A KNIGHT VATICAN:
The article in Seattle Post-Intelligencer on October 15, 2007 by Dan K. Thomasson is really a deep analysis on enlightening Ms. Nancy Pelosi during her insistence for the approval of the resolution on Armenian demands(1). The headline of his article” Pelosi Stumbles over Armenian Resolution“succinctly summarizes his judgment on The Speaker of the US Congress. His judgment may be correct on her but it lacks in determining the reason for her injurious activities. What is the main reason for her harmful actions and activities? He tries to tie her undesirable activities to her constituents by saying “…when it comes to dealing with irresponsible, emotional demands of constituents… no matter how many Armenian Americans are in her district…harmless gesture to appease Armenian Americans…terribly disappointing …the speaker’s extreme partisanship…an irresponsible action…only explanation seems to be that she is concerned about her own reelection…”
Mr.Thomasson continues:
“…. She is a smart, capable politician who certainly knows the consequences of such an irresponsible action. That is why it seems inconceivable that she would allow it to go forward. The only explanation seems to be that she is concerned about her own reelection in an extremely liberal district where there is a strong Armenian American presence…”
Now, let us summarize the main points of Mr.Thomasson on Nancy Pelosi:
1- It is not unusual for members of Congress to put their own political welfare above the nation's interests.
2-What Nancy Pelosi seems to have forgotten is that her position makes her the next in line to be president of the United States which require putting the national interests ahead of political expediency.
3-Pelosi and the resolution's sponsors couldn't have done more to undercut American interests
4-Terribly disappointing here is that Pelosi's extreme partisanship continues.
5-Pelosi has allowed the politically mischievous resolution to be voted out of committee.
6-She is a smart, capable politician so she certainly knows the consequences of her irresponsible action.
Mr.Thomasson in his article have used some words to describe Nancy Pelosi and her activities that might be labeled as somewhat unpleasant ones; such as, expedient, partisan, mischievous, irresponsible. Moreover his description of the results of her "irresponsible actions" was defined harsher words by him...
After these main points and after his reasoning he concludes “the only explanation seems to be that she is concerned about her own reelection.” Mr.Thomasson is seen here as a bewildered man whose own conclusion was not even convincing himself.
I am going to submit a more explanatory raison d'etre behind the actions and activities of Nancy Pelosi. This is forethought of my understanding of Nancy Pelosi. I have deducted it from her zealous efforts and her practices in the session of the Congress during voting processes. She was filled almost with religious zeal to extract the resolution from the Committee of the Congress. In some sense she was trying to spank some ghosts in the Chamber… the ghosts of Turks who were murdered by the Armenians 92 years ago in 1915 behind the front lines of Anatolia.
I hope my explanation is a correct one; if not you may take into your consideration as a suggestion which in due time it will be useful to follow up Nancy Pelosi’s attitudes and behaviors.
Indeed it is very difficult to explain her administration of the said Congressional session. She has used the Congress as if it was a stage of a theater. She permitted some people, so called “victims” of 1915, to sit on the floor and invited a man of religion, Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholics of All Armenian, in his garment of a priest, to lead the US Congress on prayer. Later she permitted Him to chat with those “victims” that had been victimized (!) in 1915 during the World War I. It was almost a drama, a Broadway “show” that ridiculously designed and shamelessly executed with a full of hatred of Turkey and Turks. She invited Karekin II to follow the voting process on the rostrum, as if to effect the votes of Congressmen.
She has played her role as a producer, director and head actress in a “theater” which its spectators are to cast their votes to condemn some events occurred 92 years ago thus condemning the History of an Empire--- knowing neither even the geographic location of that Empire nor anything about its history and its people, the Turks.
Now it is easy to understand the bewilderment and confusion of Mr. Thomasson who calls “inconceivable” of the behavior of Mrs. Pelosi. But his explanation of constituency expectations and worries is far away from being rational interpretation.
What was the real reason of this hatred of Turkey and Turks? What is the base to solve the bewilderment and confusion of Mr. Thomasson which stemmed from the “inconceivable” behavior of Mrs. Pelosi and “irresponsible actions of the Speaker of the US Congress?
Let us go back and look at Ms. Pelosi closer and from a different angle which I believe most Americans will detest using this angle as an ugly approach. Nevertheless it is necessary to find out the real reasons behind Ms. Pelosi’s irrational actions and behaviors.
Now let us see Nancy Pelosi’s biography:
Pelosi was born to Italian–American parents. Her mother was born in Italy and immigrated to the U.S. in 1911. Nancy Pelosi graduated from Baltimore’s high school which is a private Catholic all-girls high school located in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese and from Trinity College which is founded in 1897 by the Sisters of Notre dame de Namur, is a Roman Catholic university and still maintains its original status as a liberal arts women’ college.
