Tiananmen Square, 22 Years Later

Twenty-two years ago in Beijing, hundreds and hundreds died when the Chinese government used military force to halt pro-democracy demonstrations by the Chinese people.

Decades later, when it comes to anti-government demonstrations, China continues to lack tolerance.

Hong Kong (CNN) -- Thousands of people filled Hong Kong's Victoria Park on Saturday to mark the 22nd anniversary of the bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square.

The candlelight vigil comes after recent efforts by the Chinese government to quash would-be demonstrators from holding anti-government protests. About 26 people were arrested between February and March, according to a Hong Kong-based human rights group, when an anonymous group began an internet campaign calling for anti-government protests in China similar to ones that have taken hold in the Middle East.

In response to the campaign, authorities deployed heavy security along major thoroughfares, especially in Wangfujing, a busy shopping street in downtown Beijing that had been designated by the online group for protests. The government also tightened rules on foreign reporters, explicitly warning them that they risk detention, suspension of press cards and expulsion if they show up at planned demonstrations.

Saturday's protest is an annual event organized by the Hong Kong Alliance, a pro-democracy group. Hong Kong police called it a "peaceful gathering."

Images of the demonstration showed a sea of flickering candles covering the length of the park.

The anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests serves as a reminder of how precious our freedom is, and how blessed we are to be Americans.

It's also a warning to us. We must always remain vigilant in terms of protecting our rights and not allowing more and more government intervention in our lives.

We must never forget the lessons of Tiananmen Square.

Be the guy standing in front of the tanks.



Tens of thousands attended the vigil in Hong Kong, but on the Chinese mainland, it's as if the event didn't take place.

From the Toronto Star:

Tens of thousands of people — organizers say 150,000 — turned out for a candlelight vigil in Hong Kong on Saturday to remember those who died in the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, and to demand the release of pro-democracy activists on the Chinese mainland.

It was a stunning display of hope for a democratic ideal, coming at a time when political suppression in China has never been greater — not since the Communist government used guns and tanks to crush the student-led Tiananmen protests in Beijing 22 years ago.

In Hong Kong, where police estimated the crowd at a more conservative 77,000, demonstrations are still allowed under the agreement that returned the former British colony to China in 1997.

But on the Chinese mainland, in a feat worthy of a George Orwell novel, government censors blocked all news of Saturday’s protest.

Nor was there any mention of the tragic events of June 4, 1989, in which hundreds and possibly more than 1,000 people died.

The Tiananmen massacre remains a taboo topic in mainland China, and Saturday was marked by a near-national amnesia, interrupted only by news that Li Na, China’s top female tennis player, had won the French Open.

All governments are not created equal.

Donald Trump and Robert De Niro: Obama Birth Certificate

Donald Trump made his usual Monday appearance on FOX & Friends.

Trump talked about high gas prices. He talked about his voting record, specifically his failure to vote in primaries. And he addressed Robert De Niro's criticism of Trump for making an issue of Obama's birth certificate.

Video.



Transcript

STEVE DOOCY: Meanwhile here in New York City over the weekend, they've been having the Tribeca Film Festival. The guy who started it, Robert DeNiro, it sounded like he was, he did call you out.

He said, a couple of days ago, quote: 'I won't mention names, but certain people in the news in the last couple of weeks, just, what are they doing? It's crazy. They're making statements about people that they don't even back up.... Go get the facts before you start saying things about people.'

And apparently later he did reveal that he was, in part, talking about you. What do you say to Robert DeNiro?

GRETCHEN CARLSON: With the birther issue.

DOOCY: Yeah.

DONALD TRUMP: Well, he's not the brightest bulb on the planet. I mean, I've been watching him over the years, and I like his acting; but, you know, in terms of, in terms of when I watch him doing interviews and various other things, we're not dealing with Albert Einstein. And, you know, he can say what he wants, but the fact is this guy has not revealed his birth certificate.

A lot of people agree with me. I'll tell you what, with all that I do, what I do best is China, jobs, OPEC, all of this. That's what I do best. That's gonna be my strength. It is my strength. I really understand it. I know the people. But with all of that, I think I get more positive... when I'm walking down the street, when I did, recently I did a Tea Party event, and we had a tremendous crowd. They loved this issue. There are so many people that really want him to provide his birth certificate.

I mean, now you have states going out and saying in order to run for office you have to be able to provide a birth certificate. There's a big lot of things going on with respect to the birth certificate. You know, why did he spend, why is he spending millions of dollars to fight this issue instead of just providing this birth certificate? There are so many different elements here. And I will say, it's a very frightening thing for this country.

BRIAN KILMEADE: Well, there's a couple of people that backed you up. OK, De Niro is not in your corner. That's a loss. But David Brooks of the New York Times said some nice things about you and Franklin Graham has indicated that he's leaning towards endorsing you for the Republican nomination.

Trump really knows how to work the media.

No Black Market Organs for You

If you are on a waiting list for an organ transplant, don't bother going to the Philippines to get what you need.

MANILA, Philippines (AP) -- Foreigners will be permanently banned from receiving kidneys for transplant in the Philippines to prevent the country from becoming a major Asian center in a thriving black market, health officials announced Tuesday.
Extensive kidney trading involving impoverished Filipinos and prisoners—who sell their organs for paltry sums to syndicates catering mostly to foreign clients—has been reported by the local media in recent years. A temporary ban on kidney transplants involving foreigners was recently imposed.

China and Pakistan, among the world's biggest sources of kidneys, have taken steps to outlaw the sale of human organs, and desperate foreigners may be prompted to increasingly turn to the Philippines for kidneys, Health Secretary Francisco Duque said.

"The poor always end up as the ones being abused," he said, adding kidney transplants for foreigners have risen in recent years. "The sale of one's body parts is condemnable and ethically improper. We have to stop it."

The sale of organs is illegal in the Philippines. The ban—intended to protect poor Filipinos from exploitation—will prohibit foreigners from getting donated kidneys unless they can prove a donor is related to them by blood, Duque said.

He said the ban was endorsed by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and will take effect in about three weeks. Kidney donations among Filipinos will continue but will be strictly monitored by a new regulatory body, he said.

Social Welfare Secretary Esperanza Cabral said at least 500 kidney transplants involving foreign patients were conducted last year in the Philippines.

...Local TV networks have shown footage of Manila slums where virtually all men bore kidney surgery scars after selling their kidneys for about $4,760 each.

This is a dirty, but not so secret, practice in Asia.

After years of denial, the Chinese government finally admitted that it engaged in human organ harvesting. In China, prisoners, including political prisoners, were executed for their organs.

China has acknowledged that foreigners who can pay more than native Chinese have been given preference for organ transplants and that "donors" for the operation have often been executed prisoners.

