The Dan Brown Code

It wasn't my idea, but this past weekend I watched The Da Vinci Code. I admire Ron Howard and Tom Hanks deeply, but I have to wonder what inspired the two men to take on such a controversial project. Surely anyone reading this has a basic grasp on the story, whether it be the book or the film. Yet, I figure it doesn't hurt to do a little review.

The Da Vinci Code is loosely based on the Priory of Sion, a secret European society that included such members as Sir Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo, Botticelli, and Leonardo da Vinci. Interestingly enough, Les Dossiers Secrets, the papers that revealed the organization, are no longer in the Bibliothèque Nationale. In fact, the supposed members mentioned were found to be completely fraudulent in 1996. The deception was perpetuated by Pierre Plantard, a lifelong anti-Semite by the way, who admitted that he fabricated his claims in a court of law. He did not live to see the Da Vinci Code. Obviously enough, Dan Brown chose not to include that information in order to deceive his audience. I care not to go on about the claims that are beyond the basics. I would highly recommend History verses The Da Vinci Code, which a chapter-by-chapter analysis by an atheist.

On back to the movie, it's well-made in terms of suspense and story line. After all, you expect nothing less from the director Ron Howard and actor Tom Hanks. I would recommend it for those who have a passion for mysteries and suspence. I would not recommend it for those who would take offense to certain aspects of the story line.

However, the film is rightfully disturbing to anyone who is a follower of Christianity. It's about as anti-Catholic as the Ku Klux Klan. The film attacks Opus Dei, a conservative sect of the Catholic Church rather frequently. The crusade against the Christian church does not stop at allegations of sexism and manipulation. Menacing accusations insinuate that the Catholic Church not only knows about the bloodline of Christ, but has murdered many decendents of Christ to keep it from spreading. These are all false accusations, and they can only result in a deeper anti-Catholic bigotry. The hatred of the Catholic Church is beyond unfathomable, and no evidence has been shown to support these attacks.

Before he threw stones at the Vatican, Dan Brown was an English professor. Later, he became a techno-thriller novelist. Digital Fortress and Deception Point initially performed poorly at the bookstores. With Angels & Demons, he began writing thrillers with a twist - by going after the Vatican. Dan Brown's inspiration for his conspiracy against Christianity include such books as this:

• Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln
• The Messianic Legacy by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln
• The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh
• The Goddess in the Gospels: Reclaiming the Sacred Feminine by Margaret Starbird
• The Woman with the Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalene and the Holy Grail by Margaret Starbird
• The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince
• Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy
• When God Was a Woman by Merlin Stone
• The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future by Riane Eisler

Why Does Rush Feel Liberated?

"I feel liberated, ladies and gentlemen, because I feel like I don't have to carry the water for people that I think don't deserve to have their water carried."

This was Limbaugh’s reaction to the 2006 mid-term election results.

Now, let’s look at those who supposedly liberated Rush with their defeats – Rick Santorum, Jim Talent, Mike DeWine, George Allen, and others who have been loyal to conservative ideas. Sure, nobody cares to defend Allen’s “macaca” comment. For as close it was, it’s evident that it cost him not only the election, but much more. His defeat symbolically gave the Democrats control of the Senate. Not to mention, he has lost support as a possible 2008 candidate.

Rush has insisted that his comments were grossly taken out of context. On his official site, he shines attention to the fact that conservative talk show hosts get tired of sticking up for an empty suit who cannot lay out his agenda. Take the presidential debates, for example. In an e-mail from a fan, as Limbaugh cited, “I was scared every time Bush had a debate; the Democrats were scared every time Kerry had a debate.”

It's fair to say that Rush Limbaugh's popularity helped Republicans take back Congress in 1994. But it's also fair to suggest that his comments on Michael J. Fox's ad campaign for embryonic stem cell research were harsh and silly. For as energized as the conservative base was over Kerry's slip of the tongue, Limbaugh made up for it by jumping the gun on Fox's "acting performance," giving undecided voters the impression that conservatives are insensative and arrogant towards those who have chronic medical conditions.

Democrats Take Over the House

Nancy Pelosi is now the Speaker of the House. Secretary Rumsfeld has resigned. And the Democrats are celebrating.

Pelosi has promised to put ethics and bipartisanship ahead of everything. She has also stated that immediate withdrawal and impeachment are “off the table.” The Democrats have been meeting with President Bush to set the new course for Iraq. And that’s really all you need to know.

