President Bush gave a very sincere and matured speech last night. It was visionary, and rang out with deep American idealism. It was a beautiful thing.
Bush and the troops, after the speech,
June 28, 2005
However, there was just one element which, in the midst of the clarion triumph of good will, seemed the more urgent by its absence: the cultural differences between the Iraqi people and the American people. Bush's approach to Iraq is based on the profound presumption that they are like us. Bush presumes that Iraqi people value what Americans value, and therefore, the Iraqi people will triumph in the end. Bush assumes most people in the world value the same thing: freedom.
We all pray that this is true.
Yet, the reason there is a problem in Iraq is because it is not completely true. There are many who do not understand, and fear freedom.
We are asking the Iraqi people to fight for something they've never had, never conceived of, and certainly never spilled blood over: freedom. It is miraculous that as many of them have fought as have. It is wondrously impressive that the majority seemed intent, with the help of America and the international coalition, to achieve a republican form of democracy.
What many people don't realize is the fact that the population has not changed to a different set of people. There were people under Saddam's regime who had money, who had high social standing. These people want to retain that. There are others, with lower social economic status, who want more. Many of the upper class lost what they had, and want it back. These socio-economic circumstances are deep and abiding within the population.
The same is true for Iran. Many of the anti-government Iranians are people who were rich and prosperous under the Shah, and want to regain all they have lost. (Most of these people comprise the Iranian diaspora. They live in America, France, and elsewhere.)
The idea of a new government, with new people, is most difficult. In a sense, it may all turn out to be the same socio-economic structure as before. In Iraq, the same sectors of the population will remain in the same position they were before.
This is why communism and murderism (i.e., terrorism) still thrive in spots. Their ploy is equality and social change, redistribution of wealth. Their players are just hoodlums who love violence and blood. It's a lethal combination.
In the end, Bush's approach represents true equality in spirit. He believes the Iraqis want what America has. He believes all people want what America has. He has set himself to give them the opportunity to have it. This is his focus. It is a noble one, indeed. It is American idealism on it's grandest scale.
Bush, more than all the liberals put together, believes in the equality of humanity, and Bush is basing his approach to Iraq on the belief that the Iraqi people not only want freedom, but deserve it. They just need a little help in getting there. The liberals would rather see the Iraqi people in oppressive squalor. Bush will lend a hand to pull to pull them out of it. "It's worth it," he humble said.
Indeed.
Interestingly, the American courts are beginning to clamp down on news reporters. When a reporter offers a false report, and refuses to reveal his sources, he may find himself in contempt of court, and heavily fined in consequence.
Tueday, June 28, 2005, four top journalists were held in contempt for not revealing their sources when they reported on Chinese nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee, the suspected spy working in the United States at Los Alamos, New Mexico.
Chinese scientist Wen Ho Lee
Monday, June 27, courts held reporters in contempt when they refused to reveal who leaked the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame. (Interestingly, Robert Novak, the reporter who first published the leak, is not part of the case. Why is this?)
Valerie Plame and husband
Joseph Wilson, from the blog
of Roger L. Simon.
Now this sounds wonderful on the surface. It's about time the law put a leash on irresponsible reporters. But notice in these cases, the national level reporters are dealing basically with spy stories. In the case of Lee, the court ruled in favor of a foreigner. In the case of Plame, the court ruled against the Bush administration, essentially.
So, the courts, in the name of truth seeking, are ruling against the reporters who won't reveal their sources. In a very peculiar circumstnace, it is really the Left ruling against the Left, for the cause of the Left, nevertheless.
Privacy vs. professional integrity is the front, but it's really about who has power over whom. The irony is, individual people want their privacy, but reporters, who share stories with the world, still want their privacy, too. They don't want to expose their sources, because then they would lose most of them.
The guide here is the Left. Anything can serve the purpose of undoing American values. Anything. The Left is a perfect leech.
Leaving Novak out of the picture demonstrates the manipulative and insinere position of the courts toward the reporters. One is tempted to defend the reporters, but in doing so, one would defend their known chicanery. One is tempted to laud the court for discplining the reporters, but in doing so, one lauds the agency of our demise--the tyrannical judiciary.