WND reported in 2004 charges by the banned Falun Gong group – backed up by Chinese doctors and human rights experts – that the communist government was torturing prisoners, executing them and trafficking in their body parts.

This week, at a summit for transplant doctors held in Guangzhou, the once-denied practice was confirmed by government officials.

"Apart from a small portion of traffic victims, most of the organs from cadavers are from executed prisoners," said Vice Health Minister Huang Jiefu, according to English-language China Daily newspaper. "The current organ donation shortfall can't meet demand."

A ministry spokesman also said that "wealthier people, including foreign patients" were able to move to the top of waiting lists ahead of others waiting for organs.

Whether people are selling their organs or the government is taking prisoners and executing them to harvest their organs for transplant, it's a sick, sick practice.

Talk about torture! Talk about cruel and unusual punishment!

Question: Has the U.S. executed prisoners and sold their organs on the black market?

Question: Do the poor in America resort to selling their kidneys?

Obama Calls for Bush to Boycott Olympics Opening Ceremony

UPDATE, April 12, 2008: Bush unlikely to boycott Olympics
_______________

Barack Obama is following Hillary's lead. He, too, wants President Bush to be a no-show at the opening ceremony of the Olympics in Beijing.

LEVITTOWN, Pa. -- Barack Obama joined Democratic presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday in calling for President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies for the Olympic Games in Beijing.

Clinton had commended British Prime Minister Gordon Brown for announcing that he will skip the August ceremonies in China's capital, and called on Obama and likely Republican presidential nominee John McCain to join her in urging Bush to do the same.

Brown continues to insist that he never intended to be at the opening ceremony. His absence supposedly is not a political statement or connected to a boycott.

In effect, Hillary is commending Brown for his schedule that never included an appearance in Beijing for the opening ceremony in the first place.

Obama did later in the day; his campaign issued a statement in which, for the first time, he urged Bush to boycott the festivities.

...Obama said a boycott "should be firmly on the table," but that a decision should be made closer to the Games.

"If the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the president should boycott the opening ceremonies," he said. "As I have communicated in public and to the president, it is past time for China to respect the human rights of the Tibetan people, to allow foreign journalists and diplomats access to the region, and to engage the Dalai Lama in meaningful talks about the future of Tibet."

Obama previously had said he was conflicted about U.S. participation, but that "there should be consequences" for China if it does not take steps to respect rights and freedoms in Tibet.

Obama seems to be playing catch-up with Hillary. He had to issue a statement after she was making headlines on the matter.

I think it's weird that Obama wants to talk to tyrants and terrorists unconditionally but he thinks going to China for the opening ceremony of the Olympics may be inappropriate.

He's concerned about human rights yet he said the war that freed the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's torture and brutality was "dumb."

I'll say what I've said before:

Why has this opening ceremony taken on such importance?

Why has attendance become a sort of test of a leader's support for "basic human freedoms"?

That makes no sense to me. Bush has spent his tenure in office leading the fight for freedom; and the Dems have led persistent attacks against his efforts.

The opening ceremony, a few hours-- That's what matters. That's everything.

Of course, attendance at the games themselves and the closing ceremony wouldn't be a problem at all. For some reason, that wouldn't send the wrong message to the Chinese.

That's ridiculous.

This sudden concern about conditions in China ticks me off. What do Obama and Hillary think has been going on in China for DECADES under this oppressive communist regime?

Bush and the Olympics Opening Ceremony

Should President Bush attend the opening ceremony of the Olympics in Beijing?

Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, say he should not.

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has said he plans to attend the Beijing Olympics, but the White House has not ruled out the possibility that he may miss the opening ceremony, which China hopes to use as an international showcase.

Critics of China say that Bush avoiding the event would be a powerful sign of international anger over China's violent response to demonstrating Buddhist monks in Tibet. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokeswoman said Wednesday that Brown will not attend the opening ceremony.

Over two days, White House press secretary Dana Perino has faced questions about Bush's attendance at the opening gala for games that China hopes to use to make a statement about its rising economic and political power. She says Bush will go to the Olympics.

But, pressed by reporters whether she could say if Bush will attend the opening ceremony, Perino said Wednesday, "I cannot."

She says the reason is not uncommon: "I'm not trying to signal anything by saying that. I don't have the president's schedule. It is way too far in advance for us to announce the president's schedule."

Perino said Bush "has been very clear that he believes that the right thing for him to do is to continue to press the Chinese on a range of issues, from human rights and democracy, political speech freedoms and religious tolerance, and to do that publicly and privately, before, during and after the Olympics."

Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Robert Byrd and Robert Menendez sent Bush a letter Wednesday saying the crackdown in Tibet "should be unacceptable to anyone who believes in basic human freedoms."

"We believe that your attendance at the opening ceremonies, rightly or not, would send the implicit message to the world that the United State condones the intolerance that has been demonstrated by these actions of the Chinese government," the letter said.

Aren't the Democrats always yapping about reaching out to countries, including our enemies?

Aren't the Dems always saying that the Bush administration squandered all the post-9/11 goodwill directed toward the United States and we need to repair broken relationships with other countries?

Don't the Dems complain whenever the Bush administration stands firm on its policy of not negotiating with terrorists?

Aren't the Dems constantly calling for dialogue with every tyrant and terrorist on the planet?

Yes.

Nonetheless, in spite of the cries to keep diplomatic channels open with the most brutal thugs and human rights violators in the world, Hillary and some of her Dem colleagues (probably most) believe that Bush attending the opening ceremony of the Olympics would send the wrong message to China.

That act alone supposedly would tell the world that the U.S. condones the intolerance that has been demonstrated by the Chinese government.

What a joke!

Yes, forget everything else the Bush administration has done to pressure the Chinese regarding human rights.

Disregard everything except attendance at the opening ceremony.

...Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told lawmakers Wednesday that the United States is looking at the possibility of a U.S. consulate in Tibet. She said the United States has urged China to allow more U.S. diplomats into the region, saying access granted by China so far was not good enough.

"The United States," she added, "has been very active in making the case to the Chinese that they are going to be better off to deal with moderate forces on Tibet like the Dalai Lama; that they should open dialogue with him."

Why has this opening ceremony taken on such importance?

Why has attendance become a sort of test of a leader's support for "basic human freedoms"?

That makes no sense to me. Bush has spent his tenure in office leading the fight for freedom; and the Dems have led persistent attacks against his efforts.

The opening ceremony, a few hours-- That's what matters. That's everything.

Of course, attendance at the games themselves and the closing ceremony wouldn't be a problem at all. For some reason, that wouldn't send the wrong message to the Chinese.

Right.

The IOC knew exactly what it was getting into when it gave China the honor of hosting the Olympics.

