Monthly Archives: March 2003

With story after anti-American story coming out of most of Europe, in the wake of the Iraq war, we search for answers. Sad to say, the answers are not so hard to find…

Hundreds of years ago, when Islamo-fascist types threatened their continent, it was Christendom that stood up to the invasion. Indeed “Christendom” was virtually synonymous with Europe in those days. These days, however, in anticipation of The Convention on the Future of the European Union, scheduled for completion by 2004, the debate rages as to whether Europe’s Christian history should even be mentioned.

“The EU must resist pressure to include religion of any kind in its constitutional declarations,” said Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of Britain’s National Secular Society. “Europe embraces those of many faiths, and of no faith. Promoting any one faith as pre-eminent will inevitably lead sooner or later to resentment.”

Interesting thought, considering that most of Europe is now so functionally atheist, that if any faith is being “promoted,” it is probably Islam. Somehow, though, I don’t think that’s what he had in mind. Would it surprise you that France, birthplace of some of the greatest saints in history, now leads the move toward secularization? Strangely enough, it hasn’t yet had much of an effect on the ten percent or so of its population that is Muslim.

For what it’s worth, Pope John Paul II has weighed in on the matter, calling the message of Christianity…

“[r]elevant even to those who, in the field of politics, are working to bring about European unification.” “In searching for its own identity, the continent cannot but return to its Christian roots,” the pope said. “The Christian patrimony of civilization, which has contributed so greatly to the defense of the values of democracy, freedom and solidarity among the peoples of Europe, must neither vanish nor be disregarded.”

These days, however, the pope has become a sort of latter-day partial Cassandra, whereby only the most politically correct of his statements are ever heeded, or even publicized in the elite media. The plain truth is that Europe has lost its faith, its cultural identity, its spirit, and its will. America may have its malaise and countless problems, but it is still vibrant and free. What else can the Euros do but hate us, or move here?

So, how did Europe get this way? Full marks (Marx) if you answered “Socialism.” Theoretically, it might be possible for a socialist government to embrace religion, but generally, the government itself becomes the religion. Who needs God when the almighty State cares for you from womb to tomb?

Which brings us to the United Nations. Originally conceptualized by allies Britain and the US in August, 1941 as the Atlantic Charter, and full of high hopes, it started to deteriorate even as 26 countries signed the Declaration of United Nations on January 1, 1942. What other outcome could there be as the notion of radical egalitarianism swept the world, and bloodthirsty mass murderer and our “great ally” Joseph Stalin was given equal charge as to the future of the organization?

Plagued by internecine conflicts ever since, the UN soon thrust itself into the realm of total irrelevancy as little more than a debating society, frequented by a cadre of pampered, pompous, and pathetic diplocrats. Lately, the UN has moved into comic opera, with the election of Libya to chair this year’s session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Yes, THAT Libya, a known human rights abuser and a country under U.N. sanctions.

As a baby boomer, I remember well the near brainwashing we would get at all levels in school about the grand and glorious UN. In the 1960’s, I made the pilgrimage and took the tour. Prominent in the Secretariat building is Isaiah

At this writing, the war in Iraq is going smoothly, and we pray that our success, along with the limited number of casualties continues, and that the effort can be both decisive and brief.

It is comforting, and not at all surprising, that a large majority (well over 70 percent in most polls) of Americans support the military action, even as the domestic antiwar demonstrations receive disproportionate media coverage. Dissent, and war for that matter, are salient features of American history, so the protests are not unexpected. What was unexpected, perhaps, was that the biggest antiwar demonstration in British history, occurring a week or so ago, would be against an action to topple such a brutal and vile regime as Saddam Hussein’s.

Sadly, it was not at all a surprise either to hear the words of the pathetic Tom Daschle virtually as the attack began:

“I’m saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to war,” Daschle said in a speech to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. “Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn’t create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country.”

While one is tempted to merely mock this quote by invoking the sarcastic “shocked, shocked” line of Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains) in the film Casablanca (1942), I am not about to let this sniveling dweeb from South Dakota off quite so easily. Surely diplomacy failed, but given the guaranteed “nay” votes of Germany, France, and Russia, one can hardly blame the president. Moreover, when has diplomacy, at the United Nations or anywhere else, actually accomplished anything, in the last 50 years–or even the last 100 years?

And please, spare me the “give up one life” crocodile tears. Where was this obnoxious creep when Clinton gave up plenty of lives in Somalia and the former Yugoslavia? Beyond all this is the striking imprudence of making this statement when he did. There is a time for dissent, and there is a time for silence. Tommy Daschle simply hates George W. Bush a lot more than he loves America. With any luck, the good people of South Dakota will remember all this when he comes up for reelection.

