We know where our Congress stands, morally, when they rush to defend one of their own--caught red handed in bribes and obstruction of justice. Representative William Jefferson, D-LA, was caught on video tape, accepting a bribe from an FBI informant. His residence was raided Saturday night, May 20, and enforcement agents seized nearly $100,000. from Jefferson's refrigerator. Jefferson has been under investigation for over 14 months, ignored subpoenas, and has been involved in several bribes connected with Nigerian businesses. Congressional leaders have rushed to denounce the raid on Jefferson's office as unconstituional!
A box of materials is loaded into a car after
FBI agents searched Rep. William Jefferson's
Oh, never mind the perpetual Republican/Democrat dichotomy, and the traditional, stupifying, delusional rhetoric that concourse engenders. This is a simple case of a crook caught in the act. Congressmen want to say it's wrong because they think he wasn't caught properly? The rules are more important than the reason behind the rules? How you're caught doing wrong is more important than the wrong doing?
Sounds Pharisaical to me. "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" Jesus asked the professional "legalizers" of His day. (Matt. 15:3). The Law says "Honor thy father and thy mother," but the Pharisaic tradition provided that if a son pronounced "corban" (donation) on money, real estate, or other assets that were expected to be used in support of aging parents, the assets were then to be used in the Temple service--that is, for the financial support of the priests, scribes, Pharisees, etc. Actually, it could held in a sort of escrow--by the son, for his use. In this kind of case, "corban" merely dissolved the son's obligation to his parents, in the name of "giving to the Temple." The Temple no doubt collected usury on the assests.
Congress has become like the Pharisees, more concerned about their control over the interpretation of the law, and means whereby they benefit from the law, than the clear and obvious intent of the law. A congressman (Jefferson) has clearly broken the law, lied about it, obstructed justice (refused to respond to subpoenas months ago), and all he can say is he has done no wrong. The deals with the Nigerian businesses were for his children, not him. Congress therefore, paranoid of the same eagle eye focusing on their own misconduct no doubt, is furious that one of their own should be caught and exposed. They argue the law was broken in the way the law breaker was caught. Fancy that foolishness.
Never mind that fact that Jefferson did wrong. It's the fact that he was caught and exposed--in a semantically debatable way. (To lawyers, all things are semantical.) Pure Pharisaism, it is. Never mind the Constitution, if it requires that you step down, or out. Use the Constitution only as a tool to smash someone else.
Congress is a giant, rotten, tottering mass of egotism, and needs to be felled, quickly. The tradition of law in this country has so strayed from the intent of the Constitution that judges and attorneys have made mockery of the obvious. And this is abundantly clear to everyone but themselves. Yet they have the authority to do so. The people have only the ballot.
Will terms limits help? One term would be sufficient, then. No financial enducements in the job description, either. No retirement. They all have retirement plans already, from their 'regular' jobs. That's right. They're supposed to have regular jobs. Congress is supposed to be a temporary service, not a career. (Jeff Greenfield, in an article on immigration, gives an interesting picture of Congress, and the difference between the House and the Senate. In both cases, however, we can see the ravages of careerism on the chaste cause of justice and equity.)
So this really isn't about the low and amoral avarice of William Jefferson. That's not what's so outrageous here. It is the attitude of Congress. Jefferson is what he is, and has always been. He should have been removed from office long ago. But that Congress should rush to defend him on such abstract, self-serving theoretical notions of "separation of powers," shows how far Congress is awry. The whole institution is decayed to the core. These are the leaders, our representatives.
We should hang our heads in shame, then go out and hang theirs, in justice.
The last words of King David (ca. 965 BCE) address the matter of men at arms. Considering that he himself was a martial arts champion in his day, his words bear great meaning to all that regard law and order, safety and prosperity, as premium.
"The sons of Belial shall be all of them as thorns thrust away, because they cannot be taken with hands: but the man that shall touch them must be fenced with iron and the staff of a spear; and they shall be utterly burned with fire in the same place." 2 Samuel 23: 6,7 (KJV)
Interpreted in modern English: There are bastards out there that cause nothing but harm, and you have to come at them with iron gloves, (not kid gloves), and you need to eliminate them on the spot.
Sounds a bit harsh, of course, but, David's experience yeilded such a conclusion. Society needs effective law enforcement. Nationhood needs powerful preservation tactics. There can be no dilly-dallying about it. There can be no soft touch. Iron gloves are needed. Otherwise, the criminal takes over quickly, with cruelty and vice.
"Sons of Belial" means sons of worthlessness or destruction. Belial (Hebrew--beliya'al) comes from two roots, ya'al meaning to ascend or succeed, and belee, meaning failure or destruction. But belial means more than to fail at success. We're talking aggressive breakdown of success. Destruction of success. Criminality. Violence aggression against the legitimate accomplishment of others. Sons of Belial means sons of bitches.
This element is always with us. It must always be resisted, with force, with the force of iron. That's what the military is--a fence of iron. That's what all enforcement agencies are--iron gloves. This is the way of the world, here and now. There must be the force of protection against violent destruction of good. Protective action must be resolute, swift, and effective.
I can think of no greater validation for the military, and for the police force, than the last words of King David. No, we don't like violence; it is tragic that we should have to deal with it; it is sad that life should have to be this way; but, this is how it is. We must thank God that there are people who are able and willing to assume the role of the iron fence, the iron glove, and the preservation of all that it valuable.
So, we salute the man at arms. We salute our military, who sacrifice their lives for a government determined to destroy the values the military fights for. We salute our brave iron fence, when the Sons of Belial in Washington work to tear it down. We salute our law enforcement, when the Pharisees in Congress make every effort to undermine and make impossible the most basic execution of enforcement.
It seems almost as though the men and women of iron are the only faithful among us. They are crucified on the cross of contradiction. They give their lives to the ideal, the dream, and the reality of their part in it. Yet it seems that their sacrifice is despised by the very agencies that call them to that service. They want to provide peace and prosperity for others, but they seem hopelessly nailed by conflicting purposes. They save others, themselves they cannot save.
They are often reduced to social mendicacy. They seek charity. The government does not provide enough means for them. They have organizations to raise money for themselves. Alas, there are sons of Belial among them as well. Crooked cops, mercenaries, and those who love violence. We can only pray for the true and the faithful. We can only pray that all men of iron understand the true purpose of iron, and their role in wielding it.
For now, we extend our praise and thanksgiving to them all, as the dew of the morning on the just and the unjust. Wisdom is justified of her children. We honor the true, and encourage all to be true.
We are simply grateful for the iron.
Rush Limbaugh has been saying that the immigration issue is really about labor and votes. Well, that's fairly apparent. Business wants cheap labor and politicians want easy votes. Limbaugh also reminds his audience that for these reasons the government doesn't want to stem the tied of immigration. They government wants the increase in population. It will help supply more funds for the Social Security fund. Limbaugh says it's Democrats and liberal Republicans who also want to further expand government, and uncontrolled immigration gives them more "victims" to take care of.
All in all, it qualifies as a government conspiracy against the citizens of the United States. It is stunningly solipsistic, ignorant, and defiant of recent history. Europe has been overrun with Third World immigration for decades. The excuses that liberals have made there are the same as here, too. In 2004, for instance, it was reported that Germany's immigration numbers exceeded seven million--for each of the last ten years. That's 70 million more people in Germany in the last ten years. This is staggering. And they are not all from Europe. Two and a half percent are from Turkey and live in the big cities. Nearly 8% of the people in Britain are non-white Third Worldlings. The Arabs and the Indochinese have seemingly overrun Frace. A these figures are liberal, meaning, they are greatly reduced from the real numbers--which are so terrifying that they aren't even in print.
"Since the 1990s, analysts have pointed to Germany's ongoing need for immigrants to bolster economic development and maintain a dynamic workforce, given the rapid aging of the country's population," says Veysel Oezcan, of the Social Science Centre Berlin. Liberals have the same view of saving the world through integration, through the dissolution of national boundaris and cultural differences. It is a global conspiracy, when viewed ideologically. It is in fact, communism. It is basically a big lie.
Hillary Clinton said it all: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." The globalist conspiracy of world saviors all agree. The goods accrued by the achievers will be confiscated and distributed to the non-achievers and the unworthy. America is certainly not the only country being ravaged by such satanic salvation. The Mexican invasion, along with the Muslim, Hindu, and Oriental invasion, is designed to blur and to finally obliterate the concept of nationhood. Trade now means more than exchange of goods. It means exchange of race, in the form of labor. It means the sharing of contradictory faiths in a way that invalidates all of them. This is another hidden communist goal.
Oh, there are a few kinks in the Globalist Vision, like the way most people cling to their religions. Islam, Catholicism, Hinduism, and Buddhism are mutually and hopelessly exlusive. The Liberal Saviors will probably try to surmount that first by eliminating public vestiages of Christianity, which they already strenuously seek; but also, I would think some universal religious value shall be legislated upon the world in the name of unity. Probably they will select some regular holiday that unites all faiths. Designated time is a lot more easier to pawn off than visual symbols, such as emblems, flags, or slogans.
And there's the problem of race. Some races like who they are, and even love who they are, and do not desire to be eliminated through integration and intermarriage. American Indians will stand for our race. I would expect Jews would. There are certainly others. Globalism doesn't solve anything really. It claims to be worried about "Balkanization," but it actually causes it! Forcing people of different religions and races to live in the same area means they will congregate together in their own 'ghettos.'
So, Rush Llimbaugh is indeed, "not a hundred percent right," as he admits when speaking of the immigration issue. In fact, he may have missed the entire picture. It is global communism. It is an attempt to break up the meaning of nationhood, and to dissolve national boundaries the world over. Communism wants "uniformity," not equality. Communism wants everyone to be mixed of race, religion, and even sex. Communism wants robotic servants, not free and independent individuals. Communism wants everyone to be alike, not different. The white race, for example, which has accomplished so much in such a relatively short time in history, is the most hated race of all. Communism today sees the white race as the enemy of all the world. The white race has always been the minority, historically, and despite it's achievements, should be the easiest race to bury alive with integration and intermarriage. The Globalist saviors may not even have to fire a shot. They can overturn the white race with ideology.
