Attributing the civil rights movement to Rosa Parks is like saying history if the Western Hemisphere was caused by Christopher Columbus. A courageous act on the part of an individual can have great consequences, indeed, but, in the matter of Rosa Parks, we can only say the the American tradition of focus on moral principle leads the media and the public to dramatize the insignificant. Americans can take pride in the fact that equality issues are given a 'front seat' in our social agenda, but, a Capitol Rotunda wake, complete with military guard, is extravagant, and insulting to many other individuals who's courage and accomplishments are far more significant.
Family and close friend pause in prayer in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda, Monday, Oct. 31,
2005 at the casket of Rosa Parks, the woman whose defiant act on a city bus inspired the
modern civil rights movement. More than 30,000 Americans streamed through the U.S.
Capitol Rotunda to pay tribute to Parks. AP Photo/Susan Walsh
Frederick Douglass was given no such honors, nor were Booker T. Washington, nor George Washington Carver. They were not the products of affirmative action, either. There were no "civil rights" in their day, and they accomplished more than any American Negro living after 1964.
Frederick Douglass, 1818-1895
Furthermore, the "modern civil rights movement" which the liberal media is pleased to associate with Rosa Parks represents the idea that racial integration is the sole meaning of equality. Racial integration, which inevitably means racial intermarriage and the denigration of all ethnicity, is hardly something for which to be honored by a national funeral for one exaggerantly credited with the achievement of civil rights.
But this the modern way in America now. We tithe mint, anise and cummin, and omit the weighter matters of common sense, and the greater good of the nation. The legal system finds great purpose and validation in defending the motes, but the beams of justice have fallen in the street.
A black female can stand up and say, "We want integration!" in the name of equality, but a white male can't say "We want separation!" in the name of any cause, racial, economic, national, or otherwise.
That's just the way it is, today. Anyone thinking otherwise is a "Nazi."
No, it's better to consider the really great, like the sons and daughters of slaves who were great, regardless. The kind of extravagance in Washington, DC over Rosa Parks is a blantant distortion of the truth. It is insulting, misleading, and possibly quite harmful in that it associates accomplishment with that which is not accomplishment, and confuses that which is true accomplishment.
Or, is Michael Jordon's statue soon to stand in the halls of the White House? Is Dave Chappelle's portrait to hang on the wall of the Oval Office?
Harriet Miers, nominated to the Supreme Court by President Bush, has withdrawn her nomination. This is to be considered deeply unfortunate if for no other reason than it represents a lack of trust of our President's judgment, not on the part of Miers, of course, but on the part of everyone else.
Harriet Miers and President Bush
In September, 2003, Miguel Estrada withdrew himself from Bush's nomination to the United States Court of Appeals (Columbia District). This was after a 28-month debate Senate debate over his nomination, and endless Senate filibustering. That's over two years of retarded manipulation, doing no one any good, and overtly denying the responsibility to make a decision in a reasonable amount of time.
These things happen. The Senate can get by with flagrant disrepect for the Constitution whenever it wants to. Perhaps Miers did not look forward to such a torturous delay and impediment. Perhaps she thought it would be best for everyone to end the ordeal. In her letter dated Thursday, Miers worried that the confirmation process "would create a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interest of the country." Why? The Senate was demanding, illegally, material from the White House that was between the President and Attorney Miers.
We're in an age when power is the point. 'Powerpoint' approaches push the envelope every time. Clinton committed extravagant abuses of power, and this malignant indulgence has infected the Senate probably irreparably. The current craze over indictments reflects not a pursuit of truth, but a campaign to destroy the war effort in Iraq, and to bring down the White House. It is a litigation coup. It is a literal legal attack of unprecedented vengeance.
Miguel Estrada
Miers is probably wise in her withdrawal, but, it must be considered a revelation, a sign of the times. Bad times. Times when the Senate is crazed with competition, a craze which it was too impotent to ignite under the greateset abuser of the presidency, Bill Clinton.
What's to say more? Is it all just a blind quest for power? Harriet Miers was a most worthy character for the office of Supreme Court Justice, but power was set against her. Power wanted more than it had right to. Power wanted.
However, "the greatest want of the world is the want of men--men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name, men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall." Ellen G. White, Education (1903), p.57.
Would that there were such men in Washington, DC. I believe President Bush nominated Harriet Miers because he knew and appreciated her faith and character. These alone are the deepest qualifications for a justice. Without these, no other qualifications matter, nor can be trusted, nor will result in the best decisions. Character guides judgement, not book knowledge. The behavior of the Senate demonstrates that the men comprising lack character, lack understanding of moral judgement, and are hardened legalists, without conscience. It is pseudo character they proffer the country, elected as they are.
The Justices are appointed, not elected. This nomination was, through media, made a public election. The Constitution was made of no effect. This is an alarming precedent. Alas, there have been many such signs. The Clinton administration was a ceasless barrage of such signs, and not one of them resulted in any intelligent warning of those who were in positions of responsibility, across the country.
