Government agencies are run by people. Agencies are not mindless, heartless machines, but are simply individual human beings working for a "group." Naturally, they each can blame the group when they are individually accused. One can even hide behind the group, and keep his personal name out of it.
The U.S. government is suing Denise "Dee" Marie Henderson for fraud. Dee, the former Mrs. Minnesota International (1999), is accused of wire fraud, concealing information, and making false statements to the Social Security office. It seems that prosecutors think Dee made false claims about being disabled from a car accident.
Dee Henderson, in the middle, in more ways than one
After all, she entered the beauty pageant after the disability claim. She competed in aerobic, evening gown, and other events. How disabled was she? The accident was in 1995, and her benefits started in 1996. Mrs. Minnesota happened in 1999. She's quite active in beauty pageants, having won the Mrs. Iowa International contest in 2001, and became one of the top 10 finalists in the Mrs. International contest. She must have some kind of energy and flexibility.
Dee says she can't sit for more than twenty minutes, because of horrible migrain headaches. This interferes with reading, tending daily mail, and sleeping. She can't lift more than a few pounds without painful strain. Anyone who knows anything about migrains knows how debilitating they can be. (Of course, women can handle them a lot more successfully than men.)
So who picked Dee out for prosecution? What "individuals" of the government group got together on this one? Who tipped off whom? Where did the prosecutors come from? This is important to understand. Her husband Ken has a terrific web site on the whole story. Sincere inquirers can be thankful for that much, though we'll probably never know the whole story about the prosecution process. Ken does provide a fabulous array of details and topics related to the story. It is highly recommended for study.
This story isn't about anything violent, bloody, passionate, or even dramatic. It's about money, claims, insurance, work, and above all, defining "disability."
Therefore, is it also about law, and medicine. Is it about justice?
When suffering people try to push forward and have a life, are they then said to not be so suffering after all? And what about all the people who have never claimed anything, and who suffer terribly at times? Is a person who is legally declared disabled (to whatever specific degree) to never be seen standing up with a smile? Dee doesn't have a 9 to 5 job, for sure. She could never handle that. But does this mean that she is not allowed to do anything, ever?
The prosecutors want five years in prison for Dee (mother of four), and over $2.25 million in fines. Incredible, no? She is accused of collecting some $190K from the government since 1996. The fines are about 10 times the amount she has collected.
Well, these are the story figures. The details will come out later. It just sounds terribly personal. The "group" prosecution looks like a cover for some "individual" vendetta for Dee. Can't justice come about without such a scenario?
Probably, the personal element is some kind of jealousy emanating from some woman, some competitor, someone who would have known Dee well enough to know of her disability. Then the question becomes, how did this person get the prosecution process going, and what would she get out of it, other than the personal satisfaction of revenge--all in the name of social justice, of course.
Ah, for Beauty! Where hast thou failed us?
Dee is disabled, but not disfigured. In either case, whoever started the case against her can't stand the disability money element. That cause justifies (or disguises) the personal envy. A perfect set up. Reminds me of the moral amalgamations in "Rappaccini's Daughter," the old story by Nathanial Hawthorne (1804-1864). A mixed moral scene always ends in tragedy for the mixer, as well as for those mixed in it.
The whole world is now coming into Iran, in a most unexpected way. An earthquake has broken down psychological walls that nothing else could crack.
The ancient city of Bam, in southeastern Iran, has been completely leveled by one of the worst earthquakes in recent times. It is the sixth major earthquake within the borders of Iran since 1978, and the second this year (2003). As of today, the death toll is estimated at well over 20,000. It could be as high as 40,000. The tragedy is colossal.
Iranian officials bury the bodies of earthquake victims in a mass grave at the Behesht Zahra cemetery in Bam, southeast of Tehran, December 28, 2003. Photo by Raheb Homavandi/Reuters
At the moment, foreign aid workers are coming in from all over the world. Over 21 nations have sent rescue teams and survival supplies. The United States was among the first to send military planes full of supplies. Even the Chinese have sent in rescue teams. This is all quite significant.
Iran is definitely on America's "hit list" for regime change. Most Iranians I know are actually quite happy about that, since they all want to see the change happen. According to reports, the U.S. aid workers, including military personnel, have been very warmly welcomed by not only the Iranian people, but the Iranian military. "The reception was beyond expectations," said U.S. Air Force Master Sgt. Jeff Bohn, who was on the first American transport plane to reach Kerman. "The warmth that the Iranian military and civil aviation workers gave us was truly incredible." I know how that feels. I've been in Iran. I know the people love America.
