Konservative Korner

Something Smells Like Rotting Corpses in Ukraine

2006-12-17T01:59:00.000-05:00

Ukraine has become known for a new tourist attraction for the ultra-rich high society: stem cell injections. This is the new collagen injections. . . no, it's bigger and better (and costs a whole lot more, to the tune of $24,000 per treatment). People, who are so vain, actually receive embryonic stem cell injections in their face and lips because it makes the skin seem softer and younger. This is just weird, taking parts of young children to make yourself look prettier for couple of months, and then its back to the Ukraine for another injection.
Reports from across the Ukraine have new mothers complaining that their infant children are being stolen by hospitals who claim the children died shortly after birth. Perhaps this wouldn't seem so strange as infants do on occasion die, but the hospitals always keep the infants body, never allowing the parents to bury their children. So far, 300+ women have come forward to complain, resulting in a governmental investigation of just one hospital. A governmental inquiry led to a forensic pathologist to exhume 30 children, in which an aid worker leaked to other groups. Disgustingly, the children's brains and organs were removed prior to burial, sometimes the children were decapitated or had limbs severed (possibly to get to the bone marrow). The question is, were did the body parts go?
The public outrage over this discovery led to the government allowing a more in depth investigation. However, this investigation seems to be derailed. A lead investigator working for the chief prosecutor's office, Irina Bogomolova, has been removed from the case after asking for the investigation to be expanded to other hospitals. Corruption seems to be deeply rooted (imagine that, corruption in Eastern Europe, who would've thought) and "I suspect there is a lot of bribery going on, right up to highest levels,"said Ms. Bogomolova.
Is there anything people won't do for money? I can't imagine a system worse than where people purposely kill infants just to harvest their body parts, while expecting mothers are left in agony. There has been a question as to how clinics managed to get enough stem cells for their injections (I guess business is really booming) for years. This is not the first investigation into reports of infants being stolen, but the first was halted in 2003 for lack of evidence. The video of the bodies may have been covered up if not leaked by that brave aid worker, and we need to take a deep look at just where our society could end up. And don't say, well we can stop ourselves before we get to be that bad. We have slipped into mediocrity, and once there, you can only keep falling.

But what on earth is wrong with humans playing God?

2006-12-13T18:30:00.000-05:00

This is a quote from Minette Marrin, a news commentator for the Sunday Times in England concerning the use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) commonly used in fertility clinics throughout the world. This process allows the parents to create the usual batch of test tube babies and then genetically test the embryo. These tests are to allow parents to choose what sex of a child they want, even to allow parents to create a child for the purpose of using its umbilical cord blood to help another sibling with a serious illness. PGD is even used to 'eliminate' embryos which have genes scientist think might lead to cancer at some indeterminable time in the future. And who knows what effects this process will have of removing a single cell for this process from an embryo at this young age.
Minette was "dazzled by the inventiveness and compassion" of the PGD process and said "It will be easier and better in every way to get rid of a tiny collection of cells." I have a hard time following this logic (or lack there of). Imagine a couple which is having trouble conceiving goes to a fertility clinic. What they could not do naturally, science does in a lab and a scientist, which the family will never meet, decides which embryo will be chosen to be their child and which will be left to die on the counter.
Where does the madness stop? Now researchers are looking for chances of disseases which could occur in the person's middle ages! One person had the scientist screen the embryos for an arthritis gene which only has a 20% chance of developing! And don't forget cancer, which scientist think a gene is responcible for only 5% of all cases of breast cancer. Let's be carefull of this practice that has developed in Britain, because we don't know where it will end.
For example, there is the lady whose doctor tried to pressure her into having an abortion when in the 35th week of pregnency, her baby was diagnosed with Down syndrome. That is just a week or two from popping out of the oven, and could already live without trouble outside of the womb! But the doctor only talked of the hardships with raising a disabled child, neer once mentioning how many families say a disabled child has finally opened their eyes to what love truely is (and by the way, is it morally right to kill a person because it causes you a percieved inconenience in the future? Try the logic to that out and I could kill anyone I wanted). But, it gets worse than that. 62% of children with Down syndrome are diagnosed in the womb, and sadly, 92% of those children are killed. And it gets worse.
Over 20 babies have been killed in the third trimester because they were diagnosed with club feet in the womb. Four others killed in the third trimester because they were diagnosed with webbed feet or fingers. And 12 others were killed in the third trimester because they were diagnosed with a cleft palate and dwarfism. All of these, except dwarfism, can be cured with basic and fairly common surgery. And the little person! It's a perfectly healthy child, just a little smaller than usual. The devil has to be smiling over all of this. And that is why it is NOT ok for humans to play God, because man is too ignorant to see the consequences of their power. And some people, like Mrs. Marrin, bask in this ignorance.

Has the Left Defeated any Chance of Saving Darfur?

