The Mic's up! Bill O'Reilly is being hung by blacks, and by white liberals. "Racist! Racist!" is the cry gone out against him. For reasons unfathomable to the public, he's taking it seriously. We may have thought we'd never see the day, but O'Reilly is cuddling up to Jesse Jackson--the personification of professional weakness and hysteria. Bill O'Reilly had Jackson on his show last night, and was notably gratified by his own display of comapassion and equality--traits apparently otherise not convincingly protrayed. It required a "civil" discourse with the "reverend" Jackson for Bill to convince himself, or at least to think that he convinced the public.
FoxNews host Bill O'Reilly, and Jessie Jackson
Seem like a big disappointment. He, O'Reilly, who professes the greatest strength, bows ever so gingerly to the wimp of soul, Jesse Jackson. Jackson, whom O'Reilly has strongly denounced in the past, was given a royal soft-speak by Mr. Iron-head himself.
It's all about being afraid of offending a Negro (--by even using the name of the race, "Negro), afraid of being accused of racism, afraid of not showing full acceptance of the Negro, afraid of not rendering full equality. It's all about fear--maybe just of being sued. Who knows? It certainly isn't about character, honesty, or strength.
Then there was the bit about Juan Williams, the "happy Negro." Grief! That's in the same game as "Barak the Magic Negro." That died down fairly quickly. But, it's the same question: why all the attention? Why the dread, the absolute fear of offense? The greatest cosmic sin is making an American Negro feel offended. The greatest fear in the universe is that the Negro will even imagine that he is offended at something, at anything, any time.
Why? Legal suit. Loss of money. Loss of job. Loss of career. That's all. People are not really afraid of blacks. And the non-black public certainly has little or no respect for this Negro attitude. How could they? How can black people even repect themselves? Their racist leaders have made it impossible. (Oh, that's right, Negroes are the racists. Everyone always forgets that. Worse, we're not allowed to think that. We might express the thought, and be sued.)
O'Reilly had on Bernie Goldberg later, who tried to say the worst racist sin of white people was when they let blacks call each other racist names, when whites give the blacks permission to be racist toward one another, not holding them to the great white standard (--a standard which blacks created and demanded). That, Bernie said, was how whites show their goodness, their compassion, their non-racist character--by letting blacks have the freedom to call each other "nigger."
Bernie's wrong. That's not how whites show their transcendence. It's when they treat blacks like babies, like mad little children; it's when whites personally demeaned themselves when they are accused of racism, when whites, like Bill O'Reilly, think pacifying Jesse Jackson is a sign of equality, man to man. O'Reilly just displayed what white righteousness really is--condescending to the troubled soul of the black man. Pandering to racist manipulation, cuddling to a professional hoodwinker because and only because he is black--that's white righteousness. That's how whites display their "compassion."
Kathy Y. Williams dosn't buy it. "Your Negro Tour Guide" of Cincinnati's CityBeat never did. No one is on her case for calling herself a Negro. Are all the whites in Ohio therefore prejudiced? Are the whites of Cincinnati all racist?
Kathy Williams, "Your Negro Tour
Guide," in 'historic,' but stylized
slave denim
So, I will remain disappointed in Bill O'Reilly. He's caught up in a very artificial media whirlwind. Of course, that's his business. It's all good. Even though it's all fake, all wrong, and all actually harmful, in the media--it's all good.
Whites are just afraid of being sued. It can't be more than that. Bill talks pretty straight. Maybe straighter than most. But, he some how got really roped in on this one. The blacks have him psychologically hung right now. He's strung up. He's definitely up the tree, and they're frenzied over it.
I remember when Bill was accused by some former female employee. He made a declaration of his innocence, then never mentioned it again. The story died almost immediately. So, why all the pandering to "offended" blacks now? Their accusations are a whole lot less serious, if credible at all. This recent racist bit is a disgusting story, and if offends anyone with strength and self-pride. It is a miserable writhing, and indulges the worst in the blacks.
