The eye that mocketh at this father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it. Proverbs 30:17
There is much death these days that is meaningless. Much waste of life. One ponders the significance of it all. Mexicans drop dead in the desert, in the midst of their mass trespassing. Muslims blow each other up, and everyone else they can. People sport with death, take in hideous drugs, alcohol, and use sexual relations as attacks on others. (Sexually transmitted diseases make a person an actual weapon. It's as if sex has become a weapon of mass destruction.)
The mass Mexican trespass is a self-indulgent, self-aggrandizing, auto-erotic cultural romance. The great trip north, the great adventure. Why, there are actual risks involved. No, not from the U.S. government, or even from local officials. They'll do their best to take care of you. The risk is from your own pathetic kind, your own competitors. At any rate, you'll consider yourself a cultural hero, a Mexican people's man, a grand Commie. And there are plenty of anti-American Mexicans, and liberals, up there in the states. They'll do their best to honor you. Death validates your wonderful cause, your selfish intent, your low purpose of crime and illegality.
Death means nothing to Muslims. We have to wonder why they even bother with funerals. They have no desire to die in battle, or to fight like men. They are cowards and murderers. They are beneath dignity. When one of them is blown up, the people parade for self-righteousness, hardly for mourning. The "martyr" is going to Paradise, or so they believe. It is a party, if we are to take their profession seriously. There is no mourning in Islam. This is a lie--or else they don't really believe what they say they believe. (Much of the same contradiction exists in the Christian cultural tradition as well, make no mistake; only Christians have left off murdering some time ago. I suppose we'll have to wait longer for Islam to grow up, if that's possible.)
It is younger people who prefer this dance with death. The older people put them up to it, apparently. Else the younger people are simply not listening to their elders. There is an irreparable breach. In any case, if death has any meaning, there is something deeply wrong with those who love it.
In the old days, American Indians did not fear death, but they did not love it either. To die in battle was a supreme honor, but to murder was an unthinkable weakness--well, at least Indian to Indian. Training in bravery was functional, for battle, not for some sick personal indulgence.
But the criminal trespassing Mexicans are in no battle. And murdering Muslims are afraid of battle. These people disgrace death itself! They are a disgrace to death. They rob death of any respect. They are truly a dark blight on humanity.
Liberals of course love doom and gloom, yet they seem recently distant from the apocalyptic view of over-population. In 1971 the great liberal Paul Ehrlich wrote the Forward to Lawrence Lader's Breeding Ourselves to Death, a yellow-news type of paperback on overpopulation. It's definitely a doom and gloom book. Liberals, like Al Gore, love the scare tactic of apocalypticism. In 1976, Erik Eckhom announced that we were running out of food, and over-farming, in Losing Ground: Environmental Stress and World Food Prospects. In 1978, John McHale published an international call to social arms called Basic Human Needs: A Framework for Action. It was a brief, statistical assessment of food, health, education, clothing, and shelter the world over, and purposed to establish an international poverty line. In 1985, Palmer Stacy and Wayne Lutton published their little paperback, The Immigration Time Bomb, which intended to inform America that over-population was a threat to the country, that is, to the United States. Ronald Reagan himself said, in 1983, "The country has lost control of its own borders, and no country can sustain that kind of position."
So, what difference does death make? The godless toy with it, like dice on the table. For the Mexicans, life is a gamble. Do the best you can. Be a cultural hero. For the Muslims, life has no meaning anyway. Enjoy the kill.
When large sectors of the human race go rotten, they invite death upon themselves. They earn the status of just deserts. They deserve to die. They've chosen it. They have no right to bring death to others, however, and they should be illiminated therefore. They are enemies of the human race, as well as themselves. To allow them freedom to wreak havoc is weak, foolish, and irresponsible. It takes a man to recognize an enemy. It takes strength to recognize weakness. The mass trespassers and the mass murderers are the weakest of the weak.
Somewhere along the line, their parents didn't teach them proper values. Alas, some chose death, even when they have been taught properly. The Proverb warns against despising the counsel for life. The Proverb knows that there is a perversity in human nature that willfully choses death. Human nature has to be commanded to chose life. Deuteronomy 30:19. Those that despise the way of life may find themselves fallen dead in the desert, and the scavengers upon them. The vultures will pick their eyes out.
It's raw sewage, the kind they use in their corn fields down in central Mexico. Only this sewage has a nice mix of industrial waste with it. When it rains, the toxic cocktail all comes slugging down the Tijuana River, into the United States, then into the Pacific. This is all just south of San Diego, in the San Diego Bay area. It includes the Border Field Beach and the Silver Strand Beach. Last year, the beaches were closed six and a half months (198 days).
White foam and various garbage pollute a canyon collection stream that flows into
the Unites States from Mexico in area known as Smuggler's Gulch in Imperial Beach,
Calif. Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2007. It's been seven years since the U.S. government
agreed to a novel fix to continued sewage problems: pay a private developer as
much as $750 million to build and manage a wastewater treatment plant in Tijuana,
Mexico. AP Photo/Lenny Ignelzi
Remarkably, the United States offered to fund a $700 million dollar treatment plant in Tijuana. The plant would offer clean water to Mexico, and investers would take a profit. Well, that's just too humiliating for the Mexicans. Seven years of gone by, and there hasn't been a single shovel breaking the ground for a new plant. So now the Bush administration is considering building a plant on the American side of the border.
Democrate Representative Bob Filner bragged about working ten years on the Tijuana treatment plant project, trying to work out a deal through Bajaqua LLC, a supposedly private, bi-national project organization. Ah, but Filner, one of the project's biggest champions in Washington, has received more than $60,000 in campaign donations from the company and its associates since 1996. In all, Bajagua investors have donated more than $100,000 to political campaigns. So that's how that works. Ten years, indeed. "Bi-partisan," of course. Brian Bilbray, a Republican, former mayor of a San Diego Bay town (Imperial Beach), lobbied Congress for the Bajagua Project. The Project seems to have amounted to nothing more than a unique bi-partisan campaign fund raising machine. The public continues to suffer the stench and contamination.
Typical situation. Politicians think first of their position and money. The people are the last consideration. Essentially, it is government inteference with business, in the worst way. Private developers would have had this project done in two years, or less. Politicians involved, in anything, spell inefficiency and doom when it comes to anything major like this.
Mexico is essentially a dirty, underdeveloped, over-populated Third World country. Michael Savage likes to say "Turd World," and surely has in mind the sewage-challenged environments of such countries. He allegedly warned, "We will devolve into a turd-world cesspool." Quite literally, if the Tijuana River story is any sign.
Dr. Samuel De Shay, whom I heard lecture in Stoneham, Massachusetts in 1990, said that 75% of all the infectious diseases in the world are cause by the reckless management of human waste. He referenced ancient Mosaic law as a divine instruction in the principle of health and disease control.
But when mass numbers of people are ignorant, and their petty despot governments do not care, then we have a serious problem. This is Mexico. I've been down in central Mexico. In the early '90's, I saw people in villages defecating right by a river in town. There was no plumbing. Driving through corn fields, I could see the irrigation canals, rather, I could smell them, as they were full of raw sewage. China has the same problem, as does much of Asia, India, and probably much of the "Turd World."
To put it philosophically, the less averse people are to their own waste, the less developed and "civilized" they are. Plumbing is the measure of civilization in the world. By contrast, the destructos of the world, like the Greens, the Van der Ryn and the ecologists, Paul Ehrlich, the Sierra Club, all swear by the dry toliet! To save water, which we must, lest we run out, one must "deal with one's own waste as close to the source as possible." (See, Patricia Leigh Brown, "Eco-Privy: Bringing Outdoor Plumbing Indoors," New York Times, October 12, 1995.) We must over come the idea of "flush and forget," as Van der Ryn instructs. (Of course, Ann Coulter reminds us that the Indians first introduced the dry toilet to America! Godless: The Church of Liberalism, 2006). So there you have it, Mexicans aren't Indians. If they were, they woudln't have a sewage problem!
Illegal immigration is not immigration. It's trespassing, on a mass scale. Illegal immigrants are to be called criminals. That's what they are. They may be workers; they may be undocumented; they may be Mexican nationals; but, primarily, they are criminals. It doesn't matter whether they've committed an act of violence (though many have), or whether they are pushing drugs and weapons (though many are); they commited a crime in crossing the border illegally. A host of illegal acts follow: identity fraud and/or theft; tax evasion; abuse of social services--none of which they deserve or have any right to; etc. They are simply criminals. Adverse effects result from their presence--no matter what benefits are imagined in the self-justifying minds of their collusionists--Americans who hire them.
It's not the saints that are marching in. It's criminal Mexicans.
Migration? Is it a natural, epochal migration? No. Migrations are a thing of a different era in human history. The Mexican (et al.) influx is a national invasion. This is the modern world. There are borders. There are language differences. There are economic realities. It isn't just a natural demographic exploration. These people are here to get something from America. They don't respect America. They don't want to become American. They are low-life crooks. Nothing more.
