Last Thursday, December 26, Andrew "Jack" Whittaker, of Scott Depot, West Virginia, one the largest single-ticket lottery in history: $314.9 million. Whittaker chose cash payouts rather than annual sums, he'll pocket $111.7 million.
Whittaker thanks God. "I just want to than God for letting the machine pick the right numbers." A member of the Church of God (Pentecostal) Church, Whittaker intends to give 10% of his win as tithe, according to Judeo-Christian tradition (Gen.28:22, Malachai 3:8-11, Matthew 23:23, etc.)
Why thank God for chance? I thought that method of divine revelation was obsolete. I don't think God had anything to with Whittaker's luck. Maybe I'm wrong.
I know that there was a time in American history when gambling was considered evil. Back in 1873, Wisconsin's Governor Washborn gave an annual address on January 9, in which he said: "Some law seems to be required to break up the schools where gamblers are made. These are everywhere. Even the church (unwittingly, no doubt) is sometimes found doing the work of the devil. Gift concerts, giftt enterprises and raffles, sometimes in aid of religious or charitable objects, but often for less worthy purposes, lotteries, prize packages, etc., are all devices to obtain money without value received. Nothing is so demoralizing or intoxicating, particularly to the young, as the acquisition of money or property without labor. Respectable people engaging in these chance enterprises, and easing their consciences with the reflection that the money is to go to a good object, it is not strange that the youth of the state should so often fall into the habits which the excitement of games of hazard is almost certain to engender."
Has gambling reformed itself today? Is there no longer any vice associated with the enterprise at all? Has the industry been sanitized?
I don't think God's blessings (whatever they are) can be administered through chance. God is a person, with character, and relates to human beings through character values. Chance therefore disqualifies such gambled "blessings" as divine, unless we want to say God is simply the god of luck. In which case, we say with the Babylonians, "mazeltov," or, "may your stars be right." In other words, Good Luck is the best we can hope for. There's no personal God to which we can relate.
I appreciate Mr. Whittaker's attitude about tithe, charity, and responsible use the money that came to him through chance. However, I cannot accept the idea that God had anything to do with the fact that it came to him.
As an Indian, I know gambling is almost inbred in our people. But I look at that as one of our more heathen traits, and something that, today, is a most dubious enterprise, particularly on our reservations. The whole gambling industry, as I have pointed out before, will bring about our ultimate doom and destruction as a people. It doesn't look that way on the surface, but, the politics behind it all are already threatening many of our reservations. I will post more on this later.
Real Amerians--were just murdered in Yemen. No, I don't mean any of the nearly 30,000 Yemen who have attained American citizenship and freely travel back and forth to America, yet live in Yemen. I mean white Americans, Baptist hospital missionaries: William Koehn, 60, the hospital administrator, Kethleen Gariety, 53, business manager, Dr. Martha Myers, 57, obstetrician. Don Caswell, 49, pharmacist, survived his bullet wounds.
Abid Abdulrazzaq Al-Kamil, the murderer, told the arresting police officers that he murdered these people to "cleanse his religion and to get closer to Allah."
Of course, the Yemen government is terribly embarassed, as are so many of the Yemen people who knew and loved the hospital and its workers. Yemen is one of Washington's official partners in the war against terrorism, depsite the fact that al Qaeda factions and other extremist Islamic militant groups hang out in Yemen. The central government is weak, and the people are tribal, much like Afghanistan.
But I'm very concerned about those 30,000 so called Yemen-Americans who live there in Yemen. I won't even ask how they became "American citizens," but rather, why did they, then turn around and live again in Yemen.
I think it's quite clear at this point that America citizenship should not be available to anyone and everyone in the world. Those days are simply over.
We have far too many enemies. American citizenship has become a ticket to terrorists, an open door to deadly murderes.
The Muslim world, however, has a right to say to all Americans living in their counties, We don't want you here. Americans ought to willingly pull out. This may, at last, be our best course. Yes, America developed these desert holes from utter insignificance to major world players, through the development of their natural resources, namely oil. Yet, only their government officials and families benefit. The people themselves are still repressed in dire poverty. Every Arab country has basically these same circumstances. Palestinians are perhaps in the worst of it.
The situation reminds me of Americans and casinos. Only a "chosen few" of the tribes benefit. Casinos haven't helped Indian people as a whole, at all.
So, the Islamic extremists become frustrated. But instead of blowing up their own countries, their own governments, their own enemies, they decided to get attention by attacking America, or Jews. In this, they are extremely foolish, mistaken, and prove themselves maniacal murderers, not patriots for their own country, nor zealots of their own religion. The Islamic extremists are humanity at its worst: satanic delusion combined with unbridled passion. They have become the curse of the world.
And any "Americans" who want open-door immigration, handing out American citizenship for nothing, need to consider their role in all this. These Americans have the spirit of treason within them, and they are perhaps America's worst enemies themselves.
This January 21-13, there is a great Indian conference planned at Sioux Falls. In fact, it has become so significant that there is stiff competition among Indian and non-Indian leaders to participate in it.
Actually, this is the second Sioux Falls conference. The first was last year, around the same time in January. The plan was simple: gather Indians together to talk about certain key issues, but gather Indians who are known for having different views on these same issues. That's what was unique about it, and that's why it was successful. Russell Means was there, speaking against the use of mascots, for instance. But I was there, and an Indian basketball coach from University of North Dokata, who spoke in favor of mascots, particularly the "Fighting Sioux." I was there, speaking on the virtues of the American Indian warrior image.
And back in April, 2002, there was another conference, at Greely, Colorado. It was sponsored by the University of Northern Colorado, to denounce ethnic stereotyping. In was a racial coalition. Yet, the Oneida Indian who organized it invited me to speak, in favor of Indian mascots, because he believed that there needed to be a balanced presentation. He felt everyone needed to hear an different view.
Well, it looks like more and more Indians are beginning to understand that meeting together, with opposing ideas, is not a bad thing. It doesn't mean that there is going to be a war. It means that there is going to be a learning experience. When people with different views come together to talk, good can come of it. We educate each other.
Russell means is scheduled to be at this second Sioux Falls conference, Richard Poe, myself, and U.S. Congressman Frank Pallone. As well, representatives of the Washington Redskins, Kansas City Chiefs, and Atlanta Braves are to be there. And there are Republican leaders scheduled to talk. Interestingly, there will be at least one representative of the Southeastern Indian tribes: Oklahoma Senator Enoch Kelly Haney. Sports Illustrated representatives are expected, too.
Because of the status of this conference, major AIM leaders plann to be present, and various local Sioux representatives. Naturally, there is already a great deal of tension and concern. Indian country is not known as a peaceful place, and we all expect feelings to be pitched high. Yet, judging from last year's conferenc, I expect that a new level of communication will be reached.
All that is required for successful communication is humility and sincerety.
I have shown major disagreement with certain Indian representatives, but I have also shown respect. I know my own ideas have grown and deepened as a result of this. I can only hope that other Indians will see the value of examining each other's disagreements. I hope we can rise above the political rhetoric we inherit from the white man's world, and create our own solutions.
Joseph Farah, editor of WorldNetDaily, wants to think Jesus did not come from poverty. The reason he wants to say this is simple: the Left, the anti-capitalists, the liberals, etc., all want to usurp the Christmas story into support of their agenda. The Christmas story, in their minds, represents a make-shift family (bastard child, step-sibblings, etc.), a homeless family, and all that. They want to use the story as psychological authentication of their professed mission to the victimized poor of the world.
Well, I appreciate Mr. Farah's sentiments, but, the fact is, Joseph and family were not far above poverty. At Jesus' Temple brit milah (circumcision) Joseph offered only "two doves." Luke 2:24. That's definitely the poor man's offering. (Leviticus 12:8).