Do us all a favor, Bill. Drop it, and never mention it again.
President George Bush has become Hillary Clinton's chief political advisor.
That's right. At this point, it is more or less assumed that she will be the next president, and therefore she must be attuned to the Middle East circumstances. In an interview with George Stephanopolus last Sunday, (ABC's Good Morning America), she said, "I don't know what I'm going to inherit," and therefore she would not commit to any pull-out date for the troops or an ending date for the war, now, or when she is president. At the Democrat presidential candidate debate last night, she again seriously backed off her strong rhetoric against the war, and denied that she would have any immediate goal of getting the troops out quickly.
President George Bush, speaking at the UN, September 25, 2007
It makes sense. Bush wants to make sure the next president knows what's going on over there, so that the program will not be chucked and end in the most wasteful disaster in modern history.
So, is Mr. Bush advising the rest of the Democrat presidential candidates? For that matter, is he advising the Republican candidates?
It is abundantly clear at this point that Hillary Clinton simply does not stand for anything--but the desire for political power. There no principle in the woman, or in her 'husband,' but that of power and profit. This was never before so loud a message in modern American political history.
Worse, it doesn't offend enough people to create a whimper of a protest. At least not in the media.
Bush is no doubt wise in sharing all this advice. The Middle East could blow up in the next president's term. Whoever is in office must have an accurate understanding of what's going on. And Bush has never been openly hostile toward Democrats. He has always behaved himself as a gentleman toward them. Their deformity of character and low-level psychological condition is something he has graciously tolerated, ignored, or looked passed. He knows they are there, in the arena, and that they will never go away. They have to be part of the game, cheaters and liars that they are, they are inevitably part of the process. He understands this. Therefore, he will not make things worse by pointing out their ineffable hypocrisy, duplicity, fraud, and general odious nature.
Let Hillary be the vapid being she is. If she is going to be president (--we pray not), then she needs to know what's happening. Let her be the egregious minasthrope she delights to be. Her sheer love of power will keep her from completely ruining America--for then she wouldn't have the power she wants. Sure, she and her 'husband' want world power; they want more than to lead America. They want to rule the world. They will sacrifice America in a heartbeat when that time comes, as the true anti-American globalists they are. But, they have to use America to reach that pinnacle of power. Until they do reach it, they will not completely destroy American government or American society. We're safe in their ambitious hands--at least until they've achieved their greater goals.
There doesn't seem to be any going back now. The situation has gone too far. There is always the hope that someone completely new to the presidency will get elected, like Romney, or even Obama (whose name truly disgraces the notion of American patriotism). But that hope seems very distant at this point. It is clear that both parties are determined not to let any third party develope. Seems like the people are squelched right out of their voice. We're all supposed to just shut up, sit back, and enjoy the ride. Why, our leaders have only the best planned for us. They have our best intesrests in mind, always.
Maybe a person's political personality and career are something separate from his true character. Bill Clinton always said his personal life was not to be associated with his 'job performance.' Well, most of us couldn't find inspiration in either his personal or professional life. The same is true with Hillary. The record of fraud, denial, manipulation, posturing, and especially the current turn-around on Iraq and the Middle East, only show that there is nothing in her to believe in, nothing to trust, nothing to vote for. It is an incredible vacuum.
Now, someone is obviously personally coaching her these days, for her demeanor is changed. She is ever so elegant, never raises her voice, speaks as delicately, attractively, and even appealingly as possible. No more unearthly shreaks, no more grand standing. She's all heart now. All serious, all powerful, all presumtuous already. Hillary Clinton, President of the United States. An appalling prospect, for sure. "Americans" will have elected her. That's even more heart-sickening.
