The sole voice of validation, attempted validation, for Rudy Yo Blood (Youngblood) having any Indian blood in him at all, comes from Lance Tahchawwickah. Rudy, of course, was the star of the rather primitive (but naturally popular) movie by Mel Gibson, Apocalypto. Rudy told Gibson that he was Sioux, Cree, Yaqui, Comanche, whatever. Rudy was Mr. Indian, Mr. North American Indigenous. All Indian, all the time. Why, he could even dance.
Okay. Bad Eagle investigated all this. Why? Rudy didn't look like he was Indian at all. He looked like a black hispanic, which is what he is. Bad Eagle posted considerable commentary on the story, offended Rudy's circle of friends and promoters of course, but never heard a word from Rudy. And neither did his supporters contradict anything Bad Eagle reported. They merely attacked me, personally.
I first heard from Lance Tahchawwickah on December 24, 2006. He offered to straighten out misinformation about Rudy. He wrote again December 26, informing me that "Rudy Youngblood is in fact my brother. My father and mother took him in many years ago. He is family! So what he said is absolutely TRUE." Lance justified the success of Rudy, and held him up as a role model. Lance also requested that everyone should respect the privacy of him and his family.
The comment Lance made about his father, Preston Tahchawwickah, is critical. "My father and mother took him (Rudy) in." This is the direct confession that Rudy is no blood relation whatsoever to the Tahchawwickah family. Of course, what Lance means is that Preston had some kind of positive regard for Rudy, some kind of concern. It's called, "Indian way." It does mean alot, among Indians. But, considering Rudy's age, this relationship simply could not have been that extensive or serious. It was a temporary thing. Rudy claimed the same type of relationship with a Cree family, the Slimjohns, (from whom Bad Eagle has also heard, January 18--who have not vouched for any Indian blood in Rudy). Rudy also claims it with an Oto family in Oklahoma. It becomes rather meaningless the way Rudy boasts, but it proved an effective manipulation, at least until this point.
Lance then went to Michelle R. Hall ("Shining Elk") and offered the same implication--"Indian way" validation of Rudy. He did not, however, say the truth, as he had to me. (Michelle is the professional manager of Rudy). Michelle then posted Lance's less than truthful statement on her blog, and that was to be the end of it. Since Lance went public, after asking me to keep things private, I therefore have to reveal the truer statements he made to me.
Lance, a real Indian, is one of Preston Tahchawwickah's legally adopted children. This information comes from Bobbie, a sister of Preston's. A blood son of Preston, Rodney, who lives in the Cache, OK area, knew nothing of his supposed "brother" Rudy. Rudy met the Tahchawwickah's in the Dallas area. This is because Preston lived there. None the Tahchawwickah's in Oklahoma knew anything about Rudy's claim. Furthermore, there are Tahchawwickahs in the Dallas area that know nothing of Rudy--who have written Bad Eagle and said so. In fact, as recently as January 24, a personal letter from a Tahchawwickah thanked me for honoring their true family, and respecting their name. (I have not asked permission to release their names, but, I will if they allow.)
Nathan Tahchawwickah, for instance, knows nothing of Rudy. Nathan, a powerful football star for the Irving Tigers, is a real Tahchawwickah, and deserves to be recognized as a Comanche man, not Rudy. Nathan is a star linebacker, who recently was honored with the Tuff Tiger Award by Joe Barnett, Director of Athletics for the Irving Indpendent School Districts. (Irving is a northern suburb of Dallas. I have Comanche family there myself, half a dozen or so.) Barnett said, " Thank you Nathan for your contribution to the athletic program and for representing Irving High School and the community of Irving in such a positive manner." I'd say this represents real, legitimate accomplishment, far more worthy than playing in a movie.
Tiger linebacker coach Shay Fanning with Nathan Tahchawwickah and the
Tuff Tiger Award, January 20, 2007.
Unfortunately, Rudy was lauded in the January edition of The Comanche Nation News. Interviewed by Jolene Schonchin, Rudy is hailed as a Comanche, with "relatives on his Comanche side." Rudy "gets his Comanche blood from his paternal side," Ms. Schonchin says. Well, she has obviously researched nothing at all. Of course a lot of Comanche people, the younger set, and some kakus, were all excited to have a movie star visit the Complex. No one even thought he might not be Indian at all, of any kind. They'd rather be proud that a "Comanche" made a movie.
To make matters worse, Michelle R. Hall ("Shining Elk") has posted (January 4) an alleged spoof of BM Davids, a travesty about me, a complete and libelous lie, from a July 28, 2006 post on a past site called "Bald Beagle." The site was taken down in October, and is no longer available. (Good thing. It was full of homosexual pornography. I made many screen shots for evidence. I meantion this only to point out the character of BM Davids and those he apparently attempts to influece.)
Michelle posted a piece about me being bannished by the Comanche Nation. The piece is a complete spoof, with many false pieces of information, like, naming a man as chairman who wasn't, and never has been, etc. Of course, Michelle would have no way of knowing any of this, and would never research it. It looks as if BM Davids (or someone else) has provided this past Bald Beagle post to Michelle, to watch her run with it, and make herself as foolish and libelous as he is. Poor Michelle! She is really being taken advantage of. It is easy to do, of course, since she has to defend Rudy as his manager. She is completely vulnerable to the truth. Alas, one faux pas leads to another. She is only getting in deeper. (By the way, I've been to at least two major General Council meetings of the Comanche Nation, to vote, since the July spoof. My name is certainly on the rolls. I couldn't vote if it weren't.)
So, what's wrong with the truth? Why do some people delight in lies? Why do they try to perfect their lies as if their lies are actual truth? Why the intense effort to counterfeit? They seem to find life in lying. They love and crave pretense, as if it is a magic trick routine, a magic act, a piece of entertainment or something. This is pernicious, and misrepresentative of all Indians, it seems to me. These people are aggressive distortionists. BM Davids has denigrated the Comanche Nation in this, as has Michelle. They don't see it that way, because they apparently have no respect for Indian people, at all. This is profound. This is what the behavior tends to indicate, anyway.
So, just to keep everyone informed, Rudy Nathaniel Jamal Gonzalez is, according to all available evidence, not one drop of American Indian blood. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with that. What is offensive is the professional advantage he has procured by claiming he is Comanche. He has never spoken of his real mother, or real father. He has never defended them, or even identified them. He may have his reasons, but, this is not reason to claim Comanche blood, or any Indian blood, if you don't have it. This is offensive. This says Indian blood is nothing. It's yours for the claiming. Indian blood has become like the blood of Christ. Just claim it. It will save you. It's yours for the asking. Blasphemous? Indeed.
...young Isaac a faggot brought
from Cursor Mundi, a Northumbrian poem, of nearly 30,000 lines, ca. 1300. (It is, as the title suggests, a history of the world.)
Obviously, the written word faggot, in English, in 1300 (and necessarily before), meant a bundle of wood, for burning. The Cursor Mundi line (l. 3164) refers to the incident in Genesis 22, in which Arbraham is asked to offer up his only son as a burnt sacrifice (which, of course, he was finally forbidden to do and didn't.) Thus saith the Oxford English Dictionary.
Who knows what it meant before that? There is an old French word, fagot, but it's origin is not known. The verb is fagoter, which means to tie up in bundles. In French colloquial, fagoter means to dress up like a scarecrow--which of course means to look like tied up bundles of hay. Then there is the Italian word, fagotta, but the Latin etymology is also unknown--at least unavailable to the present author.
Fagot, (variant of faggott) in several Indo-European languages, refers to a double-reed musical instrument, known in English as the bassoon. Fagotting, as a verb, can mean decorative stitching, a process of improving the quality of wrought iron or steel (presumably by heating), and faggot can also refer to ancient unit of measure (probably a ruler or yard stick of some kind).
How this word came to be associated with male homosexuals is an interesting story, sketched out by Straight Dope, for example, (though sources are not necessarily scholarly, even when given). Certainly, today, in the age of word grabbing and capitalistic attorneys, the word has been baptized as a hate word. It's used can bring on a law suit. Words are the easiest power grab, the quickest way to power--to be used against others.
Kate Walsh and T.R. Knight, 2005
Ask Isaiah Washington. His use of the word faggott brought on the usual hysteria of the self-righteous and avaricious liberals, be they politicians or attorneys, and Washington found himself in a PC pickle. He used the word in an argument with Patrick Dempsey (of ABC's Grey's Anatomy) in the midst of some dispute on the set, and Knight claims the shock of hearing the word forced him 'out of the closet.' Poor victim--forced to declare to the world that he was a homosexual--because he heard the word "faggott." What a tragedy. ABC declared its perfunctory hysteria ("dismay") as well.
Interestingly, Isaiah had not called Knight a faggot, but had merely used the term in that argument with Patrick Dempsey on the set. So poor little Knight takes cosmic offense, and he wasn't even part of the conversation. Get it? And it "forced" him to come out of the closet! (Sounds like he couldn't wait.)
"Faggot" is referred to as a "gay slur" by TMZ by the media. This is great error in itself.
Homosexuals are not gay. Homosexuals are homosexuals. That they wish to be referred to by a word in the language that has no etymological or semantic association with them in all of history, does not give them the right to rob the language of such a word. If they think "homosexual" is awkward, or somehow otherwise inappropriate or even offensive, what could the reason possibly be?
Homosexuality referes to a sexual condition. ("Orientation," they would prefer.) That's the point. This is what defines and distinguishes a homosexual person. For this cause, they lobby Congress. That is to say, precisely for their "difference," they lobby for equality and sameness. The strain on logic here is overwhelming and crippling.
They, and the mercenaries, have decided that any term but "gay" is derisive, a sexual "slur," mean, hateful, and finally, criminal. This is called power grabbing. The easiest way to power is to grab a word. Make it a crime to use. And you can make money off of it. That's where we are in American society. Words for dollars.
Well, I'm offended. I'm offended at the homosexual use of the word gay. This is language abuse. This is word robbery. This is making a word mean something it doesn't mean. This is dictating to me what my own words mean. This is tyranny. I think homosexuals, no, writers, attorneys, and politicians, should be sued for abuse of speech. They hate my speech. They hate me. Yes! They are guilty of hate speech--toward me. I am hurt, psychologically, professionally, and socially, by the distortion of my speech. I have been robbed.