Well, what about earlier American history? What about the "migration" from Europe? The western Europeans migrated, did they not? It was across the sea, rather than land, but, it was a mass demographic shift--and it was a mass trespass as well. It was Indian land they came upon.
But the Europeans didn't really want anything else, nothing personal from the Indians. They didn't perceive any 'economic benefits' from dealing with Indians, or working for Indians. It was a different situation. The Europeans just wanted land, a new place, a place where they could set up shop their own way. They were through with "royalty" and "popery." This new shop was to be about freedom, and that included justice. And so on. At least in their minds, among themselves.
They didn't plan on assimilating into the Indian nations which they inevitably invaded. The western Europeans were like the Mexicans of today, in that sense. But the profound difference was this: The Europeans weren't beggars, claiming rights from the Indians, claiming the Indians owed them a job, health care, social security, or even property. The western Europeans build their own world--yes, within someone else's, but, they built it themselves. They didn't mooch off someone else's accomplishments. They were losers. They were winners. They were strong.
Mexicans are weak. They are deluded, and are amoral if not immoral about all this. They see absolutely nothing wrong with what they are doing, and if questioned, they justify it as their right! They are the sheep of circumstance. Their own government abuses them, then tries to use them; the American politicians try to use them, as well as American businessmen and even private households. The powers that be would have it this way.
Any way possible, without pride,
without dignity, or even self-respect.
The Mexicans don't want citizenship. It would not be to their advantage. They don't want to become American. They're actually proud Mexicans. They're not proud of their government, of course. But, there is a Mexican spirit, a glorious Mexican spirit, and they have that. They love that. Even the world recognizes it. So the political manoeuver to make them citizens is not something that will work at all. These people just want to work, make money, and go back and forth to Mexico.
In this sense, most of them really are innocent. They are simple in their desires. They are of course hit on all sides, because they have made themselves vulnerable. The evils and perils that surround them are the price they pay. It is a culturally immature thing they do; it is naive. Again, they are the sheep of circumstance. They are shorn by any and all who see the opportunity. And even this is better than what they have in Mexico. Or so we are led to believe. Maybe that's a delusion. Maybe the risk of rotting in the desert has nothing to do with what they have or don't have in Mexico. Maybe they're just abandoned, morally and spiritually. Family is a crumbling, vanishing concept for the trespassers. The whole craze of egotistical adventure is more important than family.
The Mexicans don't care. They have no shame.
They are morally abandoned.
And the thing to remember is that America does have enemies, on all sides. There are social movements, within and without, that constantly plot evil against America and American people. Just this month a shipment of heavy arms was confiscated from a pick-up truck in Matamoros, Mexico, just south of Brownsville, Texas. And what do you know, it was the Mexican Army that stopped it. How noble of them. "The weapons seized included 18 M-16 assault rifles, including at least one equipped with an M-203 40mm grenade launcher, several M-4 carbines, 17 handguns of various calibers, over 200 magazines for different weapons, and more than 8,000 rounds of ammunition, assault vests and other military accessories."
America has enemies. They are here, now. We cannot ignore them. We can't write it all off as inevitable. We have to fight it. Simple as this may seem, I fear the majority of Americans cannot recognize this, and are in some materialistic-induced stupor, which disallows any alarm--or at least, any alarm sufficient to provoke action.
That our government should consider "giving" the criminal Mexicans citizenship--which they don't even want, shows how little our government values citizenship. It has become nothing more than a political tool to them. The Mexicans just want to rape America, to use the opportunities. Citizenship is not an opportunity for them. It would inhibit them, from their point of view. That American citizenship should become a pawn in the hand of politicians is the lowest condition into which our government has ever sunk.
Alas, America! How thy gold has become dim!
Sound a bit harsh? I think not. A criminal--and that's what an illegal immigrant is, throwing in with other criminals--smugglers, drug dealers, or terrorists, is no one's responsibility but his own. No one made him come illegally into America. He came of his own free will, knowing the risk. I say, let him die where he falls. Let the buzzards eat his body.
Two surviving criminal immigrants of the five that were shot by other criminals were taken to a Pima County hospital in southern Arizona, according to an AFP report, (February 8.) A Tucson report (NEWS4) says three were wounded, and one died. There have been other such shootings.
If they take the risk of committing an illegal act, and associate themselves with the underworld, then when they happen to get shot here in America, they do not deserve to be taken to an American hospital. They should be left where they fall. It is no one's fault but their own. That would compassionate, and just. If no illegal assistance were given them, others would not be encouraged to take the same risks. That would be compassionate. If they were left to die where they fell, they would only be paying the price they agreed on--by circumstancial association. That would be justice.
By land...
The coast of keeping prisoners, hospital care for the hurt or wounded, social welfare, education costs (especially the language challenges)--all this is bankrupting the southwestern states. Of course, that is the purpose of the liberals and social architects following the radical Communist '60's plan of Richard Clower and Frances Piven. Overload the system, and behold, it crumbles. Dictators, move in!
...and by sea.
Giuliani remember how Clower-Piven plan had bankrupted New York in the '60's and '70's, when city's welfare dependents rose from 200,000 to 1.1 million in a single decade. (See, "Reaching Out to All New Yorkers," a speech by Rudy Giuliani, 1998. The mayor wanted people to value work more than welfare. He didn't want the city to repeat the bankruptcy, and the attendant oppression and crime that resulted.
the mass criminal trespassers come, marching to the socialist
trumpet call, "You owe me!"
This is what mass criminal trespassing is all about--overloading the system, to destory the system. This is using the poor masses to overturn the current regime. It's a standard Communist procedure in American politics. Read all about it in Richard Poe's, The Shadow Party (2006), chapter 6, "Strategy for Regime Change."
People don't have much control over policies, however. The meat of the matter is in the street, where the rubber meets the road, and where the bullets meet the bodies. The rights of American citizens are being totally denied in this mass criminal immigration process. States rights are being completely ignored and trampled upon. The individual land owner on the border--it seems to be left up to him, and he will be prosecuted if he shoots any criminial trespasser. And if he's a state employee, hired to guard the borders, he'll be put in jail for sure, and beaten, like Ignatio Ramos.
In the last analysis, we cannot blame the government. We can only blame American citizens--dishonest Americans who have come to depend on "cheap" labor. Mexicans would never come here if someone wasn't offering them something. If Americans don't take personal responsibility, then all is lost. If we do not know yet that we cannot depend on our government to protect our country, our land, and our lives, we'll never learn.
Somewhere on this month's calendar is Presidents Day. Abraham Lincoln's birthday is February 12th (b.1809). George Washington's is the 22nd (b.1732). The Monday before Washington's birthday was agreed upon as "Presidents Day," this year falling on February 19th. Why, it's the idea, not the reality, that counts. It doesn't matter when their actual birthdays are; it's the fact that we celebrate them, right? Ideology, not reality or actuality.
George Washington, (1732-1799), an
American founder.
That's become the American way. Shuffle things around, make up new holidays, rearrange the old ones. I'm sort of into it myself. I recently suggested a new Jewish holiday: Yom Komah, "Day of the Wall," celebrating ethnic integrity, nationality, and religious consistency. Special days are a way of recognizing something, honoring something, encouraging something.
I must say, however, while we're on the subject, the original "holy" day (i.e., 'holiday'), is the sabbath, according Hebrew scripture (Genesis 2:1-3). No other day was ever made holy and blessed as the sabbath. That would be the seventh day of the week, or, Saturday. Now, later on, the non-Jewish Christians decided to make Sunday into a holiday, since it was not only already an ancient Roman holiday, but because nobody wanted to be persecuted for being Jewish if he wasn't. Sometimes, man-made holidays are all about convenience, nothing more. Grand justifications and explanations come later, in history. But, the foundation of a lot of religion in the world is just man-made convenience--or manipulative authority over the masses.
George Soros, foreigner, sub-
verter, and enemy of American
values.
Now, back to Presidents Day. Yes, we've had some great men as presidents. They certainly seem to have been great. Greater than most. Yet, one of the greatest aspects of their greatness is the fact that they didn't know they were great. They made decisions as best they could, on principles they understood as best they could at the time. Joseph J. Ellis has a book called Founding Brothers (2002), in which he presents precisely the thesis that the founders of the country, the United States of America, did not and could not possibly have known the far reaching effects of their ideologies. The greatness of their character and minds is not so much manifested in what America has become, but in the risk they were willing to take--not knowing at all what would become of the country. It was a gamble, not a guarantee. We presume upon them, with our idolatrous regard for their grandeur. It is the illusion of history. At the time they made their decisions, they had faith, and will, but they had no guarantee. That they were willing to risk all--for principle, that's why they are great. America's greatness may or may not be the result of their ideology. The point is, had America failed, these founders would still be great men.
