US District Judge, Susan Bolton, who has ruled against
the people of Arizona.

Informed observers expected nothing different. It is an example of how powerful social activist judges are, and why the appointment of liberal Communist Democrat Elena Kagan is so significant. The difference with Kagan is the fact that traitorous Republicans like Lindsay Grahamnesty got to show their support. Bolton, an eastern liberal, was appointed by Bill Clinton in 2000.

Bolton ruled that the state does not have the right to enforce federal law. This principle leaves the door open for exactly what Communist Democrats want–total federal control over everything. The federal government is pleased to destroy the state of Arizona, and every other state. In this way, the federal government assumes control. That’s the plan. The federal government will not enforce immigration law. This invites the chaos and social unrest that they want.

The vote of the people? It is nothing. People are nothing. Judges can easily overrule them. So what if 62% of the Arizona population supported the immigration law SB1070? So what if 60% of the American people support SB1070? And most importantly, so what if the federal government will not support immigration law? The local (federal) judge makes the decision. Never mind what the people want. Never mind national security, state law, the peope’s will. The Communist (activist) judiciary is willfully contributing to the destruction of America. That is the purpose.

Interestingly, CNN reports today that Mexicans in New York are being attacked! CNN calls them “Mexican nationals,” which is apparently code for illegal immigrants. They were seriously assaulted by locals on Staten Island. Of course, the perps were Negroes, and considererd the illegals unfair competition for scarce jobs. So, not to worry, the Negroes will not be prosecuted for hate crime. Negroes do not commit racially motivated crimes. (The Staten Island grand juries have declined to indict for hate crimes so far in these cases.) That’s a nice touch to the illegal immigration problem. Maybe state and local authorities can organize Negro vigilantes to work on the problem. They are exempt from racism or hate crimes.

Consistent with its designed intrusion into America, the Mexican government is outraged by the crimes against illegal Mexicans. The Consul General of Mexico in New York, Rubén Beltrán announced:

We will act decisively in order to protect our citizens and will actively promote that those guilty of these vicious attacks are brought to justice expeditiously.

Let’s get this straight. The illegal Mexicans are Mexican citizens. Therefore, the Mexican government has the right to invade America to protect its citizens.

Staten Island is not so far from Phoenix Arizona. Soon, Mexican political and military (government or criminal–there is no difference) forces will be entering Arizona, that is, America, to protect their precious citizens! That’s it. That’s what it has come to. Communist Democrats want social unrest, uprisings, and revolution. One way or another, they will have it. If the American people don’t rise up against the Communist Democrats, the Mexcans will! (Of course, nothing would please Barry’s boys more. Washington wants to see the destruction (”change”) of America. That’s the whole point and purpose.

The AP version of the Arizona story is the clear voice of liberal Communist Democrats. Writers Jacques Billeaud and Amanda Lee Myers call SB 1070 the “toughest-in-the-nation” immigration law. Obviously nescient, the writers fail to note that SB 1070 simply allows Arizona to enforce federal law, with stiffer restrictions than the federal law puts on their own enforcers.

Judge Bolton very stupidly (that is, intentionally) ruled that “Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked.” In other words, the rest of us have to provide ID, have our police records run down, wait forever for the officer to identify our car, our insurance, as well as our person–all while we’re waiting for a traffic ticket. But if our name is Juan Gonzalez, we can’t be bothered. It would be a “restriction of our liberty.”

Bolton’s rule is specifically, directly and expressly designed to humiliate white people. That’s what this is about. This is what all Communist Democrat rulings are about. Their tool is race. They use persons of color to humiliated, bring down, and to otherwise destroy white America. It’s all part of that oedipal complex against the founding fathers.

Liberals do control the courts, in general. The legal profession is liberal. Court is a human thing, and, in the presence of obvious crime and righteous indignation, the immediate quest for objectivity naturally tends toward indulgence, something toward the opposite of the obvious.

But that is a layman’s explanation. Robert Bork gave a professional account in The Tempting of America: The political Secudtion of the Law (Simon & Schuster, 1990). He noted that as early as 1985, Justice William Brenner declared that the original intent of the framers of the Constitution was impossible to know (p.162). But Bork’s real indictment is, not against the activist judges in power, but the law schools–where lawyers are taught how to regard the law, and how to manipulate it (p.187. f.) In other words, we can say that the university campus, the American education system, is the culprit.

Be their origins what they may, liberal Communist Democrats in power wreak only dissolution on America society. It is a religious commitment on their part. Judge Susan Bolton is a classic dramatist, waiting until the last minute to block SB 1070. Drama is another mark of liberal Communist Democrats.

Of course, injuctions can be lifted. Our assessment of Bolton is based on her rulings presently.

Ann Coulter

Until FoxNews, media was all about anti-Republicanism, anti-conservatism, anti-Americanism, and pro-Communist ideology. Coulter’s survey of the four decades of professional journalism after WWII show a resolute purpose of dissing Republicans and idolizing Democrats. Democrats were obviously unwilling to recognize any such thing as a Soviet threat. After all, Democrats were already long versed in the advocacy of One World government (e.g., Wilson’s League of Nations which later become the United Nations). The Democrat foreign policies were but thinly veiled “buy out” attempts. They thought through trade treaties and economic policies (e.g., NATO), they could co-opt Communism into the New Order. (Clinton would later baptize China into the depths of the scheme–costing America’s strength and independence. Clinton Clinton essentially sold America to China.)

Truman loved Stalin more than Roosevelt, and seriously rebuffed Winston Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” speech in 1946, disdaining the idea of an Anglo-American alliance “that seemed directed against Moscow.” Truman apologized to Stalin, and invited him to offer a rebuttle speech!. Mass murderer Stalin was practically idolized by the Democrats. (By the ’80’s, Republican concerns about Communism were labelled by liberals as “primitive anti-Bolshevism.”) Truman and the Democrats, however, did react, or, we should say, overreacted to the revelations of the McCarthy inquiries. They tried to prosecute the Communist Party of the United States of America for sedition under the Alien Registration Act, but, the Surpeme Court threw the case out. Makes you wonder how Roosevelt’s Democrats ever got by with their Japanese internment camps.

President Harry Truman, (1945-1953)

To make a long story short, Truman’s “containment” policies regarding Communism led to the fall of Eastern Europe and China to the agonies of the pestilential, infectious, and deceptive ideology. If it weren’t for Gen. MacArthur, Truman would have lost South Korea to China. As a reward, Truman fired the general. The American people were outraged. In 1952, they elected Republican Dwight D. Eisenhauer. Eisenhauer ordered Congress to “repudiate any secret concessions made to the Russians at the World War II conferences in Teheran, Yalta, and Potsdam.” Thus reporteth the New York Times, February 3, 1953. Stalin died the next month (March 6), and immediate successor Georgi Maximilianovich Malenkov announced “wide changes” in the government–”to avoid panic.”

