In the old days, there were ways in which one Indian became distinguished from another. But there were hardly what could be called "award" ceremonies about it. A Comanche man could distinguish himself in war, and also in material possessions. A brave with 150 horses was certainly more distinguished than one with 50 horses. But the people never had a "Brave John" night in which they all gathered round and celebrated his wealth or valour.
I don't know of a Comanche word that would mean "honor" or "award." Plains Indian language is more simple, and certain modern, European social concepts are simply not included. They would be superfluous and ineffectual.
Now, there were people among the hunting bands more influencial than others. There was something we might call a band headman. This would be the leader of a hunting/raiding band, or of an extended family, or what might be called a clan. But I don't know of any Comanche words that even designate such a position. Comanche life was incredibly intuitive and communal. There were no "elections." There were no contests for leadership. What white men would call a leader, or chief, was a Comanche who's role evolved over time. He grew to be distinguished by his evident foresight, wisdom, superior skills, etc., but not by a campaign to get elected. In spite of the renown and ferocious individualism in Comanche life, a leader became such as the result of social evolution among his relatively small group, or his numunukahn. Bad Eagle (quin-ne kish-su-it), 1839-1906, is identified as one of these leaders in historical records.
Honor, like gratitude, is associated with a religious social dimension which was simply not a defined process in old Comanche life.
Personally, I find intense value in this early life. It was a life without superfluity, without vanity (except for the Comanche male's apparent obssession with his hair!). It was a life streamlined by absolute pragmatism. In a way, it might be said to be the most advanced evolutionary state of the human race. All that was not needed for survival was dropped along the way somewhere.
Gratitude and thanksgiving in a way represent honoring the gods, or some great creator spirit. Comanche did not honor each other in such an abstract, conceptual manner, nor did they honor any such creator. Life was a more natural process, more in harmony with immediate reality. Gratitude, honor, or thanksgiving implied a level of abstraction which would have been foreign to early Comanche life.
LaDonna Harris
Ironically, LaDonna Harris, a Comanche woman, is one of the most "honored" Indians alive today. This is double irony, in that she is a woman and a Comanche! Her honors are certainly earned, and the gratitude expressed to her is genuine. She's really in a league of her own. There's hardly any Indian like her. But let's just say all this "honor" business is a newer social tradition, one that rubbed off on Indians from the European caste-icians, to whom life is an endless gradation process. Hey, it ain't LaDonna's fault the Europeans came here.
As far as I can tell, there really isn't any working concept of gratitude or thanksgiving in Indian culture, not in the early days, and certainly not in early Comanche culture. I don't know of even a word for it. One can say, "a ho!" these days, in pan-Indian culture, and that might cover it. (I don't know for sure, but that's probably a Sioux word.)
Yet, generosity on the part of a person is a profound expectation, especially in Comanche culture. There are some words which might be understood in white English to mean sharing, charity, or generosity. But when a Comanche gives, and he does not expect "thanks" in return. The concept is absent. In fact, one might even expect what appears to be ridicule or some other response that doesn't make sense to white people.
Quin-ne kish-su-it "Bad Eagle" (c.1880)
The Comanche mind is fearfully independent in this regard. In the old days, and even today, a man is measured by how much he does for the people, yet, "the people" is wholly undefined, factious, and indifferent. Approval or acceptance is never a goal of a Comanche man, because "the people" has its own, unreachable identity, and therefore can never be manipulated. A man is mistaken to expect anything other than what his family, clan, or friends may or may not say.
There aren't any etymologies on Comanche words that I know of, but new words were created occasionally, when new phenomenon came into the culture. I'm not sure tah ahk poor includes the character of the Hebrew God, but I know the early Comanches worshipped no god at all. Gratitude and thanksgiving are surely MiddleEastern concepts, depicting personal and national relationships with deity, and therefore, early Comanche had no such concepts in the culture.
This is why I don't worry now whether some Comanche seem offended at me or not. I trust "the people," and have no design to impress them. The people evolve their own reactions to phenomenon, and can never be "persuaded." If a few oppose me, and even try to work against me, I see it as only a family, clannish response, and in no way representative of "the people." It is a very uninformed Comanche who would ever think to control "the people," or to act as if he is speaking for them.
I don't speak "for" Comanche people, or for Indians. I am a Comanche Indian, and I happen to foresee ominous influences coming our way in the near future. I am simply trying to work against these, on a a legislative level, on a national level. Whether Indians will ever see this, and appreciate it, is hardly my concern. One gives, one does not take. One gives, because one loves.
