36 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/22/06 12:00pm)
Enraged Muslims, angry over a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb as a turban in Danish and Norwegian newspapers, protested in the streets in the past few weeks. However, as the smoke cleared from the "infidel" embassies in Damascus and Beirut, we did not hear calls for faithfulness to our democratic values of free speech, but rather the world community's cries to appease the most evil of forces.
Now, I want to clarify that I do sympathize with Muslims in this matter. I understand that depictions of God and Muhammad are blasphemous under Islam, and I understand the angst many people have when they see their religion besmirched in the press, as I do on a frequent basis. But this does not give them the right to attack people and destroy property.
There are legitimate and peaceful ways of getting points across.
We also do not need international bureaucrats telling us the west needs to be more "tolerant." Take Secretary-General Kofi Annan of the United Nations, for example. Instead of condemning violent extremism and combating its spread throughout the world, Annan seems more worried about how insensitive European cartoons have hurt Muslims' feelings.
As a result, he is seriously considering inserting language into the new U.N. human rights council, backed by 57 Islamic countries, which would "prevent instances of intolerance, discrimination, incitement of hatred and violence arising from any actions against religions, prophets and beliefs which threaten the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms."
Annan said that "defamation of religions and prophets is inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression," and he emphasized that states, organizations and the media have a "responsibility in promoting tolerance and respect for religious and cultural values."
I have no clue as to how any of this would be established or enforced, save a nightmarist 1984 regime. So if he is serious, it appears that Annan and any supporting countries would want the authors of these cartoons tried for human rights violations! Please take note, my friends, that to mock someone's religion could be considered a crime against humanity!
To the comment that defamations of religion are inconsistent with freedom of speech, I wholeheartedly disagree. Freedom of speech means just that: you can say or write whatever you want, provided you cause no one physical harm. Some might argue that in the case of the cartoonists, the "shouting fire in a crowded auditorium" premise applies, but in reality it does not. People do not just leave their homes in unison and march on foreign embassies in distant cities; they are organized and riled up by leaders.
This is precisely what happened in the Middle East. These cartoons that insult Islam were published in September 2005 - almost five months ago. They elicited no immediate outrage and were forgotten. Enter the Islamo-fascists who distributed the cartoons, rallied the faithful to their call and whipped them into a destructive frenzy. And what does the United Nations do? It sits around and creates a few politically correct commissions.
If the United Nations wants to charge people for insulting other religions, I have a few suggestions. I recommend the arrest of artist Andres Serrano, who submerged a crucifix in a vat of urine. I recommend the arrest of Chris Ofili, who smeared a painting of the Virgin Mary with elephant dung.
Bring these two up on charges of human rights violations! While we're at it, let's arrest the authors of Islamic newspapers across the Middle East who frequently mock Jews and Christians.
I do not expect Islamic radicals or U.N. terrorist sympathizers to cry for tolerance toward Christians or especially Jews.
Like many others in this country, they only enjoy tolerance when it benefits them.
Information from - frontpagemag.com
(12/07/05 12:00pm)
It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas, isn't it? Many of us have decorated our rooms, shopped for gifts or listened to Christmas music on a more regular basis, waiting anxiously for that special time: the season when nothing can go wrong and all the world is right.
Yet there is something not quite right with the celebration of these festivities. I'd say we Americans have lost the Christmas spirit, but sadly, many of us never had it in the first place.
You may be reading this and nodding your head thinking about all the not-so-Christmassy people. Ebenezer Scrooge, the Grinch, or perhaps that Burgermeister Meisterburger from "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" come to mind. They certainly didn't have the Christmas spirit. They were grumpy, mean and cheap.
Take Scrooge for example. His famous quote when he asked a kind couple of gentlemen who were raising funds for the poor, was "Are there no prisons, no poorhouses?" for the poor and destitute. We New Jerseyans shudder. How cruel! How can someone who is so rich be so uncaring and evil?
Yet, according to the Generosity Index, we New Jerseyans rank 47th worst in the United States in charitable giving when compared to the wealth we actually have.
For all of the redneck and incest jokes we make about the South, they put us to shame in the way they open their pockets to the needy. Despite being the poorest state in the nation, Mississippi is the fifth highest giver. That bighearted state is followed by Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Alabama and Tennessee. Perhaps we're more Scrooge-like than we thought.
We all have been shocked by the mayhem and chaos that enveloped our big box stores for their Black Friday sales. Businesses call this day Black Friday because it is usually the first day they begin making a profit.
I think it should bear this name because it is the lowest moral point in the year for American businesses and consumers alike.
Instead of opening their doors at normal business day hours, stores open early and offer a few paltry special doorbusters for those crazy enough to come at two in the morning and wait in line for four hours in the freezing cold. Then, they act surprised when there is no order and limited security, and people stampede like greedy animals and trample other fellow human beings in the doorways.
They do not even make the shoppers form orderly lines; instead store associates (probably fearing for their safety) toss items to the gathering mob. I thought we had evolved as a species from the Roman era of bread and circuses and throwing people to the lions. Apparently the progressives are once again dead wrong.
Consumers are no better. Our greed has warped the holy day of Christmas into a materialistic orgy. Sure the red and the green decorations are pretty, but I think they have lost their appeal when they go up in October to snare shoppers. The worst thing is that we know it and we do not care.
Some of the worst Grinches of the holiday season in my mind have to be the members of the American Civil Liberties Union, advocates of political correctness and other anti-religious totalitarians.
Intent on erasing what higher significance Christmas and other religious holidays do have, groups like these emerge from the shadows every year to bring forth their "good tidings" with holiday lawsuits. "No Christmas trees on public property! It's not a Christmas concert, it's a winter concert! They're unconstitutional!" Once again, like with many things, the apathetic and lazy American public complains, but does little to stop them. After all, we would miss our favorite Christmas programs on TV.
Take heart that there is good news, and it will not be found in a store or a courtroom. The good news is found far from our comfortable houses, in a stable reeking of dung and animal odors. There a child was born for us. I know many of us attend some sort of religious services during the holiday season where we listen to some teaching, sing some songs and put up little mangers.
Yet, the next morning, when surrounded by all of the materialistic pleasures possible, we arise to indulge ourselves, ripping open packages and consuming goodies. That gift child is often sadly lost in the shuffle.
Information from - catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004
(11/09/05 12:00pm)
Who likes to use Facebook? Despite getting an occasional piece of hate mail here and there, I thoroughly enjoy browsing over my friends' kooky sayings, favorite movies or anti-Bush groups.
In all seriousness, the online yearbook, as I like to describe it to old people who have never heard of it, has inadvertently become the host of a new controversy surrounding free speech. Although this information has not been given too much attention, it is a case which I think we all should be interested in because it reveals a disturbing trend in universities across this nation.
Duquesne University sophomore Ryan Miner wrote something on Facebook that most people, including me, would cringe at. He referred to homosexuals as subhuman. While many of you know that I am strongly opposed to same sex marriage and believe homosexuality is a sin, I believe that everyone is loved by God and deserves dignity and respect.
This being established, Duquesne, did something that made me cringe even more. They punished him for it. The Catholic university came down hard, demanding that he remove the offending post and write a 10-page paper on the Roman Catholic Church and its position on gays and lesbians. He removed the post but refused to write the paper citing his First Amendment right to freedom of speech, and currently faces expulsion.
I am sure there are some people who are outraged that Miner was only sentenced to a measly 10-page paper and not immediately incarcerated for his impudence.
I am of the opinion, however, that it is not the role of the school or anyone to regulate his speech. Heinous as his comments may seem, this man did not shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, so there is no legal reason to punish him for things he said.
The politically correct crowd who created these shadowy academic speech or tolerance codes across the nation are a sad, paranoid group of people who are obsessed with preventing anyone from ever being offended ever again. Newsflash, it's not going to happen, and its wrong for them to decide what acceptable speech is.
Yet Duquesne has the audacity to think that it can.
Susan Monahan, director of Judicial Affairs at Duquesne, said these words to Duquesne's student newspaper: "Duquesne deals with any judicial violation that occurs, whether it is on Facebook or off-campus. If a student brings something to my attention that proves a violation of the code, I have no choice other than to adjudicate."
Let's take a look at this code which prohibits "harassment or discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin or citizenship status, age, disability or veterans status ..."
Not only is this sentence seriously bordering on unconstitutionality, but Miner's comments were published on a Web site (which the school cannot legally regulate) and not directed to a person in a harassing manner nor did they cause any discrimination (unfair treatment) to occur.
Now this case may bring up some thoughts of "No, my rights cannot be infringed upon here." In response to these naysayers I would like to point out two schools very close to the College who have had some problems protecting their students' freedoms.
Rutgers University was involved in rather infamous case between the institution and Intervarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF), which has a chapter at the College. In 2002, Rutgers apparently thought the group's policy that said leaders must "adhere to biblical standards and belief in all areas of their lives," (meaning they wanted the leaders of the Christian group to be Christian) was too intolerant and they banned the organization from meeting on campus. Officials from Rutgers stated, in their infinite wisdom, that the policy amounted to discrimination. Luckily, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) came to the rescue.
When it petitioned for a reversal of the decision, the administration of Rutgers refused, and the Alliance Defense Fund then filed a lawsuit against Rutgers on behalf of IVCF, saying the school violated the group's rights to freedom of expression, religion and association.
After four months of legal haggling, Rutgers administration surrendered and gave up its unconstitutional and prejudicial stance.
Even the institution that the College strives to emulate in every way, Princeton, got into legal trouble for similar reasons early this year. The Princeton Faith and Action, a prospective student group, was denied approval because a certain dean of religious affairs did not want a group associated with the Christian Union, an evangelical church, on Princeton's campus.