The court and the reporter deserve each other. The public can sit this one out, or rather, watch with a certain satisfaction, as the scoundrals devour one another.
The Islamic Thinkers Society of Queens, New York, recently trampled on the American flag, then tore it apart, and the Thinkers claim full constitutional rights to do so. Freedom of speech is their proffered justification.
Old Glory
The group has claimed to be non-violent from the start, but recently has been directly linked to Al-qaeda, through Britains banned Muhajiroun terrorist group. It appears the group is the American off-shoot of the Muhajiroun. Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch is a critical source on anti-American Muslim groups in America, and provides regular, updated information. Also Militant Islam Monitor.org is an excellent source.
The Thinkers profess non-violence, but this is a technicality, or, a lie. They attempt to ensconce their skeins in political rhetoric that makes them legal in the United State. Deluded "freedom of speech" advocates are please to support them. Anti-Americans in the United States, at all levels, local municipalities all the way to the federal authorities in Washington, often support such "freedom."
The new measure in the US House banning the desecration of the American flag has passed, and now awaits approval of the Senate. The definition of desecration will be critical. Liberals who oppose the measure, like Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), emphasize the ideology of freedom. "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents," Nadler said. This is to say, freedom means you have the right to destroy and protest all symbols of freedom, even the national symbol of freedom. A thinking man, Rep. Nadler. Maybe he should join the Thinkers.
People whose culture accommodates lying seem very attracted to the US Constitution. "Freedom of speech" seems to serve as an open door to the enemies of America. If the Nadlers of America are concerned about the intent of the law, or the meaning its symbol (the flag), they should be able to comprehend that the intent and the meaning is not to self-destroy, but to protect against destruction.
Old Glory at the Comanche Nation Fair,
2003, with Wes Studi leading in the red
vest. Indians never desecrate the flag.
In fact, Indians show more respect than
probably most Americans. Indians know
what it means to be a nation.
Of course, for this little detail to be comprehended, one has to believe in the old romantic notion that there is in fact such a thing as a nation, with sovereignty, with language, religion, and even a core ethnicity. Fancy that. Without this little old-fashioneed detail, the enemy has triumphed. And the real enemy is the Nadlers, not the Muslims. Muslims are only the instruments of destruction, in the hands of the true "thinkers."
The recent "elections" in Iran have been frustrating to follow, but only if one had the notion that they were legitimate. Most Iranians never had such notions, whether they voted or not.
Iranian presidential candidate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
second left, casts his ballot in the presidential run-off
election, in Tehran, Iran, Friday June 24, 2005. Iranians
voted Friday in their first presidential runoff between
Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani and his hard-line rival
Ahmadinejad who says the nation must reclaim the values
of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. (AP Photo)
It is hopeless to find accurate, trustworthy news accounts. That a "hardliner," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, mayor of Tehran, would win a little more than half of the little less than half the votes of the Iranian people who voted, tells the world that the elections do not present a faithful reflection of the public sentiment at all. And what, pray tell, were the values of the 1979 Revolution? Iranian people feel that Revolution was highjacked by the clerics, and the people are most dissatisfied with the results.
Was it to throw off the "oppression" of the Shah? But Ahmadinejad will impose the "hardline" values, though he professes to advocate economic improvements for the poor and for women. Then how can he be called a hard-liner? This is "reformist" doctrine.
Ahmadinejad offered the standard self-projection: "What they (Western countries) have is not democracy, but rule of trickery. It's parties and capitalists who get the vote of the people in their own favor to fill their pockets," he told worshippers at Friday prayers." Ahmadinejad of course presents himself as representative of the poor, in contrast to the elite and wealthy Rafsanjani.
One thing is certain. The way the American press presents the story, the "hard-liners," that is, the tyrannists, are called conservatives. Those who want more freedoms are called "reformists," whether clerics or not. This is of course the opposite what the terms mean in American politics, certainly with repect to the term "conservative." Of course, the American press will not introduce the word "liberal" into the political discussion of Iranian so-called politics. That would make the liberal misrepresentation too obvious. Reformists, they are called, who want more freedom. You'd think the Western liberal press would called them liberals, but they can't. They know the real liberals of Iran are the tyrannists, or, the "conservatives," as they call them.
