Martina McBride's hit song, "Independence Day" says it all. The 1992 knock-out number runs deep into human psychological archetypes, but this one touched on the meaning of America. She referred to it as "another anthem of sorts for me." It's an anthem for all of us.
Let freedom ring, let the white dove sing
Let the whole world know, that today is a day of reckoning
Let the weak be strong, let the right be wrong
Roll the stone away, let the guilty pay
It's Independence Day
The song is about a poor, white trash, dysfunctional family, in which a drunk father beats a young mother in front of a neglected child. One fine Fourth of July, the mother burns down the whole house. The mother ends the abuse. The mother ends everything.
A simple 'kraut' from Kansas, grew up in Texas.
How good can it get?
While it isn't clear whether the mother burned herself up, the child is taken away to a 'country home,' and the lyrics are her reflection on what happened. She honors the mother for courage, for doing what she had to do: end it all. End the wrong.
And sometimes ending wrong requires that we do things that we otherwise would never do. Sometimes ending wrong requires that we do something that seems more wrong. We always want to do right, but sometimes ending wrong requires worse wrong. Indeed, "Let the right be wrong."
American leaders have insisted that we all stay "right," that we not behave unseemly in this "war on terror." We've been preached to about equality, about fairness, about decency. And as a result, "the day of reckoning" has not yet come.
But, "Let the white dove sing." Indeed, peace cannot come except we destory the enemy. We have to burn the house down. We have to end the abuse. In some way, we have to be able to do the unthinkable. "Let the weak be strong."
We have to "roll the stone away." We have to overcome our impediments of conscience. We have to rise from the tomb of our moral impotence.
Shall we find courage in a simple tale of an abused woman? Shall we rise up on a story of a poor white trash woman? If that's what it takes, then so be it. "Let the weak be strong." Heroism is a lonely thing, but, if a woman can do it, can't the leaders of a country do it? Or, since when does leadership make men so weak? How can a nation produce such governmental impotence? Are our leaders some kind of drunken abusers? Have they imprisoned us? Do they beat us down? Must we wait for a nuclear attack on our cities?
To the people we say again,
Let freedom ring, let the white dove sing
Let the whole world know, that today is a day of reckoning
Let the weak be strong, let the right be wrong
Roll the stone away, let the guilty pay
It's Independence Day
We must do what we have to do. We must do the right thing, even if it's wrong.
Do we really care who did it? Does it really matter who planned the attacks and who carried them out?
The public is numb with the diversionary political tactic of promising justice while utterly ignoring the need for prevention. Our modern intelligence agencies are so swollen with federal funding and pride in their professional powers that they think pursuing the murderers is going to stop others from murdering. We're duped by too many law and court shows on TV. Justice is supposed to be the ultimate triumph. But what good is justice to you if you're dead?
After a murderist attack, all we hear is the intense efforts of the police and security forces to find out 'who dun it.' It's like a fascination with detective stories, but, one day soon the government authorities and media machines will realize that the people already know who did it, and don't care about "bringing the terrorists to justice."
What good is it, to find a hand full of them and to imprison them? What positive good has resulted from capturing Saddam Hussein and putting him on "trial?"
The jig's up on justice. The people can't be fooled forever. The western world has simply failed to respond to the Muslim aggressions in an appropriate, effective manner. The west is weak, because of naive idealism, and the Muslims know it. They're free to kill.
And look at the Mexican immigration problem, which is now a critical part of the Muslim plan to attack America. Everyone knows of the infiltration of Muslims into Mexico, and their camouflaged entrance into this country. The American people have risen up to protect what's theirs. What does the government call these patriots? "Vigilantes," like they're some 19th century take-the-law-into-your-own-hands, wild-west shownmen. What utter disrespect. What utter alienation.
All the anti-American forces in the country have picked up the term, and denounce any such attempt of Americans to protect America!
So, we're supposed to feel trapped then? We just have to let the government do its thing, no matter what it costs us? I don't think the conservative cause is strengthed advanced when we are encouraged to ignore major rifts and errors within the cause. The cause is strengthened by correcting those errors. If they are ignored, they will only become worse in their effects.
I used to play with an Italian soccer club when I was in Connecticut. Pietro Amica was the name of the club house. (Actually, I was on the team only for one season, but, I always worked out with them.) I remember once when in a game when Vinny was being egregiously and repeatedly fouled by a cocky, aggressive opponent. Vinny finally turned on the referee, and started to pulverize him. Only the team saved the referee.
Vinny held the referee responsible. Vinny didn't attack the opponent player for the fouls. Vinny went to the heart of the problem,(and went for the jugular).
I've never forgotten that. It was an instinctive acuity that really needs to be applied to modern politics. We wait in utter dread, until that day when another major, catastrophic disaster happens in America--at the free hand of the Muslims mass murderers.
And remember, the Arabs on the east coast all knew about it. They knew it was coming. Many left the area just before, and came back later. Is it really safe to let these kind of people live here? They knew, yet they did nothing. They have willfully failed to distinguish themselves from the murderers. Their "protest" publicity stunts now are far too little, far too late.
Lest we forget, or, have we already forgotten? The pictures
of the WTC attack, the gleeful beheadings of western
hostages in Baghdad, these things should be seen every
day by Americans. Many of the beheading videos have
already been removed from the internet by big media.
