The election crisis in Ukraine has brought out another crisis in the present Bush administration in its closing months. Secretary of State Colin Powell has recently made a statement which utterly contradicts a major point Bush had made against John Kerry in their first presidential debate. Reconsidering Bush's statement shows where diplomatic language can sometimes lead. It may also show how far Powell may be from Bush.
A supporter of Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko
waves a flag as he looks down at the supporters of rival presidential
candidates gathering in front of the Ukrainian Supreme Court in Kiev
on Monday. AP/David Guttenfelder
Moderator Jim Lehrer asked Kerry about the idea of preemptive military action by the United States. Kerry said he believed in the idea, "But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
Bush responded, "I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test. My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.
(Bush went on to denounce Kerry's willingness for America to join the International Criminal Court. Bush implied such a move imperils American sovereignty, and endangers our military abroad.)
Last week (Nov. 24), Colin Powell observed the election crisis in Ukraine, and made the following official statement: "We cannot accept this result as legitimate because it does not meet international standards and because there has not been an investigation of the numerous and credible reports of fraud and abuse."
"International standards." That is, the Ukranian election did not "pass the global test."
This is a stunning contradiction of sentiments. Yes, there is a difference between Kerry's idea of preemptive military action and the process of a democratic election. But, it seems that there is a universal expectation in the world that is carrying Jimmy Carter's idea of "human rights" beyond the pale. America doesn't want a civil war in Ukraine, but does this mean the United States should pressure, in any economic way, the political process in a country?
The United States has the right to give or refrain from giving when it comes economic or humanitarian assistance. Certainly. But does political policy come with the gift? Are there strings attached, indeed?
Of course there are. The American government is not in the charity business. America is marketing democracy and free enterprise in the world. America has a stake in a country like Ukraine, since it is an important ally in the war against terror. It's location near the Middle East is very important. Russia has been no ally at all, but rather all but a direct military enemy. The United States would rather see an independent Ukraine, but not through civil war. This would cause America to have a military encounter with Russia.
Powell's diplomacy is not necessary here. There is no "international standard," no "global test" for politics. In our country, money has a lot to do with what happens. Is that "fair?" Is that "the people's voice?" In Ukraine, apparently significant fraud had to do with what happened, as well as did money and political strings. We can only hope that there truly is such a thing as "the people's voice," there, as well as here. In America, we generally feel it does exist. I suppose that's what we want to feel about Ukraine.
The fact is, elections are becoming more and more critical in the world, and the tensions are mounting. The day the American government hired an international monitering service for our own presidential election was an ominous day in our history.
BadEagle.com has apparently 'outgrown' it's server, and the dysfunctions on the Ikonboard are such that only by moving to a different system can these problems be resolved. Hopefully, in the next few weeks, this basic change will transpire. In the meantime, all that remains functional is the BadEagle web log. This is because it is on MovableType, a different system than the Ikonboard forums.
Technical difficulties provide great business opportunities for techies. More and more, small, one-man entrepreneur companies have appeared in the yellow pages, who actually make house calls to repair computers. They have 'industrial strength' virus cleaning programs, and they like to reconstitute hard drives, like auto mechanics like putting in new transmissions. It's great business. But more and more confusion results from this wild frontier when those who know little can take advantage of those who know nothing. Some call it free enterprise. I say computer repairmen should be licensed. At a time when just entering the Internet makes you completely vulnerable, repair business soars. Programs contradict, interfere, and mutually disable, and viruses are created daily, by the thousands. Techies scramble for business, as innocent customers pay for everything.
Compounding these difficulties are heavy rains in the central southwest, and telephone lines have been out, in some cases over a week. Southwestern Bell, (SBC) whose rates increase regularly (another $2.00 just last month) has shown less competency and less consideration for customers with each passing year. It costs $30 dollars a month for the most basic phone line service. The phone lines in Oklahoma City, for instance, are old, and overloaded, and the company will not spend the money to correct the problems. The system was not designed for as much use as the company is willing to profit from. The overload is greed. The same situtation holds true for Oklahoma Gas and Electric company (OG&E). The telephone poles are simply overloaded. Outages are not compensated, and the losses accrued by the customer are never even addressed. The power of monopoly is supreme. The customer pays for all the incompetency and greed of the company.
Shall we all go cellular, forever? Ah, then we risk brain tumors. Or so we thought. Now they're saying cells phones can increase brain power! It's so nice to be able to have confidence in the news. Such a secure feeling.
By the way, in the process of using public pay phones to do simple business, like dealing with credit card issues, I discovered American Express uses offices in India to deal with American customers. No more Emerican Express for me.