The whole idea of “containment” was nevertheless heralded by liberals over and over by the anti-American media, until in 2002, they were hoping Bush would do as Truman had done, and “contain” Islam. Coulter says, “Yes, if Bush were another Truman, the entire continents of Africa and Europe would be under Islamic rule by 2007.” The incessant re-writing of history to make Democrats look strong against Communism (all the while becoming more and more absorbed by its ideology) resulted in truly idiotic ironies in liberal journalism forty years later. Lies mature into pseudo-reality.

But the real reality goes something like this, according to Coulter:

To review the record, as part of Truman’s yeoman work on the Cold War, he cooperated with the Soviets at the Nuremberg Trials, white-washing their joint aggression with Hitler under the Nazi-Soviet Pact. He looked the other way when the Soveit Union murdered three million Russian prisoners of war returned home by the Allies. On his watch, the Soveity army consolidated its control over nine countries, China became a Communist dictatorship, and tens of millions of people were murdered under Communist tyrannies. Trumen defended Communist spy Alger Hiss as a patriot who was framed by Republicans, and he tried to indict Whittaker Chambers for perjury. He refused to remove members of his administration identified by him by J. Edgar Hoover and others as Communist agents, including Harry Dexter White, whom Truman appointed top U.S. representative of the IMF. Among the Soveit spies advising Truman on China was Frank Coe, who refused to answer the question: “Are you a Soveit agent, Mr. Coe?” Soon thereafter Coe fled to Communist China, where he became a top policy-maker to Chairman Mao, helping the Chinese murder tens of millions of their own people. Truman was considered such a dupe of the Communists that the Army refused to tell him abou the Vernona Project. And that’s how Truman won the Cold War!

(By the way, the Rosenbergs were executed in 1953 as Communist spies. We’ve come a long way, baby! No more penalty for anything. At least it’s harder to bring guns into Congress, like the New York Puerto Ricans did in 1954, shooting down five Congressmen on the House floor.)

Coulter lists territorial acquisitions by Communists during the presidencies of Democrats Wilson, Coolidge, Hoover, Roosevelt, and Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter (p. 155-157), as well as estimated millions of people starve, butchered, or otherwise eliminated by Communist tyrants. Coulter also lists the resistance and accomplishments of Republican presidents against Communism, culminating in the Reagan victory over the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Reagan disdained Henry Kissinger, who had said, “We cannot prevent the growth of Soviet power.” Kissinger’s “imperative of coexistence” was simply thrown out the window. Reagan stared ‘em down. That’s the long and short of his Cold War victory.

President Ronald Reagan, (1981-1989)

Coulter reveals the important details of how Reagan was able to break the Soviet power, despite the hysterical opposition of liberals (Democrats) in Congress. She dramatizes (as only Coulter can) the unforgettable showdown at Reykjavik on October 13, 1986. “At Reykjavik the world saw the difference between Reagan’s doctrine of victory and his predecessors’ policies of deferrence, detente, and containment. They lost. He won.

Of course, anti-American liberal Democrats have tried interminably to spin the story so that Mikhail Gorbachev is the hero, for submitting! That’s the official determination of Joseph Nye, director of the Kennedy Schhol of Government’s Center for International Affairs. Reagan had a role, but Gorbachev “deserves twice as much credit.”

Finally, Coulter says it’s the difference between faith in God and faith in man. America, at least historically, has faith in God. Communism puts faith only in man–and nasty man, at that. Man who delights in death of other men.

The liberal notion that America is bad, however, still resonates with those who have faith in man. “I’ve been wronged,” the sell of Communism to those who are cheaters at heart, is what the Democrat Communists appeal to. The emotion, the moral imperative of the worker, the poor, the underdog, and all the imaginatively deprived. Republican conservatives just offer practical solutions to economic issues; but Democrat Communists offer passion and moral self-aggrandizement. That’s part of the reason Democrats still have such power. That’s why Communism still lives in the hearts of the ignorant and unwarey, the selfish and vain, and the naive and vengeful.

Ann Coulter

Coulter notes how Vietnam is the favorite war of the liberals, because American “lost.” Vietnam was a major leap forward for anti-Americanism. To degrade, to criticize, and above all–to condemn America is the rallying cry for liberals. Vietnam set the pace and established the chorus. Coulter sites Vietnam, however, as only one of an ongoing series of “Democrat foreign policy disasters,” from Kenney’s Bay of Bigs to Carter’s Iranian Hostages. Vietnam was a kind of apogée. The “peace” movement united all Communists in America, and also transformed many adolecents into professional protesters. The media was of course against the war, and against America. The New York Times resolutely supported North Vietnam.

Though she doesn’t actually come out and say that the Democrats set it up, Coulter certainly suggests that the Watergate scandal at the moment of Nixon’s near triumph in Vietnam was the Democrat’s excuse to pull out of Vietnam, and utterly betray our ally, much as the Democrats would use Nixon’s success with the Shah of Iran as an excuse to betray the Shah, and thus open the door to the radical Islamic revolution in Iran. Of course, North Vietnam immediately took over South Vietnam, and the Muslims murderers took over Iran. These were both Democrat decisions.

Coulter does say that in appears that “Watergate” was some kind of pay-back for the fact that Nixon had exposed Alger Hiss in 1948 as the Communist (Soviet) spy so highly honored by the Democrat government of Roosevelt and Truman.

New York Times publisher Punch Suldzberger said in 1964, “I am not sure that what we offer the Vietnamese peasant…is any better than what the Communists offer.” (Well, he should say that to Cindy Truong, the little eleven-year-old “peasant” girl who made it to America in 1986, and is now running for District Judge (7th District) in Oklahoma about now.)

Cindy Truong, with husband and son.

Liberals started comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam three weeks after American troops arrived in 2001. They predicted defeat, and an ending very much like Vietnam, and they seem to have worked tirelessly to make it so. Coulter quotes innumerable examples of liberal journalist pieces on Afghanistan and their glorious analogy of Vietnam. It was a wondrous revival of the ’60’s “peace” movement. (Only, instead of producing epic quirks like William Ayers, today’s journalists produce murderous, maniac Muslims–also home grown, like brother Bill.) John Kerry seemed the epitome of the whole déjà-vu. He represented everything dubious, vainglorious, and untrustworthy about the anti-Vietnam, anti-American movement of the ’60’s and early ’70’s.