Secular groups did not need to go through the arbitrary recommendation of a dean, and when FIRE pointed out this and many other discrepancies to the Princeton president, the university reversed its decision.
Thankfully, our school does not seem to have any major First Amendment problems and I hope it never will. However, we should all be wary.
Benjamin Franklin said "Eternal vigilance is the prince of liberty" and we as American citizens need to make sure our First Amendment liberties are not taken advantage of by academic administrators' personal preferences on Facebook or elsewhere.
Information from - thepittsburghchannel.com, worldnetdaily.com, thefire.org/index.php
(11/02/05 12:00pm)
Whether we all know it or not, a big election is approaching. No, Hillary supporters, it is not 2008 yet. Put away your banners.
In fact, this is the year for the New Jersey gubernatorial race. I know this fact has not aroused the passions of so many in this state or the attentions of too many major media outlets, but this race is critical to our state.
The position is one of the most powerful in the nation, and we need a competent, honest and inventive leader to fill this position. This man is Doug Forrester.
He will restore our state government to a good bill of financial health, take an ax to the widespread corruption and most importantly, take steps to repair the maligned image of New Jersey and our government.
Forrester, a successful self-made businessman, has lived in this state for 30 years. He is not a career politician, but has had crucial political experience working in former Gov. Tom Kean's administration as assistant state treasurer. Most significantly, the Republican candidate has made the two most important citizen concerns - property taxes and government corruption - to be the two greatest focal points of his campaign of reform.
Forrester does not promise the taxpayers flashy spending programs, but focuses instead on giving real relief to all New Jersey families and has promised a 30 percent tax cut in three years.
Our residents and businesses need lower taxes.
Our ranking of competitiveness in the business world plummeted this year from 26th to 44th in the country, as debt from the past four years of the McGreevey regime piled up.
As the state with the "great honor" of having the highest property taxes in the nation, we are forcing many of our middle-class residents and businesses to seriously consider moving away.
This should not be happening. We need real relief now. What we do not need, however, is more tax rebates like the ones the Democratic candidate, Sen. Jon Corzine, has presented.
They have been offered in New Jersey for years, but afforded no real relief.
The senator promises "moderate property tax relief" and claims Forrester's plan will blow a $9 billion hole in our budget.
Forrester contends it will be closer to $3.2 billion over several years. Most alarmingly, Corzine promised a "new policy" of "invest, grow and prosper" in exchange for the old "tax, borrow and spend."
Apparently, the senator expects you and me to overlook that he will pay for his massive new spending projects with borrowed money from public bonding.
He also refuses to sign a pledge to promise to never raise taxes.
It is quite pathetic that Corzine's campaign cannot even keep a promise in a simple slogan.
Corzine also promises to rise above all of the corruption and clean up Trenton, citing his "record in Congress."
Someone needs to inform the senator that we have been having problems in New Jersey and he didn't say a word about them until he ran for governor.
Forrester, on the other hand, has spoken out repeatedly against corruption, especially in the case of our former governor, Jim McGreevey.
What is especially disheartening is Corzine's behavior at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, shortly before McGreevey resigned.
After the former governor spoke, the senator went up to the podium, fondly embraced him and raised his hand saying "our governor."
He later said he was proud of McGreevey.
Consider also the senator's press release on the event of McGreevey's resignation, - "I applaud the governor's decision to acknowledge a part of his identity for which he owes no one an apology," Corzine said.
Once again, Corzine is dead wrong. McGreevey and the Democrats do owe us an apology.
They owe us an apology for the embarrassment they have caused this great state and the financial disaster that is the statehouse.
Moreover, how can Corzine pledge to end corruption when predominately Democrat bosses like George Norcross, Charles Kushner and Sharpe James have been propagating it? Will he prosecute his own party? I say he will not.
My fellow students, it's high time we shook off this unhealthy aura of apathy and opened our eyes.
You may not currently pay property taxes or care about corruption in Trenton, but you will very soon. Moreover, your parents are suffering under the burden of the highest property taxes in the nation. We need real relief, not gimmicks, broken promises and enslavement to party bosses.
Doug Forrester is the man we need in the statehouse. Election Day is Nov. 8. Do what you think is right.
Information from - cnn.com, corzine.senate.gov, money.cnn.com, corzineforgovernor.com
(10/12/05 12:00pm)
The conservative movement scored a major victory recently when New York Governor George Pataki turned down the proposed International Freedom Center (IFC) at Ground Zero.
This so-called freedom center was intended to sit on the grounds of the former World Trade Center.
On the outside, the goals of IFC seem admirable. Organized by an array of businesspeople and scholars, IFC was to feature museum exhibits, educational and cultural programs and a service and civic engagement network, all working to advance the cause of freedom.
However, as time went by and information surfaced about the true intentions of ICF, people began to get nervous. The museum was not only to focus on events of Sept. 11, but was going to address many issues dealing with inhumanity.
Apparently the museum was going to consist, not of memorials to the thousands of innocent victims slain by Islamo-fascism, but displays about Jim Crow era lynches, Native American genocide, Nazi and Soviet death camps and other such atrocities.
Also take into account that relics of Sept. 11 originally would have been regulated to a 50,000 square foot underground vault while ICF would cover 300,000 square feet in a beautiful aboveground complex.
Further investigation into who is involved with this project cuts through a lot of the claims that the center is "non-partisan" and an overwhelmingly liberal cast of characters predictably emerges.
Present on the list of "advisors and scholars" are numerous professors from the bastion of regressive progressivism, communism, failed and/or immoral philosophies and confusion; otherwise known as the Ivy League schools of Princeton, Harvard, New York University and others.
The radical head of the American Civil Liberties Union, Anthony Romero, is also on board, no doubt enlisted to ensure that no forms of religious expression would be shown nor any Boy Scouts be allowed to visit.
The leader of this operation is businessman Tom Bernstein, who is a fervent supporter of Human Rights Now, a liberal front group who filed amicus briefs defending dirty bomb suspect Jose Padilla.
And finally, what kind of a liberal group would this be if George Soros was not involved? This liberal millionaire, who has funded dozens of liberal political action committees, was also assisting in this effort. I found no outwardly conservative groups involved whatsoever.
Are you starting to see a trend here? Placing aside the extensive leftist r?sum?s of the abovementioned group of clowns, their calls to make this center one of "debate" and "civic activism" should make people run for cover.
It becomes clear that the people behind this center want to turn Ground Zero into an un-American university where they can constantly harp on this country's faults under the guise of investigating freedom.
The complete lack of balance would also ensure our school children visiting the site would be fed only one view of freedom.
Despite the massive opposition from tens of thousands of people, Sept. 11 families, police and firefighter groups, Rudy Giuliani, and even Hillary Clinton, the IFC still had the audacity to make the following statement several days before Pataki pulled the plug. IFC said it "will help the world understand and appreciate the sacrifices made on Sept. 11."
How exactly will it do that? Slavery, racism, prejudices and the like were terrible, but had nothing to do with Sept. 11. In fact, the only past or present ideology that was related to the destruction of the Twin Towers, Muslim extremism, was nowhere to be seen in the IFC plans.
I am sure these liberals in charge of IFC would argue that the connection between the true culprits of the slaughter and the ideology they support would be "too disturbing" or generate too much anger or backlash for the same reasons the media shut out all images of the events of Sept. 11.
Now no one, including myself, will say there should not be museums for this type of history. Having one located at the site of one of our bloodiest days, however, would be disrespectful to the memory of the people who died there.
Ground Zero should be a place where people can reflect on the lives lost on that terrible day, and the dead should be given the respect they deserve.
There is enough politics in our everyday lives; we do not need to have our memorials and cemeteries like Ground Zero become places of debate and controversy.
We can debate the meaning of freedom and what should be done in our future in every other spot in this great country, but Ground Zero belongs to the Sept. 11 families and the memories of the dead and that pivotal day in American history.
Information from - drudgereport.com,ifcwtc.org,opinionjournal.com, guardian.co.uk, takebackthememorial.org
(09/21/05 12:00pm)
Recent debates, such as those over the Iraq war have brought up many questions about the nature of true patriotism.
Is it more patriotic to support the war or to protest against it?
Both sides seem to have completely different opinions.
Just as the war generates a lot of this controversy, so do the developments over the use of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools.
Is atheist activist Michael Newdow, who successfully petitioned Senior District Court Judge Lawrence K. Karlton to ban the pledge in Sacramento school districts, being patriotic and trying to do what our founding fathers wanted? Or is he dead wrong?
The fact is, the pledge is consistent with our government's and nation's historical acknowledgment of a higher power.
This country was founded in large part by religious people fleeing oppression in Europe. All types of mainly Christian denominations settled in America like Anglicans, Quakers, Puritans, Catholics and many more.
When the Revolutionary War rolled around, this spirit and belief in God still persisted.
The famous Declaration of Independence was mostly drafted by Thomas Jefferson, an atheist who made four different mentions of God in it.
Most importantly, the declaration mentions that the Creator is the source of all rights and that God is the "Supreme Judge of the World."
Some might say that the Constitution, ratified some 13 years later, has no religious references.
I would have them consider the words of Declaration cosigner and future president John Adams as he laid down his thoughts on government and religion during the signing of the Constitution.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
The best example of a government official's devotion to God was our first and probably greatest president, George Washington.
In 1789, in a speech establishing the holiday of Thanksgiving (to God), Washington said, "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me 'to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.'"
The ideals of the Declaration and our founders are consistent with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Written in 1892, the pledge was intended to be a patriotic exercise and was altered over the years, most significantly in the 1950s, to include "under God."
