Not only Indians, but most people in general have no concept of what the world circumstances were when Columbus set out to chart a short route to Hindustan (India). The lack of knowledge on this matter is what gives rise to a lot of hysteria in the ranks of professional protesters of the Columbus Parade.
Europe was nearly choked to death by Islam! The Muslims made it north of the Danube in Eastern Europe by the 1470's (and even to Vienna by 1683, twice!). They were into southern France by the 11th century. Europe came very close to falling. Only such savage heroes like Dracula (in Eastern Europe) and El Cid (in Spain) helped stay the black tide of Islam. Of course, what really broke the choke hold the Muslims held was the sudden and unexpected rise of the Mogolian Empire in the 13th century. This stellar, coruscate of power shook the earth for the moment. The Khans crippled every quarter of the known world.
The Mongolian Empire, 1206 to 1405
No sooner than they had stunned Islam, the Europeans gathered their wits, and set themselves to the task of defense--by expansion of territory. Yes, this seems to be the pattern in history. A people attacked, if survived, themselves become the aggressor. This is how Persia came about, surviving the Assyrians. It happened then to Greece. They survived the Persian invasion, then become the aggressors. It happened to Rome, attacked by Carthage. Rome survived, then become the world's greateset empire. And so it happened to Europe. It survived, barely, the murderous Muslims. Then Europe went on the take.
This is how age of explorers came about. It was just for economic convenience, like finding a shorter route too the East. It wasn't just to find spices to flavor their rotten meat and cover their body odor. And it wasn't just about the development of science, nagivation, and slave trade. It was about all of these things, and more. True, all Columbus wanted to do is to prove that the earth was round. "Discovering" the north American continent was an accident, as well as a misnomer. Sure, there were a lot of other circumstances propelling the enterprise. It was Europe's re-grasp of life, for starters. And it did involve wonderous ideological and scientific development.
The Islamic Empire, 622 to 750 AD.
But, today, in this age of renewed threat from murderous Muslims, I think we do well to honor Columbus for his part in the recovery of Europe, and the re-establishment and strengthening of the West.
Consider the alternative: murderous Muslims. Tyranny unspeakable. If Indians and other anti-American protesters think that they would have been better off under the Caliphates, under the rule of Sultans, they are prfoundly mistaken. In their blind refusal to consider the alternative, these professional protesters of Columbus show a most spectacular, studied ignorance. Indeed, it is worthy of the university. It is representative of the university. It is the product of the university.
Well, it is the creation of political pretenders who are using the guise of professorial authority. They are fakes. And the University of Colorado, with all its boards, its governors, have all willfully lent the academic robes to these street gang protesters.
So, it is time to recognize Columbus for the man he was--a courageous warrior against fear of the unkown. It's time to see European explorations as a defensive act against irascible, irremeable Islam. It's time for Indians to recognize that the agonies endured under the European presence are in fact far less tragic than would have been offered by the miserable Muslims.
There would have been no treaties, no reservations, no cultural preservation programs, no language preservations, no museums, and at last, no Indians. Thank of that, ye blind criers.
Word's out now. This morning in the Denver Post, it was announced that I will be in Denver soon, to hail Columbus, to support his parade, and to present an alternative view to the American Indian Movement protest of Columbus and the Columbus Day Parade. Al Knight's article is an interesting assessment and forecast. He cites the protests, but also the apparently crumbling force behind them (for example, the fall of Ward Churchill). Things may be looking up for the Columbusites. Then Knight mentions the coming of Bad Eagle:
"The run-up to the parade will also be different. Dr. David Yeagley of Lawton, Okla., a member of the Comanche tribe and an accomplished pianist, composer and lyricist, has requested an opportunity to speak in support of the local celebration. He will spend several days in Denver before the parade, although a prior commitment will keep him from marching in the parade itself."
"Yeagley, in a telephone interview Monday, said he wants to do his part to counterbalance the notion that all Indians take a dim view of the Columbus Day celebrations and the man himself. He said he believes that Columbus is an important part of the American story."
"In written comments to the parade committee, Yeagley said, 'I want Indians who protest Columbus to re-evaluate the effect of long-term resentments. I want them to weigh the psychological damage that negative thinking has on young people, how it stifles their natural ambitions, their intuitive aspirations. I want Indians instead to lead in American patriotism and to recover the true role in American society of host, guide and savior.'"
I know it sounds radical. I may offend many Indians at first, to think that an Indian would celebrate Columbus. Well, Columbus never met the Comanches. (Lucky for him, huh?) I mean, what do we have against him? He was a great man, very much like us. He had the itch to explore, to spread out, to discover new places. He was brave and courageous.
Christopher Columbus who landed on the
Caribbean Islands in 1492.
What followed was not his fault. To blame Columbus for all that came after him is like blaming Thomas Savery (inventor of the steam engine) for all the air pollution that has evolved since 1698. Why, the internal combustion engine was the turning point in Global Warming! Such reasoning is hysterical, and invented to whip up emotions of the ignorant and naive.
Furthermore, to think that all indigenous peoples of the western hemisphere should rise up and protest is a complete racist view, designed to foster globalist hatred of European white people. So the darkies are going to unite, eh? Well, we're about 500 years too late. We never united before. Why now? Columbus never met the Sioux, the Shoshoni, or even the Cherokee. For that matter, the Sioux never meet the Cherokee either.
No, this is all academic hysteria. This is political activism under the guise of university intellectualism. This is street level theatrics under the auspices of politically biased professors. It's all completely fake, or, I should say, mistaken.
There are better spirits to harbor here in America. There are more noble sentiments. I embark on this voyage to Columbus toward those ends.
I cannot actually participate in the Columbus Parade in Denver, however, because I must make my way to Washington DC, to participate in the American Indian classical composers fest, during which several of my most recent compositions will be performed. I must say, were it not for the coming of Columbus, I would not be writing for bassoons, keyboards, and orchestras. How's that for hysterical generalizations about cause and effect?!
Dr. David Yeagley
Of course, Indian people naturally assess our last 500 years in a negative light, because our lives have changed into something we did not anticipate nor desire. We resent that. All I'm saying is this: that is history. We cannot change that. We need positive views of our situation now, in order to have a positive experience in life. I go to Denver this Columbus season to explore those new positive views. That's all. I'm not going to tell Indians that our history is not tragic. I go to say, What about now? What do we do now? Are we doomed to remorse and regret? Are we doomed to alcoholism, immorality, dissipation and disease? Are we doomed to see our men run after blondes and our women lie down and be raped by Negroes? Somehow, I don't see dissing Columbus as a solution to these problems.
We need solutions, not historical assessments.
Mel Gibson's new movie, Apocalypto, is about the last days of the Mayan Civilization (central and southern Mexican Indians, not American Indians--not even Aztecs!). It's supposed to be another big hit. Gibson apparently sees a great parallel between the fall of the Mayans and the decline of America. It's all about sacrificing the young people on the altars--either of the gods, or of the political values. In other words, Gibson sees sending American young people to Iraq "for no reason" is equivalent to sacrificing them on the altar of, say, Ixtob, the suicide goddess, (just one of 190 different gods).
Mayan civilation, the land of many gods. Too many. Does America have too may?
Okay, so all Hollywood folk think they're great political leaders now, especially when they start getting a little older, with a few lines in their faces. Fine. But, Gibson is known as some kind of conservative. Conservativism means to value American values, to value America, to love and protect America. Isn't that what Iraq is all about? Keeping the fight in the enemy's country, rather than having terrorists running, bombing free in America, like they do in Baghdad (and in Israel)? Isn't Iraq about trying to established freedom and 'democracy' among a people who have never known its advantages, letting them taste it, and then trusting they will choose it on their own?
Well, aside from this painful disappointment coming from Gibson, the really funny part of this story is Rudy Youngblood, an "Indian" of some kind, whose claims are rather astounding. He claims to have at least four different kinds of Indian in him, representing all the major regions of the American continent--plus Mexican Indian. (I think he's a more regionalized Lou-Diamond Philips, who claimed to be of very race in the western hemisphere.) Youngblood also claims to be from every region in America, the north, the south, the west, etc. Wherever he goes, he's "from" there. In Oklahoma, he claimed to be from "around Ada." In Texas, he claimed to be from "around Austin."
Rudy "All-blood" Youngblood. The only blood he
hasn't claimed is Negro, and he obviously has it, or
wants to look it.
Okay, cover all the bases, racial and regional. And that will validate Gibson's fantasy of the fall. Exciting prospect, indeed.
What we have here is the antithesis of Ward Churchill. Poor guy only claimed to be a tiny fraction of Cherokee. And now we have a young actor who claimes to be all-Indian! The Fall of America. That's what it's all about, either way. Youngblood may just be an innocent actor at this point, but he's throwing in with the negative crowd, I'm afraid.
Mel seems a little depressed in his thinking at this point. He did a very successful film on Christ, The Passion, but his problem, apparently, is alcohol. Everyone knows, alcohol is a real downer, a horribly depressing vice to fall into. Maybe we're seeing the fall of Mel Gibson. Who knows? He's really warming up to Mexico these days, so say the Aztlaners.