Coulter also cites Democrat behavior during the Lebanon crisis of 1983. Right after the American barracks were bombed in Beirut, Democrats wanted our troops pulled out. It wasn’t our problem, and we couldn’t win anything. Joe Biden (then Democrat senator from Delaware–now Vice President) called for immediate withdrawal. “There is no longer anything remotely approaching a bipartisan consensus to let the marines stay for 18 months.” Democrat Speaker Tip O’Neill said “The Marines don’t know why they’re there and the American people don’t know why they’re there.” These are standard Democrat positions whenever the American military is active.

Coulter reveals how incredibly strong and influencial Ronald Reagan was when he came to power. Of course, in the end, even the liberals concede credit to Reagan for finally ending the Uninion of Soviet Socialist Republics. (And the maniacal Muslims in Iran immediately released the American hostages in Tehran.) Reagan meant business, that’s all. Everyone new it.

Coulter says that, indeed, we should remember Vietnam, and this is what we should remember (p.144):

Whenever Democrats dabble in military affairs, Americans suffer relentless defeats, entire continents fall to Communism, American loses wars, invasions fail, Americans are taken hostage, American soldiers are dragged through the streets, and the nation is demoralized and humiliated.

Republican Party loyalists, however, do need to remember something else. Communism is not defeated. The political structure of the old Soviet Union is dismantled, but the ideology and social manipulations of Communism are alive and well–dominating American political policy at this very moment in 2010. Freedom lovers lost a lot more than a war when Democrats betrayed South Vietnam. Our country lost its reliability, its integrity, its face, and its power in the world.

There is only one way to win it all back: revolution. Revolution II. Does it need to be violent? Jefferson would say so. But, perhaps not. The political process, despite the relentless unreliability of the media, has not yet been fully tried. We know the majority of politicans in Washington don’t represent the people. But, let’s see what the Tea Party movement can do about all that.

While Coulter is clearly a Republican Party loyalist, for obviously historical reasons, and willing to support Michael Steele, it does remain to be seen if the Republican Party can actaully act out the principles of the Constitution as it claims it does.

The women especially were the most obliging in every respect, and, upon the whole, we should have been the most suspcicious of human beings had we entertained a single thought of perfidy on the part of a people who treated us so well. January 18, 1827..

The islanders for whom we entertained such inordinate feelings of esteem were among the most barbarous, subtle, and bloodthirsty wretches that ever contaminated the face of the globe. January 18, 1827.

In truth, from everything I could see of these wretches, they appeared to be the most wicked, hypocritical, vindictive, bloodthirsty, and altogether fiendish race of men upon the face of the globe. It is clear we should have had no mercy had we fallen into their hands. February 20, 1827.

The above quotations are from a 19th century novel about antartic polar exploration. It was published in 1838, as The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket by Harper Brothers. The author? None other than Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849).

The people described in Poe’s novel are black. All black. The “whites” of their eyes are black. Even their teeth are black. They have one fear: white. The animals of the island, including the albatross, were all black. Birds eggs were black. The people’s huge village, on an island nearest the South Pole, comprised huts “of the most miserable description imaginable,” and lay in no perceivable order. The heaths were all covered with black animal skins. The narrator (Pym) says the “village” wasn’t worthy of the name.

Edgar Allan Poe, 1809-1849

Commentators on Poe’s novel see a dramatization of some slave camp in the deep South. In the experience of the narrator, commentators see an expression of the South’s worst fear: a slave revolt. Be that as it may, there are insights–perhaps into both the white and black psyches, that are apparently pertinent today.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Wednesday he apologized to Shirley Sherrod for forcing her to resign from her government job in Georgia.

Regarding the Sherrod Charade, that is, the hooplah over Shirley Sherrod, the NAACP, and the “White” House, it is abundantly clear that the Negro race is psychologically insatiable. No sociological evolution or government coerced socio-economic advancement will suffice to remedy the pertetual disquietude of the foreign race.

The nagging, pestilential error that white people make is pity. The Negroes will never achieve equality as long as white people pity them.

Does the American Negro deserve pity? Is he to be an object of special compassion? If so, why? Is he not in fact equal?

I say it has nothing to do with slavery or history. It has to do with the fact that black people feel as uncomfortable around white people as white people feel around black people. The contrast of appearance, behavior, and values is simply extravagant. There is no remedy.

Martin Luther King’s insistance on “character” was way off mark. The last thing the Negro needs is to be judged by his character. Character is the one thing profundly lacking. Or, we should say, character is the one thing most offensive about him, moreso than any appearance. The black man in American has always been known for not having character.

Rev. Charles C. Jones (1801-1863) wrote of this issue in 1842, in The Religious Instruction of the Negroes In The United States (Savannah: Thomas Purse, 1842).

A knowledge of the moral and religious condition of the Negroes is essential to correct feeling and action thereto. Until we arrive at such knowledge and have it pressed upon our serious consideration, we shall have no just sense of obligation–we shall feel no criminality for past neglect–no disposition for future amendment: nor shall we be able to adopt plans for their improvement, as we must necessarily become acquainted with the nature and extent of a disease before we can hopefully prescribe for it.

Indeed, Rev. Jones writes from a differen era, and surely we should expect the modern American Negro to have developed far beyond these early descriptions. Alas, Rev. Jones prophesies, “the race has been from time immemorial just what it is and just what it must continue to be.” Yet, Jones calls for Christian missionary work among the Negroes. That is the point of his book. He says that the white missionary work for the Negro faces serious disadvantages.

The first disadvantage which I shall mention is our intimate knowledge of the degraded moral character of the Negroes. From childhood we have been accustomed to their slovenly, and too frequently, their scanty dress; to their broken English, ignorance, vulgarity, and vice. What in them would disgust or grieve a stranger, or truly afflict us if seen in white persons, we pass by with little or no impression, as a matter of course;–they are Negroes. Their character is held in low estimation, throughout the United States; and, considering what it is, not without reason; for that character cannot be esteemed which in itself is not estimable. Whatever is idle, dissolute, criminal, and worthless, attaches to them. Unconsciously, or rather, instinctively, we determine what the fruits must be from their known character, condition, and circumstances; and when they do appear, we are not surprised. We say, “what better can be expected?”

The Rev. Jones elaborates with excruciating detail the social and psychological observations to be made in the antibellum days.