And regarding computer hacks, let's evaluate this situation. For young kids who happened to be "home alone" with computers, who seem fascinated with the technology, a word of advice ought to be given by parents: when you create a virus, you are essentially robbing, that is, stealing, from another person. More accurately, you are destroying someone elses property. No, you don't get the stolen goods in your own hands, and you may not even see the direct result of the damage you do, so your vandalism is rather abstract. But, it is not any less true that when a kid (or adult) invents a virus, that person is intentionally creating havoc for another person, for many persons, for millions of people. The kid is costing people time, money, business, and a host of related effects. Parents should have serious talks with their children about the significance of this virus industry. It is a vital moral issue. Kids think it's innocent fun, and they even compete with one another over creating viruses. Professionals make a living off not only creating viruses--which only their programs can protect against, but also in some cases have ended up with top paying jobs, rather than jail sentences. Computer security businesses have burgeoned beyond belief.
These ill-bred children and professional criminals should all be burned alive, publicly.
It's happened before. But here the innocents of Nagasaki were destroyed because of an evil government which would not respond to warning. The world will burn, because of evil governments, because of people who would not take the responsibility of correcting their own societies.
One might argue that the hacker is creating more business, more jobs, and hacking is good for the economy. But it is robbing from one to give to another. This cannot be a good thing. To build up Jerusalem with iniquity, as the ancient prophet said (Micha 3:10), is not a sound construction process. A terrible price will be paid, as in 9-11. It is not a healthy mind set to "do evil, that good may come" (Romans 3:8).
And there will be a massive public burning one day, according to ancient scripture. This is an ancient outrage against evil, expressed in explicit terms. The "wicked" will be consumed, before the eyes of the redeemed. (Ezekiel 28:17; Malachai 4:3. Indeed, it's happened before. Genesis 19:24,25; 2 Peter 2:6; Revelation 20: 9,10.) I'm beginning to like the idea. It feels good. It should appeal to anyone who is sick and tired of evil, and the needless waste and suffering it causes.
So Hillary Clinton wants an internet "editing function or gatekeeping function." (First Lady's Press Briefing on Millennium Project, US Newswire, Washington, D.C., ll Februrary 1998). So internet crime and abuse, or even internet business advantage, results in the curtailment of internet freedom. A likely story. I suppose we deserve what we get. Society corrects itself. The innocent are merely fodder for the foul play. The good are fuel for the bad.
Well, in the mean time, all we can do is try to function, amidst the dishonest, the greedy, the cruel, the shameless, and the violent, amidst those with no honor, no conscience, no respect, no concern, and who offer no benefit to society.
Many Indians today have a hard time with Thanksgiving, perhaps worse that Jews with Christmas. Thanksgiving doesn't seem to be a holiday that inspires Indians, since it was actually the beginning of the end of our homes, and our way of life. And who's to "thank" for that, but the white man? Is the situation abject? Are Indians forever slaves to discontent?
As an Indian, I feel obliged to offer a positive, pro-active position on the whole story. On VDARE.com, and on FrontPageMagazine.com, I have posted articles for Thanksgiving Day. The VDARE article is entitled, "The High Toad to Turkey: And Indian View of Thanksgiving." The FrontPage article was submitted with the title, "Fathers and Children," but was published under "An Indian's Thanksgiving Proposal." In both these articles, I attempt to recreate a perspective on American history and Indian/white relations that will allow Indians to relate with a more positive attitude toward the circumstances of American history.
Chief Black Bear, Arapaho, ca. 1865
I use the metaphor of father/son relations. The Indian is the father, white America is the son. America was simply an unwanted child, caste out of Europe, washed upon our shores, in quite miserable shape, at least physically. We saved him, and cared for him, not knowing he was the seed of giants. He outgrew us, and the relationship was ineffably strained.
Nevertheless, America has a longing, yearning sense of bonding with the American Indian. The Indian is the archetype, the deepest natural and social image in the American psyche. That this deep image in the white man should be met with the ire and resentment by the living Indian, is a painful, baffling prospect to the white man. Without the Indian, the white man really lacks the most basic element of nationalism. The white man is a foreigner here, and will always be, no matter how long he abides here. He needs the Indian to be complete. The white man needs the Indian's "native" connection to the land. He needs the Indian to be fully American. The Indian is like a talisman to the American soul. That soul is not fully alive without it.
What the white man needs is the Indian's blessing, not his resentment. The white man needs the Indian's acceptance, his approval, and his cooperation. The Indian can, if he will, offer this freely, and there is no need to chastise the white man, or to imitate him, or to assimilate. The white man must also understand that the Indian is not insulting him or rejecting him, or condemning him, when the Indian prefers to be Indian. The white man must allow the Indian this freedom.
A certain psycho-sociological maturity is needed on the white man's part. And if the Indian is truly a spiritual being, a "noble" savage, he will not deny the white man the blessing, nor will he make it impossible for the white man to outgrow his own regrets.
BadEagle.com has advocated conservative positions on various Indian issues for over two years now. Articles on FrontPageMagazine, VDARE.com, (and formerly on American Enterprise), have been circulated widely. Speaking engagements followed national radio and TV appearances. A financial management proposal for "Indian" casino money was presented by BadEagle to Governor Schwarzenegger just last month. Has there been any effect? Can it be measured? Are contrary trends inevitable in media?
The best Indian news digest is Indianz.com. Lately, not only have they listed BadEagle articles, but also those of other Indians who have begun to address the same issues Badeagle has cited, in the same way.