So, when will "homosexual" become a hate word? Will we have to go the way of the hyphen? H-m-s-x-l? Ah, a new shirt size? Shall we then call them "SS" for short? Nah, that'll conjure up Nazi sentiments. Oh, "short" sizes, as in boxer shorts. Maybe just "shorts." There's a new term. Shorts. "Hey, shorts!" Nah. They'd be offended. They'd want the word to be "longs." "Mediums?" Nah. That's supposed to mean people who communicate with the dead, or, spook talkers.
The point is, people are tired of homosexual hyteria, "nigger" hysteria, "Redskins" hysteria, and any other fabricated crisis over words. This is all faggery. The British used to call cigarettes "fags." It was associated with the word fatigue. You smoked when you were tired. The nicotine gave you a lift. Society needs a smoke. Society is grown quite weary of word crises. But, as long as attorneys and politicians are making big bucks off of nothing, no important issue will ever triumph. All is lost in minutia.
Actually, a person shouldn't really have to be called anything other than a human being. But, that's not the way linguistic reality works. There are differences. There are men, women, children, and elderly. There are obviously different words for different conditions. Most people are attracted to members of the opposite sex, not the same sex. So, there's a difference between a man and a homosexual man.
And by the way, if sexual desire can be altered by genetic manipulation or chemical injection, then wouldn't we have to say a person is homosexual by choice? Even so, the point is, let a person be what he is, without making a federal case out of it. That's offensive. That's denigrating to the social milieu. That lowers the tenor of the communal attitude. That pollutes the psychological atmosphere. No one should be mistreated, true. We should not be unkind. No one should be treated in a cruel way--unless he's being cruel to others, unless he is robbing others of their freedom, taking advantage of their youth and innocence, or otherwise abusing them, injuring them for life. That person should be put in jail. And yes, that's cruel. And it may not even deter another person from abusing others.
But we can't just let everyone do anything. There has to be organization, structure, definition, and inevitably, exclusiveness. Exclusivity is the essence of definition, of individuality, and finally, of nationhood.
It's true. Serbians have an inside line on the United Nations. Serbians in Kosovo say that the UN, supported by liberals in the United States government, plans to "remove" 40,000 Serbian nationals from their own land, Kosovo, land which the UN plans to give to violent, revolutionary Albanians. Kosovo will be a new country, taken over by Muslims. "Ethnic Albanians," the media says, who just happen to have migrated into Serbian territory, a while back. Currently, Serbia is willing to financially support Serbians who are willing to move into Kosovo, their own legal, historical territory, but it looks like the powers that be are going to evacuate, evict, displace, or other wise "remove" nearly a third of the Serbian population from their own territory.
That's how it works. Be Muslim, migrate, immigrate, and then 'activate.' The land will become yours. It's only a matter of time.
The CIA World Factbook is so confused it states, "Between 1990 and 1992 Albania ended 46 years of xenophobic Communist rule and established a multiparty democracy." Like, Communism accommodated the 70% Muslim population? Like, Communism honors ethnicity? To make matters more confusing, Albania is considered an "ally" of the United States, and sent 'troops' to Iraq--all 120 of them, or so. (Why wouldn't Albania want to side with the US, since the US is a key supporter of Kosovo, and has fully betrayed Serbia? Why wouldn't you support the hand that's tearing off a big hunk of valuable mineral wealth from another country, and giving it to you? 120 officers is a small price to pay!) "A strong supporter of the global war on terrorism," says the CIA. Really? What about the Al-qaeda support in Kosovo, through Albania?
Liberal Mariah Carey, visting the NATO troops in Kosovo, December 2001. The
"stars" always support the liberals and their bleeding victims, self-created though
they be.
Ah, but guess who objects, besides Serbia? Russia. Russia doesn't have a claim in Kosovo, like the United States, Italy, England, Germany, and France. Russia is smarting because she's left out o the picture. Russia wants in on the deal, so she's balking in the Balkans. Fact is, Russia is a key ally of Serbia. Of course, the United States should be, but, has betrayed Serbia. Serbia fought against the Germans as well as the Russians, in the past. And Russia has veto power in this UN. This idea of making a new country out of Kosovo, based on ethnicity and religion (i.e., on Albanian Muslims living in Serbia) will be opposed by "Communist" Russia, in a stroke of incredible irony.
The New York Times was so anxious to see Serbia divided and robbed, and to see Kosovo Muslims have their Al-qaeda haven in Kosovo, that even last Novemeber, 2006, Nicholas Wood predicted that Kosovo would soon have it's independence. Then Woods has to admit that, after seven years of supervision (at $1.3 billion a year), all the allies and the UN are still going to have to be there, for a long time to come, even with an "independent" Kosovo. Of course, no one complains about that, about the money, the personnel, or the long-range commitment. Liberals don't mind when it's Muslim tyranny they're supporting. Let the program cost what it will, for as long as needed. It's only when freedom is promoted that they object, as in Iraq, as in Bush's program of democracy in the Middle East. Now, liberals can't tolerate that at all.
Because of the liberal, anti-nationhood media, which despises patriotism, very few people seem to know about Serbia, and its history. Kates Williams offers an interesting assessment of the truth about media and Serbia. It seems that the value of Kosovo to Serbia is comparable to the most value anything could be to any nation, ethnicity, or religion. Kosovo is the "Black Hills" of Serbia. What that Black Hills mean to the Sioux, Kosovo means to Serbia. It is an unthinkable outrage that the United Nations, together with the United States (liberals in the government), would think to tear Kosovo away from Seriba, just because of the Albanian Muslims who have moved there. (Indeed, Albanians, operating from within Albanian, are militant about kicking everyone else out of Kosovo--including Jews.)
Let the Albanian Muslims move back to Albania! That's the obvious solution. But no, the United Nations want's the Serbians in Kosovo to move out. This is 'Indian Removal,' just like President Andrew Jackson programmed back in 1830, only Kosovo has the support of the liberal world and media. (The US was strong enough to move the Indians by itself.) But why doesn't the world support moving the Albanian Muslims back to Albania, where the population is 70% Muslims anyway? (Kosovo is 90% Muslim now!)
Because the world leaders, the globalists, the high money folks, all love Muslims. Muslims are more effective tools than the Communists were. Muslims divide, disrupt, destroy, and denigrate all. What more could the liberals ask? Power thrives on top of chaos. The Muslims insure the globalists of their world power.
Be that as it may, the point to observe here is that the liberal media and powers are attempting to make Kosovo look like the poor, pitiful victim of the mean Serbians. The liberal self-righteous want to defend the victim. They need victims, so they find them, or create them. Any show of strength to preserve nationhood, Christian religion, or white ethnicity, is marked for war. The liberals will unite and attack. This is why Serbia is totally misrepresented in the media. Wholly. Dramatically. It is incredible. Some liberal British communists are even comparing Kosovo hopes for independence to Scottish hopes for independence. Thus, the liberals would break Britian--and any other established power. That is the cause of world Communism--which is still alive and well, by the way. Break the status quo. Revolt. All that is is wrong, and the Communist (i.e., the violent power-grabber) is morally bound to attack.
In today's Communist world, the little guy gets kicked around. There is no honor, no dignity, no pride. Those that are more powerful rule, and threaten, force, coerce, and otherwise change you. There's no appeal, no recourse, and no going back.
This is what happened to Indians. I only point out the irony, that it's now happening to white Christian Serbia. Serbians are the "Indians" of Europe. They are wholly outnumbered, out gunned, and out "media'd." I rather think many will fight to the death, just like Indians did. Their land will dwindle, as it has, more and more, and there's nothing they can do about it. They will at last concede, to survive.
In the case of Serbia, the world is united in infamy--in a way which has rarely been known in history. This is a global crime against all that is meaningful to human beings. This is the United Nations, the Left, and the globalist profiteers. Protest is present, but not mainline. The truth is hidden from the world, by the world powers. Beware world powers.
Kingdom of Serbia
The Serbian civil ensigne, 1838. Bottom portion of flag is white.
The United States and its European Allies have decided to betray the country of Serbia. According to the Washington Post, beginning this summer, 2008, there will be a permanent secession of Kosovo. Kosovo will be an independent country in the Balkans, "supervised" and supported by the United Nations, NATO, the United States, and US European allies.
The article cites "a bitter ethnic conflict between Serbs and rebellious Kosovo Albanians," and thus accentuates separatism. How odd, in the midst of a liberal, globalist world, the West decides to 'give in' to a tiny "Connecticut"-sized province of Serbia and to recognize it as a full-flegded independent country, with it's own army! So says the Washington Post report.
What the article faithfully avoids mentioning is the fact that the Kosovites are Muslim! This is the foundation of the conflict. Mass immigrations of Muslims into Kosovo, and ethnically Albanian Muslims, have all united and over-populated the province, and simply claimed it as theirs. It is a kind of international robbery, all under the sanction and supervision of the liberal world.
Serbian Orthodox Christian church
It is an outrage beyond all others. The moral? Don't let Muslims move in! Their design is to multiply and then dominate. This is the overwhelming evidence. Let every nation in the world take a lesson. If you let the Muslims in, they will divide, sever, and dominate whatever area they live in.
It's already happening in Europe, and in the United States. Giving away Serbia is giving away the world. This is the sign. The world belongs to Muslims. All they have to do is move in, and in time, they will dominate and own wherever they live.
As an American Indian, I do have passionate responses to this. The only people in America who have historical and legal right to ethnic separatism are the American Indians. Indeed, if Kosovo is to be an independent nation--with an army, then every American Indian nation has the same right. Of course, most Indian tribes are not on lands that could support an independent nation. Kosovo is. This mineral wealth and unexplored resources belonged legally to Serbia. But no, the world says let the Muslims have it. Just to appease them, to have peace.
The 'religion of peace' demands peace. Indeed. And everything else that comes with total dominance.
The world belongs to Islam. As long as the big businessmen and politicians in the world are not hurt by this 'arrangement,' then let everyone be Muslim. It doesn't make any difference to the bankers, the rulers, or the corporations. It really doesn't. They see only dollars, not truth, morals, or history. They see only profits, not justice.
Evening on the Danube. The twighlight of Serbia--gloaming of the West?
Nationhood and patriotism are to be manipulated, not preserved. They are tools, not ends. Create a nation, destroy a nation. What difference does it make to the powers that be? Most of those boundaries in the Balkans were wholly inappropriate to begin with, the same way the boundaries in the Middle East were, and are. Why not let the Muslims divide themselves--into separate Muslims countries? Let the Kurds have their own nation. Let the Shiites have their countries, or at least states, and let the Sunnis have theirs, if that's what they want.
