Well, that isn't exactly what he said. And it wasn't exactly the the present pope (Benedict) who said it. It was Pope John Paul, in 1996, on World Migration Day. But, Ratzinger was very close to John Paul, and is known as the architect of Pope John Paul's policies. "Elected" in the case of Ratzinger was more like a natural succession. So, we can be assured that Pope Benedict (Ratzinger) does not differ from the positions he engineered for John Paul.
I bambini circondano Papa Giovanni Paolo II durante un pubblico generale all'atrio
di VI di Paul schell di Papa nel Vaticano. AP, February 27, 2002.
Speaking of charitable institutions (i.e., churches) and their attempts to effect positive change in the immigration predicaments, Pope John Paul said,
"When no solution is foreseen, these same institutions should direct those they are helping, perhaps also providing them with material assistance, either to seek acceptance in other countries, or to return to their own country." Vatican Document: Undocumented Migrants, point No. 4.
Of course, all such statements must be read in context. The Church has always been in favor of helping the needy, no matter who they are, where they are, or where they are from, or why they are needy. The above statement is not to be taken to mean that the Church is averse to immigration. (Indeed, in other statements, Pope John Paul declared it the responsibility of the Christians to care for the needy, regardless. See, Address to Congress/Pastoral Care of Immigrants, 1998, esp. point 5.)
However, the statement does lend itself to the discussion of the Church's role in the present situation in America, and the Mexican invasion. The American Church, particularly the Archbishops of the Roman faith, such as Cardinal McCarrick of Washington, DC and Roger Mahoney of Michigan, is widely accused at this point of encouraging illegal Mexican invaders, because the invaders are Catholic, and because they are expected to contribute to the Catholic treasuries. But worse, the accusations against the Church are due to public statements by the radical bishops.
According to MichNews.com, Mahoney is guilty of "sedition" against the United States, because he has publicly instructed the priests of his diocese to ignore and defy any legislation against immigrants. Dr. Daneen G. Peterson says Mahoney is also in defiance of the Pope.
This is a crisis of authority. Father Mahoney claims his authority is the Holy Scriptures. In this, in defying the Pope in favor of the Bible, Mahoney behaves like a Protestant. Yet, in defying the United States government, he behaves like a traitor. It is a most curious predicament—all for the sake of criminal invaders.
Church leaders, Catholic or otherwise, must be prepared to face the consequences of their positions. They are not above treason, sedition, or criminal behavior. They are subject to law and imprisonment. They should also remember that they are responsible for their pejorative effects on the First Amendment as well—specifically that which allows the church a tax-exempt status. American bishops have no place defying the laws of America. (Ah, but they've always been a bit more "American" about their Catholicism. They'll have it their way, like most Americans, when it comes to difference of opinion. Shall we call them the Protestant sector of Rome?)
Mexico is 89% Catholic, therefore, let the wealthy mobsters in Ciudad de Mexico take care of their own. Let the American archbishops rebuke their "federal" brethren south of the border.
And the nations were angry, and Thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that Thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear Thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them that destroy the earth. Revelation 11:19
Resolution. Restituion. The end of earthy agonies. These are surely the deepest desires in all of us. Yet it seems apparent that these achievements are not within the power of humanity to procure. There is a continuance of uncertainty, always, and an ever-increasing sense of anxiety over human behavior, both individually and communally, and, these days, globally. The news media is an intense informant, from the remote regions of the world to the great centers of power.
Ronald Reagan once said, "The best days are always ahead." This is simply another way of expressing the desire for resolution, restitution, and the end of anxiety. Is this then all that there is inside the human heart? Doubt? Uncertainty, anxiety, or perhaps self-delusion and a modicum of stability, a self-imposed peace?
We look for the right words. What are the right words? We seem to find comfort in the right words, words that fit the situation, that give relief, hope, or peace.
The Biblical prophets all deal with cataclysmic endings, and the promise of ultimate restoration. Every catastrophy, every war, even death, finds its ultimate fulfillment in the Apocalypse. This is the end of all things, and the recreation to come.
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the the former things are passed away.
And He that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. Revelation 21:4,5
John says he saw it all. A man, nearly two thousand years ago, said he saw it, in person.
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth were pasased away. Revelation 21:1
Does it fit? Is this what we want? Is this irresistable, or ridiculous? Is this, or is it not, the perfect portrayal of our deepest desires? Never mind whether its even true or not. Is this what we want? Why would a human being write such words, so long ago?
Not so long ago, another human being wrote these words:
In the annals of human history the growth of nations, the rise and fall of empires, appear as dependent on the will and prowess of man. The shaping of events seems to a great degree, to be determined by his power, ambition, or caprice. But in the word of God the curtain is drawn aside, and we behold, behind, above, and through all the play and counterplay of human interests and power and passions, the agencies of the all-merciful One, silently, patiently working out the counsels of His own will. E.G. White, Education (1903), p.173
Now that feels good. But, can we trust ourselves to recognize the words that best suit our desires? Do we know our deepest desires? Has the history of thousands of years resulted in any cumulative consensus? Is there any benefit at all from past experience? Can it be communicated to a future generation?
It seems that truth is, for the most part, inherited, not discovered by searching. It is something that is told to another. The lack of effective inheritance is the cause of failure in the world, surely. Rediscovering is a crippling necessity, only if the young have not received effective communication from the elders. History is more and more like a hobbling, stumbling forward, with little or no instruction from the past.
Well, what's to say now?
The world doesn't look so good. The voice of the elders is too far distant. Our beloved country seems to be changing before our eyes. America, as patriots have loved it, seems to be passing into a dream, a memory, a historical mode of some kind. Something new and different is evolving in the world--yet something that, according to all scripture, will end. It will not stand. It will end in utter cataclysm. No matter how richly it is packaged, how temptingly it is sold to the public, it is destined for oblivion.
At least the scriptures create an optional objectivity for us, in this time of a whirlwind. That's one step closer to resolution. The dare to believe cannot be unrelated to the times in which we live. It has to be intimately bound up therein. Time always suggest some kind of belief. But, according to scripture, the end times, whenever they are, demand belief.
Interesting sell, eh? But nothing is sold. No one can sell it. The matter is determined in the individual heart. There is no purchase, no refund, or no exchange. It's all in belief. Now, that's hope--in the raw. And that new earth is the reward of that belief.
Amil Imani, the well-known Iranian-American patriot has been banned from MSN Hotmail. Why? Mr. Imani is a well known writer, who receives hundreds of emails, daily. Mr. Imani has promoted nothing but American patriotism, and has encouraged nothing but democracy for Iran. His writings speak for themselves. (He was just published in the Baltimore Chronicle--an article about promoting democracy in Iran.)
So why would MSN Hotmail suddenly close his account, without notice, without stated cause?
Here's the word from an MSN Hotmail office (given after some three days of intense inquiry on the part of Mr. Imani):
Thank you for writing to MSN Hotmail Technical Support.
This is Elizardo and I am writing in response to your concern on why your account was closed.I apologize for the delay in responding to your message.
For privacy and security reasons, we can provide no further information. However, you may review our TOU at:
Thank you for your time regarding this matter.
MSN Hotmail Technical Support
[Posted by Mr. Imani on BadEagle.com]
So what aspect of these terms did Mr. Imani violate? "For privacy and security reasons," MSN cannot say. Are they afraid of being sued for the denial of free speech to an American citizen--who has done nothing but promote American patriotism and advocated American freedoms and democracy for Iran?
Could it be the simple fact that Mr. Imani has dared to speak against Islam? Could it be that Mr. Imani has renounced the Muslim religion with more insight, more passion, and more common sense than anyone else? Could it be that he speaks the words that everyone else is either ignorant, unable to articulate, or simply afraid to speak?
Is his condemnation of Islam the reason why MNS "can provide no further information" as to why they closed his account?
Mr. Imani is very well known in Persian circles around the world. He is well known among American-Iranian circles. His emails number in the hundreds daily. To abruptly close his account, without notice, is an outrageous act of betrayal, and is it traitorous to American values. Do we have to sue now for our basic Constitutional freedoms?
So, what's behind this? Who owns MSN? We are told Microsoft owns at least MSN's Money. These technology companies are all internationally connected. It is going to be difficult to say who exactly owns Hotmail. It's part of a larger pool. They compete with each other even within the parent group.
But, since there are something like 2 billion muslims in the world, it is quite likely that any major world company must consider the disposition of the Islamic peoples. It is quite likely, therefore, that anyone as forthright about Islam as Mr. Imani is bound to be censored. That's right. Censored.
The iron cowl of hatred lingers, yea, looms continually, like
a dark, evil shadow. It brings violence and death in its train.