History some times attests to the greatness of an idea. History some times honors and rewards risk. Other times it doesn't. Other times failure is all that history affords. Idolizing what turned out to be a success, rather, idolizing those who started it, is a rather misleading concept of reality. Ellis is quite right to call America's founders "brothers," rather than "fathers." They were just men, just like us. The future was not open to them. They could not see what would come of their dream, or their sacrifice. For the longest time, it didn't at all look like it was going to come about. There were long, long months, even years, of doubt and uncertainty. There was lack of unity, lack of organization, and lack of commitment. It was only those brave few, those men of will and character, who saw the thing through. They forced the hand of Fate. They gambled with their own lives, and the lives of others. They envisioned a better way, and they put all their chips on the table. It is truly a great story, what they did.
As they concluded in the Declaration of Independence, 1776:
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Ah, if we could only catch a glimpse of the glory, just one palpitation! What does it mean, to be great? It generally involved some great risk, for the good, for the better, for the grand--even when you can't see it, even when it doesn't seem really possible, or likely at all.
Yes, Presidents Day. Some kind of day. Some time. Some day. Why, it makes no difference which day, just a day. We need a day. And therein lies our weakness, our idolatry, our misconception of what reality is, what history is, and what our role is therein. That's the new American way. It's all good. Just the idea, not the details. Celebrate. Just celebrate.
Then MoveOn.org. That's Democrats in Action. (Now George Soros in action.) Put the truth in perspective. Be objective. Separate from any direct relation or obligation. History is a play thing. You're above it. You make it, in fact. You have no serious duty to preserve anything. Just slap history in a holiday, and then move on. Whatever's wrong, slap a coat of political paint on it, and move on to more pressing matters. Never mind history. Why, doff that dreary burden! You are free! Free to rewrite, free do deceive, free to oppress, and free to lie about it.
Phenomenon of psychological imminence, Adolf Hitler the political demagogue and Count Dracula the demigod of legend both represent the expression of two of the most basic desires of the human heart--seldom articulated, and less often admited: power and eternity.
The "will to power," as Friedrich Nietzsche so ably dubbed it, is innate. Psychologists can call it insecurity, aggression, even cruelty, but it is part and parcel of human aspiration, in one way or another. Most people express it through business, art, ideas, some kind of perfectionism, or even something as simple as having a family. To become something, to be something other than nothing, to have independence--this is a natural craving. Moralists may call it greed, avarice, and it easily becomes the desire to rule over others.
Adolf Hitler created a nucleus of power unequalled in modern times. The focus, the organization, the war machine, were astounding. This is to say nothing of the ideology, the linquistic base, the scientific aggressions--not the least of which was UFO studies, and the attempt to overcome the force of gravity itself. The entire Weltanschauung is still being studied. It is beyond the ken of most thinkers, most casual inquiries, and most interests.
The endless reems of data, film, and books on the Nazi regime are not the production of Jewish interests. Yes, the Jewish people are most determined to "never forget" what happend to them as the result of Nazi ideology, and they are equally willing that it should occur "never again." But this is hardly an explanation for the historical industry evolved in the post-Nazi era. The intense interest, the relentless revelry over all things Nazi is even beyong any juvenile 'white supremacy' notions. The fascination with Hitler and the Nazi vision is the human fascination with power, and the latent admiration for those brave enough to grab it.
For this cause, the Mafia continues to lure audiences of all kinds, the world over. Men who have the guts to make their own world, however crooked, however cruel, and however evil, continue to hold the secret adoration of the world's mice, the docile souls who daren't say how they feel, or do what they want to--indeed, the sheep of earth.
Salvatore "Lucky" Luciano, 1897-1962
Dracula? He is the true hero of the natural heart. This is for one simple reason: he survives. He is alone, basically, and he lives without friends, without love, and without any vision save that of survival. He lives in misery, universal loathing, and utter detestation, but he overcomes it all. He outlives it. (Certainly, each Dracula story begins with his having survived for several hundred years. He may or may not be destroyed in the end, depending on the particular story, but, he enters the stage of life as a survivor.
Everyone loves a survivor. It is a big sell word, in fact. "I survived cancer," or "I survived the war," or "I survived the hostage situation," etc. (Steve Arnold wrote a terrific little comedic book call, "How to Survive a Jewish Mother"!) We like to be honored for enduring something. We like to earn things, generally speaking. What could be more honorable than to surive death? This is Dracula. He lives on, not really alive, but at least not dead. Oh, yes, we admire Dracula, in all his hideousness. At least he survived the dead. He's done more than we have. He's done what we want to do. (And he has some strange supernatural powers to boot!)
Vickie Lynn Hogan (Anna Nicole Smith) 1967-2007
As in our thoughts on Vickie Lynn Hogan (Anna Nicole Smith), we suggest again that high concentration of media, extravagant attention on a subject, usually means something other than what's on the surface. Something else is going on. The media is a human thing--a competitive business, yes, but still a human thing. Humans tend to dissemble, to pretend, to be self-deluding. (We have to be. Life is a dreadfully sad experience, in the end.) We don't like to admit what we're really all about. It feels shameful. It feels embarrassing. We like to call it all something else. We say we're condemning the Nazi regime by all this historical exposure. I say we're admiring it. We say Hitler was a monster. I say we admire monsters. We say Dracula is dreadful. I say we admire him for surviving. We say we're sorry Vickie Lynn is gone. But we have all her pictures. That's all most people ever had of her anyway. In her case, we hide two desires: our relief that her miserable life is over, and worse, that it would never have happened--that it would never have been so miserable. Yet, the guilt and shame her pornography produced is linked up with our feelings about her death. We're glad she's dead. She deserved it. (This is all unspoken, of course. Instead, we look at her from every other angle possible, any excuse, any cause, rather than the real one.)
We just have funny ways of expressing our basic desires for power and eternity. I'm convinced, this is what we want. Our behavior displays these desires again and again. Our entertainment, our politics, and even our religion. Most of us are too "civillized" or to gentile to be so raw about it. Criminals disgust us. They're cheaters. They don't deserve to live, let alone our attention. But, instead, we'd rather secretly, subliminally admire Hitler and Dracula. They were cool. The local drug pusher is a dog. The jihadists don't even want to live. They are worthy of nothing. But Hitler created fantastic power. Dracula survived the grave, in a way, and lives on. This is fascinating. This is what we want. Power and eternity.
It finally made the news. Reuters, anyway. There's some civil strive in Iran. Fancy that. There have been two serious car bombs in the last three days, and shooting in the streets! The second bomb made the headlines. This is so very breath-taking.
The place is Zahedan, on the southeast border of Iran, next to Afghanistan western border. That should explain it. Afghanistan and Iran have not been 'friendly' for some time. When I was there, in Eastern Iran, in 1999, is was informed of the problems that Afghanistan's cash crop cause in Iran. That crop was of course poppies--opium poppies. The greatest problems with drug abuse in Iran came directly from Afghanistan. But I digress.
The "revolutionaries" this time are referred to as "a shadowy Sunni group, Jundallah (God's soldiers), which Iran has said is linked to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network." Ooo. Now that's interesting. So, the Iranian government wants us to think poor little Iran is being attacked by al Qaeda, too? Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of mullahs.
Iranians gather to see the destroyed bus in Zahedan. Eleven people have been killed
when a car bomb ripped through a bus carrying members of Iran's elite Revolutionary
Guards in a sensitive southeastern border province.AFP/IRNA
No, wait. It's America who's responsible. Yes. That's right. "Iran has accused Britain and the United States of supporting ethnic minority rebels operating in the sensitive border areas in an attempt to destabilize the country." Now that really makes a lot of sense. Hey, you worthless, mindless Sunni killers, why don't you go kill some Iranian Shiites? We'll pay you. Our money's as good as Iran's. In fact, we'll pay you more. They're supplying you with weapons to attack Americans in Iraq? We'll supply you weapons to attack Iranians in Iran.
It's an old song. When I was visiting the Shrine of Astan Quds Razavi shrine in Masshad, I remember my hosts telling me that the mosque there was bombed--with people at worship in it. It was the Mujahedin-e Khalq, the liberators, who bombed the innocent people. I was told that they were supported by the CIA, by order of the United States. (Fact is, the Mujahedin did bomb the whole country--into the mid '80's. Well, they were trying to overthrow the Ayatollah Khomeini regime.)
When anyone bombs anyone else--besides Americans, it's the Americans who are behind it. Got it?
"Bandits" the Iranian news called them, not freedom fighters for the people. There was shooting in the streets.
"A booby-trapped car blew up a bus owned by Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards on Wednesday, killing at least 11 people." It was definitely an act against the government enforcement agency. But, the news carefully avoids identifying the ethnicity of the 65 men who have been arrested. Are they Khurds? Are they Afghanis? Iraqis? Are they Iranians?
