The infamous "N" word is back. (It never left!) It's been headline news since the Friday before Thanksgiving (which was Friday, November 20th.) And Michael Richards has been apologizing for using it ever since. He's even seeing a psychiatrist about it! (And they say he's not Jewish.)
Michael Richards doing penance before the "reverend" Jessie Jackson.
It's never going to end. Blacks, African-Americans, Afro-Americans, American Negroes, whatever, have a perpetual ticket to glory in our wondrous American system. If they don't have a Cadillac, a house in a white neighborhood, money for college education, in short--the American dream, then they've been wronged, and it's everyone else's fault. "You owe me!" is their mantra, and the media will always lend a hand to uphold the blame banner.
Pricing the "nigger" has now become a top priority. Sean Hannity tried to get Kyle Doss to price the word on his radio show yesterday. (Doss is one of the four young black men whom the vainglorious Gloria Allred is representing in the 'mock' case against Michael Richards, who used the infamous "N" word in a night club recently.) Doss would not answer. Hannity tried to get him to say how much he wanted from Richards. Allred kept interrupting, but Hannity was persistent. Alas, to no avail. "A million?" Hannity asked. "Ten million?" How much 'pain,' how much damage is caused by calling an American Negro a "nigger?" What is the word worth?
Isn't this a marvelous circumstance? Dick Gregory once said that a white man could destroy a black man with a single word, nigger. (Dick Gregory, Nigger, 1964). Well, you've come a long way, baby! A black man may soon be able to make a million of the word. Won't that be a great achievment in the history of the world? You call a black man a nigger, and he gets a million dollars. Black is beautiful, indeed! And expensive!
Now, Jesse Jackson wants the word banned from the universe, and is reportedly seeking a constitutional amendment. Now that's almost funny, considering the fact that "black" people are the ones who use it most frequently, most lucratively, and most uninhibitedly.
But look at the faces of the young black men, Frank McBride and espeically Kyle Doss.
McBride and Doss on MSNBC's "Today" with Matt Lauer.
I do feel bad for them. I do feel sympathy for them. They seem perfectly sincere. Their feelings were sincerely hurt, deeply, and badly. No one wants that. And I don't think anyone wants that for anyone else, either. This is a true thing.
But, can't they just be a man about it? Can't they just be above it? Are they really that sensitive and fearful? Hannity asked Doss if he really felt intimidated by Richards. Did he really become afraid because Richards called him a nigger? Does the word nigger really mean that much coming from a white man? Are "black" people going to follow Martin Luther King's idea that "the black man needs the white man to save him from his fear?" (from the speech at the University of Pittsburgh, 1966).
If it's true, it's really sad. It's pitiful, or pitiable. It's also wrong, and crippling.
Can't the American Negro do better than this? Aren't there any real leaders among them? Is the American black man so easily destroyed? Does one word do it? Say it isn't so. If it is so, Why is it so?
Then, of course, there's the poor black female. Looks like the fake rape victim in the Duke Lacrosse case is been caught in more lies. According to Hannity & Colmes, ("Duke Developements" video) the original report she gave to the police said there were three dancers attacked, and it was by five young white men, not three. Kim Roberts' story contradicts the fake victim's, etc. It is an endless whirlwind of lies.
The media has really done a terrible disservice to the American Negro. In the ceasless "victim" theme, the media has created an image of the American Negro, both male and female, as a weak, pitiable, helpless, lying, thieving, murdering, drug-addicted, court-mongering fool. White people have fostered this image of the American Negro, indeed. White liberals.
Maybe blacks really do have a case, after all.
"David, don't let them upset you!" my Iranian friends told me.
I regularly play soccer with a large group of Iranians in Oklahoma City, and I usually discuss world affairs with them. I had just attended the Horowitz Restoriation Weekend in Palm Beach, Florida. I told my Persian (Iranian) friends that the talk was war. Everyone at the conference was talking about war.
Iraqi fighters, but fighting for whom, for what, and why?
"David, Bush doesn't understand!" said Sadegh. "He doesn't understand those people over there in the Middle East. It was a big mistake to go into Iraq. Bush thought it was like a McDonald's. He thought he could just go in and change the management! He doesn't understand what those people are like. You cannot threaten them. They are not afraid of death or poverty. It is not a MacDonald's!"
I urged the matter further. "They are talking about a major war. A limited nuclear war. They are afraid Iran is going to cause it."
"No, no," said Kurish. "It's all talk, David. Look at the situation. Just look at history. Look at what has happened in the past. First of all, the only country that has ever used the nuclear blomb is the United States. Then other countries began to develop the bomb. Third world countries. India got the bomb. India became a great ally of the United States. China got the bomb. China is now the greatest trade partner of the United States. Even Pakistan got the bomb. Pakistan has been an ally of the US in the Bin Laden affair. See? Whenever one of these countries get the bomb, they become allies of the United States. Why should anyone worry about Iran getting the bomb? It's all talk, David. Don't let them upset you!"
It was an interesting after-soccer talk on a Sunday afternoon. My Iranian friends have been telling me for a long time that Ahmadinejad and the mullahs of Tehran are the biggest talkers in the world. "They have to have a crisis in order to stay in power!" my friends tell me. "They justify their existence, their rule, by creating crises. They live by crises."
Here we are today, MSNBC calling the situation in Iraq a "civil war." Iran and Syria--the big suppliers of weapons and insurgents in Iraq, both want a big "role" in the solutions to the very problems they are so carefully causing. Is it therefore a major media deception, then, to call it "civil war" or even "sectarian violence?" When weapons and explosives are being supplied from the outside, faithfully, is it accurate to say it is "civil war" or just "sectarian violence?" I think not.
The American government, and the Israeli government, say that it would be disastrous if Iran developed nuclear weapons. The maniacal muslims, the mass murderers, would definitely use them. Weapons of mass destruction, in the hands of the mass murderers, would definitely be used. There is no question fo this. Therefore, the situation in the Middle East is different from any historical precedent. Add to this matter, the fact that the largest oil and natural gas reserves are in the Middle East, and we have a situation in which the West may not be willing to risk allowing nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of maniacal muslims.
While I did find a strange, unexpected comfort in what my Iranian-American friends told me, I find it a comfort I cannot long sustain. The daily news bad. The muslims slaughter each other mindlessly, every hour. Iraq is a vortex of satanic destruction, for no reason, no purpose, no cause, and no positive result. What is underneath all this? Is it just Islam? That seems to be most of it. However, it is also tribal, clannish, and ethnic. This is the unrevealed nature in the situation. It is about people who have nothing, have never had anything, and who cannot be enduce by normal means, if any means. They know only povery and death. They find their pride in these.
Perhaps it goes back to former British rule. The boundaries of the Middle Eastern countries of today are all completely artificial, determined by concerns apparently indifferent to the tribal, clannish realities rampant in the region. Perhaps there should be a remapping of the area. Perhaps there should be many smaller countries. One thing is certain: it took Christianity some 1,500 years to bring Europe to a point where the different "tribes" were not constantly killing each other. This was the religion of "love." Islam has been in the Middle East 1,400 years, full-fledged, and has never seen worse conflict. It is abundantly clear that Islam is no ally to peace.
Afghani mother
Ethnicity, tribalism, clan, family, these are the foundations of a nation, not religion. Religion may be a powerful glue, but it is not the substance or the foundation. It can hold some things together but religion is not the thing that is being held together.
The matter at hand is the war against America. There are many important issues before us, but one is critical: the nation of America is under a relentless and vicious onslaught by Muslims. It is difficult for most kind, peace-loving people to sustain such a horrid thought, but this is reality. This is a time of war. It is ugly. It calls for great strength and courage. Liberals would have us think that ignoring it, or worse, condemning any resistance to it, is the superior position, but this is a lie. Liberals want to see America changed--and their plans are for the worse, depsite what they say. They are willing to have the Muslims come into our country, and to destroy it.
Debbie Schussel's blogs and articles on this subject are stunning and especially pertinent. This election cycle, a Middle Eastern Muslim was elected to office in Michigan. Schussel writes:
Open Hezbollah supporter and extremist Muslim, David Turfe, was unfortunately elected a Michigan District Court Judge in Dearborn Heights 20th District. (Dearborn Heights is home to North America's second largest mosque, headed by the former spiritual leader of Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian Navy, Imam Mohammed Elahi--a domestic agent of Iran & Hezbollah.)
