Why is Michael Weiner-turned-Savage defending Kobe Bryant so passionately? On his radio show tonight (July 24) he called it a case of a "white trash girl" ruining the life of a spectacular young black athlete.
Michael Weiner-turned-Savage is also defending LAPD officer Jeremy Morse, who whacked a handcuffed young black teenager Donovan Jackson on the head (because the kid grabbed Officer Morse's private part).
Is this a balancing act? Savage has to demonstrate that he has no prejudiced feelings toward blacks?
The case is clear on both instances, it seems to me. Both black men were at fault. Jackson was resisting arrest in a barbarian way. Kobe, a married man, invited a young white girl up to his room. Both black men got what they deserved, in a very real sense.
About the girl, everyone would accuse her of naive prejudice if she had refused the invitation. The liberal mind says the white girl must show no disdain for the black man. How cruel for her to reject him because of his color. She must give in to him and praise his black beauty. This is a firmly established ethic in modern culture.
Plus, she was young, and Bryant hjappened to be an incredibly famous and rich superstar. Yes, she seems to have displayed some lack of direction and values during her first year away at college, but this is quite typical of many college freshmen, especially those who don't have firmly established mores or morals. Yes, she may have bragged of her prowess, and in the company of other young, "reckless" teenagers, took a bet, or made a bet, so to speak. Hey, it's a small town in the mountains. It's a really big thing when a star comes around. Yes, she used poor judgment. She may have teased Kobe, and made him mad. Something made him mad enough to beat her up apparently very badly.
The reports don't give any picture of her background that makes her sound like "white trash," however. Inexperienced, definitely. Immature, certainly.
So what is the lesson? No white girl should go up to a black man's room without expecting to be raped? White girls should be more careful around black men? White girls should avoid being with black men in private? All this, of course, is only if the white girl does not want to have sexual relations with the black man.
Katie Lovell, not the girl
And it's no surprise if the big money sharks are threatening everyone involved, because they stand to lose millions. Kobe is too valuable. They must defend their investment. Who knows how witnesses might be threatened. Big money means big pressure. Now who's talkin' trash?
Michael Weiner-turned-Savage is really out on a limb here, contradicting himself repeatedly. If the girl is white trash, what does that make Kobe? If his life is "ruined", what about hers? Was she worthless to begin with? Joseph Farah (of WorldNetDaily) felt it was important to defend or at least explain Savage in the matter of the TV incident which cost Savage is show. We'll have to wait for further support on the matter of his imbalanced race talk regarding the great black Kobe and the poor "white trash" girl.
In the war of words, David Horowitz has definitely kicked it up a notch. When he reprimanded Ann Coulter's Treason for a too tight a rhetoric which seemed to class all Democrats and Liberals as anti-American treasonists, he definitely opened the door to a new issue: ideological prejudice. We could call it political name-calling with carelessness and even inaccuracy.
An American-loving patriot, for instance, cannot be defined or identified by political rhetoric alone. A liberal can be a patriot, and a conservative might not be. The political name a person is called may not reflect his true behavior.
Coulter was given over a million dollars in advance for her book Treason, and now, according to Drudge, she's being offered $3 million for yet another new book. The publishers? Crown. One of the biggest, "liberal" houses of all. So, does that make Ann a liberal? I think not. Money trumps ideology in the publishing house, that's all. I suppose it's simply an irony that the hardest line of conservatism is marketed by the most liberal house. Whatever sells.
I originally submitted my article on Heather Mauritz to Mr. Horowitz (before posting it on BadEagle.com), only to be told it evinced clear "ideological prejudice." I had made judgements about the political identity of the players without personally interviewing them. I had interpreted a news paper report; I had told what I thought happened, without investigating.
Obviously, I used the standard terminology: communist, liberal, left, versus patriotic, conservative, etc. In this, I was not in error. But in application of these ideological terms, Mr. Horowitz felt my article was inappropriate. I had assumed that what appeared to be liberal-based actions meant the person was liberal. Ann Coulter had just asserted that liberals were anti-American. Horowitz drew the line. We commentators had gone too far. It is simply mistaken and wrong to classify a person by rhetorical, political label. This was, again, "ideological prejudice."
To me this meant that a liberal must be allowed to be patriotic and American-loving, something Coulter had denied. A Leftist Democrat mustn't be automatically judged as an anti-American Communist.
I was deeply troubled by this, and decided to set about writing another article on Heather. Today, I post this new article on BadEagle.com: Who's Who in Wellston, OK. In this new version, I attempt to keep free from political conclusions based on actions. I try to let the players act, without identifying them with rhetoric, and in fact, to let it be seen how confusion circumstances can cause conservatives and liberals cross paths. While I believe their paths lead different places, ultimately, at the point where they cross, it is difficult to make a political judgement.
There's still plenty of political rhetoric on FrontPageMagazine.com. The words "Liberal," "Leftist," and even "Communist," and "Nazi" are still the main spice. But that word I originally suggested to Mr. Horowitz, in August, 2001, "patriot" has at least now new political posibilities, precisely because Mr. Horowitz has asserted that it transcends political ideology. I originally said, "Whoever owns the word patriot wins." Mr. Horowitz has made sure it's a fair contest. All are candidates.
Now if we can just get Annie to show us what love is--what love of country is, we'll be in great shape for what might become America's final political "SuperBowl."
Apparently, it was a white girl whom Kobe Bryant allegedly "raped." Though one can't depend on pro-white sites, there is information out about this incident. The 19-year-old girl has been described as 5'10', blonde, and obviously white. .
Even Drudge doesn't know yet.
Eagle, Colorado is a tiny but fabulously beautiful resort, about 100 miles west of Denver, in the heart of the Rockies. The population of Eagle County (41,000) is about 75% white, and the rest Mexican workers. The town of Eagle is very much on the defensive right now, as the big money people behind Bryant put pressure on the little town. Threats have already been hurled at the town law enforcement, and the FBI has begun investigating.
Eagle County District Attorney Mark Hurberlt said everyone in Eagle knows everyone else. The girl is well known, a talented musician, a former Eagle high school cheerleader, and very much liked by everyone.
But, we are all warned not to expect the facts in the case to come out any time soon. Jamin'94.5 (July 24th) already has it that Bryant's wife is the cause of his infidelity! And reports say the young white girl has a drug problem. Her friends, however, seem to confirm her story about Bryant.