Besides, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." Hmmm. Maybe Jesus was Comanche. Well, I hope I don't get myself crucified--unnecessarily.
Today the Chief of the Iraqi Governing Council, Jalal Talabani, ordered the largest Arabic TV network to shut down it's operations in Baghdad. Iraqi police raided the station offices and enforced the ban. Al Arabiya had broadcast an audio tape of a voice declared to be that of Saddam Hussein, calling for jihad (holy war) against the occupying forces in Iraq. Talabani said this was incendiary, and would not be tolerated. Talabani said Al Arabiya was not an element of the free press, and was rather a tool for inciting violence and acts of terrorism (murder).
Jalal Talabani
Chief of the Iraq Governing Council
Censorship? Shall this ruling be named with the "C" word? Robert Fisk, of CounterPunch already used the word back in September. "Occupation and Censorship" was his description of the American effort in Iraq. The liberal response to todays decision will be dramatized in many circles.
the liberal says, "Your enemy must be allowed the freedom to destroy you. Never mind the meaning of war, the power of force, or the purpose of democracy. If you don't allow the enemy the freedom to instigate, plan, and attack you, your program of democracy is a sham." That is the liberal lie at its loudest, right now, in Baghdad.
The truth is, freedom is never absolute. The rhetoric of the sincere must never delineate it as such. Freedom does not mean chaos. The Leftists want to mean that, because tyranny is most easily established out chaos. But freedom does not mean absence of law and order. Freedom requires law and order. It is all matter of degrees. There are limits to freedom, and the Iraqi Governing Council is experiencing the necessity freedom's limitations, right on the front lines, literally.
The typical Liberal language ploy is to put all the emotions of the word freedom behind the word "censorship," so everyone will recoil in horror at the sound of the word censorship. This is just another usurpation of words by the revolutionary Left. Censorship is a power word, and the Left always tries to control power words.
But as every good parent knows, a good child is raised through censorship and discretion. One can not give absolute freedom to the child. There are things good for the child, and things not good. The child is to be trained to know the difference. Dr. Benjamin Spock, after trashing American childcare for half a century, finally admitted the unintended effect of his work was all wrong. Permissiveness causes frustration and violence in a child's disposition. Anyone with common sense and experience always knows that, Dr. Spock. The goal of child rearing is to train the person to be self-contained, with self-mastery. This requires self-denial, or, "censorship" and discrimination. One must chose between the good and the evil. Not all that exists in this world is worthy or preferable. There is much to be avoided.
This is true at all levels of life, and in all dimensions, even in the national experience. As it is written in the American hymn:
America! America! God mend thine every flaw,
Confrim thy soul in self-control, Thy liberty in law.
Katherine Lee Bates, 1904
Love of country, love of God, love of truth, don't make the headlines in the Oklahoman, the paper established and owned by the late Edward L. Gaylord, and declared the worst paper in the United States. (Instead, today's headlines, Nov. 23, 2003, in the hard copy edition are about Indian gambling revenue and Indian "contributions" to Democratic candidates. The online edition headlines include one about Guy Liebmann, interum OKC mayor. This is councilman being sued by Moshe Tal for accepting a bribe to change his vote on the OKC "Bass Pro" fraud.)
No, the best of Oklahomans won't be found in the news. (At least, I couldn't find them there.)
Yesterday, Saturday, Novemeber 22, 2003, nearly five hundred of these Oklahomans met on the south steps of the Oklahoma State Capitol, to rally in support of former Chief Justice Roy Moore, and in support of the freedom of legislators to express their religious values publically, and to support the idea that America must acknowledge its Judeo-Christian foundations. They all supported the idea of honoring the Ten Commandments as the foundation of America. If I wasn't there at the rally, I'd find no news evidence that the event happened. As a matter of fact, it was announced at the opening of the rally that like rallies were being held in all fifty states of America, this same day, at the same time. But I have seen or heard no news of any of it in general media.
Oklahoma State Capitol
Over a dozen dignitaries spoke at the rally. Mike Jestes, Ex. Dir. of Oklahoma Family Policy Council denounced judicial tyranny, citing many recent examples at the national level. House Rep. Carolyn Coleman affirmed the Judeo-Christian heritage of America and the need to preserve it. The esteemed House Rep. Bill Graves honored the Constitution, and said we are witnessing an attack on Christian culture, and warned against removing the historical standards. House Representatives John Nance, Mike Reynolds, and Thad Balkman all gave intensely inspiring testimonies of patriotism, responsibility, and faith. Senator Randy Brogdon said the country is based on God and the family.
