It happed. The Iraqi people showed their greatest strength: they voted. Perhaps even more dramatically than in Afghanistan, the first free election in Iraq represents a profound triumph for humanity in the Middle East.
Remember the Alamo. Remember Iraq! Remember that first love of freedom. Such a glorious thing it is. How sweet it is, indeed. These Iraqi people deserve very great honor, really. Surely history will give it to them.
Iraqi women vote in Mosul! An Iraq electoral worker checks a woman's document as another prepares to vote in Mosul, 30 January 2005. US officials praised the election turnout in Iraq's restive third city of Mosul, but political parties in its ethnically-divided province protested about the lack of polling centres and ballot papers(AFP/Mauricio Lima)
The news media all over America has covered the story well. Even the anti-Bush liberals have had to face the facts of victory, much as it humiliates them. Much time was given to kill-joy commies like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, giving them full opportunity to spin their own positions so as not to look the foolish manipulators they are. They were given great air time to try and work themselves into the credit for the changes in Iraq. They still insist on presenting themselves as if they are on top of the situtation, and their ideas are supreme and true.
If left up to them, however, the world well knows, there would have never been democracy in Iraq. There would never have been the first taste of it.
This is a wondrous thing Bush has accomplished. Millions of Iraqis voted, proportionately, probably more of the population than vote here in America. It was a moving experience, just to hear this news from Iraq. The people have the purest appreciation for the right to vote. This is something most people in the west have forgotten almost entirely. To cast a ballot, under the threat of death--this is a triumph ineffable. The Iraqis came through. The Iraqis showed marvelous determination.
One American soldier was interviewed, and he said he was not in fact surprised. "The Iraqi people are a proud people." This is what the whole world needed to hear. The free world, the oppressed, and the abject, all needed to see the Iraqis take the bull by the horns. And they did.
Progress is slow, but progress is progress. In fact, the accomplishments in Afghanistan and now in Iraq are really quite radical, and sudden.
The Middle East, indeed, all ares of the world oppressed by tyranny, must take a lesson from Iraq. Freedom burns in the heart of all men. It's catching! It will spread.
When I was in Iran, in 1998, I appealed to the students at the University of Tehran. My last lecture was to the English Department. I said that I expected great things from the Persians! They've always been remarkable in their adaptions of foreign elements, or imported things, whether political, artistic, or economic concepts. They've always know how to take something and make it better, applying it to greater dimensions. I told the students that I expected to see them take democracy, and one day make it even better than American democracy! They have the talent. They have the genetic capacity. It is in their genes, as well as their ancient history.
Time now for democracy in Iran!
Robert Redford has been critical of the American government for a long time. That it itself doesn't associate one with communism. However, Redford's repeated espousal of blatantly communist themes, ideologies, and personalities, force the conclusion that, for all his American glory movies, his personality takes "independence" beyond the pale of patriotism, and into the vale of Communist tyranny.
Last year,, (January, 2004), Redford paid a visit to Cuba, to give a private viewing of his new Motocycle Diaries, a 'documentary' about Che Guevera, the Argentinian Communist revolutionary and Cuban guerilla. Ostensibly, the trip was to show the film to Guevera's widow, son, and two daughters. (She had provided Redford with the diaries on which the film is based.) But seems Casto paid a personal visit to Redford in his Havana hotel. Castro and Guevera, of course, were comrads in arms in the late '50's. And Redford apparently went suba diving with Castro back in 1988. No biggie. Just friends. "Im very happy to be in Cuba," Redford said, again.
The all-American Redford is 'just friends' with the most pugnacious, pestilential purpetrators of communist tyranny in the western hemphisphere, Fidel Castro. The all-American "Sundance Kid" likes to make 'documentaries' honoring the great communist revolutionaries of the western hemisphere.
Even closer to home, Redford is directing The Company You Keep, a story based on the novel by "Chomskian anarchist" Neil Gordon. The book involves the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), a great anti-war movement of the '60's. The murderous Weathermen group sprang from the SDS in the '70's. Of course, Redford's film is about an innocent man, caught up in volatile associations. Considering who Redford hangs out with, though, it is quite clear that he isn't concerned about the company he keeps.
Redford has ironically made a number of "American apple pie" movies, such as The Horse Whisperer (1998), The Natural (1984), and of course, The Sundance Kid (1969). How "American" can you make a guy? We've already noted his famous 'Indian-killer' movie, Jeremiah Johnson (1972), which makes Redford a personal, individual hero, at the expense of Indians. He's a lover of horses, a great baseball player, an economic individualist (i.e., outlaw), and an Indian fighter. How is it that he can create such publicly lauded American image, and yet work so feverishly for anti-American causees? It is as if he has used his "American" image to subtly, and even not-so-subtly advocate the most condemnatory posture toward the United States government.
In Redford's version of patriotism, to be the true American means to be the anti-American. He who loves the trees more than the government is the true patriot. Preserving the environment is true patriotism, for Redford. A rather devilish usurpation of words and meaning here.
This is only more subtlety. It's not a matter of preserving the environment at all. It's a matter of who controls it. Redford seems like just a left-over '60's radical, copping that overgrown adolescent attitude of rebellion against authority. He may have a notion for the environment, but his political position is wholly anti-American. That should be obvious to anyone acquainted with his work. His protest is a power struggle. The environment issue is just a means to an end.
