The Sad State of Race

A young man enjoys football. He makes friends playing on the Varsity team. His coaches and fellow players don't see him for his race. They see him because he's a hard worker. His fellow students cheer him and the team on. They don't win every game. Probably will never go to the State Championships, but that doesn't stop this young man from putting his heart into the game. But he's not just a knucklehead jock. He carries a 3.5 GPA on a 4.0 scale. His teachers are happy with his performance. He's looking at good solid schools where he can carry his love of football and learning on to new heights and make his talents on the field pay for his studies off the field.

He has friends that cross race and gender and age boundaries. He teases friends who are both black and white. He makes no discrimination. This young boy has never been a victim of racism. He has never known racism. He is too young to remember most of the major racial revolutions in our country's fine history.

But today? He was stung with the sharp whip of discrimination. The boy, his coach, his parents, his entire family, and probably his friends were brought to tears. Because the boy was discriminated against. He was told "You can't play football." "You shouldn't be at this school." Not because of his grades or because of any trouble. But because of race. This young man, striving to live the American dream. Trying to make friends and get ahead in life, was thrown aside. Why? Because he's white.

That's right. This victim of racism is white. But how can that be?! I mean whites are always on top of the food chain. They always get special treatment. They're always the ones BEING racist!

Bullshit.

So how do I substantiate my claims? Well let's first define racism.

Racism is a misnomer to begin with. None of the differences between black, white, yellow, red, or whatever 'color' people are have anything to do with race. There is one race. The human race. The 'racial' differences are caused by slightly different skeletal structures and skin pigmentation. No more. The rest? It's all culture and ethnic heritage. Germans differ from the French who differ from Russians who differ from Greeks who differ from the Portuguese who are different than Italians who are different than Spaniards who differ from the British. Yet all of them are considered 'European'. All would be considered 'white'. But do they have different traditions? Different culinary persuasions? Different religious heritage? Certainly. It's why each nation is separate. But they can all reproduce with one another. There is no racial separation.

But despite the misnomer that is Racism, we'll use it as long as we keep these things in mind. We'll even use it as it applies to skin color. And in speaking of skin color, we shall use two terms, going along with this absolutist mentality that racism brings about. Minority and White. White meaning Caucasian of course, and minority meaning... well... everything else. Please understand that these definitions I have given are not my personal beliefs, they are just defining terms so we're ALL on the same page when you read what I have written below.

So what is the rallying cry of racists? What drove/drives racism? What do the KKK and other organizations want?

A commonality between all of them is the notion of 'racial purity'. Hitler wanted Germany for Germans. The Japanese believed in the superiority of their own race. It is, in the best term, a separation of 'us' and 'them'. If you are not one of 'us' then you must be one of 'them'. It separates. It divides. It creates a world of absolute black and whites in an existence that at the best of times, is a thousand shades of grey.

In an effort to combat this separation that created the policy of 'separate but equal', the high court of the United States, the US Supreme Court, handed down decisions requiring schools and facilities to integrate minorities with whites. No longer could a school tell a black child that they could not attend a school because of their race. No longer could a person be denied employment or a place to live because they were of a different race. Instead? A new era dawned in tolerance and acceptance of diversity.

But did everyone pick up and move to make sure that our nation was a patchwork quilt where ethnicity was evenly distributed? No. Even today there are school districts where a majority of students are minorities and others nearby where a majority of students are white. Is it the school's fault that the majority of families in that particular school district belong to certain ethnic groups? Nope. The school isn't at fault. Is it the city or county or even the state? For not enforcing the equal opportunity housing laws like the 1968 Civil Rights Act (also known as the Equal Housing Opportunity Act)? Not at all. Is it simply the desire of mankind, an inherently social creature, to be surrounded by an environment including other humans that they identify with? That probably has something to do with it. This sort of segregation based on 'chance' is known in law as de facto segregation. Which for those who can't figure out that simple bit of Latin, basically means 'it is how it is'. It's not planned. It isn't forced. It just happens to be that way.

But segregation, according to the law, is segregation. So even though it is not this young football player's fault that white people HAPPEN to be the majority in his school district, he is still being punished and held accountable for it when his family moves out of the district and attempts to get dispensation so he can finish out his Junior and Senior year there where he has been going since the 5th grade.

"But what does all this have to do with race? How was he supposedly discriminated against?"

Remember the mention above about the US Supreme Court handing down that decision to integrate? Yeah. Close to 50 years ago in the late 1950's and into the 1960's, the Courts handed down those decisions to the states to enforce. Now, that said, the states CANNOT force people to move to other areas. That violates the 1968 Equal Housing Opportunity Act. BUT the Court's findings have created a Catch 22 scenario. Requiring schools to maintain a certain minimum percentage of minorities in their schools means that the simple Out of Area Request form is automatically approved for minorities wishing to go to this White majority public school. (That's right folks, this is a PUBLIC school don't forget). But because of the fact that this person is white, and there are no mitigating circumstances, his out of area request form is being denied.

Solely on the basis of race.

This child's opportunities to be scouted by colleges for football scholarships are being cut off, since he is not allowed to play football. His opportunities to continue the friendships he has forged over the last 6 years are being cut down because he may be forced to switch schools in the middle of his Junior year. His ability to attend college may be hampered because neither of his parents are rich enough to pay out of pocket for college if he doesn't get some sort of scholarship or grant.

Racism has robbed this child of innumerable opportunities. Racism, that is the making of decisions on the basis of race, needs to end. This young man is disadvantaged now because of his own ethnic heritage. A young man who has never made a racist decision, has never oppressed anyone, has stood up in defense of those who can't protect themselves, and has made his teachers, coaches, and family proud is now the victim of a terrible and vile ill that plagues our society. Racism.

People? The sooner you stop concentrating on the differences. The sooner we can get focused on the similarities. The sooner that happens? The sooner racism ends. The more we draw attention to 'white', 'black', 'yellow', etc. only prolongs the life of racism.

So why am I writing about this? Why do I care? How do I know so much about this individual case?

That football playing kid that has made everyone who knows him proud? The young man who can make people smile? The guy who believes in equality and conducting himself as a gentleman? Is my brother.

A Brush with the Headlines

So today was gonna be like any other day. Well not like EVERY other day. I mean. I was driving from my parents' home in Ocala to my apartment in Tampa. And from there I went to class. Got on campus and waited dutifully for the very very slow on-campus traffic to move along so I could find parking. And just as I got out of my car, that was when it happened.

Air raid sirens and a crackly announcer's voice stating that all students should remain indoors. Keep the doors locked. Get to a building and basically barricade themselves in. I was only half a dozen steps from my car.

Then the text message came to my cell phone. "Alert Tampa Campus - EMERGENCY: Armed Intruder on Campus. Stay Inside. Lock Doors. Emergency Personnel Responding."

That text message came at 1:49 pm.

The all clear was never given until 5:57 pm.

Now... Me being the sensible sort of person I am, I turned around, got back into my car, locked the doors, shut off the radio, pulled my handgun out of the center console, checked the clip, and set it right there beside me. One hand on the wheel. One hand resting on my protection. I refuse to be a victim.

But it got me thinking... Many many questions, not the least of which that ran through my head, was "Why am I not allowed to carry my gun on campus?" "Why does it take 4 hours for the police department to clear campus and give us the OK?" "Why does it take the police department 10 minutes to call in outside help and get officers to the scene when there are not one, but multiple armed persons on campus?"

Yeah. Apparently it wasn't just one. It was two or possibly three.

So that's my school. Yep. Great university.

But the biggest question on my mind is still unanswered. "Why does the left wing believe that guns must be the problem, when the University of South Florida experiences this sort of emergency on a semi-regular basis, and yet none of the students or faculty are allowed to carry weapons? (Including the ROTC guys)" In a little utopian microcosm of liberality, where Marxism is a required subject that everyone must read and learn and write a little paper on 'why Marxism is relevant' (Yep. I had to write one of those in grad school here.), and guns do not exist except for the criminals who bring them on campus, why is there so much of a problem?