Remember the Hezbollah rally I attended at the Bint Jebail Cultural Center a/k/a the Hezbollah Social Club, at the height of the war between Hezbollah and Israel--where speakers made a plethora of anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian speeches? Turfe was there campaigning, and openly supporting and cheering all of those statements. Not surprisingly, the Pro-Hezbollah/pro-HAMAS, Islamist Arab American PAC, which denies Israel's right to exist, endorsed Turfe. (AAPAC's then-Secretary Lola Elzein sent me and my family death, torture, and rape threats, coupled with Holocaust denial.)
(Of course, a special Muslim hatred is reserved for a blonde, blue-eyed Jew, like Debbie Schussel.)
Debbie Schlussel,
"freedom fighter"
against Islam
The extent to which Muslims have infiltrated American society is in itself terrifying. American campuses are the first line of offense, but then there are communities that grow up out of that, together with mosques and hate-breeding centers. Much of this was exposed anew at the David Horowitz Restoration Weekend I myself attended last week (November 16-19). It is an incredible thing, that Americans in power are willing to allow such a menacing and disgusting enemy to loom so ominously in American society. However, when we consider the relentless cause of the liberals, we are not so incredulous.
Thanksgiving season has come, and still lingers, as we nevertheless consider the attack on all for which we are thankful. Gratitude may prove a weak defense in time of such an attack. Thanksgiving is the foundation of strength, but liberals would have us lost in romanticism of one kind or another, while the enemy destroys our way of life, as well as our lives. The blatant aggressions of the enemy of freedom, aggressions faithfully exposed by people like Debbie Schlussel, Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, and particularly Amil Imani, should be far more alarming than they are. Why aren't the American people roused to ban Muslims from the free world? Why are Americans and Europeans willing to stand up and deport Muslims back to their own countries?
I don't think it's simply the liberal effect. I don't think it's fear of being falsely condemned by the self-righteous. I think it is the inevitable lethargy of materialism, the gradually incapacitating, stupifying effect of prosperity and success. People are simply too busy to be too concerned. People are preoccupied with the competitions of their own lives. Clinton depended on such preoccupation of the people when he worked silently and determinedly to make America a Third World country. Religion is not the opiate of the proletariat, but prosperity.
People like Melanie Phillips, and even Danel Pipes, however, feel that it is imperative to make a distinction between Islam and "Islamism," or, 'good Muslims' and 'bad Muslims.' This, however, provides just the disguise the 'bad' Muslims need to infiltrate and to destroy. We simply cannot afford to make such a distinction. Muslims have denigrated every human trust. They have mocked every human characteristic, every human kindness, every human relationship. Islam is an evil in the world. Plain and simple. It must not be tolerated. It is poisonous. It is deadly.
For several years now, Amil Imani has posted on BadEagle the warning that Islam can destroy great nations. Islam destroyed Persia. America must not make the fatal, presumptive error that America is exempt from the ravages of Islam. Islam destroyed Zoroastrianism. It can and will destory Christianity, if not consciously, rigorously resisted and outed.
No one took Adolf Hitler seriously until he created World War II. The same can be said of Islam. No one is taking Muslims seriously, enough, until they create World War III. That is their intention. What is our response?
It seems a strange intrusion, this sentiment of Thanksgiving. We're in the midst of a world war, apparently brought on by the most satanic sector of the human population ever devolved, the Muslims; it seems the American government has never been more untrustworthy, and our political system never more abused; scientists are contradictory about virtually every subject, from cells to the universe and global warming; Christianity is beleaguered with entertainers who "make merchandise" of the believers (2 Peter 2:3); and a special phenomenon called "trust," so essential to health and happiness, is disappearing from the earth. Mother's leave their newborns in garbage dumpsters; adults devour children and infants; and freedom destroys itself. How horrid a prospect.
Some people are beginning to say what they feel, too, from the heart, however inappropriate it turns out to be. Mel Gibson said what he felt about Jews. Yes, he was drunk, but the feelings were in him. It was a one on one situation, between he and a police officer. Now Michael Richards said how he felt about "niggers." That was in public, on television. Of course, what neither of these news stories ever mentioned was what provoked Gibson or Richards. In the story about soccer star Zindine Zidane, we found out what provoked his public display of violent rage before the entire world. There was indeed provocation, from his perspective anyway.
Mel Gibson spoke ill words about Jews. Michael Richards spoke ill about Negroes.
Did either of them mean what they were saying, or was it just feeling of resentment?
But the news usually never tells that little part. The excitement is all about the misconduct of the star, the fall of the celebrity. The immature, gossip-oriented, muck-raking nature of competitive news reporters is all that's really revealed in these kinds of stories. No one wants to hear excuses. The public would rather 'rejoice in iniquity.' (1 Corinthians 13:6.) The fall of humanity has always been great news.
So, where do we go from here? How do we get back to better feelings, more winsome sentiments, happier feelings, and finally, gratitude--Thanksgiving? Our habits of watching, listening and reading news are a real source of interference, for certain. News is designed to provoke, excite, and to cause outrage, not to bring peace, contentment, or happy feelings. And comedy and laughter are a bit weak when it comes to dealing with child abuse and Muslims murderers.
If we really have horrible feelings of rage inside, perhaps its time to look at them more carefully, and examine their source. There is much wrong in the world. Much outrage, and indignation. The world is spinning out of control, it appears, with no apparent solution. Those in command are talking about world war again. Every religious leader has a different interpretation of prophecy and each makes a mountain of money off his version of the future. What's the average person to do with his feelings? Rudyard Kipling counts keeping your head when all about you are losing theirs as a sign of being a man, but, is that all we can do? Well, that's the least we can do.
However, it is abundantly clear that many people cannot even do that. Even so, I'm quite sure there were those who had their heads together just before the Lord rained fire down on Sodom and Gomorrah. There were many level headed people around when the angel shut the doors of Noah's ark. There will be masses of busy, productive people the day when the Son of Man appears in the clouds of heaven, to end this present world. These are the ancient Biblical images, Jewish images, of the sociological archetypes of human experience. We have to have more than our head together to survive. We do have to be more than a man to get out of this alive.
We have to be believers. We have to have that thing called "trust." Noah had it. Lot had it. There will be those at the return of Christ who will have it. Apparently not many, but they will be there. This is the archetype. This is the repeated scenario in the Biblical take on reality. While some are venting how they really feel about certain things, that will not secure for them a place among the trusting, among the believing. Being honest about feelings may be a good starting point for self-understanding and self-comprehension--for getting one's head together; but recovering trust, trust in the Almighty, the Creator, the arbiter of all destiny, this is the goal of heart. This is the triumph of the will. This is the purpose of personhood.
This Thanksgiving, perhaps we should just concentrate on that. Let's be thankful that such an option has been make known to us. The ancient Jewish testimony, the Bible, has opened this vision of life to us. Trust. It's all about trust. Waiting patiently, enduring monstrous irony, tyranny, and violence, it's all part of the development of trust. This is the hand that has been dealt us all. We are behooved to play it wisely. We have a chance. It is not dependent on our skill, but our will. Bring out the will. Offer thanks for the will, and the divine counsel on how to use it.
[Media Archives, on FrontPageMagazine.com, will provide video and text from the 2006 Restoration Weekend, as available. Here is the speech Horowitz gave at the opening of the conference.]
The 2006 Restoration Weekend of David Horowitz has come to an end. It was a spectacle of cutting edge information about the America and about the world. The top reporters and researches were present to share their work. The environment was beautiful, but the news is very alarming. It was at The Breakers, in Palm Beach, Florida, but news was about jihad, about Islam, and about the coming conflagration, perhaps a nuclear war.
David Horowitz has two major fronts he supports: 1) the war against jihadists, and 2) the quest for academic freedom on our American university campuses. The two are very much related. The Islamic jihad against the world, especially against America, permeates all global issues. The scope of jihad is astounding. The ignorance and misinformation of the unsuspecting world is even more astounding. The culpability of news agencies and government agencies is profound. On the other hand, there appears to be some improvement in conditions on the campuses. Horowitz and his allies have succeeded in the enactment of statutes that insure the "market place of ideas." In other words, students are gradually getting opportunities to learn both sides of an issues, and not be constantly bombarded with the bias of subversive, anti-American professors. The infiltration of Islam on American campuses is coming to light as well.
But clearly, the dark shadow of the jihadist threat hung ominously low over the conference. The information about the infiltrations into the United States--at high government levels, was the kind of news that makes the stomach flutter, and the heart stop. The film "Obsession," shown recently on Fox, (portions of which can be viewed on YouTube) was premiered at Horowitz' last Restoration Weekend in Phoenix, AZ, and shown again here in Palm Beach. It is perhaps the most dramtic exposure available on the nature and quest of jihad--the dominance and destruction of the world.