But why betray Serbia, one of the strongest allies the West had against Hitler, and also against Communist Russia? The Serbians are white, Christian, eastern orthodox, and therefore represent a model of fate in the modern world. The amoral West is making Serbia bow to the Muslim.
So what about all the Serbians that live in Kosovo? What happens to them? What kind of "rights" are they going to have? Will they have to move out, off their own homeland.
Are the Kosovite Serbians the new "Indians" of Europe? I doubt they'll be given any reservations in Kosovo. I doubt they'll be recognized as the "indigenous."
This is a epic, and tragic, decision. The United States, along with Europe, is betraying an ally as never before. The United States government, I should say, the liberal element so deeply ensconced within, is degrading the honor of America in a way unprecedented in modern history. It is the overthrow of honor. It is the ugly triumph of tyranny and dollars over nationhood, over ethnicity, and over religion. World unity through business? No. Peace through appeasement to Muslims.
But peace is in fact the one thing in the world that cannot be bought. It can only be fought for. If it was not fought for, it is only the temporary lull of tyranny. It is the furst flush of an agonal era of dictatorship. Islam is the new power. The West has created that power, through business (oil), and now has to deal with it. The West will cut off any of it's members it feels it needs to, like Serbia, to pacify the murderous rage of the Muslims. The West figures it can live without Serbia.
Serbia is now the Christ of the West. Sacrificed for appeasement. Better one smally nation perish, than disturb the whole world. What it means to be a nation--borders, language, religion, ethnicity, let these things be placed aside. Let the Muslims crucify the idea of a Western, white, Christian nation, and let the Muslims rule--everywhere they set their dark, multiple feet. That is the message of Kosovo.
The world already took Montenegro away, so Serbia no longer has a coast on the Agaean Sea. Now they take the mineral wealth from the southern province. For the sake of business and mad Muslims, the world is chopping Serbia to pieces, before our eyes. But not Iraq, not Iran. Only places that are white, and Christian. Oh, yes, places that are Jewish, too, like Israel.
January 26, 2007. Mark it well.
Affairs of state are daily bread
on any lowly, simple street.
August names and places sore exotic
spice the dull conversations in the slum--
For many can read as well as drink their bitter coffee.
Racid grease, with flies and butter melted
alter not the words of language, nor the atmosphere of speech,
nor the senseless mummery of the News and their stale redundancies.
All can honor their own tongues
with the names of kings,
for there is no price on pronunciations.
The vagrant readily advises lords, in the empty air;
the self-conscious slave shall exorcise every imp of the state.
Anyone can triumph in a sentence over any Monarch...
Being spoken of--
This is the price of Princedom,
as the children spill the milk,
as the cat awaits an opened door,
Being spoken of--
by all,
by any,
from all points of view
as the builders hoist the bricks,
as the market bustles with advantage,
as the athletes compete in pain,
Being spoken of,
the king cleans his teeth.
Being spoken of,
God waters the wildflowers
from the epic, Jahan dideh, Poem the Seventh,
"Resurrection." 1985, by David A. Yeagley (New Haven, CT)
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) applauds before U.S. President
George W. Bush delivers his annual State of the Union speech to a joint
session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol in Washington January 23, 2007
Tonight, January 23, 2007, President George W. Bush delivered his 6th State of the Union Address. He carried himself as the strong man he truly is. He has a steadfast character, and invites courage from others. He is a humble man. He is not a spectacular speaker. He is not charismatic. He is not entertaining. He is simply himself. What we see is real, not performed. He is a gentleman, and very fine one.
As we all learn how do disagree with respect, to oppose with dignity, George Bush has offered us one of the finest examples of our time. He does not belittle his enemies. He recognizes that he, as the president, cannot reduce himself to the level of conversation found in those who hate him, who are desperate to condemn him. They have their feelings, their motivations. He must patiently endure them, consider them, and not despise them.
Senator Jim Webb, Democrat, Virginia, offered one of the weakest responses in the history of mechanical "rebuttals."
The patriots of Serbia have won an important parliamentary election--the first since Serbia became independent from Montenegro, last year. The elections were today, Sunday, January 20, 2007. The patriots won 28% of the seats, more than any of the other 20 political parties running.
The liberal media is greatly displeased. The AP article just before the election and the article after, show great disdain. In fact, the first article was altered, to hide some of the blatant bias. (The Bad Eagle Forums preserved some of the original wording, but failed to make any screen shots for proof.)
The first AP article originally opened with this line:
Serbs voted Sunday in parliamentary elections that could determine whether the troubled Balkan nation will continue with pro-Western reform or return to its nationalist past.
The replacement AP article read:
Serbs voted Sunday in parliamentary elections closely watched by European Union leaders hoping the troubled Balkan nation will keep pursuing Western-style reforms and a peaceful solution to the dispute over Kosovo.
Changed from: pro-Western reform or return to it's nationalist past
to: Western-style reforms and a peaceful solution to the dispute over Kosovo
Clear enough? The original version was egregiously prejudiced. According to the almighty media, pro-Western reform means anti-nationalism, anti-anything that smacks of nationhood, ethnic pride and preservation, religious unity, or even national borders. According to the media, nationalism is bad, something you "return to" as if you were going backwards, not making "progress" as a good Gore Progressive. According to the media, the West is perfectly Communist, disdaining all differences, in the name of equality. (What they mean is tyranny, however.)
Observed the pictures that came with the original AP wire: Muslims voting in Serbia (Kosovo province).
These pictures have also been removed. Bad Eagle was able to preserve them, though without specific ID.
This was a case of heated liberal prejudice, which was so obvious that editors had to come back and change the text and the pictures. The latest picture is of a woman who is apparently not a muslim.
The truth is, the liberals and their media love Muslims! Correction. They love to use Muslims. Muslims immigrations work more effectively than an old-fashioned Communist revolution. All in the name of tolerance. Tolerate the intolerant, and the world will be wonderful. The liberal whites will have power, instead of the conservative whites.
Bill Clinton's Democrat general, Wesley Clark, bombed the daylights out of the Serbs in its Kosovo province. It was indiscriminate mass murder from the sky, by "UN" forces, to keep the peace. Kosovo is over populated with Albanian, Turkish, and Arab Muslims, including Al-qaeda operatives. But Kosovo is Serbian territory. Serbian patriots will fight for it. Liberals will squelch that fight, with every force available to them.
The Serbians are white, Christian (orthodox), and European. Their patriotism simply cannot be tolerated. Their nationalism must be eradicated. The Democrats, the liberals, and the media, are bound and determined to crush out Serbian nationalism. But, all they can do is lie. Lies cannot destory race, ethnicity, religion, or national borders. They will never destroy the bold Serbians.
An early report from Reuters stated it this way, right after the election results were in:
"Serbia's ultranationalist Radical Party claimed victory in national elections on Sunday, in a voter rejection of Western appeals for closer cooperation on the arrest of war criminals and on Kosovo."
That's more honest that the AP report:
"Serbs scattered their votes in parliamentary elections Sunday, leaving no party with enough power to rule alone, according to partial returns in a troubled Balkan nation divided over Western-style reforms and the future of Kosovo."
Reports become edited, re-worded, by the hour, sometimes by the minute. It is impossible to keep track of everything. The content of links are altered without notice as well. One cannot make screen shots of every article. But the process of this story should convince everyone that the media is desperately biased. The truth about Serbia will never, ever appear in the liberal media. Serbia represents everything the liberals despise, fear, and are desperate to eradicate: nationhood, ethnic pride, Christianity, and even language and border differences.
Majority rules, but only when the liberals want to destroy a nation, be it Serbia or the United States of America. Therefore, mass immigrations of people who do not speak the nation's language, share the nation's religion, or its ethnicity.
"Ultranationalists," the liberal reporters write. They can't bear the word "patriot." It is like the cross before Dracula. They are revulsed by the idea of love of country. Patriotism is some antequated notion of yesteryear. It is something you "return to," like a dog to its vomit." Proverbs 26:11.
The Sundance Film Festival will honor Deborah Kampmeier's child rape film "Houndog" (otherwise known as the "untitled Dakota Fanning project") this month in Park City, Utah. The low budget film is also low minded, and offers nothing but encouragement of child abuse. Festival Geoffrey Gilmore lauds the film for making the grade among 3,287 films submitted from all over the world. Houndog is about a sexually abused child in the '60's in the American South. That's real distinction. America can be proud, eh?
Dakota Fanning, "star" of child sex abuse film, Houndog.
But, this is all part of the globalist "save the children" mind set. And Sundance, using the name of a sacred Indian religios rite," sun dance," to authenticate it's world mission for the oppressed, delights in dramatizing human degradation. It's all in the cause of "uplifting" humanity. (And any superficial readers out there that think the Sundance Institute got its name from the Sundance Kid don't know what they're talking about. The Sundance Kid got his name from doing jail time in Sundance, Wyoming. The town of Sundance was named after the Indian rite, which northern plains Indians celebrate there at Sundance Mountain, every summer. But then, why make a point to purposely ignorant experts?)
Dakota Fanning, now twelve years old, is lauded by all for her 'acting skills.' She has a number of incredible rolls under her belt, and they're all about tragedy, abuse, and deformity of one kind or another. Nothing normal about her rolls, or her career. She's not the first young girl (or boy) to be used in this way, but, this kind of thing is still relatively new in America. (Europe has been abusing children in the name of art for decades.) Officianados think praising her acting skills somehow exonoerates any emotional ills the film may cause her or other children. Never mind the effects on weak-minded adults, prone to abuse children. Never mind the inevitable encouragement such a film provides to abusers. Why, it's all perfectly normal. At least that's what the Sunance Institute, et al., want everyone to think. That's the justification of making a movie about it. Why, art reflects life. Why not glorify it, in all its deformity? Why not encourage it?
Remember, this pathetic ideology is supported by Hewlett-Packard, Volkswagen, AOL, and Adobe. These are the chief sponsors of the 2007 Sundance Film Festival, where American Indians are made the mascot of Africans, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and homosexuals, all the oppressed of the world, which means all non-white males. That is the ploy. For liberal whites to oust conservative whites from the Great White Throne, the liberals must unite the world against the conservatives. The poor little white males. Hewlett-Packard and Volkswagen are regular sponsors. In 2005, Sony was also a sponsor, along with American Express, Starbucks, and Delta Air Lines, to name a few. Pretty much the same crowd is sponsoring this 2007 fest of the oppressed. Perhaps we should make an effort to contact the president or CEO of these corporations, and let them know how we feel. First, Sundance represents a crying abuse of American Indian imagery by using the "sun dance" name to validate its anti-American, globalist ideology; second, Sundance is clearly promoting immorality of the most degrading kind--child sexual abuse, including homosexuality. (Auraeus Solito's Filipino film Tuli is about female homosexuality. It is in the category of "Native American" films!)