Ok so I get the whole "We want to avoid a Columbine/Virginia Tech shooting where a student goes postal." Ok. Cool. That's fine. I can grock that sort of backwards logic (both Columbine and the Virginia Tech students used weapons that they hadn't acquired in a legal fashion and were both utterly mentally unstable). But why penalize the normal law abiding students, such as myself, and demand that we sit on campus locked in classrooms for 4-5 hours while the police take their time showing up and doing a job? Are we supposed to quietly and politely ask these people "Please don't shoot us?" Perhaps in the egalitarian Marxist theory, there would be no crime because these people simply don't exist? I don't know. I don't pretend to know. But it's a creepy place when I'm going to school and I have to fear for my life.

By the way. For those of you who read the article? I park at the library EVERY TIME that I go to class. Closest parking to the building I need to be at. The second notice about the guy with the hunting knife? Yeah. Cooper Hall. A 1.5 minute leisurely walk to the Social Sciences building (Where all my classes are).

My logic as I climbed back into my car? "No class is worth dying over. If the prof. doesn't like it? Tough." Thankfully my professor understood and even emailed all of those of us who couldn't make it to class.

So just remember. Guns are a problem. They cause violence and death. Just like porn causes carpal tunnel and tennis elbow.

Until next time!

Religious Freedom

So I sat down tonight and relaxed a bit, or tried to. Life being as stressful as it is with all its various ups and downs, one can never be truly relaxed, only a little less stressed than before. While flipping through my daily news wires, I came across this story.

Now, I know I'm young. I know I don't know everything. I know I may be full of addled theories and facts and interpretations from all my college courses jumbling in my brain. But really? Come on now. If a group of high school cheerleaders want to quote inspirational Bible verses and cheer on their team, shouldn't we be applauding this effort moreso than wearing skimpy uniforms and trying to act provocative? So why do those cheerleaders need to stop? Because of the first amendment? Pft. I don't think so.

Amendment one reads as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Thank you Mr. Pocket Constitution.

Now can someone please tell me where it says in there that individual students cannot express their religion? Or perhaps it's the fact that it occurs at a public school which, although it receives federal funds to support its workings, cannot enforce any law to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

The fact of the matter is people that Freedom OF religion does not necessitate Freedom FROM religion. Atheists who don't like that? Tough crap. Don't like it a whole hell of a lot? Move to an atoll in the Pacific somewhere, make up a flag, and create your own country where religion is outlawed.

The fact of the matter is this: Congress cannot make a law which supports and gives money to any religious institution (churches, mosques, buddhist temples, synagogues, etc.) This does not include groups like 'The Fingerprint Initiative' which works toward humanitarian goals because of their foundation on a Christian basis. Because while the Fingerprint Initiative may be Christian at its core, it does not force its workers to be Christians, does not leave bibles in the houses they help build with Habitat for Humanity or other such religious incursions. Congress also cannot make any law whatsoever that prohibits the free exercise of religion. Which means that if Cheerleaders want to paint a sign that says "Go Team! Yay God!" Congress has no power whatsoever to say 'That's wrong, you can't do that.' The same way they can't tell a local coach and football team that they're not allowed to pray for the health and safety of their members, or the speedy recovery of a sick teammate.

The history behind all this goes way back to England. I'll be uncharacteristic here and keep it very brief. Henry VIII was upset that the Pope would not grant his divorce from Catherine of Aragon. So he came up with a new system where Henry VIII as the regent of England, was the head of the Church. It wasn't really all that new of a system (Henry II of the Holy Roman Empire was known as 'God's Servant' and Henry III of the Holy Roman Empire was known as the 'Vicar of Christ' a title today reserved for the Pope). But I digress. Henry VIII then outlawed Catholicism. And when the Anglican church splintered even more, he and his successors outlawed and persecuted those factions as well. Many of the dispossessed factions who were not reincorporated into the British System of government until the mid to late 1800's, set sail for the new world for new opportunities. Opportunities like owning land, participating in government, and worshipping how they wished were all denied them back home in Jolly Old England. (Pip pip and all that sort of thing old boy)

That is why the very first of the Bills of Rights that the Anti-Federalists demanded be added into the Constitution contained the now called 'Establishment Clause'. Everyone can easily remember the first part of that. It's a rallying cry for Atheists and the ACLU everywhere. 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...' But they conveniently forget the second half, which I would argue reinforces and potentially nullifies the first part 'or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...'

Congress cannot make a law that specifically supports a religion, or deny the individual citizen of the United States their rights to freely exercise those religious beliefs.

So ya know what girls? Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School is going to be in my prayers for a while. Mostly that your school administrators who publicly admit that they agree with the free exercise of religion should change their minds and let you display your signs freely. Keep being good kids. Keep being proud of who you are and your religious roots. There's a lot there to be proud of.

Obama Care

Welcome to the first day of the rest of your lives. Today, facing our country, is a massive health care reform. Let me strike that. A massive health care takeover on behalf of the government. What a lot of people are not aware of, is the full extent of the damage that this bill can cause. Before I continue into a discussion of HR3200, the bill's official government designation, let me go into a small side discussion on health care.

Currently you may hear that 47 million americans are without healthcare. That sounds like an awfully big number. A large number that when weighed against the values that we Americans hold dear, like charity, neighborhood, and community, seems like a terrible tragedy. 47 million people? That's roughly 18% of the American population. Out of a random 100 people, 18 of them are uninsured. So when weighed against that idea, the concept of government run health care that is universal, sounds like a near blessing. Healthcare for everyone, regardless of where you work or how much you make.

Therein lies the smokescreen fellow citizens. That is what the Obama agenda is attempting to pass through the legislature at the national level. The ultra left is depending upon the values of charity, community, and better human nature to obscure the truth of the bill that they are proposing. Let me share a few simple facts on healthcare in America. First? Exposing the lies. First and foremost, the 47 million people.

According to a CNS news report*, the figure of 47 million uninsured takes into account 9.1 million American citizens who earn over $75,000 per year who specifically choose to remain uninsured. They opt not to purchase health insurance. Does anyone else remember the old adage? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink? These are those people. It is their right and their freedom to choose to manage their own health without insurance. This figure also includes 9.73 million foreigners living in the United States. These are migrant workers, illegal aliens, and others who are not covered by health insurance in the United States. This brings the figure from 47 million, down to 28.17 million American citizens without health insurance. Those are 28.17 million American citizens who do not have health insurance because it is either unavailable to them, they are ineligible for it, or they simply cannot afford it. That still seems like a very large number. The 28.17 also includes children who cannot buy insurance for themselves and require their parents to have plans. All things said and done, the 28.17 million is approximately 9.1% of the total United States Population of 307 million people**. That is where the current statistics lie with our current private insurance free market healthcare supplemented by Medicaid and Medicare.

Now for some new statistics.

The HR3200 stimulus bill contains a proposed immediate 13.2 billion dollars in cuts t0 home healthcare Medicare coverage, with more over the next 10 years***. Senior citizens and even not so senior citizens who are bound in their homes with health issues can currently gain help in their treatment from nurses who go to their individual homes and provide a similar level of care to their patients as one would receive in a hospital. Approximately 12 million Americans receive home health care to stay in their homes. Approximately 1 million Americans are employed by home health care organizations. That is 13 million Americans that will be in serious jeopardy if funding to health care organizations that provide home health care, is cut. Apparently Universal Health Care does not mean that it is truly 'universal'.

Enough with statistics for now. Here are a few facts about Bill HR3200 straight from the pages of the text****.

Page 30 of this 1017 page bill admits that a government committee will decide what treatments and benefits that you receive with no chance of appealing the decision, not your doctors or local hospital, but beaurocrats.

Page 50 outlines that all non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services. Paid for entirely by the legal American citizen.

Page 59 outlines that the federal government will have direct, real time access to all individual bank accounts for EFT (Electronic Funds Transfer) to pay for medical treatment services.

Page 72 states that all private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange. In other words? You agree with us, or you're not allowed to operate.

Page 84 then outlines that all private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange. In other words? You have to participate, no compromising, and in order to participate, you must agree with us.

Page 124 Despite anti-trust laws already in place, no company will be allowed to sue the US government for price-fixing, in effect protecting the US Government run monopoly on Healthcare from the Judiciary Branch's power of Judicial Review.

Page 145 All employers must auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan.

Page 167 Any individual who doesn't have acceptable healthcare (see Pages 72 and 84), will be taxed an additional 2.5% of their income. Translation? You don't like it? You get to pay even more.