Mel Gibson filming "Apocalypto" in Mexico.
The actor/director has great esteem
for Mexico.
I know that this film is of no help or uplifting influence to any Indians. For that, I am concerned. Once again, Indians are enlisted to serve the cause of faulting, if not condemning, America. White people, usually white liberals, love to use Indians to this end. Conservative whites are generally not so anxious to 'use' Indians to promote positive images of America, or of Indians. For that, I am also concerned.
This year, Rosh Hashanah ("first of the year," or beginning of the new year) falls on Sabbath. A special day for reflection, indeed.
In the Bible, it is called Yom Ha-Zikkaron, the day of remembrance. It is also called Yom Teruah, the day of blowing--that is, the sounding of the shofar. It is the day the ancient "trumpet" made of the ram's horn is sounded as a call to worship and remembrance. It's about thinking over the past year, recognizing mistakes, and essentially making the implied resolutions not to make them again.
The shofar (ram's horn trumpet)
The Jews say, L'shanah tovah tikatev v'taihatem, or, May you be inscribed and sealed for a good year, or, may you be inscribed in the book of Life. It all means, Have a good year. May Hashem (The Name) grant another year to your life.
Why? Why would one want more life? What is it about life that makes one want more of it? These are fundamental reflections. Are one's motives clear? Are they worthy? What exactly does a person seek in life? If these basic questions cannot be answered adequately, something is amiss. The soul is operating blindly. Yes, it happens constantly, this less than informed approach to life. Something about life itself propels one generally to want more.
But are the reasons depressed people wish for death or suicide a true reflection of the proper motives for living? Does what the depressed lack indicate what others should desire? Does a healthy desire for life indicate right motives and purposes?
The world is facing a massive movement of people who wish to die, and to kill as many other people as possible. What does that indicate, besides brutality, socio-pathology, and dangerous, unworthy life? What exactly is dysfunctional in that scenario? What is wrong with Islam? A hatred of life? A Satanic violence against living?
Yes, it's time to reflect, indeed, on the meaning and value of life. What is the quality life? What is the best, most desirable kind of life? Is there no consensus at all? Does history and world culture offer no suggestion?
In the near future, I hope to see my new book available to the public. It is called Altered States: The State of the Dead, and The State of the Holy. It addresses the two major challenges of human consciousness: 1) What happens when you die? and 2) What is holy? It seems to me that confusion and mistaken ideas about one or both of these questions leads to chronic social maladies and religious distortion. I take a comparative cultural and historical approach to the questions. Death is a many splendored thing, and my conclusion lies in the unique teaching of the ancient Hebrew cosmology. Holy is not so splendored, but very focused. It is generally a ploy for social authority, housed in religious garb. Once again, the ancient Hebrew construct is historically unique, and provides a rather stunning abstraction which subsumes all other psychological hierarchy and fantasy.
This is my reflection for Rosh Hashanah, 2006. I had hoped to have the book published by this date, but, alas, fate and poor communication have interposed. Nevertheless, Altered States will be available soon, through the online stores of Barnes & Noble, Borders, Amazon, et al.
I truly hope everyone living is alive then to have a look! L'shanah tovah tikatev v'taihatem.
The proposed identity of Arabs as the descendents of Ishmael, and thus Abraham (see Genesis 16) is the foundation of Mohammad's claim to religious authority. He made this claim in the early 7th century AD. The ancient Hebrew text (Genesis) however, indicates no such authority for Ishmael or his descendents. Ishmael is the heir of no promise. There are a couple of statements about him (and by implication, his descendents), but these are far less than spiritual.
"And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him." Genesis 16:12.
If this applies to more than the personal life span of Ishmael, and indeed to his descendents, it is a most terrible implication. A curse it is, upon the Ishmaelites and on everyone who must encounter them. The second generation (the sons) of Ishmael (who himself lived 137 years) are as follows: Nebajoth, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Duman, Massa, Hadar, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. (Genesis 25: 13-16.) As custom in the ancient world of the Middle East, villages, cities, and towns were often named after the person who founded them. Sometimes even geographic areas took the name of the man who established the township in the area. Genesis says that these people lived between Havilah and Shur. This includes the northern part of the Sinai Peninsula, between Egypt and Cana'an, extending possibly across the northern regions of the Arabian Peninsula eastward.
But, who are todays Arabs? That is the question. Even if they are the descendents of Ishmael (a point never demonstrated in any way by anyone), their claim to Abraham provides them no religious authority, and Mohammad's version of Hebrew history is as inaccurate as any subsequent interpolation. This is a very weak connection after all.
"Arab" in Hebrew ('ar-ab) comes from a primitive root which means to braid, or to mingle, to mix together. It conveys the idea of a bond, a deal, a contract, or collateral. It's a commitment of some kind. The same word also has the meaning of 'covering,' or darkening. It is used to convey the time of sunset, gloaming, or dusk, when colors darken, when shadows mix with light. It means to darken, to grow dusky. There being nothing particularly dark about the hot white sands of the desert, we're inclined to think arab refers to the complexion of the people. The braid bit, the mingling, may have something to do with their sociological nature. Perhpas in implies a certain intrusive nature, and the demand for dealings.
The word is in use, as a name for a people, at least as early as the time of Solomon (1 Kings 10:15). This would be 10th century BCE. Kings of Arabia brought fantastic gifts to Solomon, as did other kings. It seems as though they were investing in some kind of international bank. The centralizing of wealth depicted, regarding Solomon's kindgom, was accomplished without military conquest.
Be that as it may, there is no biblical identification of any of these Arabian kings or kingdoms with Ishmael, or any of Ishmael's descendents. Since the Bible and the Bible alone is Mohammad's claim to the Abraham connection, one must demand an explicit connection of Arabs to Ishmael, and there simply is none. Because of the geographic vicinity and proximity, one might be inclined to believe it is so, that Arabs are the descendents of Ishmael, but, this is the pressure of historical presumption and tradition, and moreover, of modern Islamic threat.
However, there is one verse that may indicate the geneological connection. It is from Ezekiel (6th century BCE) the prophet, 27:21. There is the phrase, "Arabia, and all the princes of Kedar..." Kedar (Quidri) was the northernmost area of the Arabian desert lands. Kedar is also named as one of the sons of Ishamel. There were at least two other ancient settlements in Arabia named after Ishmaels sons, Tema and Dedan, toward the southwestern regions. What we cannot know, however, is when these regions were named thus. Were they called by these names in 1900 BC, during the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael? Or were they named such later, much later, like a millennium later? The depth of bibical scholarship required to pursue these matters is inaccessible to us at the moment. The etymology and ethno-historical research demanded are simply beyond the scope of immediate blogging. However, we shall pursue this matter, inch by inch. For now, it seems very strange that not a single name of Ishmael's sons survives on the modern maps of "Saudi" Arabia. If they wanted to claim kin to Ishmael, it had been better to preserve some names. This asserts the question, Did the "Arabians" before Mohammad not wish to claim kin to Abraham? Were they not interested? When did the names Kedar, Tema, and Dedan fall out of use? Why?
Was Mohammad like a modern "casino" Indian leader, who suddenly claimed to be "Indian" (a descendent of Abraham) in order to cash in on religious authority--and all the political and material wealth and power such a claim would bring to him? Is that what happened?
A scholar of the Arabic language might be useful here. What about the evolution of Arabic? Why are there no ancient names, no 6th century BCE names surving? Did the language change significantly? Most languages tend to. What are the modern Arabic equivalents (or linguistic heirs) for the ancient names? There is no Kedar on the modern map, or any name remotely similar, anywhere. "Qe-dar" in Hebrew simply means dark, as in skin. It can refer to the shadow of the tent as well. A tent is for shade. It can be said that one put's up a shade or shadow, when one pitches a tent. No such term exists in modern Arabia for that territory. Al-Jawf and Al-Hudud ash shamaliyah are the names of states in the region of what was called Kedar. Unless I am completely mistaken, neither term means "dark" or "shadow." Interestingly, historically (1000 BC - 2nd century BC), Al-Jawf was the name of one of the southernmost states of Arabia, in Yemen, the state of Ma'in. So, even before Solomon, the Arabs had their own names for their regions, and their names did not include the names of Ishmael's sons!
It seems then that there was a long period when the Arabians despised any connection with Abraham. They renamed themselves and all their territories.
These are seemingly impossible pursuits. Suffice it to say, there's been a grand "ar-ab" in Arabia. A grand mixing. Mohammadans have a lot to prove. In fact, the whole Islamic show appears to be rather groundless. It is a fake claim, with fake authority. That is why it's only resort is force. Constant hysteria and force. It is a glass house of a most fragile making. Brutality is the only authority in Islam. Sensitivity? Some call it murder. Mass murder, at that.