In 2010, however, we might expect to see a different sort of Negro in America. We certainly do. A marvelous development has taken place. There are great achievers among American Negroes, achievers in mind and body. However, if the character of the people is reflected in their “leaders,” we cannot say there has been significant development of soul. Black leaders parade poverty, pity, and pigmentation prostitution. Nothing more. They promote dependency, disquietude, resentment, and subversion. American black people have never had a worthy leader. They have instead clowns, puppets, pimps, and aggrandizers.

But, as long as white people pity black people, the Negro will always be a slave, a mechanical, reactionary social problem. As long as white people do not render true equality to the blacks–by not pitying them, not giving them special favors, not groveling before them with apologies, blacks will never be free. They will continue to manipulate the white man, continue to aggrandize their plight of appearance–disguising their own self-depreciation in the cloak of “slavery,” and continue to deceive themselves. Compassionate but cowardly whites continue to let the Negro remain in such a pestilential condition.

The Negroes Soetoro and Holder (that is, president “Obama” and his appointed attorney Eric Holder) have declared war on the white race. Never mind their war on America. It is the white race they venture to punish. That’s what’s happening in America today.

As an American Indian, I am amazed and dismayed. I admire the white man for his former warrior’s strength, yet, I also admire him for his compassion and self-consciousness. He is unique in both. However, at this stage, he needs to re-assess the effects of his proud conscience. His glorious soul needs some readjustment. He needs to realize that he is the envy of all dark races. He is hated. He is the object of their pent up fury. He must measure his compassion now. He must limit the indulgence in his own conscience.

The White Anglo-Saxon Protestant must be brave enough to bear the burden of superior strength, talent, and mind. If he allows himself to be destroyed, for his conscience’ sake, he will be of no use to anyone. His accomplishments in the world will come to nought, and the hords of the heathen will quickly reduce the world to the descriptions of Arthur Gordon Pym.

Who’s running Monica Crowley’s website, Monicamemo.com? Monica Crowley is a well-known talk show personality, with her own radio program, and appears regularly on Foxnews talk shows. Her web site, Monicamemo.com is also quite popular. But, of late, there seems to be a question of who is actually in charge of her web site.

July 12, 2010, Monica posted a piece called “Won’t Take ‘You Can’t Do That’ For An Answer.” It decries Obama’s duplicity, hypocrisy, and outright dictatorship in handling the BP oil disaster, and particularly the aspect of ordering the moratorium on deep well drilling. Obama wants to “circumventing the Constitution, the law, the Courts, and public opinion,” Crowley says.

Monica Crowley, sister-in-law
to liberal Alan Colmes.

In the public comments following, the first two or three of the original comments have been removed. (Unfortunately, I did not have the presence of mind to make screen shots of the original posts.) Someone posted a significant reference to me, and one of my articles against Obama, obviously assuming it was apropos. Then someone named Patrick Kelly (The Pagan Temple) came out of nowhere and posted against me:

Be aware, David Yeagley is a known racialist. He believes strongly in separation of the races, otherwise known as segregation. I’ll give him this much-he doesn’t mince words about it. Ironically, Yeagley is not himself a full-blooded Comanche. His father was German. He is, at best, what you might call a divisive, controversial figure among Comanches. I should also point out that many of his former web-site contributors, both on his forums and on his blog, have abandoned his site due to his increasingly racialist tone.

Of course, we have the record of this only because the next commenter, Gringoman, quoted it. The entirety of Kelly’s original post was also removed. Gringoman is defensive of me and my posts on Obama (which he apparently posted in the beginning).

Now, WordPress software that I use for BadEagle.com lets me know numerous references being made of me and my site across the internet. I became aware of this exchange on Monicamemo.com, and actually responded. Interestingly, my response was removed. The only reason we have it is because another commentor (DJ) quoted it:

“Race-realist.” Good term. Should become standard–to distinguish hate from natural aversions and natural preferences. Hate is a non-defined term these days, as are most liberal terms. They’re simply heavy emotional terms, designed to overwhelm the conscience–that is, the conservatives.

I was complimenting the commentator on his term, “Race-realist.”

Obviously, those who opposed me and the quotation of my work, are none other than two former BadEagle.com participants who are disturbed by race realism. One in particular, “Beakerkin,” has been allowed to dominate the Monicamemo.com thread, along with Patrick Kelly.

I am not the only one to notice the missing comments. Patrick Kelly himself notes that one of his own posts was removed. Now, we don’t know who “M/M” is, but this may be the person in charge. Perhaps it is Monica. In any case, I bothered to write Monica through the “Contact” button on her site. On July 15, I sent a private email, in which I noted that my two posts had been removed, and I wanted to inform her that Patrick Kelly and Beakerkin were part of a small internet cadre of anti-Yeagleyists, that’s all. I informed her that the prospect of a conservative American Indian is more than most can abide. I also noted the liberal sexual ideologies of the anti-Yeagleyists posting commentary on her site. Naturally, I never heard back from Monicamemo.com.

I also informed Monicamemo.com of my legal suit against those who attempt to claim I am not Indian. I pointed out that her anti-Yeagleyist cadre are not guilty of that error, but instead are free to interpret me and my work as they please. (Of course, we must note that Kelly’s reference to my German side is clearly meant to strengthen his charge of racism. Why, anyone with German blood in them simply has to be a Nazi racist. This attitude, of course, is properly called “racism.” But, liberals and pseudo-conservatives seem never catch that little bit of truth.)

I later found out that the Debbie Schlussel (Dangerous Deb) really unloaded on Monica back in March of 2008, saying, among other things, that Monica is (or at least was) a plagarist, in great detail.

Well, be all that as it may, my concern is trust–of the Monicamemo.com site. As one not nearly as well-known or popular as she, I know neverthless how difficult it can be to manage a website. If she has someone else in charge of hers, then I must render even more caution.

I just want to say I was disappointed to see people like Patrick Kelley and Beakerkin having such a dominant role in the commentary. It seems that some people are dedicated to achieving self-significance in whatever way possible, even it it once meant hanging out on an American Indian web site. There is obviously a connection of some kind between a couple of pseudo-conservatives and Monicamemo.com. While Monica Crowley is identified in the media as “conservative,” whoever is monitoring her site comment threads is certainly questionable as to his or her positions. Until I hear from Monica Crowley, I have to assume her own positions are variant. Perhaps this is true of all conservatives. After all, we are human.

I think the reason conservatives don’t have the kind of “religious” unity of the ideologues on the left is simple enough: conservatives are thinking people. We are independent people. We don’t walk in a lock-step, like the Left wants its automatons to walk. Conservatives are characterized by self-reliance and independence. That’s naturally going to mean a variety of opinions about a variety of topics.

There are some conservative principles, however. If those are not understood and agreed upon, then conservatives are bound for serious attack from the Left.

