Today (November 30, 2005) President Bush affirmed the vision for Iraq, and how the United States and the Coalition intend to make that vision come to pass. In his speech, President Bush mentioned some statements made by Connecticut Democrat Senator Joseph Lieberman in a Wall Street Journal article yesterday, Tuesday (November 29, 2005). Lieberman's statments come at a critical moment in American political manoeuvering. Lieberman supports Bush in the effort to create a democracy in Iraq. Lieberman thinks the troops are accomplishing their mission in a grand way.
AP - Wed Nov 30,12:15 PM ET President Bush listens to applause
during a speech on his war policy at the U. S. Naval Academy in
Annapolis, Md., Wednesday, Nov. 30, 2005. President Bush, facing
growing doubts about his war strategy, said Wednesday that Iraqi
troops are increasingly taking the lead in battle but that 'this
will take time and patience.' He refused to set a timetable for
withdrawing U.S. forces. AP Photo/Chris Gardner
When Sean Hannity discovered Lieberman's statements, Hannity could not offer more praise and admiration for Lieberman for stepping out from the liberal politics crowd and speaking the truth. On Hannity's radio show today, Hannity offered to campaign for Lieberman, should he run for president in 2006 against Hillary Clinton (assuming Hillary is running).
Connecticut Democrat Senator Joseph Lieberman
So, what did Lieberman say that was so remarkable? Just the truth about Iraq. Not only is that truth stunning in itself, but it was spectacular that a leading and respected Democrat like Lieberman would speak the truth about Iraq. The Democratic Party as a whole is desperately against the development of democracy in Iraq (i.e., they say it's being "against the war"), and even more desperate to destroy the Bush administration. Lieberman sees the bigger picture, that's all.
Lieberman just returned from his forth visit to Iraq, and he describes the progress in simple, wonderful terms. Electricity, electronic devises, satellite TV, elections, traffic, all the signs of a burgeoning economy.
"Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory."
Lieberman notes the importance of a democratic, free Iraq in the Middle East. It will strengthen the whole region. We're almost there, Lieberman assures America. The dark cloud looming up in the minds of the American public has been created by self-serving politicians with the willing aid of a biased, liberal media.
National security and the progress of the world at large is not supposed to be about personal political posturing. There is a real sickness in Democratic leadership, but it simply has not infected all Democrats. It never will. The strong, that is the clear-minded, the honest, will rise to the top.
The History Channel's "Comanche Warriors" is available on DVD on the History Channel Store page. Purchases will be shipped after January 9, 2006.
Tonight, November 27, 2005, History Channel will air a documentary entitled "Comanche Warriors." (Check local listings for time. Central time is scheduled for 6:00pm.)
November, of course, is American Indian Heritage Month, as declared by President George W. Bush, November 12, 2001. In 1989, his father, President George Herbert Bush established the National Museum of the American Indian by law. Not that the Republican Party is known today for the ideology of "diversity," but, there was a time when only the Republican Party advocated such idology. That is a curious note.
History Channel has been airing a number of American Indian-oriented documentaries, which have all been well done. The episode on Black Hawk (Frontiers: Decisive Battles), aired Wednesday, Nov. 23, the day before Thanksgiving, was most interesting. It provided the great sense of tragedy and loss which most Indians today still cherish as a hallmark of Indian identity. The Thanksgiving story, "The History of Thanksgiving," aired on Thanksgiving Day (November 24), was equally interesting, and I must say appeared "conservative" in content. That was a pleasant surprise for all patriots.
However, the "Comanche Warrior" episode may stand for the most radical of the History Channel Indian documentaries. In the white world's mind, the Comanche people are given over to the eternal stereotype of the glorious warrior. This may prove offensive to some "liberal" Comanches today, and there may be a protest. Yet, bravery and courage is dear to the heart of any real man, and most women honor their men for it as well. The Comanches who watch the episode, if they watch it, will probably not care one way of another. Most Indians are not offended at the logo, "Washington Redskins." Indians have an independent psychological life, it seems. Only the university educated "liberized" Indians make a protest at any thought that Indians were other than perfect peace-loving angels, with lily-white hearts. Congress forbid, the university forbid, that Indians might have got defensive about their land, and lo and behold, shed blood over it.
The Comanches are not portrayed as victims in the History Channel episode, but as warriors. Frankly, I love the idea. Dan Gagliasso, one of the producers, and expert historian, told me that they actually had some trouble getting the title "Comanche Warriors" accepted by the higher level controllers. It wasn't politically correct. But such is the undying image of the Comanche that even the New York liberals funding the show let title pass.