NEWS: Is 'Islamic Fascism' A Slur? by Amil Imani
Iranian American denied patriotism by Adrian Blomfield
People who say Allah is God are misinformed. People who say that the Arab word "Allah" represents the same God as the Hebrews worship, do not know the Qur'an, or the Bible. The Arab "Allah" is not God. Allah is something else. And the Qur'an is not therefore inspired by God, but by something else. These are fundamentally different powers. There is no need to compare fruits, or sociological effects of the religion Allah and the religion of the true God. All that is necessary is to consider the written words.
The Bible was written over a period of at least 1,600 years, and includes at least 40 different authors. This is unique in literary history alone, to say nothing of the individual circumstances of each different author, and the cultural continuity preserved in the collection of texts. The Qur'an is a summary of one man's public orations over a mere twenty years. Mohammad's public career was followed closely by his adherents. Mohammad was preparing a "text" for them, but died (632 AD) before it was completed. His immediate followers put together as best they could a final "text."
The Qur'an presents a monotheistic "god," indeed, yet who never speaks in first person, unless he is quoting third hand references to the Hebrew scriptures. (See, e.g., surah 7:138, f., and a reference to God speaking to Moses.) Otherwise, this "Allah" always presents himself as the editorial "We." The third Caliph (successor of Mohammad), 'Uthman," rendered up the official arrangement of the qur'anic texts, haphazardly, in 114 chapters of varying length, and provided incipient prayers to each (Fatiha) and two charms at their closing (al-Mu'awidhdatan). Furthermore, Mohammad's style of oration changed markedly over his career, and mid-19th century European (German) scholars classified his writings in four periods: I Early Meccan; II Middle Meccan; III Late Meccan; and IV Medinan.
There is no similarity in the origin, nature, or character of the Qur'an in comparison to the ancient Hebrew Bible. The Qur'an is a political text, designed to unite vast Arab tribes under a race-based, single religion-based aggressive military force, with clear and present intent to conquor and dominate the world. Mohammad referenced the Bible, of course, but not a single story recounted in the Qur'an is anywhere near accurate when compared to the actual Biblical text.
Mohammad was Arab, obviously, but the geneological connection of Arabs to Ishmael is presumed. There is no concrete evidence of this at all. In other words, the claim that Arabs are the descendents of Ishmael, the son of Abraham (by the Egyptian servant, Hagar), is completely groundless. It is assumed true, and never questioned. That the inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula of the 7th century AD are the geneological descendents of Abraham is simply not demonstrable. It is a claim. The only possible, suggested varification is the inheritance of bad character. Genesis 16:12 says of Ishmael, "And he will be a wild man: hes hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him." That sounds like Arabs alright. Arab Muslims in particularl. According to Genesis 25:9, Ishamel came to Abraham's funeral, and joined his half-brother Isaac. Genesis 25:13-18 gives the descendents of Ishmael, and says they dwelt between Havilah and Shur. The Wilderness of Shur is the northern region of the Sinai peninsula. Havilah is an uncertain place, but it is possible that included a area of what today is called the Arabian Peninsula. However, those Arabian tribes of today have no record of their lineage whatsoever, nothing written. (No scholars seem to reference the names of Ishamel's sons in Genesis 25:13-18, either. This is quite strange.)
The Qur'an does not enjoin observance of the Sabbath, the divinely appointed memorial of creation, and sign between the Creator and all His true worhippers (Genesis 2:2,3; 31:13; Matthew 12:8; Revelation 14:7). The Qur'an instead says the sabbath was for those who opposed it (as if Jews were somehow the culprits!), surah 16:124, and that followers of Mohammad's Allah must drop business on Friday and go to prayer assemblies, surah 62:9. The profundity of the aversion Mohammad held toward the Jews is replete in the Qur'an.
The Qur'an denies the divinity of Christ as well, indeed, pronouncing it a blasphemy to believe God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself. Surah 5:17, 75; cf. 2 Corinthians 5:19. Something to offend all religions of the world, indeed. Islam condemns all other religions but Mohammad's religion. Whatever good things, eclectic things, gathered in the compendium of commands by the authoritarian Arab war lord, there is abundant evidence in his Qur'an that no other source of authority is to be tolerated. It is to be in fact vanquished, by violence.
In short, Mohammad was a competitor. The Qur'an is an urgent, alternative deal. Its followers mean business, and will not lie idle. Oil has given them new live. Thick, black blood. That is the life is Islam today. That is the power. Ironically, it was the west, namely England and America, who gave this power to the Arab world.
Allah, once the chief deity of the pagan Arab tribes, has quite a different personality from Elohim, the Hebrew God. anyone who objectively reads these texts can see that almost immediately. But Mohammad realized that monotheism was the trick to unite the Arabs, and thus his emphasis on the Semitic geneology through Ishmael, wholly non-demonstrable as it was, and is. To ally Allah with Abraham was the magic forumla to exalt Allah above all Arab deities.
Speaking of magic, the Qu'ran is written in poetic form, directly copied from pre-Islamic, pagan magic forumlas. It is conjuration poetry, designed to call supernatural spirits, not any one god, and certainly not the true God. The Qur'an is patterned after the incantations of the pagan Arab soothsayers. It's a spell alright, a spell of evil, as is plainly evident. The good aspects of the religion are merely moral enticements, ethical allurements, or ensorcellments.
There is no concept of the "holy" in the Qur'an. The term is used as a means of social authority, nothing more. In my soon to be published book, Altered States: The State of the Dead, and The State of the Holy, I examine the nature of the holy, and it is abundantly clear that the working concept of "the holy" in Islam is as superficial and authoritarian as it is in all pagan religions. Indeed, such a working concept is present even in Christianity. A thorough study of the ancient Hebrew scriptures, however, serves to define and demonstrate what holiness really is. It's never because man says it is.
Don't look for similarities between Islam and the Judeo-Christian religion, unless you see similarities between the carbon monoxide breathed out by a filthy murderer as grounds for brotherhood, unless you see the freedom of a murderous Muslim to own a car in America as a basis for universal communion.
I hereby willfully add my influence, however humble, to the separation of Islam from the world of human fellowhip and good will. As Herman Hupfeld once said (1931), "The world will always welcome lovers," not murderers. May Islam ever be separate from any other religion. May the cult of Mohammad remain averse, rejected, and shunned. May human beings under its awful spell be set free from fear and pain. And may the world be free of the evils of Islam. That is my sincere prayer. I could not pray this, unless I fully condemned Islam. I do not wish ill or pain upon Muslims. I wish they were not Muslims. I wish better things for them.
NEWS: "Proving the Pope Right," by Amil Imani, on Iranian.com.
"It's Islam, Dummy," by Amil Imani, in Kashmir Herald.
It's a simple story. Roman Catholic Pope Benedict XVI gave a speech at Regensburg University, in Germany, September 12, 2006. It was about Christian/Muslim relations, and he quoted a passage from a historical work, Dialogue 7 from Twenty-six Dialogues with a Persian (ca. 1391), by Byzantine Emporer Manuel II Palaiologos (1350-1425).
"He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,' " the pope said. (As reported in the New York Times.)
Mad Muslims burn the Pope. "We will break up the cross, spill the
liquor and impose the 'jizya' tax, then the only thing acceptable is a con-
version (to Islam) or (being killed by) the sword." Islam forbids drinking
alcohol and requires non-Muslims to paythe "jizya" tax, though those
who convert are exempt. These demonstrators are buring an effigy of
the Pope, along with the German flag, in the southern Iraqi city of Basra,
September 18, 2006. Atef Hassan/Reuters
True to the image portrayed, Muslims around the world were incensed to their typical madness and reacted with violence. The Pope read a historical description of them, and they immediately demonstrated the truth of the description. "Palestinian" Muslims attacked five churches with guns and fire bombs in the West Bank and Gaza. An Italian nun was murdered, shot four times in the back, by Muslims in Somalia. Protests and 'demonstrations' ensued in Egypt, Damascus, Beruit, Turkey, Iran, Jakarta, and even atheist China chimed in with the anti-Pope mantra. The Turks said the Pope was like Hitler. Iran calls for more 'demonstrations.' Al-qaeda said the Pope and the West were doomed.
The liberal media, along with the maniacal Muslims, was bound and determined to extract an apology from the Pope. They wanted to humiliate the pope, to have power over the papacy. The media put out headlines: "Pope apologizes." "Pope deeply sorry." "Pope expresses personal regret," etc. Anything to indulge that self-glorifying sense of moral superiority. They wanted a true Clintonian apology. The Muslims only and ever want to denigrate and humiliate. It is there mechanical instinct. (Is it a terrible inferiority complex? Is it a cultural pathology? Do they feel that depressed and forelorn themselves?)
But the Pope cannot and will not apologize. Not for the truth. How can he? He regrets the effect of his words, of course. He is sorry that the Muslims are the maniacs they are. He is sorry that they cannot control themselves, but are given to the lusts of rage and murder. The whole world is sorry for that. No one wants murderers on the loose. But the fact that the truth is quoted, anciently, and it provokes the very same reaction it did historically, only shows the perpetuity of the Islamic ill will.
"Islam" does not mean peace. Islam means "submission." It means hell in your face if you don't.
