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, author of Treason (2004)

Columbia University professor Alan Brinkley wrote in 1999 (Slate Magazine) that the end of the Cold War had “more to do with grave internal weaknesses in the Soviet system.” Of course, Coulter reminds us that no liberals (Democrat Communists) pointed out those “grave internal weaknesses” at the time. They were too busy hysterically condemning Reagan for terrorizing the poor Russian sensitivities.

Eleanor Clift (Newsweek, 1994) put for the revelation that the CIA, under Reagan, “covered up” the fact that the Soviet economy was collapsing all the while. (This is the same Eleanor that said, in 2000, on the McLaughlin Group, that Elian Gonzalaz was better off in Cuba! “Frankly, to be a poor child in Cuba may, in many instances, be better then being a poor child in Miami.” Liberal (Democrat Communists) devotion to anti-Americanism is stellar, as well as stupid.

Liberals (Communist Democrats) insisted that Reagan was a trigger-happy warmonger, and was dangerous to world peace. But their self-contradictions are abundantly evident.

Strobe Talbot (Washington Bureau chief of Time Magazine) not only proclaimed that Russia was stronger than ever before (during Reagan’s first year in office), but that, in 1982, it was “wishful thinking to predict that international Communism some day will either self-destruct or so exhaust itself in internecine conflict that other nations will no lonber be threatened.” Harvard, Columbia, Cornell all agreed, affirming Russia’s sound nature and stability in a 1983 study widely praised by the Associate Press.

How the American university political opinion and mainstream media assertions could be trusted by anyone, after the ’80’s passed, is a cultural mystery. Their consistent and persistant condemnation of American patriotism has generated such self-condradiction as to undermine every word issued from either source. “Despite Woes, Soviet System Will Remain, Study Says,” AP, May 27, 1983.

When Reagan came to office, more than a billion people lived under Communism (–that’s not counting Communist Democrats, who, despite their preferences, live sacrificially under American freedom); the USSR had nuclear weapons pointed at the United States, and outnumbered our conventional weapons by three to one. Russia was carpet-bombing Afghanistan, crushing Poland’s Solidarity movement, and shooting down civilian planes (KAL 077) and decorating the pilot who did it. Also, it looked like Russia was behind the Bulgarian assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II–who supported Poland’s Solidarity movement.

In other words, liberals (Communist Democrats) were pro-Russian, and couldn’t brag enough about Russian strength, until the USSR fell. Then they spent the decade of the ’90’s describing what a tottering mass of political and economic chaos it really was. Why, Reagan had nothing at all to do with the fall of the USSR.

Liberals (Communist Democrats) like Ted Kennedy, Cyrus Vance, and Walter Mondale were all faithful to oppose any defense build up on the part of Reagan, and any action that would offend or insult Russian pride. Mondale opposed the F-14, the M-1 tank, the B-1 bomber, and even an increase in military salaries.

Reagan called Russia the focus of evil in the modern world.
As long as the Kremlin continued to “preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.” Of course, he was also willing to recognized any progress of freedom in Russia. He noted their free elections in 1983, and thought Gorbachev had real potential. Reagan could play the politics of peace, as well as of aggression or defense.

Later Reagan encounter great opposition from conservatives, which he basically ignored. The Berlin Wall speech (1987) somehow made cowardly conservatives think the world would end. “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” was more than their delicate sense of propriety could handle. (Reykjavik was in 1986, and the media was still recovering from that.) Some liberals (Communist Democrats) tried to cover their tracks, like Norman Mailer. In 1984 Mailer was extolling the USSR as a haven for “free, churchgoing, middle-class,” (as Coulter puts it). But, in 1996 (Esquire, August) he claimed that he had always seen the Soviet order as “endlessly hollow.” Of course, that was after the Iron Curtain had been draw aside–by Reagan.

March 6, 2003, MSNBC featured Doris Kearns Goodwin (Joe Biden’s historian and fact checker) wistfully reminiscing over the good old days when the world lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation:

At least with those two superpowers [Russia and the US] there was a balance, there was a recognition that if one acted the other would react, and there was some rationality in the minds of people. You know, but now the reaction against America being this superpower, launching itself around the world, the anti-Americanism is probably higher than it’s ever been.