Bush may be very wise in filling her in on the Middle East, but, I wish there was a way he could do it without campaigning for her. White House Chief of Staff John Bolton said Bush was advising "candidates," with no specific mention of Hillary at that junction in his interview (according to Oklahoma's Examiner.com). Maybe he is actually talking to all of them, the ones he thinks might win, anyway. Well, is that some small consolation? Hard to tell. The "news" is that he is talking to Democrats who have made political careers out of bashing him. The biggest news story is that Bush would advise Hillary. It isn't "news" that Bush would advise Republican candidates. He hasn't even endorsed anyone yet. So, maybe this whole thing about Hillary is way out of proportion, due to the nature of the news story. That would be a still small but greater consolation.
United States President George Bush today announced to the United Nations, in no uncertain terms, that freedom is the goal of the world, democracy is the mission, and that all nations who have freedom and democracy are responsible for making it happen in the countries that don't have it. Bush is a world leader. America has the responsibility. Bush Urges U.N. to Spread Freedom. This is world responsibility. This was mission. This was vision.
And this was wrong?
U.S. President Bush addresses the 62nd session of the United Nations General
Assembly at U.N. headquarters Tuesday Sept. 25, 2007. (AP Photo/Ed Betz)
President Bush also said that freedom and democracy are best brought about through trade and commerce. This is a globalist mantra resounding through the monied ranks of world corporate business. It is a grand, hypnotic notion, and all things are pointing in this direction--global economy, global power, and global peace.
This is also wrong?
It may be ideologically attractive; it may be wonderous in scope; and it may even appear to be the best solution. However, it has already cost America a great deal of sovereignty, as we have opened our borders, not closed them. Flagrant trespassers and other criminals are free to come to America, and are rewarded for so doing. (North Carolina has just issued the first North American Union diver's license, for instance, with a hologram of North America imbeded on it. In a short time, there will be no illegals in North America. They will all have been "in-lawed.") The idea is to share the wealth. Of course, that used to be called Communism. That used to be called Marxism. Today, however, it's called globalism. It's called saving the world--through capitalism. It's called taking care of all the poor, through trade, commerce, and out-sourcing American labor.
True and effective globalism simply means making sure everyone gets a Cadillac. It presumes something is wrong with the picture when someone doesn't have a Cadillac. Compassion dictates that everyone should have one. Communism coerces those that have one to give theirs to those who don't have one.
Will compassion become dicatorial? Globalism is certainly developing that way. It may have started out as simple business competition. It may have been perfectly innocent and legal. But, when one company beats the price of labor by out-sourcing, or by willing Mexican slaves, then all the companies have to do the same, or lose. One rotten apple spoils the barrel.
Times have changed. Globalism is the thing. Globalism is the trend. It is happening whether the people are for or against it. The people have no control over it. In this sense, it is already dictatorial. The people as a whole can't really perceive that it is adversely affecting them just yet. (Pitty the poor border people, citizens on the edge, who do know what's happening, but are equally as powerless to do anything about it.)
Bush's philosophy is that evil can be replaced with good. Demonstrate a better way, a better ideology, and human beings will naturally gravitate toward it. That is the basic plan in Iraq. Showing unprecedented tolerance for Ahmadinejad, (and theoretically Adloph Hitler) is just another way of demonstrating that same philosophy. "We're not evil like you. Look here at how we do things. Aren't we nice? Don't you see that it is better this way?"
Removing the enemy, by making him like us. Reaching out to help millions of starving people, whose governemnts are not like us, and whose ideologies have caused the millions of starving people.
What a crisis. Globalism seems so godly. World responsibility seems so appropriate, so saintly. What could possibly be wrong with it?
It is devoid of religion. If religion causes all the problems in the world, as agnostics love to boast, how can anyone expect the world ever to be rid of religion? What kind of solution will not involve religion, or would not consider its predominant existence? If religion is the human instinct, if religion dominates the human experience, how are Cadillacs going to rid the world of religion? Muslim leaders have plenty of Cadillacs. This hasn't changed their world view. They're so crazed that they are angry about having Cadillacs, and blaming America that such things exist, while they drive them.