The only problem here is that this is supposed to be the land of free speech. Has the global internet therefore impaired freedom within America? How ironic. How critically wrong. The enemy, the Arab Muslims (al-quaeda) can use the internet to broadcast murders, tortures, hatred, damnation of America, etc., but, a person living in America, who knows Islam, who understands its liabilities, cannot use the internet to express his views about Islam? He cannot warn the world of the dangers of Islam?
Globalism must cater to maniacal Islam, or so it appears. People may cite the case of the Danish Cartoons as an example of what can happen in when you upset the Muslims. If this is the truth, then Muslims must be quickly returned to their home countries. They are destorying freedom everywhere they live.
In the case of MSN Hotmail, they are destroying freedom in America. Ask Mr. Imani. How long will it be before they destory his web site? And who among us is next?!
NOTE: Hear Dr. Yeagley and Resa LaRu Kirkland on the Paul Schiffer Report (Right Talk) Click on No.3 for a recording of the show. It will be replayed continuously through April 27, 5:00 pm EST.
Collin Finnerty, one of the young men accused of raping a black female professional exhibitionist at a Duke lacrosse party, is a tough, aggressive athlete. All the boys on the lacrosse team are tough fighters. They've been trained to be that way. Finnerty plays the 'attackman' position on the team. Lacrosse is a very rough contact sport. It's a man's game. Some people think it's roughter than football. (At least it isn't rugby. At least lacrosse players have some pads and a helmet.)
Collin Finnerty, with family priest,
Father Peter Le Jacq.
So now Finnerty is also accused of roughing up some guy outside a bar in Georgetown. What about that? The news story goes like this: Finnerty and two other guys are accused of punching out Jeff Bloxsom and Scott Herndon. Bloxsom, the one apparently somehow injured, says Finnerty called him "gay," and other "derogatory names." The case was dismissed, as long as Finnerty stayed out of trouble. Obviously, it was less than serious. It wasn't a hate crime, it wasn't a real crime. It wasn't anything, or Finnerty would have been in jail already. If anything, it was connected to underaged drinking. (Gee, what's an Irish kid to do?)
But now, because of the the black women's accusations at Duke, Finnerty's in potentially serious trouble. Durhams appointed DA, Mike Nifong, currently running for election to the same position, will use the Georgetown incident as a "pattern" in Finnerty's behavior. The jury certainly will. What rational person can expect the jury not to be influenced by the news, anyway? Where did such a ridiculous notion come from? People's thoughts are always informed by the news.
Now let's consider the prior charge in DC. Some guy, who, according to the Abrams Report (April 25, 2006) said he wasn't gay anyway, accused Finnerty and pals of calling him and his friend names and roughing him up, or some such story. Abrams was concerned enough to point out that there was no hate crime connection in the Georgetown case, and therefore it would be hard to use that in relation to the Duke case in any way. (Remember, a 'good' attorney can indict a ham sandwich. 'Good' is a funny word these days.) One news story references "reports" that there was a "busted lip and a bruise." "Simple assault," another news report referenced the same record. But the story of why it happened isn't given. It is made to look like Finnerty and his two companions attacked on the street total strangers without provocation. Why, it was an act of sheer, irrational barbarity. Yep. That's the news spin on it. That's the media's conclusion from ever-so-careful research. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! (Or, is that a racial slur?) The media story is the act of sheer irrationality.
Finnerty is a young kid, with a lot of aggression. It's one of the "fighting Irish," I dare say. But I'm beginning to think there's some serious prejudice going on against him. The problem, of course, is that it is unspoken. One has to perceive the obvious. That unspoken prejudice is usually the most effective kind of prejudice, especially when it's directed at a white person. Oh, how can white people be prejudiced against other white people? The same way blacks can be toward blacks, or any other group can have members within working against their own kind, for various reasons. I'd think that were obvious by now. Jessie Jackson is clearly against blacks. And what's interesting is the fact that Ward Churchill, a white man, can pose as an Indian, in order to work against Indians. The world is a big place. There's room for everyone. Apparently it's all marketable. The media thrives on it.
Maybe Finnerty needs a little comfort from Father
Interestingly, the news is completely passing over the fact that word "gay" can't be considered a derogative name when homosexuals prefer it. Or is it now the tone in which you say it that makes it a hate crime? Who's hating whom here? Well, voice tone control is not a law yet, but the liberals are on their way. At present, they control only your words, not your 'way' of saying them. The full force of liberal hatred of freedom is yet to come.
Homosexualty promoter and general sexual deviance advocate Matt Hill Comer nevertheless posted a "hate crime" accusation (or two) against Finnerty, accusing Finnerty of that which clearly wasn't considered part of the actual legal case--namely the "gay" issue. His evidence? A news article by a local foreigner, who apparentlly had a little help from a "Washington" correspondent Barbara Barrett and news researcher Brooke Cain. Sound a little feminist as well?)
And now rape is also associated with kidnapping--holding someone against his will. That's a step in the liberal direction, and it gives attorneys more power to play with. Rape, assault, sexism, racism (if the two persons involved are of a different race), hate crimes, it's all one big glorious package in the Duke case. This is a liberal's heaven, this Duke case.
But, back to the Irish, a group who started out in America as one of the most abused groups of all. In Finnerty we see a family benefiting not from welfare, liberal PC tyranny laws, or any other such Marxist scheme of deceptive and false "equality," but from generations of hard work. In all likelihood, they didn't start out on top. Collin Finnerty may be a little rambunctious. Maybe he even has a lilttle drinking problem. I'll bet his father whipped a time or two growing up. Or maybe it's just all his natural energy and fight. The athletic moniker "Fighting Irish" didn't come about by the behavior of liberal clover lovers, human rights activists, welfare recipients, or reparations.
I hope the best for this kid. Maybe he needs a little discipline, but, the grand liberal assault is designed to destroy his life in honor of, to all appearance, a black female liar, whose record is a lot worse than his.
It's prejudice, alright. But not against a black female. It's racism, but not against a modern 'minority.'
NOTE: Hear Dr. Yeagley and Resa LaRu Kirkland on the Paul Schiffer Report (Right Talk) Click on No.3 for a recording of the show. It will be replayed continuously through April 27, 5:00 pm EST.
Maybe a bunch of drinking, athletic white boys would find two unattractive black women sexually exciting. They'd probably find anything "female" attractive. But did they ask for two black women? Does that make any sense at all, considering the circumstances of Durham (if we can believe the played up race problems in the press)? And what kind of "escort" service is Allure? Do they have only black women available for white male parties at Duke? Was this some kind of "liberal" race gesture on their part? Was Allure determined to execute EOE principles? But how much experience had either of these girls in this kind of racially-charged circumstance? These are simple questions, but they aren't being asked, and they implicate Allure Escort Service quite seriously.
The escort service has to hire whatever girls are willing to publicly expose themselves, and most escort service "employees" are aware of the sexual 'service' implied in their 'work.' The women are not hired for bodily sexual acts, but they can negotiate them on the spot with the people who hired them. At that point, the escort company is not responsible, according Curtis Peeples, ex-owner of the largest escort service in area, Class Act Entertainment. In other words, you can hire a date, but, if it's going to be an actual, physical sex encounter, that's not the business of the escort service. That's between the girl and whomever hired her. The service just gets a cut of the original deal--which is advertised simply to provide companionship or entertainment (i.e., dancing) for the one paying for it.
Understood. But, why send two black women to a party of young white men at Duke? What do the Allure records show? What did the boys ask for? Who made the decision to send black women? Was this a spur of the moment thing, on the boys' part? Were black women all that was available, all they could afford?
The boys are athletes, and they're going to be aggressive to begin with. Maybe some of them were angry and disappointed when they saw two black women get out of the car. Perhaps their alleged 'racial slurs' were evoked by the unpleasant surprise. The girls claiim they were very uncomfortable about it, from the very start. But, it seems that everyone was trying to work it out, and the girls refused to leave. That is, they came, left, returned, left, returned, and finally left again, after a rather brief encounter for $400 each. Yet, by all accounts, it seems that Allure must be a rather small, not carefully controlled service. Something was very, very sloppy about the way this gig went down.
A boy threatened to sexually asssault the girls with a broom stick? Surely such a remark cannot be considered seriously. It is the refulgence of adolescent passion, and braggadicio in the midst of a stimulating situation, with the 'gang' to impress. But, unfortunately, it it precisely the kind of remark that DA Mike Nifong will twist into an accusation. We can expect nothing sensible from Nifong at this point, or even from the beginning, when he immediately tried to make a Hollywood-style case of it all. He's hoping to win an election, of course.