Coulter notes, “America’s victory in the Cold Ward had taken all the sport out of global thermonuclear brinkmanship,” p.188.

This is what American society faces: liberals (Communist Democrats) who continuously, faithfully poison reality with a profound and parasitical drone of anti-Americanism. They cannot abide a victor. They cannot abide superiority. The founding fathers who won the victory for “equality” must now surrender, in the name of liberal (Communist Democrat) “equality,” everything they fought for. Equality now means nihilism. Equality means non-descript, non-distinct, non-achieving nothingness. Group existence. Group idolizing. Group shackles. Of course, this gives the ultimate superiority and distinction to the very idolized liberals (Communist Democrats) who have procured for themselves permanent elitism. It is a giant social swindle, nothing more.

That the liberals (Communist Democrats) would hoist an alien, lying black African Communist traitor into White House should have been anticipated. For fear of racism, professional conservatives and Republicans remained silent, and dared not predict the very results they are all now observing–ever so vociferously. Frankly, conservative talk radio and TV sold itself out to decor and political correctness. Who are they kidding? They get off (and get paid) on observing the obvious, when, if they had a real sense of duty toward the country, they would have risked predicting the obvious. They are no prophets, but profiteers.

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.

Of course, when we think of the Jews, we immediately think of the Holocaust of World War II, and the Nazi campaign to eliminate the Jewish population. But, the fact is, there was a time when Jews eliminated others.

In written history, (if the Hebrew scriptures are to be accounted as history), the first recorded case of one group eliminated another group is found in Genesis 34. Two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, slaughtered all the males of a Hivite town in central Cana’an. Call it an ‘honor’ kiling. The war lord of the city had defiled their sister, and they planned and executed the genocide of the whole city. (Their father Jacob was most displease with this action. “Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land,” he complained.) This was some time in the 20th century BC.

Earlier in that same century, Abraham had twice manipulated his political circumstances through the beauty of his wife Sarah (Gen. 12:11; 20:2). These were crises, certainly, but the beauty of Jewish women was becoming an established commodity. In fact, Abraham’s son, Isaac, played the same card with his wife Rebekah (Gen.26:7).

But the reputation of the Jewish God was the real knock-out. The God of this small family was the One apparently known to be the One who claimed to have destroyed the entire human population (save eight) by the Flood. This was not a God most people were anxious to warm up to. Nor were they particularly fond of anyone who claimed to be. This is the God that set a nuclear holocaust on two of the largest, most prosperous cities in Cana’an–Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24,25). And so it seems that the Jewish God had a name for holocaust Himself. Mass genocide was His ultimatum.

And so, before the Jews even get started as a people, their name “stunk.” Their God “stunk.” Their God was violent, and they were violent. (But they had beautiful women!)

And when they did grow into a people, their debut as a nation was marked by astounding disaster and cataclysm. We call it the plagues of Egypt. Mass destruction followed the Jews.

The point here is that, in the view of the non-believer, the non-Jew, or, the heathen, the Jews were a dreaded lot. To encounter them was an ominous risk. It could men unsustainable loss. It could mean annihilation.

The Hebrew God was definitely into genocide, the elimination of masses of people–men, women, children, and even animals. Near the beginning of the 10th century BC, King Saul was commaned to commit such a genocide against the Amalekites (I Samuel 15:3). And this was for what the Amalekites did to the Jews three and a half centuries before! It may have seemed arbitrary to everyone then, but, the Jewish God never forgets, no matter how much time passes. Il grand Siciliano can forgive, but He never forgets.

Yes, and this dreadful, fearful God nevertheless invites all people to come before Him and worship! He wants to be good to people. He wants them to follow His ways. Whatever reputation He created through the Jews, He also made it clear that His throne pertains to all nations (Isaiah 56:6,7). It behooves all ethnicities abroad to come and make their case before the God of the Jews.