Page 203 "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." In other words, when it says in the US Constitution, that the Legislature will have the power to tax? If it isn't a tax, it does not necessarily fall under the purview of the Legislature.

Page 241 Doctors, regardless of specialty, will be paid the same. The vascular surgeon, the geriatric oncologist, the neurologist, the neonatal specialist, and the general physician you see when you have a cold? Will all be paid the same, regardless of how long they spent in medical school or residency, regardless of how good they are as doctors. The best doctor in the country will make the same money as the absolute worst. Wherein lies the incentive for doctors to provide top level care or pursue even more challenging specialties if there is no greater reward?

Page 272 Cancer patient health care will be rationed based on quality of life and diagnosis.

Page 280 Hospitals will be penalized financially for what the government considers 'Preventable re-admissions'. Thus leading to less money to spend on equipment and continual education for doctors to give you the best healthcare possible.

Page 318 Hospital expansion is subject to governmental approval. A hospital wants to expand an ICU? Add an Obstetrics and Neonatal Unit? The government needs to debate and decide upon it first, thus denying patients that could use that care, the proper care they need.

Page 354 Government will restrict enrollment of 'Special Needs' individuals. In other words, universal government run health care is only for the healthy. Chronic patients need not apply.

Page 427 Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government will dictate how and when your life ends by cutting off medical treatment. In other words? If your condition is too expensive to treat? The government wants you to go home and die quietly.

Page 429 Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans from the government. See page 427.

Page 489 Government healthcare will cover marriage counseling and family therapy, getting involved in how your family dynamic and marriage relationship should be run if you have problems.

These above examples are but a few snippets from the first 500 pages of an over 1000 page document. An interesting side note. Politicians that are voting on this? Will not be subjected to it. They will retain their own private health insurance that they currently have. To the government, what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

Citizens, what can we do? When we're faced with such an overwhelming threat to the personal liberty of how one dictates their own life, we have but one option. Stand up in defiance of the threat. How can you help? Call your senators. Fax your congressmen. Email both. Tell them how you feel about these invasions of your life! Obama-care attempts to point out similarities between Canada and the United Kingdom with this proposed care package. However, neither the United Kingdom, nor Canada, have provisions for the government to step in and deny health care to their citizens regardless of age, current medical conditions, or other criteria. The Canadian health system does not tap into your private bank account and withdraw funds, nor does the United Kingdom. Do not allow yourself to fall victim to the sweet lies being presented by people who claim to know how to better manage your life and your privacy better than you do.

American citizens must stand up for what is theirs. Their life. The first of our basic inalienable human rights. Call, fax, or in some way contact your representatives to Congress immediately and remind them that according to the American government, they are beholden to us! We are the people that vote. We are America.


Bibliography and Notes

* - Health Care Lie: '47 million uninsured Americans'; CNSNews.com: 'Obama falsely claims there are 47 million uninsured Americans'

** - US Census Bureau

*** - Home Care Statistics

**** - Library of Congress: HR3200 'America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009'

Living and Dying

So a while back, almost 6 months ago now, in January, I wrote a piece on this blog called "Dignity of Human Life". It was in response to a great number of things, but mostly to the Obama lifting of sanctions against funding abortions world wide. The post talked about life, how we define it, and how it is sacred.

Not long ago, Florida, and indeed the entire world faced the Terry Schiavo controversy, which was shortly followed up by His Holiness the Pope, John Paul II, dying in a scarily similar manner. It was a question of death, and where life and death met. Not many people liked the answers. Heck. No one really liked the questions either. Do we go through expensive therapies? Do we hook ourselves up to machines for long term care? Do we hold on to hope? Or give it up at the first signs of trouble?

No one can answer those questions for another human being. No one has the right to do that. Whether Terry Schiavo really wanted to live or die in her state will forever remain a mystery. No one has the right to determine whether another living human being should die and when. The only time it is remotely justifiable is in the defense of one's own life or one's family.

Just over 2 years ago, my grandfather died of terminal cancer. It had spread throughout his body and was, in the end, what caused a complete shutdown of his body. He died at home. He died with loved ones around him, and I thank God for the opportunity to be by his side when that happened. He fought for over 14 years against this horrible affliction. There were many times when he was close to death and he fought to bounce back. In the end, it overwhelmed him.

So what do we do about dying? Do we fight? Do we accept God's calling to come home? What do we do? A story written in the New York Times about a town in my home city, Rochester New York, hit me today as it showed up in the little podunk paper for the sleepy little town my parents live in here in Florida. The Sisters of Saint Joseph in Pittsford NY meet death with dignity. It's difficult in America, to talk about death. Talking about death for the average American, or even advocating death with a sort of dignity conjures up images of Jack Kevorkian and assisted suicide advocates. It's something we sadly, as a culture, have to overcome. Death with dignity does not mean prematurely ending a life. It does not mean giving up on treatment that is certainly viable. It does not mean rotting away to nothing simply because you're sick.

These nuns are quite a vibrant little community, and very diverse. They receive medical treatment for things like cancer, as Sister Mary Jane Mitchell did, aged 65. Like Sister Marie Albert Alderman, 84, who sees a kidney specialist and manages her health closely to keep herself from having to go through dialysis. These are women who pray and live in the Gospel every single day, praising life in the Lord. To say that these women 'welcome' death is a blatant fallacy.

But one thing that must be remembered is that these women draw a line between extraordinary means and normal health care. The Catholic position, as they state in the article, does not equate to 'Do everything humanly possible to save a life'. Pope John Paul II elected to die with dignity when he had his feeding tube removed and passed on.

While life is certainly important, and must be defended, natural death is just that... natural. It is a part of the life we have as human beings.

So on that note. Hug your loved ones. Tell them you love them. Fight for your beliefs. And make the seconds and minutes count.

The Father of our Freedoms

Picture it. A hot day in July. People standing around arguing, complaining, whining about taxes and governmental regulation and power. They complained about a recent war that they, the people living here in America didn't want. They complained about the ineffectual leadership of their executive branch and demanded action. They demanded resolutions. They were a diverse group from across all walks of life. Some were lawyers. Some were brewers. Some were farmers. Some were ne'er do wells. They came from all over. New York. Georgia. Virginia. Massachusetts.

Some of these men were very educated. Some of these men were barely educated at all. There were lecherous men and there were pious ones. These were simple people. They were average. They drank liquor. They smoked and chewed tobacco. They enjoyed the fruits of their labor.

And they were all brought together for one purpose... To complain.

To issue a complaint so powerful it would change the course of human events over the next two hundred years of Earth's history.

Around 50 men gathered together and decided the fate of a nation.

July 4th 1776.

233 years later, we are sitting here in America. Many of us feel disenfranchised. We're living in a system where taxes are being raised, unemployment is rising, and we're expected to feed ourselves on messages of 'hope' and 'change'. Change is not necessarily good.

The result of 2 wars against Great Britain, 2 World Wars, a Civil War, and multiple smaller wars like Vietnam and Korea and Desert Storm has been to create and protect freedoms for the United States of America. We've fought to defend freedoms like the right to a redress of grievances from the government. The right to peaceably assemble and protest.

So this July 4th, I and my father will be attending a protest. I've received mixed reactions from this. Some have said "Go for it!". Others have expressed taking offense.

One in particular puzzled me. Saying that I should be sitting home with the grill and fireworks like most of America celebrating the freedoms we've won in the past. As a member of a military family, he took offense that I'd be spending the 4th of July protesting the Obama government.

Nothing like resting on our laurels.

Now more than ever is a time that we should remain vigilant. The Democrats haven't been lax in the last 8 years and now the opposite must remain true if our liberties are to remain intact.

So I will be going to that protest. I will be standing shoulder to shoulder with men who came before me. I will be standing alongside men like Ben Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, and countless others who stood up and refused to rest while their government ran amok.

Happy Independence Day (albeit a little early) and remember. Freedom is not free. It is bought and paid for constantly by the vigilance, blood, and tears of those who fight to believe in it. It isn't won by complacency.

Papal Props!

The Holocaust. Sixty-four years after troops entered Dachau, Auschwitz, and the other concentration camps that Germany erected for the eradication of those that did not meet up with their version of the Master Race, it is still on everyone's mind. Gays, Gypsies, Jews, and Academics all met with death at the hands of the Third Reich. Death on a grand scale and genocide will forever mar German history in such a way that to even broach the subject is a touchy subject. So the Pope has come home to Germany and delivered a speech on the subject of the Holocaust. The same Holocaust that killed 6 million jews, 2-3 million Soviet POW's (the rest of the Allies captured were put into separate prison camps), 2 million Poles, up to 1.5 million gypsies, the disabled and mentally ill, Freemasons, political rivals, and Jehovah's Witnesses all died in the camps.

