Corpses of four murdered American civilian contractors were just desecrated and desecrated and dragged through the streets of Fallujah, Iraq. Killing them wasn't enough. The Iraqi residents there indulged their juvenile, satanic blood lust in great public fervor. It was truly a social psychosis, of the most primitive nature.
Left-over Hussein loyalists? Men who are well trained in torture, human denegration and sacrilege? Men who have long abandoned respect for the human race? And we're keeping their leader Hussein alive for 'trial'! As if there's something to be 'learned' from him.
Moments like these make we wonder if Bush's war of terror was really the right approach. We knew the culprit of 9-11 was Saudi Arabia. Perhaps we should have invaded Saudi, and leveled it for ever. We should have struck back with such unprecedented fury that no one in the world would ever even think of touching America again. Perhaps we should have given the world a message that you don't mess with America, ever.
Our enemy is without conscience, and skilled in great cruelty. He doesn't respond to threats. Indeed, he thrives on them. To defeat him, it seems he must be quickly and utterly eradicated, not corralled and "investigated." Why study a scorpion? Crush it! Pick a city, any city, Baghdad, Damascus, etc., and give due warning (unlike they gave our own NYC): this city will be demolished on such and such a date. Make your decisions accordingly.
If the people are scared, let them revolt against their own leaders, and prove their sincerity with blood. Or else they'll have to evacuate, while we prove our sincerity. This is the choice they must make.
But we didn't respond that way. Bush tried to assure everyone that Islam was a wonderful religion, Muslims were wonderful people, and that we would commit to neurosurgery of Iraq, rather than amputation. We would save the country, we would alter it with a new political face, rather than blow it to oblivion.
We demonstrated that we can do what we want to do. But I wonder if we failed to demonstrate that we are willing to do what really needs to be done. This mercy on Iraq, and particularly on Saudi, is costing American lives, and emboldening the rats of the world. We are paying, with our blood, for the mercy we are showing Iraq, Saudi, Syria, and the mullahs in Iran.
Even now, I suspect we know where Bin Laden is, and how to be rid of him. We're simply not using our strength. We are bound by political, ideological chains. The world knows it. The world has proven it can and will attack. We on the other hand have shown a strange kind of strength, unique in itself.
I cannot say that Bush was wrong in his approach. It was obviously the most compassionate as well as longest ranged strategical move possible. But, that compassion and strategy is still costing American lives, every day. Few, yes, but still, American lives. In politics, one often sacrifices the few for the benefit of the many.
Ah, well, thousands more are killed mindlessly and aimlessly on our own highways every day. What kind of war is that?
And I actually hope Bush did the right thing. Otherwise, WWIII might be here. Yet, it's getting to the point that, if we want America to stay America, and not change into something else, we might have to risk WWIII. That might indeed be the price. Americans may have to revolt against our own government which continues to deceive us and betray us into sweet-smelling anti-Americanism. We may have to take up arms and defend our own borders, and clean out our own judicial benches. Someone needs to pay some consequences somewhere.
NAFTA and FTAA are part of the globalist agenda. American sovereignty must bow out for this to be a success. I fear American Patriots are losing ground every day.
God help us make the right decisions.
Senator John Kerry took a spill in the snow on the ski slops of Idaho the other day. But he claims he was tripped up by his Secret Service agent, who was with him on the slopes. It was a collision.
Kerry on the slopes, and on ropes
of demands for decency
When asked about the mishap a moment later, he said sharply, "I don't fall down," then used an expletive to describe the agent who "knocked me over." There's a interesting blog on this whole incident: Tim Blair.
Indeed, Kerry uses a lot of 'explicatives' when he speaks, like those he used in his Rolling Stone intervew in December (2003) The snowboarding, the vulgar language, all part of his attempt to touch base with America's youth. (Hey, Dean interviewed with Rolling Stone, too.) Kids can vote at eighteen. And kids can vote at 45, too.
Well, there's one kid who wishes presidential candidates would behave like adults, and set higher standards and asperations. Fifteen-year-old Kyle Williams has already predicted Kerry's campaign will implode. But Kyle has also noted the chronic immaturity that plagues American society in general. To see presidential candidates trying to market themselves to the immature and morally misanthropic is more than Kyle can take. Kyle is calling for President Bush to resist all association with Rolling Stone, MTV, or other youth wringers. (In an up-coming editorial, Kyle will expose the Leftist plot behind these juvenile machines that exploit the immaturity of youth.)
Of course, Kyle is an exceptional youth. But this is one case where I'd like to see the exception make the rule.
