Well, columnist Jeffery Kuhner has called for impeachment. In an article published July 22, over a month ago, the headline of Kuhner’s opinion/editorial read “KUHNER: President’s socialist takeover must be stopped.”

Good enough. Some of us have called for impeaching a while ago. BadEagle.com said it on September 18th, and again on the 24th. Perhaps these weren’t terribly sophisticated protests, but, reasons were given, and explanations for why impeachment is unlikely. WorldNetDaily said the “I” word the next month, October 8, 2009. Michael Savage called loudly for impeachment back on February 4, 2009, two and a half weeks after the alien, lying black African Communist traitor took office.

Michael Savage radio broadcast, “Impeach Obama!”, Februrary 4, 2009.

Sher Zieve (Canadian Free Press) suggested the same at the end of the year, December 9, 2009.)

So, “mainstream” media is in the act now, the Washington Times, if even just an op-ed piece. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank, so, he’s no slouch, or shall we say, crack pot. He is the host of “The Kuhner Show” on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com) from 5 to 7 p.m. Perhaps this is significant.

The cultic forces who created “Obama” are waning, obviously. The man has a forelorn look in his face these days, too. (Or is it my imagination? Is he just growing tired from all the vacations? What about his continued “campaign” speeches across the country? That must be exhausting. The man does not know how to be president, but only how to give speeches and to make a show.) The American people have rejected him. That seems fairly clear. But will that lead to impeachment?

Kuhner calls for an immediate investigation of Barry’s bad boys just as soon as Republicans gain control of Congress, or at least the House. As BadEagle.com pointed out, however, the Speaker of the House decides whether or not impeachment goes forward. Until Nancy Pelosi is removed, there will be no impeachment. It’s her call.

It is important to note that Kuhner recognizes that Barry is not incompetent. He is decidedly accomplishing his appointed purpose–to destroy (”change”) America.

The common misperception on the right is that Mr. Obama is another Jimmy Carter: an incompetent liberal whose presidency is being reduced to rubble under the onslaught of repeated failures. The very opposite, however, is true. He is the most consequential president in our lifetime, transforming America into something our Founding Fathers would find not only unrecognizable, but repugnant. Like all radical revolutionaries, he is consumed by the pursuit of power – attaining it, wielding it and maximizing it. Mr. Obama’s fledgling thug state must be stopped.

This has been the position of BadEagle.com all along. Incompetence will be the “excuse,” the defense, when Barry’s bad boys com under legal scrutiny. Inexperience will be the main explanation, not treason, intentional overthrow of all American principles.

It is somewhat refreshing to see that such a call for impeachment was made in the Washington Times. Of course, Republicans blew it, badly, the last time they had power; so, there is no cause for any-too-hopeful dispositions presently. Even Sarah Palin can’t tell the difference between RINO Kelly Ayotte and solid conservative Ovide Lamontagne in the New Hampshire senate race. Palin endorses attorney general Ayotte, despite her liberal and otherwise misrepresented rulings on abortion and immigration–at least according to Laura Ingraham. New Hamshpire abortionist Dr. Douglass Black even supports Ayotte! (BadEagle.com was not able to confirm this.) Ingraham is quick to pounce on Ayotte for this duplicity, and also on Palin for such blind politics as “year of the woman” notions. Of course, Lamontagne is a staunch Catholic, so that means Ingraham (a convert) is certainly going to support him.

From Laura Ingraham’s site, Dr. Black’s property sign.

The point is, impeachment should never become a mere rally cry for a political party, not when the party is confused over its foundations. (Cao’s Blog recently assessed Republican Party problems and how Michael Steele epitomizes them.) But, in the case of Barry, it would seem any motivation would worthy, should it effect the same ends–the removal of a traitor from office.

Sound like a harsh, unkind notion, to impeach a United States president? Who wants to be harsh and unkind? Why, who wants to be accused of being judgmental, prejudiced, bigoted, and worst of all, racist? Most people flee from such accusations as the frown of God. The dominate white race just seems determined to prove itself above such tarnished motives. The white race really cares about standing for the right way when it comes to race. This is remarkable, really.

But, there is a limite to idealism and professed purity. Sometimes, you just have to get down and get dirty–if you want to keep what’s yours. As I used to tell my students in ancient humanities classes, If you have anything valuable in this world, you must be willing to fight to the death for it, or it will be quickly taken from you. This is world history. People take from other people. That’s just the way it is. It can be done by subterfuge, intrigue, and deception, or by the old fashioned way: force.

I don’t know that Obama will be impeached, or even if that is possible. I do know that I personally believe the country would benefit greatly were he out of office.

The Beck “Restoring Honor” rally at the Lincoln Memorial, 8-28-10. It was estimated that over 100,000 people attended.

Race has become an obstacle in that vision, of course. Beck said what he really felt, that Obama is a racist, but then has already backed off this statement. He says he regrets having said that, etc. Thus, in the classic way, Beck demonstrated just how permanently obfuscating race has become in America. (Ah, white people are so very noble, kind, and unwilling to offend! Now, if they can just translate that grandeur of disposition into restoration of the country! Alas, Beck chose to recognize the inevitable issue of race, holding the rally when, where, and how he did. After all, the Negro is the unavoidable center of attention–no matter how unworthily, undeservedly, and unwanted. The Negro is an “in your face” proposition, and the White Man is stuck with him, and has made everyone else stuck with him as well. Yes, the Negro rules America, at this point, by Collective social Conscious default. Beck’s backtrack just proved that. Even in the most glorious, idealistic vision of American restoration, the Negro must be made the center of attention, lest he be offended. It’s called “rights.”)

