Quilibet imitabilis juris professio

Attorney Lynne Stewart is spending her last summer free of cavity checks and girl-girlfriends. She published (contrary to court orders) a press release in which her client, that blind Santa Claus Arab Harem Overlord, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, withdrew his support for a cease-fire in Egypt. He was (and is) incarcerated with special circumstances, and ergo incommunicado. She claims she has done nothing wrong. That just supports the proposition - Quilibet imitabilis juris professio (Anyone can imitate a lawyer). Let’s look into the depth of her depravity.

al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (GAI) is an Egypt-based terrorist group, active since 1977. They seem to be no more than girls from the hood – 74% of their victims have been tourists. How pathetic. Killing tourists is a badge of honor only for phallic-challenged terrorists. Our blind Santa Clause was their spiritual leader. (Remember his crime? He blew up a parking lot.)

GAI settled down for a while from 1997 until 2000, when Santa Claus – through our hero Atty. Lynne Stewart – withdrew his support. Stewart didn’t just leak a statement to the GAI. She issued a press release. GAI immediately began to kill Christians. Was this a momentary lapse of reason?

Let’s look into her indictment for clues.

Directly quoted:

The May 2000 Prison Visit

j. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman (Ed. – nee Santa Claus) by STEWART and YOUSRY (Ed. – STEWART is Lynne Stewart; YOUSRY is soon-to-be-codefendant Mohammed Yousry was supposedly an interpreter, but was actually a terrorist), YOUSRY told Abdel Rahman and STEWART about the kidnappings by the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group in the Philippines and Abu Sayyaf’s demand to free Abdel Rahman, to which STEWART replied, “Good for them.” STEWART then told Abdel Rahman that she believed he could be released from prison if the government in Egypt were changed. (Ed. – what part of changing foreign governments is germane to preparing a defense?) STEWART also told Abdel Rahman that events like the Abu Sayyaf kidnappings in the Philippines are important, although they “may be futile,” because it is “very, very crucial” that Abdel Rahman not be forgotten as a hero of the “Muiahadeen” (Jihad warriors).

k. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, YOUSRY read Abdel Rahman an inflammatory statement by Taha that had recently been published in an Egyptian newspaper.

l. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, YOUSRY, at STEWART's urging, read Abdel Rahman a letter from SATTAR. Among other things, SATTAR’s letter informed Abdel Rahman that SATTAR’s communications with specified Islamic Group leaders had become “semi-constant” over the past year, arid asked Abdel Rahman, “If there is anything, please notify.” In addition, SATTAR's letter asked Abdel Rahman to endorse “the formation of a team that calls for cancellation of the peace initiative or makes threats escalates things.”

m. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, while YOUSRY read Taha's statement and SATTAR's letter to Abdel Rahman, STEWART actively concealed that fact from the prison guards. At one point, STEWART and YOUSRY explicitly discussed the fact that the guards were patrolling close to the prison conference room and might notice that STEWART was not involved in the conversation between YOUSRY and Abdel Rahman. To conceal the fact that STEWART was not participating in the meeting, among other things, STEWART instructed YOUSRY to make it look as if STEWART were communicating with Abdel Rahman and YOUSRY were merely translating, by having YOUSRY look periodically at STEWART and Abdel Rahman in turn, even though YOUSRY was in fact reading. STEWART also pretended to be participating in the conversation with Abdel Rahman by making extraneous comments such as “chocolate” and “heart attack.” STEWART contemporaneously observed to YOUSRY that she could “get an award for” her acts of concealment, and YOUSRY agreed that STEWART should “get an award in acting.” Following the comments about STEWART's acting ability, STEWART, YOUSRY, and Abdel Rahman all laughed.

n. On or about. May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, while YOUSRY read SATTAR’s letter to Abdel Rahman, STEWART and YOUSRY laughed while acknowledging that if the prison guards discovered that they, were reading Abdel Rahman a letter from SATTAR they would get “in trouble.”

