WARRIOR ON QUEER STUDIES at DePAUL UNIVERSITY

Hello, Warriors. Thanks again for all the great emails. I appreciate them all.

I had a great time in Chicago at DePaul University. I want to thank DePaul's Conservative Alliance for bringing me, especially Mr. Nicholas Hahn III. For a young man just setting out on his adult life course, he made quite an impression. He has a very bright, principled future ahead of him and I know I will enjoy hearing more about his life success.

As is typically purposeful, negative featherbrains immediately went to lazy, unsubstantiated lengths to mischaracterize what I said and what took place. I've been very busy since I got back but, little by little, have spent the time to set the record straight, which is definitely in order. Enjoy. I think this will probably be the last Full-Blown written commentary that will do for quite some time. Working at podcasts right now and will be doing plenty of those here on out...

To begin, unauthorized videotaping of the event was not allowed. This condition was clearly and abundantly posted prior to the event. But lying, two-faced, left-wing mutineers abide by no rules except the sneaky, always-changing ones they make up on the fly -- essentially so that they can sustain the only two principles that make up the entirety of their valueless character, lying and hypocrisy. Any clips that may find themselves on the internet are not authorized and have been deceptively altered to hide the whole truth and take things out of context.

One of the premises that I put forward in my speech being that the fundamental difference between the ideological sides is "thinking vs feeling," the most enlivening emotional outbursts erupted when homosexuals were offended by my use of the word “queer.” One guy without his husband and two physically-repulsive butch-dykes slurping on one another’s tongues (really) on the front row had a real hard time cozying up to my principled heterosexual obstinacy. So, in an act of pure selfish pleasure the guy got himself physically thrown out by the masculine security guard, unmistakably loving every single masochistic, man-handled moment of it. And the dykes, well, they ran out screaming and yelling like speared wild boars that I was a homophobe for making my remarks. Rumor has it that they decided to exit more because I was not getting stimulated by watching their poorly performed two-nightcrawlers-in-heat act. Ah, the incredible, selfless sacrifices the liberal loons will make on behalf of their cause...warms my heart and makes my whole body laugh.

Truth is, I waited all evening and purposefully kept pushing the “queer” button to learn if anyone would admit what was well known by everyone in attendance and easily verifiable by walking over to another office/classroom just steps away. Nice, reasonable guy that I am, my real fault was that I extended too much benefit of the doubt. You see, DePaul has a “Queer Studies” program.


http://studentaffairs.depaul.edu/lgbtqa/index.html

http://condor.depaul.edu/~lstudies/approved/printable/ssmw.htm

http://www.tfp.org/what_we_do/index/depaul_queer_studies.htm

The hypocrisy I am pointing out is really the least of DePaul's problems. It seems, looking at the life rules of Catholicism, that many of those endorsing queers and a Queer Studies program may just end up burning in an eternal hell. WOW! DePaul, you see, is the Nation's largest Catholic University. And as Nick made clear: DePaul's queers, and more seriously, DePaul's administration, "are arguing for immorality and arguing for a lifestyle that stands inexorably against the Roman Catholic Church. In Pope John Paul II's encyclical Ex Corde Ecclesiae, the former Pontiff lays out the requirements for how a higher education institution should conduct themselves if they want to be considered Catholic. It can be found here:"

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_15081990_ex-corde-ecclesiae_en.html

This proves that teaching the lifestyle of queers in our society is violating the encyclical.

More on this 'particular' nuisance for DePaul queers can be found at these links...and if you need more, do a "LGBTQA Studies at DePaul" search. No, it won't make you queer...

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=19252

http://www.catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=31641

So where do we end up? Back at lying and hypocrisy, that’s where. More on this queer thing later...

The first question during the Q&A began with a young kid standing up and saying, in a very sarcastic, very phony, very over-fawning way, how impressed he was that I had slammed Andre the Giant. I could immediately tell he was trying to jerk my chain and that he wasn’t a fan of my wrestling career or The Ultimate Warrior, at all. He was simply using this cheap mocking preface fatuously thinking my ego would be stroked and then he could catch me off guard with what he thought was, as he put it, a “puzzling” question. Ple-e-ease. I read his smart-ass before his first word left his mouth. “Masturbate at home,” exactly what I said, was the wholly justified, sarcastic, smart-aleck three word retort perfectly exposing this disrespectful punk for the agitator most everyone there knew he was trying to be.

There were other intellectually unsound highlights during the Q&A....

Having talked about “self-reliance” during my speech, one girl gets up and reminds me that I have and then she asks me how I got to DePaul. Not knowing exactly what she was getting at but having a funny gut feeling, I answered her literally and started with telling her that I took a plane flight. That was all the bait she needed to go off on a illogical tangent that I was not truly self-reliant. “You had to depend (rely) on the plane, so isn’t it true that you are not so self-reliant?” Nuts as she was, she actually drove home my speech point that “the world works by those who think and produce,” i.e., someone had to think to create the idea of a plane and have the work done to produce it. Bewildered as I was about how she could connect one with the other, along with many laughing others, I entertained the madness for a few moments. I told her that I forgot to brown-bag my dinner and that I would also have to rely on someone at some restaurant latter that evening to cook my meal, just as I was relying on whomever constructed the floor I was standing on to hold me up three stories high. The glaze in her eyes deepened...