Thus, the western press reveals it's deceptive bias, it's Orwellian doublespeak, it's usurpation of words.
If I saw a sign over a water fountain that said, "Indians Only," I'd be mighty proud. Segregation is needed in Indian country. Intermarriage is ruining us. Every other race seems to want a piece of us. Is it for blood, or for financial advantages? There are just too few of us to go around. We need to start protecting and preserving our bloodlines.
But, in the South, the issues between Negroes and Whites is a different story.
A Klu Klux Klansman, Edgar Ray Killen, was just convicted at the age of 80, in a wheelchair with an oxygen tube, for planning the murder of three civil rights workers back in 1964.
Edgar Ray Killen arrives at the Neshoba County
Court house in Philadelphia, Miss., Tuesday, June
21, 2005. The Jury began it's first full day of
deliberation Tuesday in Killen's murder trial for
the 1964 deaths of three civil rights workers.
(AP Photo/Danny Johnston)
Prosecutors urged jury members to send a message to the rest of the world that Mississippi is different now, changed for the better, and Mississippi is committed to bringing to justice those who killed to preserve segregation in the 1960s.
Is segregation a crime? Is integration the sole expression of equality? Integration always means intermarriage, to an extent. Does that mean marrying one's own kind is indirectly subversive and at least an ideological crime?
It is argued that socio-economic advancement requires integration. Rather than urge development on the "minorities" within their own circles, the agrument is made that they must be able to avail themselves of the achievements of other races. They must be, by law, given the advantages created by whites. Minorities have been "oppressed," not incompetent, indolent, or indifferent.
As an Indian, I am not a "minority." That's a relative racist concept coming from the outside. How can I be a minority as a member of the Comanche nation? The Comanche may be a "minority" relative to the American nation, but one is not a minority within one's nation.
I can only say, basically what Morris Udall said in 1965, Indians are different. Indians are the exception. Indians existed as separate nations before the European invasion. Indians prefer to be Indian. It's as innocent and simple as that. A certain, minimal degree segration is natural, inevitable, and necessary for Indians.
It is not integration Indians have fought for. Indians fight for justice, expecting the United States government to uphold the treaties it made, which Indians bought in blood. Indians do not fight for "equality" in the racial sense, the sense that requires an Indian to have a job at a desk next to a white person.
Indians fight for what we believe is ours, and what belongs to us. Negroes fight for what they want. There's a big difference. Their true protest is against their own kind, in Africa, and against the Arab Muslims slave traders. The idea that they have rights to all that whites have accomplished is an historical illusion, which they are most fortunate to indulge here in America.
But the Indian position is entirely different. May it forever be thus. May Indians forever preserve who and what we are.
Ten Bears, proud peace maker of the Comanche,
died 1873 at Fort Sill, Oklahoma
My concern is the manner in which this preservation effort is made. Our unique presence here in America is not to be the justification of multiculturalism. And the preservation of our race is not to be labeled "racism." These are superimposed malignments of a frustrated white culture, choking on it's own liberalism.
Robert Redford's idea of patriotism is condemning the country. He was attracted to the role of Bob Woodward, in All the President's Men (1976) because Woodward's conscience compelled him to attack the Presidency. Redford told Chris Matthews it was the glorious drama of conscientious social revolution, when "two unknown reporters on the low end of the work ladder in our society doing something that would eventually bring down the highest position in the land." And Redford got to slap the FBI in the process, an act of true Redford patriotism.
Robert Redford on Chris Matthews' Hardball
For Redford it wasn't just acting. The truth is, he has always revelled in resentment of the establishment. No agony of conscience for him. The over-grown adolescent has gloried in social rebellion since his earliest days of familial alientation. He simply resents authority, and will side with any country, any cause, that condemns or resists the United States. It is a distinct irony that he would play Woodward, who was sincere in comparison.
Redford emphasized the agony Woodward had experienced, having to do something so horrific as to expose the president, yet compelled by good conscience to do so. Redford implies that this insight is something he himself is familiar with, personally. But he only wishes it were true. He has made a life long career out of condemning the establishment of the United States, and Redford merely attempts to sanctify his course by association with such lofty challenges as Woodward faced.