The country is ruled by an oppressive communist regime. No kidding.

The IOC permits countries that do not respect the basic human freedoms of its citizens to host the Olympics. So what else is new?

The IOC looked the other way when it received reports that Uday Hussein tortured Iraqis Olympic athletes. Iraq was not expelled from the Olympic community in spite of the fact that the IOC was aware of the atrocities for years.

Let's be honest. The IOC doesn't have a great human rights record.

This whole mess drips with hypocrisy.

China's Human Rights Record a Surprise?

As the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing approach, concern over China's human rights violations is snowballing.

Where have these outraged people been? What planet have they been living on? Have they been preoccupied with other matters for the past DECADES?

From the Washington Post:

Zheng Enchong is a self-taught lawyer and a dogged human rights activist. In many countries, he would be considered a gadfly. But in China during this Olympic year, he is treated like a threat to national security.

One police surveillance camera tapes whoever enters or leaves his Shanghai apartment. Another monitors whoever presses the elevator button. A third records people in the building's elevator.

Lest the cameras prove unreliable, plainclothes police officers lounge in one corner of Zheng's landing through the day, smoking, sipping tea and playing cards.

Often, Zheng said, they prevent him from leaving his building. When he tried in February to go out to buy dumplings, the guards beat him up. In recent months, he said, they have been allowing him to attend church most Sunday mornings. But sometimes not. He never knows exactly why.

"That's the way things are for me," the round-faced lawyer said in an interview, smiling haplessly as if embarrassed by his fate. "It's been going on for the last two years."

As Beijing prepares to host the 2008 Olympic Games in August, the grinding controls imposed by the Chinese government on Zheng and other civil rights activists over the last decade are coming under growing scrutiny abroad.

China's security forces have extensive experience and little legal restriction in suppressing dissent. But domestic challenges to Communist Party rule are playing out today within a rising international debate over what place China's human rights record should have in the Olympics.

The Chinese government insists that the Games should have nothing to do with politics. Foreign activists, however, argue that the desire to celebrate athletic achievement should not be a reason for the world to ignore the dark side of Chinese policies.

President Bush, aligning with China's rulers, disagrees. He plans to attend the opening extravaganza Aug. 8. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has taken a similar position.

But since rioting erupted in the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, on March 14, international concern has swelled, in particular over the fate of Tibetans. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France responded by saying a boycott of the Olympics opening ceremony is worth considering. The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, announced she is staying away. As part of her presidential campaign, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) suggested Monday that Bush should follow suit, citing China's conduct regarding Tibet and the Sudanese region of Darfur.

Little mentioned in the debate are the daily challenges -- from monitoring to arrest -- risked by Zheng and any of China's 1.3 billion residents if they challenge the party line.

Just months before the Olympics, all of a sudden, world leaders are showing great concern about human rights in China.

It's as if the West hasn't been paying attention.

Google had no problem getting into bed with China and being the government's accomplice in heavy-handed censorship. That deal was two years ago. Yahoo and Microsoft also chose to compromise principles for profit.

There certainly weren't widespread calls to boycott Google or Yahoo or Microsoft. Did Sarkozy, Merkl, or Hillary Clinton refuse to use their products or services because they're enablers of China's censorship?

Back in April 2006, when Chinese President Hu Jintao visited the U.S., he was met with some protests.

While visiting the state of Washington, supporters of the Falun Gong blasted protests about China's human rights violations from sound trucks into Hu's hotel. The protesters also gathered at Microsoft's headquarters.

Other protesters congregated outside the White House gates with signs and banners noting the issues of China's various atrocities, and its policies on Tibet and Taiwan.

Those protests were minor and easily managed by the Chinese thought police. However, one protester did manage a high profile disruption of Hu's carefully orchestrated visit.

Dr. Wang Wenyi interrupted a ceremony on the White House South Lawn when she screamed about China's persecution of Falun Gong practitioners.

Wang, a physician and a Falun Gong practitioner, said that it was the atrocities being committed by the Chinese government, particularly live organ harvesting, that prompted her protest.

According to Wang, there are concentration camps in China. The communist government and their operatives have incarcerated at least 200,000 people. They've committed no crimes. They are innocent; yet according to Dr. Wang, no one comes out of the labor camps alive.

She notes that between 2001 and 2003, thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have been victimized.

On the Internet organs are advertised as being available within two weeks. Anyone even vaguely familiar with people waiting for transplants knows that it can take years to find a suitable match. It's impossible to guarantee an organ so quickly, unless there is an organ farm available.

These innocent people are held in facilities and their blood types and tissue types are documented and kept in a database. When someone comes looking to buy a kidney or a heart, the Chinese communists simply kill an individual to get that person's organs. They commit murder and they sell the parts of that human being. Obviously, these killers are drawing from a very large pool to be able to provide suitable matches.

In addition to this organ harvesting, men and women are routinely executed for the practice of Falun Gong.

At the time, Wang's protest received relatively little attention from the mainstream press.

Months after her protest, in November 2006, WorldNetDaily reported that Wang Wenyi was right.

Following years of denial, China has acknowledged that foreigners who can pay more than native Chinese have been given preference for organ transplants and that "donors" for the operation have often been executed prisoners.

WND reported in 2004 charges by the banned Falun Gong group – backed up by Chinese doctors and human rights experts – that the communist government was torturing prisoners, executing them and trafficking in their body parts.

This week, at a summit for transplant doctors held in Guangzhou, the once-denied practice was confirmed by government officials.

"Apart from a small portion of traffic victims, most of the organs from cadavers are from executed prisoners," said Vice Health Minister Huang Jiefu, according to English-language China Daily newspaper. "The current organ donation shortfall can't meet demand."

A ministry spokesman also said that "wealthier people, including foreign patients" were able to move to the top of waiting lists ahead of others waiting for organs.

...The announcement at the Guangzhou summit followed the adoption of new rules in July for transplants. Under these regulations, foreigners would only be eligible for transplants per internationally recognized standards. The 1 million Chinese already on waiting lists would be given priority, and organ donations, even from prisoners, would be with the donor's consent.

The rules also forbid "organ trading" – paying live donors for organs that are removed and then transported outside China for transplant.

The Communist Chinese were harvesting human organs and selling them at bargain prices.

Chinese prisoners, including political prisoners, were executed and their organs were used in transplants.

The Chinese didn't deny this anymore. They admitted to the practice.

Where was the international outrage over this barbarism?

Did those calling for a boycott of the opening ceremonies of the Olympics complain about the Chinese government's execution of thousands and the extraction of their organs for transplants?

Why did it take those leaders planning to sit out the opening ceremonies in Beijing so long to come to the conclusion that there are serious human rights violations in China?

Why are China's sins being put in the spotlight now?