o. On or about May 20, 2000, during the second day of a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, Abdel Rahman dictated letters to YOUSRY indicating that he did not support the cease-fire and calling for the Islamic Group, to reevaluate the cease-fire, while STEWART again actively concealed the conversation between YOUSRY and Abdel Rahman from the prison guards. Among other things, STEWART periodically interrupted the dictation with extraneous comments, and stated explicitly that she would do so from time to time in order to keep the guards from realizing that she was not participating in the conversation.

p. In or about late May 2000, after STEWART and YOUSRY's visit to Abdel, SATTAR had telephone conversations with Islamic Group leaders in which he stated that Abdel Rahman: (1) did not object to a return to “work” (terrorist operations); (2) agreed that the Islamic Group should escalate the issues in the media; (3) advised the Islamic Group to avoid division in the Islamic Group's leadership; and (4) instructed the Islamic Group to hint at a military operation even if the Islamic Group was not ready for military action.

Stewart’s May 26. 2000 Submission of Her Agreement to Abide by the Terms of the Special Administrative Measures

q. On or about May 26, 2000, STEWART submitted to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York the affirmation that she signed on May 16, 2000, in which she agreed to abide by the terms of the SAMs then in effect on Abdel Rahman.

The June 2000 Press Release Regarding Abdel Rahman’s Withdrawal of Support for the Initiative

r. On or about June 14, 2000, STEWART released a statement to the press that quoted Abdel Rahman as stating that he “is withdrawing his support for the cease-fire that currently exists.”

s. On or about June 15, 2000, during a telephone conversation with another person, STEWART stated her concern that she would not be able to “hide” from the United States Attorney’s office the fact that she had issued the press release.

(End direct quotes.)

Verdict – guilty. And it wasn’t just the Egypt ceasefire that was at issue. Read The Smoking Gun’s writing and note the USS Cole discussion at the end of it.

Stewart was aiding and abetting a convicted terrorist. And now she has amassed her liberal friends and wants our sympathy. In fact, she’s on a speaking tour while she waits for a September 23, 2005, sentencing.

Sympathy? She won’t get mine.

Is there a priest in the house? Medic!!!!!

The LA Times found what they were looking for – a disaffected Catholic who has written a book. First hint of trouble: check the byline. Is it normal to put a guy’s credentials up front? Don’t they usually reserve them for the end? Are they trying to convince us of his moral superiority before we read his diatribe? I editorialize liberally throughout the article.

It never ceases to amaze me that people think God’s rules change over time. I thought some people, at least including priests, would understand this concept. Guess not.


A Catholic Call for Dissent.

By Charles E. Curran, Charles E. Curran is a professor of human values at Southern Methodist University and the author, most recently, of "The Moral Theology of Pope John Paul II" (Georgetown University Press, 2005).

I grew up as a typical pre-Vatican II Catholic. I entered the seminary at 13 and became a priest 11 years later, never questioning church teachings. But as a moral theologian in the 1960s, I began to see things differently, ultimately concluding that Catholics, although they must hold on to the core doctrines of faith, can and at times should dissent from the more peripheral teachings of the church. (Ed. – OK, Charles, I’ll bite. Compare and contrast “peripheral” and “core”)

Unfortunately, the leaders of the Catholic Church feel differently. In the summer of 1986, the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the powerful enforcer of doctrinal orthodoxy around the world, concluded a seven-year investigation of my writings. (Ed. – sorry for interrupting, but I can feel some residual issues.) Pope John Paul II approved the finding that "one who dissents from the magisterium as you do is not suitable nor eligible to teach Catholic theology." Cardinal Ratzinger — now Pope Benedict XVI — told the Catholic University of America to revoke my license to teach theology because of my "repeated refusal to accept what the church teaches." (Ed. – before we get too much further, I want to thank you, Charles, for using direct quotes. So let me get this straight, popes don’t like you, right?)

I was fired. (Ed. – it would have had much more impact if you ended the above paragraph with those three words. See your editor.) It was the first time an American Catholic theologian had been censured in this way. At issue was my dissent from church teachings on "the indissolubility of consummated sacramental marriage, abortion, euthanasia, masturbation, artificial contraception, premarital intercourse and homosexual acts," according to their final document to me. It's true that I questioned the idea that such acts are always immoral and never acceptable (although I thought my dissent on these issues was quite nuanced). (Ed. – Indissolubility. What a great word! Root – Soluble. From the Latin “solvere” meaning to loosen; indissolubility – the state of being incapable of being loosened.

