"Thine is the kingdom, O Lord," but whose is the country? King David knew who was in charge, and he also knew people had the biggest stake in the country. "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem. They shall prosper that love thee." Psalm 122:6. But who loves the country? Is that sign of whose country it is? Finally, what is the country, that is should be loved? These are very serious matters.
Cindy Sheehan was not totally deluded. (If she was, she held on to the anchor of metaphor, which kept her focused.) One might gather from her language, from her words, that she really did love something--she really did love what she wanted to be the country. However, it looks like there is no such country, and never really was.
Cindy Sheehan, a grieving,
poetic, American mother.
"I have come to some heartbreaking conclusions this Memorial Day Morning," she wrote in her Daily Kos diary. Indeed, she realized that her vision of the country was false, her 'love' was misplaced, and she has ended up with nothing--but personal disallusionment and disappointment.
So what was it she loved, if it wasn't the country? Was it something other than the political parties? I believe so. "Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on," she wrote. "I have invested everything I have into trying to bring peace with justice to a country that wants neither."
Is this remark the iron effect of metaphor? Does a country want this or that? Is the country personified? This is clearly some grand poetic mode Sheehan is in, and one that I myself am in consistently. The country is a like a person, it is something that appears to think, feel, and respond--not always as we would have it, but it is an entity of somekind. Poets address her personally, always. Even philosophers, and yes, the objectivication, the personification of the whole economy appears as some profound personage even in the minds of businessmen and economic prognasticators. Perhaps it is a human thing, to project humanity onto any and all that exists. We cannot recognize any but ourselves. We are solipsists by nature.
So then, if in one's hear one really does not love the country, this indicates either a misunderstanding of what the country is, or worse, a misunderstanding of love. We might fear the latter. As Greetings My Son commented on yesterday's Journal, ever so profoundly, "The same animus that Cindy used to disrespect her son's own wishes, is the same narcissistic animus many women use to abort a child, or try to make their child be the mirror image of [themselves].
So, was it herself that Cindy Sheehan loved most? Is this the cause of her distorted view of the country?
"I have sacrificed a 29 year marriage and have traveled for extended periods of time away from Casey's brother and sisters and my health has suffered and my hospital bills from last summer (when I almost died) are in collection because I have used all my energy trying to stop this country from slaughtering innocent human beings. I have been called every despicable name that small minds can think of and have had my life threatened many times."
Self-sacrifice, or self-destructive? Does motive alone make the difference? Cindy has never been duplicitous about her publicly stated beliefs and motives. I believe she really meant what she said, and worked to accomplish what she believed in--and it wasn't the Democrat Party, or the Left. It was her personal vision and values she devoted herself to.
There is something grand in this. It is some very strange re-enactment of Captain Ahab and Moby Dick--the great white whale. Cindy took umbrage with reality. (Most dreamers do.) Cindy objected to the basic constructs of social life. Cindy protested the way it is, the way things are. She sincerely objected to the most fundamental tenets of the world. Unlike Ahab, however, she retired before she went down with the whale. And after all, she is only a women, not a man. She is a very strong woman, but not a warrior. She can be grateful for that, or she would be dead. I think she was in fact willing to die for what she believed in, but what she believed in was not so worthy as to welcome her through the portals of eternity (or, I should say, reality).
Perhaps she will come to realize what the country is, and how to love it. After 29 years of marriage, one might of thought she would know that love doesn't demand change in another, certainly not an equal. Love can invite, encourage, but never coerce. Love never forces. Cindy thought of her country as a child, as an unshaped man, whom she could redeem, make into what she wanted. )Perhaps she would have been more successful as a "lover" of the country, rather than a "mother.")
This is my resignation letter as the "face" of the American anti-war movement. This is not my "Checkers" moment, because I will never give up trying to help people in the world who are harmed by the empire of the good old US of A, but I am finished working in, or outside of this system. This system forcefully resists being helped and eats up the people who try to help it. I am getting out before it totally consumes me or anymore people that I love and the rest of my resources.
Good-bye America ...you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.
It's up to you now.
Saintly sinner? Sinful saint? Something very significant rests in all this story. Mother Cynthia, and her wayward child, "the good old US of A." Who knows, maybe she really did and really does love America--more than most of us can appreciate, or in a way few others have ever tried. But, life just doesn't work that way. That's why her hope failed. She was up against that which is not to be changed. Was she presumptuous, like Captain Ahab? Maybe. Was she arrogant, and blasphemous? Probably not. Just mistaken in concept.
Of course, if she really did not love America, she would have left long ago. Mabye we can learn something about some of these passionate Leftists. Among some of them, there may be some people who, like Cindy, really do love something! At may be a mistaken concept of country, of reality, of themselves, but, they have a force that is important to recognize. Cindy sees America as her son, as her child. She's letting him have his way now. She realizes she can't control him. This is quaint. This is beautiful, in a way.
I must admit, I have a sympathy for this story, for Cindy. I love America. I have, for the sake of Indians, called America our adopted son. I have pleaded not to abandon him in his hour of need. I have encouraged Indian people to step in and assume the responsibility of the father. This is all poetic metaphor. I'm in the same mode as Cindy. But the difference is, I am a man, and see the son as a father sees him. America needs his manhood, again. He needs the hand of a father on his back, an arm around him, to say, "You can do it, son!" Only a man can initiate a son into manhood. It's a man's thing. The mother has her essential place, but she cannot "approve" a son the way only a man can.
Whose is the country? His that is the strongest man.
I do not dispute that Cindy loves, really loves America. I only say she was not destined to guide. There's only so much a mother can do. She did that. Now it's time for the father to assume his role with the son. As I see it, only Indians have that role. It is a profound thing. My vision may be as foolish as hers. I may end up as disappointed as she. But, I don't think so. For me, the the white whale is imaginary. The white throne, however, is real. That I acknowledge. I see a young man on that throne trembling. But, he'll be okay. He'll do as well as any faulty, erring human being has ever done. Indeed, he's already done fabulously more, and better. We're proud enough of him. He just needs a little fatherly advice about now...
Cindy Sheehan, the "face" of the anti-War movement, the woman who made her fallen son the impetus of her protest against the US nation building effort in Iraq, has decided to end her own efforts to stop it. Memorial Day, she made a Daily Kos diary entry, "Good Riddance Attenion Whore." She complains of endless contumely heaped upon her, and says her efforts to end the war proved futile. In a grand finale of refulgent self-aggrandizement, she cries,
"Good-bye America ... you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can't make you be that country unless you want it...It's up to you now."
The confessed loser in the Iraq
anti-War protest movement.
In the process of her 'confession,' she denounces the Democrat Party as well. It is an interesting piece she wrote. Not that her own character as an anti-American is in the least wise exonerated, but, there is a intimation of hope in this spiritual exudation. A human being has realized she was beaten. She realizes that her cause is lost. She has become disallusioned. There's a touch of reality in such a revelation.
Cindy Sheehan, the wiser?
Of course, like any other anti-American, if she doesn't pack up and leave the country, she'll not convince anyone of sincerety. But, nevertheless, she has convinced everyone that there are forces out there in the public that are stronger than other forces. It is difficult to identify cause and effect, but, all can see the conclusion. The Iraq nation building will go on. The Democrats, the Muslims, the French, and the Greens could not stop it. And the liberals have not come up with an alternative to oil--or plastics. Their toilet paper solution, anal as it was, offered not even a Freudian suggested about energy alternatives.
Cindy says, "People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude [in Cindy's book, Saddam Hussein was a saint?] and if we don’t find alternatives to this corrupt "two" party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland. [Are we talking about oil and plastics again?] I am demonized because I don’t see party affiliation or nationality when I look at a person, I see that person’s heart. If someone looks, dresses, acts, talks and votes like a Republican, then why do they deserve support just because he/she calls him/herself a Democrat?"
"Fascist corpoate wasteland"? What's that? "I don’t see party affiliation or nationality when I look at a person, I see that person’s heart." I wonder where Cindy learned to read the heart? How does her mission to condemn America 'inform' her perceptions of other people? What kind of 'heart' would condemn the world and justify itself? Is this the mark of a moral, 'Christian' person, one imitating Christ?
Was war the thing Cindy objected to? Was peace what she really wanted? Is international peace at all related to personal peace--between individuals? The policiy of non-violence would never have procured for Cindy the right to publicly denounce her country. This is called biting the hand that feeds you, I think, a very narrow but typical myopic view of anti-American Americans. Freedom costs, dearly. Anyone who doesn't see that is deceiving himself.
But I for one cannot read the heart, not like Cindy claims to. I can only sense directions, somewhat. I don't see Jesus reforming countries. I see Jesus indeed speaking to the heart--the heart of individuals. So why did Cindy go national, into a grand public movement? (And why did she utterly misrepresent the values of her beloved son, and use him to suit her own purposes? Why does she blame the country for killing her son ["they killed my son"] when he volunteered for service in Iraq?) Cindy is a strong woman, no question about that. A missionary of sorts. Self-appointed, self-directed, self-justified, but, nevertheless with focused purpose. Yet, however mistaken and delusional she was, she realized that she has failed. That alone makes her less than totally delusional.
If she is to write a book, it should be about the Democrats and the Leftists. We already know what she thinks about the Republicans. Her best seller would be about those who feigned suport for her, not those who rejected her vision from the beginning. She should tell about the nature of those people whom she thought were on her side. "Betrayed by the Left," or, turning a loser into a winner.
"Praise is comely," said old Kind David. (Ps. 147:1.) "It is a good thing to sing praises unto our God." That is certainly the most fitting kind of praise.
But the praise of anything good is healthy for us all. It is good that we praise worthy men and women in the world--not as a reward for their sacrifice, but as an encouragement to others, to young people looking for direction. Praise is a validation. What we praise is what we value and love.
Today, we praise our veterans, dead in battle, and passed from life. We praise those who gave their lives for our country. The media is full of such praise today, this Memorial Day, May 28, 2007. Programs even compete for the best quality praise, the most worthy, creative, and interesting praise. It is a good thing. Indeed, "sing a new song...on an instrument of ten strings." (Psalm 144:9.)