Allure Escort Service, however, is at serious falt here. Not that we expect transcendent apprehension of circumstances from a voluntary sex slave business, but they should have had more concern for their own 'employees.' If the girls get into trouble, the company loses. Companies can't lose, or they fold. The greatest oversight (or stupidity) in this case was sending two black women to a white boys party, in Durham, North Carlina. Perhaps the girls thought it was flattering. Perhaps they thought going to Duke, great white Duke, was cool. It was a matter of equality. Black girls can expose their bodies for money. It's their opportunity, just like white girls. They can get further involved for extra money, too, just like white girls.
Are these the thoughts that were going on during this idiotic encounter?
One thing is clear: equal opportunity employment does have its limits. This was an irrational set-up. It is seriously doubtful that a team of white boys would call up an escort service and ask for two black women, not at Duke, not in Durham, not in these circumstances (--again, if we are to believe all the liberal press has played up about the racial tensions).
And one more thing, the lying press has tried to present the alleged rape victim as one coming from "a good family." Why, they've spoken to her "father." Girls from good families generally don't end up doing what the alleged victim does. They generally don't have her kind of record, either. It happens, yes. But this should be "investigated" before the press tries to spin the case in favor of such a victim. Did they bother to ask which 'father' they spoke to? Was it a step father? Was it the only step father? We can assume nothing.
There needs to be more social workers out there in the reporting business. There are very basic dynamics in this Duke case which are completely overlooked by an oblivious press. Maybe it's not a liberal plot, not completely. Maybe the press is just very ignorant about social conditions. After all, not too many reporters have personal experience in poverty, abuse, and rape. And we have two 'oppressed' black women, one of whom is really trying to rise up and fly on her 15 minutes of fame. Kim Roberts openly expressed her desire to make the most of it. (How did the media get their hands on her 'private' email to a public relations company? Maybe that's whom she should sue! Like, Ronn Torossian, executive of 5W Public Relations.
Entrepreneur, Kim Roberts (31) key witness, also
arrested for embezzlementof $25,000 from her
day job company--eight days after the Duke party.
For some time now, there has cropped up a certain comparison of David Yeagley and Michelle Malkin. Perhaps it is appropriate to address it, before it is delievered any further into the hands of sinners.
It started with an October, 2005 piece called "Michelle Malkin's soul mate" by Grace Nearing on her blog, Scriptoids. While the blog is actually about my admittedly disastrous misreading of an article on the Prussian Blues (the little blonde twins who sing the praises of the white race), Nearing decides that I am clearly a racist, and as such, must be the soul mate of Michelle Malkin. "If Michelle Malkin weren't already married, I'd say these two are made for each other."
Michelle Maglalang Malkin
The association of Yeagley with Malkin was made more recently by one "Gratis," on a blog called Grey Does Matter. The piece is called, "My Thoughts on Malkin et al." While I am only 'foot-noted,' the association is made the first sentence. I, along with Michelle Malkin, am a "nutter." A nut. Again, I am accused of racism--the liberal's most undefined, ill-defined bit of mud-slinging. It's always characterized by absense of definition, and lack of specificity and example.
Just this past weekend, the non-descript who calls his blog Voice of a Native Son, edited by one "AngryIndian," who apparently poses as Rev. Sequoyah Ade (Rodriguez), has referred to me as "Michelle Malkin, Indian style." What a novelty. "Yeagly and Malkin share similar properties. Both are right-wing conservatives, both are journalists and both use their ethnicities to artfully dodge the realities of their blatant racialism." Of course, "Native Son" is a liberal code word for non-Indian, as in Ward Churchill's 'book,' From a Native Son. The Voice of a Native Son is a true Communist enterprise, evoking all the classic racial agitation (--read racism against whites, read visceral hatred of whites), involving a large network of darkies around the globe. This happy band includes Latin America, Africa, Arabia, and the Orientals. We might add, John Moredock's Try-Works is a reference and a supporter. Classic Churchill, is it? 'Hating Whitey' is especially agitating (and lucrative?) for whiteys who lead the dark, racist revolt. That's their game. It's a political sport, with high stakes.
Inteligentaboriginal Radio, one of the racist enterprises
behind the Voice of a Native Son
But, the association of me with Malkin is rather odd. Michelle Maglalang Malkin is barely American, in a geographic sence. Her family is from the Philippines, and she happened to be born in America. Her family tradition has no significant history in America, no critical investment, no serious identification. And Filipinos hold no special place in the building of historical America. The Philippines was not involved at all, in any way. Michelle is consciously America because she chooses to be, of her own free will. That is the strength of her position. She has not identified with her background, but with the country and ideology which she deems superior and worthy of her loyalty. Yes, she did marry an American, Jesse Malkin, a Rhodes Scholar and a RAND Corporation economist. But that really only accentuates her articulated conservatism all the more. (Yes, she did graduate from my alma mater, Oberlin College, one of the most liberal colleges in the country. But in fact, liberals accuse Jesse Malkin of turning conservative while still at Oberlin!)
Now, as to the matter ethnic loyalties within a national context, I, on the other hand, am simply standing on the homeland of my ancestors. In my case, it is more of a warrior's view. Strength always recognizes and honors strength. America is strong. Indians learned that. Indians know that. We feel it in the flag. We honor the flag, at every pow-wow, complete with veteran color guard. We sing flag songs, not to the swastika, not to the crescent, not to the sickle and hammer, but to the Stars and Stripes forever. Yes, we carry on in a remarkable fusion of power, a mystical sort of union. Real Indians fight for the land. Indians may not have a perfect, conscious appreciation for the politics, the ideology, or even the Constitution. But Indians feel the power. Indians recognize greatness.
So the Yeagley/Malkin comparison is really quite amiss. It seems our 'enemies' compare us only in terms of their askewed "racism" charge. Of course, they have no idea that they are the racists, but, suffice it to say--they say, that Malkin and Yeagley are racists. That's supposed to be the final word. That's supposed to mean something. "Both use their ethnicities to artfully dodge the realities of their blatant racialism," says the AngryNon-descript. But not so. Both Michelle and Yeagley happen to be 'ethnic' but they refuse to joing the hate-whitey crowd of low down racists who merely bolster their passions with Communist jargon. Both Michelle and Yeagley happen to love America for what it is.
David "Bad Eagle" Yeagley, Comanche, Oklahoma.
The Miss USA pageant in Baltimore, Maryland ended with the crown placed on the head of 20-year-old Tara Elizabeth Conner, the contestant from Russell Springs, Kentucky. A classic, soft-brown-eyed blonde from the South. Congratulations, Tara!
From her brief interview, posted on the Miss USA site, she seems rather humble for one so beautiful. To the question, What are your strongest talents, she answered, "My strongest talent is the ability to communicate with anyone on any level comfortably." That means a very basic caring spirit. It is really a rather thoughtful answer. She also said she would want the judges to know "I am an easygoing, down-to-earth girl. Throughout my life, hardships and different experiences have made me a very humbled yet strong individual. It is because of these life lessons that I have become the person that I am today." Very wise answer for a twenty-year-old girl.
Kentucky's Tara Elizabeth Conner, the new Miss USA 2006
Of course, we on Bad Eagle already crowned our own princess, Onawa Lynn Lacy, the Navajo girl from New Mexico. To the same question about strongest talents, she answered, "Cheering people up with humor; my drive, determination, passion, and ambition to not only succeed but excel; I have strong people skills; taking hold of opportunities and making the most of them; and I make pretty good macaroni and cheese, if I must say so myself. And Onawa would have the judges know "I am a highly unique woman with a positive attitude who has come from very humble beginnings. I am a person who strives to lead the way for future generations by making the most of every opportunity that comes my way. I love life and all of its challenges and triumphs and am truly thankful for every minute of every day. I put all of my heart and soul into everything I do and am sincerely involved in pageantry because I honestly and wholeheartedly love people. I am also very passionate, ambitious, driven, determined, and ready to get to work as Miss USA 2006 as a representative and advocate for breast and ovarian cancer research, education, and legislation."
Interesting comparative study here. The Kentucky doesn't say too much. Perhaps she just really doesn't have that much to say, at least under the circumstances of a published interview. Onawa, on the other hand, is really focused on goals, on purposes, on a vision. Onawa is three years older, but, still, very young. Her articulated intents are very impressive. She will no doubt do what she envisions doing, with or without the perks of a pageant queen.
