Thursday, March 31, 2005

Passing On A Quick Notice

Also, there are two other subjects I want to discuss in this weblog but seeing as how I have been stressed for time today (I haven't even gotten a chance to sit down since I woke up late for Theology class this morning, which, by the way, I ended up missing anyway) and I have head back to the dorm after work, eat dinner, workout over at the Rec Center (relieve that stress), head to the library and talk with someone about a personal issue, study for Anthropology, meet up with Gaspar and study for the history exam, then head back to the dorm, take a shower, and stay up a little while longer to finish cramming for the history exam, I may not get to them. Yes, a fun filled evening planned for me. The Terri Schiavo Memorial won't take more then ten minutes (posting a quick picture and a prayer for the dead), so I can get that done before I head off to sleep. The other topics on the other hand will take more time to write up and discuss and I may not get to them tonight. The first one is concerning my views on Islam, not only in this country but throughout the world, and how I am right in my belief that it is our generation's Nazism and Communism, with the historical evidence to back it up. This is a result of a discussion in my English 002 class concerning Islam in which comments that I had made were either not clarified clearly or responses were not responded to by myself immediately. And with my Viewpoint article concerning the subject of Islam and their impact on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was published in the Marquette Tribune today, I know this will be a hot topic in the near future (I am just a lightening rod for controversy). And the other issue requires me in a small way to wait because I e-mailed Professor John McAdams about this and I wanted to wait for his response on the issue before I went about and posted something about it. Time and Stress is more of the issue then anything else at this time but I thought I would notify visitors to this blog about this because I may not have time to comment on this until either Sunday or Monday. Tomorrow I have two major exams then a haircut appointment at 3:30pm and then I am off to the local movie theater to catch Sin City, followed by staying up past two in the morning to write the review.

I hope everyone has a better evening and weekend then I am likely to encounter.

Terri Schiavo - Martyr for the Disabled

Terri Schiavo (1964 - 2005) died at 9am this morning, thirteen agonizing days after her feeding tube was removed and she was then forced to go without food or water. A grave injustice has taken place in our country, Ladies and Gentlemen - retribution is coming, be sure of that. God will not allow this to go unpunished.

Please, in this time of sorrow, pray not only for forgiveness from Terri Schiavo but also from God for our country which allowed the weakest amongst us to be taken from this world against her will in a cruel and inhumane manner as this.

We beseech Thee, O Lord,
in Thy mercy,
to have pity on the soul of Thy handmaid;
do Thou, Who hast freed her
from the perils of this mortal life,
restore to her the portion of everlasting salvation.

Through Christ our Lord,


Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Leading a Jackass to Water

I know I said earlier that I had my studies to attend to (which I still do), but I found these stories earlier on The Drudge Report and I thought I would give you all a good laugh to see how pathetic the left is (as if you didn't know that already).

Can you recall hearing the phrase "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"? This is a direct reflection of the stubbornness demonstrated by the left at college universities. They know full well (or at least they should, who knows what the public highschools taught them) that everyone in this country is entitled to the right to free speech, but as soon as someone comes out with something they don't agree with, out come the pies! Believe me, this will all make sense in a little bit.

As I can recall, I mentioned this is a Viewpoint article I wrote earlier this month (which will, conveniently enough, appear in tomorrow's edition of The Marquette Tribune) when a Muslim student at Marquette University claimed it was "not in the best interest of the student body" for the administration to allow a pro-Israeli speaker to give a speech concerning the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (though it is certain that she would not have a problem had they invited a pro-Palestinian speaker instead) ...
As we should come to suspect from the left, they never truly practice what they preach, invoking the right to free speech only when it serves to benefit the vulgar hate-speech figures such as Ward Churchill preaching their methodology of hatred to the future Stalins of the world.

The following article from the IndyStar is on the 'cold' reception conservative commentator William Kristol received from one liberal student while he was giving a speech at Earlham College ...

RICHMOND, Ind. -- A pie in the face didn't silence conservative pundit William Kristol during a speech at Earlham College.

A man who later was identified as a student at the private Quaker college jumped onto the stage and splattered Kristol with the pie Tuesday night about 30 minutes into a speech about U.S. foreign policy.

Members of the audience jeered the student as he walked off the stage, then applauded as Kristol wiped the goo off his face with a paper towel and said, "Just let me finish this point," the Palladium-Item reported.

The student was suspended and could face expulsion following a disciplinary review, Earlham Provost Len Clark said today.

The school, which did not release the student's name, said Kristol was hit by an ice cream pie. Some of the pie also hit college President Doug Bennett, who was sitting on the stage.

Clark issued a written apology complimenting Kristol for his "graciousness."

Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard in Washington who was chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle, finished his speech after he was hit by the pie and then took questions from the audience before spending 30 minutes talking with students and others who gathered at the edge of the stage.

Earlham is a liberal arts college of about 1,200 students that is well-known for its peace studies program.

Who wants to bet that if a conservative student had done this to a liberal speaker (note, I am not advocating that someone should actually do this because I believe in the right to free speech for everyone, unlike the left), for example - Al Franken, that the university would have given him more then just a written apology? Hell, the administration would probably be holding a public press conference issuing an apology, photo-op for the liberally-biased media showing them handing him a giant check, and quite possibly even offering him a position in their political science department! It is benevolent of them to write a letter to Kristol extending their apologies and all, but who seriously believes that the student will be expelled for hitting Kristol with a pie? If he does receive expulsion as punishment, it will be attributed more for pie 'shrapnel' the university's president.

And finally, there was an incident at another college university involving conservative author and commentator Ann Coulter (who incidentally also had a pie thrown at her while giving a speech at a university campus ... what is the deal with pies?) and liberal hecklers interupting her speech. I will not post the entire article seeing as how it is so long (and I do not have the time right now to edit it down as I would like to), but you can read about the entire event by clicking here.

The one part of the article that I did find the most amusing was this little blurb ...

Coulter was paid $25,000 for her appearance, which was paid from the Vickers endowment fund, said Toni Dixon, director of communications for the KU School of Business. State and university money were not used, she said.
I point this out so that other universities, specifically UW-Whitewater who earlier this year used public funds to pay for Ward Churchill to spew his vile hate-speech on their university campus, may not commit this sort of hypocricy again.

Please Listen Carefully to the Following Announcements ...

Why am I always the last one to hear about these types of announcements? In any event, this is just a quick note to pass onto Marquette University College Republicans - there will NOT be a CR Meeting tonight as had originally been planned. Why was it cancelled? Will it be made up later on? Who knows? But as far as I can tell (and seeing as how I previously mentioned that I am not so much "in the loop" about these sorts of things, you should take this with a grain of salt ... not too much though, that can be unhealthy, and believe me, the last thing you need right now is the health Nazis on your ass ... moving on), there is no replacement date planned.

According to the Maquette University College Republicans website, here (as a reminder to all of you, cough*gaspar*cough, who do not frequent it as often as you should) are the following events planned in the not too distant future:
  • Guest Speaker Professor Breeden will be at the April 13th CR meeting about Markets, "Discrimination and Prosperity"
  • Hunger Clean-up is on Saturday, April 16th (Please contact the lovely Mary Burke to volunteer for this event)
  • The Wisconsin College Republican convention is on April 22nd and 23rd (Please contact the MUCR Chair, Brandon Henak, if you would care to attend)
  • April 27th will be the last CR meeting of this year
  • The Wisconsin State Republican Convention will be held on May 6th and 7th (Once again, contact our MUCR chair, Brandon Henak, if you would care to attend)

Alright, I have to get back to finishing up my short writing assignment for English 002 and get going on wrapping up that study guide for the Western Civilization 002 exam on Friday. As short as this week is, I am swamped beyond belief. Just remember, ladies and gentlemen ... six more weeks, just six more weeks!

Monday, March 28, 2005

Send the Tsar of Madison a Message!

Real quick post here! If you are as fed up with the whole voter registration debacle in the state of Wisconsin, more specifically in the city of Milwaukee, as I and my fellow College Republicans are, then please take the time to fill out this online petition demanding Gov. Jim Doyle to support voter ID legislation ...

Please Sign the GOP Team Leader Online Petition Demanding that Governor Jim Doyle to Support I.D. Legislation in the State of Wisconsin

In Da Vinci We Trust

First off, I just want to say that yes, The Office of Homeland Security - MU Division will return to its normal operations, which is to respond to the left-wing editorials found so abundantly within The Marquette Tribune every week, beginning this Thursday or Friday (at the very latest it would have to be Saturday, but it all depends on the amount of work I receive over this short week and how much I need to study for the history exam), but until then I will be taking some time off to work on my studies, specifically earnestly preparing for a Western Civilization 002 exam on Friday, and posting every so often only to comment on bits of news I find interesting.