Capitalism is gone mad. Uncontrolled, it preys on the unwarey. Women and youth are the biggest consumers, always. They are the biggest targets of marketing. Capitalism, without moral controls deep within individual people, can be as destructive as Communism, only it's a lot more entertaining on the way to the slaughterhouse.
Yes, Clinton tried to associate with the jet set, the night club type. Kerry is trying to follow suit. Let's hope with Kyle that Bush has enough sense not to go there. Youth need training, not indulgence. Youth need goals, not approbation for their immaturity. "Woe unto thee, o land, when thy king is a child." Ecclesiasties 10:16. Let's hope the President leads the youth, not follows them.
Abdel Aziz Rantisi, the new leader of Palestinian murder cult Hamas, has declared American President Bush an enemy of Islam, and that Allah has declared war on the United States and Israel.
And the world has to live with this. The world has to suffer such delusion. It is part of the human reality.
And to think, almost immediately after 9-11, Bush called together American Muslim leaders, and declared American Muslims wonderful people, who loved America, and Bush denounced any prejudice against Muslims. He's been calling Islam a religion of peace ever since.
At least no Muslims in America celebrate 9-11 in the streets, like they do in England. Perhaps Bush's quick political response has kept America some what in tact after all. It would not at all be wise for American Muslims to count 9-11 a good thing, and to openly celebrate.
But has our American ideology of social processes made hypocrites of us all? Would Americans really rather bulldoze every standing mosque in this country? I've always believed that, not conscience, but attorneys, have made cowards of us all. Pardon my paraphrase, Mr. Shakespeare. Hamlet was too subjective. Who wants to get sued for expressing a negative sentiment toward Muslims? Many Muslims are enemies of America, at heart and in disguise. Islam does not stand for American values. It stands for the antithesis of the Constitution. Muslims are here, in America, only because of the Constitution.
The Muslims that do love America are Muslims who have understood religion in an objective way, who have risen above the fanaticism, the aggressions, and the hatred. In fact, those Muslims aren't even considered Muslims by many of the "faithful." All the Iranian Americans I know have transcended the iron cowl of Islam, and have learned to see true values of life for what they are, no matter what the religion. In fact, they rather resent the fact that Islam is Arabic culture, and that this culture has ruined Iran. Iranian Americans are the only ones who can put this in perspective. If there is to be an operable Islam in America, the Iranian-Americans who have been living here since the '70's ought to have complete maganagement of it. They understand things objectively. I will say too, many of them have abandoned Islam, and have revived some of the more original spiritual language and values of Zoroastrianism, or the mystical poetry of Iran.
The point is, when someone declares you the enemy, that person is your enemy, like it or not. It is not necessay for you to demonstrate that you are not his enemy. He has the right to chose his own ememies. If he choses you, then you must defend. You can't be an idealistic pacifist about it.
North Korea is a lying enemy as well as Islamic Hamas. North Korea thinks that the US is its enemy, and that the US will invade North Korea. The weak, lying enemy find strength in accusing the strong.
He who has declared you his enemy will set a path for you, so that your actions seem to affirm his words. But this is because he is your enemy. He is in control, actually. He makes the first moves.
But he who attacks must vanquish. He who defends must only survive.
America has been a survivalist for at least a century now. America has lying enemies today, as before. It is important that American people comprehend this process of lying enemies, lest Americans end up believing superficial solutions like Kerry offers, and hand themselves over to the enemy. The superficial appearance of being right is the guaranteed step in becoming profoundly wrong, and enslaved to the lying enemy.
The brave must occasionally endure the appearance of being wrong. The brave must survive acccusatory attacks. The brave must stay the course. The brave must be stronger, or the weak will conquer.
In the midst of the bewildering world news, I want to post an entry about American Indian news. One of the largest American Indian news web sites is Indianz.com. It is basically a news digest, with articles from all over Indian country, and also with editorials. It has a great number of un-monitored forums as well.
Recently, a hugely hilarious post appeared about, guess who? BadEagle. It is a thread on the forums, by one Average Savage. I'll be first to admit, it's one of the funniest pieces I believe I've ever seen. The forum is unmonitored, of course, so their isn't much serious conversation, but, so be it. This is normal on unmonitored forums.
But then there was a continuation of the BadEagle topic under a section called "The Hoop." This appears to be a slightly more classified section. I've attempted to start a brief but serious exchange there.
Today, March 25, another post, front page. It's actually another post in "The Hoop." It is an email I sent Indianz.com, in all sincerity.
Of course, I have been "examined" on other specifically liberal blogs, like Blogcritics.org, more than once, and of course, the crucible of all things cordial or decent, a black woman's site.
