In a surprise move, the US-led coalition forces turned over legal, technical sovereignty to the new Iraqi government, two days early. This was to avoid the predicted attacks of insurgent terrorist murderers. Those that want to see Iraq prosper as an independent, civilized democracy (preferably in republican form), all have their fingers crossed, hoping for the best.
Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, hand on the Quran, is sworn into office in Baghdad, Iraq, Monday June 28, 2004. Allawi is surrounded by, from left, Chief Justice Midhat al-Mahmoudi, President Ghazi Al-Yawer, Vice President of Iraq Ibrahim Al-Jaafari, and Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih. (AP Photo/David Guttenfelder)
There have been interesting comments on this historical event. A most peculiar remark was made by Iraqi artist, Qassim al-Sabti. "Iraqis are happy inside, but their happiness is marred by fear and melancholy. Of course I feel I'm still occupied. You can't find anywhere in the world people who would accept occupation. America these days, is like death. Nobody can escape from it."
The remark is naive and arrogant, yet profound. It's sentiments contain deep blame on America, of course, which is always to be expected from any other country. The remarks are willfully, criminally blind to the unique horrors of Saddam Hussein and those horrors continued by the cowardly terrorist murderers. The "occupation" which alone has ended the worst of this, and which alone has created an opportunity for something better, is protested! This is typically communist jargon, typical Leftist hypocrisy and basic lying.
However, the last statement is curious. "America these days is like death. Nobody can escape from it." Here Mr. al-Sabti reveals all. Nobody wants death. America is like death. Nobody wants America.
Of course, what he hopes everyone will think he means is this: America's alleged imperialism is unbiquitous. No country can ignore the west. Every country must face the social issues of Western Civilization. It is larger, stronger, and better, and no nation can hide from it.
Why would they want to hide? Do they prefer filth, disease, and short lives? Do they prefer tyranny, torture, and degradation?
Even if the communist spokesmen had their way, the fact is, the world is too small to let people live in their own filth. Disease spreads. For its own sake, America must be it's brother's keeper. The West must transfer better values to underdeveloped countries. This is better for all.
Al-Sabti's remarks are misconstrued, and represent what one might expect from a "liberal" artist type. Artists always feign objectivity and realism, when they really express nothing but sophomoric protest, junvenile logic, and simply mistaken reality. These types are really not artists at all. If they happen to have any talent, it remains undone, because these artists really have no message worthy of art. There message doesn't need art to express it. They never transcend the grade school level poster drawings.
They really don't deserve the freedom to express themselves, because they condemn the process and forces that achieve that very freedom for them.
Let's hope Iraq by-passes the communist left-overs of past decades. The communist party is alive and well in the Middle East, and in Iraq. The media has of course failed to cover this aspect completely, but this form of goverment was the first alternative most of the Middle Eastern countried experience after the tyrannies of corrupt monarchy and British imperialism. Their first taste of something else, was actually communism. The communists call for freedom, equality, justice, etc., the usual "patriotism." This is still strong taste in the minds of many people in Iraq. Communists call for "democracy," indeed. But America's republican form of democracy is the antithesis of what they want. They see capitalism as another form of monarchy--extreme riches and extreme poverty. This is their ill-applied theory.
Add to this the tribal, sectarian differences in Iraq, and you have a forumla for another Hussein.
Iraq should be divided into smaller countries. Let the Kurds have their own country. Why strive to hold together elements which are diametrically averse to one another? What do they have to unit on? Not even the Qur'an has sufficed.
Like al-Sabti demonstrates, the only thing most of these elements have to unite on is resentment and condemnation for America. That makes them feel important and significant. That makes them feel transcendent, like world players, when there really nothing. Hate America, better, kill an American, and you've arrived at greatness.
Another great one. A South Korean nun holds a sign and a candle to protest and mourn the late South Korean hostage Kim Sun-il. This is in front of U.S. embassy in Seoul June 28, 2004. Kim was decapitated in Iraq after South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun rejected militants' demand to pull military medics and engineers out of Iraq and drop plans to send more troops. REUTERS/Lee Jae-Won. This is that al-Sabti mindset. America is the cause of everything in the world. If something goes wrong, blame America.
On July 22, (2004), a Associated Press story came out that a 4,000-year-old Indian site in a corner of the parched Pah Rah Range (Nevada), claimed by the Paiute and Washoe tribes, was being looted by vandals. Ringleader, Bobbie Wilkie, of Oklahoma City, was sentenced to three years in federal prison in December - the longest term ever for a first-time offender of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. There were other cases in Nevada. It seems that the state's Indian artifacts are up for grabs, again.