2006-12-11T14:02:00.000-05:00

Urgent help has been needed in Darfur for years, but it seems they will go without help for many more years. I can't help but feel the very same people who want help in Darfur have made it impossible for any nation to risk the attempt. In Darfur we have a humanitarian crisis, a fact the Left likes to bring up because they 'care' about other people and it makes them feel good about themselves. The media only complains but offers no real resolutions. Heck, half of the time they do not report the information correctly.
What is going on over there? Plain and simple: the government is paying militias to go into Darfur and destroy the local population. This is a military campaign, not some random group of fighters causing havoc, but large groups of soldiers causing ethnic cleansing. It seems to me the only way to answer a military action is with another military action. But at the same time, these same people on the left decry military intervention on the whole.
Lets face it, the UN is emasculated and can not solve any real problems (yet have no trouble with made up ones like global warning, which scientists now see cows causing more problems that cars). So that leaves the African Union, which can not (or I should say will not) give the resources to control the situation. That leaves us, the US, to step in. Now, America does have some good record with humanitarian interventions. That is, until the media steps in.
Its amazing how the people who cry the loudest for us to get involved and get public opinion behind them, then destroy any chance of America to succeed by instantly driving down public opinion. Take Somalia for example. For months we had pictures of starving people in our homes every night, until Black Hawk Down. Suddenly, it appears all of the staring people disappeared because I never saw another one for the rest of the year. But, we had instant reports of 18 dead soldiers, instant painful interviews with widows and parents and children who missed their loved ones and the media cried to get us out of Somalia. And public opinion started to change and Clinton paid close attention to those numbers and knew what to do to save face.
The only way to solve the conflict is to eliminate the Janjaweed militias and even the uniformed Sudanese army in Darfur, and it may be necessary to remove the corrupt government which kills its own people (boy this sounds awfully familiar to Iraq). That entails a military campaign.
As James Whetzel puts it, "Darfur is doomed because the very people calling for the United States to save the people of that region are the same ones willing to leave the people of Iraq to wither and die on the vine. What will happen if we do commit to stopping the atrocity in Darfur and something goes wrong? Or the whole process takes longer than one season of the hottest new fall TV show, whose head will the media call for? Will we get reports of an unbeatable rebel insurgency? How long until the natives get restless and call for an exit strategy in Darfur?"

How Do You Defeat an Ideology When No One Fights

2006-12-06T22:41:00.000-05:00

Somalia: Sheik Hussein Barre Rage in southern Somalia, who also serves as the chairman of the Islamic courts, has stated that in the town of Bulo Burto, you will be beheaded if you do not pray towards Mecca five times during the day. During prayer times, all shops are expected to be closed as well. If you are caught not praying, you "will definitely be beheaded according to Islamic law." "As Muslims we should practice Islam fully, not in part, and that is what our religion enjoins us to do." - Fox News
Wow. How do you defeat an ideology which leads to this type of law? Actions do speak louder than words, for words are useless in today's society. Say something about the Somali town and you are denounced as a racist or trying to impose your beliefs on someone else. Yes, it is so-o-o terrible that I believe killing someone for missing a prayer is too harsh. Shame on me. I should be reeducated to believe everything is totally relative, there is no good or bad, nor right or wrong. If you think that's the case, please go to this town and don't pray. Let's see you preach relativism to the local Sheik.
Will anyone stand up for what is right? Why is this radical Islam spreading so fast? (See first question) Look at the world from 600-900 A.D. Islam spread from Saudi Arabia all the way across northern Africa, even taking over Spain and parts of France in this short period of time. Then take 900-1300 A.D. Islam spread down the west coast of Africa and all the way through northern India (and it was not by peace. Notice the Hindu Kush Valley in India. It literally means "Kill Hindu" because thousands of Indians died on forced marches across the mountains to be sold as slaves in the Islamic markets.). Who would dare stand up to this? See the Crusades. And look at how they are demonized. Some have called it Europes first "imperialistic war." Just imagine a map in which the entire Middle East, West Asia, North Africa, Spain, parts of the Balkans and Greece were taken in just a few hundred years. Now imagine the areas of Spain and parts of curent Israeli coast taken and advances halted in the Balkans. Yes, it seems who was imperialistic.
Is that what we are afraid of? Will we be demonized in history for "imposing" our values on people? If the same liberal ideology is in charge, yes it appears we will be. But it is precisely becasue the liberal ideology is in charge now that we do nothing, nor say nothing. Hopefully history will know exactly where the blame should fall.