Some people are questioning the efficacy of even the dissemination of this horrifying information. "What do we do?" they asked. Senator Tom Tancredo asks, "What are the consequences of a terrorist act?" There is no punishment, there is no deterant, and there every reason for the jihadists to continue. "What would happen if a Moslem 'holy' site was bombed?" (It was just conversation, not policy.) But it was a thought on many people's minds. (Actually, Muslim holy sites have been bombed, in Iraq, by jihadists! There is no respect, no regard for life, including that of children. There is satanic hatred for life. That's all.)
Some people, such as Melanie Phillips and Caroline Glick, called for the kind of action BadEagle.com has advocated for some time: a ban on jihadism, and deportation of its practitioners. BadEagle's own Amil Imani has called for this in the most explicit terms of all: Islam is not a religion. It is a death cult, and should be benned from the free world. BadEagle calls for the deportation of Muslims to their own countries, and a temporary travel ban imposed.
But these things will apparently not happen. The powers of war are aroused. Many people feel that America must attack Iran, within the next two years, or perhaps within a matter of months. This was the opinion of various military analysts and generals present at the conference. An elderly British man, attending the discussions, said war was inevitable, and that we need to prepare now. He said this in all solemnity. He could well remember WWII, and the German onslaught on the world.
Some time yesterday evening, Wikipedia administrators changed the entry under "David A. Yeagley." It now somewhat resembles what I originallyl posted at the beginning of this month. However, this was only after severe protest and action on my part. Therefore, I hardly apologize. And the article is still labeled as "disputed." When some one (or some company) invites the public, knowing that thieves and crooks are present, one is at least somewhat responsible for the factual attacks and integrity mugging that occurs therein. Furthermore, the response mechanisms in Wikipedia are the equivalent of the American courts. Damage is inevitable and socially irreparable, in a very real way. Wikipedia, despite the service it provides the public, also entails disservice. This is obvious, and I believe inevitable.
I'm having problems on BlogSpot.com as well. I am a member of the Autonomist group, but also have my own blog, DrDavidYeagley. There is technical confusion. I was posting on DrDavidYeagley yesterday, but it came out on Autonomist. Here is the blog, Dr. David Yeagley. This is a copy of the original text I posted on Wikipedia. I will also make this available on BadEagle.com soon. (It appears that Blogspot has removed posts from DrDavidYeagley anyway. There were four, until yesterday. I'm hoping this is a technical problem, and not intentional.)
At first glance, it appeared that Wikipedia administration actually rewrote my piece, with rearranging of material. It looks as though they also included some bits of information I had originally posted under a entry called "Bad Eagle." This was my most detailed sketch of my ancestor, Bad Eagle (1839-1909). This "Bad Eagle" entry was invaded and falsified by my pestilential enemies, and I deleted it. I tried several times to repost my original, but it has been removed. It was totally factual and historical. The name of the lying cyber terrorist is all that remains under the title "Bad Eagle." This has not been address by Wikipedia.
Now, the reason there are some errors in the current Wikipedia post under "David A. Yeagley" is because this post was taken directly from BadEagle.com, the "biolgraphy" posted in 2001. I am certainly not now teaching at the University of Oklahoma. The Autonomist post I made yesterday is the current bio, with more exact details. As I said, I will post this again on BadEagle.com when I have time.
My point here is that the correcting mechanisms on Wikipedia are public-generated. Wikipedia is therefore not an encyclopedia, not an authoritative source. It simply cannot be. It is a generalized, "common" collection of information. Despite some truly fabulous articles, stunning research and information Wikipedia articles provide, my experience with Wikipedia has to be a red flag for everyone. The articles are dependent on the public for generation and correction and assessment. While this is a novel concept, it is too "communal" in nature to suit me. It makes the public the source of all things, in a grand self-idolizing sort of gesture. Can the public trust itself? Should it? Shall the individual trust the public?
Wikipedia poses a philosophical challenge, really. What is to be judged as the reliable, true source of information? That which is published elsewhere? That which is opinion? That which is 'commonly' accepted as truth? Are not all things "disputed?" It the public to judge the scholar? Is the public the final authority?
Wikipedia has done me no favor, and blatant disservice. I am "disputed," according to their "common" assessment. That is their final word. My identity, my integrity, my word, is "disputed." Therefore, I cannot but question the same in all Wikepedia. I can't post a simple biographical, factual statement about myself. Others can. I cannot. This is the result of Wikipedia. It has aligned itself against me. That is abundantly clear. It has given voice to my enemies, in a way that forever associates their false accusations and lies with my birth and even my own mother. They cast doubt on my word, and virtually deny my identity. This is satanic. I'm sorry. This is satanic.
Bad Eagle has spoken.
Dr. David A. Yeagley
Wikipedia is apparently aligning itself with the fraudlent and petty liars who have devoted themselves to defaming me and my family. I never trusted Wikipedia as a source of information, as my readers know, but, I had until now given Wikipedia the benefit of the doubt. No more. Jimmy Wales (i.e., those who manage Wikipedia) is pleased to promote libel, plain and simple. (I hope he is as outraged at my flagrant accusation here as I am at his support of libel.) Here's what happened.
Jimmy Wales, creator of Wikipedia
Over two weeks ago, I decided to post a page on Wikipedia, under "David A. Yeagley." It was a terse biolgraphical sketch of five paragraphs. This I did, because of the pestilential, lying leechs who have attached themselves to me, whose names I will not here mention, for they are unworthy. (And they've been mentioned before.) They have continued to build a small internet base of libelous and false information they post against me. I thought Wikipedia was a safe place to post facts, in an encyclopedic manner. (I admit, I was always suspicious of Wikipedia, because it was too "community" oriented, with no identification of sources, or else, too open to any sources.)
My suspicions were justified. Yesterday, one of the pests entered my post page on Wikipedia, "David A. Yeagtley," completely removed my post, and put up his libel. (I was checking Technorati.com listings, as I often do, to see who's lying about me. I noticed he had blogged on what he had done, and congratulated himself on his acheivement. Then he also posted his new version of "David A. Yeagley" on his own blog, citing as the Wikipedic truth. I have screen shots of all this, of course.)
I immediately wrote Wikipedia's info line about false articles, and pleaded accordingly. In eight successive emails, I explain repeatedly what was happening. I have personal and pitiful enemies who invaded my Wikipedic post, and usurped it entirely. I was of course outraged. And of course, there has been, to this hour, no response to my emails from Wikipedia. I explained to Wikipedia that these pests criminally use my name and my trademark for the title of their blogs. It is identity theft. They are worse than fakes. They are sociopathic thieves.
I tried to remove the posts entirely. Unable to do that, I redirected the titles. I had originally posted a "David A. Yeagley" page, as well as a "Bad Eagle" page. Therefore, I sought to remove both. (The "Bad Eagle" Wikipedia page had been falsified as well.) I inserted the names of the people I know who were doing this vandalism and libel. That didn't last too long, apparently. Today, as of this moment, the "David A. Yeagley" post is still standing, libelously. I repeatedly deleted the contents, until I was warned that I would be banned from Wikipedia! I wrote them: "How can you allow someone to come in, remove an original post, and replace it with libel, then threaten the original poster?" No answer. They merely retained the libelous post.
However, the current "David A. Yeagley" post is again altered from the original vandalism. I'm not sure how that happened. The original false article posted in place of mine is now missing. What is standing presently, though still libelous, has been greately reduced. I have screen shots, of course. The small article there now references only that same handful of pests that have been harping on "Yeagley" from the beginning, only intensifying their efforts recently. In other words, this tiny band of juveniles are creating their own little internet resource of anti-Yeagley. The constantly quote themselves. They reference each other. It is comical, in a way. But, this is the intructed method. This is what grants are given for. This is what some bloggers get paid for. And now they've succeeded in posted their efforts on the great Wikipedia.
So, the desperate and despotic point of the enemy is really a Ward Churchill-style response. That great Leftist non-Indian "Indian" was brought down as the fake he truly is. So, his coherts or Churchill wannabees have made their focus to be this: "Yeagley is not Indian." That's all it is. It is quite simple and obvious. If the Left can't have Churchill, then the Right can't have Yeagley. Yeah. That's a really astute analogy they make. The problem is I'm Indian! But they are careless about their denial, too. BlogSpot used to have a blog called BaldBeagle, which involved libel and pornography aimed against me and my family, and against the Comanche people and leaders. I have screen shots. That blog has been removed, probably not for any other reason than fear of suit for the homosexual pornography on it.
