Normally, I refrain from referencing Indian Country Today. Why? Any professional paper that features a writer as unprofessional, ill-trained, sloppy, biased, and often utterly erroneous as Suzan Harjo just can't be considered a reliable source of news. Her personal prejudices are regularly displayed, along with what purports to be accurate news by other writers.
Also, Indian Country Today frequently posts unidentified "editorial commentary" in which opinions are broadcast with no authorship. This is indeed weak. One such commentary was even posted on MSNBC News, August 27. The article is basically on One Nation, the new organization in Oklahoma which is trying to abolish Indian sovereignty. The article is a fairly good one, in itself. Another article on One Nation, by ICT associate editor Jim Adams appeared in Indian Country two days later, August 29. It focuses specifically on the cigarette tax issue. (Indian stores can sell cigarettes without the heavy state taxes attached, thus Indians sell a lot more. This offends the non-Indian venders who have to apply the taxes when they sell their cigarettes.)
The fact is, eight weeks ago I made notice of One Nation. Then, I exposed its connection to a larger national campaign, through Qorvis Communications. Of course, neither author of the Indian Country Today articles seems aware of this. I can't help but notice also that they are over two months late in noticing such a powerful anti-Indian force in Oklahoma. No, I wouldn't expect them to acknowledge BadEagle.com in any way, since I openly despise their liberal take on just about every other Indian issue. ICT is reportedly the largest circulating Indian news organ, but I think this One Nation case is another sign of ICT unreliability, or at least, tardiness and incomplete research.
ICT is owned by Ray Halbritter, the "tyrant" of the Oneida. ICT is also under a ban by AIM. These are well known facts among Indians.
The reason I'm trouble over ICT is the fact that I have also advocated sovereignty, independence, self-reliance, and economic solvency. I see these conditions as the heart of conservatism. ICT is the epitomy of liberal rhetoricism. How can this be? How can BadEagle.com and ICT have the same goal, with such different language to describe it, and different ideas of how to reach it?
BadEagle.com is voluntary and independent, without any organizational or institutional support. ICT reveals no stats online, but I'm sure, after some twenty years of publication, it is the most widely read Indian paper. It is well supported, with a large staff, and, as I said, now owned by a big casino Indian boss. I'm not sure how these circumstances play into the polemics of Indian politics, and the differences of language used to advocate Indian values, but, they do have a lot to do with these differences.
Final note, I have to point out that the site I refenced on Qorvis Communications is the Oklahoma Independent Media Center, which tends to be aggressively liberal, in the name of truth and justice, of course. It is an international, no doubt communist-type organization. But I note their logo:
See the American Indian to the far right? The Indian image is used to validate any position, conservative or liberal. It transcends politics. It just means validation, in and of itself. What power there is in the Indian image! Yet, what offense, what shame, and what outrage in its misuse. Indians have yet the say in how our own image is to be used.
What's really going on down there in Montgomery, Alabama? There is a lot more involved than the visible controversy over Chief Justice Moore's monument to the Ten Commandments. That monument has just been removed (Aug.27), but the real controversy has just begun.
Two of the men who are among the greatest supporters of Moore's monument are ethnically Jewish. Rev. Dr. Chaim Schenck and Rev. Rob Schenck are twin brothers, both of whom became ordained Christian ministers.
The Reverends Schenck & Schenck
Reverend Rober Shenck has a book, Ten Words That Will Change A Nation, all about displaying the Ten Commandments in all public places across the United States. Their foundation, FaithAndAction, is devoted to reviving the original biblical values in American society. They have a variety of programs to accomplish this.
There Ten Commandments project is only one such program. They are also trying to bring about a national postage stamp commemorating Michelangelo's "Moses" and the Ten Commandments.
Moses
Well, I'd say that beats the Islamic holiday stamp successfully established in the name of "freedom of religion."
The Festival of Eid
It's about freedom of religion. This Ten Commandments represent a specific religion, of course. The Montgomery crisis wasn't brought about by a celebration of Haitian voodoo, Islam, or Satanism. It is about the specific religion held by America's founding fathers, and on which they based the Constitution.
The 1st Amendment says "Congress" shall not interfere with religion by making laws. The federal government must not interfere. The 9th Amendment says that the Constitution shall not be used against itself (by denying other rights it guarantees to the people). The 10th Amendment says those laws the Constitution does not give to the federal government, nor prohibits the states from having, belong to the states and to the people.
Mountains of legal rhetoric and precedent cannot cover up these basic, obvious principles. The piles of cases used to deny free exercise of religion--particularly the Christian religion--belie a most sinister motivation that can be considered nothing but anti-American.
Justice Thompson and the other justices, and the ACLU attorneys, Jewish and Pakistani, are in grave error. The justices are clearly defrauding the Constitution, and robbing the state and the people of their rights. This isn't about the "rule of law," as their mantra continually reverberates. This is about their rule over others. They are the ones who are outside the law. But, they are in power, for now.
This is about state's rights. Only the South could bring it out so clearly. I think maybe they're right this time.
Keep your power dry, America.
"Terrorists" continue to murder innocent people the world over.
The federal district judges and attorneys in Alabama condemn the display of the Ten Commandments in the state court yard.
The city of Boston fire department was ordered to hire white men, instead of lower-scoring "minorities" who applied for the same job.
What is the true interpretation of these events? Men trying to control other men? Men trying to deny freedom to other men? There are all sorts of rhetorical fads used to identify the conflicts. It could be religious, political, legal, ideological, social, etc. But what is at the bottom of it? Why would men try to control other men, to the point of killing them?
Is it all in the name of "defense?" Each side claims righteousness, or, claims to be justified in its actions, and denies all accusations of wrong doing.
So apparently there is a difference of opinion as to the standard of right and wrong. Apparently those in power reserve the right to decide. If they are wrong, the only alternative for the people is to rise up and resist. It's not a matter of "might makes right." It is simply that "might decides what's going to be considered right." Might has the power to enforce its interpretation.
Therefore, by all means, seek might! At least, that seems to be the goal. In American society, so incredibly constipated with litigation and myopic ideologists, the people are growing weary of the government and the legal system, especially those authorities that comprise the legal system. The people are growing weary of might gone wrong.