Michelle Malkin was a guest with John Kasich yesterday on FoxNews "Hearland," talking about profiling Middle Eastern males in London. Of course, Malkin is a known advocate of internment (In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in WWII and in the War on Terror), and profiling is the first step toward internment. But internment almost inevitably leads to the next step: deportation. Is this a case of gradual revelation, or is this rhetorical delay of deportation a result of political correctness, which Malkin professes to despise?
Internment would not make sense. Internment is what Guantanamo Bay is all about. Look how that has worked out. It's just very expensive fodder for the enemies, be they Muslims or American liberals. The murderous prisoners should all be shot. This "war on terror" is not a Congressionally declared war, so how does the Geneva Convention even apply? We've turned prisoners loose. They murdered again.
Furthermore, internment in America or Europe would definitely be insulting to the innocent. We know how Middle Eastern Muslims react to the slightest sense of being insulted. And internment would effectively imprison them, requiring an enormous tax-payer expense to sustain them. They would demand the finest accommodations, just like in Gitmo. Why should they not expect even better? They weren't involved on the battlefields in Afghanistan, fighting against American soldiers.
Internment is impractical and it would be ultimately ineffective unless no more Middle Eastern Muslims were allowed in the country after the lock down. Interment would require a stiff travel ban on the Muslims, along with ID examination and intense searching.
And it would not address the more important question: Why are the Muslims here? What will be their protests to having to leave? Those questions will not come to light unless the Middle Eastern Muslims are faced with massive deportations. What did they leave their country in the first place? What were they getting away from? What's wrong with their country and their lives there, that they should brave the journey to a foreign country, learn a new language, and try to make a living? Why haven't they fought it out against their own kind, and made the changes they'd like to see? Are the Iraqis the only people in the Middle East willing to do just that--fight it out among their own kind? They didn't leave because of the wars. They were here before the wars started. It looks like the Muslim immigrants are simply part of an Islamic aggression on the Western world. The immigrants cannot deny the role they are playing, willingly or unwillingly.
Ah, but those fighting Iraqi patriots over there in Baghdad deserve Americas help. They deserve all that America wants to do for them. These immigrants here are the weak, and the deceptive. Internment will only justify their self-serving weaknesses. Deportation on the other hand will require them to face the facts of their own country. They need to be patriots, not escapees of responsibility. They obviously don't love their countries at all, or they wouldn't have left them. They don't love America, either, or they would be first in line in the defense against the murder movement among them. They aren't. They avoid involvement like the plague. I'm not talking about Leftist-style protests and condemnations in the street. I'm talking about turning over the murderers. They know who they are. What kind of people are they, coming to flee responsibility, and yet harboring the wicked among them? This is a social disaster, which can only be resolved by the discipline of deportment.
Deportment is not an insult. This has nothing to do with profiling or prejudice. This has to do with protecting the free world, and demanding that these Muslim countries make themselves free, and that they stop taking a beggar's advantage of the blood, sweat, and tears of others. They need their own revolution, in their own country. America had ours (and we're nearing the need for another one), so let them have theirs. Ah, but it's easier to reap the benefits of someone else's blood, than to spill your own.
No, internment won't do the trick. I disagree with Malkin, popular minority "immigrant" female as she is. (Yes, her parents immigrated. Yes, she was born in America, of course. But no, she didn't love Filipinos enough to identify with the country of her ethnicity, and no, she didn't marry one. Transceding, or abandoning, or radically ignoring one's ethnicity isn't my idea of American patriotism, necessarily.) Internment is still 'politically correct' and it evades the deeper issues. It sounds radical, and therefore significant, but it misses the target completely. It would be shooting someone's hat off--a mere humiliation, and not a significant threat. And we would have to buy the Muslims a new hat, or turban.
No. I demand patriotism from the Muslims, not American patriotism, but patriotism for their own kind, their own country, the way the Iraqis are showing it. If the immigrant Muslims cannot offer this, then they must quickly abandon all their Muslim customs here, including the Qur'an. They must fight for freedom by eliminating every manifestation of sympathy with all that makes the Muslim murderers what they are.
So American authorities are toying with more of our public freedoms. They're stopping subway users in New York City, opening their bags, and making everyone feel safer.
Everyone who doesn't know anything about history. Said Ben Franklin, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
The American public is being deceived. Today on Fox News 'Dayside', even Lynne Cheney was offering the same well-meaning delusions. She said that in the interests of safety, Americans are willing to put up with a little inconvenience.
European Christians once paid a terrible
price to keep their freedom from Arabic Islam.
It was called the Crusades. Has the world
forgotten what it takes?
What we're seeing is a strange preference for idealism over practical necessity. American leaders are selling the idea of national safety as more important that individual freedom. Why? because national safety is not being preserved by the most logical means--deporting the enemy from our shores. Instead, American leaders are pleased to inconvenience the wrong people--Americans!
Oh, but everyone is an American now. Just watch the multicultural ads on TV. "I'm an American!" says this immigrant, that ethnicity, this foreigner, that race. "Were' all American." Why, everyone's bags will be searched, not just Arab Muslims. How comforting. How dignified. How transcendent of all offense.
The price we're paying? We're all less free Americans, and therefore, less American.
Preserving the freedom of the Arab and Pakistani Muslims here is the ideological triumph of the age. Whatever sacrifices we must make of our freedoms, whomever among us must be slaughtered, we must, above every other consideration, protect the rights of the Arab and Pakistani Muslims to be here in America. This is some kind of bizarre, ideological idolatry. Leaders would rather indulge in endless theories of how to protect "rights" of Arab and Pakistani Muslim immigrants than to face the immediate problem of protecting Americans. Leaders would rather devote seemingly exhaustless energy (and taxpayer dollars) on arresting, interrogating, incarcerating, and preserving the murderers, than preventing them from being here.