But I never thought Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia would foster libel. I did suspect Wikipedia of liberalism, to the disdain of some of my readers. However, it is proven to be true, after all. Wikipedia has ignored everyone one of my email appeals, and preserved the libel. I am left to take up the matter before the public.
Also, Technorati.com does not note any of my blogs, but only when someone blogs on me. This is a professional bias and free speech infringment as well, or so it appears. Then there's the Google preference for Islam. We've seen Google knock of names from their list if they judge the matter too averse to Islam.
It looks like the internet biggies are not about free press, but about bias and libel. I don't know what else to conclude.
American author Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued, in London, by a Saudi billionaire. Why? He claims her book, written and published in America, is libelous toward him. Twenty-three copies of her book, Funding Evil (2003) were bought by Britons via internet booksellers, and thus the libel was "repeated in Britain." A somewhat ridiculous case, but, the stuff of modern law, of course.
Rachel Ehrenfeld
Ehrenfeld witnessed the attack on New York's Twin Towers on September 11, from her apartment. She later wrote Funding Evil has the true explanation for the event. It isn't about dusky, dusty terrorists in the sand; it isn't about religious zealots and martyrs; it isn't even about youthful fervor and fantasy about death and rewards. It's about an international network of corrupt state leaders, superwealthy contributors, and drug and crime kingpins. Without money, especially laundered U.S. dollars, there would be no terror. That's the Ehrenfeld take on the matter. She holds the American government responsible too, along with other western leaders, for their conscious, willing refusal to deal with this 'financial' terrorism up front, and their lack of political will to confront Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan--who are directly involved in the international financing.
Rachel Ehrenfeld's Funding Evil (2003), and Khalid bin Mahfouz, the 'funder'?
The Saudi billionaire, Khalid Salim A. bin Mahfouz, filed suit in London in 2005. (Apparently Mr. bin Mahfouz has a habit of suing authors in London court, successfully.) Ehrenfeld appealed in Manhattan last week, arguing that she is an American citizen, the book was published in America, and any court case against here should happen here, in America. It seems that the issue has ominous implications. Already American book companies are nervous about making books available in London, precisely due to the "claimant-friendly" courts. The Brits, historically and universally notorious for their parasitical attorneys, must be starving for cases, or else in a frenzy of gluttonous success.
In Shakespeare's King Henry VI (Second Part), Act IV, Scene 2, the subversionaries Jack Cade and the Dick the Butcher envision their usurpation of power, with the full support of their comrades in rebellion.
ALL: God save your majesty!
CADE: I thank you, good people--there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers and worship me their lord.
BUTCHER: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
CADE: Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled o'er should undo a man? Some say the bee stings, but I say 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since.
This was the play of 1594. Of course, America inherited the curse of attorneys, who have become sportmen, or gamblers, for hire of the people. Robert Bork wrote an excellent history of how attorneys came to power in America, in The Tempting of America (1997). It's a natural thing in western European tradition. Americans had thought to escape it, but no such luck.
Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld
In any case, Ehrenfeld is a another example of how Muslim money is destroying American freedom. Attorneys are merely the whorish instruments of "civil" theft, robbery, and yes, murder. Mass murder, in fact. The Ehrenfeld story is an amazing one, in that she brings out a special truth about the worst threat to world peace in modern times, Islamic mass murderers and their financiers, and then gets sued--not in America, but in a foreign court. That's right, London is a foreign court. Let's not forget that.
Law, anywhere in the world, is a business. It is the business of power. In due time, it always works against the people. Why? Those in the business of power use the people. Power is all about people, power over people. Without people, there is no power. There is a certain inevitability in the corruption of law. It is a natural social process, really.
Ehrenfeld will probably lose, probably because she is American, probably because she is politically neutral in her book, and probably because she is Jewish. Dr. Ehrenfeld is the director of the NYC Center for the Study of Corruption and the Rule of Law. (Here are some endorsements of her book.) Perhaps the matter will be settled out of court. Perhaps it will be just another untold story.
Dr. Ehrenfeld is a great defender of free speech, and the actions of London, of late, certainly pose a serious form of censorship--like prohibiting sales through intimidation. That's intimidation by high-powered, high-funded legal suits. Here is an article by Dr. Ehrenfeld on the duplicity of England on the matter of terrorism these days.
Is there a war in Iraq? We know there are a lot of explosives, lots of gun fire, and a lot of blood, death, and mayhem. Daily. The news makes sure we know about each act of violence there.
But what is it about? Who are the opponents? What objectives, and the logistics toward those objectives? These things the news isn't quite so clear on, or devoted to.
Communist Nancy Pelosi, advocating "Progressive" values, on the executive
committee of the Progressive Caucus in the House.
Democrats want to run from Iraq as fast as they can.
They want to end the war, not win it. They have no concept
of victory, because they don't recognize the purpose of the
conflict. They refuse to recognize it.
Traditionally, war involves two opposing parties. In Iraq, there seem to be many. It is more like chaos. Individual gangs, factions, etc., some against America, some against each other, some just trying to take advantage. This circumstance in itself leaves us in doubt as to the meaning of the "war" in Iraq.
We have believed, that is, the believers among us have believed, that the war in Iraq is to establish a free country there, a democracy (in a republican form, presumably, not a communist perversion of "democracy"). That is a major reason.
There is another: to prevent the Mass Murderers (called "terrorists) from gain control over the whole country, the oil, the wealth, etc. It would be an almost unlimited supply of financial backing for their world scheme of Mass Murder. It's very important, therefore, to keep Iraq independent from the Mass Murderers. (Remember, the Mass Murderers are not about defending Islam. That's not what they're doing at all. That's a lie.)
And we believed that Saddam Hussein was an irremeable menace, of increasing proportions. He "united" a factious country with abstolute brutality. We may in the future see three or four separate, autonomous states when this "war" is over.
But it can never be said we have "won" any war, unless we have clear objectives or expectations. Fighting is merely the costly activity of war, not the definition or purpose.
The war is not on terror, but on Muslim Mass Murderers. (The MMM. The Triple M. There's a new coin.) The Triple M has no boundaries, and holds the world as its territorial goal. Okay. Is that clear enough? No, not to Democrats and liberals now in Washington. So, the American enterprise is completely weakened now. There is no agreement on the identification of the enemy. The solution is to muddy the waters completely. Give in, molify, "negotiate," talk, etc. Give the Triple M what it wants. That's the way to solve the problem.
There's a difference between winning a war, and ending a war. The liberals and Democrats want to end the war, not win it. They "ended" the Viet Nam war, with utter and irreparable disgrace. Why irreparable? Because they are about to do the same thing, again. Anti-war really means surrender. "Peace" in their operations means to give in. Concede. Talk. Negotiate. Don't fight. This is the liberal Democrat position.
If there are no borders, then the enemy cannot be defeated. If the Triple M can freely immigrate into any country in the world, then the world belongs to the Triple M. The world has opened the door, in the name of "freedom" and "equality." The Leftist world has idolized it's ideology to the point of bringing the whole world down. The Left prefers the Triple M. That is abundantly clear by the Leftist attitude and philosophy. Muslim Mass Murderers are the preferred class.
Pretty gloomy outlook here, but Republicans and conservatives were apparently too caught up in their globalist capitalism to risk losing a dollar, so they sanctioned all sorts of breeches in their principles. Bush was right about wanting to protect America from the Triple M, but not aggressive enough to deport Arab and Pakistaini Muslims. And Bush was not willing to face the immigration issue with a strong hand, nor to see it as an element in the Triple M strategy. Too many small businesses and agriculture business depend on cheap Mexican labor, or so the theory goes. (In stead of constitutionally ordained slave labor and chain gangs taken from our over-crowded prisons to do some real work for the country, we are supposed to see illegal Mexican crooks and illiterates as a necessary work force in America.)
I'm not sure the American public can even comprehend what's best for "the country" anymore. Everyone looks out for himself, primarily. The breaking down of all borders and barriers is straight out of the Communist play book, well articulated and propounded. A country without definition, without borders, without essential physical identity, together with global enemy with no borders, moving freely within all countries at will, this all spells a lurid evolution in world society. This is a foreboding vision of denigration for all. The Communist theory is that all are equal, materially, financially. Communism is a godless, materialistic interpretation of human experience. Sounds good for the people on the bottom. They're going to get a lift upwards. But that isn't what happens. Not only do they remain poor, but the middle class is brought down with them, and only the elitists, the filthy rich "do-gooder" Democrat Communists, like the Clintons, the Kerrys, Pelosis, etc., remain on top.