Redford shows his true colors in Motorcyle Diaries (2004), his loving tribute to Che Guevara, the Latino communist, still the idol of the socially immature and pig-headedly rebellious. Redford is a resentment-monger, nothing more. (At the 2005 studio briefing at his Sundance Film Institute, he encouraged young filmmakers to be a voice of dissent.)
Naturally, the Hollywood Latinos recently gave the Diaries top honors in its Imagen Awards, including best picture, director, and supporting actor. New York Latinos (Prensa Latina) also award Redford's movie as Best Foreign Film. (Of course, Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 won best feature.)
Redford will never be a patriot, at least not an American patriot. The chip on his shoulder is just too weighty, and too old. His constant effort is only to ennoble his psychological disquietude with fantasies of heroism. Of course, to be the biggest hero, you have to take on the biggest opponent--America.
Theodors G.Karakostas wrote a piece in for the Hellenic Chronicle in 1999 called, "The Betrayal of Serbia." (It is still posted on the Hellenic Action Press web site.) It is probably the best account available, in one article, of how Serbia was betrayed, misrepresented, and as we know, continually maligned by it's former Western allies.
The Hague, in the Netherlands, the
International Criminal Court
Many lost truths are revealed in the article, not the least of which is this statement:
There is the alarming prospect of the re-Ottomanization of the Balkans. In 1994, the Clinton administration allowed Turkish, Iranian, and Saudi troops to go to Bosnia. In Albania, Osama Bin Laden has established a base. Saudi newspapers have called for an Islamic Kosovo while Turkey and Albania develop closer relations. Never has the foreign policy establishment in America and its President been so dangerous or destructive.
The article also references drug dealing on the agenda of the Kosovo Liberation Army, which was the Muslim extremist group, funded by Al-aqaeda, among other outsider groups. (There are many published news reports about Albanian connections to the Italian mafia as well. According to a Milosevic site, John Kerry's campaign was supported by the Albanian KLA. )
Karakostos is no fan of Milosevic, calling him "a tyrant and thug," but nevertheless acknowleges the fact that he was honored by American airmen who were rescued by him during WWII.
The track record of Serbia is quite heroic compared to its neighbors. The Serbian Orthodox Church resisted the injustices of Milosevic, and has persistently sought for democracy, whereas other Orthodox churches, even such as the Greek Orthodox, have supported tyrants and dictators. Russian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox churches have long supported Communist dictators.
The Bosnians, the Croates, and the Albanians (Kosovites) all supported the Nazis in WWII, and slaughtered Serbians, who supported the the Allies in resisting Hitler.
The Clinton administration smeared Serbia beyond repair in the modern media world. Karakostos names Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, William Cohen, Sandy Berger, and Richard Holbrooke, as the chief offenders.
Gen. Wesley Clark, NATO's Mad Bomber of the Balkans,
a criminal The Hague apparently overlooked.
Not something we should forget. The trial of Milosevic and others, is in fact an opportunity to set the record straight. The Serbs are white, and Christian. This is a distinct disadvantage in the world of law today, as top level coverage of the affair is totally biased, as the Counsel on Foreign Relations demonstrates. Nationalism is not going to be allowed, either, not in the Balkans, not unless the people are Muslim. The Balkans are a test case for the multi-nationals and their New World Order. They have to succeed in the Balkans, and they think Milosevic is there key to success.
Is it possible that opposite is true?
The public does not know the history of Serbia. The "war crimes" for which Serbia is accused have been isolated, dramatized, anathematized. The name Slobodan Milosevic is universally execrated. The Left once again freely associates the execution of Bosnian Muslims with the Holocaust. Hitler's genocide against the Jews is the ultimate condemnation for any expression of nationalism, ethnic pride, or even survival.
Al-qaeda-supported Kosovo (KLA)"terrorists," still active today.
But the story is all wrong. The indigenous people of the territory of Bosnia are Serbs and Croations. The Turkish Muslems and their descendents only fairly recently decided to call themselves Bosnians. The Serbs and Croates who intermarried and converted to Islam were onced called Turks as well.
One really has to know the history of the Balkans before accusations or justifications can be made with any accuracy at all. Such confusion is a seed bed for Leftist media spin.