And, in as much as we refine our praise through divine reference, this Memorial Day let's remember something within the character of those whom we delight to praise:
Nothing weakens the living warrior more than dependency on praise. Nothing warps the character more surely than the expectation and desire for honor and praise. To even think that one does anything for the praise of others is to denigrate the whole concept of the warrior, and to malign his motives with the deepest fault. To covet praise is the secret cause for the fall of valor in any man. To act bravely, for applause, is the pith of weakness. To be dependent on approval for motivation is the essence of un-warriorhood.
These are hard words. These sound mean. But they are true. Warriorhood is mean. Hard. And grand.
The soul of strength is independence. The meaning of warriorhood is self-reliance. These virtues are the challenge to every heart, the calling of every person. The uniform, we must faithfully admit, often cloaks weakness. The uniform sometimes even disallows development of essential character.
We praise the American uniform. It has great honor. It has profound significance. But almost anyone in good health and spirit can wear it. Foreigners can and do wear it. Gang members have donned it, traitorous Muslims have intentionally worn it, and a host of drop-outs, thugs, and aimless renigades have proudly disguised their misanthropy under the American uniform. So it's not the uniform itself we idolize, but the meaning of it, the purpose behind it, and those who honor it--the people who wear it because they believe in what it stands for.
Having said all that, I sadly and yet proudly announce the passing of my mother's next-to-eldest sister, Edna Marie Portillo, Lieutenant, United States Navy. Edna was born in 1920, and served in the Navy from 1945 to 1952. She passed Wednesday, May 23, 2007, and her funeral is in fact, today, Memorial Day, in Killeen, Texas (the location of Ft. Hood, where the husband,Charles Dunbar, of another of the Portillos sisters, Virginia, served and retired in the US Army). Edna and my mother, Norma, were the first Comanche women to become Registered Nurses, as I am told. Edna had ambitions, but ill-health, and took early retirement. She cared for both her parents, George and Juanita Portillo, for years, until they each passed in the 1980's.
Lieutenant Edna Marie Portillo, ca. 1945
That last service is the part that impresses me personally, even more than the military service. There is no praise for taking care of family. It's the old Indian way, and the way of many tribes of the earth. You just do it. You don't "decide" to do it. My Aunt Edna was quite an inspiration to me, when I took care of my own mother, her sister. I was able to tell Edna how much I appreciated her love and care for the family elders, before she died this spring. My baby sister and I went to see Edna, in the Veterans Hospital in Temple, Texas, just a little over a month before she passed.
When a nurse walked us to Edna's room, the nurse said, "Now, I have to tell you. She's been halucinating... She said she saw a lovely wooded area, near a creek, with lots of beautiful horses--and Indians..." Well, I knew right away what that was about. I said to the red-headed nurse, "Well, ... it's like...the Banshees, you know?" Then, she knew.
And Edna saw more than that, before she died. She apparently spoke out, forcefully, about the return of Jesus to the earth. She admonished the nurses, all, to prepare their hearts, and not to neglect their salvation. I doubt this was a halucination. Edna was a Seventh-Day Adventist Christian, as were all her sisters, and her parents, from the 1940's. While her father, George Portillo was born Catholic, the religion he inherited from Bad Eagle--the Comanche who was captured and made Catholic, George fully espoused the Adventist faith. (Interestingly, he was also a 32nd Degree Mason, and retired member of the Carpenters Union since the 1960's.)
Edna never married. She was the only daughter of George that didn't. She was a family girl. And on her came the burden of elder care for the parents. (This burden was shared as well with her widowed sister, Amanda Louise.) I remember her for that. I memorialized her for that. It is an unspoken war, and a silent victory. Yes, today is the day we laud the great heros of the American military, like Edna's brother, my uncle, Raymond C. Portillo, (1917-2003), Lt. Col., USMC; but I will also honor the quiet warriors, those who verily sacrifice their lives for others, without uniform, without praise, and without honor. They serve with love, and they deserve love as well--the highest praise of all.
Edna deserves both. She was a uniformed saint.
Australia federal authority has decided to require a citizenship test for all new immigrants into the country. Outrageous? No, just perfectly logical, and about 40 years late in coming. But, Australia is nevertheless ahead of all the other Western nations in this effort. Australia is a desirable country, obviously, or they wouldn't have the immigrant problem. Immigrants only go to places they envy, due to the miserable failures of their own countries. Of course, today, the problem is too many immigrants, immigrating too suddenly. And worse, the appearance of violent Muslims in otherwise tranquil societies.
Naturally, a Muslim living in Australia publically objected to the new measure. Kurander Sejit, a film maker, complained to Voice of America that the test will put at a disadvantage those people whose native language is not English.
So, what about the disadvantage in their home country--for which cause they immigranted to another? Any words of reprimand for that country?
But the citizenship test is not about language so much as about culture. Arabic Muslims, Southeast Asians, Africans, all come from radically different cultures than that of a successful Western democracy. If they have no concept of what they're coming to, why are they coming to it? They see the lights, the colors, the fancy sparkle. Just materialism. Of course, if they're Muslim, they are coming to change that country--into the 7th century primitive war machine that Mohammad made Arabia. They are coming to change things. They are coming to destory what is. I'd say that's something to keep in mind. Others have noted this rather obvious predicament, particularly in Australia, (although it was noted with respect to Indonesian Muslims, as opposed to Arab Muslims).
Australian Prime Minister John Howard waves
to supporters when he one his office in Sydney on
Saturday, October 9, 2004 .(AP Photo)
Otherwise, if they are coming for assylum, then they must denounce and forsake Islam. That should be the condition for a Muslim immigrant. Either they denounce Islam, or stay in their own Islamic country. (The only people who have practiced Islam in a private, unobtrusive way in western countries are Iranians, so far, and their practice is quite superficial, according to Islamicist fundamentalist radicals--the "true" Muslims. The Iranian diaspora would have little Islam to denounce.)
We live in an age of presumption. "Human rights," Jimmy Carter calls it. Everyone born in the world has the right to a Cadillac and a college education. Everyone born on the earth has been taught, by such "Christianized"--but nevertheless Christless Communism, the basic expectation of material success. It is the responsibility of everyone who has anything, to make sure that everyone else has exactly the same. Take from the rich, give to the poor. That's Hillary's version of it. "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." "We" of course, meaning the wealthy Leftists, who will never lose a nickle in this plan for global salvation.
But the Australian citizenship test is not even about withholding anything from anyone.
Prime Minister John Howard says the test is designed to remove divisions in Australian society. "This is a test that affirms the desirability of more fully integrating newcomers into the mainstream of Australian society," he said."This is about cohesion and integration. It's not about discrimination and exclusion."
It's about nationhood. I wonder if Howard is really being straightforward about that. Probably not. It would inhibit the success of the testing program. The test involves a lot more than the English language. It involves knowledge of the history, culture, and customs of the nation of Australia. Certainly, why come to a country you know nothing about? Does material success itself require no knowledge of the environment? Perhpas not. Til now, lots of immigrants have made their success with scarcely speaking English!
No, I think the issue here is nationhood, not "cohesion and integration." Nations are not shopping booths at some global bazaare. The world is not a mall. Nations are not "homes" for sale, or worse, offered freely to whomever wants to move in. Nations are not federal housing programs for the failed cultures of the world.
Yes, Howard's citizenship test is certainly a step in the right direction. But the preponderant ideology that created even the thought of such a test is one that encompasses and dwarfs the concept of nationhood. The worldview is that every nation, any nation, especially the successful Western nations, are up for grabs, available to anyone who can make the trip to their new home.
It is in fact, Satanic. The ideology is evil. Nations are ordained of God. He created them (Genesis 11; Deuteronomy 32:7-9), He will one day judge them (Matthew 25:31,32), redeem them (Revelation 21:24). He who seeks to destroy nations is in league with the Devil:
How are thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the monrning! how are thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Isaiah 14:11.
Apparently, the world needs a citizenship test. Shall we say, a remedial course in nationhood? When a person is born, one of his primary responsibilities is his own nation. Family is first, but the next step leads to nationhood. And that which "weakens" the family always weakens the nation. Let's be clear about that, too. The Australian citizenship test ought to have more to do than with history and culture. It should include expections from the citizen, not by the citizen. What kind of a person does the nation want within its borders? This concern transcends history. Half the people in any given nation ought to be tested about their own ideas of citizenship. Half would fail completely.
One more thing: respect for others does not mean tolerance for their unacceptable behavior. It might mean patience, and forbearance, but it never means letting the enemy destroy you. I still say Muslims belong in their own countries. They simply cannot be trusted in any other society. There is evil among them, and the risk is unnecessary and lethal, every time.
Last night (May 22, 2007) on Bill O'Reilly's show, Michelle Malkin was substituting for Bill, as she frequently does. The feature story was about a prostitution ring centered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Apparently a major operation was busted, and two thirds of the women "working" in it were all illegal immigrants. Eight houses were raided across the state. ICE (U.S. Imimigration and Customs Enforcement) and local police cooperated in the sting, although the police were "conspiculously absent" in the actual raids, according to guest, Attorney Scott Johnson. They had been deeply involved in the investigation, but not the actual arrests.
Well, this just made for some fine conversation. An additional part of the story--and probably the only part that made it all "newsworthy," was the part about immigration activists protesting in the streets immediately after the raids. That's a bit of curious timing, wouldn't you say? Well, Minneapolis has always been a liberal Commie place, so this comes as no surprise. Johnson made some rather horrific statements about police cooperation with, not ICE enforcement, but with illegal immigrants. Minneapolis is apparently a sanctuary city for illegals.
For "fair and balanced" reporting, Michelle also had guest Michael Wildes, an immigration attorney. Wildes of course emphasized distorted aspects of the situation: Are they saying that the illegal aliens are immoral because they frequent a house of ill repute? They are creating fear and chaos, Michelle, by going into homes throughout the area. Bottom line, they should be going consistently against all violators — employers who give safe haven to people who work illegally, not just the criminal ones.