The question here is the political function of poverty, and the religious sentiments associated therewith. Is the Lord a communist, or a capitalist?
Succinctly, any political attempt to remove poverty from the world is not based on biblical principles. "Ye have the poor always with you," said Jesus (Matt.26:11). Even in the presence of the Amighty, "The rich and the poor meet together: the Lord is the maker of them all." Proverbs 22:2.
Furthermore, Moses said, "The poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land." Deuteronomy 15:11.
Yes, the rich have a responsibility to the poor. But this is not a declaration that poverty can and must be removed. Nor does this indicate that one nation must remove the poverty of another.
I agree with Farah's objection to any usurpation of the Christmans story to validate Communist coercion of the rich. But, we don't have to step up the social status of Joseph and family to invalidate such anti-capitalism. The biblical testimony is clearly capitalist, with responsibility to the poor.
An old Mexican lady told me once that Jesus had to be poor, so that the poor would not feel left out. His example doesn't leave room for any excuses for moral failure.
Many young Jewish boys of 1st century Israel did not go to school. However, one would never expect that among them could appear such a character as Jesus. One would never expect an uneducated person to be as intimately familiar not only with the Torah and the Prophets, but also the remarkably complex customs of the very culture in which he lived.
"How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" the Jews asked (John 7:15; cf. Mark 6:1-3). Was he tutored by scribes? That would have cost money. Joachim Jeremias, in Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Fortress, 1969) says even many of the scholars of the day supported themselves by artisan trades (pp.112-116). They often lived off subsidies, and some were actually priests, with regular income. Jeremias devotes a whole chapter to the scribes (10). Jesus' family certainly could not afford to hire home teachers.
There were the local synagogues of Galilee. Did Jesus learn the scriptures there? Did he remember every word he ever heard? Whatever he learned, it was learned in between daily labor in the carpenter's shop. It must have been only on Sabbaths, or after hours during the week. From what can be implied in Jacob Neusner's The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70 (Brill, 1971), it is not likely that the hours of the Sabbath would be used in the actual 'labor' of learning to read.
We have to look again at Mary, his mother. If she was in fact a Levite, it might seem more likely that she herself would have been exposed to some learning. However, if she was truly a Levite, it is not likely that she would have married Joseph, a descendent of Judah. Yet, as pointed out before, as a Levite, it seems unlikely that she would have been placed in such a position to begin with.
Somehow, Jesus learned. On might surmise that it was all by rote, and that he happen to have an excellent memory. Yet, the gospel says he could in fact read (Luke 4:14-21). If did not have formal education, he must have been homeschooled. Perhaps a relative of Mary's spent time with him. We just don't know. Somehow, he seemed to know everything about doctrine and custom.
For instance, why did he use his own spit to miraculously heal the deaf and dumb (Mark 7:31-35) and the blind (8:23; cf. John 9:6,7)? He had just profoundly denounced the social and religious pretense of the Pharisees (a class of elitists without Torahnian authorization whatsoever, who nevertheless were regarded as the Orthodox of their day). Then he used spit in miraculous healing.
Well, apparently there was a extraneous religious tradition that the saliva of the first born son had magical healing powers (see, Immanuel Jakobovits, Jewish Medical Ethics, Bloch, 1975, p.39) In other words, Jesus was offering fairly clear evidence that he was indeed the First Born. This shows a rather detailed knowledge of extraneous religious custom, in addition to his flawless knowledge of the Law and the Prophets.
Jesus was a remarkable man, as portrayed in the New Testament writings. The unbeliever will have to acknowledge the impressive image created by the New Testament writers. The literature itself is superior, as is most Jewish literature.
The story of Jesus' birth is truly fascinating. One particularly peculiar element is the appearance of the "wise men from the East." I believe we can actually learn much from this episode.
They are called "magi," from which the English word "magic" derives. The Magi were one of six tribes of the Medes, one of the oldest identifiable genetic lines of the human race (Gen.10:2, "Madai" in Hebrew). According to Herodotus the Magi (singular-Magus) were one of six Median tribes. The Magi were the priestly caste.
The Medes dominated the Iranian plateau by the 6th century BC, and they called themselves Aryan. When the more southeastern Aryans, that is, the Persians, rose to power, they absorbed the Medes. Interestingly, the Persians (beginning with the Achaemenid emporers, 560 BC) did not obliterate the "cultural identity" of the Medes, their cousins. Persians have been astute internationalists from the start.
The Magi were themselves remarkable specialists in interntional religion. They seem to have made great effort to seek and to accumulate all the supernatural arts known in their era. They were the supreme sorcerers, the magicians, the "spooks" of the ancient world. Their reputation even dominated the whole Iranian identity of later eras. Apparently, the Magi were dreaded accordingly. You didn't seek them casually. They brought unrest and uncertainty when they came around.
Now, picture their appearance in Jerusalem, turn of the 1st century AD. Israel was under the dominance of Rome. For these internationals to come there, and proclaim they wished to worship the King of the Jews, was surely a precarious social event. Herod was troubled, "and all Jerusalem with him." (Matt.2:3).
But the Magi knew. They had studied the supernatural for so long that they had achieved objectivity. They were academicians. Sceptics, if you will. Having transcended all human invention, they came to the threshold of Divinity. And they knew it.
Who wrote Matthew? What was the point of this incident? When was this written? And so forth... See how irrelevant these questions are? The grandeur and uniqueness of the story itself, to me, overrides any other consideration. We can only be silent in awe at its incredible impact on any open minded reader. I say let the glory lead where it will. I strongly suspect it will lead heavenward.
The day before Christmas, it must be appropriate to remind the world, and all Americans, that the United States of America is not a Muslim country. It never has been, and to remain what it is, America can never be Muslim.
It may seem a little an unkind thing to say, but the fact that any American would even think that way only shows the extent of communist influence in America. In the name of Marxist equality, all things are to be valued equally. The very antithesis of American values must be given equal opportunity to influence. America's enemies must be allowed their shot at America, right here, right now, right in our face. That is communist subversion.
One of the students at Penn State who was terribly upset with my speech was an American black Muslim. (I don't think she was in the Nation of Islam, but was Muslim by religion, not by race. I'm not sure.) She protested specifically something I'd said about freedom of speech on the internet. I'd mentioned my article about Deporting Good Muslims and keeping the "bad" Muslims. She was terribly offended by that. A few students in the audience agreed with her, and applauded her.
That night, several of the black students were particularly assertive, or "cocky," but this one I had to put in perspective. "Remember something," I said. "America is not a Muslim country." Utter silence fell over the audience. "Now, you're free to be a Muslim...in fact, you can be a Hattian voodoo priestess, if you want. You are free to do so." But this does not mean that America is a Muslim country.
And, regarding the Muslims that are here in America, there are two kinds: 1) the kind that come here to destroy America, to take advantage of the economic opportunities and then support terrorists, to undermine Christianity and the American way of life; 2) the kind that are loving people, who are involved in Islam only when it comes to marriages, funerals, social events, etc., who practice Islam only as a faith in God, not as a violent, hateful, "I will change you or kill you" enterprise. There is beauty in their practice of Islam.
Of course, theses are the "bad" Muslims, not dedicated enought to bomb a building, or even to preach Islam to an infidel (unbeliever).
But these aren't the ones we hear from. We hear from the aggressors. At first, they will say they have great respect for Jesus, and they will say they are not enemies of Christianity. But this is not so. I published an article on the Islamic Jesus some time ago, called "Our Lady Is Not For Sale." It shows that Mohammad simply does not believe that Jesus was the Son of God.