Shall we indeed wait untill there is a nuclear slaughter in an American city? Our self-idolizing government is hereby fostering a second revolution of the American people, whether it is willing to recognize it or not. The people speak. If they are not heard, they will speak louder, and louder, until their voice becomes law.
That little aspect of American history seems to have been forgotten by our professional politicians, our careerist legislators.
I look for the imminent appearance of Nathanial Hawthorne's "Grey Champion," the mystical old patriot from the Puritan days. He arises from the mist to speak whenever the people of America forget their roots, "for he is the type of New England's hereditary spirit; and his shadowy march, on the eve of danger, must ever be the pledge, that New England's sons will vindicate their ancestry."
We are at the verge of a crisis. The very first literary discussion on BadEagle.com was on this very story of Hawthorne. It deserves revisiting.
If our leaders think they are being more humane, indeed more Christian, by protecting the rights of them who host the enemy, then I would ask them, Does God abide blasphemy forever? For those leaders who would play God, remember that God plays different roles. Sometimes He creates. Sometimes He destroys. I wouldn't consider letting Muslims slaughter us a creative role. I wouldn't say America's sacrifice is paying for the sins of the world, either. And let's not forget, Allah is not the God of Israel, but a different concept altogether.
I'd say, Protect the nation, and forget about the "rights" of a few million foreigners, who have their own countries to go home to anyway. "Inconveniencing" Americans is not protecting the nation. Inconveniencing a few immigrants might be. It would certainly send a clearer message to the murderers.
And there's no point in capturing Bin Laden. There was no positive result of capturing Saddam Hussein. That's just a litigation fest for attorneys, with no effect on the Muslim murderers. The pursuit of the perpetrators ends in nothing. We've demonstrated that since the beginning.
We're just not being tough enough. We'll pay a terrible price, and then the people of Europe and America will begin a crusade like the world has never seen, not since the days of Dracula.
All because too many were too weak of will, for too long.
More explosions in London. Wheee! The Muslims really know how to have fun, don't they? And now they're saying Bin Laden has nuclear devices already in the United States. Wow. That's really going to be a bash. Don't want to miss that. There appears no way to stop any of this. All are invited. Whatever our security forces will do, it will be too little, too late. Party on, thou Muslim devils!
That's the scenario created by the media. The public doesn't even seem to be much interested, according the the Glenn Beck "fantasy events" stock exchange (QLI). The fact that this much time has gone by, and he hasn't been caught and executed, tells people that there is no concerted effort to "bring to justice" this demonic criminal, and that he will not be removed from action. The public has unconsciously accepted this as a reality.
Any real, rational thoughts about a practical solution are cast aside as horrific racism, cruel, inhuman, and just plain evil. Think of it, asking the Muslims to return to their own countries. How outrageous! "Please go home now, at least for a while, and let us sort out this slaughter problem." How unthinkable. Michelle Malkin has been severely rebuked by the Left (Counterpunch.org) for even suggesting that racial profiling is appropriate. (See, In Defense of Internment). How much more offensive seems the idea to simply remove the Muslims from our borders. Yet, how much more practical, effective, and less humiliating, than either profiling or internment.
Does a nation have the right to defend itself? to make the calls within its own borders? Is there supposed to be such a thing as a nation? Does one nation's sovereignty overrule anothers? Is there any dignity or propriety in war? Are there any valid, permanent arramgements resulting from war? (Hard to know these days, since Congress doesn't decare war any more.)
There's an important organization called "Get Us Out," which
advocates the United States withdraw from the UN. I say,
Get the UN out of the United States. Move it to Africa.
America once did not hesitate to do what it felt it had to do. Indian tribes were fought, rounded up, moved hither and yon, placed in essentially internment camps--called reservations. Being the proud nationalists that they were, Indians preferred that, rather than integration and assimilation and bloodless annihilation.
But the Arab/Pakistani Muslim situation is different. They have left their own countries, to come here, to kill. So far, America is unwilling to fight back in a direct, simple manner. The complexities of political correctness and self-destroying perversions of the idea of "freedom" have made the leadership preoccupied with surgical tactics, when the whole body is diseased.
The Arab/Pakistani Muslims have made the whole western world into VietNam. And it's worse than "guerilla warfare." It is outright murder of innocents. There is nowhere to run. The Westerners are already in their own countries. They have nowhere else to go. It is the Arab/Pakistani Muslims who are out of their tree.
Instead of the torturous, ineffective process of trying to weed out the bad apples from the Muslim barrel, why not just ship the whole thing back? That is the first, most logical and practical line of defence. America does not exist to protect every race and religion in the world. That isn't why America came into being, nor will it survive with such an unrealistic, idiotic notion of being a nation. America does not owe every person born the right to a Cadillac, a two-car garage, and college education money for the kids. Being born anywhere in the world does not give one these rights.
It isn't just what you value or what you think that makes you an American. That's a social club forumula. The Arab/Pakistani Muslims who are not terrorists are still foreigners. They are a different race, of a different religion, a different culture, and have a different language. What part of this is "American?"
They are here for economic reasons. They weren't fleeing persecution. They have countries, quite wealthy governments, and they are only here for economic advantages, at best, to spread Islam at worst. There can be no other reaons. Is this an "American?"