Dirty Politics and True Pedophelia

2006-11-26T22:44:00.000-05:00

I need to stop reading the news, it just keeps making me angry. This time in Ashville, North Carolina, local Democrat activist Andrew Reed was sentenced to 10 to 12 months in jail for creating child pornography involving children as young as six. He created 169 pictures and 3 movies involving children in sexual activity; listed as including touching themselves, masturbation, and intercourse with other children or adults. Nice. If punished to the full extent of the law, Reed could've face 967 months or roughly 81 years in jail for the 15 charges he faced, which filled an entire page up. Now he could face possibly 10 months in jail for ruining the lives of little children. There is irrefutable proof he did these crimes so no plea bargain was needed, but low and behold, Judge Robert Lewis, elected Democrat, accepted a plea bargain from Prosecutor Ron Moore, also an elected Democrat.
Democrats stood around him, supporting him. He was said to "offer a homily during worship services" at the Unitarian Universalist church, according to pastor and Democrat Beth Lazer. He worked with her on the board of the liberal League of Women Voters also. The Martin Luther King Jr. Association of Ashville awarded him their 2005 Community Humanitarian Award. Why? Not because he helped the homeless, but because he wrote the organizations by-laws so they could become incorporated. Oralene Graves-Simmons, Democrat and leader of the local MLK Association, wrote to the court that Reed was a good man. Heck, listen to her and he was a saint. "Andy has spent all the years that I've known him bringing people together regardless of race, creed, color, or other differences, gladly working with anyone and everyone, and doing whatever needs to be done, to accomplish our mutual goals." Yeah, Andy especially enjoyed working with little kids, now didn't he? Funny thing though, people were shocked when they found out Ted Bundy was a murderer because he was seen as educated and charming. You just never know the internal problems people have by their public face.
At least it is good to know the old "If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" idiom still holds water. Reed works to help get the judge and prosecutor elected and he gets a light sentence in jail. I have next elections campaign slogan: "Hey, if you want to do crime, just get the right people in office. Vote Democrat in North Carolina."

Canada's Finally Going to Hell

2006-11-26T00:43:00.000-05:00

Newsflash: We were awoken to great trembling to the north. Frantic phone calls came in that people could not reach relatives living in Canada. It seems unthinkable, but satellite photos have proven it; Canada has been sucked down into Hell.
If it were only true. Canada is at least one step ahead of the US in the slope to Anarchy and beyond, Hell. The Liberal Party of Canada (at least they name their parties something that tell you what they are) introduced a flurry of policies to be voted on by party leadership. These bills are to become the platform of their party next year. These policies have been created much in the same way caucuses elect who will run for president here, by local groups (strong Liberal Party followers) voting what to send to the leaders.
But what are they arguing for? They are liberal (hence the name) but how much so? Let me tell you in 3 easy steps. 1. They want to lower the legal age for anal intercourse to 14 years old! Homosexuals in the US listen good! If you want to butt rape a teenager, go to Canada! It could be legal by next year. Of course Canada is screwed up already since the legal age of consent for heterosexual sex is 14. 14! What the ----! You get someone pregnant and you can't even drive to the store to get formula or diapers! Just because you can, doesn't mean you should do it. Is that so difficult to understand? I knew guys who I doubted their balls dropped until they were 16 or so. Those Canadians, those warped Canadians.
2. They want to allow heroin safe houses in the city where it is legal to do heroin. They call it the "National Safe Injection Site" plan for inner cities. Now, here in America, we might make "safe houses" for one purpose; to run a sting operation and get some scumbags off the street and get them help so they have a chance to turn their life around. But Canada is too relativist. "If they want to do heroin, at least we can give them clean needles." You give clean needles to the people so they can destroy themselves. "Oh but they won't spread AIDS!" Who cares, if you make it so easy to shoot up, they are already dead.
3. They want to legalize marijuana and to clear the criminal record of everyone who has been arrested on prior marijuana possessions since 1923 (the year it became illegal). This sounds so much like San Francisco. . . but I digress. Hippies, the scum of the earth. Of all the things to worry about (like their health care system crumbling before their eyes, skyrocketing taxes (usually to bail out their medical system), stagnate productivity, high unemployment (worse than the US, eh?)) marijuana legalization seems rather useless. I mean it does add to the unemployment rate and cut down on productivity, seriously do you want to work at a sawmill with a stoned saw operator?
"God keep our land glorious and free!" This is a quote from the Canadian national anthem (yes they mention God in their anthem and liberals are trying to remove it there as well). It seems the "glorious" lands are still "free." That is "free" to go to hell.