That's what balance is all about: distortion, usually. Gee, don't come down on the poor illegals. Come down on the people that employ them, too! Of course. That happens to be a valid point. But Wildes is making it because he defends illegal immigrants for a living. In other words, his purpose is to protect them, and to insure their presence here. But then Wlides comes on with the hackneyed immigration defense: Why isn't immigration in suits at press conferences explaining that we are a country of immigrants and that we are going to go after the bad guys, but we're going to leave the good guys alone? In other words, you can be a good illegal immigrant, but you can't be a "bad" illegal immigrant. This is absolutely brilliant thinking, right?
At this point, I felt worried for Malkin. There she sat, in all her "brown" glory, barely American, chronologically, daughter of adult immigrants (Filipino) and taking a very strong stance against immigration--that is, illegal immigration?
No. Her preponderant beef, in this episode, was with the wrongness of forcing illegal women into sexual immorality. This was a women's issue for her, apparently, more than anything else. "This is not about targeting brown people or people of color as a lot of these groups are whining," she said. It was about abusing women.
Wildes thought is was unfair to hit the "bad" illegal immigrants without the "good" ones, and their "American" employers. Michelle thought, regardless, it was good that the women were rescued from their immediate plight. Johnson thought the whole police department and city council were complicit--and that's the real story.
Michelle Malkin, (born to Filipino parents in America on work visa, 1970) and others like Dinesh D'Souza (Hindu immigrant, 1978), are put in a most peculiar position, speaking of the glories of being American. I was holding my breath, in dread that Wildes was going to say something to Michelle about that. When he said, repeatedly, "This is a nation of immigrants," (which is really isn't--based on a fundamental concept of nationhood), I wonder how Michelle would have responded, had he directed his point to her personally. Conservatives certainly like to feature non-white immigrants who espouse conservative values. This insulates conservatives from any undue charges of prejudice or redneck-ism, as the liberals are wont to accuse them of.
Michelle Malkin, married Jessi Malkin (Rhodes Scholar and Rand economist-turned
conservative at Oberlin College, of all places!)
So what is the response? A nation belongs to the people who founded it and built it, not those who came in later. Everyone else is an add-on. Nothing wrong with that. But I'm wondering why the emphasis on, or, what is the effect of, promoting conservative immigrants? I think it sends the message that America is simply an idea. America is an ideological value system, not really a country, in the historical sense, by definition. America is then actually the exception to every concept of nationhood in the history of man. This is the conclusion, if one neglects to consider the plain and obvious White Anglo-Saxon Protestant base of the the American colonies and their government.
Some people see this as the difference between paleo-conservatism and neo-conservatism. It's the difference of understanding of nationhood. What is a nation? How does it come about? How does it become strong, and endure? I think these questions are fundamental. It isn't about the legality or illegality of immigration, per se. That isn't the deepest concern. What kind of nation is America that one is to come here and forsake one's forumer culture, and pretend one is without ethnicity at all? Is that what it takes for America to work? Many people disagree with that--especially Arabs Muslims and Mexicans.
In any case, Michelle's program last night seemed to dramatize the contrasts and tensions in the whole issue, including the absence of the more fundamental aspects of it--nationhood. So, it isn't about illegal immigrants or legal immigrants. It's about immigrants, period.
A so-called "American" doctor was just convicted for supporting Al-aqaeda. Another wonderful story for the Leftist media: American doctor, United States doctor, wonderful American citizen--turns out to be an Al-qaeda agent. Isn't that terrorizing? One of our most trusted kind of citizen--a doctor--in whose hands we trust our lives--turns out to be the enemy. Who'da thunk it?
Rafiq Sabir is accompanied by U.S marshal agents as he leaves at a courthouse,
May 31, 2005. A federal jury convicted Sabir on Monday of supporting al Qaeda
by swearing allegiance to the group and attempting to help treat wounded fighters.
(Carlos Barria/Reuters)
Anyone with any sense, that's who. Rafiq Sabir? A Muslim. What should we expect? Born and raised in New York? Means nothing--but deceit and design to destroy. 'Home grown, eh?" He is about American as Osama Bin Laden, whom he swore to support. Don't give me this "American-born" business. That's a pile of poppycock. A Muslim is a Muslim. Every Muslim has the likely potential of turning against eveyone and everything--for Allah. That's why they don't belong anywhere but in their own countries, among their own people. Never mind how many "generations" (like one or two) they happen to be in America. That in no way makes them even remotely American.
But the liberals love this. They love to see even the word "American" come to mean nothing. They want to see more traitors like themselves. They delight in discovering hersey--vile, traitorous human beings--like themselves. This is a moment of paradise for them. An "American" doctor--a murderous traitor at heart! Just like a liberal. What ecstasy. Vicarious ecstasy, but ecstasy. The thrill of ruin. The fall of valour. This is the stuff of the liberal.
"[Prosectors] said Sabir and his "brother in arms" Shah, a New York jazz musician and martial arts expert, long dreamed of fulfilling what they believed was their Muslim duty to help wage holy war against infidels. The men offered themselves as a "package" to the undercover agent, prosecutors said, with Sabir providing his skills as an emergency room doctor and Shah training would-be fighters in hand-to-hand combat.
Before the trial, Shah and two other defendants in the case, Brooklyn bookstore owner Abdulrahman Farhane and Maryland taxi driver Mahmud Brent, pleaded guilty to terrorism charges. Farhane was sentenced in April to 13 years in prison and Shah and Brent will be sentenced in July."
The conservative commentators love this, too. It's exciting to condemn a hideous, insidious enemy. Conservatives love to denounce and criticize the enemy and the failure to enforce our feeble laws and law makers. But conservatives don't have the courage to come out and say, "Send the Muslims home," or "Islam is not allowed in this country." Islam is an enemy of every country but its own. Islam is a threat everywhere. Islam is designed to destory all but its own followers. Of course, looking at Iraq, we note how quickly and willingly Muslims are willing to destory each other as well.
Islam is known to bring discipline and order into otherwise chaotic and meaningless lives, and appeals to the masses of the Third World, and also to emotional dysfunctionals and traitors in the West. But, that discipline is only for focus, and that focus is to destory all unbelievers. It seems a very simple, observable forumla and practice. Why is there any doubt in anyone's mind? Why allow this? There's no doubt in the Muslims' minds. They know what their purpose is.
A major grocery store in OKC is now managed by Muslims. It is a terror to shop there. Who knows? One day their may be massive food poisoning. Muslims in positions of trust is a formula for chaos and disaster. In is the stuff of terrorism. It's only a matter of time. The Muslims know what they are doing. America is their enemy. That's why they are here. They will defeat and overthrow America, one way or another.
If the West cannot or will not see this, the West deserves to be destroyed. It wasn't worth the effort. All non-European peoples will then quickly unite in Islam, and rid the world of white, European Christianity.
The book is out now. It's not in the stores yet, but it's available. Bad Eagle: The Rantings of a Conservative Comanche, (OKC: R & R, 2007). A publishing company made the investment, so, we're in the air now. (And on the air. I have already been on a Salt Lake City radio show, KTalk 630, plugging the Bad Eagle and American Indian patriotism with Kyal Betton.
My original title for the book was: American Patriotism, Indian style. Of course, when the book company makes the investment, they also assume the authority to make it what they want. So, I had to defer. In any case, the book is a collection of my published articles, from 2001 to the present, some from FrontPageMagazine, some from VDARE.com, and some from BadEagle.com, both from the Journal and from the Forums. The articles are arranged according to topics: Patriotism, Religion, Raced, National Character, Indian Arts & Entertainment, and Indians Today. The book is 195 pages, and sells for $14.95, plus shipping and handling.
Right now, without the online mechanism in place, there are two options of buying: 1) Go to the web site, www.badeagle.com, click the "Contact" button and you will be taken to your browser's email, with the badeagle@badeagle.com address automatically noted; ask for the book, and send a check, chashier's check, or money order of $20.00 to:
Bad Eagle Foundation
P.O.Box 75017
Oklahoma City, OK 73147
or, 2) go to the web site, www.badeagle.com, click on "Contribute," it will take you to an Amazon.com account. This account was originally set up for contributions to www.badeagle.com, the web site. However, if you write to badeagle@badeagle.com, and state that you are donating $20.00 for the book through Amazon.com, you can claim it as a tax deduction as well. The Bad Eagle Foundation is a 501c3, established in 2004, retroactive from the year it received IRS approval, which was 2006, (February 14). If you go to the web site, www.badeagle.com, you can click the "Contact" button and you will be taken to your browser's email, with the badeagle@badeagle.com address automatically noted.
Hopefully, this is the beginning of a serious fundraising effort for the Foundation, which is a very broad effort to promote American patriotism from the American Indian point of view. We hope to create a national organization for American Indian patriots.
Shortly, this book will be promoted by a number of serious agencies. Also, the second volume, another collection of my articles, is already being planned. I thank Mr. Randy Allsbury and Dr. Jim. A. Talley, of Oklahoma City, for their investment in this book project. I have other books prepared to publish, but as yet have not found the right publisher. Hopefully, this trade book will open the door to my scholarly works.
Bad Eagle is in the process of being reviewed now, and the second edition will contain comments from various critics. Interested parties are welcome to submit reviews. Just follow the above steps. Copies are being sent to major media outlets, so, we can expect a fire storm, no? Hey, I'll settle for a warm glow of hot coals. My experience has been that, in general, conservatives and liberals alike are apprehensive about the American Indian. The Indian voice has not been develeped into a serious political force. The liberals have tried to harness it, but have succeeded in mesmerizing (i.e., paying) only a relatively small "university educated" cadre of Indians to form national organizations with a few Indians on the boards; this is not the real Indian voice. That voice remains to be heard. That voice the Bad Eagle Foundation hopes to lift, in due time.
Tony Blair has been Prime Minister of Great Britain for a decade, will resign from office June 27, 2007. Some have said that his loyalty to the United States during the war in Iraq actually led to his political demise. Thus, they assent to the weakness of Europe in modern times, display their own anti-Bush attitude and anti-Americanism, and thus they show an incapacity to assess character in leadership.