There are lot of diluted Christians out there who also do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. These often are deeply impressed by Islam, and even acclimate themselves to it. This does not affirm Islam, but rather their own lack of faith and understanding of Christian doctrine.
I will never put Islam in the same category of "equality" with Christianity. There are all kinds of religions out there, and all have some good characteristics. (In the future, I will publish an article on what I think is the best aspect of Islam.) But, America is not to be just an international buffet of religious and cultural diversity. That is no nation. That is bad historical joke being played on America by communist subversives.
Let's take this Christmas as a time to remember that America is a Christian nation. We're all free to practice whatever religion we want, but, the fact is we would not have that freedom if America wasn't a Christian nation.
BadEagle.com experienced a peculiar coincidence recently. I think it is worth noting, and also observing the good things resulting from it.
With the article, "I Would Have Voted For Strom in '48," we witnessed the appearance of our first genuine 'troll,' that is, a person who disrupts, for the sake of disrupting.
Where was I? Crippled by a dysfunctional program, caused by my own lack of technology and experience. I couldn't respond to anything, for many days. What happened instead, should be most encouraging to all. The technical creator of BadEagle.com, Ken, showed himself not only in charge, but also showed remarkable patience, belabored kindess, really, and also showed authority. The troll was removed.
I think we can all rest easy, knowing there is such a person at the foundation of BadEagle.com. Ken is exceedingly knowledgeable, and has more than once advised me in critical matters of which I was almost entirely ignorant. I actually consider myself humble, and I do receive rebuke and advice. Underneath my assertions and aggressions, I think I can listen, and learn.
I want all BadEagle people to feel good about this site, and feel confident that it is a learning place. This is its mission. Patriotism is my purpose, and clearly that is an educational enterprise. It is broad and deep, and I feel that the America Indian finds his most significant place in this enterprise. I realize there is disagreement, but I regard disagreement as an opportunity to learn.
Betty Ann (Owen) Gross, of South Dakota, is one of the most precious items any web site could hope to have. We all learn from her. She is the most authentic voice in Indian Country. Yes, she gets ticked off occasionally, but, you'll all notice, when she does, we all learn from what she says, regardless. Even when I think she may have missed the target, the arrows she sends are incredibly fascinating and useful. We all collect her arrows. They belong to all of us now. She has shared them with us. Hope BadEagle people realize how valuable she is.
So, let's be encouraged, and move forward with confidence. The world is full of dreadful problems and crises. I think sex, race, and religion are at the bottom of most human conflicts, therefore, perhaps BadEagle.com is prone to consider these subjects more than other sites. Patriotism is about a nation. A nation is about a people that share certain common values, as well as language and cuture. BadEagle is a place to learn about these, and to discuss them.
I sincerely thank you all for your participation and information. May BadEagle soar above the clouds, forever!
Last month I did an entry called "Indian Women Mascots." This entry did not receive comments--online, that is. However, it received plenty off line. I've come to find out that it was particularly controversial and offensive to the Indians referenced in the blog. As a matter of fact, it was so offensive, I hear that attorneys have been consulted, and there is the distinct thought of filing a slander suit against me. After all, I publically dissed a legitimate business, Rez Dog Clothing, of Norman, Oklahoma.
Well, I protested the fact that the company used Indian girls to make up a calendar advertising bikinis. Why? I think it's a horribly degrading thing to Indian women. It is the final stroke against Indian dignity. It is the ultimate superimposition of white ways onto Indian people.
My Comanche mother said "I've been alive over 80 years, born among Indians, grew up with Indians. I've never heard of anything like this. Indian women don't show off their bodies."
The idea that Indian women must be able to do this successfully in order to advance socially, in the white world, is no doubt true. But that is precisely my point of protest. Equality through sex is not the way to respect, preserve, or advance Indian culture. This sexual use of Indian women is based precisely on the white psychology of sexuality, not Indian psychology. No, the two are not the same, at all. White sexuality, that is, white consciousness of attraction, is based on taboo, guilt, hostility, aggression, etc. This is all tied into the Judeo-Christian religion, and the white's cultural abuse of it. Indian sexuality is akin to nature worship, in a way. It is quite different. I tried to account for this in my blog.
Aside from the deeper elements, I think it's obvious that Indian women normally don't try to show off their bodies. (That's probably for obvious reasons. Most Indian girls don't have the kind of bodies to show off.) This calendar project, which I think is the first of its kind (and hopefully the last, but, probably won't be), has proven professionally useful to the young women involved, or so I hear. Some of them are getting more offers in the model/movie profession. This is supposed to be a great accomplishment.
This is supposed to be psychologically uplifting and encouraging to Indian people. This is supposed to represent the ultimate achievement: media, movies, fame, all based on appearance.
But this is truly another step on the black man's path, which I've warned against before. In this case, it's the black woman's path. The black woman has insisted on being considered equally beautiful, sexually attractive, etc., and is terribly offended if she isn't considered such. Why, it seems almost the worst kind of prejudice of all to not be attracted to a black women, especially if she happens to be attracted to you, and you're not black.
Black women have been used, by black leaders, to try to control or dictate even the sexual tastes of all non-black people. This is immoral, and rather stupid. It is slavery for anyone to allow such dictation, and slavery of most demeaning kind.
But no one tells me what I'm attracted to, or offende by. These are my domain. But, to see Indian women fallen into this realm of white-style sexual attraction, in the name of equality, is more than I can tolerate. I will protest every inch of Indian skin thus inappropriately exposed.
Jinna Cota, owner of the Indian store which markets the Indian girl calendar, was also terribly upset with me. After she read the original blog, however, she saw that I said nothing that would hurt her business. On the contrary, it would tend to create more business. Dreamcatcher Designs, her store, is actually located in Historical Stockyards City, 1316 South Agnew. This is just on the south side of the tracks, in Oklahoma City. It is indeed a historical site, with a group of small businesses, western wear, the famous Cattlemen's restaurant, etc. I had said it was in Capital Hill, which it is an entirley different area of south Oklahoma City.
Jinna looked on BadEagle.com, and read the blog. She admitted that I'd said nothing pejorative about her or her store. It was Keith DeHaas, owner of Rez Dog, and his associates, that were offended by what I'd said, and voiced their complaints to Jinna. She, of course, took it quite personally, until she read the blog for herself.
I think I'll have to make my point again, however. These Indian girls are being exploited, and I can't see any benefit to Indian people, except for the financial, superfical, career advancements of the individual Indians involved. This kind of "role model" justification has been used and abused, and in my opinion burned out, by the AIMster shakedown artists of the '70's and on. All their efforts have benefited no one but themselves. They do not represent Indian people, nor have they significantly contributed to any improvement of the lot of Indian people. These "activists" have sued professional sports teams over mascot issues, then pocket hundreds of thousdans of dollars personally.
You know, I hope Rez Dog does sue me. "Bring it on!" I told Jinna. "It's a perfect story." I could make my views nationally know, beyond what I'm able to accomplish right now through BadEagle.com. They'll have trouble claiming damages, though. Jinna said sales have begun to pick up. Some of the Indian girls were there in Stockyards City for calendar signing recently. There was a big parade December 14. No, I did not attend. I wouldn't go there to disrupt their show. I'm not a professional protester. No one pays me to create a riot. I'm not an AIMster.
But I should have been there, and I should have protested. Next time, I will.
Richard Poe says not to mess with Ann Coulter.
It might cost you your journalist job, as it did Bob Unger.
Well, there's something about Ann that certainly calls for attention, especially in light of the fall of Lott. And since I don't really have journalist job to lose right now, I says let's mess a little with Ann.