She supports abortion rights, pro-gay legislation and stem cell researches to get the votes of her constituents. But all of these issues are not acceptable by Vatican. Indeed Catholic leadership of America has always openly opposed Pelosi but there has never been any warning and/or admonition from Vatican.
Vatican, the “Infallible” Catholic Church, is supposed to punish every Catholic man and women who does not obey Vatican’s views and orders, but Ms Pelosi on the contrary has always been treated by Vatican cordially and with care and concern. She had even been invited to the funeral of the ex-Pope.
Catholic Church from its beginning until now interferes not only to the personal lives of its followers but also international affairs of World politics. Indeed for example the Crusades were religious wars waged by Christian Europe during (1095-1291), most of which were sanctioned by Vatican in the name of Christendom for against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia.
In 1095 Pope Urban II called upon all Christians to join the war against Turks, promising those who died in the endeavor would receive immediate remission of their sins.
In 1099 the Crusader army took Jerusalem and massacred the population.
In 2004 the newly chosen pope Benedict XVI had shown almost the same attitude against Turks and Turkey. He said:
“The roots that have formed Europe, that have permitted the formation of this continent, are those of Christianity. Turkey has always represented another continent, in permanent contrast with Europe. There were the (old Ottoman Empire) wars against Byzantine Empire, the fall of Constantinople, the Balkan wars, and the threat against Vienna and Austria It would be an error to equate the two continents. Turkey is founded upon Islam (2), thus the entry of Turkey into EU would be anti-historic”
In 2006 The Pontiff Benedict XVI continued to degrade Islam and the Ottoman Turks and insulted the believers of Islam by quoting the words of 14.Century (1391) Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (3) (4). The Pontiff’s anti-Islam quotation on 12 September 2006 was:
"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
The attitude of Popes of Vatican towards Turks (either Seljuk, or Ottoman or our day’s Turkey) has never been changed throughout ages. It is not really easy to grasp the hatred of Vatican to the Turks of our days since these Turks who have fought side by side with those Christian soldiers in Korean War for the Western values did not mean anything to Vatican. Vatican’s motto remains the same: Turks are to be treated as eternal enemy of the Catholic Church and Christendom. It is extremely clear that the bigotry is in the cells of their hearts of those “infallible” Popes of Vatican as far as Turks and Turkey concern. The followers of the Church have always been treated as their beloved subjects. If these subjects when anything undesirable do actions have to be forgiven by the Church, if these activities are vital for the higher interests of the Church, say being anti-Turks activities.
According to teaches of the Church any action that helps to strengthen the views of the Vatican is always must have a top priority and any other cause can not have any weights or reasons, say, national priorities and/or the welfare of the States The Church is omnipotent and its views and thoughts are over the interest of any State. The allegiance to the Church supersedes every other consideration or any other reality.
In the history of USA there have never been any President whose religious belief were belong to the Catholic sect until J.F.Kennedy.
J.F. Kennedy had thought in a succinct way that Vatican can or may remind him on some of his “catholic obligations” and/or indirectly interfere his “conduct” of the Presidency.
The important segment of Kennedy’s confirmation is:
“to uphold the Constition and my Office- and to reject any kind of religious pressure or obligation that might directly or indirectly interfere with my conduct of the Presidency in the national interest…”
On September 8, 1960 therefore Democratic National Committee has issued a background Memorandum on the Senator J.F. Kennedy’s views about the separation of Church and State to quell public irritations on J.F. Kennedy’s allegiance to the Vatican.
“On the question of separation of the Church and the State he gave direct answer: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment - to uphold the Constitution and my oath of office - and to reject any kind of religious pressure or obligation that might directly or indirectly interfere with my conduct of the Presidency in the national interest. … I am telling you now what you are entitled to know: That my decisions on every public policy will be my own - as an American, a Democrat and a freeman. (Acceptance speech, Los Angeles, July 15, 1960.)
Ms. Nancy Pelosi is 2nd in the current presidential line of succession, namely, she is the 2nd choice for replacing the President of USA, in case of a necessity arises; in other words, she now carries a real weight of burden to follow the interests, benefits and advantages of the American people.
In short, her main duty now is to keep in her mind that none of any other consideration but just one; defending the benefits of his Country. But as Mr. Thomasson says she has “forgotten her position”...
It cannot be in her list of obligations to any historic “revenge” activities designed and supported by an Omnipotent Sovereign. Especially to defend some unproven absurd claims that neither have any relation to the Congress of the US at the expense of losing a friendly country nor where she does not know anything about the Turkish history to have any reliable knowledge to judge. She is lacking enough knowledge on the Turks and Turkey, especially about the history of the year of 1915. Her academic education in “history” and her scientific capacity to interpret the happenings that occurred 92 years ago are inadequate.