Blair made an appearance at the White House, with President George Bush, and the two allies stood by everything they have done in response to the attack on the United States, September 11, 2001. The media, of course, was there on the Rose Garden to criticize and condemn, as all objective and impartial newsmen do, as all unbiased and non-political reporters always do, as all honest, forthright, candid media personnel faithfully do.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair(L) and US President George W.
Bush(R) participate in a joint press conference at the White House
in Washington, DC.(AFP/Paul J. Richards )
Being against war, as a principle, is the hallmark of political righteousness in a Leftist world, of course. And we all know that politicians are righteous, and the media is perfectly innocent. So, what's the point, really, of a news conference? Neither Blair nor Bush were there to apologize or to express any second thoughts. Indeed, Blair said if given the same situation, he would have done exactly as he has done. He had not a single regret.
Bush pointed out that the tranquility in the free countries is due to confinement of the war to Iraq. Most people in the world, and in the schools, don't have the functioning IQ to grasped that--especially when the politically motivated and juvenile media continues a relentless emotional appeal to blood and death--as if it weren't happening in Iraq, it wouldn't be happening anywhere, as if it's all because of George Bush, and Tony Blair. (It's precisely that kind of unbridled, sophomoric enthusiasm, that pseudo-intellectual braggadocio that likes to blaime Christopher Columbus for Western Civilizationiin the western hemisphere.)
The two world leaders were clearly above the malaise of myopic moralism of the media, and their feigned superior view. It was really pathetic to see the media writhe in frustration. "Trying to do a tap dance on his political grave, aren't you?" Bush said. "You don't understand how effective Blair is, I guess."
Most politicians change their views in order to get votes. Popularity is the life-blood of a politician. This is one of the liabilities of "democratic elections." Politicians are salesmen, of course. Media politicians, or, liberals, cannot understand what it means to stand for something because you believe it is right. If it's costing you votes, abandon it. If it's making people angry at you, drop it. You're object is to be loved, to feel good, to be popular, and to win an election. Just about every question the reporters asked, particularly the British reporters, reflected their utter lack of conception of what a leader is.
A good leader doesn't always make the best decision, granted. But a good leader leads. He has to take risks. He has to do what he believes is right, and stand by it. It isn't a matter of admitting error or wrong; if the people disagree with you, or the media creates the illusion that they do, it does not follow that you have misled the people, or that you are wrong. A strong leader stands his ground. That's what Bush and Blair have both done. And most of us can still go for a walk in our neighborhood. The enemy has been contained in Iraq, reoccupied with making a show there. In Islamic societies, no reporter could ever, ever think of behaving like reporters do in the free world.
Blair's closing remarks noted that fact--that he and Bush stood to defend the rights of freedom--the freedom that reporters have, and for which those same reporters condemn them. That's the story. That's the news. How can they avoid reporting that?
From the transcript of the Rose Garden farewell, Blair closed:
What politics is in the end, when it's done in the right way, when people [politicians] stand up for what they believe, is it's about public service. And there's nothing to be ashamed of in that. And the fact is, the decisions are difficult; of course they're difficult. And we took a decision that we thought was very difficult. I thought then, and I think now, it was the right decision...But one thing I know is that what we represent coming here today, speaking in the Rose Garden to you people and getting your questions and being under your pressure, that is a finer and better way of life than either a brutal, secular dictatorship or religious extremism. It's a better way of life and it's the way of life, actually, people, anytime they are given the choice, choose to have. And what we should be about, our two nations, is giving as many people in the world as possible that choice and being proud of it.
Bush closed:
What I know is the world needs courage. And what I know is this good man is a courageous man.
Courage changes the thoughts. Will power affects the perceptions. Weakness is easy, and natural. Looking at the bigger picture is always much more difficult, and costs great energy. People who are not courageous can never see this. People who have not discovered their own will can never understand this. When it's in their face, they don't recognize it, and condemn it as something else. The world has demonstrated that very well.
Not that courage is faultless, but the "better way of life" is never attained by cowardice or indolence. Freedom is the most costly state of being there is in this world. Not everyone is willing to understand that. There are some Iraqi people today who understand it a lot better than many Americans, thanks to the American military and its allies. No thanks to the media.
Know what a WOP is? It's an old term for illegal Italian immigrants. It's the initials of the words "With-Out-Papers"--and referred to people that snuck over to America in boats as cast-aways or were otherwise unidentified. But WOP wasn't necessarily considered derogative, even by Italians.
Eighty-eight years ago, in Louisville, Colorado, a mining town north of Boulder, a newly immigrated Italian couple started a restaurant and offered a sandwich called the "wopburger." That's the story from the Rocky Mountain News, May 12, 2007: "Burger's name stirs a beef."
Louisville was a mining town, incorporated in 1882. It is six miles east of Boulder, and about 25 miles northwest of Denver. There was an Italian community of mining families there, and it made sense to Michael and Emira Colacci in 1919, newly arrived from Campobasso, Italy. Their restaurant (called the Blue Parot) was a place for coal miners to eat, and to hang out with fellow paisanos. The wopburger was a proud sandwich. It meant you made it--one way or another. You were Italian--and you made it across the sea to America, the land of promise. Even today, 88 years later, the granddaughter of the Colaccis believes the wop thing is only "a nickname. It just meant they were Italian, proud to be Italian." It meant they overcame a lot. It meant they were bold, brave, and successful.
Italian immigrants arriving at Ellis Island, ca. 1905.
Funny, last month, the Colacci wopburger was suddenly declared offensive. Cielo mi guardi! Another 'immigrant' to Louisville, this time from America's East Coast, James Gambino (not to be associated with the organized crime family, as far as we know) discovered the Blue Parot menu, saw the wopburger, and protested in a grand style. (It is in fact difficult to discern whether it was stilo italiano, or stile di sinistra (Leftist style). He complained to the National Italian American Federation in Washington, DC., and evoked a response from chairman Dr. A. Kenneth Ciongoli, who wrote to the Colaccis. He was "alarmed to learn" of the wopburger being on the menu. "Perhaps you are not aware that this is a pejorative term that insults the Italian American community," he added.
"Perhaps you are not aware"? An original WOP family, established since 1919, unaware? Talk about insult.
But Gambino really showed his real Leftism by going immediately to the local school board! That' right. If you ever want to exercise dictatorial, stile comunista power, just go to the school board. The Boulder Valley School District's food services director Linda Stoll, who had been a happy Colacci customer for ten years, was suddenly offended. The district buys a Colacci sauce for use in the schools, but when Stoll was contacted by Gambino, she lauded the districts pride in "our stance on ethnic equity issues," and the wopburger "didn't conform to the way we felt about those issues." Ten years they had apparently felt differently.
Senator Tom Tancredo felt differently, too. He was disappointed that the Colacci's kow-towed to the East Coast Italian Leftist. "I think they should have hung in there. It's just giving in to the politically-correct crowd, that's all it is." Rocky Mountain News blogger M. E. Sprenglemeyer suggested re-naming the sandwich "The Tancredoburger," then thought, "but since he's a fairly controversial fellow, some folks might consider that offensive, too."
Lily Reynoso, 4, tackles a wopburger at the Blue
Parrot restaurant in Louisville on Friday. She is the
great-great- granddaughter of the restaurant's
founders. The burger, named in 1919, will be
renamed on new menus.
It's an Italian sandwich, for sure. Italian sausage patty, melted mozzarella cheese and tomato sauce on a bun. Who would think it would ever become national news? Well, anyone who is unfamiliar with the tactics of the Left. It appears that Gambino came to town for the express purpose of making a hit--stile di mafia. Sure, the victim was the name of a sandwich, but, the principle of action is the same: my way or no way. You do what I say, see? And the use of that school board was indeed the dead give-away of the Leftist element. Remember the Bad Eagle reports on Nyack, New York? It was the school board that dictated the Nyack high school could no longer use the 75-year-old "Nyack Indian" logo--against the wishes of the community. The Left is all about destroying tradition, sentiment, and anything that smacks of establishement. The Left is all about destruction. Rule or ruin. And it's rule by committee. This is a monstrous perversion of the idea of representative government. The perversion is most easily accomplished at the local level, the school board. Then the city council. Then the state government. Finally, the national.
There is, however, an element of ideological confusion in this wopburger case. Its distinctly different from the American Negro issues with names. America is well-aware of the circus created by clowns like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They silently condone the blatant use of the worst possible denigrating language and behavior by their own people, their own entertainers, but gleefully made a center ring issue out of the minescule epidode of Don Imus and "nappy-headed hos." We're all quite used to the abject hypocrisy and duplicity of the so-called black "leadership." But, in the case of Mr. Gambino, there is an element of consistency. By dramatic contrast to the Negro show, the Italian leaders don't want any Italians using what they consider words derogatory to Italians. At least there's some rationale to Gambino's action.
But, I can't help but think of the dying words of Lorenzo Di Medici, spoken to his sons February 20, 1429:
"If you are faithful to the traditions of your ancestors, the people will be generous in giving you honours. To achieve this, be charitable to the poor, kindly and gracious to the miserable, lending yourselves with all your might to assist them in their adversity."
Is helping the poor, even by law, dictating to the poor? (Di Medici on the same occasion said to avoid litigation or any attempt to influence justice.) And who was made miserable or poor by the wopburger--or by it's removal?
One more step, and we're steeped in Machiavellian stew. Que cosa e questo? It seems extreme that a man should come from the East Coast all the way to a small town (under 20,000) in the Colorado hills to bump off a name. Of course, Denver is 'infamous' to the Left for the Columbus Parade. It could be that the Leftist Italians are still smarting over the fact that the Denver Italians got their parade back. Leftist eyes are definitely on Colorado, like greedy hawks looking for prey. Especially easy prey. I poveri piccoli sandwich innocenti
And the other thing is, Louisville is one of those Home Rule Municipalities in Colorado. That's anathema to the Left. It means independence, freedom, and self-control--precisely the things that make Communism useless and meaningless. Maybe the Leftist Italians are crawling all over Colorado at this point. The Italian grape vine is one of the more efficient in the world, so, word of the wopburger probably carried all the way to the East Coast Leftist centers. It's a scarey thing, to know that things are so tight. One can scarcely breathe without offending someone else.