July 24, two days later, another Associated Press story came out about another 4,000-year-old Indian site in Book Cliffs, Utah (outside Salt Lake City). The federal government recently paid old Waldo Wilcox 2.5 million for his ranch which contains the site. This site, unlike most others, has never been touched. Wilcox kept it secret for decades. It contains a inestimable forturne of Indians relics.
So the question is: Who's robbing whom? Every arrowhead belongs to Indians. Whether looters grab them, or the government grabs them, what difference does it make to Indians? The relics are taken from us. Looters value them, and cherish them, and will protect them, every bit as much at the government. Looters sell them. The government's only going to turn the relics over to archeologists and museums. Well, at least that way, everything will be identified, and ultimately available for all to see. The looter's picks tend to end up in private homes.
But it's all rather curious. The bones of Indians are quite expensive. The leftovers of Indian life are worth more than any other people's here in America. We're idolized. From Shandi Finnessey's Miss Universe costume, to the last arrow head in Book Cliffs, America loves the Indian--every last feather, every last arrowhead.
America named every other creek, river, hill, mountain, state, county, and town after us. America painted our picture on every other college, university, and school. America put us on coins, stamps, and company names. I think we fared pretty well for a "defeated" people! For all the terror they may hold for us, Americans hold us deeply to heart. Mah-coom-ah-cuht, as the Comanche say.
How can we translate this archetypal affection into practical reality? How can Indians decide the best course for Indians? How can Indians avoid being used by whites to defraud other whites? Take the casino industry. There's no such thing as an "Indian" casino. That's a total sham. That's white people using "Indianness" to move in on other whites.
Yet, many see the tax-free land status of a reservation as the ultimate value America puts on Indians. Therefore, there's a grand gold rush on every piece of Indian land. It's potential casino country. But this is not really going to benefit Indians in the long run. It will turn the country against us.
Once again, it's whites against whites, and Indians have to try and chose which side to be on, just like in the pre-Revolutionary days. I chose the conservative side, the side that wants to preserve America's orignal values as a nation. Preserving America, as I see it, is preserving the American Indian. I chose the Republican party, for now, because it at least verbally advocates the original values of the founding fathers, moreso than the other parties.
It's a stretch. Republicans have not shown interest in Indians, historically. Republicans have shown interest in the republican principles of the original government of the country. In fact, Republicans have shown disdain for Indians. I realize that. But, I'm looking long range. I believe Republicans want what's best for America. I believe that's what's best for Indians.
Indians have to chose sides. I'll "gamble" on the side that loves America, not the said that merely says it cares about Indians.
"A pack of lies," Don Feder calls Bill Clinton's new autobiography (or is that, autoerotography?). Feder itemizes a few of the major breaches of truth in the Clinton "legacy" of illegality and disdain for law.
On Deborah Norville's show last night, there was an unbelievable breach of truth. She interviewed Time Magazine's Michael Duffy, and at one point Duffy (who defends Clinton) says Clinton was terribly angry at Ken Starr, the independent investigator appointed to deal with Whitewater and beyond. Clinton says in his book (according to Duffy) that he was so angry at Starr that he (Clinton) knew he was going to do something harmful to himself.
DUFFY: And Clinton says in the book—I think the most controversial think he says about all of this is that he so hated Ken Starr for mounting this, what he thought was an attempt to stage a right-wing coup of his presidency, that when he really got under stress, he really—he said at one point, You know, I knew I was going to do some harmful things to myself because I was so angry about Starr—almost, in effect, tying his behavior in the Oval Office to his anger at Starr.
Norville was outraged, and immediately responded, "You have to tell me that you challenged him when he said that! I was so angry at Ken Starr, I went and had an affair with the intern in the White House?"
Duffy say's anger wasn't the only reason Clinton was going to harm himself. But the conversation misses the facts entirely: The Clinton regime completely controlled Ken Starr from the beginning of his appointment as independent counsel. According to Richard Poe's assessment in Hillary's Secret War (WND, 2004), the Clintons celebrated the appointment of Starr. Starr was an attorney for China's Peoples Liberation Army and notorious arms dealer Wang Jun. Poe reminds us of key revelations about Starr made by Chris Ruddy, and it becomes absolutely clear that Clinton media machine made Starr into a right wing conspiracy player, when actually Starr was a Clinton agent, under Clinton control entirely. The whole thing was a sham. An elaborate lie.