Does it really come as a surprise to anyone that the host country of the 2008 Olympics doesn't have a great record on human rights?

A gesture like boycotting the Olympic opening ceremonies is way too little way too late.
________________

An editorial today in the New York Times declares:

Nobody expected China to democratize overnight, and, given the country’s mighty economic power, nobody really wants to antagonize Beijing. But a nation that applies to host the Olympic Games also must demonstrate that it is worthy of the honor. China has only itself to blame for messing up its coming-out party.

No.

The blame rests on the Olympic Committee for bestowing China with the honor of hosting the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing.

China clearly demonstrated that it was not worthy of that honor. The decision was announced on July 31, 2001.

I guess the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 were forgotten. If not forgotten, the Chinese government's response was forgiven.

Beijing and the Olympic Torch Relay

08.08.08

It's hard to imagine the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games as a celebration of world unity while witnessing this disastrous Olympic torch relay.

PARIS -- Paris' Olympic torch relay descended into chaos Monday, with protesters scaling the Eiffel Tower, grabbing for the flame and forcing security officials to repeatedly snuff out the torch and transport it by bus past demonstrators yelling "Free Tibet!"

The relentless anti-Chinese demonstrations ignited across the capital with unexpected power and ingenuity, foiling 3,000 police officers deployed on motorcycles, in jogging gear and even inline skates.

Chinese organizers finally gave up on the relay, canceling the last third of what China had hoped would be a joyous jog by torch-bearing VIPs past some of Paris' most famous landmarks.

Thousands of protesters slowed the relay to a stop-start crawl, with impassioned displays of anger over China's human rights record, its grip on Tibet and support for Sudan despite years of bloodshed in Darfur.

Five times, the Chinese officials in dark glasses and tracksuits who guard the torch extinguished it and retreated to the safety of a bus — the last time emerging only after the vehicle drove within 15 feet of the final stop, a track and field stadium. A torchbearer then ran the final steps inside.

Outside, a few French activists supporting Tibet had a fist-fight with pro-Chinese demonstrators. The French activists spat on them and shouted, "Fascists!"

In San Francisco, where the torch is due to arrive Wednesday, three protesters wearing harnesses and helmets climbed up the Golden Gate Bridge and tied the Tibetan flag and two banners to its cables. The banners read "One World One Dream. Free Tibet" and "Free Tibet." They later climbed down.

Beijing was announced as host of the 2008 Olympic Games on July 31, 2001.

Where was the outrage then? Where was the anger?

I understand why people are protesting, given China's horrific human rights record.

But I disagree with the method of protest. Peaceful protest is honorable, halting the torch relay is not.

Such dramatic disruption of the torch relay runs counter to the Olympic spirit. At this stage, it's unfair to the athletes.

Look back on the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Although there were protests and talk of boycotting the games, they went on. The world's athletes gathered to compete in spite of the serious objections and concerns about Hitler's Nazi Germany. In the end, the accomplishments of the athletes overshadowed the promotion of Nazi ideology.

An important difference: Hitler wasn't in power when Berlin was chosen to host the games. China, on the other hand, didn't just turn into a human rights hell. This isn't a surprise.

Why was Beijing given the games in the first place if there was such opposition?

..."A symbol like [the torch], carried by young people who want to deliver a message of peace, should be allowed to pass," said the head of the French Olympic Committee, Henri Serandour. "These games are a sounding board for all those who want to speak about China and Tibet. But at the same time, there are many wars on the planet that no one is talking about."

International Olympic Committee spokeswoman Giselle Davies agreed. "We respect that right for people to demonstrate peacefully, but equally there is a right for the torch to pass peacefully and the runners to enjoy taking part in the relay," she said.

China's Foreign Ministry assailed the demonstrations. "We express our strong condemnation to the deliberate disruption of the Olympic torch relay by Tibetan separatist forces," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said in a Web statement. "Their despicable activities tarnish the lofty Olympic spirit and challenge all the people loving the Olympic Games around the world."

Jiang also disputed reports that the torch had to be extinguished several times, calling them false. "To protect the security and dignity of the Olympic torch under the circumstances there, the modes of relay were temporarily changed," she said.

Jiang also denied that authorities were in any way forced to extinguish the torch, implying it was their decision to put it out.

Keeping politics out of the Olympics is impossible. I think peaceful protests are appropriate. I have no interest in validating Beijing. I think it was a mistake to bring the Olympics there.

But that's where they'll be. Since that's the way it is, the games and the events leading up to them, like the torch relay, should be allowed to go forward without disruption.

The games aren't about Beijing. They're about the athletes, their dedication and achievement. The focus belongs on the competition. It should be. It can be.

Protesters must be careful not to victimize the athletes by ruining their Olympic experience.

The protesters' cause is noble but they shouldn't make the athletes pay for Beijing's sins.

Mark Schofield: Transplant Tourist

HEY! MICHAEL MOORE! READ THIS!

Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and Barack Obama and Jim Doyle should read it, too.

The utopia of socialized medicine is a myth.

Case in point:

A former surfing champion has flown to the Philippines to buy a new kidney after waiting for a transplant in Britain for more than four years.

Mark Schofield has saved £40,000 for the life-saving operation in the hope of finding a poor filipino to sell him an organ.

The 43-year-old said he had no choice but to become a 'transplant tourist' after being let down by the donor service in Britain.

Britian's health care system has let Schofield down.

How can that be?

Universal health care is the way to go. At least that's what we keep hearing from the Dems and fringe Leftists like Sicko Michael Moore.

He added: 'I'm not prepared to lie down and play dead. I've got to take a gamble – I can't just sit here and do nothing.

'I know the moral argument about buying and selling organs but I also know I have two young children who I want to see grow up.' mr Schofield was struck down by kidney disease 20 years ago, when he was a professional surfer on the world circuit.

His mother, Jean, donated one of her kidneys so he could start a family and carry on with his life.

But now the businessman, from Porthcawl, South Wales, needs another transplant.

Because he has a rare blood type, the donor service has failed to find him a match after four-and-a-half years.

There are 6,500 people on the waiting list for a kidney transplant in Britain but just 1,800 operations were carried out last year.

To be fair, people lingering on waiting lists for organs isn't just a problem in countries with socialized medicine.

The demand for transplant organs is far greater than available organs.

But let's not pretend that universal health care is a panacea. Let's not be fooled by the promises from the Dem presidential candidates and their visions of government-run health care.

That's issue one in this story.

Issue two: The morality of going to a third world country to find a poor person willing to sell an organ.

A person is clearly in a desperate situation when one is willing to sell one's body parts.

It could be worse.

Getting compensated for giving up an organ is far better than what has gone on in China.