Our country was founded through a revolution (1776). We later had a civil war (1865). We had a major social degenerative disease which infected our entire social values (1960's).
What lies ahead? Terrorist murders lurk everywhere. Our legal system invites them and encourages them, in the name of equality. If a Chief Justice wants to make a gesture about what the standards of right and wrong are, he is condemned as unconstitutional and criminal. Something is really, really wrong.
Yet, four white men got jobs in historic old Boston! A flicker of hope for many American patriots!
Stacy did it. The 16-year-old student at Anderson High School (Cincinnati, OH) dressed up like an American Indian, and presented herself as the Anderson "Redskin" mascot.
Stacy Stahl
The Redskin mascot tradition at Anderson is nearly 60 years old, but as of this year, it was forbidden. Stacy, however, wore parts of the original attire at sat behind the team in the stands. She fully intends to get the mascot reinstated under the new high school principle's tenure.
Stacy is of South American Inca descent, and feels a responsibility to preserve memory of American Indians and traditions, especially in places where they have been neglected or forgotten. "This is an educational opportunity," she said.
"Well, if she wants to be an Indian mascot, let her be an Inca Indian," said Betty Ann Gross, interviewed by Cincinnati's WCPO Channel 9 reporters Steve Johnson and Shannon Kettler. Well, that line got edited, and only a general statement was published: "In a recent phone interview with 9News, Betty Ann Gross, a Sisseton-Wahpeton, of the Lake Traverse Reservation in South Dakota, said, 'I think it wrongfully stereotypes our people, and it holds our people locked to the past of what White America perceived us back then.'"
Thus, the reporters inexperienced in the issue, missed the major issue which is not the mascot itself, but the role of a non-American Indian playing an American Indian, albeit with the intent of honoring American Indians. Stacy's special point was that she herself was "Native American," and therefore had every obligation to celebrate any "Native American" role. This is what was new and significant about Stacy's case.
In this matter, Stacy's argument is related to the Chief Illiniwek controversy at the University of Illinois. John Madigan, of Irish descent, was the last person to play the "Chief Illiniwek" mascot role. It was a hot gig, but, finally shot down, due mainly to the AIM supported efforts of Charlene Teters, who was a student there at the time.
Chief Illiniwek (John Madigan)
The unaddressed issue is simple: does a non-Indian, a non-American Indian, have the right to dress up like an American Indian, and play a mascot role, or any role as an American Indian?
BadEagle.com has never advocated pro or con on this particular question, but it seems appropriate at this point in the mascot/logo/moniker issue. The basic question behind this "role" issue is even more simple: why is being Indian, or even pretending to be, even putting on an Indian "costume" so profoundly cherished by non-Indian people? What is so attractive about being Indian, and why is it so valuable?
I have a little essay written by the daughter of one of my older friends. She's married now, with children. (It is a white American family.) She wrote this one page essay when she was in the fourth grade. The assignment was to write about what you would like to be, more than anything else. Juli wrote that she wanted to be an Indian. Julie lived in Connecticut, years ago, before any pop-up casino tribes appeared. Her Indian image was of woodland people who lived in nature, and wore deerskins.
I've saved a copy of this little essay, for it speaks volumes. There is profound psychological import in the American Indian image. I have said from the beginning that the Sioux dominate that image. Betty Ann Gross recognizes a Siouxan look in the beaded belt Stacy Stahl wore the night of the opening Anderson Redskins game. The point is this: non-Indian people need to perhaps examine in themselves why this Indian image is such a cultural fetish.
Stacy's belt, from the original mascot regalia
The communication between Indians and non-Indians on this issue is dependent on understanding the power of the image. Indians who feel it is degrading do not seem to know how the Indian image functions in the non-Indian mind. Non-Indians (particularly white people) themselves do not fully understand why the Indian image is so valuable to them.
Until these matters are addressed openly, the outcome of the controversy leaves both sides frustrated, it seems to me.
So Chief Justice Roy Moore has been suspended from office (with pay) for his defiance of a federal court order to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama court house. Alabama state attorney general Bill Pryor says, "The rule of law means that no person, including the Chief Justic of Alabama, is above the law."
So, let be written in stone: lawyers and justices decide what the law means, and even if you're one of them, you can be made into a law-breaker by their decision. You've been "out-nigguhed," as Gov. Wallace would have said back in 1964.
It isn't the rule of law that rules, at all. It is the will of men in power. If Moore's case demonstrates anything, it demonstrates that. The fact the the United States Supreme Court (Justice Kennedy) refused to hear the case only shows the fickle nature of the whole decision making process. Moore broke no law, state or federal, yet, certain men decided that he had. Therefore, they invoke the mechanism of enforcement against him.
Now there's another interesting element in this. There are American protestant churches which advocate observance of the Ten Commandments, such as the Seventh-day Baptists, the World Wide Church of God, and of course the Seventh-day Adventists. The chief distinction here is that these denominations believe that the Fourth Commandment (Exodus 20:8-11) designates Saturday, the seventh day, as the Sabbath of the Lord. Observing the Ten Commandments means observing Saturday, not Sunday, as the holy day.
So why haven't these denominations been at the forefront of this fray, supporting Chief Justice Moore, or at least supporting the Ten Commandments?
Adventists are rather famous for defending religious liberty. One of their many magazines, Liberty, is full of issues pertaining to rights and freedoms of religion. Adventists have a legal department that carefully watches these issues in America and in the world.
Now one might ask, does Chief Justice Moore really believe in the Ten Commandments today, as binding upon all Bible believers, upon all Christians? That is a question that has not been explored. He said the momument was a memorial to the foundations of American government and society. True, but that would mean that he doesn't necessarily advocate that they be observed today. He certainly hasn't advocated observance of the sabbath day of the Fourth Commandment. Does he believe the "grace" of Christ absolves His followers from following the Ten Commandments?
The Jewish legal community is loathed to advocate any of the Ten Commandments. The Divine Law is the foundation of their own culture, but they would never impose it on others. On the other hand, they impose many other values through law, like the quintessential "liberal" values of individual rights, tolerance of all social mores (like homosexuality), racial equality, etc. These are presumed to be American Constitutional values. (Yet, to be fair, there is a fast-growing "conservative" Jewish sector in America, and their influence will no doubt come to light in the future.)