Secondly, while on the subject of what content I will be discussing once normal operations begin once again, I would like to thank whoever sent me a comment about a recent entry I posted (whenever I posted “Born and Raised by Hypocrites”, which I can not recall at the moment) – nothing but typical liberal whining about how I should join the army if I am so pro-war (honestly, think about that – does that even make sense to you) and how hypocritical it was of ME to be both pro-war and pro-life – I would just love to dig my heels into this debate but seeing as how I want to save as much material as possible for the rest of the week, I will continue this later in another blog entry.

Third, another thing that may be cutting in on my time posting on this weblog will be the new books I attempting to read – note the word “attempting”, which I use because with all the homework I am jam-packed with and a situation going on in my personal life (yes, it does involve a girl, but it’s complicated) going on, along with the time I am trying to spend with my friends when I am not studying, it may be difficult to fit something like that in late at night. In any event, enough with my whining … The two books I am attempting to read are “Disney War” (which I am thirty-seven pages into right now … out of five-hundred and thirty-four …) and “Infiltration”, which discusses how Islamic operatives have snuck their way into the United States government just like the Soviets did during the Cold War in attempt to abrupt our efforts in the War on Terror. Interesting stuff, but as I said before only if I can find the time for it, which may be difficult for a little while at least.

And lastly, I will no longer be discussing the Terri Schiavo case; especially considering how even her parents have given up placing their remaining hopes with the failed judicial system of the United States and its liberal activist judges. Sure, I will post a little memorial prayer and picture when she is declared dead, which should be any day now given that it has been ten days since she had anything to eat or drink, but nothing beyond that.

Now, what was I going to discuss quickly this evening? Oh yeah … I had a bit of a “heated” discussion with my parents this evening while we were watching “Beyond the Da Vinci Code” on the History Channel (note, I blame television for this because if they had had something actually related to Easter on then we wouldn’t have been watching it in the first place). See, this is where I need to learn to cool down and not get so steamed about stuff like this or else political discussions I am involved with are going to go nowhere fast. When I get myself into these type of situations I tend to say things that I don't actually mean or explain clearly enough, which quite frankly can come back to bite me in the ass, and often do. In any event, I was arguing … how about I discuss how I feel about the book and religion in general before I get into that first?

Alright, here is my stance on “The Da Vinci Code” – I am not advocating a total boycott of the book for a number of reasons, most prominently because (1) there is a thing called “right to free speech” in this country (as well as most of the world) which allows those out there to say what they want but also allots others, such as myself, to rebuke their claims, and (2) numerous areas of historical and theological reference are up for grabs seeing as how records back in those times were sketchy at best, so no one is for sure on what any events took place during which times.

The problem I have with “The Da Vinci Code” is that it is taking a huge subject matter, namely the divinity of Jesus Christ (which it claims was a fraud in order for the Catholic Church to maintain power) due to his relationship with Mary Magdalene, whom some have claimed was his wife and bore his only child and whose bloodline continues to this day in secret, and reshaping historical facts in order to sell books, or perhaps advocate an agenda (who knows).

I would normally not have such a problem with the book or its popularity with the mainstream public if it was not for that first page in which Dan Brown states that the historical references (places, times, people, etc.) in his novel are accurate, which is not true at all. First off, Dan Brown may have had some things right, but there are a lot of twisting of facts, dates, locations, meanings, etc. in order to prove a “point”, or in other words an agenda. And secondly, in making this statement people, as naïve as they are, will take this for face value and believe, beyond the whole storyline of Robert Langdon searching and actually locating the “Holy Grail”, that the historical events, specifically that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had a child together, are true, which is sacrilegious.

Here’s the problem – as easy as it is to say that people can go on the internet or research books in the local library or purchase them at nearest Barnes & Noble bookstore, it is quite another thing to take time out of your hectic schedule to actually do just that, let alone read those papers or books. Unless you happen to be extremely interested in the subject matter, you won’t have the time – you will be unable to afford the “information costs” (see, those American Politics lessons are ready paying off). Even those who are heavily invested in certain subjects such as those referenced with “The Da Vinci Code” do not have all the time in the world to research every source … I am lucky to find the time every day to sit down in bed and read a chapter or two before heading off to bed at around two in the morning. This means that a majority of those reading the book (note, I am not saying everyone, but a majority of those people) are simply going to take what was stated in the book for face value. Throw in the first page of the book with the word “FACT” in bold letters and there is your problem.

Now that is out of the way, back to my story … I was debating with my mother and father that “The Da Vinci Code” did more harm then good and that Jesus Christ was never married or that if you truly believed that Jesus was the Son of God that he would never have been married because that would defeat the theory that he was “divine”.

Let’s get something straight here – I am a Roman Catholic by birth and so is the rest of my family (or as far as I know … never really been brought up beyond our immediate family, and believe me, there are plenty of relatives who no longer have any contact with) but as of late, whether it has been because of my depression or something else related to it, I have been distancing my self both from the Catholic Church and Christianity in general. I have nothing against those who are excessively spiritual (if you have ever been to a private high school then you know what I am talking about here), but that is not my cup of tea. I truly wish I knew why I was like this, but perhaps that is something I can bring up in the next therapy session. In any event, recapping – I believe in the basic values of Christianity and the concepts that are taught within it, but I have become rebellious, you can say, against the absolute authority of the Catholic Church (namely the power of the Pope and him telling members what to believe and what not to) and God in general. Yeah, it’s complicated, but I will be sure to get into this discussion even further some other time, but for right now I will try and make this discussion quick. In any event, my disagreements with the following assertions, made by either Dan Brown or investigators into these historical time periods, are based on how they are triffling deep-seeded religious doctrines, values, and theological beliefs with no firm proof that their "scenarios" ever occured.

First, there was no possible way Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene and there is no proof, suggestive or otherwise, within either the authorized gospels of the Bible or the “secret” Gnostic gospels which support the theory. discusses the “Gospel of Phillip”, the Gnostic source that is always referenced by those who do believe Jesus was married, and how the interpretation of it is wrong:
The main problem with the "Phillip" passage is that it clearly shows that even in the context of this Gnostic text, Mary Magdalene and Jesus could not have been married. If you read the passage, as shown on page 246 of The Da Vinci Code, you'll see for yourself:

"the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, 'Why do you love her more than all of us?'"

If, in the context of this Gnostic text, the Savior and Mary Magdalene were supposedly married, then why would the disciples bother to ask their leader why he loved his her more than them?

Can you imagine a scenario in which a group of men would ask a married man, "Why do you love her (your wife) more than us?" Such a question doesn't make any sense if the two are supposed to be married. In fact, it wouldn't make any sense if the two were merely engaged, or even if they were simply dating.

The only way that the question would make sense in the Gnostic text is if there was no reason for Mary Magdalene to be treated any differently. And the only way that this could be true is if Mary Magdalene was supposed to have the exact same relationship with the "Savior" as did the "other disciples." In other words, only if she was not married, or otherwise intimately involved.
Furthermore, there is not one single reference in either the authorized gospels or the Gnostic gospels that states directly that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene were married. If they were, there would at least be some reference somewhere. If you believe in the conspiracy that the Church covered it up, where in the Gnostic gospels does it state directly that they were married? Nowhere, probably because they were not married. More importantly, Brown glares over one prominent flaw in his theory:

Finally, consider this from page 41 of The Truth Behind The Da Vinci Code, by Richard Abanes, in regards to the Gnostic Phillip text: “Ironically, if this text does anything, it cuts out the very heart of any assertion about Mary and Jesus being wed. It does so by adhering to one of the basic tenets of ancient Gnosticism, which declares that all physical matter was inherently evil. Consequently, sexual relations were intrinsically debasing! The Gospel of Phillip goes so far as to say that marital relations defile a woman”.
Also, if there are those out there claiming that since Jesus was Jewish and therefore had to be married, read “Breaking the Da Vinci Code” in which the author states that there were plenty of Jewish communities that did not require marriage, and more importantly, Jesus went against a lot of common Jewish practices, which kills that explanation in the water.

Secondly, by the time the “official” Bible was put together at the Council of Nicea, it was already affirmed to Christians of the time what were the legitimate texts and texts that were Gnostic gospels, those which deeply questioned the divinity of Jesus Christ. explains once again:

This is essential to the plot in The Da Vinci Code because it requires that the reader can believe that Constantine replaced the Gnostic writings with what we now call the New Testament. But, Constantine could not have had a hand in shaping the New Testament for two reasons: He wasn't born soon enough and he didn't live long enough. Based on writings from early church leaders, which date from A.D. 96 through 112, 24 of the 27 books that are part of today's New Testament were already regarded by early Christians as being authoritative, a full 213 years before Constantine convened the Council of Nicea. And, the Council of Nicea did not canonize anything. The canonization process occurred a full 70 years later, on a different continent. In addition, there were several writings by early church leaders, who died long before Constantine was even born, that collectively quote thousands of New Testament passages. It would have been extremely difficult for Constantine to have altered, shaped or otherwise influenced the New Testament.
There puts another debate to rest.