Redford vowed to move to Ireland if Bush was re-elected. Well, he changed his mind. "I'm not leaving just because of some barking dog on TV," he said. Redford should definitely think about leaving, however. I suggest to North Korea. Let Redford see how his beloved Communism manages the environment there. He should take some extra rations along. The farms aren't so productive these days.
Is Robert Redford different from any other Hollywood liberal? His politics don't appear to be distinguished from the most radical Leftist in Los Angeles. Is there some other unique notoriety about Redford that exempts him from criticism, or gives a free pass to use the Indian name "sundance" to validate his anti-American views?
Despite their continued gestures of compassion and political activism, actors are not expected to be either serious or too intelligent. In fact, moral insincerity is the general impression of their lives and deeds. Ronald Reagan was certainly an exception. There are other who have tried to follow. Clint Eastwood became the mayor of Carmel, California, 1886-88; of course, Arnold Schwarzenegger is now governor of California, with presidential visions.
In fact, there are other actors who have thrown their hat in the political arena, yet not been personally involved in political office. These activists include people like Jane Fonda, Barbara Streisand (who parades her political alliances on her personal web site), and of course, Robert Redford.
Robert Redford from The Guardian
Redford is a straight Democrat, and a grand liberal. He has been involved in political activism for nearly three decades. While his contributions to Democrat political candidates themselves remain fairly insignificant, his efforts in liberal causes are quite powerful. The Sundance Institute contributed to John Kerry's campaign, but, Redford's real efforts are in the great, globally-encompassing causes of the Left, such as environmentalism. Indeed, his support for John Kerry was based on anti-Bush positions, claiming Bush was destroying the environment. Redford personally appears on Kerry's campaign site.
"Today is Earth Day, and I am afraid," Redford says. "George Bush's environmental policies endanger our health, loot our natural resources, and destroy the possibility of a secure energy future."
In a crying, bloody liberal interview for the Chicago Tribune, Redford claimes Bush has "savaged" the trust given him by the American people. (Great "Indian" word there, savage.) In the same interview, Redfords reveals his sympathy for Latino communism, and the whole impression that anything south of the Rio Grande has been abused by the West (i.e., by implication, America), and becoming a Latino revolutionary is the only way to go. It's all in Motorcycle Diaries, the story of Che Guevera, the new movie fostered at the Sundance Institute. (And besides, Redford doesn't even feature the brown Mexicans that are on America's footsteps and in the door. He features the "white" Latino as the star of 'Hispañia.')
We've already noted the Michael Moore/George Soros connections of the Sundance Institute.
But there's more. Communist site Guardian Unlimited (Britain) reports that Redford's great aunt (father's aunt) was a devotee of Emma Goldman, a communist Russian Jew who was deported from the United States in 1917. Goldman was arrested for protesting the draft and later deported from the United States. Redford's family was in Los Angeles, but, liberal as the town has become, back then, Redfords great aunt was herself 'run out of town' for her association with Goldman. The great aunt (his father's aunt) went to teach at, were else, Berkeley. Redfords uncle (father's brother) was a Rhodes Scholar, but Redford claims hard times and poverty, as most faithful liberals do, whatever their financial connections. Redford went to Europe in 1955. He says Europe politicized him. That would be post-WWII socialist, communist Europe.
He came back to America to study acting in Brooklyn, NY. He married a Mormon girl from Provo, Utah. In 1961 he bought land there, are entered his "commune" stage of living. Ah, the purity bred in isolationism. He became the Sundance Kid by the end of the decade, and political activist to boot. He emerged as an environmentalist, naturally. Independent films, communes, showed essentially a man who is willing to rake in millions from the very society which he condemns, using that wealth to work against the American government. This kind of environmentalism transcends nationality. Redford would rather see America end, than harm the environment. That's real or imagined harm.
Environmentalism is a very manipulative, manipulated cause. is the site of the new southern California center of the Natural Resources Defense Council. It is house in the Robert Redford Building, and boasts of model architecture that will see the world through the devastations of the Bush administration. Toilets are flushed by rain power (or, accumulated rain water). I wonder if Redford has hired regular Hopi raind dancers to insure the plumbing?
Of course, Redford hasn't shown any interest in American Indians, except to use the name "Sundance" and to put a "Native American" label on the Sundance Institute web page. He's willing to use the Indian association to validate his environmentalism.
But that same kind of environmentalism was shared by Bill Clinton, who clandestinely orchestrated federal land grabs to further the United Nations authority in America. This kind of environmentalism is all about destroying American sovereignty. The façade of compassion for Mother Earth is an vicious affront to America. The earth cult is made servant of globalism and total tyranny. Doesn't sound like the American Indian position to me.
To this, add the "federal recognition" element among American Indian politics, and it is easy to see how more and more land can be brought under the control fo the federal government, and made available for UN "values." It is estimated that 70% of America's land mass is already subject to the UN. Indians may seem a peripheral player in this, but, the casino-driven land grabs make Indians a very serious element.
It's time for Indians to dissever all association with Robert Redford, and instead lend the American Indian to the service of preserving America, not just the plumbing. It's time for Indians to share in the American government, not to destroy it with some environmentalist fantasy that would suppose some other world government would treat Indians better.
The Cleveland Indians havenever claimed to support American Indian insterests. Robert Redford's Sundance Institute does. The Atlanta Braves havenever professed to foster Indian culture or talent. Redford's Institute does. The Washington Redskins, located in the national center of social ills, D.C., do profess at least a concern for inner city youth. Redford's Sundance Institute has nothing to do with Indian people or Indian reservations.