Could it be possible that through disasters like this earthquake, the hard line Arab-ized Islamic religious leaders of Iran will be shaken into some common sense? Iran is not an Arab country. It never has been, it never will be. The people of the country have languished, as the 7th century-style Islamic leaders have ruined Iran. These leaders know nothing of how to manage such a great nation, and have made foolish decisions all along, since they hijacked the 1978 Revolution.
Iranian women, searching for their dead
It seems the world knows something is up. Everyone wants a piece of Iran. Anyone that knows anything about the Middle East knows that Iran is the key player. Iran has the capacity to change the entire region. It is the richest country there, and has the most glorious history, and has the intelligence and talent to lead. Only the abuse of the Islamic religion has crippled this beautiful nation. The Arab-ized leaders have absolutely stunted the progress of the whole society.
No doubt, the origins of this gigantic faux pas can be traced really to flawed American policy during the Nixon administration. American business corporations were trying to run Iran, and the Shah (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) became too independent for them. Therefore, he was 'removed.'
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah
If there is to be a future relationship between Iran and the United States, I can only pray that it will be guided by respect and not American corporate greed. The Iranian people of today have great respect and love for America, in spite of the obvious and ugly avarice of past American exploits in their country. Iran deserves the simple justice of unrequited affection.
A door of opportunity?
If there is a opportunity for political and social salvation through this earthquake, I pray that the U.S. will act humanely and wisely, that these fallen, innocent lives may not have died in vain.
Christmas means an awfully lot to many people in the world. It is a remarkably significant event, culturally and historically. Christians from all over the world come to celebrate the holiday in Palestine, at Bethlehem. This year's celebrations, however, are a little on the down side. The murderous terrorism of the Islamicists has insisted on ruining the spirit of Christmas as much as possible. After all, Islam is anti-Christian, fundamentally and completely. "They do blaspheme who say God is one of three in a Trinity." Qur'an 5:73. "Christ the son of Mary was no more than an Apostle." 5:75. The sacrificial, vacarious atonement of Christ for the sins of the world is anathema to the Islamic faith.
Catholic nuns on their way to Bethlehem
However, it is not necessary for Christians to feel deflated in Bethlehem on Christmas day. It is not really even appropriate.
Christmas is not a celebration commanded in the Bible, in either the Old or New Testaments. In fact, there is no Christian holiday commanded in the New Testament at all. This is all European Catholic tradition, based on pagan holidays incorporated into the Catholic Christian tradition. Not one hour of any one of the Christian holidays is sacred, nor commanded in scripture.
So, there is no blasphemey or defilement in missing the Christmas spirit on Christmas day.
There is both sacrilege and abandonment in transgressing the spirit of Christ, indeed the Holy Spirit, for any reason, any day. This is the only true concern of true Christians. Yes, Islamicists show great depravity of soul in attacking any church, shrine, or holiday Christians hold dear. Recent murderous threats aim at the specific Christian holiday of Christmas are truly outrageous and depraved. Modern, cultural Christianity has fortunately risen above that sort of thing, in that the United States, a Christian nation, has tried to show some respect for Muslim holidays, such as Ramadan. There is some credit to be had on that score.
But the simple fact is, Christmas is about Christ, not about a holiday. To reserve a special feeling for Christ on a particular day is not wrong, of course, so long as that special feeling is in fact not reserved to that single day. That is just too convenient for human nature. We think we've done our duty to feel a Christian spirit on a holiday, then move on to more worldly, earthly, fleshy concerns. Let's beware, lest the holiday work against us.
It's a tempting gamble. Could Iraq really have a bright new future?
Does media, in spite of itself, actually contribute to the effort of bringing a people out of their cultural depression and into the modern world? Is the constant coverage stimulating?
Hussein has certainly struck out. Let's hope the Iraqi people have a better time at bat. The world is made to watch, one way or another, thanks to media.
There are already efforts to distinguish between justice and revenge, as the multitude of Hussein's abused find themselves in positions of legal authority now. This in itself is a triumph of civilization. But is it really the Leftist media that's going to make sure that the Iraqis don't go overboard and slaughter the slaugherers?
Not really. "The American-led occupation authority has earmarked $75 million to help the Iraqi court get started. U.S. officials announced last week that about 100 [Iraqi]judges, lawyers and law professors had completed a two-week training course on defendants' rights and evidence-gathering to prepare them for involvement in the court." It's the U.S. authorities who are making sure things to right, regardless of media.