And lastly, concerning the “Last Supper” painting by Leonardo Da Vinci, the one which advocates of the “conspiracy theory” believe shows Mary Magdalene not only sitting next to Jesus but clues others into the fact that she was the Holy Grail, also known as the royal bloodline.

The Catholic Educator’s Research Center explains the matter best:

First, the idea that Da Vinci used any kind of code pertaining to any issue Dan Brown raises is unsupported by art historians.

Brown says that in this painting Da Vinci is telling us that the figure always identified as John the Evangelist is really Mary Magdalene, and that these two figures together form an "M," and that, because there is no grail in the picture, Da Vinci is telling us the "grail" is the sacred feminine of Mary Magdalene.

Unfortunately for Brown, art historians tell us that the effeminate-looking John is quite a typical representation for the time, as is a Last Supper portrayal emphasizing betrayal rather than the institution of the Eucharist. In addition, the Last Supper is a dramatization of a scene from the Gospel of John, in which the institution narrative is not even described. No chalice? No problem. In context, it makes sense.
And below is a picture that proves that John’s feminine qualities were not uncommon in depictions of the apostle at the time Da Vinci painted “The Last Supper” (there was a better painting then this, but I believe this serves its purpose for the time being - by the way, he is the man on the left side of Mary, or her left side):

There’s my grandstanding for the weekend … whew!! That was a lot more writing then I had expected to post this evening, but I believe I have proven my points thoroughly nonetheless. Well, back to the grindstone, immediately following a few short hours of sleep, which I desperately need.

Oh, before I forget … if you are interested in the concept of “The Da Vinci Code” or anything related to it, please purchase some of the following items through our site, which helps keep us running.

As always, thank you in advance:

Da Vinci Code Breaking the Da Vinci Code: Answering the Questions Everybody's Asking The Real History behind the Da Vinci Code

Saturday, March 26, 2005

Happy Easter, One and All!

God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, though your people walk in the valley of darkness, no evil should they fear; for they follow in faith the call of the shepherd whom you have sent for their hope and strength.

Attune our minds to the sound of his voice, lead our steps in the path he has shown, that we may know the strength of his outstretched arm and enjoy the light of your presence for ever.

We ask this through Christ our Lord.


Note – Sorry about the lack of updates over the past few days but I figured with the Easter weekend upon us and the whole Terri Schiavo debate coming to a close (or at least any day now), I thought I would take a day or two to catch up on some school work and return fresh on Monday. I am hoping to have something new to discuss with you but more then likely it be something related to Terri Schiavo. Sigh … trying not to be depressed here.

Happy Easter Everyone!!

Friday, March 25, 2005

Remembering Good Friday

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
- Luke 23: 34

And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
- Luke 23: 46

Thursday, March 24, 2005

May God Have Mercy on Us

Well, it seems as though all judicial options for the Schidler family (Terri’s parents) have been exhausted, and the best thing to do right now is to pray in this time prior to our Easter weekend that we receive forgiveness not only from Terri but also from God for this nation allowing the weakest amongst us to die so cruelly.

Loving God, I thank you for the gift of life you gave and continue to give to me and to all of us. Merciful God, I ask your pardon and forgiveness for my own failure and the failure of all people to respect and foster all forms of life in our universe.

Gracious God, I pray that with your grace, I and all people will reverence, protect, and promote all life and that we will be especially sensitive to the life of the unborn, the abused, neglected, disabled, and the elderly. I pray, too, that all who make decisions about life in any form will do so with wisdom, love, and courage.

Living God, I praise and glorify you as Father, Source of all life, as Son, Savior of our lives, and as Spirit, Sanctifier of our lives.


Sister Mary Margaret Johanning, S.S.N.D.Nihil Obstat: Joseph F. Martino Imprimatur: Anthony Cardinal Bevilacqua Archbishop of Philadelphia, June 1994

Justice in America

The following cartoons pretty much sum up the Terri Schiavo debate at this point ...

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Born and Raised by Hypocrites

The hypocrices of this Terri Schiavo case are truly driving me insane …

First, we have the ACLU, the extreme left-wing organization whose purpose they claim is to protect the individual freedoms and liberties of every American citizen, and their hypocritical stance in this debate. Considering what the organization advocates for, you would think that they would take the side of Terri in this scenario but instead they backing the man who is seeking to take away her individuals rights (right to due process and, more importantly, right to life) through the act of cold-blooded murder. Excuse me, would any of you brightly informed individuals care to point out to me where within the context of the Constitution of the United States it states that every citizen of this nation has the ‘right to die’? Don’t bothering looking it up because it does not exist anywhere within the contents of the document. This is yet another fabricated invention of the liberal mythology concerning the Constitution of the United States, joining the ranks of such classics as the “right to privacy” (which is actually the cobbling together of bits and pieces from several of the amendments to the Constitution) and the “Separation of Church and State” (which documents such as the Northwest Ordinance strictly forbids).

Then there are the Democrats located on Capital Hill who have publicly objected to the government’s intervention into this ‘private’ matter, this in spite of the fact that this course of action by Michael Schiavo is a clear violation of one federal law or another, either as an act of assisted suicide or murder depending on your view of the situation.

First off, rather then taking the time to repeat myself, I will reference a paragraph from a recent post on the matter in which I discussed how the liberals in Congress only believe in the specifics of procedural matters when it serves to benefit their interests:

The liberals care only for the specifics of congressional procedural measures when it stands to serve their particular interests, specifically the image of the party against the conservative majority in Congress. Take for example the left’s fervent desire to go through the proper channels, specifically the United Nations Security Council, in obtaining the legislation needed to use justifiable military force against the nation of Iraq, this in spite of the fact that no such resolution was ever requested in light of the Clinton Administration’s bombing campaigns against Kosovo and Bosnia, which I might add involved no invested United States interests whatsoever as to make use of military force against these countries necessary. The need to obtain approval from the United Nations in a declaration of war against another nation only became necessary when President George W. Bush, a Republican, stood to benefit politically from invading Iraq in the upcoming presidential election should the United States swiftly take action against Saddam Hussein. So even if they could not entirely block Bush from pursuing an invasion of Iraq, it would severely limit his options and would allot enough time for the liberals to build up support through their propaganda channels, such as, in an effort to mobolize against the war effort.
And secondly, when they have found themselves on the losing end of this debate (a scenario that is not an uncommon occurrence within the Democratic Party as of late) they then resort to accusing the conservatives in Congress of using this situation in an attempt to solidify support amongst their religious base. Beside the fact that this situation is not about delegating authority over the political football but instead the moral obligation to ensure the quality of life of all American citizens, how are the attempts made by the congressional liberals to block passage of the legislation through either the House of Representative or the Senate, or both, is not seen as the fulfillment of a specific agenda?

And lastly, there is the situation involving Michael Schiavo and his mistress with whom he has not only had a longstanding relationship with but has also found it in himself to father two children with her as well in the midst of this chaotic battle for his wife’s ‘right to die’. I can not tell you for sure whether this woman is in on the fact that Michael is pushing so hard for this case in order to collect on Terri’s life insurance or not, and I do not believe that we will ever know for sure, but what we can assume is that this woman is either an especially gifted actress or she truly is as dumb as this scenario makes her sound. There are many out there who have questioned the fact that if Michael truly wanted to move on with his life then why didn’t he simply file for divorce against Terri and let that be that. First off, by divorcing her he cuts himself out of a chance to collect on her life insurance, which has been the basis for his fighting as admirably (loose association of the word) as he has, and secondly, his mistress would then refuse to marry him if he were to do that. According to friends close to the couple, the mistress has flatly refused to marry Michael should he file for divorce from his wife because as a Catholic she can not marry a divorced man. Oh, I see now, you find it contradictory to your deep-seeded spiritual beliefs to marry a divorced man and yet it is entirely acceptable for you to not only engage in the clear act of adultery but quite possibly conspire to commit murder as well.

Hypocrisy begets Hypocrisy ...

Kerry's Own Words

The following Viewpoint article appeared in The Marquette Tribune some time during September 2004 – I do not recall the specific edition date in which it appeared sadly because I did not think at the time to clip the article out of the newspaper and save it for reference purposes. What I do remember is that it was written in the short months leading up to the Presidential Election in November in response to contradictory statements made by then-presidential candidate John Kerry concerning his position on the Iraq War. This was originally a short three-hundred editorial written for a local newspaper but was extended for its publication in the university newspaper.