Although atheists are quick to shoot around the buzz word McCarthyism to try to invalidate the reasons our countrymen inserted "under God" - we were trying to differentiate ourselves from the godless Soviet Union - one can see the change was by no means contradictory with the ideas of our founding fathers.
Some Supreme Court Justices, whose opening statements include "God save this honorable court," thought the same way when Newdow brought his appeal to them in 2004.
Although the merits of the constitutionality of the pledge were not decided due to Newdow's inability to sue on behalf of his child, over whom he had no custody, certain members of the court weighed in on the matter.
The late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, "I do not believe that the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge converts its recital into a 'religious exercise'... Instead, it is a declaration of belief in allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it represents. The phrase 'under God' is in no sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion, but a simple recognition."
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor concurred with Rehnquist.
A handful of atheist activists like Newdow may claim that they are saving the Constitution or the country by getting rid of all mention of God in governance, despite their deafness to the huge outcry from a majority of their fellow citizens.
Faced with the enormity of the total evidence pertaining to the original intent of the framers and scores of American lawmakers and citizens past and present, it becomes difficult to see exactly how these activists can claim they are bringing anything but shame and dishonor to these great men and women and the nation they loved and served.
It has been made abundantly clear through history and the interpretation of the Constitution that acknowledgments of God should stay a part of American public life and any detraction from this policy would make great men like Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin cry out from their graves in protest.
Information from - eadshome.com,night.net,evolvefish.com, kuro5hin.org
(09/14/05 12:00pm)
Hurricane Katrina is a human tragedy and I encourage you all to pray for those caught in its wake.
With untold numbers of dead and billions of dollars in damage, the forces of this world seemed to have declared war against the American Gulf Coast region.
All of us were transfixed by the images streaming from media outlets of the Superdome and other devastated areas.
The outpouring of support from the American people, charitable groups and businesses has been arriving in the Gulf, but an outpouring of something else has also been present. I'm not referring to the toxic waste that has been unleashed into the flood waters, although this is kind of close to it.
Last week, I told all of you about the unholy alliance between the president's enemies and the media. This specter has appeared once more.
Hours after the hurricane hit and the devastation was visible, the finger-pointing and conspiracy breeding began by politicians and the media. Bush cut funding for the levees to pay for his war in Iraq! People were ignored because of their skin colors! The federal government bungled the relief effort!
It goes on and on. It has even gotten so bad that I wouldn't be surprised if they would have you believe behind the scenes President Bush was at a secret undisclosed location (with Dick Cheney, of course) where he single-handedly destroyed the Gulf Coast for kicks. I am not going to stoop to the level of some of my fellow columnists and blame politicians (although I could easily blame Governor Blanco), but instead I will provide something the media can hardly stand - perspective and facts to cut through the lies and distortions.
The city of New Orleans is shaped like a bowl. Since many parts of the city are below sea level, a system of dams and levees are needed to keep the water at bay.
Bush's opponents, chiefly Sidney Blumenthal (a partisan hack) contend that the president's cuts to an Army Corps of Engineer's project to strengthen the levees doomed the city.
It turns out that the levee building project which Bush cut the funding from would most likely have never stopped Katrina. The current levee construction, even if fully funded, would not have been finished until 2015, and could have only contained a Category 3 storm - not a Category 4 storm like Katrina.
Yet somehow I get the impression that some people feel this nation is so powerful that we can stop hurricanes at our shores through our might. They feel that the city should have been pumped and rebuilt overnight.
Folks, this was one of the strongest storms on record, flooding an entire city, sinking it into anarchy and mob rule; police and rescuers had to flee for their lives. We are not as invincible as some of us think. We are still at the mercy of the forces of nature.
Meanwhile, the old, tired race card was dusted off and brought out to gain the political upper hand. As we know, over 70 percent of the city of New Orleans is black and there is a large amount of poverty.
Yet somehow the fact that large numbers of blacks could not get out of the city was Bush's and the Republicans' fault, and they don't care, according to Kanye West and other intellectual lightweights. Democratic National Convention chair Howard Dean was also quick to bring up race and poverty as factors which exasperated the storm's effect.
The implication of course is that his party is the one who really cares and helps blacks and other minorities, and not those racist Republicans. Neither could be further from the truth. Although Louisiana is a red state this election, they have had a grand total of three Republican governors in the past 127 years.
The mayor of New Orleans was a Democrat as well, continuing the tradition of his party's control over the state. Dean, Governor Blanco and their predecessors have more to answer for when it comes to minorities being poor in a state where they have had free reign from the advent of Jim Crow to the present than Republicans ever will.
Now, will I give a blanket of amnesty to anyone involved in this debacle? No, of course not, I'm sure mistakes were made.
Yet most troubling is that some reporters and politicians are more concerned with finger-pointing and seeking to trash their opponents than actually helping people.
Did we see any reporters using their fancy news helicopters to bring food and aid? Do we see any environmental groups so quick to castigate the president over global warming helping out?
The biggest disgrace in my mind is that the waters are still not cleared and we have this vicious blame game going around.
Sept. 11, 2001 brought out the best in this nation and political rivals put their disagreements aside for a short time to finish with the search and rescue. Yet today, we see Hillary Clinton demanding 9/11-style investigations. These will undoubtedly bring us the same amount of "gotcha politics" that marked that inquiry.
As Americans, we should be ashamed, not of the good people helping out their fellow men, but of the armchair politicians trying to use this catastrophe for disgusting political gain.
Information from - releases.usnewswire.com, louisianahistory.com, news.yahoo.com, factcheck.org
(09/07/05 12:00pm)
There's an old expression that implores us not to blame the bringers of bad news.
This "don't shoot the messenger" maxim was probably left over from some distant time when rival tyrants would assassinate each other's couriers to make a point.
However we do not live in an age when messages about the world are conveyed to us to by unbiased envoys dressed in flashy colors with feathers in their caps reading from scrolls of parchment.
The 21st century has new kids of messengers, television and newspaper reporters, who gather the news and return it to their home base for repackaging and redistribution to us.
But the question remains, are the messages we are receiving the whole story?
Regarding the operation to win the peace and stability of Iraq; we are not receiving the whole side of the story. Instead of hearing about all aspects of the war and its progress, we are hammered on a daily basis by a deluge of negative reporting.
There are so many examples that I don't know where to begin.
Since the Vietnam War we have seen the activists in the media attempting to bring about change in government policy. Refusing to let go of this mantra we hear many media outlets today running stories comparing Iraq to Vietnam.
Folks let me layout the facts. Vietnam was 40 years ago. Things have changed.
Though every death is terrible, we lost 58,000 soldiers in Vietnam as compared to a much lower 1,800 today.
There's no draft, no Iraqi civil war, no major outside powers (like the Soviet Union) supplying arms and training, no jungles, no Platoon, no Apocalypse Now, etc.
Besides the constant misuse of history, the media has neglected to mention the scores of good news that has been streaming from Iraq.
Saddam has been dethroned and arrested and his murderous rapist sons Uday and Qusay are dead. The Iraqi people are free to finally exercise their creative and entrepreneurial talents.
Artists, farmers and businesspeople alike are permitted to create and conduct free enterprise without an oppressive statist regime.
Money in the millions and billions of dollars is pouring in from the United States, other allied countries and worldwide organizations for schools, hospitals, infrastructure and social programs for women to name a few things.
Clean water and electricity have been delivered to places where they have never had them. Classes are open with an 80 percent attendance rate and hundreds of hospitals are being built and renovated.
Most importantly the people are free to participate in democratic government and have done so braving the dangers of terrorist attacks, voting in a real election and waving their purple stained fingers in the air.
These courageous people have proved all of the naysayers wrong turning out in high numbers despite the 44 people who would eventually die in suicide and mortar attacks on polling stations.
Yet, instead of this true and encouraging information, much of the news is of the doom and gloom type about the number of soldiers and civilians getting killed, but with hardly any mention of how many insurgents we have dispatched.
I suspect this has a large part to play in the president's low approval ratings.
Moreover, the mainstream media has been more than content to cover the Cindy Sheehan movement ad nauseum in an attempt to convince America that she speaks for a large number of military families or soldiers. Neither could be further from the truth.
Although I stated this last week, I feel it necessary to reiterate that a majority of soldiers and their families view the war in a drastically different way than the likes of Cindy Sheehan and her disgraceful anti-war ilk.
Overwhelmingly, our servicemen and women support our president, understand the mission and believe our cause to be an honorable one.
It is mind boggling that the anti-war left in this country can claim to speak for and support the same troops whose ideological stances are so drastically different from theirs.
Radical anti-war leftists and their cronies in the media don't support the troops' choices in leaders, are repulsed by the mission the troops think is noble and worthy of great sacrifice, and are constantly underestimating, ignoring, and denigrating the sucesses the soldiers of the United States have made.
These leftists who view them with utter contempt in their rallies and protests cannot possibly support our troops, yet the media would have you believe otherwise.
The only support you can squeeze out of the anti-war left is a pathetic, "I hope our soldiers don't get hurt..." This is not support, this is near-apathetic well-wishing.
Yet our troops continue in their worthy mission despite little support from the media or the anti-war left.
In closing I would like to refer to Captain Sherman Powell's revealing comment to Matt Lauer, who was desperately trying to get him to falsely admit that his troops' morale was failing. "Sir, if I got my news from the newspapers also, I'd be pretty depressed as well."
Enough said.
(08/31/05 12:00pm)
Welcome back fellow students. I am sure that you all have been suffering from withdrawal symptoms without having my articles to read each week, but never fear! Once again, due to popular demand, I have returned to wreak havoc upon supporters of liberalism.