In any case, it seems to me that the Sabbath keepers--observing the one and only "Sabbath of the Lord thy God"--have missed an opportunity here. We have a Chief Justice laying his life on the line to show merely memorial honor to the Law of God, and the denominations distinquished by their doctrine on this very point, have remained silent. If Chief Justice Moore doesn't even believe that all Ten Commandments are binding upon Christians, he is still to be commended for showing honor to the foundation of western civilization.
The opponents are on a neurotic anti-religion binge, a fervent feeding frenzy, attempting to deface all such memorials from all American cities and states. This is their religion, their campaign, in the name of secular righteousness. Make no mistake, this issue is about righteousness. Who is right, who is wrong? Who defines right? By who's authority does it come. Moore says it comes from God Almighty. More accurately, Moore says the founders of this country believed that authority derives from God. That is a fact that none can gainsay.
And I love the fact that Negroes from Georgia came to support the Ten Commandments. That has to be the loudest voice, the most significant voice, raised in support so far. Even Alan Keyes supported Moore.
What do you do when the courts falsely accused you of breaking the law, and the courts uphold their wrong decision? Do you oppose the court decision by defying it?
Ask Chief Justice Roy Moore, who is poised to do just that, to defy the state and federal district court order to remove the monument of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama state courthouse.
Is he a patriot, or a traitor? Is he defying the law, or is he upholding it? If the law imposed upon him is erroneous, what is his proper response?
Interestingly, Martin Luther King is famous for his sayings about civil disobedience. It is perhaps a little ironic that this Ten Commandment issue is in the very hear of the deep south, only the center of the controversy is a white man, and a Chief Justice. This is rather remarkable, really.
The rule of law says you have to obey the law. The rule of common sense says that sometimes men abuse the law, and you are wrong to let them get by with it. It becomes your duty to disobey a wrong law. It is certainly your duty to try to change that law. Thus the ideology of civil disobedience, so dear to the heart of the '60's liberals, is now become the rallying call of the most conservative element of all: white southern religion.
It is ominous how an upright man can come to be regarded as a outlaw, because of his upholding of the law. Everyone must remember, Moore broke no law. When his opponents decided his monument was unconstitutional, they are the ones who breached the Constitution, which says Congress shall not be involved in religion. The Supreme Court of the Unitied States decided, for once, to stay out of the religious issue. In this, they are supremely hypocritical, seeing they have interefered with every other religious issue in the country, right down to the personal life of individuals.
So, the court order to remove the monument is not a law, but a court order. Moore is not in defiance of the law, but of a court order, a court order which he believes to be against the law!
This should send chills up the spine of all people who have spines. Moore has shown that the state is against religion. I repeat, the erroneous concept of separation of church and state really means the state is against the church. Beware, all.
The leading attorneys in Montgomery, Alabama who are seeking to remove the Ten Commandments momument Chief Justice Roy Moore placed in the top Alabama judicial building are Jewish. One is Richard Cohen. Many of the attorneys for the ACLU are Jewish. They fight to protect what they see as the rights of individuals, minorities, etc., to be free from majority oppression or coercion.
Ayesha Kahn, from Pakistan, was a first year student (2002) at Harvard's Kennedy School of Goverment. She is one of the leading attorneys now in this case against Chief Justice Moore. A beautiful thought, how a foreigner come to Harvard, and immediately assume a national role in re-defining American culture. Foreign minorities unite with Jews to prevent America from celebrating her foundations? This cannot be right.
Kahn was involved in a suit to remove a Ten Commandments monument from City Hall in Manhattan, Kansas. She's a real credit to Harvard, a real rising star in the war against American foundational values.
Ayesha Kahn and Danielle Lipow, center
The ACLU filed two separate suits against Moore. The ACLU also sued in Kentucky to prevent another such Ten Commandment monument from being erected on the state capitcal grounds there. David A. Friedman heads the ACLU in Kentucky. The ACLU of Kentucky�s clients in the lawsuit included Rabbi Jonathan Adland, a Jewish rabbi at Temple Adath Israel in Lexington. In addition to Friedman, Louisville attorneys Everett Hoffman and C. Laurie Griffith assisted in the litigation.
It can be demonstrated statistically, this general ACLU position has made life easier for many individuals and minorities. However, in this case, that Jewish attorneys would opposed the pefectly legal presence of a monument of the Ten Commandments seems to beg the question of ideology.
What shall we make of this culturally self-effacing posture on the part of these Jews, whose ancient culture not only brought to Ten Commandments into human experience, but also whose culture is the moral basis for American society and law?
Twenty-one protesters in Montgomery were arrested for tresspassing and taken to jail (and later released) for demonstrating in favor of keeping the Ten Commandments monument. What threat did they pose? Who was endangered? What did they inhibit? These questions can only be answered in theory and abstraction. The reality of this situation is louder than any ideology.
Jewish lawyers (and many Jewish people) often believe that to protect the rights and freedoms of the minority, the individual, the oppressed, is the best way to insure the freedom of Jewish people. Having only recently been denied existence (i.e., in terms of the Holocaust), they feel an urgent responsibility to guard against any and every coercion or delimitation of freedom.
It sounds perfectly patriotic, but, in this case, the case of the Ten Commandments displayed as the foundation of morality, the obvious foundation of American law and society, I think it is inappropriate for Jewish influence to be used against the freedom of an elected state employee to advocate such foundations. With all due respect to Jews and Jewish culture, with far more than is custom of normal for any Gentile, I dare say they are mistaken in opposing the public display of the Ten Commandments.
They thereby associate themselves with the hedonists of American society, those who are bent on disrupting the American traditions, obfuscating American social identity, and creating a society of completely different values. The "rights" of homosexuals, non-theists, and other social subversives are being coerced on the majority who represent America's true identity. Jews should never, ever associate themselves with this sector, for it will do nothing but bring wrath upon them in the future.
I know many Jewish people. I don't know one that advocate such a path. Tolerance and compassion are one thing. Insulting the majority is another. I believe these attorneys are simply carrying the ideology too far.