One thing for sure: after instant and complete investagion, Brigadier General Mohammad Ghafari announced, "Our investigations clearly shows their connection to American and British intelligence organizations and also to groups opposed to the Islamic republic." And there you have it. Anything at all that goes wrong in Iran has been planned and paid for the the United States. It's just beyond a shadow of a doubt. Of course, an American investigation of such an event would take weeks, perhaps months. The brilliant Iranian government officials are able to solve any issue in a manner of minutes. Stunning efficiency. The kind that results in swift hangings.
You read the whole article, and Iran news is making precisely the accusations against the United States that the US has long made of Iran. Now that the proof of Iran's involvement in Iraq appears to be coming to light, we have this obviously staged act on the opposite border of Iran.
Therefore, in the Iranian incidents, the explosives and the guns, all came from the United States, and the "bandits" were trained in by Americans--in Pakistan!
Well, it's gossip at this point. Bombings have been going on in Iran all along. They just haven't been publicized. Iran news and government is now simply using them as a defense of itself. It's a Muslim thing, you know, lying. You can lie to the enemy. You must lie, in fact. It is your duty. Propaganda, it's called.
Everyone knows I personally love Iran, and I love Iranian people. This news bit is simply a joke. This is a sham. It is an attempt to galvanize the people of Iran into fear, into nationalism, into anti-Americanism. That last part won't really work. However, Iranians will fight for their countr if attacked, I'm quite sure. They know their government was formed on lies and exists on hysteria. They simply live with it. Yes, it's that distant from them. They don't feel it's worth it to create another revolution, that's all.
I say, a lot of Americans feel the same way about America. There are outrageous problems here with immigration and immorality. But, American people--would they ever rise up against the government, again? I doubt it. We expect Iranian people to? They just had a revolution. It was a miserable mistake, and they know it. Do you think they want another one?
The American Revolution was not a mistake. It was a great thing. Don't we want that again? Shouldn't we have the courage and vision to do it again? Was it too long ago? Have American forgotten the glory?
Maybe there really is a point here. If Western governments, even the United States and Britian, have created at one time or another the "Mujahadins" of the Middle East, can't we create some of the same here, in America, if need be?
The only problem is, people like George Soros already have. That's what the Shadow Party is all about. That's what the Open Society is all about. Well-funded groups are how he toppled the governments of Ukraine, Georgia, and Serbia. He thinks he can do it here in America, too. Please read all about it in The Shadow Party, (2006) by Richard Poe & David Horowitz.
Soul searching is in order. Accusations are flying. They are the same accusations. Each person will have to decide for himself for whom the bell tolls.
Wonder why the Anna Nicole Smith story won't end?
It's a psychological archetype. It's all about the human condition--the worst conditions. Now, liberals love to lament, and lavish useless affection over suffering, but there's more to this than just that. This isn't just a media fest. It is a human fest. A billion dollar baby, and no father, and no mother. This somehow stretches to the max every social value we have: family, law, court, media, money, human relations, paramours, friends, and if we add Vickie Lynn's weight problem, food.
It is as if the chaos and dysfuntion of virtually every person involved, of every element involved, the confusion and denigration of all--simply demands our clearest definitions of what human reality should be. Vickie Lynn's story is everything it shouldn't. This has to be the deeper draw. Underneath the lurid, "tabloid" trash, there lies the treasure of human love, human dignity. This we feel intuitively. This is the human soul reverberating underneath the clamor of failure. We know the way things ought to be. This horrid story only reminds us of templete written on our own hearts. In the obvious absence of love, the hidden desire for it runs rampant.
Vickie Lynn Hogan, 1985 from the Mexia High
School yearbook, Mexia, Texas.
Would that such dramatic failure were equally visible in the Democrat House of Representatives, and the traitorous "Republicans" therein. Would that their utter duplicity awakened the instincts of honor in the American citzenry. The liberal Democrats want to destroy the president, like they did Richard Nixon, by isolating him, condemning every breath he takes, and then revel in their destructive power. They hate Bush the more, though, because he is a man of character and strength. This is anathema to them. Bush is a demon, in their dark vision.
The failure of these miserable, liberal politicians, be they Democrat or Republican, is simply not so apparent as the demise of Vickie Lynn Hogan (Anna Nicole Smith). Political treason and denigration doesn't call forth the glory of the unconscious, and the eternal verities written on the heart. Why?
Words. Wrong words. Lies. Politicians (particularly Democrats currently in power) can lie. They can deceive and misrepresent themselves as heroic patriots. But Vickie Lynn Hogan's discomfiture is obvious. There is no deception. Everything about her story was foul. There is no retelling the story, no interpretation, no legalese, no fabrication or false front that can condone an abandoned baby, no, not even a billion dollars. There is no cover. The soul of every human being is outraged, whether the anger is fully conscious or not.
The story will continue, ad infinitum, because it calls forth the expression, openly or subliminally, of the natural rage for right. When everything is perfectly wrong, right comes forth in a vengeance. It is the law of the universe. We 'pay for our sins.' Now. Even in this life. Even when we believe we are absolutely right, even if we purposely or unknowingly deceive ourselves into thinking we are right, we will still experience the consequences of what we do, for better or for worse.
Democrats are trying to trash Bush and to trash America. But they think of themselves as heroes, and they want everyone to think they are the heroes. Vickie Lynn trashed her own life (in a way worse than the trash her mother handed her), and ultimately left the curse on her innocent baby girl. Vickie Lynn can't make anyone think differently about her life. So, when liberal Democrats have their way, what innocent baby will they leave cursed? Who will claim to be the father?
Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. Everyone claims to be part of a success story. But no one wants responsibility for failure. Everyone wants a share of the glory when things go right. But Democrats will blame one man, Bush, for every ill in the world. They need ill. They need a focus to blame. It cleanses them. They represent an unacknowledged case of Anna Angst Syndrome. Because of their continued self-deception and retelling of reality, they cannot hear with clarity the reaction of their own souls. They enable failure, just like Vickie Lynn did. They chose it. They hope to profit by it. They honor it. They glorify it.
America is the billion dollar baby. Who's the father? Who will claim it, as the Democrats put it up for adoption? Every foreigner in the world is claiming it already.
(On a somewhat lighter note, American blondes shouldn't go to the islands. I thought we learned that in the Natalee Holloway case.) It's like a black hole there. Easy to disappear, forever.)
Who's the father? This is the legacy Anna Nicole Smith (Vickie Lynn Hogan) leaves five-month-old her baby girl Dannielynn (b.September 7, 2006). Vickie Lynn saw her own mother go through five husbands. Not to be outdone, Vickie added to her two legal husbands at least four claimants to the fatherhood of Dannielynn, four that we know of. That makes at least six men. (Seven if we cound the North Carolina boyfriend who reportedly gave her the mansion in the Bahamas. Eight if we count the possibility of frozen sperm from J. Howard Marshall, the ancient husband.) Its a veritable free-for-all. Line up, men. You have a chance. Apparently any man does. (That's the image Vickie seems to have wanted.)
Vickie Lynn Hogan ("Anna Nicole Smith")
The media can't seem to get enough of this lurid life. This absolute hedonism asserts itself on all networks, all papers, and obviously, nearly all internet outlets. Who's calling the shots here? Why do shows like Greta Van Susteran and Bill O'Reilly have to spend so much time on Vickie? Larry King always revels in smut, but, that's to be expected. Scarborough has long had a penchant for the same. But, it seems there's no discretion now. All dive in head first for the disgustingly meaningless, wasted life of Vickie Lynn Hogan--who accomlished nothing of merit, contributed nothing of value, and yet will be regarded as ever more than she was.
She flunked out of her freshman year of highschool in a little town of Mexia, Texas, about 40 miles east of Waco. (Population is about 6,500). So, unless the father of Dannielynn is J. Howard Marshall or Howard K. Stern, we can't hope for an IQ. Further more, with all the drug abuse problems Vickie had, I'm not sure we can even hope for a healthy child.
Yet Vickie's sordid affairs and finances ended up in the United States Supreme Court. This is the most outrageous vanity of all. That a woman's willfully prostituted body could cause the issues that were considered worthy of the attention of the highest court in the land says something about the unworthiness of that same court. There is a certain demeaning denigration in that inflated "equality" that considers Vickie's morally abandoned, nonsense life on the same level as the Pledge of Allegiance. It is no compliment to American society that its highest court would consider an utterly disgraceful woman right up there with the Ten Commandments.
Indeed, she was only playing a role that society provided for her. She cannot be condemned for the role, but only for her decision to play it. Yes, life is a set up, for all of us. Some of us make different kinds of decisions than others. Some of us have better parents than others.
I have asserted elsewhere that love was lacking in Vickie's life. I don't see that her mother loved her at all. No woman who loves her children shoves five fathers in their face. I mean, what kind of low down white trash are we talking about here? This is like the Bill Clinton story, in a way. His mother dragged in four fathers in front of him. Now, Bill did something with his manipulative brain, and Vickie did something with her manipulative body. Some people think this is commendable. Bill became president. Vickie became a porn star.
Happy Valentine's Day, America.
Happy sex day. Happy immorality day. Happy non-love day. Happy self-indulgent day. Happy self day.