For those of you who are now saying to themselves, "Didn't that Esposito guy graduate?" or, "Oh no not him again! The pain, the horror!" take a few deep breaths and continue reading. New freshmen, congratulations on getting accepted to this fine institution and I wish you the best.
I think it would be good to review some of the many interesting events of the summer to get us all up to speed.
The retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has sent the media, politicians and special interest groups on the right and left into a maelstrom. The so-called "swing vote" moderate justice surprised everyone in the media who expected the ailing Chief Justice Rehnquist to resign.
This opened a great deal of speculation as to who the President's nominee would be and what his or her stances would be. Baffling liberals once more, President Bush did exactly what he promised to do and nominated a strict constructionalist justice who would not legislate from the bench. John Roberts, by all accounts, believes that the Constitution should be interpreted as its framers intended.
An out-of-control Supreme Court has radically changed this country by mandating abortion on demand in all states, giving the federal government rights which it is clearly not entitled to and discovering that the Constitution does in fact support some types of racial preferences (i.e. affirmative action) and sodomy as fundamental rights.
The out of touch liberal cabal of unelected justices should be interpreting law, not making it and pushing their radical social agenda on the rest of the country.
Despite his near impeccable judicial resume and the subsequent lack of any major issues Democrats could use as a wedge, Roberts remains under assault by liberal fringe groups who assail him with every derogatory slur in the book. NARAL, a pro-choice (for the death of unborn babies in the name of feminist liberation) group, even accused Roberts of supporting abortion clinic bombers.
Their ridiculous ad which played on many major media outlets was found out to be a complete falsehood by the non-partisan FactCheck.org and NARAL reluctantly pulled the advertisement stating condescendingly that the American public did not understand it properly.
Speaking of radical liberals, Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother of a slain soldier, has been all over the news as she has set up camp outside of the president's ranch in Texas, waiting and hoping for him to come and speak to her. You many think that this mom is simply looking for an answer to why her son was killed in the war, but you'd be wrong. Since the president met with her in 2004 (oh yes Cindy, remember that?) she had many nice things to say about him. Now she has changed her tune stating illogical, hate-filled and/or outright unfactual rhetoric that pervades the anti-war movement.
She makes it obvious that she has become a mouthpiece for groups like moveon.org. While I mourn her loss, I believe she is quite mistaken about her world view and I do not blame the president for not meeting with her.
For every parent of a soldier on her side of the fence there are dozens who support the president, the war and their sons' and daughters' decisions to serve this country in the 100 percent all volunteer army.
The final issue of the summer I would like to speak about is the sudden declarations of states of emergencies in two of our southern states over the issue of illegal immigration.
Janet Napolitano and Bill Richardson, governors of Arizona and New Mexico respectively, called for extra federal resources to be allocated to their states to prevent the influx of illegal immigrants, drugs and the escalation of criminal activities.
At first, I could not have agreed more with the governors' intentions to curb the lawless region which has become our border due to intentional neglect by both state and federal authorities. Fearing reprisals from the politically correct (otherwise known as liberals and their allies in the press) and Hispanic voters, the government has been slow to move on this problem.
On the other hand I remain skeptical of the governors' dedication to protecting the border. Both Democratic governors have been very rewarding to lawbreakers. Gov. Richardson even supports giving illegals driver's licenses.
Also, both politicians are up for election soon and realize that illegal immigration is an issue which neither party has taken a firm stance.
I expect this move is going to mostly be a smoke and mirrors campaign meant to attract support, not arrest illegal immigrants.
With all of the interesting developments this appears to be an entertaining year.
(04/27/05 12:00pm)
Well, my loyal supporters, critics and readers, another year is in the books. I have enjoyed the interaction with all of you, whether in print or in person.
I trust you will continue to write in and keep me honest when you feel I have gone off the deep end, and I welcome the communication next year.
In years past, I dedicated my last article to criticizing the blunders the College has made (and there have been many in my stay here) and calling for some logical solution.
However, seeing that I already used much of my material last week, I believe I am out on a limb here.
So this column will be a short end of the year review of current events from the campus and the world.
For those who enjoy my commentary on the state of the College, never fear, I still have an issue that I would like to address.
I am concerned about the liberal crusade that seems to be mounting against the organization Students for Academic Freedom (SAF).
Some at the College are troubled that this group's oaths to protect academic diversity could turn into some conservative/liberal witch hunt.
The witch hunt defense is one of my favorites that the left employs because it is so hypocritical, to say nothing of completely ridiculous.
It is funny that when someone gets fed up with hearing the same kind of thinking day after day and wants to consider other points of view, it becomes a scheme.
Liberals, often in favor of diversity when it benefits them, turn on their own mantra.
This paranoia is simply a case of ignorance and misplaced illogical fear, but when you throw in the loaded and educationally misrepresented historical terms like "witch hunt" or "McCarthyism," suddenly it's a matter of legitimate concern.
So what if David Horowitz runs SAF? Who the heck runs the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that was recently formed on campus?
Given their frequent intrusions into people's lives, I could spread all kinds of rumors that the ACLU here is trying to take away our religious rights or destroy the local Boy Scouts, activities they seem very fond of pursuing.
This SAF nonsense is all hysteria and hype; pay it no heed.
On the international stage, many around the world mourned the recent loss of the beloved Pope John Paul II.
He was a great man by many respects and I take my hat off to his firm stances against abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage and atheistic communism.
However, his successor Benedict XVI has drawn some early criticism for being too conservative. His election has upset many "progressive" Catholics.
As a non-Catholic, my response to this is "too bad."
The Church is not a democracy, nor should it be answerable to the whims of public opinion.
If you don't like it you can always leave and find another denomination.
I think it is ridiculous for the left to insist that discussions be opened for its pet issues in any Christian church.
This so-called need for debate is a clear case of refusing to abide by the authority of the Bible and instead creating man-made laws to make ourselves feel better about our own sinfulness.
That being said, I will still jump on the bandwagon and call for a reform of the Catholic Church, but in a different way.
I challenge the new pope to examine the Scriptures and find where it states indulgences can be issued, Mary was born without sin, the Pope is infallible, etc., etc., etc. I feel a great deal of revelation could come out of this simple experiment.
Finally, we come to the year in review for our "Spanning the World" session with yours truly. The past year was a great time for Republicans.
If some of you still haven't heard George W. Bush was re-elected as well as the Republican Senate and House.
Another great blow to the teetering edifice that is the Democratic Party was the election of Howard Dean as party chairman.
He has since run things with his typical modesty, grace, and respect with such conciliatory remarks like "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization."
Gee ... thanks, Howard.
He also called his opponents "brain-dead," likened them to Pharisees and Sadducees and accused the president of using homophobia, racism and sexism to win elections.
Have fun building bridges to moderate Republicans with that message!
In other news, the Yankees lost the World Series (boo hoo, get over it, you've won 25 of them) and New England won the Super Bowl, continuing Philadelphia's incredible losing drought and upsetting hundreds of South Jersey fans who don't support teams that play in their own state.
Now that I think I've thoroughly pissed off everyone, have great summer.
(04/20/05 12:00pm)
Anyone who knows me will affirm that I love politics. I enjoy watching and working for elections. I like listening to talk radio hosts babble on and on about different candidates and why or why not they would be good choices for positions of power. I get a laugh watching politicians stab each other in the back with political attack ads and then try to say nice things about the other candidate.
However, despite all of the messiness of politics, I really love our democratic style of government. I really like the idea that if politician X does not please his constituents he can be removed, courtesy of his own constituents, the following November.
I agree that our particular system could be better, but for the most part our government has been effectual for over 200 years and continues to be so.
I'm afraid the College's student government is in a different boat.
By the time this article is published, the College will have a new Student Government Association (SGA) exectuive board. My prayers are with this new government and I hope they do some good for this campus. I am not holding my breath though.
Every year it seems we are promised change, yet few if any major initiatives that affect the student body are passed.
Severe internal divisions over the effectiveness of its outgoing president, Pedro Khoury, have weakened this year's SGA.
Unfortunately the race card was shamelessly thrown in and the campus became even more divided.
A messy internal squabble became a disastrous racial shouting match. I can only hope the students pick a candidate who will not have resort to such outrageous tactics to settle their internal disputes.
I realize that any shmuck can make negative comments about the status quo and not provide alternatives for the future. Therefore, as a guide for the future, I will offer my humble suggestions.
SGA's multiple promises to deal with Sodexho have failed. Some time ago, SGA hailed an upcoming meeting with the corporate food giant to open up lines of communication (unfortunately often a buzz word meaning nothing but friendly chitchat will be accomplished).
At this meeting, students were allowed to ask very few questions before the Sodexho executives bailed from the information session.
After Matt Richman revealed Sodexho's seemingly racist hiring and promotion practices, I am puzzled as to why the liberal College administration under President Gitenstein was not up in arms and demanding some sort of an investigation.
Regardless of past failures, the new SGA must tackle student concerns with the widely disliked eating service. If I was president, I would make the College and Sodexho answer student concerns rather than ignore them.
SGA also needs to look into the huge number of splinter clubs which are forming. Based on minority groups or academic interests, these groups now represent fewer and fewer people and yet require more funds.
Moreover, some of these clubs perform the same functions as other clubs and are therefore redundant.
Just as SGA needs to question the administration's Sodexho policy, the Student Finance Board (SFB) needs to exercise greater freedom from administration control.
According a reliable source within SFB, the organization is required to fund child care and other services for the campus from the Student Activity Fund (SAF).