A unhealthy looking, pasty-white, disheveled male queer with burgundy-colored spiked hair stood up and reminded me that I had said I did not know any queer with their emotional life act together. Obviously heartbroken and bothered by this, he enlightenedly added, “How could you say that? Because, you see, you do not know me.” Although it's always easily possible to misjudge someone without giving them an adequate chance to show their real self, I have to say that this queer said more than enough in 13 words for me to say, quite confidently, that he definitely doesn't have his emotional life act together.

One girl (queer?, I do not know) stood up and reminded me I said something about today’s modern immigrants coming to America and “urinating and defecating upon our soil.” This figure of speech obviously went through her empty head. I had actually made a comparison of today’s immigrants to immigrants from the past who came to America and “dropped to their knees, kissed the ground and cried tears of joy that they were here, praying thanks that they had made it.” Nonetheless, she proceeded to tell me, “Urinating is a natural function.” That was it. I stood patient and polite waiting to have my commonsense abused more, but that was her entire comment. She was done. I told Nick to make a note of it because surely I could use this invaluable piece of knowledge for intellectual reference sometime down the road.

One girl, failing at her first attempt at a “Gotcha!” moment, got up to take a second stab. She proceeded to remind me that I said in my speech, both, that we are all the same in the sense that “we are created as human beings with rational minds to think and figure out our way in life” (I did) and that “each person should engage who they uniquely are and what unique talents they may have” (I did). The latter near the end of my speech where I’m talking motivationally to all the young kids about how every human being has unlimited potential to do incredible things. Finished with reminding me, she then goes on to tell me what a hypocrite I am for saying those two things. Where on the one hand I was saying “we are all created the same as human beings with rational minds, but you also tell us we should be uniquely who we are.” Anyone who needs further explanation of her outrageous taffy-strung logic, that somehow being created the same as human beings with rational minds contradicts and interferes with using your unique human talents to be uniquely who you are, has a brain empty as hers. You want her address or number, I can probably get it. Or just try 1-800-KOOK.

Another girl asked me two times, maybe three, about why I would advocate large families (I did) when the World is overpopulated and there is widespread famine. She was really hung up on it. Frankly, I was sure she had an eating disorder, but it was hard to tell because she had a baggy sweatshirt on and when I ask her if she did, she denied it. But liberals always lie. The first time she asked her falsely-premised question, my quick answer was “Grow a garden.” It took a few moments, but the answer sunk in for most everyone else except her. I know it is difficult in these complex, intellectual times, but think about the simplicity of it. You think there’s going to be a shortage of food at your place? Grow a garden. Even more radical -- buy a cow and milk it. Get a chicken, steal its eggs and if it clucks too much, kill it and eat it. Buy a gun -- shoot a wild animal. You know...save a seal, club a liberal...that type of thing. Go into survivalist mode. Do what you have to do to nourish yourself. It’s a traditional thing human beings have been doing -- doing very well I might add -- for a long, long time.

Somewhere during the laughs I seriously pointed out to her the truth of the matter -- the World is NOT overpopulated. Like most ‘Save Everything But Mankind’ liberals who sidestep the truths, this didn’t register too well in her tofu nourished brain. That the World is overpopulated is another one of those fearmongering modern liberal myths like “End of the World” global warming. The planet has miles and miles of open land mass. And I told her to go to the internet and find one of those satellite views of the its landscape and find out for herself. In fact, while she is there she should zoom in and see if she can locate her former self, the one that didn’t fall for every dumb ass, anti-mankind idea there is.

About famine, I told her that many in third world countries would not be dying of starvation if the money the USA gives to those countries was kept out of the dictator's hands. In fact, they'd be obese like most Americans are. In addition, NO people in our own country would EVER have to go without food if we weren't such a benevolent nation giving our own lunch money away to so many begging, non-productive others around the World. Call me a meanie, but I care more, and am more ashamed, about American kids going hungry than I am about any other hungry homo-sapiens alive. Feed our own, first. If there are leftovers, send them. On her third attempt, reality not finding a grip on her mind, with more sterness I told her again what I had started with. Basically that the young conservative kids, who got the commonsense I was relaying about the positives of having big families, would not let their kids go hungry. They would “plant the gardens.” Moreover, the by-products of their gardens would not just be your simple everyday variety of peas, corn and carrots. They would be productive in their lives in all ways and not let their families down in any regard, let alone, have them go hungry at the dinner table. But, you know, commonsense only goes so far with a bulimic liberal...you know, it totally slipped my mind to chastise her about all the food she waste...damn...

There was a very angry black guy there. Studying to be a teacher, he just didn’t want to accept the facts of the matter that pouring more money into the public education system isn’t going to make for better teachers. When I told him that more money is spent inside the DC education system than anywhere else and yet the schools and teaching are the worst, he went apoplectic and refused to accept the reality of this. Of course, reality always triggers a emotional flare-up out of a liberal. Later, this future teacher, becoming quickly exhausted from the hardcore 'education' lessons I was providing, piggybacked onto another liberal agenda where cursing at the truth is, again, the only defense. Told what Bill Cosby recently said (again) about many blacks creating their own life despair and turmoil, he also wasn't interested in believing this. Very bothered earlier in the evening by the “intelligence vs idiocy” remarks in my speech, when confronted with what Cosby said about his own race of people, this level-headed, future educator of youth yelled -- “He’s an idiot!!”