Is this what freedom is all about? Sex? Is this another wonder of capitalism? Pornography? Nah. This is just what it is: perversion of values. Vickie Lynn Hogan was taught no values. Hedonism, or sensualism, is all about sex and money--and the social 'power' attendant. Sex and money was all Vickie ever had any inclination for. (Perhaps she was a molested child, ruined by one of those wonderful "fathers" her wayward mother provided.) Immorality was her inheritance from her multi-husbanded mother. Vickie has left worse for her own daughter. "Who's the father?" That's Vickie's valentine to little Dannielynn. "Who's the father?" That's Vickie's valetine to America. The media has offered instant and ubiquitous delivery. A special message from all the media to all America: "Who's the father?"
Let the white race take a good look at this. If it were a black woman, or any woman of "color," there would be no such concern, no such life, and no such story, no matter how many fathers, or how much doubt about each. This is the white race idolizing itself--simply because it has the power to do so. It's about money and sex.
And we haven't even gone in to the matter of that blubbery body that developed after Vickie's porn debuts. It was all about money after that point.
Word is N. Korea has agreed to nuclear disarmament. Is this to be taken seriously? Four months after terrorizing the world with nuclear bomb tests, the tyrannt "rogue" leader Kim Jong Il decides to 'repent'? Interestingly, Kim Jong Il's name is not mentioned once in the entire AP article. It's "North Korea" this, and "North Korea" that. In fact, not one name of a North Korean official is mentioned at all. (One name is given under the accompanying photo.) So, who is "North Korea?" Who is speaking? Who is making this aggreement? Is it official? Does it count?
The AP wire mentions the South Korean Assistant Foreign Minister Chun Yung-woo. It mentions Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and Chinese envoy Wu Dawei (who chaired the meeting at a Chinese state guesthouse). U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill is mentioned, and quoted. It doesn't look like the top leaders of the world were at this meeting, certainly not the top leaders of the countries involved.
Negotiators pose for press photographers before the closing ceremony of the six-party
talks on North Korea's nuclear program in Beijing's Diaoyutai State Guesthouse, Tuesday,
Feb. 13, 2007. North Korea agreed Tuesday to take first steps toward nuclear disarmament
and shut down its main reactor within 60 days...Kenichiro Sasae of Japan, Chun Yung-woo
of South Korea, Kim Kye Gwan of North Korea, Wu Dawei of China, Christopher Hill of the
United States and Alexander Losyukov of Russia. AP Photo/Michael Reynolds
Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton (resigned December, 2006) expressed disapproval of the deal.
"I am very disturbed by this deal," Bolton told CNN. "It sends exactly the wrong signal to would-be proliferators around the world: 'If we hold out long enough, wear down the State Department negotiators, eventually you get rewarded,' in this case with massive shipments of heavy fuel oil for doing only partially what needs to be done."
"Under the deal, the North would receive initial aid equal to 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil for shutting down and sealing its main nuclear reactor and related facilities at Yongbyon, north of the capital, within 60 days, to be confirmed by international inspectors. For irreversibly disabling the reactor and declaring all nuclear programs [?], the North will eventually receive another 950,000 tons in aid. The total is worth $250 million."
But shutting down a nuclear reactor and dismantling nuclear weapons are two very, very different operations. The article not once mentions nuclear weapons.
It looks as though the AP headline, for the sake of exciting news, actually misrepresents what happened altogether. Cheap trick, but typical of much news.
The world is sick of North Korea and Kim Jong Il. It is a disgusting story. People are tired of hearing about it, and even talking about it. It is unpopular. (Probably the reason for the exaggerated, false headlline.) Even the War Chick (Resa Laru Kirkland) has left off her "Forgotten Warrior Project," which honored America's Korean War veterans. Nobody cares about them, either. War Chick has a hot blogradio show, on which she interviews notable commentators, such as Robert Spencer. But its all about jihad now. As news, Korea is tired. Just tired. If WarChick is onto something else, you know Korea is out.
Kim Jong II has starved his people, brought the country into economic devastation, and all for the sake of his own ego, his own game-playing in the world. He has done nothing for the benefit of his people. They are in poverty, and the whole story is nothing but another very loud testimony of what Communism produces in the world. Any academic indulgence of the ideology should be expunged from conversation. Communism, despite it's magic words of "equality" or even "democracy" is a verbal veil for utter oppression. That is the story of North Korea.
That the Associate Press would allow Audra Ang, or whomever, to post such a piquant headline, so false, so misleading, so criminal, only shows how desperate for entertainment the media can be. Stories must sell. There must be excitement. Truth is not, I repeat not the principle consideration of the news. Attention, excitement, or entertainment--this is today's news, for the most part.
Let's face it. North Korea has no honor. There is no integrity, no reliable word. North Korea is a liar, a fraud, a menace, and merely "allowed" to exist. Our best hope is that the population dies off from starvation. Isn't that pathetic? That's the state of affairs brought about by Kim Jong Il. A military force, with no produce, no trade, just weapons--created by forced labor, sold, to provide enough sustenance to keep the army alive. All for what? The fantasies of power in the deranged mind of Kim Jong Il. The people are literally too weak to rise up against him. As in all dictatorships, they would be immediately slaughtered--for even thinking such a thought.
So it appears from outside. It's one case where the media hasn't been able to influence anyone, in any direction. Maybe that's a good thing. News needs to be greatly humbled. North Korea has done that much for the world.
By public demand, Bad Eagle must comment on the passing of Anna Nicole. Well, make that the public opinion of Anna Nicole. Bad Eagle has presented much commentary on women and womanhood, and it seems that Anna Nicole qualifies for at least a mention. We realize that profuse affection is being poured out upon the pornographic star at this time, and it is certainly not a time to say derogatory things. However, it may be a time to say truthful things, about her, and about the public.
Anna Nicole Smith, 1967-2007
Anna Nicole Smith was summed up fairly well in the New York Times by Caryn James. Not that the Times is a particularly accurate measure of reality, but, worldliness is a Times speciality. And worldly Anna was:
Becoming famous is relatively easy: Anna Nicole Smith was born with a beautiful face, a big smile and a voluptuous body she was happy to bare for Playboy. Staying famous for nothing much is hard work, and that is the real story of Ms. Smith's life and death. Her desperation for fame was so raw that she didn't mind being the butt of the joke if it helped maintain her place in the spotlight. Her career started out tacky, went downhill from there and ultimately says more about the culture's fascination with celebrity than it does about Anna Nicole Smith.
"Famous for nothing." All this means is that she had no special talents. And most of her 'career' since she was 18 was overweight, so to speak. Many people don't find her "beautiful" at all. She didn't sing, act, or dance. She apparently didn't think either. All she has was a body, at least in the beginning. She birthed two children that we know of, but, any woman can do that. She didn't raise her son, and she's not here to raise her daughter. Her marriage to an ancient billionaire was a perverted gesture, and plagued forever with resentment and contest.
"The culture's fascination with celebrity." Well, yes and no. There's more to it than that. As Edgar Allan Poe said, the death of a young, beautiful woman is the topic of supreme poetic elevation. (See, The Philosophy of Composition, 1846, and The Poetic Principle,1850). The public still gets high on the death of Princess Diane, another famously dead blonde. It may have started with Marilyn Monroe, but, it obviously isn't over. The death of the blonde is a great western cultural pastime. Not that Anna Nicole is really similar to Marilyn, but the media indulgents want to think so. The media loves to relive the past. It is a kind of necrophilic voyeurism. (For that matter, Anna much more resembles Jane Mansfield, inside and out, but, the media wants to put together the best forumla, so, Marilyn it is. That will raise the level of emotion higher. At least Marilyn dated a president.) And remember that media personnel is constantly infused with younger workers, who get excited about past stars, and try to write like they understand all things, at least theoretically. Our society's economics won't allow youth, really, except in the body. The mind is assumed to be fully adult, by the age of 16. This is pure indulgence and convenience. The frontal lobe of the human brain is not even fully grown until the age of 30. We do youth a great disservice to treat them as though they are fully adults. Their judgment is simply not develped.
And there is indeed the liberal element, the political philosophy. Liberals love death, as well as youth, as we have observed before. Liberals find righteousness in lamentation. Being sorry, feeling sad, this some how brings a sense of being, a sense of sincerity--for which liberals are apparently desperate. This is simply prolonged immaturity. Anything emotional will serve the purpose of awakening such sadness, such feeling of reality. What could be more stimulating than the death of a young mother? (Only she wasn't poor, she wasn't really a mother, and she basically killed herself. Ah, but suicide is all the more sad, and, like Marilyn, serves to bring out the greatest degree of human sympathy.)
The gushing out of tears, over death, over "tragedy," this is all we can expect from liberals, or their media. Prevention, condemnation for the causes of tragedy, are sacrosanct. We mustn't touch them. The consuming fangs of fate must be allowed to tear the heart out. That's liberal reality.