Unfortunately, the administration does not seem to understand the definition of SAF so I will say it again. The money is for the students' activities and nothing else.
We already have to pay exorbitant fees. Why should more of our funds be transferred to other areas?
The College also needs to stop relying on SFB to finance mandatory department-run trips. Students should never be required to go to a conference without sufficient funds from that specific department.
It is unfair to burden SFB and the student body with trips from which only one department will benefit.
I would also propose an investigation into the safety of some of the older buildings on campus.
I am not comfortable with putting students in buildings that are not structurally sound. We have seen over the past year that Norsworthy Hall's roof has caved in twice.
This is simply unacceptable. The new SGA president needs to fight for the safety and well-being of the students.
The Print Sense initiative is turning some heads as well this year. The idea of limiting students to 400 copies has made some students uneasy, especially those in heavy research majors. I think this initiative is ridiculous - raise our fees a little and buy some more paper and toner!
Print Sense makes very little sense to me. What next? Having a limit on the amount of water one can drink from the water fountains or how many times a person can use the toilet? Or how about a toll to walk into the student center?
The College gets enough of our money. They can tighten their belt and pay for some more paper instead of inconveniencing everyone on campus.
So, in closing, future leaders of SGA, please do something constructive this year. Stop bickering, stop forming cliques and work for the students who elected you.
There are a lot of issues out there that you can take on to better the campus.
(04/13/05 12:00pm)
Speech is a distinctively human characteristic that sets us apart from the other lesser animals that make up this earth. The first caveman grunts eventually developed into diverse languages that circumnavigated the globe, now only to be misspelled by kids on AOL Instant Messenger.
People have held the power of speech in high esteem since time immemorial and recognize its power.
From our founding fathers to the brave troops in Iraq, many have sacrificed everything for the right to speak his or her mind freely. Ben Franklin once stated that "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" and I am calling on my fellow citizens to be wary of liberalism's tightening grip on the freedom to speak and think your mind.
I am convinced that we have all complained about political correctness at one time or another. Whether liberal or conservative I do not think I have come across anyone who has agreed with the idea of saying what people want us to say to avoid offending them. It is not an American quality.
However the hated political correctness seems to have evolved (within its species of course) to a seemingly more acceptable word, "tolerance." On the outside tolerance is fine and good. The majority of people have no problem treating other people with respect and dignity regardless of their beliefs and preexisting conditions, myself included.
Unfortunately the way tolerance is used today is not what it seems to be. Instead of a creating an atmosphere of respect, "tolerance" has weakened our freedom of expression, putting us all in fear of reprisals. It has become a shape-shifting monster, at first appearing as a cute seemingly innocent creature with puppy dog eyes and then once our backs are turned, it morphs into a ferocious beast.
This beast called "tolerance" now dictates the speech pattern of many in this country, especially thanks to the tireless efforts of those within academia. The women and gender crowd has done its part trying their best to obliterate the words mankind and man (used when referring to humanity as a whole) from our vocabulary along with the generic "he."
These are just the start. Also threatened are any attempts to make generalizations about the sexes even if they are true. Despite numerous studies and simple common sense, some feminists refuse to accept that there may be ... get ready for a shock folks ... differences between men and women. What an outrageous statement! When the Harvard University President Larry Summers stated that one of the reasons he thought there were more men than women in the sciences and engineering was possible differences in "intrinsic aptitudes" there was uproar.
Even though he was not speaking on behalf of the institution and he had also added that "I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong," he was recently given a vote of no confidence from the Harvard faculty.
It appears that white males, especially, cannot say anything that could be considered as a slight toward women or minorities. The only exemptions I could find were Democratic politicians like Senator Hillary Clinton who made references to Gandhi being the guy "who pumped her gas" or Senator Robert Byrd who was a Klansman. If these government officials had an (R) next to their names, the media would be demanding their heads on a silver platter.
Also off the table are any "intolerant" statements against religions, except Judaism and Christianity of course. Christianity is the most targeted faith because its true believers dare to believe that there is only one way to go heaven.
While references to Christianity's "intolerance" and marred history in the Crusades, for example, are brought up and bemoaned ad nauseum; no one ever mentions the violence that accompanied the expansion of the Islamic caliphates.
Nor do they mention the countless hospitals, universities and governments which were founded on Christian principles or the thousands of impoverished and abused people who are fed, clothed, sheltered and nurtured by generous Christian volunteers and contributors.
The homosexual lobby in particular has found it prudent to attach itself to the liberal speech police group.
Among their contributions to the doctrine of "tolerance" include a whitewashing of the HIV/AIDS epidemic a terrible disease that is killing millions of people each year worldwide. Instead of using the term infected with AIDS they have changed it to living with AIDS as if it was a pet or a good friend.
I suppose they want to detach some of the stigma that HIV/AIDS patients receive and that's fine but in doing so they trivialize the diagnosis of certain death that the disease brings.
More serious however are the gay lobby's constant efforts to brand anyone who does not agree with them as some sort of a monstrous homophobe. If you are not for changing marriage's definition then you are a homophobe. If you think homosexuality is a sin, just like theft, murder, and adultery, then you are insensitive, intolerant (there is that word again) and a homophobe to boot.
Not all homosexuals are guilty of this smear campaign of course but some in the radical leadership has introduced a dogma of fear into our society.
This dogma of fear is encouraged and grows out of control in other areas as well. To provide an example, I will ask my readers to recall a column written by Jeff Pillar in The Signal in the beginning of the semester.
The columnist was arguing against the continued usage of affirmative action. His case was very good and arguments were strong, but he constantly had to cite his liberal credentials and assure the reader that he was not a conservative writer in disguise in an attempt to give his case more merit.
Case in point, why would he need to do this? Why could not his arguments stand on their own worth? You see my friends; the stigma created by the "intolerance" crowd is that only vicious racist conservatives are against affirmative action.
Pillar either inadvertently or purposefully was trying to distance himself from this "intolerance" stigma by consistently pointing out his liberal leanings which automatically preclude him from most accusations of "intolerance."
This atmosphere of fear and one-sided liberal speech control continues in the world of law as well. Continuing their crusade for radical social change, liberals in Canada passed a hate speech law in 2003. You now cannot say anything that could be construed to be hate speech against any minority group including homosexuals without the risk of being arrested and put on trial.
Religiously motivated "hate speech" like reading the Bible or the Koran is protected however. Yes my friends the holy Word of God is now considered "protected hate speech" in Canada. I wonder if I could be brought up on charges if I said I think we should have annexed that bothersome territory years ago.
Forgive me if I sound harsh, but if someone says something insulting, one does not need to go and change the laws pertaining to the freedom of speech because their feelings were hurt.
If someone calls me a guinea or a wop I should have the right to call them names back or be the better man and ignore them. Human speech is powerful but hurtful insults are only as powerful as you let them be. They are "sticks and stones" and nothing more.
As citizens of the Western world "tolerance" has left us in a terrible lurch. We are terrified. Terrified of offending someone, being offended, saying the wrong thing, taking the wrong side of an issue, of each other and ourselves. Frankly, it is disgusting.
In closing, say and think what you want without fear, this is America where we still have the freedom of speech. And if someone insults you, shrug it off; you do not need to be defined by another person's mean, hateful language.
(03/30/05 12:00pm)
It has been quite a couple weeks for The Signal, hasn't it? I have received quite a few angry letters in my tenure as a columnist, but the entire section lovingly dedicated against Mr. Carter has certainly set the record for liberal student outrage.
Ah yes, liberals angry that someone said something unpopular using faulty data.
Funny, I do not recall such a monumental response in The Signal from the same outraged students when CBS and Dan Rather's less-than-stellar journalism ethics came into question regarding President Bush's service record.
Regardless of the reliability of Carter's data, one thing he and I share are similar beliefs about moral values.
Moral values have been an issue of importance for centuries. Most recently, they played a prominent role in the re-election of President Bush.
The country has been faced with several decisions on moral values in recent weeks, with none as important or as controversial as the Terri Schiavo case.
Americans have been debating the fate of this Florida woman who suffered oxygen deprivation to her brain during a bout with an eating disorder 15 years ago and now remains under heavy care.
The decision whether to keep her on the feeding tube which sustains her life has been ongoing for several years and the courts have all reached similar verdicts.
Pull her feeding tube and let her die. It seems that even the religious right and both Bushes (Jeb and George W.) could not stop the decision to starve Schiavo to death. So much for those who think this country is becoming "Jesus Land."
Regardless of your position on this case, Schiavo's plight speaks to many political, moral and ethical dilemmas such as the treatment of incapacitated persons, states' rights and the right to die.
This case bothers me on many levels, because so many things just do not seem right. I am uncomfortable with the state ordering a person's feeding tube to be removed while close relatives plead for her life.
The idea that young children can be arrested for trying to bring the bedridden woman water to prolong her life irks me as well.
Politically, I am disturbed that only a few politicians from either party seem willing to speak out for or against this situation.
I suppose they prefer to whine and moan about budget cuts.
I am additionally outraged by husband Michael Schiavo's refusal to allow his wife Easter communion, a blatant infringement on her religious rights that is downright cruel and inhumane.
However, regardless of the rhetoric, at the end of the day we are talking about a person.
In several days, barring a miracle, Terri Schiavo will die, since her feeding tube has been removed for over a week and the litigation options to save her life have all but been exhausted.
As I type this article, this woman is living out her final days or even hours, dying from court-imposed starvation in the wake of a furious resistance mounted by her family and pro-life groups to save her.
Right now, we should all be asking ourselves, "Is this what Terri would have wanted?"