Educators and political officers contributed their testimonies as well. Bunny Chambers, of the Oklahoma chapter of Eagle Forum, said in protest to the atheistic socialist traitors in American leadership, "They do not own our children!" Ministers spoke and prayed as well. "Let the righteous rule over us, oh God," prayed Pastor Jerry Wells. These leaders also wanted people to own up to the fact of our having neglected our duties and responsibilities of keeping watch of our own country. It is the people's country, not the government's. They all called for the removal of godless judges.
Everyone was invited to sign a petition to "demand that congress pass legislation what will prohibit the federal courts from taking cases that would in any way regulate, restrict, or prohibit religious speech or activity in the States."
And, yes, Oklahoma's finest, the Home Schoolers, were there too. Drew Holmes, 17, (whose father and mother, Thom and Susan Holmes organized the rally) is the chairman of the Teen Eagles and Collegians, the youth division of Eagle Forum. BadEagle.com has posted an important speech of young Holmes already. Drew invited other young people to join what I call the New Patriots.
It was a moving rally, for anyone who cares about America more than the afternoon football game. It revived the soul, really, just to know that there are people willing to make an effort. A young mother named Heidi had opened the rally leading the national anthem. She also closed, solo, with the seldom sung but desperately needed message of the last verse:
Oh thus be it e'er when free men shall stand
Between their lov'd homes and war's desolation!
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that has made and presrv'd us a nation
And conquer we must when our cause is just
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
(Heidi was very much 'with child.' Imagine the story at this child's birth. "You were a patriot in your mother's womb!")
California State University at Hayward is just across the bay from San Fransisco. CSU is intensely international, and, naturally, very liberal. However, ironic as it may seem, the economics department seems to have some stiff conservatives. The Smith Center for Private Enterprise Studies is like a conservative oasis in a sea of raging Leftists. Created by Owen and Erma Smith in 1991, the inaugural lecture of the Center was given by none other than Milton Friedman. Perhaps it isn't so ironic after all. Competitive business, which always produces the best results, requires free enterprise, or, economic freedom. The key word there is freedom. Freedom is conservative, not liberal. Making money, itself, is the loudest proof.
The Yeagley Billing At California State
The audience was profoundly international. Yet, I found the students seriously conservative. The questions they asked were the most pointed, intelligent, and insightful I have yet to encounter in my university engagements. Dr. Charles Baird, Director of the Center, said that most the students attending were in economics.
I shall say the speech was successful. There were no vehement disagreements, in fact no protests, at all. If I may say so, I felt the students were inquiring more into my sense of American patriotism than asking any specific questions about the Left. My speech, calling upon American Indians to become once again the host to all America, and to guide America into a new era of patriotism, seemed to appeal greatly to these foreign students (many of whom spoke as if they were American-born). An Asian girl asked the first question: "What is your opinion of the Patriot Act?" I said I objected to it. Deportation of certain people, if only temporary, was the better solution.
I must say, for the first time in my public speaking, I did call everyone's attention to the fact that the Republican Party has offered no game plan for Indian people. The Democratic party has found great resources in the Indian casino industry, granting licenses in exchange for campaign contributions. The Republican political response to this is to dissolve the reservations, and force assimilation on Indians. I told to the audience that neither party shows an understanding of Indian people, nor offers practical concern. I reminded them that casino money is poured in from non-Indian gamblers, and that it enriches only the few Indian leaders that make the deals. It is all based on coercion from non-Indian forces. At least, the largest Indian tribe of all, the Navajo, has steadfastly refused to allow the big casinos on their reservation.
Before I left Hayward, we discussed a meeting with Arnold Schwarzenegger. It appears that he may be having to make some pace-setting decisions regarding the sovereignty and legal status of the reservations. He desperately needs to tax their casino income. Before such a decision is made, as a ominous precedent with insufficient insight into its ripple effects in Indian country, I must definitely sit down with Awnold.
In the meantime, I can say it was a most pleasurable experience at the Smith Center. Dr. Baird, I might add, is another fine "crusty old Scotsman" with family originally from Nova Scotia. He said, "all Scotsmen are old and crusty. I can say that. I'm one of them." He said his grandfather had married an Algonquian. I heartily invited him to BadEagle.com, and assured him we had trusty Scots that could probably find out for him everything he wanted to know.