From Solitos' female homosexual film, Tuli
All in the name of uplifting humanity. All are normal, all must be affirmed. All must be accept for who and what they are, at all times. That's the message. "Tolerance," it's called. Affirmation, acceptance, praise, really. That's what many people don't seem to understand. To accept, to praise, is to encourage more of the same. To laud something, to dramatize it, to idolize it, is to encourage more of it. Do we really believe that child abuse is honorable? Do we really believe the abused are to be congratulated and honored, and that this helps them? When we aggrandize their misfortune, does this make them feel better?
Is the silver screne the ultimate judge of value? If it makes it on the screen, it's great? Being in the movies means you're in heaven? You made it? Well, Rudy Yo Blood (Youngblood) became an Indian through entertainment. He got in the movies as an Indian. That must mean he's Indian, right? NOT.)
What kind of idolatry is this, anyway? What kind of cheap shot is this at justification? If you make a movie out of it, it must be worthy. And if anyone accuses you of anything, you can say, "It's art! It's just acting. It's not real." But then, you also get to justifying by saying, "It's true to life! This is what happens in life!" This kind of duplicity is the quintessence of liberalism, certainly. You know your society is mentally ill when "reality TV"--a perfect oxymoron, becomes the norm. You know your society is psychologically sick when movies are the measure of reality.
Bad Eagle will make an effort to provide names and contact information for the corporations who sponsor this nonsense at Sundance Institute. Notice will be given when such information is available. Perhaps a form letter will be provided as well. Sundance is a disgrace to America, and an outrageous insult to American Indians.
The public never new it, but George Soros was behind the grand Mexican protests last March. When hundreds of thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants and so-called Mexican-Americans took to the streets to protest any resistence to their arrogant presence, and even to proclaim their right to own America, they were marching to the drum beat of the George Soros communist vision for America.
The social disruption, the racial agitation, and the intimidation through street tactics, were all straight out of the original American communist play book. Not only has George Soros mastered that book, but has come out with his own new edition: funding through "philanthropy." The George Soros Open Society Institute funded these critical elements of el levantamiento mexicano (the Mexican 'uprising'):
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)
American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)
Center for Community Change (CCC)
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA)
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF)
National Council of La Raza
The Gamaliel Foundation
Soros' Open Society contributed $648,200 to MALDEF; La Raza has received over $1.7 million. The Center for Community Change has received over $5.2 million--for the purpose of organizing community uprisings in low-income neighborhoods.
The point here is to use mass immigration as a means to overturn the economy of a region, even of a country. This is what Soros wants to do in America. It's an old Communist game strategy, methodically and academically perfect by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, back in the '60's. Cloward and Piven were Columbia University professors in sociology (socialism) in New York. The plan is to completely overload the welfare system. The aim is to literally bankrupt a city or a state, and under Soros, a country. It worked in New York, by the '70's. The city had been wiped out financially, by a staggering 10.8 million single-parent households on welfare.
But the street gang parades, the street tactics, that was the knock-out punch. That's what intimidated everyone. It was all about the Marxist "redistribution of wealth" fantasy. The poor have been wronged. Morally wronged. The rich have taken from them their rights. The poor must ban together and force their will on the minority rich. It's all based on nothing but covetousness, on greed, and on a relish for violence and excitement with a "cause."
George Soros at the Business Council of the United Nations
meeting in Monterey, Mexico, March, 2002
Of course Soros wants to stir up the Mexicans. He wants massive immigration, as quickly as possible. It destabilizes the economy. It bankrupts the system.
Adolf Hitler with actress Olga Chekhova, May, 1939
I have to think of the brown shirts of 1933, in Berlin. The Nazi street tactics are noted by Antony Beevor, in his interesting biography of actress Olga Chekhova. On January 30, 1933, the day Hitler became Reichschancellor, the browns staged a march on the Pariser Platz.
"From the windows of the Adlon Hotel, the rich looked on as if from theatre boxes, still unable to take such a vulgar street drama seriously. But even those who could imagine what it signified experienced a sense of angry disbelief. There were many who loathed the Nazis in Berlin, a city which had always taken pride in its irreverent jokes. The Nazi vote, to the frustration of Goebbels, who had been put in charge of the party in the capital, had always been lower then anywhere else. But the parade that evening was a warning that electoral percentages were about to become as irrelevant as the rule of law." (p.125)
Deja-vu? Hasn't it all happened before? Class struggle, race-based upsrising, economic disaster as means of regime change--it's all a well-established methodology. It is Communism, Naziism, fascism, totalitarianism, and yes, Democrat-ism. And if the global business minds of the Republican party aren't reigned in, it's also going to be Republicanism. Business men are the ones responsible for the Mexican presence. They want the supposedly cheaper labor--which ends up costing everyone ten times as much through taxes.
Street rabble. Soros is in. But does he care anything about Mexicans, Negroes, or American Indians? Of course not. They are implements. Causes. Tools. Through them, and the Democratic Party, and his "philanthropy," he can aim for national bankruptcy, then the overthrow the current regime. He did it in Europe. Most recently, he succeeded in devaluating the British pound. He bet $10 billion on a his projected drop of the pound. It worked. English people saw their savings vanish, and Soros profited by $2 billion. The bet worked. That's how much financial influence the man has in the world. This is beyond the ken of most readers, but, it's true. It's all in writing. The best source Soros is The Shadow Party (2006), by David Horowitz and Richard Poe.
Soros cares for none, while professing to be the savior of all. It's only about power. His power. His "cause." Power loves no one. Power cares for none, English or Mexican, American Indian or Chinese. Power only cares about power. Power only uses people.
Wars in the world are caused by power--power that uses people. I'd say the manly thing to do is don't be used. How this translates into society is a true challenge, but the very challenge before us all.
Finally, I quote Beakerkin, the blogger, from a comment he made on BadEagle Journal entry, George Soros Hates Indians, Loves Rudy:
I tell people that Commies like Soros have no loyalty to their country or ethnicity. Many people think this is a joke. Soros, Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein are examples of Jewish Commies who put their Communism ahead of all else. Revolutionary defeatism has been the actual practice of Commies since Lenin. In reality this means siding with whatever enemy your country has and hope Communist revolution will rise from the ashes. This was of course tossed to the wind when Hitler attacked his ally the Soviet Union.
Communist have a history of class genocide that is as deplorable as anything the Nazis did. Commies also have a history of abusing ethnicities with mass deportations from their indigenous lands. Commies put Muslims on rail cars where 1/3 died on the way to Siberia. Then they turn around and scream about Israelis and Blacks in the USA.
Communism is as evil as Nazism, the KKK or Jihadism.
Perhaps George Soros suffers from the Stockholm Syndrome. He emulates the sentiments of Nazi Germany, the historical enemy of his people, the Jews. He obviously thinks in the same racist terms that Adolf Hitler did. But there's a new strain or mutation in his Syndrome. He sees a special use for the dark races. The dark races are to become a unified force against the white races. Of course, Soros is white, but, he is vying for power with other whites. The darkies are just a tool, a weapon in his hand. It's all a quest for the Great White Throne. And no darkie will ever set on that throne. There is no intention of allowing the darkies to rise to any significant power as a people. A token official here and there is no threat to the Great White Throne. There is no threat to white power, and there is no guilt about it. These are political illusions. Soros wants to survive, i.e, seize power, by imitating the racism of Adolf Hitler.
The Stockholm Syndrom: George Soros and his inevitable pattern, Adolf Hitler
Also, like Hitler, Soros has no concern for any race, not even his own (Jewish). This is only about power. Power loves no one. Power love no people, no race, no religion, and no political party. Power only uses people and their conditionings. Hitler did not love the white race. Hitler only used it for his own vision of power in the world. Like Hitler, Soros cares nothing for the dark races. He only wants to use them in a ploy to seize the Great White Throne.
This kind of power grasping can result in very cruel treatment of all people, white or dark. Now, Hitler had no grand vision of employment for the dark races; he was preoccupied with the a reestablishment or revival of the Great White Throne--by kicking out whom he considererd non-white contenders. (Funny, Jews and Gypsies are both members of the Causasian race.) Soros, on the other hand, sees a great use for the dark races. The recent history of the world shows that the white race is indeed the conqueror, and all dark races have an natural resentment towards the white race. United in resistance, the dark races appear to be a giant force by which Soros can topple those whites currently sitting on the Throne--the conservatives.
Remember, Communism (also known as Leftism and Liberalism) is alive and well in the world. And it still means power by revolution, by violence, and by force of arms. As William Norman Grigg reveals in Global Gun Grab, the UN designs to disarm all nations, in the name of peace, so that an elite few can rule the world by force. Quoting Lenin: "The scientific concept of dictatorship means nothing else but this: Power without limit, resting directly upon force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestricted by rules" (p.36). Sounds like the Left to me. Sounds like George Soros and his Open Society.
Interestingly, Yale Alumni Magazine just published an article, "When good people do evil," on Stanley Milgram's psychological experiements of 1962. (The article is by Philip Zimbardo, also a Yale grad, and classmate of Milgram's.) The thesis: "Under orders, decent human beings will do anything." Milgram's experiements were cited in Daniel J. Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners (1996) as irrelevent, since testing an individual (by scientific experiement) is not comparable to a social milieu such as was present in the German population.
Such a milieu may be present in the dark races. The vision of uniting all the darkies against the whites is of course a political red herring. There is no threat to the firmly established white supremacy. However, that the colored races would espouse such a view of themselves shows that they are Soros' "willing executors." It is as if the "native" races of the world themselves suffer from a new kind of global Stockholm Syndrome. The non-whites are being encouraged to act like the "racist" whites they resent, as if that is the necessary behavior for survival. The darks have been held captive for a centuries, and now it's time to rise up and conquer the whites. Never mind the difference between a Tutu African and a Paw'an Asian. The "indigenous" are all the same. They have all suffered under the evil whites.
No one stops to think, racism is not how the whites rose to power. The white race never had the thought of uniting against all the darkies of the world. That was never their purpose, their plan, nor their impetus. They rose to power because they were powerful, and had the "will to power." Race, per se, was not a self-conscious raison d'etre. The racism of whites is another illusion--created as all the weaker darks became self-conscious.