Power rules now. Not the Constitution. Not the President. Not the people, but the media, and the Senate. Everyone takes the most advantage he can from whatever his position happens to be. And yet, such power thugs are the first to deny responsibility when found at fault. That is the nature of political power pugilism. It is not about responsibility or service; it is about ruling over others. That is power. That is all that matters. In a society involving 'free elections,' one can never afford to be at fault. That means weakness, or loss of power.
Reporters are now saying that the "leak" of Valerie Plame's identity came from Vice-President Chaney. What an exciting story! Just what keeps the media running. Just what misleads and devalues the American political process. Just what makes mockery of our legal system.
Vice-President Dick Chaney
Never mind that Plame was not a covert CIA operative when her name was mentioned. Never mind that there was no law broken therefore. Never mind that 'hate-the-rich' prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is representing the big Democrats like Schumer and Kennedy, in a big campaign to use the power of false indictment to destroy whatever obstructs their political power schemes.
Sean Hannity cited all this yesterday on his afternoon radio show (October 24, 2005). It's all a plan to bring down the Bush Administration, specifically, to end the war effort in Iraq.
And let's expand it. The Democrat leaders want to deny the Iraqi people the opportunity to experience freedom and self-rule. They want to squelch any hope of improvement in the Middle East. They like seeing people in misery and abject oppression.
And how do the Democrats do it? In the case of Valerie Plame, she's not even an issue anymore. It's no longer about her name, her status, or any "leak." It's about how Karl Rove couldn't remember a conversation until a certain two-year-old e-mail surfaced. It's about perjury now, not about leaking a CIA agent's name. (There was no leak, so how could anyone expect that accusation to hold? But someone may have forgotten what he said two years ago. For that, we bring the House down.)
Hey, they just brought Martha Stewart down with the same tactic. When your original accusation doesn't work, you switch to an accusation created somewhere in the depositions. That's easier than pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Any recorded recollection of any person is subject to multiple lapses of memory. To make a federal case out it? To make a national smear campaign out of it? This is true carelessness of those in power. This is vindictive abandon. This is...evil.
One of the most important principles in a successful society is honesty. It's time to remember one simple command: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Exodus 20:16. Has the country completely forgotten this? Has the manipulated legal system offorded such vainglorious opportunity for lying, with great and grand reward, that even the leaders of the country have forgotten that lying about another person is sin? (Do they even know what a lie is anymore?) All sin has consequence. Dare we conjecture what lying in high places brings to the country?
Hannity said that the White House was inquiring how someone as completely inexperienced as Joe Wilson (Plame's husband) could ever get such an important assignment as to investigate "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, or go to research whether Niger was selling nuclear weapon's material to Iraq. Of course the White House would have been concerned. It was a clear case of unprofessional nepotism on the part of someone. They searched, and found out it was Wilson's wife, Plame, who got him the assignment. In the process, of course her name would be mentioned. This is neither a crime nor a crisis. This is justice. Plame deserves to be prosecuted (and fired), as well as her husband Joe Wilson (--who never made a report of his findings. He was only debriefed). Wilson's mission was wholly cosmetic, to come back and smear the Bush administration and the war effort--in the news, not on government records. He was not a professional, and should never have been given such an assignement.
When your leaders are this corrupt, you have only God to look to. May God heal our country. May God speak to the conscience of our leadership. May God have mercy on the rest of us, as we watch in silent awe, with fear and trembling.
Democrat Senator Charles Schumer says there aren't enough votes to confirm Harriet Myers for Supreme Court Justice. He told Meet the Press, "If you held the vote today, she would not get a majority either in the Judiciary Committee or on the floor." How could there be? The hearings haven't happened yet.
Is this a preemptive media strike? Is this boredom in the news, looking to make a wave?
Harriot Miers, Bush's choice for Supreme Court Justice
Bush of course believes Harriet Miers will in fact be confirmed, and he's standing by her firmly. Bush is also being quite careful not to jeopardize the process by releasing certain information. The media researchers have certianly been digging up all the information they can, like Miers' work, nearly twenty years ago, with a group (Girl's, Inc.) that involved pro-abortion advocacy; her sale of family land to the State of Texas for more than it was worth, according to partial reports; the Bush gubernatorial campaign that paid the Miers law firm $163,000 in legal fees.
Is this news? Is this part of the decision process? Is this a way of trying to influence the public--which has nothing to do with the decision? Or does the public have a say? ConservativeHQ.com has a petition for President Bush to withdraw Miers' nomination. This has to be a first. Perhaps it's a reflection of internet freedom and responsibility. The internet (FreeRepublic, e.g.,) was responsible for exposing Dan Rather's false report. The people do seem to be gaining a kind of voice, a degree of influence, in ways and places unprecedented. This is interesting in itself.
But only where information on the internet is different and separate from the news does the people's voice really have a chance to do good. Otherwise, people's voice is still primarily informed by the main stream media, and as a result, the people's voice is still influenced by the media's prejudice and happenstance.
