield.  I addressed the convention goers about my U.S. Senate run against Barbara Boxer just before Rodriguez’ turn at the podium. 

What has Rodriguez’ concerned to spark political action is the shutdown of water pumps in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.  These pumps move water from California’s wet north to the agricultural Central Valley and urban Southern California.   A judge’s ruling switched the pumps off over a controversial U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report that declared a fish, the delta smelt, threatened.  No one really knows if turning the pumps off will help the fish, but most can agree that California’s agricultural industry will take a big hit this year due to lack of water. 

Rodriguez and his family own farmland in the Central Valley where, as the comedian said Saturday night, “We grow the sweetest oranges and sourest lemons.” But now, because of a judge’s ruling, the most fertile land on “this blue marble” will lie fallow.  People will be out of work.  Less food will be grown.  And farmer and farm worker alike will be hurt. 

Rodriguez had notes at the podium but didn’t refer to them as he spoke for 40 minutes, presenting a potent alternating mix of passion, humor, and fact.  He recalled using his talent to help many prominent Democrats raise money only to have every one of them turn him a deaf ear when he asked them for assistance over the water issue.  “What are they afraid of,” he asked, “fish can’t vote.” 

He said many environmentalists are earnest people who are concerned that the delta smelt are “the canary in the coal mine” of the delta’s environmental health.  Rodriguez said he asked his uncle who mined coal in Chihuahua about canaries and coal mines.  The uncle said, “Yes, we used canaries.  When the canary dies, you run like hell out of the mine!”  The canary dies and the coal miners live.  In the case of the delta though, “The fish lives and the farmers die,” Rodriguez observed. 

Rodriguez is in the middle of a steep learning curve regarding the vast political power of the environmental lobby.  Soon enough he’ll discover their main motivation: control – the fatal conceit that all elitists feel towards the masses who, they think, need their intelligent direction and guidance. 

The California Latino Water Coalition seeks to pressure lawmakers for more water as unemployment rates in some California rural communities have topped 40%.  Easing the rules of the Endangered Species Act to allow more water to reach Central Valley farms is the lynchpin.  

Rodriguez certainly stands out from the usual assortment of self-absorbed Hollywood glitterati.  A veteran of the U.S. Air Force posted to chilly Iceland and chillier Duluth, Minnesota of all places, he remarked that he enjoyed it when the USO came to call.  So, it was only natural that he would return the favor, traveling to Iraq three times to entertain the troops.  

Paul Rodriguez is one of America’s top standup comedians.  His ease in front of large crowds and his motivation to bring relief to the Central Valley’s besieged farmers make him a formidable force.  As he said recently before a rally in the Central Valley, “Right now, people need something to lift their spirits. It’s good to see people laugh.  Besides, Jay Leno did it for the auto workers, and I’m a lot funnier.”

Understanding that the DailyKos crowd can never be quieted (save for my untimely demise in a speeding vehicle), I do think it important to set forth what we did with the two parody songs I wrote to be sung in style of Don Henley’s works. 

 
I penned “After the Hope of November is Gone” based on Mr. Henley’s “The Boys of Summer” with parodic eye.  One can clearly see my intended skewering of Henley and his ilk’s well known liberalism in the lines: 

We never will forget those nights
We wonder if it was a dream
Remember how you made us crazy?
Remember how we made you beam
Now we do understand what happened to our love. 

That Henley has contributed some $750,000 to Democrats and liberal causes over the years, including $10,000 to Barack Obama and $9,000 to Sen. Barbara Boxer, adds authenticity to the political nature of my ditties.  As the L.A. Daily News reported Friday night, “Henley, a longtime vocal supporter of Democratic causes, has drawn boos from fans in Orange County over the years for making political comments between songs during concerts.”  Indeed.  Henley’s lawsuit shows he’s good at dishing it out, but not so good at taking it.  

Henley’s lawsuit also makes mention of my parody version of “All she wants to do is dance.” This song came out in 1984.  It was written as an attack on President Reagan’s Central American policy, a policy I was soon after to help implement as a Reagan appointee in the Pentagon.  I particularly enjoyed taking Henley’s critique of cluelessness in the face of President Reagan’s policies and turning it into a critique of the left and their global warming policies, thus parodying Henley’s penchant for leftwing activism while at the same time fashioning an insightful ditty on Sen. Barbara Boxer, my 2010 opponent.  

Lastly, I note with interest that the D.C.-based bi-partisan musical group “Capitol Steps” has been building on others’ work by turning familiar songs into biting political commentary since 1981.  They have yet to pay royalties to any artist and, as their songs are political, unlike, for instance, “Weird Al” Yankovic, they rarely secure permission from the artists whose works they build upon. 

Bottom line, we are responding to the Henley/Campbell lawsuit and expect to prevail.  If an elected official running for the U.S. Senate is not allowed to fearlessly engage in parody, then the First Amendment means little.