Her husband says yes although he had quite a different tone in 1992 (two years after the tragic incident that left her incapacitated) when he said on MSNBC "I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that."
He obviously seems to have changed his mind.
I think his girlfriend and two children out of wedlock with her might have something to do with his overwhelming desire to "follow out Terri's wishes" not to remain on life support.
Could it be that he is simply waiting out her death so that he could remarry?
The problem is there is neither any "living will" nor any solid evidence pertaining to Terri's wishes.
It is simply the word of Michael Schiavo against the words of her parents who insist that she never would have chosen to be allowed to die.
So to whom do we listen? Who we trust? The husband or the parents?
I will tell you who I would trust.
The parents have no ulterior motives to keep her alive other than their love for their daughter and their convictions that Schiavo's unnatural demise is wrong.
The husband, on the other hand, has a new life and has had accusations leveled against him by nurses and family members that he never spent time with her, successfully denied her therapy and eagerly awaited her death.
This man's story changes continually and, by many accounts, he has hardly been at her bedside through this whole ordeal.
Yet, I could be wrong. Schiavo could have wanted to die rather than remain in an incapacitated state and now it looks like she will be getting her wish.
But what if the courts were wrong and Schiavo's inaudible shrieks when her feeding tube was removed from her throat amounted to a plea of "I want to live!" like the family says.
We would have condemned an innocent woman to cruelly die of starvation.
The president said in these cases "we must err on the side of life" and I agree wholeheartedly.
The decision for death is the only thing you cannot take back once it has been carried out.
That choice should never be made lightly. I pray that we made the right decision.
(03/23/05 12:00pm)
Being openly conservative on a liberal campus is a strange experience. On one hand, I have found that to my delight many people here are much more conservative then they realize. They go with the flow because it is popular, but in 10 years many will consider liberalism to be a college phase.
On the other hand, now it is tough to be a conservative. The most discouraging thing for me is that the university, the place that is supposed to be the center of open exchange in our society, is dominated by one point of view on everything.
Some right wing columns printed in The Signal do not create an equal open exchange when the majority of professors and the administration is hopelessly liberal.
If you don't believe me, start taking a poll of their beliefs on gay marriage or who they voted for in the last election. It will not be proportional to the general citizen body by any means.
Call this "one view" philosophy whatever you want, but if you contradict it in any way you will get one of three responses. You may get the shocked, "No, he couldn't be that ignorant! He's in college!," or the classic angry "You must be stupid to believe that!" or my personal favorite, the condescending "Well you can have your little beliefs, but don't talk about them here."
These are precisely the types of reactions one gets when they question the pseudo-scientific dogma of evolution.
Now before my many biology friends start foaming at the mouth, let me clarify what I mean.
It has been well-established that species make changes within their species through natural selection (microevolution); no one is disputing that. What I cannot accept scientifically or religiously is that all life on earth came to being on its own (macroevolution).
This planet is ridiculously complex. Every organism from the tiniest bacteria to the blue whale are made up of a multitude of elaborate bodily systems all working together.
Take the human brain, for example. The brain is insanely complex with trillions of nerve connections all firing at once. Your brain can take words and process them into mental images, works the heart and respiratory system without a conscious input and performs countless other functions.
This is one of only a dozen organs in the human body that all work together in almost perfect cohesion. Think for a moment back to biology class and recall the intricate, ordered functions of each cell or better yet each cell organelle. Now tell me all of this was formed by chance.
Forgive me if I find the idea of countless atoms colliding randomly with raw energy to form intricately ordered cells and even eventually an ordered structured human being a little difficult to believe.
Adding to my skepticism are several scientific laws that seem to fly in macroevolution's face.
All systems and organisms tend to go to disorder not order (entropy). The law of biogenetics states that non-living things cannot give birth to living things. Rocks nor floating particles of hydrogen, carbon and oxygen cannot make cells, or even under the right circumstances with manmade design.
Nevertheless, I think the most damning piece of evidence is the pure numerical probability against a random genesis. Proteins, the building blocks of life, have never been shown to form randomly, the chances of 20 amino acids forming randomly are 1 X 10 to the 40,000th power (one with 40,000 zeros after it).
Macroevolutionists counter these laws and statistics by referring to the age of the world and saying that over billions of years anything could happen.
However, they have pulled the proverbial wool over all of our eyes. There is no way to definitely prove how old the earth is. The best scientists can do is guess based upon half lives (decay rates) of elements and suppose how old the solar system is.
Furthermore, macroevolution cannot be repeated or observed by placing it outside of the scientific method it claims to spring from. Scientists cannot evolve things nor can we observe any substantive changes that cause organisms to change species. Any of the rare changes that we see in populations result from microevolution.
I could go on and on about the scientific hurdles macroevolution has to ignore to legitimate itself.
However, the sad truth is that few in the "recognized" scientific community question its validity despite the volumes of evidence written against it. Their life work depends on this theory being true.
If macroevolution were proven to be a fairytale tomorrow think of all of the biologists, anthropologists and evolutionists whose research would be useless. I suspect this is one of the motivations for the silence within the scientific community; they want and need it to be true.
Now we are left with a dilemma. If the objections of scientists are correct, evolution has deserted science and become the very thing I put my faith and trust in; a belief, or a religion if you will.
As we have seen, it does not need to answer to the scientific method or follow common sense logic. It just is. Currently, it is the unquestioned dogma over much of academia.
I see this theory also being used to assault God's place as Creator. Although evolutionary apologists like the Catholic Church try to say that we can reconcile God and macroevolution, I disagree. If evolution is true and we all evolved from particles randomly smashing into others, where is God in that equation?
Evolutionists hardly ever mention his name in their research, nor do biologists search for his contributions to the development of life.
If you write an evolution paper with God as the Creator, you will be laughed out of the Science Complex at the College.
My friends, you cannot check your beliefs at the door of the science building - that's not how a belief system works. You either believe it all of the time or not at all. Life was either created or randomly generated.
The entire argument comes down to this: were we intelligently designed by a loving Creator or did all life spontaneously evolve from rocks? You choose.
(03/02/05 12:00pm)
Years ago, the Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de Leon explored the forests of Florida for the famed Fountain of Youth.
The water from this fountain was supposed to cure all ailments and ensure that the drinker lived forever.
To make a long historical narrative short, Ponce de Leon and his men never found the fountain; instead, many ended up impaled upon the spears of natives.
Unless some evil CEO at Disney World holds the secret of eternal life, I think it is fair to say that Ponce de Leon's expedition was a futile one.
Yet today in our "enlightened" age we still follow many of the same fables.
The names have changed and we have moved into the realm of science to attain our own mythical Fountain of Youth.
The movement to back embryonic stem cell research is heading the human race in the same direction as Ponce de Leon's infamous expedition. It can only lead to failure and disaster.
Embryonic stem cell research is an ethical problem no matter what supporters say.
Stem cells are formed in the early stages of human development when a new human being is growing inside the mother's womb.
Although the developing human being has long been an acceptable target for groups like "Planned Death Hood," some members of the scientific community have joined this bandwagon of death in the name of progress. They clone and rip apart human embryos to serve in their experiments.
Many people across the world, including myself, are very concerned about the human cost of this "research method."
I believe life begins at conception and at this point a person is formed.
The Bible states in Pslam 139:13 "For it was you (God) who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made."
I believe all human life is sacred and under our laws every person deserves the right to live a life full of dignity.
Although my readers may not ascribe to my beliefs, I challenge you to look at the issue this way.
Everyone who reads this paper was once an embryo and you could have been subject to this same treatment.
Unfortunately, many in the scientific community and their liberal supporters appear to suffer the same side effects as those who have attended far too many Star Trek conventions.
This can be observed by their confusion when differentiating objective reality from pure science fiction.
There is an old saying that warns we all should be careful when someone offers us something that seems too good to be true, because it probably is.
Although scientists are right in stating that the hopes for regenerative medicine are very high with embryos, they leave out certain facts.
First, adult stem cells have close to as much, if not as much, promise as embryonic ones.
Additionally, embryonic stem cells have many side effects.
Test subjects (like mice) often come down with unexplainable tumors.
Even worse for this research's prospects is the fact that the body can reject the implanted stem cells much like an incompatible organ.
Despite the naysayers, President Bush has actually taken the most scientifically promising field of study and backed it with federal funding.
The president backs funding for adult stem cells.
Taken from placentas or umbilical cords at birth or a number of other areas in an adult human body, these types of cells have shown much potential.
People with debilitating spinal conditions have gotten up out of their hospital beds and walked around.
Although they were not fully cured, the adult stem cells implanted into their spines greatly improved their chances of leading normal lives.
Other successes in various areas of the body are numerous.
So far, adult stem cells have treated 56 different diseases or conditions while embryonic stem cells have treated no one.
Adult stem cells from various parts of the body have treated patients with Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, immune system disorders, spinal cord injuries diabetes and more. The list goes on and on.
Despite years of failure, certain state governments like New Jersey and California have seen fit to overlook the federal ban on embryonic stem cell research and their own enormous budget problems to fund this ethically suspect exploration to the tune of $400 million and $3 billion, respectively.
I ask with huge budget deficits, which Democrats now seem to care about only when Republicans are in office, why are we funding a study that has produced no results over the past decade and is ethically objectionable to most people?
Furthermore, liberals, why are you disobeying your sovereign lords at the United Nations who have banned human cloning worldwide, the very practice that would be used in each of these studies?
Science must be answerable to morality and common sense. Embryonic stem cell research is neither.
It is morally repulsive, critically flawed and has a more promising alternative in adult stem cells.