Of course with many queers in the audience and all of them frothing once I used the very password they use to gain access into their own bathhouse, it wasn’t long before someone brought up HIV. The acronym, so queers believe anyway, that signifies society's covert, conspiratorial discrimination against them. When a queer introduces HIV into the discussion they do so like the disease is spread simply by breathing air. That it is equally killing all of us, no matter lifestyles or sexual behaviors. Like everyone is a 'bug-chaser' whether they want to be or not. Like we all should harbor commensurate fear because we face the same level of risk. This is a lie and when you point out these lies about HIV to a queer liberal, you better duck because the froth flies. But I digress...

The overall mischaracterization about this incident arises from a wholly reasonably selfish motive I expressed. No, really? Me do something like this? Surely not. Frankly, I was frank. Unfortunately, this is NOT an ingredient liberals like added to their diversity stew. Throw in all that is disreputable and vulgar, sure. But you try and spice things up with a little frankness, you just spoiled a liberal’s appetite. I told the frothers in attendance that I had a problem with anyone else teaching my kids about HIV, especially like liberal public school teachers are now required by law to do in New York with kindergartners. I’d like my kids to learn their ABC’s without also having to lose their childhood innocence. For a young child, learning ABCs is fun and exciting. Learning about HIV is nasty, ugly and depressing. Let alone the fact that is largely an adult disease transmitted by promiscuous sexual behavior and drug use. It's a very, very sick kind of irony that when it comes to patrolling the potential negative effects of today's entertainment, the liberals pontificate that 'parental control' is the necessary savior. But let them get all the little innocent kids inside the classroom, away from mommies and daddies, all of them sitting in a circle held magically captive to the impression an adult makes while telling a story, and anything heinously 'indoctrinating' goes. Like a perverted babysitter with sick ulterior motives given the chance, once the parent isn't around and the door can be locked and the shades pulled down, they start destroying the beauty of life.

Phoniness not one of my virtues, I was also bluntly uncompassionate about most types who find themselves deadly sick with this disease. My heart, of course, always goes out to children who find themselves victim because of pathetically irresponsible adults. But as for the rapid, out-of-control rise of HIV in foreign countries (queers being super sympathetic about HIV in Africa), the Constitution of our country does not give our government the right to use our American taxpayer dollars to subsidize either the ills, misbehaviors or negative consequences suffered in these other countries. If a philosophically-inept billionaire like Bill Gates and bleeding-heart liberals like African-loving Angelina-Pitt-Brad-Jolie want to save the World from HIV, good. Just shut up and spend your own money to do it. It's not my problem. And I'm ashamed to one day have to tell my kids that their gutless government reps are making it an even bigger one for them in their future. Of course to many, saying this makes me a bigot. Wrong. I am a rationally-minded American and I am prejudicially protective and concerned about the World my own kids will be growing up in. No apologies about having my priorities in order.

On the record talking plenty about self-responsibility and other premium virtues, I was asked “do you think people living in poverty choose to remain in poverty?” My answer began with, “Yes, I do,” but it did not end there. Of course, the further explanation I provided weirdly couldn’t be found by those who only intended to mischaracterize my “Yes, I do.” As I said several times during the evening, whenever you talk about any subject in the broad, you somewhat mistakenly bring everyone under the same umbrella. Discussing poverty is subject to the same default. There are some living in poverty who do have limited choice. But this is more the case in other countries than it is here in America. In this country, the truth is, people CHOOSE to be everlasting victims of their immediate circumstances, poverty or otherwise. They CHOOSE to remain stuck with ‘their lot in life,‘ as they call it. They CHOOSE NOT to make the better, positive (right) choices. They CHOOSE NOT to make the diligent efforts or hard sacrifices that will lead to a better quality of life. They wake up each day filled with self-pity and exasperated anger that no one is doing the doing for them. They CHOOSE to sit and fantasize that someone will rescue them. Life defeats them because they CHOOSE that it will. They are impoverished because they CHOOSE to be.

As I went on to say...There are always going to be ‘hard luck’ stories. We should talk about and highlight the “changed my luck” stories more. Mind you, I am using “luck” here as a figure of speech -- I don’t believe in it. Winning the lottery is luck. Successful personal achievement is not. There are abundant success stories of those who have risen above their initial negative life circumstances and the always occurring trials-and-errors that are a natural part of every human life. In this country everybody has the potential to CHOOSE to improve the quality of their life. EVERYBODY.

I would also say two more honest, simple things about poverty.

One, as I wrote about in my New Orleans post during the aftermath of Katrina, in this country we DO NOT HAVE POVERTY as it relates to basic subsistence. We do have another kind of poverty, though. Too many people lack the willpower to CHOOSE to take responsibility for their lives and do the work it takes to fulfill the inherent, unlimited potential life offers just by having it.

