Imagine a nonpartisan presidential candidate who lives in a modest house, walks or bicycles around town, mows his own lawn, travels in a 1990s motorhome, and does without air conditioning and TV. Meet "Average Joe" Schriner. Joe explains that his age (52), his height (5'10"), his weight (180 pounds), his yearly income (five digits), his home state (Ohio) and his overall political outlook represent the average American.

(Note: This is the last column in the series.)

Pope Benedict XVI said in 2005, "Absolutizing what is not absolute but relative is called totalitarianism." To conclude this series of papers, I will say that Sean Hannity's political ideology unconsciously demonstrates a new form of totalitarianism which defines right and wrong in an artificially narrow sense; regards national security as the greatest good, elevating it above human rights and the law of God; accepts the coexistence of American big government, big business, and a swollen military to achieve the objective of national security; blends sin and sinners into a single homogeneous mass that must be defeated to preserve our national security; and intolerantly refuses to admit into its framework any clear facts that contradict its methods or call into question its objectives.

Mr. Hannity: "We would be foolish to assume there is any quick fix, any single solution, to the challenges America will face in the continuing battle with our terrorist foes. But keep in mind that the Cold War was a marathon as well, lasting some fifty years." (p. 276)

Mr. Hannity: "We are at war." (p. 219)

Mr. Hannity: "I'm no opponent of open and honest debate, even over questions of foreign policy...I would never claim that an earnest difference of opinion about foreign policy is unpatriotic....But when it comes to debate during wartime, I think one principle is clear: The only responsible argument is one that's made in good faith. The Democrats have violated that principle." (pp. 214-215)

Mr. Hannity: Yasser Arafat was an "evil actor" (p. 192), "the oldest terrorist" (p. 127).

Mr. Hannity: "The Bush administration's assessment of the challenges we face from terrorists, and their state sponsors, is serious, thoughtful, and realistic. The antiwar activists of the Democratic left, on the other hand, have expressed a vision that is naïve at best, dangerously out of touch at worst." (p. 177)

My response: Serious and thoughtful the president's picture may be, but to call it realistic is utterly absurd. President Bush claims that terrorists are consumed with unconditional hatred for America and everything good it stands for, and that thus we have no choice but to wipe them off the face of the earth. In the president's mind, Islamic terrorists are portrayed as sub-human agents of the devil, and given up for hopeless because we cannot do anything to change their evil plans. This is not just unrealistic, it is defeatist.

Mr. Hannity: In the age of international "Islamic" terrorism, preemptive war can sometimes be justified and even necessary to protect our country. (pp. 154-55)

My response: In fact, the Catholic Church imposes very strict conditions even for normal defensive war, including the danger of a certain, imminent attack with lasting and grave consequences. The Church's just war doctrine is based on a presumption against the use of force. Despite the fact that the Church has no definitive teaching on the morality of preemptive war, it does not admit that such a war could ever be necessary. A large majority of Church leaders around the world have condemned preemptive war as in their view unjust and immoral. When talk of a preemptive strike on Iraq was flying around some years ago, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger stated several times: "The concept of a 'preventive war' does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church."

Whether you see yourself as a truth seeker, patriotic American, independent thinker or voter, or just someone with bad memories of 9/11, you should make an effort to view The Reflecting Pool, a new independent movie.  It is not about 9/11.  It is about the credibility of the official government story about 9/11.  Though a drama, it is based on meticulously researched facts about 9/11 as revealed in the bonus material on the DVD.

The story is about the search for truth and the unsettling implications of discovering 9/11 truth that conflicts with what has become the folklore about the historic event.

How to Combat Terrorism

For the best and most enduring protection from every form of evil terrorism, the US should take these five steps.

(NOTE: This column No. 14 is the logical crux of my disagreement with Sean Hannity in this series. It explains that, since terrorism cannot be subdued by overwhelming military force, the "War on Terrorism" is unjust, illogical and defies common sense. Recognizing and addressing the popular grievances that fuel and encourage terrorist crimes--in other words, getting to the heart of the matter--is necessary for a genuine eradication of terrorism.)

With the shattering of the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, a titanic earthquake ripped through the United States and quickly swept across the world. Two shock waves of anger and patriotism predictably met at a point on the globe opposite the United States: the Middle East. Osama bin Laden and his evil cohorts were identified as the enemies, and they were in for a shakedown by the glorious US military. The terrorists of 9/11 declared war on the US, and war is what they got. In this cosmic battle against religiously inspired terrorists, America wages war on the side of good and the terrorists fight on the side of evil. Americans have been wakened from their postmodern, anything-goes slumber to the reality that, like it or not, the United States has a mission to save the world from evil. How much clearer could it get?

(NOTE: The essay below was the first installment of my first article written for publication. Although originally drafted as one long piece in March 2005, this article remains relevant three years later. Both Parts One and Two previously appeared in the Ethical Spectacle (February and March 2006, at www.spectacle.org/0206/sout ar.html and www.spectacle.org/0306/sout ar2.html). The article provides a condensed summary of my beliefs about terrorism and how it should be addressed. Check back later for Part Two.)

Mr. Hannity: "There is no appeasing this enemy." (p. 6)

My response: By its very nature, terrorism is a drastic form of negotiation. It is defined as the threat or use of wanton violence to frighten governments in order to achieve a political goal. Just as a baby kicks and screams in an attempt to force his parents to give him what he wants, terrorists use violence hoping to leverage the US into complying with their demands. However, there are two noteworthy differences between the baby and the grownup terrorist. One is that the terrorists' ultimate objectives are usually just and legitimate. Second, "Islamic" terrorists are prepared to go to great lengths for their cause, even to die for it--precisely because it is just. To summarize, terrorists attempt to achieve a good end through bad means.

Mr. Hannity: "The totalitarian regimes that support them [terrorists] are more difficult to trace, using every devious means available to hide their role in funding and training the terrorists." (p. 5)