But the real story is the dark "sexual" side of Bryant. This is what will finally come out in the trial. Never mind the young girl's "psychological" problems. It seems that prostitution and drugs are a powerful pair. The extent that these vice-based industries shape lives is unfathomable. Under Google Search Engine, the name Kobe Bryant appears in a large number of porn sites. I don't recommend trying to go into any such high risk sites, for damage can be done to one's computer, as well as one's own name. But I think we shall have wait and see just what all is involved in this Colorado resort case. It may be a lot more than just a black man taking advantage of a young white teen-age girl. Pornography, drugs, etc., are soul-gripping vices, and the money involved is staggering. The industries use coercion of every grade, as they "rape" the weak of society, and destroy even the unsuspecting triflers. The mighty can fall far, very quickly.
On th lighter side, the once-famous Anita Bryant isn't going to stand for any of this. The 63 year old white women, former Miss Oklahoma, won't have her name 'raped' by the young black man. She's changing her last name. End of story.
Just recently, it was the Baylor case, and the disappearance of Dennehy, and the murder charges against Carlton Dotson, both young black basketball players. Now its Kobe Bryant, and sexual misconduct. There's all sorts of interesting commentary on sports figures, money, pressure, etc. Husky personality sports writer Sally Jenkins was on Capital Gang (CNN, July 26), and showed no sympathy.
"The biggest thing we had to say about Kobe Bryant was that he hadn't had any children out of wedlock," she said. In other words, our moral expectations of young black athletes are practially nothing. She said their pro-sport lives were all about money, and these players are buried in unfathomable amounts of wealth even when they're still in their teens. She gave the impression it was an ugly, unrealistic experience for everyone involved.
So, 'white woman' jock shows tough, quasi-racist talk. Okay. Fine. Expected. But what is the point? People should react with sympanthy for Kobe? And now the hackneyed argument, "the press is destorying the prosecution's case!" Poor lawyers. Just can't get a fair trial for their guilty clients.
Yes. Kobe is guilty. Never mind the mental or moral condition of the 19-year-old white girl. Kobe says he committed "adultery" with her. End of story. You play, you pay. Sort of like the ol' "Fatal Attraction" syndrome. Why, such depth of experience is worthy of a college course.
NOT. It isn't worthy of a second thought. Should Kobe lose everything? Of course. Will he? No. Just some money. Hardly a significant consequence. I mean, all he does is play basketball. Maybe he should lose a hand. No, seriously, our court system actually interferes with justice, more often than not. If we're looking for equality, then when a black man thinks he can get by with having sex with a teen-aged white girl, (because she's wacky, weak, and irresponsible), then he deserves to lose everything--including his wife. But she's willing to stay with him so far. (Who wants to leave millions? She could sue him and keep the millions, but she's acting a bit noble right now, more than Hillarydoes when Bill acts out.) Kobe took advantage. Now he lives with the results, whatever they will be. I doubt that justice will be achieved. I don't look for equality.
I look for white society to be blamed. Sports promoters, media, sports fans, whatever and whoever "uses" the poor Negro for entertainment. All the money they pay him doesn't change the fact that they use him. He's still a slave. It's still their fault, not his. This is what I expect to hear. It will come down to Kobe's wife. Adultery is the bottom line. If she doesn't press charges, the young white girl's complaint will disappear.
All the noble attorneys, all the king's horses and all the king's men, will not be able to make her plea count. White "liberals" are reaping the result of their own socio-psychological rape of the white race. Her victimhood cannot compete with the victimhood of the Negro male.
Arabs, as I have personally observed, seem always to want the upper hand in a conversation. It is no doubt cultural, or customary. I've known some Arab people, somewhat personally. It is not unusual for an Arab man to be so far a head in a conversation that he feels he's being offended, and yet the normal American talking to him has no idea of where the Arab is in the conversation. The Arab is too quick, too sensitive to ego, and too well-practiced in getting the upper hand in a conversation. It isn't the usual thing, at least not at that pace, for Americans.
Arabs want to say they're "shocked" at the televised images of the dead Hussein brothers? I think it's conversational. They want to be on top of the conversation. America was wrong for showing the pictures, etc. But Americans there know how easily the Arabs accuse others of falsehood, especially when Mr. Professional Falsehood himself, the former Iraqi Minister of "Mis-Information" lied daily, and everyone knew it. Again, an accusation is an aggressive handle on the conversation. The bodies had to be seen to convince the officials and more importantly, the people. Yet, whatever move America makes, the Arab conversationalist can find fault with it, and thus be on top.
I knew an Arab soccer player, who was also a referee. He was a very warm-hearted fellow, but, way too quick for the average American to follow. I would see him again and again in arguments, simply because his mind and ego were too far in high gear. "Man!" I said to him once, "You're five sentences ahead. That other guy over there doesn't know where you are. You're offended by him, but he's not trying to offend you. He's just behind. You are concluding things about him that can't be true. Wait till he catches up, then conclude!" The Arab just smiled. I could tell he really appreciated what I was saying. I dont know that he could ever change, but, at least he didn't have to be so angry so much of the time. (Part of that was just soccer, too.)
The Arab world is a sensitive world. In my opinion, it is too sensitive. It is enormously proud, aggressive, and yet very delicate and can be extremely warm hearted. We in the West rarely see the warmth. We see them fighting against us, fighting against everyone, against the world. They fight. they love to fight. They're worse than American Indians!
Well, to get along in the world, one must understand what's going on in the other man's head. Even if you don't like what's there, or you're uncomfortable with it, you still are in a better position yourself, if you know what's there. The Arab ego is a lot more obvious than in other cultures. It's a lot easier to offend, because it is much more conscious of whether it's on top or not. Everyone's ego always wants to be on top. That's natural. Arabs are just more obvious about it.
I published an article in Persian Heritage in the Fall 1999 edition called "The Persian World Personality." I took three cultures, and considered them as psychological archetypes of the human personality: Jewish, Persian, and Arab. All three are present in any human being, and potentially operable. The Jewish archetype represents all that is mysterious and unfathomable or unsolved in the mind; the Persian represents the conscious, the rational, the objective; the Arab represents the naked ego, the basic motivational element of the personality. I've always hoped to somehow achieve the Persian state, but, the fact is, I'm much more Arab in nature. The Jewish dimension? Well, like I said, that's the unknown part of each of us. That's the door to the divine. Few of us ever go there.
Much of the West appears to have touch the Persian state, but, most of the world is Arab. I thnk the average person, anywhere, is Arab, most of the time. It is natural, and takes no effort. It is the natural state, the alam i sugrah, (the lowest realm of human experience in traditional Arab mysticism).