Ah, well, the ratings of the Miss USA show weren't so great last year. That came to some as a surprise. (This year's ratings are not readily available.) Donald Trump, owner of the pageant, approved the Baltimore site for the contest. It's the second year in Baltimore. It's "really a commercial for Maryland," said Dennis Castleman, the state's assistant secretary for tourism. Yes it is, as well as s simple opportunity to, shall we say, use the better image of young women? It's definitely a use of women, but one which we trust encourages their finer aspirations, as in the case of Onawa, and not their lower lusts for quick money in pornographic pursuits, as in the case of Vanessa Williams, who had to resign as Miss America because of her lower social values (i.e., posing for lucratic pornographic photos).
That was in 1984. But in 2003, Erika Harold got aggressive about the sex issue. In fact, part of her message and mission was sexual abstinence! The second black women to wear the Miss America crown (Vanessa was first), Erika knew that one of the most important messages she could give, especially to young black women, was sexual abstinence. And she would not be silenced about it, even when the officials urged her to tone it down. She turned it up! Good for her.
In the last analysis, character is what is most satisfying when one is alone. Money doesn't reach very far into the soul. Character does. You can have character, with or without money. One can also have fame and fortune, without too much real character. (Character is to be distinguished from discpline, fear, and money-guarding.) Glancing over the interviews of the 2006 Miss USA contestants, most of them come up a little short on the expression of their values. They are younger women, of course, but some of them have had serious life experience, either through poverty or social challenges. Those are the ones that seem to have a little more to say. They are concerned about others, not themselves. They see themselves as a vehicle to effect positive change in others.
This is the kind picture that counts! Onawa and proud young Indian boy.
A truly beautiful moment. A really Indian moment! May there
be many more of them.
Wenyi Wang stood up to be heard yesterday. With great courage, she rebuked the cruel hypocracy of her government. She was outraged that President Bush would honor the Chinese leader, Hu Jintao. Wang, the 47-year-old doctor of pathology had been given credentials as a reporter, and allowed to attend the ostentatious ceremonies Bush had arranged for the Chinese president Hu. The facade was more than she could take. She knew, as do so many others, China is a cruel place if you offend the government in any way.
Dr. Wang stands up for freedom. Doug Mills/New York Times
Dr. Wang stood up for the rights of religious freedom. She loudly exposed the religious persecution of the Chinese government against the Falun Gong faith, of which she is a member and practitioner. This has been going on a long time. Last year, in Canada, a Falun Gong member's visa was expired, and she was to be deported back to China, but claimed assylum. Xiaoping Hu (54) was not given such a privilege. She didn't have a lawyer. (To bad she wasn't in Philadelphia, where Richard Bortnick might have taken her case pro bono.)
A woman protests the arival of President Hu Jintao of China while visiting with
Ontario Priemer Dalton McGuinty at the Intercontinental Toronto Centre on Satur-
day, Sept. 10, 2005 in Toronto.
Well, the Chinese of Canada protested President Hu when he came there, too. It seems that most of the Chinese "diaspora," particularly in north America, are quite resentful of China, or the Chinese government. The Seattle Times tried to create a more balanced picture of the Chinese diaspora, but, the majority of Chinese in North America are adamantly opposed to Hu and his government. This opposition is so wide spread that apparently the Chinese government has created a significant spy network abroad, to keep tabs on Chinese 'traitors,' who denounced the cruelties of the Chinese government, who enjoy the freedom of speech aborad which they cannot find at home.
How interesting, that the Falun Gong faith, reportedly the most ancient in China, is persecuted with intense hatred by the Communist, godless government of modern China. The Chinese government is more enraged by this indigenous faith of China than the maniacal mullahs of Iran are enraged at the revival of Persian Zorastrianism. Why? Nothing is more powerful than the indigenous ethnicity and it's faith, when it comes to national identity.
Wenyi Wang stood up to be heard--in front of the presidents of two of the most powerful countries in the world. China is ruled by a merciless, deceptive machine, and she wanted the world to know it. 'China is a liar!' is basically what she was screaming out for everyone to hear. 'China is a killer, a murderous devil!'
An amazing arraignment in the media.
And yes, Falun Gong is a primitive, "pre-historic" conglomerate of supersition and magic. It is considered scarey by many "modern" Chinese. But, people love religion. Most people have one kind of religion or another. It is very foolish for a government to think it can deny people any religion, as Communists regimes have tried to do. Religion simply goes underground. In fact, the unearthing of this pre-historic religion is no doubt related to the decades of religious oppression in China. (And the revival of Zorastrianism is due to the oppression of the Arabic Islam government in Iran.)
Wenyi Yang was denied a passport last year when she needed to attend the funeral of her father in China. The reason? Because she practiced Falun Gong. Before that, she had been denied a passport to a European conference. She was then a senior reporter for the Epoch Times. (The Chinese section of this site presents ghastly human rights abuses.) The Falun Dafa Clearwisdom site reports, "Falun Gong is outlawed in China, where practitioners are routinely arrested, tortured, maimed and murdered just because they refuse to renounce their spiritual beliefs. To date over 258 human beings have died while in captivity. It isn't enough that Falun Gong is banned in China. Zemin's regime has tried very hard to squash the freedoms of practitioners around the world." Thus, the Chinese spy rings, sent out in the world to rout out the Falun Gong faith. Like Saul of the New Testament (before he become converted), these Chinese authorities go out into the world to persecute the Falun Gong believers, thinking that they are doing service to China!
I'm glad Wenyi Wang did what she did, standing up there and screaming out the truth. Now at least I'm more aware of the incredible abuses of the Chinese government. Indeed, the big show in Washington over the arrival of President Hu needed to be put in perspective. We can thank the brave Dr. Wang for that. She is a true activist for a true cause: freedom. China is still a desperate enemy of freedom, and only the brave dare stand up and oppose her.
On some obscure TV channel, last night (April 19), I saw Pamela Anderson introducing some fancy sports car. It was a car show of some kind. (Car shows are generally astounding diplays of...human achievement.) I was only flipping channels, so I can't even remember what channel it was. In any case, the show was called something like "Erotic Cars" or "Erotic Autos." Pamela was standing by the car, in a black slik pajama-looking outfit, short pants, brief top, etc. She was acting "like a virgin," of course, like an innocent 16-year-old, but came off like an old hag high on dope. It was a bit embarrassing. She did better working for PETA, lamenting the abuse of chicken breasts.
Who knows why exactly cars and nudy women have always been closely associated. Maybe it's the "risk" factor involved in both. Nudy women seem liable to do anything. And nudy women sell high risk things, like gambling, booze, racing, sports, and sometimes they even get involved in the action themselves.
Big Red, auctioned off by the aging owner, Pamela Anderson. Actually, she
just wants a 'leather-free' (PETA-friendly) Mercedes. She's been promised one.
However, I think Pamela Anderson is getting too old for all this. (And she auctioned off her 1960 red Cadillac Convertable). It is getting more and more difficult for her to act like an over-developed adolescent. Her shtik is beginning to get weird. (Ah, what's an old lady to do when she has tatoos? It's all fun when your a teen-ager. But what happens when you're a woman of 40, and you begin to wrinkle?)
And what of these "Erotic Cars?" or, 'Auto-Erotics'? That's too much. The power of vice, even in language, is stunning. One cannot even describe the event objectively without intense Freudian innuendos. All language becomes a sexual metaphor. Ancient. Cultic. Heathen. And there are those who denounce the whole auto industry, with the same language. Imagine that.
Maybe, at this point, Pamela needs a change of venue. She certainly could give some important self-help lessons on how to sell the body. She could really talk to the nameless black woman who claims to have been raped by Duke University students. Erotic photographs are how you make a career, not falsely accusing someone in a obvious racist ploy. Pamela has years of experience selling her body, that is, images of her body. Now, Pamela cares so much about chickens, furry little animals, and the like, but maybe it's time Pamela opened a counselling business--for young black women who aren't sure how to manage their sexual goods. Yes, that's it. "Pamela's Program for Photographic Prostitution." "Black Panther Progressive." Something along those lines.
Why, court is no place for a call girl--of any color. The nameless black woman needs to be in the studio! All those black racists down there in Carolina profess such dignity in the "sex worker" profession, as they call it, let them turn this young woman over to a real professiona "sex worker." Since Pamela is a great "rights" activist already, we just need to turn her around a bit, and get her off the animal thing, and onto the human thing. Aren't humans more important than animals, Pamela?
Help a poor young black woman. Go to Durham and protest the inadequate professional sex training, the interferrence of black racists, and see that this young black woman gets straightened out. Pamela Anderson is the solution to this problem at Duke. Better sex business training. Better respect for the body--especially when on display. Better understanding of the economic placement of one's sex and race. This poor black woman needs help.
Come on, Pamela. Do the right thing.
It is becoming more true with each printed statement of interim Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. His latest statement tells all.