Sorry to say, Sarah Palin played into the same chronic dissembling:
Palin: “I hope that Dr. King would be so proud of us.” Really? Why would anyone care? Is he some Negro saint whom whites must consult for blessing? Palin was pathetic on this one. There’s a point when pity for blacks becomes enslavement to them. Indeed, the Negro has enslaved the white man. But, I digress.

Honoring the fathers, as a notion, is in itself an interesting element of thought in the social movement to recover American society. It is a deeply romantic notion, full of poetry, history, and deepest social consciousness. Nothing could be more honorable than the fathers, and it seems they are the focus, the impetus, of all movements of restoration. (And it is true, the lying, alien, black African African Communist Muslim traitor in the White House does despise the white fathers of this country, and their values, and the United States Constitution. Thus, he represents all that is odious in the American Negro.)

The fathers, of course, must include the Pilgrims. The colonists. Not just those who participated in the actual writing of the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States. Those documents evolved from the social and religious values established by the Pilgrims, or, the Puritans. This was the White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant foundation of the country.

There is an interesting parallel between the way in which conservative Christians regard the Bible, and conservative Americans regard the Constitution. Both rely on a historical document. Both realize that social organization and technology change, and that the historical document must be applied (or interpreted) to these changes. But, the documents must not change, nor their meaning, nor their interpretations. The very pith of conservatism is in this insistence on preserving, conserving, or “saving” the true vision and intents of the fathers. Most of those people comprising the core of conservatives in America happen to be Bible believing Christians, are they not?

Now, let’s examine for a moment the idea of honoring the fathers. Let’s see just exactly what it is we’re doing.

Joseph J. Ellis made some interesting observations about “the fathers” in his Pulitzer Prize-winner, Founding Brothers (Vintage, 2002). His thesis is that the “fathers” were not in fact aware of the future. There vision was not so terribly clear, nor were they completely confident that their principles of government would be successful, at all. It was a gamble–for which they risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. This gives a healthy reality to their circumstances, lest we attribute any-too-prophetic a notion in them, lest we lose the significance of their move, the strength of their daring, in our distant idolizing of their greatness. The American Revolution was a terrible risk. Only a third of the colonists were willing to take it! The bravery of those who did is, of course, legendary. They created the United States of America–they believed, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” a disposition unknown in Washington today, and apparently despised by the current resident of the White House.

So, in a way, Americans today, who want to restore America, must be willing to take the same risk, and for the same reasons. It is probably mistaken to think that things are going to turn around by voting. It is probably an erroneous notion to think that things just have to get better. There are horrid governments out there in the Third World. There are satanic, oppressive tyrannies–in practice, now, as we speak, fully operative. It is terribly naive to suppose that American could never fall into such a state of affairs. The culture of corruption is a vibrant decay. The path to Barry’s “change” is well travelled, and America is well down that path.

The ancient Jews never believed that Jerusalem would fall. It was impossible. Indeed, Lamented the prophet Jeremiah (4:12):

The kings of the earth, and all the inhabitants of the world, would not have believed that the adversary and the enemy should have entered into the gates of Jerusalem.

But it happened. No faith could have been more solid, even lock-brained, that that of the Jews. But, Nebuchadnezzar the Babylonian broke down the walls of Jerusalem in 586 BC. It happened.

America can fall, too. Most conservatives believe it is falling, now. The enemies of America might never have believed it, either, but, it is happening. The gates of Jerusalem are entered, indeed. The enemy is here, basking in the Constitutional freedoms! ready to build a monument to their envy and hatred of America.

Glenn Beck is certainly to be thanked for his efforts to honor the fathers. All the conservative talkers, most of whom would never think of running for office, are nevertheless to be thanked for their efforts to encourage the preservation and restoration of America–however well-paid those efforts are. The marketing of conservatism is part and parcel of free enterprise. But the, so is propaganda. And it is true that most of the government advertisments (propagand) are on air time purchased from conservative talk show stations. There’s your Fairness Doctrine in action. Taxed payer supported government green compassion ads–evenly distributed through out conservative talk show time.

Glen Beck at his Washington Rally, 8-28-10.

In the end, the white oedipal liberals will be stopped by nothing but force. They have usurped all the civilized means of social progress. They have control of freedom’s mechanisms. Conservatives can used every civil means possible, every political process, every legitimate social avenue, even through free enterprise; but, revolution is on the agenda of those who know history. Revolution is the only path to full restoration. Other paths are illusionary, based on some opiate of professional purpose or media entertainment–which idolizes the fathers of freedom, yet is not willing to pay the price they paid for it.

When the people of a country lose confidence in their leaders, from the local arbiters to the White House, what are the options of thought and action for the individual in that country?