Well, attorneys have to make a living, even if it's making a case out of a "ham" sandwich, as they say. But, maybe there should be a limit to the number of attorneys allowed in any given county. As it is, western legal systems are a great tool for the Left. That's what this is all about. Coercion. Though the wopburger issue never made it to court, it would have, had the Colaccis refused to cooperate. Ah, who knows. The great coercionists, the mafia, were never known for that kind of patience. Court is only for their non-violent defense when caught. They can handle everything else on their own. But my guess is, they'd have loved a wopburger.
Al-Qaida: Stop Search for U.S. Soldiers What's wrong with this picture? Well-funded, well-fed deserts rats threaten the greates armies of the world. How does this come about?
The cowardly Al-qaedans use humanity as targets. They care nothing for their own, of course, but they know other people do care for their own. Therefore, hostages. Therefore, kidnapping and tortures. That'll get attention. Those effeminate Westerners will always stand on their heads to protect one of their own. Why, all we have to do is capture one of them, and we're set. We control the game.
A U.S. soldier stands guard outside a military base in Taji May 14, 2007. The U.S.
military said on Monday it believed that three U.S. soldiers missing in Iraq were
abducted by al Qaeda and the Islamist militant group demanded an end to a mas-
sive search as the only way to secure their safety. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz
But, deeper than that lies the problem of the working concept in the whole Iraqi conflict. We call it war, but it isn't a war. It is a mission. War would mean you destory the enemy--and whatever disguise he uses. You warn so-called "civilian" homes: we will destroy you and everything you have, if we even think you are working with Al-qaeda. The price of harboring the enemy is the fate of the enemy: destruction.
Alas, this is not the approach of the international forces in Iraqi. The modern idea is to settle conflicts, to establish new regimes. 'Nation-building,' it's been called. It isn't to defeat an enemy, in the traditional sense.
"An al-Qaida front group that claims it has captured American soldiers warned the United States on Monday to stop searching for them"
Certainly, the American forces will not cease searching until they find the missing men, dead or alive. But, the very fact that Al-qaeda would think such a "warning" was rational and meaningful says more about the nature of the conflict than their own arrogance.
Of course, behind this particular incident in a rural area, is apparent rape of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl by America soldiers. This is of course pathetic, and shows what kind of people are showing up in American armed services these days. Some are neither soldiers nor missionaries, but selfish, angry, gang types. They were looking for an out, and they got one. But they took their ghetto ways with them. The uniform changed nothing. Therefore, they make the veteran's honor mean nothing as well. Instead of trying them with dishonorable discharge, an all that, the Army should have turned them over to the family of the girl they raped. Or hung them officially, in front of the family.
Of course, the latest official responses of the military (i.e., Major General B. William Caldwell, IV, on CNN), do not mention this historical background behind the immediate attack and kidnapping.
Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, IV, chief
spokesman and Deputy Chief of Staff for
Strategic Effects for the Multi-National
Force in Iraq.
The random kidnapping of soldiers wholly uninvolved in the rape case is typical case of blind justice in stubborn, primative minds--such as exist in Islamic Iraq. It is too much for them bear, to trust the justice system of the Americans. They want blood for blood--as quickly as possible. "Civilization" is far too slow and too weak for them. And whomever is supposedly defending the girl's honor is winning support, of course, from the uneducated, uninformed Iraqi people of the area. We all know Islamic Iraqis have no regard for women, so their "honor" is quite fake, as are many of their ignorant pretenses.
However, back to the "mission," it seems that the environment itself is so chaotic, with horrid, deadly explosions happening constantly, the moral nature of the mission is forever weakened. It is a battle of will at this point. The grand mission of the Allies against the ancient, ignorant, and impossible stubbornness of the Iraqi Muslims. Add to that, the cooperation and funding of Syria and Iran, and you have a perpetual impass.
A US soldier gestures at the site of a car bomb in Baghdad. The US military confirmed
on Monday that it believes three American soldiers missing in Iraq have been kidnapped
by Al-Qaeda, as the Islamist militant group threatened to harm its captives.(AFP/Ahmad
Al Rubaye)
Cruel thought for such a day? Or is it more like compassion for the human race? No greater curse can be found among us that a totally careless, unprepared female who has a child. Maybe she shouldn't have a child. Is that such an outrageous thought? But, that's the basis for abortion, right? Well, there wouldn't be any abortion issue, if there were such a thing as imminent sterilization, more readily available than abortion, or contraceptives. Females that do not know what motherhood is, should not be mothers. Or, is sex an accident? She didn't mean to be a "mother?" Is that all that's to be said? The rest is clean up?
What is a mother not? A mother is not a female that has birthed offspring. A mother is not a female that has had a child. I do believe a mother is something else entirely.
But you'd never know that, just looking at present society. Anyone who has been in social work knows that welfare females (we can't really call them mothers) have children for money. Anywhere from 5 to 15 babies a female, even up to seventeen (as in a case in Michigan) each baby with it's own government check attached. This is one of most degrading circumstances ever achieved by American liberalism. Under the pretense of care, it insures carelessness. It is a program of moral devastation.
Corcoran Prison, Fresno, CA. Home of the offspring of many a so-called "mother."
Then came the thought that people (male and female) on welfare should be made to work--at least a certain number of hours, to maintain their 'status' as worthy recipients of government largess. It seems that such a requirement has had little effect on the number of people on welfare, but in one study, it did apparently have an effect on the number of births. In New Jersey, back in 1992-95, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program cut back on the welfare dollar received by its members by a mere 4%, and the number of "illegitimate" births went down 29%. But the cut back pertained only AFDC benefits; the mothers still received increased Food Stamps and Medicaid benefits for each additional child born. Therefore, each AFDC mother still had the incentive to notify the welfare bureaucracy of a child's birth in order to ensure the child's enrollment in these other welfare programs. And yes, the stats also included poverty, low education level, and racial factors (i.e., black females).
But what if a person on welfare were to be denied any benifits for children? What if, in fact, the person--in order to receive welfare benefits, were required to be sterilized? Wouldn't that be an interesting issue! You want to be takent care of? Fine. The government will take care of you--but you won't be making any more mouths to feed. You won't be making any more dependents. You'll not enlarge the government's burden.
Is it an irrational thought? Hardly. It may be 'unthinkable,' ethically, but even so, it might result in a better quality life for a greater number of people. Let's face it: the careless, mindless reproduction of human beings results in a terrible, violent social plague--caused by 'bastard' children who have never be raised to value anything. We have hordes of angry youth, frustrated, blind, and naturally rebellious. Prison in their home, of course. And the government and now private agencies are in this new housing business. All because people think sex is an accident. "Planned Parenthood" is the liberal code word for: have your accident, and then your abortion. We'll help with the clean up. It's all about you, kid, not your baby. Forget your baby. We'll take care of that. Have your fun.
What man doesn't take care of, sometimes nature does. Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) can make you sterile. Stats say 1 our of 4 Americans have some kind of STD. A frightening prospect. Not all fun and games after all. Tsk, tsk.
The point of the pain here is to recover something, just something, of the meaning of motherhood. Yes, the mother is a female, but a female is not necessarily a mother. The two are not synonymous, even if the female has had a child. In our society today, there is scarcely a working concept of what motherhood actually is. There is hardly a dream of what child rearing actually is. There are hardly any ideas. Motherhood is regarded as natural, and therefor not especially valuable. It is, in fact, nothing. Easy as 'accidental' sex. Motherhood has been erased from the sacred. Motherhood is like a long, drawn out punishment for playing sex.
To bring another human being into the world under this prentense, yea, this ignorance, is blasphemy--against the human race. And this it the modern custom in our society. This is media. This is news. This is the common way.
The child becomes the vortex of every ill, every failure, every sin of the mindless 'children' that produced it. The curse of humanity, it is.
Ah, but the religious sentiments that decry abortion will no doubt decry sterilization as well. What they're looking for is self-control, not government control. To this, I answer: if there is to be such a thing as welfare at all, it should be bought with a price. That's were the human will can be engaged. You want welfare? You will be sterilized.
Such legislation would be the government's finest gift to all mothers, on this fine Mother's Day, May 13, 2007.
A Japanese hospital opened the country's only anonymous drop box for unwanted infants Thursday despite government admonitions against abandoning babies. The baby drop-off, called "Crane's Cradle," was opened by the Catholic-run Jikei Hospital in the southern city of Kumamoto as a way to discourage abortions and the abandonment of infants in unsafe public places. The hospital described it as a parent's last resort.
A nurse carrying a baby doll demonstrates the Jikei Hospital's baby drop-off system
as the new procedure is unveiled to the media in the southern city of Kumamoto, Japan,
Tuesday, May 1, 2007. The Catholic-run hospital kicked off an anonymous baby drop for
unwanted infants Thursday, May 10, 2007 amid warnings from top government officials
that parents should not easily resort to the service, official said. (AP Photo/Kyodo News)
I never thought I would have such occasion to remember a composition I wrote for solo guitar, when I was doing my doctorate in music at the University of Arizona. I had a very interesting, special friend named Yoko, for whom the piece, Onishi, was written. It was in three parts: Broken Doll, Empty Doll, and Evil Doll--Ja a kuna ningyo. (Sound like a love affair?) The Sonoran Desert has an austere beauty, and loneliness is concentrated.
I see this same emotional state deep in Japan. BadEagle.com has several times written on Japan, particularly Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. There are perhaps 'extreme' commentaries--but on an extreme people, the Japanese, a people of great beauty, emotional strength, and vision. Yes, they left a very bad mark in the social memory of America. Yes, they left a bad memory in the Orient. But, aside from an objective moral judgment, one can see the character of the people. Never mind their conduct in war. Look beyond that.
A place for women to entrust their newborns, a safe place for sorrowing, miserable mothers who know they are unfit to be mothers--to entrust the divine gift--of which they themselves are untrustworthy. It is Shinto, is it not? "The way of the gods."
Only this "way" is today expressed through the Roman Catholic church in Japan, "the Catholic-run Jikei Hospital in the southern city of Kumamoto."