Let's hope that Indian people today can find healthy ways to compete, economically, in America. I realize that, according to the treaties, we don't have to. But, I say, Indians today cannot sit on the glory of our warrior fathers, who bought the treaties with their blood. We need to become warriors again, and become worthy of the treaties. In this way, we show all non-white Americans how to relate to "historical injustice." We show all Americans what it means to be patriots.
I can only pray that white Americans appreciate what they have created, and stop giving it away to people who never fought for it, and don't deserve it.
My compatriots, I will be in California for the next couple of days. I haven't had the time to prepare a new journal entry (blog), as I had intended.
There are so many important topics to follow, like Schwarzenegger's classic, patriotic inaugural speech; Barbara Streisand's grotesquely inappropriate and nigh maniacal criticism of Ronald Reagan for not doing more about AIDS; Rush Limbaugh's inadequate understanding of what his own experience; the general failure of Indian men; the price of plutonium in China; the stultifying prospect of Hillary Clinton running for president; or even the expense of having a pet in America.
We shall return to these and other topics upon my return. My speech in California (California State/Hayward) is entitled: How The Left Stole the Indian Image. I know I have the full support of all Indians--especially those posting lately on BadEagle! I will bring back a full report. (But I may not have to. Suzan Harjo may sketch another article based on some tape recording someone sends her. That's how her other article was done.)
In the meantime, I do hope every one continues to exchange thoughts in a useful manner. Remember the difference between attacking someone and educating someone. It takes an open mind to be educated, as well as to educate. We're all learning the difference. And sometimes, it's just important that someone just says what he wants to say, with no intent but just to say it. There is a place for that too.
Let's all be hopeful. Thank you, and be well, all.
John Robinson (1576-1625), pastor of the Pilgrims (who never made it to the New World from Leyden, Holland) knew that the purpose of coming to New England was to establish a Christian community. August 5, 1620, he wrote a letter to his congregation about to depart for the New World. In that letter are these words:
Lastly, whereas you are become a body politic, using amongst yourselves civil government, and are not furnished with any persons of special eminency above the rest, to be chosen by you into office of government; let your wisdom and godliness appear, not only in choosing such persons as do entirely love and will promote the common good, but also in yielding unto them all due honor and obedience in their lawful administrations...
Did they come to establish a state? If so, by whose authority? Is a state essentially different from a "community?" One modern day pastor, Rev. Doug Phillips has preached sermons (history lessons) to the effect that the Pilgrims had in mind the purpose of evangelizing the new world. Their conscious, established plan was to preach Christ to the savage Indians. That was their express purpose.
I see a profound conflict of ideas here. To establish a Christian community on someone else's home territory, for the purposes of pursuading the host to change his way of life, is one thing; to establish a state, or a nation, on someone else's home land, is quite a different thing.
I know of no Biblical mandate for the Pilgrims to think as they thought regarding the Indians, when it came to the matter of land and territory. They were following the European presumption that the Indians were like wild animals, and the land was not owned by anyone. It was up for European "grabs."
There is a precedent, however, in the Jewish invasion of Canaan to establish the kingdom of Israel in 14th century BC (conservative date). But any supposed divine command to establish America is just that, a supposition.
I do believe America is providential, however, and the government was created by Christian men who valued the Bible as their guide in all things. I do believe this is the secret of how America became the great nation it is.
But, unless the fathers' purpose was to uproot and destroy all Indians who did not convert to their staunch, British ideas of Christianity, unless their plan comprised the elimination of the Indian, then the treaties they made with Indians are as sacred as their Christian religion. Modern Christian businessmen and Republicans better think twice before they work toward the dissolution of treaties, or the forced assimilation of Indian people.
American Indians are the one exception in American society. True, America cannot foster Haitian voodoo, Islamic mania, Hindu excesses, or English Wicca paraphernalia. (Virginia's U.S. District Court Judge Dennis W. Dohnal is an enemy of the state for declaring Wiccan Cindi Simpson can pray at official Chesterfield County board meetings like other "clergy.") America has no such obligations. There are no wars or treaties with these people in the creation of America.