Speaking of crocodile tears, we were also treated to the bizarre ruminations of one Robert Byrd, reformed Klansman and long-term (way too long-term) senator.

“Today I weep for my country.” “No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. … Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. “We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance,” Byrd said, adding: “After war has ended the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America’s image around the globe.”

I guess the senile pork barrel champion of the world has finally lost it. One wonders exactly who these “friends” are. France? When was the last time since World War II that France did something friendly toward us besides saying on September 12, 2001 that “Today we are all Americans”? Germany? Germany could have been a friend until Gerhard Schroeder squeaked into office on the back of the votes in the former communist east, and a sick anti-Americanism.

If we had really wanted to flaunt our superpower status, we would have scarcely messed about for months and years with the UN. As for America’s image, I suspect it will improve dramatically when doddering, demented relics such as Mr. Byrd depart the Senate for that elusive pork barrel in the sky.

Daschle and Byrd would do well to call to mind the history of America’s most infamous traitor—Revolutionary War General Benedict Arnold. Although Arnold conspired with the British to give up West Point, the plot failed, and ironically, the patriot cause was summarily energized. Arnold went to his grave despised by both sides, even though no real harm was done.

There are more ways to betray your country than giving up a strategic fort. There is also sedition. I suggest that these two miserable excuses for US senators familiarize themselves with this word—seldom uttered in these effete, politically correct times.

Let us recall the halcyon days of the American Left. It is Christmas, 1945. World War II has ended just a few months earlier. The fascist Hun and great Yellow peril have been defeated, and the Left’s true believers are basking in the glow of victory with their great and glorious ally, Uncle Joe Stalin. With no competition, the Left-leaning commentary of the Murrows and Cronkites dominates the airwaves. The socialist legacy of FDR is well in place, and few seem to recall that despite his myriad of alphabet soup agencies and programs, it was the war that turned the tide economically.

But in the summer of 1950, the Rosenberg atomic spy case bursts on the scene, exposing the very real Red peril. We might ask how lifelong Commies such as Julius Rosenberg could have obtained sensitive positions in the military, and how his brother-in-law David Greenglass could have been given clearance to work on the top-secret Manhattan Project, but that would be “McCarthyism.” Truth be told, in light of this appalling case, some on the Left do defect. Unfortunately, though, most stay, and take to the streets in protest of the fates of the soon to be executed spies.

1960 brings the election of the first television president, JFK, and his photogenic spouse. The press corps is remarkably silent about his host of medical problems [it is noted later that had he not been killed, he would likely not have survived another year], as well as his constant extramarital affairs. When Kennedy is slain, hundreds of absurd and contradictory conspiracy theories arise. After all, how could this King of Camelot be cut down by some loser with a mail-order gun? There has to be a plot somewhere. It is the CIA or the FBI or the Mafia, or “right wing industrialists.” But a Leftist assassin with ties to Moscow and Cuba? Never.

Truth be told, a few on the Left—a very few—do defect, in wake of Kennedy’s colossal failure with Bay of Pigs, and feckless entry into the Vietnam conflict. Some are converted by observing how Cuban “liberator” Fidel Castro has turned into a brutal Communist dictator. But most stay, content to live with the image and not the reality.

Civil rights marches and Vietnam War protests mark the mid-to late 1960’s. The drug scene is beginning to get out of hand, and demonstrations are turning violent, but there are few defections from the Left now. On the contrary, the movement grows with the infusion of over-privileged baby boomers, shiftless hippies, academic ne’er-do-wells, and professional agitators. For the most part, the media coverage of this era is fawning of the Left, and flagrantly so.

In 1968, the Left is taken down a peg with Nixon defeating Hubert Humphrey. Inexplicably, though, Nixon embraces many ideas of the Left, including Affirmative Action, creating the Environmental Protection Agency, establishing wage and price controls, opening up dialog with Mainland China, and devaluing the dollar. Nixon continues to self-destruct while in office with Watergate, and is happily forced out the door by a cadre of willing Democrats, upset perhaps that he stole part of their playbook.

Thus emboldened, the Left and their media accomplices sneak in smiling incompetent Jimmy Carter, who is proving his mettle yet today.