Why did the Republican Party lose?

Instead of advocating moral values, they were convicted of scandals. Rather than practicing fiscal restraint, they built a bridge to nowhere. Instead of fighting crime, they supported amnesty for illegal aliens. Most notably, instead of staying the course in Iraq, President Bush had suggested that we need a new plan. That’s why conservatives stayed home.

Libertarian voters have been frustrated with the expansion of government on socio-economic policy, whether it was the Gravina Island Bridge, prescription drugs for seniors, or the expansion of homeland security that apparently harms our civil liberties. While the Bush Administration has been relatively soft on same-sex marriage and abortion on demand, they have been consistent, nonetheless.

Independent voters were convinced that neither party had a plan for the most important issue of the election. Democrats effectively denied plans to “cut and run”, while Republicans had suddenly abandoned the current policy in Iraq. Because Republicans did not outline their agenda for Iraq swiftly before Election Day, it was apparent that Republicans showed an admission to the public that they confessed to what the Democrats had been hinting for years. Instead of running on a bad plan, Republicans decided to run with no plan.

Where else did the right go wrong?

Bush has tried tirelessly to fit the mold of Ronald Reagan. In search of his “Evil Empire” moment, he offered the “Axis of Evil” – Iraq, Iran, and North Korea - all of which had been in pursuit of nuclear weapons. Not long after came the invasion of Iraq to stop Saddam’s development of biological weapons.

In retrospect, it was foolish to provoke too many enemies at one time. The timeline of events sent the wrong message. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea – stop pursuing nukes. Then came the invasion of Iraq. Iran and North Korea, while in pursuit of nuclear weapons for years, felt the urgency to speed up their nuclear programs to act as a deterrent to the United States. As a result, Israel is in greater danger.

I maintain that going after Saddam was the right thing to do. Iraqi liberation had long been an American policy, rather than a Bush policy. Take, for example, the Iraqi Liberation Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1998, which calls for the United States to “establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.”

In greater detail, “It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.”

Around this time period, Clinton’s foreign policy was especially hawkish. The question remains – what stopped Clinton from invading Iraq? It may have been, ironically enough, that he didn’t want to take any more heat for the increasing of gas prices. It may have also been his recognition of world government, or more specifically, the United Nations as the final authority. It may have even a potential bait-piece for the Republicans to suggest that Clinton was looking for ways to distract attention away from the Monica Lewinsky Scandal.

The argument that emphasizes the fact that the United States sided with Hussein during the war with Iran is self-defeated for many reasons. We were never allies with Iran, that’s number one. And second, we accept in our history that we fought alongside of Joseph Stalin and the Red Army, which also became an enemy and a threat to the United States.

But Republicans have failed to address all of that. In fact, very few Americans realize that the Iraqi Liberation Act exists. As a result, the War in Iraq became a losing issue.

So what are the Democrats planning to do about Iraq? Now that they are back in power, they have no reason to be angry. Many conservatives are skeptical of their promise to work with a president who has opened himself to new ideas. He has appointed Robert Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld, and is ready to take Iraq into a new direction. Only time will tell how long the Bush-Pelosi coalition will last.

Missing the Big Picture

John Kerry's "stuck in Iraq" comment may have given new ammunition to the Republicans, but the alternative media has committed a crime in the eyes of a true conservative: they have spent little to no time covering the Senate race between West Virginia's Republican John Raese and ex-Klansman, present-day Democratic Senator, Robert Byrd.

While "Effin' Lurch" - that's Kerry, for those of you who don't follow much political satire - gave the Republican Party a reason to distinguish themselves from the Democrats, they made a disasterous mistake in the midst of it all. What went wrong, you might ask? From the very top, they asked Kerry for an apology. Kerry's initial response was reactionary, as he lashed out at the Republican Party and the pioneer of the alternative media, Rush Limbaugh. Kerry wouldn't offer an apology to men and women in uniform for another two days. When he did, it wasn't in front of a microphone.

On his website, he stated, "I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended."

It's fair to say that it would be naive to expect Kerry to apologize to the Republicans as well. But they got what they wanted - the prized apology they've all been asking for. If a man is forced to apologize for a statement he stood by, how do you know he is sincere about it? To put it in another way, the Republicans risked bailing Kerry out before voting day.