The furor or Miers is all premature, preemptive, and prejudiced, one way or another. The senators will make the decision. Bush has made his. The people will not have a say in this one. Supreme Court Judges are not elected. The people have the freedom to voice their opinion, but, according to the Constitution (Article II, Sec. 2), the President appoints the Supreme Court Justices, with "the Advice and Consent of the Senate." That's the law. That media and internet should think to participate in this process is extravagant, but, we're in an extravagent age, where powers are confused, often out of bounds, and the whole idea of governance is undergoing an intense evalutaion and testing on a daily basis.
Who has the authority to do what, however, is a question that leads to the real passion of the age: blame. Culpability. The authority responsible is the one we blame. That's the rage in America. That's the game--to find the person to blame. That's what makes everyone think he feel's good. That's moral superiority. That's righteousness.
Attorney General A. Gonzales
Interesting note, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, twice passed over as Supreme Court justice, said Wednesday that Hispanics should get over their disappointment and give Harriet Miers a chance to show why she deserves to be confirmed. Now there's a true sportsman.
Who appropriately represents America as a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States? The Constitution (Article III, Secs. 1 & 2) provides no guide as to the process of filling the offices of the justices. However, the tradition is that the President of the United States appoints them, and the Senate must confirm them. They are appointed for life terms. Again, this tradition is not outlined or even mentioned in the Constitution (contrary to popular, even published belief.)
Today, in the case of Harriet Miers, there is an issue as to who should be appointed, and certainly since women and American Negroes have been considered, and successfully appointed, the issue of population representation is still very much alive. However, technically, the conservative thrust of thought is that the judge should represent the Constitution, first and formost. The judge must not freely and wildly "interpret" the document according to his personal political agenda. This error is what is called judicial activism, using the bench as an opportunity to advocate social change, in the grand socialist, Leftist custom. The conservative view is that the judge should not represent what the people want, because the judge is not elected. The judge is appointed to represent the values enshrined in the Constitution, and to judge all cases accordingly, whether they be pertinent to the Constitution, or no.
Having considered this matter more carefully, I must clarify a statement I made on a recent Journal entry, "A Conspiracy Against Bush?" I said,
"The religious senitments represented by Scalia, Roberts, and Ginsberg certainly do not reflect those of America's founding fathers."
By this, I simply mean that the American fathers were not Catholic, nor Jewish. And in this sense, Justices Scalia (Catholic), Roberts (Catholic), and Ginsberg(Jewish), do not represent the original "people" that formed the American society and government. However, since the justices of the Surpreme Court are appointed to represent the Constitution and not the demographics, not the social, ethnic, nor religious sentiments of the people, my statement should not be interpreted to mean that these justices are inappropriate appointments, necessarily.
The earliest Jewish community in America, (New Amsterdam--the Dutch colony which later became New York), created the issue of rights and citizenship dating back to 1654. That certainly is within the American tradition, legally and socially. Asser Levy and Joseph Barsimon were zealots for equality.
Jewish constitutional lawyer Luis Marshal (1856-1929) fought for, among other things, the rights of Catholics to send their children to parochial schools! He defeated this old Oregon law before the Surpeme Court.
The first Jewish Justice of the Surpeme Court was Luis Dembitz Brandeis (1856-1941). He was nominated by Woodrow Wilson in 1916. Brandeis advocated Zionism, and apparently influenced Wilson to support the Balfour Declaration for a Jewish homeland in "Palestine."
Justice Luis D. Brandeis
Interestingly, President Ulysses Grant, considered anti-Semitic by some, nominated Jewish doctor Herman Bendell as the Commissioner of Indian Affairs in 1870 (with Senate confirmation in January, 1971). Grant wanted all "faiths" to be represented among the Indians, not just Catholic or Protestant. It was believed that Bendell would not be so anxious to coerce religions conversions among the Indians, which was a horrific transgression of human rights, worse than had already been committed against Indians.
So much for Jews in high federal office.
What about Catholics, the religion which the Pilgrims despised, and from which they fled Europe? How is it that Catholics can serve as Constitutional guards in America? The Documents of Vatican II clearly state that religious freedom is a right, and that it "must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civil right." Dignitatus Humanae, 2.
However, I possess a personal letter from Bishop John F. Whealen (Hartford, CT) which instructed me that this is to insure religious freedom for Catholics. The Catholic Church would never encourage anyone in any other religion but Romanism.
Historically, in this country, Jews are known for defending the rights of minorities. Catholics are not. The Jews have always been very few in number. The Catholics in America are not. As a result of decades of massive immigrations, Catholics comprise the largest religious group in America, approximately one third of the population. Of course, Jews represent an ethnic group, as well as a specific religion. Catholicism is a religion, not an ethnic group.
Sandra Day O'Conner
So, again, if Scalia, Roberts, and Ginsberg can serve on America's highest court, why can't a white, Protestant woman? Isn't such an appointment a little late? Sandra Day O'Conner was from Texas, like Miers, but O'Conner ruled against having a 'moment of silence' in public schools, saying that it encouraged prayer, and favored those who wanted to pray. Can she count, then, as a "Christian" woman on the bench?