I thinks it's time for the white race to start thinking like American Indians. If you want to preserve yourself, you have to make some very strong, very proud efforts. The white countries have opened their doors to the enemy, because they have been led to believe they don't have any enemies. If all doors are open, who is a criminal? Who is the invader? Why, he was welcome all along.
American Indians would never accept such terms. Long live The Cheyenne. Long live the Sioux. Long live the Comanche!
Long live true America. Come on, whitey, get tough again!
He Dog, Oglala Sioux
The Senate passed their treasonous immigration bill (S. 2611) last evening, May 25, 2006. In a "landmark" piece of legislation, the United States Senate defied its citizens, and publicly defecated on American honor. The Senate demonstrated its profound disconnect with the American people, with history, and with nationhood. The Senate has declared itself the enemy of America. So be it.
The House of Whores. Can you believe it?!
It's not on the front page of the New York Times, of course. And most of the AP news wires of last night have been removed or altered. The media, except for CNN's Lou Dobbs, is leaving this historical moment alone, if not sweeping it under the carpet. (The links saved and used in this BadEagle Journal entry will no doubt disappear soon, as well.)
The vote was 62-36. Leading traitors were of course Ted Kennedy and John McCain (R-AZ). (That's right, Vietnam veteran, former prisoner of war, John McCain.) Republican Bill Frist was a traitor (R-TN), along with Arlen Spector (R-PA). Mike Dewine (R-OH), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Sam Brownback (R-KS) were key Republican traitors. John Cornyn (R-TX) voted against it, along with Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), and a few others. The Senate site posts the vote of each senator. (Both Republican senators from Oklahoma, Inhofe and Coburn voted against it. Each should check his own senators.)
Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ), leaders of
the biggest betrayal in American history.
What do we do now? Never mind the legal immigrants. What do the citizens of America do, now that our government has commited the most denigrating act in modern history? The Senate has made American citzenship to mean abstolutely nothing. The Senate has made America an international whore house. How shall we regard our leaders who have arrogantly betrayed us? And how shall we regard the Mexican trespassers, once the law says they are no longer trespassing?
It is almost as if all of America has become the Old South again. We've been told what to do, to our own hurt. We have had our values attacked and denied--by law. The federal government has defecated in our face. And they will criminalize us if we resist. They think they are right. They have wielded the power. The people are nothing.
Shall be start regarding the Mexicans differently now? Shall we accept their criminal nature and criminal intent? Shall we now open our arms and lovingly include all the riff-raff of the Third World? Now that the law may require us to lie down and be raped, shall we adjust our emotions, and try to enjoy it?
Or can we swim against the current? For how long? To what purpose, to what end?
I look at the American flag now, and I feel sick. I look at Mexicans and I feel profound anger. I think of Washington, and I want to see every traitorous senator jailed--for life!
Not a happy day in America. A lying day. A traitorous day. Alas, the prophets foretold it all. We rise up against the tide, but the prophecy precedes us.
"...our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness...our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a ... republican government." E.G. White, Testimonies (1885), Vol. 5, p.451.
Well, I, for one, will go down fighting. If I must go down, it will be with the truth. I believe in the truth. The truth is eternal. It sometimes seems to pass out of view, but, it rises again. It always rises.
And after all, the bill hasn't gone before the House. It has to pass there before the president can sign it. Who knows? There's always a chance Bush can be influenced otherwise, before the bill gets to his desk.
Homeless Mexican boys, without identity, without country, without family
all because they do not value identity, country, or family. They want free
benefits. They don't care about anything else. They have not been taught
differently. They are bastard children. Liberals in Washington want to bless
their bastardness, honoring them for being bastards. Washington doesn't
want them to change, or be different.
As the Senate sinks itself and the country in self-indulgent compromise, there is at least one voice that has stood for American patriotism, consistently, from the start of this Mexican Invasion: wouldn't you know it, an Italian American, the Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo. Che la bella cosa!
Congressman Tom Tancredo, Rep-CO
I've met Tom, personally, and told him about myself, and my work for American Indian conservatives and patriots. "Hey, I really need help back in Denver!" he said. "The Indians are killing our Columbus Parade!" I promised to support him, and told him I'd be happy to lead the parade, in honor of a very great man, Mr. Christopher Columbus, who never met the Comanche--who I am sure would have admired him for his incomparable courage in exploration--a trait well appreciated among Comanche.
Tom's patriotism is so strong that even others are running on it. In Georiga, John Konop is campaigning for a congressional seat, and says that even if immigration were brought under control, the multi-national business corporations can undermine it completely, through the international trade agreements like CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement). He is citing a special commentary by Tom Tancredo that exposes the perils of these regional trade agreements: "CAFTA undermines immigration laws." The trade agreements are not about bananas, but about labor. They're not about exchange of goods and tariffs, but about imported "service agreements"--people, workers, or better known as "immigrants." The foreign (Latino) countries could actually sue the United States over our immigration laws, according to the trade agreements.
Tancredo is quick to clear up the muddy images the anti-American liberals create when it comes to their distorting mantra, "America is a nation of immigrants."
"Between 1800 and 1965, the annual number of people admitted as immigrants averaged about 200,000. Since 1990, that number has been over ONE MILLION - and that doesn't count illegal immigrants. Over 30 million people have been added to our population since 1970 as a result of both legal and illegal immigration. The Census Bureau projects that the population will grow to over 570 million by 2040." (From Legal Immigration.)
We all know that this massive demographic change was planned, for decades, by anti-Americans. I say anti-Americans, because the multi-nationalist corporations are loyal only to money, not to any nation. Therefore, multi-national means anti-national. Given the economic status and influence of America in the world, multi-national means anti-American. That's right. Our own home-grown industries have out-grown America. Their focus is the success of their corporation. The market is global. Therefore, all nations are subservient.
The Senate is about to vote on this matter of immigration, in a way which will, in itself, undermine the meaning of America. The fact that is doesn't really matter, and that pacts like CAFTA will weaken whatever immigration reform law is passed, is a fact completely missed--by everyone except people like Tom Tancredo. So we have the prospect of a weak law, undermined by greater law. Congress extends to the world an invitation to rape. "Come, destory America. We're tired of it. We want to be like the Third World." This is the message of our United States Congress.
I've been quick to condemn them all, each and every member. But, with people like Tom Tancredo, such a blanket execration would sacrifice some real quality men. I am reminded of a passage in the work of a 19th century Christian writer:
"The Lord delights in mercy; and for the sake of a few who really serve Him, He restrains calamities and prolongs the tranquillity of multitudes. Little do sinners against God realize that they are indebted for their own lives to the faithful few whom they delight to ridicule and oppress.
Though the rulers of this world know it not, yet often in their councils angels have been spokesmen. Human eyes have looked upon them; human ears have listened to their appeals; human lips have opposed their suggestions and ridiculed their counsels; human hands have met them with insult and abuse. In the council hall and the court of justice these heavenly messengers have shown an intimate acquaintance with human history; they have proved themselves better able to plead the cause of the oppressed than were their ablest and most eloquent defenders. They have defeated purposes and arrested evils that would have greatly retarded the work of God and would have caused great suffering to His people. In the hour of peril and distress "the angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear Him, and delivereth them." Psalm 34:7." E. G. White, The Great Controversy (1888), p.632.
Maybe Tancredo is one of those angels. Who knows? And I'm sure there are others. The tide of evil raging. The movement against America and all America has ever stood for seems overwhelming. Dare we pray, and have faith? Dare we believe in the mercy of God in such an hour? Are we quite sure what the will of God is, in fact? I duely suppose that our first responsibility is to be sure of that, and then we might see more clearly who stands for what.
The unmitigated gaul! The egregious arrogance! The brazen braggadocio and stubborn stupidity--no, not of the Mexican president, but of American leaders who have provided this opportunity for him. We don't expect anything dignified or respectable from the Mexican bandido. But we might have expected a little more from our own American leaders. We might have expected that, liberal as they are, they would have compassion on the mindless Mexicans pouring over the border--bringing all their problems. We certainly don't expect President Fox to care in the slightest.
Mexican president, Vicente Fox
But no, this increbily treasonous program--of hosting an American tour for this enemy of all national pride and respect (most of all his own)--indicates just how worthless American leadership has become.
Mark every state, city, hotel, and transportation company that has a part of this tour. Mark them as traitors. Publish their names, their addresses, and their personnel. They are participating in one of the most denigrating acts in modern American history.
They are the Jane Fonda's of the 21st century. They honor the enemy.
Young Jane with the enemy, Julye, 1972, treason for which she has never
repented. But America has matured. Instead of going over there, we invite our
enemies to come here--and speak!
The time has come. It is we, the patriots, who must speak out faithfully, or surrender to international fraud and national ruin.
And where are those romantic days of old, when there were men who loved their country, and were willing to actually fight against corrupt government? I think of the old tales of Zorro (--Spanish for "fox," of course), and his gallant efforts in behalf of justice. The Zorro stories are symbolic of all that was ever right and ever wrong with Mexico.
"Zorro," the real fox. What a contrast
between him and the modern Fox. It looks
like Vicente is truly out-foxing America, for
the worse. What shall we do? I say, Hound
him out of the coutnry!
It is all still true today, only there is much more wrong than right. Mexico's new Zorro is the criminal, the oppressor, the deceiver, the liar. No wonder he feels so at home in America. Because of our internal enemies, like the ACLU, we have come to honor all that is ill, all that is foul and detrimental to the health of the nation.
Let the Minutemen of the nation stand up and protest every appearance of the fox, let them mark all his accomplices, forever. Americans need to start holding traitors responsible, publically, with serious censure. Let all patriots participate. One does not have to be part of an organized effort, like the Minutemen, though that helps. Just let everyone be willing to make known his feelings about this. Personal presence is very strong. Of course, most people are busy making a living, and don't want to risk their accomplishments to violence from Mexican desperados, or professional liberal agitators, or worse, from their local police force and corrupted courts. Most decent people don't want to be treated like the criminal. Americans fear this, and rightfully so. The FBI might accuse them of "racism," and "hate crimes."
Yet, it is the risk we shall all have to take, or else we'll just sit back and watch the country fall--to hateful racists like Vicente Fox, and all who support his presence here.