Howard Dean, the indispensible DNC Chairman, stuck up for his troubled friend, the apparent victim of old-fashioned McCarthyism from Republicans. Rumor has it that Kerry meant to say "And if you don't, you get us stuck in Iraq." That would have been an appropriate joke for a Democrat who excelled in his education, but it wasn't the best wisecrack for a D-student like John Kerry. In response to his inept performance in college, Kerry said, "I always told my Dad that D stood for distinction."

It didn't matter that both the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion took the comments personally, and also demanded that Kerry apologize. The organizations represent millions of voters who served their country, and take offense to any remote hint of troop bashing. While the Republicans did the right thing by sticking up for those who have served their country, they allowed Kerry to cover his own butt. And he didn't. He went off on an anti-Bush rant the first chance he had to apologize. Finally, after enough pressure was instilled on him from his fellow Democrats, he offered an apology to the troops and their family members.

While Kerry stuck his head further in the dirt by delaying his apology, the Republicans could lose credibility by holding his statement against him, since after all, they demanded he apologize. Why didn't the GOP strategists immediately air ads with the clip of Kerry's Freudian slip? Kerry didn't ask to be forgiven, and it won't help the GOP as much as it could have if they went ahead and exposed John Kerry unapologetically.

In any event, the troops let it be known loud, clear, and hilariously, that they hear the same brand of hopelessness on the War in Iraq that we do from politicians who declare themselves "anti-war," even in the latter of the invasion of Iraq. While Kerry was trying to figure out how to explain his slip of tongue to swing voters, the 1st Brigade 34th Infantry Division at Tallil Airbase in Iraq made a sign, spelled "Halp us Jon Carry -- We R stuck hear N Irak." Not surprisingly, Ann Coulter joined the chorus. "Whatever Karl Rove is paying John Kerry to say stupid things, it's worth every penny," she wrote in her latest column.

While all of this is making the election coverage more and more exciting, the alternative media hasn't bothered to cover Robert Byrd's re-election campaign. Is it a hopeless situation? Apparently so. As of now, he has served longer than any other member in Congress. This includes serving in the House of Representatives, starting in 1953. He has the record for the longest serving Senator - 47 years. He has never lost an election. He is the oldest member in Congress, at age 88.

Byrd has been referred to constantly whenever the latest racism chargest come out. Other than that, he is often ignored by Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter. Byrd was a young man in his twenties when he joined the Ku Klux Klan. He was "promoted from within" as a Kleagle - in other words, a recruiter. He has described it as a mistake of his youth, and generally, we can forgive a man for his sins.

Unfortunately, throughout the course of events, Byrd hasn't had the best luck in letting go of his old self. In 1946 - three years after he left the Klan - he wrote to the Imperial Wizard of the KKK, declaring, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia... It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the Union. Will you please inform me as to the possibilities of rebuilding the Klan realm of W. Va?" This letter was discovered and publicized in 1971.

In 1947, he wrote segregationist Senator Theodore Bilbo, informing him that he would "never submit to fight beneath that banner [the American flag] with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

After his first taste of power in the Senate, he devoted much of his time fighting civil rights legislation. Infamously, he filibustered over fourteen hours in an attempt to defeat the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He also opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but supported the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Yet, Byrd is the only Senator who voted against the only two black Supreme Court nominees in U.S. history, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas.

In 2001, Byrd appeared on "Fox News Sunday" to discuss race relations. At that point, the NAACP all too generously gave Byrd a whopping 100% rating, considering him to carry a pro-civil rights voting record. It might as well have been the highlight of his checkered career.

He was off to a good start: "Are much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime.... I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us ... I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that," Byrd thoughtfully commented.

But then, he blew it. "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."

Predictably, Jesse Jackson was not impressed with Byrd using a slur that had historically been used on blacks to imply criminal, lazy, and stupid behavior. Finally arriving at the conclusion that social norms did not call for the n-word to be thrown around, Byrd sent a statement to Fox News. "I apologize for the characterization I used on this program. The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today's society."

According to a September 11, 2006 poll, West Virginia is likely to repeat their mistakes. Given that the poll only accounts for 500 voters, there may be a chance that Byrd will not win by a landslide afterall. In any event, Robert Byrd is winning with 63% of the vote, with John Raese only winning 30%. Chances are, Robert Byrd will die in office. And we're all to blame for allowing that to happen.