The ignorant Islamicists say the Pope is trying to start another crusade. Many Muslims like to accuse the Pope, President Bush, or anyone else who opposes Islam, of the same motive: crusade! crusade!
So,what's wrong with the crusades?! If it weren't for them, we'd all be dark, Arab-speaking Muslims. Gee, maybe some people in the world would like to pass on that one. The Crusades were created to drive the foreigners out of Europe, their foreign religion, the foreign people, and the foreign intents. Islam, then and now, is determined to dominate the world, and to destroy all in it's path. Europe resisted. If this is not true, then millions of Muslims misunderstand their "religion of peace." Is that likely? It is possible, but, is it likely? The religion denies all other religions. It denies nationhood, national history, and anything that smacks of independence from Islam--Islam meaning the evil power mongers leading the Islamic invasion.
The Muslims ignorantly if not willfully have everything backwards. Modern, ignorant media supports this reversal. Islam is and has always been the aggressor. Historically, in the Medieval period, Islam had Europe in a choke hold, with Muslims taking over the Iberian peninsula (Spain and southern France) in the West, and taking over Eastern Europe, even unto the gates of Vienna. Only the sudden and stunning Mongolian empire in the 13th century broke the Islamic hold on Europe. When Europe recovered, then explorers were sent out into the world to expand Europe, and strengthen her defense against Islam. (Anyone remember what started in 1492?) The Crusades, beginning in the late 11th century (1095), were defensive. Islam was the aggressor--against Christian Europe. Any news story or Islamic hysterical harrange that resverses history in this way contributes to evil in the world. It is a lie--at the foundation. Liberals love lies, so, Islam is a welcome partner to liberalism, indeed.
Some have speculated that the Pope intended all this Aufruhr. Italian former prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, said Saturday that the Pope's comments represented “an opening, a positive provocation. And so for this reason he is a great pope, with a great intelligence.” Possibly. There certainly needs to be a confession from all parties that Islam is no friend of the world. Not this world. Not at this point in history. Whatever accomplishments achieved under Islam were done so only after Islam had slaughter, raped, tortured, and otherwise subjugated all people in its path. Whatever contributions Islam made to western civilization could better have been made by western civilization.
Islam is malignant. It does not leaven the loaf. It smashes the loaf. It destroys, and then recreates what it wants. If there is doubt, or confusion as to the nature of Islam, simply look at history, and see that Islam is lying about it. Islamic leaders, educated, intelligent, etc., make no effort to confess the truth. Instead, they finance and promote the lie. That is the empirical fact of the matter.
A large, 150-pound pig escaped the slaughter house in Green Bay, Wisconson, and eluded the police for more than an hour. And not one squeal of cheer, or protest, from PETA Pam. (That's Pamela-apparently-'anti-pig'-Anderson.)
The bold porker hammed it up out on US 41, just outside Green Bay, obstructing traffic, and endured at least two Taser (stun gun) attacks, escaping as soon as the probes were removed, then out-wrestled a third would-be captor, and finally was tranquilized with three darts, by nightfall.
Attorney Robinson's heroic swine.
This horrific story of animal abuse received not one slice of sympathy from PETA Pam, the matron saint of all butchered foods--that is, of all animals to be slaughtered. Or so we thought. It seems Pamela Anderson is preoccupied with the enlarged breasts of chickens. The slaughter of horses evoked no chord of compasion; the Tasered pig brings no tear. She feels only for the unnaturally enhanced breasts of fowl. Ah, the crude yet acute propriety of it all.
PETA Pam. No tears for Tasered pigs.
Nina Robinson, an attorney in Appleton, informed authorities that the persistent pig was hers. Nobly defending the swine, she said it would not be up for slaughter any time soon. The pig had worthily escaped 'execution.' She told the Green Bay Press-Gazette that the bacon was home for the time being. Green Bay Police Lt. Todd LePine had had the hockster taken to the Green Bay Humane shelter, whence Robinson, being somehow suspicious or otherwise informed that the highway hog was hers. It apparently escaped somewhere between an Appleton Starbucks and Maplewood Meats.
A new level of attainment in the legal profession: the swine business. Personal pork involvement. Owning the lard, as it were. This gives new meaning to the old Sioux word, "wisichu" (fat-takers). It was a decrying response to the white man's greed. Ah, the cultural tautology of it all. How boaring.
Someone should soo-ey that pig! Or the attorney? The pig endangered the lives of the public, on the highway. The owner of the pig is an attorney. What a grand case this would have made. PETA missed it all. The ACLU missed it all.
But this increasing neglect of PETA Pam when it comes the crying abuse of four-legged critters is truly an outrage. It is a cause for serious concern. There must be a protest here, a protest of PETA Pam's paeons for palty poultry while the nobler creatures like the horse, and the pig, are left unattended by the refulgent resources of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Pammie's personal refulgence in this case is conspicuously absent.
Now, how shall we evaluate the fact that the our pig of the hour, our highway ham, was able to immediately revive itself the instant the Taser prob was removed from its flesh? What does this say about the neurological nature of pig skin, thought so highly of for centuries, thought so similar to human flesh? Pigs have been used in 'skin' experiments for decades. In the '60's, they were exposed to intense radiation experiments, and were able to survive with 3rd degree burns over 80% of their bodies. So say the real activists, (not the impuissant Pammie types). Before that, the Army had literally scorched the flesh of pigs with a flame thrower, as the animals went into shock. Why this experiment? They were learning how to treat third degree burns. It was in relation to the new "flame thrower" weapon developed by WWII. (Yeah, it was a German thing, and we needed to know how to deal with the victims quickly and effectively.)
Now, how a pig can endure two separate Taser attacks, and keep on running, should give everyone second thoughts about the similarity of pig skin and human skin. Pig's up. And somethin' ain't hangin' right.
Muslims continue learning the language of the Left. They now throw names around in a superficial, radical, hysterical manner, and this automatically alligns them with the liberals. A party official in Ankara, Turkey said the Pope would be remembered in history as being "in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini."
It seems his holiness quoted from the wrong book, at least wrong in the minds of the these raving radicals who have denounced him. Pope Benedict referenced a 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor, Manuel Paleologos II, and a Persian scholar, as they had recorded a conversation on the truths of Christianity and Islam. "'Show me," the Emperor asked the Islamic Iranian cleric, "just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The pope made this reference in a speech given in Germany yesterday, Thursday, September 14, 2006.
Turkish lawmaker Salih Kapusuz of the Justice and Development Party, with the
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, center rear, and his deputies Mehmet Ali
Sahin , left, and Abdullah Gul, right, in the background, makes a speech at the
parliament in Ankara, Turkey, in this Tuesday, Sept. 5, 2006 file photo. Turkey's
ruling Islamic-rooted party joined a wave of criticism of Pope Benedict XVI on
Friday, Sept. 15, 2006, accusing him of trying to revive the spirit of the Crusades
and saying he would go down in history in the same league as leaders like Hitler
and Mussolini for remarks he made on Islam. The comments by Salih Kapusuz, a
deputy leader of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's party, came a day after
Turkey's top cleric asked Benedict to take back recent remarks, escalating ten-
sions before the pontiff's November visit, his first to a Muslim country.
AP Photo/Murad Sezer
The maniacal Muslim leaders seized upon the reference, and immediately denounced the pope in the strongest language they could, accusing him of everything from pitiful ignorance to affinity with Adolf Hitler. Salih Kapusuz, a deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's party said of Pope Benedict, "He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world. It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades. Benedict, the author of such unfortunate and insolent remarks is going down in history for his words. However ... he is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini."
So, you can't quote history when speaking to Muslims. You can only quote what they want you to quote. Sounds Left to me. And you can only quote what they happen to know about. It's their rules, or you don't play. Sound liberal to me.
Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman Tasnim Aslam said, "Anyone who describes the Islamic religion as intolerant encourages violence."
Well, there you have it. Proof positive. The true Muslim is as willfully blind as the true Leftist. Everyone in the world knows that Islam is the most violent, murderous religion ever to curse the world. Daily we witness the behavior it engenders. Acts of heartless mass murder have increased dramatically with the rise of Islam against the West. It started out as a military affront on the world, and rests only when utterly dominant. That is its mission and goal.
Muslim protestors shout slogans against the Pope at a rally in Jammu, India, Friday,
Sept. 15, 2006. A growing chorus of Muslim leaders has called on the Pope to
apologize for the alleged derogatory comments made by him about Islam and
demanded an apology. AP Photo/Channi Anand
The hypocritical, tyrannical clerics are demanding that Pope Benedict "apologize"! Another hallmark of liberalism. Apologizing and demanding apologies is classic Left. The display of moral superiority is critical, at all times, no matter what the circumstance, or who is at fault. It's a tactic, a manipulation. One must either be apologizing, or demanding an apology.
The Vatican of course defends the Pope's reference to the 14th century conversation. The Pope respects Islam, the Pope is trying to encourage mutual understanding between the religions, etc., etc. The Pope is even scheduled to speak in Turkey, in November. This will be the first visit of a pope to a Muslim country, if it happens.