Oh... And so did the Catholics.

Catholics were vociferous advocates against such actions. According to some sources, the T4 program, (the elimination of the mentally ill and disabled) ended due to overwhelming Catholic public pressure. Catholic and Protestant theologians were killed by the Third Reich. Pope Pius XII, the occupant of the Holy See at the time of World War II opened the Vatican to Jews, offering to shelter them. He appointed Jewish academics who were forced out of Italian universities to positions within the Vatican. Pius XII issued the encyclical Summi Pontificatus, denouncing anti-Semitism to all Catholics. Outside of these and other re-affirmations of the Church position against Anti-Semitism, history records the Church as being quite 'silent' on the matter. Why? Because the Pope didn't grab a gun and go commando? Because he didn't order the Swiss Guard to attack the Third Reich? In fact Pius XII overrode one of his predecessors, Pius XI. In the encyclical Divini Redemptoris, Catholics were forbidden from giving aid to Communists due to the extreme anti-religious fervor exhibited by both Lenin and Stalin in the former Soviet Union. Pius XII in fact determined that the bull did not apply to Catholics helping the Soviet Army defeat the Third Reich!

So you can understand, perhaps, my upset at reading an article complaining about the current Pope, Benedict XVI and his speech given in Germany. He denounced the Holocaust, and pledged to work to ensure that it would never happen again. But is that enough? Apparently not! Apparently, the people expected an apology from the Pope. The Pope who, at the end of World War II was only 18 years old. The Pope who entered into the Hitler Youth under penalty of being labeled a political dissident and thrown into a camp himself. The same Pope who's cousin that suffered from Down Syndrome was murdered by the Third Reich's T4 program, who was drafted and forced into serving in the anti-aircraft corps at the age of 16 while he was away at seminary. But apparently the people at this meeting expected some stronger words, even close to an apology.

The Holy See has committed itself to fighting anti-Semitism. It has supported Jewish-Catholic relations in the modern era, and it did everything short of militarizing the Vatican and clergy to fight the Third Reich.

Pirates Ahoy!

The United States has had a long and very tumultuous history with pirates and freebooters. Even before the American Revolution, pirates like Blackbeard were actually welcomed into American ports because of the lack of British tariffs and taxes, meaning that the plunder pirates seized from legitimate merchants was sold off for a lower price than the merchants could afford to sell it for. But only twenty years after the British surrendered at Yorktown, in 1801, the First Barbary War was waged against pirates off of the North African coast. These pirates attacked private American citizens, stole from them, killed them, and caused mayhem for any economic traffic in the Mediterranean. Ending in 1805, the First Barbary War showed that the United States would not accept attacks from pirates and private groups upon her citizens or mercantile vessels. It is from this war that the Marines earned their nickname 'Leathernecks' and the line from the Marine's Hymn that goes '. . . to the shores of Tripoli'.

In 1812, the famous (or infamous) War of 1812 began. The British, eager to keep Napoleon Bonaparte landlocked on the continent of Europe, vigorously expanded their navy. In order to crew these vessels, press gangs would go through local British towns and grab almost anyone and force them into service under a policy of 'impressment'. However, to the British, seizing British citizens was simply not enough. They began seizing American merchantmen and impressing American sailors into their navy as well. This kidnapping and forced labor for a foreign government was enough to send America over the edge into war with Britain. The treaty of Ghent effectively ended the War of 1812 in 1815. For a second time in its, by now, 30 year history, America proved its willingness to fight for the safety of its citizens to the bitter end.

Just after the end of this war, America was eager to continue trade and its economic opportunities abroad. Once more looking to the Mediterranean and North Africa, America found opposition from the same source it had in 1801, the Barbary Pirates. Here, our recent enemies of the War of 1812 became our allies as the British and the Americans both fought against the so-called 'Barbary States' of Algiers, Tripoli, and Tunis. Piracy was once more firmly decried as the two former enemies fought against the common enemy, these state sponsored pirates, known as privateers. In 1816, after brutal bombardments of Algiers, the Second Barbary War was ended, and these lawless countries were eventually taken over by European powers. Tripoli returned to the possession of the Ottoman Empire, and Algiers and Tunis were, over the course of the rest of the century, acquired by France.

In 1916 during the Mexican Revolution, General Francisco "Pancho" Villa led a cross border raid on Columbus, New Mexico, stealing 100 horses and killing 18 men, ultimately leading to a punitive expedition to track down Villa led by General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing. Pirates didn't need to attack by sea to provoke a response from the United States and her military.

Now we have seen that America, in her history, may have dealt with dubious pirates, though it is worthy to note that it was off the coast of Virginia where Blackbeard met his end after a conspiracy of British sailors and the British Governor of the Virginia set up a trap for Captain Teach. While dealing with pirates, America as a nation has never tolerated attacks by private groups, even state backed privateers, on our citizens. We've even gone to war over pirates attacking our financial interests. Pirates, of a sort, even hijacked four planes on September 11th, 2001 and attacked American interests and private citizens. Yet in our recent 2008 election year, we were promised "Hope" and "Change" by now President Obama. Three months into his rule as President of the United States shows not one, but two fairly major hostage crises one right after the other as pirates capture two vessels, one cargo ship, and the other a tugboat.

Off the coast of one of the poorest nations in the world, Somalia, these pirate attacks have no particular vendetta against American shipping, yet here we have President Obama attempting to negotiate with them and failing utterly. Since when did America become a nation of cowards who's strongest reaction to acts of international piracy and terrorism is that of a few harsh verbal reprimands and head nodding? The United States doesn't negotiate with terrorists. We have a long proud history of making sure that these rats (my apologies to the perfectly good rodents who may take offense to this), are sent scurrying back to their holes. But apparently "Hope" and "Change" only mean that the United States government isn't willing to back up their harsh reprimands with any force, entrusting its own citizens to fend for themselves. Ladies and Gentlemen, if this is "Change" for the future, if this is "Hope", then I want none of it. The price of paying taxes to a government for protection only to have to protect myself from outside private groups is not taxation at all, it is extortion. Mister Obama. Keep your Hope and Change. I'm certain that many American people only want to be safe and to have our country back.

Capital Problems

So we have bailouts for banks. We give millions upon billions of dollars to Auto manufacturers. And we tell people now that we're going to help take care of their mortgages. All of these things save jobs. Save investments. They keep American people in their homes. But at what cost? Trillions of dollars in 'bailouts' and 'stimulus' bills spending money to float short term government loans to businesses whose practices got them to this particular spot in the first place.

Ladies and Gentlemen. What Barack Obama is trying to do is put a band aid on the hull tear of the Titanic and call it 'progress'. Do not be deceived! I'll tell you something. We elect these 'well educated' politicians. People who studied political science, law, and other disciplines that graduate from Ivy League universities run our country. Yet, any high school Government and Economics student can tell you how these people are failing our country.

Let us, ladies and gentlemen, revisit a few basic theories of economics through history. We won't be going too far back in time, I promise. Just before the founding of America.

In the late Middle Ages and into the Rennaisance, there was the great standard of economic theory. Mercantilism. That is, that basically a state's economic clout and power was tied directly to raw resources and valuable capital. Gold Bullion, Timber, Beef, Aerable Farmland, Silver, Iron, and other such sources and means of production were the key. Why? Because in that day and age, Mercantilism held that there was only a finite amount of wealth in the world. Therefore? If England wanted to be a bigger more powerful nation than say... France or Spain or Portugal in the 16th century (which it did), then the race was on to claim territory in the New World: The Americas. The thought process was that whomever could carve out the biggest chunk of the new colonial territories would be able to wage war in Europe far more effectively, as America had vast tracts of unclaimed, unused natural resources.

Fast Forward...