Indians are more and more questioning the effect of "Indian" casinos on Indian country. The latest: northern California governing officials are considering a moratorium on any new "Indian" casinos for the next five years. And Congress is demanding more accountability for law inforcement on the reservations. (Yet, the Indianz.com editorial does not mention that the very high crime rate involves crimes committed against Indians by whites and blacks, nor does it take into account the increase of crimes related to increase of "Indian" casinos.)
During 60 Minutes (Sunday, Nov. 21), a California "Indian" casino tribe ran an ad featuring Jesse Ventura quite mistakenly accusing Schwarzenegger of unfairly treating the California Indians. Why, Awnold wants 25% tax from the tribes, while other California corporations only pay 8% tax. Ventura said Schwarzenegger was "ripping off Indians." Ventura fails to consider that the casino "tribes" do not pay a host of other fees and taxes which any other corporation does. Ventura is clearly challenging Schwarzenegger without knowing the "Indian" situation in Calfornia. Why? The "casino" Indians paid Ventura for the ad. One muscle man movie star (Awnold) said Indians were ripping off California. Now another (Ventura) says Awnold is ripping off the Indians. How quaint. How obviously, shamelessly meddling on Ventura's part, for pay.
The Terminator sets the terms
There are many Indian people who can see clearly the fraudelent pretenses of "casino" Indians, "leaders," and white politicians, and their avarice-based disputes. The whole enterprise is a disgrace, and even AIMsters have taken a stance to defend Indian people from the abuse that results from the casino business. It's the wild, wild west all over again, only this time people may have a chance to defend ourselves. We're a little more knowledgable about what's happening. We need an Indian political party, frankly. An Indian people's party. We understand the corruption often inherent in our tribal goverments, and this is only compounded by the unbridled greed evoked through casino opportunities. White people are merely using Indians. Indians must unite in some systematic, sociologically effective way, nationally, inter-tribally.
BadEagle.com is currently pursuing official Oklahoma "task force" arrangements to establish some equitable principles of operation and cooperation between Indian nations and the American people. Indian sovereignty must be preserved through clarification, and must never be allowed to function as an inimical influence within American society. Indians will end up suffering the most from that circumstance.
BadEagle.com has claimed from the beginning that an Indian is a patriot. Being an American Indian, and being an American Patriot, is the high calling of all Indians of this land. Anything less is sociologically immature and counter-productive. Preserving our tribal heritage does not require disowning America. Rather, Indians should set an example of what it means to love your culture, your heritage, your race. America need reminding.
Indians may appear the exception to every modern political position in conservatism; BadEagle says let's make that exception into a extraordinary effort to preserve America.
The Clinton Library, and museum, has now preserved forever, for the public, the grand delusions of William Jefferson Clinton. The grand opening of the colossus of criminal cunning was Thursday, November 18, 2004. Timed just after the election, the unveiling of the Democratic shrine already seeks to usurp the credit for all thing good during the Clinton presidency (1992-2000), and to establish permanent doublespeak regarding the illegitimacy, the criminality, and the unabashed anti-American nature of the entire regime. All is well, all is beautiful, and Bill is great. This center stands a living proof of the power of public delusion, and the success of those willing to devote their souls to deception. Even President Bush was on hand to contribute meaningless, vapid words of praise. Clinton's legacy of superfluity was aggrandized by the depraved personnel of Hollywood, and the idol of popularity itself received a triumphant homage. "Glamour and pride block out sleaze," one headline read. This depraved reporter thought Hollywood's presence obfuscated the immorality of Bill Clinton, as if the presence of a 'madam' excises the whoredom of her brood. But that's the nature of Clinton deceit. This is his legacy. A life threatening illness made no impression on his soul, nor corrected one distortion of his delusions.
Bill Clinton, soaking it in. Don't look at him too long, or you'will forget
what a deluded and dangerous man he really is. He might seem even lovely.
$165 million for this tribut to the denigration of American values? Tax payer dollars to honor the enemy of the tax payer?
Oh, but it's all justified, naturally. The center will bring wonderful business and social life to poor, depraved Little Rock. An economic boom, a saving effect. Oh, how wonderful is Mr. Bill Clinton.
One would not be moved to denounced him so strongly were it not his insistence on pushing his deformity in our face, constantly, and forever. Therefore, it is the duty of every caring American to denounce him faithfully, and everyone who supports him and his agendas.
What is the alternative?
The Democratic Party, however, must begin all over again, from the beginning. It is unbearably disheartening to believe that all persons in the Democratic party are dishonest, wicked, and dangerous, like the Clintons. That's just too many people. The American public cannot comprise that large a loss of valor. There must be true-hearted folk among the Democrats who will now come out, and no longer part of the sins of their leaders.
In the mean time, if anyone in Arkansas feels unsafe, or worred about terrorism, let them run to the Clinton center. It must be the safest place in the world. There all ideology that would bring America to its knees is enshrined in tax-generated glory. No enemy of America could ask for more. The Clinton Library is the haven of all that is morally egregious, all that is wrong with America, and all that threatens the foundations of the country. It stands as firm as the world.