Historically, (and no doubt currently), Islam purposed to eradicate Christianity back in the days of the Crusades. Indeed, the Mohammadans had taken over Palestine, North Africa, and then invaded Asia Minor (Turkey), and Iberia (Spain), until they had Europe in a choke hold from the East and West. The Crusades, beginning in the 11th century, were clearly defensive--against a bloody invader. Europe was desperate. Any Muslim leader who does not recognize this obvious reality of history is himself the most ignorant and intolerant of all religious spokesmen. This arrogance we see, repeatedly, in today's Muslim leaders. The obvious is so obvious, for them to deny it so openly and brazenly indicates a lying, propagada approach to reality that bespeaks a satanic lust for power. It is a ghastly thing, to consider a Muslim leader's take on the world. It is repulsive and vomitable.
Now, true, the Popes were a a bit rough on dissenting Christians in Europe during the "dark" ages, and later the Catholic explorers were a bit rough on the indigenous peoples they encountered in the new world; however, this has no bearing whatsoever on the Muslims' reaction to the Popes recent words. Whatever the sins of the Roman Church, they were not against the Arab Muslims. They were not against Islam.
Let's keep our accusations accurate here.
Events and their media coverage create waves of public consciousness and social effect that are hard to resist. The tides are overwhelming. Yet, many people prefer to stand their ground, and not be swept away in fads, currents, or trends. A staunch breed, these folks have always been around, and their legacy is well-established.
According to Rudyard Kipling(1865-1936), it's just part of being a man.
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too...
Rudyard Kipling
Leaders, and their media coverage, don't always point us in the right direction. We all know this. In America, we have the privilege of voting, and we're supposed to be able to 'advise' our leaders, and shape our own destiny. Yet, we know this really doesn't work. It is an illusion. It's only a gesture of control, a token expression of our will as a people.
Trends happen. Sometimes they're like the wind, unaccountable, simply based on the market. Other times, trends are caused by evil, or they're based on coercive appeals to the baser side of human nature. That would be pornography, murder, theft, or anything that evokes compelling excitement. Even athletic performance.
In the case of Islam, is it pure destruction. The lust of death, the delight in destroying, this is perhaps the most compelling lust of all. Of course, the American entertainment business has well-prepared the public for it. Movies, TV, and media games are all bout destruction, violence, and murder. Is it indeed a surprise that Islam ignite the world like wildfire? The harvest is ripe. In America, the legistated permission to slaughter innocents (abortion) is a most urgent invitation to ill winds.
Those among us who stand for the truth, for the sole reason that it is truth, are bound for at least psychological adversity. The real truth in the world will never be popular. Truth will never be a trend. Why? It is against human nature. True spiritual heroics in life will never be faddish. Never en vogue. Morality cannot be marketed. Morality is a sacrifice, not a gain. Indeed, morality is a non-profit enterprise. Yes, we have religious organizations in America, lots of churches, and church schools. We try to create sub-societies in which we can be more comfortable, more accepted, more at peace. But society as a whole, as a free-market system, can never be religious or spiritual. It is against human nature. Thus, the true believer is always askew.
In all religious history, there is the matter of persecution. Not that every adversity validates spirituality in its victim, not that persecution automatically authenticates the one persecuted, but, it is a fact, "all that live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." 2 Timothy 3:12. The archetype is set and inescapable. Here's another century old rendition of the same archetype:
When the religion of Christ is most held in contempt, when His law is most despised, then should our zeal be the warmest and our courage and firmness the most unflinching. To stand in defense of the truth and righteousness when the majority forsake us, to fight the battles of the Lord when champions are few--this will be our test. At this time we must gather warmth from the coldness of others, courage from their cowardice, and loyalty from their treason. E.G.White, Testimonies, Vol.5, p.136.
It is always true that truth alienates one from the crowd. The crowd simply cannot accommodate the truth. Yes, the Good Lord makes His sun to shine on the just and the unjust, and sends refreshing, life-giving rain on the good and the evil. (Matthew 5:45) But this does not imply that truth runs the world. Human nature runs the world. Only through adversity, through chains of misfortune and disaster does human nature have any containment at all. The reins of our passions, in this world, are simply inherent in the trials and challenges of life--from whatever source, even war.
The truth is not in a political party, not in a media personality, nor in a religious body. The truth is not a creation of man or society. The truth of God is inherited, only, and always. It is not generated by market, nor shaped by war. It is completely personal. Consider yourself lucky if you happen to know the truth, if you were taught it, or you discovered it.
Thus, the archetype of alienation and persecution is engendered. If you espouse the truth, you are at least to some degree separated from your brethren. You may end up crucified.
This is apparently true in every dimension of reality, in every social stratum. Yes, conservatives and Republicans are worried that liberals and Leftists have irreparably distorted the nation. Yes, it appears they have gotten the victory, in terms of creating false issues, and distracting the more creative powers of good people. Capitalism itself, especially in the entertainment industry, seems to have permanently warped the values of the country. Anyone, at any level, who perceives truth, and makes a move in its behalf, is Christ, and probably Christ crucified.
The liability is obvious. Anyone enduring the slightest criticism is immediatly aggrandized as a victim, and a hero. This is the self-help, quick-fix righteousness of the liberals, of course.
Sean looking for a liberal in the audience, from Insanity in Phoenix
photo album on the Sean Hannity site.
But then, conservatives do it, too. Sean Hannity has a new thing on his radio show where you can call in and record your condemnation or criticism of his positions. A public service, he says, for all those frustrated liberals which he proports to offend daily. This is persecution for ratings. This is entertainment. This is media. This is making sport of the truth. Unbecoming and belittling as it is, it is part and parcel of the political game in today's American market.
Be that as it may, conscience must prevail, or slavery ensues. Trends, fads, and currents are inevitable and overwhelming. Social customs and traditions are fundamental to human existence. Conscience is the only possible guide or rein. Alas, conscience is the least listened to voice in all American noise. Conscience is simple and quiet. It's not entertainment. It can't fill hours of daily media time. It has precious little to say. That's partly why it isn't heard. It's just not marketable. It is an impractical product. It can't sell. It doesn't fit on the market.
All this sounds extreme, certainly. And life is just too messy. Life is a mix of ambiguity and passion. Life is uncertain. We look for balance, or a teaspoon of maneur mixed in every lofty idea of perfection. So be it, for now. We mustn't be suicidal. Let persecution come to us, not we to it. Let's not rush into it. Just stand for the truth that you know, or think you know, and see what happens. And you might be wrong. Then you might look instead for consensus, for historical consistency. But even that is going to be a record of trends, fads, and currents, again. Even the history of the Jews, in the Bible, is affected by the world around it. Israel to a great extent was shaped by its enemies.
So, the truth is in the threads, not in the garment. The trees, not the forest. The germs, not the body. Even the atoms, not the universe. The bigger picture takes care of itself. Our concern is the immediate truth, or 'the kindgom of God' now, not history past or future.
Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Matthew 6:34.
The juvenile film, Death of a President, represents one of the liabilities of freedom--the freedom to create personal fantasy and make it available for public consumption. Sensible people, thinking people, are not affected by it. But, it exists. Someone's fantasy has created a piece of mass communication. It's available for the public to see. Craven and habit-prone as a consumer society is, Americans will probably 'go see' the movie.
After all, an American company is going to distribute it. Newmarket Films. This is the company that handled Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." So, Newmarket is innocent, right? And the people, they're innocent, right? Newmarket is just a neutral, capitalist enterprise. The people are just people. That's how it works. But you can boycott Newmarket films if you want. That's freedom, too. You can boycott any theatre that shows their films. There is awesome power in an effective boycott. (Come'on all you left-over '60's sidewalk radicals! Get after it!)
Gabriel Range, the creator of the film, has been into sensational fantasy for some time. The "documentary" gig is just a way to kick it up a notch. Attaching a descriptive title that bespeaks history, fact, etc., is a way of validating or certainly aggrandizing the fantasy. ABC just did it, with "The Path to 9-11." It's called, heightened entertainment.
Only "The Path to 9-11" was based on fact, not fantasy. Big difference. The one is based on history. The other is fantasy future.
The English Left has been quite Left for some time. An assassination film is no surprise. In 2003, Range created "The Day Britain Stopped," a film about a mid-air collision over London, an event which, in mid winter, brings the entire British transportation system to a halt. (De-)Range is into mass hysteria and apocalyptic-type films.
Jason Apuzzo's site for conservative commentary on film, Libertas, offers some interesting remarks:
All of this is so sick as to basically defy description, or my own generally robust capacity for satire. Of course, we're going to hear the usual meme-platitudes from the Left about all this, about how it's 'just a movie,' and that this is a 'matter of free speech,' 'raising questions,' 'probing unjustified fears of Muslims,' etc. But really this film appears to be the usual, passive-aggressive behavior of the Left - essentially a wish-fulfilment of a lot of people in the filmmaking community who would be better off: a) in a mental ward; or b) training at an Al Qaeda camp.
Jason Apuzzo. I met him at the David Horowitz week-
end in Phoenix earlier this year.