When Patrick Knowlton was about to testify in the Vince Foster case, upsetting the 'closed innocence' conclusion of the Starr investigation, Starr's investigative team intimidated Knowlton beyond the pale with contempt and harrassment. And Starr's lead prosecutor Miquel Rodriguez resigned when he realized how corrupt Starr was. (Poe, pp.104-108.)
So, Clinton's anger at Starr is a complete lie, as the facts clearly show. Starr was a supporter of all Clinton's lies, a partner in cover-up.
Feder is right. Clinton's psycho-babble autobiography is a self-justifying lie, an attempt to seduce sympathy, and should not be regarded an anything other than another Clinton delusion. It is 'deeply troubling' that there are so many people that are attracted to such a delusion.
Everyone is calling everyone else a liar now. This, this alone, is the Clinton legacy.
Why is Bill Clinton in our face again? Why is his ugly, pathetic life once again crammed down our throats? How can we possibly get rid of this immoral pest, who degraded America to unprecedented levels of disgrace and embarrassment? Are there answers to these questions?
The media blitzkrieg promoting his new book, My Life (Knopf) is unprecedented, and with no public confidence in the truth of its success, the media continues to bend over backwards to make it a sensation. Even negative reviews soar over it.
The Democratic National Convention is next month, July 26-29, in Boston. Is there a connection here? (Talk about timing. This lying bum is now claiming the Iraq invasion was bad timing! To think, this is man who had the chance to take out Ben Laden, but failed, and instead uselessly bombed a factory in the Sudan.) Could Clinton somehow circumvent the 22nd Amendment, and run for president yet again? He has openly, and repeatedly said he wants to be president again. He wants the Amendment amended. And it all might depend on what our definition of "amend" amends.
Actually, there's a slicker way, which no doubt has occurred to Billy the Kid. The key word in the 22nd Amendment is "elected." Technically, Clinton can't be elected. But, technically, he could serve out someone else's term, if he were vice president. It could work. If there were a Democrate elected as president, and Clinton had been appointed as the vice presidential candidate, he could get in on the ticket. He wouldn't be "elected president." Then whomever was elected president, could become mysteriously ill, meet with untimely death, or otherwise be removed, and behold, Bill would be president again. In fact, such strong-arm methods may be on the agenda already, to get Bill in position. These kinds of tactics were very much a part of "My Life," before, and can certainly be expected again. To boot, Hillary would be in the White House again. She's "technically" still his wife.
Americans must take their voting privileges very, very seriously at this time. In 1992, Clinton got 42.93% of the popular vote. (Ross Perot ruined it for Bush, Sr., who got 37.38%. Perot took 18.87%, which took the clear victory from Bush.) But how many people actually voted? Just a little over half: 55.2%, one of the lowest turn-outs in history. There were 198,193,000 eligible voters, so that means Clinton got 43% of half of that. The lesson is, it's important to vote!
Do we want a lying, immoral traitor in the White House again? Do we want someone whose career is characterized by scandals and suits over legal fraud, sex abuse, drug abuse and trafficking, apparent murder, and juvenile hoodlum tactics? Do we want someone in the White House who is demonstrably anti-American, anti-morality, and represents the lowest white trash in the country? Are there that many people in America who identify with Clinton?
If we don't want Clinton again, we'd better get out and vote. It is the very least an American can do.
American high tech mechanic Paul Johnson was beheaded in Saudi Arabia. Another American was sacrificed in the cause of American values. Were it not for brave men like Johnson, many third world countries would still be without electricity and running water. To lift a country out of the dirt, it takes a lot more than military fighting men. It takes courageous civilian entrepreneurs like Paul, people who will go to these countries, at great risk, and share their skills and knowledge.
Yes, people like Paul do get a fabulous salary, but, their lives are at risk. It is appropriate. They are helping in the effort to build nations, to bring civilization to very, very low down places, like Saudi, like the Arab countries. We could call these people civilizan patriots, exporting Americas highest values abroad, for the betterment of the world.
We shall have to begin to understand any civilian who undertakes this mission is actually an unarmed patriot, deserving of a very worthy recognition. That one should fall, that one of them should meet with a barbarous death, should send a message to the rest of the world, indeed. Americans are very serious about our way of life, and we want to share it. We are not content to let the filthy remain filthy still. We are willing to make life-risking efforts to bring the world up higher.