Ye olde Protestant concept that material blessing is the reward of right doing, right believing, and right values, is the missing element in the globalist solution. Material prosperity, as a human right, is wrong. There is no such principle in any religion. But this is all globalism has to offer--material prosperity, or the hope thereof. This will never, ever come about, and will only tempt more 'in between' people to war. Everyone will never own a Cadillac. Nature won't allow it. While it may seem a noble idea, it is an impossible idea, and one that nature will not abide. (Dare we so contradict nature?)
Even in the commonwealth of ancient Israel, housing the very presence of the Almighty, "the poor shall never cease out of the land." Deuteronomy 15:11. Of course, "therefore...open thine hand wide unto thy brother." But, this is within the brotherhood, the community, the nation. It does not follow that a nation is to behave toward other nations in this way. Nationhood is the crux of the matter here. Nationhood is ordained of that same God. We are not to weaken nationhood by obliterating borders, enmeshing all economies, and ignoring each nation's individual responsibility to shape up!
These are profundities to ponder, as the America leads out in globalism, as our own great nation deems itself the humble appointee of divine compassion. Missionary America, that's the role now. That's the thing, like it or not. These days, the only people protesting are the American labor unions, and the Democrat politicians in their pocket. We should see very interesting exchanges of role-playing in American politics, in the very near future. Rank liberals are going to start talking like the most conservative of American patriots. Conservative leaders are all becoming globalists, so that nationhood becomes a romantic notion of the past, and patriotism an antiquated take on personal idenity. Once we all get that North American Union driver's license, we'll feel part of the world. Won't that just be exciting?
Iranian leader 'petty, cruel dictator,' school president says
Ahmadinejad questions 9/11, Holocaust
Iran leader condemned by university host
Headlines try to make Bollinger look tough, but, he came off as merely juvenile.
Worse, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger got what he deserved: a hour of hot air from Ahmadinejad. Bollinger "introduced" the Iranian President with a laborious litany of accusations and condemnations, then turned over the microphone to the poor ratty-looking foreigner.
Ahmadinejad commenced with an unbelievably boring harangue on Islamic faith which was utterly irrelevant to the situation, and could only make the public wonder why Christian professors haven't been allowed such a format to preach their gospel in the hallowed halls of the public university. Another two points for Ahmadinejad, and a minus two for the idiocy of Bollinger to even think that Ahmadinejad might speak otherwise.
Columbia University's president, Lee Bollinger
Bollinger well-represented the inflated ego of the academic, the incredibly arrogant delusions of self-importance so typical of the university professor, and came off looking like the foolish stage manager he was. Or, should we asked, was he sub-contracted? Was there a serious 'lobby' of some kind behind this professionally stupid and suicidal gesture of inviting a non-communicant to speak? Was this all just an opportunity for Bolliger to decry Iran? Was this just a national "15 minutes of fame" for Bollinger?"
If so, it is rather ironic. Columbia University represents the very stronghold of liberal, far Left, "communist" ideology in the United States. The objections of Bollinger, however, as stated to Ahmadinejad, were a testimony of the antithesis! He stated the conservative, Republican position toward Iran!
Well, we know the Jewish Left dominates Columbia. One has to wonder if a different Jewish caucus succeeded in this matter. Bollinger stated all the pro-Israel positions. The university Jewish Left would never do that--not in unity. Other, independent Jewish Leftists would. But Bollinger's positions were really quite the opposite of what we might have expected from a place like Columbia University. Therefore, we have to question the whole matter very carefully.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Ahmadinejad utterly avoided addressing each and every question put to him, and instead simply used his time to justify all things Iranian (including the ridiculous assertion that the Western powers are trying to separate the Middle Eastern people from their ancient past!), and to condemn the United States for all the problems in the world.