No amount of “fifteen minutes of fame” incidents can convince any one individual that he has political or legal influence; no amount of demonstrating, voting, or radical or violent acts–by one individual–can effect any change in law, government, or even culture. How then does an individual maintain seriousness about citizenship? Is a vote all there really is?

Eric Liddell (Ian Charleson), leading the “Chariots of Fire,” Warner Brothers, 1981.

When it is obvious that the leadership of the nation is the avowed National Enemy No.1, what can a single, simple individual do, or even think? One rifle is no match for the world. One bullet is a poem, a snowflake notion in the desert.

Perhaps we can find encouragement in the ancient Hebrew take on the world. The Jews have always known the perils of being a small minority. The Jews have moreover are intimately familiar with being hated by the innumerable majorities of the world.

“The Lord of Hosts” is a phrase that is perticularly important to the prophet Jeremiah, as he witnessed the demise of his nation, due to the utter corruption of its leaders. For example, in Ch. 44, the title “The Lord of Hosts” is presented as the authoritative signature of the message given, even the message of demise. It is the validation, the seal of divine authority: “The Lord of Hosts.”

The Hebrew word from which “hosts” is translated is צבאה (tseb-aw-aw’). It simply means a great mass of persons. Most of the time it is used to mean a massive army, or, a force of arms. Of course, the implication always pertains to the superior force of the Lord’s resources. “They that be with us are more than they that be with them,” Elisha told his apprentice, as the two of them face a “host” of Syrians surrounding their little Jewish kibbutz (2 Kings 6:16). It’s that passage from which the famous term “chariots of fire” came. The Lord’s “hosts” far out-numbered the Syrians.

It is comforting to know that superior numbers are on your side, even if you can’t see them. The Lord’s forces tend to be invisible to us here. But, there is something about that term, “hosts,” that seems vital at this point in any poor kibbutzer’s view of his crumbling country.

Perhaps the term “The Lord of Hosts” is meant precisely to comfort and encourge the few, the weak, the minescule, indeed the single individual. “Hosts.” Individual. The contrast is perfect. When we as individuals feel entirely powerless, entirely insignificant, then is the time to remember it is the Lord of “hosts” we pray to. The good far out-numbers the bad, always, if the good appeals to the Lord. If it doesn’t, then the bad out-number the good down here on earth. That’s the way it appears, anyway.

I for one am ready to write off this government. Nothing short of a revolution can change anything. That’s what Thomas Jefferson suggested, every twenty years or so. That’s what Nathaniel Hawthorne advised, and promised, in his imaginary “Gray Warrior” story. Zuckerman’s assessment of the present administration’s fiscal irresponsibility is a weak response. I think it is erroneous. The administration is not irresponsible. They are following a specific plan–to ruin America. That’s the campaign. The white oedipal liberals behind it are intentionally destroying the country. It isn’t about incompetence, inexperience, or even stupidity. It is a plan.

And it’s a plan that the individual American is powerless to counter. Yes, there are growing public movements against the government. The Tea Party is a major one, certainly. But, Washington is immune to the people. We can’t remove all the congressmen at once. Just one at a time, sometimes. The fact that John McCain one Arizona again, after betraying the state for the last twenty years, repeatedly, says money overrules the people, every time. So, again, I for one don’t see salvation coming through the people of America. We don’t have control over our government. It doesn’t represent us. Only revolution can change that. I doubt the people will revolt. Bill Clinton counted on them being preoccupied with their toys and their jobs. Look what he was able to get by with. Things have only become much worse. Americans are generally not suicidal, murderous Muslims. Americans will not sacrifice their lives here, on this land, anymore. Maybe they will abroad, as professional good deed doers; but, they will not rise up here. The government armed forces would put them down immediately. We’d be out-gunned, out-numbered, and out-manoeuvered, just like the Comanches were in the old days.

“The Lord of Hosts.” This phrase becomes precious to me about now. Someone with more power than the enemy. Someone who out-numbers the enemy. I thank God for just that simple phrase, “The Lord of Hosts.”

New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg.

This is the theory talk show host Michael Savage is putting forth. He recently encouraged his audience to “follow the money” to find some explanation why the mayor of New York City would cause such irreparable damage not only to his city, but to his political future–which at this point is less than nothing.

A Savage Nation listener came up with a two-year-old article that explained it all. In TheNational.ae (ae signifying “Arab Emerates,”) a Dubai media company, Keach Hagey writes in October, 2008:

Spurred by a recent boom in sales in the region, Bloomberg is expanding its Dubai office into a regional hub, a move that will as much as quadruple its local staff over the next year.

Max Linnington, the company’s newly appointed regional head of Middle East and South Asia, announced the expansion today in advance of a panel discussion with economists and dignitaries in front of the Dubai International Financial Centre’s iconic The Gate building, where Bloomberg has had offices for two years.

“We are going to be bringing all the elements of what you would find in one of Bloomberg’s largest offices here in Dubai,” he said.

It’s from an article entitled “Bloomberg makes Dubai a hub.” Mayor Bloomberg is the eighth richest man in the U.S., weighing in at some $18 billion, net worth.