Actually, I've already messed with her. I noted her remarkable but mechanical anti-Leftist posture, and pointed out that her actual, personal opinions about major issues appear to be absent. You can put any issue before her, and she will devour it with frightful accuracy and efficiency. But when she's done, we're left with no sense of what she personally thinks.
Why is this? Can't personal opinion be expressed in political jargon? Isn't one's commentary an expression of one's opinion?
I think in Ann's case, it's just too perfect, to thorough, and too mechanical. It is even predictable. This inevitably gives it a sense of the impersonal.
Now, when Trent Lott was accused of "racism" (whatever that is), the immediate defense was his life, his record, his personhood. When someone is accused, the tactic is to go personal, to collect testimony from friends, etc. There is a lesson in this. Even though it didn't work, and Lott resigned as Senate Majority Leader (AP December 20th), the tactic was paramount.
Ann Coulter isn't accused of anything, of course. I merely point out that it is difficult to understand her as a person. If she were accused, what would the personal support be like?
What kind of a woman is she? What kind of food does she like? Can she hold a personal conversation? Never mind all her mastery of political rhetoric and "exocet" missile accuracy. I say all her positions would be stronger, and more convincing if she had more of a known personality.
There's something weak and empty about a brain. It needs a heart. I'm not saying politicians or journalists are known for having either, but, I do note that when they are accused of anything, especially politicians, they immediately resort to the heart in defense.
So, Ann, show us your heart. You'll actually be more convincing. What about human relations? Family? Goals? Humanize yourself. "Legally blonde?" What kind of blonde are you when you're "illegal?" I think that's where the real action is. What we need from you is a new autobiography, one like Grace Mirabella's In And Out Of Vogue, one that defines your person. Then you could probably run for president.
I just attended an Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee meeting, which was conducted entirely by guests. It was all presented by Oklahoma's leading homechoolers--teenagers, with a message and a mission.
Their message is a devastating rebuke to the criminal bureaucracies which manage education for the state of Oklahoma, and to the educational cognates nationwide.
The world knows Oklahoma has the worst public education systems on earth, with nothing but career politicians and swindlers at the helm. Oklahoma spends more money per dollar on education than almost any other state, yet manages to pay more teachers (37,000) less (with no merit system), and Oklahoma students perform worse. In a country of nearly 50 million functional illiterates, Oklahoma ranks high in intellectual disfunction. There are over 400,000 adult illiterates in Okahoma, a state with a little more than 3 million people. A third of our 4th graders can't read at all.
Part of this is due to the miseries of poverty, illegal immigration, drug abuse, and the state's offer to pay college tuition for unwed mothers moving into the state. Nevertheless, there are gaping flaws in the stystem itself.
We have 544 school districts, requiring over $35 million a year just to pay District Superintendents. More than half of the state tax dollar goes to education, but over half of that goes to this wasteful overhead, and never makes it to the teachers or the students. Even in rural counties there are multiple administrators.
But the Christian homeschoolers have a different idea about education. Nationwide, homschoolers exceed in academic performance some 30 percentile points about the public school students, and specifically, notably higher in reading, language, and math.
Not doubt precisely because of Oklahoma's poor public education system (caused by bureaucratic fraud), Oklahoma also produces the finest of the homeschoolers in the nation. Thank Heaven for the laws of compensation.
The OCPAC meeting was conducted by Michelle Mitchell and Emoly West, two of the most poised, most professional, and most talented young teenagers I've ever met. Emoly is truly a spectacular creature, with a dignity born of genuine religious faith. Her national achievements are as stunning as her personal appearance and demeanor. She is a nationally recognized athlete, as well as a national beauty queen.
Other homeschoolers at the OCPAC meeting displayed remarkable talent in political comprehension, literary imagination, and music. It was an unforgettable, breathtaking impression.
I must say, one has to be humble to really appreciate what these youth and their devoted parents have actually accomplished. One has to be willing to recognize superiority when one sees it. Many people are not so humble.
To me, having studied so much about western civilization, I have to call these youth America's new royalty. They have been tutored, like the sons and daughters of old European kings and queens. They have been personally trained. They haven't been dumbed down or inhibited by the cumbersome logistics of mass education. They are light years ahead of it. They restore my pride in Oklahoma. They restore my confidence in the Christian church.
If you could have heard their testimonies, you would agree.
If you doubt the deplorable conditions of public education, I recommend Facts On Homsechooling, by Brian D. Ray, president of the National Home Education Research Institute.
And you can contact OCHE, Oklahoma Christian Home Educators Consociation, Inc., for information about the conditions in the state of Oklahoma.
Oklahoma's expendature per-pupil as gone up 226% since 1960, now at $5,684 per student. That's 4th highest in the nation. But that figure is illusive, because the money is absorbed in administration, textbooks, buildings, etc. Education happens between the teacher and the student. If that relationship is faulty, no price can fix it.
There is no substitute for a devoted parent when it comes to teaching. Yes, these homeschoolers might seem a little high minded when you first meet them. They might seem self-centered, in that they are assumed to have nothing to do but study. Yet, this is all simply not true. They have more responsibilities, accomplish far more socially, and are just generally more advanced that most people are capable of appreciating.
In a country where unions like the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers make decisions on public education policies, is there any wonder that the communist ploy "leave no child behind" is used to dumb students down? When such bureaucracy is responsible for education, it is inevitable that the quality of education will spiral downward, until no child is allowed to move forward.
Far better to cast our votes on the side of homeschooling. The product speaks for itself. Its a brave new world, but only for the royal. So, parents, I recommend that you devote yourself to the task if educating your own, whatever the sacrifice. Make sure your child is among the new breed of kings.
At the risk of seeming irrelevant to the interesting dialogues going on in the BadEagle forums, I must pause to make a few necessary announcements.
1) I think my computer has a virus. I can't post, accurately, on any forums. My posts are partially deleted, every time. For instance, "I Would Have Voted For Strom in '48" has an entire paragraph missing, and a garbled sentence. This is unpredictable. This may take a day or more to remedy. It may also be a residual effect of the hack job we experienced last month.
2) For music fans, I'm going to have an Indian flute concerto recorded in Poland, by the Polish National Symphony, in March. James Pellerite is the soloist. There will be a CD released within the year, if all goes according to planned.
I'm tryint to raise some money for fees involved, and some readers have asked about donations. I've never done anything like this before, but I just rented a P.O.Box 75017, Oklahoma City, OK 73147 (Dr. David Yeagley) in case anyone is inclined to send five or ten dollars, or whatever. I want to raise around $4 or $5 thousand. The recording company is Opus One, Max Schubal producer. I suppose money could be sent to him, but, I thought I'd post the amounts on the music forum, so that way everyone would know everything. I also made a separate bank account for music projects.
3) What I should really do is try to get a new computer, so I wouldn't give such headaches to our webmaster, who, of course, created BadEagle.com on a completely voluntary basis, at considerable expense. Anyone who knows anything about private website knows what we're talking about here.
I have a tiny IMB laptop, which was given to me, with deep corruptions. (You get what you pay for.) I've had it worked on, and the guy erased all my programs. I had to buy Word again, etc., so I have ill feelings toward this computer anyway.
However, I've never been close to being able to afford any change. Have the beggars dial-up internet, and that is pretty weak. I had NetZero for a while, but that just couldn't handle the load, so I got AOL, which, as we all know, has its own problems too.
So now you know. BadEagle.com is a major undertaking, and has involved countless manhours. I believe in it, and I can only say thanks to the donor in North Carolina who also believes in it, enought to make it happen. There is an Amazon.com donor method under our "Contribute" button. This is all by electronic/credit card method. Some people shy away from such arrangements, I understand. Well, we have a P.O.Box now.