So, essentially, Columbia University should hire Ahmadinejad. Well, since they couldn't very well do that, they settled for a speaking engagement. They could let Ahmadinejad promote all their Leftist positions, which he did. Ahmadinejad comes away with the victory in America, beloved of the Left, speaking for them, honored by them, and promoted by them. That's what happened. Ahmadinejad is the peace-maker. That was his clear message. All problems are caused by the United States. Repeat after me: all problems are caused by the United States.
Iranian strategy before the confronting the Great Satan
Bollinger appeared a weak fool. That was the price of his academic self-praise. That was the price of his delusion of grandeur. Quite a nice lesson for all to observe.
Of course, this was all perfectly predictable. Now, will Columbia invite an American patriot to speak? Of course not. Will Bollinger defend the right of a Constitutionalist to advocate the United States Constitution? Of course not. The vapid drone of "rights" and "academic freedom," and especially "freedom of speech" were shown the useless--yea, dangerous facades they really are in the hands of the Left. Bollinger just demonstrated that in a historical way.
Let's remember one thing: Ahmadinejad did not address one single question he was asked. He was asked a number of questions, which allowed "yes" and "no" answers, but these questions each only allowed him opportunity to evade, and to respond with his self-justification. This was not debate, not discussion, not even conversation. This was all an opportunity for Ahmadinejad to come here, and say what he had to say--to justify Iran, and to condemn the United States. This is was he did. Mission accomplished.
Columbia University is laughable, of course; the president (Bollinger) and the dean of the department who presented Ahmadinejad (John Coatsworth) were players with very insignificant roles, bit parts, as it were. Ahmadinejad was the star, nobly witness for his faith, heroically proferring his country, and showing now fear of the big, bad, United States. Ah, 1979--forever! That's what was accomplished by this Columbia University event.
National division, national disquietude, national instability--that must have been the goal of Bollinger, or whomever put him up to it. Yes, it was a disgrace to the United States. But, that's what the Left is all about, humiliating, denigrating, and condemning America. They succeed again. I must say, I'm sorry that Jewish people were so intimately associated with this fiasco. I am terribly worried that the whole thing will eventually look like a Jewish lobby effort. Bollinger talked about Columbia being a Jewish center. Well, that's a two-edged sword. Not all Jewish people are Left any more. Not all agree on the state of Israel. If this was a case where the Left and the Right in Jewish circles actually met together in a unified front, never was it more ineffective, futile, and insulting to the United States.
I regret greatly that the Jewish people were made such a central part of this sinister denigration of America. I personally do not know or know of a single Jewish person who would have encouraged this encounter. Jews are generally too smart for this sort of nonsense anyway. Maybe it was just the plain stupidity of Bollinger after all. Maybe it was juvenile, emotional politics, under that delusion of that ever-arrogant academic self-importance.
Well, this time it was pretty costly. I can only pray that Jewish people are not accused after this. I pray that there are no repercussions.
Ahmadinejad arrives for New York visit
UPTDATES: Live National Press Coference with Ahmadinejad
Should Ahmadinejad be allowed to speak at CU?
Iran's President Faces Protests During Visit
CNN blesses Ahmadinejad
So, the American university has demonstrated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that freedom of speech means let the enemy kill you. Columbia University, its president, board of trustees, department heads, all have declared their unworthiness of American citizenship, and their determination to train American youth in anti-Americanism, disdain for patriotism, and denigration of the American Constitution. CU president Lee Bollinger should be hung as a traitor, if we were following the Constitution at all. And whatever authorities granted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a passport to step anywhere but in the United Nations building should all be fined, fired, and confined.
To invite a murderous madman to speak to a "civilized" audience, to speak to American young people where they come to supposedly "learn," is one the greater moments of irony offered by the liberal American University. Of course, that's Bollinger's point, his claim to fame, and what he will be remembered for. The liberal sentiment of tolerating the intolerant (as long as it doesn't mean giving conservatives equal time), the liberal principle of letting the enemy kill you, has become triumphant.