But the Leftist attorneys are lining up to defend the theoretical rights of Saddam Hussein. There's going to be a great show. Media and attorneys can't wait. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has put in a bid, along with Jordanian and French attorneys Saleh Armouti and Emmanuel Ludot. What champions of justice, what inspiration, what dignity! Jordanian Bar association president Hussein Mejali said last week he believed Saddam was unlawfully deposed by coalition forces and unlawfully captured by U.S. troops. Beautiful. Their satanic delusion of equality knows no bounds. Leftists would defend Satan himself.
Ramsey Clark, defender of the "oppressed"
and the traitorous
The one case in which a monster is caught, and the people have every right to eliminate him--yet we must hold them back, as well as ourselves, and encourage them to be civilized. We must allow the Iraqi people to experience the marvelous and endless subtleties of litigation. We must allow the Iraqis to meliorate their rage with the Freudian sublimations of the legal process. This is astounding, in a way. Circumstances seem to bring this about. Credit cannot be given to one particular agency--other than the United States of America (may God mend her every flaw!)
Most of the Islamic countries, and much of the world will defend Hussein, of course, as a victim of U.S. aggression. They don't care about his crimes against his own people. They simply don't care. They want the status of accusing the United States. This is their "fifteen minutes of fame," so to speak. There will probably be a band of international Arab Islamisist attorneys assembled in Iraq to do the honors.
Saddam may win out yet, at the profound expense of the Iraq people. If they stand firm, however, they will win, and we just might see a whole new Iraq. This will be truly glorious.
Ah, but my Persian friends have been telling me, "David, these people are Arab! They don't understand litigation, democracy, or modern times. It's never going to work. You don't understand Arab people there."
Just when I was starting to have hope. And I'll now hope my Persian friends are wrong.
What shall we make of Moammer Qaddafye (now transliterated "Gadhafi")? We know sincerity, truthfullness, integrity, and consistency are enormous challenges for any world leader, and certainly completely outside the scope of Moammar and his kind.
The king of style, Moammer
He says he's doing to end his programs for producing WMDs and nuclear weapons. He's inviting everyone to come in and 'frisk' his country.
Survival? He may be attempting to practice a survival technique, but, even in such a pinch, Hussein has already shown that incapability of comprehension which characterizes a despot. Why should we expect anything different from someone like Gadhafi? They're not just morally challenged, but reality challenged.
Actually, Gadhafi's "good" moves of late do in fact enforce the "bad guy" image of Hussein. That is in spite of their similarities. Gadhafi is trying to distinguish himself from Hussein, to avoid a similar fate, indeed. Perhaps there will be other Arab Islamic leaders who will make similar gestures.
This thing with Hussein has sent shock waves throughout the Middle East. And, yes, the media will bring up the form U.S. ties to Iraq and how the U.S. supported Hussein in his efforts against Iran. Iran was hostile to the United States in the late '70's and especially in the '80's. The liberal media will try to make Hussein into a victim of the United States, indeed. We've already noted that. The liberal media will try and make the U.S. out to be the bad guy, as always.
Bad guy or no, the terrorist snakes have to survive. They're obviously very nervous about now. Bin Laden will be caught next, no doubt. There will be no hero of the Islamisist murderers left free to wreak havoc. Their forces will likely diminish, especially if Iraq becomes a successful democracy. The doped-up militant murderers will begin to dissipate.
Gadhafi's personal flamboyance will remain, of course, as well as his treachery and unworthiness. However, he may successfully take advantage of the tide of world gratification in the capture of Hussein. He may try to come across as a good or at least "better" guy, thus securing himself, while continuing his terrorist programs. Terrorists don't need nationally produced missiles and big bombs anyway. They make their own, or use other people's airplanes. Gadhafi's statements so far have nothing to do with terrorism, nor indicate any curbing of his support for the same. He has no serious WMD program, nor does he pose a serious missile threat. He announces he will abandon both programs. Fine. For his feigned confession of guilt he hardly bares, we are to smile upon him? What about terrorism? Will he abandon that?
I have previously declared the United States Supreme Court to be the enemy of America. It now is only becoming more clear with each decision the court makes.
Last month (November), the Supreme Court decided to hear the appeals of non-U.S. citizens held in Guantanamo Bay as prisoners of war. Two British citizens, two Australian citizens, and twelve Kuwaiti citizens are being held because they were militant Muslims who identified with and fought with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and were captured by U.S. military forces. They are being held as military prisoners, suspected of terrorist ties to Al-Qaeda and within the Taliban.