And, two, something that is not said often enough when there is a discussion about poverty. Poverty is NOT the lack of owning material things. Once there is basic subsistence, 'poverty' is a state of mind. It is relative according to the genuine or superficial value which you attach to things. Like the multitude of “changed my luck” stories we never hear about, there are just as many stories of those who own little more than the basics and, yet, consider themselves incredibly successful and wealthy. Maybe they have no more than a simple roof over their head, maybe a cheap used car to get around, a few changes of clothes and some other basic necessities Maybe they don't even own that much. But they own themselves. Their lives. Their time. Their relationships. Their enjoyment. Neither their character or their credit are in hock and every minute of their lives is spent being in the moment enjoying it. They get it that poverty is a frame of mind and that no amount of 'bank' can buy someone an understanding of this. This is a kind of wealth more valuable than all the treasure in the World. Even without everything money can buy these people are never impoverished. They always have their natural richness. Too bad we don't teach these things to young kids. If you are parent, though, you have the power to. Raise them wealthy, sure. Exploit capitalism to the max and go through all the toys your heart and your freedom desire. But make the time to teach them what wealthy truly means. If you do, whether they have pennies or plenty, they will never find themselves broke.

There was the typically asked, “Did you take steroids question?” The one who asks always anticipates catching me in a “Gotcha!” moment. It never happens. I tell the truth. I have nothing to hide. As they usually are, the young kid himself was the one caught in his own embarrassing “Gotcha!” Dumbfounded about what to do next, he duplicated what is also typical. He got red-faced and angry at himself and tried to assault me from another angle and made an even bigger moron of himself, turning a simple yes or no question into something altogether over his head.

These anecdotes I've relayed here could not be more perfect illuminations of the pure fact that 'thinking vs feeling' is precisely the most basic difference that divides the ideological sides -- or of the verity that education today is absolutely contaminated and deplorable. How is it they say it?: "You just can't make this stuff up." Yet, brought into DePaul to speak more specifically about Diversity, these anecdotes, although good for a laugh, also go right to the heart of how and why modern Diversity (how it s defined and how it is discussed, today) has ended up in the outrageous, dangerous state it is in. Make no mistake about it. This fundamental 'thinking vs feeling' divide is not a harmless joke or --- without purpose. More on that down the road...

Many of you who support my interests today -- and have a like philosophy of life as mine, so you claim -- have written and made comment. Some of you have offered constructive criticism. Most of you focusing on my use of the word "queer." So let me pick back up with that. You ask why I do and why I seem to to be onery about it. You think, perhaps, my more serious, intelligent positive message has a greater chance of going unheard or being dismissed entirely. Especially by critics who don’t agree with my (our) overall views and are rummaging around for the easiest ways to mischaracterize me. I appreciate that you took the time to comment.

My explanation is this.

It has never been my goal to pick a fight against homosexuality or homosexuals and make it the centerpiece of my speaking career. Extreme attention drawn to my use of the word "queer" is not something I went looking for. And it is not what I will be concentrating on in the future. I am simply handling the situation as it unfolds. In fact, until the UConn event, there was never any unhinged fussiness about my usual “legitimate vs illegitimate” comparisons that I always point out during my speech, of which there are many and “queers vs heterosexuals” is but one. Since the ruckus at that event and the underground hit the video of it has become, more distractors are aware and they, as the DePaul radicals showed, come emotionally premeditated (premedicated maybe better to say) to express over the top histrionics. It is precisely because of this insane mischief they generate that I refuse to give up using the word once I have.

First, their exasperated anxiety proves the primary premise of my speech, that the fundamental difference between the ideological sides is 'thinking vs feeling,' 'reasoning vs emotionalism,' to conduct human life and handle society at large. Empty of any capacity to use reason to deliberately process what someone else says or proposes, their short-fused, volatile, irrational emotions ignite like TNT. When this anti-intellectual explosion happens, what I actually mean by my use of the word doesn’t matter to them anyway. Their feelings become beyond having or wanting to know. To them, their emotions are superior to any knowledge they could have.

What I do mean by my use of the word “queer” is generally properly understood by most people who think and use reason. I mean that queer means abnormal (as it actually does) and homosexuality is abnormal going by the long-standing guide nature provides us as human beings. This is the guide I use to run my life. Even morality for me is to accept what kind of 'being' I am by nature (a rational animal with the power of free will) and what I must do as that unique 'being' to make my life work in the World that I exist in (use the power of that free will to choose correctly and effectively between the moral alternatives). As for sexuality, there is a man and a woman and they are naturally created to be different and -- natural mates to one another. My infamous comment that “Queering doesn't make the World work” means exactly what thinking-people know it does. It simply means queers cannot continue the existence of mankind because they cannot procreate. Even for a queer to come into existence, organic reproductive conception must happen between the two unique sexes, male and female. For me, as for many others, this 'natural necessity' emboldens my belief about what is normal and abnormal. There is nothing more to it than that. I got news for any heterophobe -- whether you ever 'bed' with the opposite sex or not, they are forever sexually embedded in you. My statement does not mean homosexuals cannot contribute productively, effectively and positively to the World. The statement does not mean that I think all queers should be rounded up and confined to their own colony. Although San Francisco seems be doing this all by itself -- and not in a very healthy way, mind you:

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060407/2006-04-07T233012Z_01_N07310796_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-LIFE-SANFRANCISCO-DC.html