There are two lessons to be learned from the Jessica Lynch story: 1) the BBC and British news in general, has never overcome the "yellow news" syndrome of the 19th century, and still thrives on a gossipy, tabloid style of dramatization; 2) white men showed a healthy, visceral regard for their own women. A white female soldier was down, in the hands of those 'dark, awful Arab Muslims.' "To the rescue!" was the cry of the entire military.
Funny, the ol' Brits are the ones we usually associate such drama with. (I published a story of such a heroic Brit, in Persian Heritage, called "Alam I Sugrah." The main character was stereotypical red coat officer, straight out of the 19th century. He rescues Iranian Muslim girl.) "Jolly good show!" we might have expected the Brits to say, when the US forces went immediately, unhesitatingly, in to Nasiriya, to rescue their damsel in distress. Alas, for the envy of the British journalist got the best of them. I'll bet it if were a British girl in distress, they'd have been the first to laud her rescue. Instead, they cast apsersions on the American girl, and her rescue by the US military.
Hey, news is all about drama. American news got the upper hand on the story. The Brits had to take a bloody back seat.
It doesn't matter if she was a hero or not, nor whether Pfc Lori Piestewa was, either. They were women who put their lives in danger, willingly. But beyond that, they were just women, and men can get fiercely protective of their women. This is a good thing, I do believe. If there's a little extra drama in the story, so be it. It's even better. Let'em make a movie! I can think of a lot less worthy subjects that movies have been made on.
It's just a case of white male machoism. I commend it. Love that woman! Protect her. This was a rare case in modern times where feminist, man hating instincts were subsummed by the wave of masculine passion unleashed by Jessica's plight. Feminists are so fanatical, however, that they probably don't even see it. They think it a matter of "equality." Jessica deserves to be treated at a female hero, just like any other man. I'm sure the femininazis love this celebration.
But they're quite self-duped. This is about men--protecting their women. It is indeed rare, when men can get by with such gesture today.
Now, to be balanced, what happend to the black woman soldier that was held prisoner? Remember her, on video, being interrogated by Iraqi soldier? Spc. Shoshana Johnson, from El Paso, TX. There's apparently been a great deal of attention paid to her, but, somehow, I've missed it all. I haven't heard her name since the original video from Iraq was shown on TV during the early days of US operations.
There's a mountain peak named after Lori Piewstewa now, but that's probably only because she was killed. Yes, the first American Indian woman, etc., but, she would have been insignificant had she not been killed in action.
Shoshana was neither killed nor hurt, nor abused. Just another soldier. Just another black female. This is the general response, as far as I can discern. I venture to say, this is connected to the failure of black men to love their own women. The social ties are too disintegrated. No special passion of black men to rush in and save their black women, or even to celebrate their recovery. I'll bet if given a choice, most black men would find it much more meaningful to "save" a white woman.
I'm afraid the white woman is queen. So, let white men save her. And let all minorities follow suit-- love and honor of their own women.
The biggest protests against the United States Patriot Act and its extension are coming from apparent liberals who are concerned only with the rights of minority Arabs and Muslims in America, and not the rights of millions of historical Americans.
Though many Americans also oppose the Patriot Act, it isn't because of a focus on allegedly "mistreated" Arabs, it is because they know the Act will eventually reach all Americans, in their own homes, in their own lives. It is an affront on the Bill of Rights.
I recently posted an article on this matter, as it played out in an Oklahoma City hall meeting. I noted that, along side the conservative young people protesting the Act, were professional liberals. This is a peculiar circumstance, or a political anomaly. The USA Today article referenced above does note the OKC resolution against the Act, but not the dual nature of those pushing for the resolution.
Young Conservatives and old Liberals make strange bedfellows, it seems to me. There is danger in this. Liberals have a track record of sneaking into the conservative camp, and infecting the conservative party lines. This is such a concern here in Oklahoma that the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee is devoted to identifying "who's who" in the political arena. Every year awards are given to the most conservative Republican, and the special "awards" to the most liberal Republican--the Republican who votes most liberal, most often, on selected issues. The RINO (Republican in Name Only) award is devastating to any Republican who earns it. They publish a Conservative Index every year, keeping faithful watch over who's voting for what.
Not that the liberal path and the conservative path cannot occasionally cross, but the paths still lead to very different places. Concern over illegal or even legal Arab Muslims' rights keeps that door open for terrorists to come into America and blow up buildings, and to slaughter innocent civilians. Concern over historical American citizens would quickly shut that door, regardless of Arab protests.
Making laws which address Arab Muslims does not require making the same laws for all Americans. It's just that simple. No Communist "equality" can sufficiently squelch common sense here. Arabs have not built America. Arabs have not a historical tie to the American identity. Making laws that sacrifice American freedoms just so Arabs can be protected--or better--allowed to come in an attack the country, is so obviously self-destructive that only an avowed enemy of the American Republic would conceive such laws.
The US Patriot Act is a misconceived, misapplied, and incredibly cumbersome error of applications. It is meant to give the government sweeping powers to prevent terrorists from their murderous work, but instead of concentrating on those whom we know are responsible, the Act tries an approach which tries to protect the rights of all, but nevertheless does not protect itself from the accusation of "prejudice," "racism," or even "profiling." The latter concern is really the impetus for the whole Act, to smash terrorism, yet guarantee everyone his rights at the same time, so no Arab (and liberal attorney) will sue the government for violation of civil rights.
The Act may have an effect on terrorism, but it also has an effect on everyone else's freedoms. I say the price is too high. Arabs have "wonderfully oil-rich" countries to go back to. That's where they need to go. We're not depriving them of their homes or their homeland. If they get deprived of the right to live in America, so be it. America is not the birthright of the world. It is a privilege to be here, not a right. And it is not a privilege to every person born.
When liberals cross conservative paths, the outcome is only more liberalism.
People have compared Palestinians to American Indians, as victims of aggression. The opposite is true. It is the Israelis who are the victims--of Arab aggression.
I don't think "Palestinians" deserve a state. Even in the most eloquent appeal for it, such as in the recent speech of British Prime Minister Tony Blair to the joint Congress of the United States, (July 17, 2003), the idea is still outside the code of honor. The "Palestinian" state idea is still the product of media fraud, massive Syrian and Jordanian immigration into Israel, and world wide Islamic resentment of the Jews and of Israel.
Blair called for "the creation of an independent, viable and democratic Palestinian state side by side with the state of Israel," as the inevitable outworking of fairness and peace.
In probably what will be considered one of the greatest speeches of the 21st Century, this one thought stands out like some piercing agony, an excruciating, discordant note in an otherwise grand and triumphant chorus.