Indeed, "all Men are created equal," says the American Declaration of Independence (1776), and "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
The Declaration does not say that all men are alike, and live at the same socio-economic status, or that all have the same interests, talents, health, or goals in life. The Declaration does not say that every man born in the world has a "Right" to everything created in and by America. This document is the Declaration of Independence for the movers and shakers of the new Americans, in 1776, not for every man born anywhere in the world thereafter. This document is not the Declaration of Independence for the world. It does not give the world the "Right" to America, nor to everything that's in America, nor least of all to American citizenship.
The mind set of these Britishers who framed the constituion was itself framed by European education and Judeo-Christian heritage. Their concepts, and their manner of expressing them, clearly demonstrates they had themselves and their kind in mind, and not the primitives of the world, or the "heathen." Their conceptions of themselves and their new government was clearly reactionary to the class struggles they experienced in Europe, and the tyrannies and oppressions which they rejected and departed from.
The great error, or I should say, the inevitable misapplication of these concepts, would be to apply them to those people who are unprepared, incapable, or otherwise uninterested or perhaps unworthy of these concepts. There are two major examples from American history. The American Indian was on a par with the Britishers, in the beginnings of America. That would be "equal" in authority. The Constitution reflects the nationhood of Indian "tribes." Indians had our own nations, and voting as an American was not a consideration, nor of any interest. The Negro, on the other hand, was simply not addressed. He was not included in the Declaration ideology at all. He had no place but personal family service to his owners. Historical testimonies such as those found in Charles C. Jones, The Religious Instruction of the Negroes in the United States (Savannah: Thomas Purse, 1842) suggest many reasons for this state of the Negro. The 15th Amendment was not ratified until 1870. That was to insure for the Negro the right to vote. (Indians did not exercise that right until 54 years later, when, in 1924, Indians were declared citizens of the United States.)
Red Cloud, Oglala Sioux, ca.1900. The only real "equal"
Americans ever faced were the Indians. No one else ever
forced America into a treaty, not on the mainland anyway.
The business of applying sophisticated social ideology and governance, or of even applying basic concepts of polity and social mores to all men, is not the idology of the founding fathers of America. Their ideas were to apply to the citizens of their new country. This was about the new America. The thought that these socio-political triumphs of hundreds, yea thousands of years can be immediately applied to primitive tribalists at will is not only naive, but dangerous. That is the missionaries job. It is not the job of the nation, or a government, to invite the ill-prepared, and often ill-willed masses into the country, with the idiotic thought radically changing their behavior and values.
Enter the Mexicans. The Arabs. The Hindus. The Chinese. The Africans. The cultural rapists?
"Melting pot?" If there was ever a cultural myth, that idea is a living example. It is a totally mistaken analogy. For an 18th or 19th century American Scot to "adjust" to the ways of the American Irishman, the Englishman, or even the German or the Swede, is not the same adjustment required of an imported Burmese tribesman facing life in an American metropolis. The only thing people used to "melt" into was a western European mode of social norms and polity. It was all white, and all Christian. That's all that was on the minds of the early Americans. Melting Germans with French, Italians with Netherlanders. Not Swahilis with Japanese.
Such a society as evolving today in America is unprecedented withint the boundaries of any single nation. America is not a empire. It is a nation. But the liberals want to have a mini-empire within the boundaries of the nation. This is unnatural, and bespeaks profound greed and avarice. It also suggests complete lethargy of cultural responsibility. It is cheating, really. The liberal doesn't really want to travel to Kathmandu anymore. The home-grown American liberl, indolent and indulgent as he is, would rather have the Napalese shopkeeper open a business on mainstreet America. And the Napalese will surely speak English.
And his children will get full scholarships to the local university.
That's equality. That's the ideal equality for the liberal idealist. But the more radical, quasi-violent liberal wants to see hordes of illiterate, diseased, criminal Mexicans marching up and down broadway. Treating the dramatically unequal as equal--that's what the liberal loves to do. It's his Christianity (with or without Christ, of course). The liberal wants everyone to think he's all about saving the poor, when he's really about destroying everything America has achieved.
Our only hope here is that the liberal, ever so careful to secure his own place, will very soon see that he has threatened his own position in this mass Mexican tresspassing enterprise. Yet, the liberal can be won over to common sense only when his own property and business is jeopardized. I've seen this kind of conversion among liberal environmentalists and preservationsists when the dreaded Indian casino comes to their idyllic little cove. Then the liberal turns conservative overnight.
All concepts of equality suddenly disappear. The Indian is an enemy again. The Indian deserves nothing in the way of special privilege or advantage. Indeed, the Indian must be treated "equally!" He must not have any advantage. Equality takes on a whole new meaning to the liberal, when his own pocket book is threatened. And therein lies a new slogan for conservatives: Equality: Converting Liberals One at a Time.
So, let the Mexicans start claiming land, and start establishing casinos. After all, they're truly "native" Americans, right? The government wants to hand them citizenship as the reward for international criminal tresspassing. It's all about taking from Americans, and giving to non-Americans. It's all about taking from the achiever, and giving to the unworthy. "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good," said Hillary Clinton. That used to be called Communism. Marxism. How did the label get effaced? What is it called now, "equality?" When Mexicans start taking from the liberals, personally, our liberal Congress might get serious.
There are horrible tales of suffering and death at the Mexican borders. Today the New York Times offers yet another appeal for human sympathy. "At Unforgiving Arizona-Mexico Border, Tide of Desperation Is Overwhelming" reads the headline. And here is the photograph to dramatize the story:
With a Border Patrol helicopter buzzing overhead, a Mexican father and son,
Raul and Samuel Calderon, tried to hide. After walking four days in desert heat,
they were captured by the Border Patrol in Arizona. Luis J. Jimenez for
The New York Times.
Well, in this case, there was no death, only a capture of the tresspassers. But there have been deaths. Many deaths. In 1999 it was reported that there were 254 deaths, from exposure, drowning, exhaustion, etc. In 2005 some 279 died. There are only two sources posting tallies: The federal government, and religious organizations. (No More Deaths, for example, is a Christian coalition that tried to aid and abet the tresspassers.) Indeed, there stories are rather heart-sickening, just the kind of enfermedad we get when we here stories about alcoholics, drug addicts, abused children, pedaphiles, serial killers, and Islamic murderers. And if we have any sympathy for the wandering Mexicans, why should it be any different then what we feel for the addict, the mentally ill, the abject abuser?
What's wrong with these people? Why are they taking such risks? Do they love America that much? They certainly don't act like it when they get here. They have no concept of what America is, or what what being American means. They are solipsistic romantics. They have no identity, and they don't care. They are desperados. They have no leader, no concept of themselves, and they are no good to anyone--least of all themselves. They act on some intuition of aggression, of racial unity, of grand social redemtion. They are in fantasy land, stubbornly clinging to archaic notions or reestablishment.
I ask again, Is it America they love? Or is it just Mexico they hate? Once in America, they proclaim their love for Mexico! They love neither Mexico nor America. They love some imaginary identity which is only in themselves. They are outcast. It is a foolish people, indeed.
And it is a more foolish government that sanctions all this. The American government is a culprit in this mass tresspassing trend. Washington has encouraged it. The NYT article is fairly balanced in information, but it is all arranged in such a way as to plead, in the classic bleeding heart liberal way, for the poor Mexicans. In fact, it is a story that appears to have been staged.
It uses as it's theme the story of Miguel Espindola and his wife and two small children (Karla, 6, and Miguelito, 7). They crossed the worst desert area along the border, with their backpacks, Gatoraid, and resentment toward the Mexican government and the American government. (The NYT reports that 464 immigrants died on this kind of desert journey last year.)
I for one don't believe this story of Miguel. I don't believe many of the 'liberal' stories. No reasonable man would attempt to take his wife and two small children "across the Sonora." That would be suicide. Or, do these Mexicans care that little about themselves and their "families?" Is life that meaningless to them? They certainly act like it. And they leave a trail of trash for miles. For this, we're supposed to have sympathy? They have become social varmints, of the most odious sort. A species of pests, bringing disease, depression, crime and violence with them. What a spectacle.
To illustrate the fabricated story of "poor wandering Mexicans in the
desert" at thepoint of death. Tsk, tsk. They probably came down
from East LA for a photo shoot.
And the liberals love it. They love to indulge their self-righteous sentiments (i.e., forcing others to deal with the misery they help cause). They love their fantasy world, where they are the good, loving "enforcers," and they dramatize human misery. It appears they love human misery. They love creating it, writing about it, and promoting it, while those who have respect for the human condition, and who value human life, are condemned as the bad guys, the evil oppressors. Now who is it that religiously advocates destruction of the unborn? Liberals are worse than confused. They are deluded tyrannists, sometimes with little disguise.
But the Mexicans are too mindless to realize what is happening to them. Their minds are on a very, very low level of comprehension. In America, then get some attention. They means something to them. But I don't believe they are so socially oppressed that they risk their lives. They are mentally depressed. Life means little to them. They are not valued, and they do not value themselves. To what do we attribute this low estate?
Failure of religion, failure of government, failure of love. That all happened in Mexico. America is toying with the residue of Mexican national failure, trying to make something of it. America has become a garbage service for the world. "Send us your trash," indeed. We'll recycle it, at taxpayers expense, at citizens' risk, and at patriots' sacrifice.
Yeah. We care. We care that our own government has betrayed us, and that if we rise up, all the law enforcement agencies will attack us, the citizens.
The purpose of this Bad Eagle Journal entry, as was yesterday's, is to give a personal dimension to the illegal migrant. This is not ill will, or wishing harm on any, but to simply expose what it means--in an emotional, psychological sense to citizens, to be an illegal alien. Many Americans have been victims of identity theft, and a good deal of this thievery has been committed by illegals. It involves credit card numbers, driver's license numbers, social security numbers, etc. That leads to other kinds of theft, fraud, and sometimes violence.
But, does exposing the personal information about an illegal seems outrageous? Good. Only let's make sure the outrage is directed to where it belongs. It is not outrageous for Bad Eagle to post post this personal information about an illegal alien, an arrogant tresspasser. It is outrageous that a foreigner arrogantly presumes all the privileges of American citizenship--simply by tresspassing, by crossing the border illegally. It is my purpose to excite outrage, indeed, but direct it to where it belongs: on the criminal.