Sorry, Charles, what did you want to loosen and the popes didn’t? Oh darn! It seems the loosen bit probably only pertained to marriage. OK. Divorce: Charles, yes; popes, no. I guess everything else you wanted to change in a way more than just to loosen. Let’s see the issues. Abortion: Charles, yes; popes, no. I guess the same for euthanasia, masturbation (really?), artificial contraception, premarital intercourse, and homosexual acts. Charles, you devil!!!!)

Let’s see if I got this straight (no pun intended). You want people to be able to get divorced; have sex with other (now-single) people regardless of gender, and if none are available – no problem, just touch winkie yourself; you want to be able to have safe sex (I would hope so with all of those risk factors!); if by chance wrapping the wrascal doesn’t stop little spermies from swimming to momma, you want to be able to abort; and then at the end of it all, when all that is between you and eternity is a feeding tube or just the last miserable days on earth, you want to be able to end it all. With church approval. What part do you think those nasty, backward popes had an issue with?)

You know, Chuck (can I call you Chuck? Thanks), it sounds like you are in the wrong church. Try the Episcopal Church - they let in all sorts of folks.

Unfortunately, (Ed. – boy, there’s an understatement!!) the Vatican — which was already moving toward greater discipline and orthodoxy — was having none of it. (Ed. – HMMPH!!!!!) Seven years earlier, it had punished the Swiss theologian Hans Küng because of his teachings on infallibility in the church. Later, Cardinal Ratzinger "silenced" Brazilian Franciscan Leonardo Boff, an advocate of liberation theology, for a year. Just recently, Ratzinger said U.S. Jesuit Roger Haight could not teach Catholic theology until he changed his understanding of the role of Jesus Christ. (Ed. – Hear! Hear! Fine examples, my young Catholic friend!! But an issue or two, if you’ll indulge me.)

Hans Küng wrote Infallible?, published in 1971. He lost his right to teach eight years later, in 1979. Claiming to be infallible sounds absurd, like such an easy thing to attack. Surely, the Catholic Church isn’t suggesting that everything the Pope does is correct? Well, no, it is much more limited. Let the Church speak for herself: "the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals ..."

The Church speaks through the pope. So as God’s messenger, I guess it presumes a willing and obedient vessel. And Hans found some popes not quite so obedient. Fine.

But what else is Hans up to? Oh my, Hans said the next pope should also avoid giving moral verdicts on such issues as contraception, abortion and homosexuality.

What is it with these guys? They all want to wrap the wrascal, kill any mistakes, and have sex without regard to gender.

Next, the Rat-man "silenced" Brazilian Franciscan Leonardo Boff. First, Tippy (can I call you Tippy?) you failed to mention that Boff is silenced no more, and that silence itself is typically for a period of repose only. Maybe you knew that – but remember your audience, Tippy. Regardless. Small point.

So what is Boff all about? “As Emiho Nunez observes, "liberation theology is a new method of doing theology," combining biblical paradigms with a Marxist sociological analysis. Consonant with most liberationists, Boff declares that all theology is built upon two foundations, the one of faith and the other of social reality. By engaging the linguistic, philological and sociological tools of modern criticism, theology exegetes in the most rigorous manner possible the biblical text, and then interprets such data hermeneutically and philosophically. For Boff, theology becomes the intellectual savior of faith, producing the light of synthesis between primitive faith and modern conditions.” Ut-oh. I feel another claim to gay rights coming!!!

Oh no, I spoke much too quickly. This guy is infinitely more off-track: Boff goes on to state that the Bible is not Divine Revelation: “The language of liberation, as diverse as the ramifications might be, articulates a new optic through which human history both in the present and in the past is interpreted. To think and to act in terms of liberation in politics, in economics, in pedagogy, in religion, in sociology, in medicine, in psychology, in critical ideology, etc. implies a hermeneutical turnaround and the enthronement of a new state of consciousness … Now we live under the dominion of this new age that permits a different reading of the texts and historical contexts of both past and present within the horizon of liberation or oppression and regression.” Interpretation: we may not have been smarter than God before, but we are now; that book, the Bible, let me tell you what it really means …

Hey, Tippy!! If you see this guy, make sure his tin foil hat is securely fastened, ok?