It is precisely the lack of national definition that has left all doors open to deadly havoc. The meaning of being American is so utterly diverse, so completely confined to abstractions, that the most fundamental, phenomenological elements that make up the meaning of nationhood are eroded almost beyond recognition. America has become an international warehouse, a clearing house, for a world economy. From an independent, sovereign nation, America is becoming a mere tool in the hands of international business interests, multi-nationals, they're called, who have no loyalty to any country, but rather set their sights on the globe.
Edith Hollan Jones, and Edith Brown Clement, both possible Bush nominees for the office of Supreme Court Justice of the United States, are both white, and both women. Clement is Southern. Deep south Southern, from Birmingham, Alabama. That's rather interesting. Does that mean we can look for an expansion of states rights?
Of course, the point is, apparently Bush feels he must replace one woman, Sandra D. O'Conner, with another woman. Okay. There is already a black (male) judge on the bench, Clarence Thomas, so, does that mean all racial representation is satisfied?
How utterly racist!
Now, then, must the female replacement, if it must be female, be exempted from racial consideration? What about an Asian female? An Hispanic female? Liberals forbid, what about an American Indian Female?
Never before have Indian issues been so pressing in modern times. Land, resources, casinos, taxes, etc., are reaching critical mass in Indian country. Would it be just so illogical and outrageous to have an American Indian on the Supreme Court?
Clarence Thomas has made no outstanding decisions affecting any race, and the decisions he has made have not shown any particular familiarity or interest in the problems of the American Negro. Is that what an "ethnic" Justice is supposed to do--show no connection to his own ethnicity? Is that how you make the grade as a "minority" appointment to the Supreme Court? Is that how you demonstrate your 'supreme' objectivity?
What a vapid place holder! What's the point? This sort of thing makes due mockery of the reason for having an "ethnic minority" Justice. If he can't show any concern, then why have him--just for an affirmative action quota? a necessary appointee? Political correctness (which is nearly always practical incorrectness) on the Supreme Court. That's real impartiality. Transcendent objectivity.
So we have gender and ethnicity in mock concern. What about religion? Do we need a Muslim therefore on the bench? That would make sense in political correctness. I expect to see it one day. There will be every conceivable ethnicity and religion--before we will ever see an American Indian on the Supreme Court. Only three Indian judges served at the federal court level last year.
Why? Partly because Indians have not shown an interest in America. To change this trend is part of the basic purpose of BadEagle.com. But it is also true that keeping American Indians out of the government is the last vestige of American patriotism. It's more acceptable to appoint an Arab Muslim to the American court system, than to appoint an Indian. White America, Liberal America, and even timid tip-towing Conservative America, ever so afraid to offend any America-hating soul in the world, never feel a twinge of conscience over the exlusion of American Indians.
This would contradict their deep-seated stereotype of the Indian. The Indian is tough, independent in spirit, and fought for himself. He doesn't need any of the benefits of political correctness or liberal bleeding hearts. To boot, conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Mike Drudge make sport of the social miseries of Indian reservations, and begrudge government provisions in the historical treaties. Why, that's not offensive to Indians.
In the end, that's what Indians face, from all political fronts. We have no support from either political side, really. I, for one, believe in conservative values. I believe the Republican Party best represents the values of the American Constitution. But I do not find support, understanding, or even sympathy from this camp, certainly not on a political, professional level.
I find that conservative values mean you are supposed to stand alone, stand for the right, because it is right, not because it will bring you success of any kind. It probably won't increase your job opportunities, your salary, or your future. But at least you know it's right, morally. That is the last recourse.
After all, aren't Indians supposed to be the primal spiritual beings of the continent? Aren't we supposed to carry the deepest flame?
Since the American-led Coalition entered Iraq, March 2003, not a day passes without some murderous slaughter committed against the Iraqi people by opposing forces. It is a remarkable thing, to live in fear, daily. Few people have faced such imminent and immediate violence, personally, on such a markedly regular schedule. Only the Israeli people can appreciate such circumstances.
Of course, it is other Iraqi people, mostly, who are doing the merciless slaughtering of innocents--men, women, and children. It is mostly a Sunni problem around Baghdad The Sunni leaders have lost power. Yes, there are foreigners involved in the mass murders, and there are other countries involved in financing the mass homocides. However, it is a basically Iraqi people against other Iraqi people, if we can regard Iraq as a country with a modicum of homogeneity. The liberals like to call it a "civil war," because they love to pit people against each other, but, in this case, they are not completely accurate. And the media doesn't delve too deeply into the social and political divisions of the country either, or the ethnic, religious, and regional divisions of the country.
In this ambiguity and uncertainty, one thing becomes completely clear: the war is about democracy and free enterprise for the people of Iraq. Whoso commits slaughter is against freedom. Whoso is slaughtered is a patriot of freedom. While the media likes to simply say "insurgents" are fighting the Americans and the new Iraqi government, the "insurgents" are really fighting the idea of freedom. It means they lose power. It means they don't have control.
Baghdad police, some of the bravest men in the world. From,
Pictures in Baghdad blog.
But it's really even more primitive than that. Most of the "insurgents," the mass murderers, never had power. They are not a legitimate represenation of any previous political entity or even religious sector. They are nothing but hired thugs, finding significance in their otherwise meaningless lives, through murdering other people. They are soul-less mercenaries, out for a desperate, fast buck, or fast food, as it were. It's easier for them to risk their lives, than to work. Violence is their quick fix. The only patience they show is in planning mass murder. They are not worthy of the name of any cause. They are simply murderers. They are in vice. They are prisoners of their own satanic passions.