All the talk, the justification of Ahmadinejad's visit, the projected benefits, make mockery of reason, dignity, honor, and patriotism.
America is mocked before the world. Liberals would have it so. They have succeeded. This is the lowest point since the 1979 hostage crisis--which liberals loved. This is the ultimate now--28 years later. The ememy of America is here to share his views. Liberals are ecstatic. Liberals are like sado-masochists. They love to bleed. They love to be raped. They love pain, and they love to cause pain to everyone else. Liberalism is a mammoth social pathology, really.
This invitation to Ahmadinejad is the peak of failure. America has failed. Before our eyes, America has fallen. Fallen so low that leaders don't even recognize it. Well, leaders have invited masses and masses of illiterates into the country, honored their presence, refuted our laws, and then invited hordes of mass murderers and anti-Americans called Muslims, and protected their rights to be here, and to plot to kills us on our own land, in our own cities, in our own homes, eventually.
Things have changed, indeed. The government is worse than impotant; the government is anti-American. Our own government is anti-American. Let me say that again: our own government is anit-American. Still not enough. Our own governemtn is anti-American. One more time: our own government is anti-American.
So, where does the Revolution start? (No, not when, but where?) In our own homes? In our own neighborhoods? Well, let's see, we have our local police who will be happy and righteous to arrest us; we can never, ever depend on them to be patriots. Our courts will rule against us. We know we can't depend on them for truth, justice, or the American way. The national guard will be used against us, in the name of protecting us. So, we armed forces will never support us, but instead fight against us.
What do we do, folks? Where does the Revolution start? How? Yeah, we complain that the Iranian people haven't risen up and rid themselves of their government. Well, what can we do with our own? We instead invite their government to speak to your university students--the kind of young people Ahmadinejad imprisons, tortures, and even executes!
This is beyond words. And every rebuke, every condemnation, every word of outrage--if not effective, if not producing results, only weakens itself further. Each expression of condemnation, ineffective, comes more and more to justify the crime!
We have witnessed the demise of reason, in the name of academic discussion.
We have seen the denigration of honor, in the name of tolerance.
We know now that freedom of speech is a poisonous abstraction, used to destroy us.
We have full evidence that our government is anti-American.
How did it happen? Was it gradual? It was obviously intentional, but, where were we? At a ball game? On a cruise? Nothing short of Revolution can change any of this now. It is beyond legislation--and we all know our senators are weaker than wet spaghetti.
The dragon rules. Falsehood, deceit, dissembling, lies, all this has triumphed in America, through our own government. I never thought I'd see the day, or ever be moved to say it, but, one more time: our own government is anti-American. It's happened. That's the way it is now. There is not a politician in the country who will face the issues. No, not one. They are altogether become filthy.
What do we do? Just, what do we do?
Sundown this evening is the Day of Atonement, better known as "Yom Kippur." (September 22, 2007 Gregorian, 5768 Hebrew--10th day of Tishrei). In recent decades, it seems that the public perception has been one of "turning." The day marks an attitude of turning toward to the Creator. In many cases, that mean returning. Books have been written on that theme, a dandy being Pinchas Peli's On Repentence in the Thought and Oral Discourses of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik (Orot, 1980). But, lately, the Jewish trends are toward "forgiveness" specifically. Even in the journals, the focus is clear. Rabbi Ari Kahn, regularly featured on BadEagle.com, has a discourse posted on Aish.com, "Goat for Azazel," which clearly indicates that one initially approachs G-d with fear, and only upon obtaining forgiveness does one find the intended joy and happiness in the Lord.
This is a psychological archetype if there ever was one. A cultural "theatricalization" of conflict and resolution. But, our first rehearsals are in the home.
And therefore, I turn to the matter of family, where all archetypes are first manifest. Of course, I do willfully expand the meaning of "archetype," from the Carl Jung's expansion of Freudian psychology. For me, there is such a thing as a behvioral archetype, not just a symbol, a sign, or an objectification. I mean a basic notion in the soul that depicts or reflects the universal condition of man.