No, I'm not too sad about Anna Nicole. I'm glad she won't suffer anymore. That's true. I'm sad that such a life happened, that there were apparently no true, lasting values entertained in her soul. She seemed never to have gotten beyond her own flesh. That is the true tragedy, a human being, so superficial, so meaningless, so utterly wasted, that she has become an object of liberal lamentation. She has become an idol of liberalism, sacrificed for tears. It is a perfect combination: one superficiality for another. A surface life for surface cause.
There is anger here, too. We should be angry that the media, that society in general, should support such nonsense. We make the stars, you know. It is our eyes that make them shine. It is our dollars than give them glitter. Indeed, cry on, oh world of childish dreams. Party on, with sparkle, cameras, and empty noise.
"And the lesson of her fame is that there is no lesson," says Caryn James. Not so. There is a great lesson. An eternal lesson: you cannot fool your own soul. If you transgress the eternal verities, you will pay a terrible, tragic price. Most of us spend a lot of time hedging, bartering, dealing, and mixing sincerity with self-deception. We don't really go out too far. We don't go overboard. Anna abandoned herself. She sold herself to the delusion of fame and fortune. She literally gave her body and soul to it. And look at the return. Look at what she received. Look at how she was valued for her sacrifice. Look at how the world treats those who are slave to its temptations. I'd say there's a great lesson.
For all the facts and 'insights' offered by Caryn James, she has missed the most important. For this, she merely adds to the tragedy. She contributes to the delusion that creates such tragedy.
Finally, Revelation 22:15 says the whoremongers are outside the gates. Heaven is not theirs. The indictment is against men, the pimps. Yes, a whore "monger" is a seller, one who deals in women for money. Men that are really men need to consider this. However 'willing' the woman is found to be, she is the man's responsibility. It's like abortion. The man that would allow a woman to do this to herself is a man who doesn't really love her.
So then it comes down to love. Failur to love is the great tragedy of all. Apparently, no one really loved Ann Nicole. Now there's something to cry about.
Astronaut Lisa Marie Nowak flew very high in space. Now the country seems high on her fall to earthen passion. She was arrested and charged with attempted first degree murder with a deadly weapon. (Other charges include attempted kidnapping, attempted vehicle burglary with a battery, destruction of evidence, and battery.)
But the only murder here is that of her character, by the media. At most, she is guilty of minor harassment, possible aggravated assault, if indeed here pepper spray did reach the women she pointed it at. (And she is a first time offender.) The official police report (--the kind we've learned not to trust any too much) contains no statement that Nowak attempted to do anything. No toy-like weapon in her 'arsenal' was ever shown or flashed in any threatening way. There is no evidence from the police report that the victim, USAF Captain Colleen Shipman, was aware of such toy-like weapons. News stories of what happened vary, and are not really the point anyway. The point is the police report, and the charges filed by Detective William C. Becton. (Not the movie already in the making by Granada America.) The actual arresting officers are not part of the story, nor are the crucial details, like the kidnapping attempt, the verbal life-threat, and above all, the actual attempt at murder. All we know from the police report is that Nowak's confessed intent was to frighten Shipman into a conversation about the man they were both involved with, Navy Cmdr. William A. Oefelein. What could be more normal?
Lisa Marie Nowak, a very high acheiver, a very normal woman.
There has been much discussion of the private lives of the three, and their problems, their professional characters. The dramatic climax of any movie is going to have to rest heavily on imagination, more imagination than even shown in the press reports.
There is, however, a consistent oversight and misinterpretation which is worthy of note. Everyone dramatizes the diaper element. Nowak drove 900 miles straight, and wore a diaper so she wouldn't have to stop. Everyone thinks this is weird. It isn't. She is an astronaut. First of all, 900 miles is a blink of an eye to her. Plus, she is used to planning hours upon hours of scheduling, with minute detail of every activity. Secondly, diapers are worn by astronauts in certain segments of their space journeys, reentry in particular. This was no unusual procedure for her at all.
There is no point, really, to analyzing her actions, her emotions, her marriage, or anyone else's involved. The point is, Nowak did not attempt to murder anyone. The point of this story is the tyranny of a police unit out of control with authority. "We believe that the items that we found certainly would have caused Colleen Shipman serious bodily injury or death," said Orlando Police Sgt. Barb Jones, a very masculine-looing woman--not about to be sympanthetic with another woman. So, it is the supposition of the police that we're going on here, not on any act committed. Nowak was arrested for a thought crime--and a thought crime she never said she thought. Like, it's a police authority fest, with a dramatic "love" story. No danger, no crime, just drama.
Nowak's lawyer, Donald Lykkebak, called the attempted-murder charge preposterous. "In the imaginations of the police officers, they extend these facts out into areas where the facts can't be supported," he said. (Fox News) We know what kind of fiascos police and courts can cook up in Durham, North Carolina. It seems to be a fad across the country. If there is any surprise, or unexpected fall of character, the police, media, and court come in like vultures. But, if a hardened criminal is caught, or an illegal drug thug is involved, he must be treated with liberal kindness and the supreme righteousness of complete leniency. Liberals are always into killing the innocent, going for the fallen achiever, choking the temporarily aberrant. (And we're still waiting for an actual "crime" that Nowak allegedly committed.)
It's a great story when the mighty are fallen. But it's an even greater story when the lowly are exalted. Media does that too, you know. Especially when it involves authority exercised with as much irrationality as the accused was shown in the charges. Local police suddenly become the fathers of the nation, the parents of the people. But, when there's a real threat, the police wait and do nothing until it's over, like they did in Columbine. When there is no real threat, to them or anyone else, they will move in for the kill, instantly. That seems to be the pattern.
In the end, the liberal lamentation is, not that the police went berserk with authority--for the liberals love and encourage that, but that now little girls have lost a role model. Writes San Diego's Lionel Van Deerlin, "The most frequently voiced goal of kids growing up in the last 50 years has been to become an astronaut. Little boys – and, more lately, little girls, too – have aspired to push their career envelope toward outer space. But suddenly, they may wonder. A life that had seemed to combine constant excitement with the personal attributes of Eagle Scouts or holy orders has forfeited its trappings of virtue."
Ah, what a shame. Never mind the role model of a police officer being made virtually idiotic; the important thing is now little girls won't be able to aspire. And China will get a head in the race for space.
History Channel recently aired a documentary on the Columbine High School "massacre" of April 20, 1999. I saw psrt of it, for the first time, on the evening of February 6, 2007. I am not sure of the title, but it might be "Columbine: Investigating Why." (There are also two historical video clips on the History Channel site: Eyewitness of the Columbine High School Massacre, and Columbine Massacre. I didn't see the beginning or the end, so I'm not exactly sure what I was looking at February 6, but, I'm exactly sure of how I felt about it.
The Columbine High murder spree was an example of how liberalism has affected American law, and how law permits slaughter of the innocent. As never before, I realized the effect of anti-American liberalism: liberalism loves slaughter.
Now, I realize that our police force is all that stands between society and the chaos of criminals. I am very grateful for the people who are willing to be law enforcement officers. This goes practically without saying. However, what I saw the other night convinced me that our police force is a tool in the hands of liberals--who truly wish to destory American society. Our police are, by law, made virtually incapable of courageous action to protect the innocent. In the case of the Columbine High murder spree, the Jefferson county police stood by and watched at least a dozen young teenagers be murdered, and some 24 other attempts to murder other students. The police did nothing. They would not enter the building. They were frozen by protocol, procedure, and perhaps just plain cowardice--the kind that results from the kinds of laws liberals have passed to prevent police from really protecting anyone. The police do not and cannot protect. They can defend themselves, but they cannot defend a citizen from another citizen. They can only wait till the crimes are over, then make a report on the mess. Police to not prevent crime. There is no such task required of them. They cannot prevent a crime in progress, either. They are not allowed to.
The liberal's most important diversion, Why? Instead, it
should be, When? When to stop the criminal--immediately! Or
yes, Why? Why did the adults let it happen to the kids? Why
did the kids let it happen to themselves?
What happened in Columbine is forever unforgivable. From 11:10 AM until 2:38 pm, two teenagers with many guns and explosives ruled the school, and killed indiscriminately. The police did nothing. No law enforcement entered the building. The police did not "enforce" the law.
We've seen recently what happenes to law enforcement officers who do enforce the law. Two of the most proud and patriotic officers in the country were put in prison for wounding a fleeing drug dealer, an illegal at that.
Police stood by and watched young teenagers be murdered in Colorado. They weren't going to get in trouble for doing anything. No sir. Law abiding, obedience police.
Of course, the trend in Houston is to accuse a distraught women of attempted murder when she didn't even flash a toy-like weapon! Astronaut Lisa Marie Nowak is accused of kidnapping and attempted murder--for losing her cool with another woman, over a man. Now that's real macho police work. That took real bravery. That just restores all confidence in the police force, doesn't it?