The point about Indianz.com is that there are Indians there. And, it is really the best source of Indian news. There is so much of it, daily, and it is accessible. It exceeds it's closest competitors, like Indian Country Today, or Native American Times. Indian Country Today has no exchange mechanism. It is pretty much a private club of educated Indians, with their own liberal agenda. The Native American Times is a great source, but inaccessible after one day. The reader pays for a subscription thereafter.
Now, all these major Indian internet news sources and their hard copy editions are going to be considered liberal and Democrat. This is pretty much inevitable. However, as we are observing in South Dakota, many "real" Indians out on the land are ready to try some political alternatives. (Please watch FrontPageMagazine for my new article on Russell Means in South Dakota.)
This political development will be reflected in all Indian news, eventually.
Photo by Hollis Price
I for one do not want to see Indians used as a Third World entry passage into America, to cause more and more break-down of the American society. I don't want to see Indians used by white Communists to disrupt the stability of America, and to destroy American social values. I don't want to see reservations become part of UN land grabs, and then become hang outs for the riff-raff of the world.
I want to see Indians lead America in love of country, in savage patriotism! This is our country, after all.
How do you assert yourself when you're seeking power? Sue. Sue someone or something. This immediately puts you on a par with whomever you are suing. (And as we all know, attorneys are more than willing to help you achieve the equality you deserve!)
That's what the European Union has just done. The EU is suing Microsoft for its "monopoly" power in Europe. In this way, the EU will have a sense of power and unity, which it otherwise lacks, and seems unable to muster. When all else fails, sue.
Well, the EU is just part of a larger scheme of things in the global view. At Gorbachev's State fo the World Forum (San Francisco, 1995), Zbigniew Brzezinski observed, "We cannot leap into world government in one quick step...In brief, the precondition for eventual globalization--genuine globalization--is progressive regionalization, because thereby we move toward larter, more stable, more cooperative unites."
Of course, globalist conspiracies abound, and one can pick anc choose which is most plausible. The fact is, they do exist, and very high and powerful people are working toward a globalist government, a world unity. The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) an expansion of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is our part in the picture.
The same is happening in South Asia. India's Prime Minister Atal Behari Bajpayee wants a single currency, like the Euro. Japan has its eye on the same concept. And there's of course the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Everyone must participate in order for the globalists to achieve their goals.
"It's the economy, stupid," as Clinton said.
Indeed, stupid economy is the focus of stupid ambitions. Yet, many will say America started it all, with free enterprise. Big business leads right into globalism. It is inevitable. Why try to stop it?
We'll just have to ask why the Lord broke up such a globalist design back when the human race spoke only one language. (Genesis. 11:1-9) We'll have to ask the purpose in the different races and countries in the world (Deuteronomy 32:7-9; Acts 17:26,27), or why the Apocalypse warns against world unity (Revelation 13:7,8). Or we could ask the evolutionary scientists why Nature created linguistic, geographic, dietary, and racial diversity? Either way, the quest for global unity is running against some deep grain. However logical the financial vista seems, there is more to life than the stupid economy, or those stupid enough to focus only on economy.
Unity means tyranny, in this global scheme of things. Communists failed at the tactile level, now they've gone international, global, and financial. Everything they tried has failed so far. The globe is their last stand. The powers that are vying for control have a track record of tyranny, whether the Gorbachevs or the Popes. The only new comers are the American businessmen. They've already shown that they are willing to play with the idea of globalism. They've already shown that they will deny America citizens, and hire the world's poor for 5 cents an hour. They will take American business to the least restricted countries with the lowest standards of living, and congratulate themselves that their philanthropists. Ah, the vision is mighty.
So who will deny globalism, and hold fast to nationalism, and to the American Constitution? Who will love the country? Who will be the patriots, in the end? Who will love the country more than global success or global power?
Former American President Jimmy Carter is crusading against America in general and against current President George Bush in particular. Never before in the history of American politics did a former American president become so globalist, anti-American, and so devilishly accusatory of a president in office. Very much in the style of Bill Clinton, when Carter proved wholly ineffective in the midst of American crises, Carter immediately went global. It is as if neither Clinton nor Carter were really interested in the United States anyway, but just used the political clout to further themselves in world politics.
Pres. Clinton, in 1998, calling Iraq "a threat to the world."