Racism, as we know from the news of late, is an accusation coming from all directions. Conservatives believe the liberals are the racists. Liberals constantly, faithfully accuse conservatives of racism. Racism is a tired term. People are getting tired of it, tired of hearing it, tired of trying to take it seriously, and trying to respond with sincerety. “Racism” is just worn out. The accusation is commonplace. Accusing someone of being a racist is like accusing the sun of being hot. Humanity exists in race and ethnicity. Humanity exists in sexuality. And humanity exists in religious sentiment, with organization and labels. And, in America, where all things are marketable–and now political, the whole bit of accusing has become nothing more than a sport. The very concept of racism has denigrated all who participate in the accusation.

I honor race. Other, weaker folks repel from race like a vampire before the cross. They are afraid of race. They flee the thought of it. The fact that I would stand up for the Indian race, and at the same time expect others to stand up for their own race–including white people, is more than the pseudo-conservatives can tolerate, let alone the liberals. (All the liberals can say is that I’m not Indian. For that, I am suing them, with the support of those who care.)

I say, those who disdain race are the true racists. Those who resist racial pride are the cowards. Let white people be generous, noble, and tolerant of other races. Fine. But, until white people are willing to demonstrate their own racial pride, openly and honestly, we’ll all have to live with the agonizing hypocrisy and repulsive lying of people like Barry “Obama” Soetoro and Eric Holder, and racist organizations like the NAACP and the USCCR.

Members of the Iroquois Nations lacrosse team, advertising their status in New York City. Are they wearing those special Niki sneakers made especially for Indians?

The Iroquois passport, and Britain’s refusal to recognize it, magnifies the issue of the American Indian status in the world, as well as in the United States. As of this date, July 16, 2010, the Iroquois Nationals, the lacrosse team of the Iroquois Nation, has not been allowed in England to participate in the world championship games being held in Manchester. The Iroquois Nationals have already been forced to default their first game. They hope to be in England for their second. It doesn’t seem likely. Again, this is all because England will not recognize the “Haudenosaunee” (Iroquois) passport.

House Representative Daniel Maffei, Demcrat, asking the House Speaker to urge Britain to recognize the Irquois passports, and to let the Indians play lacrosse in the world championships.

So, are the Iroquois required to show their passports every time they leave their “reservation”? Must they show their passport when they go to the supermarket in the next town? Are non-Iroquois people required to show their passports when they enter Iroquois territory?

The issue of reservation boundaries and laws is an issue I have dealt with in the process of discussing American Indian casinos and associated businesses, and the whole issue of sovereignty.

My suggestion (to Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of California) in 2004 was a national bank for all Indian casino money. Indians need our own currency. This suggestion was based on the idea of Indian tribes being the separate “nations” we claim we are. Though we don’t have a military, and we can’t feed ourselves presently, there are ways we can operate that are more in keeping with the concept nationhood. Having our own currency is one of those ways.

Many conservatives had frowned on the idea of Indian tribes as actual, separate nations. “You can’t have a nation within a nation,” is the most common way of stating that position. “It’s balkanization,” is another way.

I say both these statements are misstatements, and misleading.

It may be a historical anomaly, Indian tribes being separate nations within a nation, but the fact is, the “United States” nation was build around (or on top of) the Indian tribes. It is the United States that is a nation in the midst of other nations. The United States is, of course, bordered by Canada in the north, Mexico on the South; the United States just happens to have a lot of Indian nation borders within its own borders. I see nothing inimical or hazardous in this, not ideologically, anyway. It’s just the way it is.

This relationship is based on treaty, on a historical handshake, on a word of honor. Do the treaties need re-thinking, or re-negotiating? Most definitely. But will they ever be annulled or abrogated? Not as long as the United States Constitution has any validity. (This is why, as an Indian, I cannot abide the alien, lying black African Communist traitor in the White House. All validity is threatened by his hostile regard for the Constitution.)

But, nationhood, in the way of currency and passports, is something that can and should be achieved by all Indian nations. It may seem intolerably inconvenient to many, both Indian and white, but, it is something to think about and work towards.

This separateness, however, is not to be conferred or attributed to any other ethnic group within the borders of the United States. Indian nations are not based so much on ethnicity and religion as they are war. I do speak as a warring plains tribe descendent, but, obviously, the Iroquois feel the same cause.

Nationhood is the right of Indians, here, surrounded by a larger, grander nation–indeed the conquering nation. It may seem a “privilege” from the point of view of the stronger nation, at this point in time, but it is in fact a historical right, by treaty between nations. Such legal separation however is not the right nor the privilege of any other people within the borders of the United States. Indian nationhood must never be thought of as just another ethnic complaint card in the game of racial politics. This is uttterly denigrating to Indians. Our history is incomparable with other ethnic groups in white America. This is our land. We are on our own land. We did not immigrate to America. America immigrated around us.

As an American Indian, I do not support any social, economic or territorical claims of any immigrant group evolving in American borders, regardless of its origins. Immigrant groups, or those historically imported (such as the Negro) will find no support from me in their completely unfounded demands on the United States government. American Indians fought that government, and made treaties. We are worthy of our legal relationship. All these other groups have no such worth or privilege. It is all gratus, from the generous American government.

About the recent “pop-up” casino tribes, I would say that most of this is fraudulent and brings shame upon American Indians. “Federal recognition” has become a by-word in American conversation. Everyone knows that these “pop-up” tribes are the creation of corrupt politicians, the syndicate, and land developers. It has all become a blight on the reputation of honor which the American Indian has long held, and for which so much of American culture has been named for. The American Indian name and image has appeared on American currency! What conquering nation has ever honor the people it conquered in such a way? And think of all the sports teams that covet the savage strength of the Indian warrior.

Of course, psychologically inverted white liberals want to denigrate the Indian to nothing, removing all visual presence of the Indian, but using the Indian only when there is an opportunity to insult the United States government, only when they can validate some anti-American position by using the Indian.

I say, rather, for the Indian, and for America, “a nation within a nation” is a unique, proud, and beautiful thing. There is nothing like it in the world. It is a great honor to both the Indian father and the grand step son of America.

The occasion? The world championship, in Manchester, of the game the Iroquois invented–lacrosse.

While waiting for their travel visas, members of the Iroquois Nationals Lacrosse team prepare for a team picture in Times Square, New York, Monday, July12, 2010. The 23 players on the Iroquois Indian lacrosse team cannot fly to England for what’s considered the Olympics of the sport because the US government won’t allow them to re-enter the country on Iroquois nation passports, based on a treaty signed by George Washington. (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews)

The Iroquois Nationals (an obviously American Indian lacrosse team) has been banned from England because their Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Confederacy) passport is not recognized. The players have to have either American or Candian passports. (England claims the Indian passports represent a security breach in the post 9/11 world–as if England has inadvertant concern about murderous Muslims–who preach hate daily in the Isles like a Londonderry Air.)