Guantanamo Bay, U.S. Military Prison Camp, in Cuba
The U.S. Supreme Court is going to decide whether the American military can hold such prisoners without trial. Let that thought sink in. The Supreme Court is going to tell the U.S. military what to do now.
Lower court rulings said that U.S. courts have no authority over such prisoners, but faithfully liberal, self-idolizing lawyers have appealed to the United States Supreme Court for more opportunity to represent the prisoners. How low can attorneys go? Is there no limit? They think the U.S. military is wrong in keeping these prisoners, (suspected of Al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorist connections), and they want opportunity to have trials for the prisoners.
The first such amoral species of attorneys to be allowed a visit with a prisoner Australian Stephen Kenny, just returned from Guantanamo Bay. Ah, the horrors he describes. Oh, the evil of it all. Those poor prisoners. How unjust their plight, how evil the United States military! How dare the U.S. military defend American freedom. How dare them hold terrorists, suspected terrorists, or those who associated closely with terrorists. Why, the prisoners should all have a chance to declare their innocence. They wanted in on the action, but gee, they didn't kill anyone, they might say. David Hicks, an Australian convert to Islam, was cought fighting with Taliban soliders. He says he didn't shoot anyone. Well, maybe all these 'moralist' mercenaries and adventurers will learn that ring side action seats come with a big price.
The same United States Supreme Court just abolished freedom of speech, in case no one noticed. The McCain-Feingold Act says you can't buy political ad time on TV or radio, 3 months before elections, and 1 month before primary. That's a long time. But in the mean time, the stations can all say whatever it is they want to say about any candidates. The people are cut out.
Media is free to "blaspheme" the United States government, President Bush, the military, etc. USA Today headlines: US Tries toTrip Up Saddam. Prisoner abuse! How dare we try to get any information out of him at all. Outrageous, that we should question him! Egregious that we should try to encourage him to talk, by showing him record of his deeds. How demonic of us. How evil.
The Supreme Court is in intuitive if not conscious league with the media, and in cahoots with Communists. The Court loves America's enemies. Nothing else can be concluded from observing its decisions. The Court is clearly anti-American. Those serving with any integrity are lost in the general tide of the liberal decisions. Antonio Scalia, bless his soul, can only speak the truth in public speeches, where it might be heard. He is simply not heard through the Court decisions.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
There is a little known fact in America, kept very secret, if not forgotten altogether. Through petition and grand jury indictment, the people can remove judges from the bench. BadEagle will begin to reveal the truth about this matter in the near future. The people of America do not know their real powers.
President Bush has promised that mass murderer and torturer Saddam Hussein will be given a fair trial. The United States and the Iraqi government will organize the trial, but it is up to the Iraqi people, said Bush, to decide whether Hussein should face the death penalty.
We can well appreciate the balance Bush has tried to keep, at least rhetorically if not emotionally, since 9-11. He is a determined and patient man.
But Democrats and liberals are already beginning to take the position that Saddam Hussein is being victimized, that he has not been treated fairly. National Public National Public Radio aired (Dec. 15) a commentary of Daniel Schor in which Schor was quick to point out the violations against Hussein's Geneva Convention 'prisoner of war' rights already. Why, humiliating photographs have been broadcast all over the world. (The poor rat was seen to be what he is. How piquantly aghast we stand.)
"Fair trial"? How does the word "fair" come into the conversation? That Hussein is alive, not being tortured, not suffering a single twinge of pain inflicted by any one, this is to count for fairness? That the torturer shall not be tortured, this is equity?
Trial? What's to try? And why?
Does it not insult the world that we must entertain questions about Hussein, as if there may be a case in his favor? Consider his world-renowned record of horrors, his sickening infamy: are more details to be gleaned from a talking Hussein? These demented liberals think he's going to talk?
Free doctor's exam. More than those of us Americans without health
insurance can get. Ah, the rewards of notoriety.
Indeed, a tremendous case will be made in his favor. His sovereignty was violated, his privacy, his personal life, his business, and moreover the United States was the perpetrator. The defense will be based on an arraignment, a counter-suit if you will, of the United States. Much of the world will of course support Hussein, and condemn America. The world is full of rats like Hussein. The UN is comprised chiefly of his kind, at least in terms of the percentage of its membership. The trial of Hussein will give yet another wonderful opportunity for the failed communist figureheads to emote their satanic "I've been wronged" philosophy. "You have denied Hussein his rights" they will say. In their demonic myopia, they will ignore those whom Hussein denied life.
The thought of a trial for Hussein is an insult to the intelligence of the world (or what's left of reason therein). The trial is a humiliation of the rest of us, and a honor for Hussein.