But I can't get those Columbine images out of my mind. Dozens and dozens of police, swat personnel, fire and emergency personnel, were all there. They did nothing. They did absolutely nothing to STOP the murders. They waited for everything to be over. They waited to get stories from escaped students. They waited to treat "victims."
Yes, that's what "response" personnel are all about these days. Victims. Treating victims. Never mind who's butchering them. Just care for the victims.
How about, A time to reform? A time to blow criminals away?
This is liberalism. Let the slaughter happen. Glory in the gore. Lament the victims. Praise the great courage of the victims. But don't dare stop the criminal! (Instead, accuse a distraught woman of "attempted murder" when she hasn't even shown a weapon.)
Got the vision? See the truth? It's all here, in it's bloody, horrible reality. Liberals love death. They love to see it happen. They loved 9-11. They love Muslims. They encourage terrorism. They love enforcing idiotic and massive inconveniences of the masses at travel. They loved to strip search old ladies. They delight in irony, in humiliation, in laying everyone down on the floor. They love the "rape" of nations. They love these things. It is almost too incredible to believe. But, it is also quite obvious.
Let the enemy kill you. Lie down and be slaughtered. It's the right thing to do. Liberals are more righteous than anyone else. Liberals are "Christian." Liberals want to be slaughtered. They want to be victims. That is their inverted, perverted cause. That is their self-justification. Doing nothing. Being mistreated. Being murdered. Liberalism is like some giant, frustrated female crying out for abuse, in some state of procured writhing, awaiting the kiss of death. Yes, it is that sick. These metaphors still don't describe liberalism accurately. It is too manipulative and deceptive to be hosted by poet expression. Liberalism is Satanic. It is the ugliest state humanity can ever experience.
Think of a hundred adults, all professionals, in heavy equipment, heavily armed, all standing by, and watching two teenagers murder other kids in a high school. That's liberalism. A police department accusing a pitiful woman of attempted murder without a weapon shown, without physical contact with the "victim." That's liberalism. Putting patriots in jail for defending the citizenry. That's liberalism.
The Columbine students themselves didn't know how to do anything but be slaughtered. Again, this is liberalism. Fear. Fear of the law. Fear of self-defense--that's what the laws of liberals have accomplished. The criminal is more important than the innocent, or the victim. Cry for the victim. Hail the demon. That's liberalism.
Everybody's a Nazi except George Soros. Anyone he perceives as a challenge to him is a Nazi. It seems that he is so self-conscious about his own Post-Stockholm Syndrome Affection (PSSA) that he must constantly delude himself into thinking he is not a Nazi, not like a Nazi, and that all he can do is accuse everyone else of being Nazi--particularly those whom he cannot control. He uses his life as a Jew, living during the Holocaust, to validate his accusations.
Soros hurls accusations again and again, at the White House, and at George Bush. Soros calls Bush a Nazi. Well, Soros should know, right? He worked for the Nazis. He survived the Holocaust by pretending to be a Christian and turning over fellow Jews to the Nazis. He knew how to stay on top.
And he resents anyone being on top of him. He hates Bush because Soros lost all the political power he had been gained under the Clintons in the learly '90's, like directing Bill Clinton's old Oxford roommate Strobe Talbott (State Department), Larwence Summers (Treasury) and Al Gore on how to take advantage of the newly decomposed Russia. Talbot called Soros "a national treasure." (Richard Poe, The Shadow Party, pp.89-90.)
George Soros, former Nazi employee, mirror of Hitler?
Soros has accused Israel of imitating the Nazi regime. (The Bubble of American Supremacy [ 2003] pp.19-21). Now he accuses Republicans, the White House, and George Bush of being Nazis.
As Bad Eagle has pointed out before, the most telling gesture of pure Naziism in George Soros is his enthusiasm to 'racialize' all the non-white people of the world, through Robert Redford's Sundance Insitute and it's "Native American Initiative." This year, as noted before, Africans, Asians, homosexuals, and Pacific Islanders are all huddled together and honored in the Sundance "Initiative." ONE PEOPLE, ONE FESTIVAL, they're billing it on the Sundance Channel. Seminole, Maori, Navajo, Filippino, and homosexual, what's the difference. It's all brown, all non-white. All one giant race movement. One giant brown bowel movement of the world to plop down before the White House, to scare off the conservatives who presently rule. Indeed, it is a garbage movement. White Leftists of the world like George Soros, treat the brown races like trash, like nothing, and the liberlized brown races don't even realize it.
Soros is like a mirrored antithesis of Hitler. Combining all the elements Hitler wanted to eliminate, and making them all one giant, majority movement against the white, Christian, conservative, Republicans in power. That's the gist of it. Soros racism does not distinguish between an African, Pacific Islander, an American Indian, or a homosexual.
They must all be united. They must all act together. "Uber alles!"
And this is all validated by the name of the sacred American Indian purification ritural: the Sundance.
How long will American Indians tolerate this global atrocity? How long will so-called American Indian leaders and activists allow this blasphemy, this travesty, this outrage? Why isn't the American Indian Movement on the steps of the Sundance Institute? Why are the great loud mouths of Indian Country Today condemning this obvious denigration, yea, obliteration of American Indian identity and dignity?
Because they're all in on it? They support it. They have no pride. They have no Indian pride at all. And this is because they've all been mis-trained by Leftist professors, liberal, commie academics on American campuses. These Indians think being Indian means to protest the whites, even if whites are training and paying them to do so. Of course there are Indians who know better. But the real Indian leaders have not united, have not organized, and have no voice to express the truth in these matters. Bad Eagle is first to try. And Bad Eagle isn't even tribal supported. Bad Eagle is independent.
In the meantime, George Soros, who prides himself on his amorality, his ability to think of himself as transcendent of moral codes and concerns, is devoted to calling everyone he opposes a Nazi. This has become his personal morality, to present himself as someone who denounced the Nazis, to accuse others of being Nazi.
I'll bet Soros would love to meet Rudy No Blood. Rudy would have a perfect part in the Soros Sundance ritual racism. Rudy could represent the Western Hemisphere. The fantasy morphs on.
Rudy "Youngblood" Nathaniel Jamal Gonzalez will be honored as an Indian again, this time by First Americans in the Arts (FAITA), a non-profit organization that is "created to recognize, honor and promote American Indian participation in the powerful arena of the entertainment industry." So, what's Rudy No Blood doing there?
"FAITA presents an annual award ceremony recognizing outstanding achievement, performances and contribution by and to the Native American Indian entertainment community." They're putting on a nice dinner for him (and real Indians) at the Beverly Hilton Hotel's Beverly Hills Ballroom, for the 15th annual program. It's basically a fund raiser for FAITA (which is having a little problem with what nomenclature to use for Indians--like "Native American Indians," "First Americans," etc.,--the usual misnomers). It's certainly a well-intended group. Rudy's obviously slipped by on a lie, and no one has bothered to validate him, or even wonder whether he's Indian. Apparently, once you do a grass dance or two, and make a movie, that's it. You're Indian. No one can touch you. No one can question your claims. There's a silent auction at the dinner as well. Maybe they should think about auctioning Indian blood. Rudy would make the top bid.
Rudy-unless we're told otherwise-Nathanial Jamal
Gonzalez Yo Blood No blood-we really don't know
what his name is-Youngblood.
Rudy is slated to receive his first actor award, "Outstanding New Performance by an Actor." How about, "Outstanding Performance by a New Actor"? Wouldn't that be more accurate? This is Rudy's first role, that's all. But, the Indian name confusion of the organizations seems to have affected the titles as well. First Americans in the Arts is completely misleading. Indians aren't the first Americans in the arts. This is what happens when you call American Indians something other that Indian. (People from India are to be called Hindu, not Indian.) And Native American Indian is about as confusing as it gets. Anyone born here is technically a native American. He is native of America. He is from here, technically. It is rather stupid to use three words, Native American Indian, when one will do--Indian. "Native American Indian" sounds like someone's not sure of something, or someone's terrified of offending someone, like we just have to get it right. We have to be perfect, or we'll offend. Since we're so humble--and righteous, we're willing to use as many words as necessary. Whatever it takes. How silly. How liberal.
But, considering Rudy is neither Native American Indian, or First American, what difference does it make? But he's going to be awarded as an Native American Indian actor, so, that means he must be Indian. If you're recognized, professionally, as an Indian, you must be Indian. Ward Churchill was, for years. It's all in the recognition, not the facts.
First Americans in the Arts will surely be informed of the fact that Rudy is not an American Indian. The awards dinner is scheduled for April 14th. All offices can be notified. It is doubtful that they will change the program, however. Rudy may deserve some kind of award, but, not as an Indian. That's the issue. Since there is so little 'acting challenge' to the role he played, popular though it may be in younger circles, it is difficult to judge the value of this First Americans award. It is a good thing that Indians develop talent, indeed. The key word there is "Indians." It should be of no particular concern to Indians whether a black hispanic develops or not, as an actor, or as anything else. Hispanics should be supporting Rudy, if not black people. There are many blacks in the entertainment industry that have the blood Rudy does, but they don't claim to be somthing else. They don't claim to be anything but black. They are not ashamed of who they are. They identify with black people. They are identified as black.