"It is important that we not only bring the assailants to justice, but also that we lift the cloud of suspicion from those team members who were not involved in the assault," says the current AP wire.
Mike Nifong, in the lime light, at election time. The perfect media storm.
Yes, after accusing the entire team, after joyfully receiving DNA tests from the entire team (save one black boy)--which tests all turned up negative, after having the dorm rooms searched twice, lets be sure and lift that awful black cloud we have so anxiously created.
Perhaps in his rush to fame, Mr. Nifong forgot to consider the evidence of the now-released photographs taken at the party. ABC's descriptions of the pictures are powerful evidence against the alleged 'victim' as well as the nefarious Nifong. Only a fraction of the team was even present at the party. Bruises are clearly visible on the legs and thighs of the young black woman. She apparently has a cut on her knee, and finally left without one of her shoes.
Half an hour later, photos show her stumbling, falling, cut, and apparently scratched up a bit from falling on a screen door in the way. The party house was dilapidated, obviously.
Well, no one is going to take any photos of anything wrong happening, true. But, the photos that were taken don't match up to the girl's story at all. Did Mr.Nifong not know of these photos before his damaging indictments? Were these photos not presented to the "Grand" and "glorious" Jury?
Again, it is important to know the composition of this grand jury. Why hasn't some "investigative" reporter investigated that? Was is a jury of black women? Or, just women? This is a vitally important factor. It is totally absent from the story--as is even the mention of it.
The power of accusation is the most deadly power in American society. Lawyers live off it. The media thrives on it. It is epidemic today. It is all from a basic human instinct, apparently. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" (Exodus 20:16) apparently addresses the matter directly. It's what we do as human beings. We accuse one another. The 9th Commandment indicts the human race, and the special professions of law and media. Imagine the world in obedience to such a concept--not lying about someone else. Not spreading false information, not using the courtroom or the media as a sporting ground. Sound inviting?
Perhaps Judge Ronald Stevens should be "hung" also.
In the 'interim' of civilization, we can only dream of integrity and good will. BadEagle has said from the beginning, if there was a rape, someone should be hung. If it was not the Duke Lacrosse boys, which it apparently wasn't, then the girl needs to hang, as well as Mike Nifong, and of course whoever it was that did abuse the girl. And while we're hanging folk, we should hang the President of Duke, Richard Brodhead, and whomever pressured the team coach into resigning, along with whomever advocated that the lacrosse team season should be cancelled. Many heads should hang. The malignancy of evil is astounding. The source of it all may in fact be the young black woman, but she could never have had an effect without the nefarious Mike Nifong.
So the arrests have been made, two of the three hoped for by Durham DA Mike Nifong. Reade Segilmann and Collin Finnerty. There names are now forever tarnished, their families forever disgraced. This is the power of American media, such as it is. And whom will they sue for damages, when the truth comes out? The poor black woman accuser has nothing, of course. It will have to be the the state, or Durham County, and the grandstanding of the DA, Nifong.
Accused: Collin Finnerty and Reade Segilmann.
It is grotesque that such proceedings evolve in a society. And look at the bail: $400,000 each. Are the boys a flight risk? They never left campus. The whole house and team were searched, interogated, all without warrent. They were all perfectly cooperative. It just sounds like the girl was just mad because she thought she heard someone call her a nigger. This is all about revenge. Now, rape is rape. However, there is absolutely no evidence or proof that it happened. Injuries consistent with rape may mean no more than rought sex, or SM. Remember, the girl runs in that kind of crowd.
It was an intense situation, a black female sex provoker going into a house full of young white athletes, all apparently drinking. Sure, she was no doubt hyper-sensitive about the whole scene. That's understandable. But, after her first call to the police, having not been physically touched, but angry and hurt by the names she claimes someone called her, she should never have gone back to the house. The fact that she did only means that she was determined--about something. What was it? What made her go back twice, after coming in the first place?
How on earth could Nifong ever come up with a "kidnapping" charge? She went back to the house twice! This calls into question the whole racial make-up of the "Grand Jury." What issues do they have in this? Whom do they represent? This is a major factor, for it is their decision to go forward with the case. A black famale jury freed black murderer O.J. Simpson. Do we not need to be profoundly concerned about these "Grand Juries?" as well? How do we procure objectivity and fairness? How do we find "unprejudiced" peers? Who is willing to recognize the case's strengths and weakness?
But the real weakness of the accusation come from the second dancer, a "white woman," who witnessed no crime, and, as an apparent accomplice in accusation, says she was the one who called 911, but, the media has already played, repeatedly, the first 911 tape--of the black woman--who complained of hearing offensive names hurled at her. It certainly looks like a set up.
Interim-appointed Durham DA,
Mike "Nefarious?" Nifong
It's a set-up that works great for the other dancer, the courtroom star, Mike Nifong. Nifong is basically a talented flunky, starting out in the office as an unpaid volunteer in 1978, right after his degree from Chapel Hill. Then he became Assistant District Attorney, and later became Chief Assistant. Governor Mike Easley appointed him "Interim District Attorney" last year, April 18th to the day. Definitely up for election, he is, and behaving in a most "unorthodox" manner, according to other North Carolina attorneys. Maybe Nifong should hang, too, along with his client, for this travesty. And yes, Nifong is a liberal Democrat--read "white guilt monger."
So, the tragedy and the travesty have already happened. Injustice is paramount, from all sides. Someone is lying. This we know. Who? Why?
The black woman who claims she was raped by Duke University lacrosse team members was apparently "passed-out drunk" when she came into the police station. The first attending officer to encounter her said she was not hysterical, nor needed medical attention.
Tawana Brawley, another young black woman
who claimed to be raped by a group of white men,
back in 1987. What an absolute fiasco that turned
out to be.
Of course, the Durham District Attorney, involved in a re-election campaign, is anxious to make the most of the case. Mike Nifong insists that there was a terrible crime, and that there will soon be indictments against members of the Duke Lacrosse team whom the young black woman claims brutalized her.
As of last week (April 13), however, the defense attorneys for the lacross team members said no indictments were in the offing, none that they knew of. Nifong vows to bring the case before a grand jury and to procure indictments, but, a grand jury hearing does not at all guarentee such indictments.
This is a rather sickening case, from all sides. But, for those who are familiar with social work, and the kinds of problems young adults have, it is understandable. Experienced social workers know that abuse children often end up in sexually-oriented "professions," (such as the "sex worker" profession, as black racists call it--desperate to defend the indefensible). Children who have been involved in sexual abuse often grow up and continue the life they are accustomed to. Drinking, drugs, and illicit or improprietous sexual activity are constant vices of a most iron-chained nature. The abused child learns manipulation early on, and continues it throught life, very much like Bill Clinton, in fact. It is a ubiquitous malady in the nation. Yet, it must not be honored. It must be acknowledged, but not lauded. One must sympathize, but not validate the ill.
This young woman claiming rape at Duke is a clear cut case of abuse, from a way back. Social workers need to step up here and testify of the nature of this kind of person. It would do all such sufferers a good turn. It would be healthy for everyone involved. Burying the truth under ridiculous racist accusations, under the media hysterics and distorted dramatizations of careerist like Mike Nifong, is doing everyone a terrible disservice. Already the damage done to Duke University is irreparable. It is a racist outrage, and shows how imbalanced social values are become.
Black people are not benefiting from this. It is a disgrace, and black "leaders" are abusing the young black woman more than anyone else. Notice, however, that Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton have still not weighed in. They are no doubt a little gun shy from the Tawana Brawley case. So be it. Yet, no one else apparently learned anything from that case. There are always black racist upstarts, anxious to distinguish themselves by dramatic defense of their people--by appealing to hysterical fear and anger. Great influence, these rabble rousers.
Makes you wonder, where are the real black leaders? Why doesn't the media ever play them up like they should be. Is the media somehow in league with racism and social distortion? Does the media have a stake in racial agitation? There strong black men out there. Great men. But, they seem to be hidden from view, and their voice never heard. What they have to say just isn't so exciting. It won't make as good a story. They're not allowed to lead. (An article now and then by Jesse Lee Peterson isn't going to cut it.)
Well, we can only hope that they try. We can only hope that a Black Messiah will appear among the people. A humble man, who won't be swayed by fame and fortune, who won't be swayed by the ill-will of his own people, but a black man who will stand for the right, and who trusts the power of right. Such a black man has not yet been allowed to appear in this country, not at the level he needs to. Most black people probably wouldn't even follow him. They would be offended. They prefer hysterics.