I am not intimidated by individual queers or the queer lifestyle. What bothers me is that many radical, modern queers have a collective agenda to culturally swap 'natural and normal' for what is 'unnatural and abnormal.' I refuse to lie down or bend over and accept this just for the sake of making nice and relieving others, Conservatives too, of their uncomfortableness. My advice to any queer would be this. To be left alone to enjoy and exploit all the secured protections, freedoms and liberties this country allows, which you have every right to, extend equal toleration and courtesy to that which is traditionally natural to the continued existence of man. In other words, unwad your panties. Relax, back off a little bit. Quit trying to rub your lifestyle all over everybody. Just behave like an mature adult, not a pervert, and do what you do in private. Most all heterosexuals would like nothing better than that you are left alone, but being left alone goes both ways. You get out of our face, and we won't be looking to to get into yours. Few of us heterosexuals really give a rat’s ass that you get your jollies in ways we think are perverted, but we don’t appreciate that your 'real' agenda is to reverse the original, and essential to civilization, posture of man. This is much more than the decent respect for your human dignity that reasonable heterosexuals are willing to offer and accept. You’re fooling yourselves if you believe you are pushing straight people 'out' of what is mainstream and further legitimatizing yourselves along the way. All you are really doing is pushing us into a corner. And in every corner there’s a fight those doing the pushing typically can’t handle.

The irrational way these young kids react exposes the fact that they are not for toleration of different views whatsoever. Homosexuals claimed for decades that they were unjustly alienated from national acceptance and discourse, that their voice was not being heard. So now what do modern queers do? They use the same intoleration they claim fought against as the very knife they stick in my back. Diversity is simply a superficial, pragmatically-used code word for them that has no grounding in anything stable and principled. Diversity, like all their other liberal code words, means something different at any given time depending on what radical, unobjective purpose they need it to serve at any moment.

These kids are not genuinely angry at the sound of the word or that it has been used. One of the surest bets you could make is that every homosexual has called another one “queer.” Come on, that DePaul and many, many other college campuses have a Queer Studies program and the queers teaching it, promoting and learning it use the word themselves, SHOULD be enough to have everyone on all ideological sides howling, “Enough already with your blatant hypocrisy and your idiotic, silly claims of bigotry! You use the damn word to promote yourselves!!” This kind of irrational behavior they portrayed is, after all, the ‘alternative reality’ I speak about that human beings are not able to deal with. Some things just cannot be 'this and that' at the same time. The word queer at DePaul and to the queers who go there cannot be offensive and acceptable at the same time. What the queers are really angry about is that someone who is not one used it.

Once the deeper layers of their emotionally sensitive, hypocritical psychological wreckages were volcanically erupted, my continued use of the word only further exposed the fraudulent, two-faced credibility of their cause. Refusing to stop using the word, fear set in for them because they had to come to terms with the realization that I was never using the word as a silly, superficial insult to begin with. Standing my ground, they now had to comprehend that I was striking at something more serious. Something they are generally very good at protecting with ad hoc emotional meltdowns. But not this time. They knew I was willing to be even more extreme than them to call their bluff. They knew I was not trying to pull some schoolyard prank. They knew I was outright rejecting the illegitimate power their radical cause has attained, no matter the mischaracterized consequences I may later suffer. When this fully registered with them, they were no longer in control of themselves -- I was.

Like an ugly, sexually-confusing molestation they had long buried, I brought these young queers face-to-face with their own valueless, regressively-stimulated history. Let’s face it. Whatever amount of public credibility and empathy homosexuality holds, in any regard, has mostly been procured ONLY because these contemptuous, loudmouthed youth -- and their ancestors -- exploit the injurious, intimidating effects of political correctness to swindle and usurp it. Again, let’s face it. What most heterosexuals say they believe and accept about the credibility of homosexuality, individual homosexuals or the homosexual lifestyle is much different from what they actually believe in the privacy of their own minds. The reasons for this are not publicly expressed, but they are simple: Homosexuality’s public credibility is not based on any factual knowledge or scientific merit. It’s prominent acceptance today is entirely emotional. Face it one more blunt time, here. Most heterosexuals don’t buy one bit of the theories or arguments queers use to explain why they are the way they are. But neither do they want to deal with the belligerent shrill or the absurd, often threatening, politically-correct repercussions that may come with voicing their true opinion.

Frankly, the DePaul queers should all send me a check for the cathartic release brought out by my presence. A better ‘session’ they could not get even if both their dope-smoking hippie parents ran psycho wards at prestigious Massachusetts University medical centers. This truth I got them to face -- yes, there was some pain involved but it passes in time -- could be the very thing that turns them into healthy, moral heterosexuals. When it comes to these punk, mindless, emotionally thrashed kids you never know what an evening of sanity strapped to thy Dr. Warrior’s couch will accomplish. But I will continue to think positive. And, naturally, I will continue to provide my services in an ethical manner in accordance to the sworn oath I’ve taken and must abide by.