Let's not get lost in the details here. Let's not malign or belittle motives. It's not just about money. It's about exporting American values, so that the riff-raff of the world doesn't sink into interminable dispare and barbarism, so that the scum of the earth don't infect everything outside America's borders.
And there's plenty of soul-less parasites inside America. America should export them, too. That's where we should start, right here at home. Alas. our Congressmen are so brave as the Paul Johnsons of the world. They'd rather not offend the civil rights attorneys, or even inconvenience anyone by deportation. Okay, don't sent the Arab Muslims in America anywhere. Just send them out of America. Let them go to Mexico, or even Canadan. Then we'll see just how wonderfully liberal and tolerant these neighbor nations really are.
Paul Johnson went to Saudi as a volunteer. Well, paid, yes, but as a volunteer. Unless I'm gravely mistaken, the people of America have not volunteered to invite the world within our borders, and to train them to wash their hands before they eat. It is one thing to go to their countries and teach them. It is another to have them forced off on us, in our own homes, schools, and cities, and expect us to deal with them.
We have a Congress of cowards, of traitors, and a Senate of servile idealists, whose only fear is legal suit. Ah, America, America! Remove your leaders, before they destroy you.
Paul Johnson wasn't elected. He volunteered. Congressmen should volunteer too. They should never be paid, but remain the independent businessmen they're supposed to be. Never, ever should a congressman be an attorney.
Paul Johnson's life was sacrificed. What congressman would be so willing?
During the Reagan funeral service in California, there were performaces of America's national songs. The National Athem, America the Beautiful, and The Battle Hymn of the Republic. They were performed by military ensembles with precise intonation and grandeur, and the effects were most telling.
The Reagan sunset funeral service in California
BBC photograph.
I recall these hymns from early childhood, and have always associate the deepest emotions with them. I'm nearly always brought to tears by the sentiments and values expressed through them.
At the sunset service in California, at the Reagan Library, the men's choir of the United States marines performed the Battle Hymn of the Republic. I recalled having sung the same arrangement when I was in the 7th grade. It was very moving for me.
I am now again especially touched by the third verse (5th verse of the original poem by Julia Ward Howe):
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me;
Pray tell, what is that glory in His bosom that is so glorious that it transfigures you and me? Ever more, let Heaven declare it plainly! Open to us the heart of God. Let us be transformed.
This is a mystical moment. The glory is so distant, across the sea, in the heart of God. And yet the sentiment is triumphant, and one associated with the very soul of our nation. Howe wrote the poetry in 1862, in response to the issues of the Civil War. She was a northern romantic, and as such she focused on the aspect of human suffering. The slaves must be freed, immediately, unconditionally, and completely. No, it wasn't the wisest political move, the way it worked out, but it was based on the most profound and righteous human feeling. It was a rally song of America. It expressed America's deepest sentiments. It was radical.
We do well to reconsider the sentiments of our national songs. They were all there, at Reagan's funeral. Did we hear them? Did we feel them? The nation's soul is expressed in those songs. To neglect them is to imperil the health of our people. To ignore them is to invite decay of the national spirit.
Is that glory in His bosom not glorious still? Does it not transform us into the pro-active redeeming role that is the pith of America? Bush's War on Terror calls forth this spirit again. When we entered Iraq, we entered to create an opportunity for an enslaved, intimidated people to experience freedom, independence, and self-determination. Never mind the concomitant aspects of the campaign. The spirit was to liberate a people. That is America. This is the report brought back to us by our sacred military. Never mind the professional news.
Our national songs tell our story. They hold our power in them. Even Hitler knew the power of song, and forbade the Finns from performing their national songs during the Nazi campaigns in Scandinavia. But America's songs are not even to ethnocentric. America's songs express the greatest purpose of humanity. America's songs are universal.
I say let's revisit them all. Let's study the language, the expressions, the meaning, and let the transfigurations begin, again! Let the divine glory shine. Let the mystery in His bosom reign also in ours.
It was in the soft rains of June. The rains bring intimacy, and often sentiment and sadness. They were especially appropriate on the day of Ronald Reagan's funeral service in Washington DC, June 11, 2004. A very personal, yet cosmic moment occurred as the casket awaited loading at Andrews Air Force Base.