The Media, that universal knight of noble causes, that brave, gallant cavalier, is now trying to tell the United States Marines how to do battle, on the battlefield! With unprecendented arrogance the Media now demonstrates only too well the lust for power so dominant in today's society. Everyone wants power and authority. What could be more gratifying to a impotent pacifist than to tell the soldier when to shoot. Witness, the ascent of the 'embedded' newsman.
Sunday (Nov 14) the reports came out that a US Marine shot a wounded, unarmed Iraqi insurgent. NBC's Kevin Sites apparently filmed the whole thing. The US is already apologizing, and there will be a full investigation. Why, it is implied that the marine "murdered" a helpless victim. Why, it is suggested that a US combat soldier, on the ground, in the midst of a war zone, is guilty of rash, uncontrolled, mean, hateful, racist behavior. Why, this is worse than the prisoner abuse at Abu Graib.
In this image taken from pool video provided to the Associated Press by NBC News, a U.S. marine is seen, left, raising his rifle in the direction of two wounded Iraqi men lying on the floor of a mosque in Fallujah, Iraq Saturday Nov. 13, 2004. The marine then fires his weapon, the bullet striking the upper body of one of the Iraqi men. The bodies of two other Iraqis are seen in the foreground, lower right. The pool video was recorded Saturday as the Marines returned to an unidentified Fallujah mosque. A Marine spokesman in Washington said the shooting was under investigation. (AP Photo/NBC News, Pool)
This is the media. This is the liberal, pacifist front, which is now trying to dictate to the US Marines how they should fight, and whether or not they should actually kill. (Heaven forbid than anyone should kill anyone in war!) This is the unprecedented ascent of arrogance. Here these wimpy, ambitious reporters, who have managed to procure for themselves a ringside seat in on the field of battle, who have never served their country, who have never fought in combat, presume to dictate a neat and tidy code of conduct for the men of blood. The cowards want to control the courageous. With unmitigated gaul, the non-combatants propose to control the trigger on the soldiers gun.
These ambitious careerists, with no thought for anything but their own excitement and professional advancement, think they have the authority to command the United States Marines!
Their insufferable presence on the battle field is nothing but interference and confusion, and they encourage distracted behavior if anything. Why were there cameras at Abu Graib? Why were pictures taken? For what purpose? Who would willing pose for what were obviously incindiary acts? Was there a pay-off involved?
Why was there a camera on this marine? Who do the camera men look for to film? Do they have favorites? Do they make "mini-" movie deals with soldiers and commanders? Do they compete with each other for the juiciest, most infamatory footage, to be immediately broadcast on international media? Look at the position from which Sites filmed. What is he doing over in a corner? I say let's put these camera man on trial along with whomever is accused as the result of their films or pictures.
What a racket they have! What a pretense. And what an insult to America's finest fighting men. Gullible viewers the world over are swayed this way and that, by the ambitious schemes of professional media personnel, by this lusus naturae of mean greed.
Then the sharks hit the frenzy. The lawyers leap in. (Who knows, maybe they contribute before hand. Maybe they're in on the deal from the start. No misconduct or malfeasance is beyond the pale these days.) America's fighting men are facing an enemy with no rules, and our men are expected to abide by the highest codes of conduct. This is remarkable. This is Arabic Islamicism, at its worst, and American military at it's best. Who profits? The media, and the attorneys. How vomitable.
This is entrepeneurism par excellence. This is money making at its unlimited finest. Real cause, real blood, and real money. The entertainment produder's dream. And yes, that's what news is these days, entertainment.
Can we get our money back? How can we communicate to the Media that we no longer appreciate its self-serving, inimical influence? How can let them know we boycott them? How can we show our disdain?
Ah, but that's not the kind of news the News wants to know about. That would never sell, for there would be no audience to sell it to. We're stuck with the news. We must simply purge ourselves, regularly, by huge doses of truth, which must come from within our own minds and souls. Physicians, heal yourselves.
So now we have people thinking Arnold Schwarzenegger should run for president of the United States. This is interesting. This would mean a foreign-born man, with a heavy accent, would appeal to more Americans than John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, or Howard Dean. That is not at all an unreasonable surmising. Political activists already support the idea. Schwarzenegger himself is certainly willing to run with it. Many foreign-born people justify the idea entirely.
But it would also mean that America really is up for grabs. It would be the "last of the Mohicans," indeed, with regard to American traditions that are going or gone with the wind--that is, the winds sweeping away cultural values, and concepts of nations, and even the meaning of words. Why, anyone and everyone is "American" now. It's a concept, not a self-righteous legal definition. It's a value, not a technicality. So people are saying.
BadEagle predicted a favorable outcome when Schwarzenegger first announced his bid for the governorship of California. The basic reason was simply the people's unspoken anxiety over the Mexican (and Asian) immigration threats in California. BadEagle suggested that this subliminal concern was met by the strong man, the German (Austrian), the Aryan, who seemed universally admired as a man, as well as highly regarded as a member of the Kennedy family--which still is regarded by many as a positive thing.