But there were wars and treaties with Indians. Indians are not to be legally classified or defined as a minority group, a minority religion, or a minority rights reference for any reason. Indian tribes were recognized as independent nations, and treaties were established on that basis. Indians must not seek to identify with minority groups or racial coalitions. This belittles our status.
No redefinition of Indians can transpire without the denial of the founding fathers' world view, a denial of the Pilgrims' principle of a Christian state (which made treaties with Indians) and a denial of the Christian principle of free-will, which never sanctions coercion.
It's happening. Be sure of it. In the name of God, states rights, and the American Constitution, the deep South rises to make America remember what the country is supposed to be.
The patriot flag?
Former Chief Justice of Alabama Roy Moore is leading what will surely become the most significant social and political reform in modern American history. It good effects will exceed the detrimental influences of the '60's. Moore is spearheading the religious reform of the 21st Century.
Yes, the issues all center around the right of a elected, "sworn" state official to acknowledge the same God whom the founding fathers incorporated into the concept of the United States.
The lines have been drawn. The Alabama Court of the Judiciary has said no to Moore, and removed him from office. At present, the United States Supreme Court has refused to hear Moore's appeal over the Ten Commandments. Moore is was the Chief Justice of Alabama's Supreme Court, he is a refined gentleman, and a God-fearing, Bible-believing Christian. The United States Supreme Court will hear, however, the case of a disallusioned, deluded, child-abusing atheist, Michael Newdow, because his case is more worthy. He wants "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.
Is the God of the fathers now legally barred from government? The battle has just begun.
The South feels today that it alone stands for the United States Constitution. The South alone claims the original states rights outlined in the fundamentals of the nations laws. The South feels that the South alone stands for true patriotism.
Perhaps this time, they'll win.
In a wave of astute intellectual perception, one of America's top brass is now questioning whether Saddam Hussein has planned the insurgency all along. Says Major General Charls H. Swannack, Jr., "I believe Saddam Hussein always intended to fight an insurgency should Iraq fall." (Of course, CNN military analist David Grange disagrees. Saddam couldn't be "that clever.")
With such profound observations, how can America lose?
Forgive my sarcasm, but most thinking Americans have thought this all along. Of course Hussein planned it. Of course he's behind it. Did we expect that if left alive, he would retire from his purpose and threats? BadEagle.com has suggested that the whole failure of Iraqi forces was a design to "lure" America into the desert, where our troops would be picked off one by one. Hussein said they would all dig their own graves in Iraq.
Our military leaders have long been duped, brainwashed, or otherwise crippled by the liberal politics of the day, which is pleased not to destroy the enemy, but to be kind, patient, and bleed slowly, hoping and trusting in the good will of Islamic murderers. Our liberal government authorities would disarm the military, the same way they want to disarm the police, as well as the population. The tyrannical idealists want to win wars without killing people. They want peace through their own tyranny, that's all. The key word there is not peace, but tyranny.
Hussein could have and should have been taken out over a decade ago, but the UN forbade it and Bush, Sr. complied. Many people have died, in misery, because of this decision. But charity and good will toward a snake is the same as homicide or even suicide.
The dupery which prevails in the present world order is beyond anything we would have thought possible, given the great "advencement" of science and the wonderful arts of politics and litigation, and the overwhelming social authority of the universities.
It is all based on a false sense of good will, an abuse of conscience, and a deceptive ploy to make America turn over her sovereignty to the UN, or the globalists. It is unacceptable to hate, or to even think of having an enemy. It is unacceptable to say, "Islamic leaders cannot be trusted," even though they have religious, Qur'anic sanction to lie to "unbelievers." Why, they're really just as noble and human as everyone else, and they must be treated with respect. They have a right to be what they are.
It is unacceptable to destroy them, for that would deny their right to destroy you. They have equal right. You see, equal means more right than you. You're the big guy, and therefore, the little guy has the right to swing at you.
This is the globalist, UN doctrine. This is liberalism, set out to destroy whatever is strong, to bring down whatever is superior. This is communist "equality." This is how the international bankers keep wars going, and keep making money off them. This is where communism meets capitalism. Beware, all.
In perhaps the most significant case in recent months, illegal Mexican immigrant workers have filed a suit against Wal-Mart corporation. This is human equality transcending all nationality, and all law. Gilberto Garcia, attorney for the foreign criminals, filed the suit Wednesday, Nov.5, in the Superior Court of Freehold, New Jersey. Of 250 arrests in 21 states in 60 different Wal-Mart stores, the Freehold plaintiff case is the first resulting therefrom.