Under an unbrella held by an unnamed young soldier, Nancy Reagan quietly listened and watched. The music was somber but sweet, as sadness always is. There was an extended moment when Nancy, with her right hand held onto the hand of the young soldier, and her left hand held the arm of Major General Galen Jackman, Commander of the United States Army Military District of Washington. With both hands, Nancy Reagan held to them.
This grandeur of her frailty, the dignity of her great age, there standing next to America's youth and military power, was a most exquisite picutre of America. It was an archetype. The matriarch of the country, leaned on the arms of the United States military.
Nacy Reagan, upheld by the greatest military strength in the
world. The internet does not picture the very moment here
written about, but this is as close as it offers. This photo was
taken by Michael Robinson-Chavez, for the Wasthington Post.
Indeed, the everlasting arms! I could not help but think of the significance of it all. When the country is showing it's highest respect, it's deepest honor, publically, to whom is such display always entrusted? Those who offer their lives for that country, daily. The United States military. All the services, the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force, and yes, the Coast Guard.
In America's early days, the musket hung over the family hearth, above the mantel. On the mantel often rested the Holy Bible itself. There was a day when the hearts of Americans understood that musket to be as sacred as the Bible. Those muskets created America. And they must never, ever be surrendered, no, not even to a wayward government.
At Reagan's funeral, the rifles fired many times, and the cannons, and the jets flew over the heavens. To think, Moses once wrote, "The Lord is a man of war." "The Lord is my strength." Exodus 15: 2, 3. There it was, in Washington, our strength, before our eyes. There our strengh saluted our departed president with our greatest sentiments. Their our dear, aged, delicate mother, leaned on our strength. Nancy truly, literally leaned on America. When her frail hands held on to those soldiers, she held on to something great in all of us. It's all part of us. The strength the Lord gave us.
We can only pray now, and always, that our cause be just before the Lord. We can only pray that it is America's cause for which we use our strength. We can only pray for guidance, that this magnificent nation remember it's strength, and that we all lean on the Everlasting Arms.
It was the moment we will all remember most: Nancy Reagan showed her love for her husband. She cried. Ever so tenderly, so naturally, so perfectly appropriately, surely that one purest tear shall rebaptize this nation. That delicate, epochal whimper, from the abyss of the human heart, should revive love in us all, as no other power on earth can.
The mother of our nation, Nancy Reagan CNN Photo
She is the nation's mother. She is the nation's voice to Ronald, the nation's heart, the nation's soul. Nancy did it for us all. She showed Ronald Reagan how we all feel for him.
Perhaps it was her great age, her frailty, her aloneness. Only those who know the eldery know what giant, transcendent emotion she expressed in her simple gestures; her right hand petted the coffin the only an elderly woman with love would; her grief was so profoundly enobled with age, it moved the earth. Indeed the world wept with her. She shared her very soul with us all.
And the sun sat in the west. That sacred moment of gloaming, of dusk, of twilight. How beautiful it was.
For those people in the world who observe the ancient Sabbath, these moments were transcendent as no other. Our American, our winner, our hero, went to his rest on the holy day, the eternally holy Sabbath of God Almighty, our Creator.
I have never before posted on Sabbath. BadEagle.com rests on Sabbath, at least from me. But tonight, having observed the California funeral service for Ronald Reagan, having seen his family, having known myself the loss of father, brother, and now caring from my own elderly mother, I am so moved that I make an exception. I have a prayer.
Remember Nancy Reagan. Remember the Lord's regard for the widow, the fatherless, and the homeless. Remember the grieving, the frail, the helpless.
Remember that, to the Lord, these are the priority here in this life. The mighty, terrible God, who is impartial and unerring in judgment, has delivered the weak into the hands of the strong. Let the strong never neglect the weak, nor take advantage of the weak, "for their Redeemer is mighty; He will shall plead their cause with thee." (Proverbs 23:10)
Let the strong therefore be noble, compassionate, true, faithful, and generous. Let the strong also love, forgive, and heal.
Wealth and power cannot spare their possessors the agonies of death, the terror of being alone, the sadness of parting. But love can comfort, and love can lift. Love is the best we have. Nancy showed us all just how beautiful love can be.
Love's rewards can change a nation. I pray that Nancy's tear shall water the soul of this country in a way never before, in a way so desperately needed in these times of doubt, uncertainty, and confusion. Love is all we can really have for sure. And I say again, marriage, especially long marriage, creates such dignity, such power of soul, only those who have such marriage understand it fully. Nancy Reagan gave us a glimpse of the truly divine gift of love in marriage.