"Separation of church and state," that mysterious rallying call for all who want religion removed as far as possible from any public awareness, that magical mantra that appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or in the United States Constitution and its Amendments, actually means "state against church" for those who use it. That is how it is actualized in legal, social reality.
Look at what's happening in Alabama. Chief Justice Roy Moore, elected to the Supreme Court of Alabama in 2000, campaigned on the promise that he would restore the moral foundation of the law. After taking office, Moore installed (at his own expense) a 5,280 pound granite monument of the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building.
Chief Justice Roy Moore
Naturally, criticism from the "separationists" was loud and clear. The time line of events and the court case have ensued with great publicity. The homosexual lobby has added it's complaints against Chief Justice Moore, accusing him of "bias and fixed attitudes" against homosexuals. (What charitable language they use!) Of course, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against Moore's commandments, and so did Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. They all want the monument removed from sight, "to a less public place," said the presiding judge in the case.
The granite monument featuring the Ten Commandments
Moore obviouly has a well prepared defense, but as of yesterday, Tuesday, August 19, he was ordered to remove the monument by the end of today, Wednesday, by U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson. Moore appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Does displaying the Ten Commandments represent an attempt on the part of the State of Alamaba to establish religion? Did Alabama make a law to have the monument in the court rotunda?
Obviously not. No law, nor any public expense was involved. Furthermore, Moore's gesture is quite in harmony with the Alabama state constitution which formally acknowledges the God of the Bible.
But the opposers believe that the non-legal, non-documented montra "separation of church and state" really means the state must disallow the religion in any public place or at any public function. In this notion, they not only fuse the meaning of the word state with the word public, but they also demonstrate that, in their thinking, the "public" is something other than "the people."
Herein lies the secret of their tyranny. If the people aren't the "public," then who is? The State. But the constitution says "Congress" shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, etc. Congress is the federal government, not the state government. Congress is making no law in Alabama, whose state law acknowledges God.
If the federal government ignores this case, it then essentially prohibits the free exercise of religion, by allowing the activists of Alabama to overturn the state constitution. If it is to be regarded as a state matter, thereby justifying the Supreme Court's abstinance from involvement, then the federal government must revoke all its past rulings regarding prayer in public schools, and the use of the Bible in any public place.
"Congress (federal government) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How can this right be invoked to protect homosexual values, pornography, flag burning, but not to protect a monument?
Moore has done a great service to the country. Like Moses, he has drawn the line. "Who is on the Lord's side?" (Ex. 32:26). Moore has shown that "separation of church and state" means "state against church," something as un-constitutional, and anti-American as could possibly be imagined.
Who would blow up the United Nations building in Baghdad?
All morning the commentators have blamed Al-Qaeda, Hussein loyalists, and other Islamic terrorists and saboteurs. These Islamicists hate the West, and will die fighting against anything that smacks of it, (except material wealth). The UN is seen as an exension of the US in their fanatical minds. We might take a lesson, however.
Beyond that, and perhaps more importantly, authorities are saying the problem in Iraq is a border problem. The borders of Iraq must be guarded. They blame Syria mainly, where most of the Hussein loyalists fled when America invaded. Do we need more American soldiers over there now? More guards along the borders?
The authorities instead are calling on the Iraqi people to take their stand.
The responsibility is rolling down to the feet of the Iraqis themselves. If they really want freedom, they must rise up and fight, resisting the traitors and saboteurs, the Islamic terrorists. They must resist the financial pay-offs, and the threats of torture and violence. They must rise up and be noble patriots for their own country. They must turn over the enemy to the authorities.
Now, this is interesting. Sound familiar? Let's talk a minute about another border problem.about Arizona, California, and New Mexico. Let's talk about the Mexican immigration problem, that silent invasion, that bloodless revolution. Who's supposed to be guarding the borders there? Who cares whether they are even guarded?
Who wants the Mexicans here? Who benefits from the cheap Mexican labor? Business, of course, and corrupted politicians who want votes. The big boys don't seem to care about borders. Protecting our borders is a job that seems to be rolling down to the feet of Americans themselves. The basic citizens. Only the citizens care.
Yet our American government calls on us to surrender our guns, give up our borders, and give up our freedoms through the "Patriot" Act. This is remarkable.
Iraq is become a great lesson in American political schizophrenia. Our authorities are telling the Iraqis to rise up and be patriots, but those same authorities tell Americans to lie down and be walked over, to turn America over to the tyrants.
Hillary Clinton was taped within 24hrs after the East-MidWest blackout, blaming Bush, saying that the Bush Administration was not acting according to the principles of the founding fathers with regards to checks and balances which they had so wisely provided. It was played on both Chris Matthew's Hardball, and Joe Scarborough's Scarborough Country.
"You know, my big problem with a lot of this administration’s approach is they forgot the basic lesson of our founders. There always has to be checks and balances and the government has a role to play."
That's Hillary, cashing in with a lie. No one but her own "husband" has ever showed more contempt for America and the Constitution. She wants the founding fathers to be seen as supporting her communist views of total government control. Of course, this is the antithesis of their views about government.
Hillary Clinton
The Bush administration tried to ward off the crises. For two years now Bush has been warning everyone in Congress of a coming crisis, but "the government"--that is Congress, including Hillary Clinton, has refused to take action. Bush said the California crisis of two years ago was likely to spread. He said that California created its own crisis, remember? It was California's responsibility to solve it. It was big electric power business in bed with the governor, Gray Davis by name. Experts have been warning about the coming crisis for several years.
Bush's statements on energy are well, known, even by his enemies. Some of his ideas about fossil fuel resources seem "antique," to the environmentalists, and therefore the environmentalist lobby has succeeded in keeping Congress from doing anything about the energy crisis. They want no more logging, drilling, or digging. Soon, there will be no more power! That appears to be their plan, so they can blame Republicans and conservatives, and advocate socialized energy, or more complete government control over the country.
Hillary's crowd creates the crisis, then blames others in order to gain moral superiority. This is lying--in biblical proportions. This is having the conscience seared with a hot iron (1Tim. 4:2) This is the strong delusion that believes a lie (2Thes. 2:11). Yes, the greed of big business has wreaked much havoc, included the Mexican immigration crisis and cheap labor. But to say the Bush administration has caused the energy crisis is simply a lie.