About a year ago, Beijing finally acknowledged reports of organ harvesting.

Following years of denial, China has acknowledged that foreigners who can pay more than native Chinese have been given preference for organ transplants and that "donors" for the operation have often been executed prisoners.

WND reported in 2004 charges by the banned Falun Gong group – backed up by Chinese doctors and human rights experts – that the communist government was torturing prisoners, executing them and trafficking in their body parts.

This week, at a summit for transplant doctors held in Guangzhou, the once-denied practice was confirmed by government officials.

"Apart from a small portion of traffic victims, most of the organs from cadavers are from executed prisoners," said Vice Health Minister Huang Jiefu, according to English-language China Daily newspaper. "The current organ donation shortfall can't meet demand."

A ministry spokesman also said that "wealthier people, including foreign patients" were able to move to the top of waiting lists ahead of others waiting for organs.

If an individual freely chooses to sell an organ, fully understanding the risks, I guess that's a legitimate choice, albeit an extreme one.

However, when political prisoners are tortured and then executed for the purpose of harvesting their organs for transplantation to the highest bidder, that's positively barbaric.

Where's the outrage from the so-called human rights organizations?

Where's the outrage from the Dems on this torture?

They're too busy condemning the Bush administration and the U.S. over waterboarding.
_________________

Does the name Wang Wenyi ring a bell?

Refresh your memory here and here and here.

Kohl Successfully Courts Yi

Rare photo of Kohl cracking a smile. (Photo/TMJ4)

Wisconsin Sen. Herb Kohl went on a mission to China.

He successfully brokered a deal.

This has nothing to do with his duties as a U.S. senator.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

After Bucks owner Herb Kohl made a trip to Hong Kong to conduct personal negotiations with Yi's representatives, the young Chinese star signed a multiyear deal with the Bucks, ending a saga that began on draft night when he was selected with the sixth overall pick by Milwaukee.

The Bucks announced the signing at 2:15 a.m Milwaukee time (3:15 p.m. in Hong Kong).

Kohl, Bucks general manager Larry Harris and team vice president Ron Walter met with Yi, Chinese Basketball Association officials and Guangdong Tigers owner Chen Haitao on Wednesday in Hong Kong.

"We all anticipate Yi's arrival and welcome him and his family to Milwaukee," Kohl said. "We look forward to a successful relationship for many years to come."

Yi and his representatives initially had balked at signing with the Bucks and requested a trade to another NBA team, preferably one in a major market or with a large Asian American population. Prior to the draft, agent Dan Fegan had warned the Bucks not to select Yi and had not allowed Bucks officials to conduct a private workout of the Chinese player at his Los Angeles training base.

But the Bucks insisted throughout the summer that they did not intend to trade Yi, and their hand was strengthened when they were able to sign their own free agent point guard, Mo Williams, to a six-year, $52 million contract. That lessened the chances they would be inclined to deal Yi, who had gained fame in China for his play with the Guangdong team. He appeared in the last five CBA finals with the Tigers and led them to titles in 2004, 2005 and 2006.

...Earlier this summer, Sen. Kohl wrote a letter inviting Yi, his family and his representatives to visit Milwaukee.

And from Reuters:

Bucks owner Herb Kohl, present at the signing, said he was eager to see Yi in action.

"A-Lian is an extraordinarily fine person and he's a great basketball player and we couldn't be more pleased with having him," said Kohl, using Yi's Chinese nickname.

From TMJ4:

“There has been a genuine excitement throughout our city and state, as well as internationally, following our selection of Yi in the NBA Draft,” Kohl said in a statement.

So Kohl managed to seal the deal with Yi. Quite an accomplishment. Can you feel the excitement?

I can't remember when I've ever seen Kohl this happy. Then again, I don't see him all that much, other than in his campaign commercials.

Too bad Kohl doesn't put as much energy and enthusiasm into his stint as a U.S. senator as he devotes to the Bucks.

For example, Kohl finally got around to updating his website and issuing a formal statement on the resignation of AG Alberto Gonzales.

I am pleased that there will be an opportunity for new leadership at the Justice Department. Attorney General Gonzales has lost the confidence of people all across America and needs to be replaced. It is essential that his successor have more independence from the White House and always put the rule of law before politics.

Speaking of getting one's priorities straight, I get the feeling that Kohl puts the Bucks before his duties to his constituents.

He drags himself to China, yet Kohl has never visited Iraq since the war began, one of eighteen U.S. senators never to do so (as of August 1, 2007).

If Sean Penn and Angelina Jolie can travel to Iraq, I would think that the honorable Sen. Kohl could manage to fit a quick trip there into his schedule.

Organs For Sale

Does the name Wang Wenyi ring a bell?

Refresh your memory here and here and here.

WorldNetDaily reports that Wang Wenyi was right.

Following years of denial, China has acknowledged that foreigners who can pay more than native Chinese have been given preference for organ transplants and that "donors" for the operation have often been executed prisoners.

WND reported in 2004 charges by the banned Falun Gong group – backed up by Chinese doctors and human rights experts – that the communist government was torturing prisoners, executing them and trafficking in their body parts.

This week, at a summit for transplant doctors held in Guangzhou, the once-denied practice was confirmed by government officials.

"Apart from a small portion of traffic victims, most of the organs from cadavers are from executed prisoners," said Vice Health Minister Huang Jiefu, according to English-language China Daily newspaper. "The current organ donation shortfall can't meet demand."

A ministry spokesman also said that "wealthier people, including foreign patients" were able to move to the top of waiting lists ahead of others waiting for organs.

...The announcement at the Guangzhou summit followed the adoption of new rules in July for transplants. Under these regulations, foreigners would only be eligible for transplants per internationally recognized standards. The 1 million Chinese already on waiting lists would be given priority, and organ donations, even from prisoners, would be with the donor's consent.

The rules also forbid "organ trading" – paying live donors for organs that are removed and then transported outside China for transplant.

Since the law prior to the new rules already said donations were supposed to be with consent, there is some question about the new regulations' effectiveness and whether they will be ignored as well. They only apply to ministry of health hospitals, the London Telegraph reported, and most transplant operations on foreigners are done at military hospitals run by the People's Liberation Army.

...Mabel Wu, 69, of Northridge, Calif., paid $40,000 for her new kidney in July. The family was told only that the donor was a 30-year-old male.

"I am very happy with this transplant," Wu told the Times. "I got a good kidney."

It's true.

The Communist Chinese HAVE been harvesting human organs and selling them at bargain prices.

Chinese prisoners, including political prisoners, are executed and their organs are used in transplants.

The Chinese don't deny this anymore. They admit to the practice.

Where's the outcry from so-called human rights organizations?

Where's the international outrage over this barbarism?