Michael Savage says this is the explanation for Bloomberg’s pro-terrorist Muslim position. All Bloomberg’s rhetoric about religious freedom, American core values, etc., is all insincere, all superfluous, all very dangerous. And it all is a façade for his financial quests. He is a business man. Being mayor was just a sport. Obviously, Bloomberg has no interest in a real political career. Sometimes very wealthy business men do things to entertain themselves, that’s all.

That’s what Donald Trump does. The whole Miss Universe thing is a pastime for him. But, as Debbie Schlussel pointed out, Trump has a business interest in the Middle East as well. That’s why he made terrorist supporter Farouk Shami the Mis Universe sponsor.

This is the trend. As China was the new center of economic interest beginning in the ’70’s, and businessmen rushed to the Oriental market, the Middle East is now the latest center. People who deal with money, at a global level, follow trends. The trend is Arabia. Therefore, Islam must be dealt with, positively. We must become part of the Brotherhood, not fight against it. We must entertain murderers, not oppose them. The Muslim world is potent, portentious, and precarious. And it isn’t going away. It is aggressive, permanent, and deadly. It leaves horrible scars, like the hole in the ground in lower Manhattan. No mosque will ever cover the wound. Every mosque is a memorial to terror, murder, and war. That is the whole point of Islam–to conquer the world. That has been the purpose since Mohammad began his campaign.

American law is in on the act, of course. One of the largest global law conglomerates is DLA Piper. Their “formidable presence” in the Middle East is “based in Dubai” of course. Any Ameircan attorney employed by this mega firm becomes useless in terms of defending America. The globalist companies who retain DLA services are so numerous that any American suit against them faces global interests. America is just another player in the game. It’s like there is a second world out there, a world of money. There are no national loyalties in that world, just corporate affinities.

It’s all part of an inevitable one-world order. It simply has to have the economic base to it. Yes, England and the United States created the Middle East of today, through oil companies. The Arab phenomenon had its own social bonding potential, through Islam, but, it has been completely dormant since the fall of the Ottoman Empire–effectively, since the 19th century. (And that was Turkish Islam. The Arab show ended centuries before.) But, oil revived Islam. Islam, a most unprogressive, anti-development concept of life, was given new power in the world through money. It’s all about money. Money made Islam in today’s modern world. It is a most superficial religion. It uses people. It’s leaders consider human beings as no better than lap dogs.

So, the lesson is, keep wealthy politicians out of office. They may have “interests” in the Middle East.

And yet, it is a heart-sickening thing to see John McCain buy Arizona again! Just when we thought that Arizona had learned all these lessons about money and dual loyalities, they turn around and re-elect raving liberal in diguise, John McCain. This is a stunning blow to the confidence that patriots want to see in the American people. That a traitorous politician like McCain would be re-elected by the very people whose state’s life has been repeaetedly betrayed by McCain, whose state’s life is, as we speak, the most threated life in the Union, is unaccountable. It could be a final knock-out punch for hope.

The betrayer, supported by the betrayed.

Follow the money, indeed. That’s what people do, whether they realize it or not, in the most tactile sense. It’s all part of that vicarious living. We vote for the rich guy. He’s a success. He must know more than the rest of us.

Bloomberg shows us what money does to one’s loyalties. Bloomberg supports monuments to murder. Bloomberg supports anti-American monuments to Muslim murderers, on the very spot whence it occurred–his back yard. New York City. That’s what money does to the mind. Money removes all loyaties but its own. It will have no other gods competing.

Adolf Hitler, the Negro Jew.

That’s the latest position–held not by scientists, but journalists! That makes the joke even funnier. Belgian journalist Jean-Paul Mulders and historian Marc Vermeeren claim they hunted down 39 living relatives of Adolph Hitler, had saliva samples taken, and tests run. According to the unimpeachable ThirdAge.com:

Based on reports by NewYorkDailyNews.com, the Haplopgroup E1b1b (Y-DNA) chromosome found in the samples is rarely found in Western Europeans.

Instead, “it is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, in Algeria, Libya and Tunisia as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews,” Vermeeren said in Knack, the Belgium magazine in which the findings were published.

Of course, USAToday had several years ago noted that the actual remains of the man Hitler were in ‘grave’ doubt, so to speak. But, no problem. When you don’t have any evidence of the man, you go for his relatives. Okay. Which ones? Ah, that little sliver of information is not readily available, at least not in the public new reports.

The news is, Hitler was a Negro Jew. Isn’t that just wonderful? Doesn’t that just thrill our souls? To make the man as completely odious as conceivable, he is now, through the miraculous revelatory power of DNA, declared to be part of the two most despised, persecuted, unwanted races in the entire world. That’s the Hitler we all know and love, right?

Well, maybe this is all English propaganda. The news sources quoted often in the stories are the Daily Mail and the Telegraph. And Brits have always had a penchant for “yellow” news.

There was a Hitler cousin named. According to Bloomberg, it was an Austrian cousin, “Norbert H.” No last name given. (There’s real scientific scholarship for you, indicated the exactitude and thoroughness of the news reports, and no doubt, the “science” involved as well.)