The Iraqis who are fighting against the murderers, daily losing lives, daily being slaughtered, are indeed a strong and determined people. Think of it: wouldn't it be easier to throw in the towel? The Western world is asking them to fight for something they've never really had. We're promising them that it is better. Apparently they feel it, and they're willing to fight for it, daily.
They aren't the wealthy, or the powerful, either. They're just the people of Baghdad. They are the public. Freedom calls them. It is a great thing, that the Americans and the Coalition are standing by them. It is the greatest romance in the Middle East since the rebirth of Israel.
I say praise the brave Iraqi people.
Yes, they have oil, and that is a factor in America's motivations for 'liberating' the country. But, that should in no way detract from their right to freedom, their desire to fight for it, and our responsibility to help them obtain it.
It is common today to hear the word "holocaust" used in reference to any large scale destruction of human life. Whether the slaughter is politically motivated, racially provoked, gender specific (as in the case of Srebrenica--where only men were executed), or inspired by religious mania (as in the invasion of Islam), news resporters and authors use the term holocaust as a way of stamping their report with the ultimate significance, regardless of the actual dimensions of the social scale of the story they write about. If they say "holocaust," then we're all supposed to activate the profound emotions associated with the Jewish Holocaust.
To throw around such a powerful term as the holocaust may be impressive, but it is also misleading. A careful analysis of it's origins brings one to an appreciation of the uniqueness of the Jewish Holocaust. The term came into common use in reference to the destruction of the Jews by Nazi Germany. It is the Jewish holocaust which gave birth and meaning to the word holocaust. Understanding the circumstances of WWII and the Jews in Germany therefore is prerequisite. The term simply cannot and should not be used for any and all human tragedy. It is exclusive, by definition.
Cambodian Pol Pot, and Ugandan Idi Amin, not like Adolf Hitler
For example, the millions of Cambodians slaughtered by Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge were slaughtered by Cambodians, within the country of Cambodia. The same in the case of Adi Amin: Ugandans slaughtered Ugandans. These were not therefore holocausts. They lack essential elements found in the Jewish Holocaust.
The American Indian story involved war. That in itself exludes the story from the label "holocaust." Yes, it involved the collision of race and religion, but what distinguished the American Indian story is the fact that Indians were separate nations, on their own lands, and were invaded by foreigners. There is no proper comparison of the Indians to the Jews in this matter.
Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman
Finally, there is no comparison of the deportation of Mexican or Arab immigrants to Jewish deportations during WWII. The Jews were deeply ensconced in German (and European) society, and had been contributing to it's development for a millenium. Today's newly immigrated Mexicans, Arabs, or Pakistanis have no such record, and their deportation represents no such outrage as the deportation of the Jews from their homes in Germany.
The West is being invaded by a relentless, fatal enemy. To deport his entire, transplanted immigrant community is therefore the most logical response of nature. It is the simplest defense.
Or, does everyone and anyone have the divine right to be anywhere and everywhere he wants? The Jewish Holocaust must not be made into a cause of anti-nationalism. It must not be allowed to serve the ideology of communisism and the dissolution of all boundaries.
The meaning of the Jewish Holocaust must be carefull preserved. It is a tremendously powerful term, and to abuse it, to try to make it a measure of all human experience, a standard of interpretation, and the basis of all political action and reaction, is to utterly denigrate it, and actually to set the stage for another holocaust, this time not only of Jews, but of the Western world.
By squelching any thought of mistreatment of Mexicans or Arabs, in whose society lurks the deadliest enemies of the West, simply by some reference to a mistaken, false, out-of-context element of the Jewish Holocaust is to make the Holocaust an instrument of destruction. Such Holocaust abuse prevents governments from taking the most basic, necessary actions in self-defense.
Only the Jews are the Jews. No other people can measure themselves by the Jews. Therefore, no other people can implement the same standards, or expect them. To do so imperils all.
Guard the Jewish Holocaust. Guard the Western world.
In the furious fantasy the Democrat leaders are whipping up over the trumped up Karl Rove non-issue, there's a real concern on the minds of more rational citizens: al-Qaeda nuclear weapons brought into the United States through the Mexican borders.
Congressman Tom Tancredo is calling on the Justice Department for a briefing on the WorldNetDaily report that Al-Qaeda has already brought nuclear explosives into the US, and is planning on an "American-Hiroshima" in the next few years.
Even Glenn Beck's fantasy predictions, the QLI TICKER, will soon have an stock options on the Al-qaeda attack. At least that's what he foretold yesterday on his radio show. The people can predict, he says. True polling asks the right questions, in the right way. Political polls are little more than propaganda.
The Al-qaeda attack has to happen. It has to be. It is inevitable. It is too easy for Al-qaeda to do. It is too difficult to stop.
The "clown Wilson," as Ann Coulter calls him.
Joseph Wilson and his wife Valery Plume have
worked to undermine the Bush administration
and the entire Iraq War effort. The only thing
that has been "leaked" is their own perfidy.
It is well-known information in circulation. Says WND: "According to captured al-Qaida leaders and documents, the plan is called the "American Hiroshima" and involves the multiple detonation of nuclear weapons already smuggled into the U.S. over the Mexican border with the help of the MS-13 street gang and other organized crime groups."