So, there are two important lessons: 1) foreigners, criminally resident in America, have the right to sue Americans, and muck up the already ridiculously obstipated court system (obstipated with ineviscerable complaints between American citizens), and 2) don't hire illegals, even if they work for free. If they fake their identity, and you get burned for hiring them, then their crime is double.
The country from which illegals come, be it Arabia, Mexico, or Russia, should be sued immediately upon discovery of the illegal's presence in America. This would be just.
However, the legal profession, as operative in America, is just a free enterprise, competitive business. Truth and justice are only tools in the contest. Falsehood and lying are equally potent tools in court. It is like gambling. Lie--you might win! Attorneys have to have cases. It is their living. (Well, maybe that's one profession here in American that really should be "socialized." They should all get the same fee for any and all cases. If there's not enough cases to go around, then they just live on their flat state salary.)
In Oklahoma City, Moshe Tal filed a suit against current interim mayor Guy Liebmann for slander. Oklahoma City Attorney William Burket so brilliantly observed (in front of District Court Judge Nora Gurich), "Your honor, it isn't a question of whether Mr. Liebmann's statements are true or false, but whether they are slander."
You see? Court isn't about true or false. It's about words, and who plays with them most adroitly. It's nothing more than a game, a verbal sport. Contrary to popular belief, there are no rules. Any attorney can attempt whatever he desires. There are no entry qualifications, except whether or not a clerk thinks the case is interesting enough for a good roust.
If Wal-Mart knew of the illegality of the employees, as Garcia suggests, then Wal-Mart is at fault. Perhaps, if Wal-Mart is sued royally, no one will ever, ever hire an illegal immigrant again. Anyone assisting an illegal in obtaining a false ID will be deported from America. Of course, such noble thoughts for the countries security and well-being are not on the mind of Garcia, but, in this case, he just might play into patriotism, despite is apparent communism.
"Go on Jocko! Do the best you can!" said Nell, his wife, as Jocko turned to stand with the last volunteers in the Alamo.
It was a sad moment of parting. Everyone knew the men would all be slaughtered. Their families were now departing from the Alamo fortress where they'd been staying. They knew the end was coming. The women and children were allowed to depart the premises before Santa Anna buried the Alamo and everyone left in it. They all knew the freedom fighters were only buying time for Sam Houston. They were buying time for an independent Texas.
The freedom fighters of the Alamo.
Shall we not join them?
Jocko hesitated. "I can't. I just can't," he said, as he looked at his departing wife, who was blind, and their children, sisters and grandmother. Jocko just couldn't abandon so many dependents. He had to depart with them. Colonel Travis agreed. Jim Bowie commanded Jocko to go an accompany his family, as they, and the other families began their departure from the Alamo fortress. It was the honorable thing to do, the men thought.
"Will Travis! Just who do you think you are?!" cried Nell. She hotly protested. "My man ain't goin' out. He's just as much a man as either one of you (Travis and Bowie), and maybe more!....Now, Jacko, you get back up on that wall, 'cause you're just as good as any man that ever trod leather!"
Nell Robinson let the rich Jim Bowie and the "finely educated" Colonel William Travis know just what honorable really meant. She wouldn't let them deny her husband the honor that was his--to die for the cause of freedom. To die in the Alamo. To die for the right thing.
It is a most compelling moment, perhaps one of the most powerful in all cinema. It was in John Wayne's Alamo, made in 196o.
On this great Veterans Day, Nov. 11, 2003, let's remember how really great a veteran's woman can be. Let's remember that true nobility in a woman, when her pride in her man is so complete that she will sacrifice her own security and love--for his honor, for the honor he has in giving his life from freedom. She lives through him. Her honor as a woman, is in his honor.
Can you believe it? Did you see the video aired on national television last Friday? Over a dozen armed police officers of Goose Creek, South Carolina entered a crowded hallway of Stratford High School, with weapons drawn and pointed at students! Students were ordered to the floor, while the police and canines searched for marijuana.
It was a raid, but no drugs were found, and no students were arrested (though some were reportedly hand-cuffed for not responding quickly enough). Check it out. Give Chief Harvey Becker a call: Office (843) 863-5200 ext 308. And call George C. McCracken, the principal of Stratford High: (843) 820-4000. He apparently ordered the raid, or cooperated. He certainly approved it.