Again, can there be no Christian on the United States Supreme Court? Would a Christian automatically transgress the Constitution of the United States? To deny Miers confirmation on the basis of her Christianity is tantamount to just that.
Such a disposition represents neither the Constitution nor the people.
Considering the present state of the Bush administration, it is perfectly appropriate that Bush would nominate Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. The American, white, female Christian is surely one of the most important, fundamental figures in American society, and yet she is the least represented in the country's government or courts.
Harriet Miers, a longtime confidante of President Bush,
"is defined by hard work, dedication and client loyalty,"
says a partner at a Texas firm where Miers was a co-manag-
ing partner before coming to Washington. Jahi
Chikwendiu/The Washington Post
Bush is under extreme pressure, from all sides. The press, his perpetual enemy, refuses to report the remarkable progress in Iraq; the press loves to magnify the manipulative accusations of Leftist Democrat politicians; nature blew an ill wind, twice, and poor people caught the brunt end of it. These are massive challenges, and nominating Harriet Miers is like an act of faith in the midst of storm. She is a woman of faith, and Bush knows it. That's what he wants on the bench.
Miers is not a novice. She made her way to the top law circles in Texas, in a time of extreme "sexist" adversity. Known to be tough, she is, and no push-over. Because she lacks a national reputation is hardly to be considered a fault. Roberts had no national reputation.
More importantly, however, is the one essential item: character. Judgement is guided by character, much more than by legal theory, precedent, or even politics. True judgement is independent and objective. Judging constitutional matters does involve knowledge of the law, and precedent, but, at this point in the history of the Supreme Court, horribly wrong and harmful "precedents" have been set, and need to be abandoned. The constitution is the law, not interpretations of it. A person is needed who understands the values underlying all the statements in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. These must be revived, and reestablished.
I don't really advocate the "representative of the people" concept in selecting a judge. Clearly, Clarence Thomas does not represent the American Negro interests, but presides merely as a token racial quota figure. So, the quota element is already been made part of the Supreme Court, indeed, it is part of society. Therefore, the white, Christian female ought to be "represented." (For that matter, an American Indian on the bench would be equally as appropriate.)
Of course, everyone disdains the idea of such "representation." The qualifications must not be determined by race, gender, or religion. However, this is obviously an illusion, a self-deceiving hallucination. Every person comprises precisely these considerations. But, if two Catholic males and a very liberal female Jew can preside, it would be criminally inconsistent to deny a seat to a Christian woman, who after all represents the vast majority of America.
Among the strongest objections to her are pointed to exactly that element: her Christian faith, not cronyism.
Is there a unprecedented Leftist conspiracy against President George Bush? A number of important Republicans are under fire: Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Karl Rove, and even Harriet Miers. And of course, the Leftist wake of Hurricnes Katrina and Rita, and all the accusations against the administration for the slow federal relief response, form a natural indictment of who's ever in the White House. The spirit of accusation is like a virulent malignancy. How shall the president fare in such a storm of satanic nature? "Setbacks", these events have been called.
First of all, DeLay is accused by a career accuser and lying attorney, Ronnie Earle. Earle himself is under reprimand now for his own misconduct. Apparently George Soros is behind the attack on DeLay.
Democrats are concerned with Bill Frist because he decided to sell stock in his family's company, a month before the price of stock took a sharp dip. In other words, they conclude that foresight is the same as inside trading. No offical accusation has been filed, however.
Senator Bill Frist, Senator Tom Delay, and Karl Rove
No accusations have been filed against Karl Rove, either, but he is questioned about the "leak" of the name of CIA agent Valerie Plume. Take the word "leak" out of the hyped up story. There was no leak. She was not under cover, and had not been for some time. Robert Novak, the journalist who first made her name nationally known, said, "According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives'..." Plame was a desk worker at the time, in the counterproliferation section, that's all.
Harriet Miers and Justice Ruth Ginsberg
Now, consider Harriet Miers, Bush's nominee for supreme court justice. She is an evangelical Christian woman. There are two major Roman Catholic figures already on the bench, Scalia, and the new Chief Justice Roberts; there is a very liberal female Jew, Ruth Ginsberg. Doesn't it imply a perfect balance to place a female Christian on the bench? Why the others, and not her? The religious senitments represented by Scalia, Roberts, and Ginsberg certainly do not reflect those of America's founding fathers. Is it a terribly outrageous thing, to place a female Christian on the bench, one whose character is unquestioned? After all, character guides judgment, not theory. Does the country really hate a Christian woman? Can Washington not tolerate such a basic American phenomenon? (Major voices against Miers are neocon.Does that mean anything?) Is a white Christian woman not representative of America? Is that how far we've wander from our foundations?
Yes, one might get the idea there is a conspiracy of some kind. But, does it really matter? The lethal trends destroying America continue their daily encroachment, regardless. The national identity and ethos is being submerged into a global enterprise, and capitalist businessmen are the leading exponents. Conservatives, however, seem to think that the national itentity and its sovereignty can be preserved in this global venture.