I guess we Comanches were one wild bunch back in those days! Why, only John Wayne would dare tangle with us. We were too much the measure of American bravery. They can't do without us. For America to be so great, there just have to be Comanches behind it all.
So, take it from a Comanche. America, you're great!
On this Thanksgiving Day, November 24, 2005, as our beloved country wrestles with such momentous challenges, my mind is bewildered with hosts of thoughts rushing through my head like a mighty wind. It is a glorious time to live, indeed.
I recall the ancient Hebrew king, Hezekiah, at the time he reinstated the national religion. After his immoral father Ahaz had actually outlawed the Temple service for at least a decade, as soon as Hezekiah became king, he ordered that the national religion should be restored. (II Chron. 28,29) The past evils, the stark, raving heathenism and gross immorality that had become the national culture, were over. Hezekiah said, "No more!"
Hezekiah ordered the Temple service be opened again, and then called for the national Independence Day, Pesah (Passover), to be observed by all. It was a rushed operation. Hezekiah was desperate for the will of God to be done in the land. No, the Passover wasn't done exactly right. In fact, it wasn't even celebrated on the right day. And the right personnel weren't all there, and the ones that were did not quite prepare themselves in complete orthodoxy.
But the people were there! They were ready for it. From all over the land, they came to Jerusalem that fourteenth day of the second month in 715 BCE. There hearts were in it, even though they weren't completely orthodox about the details. (Levites had to prepare the lamb for them, because the people weren't 'sanctified.' The people didn't, hadn't, and perhaps couldn't observe the details of the cultural process at this time.) It was a little chaotic.
But then comes one of the most glorious verses in all scripture:
"But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary. And the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people." (2 Chron. 30: 18,19.)
I say, let America be healed! Are our hearts not ready, too? Aren't we tired of the foolishness in our land? Aren't we weary of the self-destroying enemies within, who seemed determined to erase the heritage of our country, and change the meaning of being American?
While Ahaz has reigned for decades in the Supreme Court, and in Congress, denying America it's own wonderful heritage of faith and righteousness, Hezekiah will surely soon reign again. Surely the doors of the Temple will be re-opened, and our country can be what it was meant to be.
No, the right personnel aren't in Congress yet, or on the Supreme Court, but they're coming. No, the people aren't informed aright, and we are confused, racially, spiritually, socially, and we've almost forgotten who we are. But, when Hezekiah calls for the nation to remember its God, the people are there! The people are willing. They're not sure what they're doing, or even how to do it, but, they know it's the right thing.
May the Lord pardon every one. May the Lord pardon, and heal the people. May God bless America, our great nation.
Michael Session, 18, sworn in as mayor of Hillsdale, Michigan, November 21, 2005
REUTERS/Rebecca Cook
Eighteen-year-old Michael Sessions was just elected mayor of Hillsdale, Michigan, a town of about 8,200 people, 75 miles southwest of Detroit. The Nov. 9 elections turned up 732 votes, compared to incombent Doug Ingles' 668. (Mayor Ingles is 51). So, a teenager, below the drinking age, and just now able to vote, will apparently be sworn in as perhaps the youngest mayor in US history. The ceremony is tomorrow, Novemeber 21. (In Pennsylvania, two other teen-agers were elected mayor, both in January, 2002: Jeff Dunkel in Mount Carbon, and Chris Portman in Mercer. Chris was 19, and Jeffrey was a month shy of 19. Chris resigned at the end of three years of his four-year term. Jeffery ran unopposed, and received 43 votes.)
Small town politics? Sensationalism?
Sessions, 18, was attending high school
the day of the elections.
Are adults just too uninvolved in politics in these towns, or are the youngsters exceptionally talented and perceptive? It's almost as if to say, Experience throws in the towel, and Youth is naive enough to fight.
In the Oklahoma City area, we are all familiar with Kyle E. Williams, who has been writing columns for WorldNetDaily.com since he was twelve. At fourteen, he had a book published, Seen and Heard (Nelson, 2003), and has appeared on all the major TV talk shows, like O'Reilly, Scarborough, and many others. Everyone familiar with his writing was stunned by his breadth of knowledge and his clarity of expression. (There was a much less popular book, Seen and Heard, published in 1998. It was an anthology of interviewed teenagers and their comments. Nothing remotely comparable to Kyle's work, which is a single author's thorough commentary on the American political scene.)
Kyle Williams
At 16, however, we note that Kyle has decided to refrain from writing more columns. He posted a "Farewell" at WND this weekend, in which he ponders the effects of having been given a national voice at such an early age.