If historical chronology has any weight in reason at all, Palestine is the homeland of the Jews, not the Arabs. There were no Arabs there before the 8th century AD. That they should suddenly amass themselves there, in the 20th century, in a newfound competition with the Jews, is what should raise the question of "fairness."
The Arabs, leading the Islamic world, have simply made a head way, surrounded Palestine, sent hundreds of thousands of non-resident Arabs from Syria and Jordan into Palestine, called them "Palestinians," and demanded homage. Like the European whites did, when they "infiltrated" the American lands, the Arabs just kept coming, in overwhelming numbers. Jews are a tiny minority, like the Indians were, compared to the European immigration waves.
Think of all those liberals who preach that America did Indians wrong, yet turn around and support the idea of a Palestinian state. This is a horrible hypocrisy, probably the worst in all liberalism.
America finally conquered the Indians. Are the Arabs going to conquer the Israelis, through sheer insistence and numbers? Shall the world reward them for their mindless multiplicity of their species (--"Palestinians" have the highest birth rate in the world), their consistent, forced presence, and their terrorist campaign in the world?
This is what Blair has implied, unfortunately. This is what "peace-makers" feel is necessary. We must give in to the Arab Muslims. There are too many of them, they are too murderous and destructive, and they will not quit, they will not rest, and they will not reason. So, they win.
I say this is a day of mourning, not a day of hope. A "Palestinian" state is the reward of evil, I'm afraid. No good can come from it. More evil will come. It is a temporary pacification. This is globalism, not idealism, not national integrity. To say, as Blair did, "This terrorism will not be defeated without peace in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine," is to say that we must make peace with the Arabs, which is to say we must give in to the terrorists, which is to say Israel is at fault for existing, and which is to completely contradict what he said earlier, "May this never compromise the security of Israel." (I heard the speech on C-Span, and I thought he said, "We must never compromise the security of Israel.)
Blair also ealier said, "And I don't believe you can compromise with this new form of terrorism." Yet, this is exactly what given in to the "Palestinian" state is: Compromise, giving in to the Islamic world, to Arab Muslim terrorists. Not an ounce of honor in it.
American Indians "gave in." We have a few reservations left, still, but for how much longer, who knows? Is this what will happen to the Israelis? They'll have a few cities left, for a while.
But it's not Israel who's giving in. It is the world that is giving in, at Israel's expense.
Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton has been cleared of misconduct (contempt of court) by the Federal Appeals Court, headed by Chief Justice Douglass Ginsberg and a panel of three.
Gale Norton is not to be held responsible for her attitude of defiance, for her inability to produce records of billions of dollars of missing trust funds belonging to American Indians. Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, Neal McCaleb was also declared innocent of misconduct.
I say sue again. It is true that an apppointed government person is not responsible for errors of his predessesor, unless he continues the same errors. Somebody must be held responsible somewhere. Bruce Babbitt, the Clinton appointee, first faced the exposure of mismanagement. He was fined for contempt of court then, for not producing the records. Oh, but he didn't cheat anybody. Why, it was the Secretary before him. And so on. The abuse, according to Indians legal authorities, has been going on for more than a hundred years, concerning specific lands, specific funds, and specific tribes, and specific Indian families.
So that means no one alive is responsible. and no one living who claims abuse has anyone to blame in the present or past. Many past Interior Secretaries, who are dead and gone, are also not responsible. We can't very well sue the dead, can we? Can't collect damages from a corps. But the government can sure collect money from Indians, living or dead.
This is beautiful. America wins again. The tragedy continues. I'm a conservative, patriotic American Indian. But this is treason--of the American government against itself, it's word, and against Indians--whom this same government decared citizens of the United States in 1924. I cannot overlook this one.
This is about treaties. This is about law. This is about honor. This Ginsberg decision defies all three. This appeals court ruling is blamphemous, and I recommend that these judges be indicted through Grand Jury. The citizens have the right to impeach and indict through petition for Grand Jury. I recommend that Indians take this action. Someone is responsible. Isn't that obvious? Or are the individuals in the American government so preoccupied with personal money interests that the watered government can't act as a body? It divides itself when accused, in order to pass the buck. A typical manoeuver, but unworthy, and incendiary. The Great White Father has developed a bad case of feigned multiple personality disorder. He needs serious therapy, but there's nothing truth won't cure. That and a kick in the pants.
Judge Lamberth, who has presided of this federal case for over six years now, has made many statements rebuking the incompetence, waste, and fraud of the governement's behavior regarding the Indian trust funds. We surely praise Judge Lamberth for his candor. We can only pray for him, and others in government like him, however few, however opposed.
Indians are now asking him to make the government attorneys reveal the millions of tax payers' dollars they've paid themselves to cover up the fraud of the trust fund fiasco.
Do the American people care? Maybe that's a better question. Of course Indians care; but do the American people care? This fraud beats anything imaginable in "foreign policy," or domestic. Where are the professional protesters, the communist-funded anti-American dupes when you need them?
They don't get any take out of this one? Is that it? Nothing in it for them?
Notice how the the AP created a photo with Bush appearing to stand behind Norton. It looks obviously superimposed to me, but with the clear message that Bush stands behind his man, or woman. Does that mean whether she's right or wrong?
Well, after all, no politicians need the Indian vote, except maybe the desperate Democrats up in South Dakota. The grand Republicans have no such concern, or so the "liberal" media would have Indians think. There is media deception even here, right in this photo, or at least in the use of it.
But, if Republicans have actively participated in this century of fraud (which seems terribly likely), then it is high time that they distinguish themselves from Democrats through truth, honesty, and honor. Never mind the political party rhetoric. Just be true, be true, be true.
Just to let everyone know I'm balanced in this, I will be the first to admit that the BIA and individual tribal governments throughout Indian country, are some of the most corrupt, dishonest social mechanisms in the history of America. Indians defraud one another, constantly. We are improving, but the trust fund issue is precarious, whether we win or lose. Indians are our own worst enemy, still.
Alexie, of course, is the script writer for the movies Smoke Signals and The Business of Fancy Dancing. Alexie is quite popular and successful, and at the same time respected by most Indians--not always an easy coup. He come across witty, classy, humorous, and also insightful.
I had some extensive email conversations with him last November, when I was inviting him to the a conference in Sioux Falls, SD, that next January. We discussed various issues. Early on, he mentioned looking at my writing, and found it all very interesting. Then he indicated something peculiar, yet not at all surprising. He said, "I'm very liberal and disagree with your politics but you are so accurate when describing the conservative nature of Indians. Can an Indian be a conservative? I think just about every Indian is a conservative."