The Skins, the Braves, and the Indians have all been relentlessly attacked by Leftist Indian activists, because their professional athletic teams use Indian names, images, and logos. So why hasn't Redford's "Sundance" Institute been raided by the same Leftist-trained Indian activists and the hordes of white liberals behind them? Is it because the Sundance Institute professes to be culturally sensitive? Is it because the "Sundance" programs claim to have an interest in Indian people? Does Redford get a free pass to use an Indian name because of an appearance of concern for Indians? a political cover of "compassion"?
Let's examine that profession of cultural sensitivity, that claim of interest, that appearacne of concern for Indians. The use of Indian culture, in the form of images or words, is one thing; a sincere effort to benefit Indian people is quite another. It is evident, upon inquiry, that Robert Redford is neither appropriate nor accurate in his use of the "sun dance" name, nor has he shown any specific interest in Indian people.
Redford himself has produced not a single Indian script or film. The Sundance Institute does not produce either, for anyone. The Institute is a brief, professional educational opportunity for those accepted, for those who have already completed their work, but want finishing touches, i.e., to make acquaintances with those who can "produce" their work. There is no stipend involved. One is provided a hotel room for a short duration of tutelage under professionals.
The Sundance offers misleading impressions about it's "work" for Indians. Under "Programs," one finds a "Native American" category. Yet, to apply, one submits his entry to the general application, for a decision from the board. Bird Runningwater, who heads the "Native American Initiative," has no say in who is awarded a stipend-less fellowship to come to the Institute. The Institute looks like is has an Indian program, but it really doesn't. They may as well have a Lithuanian Initiative, a Somalian Initiative, and have a token representitive, like Runningwater. Apparently Runningwater is the sole salaried beneficiary of the Institute. Yes, the Institute offers a giant step forward for Indiankind. Indeed. There is simply no special effort for Indians. The Institute offers only a fraudulent impression of interest.
The Institute lists a few Indians "who have gone on to have their feature films produce," and they include Greg Sarris (Federated Coast Miwok), writer/producer of GRAND AVENUE; Chris Eyre (Cheyenne/Arapaho), director/producer of SMOKE SIGNALS, SKINS and SKINWALKERS; Shirley Cheechoo (James Bay Cree), screenwriter/director/producer of BEAR WALKER; Randy Redroad (Cherokee), screenwriter/director/producer of THE DOE BOY; and Sherman Alexie (Spokane/Coeur d’Alene), screenwriter/director/producer of THE BUSINESS OF FANCYDANCING. Was this because they 'did time' at Sundance Institute? Is there any connection at all? "Gone on..." is the key phrase there. They were essentially already "there." The institute's influence for Indians is miniscule.
And how many Indians do attend the Institute? How many "fellowships" have been given? Is there a quota, a racial agitation clause, like every Leftist institution has? Forty Indian writers and directors have attended in the last twenty-three years. That's two a year, average. Sounds like a pretty low quota for an Institute with an Indian name, and a special "Native American" program.
It's called tokenism. And it's not a very realistic foundation for the use of such a significant name like "Sundance." The Sundance was the plains Indians' most religious moment, the most sincere appeal to the supernatural, to the "gods" as it were. Such a name, for such a pretentious use, for such an painfully inadequate "program"? The inconsistency is too dramatic, the irony too great.
At least the Atlanta Braves carry on the tradition of masculine aggression, with "bravery." The Washington Redskins are a powerful relic of machoism (even if they don't win games). The Clevelend Indians are even called "the Tribe."
It can never be said that Redford has, in any real way, supported American Indian interests. The "Native American" program is a simple insurance to cover for the otherwise obvious presumption that no one in his right mind would question the unimpeachable sincerity of Robert Redford!
Perhaps Mr. Redford doesn't really have a hands-on control over the Sundance Institute. It's for independent film makers. Since the Institute invited Michael Moore in 1997 to tutor the young radical's "Third Strike," a film against California's expanding prison program--apparently poorly directed, or so inaccurate that Moore doesn't even list it on his own web site, nor is it listed on his yahoo page--and the Institute will now be funding it's future 'documentarists' through the money of George Soros, we really have to cut Redford a break, and just say he's out of touch with his Institute, right?
Wrong. In the immediate future, his political positions will be posted on BadEagle. The public can judge for itself regarding his patriotism. At this point, it is appropriate to say, Redford has no special interest in American Indians. Just the Indian name, "Sundance."
I just hope people can learn to distinguish between the movie image and the man. A hard sell, I know. Imagination is a special, personal place. We don't like our idols toyed with. I'm not an iconoclast. I'm a realist. Redford is nothing to Indians. He's merely using the Indian image to validate his far Left philosophies.
And by the way, Moore got $15,000 grant from the Institute's "Documentary" fund for that missing film, "Third Strike."
This evening, 6:30 Central Time, I'm scheduled to be on KTKK 630 Talk Radio, "The Voice of Utah" out of Salt Lake. I'll be on the Kyle Betton show, "Kyle 2K," which airs weekdays from 5pm to 7pm (Mountain Time). This is curious, because Betton had no idea of my issue with Sundance Institute and Robert Redford. He'd been looking at my recent articles on FrontPageMagazine, and contacted me. How apropos, then, that the capital city of Utah, Salt Lake, some 27 miles north of Redford's Sundance Ski resort, is the place from which we launch the first stage of attack!