"You make a lot of mistakes and you say things you regret, but you also grow and change. Your beliefs evolve and you eventually end up in a place you never expected. More than anything, it's a fast-paced education. I wouldn't give up what I've experienced these past four years for anything."
From my personal acquaintance with Kyle, I can say that he was never fooled by flattery. He was not career-minded. He was not ambitious. He was simply observing the world around him, and comparing it to the values he was given as a home schooled boy in an Oklahoma Christian family. He was completely honest about it all, from the beginning.
If this were not true, he would be in a more "expected place." He would be a major star of some kind. But that's never what interested him at all. He obviously wants maturity, and wisdom, and he is aware of his youth.
His parents did not exploit him, nor did Joseph Farah, really. Yes, he was the youngest pundit in media history; yes, he actually competed with the professionals; but Kyle was simply speaking from the heart. The career business was not his business, or anyone else's, finally.
Solomon probably had a great influence on Kyle. "Woe unto thee, O land, when thy king is a child." (Ecclesiastes 9:17). Kyle is aware of the exploitation of youth, and how capitalism takes full advantage of the unrefined, immature emotions of young people. Kyle also knows how even political parties have targeted youth. I think deep within him, Kyle knows that something's wrong in all this. The emphasis on youth is, while flattering, also distorting and frustrating to young people.
I'm personally very, very proud of Kyle. He's taken a lot of cruel criticism because of his youth, but it never adversely affected his thinking. He was too honest in heart for that. It has, however, obviously encouraged him to reconsider what can rightfully be expected from a young person. He certainly has learned how erroneous and even abusive certain expectations adults have of youth.
Many parents are quick to sacrifice their children to the fires of Molech (Leviticus 18:21) for fame and glory, believing this is best for the child, somehow. Kyle's parents never pressured him. They've only guided him.
Kyle still plays around with a blog, but we shall have to be patient for his natural development. He reminds me of Ralph Waldo Emerson, of Gustav Mahler, and of other great minds. Kyle is in no hurry. Something in himself guides him, naturally.
I wonder what Kyle thinks of these young mayors?
Mayor Michael Sessions conducts his first city council meeting after
being sworn in in Hillsdale, Michigan November 21, 2005. Sessions, an
18-year-old student at Hillsdale High School, launched a write-in bid
for mayor just days before his 18th birthday because he was too young
to get his name on the official ballot before the filing deadline.
REUTERS/Rebecca Cook
Two Shi'ite mosques were destroyed today near Baghdad. Suicide murderers killed 74 people at worship in the mosque, and at least 75 others were injured. It was Friday prayer service, and the murderers knew the mosques would be full of people.
Remains of the mosques in Khanaqin, Iraq
The murderers knew these were Kurdish mosques, too. Such an act therefore demonstrates that Islam is no brotherhood at all. The Qur'an provides enough texts for killing that anyone can justify any motive for killing, be it racial, personal, or national. The murderers easily encourage their passions with "religious" fervor. (Here is a convenient list of Qur'anic murder texts provided on a radical 'atheist' cite. The texts are accurate, nonetheless.)
The Kurds are an ancient, non-Arabic people, who live in eastern Turkey, northeastern Iraq, and northwestern Iran, as well as in parts of Syria and Armenia. Though without political unity, they are a very independent people, and resist subjugation. Being Muslim has never protected them from other Muslims.
Osama bin Laden, perhaps one of
the most murderous human beings
in modern history.
In fact, being Muslim doesn't protect anyone from the demonic ravages of the violent Muslims. When I was in Iran in 1999, I visited Astan Quds Razavi, the second largest Islamic shrine in the world. It is in eastern Iran, in the city of Messhad. While I was there, I was shown a video (not yet released to the public) of a boming of an Iranian mosque by what they said was mujahideen supported by the CIA. What interested me was the fact that anyone would be so blasphemous as to murder people in public worship, in the very act of obeisance to the deity they adored. I thought it was the most horrid event in the history of the world.
Alas, it is common place to day. Islam has made it so. Slaughter is rampant. Death stalks the world through Islam. Yes, there are those who say mass murder is not Islam, but, the truth is, Muslims o the world have not made the effort to demonstrate differently. Instead of weak and inadequate attempts to offer theological apologetics, Muslims should concentrate their efforts on containing and eliminating the murderers among them. Otherwise, the Muslims of the world are judged as inevitably complicit.
Me, Dr. Yeagley, in a strange, triple-exposure photo, standing in the east side
of Astan Quds Rasavi. I visted more than once,and this day I was entering to speak
with English professors, and their offices were most accessible from the east side.