BadEagle.com is not a company, not an organization, not a tax-exempt group, or anything like that. Not yet. It's just a website. I will say, it's being looked at by a lot of people. One company offered to translate it into four different languages. And there have been other offers. Of course, all this costs money. Right now, BadEagle is doing fine. VDARE.com just put up a link to it, and many different "bloggers" have linked to it. So, we're flying.
I sincerely thank all of you for your patience, and also for your valuable participation.
David Yeagley
I have an ominous feeling about the effects of the Roman Catholic experience in Boston, here in AD 2002. It's all about that idea of separation of church and state. Granted, we're all not quite sure what that is supposed to mean, but, I fear something serious is going to result from the Boston affair, and something that will have directly to do with the issue of church and state.
No, the Catholic Church is not claiming to be above the law. We can thank American Republicanism for that, historically. America made sure of that, by a revolution separating itself from European ways.
But the American Catholic Church is about to bring the state permanently back into the church. Cardinal Law is being urged to have the Boston Archdiocese file for bankruptcy. This process will give the state complete access to every affair of that enormous institution, and will set a precedent for all other churches. To sue a church is to bring it all into the state's arena. This is the greatest and worst effect of the sins of the priests.
The fall of Rome, in Boston, will give rise to the church-state union the likes of which haven't been seen since the Middle Ages, when Rome was the bane of European freedom, and led Europe into its bloody Reformation era.
It is ironic, but, the deconstruction of Boston's Archdiocese will allow the state to rebuild it, and thus have complete control. It will be just one more extension of that long, iron arm of the state. The degree of corruption exposed in Boston will lead to more state restrictions on religion in all America.
Of course, as the young World Net Daily columnist Kyle Williams will declare in his new book Seen and Heard (WND & Nelson, to be released this spring), the First Amendment forbids government to establish religion, but does not allow government to restrict it, either, even from those holding government office.
I say, all eyes on Rome, in Boston. Something more dreadful may come out of it than even the massive sexual abuse. It speaks to the very foundation of America. Beware, all.
Can you believe it? Queers at Oberlin, my alma mater.
For years, I've been on some ad list of Oberlin's. I think it's the employment office. I get "Position Available" notices frequently. (Unfortunately for me, none that I'm interested in.)
In November (2002), I got a "Faculty Vacancy" notice in Comparative American Studies: "Gay/Lesbian/Queer Studies." I kid you not. The position begins Fall Semester, 2003, and will carry the rank of Assistant or Associate Professor. The candidate should have training in "Ethnic Studies and Women's Studies" as well.
Beyond the title of the course, the description is identicle to that of the other Faculty Vacancy sent with it, in "Latina/o Studies." Get it? Latino-Latina, or Hispanic male, female studies. Incredible accuracy these profs show us.
Well, let's see. If we were doing "German Studies" that included Queers, we could title the position Gleichgeschlechtlich/Gleichgeschlechtliche/Gleichgeschlechtlichs, and that would be much more uniform. Male homosexual, female homosexual, and...and, hey wait a minute! What kind of a homosexual is a queer? What is a "Queer?"
In German we have mascluline, feminine, and neuter nouns, with corresponding articles and adjectives, like der, die, and das. What is a das person? A sexually neutered person? A transvestite, a hermaphrodite, a transexual, a bi-sexual?
How embarrassing. I've been out of college so long, I don't even know the latest neologisms, let alone the latest usurpations. When I was growing up, a queer was a male homosexual. Obviously, it's now something else. And these folks apparently don't like the scientific, technical terms for their...their... condition. They prefer slang. They prefer to usurp a more personalized term, descriptive of something, rather than the depersonalized, technical term.
They're messing with language again. Sounds political and legalistic to me. They can't just be what they are, to themselves. They have to invade my world, my language, and my thoughts. For this, I protest.
We must write Professor Wililiam Norris, Chair
Comparative American Studies
King Building 301B
10 N. Professor Street
Oberlin College
Oberlin, OH 44074
"Salary will depend on qualification and experience." Yikes. What do they mean by that? Well, I'm fairly sure than white, heterosexual males need not apply.
I'm not completely confident in the bl__k conservative. We're all familiar with the names Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Alan Keyes, Larry Elder, Ward Connerly, DeRoy Murdock, and even names like Dinesh D'Souza, Ramesh Ponnuru, and even Michelle Malkin. These are nationally known "persons of color" who talk the conservative talk.
I note that they are all talented and professionally successful. They are all in the upper class social stratum. I'd like to ask, Could they have achieved their success without the liberal communistic Civil Rights law (1964)? Are they biting the hand that fed them?
This past February, during Bl__k History at Emory Univeristy (Atlanta, GA), Alan Keys dismissed the very idea of race as a lie perpetuated by American power sturctures to divide and demoralize minorities. He called race "a tool to shackle the minds of the people in America." Keyes and Julian Bond, NAACP chair, both encouraged students to "step up their efforts to become fully integrated on campus, rather than having a diverse student body that simply re-segregates into comfortable, separate minority groups."
Like Ward Connerly, Keyes wants to deny race, or to ignore its reality completely. When I first encountered Connerly, it was at David Horowitz' "Restoration Weekend" at Colorado Springs, August, 2001. Connerly gave an evening speech on the transcendence of the human person, and advocated his famous California Proposition 209, which nixed state job applications from requiring the racial identity of applicants.
I did not stand and applaud his speech like everyone else. Why? I love my race. I'm a Comanche, an American Indian. Why should I want to change that? Why should I want to be something else? Why should I not want other people to consider me Indian?
Yet the bl__ck conservatives, at least those like Keyes and Connerly, want to pretend there's no such thing as race.
It all sounds like the Ethiopian trying to change his skin again. An ancient disposition, according to the prophet Jeremiah (13:23), writing shortly before the destruction of an all too multicultural, integreated Jerusalem by Nebuchanezzar in 586 BC.
Such pretense about race is not a true conservative position, but just another political manoeuver, all in the name of economic parity, to help persons of color along the way of upward social mobility.
Well, I'm not guilty of such, as yet. I was born Indian, but I went through school as a pianist/composer, not as a political entity. I played piano better than most. I worked harder at it. (I admit, I did win a "minority" scholarship at the University of Arizona, where I did my doctorate, but that was long after I began my higher education.)
I've been homeless before. I've never had professional success. Right now I'm living in my elderly mother's house (taking care of her). No one can accuse me of talking the conservative talk for the success of it. Not yet anyway.
I have to wonder at these colored conservatives. I'm not convinced. I want to see poor colored conservatives. I want to see people who believe in conservative values because these values are right, not because these bring fame and fortune. Poverty is a real test of one's values. Could any of these colored conservatives pass that test? Perhaps at one time they could have. But were they conservtive then? Or did they become conservative as they became successful?
Michelle Malkin is the daughter of Phillipino immigrants, who, unless I'm mistaken, is married to a Jew. Fine. Ward Connerly, a bl__k man, is married to a white women. Fine. Does who we marry help us along the upward way? Perhaps hard to say.
I know I can't be accused of anything on that score, either. I'm not married. I could have been, more than once, but not to an Indian woman. I would prefer a Comanche woman, if possible. My marriage, if it happens, will be quite irrelevant to the world.
I surely don't begrudge anyone success. I do however think there are some real ironies in all this. Malkin essentially an immigrant. She is now famous for her opposition to open door immigration, in her book Invasion. (And she does happen to be one of the very best writers writing!)
It is as if the white conservatives think their arguments are especially buttressed if persons of color can speak for them, as if when we darkies say it, it has peculiar authority.
No, I'm Indian, because I'm Indian. I have the interests of Indian people in mind. If those interests coincide with White Anglo-Saxon Protestant conservative values, then so be it. I lend my voice, not for the success it brings (which it hasn't), but because I might be more empowered to help my people.