But let’s be fair. The magazine in which this was all published is the Belgian Knack, and the best actual account of it all is in a Huffington Post piece on it. The reporting is a bit confusing, since everyone is quoting everyone else but the Belgian magazine (which happens to be in German). So, if there’s any prejudice at all, it’s from the Teutons, not the Angles. Of course, they’re related, are they not? And never mind the New York Daily news version of the story. Old hat by now.

So, I think the important observation to make is about the clownish employment of DNA “science.” We all know DNA won its sterling rep in court. That is to say, when it became part of forensic evidence, it earned the reputation of the last word, the undeniable testimony. Everyone has always been “Islamic” in submission to the claims of DNA. It is a slavish subjugation. Scientists have, as never before, ascended to the kind of social control and power that they have dreamed of ever since they rebelled against the superstitions of the Dark Ages.

Fine. But, must we all bow to the superstitions of science now? The issue is all about social authority. That’s was the legal profession is all about. That’s what politics is all about. Authority. Power of men over other men. It is the human thing. Our worst thing, perhaps.

This story is about using “scientific” authority for entertainment, but of such kind as relates directly to race and politics. As we noted earlier, the word “nigger” has been made into a cultural fetish–the vortext of evil. As such it wields great power. But there are other names, too, which work wonders in the way of psychological authority–which is the basis of political and legal authority: Nazi, Hitler, Racism, and Jew, for instance. Even words (names) like God, Jesus, and now that utterly fabricated fetish, “Mohammad.” Power words, they are. Of course, they are certainly not interchangeable terms, but, there is a certain similarity in their impact. The name of “God” is sacred. The word “nigger” is simply evil. People swear in the name of God all the time, with apparent impunity; but, if you say “nigger” you are evil. You will be destroyed. Nothing but power plays, these word issues.

So, let Hitler be whatever he was. Associating the words “Jew” and “Negro” with him, in the name of DNA, really puts it all in clear light. The game is obvious. All players are exposed.

It is apparently an archetype in the human mind that there should be hierarchy. No matter what the subject, or object, there is contest. Whenever presented with multiplicity, if only two items, the inevitable tendency of consciousness is to distinguish one as better than the other. One is more valuable than the other. Similarity invites discretion. Association is a challenge. This is the phenomenology of consciousness at the most basic level. Ferdinand de Saussure, the Swiss linguist, obvserved this chronic craving of discretion even in the process of recognizing the letters of the alphabit. A thing (or letter) is what it is very much by virtue of what it is not. For example, a “j” is an “i” without the tail, or vice versa.

So what is the superior race? What is the sector of humanity which is superior to all others? The question is natural. And, why is it superior? Is there a general trend, or must we break it down into parts, and compare relative superiority in segmented aspects of human prowess?

Ptah.

Interestingly, the ancient gods addressed only those who worshipped them. The ancient gods were ethno-centric. Marduk created the Babylonians, not mankind. Ptah created the Egyptians (at least those at Memphis), not humanity. There may be some implied superiority derived from god-ism in a society. Certainly there is competition with other groups. Gods were mascots, in effect.

Curiously, the ancient Hebrew scriptures present a God who not only claims to have created all the different races and ethnic groups in the world, but also claims to be responsible for the management of them all. He claims to have created the one group which He deigned preeminent–the Jews. Of course, unique and preeminent do not necessarily mean superior. Different does not mean better, necessarily. He promised to make the Jews different, for sure.

But, does that mean the Jews are superior?

Curiously again, this is not exactly the depiction in scripture. The Jews were certainly never superior in numbers. They do not appear to have been superior in character, either. (Their name has “stunk” since the sons of Jacob committed genocide on the clan of Hamor (Gen. 43:30.) They were created, from scratch, so to speak. Therefore they cannot be regarded as worthy of selection out of competing groups. They were created, from nothing, in the very presence of pre-existing groups. They were created, more than ‘chosen,’ for the task of carrying the Ark of the Most High in this world. Their history is attributed to the mercy of their God, and not to their numbers, character, or talents. That’s the picture in the Bible, anyway.

But, it is hard to separate a people’s history from their talents. Beauty of appearance–which is the first aspect we encounter, size, numbers, strength, technology, etc., are all elements which, in one way or another, affect a people’s experience and history in this world. The Jews have been around as a distinct culture longer than any other groups. This must be attributed to something. But what?
How could such a question be answered except as we attribute their historical continuity either to their phenomenological traits or to the supernatural, that is, their God? It has either to do with their nature, or their God. Perhaps it is a combination of both.

If so, that would mean it is their God, exclusively, who has made them what they are. All ethnicities have moral ambiguity, extremes of success and failure, and suffering. We all qualify on that basis. If God is the difference, then we have to look on with curiosity if not frustration as to why the Jews would be selected for any special assignment above any of the rest of us. Why them? They’re certainly not better than anyone else. They might be worse. Scripture is intensely ambiguous about this.

The Judeo-Christian religion, for some reason, spread west. It was more successful in the westward outreach than the eastern. To the west lay the white race–the Caucasian peoples. These were the relatives of the Semites (descendents of Shem), according to Genesis 10:21-31.

Marduk and his pet dragon.