But then, for communist theorists who idolize a perverted "equality," this isn't about fairness or justice. This is about their opportunities to emote their pseudo-religious passions. Their careers get a lot bigger boost from keeping Hussein alive and well than Bush ever will. The dignity of reason, truth, and justice will again undergo an extended mockery and denigration.
Well, we don't want to act like Hussein. We don't want to torture him, or mistreat him. So, do we put him under house arrest? Do we give three meals a day, with TV, music, visitors, clean clothes, etc.? Is this fairness, considering what he put millions of other people through? I say put him back in the hole he was found in, and feed him bread and water, there.
Remember, he is an Arab fanatic. His head is made of rock. He will not change, repent, or feel remorse. He will accuse the West of invading the Muslim world. If we are not really careful, the world will unite behind him. The trial is really for this purpose. Or, better, this will be the tendency of the outcome.
Hussein is not needed for further evidence. He cannot undo the wrongs he has done. I say keep him far, far out of sight. He has long ago forfeited his right to life. Now shall we turn around and dramatize his continued and undeserved existence? Are we going to lower our standards to try and obtain the respect of failed communists of the UN? Surely not. Perhaps it really will be good for the Iraqi people to handle this affair, with their new-found powers. Let's just hope they don't get liberal about it. Let's hope a little angry Arab passion keeps conservativsm alive in Baghdad.
The capture of Saddam Hussein will generate on of the greatest, most intense mass media frenzies since the fall of Adoph Hitler. Hussein will be kept alive, will be interviewed, written about ad infinitum et ad nauseum. Indeed, world leaders hail the capture of Hussein. His capture is a sensation.
The captured Saddam Hussein
Hussein will yet be regarded as a hero, however. He survived. He will not be punished, but kept alive for "study." Everyone will expect to be somehow compensated for all the wrongs he committed, but Hussein will have the finest attorneys in the world to defend him, and will be treated most humanely. Why, how can we condemn him for murder if we turn around and murder him? No, his life is most secure of all. Our honor demands it. He will not be executed. And those wronged most by him are not in positions of power in the world. They may try to assassinate him, but America will protect him. The court of the world is too liberal, too dazed by psychology and equality to act with conviction or resolution.
Hussein's crimes are not outstanding, compared to those of other murderous dictators of modern times. Many of those heinous mass murderers have lived to a ripe old age. Cambodia's Pol Pot lived to his mid-seventies, dying in a small hut. He was never prosecuted, after slaughering 2 million of his own people. Joseph Stalin, the Russian psychopathic killer, lived to his mid-seventies too, after slaughering tens of millions of his own, five million from induced famine alone. He was never prosecuted.
Hussein is just a simple thug, with mere delusions of grandeur. He was never "great" in any sense of the word. But he will be made "great," inevitably, by media attention. Media is always without discretion, a gluttonous omnivore, feeding off the bottom, on the dregs of humanity. "Shock and awe" has always been the media tactic. The media will delight in every detail to be revealed from the monster's mouth. The public will be force-fed the words of this regurgitative reject for a long, long time. Political commentators will flourish, psychologists will luxuriate, and legal pundits will revel. All will profit immensely.
His sequestered wealth will be hounded, of course. That's part of the intrigue of the story. His family members, living in neighboring Arabic countries, will all be interviewed endlessly. A new refulgence of book writing will seize the publishing industry. Saddam will mean good business, for a good while to come.
Yes, many Iraqis are jubilant at Hussein's capture, and want him put to death immediately. But, in the Western liberalized morality tradition, they will be denied such a catharsis. The Iraqis must become civilized. They must rise above the murderous behavior of their enemies. They must allow their enemies to live and be well-treated. All in the name of vicarious, projected equality, of course.
Hussein loved the Godfather movie. Like Don Corleone, Saddam was from a dirt-poor village, and believed in violence as the sure means of attaining power. Hussein will become the next movie godfather, indeed. Italians move over! Here come the Arabs. But don't worry, they won't last too long in the American imagination. They don't have no salsa di pomodoro. They don't have the cultural familiarity. They were never part of America. Hussein is not really a cultural competitor. The media will try to make him one, for profit, but in the end, he won't sell. He won't even be humiliated. He's too proud, and America is too soft. It's all going to be a dud.
Prince Charles just bestowed knighhood upon Mick Jagger at Buckingham Palace, Friday, December 12, 2003. Thus, the concept of knighthood is brought to its full end. The previous knighthoods of the Beatle Paul McCartney, his producer George Martin, and later Elton John and Cliff Richard set the trend for official departure of social value, and with the entitlement of Sir Jagger, the reign of conceptual dignity is dissolved.