Randy Beers, national security adviser to John Kerry, stated in response to the Bush campaign’s questioning of Senator Kerry’s stance on the Iraq War in August 2004, “the issue has never been whether we were right to hold Saddam accountable, the issue is that we went to war without our allies, without properly equipping our troops, and without a plan to win the peace”. If that is the case then where does Mr. Kerry stand on these particular issues? Why don’t we let Senator Kerry’s own words speak for themselves?

Have the spineless French and Russians forgotten this comment Kerry made in November 1997? “Where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity, but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq” – Might they be recalling their endorsement of the senator now?

Kerry then states in September 2002, “If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act”. What! Go into Iraq without the support of the all-powerful United Nations? Perish the thought!

When it came to funding our brave men and women fighting over in Iraq, Senator Kerry commented in September 14th, 2003, while on CBS’ Face the Nation “I don’t think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to – to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That’s irresponsible. What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now” – And then he voted against the appropriations bill that same day. Both he and his running mate John Edwards were among the scant twelve Democratic senators who opposed the appropriations bill to give our troops the supplies they need to finish the job in Iraq.

Thankfully Kerry clarified, or at least attempted to clarify, his last minute decision to vote against the bill by stating in March 2004, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it”.

Then on July 26th, 2004, Senator Kerry switched his position on funding our troops once again by saying, "You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service”. This scathing comment of the Bush administration from a guy who voted against funding supplies for our troops – Wait, he did support it until he voted against it. We must be fair about this after all.

And what’s his plan on winning the peace? “My goal, my diplomacy, my statesmanship is to get our troops reduced in number and I believe if you do the statesmanship properly, I believe if you do the kind of alliance building that is available to us”. Sounds like another Vietnam to me! I guess he learned nothing from his four months service recording footage and ranking up purple-heart bandages.

To even the most hard-core Kerry supporter, this has the candidate in a predicament of his own making. But, as President Bush has kindly noted to him, there is still at least two more months for Senator Kerry to change his position once again.

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

President Bush, Come On Down!

Michael Schiavo, Terri’s ‘devoted’ husband, in an interview with the St. Petersburg Times, the local newspaper in Tampa Bay, Florida, requested that President Bush come see his wife first before making a decision as to whether she should live or die. “Come down, President Bush. Come talk to me. Meet my wife. Talk to my wife and see if you get an answer. Ask her to lift her arm to shake your hand. She won’t do it”. It is not that Terri flat-out refuses to engage in these actions (talking, shaking someone’s hand, etc.) but rather she is unable to do so due to her deteriorating medical condition. Please take note of the fact that there is quite a distinctive difference between the two concepts which plays directly into Michael Schiavo’s agenda. Of course he would not have to be making this statement if he had followed through with what he had said he was going to do several years ago which was to take the money he had received from his malpractice lawsuit and use it to pay for the therapy treatments Terri would need to improve her condition, except he never did. Medical professionals have been quoted on the cable news networks as saying that if Terri were to receive these treatments then she would be able to regain at least some motion in her limbs but more importantly she would be able to recover her ability to speak, although she remain confined to her bed. In spite of the opportunities having been presented to him, Michael merely scoffed at the requests of medical professionals to treat his wife as if it were a joke. Even when Terri’s own parents offered to pay for the treatments themselves he refused to allow such a course of action be taken on his wife. He would have you believe that he is a man willing to abandon a false hope because every resource within the medical profession had been unable to revive his wife from her stating of suffering when in reality he never had such hope to begin with but instead has rejected these remedies in order to further his ambitions.

Weary from an emotional visit with his wife (I am sure), Schiavo inquired, “Instead of worrying about my wife, who was granted her wishes by the state courts the past seven years, they should worry about the pedophiles killing young girls. Why doesn’t Congress worry about people not having health insurance? Or the budget? Let’s talk about all the children who don’t have home”. Someone, quick, get on the phone and start up this man’s campaign to run for the Florida senate seat on the Democratic ticket for next year! Should Terri be allowed to die and he is able to collect on her life insurance, quite honestly I would not be surprised to see the DNC stoop so low. Talk about a showman! When in doubt, or out of excuses (whatever comes first), cite other problem within the nation that the liberals are so adamant about in order to divert attention away from the ethical complexities of your situation. Brilliant!

Michael continued to question the motives of the members of Congress for keeping his wife alive, stating, “To make comments that Terri would want to live, how do they know?” With that in mind, how is it, Mr. Schiavo, that you are able to know for a fact that Terri would rather die then continue to live in her current condition when you have never had a conversation with her in which she was quoted by anyone as to making such a request of you? Oh, wait! I had completely forgotten that there was that conversation you claimed took place, after you and Terri were first married, in which she stated that if she were ever to end up in a situation such as she is now that she would rather die then suffering through the rest of her life in that condition because, as everyone knows, the moment you get married the conversations between man and wife switch automatically to discussing the ‘what if?’ situation of which you want to die in.

Schiavo continued, “Have they ever met her? What color are her eyes? What’s her middle name? What’s her favorite color? They don’t have any clue who Terri is. They should be ashamed of themselves”. First off, the members of Congress are not attempting to score a date with her or requesting that she give her hand in marriage, so I do not see how such trivial crap as to knowing what her favorite color is should affect one’s ability to protect those whose quality of life is threatened? And secondly, why should Congress be ashamed of themselves? As far as I have seen in this whole ordeal, they have not done anything that is truly worthy of derision. Congressional delegates located on Capital Hill are only doing their civic duty to ensure that everyone in this country, even the disabled, are given the right to life that had been instructed to them by God and guaranteed protection under the Constitution of the United States. If anyone should be held accountable for the death of Terri Schiavo, it should be both her husband, who has claimed to be acting in her best interests when in reality he is advocating for her murder in order to collect on her life insurance, and the flawed judicial system which continues to stray further from its purpose to ensure equal justice for all citizens of the United States and moves toward acting more as the tool of the left to establish their agenda upon the people of this country without having to consult with them on these issues. Was this not why the American Revolution was fought for in the first place? Anybody remember ‘taxation without representation’? Is taxation another term for slavery? The citizens of the United States has become slaves to the system of government that was put in place to protect them. Soon there will not be any rights left to ensure for future generations of Americans.

The article finishes with Mr. Schiavo quoted as saying, “Terri died fifteen years ago. It is time for her to be with the Lord like she wanted to be”. Yes, we should all move on with our lives and not wasting such precise moments discussing some vegetable’s fate, especially when her husband, who is such an honest and devoted man to his wife, assures the public that she wanted to die. Hell, if Michael Schiavo was able to move on by shacking up with some hussy and fathering two children with her in the midst of this grueling ordeal then surely we, who have not know Terri personally, should be able to let this go.

Sunday, March 20, 2005

Walking Contradiction

After spending countless weeks stressing over midterm examinations and constructing essays into the wee hours of the evening prior to their turn-in date (and then having to wake up at around 7:45am for a 9am class), I am finally on Spring/Easter Break and I can take the time now to relax for a few days before I have to shift things back into gear in order to study for the Western Civilization 002 examination on April 1st (the Friday of the week we get back from break - and you thought you had it bad) and begin to work on the Unit Three essay for English 002, which should not be as hard as the previous two essays seeing as how there is no need for a thesis but instead requires a style that reflects the editorials that I have written for either The Marquette Tribune or on this blog site. During this time I may comment on a recent event or two that I feel I should reflect on, as I will do in just a few moments, but I do not believe I will have the time to do this as consistently as I would like to (and once school starts up again then the direction of the blog will shift back toward commenting on editorials written in The Marquette Tribune).

Can you believe the Democrats in Congress? It is truly amazing as to how they can continue living with themselves when they are able to take actions that threaten the lives of American citizens, both domestically and overseas. As you are aware, I severely criticized Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards during the 2004 Presidential Campaign (man, does that seem like a long time ago now) for voting against a measure that would have allocated funds toward supplying troops stationed in Iraq. This is where the infamous “I did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it” line came about, a statement that would continue to haunt Kerry throughout the campaign. The Kerry camp cited that the White House was fiddling with the facts of the matter, stating that he had particular disagreements with several measures contained within the legislation and that was what he was truly voting against, ignoring the principle that he was in effect voting down a bill that would have supplied our troops serving in Iraq. Furthermore, if this was such a fervent issue, why is it that only twelve Democrats, including Senator Kerry and Edwards, voted down the legislation, whether it was for the same reasons or not? This is merely a sampling of the unmitigated contradictions within the decision-making amongst the liberal politicians located on Capital Hill that has brought the Democratic Party to its knee and made it the misbegotten faction it is now, a practice that continues to be enforced to this very day.