1760's England. 40 years really before the rest of Europe and the world catches on to the Industrial Revolution, it's starting here in England. Entrepeneurs open small factories of weavers in the university town of Oxford, followed by Birmingham and other 'industry' towns. These are not landed nobles of the Mercantilist theory. Nor are they the working poor. These are the middle class. The class of people who, during the Middle Ages, represented towns as the burgesses. In the Holy Roman Empire? Burghers and Burghermeisters. In France we come to a term many are familiar with, the Bourgeoisie. All of which mean the exact same thing: A freeman of a borough (in England) or burgh (Scotland) who was selected to represent the small village/town (borough or burgh in the modern UK) in Parliament after 1215. Now of course the English people don't want just any idiot representing their town to the King, so they select educated people. These were days well before public education, so the only way to be educated was to be a nobleman (who were never burgesses), or to be independently wealthy. The only independently wealthy people in the Middle Ages were the merchant class, which evolved into these Entrepeneurs of the Industrial Revolution. Fronting cash to create factories and hire workers, they knew that money was to be MADE, not merely discovered and hoarded as Mercantilist philosophy seemed to suggest. Capitalism revolved around, instead of the State's relationship to property and the means of production, but the personal relationship between property and means of production! No longer was it the state's duty, according to Locke, North, Hume, and the great Scottish economist, Adam Smith, to gather up resources and use them as the state saw fit. Now it was the state's job to take their hands off and let people do the production! After all, the theory goes that when people are producing their own goods and can earn the profits and see their work come to fruition, they're proud of it, and being proud, consistently perform better and better. The state's job, is to protect the rights of personal private property through legislation and military action if necessary.

When our forefathers wrote the Constitution in the late 1780's, it was a document created specifically for this purpose. After all, Mercantilism had been the catalyst of the Revolutionary War in United States history!

Whoa whoa whoa! Economics? The almighty dollar? (or in those days, the British Pound Sterling). What about Truth? Justice? The American Way? (Well first off that's Superman, and second off, YES! Economics!).

The cause of the Revolution was one of ideals and political integrity. "No Taxation without Representation!" was the rallying cry of the rebels, meaning that the American colonies shouldn't be taxed without having equal representation in Parliament. (A totally separate argument exists as to whether or not the Parliament DID represent them or not that I will not digress into here). In Europe, Frederick II of Prussia, also known as Frederick the Great, along with his British Allies, are at war with France, Austria and their Allies. The war rages on from 1756 to 1763 in what we know as the Seven Years War. Now, a small digression into military tactics. An Army marches on its stomach right? Right. The Economic stomach of any military at the time was her colonies, providing raw resources, giving over vast amounts of wealth to the mother country. For France? This was the huge dominion of Canada. For Britain? The 13 Colonies of Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. (Interesting factoid for those of you who don't remember grammar school social studies. Your 13 red and white stripes on the American flag represent these 13 original Colonies!) For Spain? Florida, Mexico, much of Modern Day South America, the Carribean basin, and a large portion of the modern Western United States. Portugal? That means Brazil and a number of islands overseas. So if you want to hit the army's stomach. You hit those colonies. Those colonies far far away from the crown and the central government of Britain, Spain, France, Portugal, etc. Consequently, the French and Indian War breaks out between the 13 Colonies and France as an extension of this Seven Years War in Europe.

1763 rolls around (See? And you thought I wouldn't get back to the 1760's! Oh ye of little faith!). Britain is hurting, so is France, as are Spain and Portugal. Wars hurt in this Mercantilist society. So what does a government facing a money shortage do to rectify it? Raise taxes. For the people of England this isn't a big deal. They've been paying taxes for quite some time now and have their local Parliamentary representative fairly close at hand where they can talk to him. 3000 miles away however? America has different problems. They have no direct representatives, yet they're now paying tax after tax after tax to help pay for the expense of British troops defending British interests from French aggression which was started because Great Britain joined the Seven Years War. Britain jumped into it and tries to pass at least part of the bill off to the colonies. The colonies are indignant about it, and la dee dah dee dah we have the American Revolution. July 4th 1776 with the Declaration of Independence, later on the Battle of Yorktown on October 19th, 1781 which ends it all and ta da! Here we are! America! Land of the free and home of the brave! A land where Adam Smith's book, The Wealth of Nations carries considerable weight. The entire Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of property over and over and over again. Everything from protecting people from Illegal Search and Seizure, Freedom of the Press, Protection from Quartering of Troops, and other Amendments, uphold this idea of Capitalism.

Now again we fast forward this time to Germany in 1848. Karl Marx writes his Communist Manifesto, believing that the truly best way to handle the government involvement in economics is the creation of a government led economic monopoly where the means of production (Land, Labor, and Capital) are controlled exclusively by the government.

Now we have a crisis. Bad loaning practices, horrible decisions with production of vehicles and labor disputes, as well as bad investments have brought banks, insurance companies, and manufacturers to bankruptcy or reorganization. Now what is the state doing with these bailout stimulus bills? We're taking over, via a communist ideal, one of the means of Production. Publicly traded companies like GM, Chrysler, AIG, and others that get stimulus money are beholden to the shareholders. If the United States Government becomes the majority shareholder, then it is the United States Government that these companies answer to for the majority. Undermining the very spirit of the Constitution, these new financial 'boosts' are going to strangle America's industry.

So what's the alternative? Thousands upon thousands of layoffs? Businesses closing left right and center? Unemployment on the scale of the Great Depression? Yup. Pretty much.

But if you've ever read any shred of Capitalist economic theory? The same economic theory which has run this country successfully for over 200 years while theories like Communism and Socialism have faltered and utterly failed in under a quarter of that time period, proscribes that Capitalism is based on competition. If GM, Chrysler, AIG, and other companies go out of business, it creates a vacuum. It is a vacuum which can only be filled with 1 thing: Competition. Competition drives innovation and ingenuity in the respective manufacturing fields. In order to maintain a positive growth of a market share, a given company has to be competitively priced and create a good product. As Henry Ford once said: "There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." What has happened, Ladies and Gentlemen, is that prices have gone up while wages have increased, and in order to maintain profit margins, the qualities of various produced goods have gone down. When competitors enter the marketplace, they hire workers from business that have closed their doors. In the short term? Times are hard. In the long term however? They're extremely prosperous.

We need competition to enter the marketplace. We need innovation and creativity. We do not need a bandaid on the hull tear of the Titanic for the next four years just so Obama can win re-election. Ladies and Gentlemen, problems are solved by action, not merely sitting back and throwing tremendous amounts of money at them that our grandchildren (Yes, OUR Grandchildren, the grandkids of Generations X and Y) will be paying off in their lifetimes. It's been a month and a half since Inauguration day, and already Mister Obama has issued spending orders that even FDR would have flinched at.

God help us for the next few years.

CON Report!

So I spent the day doing two things I love the most of all.

1.) Hanging out at my college Alma Mater while I proctored an exam for a friend and professor there.

2.) Hanging out with friends and geeks from all walks of fandom at MegaCon in Orlando Florida.


Note on Number 2: Lar Desouza and Ryan Sohmer and Derrick Fish? Three of the NICEST guys you'll ever meet.

After getting into the convention and heading into the dealer's areas I found Ryan and Lar first, bought a few books from their Least I Could Do strips, which both artists signed, and then found Derrick and purchased a sketchbook, which he promptly did a sketch of two of my favorite characters, Dandy and Bernard from his comic Dandy and Company.

If you're in the Orlando, Tampa, Lakeland or some nearby area? I suggest going over and hanging out with these awesome people as well as the others that are nearby. It's so cool that Chewbacca even decided to show up.

Education or Indoctrination

The difference between Education and Indoctrination is a gray line. It can often be confused, and when that happens? Calamity ensues. What is education? What is indoctrination? What is the difference? These are questions which may have different meanings, but the end result is always the same. Education gives people the facts in an objective manner, allowing them to use reason, logic, and their own God-given intellect to come to moral decisions regarding any given issue. Indoctrination is the opposite. Selectively giving facts, giving half truths you might say, and instead of allowing interpretation, teaching which interpretations are correct and which are incorrect so that the people arrive, through no volition of their own, at the same conclusion you arrive at. The difference? Education gives someone all the facts, and supports the notion of self-determination and free will to allow them to choose their own path, their own judgments. Indoctrination robs the person of their ability to create their own opinions, instead forcing other opinions on people.

This can work both ways. Many forms of abuse, child abuse, spousal abuse, all depend on indoctrination. The hard right can do it. They did it in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The hard left can do it. They did it in Communist Russia, China, and continue to do it today, even here in America.