Then co-founder of Libertas, Govindini Murty (Hindu-American) offers the same senitments in these words:
It takes a lot to shock me nowadays, but even I am sickened beyond belief by this anti-Bush assassination fantasy. And until I see Hollywood liberals distancing themselves in a big way from this movie, I’m basically going to have to assume that the liberal-leaning film community - both internationally and domestically - is absolutely going off the deep end.
Govindini Murty, a powerful personality
in conservative film.
Well, what we need to do here is to follow the money. Who funded Gabriel Range for "Death of a President"? And to what party does Newmarket Films make contributions? There's usually a connection.
Newmarket Entertainment Group was founded in 1994 by William Tyrer and Chris Ball. In 2005 New Line and HBO Films acquired the distribution arm of Newmarket and combined it with Fine Line to form theatrical distribution firm Picturehouse. Bob Berney was the original exec, (and he's from Oklahoma!). Well, don't think George Soros isn't into owning media. He and partner Steven Mnuchin bought Viacom Inc.'s DreamWorks LLC film library for $900 million, gaining rights to movies including "Gladiator'' and "Saving Private Ryan." And Soros took over Robert Redfords "documentary" fund for the Sundance Institute. Anyway, a Time Warner report says HBO's Chris Albrecht, Robert Shaye, and Michael Lynne appointed Bob Berney as the exec of the new merger company, Picturehouse. No connection to Soros, yet.
Apuzzo and Murty, with Ann Coulter in the middle. Apuzzo and
Murty are husband and wife. I may have met Murty at the same
Horowitz week-end. But then, how could I forget?!
Now, there's something called Gabriel Media, a non-profit entity devoted to documentary films, founded by Jonathan Stack in 1991. It's a New York thing. Then there's Gabriel Films, Ltd, out of Scotland, starting up in 1998. Hard to find anything directly about Gabriel Range, the director, therefore difficult to find out who backs him.
Entertainment is based on excitement. Excitement is usually about outrage, especially today, in this age of politicial dominance. Everything is a political statement, a political challenge. Politics, not baseball, has become America's favorite pass-time. Entertainment and politics are now forever married. Politics is simply a form of entertainment, and the money factor is equally important. Profit is the goal. It is that simple. Power means profit, and profit means power.
And we'll never hear Ted Kenney criticize or condemn "The Death of a President," even though he's had two brothers assassinated! There has been too much profit made off of movies about the Kennedys. Range's "futuristic" docu-dramas just put wishful thinking in the realm of politics. Politics is fantasy now. That's it. A new genre. Fantasy politics. The video games will be out soon. The bets will develop. Glenn Beck used to have a fantasy betting game going on his web site. But that wasn't really like a futuristic fantasy film or story machine. It will become 'create-a-world' market. Optional formulas, outcomes, leaders, all computerized, and soon elections will be decided on projections. Actual votes of actual voters will no longer be needed.
Under these prospects, it has become a bit difficult to take anything or anyone seriously. Anyone being in the media seems a tell-tale sign of a sell of somekind. The enemies of conservatism and Republicanism are shameless and relentless and without standards, certainly. But that leaves conservative Republicans with only words or wars. Too much of conservatism has had to be spent cleaning up liberal messes. It is as if "the path of conservatism" has been marked out by liberals--the mess makers, the destroyers, the enemies. The sheer powers of creation, of productivity, of accomplishment, so characteristic of the conservative ideology, have become preoccupied with putting out fires fuelled perpetually by leftist agitators.
Wishful thinking? I wish there were a cure for Leftism. How about a fantasy "docu-drama" about that? Nah. There's no cure. Liberals are too immature. They're like little kids. It's so much more fun to knock over the tower of blocks, than to patiently, one by one, block by block, build the great tower. Liberals just like to knock it over with a swoop. It's so exciting.
As long as conservatives build something, the liberals will want to knock it over. The liberals will have their infantilie entertainment.
To everything there is a season,
and a time to every purpose under the heaven...
A time to kill, and a time to heal,
A time to love, and a time to hate... Ecclesiastes 3: 1,3,8.
In a mood to mourn? As America turns its attention to the events of September 11, 2001, what is the real feeling of the people? Not the formal, ritualistic, orderly response, and not the expected, professional display, but, what is the true state of the country? Is it all just about mourning?---which is what liberals love to do. Is it about victims?--whom liberals love to idolize. Is it all about establishing a political vantage point? That's about all that be can expected from most politicians.
Old Glory. What is she representing these
days? Has she been taken for a ride? Is there
such a thing as "country abuse"?
What is the true national feeling? What is the reaction of the country? In the five ensuing years, the focus has been blurred, obfuscated, and misguided. The enemy was ill-defined, and still is. And September 11 was only one dramatic attack. There had been many preceding, and many since. Every time a mass murderer (so-called "suicide bomber") acts, it is the same dynamic, the same issue, the same result.
Liberals mourn. Conservatives take crippled, misguided action, violent though it assuredly has been.
But did anyone bother to kill, or to hate? Did the outrage of the American public ever find true expression? Or did the Leftist "therapy approach" get the best of us? That part of America that did take action took a very careful action, a surgical tactic. It was too careful. We've tried to conduct a war without disturbing the enemy any too much. We've tried to spare his friends and relatives (--from which, by the way, he raises up more like himself). We don't want to disturb their breakfast.
Resolve, the conservatives say. We have shown resolve!
I disagree. We have shown a very weak response. We have been too considerate, too kind, too unwilling to hate, too unwilling to kill.
Every Arab Muslim in this country should have been deported immediately. Every Pakistani Muslim should have been shipped home that day. The American public should have been allowed to show it's true feelings! Instead, laws were made against us! We were disallowed to show our discontent. Any indication of our true feeling was called "prejudice," "bias," "mean-spirited," or whatever the false, self-righteous liberal deceivers could call it. The liberals were more righteous than us. They were the true, spiritual leaders. They had replaced Christ. They were the fathers of the public soul. They were the pastors of the people.
America has never recovered from the enemy's influence, and probably never will. We're not allowed to. We haven't hit back. We haven't responded. We're condemned if we do. We're supposed to conduct a war without hate, without killing, without rage! Our soldiers are missionaries. They're not allowed to kill the enemy. They'll be dishonorably discharged. They'll be courtmartialed. They'll be sentenced to death!
No, we haven't responded at all. It's against the liberal law. Liberals rule. The conservative influence is a complete illusion. It's all talk. They might get a candidate elected, but he quickly becomes useless, powerless, and ends up serving liberal agendas.
Liberals control 9-11. Revenge is outlawed. Instead it's all about our "loss." Our soul-searching. Our pain. It always has been. The move in Iraq was nice, but, not accurate, emotionally. "Take the fight to them" the conservatives said? No. Take the Muslims and put them back in their own countries! That would have been the direct move on the enemy. Put a ten-year travel ban on all Muslims, from the Middle East, from southeast Asia, from wherever. That would have been just.
Instead, our government was pleased to inconvenience America! The laws were against us! The response was against us! We in fact were not allowed to express our true feelings, nor to defend ourselves. We were required not to get our little white shirts dirty. The motherly liberals would beat the tar out of us if we got one scratch on us. Now, she would deal with that big bad enemy. She would go give that bully a tongue lashing. But she didn't even do that. She wanted to know why he hated us so. She wanted to negotiate with him, to sit down and talk, to feel, to touch.
We wanted to kill him! We hated him!
But that was wrong. We weren't allowed to be men. America wasn't allowed to be the grand man he really is, or what he used to be. He's a big baby now. He is emasculated. The war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq--these are not wars. These are tactical missions. No war has been declared. No country has been identified as the enemy. Saudi Arab is sacrosanct. North Korea, Iran, these are all untouchable. Off limits.
I'm sorry. I'm disappointed. September 11 is a time for mourning, all right. It is a time to mourn the loss of American dignity, freedom, and manhood. September 11 is a time of shame, disgrace, and the victory of Liberalism. Eight years of the Clintons sealed our doom. Eight years of Bush has not and cannot turn the tide.
No, America can't perfect the world. But, until we can bust our enemy's in the face, and grind them into the dirt, our enemies will only strengthen, and our freedoms will diminish. That is the lesson of 9-11. That is the effect of Islam. It has weakened the world. The liberal, misplaced spiritual "morality" has invited chaos, and insured destruction. The time to love the enemy is when it is within a personal relationship. The time to hate the enemy is when it's nation to nation. To legislate personal morality in terms of foreign policy is a forumla for disintegration. That is what we have seen in modern times.
So, mourn on, America. Honor the victims. Make heroes of the common man. Aggrandize the inevitables. Ban outrage. Condemn anger. Ridicule hatred of the enemy. Imagine yourself divine. Fancy yourself above meanness. Let the enemy be mean, dirty, and ugly. Your above that.
You'll die a wonderful Christian nation. The Muslims will won't let you resurrect yourself, either, if that's what you're thinking. You'll be finished, for good.
Go ahead. Make your speeches. Be dignified about it. No one will ever accuse you of getting your shirt dirty. You'll be buried in the finest clothes the world has ever seen.