I see WASP America as the best situation Indians could have. Any other regime would have annihilated us, utterly. Indians have an opportunity still, today, under the remnants of this regime. It is quickly eroding, and I am doing what I can to remind America of its roots. Indians have no future except as America is restored to its true identity.
No, I'm not a professional success, but own poverty persuades me that I'm right. We're free to speak the truth here on BadEagle.com, thanks to the private efforts of a donor in North Carolina. For that, I am unspeakably grateful. We are not politically or professional "shackled" like Alan Keyes or other "professional" conservatives.
The people are King in this one. The Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Bernard Law resigned. King People put too much pressure on him, and his vulnerability was too great. He was that guilty.
The priests had called for his resignation, too. And before that, he'd already resigned from his position on the board of Catholic University of America's trustess. Very Rev. David M. O'Connell, president of the university, said Law had been "exceptionally faithful to the university."
Would that Law had been more faithful to his flock, that is, to the human beings under his watchcare. His words of regret are about as impotent as Trent Lott's.
And every chess player begins with two bishops. If sex abuse by priests is represented by one bishop, sex abuse by nuns represents the other.
We're not hearing much about it, but nuns have abused countless young girls over the years.
Not to leave any aspect unnoticed, priests are not only accused of abusing young boys, but also young girls and nuns. This brand of abuse cannot be a surprise, given the playing field. We don't have to imagine the crimes of the Dark Ages, which left cellars of infant skeletons buried beneath convents. We have plenty of crimes today that hold our attention.
What concerns me, however, is the absense of protest from the homosexual 'community' at large. Of course, the Catholic Church professes to condemn, at least doctrinally, all forms of sexual behavior save that in marriage, for procreation. That there should be such deep seated failure to observe these standards would seem a great opportunity for homosexuals to severally condemn the Church.
Instead, male and female homosexuals have not insisted on mass media coverage of their opinion on this Catholic matter. Why? They insist on front page coverage of every other opinion they hold regarding sexual matters. Why aren't they at least now saying, "Religious bans on sexuality only increase unhealthy behavior," or something half-way intelligent like that.
Priests and nuns have engaged in homosexual activity. Yet, the homosexual 'community' at large will not recognize the priests and nuns as homosexuals. Instead, the religious homosexuals are criminal perverts.
Well, with regard to the homosexual nuns, there's another bishop on the chess board, wide open. I'd say King People has another move to make.
Jesse Jackson said Trent Lott was "an unrepentant Confederate who cannot speak for all Americans. (S.McDonough, AP Dec.10).
Wrong. Lott is a cowardly Confederate, whose true feelings probably reflect those of most Americans, all of whom are afraid of expressing them. They fear law suits, or career disasters, such as Lott now faces.
Lott is now seized with a miserable, diarrhetic profusion of apology, completely missing the point. Of course, the media, including such big whigs like Beck and Limbaugh, is also missing the point.
Limbaugh, for example, tries to put Lotts ill-fated comments in a larger, mitigating context, thereby ameliorating their "offensive" impact. "Much ado about nothing," says Limbaugh.
Not so. Lott said what he meant, and now is blabbering on endlessly, trying to say he didn't mean it. Even Hannity (Dec. 12) didn't get it. He let Lott ramble on ad infinitum about how he didn't mean what he said.
I'm afraid Lott is out. Lott is over. He can leave with pride, or cowardice. It lookes like he's on his way out with slivering, whimpering, agonizing regret--not over what he said, but the fact that it has ruined his career. He is being untrue to his own beliefs, and being obviously career oriented here, mistaking himself for a grand force for good in the world, as if that is the reason he should be "forgiven" his slip of expression.
How can he leave with pride? Affirm the constitutional provision for states rights; affirm the fact that equality could and should have been achieved without mandatory integration; affirm the fact that he meant what he said.
His endless apologizing is degrading to manhood, embarrassing to all, and pitifully weak. Why defend his "career," like the Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity?
Either his ideas are right, or they're wrong. Never mind his professional career.
And what is "racist?" I haven't heard anyone, black or white, try to define that. The communistic Democrates just use it as a buzz word to destroy someone politically. Obviously, Republicans can use it on one another when necessary. The word is essentially meaningless, but carries incredible accusatory weight.
This is what Lott needs to talk about. What is a racist? Why do races exist in the first place? What is the purpose, and how are they to be managed? People like Ward Connerly, David Horowitz, Allen Keys, all think we must transcend the very concept of race in America.
Confederates--I invite you to define racism. Don't let the Communists define it for you. Never mind states rights. What is racism?
Strom Thurmond changed his mind over the years. Trent Lott apologized for speaking his mind at Thurmond's 100th birthday party. Lott wants to change what he said. Senators are only human. So, why exactly do we have leaders, and what can we really expect from them?
According to Siobhan McDonough (AP, Dec.10), Lott (R-Miss.) is proud of Thurmond's record as leader, especially when Thurmond rand for president on a states' rights, anti-integration ticket in 1948. Mississippi voted for Thurmond.
Lott said, "If the reas of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
Well, was it just old fashioned Southern pride? Was it just 'light-hearted' braggadocio of a Southern gentleman, dazed with a sip of wine at an elite social? Al Gore didn't think so, nor did the Rev. Jesse Jackson, two significant "Southern leaders" not invited to that social.
Nor do I think so, an Oklahoma Comanche.
I think Trent Lott was right.
But then Lott "apologized." Lott wanted everyone to think he was only kidding. The truth is, when Thurmond became a South Carolina senator in the U.S. Congress in 1954, he was one of the "most vocal opponents of integration." Of course, years later he actually hired bl__k staff members and helped promote bl__k lawyers to federal judgeships.
Thurmond confuses me. Lott disappoints me. Yet, they're only human, and professional politicians at that. Why should I expect so much from them? The reactions of politicians like Gore and Jackson indicated their own improprieties and confusion of soul. One politician criticizing another is par for course in the political game, but, most of the time it can't be taken very seriously.
Times change. Laws change. At Yale, my Practical Theology professor William Muehl said that people lead theology, not the other way around. Theology adapts to the needs of the people. Well, I find that just as disappointing as political leadership. According to these authorities, leaders follow. What do they follow? The giant, mindless mass of feeling of the populace. In a country where people vote, the politician follows the people.
At least, that's the way its been for the last half a century. But now, it seems to me that the trend is the opposite. Leaders are now assuming a rulership role. They are making laws withoutthe consent or knowledge or approval of the people. Now they are "leading."
So we have a choice, theoretically: a leader who follows the people, or a leader who rules the people. Both kinds have dire liabilities. I for one am not sure which is best. I know that America was distinguished by being a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
But now, the "people" of America are too "integrated," to multi-cultural, too confused to know what they want, except a Cadillac and a house. They have no clear idea of what it means to be an American. Yet they can vote. Their preoccupation with material rights and demands has given a new role to leaders. Leaders can now rule.
It makes me wonder of giving any and all the right to vote was such a good idea.
My final observations on the experience at Pennsylvania State Univerity pertain to the sponsors of my appearance. These people were not mentioned in the Collegian. This is perhaps significant.
The invitation and arrangements were made by the Penn State Young Americans for Freedom, one of only four conservative student organizations on a campus of over 40,000 students. The feminists and the Black Caucus are the most prominent organizations, with the most influence on the university administration.
The Chairman of PS-YAF is senior Sean Clark, a native of University Park, the town which hosts Penn State. Claudia Lum, Vice-Chairman, made the application for funding my appearance. This was no small feat.
I was co-sponsored by Young America's Foundation, the Washington, DC foundation which co-sponsors all my campus appearances.