Carter calls President Bush a liar. Is this exemplary? Is this not Carter the first former president thus condeming a president in office, and trying to influence American politics from outside America, using communist Unitied Nation forces to degrade and dismantle American policy? And Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. What peace is it that he established? His influence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is cited. The ephemoral character of that achievement is abundantly clear. It is his work for human rights in the world is cited as the paramount achievement. Apparently, however, Carter is concerned about human rights only when it serves his anti-American, liberalist, communist sentiments. Apparently he didn't see any human rights problems in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. He doesn't consider it an achievement to have brought that particular tyranny to an end. His impotent, anti-American globalist negotiations were too pitiful to notice, so he'd rather condemn Bush for the success of removing Hussein. Carter's strength is only in accusations. His record of accomplishment is rather empty, based on well-wishing for the world.
Then of course there's Richard Clarke's new diatribe against Bush, condemning for not doing anything about the 9-11 attacks, and for the assault on Hussein. Liberalism knows no bounds. Liberals will condemn the Patriot Act, not because it can be used against honest citizens, but because it might prevent an Arab Muslim murderer from doing his work. Liberals will condemn the removal of Hussein because they not only hate Bush, but because they really don't care about human rights! Well, even Joe Lieberman disagrees with Clarke.
Richard A. Clarke, the 'internet security czar'
Bush appointed Clarke, October, 2001, which was an honest mistake. Clarke is called a "czar" of internet security, but all the breaches occurred under Clinton's administration, not Bush's. Clarke was concerned with hackers, not terrorists. In fact, he rather encouraged hackers as a community, because they discovered the breaches, not the software engineers. Clarke's new book, Against All Enemies, is a piece of pitiful opportunism which is degrading to the whole spirite of trust and progress. The man has no character.
The Clintons, Clarkes, and Carters of the world are themselves the biggest breaches in security. They have no loyalty to the United States of America. Therefore, they weaken the concept of nationhood, and strengthen the global concept of communism.
Carter and Castro in 2002. Carter was the first US President
to visit Cuba since 1960.
Associate Press writer Will Lester has a speciality: poll commentary. He's been writing lately on world polls. What is the world thinking about America? What is "world opinion?" He seemed quite fair in the matter of Bush's campaign ads that used split second clips of 9-11.
Now he's trying to assess polls on negative world reactions to America in Iraq, polls engendered by Madrid's 4-11 train bombings. Unfortunately, these assessments fall far short of objectivity, since the sources are terribly limited. Any assessment is skewed a priori. The Pew Global Attitudes Project is perhaps misrepresented in Lester's reports, since he only references France, Germany, Russia, and a few Muslim countries. These are hardly expected to be reliably objective, though they do represent at least part of "world opinion." (The key word there is "part.")
Old Glory in Iraq.
The Pew Research Center, along with the other Pew institutions are like a virtual UN, and of course funded by white liberal money, in this case that of Joseph Pew. It cannot be expected that any but negative images of the United States would emerge from their "studies" and "polls."
So virtual gossip has it now that the United States is seeking world dominion. Those are of course Lester's interpretive terms, from the polls. Of course, he points out that Muslim countries would like to see the European Union become as influencial as the United States. Why, obviously because Islam is about to dominate a weak and subservient Europe.
Madeleine Albright, a Clintonian Pew official, says, "In order to deal with the longterm issues in the Muslim world, we have to have unity between us and the European world and what has happened is that the Muslims have been able to do something that the communists were not able to do ... which is to divide us."
This is a most incomplete and skewed observation. It leaves out the explanation, and emphasizes the wrong solution. Muslims dominate several "European" countries, through massive immigrations. They influence Europe. That's what "divides" Europe from the United States. The long term solution is to deport all Muslims back to their own countries. Else they will in fact dominate. They already are, through their terrorism.
In a way, the mosques of America ought to be bulldozed to the ground. If not, the Muslims rule. Islam stands for the antithesis of American values. How can it be honored as part of "diversity?" How can it be lauded as part of America?
Rational muslims in America (and there are such) need to look at the situation objectively. If America became muslim, it would turn out like today's Iran, or Saudi. Why try to make America muslim?
Same for the Mexicans. Through mass immigrations, Mexicans make southwest America like the very Mexico they left behind. What's the advantage for they themselves?
This is all a deception. America is what it is because it holds different values than other countries. Superior values. For others to come here and parade their inferior values as if they somehow belong on America's international smorgasbord of multi-culturalism is ludicrous, and highly destructive to American culture. This is the work of white liberal Leftists, America's worst enemies. They are using the world to destroy America. They are the ones seeking "world dominion." Never mind what the world thinks. Never mind the polls.
So now Spanish intelligence is claiming they knew all about the Madrid bombers three years ago. Jamal Zougam, Mohamed Chaoui, and Mohamed Bekkali were arrested just two days after the 4-11 Madrid train bombs. They had been carefully watched since 2001.