But where do they do it in America? The only place that they can get away with it. Higher Educational Institutions. Colleges? Universities? Even local Community Colleges are wide open for liberal domination. Professors like this one use the education system to indoctrinate their classes. Does it mean it happens all the time and every professor is a liberal whack job? No. Not at all. But it is a problem.

I find it quite interesting that these professors who teach our future generations about the evils of Nazism, Communism, Fascism, and other absolutist governments where there is only one way to think about any given issue fall victim to the very same sorts of prejudice, closed-mindedness, and hate-mongering that they protest so loudly. Then again, empty cans make the loudest noise. What makes it all the more vexing? The fact that the liberal left are typically the ones fighting to expand Free Speech rights. Apparently that only applies to like minded left wingers.

So what can we students do? Stick to your guns. That is the best thing anyone can do when faced down by liberal professors. Every single college or university in the United States has an appeals process for grades earned unfairly. They have feedback forms for students to speak their minds about professors. All else fails? Find the Dean of Academics or the President of the College and go to their office for an appointment. If all else fails? Just smile and nod. Get through it. Bear it out and stay true to your beliefs, but keep them quiet. Throughout history we see heroes who quietly bore oppression.

The Jews under Greek rule of the Seleucid Empire. The early Church fathers under the Roman Empire. Protestants under Catholic rule in France and Spain. Catholics under Protestant rule in England and Germany. Jews, Gypsies, Gays, and Catholics under Nazi Germany. Jews, Christians, Georgians, and Intellectuals under Communist Russia. Buddhists, Hindus, and others in Communist China. Christians today in many countries of the Arabic world where Christianity is illegal under Theocratic dictatorships in Muslim nations.

So when in doubt? When you feel yourself intellectually repressed by a liberal majority? When you feel your rights in jeopardy because of this 'all or nothing' liberal mentality that abjures truth and ignores history? You're in good company if you choose to just bear it out and continue holding true to your belief.

Freedom, ladies and gentlemen, is not free. It's been bought and paid for by those willing to stand up and die for it. It may not be free, but it is easily misused. The very freedoms we enjoy can be taken away by people using those freedoms as a shield to strip freedom from the rest of us. The cost of freedom besides the blood of those who purchased it, is eternal vigilance against those who would seek to take our liberty away. Our forefathers understood this. Their forefathers understood it in countries throughout the world and nations wherein the laws of the land provide liberty for the people and protection from oppression.

State and Federal Dope

So as I was taking a break from reading a fascinating archaeological book about the Athlit naval ram dating from the 2nd Century BC, I decided to check the headlines and see what was up. And that was when I came across this. This wonderful little article has President Obama giving in to the marijuana lobby. But even more than giving up to illegal drugs and laying down to a tiny minority lobby, President Obama is disrespecting the past. That's right. He's flouting history and legality.

The year? 1830. Congress passes a bill with a 103 - 87 vote to spend Federal dollars for internal improvement of a road located entirely in the State of Kentucky. President Andrew Jackson, 7th President of the United States, vetos the bill. It was nothing against the road being built. It was nothing against the State of Kentucky. It was over the federal submission of money to the State of Kentucky for road improvements located wholly and entirely within 1 State. Had the road moved outside of Kentucky? It would have been approved most likely. But the fact remained that it was declared unconstitutional for Federal authority to bend to the will of a State.

The year? 1860. Abraham Lincoln is elected as our 16th President of the United States. Slavery is a main forefront issue of politics in the time period. Southern States advocate new territories being made into states be allowed to choose between Slavery and Abolition, with hundreds upon thousands of people leaving Slave states in the south to go to these new territories, like Kansas, to vote on the issue, insuring Slavery in the new territories. Abraham Lincoln and the Republican controlled Congress declare the Missouri Compromise. It isn't enough. Various causes surrounding slavery lead many of the Southern States to declare secession from the Union of the United States of America. The belief of this being, that the States as individual bodies ratified the US Constitution, and therefore, since they voluntarily joined it, a similar vote could be held to voluntarily leave it. This fundamental idea of State empowerment and determination over Federal power and authority causes the Civil War. Over a million lives lost and a dozen years later through Reconstruction, Federal authority is finally assured by 1877. Three Civil Rights Acts, 3 Constitutional Amendments all supercede State authority, demanding that blacks be given the rights to vote, to due process of law, to a fair trial, and freedom from slavery and terrorism by the emergence of White Pride groups.

The year? 1920. The 19th Amendment supercedes State Laws in many states, demanding that Gender qualifications for voting be abolished. Women are given suffrage and allowed to vote. Minorities across the board are now enfranchised in the American political system. "Freedom and Justice for all." Finally rings true.

The year? 1954. Supreme Court Case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Topeka Kansas wants to segregate schools between white and colored. Under the Plessy v. Ferguson decision in 1896, this is perfectly legal. By 1954? The Earl Warren Supreme Court says 'no'. The Kansas law violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Segregation is overturned.

The year? 1957-1968. Jim Crow is rampant in the South, and in this 11 year stretch, 4 Civil Rights Acts are passed through Congress. 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1968. These Civil Rights Acts are Federally Authorized packs of laws that destroy many of the local and state segregation laws. It is important to note that the only reason President Obama was even allowed to run, much less be elected, is because of this Federal superceding of State authority.

The year? Now. DEA agents raid California businesses selling Marijuana for 'medicinal use' to just about anyone who knows how to forge a doctor's note, thereby enforcing Federal drug statutes. President Obama undermines 179 years of legal and historic precedent which demands Federal authority to supercede State authority in EVERY instance by declaring that the DEA can no longer enforce Federal drug laws prohibiting Marijuana in the State of California. Effectively? President Obama has come out and said that California's laws dictate on a higher legal plane than Federal laws.

Congratulations Mister Obama. You've dishonored millions of people who have fought, bled, and died for Federal authority over State authority. You've flouted 179 years of legal precedents in the annals of US History. And you've done so on one of the most dangerous topics of our time: Drugs.

Dignity of Human Life

All throughout the last 6 years, since March of '03 when the Iraq war began, the Democratic party has been opposed to much of it. Though several senators, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and others all voted to support the measure going to war. Since then, criticism over the inhuman treatment of people under the American led coalition forces has hit our headlines daily. Who can forget Abu Ghraib? Who can forget Gitmo? The waterboarding scandal. Torture allegations. All of which drove Democrats mad. They were upset at the blatant abuses of human dignity and human rights.

It occurs to me that the Democrats are quite hypocritical in this matter. It's ok to protest the death penalty as applied to adult persons who willfully commit a heinous crime depriving someone of life and/or liberty. It is ok to protest warfare against adult combatants who disguise themselves to hijack planes and slam them into buildings. And it's also ok to tax the American people more to spend money funding foreign abortions of unborn children.

Whoa. Wait a minute. Funding foreign abortions with OUR tax dollars? Is THIS the president we elected!? Yep. It certainly is. It's ok to spend money murdering innocent unborn children, but it's not ok to spend money killing and imprisoning terrorists who want to murder everyone else. Born and unborn alike. I guess that means Obama and his government don't want competition?

So let's examine this in small detail, shall we?

According to statistics? 76.5% of America is Christian. 23.9% of Americans are Catholic Christians, the largest single denomination in the United States. 51.3% of Americans are Protestant Christians. 1.7% are Mormon Christians, and 1.6% are some other denomination of Christian.

Now. We know for a fact that the majority of Protestant Doctrine comes from the Catholic Church. While differences in belief and practice and liturgy have evolved over time, I think it's safe to say that when The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

"Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendant dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him . . . Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church's role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

This same duty extends to those who think or act differently from us. The teaching of Christ goes so far as to require the forgiveness of offenses. He extends the commandment of love, which is that of the New Law, to all enemies. (Matthew 5:43-44) Liberation in the spirit of the Gospel is incompatible with hatred of one's enemy as a person, but not with the hatred of the evil that he does as an enemy." (Part III: Life in Christ, paragraphs 1929-30, 33).