So, how do we do that with this ghastly image of Jewish people, and the “death and hell” that follows them? There are some real characters out there we have to deal with, like George Soros, the Rothchilds, even skunks like Bernie Madoff. Why entertain any regard for them or their God? (Never mind their fair women, for the moment.) And what about those pestilential, parasitical monoliths like the Amercian Civil Liberites Union, and the Anti-Defemation League? I’m not sure what these organizations think the source of aversion to Jews is, but, I suggest they might try looking at the Bible. If they want to ban something from public consumption, they’ll have to ban the Bible. The most articulate, anti-Semitic utterances ever made, from the mouth of the heathen, anyway, are in the Bible. Try Ezra 4, when they wrote the Persian emperor in the 5th century BC, after the Jews had returned from Babylon, and had begun to rebuild (4:12,13;15,16):

Be it known unto the king, that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations.

Be it known now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the walls set up again, then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and so thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings.

…search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers: so shalt thou find in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful unto kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time: for which cause was this city destroyed.

We certify the king that, if this city be builded again, and the walls thereof set up, by this means thou shalt have no portion on this side the river.

No question about the Gentile attitude toward Jews in that testimony, is there? Just remember, it’s recorded in the Hebrew scriptures.

The Jews live with complete aversion, always. That seems to be the price of their God. Yet, they prosper. That’s one of the benefits. “The Lord was with Jacob.” “The Lord was with Joseph.” The Lord is doing something in the world, His way, in His time. We’ll just have to live with that. If an occasional Jews becomes piquantly annoying, like Bernard Lewis, who is denying the Christian Armenian “holocaust” in his defence of Muslim Turkey; or if an organization like the ACLU, or the ADL, work perpetually to remove Christianity from a nation which was founded by Christians; or even if we personally get shafted or swindled, or otherwise out-smarted by a Jewish person; in the end, what’s the difference? If the Jewish God is indeed the Lord, and hold the keys to eternity, and, moreover, invites each and every human being to become acquainted with Him, and thus to prepare for an everlasting shalom, what does matter if we have continual run-ins with the Jews here and now?

Though the liberal Jews have sought desperately to change the Jewish image (with a couple of millennia to support their bid), the fact is, the Jewish people are not pacifists. The Jews are a warrior race. Even todays Jews, who tend to use their pens rather than their swords, are the still the decendents of profound aggressors. The Jews are always making a move in the world.

This is the Jew of the Bible. This is the God of the Bible. Now, there cousins, the Arabs, and their make-believe, rip-off religion, think to compete with the Jews; but they will never succeed. The rest of the races in the world can only watch the conflict. In a way, we can choose sides. Yes, we can even support one or the other.

Personally, I chose the Jews. I chose the Jewish God. No, I’m not Jewish. But, I regard Jesus, the Jewish folk rabbi, as the Speaker of the House, so to “speak.” I consider His efforts a personal invitation to join the ranks of the Israel of God. Jesus is for Gentiles, in a way. If we have any portion in the Lord, it is by His bloody provision. The invitation has always been from the God of all nations, but, our place at the table was bought with a very, very high price. Why refuse? The food is tops.

In the meantime, we are behooved to abide with the Jews here and now. They are here. They cannot be removed. There are those who have tried to remove them, and those maniacs end in ineffable infamy. Not the right take on the Jews.

And finally, there’s that crazy matter of Jewish women. What happened there at the end of Job’s life, that story of incomprehensible irony, frustration, and anger? (Job 42:15.) He was given a second family. And this one apparently beat the other one. The chief distinction?

And in all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job: and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren.

So, I guess that’s it. Beautiful women. Our only recess in this whirlwind of agonies down here on earth. Whatever it is, however superficial it is, and whatever tortures of its own that come with it, the beauty of a woman is apparently some necessary and healthy diversion, to say the least.

It’s been part of the Jewish story from the very beginning. Beautiful women, and violence. Personal love, and mass holocaust. Is this some mystical balance? Are these things in any way related? Who knows?

The next time you see a beautiful Jewish woman, just think about the Bible. Think about the God. And be cool about Jewish people.

It became clear to me that nationhood was a device of some kind, representing something deeper, more significant than a social survival mechanism. I saw in nationhood a moral refinement, a spiritual test. Nationhood was about values. I would ask my students, “What is a nation? Why and how does it come about? What is its purpose? Why do nations become weak and fail, and become subject to, or absorbed by, other, stronger nations?”