Of course, we Indians usually don't take political labels all that seriously. We are what we are, and others usually label us. This is understood. However, Alexie is quite smart enough to know the meaning of the labels, whereas most liberal, communist-funded Indian activists--and all the Indians they influence, don't.
In the News From Indian Country article, seven months after these emails, quotes Alexie as saying, "It's so funny, all these white liberals think that Indians are so loving and peaceful and scared, but you know, Indians are a bunch of rednecks." In the interview he said other things reminiscent of our earlier email notes. "Indian people are very conservative," "Normal Indians are rednecks," etc.
This is Alexie's way of saying what I've said all along. Most Indians think like me, but they just aren't in the media. Now, Alexie put clearly prejudiced-flavored words on it, like "redneck" and "farmer," as if its a bad thing for Indians to be conservative. In fact, what he wrote to me earlier was this: "after reading your stuff, I realize I have the greatest issue with the mascots because they perpertuate a warrior image I think is damaging to Indians." When Alexie says he's liberal, he means it. He understands what he's saying.
He doesn't want the warrior image, he wants the liberal "loving and peaceful and sacred" type.
But he knows, like I've known all along, that Indians aren't this way at all. The flower child Indian is the creation of liberals. Alexie, in a backhanded way, is emphasizing this, but trying to discourage Indians from thinking conservatively.
Thanks for pointing this out so obliquely, Sherman. And I hope I haven't inadvertantly contributed to your "professional Indian" angle on the subject. (But, ah, you'll not find any stingy Indian-giver attitude in me.) For now, I'm happy to contribute to the dialogue, but, I hope there aren't worse terms than "redneck Indians" ahead. I prefer "savage," myself.
I guess they're not getting it. No one is willing to commit his heart to the issue: what is a patriot? Least of all, professional liberal NYT writer Janny Scott. Quote some history, quote a professor, quote a poll, but don't make any commitment. Quote a think tank, a political group, quote a few historical authors, but don't offer any idea yourself. That would be sacrilege to a non-descript liberal "thinker."
As I've said, repeatedly, in August, 2001, I privately suggested to David Horowitz, "Whoever owns the word patriot wins." He was silent.
Ann Coulter came out with Treason, which is her political way of offering a definition of patriotism, by way of identifying what it is not. Ann's problem is the mechanical anti-liberal, anti-Democrat, anti-Communist rhetoric. Patriotism is never by 'default.'
As I blogged last week, Citicizing Conservatives, David Horowitz objected to Coulter's rhetorical position, himself preferring to allow room for a Democrat or a liberal to be a patriot, pro-American creature, much as he makes room for "conservative" homosexuals. But Horowitz came no closer to defining a patriot.
I have said, from the beginning, while still teaching at OSU-OKC, patriotism is love of country. Now, others can be quoted as having said such a thing, like Scott quotes Richard C. Harwood, of the Harwood Institute for Public Innovation. You can make it all sound so official, so educated, so intellectual.
But love is learned at mother's knee, (and from the back of father's hand, sometimes). Love is not an intellectual concept. It is a living experience. No quote is going to suffice.
Rabbi David Blumenthal (Emory University) even said, "Truth is not a proposition. Truth is an experience." I remember him making this statement in a seminar on Jewish Studies.
You cherish what you love, you make sacrifices for it. You tolerate a lot of pain along with it. Yes, you try to correct error; yes, you care and make efforts to make things right when they're wrong.
Our problem in America is that people are unclear of the standards, because people are unclear on our foundations. John Birch Society people, as well as many other organizations, try to remind everyone what the principles are, and what is unique about the American government, and what made America into the great nation it is. But sometimes this becomes mechanical also. It becomes like idolizing the marriage vows, instead of loving the wife.
Love is a real, visceral, and yes, a strong romantic feeling. We've lost this somewhere along the way. Intellectualism, the universities paranoia toward the human "heart," and anything but New Agey "touchy feely" emotionalism. The latter is acceptable, whereas the real thing is considered a naive and embarrassing, and unintellectual!
Ann Coulter is a great example of "intellectual" passion. It doen't really work. Right now Coulter could quickly become a tremendous social influence, not just a talk show entertainer, if she would just "romanticize" herself a bit, and let some heartfelt emotion flow. Her natural passion is too confined to polemics, rhetoric, and theory. It is time for her to transcend talk, and revive the soul, I'd say. Since she is so prominent, such an example might have a miraculous effect.
Love of country is not out-arguing someone. It is not a political position. Love is love. This is what we need, this is what we must have. Yes, people express their love in different ways. But people who know love in their own lives, know what it is in any form. In these tragic times, love is lacking.
One must understand how to love oneself, then one can love others. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" (an ancient Hebrew directive, Lev. 19:18) works on a national level as well as on a personal level. America leaders are ruining the nation by trying to love the world first. Globalism trumps the foundations. Herein lies our undoing. I think its all about greed, the antithesis of love.
Well, according to the Native American Times June 15, 2003, "Native Contestants Compete for Miss Oklahoma Crown." A lot of girls go for this crown, but, according to the NAT report (Sam Levin), six of the gals have "Native American heritage," and most of them said that played "a major role" in their participation.
So what does that mean? Having Indian "heritage" counts for extra points?
Well, here they are:
Left to right: Ashley Bledsoe, Jessica Taylor, Brook Haley, Jordan Wood, Joy-Marie Clare, and Rebecca Neely.
They're from all over the state, and already local pageant winners. The only one that looked to be Indian to me is Joy-Clare, who, in the article, says "my great-grandfather was a Choctaw Chief." Okay. She expresses her love for the stories she's heard from childhood. Fine.
The article confuses the name of Jordon, however, the blonde on the right middle of the photo. It is Jordon Wood in the picture, Jordon Brooks in the article. In the article, she says her maternal grandmother spoke fluent Cherokee. "I'm proud of my heritage," she says.
So now, it's a matter of heritage, not blood, not interest, not involvement, or not even looks. It's a matter of "heritage." Some people don't even bother. We've all seen how certain "black" people just claim to be Indian, period, nevermind the "heritage" bit. But they're aggressive and greedy. These "white" girls are ladies, more genteel about it. It just happens to be their "heritage," and just might give them an edge in a beauty contest.
Okay. But I'm not letting them get by with this without introducing my baby brother's daughter, Anne Yeagley. She is a pianist, ballet dancer, music theatre actress and singer, and a whole lot more. Don't ask me why she never entered a beauty contest. She has a stunning figure, and winsome personality. I'll have to ask my brother Jon.
Annie, as we call her, is extremely talented, and is currently a senior at the University of Oklahoma. She's had a tremendous amount of experience on stage, taking leading roles all through high school at Putnam City West.