Will the same elements play out in a national election, if Schwarzenegger gets a constitutional amendment that will allow a foreign-born American citizen to become president? The same elements certainly exist, only more dramatically for the whole nation. Though Schwarzenneger is neither Anglo-Saxon nor Protestant, he is white, and he is at least subliminally associated with the Aryan impulse to preserve the white race. This unspeakable resonance in the American psyche is balanced by the more conscious, liberal, and distateful image of the leftover Kennedy family (i.e., Ted specifically). Indeed, the formula might work again.
Maria Kennedy and Arnold Schwarzenegger
After all, who can run agains Hillary Clinton and expect to make it a contest? The delusional Hillary has already begun her campaign for 2008. What Republican has a chance after Bush? George Soros is a Clinton fan, and he will surely put his staggaring financial and sociological support behind her. Hillary truly disgusts masses of Americans, who will work intensely to keep her out of the White House. Awnold is not so despised. Therefore, he would have an excellent chance.
However, if foreign-born American citizens are to be more trusted than American born traitors and home-grown anti-Americans, then perhaps we should nix the Kennedy connection, and choose a different, more qualified talent altogether.
I realize the reaction toward my suggestion will be resistance by many, but Reza Pahlavi would be a better bet. I say this will all due respect to Mr. Pahlavi, and to America. The Persian Prince received his military and higher education in the United States, in the late 70's, and has lived here permanently since 1984. (That meets Schwarzenegger's "20 years" requirement.) He is much more politically and professionally astute in American politics than Schwarzenegger. I realize the American popular reaction to Iran is still rather dreadful, and there are some in the 2 million-strong Iranian American community who resent the Pahlavis to this day; but theoretically we're talking about qualification for leadership and understanding of the world here, not in-house differences, or American public popularity. Reza was trained to lead a country, and play a role in world affairs. Arnold was simply not. It is not an issue of talent, either, but just a simple matter of preparation. And Reza is Persian, with the blood of the world's greatest emperors flowing in him. His natural propensity for international management is genetically incomparable to even the younger cousin race, the Germans. Poetic or mythical as this sounds, it is fair game in the realm of suggestion. And, surely that's all we're talking about.
In reality, however, Reza does love Iran, as do all Iranians. They all make terrific Americans, but that's only because they are ancient internationalists, and they understand the heartbeat of America with profound intuition. They are 'naturals' at being American, and they really should run for office. But Reza has expressed no thought about running for any political office in America, and instead continues to work for democracy in Iran.
And it is true, the hottest topic among the Iranian diaspora in the world, particularly in the prosperous American community, is whether or not they really do love Iran! They often accuse each other of insincerety in their claims. I would therefore say, if Reza foregoes any political career in America, it is in fact because he does love Iran. His political abstenance is the highest demonstration of his sincerety. Of course he loves America, but, he is Persian, in a very immovable way. (I'll have to have another chat with him about this!)
Reza Pahlavi
This comparison is made only to demonstrate the real issue of the Schwarzenegger Amendment idea. If love of America is what determines one's citizenship, I say that is a wonderful thing. But how does one demonstrate that convincingly? Will this be an encouragement or a detriment to the American public? Is America no longer to be considered a White Anglo-Saxon Protesant nation? If it ever was, the Schwarzenegger Amendment, despite Awnold's obvious and sincere love of America, will end that era forever.
Will this be good for America? Never mind the world. Is this best for America?
Furthermore, I think I would rather see an American Indian president before a foreign-born president, much as I love foreigners. (But, you see, White Anglo-Saxon Protestants are foreigners to me, too, as are Indians to many people in America.) So, if Americans must have a foreigner on Capitol Hill, Americans should really do it up right, and put a Redskin in the White House.
American Horse, Oglala Sioux Nation
There is no Palestine. There are no Palestinians. "Palestine" is not a country, not a state, not a race, not a culture, nor has it a language, a real history, or a national pride. Intead, it is only a concept forcefully superimposed with great blood and agony on a peculiar and delicate circumstance.
Palestinian security officers lift the coffin of the late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat on top of a car inside Arafat's compound in the West Bank city of Ramallah, November 12, 2004. The Palestinian president, a former guerrilla who became a Third World liberation icon and won a Nobel Peace Prize only to sink into renewed conflict with Israel, died at age 75 in a French hospital on Thursday. REUTERS/Oleg Popov
Therefore, the passing of Yasser Arafat is essentially irrelevant if not meaningless with respect to "Palestine" and "Palestinians." He is relevant to those who idolized him, despite his legacy of theft, fraud, murder, and perpetual strife. The "chaos" will continue, as part of his mark in the world. Arafat was essentially a willing fake, who deluded people, and enriched himself by billions, apparently. Of course the heirs of his fortune will squabble, violently, for years to come. The life of Arafat's wife Suha is epitomical of the imbalance, the impropriety, and the sheer chicanery involved in the whole "Palestinian" thing. It is based on delusion and pretense. How can it produce anything else?