American journalists can't make proper sense of it, and seem to present it in a heathenish, heartless light. And even Japanese officials have objected. Such an anonymous "drop box," they call it, a "baby dump," might enourage more unwanted babies, albeit it would certainly tend to curb abortion. We read:
But government officials warned the service might only encourage more abandonments.
"In principle, parents should not abandon their babies anonymously," Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told reporters Thursday. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki meanwhile said it was "fundamental for parents to raise their children with their own hands."
Similar baby drops exist in Germany and South Africa. Some U.S. states, such as Alabama and Minnesota, also have programs protecting identities of women who give up their babies.
The object is to prevent babies from being cast into bushes, alleys, or garbage bins, not to encourage illicite sex, illegitimate births, or unwanted children. I think the intent is supremely compassionate. What the effects would actually be, who can tell?
Drop box for life? Putting a helpless, human life in a drop box? Rid yourself of the infant in a humane, respectable manner? Well, it beats dumping the babe in a garbage bin. And, in truth, respectability was dumped in the bin long before the the burden in the drop box. Those who place their child in the drop box, however, at least do so out of more concern than would be found in those who cast the infant in the garbage.
Liberals, however, are funny. I should say, they are perfectly and predictably inconsistent. In the name of equality and justice, they want every living non-white person to have a Cadillac--just for being born; but, if the male or female progenitors didn't want the child to be born, then, liberals are content to rid the world of the child. Abortion is the liberal way. You don't deserve a Cadillac if your mother or father didn't want you to be born.
The Japanese situation simply strikes me as very interesting, psychologically. I see through that Catholic doctrine here. It is Shinto, it is honor. To abandon the child to the elements is supreme sin. To abandon it to the arms of other, caring human beings, is less than perfectly evil. The ningyo is not ja a kuna. The doll is not evil, not wholly. Not utterly. Only the heartbreak of humanity is complete.
It was truly a class act. In the midst of a world of horrific political betrayal, anti-Americanism, Democrat perfidy, and Muslim mass murderers, President George Bush showed himself a man's man, once again. In one of the simplest gestures in western civilization, he showed himself above it all, fully at peace in the realm of human relations. He made a flub in his speech, perhaps a significant Freudian slip, a flub that ever-so-gently reminded the world (and the Queen of England) that Americans, though the sons of Englishmen, did in fact win their independence by war, and became a new 'breed' in the world--and at the same time, in a remarkably simple way, he showed how much affection is still left in America for jolly ol' England, the 'mother' country, and all her preferred dignity. It's as if American humor stood grandly beside English manners.
In a public speech, were he stood at a podium and she stood next to him, President Bush addressed the Queen, "You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in seventeen s...--nineteen seventy-six..." he paused, realized the significance of the flub, then like an embarrassed son, realized he had reminded the mother of a peculiar and no doubt uncomfortable moment in England's history--the Revolutionary War in 1776. He winked at her, and himself surely. (See Yahoo News video, while it lasts.)
It was an extraordinary moment, actually, and Bush, Freudian or no, handled it as only a true and confident American would. No, Bush is not a refined gentleman. His is not a "British" dignitary. He is a Texan! And he is a man. He is a man's man. In this sense, he represented American strength, humor, and raw respect, more than anyone else could ever have conceived. And it was all in a moment, in an 'unrehearsed' moment. At least, it certainly came off that way. It was a triumph of truth in culture.
Great American authors like Nathaniel Hawthorne, or Herman Meville, would certainly see it that way. I am reminded of a closing passage in Melville's Moby Dick (1851) in which Captain Ahab contemplates the final encounter with his brute nemesis. In the chapter, "The Symphony," Meville spies old Ahab, gazing over the ship's edge, looking out onto the sea of thoughts within. (How oft one's life passes before him, at a point of death.)
But the lovely aromas in that enchanted air did at last seem to dispel, for a moment, the cankerous thing in his soul. That glad, happy air, that winsome sky, did at last stroke and caress him; the step-mother world, so long cruel- forbidding- now threw affectionate arms round his stubborn neck, and did seem to joyously sob over him, as if over one, that however wilful and erring, she could yet find it in her heart to save and to bless. From beneath his slouched hat Ahab dropped a tear into the sea; nor did all the Pacific contain such wealth as that one wee drop.
I would say, again, the wealth of western civilization was in that one presidential wink.
President Bush, though not completely politically consistant (who is?), is surely one of the finest men every to sit in the Oval Office. He is an American businessman, basically. He's the type of man that built America. And he is imminently humble. He early acknowledged his problem with alchol as a younger man, and praised the character and love of his good wife Laura, her Christian love and faith, and the boon she brought to his life. This was years ago, but he hasn't forgotten it. George Bush comes across as a simple, honest, and strong man, and an innocent man. Yes, he is accused of demonry, but, that is only to be expected. Cocky and stubborn? Only if work against him while he's trying to do his job the best he sees fit. It's called strength.
History will declare the Democrats fools, no doubt. Traitors as well. In a way, Bush winks at them, too. It doesn't appear that he takes their pathological writhing seriously. Political sport is not for the weak, nor for cheaters, and that's what they are. But Bush has the confidence to play the game anyway, knowing their pitiable condition.
BadEagle.com does not endorse the Bush policy on globalism or immigration. BadEagle.com endorses the man. Problems in the world are staggaring, beyond human power to control. It is a kind and kingly thing, a blessing, to be able to wink at it all. In a way, that's all evil deserves.
"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent." St. Paul, Acts 17:30.
Foreigners are plotting against us, right here in our own country. Is that the price of freedom and equality? It's certainly the liberal idea. Freedom and quality mean let the enemy kill you. Don't prevent him. Prosecute him and house him (in jail), if you've survived, and after you've caught him, but don't deny his freedom to kill you.
6 Charged With Plot on Army Base in N.J.
MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. -- Six men from the former Yugoslavia were arrested on charges they plotted to attack the Fort Dix Army base and "kill as many soldiers as possible," federal authorities said Tuesday. The suspects were described as "Islamic radicals," said U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman Greg Reinert.
And then we get this information:
Fort Dix is used to train soldiers, particularly reservists. In 1999, it sheltered more than 4,000 ethnic Albanian refugees during the NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia.
After that war, refugees were allowed to return to the U.N.-run province of Kosovo in Serbia or to seek permanent residency in the United States. The U.N. Security Council is considering whether to approve a plan to grant Kosovo independence from Serbia under the supervision of the European Union and the United States.
The ignorance of the media is clear as they report with uncertainty the identity of the men. "Former Yugoslavian nationals," but Fox news reported they were mostly "ethnic Albanians." Now that makes a little more sense. The above piece says refugees of the Clinton-ordered Clark-run 1999 NATO slaughter/genocide (of innocents in Serbia and Serbians in Kosovo) were allowed back into Kosovo. That would mean ethnic Albanians. Problem is, these radial Muslims just caught in New Jersey are said to be Yugoslavians. The former Yugoslavia did not include Albania. Kosovo is geographically part of Serbia, but it is over-run with Albanians today, who are Muslim, and who are infiltrated with Muslim radical Turks and now some Arabs.
The New York Times reports: "Officials said four of the men were born in the former Yugoslavia, one in Jordan and one in Turkey." Certainly, to say "born in Yugoslavia" doesn't mean anything. The question is "where" in Yugoslavia? Bosnia?
The former Yugoslavia was a cluster of smaller nations, including Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Herzegovina, Bosnia, and Slovenia. Yugoslavia was never an ethnicity, nor a nation--by any meaningful definition. Identifying one man from Turkey, and one from Jordan, certainly makes it clear that the others said to be born in "Yugoslavia" were not Serbians, Croations, or Slovenians. But, since Albania was never part of the Yugoslavia group, one wonders about the appelation, "ethnic Albanians."
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, post WWII
So, this New Jersey news story is a bit jumbled when it comes to identifying the suspects. I believe it is media ignorance of and confusion about eastern Europe, for starters. I also suspect some initentional liberalism, such as failing to note that "ethnic Albanians" is a code word for radical Muslims. The fact is, we simply do not know who these men are, where they are from, and what nationality they are. Cherry Hill, New Jersey, where they are said to have been living, is an up scale residential area. That's something to investigate in itself. How is it they were living there, if they in fact were? These breaking news reports simply cannot begin to include the whole story. Yet, once a piece breaks, it takes on a life of its own. Never mind the facts.
As one who has a vested interest in eastern Europe, particularly the sovereignty of Serbia, I watch carefully how the liberal news tries regularly to destroy Serbia. I note how the media supports the ethnic Albanians of Kosovo--the southern province of Serbia being literally robbed from Serbia by the UN and liberals everywhere. Under the Clinton liberals, "ethnic Albanians"--code word for radical Muslims (including Turks and Arabs) are the heroes of Eastern Europe. The Clinton liberals perfer to support the radical Muslims, the terrorists, and those who would destroy all sovereignty but their own. Like breeds like. Like associates and supports like. Bill Clinton and the UN preferred terrorists. This position has not been changed regarding Eastern Europe.
Liberals love foreigners because the more foreigners (in America) the more likely the Muslims terrorists have a chance to strike against America. That seems to be the case. In the name of equality, the mass murderers must be able to at least try to kill Americans.
Liberals are foreigners. Their values are alien to America. They despise the US Constitution, never mind what they say. Their actions speak loudest. And in fact, sometimes they come out and say the Constitution needs to be changed completely. I don't mean amendments, I mean re-vamping. I say this is alien. Liberals are therefore alien. Too many foreigners in America, indeed.
At heart, I think it's obvious that Baldwin deeply loves his daughter Ireland. Otherwise, he could not have been so upset. But the liberal media world acted deeply offended when actor Alec Baldwin's private phone message to his daughter was made available to the world. (The liberal media made sure it was, indeed.) The liberal media proclaimed itself righteous, again, as its priestly commentators and their underlings, the bloggers, all expressed universal condemnation for Baldwin's outrage against his daughter. What could have been more inappropriate than for a father to yell at his daughter and to call her names? Poor, innocent, delicate little thing! Mean ol' monster Dad! Even liberals, for the sake of news, cannot resist the opportunity to assert their righteous values on one of their own--a Hollywood actor.. Baldwin transgressed every liberal tenet there is, not only expressing the will to discpline his child, but to verbally describe her behavior as only a parent could. And he called her a name. Sacrilege! Name-calling, to a liberal, is not a description, or a metaphor, but a blasphemous affront to righteousness, an unforgivable abuse of human rights. Tsk, tsk. We just musn't ever call anyone a 'name.' Heaven forbid.