Like the others, only more tasteless, more ugly, more egregious, Jagger has preached immorality for forty years, and continues to preach it.
"Sir" Mick Jagger, the latest English joke.
"I don't think the establishment as we knew it exists any more," he said. Indeed, in his contorted, disorted mind, it never really did exist. He hasn't become part of the establishment. The establishment has acceded his immorality. The establishment has blessed his utter abandonment of any values but fame and fortune. England has acknowledged hedonism as its supreme cultural tradition.
Honors, he added in a jokey exchange with reporters, are very nice "as long as you don't take it all too seriously." Indeed, again, what's to be taken seriously, when royalty has no morals, no dignity, and apparently no class at all?
And yes, Queen Elizabeth and Tony Blair were in on it, too. Their "honor" is thrown to the dogs as well. Their pearls are cast before the swine.
And the screamer of Their Satanic Majesties Request brought his 92-year-old father to the occasion of his knighthood. If the elderly gent had any gentility left in him, he would have boycotted the whole affair. One would have thought a man of such age and wisdom could have not only seen the direction of the tide his son was such a part of, but that he would have disdained it and its tragic effects on so many millions of lives. The immaturity of youth, the reckless disrespect, and the dangerous lack of self-control, was all perpetuated and glorified by his pathetic son.
One must understand this clearly. The award for accomplishment and service to England can only refer to money. The fame was all juvenile from the start. It's only that the generation who famed people like Jagger grew up with him, and still enjoy him. With out the juvenility element, without electronic recording and the whole record industry, Jagger's "accomplishments" are at most miniscule and really unworthy of mention. He merely aggrandized the hideous, in himself, and in humanity.
Apperently many people feel hidious. England feels cultureless and empty. The pain of ugliness, dissent, anger, and all the unpleasant emotions in the human heart, all these are acknowledged and justified through people like Mick Jagger.
But it is a justification based on money, just as false morality is based on the number of adherents. This is primitivism at its purest form. Volume, accumulation, numbers, and not quality, not refinement, not wisdom, are used to support the false value system.
Westminster Abbey, and Highgate Cemetery
A sad day for England, perhaps, or at least for those who used to have a pinch of respect for her, and her old quaint and classy ways. She'll have none of it now. Tea's over. Her soul is a baren and pitiful place. We mourn thee, O England, and the passing of thine enchantments. An old and ugly widow thou are become. Would that America divorced herself from such a plighted prospect.
Some states are ready to disregard the federal government. In these United States of America, economics has so affected politics (or is it the other way around?) that states are declaring themselves independent of the federal rules. The states are going to start telling Washington what to do, like it was in the old days, that is, the days before the Civil War (1861-1865).
Dennis Cauchon's USA Today ariticle (Monday) claims that a new "activism" has taken hold on state governors, legislatures, and attorneys general. "The new initiatives are largely liberal challenges to conservative policies adopted in Washington by the Republican-controlled Congress and White House." Interesting observation.
So then, the Liberals are going to come off as heroes of states rights? Is that what they're doing now? Is that their new label? Is that the new name they're going to hide behind now?
I was of the distinct impression that old Southern States were conservative in their outlook. Their notion of seceding from the Union was based on the principle of states rights, as per the U.S. constitution. Or, so I thought. Southern-ism has been regarded as conservatism, of late.
So now, according to liberals, when anyone differs with whomever happens to be in charge of Washington, it's now the noble cause of states rights. Whenever anyone wants to do things differently from D.C., its a grand, historical tradition. Why, the liberals count coup again, this time usurping the patriotism inherent in the very concept of states rights. Where will it end?
In Indian Country.
Chief Joseph, of the Nes Perce, knew when
it was all over. Would he see the same today?
All fundamental defiance toward Washington will ultimately be blamed on the existence of Indian reservations, and on the legal status of Indians as independent nations. All those who are disgruntled, dissatisfied, and discouraged with Washington, all the anti-Americans at home and abroad, together with the general riff-raff and rabble of the world, all the misanthropes of civilization, the malaise of humanity, will be blamed on the Indian, for his simple stand for his own identity, his own right to exist as an Indian, his own legal land possessions within the borders of the United States.
Every element of discontent and uprising against America will come to be associated with the American Indian. I fear. As of this post, December 8, 2003, the day after Pearl Harbor memorial day, I foresee, soon coming, The End of Indian Country. This is my title, which I cannot patent, but I post it here, today, on BadEagle.com.