America, historically, has created the largest middle class in the history of the world. More people have more than every before. The Democrats would undo all this, even in principle. It is wrong, they believe, for Republicans to be rich. Only Democrats can be rich.
From the lowly point of view, what difference does the party make? The poor always get poorer, and the rich get richer. That's the only thing that doesn't change. The people in power can change chairs. The public can be entertained by voting, putting different people in office. But life doesn't change for the masses.
War? In Iraq? What's that all about, anyway? It's only in a few spots. More people are murdered in America's cities (particullarly Washington, DC) every year. It's over drugs, money and 'relationships.' We've got men and women servicemen over there rebuilding everything, establishing schools, libraries, hospitals, roads, etc. People do that here, too. People have accidents here in America, too. Our hospitals are full of injured people brought in from the streets and highways.
Maybe there isn't a war in Iraq at all. If death is the definition of war, then the news is really way off the mark. It should properly be said that there's war in America, or there's no war in Iraq. Can't be both. Not by the rule of death, which is the media's rule of validation. But they're not consistent about that, either. The millions of abortions since the '70's they don't even count as deaths!
I give up. The word thing has failed. Patriots, rich or poor, or middle class, keep your powder dry. That's all I can say. The war is here, in America.
Today is Veterans Day in America. We honor our fighting men and the women who help them.
We also ask, What do soldiers fight for? What do soldiers die for? With no clear understanding of what is at stake, we offer a weak appreciation for our veterans. Our praise is off key.
We say they fight for America. We say they fight for freedom. We say that's what they're fighting for in Iraq, not just Iraqi freedom, but American freedom. Is freedom it, then? What is freedom? These days, with American politicians competing for the meaning of the word, and the liberal communists rampant in 'democracy,' it seems that the word freedom is not going to cut it. Freedom has become a non-specific, highly interpretable goal. Liberals and communists have made it into some non-specific ideology. It means that everyone should have equal share of everything there is to be had. Historically, this ideology has always meant tyranny, oppression, and genocide. Masses of people, diverse ethnic groups and same ethnic groups, have been brutally sacrificed to the professed idea of "equality." See, The Black Book of Communism (Harvard, 2000).
Curly Bear, (Crow), 1856-1923
No, our soldiers die for something far more tangible than an idea. Our men and women have fought for something much more earthy, more pithy. They have fought for the land. America's land. The land we wake up on and walk on, every day. American Indians have always known that. But today, many Americans seem quite confused about what it is that's most valuable. It isn't a form of government, in and of itself. It is the homeland. It is the earth. It is our territory on this earth. That's the bottom line. That's what we fight for.
Politics and ideas have lost sight of the foundation, which isn't the Constitution, but the land on which the fathers stood when they wrote the Constitution. A country is about land, not simply ideas. The land comes first. You have to possess the land first. They you can talk about your ideas.
Americans have become detatched from the land. With the hordes of foreigners here now, the population is a dispensible thing. The people are detatched from the land. There no earth in them. They see only opportunities for material advantage or prosperity. America has forgotten the land, and become a warehouse of homeless automatons. America has become a land of gypsies.
American Indians, however, are still here to remind America what it means to be a people, to be a nation. What little we have left of our original lands, we fight for every day, still. It's all on paper now, but, it is still a battle.
During the elections in Oklahoma, I heard a farmer, or rancher, campaigning on a brief, 15 second radio add. I didn't get his name, or the office he was running for, county or state, but what he said was the most wise and profound statement I've heard in a long, long time from a white politician.
"If we're going to keep America a free country, we must protect the individual, privately-owned farm."
That says it all. This is about the relationship of the people to the land itself. The land and the people are one. I realize America is bascially a land of foreigners. Even though the country was built by the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, and the government designed by them, they are historically foreigners. The American Indians are ever the only fathers of the land. This is why American Indians need to assert ourselves politically in American society today. We need to remind Americans that it is forever only the land that makes the country's foundation.
Our soldiers fight for the land. That's what they've always fought for, and what they have died for. Let's remember that. The land is sacred to the country. It is the life of the country.
No, I'm not supporting eco-terrorists or tree-hugging liberal communists. I'm talking about keeping our enemies off our land! I'm talking about keeping foreign religions, foreign values, and foreign people from taking over the land! This is so simple, most people lose sight if it.
A different people can come to take over the country--by that, I mean a different people can come in and essentially possess the land! America must be reminded of this by American Indians. It happened to us. It has happened to many peoples over the world, over history.
It is happening to America, even now. A different people taking over the land means a different country, right here, on this land.
When we honor our fallen, and our living veterans, let's remember what they're really fighting for--the land. They're fighting for keep possession of their homeland. Yes, the ethnic composition of America has changed greatly since WWII. Remember that that was our last declared war. When you dilute the ethnic make-up of the country, when you blur the boundaries, when you jack the national identity up into an abstraction, you are opening the doors to a changed country, a different country. The land is then out of your possession. It is ruled by others.
American Indians still fight for this land. Along side many foreigners, old and new. American Indians value the land, not the politicians that govern it, or even the foreign people on it. Let that be a lesson to all.
Lampooning Pelosi? There is a real temptation, yes. But why bother? The straight truth is more than sufficient to convince any unbiased person. Like Hillary Clinton, Pelosi is no lover of America at all. And she has the same attitude that the ends justifies the means.
"Nancy Pelosi Is Ready to Be Voice of the Majority," the NYTimes headline reads.
What majority? Not the people. Only the Democrats and their majority of 30
House seats. Thus the liberal news distorts reality, again and again.
Consider Pelosi's associates, for example, according to TCS Daily,
Ms. Pelosi plans to replace the committee's current ranking Democrat, California Representative Jane Harman, with Mr. Hastings who would be installed as committee chairman when the 110th Congress begins. The move would be a payback to the Congressional Black Caucus, to whose support Pelosi owes her election as Minority Leader and whose members she angered by picking Ms. Harman to be ranking member over Georgia Rep. Sanford Bishop in 2003. The incoming Speaker must also mollify the Black Caucus for having pushed Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson (he of the frozen cash) off the Ways and Means Committee.
Nacy Pelosi, Speaker of the Liberals
This is catastrophic even in theory. And it appears to be much more that theory. The TCS Daily article shows Hastings to be a miserable crook. So, Pelosi is going to play politics? She owes him a favor? She wants to solidify the innumerable factions of the Democratic Party? Hastings is against every possible form of American defense, and has so voted. Looks more like he's a perfect ally for the Pelosi plan.
The brief little conversation with President Bush, while apparently flattering to Pelosi, called forth from her no revelation of anything other than political posturing. She has no intention of cooperating with conservative values she despises and has worked so devotedly and angrily against. Why would she? This makes her feigned cordiality rather agonizing to anyone sincere about the government. The President's politically correct words are the best that can be said, both for intent and for posturing. He said what ought to be said by a leader. But, surely he knows nothing will come of any of it. He behaved thus for the sake of the country, for the sake of the dream, the optimistic notion that people can cooperate, and can accomplish good things. Obviously if you don't think that way, you will surely accomplish nothing at all.
"We won't agree on every issue, but we do agree that we love America," Cheney said. The epitome of right words, right sound bites. The also the epitome of falsehood. We do not agree that Nacy Pelosi loves America. She does not love the values that America was built on, nor what will sustain those values, nor what will preserve America. She support the values that are against the historical foundations of America, and that will change America into something it wasn't, never was meant to be, and hopefully, will never be. This is not to be interpreted, under any circumstances, as loving America. These liberals do not love America. It is only a playing ground for them. An opportunity. As long as they are very rich, and can feign compassion on the very poor, they think they are gods. This is Communism, that's all. There is no other name for it. Redistribution of wealth.
America must not be unique, outstanding, more accomplished, more excellent. America must become like the Third World. America must become part of the Third World. As long as the Communist leaders of the Democratic Party maintain their own wealth and power, they will work for the overthrough of all the principles and values that actually enabled them to become wealthy themselves. (Actually, most of them inherited their wealth, married it, or it was given to them in one way or another.) They have "thug" values. They want to coerce people.
But let's remember one thing: the Democrats don't really "control" the House or the Senate. I mean, out-numbering the Republicans by one seat in the senate is hardly "control." The Hopuse committees all being headed by Democrats, that's another matter. Nevertheless, I doubt they will be able to depend on every single Democrat to vote for whatever the Democrat leaders want. The Senate has the final say.
Never supported, always criticized and condemned Bush.