Furthermore....One thing that has always been a constant in my speeches, even going back to the first activist speech I gave at CPAC in 2003, is that words (the concepts they represent) mean things. In fact, it is the first principle of my own Conservative philosophy of life. I am on the record in ALL my speeches telling so. It’s really very simple to me. If words don’t mean the concepts they, in reality, actually do, how can effective communication even take place? It is NOT a silly matter that we are living in times where CERTAIN words are more and more NOT meaning what they actually do. It is not innocent or innocuous. It is an extremely serious, life-threatening matter. Sure, we all use plenty of words incorrectly, but mostly we do this inadvertently and harmlessly. None of us are not at fault, except maybe William Buckley. We are conditioned to use what first comes to mind in a contextual sense. But I’m not talking about the words used in these kinds of casual instances. I am talking specifically about CERTAIN words being used -- or words once used but no longer allowed because of p/c -- in the fight that goes on to to define ideological sides today. Just what is it that you who supposedly hold Conservative views don’t get about that what is going on here is very dangerous to our society? Think about it, to the liberal extremists, Diversity even extends itself to the diverse meaning of words. Any word. That every word can have any meaning at any time. Look at what has just happened with “illegal” as it relates to illegal immigrants. Just how long will it be before using "illegal immigrant" is hate speech? Unlawful discrimination? Evidence that you are a bigot? Same thing has happened to the word queer. Same thing is now happening to "spaz": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4902432.stm

Go ahead and laugh. When you get through, read George Orwell’s 1984.

If there was any one thing all of us there at DePaul that evening would agree upon, it is that the final exchange of the evening was outrageous. Of course, agreement ends there -- only that the exchange was outrageous. Who was outrageous is still be debated by those, like the student questioners, who debate without using their mind. Those who make a habit of engaging theirs have already concluded that it was not I.

A little background. During the Q&A's "masturbate" incident, an older gentleman, I suppose in his 60's, sitting hunched over rather inconspicuously on a table over to my left, told Nick to tell me not to use such language because it was "offensive." Nick proceeded to whisper in my ear what he was told to tell me. Before he completed relaying the admonishment, I turned and asked him in my normal voice, "Who was it that told you to tell me that?" He pointed to the gentleman and told me he was the Vice President of DePaul Student Affairs, Jim Doyle. Call me overly introspective, but it immediately hit me, that it was really odd that after an evening of the audience's interruptions and their overall offensive, disrespectful, and queer behavior, that this older man, surely having catalogued many life experiences, would, himself, be so offended by the word "masturbate." I mean here we were on a college campus in 2006 A.D., with entertainment and culture having a long, stimulating track record of degenerate, provocative and flatout perverse programming. All of it designed, mind you, to ramp-up practically ungovernable hormonal urges. Surely this guy, being intimately privy to modern cultural behavior, had to know that the use of the word was nothing compared to the simulated genital groping being done on nearly every highly-rated, prime-time reality program, or the actual act that could very easily be found on satellite programming and web servers pumped directly into DePaul's dorm rooms. Hell, I've been on campuses where they have dorms with coed bath facilities! The porn industry's success with their College Kids Gone Wild series, whatever it is called, is not because college students ONLY go wild on Spring Break. Practically every week O'Reilly has at least one segment on his program showcasing some kind of sexual debauchery, often something that is happening on some college campus in this country; oddly enough, watching O'Reilly is how I even know about such nonsense. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it always the liberals telling Conservatives to get our heads out the sand when it comes to what is actually going on with the sexual behavior of young people today? Doyle has been DePaul's Vice President of Student Affairs since 1982! Come on!! If he genuinely found "masturbate" offensive, considering the overall cultural circumstances, then his head has been in dry concrete for over 20 years! I had to ask myself, did he still believe masturbation would make you blind or was he just culturally tone deaf? Neither. He simply didn't like the non-postmodern truths in my message and my blunt, no p/c style of delivery.

Nonetheless, he didn't really have a response to my challenge, and I'd made my point so I turned and continued with the Q&A. After the Q&A was finished, though, he unruffled himself up off the table and made notice that he was armed to make an official, closing pronouncement. The gist of what he said was that I "was offensive for using labels," i.e., specifically "queer." And that I had, in effect, egregiously violated the standards of diverse inclusion and appropriate behavior set by the school. Even now, over two weeks later, it's still unfathomable that this individual with incredible authority foisted such a deceitful premise upon me when his own school's curriculum held evidence that debunked it. Queer is an "offensive label" when the damn school has an entire studies department titled the same damn word? A few hormonally-highstrung queers get irrationally emotional because I rip off the fraudulent face of their cause, and obliterate their lies and their hypocrisy -- and I am the one that is offensive? Ironically, he didn't have any condemnation for Ward Churchill when he spoke there and 'labeled' the 3000 innocent people killed on 9/11"technocrats of mass destruction." Or when Churchill went on offending, in his numerous other counterfeit native-american dialects, making assertions that these innocent Americans weren't innocent at all and they had every bit of their tragic deaths coming to them. In fact, it turns out that Doyle went out of his way that evening to be the ultimate sycophantic host. He subserviently introduced Ward (as he was even called by the bootlicking liberal media) as "Dr. Churchill," praised the event as a huge intellectual success and even told those in the audience that "did not hold similar views with Churchill to return to their homes and take an introspective look at themselves." When asked at a recent follow-up meeting to my own appearance why there was a double standard, why he didn't speak up to Churchill's "offensive labels," he said, "I was in agreement with much of what he had to say." Nah, not so ironic after all...