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (Preamble, United States Constitution)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (Preamble, 2nd Sentence, Declaration of Independence)

More than 400 million dollars are being spent overseas to 'family planning'. Which means abortions and handing out contraception. The latter? I don't think anyone should really have a problem with. The former? Every person with a conscience, soul, or sense of morality, should be abhorred at. And please do not think for one minute that these are 'medical' abortions done for a legitimate medical purpose to save the life of a mother for example. No, these abortions run the gamut of 1st month to late term abortions. Intending upon killing innocent children just because their parents in the rest of the world wanted to have sex, but not deal with the consequences of offspring.

Now we've seen America's stance on Life and the Sanctity of the General Welfare. We've seen the Catholic Response to human life. I really recommend buying a copy of the Catechism. Even if you're not Catholic or religious at all, it certainly shows, in the strongest language, the relationship between God, Government, and Humanity. It is the duty, therefore, of every Christian person. Indeed every HUMAN person, to stand up against this and demand that the sanctity of life be kept sacred.

The only difference between a human fetus and a 90 year old human being is time. Given time and opportunity, that human fetus can grow up to be a 90 year old human being. Given that reality, it is the same crime, if not a greater one for the amount of time lost, to deprive a developing human life of their chance to grow up and grow old, of their liberty to live life and pursue happiness, as it is to do the same thing to an 18 year old adult. Only that spiritually speaking, the 18 year old adult isn't necessarily an innocent soul. Theologically? Most likely that 18 year old isn't.

For those who don't believe in God? Very well. Here's a challenge.

In biological taxonomy, that is to say, the classification of life, there are 5 Kingdoms: Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, and Monera.

Protista, Monera, as well as a good deal of the other three Kingdoms, are comprised of single celled organisms. The entire science of microbiology is devoted to single-celled organisms. Plankton to Viruses, Algae to Bacteriae.

We define these organisms as 'living'. They carry out the basic necessities of Biological life.

Conventional Definition of Life requires satisfaction of 7 different criteria. If the 7 criteria are satisfied, the organism in question is considered 'alive'.

1. Homeostasis - Regulating the internal environment to maintain constancy.
   
2. Organization - Being constructed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism - Consumption of chemicals and conversion to energy (anabolism) and decomposing material (catabolism).
   
4. Growth - Maintaining a higher rate of Anabolism than Catabolism.
5. Adaptation - Ability to change over time in response to environmental changes.
6. Response to Stimuli - Exhibiting response to a certain stimulus affecting the organism.
7. Reproduction - The ability to produce new organisms.

By these 7 Criteria we define life. A human fetus exhibits Growth, Metabolism, and Organization as well as Homeostasis from the time of conception when an egg is fertilized. That's 4 down, 3 to go.

Adaptation - The human cells in the body react constantly to environmental stimuli. The growing fetus will change. As it grows older in the womb and displays higher and higher levels of organization, babies like to kick and punch. While we coo and giggle, and mom is usually groaning in pain from having the little tyke beat her up from the inside out, this is a reaction to environmental stimuli. An Adaptation as the infant grows older and fights for room. Shifting and moving around. Not good enough? A mother's nutritional stimuli can give a child problems. Changing the environment by getting sick or eating unhealthy leads the child to have to develop other means of dealing with, or adapting to, these changes. Also, these adaptations result in the formation of the Umbilical Cord, which becomes useless after birth, and that's why it is snipped and falls off after a time.

Response to Stimuli - A fetus has an immune system, one that reacts if mommy gets sick, or even if mommy's blood type is too different. We've seen ultrasound images of unborn infants shying away from the harsh instruments used to perform abortions. But then again, it's only natural to shy away when someone is trying to dismember you.

Reproduction - The creation of new organisms. Here is where things get tricky. Children, even born, cannot reproduce. They have to at least enter puberty for reproduction to be viable. So if the production of other human being offspring is the definition of reproduction? I'd have to say that every child fresh from the womb to about 9 or 10 years old at the beginnings of puberty is not 'alive', failing at this crucial reproductive stage. But then again, so are puppies and kittens and every newborn infant child of almost any species on earth. Even plants and fungi take time to mature before they are able to reproduce. But what we DO reproduce, is cells. The basic unit of life which, by itself in single celled organisms, comprises probably into the 80's if not 90% range of life on the planet Earth. From the moment we are born, our bodies renew themselves and reproduce the cells that we need to carry on life. Even babies lose skin cells and their blood cells die to be recycled in the body. So if that is how we define reproduction, or if we are to say 'wait until maturity' then humans, including unborn fetuses are alive.

Please note: There is not one mention of religion, morality, Christianity, or anything outside of the realm of simple grade school biology here.

That said, we've defined human life in a spiritual context as well as in a scientific context. Both seem to agree that a fetus is a human life. Biologically speaking a human fetus carries on the 7 life functions. Theologically and Philosophically speaking a human being is a human life, regardless of the biological stage of development.

So Mister Obama. You were just inaugurated. While I forgive you for this... abomination against human life and dignity, I abhor your actions and those of your fellow people who consider themselves 'enlightened'. You've sent a clear message Mister President. It's not ok to defend life and liberty in America by stopping terrorism overseas and killing terrorists. But it's perfectly ok to deprive an innocent unborn child of their life and liberty.

So much for Hope.

So much for Change.

A problem from the Crusades

So I've gotten through my first week and a half of Graduate school, and so far? I'm LOVING it. A hell of a lot of work? Oh yeah, you bet. I'm reading so much, that I swear I've got thesis statements, primary sources, and commentaries coming out of my ears. I decided however, to check the news today, and found a little something refreshing. A Hollywood star, Mickey Rourke, saying that Bush isn't to blame for everything in the world. Including Islamic Terrorism! What a concept! While whack-jobs like Michael Moore and others tend to blame the United States for terrorism, Mickey Rourke seems to hit the nail on the head. Especially when he says "I don't give a f**k who's in office, Bush or whoever, there is no simple solution to this problem... I'm not one of those who blames Bush for everything. This s**t between Christians and Muslims goes back to the Crusades, doesn't it?"

Indeed. It goes back to before the Crusades actually.

In a day and age when we have nations like Iran rattling a nuclear saber, Muslim extremists willing to suicide bomb buses, planes, trains, and any other mass transit service in the West that they can manage to get on, and even more rumblings from the Middle East, it occurs to me that there are a lot of people asking 'Why?'.

Well, let's examine a brief outline of the conflict between Muslim and Christian and Jew in history.

In the beginning... Wait wait wait. Too far, right? Well not really.

The time? The Roman Empire's hey day. The very first Imperator has been declared as Augustus Caesar has wiped out his enemies including Cleopatra and Marc Antony. The Battle of Actium decided 31 years prior, Augustus is secure in his power.

In a tiny little backwater called Palestine by the Romans, Judea specifically, there's a little child that is born that will shake and crumble the very foundations of the Roman Empire. In His name, wars will be fought, wars will be ended, and a world will be saved from utter destruction and desolation. On the local level? He's going to shake up things for the Rabbis of the Temple of Jerusalem like they've never been shaken up before. The birth of Christ on Earth is one of the biggest fundamental changes in Antiquity, and at first? There was outright war and persecution on this sect. Not originally its own religion for a very, very, very long time, Christianity was considered a sect of Judaism. Indeed, it isn't until Saint Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, that we see non-Jews really take up the Christian lifestyle and faith.

Fast Forward 300 years or so. Battle of the Milvian Bridge. Day before the battle, according to legend, Constantine, outnumbered, outmaneuvered, and having to take a crucial choke point, receives a vision. In the sky, he sees the Greek letter Chi imposed over the Greek letter Rho. A voice echoed out to him, and he heard the phrase "In hoc signo vincit". "In This Sign, You Shall Conquer". Quickly ordering his soldiers to paint their shields with the symbol, Constantine won an insanely impossible victory, securing his dominance of the Roman Empire. Constantine claims that it was the God of Christianity which aided him in the battle. And why not? After all, the word Christ in Greek is spelled with the first two letters, Chi and Rho. And that God has a tendency to help his people in battles. Remember the walls of Jericho? The Ark of the Covenant? See? Watching Indiana Jones IS educational! So Constantine decides later on that he needs something to unify his new empire. What better to do it, than religion? Judaism is too difficult. Too localized, restricted, and would force the Romans to give up WAY too much to be observant of Jewish tradition. Why not stick with paganism then? Well that's too fractious. One city venerates and holds major ceremonies for one god, the next town over is celebrating a totally different one. How can anyone be unified in an empire where they can't even agree what festival to celebrate to honor which deity? Christianity? Ahhhh now there is an idea! Christianity venerates their patrons in a certain manner. By Constantine's time, men like Saint Paul, Saint Peter, Saint Jude, etc. were spoken of reverently. And if Constantine was right? Then it was the Christian God that helped him out at the battle that gave him his power to begin with. So what does he do? Legalizes Christianity. Persecution stops, and the mortar of The Roman Empire is laid down to stop the cracks from forming. Indeed, it helped keep the Roman Empire going long after it should have fallen. Through controversy and heresy, Rome existed because Christianity gave stability to a world where there might be 5 emperors in any given short period, each one assassinated by the ones which came after.