It is not safe, wise, nor in any way advantageous to repond to the illegal with compassion or tolerance. Their miseries are the result not of poverty, but of weakness and aberrance of character. Their sufferings are the result of wrong values, mistaken goals, and stubbornness. Their plight is the result of moral abandon.
Having said that, we continue with this rather innocuous experiment ofposting the beginnings of the "Citizens' Wanted List." If the government won't help us, we shall help ourselves. We shall do whatever we can to defend our own country, and uphold our own laws.
This appears to be an actual driver's license for Senor Contreras. It is an official,
Mexican document, with the fingerprint of Alonzo Modest Contreras on the back.
Terrifying, to have a personal driver's license posted on the web? Why? As American citizens, all of our personal information is available to just about anyone who makes the effort to obtain it. Business and government would have it so. Why should an illegally present alien be protected? Why should he have rights the American citizen does not?
This appears to be a employment card of some kind. It declares Senor Contreras
"ACCESO a la Empress conservela en buen estado," signed by the "Jefe Depte
Finally here is another "gold" card, a Western Union card, used to wire money, or to make long distance phone calls:
How is it that Senor Contraras had a "platinum" Bank of America card, and "gold"
WU card? Did he have money before he came? Then why did he come?
So, now, is it cruel and outrageous to post all this? Does everyone feel that this exposure is unkind and itself deserving of great condemnation? Again, why should an illegal foreigner, here in defiance of American law, have any privileges of privacy that American citizens don't have? Why should his identity be protected? I say, if they come through a criminal act, they should be treated as criminals, and all that aid and abet them should be prosecuted as well.
Has liberal "compassion"--falsely so-called--blinded our very moral senses? Is it the triumph of goodness to indulge the criminal spirit of others? to invite rape? I challenge each American reader of these posts to express clearly any objection he might have to this post. Any objection is in the psychological dimension that is inhibiting Americans from acting in self-defense! This is precisely the point of indecision. This is precisely why we are in the national crisis we are in.
American people are afraid to commit an act of defense. They have become afraid of the slightest accusation of wrong doing. They have become slaves of liberal accusers, anti-American attorneys, and criminal judges. They have become sheep to be shorn before the mighty media.
Americans are the "Mexicans."
Is there a national data base of illegals available? Is there a national data base of Americans, private or corporate, who have aided and abetted the criminal tresspassers? There is cause to create such lists, and there is certainly great use for them.
Bad Eagle will start with one item: Alonso Modesto Contreras
His is a typical case. Senor Contreras' wallet was found at an athletic field, in northwest Oklahoma City. There was no cash in it, but there were a few IDs--from Mexico City.
Alonso Modest Contreras, from Jocotitlan, Mexico, a town of a little over
5,000 people, just northeast of Mexico City.
This is obviously his voting card, not exactly a driver's license. Nevertheless, it is a Mexican federal identification. It has his fingerprint on the back, along with his signature. So, what is Senor Contreras doing in Oklahoma City? Visiting? He has an ID card for Indoor Soccer Arenas here in Oklahoma City. And he also has a Bank of America platinum credit card.
Normally, a young man does not start out with a platinum credit card. What 'tempted'
Bank of America to issue such a card? What kind of money does Senor Contreras pack?
What else does he pack? (Of course, the card has been cancelled, from the day the
wallet was lost. But mark the company, Bank of America.)
A local Oklahoma City bank (IBC) was able to contact Senor Contreras, and to inform him that the bank had possession of his wallet. The bank encouraged him to retrieve it. It was an offer of compassion, indeed. However, Senor Contreras never came.
It is easy to see why. He is no doubt here illegally. There was no living address, no street address, no post box address found in his wallet. The only people who would have to know, or have to have some domicile, would be Bank of America. They of course would not release such information to the public.
Well, Senor Contreras is probably a good guy. Probably not a criminal--other than an obviously criminal tresspasser. He probably hasn't hurt anyone, robbed anyone, and probably works. Of course, we can only conjecture. He may have an anchor baby. He may be part of an achor family here. He may even work at Chelino's restaurant(s) in OKC. The owner has publically declared he could not operate his restaurants without illegals. This is well-known in Oklahoma City.
We don't know. All we know is that Senor Contreras would not retrieve his wallet. It was in possession of a bank, not the police department, or no government agency, local or federal.
So, is this an outrage, to publish on the internet something of the personal data on an individual illegal? Is it an invasion of his privacy? Is it mistreatment? Is it grounds for suit?
BadEagle will take the dare. It is good citizenship. It is patriotism. There is no ill will involved at all. Nothing malicious. We're just citing the facts. Bank of America is guilty. ISA soccer is guilty. And we don't know who else. A young Mexican man with no American identification of any kind has been incorporated into the legal world of American society. All who participate in such incorporation are complicite with criminal tresspassing. They have aided and abetted a criminal.
Again, Senor Contreras is probably a decent fellow, not someone who deserves to be despised personally. He is merely part of a "migration." This is the American federal government's view. Any American citizen who thinks otherwise is liable to be sued, persecuted, apprehended, and even jailed. Who knows?
BadEagle will take the first hit. Who shall follow? Who's with me on this raid against congressional lawlessness? Who will join me, and ride against failure at local, and state levels?
Jocotitlan, Mexico, just northeast of Mexico City. Home of Alonso M. Contreras.
The America you loved and believed in is no longer. Sad news for patriots. America belongs to the world, not to you, patriots. Your country is up for graps. You have been betrayed. Your government, federal, state, and local, has open your home to the riff-raff of the earth. A nightmare lies before you. The America you knew, your America is only a dream now, a dream of the past. Let me be first to welcome you to Indian Country. Join us in the great Ghost Dance, where we all remember the past, and we yearn for how things used to be.
One very concerned Indian patriot
Never before has a president and a congress behaved with such weakness, such willingness to yeild, such treachery. Never before was America such an easy prey to any idiot, any tramp, any criminal, any scurrilous scrap of humanity. Never before was America so pathetic, so whorish, so utterly meaningless.
At least American Indians fought for what was ours. At least we valued what we had--to the death. Yes, we lost, but we earned national treaties. We won a permanent place in the American Constitution (for whatever that's worth). We cared about ourselves. We never gave ourselves away to the enemy.
But today American leaders are literally begging the enemies to come in! "Please destroy us! Please rape us! Please take everything we have!" This is the message of our precious, pitiful government. Has anyone ever heard of such a thing in all of human history?
Indeed, as an Indian, I am profoundly disappointed in the great white father. He took from me, by force. And now he gives away all--to the most unworthy, the most abominable, and the weakest--to those who never fought for anything, and certainly could never have defeated the American Indian. This insults every sense of pride and dignity there is in American Indians. If white people are too blinded by "equality," too mesmerized by self-righteousness, too drunk on their own sense of false charity, then let me be the first to remind them, If you don't want America, give it back to the Indian. But why give away what you earned? Why insult your fathers? Why lie down like a whore before the rapists of the world? Why plead with the arrogant to rob your earnings? Why invite the rabble to tear down your accomplishments?
This isn't about white guilt. That's a misconception. This is about sin. Outright wickedness. This is about betrayal. This is about greed and coercion. This is about deceit, and arrogance. This is about vicarious abandon. This is about a society that has come to love being outraged.
But if you don't care about the country, I do! American Indians may be the last of the real Americans. I for one do not respect any other people like I have the great white American. I respect only those who are stronger than I. I respect strength. The white man once had it. But he is certainly a pathetic, writhing cripple now. This is beyond heartbreak. This is beyond emotion. This is the end. America is passing on to "Indian Country," the land of dreams. America is phasing out.
Only the most radical efforts could save the country now. The American people must be willing to sacrifice, to risk greatly. They are in a position similar to that of the founding fathers, who put their lives on the line, who pledged to one another their Lives, their Fortunes, and their sacred Honor. No, we're not talking about the Army, troops, or the government employees. We're talking about just brave people. That's all the fathers were. Just ordinary people--with extraordinary will and vision.
The American flag used to stand for such character. Yes, that banner still waves, but it hasn't seen national bravery amongst the citizenry in a long time. It has seen less and less freedom. Who is willing to risk his job, his bank account, his life? Who is willing to be persecuted by the government, by the police, by the National Guard--for standing up and defending America?! This is what it will take. Who is willing to endure the intense sin and wickedness of our vomitable courts, our putrid legal system, and then be condemned as an enemy of the public--for rising up to protect what's left of America?
Who is willing to be judged a criminal for standing up for the right? Who is willing to be crucified?
This is where we are. This is what it has come to. This is the situation we are in. Just to realize that is seemingly miraculous. Just to be aware of reality is extraordinary.
Confront the Mexican. Confront the Arab. Confront the useless, lying politician. You don't have to be armed. You don't have to be mean. You do have to be brave. This is your country, not theirs. Don't give it to them.
It is presently less than one hour before President George Bush offers his placations to the country on national television. It is said that he will address directly the offenses and indignation caused by uncontrolled international tresspassing (i.e., "illegal immigration") by Mexicans. He will attempt to respond to the national outrage these preposterous circumstances have created for American citizens.
But not many patriots have great expectations for this speech. Great damage has already been done, and there is no assurance that the criminal tresspassers will be served legal consequences. The only hope is that there may be some slight reduction of further illegal crossings.
A group of undocumented Mexican immigrants leap
from the border fence to enter the United States near
Tijuana, Mexico. Associated Press archives photo
Note the wording of the liberal AP. "undocumented im-
migrants. They are criminal tresspassers. None other.
There are a number of concerns which, even if the border were miraculously shut tonight, will remain exigent. The number of American people, agencies, companies, and institutions involved in creating this egregious nightmare will no doubt remain unpunished, having done nothing but gain from the international tresspassing craze. These agencies are all complicit and should be held equally responsible for the crime. Here is a simple list of accomplices:
1) those who transport the Mexicans in their vehicles, into this country, and/or after the Mexicans are here.
2) those institutions or private persons who shelter the Mexicans, or support them with "aid and comfort" of any kind.