(02/16/05 12:00pm)
After three years at the College I have noticed that things tend to happen in a predictable manner. The seasons change, rushes for fraternities and sororities occur, the administration ignores students and their concerns and "The Vagina Monologues" is once again performed.
Yes, just as sure as the leaves will change colors and liberals will whine and moan over the mere utterance of anything slightly resembling conservative thought, "The Vagina Monologues" will be performed at the College. The signs of the coming of "vagina season" are unmistakable.
The campus becomes littered with obscene references, shockingly anatomically correct diagrams and advertising flyers that border on the pornographic.
As an aside, you would think that someone in the administration would have the insight to see the danger these advertising campaigns would have on prospective students as they tour the campus with their conservative family members.
I, for one, would think twice about sending my child to an institution that seems to support its students' crass desires to chalk their genitalia and obscenity all over campus.
Regardless of the play's questionable advertising tactics, I must say I was pleasantly surprised by the acting talent, emotion and commitment that each member of the group showed. Women in Leadership and Learning (WILL) did an excellent job putting on the show and they should be proud of themselves.
The play was intended to be a tool for empowering and protecting women, but I think its existence can be used to raise and empower men as well.
"The Vagina Monologues" rarely discusses males and how they affect women and female sexuality. I think this is an unfortunate oversight. Moreover, there was some subtle men-hating throughout the play.
I think this point should be elaborated upon and explained because even if the portrayal of some feminists as misandrists is accurate, in some cases I feel that men's actions have made such feelings warranted.
Gentlemen, we've blown it in many ways. Many men constantly treat women as objects. Sometimes we only pay attention to certain parts of their bodies and our conversations are filled with sexual objectification.
We constantly bombard ourselves with degrading and immoral images of women. Our favorite shows are dominated by seemingly brainless half-naked women and many members of our sex are hopelessly addicted to pornography, sinking them deeper into the depths of sexual depravity.
Some of us complain that our culture is becoming too sexualized, but we do nothing about it. In fact, we often enjoy it.
Men have warped their minds into oblivion and at the same time have stepped down from our most sacred positions, that of a husband and father. Ephesians 5:31 speaks of a man joining to his wife and the two becoming one flesh, forming a spiritual family.
Psychological evidence has proven time and time again that the healthiest children come from families with a mother and a father in a loving relationship, yet this dynamic is becoming rare.
One third of all children today are born to unwed mothers with the prospect of being cared for by their biological father being slim to none.
Women are left alone without physical and emotional assistance to care for their children, sinking single mothers into the depths of poverty.
Divorce has also caused much damage to the future citizens of this country where nearly half of the marriages end in failure. Many men are abandoning their own children and wives for the sake of convenience.
We are abandoning women to seek the unthinkable - abortion - because they see no way to care for their children. Men of the world, you too have a hand in the genocide of our infants in the name of "women's liberation."
Fellow males, these atrocities are occurring partly because of your compliance or apathy.
Our civilization is on the brink of social collapse with its moral fabric being stretched to a breaking point as many men sit on the sidelines with their eyes glued to the television screen.
For all of you who have not seen it, the play is part of a worldwide educational campaign whose purpose is to end violence against women.
Several key monologues throughout the show told unspeakable horrors committed against women by men. In one instance, a Bosnian woman was repeatedly raped and brutalized by several men. This story sickened me. Why didn't one of them stop the others or speak up?
This masculine silence to female oppression is why this movement invented Vagina Warriors, because so few people were standing up to these atrocities. Women have taken a traditionally male role of warrior and made it feminine because so few men were sticking up for the oppressed.
Throughout history men have been the warriors standing up to threats and defeating the enemies of our families and our people. I feel that it is high time we reclaim our rightful positions.
This is one man who wants to stand up for women and family. We need to reclaim the world from the damage human sin, apathy and radical progressivism has done to it.
(02/09/05 12:00pm)
Occasionally when I am searching the Internet for news and information I come across some world event that completely nauseates and infuriates me. For many of my critics, it must be similar to when all of you open The Signal each week and find that I have written yet another column.
In all seriousness, my fury and disgust this week did not originate over discovering an opposing viewpoint to the Social Security issue or a debate over whether another historical figure may or may not have been gay, but that humans refuse to act against evil.
British statesman Edmund Burke stated, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." And I firmly believe it. This refusal to act in the face of evil has plagued mankind since its creation and continues today in the halls of the United Nations.
The United Nations was created to ensure that world wars and holocausts never occurred again.
Recently, under the watch of Kofi Annan and his cabal of corruption, the UN has been more than content to ignore genocide and take bribes from tyrants like Saddam Hussein (which warrants another article).
This week the United Nations under pressure from the United States grudgingly sent an investigation to the embattled Darfur region of Sudan and determined that no genocide had taken place there.
This appraisal of the situation is simply shocking. Apparently it is no longer genocide when an entity supports the murder, rape, pillage and destruction of scores of villages of people of opposing racial, religious and/or political persuasions.
To give you a sense of the destruction, an estimated 1.8 million people have been forced from their homes as their villages were destroyed. These suffering refugees now live in camps where people are dying in droves. More than 70,000 people are believed to have died from hunger and disease since March 2004.
The evil forces of radical Islam have struck again and the United Nations has allowed them to get away with it. The National Islamic Front, which rules Sudan, and Islamic janjaweed militias, carry out genocide under the banner of jihad against the Christian Sudanese and black Muslims who are denizens of the Darfur region.
Arab Muslims have killed an estimated 2 million in cold blood over two decades in a Hitleresque "Islamization" campaign in an attempt to "purify" their country from blacks and non-Muslims.
This is quite possibly one of the most open and shut cases of genocide in recent memory, yet the United Nations refuses to classify it as such for one reason:they would have to actually do something.
The United Nations has the power and the responsibility under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to respond to acts of aggression and intervene through sanctions and even full-scale military invasion.
Not surprisingly, no such actions are planned for the butchers of Sudan. Under the protocol of international law the UN and the European "Appeasement" Union have encouraged the trial of those responsible in the World Court at the Hague.
The wussy European demands must have generated a great deal of laughter from the Sudanese government as they refuse to allow an international court to try any of its citizens.
So we are back to square one. Sudan will not come clean about its genocidal activities nor will the UN press them to. The UN does not have the guts to ask its member nations to call genocide by its proper name or order a military response because it will inform the world that they have lost control over the situation.
This tragic dilemma has many things in common with the massacres in Rwanda in 1994. As world leaders debated whether to classify the conflict in central Africa as genocide a half a million people were killed in savage butchery.
The United Nations and anyone who supports them need to comprehend that evil people and corrupt nations have no respect for international laws and diplomatic protocols.
Evil people will ignore them and use force to get what they want.
Instead of cowering behind the frail World Courts and international agreements, it is high time the world realized that radicals who slaughter innocents in the name of religion must be dealt with by strong, concerted military action.
Force is the only thing the janjaweed miltia and the Sudanese government will listen to, and the world should give them a taste of their own medicine and while we are at it, ram it down their throats.
The film "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" has a scene where Tolkien's heroes are besieged by an army of orcs and all hope seems lost.
In a disheartened state King Theoden remarks "So much death, what can men do against such reckless hate?" to which Aragorn responds, "Ride out with me. Ride out and meet them."
This is how I feel we as a human race must respond to evil, charging out to meet and defeat those who kill, rape, starve and maim their fellow man.
Nonetheless, many sad and pathetic representatives of the human race cower behind their walls with their appeasement, cowardice, stupidity and apathy, shutting their eyes and covering their ears not wanting to see or hear what is really happening.
(02/02/05 12:00pm)
Many people worry about the future, which, of course, is natural. Concerns over obtaining a job, getting health insurance, staying healthy and finding safe environments to raise their children are on the minds of many people, including college students.
Another future concern, which has garnered controversy these past weeks following President Bush's reelection, is the future of Social Security. While we college students are nowhere near the retirement age, many of our parents are, and we will soon enter the workforce and pay for their Social Security checks.
The transition between generations will not be as smooth as those in the past, unfortunately. Simply put, Social Security is in trouble. There is no "lockbox" or vault in Washington filled with Social Security money because it is a "pay-as-you-go" system. Taxes collected by the government are immediately spent, with any surplus going to a treasury fund which both Democrats and Republicans have methodically looted.
To make matters worse, the number of retirees dependent on the system is growing and the number of workers is shrinking, making benefits difficult to ensure for future generations. Right now, according to the Social Security Administration, 3.3 workers support one retiree, but by 2031 the ratio will be 2.1 to one.
Over the next 25 years the elderly population in will rise from 37 million to 71 million people and by the time our generation retires in the 2040s, benefits will be significantly reduced by 27 percent.
Considering the fact that many seniors rely on Social Security payments as their primary source of income, neglecting Social Security is a risk we cannot afford to take.
Bush has decided to tackle this issue head-on with a market-based solution. His still unspecified plan allows workers (if they so choose) to invest a percentage of their Social Security contribution to a private account to generate interest.
I think this is a great idea. The way to increase prosperity across economic lines is to strengthen the economy by putting money back in the hands of the people in which it belongs.
By giving people more control over their own tax dollars with federal guidelines to prevent risky investing, I am convinced that we will begin to balance the system and solve the impending threat.
In a frightfully predictable manner, the Democratic Party once again attempted to stonewall the president's plan and neglected to mention a better competing offer. The lack of a cohesive or non-contradictory plan caused them to lose the last election, but that fact does not seem to be getting through.
All Democrats seem to do is try to scare people by throwing around the big, bad word "privatization," like they do when it comes to issues such as education and healthcare.
True to their elitist socialist rhetoric, Democrats on Capitol Hill have decided to put themselves between the financial empowerment of the American people because, in their thinking, the American people cannot be trusted with their own money.They need government to spend it for them.