Hillary's reference to the founding fathers is blasphemous. Though we've come to expect nothing less from her, this is about as bad as it's going to get. The only thing left for her now is to start quoting the Bible itself in condemnation of others and in justification of herself. Maybe she should become a homosexual Episcopal priest. That would add one more certificate to her illustrious qualifications in moral chicanery.
Today Japan noted it's 58th anniversary of its national surrender (to the U.S.) and the end of World War II.
Prime Minister Koizumi
Something about this strikes me as haunting. I nearly cry. It is a profound sentiment of remorse that was expressed by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. Who could manage such feelings, such contrasts of pride, humilation, remorse, guilt, and honor? The Japanese are an extremely proud people. Honor is paramount.
For the Japanese to "apologize" is stunning, to me. It is the antithesis of a Bill Clinton apology, which is nothing more than a narcissistic indulgence, or grandstanding, or dramatizing for political effect. No, Japan's gesture is remarkable, in my opinion.
The Japanese are a warrior race. They are not Judeo-Christian, by heredity or circumstance. No, that deep groaning in their soul is not an academic, or fabricated doctrine. It represents the raw anxiety of the heathen. It is grand, and mighty. It is real, not learned.
I know that among American Indian people, guilt is not something generally felt in Judeo-Christian terms (unless Indians have been nutured in this faith). In the old days, there was shame, there was a sense of actions not bringing about good. But there was not the articulated, detailed, act by act account of "sin." The person simply unerstood that his actions brought harm. This was shameful.
I feel this deep, primal disquietude in the Japanese. This thing the Prime Minister did, this is a very great thing. His words were simple, and honorable. I accept his response, and count him noble in this regard. (Maybe it's just a warrior thing.)
Yet, all the other Asians are still ticked off at Japan! Oh, they're coming on just like all the "minorities" in America. "You owe us everything! You can never pay us enough! You can never make up for it!" Perhaps this is all true. Perhaps historical wrongs can never be made right. That's what the Judgement Day is for.
For now, it seems that no words suffice on a political, national level. I'll just say I appreciate the sentitments of Prime Minister Koizumi. An apology from such a man is not an apology, but an honor.
(I just forget about what a Japanese girl told me one time. "If you want to win, you must always apologize!")
Bill O'Reilly had a special guest last night (Aug. 12): Ernie Stevens, Jr., (Oneida-Wisconsin), chairman of the Nation Indian Gaming Association. Why? O'reilly wanted to talk about money. Casinos are bringing in billions of tax free dollars to Indians. It wasn't because O'Reilly has any concern for Indians.
Ernie Stevens, Jr.
Be that as it may, I am concerned, especially about the dubious effect casinos are having in Indian country. Like just about everyone else, O'Reilly resents such staggaring figures. It has to be "unfair" that this kind of money comes to Indians. Casinos are bad PR for Indians.
I'm concerned about the growing envy and resentment, but I'm more concerned about where the money actually goes, and the increasing suspicions and even animosity that this question is brewing toward Indians.
Stevens said the casino story "is a success story." He's very upbeat, of course. But I have to question it. This is the same Stevens that, in order to assuage American public resentment, said that of the "thousands of jobs" created by the casino industry over 75% are held by non-Indians. Well, that was encouraging!
Why, the Spirit of Sovereingty Scholarship Foundation, a foundatation set up to provide scholarships for students, has doled out a whopping $100,000 to 20 students for the 2002-2003 school year. Why, that's $5,000 each. That should at least pay for college textbooks for an incoming freshman.
It just seems like a microscopic amount, juxtaposed to the $13 billion raked in this year by the casinos. The figures speak for themselves, no matter what Stevens says. Stevens spoke at a recent Pine Ridge High School commencement, peddling the same psychological wares. Gambling money is the answer to Indian problems. Interestingly, however, it wasn't the answer in his own personal life. Stevens grew up in LA, but experienced the typical Indian issues of poverty, divided family, relocation, lack of education, etc.
I don't see money as the solution to Indian problems today, either. "Black" athletes have demonstrated time and time again that fabulous amounts of money do not solve personal character problems.
I don't believe casino money will bring "sovereignty" in the end. I believe casinos will destroy what little Indians have left. Sovereignty first pertains to the soul, not the bank account. Casinos are turning everyone against Indians, and they will push the issue over the brink, and the federal government will finally dissolve the reservations.
People are simply unaware of the social problems caused by casinos. This juicy info is kept in the background, if not entirely hidden. But it will come out, in due time, when it's too late to turn the tide.
Suzanne Smalley, of Newsweek, reports that teen-age girls in America are selling their bodies for quick cash, so they can go buy the clothes they want. In her recent Newsweek article, Smalley says more and more girls are being solicited in shopping malls, by teen-age boy pimps, and cooperate simply get the money they need to shop with.
Smalley is pretty young herself, but has been studying and writing professionally on youth problems for a few years now. Her report is very serious, not to be cast aside, despite its disturbing content.
Selling the body is indeed a form of slavery, and has existed for centuries, and still exists in the world today, especially in over-populated, poverty stricken environments. It seems the only way out, the only way to survival. It is also practiced in capitalistic countries with large immigrant populations. Asian girls are victimized in England by organized crime. There are efforts being made to identify all this body trafficking. (Heaven only knows what American Indian women have been through. This information is not so readily available. I wonder why.)
However, Smalley's report is about middle to upper class American girls, from fairly affluent environments, who nevertheless resort to selling a sex act just to get immediate cash to run and buy a new pair of jeans.
“'Compared to three years ago, we’ve seen a 70 percent increase in kids from middle- to upper-middle-class backgrounds, many of whom have not suffered mental, sexual or physical abuse,' says Frank Barnaba of the Paul & Lisa Program, which works with the Justice Department and the FBI in tracking exploited kids."
Why is this happening? Obviously, sex is not considered anything but a simple pleasure. That is it connected with the entire human being, the entire life, is conventiently hidden. Everything is for the moment, for the momentary gratification. What's wrong with it. Just an easy way to make good money. What child has enough maturity, experience, and knowledge to know any different?