"Palestinians" are Arab-speaking Muslims, today mostly from Syria and Jordan. There were only a half million of them who "left" Israel after the new state was established in 1948. It is estimated that 68% left without seeing one Israeli soldier. Kahled Al-Azam, Syria Prime Minister after 1948, said in his 1972 memoires that the plight of the Arab refugees was created not by Israel, but by the Arab world. Unless this is well understood as the basis of the problem, there can be only superficial, temporary solutions.
What distinguishes one Arabic-Islamic nation from another are their ancient, pre-Islamic roots. There are indeed true people in the land called Palestine who have such ancient roots. They would do better to 'cash in' on these roots. The other "Arab" nations clearly are using these "Palestinians" to prick at Israel, and they really care nothing for these "Palestinians." This is the biggest fraud in modern world history.
"Palestine" comes from the world pelesheth, "rolling or migratory" in Hebrew, better known today as "Philistine." Philestines were indeed an ancient people, with a well established culture, language, and religion. Today's "Palestinians" ought to consider that, and drop this "Islamic," "Arabic" thing, which has cost them nothing but innocent lives. It has brought them nothing but frustration, misery, and shame. They are the trained attack dogs of the Arab world.
Instead, there should begin now an entirely new movement: The Nation of Philistia. That would be legitimate.
Arafat leaves only a legacy of delusion and blood. He accomplished nothing for "Palestinian" people, because that identity is fraudulent. The "Palestinian" people of the land should now rise up free from the shackles of this delusion, and declare their independence from the Islamic Arab world. For whatever respect they believe is due Arafat, the future should now be free. They can honor him, and honor themselves with a truer concept of who and what they are.
The moment it became clear that President Bush had won re-election, the talking heads began bobbing like a cork with a blue gill sunfish on the hook. The simple little fact that the American people preferred Bush, a man of faith, pulled the talkers under water, gasping for reasons. Despite the $317,788,245 million Kerry raised for his campaign, depsite the activist minions of George Soros and his millions in campaign contributions to Kerry, (nearly $12 million), despite the obvious media support of Kerry and it's clear bias against Bush, Kerry lost.
On of the very first commentators (if not the first) to note something profound about the election was Adrea Mitchell, on an MSNBC pannel. "In this election morality was more important than economics," she said.
Andrea Mitchell
Ever since, the liberal media has been expanding on that thought. The lead talkers are trying to make it appear that Bush was too righteous, and that this was unfair. It wasn't right that he should win on the people's preference of morality. Why, the Left has been cheated. The liberals have been wronged again. It's just not fair.
Give them enough time, and they'll master the rhetoric of political righteousness, and come out more vicious that anything they've ever accused Bush of. They've already been more vicious, so, we should say, the next time they'll just be more righteous. They'll have more religion.
Is it possible?
Interestingly, Andrea Mitchell, who is Jewish, is also married to Alan Greenspan, also Jewish, and the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and chief economic advisor of the country. Anciently, internationally, it is a fact, Jews are known for both morality and for financial acuity. Western society is based on ancient Hebrew morality, and hardly any single group of people, so few in number, have excelled so marvelously in business.
Anrea's astute observation has set the tone for the next four years of the Democratic campaign agenda. It's all about figuring out how, not to keep the faith, but to compete with the faith. We shall see strange things.
But in the mean time, the Jews will probably not be credited with the morality which they have contributed to the world. The intense involvement with the Liberalism has left them with rather seamy associations. Furthermore, the activists among them, like the ACLU (whom Michael Weiner "Savage" despises as America's worst enemy within), seemed to have gone out of their way to disdain the open practice of Christianity, while coddling other faiths. The real American patriots among the Jews are often kept in the background. Someone like Don Feder, a true conservative American patriot, with respect for Judaism and for Christianity, is one of the most under-recognized cultural luminaries of our times. We don't hear him on national TV every night, like we hear the neo-cons, the liberals, or the professional bobbers. We should. Feder gives you the "cold steel," and such a cutting edge is politically inadvisable. Lesson: truth is not always a political advantage, at least for TV talk shows.
Don Feder
Christians often presume a disposition mistrust of Jewish people, and too many Leftist Jews have earned that mistrust. But it is time that Christians should recognize the Jews who do not stand for the Left. These Jews should be greatly encouraged in their work. David Horowitz is willing to take on, head on, the most pernicious Leftists among the Jews, like Noam Chomsky. One simply can no longer see Jews as a unified voting block, or a solid political force. There are those mighty among them who think for themselves, and whose cultural connections to their people and their faith do not automatically dictate a predictable political position.
And what of their moral position? Are their failures different or worse than everyone else's? "The chosen of God," their enmies taunt. I say, that ancient, everlasting, and magical affair between the Lord and the Jews is a "hands off" affair for the world. The world beware. And Christians need not concern themselves with the Jews and Christ. That is between the Jews and God. Christians should just leave it alone.