I guess the world is too busy condemning Israel for every move it makes to focus on the Chinese executions of thousands and the extraction of their organs for transplants.

And the 2008 Olympics will be held in Beijing.

The Chinese will welcome the world.

I wonder how many visitors will go home with a new organ.

Where do the organs come from?

Don't ask. Don't tell. Be happy.

China Building Another Great Wall

Do good fences make good neighbors?

China thinks so.

From the Associated Press:

China has been building a massive barbed wire and concrete fence along parts of its border with North Korea in the most visible sign of Beijing's strained ties with its once-cozy communist neighbor.

Scores of soldiers have descended on farmland near the border-marking Yalu River to erect concrete barriers 8 to 15 feet tall and string barbed wire between them, farmers and visitors to the area said.

Last week, they reached Hushan, a collection of villages 12 miles inland from the border port of Dandong.

"About 100 People's Liberation Army soldiers in camouflage started building the fence four days ago and finished it yesterday," said a farmer, who only gave his surname, Ai. "I assume it was built to prevent smuggling and illegal crossing."

Though the fence-building appears to have picked up in the days following North Korea's claimed nuclear test last week, experts said the project was approved in 2003. Experts and a local Hushan official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the project, said the military was in charge of the building.

...The fence marks a noticeable change in China's approach to North Korea. In the decades following their shared fight against U.S.-led U.N. forces in the Korean War, China left their border lightly guarded, deploying most of its forces in the northeast toward its enemy, the Soviet Union.

But the border became a security concern for Beijing in the past decade, as North Korea's economy collapsed and social order crumbled in some places. Tens of thousands of refugees began trickling across the border into northeast China, fording the Yalu and Tumen rivers or walking across the ice in winter.

Professor Kim Woo-jun, of the Institute of East and West Studies in Seoul, said China built wire fences on major defection routes along the Tumen River in a project that began in 2003, and since September this year, China has been building wire fences along the Yalu River.

..."The move is mainly aimed at North Korean defectors," Kim said. "As the U.N. sanctions are enforced ... the number of defectors are likely to increase as the regime can't take care of its people. ... I think the wire fence work will likely go on to control this."

Where is the outrage on the Left?

Where is the condemnation from so-called human rights organizations like Amnesty International?

China is doing the unthinkable and the inhumane -- securing its borders.

Why aren't liberals organizing pilgrimages to the construction site of China's wall?

Shouldn't the libs build a human chain to prevent the People's Liberation Army soldiers from fencing the North Korean refugees out of China?

At the very least, shouldn't they encourage their comrades to stop building the fence because it will be ineffective?

What gives a sovereign nation like China the right to secure its borders?

I thought that was wrong.

Isn't the Left's standard that any and all people should be allowed to spill into a country in violation of the law and then be granted the rights and privileges of that country's legal citizens?

Are we going to see massive protests in our streets over China's fence? Shouldn't all the ILLEGAL immigrants and supporters of the ILLEGAL immigrant movement in the U.S. stand in solidarity with North Koreans choosing to move into China?

Will supporters of ILLEGAL immigrants like Jim Doyle and Kathleen Falk invite North Koreans to come to Wisconsin so the taxpayers can pay for their education and grant them in-state tuition at the UW system?

Doyle and Falk want incentives in place so ILLEGAL immigrants are drawn to Wisconsin. It would follow that they would welcome North Koreans with open arms, unlike the evil Chinese.

CENSORSHIP GOOGLE-STYLE

"Show me the money."

That's the bottom line.

Google is in the business of making money, not adhering to moral principles.

BEIJING -- Google Inc. CEO Eric Schmidt on Wednesday defended the search engine's cooperation with Chinese censorship as he announced the creation of a Beijing research center and unveiled a Chinese-language brand name.

Google is trying to raise its profile in China after waiting until January to launch its Chinese-language site Google.cn. Activists have criticized the company for blocking searches for material about Taiwan, Tibet, democracy and other sensitive issues on the site.

"We believe that the decision that we made to follow the law in China was absolutely the right one," Schmidt said at a news conference.

He said Google had to accept restrictions in order to serve China, which has the world's second-largest population of Internet users after the United States, with more than 111 million people online.

From a business standpoint, of course Eric Schmidt would say Google made the right decision. Google's money-making potential in China is enormous.

...Schmidt was speaking at a ceremony to announce Google's Chinese- language brand name _ "Gu Ge," or "Valley Song," which the company says draws on Chinese rural traditions to describe a fruitful and rewarding experience.

Talking to reporters later, Schmidt said Google's managers were stung by criticism that they accepted Chinese censorship, but said they haven't lobbied Beijing to change its rules.

"I think it's arrogant for us to walk into a country where we are just beginning to operate and tell that country how to operate," he said.

Asked whether Google might try to persuade Beijing to change its restrictions, Schmidt said he didn't rule anything out, but said it hasn't tried to change such limits elsewhere. He noted that Google's site in Germany is barred from linking to Nazi-oriented material.

"There are many cases where certain information is not available due to local law or local custom," he said.

Schmidt is a capitalist.

I'm pro-capitalism. I don't criticize him for seizing a new market. However, making money shouldn't blind one to principle.

Schmidt it trying to rationalize censoring "evils" such as Taiwan, Tibet, and democracy. In reality, he's promoting the Chinese "local custom" of oppressing people.

The Google CEO didn't help his cause by comparing the blocking of searches on democracy with Germany cracking down on Nazi-oriented material.

The world saw what Nazism wrought -- 62 million deaths, including the systematic extermination of millions of Jews, as well as Polish civilians, Russian prisoners of war and Russian civilians.

I think we can agree that there is global consensus that Nazism presents a danger.

Thus, any such blocks that Google provides in Germany is not the same as Google's willingness to block searches about Taiwan or democracy.

Schmidt is obviously trying to present a case that Google is fair and balanced. But, being fair is not the same as being immoral. Schmidt really is suggesting that Google operates in a moral vacuum.

Capitalist pursuits do not require the abandonment of principles.

The fact is Schmidt and Google put the dollar first. Is there anything they wouldn't do to increase profits?

I find the way Google Inc. chose to move into China to be dishonorable.

However, in the long run, I believe that when it comes to the Internet and censorship, the Chinese government is fighting a losing battle. It is virtually impossible to keep the Chinese people from having access to Western ideas. A block on "democracy" or "Taiwan" is a drop in the bucket.

As long as the Chinese have Internet access, there is no way that the oppressive Chinese can control the flow of ideas into the country.

In the end, the Google deal won't serve to discourage the desire for freedom in China.

What the Google deal does is prove Schmidt and his cohorts to be unscrupulous. That characteristic is a good thing among immoral capitalists; but human history shows that the moral way eventually conquers the immoral.