There happened to be much construction on this side of the shrine at this time.
Michael Newdow is at it again. The religious atheist, not satisfied with the issue he created over American flag salute (insisting that "under God" be removed), now wants "In God We Trust" removed from American currency. Encouraged by the faithful liberals in the American judiciary, Newdow thinks he can now succeed beyond Madalyn Murry O'Hair's attempt to remove the historical imprint on American money.
No doubt, upon exhausting the entertainment value of this enterprise, Newdow will join in the campaign to remove crosses from all city and state seals. We will see him in the forefront of cases like the one in Las Cruses, New Mexico, where Paul F. Weinbaum filed a suit saying that religious symbols on public property are unconstitutional. "The crosses serve no governmental purpose other than to disenfranchise and discredit non-Christian citizens," he said. (Jay A. Sekulow has appealed to New Mexico's governor, Bill Richardson, in support of the city of Las Cruses, "The Crosses." In his appeal, Sekulow references two quotations from Sandra Day O'Conner, which may pleasantly surprise many conservatives.)
Regarding the intense indignation such anti-American blasphemy provokes in God-fearing patriots, it must be noted that any over reaction will only justify the provocateures. Great care must be exercised to honor the Constitution. The phrase "separation of church and state" does not occur in the Constitution at all, but "the free exercise [of religion]" does. The name of God and reference thereunto occur (more than once) in the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution (1st Amendment) simply states that Congress shall not enact laws regarding religion. That the name of God should occur in American society, in public places, in the American flag salute, on American currency, is hardly a concern of law or Congress, in so far as it was not an act of Congress to cause the name of God to thus occur. Furthermore, the Constitution does not mandate that states exempt themselves from such concerns.
The issue is the definition of "religion." Does the name of God on a federal building, or on federally created currency constitute the enforcement of religion, or the prohibition of religion? Does it inflict inhibition or coercion? These are the questions to ask, and not theoretical, abtract protests born of sociopathological frustrations in individuals like Michael Newdow or Madalyn O'Hair.
The God of the Bible can never be erased from American history. As Justice O'Conner observed:
"It is unsurprising that a nation founded by religious refugees and dedicated to religious freedom should find references to divinity in its symbols, songs, mottoes and oaths. Eradicating such references would sever ties to a history that sustains this Nation even today." And "Certain ceremonial references to God and religion in our Nation are the inevitable consequence of the religious history that gave birth to our founding principles of liberty. It would be ironic indeed if this Court were to wield our constitutional commitment to religious freedom so as to sever our ties to the traditions developed to honor it."
In an interesting clash of Latino egos, Mexican President Vicente Fox has warned Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez that Mexico will cut off diplomatic relations with Venezuela if Chavez does not make a public apology for his disrespectful remarks about the Mexican government.
Mexican President Vicente Fox
Fox and Chavez are not personal allies, and this was abundantly evident after this month's Summit of the Americas in Argentina, where Fox defended a U.S.-backed proposal for a Free Trade Area of the Americas while Chavez proclaimed the idea dead. Chavez has public declared Mexico (i.e., Vicente Fox) to be a mere "puppy" of the U.S. government. Alas, such is the fate of America's friends in the minds of America's challengers. (Talk about puppies! Venezuela is like a Chijuajua, yapping at a Great Dane.)
Chavez clipped, "Don't mess with me, sir, or you'll get stung!"
Vicente considers such a remark irresponsible and such expressions "strike at the dignity of the Mexican people and government." Therefore, "Mexico demands a formal apology from Venezuela's government" for this "lack of respect for the people of Mexico and the institution of our country's presidency."
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez
Well, this is just dandy. Is there not a sentiment of national pride coming through here? Is there cause for just a little encouragement?
By comparison, Fox is a caballero en su porte (a gentleman), and Chavez is poco loco. The fact is, only another Latino leader might successfully rebuke such a political misanthrope as Chavez. Even so, it will not happen. Chavez is hardened beyond reason. We must remember, Chavez was a severely abused child. Hiding in public office, as such victims have been known to do, like Bill Clinton, Chavez will never be influened by any reprimand. He has the support of Fidel Castro, and he feels that challenging America is his great purpose in life.
Some times, in psychological cases, the disturbed person finds mental organization and focus through anger. Anger is a tremendous motivation, and to focus it on something outside oneself often appears to be the most successful management of inner disarray.