It has become immediately apparent, of course, that the front line of Redford's defense will be the hordes of tan-skinned, dark-haired, dark-eyed women in the world who simply idolize him. They know nothing of his ideas, his intents, his Institute; they only know what a grand attraction he is to them, and they think only of his wonderfully "American" movies, like The Horse Whisperer (1998), The Natural (1984), and of course, The Sundance Kid (1969). I mean, how "American" can make a guy? We've already noted his famous 'Indian-killer' movie, Jeremiah Johnson (1972), which, however, paraded no special patriotic cause, no triumph of anything but Redford's macho image. Horses, baseball, cowboy/western outlaws, and Indian-killers, what more could they pack into an American icon?
from The Horse Whisperer,
No, I doubt that I will be able to enlist many women in this cultural raid, this soon-to-be cause célèbre. Women are simply enthralled with Redford. He's "Sent From Heaven"! I shall be particularly disappointed in the number of American Indian women who likewise are so enthralled with Redford that they will not see the purpose of the raid. They in fact will be offended, and consider me to be wrong in calling for the raid. This I understand. Furthermore, I do not dispute Redford's appeal at all. It is obviously very powerful.
What I dispute is the intent of Redford the man, not the looks of Redford the star. I contend with the values of individual, as he promulgates them publically, not the American icon created in movies.
This isn't personal. This is ideological. The coup I seek is not actually, or rather, not metaphorically, his scalp, but the exposure of his un-American ideas and promotions. In fact, this raid is long overdue. I repeat, with George Soros as the funder of the Institute's Documentary Fund, we can rest the case against Redford. There is an irreparable breach between his American icon movie image and the true intents of the man. At least, this is the case to all appearance.
Again, I will not stand for the use of American Indian images, names, or logos, to promote anti-American values. For this cause, I raid the Sundance Institute. All that the Left levied against the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves, the Washinton Redskins, I shall bring heavily to bear upon the Sundance Insitute. The Left used it's well-trained Indians to attack these athletic teams; I alone will turn the tables. Perhaps the Right will support me. Perhaps not. It doesn't matter. In a contest of principle against popularity, of truth against pretence, I procede with complete confidence. At the very least, I will demonstrate anew that the Left is not only inevitably hypocritical and deceptive, but it is utterly racist, in fact un-patriotic, and certainly anti-American.
No doubt about it now. Robert Redford has been challenged. A new blog entry just appeared yesterday: Richard Poe reveals more information about Redford's affair with the Sundance. It is quite clear now, for anyone who would doubt, Robert Redford's use of the name "Sundance" is directly linked to the American Indian sun dance rite.
Poe states: "The Institute is widely assumed to derive its name from Redford's famous role as outlaw Harry Longabaugh in the 1969 film 'Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.' The real-life Longabaugh was nicknamed Sundance Kid after serving a jail sentence for horse stealing in Sundance, Wyoming -- a frontier town that took its name from the Lakota rite."
The sun dance was practiced by the Sioux, and many other American Indian tribes of the Great Basin. This is so well-known among anyone who knows anything about American Western History that it is not possible to argue that Redford is unaware of the primary associations with the name "Sundance."
In fact, so well-aware of this association is Redford that he sued over someone else's use of name! December 20, 1997, Bud Kennedy reports in the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram that Redford sued Ed Bass, "local cowboy" for Ed's use of the name Sundance Theatres, "part of the entire Bass family's Sundance Square mini-city in downtown Fort Worth." Why, one white man's not going to let another white man make profit of that same Indian name! (The case ended in a settlement, and both businesses use the name, but Bass locally, Redford nationally.)
"At the Crook County Museum, [the Wyoming county in which the town Sundance was founded], built around the courtroom where Longabaugh was convicted, curator Cheryl McLaughlin said Redford "has no claim to the Sundance name at all. I guess he's just never been challenged," Kennedy reports.
Well, he's challenged now!
BadEagle is in the planning stages of a direct assault, and we shall see just what the intents and purposes of Mr. Robert Redford really are. We shall understand just what his agenda is. It is a most legitimate concern, now that the Documentary Film Fund of Sundance institute is provided by arch-Communist George Soros, international tycoon so devoted to "changing" America. This is the association which should concern everyone, even more than the Indian association with the term "sun dance."
As already noted, too, the homosexuals integral to the Institute's "Native Program" may send a mistaken message. It implies that Indians believe and foster homosexuality. This is simply not a promotion of general, traditional Indian values. In American politics as well, that there are homosexuals within the ranks of conservatism does not validate homosexuality as a central, founding value of American society. That homosexuality exists is one thing. To promulgate it, to advocate it, to campaign for more of it, is quite another.
Greg Sarris, one of the homosexuals fostered
by the Sundance Institute. Sarris is a specialist
at writing in the female persona.
Rare instances of homosexuality in American Indian folklore have been aggrandize in recent years (mostly by the female sector) to attempt to validate homosexuality in general. The exception has been made the rule by certain Indian Leftists, as well as their non-Indian counterparts. In Indian country, in the old days, when homosexuality was found, it merely existed. It was never advocated. In today's radical Left society, the peripheral is made central.