Instead, let's be concerned about America, and the love of our country. Let's mind the affair of our own nation, and learn to be patriots. That's a affair for all. It takes intelligent effort, and education. It takes responsibility to learn, to find out what it means to be a patriot, and to learn what it means to love one's country.
Remember, George Soros says, like the Terminator, "I'll be back." Let's be ready for him. Let's make sure we understand what America is, what it's supposed to be, what our Declaration and Constitution says it is. Only in this way can we not be fooled by the America's enemies within.
So Kerry "concedes," eh? And to finish off his campaign, he talks about healing, and "a desperate need for unity." All these wonderful words, all these noble sentiments. All these transcendent prayers for good will. How touching. And how disgusting.
All this, from the man who conducted the most negative campaign in modern American political history. All this, from the man whose every position was based on an anti-Bush rhetoric. With unprecedented contempt, he loathed everything he could about Bush. As a mantra, Kerry said, This president does that, but I will do this. Kerry's entire campaign was a mere negation of President Bush. Kerry's approach was that of a chronic leech, and displayed profound weakness. All he could do was negate and condemn. The entire shape of his campaign was but an outline, a trace, around everything Bush said or did.
This is the final delusionary stage of the Leftist mind set. Not only does it practice the standard techniques of hit first, then accuse your target of hitting you, but it shows a deep emptiness, an iron drone of dependency on something else. Kerry was a deeply deluded man. He had nothing to say of his own. His so-called positive plans were mere reversals of what he perceived Bush's actions to be.
In a word, Kerry blamed Bush. It was a campaign of fault finding and blaming. This is the pith of its immaturity, dependency, and weakness. The Democrats thought Kerry was strong, based on his consistent criticism of Bush. But the weak are not strengthened by leeching off the strong. Strength comes from within, alone.
This was the most fake, and therefore necessarily vicious campaign in modern American history. It represents the worst of dependency, and it's the epitome of error in the Left. It is the revelation of all that is wrong with dependency. It leads to total delusion.
Kerry is a sick dog, and should be shot (figuratively) and buried. The country should have a chance to revive. Let's not let the man go out as some kind of gentlemen. He has brought a curse upon eloquence, upon political campaigning, and most of all upon himself, by his own self-deception. Surely, there is a point beyond which such an indulgent of delusion is beyond seeing himself. There is a point at which all such finally believe their own deceptions and delusions. They finally believe a lie. But, this does not make them less culpable, or more innocent. They are responsible for the condition they have developed in themselves.
Savage as it may sound, I say No mercy to this enemy. He shall be remembered for the infamy he earned, at least in this life. His named should be dead and buried.
A dramatic race it is. It seems eternity weighs in the balance. Yes, it looks very much like Bush is the undisputed winner, but, Kerry is not ready to concede. This morning former Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani said Kerry should "do the big thing," and condede, get it over with, don't drag the country through another post-election mess.
MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell last night observed that the election was based on the issue of morality rather than economics. This, she noted, was rather unusual in modern American politics.
Probably, then Kerry will drag it out as long as possible, since his character has always been consistent--always fighting, never giving up. Unfortuntately, it seems his efforts are generally mistaken. Americans have shown, albeit not by a landslide, that they prefer a man who has faith, who is unashamed of the American foundation in the Judeo-Christian religion. Americans prefer a man who is decisive, aggressive, consistent in his positions, and who speaks from the heart.
No, lots of folks don't think Bush is eloquent, smart, or even wise. And he trained to fly a jet which was obsolete well before Vietnam was over, so he became useless, even though he had volunteered twice to go to Vietnam. But Kerry went. Did that give him an advantage? No, because his record and conduct, particularly after the fourth-month stay in Vietnam, was just too offensive, to self-serving, too damning to others. His 'sins' caught up with him, really.
Democrats should simply choose a less controversial figure, a less "anti-American" figure. Can we write this election off as simply as that? It is basic lesson in the American image. There still is one, and it still shines.
"You can't fool all the people, all the time," Lincoln once said. What we can hope for now is that the Democratic Party will reshape itself, and the real patriots among them with either rid themselves of their interior enemies, shed the anti-American sectors among them, or start a whole new party. They need to return to their own roots, and disassociate from the anti-Americanism so deeply infiltrated within their ranks.
Bush wins on the image of the man, one who loves God, and who loves his country. Kerry simply does not have this image. Words alone cannot fake it or imply it. His life record spoke louder than his campaign. Democrats should take the lesson. No more Clintons, no more Kerrys, and no more charming Southern attorneys, like Edwards. Now, a southern gentleman might do a lot better. Now the fiery Zell Miller was honest about the whole picture. Democrats should consider a man like him, too.
We must all chose our men by character, not by showmanship. Look at the Illinois senate race. Barak Obama beat Alan Keyes by over 70% of the vote. Obama, the Democrat, was a simple, lovable, approachable people's man. Keyes is an extraordinary performer, with an overwhelming mouth and brain. There was no character issue here, really, unless we can say it's just better to have a more humble demeanor. People will relate to you more easily. Words themselves don't cut it. It is the larger image of the man than wins.