The members of the Congress rightly cast their votes in accordance with the guidance of their Speaker believing that Ms. Nancy “knew” the facts of 1915 due to her capacity of a Speaker who is empowered by the Constitution to be President of the US if necessity arises. How could you criticize the members of that chamber not being equipped with enough knowledge and sufficient information to evaluate those historical events occurred 92 years ago to condemn an ally of the US and the people of a NATO member with a devastating niche of killers of Armenians at large?
Moreover is it not quite standard behavior of the members of the Congress not to study issues whether they fit to the Constitution of the US or not if the speaker of the House brings the issue to the Chamber? The main issue here is how Ms. Pelosi thinks that her job is to mingle into those affairs which the Constitution does not empower her to interfere?
Is it the obligation of the Congress in accordance with the articles and the spirit of the Constitution of US to reach a “Verdict” on the people of an Empire existed 92 years ago? Or is a general rule of the American civilization to arrive a judgment to accuse people not on truths but hearsay of some centers, either of religious leaders or religious governors, whose hearts are full of hatred against Turks (and /or Islam) even if one of the center that may be an “infallible” chief.
How could any man in his sound mind to defend any abhorrent, hostile and prejudiced point of view that is not proven yet by the respectable Western historians of our days? How could any rational man put the grand heirs of Ottoman Empire, Turks, under a devastating unproven judgment as mass killers? It can be understandable if this false accusation comes out from a rational man who has obtained proven facts approved by historians unanimously. But if it comes from an “infallible” entity and if it is declared by Him that Turkey is not fit to be a partner of Western world due to its religion and Turks are the enemy of Catholic beliefs since the year of 1095 one cannot stop in asking questions about the motives of Ms. Pelosi’s, as Mr. Thomasson labels “inconceivable”, arduous actions and zealous efforts to pass the Armenian resolution.
It may be due to her beliefs that the Catholic Church is always correct and every Catholic person must follow the footsteps of the Pontiff. As a matter of fact she has on April 2005 said “ the Catholic Church recently gave us a guide …it would be an appropriate honor and remembrance for the life, leadership, service, and holiness of Pope… we have responsibility to follow His lead”(5).
The title of knighthood itself today expresses the greatness of recipient’s achievements in the eyes of the “Crown”. In other words, the judgment to honor a person with knighthood is solely depends upon the Crown’s evaluation of the achievements of that person. The Crown usually does not pay attention how those achievements are obtained. For example
The Chairman of Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Tom Lantos, was going to say “no” to the resolution but his decision was altered and he was forced to say “yes” by the shrewdly prudent but nevertheless direct threat of Nancy Pelosi and under the risk of losing his Chairmanship he changed his vote to “yes” (www.hurriyet.com.tr)
My readers have two choices now: 1- ignore the conclusion of Mr. Thomasson as irrational, unconvincing reality and delete my suggestion as “unreasonable” or 2- find out a rational explanation of Nancy Pelosi’s desperately hostile tries against modern Turkey who is friendly ally of the US.
Unfortunately it is not possible to detect the kinds of spiritual orders and/or beliefs that fill her heart; but it is very clear that her consciousness is occupied with dislike of Turks and Turkey whatever may be the causes that created such a medieval mind!
COSKUN URUNLU
30.10.2007
------------------------------------------------------------
(1) http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/335534_armenianonline16.html
(2) The “infallibles” Pope turned into fallible pope. Pope failed since Turkey is not founded on Islam but established on laicism (=secularism) by Atatürk in 1920 on the same territory of Ottoman Empire (1299-1920).
(3)The quotation which was taken by Pope Benedict is from the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II. The Emperor accused and insulted Mohammed, the Islam Prophet, who had lived in 7th Century. The Pope Benedict while he was trying to degrade Prophet Mohammed was ignoring those despicable acts of “infallible” Vatican against humanity committed in 14th Century. For example, in 14th century Catholic Church was responsible for burning of Jews by claiming Jews were responsible for the Black Death epidemic; by approving the existence of witchcraft opened the horrible way to inquisition which man and women suffered hundreds of years in history. It is interesting fact still inquisition department exist inside the formidable walls of Vatican and Pope Benedict XVI was the Head of the Holy Office of the Inquisition –from 1981 until his election as Pope.
(4) This Emperor was famous for his tries to gather forces to open another Crusade against the Ottoman Turks. He was famous of his trip to Britain to seek assistance against Ottoman Empire from the courts of Western Europe:
(5)http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/April05/popefloor.html