Teddy's the Man

2006-11-24T22:54:00.000-05:00

Every once in a while, reading quotes of great men from the past, a figure stands out to you. Each person may look for something different. For some, it is someone who fights a cause they are for, for some it is the eloquence of an individual, and for some it is the impact they had on history. For me, Theodore Roosevelt stands out amongst many other great men. That is not to say I do not like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, General Patton, or even John C. Calhoun (yes he did support slavery, but his arguments for state's rights were incredibly eloquent and thought provoking). Teddy stands out because, well, you can find tons of his quotes in books and on the internet. He talked big, but he had no problem acting big either. Whether bringing the coal miner strike in Pennsylvania to an end (and keeping the Northeast from freezing to death in their homes) or working as a mediator to bring peace in the Russo-Japanese war, his strong convictions were a driving force.
"Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy. "
Peacenik pacifists take note: yes peace is good. However, when you allow people to do whatever they want (like a spoiled child getting everything they cry for), society will eventually fall apart. Tolerance is good, but even tolerance has a breaking point into allowing someone else to rule over you and everything you do.
"Rhetoric is a poor substitute for action, and we have trusted only to rhetoric. If we are really to be a great nation, we must not merely talk; we must act big."
This goes to all the politicians, national, state, and local. Talk is cheap. If you want to be reelected, show us the goods. Fight for what is right and help your nation, not just your party. Anyone can talk, be a man (or woman) and visibly push for your platform. If you do this, you will never be without a job (i.e. the Democrats didn't sponsor a candidate to run against Senator Dick Lugar, R-IN, since becoming older he has become a statesman, not a politician).
"The American people are slow to wrath, but once that wrath is kindled, it burns like a consuming flame."
Apparently Al-Quieda didn't read this. Unfortunately, it seems now days we need to add "but the flame can die if a victory does not come about overnight." We want everything condensed into a half hour sitcom.
"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility."
Doctors kill over a million babies in America alone each year before they are born. Hospitals push to allow the euthanizing of older people because the hospital board feels the person wouldn't want to live that way (let alone cost the hospital more money). I am supposed to allow a friend to destroy their life because the philosophers today champion personal freedom at all cost. My Christian belief is not allowed in the public square because lawyers say it can damage other people's sensibilities.
The next three go together. "The first requisite of a good citizen in this Republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight." And " There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism…. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities." And "The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife."
A citizen must fulfill his duty for society to exist (work, vote, defend the nation if attacked, etc.). If enough ignore it, society collapses. Secondly, hyphenated Americanism has led to a great decline in patriotism in our country. It has dividedts people into an us versus them attitude (after all, this is an American country, not an African-American country, or Hispanic country, etc). Our nation is slowly devolving into a feudal system, not coalescing into one nation. And finally, to have the spirit to change your country for the better requires you to love it more than another country. If you love France more that America, what would possess you to change America? Nothing, you will just sit there and complain while wishing you were in France. And please, if you'd rather be there, please, please GO!

Dems Want Draft?

2006-11-21T23:14:00.000-05:00

Another political maneuver may be under way by the Democrats in the House before they take control in January. Charles Rangel, D-NY, has said he will consider once again proposing (that's right, he proposed to reinstate the draft before the House earlier this year and was shot down) legislation to reinstate the draft. A Democrat wanting to start the draft? Aren't they supposed to the pacifists? Don't they consider the draft to be evil and ok for a person to dodge? Yes, but that doesn't mean they can't propose it and lament about "Look at how bad the situation is. Elected officials who know more than the common person feel it is necessary to have the draft." Ok so you won't here them say they know more than the common person, but just read any leftist/socialist persons writings and it is part of their philosophy. Is this like Democrats refusing to vote on a bill covering an increase in minimum wage earlier this year so they could use it as part of their platform in the election? Just think, people who work for publicly owned companies could already be making more per hour if the Democrats didn't play politics and instead did what was best for the people.
Oh but the Democrats didn't want to vote for it because it only targeted public corporations (like McDonald's, Burger King, JC Penney, etc.) and not little mom and pop five and dime stores. Just imagine a family business that barely breaks even (that is usually how it works you know) has to pay each employee nearly $2 more per hour over the entire year. That equals nearly $4,000 dollars it pays to the employee and to the government each year. So how can the mom and pop shops do this? They can't. It would lead to massive layoffs in the private sector (the only sector that has grown in the last 15 years). But where is the media? Where is the coverage on ABC or the New York Times asking Mr. Rangel or Mrs. Pelosi why they didn't vote to increase the minimum wage for some workers? Where is the grilling of Hillary Clinton for not pressuring members of her party to help "those dissadvantaged" in society? Oh, wait, that is assuming the media is unbiased. And I forget, I can't do that.
So would the Democrats vote in crease the minimum wage for private businesses? I wouldn't doubt it. After all, it leads to more layoffs which leads to more people forced to live off of government (welfare, food stamps, housing stipends, etc.), an institution the Democrats want to grow larger and have greater economic control in people's lives. If you control their wallet and their food and their shelter, they are sheep you can lead to the slaughter.

Will Someone Grow A Pair?