Percy Abrams, Iroquois Nationals lacrosse team board of directors executive director, shows his Haudenosaunee, or Iroquois Confederacy, passport duringa news conference in New York, Wednesday, July 14, 2010. The U.S. government on Wednesday agreed to let the Native American lacrosse team travel to England for a tournament under Iroquois Confederacy passports, but their travel plans were still on hold because they lacked visas from Britain and because some players needed clearance from Canada. (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews)

The Indians refuse to be denigrated in this way. Such a position held by the British government insults the Iroquois identity. The Iroquois take nationhood very seriously, and refuse to be degraded by England. The Indians will not be “used” the second time by the Crown. (The United States Declaration of Independence well notes how King George used the bloody “savages” to stir up trouble against the colonists–fourth paragraph from the end.)

England prefers rather to coddle and foster the murderous Muslims of the world. “Britain” rather advocates the torturous presence of miserable hatists, (and bans anyone for pointing it out–like they banned Michael Savage), than to promote the honor of the honest and forthright.

Yes, England has a serious problem with its national identity. They don’t know what their borders should let in and keep out. Everything’s backwards, or upside down. Truly, Nick Griffin and the British Nationalist Party may be the last hope of the country.

The United States government finally gave the okay (via Hillary Clinton) for the Iroquois team to travel on their Haudenosaunee passports. At the posting of this blog, Britian has not accepted the passports.

Nationhood is a precious sentiment to all American Indian nations. Obviously, real nationhood is not a pragmatic reality for Indians. No group of American Indian people is capable of true sovereignty. This is why the word “sentiment” is important. Sovereignty is a sentiment, an attitude. But Indians cannot sustain themselves economically or militarily. Circumstances do not allow it. Therefore, Indians work toward whatever dimensions of independence are possible within the present framework of social circumstances.

Yes, the governments of Canada and the United States made historical agreements with Indian nations. Treaties define international relationships. America, in fact, was shaped by such treaties. American Indians were the first “foreign” nations America ever had to face. However, in the process of time, America grew into the stronger power, and Indian nations now exist only within the boundaries and confines of the United States. Indian nations are technically, legally, and militarily dependent on the good word of the United States government. We could not feed or protect ourselves otherwise.

But Indian nations must not become havens for anti-American terrorist groups. Indian nations must not foster anti-American movements of any kind. This is the worst thing that can happen, and is in the worst interested of American Indian people.

The Iroquois passport issue has two sides. It seems like the kind of prima facie innocent independence and sovereignty that Indian nations should have. Indians are under no obligation to be American citizens. We were declared such in 1924 by an act of Congress, without our consultation or “vote.” I personally am proud to be an American citizen. Then again, my people, the Comanche, do not have the same history with the U.S. government that the Iroquois people have. I believe in Indian sovereignty, but I realize there are rational limitations. (Our sovereignty, indeed, is like a rationed thing.) I never thought the casino business was a good thing, but most Indians see it as at least a stepping stone to more economic indepenence and soveriegnty. I don’t know that this is demonstrable in statistics, however.

I am concerned that Indians not identify with foreign elements antagonistic toward the United States. I have no respect or confidence in any Third World group that pretends to honor American Indians. This is basically racism again. It is another attempt to use Indians.

If there is concern over the Iroquois passports, that concern is not something for England to act huffy about. It is not as though the United States or Canada (both former British colonies) are trying to use the Indian to slap England. England has slapped itself silly with murderous Muslims, and England has promoted this threat to civilization by its continued “tolerance” of Islam, and by the weak and pathetic surrender of the national soul by Prince Charles.

The British balk at Iroquois passports is a ridiculous gesture on the part of the British government. It shows an absolute disdain for American Indians, putting us lower than the loweset of the low–the murderous Muslims. This is the liberal white government of England. This is probably something even behind that–like the international financiers, who control the nations.

All because some Indians want the honor of using their own passports.

Indians may be nations fundamentally foreign to the United States, but Indians are not enemies of the United States now, and must never be manipulated into such a position. No Third World foreign infiltrators, no economic schemes, and no ideology must be allowed to wield Indian power into some mock gesture of resentment against our grand adopted son, the United States of America. Certainly, he was forced on us, but, I’m proud of that son of the storm. The wind blew him on our shores. Shall we resent the wind?

I say claim him, claim America, and fight against anyone who tries to harm him–like the alien, lying black African Communist traitor in the White House at this present time, and all the white liberals who put him in office.

This isn’t about passports or security. This is about American Indian identity. Indeed, we’re the last of the Mohicans when it comes to ethnic pride–at least in America.

Mel Gibson obviously has no privacy. He’s up for his second ordeal over a third “slur” made in personal, ‘altered states,’ as it were. First (four years ago) is was “f—ing Jews,” then recently “niggers” and “wetbacks.” (Wonder why he didn’t use the term “kikes” for Jews.)

Mel Gibson, user of ethnic stereotypes
in private conversation.

Intoxicated or not, everyone used to have rights to private conversation. Being taped in private circumtances, without consent, is usually against the law. Being taped by someone who did the taping for the obvious purpose of taking it to the public, is a rather cruel infringement on personal rights. Everyone is entitled to his own feelings. Let the angels do the recording. Let the books of Heaven keep the records. It is not for man to continually invade his fellowman. It is deep spiritual violation. Nathanial Hawthorne would have called it (in The Scarlet Letter, 1850) a tresspass on “the sanctity of a human heart.”

We don’t know the story between Mel Gibson and his paramour Oksana Gregorieva. We’re just eavesdroppers, via the professional gossip-mongers (mud rakers, or “news” reporters). Yes, it all sounds very bad, and unfortunate. Mel feels his Russian girl friend has turned tramp on him, glorifying herself in the part, and he is personally offended to the max. This is understandable, but, this is the risk of her acting the tramp part to begin with, and Mel should never have taken advantage of it. He’s wrong to think of her as a tramp, when he took advantage of the fact that she was. He’s as guilty as she is, on that score. But, he obviously has higher expectations of her than she is willing or capable of meeting. This is the outcome. He’s paying that price now, as will the poor innocent child of the affair.

But, the question pertains to privacy, not feelings or morals. Does a celebrity have the right to privacy? Does his profession forfeit privacy?

Will Gibson maintain the image now?