By 1980, however, the bloom is definitely off the rose. The boomers are getting jobs and entering mainstream society, and the hard-core Left is dwindling in numbers, if not sheer influence. They still control the elite media. Twelve long years of Republican leadership are broken by “It’s the economy, stupid,” and Bill Clinton, the first boomer president, does two terms. Even Leftist idiots such as Barbra Streisand must admit to themselves that this “best and brightest” is really little more than a jumped-up randy white trash degenerate. But, they can only admit it to themselves, and must still fight the good fight.

By 1996, with the Internet and talk radio in full swing, the back is broken of the Information Mandarin Class, and it is clear how most of the country thinks. Had Clinton run against anyone other than the pathetic Bob Dole, he would surely have been defeated, but the stupid party feels compelled to reward its war hero two-time loser. The shallowness of Clinton’s second term victory is not lost on the Left, and many can see which way the wind is blowing. Further defections occur.

Although the 2000 election is very close, it is apparent that but for mindless minority group bloc voting, and massive voter fraud involving illegal aliens and the homeless, George W. Bush’s victory would have been much more decisive. 9/11 is yet another nail in the coffin, while the sham of their beloved United Nations is demonstrated to all with the eyes to see, and brain to comprehend.

Deprived now of the bully pulpit they never earned, and forced to face up to their costly and tragic failures, with more of their fellow rats abandoning their sinking ship every day, those that remain can turn only to raw emotion.

Thus, bereft of logic and ideas to answer us, they can only hate us.

The sad case of botched transplant patient Jésica Santillán raises many troubling issues.

A family of illegal aliens makes their way into our country, to obtain a medical miracle for their sick teenage daughter. But the miracle does not play out, and their daughter dies. What is the law? On the one hand, the law is seemingly not in effect, as our borders are deliberately violated with no penalty. On the other hand, her family and its team of slimy plaintiff’s lawyers will take full advantage of the liberal tort system in the South.

Indeed, attorney Kurt Dixon is appealing to Congress not to pass legislation that would cap damages in medical malpractice lawsuits. “They want to limit pain-and-suffering damages and that really would not be a good thing for the public in general,” he said. “This case that I’m dealing with now makes that clear.” According to the tortured logic of this brood of vipers, increasing insurance premiums that would drive up the cost of health care, and discouraging difficult procedures, would somehow help the public. Of course, the medical profession could do a whole lot more in terms of getting rid of the bad apples, but that applies in spades to the members of the Bar.

Philosophers define the natural law as a system of right or justice to be common to all humans, derived from nature, rather than from the rules of society or positive law. But, to what extent does natural law trump Federal immigration law? Many voices condemned the state and local Jim Crow ordinances of the South, claiming that a higher power, as well as a higher (Federal) law took precedence. What happened? Does the natural law now mean that any person from anywhere in the world with a serious enough medical condition is welcomed at any time? Should the phenomenal goodwill of the American people facilitate the scores of corrupt regimes victimizing billions of people? Would it not be truer charity to put our considerable diplomatic pressure on countries like Mexico to better care for their own?

What about medical ethics? Giving a transplant of the wrong blood type is an inconceivable mistake, similar to embarking on a transatlantic flight with insufficient fuel. Duke University Medical Center maintains that it was proper to give Jésica a second transplant even though a brain scan had detected some “bleeding and an area of injured brain” on the day before the second transplant. Were the doctors trying to do something unrealistically heroic to make up for the damnable hubris involved in the first operation? The death of any child is tragic, so where does that leave the fate of others who may have also died since scarce resources were not properly stewarded, not to mention 40 million victims of legal abortion?

And then there’s the dark side of medical ethics—finance. A foundation was started to cover the tab for Jésica’s extraordinary treatment, but it will never raise enough money to pay the bills, unless they are reduced as part of a litigation settlement, or simply for PR reasons. How does that square with the plight of American citizens with health insurance who might still be denied certain treatment, since it is not covered?

Finally, it should be mentioned, not that it would even raise an eyebrow these days, that Jésica’s parents are not married.

In Hinduism and Buddhism, karma is defined as the sum total of the ethical consequences of a person’s good or bad actions comprising thoughts, words, and deeds that determines his specific destiny in his next existence. Viewed in a Judeo-Christian context, it has been expressed that one cannot achieve a good end via bad means. Perhaps, a disharmony is created that cannot be overcome.

With unmarried parents and an ill daughter entering the country illegally, represented by sleazy lawyers, to get an operation performed by an unspeakably prideful surgeon, who then tries it a second time, possibly violating waiting lists and medical standards, the karmic burden was insurmountable.

For Jésica Santillán and all the other dead children…

Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine; et lux perpetua luceat eis. [Eternal rest give to them, O Lord; and let perpetual light shine upon them.]