2006-11-21T23:10:00.001-05:00

Darfur. The name of the region in Sudan brings to mind images of starving and homeless people being forcefully displaced. Over 200,000 dead, some figures say over 400,000 and over 2.5million displaced. And yet nations stand by and watch, leaving the dirty work of men to be discussed at a table by naive pencil pushing pacifists. This is a dirty situation and requires a dirty response, namely a military intervention. Years of talks have gotten nowhere and now it seems the violence has reached the worst levels since the beginning of the "genocide." Genocide is in quotations because the international community can't seem to call it that yet (even though the US has done so in speeches before the UN). Why is it that the violence is carried out in front of the international community and yet no one steps forth to stop it?
The abismal failure called the UN is the main reason. Despite its once ideological need (cooperation through the Cold War), it is now an aging dinosaur looking for an excuse to survive, like governmental agencies do when faced with cuts and closures, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission did in the 1970s by taking over the affirmative action cases. It comes down to money. Russia and China want the rich oil resources in eastern Sudan. Therefore, those two nations will do whatever is needed to please the Sudanese government, such as vote down a UN "peacekeeper" force (still a joke since they can't do squat, but a step in the right direction).
America, the only nation with balls, is currently engaged in military operations and is unable to help. This means the bleeding hearts of Europe will have to do it (Canada could, but they are a lost cause through unilateral military intervention). But we all know they would never go against a UN decision (or lack there of) because acting unilateraly is "wrong" and "jingoistic". France can't shoo flys away from their stinky cheese, Spain became pussified after their last elections voted in socialists, Germany has a phobia of military operations, and Britain is with the US in the Middle East. Maybe Luxembourg could help then? How about Switzerland? Didn't think so.
Besides, it may be wrong to bail out the people of Darfur. For freedom to mean anything, the people will have to earn it through their own blood, sweat, and the sheer agony of struggle. Handing them freedom means little to them, like giving a little child all they want, they will eventually become brats (notice the current Iraq situation). My solution then? Package up all of the arms collected in Iraq and Afghanistan and instead of destroying them, ship them to the refugee camps along the Chad border. Send a couple of special ops people to train them to fight as a unit and let them go at it. What have they to lose? Imagine if France soley defeated Britian in the 1770's and America sat out. Would patriotism be high in our country? No, we would be ashamed of that moment in our history (is that what happened to France after WWI and WWII? Getting bailed out twice has to hurt). Unfortunately, until the US solves the Iraq problem the people in Darfur will have to hang on against the Janjaweed and the Sudanese government militias. But imagine what a few geurilla victories could do for the hopes of the people in Darfur. When starving to death, hope can be that little strength to carry on.

The New Battlefront: Government Unions

2006-04-02T13:58:00.000-04:00

The younger generation does seem to be more conservative than past generations, leading to a swelling of conservative groups on college campuses. This bodes well for the future of our country, doesn't it? After all, college campuses are the home of liberalism, hiding from the lessons of harsh reality. But, lets face it, colleges are still run by hippies, Commies, and Socialists (or Commies without the commitment). There will be another 15-20 years before the current class will have the credentials to make a dent in the teaching on campuses, if it ever happens. After all, who are leftist more likely to hire: a person who believes government should be small, would teach Edmund Burke and Milton Friedman in addition to Rousseau and Marx; or a person who loves big government (after all, where do public universities get nearly half of their funding?), and teaches whatever the higher-ups suggest? Even if college campuses are impacted someday by conservatives, will they be able to make that much difference?

Government employees were once unionless, held in check by elected officials who decided how much they would be paid, what benefits they received, and how much they would work. In the 1950s, municipal workers were the first to unionize, and since then most government workers have done the same to the tune of 60-70% of all public workers are now unionized. Just imagine, over half of the largest workforce in America is now unionized and we all know how well that worked out for Ford and GM. But why is this a problem?

Blue states do not exist, but blue cities do. Cities are home to unionists and culturally liberal intellectuals, journalists, entertainers, tort lawyers, and feminists. But the biggest group is made of public-sector employees, workers at organizations that survive off government money, and those who receive government benefits all of whom prefer a bigger government. The politicians in the 1950s and 1960s voiced concern over the union movement in government. In retrospect, most of the warnings voiced proved accurate. Political leaders and labor experts predicted that government-employee unions would use their monopoly power over public services to win contracts with work rules far more generous and undemanding than in the private sector, and that without the restraints on salaries and benefits that the free marketplace imposes on private firms, unions would win increasingly meaty compensation and pension packages that would be impossible to roll back once enacted. Government spending on social services increased from $800 million in 1965, to $2.2 billion in 1970, to $13 billion in 1980. Increases in Medicare and Medicaid have driven the prices up at hospitals by leading to over use by dependents and over billing by doctors (after all, who has more money than the government?). Hospitals now live off of government spending instead of a free market which forces smart business practices. A survey in New York City found the city had 5,000 more beds than necessary, but continued to raise prices city wide to keep them and government continues to pay. Medicaid should have been scrapped after its budget increased to $6 billion from $1.2 billion in the first five years from 1966-1971, but it was too late as million were already hooked.

Imagine the voting block this creates. 3.3 million people work in government social services nation wide. Add in the millions of recipients of welfare and and the hospital, health clinic, and drug addiction workers who depend on government spending there is a block of millions who will vote for higher taxes and bigger government every election for the purpose of their survival and livelihood. The leftists live on.