On a national level, I'll live dirty, thank you. I'd rather have a country, a free country. I'd rather have the America that's supposed to be!
Ya know, mate, 'e could 'a' saved a lo' if 'e 'ad GEICO. I mean, I dunno 'ow many ahneemals 'e played wi', but I'm sure 'e must 'o 'ad some kind o' insurance, no? Com'on mate, ya can't be playing with death li' that an' not 'ave insurance? 'e weren't stupid, mate! Then agin, were 'e?
It's a hard sell, indeed. The unhappy death of animal entertainer Steve Irwin is still in the news. It happened a week ago (September 4, 2006). His obituary was in the NYTimes the next day. Even such a piece cited the controversy over Irwin's style. Was he a mere entertainer? Did he abuse animals?
Ya can't git too close to 'em, ya know. Ahneemals got their rights. You'll never find me temptin' the devils. Somthin' 'orrible could 'appen like this, mate!
'ats me second cousin on me mother's side, there in the beak 'o fate. No theatrics.
Filming animals, encountering animals, and protecting animals, these are all grand liberal causes in the world. Especially when the course of nature can be used to justify liberal political causes, then nature is god. The whole Global Warming front is about as fraudulent as any, ever, yet it can be plugged in at almost every turn of animal or invironmental encounters. There is no global warming, at least none caused by man. But there is a deeper question. Is it ordained that man should attempt to preserve every species on earth?
Evolutionists avow that hundreds and thousands of species have gone the way of the emu, ever before man fired up the first internal combustion engine. Whence cometh the moral imperative to save species? Is it connected to other concerns, or is it simply a principle of action?
And then there is the matter of words, and the confusion of terms. A conservationist, one who wants the preserve the flora and fauna of the present world, is anything but a political conservative. A naturalist, or a conservationist is a liberal of the most aggressive kind. His righteousness is not about mankind, but about the environment. He must save the planet, not man's soul.
Steve Irwin, playing with a crocodile.
Steve Irwin is naturally hailed as a wildlife conservationist, by liberals. But was he? The NYTimes has even addressed that issue. How does playing with wild animals, taunting them, man-handling them, encourage appreciation for their place in the world? He "gleefully invades the personal space of any wild animal he encounters," said NYTimes' Christopher Noxon, in 1999. The question has been around.
To put it simply, Irwin, since he was a little kid, loved to play with animals. That's really all there is to it. Whatever neurosis is indicated thereby, it amounts to nothing more. Irwins place in the sociological stratusphere of homo sapiens is a matter of economic analysis, a matter of sheer marketing. Everyone has curiosity about animals, and fantasies about handling them. They're beautiful. Maybe Irwin was just trying to break through the wildness and to touch the grandeur. Many people vicariously do the same through Irwin's daring. For that, he will be remembered.
Conservationist? Nah. Ah mean, get real, mate. 'E was just a fun lovin' kid. It was bound to 'appen. Really it was. Theatics an' all. I do hope 'e 'ad GEICO.
An' o'll be watchin 'is wallabies now, mate?
The Clinton machine is at it again, this time trying to destroy the First Amemdment, directly.
That's right. He wants to control ABC now. ABC has created a 'docu-drama' entitled "The Path to 9/11," and it apparently reveals the plain facts that former president Bill Clinton brought about the Islamic war against the west. Or should we say, Bill Clinton's negligence encouraged the Islamic war against the west? Should we say, Bill Clinton's refusal to do anything about Islamic attacks against the US and the west gave the Islamic terrorists the green light?
According to NewsBusters Noel Shepherd and Greg Sheffield, Clinton was furious, and sicced his lawyers have demanded that ABC either edit or pull the film. "we urge you to...not airing this drama until the egregious factual errors are corrected, an endeavor we could easily assist you with given the opportunity to view the film." (Text provided by TPM Cafe. The story first broke in the New York Post.) All the players in the real story, Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright, etc., are equally upset. Why? They are seen in their true character, apparently. Their failures, their spirit of anti-Americanism, their studied 'tolerance' of terror in the name of world opinion, are what led to the situation America is in today with the Islamic war against the west.
The Arkansas boss, Bill Clinton
Of course, none of this crowd has one word to say about the blatant lies in Michael Moore's "9/11" film--which professed to be factual, and had no hint of fiction, as there in ABC's advertised "docu-drama." No issues of truth when it comes to an anti-American, anti-Bush film like Michael Moore's.
NewsBusters P.J.Gladnick cites Brit Hume as Hume exposes the Democrat machine behind the attack on ABC's film. Google, apparently pro-Muslim, pro-terrorist, is manipulating the information in the search process. It's a virtual internet "bomb." A public hack job is outlined, and encouraged. It's all in an effort to block the real information about ABC's film, and to "dominate" the search pages with anti-ABC entries. Yep. It's war. The Democrats are so devoted.
ABC's Robert J. Iger, Democrat supporter.
Of course, if ABC caves in, and lets Clinton deny them their First Amendment rights, it will be connected to the fact that Robert J. Iger, CEO of Disney (parent company of ABC) is a big donor to Democrat candidates (including Hilary Clinton). Thus reports Newsbusters' Greg Sheffield.
What an ugly attitude, this Democrat thing. Well, let's say it's certain individuals in the Democrat party, who control it. But, we look it over, and it seems all the main leaders, like Harry "the hack" Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, they're all alike. There's nothing they won't do or say to "win." "Whatever it takes," like Al Gore said.
And just last night, Gary Hart was on Bill O'Reilly, panhandling his new book about how all the Democrats warned Bush about the coming terrorist attacks! (And as long as we're referencing Left sources, have a look at Think Progress on the ABC's 9/11 film. Like, who ever is portrayed in the film has the right to control the film. Well, how many films would have to be pulled on that basis?)
That's the way they work. The Dems always position themselves in the right, to condemn whatever is happening. It's never their fault, and they're always right. They condemned Bush for responding to 9/11, but now they say they told him it was coming! What a plague to reason, a nemesis to rationale, a curse to honesty, are these professional Democrats.
The New York Post, a milder sort of grocery rag, a slightly softer Enquirer, really played up the story. It was political gangland, indeed. Clinton was out to kill. "Bubba Goes Ballistic," "Clean 'Bill' for 9/11 Movie," and check out Mike Cunningham's photos of the actual NYP editions.
So this is the deal: the Democrats don't believe in freed speech, exept when it's them talking. It's wrong to lie about someone else, true. But, then, how could the Democrats campaign for their causes?
Is Pamela Anderson out of commission? There's a horse crisis in the country. Where is Pamela "Artemis" Anderson? Where's the great guardian of animals?
The United States Congress is about to vote today on whether or not horses in America should be slaughtered for food. It seems that there is a coalition of protest organizations who feel the issue is a federal case. But PETA, and their prime meat representative Pamela Anderson, seemed to have missed the call here on this horse-for-food issue. Let's examine this matter more carefully.
Pamela Anderson, the chicken breast protector.
No concern for horse meat?
BadEagle Forums posted yesterday that this horse meat issue is not a new one. It started, in serious terms, in 2001, when Mad Cow Disease had significantly affected the sale of beef in Europe. Horse meat became an item. There are not many horse slaughter houses in America and Canada, but their business has been growing rapidly. Now, PETA posts a statement about horse slaughter on their web site, and in fact, has protested the treatment of horses in rodeos and other performance situations. (Gee, no Tennessee Walkers for PETA. And you can forget the Lippizanner show. PETA even protests the way horses are worked too hard pulling wagons on Michigan's Mackinac Island!)
By 2006, the Doris Day Animal League, Humane Society of the United States, Animal Welfare Institute, The Fund For Animals, Society for Animal Protective Legislation, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and American Humane Association were all on board the protest campaign. They fully support the congressional efforts to bring the matter to a vote: The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act -- H.R. 503 by U.S. Reps. John Sweeney, John Spratt, and Ed Whitfield, and S. 1915 by U.S. Senators John Ensign and Mary Landrieu. An overwhelmingly Democrat bill (though original Senate sponser was Republican John Ensign of Nevada), it reeks beyond all other pretense of compassion. It is landmark of galling waste and self-righteous braggadocio.
The arguments against slaughtering horses are ludicrous and embarrassing. One of the most ridiculous is from the Doris Day group. They think the Ensign bill "will ensure that no American horse is ever forced to suffer the long and painful journey to slaughter at a foreign-owned plant for the culinary desires of foreign gourmands." The prejudice in this statement is archetypal. It is an uber-feel. First of all, horse owners drive their animals across the country, regularly, for rodeos, races, horse shows, and markets. "Long and painful journey"? I guess if they're used for anything but meat, the journey just isn't so painful. Secondly, "Foreign-owned plants"? Since when did Democrats care about foreigners owning American property. (The statement fails to name the owners.) They're trying to give America to the illegal Mexicans! Clinton tried to sell every American thing he could to China, from top secret military intelligence and technology to Los Angeles coastal property--and even the Panama Canal rights. Democrats are concerned over a hand full of tiny slaughter houses, employing all of 200 people? (Funny, PETA claims to have shut down "the largest horse-slaughter operation in the United States" but doesn't say when, where, or how.)