Where are the parents? What have they not taught the child? Have they taught the child any Christian standard? Does the evil culture trump that teaching, regardless? Can we blame parents for this failure? Has Hillary's village failed? Do we need the government to help parents teach their children right from wrong?
Well, I'd like to think this Smalley report is just a white female liberal exaggeration, to counter balance all the ill reports of the darker women, the women of the third world, women of race involved in forced prostitution. It's as if Smalley has to say, "See? Why, rich white women fail too. We're all in this together, sisters. Let's all network."
But I fear this is not the case. Any news story does seem to be exaggerant, just by nature, by the focus. Yet, the culture of the country, yea, of the world, does in fact demote sex to very much a nothing act, a thoughtless pleasure, like a soft drink, or a candy bar.
Unfortunately, this use of sex is what's called a vice. It generally is an unbreakable chain, with life-long ill effects. But, this is a politically incorrect description of the aftermath. The human condition must not be cast in such negative light. We can never use the word "sin," or even "wrong" when it comes to human behavior. We must be "tolerant" of all. That is the liberal line.
What liberals don't understand is that their obliteration of standards makes their own case weak as water. They negate any Judeo-Christian ideology of the human being, then expect the have weight in their lamentations for human suffering. With no standard of right and wrong, who's to say who is suffering? And how? I cannot be impressed with any liberal dirge on human pain. I feel that liberals contribute too directly to the demise of culture.
Arnold Schwarzenegger might become the next governor of the state of California. Many people think he has good chances. Pat Buchanan thought so nearly two months ago. On a fairly comical political stage, Schwarzenegger is as good a risk as any running.
Being married to Maria Shriver, a maternal Kennedy, does nothing but boost his chances. (It is said she was the main decision maker.) Despite her profound Democratic connections, however, Arnold is running on the Republican ticket. He is understood to be a fiscal conservative and social moderate.
Maria and Arnold
The hidden reason, the socio-psychological reason he might win, however, is simple: he is a German, with a heavy German accent. Patrick Reddy quotes from Wendy Leigh's biography of Schwarzenegger: "He arrived in America a penniless bodybuilder, born in an obscure Austrian village, armed only with the immigrant's time-honored weapons of hope, ambition and an almost supernatural belief in the great American Dream. Arnold Schwarzenegger has become a Hollywood legend, a latter-day Jay Gatsby, a self-created man whose unwavering belief in himself has led him to scale undreamed-of heights in quest of his chosen destiny.�What, in fact, does Arnold still want?"
Yes, he has exemplified the advantages of American freedom. But the case goes deeper. Michael-Weiner-turned-Savage-for-profit 'exposed' a lot of Arnold's family background, clearly trying to make it appear that Schwarzenegger is a never-to-be-trusted Nazi, and that electing such a Kraut would be just another sign of the stupidity and idiocy of uninformed American people. Of course, Weiner doesn't archive his radio shows. His commentary was early last week, and is not available on the internet.
The German background, and its occasional manifestations, is however, an obviously psychological winning point for Arnold. Why? Americans love to forgive. It's so macho. It arises from the position of strength. It allows Americans to show strength in a non-violent way. Twice America whipped that war-monger tribe of central Europe, and that a tribal son should become a success in America only shows the sublimated, sub-conscious admiration Americans have for warriors. The German war machine was unforgettable. The whole Nazi regime was a masterpiece of human manipulation and power. Any warrior admires the strength of another warrior.
And the white racial pride that the average American is so terrified to express lies latent in the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Electing him will be a vicarious cry of help, a desperate cry from what's left of America in California. This election will be about instincts of nationalism, racial equality that allows white people to be proud, and about masculine strength. It will have very little to do with issues or politics. It will be about Arnold saving what's left of America in California.
At least, that's what everyone subconsciously thinks. The truth is, most modern Germans are anxious to demonstrate a liberal, multicultural side, to show to the world that they are above racial pride now. They've 'liberalized' themselves in their own reaction to the past. It may end up that Arnold is more "American" than Californians really need right now.
Mel Gibson's new movie "The Passion" has caused incredible controversy even before it's been released. Everyone wants in on the act. Why? It's just a movie. Do movies really have social effects?
Does spirituality and moral encouragement ever come from entertainment? Doesn't the stage itself disqualify any true spirituality, by definition? Is not "acting" the antithesis of sincerety?
Perhaps the deeper question is, Why does American society take movies so seriously? Is all the hype just the livelihood of the commentators, or have Americans really lost their way, and have come to look at movies as the teacher now, as the source of reality, the measure of truth? Has the church indeed failed so utterly? Reality TV, the title itself betrays some lost soul of American society.
Actors crave the publics attention, of course, by nature. But now they want to be taken seriously as persons, as individual human beings. After having abandoned all personal morals in the Judeo-Christian tradition, they want to be known as great carers for humanity, as moral activists, no less! Naturally, they were nearly all against the war with Iraq (except Gibson!). Poor little Rosie O'Donnell said to Phil Donahue, "I don't know everything about this situation...but I know that war is wrong." The audience emoted with support for such a naive platitude.
Maybe people are secretly angry that a movie should be made about Christ. After all, Christ is sacred to some people in the world. Putting the story in an entertainment venue is sacrilege to them. Any human depiction, save that envisioned within one's own inspired soul, is inevitably degrading, misleading, and idolatrous.
That such a movie sould cause concern in the Jewish community is hardly substantiated. The Jewish community is widely misunderstood on this point, and perhaps is even self-misrepresented. It is not not Christ to which Jews generally object, or speak out against at all. It is the Church. It is Gentile Christians who have persecuted Jews for centuries. This is hardly to be blamed on the New Testament, but on the institutionalization of it, the culturalization of it, the abuse of it. There are Jewish people, in all sincerety, as far as they can see, who believe the New Testament actually encourages anti-semitism. But I still don't hear them criticizing the New Testament. I hear them criticizing the Church. They will always win the arugment there.
When I was in Hamdent, CT, at Temple Beth Shalom, I remember when Rabbi Benjamin Scolnic first came to the Temple as the new Rabbi, some 18 years ago. I remember one of the first things he did was create a Wednesday night class in which he lead interested members in a reading of the New Testament. "Christians are never going to make the effort to find out what we believe, so we have to find out what they believe," R. Scolnic said. I'll never forget that.