Back to Straight Pelosi, just look at her voting record. Deeply Left wing. Here's a few zingers:
ABORTION:
Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
CIVIL RIGHTS:
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Rated 87% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
ECONOMY:
Voted NO on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
CRIME:
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted YES on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)
More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (Apr 2001)
DRUGS:
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
EDUCATION:
Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Opposes requiring schools to allow school prayer. (Jan 2001)
Rated 100% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
I'm afraid it only gets worse. Of course, any politician works to make his own values come to pass as law. That's what it's all about. No politician is to be faulted for that. What we're concerned about here is the values. Straight Pelosi is about non-American values for America. Plain and simple. Permissiveness. Pelosi is a sixties' gal. Born in 1940. She was fully conscious, in her twenties, when aggressive decontruction took hold of the post-WWII generation. Basically an Italian gal from Baltimore, born into deep politics. Yes, she's mastered the Leftist tactics, of accusing the Republicans of doing exactly and precisely what the Democrats do. That almost always works on the uninformed. That's part of the delusion of liberalism. They can see nothing but themselves.
America has a basically fine political system. Personnel change, regularly. Yes, there is corruption, but, change is still possible. For that, many soldiers have died. This is hard to appreciate, indeed, just before Veterans' Day.
Hillary Clinton said, "We believe in our country and we're going to take it back, starting tonight."
Lying Hillary, in the lead?
The leading Communist (some prefer "socialist") in the country, Hillary now feigns Americanism. All the enthusiasm, however, is for anti-American values. 'Take back' the country? No, no. She means change the country--into something it never was, never was meant to be, and, if patriots live, will never be.
Hillary Clinton spent almost 30 million dollars of her US Senate campaign funds, more than any other candidate in the run-up to Tuesday's election. This makes people think she is in fact going to run for the presidency in 2008.
This is the same Communist who told Americans, "We're going to take things away from you for the common good."
How clear can the lie be? And the Democrats seem to have unlimited funds for campaigning at every level. Newsmax calls them "the filthy rich," citing people like Hollywood producer Steven Bing, Progressive Corp. chairman Peter Lewis and financier George Soros. (Shall we include Nacy Pelosi's $55 million estate in the bin, or is that private?)
The rich taking from the poor to give to the very poor. That's supposed to better? "Democratic" values expressed by Democratic leaders are definitely anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-individualism. They are simply Communist. This is straight out of the Marxist playbook.
As we noted yesterday, this political do-goodism, this Christless christianity, this politically coerced religion of the Left is in fact the opiate of the masses. This is merely another religion--and it is anti-Christian, in fact. The ACLU, the great anti-Christian force in America, recently thanked Hillary for her support (as well as Harry Reid, Patty Murray, and Robert Menendez).
Take back America? No, no. Take away America. Remember? "We're going to take things away from you." That's Hillary's plan.
The Democrat leaders cannot hide their values behind patriotic rhetoric. They are traitors to American values. Their true intents will show within a month, or less. A few meetings of pleasantries will transpire; a few formal speaches of good will, cooperation, etc. But the truth will come out loud and clear--very soon.
True conservatives, patriots, and those who care about the meaning of America, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, will have to simply stand firm, hold the fort, and press on. Yes, there were great disappointments in the Republican leadership. (Peter Brimelow has outlined the worst of it. Ann Coulter made some interesting statistical observations about the elections.) However, this is not the signal to quit, and consign America to the flames. That's just what the Democrats want, and preach, and delude themselves into believing the future to be.
There has been no change in the Democrat agenda. It is the same Left, the same liberalism, the same socialism, the same Communism it has been for the last 50 years. This media-aggrandized election victory really says nothing new--except maybe that the Democrats have found their 'pot of gold' financing. The issues are all the same. The players are even the same.
The truth is often very ugly. It isn't a matter of rhetoric. Wrong values and wrong thinking have a names. Communism. Fascism. Totalitarianism. "Redistribution of wealth," in a way that enriches the "filthy rich," and cripples and bars others from ever becoming rich. Conservatives should not back down. Everything conservatives have said about liberals is still true, still valid, and still needs to be emphasized. Conservatives must still fight for the truth. Our failures, and any failures assigned to the Bush administration are no reason to weaken conservatives efforts to promote conservative values. Failure of conservatives to enact conservative values does not mean conservative values are not correct or necessary.
All it does is provide an opportunity for dissembling Democrats to usurp a few nominative conservative values, and ingratiate themselves with the masses, or so they think. Eight years of the Clinton administration saw many examples of this kind of usurpation. Clinton took credit for the economic progess established under Reagan. If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008, the same thing will happen. That person will take credit for the economic health established by the Bush administration.
Democrats, like Nancy Pelosi, might seem on their best behavior right now. That's because they know the level of disgust they provoke in responsible people. Perhaps they will actually lay low, and even feign good will, cooperation, and even Americanism. Perhaps they will try to create the impression that they care about the right values. We'll see how long this lasts.
Nancy Pelosi, the new speaker
of the liberals?
Nacy Pelosi holds some of the most horrid, vomitable values of any politician in America. (Only Hillary Clinton can compete with such an impression.) The richest woman in Washington, the multi-millionaire hires only illegal aliens in her California vinyard empire. That's how it works. The wealthy "commie" leaders (as Joseph Farrah calls her) feign compassion for the lowest levels of society--like illegals.
How can such a person rise to power in America? The passionate appeal to weakness. The 'government' image of caring for the poor. The government "savior" image. This seductive delusion not only sounds good to the poverty stricken and illegal aliens, but it appeals to indolence, irresponsibility, and general lethargy in all human nature. Hard work is painful, or so it would seem. Poverty is evil, or so it is presented. The solution? Let the government take care of you.
That said, maybe Republicans just didn't play their cards right. But maybe people just can't deal with the hard work of George Bush, and the 'war on terror.' The very safety and peace American has experienced since 9-11 has been used by Democrats to condemn the war! Why, there's no threat. Islam is no enemy to the United States. See? Nothing's happening. It's all scare tactics of the Bush administration.
That's the delusion Democrats have profited by, this time around. Republicans around the country are always too busy working, holding up the world, making things happen, to get involved in politics. The Dems, on the other hand, pay people to protest, demonstrate, and vote. (Ask American Indians about that.) Republicans find it hard to believe that the Democratic mind set is so deep and effective. They can't believe people live and operate with such a view.
Well, maybe Republicans needed to be jolted, shook up, or some how reminded that nothing can be taken for granted. The opposition is constant, desperate, and wholly devoted--as well as perfectly hypocritical, like Nancy Pelosi. She truly does represent the Democratic Party. Yes, she will be Miss Congeniality, Miss Perfect, for a while, in the first flush of power as House Speaker (assuming she is in fact elected to that). There may actually be some good come out of it, if for feigned good will.
Pelosi with Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Push, a moment of exemplary
liberalism and Democratic values.
But, in due time, her hideous values will show themselves. Just think of the district she represents: California, 8th District. San Francisco, one of the top ten most liberal cities in America. What does that mean? Homosexuality, illegals aliens, massive welfare, the usual. The very wealthy acting very concerned about the very poor. How quaint.
Remember Pelosi is against everything about Iraq, against the people, against their freedom, against any effort to improve them. (More important to give jobs to illegal Mexicans in her vinyards.) She thinks Bush's Iraq war is a total failure. That's real insight on the part of this political 'leader.' That's really being in touch with the facts, the soldiers, and world reality.
I find it hard to think positively about this shift of political power. It means weakening of everything, that's all. Rush Limbaugh thinks conservatism won. Republicans lost, but conservatism won. I don't see that at all. Republicans failed at conservatism a long time ago. And I'll not be duped into thinking Democrats are some how going to revive a new kind of conservatism. Democrats don't hold conservative values. Not as a party. Not as policy. Have we forgotten everything that happened in the '90's already?
It's time for a stiff upper lip, not a Pollyanna fantasy about good will. The Democrats can act like good willers all they want. The principles of the party are amoral (when not immoral) and inimical to American values. Plain and simple. That's where we have shifted now. Too many aliens, too many liberals, and too much money put up to change American to socialism and Third World values. The Democrats may thank George Soros and the like, for their victories in these 2006 mid-term elections.
Walter Cronkite talks about American people not being intelligent? What does he think now? Do the elections bear that out? Indeed. He was wrong on the Warren Report, wrong on Viet Nam, but maybe he was right on American 'intellegence.'
Media coverage is pathological in its distortions. Everyone knows that by now. The US mid-term elections tomorrow may reveal this in an unprecedented dimension, however. The distorted coverage of Iraq may in fact have provided a dramatic exposure of how liberals try to control the world through media.