And John Thune won over Daschle in South Dakota. For Indians, this should be a significant indicator. Russell Means, the grand activist of yester-year, is still an activist, only one with an open mind, and willing to experiment with new approaches. Republican are certainly not famous for having a clue about Indians, but, Means sees them as an untapped resource, indeed. Perhaps we can hope for some new developments in the heart of Indian country.
All in all, depsite the desperate and dishonest foulplay, and street thuggery practiced by many low-level Democratic operatives--financed by internationalist anti-American subversionists like George Soros, the people won. The behavior in this election was decent enough. Americans should all be proud. Details will come out later, but, in the mean time, we should all breath a sigh of relief.
One of the greatest victories in this election, perhaps the most immediate, visceral triumph, is the fact that the media was defeated. The pollsters, the commentators, the networks, the minions of blathering fools were all proven to be the opportunists they really are. The media bent over backwards to get Kerry elected, but the people won out. The people are independent from the media. Fancy that.
Now, this is an opportunity for everyone to re-assess his values, and to continue in diligence. This is no time to become presumptuous and lethargic. It is time to renew our knowledge of what America is, what it is supposed to be, and how to keep it that way. This is a time for love of country. Let's make sure we know what love is, and what the country is. Then was can all call ourselves patriots.
Today's the day. America elects it's leader for the next four years. It is a perilous process, filled with fraud, intimidation, and hate, but it was ever thus. In earlier American history, people were actually killed in brawls at the polls. Edgar Allan Poe fell into the wrong neighborhood on evening in Baltimore in 1849. He was sick (and soused) and it was a rather wild Congressional election season. Gangs of politicos often used physical violence at the polls, voted several different times in different precincts, and rounding up any strays, and forcing them to vote for their selected candidates.
Edgar Allan Poe, 1809-1849
Poe was caught by the rabble-rousers on a Saturday night, made the brunt of election fervor in Cooth and Sergeants Tavern, and died of congestive heart failure in Washington Hospital a few days later, October 7, 1849.
Some of us may feel a death in our own souls, should the 'wrong' man be elected. We'll all feel it was due to fraud, cheating, intimidation, lying, and generally untrustworthy officials. Liars generally hope to come out on top by spreading confusion and uncertainty on every level, and by being first to do so, first to accuse the opposition of everything evil the liars themselves have committed.
It has been quite clear in this season, which side stands more nobly than the other. Of course, morality not only involves intellect in its perception, but also requires the experience of moral conviction to be perceived. Today, in America, many people lack basic thinking skills altogether, and their perceptions of morality are dull, due to the fact that they themselves are adrift. Their own soul wanders, and they have no ability to recognize character in someone else. They can only accuse. Their security is only in words, not actions.
I am not afraid to say, if Kerry should win, it will reveal that America no longer has control over it's own election process. It will demonstrate to all that a vast number of people identify with selfishness, anti-American traitorous dispositions, socialism (i.e., communism), and aggressive lying. A vast number of people are wallowing in depression, confusion, and passion over which they seem to have no control. They are fundamentally deceived, and this can only prove to us all that the media has done its work. The media is a whore, and can never be trusted again. The media is in fact, our enemy.
If Kerry doesn't win, it will be miraculous. And it will be America's last chance to revive the original values of the country, because a Socialist Democrat will undoubtedly win in 2008. Bush himself even now is inevitably part of certain trends which are not valuable to America. Spiritually, he is by far the better man, and there is no comparison in character between him and his honorless opponent. However, Bush is unavoidably part of established political currents which are not in the best interests of the country.
Or so it seems. So it appears. But, who are we? Just average citizens, concerned for the country. We know that dishonesty and immorality are destructive. We know the government cannot solve these problems. The government cannot force people to be good. The government itself is immoral, run by men of compromise and self-interest.
So who has failed? Parents? Who raised such immoral children? Who in the country was "hired" to look after the kids? Who's minding the family? The church.
We observe, therefore, that the church, the American church, has in fact failed in its mission to insure the moral health of the country. Under the drowsy eye of the church, freedom now means license, justice means selfish vengeance and petty relatiation; equality means evil is not to be distinguished from good, and none are to be considered more worthy than others, for any reason. Thus, the destruction of American society is assured.
Oh, there will be a society here, in this country, but it will not be an American society. It be something else. It will still be called American, but, the word will have been usurped. The enemies of America will have made their final triumph: the defeat of the name "America."
Of course, there are those of us who will never give up, will never turn in our guns, and will stand to the last man for right, for God, and for country. That "right" is defined by the Bible; that "God" is the Lord God of Israel; and that country is America--by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Indeed. There are those of us who will never surrender. Though the America you once knew and love will be no longer, though the land your heart is buried in will not long see you, though you will be living in a dream, you will never lose your vision, you will never give up, and you will never cease encouraging others to fight to the last man.
Bad Eagle, 1839-1906
You true patriot Americans will then all know what it means to be an Indian! As the host of BadEagle.com, let me be the first to welcome you all to Indian Country.