It's just another case of Liberals trying to act American. Why, what could be more American than the horse? (Never mind that the horse is also Mongolian, European, Egyptian--anciently, Arab, and American Indian, etc.) But whenever Liberals try to hone in on some 'American icon,' they do so in a most idiotic, hypocritical, and irrational way, to the embarrassment of humanity, let alone America. Anyone in the horse business knows how many useless horses there are in the country, how pitiful they are when 'out to pasture,' how neglected they become, etc., and what's more, how much of a great waste it is to care for them.
But, back to PETA, we're still wondering, Where's Pammy? Now, she was into nudity for PETA anti-fur adds (like several other 'models,'--and now every body and his dog is dying to pose nude for PETA), and she was into protesting enlarged chicken breasts during her anti-Kentucky Fried Chicken campaign. It was all terribly ironic and funny, as well as confusing. So, now there's no way to work Pammy in on the horse meat? Hmm. Is her contract with PETA up? This is a matter of grave concern--for all great lovers of horses. This is dauntingly disappointing. True, horses are not known for their breasts, but, still, we still must not presume that Pamela Anderson has no regard for the American stallion!
Not the kind of horse that ends up in the
slaughter house!
FLASH: Pammy boycotted the Kentucky Derby this year, not over concern for horses, but because the event was sponsored by Kentucky Fried Chicken!
Mary Fallin, Lt. Gov. of Oklahoma, running for US Congress
Mary Fallin, Lieutenant Governor of Oklahoma, believes Indian sovereignty should be preserved. At a time when many conservatives have advocated the dissolution of Indian sovereignty, and the disbanding of Indian reservations altogether, Mary Fallin, Republican candidate for US Congress, has publicly stated she does not believe Indian sovereignty should be done away with. What occasioned such a candid confession, such a frank testimony?
Oklahoma Lt.Gov. Mary Fallin, speaking at the 2004 International Space Development
Confernence, in Oklahoma City.
It happened at a conservative political club meeting, one of the most aggressively conservative clubs in Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee. Charlie Meadows is the president, and Richard Engle vice-president. (Richard happens to be president of the National Federation of Republic Assemblies, as well.) Charlie is one of those conservatives who want Indians to join America, and to absolve all historical precedents, relinquish all blood-bought treaties, and who doesn't want Indians to have any special rights over any other American citizen. Engle is not so radical on the treatie part, but he does think the treaties should be "re-negotiated." And he does believe that, in its present form, Indian 'sovereign immunity' is an enemy of the United States. So, one would not expect an enthusiastic support of 'Indian rights' to come from OCPAC. They want Indians to be like everyone else, in the name of equality, on an "equal playing field" in business, is what they mean. Nothing else. They don't like Indians having any perceived "advantages."
So, this election season, beginning in the spring, Charlie started drilling the candidates. At every weekly meeting, a different set of candidates appeared at the club's luncheon. OCPAC regularly features candidates, interviews them, lets them stump, and then opens it all up to questions from the audience. I witnessed most every candidate in the beginning, from the county commissioners to the state house reps and senators, from the attorney generals, lieutenant governors, to the United States Congressional candidates. Charlie had a battery of questions he asked each of them, on the day they appeared before the club. I don't think there was any preparation. The candidates had to respond from where they were, politically and spiritually.
Fallin makes another point, simply and frankly, as is her wont.
One of the questions Charlie put to them was about Indian sovereignty. He asked if they would be willing to consider the prospect of doing away with Indian sovereignty altogether, and suggested some alternatives--based on the idea of equality (in business). Most of the candidates seemed taken a bit by surprise. It seemed an outlandish idea to them, but, they meekly, curiously considered it. Most of them agreed that they would be willing to consider such an idea.
Not Mary Fallin. The day she spoke to OCPAC, she simply and flatly denied such a consideration. "I don't think we should take their sovereignty away."
She was the only candidate that made such a definitive statement. Simple though it was, to me it was very dramatic.. It was simply how she felt. They moved on to the next question. There was no discussion or consideration on her part for the idea of dissolving Indian sovereignty.
Mary Fallin, US Congressional candidate, the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Oklahoma, the state with traditionally the highest Indian population in the country, said that she felt it would be wrong to do away with Indian sovereignty. I think this is pretty special. Obviously, every Indian in the state of Oklahoma should support Mary Fallin. I will do whatever I can to support her. She is definitely a conservative candidate, and seems to have an overwhelming lead at this point. She is a native Oklahoman, and beloved by most everyone. She has had her hard knocks, too, but came through as a real trooper.
She probably doesn't need the Indian vote, but, I say that she certainly deserves it. She's not crazy about state lotteries, but she hasn't stated any specific position on Indian casinos. She does hold very precious values that we all do well to support and advocate. Oklahoma Indians are not known as a serious voting block, by any means, but, it is time that we become such. It is time for us to count our votes, not our casino money. This is our country, and we should pay more careful attention to what's going on. The lobby against Indian sovereignty, born of casino abuses, is growing every day. We need someone like Mary Fallin who believes at least in the principle of Indian sovereignty. We can work from there.
On the morrow, I shall cast myself at her feet, and offer my services in support of her bid for Congress. We have till November. I think every Indian in the state of Oklahoma should vote for Mary Fallin. There are over a quarter of a million Indians in Oklahoma. That should count for something.
"Don't ask me about Indian sovereignty again, ya hear?" Not exactly what she said at
OCPAC, but there's no question in her mind. Indian sovereignty stays. That means we
Indians have someone we can work with. Vote for Mary Fallin, Republican for US Congress.
The pathetic story of Adam Yahiye Gadahn is a classic case of desperate confusion. And the media is using it to terrorize the American public, of course. It makes for great drama when reporters can say, "Gee! He was just a typical American boy. He's turned into an Al-qaeda terrorist! Who's next? Your neighbor? Your friend? Your brother?" The reporters are terrorists in their own right. They loved to falsely emphasis that "typical American" element. It's the basis fo the terror tactic.
Last night, Miss Chinese American reporter, Carol Lin, expressed herself quite revealingly, as she interviewed the executive director of the mosque where Gadahn "prayed five times a day" (the Orange County Islamic Society). Lin tried to dramatize how "American" Adam was. "He played guitar. He loved rock music. He probably ate at McDonalds."
Carol Lin, Chinese American CNN anchor.
I'd say that's a pretty sick concept of what it means to be American. Pretty superficial. Pretty circumstancial and meaningless. Thank you, Miss Chinese American, for that profound cultural insight. (And thank you, CNN for your illustrious array of internationals, representing the world to America. We're particularly depressed by Zain Verjee, the Hindu reporter who sports a heavy English accent, educated in Canada from her teens. A quaint fake, as it were.)
This is precisely the kind of internationalism that creates the kind of confusion that spawns freaks like Adam Gadahn. Lin mentioned that he was half Catholic and half Jewish. Now that makes even more sense. Of course, she hopefully was referencing his religious background, but, how do you be half this and half that, in matters of doctrine? This was a sloppy, stupid way of referencing his parents, presumably. The family name was Pearlman, until the father, Philip, changed it to Gadahn. The Gadahn children (three) were homeschooled, it is said. Adam did not go to college.
So what's so "American" about this family, Miss Lin? Tell us more, since you're the authority on American culture, since your ideas are deemed by CNN as worthy of parading before the American public on a very frequent basis.
Adam went to Pakistan while still in his teens. He'd already converted to Islam. The mother was "Christian" but not religious? The father says they were "Universalists" and non-violent? This is now typically American?
Let's be then as vague as possible. Let's mix things up in a 'universalist' shishkabab of culture, and see what we come up with. What does a liberal, multi-cultural, multi-theological chaos produce? A Muslim convert. A weak, lost individual desperate for authority in his life. How about, a murderer, wrapped in robes and turbans?
This is anything but American. This is ignorance, confusion, lack of focus--with multiculturalism (Miss Lin) stuffed in your face, crammed down your throat. This is precisely the result of disdain for everything that is American. Reporters and writers that love the refulgence of internationalism, who luxuriate in their foreignness, parading their superficial "Americanness" that makes absolute mockery of America, all contribute most effectively to the erosion of what it means to be an American. They apparently have no concept of what they are doing.
It's all glamorous. It's all a wondrous international bazaare. Flip on the TV, and you get a huge dose of it every day. As the university campus has long known, the display of foreign names and faces creates the impression of superior points of view, of authentic objectivity. It's authentic, all right, authentically fake. And it has the effect of blurring the American identity, of diluting the national concept, and it finally produces a generation of youth who are so frustrated they can only rebel.
The desperate Gadahn, finding a place
in the focus of cultural hatred.
Of course, Adam Gadahn now "invites" America to convert to Islam! That's the final effect. Beautiful. Irony. Drama. What a market. Oh, yes, Miss Chinese America invited the TV audience to cast a vote as to whether the media helps the terrorists. Stunning objectivity. Let's all get emotional together.
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001