The accrued consciouness of centuries in full force bears witness to the Collective archetype of sacrifice. On this day occurs a cumulative sentiment of profound hope, and in this day resides the simpliest of desires: life. But in the philosophy of it all, in the ceaseless and tedious historical tradition--like brine growing up over the cutting edge of present tense consciousness, many people seem blinded to the obvious appeal of the story. Jesus came back to life--as flesh and bone. After being brutally executed and buried, he came alive, as a living, breathing human.
That is the affirmation of human life, here and now, as well as the hope of everlasting life. For me, personally, this is the only appeal, or, the only way to appeal to me: personal, physical, bodily life. Anything else is wholly imaginary, and not truly analgous. I cannot hope in my imagination. I can hope in an inspired analogy.
It is life as I am, in the flesh, only with a new kind of flesh, not subject to death. That's the only difference. A flesh no longer prone to sin, to self-absorption, and the chains of self-consciousness. Jesus was resurrected, flesh and bone (Luke 24: 36-40). He ate before his disciples (Luke 24:42). He even cooked for them (John 21:9,10). This is not an "immortal soul" afloat in non-spacial reality. This is a man, with scars (John 20: 27).
In Rembrandt's "Resurrection," (ca. 1640) we see his projection of Mary's mis-
taken identification, "supposing Him to be the gardener." John 20:15. Rembrandt
illustrates the thought with a sun hat and shovel. This is a most unusual, in fact
unique rendition of the text through art. The resurrected Jesus was a man. He
could be a gardener, a baker, or anyone. This is Rembrandt's implication.
As if this weren't enough, there is the account of a communal bodily resurrection at the Easter tide. Probably one of the most neglected scriptures in the Christian story is Matthew 27: 50-53.
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose.
And came out of the graves after his ressurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
"Bodies of the saints which slept." Most curious. Not spirits, not ghosts. The physical, recreated bodies of certain righteous, who had died. We are not told who they were, or exactly when they had died, or what era in which they had lived. We are told that bodies came out of graves, and went into the city to bear witness. No, not to the whole city, but "unto many."
Think of it. Grandfathers, fathers, sisters, mothers, etc. It would have to be people who would be recognized by those who were living at the time of this resurrection. The living would be in shock to see them whom they knew were departed. How incredible a scene.
People have believed for a long time that Jesus rose from the dead. There has to be reason for that. A lot of people, in one generation, suddenly believed such a thing. It was an anomaly, a historically freak event. The world generally believes in departing spirits, angelic like ghosts or semi-visible after-life modes of existence. This is the dominant believe in the world, in all religions (save the ancient Hebrew religion). This business of a resurrection--of the physical body, a recreation of the same person--without sin and mortality--this was the basis of Christianity. This was the hope.
The only way to cleanse one's mind and emotions from misconceptions about spirituality and eternity is to believe the essential factor of the faith: Jesus rose from the dead, as a man, a human being, of flesh and bone. Anything else is liable to myriad errors of imagination. Sufficient unto the scripture is the phenomenology thereof.
Good Friday, it's called. The day Jesus was crucified, having been betrayed, is called a holy day, "good" as in sacred. Good Friday. Holy Friday. Is it holy? No. It's just another day. Yet, it symbolizes the inevitable in human concourse: betrayal, conflicting interest, selfishness, and sacrifice. It represents the aggression of selfish convenience and political necessity, and it represents divind Love, the eternal Good, willing to absorb the error of humanity. "The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53: 6.
So what of these things, today? What is our current expediency by which we justify our compromises--our betrayals of trust? What is our excuse this time?
Ask Congressmen. Ask Washington. Guardians of the nation, they have betrayed America into the hands of business--political and economic necessity, as they see it. They have lied to us all. Their value is wealth and power, particularly power, and thus they are led to consider the will of illegal foreigners above the will of citizens. The fallen Congress has prostituted itself to the highest bidder--in this case businessmen who want cheap labor.
And who pays the price of this betrayal? Upon whom is this historical iniquity laid? Who answers for the nation?
We the people. But, no, we are not Christ. Our suffering exonerates no one, accomplishes no good thing in the world, but only encourages more illicite behavior, and excites the whole spirit of lawlessness, such as reigns in Mexico. America has already become like Mexico, thanks to our compromising leaders, who stand for no principle but compromise itself.
In 1885, a concerned American wrote, "Our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government." (E.G.White, Testimonies Vol.5, p.451). It appears that America is well on its way to such a repudiation. Congress is leading the way. Even our beloved President George Bush seems gravely mistaken on certain issues, preferring the practical rather than the principle, expedience rather than law. Washingtonians are not vile, vulgar, or criminal in the sense that a street thug is; yet, when they compromise, when they come to prefer personal agenda, like mutant Lindsey Graham, rather than law and purpose--the purpose representing the people who put them in office, then they are criminal just the same. They aid and abet the real criminals, and that is most definitely a crime.
The immigration problem is a national idenity problem. It's not about Democrats fighting against Republicans. It's about representatives of both parties putting their personal business and political agendas above the will of the people. It's about government leaders catering to the few, the rich, and the powerful, and trampling upon the rights of citizens. The greed of business men has turned our government against us.
We are being crucified, to no good purpose, to no good end, and the world will be worse off for it. This is a betrayal from which there shall be no resurrection, but a murky, ambiguous morphology of international confusion, all under the auspices of the few, the rich, and the powerful. National idenity will become a dream of the past. Instead of pride, stability, and accomplishment, nationality will be made to represent bigotry, racism, and archaic evils of the immature eras of humanity.
Good Friday, indeed. It is not usually wise to make secular analogies of profound religious sentiments. It is not usually healthy to thus denigrate the holy into the secular. But the parallel seems to shout ever so loudly, in the very streets. There hordes of illegal foreigners are dictating American policy. The ignorant alien is ruling the nation. America is indeed crucified--alas without purpose. The analogy ends in the pockets of the betrayers. Judas Washington, the whore of politics, pimped around by fallen businessmen, Judas Washington is the beneficiary. No souls are saved. No eternal future is secured. It is the agony of meaninglessness, of blood without purpose.
It is a dark, dark day, this Good Friday. No, it's not over yet. Though not likely, Americans could still rise up, and the local and state levels, and assert constitutional rights. It could be that the arche-enemy, the ACLU, has not wholly adulterated the courts. There is a chance.
There was a day when the flag meant something. How
could we ever forget what it meant?
Who will rise up? Who will rally 'round the meaning of the flag? Who will dwell in those "alabaster cities," gleaming, undimmed by human tears?
Someone will enter the peraly gate
By and by, by and by,
Taste of the glories that there await,
Shall you? shall I? Shall you? shall I?
Home of the brave. Remember? It takes heroic courage to do the right thing. It takes sacrifice. It takes personal sacrifice. Each one of us has a high calling as an American. Are we even worthy of it? Our military certainly is. While they try to uplift the people of Iraq, lets fight here on the homefront, and uplift our own people. We need a most profound renewal of the American spirit--and it's a lot more than capitalism. Freedom to make the most money possible has led our country to a betrayal of freedom, and a denial of true independence.
Ah, we have a great work to do, patriots! Let us be up and so doing. And if these poetic, quasi-religious sentiments are not to your tast, then take it from Martina McBride--Let the Right be Wrong! Do something to correct the situation--even if it seems wrong.
Let freedom ring, let the white dove sing
Let the whole world know, that today is a day of reckoning
Let the weak be strong, let the right be wrong
Roll the stone away, let the guilty pay
It's Independence Day
In all the discussion about immigration, legal or illegal, there is a crying lack of consideration for the most fundamental aspect of the crisis: nationhood. What is a nation? What goes into it, why do nations exist? What are they for? Are we entering an era in which nationhood is becoming passe and remote, or defunct? Are we about to hear from the globalists that nations are bastions of prejudice and intolerence? Are we going to be told nations are all archaic, and basically tokens of incivility after all? Nationhood causes wars? Nationhood is actually an evil, and nationhood must be eliminated?
That's the standard Communist line. That's the usual Communist deception--always a prelude to horrible violence and gross oppression. However, Communism has never worked too well over here in the Western hemisphere. America is too big, too beautiful, and too powerful for the delusion of Communism--and the dissolution of borders, to take any too deep a root.
But, with the gigantic Mexican 'migration' into America, Communism has new hopes. Through racial agitation, Communists see the possibility of seriously disrupting America. Multi-national globalist businessmen are their unwitting ally at this point, too.
Does "work" sanctify illegal presence? Does labor justify illegal immigration?
But, so far, the arguments for the presence of Mexicans en mass, here in America, are all very superficial and mostly false, based on fear and greed. "The economy would collapse," they say. This is of course presuming that absolutely no one else would be caught dead doing the jobs Mexicans do. Farming, construction, factory work, etc., why, no blue-blooded American would ever stoop so low. That's the argument. It is totally and utterly false, without evidence, without proof, and without example.