I must say, these conservative student organizations face tremendous challenges on America's liberalized, communistic unversities. When I spoke at YAF's Washington conference last summer, I said that the existence of YAF was border-line miraculous. That such a national foundation is there for conservative students is a wonderful thing. Young America's Foundation deserves all the support Americans can give.
Conservative students need support. They are in the middle of the ideological war, and they are out numbered, or, at least out-sounded, ten thousand to one. The university media itself always give preference to the vociferous and obnoxious Left. As I mentioned, the Collegian article on my appearance did not even mention PS-YAF, or its officers.
Writers Laura Michalski and Hannah Aboul-Hsn might be reached at lem167@psu.edu. One might ask about the restrictions on them as writers.
One might even ask their political affiliation, sexual preference, race, etc., all the goodies. Might make interesting conversation. It is difficult to be in media and not have answers for these questions.
One thing for certain: they owed it to their fellow students to acknowledge PS-YAF and its officers.
I intended to post a different journal entry, but, I'm still too agitated over my experience at Penn State. Plus, BadEagle.com forums were dysfunctional again tonight, and I lost over two hours of work on a new article. So, I may sound a little angry in this entry, but, I must write.
I was looking over the online article in Penn State's Collegian again. I notced some very interesting elements I'd missed before.
1) Look at the headline: "Speaker: Keep Native American Mascots." I don't recall using the term Native American once. I hardly ever use it. (That's a different issue...) Notice that I am a "speaker." No name for me.
2) The sub-heading calls me "A member of the Comanche nation." Still no name. I'm being gradually identified and described.
3) My name isn't mentioned until the second paragraph (line 9), and then it isn't "Dr.Yeagley," but David Yeagley, former columnist for FrontPage magazine.
4) The article uses the term Native American throughout, again, in contrast to the fact that I never used it.
5) Paragraph Nine uses the term "ethnically named locations." I believe I said Spanish names, specifically, as well as ethnic.
6) The really interesting thing is, the two students quoted, (taking up literally half the article) were bl__k, or Af__n-American. (My partially deleted spellings indicate that I fear any term refering to these students might be "offensive.")
Of course, the staff writers Laura Michalski and Hannah Aboul-Hosn did not mention the critical fact that those students were bl__k.
7) What we had during the discussion period after my speech was a whole line of bl__k students condemning me, and Indian, for my views on an Indian issue. What we witnessed was bl__k students telling me how to feel about myself and my people, bl__k students telling an Indian (with five degrees) how to feel about himself.
The more I reflect on this article, the more amazed I am at how it was written, and what it indicates about the school, the paper, and the bl__k students.
It seemed difficult for the writers to regard me as a human being. I don't object to that, though. I feel gratified. I'm an Indian, not a Native American, not a politicized, corrected figure. If the stereotype of me, in the minds of non-Indians, even bl__ks, is something other than human, I see no reason to fight against that. In fact, I consider it complimentary. Something beyond everyone else. I was clearly regarded as that, in this article.
That bl__k students would be so infuriated over my preference of Indian mascots tells me they are terribly fearful, or terribly jealous. In either case, they have been taught to think this way. That is obvious to me. They haven't been taught how to recognize anyone else's right of being but their own. This isn't so offensive as it is pitiful. I think it is also precarious, if not dangerous.
Oh yes, Matt Sowers photo is misleading, too. I was not making the "peace sign," although that must seem like a good gesture, given the article. I use my hands a lot when I talk. I was simply numbering some items at the moment. There were three fingers coming next.
I'm convinced now. Black people think they have authority over all ethnicity and race. The way in which the Pennsylvania State University student newspaper, The Daily Collegian, reviewed the speech I gave there Thursday night, December 5, proved to me that race management in this country is delegated to black people, who dominate any "discussion."
Perhaps it is psychologically or politically convenient for white people to associate all the darker races together and to give black people the final say in any issue having to do with race. I'm not sure how the American Negro arrived at such a position of authority, unless it is because they are the darkest of the dark.
All I know is, I gave a speech about the impropriety of Congressman Frank Pallone's H.R. 5487 NATIVE act, which proposes to pay schools across America to remove their Indian names and mascots. I oppose the legislation, because I see great value in the American Indian warrior image.
But the Collegian did not mention a single word about this. It instead simply related my support of Indian images, then gave the last half of the article to the black students who protested my position (disrespectfully). Nothing any of the white students said was mentioned. Their more intelligent remarks were completely ignored.
The paper clearly exhibited the typical way in which racial issues are handled in America: blacks are considered the spokesmen for all races. (I wonder if this includes the white race as well.) I know as an Indian I am appalled and "offended" at this arrangement. Black people certainy don't speak for me, nor have they any appeal to my feelings on the subject of race.
I see no relationship in the history of the blacks and Indians. The "African" Negroes that were brought here were not warriors. They were enslaved foreigners. In this sense, they were an adjunct part of the invasion of Indian country, in other words, part of the problem.
I hold absolutely no sympathy for their presumptuous attitude about race, and highly resent the white establishment for allowing this attitude to develop.
I will be speaking at Penn State tomorrow, on the Pallone legislation. I will resume journal entries Sunday, Dec. 8.
Yesterday's Associate Press article by John J. Lumpkin suggests a remarkable irony. The CIA has implicit authority to kill any Americans working for al-Qaeda "anywhere in the world." Unfortunately for the Americans on the homland, no such vigilance is practiced on al-Qaeda members here.
Regarding American a-Qaeda killed, arrested, or sentenced, the article mentions Kamal Derwish (killed in Yemen, in the same car with Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi on Nov.3). Derwish was from the terrorist cell in suburban Buffalo. Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi are in military custody. Padilla was creating a "dirty bomb" in the U.S., and Hamdi was fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Wadih El Hage (involved in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa), and Ali Mohamed (a former U.S. Army soldier who trainer and scout for bin Laden recruits) were both captured and convicted.
Well, this is just a wonderful testimony, not to the determination of our American Government to protect the homeland, but to our government's total
disregard for the concept of American citizenship and its unforgivable refusal to rid the American homeland of the enemies within. Makes us wonder who the real enemy is.
These above noted characters, "American citizens" all, show us the uselessness of the concept. Our government is simply not willing to take the action necessary to make America secure. That action is too simple: deport Arab Muslims. American citizenship is irrelevant.
America has become the land of legal loop holes. To insure the freedom and respect of a Yeman Arab Mulim terrorist to become an American citizen, our government will notoriously inconvenience, insult, and penalize our own true citizens whenever we try to board our own commerical aircraft.
This is a delusion. We have enemies in our government. They are sometimes called "liberals." More often then not, they are deluded. Worse, they are conscious Communists, steadily at work undermining everything American, all in the name of America's most beloved principles: freedom and equality.
It is a political autolysis. Autolytic diseases are usually fatal, especially when not treated. The diseased cells attack and eat the good cells. All in the same body, all in the name of "life." It's the enemy's right to life.
The American public must be willing to treat itself. The government is less and less accurate in its respresentation of the people. It cannot heal our cultural affectations. We the people must be willing to defend what's ours. Otherwise, we lose it. If we're not willing to defend our freedoms, perhaps we really don't deserve them.
Congressman Pallone seems to be a very caring person. If you look at his bio, he is concerned about matters of national importants, and he addresses the future with careful attention. One has to reconize and admire that.
I'm just curious about his involvement with American Indian programs. He is very serious about this matter. The day after he introduced the NATIVE Act, to pay schools to remove their Indian images and monikers, he introduced the Tribal Government Homeland Security Coordination and Integration Act. This bill calls attention to the fact that the Homeland Security program of President Bush did not clearly outline how Indian tribal governments could access funding under the Homeland Security program. Pallone introduced this bill to provide a more sure participation of Indian tribes.