Kerry's October Surprise

Senator John Kerry is not up for re-election in 2006.

Yet, he is a high-profile Democrat, possibly the most recognized face of the Democratic Party to your average man on the street, and he has been out trying to rally the progressive base into electing Democrats in the most important mid-term election the United States has had since 1974, which ultimately determined the fate of Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam.

In September of 1988, Michael Dukakis made public relations history when he got in the an M1 Abrams tank, in a safety helmet too big for his head. The embarrassing footage was used successfully by the Bush campaign to portray Dukakis as uncomfortable in a military setting, and therefore, unfit to command.

On January 19, 2004, Howard Dean delivered what would be remembered as the “I Have A Scream” speech, or the “Dean Scream,” which symbolized him as a reactionary who lacked self-control necessary to run the country for the remainder of the presidential bid.

On October 30, 2006, John Kerry did a “stand-up comedy routine” on the topic of education at Pasadena City College in Southern California that fired up a distressed Republican Party with much needed ammo to depict Democrats as defeatists with no desire to win the war.

Here is the “joke” that could very well serve as the turning point in the final week before the election.

Heavy debates are circling around whether or not this was insulting to the American troops who are serving in the military. “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Would it have been condemned as “racist” if someone said, “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in the ghetto?” Of course it would. And you can expect decent people to be outraged over it, even if the comment was not directed towards any specified minority.

While reasonable people could agree that Kerry didn’t deliberately intend to insult the troops, he has given the Republican Party a goldmine of material in a quote that deserves criticism for emphasizing shame on those in the military, not the administration, as Kerry has suggested.

Kerry’s defense mechanism has been ineffective. Instead of offering an apology to soldiers and their families, or anyone who was offended at his comments, and come to his senses enough to admit that he could have worded his slam on the Iraqi War a little differently, he has slung mud back at the administration to cover his own butt.

Was the “bad joke” a laughing matter? It has been played on every major news network, yet there is little, if any, laughter after Kerry’s arrogant remark. It’s certainly not a laughing matter to military families, whether or not their sons and daughters joined because they couldn’t afford college, wanted good pay with military benefits, or out of patriotism, to insinuate that many young people are in Iraq because they were dunce kids.

Paul A. Morin, The National Commander of The American Legion didn't care much for Kerry's comment either. The American Legion, 2.7 million members strong, is the largest veteran's organization in the country.

"As a constituent of Senator Kerry's I am disappointed. As leader of The American Legion, I am outraged. A generation ago, Senator Kerry slandered his comrades in Vietnam by saying that they were rapists and murderers. It wasn't true then and his warped view of today's heroes isn't true now."

It appears that the Democrats are baffled on how to respond to John Kerry. Bob Casey, who is running against Rick Santorum for Senate - and leading in the polls, has backed Kerry. According to Casey, Kerry "botched a joke."

Harold Ford of Tennessee wasn't so sympathetic.

“Whatever the intent, Senator Kerry was wrong to say what he said,” Ford said. “He needs to apologize to our troops.”

Needless to say, the unraveling of the Mark Foley scandal may not hurt the Republicans as much as the Democrats hoped. Most would admit that the scandal was politically calculated, but both parties were at a fault. Republicans who knew about Foley’s contacts with teenage boys did what they could to cover it up. Democrats with the same information withheld it until the election gained momentum.

Not surprisingly, President Bush used the occasion to fire up the conservative base at a rally in rural Georgia. "The members of the United States military are plenty smart and they are plenty brave,” Bush proclaimed, with an eruption of applause. “And the senator from Massachusetts owes them an apology,"

It’s no surprise that the Republicans up for re-election have distanced themselves from President Bush. While Bush has drifted from the conservative base on spending and border security, his appeal to Middle America is of growing concern. He has emphasized on partisan issues without the ability to advance much support on the Iraqi War.

However, homeland security has been a winning issue for him in the past, and is likely to serve as a key issue this mid-term election, not to mention an unemployment rate at only 4.6%. It also didn’t hurt that he signed the Secure Fence Act, which will build more than 700 miles of fencing at critical points along our southwest border, and requires the Department of Homeland Security to install cameras, ground sensors, and unmanned aerial vehicles in an effort to prevent illegal immigration.