Yet, for the queers, emotionalists, other ne'er-do-wells in attendance, and even some of the clammy-hands, too-afraid-to-speak Conservatives, I was the outrageous one for telling Jim Doyle exactly what he was. Shameful, embarrassing, meaningless, offensive, useless, disgraceful, despicable, perverse, insulting, unAmerican, unprincipled, wasteful, dishonorable. Outrageous. Jim Doyle was all of these and more.

Jim Doyle, unknown, ordinary and harmless as he seems, is actually one of the leading perpetrators of this country's anti-american agenda. He's many parts of many 'isms,' just not one that begins with American. He's one of the most influential enablers of the greatest danger civilization faces -- moral relativity. His identity isn't on the public radar, but his agenda is dead on target. Sadly, there are thousands of 'Jim Doyles' inside the administrative offices and classrooms of all the learning institutions across this great country. 'Jim Doyles' fill the majority of the premium tenured positions and they have a forum and access around the clock, 24/7. They are hell-bent on doing just as I originally pointed out, again, in my first activist speech: "Minds are being trained to be anti-Truth, anti-Discipline, anti-Virtue, anti-Leader, and certainly Anti-American -- Minds are literally being trained to be Anti-Mind. In these classrooms across this country the potential of young people’s lives is literally being stolen and the history of this great country is being erased from each student's consciousness." Even more disheartening, they are millions and millions of 'Jim Doyles' throughout the cites and communities of this great country doing the exact same morally-relative, life-defeating, anti-American things. Their classrooms are the playgrounds, the PTA meetings, the business offices, the lunchrooms, the local city boards, the youth community centers, the dinner tables, the general stores, anyplace where an adult and a young person might have the chance to exchange ideas. The learning environment is different, but the deadly instruction the same.

Instead of being a mature, rational, reason-minded adult mentoring the truths about life to youth, that it will not be easy and comes with hard work, huge responsibility, serious, unapologetic consequences, and, yes, often even hurt feelings, Jim Doyle coddles emotionalism, immaturity, immorality, irresponsibility, and failure. That's not all. To those youth who are not of this kind, he does everything within his power and authority to rip their innate thinking, positive and motivated spirits from their very being. Thereby, all around, compromising and adulterating every sane, positive virtue that will make a human being's life work. Every chance Jim Doyle has he uses his own emotional misfitting to do no less than further terrorize a youth's life by instilling fear deeper in them. Fear of what, you ask? Fear of freedom. How 'bout we start with that? Fear of having to take responsibility for their own lives as freedom justly places upon them. Fear of having to face the 'real' consequences of their decisions as freedom justly imposes. Fear of the uncertainties in life that come with having the freedom to decide and choose your destiny. As long as they can whine and have others unconditionally and subjectively sympathize with their cause and the (self-generated) sorrowful plights of their life, they don't have to face or deal with freedom. Jim Doyle, and his clones, are the doyens of this sick, destructive support system. A support system where the emotional misfits can blame everyone and everything else for the failures and miserable quality of their lives. A club where membership requisites are that you believe that when it comes to success in your life you came out on the short end of the 'luck stick,' and that the fears and uncertainties of life should be mitigated by someone other than you. This is why there are a plethora of Marxist, Communist, Socialist, and extreme anti-American themes and overtones in all they do. They fear freedom so much as to want to turn America into a country that no longer allows it.

Different than some have opined, Jim Doyle's age and position at DePaul, alone, do not make him deserving of deference and respect. These virtues are never simply given in exchange for nothing. They must be earned. And when someone shows they have even forfeited a naturally given benefit of the doubt, you don't only reticently withhold the deference and respect, you step up and let them know why they don't deserve them at all. It doesn't matter where you are or what their age or position is. In Doyle's case, his age, the extensivity of his life experience, and his conscious willingness to conduct his life as he does and behave as he did that night, increase at least a thousand-fold each one of these: Shameful, embarrassing, meaningless, offensive, useless, disgraceful, despicable, perverse, insulting, unAmerican, unprincipled, wasteful, dishonorable. Outrageous.

*******

For any event, I can only prepare so much for what is going to happen. There are always going to be unexpecteds. But instead of finding ways to avoid them, I like to engage them. Liberal ideas don’t work to begin with, and when an unexpected arises the odds are better that I will be able to use it to point their radical nonsense out rather than that I end up with my foot in mouth. If I do, so what? Unlike other speakers with better formal schooling, perhaps more qualified and definitely higher paid, I don’t put any restrictions on the Q&A period. The highly praised Ward Churchill, brilliant tenured professor of communism that he is, had all his questions submitted and screened beforehand. And, he answered 6 questions. I stayed for over two hours. Some of you have suggested that I do this same thing. My immediate response is ‘Why?’ Just to insure I always look smooth as possible? Just so I don’t find myself before confrontation or absent the answer or having to think on my feet? Just to prevent making mistakes? To me, that's not a very original and natural idea, and moreover, it goes against me wanting to get better at what I do. It also reminds me too much like the phony politicians with their perfectly-styled combovers. I'm not afraid reality. Look, I have faults and warts like everyone else. This is what probably surprises people the most when they meet me when I am out on one of these speaking engagements -- I don't act like I don't. I don't do phony.