Part of what led to the media condemnation of Serbia was the movement of the Kosovo region toward independece. It was a Muslem movement, but the media never brought that out. (It's the same situation today in Chechnya. The movement for independence is a Muslim movement, and it's not about democracy.) The ethnic Albanian Muslims living in Kosovo were demanding independence in 1998, and the Kosovo Liberation Army was violent about it.
A great deal of the problem in the Balkans has always been artificial, superimposed boundaries, which often included powerful tribes of diverse enthnicity within the assigned borders of another, averse tribe. And the Slavic tribes also migrated across different boundaries. During the 1990's Balkan wars, 300,000 Serbians, long living in territory called Croatia,fled from there, and Croatia has been slow to assist them in returning to their homes, what's left of the homes.
But all parties have always attacked the Christian Orthodox Serbs. Hitler used Bosnian Muslims to slaughter untold numbers of Christian Serbs (as well as Jews). The genocide of 1.9 Serbian Christians is one of the least known attrocities of modern times. Hitler's "Nazi" Bosnian Muslims were called Ustachi.
Croates, heavily Catholic, and 'Bosnians,' heavily Muslim, have repeatedly slaughtered and robbed Christian Orthodox Serbs for the last century.
Bill Clinton backed the Albanian Muslims in Kosovo who wanted independence from Serbia. Who backed Serbia in her struggle against local Islamicists and Catholics on all sides?
Most versions of the story are pro-anything but Serbian Orthodox. The fact that Serbians mercifully spared women and children of Bosnian Muslims is considered a "gendercide" instead. Osama Bin Ladin supports the KLA Muslims terrorists in the Balkans, whom Clinton and NATO's Wesley Clark also supported.
What are we missing? Why the universal execration of Serbia?
American missionaries in Bombay were just beaten by a group Hindus. The Hindus didn't want American Christians converting Hindus to Christianity. (The article does not specify whate race the American Christians were, nor what Christian denomination they were. The article does quote a local Catholic authority, of the Hindu race--I purposely use the archaic, accurate term.)
In the old world, every country has its race, its religion, and its boundaries. Every country has the right to resist change, for better or for worse.
China, for instance, has been expelling Christians at least since 1945, when John Birch (Baptist missionary) was killed by Chinese Communists. The Catholic Church was expelled in 1949. Christians of all denominations were persecuted, expelled, or killed.
But Muslims of any race or country are infamous for persecuting Christians. Not only to they kill foreign Christians, but Christians of their own race and nation, African, or Asian.
And no western liberal media will ever report how the Muslim Bosnians slaughtered Serbian Christians. NATO even supported that, indirectly.
Christians in Iraq are certainly unsafe and many have left the country. Muslims are killing Christians--over religious differences, not racial differences--more and more. It isn't about nationalism or race. It is pure religious hysteria.
An Islamic jihad warrior put a pistol in the mouth
of Sutarsi Selong and pulled the trigger, because
she refused to shout, "Allah akbar."
From www.myfortress.org
Yet, here in America, our white liberal enemies believe we must allow hysterical, hateful foreign Muslim leaders (Arabs)to build mosques in our cities (at tax payer expense), and to preach hatred of the United States. And we must let Arab Muslim "missionaries" proselytize American youth on college campuses across the country. The Muslims in American even want their own cemeteries now.
This Sudanese boy was burned by Muslims.
From www.myfortress.org
Is this some sort of 'pay-back' scheme liberals have concocted in the name of equality? Like, bad is equal to good? Christianity doesn't teach hate. Islam apparently does. But, in the liberal's mind, hate is equal to love. In the name of tolerance, Islamic hate must be allowed its place in American society.
This girl was a burned by Muslims in Indonesia.
From www.myfortress.org
Indeed, every country has the right to control its own. Muslims can kick out Christians. But hypocritical liberals, who so idolize "equality," would never sanction Christians kicking out Muslims.
The modern world may not want to admit it, but what little civilization there is in the world today is the result of Christian missionaries over the last few centuries, who have gone into underdeveloped countries and brought new, better ways. Islam has brought only slaughter, and this is the preference of liberals.