May we remember it forever, and may it's power enrich our own lives.
The last two weeks have seen two memoral events: the dedication of the National WWII Memorial, and the passing of Ronald W. Reagan. Both events bespeak the greatest of America, and everthing America stands for.
Well, almost everthing. The public prayers offered the WWII Memorial, and at Reagan's official funeral service, failed of greatness. The moment when the soul of America was laid bare, the religious leaders demonstrated their utter void of spirituality, their insincerity, and evinced their betrayal not only of their own faith, but of the faith of the founding fathers of the country.
Barry Black, who offered the benediction at the National WWII Memorial service, studiously avoided any historical reference to the God of our fathers, but instead used terms like "Eternal spirit," and when he did use the word "God," it may as well have been "Allah," for there was no identification of the deity whom he professed to address. Of course, he could not bring himself to mention the name of Jesus Christ.
Black is chaplain of the United States Senate. What a glaring testimony of failure, and such a time, when hundreds of thousands of graves of American servicemen are marked with crosses. What a betrayal of trust, when the country was created by Christian men who stated that the new government was designed for moral, Christian people, and would never work for any other kind of people.
At Reagan's memorial service in the rotunda, Wednesday, the episcopal priest who opened with so-called prayer, couldn't even offer the name of God. He opened with a quote from T. S. Eliot, and eulogized through a borrowed metaphor. He used the name "Lord," but it was unidentified, and depended on the social, colletive conscious of America for it's meaning, not the Bible. It was as if this priest (nameless here forever more) didn't believe in anything but the inevitabilities of life cycles. This was truly a complete and pathetic denial of faith, hope, and charity. In an official church "collar," this was nothing short of blasphemy.
Not until this very morning, Friday, June 11, with the casket before the doors of the Washington Cathedral, did Bishop John Bryson Chane finally tell it like it is. In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Reagan's body and soul were received into the sanctuary. Chane at least used the ancient liturgical terms.
Ronald Reagan in state, June 9, 2004, Washington DC,
capitol rotunda. CNN photo
Ah, but America is so afraid of offending! Our national religion has become fear of offending. This is the liberal form of Christian charity, and it generally ends in blasphemy against Christ, and complete betrayal of America. Ecumenicism, the tactical religious form of non-offense and betrayal, has it that a Muslim imam, with suspected ties to terrorism, is invited to the Reagan funeral!
When we are afraid to offend, we are afraid of greatness. When we are afraid of greatness, we forfeit it's rewards, and have little right to eulogize them. America became great because of the Judeo-Christian principles upon which it was based, and which were faithfully acknowledged by the fathers. This is history. Other world religions are simply not part of this story, nor should they be honored as such.
Margaret Thatcher spoke the most beautiful words of all. Wouldn't you know it, such satisfying words, such nobly expressed human feeling, would come from England, the mother country! She did England proud. And to think, America had run away from home, been adopted by wild Indians, and rose up to be the mightiest of the earth. What a story! What a sublime story, with honor--for all who are honorable.
To the world, I say, look, listen, and learn. To America, I say, remember the Rock whence thou art hewn.
Why are the liberals praising Ronald Reagan? To show their great comapssion, their non-partisan objectivity, their patriotism? Notice how they are all praising Reagan for exactly what they aren't. Why?
Ronald W. Reagan MIKE EVANS / KNIGHT
RIDDER NEWSPAPERS, 2001
At first one would think it's just typical politics. They're all trying to associate themselves with Reagan so that they can take some glory to themselves, as if they are somehow to be thought of as similar to Reagan.
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, likely Democratic presidential nominee, said, "Ronald Reagan's love of country was infectious," praising the late president for his goodwill in the heat of partisan battle. "Even when he was breaking Democrats' hearts, he did so with a smile and in the spirit of honest and open debate. Despite the disagreements, he lived by that noble ideal that at 5 p.m. we weren't Democrats or Republicans, we were Americans and friends." SeattleTimes.
Would that you were such, Sen. Kerry. Would that you were a friend of America. Would that you were something besides a inconsistent verbalizer.