Alec Baldwin
I'd like to suggest that Baldwin is actually a caring father. A very caring father. The intensity of hurt he felt, hurt and frustration so obvious and clarion in the tones of his voice, can only be the expression of a parent who loves his child, and feel she is being denied any respect, any consideration, or any "descent" human regard. His love is being spat upon by his ex and his own daughter. Exaggerated? Hardly. Anyone who has been in social work, particularly in childcare, knows quite well what was going on behind this conversation. It is abundantly clear that the relationship of Alec and Kim Basinger is an abject catastrophy, and that Kim has used the daughter to buttress her own position in the divorce/custody battle. That's easy for her to do now, but, when the daughter is older, she will feel drawn to the father, if she doesn't already.
Rebuke is far more respectable than indulgence. In time, the child respects the discipline, not the ice cream. I'm not saying that Baldwin's phone message represents the divine will in the biblical tradition, of course, but I am saying that parents that care often have to show it in stern ways. Especially when a child is like Ireland, obviously manipulative to an agonizing degree. Of course Baldwin is sorry! Every normal parent is, after blasting a child, even if the child well deserves it. I'm just saying it is obvious that little Ireland has a big hold on the heart of her father. That's the message I hear. Of course Baldwin apologized, publicly--because his ex made his taped phone message public. Kim was indeed 'pathological' for doing that in the first place. That in itself is far, far more damaging than anything Baldwin said. In fact, probably everything he said was perfectly appropriate, emotionally, for what the daughter was doing to him--even though it was all probably at the mother's instigation. Baldwin was demanding maturity, responsibility, or just descency from the child. He was spitting mad, that's all, and had probably a perfect right to be, if anyone has rights at all in such miserable divorce/custody situations.
"There's nothing wrong with being frustrated or angry about the situation. It's the way you do it, and as people often do in this world, I took it out on the wrong person," Baldwin said. Well he said it. But, the child actually stands to benefit from it. It is her nasty behavior that was made known to the world, as well as the manipulations of her mother. Alec simply cracked at the moment. It was the last straw, so to speak. I think the whole incident will finally work in Baldwin's favor.
At this point, the mother may try to obsess over the daughter, simply to express her rather immature and stupid hatred of Alec. She may try to cut out any relationship between daughter and father altogether. But, as the child matures (if possible), she will come to appreciate the anger of her father. He was hurt, and she hurt him. That is the ultimiate message--of care--from father to daughter. That is the lesson.
The media, of course, heard only one message. "You are a thoughtless little pig." For that, they all indulged themselves. Baldwin needed worry, however. He loves his daughter, obviously, and is feeling really bad about it, but, I will prophesy that things will turn out for the better. Baldwin is not so lost in movie land that he has no sense of human relations, like his frustrated ex. He's already said he's willing to quit acting altogether. He values human relationships. They are not simply opportunities to manipulate, as his daughter has been taught by Kim.
"A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool." Proverbs 17:10.
"Rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee." Proverbs 9:8
"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shall deliver his soul from hell." Proverbs 23: 13,14.
These are well known words of wisdom, but there's more, less known, but vital. From Moses:
"Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke they neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him." Leviticus 19:17
To neglect the child is injure the child for ever. Neglect is hate. Never mind whatever it is the liberals think hate is, like "names," but consider the truth: neglect to discipline is hate. Neglect to teach self-control, self-reliance and independence--this is hate. That's what Moses said hate is.
So, in the end, Baldwin scores on the side of care, love, and real parenthood. That is clear to anyone who knows anything about parenting. Those that know about divorce/custody battles also know--and they know that Kim Blasinger greatly erred in her manipulations. She is obviously out of control, and I would argue that she is quite unsafe for the daughter to be around. Kim has used the child publicly, in a horrible way. That is the outstanding fact, more glaring that the fact that she has made her own daughter like herself--a thoughtless pig.
Perhaps it has been problematic to have referred to the situation in Iraq as a "war." It is a rather a mission. The traditional understanding of the concept of war in quite inapplicable to much of the situation in the whole "war" on terrorism. There is definitely an enemy, but the enemy is utterly camouflaged with people. There are no uniforms, no battle lines, and no definition of conflict. It is, of course, also an "undeclared" war, as has every military conflict the United States has been in since WWII.
And the "war" was never on Iraq. If there is a conflict in Iran, it won't be against Iran, but against the regime in power, just as was the "war" in Iraq in 2003. In Iraq, now, there are at least three parties at "war": the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Allies. And there is Al-qaeda, Iran, Syria, and maybe even Russia.
In the big picture, President Bush, along with Congress, and basically the rest of the world, all desired to see Sadaam Hussein removed from power. In the even bigger picture, Bush wants to see a haven for democracy, even a republic, in the heart of Arab country. The mass murderers come from the religion if Islam, and to combat them, one must combat Islam. The best way to do that is to create a secular government that puts religion in its proper sphere--the individual's freedom of worship, and out of politics and war-mongering.
Plus, there is the matter of securing natural resources of gas and oil for the free world. That's right. The free world. There would scarcely be any Arab "countries" if the United States and Britain had not developed their resources for them. They would be without electricity and running water, let alone the oil and gas industry. It is both natural and right that the West has a participating role in these resources. Obviously, the leaders of those nations have done little if anything to uplift their own peoples, instead merely indulging their own ambitions and pleasures.
War is the worst thing that can happen, but, it always happens. Never mind the reasons. It is part of the human experience. Those who attempt to denounce, evade, and avoid it, usually cause more of it, eventually, and worse cases of it. (Consider the history of Communism.)
The way in which the allied soldiers have conducted themselves in the Middle East conflict has been extraordinary. They are missionaries, much more than soldiers. They have a mission, and that mission is not to defeat an enemy, really, and certainly not to overcome a country or to destroy it's people. Their efforts are all for the purpose of helping Iraq develop into a republic, to establish a democratic government in the heart of tryanny--the world of Arab Islam. There are surely enemies of that cause, but the allies are not enemies of them. The allied effort is a positive, creative venture.
What a fantastic vision. What a colossal purpose. How ennobling it must be to those military personnel involved, and even to those businessmen risking their lives to establish the country's industries. What grander themes could be sounded? What loftier causes could be undertaken?
This is the reality of it all. Those who have no vision, who have no true moral values, but who simply play on emotions and false sensations of value, will never end their protests, nor their self-righteous delusions. The effects of their calls for ending the war are sickening enough, but were they to be actually followed, a much, much worse conflict would ensue, and the world would be much less safe. The American Democrats, and liberals everywhere, and the self-justifying indolent, will never see this, because they have no vision beyond their personal indulgences of pseudo ethics. The politicians among them, their spokemen, of course play up the moral sensations to the hilt, obviously enhancing their political power.
"War" is definitely the wrong word. We're talking instead about the process of change--change for the better. It takes time. Unfortunately, even people like Newt Gingrich (Hannity & Colmes, May 3, 2007), Chuck Hagel, and John McCain say the war in Iraq has been a "failue" or "mismanaged." Is that true? (At least they haven't said it is lost, like Harry Reid.) Perhaps they say that only because they're using the word "war" in the traditional sense--most of which is inapplicable in Iraq. Mismanaged? What do they mean? It should be over by now? Is that it? Maybe they are 'mis-thinking' about it altogether. Maybe they themselves have lost site of the larger vision, in all their political haggling. They're writhing in the swamps, and can't see the lofty mountains of purpose.
It's definitely the "mission" in Iraq, not "the war." This is all an enormous misnomer, and one that enables the enemies of America, within and without, to obtain a verbal advantage. In political rhetoric, they seem to have something to say--reactionary and negative as it is. "Mission" would be a much more appropriate term. It is a dangerous mission, yes; one involving military effort, yes; one that costs lives and limbs, yes. But one that history will be very proud of one day, if the Democrats don't destroy it, like they destroyed the Vietnam mission.
Today is a "National Day of Prayer," although it didn't make the front page of the New York Times, the Boston Herald, The Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Sun-Times, or even the Washington Times. In fact, it didn't make many headlines at all, anywhere.
One Reuters headline, however, evinces a need for prayer as no other headline has today: House panel votes to subpoena Rice on Iraq. That would be "Democrat lawmakers" voting for that subpoena.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic lawmakers voted on Wednesday to subpoena Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to testify about administration justifications for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The vanity, uselessness, and waste expressed in this demand by the House of Representatives' Oversight and Government Reform Committee destroys all sense of respect for anything Democrat at this point. The endless obsession with condemning the Bush Administration is obvious to the world. The 'mean spirited' disposition of the Democrat Party is perhaps unprecedented, and certainly the most hypocritical in history.
President Bush & Secretary Rice
The sole life of the Democrat Party is accusation. They must accuse, or they have no cause of being. This is a totally parasitical life, wholly dependent on the creative initiatives of the Republicans. The Democrats have become exclusively reactionary, with no ideas or purposes of their own. Their campaigns against all things Republican--more specifically, all things Bush, has reduced them to an animal level. We can call it the Pavlov Dog Syndrom in politics. They merely react, negatively, to any Republican stimulation--real or imagined. They have abandoned all responsibility to think for themselves, and as a result, they have settled into a deeply anti-American posture.
U.S. Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) speaks yesterday
as House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Senate Majority
Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) listen during a post-meeting briefing out-
side the White House. (Getty Images)
Let's say that again: conscious, decided reactionary behavior results in anti-Americanism. Non-thinking, habituated, negative responses create an aversion to the country. A mechanical attack against positive initiatives produces an actively destructive approach--which can never engender strength, but only weakness. Of course, add to this the basic political grandstanding, and the preoccupation with votes, and you have the modern Democrat Party.