Richard Poe has an interesting debate going on about this controversy between Jew and Christian. I also have an entry on my Jewish Forum. There is something worth discussing, but I think most people are missing the deeper issue, and that is the "role" movies are playing the American society.
"Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth." Isaiah 45:22.
"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden." Matthew 11:28
"Whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely." Revelation 22:17
All are invited, but not all are accepted. Nothing is more clear and certain in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. That God loves and invites all does not mean that all are in fact saved, or that all enter the pearly gates, "for without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whoever loveth and maketh a lie." Revelation 22:15.
The problem with liberal theologians is that they equate the invitation with guaranteed salvation. Right now in the Episcopal church, the homosexaul bishop Gene Robinson thinks that God is indescriminate, and universal in His love and acceptance. It just isn't so, if one's God is the God portrayed in the Bible. It is a different god these liberals have. That means it is an "idol" they hold before the true God. A blasphemous concept is the same as an idol. These Episcopal leaders, with their unscriptural ideas, are basically idolators.
Many churchs are infected with such idolatry. It is part and parcel in being human, in being a social institution. Everyone wants the validation that comes by associating with the Bible. That is the common man's use of the Bible, erroneous as that often turns out to be. But church leaders often validate themselves merely by their own ideas. Their association with the church and with church tradition make them think their ideas are as valid as any other in history.
The issue of the church's condition as a social institution is very much a side issue. Concerns over unity, division, etc., are related to money and property, really. There is no point in arguing about unity of beliefs, as does Dennis LeBlanc in Christianity Today. There is no biblical precedent for moral decisions based on economic issues. If the beliefs are in error, the perpetrators are "excommunicated" regardless. In other words, purity of faith is the exclusive issue, and it certainly excludes those who defile it.
Yet, we all know we can't get a huge group of people (or even two) to think absolutely alike. So where do we draw the line? Is it somewhere between standards of righteousness and what color the sanctuary carpet should be?
We're human, so we tend to rest on the material. Unity is not really our thing. It is rare. Only once in the bible did it happen in a large social circumstance. It was Solomon's inaugural. (1 Chronicles 28, 29). Under all normal circumstances, the human condition is constantly diverse.
But I say let the Episcopal church divide. Let those who honor the Bible do the honorable thing: separate themeselves from the apostasy. In so doing, they will set a worthy example for all human concourse. Value means sacrifice. Go along-get along always means to move downward, morally. Christians are under no such obligation when it somes to moral standards.
I encourage Episcopalians to have courage, and withdraw from idolatry. America needs to see such a move, such a faith, and such a victory. American society is desperate for truth, and for people who are willing to sacrifice for it.
So, Larry Flynt is running for governor of California. Are we surprised? This is the man who became famous for the filthiest porno publication America had ever allowed, back in the late '70's. His rag, Hustler, brought about the term "hard porno," as opposed to what then became Hefner's "soft porno," as in Playboy.
(Don't even look Flynt up on the web. You're computer may crash. You may be overloaded with aggressive porno in your face. You may end up investigated by the FBI! Seriously, people have been accused of possessing illicit materials simply because there was a record of sites on their computer. Judges have learned, however, to be careful in this. In August, 2002, Oklahoma Payne County District Judge Donald L. Worthington dismissed charges against a man because record of site visits was not equivalent to downloading and possessing the material.)
I was in Atlanta, GA, in the late '70's, when Flynt came to town. I was working on one of my masters at Emory University. Flynt came in, stuffed a mail-out in every house in Atlanta, promoting his new trash. This mail-out had horrible pictures (on in living color) of abused childred, beaten nearly to death. Flynt's graphic effluvia advocated the idea that porno allowed men to release their sexual energy more normally, and that without it, men get frustrated and beat their children. Why, it was a proven psychological law, sexual frustration leads to violence against children! (A great argument for the defense of David Westerfield, who looked at porno on the internet, then killed a child.)
Well, the Baptists didn't believe it. One ol' boy loaded up his shotgun and blew the devil out of Larry Flynt. This is why Flynt is permanently crippled, in a wheelchair.
Actually, I can't give the Baptists credit for this. Joseph Paul Franklin was a violent white supremacist, who happened to have religious convictions. At least, that was the word of the town when this happened.
I knew a girl who was part of the care-giving team at the Emory University hospital, where Flynt was taken. He was in the ICU for many days. Sheila Goldstein, a nice Jewish girl from Miami, spent a lot of time alone, on watch, with Flynt. She was in nursing, and was a special friend of mine. She told me about the heat and hate she took just for being in the same room with the nearly dying Flynt. "It was terrible," she said. "People hated me. Other nurses said horrible things about me." Sheila handled it nobly, and I was most impressed with her character (as well as her lion-like red hair!).
Shiela Goldstein
California will not elect Flynt, to be sure, but, the idea that such a man feels comfortable being in the public eye says a lot about the dim vision of that public eye. Flynt is connected with prostitution and casinos as well as pornography. People need to understand how aggressive and coercive these industries really are. Of course, illegal drugs are foundational to the same industries.
This is why I despise the idea of casinos for Indian reservations. Hell comes with the casino. Indians are already in hell, socially. This will finish us off.
There is no protection from coercion.
I was researching Pete Rose, back when I posted on Sammy Sosa, and the fall of certain pro baseball players. Rose's problem was gambling. I clicked on a site about Rose and casinos, and what came up? A violent porno site. I had to shut off my computer to get rid of the site. And it wasn't one site, it was a battery of endless sites, one after another. This is outrageous, it seems to me. I was looking for Pete Rose information, not porno sites. But this is how aggressive the industry is. Casinos mean crime and degradation, certainly to anyone who already has problems with self-control. (When the government made it legal to sell liquor to Indians in 1954, the government did no favors to Indians. That kind of equality we could have done without.)
I'm against casinos. I'm against porno. I'm against Larry Flynt. I think I'm against California!
The first step toward total injustice in the Kobe Bryant case has been taken. Kobe and his wife attended a public ceremony, the 2003 Teen Choice Awards, and Kobe was honored as the favorite male athlete. Not a colossal event, but still in the Universal Amphitheatre of Universal, California.