I do not believe that capitalism needs a moral vacuum to thrive.

Schmidt and I differ on that.

HISTORICAL PARALLELS

In his regretful, sort of apology yesterday, Little Dick Durbin said, "I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood."

Although he is placing blame on his critics, it is actually Durbin that misused and misunderstood history.

Let's look at history. Let's talk Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.




The Cambodian genocide of 1975-1979, in which approximately 1.7 million people lost their lives (21% of the country's population), was one of the worst human tragedies of the last century. As in Nazi Germany, and more recently in East Timor, Guatemala, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda, the Khmer Rouge regime headed by Pol Pot combined extremist ideology with ethnic animosity and a diabolical disregard for human life to produce repression, misery, and murder on a massive scale.



More history...

By 1975, the U.S. had withdrawn its troops from Vietnam. Cambodia's government, plagued by corruption and incompetence, also lost its American military support. Taking advantage of the opportunity, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge army, consisting of teenage peasant guerrillas, marched into Phnom Penh and on April 17 effectively seized control of Cambodia.

Once in power, Pol Pot began a radical experiment to create an agrarian utopia inspired in part by Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution, which he had witnessed, first-hand during a visit to Communist China.

Mao's "Great Leap Forward" economic program included forced evacuations of Chinese cities and the purging of "class enemies." Pol Pot would now attempt his own "Super Great Leap Forward" in Cambodia, which he renamed the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea.

He began by declaring, "This is Year Zero," and that society was about to be "purified." Capitalism, Western culture, city life, religion, and all foreign influences were to be extinguished in favor of an extreme form of peasant Communism.

All foreigners were thus expelled, embassies closed, and any foreign economic or medical assistance was refused. The use of foreign languages was banned. Newspapers and television stations were shut down, radios and bicycles confiscated, and mail and telephone usage curtailed. Money was forbidden. All businesses were shuttered, religion banned, education halted, health care eliminated, and parental authority revoked. Thus Cambodia was sealed off from the outside world.

All of Cambodia's cities were then forcibly evacuated. At Phnom Penh, two million inhabitants were evacuated on foot into the countryside at gunpoint. As many as 20,000 died along the way.

Millions of Cambodians accustomed to city life were now forced into slave labor in Pol Pot's "killing fields" where they soon began dying from overwork, malnutrition and disease, on a diet of one tin of rice (180 grams) per person every two days.

Workdays in the fields began around 4 a.m. and lasted until 10 p.m., with only two rest periods allowed during the 18 hour day, all under the armed supervision of young Khmer Rouge soldiers eager to kill anyone for the slightest infraction. Starving people were forbidden to eat the fruits and rice they were harvesting. After the rice crop was harvested, Khmer Rouge trucks would arrive and confiscate the entire crop.

Ten to fifteen families lived together with a chairman at the head of each group. The armed supervisors made all work decisions with no participation from the workers who were told, "Whether you live or die is not of great significance." Every tenth day was a day of rest. There were also three days off during the Khmer New Year festival.

Throughout Cambodia, deadly purges were conducted to eliminate remnants of the "old society" - the educated, the wealthy, Buddhist monks, police, doctors, lawyers, teachers, and former government officials. Ex-soldiers were killed along with their wives and children. Anyone suspected of disloyalty to Pol Pot, including eventually many Khmer Rouge leaders, was shot or bludgeoned with an ax. "What is rotten must be removed," a Khmer Rouge slogan proclaimed.

In the villages, unsupervised gatherings of more than two persons were forbidden. Young people were taken from their parents and placed in communals. They were later married in collective ceremonies involving hundreds of often-unwilling couples.

Up to 20,000 persons were tortured into giving false confessions at Tuol Sleng, a school in Phnom Penh, which had been converted into a jail. Elsewhere, suspects were often shot on the spot before any questioning.

Ethnic groups were attacked including the three largest minorities; the Vietnamese, Chinese, and Cham Muslims, along with twenty other smaller groups. Fifty percent of the estimated 425,000 Chinese living in Cambodia in 1975 perished. Khmer Rouge also forced Muslims to eat pork and shot those who refused.

Does anyone doubt that Durbin "misused and misunderstood" historical parallels?

Actually, there are apologists for Durbin's comments. This is a post I read on a political discussion board.

Dear Senator Durbin:

I am a constituent who would like to express my unstinting support of your statements about Guantanamo Bay.

When saying the truth is seen to be "reprehensible," then it is not those who tell the truth who are to blame, but those who would seek to suppress the truth.

DO NOT back down under this assault of liars, supporters of torture, the incompetent, the resolutely ignorant, and the shameless. You are doing exactly what we elected you to do.

Suppressing unpalatable truths is NOT "loving America;" it's the opposite. The pressure you feel now is the direct result of your refusal to go with an unacceptable tide. It's quite simply a testament to your character.

Remember what Harry S. Truman said: "I won't give them hell; I'll just tell the truth, and those Republicans will think it's hell."

As long as you stand firm against these people, you have my vote for life.

Attached please find a check for your re-election fund.

Sincerely,

******




After reading that, it becomes so clear that there are indeed "Two Americas."

Chinese Thought Police

Chinese Censors Scold Internet Users Who Input Taboo Words, Like 'Freedom' and 'Human Rights'

SHANGHAI, China (AP)-- Chinese bloggers, even on foreign-sponsored sites, had better choose their words carefully -- the censors are watching.

Users of the MSN Spaces section of Microsoft Corp.'s new China-based Web portal get a scolding message each time they input words deemed taboo by the communist authorities -- such as democracy, freedom and human rights.

"Prohibited language in text, please delete," the message says.

However, the restrictions appear to apply only to the subject line of such entries. Writing them into the text, with a more innocuous subject heading, seems to be no problem.

Microsoft's Chinese staff could not be reached immediately for comment. However, a spokesman at the tech giant's headquarters in Seattle acknowledged that the company is cooperating with the Chinese government to censor its Chinese-language Web portal.

Microsoft and its Chinese business partner, government-funded Shanghai Alliance Investment, work with authorities to omit certain forbidden language, said Adam Sohn, a global sales and marketing director for MSN.

But he added, "I don't have access to the list at this point so I can't really comment specifically on what's there."

Online tests found that apart from politically sensitive words, obscenities and sexual references also are banned.

MSN Spaces, which offers free blog space, is connected to Microsoft's MSN China portal. The portal was launched on May 26, and some 5 million blogs have since been created, Microsoft said.

My intial reaction to this story was that the agreement was devoid of principle. It was done in the name of profit. Bill Gates sold out.

However, the reality is that the Internet in China will expand intellectual horizons faster and farther than any other technology. FIVE MILLION blogs were created in about three weeks.