The problem is deeper than the audacious irony of former enemies of Reagan praising him after his death. It is worse than mere ostensible and egregious glory riding. These lying liberals are trying to make Reagan out to be one of their own, so that President George W. Bush is made to appear as foreign to the Reagan legacy. These dissembling, disgusting liars, all Democrats, all former enemies of Reagan, openly and avowed, want everyone to think they really understand his greatness, showing their own affinity therewith. This puts them in a specious "conservative" posture, so that they can attempt to discredit Bush, and disassociate him with Reagan's greatness.
The Kerry's, the Kennedy's, the Cuomo's, the CNN ancors, they're all self-deceived. They're on an autolytic verbal mode, a leech-like, parasitical gear, which literally lives off the ideas and accomplishments of others. This gives them the appearance of at least emotional consistency, and even a superfluous sense of logic. But they have no ideas of their own. They couldn't put a sentence together without the foundations of conservatism. They would have nothing to say.
Their praise of Reagan is an embarrassment. In fact, this entire week of mourning is defiled again and again by their conscience-less, agonal hypocrisy. Indeed, they laud the sepulchurs of the dead, professing great reverence, while they turn around to crucify the truth with a gnashing of teeth.
They are blind. But it is a willful blindness. They may not know what they do, but they could know. They simply hide behind illusions, until they can no longer bear the light of truth, and then they come to condemn it as something evil when they see it.
Let the hypcrites be silent. They can show their respect that way best. Of course, they can't do that. They have no respect, for themselves or for anyone else. Infectious? They're not infected with Reagan. They're infected with Bill and Hillary Clinton, to two carriers, the two hosts of real iniquity.
Ronald Wilson Reagan passed away yesterday, June 5, 2004. He was 93 years old.
Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1911-2004
President of of the United States, 1981-1989
So great was his glory that even the liberals tried to cash in with eulogies, so desperate they ever are for validation and votes. But they brought a pestilential, noisome shadow over an otherwise great day of confirmation for American values.
I remember when Reagan was elected. At Yale Divinity we had many discussions. Ephraim Radner said, "Oh, well, everyone voted for Reagan because he's old and jolly. People feel terrible about they way they've treated their own parents, stuffing them away in nursing homes." It was as if the people were soothing their own consciences by voting for "old" Ronald Reagan.
The now somewhat controversial "orthodox" Episcopalian Reverend Radner has called for the resignation of Most Reverand Frank T Griswold, the not too-elderly and insufficiently conservative Bishop of the Episcopal Church.
But Reagan wanted to lead the country, not the church. His campaign was all about Americanism, and the values of the founding fathers. His "religion" was more inclusive, and was really an effort to save the country through the hope offered in the original ideals of the Republic. Reagan's presidency was an enormous success for America. Perhaps church leaders, old or young, would do well to revive their churches' original values.
Reagan's success was so great that George Bush, Sr. simply glided on the updraft. It was so profoundly positive that the mobsters Bill and Hillary Clinton could get by with murder under the dazzling optimism Reagan had left. No one could believe the Clintons were the miserable thugs they really are. Reagan's "good times" were too great. The light was so bright that the hidden darkness was embolded beyond precedent.
Clinton even tried to create an association of himself with Reagan, to sap up whatever validation he could. He even talked with Reagan about campaign strategies, and tried to make a PR event out of that. Al Gore later went overboard in trying to imitate Reagan, including hair style and speech mannerisms.
But the only thing Reagan ever wanted to imitate was the patriotism of the American founders. This he began as early as 1964, in his famous "stump" speech in support of Barry Goldwater. Reagon was only 53 at the time. Young or old, Reagan new what America was all about, what made America great, and he wanted to revive those values.
One part of Reagan's legacy is Young America's Foundation, an organization that provides conservative speakers for students on America's college and university campuses. Reagan knew that patriotism must be taught. He knew the university is a political concentration camp, and that American values were tortured there. So valuable to American tradition is the Reagan legacy that Young America's Foundation made Reagan's Rancho del Cielo (Heaven's Ranch) a centerpiece of the Foundation's program.
YAF has a list of illustrious speakers to choose from. When a student club, like Young Republicans, or 2nd Ammendment Clubs, wish to invite a speaker, they simply contact Patrick Coyle, and make a formal application. The Foundation picks up half the speaker's fee, and all the expenses. Speaker's fees vary, but, the students can choose from the best. I myself am on the list.
It's part of the Reagan legacy, to encourage America's young people in patriotism. This has been my theme since I first presented former Oklahoma Governer Frank Keating with a curriculum for mandatory teaching of American patriotism in public schools. It's still my theme. I know I have the blessing of the Gipper. His efforts were surely not in vain.