Jews praying in the synagogue on Yom Kippur, by Maurycy Gottlieb, 1878.
We experience alienation within our most natural and immediation human relationships. Children have to be corrected. Two adult minds always have disagreement. The child inherits a dualty, a double-exposed reality from the sheer fact of having two parents. Even ideally, we inherit uncertainty. We fundamentally seek the converse. Forgiveness is one of those doors to peace, one of those resolutions.
But speaking of forgiviness specifically, I note a new book by Dr. Lourdes Morales Gudmunssen, Chair of the Department of Modern Languages at La Sierra University: I forgive you, but... (Pacific Press, 2007). It is reportedly one of the most carefully outlined psychology on the process of forgiveness available in print. (And it's only 175 pages.) It also contains quite dramatic examples of the challenge of forgiveness, and therefor the urgent need to understand the "how to." (Dr. Morales recently published a meditation on Eli Weisenthal's The Sunflower. Her article is entitled "How to Forgive in Time of War."
Well, I disagree with both Rabbi Kahn and Dr. Morales-Gudmundsson.
Rabbi Kahn is one of the most articulate teachers in modern times, and I've been acquainted with him since 1998, when I met him in Caesarea, Israel. I've known Lourdes for a thousand years now, and her family. She has always been a spiritual goddess to me--and to everyone who knows her.
Dr. Lourdes Morales-Gudmunsson, a Venezuelan
married to an Icelander. Now that's a guaranteed
method of objectivity!
But I disagree with both luminaries. Humans cannot forgive. We are incapable. Forgiveness is divine. To be absolutely technical about it, only God can forgive. What we do is try to move on, try not to hold grudges, try not to hate. But this is all an adjustment, a manoeuver, a necessity. We simply do not have the power to forgive. We merely substitute various behaviors in place of those we naturally tend towards. "Behavioral Modification," it's called in modern psycho-sociology.
Of course, the master folk rabbi himself taught us to pray, "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." (Matt. 6:12.)
But even that call, in that context, leaves out the one thing that allows us to escape the shackles of hate: love. I believe human beings can love. I believe that, when you love someone, you naturally forgive them, as a mother forgives a wayward child, as a father forgives a rebellious son. Parents are in the business of forgiveness! But, it is because they love, not because they're following an outline of forgiveness. Forgiveness isn't a self-discipline of some kind. Certainly, love was the fundamental teaching of the folk rabbi. No question about that. "Love one another, as I have loved you." John 15:12. (Hey, it's a traditional Jewish teaching. Like, Leviticus 19:17,18.)
One has to see love happen. One has to have it demonstrated. One has to be loved, first. Hopefully, it comes from the mother, then the father. I got lucky. My mother loved me, all her children, and her husband. I can imagine the love of God. I can allow that He is aware of me, personally, and actually tends to me and my affairs. I can believe. I can believe that He indeed so loved me that He scarred Himself incomprehensibly, forever. I know what my parents did for me. I know what my mother went through.
But what about those who don't know a parent's love? Wherever shall they get a glimpse or a taste of love? I was in social work a good while. I've seen abused children grow up and have children. Parenthood does not heal them, really. It was just another one of our 'manoeuvers.' We are lost reactionaries. We are slaves to reality's onslaught of our soul. We are naturally like writhing demons, unless we get a taste of love, unless we catch a glimpse of love. Ah, the power of love, who can know it?
No wonder love gets the devil's goat.
Love breaks the shackles of reality. Love breaks his spell. Love--the only basis of forgiveness, proves him wrong. A goat for Azazel, indeed.