This political philosophy seems deeply imbeded in the Redford Sundance Institute. The Indian is being used to authenticate non-traditional and anti-American social values. Redford must answer for this, and address these issues. He is bringing intense division and strife in the already deeply troubled American Indian community.
What's wrong with Robert Redford's use of the "Sundance" name for his film institute? Maybe nothing at all. What's wrong with the "Fighting Sioux" name and logo of the University of North Dakota? Maybe nothing at all...
except the fact that Leftist politicians, both Indian and white, have made careers out of attacking the Fighting Sioux, and all Indian names, images and logos used by schools, and out of suing professional athletic teams that use Indian images.
How did they miss Robert Redford's use of the "Sundance" for his movie enterprise?
Why haven't they invested the same energy in forcing Redford to change the institute's name? Where are the Delorias, the Harjos, the Meeks's, the Means's, and all the professionals? (Well, Means is on a wiser path these days, but, there is no excuse for the others. This is derilection of duty for them!) Where is the Commission on Civil Rights, and its declaration that using an Indian image creates a "hostile environment"? Where are all the politicians, like Goldberg and Pallone, who want to make it illegal to use an Indian image?
I protest two things:
1) the outlandish hypocrisy of the Leftist Indians, who would crush some innocent school for using "Warrior" on it's school jersey, yet not breathe a word of protest against Robert Redford's use of "Sundance" for his institute.
2) the anti-American agenda of Hollywood liberals like Redford (who has brought George Soros into the Sundance Institute), and their use of an Indian image to validate or authenticate their anti-American agenda.
And I protest the fact that these Leftists feel free to employ the power of the Indian image to promote their agenda, but are vicious toward a conservative or patriot who sees the Indian as the quintessential validation of fundamental, traditional, constitutional American patriotism.
If Indians must be used, let it be for America, not against America. There is in itself nothing wrong in using an Indian image, a logo, or a name. It's exciting and powerful. The Indian image is always historical, interesting, and sort of magical. But to use it to dishonor America not only wreaks havoc in American society, but jeopardizes the future of the American Indian himself.
There is a right use of Indian images. When a school uses a warrior image, it is an honest use. It means bravery, courage, and determination. A warrior image is a real image. It stands for the core social values of independence, self-reliance, and providing for family and community. Every school should have a warrior image. But to use the sacred sundance as a cover for anti-American values is outright deception. Redford's use of the Indian image is criminal. Again, using an Indian name is not in itself the offense. It is the anti-American use made of it that offends me.
This is probably why the Leftist Indians have ignored the "Sundance" offense. The Leftist Indians are all anti-American. Why should they protest Redford's efforts? Their silence is really their blessing of his deceptive abuse of this sacred Indian image.
Essentially, the Left offends me. I just want to cast their own tactics in their teeth. I want to show the tyranny of the Left, and the inevitable hypocrisy it engenders. I want to give the lying bullies a taste of their own medicine. No, I'm not a career protester. I'm only an Indian patriot, incensed at the one use of the Indian image which is intolerable: its association with anti-American values. This I do most verily protest.
Who will join me? Who will make this raid of honor? Who will protest Redford's use of an American Indian image for his anti-American agenda?
Does Robert Redford have a positive interest in American Indians, or does the Sundance Institute simply use Indians to insure its political correctness quotas, market its authenticity, and validate its anti-American agenda?
In the decade of serious, radical civil rights issues, and the development of the American Indian Movement, Redford starred in Jeremiah Johnson (1972), a film about a mountain man who kills Indians or marrys them, whatever suits his fancy or personal circumstance. Indians are just tools in the narrative. The movie also features one fat Indian 'warrior' who acts scared to death and runs like a scared woman. Redford comes off as a tough guy, tougher than Indians, with full rights to sleep with Indian women. Big conqueror image there, on a personal basis. Lot's of "squaw" language going on there, too.
'Kill that wild savage!' from Jeremiah Johnson (1972)
Doesn't sound Indian-friendly to me.
Oh, yes, there's the Incident at Oglala (1992), the drama in defense of Leonard Peltier, the convicted murderer of two FBI agents. Redford is the narrator and executive producer. The film celebrates the victimhood of Peltier, and aggrandizes the evil of the American government. I suppose that's an interest in Indians shown by Mr. Redford, naturally in a way that is critical of America. That suits the communist, Hollywood liberal approach. They love to rake in America's money, while they soothe their consciences with condemning the society from which they benifit so profoundly. It's like Incident at Oglala is Redford's tribute to the '70's, perhaps a twenty years later penance for Jeremiah Johnson.
Still not Indian-friendly, in my view. It's Redford-friendly.
Hey, liberals love to use Indians to bash America. The California Peace and Freedom Party nominated Peltier for president! I call that abuse of Indians.
Redford's Sundance Institute makes a glowing profession of "commitment" to Native American film, to directors, writers, musicians, actores, etc., etc., but we're still looking for evidence. Where are the American Indian movies? Never mind the fact that the program does not produce screen plays or films; never mind the fact that Bird Runningwater, who directs the Sundance Native American Initiative, is openly homosexual, and advocates the same kind of hemispheric "indigenous" philosophy that characterizes the anti-American racism of the far Left--that wants to pit all persons of color against the white European; never mind that the whole Institute program is just a grant operation, to allow certain select Indians to network, and perhaps to occasion their meeting with some monied producer who might take a chance on an "independent" film. It's like a tutorial, an "educational" opportunity for a very few select Indians. Robert Redford is simply not into producing American Indian films. The Sundance Institute merely uses the Indian presence to validate its multicultural, anti-American enterprises. Now that George Soros has joined the crew, can we expect more abuse of Indians? That is, more use of Indians to condemn America? I would expect so.