This is astounding. This is as bad as the Elion Gonzales story. The youth of America have achieved full adult status, at home or in high school. The high school has been made the sounding board, the laboratory, the battle ground of all the issues of the country. This is not an exaggeration. The students might as well be in Baghdad.
Elian "arrested" by federal INS agents
Okay, so there's a "significantly above average" black population, and hispanic population, in the school, the town, on the football team, etc. There is also a significantly above average number of young people in Goose Creek. There is no indication that there was a race element involved in this raid, but, why not?
The point is, public school is no pleasant place for a young person these days. Anything can happen, and does. It is a desperate situation, and it isn't related to socio-economic circumstance. It is related to greed for power, power over the minds of the young.
What would happen if every city hall in the country were raided by police some time just to see who all had alcohol on his breath? What if every car were stopped as if left a bar or even a restaurant that served alcohol?
Adults wouldn't tolerate it too long, I dare say. Or, maybe I'm wrong. The plan is apparently to bully young people, while parents look on, and get used to it. Soon, the whole population will submit. It's only a matter of time.
Bienvenido! Announcing a new forum on BadEagle.com: The Mexican Forum. It is found under the Culture Category. The subject of Mexcio and Mexicans is today of great concern to America, for many reasons. This forum promises to contain a variety of topics, but the main theme is one for Mexican-American patriots, for those Mexicans who have always loved America, always fought for her, and always been part of her.
Of course, this is certainly not every Mexican around. The patriots are a distinct group, and deserve special place, voice, and attention.
And how shall we understand Mexico and America? Sometimes it's useful to conceive of national relations metaphorically, or, in terms of something more easily grasped. This is not an unprecedented approach. Today, it is called psychohistory. Anciently, it was called poetry. "When Israel was a child," it says in the Bible ((Hosea 11:1). This concept takes groups of people to be a sort of hyper-dimension of personhood. A group, or a nation, is like a person, also. History, the behavior of one nation toward another, can be understood on the same basis as an individual person's relationship with others.
Maria Cristina Estela Jurado Garcia,
better known as Katy Jurado, 1924-2002
Historically, then, Mexico can be thought of as America's first girlfriend. She was foreign, but not far. She was America's next door neighbor. And she made the wild southwest seem like home to a lot of American cowboys. She was beautiful as the night, charming as the moon, and when the truth is known, she had a lot to do with settling the west. The Alamo was just her foster parent complaining about her new boyfriend. (Spain raised her, but she had a mind of her own.) A lot of those cowboys were wayward Scotsmen and Irishmen. Those Mexican girls, with their black hair and dark eyes worked a magic charm. The Mexican girls were civilized, too, and the cowboys didn't have to worry too much about being scalped!
Guadelupe Velez de Villalobos, silent film
star, better known as Lupe Velez, 1908-1944
To make a long story short, she got fat and pregnant, and now she's moving in! America isn't quite sure what to do with her. America never wanted that. America has enough foster children herself!
BadEagle.com invites therefore the Mexican-American patriots to join in and distinguish themselves from the presumptious illiterates and illegals, from the criminal, the diseased, and the desperados. There is much that Mexican-Americans can be proud of. We call upon the Mexican-american patriots to protect their own name and honor here in America. It may involve disowning a relative, so to speak, but, honor demands it. "Chose ye this day whom ye will serve," to quote an old Jew (Joshua 24:15). Hay un amigo que es Mas fiel que un hermano, no? (Prov. 18.24).
Again, a bomb a day keeps freedom away. There was another bomb blast today, in Kabul, Afghanistan. However, as of 10:00 a.m. this morning, (November 5, 2003), there has been no death by bombing in Iraq. And so what does the American anti-American press do? Re-ramatize and re-hash the story of Sunday's helicopter shoot-down. All in the name of compassion for the victims, of course, who in many cases are professional soldiers in the line of duty.
Aftermath of the Chinook helicopter shootdown
in which several American soldiers were killed
But forget this blood-mongering press for a moment. Remember what Saddam Hussein said? Remember how he warned that Americans would dig their own graves on any Arab soil they attacked? He repeatedly said Americans would perish in the desert, after he lured them into Iraq.
Sunday's attack in Fallujah, a city which was seriously 'contained' by U.S. forces months ago, was able to strike back, due to the fact that there are innumerable small weapons stashes all over Iraq, and about as many Iraqis (and foreign Muslims in the country) willing to use them.