Note that while the Empire has legalized Christianity, persecution didn't necessarily end entirely. Later emperors would rescind Constantine's orders and reopen persecution. During all this time, Jerusalem is in the hands of the Romans, who have given local control over to governors that rule over the Jewish people. Effectively? It's in the hands of the Jews who run most of the day to day operations of the people. The Romans just sit around collecting taxes and occasionally dispensing justice. As with any conqueror, the Romans only ever wanted the Three T's of conquest. Taxes. Tribute. And No Trouble.

Ok. Now to fast forward about another 300 years and simultaneously rewind a bit. Yep. We gotta do both. Out in the desert wilderness, a young pagan Arabic man named Muhammed receives a vision, apparently from the Archangel Gabriel, declaring that Muhammed is the new prophet of Allah, that is to say, God. The new religion? Islam. Now for the slight rewind and the very beginning of the conflict between Islam and the Western religions.

Theologically, it's all about inheritance. In Judeo-Christian theology, God came to Abraham and told Him that Abraham and his wife Sarai would have children and descendants that would be greater than the number of stars in the sky. Sarai, doubting the Lord, and her own fertility, (they were both well into their old age, we're talking REAL old), gives up her slave, Hagar, to sleep with Abraham. A bit later, Hagar turns up pregnant. A bit later than that? Sarai, now known as Sarah, turns up pregnant! Hagar's child, Ishmael, is born first. He is the first born child. Sarah's son Isaac is the second born child, but is the only of the two children to be born within the legitimate marriage of Abraham and Sarah.

Hagar and Ishmael are sent out into the desert while Isaac inherits the covenant with God. Islam traces its theological roots back to Ishmael, claiming that as the first born son, however legitimate, the God made His covenant with Abraham pass to Ishmael. And thus, Judaism basically after the book of Genesis is outside of the Grace of God. Jesus? Although this claim is made, they still hold that Jesus is one of the Prophets or Emissaries of God, and that the 'one who will come after' that Jesus was to prepare the way for? Muhammed.

In the desert, Islam splits as Muhammed dies, and left in the wake of these three religions, is one major city that has had so much blood shed inside of it, it's a wonder that the streets aren't permanently dyed red.

Jerusalem. Revered as the site of the Temple of Solomon, today only to be seen as the Western Wall, or the Wailing Wall. It is an important city for Jews. Revered for the same site, which Jesus, in his later life, cleansed of the moneylenders. As well as being revered for the sites of the Last Supper at the Cenacle, and the "Mount of Skulls" Golgotha, where the crucifixion of Christ is reputed to take place, as well as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre all mark this as a very significant pilgrimage for Christianity. Islam too lays claim to Jerusalem, in 620 A.D., Muhammed was apparently teleported there to the Temple Mount where he ascended into Heaven and met with the prophets of Islam. The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, marks this place for Islamic pilgrims. And because of this, it becomes a holy city to Islam as well.

Fast forwarding a wee bit further, though not too much, to the 11th century. The West is starting to come into its own. The East under the Byzantine Empire, is a fraction of what it once was, comprising a bit of Western Turkey, much of the Balkans, and several of the larger islands of the Aegean Sea. A very benign Arab ruler, Omar Ebno 'L Alchitab stated that regarding religious privileges of pilgrims, "They shall be protected and secured both in their lives and fortunes, and their churches shall neither be pulled down nor made use of by any but themselves.". This sort of 'peace' was kept for hundreds of years, until closer to the end of the 11th century. With the fall of the city of Jerusalem to the far more vehement and savage Seljuk Turks, thousands were massacred, and heavy taxes were levied upon Christian pilgrims attempting to visit holy sites in the city. Those pilgrims who could not pay the tax? They were beaten or killed. Back in the West, Pope in exile, Urban II declared "Deus Vult!" "God Wills It!", opening the First Crusade in 1092. Armies all over the Christian West, and even in the Byzantine East, mobilized to fight the Islamic Seljuk Turks. The Byzantines had been fighting them for years, and were fairly relieved that their Western brethren were mobilizing to come to their aid. England, France, and the Holy Roman Emperor marched to war. Stephen, Count of Blois, and Hugh of Vermandois represented France. From England, the elder brother of King William the Conqueror, Robert of Normandy marched. Other major barons and lords took part in the successful Princes' Crusade. Antioch was sieged first, in 1097. By 1099? Jerusalem fell after an apparently miraculous vision led a priest, Peter Desiderius, to recreate the marching around the walls of Jericho. The holy land came into Christian hands at a bloody cost. Muslims, Jews, and Eastern Byzantine Christians alike were slaughtered. Nearly everyone in Jerusalem. According to Fulcher of Chartres? "Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared." Such is the brutality of medieval warfare. We must remember however, that a similar slaughter took place when the Seljuk Turks had taken over Jerusalem, and the killings of pilgrims over the years until the First Crusade were also held in the minds of the Crusader Knights.

Throughout the years following, until 1291 with the Siege of Acre, it was really a matter of coincidence who's hand various parts of the Holy Land remained in. By 1291 however, the Crusades were effectively ended, as the main region of Judea and Palestine remained in Muslim hands until 1918. The Ottoman Turks had picked the wrong side in World War 1, and as a price? Paid for their mistake with their Empire. The Empire which lasted from around 1299 to the years following 1918, was destroyed and handed over, much of it at least, to British hands, including the Holy City. In 1922, the League of Nations at the Conference of Lausanne gave the British, the Palestine Mandate. Were things quiet? Not particularly, no, but they weren't violent either. The British, after all, were very good, historically, at keeping people in check. We see in India that it's only a short time after the British left, that massacres between Hindus and Muslims began. The same occured in Jerusalem. When the United Nations in 1947 moved for the creation of an International Regime to rule over the city of Jerusalem. In 1948 however, the British pulled out of the Palestine region, and war erupted. In 1949, the citizens of the declared Independent Israel had reached an armistice agreement with Jordan, dividing the city of Jerusalem much like Berlin was divided after 1945. Jordan's actions of annexing East Jerusalem have only ever been recognized officially by Pakistan. No other nation has ever recognized that as valid.

During the ensuing 6 Day War of 1967, where Israel fought Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, the city of Jerusalem was unified, and modern Israel as we know it was created, including the West Bank and Gaza Strip being under Jewish Israeli rule.

By the end of 1967, we'd come full circle in about as many years. From a tiny Roman province mostly under the control of Jewish people who paid their taxes, to a modern Israeli state, we see that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity have all fought, killed, and died for the city that all three religions consider holy. The question we must ask ourselves is this, ladies and gentlemen. We know that Israel has opened up pilgrimages for people of ALL faiths to visit their respective shrines and the city. Is this something that we can afford to lose to radical Muslim domination? The kind which is exhibited by Iran? Or the Taliban? It seems to me that it would be far better to leave the city in Jewish hands and just forget the whole thing. To be content with visiting our sites freely, and enjoying the religious freedom afforded by Israel's current rulership is a far better thing than to fight over it and ruin it for everyone. Muslims today are claiming that Israel has no right to claim Jerusalem, and that Muslims where there since 1299. I have news for those Muslims. Christianity and Judaism have had claim for far longer than Islam. Live and let live. While not the case in the historical past of the Crusades? It is the case now. And who is it that is constantly suicide bombing plazas? restaurants? etcetera? Christians? Jews? No. Radical Islam. The only religious child born of the same cradle of the world in that same general region that cannot be content to live and let live with its brothers.

You're right Mickey Rourke. It has been going on since the Crusades, and a whole heck of a lot longer. And honestly? If Radical Islam doesn't whip itself into shape, I wouldn't be surprised to see a new round of modern Crusades start up.