The Serbian national soccer team was tied by the Italian team in a recent exhibition match in Toronto, June 8. The Italians were a man down, since Manuele Blasi had been ejected in the first half for tripping. Christiano Lucarelli tied the game, 1-1, late (in the 84th minute), with a simple tap-in. The game has been called a wildly enthusiastic exhibition game.
Italy's Cristiano Lucarelli celebrates his goal against Serbia-
Montenegro during second half action in Toronto on Wednesday
June 8, 2005. (AP PHOTO/Frank Gunn)
Why is this significant, or apropos?
November 22, 1914, southern Slavic leaders from Croatia and Bosnia met for the first time with Serbian leaders to talk about forming a unified country of southern Slavs--Yugoslavia. Where did they meet? Not in the Balkans (Turkish for "mountains"), but in Florence, Italy. By 1918, with Austro-Hungarian support, there was a new country. Power continued to shift, however, and by 1921 (June 28), the capital was Belgrade, in Serbian territory.
Peter I, Karadjordjevic, first King of Yugoslavia
Italians can take pride in that day, when the very tribal and very passionate Slavs came together in Florence. No, the out come did not last forever, but, the tribes looked to Italy for guidance.
The Slavs have always been known for fierce loyalties, ferocious defence, and remarkable vigor.
They did not look to Italy during WWII, however. They were all attacked by the Axis powers (Germany and Italy), and they resisted with legendary patriotism. Yul Brynner played a role in a movie called The Battle of Neretva (1969), which dramatizes the 1943 Yugoslav resistance. Interestingly, the story features an Italian lieutenant to appreciates the Slavs to the point of joining them! He realized what Italy was doing was wrong.
(In 1962, Brynner made another movie, Taras Bulba, which features the 16th century Cossaks of the Ukraine, and their struggle against the Poles, both of which peoples are Slavic. And not to leave out Italy, in 1977 Brynner stars as an Italian hit man in Death Rage. (Interestingly, Brynner was the son of Boris Bryner, a Swiss-Mongolian engineer and inventor, and Marousia Blagavidova, the daughter of a Russian doctor. He was born in their hometown of Vladivostok, Czarist Russia, on 7 July 1915)
So, a tie game between Italy and Serbia/Montenegro is a charming fate.
As of June 5, Serbia's team was top of the FIFA Groupt 7 qualifiing.
According to the media, Muslim blood is precious. Anyone else's is degraded and culpable. Muslims can kill others, but no one should kill Muslims. The media's recent coverage of Serbian 'video' story bears this out. The video, only coming to light last week, was apparently made a decade ago. It records the execution of Muslims by Serbian forces.
The 1995 effort of Serbian forces to rid their homeland of ethnic Muslims has been likened to the effort of Nazi Germany to eradicate the Jews in the 1940's. The one home video, recently uncovered (reportedly from Srebrenica), shows Serbian forces executing six Muslims. Now it's the end of the world for Serbia as far as its public image. "Atrocities," "war crimes," and "genocide," is the media jargon now assigned forever to Serbia. It is the media's new wave of execration for anything that smacks of anti-Islamic sentiment, anything that might resemble nationalism or ethnic pride.
Catch the "murder video," as it's called, on BBC News.
Yet, no such terms as atrocity, war crimes, or genocide are ever used by the media to describe the efforts of the Sunni or Shi'ite Muslims of Iraq to rid their country of all non-Muslims and foreigners. These Iraqis are respectfully called "insurgents," if not patriots. They are not called murderers, but "terrorists." Their devilish kidnappings; the torture and mayhem they wreak on captives--which they video tape and then broadcast to the world; their ceasless slaughter of not only foreigners but of their own countrymen; all this is never referred to as war crimes, genocides, or even atrocities.
Why? Does the national and international media intend to bless the "insurgents" with "non-biased," "objective" terms, while anyone else in the world who is against the Muslims is termed a criminal? When a Muslim commits mayhem and murder, and indiscriminate massacres, it's okay. It's some kind of unnamed noble cause. But when anyone else commits anything like it, for any reason, it's suddenly atrocious, unacceptable, and especially horrid.
The Serbian story is about white Serbians wanting to ride their homeland of Turkish Muslims or Muslims with white ancestry who converted to Islam. The Serbians are condemned in toto. But the same media bias is apparent even when it is black Muslims killing other blacks who are Christian in the name country.