According to the Associated Press, “Democrats expressed sympathy for the severely brain-damaged Florida woman and for the plight of her family”, of course they did. They wouldn’t like to appear as if they were the aggressors in all of this, now would they? Perhaps the next time a baby … pardon, a fetus is partially born Gwen Moore or Russ Feingold can appear in front it and express their condolences to their extremity, but business is business after all … snap, snap. The Congressional Democrats “accused Republicans of ramming through constitutionally questionable legislation to satisfy the agenda of their conservative allies”. And how is it that the actions taken by the Democrats in blocking the passage of this legislation is not deemed as engaging in actions aimed at satisfying their particular base? Is it not required of congressional delegates, whether they are in the House of Representatives or the Senate, to act within the best interests of the constituents from the state they represent? How is it that the liberals in Congress are allowed to engage in actions that far exceed the solicitations of their constituents without so much as a peep from the members of the Republican Party, but as soon as the conservatives flinch so much as a muscle in the direction in which the 'religious right' desires them to move towards, there is a problem? The Democrats in this instance, though certainly not limited to this issue alone, are deliberately brushing aside the ethical code of humanity which means for man (all human beings) to protect the sanctity of life wherever it is threatened in order to serve their extremist agenda.

If you will recall, a few days ago Terri Schiavo’s feeding tubes were removed at the request of her husband, of whom I will be discussing in detail later in this entry, who claims that he is simply acting in the interests of his wife who wished to die and be spared from the suffering she had accumulated over the years in her present condition. The legislative measure in question “would give Schiavo’s parents the right to file suit in federal court over the withdrawal of food and medical treatment needed to sustain the life of their daughter”, but sadly this does not mean that the tube will be reinserted as soon as the federal court decides to hear the case. In order for that situation to come about, the federal court must side with the parents of Terri Schiavo, which I am not willing to hold out hope for seeing as how the judicial system within the last thirty years has proven time and again, more recently in the last few years then any other time, to be less then capable of performing their civic duty.

First off, whether Terri Schiavo sincerely wanted to be taken off life-support or not, this is assisted suicide which not only goes strictly against the moral teachings set down by the Catholic Church but distinctive federal laws in this country as well that have barred this vile practice, known in the realm of political correctness as euthanasia, from taking place.

For more information pertaining to the 1996 Supreme Court case that barred the practice of assisted suicide within the United States, click on the link below:
Click Here for More Information on the 1996 Supreme Court Decision on Assisted Suicide in the United States
And secondly, this would all seem to be legitimate, with the husband fighting his wife’s family for what he feels is in the best interest of his spouse, admirable if not entirely misguided, but emotions shift dramatically when one takes into account the real motives behind Mr. Schiavo’s actions.

So what is the real story behind this? Though he claims to be a devoted and loving husband to Terri, in reality her husband has been fooling around for quite some time and has finally settled down with, loosely applying the term of course, on one particular mistress who is enticed by the prospects of his soon to be acquired newfound fortune. What would that be exactly? The insurance money he would collect on the death of his wife who lay in a vegetative state in a hospital bed in the state of Florida. Only one problem remained – Terri was still alive. Her husband could collect on the insurance claim or be able to marry his mistress, who keep in mind is only with him because of that money, unless she passes away naturally. The longer Terri lives, the less of a chance her husband has on collecting that insurance money, and thus becoming less attractive by the day in the eyes of his lady in waiting. But wait, it gets even better! Did I mention that Michael Schiavo has fathered two children with this woman as well? It seems as though he has been able to have moved on with his life, so does it not make sense for Terri to do the same in ditching the tube? If you agree with this assertion, you are just as disgusting and twisted as the man who is using this lame excuse as disguise for premeditated murder.

The liberals care only for the specifics of congressional procedural measures when it stands to serve their particular interests, specifically the image of the party against the conservative majority in Congress. Take for example the left’s fervent desire to go through the proper channels, specifically the United Nations Security Council, in obtaining the legislation needed to use justifiable military force against the nation of Iraq, this in spite of the fact that no such resolution was ever requested in light of the Clinton Administration’s bombing campaigns against Kosovo and Bosnia, which I might add involved no invested United States interests whatsoever as to make use of military force against these countries necessary. The need to obtain approval from the United Nations in a declaration of war against another nation only became necessary when President George W. Bush, a Republican, stood to benefit politically from invading Iraq in the upcoming presidential election should the United States swiftly take action against Saddam Hussein. So even if they could not entirely block Bush from pursuing an invasion of Iraq, it would severely limit his options and would allot enough time for the liberals to build up support through their propaganda channels, such as, in an effort to mobolize against the war effort.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, the Wisconsin Republican responsible for crafting the legislation, was quoted as saying, "As millions of Americans observe the beginning of Holy Week this Palm Sunday we are reminded that every life has purpose and none is without meaning", as opposed to the liberals in this country who view the cruel methods of abortion and euthanasia (or assisted suicide) as the justifiable means, in their mind, of purging themselves of the responsibility they have toward another human life.

At best (with the term being used loosely in this context) pulling the plug on Terri Schiavo and allowing her to starve to death is assisted suicide, a practice that is barred in this country, and at worst, cold-blooded murder.

Thursday, March 17, 2005

First Blood Part II

Though Koch did concede to the point that we were defending the rights and freedoms of the Iraqi people (as with every liberal concession, there is always a ‘but …’), he made clear that “I [Koch] never claimed that this was our original intent for the war”. And nor did I Brian, but even if I had done so, what of it? I had already taken the time to cover this particular discussion in a previous blog entry, so instead of wasting my time, as well as yours, repeating myself, I am reposting the same paragraph from March 15th, 2005, where I discussed how the reasons for going to war do not matter in comparison to what positive difference the outcome of this war has on the local populace:

The invasion of Iraq, let alone any military operation for that matter, is not solely bent on one reason alone. We took military actions against Iraq for three main reasons – Hussein’s WMD programs, the obvious connection to terrorism, and the oppression of the Iraqi people. Secondly, if this was the sole reason for invading Iraq, what is the problem with that? Every single reason given as to why we invaded Iraq, whether each on their own or grouped together, is justification enough for the United States to have taken action against Iraq. And lastly, if the reasons for military intervention against Iraq did change as you claimed, again, so what? For example, the original goal of the North during the Civil War was to preserve the Union but by the end of it, the goal of the war had evolved into a fight to abolish slavery from the United States. The freeing of the Iraqi people from the brutal grip of Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical regime is justification enough for our military intervention and the childish bickering from your side of the political spectrum should simply live with this fact.
Brian then begged the question, in such a manner as only a truly vivid anti-war hippie could have done, “Why ensure peace by providing more military aid then humanitarian?” Here is yet another instance where I am going to be repeating myself if I bother to take the time and write this all out again, so instead I am going to do the old ‘cut and paste’ method and let a previous entry to the talking for me:

The left in country, while placing so much attention behind the fact that we have not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as Bush claimed going into the war (oops, better tell the NY Times not to run that story about the WMD sites the US has found … too late, but no news media, beside Fox News of course, paid attention, so it doesn’t matter) or how we have supposedly been ‘torturing’ prisoners in the country following our occupation (that reminds me, I have a number of lawsuits to file against friends of mine from high school seeing as how I was so ‘brutally tortured’ during that point in time on several occasions as I recall), has dismissed any discussion whatsoever on the UN Oil for Food Scandal, which deserves so much more attention then anyone, especially the left, have been devoting to it.

Here is the low down – In 1995, the UN Security Council, which I will get into greater detail about on how bad they were and are to this day later in the week, passed Resolution 986 calling for revenue from the sale of oil barrels from Iraq to go toward humanitarian aid for the Iraqi populace. The problem, first off, was that only seventy-two percent of that said revenue actually went to humanitarian aid as had been planned, at least as far as the public mind had assumed. Food and medicine supplies were purchased by Saddam Hussein at inflated prices, with the products themselves being either damaged or entirely worthless in sufficiency to the needs of the civilians, allowing the dictator to pocket as much as $4,000,000 from his dealings. But Saddam Hussein wasn’t the only one who benefited from his oil-bribes for peace (sounds more wholesome then those ‘masturbating for peace’ protests … ugh) – Russia was given 1.5 billion barrels of oil to oppose the US invasion along with George Galloway (British Parliament member and long time socialist), Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnopati, and (surprise, surprise) eleven (only eleven?) French individuals and companies, amongst them quite possibly was Jacque Chirac. Yes, how dare I go about describing the United Nations as scum when they have been so ethical!
Does it make sense that we should have continued to waste time, energy, resources, and taxpayer dollars that in essence feeding the beast rather then killing it? No, it does not Mr. Koch. This is the liberal solution to everything – let us simply through some more money at the problem and as long as we do not engage in the conflict in time it will eventually work itself out. That was bull-shit then and its bull-shit now, especially in light of the allegations against members of the United Nations, as well as several foreign governments, concerning their involvement in the ‘Oil-for-Food’ scandal. Brian has either truly never heard of the incident (which given the liberal biasness of the news media, with the exception of Fox News of course, would not be out of the question seeing as how they would never mention it during their broadcasts) or he, as well as every other ‘see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil (unless they are conservatives)’ liberal like him, refuses to accept it as truth. I would tell you what I think but obviously that would be stating the obvious, and I have an Anthropology quiz to study for tomorrow afternoon, so I am going to move right along.