The Sundance Institute represents a liberal, yes, communist use of the American Indian. The Institute uses the Indian image to emphasize what they think is wrong with America. I see no other way to evaluate these circumstances. Again, I protest this dangerous abuse of Indians, and pledge myself to work against it with all the force I can muster. I will not stand by silently and watch the Indian image used against America, thus jeopardizing the future of not only America, but of Indian people.
Bad Eagle has spoken.
The Sundance Kid has the ultimate mascot: the Sun Dance. Robert Redford's Sundance Institute uses the name of perhaps the most sacred of all American Indian religious rites, to validate his modern, Communist weltanshauung (world view). The American Indian image, in all its glory, is used as an anti-American symbol. The Indian identity is a mascot, indeed a masque, for the deepest, most adverse political positions toward America and traditional American values.
And to think, the Leftists and their well-trained Indian protesters have attacked every school in the country for using Indian images, mascots, and logos for sports teams; even elementary schools are not spared the manipulative wrath of these culture killers, who want to remove all visual Indian images from the public. Their campaign of ethnic cleansing has ravaged the whole country. Yet, they've missed the most outrageous, the most profound, and the most offensive of all abuses of the Indian image: The Sundance Institute.
George Soros, the arch-anti-American, who blew $15.5 million on the Kerry campaign (totalling over $24 million to the oust-Bush campaign in general) hasn't missed the Sundance opportunity. He has taken over the Sundance Documentary Fund. What used to be the Soros Documentary Fund for the Open Society Institute is now the Sundance Documentary Fund, and it is headed by the same woman that ran the Soros Fund, Diana Weyerman. Sundance Institute offices are in Beverly Hills.
Now, the Institute has used a couple of token Indians: Bird Runningwater, and Chris Eyre (director of Smoke Signals). But the Institute does not produce screenplays or films. It awards grants as finishing costs to those who apply with a film. It is a "show and tell" opportunity, that's all. There is no specific Indian program in this institute with an Indian name. Indians apply with a general application, like anyone else. The institute merely offers grants to those already producing films, Indian or non-Indian. The Indian "commitment" is a mere verbal perfunctory.
The Institute was created in 1981, in the Mt. Timpanogos valley, about 27 miles south of Salt Lake City, Utah. Tradition has it that Ute Indians summered in the valley. The Ute were very involved in the Sun Dance in the 1880's, but, the Sundance Institute acknowledges neither the Ute nor the Sun Dance.
The Institute tosses hand-outs to a few Indians, using them like Pawnee scouts. "Show us the way, then get lost!" That's the program. That's nearly always the program of these Leftist saviors. They profess to save that which they merely use and abuse.
Using the name of the Sun Dance, something that sacred, for an Institute of anti-American propaganda, is an outrage which I shall no longer bear silently. I hereby declare war upon the Institute, and pronounce myself its mortal enemy. No Leftist conglomerate will make an anti-American out of this Indian. Nor will I allow such a monstrous abuse of the Indian image to continue without the most piquant protest.
Today's world demands universal concern. We do have to be concerned about what's going on in the most remote corners of the globe. Because of international trade, travel, communication, and internet, when someone falls ill in Kathmandu, it could effect another person in Kansas. When someone dies of AIDS in Thaba-Tseko, Lesotho, is might effect someone in Oklahoma City.
An aerial shows Meulaboh on Sumatra's western coast, Indonesia. More than 100,000 people were killed in Indonesia alone, the total death toll for all countries affected is more than 150,000 by the Dec. 26 tsunami. (AP Photo/Wong Maye-e)
In addition to these practical exigencies, there is also the matter of psychology. Humans are vicarious beings. Through projection, we know each other. Sympathy is the projection of experience. This is how we communicate. It begins with the prospect of infancy. The parent must guess the infant's needs, because the infant cannot express them. This is perhaps why women develope such powerful intuition. Women raise children by almost utterly vicarious feeling and unspoken communication.
In the political arena, however, sympathetic projection is sometimes presumption. Compassion for suffering sells big, as the South Asian tsunami disaster has shown. It sells both in the private and in the government sectors. But this political, public compassion is sometimes mere materialism. Yes, the tsunami victims need the basics: food and water. But, behind the Western liberal thrust of compassion, is the thought that the Asian victims all really need Cadillacs, too. Over $4 billion has been pledged by the productive world (minus the absense of aid coming from other Asian countries, productive as they are), to say nothing of the $4.5 billion pledged to rebuild Afghanistan. The Have Nots of the world are taught to demand from the Haves, and the Haves seem willing to accept the demand. It is rightesousness.
However, as the world learns (hopefully) again of the violence, cruelty, and brutality of these "Turd World" countries (as Michael Savage calls them), their massive indfference and barbarity toward one another, it is clear that suffering is defined differently there than in the west. Many a miserable savage is not so miserable at all in his heathenism. It is his preferred life style. Unless a man is experiencing 'cognative dissonance,' and is consciously dissatisfied with his state, he cannot be said to be suffering, at least not in his mind.