If the Soros racist approach to seizing the Great White Throne is pleased to use the American Indian, and the sacred rite of the Sun Dance as the token mascot of all the darkies of the world, I say the noble thing to do for American Indians is to deny such a role. American Indians should set the example by disassociating with all other "natives." We should work for independence, self-reliance, and individuality. These the tools whereby the whites become strong. This alone should interest us. This is what we need to focus on. How did they become strong? They didn't do it by uniting against all the darkies. They would have lost.
Everyone forgets, whites are the minority in the world. Always have been. Always will be.
Hewlett-Packard, the giant, global computer corporation (headquartered in Palo Alto, California), is the technical support company for Roberd Redford's Sundance Institute, and thus contributes to the George Soros ideology of the racism promoted by the Institute. HP recently sent a newsgram to its customers on the internet, aggrandizing the Sundance Film Festival later this month (January 18-28). HP will have daily coverage of the Festival, since it is a chief sponsor. (Other sponsors include Volkswagan, Adobe, and AOL.) The HP site has an impressive list of involvements with Sundance. (In addition to its involvement with Sundance, HP sported its premiere media technology at the famous Cannes Festival in France. HP is deeply involved in media technology.)
Fortune 500 ranked HP as No.11 last year, with a $91.7 billion dollar revenue. HP operates in 170 countries on six continents. It is abundantly clear to all business people, the markets are global. They must be global. The most successful companies aggressively appeal to the global market.
Park City, getting ready for the "Sundance Festival." Even the name is sacrilegious.
The Indian sundance was not a festival, but a deeply introspective religious rite.
So there is an inevitable connection between business and race, between commerce and internationalism. This is terribly basic, but, this relationship is not always understood. The pressure to 'go global' is what drives politics these days. Politics follows business. Republican and Democrat positions are superficial. Business interests are the dominant 'ideology,' and notions of patriotism, nationalism, and ethnic pride are quickly becoming a thing of the past, like some distant romanticism of another age. At best, distinguished ethnicities become part of a marketed variety of 'people produce,' especially coveted by media and entertainment industries, like the Sundance Institute. The "Native American Initiative," the Institute's catch-all for all the non-white races in the world, (and even oppressed groups like homosexuals--and next, women), will grow by leaps and bounds with the new combination of racist ideology and global business.
It is in this context that ideologues like George Soros see the unification of the non-white races as useful. The big brown movement, however, smacks of a racism that vies with the great white movement. It isn't just about business, but it is a contest, indeed--with whites in control of it, both sides of it. It's whites against whites. The brown people are merely a dog in the race, so to speak. The liberal's dog. White people have conquered the world, but, alas, they have in house feuds, and wrestle with each other over control. As things have turned out, conservative racists like Adolf Hitler end up being the enemy, not of the dark races, but of the liberal whites! The George Soros-type move, the liberal move, is to unite all dark races in a profound anti-white European sentiment, a giant protest gainst Judeo-Christian civilization. It's like some growing, ineviscerably imipacted bowel movement in the face of western history. The liberal vision is more horrid than anything they dissemblingly accuse Hitler of.
In such a predicament, the ethnic pride and independence of the American Indian nations is altogether lost. The Indian has become true mascot, a real mascot, of all the oppressed darkies. The Palestinians flaunt that Indian mascot. Soon, any oppressed person, a homosexual, or a woman, will use the same mascot. All you have to say is "I've been wronged," and you're and Indian! The Indian becomes the great symbol of protest, the arch-typal belly-acher. How unmanly. How unwarrior-like! How un-Indian.
Recent Palestinian protests against Israel. The analogy is completely backwards.
The Jews are the Indians in the Middle East, not that Palestinians--who are only
pricks of the Arab world, poking at Israel.
So, all this means the one true minority left in the world is the white male, with his European heritage of the Judeo-Christian civilization, and with some ancient tradition antedating even that. It looks as if the white male, who conqured the world, is now preoccupied wholly with himself, and his struggle over which white male will inherite the great white throne.
The masses of dark races, however ideologically united, will never amount to anything that threatens that great white throne. This is an illusion in their minds, put there by liberal whites who are trying to seize the throne for themselves.
I for one will not be made into such a fool. I will not play a part, willingly, in the struggle of liberal whites who are trying to overthrow the conservative whites. Why? The conservative whites are the ones who established the great white throne. They did it on ancient Judeo-Christian values. On Biblical values. This is the foundation of Western Civilization--at least as it manifest itself in its apogee--the United States of America. The only alternative to this has been the ideology of the white liberal, which is anti-religious, deceptively anti-white, and obviously anti-Zionist.
What good came come from the liberal white vision for the great white throne? What have Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Leftism, Liberalism, and Progressivism brought into the world? Revolution, blood, mass destruction, racism, and unspeakable oppression. (Read it for yourself in Harvard's Black Book of Communism.) This is all liberalism is about. It doesn't bring betterment, ultimately. It only seems like window of opportunity for the oppressed. And that flash of light is just that--a temporary hope. Communism hasn't produced anything in the world, for anyone except the elitist few that rule over the masses they oppress. Capitalism and freedom, despite whatever evils attend them, have brought the world to the best conditions that we know of--at least for those nations who practice capitalism and freedom. More people have more. Why go backwards? Why be deceived?
The liberals appeal to the racism inherent in the "oppressed" races, and promise some kind of social justice, some kind of lashing out at the white throne. But this is a delusion, as I have said. The proud thing to do, for any ethnic groups, is to work for independence. Work for economic, social self-sufficiency. The great white throne is not going away. It is foolish to even think it will. It is dangerous and even self-destructive to think it will.
I say, instead, imitate it. Emulate its values. Otherwise, you will live forever as a Ghost Dancer, and never experience again the freedom of hope. You will be frozen in discontent.
And by the way, notice the emphasis on fire, in all the new Sundance Institute's advertisements. This is a globalist distortion of the American Indian sundance, of coiurse. Another major corruption of the American Indian identity and abuse of the sacred. But, see? What does it matter in the great brown movement, if you associate a sacred, unique Indian rite with the fires of the Babylonians, the Hindu, or the Polynesians. Why, it's all the same. Ask Igor Stravinsky. Remember that fantastic music, based on a Russian myth?
From Disney's Firebird, the story to
which Stravinsky composed his famous
music, Suite from the Firebird.
FLASH: See discussion of Palestinian racist use of "Indians" as validation of anti-Semitism, on Bad Eagle forum, Palestinian Indians. Indians have become the mascot of all causes against Jews and whites, proving the point of this Journal entry on George Soros. Whoever feels "I've been wronged" is now an "Indian," under the global brown mascot.
George Soros, the multi-billionaire international manipulator, has designed that American Indians should blend into the great global brown movement. Actually, he wants all non-white people of the Western hemisphere, as well as those of Asia and Africa, to be understood as the same as Indians. He wants them to be called by the same names, "indigenous" or "native," and thus, "American Indian." This way, each individual ethnic identity can be undermined and denigrated, and they can all be used as a giant ploy to manipulate Europe and America, and to overturn the dominant white society. (Don't worry, it will still be controlled by whites, only different whites. The worst of the racist whites.)
George Soros, billionaire Hungarian Jew, and Rudy "Yo, Blood!" the ethnically unidentified, or
better, unified, in the Soros fantasy. Soros wants to do with the dark races what Hitler tried to
do with the white races.
Soros calls ethnicity "tribalism," and disdains it. He is Jewish himself, but does not support Israel. (Indeed, he pretended to be non-Jew during WWII, and persecuted other Jews, in order to survive personally.) He thinks tribalism is at the root of Zionism, and tribalism is the cause of anti-Semitism. The escape route is to deny or to disguise the ethnicity. Jews should not be distinguished. This is the justification for his Freudian Oepidal complex, or, his own anti-semitism. He thinks erasing ethinic idenity will spare persecution. (This discussion is in The Shadow Party, by Richard Poe and David Horowitz, pp.82,83.) "I suspect that Hamas will have to be brought into the peace process before it can be fully successful," Soros said (p.83). Yes, you must let those vowed to destroy Israel talk about their plans.
Soros must love Rudy Nathaniel Jamal Gonzalez "Yo, Blood!" the pan-indigenous entity of the non-white world. Rudy is a great example of non-ethnicity. Rudy represents everything Soros wants to achieve through Robert Redford's Sundance Institute. The Institute now includes Asians, African-Americans, (and homosexuals) in its "Native American Initiative" program. Soros apparently sees a grand force in the union of all non-white people. If he can muster their combined power, it will be easy to overturn the "conservative" patriots of America. Why, America's a mixed bag anyway. It's time for everyone to be equal, and not distinguished by ethnicity, or "tribalism." Ironically, Soros is using the name of the most independent race of all, the American Indian, to label this fabricated brown movement.
This tactic is the old Communist line, though many still can't recognize it. David Howoritz put all this very well before the public in Radical Son (1997), p.227,228, in the context of the Jewish question. According to his mentor Isaac Deutscher, socialism (Communism) "would abolish all borders," including the very idea of a Jewish state. But the strong racial focus and anti-Semitism of the Black Panthers (which Horowitz was backing at the time) dislodged David's total commitment to the Communist idea. Other events finally led to his complete abandonment of Communism as an ideal governance.
So, is appears the existence of state of Israel is a seal of approval for other ethnicities after all. Israel affirms the right of every other people to be who they are, to preserve who they are, and to fight for their identity. Jews who oppose Israel, and all differentiated ethnicities, are then still the Communists ideologists.
No wonder Soros hates Israel. It manifests the antithesis of his "blend-all" ideology. Israel weakens his grip on the delusion of grandeur--based on the unity of all non-white people, as if they are not separate people, cultures, and nations, with different religions, languages, and customs. They're instead just one big brown movement.
Soros wants to emphasize all brown people, not as Comanche, or as Hawaiian, or Filipino, but as simply non-white people. The first observation important to make in this methodology is that all the darkies of the world are given the name "native," or "indigenous." In this way, they can be directly associated with the American Indian. That's the big name they all want. That's the blood stained banner--stained by fighting the European and American white--that every darkie in the world must share, yea, must own. That's the plan.
The National Museum of the American Indian is complicit in this concept, obviously, including Hawaiians (Polynesian or Pacific Islanders) in the basic concept of the museum.