As a race, the Caucasians have dabbled with Hebrew socio-psychological values and standards longer than any other sector of the human race–three thousand years or more, if we count Hebrew history as the line of descent. The religious connection might not be demonstrable in the laboratory, but, it does so happen that the white race wields the superior power in technology, science, the arts, government, etc. The white race, as well as particular Semitic ancestor–the Jews, has also experience life as a relative minority. The white races has always been the smaller of the three races, Mogoloid, Negroid, and Caucasoid. These are the phenomenological facts of history.

So, what is supremacy about? If not moral character, then social values. If not physical numbers, then technology. This is what the naked eye sees in the world; but both technology and social order reflect the values of the gods, one way or another. The Most High, the Hebrew Creator, claims to have power over spiritual and the physical. He claims to have created the nations, and to be the present manager of them all. The role of the Jews was one of communication, ambassadorship, or divine messaging. I’m not sure it took a superior people to do that. Humanity is humanity. There may not be a superior people, but there are hierarchies of responsibility. That one was designed to demonstrate superior values before all others is a superior rôle, indeed, and it may have required extraordinary strength to sustain; but, any distinction in this regard was developed, over a long period of time. And that time is filled with exemples of colossal failure. In the end, if there is any superiority in the Jews, or in the white race, it has to do with the religious values held, and not the natural character of the people.

It would appear that national, ethnic, or racial status does have directly to do with the values of those entities. This modern notion of natural “equality” is amiss and awry. All people may be equally loved by the Creator, but, not all people are equally interested in Him or His ways. Therein lies the differentiation. Those who seek the true God most sincerely are the superior people–and superior for that reason alone. Superiority comes from God, not from man’s behavior.

If the Jews invented God, they sure gave them selves a strange sock in the eye in the process. The scriptures are hardly complimentary toward Jewish people. Yet, they are honored above all. It is the archetype of duality and hierarchy, both.

Debbie Schussel once again has forewarned us. Naming her “Miss Hezbollah” when Rima won Miss USA (2010), Schussel reminds us of the Muslim terrorist support of this Muslim immigrant. Born into a influencial Shi’ite Muslim family in southern Lebanon, she has been supported by the Arab Dearborn (Michigan) community for years. Schussel predicts “Miss Hezbollah” will win, because Donald Trump, owner of the Miss Universe pageant, wants to expand the family business in the Middle East. (Ivanka Trump, daughter of Donald and Ivana Trump, converted to Judaism in order to marry “orthodox” Jared Kushner), and also because the main financial contributor to this years Miss Universe is “9/11 Truther and Sunni Muslim Palestinian terrorism supporter Farouk Shami,” that is, Farouk Systems and CHI products. Thus saith Debbie Schlussel.

Rima Fakih, the Arab version of a dumb blonde.

The occasion for Schlussel’s reminder is, she says, a number of emails asking her opinion of the comments of Rimia Fakih about the Ground Zero Mosque issue. Miss Fakih feels there should be no mosque there.

“I totally agree with President Obama with the statement on the constitutional rights of freedom of religion.” It shouldn’t be so close to the World Trade Center. We should be more concerned with the tragedy than religion.”

Schlussel simply says don’t buy it. It’s taqiyyah, that permissable, recommended, honored lying of a Muslim to infidels to serve the cause of Islam.

One holds one’s breath when reading Debbie Schlussel, of course. It is one of the most volatile, explosive blogs in the business.

BadEagle.com certainly has no particular expectation of Rima Fakih in the way of American values. She appears to be nothing more than a Muslim mascot. Certainly, her reference to Barry “Obama” Soetoro for validation of the U.S. Constitution shows us the depth of her understanding. (Unfortunately, many Americans these days have no deeper thoughts. They think America is based on religious freedom. Or, more inaccurately, they think religious freedom means Islam is in harmony with American values. Worse, they think Muslims are welcome here. They think Islam is a wonderful religion of peace, why, just like Christianity.

Schlussel also reminds us that Miss Muslim Mascot Rima Fakih has not denounced Hezbollah for the mass murder of U.S. Marines in 1983 in Lebanon. Obviously, she has no denoucement of Hezbollah at all. They support her. She has major family ties in Hezbollah.

A mosque at Ground Zero; a Muslim Miss America; what’s the difference? The mockery is foundational. The insult is intense. This is Islam–to turn the world upside down. America is its greatest triumph. America is Communism’s greatest triumph. America is everyone’s greatest triumph. Why? America is the greatest. Everyone wants to own it, control it, benefit from it, and spit on it. Especially the liberal white oedipals.

So, this is all in order. I don’t know that Rima Fakih will win Miss Universe, but it would make sense. It won’t surprise me. Islam is after the world. Always has been, always will be. And, beyond a certain level of struggle, decisions are made by money. Muslim money–which the West has put in their hands. Bombs go far, but money goes even farther. Add boobs, and you’ve got the world.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger.

Apparently Dr. Laura’s sponsors were on her case immediately. The next week she appeared on Larry King’s show, and announced that she would end her own show. Her contract were up at the end of the year anyway, and she determined to begin a new effort. “I want to regain my First Amendment rights,” she told King. After thirty years of broadcasting, she has come to the conclusion that free speech is seriously impeded in modern American society.