Of course, I will fight for even inch of Indian land, and every sentiment of "right" for Indians to possess it. I will fight for Indian identity. Yet, I recognize that the errors of the past leadership, both Indian and non-Indian (white liberal), have placed the Indian in the path of anti-Americanism, and I predict that real America will not surrender, and will put down rebellion.
Yes, I predict a civil war, of some momentous dimension. My decision to fight with Indians is to protect Indians, not because I despise America, my beloved country. This is a most unfortunate predicament, but it is the direct result of liberal ideology. White liberals disguise their own racism in vicarious concern for other races. Their purpose is to change America, to destroy America. Indians, because of our land ownership, have become the center piece for liberal anti-Americanism. This will bring the wrath of America down upon us in a way never before predicted.
Break my heart at Valley Forge. I love America. I love Indians. Indeed, it will be more than a good day to die.
George Washington, 1777-78: The Prayer at Valley Forge
painting by Arnold Friberg
Of all the intelligent, talented, educated, well-mannered, handsome Negro males in this country who could and should run for public office, it has to be the goofus Al Sharpton running as a Democratic candidate for the president of the United States? Al Sharpton, the buffoon?
It may be a good joke, in and of itself, but it certainly insults all the social progress that many "black" people have made in the last 40 years, and Sharpton certainly encourages more of the same inhibitions which have enslaved his race from the beginning, such as racism, prejudicial politics, and perpetual resentment of being "black," blaming white people for "blackness," and carrying around the biggest chip on his shoulder possible. That chip has become a comic element, really, and in a way undermines the last vestige of moral appeal it may have held. Comic chippery now defines Al Sharpton, and will probably define a lot of other "blacks," because of him.
The Salon Interview with Sharpton exibits his incredibly superficial assessements of society and race, and Sharpton abundantly demonstrates his racial approach to life. This raacial approach to life is not unexpected, nor necessarily wrong, at all. The problem is that Sharpton is discontent with being "black."
"Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?"
Jeremiah 13:23
"If O.J. had been accused of killing his black wife, you would not have seen the same passion stirred up. The sexual and racial psychodrama captivated a nation that's still dealing with the whole interracial aspect. These cases have all the taboos," says Sharpton. In other words, until every non-"black" male finds supreme sexual pleasure in a "black" female, the Negro race will always feel inferior. And until every "black" male is supremely treasured by the white female, the Negro will never feel equal.
Integration is always about sex. Janet Afary (Iranian) associate professor of history and women's studies at Purdue University, made an interesting comment at the Iranian Studies Conference last May (2002), in Bethesda, MD. "It's all about the exchange of body fluids," she said, in a discussion group.
It's a personal thing, indeed. But Sharpton and other "black leaders always try to make a federal case out if it. The effrontery of "black" leaders in their moral coercion of interracial sex is a kind of archtypical racist indicator, and it is very present in Al Sharpton. Effrontery in general is the style, mode, and purpose of one who feels unequal because of his race, and whose purpose in life is now "equality" for entertainment.
So, Lee Boyd Malvo, the D.C. sniper from Jamaica, and John Allen Mohammad, the other sniper, believed they were going to save the world. This is what Malvo had told Jamaican social worker Carmeta V. Albarus, who testified to Fairfax Country Circuit Judge Jane Marum Roush, Thursday (Dec. 4).
I wonder if they share the same vision of the Islamic murderers in Sulawesi, Indonesia, who entered a church and shot praying Christians in cold blood. Two men were murdered, and three others severely wounded, all in front of their families who were praying for peace in Indonesia.
I wonder if there are any others sharing the vision among the tens of thousands of Arab men recently more free to pass in and out of America? The Government just ended the required registration program imposed as a post-9-11 security measure.
Malvo had been taught the idea of a utopia. It would start with 70 boys and 70 girls (Islamic Negroes, or certainly non-whites), at a training camp. They would become a "super-people." The government (which?) would pay them $10 million to start the utopian compound, supply them with their "equipment" (like guns and explosives no doubt). Then they would go out into the world and bring justice. The D.C. murders were apparently the prelude to extortion
Adolf Hitler
Sounds like a revelatory vision to me, just like the kind that occured to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Osama Bin Laden. Just kill everyone who disagrees with you. That will bring about your utopia.
Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin in 1922
Osama Bin Laden
Coersive peace. Compliance at gunpoint. It's called tyranny. It has different names, like Communism, Islam, Naziism, but it's all the same: uptopia through tyranny.