Be that as it may, we must remember to that the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas is not about free trade at all. It is part of the regional division of an over-all globalist economy. The FTAA is protested and resisted by both Americans and Latin Americans. That Fox and American Presidents seem to favor such globalist visions of economy does not mean that Fox is a friend of the United States. And the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Ever. That is not the definition of friendship. If Fox is ticked off at Chavez, so be it. That doesn't mean that America shouldn't be ticked off at Fox.
Fox wants respect? Then never mind these Latino ego skirmishes. Let's talk about the abysmal corruption of the Mexican government, and the fact that the Aztlan Liberation Army is trained by Cuban, Chinese, and Russian military personnel on the Mexican-US borders. Some say there are thousands of Chinese troops south of the border. This word is increasingly publicized. And of course there's the business of Arab terrorists illegally entering the United States through Mexico.
So, what kind of respect should Fox have? From whom? and for what? He behaves like an enemy of the United States. But he is deceptive about it. At least Chavez has the dignity of being up front.
France, save thyself!
The cry has gone out from the heart of the French people, at least in Asnieres, a town northwest of Paris. The people themselves have taken up their own defense, much like the MinuteMen on America's southwestern border. These Frenchmen have learned that they cannot depend on their government for basic protection in such a crisis.
A car blazes after it was used to smash in the main gate of the nursery school
'Maternelle du Lac' in the La Reynerie housing project in the Mirail district of
Toulouse, southwestern France, Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2005. France's storm of riot-
ing lost strength on Wednesday, with a drop of nearly half in the number of cars
burned, police said. AP Photo/Remy Gabalda
Interestingly, Thierry Boinet's AP article refers to these French people of Asnieres, these defenders of France, these neighborhood patriots, as "white," as opposed to the immigrants and children of immigrants doing the rioting.
All the volunteers patrolling Asnieres on Tuesday night were white, unlike the majority of the rioters, many of them French-born children of immigrants.
Does this mean we're to think of the African and Arab Muslims as "French?" Notice Boinet didn't actually mention their ethnicity.
Non, mais ceci est une tromperie. The rioters are not Frenchmen. They may live in France. They may even be French citizens, born in France, but, they are not Frenchmen. They are African and Arab Muslims. Nothing else. Do they share the history of France? Do they share the sentiments, the culture, the national pride? Do they have even the sense of being French? One can grant citizenship, but not nationality, or ethnicity. Boinet's remark is a typical liberal, socialist slant, distorting the reality that Frenchmen are Frenchmen, not just "white." Boinet's is a racist remark of the highest order.
Once again, we reference Aristotle's The Politics: "A state cannot be made out of any and every collection of people, so neither can it be made at any time at will. Hence civil strife is exceedingly common when the population includes an extraneous element, whether these have joined in the founding, or have been taken on later." (Bk V, ch.3).
Certainly, there are some critically important circumstancial differences between the situation in France to day, and the ancient Greek city state of Sybaris, which Aristotle (384-322 BC) uses as an example of the evolutionary cultural influence of too many foreigners in an social establishment. Nevertheless, the characters in the play are of the same nature. And France must defend it's homeland, not a French colony. Those days of French Algiers are over.
The Muslims riots in Europe are not an exrpession of sociological discontent based on economic frustration. Muslims riots are about Islam, about religion, and about the Muslims impetus to change other cultures.
Some people in France are beginning to get the picture. Some civic officials are calling for the deportation of the rioters, as the curfews are widening.
Let the Muslims return to there own countries, and there revolt. If they have cause, let them blame the governments of their own countries, which they or their parents left. If they are discontent, let them have their own national revolution. That foreigners should revolt in foreign country is intolerable and ridiculous. Only the liberals, the socialists, the multiculturalists, the race-destroyers would have it so.
Those who would destroy race and culture are racists and anarchists. Islam plays right into their hands. The French patriots can only hope the government doesn't take the guns out of their hands.
The great socialist commentators and liberal news lackeys are quick to call the Muslims riots a socially created problem, blaming it all on an out-of-touch artistocratic French government which has turn aside from the problems of poverty neglect in their own back yard.
And now? A state of emergency. A national curfew. Mesures extraordinaires.
Firefighters in Gentilly, France, early Tuesday, Nov. 8. AP Photo/Michel Spingler Charred
cars destroyed in recent violence are piled up in a dumping ground in Grigny, south of Paris,
on Tuesday. AP Photo
The Leftist in the French government have themselves perhaps misinterpreted the real cause of the riots. They want to think it is poverty and inequality, and not a long range, planned development of Islamicists. French Prime Minster Dominique de Villepin has been quoted as saying tha organized criminal networks are backing the violence and youths taking part are treating it as a game, trying to outdo each other.