I doubt she’s looking for the right to say “nigger.” So what is she looking for? What kind of freedom is a white woman looking for? What does a Jewish woman look for? (Her father was Jewish, her mother Italian Catholic, so, maybe we should use Ilana Mercer’s term, “Hebrew,” to identify at least half of Dr. Laura’s ethnicity.)

Dr. Laura already paid her photographic tribute to the American Negro, with a photo lovingingly paired with Mike Paul, Negro president of MGP & Associates PR. Like every white female in media, Dr. Laura had to have her publicity photo with a Negro male to demonstrate that she was not prejudice. Maybe she wants freedom from that, freedom from the pressure of obligatory sexual association with Negros. Who knows?

Mike Paul, MGP president, and Dr. Laura.

Remember that the Negro Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, appointed by the Negro Barry “Obama” Soetoro, President of the United States, considers America “a nation of cowards” when it comes to talking about race. Obviously, people can’t say what they feel about Negroes. They’ll lose their jobs. They’ll be sued. Of course they’re “cowards.” White oedipal liberals (Democrat Communists) and Negros have made them so. Nay, it is not conscience that makes cowards of us all; it’s attorneys. And sponsors.

But the most useful conversation here has to do with, not the use of the word “nigger,” but some kind of understanding as to why it is considered offensive. Personally, I sense a kind of primitive fetishism going on. It is as if all the evil in the human heart is to be understood as represented in the single word, nigger. One can conjure up all that is ill by pronouncing a single word. It is magic. It is supernatural. How on earth did such a phenomenon develop? Has it ever happened before in social history? Has one word become the vortext of all emotional aversion between human beings? It is rather remarkable, actually. Is it African voodooism evolved again within the context of American culture? Is this the effect of the Negro presence in America?

What does the word nigger mean? Is anyone willing to actually say what it means, and why it is offensive–to Negroes? But, then, we have to ask, if Negroes say it to each other, and it is not offensive, then why is it offensive if a non-Negro refers to a Negro as a nigger? These are blatantly simple questions, but they have never been addressed, let alone answered. Even when black writers like Tara Wall talk about the word nigger, they still don’t get to the real meat of the matter. The Attorney General Coward would certainly never approach the subject. Even “ethnic” conservatives shun such a dare. I’m thinking black folks are the cowards here. It is they who can’t bring themselves to talk about what needs to be talked about.

Dick Gregory thought that if you don’t say the word, whatever it represents doesn’t exist. Dick Gregory, Nigger (1964), p.209. A fanciful thought, and maybe it would be a good thing if it were true. But, the question is still standing. What does the word nigger represent? What does it mean? What is it that we don’t want to exist anymore?

Finally, why do American Negroes lustfully delight in using the word nigger? If it is so offensive, so painful, so egregious and tragic, what is their pleasure in using it of one another?

These are the kinds of questions that need to be asked. Yes, ask them tenderly, carefully, and respectfully. But, ask them. Maybe it’s not all black and white, so to speak, but, there should be something definite. It’s too dramatic, too powerful, too consequential to be gray. Make a list of associations. Make a list of uses. Make comparisons. Are there any other words that are so powerful?

Is that what this is all about, power? It is all a shakedown, in the final analysis? Talk to us, Mr. Holder. We want to talk. Are you going to prosecute us for talking about race, because you yourself are the biggest coward in the country? Or, are you actually a dangerous, white-hating aggressive enemy, in rhetorical disguise?

The ancient Romans, in their arsenal of soothsaying techniques, used to fortell the future by “reading” the arrangements of intestines and internal organs of a sliced open bovine. It was a priestly as well as ghastly affair.

But it was far more ancient than Roman. Divination by animal innards may have derived from an incident in the life of Abraham, sometime during the 20th century BCE. He asked the Lord to confirm a certain promise to him. The Lord commanded Abraham to slice open some young livestock; and Abraham then laid out their innards in pairs. That night, Abraham had a dream about the future of his descendents. (Genesis 15:7-21.) The revelation came from God, not from the guts, but, for some reason, the guts were laid out first. Who knows where, why, and whence cometh this bloody gesture?

Somewhere along the creative line of history, the expression evolved from “the guts” to “our” guts. What does your gut tell you? What do your own innards prophecy?

This week has seen two very intense debates in American culture: famed conservative Ann Coulter and her speaking engagement with GOProud, a homosexual advocacy group, and the Groud Zero Mosque–the triumph over all things American. The media loves controversy, certainly. It sells. It raises ratings. Though all liberal positions are given preference in general media, occasionally all media benefits from sheer controversy. It is especially at times like these, in debates like these, we ask, “What does your gut tell you?”

I very concerned to say that, in the case of Coulter, it seems the public gut is saying no. She is mistaken in this speaking engagement. No amount of logic will allow otherwise. In the mosque matter, the public gut says it wrong, plain and simple. Obviously outlandishly wrong. No amount of sophistry or Constitution spinning will alter the trend of public opinion. So, in both cases, the guts say no.

Some people may feel that the guts going bit is primitive. The modern intellectual decides by reason, by logic, by informed methodology. Intuition is for women, for tribesmen, for non-thinking people who live by feeling. Nevertheless, if I may quote a famous Scottish moral philosopher, John MacMurray, when speaking of the process of thinking itself:

Any enquiry must have a motive or it could not be carried on at all, and all motives belong to our emotional life. Moreover, if the enquiry is to be satisfactorily carried through, the emotion which provides the motive for it must be an adequate one.