In a futile effort to regain the spotlight, Democratic politicians have been stating that there is no crisis. Although they are correct to point out that the shortages will not occur for another 40 years, they do not seem to be concerned with fixing the problem now. They are instead content to leave this problem for future administrations, much like they accused Bush of doing regarding budget deficits!
Senators like Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer have been leading the "Bush is a Liar" anti-Social Security reform charge. Conveniently, they seem to forget their own words from 1998 to 1999 when they both stood with President Clinton and reinforced his insistence that we "Save Social Security First." But suddenly, when a Republican is in the White House, Social Security is not a problem at all.
The only excuse I can provide for this rank hypocrisy is that the Democratic Party is in trouble. Having lost its hold on government and its support among many of the American people, it now desperately clings to its last traditionally Democratic issue, Social Security.
The Republicans have reformed troubled institutions like education, healthcare and now Social Security, inserting their ideas into these arenas and winning people over to their side.
Whether No Child Left Behind, the senior citizen prescription plan and tort reform and Bush's Social Security reforms are the right choices will always be up for discussion and should be debated, but the opposition has yet to wake up to the reality that issues like education and Social Security are actually in need of serious reform.
While he has been far from a perfect leader and less than popular with many circles, Bush has aggressively endeavored to solve many of America's problems and that's more than many politicians can say. We need to look past the political hype and take action on key concerns that will definitely affect our futures.
(01/26/05 12:00pm)
To begin, I would like to wish my readers a belated happy New Year. Around this time many media outlets, award shows and radio programs dedicate a broadcast or a certain time period to reviewing the best and worst of the year. Last year was a memorable year in many respects, especially politically.
Therefore, I think it would be a great disservice to forget all of the events that took place so I have compiled my own list.
Now, of course, this list is done with a different style than MTV's degenerate awards shows. Instead of featuring tacky overplayed music, ridiculously out-of-touch celebrities and immoral behavior, I will countdown the three biggest liberal debacles of 2004 in no particular order.
Defeat at the Polls
Unfortunately for our liberal friends and readers, 2004 will be remembered as the year of the re-election of the most hated man in recent history, George W. Bush. John Kerry's embrace of both sides of every issue, Michael Moore's propaganda and lies, Dan Rather and CBS's breeches of journalistic integrity, MTV's Vote (for Kerry) or Die programs and thousands of wacko leftist protesters could not stop the Republicans from retaining the White House and strengthening their hold on the Senate and House of Representatives. The American public spoke and the liberals lost.
Yet, Nov. 3 saw many a distraught person asking, "How could this be?" Democrats presently make the excuse that they did not present their platform and values well enough to American people, resulting in their loss.
I strongly disagree. I think if more people actually knew the Democratic platform of "Big Government, Weak Values," Ohio would not be an issue - Bush would have won in a landslide.
The Senator Has No Clothes
One of the most popular figures at the Democratic National Convention was not John Kerry, but rather an aspiring senatorial candidate from Illinois, Barack Obama. Obama's much acclaimed speech, however, could not overcome the almost unprecedented post-convention drop in approval for Kerry.
This aside, members of the media and others I have spoken to have likened Obama's rise to the emergence of some messianic figure. I admire the story of his family's struggle and his humility when dealing with overzealous members of the media wanting to toot his horn, but let me also make another thing clear; any candidate with a (D) next to his name could win in Illinois. He only needed to win heavily Democratic Chicago and his opponent Alan Keyes, thrown in at the last minute, was ill prepared to match him in funds.
Despite the ease of his win, I agreed with much of his convention speech. He (inadvertently) dismissed John Edwards' divisive Marxist alliteration of "Two Americas" and also stated "People don't expect government to solve their problems."
Right words, wrong convention! I believe Obama's words would have been better suited in the Republican Party where the solution to every issue at hand is not to create another government-run social program.
So what is Obama? Is he a Republican in disguise? Or a na?ve newcomer who was not properly educated in the ways of the Democratic Party or just another politician who will say anything to get elected? You decide.
Crooks Who Came Out of the Closet
New Jersey has had the "distinction" of having the first openly gay governor, James McGreevy. Due to his sexuality, however, he insists that he was forced to resign to protect his family.
Right.
My friends, our governor did not resign because of his sexual discrepancies or orientation. I would venture to say that many politicians have been sexual deviants and have not resigned because of it.
Look at the poster child for his own party, Bill Clinton! Clinton clearly committed adultery and lied to the American public, may I add, under oath (which cost him his law license and a hefty fine), yet many Americans actually still admire the president.
Let's face it - the citizens and lawmakers of New Jersey did not storm Trenton with torches and pitchforks to overthrow a gay governor.
McGreevy's explanation simply does not hold water.
McGreevy did not resign because he was "a gay American." He resigned because he was a crook.
His administration has been rocked with scandal from his tax-payer financed vacations to Ireland and Puerto Rico, his state police superintendent appointee with clear mob ties, the Charles Kushner debacle and finally the elevation of his woefully unqualified boyfriend, Golan Cipel, to head of New Jersey Homeland Security.
McGreevy put the entire state at risk to keep his former lover's mouth shut by awarding him a job.
This fiasco has been another example of the out-of-control corruption in this state which has marred our standing in the country and the world.
Last year is a year Democrats and liberals would love to forget, but the question remains.
Will they learn from their mistakes?
Only time will tell.
(11/17/04 12:00pm)
The Middle East has been a place of turmoil for over a half a century now. At times during Intifadas and uprisings one could turn on Fox News or CNN and see caf?s in flames, buses bombed, dead Palestinians in coffins being carried through the streets by angry grieving mobs and Israeli and Palestinian ambulances bringing people to hospitals with sirens blaring.
Through these times of turmoil one figure stands out in my mind - Yasser Arafat. Israeli Prime Ministers have come and gone with the democratic process, but Arafat was there all along, presiding over the disaster and carnage as a so-called representative of his people.
Arafat is now dead. I think I join the rest of the civilized world in saying "good riddance."
I am now going to part with the talking heads of the mainstream media who can't get themselves to enunciate the word "terrorist" in describing Arafat. Arafat was a cold-blooded terrorist, not a freedom fighter or a patriot worthy of our praise or admiration.
For the past 35 years this man presided over the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), a terrorist organization of its own accord. What else do you call an organization that embraces within its walls Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad?
In addition to the band of murderous thugs it counts as allies, the PLO's charter states that it will not rest until the influence of Zionists (a buzzword for Israeli Jews) is removed from Palestine.
Moreover the Fatah resistance (terrorist) group he personally founded has been responsible for dozens of attacks on Israeli citizens and property. He has also been under suspicion for personally leading the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, another terrorist group.
This man is responsible in part for the murders of the Israeli athletes at Munich and scores of other attacks from the 1960s until today.
Arafat has the blood of thousands of Israelis on his hands, not to mention the scores of Palestinians he sent marching to their deaths to support his sick and twisted ideology.
This might be tough for Palestinian sympathizers to swallow, but take these facts into account: Forbes Magazine ranked Yasser Arafat No. 6 in its 2003 edition of Kings, Queens and Despots. He was worth anywhere from $300 million to $3 to 4 billion depending on the statistics.
This man presided over one of the most destitute regions of the world and yet possessed millions of dollars with no clear means of acquiring such wealth.
Like every good third-world despot, he siphoned money from international aid organizations intended for his people and hid it in personal bank accounts.
A true man of the people, wasn't he? His people live in squalor in refuge camps, without jobs, without running water or electricity and sometimes without food while he lived off their backs.
What's especially disgusting about this situation is that while young men and women were preparing to blow themselves and others to smithereens in Israeli delicatessens or dance halls, unelected demagogues like Arafat wrote checks to their families for their "noble sacrifice." Arafat fed off his people's desperation and poverty.
Instead of engaging the Israelis and the Arab nations in legitimate peaceful political discourse, distributing funds to the needy and encouraging peace, Arafat chose to continue the status quo of violence and jihad.
In 1993, President Clinton and Prime Minister Rabin offered him the free Palestinian state he wanted. He turned his back on them. Again in 2000 he was offered independence for Palestine by Prime Minister Ehud Barak, but again refused the arrangement.
The world community, however, bestowed upon this monster the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994. I don't know what's worse: the fact that he won the award or that some thought him worthy of such an award.
In his final days, as he lay dying in a French hospital, Arafat was visited by Jacques Chirac, the prime minister of France. Chirac would probably defend himself by saying it was some sort of state visit.
I am not surprised that our enemy-in-disguise, France, would recognize such a man as worthy of an official meeting with its chief of state, but this one point needs to be brought to light - Arafat was never elected by his people and ruled like a tyrant for the past 30 years.
The Europeans and the worldwide liberal community wonder why we Americans are so disengaged from their concerns.
Well, my friends, when you embrace terrorist despots like Arafat and give him awards, what do you expect from us other than complete disregard and disgust for you?
Tyrannical demagogues like Arafat have been living off the human race like leeches since time immemorial. They whip their own people into a hate- filled frenzy, blaming all of their problems on others, and wage brutal unending wars while lining their own pockets at the expense of their people.
Yet there are still some brainwashed lunatics who will hail Arafat as a freedom fighter rather than a terrorist.
The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist in my book is that a freedom fighter is one who fights legitimate foreign aggression or oppression, will never target the innocent and will lay down his arms as soon as his goal has been achieved.
Arafat did none of these things. He deliberately encouraged violence against a people who desperately want peace. He ordered the slaughter of thousands of innocents and he never once stopped in his radical call for jihad.