No, not everything the Republicans have done has been right. I don't agree with everything Bush does, either. Yes, pray for Republicans, too.
But, more deeply, pray for the nation. We should prepare ourselves for those prayers by learning what a nation is, what it is meant to be, and how God looks upon a nation. Is America measuring up to the definition, the expectation, and the mission? Though the Democrats have brought a terrible blight, a miserable, dark shadow over the national spirit, the issue is far deeper than their media fests. The whole concept of nationhood has eroded in American culture.
In a sense, only the Bush initiative in Iraq, through our wonderful American soldiers, manifests a working concept of nationhood. In terms of purpose, goals, ideals, and visions, what America has attempted in Iraq is magnificent. That the Democrats would seek, with a mania, to destroy all this, only shows how utterly selfish their position really is, how small their minds really are, and how childish their petty protests.
Life in this world is not perfect. Enormous mistakes are made, daily. But, as I have said before, Where there is greatness, there is great error. This is to be understood. The thought of removing all error is the greater error. Yes, there are giant, corporate fiascos in Iraq, contractors gone wild, so to speak. There are a host of ill winds blowing, and devious plans working. But the vision of a democracy, a republic, in the Middle East, is miraculous. Right up their with the vision of Christopher Columbus--a new world. Weak people are fearful at such grandeur of vision. Weak people attack it, or run from it. It strikes terror in their immature, petty souls. Their vision has never been higher than their own bank account, or their own career.
Pray for such people, indeed.
In a classic case of wasted wealth of the Third World, former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra (ousted by a military coup by General Sonthi Boonyaratglin in 2006) has announced intentions of buying an English soccer club, the less than spectacular Manchester City. (Not to be confused with the famous Manchester United.) A personal "consolation," says the New York Times, after being kicked out of the government.
Thaksin Shinawatra, former
prime minster of Thailand, and
graduate of Sam Houston State.
Thai countrymen complain of Shinawatra's antics, media hounding, and stealing the news from the more important leaders. Shinawatra was just elected president of the Professional Golf Association of Thailand, among other 'accomplishments.'
"A typical gag" of Mr. Thaksin's. It"s his style to make news," said Deputy Social Development Minister Poldej Pinratheep.
The new leader of the country, General Boonyaratglin, said "It's ridiculous. I think Thais are in a confused condition. Some may not be able to separate what is good from what is bad. Perhaps we should ask a psychiatrist to help them."
Perhaps there's a well-demonstrated lesson here. Shinawatra simply wants to sit down at the international card table. He has money, and he wants in the game. In the Third World, the antics of tycoons are most obvious. (In the West, such card dealing is perhaps less obvious--which would mean that the cultural delusions are more insidious and pernicious. Perhaps it is western people who need the psychiatrist. However, where free enterprise and profit is the soul of every endeavor--from medicine to law to politics, it isn't likely that psychiatric can offer any substantial remedy for any social ill.) This is all about playboy-ism. This isn't about national leaders with the best interests of their nations in mind. This is about personal indulgence. Personal high life. Personal pleasure. Shinawatra has hired American lobbying and public relations firms to promote his personal interests. He's simply an international game player, with no loyalties beyond his own life.
Speaking of life, Bangkok is one of the most densely populated cities in the world, in an area of the world (Southest Asia) which is itself the most densely populated in the world. There are teeming multitudes of poverty stricken people, and AIDS is on a level of African severity, and there are extremely high risks for all major communicative diseases, such as diarrhea, hepatitus A, and the usual malaria, plagues, and flu. There are over 65 million people in an area about the size of Wyoming and Colorado combined.
The point is simple: success means getting out of the Third World. That's the lesson. The Third World seems a permanent fixture, an inevitable hole--to rise out of. Those who rise out seem indifferent once they're out. They have no intention of changing the Third World into a different place. They want to play in the big world, the success world. Forget poverty, forget misery, forget people. People are nothing. People are only commodities, at best.
And yet, it isn't wise to condemn the successful, or to lament the poor any too religiously. "The poor shall never cease out of the land," saith the Lord. "Therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land." Deuteronomy 15:11. (Jesus quoted this passage himself, shortly before his death. "The poor ye have always with you, but me ye have not always." (Matthew 26:11.)
But notice, thy brother, thy poor, thy needy, and thy land. This implies two things: take care of your own. Don't go global about it.
My, what a different world it would be, were this perspective held by each nation. Note, too, even in the commonwealth of Israel, of the very people of God, it is said "the poor shall never cease out of the land." Poverty, though not ordained, is nevertheless part and parcel of humanity. This is the way humanity exists. God himself does not propose to change this circumstance. He commands rather that the community care for it's own. That is the example of Israel, in the Torah, anyway. That is the principle.
In our 'Mr. Carter's Neighborhood," (i.e., Jimmy Carter's global human rights scheme), the principle is applied to the world, through the United Nations. I find no such application in scripture. This is something else. The Carter Charter, while it may have noble intent, is presumptuous. God created the separate nations for a reason. (Deuteronomy 32: 8,9). To step outside those boundaries, to go global, is perhaps blasphemous, in fact. God alone is ruler of the nations. Not man.
In any case, we cannot help but obvserve the destruction of nationalism brought about by money, by economics. Globalism is the creation of economics. In our modern world, money has become first, nationalism second. The very idea of a nation, the concept of nationhood, is on the table, as part of the game. Those who play with it are not to be trusted. Those who gamble with nationhood are enemies of the state.
How can the people guard their own nation from disloyal leaders? That lesson America apparently has to learn all over again. Unfortunately, there is a social blindness, or handicap, which prevents our elected representatives from reading the Constitution. We cannot depend upon them. It comes down to ourselves. It comes down to the question of whether we will stand up for our own American Constitution. Do we know how to do this? Are we capable? Our enemies sit behind nearly every court bench in the country, from the local town to Washington, DC. How do we get passed that?
The people should be prepared for a grand contest--one that is already upon us. The people will never have the opportunity to sit down at the card table like Shinawatra. The people can only vote. Vote, or revolt. In America, however, the people all dream of becoming like Shinawatra. They dream of playing in the big game. Many Americans have started out in the 'rice field,' and have actually risen to the level of at least entering the casino, and playing a slot machine or two. The lure of success is America's biggest draw in the world. Hard work can actually pay off! Think of it. That is the glory of the American way.
But, there' a little catch: some people come to love the game more than America. Opportunity itself trumps love of country. The vision of the country vanishes in the glitter of fool's gold.
But a country is more than opportunity. Sounds like an old, antiquated, romantic notion, but, without love of country, the marriage fails. Society breaks down. Selfishness reigns, and the country is soon to fade away into a wistful memory.
Chicago's St. Adalbert United Methodist Church at 2716 West Division is harboring criminal, as has been since August, 2006. Her name is Elvira Arellano. She and her seven-year-old anchor baby, Saul, have been living in the church ever since.
Elvira, before and after the American make-over.
Arellano illegally entered the United States in 1997, but federal agents arrested her and deported her back to Mexico. She returned within days and lived for three years in Oregon.
In 1999, she gave birth to Saul Arellano. He is of course considered a United States citizen since he was born here. In 2000, Elvira and anchor baby moved to Chicago and she worked as a cleaning woman at O'Hare International Airport. In 2002, following a post-September 11 security sweep, she was again arrested and convicted of using a false Social Security number to obtain employment. She was sentenced to three years "probation," as if that were sufficient punishement for identity theft, fraud, purjury, and tresspassing.
Arellano was ordered to appear before immigration authorities on August 15, 2006. Instead, she took refuge in the Adalberto United Methodist church in the Humboldt Park area of Chicago to avoid arrest and deportation.
On November 14, 2006 Elvira took her puppet son to Mexico City, to act out a political gesture before the Mexican Contress. Saul Arellano appeared before the Congress as a class act. The Mexican lawmakers passed a resolution to urge the United States government to suspend the deportation of Arellano and parents of other children who intentionally bore them in the United States, usually illegitimately, so that the babies would be considered United States citizens. The US federal agents so far has not gone into the church to arrest her. (They should be adding child abuse to the charges against her.)
Elvira has become very arrogant about her imagined "rights." This lying, manipulative fraud has become a cause celebre for others like her. That would include the St. Adalbert United Methodist Church at 2716 West Division. They have sanctioned, blessed, and encouraged lying, fraud, impersonation, illegitimate birth (fornication), stealing (identity theft), trespassing, and virtually every social ill in modern society. The United Methodist Churches have long been liberal, of course, but, this Elvira case is rather blatant. This is aggressively anti-America. This church is treasonous. This church should be closed. It certainly should have no tax-exempt status. This issue is not about human rights. It is about crime. Elvira Arellano is a criminal. The church is blessing her for her crimes--crimes against the United States.
This church preaches sin. Plain and simple, St. Adalbert United Methodist Church at 2716 West Division, Chicago, preaches evil. Loudly. Defiantly. Blasphemously. (No wonder they have carefully removed all information about their pastors and congregation from the internet. They have indeed endangered themselves--in the name of blasphemy against all human decency and higher values.) They have championed a devil, a lying, conniving tramp. They have honored a disgrace. They have lauded the low, for her lowness. They have praised sin.
Incidently, until Congress expunges the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, America is not a sovereign nation. "All persons born...in the United States...are citizens" did not envision mass trespassing, but liberalism always seeks legalism and loop holes. And, since Congress itself has betrayed the trust of the American people anyway, and refuses to enforce the law (and persecutes those who do), Congress itself is subject to the immorality of a lying Mexican vagrant woman and her illegitimate child. America is held hostage by a tramp. America is dictated to, by a manipulative, vulgar human being.
They plan to parade her today, in another major, noisy immigration rally in Chicigo. She'll be protected like a dignitary of state. The mouse will command the lion. The rat will be king.
That's right. Let there be no imagined glory in this, no fanciful romanticism about human dignity, human rights, or human decency. Elvira Arellano represents the worst of lot in female character. That she would be championed by anyone, let alone US Congressmen, only shows how morally lost this country has become. It is the miasma, the hypnosis, the dug--of liberalism. No law. Only indulgence. Parade the fallen. Honor the vile. All in the name of Christ.