Reason and Emotion (London: Faber & Faber Ltd., 1935), p.13. MacMurry goes on to say that motives that sustain an inquiry are the strongest, and are generally the motives that account for the inquiry in the first place.

MacMurry seems to say guts rule. Notwithstanding our pretenses in logic, objectivity, and the strange notion that intellect is separable from intuition, our emotions are the arbiters of our minds. Freud would agree. Jung would agree.

Would Moses agree? That common phrase in popular American culture, “Don’t even think that!” is not so clever after all. The Torah is distinguished by the command to control motives. “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart.” Leviticus 19:17. Or, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house.” Exodus 20:17. Control thy gut! But that’s a different matter.

Maybe guts really do rule. Maybe they’re close to the conscience. Nathaniel Hawthorne, Edgar Allan Poe, and other early 19th century American prophets warned against the cultural trend of separating the mind from the heart. The mind is not superior to the heart. The two are equal. Poe went so far as to picture the end of the world as the result of mankind’s unhallowed ambition to put the intellect over the emotion. (“Mellonta Tauta”, 1849).

The times in which we live definitely require intestinal fortitude. If that’s yet another way of says guts rule, then so be it.

Former US envoy to the UN, John Bolton.

This is the story. Iran has for years defied the international “community,” the United Nations, and all attempts at disuasion. Sanctions are meaningless. Iranian mullahs are determined to have nuclear facilities and, obviously, neclear weapons. Barry “Obama” Soetoro, the joke of the Muslim world, has only increased Islamic aggression everywhere. So, it becomes a question of stopping a cancer with radical surgery, or letting it slowly develop, taking its own course, and suffering the consequences. A high risk surgery now, or sure death later.

In the past, BadEagle.com has noted the fact that other ‘rogue’ or unstable governments possess the nuclear bomb, such as North Korea, India, and Pakistan. China and Russia of course have the bomb. No one but the United States has ever used nuclear weapons against another country. Those atom bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended WWII, in 1945. Since that time, different countries have tested nuclear bombs. North Korea continues to terrorize the world with childish and foolish tests. But, the likelihood of any country actually using a nuclear bomb on another country is negligent. Why? Self-preservation, or, the instinct life.

Until, of course, Islam wields nuclear power. Islam has demonstrated before the world, repeatedly, that it has no respect for life, and, with religious zeal would delight to evelop the world in a nuclear holocaust. Iran’s mullahs would most definitely use a nuclear bomb on another country. Any country. Especially Israel. Self-preservation is not a motivation in Islam. Death is the motivation. Islam is a death cult. Therefore, a nuclear weapon in the hands of Muslims, particularly ambitious Iranian muslims, is a sure catastrophy.

This appears to be the case, based on everything said and done to this point. Whether Israel will strike the nuclear facility at Beshehr or not remains to be seen.

Israel struck an Iraqi nuclear site in 1981: “Operation Mitzvah.”

What would be the consequences? WWIII? I say, WWIII with conventional weapons would be more tolerable than an Iranian-initiated nuclear holocaust. Iranian Islamicists don’t care about life. Israelis do. True Muslims desire to end the world in violence and blood. This, in their minds, brings forth the Mehdi, the Savior of the world, or, the new world. Something like that. Islam functions as a martyr’s role. Death is the object of the “religion.” Islam is truly hideous and repulsive to anyone who cherishes life. While many Muslims do not believe Islam is a death cult at all, but a better way of life, these Muslims do not shape the image of modern Islam. And even they themselves tend towards coercion, or the imposition of Sharia law on the West. This is what Islam is all about–coercion. Conquering. That was its nature from the day Mohammad began his politico-military career.

While it would be extremely risky and costly for Israel to strike Iran now, though the consequences on the world, particularly the United States, would be significant, the alternative is only to delay until a worse set of consequences develop.

I would have to say, to Israel, strike now. It is not a declaration of war. It is not war against Iran. It is a technical, surgical removal of a deadly threat, the kind of thing Israel has done twice in the past, a facility in Iraq (1981), and North Korean interests in Syria (2007). This would be simply another such action. Again, it is not a declaration of war against Iran, nor is it an attack on the people of Iran. This would be the anti-Zionist headline the world over, of course, but it would be a lie, as most anti-Zionist headlines are. Israel would not be attacking Iran. Israel would be disabling a nuclear weapons facility. That’s all. The world was strangely quiet in 1981, and in 2007. Most people don’t even know about the 2007 strike against the nuclear weapons program in Syria.

Israel bombed a nuclear facility in Syria, in 2007.

Of course, Syria is not Iran. Nevertheless, Iran is not the leader of the Islamic world–much as the Iranian mullahs would like to think they are. The Islamic world, which is Arabic in nature, would probably be grateful for the Israeli strike. Islam is an Arabic religion, in style, in content, and in spirit. (It is cruel, vain, and aggressive.) Iranians are Persian by heritage. They will never, ever be accepted as the leader of the Islamic world. This is a profound reality that must figure into the equation of what to do presently with the nuclear program in Beshehr.