He then went on to play the typical ‘anti-Iraq War’ liberal car, which would be that “there was never a connection with Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda”. The statements Brian has made in his response editorial are making this blog entry so much easier for me, don’t you think so? Just ‘cut and paste’, ‘cut and paste’ … give me a challenge here, buddy! Wait, I am sorry, I forgot for a moment that I was dealing with a liberal here and that would be asking too much:

In July 1998, according to the report, “an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin”. This meeting, along with several others, was arranged by Bin Ladin’s right-hand man, Zawahiri, “who had his own ties to the Iraqis”. Hell, even recent Bush-basher Richard Clarke, former terrorism czar under the Clinton Administration, admitted within the contents of the 9/11 Commission Report that if Bin Ladin were to escape into Iraq it would be “virtually impossible” to find him. Now I do not know about you, but that clearly wouldn’t be the case if no connection between the two existed. And though the report does not reveal a cooperative arrangement made between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda concerning the attacks on September 11th, you would have to be a complete dunce, in other words a Howard Dean backer, to not see the connection between these two (or at least their interest to collaborate together) and their deep-seated hatred against America. In any event, it doesn’t take much digging to discover ties between Saddam Hussein and terrorism seeing as how, as I stated within my previous Viewpoint article, he offered compensation payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and harbored infamous terrorists such as Abu Abbas, the man who pushed a wheel-chair confined man off a cruise-liner his terror group had held hostage. Yes Patrick, how dare we go about removing as respectable and amiable a ruler as Saddam Hussein who clearly had no linkage whatsoever with terrorism. Shame on us!
For more information concerning the attacks on September 11th, the connections between al Qaeda and several foreign governments such as Iraq and Iran, and the investigation that took place following this horrifying event in American (as well as world) history, click the link below to purchase a copy of the 9/11 Commission Report:

Click Here to Purchase the 9/11 Commission Report from Barnes & Noble!
In continuation of his whine-fest, Brian Koch stated, “I doubt it is better for the Iraqi people to have two groups of outsiders having a war on their soil”. All I have to say to that is better them then us, Brian. Sorry, but explain to me as why terrorists would be streaming into Iraq like crazy if there was no terrorist connection between Iraq and al Qaeda? Better yet, explain to me how it is possible that out of the entire Middle East region Iraq is the one secular state that is not participating in any shape or form with terrorism? This query becoming even more complicated to answer in the way the liberal media establishment wants it to be once you throw in the fact that Iraq is surrounded by both Syria and Iran, two infamous nations that have contributed heavily to terrorist activities over the years. Why would terrorists bother wasting their time, energy, and resources attacking American soldiers in a secular country that would have no effect on the fate of the terrorists whether it became a democracy or not when they have soldiers in Afghanistan, their former home base, to blow up? I doubt heavily that Brian has an answer to these compelling questions, which is just another liberal on the pile I suppose.

In an attempt to refute the statement I made in which I noted that Iraq had broken the Geneva Convention rules when they used poison gas against the Iranians during the Iran/Iraq War, Brian said, “We also broke the Geneva Convention when we invaded Iraq”.

Is it not sad how the liberals continue to live and speak the lie even when they have been proven wrong? Rather then waste my time explaining this all out to you just click the link below to read the Geneva Conventions for yourself:

Click Here to Learn the Truth About the Geneva Conventions
Note that the Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with how a nation enters a war but instead how civilians and prisoners of war are treated within an armed conflict. But even without the inclusion of the Geneva Conventions in the discussion of justification for war, the next excuse would be that we did not pass the resolution through the United Nations that would have allowed us to justifiably engage Iraq in an armed conflict.

The liberals are so quick to point out that the United States’ invasion of Iraq was wrong because we did not get permission from the United Nations to do so, and yet they have forgotten that Clinton preemptively invaded both Kosovo and Bosnia during his time in office and that campaigns in Afghanistan (2001) and the French military intervention in 2003 were all done without a resolution from the United Nations. Did you hear one peep from the liberals claiming that they were unjustified interventions? Hell no, which proves my point that the United Nations no longer matters and should be torn down and replaced with a Starbucks. But this begs the question: Would you have supported the war then if we had gotten permission from the United Nations to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power? Mention this to your liberal friend next time you engage them in a debate concerning the Iraq War – it will trip them up every time!

Koch then plays the naïve card by stating that he “never heard any proof Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or had the potential to create such weapons”. And what is this guy majoring in again? The newspaper does not say, all it states is that he is a student in the College of Arts & Sciences, but it better not be political science or else I have a bone to pick with the department’s professors and what they have been teaching this kid. I do not know about you but now I have the feeling that Koch has run entirely out of excuses and is simply playing possum here. There can be no other logical explanation other then the fact that he could potentially be one of those liberal political pundits who hasn’t a clue as to what he is talking about, which is of course within the realm of possibility but I am going to give him some slack here by not stating that directly, or at least not yet.

And seeing as how determined you [Brian] are in opposing the war, why would you admit that they had weapons of mass destruction or the ability to create them? If he were to even to make the slightest concession to the fact that Saddam Hussein had the ability or the knowledge to either create weapons of mass destruction or sell those secrets off to terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda then he would be defeating his anti-Iraq War position by giving justification to our intervention. As with most liberal standpoints they simply have to keep living the lie to further their political agenda.

For hard-hitting facts about the threat of weapons of mass destruction and Iraq’s ability to create them, visit the following website by click the link below:

Click Here to Learn the Truth About Iraq's Ability to Create WMDs
And finally, Brian Koch finishes off his response by stating, “It is very easy for an area to be peaceful towards its neighbors and despise other whom are farther away”. Does Brian not sound like one of those supporters of the isolation theory? Guess what, buddy? Too late, it will not work! I believe we tried this following the events that led to our involvement in World War I and look how that turned out – nearly two thousand American men and women killed in the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Is this not also what brought about September 11th? Liberals may not like the fact that we are acting as the world’s police force in the world but we are too prominent a superpower and player in foreign relations to return back to a state in which we can retreat from involvement in international conflicts whenever we feel like not getting involved. This statement is a pathetic excuse to dismiss the facts of the matter concerning Saddam Hussein and his involvement with weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda connections with Iraq, and the failure of the United Nations to act when it was suppose to and appeal to the hippie-dippy view of civilization in which everyone is good within their hearts and we should give peace a chance – and you wonder why these people truly want to legalize drug use in this country?

Come Again?!

Yes, I do realize that Brian Koch, whose Viewpoint article I severely criticized in my editorial response, has written another article in response to my Viewpoint earlier in the month (man, there has to be an easier way of explaining this every time) but I unfortunately will not get to that till later in the evening when I have more time on my hands (considering I did not have Theology this morning – don’t you just love cancelled classes – I should have had the time to do so but I decided to head over to the Rec Center and work out instead), so for right now I will post some quick comments concerning Steven Blackwood’s “Loss of Catholic Character Widespread”, in which he responds to Douglas Zabrowski’s Viewpoint article that criticized the loss of Catholic values here at Marquette University. The unfortunate thing about this article is that, despite making a few valid points about how times have changed, it goes seriously overboard in its interpretation of the Ten Commandments.

Steven in his editorial warns readers of the “evils of materialism (coveting)” but in a way backtracks on this declaration, saying clearly "Capitalism could not exist without at least partially negating these two [the 9th and 10th] commandments”.

For reverence purposes, below are, word-for-word from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the 9th and 10th Commandments:

(9) You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.

Every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

(10) You shall not covet . . . anything that is your neighbor's. . . . You shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
First off, there is a tremendous difference between materialism, which I and my fellow Catholics would hardly consider as ‘evil’ (there are certainly worse things then this within theological teachings), and coveting, which is a desire to have something that belongs to something else. I will admit that, yes, passionate desire to require certain goods would fall under the definition of materialism, but where exactly do you draw the line? What one person might consider as modest, a poor person may define as excessive. How does Steven expect us to do this exactly?