In fact, the Spanish police had already foiled a recent attempt (December 2003)of terrorists to bomb the trains of Madrid. Of course, most of the terrorist activity in Spain has been done by ETA, and that's why the police first suspected ETA on 4-11. Just last month, February, police seized half a ton of explosives from ETA.
But it's the same story. The authorities brag about their intelligence sources. They knew this, they knew that. This is supposed to assure everyone that they're doing their jobs. Alas, without just the right evidence, they can take no preventative measures. They can arrest no one. They're lucky if they can find the explosives.
The point is, there is too much terrorism to keep track of. America's Patriot Act(s), for example, is supposed to give the government more power to prevent the terrorist process, but it simply gives the government more power over all American people. It threatens the freedom of the innocent, for the sake of securing it for foreigners--Arab Muslims.
This is totally inefficient and wrong. The efficient way to prevent terrorism is to expluse, deport, re-patriotize all Arab Muslims back to their home countries. (If Europe was smart, they'd do the same.) There should be a extended travel ban on Arab Muslims as well, internationally. There is no advantage for America, at home or abroad, in the presence of these people on our land. It is a deadly risk and a terrible threat, and if Arab Muslims were sensible, they'd realize that deportation is not prejudice, but an act to procure American national security and the preservation of American freedoms--for Americans. If Arab countries want to expel Americans, so be it. Sure, America basically created these modern nomad countries. They would be nothing without the technology America taught them.
But the world does not own America. Being born on the planet does not give a person the right to a Cadillac. Those who would give America away are indeed the traitors of our time. They should be expulsed, deported, and sent to the Arab countries. Those capitalists who send American jobs overseas should be sent with those jobs. Those Americans who use illegal Mexican labor should be exiled to Mexico.
Blind capitalism is destroying America, and probably causing terrorism indirectly. And intelligence knew that all along, too.
Terrorists now rule Spain. The socialists think they have new power, but they have no power. Muslim terrorists have won.
Muslims were explused from Spain in 1492, but they've never forgotten their hold on Iberia. Now they have returned with a murderous vengeance. They never hesitated to murder women and children before, and they certainly don't now either. They just bombed rush hour trains in Madrid.
The bombings were timed just before a national election, and the communists of Spain immediately seized the opportunity to condemn Prime Minister Jose Aznar's support of the United States in the Iraqi deliverance. They'd rather see Iraqi's tortured to death, and rather see Spaniards bombed en mass. Zapatero immediately threatened to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq by June 30.
Spain's new communist leader, Zapatero
That's all you have to do as a murderous Muslim. Just blow up innocent people, and everyone well be so afraid that they will elect communists, and tyranny will once again ascend. You will get your way. Whether yopu want raw dictators like Hussein or communist tyrannists in thinly disguised political rhetoric like Zapatero, its all the same to you.
The Western societies are sitting ducks. Freedom means the murderous muslim has free access to mass murder. Freedom means you are free to kill. The communist leaders will protect you, and use your bomings to gain their own political power. It's a beautiful relationship.
Did Aznar's administration blow it? Were they wrong to try and blame it on a Spanish terrorist group, ETA (of the Basque separatist party)? Did they think this would keep the Spanish people from associating the bombings with Islam, and thus Iraq, and thus Spain's support of the United States in Iraq?
Is this anti-terrorism or anti-Americanism that has taken over Spain? There are many mixed race people in Spain. Arab muslims were there in Iberia for centuries, as the rulers.
Race and religion do matter in a country. These elements determine the direction of the country. Let this Spanish election be a lesson to all nations: know who you are, and what you are. History is critically important. Muslim terrorism has scared Spain out of its identity. Islam can easily succeed in a nation in doubt of its identity.
Arab Muslims need to be in their own countries, not immigrating to the west. This is obvious at this point. They have countries to live in. They don't need to be elsewhere. They are elsewhere for only two reasons: either they are dissatisfied in their own country, or they come to infiltrate and weaken other countries, trying to spread their religion.
The first Bush campaign ads for television included very brief footage of 9/11 wreckage, as a reminder of what kind of crises President Bush as borne up under. He has kept a very cool, but determined attitude all the way through. The fact that terrorism has been squelched in America, that Saddam Hussein's regime of terror was ended, and that American casualities in Iraq are actually incredibly few considering the entire Middle Eastern campaign, shows the success of Bush's strategy and the strength of his character. No, he's not a perfect man, but he is a very fine man.
Remember September 11, 2001
Now, to our amazement, Associate Press writer Will Lester shows us the truth about the recent polls that show 52% of 1,265 people disapproved of the recent Bush campaign ad that uses brief 9/11 footage.