Finally, the Rat-man, your nemesis (it must really grate on you that he’s pope, eh?) said U.S. Jesuit Roger Haight could not teach Catholic theology until he changed his understanding of the role of Jesus Christ.

What’s the story here? Haight asserted that "because of modern pluralistic consciousness," one cannot continue to affirm … that Christ is the centerpiece of God's plan for salvation. Modern. Pluralistic. Consciousness.

Medic!!!!!

That’s the best you can do, Pinky??? Back to your story … sorry for taking so much time.)

Since 1986, no Catholic institution has offered to hire me. (Ed. - I am apoplectic at such a turn of events!) Although I remain a baptized (Ed. – is that full immersion or just the top-of-the-head-non-Biblical-kind?) Catholic and a Catholic priest — the pope and the cardinal (Ed. – that would be former pope and then-bishop-and-now-present pope, to you) did not move to have me defrocked — my case sent an unmistakable and unequivocal message to Catholics around the world that deviation would no longer be tolerated.

(Ed. – Deviation? Killing humans in the womb (see Jeremiah 1:5)? Killing people before God’s time (Babylon’s days were numbered (see Daniel 5:26); Satan’s days are numbered (see Revelation 12:12); but not ours (see Psalm 90:12)? Homosexuality (see 1 Corinthians 6:9, Genesis 19, and every verse dealing with intimate relations – seems to be all mixed gender relationships, bub)? These are mere deviations?)

Official Catholic teaching has always given the impression that the pope and bishops will not and cannot change moral teachings because these teachings are based on God's law. Certainly Pope Benedict XVI will insist upon the same approach. (Ed. – One can only hope.)

But it doesn't have to be that way. History shows that the Catholic Church has changed its moral teachings over the years on a number of issues (without admitting its previous position had been wrong). A very sorry page in Catholic history, for example, is the fact that for over 1,800 years the popes and the church did not condemn slavery. (Ed. – you are equating slavery with homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia? Wow. That takes some cajones.) And until the 17th century, popes, in the strongest terms, condemned loans with interest as violating God's law. (Ed. – Exodus 22:25 (NIV): “If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest.” What’s the problem?)

History is not the only argument for change in Catholic moral teachings. Catholics generally recognize that many (if not all) of Catholic moral teachings on specific issues belong to the category of "non-infallible" teachings. Despite the "creeping infallibilism" (Ed. – great word) that seeks to put more and more teachings beyond question, the fact is that many moral issues are open for reinterpretation and rethinking.

(Ed. – “many (if not all) of Catholic moral teachings on specific issues belong to the category of "non-infallible" teachings.” You must be joking. Please. Tell me you are. Infallibility pertains to, in large part (see above) and by definition, moral teachings; you suggest that moral teachings are to be labeled “not infallible." That would leave infallibility to statements on faith. A faith without morals. That’s an interesting concept. I think you’re an American. You know what I mean by “dufess”?)

Dramatic changes have occurred in some aspects of papal social teachings in the last two centuries. Pope Gregory XVI in an 1832 encyclical condemned freedom of conscience in society as an "absurd and erroneous teaching or rather madness." Pope Leo XIII in the 19th century condemned "the modern liberties" and opposed the equality and participation of citizens in civic and political life. The people, he wrote, are "the untutored multitude" that must "be controlled by the authority of law." Vatican II, however, accepted religious liberty for all human beings. (Ed. – Yes, yes, yes!!!! So now, by logical extension, we should be able to have premarital sex with any gender, kill the mistakes … well, you get the point. We are simply more enlightened on these “social” issues now.)