BadEagle.com has had a concern over the subject of female models for some time. Today's AP piece on the subject is certainly apropos. It seems that models and money are the real issue, not how the model actually looks. BadEagle. recently questioned the used of teen and pre-teen models by high level designers. And all this, of course, is not to mention the cocaine problem, or the anorexia problems. Today's piece, "Models allege price-fixing by N.Y. Cos." (Larry Neumeister) gives just a tip on the issues.
Click Model Management is being sued for millions in damages for conspiracy to fix modeling fees. In other words, young women are paying for a chance at fame and fortune (and attendant miseries), and these fees are the object of the suit. The girls are being used and abused, or "stripped" financially
from W style shots, "Head Start"
The attorney representing Click ridiculed the idea of a conspiracy, saying the industry was so "full of hatred," companies could never organize a conspiracy. But Merrill Davidoff is suing several companies, and they are either settling outside of court, or being dropped from the trial. It is a tough issue to handle. Models pay fees to have their pictures posted, hoping to be "discovered." Those fees are the issue, but an issue that Davidoff says is used against the young "naive" girls, who are trusting, and hopeful.
So where are the parents for the "14 year olds"? Who's in charge of their lives? Who pays the fees? What kind of law suit is this--in defense of the naive? Are women simply not subject to responsibility? They are simply natural prey for the whoremongers of the world?
Could be. In the Judgement Day, according to the ancient Hebrew vision of reality, the men, or at least the "mongers" (dealers) are indeed held responsible. Outside the gates of the Eternal City are "dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." Revelation 22:15.
A patriarchal take on society? It means men are responsible, that's all. To dump responsibility on the woman, even when she neurotically demands it in the name of equality, is being less than a man. At least in God's eyes--that is, the Hebrew God's.
True to the liberal take on reality, Represenative Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) utterly condemns President Bush, his administration, and the entire war effort. The Democrat House Minority leader from San Francisco says that Bush is not a leader, has no judgement, no experience, and no knowledge about the subjects he makes decisions about.
Nancy Pelosi on Meet the Press
Such remarks are so obviously superficial (only for purposes of political rhetoric), so emotionally immature, and so completely false, that one has to wonder how such a person as Pelosi ever obtained office at all. Does this mean that her constituents are also superficial, immature, and prevaricative?
Ah, it is the clarion call of the Liberal: condemnation--moral, intellectual, political, whatever, of the opposition. And if you so much as think the same thoughts about them, you come under precisely their condemnation. There is no escape. They are right, you are wrong. But it's all in words. The actions of the liberals speak louder than their words. There is never any need to fear their words(--except in a courtroom, which is their playing field).
On Tim Russert's Meet the Press (May 30), Pelosi tried to explain her condemnation of Bush in terms of the war effort itself.
"We owe them [our troops] at least a fair fight when they go into battle for us. And that means they have to have leadership that knows what's on the ground when they get there, the equipment to make the fight, the intelligence to know who the adversary is."
As if war is a simple calculation, without risk. Why, if you plan it just right, you won't even take a bullet. No one will get hurt.
Certainly, women are to be greatly appreciate in their 'administrative' abilities. Women can generally do fifteen things at once, depending on how many children they have, and continuously change scheduling, impromtu, throughout any given day. Women have remarkable flexibility.
But not for war. Women like Pelosi show the kind of hemming and hawing, the "negotiating," "networking" tendencies that so impede a war effort as to prevent it from ever happening.
As House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. said, Pelosi's comments "were meant to inspire her political base. But who else do they inspire? If we followed Mrs. Pelosi's advice, Saddam Hussein would still terrorize the citizens of Iraq. We would still be waiting for the U.N. to make any decision regarding our national security."
Russert ask Pelosi how she thought her remarks made the troops feel. She merely lauded herself for having visited the troops, and basically suggested that under better leadership, none of them would ever have gotten hurt.
Pelosi's maternal instincts are just misapplied. Politics is no place for such sentiments. They make for weakness. That is, unless Pelosi was a Comanche woman of the 18th century, who knew how to train warriors. Then Pelosi might even have led the troops into battle! But that's just the oral tradition--of an old conservative folk. Comanche warrior woman Sanateah would have Pelosi's bloody scalp today, like she took Ramon Aguayo's in 1722, at the battle of Frio River.