There seems to be a rift between conservative rhetoric and the social realities before us. The drone of economic imperialism mesmerizes conservatives so that they cannot perceive the futility and inefficacy of their cause. The dissolution of freedom continues, as the Left takes advantage of even the hurricanes, as well as Muslim murderers. Government gets larger and larger, to insure safety and security for all.
This is the conspiracy of prosperity. It is the hypnosis of success. Apparently Republicans and Democrats are both culprits.
The day of atonement, what grandeur. The thought of change, deep in the heart, how glorious. The very idea of restoration, how redemptive.
That such basic yearnings of the soul should be part of a cultural identity is a telling development. That such such a hope as change should be institutionalized, and made a national remembrance, is a wonderful thing.
Looking deeper, the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur is really about teshuva,or "turning," turning from wrong. On Yom Kippur, teshuva is not just about turning, but returning--to the right way, from which the heart has wandered. Some times it does seems we always knew better. Why did we step off the path? In each of us is the archetype of perfection, the imago dei. How is it that we all like sheep have gone astray?
As I wrote these questions, I accidentally spilled an entire cup of red grape juice on myself, the floor, my books. (Fortunately not the computer.) Incredible.
It was an accident, like we so often feel victim of, untill we realize how much of what we suffer is of our own doing. I remember the prayers in the conservative temple books of Beth Shalom, in Hamden, Connecticut. On Yom Kippur, there is special liturgy. There were long series of thoughts, poetically arranged, like, Lord forgive me for this sin, and that, and all were listed in unmitigated exactness, followed by the realization that the worst sins one commits are sins against oneself.
God, forgive me for defrauding and selfishly using other people,
but no one have I defrauded and abused more than myself.
By the time one is finished with this section, the heart is speechless, and the soul is reborn, in a marvelous sense of renewal. Just the right thoughts make such a powerful different in consciousness.
For the weak, the blind, and for the truly godless, however, we can't normally think such thoughts, or see such revelations of self. We cannot sustain their effect well. We need a direct, dramatic appeal to our 'heathen' beings. We need the blood of Christ, spilled all over our pathetic lives.
That such a spectacle may not have the same appeal to the Jew is not for us to understand. It is not for us to inquire. I say, as a person who responds to the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, regarding that as true and eternal atonement, Yom Kippur becomes instruction in righteousness. The prayer books contain the lesson. Life gave me the test first, then the lesson--then comes the education, the lesson, and the meaning. I look back. I look east.
St.Paul said to leave the Jewish response alone. It is a mystery, unfathomable by the Gentile. The Gentile has been given a time now, to carry the ball, so to speak. (On the same team, of course.) If enlightened, he will see that he has fumbled the ball more pitiably than any failure for which he has ever accused the Jew. At this point in my life, all this seems abundantly clear. However, I realize these are my personal beliefs, and I offer them not to persuade, nor to offend, but to share, with the simple hope of adding some small thought toward appreciation for the Divine on earth.
Michael Savage thinks liberalism is mental disease. He's been saying that on his radio show for at least three years. Now it is the title of his latest book Liberalism Is Mental Disorder (April 2005).
Perhaps the one element absent in his diagnosis is the sociological factor. Liberalism may be a mental disorder, but it is malignant and contagious. A mental disorder is within an individual, but, in liberalism it quickly multiplies in others, and becomes a socio-pathology.
Blaming others, in a university-styled, pseudo-academic fantasy of inter-related connections, is simply identified as intellectual integrity, when it is really an attempt to ennoble the weakness and abdication of the will. Ward Churchill and others blame Columbus, one man, for all the history following 1492. This is neither intellectual or factual, but emotional fantasy, the kind of pretentious mastery of 'cause and effect' that earns him nearly $100,000 a year at the University of Colorado. A clear case of financial validation of personal malcontent and malice.
Since the lamentations of New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin and the poor, black people of the bayou, the world media is now casting all response to tragedy in the form of culpability. The people suffer from nature's offense, but the point of all reporting is that the people are not being helped quickly or adequately by the government.
Thus, every human event, as reported in media, is made to serve the call to enlarge government, to make government responsible for every human ill.
One might write this off as politics and mass communication, but, the "disorder" penetrates society more deeply. This is evident in an Los Angeles Times piece on the latest Paris fashion show. Booth Moore agrees that the show was not about clothes, but about tolerance and ideology.
"This round of collections reinforced the idea that fashion has entered the "post-trend" era. What is beautiful now is not in the eyes of the designer or the editor, but the consumer who soaks up style on television, the Internet, the runway, the red carpet and the street."
So now we blame the consumer for the utter absence of taste, style, and art in the designers, critics, and judges.
Well, this is really gutting edge politics, then. The people are to be blamed for bad designs, eh? Are the people to be blamed for bad government? Maybe in the ultra avant-garde of haute monde fashion, the truth comes out on the runway: the people get what they want. That's what the designers say. They're not to blame for their own creations, catastrophically tasteless as they may be. It's the people's fault.
That's the same line the blasphemous movie makers use, and their counterparts in the magazine and book industry. Their outrageous, destructive, psychologically harmful creations are what the people want. It's what they're buying anyway.