The media treats Islamic murderers as if they had a license to kill. 1,500 Christians, including eight pastors, were two months ago. 750 Christian churches were destroyed in the process. Did American media cover the story? No. Just small Christian church news sites.
Why? Why isn't it important enough for the news? Is it because it was just black people killing other black people? But even when black people kill white people, as in the South African saga, the main stream media didn't cover that either.
Is it because all Muslims are free to kill all Christians, anywhere, with the media's blessing of silence? Is that ideological position of the mainstream media? Such slaughters are not newsworthy, but simply a matter of justifiable human concourse. Is it because the media actually wants to encourage more Muslims murderers?
The media's silence speaks volumes--volumes of anti-Christian sentiment. Whether it's Serbians executing Muslims, or Muslims butchering Christians, the media has it's anti-Christian position. But that black Christians should be mercilessly butchered by black Muslims, and that the media should remain silent, is simply over the top. That the media should put it under the rug only says the media's got something going on under the table.
Have we had enough of the Jackson family body parts? Has the media given enough "exposure" to the public (and private) displays of the Jackson sex organs and erotogenic zones? The endless trial, ceaseless emphasis on sex, this has become a cultural pathology. The especially talented Michael Jackson, together with a couple of sisters, particularly Janet, have all managed to occupy American news headlines for months, even years—all for indecent exposure, crotch grabbing, and general sexual immorality.
The extreme makeover wonder, Michael Jackson
But something's wrong with this picture, and it's not just the picture. These people were never role models or heroes, but just entertainers. Thus the media obsession with their sexual exploits. But it seems the media is also deflecting the guilt of white entertainers onto a few blacks. Like, who cares about white exhibitionists? Let the blacks have the glory for immorality. The blacks are real slaves anyway. Why, there's no guilt in exposing them. It's as though blacks are out there to be used.
Then, in the name of all descent black people in America, I say the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union ought to rise up and say, "Enough!" The constant media attention on the moral failure of few American Negroes is not doing the race any good whatsoever. On the contrary, it is encouraging only more of the same.
Now where are the Al Sharptons, and the Jesse Jacksons? I think their absence means they really don't care about the welfare of black people at all. They're nothing but entertainers themselves. As long as they make their money, they don't care about anyone else. They have no vision for the "advancement of colored people."
The black white supremicist, Dave
Chapell's fantasy in the flesh. Some
kind of flesh...
So, let the American public rise up instead. Enough of the Jackson genitalia! Let him take his genitals to jail. Enough indecent exposure on prime time public (family) television! Let Janet expose herself in a jail cell. This is all an incredible embarrassment to the American public, and particularly to black people.
The original Michael Jackson
And Michael Jackson's extreme makeover into a painted white person shouts to the world that he hated being black. Surely, this is not the right example for American black people.
Miss Canada 2005 won the Miss Universe beauty pageant, but she isn't a Canadian. She is a Russian immigrant named Natalie Glebova, from Tuaspe (near the Black Sea) living in Toronto.
Natalie Glebova, Miss Universe 2005
So how can a native Russian be Miss Canada? International beauty contests have become an ethnic free-for-all, totally divorced from nationality. There was a time when unique kinds of beauty were associated with specific nationalities. That was the tradition and the fact. But now it is as if the name of the country has no meaning any more. A nation no longer represents a people, a language, or a culture. A country's name is no more than a ticket in a raffle. (The beauty pageant is a worse ethnic fiasco than a "national" soccer team, which hires the best players from whatever country it can out-bid.) The young woman in the beauty contest does not represent her own country--who by rights should be credited for her beauty.
Natalie Glebova, Miss Universe 2005
This is a strange new form of Leftism. In the name of "equality," any beautiful young woman can compete for the crown under the name of any country. Countries are not to be distinguished from each other on the basis of race or ethnicity. The international beauty pageant has obliterated all national boundaries.
BadEagle.com, a web site with accute sensitivity to ethnic concerns, recently posted a piece on Miss Canada under its Fashion Forum. The responses from international members are fascinating. SheDesigns, an Ethiopian living in Canada, has listed the foreign origins of many of the girls in the contest. This is to say, they do not come from the countries they represent. They are foreigners standing in place of natives.