Situations like this give the distinct impression that Saddam's prophecy is in part coming true, because his plan is working. The Saddamites are killing Americans one by one, daily. So what if a few hundred, or many thousands of Iraqi citizens get killed in the process? So what if international aid workers get killed?
There is apparently no stopping this, no method of containment. American forces are shooting at roaches in the dark, one by one, while getting stung by invisible hornets, one by one.
News reports imply this. This is the implication of media. Reports of progress have evidently not indicated any change in the daily bombing deaths. The electronic drone of death, created by the media, is certainly only a small part of the music, but it is factual, in and of itself.
Once again, the only solution is a patriotic Iraqi people, united for freedom and Republican democracy. Since this is highly unlikely, it seems that America's plans are trapped in the desert--unless of course the government has a larger, unpublished plan. That is also a distinct possibility, of not probability.
We poorly informed citizens have to make up our minds on our own, and those of us who bother to vote have only that one simple opportunity to expressed our ill-informed opinions.
"Most trusted" news, "fair and balanced" news, and any such sales pitches, only affirm the fact that we have no sure source of news.
The Supreme Court of the United States has refused to hear the appeals regarding the Ten Commandments monument formerly on display at the Alabama State Court House. The Supreme Court, however, will hear the case of California delusionary Michael Newdow regarding "impropriety" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Supreme Court, whose cases to be heard, as in all courts, are decided by clerks and "interns," is pleased to represent itself as wholly inconsistent and politically warped.
The appellate case of a state supreme court chief justice (Roy Moore, of Alabama) was deemed unworthy, while the protest of a disgruntled, frustrated divorcee (who is psychologicall abusing his 9-year-old daughter through his case) is deemed worthy. This is the United States Supreme Court, or, this is the present clerks' position. The political connections and "pay-off" potentials in the clerk world are of course not subject to public scrutiny, nor even the press. Theirs is the most secretive, and in all likelihood most corrupt dimension in the American legal system.
Be it known to all men, therefore, that the United States Supreme Court is fundamentally inconsistent, unreliable, and untrustworthy. American can no longer look to the Supreme Court as the last resort for justice. Rather, Americans can look at the Court as the last resort to justify injustice. The record speaks for itself.
The court is openly averse to the God of America's fathers.
And, yes, some folks are really getting fed up with lawyers. I'd say, "Attorneys beware." There is more than one price to pay for "justice," and there's more than one side of the law that may end up paying it.
Gerald Curry, after being shot by his client Willaim Stier
Remember William Cullen Bryant's Thanatopsis? Well, there's a new law against it, at least in American public schools. More specifically, you're not allowed to think about someone else's death. One more time: you're not allowed to think about killing anyone, under any circumstance. Ah, once more: you're not allowed to write down your thoughts about killing anyone. There. That's it.
Rachel Boim, of Atlanta, Georgia, won't be allowed to think or write about killing in Rosewell High School. She created a little fiction piece in her private journal, and was showing it to a friend when a nosy art teacher eyed them, confiscated the journal, and the next thing 14-year-old Rachel knew, she was arrested the next day, in class, by an armed officer of the law. "Zero Tolerance" at work, before our eyes. National security. Powerful, relentless authority. A total commitment to the safety of the country.
Rachel Boim Public Enemy Number 1
Perpetrator of vicious hate, malignant thought, and
threat to the United States of America!
Diclaimer: the popularized American Indian
choker around her neck is not to imply any associations with this
story! Or, shall we accuse her of promoting a demeaning image of
Indians while she's being accused of having ill intent toward whites?
Poor girl!
David Boim, the girl's father, noted two very disturbing elements in the process. The private journal was confiscated and made public, and his daughter was expelled for "inapprorpriate writings."
Let's add a third: writing about news reports, or writing about anything inspired by news reports and news events is no longer permitted in public schools.
Death is in the news, constantly. Reporters make a living off death stories. Rachel makes up a story about a girl who went to sleep in a math class, and dreamed she killed the teacher. She wakes up, and nothing happens.
For this, Rachel is punished by national media, and news stories about her fiction story about death--an idea she got in her face from constant news media itself. A fulll circle of tyranny. In such tyranny, monkey can see, but monkey can't do. The professional writers and reporters can do it, but the children can't, at least not in public school.
Makes you wonder what school is all about, or what media is all about. I expect a movie about either her fiction story, or about her school incident. Media rules, either way.
How shall we combat the media?