3) any landlord who accepts rent from an unidentified, illegal Mexican.
4) those who employ the Mexicans for any reason, in any circumstance, for any length of time.
5) any city or town government which provides any kind of identification for food, shelter, or any other kind of social services, or driver's permit.
6) any bank who opens an account to an illegal, or any mortgage company that arranges for any kind of home loan.
7) any credit card company that provides a credit card to an illegal Mexican
8) any post office employee (and associates) that provides a US post box to an illegal Mexican
9) any utility company that provides electricity, gas, or water to an illegal Mexican, his landlord, or appartment supervisor.
10) any store which accepts checks, social service cards or credit cards from an illegal Mexican, or any car dealer or private person who sells a vehicle to an illegal Mexican.
These are the social realities involved in any person's life here in America. The number of accomplices to a single illegal Mexican are multitudinous. All are guilty of harboring international tresspassers, and thus guilty of a treasonous enterprise. This is the law. This is the way it should be.
It is clear, then, that individual Americans, not that dear "corporation" phenomenon--behind which everyone loves to hide, are responsible for high crimes against America. Corporations comprise individual people. Government agencies comprise individual people. Someone signs the Mexican's papers. Some individual person approves. Some human being gives the okay. Individuals, not corporations, are guilty.
Corporations and government, however, are equally responsible as the individual people they hire. If they cannot control their employees' decisions, they should be fined stiffly, and threatened with dissolution.
I predict that very little of these concerns will be addressed tonight. On a rating of one to ten, from the ten concerns listed above, the speech will rate between 1 or 2, if that. We'll hear the compassionate mantras, and the appeals to common sense and rational solutions. We won't hear anything about deportation, incarceration, or anything radical, that speaks directly to our righteous indignation. We won't hear about deputizing American citizens beyond the powers of the Minutemen, who can only watch and report--important as that has been. We'll hear little if anything about the al-quaeda operatives already in this country who came through Mexico, or about the burgeoning thuggery of mass gang presense.
We'll hear hearty platitudes about securing the borders, making America safe, and strengthening our international relationships. We'll hear plenty about the goodness of the American people, the hard-working, valuable character about the Mexican people, and the great positive outcome of all this epochal tresspassing.
But America as already been betrayed. It is clear that Congress is useless. The feeble hand so the senate should be cuffed. All the Americans connected with the ten categories above are guilty. They are all treasonists. They are all criminal. But there will be little or no mention of this. There will be no reprimand for the masses of complicit Americans. There will be no honor for patriots. Proably, Bush will not insult the Minutemen, but there will be no eulogy for those who have taken action to protect the country.
Little can be expected from this speech, and little change can be expected from however many National Guardsmen are sent to the borders. The damage is done. The guilty are already exonerated. The criminals are already free. And they have the full support of American traitors.
Mary, the mother of Jesus, was apparently just a simple young girl, with little or no lineage. The only identification we have of her is that she had a elder cousin who was a Cohen (a direct descendent of Aaron). It is unlike a Jewish story to feature someone without giving the family name, and at least a generation or two of background. Nor is there any credit given to Mary for her ineffable contribution to the upbringing of Him whom we call the Messiah. For such a remarkable role, and the silence in sacred scripture regarding it, it seems that the scripture is almost anti-Mary.
The simple Jewish mother, who raised a child in small village
So how is it that the Catholic Church idolizes Mary to such a profound degree?
Let's call it delayed acknowledgement. Late-coming praise. And let's say it provides the opportunity for everyone to acknowledge the best in his own mother. (Of course, it's probably a really important thing to remember that Mary was a Jewish girl, in a Jewish culture. Most people in the world haven't a clue to what that entails, but, suffer it to be so for now. Goodness! What would Steven Arnold think of the world were filled with more Jewish mothers?!)
salve del ciel,
del ciel regina
Madre degli infelici
Stella del mar divin,
stella del mar dall'imortal fulgor,
Tu accogli e benedici
d'ogni sventura il pianto
d'un guardo Tuo fai santo
ogni terreno amor,
d'un guardo Tuo fai santo
ogni terreno amor.
(It's old Italian, not Latin, by the way. The Salve Regina is most referenced of the four Breviary anthems, of course. There is a recent recording that promises to be most charming to the soul. It's Angela Gheorghiu, soprano, on the album, Mystrium. I have sung this Salve Regina myself, in the Cathedral of Our Lady of Sorrows in south Hartford, Connecticut. It can be sung by tenor or soprano.)
Notice that third line, "Madre degli infelici"--Mother of the unfortunate, the miserable, the unhappy. And then the second stanza: You receive and bless each tear of grief, and by a look, you make holy every earthly love.
The 'catholic' Mary, beloved of world.
That same "Mary" is in every loving mother.
Now do we see why she's so adored? It's the best of our own mother! Who but a loving mother has ever and eternally loved her child? Who among us has not felt the divine joy in our mother's love? For those who have not, the world bows in solemn, ineffable sympathy.
For those of us who do know, Whom can we always turn to for love and acceptance, no matter what? Who is always there, to mend, to encourage, to forgive, to buoy up our spirit? Our fathers tend to be the disciplinarian. Our fathers want to see us make something of ourselves. The father is the challenger. The mother is the coach, right by our side.
I speak as a son, with a mother who, though oft and perhaps essentially disappointed, never failed to love. Not long before she died she said to me, "You love God. That is my reward." She would not have said that, of course, if she herself did not truly love God. In the end, that's all I apparently offered her.
I can see the great draw of the Catholic Mary. Though I believe the mother of Jesus is dead, in the grave, awaiting the Resurrection and Judgement Day as are the rest of us, I see in the Catholic Mary simply the intense honoring--idolizing if you please--of all that is best, precious, and eternal in a mother's love.
I hasten to add, I see this as the love of God, really. Life, as we know it, starts us out with double vision, so to speak. We have our close mother, then the father enters. We grow up under two voices, two faces, and usually two points of view. Thus, our own individual will is born. It is a kind of natural solution, or even protest. Directly due to the initial dualty into which we are cast, we develop of necessity our own identity. All that is in Mary is merely a part of the Almighty. All love is His. Our fathers and mothers, together, give us a glimpse of the gamut. Selah.
Finally, let all mothers who feel a bit neglected, a bit unrecognized, and a bit less than honored, remember that the mother of Jesus lived a life of insignificance. The scriptures scarcely mention her after she gave birth to "the Everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6). (Repeat that ten times, please.) Verily I say unto all the mothers in Israel (--the mothers that care in the world), your time is coming. If the historical glorification of the mother of Jesus is any indication of the value of a loving mother, I say unto you, you'll get yours.
The trend is set. BadEagle.com is among the front liners giving voice to the women of Mexico who decry the abuse that massive tresspassing in the north is causing them. The "adventurous" men who join the fantasy invasion and conquest of America are behaving like a horde of irresponsible bandidos, leaving behind women and children to fend for themselves. Then they start other "families" up in the north country. So what happened to that 'good Catholic family' thing Mexicans are supposedly known for?
BadEagle.com first received mail on May 4th, 2006. A second piece came May 9th. I posted a BadEagle Journal Entry May 7, but waited till the second piece before publishing a FrontPageMagazine article May 11. Today, I discovered that National Public Radio has been on this story of Mexican women also. Their first major piece on the lamentations of Mexican women and children was apparently the day after my first Jounral post, and it was called "Migrants Job Search Empties Mexican Community," (May 8). The next day, May 9, they published another piece, "Mexican Migrants Leave Kids, Problems, Back Home." May 12, today, NPR posted "Reversing the Flow of Mexican Workers." There are radio broadcasts available to hear, linked to these articles. It is good to hear from the women of Mexico.
These are all pitiful tales of broken families, broken because of morally destitute men. Never mind the "frustrations," the "hopelessness," and all the other excuses. Whatever the grand vision they had when they left their families, they have not improved anything for them. It is clear that they have simply abandoned them. This is a moral and social outrage. Many villages have become 'ghost towns,' the women way.
And so there are in fact Mexican social workers trying to bring these stories to light. In my FrontPage article, I mockingly asked, "So, where's the voice of international protest here? Where are the feminists when you need them?" Apparently they're beginning to show up, after all.
Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, NPR
Lourdes Garcia-Navarro does most of the writing for NPR on this recent story line. She's certainly a professional. The email sent to BadEagle.com was from one Eva Albavera Viveros. Senora Viveros has sent mail to other web sites and blogs as well. A search of her name reveals a goodly number. She apparently started contacting American sites in April (at least, one Eusebia Florez was passing out her contact info then.)
The point is, of course, that the American media protrays the issue as though it's all about 'human rights' of the tresspassing masses. Completely idiotic as that presentation is in itself, it also completely ignores the plight of the abandoned wives and children deep down in Mexico. That is kind of thing is usually anathema for the liberals. Why, everything is all about "the children." It's all for "the children." And here is the most dramatic, international example of the bewildering hypocrisy of liberalism: for the sake of a racist-based agitation in America, they are willing to dramatize the "plight" of the poor Mexican workers, so cruelly denied American citizenship after having tresspassed American law, after having mocked the American constitution, the liberals are willing to completely ignore the women and children these bandidos have left in Mexico. Who cares how many illegitimate 'anchor babies' they create in America? Morality is never a concern for liberals.
School headmistress Antonia Figaroa Ibanez is
worried about the future of the children in her rural
school. More and more are leaving at a young age to
go north, and the ones that are left behind by their
families drop out early.
Perhaps there is an answer in the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Not that the Constitution is being followed at all in this current trend of rewarding international mass tresspassing, but, it is worth the patriot's consideration.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
This Amendment was ratified in 1868, and of course pertained chiefly to the American Negro population, and did not envision the mass invasion of tresspassers and illegitimate (or legitimate) anchor babies we see today. The implication is that the child is born to American citizens. If the parents are not citizens, the child is not a citizen. There was never a critical need to clarify this implication, however, until recently. What we are witnessing is the law all right, the law of unintended consequences of the subjective nature of a hastily contrived amendment, written by men still reeling from the Civil War.