I think Anne looks a lot more Indian than most of these girls of Indian "heritage." I say we start with looks. Forgive me for profiling.
My high school English teacher told a story of Sir Walter Scott's volumes on the French Revolution. She said after the immense manuscript was completed, it was all lost in a fire which consumed his entire appartment. Rather than lament the loss, he immediately set out to re-write the same work. With this lesson in mind, I attempt to write again what was lost last Friday.
President Bush has promised $15 billion in aid to the countries of Africa suffering from massive deaths and debilitation caused by HIV and AIDS. This support involves a five-year period to help these nations.
Something is offensive about this offer. AIDS is inevitably associated with sexual misconduct. Despite the homosexual-controlled publicity, and the fact that the disease now includes many heterosexuals, most cases are caused simply by sexual impropriety. It is also a published medical position, since 1988, that HIV does not cause AIDS, but rather preventable, high-risk behaviors. Homosexuals cannot hide behind the fact that the disease is shared by heterosexuals. The transmission of the disease is still associated with preventable behavior.
The best defense against AIDS is abstinance from pre-marital sex or fornication, and permanent monogamy, i.e., one man, one woman, first and forever. This social norm, however, is rare in the African countries overcome with AIDS. Such standards are not always brought about by Christian missions there. When I was at Yale Divinity, I heard African leaders say, "Sex is an act of love. How can you tell people not to love, not to express their love?"
The Bush proposal is superficially "compassionate," without addressing the cause of AIDS. Such compassion generally confirms and encourages more misconduct.
The $15 billion might be paid to American Indians. The US government, through the BIA, has robbed tribes and individuals of approximately this same amount, which increases annually. (Indian leaders are now claiming the amount is $40 to $137 billion.) The goverment and companies have leased and used Indian lands, without paying any price. Not that these revenues would solve every problem in Indian Country, but that America's "compassion" ought to be spent here at home, where it's "owed." America owes nothing to these African countries. America owes some kind of integrity to its own word when it comes to Indian treaties. African tribes never fought America over anything. Indians did. The treaties cost much blood.
No, people shouldn't be allowed to suffer ad infinitum. The question is, who and what is responsible. Bush's kind of international "compassion" further obfuscates our American borders, and our denifinition as a people and nation. Let the governments of these AIDS infested countries enforce behavioral laws. Let them do their part. They have done nothing, because they do not care, nor are they inclined, nor are they sorry to see masses of their own disappear from the earth. Africa is hell. Hell comes about by wrong values and misbehavior. Solutions come not so much by money but by instruction in proper values.
I am sorry to say, but there are continual malfunctions and "corruptions" of files on the BadEagle website. Entire pages are missing, comments lost, and access paths denied. I do not understand the technological language in identifying problems or fixing them, so I cannot explain anything. I am suspicious of "hacking," but I don't know.
I will say, this site was created by a volunteer, Ken, who has devoted countless hours (and dollars) to it over the past year now, and very serious appreciation is due him for this. However, at this point, there is a need for a professional, and this indeed costs money. I am looking for help, and have been for some weeks.
In the meantime, I can only ask for the patience and support of BadEagle readers. Nothing is more frustrating than to post, then to have it all disappear. I thank my readers for the time and effort they have put in to make BadEagle.com a interesting, educational place. I can only hope all of you will continue, and weather these inexplicable frustrations.
Dr. David A. Yeagley
Dusty Baker, the manager of the Chicago Cubs major league baseball teams thinks black athletes (and darked skinned hispanics) play ball better in the heat, because they can take the heat better. Sports commentator Phil Arvia thinks this is Baker's basis for an initiative to higher more black players. Mike Nadel, like most 'non-minority' sports writers, thinks Baker is completely racists, and would not hold the position as manager were he not "African American." Baker's remarks were the subject of a Hannity & Colmes, and Hannity was particularly outraged by Baker's attitude and statements.
It was a typical scenario. A memeber of a race is allowed to say whatever he wants about his own race, but if an outsider says something negative about that race, then that is racism. We're all familiar with that well-established legal duplicity and ethical double standard. Blacks established that, with the help of white attorneys.
But, what about the facts? Are there physical characteristics, other than appearance, which characterize different races? J. Phillipe Rushton, the Canadian psychologist professor certainly thinks so. In his book, Race, Evolution, and Behavior (2000), he claims that Negroes definitely have superior physical abilites. Nine hours after birth, a Negro baby can hold its head straight, an ability not manifest in white babies until after six weeks.
But what about heat? What about endurance of a certain climate? Any special talents there? It would be hard to document on short notice, but it is a fact that some 58,000 Mexicans migrated to the midwest between WWI and the Depression, all looking for work. Mexicans indeed showed the ability to endure heat--the heat of the great foundries--more than Negroes. The Negroes often passed out from the heat. The Mexicans lasted longer in the heat. This is word of mouth testimoney of old folks I personally know from Ohio.
As a matter of fact, Mexicans, particularly those in America now, represent probably the hardest working people here. They are a tremdous work force, and the cheapest available. Big business cannot resist. Thus, we have our immigration problem. I say don't blame the Mexicans. Blame business, lawyers, and politicians. Especially the white ones.
I don't know if Negroes endure heat better than Caucasians. I strongly suspect that isn't true. And I don't equate slavery with hard work, just ownership, and even that's often just another name for a steady job. Negroes weren't brought here for quality labor, just cheap labor. Those were entirely different circumstances in those days. Dusty Baker's not being accurate on that point. Negro athletes are just naturally inclined and talented. Heat has nothing to do with it.
"Positive" racism, in this case, might prove to be "negative" toward non-Negro athletes. Of course, if a white player and a Negro player compete for left field, and both have the same player stats, Baker could say, "Well, the black player will do better in the heat," and thus make a hiring decision based on race, and not even on the athlete's player stats. You mean the white guy never played in summer heat before? If he's from "hot summers" Chicago, how could have the same stats as the black guy who's from San Francisco?
Baker's racist on this one, for blacks, against whites. Not a good thing. But he won't be reprimanded in the slightest. Racism is committable only by whites against non-whites. Negroes can't possibly be racist.
It's a tough day in Conservative Town. David Horowitz has rendered a very serious criticism of Ann Coulter's new book, Treason. Coulter's book is more popular than Hillary's waste of paper, but, Horowitz thinks Coulter's effort is gravely mistaken. In long article posted today, "The Trouble With Treason," Horowitz says Coulter's book is to broad in its generalities, not leaving any room for such a thing as a patriotic Democrat, or an American-loving Liberal.