Yet, for argument's sake, let's say it's true. Mexicans are here because no one else will plant the onions. Solution? Do without onions. Plant your own onions. If your onion business fails, start over. Start a different business. Don't be such a whining pansy. We don't need Mexicans. That's a big lie. What we need is self-discipline.
All he wants to do is work?
Work in Mexico. Can't find work?
Revolt. Change the government.
Of course, this is the kind of talk that supposedly suggests "intolerance," bigotry, racism, etc. It's all comes with the idea of nationalism. You have to exclude things. You have to limit and define your "people." If there is to be a nation, a price must be paid. Nationhood costs something. If we want it, we have to pay the price.
If we don't want nations, then the world is a business proposition. The dollar is finally almighty. There is no reverence for, or value in, any other consideration. All is 'consumed' on the alter of profit. Race, culture, even religion, digests down to a gigantic bowel movement, a mesh of refuse, all under the paralizing peristalsis of the world's tycoons, and the globalist New World Order.
Forget the Mexicans. They are betrayed by two countries. They are lost. They don't know who they are, what they are, or even why they are here. America's self-indulgence has cause this cancer. Radical surgery is necessary. Send the Mexicans home. That is the proper, moral solution. Just send them home. Raise your own onions. If you can't find 'good help,' then do it yourself. Tighten your belt. Be American. Don't be a slob.
Nationhood is a great thing. Thousands of years of development are behind it. To think that in one stroke of cultural evolution--coerced by greedy multi-nationals, can remove the concept, and destory its creations, is about as stupid and juvenile as the proposition that there are no races in the world, there is no sexual difference, there is no language difference, and that there are no religious differences in the world. I insult even the world juvenile. It is Satanic. Destorying nations is Satanic.
Pesach means to pass over, to spare, as in an exemption. Surely, the thought reverberates from the deepest yearning in all human feeling. We need to be spared. We feel inadequate. Passover somehow seems connected to forgiveness, or to being spared some vague and ineffably horrible punishment due. Passover suggests being treated special, with no qualification--other than the mercy or preference of God.
Moses warns Pharaoh of the Angel of Death
My mother read the Bible stories to me an my older brother when we were very small children. I remember the pictures in the story books. The plagues of Egypt--the story from which Passover comes (Exodus 11-13)--was a great problem for me, at first. The Hebrews families were to all smear blood on the door posts and lentels of their homes, so that when the Angel of Death came by, he would "pass over" their homes, and not strike anyone dead. Those under the blood of the lamb, would be "spared." The Egyptians would see death all around.
"But, Mom, didn't the angel know who the Hebrews were?" A typical child's question. I was trying to comprehend the omniscience of the Lord, yet also to understand the logistics of Providence. Of course, I didn't realize that. I was just asking questions, as I seem always to have.
"It's what God asked them to do," Mom said. That's all that was important. The Hebrews weren't supposed to ask, either. Just do it, and be spared. It was just like the other story, in the wilderness, when the poisonous snakes swarmed the camp (Numbers 21). Moses was told to make a serpent of brass, put it on a pole, and hold it up high so everyone could look at it. Whoever looked, was healed. No explanation. Just do it.
Moses and the serpent of brass.
It seems that the mercy of God is inevitably connected with the irrational. It is unavoidably affined to nonsense. Yet, if we want it, we have simply to take it. It's always a "just do it" proposition.
Unfortunately, today, it seems that at this very time, this very Passover (sundown, April 12), our nation faces the monstrous antithesis of the whole meaning of Passover. The irony is devastating.
Hordes of illegal immigrants are making an exodus, all right, but not into the wilderness, not as a free people, but into America, as illegal persons! They intend to "just do it," all right, but with the opposite senitments of ancient Israel. In comparison, their intents are demonic. They defy the order of nationhood. They defy the meaning of citizenship. They defy. That's all. They defy.
This isn't about mercy. When the foolish Congress of the United States betrays its own citizens, and grants citizenship to the criminals--yes, the illegal immigrants are criminals, by definition--it is not an act of mercy. It is not about true pesach. No one is being spared. The outlandish aggressions of the lawless are being honored. There is no forgiveness or mercy or special treatment involved at all. The hordes have broken the laws of the nationhood, and expect to be rewarded for it. That's beyond "special treatment."
When the traitorous Congress of the United States prefers the will of foreigners to the express will of its own citizens, the logistics of nationhood are overturned. The meaning of order is destroyed and forever obfuscated.
The ancient Hebrews were leaving a country, not illegally entering another. They were not demanding citizenship in another country, but were being led to establish their own nation. For this cause, they were "spared." They were saved from a mysterious and hideous affliction--the sudden death of their first born, male or female, man or beast. Their mission was then to create a nation of laws, not to destroy the laws of another nation.
There is a great lesson for patriotism ensconced in the Passover story. How timely it comes, this season! Passover is about separating from the wrong culture, and forming a right one. Passover is not about brutally intruding into another culture, and violently destorying just laws, and and the same time demanding honor for so doing. The hordes of illegals have become like the plague of locusts, devouring the spirit of the country. They are like the plague of blood, turning the very life of the law into a stagnant, putrid gel.
If people do not like where they are, they will naturally try to change their circumstances, either by revolution or exodus. For the ancient Hebrews, it was exodus. For the modern immigrants, it is invasion. No contrast could be more pronounced. No lesson could be more clear.
America defiles itself, as Congress prostitutes the law of the nation. "Your land, strangers devour it in your presence." Isaiah 1:7. No, not by war, but by the betrayal of our own government.
So, this Passover, let's think about being spared--to form a right nation. Whatever it is, let's "just do it," to be exempted from the demise of our nation. In stead, let's have our own exodus--into the right way, however baren it may seem. Let's withdraw from wrong thinking, wrong values, wrong goals, and pray that God spare us the ills brought on by a government falling before our eyes.
Sin sometimes strikes quickly, and other times, gradually. An act of Congress may seem inconsequential, but, in due time, the country will reap what Congress has sown. America will exist as a mere business, as an international warehouse, and become more and more like an economic gangland. Oh, American flags will still be flying--along with many others, as we see already happening. A show of patriotism will no doubt increase with intensity. But, those "spared" among us will know that the glory has departed. We, who shall be condemned as a weird time warp, a wicked idolizer of the past, will remain the only hope in the land. Our retarded sentiments for the Constitution will become the sole remnant of America, and the last hope.
Last week, April 2 (1 am), Paula Abdul was allegedly assaulted at a private party in Los Angeles. She went to a local LA police station and filed a report on April 4 (9 pm) claiming she had a concussion and spinal injuries, assuring the police that she would provide official photographs. April 6, the news was out, AP wires and elsewhere.
Paula Abdul, a true victim?
This news story has interesting, rather dramatic contrasts to that of the abuse story out of Duke University. There the victim, a black woman, was not renowned, but the alleged perpetrators were. The victim's name is yet held confidential, and the alleged perpetrators--and all associated with them, have been severely punished. The Duke lacrosse team, accused by the woman of raping her, has been punished before any charges were even filed. They still haven't been filed as of April 9. Yet, the team's season was cancelled, and the coach has resigned. The University is severely maligned, and responding with great shame.
Paula Abdul, however, is renowned, and claims to have been abused (thought not any where nearly as badly). The person she has accused, whose name she gave to the police, has not been make public, nor have charges yet been filed. The news reports say it was an argument between two men, and Paula was caught in the middle. She claims one of the men grabbed her arm and threw her into the wall, and she ended up on the floor. One of the two men, Dante Spencer (former boyfriend of Abdul) also suffered a cut above his eye. A former CAA agent, Jim Lefkowitz, was involved. The name of the suspect, however, has not been released.
So, apparently, the news handles cases according to who the victim is, and what was done. It all depends on how significant the crime, or the victim, or the suspect(s) is. If either the victim or the suspect is particularly famous, it's a story. If the crime itself is horrid enough, it might be considered news. Thus, there is no real propriety or morality in news. It's all about the interest of the story. In both the Abdul case and the Duke case, the victim was a woman. In Abdul's case, the victim was famous, the suspect is kept secret. In the black woman "sex" provoker's case, she was not known (beyond a small circle), and the suspects were widely famous--the Duke Lacrosse team. Abdul's case was practically an accident, but it is news, because of who she is. The other black woman's case was practially typical, yet, because of who the suspects are, it is big news. And the whole teams was severely disciplined.