A Mexican desperado is allowed to mock the laws of the United States? That's one thing. An irresponsible bandido is allowed to dump his family in Mexico (or anywhere else), and be rewarded for that? That is quite another. These people are undisciplined, arrogant, stubborn, and lawless. They think hard work justifies any and every thing they think or do.
They are as abject as al-quaeda. They are as fanatical as Islamic terrorists. And they are more easily used as 'useful idiots' by the Left, because they don't blow things up. They don't try to mass murder people. Their pathetic display of duplicity, waving American and Mexican flags, makes them the clowns of modern society. They are historical baffoons. They are being made a sport by the Left, and they don't even know it. They are too stubborn and ignorant--socially, politically, and morally.
They are slavish in nature. They are very, very low in their outlook. This is tragic, really. They are demonstrating, dramatically, the stereotype of the poor Mexican farmer, afraid to fight, afraid to stand for truth, and self-deluded into thinking they are grand, noble, and visionary. They are merely ignorant and supersitious. They think work sanctifies their ambitions, whatever those ambitions really are. (We certainly can't rely on the Leftist slogans put on their cardboard signs.)
Once again, I ask, Donde esta Zapata cuando usted lo necesita? Where is Zapata when you need him? Where is he who will restore pride in Mexico? Where is a leader among these people?
The Mexican problem is an identity problem. It is a labor issue, an economic issue, and a race issue, but the at the root, it is simply an identity crisis.
Mexicans are not the only people to face such a crisis. American Indians have been dealing with it a long time now. "Federal Recognition," it's called. Being Indian is the most important thing to an Indian, but today, being Indian is also important to non-Indians, because through claiming to be Indian, these non-Indians gain access to land and casino enterprises. Of course, syndicate operators, casino developers, and crooked politicians are all in on that Indian "identity crisis." Being Indian exempts you from certain federal tax laws, so it means big, fast money. The official Indian dentity is critical only as it serves to procure those exemptions.
Mexicans are being manipulated in the same way. Of course they're Mexican, by ethnicity. But, what are they nationally? It all makes a huge difference in terms of the socio-economic status. American social suppport is given to the tresspassing Mexican--because he is Mexican, because his is alien. So far, it is to his advantage to be a tresspassing, illegal alien Mexican, and not an American citizen. But, this is all manipulated by American politicians and businessmen. This is a legal, national identity crisis, not a racial question.
Historical Tunisian Jewish couple. They didn't try to offend the
culture in which they lived. They sincerely 'assimilated,' but they never
sacrificed their ethnicity, religion, or their own essential culture. They
never challenged or defied the countries in which they lived. Yet, they
were able to preserve their own idenity within their host cultures. At
the same time, they contributed to the health of that host culture. They
were never a drain, but a contributor.
The Jews once faced similar crises within their own nation. In ancient times, the most privileged class in the Jewish nation was the priestly class. This was within the tribe of Levi, and particularly the family of Aaron (brother of Moses). One time, around 537 BCE, during a new enrollment census of the people reestablishing the nation of Israel, a group claimed to be part of the priestly line. (See Ezra 2:62). They were not on the priestly rolls, however, and were simply denied such a privilege. They could not demonstrate their family genealogy. Another group claimed to be Jewish but could not prove it by record. (Ezra 2:59). They were apparently allowed to participate in the reconstruction, as their numbers were needed, but they were clearly not Jewish.
The Jewish people were never hesitant to cut anyone off. False claims were refused. The identity of Israel was precious, and not to be manipulated.
I think modern America, indeed all nations today, stand to learn from the experience of ancient Israel. (Even modern Israel should give due heed.) Identity is important. It takes effort and sometimes sacrifice to preserve it. Yes, America is a special case in history, with the preeminence of ideology as the national identity, and therefore open to all religions, ethnicities and nationalities. However, America was created by White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants, who fought Indians, England, France, and anyone else who was in the way of their vision, like the Spanish.
The Mexican invasion of America today, non-violent up until this point, is a manipulation of the American national identity. It is, essentially, a threat. Americans have done radical things in the past to protect the country. There is such a thing as internment and/or deportation. In the case of the Indian, America fought wars, made treaties and reservations, and then finally declared Indians to be American citizens. Indians were not consulted. This citizenship was a strategem, not an act of generosity.
America in the past has done what needed to be done, what had to be done. But, that's when American government was concerned about preserving the nation, and the national identity. The concern today seems focused on international business. The world is a market, not a collection of independent nations with separate interests. Why, everyone will make more money, and be better off, if national differences are put in the background. That is the trend.
But the Jews are still with us, today. They are still Jewish. This didn't happen because of world market craze. This isn't the result of sloppy enforcement of laws, or negligence regarding the Jewish identity. I'd say, from a historical perspective, we need to consider the Jews on this point. You don't preserve yourself by giving yourself away, by blending in with a trendy ideology, or by being afraid to offend some prentender.
[An op-ed version of this journal entry appeared on FrontPageMagazine.com, 5-11-06]
Recently, Bad Eagle has received mail from Mexico, from a village in the state of Guerrero--one of the three southernmost states of Mexico. It is worthy of note. There is a website connected with it, but it is currently shut down. The email from the leaders, however, is still coming to Bad Eagle. Please consider.
When our men went to the United States they were young and adventurous; They have had their adventure, now we want them to come home to us and to their families and to their home country. Close the border so that the ones who are here do not leave. We have work now and the men can help us to sand-down and polish the jewelry.
Our group is of women from the village of Tecalpulco. The tradition of our village is handcrafted fashion jewelry since the men have left, we women have organized a good business of fashion jewelry production in cottage industry. The men can help us, they don't have any excuse to stay [in America].
Thank you very much
from the hearts of the women
of Artesanas Campesinas
Rosalinda Mejia Baron
Eva Albavera Viveros, Contact Person
001 762 62 73481
001 762 62 22758
It is a far, lonley cry, all the way from the farthest villages of Mexico. Tecalpulco is just north of Campuzano. It is a women's jewelry coop, known by business travelers. It is a great thing that this information was sent personally to BadEagle. Shall we not be encouraged in our responses to the Mexican problem?
Small family in Tecalpulco. No
man around? Photo: Internation
Dutch site, OneWorld.nl
Another letter came yesterday. Obviously, these letters are written by English-speaking representatives of the women of Tecalpulco, but the feelings of the village women come through quite strongly. The international translators of their feelings are certainly adequate.
We want to thank you from the bottom of our hearts for acknowledging us as persons, we are so grateful that you recognize us for who we are, village women of Mexico.
We, the women in Mexico, are living under very depressed conditions for a long time. Most of the man [sic] in the villages have gone to the United States to work there and have left the women here with the children. At the beginning they were sending money but that was every 6 months or every year, and they weren't always sending us enough to cover our basic needs. Frequently, these men drop out of our sight all-together.
We are campesinas, we have our cornfields and do work them, but we have learned that in modern times we can't live off of them. We have to buy cooking gas, daily food, shoes for the children, school materials, etc. Now that the kids went into school again we barely got enough money to buy their uniforms and we are now working hard to pay the school every month and saving money to buy the rest of the materials that they need. It is impossible to live like this, yet we have no choice except to survive, even though we are inside a pattern where everything is costly.
We never asked anything from you, still we want to ask you to close the Mexico border to illegal migration because our men go north to get money and they remain up there sometimes with another woman and we don't like it; we want our men to be deported since they are breaking the laws. Please isn't there a way to have these men deportedback to their homes and families in Mexico? That would be the best to happen for us! because we need their help in sanding and polishing the jewelry we have been producing.
Thank you, thank you so much in the name of the Rural Artisans Women of Taxco!
Tamara Hernandez Danel
This information should not be considered privileged to Bad Eagle. It is for the world. It is for every American. It is for every Mexican. This entire immigration problem, this mass tresspassing movement, is based on the manipulations of the rich and the powerful. As we have noted before, the mighty are simply using the poor Mexicans. The enemies of America, within (Congress) and without (Arab Muslim terrorists) are using Mexicans. Mexican government leaders are using Mexicans. Mexican organized crime is using Mexicans.
So, as compassionate Americans, let's listen to the women of Tecalpulco. Think of them, and the millions like them, every time you see a Mexican tresspasser, and every time you even think he's an illegal. Call him on it. Ask him if he left a woman and children away down south in Mexico. It's the only macho thing to do, at this point. Confront them. Do it for their women's sake. If American patriotism is too offensive to the liberals, then the liberals should think fo the women, you know. What about women's rights, which the liberals are so loud about? Here's an opportunity to speak out.
Slavery is legal in the United States. According to the 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution, slavery and involuntary servitude can both be used as punishment for crime.
Amendment XIII, Section 1: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime of whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2: Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Slavery, properly understood, is a useful tool in the rehabilitation of criminals, and in the economic system in which they exist. Slavery is nothing but coerced labor. It differs from voluntary labor only in that the slave cannot quit just because he feels like it, or just because he'd rather be doing something else.
Slavery, properly understood, is not an evil at all. True, the 13th Amendment is known as the Amendment which abolished slavery, but that was only as a commercial institution. Yes, the Amendment was passed soon after the Civil War (December 6, 1865), and it was very much in response to the hysterical rhetoric about racially-based slavery in the South. Clearly, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. Slavery itself was not barred from American society. Slavery and indentured servitude are both perfectly legal--as punishment for crime. That's what the Constitution says.
Sheriff Joe's female chain gang clean up the Warner-Elliott Loup in Ahwatukee. 7-03
So, America's prison problems await a Constitutional solution, not a political one. The prison population is in flux, but, at the end of 2002, there were over 2 million inmates. That's a lot of free labor. Federal, state, and even local governments have the right to access this labor. Tax dollars are used to house and feed the prisoners. Why is the criminal simply an expense? Why should he not be a contributor? The prisoners would be healthier, and recover psychologically much more quickly. Liberals have turned prisons into care-giver institutions, where reform is more of an indulgence of the academic theorists than the prisoners. And the care is not good quality, yet it suffices to actually attract the very wayward who are in search of some kind of stability. A mental hospital, a medical hospital, a therapy session, for anything that hard labor won't cure--no wonder prisons are expensive and growing more and more crowded. Their horrors seem less horrible than the street, and even more desirable than honest sweat.