So whose is the disorder? Blaming isn't really a mental disorder. It is a moral disorder. To escape culpability, to excuse failure, to claim you have been wronged, this is all taken to be moral superiority, moral higher ground, or moral advantage. Society today coddles this view, nurtures it, and encourages it. There's money for everyone in it. Many attorneys, psychologists, and politicians live by it. Blaming others is part of the very economy of the nation. It is firmly planted in the social process.
Tragedy is dispersed rather evenly these days. Muslims take note. Hindus take note. Whatever is said about American catastrophies of late, the earth is abundantly clear in her messsage: she is no respecter of persons. Where masses of people live, there is mass destruction possible, if not probable.
View of National bank which is destroyed by Saturday's heavy earthquake which jolts
Muzaffarabad, capital of Pakistani Kashmir, Sunday, Oct. 9, 2005. Bodies lay in the
streets and villagers pulled debris from collapsed schools and mud-brick homes with their
bare hands on, desperate to find survivors from a huge earthquake that struck Pakistan,
India and Afghanistan, killing more than 18,000 people. AP Photo/B.K.Bangash
At least 30,000 people have been destroyed by a 7.7 earthquake on the border of Pakistan and India. Muslims and Hindus in this remote area cannot be accused of hosting the evils of Western life-style. This area is not a resort for all the wealthy travelers of Europe and America. This is raw, indigenous culture, deep in the mountains. The quake was felt from central Afghanistan to western Bangladesh. It was enormous in scope.
Heavy rains and mud slides have made it impossible to access many of the devastated areas. Aid of any kind simply cannot reach the afflicted. Thousands will die, being buried alive, unable to be reached by rescuers. Thousands more will die of exposure.
Complaints of "slow aid?" Well, maybe these remote masses have indeed been infected by the West. They expect miracles from their government. They expect instant salvation. Where did they get such notion? Western TV and radio? Northwest Turkey was hit hard by an earthquake in 1999, and southeast Turkey in 2003. We never heard any reports of such "impatience" on the part of those victims. Has the American Negro attitude toward relief efforts during the Hurricane Katrina catastrophy set a new pace of social behavior? Has blaming our fellow man for Nature's fury become the cutting edge of political rhetoric?
Or is this all simply a creation of the media? Is there some sort of devilish delight it misrepresenting people, destroying trust, and setting the people against their leaders? Is this what media liberal media is all about? It's often the very truth, that leaders betray their people. Indeed, it is the history of the world. Yet, the business of people blaming leaders for volcanos, earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornados is extravagant, dangerously wrong. That the media should willing contribute to such distortion of reality, for the sake of sensationalism, is truly criminal, and ought to be reprimanded in an effective way. Freedom of the press has made the press Public Enemy No.2 in America. It isn't really free at all. It is controlled by money and profit, and the will of big business. It serves politicians.
Freedom of the press makes freedom seem like an illusion, a relative thing. We have freedom, compared to other societies. We have freedom, relative to other regimes. But our freedoms have to be limited, else we would destroy one another at the slightest provocation.
America! America!
God mend thine every flaw.
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law.
Indeed.
Distasters continue to increase in intensity and frequency. The press is like some fluttering, loose leaf, blown about aimlessly in sensationalism, and leaders are complelled to speak with all surety, even when we know they have none. They certainly have no more than any of the rest of us. A bloody mess it is. And the next disaster will be a famine in the land, "not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord." Amos 8:11.
Now won't that be just dandy? When the world becomes so desperate for security, for authority, having witnessed and participated in the utter transgression of every human value, of every eternal verity, of every decent sentiment, then the world will turn to God for answers, and there won't be any.
We can't say we haven't been warned. We do well therefore not to tresspass the voice of conscience. Indeed, we do well to even know such a voice within us. Are we prepared for true "survivalism" as a way of life? How bad will things really get? Is it not wise to at least prepare our thoughts, if not our survival techniques?
President Bush says he never claimed to be inspired. But recently, his statements of faith in God, his resolute purposes, and his determination, have been taken by "Palestinian" leaders as a virtual assumption that Bush claims to be inspired of God. In an upcoming TV series, Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, "Palestinian" leader Mahmoud Abbas and negotiater Nabil Shaath both claim Bush has spoken openly that God tells him what to do. (Broadcast of the TV series starts this Monday, October 10, 2005. Check local listings.)
US President George W. Bush cups his ear as reporters in
the distance shout to him as he leaves St. John's Episco-
pal Church in Washintgon, DC, in 2003. The White House
has denied that US President George W. Bush said God told
him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, as a new BBC documen-
tary is expected to reveal. AFP/File/Paul J. Richards
Perhaps this is their mistaken understanding of vernacular spiritual jargon in American religious circles; perhaps in their way of thinking, they need to believe Bush thinks he's inspired or driven by God. In this way, Bush's promises of a Palestinian state are given their maximum force in rhetoric, and in the mind of radical Muslims living in the Middle East.