Did the news respect the anonymity of the female victim in the Koby Bryant case of violent rape? Was she not important enough for that? Is the black woman more important, and therefore the news allows her anonymity?
The news is a mindless misanthrope of culture, a plodding mesh of kaleidoscopic relativism. Outrage is worn out, and the outrageous becomes normal. The masses become numb. The media, a competitive business, leads inevitably downward. There is no standard of value, nor consistency in presentation. It's all about selling interest and excitement. The industry must sell news. Ratings are all that really matter. The media seeks the greatest number of consumers. Thus the herds become hordes, and dollars demigods. Beware the media.
There should be a required course in all schools, K-12, training students how to assess news, and how to assess media. Without the tools of critical thinking, the people are left at the mercy of a lusus naturae called capitalism--as unbridled business. The alternative is equally notorious--state controlled media. Therefore, rather than trust that the people can controls themselves, as unbridled business falsely presumes, the only safeguard is proper consumer education. This we do not have. This much the state must provide, or else children must learn to think at home. Can their parents teach them?
Bad Eagle has posted a number of personal opinions about Ann Coulter, addressing everything from her writing style to her Adam's apple, from the matter of her patriotism to her abrasive way of apeaking about it (--or anything else). Our latest post, Waltzing Ann Coulter, sought an aesthetic solution to her general hyper-poignancy, but, in the last analysis, all these concerns and opinions have funtion as nor more than superficial indulgences. What of the state of soul? That is the important question.
For the answer, Ms. Coulter speaks most eloquently for herself. There are profound purities in certain of her articles, written with the most humble and forthright expression. These are not the articles that made her famous, in fact these are articles that were actually rejected by the agencies that solicited them. In her book, How to Talk to a Liberal (2004), a collection of some 116 articles, Ann explains how the article, "If You Sup with the Devil, Use a Long Spoon" (2003) came about. Good Housekeeping asked for it, but then refused it. They wanted a coffee table commentary, or some breakfast table wisdom, of a touchy-feely sort; but, Ann gave them a full-fleged testimony of hard core morality. It is a short, but really monumental article. Good Housekeeping deemed it impersonal. Apparently Ann used industrial strength cleanser when Goodhousekeeping wanted soap and water. (Nah, Good Housekeeping didn't even want soap.)
Ann's article is about women and adultery. She decrys the media's promotion of promiscuity, adultery, and illegitimate children through glamours but moral-less shows like Friends and Murphy Brown. Ann even denounces Hollywood for making the Devil into a humour, non-offensive caricature--disguising his tempations, and lying about his disastrous effects. "I promise you," Ann says--or should we say prophesies, "in real life, ... the devil will look more like Julia Roberts than Snidley Whiplash."
Julia Roberts, the Devi's promoter?
Near the close of the article, Ann divines, "People don't commit acts of great evil or great courage out of thin air. Character is developed out of a lifetime of choices. Almost every decision you make, however small, will be one step closer to God or one step closer to the devil." Yes, this is Ann Coulter writing, not Jonathan Edwards.
Yet, the similarity of this passage does reflect the moral values and expression of another age, an age largely denied and forgotten for its standards. A 19th century religious author (of Gorham, Maine), also a woman, Ellen G. White, wrote as an elderly grandmother in 1892, "The character is revealed, not by occasional good deeds and occassional misdeads, but by the tendency of the habitual words and acts." This is exactly what Ann Coulter is saying. This, Ellen White wrote in her book, Steps to Christ(1892), pp.57,58.
So we shant be further flippant about the beliefs of Ann Coulter, nor her patriotism, nor her personality, nor her character, however sarcastic her own expression of them. We are subject to human ambiguity, but, after an article like "If You Sup with the Devil," we should never consider Ann Coulter other than sincere. Not that we ever did, but the remarkable acuity of her thought, as well as the length of her hair, as provoked many to accuse her--of at least one thing or another! There has to be somthing wrong with such perfection.
At this point we should acknowlege her for what she really is, a 21st century reincarnation of the morality of Nathaniel Hawthorne, the wit of Edgar Allan Poe, and the simplicity of Ellen G. White. Hollywood represents just the kind of denigration for dollars that prophets of all ages have warned against, and Good Housekeeping the cowardice to address it--cowardice created by economic concerns. Sales are Good Housekeeping's right to preserve, but rejecting Ann's 'prophecy' evinced the magazine's position in the scheme of cultural evolution. They're not behind the 'good.' Their silence betrayed their own name. No, they're not a religious magazine, but how well can the house be kept without a cleanser?
And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. Revelation 21: 23,24
God created nationhood. The nations are here by divine order. The presense of nationhood is apparently eternal. We do well to consider such a reality in these days of manic multiculturalism, and miscreant miscegination. The ideology of such enterprise is wholly unorthodox. The dissolution of nationhood is not after the divine order.
Moses advised young and inexperienced to ask their parents and their elders about history.
"Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; they elders, and they will tell thee, When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons fo Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel." Deuteronomy 32: 7,8.
The ancient Hebrew account of reality, unlike any other, addresses national identity. The Hebrew God is the God of all nations. The other gods are ethno-centric. Markuk created the Babylonians, without reference or concern for the Sumerians, the Syrians, the Elamites, etc. Zeus created the Greeks, as if there were no other people or place. But the Hebrew God not only created man, but also the nations. Nations were created at the tower of Babel (Genesis 11). Man refused to fulfill the purpose for which he was created, namely to populate the entire earth, and instead determined to unite in one place. God intervened, separating man into otherwise unaccountable groups. Linguistic diversity was the key. From linguistic diversity came necessary geographic, environmental diversity, from which evolved dietary and cultural diversity. Somewhere in the midst of all that also evolved variation within the species, or, racial diversity. Thus, man was forced to spread out, and populate the planet, which was the original design. (Genesis 1:28).
In the process of grouping, there came an evolving identity amongst the groups. Nations appeared, and disappeared. There came to light something properly called national probation. It is evident as early as Genesis 15, when God promised Abraham land that was already inhabited, but which would be evacuated for the descendents of Abraham. This was based on a time line directly related to the moral nature of the people address. After the prophesied enslavement of Israel, Gen. 15:16 says, "in the fourth generation they shall come hither [Canaan] again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full." The Amorites, then dominant in Cana'an, would not be expelled from their land until their immoral behavior was judged abject.
Thus, Moses' words have great meaning: "[God] set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel." Nations come and go according to their relationship to God's will--as hosted through and by the people of God, Israel. A nation is judged on a moral basis. Those moral values were enshrined in the ancient cultural idenity of the nation of Israel. Actual national boundaries and inhabitants were affected by their relationship to the law emanating from Mount Zion, in Jerusalem, King David later said.
An international God certainly doesn't not mean that there should be no distinction made between nations. On the contrary, St. Paul later interprets Moses' words to be an expression of profound mercy through nationhood! Consider his testimony to the intellectuals of Athens, in Acts 17: 26, 27.
"[He] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us."
Man, separated unaccountably into groups, different languages, cultures, habitats, etc., would be in a better position to perceive objectivity. In his assigned portion of earthly reality, man might look at his fellow man and think, How in the world did we get in this predicament? Man's thoughts might be directed upward, to the Creator.
In other words, nationhood is not something to be so proud about, but rather to be humble about. God had to resort to this separate nationhood tactic, to keep mankind in parts, in pieces, so man might realize his humble position before God. No, race and nationality is not something so much to boast about, but to be humble about. We should be somewhat embarrassed by our differences, nor arrogantly parading them in ethnic chauvinism. We should respect who we are, and who others are, because the Creator made us that way. We should reverence our differences with sincere humility.
Ah, but man always misinterprets the phenomena before him, and wants to join together that which God has separated. Man wants to unite again in a new global world, a new world order, with no nationality, no boundaries, no distinctions. Evil will certainly come of it. It is not the design of the Creator, here in this fallen world. It is man's attempt to redeem himself, and it will bring disaster, one way or another. (It's even contrary to basic evolutionary concepts. Whether one believes God created the nations, or whether one believes evolution brought them about as survival niches, the new world order is contrary to all--all but the mercenarious designs of a few greedy men.)
Perhaps this is a new take on patriotism, and love of one's country. Patriotism is a deep spiritual duty, not a mere emotional affinity. Nationhood was necessary for man's redemption. It is the nations of the saved that walk the streets of gold, not multicultural misanthropes of man's doing. Man needs to respect the plans of God, not foolishly work against them.
Tragic, how man seeks to join together that which God has separated, yet eagerly separates that which God hath said, "let not man put assunder," as in marriage. (Matthew 19:6.) The divorce rate in the world may indeed have something to do with the defiant dissolution of national identities and cultural fusions in the world.