Although the censorship may block Chinese bloggers from using certain words in their subject lines, they will no doubt eventually find ways to get around that.

In the meantime, the Chinese will have an opportunity to bring their thoughts to a global audience and have increased access to others' freedom of expression, a powerful force that should not be underestimated.

In the end, Gates' deal can only serve to encourage the desire for greater freedom of speech in China.

Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty -- though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.

--George W. Bush, January 20, 2005

Amnesty International Offends Cheney

From AP:

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney says he's offended by a human rights group's report criticizing conditions at the prison camp for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay.

The report Amnesty International released last week said prisoners at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba had been mistreated and called for the prison to be shut down. Cheney derided the London-based group in an interview set to be broadcast Monday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

"Frankly, I was offended by it," Cheney said in the videotaped interview. "For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously."

Cheney is the latest Bush administration official to object to the report. On Sunday, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers called the Amnesty International report "absolutely irresponsible."

...Cheney said detainees at Guantanamo "have been well treated, treated humanely and decently."

"Occasionally there are allegations of mistreatment," Cheney said. "But if you trace those back, in nearly every case, it turns out to come from somebody who had been inside and released to their home country and now are peddling lies about how they were treated."

...Pentagon officials say they have substantiated five cases where copies of the Quran, the Muslim holy book, were mistreated, although the military has refused to offer details other than to say none was ever flushed down a toilet.
_______________________________

It's very telling that so-called human rights organizations and the MSM are so quick to believe the stories of former Guantanamo detainees. The seem to automatically lend credence to those allegations.

Can you imagine the mainstream press and other organizations with liberal agendas ever giving the American military the benefit of the doubt?

Why do they accept the claims of released detainees as gospel, while they continually question the integrity of Americans?

Dick Cheney should be offended by Amnesty's report. Every American should be offended by it. Putting the U.S. in the same league as China in terms of human rights abuse destroys the credibility of Amnesty International.

It's unfortunate that the organization chooses to put politics ahead of its mission to promote human rights. It's also hypocritical.

Its website claims:

AI is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. It does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor does it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. It is concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights.

I don't buy the "independent of any political ideology" part.

Liberals and Communists Squirm as World Mourns John Paul II

Yesterday John Paul's body was moved to the Basilica, as huge crowds waited for hours to pay their respects.



Up to four million mourners could be in the city for the funeral.


Extra police have been drafted in to deal with the huge crowds.

Clearly, the images out of Rome and from around the world are threatening to some.

China, for example, is uncomfortable with the attention being paid to the Pope's passing.

In today's Wall Street Journal:

There is perhaps no greater testament to the power of John Paul II's life and ideas than the message being sent by communist China. As the Pope lay dying, Chinese authorities relegated information about the state of his health to the back pages of the state-run media and the bottom items on television news. Fostering discussion of this champion of freedom was too dangerous, it seems.

After John Paul's death, China offered condolences to the Vatican, tacking on a hope for improved relations...

But China's actions betray the government's fear of religion, and the persecution of Catholics continues as usual. An arrest spree of Chinese priests and bishops, on as yet undisclosed charges, coincided with the Pope's final days. The bishop of Wenzhou, James Lin Xili, was detained on Palm Sunday; Father Thomas Zhao Kexun was picked up a few days later in Hebei province, as was lay worker Gao Xinyou in the diocese of Wenzhou. Other Catholics had been arrested earlier.

It's interesting to speculate which of John Paul's lifelong messages most frighten Beijing's commissars: His anti-communism, or his warning about the limitations of capitalism without moral roots. Perhaps what frightens them most of all is the thought that independent Chinese religious leaders might emerge who can speak with moral authority.

It's not surprising that a repressive Communist regime would be threatened by John Paul's message. China has a fear of religion, knowing it has the potential to empower the very people the government attempts to control.

Predictably, some liberals in America are engaging in strong-arm thought control tactics of their own.

As the line stretches for miles, while an endless stream of mourners flows through the doors of St. Peter's Basilica to mourn the beloved John Paul II, the mainstream media scrambles to counter this outpouring of emotion with efforts to campaign for their liberal agenda and encourage change in the Church.

During this time of mourning, I find it unseemly, though completely in character, for the MSM to be splashing poll results and editorials that discredit the Pope's conservatism.

The mainstream press is jumping all over an AP Poll reflecting the "cultural divide between the United States and the church," saying "it is time for the Roman Catholic Church to embrace the modern era."

There will be ample time for that sort of commentary after the Holy Father is laid to rest. Now is a time for Catholics and others to acknowledge the greatness of this man, united in their grief and respect for him. Nonetheless, media outlets reveal they do not have the self-control to refrain from bashing John Paul and from focusing on divisions among Catholics.

Again, I believe it is appropriate to express negative views of the Pope's legacy and report on public opinion regarding the future of the Church. However, I take issue with the insensitivity of the timing.

The fact that the MSM cannot resist lobbying for their culturally liberal agenda, even for a few days, is very telling. Of course, no Americans are being arrested as in Communist China; but some liberals are obviously threatened and hoping to influence the direction of the Church at this moment of transition.

In today's New York Times, Thomas Cahill rips Pope John Paul II to shreds as though soliciting votes for a politician:

But John Paul II's most lasting legacy to Catholicism will come from the episcopal appointments he made. In order to have been named a bishop, a priest must have been seen to be absolutely opposed to masturbation, premarital sex, birth control (including condoms used to prevent the spread of AIDS), abortion, divorce, homosexual relations, married priests, female priests and any hint of Marxism. It is nearly impossible to find men who subscribe wholeheartedly to this entire catalogue of certitudes; as a result the ranks of the episcopate are filled with mindless sycophants and intellectual incompetents. The good priests have been passed over; and not a few, in their growing frustration as the pontificate of John Paul II stretched on, left the priesthood to seek fulfillment elsewhere.

...Whereas John XXIII endeavored simply to show the validity of church teaching rather than to issue condemnations, John Paul II was an enthusiastic condemner. Yes, he will surely be remembered as one of the few great political figures of our age, a man of physical and moral courage more responsible than any other for bringing down the oppressive, antihuman Communism of Eastern Europe. But he was not a great religious figure. How could he be? He may, in time to come, be credited with destroying his church.

I wonder how many of the faithful and grateful, standing in a line miles long just for a brief moment to pass John Paul's body in the Basilica, think he will be "credited with destroying his church." I would guess very, very few, if any.

I understand why the reaction to the Pope's death would make his detractors squirm.

Communists and some liberals cannot bear the reality that John Paul II's message touched billions of people, that this humble holy man was more powerful than they will ever be. The most threatening aspect of all has to be that the Pope's power was grounded in the Word of God, very scary to communists and numerous liberals.