You Like Knights? You Must Be Racist

2006-03-25T23:41:00.000-05:00

People seem to be perplexed when they see I like knights. They at first think I am a fan of Dungeons and Dragons. Morons, I would never play that game. I like knights - noun: a man, serving as a page and squire before being raised to special military rank and pledged to chivalrous conduct for life. Imagine my surprise when a recent conversation with another student at IU led him to saying "Knights were responcible for terrible attrocities. Because of them, we are continuing to fight an ideological war in the Middle East." Wow, as Bill O'Reilly would say "You are a pinhead sir, and I say that with great sincerity."

The politically correct rewritten history does label knights as bloodthirsty, greedy (after all, they only went to Jerusalem to get riches), ignorant, depraved, and usually psychotic individuals who followed the greatest evil in the world, The Catholic Church! Well to those dumbasses I say, no. I will not let you take away a great piece of my heritage (even if it is part of the western civilization which created all evil on earth, spreading to every heathen, I mean peaceful people in the world. Ha! these people crack me up and make me sick at the same time).

I respect knights for several reasons. First, these were high class people who where humble (try finding that today). Although rich land owners, many knights litterally gave all of their money to the poor, living in relative poverty. They left the table a little hungry to avoid gluttony and to help feed those who had no food. They were close to being monks in their religious faith, living a life of constant prayer and devotion. They were true warriors, practicing their craft daily (except on Sunday to keep the Sabbath). Their code was the beginning of what it meant to be a real man. Anyone who enjoys John Wayne and what he embodies (strength, heroism, bravery, compassion for the weak, discipline, a clear idea of good and evil) would enjoy a knight.

A historical example of true selflessness. Niklas (or Nicholas) Zrinski picked 700 knights to fight the attacking Turkish army in Croatia. Niklas evacuated the fort and set it ablaze to make sure the Muslims gained nothing of worth. Zrinski spoke elequently "..Let us go out from this burning place into the open and stand up to our enemies. Who dies - he will be with God. Who dies not - his name will be honoured. I will go first, and what I do, you do. And God is my witness - I will never leave you, my brothers and knights!" They then attacked the 90,000 Turks head on, fighting to the death. The Turks suffered mightily, leaving 25,000 dead not including wounded (18,000 cavalry men, 7,000 elite jannissaries which decimated the jannissary corps). Suleyman (or Suleiman or Soleyman depending on translation) the Magnificent, leader of the Turks died two days later (one of the uncounted wounded). The Turks were forced to retreat and western civilization was saved (and with it Christianity). This act was latter captured by Nikola, the grandson of Niklas, in The Peril of Sziget.

Homophobia? Give Me a Break!

2006-03-14T18:38:00.000-05:00

I must say I have not seen "Humpback Mountain" in theatres, and judging by the ticket revenue neither has a good portion of the population. I must say I was tricked into reading half of the short story several years ago in my Creative Writing class at IU. It seemed like a normal, trite story about two ranchers. Lo and behold one guy suddenly jumps the other's ass in the middle of a paragraph. Needless to say I did not finish the story and could care less what happened (after all the story follows most Lifetime movies of affairs, except there are two guys instead of a man and a woman). Am I a homophobe for this? Hell No, I am not scared of homos. I will not be brain washed into accepting every liberal propaganda piece that is put out there. After all, didn't Hitler use filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl to create a propaganda movie, Triumph of the Will, to drum up favor of the Third Reich?

Jake Gyllenhaal, who played one of the homosexuals in the movie, had a very interesting quote which shows the corruption of Liberalism and Political Correctness. Jake was talking about the trouble he had while filming the simulated sex scenes with heath Ledger. He said "I was super uncomfortable . . . [but] what made me most courageous was that I realized I had to try to let go of that stereotype I had in my mind, that bit of homophobia, and try for a second to be vulnerable and sensitive. It was f---in' hard, man. I succeeded only for milliseconds." Notice he was uncomfortable because of his subtle "homophobia." Think for a minute Jake. Do you think it is possible you were uncomfortable because your conscience was telling you these actions were inappropriate? This entire "homophobia" crap is just to force people to ignore internal barriers we have against unnatural acts. Fight the Mind Police, save your soul. And Jake, step out in front of a bus. After all, it is only "courageous" to go against your conscience.

To all of those narrow minded people out there, conscience is not something that is only a construction of your upbringing. My dad never told me "Son, it's wrong to get someone up the ass." That is a feeling I had all of my life. Could this be why, even in San Francisco, church going Christians are happier than homosexuals? It is not because homos feel they must sneak around (obviously, have you been to most college campuses lately?) orbecausee society has too many restrictions against them or they have no outlets for their stories (watch news lately?). It is simply that most Christians recognize the importance of that little voice of warning inside each of us. Going against that voice is what leads to depression, sadness, and a feeling of worthlessness.

"Happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected."
"Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience."
~George Washington

Liberal - A Person So Open Minded Their Brains Have Fallen Out

2006-03-12T14:13:00.000-05:00

"Free" thinking sounds great doesn't it? After all, who could be against "free" thinking? Sadly, anyone with an ounce of common sense would be against it. According to academics, possibly the greatest "accomplishment" of the Enlightenmnet period is the idea of "free" thinking. Like most liberals, they see the act itself as good but fail to envision the future (but then again they like the future it has lead to).
So why am I against "free" thinking? i simply answer because of the tradgedy it has lead our society and our world to. Following liberalism will lead a person to "free" think. But without the constructs of conscience and God, free thought eventually leads to free morals, or immorality. Restraint is thrown off and free reign is given to the passions. Whoever thinks as he pleases will do as he pleases. Disorder in the intellect will lead to disorder in the heart and vice-versa.
In philosophy, we just finished going over Hume's A Treastise of Human Nature. The book is a 600+ page volume to create a moral order based solely on man's intellect. It fails of course, as does every morality based on personal inflection. Sitting in class listening to the teacher describe how Hume tries to answer complicated questions that arise against his argument made me realize that this is the reason so many philosophers commit suicide or live their life in depression. Intellect does not answer all of the questions and sometimes trying to answer a question draws other points of view into conflict. Trying to seperate this madness into a coherent argument always fails. I truly do feel sorry for anyone tormented with "free" thought because its alure promises freedom, yet leads to a life of slavery. Remind you of another liberal creation, the Welfare State?

Christmas is Over : Christianity Still Intact

2006-01-01T21:57:00.000-05:00

After all of the commotion created last year over Christmas displays, it was good to see that such news was rather infrequent this year. Even on a liberal campus where a display containing Christmas trees was seen as offensive and changed last year, there was little commotion this year. The large amount of back lash from actions taken last year (schools not being able to sing ANY Christmas carols, a school in Texas not being allowed to have RED and GREEN) has silenced the liberal kool-aid drinkers. While some continue to speak about the mix of church and state, those are only the most ardent Commies in America. I will agree that in America they have the freedom to speak their mind, just as I have the same freedom to think of them as they are; stupid jackasses. And for those who think differently, belly up to the kool-aid bar in Ted Kennedy's basement. Just don't let him drive you home.

A U.S. Theocracy? Hardly

2005-04-28T22:28:00.000-05:00

Recent liberal scare tactics have included an ominous warning: If we continue to allow people to infuse their political and religious beliefs, the United States of America could become a theocracy. Now that you have stopped laughing or cursing, which ever way it makes you feel, lets see how absurd it is. First off, why are they making this accusation? This goes to the trend that many liberals see as causing their recent loss in the 2004 elections, the move of religious voters to a conservative stance. After the election, liberals were seen as out of touch with faith and many Americans want to elect God fearing people to govern them. Faith is something which a politician can't attack very easily in America without having his head given to him on a silver platter. In response, members such as Hillary Clinton made visible trips to church every Sunday to show they were religious also. This received the expected snickers and jokes. Seeing that America wasn't falling for such an obvious ploy, some frustrated members went even further. We're talking as far as France. Some have started to say that religious beliefs should be left off of capital hill.
A religious battle is one which liberals are losing and will continue to lose. The recent trend in America is toward a stricter, or as some would say, a fundamental faith. People are seeing that the "faith" of liberal megachurches is nothing but a large social club and a pastor driving a 2005 Cadillac, leather seats of course. After all, Jesus said his faith would be based not on a Sealy mattress, but a rock. The path would not be a paved 4 lane highway, but a narrow path with rocks to stub your toe and to trip you up. Faith is not a presidential suite where all your earthly cares are taken care of, but a trial of hardship and despair. True faith recognizes these facts of life. Hopefully liberals will get this message and truly see the light.
America won't become a theocracy for several reasons, mainly it isn't keeping with tradition and there is a great diversity in the US. The constitution plainly says government can't establish a religion. Secondly, the "religious right" is formed of Catholics, Baptist, Lutherans, Pentacostals, etc. These groups formed together to fight a common battle, but as history shows if the battle is ever won, the ties will separate. The clamor isn't for a theocracy, but a moral state, one which is safe for children, women, and men of all races. Democracy allowed advanced moral decay, now will those affected please stand in return?

Poll: Americans Approve Pope?

2005-04-28T21:50:00.000-05:00

In a recent ABC Washington Post poll, 81% of polled Catholics were enthusiastic having Pope BenedictXVI. This is in stark contrast to the media giants giving those disappointed an unusually large amount of airtime. If one listened to them, the Church in America has forsaken its roots, with only a few stragglers clinging to their pasts. Granted, polls aren't an exact science, and the approval could be higher or lower than the numbers suggest, yet this must be a shock to news outlets. After days of stories documenting his "Hitler Youth" (which was required of all who lived in Germany) and position in the "Nazi" (not German) army, which he was drafted into (you try to tell Hitler or the SS you are a consciencious objector), they must be scratching their heads. Pope BenedictXVI, much like his predecessor John Paul II, are not "conservative" in their outlook. They are Catholic in their outlook. It is only our current political climate in America in which such views are conservative. But I suppose such views are too Politically Correct for liberals (after all, PC can only be used to their advantage). Those who wish to "modernize" the Church, I can only ask: Why not join a liberal church which already holds your views, or start your own church, along with the thousands already out there.