Blacks, liberals, the poor, and the elderly are the ones that protest the ad. Almost three-fourths of the Democrats polled were against the ad.
The weak, the professional complainers, all the same crowd. Blacks have been trained to complain and protest everything--even Kerry's comment about being the second "black" president. It's the liberals who would rather see you shot than see you with a gun and able to protect yourself, and who naturally protest anything that would excite the desire for self-defense, and defense of America, like even two seconds 9/11 footage.
Many poor people (income under $35K in the survey) think Bush represents the rich, and automatically protest something like 9/11, which is utterly unrelated to their socio-economic condition.
The elderly? They have been trained to expect the government to take care of them, since they've paid into social security for so many years. Too bad they didn't pay into the proper rearing of their own children, who in fact are supposed to take care of them in their twilight years. They should blame their children, not the government, if they have problems with healthcare.
So now we're going to try and forget 9/11 are we? The Liberals, Democrats, and other professional malcontents want to cover up and forget the most horrible moment in American history? They don't want the Republican president to influence voters to see him for the brave and courageous war-time president he is? They'd rather forget 9/11 rather than see the Republicans be acknowledge with votes this fall?
That's them. That's the Libs. No character. Means justifies end. Relentless aggression. No pride, self-respect, no cause but sheer envy. It's already out. The election of 2004 will bring out the very worst of their side.
I gagged when the Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and others demand an apology from Kerry for his off the record remarks about Republicans. Even Kerry's 'on the record' remarks to the lower level rag, Rolling Stone, are less than federal concern, or no? For Republicans to make a federal case out of such simple remarks shows how infectious the Democratic liberal mind-set really is. It is a chronic, intense case of self-righteousness, and even those who are supposed to be strong can be infected with it. You see it enough, you hear it enough, and you start acting the same way.
Can the people no longer discern good behavior from bad? Have the Liberals so corrupted the image of common human courtesy and respect, that Republicans think they have to imitate Democrats? All the loud mouthing on TV "discussions," is juvenille, and encourages the worst of human spirit and attitude. Children see it. It's adults acting worse than children. This is the Leftist legacy. This is America now.
The brazen facts of the polls.
America is in the middle of a long internal war. The war is whites against whites. There is one side which reveres the founding fathers, the original values of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The other side wants to change all that into something else. The other side wants America to become an international clearing house for world culture and inferior values.
This other side is Marxist, Socialist, Left, Liberal, Progressive, or basically anti-American.
Yes, to change America's fundamental values is anti-American. These people who want this change try to disguise their intent as "progress," internationalism, globalism, and profess that they are working for what's best for everyone everywhere.
These anti-Americans use race, gender, religion, and economics ("equality") to create division within America. They use minorities, like Indians, Mexicans, Orientals, and blacks, to insult and to degrade all that the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants have accomplished in the world. They despise America, and in a refulgence of social righteousness, they stop at nothing, not at lies, not at violence, to "change" America. This means, to destroy America.
I have taken the position of an American Indian Patriot. This means I value what the White man has created. This means I appreciate being left alive to see it. This also means I appreciate the opportunity to preserve my own Indian people.
This means I consider the American Indian the one and only exception to all other American WASP cultural values. The Indian arrangements in this country are not to be classified with other minority conditions. All other minorities must assimilate, or go back to the country of their origins. The Indian alone has the right to remain separate.
Dr. David "Bad Eagle" Yeagley
On a global scale, America itself has the right to remain separate. America has earned it's place in the world, and is under no obligation to sustain and support other nationalities, religions, or races, at home or abroad.
America is not obligated to treat other minorities or dependent countries the way America treats (and often mis-treates) Indians. Countries which cannot sustain themselves are not to think the world owes them their country or their existence. They are not some rare species which must be preserved. If they cannot sustain themselves, they are subject to the laws of nature, and that includes social evolution.
American Indians, at least our ancestors, earned the right to remain. Treaties were bought with blood. This distinguishes the Indian from other claimants to American concern. I believe that modern Indians have generally failed to take the initiative to be worthy of our fathers. We have not fought, as they fought. We have lived off their accomplishments. In this, we have erred.
Some believe corrupt American government has prevented the Indian from taking initiative. Some argue that the Indian conditions are the result of the BIA.
Whatever the case, whatever the solution, the basic facts are this: America is in a culture war, and it is basically whites against whites. Minorities, like the Indian, are simply being used as tools, in the hands of anti-American whites. For this, I rise up in protest. I will not let the Indian be used to destroy the American Republic, the greatest country in the world. I will at least raise my voice against it.