If ever anyone was innocently caught in a web of political and moral corruption, it must have been Linda Tripp. She was on Larry King Live, Monday night (Dec. 1), and spoke of her latest circumstances, including a bought with cancer and chemotherapy. Stress-related, surely.
She was just an office worker at the Pentagon, then at the Clinton White House. She was just doing her job. In time, she saw more than she could stomach. She could reveal things about Bill Clinton that stunk to the highest heaven. Naturally, when she began to reveal them, the White House campaigned to ruin her, for life. Her character was maligned beyond rational boundaries, and she finally sued the government for invasion of her privacy.
Linda Tripp, testifying
Chris Ruddy came to see her as a heroic figure, and publicly encourage her faitfulness and patriotism. The opportunity for negative spin, which is always present, had been well explored, and Ruddy, along with many others, saw what Tripp was really all about.
Tripp received death threats from the White House early on. She was put under FBI protection, and so were memebers of her family. Clinton would extract a terrible toll for her truthfulness.
Linda Tripp, more recently
This is the story. Can it possibly be true? Could corruption be that personal, that vicious, and that murderous? Is this all part of some "urban legend?" Is this all about Clinton's mafia, and his Chinese hit men? Top government officials loathed to involved Clinton in Bush, Sr.'s established China relations, because they felt Clinton could not be trusted.
Linda Tripp was certainly not the first, or last, person to be either threatened or killed for interfering with the Clintons. The annals of the dead are frightfully replete. Dare we believe it? Dare we believe it?
It is beyond doubt, from the words out of their own mouths, Bill and Hillary Clinton are anti-American, without national identity, and obssessed with globalism and power. Bill Clinton devoted himself to bringing America down to the Turd World level (a Michael "Savage" term). Hillary is clearly an enemy of the state. The Clintons want to change America into something it is not, never was, nor was ever meant to be. And the means justifies the ends.
Only in their case, the ends are as ugly as the means.
So, Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Jack Reed (D-RI) decided to have their Thanksgiving dinner in Afghanistan, at the Bagram Air Base outside Kabul. What an interesting "coincidence." We're all well aware of the fact that President Bush had Thanksgiving dinner in Baghdad. (The senators planned to be in Iraq the next day, but, there's no news on that. Maybe they felt they were upstaged by the Bush appearance.) So how shall we assess this "coincidence?"
Hillary in Afghanistan, apparently surrounded by
female personnel
First of all, despite her bravura, Hillary Clinton is not in any decision making position when it comes to conducting war or foreign policy. She merely has one vote on the Senate Arms Committee. Secondly, there is a not so subtle and rather sinister theme behind her visit to Afghanistan. That is no surprise.
While praising the Afghani President Karzai and the new government, her main message was that the U.S. policy was insufficiently implemented, and there were not at all enough troops in Afghanistan. The White House was neglecting them. This she said to the 10th Mountain Division , which happens to come from the base at Drum, NY. So, the NY junior senator goes all the way to Afghanistan to tell the NY troops that the Bush administration is not supporting them adequately, that the White House is holding back, and that there needs to be more Unitied Nations forces in Afghanistan. America is too weak to go it alone.
Reed said Afghanistan had become "a forgotten war." The former Army partrooper called for "more aggressive offensive operations."
What a bright message for troops on the front lines! That's real encouragement from the home front. I would have left the table. In fact, I would never have sat down with Hillary. I would have boycotted the whole affair. I would have protested outside the Afghani presidential palace. Well, there were only about 50 solders who had dinner with the senators.
What's wrong with this picture? Hillary went to tell our precious troops that the White House, the Bush administration had neglected them, they didn't have enough support, and that the UN must come to their rescue.
I say this political manoeuver on her part, and on Reed's part, represents the the most treacherous, treasonist, criminal abuse of U.S. troops in modern history. This selfish, political trick, to assert herself on an profoundly American holiday, to undermine the sovereignty and authenticity of the Commander in Chief--right in the face of troops with their lives on the line for him and for the American cause in the world--shows beyond any possible shadow of a doubt that Hillary Clinton is the enemy of the United States and even common decency. She has no respect, no class, no honor, and no loyalty. She is anti-American to the core, and a sickening human being to boot.
No, she wouldn't go to Afghanistan alone. She needed another deluded Democrate to go with her, a man, and one who was a former Army man himself. That was her badge of authority. The poor troops probably felt obligated to appease the U.S. senators. What could they do? It might have been a military order for them. "Have dinner with the enemy," be magnanimous.