Iraqi leaders are now beginning to decry the news coverage of the whole Iraqi story. Iraqi Kurdistan Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani recently said, "CNN International and al-Jazeera are equally bad in their coverage of the situation in Iraq." CNN is well-known in America for being anti-conservative, anti-Republican, and especially anti-Bush. (The one exception, Lou Dobbs, and his faithful, truthful coverage of immigration issues.) But now we have an Iraqi leader decrying CNN, comparing it to anti-American Arab al-Jazeera.
Iraqi Kurdistan Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani, at recent news conference.
MoveAmericaForward.org has posted innumerable reports about the true progress and victory in Iraq. One report from CanadaFreePress describes the little known Gold Star Families who went to Iraq to visit the families of those their sons and daughters have died to free. Reuters filed a report on the group of seven US parents that went to Iraq, but a very short note. The conservative bloggers are all over the trip, of course. Here is a collection of audio clips from the US parents visiting Iraq. This is wonderful information. Everyone should know about it.
Iraq is actually a tremendous victory. Historical, and unprecedented. The media of the world will never, ever let anyone know that. Their lust for influence, for bloody stories, for political power, is vicious and unrelenting. One much always search for the truth. The truth always takes a little extra effort to know. She seems a little uppity, a little aloof. You have to show that you really want her, that you're really interested.
So what is the truth about Iraq, in connection with the 'war on terror?' How do you win such an unconventional war? Certainly not by conventional means. However, the 'war on terror' might be made a lot more conventional, were certain measurers taken. Arab Muslims should not be allowed to travel freely throughout the world. Arab Muslims should not be allowed to live outside their own countries. Arab and Pakistani Muslims should be banned from the free world--at least temporarily. This would create propere boundaries for the 'war on terror.' The enemy's disguises must all be herded together in one place. That is a basic logistic, to identify the enemy. Yes, the people behind whom the enemy hides must be consigned to their own oil-weathly countries--at least temporarily.
Islam is a proven, demonstrable menace, if but a disguise for mass murderers. It should not be allowed to be practiced in the free world. Islam is the antithesis of freedom. It does not belong in the free world. It should be banned. Never mind about all the "good Muslims." They have countries to go to. They are not orphans. If they are oppressed and poor in their own countries, then somethings wrong with Islam, eh?
Iraqis are making the sacrifice, the effort, to change. It is not easy. Americans should vote to support them. That means supporting conservatives and Republicans. That's how Iraqi people just may influence the American elections. American people should support candidates who support the Iraqis.
The American soldiers don't want to pull out of Iraq. Even the liberal Washington Post reported that. For them, "victory" is a free, democratic Iraq. That is their assignment. Victory in this "war on terror" is an ideology of freedom expressed in a sociology, a working, functioning democracy in Iraq. This is a most unusual "war." This is why victory is ill-defined in the media and in the political campaigns. Perhaps "war on terror" is in fact not the best name for the effort after all. It is an effort to spread freedom--the greatest protection for all free people. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is indeed a good title, but it seems to have been lost in the media.
For the next two years, the conservatives, and everyone who believes in freedom, should think about a more positive term for this effort. It isn't a conventional war, by any definition. It's like Johnson's "War on Poverty." That was ill-defined as well, for not everyone born in the world is entitled to a Cadillac, and home, and a college education. Terror is not a country. Terror springs up out of a religion, Islam. Terror is not even a culture or a race, but terror is generated chiefly among Arab and Pakistani Muslims.
The slogan must become, Free the Muslims. Free humanity from Islam. Freedom for all people.
Is it not a breath of justice? Is there not still such a thing possible in the world, even in Baghdad?
Iraqis celebrate as the death sentence verdict for former
leader Saddam Hussein is told, in Baghdad's Shiite enclave
of Sadr City, Sunday, Nov. 5, 2006. Iraq's High Tribunal on
Sunday found Saddam Hussein guilty of crimes against
humanity and sentenced him to hang. AP Photo/Karim Kadim
Saddam Hussein was just sentenced to death by hanging for the murder of 148 people in 1982, in the single Shiite town of Dujail. Hussein and seven co-defendants were tried and convicted in Iraqi courts, represented by Irai attorneys, and judged by Iraqi judges. The subjectivity of Husseins self-justification appears the weak and satanic delusion it truly is. You can't fool all the people, all the time, as Lincoln once said.
Saddam Hussein, sentence to death
by hanging, in Iraqi national court.
The Iraqi people need to express the most basic human feeling: murderous cruelty and tyranny are wrong. Evil is in fact offensive and unwelcome. A brazen killer like Saddam Hussein needs to be removed from the earth. The Iraqi people have spoken. Let their voice be heard, loudly, around the world. Let all tyrants hear it. Let all oppressed people hear it, and find courage to rise up against their own tyrants.
It is a grand and awesome thing, for a people to rise up against their leaders. It is the most daring thing that people can do, more daring than war against a foreign force. America did it, in 1776. Iraqis were willing to do it, in 2003. The 'sectarian' strife that has plagued the regime change, and more importantly, the interference by Syrian and Iranian forces withint Iraq, have enabled the world media to completely confuse the issues, tarnish the glory, and distort the reality of the Iraqi revolution. Nevertheless. it is clear, the good people of Iraq are willing to fight in the streets, and to give their lives for a free society. In no wise should they be left unassissted, to be buried alive in an ensuing backlash of Islamic mania.
True, American colonists didn't have a whole lot of help either, back in 1776. France was terribly late, getting in on only the final action, after the colonists had given all, with devastating losses. King George had bribed various Indian nations to fight against the Revolutionaries as well. There was no great superpower in the world to come to the aid of the Americans--who were neither united nor prepared for revolution. The American story is a spectacular one.
But the Iraqi Revolution is also a powerful story. Remember, the Iraqis have a tyrannical religion to deal with: Islam. Islam creates a merciless, intolerant, freedom-hating mind set. Colonial Christianity, however rigid and intolerant it may be made to appear in unsympathetic historical revisions, was not at war with itself in the colonies. It produced strength. What the Iraqi people have to overcome is phenomenal in comparison. Their religion, Islam, lends no unity, no transcendent platform of social cohesion. There is nothing for the people to grasp, nothing but authoritative aggressions against one another. The religion has left them in abject dissension, without objectivity, without good will.
The defiant, vulgar barbarian incessantly interrupted court, insulted judges and
attorneys, and showed himself the true primitve he really is. AFP/Pool/Scott Nelson
Yet, the new Iraqi government presses on. The death sentence for Saddam Hussein is a monumental achievement. Of course there are Iraqis still loyal to their abusive father. That's to be expected. And outside forces like Syria, Iran, and Bin Ladin are sure to take advantage of that, as they have all along. But the national decision to hold Hussein responsible for crime is historical in the modern Islamic world. Other Islamic leaders should also be held responsible, like Ayatollah Khomeini, Yasar Arafat, and others who have abused terribly their own people.
Given the freedom to express themselves, the people will let it be known how they feel. Beware, all Islamic tyrannists. Beware all dictators. Your life is short lived. Your time will come. Your foot will slide. (Deuteronomy 32:35). The day of reckoning will surely come.
Ensorcelling casino waitress Chrissy Mazzeo (32) claimed Nevada Republican gubernatorial candidate Jim Gibbons (61) of sexually assaulting her in the garage parking lot near a restaurant in Las Vegas. That's right. Back on the night of October 13. Sixteen hours of surveillance video didn't show either Mazzeo or Gibbons.
The story is simple, (at least what we have of it): Both Gibbons and Mazzeo had been with a group of people (friends? of whom?) in a resaurant, and had had a drink before leaving. Gibbons apparently offered to accompany Mazzeo to her car. Mazzeo tripped somewhere near the entrance to the garage, and Gibbons simply helped her up. Perhaps he caught her before she went down. (That's what he says.)
Chrissy Mazzeo, telling the truth? Looking innocent?
This is Las Vegas, folks. Who knows?
The latest news report says, "Last week, Mazzeo called a news conference and said she was threatened, pressured and offered money through an intermediary to change her story. Mazzeo said the intermediary was a friend who told her that her life was in danger."
Of course, Gibbons denies any wrong doing whatsoever, and calls her story defamatory and outrageous. Nah. I'd say she's just being a woman. Probably a drunk one. One whose life has been shaped by shady characters. One who has may have been trapped in such a life all her life. In Las Vegas, I'm told there are escort services that offer literally hundreds of girls. The waitress life is not easy, either.
I'd say the moral of the story is--don't go anywhere alone with a casino waitress. Especially if she is a stranger, or not a friend of the family. Not if you're a state representative, running for governor. Don't be a gentleman. Don't be a nice man. Don't trust a casino girl.