Mel Gibson's movie Apocalypto is just a trendy popularization of the same concept. And Rudy "Yo, Blood!" fit the part perfectly. He claimed to be a blood member of every major "native" group in the Americas. Cree (Canadian), Sioux (Northern Plains American), Comanche (Southern Plains American), Yaquie (Northwestern Mexico)--you name it, he was it. The only thing he didn't claim was Negro blood, and mestiso Mexican blood. He's also claimed to be part of the Oto Indians. It is an endless fantasy of ethnic indulgence--the very kind of invalidation of ethnicity Soros is looking for.
Rudy Yo, Blood! should make a quick trip to the Sundance Festival at the end of this month in Park City, Utah. He should become their mascot. He represents everything George Soros wants, in person, bodily--at least, in the imagination. A total brown.
Given this circumstance, this assasult on American Indian identity, I believe American Indians should consider Israel as an example, or, for that matter, consider our own history right here in America. To preserve one's ethnicity, there are certain basic steps one has to take. It's that simple. One must curb the endless, meaningless intermarriage; one must defend against the obfuscation and obliteration of national identity. America as a nation should take a lesson also. Jewish people have preserved themselves, and they have a nation today. Are not other peoples allowed the same? I dare say, yes!
Soros likes to think, as do other deceptive liberals, that Zionism, or any kind of ethnic pride, is akin to Naziism. Why, it will all lead to the same thing--oppression of those not a member of the tribe. Everyone is mixed. It's too late to go back. That will hurt too many people. So, the Left accuses racial respect and honor as the path to eugenics, and yet the Left is hell-bent on racial extermination through intermarriage. What's that called, philosophical inquiry?
Soros and the like-minded are simply going for broke. They want power over the world, and they must wrest it from the white conservatives that have it, and who created it, in fact. The Communists, Jewish or otherwise, simply cover themselves by accusing others of what they themselves are doing. In fact, others are not even doing what the Left accuses them of! So, the Left presents a false accusation defended by a lie. Fine tactic there.
Historically, the Jews have a historical code book on how to be a nation, and how to survive and preserve a nation. That intructional volume is called the Bible. In the future, BadEagle will examine certain crisis moments in Jewish history, and how the Jews were able to triumph as a people. This uniquely valuable information, because, as is the case with American Indian nations, the Jews were a tiny minority in a hostile world, a world. We do well to consider.
Continuing to investigate the Rudy Youngblood indentity fantasy, BadEagle has uncovered some new information:
Rudy Nathaniel Jamal Gonzalez "Yo Blood"? He does not
defend, nor even speak of his mother or father. This is the
loud fact. Why? What is he hiding? What is he ashamed of?
He has entered the most 'public' of life styles. He hast to
deal with the truth. He doesn't look American Indian, by
any stretch of the imagination. That's the first truth to face.
He looks black/hispanic, and possibly South American.
1) Angel Rivera, of Screen Actors Guild (SAG), informs us that Mel Gibson's Apocalypto was made wholly independently, and did not involved any Guild actors. (SAG, incidently, does not investigate ethnic claims made by any actors. It is self-identification, with no ID required. The actor identifies himself as whatever ethnicity he wants. Also, the only stipulation of ethnicity has to do with stunt doubles. If the actor was Indian, his stunt double would have to be Indian.) The independent status of the movie left all the doors open for fraudulent Indian claims.
2) James Ryan, of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), informs us that only an Indian who was denied a role because he was Indian would have a possible case. The Rudy Youngblood case is unusual, in that he procured the part by claiming to be Indian. It is not likely that any real Indian could claim discrimination, therefore, as the reason he did not get the part.
3) The Wikipedia entry on "Rudy Youngblood" continues to see sever alterations. As of January 5, 2007, he was being identified as "Rudy Nathaniel Jamal Gonzalez." There have been many changes since the first entry, on December 8, 2006, when it was claimed Rudy was a descedent of Comanche, Cree, and Yaqui Indian, and was raised in Washington, Texas, and Arizona. The article never has been lengthy, and noted the need for citations, the first of which concerned the statement that his mother was black. Now the entry is reduced to one sentence. This is how uncertain all the information is about Rudy "Yo Blood." The very latest version (January 12), shortest of all, reads: Rudy Youngblood (born 1981) is an American method/character actor. He plays the lead role in Apocalypto. That's it.
4) BadEagle has been informed that Rudy has also claimed to be "adopted" by an Missouri-Oto family in Oklahoma (family name respectfully withheld). That makes at least three Indian tribes he has claimed adoption in (the other two being Comanche and Cree), to say nothing of the Sioux and Yaqui connection which he simply claims without detail.
Apocalypto has opened in Latin America, and in Europe, but we have no news of Rudy's appearances at any of these openings.
Michelle, Patrick Shining Elk, Rudy, and Patrick Mirabal
A word about Michelle R. (Hall) "Shining Elk," Rudy's manager: up until recently, she went by the name of Hall, not Shining Elk. She has been pictured with Rudy, and Indian actor Patrick Shining Elk and Patrick Mirabal. She has not responded to the question of marriage (though on her MySpace site she says she is "married" but also says she is 100 years old), so, unless she is willing to simply say, "I am married to Patrick Shining Elk," it would appear she has the same relish for fantasy that Rudy does. Certainly, her MySpace site is made to appear as that of a young teenager, looking for dates, as are most MySpace sites. Her web site says nothing about her marriage, nor do any of her other sites that we know of. Is she just "adopting" the name "Shining Elk?"
Rudy may be free from legal infraction, so far as imitation, impersonation, or identity theft. He may not be subject to suit, due to the independent character of Gibson's enterprise. But in the court of common sense, he is a profound fantasizer. To the early and repeated statements that his mother is American Negro, Rudy has said nothing. In fact, he has expressed no open, public account of himself at all. He website was created by Michelle. The information on it is as inaccurate and false as from the day it was protested. In fact, the claim there that Rudy is the son of Preston Tahchawwicka was the boldest lie yet presented.
Michelle is quoting Lance Tahchawwicka these days, supporting her claim that Rudy is Preston's son. So, BadEagle must respond by revealing private email: on Tuesday, December 26, 2006, Lance wrote to BadEagle, "Rudy Youngblood is in fact my brother. My father and mother took him in many years ago. He is family! So what he said is absolutely TRUE." But this kind of relationship is known as 'Indian way." So-and-so is son, or father, "Indian way." It means there was a sharing of family, to some extent. It is not legally binding, and certainly does not represent blood kin. It is simply an Indian custom. Rudy has pursued several such relationships, all to his personal advantage, contributing to his fantasy of being Indian.
On December 14, BadEagle received this statement from someone who knows Rudy: "It was during this time [when Rudy was in Washington] that he met a Cree family who he now considers his own family. I don't know where the name Youngblood came from but it was also during his stay in Washington that he started using it." That family name turned out to be "SlimJohn," as it says on Rudy's site.
This is all obviously not a substitute for Indian blood. Rudy is not Indian. That should be abundantly clear by now. This is not to insult the Indian families whom Rudy has taken advantage of, nor their sincerity or authenticity. It is simply to show that Rudy has had in mind for a number of years the idea of making himself Mr. Indigenous. He is the Continental Indian. This is trendy, especially in the light of the whole racist movement to class all non-whites in the Western Hemesphere as "American Indian." The Liberals use the word "native" and "indigenous," and eventually they can call all non-whites "American Indian." This has already begun to include the American Negro.
Rudy's on the cutting ege of liberal political agenda, whether he planned to be or not. He epitomizes the racism of the anit-white movement, the anti-European movement, which makes no difference between the Arapaho and the Filipino. BadEagle opposes such racism, and this is the reason we have made the effort to explain "Rudy Youngblood." As for Michelle R. Hall (Shining Elk), she is no doubt unaware of these larger issues, and is simply content to promote her management company with a movie star. We can only hope that she does become aware of the larger issues, and shows basic respect for Indian blood.
Rudy's fantasy must come to an end. Indian identity is not up for grabs. Indian blood is sacred. Most of it was spilled for the preservation of the people, and what little land we have left. Rudy seems wholly unaware of this. He has been playing out a dream so long he is oblivious to reality and his 'role' in that.
Last night, our president, the President of the United States, George Bush, offered a renewed plan for our Iraq 'campaign.' (No, it's not really a war, but a mission, a campaign for democracy in the Middle East.) It is a major concern, if not the major concern, politically. After the speech, Democrat Senator Richard Durbin (Illinois) was allowed air time to contradict and condemn everything the President said, and to imply, directly, that the president has personally failed, in thought and character.
I have to wonder at this circumstance, when the elected leader of a nation, in a time of great anxiety and international Muslim violence, is freely condemned and ridiculed by those lesser leaders who disagree with him. It is a remarkable phenomenon.
President George Bush
Now, in America, we pride ourselves on freedom of speech, liberty to oppose, and the whole "democratic" process we call it. But, in this ideology of free-for-all head knocking and face punching, are the laws of common sense utterly disregarded? Have they no place in the matter?
In terms of socio-psychology, we're really missing something important here. Group behavior requires adherence to certain laws, or, there is no group at all. By definition, there has to be some kind of unity of thought, purpose, and action. Group behavior begins in the family. It extends all the way to the nation. The same laws apply. The complexity of numbers does not invalidate the basic socio-psychology of the fundamentals of group behavior.
Is it healthy to broadcast immediate refutation, condemnation, and mere interpretation, immediately after the leader of the nation has spoken? Is it even logical to arrange such a circumstance?
What is the recent precedent? Bill Clinton, of course, had brought to the White House such low-down behavior, such despicable and persistent personal immorality, such juvenile and reprehensible revelry and perversion that the tone of opposition against "the presidency" was raised to an unprecedented height of intensity--equal to the offensive behavior of the president. But now the opposition believes that its duty is to overthrow the office. That's what it's come to. The personal hatred for George Bush--whose character is the antithesis of Bill Clinton's, has developed to the point that the opposition shows no respect for the White House, or the country.
There are very basic concepts missing here. The nation is our team, the group we are all members of. Yet, basic concepts of team play are neglected in all this. I'm thinking that even the most basic concepts of brotherhood are absent.
If America is a Christian nation, what can we say about Christian brotherhood? It is a most fundamental concept that the Christian humbles himself--specifically for the sake of the brotherhood, "in honor preferring one another," as Paul put it (Romans 12:10). Church goers everywhere know about the perils of organization and its power struggles. The unique thing about the Christian community, supposedly, is it's ability to surpass this natural agony with conscious humility. The very essence of the Christian spirit is not to assert oneself against another, but to meekly submit to others--specifically for the sake of unity.
Jesus said, "Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." Matthew 20:26-28.