Janet Jackson is not going to be prosecuted for indecent exposure before millions of children across America. She isn't even accused--despite the fact that state laws prohibit such behavior.
Instead, the outrage was directed at the TV stations (CBS, MTV), the NFL, and the entertainment industry. Those are all created by and run by "middle aged" white men. They are targeted as the whoremongers in this case, targeted by other powerful white men. Black woman Janet is as innocent as the media can make her. It wasn't her fault. It was their fault. It was white people's fault.
The one woman who did file a suit against Janet, Tennessee mother Terri Carlin, withdrew it, on condition that the white-owned entertainment industries clean up their act. Never mind Janet.
Mel Karmazin, Pres., Viacom, Paul Tagliabue, NFL Pres., Michael Powell, FCC Chairman
Was there a fault? That's all for white attorneys to decide. There will certainly be no black attorneys trying to prosecute Janet Jackson (or her exhibitionist brother Michael). Big money is controlled by white people. If there is a problem, they settle it among themselves.
There was tremendous outrage over the Super Bowl exposure, but not one effective pulse of it was directed at Janet. Only the big monied white boys are to be held responsible.
Justin Timerlake? Just a lackey, just an immature slave of the industry, who doesn't know ethically his right hand from his left. Young kid (23), old black woman (37), both innocent as newborn babes.
America, America! How did you lose it? How did you become so warped?
So they got Martha Stewart, not for the orignal crime for which she was accused: securities fraud. They threw that out. They got her for trying to cover it up! They seem delighted to send her to jail. This is apparently a great triumph of justice. It is perfectionism akin to her own sense of the same. They matched her. Too bad her lawyers didn't. Of course, they will appeal. They have their own job security tactics.
Martha Stewart
Friday, March 5, Martha was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction and two counts of lying to investigators. This is all about cover up, the crime of all crimes in white collar life. The ultimate tempest in the teapot.
Fine. No one is above the law--except for Bill and Hillary Clinton. And the Communists have already condemned Martha as a capitalist, therefore the enemy. They've tried to associate her with the Republicans, as if she is their version of a feminist, thus taking unfair advantage of the Communist agenda for women! Think of it--stealing feminism from the Left. What evil manipulation by Republicans!
It does appear to be true, conservatives, of any caliber, are held to higher standards than Liberal Communists. Martha is no enemy of America. Hilary Clinton is. Hillary has lied about murder, covered up financial fraud, and claims "I don't recall," as a matter of daily breathing it seems. But, it is far more important to see Martha in jail for trying to save a few thousand on the stock market. The country must have a sense of justice somewhere. Hanging Martha will have no irrevocable consequences on anyone. She's a safe target. But to oppose the Clinton's is to invite murderers in your face.
Okay, we'll let Martha set the pace for displaced social righteousness. We'll be angry at the essentially harmless. Good people will be tried, convicted, and punished for their mistakes. This means people like Hillary will never be tired, convicted, or punished for the most heinous, treasonist crimes. They are truly not in the same class as Martha. American courts have just proven that.
True to their Communist agenda, the American courts have said once again, down with the good, up with the bad. And some commentators want to say this is a sign that the system works! Indeed. It works for the anti-Americans. It works for murderers.
It worked for O.J. Simpson. It's working for Arab Muslim terrorists. And Janet Jackson wasn't even arraigned for indecent exposure in Houston. But it's important that a white woman be brought down. It is important that she be brought down by white people. White Leftists. All dark people can rejoice now. You know you have the courts on your side, at least when it counts--when a rich white woman tells a "white" lie.
Santa Maria, Mater Dei,
ora pro nobis peccatoribus
nunc et in hora mortis nostris.
Luca Penelli, The Society of the Rosary, 1576
The Cult of Mary is ancient, and has pre-Christian origins. It came into Christianity in the city of Ephesus, the city whose culture was known for its devotion to Diana (Artemis), goodess of the moon. It was not a coincidence that the Church would later respond to the disposition of the female flouting Ephesians. Mary was a natrual for them.
The Council of Ephesus in 431 AD officially sanctioned the role of Mary as divine. The Blessed Virgin was exhalted to deity. Alexis de Salo wrote, "Mary is the Mother of God; from whence by consequence we may gather that she is of unlimited power with Him." She is "above all the choirs of Angels and finally, being Empress of all superior and inferior Creatures...as Queen of the whole Universe." "All creatures in heaven and earth reverence her, and acknowledge her for their sovereign Lady and Queen." An Admirable Method, original Latin, trans. into English, 1639), pp.60, 282, 255. De Salo quotes 4th century St. Augustine: "You are the only hope of sinners, and from you, O glorious Virgin, we expect pardon of our sins."