And what about the masses of illegal aliens? The international tresspassers? Let's try slavery. They are criminals, and the federal, state, and local governments have the right to use them as coerced laborers. We needn't buy them a ticket home. (They came across the desert. We can make them just as determined to return via the same route.) Let them work--for the lowest wage in Mexico. When they have earned enough, they can buy their own tickets back. As criminals, they have no right any privileges of citizenship. They should expect only labor. Not necessarily hard labor, though they're good at that, but any labor that needs to be done.
Instead of massive centers for prisoners, we need numerous camps all around. And in those camps, good old fashioned CHAINS. Chain gangs, guards with rifles as well as compassion. Any prisoner who has to be locked up in solitary should be executed as an unworthy expense for all. Any prisoner who is so hopelessly violent isn't rightfully kept alive--anywhere in society. What is the point? An indulgence of compassion on the part of his captors? the jury? the judge? What about the people?
Robert Castel's The Regulation of Madness: The Origins of Incarceration in France (1976) offers some fascinating historical precedents of modern prison philosophy. France had contemplated (indeed, ordered) the institution of 'madhouses' as early as March 27, 1790, in Article 9 of the decrees of the Constituent Assembly. Putting all dependency of kind in the same place is akin to the ancient Persian idea of the hospital, where treatment was facilitated. Institutions for madness, sickness, or criminal behavior are about convenience--not only for the administrators of treatment, but for the recipients. Yet, prisons seem to be an unnecessary economic drain. The prisoners are generally capable of working, and thus of contributing to society.
Madness and sickness may be self-induced in many patients, such as the addictive type, but often these patience are not directly responsible for addicting themselves. They were victims from the start. However, prisoners present a different circumstance. Prisoners can be made into laborers, almost immediately from the time of their incarceration. Let should be allowed to earn their way out, by labor, if they are not sentenced to life. Time is a meaningless abstraction, and time in prison is generally aimless and wasteful. Rehibilitation is often improbable when not impossible. Prisoners are often morally destitute, and cannot thing straight for anger, resentment, and hatred. Perhaps getting their minds off themselves would be a spirituial relief. (Some seem never to learn, however.)
It's time to reconsider the chains, iron or electric. Some people are in jail for very little crimes. Micro chips might do for them. Labor without pay, isn't that a just sentence? Why sit in a prison room, endure useless psychological torture, then return to the crime scene when you're out? Couldn't labor in chains create a different outlook?
There's a dignity in chains. It comes from labor, not shame, not social isolation. Let the people see the prisoners, in chains, working. It might do everyone a world of good. The Constitution provides for it. The fathers saw a use in it. Slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment is an unexplored solution to prison reform in our modern times.
Finally, Harvey Klehr (Emory University) once taught a political science course that touched on the Platonic theory of slavery. I remember Dr. Klehr suggesting that slavery was basically a situation in which you had to work for a living. You had to do that which you would otherwise not want to do. Our graduate seminar members concluded that most of American society were already slaves, and only our college degrees would give us hope of having a choice.
The difference is that the prisoner has no choice, yet he doesn't work, either. That should be changed. The illegal Mexican work force is a perfect opportunity to change that. They should be made indentured servants, and earn their way--not to American citizenship, but back to Mexico. They have a beautiful country to save. It is their patriotic duty. Perhaps they can realize that, while working off debts in servitude.
The American Civil War (1861-1865) was fought over the issue of states rights. Whatever the reasons cited as to what brought the issue to a national crisis, the war was fought by the North to preserve the union, and by the South to preserve states rights. An ideological crisis it was, indeed. The country was forever affected. The federal government emerged with an authority and power it never had before, and many people today believe it was never intended to have. One thing is certain, the Republican Party of today claims to advocate smaller government, and the Democratic Party larger government, and the fact is, the federal government has grown continually larger, no matter who is in office.
Obviously, the United States wouldn't be the country it is, had the South become an independent, second country. There would have been two very different countries. Both, however, would have to deal with the racially-based labor arrangements, one way or another. With inventions like Eli Whitney's cottin gin, the agricultural industry saw major advancements. The very modes of labor were changing. The labor force would have to change in the process. This is the pattern whenever technology advances. Labor is affected. Man is replaced by machine, and man must find other occupations. If the Civil War can be understood as a conflict over labor issues, the war can be seen in a way that may shed Constitutional light on todays labor problems, chiefly as they involved the mass, international tresspassing commonly mis-labled as "immigration."
Mexicanos, in Las Vegas, protesting American anti-immigration border monitors.
The Mexicans screamed out, "Racists, go home!" to the Americans! The blindness of
arrogance leads to veryfoolish behavior. The Mexicanos are truly blind, and truly
foolish. But they are certainly smarter than Congress at this point. Thay are smarter
than state governments.
At the end of the Civil War, Congress passed the 13th Amendment (Section 1):
Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist withint the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
This amendment obviously has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, or national origin. It clearly allows for the social mechanism or institution of slavery with respect to criminals and their employment. Today, we assign criminals to prison, and a life of general inactivity. According to the U.S. Constitution, they could all be working. The 13th Amendment does not specify the duration of this servitude, nor the nature of the labor, nor its fiscal relation to the criminal sentence.
Add to this, Article 1, Section 9:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
States have the right to defend themselves if invaded. What might comprise such a circumstance? Massive, international tresspassing, as in the case of the Mexican invasion. Today, this would apply principally to the states which comprise the southwestern land borders of the United States: California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
Now, the mountains of legal precedence and judicial tradition in interpreting these Constitutional statutes have obviously belied a purpose counter to the obvious intent of the statutes. Lawyers and judges have completely obfuscated the clarion intent of the foremost legal precedent, the Constitution itself. The precendents of the legal profession have been apparenty askew from the start, and have progressively morphed further and further from the original meaning of the Constitution. (So now we know why Shakespeare put in Butcher's words the first notion of national reform, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." King Henry VI, Part II, Act IV Scene 2.)
Now, prior to the Civil War, in fact, from the time of the Constitution (1787), the matter of immigrant labor was addressed. Again, from Article 1, Section 9:
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Congress gave the states approximately 20 years more of free importation of labor. While it isn't exactly clear what would have, in those days, constituted "migration" in terms of labor force, the intent is that in 20 years, Congress would have the right to tax the owners of that foreign labor. (Note: "migration" cannot suggest that African persons came to work in America of their own free will, could it? Who might comprise this "migration" element? That is perhaps an important historical question--with pertinence to the present times.)
Since the Civil War, however, as evident in today's massive Mexican tresspassing spree, Congress has interfered with the states rights to disallow migrating labor or imported labor (as the state "shall think proper"), as well as neglected to tax any owners of such labor.
It is almost as if we are living in a different country than that prescribed by the Constitution of the United States. The words seem plain and simple. Yet, the 'laws of the land,' from the federal level down to the state level, seem to have obscured the intent and spirit of the Constitution. Perhaps with was inevitable, in time. In his discussion of democracies with constitutions, Aristotle (384-322 BC) said, "Where the laws are not sovereign, there you find demagogues." He then describes the rule of the people that develops, which supercedes the very laws their democracy was founded on. The people follow the demogogue, through logistical convenience. The people, through the demagogue, rule over the laws. The Politics, Bk. IV, ch.2. (Sinclair trans. Internet link is Jowett trans. Sinclair uses the word "consitution," while Jowett uses the word "government.")
Perhaps something like this has developed in America. We the people, preoccupied in the revels of freedom, have left management to others. Free elections, free campaigns, have developed grand talkers, social swindlers, and other knaves, and through them, the people have been led to transgress the laws of the Constitution.
One thing is certain: the Mexican problem is unprecedended. It is not about immigration. It is about massive, international tresspassing. That is the nature of the event. It is an illegal "migration." However, if it is the result of Americans hiring the labor, then the states first have the right to end it, or limit it. Then Congress has the right to tax the owners of the labor, that is, the Americans that hire the labor.
There is no other application of the United States Constitution. Without this, we are in chaos, which is what we all see before us. States are exercising no authority but to prevent American citizens from protecting their private property, or to prevent American citizens from protecting Americas borders.
More to come on legal slavery and indentured servitude as they relate to the crime of international tresspassing.
It would seem that the current laws of the land are contrary to the United States Constitution. The 2nd Amendment provides for an armed militia, yet, were the public to rise up and defend the borders, there would be mass arrests--not of invaders, but of American citizens.
Arizona patriot Casey Nethercott tried protecting his ranch from illegals arrogantly tresspassing. The result? His 70 acre ranch was taken from him, and given to the criminals. That's right. The criminals were "awarded" his rarnch, because he physically stopped them, and held them. Anti-American liberal Morris S. Dees, Jr., chief trial counsel of the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala., which represented the immigrants, was delighted with the abuse of white American citizens. Liberals everywhere lauded the decision, and denounced any manliness displayed by white American citizens, especially males.
Such mockery of America is rampant.
Interestingly, in Oklahoma, the state legislature just expanded a law called the "Make My Day" law, which allows for the use of deadly force in the protection of home and life, even if the intruder isn't using deadly force. In other words, you could blow someone's head off who's breaking into your home, whether the knave has a gun on him or not. House Bill 2615 allows motorists the same privilege of self-defence. Of course, one liberal had to protest. “This is a scary measure that could have a dramatic impact on public safety,” said Rep. Mike Shelton, D-Oklahoma City. “This law is an invitation to shooting in the streets and I don’t think we want that.” The Bill awaits the liberal governor's (Brad Henry) approval.
It's all about respect. The illegals have no respect. They have no regard for law. They are dangerous.
When one crosses the border, it is either onto the private property of an American citizen, or it is an American company's property, or it is the state's property, or, in the case of a national park (like Big Bend, Texas), it is the property of the United States of America. But, who "owns" the government, or the state? Is it not the people? Does not the U.S. Constitution give the people the right to rise up and do what the government won't do?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 2nd Amendment of the United States Constituion. And here we are witnessing the changing of America by foreigners! We are watching arrogant bastards alter our laws before our very eyes! We are seeing the lowest of the low, tell the highest of the high what to do! (By the way, bastard child is a child who behaves as though he had no parent, as an illegitimate child, with no father, and no upbringing. Such a child is known, proverbially, for wild, undisciplined, disrespectful behavior. Yes, the illegal immigrants are bastards.)