Natalie, in the computer world
Another woman, Nettles, suggests that in the future, it may become politically incorrect to even use the name of a country in any such context.
In this deep, world trend to eradicate nationalism, the whole idea that a nation represents an ethnicity is becoming obsolete as we speak (or write). In the history of the world, however, America is the only country that made a public, international commitment to indiscriminant immigration. "Give me your poor," Lady Liberty says to the world. That this idea turned out to be the cutting edge of the Left certainly seems like an unexpected outcome of the American story.
Yet, the Left has always been about the usurpation of words. Pick a word. Any word. The Left can make it mean something else, so that it actually has no more meaning at all. Leftist "equality" means no differentiation of values or achievement. No one should be regarded as more preferable or better than anyone else. One woman more beautiful than another? How utterly arrogant and cruel. Yet the Left, which professes to despise achievment, especially in the human realm, will use the beautycontest to erase nationality. Leftism, in the beauty pageant, comes through in stellar hypocrisy.
Is is a new issue? The ancient Persian, world Emperor Artaxerxes, held the world's first international beauty contest (Esther 2) some 2,500 years ago. He would have had interesting things to say about this matter. A young Jewish captive girl in his summer palace at Shushan won his Miss Universe pageant in the 5th century BCE, only she didn't reveal to him her ethnicity until some time later, after the pageant (Ester 2:20). So, what nationality did she claim to be for the pageant? Persian?
When she did reveal to him the fact that she was Jewish, it resulted in the salvation of her people from genocide. That's the point. Therefore, a woman's beauty ought to be forever associated with the ethnicity which engendered it. Russian people should have the honor for Natalie Glebova, not Canadians.
NOTE: DVDs and VHS tapes of Dr. Yeagley's University of Massachusetts speech, as aired by C-SPAN (May 28), are available for purchase through C-SPAN. Call: 1-877-622-7726.
Early this year, Russell Means presented a new Constitution for the Oglala Sioux tribe of Pine Ridge. He was interviewed in the January 7-14, 2005 edition of the Lakota Journal. The news has never been acknowledged as the significant event it really is. "This constitution is for the Oglala Nation and is consistent with the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty. It is by the people and for the people," Means said. Dottie Potter's report in the Journal is well worth its space, and it would be a great thing if the new Oglala Lakota Constitution is made available online for all to see. All tribes would do well to look into it.
Rusell Means
"Under the present system--a Communist system--the council has all the power. The tribal council on every reservation is Communist because they are run by committees. When ruled by committees, the council continues to garner more and more power. That's not only happening in Indian Country, but all across America," Means says.
Means calls for law to protect business on reservations. Presently, there are none. "When we have seperation of powers...and a court system that protects business, we will attract businesses."
Means is calling for something that sounds very similar to what BadEagle.com has advocated for nearly three years now: a business model of tribal organization, not an abstracted bureaucratic system superimposed by the federal government. The present system of organization is inhibitive.
"Every aspect of life on this reservation is hindered by this Communist system, which has created the victim mode. When economic opportunities are provided, race relations improve, and people improve," Means says.
Whether the Oglala people will approve of Means' new constitution remains to be seen. One thing is sure: it is not a slip-shod effort. The creation of this Constitution represents the cooperation of several professionals. BadEagle.com cites this effort because it represents something most tribes ought to consider: new orgainization. (I mentioned this in my UMass speech.) Means is the first to actually offer a document, a plan, a written proposal, for a new way to manage tribal affairs. For this, he deserves historical credit.
He has moved from the far Left, to the center, and even to the Right, in recent years. He supported John Thune, the Republican who ousted Senator Tom Daschle. Means is a Libertarian by party, but clearly he is trying to bring objectivity and improvement into Indian country, and specifically focusing on the foundation of the problem: tribal organization and government. This is what needs to change.
While I believe character values are the real problem, I also acknowledge that, as nations, the Indian tribes do exist as social entities, and as such, need to address this phenomenon where it is flawed--tribal organization. This effort for improvement has been attempted by Russell Means, in an unprecedented way in the Oglala Lakota Constitution for the Pine Ridge Reservation.
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001