"Al-Qaida has obtained at least 40 nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union – including suitcase nukes, nuclear mines, artillery shells and even some missile warheads. In addition, documents captured in Afghanistan show al-Qaida had plans to assemble its own nuclear weapons with fissile material it purchased on the black market."
But, rather than address this horrid fantasy, which represents immediate, imminent, and catastrophic danger, the Democrat 'leaders' in Washington become desperate over a total fantasy case about a woman's name, Valery Plume. It's more important to know who mentioned her name--known to insiders, and to cut out a tongue, than to protect America from murderous attack by Arab Muslims. This is clearly a social pathology, disguised in the name of politics. The hysterical Rove attackers, having worked themselves up into a blood lust, are completely unwilling to face the reality of America's real dangers. This is called delusion, and has little to do with anything but fantasies of power. It is a kind of escape mechanism, really. The Democrats involved simply cannot face the real danger, so make an cosmic issue out of absolutely nothing, and pretend to be the protectors of the nation. And they expect the dumb public to honor them for it!
These anti-American Democrats have destroyed their own party, and are the laughing stock of the world. They have demonstrated that they are themselves the biggest threat to American safety, neurotically bickering over a woman's name, while al-qaeda plans the mass destruction of American cities.
This is a remarkable moment in American social history. We seem to be at the edge of a major change.
There was nothing "civil" about America's Civil War nearly 150 years ago. Shall there be anything less civil in the up-coming struggle? Will we be so preoccupied with our jobs and cars that we will have waited too late to do anything about the crisis? Clinton always counted on the preoccupations of the American public. The leaders can get by with anything, as long as the people are busy.
Edward Klein's book, The Truth About Hillary, is No.2 on the New York Times best-seller list, but Klein has been denied all TV interviews. Instead, Bernard Goldberg, author of One Hundred People Who Are Screwing Up America, which isn't even in the top 15, has been widely advertised on all the main TV shows, and Goldberg has gotten all the interviews.
According to Richard Poe, in "The Woman Who Would Be President," the reason is due to Klein's revelations of Hillary's life-long homosexual associations, radical feminism, conspiracies against America, and her relentless pursuit of the White House.
But Klein is a life-long liberal himself. How is it that he is concerned about Hillary? He fears she will win in 2008, and the country will be subjected to another eight years of the Clinton co-presidency.
Goldberg's book, on the other hand, has no revelations, but is rather a coffee table conversation piece, with the usual suspects. Nothing controversial, nothing new, and nothing threatening to anyone.
So, why would the media shut down Klein, and remain open to Goldberg? (Only Sean Hannity followed through with a TV and radio interview for Klein. Everyone else cancelled.) Again, it is apparently because of Hillary's homosexual element, which Klein seems to have revealed just a bit too much about.
Hillary, from the cover of her not
so accurate Living History book cover.
In Poe's exclusive interview with Klein, the public (i.e., media) aversion to talking about Hillary's homosexual assocations is clear:
"Only weeks ago, Tina Brown was begging Klein for an advance copy of his Hillary expose, vowing to "shout out" Klein's praises. The two have been on friendly terms for years. It was Tina Brown who recruited Klein in the early '90s to write for Vanity Fair when she was editor there. To Klein's surprise, his old editor unexpectedly lashed out at him in her Washington Post column of June 23, calling him "Ed Slime" and a "sniper in the Republican stage army." Brown wrote, "Maybe it's a secret fantasy of girl-on-girl action that makes Ed Klein obsess about Sen. Hillary Clinton's supposed lesbian ethos in his new book The Truth About Hillary. It's hard to know what else he has to draw on. Yelling 'lesbian' at powerful heterosexual women has always been the pathetic projection of the menaced male..."
Tina Brown, looking alot like Hillary
So, in her rage, Tina Brown herself completely demeans female homosexuals by saying that to 'accuse' a woman of such is the last resort of battered men. She unwittingly assents to the universal aversion toward homosexuality. The price of rage, perhaps. Self-contradiction.
(Of course, Tina Brown has lost money for just about every establishement she's worked for. Even the grand old dame Helen Gurley Brown (Cosmopolitan) has pointed that out. Looks like Tina's continuing her tradition, the way she passed up Klein.)
Helen Gurley Brown, the original "have it all"
female chauvinist
Klein believes Hillary, because of her ruthless dishonesty, would make a terribly dangerous president, and if the Republicans remain smug about their political situation, she will in fact win in 2008.
Poe reports, "During her years in the White House, says Klein, 'Everything about Hillary was ambiguous; everything she stood for, she stood for the opposite. She seemed to lack the innate knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil...'
Come now, Mr. Klein, don't get soft. It isn't a lack, it is a willful confusion of meaning. It isn't a fault, it's a choice. It isn't a handicap, it is a decided manipulation. Let's not get sympathetic about it.
London was attacked today by murderers. July 7, 2005, the media spins the story with the usual politically correct misnomers, such as "terrorists, "suicide bombers," "Islamic extremists" (or just "religious" extremists), instead of calling them what they are--demonic murderers. These evil killers, these grotesque misanthropes, these satanic slaughterers, get a nominal press pass every time, no matter whom, where, when, or how many innocents they kill. Why, it's not slaughter, it's "terrorism."