It would be very difficult for many other people to believe, however, that the God of the Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would inspire an effort for to create a nation of such false claimants as the "Palestinians." Again, there is no "Palestine." There are no "Palestinians." This is a political illusion. The concept of a "Palestinian" national idenity is wholly fabricated, and does not meet the most fundamental definitions of a nation. That these people should be fomented to focus on such an illusion is a sociopathology.
But if they must have such a place, let those who foment the fantasy provide the land themselves. Let all these people go to Syria, and have their "Palestinian" state there. There are no borders for any such "Palestine" now nor were there anciently. If there are borders, they have always been in flux. It doesn't matter where these people have a "nation." Let them build in Syria. Syria claimed all of Palestine from the beginning of this modern issue.
And Jordan. Jordanians have contributed to the "Palestinian" illusion. Let the Palestinian state be established between the borders of Syria and Jordon. Vacate the Gaza strip and the West Bank. What difference does it make? Europe (principally England) has been chopping up and rearranging the boundaries of Middle Eastern countries for nearly 200 years. Israel alone earned it's own borders. Why make Israel give up what it earned by it's own blood? Joan Peters said in 1984 that "the British are still, wistfully, courting Arab 'gratitude.'" From Time Immemorial (p.391). Indeed, the Brits have little reason to expect any thanks from Israel. But as one of Iranian has said, "If the world would leave Israel and the Palestinians alone, they'd work everything out!"
But it is not likely that the God of Israel (of the Bible) would bring about "nationhood" for a people who have no national essence, who have no history, no distinct culture, language, religion, or even race. This is not the way in which nations generally evolve. If "Palestine" cannot be established but by manipulation of the Muslim/Arab world, and the by the incessant mass murders of Jews, and without any historical precedence of existence as a people or nation, how can anyone supposed divine inspiration behind the idea of any "Palestinian" state? It is superfluous and extraneous, to say the least.
The very definition of a "Palestinian" has always been in flux. Any Arab entering the territory need have stayed there only two years before the 1948 conflict, according to the United Nations Relief and Work Agency. This, of course, was a rhetorical sort of response to the utter falsehood that the Jews came to "Palestine" only after the Holocaust. According to A.J.Sussnitzki, writing in 1917, the Jews were the great land tillers in Palestine. Zionism was implemented decades before Theodor Herzl's "Zionism." The land was essentially uninhabited, and undeveloped. It was a wasteland. The Jews began developement in the 19th century. British propaganda of course kept all the truth under the rug.
In any event, Bush's statements of faith may have got him in a pickle. The up-coming TV series Elusive Peace will be an interesting piece, indeed. Not clear who is responsible for the three part documentary just yet.
American Indian women are beating the drum, and Jewish girls are wearing yarmulkas and phylacteries. The Mankillers are pounding away at pow-wows, and young Jewish women are praying like men. Why do these women want to do what men do? Why would they want to presume to annex the last vestiges of manhood from their ancient traditions?
The Mankillers, named after Cherokee Chief,
Wilma Mankiller.
Liberal Zionist Alice Shavli says it's because women don't want to feel excluded or denigrated. Orthodox Judaism made her feel less than equal. She became a leader in Conservative Judaism. The Mankillers say that there were Cree women drummers since the 1700, but the tradition had simply fallen out. They've revived it. (No references or evidence is given on the Mankiller site, however.) Certainly, today, most Indians regard The Mankillers as marginal and outside tradition.
So, a social behavior, once established, is then eventually 'attacked.' That is the history of society. However, the idea that equality must be manifested through gender-ized customs seems a very weak proposition. When there is no reason or motivation to do something other than the fact that a man does it; when an activity is barred from women simply because they are women; when the sole triumph of equality is to behave like the other gender, we know we're observing weakness.
But this is Liberalism. It must usurp. It cannot create. It must assume, for it is a formless leech. It takes the shape of its host. The Indian women's drum groups have given rise to all-Indian women pow-wows. So what is the victory there? Was it all to exclude men in the first place. Notice the Mankiller home page: two of the women are holding babies (presumably girls). Are they concerned about their image? There are all-women's congregations in modern Judaism. What has this accomplished? The exlusion of men.
Is that what liberal equality is all about, in the end? Exclusion?
It is envy, at the base. And it's all about revenge. 'You have something I don't. Therefore, I'm taking it. It was never mine, but, I want it. You kept it from me.' That's the spirit of liberalism.
L'Shana Tovah, to all. It is here, whether we notice or not, whether we acknowledge or not. Like the people created to honor it, they are here, whether we understand their purpose or not, whether we accept them or not. The shofar sounds, whether we hear it or not.
Kalman Feinberg, of Teaneck, N.J., blows his shofar,
an ancient wind instrument (a ram's horn). In the back-
ground at right, Rabbi Yitzchak Rosenbaum, program
director for the National Jewish Outreach Program.
The Hackensack Record Photos/ZEHAWI TARIQ
Moses wrote: "Remember...when the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. The Lord's portion is His people. Jacob is the lot of his inheritance." (Deuteronomy 32:7-9.)