Never mind the “slurs.” Those is quite immaterial and unimportant. They have nothing to do with the real issue. Society is a complex of stereotypes and public images. People have their prejudices, aversions, and natural preferences. This is all natural. It is a manifestation of Gestalt psychology. No amoung of tyrannical “Big Brother” law or “Nanny State” law can alter this natural conditioning.

Indeed, the greatest proponents of such “thought police” draconianism are the most guilty of that for which they feign condemnation. Negro Barry Soetoro (a.k.a. “Barack Hussein Obama”) and his Negro appointee Eric Holder are absolute hatist racists. This is obvious to everyone at this point. They hate white people. They disdain other races. Their purpose is to use Negroes to corrupt and to destroy American society. This is why Barry and Holder honor the racist clownery of “King Shabazz” (), lauding Negro hate with the highest esteem, even placing it above the law! (As Rush Limbaugh noticed, the msm is excited to play the Mel Gibson tapes, but not the Shabazz tapes. Mel’s words were meant to be private. Shabazz words were meant to be public.) The vainglorious Samir Shabbazz is none other that Maurice Austin, from the troubled projects of Trenton, New Jersey. Just another angry black youth turned professional hatist. Actually, the kid was born in west Philly.
The former Nation of Islam member just has a new gig now, the New Black Panther Party.

Negro hate is good. White stereotyping is bad. Elaborate Negro hate speech, even the call to murder white children, is blessed by our Negro government in Washington. The media is thrilled to hype the juvenile Negro hatred. White liberals luxuriate in the foam. Ironically, it is the so-called “conservative” media that is giving Clown Shabazz all the air time. Liberal media prefers to attack Gibson.

James Edwards (Political Cesspool) posted a blog, “The Crucifixion of Mel Gibson” on Kevin McDonald’s Occidental Observer. It seems the Hollywood is still smarting over Gibson’s movie about Christ, The Passion (2004), and would much prefer to aggrandize immorality through the Negro. Remember how the NYPD was ordered to go see The Passion, to determine if it was going to provoke anti-Semitism? Why, that’s a far greater evil than any murderous immorality pushed through the Negro.

Gibson’s too easy a target now, espcially committed the worst crime of all–using a pejorative racial stereotype–in a private conversation! Why, having made a movie about Christ makes Gibson the most odious individual in the world. Liberals will not have hypocrisy! (Did I just win the award for noting the greatest hypocrisy?)

Gibson’s suffering a lot of heat right now, but it shouldn’t be over private conversation in a private affair. Gibson has never been known to openly, actively, consciously promote hatred against any group, for any reason. He has never been involved, as far as we know, in any hate group, nor has he ever support such a group. Indeed, he has starred in many a movie with Negroes who do in fact hold visceral resentment of the white race and America, like Danny Glover. Well, business is business. Gibson did not let politics intefere with his job.

But now racist politics is interfering with his personal life. Clearly, private conversation is out. Public exposure is in–unless, of course, you’re a liberal. But even their darkest deeds and private thoughts are coming out.

What are we to think of Laura Ingraham’s new book, The Obama Diaries? Not that there is an issue of whether or not they are fake, but that such a tactic would be marketed. That the invasion of privacy is such a cultural trend that the public virtually prefers fiction to truth–this is the upshot. If it’s private, it will sell to the public. The more private, the more craved. It is a remarkable point in American social history. The spiritual, moral condition of the public is stunning. We all understand that the major conservative talk show people are entertainers. There’s no real issue there. (They’re just better at it than the liberal entertainers.) But, this Obama Diaries thing may be over the top. It is an omen. An ominous omen.

Either there are angels among us, or men have turned demonic. Either we let Heaven record our words and deeds, or man will assay to ascend to the divine role himself. That’s what he appears to be doing. Talk of freedom has itself become a would-be private conservation. There will come a day when such talk will be considered incriminating. Thus, without freedom, there will be no conversation at all.

Michigan State University Professor of Mechanical
Engineering, Indrek S. Wichman. According to the YAF
Watch, Wichman advises a campus group, the Young
Americans for Freedom, which is a SPLC-designated “hate”
group. Such dsignations really mean the targeted group
is an American patriot group.

Muslims confined to their own nations. Is the thought so outrageous? Nothing is more personal, of course, than race, religion, and sex (gender). Any negative attitude of one person toward another on the basis of these human elements is particularly powerful. Certainly in the matter of race and gender, and often religion, we are born what we are. We really have no say about where and when we are born, or to whom. Therefore, negative attitudes or aversions toward what we are by birth seem especially hurtful.

But there is such a thing as a nation. There are human social instincts and intutions, as well as genetics, which keep the human race in divisions. I for one believe nationhood–the manifestation of basic group divisions, is ordained by the Creator (Deuteronomy 32:7-9; cf. Genesis 11:8-9). Be that as it may, the plain fact is, the people’s preference for their own kind is what crumbles empires. People don’t really like multicultural conglomerates, in the end. The temporary fascination with ‘globalism’ is found only in the generations of historically ignorant populations.

But then, what about the Christian religion, which evangelized the world with new social values? The Christian religion was not a nationalist movement, nor was it designed to aggressively effect national governments. “My kingdom is not of this world,” Jesus said (John 18:36.) When the term “Christian nation” is used, it can never mean more than a majority of a nation’s population wanting Christian values as normative. A true “Christian” government could only be called such if the term meant merely that the office holders simply happened to be Christian, not that they were coerce the Christian religion on the public.

It so happens, historically, that the races and ethnicities of the West (the world west of Palestine) took up Christian social values. The white race took up the cross as the hallmark of its culture. The remains of the Roman empire distilled into “Christian” nations. This was not, however, the express intent of the Christian religion. It just happened that way.

Islam is, however, the express intent of animosity and hostility toward all that differs from it. Beginning in 622 AD, the religion comprised a military assualt on the world, with the full and open intent of conquoring the world by military force. Perhaps this is, technically, no different that what the Christian nations had done before. The clear difference would be that Christ did not command His followers to conquer the world by military power. Mohammad did. Christ did not teach coercion. Mohammad did.

Nevertheless, if Christians nations wish Muslims to return to their own “Muslim” nations, it should be expected that the Muslims would want all Christians to leave their countries–that is, whatever Muslims nations have allowed Christians to exist in their countries. Many Christians, hundreds of thousands over the years, have indeed faced such explusions–and lethal persecutions, not only from Muslims, but from other non-Christian religious cultures. Why should Muslims expect to be welcomed anywhere, especially in a Christian nation? Why do Christian nations feel they must “tolerate” murderous Muslims?