In dealing with civic, political and economic life, contemporary papal social teachings gives great importance to history and to the notion that social ideas can change with the times. In these areas, church teachings now emphasize the freedom, equality and participation of the person, as well as a "relationality" model that sees people in multiple relationships with God, neighbors near and far, the Earth, and self. (Ed. – Which one doesn’t fit? “Social. Gay Rights. Abortion. Morality.”)

But in papal sexual ethics, an older methodology still prevails. Unchanging human nature and the eternal law of God, not historical development or the person understood in light of relationships, constitute the primary considerations. The many people both inside and outside the Catholic Church who experience some dissonance between papal sexual and social teachings are right. There is a different methodology at work in these two areas. (Ed. – Dissonance. Cute. Poor logic, but nice try. Of course the people that see a difference are right. Because there is a difference. Social teachings are not moral teachings – but sexual teachings are. Different rules – infallibility, eh?)

Some changes would logically occur in sexual teachings if these teachings employed the same methodology as used in papal social teachings. Likewise, papal sexual teachings, like social teachings, would not be able to claim absolute certitude on complex and specific issues. (Ed. – Yes, some changes would occur. And if I change from putting gasoline in my lawnmower to putting water into it, a change would also occur. What’s your point?)

History reminds us that change in Catholic moral teachings always comes from the grass roots. Interviews with ordinary Catholics mourning the death of Pope John Paul II indicated that even those who admired and loved him strongly disagreed with some of his specific moral teachings. Even the staunch defenders of the papal condemnation of artificial contraception for spouses recognize that the vast majority of Catholics do not follow the pope. (Ed. – So not everyone wants to be under God’s rules? Isn’t that because we are sinners? Are you suggesting that because sinners exist, that the Church should change its position? I’m disappointed. Where do you reference the Bible in any of this?)

I'll pray for you, my friend, for you are seriously misguided. 2 Peter 2:1. Read it. Study it. Pray for your enlightenment.

New pope guy

I don't follow Catholic politics or issues too closely. I'm one of those Bible-thumping folks that can't quite get find the verse on confession booths and calling someone father other than God. Just doesn't seem quite right to me. But that's ok. The Catholics have a new pope and the liberal media is going nuts.

I was in a faculty area and the television was on CNN. Ordinarily, I would ask to change it. But this was just after the announcement of Benedict XVI. (I was rather hoping he would opt for the name Leo, like another German pope. Seems like such a nice name.)

So there's Judy Woodruff (isn't that a variant of a grouse?) asking people on the street (her or one of her minions) whether they were upset that he is so strict, that he won't bring the Church into modern times, that he isn't Hispanic. "No," came the universal response. "No problem at all. We have a new pope. Isn't it wonderful?" You could see Judy's hair falling out, actually being pushed out by the tension in her neck.

I'll be honest - one of the things I fear most about going to Hell for eternity is being with people formerly employed by CNN. Could you imagine that? "See, we told you there wasn't a God. Where is He now?" Endless interviews with Hillary Rodham Clinton Kerry Kennedy (she became something of a black widow after Bill stroked out having one last fling with a 20-something girl). One humorous thing would be watching George Stephanopoulos - you could count on him, no matter where you saw him, no matter what time or circumstance, to be curled up in a ball rocking back and forth crying his eyes out.

Hell with newscasters. Oddly brings a chill. I better go read my Bible.

Hillary's Toaster just went Pop!!

Jay Cost reminds us to not over-estimate Hillary. An outstanding piece. As I read it, I was reminded why I quit blogging during the '04 election: it just didn't matter what the MSM reported, the election was over in September. Kerry was simply in the wrong league.

Jay points out in wonderful detail the structural problems Hillary has with herself. She can never survive a presidential run, no matter how much the MSM may want her to.

I recall the day after the '04 election. The faculty office area was glum (except me!). One woman professor, trying to put on a brave face, said, "well, I just can't wait to 2008 and Hillary!" Then she did this little dance. I was very proud of myself - I didn't burst out laughing. That type of person will give the MSM all the reason it needs to push Hillary as a genius politician, as Bill without the phallic issues. How pathetic, eh?

Greenpeace: Brush your teeth, get cancer and die.