So why is everyone skipping over Rudy here? Why have the Mexicans, and the blacks ignored him? Why has he been allowed to pass himself off as an Indian when he clearly isn't? Rudy Nathaniel Jamal Gonzalez, is it? We don't really know. Rudy won't identify himself, except fraudulently. He apparently will not speak of his mother or his father. (The well-known and deceased Comanche Preston Tahchawwickah is not Rudy's biological father, or legally adoptive father.) Michelle R. Hall "Shining Elk," his manager, continues to promote the false idenity of Rudy, and as such is liable to share the same outcome, whatever that may be. She has not responded to the factual information presented to her about Rudy.
"Share the fantasy" has a real meaning in this Rudy No Blood story. The day of reckoning will come, and it will have been made needlessly shameful and painful, simply because those involved were not mature enough to understand the value of Indian blood, and the value of honesty, and the value of Indian people.
Politicians, employing scientists, have once again succeeded in heating up the global warming scare. It is an established psychological effect now, and it is part of the political environment, permanently. The Evironmental Protection Agency has had its part in the growing 'propaganda.' The Bush administration has not responded positively. Scientists have contradicted themselves too many times before. Their cause and effect formulas have not withstood the rigors of true scientific method. Most research scientists are grant-supported, and say what the Leftists who support them tell them to say. The French even shut down the Eiffel Tower to bring attention to the global warming report. It's a regular campaign for gloom.
Not the kind of pollution that brings on the real Apocalypse. [Smoke rises from a
chemical company's stacks in Hamilton, approximately 50 km (31 miles) south of
Toronto, February 1, 2007. Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper moved yes-
terday to mend his government's frayed international reputation on climate change
by dispatching his Environment Minister to Paris for a key conference and promis-
ing to join an emergency UN summit on the issue.] REUTERS/J.P. Moczulski CANADA
It's a grand, apocalyptic cause, this global warming. The Leftists love it. It is their religion. It is their ultimate scare tactic, counteracting the Biblical apocalypse of the Christian conservative view. Of course, the Christian apocalypse, in the Biblical vision, is followed by the restoration of heaven and earth. It ends it great glory, and offers great hope. The Democrat, Communist, Leftist apocalypse ends in dispair and nothing. And this is only comparing the visions of the two opposing social movements. That should say something.
I don't know if there is global warming or not. I know science has proven itself unreliable, especially in this kind of politically-based issue. These scientists are like the mullahs in Iran. They must create a crisis to remain employed. They must talk crises, to maintain their importance and power.
One of the best assessements of this issue is offered by none other than Rush Limbaugh, Global Warming is a Religion. Bad Eagle has never paraded Limbaugh as exemplary, but, clear thinking stands on its own, no matter who is doing the thinking.
Al Gore has already been nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, chiefly for his propaganda efforts in the global warming scare. The difference between clear thinking and political power grabbing ought to be apparent.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has demonstrated as no other process could that this is "science by consensus," the least scientific of all methods of arriving at "fact." This IPCC global warming propaganda has evolved precisely as a political program. It is a mustering of forces, not facts. It is a vote, not a truth. It is a non-demonstrable opinion. The relation between human activity and climatic conditions is simply not established. Furthermore, the opposite is likely, if scientists considere their own version of history. Terrific climate changes occurred long before there was an internal combustion engine, indeed, before there was a human fire! All kinds of forces in nature have caused whatever climatic changes have occurred up until the last couple of centuries. It is quite illogical and unscientific to propose that what man does now affects the climate. There is no precedent for such a thought, and certainly no way of demonstrating its truth. This is all presumption, ill-applied at that.
What man has done may indeed affect his own health. Now that's science. (Of course, no one was impressed with the doctors in Tehran said air pollution killed 3,600 people in Tehran, in only a month. That was too 'truthful,' too fantastic a projection of theory as it was. The doctors didn't link pollution up to global warming. Too bad for the IPCC. And who cares what those Iranian doctors say, anyway? They haven't contributed to the Leftist cause, have they?)
The Biblical apocalypse is brought on by immorality--the misbehavior of man. True. And there is a statement in Revelation (11:18) that points to a time when God will "destroy them which destroy the earth." But we should keep in mind the word through Moses, as well as St. John. Moses speaks of immoral behavior, including murder, as the true cause of pollution. It literally pollutes the land (Numbers 35:33). If the people polluted the land, they would be driven off it, like the heathen, and then the land would enjoy her rest, even her sabbaths. (Leviticus 26: 33-35). There is a peculiar regard for the earth, as presented in the Bible. It is actually a living, sacred thing, by metaphor at least. It can be abused, but the abuse is of quite a different nature than air pollution, or deforestation, or spraying frogs. The abuse is man's behavior toward his fellowman, and toward God Himself. That's the pollution we need to be concerned about.
Climate change? Not a Biblical concern. Moral behavioral change? Definitely. But by the time fire rains down from heaven, there will be no opportunity for moral change. Now that's what I call gloom.
George Soros' vision for the world has striking similarities to that of Adolf Hitler's. For that matter, most utopian visions forced upon the world, including Communism, all have similarities. But there is a special relation between Soros and Hitler. As Bad Eagle has suggested before, Soros seems to exhibit symptoms of the Stockholm Syndrome, that state of mind in which the helpless, hopeless captive comes to admire and serve the evil captor. This is an interpretation, of course. One could always say, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
But the Soros syndrome is different, in that he was not himself ever captive. Precisely because of that fact, however, we may surmise that he demonstrates what might be called a new aspect of Stockholm Syndrome. Soros seems to display a Pseudo Stockholm Syndrome Affectation. This is wholly psycholgocal, and simply means that PSSA is an intellectual affectation, even though the actual circumstances which cause Stockholm Syndrome are long passed. In the case of Soros, it is clear that the mind set remains, active and effective. Here's how the symptoms came out in George Soros.
In his book, Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism (2000), Soros expounded his suport of campaign finance reform--which was a reaction to the fact that Republicans had defeated Hillary Clinton's health plan simply by media. Soros was going to get control of media therefore, right quickly. His efforts resulted in the McCain-Feingold act which barred any paid political advertising on TV or radio 60 days before a general election, and 30 days before a primary. Soros advocates the same kind of healthcare rationing that Hillary Clinton does, naturally. In fact, only three weeks after the congressional election (1994), Soros announced a program before 200 physicians at Columbia University School of Medicine: Project on Death. (Alexander Ming Fisher Lecture Series, November 30, 1994). Soros is concerned that "the dying of the elderly will drain the national treasury." He wants the hopeless to die off. It is rationing health care by denying expensive care to people deemed abjectly ill, or not worth the cost of saving, whatever the reason. Project Death, not "on Death." (For the whole story, see, David Horowtiz & Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), ch.8.)
This is the quintessence of Nazi ideology, is it not? Isn't this the doctrine of Alfred Hoche, and Karl Binding? Isn't this the view of Der Fuhrer himself?
"There must be no half-measures. It is a half-measure to let incurably sick people steadily contaminate the remaining healthy ones. The is in keeping with th humanitarianism which, to avoid hurting one individual, lets a hundred others perish. The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring is a demand of the clearest reason and if systematically executed represents the most humane act of mankind. It will spare millions of unfortunates undeserved suffereings, and consequently will lead to a rising improvement of health as a whole." Mein Kampf, tran. Mannheim (1927; rpt.1971), p.255
"The mission of the Project is to promote a better understanding of the experiences of dying and bereavement and by doing so help transform the culture surrounding death...People live longer, surviving four or five illnesses before dying. But the health care bill grows with every illness. Our success has also brought other unintended consequences. We have created a medical culture that is so intent on curing disease and prolonging life that it fails to provide support in that inevitable phase of life -- death...They must recognize that, by focusing exclusively on conquering disease and prolonging life, they abandon the dying when, in their own words, there is nothing more to be done." Project on Death (from The Columbia Speech of George Soros.)
Sounds like Soros is a softened pitch for the same view of Hitler. This is astounding, if true.
Saving the world, making the world a better place, means sacrificing that which brings it down. That's all. That is the "messianic" view of George Soros. The same vision was shared by Adolf Hitler. In the excesses of perfectionism, it seems that liberalism and conservatism both turn tyrannical. The utopian vision seems carried only by those willing to be tyrants. Beware utopia.
So, are we forcing "freedom" on Iraq? I think not. We were invited. The UN was invited. The current, elected Iraqi government is pleased to have us there. But there is a question. Should one force democracy on those who have never tasted it, or don't want it? Is this self-defense, then, on the part of the free? Doesn't everyone have that right--including the free? Never mind rights. The strong rule. Just, be strong. Or be ruled. Never mind political theory, rationale, or campaign tallk. Just be strong.