He cannot be faulted for his concern. However, I must point out, the health and well-being of Indian tribes vis-a-vis government funding for health and security, is quite a different matter from paying public schools to remove their Indian logos.
To make a lengthening story shorter, the main man behind Pallone's recent Indian initiatives is Marc LeBeau (Pit River), of California. LeBeau earned a MS from Universityof California (Davis) and has been a very effective advocate of Indian health. He was a Kaiser Fellow in ths year (2002), and the Tobacco Education Network Coordinator for the California Rural Indian Health Board the the year before. He frequentlly speaks at California state and national Indian conferences. Last year he was a presenter at the California Indian Conference (October 10-13) at which he spoke on "A Report on Institutionalizing Culturally Appropriate Cessation Education Services
in California American Indian Health Clinics."
A look at that conference, with Indians representing tribes from all over the country, might suggest a healthy representation. But this is an illusion. The Indians present were mostly transplanted, relocated, or otherwised moved to California. California was always "where it's at" for minorities schooled in the liberal methodologies of communistic social change. California was the place to go to be a professional minority person. It was a guaranteed career move, where a minority person could be involved, learn how to get funding for organizations, and be a professionl, legitimte activist.
Mark LeBeau is well experienced in India health issues in California. But, as I noted yesterday, he suddenly moved to the east coast, to work for Congressman Pallone. The California organizations that Mr.LeBeau has worked for are the only ones Pallone consulted.
Mr. LeBeau is the guiding force behind Mr. Pallone. It is a liberalized west coast Indian, now working for a east coast congressman, trying to pass legislation to effect all Indian across America, without their knowledge or approval.
LeBeau is a health man. I can only presume that "mental health" is the cause he promoted before Pallone, in the attempt to condemn and remove Indian mascots. It must be that he has defined mascots as psychologically detrimental to Indians. What other reason could possibly justify such a national, tyrannical legislation? American tax payer money used to remove Indian mascots! Has America been consulted? I know Indians haven't.
I would like to see the information LeBeau used to convince Pallone that this NATIVE Act was necessary. I would like to compare it to the trumped up information and signatures used by Elsie Meeks to persuade U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that mascots were inimical to Indians. I come to know activists as terribly inaccurate and fraudulent when it comes to statistics. Those leaders to whom the info is given are often unaware of its origins.
Information hard to come by. These people aren't interested in what the people think, Indian or non-Indian. They just want to make laws. That's their thing, apparently. It is the way of the American government these days, to rule, not to represent.
By 1838, southeastern American Indians were moved west of the Mississippi. The most famous phase of this forced eviction and relocation was the Trail of Tears, in which an estimted 75,000 Indians were marched westward, in the middle of winter.
It was all the final result of Gen. Andrew "Old Hickory" Jackson's decade of efforts (1814-1824) to rid the South of its Indians. It was done mostly by forced treaties with the Indians, acquiring land from them, thus removing them thence to some other area of Indian concentration.
June 4, 1838, Jackson wrote, in a personal letter to Francis Blair, that "Indian removal was the most arduous part of my duty, and I watched over it with great vigilance."
September 26, 2002, Congressman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) introduced another "treaty" to remove Indians again, this time not from the land, but from the eyes and minds of the America people. Through H.R.5487, Pallone wants the government to pay schools to remove their Indian names and logos.
Pallone, apparently an Italian-American, is a member of the Native American Caucus, no less. The NAC comprises 91 congressmen, all but 25 of whom are Democrats. (The Republican members are moderates at best.) Well, I suppose as a Comanche, I should quickly join an Italian American society. I have the connections to do so. I should join them to defend the future of the Columbus image, which, I prophesy, will be removed next. It "offends" Indians, they say. Picture it: an American Indian joining the Italians in defense of Columbus. Makes as much sense to me as an Italian wanting to remove Indian images.
Interestingly, the Native American Caucus does not include the name of Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Furthermore, their are no Indians chairing or vice-chairing the Caucus.
Pallone, however, has an intern named Mark LeBeau (Pit River) from California. Lebeau of course likes to work with national Indian organizations, and when Pallone introduced his bill (H.R.5487) last September, he said that he consulted, among four national Indian organizations, the California Rural Indian Health Board. I note that Cindy La Marr (Pit-River) is not only the Executive Director of the Capitol Area Indian Resources (one of the four groups Pallone consulted), but now the president-elect of the National Indian Education Association, another of the same groups Pallone consulted.
Doesn't sound like a balanced Indian representation to me. It's a California reactionary move. Remember Jackie Goldberg, the Hollywood rep? She introduced a bill (2115) to the California Assembly this past summer which was designed to remove all Indian mascots from all public schools (k-university) in California. The bill was narrowly defeated, but it looks like the anit-mascot people have moved to the East Coast, enlisted the services of a nice guy, Pallone, and seek once again to wreak tyranny on the American Indian people.
Indian people are hearing about this Pallone bill through the grape vine. A few "national organization" Indians have urged this sort of thing. These Indians, like La Marr and LeBeau, are not leaders. They are the dictator types. They want to rule Indians, not represent Indians. They can easily influence people like Goldberg and Pallone, who are well meaning, but totally out of touch with Indian people. They consult only a handful of Indians, who themselves do not represent Indians.
Well, Pallone has a chance to come and meet the Indian people at Sioux Falls, South Dakota, this January. So far, his office has not responded in the affirmative. LaBeau has obstipated the simple communication process, and at this moment, I have no assurance that the Congressman has even been made aware of his invitation.
So much for Indian "leaders." They act like enemies of the Indian people. They want to make rules, without Indian people knowing anything about it.
This coming January, 2003, the second annual Race Relations conference is planned in South Dakota. The focus is on the use of Indian images in modern American society. This year, it is expected that representatives from major professional sports teams will attend, including the Washington Redskins, the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves, etc. There will be professional speakers presenting arguments pro et contra.
This conference, as was last year's, is characterized by its independent creators and sponsors. It is not designed by professional Indian organizations or by government policies. Only in this way can an environment of free exchange of ideas be assured.
United States Congressman Frank Pallone, the author of H.R.5487 (to pay schools to remove their Indian mascots and monikers) has been invited. His intern Mark LeBeau (Pit-River-Piaute) however expresses concern that there are no national Indian organizations represented at the planned conference, such as the National Indian Education Association, the Indian Teacher and Educational Personnel Program, the Capital Area Indian Resource Center and the California Rural Indian Health Board, which organizations Pallone says he developed his legislation "in consultation with."
The simple reason is this: bureaucracy in Indian affairs has proven just as ineffecient, ineffective, obstipating and harmful to Indians as American federal bureaucracy has to the American people. It is like a cancer, multiplying jobs within itself, and becoming more and more disconnected from the people.
Betty Ann Gross pointed this out to Sports Illustrated, March 4, 2002. It is becomming more and more known that Indian activists are mostly supported by communist organizations and white female careerists who to control Indians. These elements are responsible for the craze of organizations behind which are hidden often the most tyrannical purposes, like telling Indians how to feel, what to do, and then passing national laws to make sure that Indians, and everyone else, obeys the power-crazed careerists in the bureaucracy.
No, this upcoming South Dakota conference is of an entirely different nature.
There will be professional journalists there, and most important of all, Indian people. The conference is for Indian people, not Indian leaders. The designers of the conference want to provide rational, objective ideas for Indian people to consider. The conference is not a "feel good, ego-stroking, support group" for professional leaders who want to pass laws without Indian people even knowing about it.
Well, we shall have to wait and see if Congressman Pallone is honest and wise enough to come to the Dakotas and speak to Indian people, instead of cohorting with professional, disconnected leaders in the dark.