Obviously, America is not a Christian brotherhood, per se, but, isn't there a great lesson here? Isn't there a concept that we do well to consider? Can our political process, our national behavior, not benefit from this perspective?
There is hardly any escape from the group identity. We are all part of one kind of group or another. We are all on any number of "Pequots" out to sea. Some of us are after Moby Dick, others are simply whaling, doing a job. But every ship has a captian. The penalty of mutiny is very serious. The course of submission, obviously, can also be tragic, as it turned out in Meville's great novel.
I know America was born by Revolution! America was birthed in an act of Rebellion! But, surely, after a couple of centuries, we must have learned something about unity. We've even been through one civil war. Are we approaching another?
Would that it were that noble. Instead, I'm sorry to report, the Demcrat disposition is merely superficial, egotistical, and petty. It is denigrating to the pride of the nation, and surely an international embarrassment. The scenario of prepared contradiction, the undermining of President Bush, who is a sincere, moral person (as opposed to Bill Clinton), I believe has wreaked a havoc within the social ethos of America that may turn into irreparable fragmentation, if it hasn't already.
I don't agree with President Bush on a number of major issues. But I respect him. I think he may have promoted some policies that are inimical to the nation. But, I find myself restrained by my respect. (I find the same situation with my own Comanche Nation chairman, Wallace Coffey. I disagree with him on important issues. Yet, I respect him. I do not campaign against him personally.)
I'm just wondering if our American people have simply lost the concept of respect itself. Clinton had brought the behavior of immoral, perverted, emotioanlly disturbed children into the White House. I do not respect Bill Clinton. Bush did bring back dignity to the office. Despite the desperate and faithful condemnation of Democrats, Bush is a respectable man. Few Democrat leaders are. Even if I found myself in agreement with some Democrat criticism of Bush, I would not respect the Democrats for it. I would still respect Bush.
Well, just some thoughts. Is Christian principle applicable at all to American political exchange? That's the question. Is the Christian spirit active in the parties, in the media, in the social milieu of the nation? Can it be? How would it affect the political process and political behavior in general? Should we work to this end?
And we wonder what to do about the contradictions among the people of Iraq.
MSNBC, a major American network, spends a lot of time in prison. In fact, nearly every evening, prime time, viewers are treated to intimate conversations with murderers, their private lives, their feelings. The criminal is given all the glory of national recognition. Whatever comfort is in fame, is it freely given to the inmates. This is not only true for American prisons, but MSNBC hits prisons around the world. It is a remarkable effort, and merits reflection. MSNBC said one out of every 32 American adults was in prison, on probation, or on parole, by the end of 2005. It is a sensational statistic, illusory or not.
Are such reports designed for "compelling" entertainment, as Dan Abrams would say? MSNBC cancelled the popular Rita Crosby show to feature crime and punishment as a daily dish to the American prime time audience. Yes, a lot of it seems condemnatory of US policy, US government, US society in general. That is to say, the reports inevitably create sympathy for the prisoners, as if to suggest it is wrong to put anyone in prison, much less to execute him. But this may be an unvoidable impression. It doesn't have to be the intent of MSNBC. Prison is hell. No one wants to be there. Any story about a prisonor automatically elicits sympathy. Vicarioiusly, according to natural, psychological law, we have sympathy for people in prison. They have no freedom. And especially if we don't know them, if we were not affected by the crime they committed, we have natural sympathy for them. There would be something wrong with us if we didn't.
However, the social trends in our modern "liberalized" society dictate that we also feel guilty for having prisons, having courts, and even having laws in the first place. Prison is a denial of freedom. Prison is taking away rights. Prison is doing wrong to the wrong doer. Plain and simple. What we need is public tax-funded (government sponsored) rehabilitation programs.
Yet, there is a deeper side to this issue. It is a religious side. A Christian side. Jesus spoke about it. "I was in prison, and ye came unto me," He said, commending those who cared for the misfortune of others. Of course, condemnation rests upon those who did not care. (Matthew 25: 34-38.) In a stunningly real sense, one could look at the liberal, almost anti-American efforts of MSNBC as basically a Christian gesture. MSNBC in fact visits the prisoners. Sure, it's emotional gore, it's "yellow news," and it's sick entertainment. But, in a very real sense, the prisoners are visited--by the world. Through media, through MSNBC, they have a sense of importance. All is not lost. They are not forgotten or forsaken. Society is in fact vitally interested in what's happening to them. This is phenomenal degree of compassion, objectively speaking. It is unprecedented in history. That's one view of the show.
Of course, there's the other side to that. It is as if prisoners are rewarded for their crimes. They get their fifteen minutes of fame for wrong doing. The attention is some kind of compensation for their imprisonment. Movies are made about them. Books are written about them. (Sometimes they write their own.) Marvelous curiosities are generated by their lives. This whole business can easily be looked at from an ominous point of view:
Lawlessness, dissipation, and corruption are sweeping in upon us like an overwhelming tide. In the family, Satan is at work. His banner waves, even in professedly Christian households. There is envy, evil surmising, hypocrisy, estrangement, emulation, strife, betrayal of sacred trusts, indulgence of lust. The whole system of religious principles and doctrines, which should form the foundation and framework of social life, seems to be a tottering mass, ready to fall to ruin. The vilest of criminals, when thrown into prison for their offenses, are often made the recipients of gifts and attentions as if they had attained an enviable distinction. Great publicity is given to their character and crimes. The press publishes the revolting details of vice, thus initiating others into the practice of fraud, robbery, and murder; and Satan exults in the success of his hellish schemes. The infatuation of vice, the wanton taking of life, the terrible increase of intemperance and iniquity of every order and degree, should arouse all who fear God, to inquire what can be done to stay the tide of evil. Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p.513.
One has to wonder. Media is about making money. Yes, it seems to have social and political influence, but, it is not really focused on these influences. It's about money. What brings viewers? What makes a show success? How can news be presented as "compelling" entertainment? What are the subjects? A water pipe crack isn't the same kind of "compelling" news as a terrorist attack (--though more and more, all mishaps are being immediately associated with Muslim murderers, and rightfully so).
Would a prisoner react differently to an MSNBC camera than a old Baptist preacher, or a priest, coming into his cell? Why? What are the dynamics, psychologically? Who's offering what, to whom? If the minister's pleas to the prisoner were broadcast, the sincerity of both men would be suspect. Yet, I dare say the minister's visit is more important! We must make this observation: MSNBC does not feature 'conversion' stories. Not if it involves Christ. Occasionally there are Muslim stories, but MSNBC is not going to feature Christian repentence as entertainment. That's probably a good thing, no? Repentence is not entertainment. When it become such, as on many televangelist enterprises, then we have to step back from that.
But MSNBC goes where I can't go. MSNBC talks with people who would not talk with me. This I find interesting. And there are always stories like Keith Morrison's, on the preacher who murdered his wife, cut up her body and buried in the desert, and when interviewed behave in a most congenial, happy, unrepentent manner. "Perhaps he is merely determined to keep his torment private," Morrison says. Does that mean MSNBC prison specials are in fact entertainment after all?
And what about the innocent?!
Prisoners of Buchwald, 1945
That's a whole different story.
Yes! Muslims Invade Miami! That's the real headline. But the national media naturally spins it into nothing. Why, it was just "a simple misunderstanding." The media is always faithful to protect the enemy, and to weaken American at every opportunity. Here are some national headlines:
Officials: Misunderstanding led to detainment of 3 Middle Eastern men at Miami port
3 Detained at Port of Miami; Authorities Attribute Situation to Miscommunication
'Port of Miami is safe' officials say after scare
Police officers watch from behind a barricade Sunday,
Jan. 7, 2007 at the Port of Miami in Miami. Security was
increased Sunday at the port after authorities caught
three Middle Eastern men trying to slip past a checkpoint
in a cargo truck. All three men were taken into custody
for questioning. They had not been arrested and no
charges had been filed against them Sunday afternoon,
authorities said. AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee
Let's examine this smear against the American public, this denigration of our intelligence. First of all, every news report has stated that the men were "caught" trying to enter the Port of Miami without proper papers. Isn't that offense enough? "The Port of Miami is safe said police after investigating three men who tried to enter a secure area in a truck without proper documentation," says the CNN report. So, the men were ignorant? Innocent? What in the world were they trying to do? Why were they there? There is no innocence here. And there is no such thing as such an incident not related to terrorism. It's called testing the perimeters. It's called finding out how tight the security system is, and observing the media spin. The Muslilm murderers have been doing this for decades now. There is no ignorance, nor innocence, when it comes to Middle Easterners in America. Those days are over. The Muslims murderers have accomplished that feat. All Muslims are suspect. Particularly all Arab muslims. They may thank their own.
It's all about inconvenience--the first breakdown of the security lines. These Muslims have been inconveniencing Americans for a long time now. They have made our country change our laws, make life and travel unnecessarily complicated to the point of the ridiculous, and they continue to press for more inconveniences. This is their purpose: to humiliate and to change America. They are succeeding. They already have us stripping our old women at our own airports. Now they almost cost us our Caribbean cruises! This Miami incident is just another example of their effect. The "terrorism" that was the apparent plot here was to close down the busy port on its busiest day, Sunday. A non-violent act of terrorism, to be sure, but, inconvenience, disruption, halting traffic, this all makes for good anti-Americanism. Anything that brings this about is good for the Muslims.
Oh, a "language barrier" may have been involved in the Miami "miscommunication," or "misunderstanding." Well, as long as we denounce English, as long as we want to make American people learn foreign languages, why should any foreigner bother to learn English. The Muslims want to change America. They don't want to become American. Isn't this clear yet?
"Miscommunication led to the detainment of three men at the Port of Miami on Sunday after authorities became suspicious of their documentation and the contents of their cargo truck," said the ABC report. Again, totally defending the innocence of the Middle Eastern men, (two Iraqi and one Lebanese national). Automotive and lectrical equipment was the cargo in the truck, along with two of the men. "Authorities initially said the men two Iraqis and one Lebanese national who are legal permanent U.S. residents had been caught trying to slip past a checkpoint at the port's entrance." So "caugh trying to slip past [passed?] a checkpoint" doesn't indicate anything serious?
USAToday offers the most insulting version. "Three Middle Eastern men in a cargo truck sparked a brief terrorism scare at the Port of Miami until officials determined their freight was harmless and the incident had stemmed from a simple misunderstanding." Simple misunderstanding. Indeed, just the kind the news loves. Ebullient with self-righteousness and the spirit of liberality, the AP writer Kelli Kennedy wonderfully attempts to diffuse the outrage in one fell swoop.