I eventually presented the ancient Hebrew doctrine of nationhood. Most people in the “Bible belt” region of America have heard about the tower of Babel (Genesis 11), and how the Lord separated humanity into phenomenological divisions of language. Linguistic diversity lead to geographic diversity, when diversity in diet, and finally culture. Men are specialists, or separatists, by this imposed nature of phenomenological diversity.

But I introduced what I discovered to be the moral challenge inherent in nationhood. It was an indirect verse, but critical, from a vision God gave to Abraham (Gen. 15:16). Abraham’s descendents would suffer dependency and enslavement for 400 years, outside Cana’an, but then they would return:

But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

It’s the second part of that verse that indicates the contingency of nationhood. The Amorites (the general term for the racial group, or, the ethnicities, inhabiting Cana’an before the Hebrews entered en mass) were not to be removed from the land until they had used up their alotment of divine patience and mercy. In other words, this is the concept of national probation. If the story of Babel accounts for the beginnings of nationhood, the impetus, the cause of nationhood, however small or insiginificant its start, then the promise to Abraham accounts for the passing of nations. The death of a nation is phenomenon as vital a concept as the birth of a nation.

This idea of national probation is constant, throughout the Bible. Moses proclaimed it clearly in Deuteronomy 32:7-9. At that point, the message was that all other nations formed and functioned in relation to Israel. Their alotment, both temporal and geographical, was is direct relation not only to the demographic of Israel, but dependent on the way in which they regarded the values of Israel, i.e., the law of God. This is practically mystical in concept.

But, probation was pertinent also to Israel. The Torah is replete with warnings against disloyalty. If Israel turn their backs on the Lord, He would turn His back on them. (Cf. Deut. 8:19,20; Lev. 26: 14-39; etc.) Their nationhood would dissolve. The interesting thing about the Hebrew experience, however, is the perpetuity of the people. It seems with every warning of destruction, there is a promise of restoration. Even if the Jews did not exist in the form of a nation, but rather of ethnic conclaves in within foreign nations, they always had the promise that, if they returned to the Lord, He would bring them back to the land He had given them, and restore their nationhood. No other people had such a view of God or themselves, in all known history.

Jeremiah perhaps put it most clearly. As he faced the coming of the Babylonian Empire, the Lord gave him words wherewith to warn Jerusalem:

At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

It is evident that the Lord controls nations. It may seem to us that our own behavior, or own intelligence, our own technology, are the factors yielding control. But, this is a subjective illusion, according to scripture.

Nationhood is a contingency. All nations are on probation. Yes, we speak of centuries. The Lord is longsuffering, beyond what most of us can appreciate. We’re day to day people. We can think of our own generation, and maybe one or two before and after. But, centuries? Millenia? Only the Jews can think that way (when they’re thinking). The genetic continuity in this people alone can even sense such a though. It is a divine intuition among men.

It seems that nationhood is in the general state of decline. There are times of development, but, there is always a peak beyond which disintegration and decay begin. National identity is an undulating thing, it seems. The mercy of God often confuses our interpretation of reality. We presume validity when our lot is forbearance. Mercy is not approval, but a second chance. History is more about mercy than accomplishment. The force of arms is no match for storm.

“And much more of Madness, and more of Sin,” said the poet. (Edgar Allan Pope, “The Conqueror Worm,” 1845).

Said the prophet,

“In the annals of human history the growth of nations, the rise and fall of empires, appear as dependent on the will and prowess of man. The shaping of events seems, to a great degree, to be determined by his power, ambition, or caprice. But in the word of God the curtain is drawn aside, and we behold, behind, above, and trhough all the play and counterplay of human interests and power and passions, the agencies of the all-merciful One, silently, patiently working out the counsels of His own will.” Ellen G. White, Education (1903).

These thoughts were not such as would procure tenure for a college teacher. I was, of course, dismissed the by the following academic year.

Dr. David Yeagley, in the professorial days.

The issue of nationhood for American Indian people is one of the more curious angles on the subject. If, according to the scriptural templet (and the Mormons), we were removed from our land because of our evil behavior, how is it that we are still on our land? We were not eradicated. We’re still here. Is this all by the mercy and good will of the United States government?

And what of the Middle Eastern “nations” whose boundaries are completely artificial, created by Great Britian, according to oil resources in the ground? Modern times seem to display some interesting challenges to the interpretation of scripture.

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.