Horowitz cites Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and John F. Kennedy as examples of "liberals" who were decidedly anti-communist, and hated by the Left. "By failing to draw a clear line between satirical exaggeration and historical analysis," Horowitz says, "by refusing to credit the laudable role played by patriotic, anti-Communist liberals like Truman, Kennedy and Humphrey, Coulter has compromised her case and undermined her attempt to correct a record that desperately needs correction.
And so forth. Well, perhaps all conservatives need correction now and then, too. I wrote about as much, in "Correcting Conservatives," on American Enterprise Online, October, 2002. I used Coulter, Buchanan, and Horowitz himself. (However, the editors of AEO decided to "edit" out the part on Horowitz. They also don't like it when I criticize Michael Ledeen for his lust to foment violent revolution in Iran.) For that matter, I myself surely need correction periodically. It is called having an open mind, sometimes; being willing to learn; being strong enough to admit error, espouse truth, and move on.
I am curious, however, that Horowitz would want to make room for patriotic Democrats and Liberals, much as he makes room for "conservative" homosexuals, and yet crowd out any definitive concept of patriotism. It is as if to say, we can know what it isn't, but that's all there is to indicate what it is.
Horowitz never used the word "patriot" much before. In August, 2001, at a major conservative retreat in Colorado Springs, I said to him privately, "Mr. Horowitz, whoever owns the word patriot wins." His reaction was complete silence. Then came 9-11. Then things changed. Everything I'd been advocated since I introduced myself to Mr. Horowitz (January, 2001) came to light. One loved America, or one was not a patriot, and one was not dependable. One might then easily function as an inimical element in the society, yes, even an enemy.
So now, Horowitz has drawn the line. Concern for country is after all the foundation of one's social relationship to it, and not one's political party, or one's moral, social philosophy. Yet we must still ask, did Truman, Johnson, and Kennedy really love the country? They were anti-communist, so we are given to understand. So they proclaimed. It could be that this was a political articulation of their values. But Johnson and Kennedy certainly seemed to favor socialist welfare programs. To resist a communist country like Russia or Cuba doesn't mean that one's values are particularly communist-resistant. Country against country is a material, military thing, not necessarily ideological.
I think some more lines need to be drawn. Love of country is a deep, deep concept. This is why I want to see it taught, formally. It doesn't grow out of the ground (unless you're American Indian!). It has to be nurtured. Love of country may not have a party label, but some parties hold ideologies that are decidedly more selfish and socially crippling than patriotic. (Voter beware.)
My vision is that American Indians can finally set the pace on how to actually love the country. We are the only people who are in a position to really do this. We alone have the one legitimate cause of protest to the very existence of America. If we can overcome this, and set an example of selfless devotion to the people, then we once again become host, guide, and savior, our original role toward all foreigners.
Here is a classic example of how our American legal system operates. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is filing a legal suit against Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC and parent coporation YUM Brands, Inc.) for false advertising in regards to KFC's chickens.
PETA says KFC's chickens are drugged, wrongly fed, and wrongly slaughtered. (Talk about misleading information!) Then PETA man Bruce Friedrich says the treatment is nevertheless legal, "but they can't legally lie about it, and they have been." KFC claims, according to PETA, its chickens and handled humanely and suffer no pain. (I was not able to ascertain this claim by KFC.)
PETA refers to the KFC website statements about how the chickens are treated. Of course, a short news article like the one quoted above doesn't go into the details of KFC statements or PETA's proof of their falsity. The KFC site does explicitely address matters of animal care.
What is evident in the PETA approach is its emphasis not the illegality or impropriety of the laws governing the animal care, nor PETA's acknowledgement that KFC is in compliance with those laws; but rather, on the fact that KFC allegedly says it is more "righteous" about the animal care than either is required or than KFC actually is. In other words, rather than protest the laws which are the guidelines of KFC--for whose perfectly compliant conduct PETA is suing, PETA chooses to sue KFC, for there is big money there, not in trying to get laws changed. That costs money.
So, it's all about making money, not spending it. PETA is guided by profit, as are most activist groups. They believe the best approach to getting laws changed is to sue big corporations--that are in compliance with present laws activists want changed. That way, the activists get their money, and might get some laws changed to boot.
And what to lawyers care? It's money for them, either way. What do politicians care? It's votes for them, when it comes to changing laws (that is, if they play it right).
It is as if the legal system is basically a available for wholesale bribery itself, while it promotes the opportunity for public blackmale of corporations. It is a gambling business, and as the "house," it benefits from any and all bets.
If it were rectified, there would be a standard fee or salary for every attorney, no matter what case, or what client. This is one matter on which I think I'm truly "communist." I believe in socialized law pratice. Equality pertains to justice, not race, gender, religion, or socio/economic status.
I am amazed that so little news on the internet had any focus on the 4th of July, America's Independence Day. Undeclared wars all over the world, globalist "conspiracies" to usurp the sovereignty of America, and perhaps fear of patriotism on the part of any major media, all have added up to seemingly little interest in the subject of how and why America was born.
It is late in the afternoon, 5:30 CT, here in Oklahoma City. I have pondered all day over an appropriate post for such a time as American Independence Day. I took my elderly mother out to lunch, and actually felt offended to see common place work shops open, like Hibdon Tires. I felt, for the first time, a certain religious sense on this day. I expected to see restaurants, drugstores, and even groceries open, but Dollar Store? I still don't know what to think. Is this a volunteer day?
I remember when I was a substitute highschool teacher at Hamden High, back in Hamden, Connecticut, every Monday the entercom announcements began with a flag salute (which one could barely hear). I sharply reprimanded the students for their noisy, careless attitude, a little too sharply I suppose. Everyone was completely ignoring the call to salute, except three young Jewish kids, who rose from their seats to salute the American flag, above the class clamour.
When Mr. Bouvoir, the regular teacher returned, he reported me to the principal's office and I was taken off the substitute list. Mr. Bouvoir, a typical American liberal, with his French name, thought that gave him the right to define "liberty." He instructed me that a lengthy legislative debate had earned the right of students to abstain from the salute if they so desired. This was all about "freedom!"
The principal, a typical patriotic Italian (whose name escapes me now), had me immediately reinstated as a substitute.
What I remember from that experience was this: to create a sense of value for something takes effort and discipline. If it is not mandatory, not important enough to be required, the human tendency is inevitably to ignore it. Making something like the flag salute voluntary inevitably devalues it, it seemed to me.
I know how may people idolize "freedom" above all else, and "unrequired" religion flourishes in America. But loving the country has to be taught, just as loving God. And as our famous national song "America the Beautiful" puts it (in the second verse):
America, America, God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm they soul in self-control, they liberty in law.