"Due to a miscommunication between the gate security personnel and the truck driver, we believe there was a discrepancy in the number of people in the vehicle," said a Miami-Dade police spokesman. "This, and the fact that one of the individuals did not have any form of ID, raised our level of concern.
Okay. Delivering freight? For whom? Who hired them? Who instructed the driver on the rules of the profession? Did anyone care? Is this what happens when you hire foreigners, and barely "legals"?
Do we want more of this kind of non-sense? We're getting, like it or not. It is not innocent. It is part of a bigger picture of overthrowing America, incident by incident. The only precedents the law is interested in is the precedent of "forgiving" foreigners, and blessing the enemy. That's the liberal idea of a Christian nation. With that attitude, America will be a Muslim nation in no time.
One more point. There have been recent trucking problems at the Miami Port. There was an actual two week shutdown of trucking in 2004. The Teamsters were behind it. I'd say this gives a certain perspective to Sunday's Muslims truckers incident. The Miami port is one complicated place, with viscious tensions. To try and get in, without proper papers, was a bungle beyond exoneration. One simply is not involved in trucking at the Port of Miami without highly refined knowledge of the rules, street and legal. Arab Muslims simply cannot be trusted. So, again, who owned the truck, for what company were they driving, and who hired them. These are the questions that need to be asked. This is what the public needs to know.
America needs a private news agency, where the real news can be spread to the public.
FLASH: Charges Dropped in Miami Port Scare See Journal Comments for more.
Rev. O'Neal Dozier, pastor of the Worldwide Christian Center in Pompano Beach, south Florida, doesn't want a mosque in his neighborhood. He has spoken out against it since last summer (2006).
Dozier fears that members of the 29,000-square-foot Islamic center on the northeast side would seek new converts in the predominately black community if they build on the northwest side of town where Dozier's people are.
Dozier claimed that Islam is a cult teaching hate and violence. "The Koran is evil, cruel. It promotes evil, he said.
Rev. O'Neal Dozier
Dozier has been penalized for his views! Dozier's comments about Islam cost him his seat with the Broward Judicial Nominating Committee. Gov. Jeb Bush asked him to resign, so he did, reports NBC 6's Sharon Lawson.
"I do know that there are some peace-loving Muslims, probably because they have never read the Koran or because they read the Koran and didn't take the teachings literally," Dozier said in a news conference Wednesday, October 11. (Well, that would mean they're not really Muslims, right?)
Everyone knows the pattern. The Muslims gather in a locale, multiply as quickly as possible, go for a mosque--supported by every Muslim charity in the country and Saudi Arabia, then the terrorist cells start. That's the pattern. The lethal poison comes with the meal. Guaranteed.
Dozier knows how it works. He knows what kind of people the Muslims prey on, too. He knows about the Nation of Islam, the ant-white, anti-American body of Negroes. He knows about Rep. Keith Ellison, Democrat, Minnesota, and the mock swearing in on the blasphemous Qur'an in our nation's capital.
Media, of course, opposes Dozier, and supports CAIR, and all Muslims, and by inevitability, the mass murderers that come with the package.
Homosexuals oppose Dozier also, since he's against homosexual "marriage." They cry because his opposition to them didn't get the same press as his opposition to the 'Muslim mass murderers' potential moving into his neighborhood. Tsk, tsk. And they're willing to quote his most stringently opposing statements about Islam:
"It doesn't matter if you're gay or straight, the Islamists want to kill us all because they consider us infidels," he said. "All Islam is dangerous and evil because of the Koran. The Koran teaches hate and violence. It encourages jihad."
But he said he makes "a distinction between the religion and the people." He said there are many "innocent Muslims" who have not read the Koran. In fact, he said he has heard from many people who became ex-Muslims after reading the Koran.
Dozier insisted that he believes in freedom of religion, but he thinks there should be "an exception for religions that seek to kill us because we don't accept their religion."
CNN's Paula Zahn brought up the Muslim issue and Dozier's opposition just last night, Thursday, January 4.
The game plan is to make America Muslim. As many Muslims come here as can board the planes. They build as many Mosques as they can fund, and as quickly as they can fund them.
DOZIER: And I object to any poor, black neighborhood where people are vulnerable already and are already angry and are already looking for a way or two to strike out, or strike back at America.
DOZIER: Yes, they're targeting the poor -- the poor young blacks.
Soon, the neighborhood begins to become Sharia, subject to the laws of the mullahs. That's the whole purpose. It is very cruel intent, and openly outlines in the Sharia law. Women are brutalized if disobedient, as are men. It is not a pretty society Sharia makes. It should be banned from American, quickly. It is opposed to American values.
Religious freedom is not an abstraction. The Constitution writers had only Christianity in mind when they expressed themselves in the First Amendment. It meant freedom to worship God, the God of the Bible, to practice Christianity, free from the European church. They had no intent of encouraging non-Biblical religions. Foreigners were not invited to come here and set up shop, anti-American shop, anti-Christian, anti-Biblical shop. This is a delusion of liberal attorneys, and other anti-Americans hiding behind their profession of politics and law.
I see no place for the practice of Islam in America.
I see Dozier as a serious player in this matter. He appears to be an American patriot of the first order. He also loves and respects his own people. He appears to be a powerful Christian. He is now targeted for extinction!
Perhaps he has other issues as well, which he must deal with. Perhaps he has embroiled himself by trying to say peaceable words, and by bringing up other concerns, such as the need for housing. But has he really tired to soften his message, as the media says? I think not.
He sees the Islamic foreigners and immigrants as invaders. Plain and simple. Also, he seems them as havens for Islamic murderers. Are not his view as least theoretically justified? Is he not facing the objective reality--regardless of what the Muslims spokemen say? Their mastery of the liberal, "civil rights" jargon and pat clauses make mockery of America, as they do indeed serve as camouflage for the mass murderers among them, whether they want to admit that or not. And they have certainly made no effort to oppose jihadists, regardless of what verbal opposition they may emit from time to time. Actions speak louder than words.
The Reverend O'Neal Dozier. Thank about him. Think about his situation. Think about a Christian pastor of a minority group, trying to nurture it, protect it, and to teach it the truth. Maybe we have a new hero amongst the people.
Never mind the Muslims. They have no rights. They have only privileges created and earned by others. They're simply moving in on the territory that others bought with blood, sweat, and tears. They are not to be identified as poor, despised, persecuted victims. They are the aggressor. Always. This is the history of Islam.
Shouldn't the whole country support Rev. Dozier? Doesn't he make you kind of proud? I mean, really proud?
A BadEagle.com journal commenter recently asked about the name "Bad Eagle." I don't know how or why my ancestor got the name Bad Eagle. It's on the early Comanche rolls. He gave it as his name, and also the name of his father. One professor, Thomas Kavanagh, at the University of New Mexico's Department of Anthropology, researched the names of Comanches named "eagle." He wrote this in personal correspondence of 1985, when my mother was researching certain details. There was a "Big Eagle" mentioned by a Time-Life book. That would be "pia-quena," not "quin-ne kish-su-it," as Bad Eagle had written down on the rolls. There was a tabba quena, too, meaning "sun eagle." In fact, that's who the Time-Life author meant, Sun Eagle. Apparently there was no "Big Eagle" among the Comanche, only Tabbequena, sun Eagle. And certainly, there was only one "Bad Eagle."
Bad Eagle (quin-ne kish-su-it), 1839-1906
"Kish-su-it" means wild, untamed, or wicked. There was no Comanche word for "bad," in the English sense. (One Japanese acquaintance of mine once reacted: "'Bad.' Hmmm. Could mean...great!" Interesting Oriental concept there.)
I know I have a close relationship to evil. I pick up on it instantly. My mother was this way, too. Some kind of special sensitivity. Almost hyper-sensitivity. Perhaps it's a bit neurotic, in modern terms of civilized personality concepts. I know lying absolutely vexes me. Is it my po-ha-cut ("medicine") to embrace liars, somehow? Is this personality just some old tribal thing? Some natural "suspicion" of everyone and everything? Some disposition from a closed society? Mountain people, for example, are always like this. Comanche were once mountain people, or so we're told. I know we were once extremely exclusive of all other people, white and Indian. They learned our language, we didn't learn theirs. Otherwise, we spoke to them in our special "sign" language, which apparently became the lingua franca of the plains.
Am I exclusive? I said the alleged victim in the Duke Lacrosse case was a liar from day one! I was absolutely right. I said Mike Nifong was an outrage. This has proven true. I have said that Rudy "Youngblood" doesn't have a drop of American Indian blood in him. He is a pretender. So far, no one has shown I am wrong. I say now that Representative-elect Keith Ellison, Democrat, Minnesota, is completely insincere, another pretender, and a political clown.
Why am I so vehemently offended by these things? Why do I dramatize these things?
I have been lied about from the day I published on FrontPageMagazine.com. My late rants are not reactionary. I'm not ticked off now, suddenly, because I've been lied about. Indians and non-Indians alike have told and retold the same lies from the beginning. Michelle R. (Hall) "Shining Elk" has now joined the liars, I'm sorry to say. Some of these same people hacked the Wikepedia entry "David A. Yeagley" so viciously and repeatedly that the editors' article became "protected," i.e., the attackers were banned from participating on it. That's pretty disgraceful, and shows how obviously malicious they really are. Remember, it's the same handful of people, desperately trying to oppose me. No objective, rational person gives them a second thought.
But, it makes me wonder, am I being lied about because I despise lying, and I cannot tolerate liars? Is there an esoteric relationship between my ethos and that which I create in others (the liars, that is)? Who is tempting me? (Nothing, of course, distinguished in being tempted, regardless of who's doing the tempting, right? Sin is sin, no matter 'who made you do it.')
My positions have been simple: I believe that American Indians should have a sense of ownership of America, not just the land, but the country--which was forged in direct relation to American Indian encounters. I believe American Indians should be the exemplary patriots of this nation, America. I advocate no special resentment or animosity toward the white race (except for the liberal racists among them who think American Indians are the same as Negroes, etc.). I believe in the American Constitution. I believe in the Bible, every word, in fact. I delight in belief. It is an aggressive act of the will. (God knows I'm aggressive!) It isn't a matter of deduction or abstraction. Belief is an act of the raw, free will. I love it! It has nothing to do with culture or race--except for the Jews. That's why I cherish Jewish people.
For these strange, quixotic, eccentric, or otherwise unusual views (so they say), I am lied about. Is that it? Is it my ideas? My values? Do I attract evil? That's what I'm c