Curiously, the same was said of the French Revolution, some two centuries ago. Sir Walter Scott wrote of the attrocities rampant in the land. When the Goddess of Reason was enshrined in Paris (1793), after the national assembly had declared there was no God, other groups in the country imitated the act, using the local women. Scott wrote, "This impious and ridiculous mummery had a certain fashion; and the installation of the Goddess of Reason was renewed and imitated throughout the nation, in such places where the inhabitatants desired to show themselves equal to all the heights of the Revolution." The Life of Napoleon Buonaparte (1827), Vol.1, ch.17.
Of course, we would not expect anything to develop similar to the Reign of Terror, would we?
Suffice it to say that Muslims are not American Negroes, and the social problems caused by Europe's freely immigrated Muslims are not comparable to the slavery and Civil Rights issues of America. Negroes did not immigrate. It is indeed a race war in France, indeed, in Europe. But, the immigrants can scarcely be said to have been denied "rights" in the way that the American Negro had. The Negro had to become aware of rights as a concept. He had to be instructed and educated as to what his rights might be. The immigrants already have a well-developed conception: money. In the case of the Muslims, violence. Perhaps both.
To write all this Muslim rioting in Europe as some kind of civil rights issue not only insults the American Negro, but distorts the whole meaning rights altogether. It obfuscates the rational expectations immigrants should have of the countries they have invaded.
France will fail in management of this problem if there no consultation of history, no concept of nationality, and an all too self-indulgent obeisance of the Goddess of Multi-culturalism.
French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin has declared before the world that "radical Islamists" are only 'possibly involved' in the burning of France! Jocelyn Gecker, Associate Press writer, in her report makes every effort to preserve the socialist, politically correct, and seemingly sinister character of the French government.
A suburban bus burns in Reynerie, near the southwestern city of Toulouse, after
youths set fire to it and three cars November 7, 2005. France announced plans
on Monday to impose curfews on rundown suburbs hit by violence to try to halt almost
two weeks of unrest in which one man has been killed and thousands of cars have been
torched. REUTERS/Stringer
Gecker reports: Villepin said "organized criminal networks" are backing the violence and youths taking part are treating it as a "game," trying to outdo each other. He did not rule out the possibility that radical Islamists are involved, saying: "That element must not be neglected." France's community of Muslims, at some 5 million, is western Europe's largest.
Qu'une observation profonde!
French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin sits in French TV channel TF1's
studio in Paris before the evening news November 7, 2005. French Prime Minister
Dominique de Villepin announced plans on Monday to give local government
officials the authority to impose curfews in areas hit by rioting to try to halt
almost two weeks of unrest. REUTERS/Jean-Pierre Muller/Pool
Monday's violence included vandals burning churches, schools and businesses, and injuring 36 police officers in clashes around the country. This represents a new heights in arson and violence, according to France's national police chief, Michel Gaudin.
Lavtian President Vike-Freiberga seems to think that France has not accepted the Muslims, nor fully integrated them into the French society, noting openly "the incapacity of French society to fully accept them." In a meeting with Vike-Freiberga, French President Jacques Chirac deplored the "ghettoization of youths of African or North African origin," and said that France "has not done everything possible for these youths, supported them so they feel understood, heard and respected."
The answer? Money. Give them money, education, good jobs. The perfect Marxist ticket. The wealthy have created the poor, and it is their responsibility to lift them out of poverty. It's called governmental coercion of material equality, or economic parity.
So, the Prime Minister of France, in all socialist, politically correct righteousness, avows that one simply must consider the possibility that radical Islamist just might be involved in the riots, while the President of France deplores the ghettoization of Arab and African Muslims. Beautifully coordinated remarks.
TF1 television asked Villepin whether the army should be brought in, and he said, "We are not at that point," but "at each step, we will take the necessary measures to re-establish order very quickly throughout France." "That is our prime duty: ensuring everyone's protection."
So, it's basically okay for masses of Arab and African Muslim youth to let off steam, burning France, as long as no one gets hurt. And the French government plans to fully reward the youth vandals with money and social, professional opportunity.
Villepin wants to expedite a $35.5 billion urban redevelopment plan, triple the number of merit scholarships for talented students and offer jobs, training or internships to disadvantaged young people. "We must offer them hope and a future," he said.
Just like the world must offer the "Palestinians," France must offer the Muslims reward for their violence. Heaven knows these miserable Muslims can't obtain such a reward in their own 'glorious' and corrupt countries. So, all they have to do is immigrate to a wealthier country, multiply themselves, and then riot. Au nom de la liberte, l'egalite et la fraternite, they will be rewarded. The plan seems to be working.