Katherine Lee Bates, 1904
One of those Jewish kids, Susan Schlossberg, was married some years later. I saw her at Temple Beth Shalom, on Whitney Aveneue, at a Yom Kippur service. We remembered that flag salute incident. "I went to the principal's office," she said. "I saved you!" We both smiled in deep appreciation of one another.
No one said Iraq was going to be easy, or short. Sure enough, it is neither. Resistance is growing, and prospects of an early peace seem tarnished. President Bush, however, is not intimidated or daunted. "Bring 'em on," he responded to the threats. Bush says we intend to stay in Iraq until a democratic government is firmly established.
On last night's TV news, I heard a man point out America does not have control over the media in Iraq, and those that do are urging America to leave. Of course, world media is in a sharkish feeding frenzy, devouring the American image with every bullet fired by our forces. America is the bad guy. Really bad.
Just about the time American forces are facing this depressing but false reality, another call for American troops comes from Liberia. Why? Some minor dictator, Charles Ghankey Taylor has ruined his little country, and the great and powerful UN can't handle him. Amnesty denounces him. The Liberian people want US "peace-keeping" forces to come in and save them. Opporunists all.
Same old story, actually. We've responded to it over and over again. Third world countries and continents are an endless replay of the same scenario. Africa is chocked full of such disastrous conclaves called "countries".
Pick a country. Any country. Pick Cuba. Why don't we send peace-keeping troups into Havana, and deliver the miserable, oppressed, abused folk there?
If Bush sends troops into Liberia, I'm afraid it will look like an appeasement of the UN. After all, Bush declared America's independence from that rotten nest of communist failures. Yet, it's Koffi Annon, UN Secretary-General, who is asking for the US intervension. Maybe Bush wants to restore a little credibility to the organization. But why? It has always been a wastful operation, actually promoting dictatorships and oppression. It's always wanted to down-size American independence, while it drains America of its resources. Clinton worked feverishly to accomplish this. But why have any expectation of the UN at all?
Since no one declares war anymore, but we all simply fight at will, what is the point of entering Liberia? Haven't we learned anything about the permanent instability of some of these third world countries? We're in the middle of one of the worst, Iraq, and we're thinking about going into another one? Misericordia!
It's about time America re-declared Independence! This 4th of July, 2003, is a perfect time. We are not responsible for every country in the world. How is it that we are continually betrayed into such thickets of inextricable waste, costing life and resources? What would it matter if another 50,000 Liberians are slaughtered by Taylor? Probably many more unsafe abortions occur there. Abortions in America alone far exceed the 50,000 deaths caused by Taylor over the last ten years. 1.4 million abortions were reported in America in 1990.
If death and dying are a motivation to send in peace-keeping troops, then I don't understand why America should have any particular regard for Liberia. Is this an African-American cause in disguise? Is there some sentimental attachment to Liberia, where Americans tried to re-patriate slaves? The Africans of the land there resisted and slaughtered many of the returned "free" slaves. The American government has no historical reason for investing in Liberia now. Liberia was ever only a guilt-ridden, independent business project, perhaps logical, even necessary then, but certainly not the American government's problem now.
America need not police the world. It is not an inevitable responsibility. At this time in history, I shall have to praise the John Birch Society, the only organization that is dedicated exlusively and consistently to maintaining the country's fidelity to our Constitution. The Constitution is our guide, our ID, our definition. If we depart from it, we are not America anymore. We are a fat, rich whore, available for world rape on demand. The UN supplies the Johns.
The Pentagon is developing a high-tech surveillance system to use in troubled cities of the world, or "combat zones." Certainly, the system will be used on troubled American cities as well. Surveillance, spying, eaves-dropping, socialized voyeurism, what's the difference? We're conditioned for it.
A good movie is a kind of surveillance. The actors, if successful, come across as real, as people in real life, not being filmed at all. The audience is "big brother," watching, rather, enjoying every move. Sexual oriented movies are basically socially accepted voyeurism.
Add to this, the Christian evangelical position that God is watching. Better, add the ancient Jewish take: there is a record in Heaven of every word and deed. That's Solomon. Ecclesiastes 12:13,14. That's Daniel, 7:10.
We know we're being watched. We learn this as infants, as children. Our good parents hardly take their eyes off us. We're used to it. It is nothing unusual or spectacular. We're on stage from the minute we're born. It is a psychological conditioning.
Now the matter of privacy, and personal freedom, this is a late bloomer in the history of human thought. Our modern American legal dramatization of these concepts must really appear curious to any heavenly observer.
What are we trying to accomplish by "privacy"? Safety? Protection from perverts, robbers, invaders, enemies? Perhaps. That's certainly the best explanation. But those who would do surveillance, as the government insists, also claim they're doing it for safety, security, or protection from enemies.
Then the questions become: Who is the enemy? or What are we protecting?
The Chinese government is about to pass a new law (July 9) to protect the country's national security. Hong Kong's post-colonial "constitution" requires the new bill under Article 23, so we are given to understand.
The new security bill carries maximum life prison sentences for treason, sedition, theft of state secrets and subversion. And don't think China won't enforce it! They know all about such things. Through treasonist Bill Clinton there were able to steal all kinds of American state secrets--the military kind, precisely the kind that make for national security.
But, as we've posted before, Richard Poe points out that this was Bill Clinton's plan, to bring American down, and to make China fully capable of overpowering America. Just about everything Bill Gertz wrote about in The China Threat (2000) has come to pass. In the recent security issue in Hong Kong, however, it was perhaps mock irony that 200,000 protesters gather, burning the Communist flag. It's a novelty, and nice to see, but in the spirit of true Communist Liberalism and Democracy, the government really doesn't care. It doesn't have to. It knows its in charge. Just permit the people to let off steam now and then. No harm done. Even China can afford such "freedom of speech" these days.
Hong Kong protestors burning Communist flag.
Hong Kong was under British control until 1997, when the British lease expired. An agreement was made that Bejing would allow democracy to continue in Hong Kong. Thus was born the slogan, "One Country, Two Systems." And how does China intend to commit "subversion" against those she suspects of subversion?
National security law. Perhaps very similar to our new Patriot Act. "National security" is a powerful approach. In fact, it is the ultimate double-speak when it comes to oppression. In the name of security, you can't do this or that.
Go ahead an burn the Communist flag, burn the American flag. But you can't be a member of any group banned by the Communist Party. Protest in the streets of Hong Kong, but Bejing knows your address, and can search without a warrent. China, you've come a long way, baby. Just keep following America, until she follows you.