It is really only the Christian missionary who attempts to show the wild (i.e., evil?) man a different way of life. Only the Christian missionary can provide motivation for him to change. A Cadillac is not the solution, and sometimes not even food and clothing are, either. Barbarity ceases only when another way of life is found more attractive. The Christian missionary seeks to prove education and example. Without this foundation, no amount of money will procure significant change. Only greedy leaders will have the Cadillacs, as in the case of nearly all of these Third World countries. Saudi Arabia is a truly fine example of the incongruity of wealth and social retardation. Dollars don't fix depravity. Only a change of values can do that.
Yes, the liberal has found a new massive nest of need in South Asia. He can luxuriate anew in his criticism and condemnation of the West, blaming the misery of Asia on the prosperity of the free world. But while he daily decries every bullet fired in Iraq, every death, every event, he is wholly reluctant to expose the hell holes of South Asia. Why? Mother Nature cause the disaster there, not the United States. The media can't blame the US for the invasion of tsunami. The liberal is hopelessly crippled in his replies to world events, because he cannot or will not speak of motivation and values. He speaks only in terms of the material, the Haves, and the Have Nots.
All the liberal really wants to do is to blame the successful. The liberal doesn't really want to get involved in changing a heathen's values. That's something he likes to blame Christians for doing. Therefore, the liberal is a fake. He doesn't really care. He is a Randian at heart, and socially no more than a political junky, by profession. The Christian missionary is a much better keeper of his brother. The liberal, for all his boasting, is a mere Pharisee.
"...in the fourth generation they [the children of Israel] shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full." Genesis 15: 16
To Abraham, the Lord revealed the first epocs of the nation, Israel. They would live as foreigners in a strange land (Egypt) for four hundred years. Then they would return to Abraham's homestead, Cana'an. Abraham had been promised the land of Cana'an (12:7, 14-17; 15:18-21). Part of the reason for the timing of his descendents' return is related to the inhabitants of Cana'an. "The iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full." In other words, the children of Israel would not be brought onto someone else's land until those inhabitants had convincingly demonstrated their unworthiness to live thereon.
This is national probation. Essentially, it implies that people enter and exit the world stage of humanity on a mysterious, divine cue, on conditional terms. Those terms are apparently the specific moral values entrusted to the children of Israel, or, the Law of God. Moses repeated this. (Deuteronomy 32:7-9). Paul quoted Moses. (Acts 17: 24-27.) The quality of life, the prosperity, and the longevity of any nation depend on its relation to God, according to the universal, Almighty God of the Hebrews. (No other gods even address race, or the fact that there are other gods.) Ancient as it is, the Hebrew cosmology and concominant anthropology is astounding in its insight and advanced in its conception.
No, it's not the economy, stupid. It's the life values. Those values effect the economny, for certain. (Yes, there are moral perverts who can luxuriate in the material accomplishments of the faithful, but this does not validate their perverted values.) But to try and solve a nation's problems through its economy is putting the cart before the horse. What causes that nation's problems? What does that nation value? What do the people value? What have their leaders shaped them into, as a people?
A. Dharmaraj, 15, right, became the head of his family when his parents were killed in the tsunami that devastated their home in Nagappattinam in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu. A. Dharmaraj and his siblings -- sister, A. Mahadevi, 13, rear, and brothers Ramakrishnan, 10, left, and A. Jayaraman -- are at a relief camp for tsunami victims. CNN Gallery
The masses of poor in Southern Asia have suffered the unspeakable horrors of privation long before the tsunamis hit. Child slavery and sexual exploitation have been going on for decades in Southern Asia. Naive newsmen, like Anderson Cooper--lovable man that he his, who puts his heart into his work, and who is sincere in his concerns, show no awareness of depravity inherent in certain cultures. They may show awareness of depravity itself, but are apparenlty not making the connection between life values and consequences. The newsmen seem to revel in the suffering. This is the liberal tradition, of course. To point to any cause of depravity would be "judgmental," and un-PC.
But poverty does not cause depravity. For anyone who believes poverty causes moral depravity and cruelty, please consider Him that was born in a stable, laid in an animal feeding trough. Consider Him whose mother gave birth with no experience, with no assistance, and whose tiny family then lived in exile as fugitives. Consider Him whose home town was a social environment from which no good thing was expected. (John 1:46).
Sin causes depravity. Not poverty. Depravity is not an economic standard. It is the absense of morality. Morality and poverty are not related. It is the weakness of humanity that makes poverty an excuse for sin, that uses poverty to explain immorality.
The people of South Asia need a new set of values, and not just food and a new form of government. The world should stop a minute now and rethink the role of Christian missionaries have played in the world. These missionaries alone, from the beginning, have borne the unspoken glory of bringing a better way of life to others. These alone, originally, have willingly suffered privation in order to offer the privilege of morality to those without. It is the Christian missionaries who have willing become poor, that others might be rich.
The world should quickly bow before the truly honorable, the truly the noble, the true servants of humanity: the Christian missionaries.
Yes, today, there are innumerable humanitarian, humanist, secular philanthropist agencies in the world. There are Leftist foundations which try to substitute godless economic solutions for true conversion to higher values. It may be the church's failure to commit to missions, as it did historically, which has allowed these secularist saviors to develop such clout. The UN itself is really the loudest rebuke the modern church has ever been received. It is louder than Social Security, and the Welfare systems of Roosevelt.
The work of the church in the past has been the saving grace of the globe. But, somewhere, the church has lost its place. Others have moved in quickly. But, unless there is a change of moral standards, no people can advance from depravity to success.