There are those out there who believe we must adhere to every single word Jesus Christ uttered from his mouth, which includes the relinquishment of all our earthly possessions in order to live in poverty and peace with the spirit of God (I do not believe that is exactly what he was alluding to, but I am trying to make this a short response, so I will not argue too much about it), but in all honesty, whether we are speaking in terms of the time period in which Jesus lived or now, this is just unreasonable. It may have been easier back in ancient times to have lived in complete poverty seeing as how Jesus was speaking mainly to groups of people that did not have much to begin with, but now days not even the poor within the United States (if you can actually define them as being ‘poor’ with their colored televisions and cars that are better then the ones my friends and I own) would be able to do this, let alone give it a second thought.

I guess I am conflicted as to the message Blackwood is trying to convey - either he is being serious, in which case I would have to disagree with his standpoint and claim that though we, more specifically Marquette University, need to adhere to Catholic values and teachings for the sole fact that they promote themselves proudly as Jesuit educational institution and by turning their backs to teachings they claim to value then they simply pulling wool over the eyes of potential students who buy into that image, or he overexaggerating to prove a point objectifying Zabrowski's editorial, a view that I would also have to disagree with. In any event, I wish I could tell you what he trying to say but what don't you visit the Marquette Tribune website or pick up a copy up, read it, and judge for yourself. As I always stated on this blog folks, I just present the facts to you and allow you to make your own decision. I am doing this all in an effort to create a more balanced presentation on a particular subject or subjects, a matter The Marquette Tribune needs desperately to apply to more in their own work.

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Byrum's Views Shallow, Naive, and Disdainful

The following is a response to a Viewpoint article printed in the March 10th, 2005, edition of the Marquette Tribune and was written by Emily Byrum, a junior at Marquette University, in response to my Viewpoint entitled "Koch's left-wing lie diffuses true intents of war" from the March 1st, 2005, edition of the school newspaper ...

After bitching about how I had been “disrespectful” to the left-wing spectrum of the university with my Viewpoint article (hey, join the club, we have jackets), she then went on to state, “How convenient that Kastner associated left-wing voters with a communist dictator”. Hell, if the boot fits. And why should you people be complaining? Do you hear me harping about the fact that some left-wing radical came straight-out, did not even take the time to lead up to it – just flatly came out, and called me a Nazi (a typical move for the left – when in vein resort to name calling – do not attempt to be clever in your writing skills, just be blunt and childish in doing so)? No, in fact I enjoyed it quite profusely. If I can write an article that angers a leftist off so much that they throw their reasonable thought processing to the wing and bitch out against me with all their bent-up emotions then I have done my job as a conservative commentator. And at least with my allusion to the fact that left-wingers were communists (note that I actually used my brain to come up with a clever way to not only start off the article by boiling up the emotions of the leftists, but I forced them to use the other side of their brain to have them come to that conclusion), I had the facts to back it up. Need I remind everyone how half of FDR’s turned out to be Soviet spies and the left turned a blind ear to it? Or how about the Avalon Project released publicly during the Clinton Administration which supported the claims of Joseph McCarthy but was quickly and suspiciously ignored by both the White House and the liberally-biased media? More importantly, how about the whole of Hollywood jumping to the defense of communist spies during the “Hollywood Blacklisting”, which, to be clear, had nothing to do with Joseph McCarthy despite what the left may claim otherwise.

Speaking of blacklisting, as well as the concept of misconceptions, Emily then went on say that it was wrong that “McCarthy hearings should begin whenever someone decides to question an action their government takes”. First off, Joseph McCarthy was right! God, no politician in the history of the United States has received such a widely misconstrued conception then Joseph McCarthy and his fight against the State Department to get them to admit that they were allowing known Communists to continue working within critical areas of the United States government, including the Army and Navy Departments.

There is a lot to discuss on the subject but right now I have so little time to give the material, as well as the man himself, justice, so why don’t you purchase, or borrow from your local library, Ann Coulter’s Treason in which she discusses the entire matter at length and how the left has twisted his true intents over the years.

Click the link below to purchase Ann Coulter’s Treason from Barnes & Noble today …

Click Here to Purchase Ann Coulter's Treason from Barnes & Noble!
And secondly, nowhere in my article did I ever claim that the government of the United States was in fact infallible (I have not even done this on the blog site), but might I ask how can she assume that the public themselves are definitive as what she assumes I mean when I lambasting the anti-war left?

“How dare he refer to the United Nations as ‘scum’” she went on to exclaim. Hell, how could I not would be the more proper question to ask. What more fitting term could there be for such a despicable and insignificant organization for the United Nations as they have become today?

As I said before, I do not have a whole lot of time in which to spend discussing at length as much as I would like to, but here are just some of the juicy highlights from Jed Babbin’s book entitled, Inside the Asylum, a purchase link of which will be posted following the next couple of paragraphs …

The left in country, while placing so much attention behind the fact that we have not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as Bush claimed going into the war (oops, better tell the NY Times not to run that story about the WMD sites the US has found … too late, but no news media, beside Fox News of course, paid attention, so it doesn’t matter) or how we have supposedly been ‘torturing’ prisoners in the country following our occupation (that reminds me, I have a number of lawsuits to file against friends of mine from high school seeing as how I was so ‘brutally tortured’ during that point in time on several occasions as I recall), has dismissed any discussion whatsoever on the UN Oil for Food Scandal, which deserves so much more attention then anyone, especially the left, have been devoting to it.

Here is the low down – In 1995, the UN Security Council, which I will get into greater detail about on how bad they were and are to this day later in the week, passed Resolution 986 calling for revenue from the sale of oil barrels from Iraq to go toward humanitarian aid for the Iraqi populace. The problem, first off, was that only seventy-two percent of that said revenue actually went to humanitarian aid as had been planned, at least as far as the public mind had assumed. Food and medicine supplies were purchased by Saddam Hussein at inflated prices, with the products themselves being either damaged or entirely worthless in sufficiency to the needs of the civilians, allowing the dictator to pocket as much as $4,000,000 from his dealings. But Saddam Hussein wasn’t the only one who benefited from his oil-bribes for peace (sounds more wholesome then those ‘masturbating for peace’ protests … ugh) – Russia was given 1.5 billion barrels of oil to oppose the US invasion along with George Galloway (British Parliament member and long time socialist), Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnopati, and (surprise, surprise) eleven (only eleven?) French individuals and companies, amongst them quite possibly was Jacque Chirac. Yes, how dare I go about describing the United Nations as scum when they have been so ethical!

She claimed this was yet another sign of disrespect seeing how the United Nations features some of the “most knowledgeable and culturally informed people in the world”, which had me in near stitches from the intense laughter it produced. Seriously, she should be part of that elaborate UN bureaucracy and be a pitch woman for them, because this sounds as if she were actually serious. Bravo! You nearly had me convinced, but then a second later I came to my senses and said, ‘Bull-shit’ – remembering the truth of the matter.

Sure, they are the most ‘knowledgeable’ when they allowed Joseph Stalin, leader of the communist-led Soviet Union, which I hardly believe had any real inclinations toward fulfilling the mission statement of the United Nations, to establish veto power of Security Council resolutions, specifically for Russia and France, convenient enough. If that weren’t enough, the United Nations can not even come to a consensus as to what the term ‘terrorism’ actually means, perhaps that is because they are the puppet tool of the third-world countries that for years have been harboring and supporting known terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda.

And Emily seriously believes that these people are the most ‘culturally informed’ individuals on the planet? Please! Perhaps in their little corner of the tyrannical universe but certainly not within the realm of the free world and democracy. Does anyone recall the United Nations passing a resolution declaring ‘Zionism is racism’ headed by Uganda President Idi Amin Dada? Guess what? They did, by a vote of 72 to 35 back in 1975. Or how about the Human Rights Commission issue back in May 2001 when the United States was kicked off but the country of Sudan, which continues to allow the vile institution of slavery, was allowed to replace us. Of further insult, Libya had been named chair of the commission and the countries of China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, and Saudi Arabia had been allowed to take part as well. Still believe that this is the organization of the most ‘culturally informed’ people on the planet? I don’t think so.

Click the link below to purchase Jed Babbin's Inside the Asylum from Barnes & Noble today:

Click Here to Purchase Jed Babbin's Inside the Asylum from Barnes & Noble!
Emily questions how right-wingers such as myself would “like leftists to support the war”, to which I answer by not committing the clear act of treason against the government of the United States, which Article Three of the United States Constitution defines as ‘in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort’, especially in times of war. Protesting against the war, support Saddam Hussein and his terrorist thugs by acting as human shields prior to the invasion, whatever, but once the United States military is engaged in combat there, then that would be the time to shut up and knock off this ‘bring our troops home’ bull-crap. They’ll come home when the mission is complete and not a day sooner. Yes, it is hard to have them be separated from their loved ones for so long but in times of war sacrifices have to be made in order to protect the security and freedom of not only America but the people of Iraq as well.