Emergence services carry a woman into an ambulance at Kings Cross Train
Station after multiple explosions rocked the capital in London, Thursday, July 7,
2005. A string of explosions rocked at least three London subway trains and ripped
apart a double-decker bus during the morning rush hour Thursday, police said, killing
more than 33 people, injuring more than 360 and sending bloodied victims fleeing from
debris-strewn blast sites. AP Photo/Sergio Dionisio
Most tragic of all, however, is the pathetic, impotent voice of world leaders. Not one, no not one, not Tony Blair, not George Bush, is willing to say, "Deport Arab Muslims!" No one is willing to demand the return of all Arab Muslims back to their own countries. We all know that the insistance on maintaing our "freedoms," our way of life, our values, here in the west, is the open door to the murderers, our worst enemies. We must let them in. Blair's resolve is a meaningless ideological fantasy, a vapid harangue. It issue is not about intimidation. It's about identifying the truth of the matter. Arab Muslims belong in Arab Muslim countries. If there's something there they cannot abide, then maybe they don't need to be Arab Muslims. Arab Muslims values are inimical to the modern world. I say resolve to face the truth, not simply make ideological statements of no consequence or effect on changing the circumstances for the better.
The press is already captive of Islamic tyranny. (The press was already captive of liberalism, the enemy of all freedom.) To connect the wicked slaughters with religion, much less race, is just not permitted in todays political rhetoric, from any side. The critical truth of the matter is blacked out. The conclusion that is tyrannically insultingly thrown upon our rationality and good conscience is that, in fact, prevention is prejudice. Prevention is profiling. Prevention is policing. We mustn't have that.
This lie is the message of the world today. Rather than put all the Muslims in their own countries, the leaders of whom are swimming in western wealth, and letting the Muslims fight it out in their own countries, our world leaders, in the name of freedom, are willing to let the Muslims bring their "civil war" everywhere else in the world. The Muslims murderers have won already. They have already demonstrated that self-destructive liberalsm, that anti-nationalism, has provided them with their opportunity. They are the willing servant of the liberals.
A forensic officer walks next to the wreckage of a double decker bus with its
top blown off and damaged cars scattered on the road at Tavistock Square in central
London Thursday, July 7, 2005. A string of rush-hour explosions blamed on Islamic
terrorists tore into at least three London subway trains and a double-decker bus
on Thursday, killing more than 33 people and injuring about 390. AP Photo/Sang Tan
But conservatives have shown no fortitude, no courage, and no hope for the world. Conservatives leaders are pleased to host Muslims, with great pride in fact. America is a place where freedom allows America's enemies to fire away. And London, determined to out-shine American democracy, is haven for the largest Muslim murder rings in the free world. Fine point London makes. Quite convincing, especially in the light of today's events.
Christopher Hitchens, on FoxNews this morning, said today that the all Europe is now involved in this "civil war" of the Muslim community.
What an outrageous miscomprehension of reality!
Rather than support a true civil war in a country whose people want a republican form of democracy, the world is supposed to inivite the Muslims to bring their "civil war" to the free world, so we can all have a part in it.
I see nothing but political correctness, or cowardice, in all the news and commentary today, from media hounds and world leaders. Nothing could be more deluded, more deceptive, and more stupid.
Arab Muslims are not homeless. They are not without countries. They are not without resources and wealth. If their government is faulty, it is their responsibility to revolt, to fight it out, to change their own country.
We weaken them when we invite them to evade their responsibility. We are aiding and abetting the demise of the free world in this.
President Bush says we took the war to Iraq, rather than make the battlefield on our own turf. Yet America has no border control. Anyone can come, and do anything he wants. There is no prevention, only clean-up crews. We've been awfully lucky there has been no Arab Muslim slaughter here since 9/11.
Policies, Patriot Acts, business deals, all fall short of the truer aim: to let the Arab Muslim countries develop their own democracies. If the people don't want it bad enough to fight and die for it, like early Americans did, then they don't deserve it at all. They certainly don't deserve to come and enjoy the fruits of someone else's blood, while they refuse to shed their own.
I am outraged at world leaders. I have no confidence in them, no not one. Untill Arab Muslims are all deported to their own countries, until there is at least a temporary ban on all world travel for Arab Muslims, until their countries are forced to decide what kind of government they want, forced to face revolution, I say our world leaders are leading us to temporal perdition.
Muslim leaders are pimps, and their murderous minions are whores. Whoso invites and harbors them deserves their plagues.
In the name of freedom, deport all Arab Muslims back to their own countries, and support their "civil war" there, if there really is one.
The American Academy of Pediatrics just issued a statement that teenagers need access to birth control (i.e., pills and condoms) and emergency contraception (i.e., abortions), and that abstinence was not sufficient to prevent "unintended" pregnancy. The statement scoffs at abstinance advocates and specifically labelled them "religious groups and President Bush."
Once again the medical profession, liberal in nature, demonstrates its revulsion at morality, and the Republican party, that "white, Christian" group that advocates standards. Everyone knows the most "unintended" pregancies occur among blacks and hispanics, even though those numbers have actually declined--no doubt due to "birth control" rather than self-control.
Dr. Jonathan Klein, chairman of the AAP committe that issued a recent report, said, "Even though there is great enthusiasm in some circles for abstinence-only interventions, the evidence does not support abstinence-only interventions as the best way to keep young people from unintended pregnancy."
We protest this deceptive report! Abstinence is not intervention. Abstinence is prevention. Pray tell, Dr. Klein, when does abstinence not work? In rape? Is this all about caring for rape victims?
And what is this "unintended" pregnancy? Whether the pregnancy was intended or not has nothing to do with whether or not it is wanted. Why confuse the issues? If the pregnancy is unwanted, it is unwwanted. Ah, but that sounds very culpable. That sounds cruel and heartless. It's more politically correct to say the pregnancy was "unintended."