If people persist in depravity, they may find themselves washed away in a flood, or removed some other way, or replaced altogether. It has happened in the past. No nation is exempt. All are on probation. This will happen with or without the church's efforts, but, the church may be held responsible for its failure, just as the Jews often were.
This it he testimony of the ancient Hebrews, anyway. It is a consistent testimony, over some 1,600 years of written culture, from Moses to John the Revelator. The Hebrew God wants partners in helping 'save' the world. Fancy that. The Hebrew God seeks the cooperation of man, in uplifting his fellowman. Need anyone ask why?
When probation closes, it is not always clear who is responsible for the incorrigible impenitence. Human failure seems like a communal experience. One thing is certain: Christian missionaries have been willing to make the effort, the often dangerous effort, of trying to introduce a better way of life to the depraved. If their efforts fail, they themselves are not condemned. (Ezekiel 33:8,9).
It's a "feeling" frenzy now, a virtual compassion competition. Who can give the most, do the most, and get the most media credit for restoring South Asia?
The intolerable embarrassment of being accused of being "stingy" has prompted President Bush to lead out in a nationwide fundraising campaign. He has appointed his father, Bush, Sr., and Bill Clinton to lead out in the campaign. This is all becoming more remarkable with each passing day.
Transcendence through compassion? Unity through charity? Globalism
through 'Love'?
In South Asia, the most densely populated area in the world, where masses live in utter carelessness, where governments show absolutely no concern for the unfathomable poverty, where filth and slavery abound, where there are no standards, where there is very cruel oppression of every grade, and where Nature just swept away some 200,000 lives, America wants to be first to give most.
As if America hasn't always given most, and first. As if America will not tolerate even the mistaken thought, even the lying media statements, that America is not the biggest, grandest tiger in the forrest, first to share, first to show compassion, and first to bring a better life to the miserable waifery of the world. So they claim we've spent $150 billion on the war in Iraq, to bring democracy to a war-torn region in the world. Now are we going to try and out-do ourselves, and spend the same kind of money on a real cess pool, South Asia, torn by a tidal wave? Are we all supposed to feel better about that investment, since we didn't do any of the killing? Some think we'll definitely succeed in Iraq. What about changing South Asia?
This South Asia event, tragic as it was, is turning the world into a comedy of errors. It is becoming a giant scam before our eyes!
Remember "We Are The World, We Are The Children," the fund raising campaign to provide aid to the famine victims of east Africa in 1984? Remember Michael Jackson's "USA for Africa" campaign? (Jackson wanted to raise $50 million for the victims of 9-11 in New York, too.) And remember the other rock concert for Africa, "Live Aid?" Remember how giant ship loads, of millions of dollars worth of food, lay rotting in the African harbors, because the African governments had no distribution plan or capacity? That's what they said. The fact was, one of the governments in question, Ethiopia, was content to let nearly a million people die, simply because they were considered enemies of the establishment, or, an unncecessry burden. They were an unwanted tribe.
Yes, yes. I remember the news reports at the time. Not so readily available on the internet however.
But raising money, in itself, in a grand public manner, for a grand public cause--tragedy, is big business. It's also raises major questions of ethics and values. True, compassion is never to be withheld based on some moral judgment of the victim. One must never assume the roll of the executioner.
But one is in fact responsible for allowing threatening situations to fester. The governments of South Asia have been content to let their masses live in squalor. These people had nothing before the tsunamis. Are socio-economic conditions going to be magically changed by all the grand-standing "compassion" of the media, the politicians, and the fund raisers? Is there going to be one thought of prevention, of changing of life styles?
The governments of these South Asian nations are about as corrupt as Saddam Hussein's was. They are extremely oppressive. Remember the Orient in WWII, and Vietnam? Remember how completely cruel and torturous the leaders and commanders were? The world is generally ignorant of the socio-political situation in South Asia. It is ruled by mafia, by cut-throat pirates, fabulously wealthy thugs, and international crooks. This is who is going to be involved in all those millions and billions that will be sent to this area. These are those responsible for the abject social conditions. They don't care. The religions of the people, which sanction such depravity, keep the people content in this condition, and the greedy leaders know it. Therefore they feel justified (if they feel at all) in the condition of the people.
Didn't we just learn how crooked these thugs are, in "Oil for Food" scandal of Koffi Annan and the UN? Aren't we paying attention at all?
Ah, let the world give. Give all. Throw it all away. After all, you're giving to the poorest of the poor. And you're not trying to buy them Cadillacs, just food and water! That's all they had, and that's all they lost, anyway. It's much more soothing to the conscience buy bottled water for them, than to raise the standard of living for say, the poor people of America. Why, their poverty is their own fault. The only tsunami that ever hit them is their own lethargy. Let'em go without health insurance. The people of Maylasia need water!
Something's deeply, deeply wrong in all this compassion fest. The greatest nation is expected to perform the greatest feats for all--all except her own. She has a world reputation to keep up, not the standard of living of her own people. Politicians have their votes to win. America wants to be good to the world. America is good to the world.
Something is just not right here. Something in this South Asia situation is being keep out of view. The wheelers and dealers are out of sight. Compassion covers all. There is no cloak more effective that right doing. The more saintly that cowl, the more dreadful the evil that must be couched underneath.
These tragedies are being used by globalists to merge all national economies. That is the great hidden tradegy.