And what would a left-wing editorial be without the conventional tactic of using an anti-war propaganda myth to further their particular agenda, which is anything the conservatives support. Harking back to the ‘Adopt a Sniper’ controversy a month or two ago, Emily makes mention to the slogan ‘One Shot. One Kill. No Remorse. I Decide’, which the liberally-biased media claimed was on the bracelets that the website sold to support American Snipers in Iraq and Afghanistan. But if one were to take the time to visit the ‘Adopt a Sniper’ website, it clarifies next to the product, “contrary to the media reports, the 1 Shot, 1 Kill slogan has not appeared on the bracelets”. Yet another Michael Moore-esque conspiracy theory debunked through logic and reason.

By the way, you want to make a contribution to this noble organization and their efforts, please visit their website via the link below and purchase either the bracelet that was previously mentioned or another product offered through their store:

Click Here to Make a Donation to the 'Adopt a Sniper' Campaign!
Miss Byrum claims that she is “extremely grateful for the men and women who serve overseas”, and how much finer way of demonstrating that gratitude then to oppose the job they are doing by following in the foot-steps of the pot-smoking Vietnam hippies proclaiming soldiers as ‘baby-killers’ (seeing as how these people are also strong advocates of abortion, do you not see the irony of they making this statement?) and ‘murderers’?

She ensures the reader that the reason which brought us into this conflict “no longer matters [sic]”, and yet she immediately points to the fact that this was a wrong war (wrong place, wrong time … sorry Senator Kerry, but you are just so quotable) and that the only solution to this is to high-tail it at the first sign of trouble, the liberal sense of logic to every course of action they take on … and people wonder why the genocides and guerilla wars were allowed to take place in Rwanda and Zaire following the ‘Black Hawk Down’ incident in Somalia.

For all the non-stop bitching the left does concerning the innocent ‘civilians’ we supposedly bomb over in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are just as eager to leave those dust-suckers holding the bag when they clamor that the whole situation over there is a ‘huge mess’. No wonder they have made comparisons of this war to that of the Vietnam War … they did not start this war, which turned out to be tremendously successful in nearly every aspect of its adopted mission statements, so they might as well try and make it look like one through the old Nixon ‘cut and run’ strategy when the times get tough. Yeah, we love you bastards too. Thanks for caring.

Emily proclaims that she is actually for the practice of spreading liberty and freedom to the Iraqi people, but (the typical add-on to every statement in which liberals claim to support when they really don’t) not through “imposing American culture and government on the Iraqi people”. What is with the left-wing of this country and their belief that we are attempting to make Iraq into the fifty-first state of the United States of America, though in all respect we certainly could be doing that (and with all the money we spending to defend these people, it would definitely make economical sense). But we have not, nor do we intend to, and our development of such nations as Panama, Japan, and Germany should properly back up that assumption. Yes, let us go back and reinstate the tyrannical dictatorship of Saddam Hussein who acted selfishly for well over thirty years without the consent of the Iraqi people.

This is of course followed by the typically senseless liberal slogan “war never solved anything” and that “there ought to be a better way”. Thank you Sheryl Crow, we’ll be sure to call you when we need you to be the home-wrecking bitch of another steroid pumping bicyclist when we see him. Of course, we should have given the United Nation more time in order to stuff more oil and dirty money into already greased up checkbooks while we attempted to negotiate with a dictator who time and again proved to be unreliable and untrustworthy in living up to the obligations that had been set upon him and his government. I mean, what could a few more months … or years … or decades do in comparison to unilateral military force that could cost the lives of our military men and women as well the expense on our paychecks … I mean, taxpayer money? Let us see, allot him more time to either construct a nuclear weapons program (or even worse, a weapons program concentrated on either chemical or biological agents) or sell the technology and the hardware to accomplish this to terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda which we do know had firm ties with the country.

Wow, now that was a lot of writing ... hope everyone enjoyed it. I should be back some time tomorrow to keep you up-to-date and truthfully informed about the events that affect our world. Now I am going to head back to the dorm and get some sleep because I am beginning to sound like Dan Rather ... narrating the news, not his political ideology ... you know, forget it. Hope everyone has a fun and safe St. Patrick's Day tomorrow!

Left Caught in Rhetorical Dodge of Issue

Well, today is your lucky day, or unlucky day depending on which end of the political spectrum you apply to, though I seriously doubt those on the left would eagerly be awaiting what I had to say. Anyway, since I do not have much to work on based on school work over the next day or two, I thought I would take the time to post an expanded edition entry for today, taking the time to carefully analyze several items …

First off, here is the Viewpoint article, which I wrote up for my Short Writing #2 assignment for English 002 yesterday, created in response to the editorial written Patrick Whitty, which in itself was a response to a response I had written to a Viewpoint article written by Brian Koch in The Marquette Tribune … simply, here is my response to his article. Sorry, but it happens to be a confusing chain of events. You truly had to be a part of it to understand its meaning. I more then likely won’t be sending this in, or at least not in the foreseeable future, just because they already have two other articles of mine backlogged (and they happen to have that stupid four week limit on submitting another, which sucks if you’re a writer like myself … but that is why Al Gore invented the internet), so it does not make sense for me to do so. In any event, it happens to be a bit over the seven-hundred word limit (only by about eight words) and I do not feel like taking the time to go through the entire thing and whittle it down. Enough bitching from my part, here is the article:

I am quite sorry to hear that Patrick had been “disappointed” with my particular “portrayal of war opponents as people who support the likes of Saddam Hussein and Vladimir Lenin”, but sadly here is the awful truth those on the left do not want to be hear – if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, chances are it is a protestor engaging in a rhetorical dodge. Clearly the Democrats will not pick up on the joke, and why would they? Call them what you want – anti-war pacifists or pro-Saddam loyalists – it is all the same. In any event, those choosing to broker a ‘peace’ deal with this vile dictator would have been choosing to continue his reign of terror and oppression upon the Iraqi people. As President Bush declared following the September 11th attacks, “You are either with us or you are with the terrorists”; it is that simple.

As far as its younger generation is concerned, too many within the left-wing spectrum of this country have acted as the proverbial mouthpieces of Michael Moore and his duplicitous conspiracy theories, many of which would make even Oliver Stone blush. His declaration that the Bush Administration “bent over backwards to find evidence of a solid terrorist connection [in Iraq] and came up short” could not be further from truth as those who have read the 9/11 Commission Report can attest to. For example, in July 1998, according to the report, “an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin”. This meeting, along with several others, was arranged by Bin Ladin’s right-hand man, Zawahiri, “who had his own ties to the Iraqis”. Even recent Bush-basher Richard Clarke, former ‘terrorism czar’ under President Bill Clinton, admitted to the 9/11 Commission that if Bin Ladin were to escape into Iraq it would be “virtually impossible” to find him. I do not know about you, but this clearly would not be the scenario if no connection between the two ever existed. So yes Partick, how dare we remove as respectable and amicable a ruler as Saddam Hussein who had no ties whatsoever to terrorism. Shame on us!

But Patrick’s most naïve, border-line ignorant, statement came when he stated, “The quickest way to fill terrorist camps around the world is to exercise American military might with all but a handful of countries supporting our endeavor”. First, why does Patrick, along with every other leftist like him, believe destroying members of an evil organization produces more of them? Did going after the Nazis create more Nazis? Did reigning in the Klu Klux Klan result in the formulation of more KKK organizations? No, this only comes as a direct result of the United States failing to take action and allowing Muslim children to be born into an environment where the belief that violent acts committed against innocent people can be conducted without fear of retribution or punishment.

And secondly, why is it that the left believes so ardently in the concept of equality among nations when it serves their particular interests, but as soon as a smaller nation takes part in something they do not agree with, they ridicule and humiliate them through public vitriol. I understand that equality can only exist among human beings and not nations, in spite of what Article 2 of the UN Charter may claim otherwise, but any contribution to the war effort should be degraded in any way. For those who curious, here is a complete list of the twenty-nine countries which have made some contribution to the Iraq War effort as of this publishing – Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Rep, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, United Kingdom, and Ukraine. But until the day France and Germany make contributions to the Iraq War effort, which will also be the day in which California … I mean, Hell freezes over, this will be nothing to the left then the ‘Coalition of the Bribed’, which begs question as what that would you designate those who opposed the war and accepted oil gratuities from Saddam as? The Axis of Turpitude?
I am going to take a short break for right now and be back in a bit with a response to another editorial written in response to my Viewpoint article, this one calling me disrespectful (ha, ha … sorry) in my labeling of the UN as scum. Man, the left sometimes ... be back in a bit.