The mainstream media and the socialist governments of Europe are not even addressing the larger plan of Muslims to destroy European culture altogether.
Bring them back! Rapporter les Croisades! Bring back the crusades. Europe is under attack by the maniacal Muslims! Europe is at war! This is a massive religious/race war, before our eyes! Indeed, Where's Dracula When You Need Him? He certainly fought heroically against the Muslims of his day (15th century).
A firefighter extinguishes a truck in Cenon, near Bordeaux, southwestern France, Sunday
night, Nov.6, 2005 on the tenth day of unrest. Vehicles and buildings were torched by
youths in largely immigrant areas began rampaging after two of their peers were electro-
cuted last week at a power substation while hiding from police they feared were chasing
them. AP Photo/Bob Edme
Now Muslims are rioting in France (300 towns overnight!), Belgium, Denmark, and they are expected to riot in Germany and elsewhere. "This land belongs to us!" they screamed in Denmark. (Here's the report in Danish.)
Will Europe defend itself? Will Europe value itself, its cultural identity, its religion, its native peoples?
The world watches breathlessly. Shall the cursed Islamicists be allowed to take over without a fight? Will Europe lie down and be raped for nothing?
Rapporter les Croisades! Bring back the crusades! This time, however, it isn't Christians going to Palestine to protect the invaded Holy Land and Jerusalem. It's the Muslims already in Europe! And it's the countries of Europe--who should be trying to protect their own land! Their own people!
The Muslims have accomplished a secret invasion already, under their deceptive use of western "freedom." Their preparation for this attack was massive immigration, all allowed by the western idealism of freedom. So the Muslims are all set, the world over, to rise up and create hell wherever they are.
This is it. France stands at the crossroads of freedom. What course France pursues at this time will effect the whole world's view of Islam. Islam has shown its colors. What are the colors of France?
(And shall we mention the fact that it is in the European countries that were not supporters of the Coalition into Iraq, that this rioting is happening? No rioting in America or Britain, for instance. How shall we interpret this?)
Pardon the script failures of the inadequate mechanisms on the front page of BadEagle.com. French letters cannot be properly reproduced. Nevertheless, I'm feeling a bit French right now, so I've posted French regardless.
Ce n'est que la premiere etape qui coute.
And the step France needs to take is probably too expensive. France should repatriate its Muslims back to their resepctive countries. Why is France responsible for them, for their discontent, for their violence? This entire Islamic onslaught upon France, indeed upon the world, is based on deception. The appearance of Muslims in a non-Muslim society is a manoeuver, not a natural process. It is the exact abuse of freedom. Islam uses western freedom to destroy the west. France is responsible for giving Islam this opportunity? Jamais ! Il ne peut pas etre!
The wreckage of a burned down gymnasium in Noisy-le Grand, east of Paris, Sunday,
Nov. 6, 2005. Spreading urban unrest - with arson attacks on vehicles, nursery
schools and other targets in France from the Mediterranean to the German border - for
the first time reached central Paris, where police said Sunday that 28 cars were burned
overnight. AP Photo/Jacques Brinon
The entire Islamic approach to society is that wherever they are in the world, that society must become Islamic. Muslims do not wish to see any kind of society other than Muslim society.
In the name of Western freedom and democracy, they enter forieign society, and then demand that the society alter itself to accommodate them. This is the mission if Islam. Be there no mistake about that.
BadEagle.com first posted on the Paris burnings on November 3, under the Blitzblog. The situation has greatly worsened since that posting. Today's news is daunting. Some 1,300 cars have been torched by Muslim youth. The riots have spread, uncontrolled. French President Jacque Chirac is trying to talk tough about it, but everyone knows it is a race war at this point. It may even worsen into a kind of civil war. The people of France will surely not stand by and watch their personal lives destroyed by foreigners. If their government allows it, their government should beware of it's French people, that is, the real French people.
French President Jacques Chirac addresses the nation at the
Elysee Palace in Paris Sunday, Nov. 6, 2005. Chirac said
restoring security and public order was an 'absolute priority'
after urban violence intensified and spread across France
with arsonists striking from the Mediterranean to the
German border and into central Paris for the first time.
AP Photo/Jacques Brinon
It is not the custom of nations to have wars started by foreigners within their own land. This is the unprecedented result of mass and uncontrolled immigration, all handled without wisdom or foresight. This is the result of Islamic planning as well, no doubt. If not, then it has become the perfect breeding ground for mass murderers. That seems to be the apogee of Islamic encounter with the non-Islamic world: mass murder.