Furthermore, "the evidence" quoted in even liberal media shows in fact that teens who are taught abstinence, especially by their parents, are much less likely to become pregnant, and even more less likely to acquire sexually transmitted disease (STD). Dr. Klein and the liberals simply refuse to advocate standards. As a result, they advocate promiscuity.
Hippocrates of Khios, Greece (470-410 BC)
It is as if prevention is contrary to the Hippocratic Oath, or modern doctors' interpretation of such. The doctor simply cannot be concerned with the behavior that causes the suffering. That would involved moral judgment, which he eschews.
Are we going to have to consider the our beloved doctors just another enemy of America? This would be a most poignant tragedy, for which there is little hope of remedy.
This day, July 4th, 2005, I declare myself dependent--
upon the Almighty God, the Creator, for life, joy, and hope.
I declare myself utterly servile,
under the mysterious circumstances of life, living, death and dying.
I proclaim mindless slavery,
throughout the earth, as all things owe their origin and continuity
to the Great Spirit, the arbiter of all destinies.
I denounce the illusion of liberty,
I surrender all delusions of pride and independence.
I bow my face to the earth in abject helplessness,
knowing the relentless watch, and supreme power of Heaven.
I confess my profound desperation, fear, and sorrow,
wholly at the mercy of God for breath and happiness, and life,
entirely dependent upon the Lord for peace, security, and joy.
I declare myself a prisoner of hope,
in the chains of sorrow and tears which only God can wipe away,
completely sold under the overwhelming hope of the resurrection.
I offer myself, my diseased body, my writhing soul, my crippled mind, and my life--
with all its confusion and hideous failures,
unto the eternal mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I make a proclaimation of dependence upon thanksgiving,
and the necesssity of gratitude,
for having known the power of love in my parents,
in my family, and in loving friends.
Indeed, as a created being, descendent of a tragic, fallen race,
I declare myself an everlasting residue of Grace, a servant of hope,
believing in the word of others, an inescapable subject of inheritance.
I declare my obeisance to desire, to constant yearning,
that Jesus may "bear the iniquity of the holy things,
which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts." (Ex. 28: 36-38).
I surrender to the charms of divine contradition, the lure of everlasting mystery,
and the salvation of real and personal love.
These things I have known, I have experienced, and I am marked.
I declare my choiceless preference, my inevitable treasure, of the love of God.
As we approach the 229th celebration of American Independence, we note that Antonio Villaraigosa just became the first "modern Latino" mayor of Los Angeles since 1872. On hand to celebrate his inauguration were professional religionists conducting "a prayer service attended by Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and Christians that reflected the inclusiveness that swept Villaraigosa to power in May."
Los Angeles Mayor-elect Antonio Villaraigosa (3rd R) and his wife Corina (L)
pray on the altar with religious leaders during a pre-inauguration inter
faith service at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles July 1,
2005. Villaraigosa is the first Mexican-American to be elected mayor of Los
Angeles in over a century. Photo by Chris Pizzello/Reuters
Villaraigos may in fact be the best man for the job, but, why the multi-culturalism? Why the posturing? Sikhs have nothing to do with America, or American history. Buddhists are alien to the American spirit. Spanish Jews were part of the American west from the very earliest days as were many Mexicans. There is historical authenticity in that. But, I must protest, India and China are new comers, and have no part in the historical creation of America. Hindus (the historical name of people from India) and Buddists are mere deocrations of multi-culturalism, ornaments of pluralism.
This kind of mesh-mash of ideology leaves America nothing but an international bank, a third world business opportunity. Political office is made into globalist puppetry.
To count the prayers of the heathen amongst those of the true God, is like Solomon putting up idols in Jerusalem (I Kings 11:1-8), like Manasseh building heathen shrines in the Temple of the Most High (2 Chronicles 33:3-10).
If there is a God, there is only one. There are not many names for him, but one, Hashem, the Name. Yet, even America's Billy Graham has been caught up in the issue of pluralism. Though he professes Christ is the only way to God, he has also said, "as an American, I respect other paths to God." Parade Magazine, Oct. 20, 1996. The issue for the Christian stems from a prophetic passage in Zecharia, 13:6, when apparently some people who have inherited immortality are unfamiliar with the story of Christ. "What are these wounds in thine hands?" to which the Lord responds, "Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."
This stunning and most touching passage is not to be made the justification of false gods! It merely means that God considers the birth place and culture of every one born. "The Lord shall count, when he writeth up the people, that this man was born there." Psalm 87:6. Those who never heard of Christ, nevertheless followed whatever light of eternal verities that shone upon them. God is merciful.
To abuse mercy is the ultimate blasphemy.
So, Villaraigosa may be an opportunity for the multi-culturalists, but, I'm proud of Villaraigosa, as man. Even though he's caught up the the very vortex of mult-culturalism and its new meaningless Americanism, its anti-Americanism, underneath all that he could be a really great man--and a great American. Let's hope so.
With his family and a procession of supporters,
Mayor-elect Antonio Villaraigosa walks to City Hall
for his inauguration Friday July 1, 2005, in Los
Angeles. AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes
And when the liberals try to say, "See, he's the son of immigrants! See how wonderful immigrants are?," let's remember that his parents immigrated over 50 years ago. Circumstances were entirely different. Villaraigosa's family is not to be associated with the criminal Mexicans of today.
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