And who is bold enough to believe? Who would consider that the history of nations has evolved in direct relation to the presence of the Jews? Who can bare such a thought, that the world revolves around Israel? It is the will of God. It is the inexorable decree of the Most High.
The Gentiles certainly have a problem with this. No people want to be considered second class. No one wants to be a puppet, subject to the inconsistencies, contradictions, and peculiarities of the Jews. Why, we all have enough of that on our own. Why should we be subject to the same in another people? Why are the Jews more important than the rest of us?
Personally, I don't think very many people in this world really believe the Bible. I don't think most Christians really believe. The Gentile mind is weak, and perhaps simply incapable of sustaining the grand spiritual realities in our face. We're lost in the flesh. Christians like to think they've taken a step above, but that step usually does not include a correct understanding of the Jews.
Personally, I have spent the prime hours of the day, of the prime years of my life, studying the Bible. I see nothing but wonder, amazement, profundity, and a world generally without appreciation for the joy that is set before us all. Human beings can opperate without the truth; we carry on, to the best of our blinded abilities. This is amazing in itself. Progress comes through mistakes. Wisdom is taught by the foolish. Where there is greatness, there is great error. Yet, there seems to be a deep aversion to God, and to the people He created as his own. The world is offended. This is prime evidence to believe, in my view.
On this New Year, I pray that we can all make a simple effort to understand, to search our own thoughts. Maybe we could improve them. Maybe we could help ourselves. Maybe there are certain thoughts we do well to avoid entirely. The truth is not in every thought. An an artist chisels away much waste as he perfects his image, so we must be willing to let many thoughts go, are we to find a truth within ourselves. It requires sacrifice, surely.
So the Lord created His own people, as His flagship on a stormy sea. So God housed Himself in the temple of flesh, sharing the lot of estrangement and alienation, the common condition of man. Can we not be grateful for such a thing? Shall we not enjoy the show? Was it not created for all of us?
Do we think we might have performed better?
This is where, I believe, the Gentile mind is in greatest error. The chosen challenge us. This is the wrong response, however natural. We are not excluded by their creation or selection. They were created for us, for our benefit. They are here. The world rotates around the Jews. Why should we protest the arrangements of the Lord? Why be neurotic, and decry reality? Let's just pray that we roll with the punches, effectively, efficiently, and redemptively. This is to our advantage. Observe the Jews, at least.
I am the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb...
For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Savior:
I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.
Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honorable,
and I have loved thee; therefore will I give men for thee,
and people for thy life. Isaiah 44:2; 43:3,4
It is a unfathomable affair between the Lord and Israel. We do well to observe, and handle with care such revelation. Let this new year begin with resolve for wisdom, with determined effort to seek the truth, and a willingness to believe the unbelievably beautiful.
Ah, but who is brave enough to believe?
Heartless mayhem. Muslims hacked away once again in Indonesia. Bombs exploded in two different cities, Jakarta and Kuta. The two men suspected of master-minding the massacres are the two who are suspects in the 2002 mass murders in the Jakarta. There seems to be no control or safety in Indonesia.
The Al-qaeda group in predominantly Moslem Indonesia is called Jemaah Islamiyah, whose leader is Abu Bakar Bashir.
Residents watch on from behind an Indonesian soldier before President Susilo Bam-
bang Yudhoyono's visit to Kuta Square, one of two sites which were hit by bomb blasts,
on the Indonesian resort island of Bali October 2, 2005. Suicide bombers were behind
the three attacks in Bali which killed 26 people and wounded 122 others, the resort
island's police chief said on Sunday. REUTERS/Luis Ascui
As in other international attacks, the Muslim murderers chose night clubs and restaurants, places where large groups of people are gathered, enjoying the freedom of eating out, drinking, socializing, dancing, and whatever else it is that Muslims hate. They also like to pick targets where westerners congregate.
Now, if it is true that Muslims truly hate westerners, and everything western, then shouldn't they be thinking about who it is that allows and encourages such social exchange in their country? Should the Muslims murderers be attacking their own governments? Are the leaders of Muslim countries the ones who are responsible for letting in all the western influence?
What kind of demonic cowards are these Muslim mass murderers? Why do they pass over their own government? Is that too hard form them, to challenge their own government? It's easier to slaughter innocents and defenseless. Yes, that's it. 'We have to make our point, and we're too weak to really change our government. So let's hit the tourists.'
This is Islam, today. This is the Muslim modus operandus.
I have become utterly intolerant of conversation about Islam and building bridges, creating positive images, etc. This is not the way to correct the wrong. This weakens our resolve against the outrage.
"Good" Muslims are just going to have to be good Muslims on their own. I think they should stay very low, keep out of sight, and above all, keep quiet. Do not proselytize. Stay out of the media. The media is America's public enemy No.1. Again, it serves no purpose of peace to try and create a rational, postive image of Muslims. This detracts from our defense against the most deadly enemy the West has ever known. Islam has always been such an enemy. There is no point in a "positive," artificially created image except to distract our attention from the great danger we are in.
Never forget! We must make every effort to remember the truth
of this lawless, demonic act.