I am told that in the movie, Mel Gibson's "The Passion," there is a scene in which Peter comes to Mary (who is referenced as "Mother," with a capital letter "M"), and confesses his unworthiness of Jesus. Thus, Mary is put in a forgiving role. This is exquisitely, quintessentially Catholic.
Most Catholics don't get into their Mariology or Christology in such detail as in the Cult. In fact, some places, they seem to play down Mary, especially the recent times, despite the modern revelations believe by many to occur.
I have sung as a professional cantor and choir tener in Catholic churches in Connecticut and here in Oklahoma City. In OKC, I sang at the Cathedral of Our Lady of Perpetual Help. I observed the absense of any special emphasis on Mary, and during the mid '90's revelations, I finally inquired of a church leader.
"This is a cathedral! Yet I don't hear a word about Mary and the revelations."
"You won't," replied the Minister of Music. "You see, this is the wonderful thing about the Catholic Church. We're so big, and so old, there is room for everyone. We have the highest scholar, and also simply folklore."
So, who ya gonna believe?
By now, everyone's heard of the famous sheet of cloth which supposedly holds an image of Jesus on it. Many believers think is was created by the very body of Christ, as it lay in the tomb.
Of course, there are those who deny the miraculous, and claim the sheet was created by an unkown artist in around 1350. It first showed up in the village of Lirey, France, in 1357. But it may have been discovered in Turkey, some believe, in Edessa, in 544 (AD). There was such a cloth with an image on it, that early. Ths history of the shroud is partly legend, partly fact, and mostly controversy.
Of course, the logical question is, Why the significance? What would be the import of such an item? Relic-minded folk would certainly cherish it. But why would it matter to believers of scripture? Does the Bible say anything about holding on to such items? Like, what happened to Jesus' clothes that the soldiers divied up? (Matt.27:35) Does someone somewhere have those stored away safely?
The New Testament certainly does not encourage the idea of holy objects. The Christian era is based on faith in a risen saviour, indeed, one who is in heaven, as High Priest for the human race. (Hebrews 5) Does the New Testament give any support to the idea of a sacred shroud?
The answer is no. That there was a death, a burial, and linen (cloth), yes. But there is in fact a text that would deny such a thing as the shroud. In the Johanine gospel (John), there is surprising detail about this very subject of the grave clothes.
John 20: 5-8 reports the discovery of the disciples. Mary Magdalene had told them the grave was open and Jesus was gone. Two of the disciples ran to the grave.
So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.
Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
This indicates that Jesus apparently folded up his grave clothes. There is no mention of a full length sheet covering the body, but in fact, at least two separate clothes, one exclusively for his head. This would deny any thought of a full-length image on a single cloth.
Faith is not based on relics, holy objects, or tangibles of any kind. That is, faith in Christ is not based on these things.
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Matthew 27:50-53.
After Christ's resurrection, "he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." Acts 1: 3
There are perhaps the most neglected scriptures in all the Bible. As I have said, the Bible is a lesson in unbelief, a testimony as to human nature, and the fundamental aversion to God.
Imagine, your dead relatives, long gone, one day coming out of the grave--not in some fabricated, illusory spirit form, but in the flesh, coming back to your home, in your city, to show themselves alive, after perhaps decades of death. Imagine this happening to many, many people. Imagine the state of mind in Jerusalem on that morning.
Who dare not believe? And why? What would be the thoughts? (Indeed, "the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith." Acts 6:7)
Perhaps these resurrected ones returned with Jesus to heaven, when He ascended five weeks later. But, in the intervening time, the story says they were all there, alive, out of their graves, in the city, around living people, for at least five weeks. Is there any wonder that people believed? The wonder is that most didn't.
My dearest Jewish friend, who died some fifteen years ago, often had fascinating insights into life, religion, and people. I used to live next door to him, back in Hamden, Connecticut. Ralph Croog once said, "If I were a Christian, I wouldn't carry around a bloody cross. The open grave--that's the thing. That's the glory. That should be the sign of the Christian."
Isn't this true? Many people have been slaughtered for the truth. Many people simply look at Jesus as a good man, who was willing to die for the truth. This, in itself, is not wholly distinguished. Many men do this, even today.
But how many are alive? How many have come out of the grave? This is what validates everything Jesus said and did. Without this glory, the Christian story is just another romantic novel.
Take it from a Jew, my friend Ralph--may he rest in peace until the Resurrection.