Let me give you a serious piece of advice when it comes to talking to others about your ideas. Any ideas. If you have to be perfect in presenting what you deeply believe in or have to be assured before you even try that you are speaking to an audience that only agrees with you, you are going to be one of those who never does try. But you will be good at daydreaming about it. Oh, man, you will flawless at that -- and critiquing others. So much for your help in changing the direction this country is headed. If want to ever get better at something, you have to subject yourself to greater challenges than what you can already handle. If you are afraid of failure to the point that you never attempt what it is that you fear, you will always just be damn a failure. You can't be afraid of making mistakes if you want to get better at something. I am not, and I do.

Plenty of you so-called Conservatives talk a lot about finding compromise with the other side. (Talking specifically about political/philosophical ideologies here.) You believe you are that unique 'voice of reason' that has a magic knack for getting everyone on any side to compromise and be pleasant and happy about it. Frankly, I think you're doing too much arm-chair quarterbacking with milquetoast Conservatives like O'Reilly and other Fox Broadcasts, when no can talk back to you, and that you also probably never have voiced your deeper Conservative views to anyone who disagrees with you, especially a staunch, radical liberal. You do what you have to do to 'make nice' in the real World and so, usually, does the your liberal opponent, because they, like you, are really just uncomfortable with raised voices and confrontation or being seen as a hard-ass. So, you fantasize a lot about the hypnotizing power of your unique 'voice of reason.' Well, again, it's easy to be the always successful 'voice of reason' in your daydreams. Hell, I never had a daydream where I didn't rule the World and own everything. This is why they are called daydreams. They are usually flawless and typically don't include scenes where reality strolls in and smacks you up side the head. So let me be that smack up side the head.

Reality check: we are living in cultural times where we are beyond finding universal compromise. The ideologies are too far apart. Face it, we are at a very decisive crossroads in this country's history. For all the faults -- and there are many -- Conservatives or Republicans have, modern Liberalism is simply anti-American. They want to rid our society of the 'responsibility' that comes along with "unalienable right." You can't do this without throwing out the unalienable right at the same time. They know that and it is exactly what they intend to do if ever they get the unobstructed chance.

The 21st century battlelines have been drawn: a more originalist interpretation of our Founding documents, or an attempt to scrap them altogether and forge a hodgepodge government made up of parts Socialism, Marxism, Communism, and any other 'ism' that has historically failed. Unlike 40-50 years ago, there no longer is a pro-American essence across the board, either in our populous or our government. There is the 'America is a great country and does great things for the whole World and I am proud to be an American' crowd. And there is the 'America is evil and does not do enough to help anybody and I am embarrassed to be an American' crowd.

Naturally, those young people who are not paying attention to ideology at this time are potential soldiers for either side. But their decision, once they peek their head inside and have their curiosity piqued, is going to fall down on the side that is most in line with their own cultural tastes, which sets the style of their own personal behavior. I mean you aren't going to have a young kid who was raised by both a responsible father and mother to the know the differences between right and wrong, knows there are consequences for personal conduct, enjoys healthy, independent activity, takes his studies and future seriously, all of a sudden become a radical, anarchist liberal because he was inspired to do so by a liberal activist. Contrariwise, you aren't going to have a young kid who enjoys his dope and drinking, his porno, his video games and participation in any protest just so he can cut class, spontaneously sign on to be a conservative. They will come down on the side that has the best menu to suit their appetites.

The truth is the only voice of reason. Ever. It's the voice of reason I'm going to use. If I fail, then I will at least have done so with ITS sword in my hand. Because anyone who has a voice of reason that can find compromise with the blatant lying and hypocrisy fomented by today's other side has only made himself a compromiser of the truth, nothing else. Bit by bit you foolishly believe you are winning, but what you are really doing is giving them more and more of the truth's sword to turn and use on you.

I do, however, have a compromise. It is this. If all you non-originalists, i.e., modern liberal extremists, pseudo-conservatives and ALL government reps, will immediately cease your pursuit of demolishing America, repeal and throw away every non-originalist idea, then I will try my best during the remaining years of my life to forgive that you ever tried such an asinine stunt and will tell my own progeny to go easy on 'visiting the sins of the fathers on the (your) children.' That is my compromise. I want MY America back. For me. For MY children. For MY grandchildren. For MY posterity. I want the unadulterated version of America back that the Founders founded to secure, protect and FREE MY unalienable rights.

If my compromise is not met, not only will I never forgive, or forget, I will raise my children and my grandchildren to know, and mentor every human being I meet, that you are a traitor to the original ideals of this country. And I will tell and teach them to prepare for this country's second revolution that is scrawling itself on the walls of history right now. I will tell them that when that day comes they must not fool themselves into thinking that the ones fighting against them are their fellow American citizens, but the enemy. And that at that point and time in history, swords drawn and the enemy before them on their knees, not to let their conscience quibble about showing mercy. Let the Creator who, I believe, destined the Founding of this country, work that out on His own.

Radical? Extreme? Wacko? If you mean about not being afraid of the truth, count me in.

Gotta go...

Your Founding Father of Ring Intensity,

Always Believe,

Warrior