Professor Indrek Wichman is from a white European Christian nation, apparently a northern such nation. (There is no biographical information for Wichman on the internet.) As a teacher at an American university, it would seem his views are objective. His remarks were noted by Americans who share his concern (like Robert Spencer) as well as Muslims who do not (like IslamOnline.net).

There is a certain basic reality in this matter which it is quite foolish to ignore. People of radically different values cannot live together peaceably. These conscious, “intellectual” differences, on top of the natural aversions based on race, language, culture, etc., cannot be expected to disappear, or to be worked through, or to be harmonized. Multiculturalism, as a social ideology, is a covert design to destroy a nation. It is Communism, in temporary disguise. It is pawned off by deluded liberals as “compassion,” “tolerance,” or even “freedom.” America is proffered as a showcase for this wondrous anomaly, and Americans are to be proud to host such idiocy. But, again, multiculturalism is a covert effort to destroy a nation.

America is a white, Christian nation. America is a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation. As anything else, it will not stand. It may appear to operate at some Third World level of functionary dependency, but it will not be America. It will not be a bride, but a whore, in the world brothel of social inanities. That, of course, is the design of liberals and their alien, lying black African Communist traitor currently in the White House, their Third World Negro mascot.

Here’s a YouTube clip of Nick Griffin speaking at MSU. Note the hysterical liberal students–those passionate proponents of “free speech.” Later, during Griffin’s speech, the students pulled the fire alarm. This is the liberal version of “tolerance.” Here is another YouTube clip of the same situation. Prof. Wichman speaks from the audience. The fire alarm makes it almost impossible to hear the conversation.

There is no verse, Old or New Testament, which directly addresses what it today understood to be the intentional killing of an unborn child. Such a circumstance apparently was not part of human existence. However, the ancient world had direct ways of dealing with unwanted infants. In the Ancient Near East, child sacrifice (by fire, usually) to the gods was very common. Molech, the “abomination” of the Moabites, was a favorite deity who called babes to the flames. The ancient Greeks and Romans weren’t so dramatic about it, but simply left an unwanted infant on the road side, for the wild dogs to quickly consume. But neither of these were what we would call abortion. Both kinds of child-ridding were a kind of population control, as modern scholars theorize; but neither involved the intentional killing of an unborn child.

In the Torah (The Law), or the Pentateuch, the first five books of Moses, we find only three verses that could be associated with at least the relationship between mother and infant. Yet, these pertain to animals, not human beings.

The first of these is Exodus 23:19, in the context of numerous precepts in the observance of offerings brought before the Lord. It appears somewhat isolated, as do several of the other precepts. They come in the narrative, not in a neat and tidy list, but seemingly random, at least in prima facie.

Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.

This is the last command in a series of laws concerning offerings.

Then again, in Exodus 34:26, we find exactly the same command:

Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.

As a matter of fact, the entire verse is identical to 23:19. The verse before it (34:25) is nearly the exact repeat of Exodus 23:18. And so this peculiar verse stands out, in and of itself, as well as by the fact that it is repeated.

Though Jewish people regard this law as the basis for the tradition of not drinking milk (or eating cheese) when you’re eating meat, Rabbi Alvin Berkin once told me that the verse bespeaks a natural compassion. Never mind the fact that meat takes the longest of all foods to digest, and that mixing milk with it is going to cause a ‘curdling’ in the stomach; the deeper meaning of the text implies that to cook a baby goat in the milk of its own mother is just plain cruel, and shows a careless disregard for the order of nature.

Why would this law be written, twice? Circumstances of ancient or non-technical life would suggest that it was convenient to boil the meat in the mother’s milk. Goat’s milk was readily available, and re-suppliable, a lot more so than fresh water.

And yet, the command says not to be so unmindful of the natural, tender relationship between the mother and the offspring. Don’t cook the kid in its own mother’s milk. Maybe use another mother goat’s milk, but not the one whose kid you are about to eat. (That reasoning would weaken the health argument about digestion, however.)

There is another scripture, Deuteronomy 22:6,7, about a hen and her eggs or chicks. This one is perhaps more dramatic, considering the promise connected with the command.

If a bird’s nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young: But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.

Presumably, this command would address all species of fowl, domestic or wild. And again, it address the female and her young.

This verse bespeaks not so much any obvious (or even suggested) health issues pertaining to diet, but simply the life of the mother. One does not take the mother hen with the eggs, or the chicks. Why? Presumably because she can lay more eggs, and have more young. Presumably because it would, again, be a cruel thing to destroy her life along with the life of her offspring. But, the real directive is found in the promise: “that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.” This is a most serious matter. Something is unspeakably wrong with destroying that mother hen along with her young. You can eat the eggs, or raise the chicks, if you want. But don’t kill the hen.

Also, it is clear that this “dam,” this female bird, is not a domestic bird. It was happened upon in the country, by the way side, or some other non-cultivated circumstance. This element of the scripture makes the lesson even more curious.

I am not versed in rabbinical lore, but I will consult our BadEagle.com resident rabbi, Ari Kahn, about this. I have a Jewish literature collection in my library, but, this is a detail which no indeces I posses are forthcoming of terms.

For now, it seems to me that the tenor of these three scriptures, the repeated Exodus text, and the Deuteronomy text, strongly suggests a special value in the life of the mother. Even though the cases involve animal life, still, the relationship between the mother and offspring is clearly the essence of the matter, and the basis for the lesson. While I certainly cannot say these verses pertain to human abortion, I will go so far as to say that when delivering a baby, if it is a choice between the life of the infant and the life of the mother, the mother should probably take precedence. A living mother can perhaps have more children. She must be given that opportunity.

I once heard Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn say that, as a physician who has delivered many babies, only twice in his career was he ever faced with that dilemma of abortion. He opted to save the mother’s life. Otherwise, he is against abotion on principle of the sanctity of life. I think Dr. Coburn is within the Biblical principle on that, if there is a principle, if it can possibly be suggested by these Torah scriptures.

I know this: in the old days, Comanches certainly had to address the issue. Hunger and starvation were very real threats. There were lean times, when a decision was sometimes necessary. If it was known that the child would not or could not be provided for, the mother could be subjected to a calculated injury that would cause a still birth. This is known to have happened. It is said that a large stone was used to strike the mother’s abdomen, thus killing the child in the womb. That’s abortion, for sure. But, only liberals would see any compassion in preventing a miserable, suffering life from happening.

It was especially painful to write this piece. However, there is something wondrously tender, in the heart, suggested by those ancient Torah texts. “…that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.” That’s the clincher. Something’s really wrong, and something’s really right. But what? And why?