We're living in an age of lies, accusations, and immorality of every grade. Lying is the sport of the day. Court is just the playing field. Gambling-spirited people love court. Court is a gamble. You might win. Accuse anyone of anything. You're chances are fifty-fifty. If you set the circumstances up right, you can increase your chances.
At least in the case of Chrissy Mazzeo, you can reap whatever rewards extensive media exposure can bring to you. A modeling opportunity? She's a little old for that. A movie part? Maybe. Date with rich attorneys? She probably get's plenty of those anyway, just working as a waitress.
Speaking of waitressing, it must have been her night off when Gibbons nobly walked her to her car. Was she off work? Had she waited on his table? What was she doing around him? Are they acquainted? Did they have mutual acquaintances at the table? How would he make such an offer to her in the first place? He was leaving, too? Did she ask him? Did she play the damsel in distress? He stupidly responded? Was she drunk?
Are the opponents of Gibbons involved? Are they paying Mazzeo? Is she a dummy, a decoy, a front? It is hard to tell from her appearances on TV whether she is embarrassed for lying, or for the attention, or for any truth. Personally, I think she's lying. (Just like the infamous "rape victim" in the Duke LaCrosse case.) A lie carries a certain poisonous atmosphere with it. It stinks. This story stinks, just like the Duke story stunk. It is the same smell. And Chrissy is of course a mother, a 'single' mother, so that earns her the "victim" status right off.
These are the matters at hand, and we'll never know the truth about them, since the tapes don't show any action. She has no proof, nor even probable evidence inherent in her story. It is unlikely that a court case will transpire.
It's a creepy thing. Mazzeo comes off as creepy. In the videos, Mazzeo looks very suspicious. Her eyes are wide, too wide, however attractive they are. Wide eyes always mean turmoil inside. That means aggression. That can mean lying, in these circumstances. But, maybe that's just her style. Wide-eyes, I mean. Not necessarily lying.
It's just sad. Sad that the representative would be so careless as to go anywhere alone, however short the distance, with a young girl--even if she seemed like a daughter. Sad that she would "stumble" to require his physical assistance, then make a scandal out of it.
Sad that people can't be normal anymore. Simple acts of kindness are suspect now. Simple attention given to women or children is suspect.
Add Muslims to the mix, and we have a rather intense level of mistrust in the society.
Turkish Muslim cleric Ali Bardakoglu recently demonstrated the epitome of error. Head of Turkey's Religious Affairs Directorate, Bardakoglu displayed quintessential pretense and duplicitous dissembling at the same time. In transcendent perfidy, he said criticizing Islam was "seriously threatening world peace."
Top Turkish cleric, Ali Bardakoglu
That's right. All the problems in the world are caused by people finding fault with Islam, or objecting to anything about the religion, or what's worse, condemning any Muslim for anything he has done or plans to do in the name of Allah. Islam is simply not at fault. The fault is the world's for thinking it is. The world is at fault. Not Islam.
Beautiful. How shall we identify such "thinking"? Sounds very Left wing. Far Left. It is totally intolerant. It is sacrosanct. It is violent towards the slightest opposition (like cartoons), yet blames its violence on the provocation (like Zinedane Zidane). Has the mind set become clear now?
This isn't about religion or faith. This is about men controlling other men. This is about power. It has nothing to do with spirituality, and least of all holiness.
Moderate, charitable Americans can't imagine that any such mind set could exist in the world. It is so obviously foolish and animalistic. It doen't even qualify as thinking, but only as power grasping. Americans have had trouble accepting the fact that there is such deformity in the world. Many Americans can't even recognize it in the Democratic Party, or, we should say, the Left wing of the Democratic Party, or, the leadership fo the Democratic Party. Americans seem so naive that they can't recognize the fact that all the principles of Communism are still active in the world, and in America.
Conservatives like to blame the media, but, the problem is really deeper. It is the condition of the uninformed mind, the state of the psychological disposition, that allows nonsense and false reality to flourish. What is that state of mind?
Righteousness. Quick-fix righteousness. Righteousness without righteousness. It's really Christianity without Christ. They call it "equality." They mean material equality. They mean everyone having an equal share in whatever there is to share. That's political religion in the Western world. You don't have to even go to church to be a high priest of that religion. Just take from the rich and give to the poor. You're in--through the Pearly Gates. Hate anything that allows distinction, excellence of one above another. Hate anything that is independent. You'll fly non-stop into bliss. Worship material equality. And damn you if you don't.
What these political religionists really mean is a few powerful, fabulously wealthy tyrannts ruling mercilessly over the masses. That's their "equality." That's how Communism has panned out whenever it's been tried, wherever it's principles have been implemented through coercion and violence. (North Korea is a fine example.) Communism is about power, raw power, of a very few over everyone else. Like Islam, Communism is about coercion.
So, Mr. Bardakoglu is either in profound denial, or will-fully self-deluded. Observe these incredible statements:
He said "it was saddening" to see Islam being criticized while the religion's contribution to civilization is ignored.
"This attitude, which fuels division and lack of mutual trust, is seriously threatening world peace."
"We always tell the truth to everyone."
"Today, Muslims must first remember the human values of Islam ... and the collective peace it aimed for, and tell and teach this to the world."
This is madness, indeed. Islam today is known for one thing: mass murder. Intolerance, brutality, cruelty, and satanic hatred along the way. Merciless abuse of women and children, merciless slaughter of anyone who "criticizes" Islam.
Is this not to be considered indicative of your religion, Mr. Bardakoglu, which brought your country into Europe with intent to destroy the people and the culture (read white Christians) if they did not obey; which terrible onslaught was stayed by giants of war like Dracula; which choke hold on Europe was loosened only by the unexpected invasion of your empire by the Mongolians?
No, I don't think it's important to remember anything about Islam but blood. Islam is about death, nothing more. It is a cult of death. That's what's at the center, and that's the modus operandi. That's all the world needs to know about Islam. Whatever other arts and crafts it generated are of no consequence today. Islam is indeed a threat to world peace.
Mr. Bardakoglu has merely mistated the obvious truth.
Talk about disguises! Talk about Halloween costumes! Try "friends, colleagues, associates." Any one of them will do for the next trick or treat. Talk about not being able to trust anyone! Talk about digust!
Florida State Representative Ralph Arza has resigned from his post, because he left an inappropriate message on fellow Republican Rep. Gus Barreiro's phone answering machine. Gov. Jeb Bush urged Arza to step down, less than a week before elections.
State Rep. Ralph Arza, right, announces his resignation from the Legislature as his
wife Eris, left, and daughter Catherine, center, look on in Hialeah, Fla. Wednesday,
Nov. 1, 2006. The Hialeah Republican had been urged to resign by House Republic-
ans and Gov. Jeb Bush after leaving messages filled with obscenities and a racial
slur on a colleague's voice mail. AP Photo/Lynne Sladky
Arza said he had learned that Barreiro had filed a complaint alleging he [Arza] had earlier used a racial epithet when referring to Miami-Dade County school superintendent Rudy Crew, who is black. He used the same epithet in his phone message to Barreiro, who is Hispanic.
So, one Cuban Republican outs another Cuban Republican for using some word that is understood to be offensive to Negroes. Is that it? This is certainly a new low in loyalty. A private conversation is no longer private, even among so-called associates. (Watch out for your emails, too!)
It isn't about law here, but media. The contents of a private phone conversation were given to the media. That's all that need be done. The damage is done. The case taken to court by Arza, and won, would not change the facts in the media story.
Surely, there is more behind the story. The Republicans simply wanted Arza out, for undisclosed reasons. Such betrayal on the part of a fellow lawmaker (Barriero) has to be based on more than one inappropriately and illegally exposed private telephone message. But that's the part we'll probably never know. Suffice it to say that your telephone conversations, even with friends, are not really private. Beware.
Friends wear costumes too. I guess Halloween isn't over. Prentense is kind of a permanent thing these days. It's part of being "professional," I suppose. Circumstances can tempt people to deny their loyalties. Money, professional advantage, sex, all sorts of reasons can cause a person to turn on a "friend." This is the information age, and all and any information about you, known by anyone, can (and probably will?) be used against you. It can ruin you, even without court! This is incredible. This is outrageous, really.
It is as though we are at the judgment bar of God, even before the end of the world. We judge each other. Society has become a climate of intense mistrust and suspicion. Politicians even aggrandize the uncertainty--for political advantage. They've called the 20th century the age of narcissism, or self-love. What shall we call the 21st? The age of mistrust? How perfectly hideous.