Follow Up: A Small Gain For Life

2005-04-28T18:25:00.000-05:00

I am happy to report that the AP has reworked the article, removing the phrases I quoted as showing a strong liberal slant. The article is still available at the link listed in the original post. I am much happier with the tone of this news report. I hope that the AP thinks harder on its choice of language before posting an article again.

A Small Gain for Life

2005-04-27T21:32:00.000-05:00

The House passed a bill (H.R. 748) making it illegal to circumvent parental-consent laws by taking minors across state lines to receive an abortion. This bill still needs to be passed in the Senate, so look for it later this summer. All I can say is, it's about time. Parental consent laws are created for the protection of the child. Abortion is a dangerous and potentially deadly operation, one that, as told by numerous women, leaves a long lasting emotional scar. If a teenager has made a mistake, it is important that they don't rush into something which will affect them for decades afterwards. Some people object because there is a chance of incest within the family. HELLO?! The child needs to be removed from that surrounding immediately and the parents would have no bearing on the decision. Oh, and for the record, take a look at the associated press report released (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ABORTION?SITE=PASUN&SECTION=HOME). Notice the strong liberal slant in how the news is portrayed. This is "the latest effort to chip away at abortion rights after Republican gains in the November elections," after all. Notice also "critics" outlawed partial-birth abortion. And all gains from the bill will be over run by "health, abuse and legal problems that pregnant girls and their well-meaning confidants might suffer." The bill provides an exemption for life endangerment. If there is abuse, the child should consult with the proper authorities. The only legal ramifications come from breaking the law, which seems to be pretty much standard procedure throughout history. Or at least the history I read. It's hard telling what their liberal PC history says. Its weird how a little common sense solves their concerns.

Fairness Doctrine? The Ravings of Liberal Pussies

2005-04-27T20:44:00.000-05:00

In case you aren't up to speed, the Fairness Doctrine (bill H.R.501) sponsored by New York Democrat Louise Slaughter, is a bill trying bring "fairness" to electronic media (mainly talk radio). In other words, liberals want government to step in (what a surprise!) and level the playing field so radio stations are forced to give equal time to voices on both sides of an issue. Sounds ok right? Maybe if you live in Russia. This "doctrine" has been brought up for years and was vetoed by Reagan. The problem comes into play when a radio station in a conservative area, plays the Rush Limbaugh show, which is three hours long, during the week. According to the "Fairness Doctrine" that station must now run an opposing show, such as the Al Franken show, for three hours. Is it fair to have government telling the small local AM station what shows they are to run, even if they are not supported by their market? It is, in a sense, economic suicide. If liberal radio was wanted by such a large group of people, then their ratings would be much higher than they currently are (see http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200504261400.asp) Some would say that conservatives should support this bill since we have been citing examples of gross liberal bias in the media. However, this bill would not touch newspapers, such as the darling New York Times and Washington Post, where the worst liberal biases are held. On television networks, news programs use one sided facts to proclaim their "subtle" bias. These polls and research papers are said to be unbiased, even though sometimes researchers refuse to allow others to see the questions they asked. Under this guise, the "Fairness Doctrine" would not work. It clearly targets talk radio. I doubt that this bill will do anything but be recycled into something useful, like toilet paper.

Habemus Papam!

2005-04-20T21:00:00.000-05:00

I am very happy with the announcement of the new pope, Pope Benedict XVI, formerly Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. I view his approach to faith and orthodoxy as the pillar strengths of the Catholic Church. It was very good to see that the Cardinals are not bending to the liberal pressures put upon them. For if the Catholic Church is to assume the liberalized theology presented to it, it will cease to be the Church of Christ. Once there is a break in tradition and orthodoxy, the liberalization process floods through. Just look at the Anglican Church and the radical changes which it faces since allowing women reverends, including the damage of instating Rev. Gene Robinson, an openly gay bishop.
I was disheartened to hear the news media voice the opinions of so many misguided Catholics who have liberal views. In my student newspaper, the Indiana Student Daily, IU religious studies professor Mary Jo Weaver stated she was concerned about the Pope's position regarding homosexual mariages! She said "I think it's appalling, unjust and ridiculous." Someone of such supposed "knowledge" or "intellect" would know that no Pope could ever change marriage, because it is a Law of God in the view of Catholics (and most other Christian denominations). Homosexual activity is a sin and should be seen that way. Professor Weaver (and I use the term loosely) obviously knows little of what she is supposed to be teaching. Her ignorance and/or lack of professionalism (subjecting her feelings to students instead of unbiased facts) shows a clear favoring of a liberalising presence of the Church. Unfortunately, such ideas will not go away quickly for as Fr. Felix Salvany said in 1899, "Heresy is always sophistically obstinate, it clings to the least pretext, seeks every excuse to escape condemnation. Barricading itself behind ... technical defenses."