House of Political Prostitutes?
So what good is the freedom to own weapons if other laws prevent us from using them to defend out property, our states, and our country? What good is a gun if it can't be used, if you get thrown in jail for using it? How is it that the federal government is able to deny the very constitution it proports to be based on?
Looking to the government, even the state government, to uphold the constitution, to defend the country, is like looking for a hand-out. Liberalism has so permeated the country that even patriots are imitating the weak, and waiting on the government to do for them that which they not only have the right to do, but also the responsibility.
Well, no one wants to get arrested. No self-respecting family, no productive citizens, and no free person wants to have his life ruined by the federal or state government. No one wants to sacrifice his life over a stupid, arrogant immigrant. No one wants to be subjected to the white-hating, America-hating liberals who rule our courts, who love to humiliate the talented and accomplished, who love to over-turn the achievements of the respectful and responsible people of the country.
Alan Sears and Craig Oten reveal the story in The ACLU vs AMERICA (2005). For decades, Roger Baldwin worked to undermine the country. The ACLU acknowledges Baldwin as its founder and mentor. At the age of 96, Baldwin was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Jimmy Carter, in 1981. The ACLU is against everything right, everything decent, and everything honorable. This deadly menace has twisted, usurped, and otherwise poisoned every principle of the United States Constitution. It has pestilentially devoted itself to the overthrough of the American identity.
The Congressmen of the United States know they have no power in court. They know they are as impotent as a plate of wet spaghetti. But now the people are beginning to realize it. The American people are beginning to see and understand that Congress simply cannot do what the people must do for ourselves. Congress can only talk, and make innumerable, endless laws--all of which are easily distorted and turned inside out by the ACLU. American courts and judges are a trap. The people of America are trapped in our own courts.
Roger Baldwin, 'father' of the ACLU.
The only way out of this is a united, timely uprising of all the people--so that the state and the federal government are simply outnumbered, and the force of the people overwhelms them all. Remember, the Constitution distinguishes between the Army and the Militia. Article 1 Section 8 says Congress has the power to call forth the Militia "to execute the Laws of the Union, to supress Insurrections, and repel Invasions"--in this case invasions by arrogant immigrant or judicial activism. The courts and the Congress have betrayed the people. The people must rise up. Ah, but to orchestrate the redemption of America! Who can accomplish such a feat?
We are living in a time of lawlessness. Our very government is disregarding the laws of our nation. Congress should be impeached. Congress should be temporarily dissolved, and every memeber replaced. Only if enough people act, and act together, could Congress be replaced, or at least reminded that the people rule this country. Their trust has been betrayed. They have the right and the responsibility to act.
But letters and phone calls aren't the answer. They have no force. The ballot has no force, either. Our free election system has created the most hypocritical, lying knaves in the history of government. The association of wealth and political position is a hopeless whoredom. It no longer matters whom we vote for. The leaders all turn out to be the same, and the principled individuals are easily out-voted in Congress.
No. Action is what is needed now. Not words. Not political campaigns. Not slogans. Not media. Just every individual patriot rise up, organize, and take action. The basic laws are all on our side. An iron cowel of betrayal casts a long, dark shadow over the land, but, purity of heat, pure Americanism, can dispell the darkness in a moment. Just one grand show of true love for America, and the country breathes again.
How shall we do it?
The Mexican hordes are not immigrants. They are tresspassers. "Illegal immigrant" is an oxymoron. They have not immigrated. They have simply tresspassed--on someone else's property, be it private, state, or national. They have tresspassed, yet they are demanding to be counted as legal and worthy. They have tresspassed, and now they demand full American citizenship, automatically.
Mexican tresspassers, on a free ride to America, for
another, bigger free ride.
And no, the American economy is not at all dependent upon them. This is a stunning illusion. This is a lie, perpetuated in the media, and in Congress. America does not need the Mexicans. (Repeat that thought, hourly. "America does not need Mexicans. America does not need Mexicans.")
Normally, when someone is tresspassing on your own property, you ask them to leave if you don't want them there. If they don't leave, you call the police, and have them forcibly removed. They can be arrested and jailed for resisting, or tresspassing in the first place. In a real sense, the hordes of Mexicans are willfully homeless. They only difference is, some of them work.
Obviously, Americans have been ambivolent about whether they want the Mexicans around or not. Business has taken advantage of the cheap labor, but the cost of caring for the illegal hordes has been devastating to many communities. Americans have paid a big price for this 'invited' invasion.
But, for those who have 'called the police,' there has been but a feeble response. There has been little or no authority on the matter. It has been like trying to stomp out one or two roaches, when the cabinets are full of them, and the nest is under the back door. American people have no professional pest control service to call, and not even a can of bug killer. We have only the soles of our shoes.
Well, Mexican people are not roaches, obviously. The hordes of tresspassers are just people, but people with an attitude. They are simply determined to get what they want. They have no nerve or courage to stand up to their own stinking, rotten government in Ciudad de Mexico, and they know everything is free and better in America anyway. It's a whole lot easier to just cross the border. Immediately, they justify themselves in total, irrational arrogance. They crossed the border, and they think that gives them the right to demand rights! Their attitude is simply "Give me the goodies! I'm here. I made the effort to be here!" That's all. There is no other articulation. All the grandiose politicization of their position is the work of highly organized, professional anti-American forces. The Mexican hordes know little of that sort of maneouver. They only know that they can come here, and get better treatment. If they can make it across the border, they are simply better off. They demand to be better off. Liberal anti-Americans (and Democrats) are there to teach them how to demand it.
It is a huge but simple case of tresspassing. It is a lot like the Bill Clinton attitude. Just do what you want to do, and never mind anything or anyone else. If you have the unmitigated arrogance to do something utterly outrageous, no one will do a thing about it. They'll be in shock. You can get by with it. That is the precedent Clinton set--not only for America, but for the world. Just do it. You're in. You're in command. It will take an all out war to stop you, and you know no one is up to that. You're safe. Sin boldly.
In the May 1, 2006 edition of Human Events (online), there is an article entitled, "Shah of Iran's Heir Plans Overthrow of Regime." This is incredible. The article says that the son of the late Shah of Iran plans to take over Iran. Unbelievably, "in the next two to three months he hopes to finalize the organization of a movement aimed at overthrowing the Islamic regime in Tehran and replacing it with a democratic government." This is remarkable news for those following Reza Pahlavi, son of the late Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. There had been no such news before, none that made headlines.
Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran
Reza plans a mass movement of "civil disobediance" inside Iran, backed by the Iranian military, the "Revolutionary Guard." Reza believes the situation is desperate enough now. The government of Tehran is leading the country to ruin, and there must be critical intervention. Reza is against US military intervention, so the only alternative is for the people to act, from the inside. He says he has been working with the Revolutionary Guard to orchestrate this movement.
Reza wants to see democracy in Iran, and always has. He has published many articles on the subject, and also a book, Winds of Change (2002). He is also willing to consider a constitutional monarchy, if the people so desire.
I must say, I have heard nothing of this latest plan from any of my Iranian friends. I have heard nothing from any State Department personnel with whom I have been in contact, nor anything from the Voice of America programmers. This comes to me as a complete surprise.
It if it indeed true, it is the best knews I have heard in years. The world should be behind the young Shah, Reza Pahlavi. This is his hour. This is the moment of truth for Iran. Can we not all pray for his success?
Yes, there are innumberable factions inside Iran. Islam creates only the illusion of unity. Yes, there are factions outside Iran. There are those who perpetually resent the Pahlavis and have bad memories of the Pahlavi regime. There are those who fled the country, and took a lot of money with them. They have settled in high society in the countries whither they fled, such as Switzerland, France, and the United States. There are people inside Iran who resent those who fled.
But, can't everyone rejoice in the hope that Iran might yet be saved? This is truly overwhelming to those who care. It is messianic!
Yes, there have been plans before. There have been theories of regime change. There have been many visions of improvement. This plan, however, is imminent. The crises has peaked. This is the critical moment. And who is on the front lines with a solution, ready to take action? The Shah, Reza Pahlavi. It is still his country. He is still the leader. He has taken that responsility, as never before. At the time is short. He must act, or face the possibility of losing all, forever.
[Double-exposed picture] Coming out of the back entrance
of an auditorium with an overflowing audience at the Ferdowsi
University in Masshad, I listened to students. The young woman
gesturing with her hand, said, "Dr. Yeagley, you must understand
one thing: the Qur'an is magic. It is completely magic." Could this
be part of Iran's problem?
On a personal note, I have been to Iran (1999), and I have seen the young people who make up most of the nation. These young people are glorious, so full of good feeling, compassion, and beauty. I don't think anyone in the world, but demonic Muslims, would want to see them go to war. The country just came out of war. They don't want another bloody revolution. Yet, if Reza Pahlavi is correct, they are willing to rise up and throw off the Islamic regime--before the mullahs lead the whole nation into ruin.
Let's hope this is a real plan. The opportunity is certainly there. Let's hope it's not just another theory, offered in time of great need. Until action actually happens, though, it can only be another theory. It is certainly time for action.
Iranian people love America. That is a fact many Americans are totally unaware of. If they only knew! Iranian people see America as old Persia. The values and the social ambience seem the same to them. They identify with Cyrus, Darius, and the old days of glory. Islam is a foreign turban that got wrapped around their head, but it's not really where their heart is. They love freedom. They see themselves and their dreams in America. They want it to happen in Iran.
My last lecture in Tehran was to a group of English majors at the University of Tehran. I told them that the world awaits their version of democracy. It doesn't have to be an exact replica of the American version (which has currently become a tottering mass of treacherous politicians); it doesn't have to be a copy of anyone else's script. Ancient Persia was famous for adopting new, foreign things, and then turning them into bigger and better versions, more expansive versions. Whatever it was, they 'imperialized' it, and made it more effective. I reminded the students of this history. "The world is waiting to hear from you!" I told them.
Perhaps Reza Pahlavi will give them that chance. We can only pray that it is so. What a different world it would be, with the resurrection of Persia, and the best days of Iran.