Repatriate the Muslims. What other step can be taken? The West will otherwise quickly become one giant "Palestine," with hordes of fanatical Muslim murderers claiming that which is not theirs, and ready to murder anyone they please. Their lives obviously aren't important enough for them to care about anyone else's. Their own countries and peoples obviously aren't valuable enough to them to try and improve them.
What are these people contributing to the world? Fear and death. That's all. That is the upshot of their presence. What a terrible, tragic condition they are in. What frustration they create in everyone else.
The border leaks we need to be concerned about are the borders of Islamic countries. Those are the borders that need to be closed--to Muslims leaving their own countries.
The Washington Post today published a lengthy report syaing that the CIA operates secret prisons for al-Qaeda members, and other terrorists. These prisons are said to be in eight different countries, including Thailand and Afghanistan. The issue is, of course, human rights, and the treatment of prisoners.
I find the whole concept of prison itself to be challenging. In the old days, Indians didn't have prisons. I know the Comanche never had any such thing. When an enemy or a captive was taken, he was either killed, or made to be part of the clan. Yes, he was usually killed, but there were times when he was coerced into conformity, and made a member of the tribe.
An old prison of French Guiana, closed in 1947. It was featured in the 1973 film,
"Papillon," starring Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman. The prison was in Sainte
Laurent. In the case of the French prisoners here, it was banishment as well as
imprisonment. French Guiana is on the north coast of Brazil.
Without discussing the circumstances of "adoption," suffice it to say that prison was just not possible. Execution or banishment was the solution. Certainly the plains tribes were simply too mobile to have anything like social 'confinement.' The great hunting tribes were on the move, and there was no possibility of imprisoning anyone. Prisons are a phenomenon of civilization. Ironic as that appears, all the horrors associated with imprisonment are an inevitable by-products of incarceration in a "civilized" society, one that is in a fixed geographic locale.
Prisons are great subjects for reporters to investigate as well, obviously. "Dana Priest" is the name on the Washington Post article, but who did the research on this new CIA prisons report? How was this information discovered? Who's "leaking" all the information? It's always "top US officials." "Senior Washington aids." It's seems almost always insiders who are giving the information to the newspapers. The Reuters wire on the WashingtonPost story is classic:
"The paper, citing several former and current intelligence and other U.S. government officials, said the CIA used such detention centers abroad because in the United States it is illegal to hold prisoners in such isolation.
The Washington Post said it was not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program at the request of senior U.S. officials."
The real question is this: is there ever a circumstance in which secrecy is justified? Reporters say no, unless it has to do with hiding their sources, as in the Judith Miller case regarding Valerie Plame. Reporters are therefore no reference whatsoever for ethical guidance in the question of privacy or secrecy. They are only interested in their business of reporting, as if they are exempt from the ethics involved in needs and concerns of others for privacy. Some kind of prostitution is the nature of news reporting, certainly. Their idea of privacy is wholly dependent upon their story, not the needs of the individuals in the story.
Especially are reporters 'morally transcendent' when it comes to the operations of government. They feel they have complete, divine right to know everything the government is doing, and how it's being done.
Is this rational? Is this ethical? Is this appropriate and necessary? How much secrecy does a national government need to operate in the world? There are laws about spying, and about treason. There must be such a thing as a legitimate need for privacy in the operations of goverment, as well as in personal life.
Who draws the line, and where?
We won't hold up reporters as heroes, certainly not. On the other hand, shall we give the FBI and the CIA a carte blanche? Hardly.
Add to this dilemma the fact that news is a competitive business, conducted as free enterprise, and we have a real challenge in understanding the truth, and the moral concerns within these circumstances. Freedom is a complex state of social consciousness, and surely must have limits. There is such a thing as privacy, and it is protected in the Constitution.
But how much privacy does the government have, or need?
Robert Castel's famous book, The Regulation of Madness: The Origins of Incarceration in France (1976) makes an interesting point about crime, insanity, and dependency. To remove the problem people from society requires incarceration. But incarceration itself creates dependency. The criminal, and the insane, both require incarceration, but, it is apparently the reporters self-appointed righteous cause to monitor the treatment of prisoners. It is a righteous cause.
Being in prison itself is a kind of "mistreatment" in a sense. But consider the alternatives: death or adoption, the old Indian way. You either are removed from the living, or you are coerced into complete conformity. This is a basic part of human experience. We have enemies among us, in one way or another, for one reason or another. A man must protect himself, and what's his. A society must do the same, too.