That's the story proffered in the Brit's Evening Standard. The theory is that triclosan reacts with water to produce chloroform gas. Chloroform gas is, apparently, a known carcinogen.

Here's the first indication of a problem with the reporting: "If inhaled in large enough quantities, chloroform can cause depression, liver problems and, in some cases, cancer." Yeah, so can oxygen - in large enough quantities. Ever see rust? That's caused by oxygen. Oh my. Imagine what it's doing to your lungs!!!

Here's the only other indication of a problem we need: "[The manufacturer of the products] Marks & Spencer confirmed today it was removing products containing triclosan from all its stores and has been working with Greenpeace to develop alternative products." Ahhh, that leading cancer research institute and toothpaste expert organization Greenpeace. I feel so much safer knowing they are on the job. And I was just about to commit Harry Carey (sing baseball songs while brushing) over the prospect of losing my teeth whilst I fretted about inhaling chloroform gas. Whew, that was a close one!! I always get the order mixed up and say "get me some Crack Jack and peanuts" then I just stop singing. Could you imagine doing that with a mouthful of toothpaste and desparately trying to constantly exhale? I would probably choke and die. Greenpeace, thank you!!!

I wish that were all of the bad news, but it get's worse. Artfully hidden among pictures of skin cancer, Heart Spring shares this tidbit: "The U.S. EPA recently stated that 'Due to chlorine and showering, virtually every home in America has a detectable level of chloroform gas in the air.' When chlorine vaporizes in steam, and combines with other organic compounds in the air, it converts to chloroform. Chloroform is a strong respiratory irritant and causes fatigue." So, if I shower and inhale chloroform gas I may get tired and want to go back to bed.

Just to be safe, until these issues are resolved, I am not going to brush my teeth or shower. But wait - that's silly. Although if I stopped writing now, my son would print this out and put it on my bedroom door with the note, "Please read. I agree. Kindly reinstate allowance until further studies are completed, peer reviewed, and published."

Let's learn more about chloroform:

"Chloroform is a clear colorless volatile liquid with an ethereal scent that is nonflammable and does not form explosive mixtures at atmospheric temperatures and pressures. It is miscible with most organic solvents, and is slightly soluble in water. Chloroform evaporates quickly and in its concentrated gaseous form, it will tend to settle to the ground before dispersing." So it won't explode in my mouth and I can reduce my risk if I brush my teeth standing up. That's a good tip.

"Pyrolysis of chloroform vapor occurs at temperatures above 450 oC, producing tetrachloroethylene, hydrogen chloride, and minor amounts of other chlorocarbons." So if you put a lit match to it, it produces something like ethylene. Don't they use that to power cars in California? This may be a whole new industry. Brush your teeth, spit into the gas tank, and drive to work. Think of all those healthy gums as people run out of gas and begin to brush their teeth. It may increase roadside deaths, but it would be a boon to forensic dentistry. Maybe the drool cup industry would be revitalize, too (although I understand that the fad of tongue piercings has had a positive effect).

OK. Enough silly stuff. Here's the meat: "Cancer: No information is available regarding cancer in humans or animals after inhalation exposure to chloroform. Chloroform has been shown to be carcinogenic in animals after oral exposures resulting in kidney and liver tumors. The U.S. EPA has classified chloroform in Group B2: Probable human carcinogen, with a potency value of 2.3 x 10-5 (microgram per cubic meter)-1. The U.S. EPA estimates that if an individual were to breathe air containing chloroform at 0.04 µg/m3, over a lifetime, that person would theoretically have no more than a 1 in 1 million increased chance of developing cancer (U.S. EPA, 1994a). The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified chloroform in Group 2B: Possible carcinogen based on inadequate evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in animals (IARC, 1987a)."

Inadequate evidence. One in one million - in theory.

I have a higher probability of dying in a car wreck (1.62 per million) - and that is actual deaths based upon data.

In fact, when you consider that the overall death rate is 49.16 per million, and the cancer survival rate is ever-increasing (over 50% almost ten years ago!), I think that a one in a million risk sounds pretty good.

I'm gonna go brush my teeth and shower - a long hot shower. Maybe I'll floss, too.