This comes just after new revelations of curious incidents came to light from Kobe's house. There was a 911 phone call from the house on March 5th, and another 911 call the very night of the alleged rape, just before Kobe turned himself in. In both cases, a "female" was attended to. There is no information as to who the female was, or what the problem was. The March 5th report indicates a female was taken to the hospital, treated, then returned home.
Sounds mysterious. Sounds like drugs? Hysteria? Diabetes? Heart? Sounds like we're missing vital imformation here. It is probably for good reason, too. We don't know who the other woman was, or even if it was an adult. Kobe had a girl in January. But how could such simple information be confused or obstructed? Is it just a matter of privacy, or might it effect the public jury's opinion of Kobe?
The latest news summary says the girl willingly started sexually 'messing around' with Kobe (after having been invited into his room), then decided against it. This makes the case against him less clear, and the report says there were no witnesses, except for the girl's bashed body.
No witnesses? Not so true. One report says there was. It is a careful report. Emails are traceable, and demonstrable evidence in themselves. It seems to me that the media is already covering for Kobe. He's just too valuable to too many people. We just can't let him fall down. We have to hold him up.
The youth of California still love Kobe. They share his same morality. They identify with him. Isn't this a triumph of social compassion, now? He's still their favorite athlete, and now has won their hearts with his sexuality. Oh, this is beautiful. Chalk another one up for the American Negro male.
Kobe's covered already by the NBA. Chris Sheridan's AP wire (Aug. 3) sums it all up nicely. "Lessons" can be learned from Kobe. See? What a wonderful experience this has been for all of us. We'll all be better persons for it. But then Sheridan lists all the problems of NBA players with the law, just in the month of July. Sheridan notes the sorry conditions of the profession:
"NBA rookies aren't the only ones who hear from the office of player development, which also speaks with each of the league's 29 teams twice during the season to counsel players on numerous topics: finance, continuing education, sexual health, domestic violence, traffic safety and gun laws.
A real professional clientele, this NBA, great and lucrative clients for big time social workers. The NBA is like the ghetto gone rich. Same problems, only put to good economic use.
The public will probably overlook it. Sports is too valuable to ban. The games are too important to disrupt. Even retired old O.J. was able to get by with an apparent double homicide. Such is the power of sports, the the status of the American Negro male on the field, on the court, and on the screen.
Don't worry, Kobe, we've all got you covered. Shoot! We'll get the rebound. You're a great contributor to American values. You're a great role model. You're just great. Period. You and all the big bosses you jump for.
Canon Gene Robinson believes God is inclusive, and that God includes homosexuals in His loving embrace of the world. (CNN, August 2)
Gene Robinson
Homosexual Gene Robinson, 53, (who left his wife and children in 1986) for a homosexual relationship, was just elected bishop and coadjutor of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire.
No, not all Episcopalians agree by any means, even though much of the church has already officially accepted homosexuality, and is now considering the "sanctity" of homosexual marriage. Robinson's election must be ratified by the church's national level authorities.
"There will be more rhetoric, but in the end the church will hold together," said the Rev. Michael Hopkins of St. George's Episcopal Church in Glenn Dale, Md., and who is president of the Episcopal homosexual-caucus Integrity.
So, righteousness is a matter of rhetoric. Now that's really sound theology. And certainly the media will tend to give the attention to the homosexual rhetoric, because that's the news. Tradition or establishement is not news.
Article III of the Church Constitution forbids the ordination of anyone who does not believe "the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation" and who does not "solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Episcopal Church."
But the homosexual wants change, not tradition. He wants homosexuality accepted, not condemned.
Therefore, the bishopric, the blessing of homosexual marriage, the most sacred institutions of the church itself, represent the most precious coup for the homosexual. Therefore, the homosexual is focused on achieving control over the church.
The homosexual agenda is definitely for acceptance, but that involves perpetuity and recruitment. It is most definitely aggressive, and intrusive. It is not static, but malignant. It must spread, in order to live.
At least, this is clear impression made by the very vocal homosexual activists. The "conservative" among them, of course, are rarely outspoken, like any other "conservative." Is there such a thing as a conservative homosexual? In terms of modern relativism, liberalism, and high tolerance of ambiguity, probably so.
In terms of the Biblical standard of human behavior, however, homosexuality is out, not in, and that's OT (Lev. 18:22) and NT (Romans 1:24-31). Only a conveniently fancied god of tolerance and subjective, self-aggrandizing, self-justification would glorify the deformity of homosexuality. Self-love is the antithesis of morality, and not to be found in scripture.
Now, I personally do not suffer from this particular malady, but am faithfully occupied with others. One does not seek to "mistreat" the homosexual, but if one has any regard for the Bible at all, or even a descent respect for others who do, one does not try to use the Bible or the church to justify such degrading, humiliating vice (--sin by Biblical definition).
Gene Robinson is the product of profound self-delusion. He is a deceiver, and ought to be recognized as such. This is not political, this is Biblical. He commits blasphemy, as do all that support him.
The Episcopal Church is not united at all in this matter of homosexuality, so there is no need for demoninational prejudice here. My closest friend from Yale Divinity days, Rev. Ephraim Radner, author and priest, issued a marvelous statement on the matter at hand. Given from an ecclesiastical point of view, and in "church" lingo, the statement is the most comprehensive assessment of the issue in print. I recommend reading the full statement.
Rev. Ephraim Radner
Radner sees it as a matter of division in the church. He has always recognized division in the church as a sign of the alienation of the Spirit. He has even said that denominationalism is the highest evidence that the Holy Spirit is absent in the church.
I often wondered how Radner ever got ordained!--which is something I never accomplished. A older black friend of mine once said, "Dave, you don't have to tell me that...all I have to do is look at you, and I know you are not ordained." Shucks.
Well, at least I don't willfully contradict the teaching of the Bible to the point of utter, self-deluded blasphemy. The only reason a person would is to selfishly appropriate the authority that comes with association with the Bible. That's what homosexual "Christians" do.
I consider myself lucky. I do not have to deal with homosexuality in myself. Can a homosexual be a Christian? Can a robber or murderer be a Christian?
The first question is, Does he want to be a homosexual, robber or murderer? If he can answer that honestly, then we can have a discussion.