Love itself is the great 'how-to.' No methodology can create love. No matter how carefully spelled out, no instruction can produce it. Love only is love. It isn't a theory. It is an experience. Lourdes, whom I truly love, has given a modern 'how-to' book about forgiveness; Rabbi Kahn, a super-charmer when he speaks--every time, says in "A Goat for Azazel," that we both love and fear God, but that only HIs forgivness is what we need. That's what Yom Kippur is all about. I say, methods fall short, and the forgiveness of God is not solipsistic. I know the Bible says to love the Lord with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself. All I'm saying is, unless you have been shown what love is, you will fail on all counts.
This present world will not be redeemed in it's present state. There are enemies. Murderous enemies abound. As in the case of the Muslims, you can forgive them until they kill you. Maniacs have no goats to get. And so we battle on. We have war, daily, of one kind or another. It's all a big mix of experience. Reality is messy. But, I say, love is the wind in our sails. Yes, we need to try to chart out carefully where we're going. We need maps and methods, but, without favoring gale, we shall rot where we harbor.
So, this Day of Atonement, this day of forgiveness, this Yom Kippur, let's think about love--love triumphant--at least on the personal level. Let the world drift in its distortions. At least we'll know where we're going in our own lives. Love is indeed social, and effects others immediately. Family is the foundation, then others. Maybe love is it's own chart, it's own compass.
I for one push it all the way to the nation. I love America. Some day, in the writhing contortions of my enemies, they'll figure out that this dumb Indian in Oklahoma is trying to forgive the whole blasted country! Yeah, I'm a little short on methodology, but, the spirit is willing, believe me. I simply find no Indian guides.
Sometimes, duplicity is so cosmic and outrage is so ineffable that one can hardly respond at all. Iranian terrorist president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad requested permission to visit New York's World Trade Center site, and to lay a wreath on the grounds, or "to pay tribute to the victims of the terrorists attack of Sept. 11, 2001," said Mohammad Mir Ali Mohammadi, spokesman for the Iranian mission to the U.N. Ahmadinejad is scheduled to arrive in New York this Sunday (September 23) for talks at the United Nations.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
The New York Times handles the story in an interesting way. First of all, New York City police spokesman Paul Browne said that everything's under construction now, and there are security issues. No one is being let inside the fenced area. Well, now, there's an innocuous answer. Mr. Ahmadinejad, we would never say you are a complete fool and a pig for suggesting such an appearance for your demented self. We would never say you are the prince of egotists, the lowest of the low, or the world idiot. Why, no. It's rather just a matter of safety. We have our wonderful rules here in America. There's no discrimination. We're not descriminating against monsters like yourself. It's just that no one is allowed in right now. We realy want you to understand that we're not being prejudiced. We good people. We love humanity--and we count you as one of the finest, even though your principle purpose in the world seems to be murdering women and children.
White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said a visit to ground zero ''is a matter for the city of New York, but it seems more than odd that the president of a country that is a state sponsor of terror would visit ground zero.'' So, initially, the White House pushes the buck. Well, it's for New York City to decided. We the national government just cannot get involved in a local domestic issue. Why, we respect states rights, and even city rights. See what a noble government we are? See how we respect ourselves and our system? You take good note of that Mr. Ahmadinejad. You want to observe something, you observe that, you, you, dirty man. We're much cleaner, whiter, and brighter than you, you meanie.
Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said Wednesday the city was considering Ahmadinejad's application, and that prompted protests from politicians and families of Sept. 11 victims. Browne said about two hours later that Kelly had misspoken. Port Authority and police representatives decided at a meeting that no dignitaries would be allowed inside the site, said Port Authority spokesman Steve Coleman. Oh, so now it's not New York City, but even a more localized boss, the Port Authority. Yep, they made the decision. It wasn't the White House, it wasn't New York City, it wasn't the Police Department, it was the Port Authority.
Now we know who the culprit is--that evil agency who would deny Ahmadinejad his right to mourn, to act human, to reach out and 'humiliate' someone--like, the United States. Well, let's hear it then for the Port Authority.
I mean, just the way in which this story is told bespeaks the kind of run-around, spineless buck-pushing that characterizes modern American society. No one wants to be accused of being patriotic--at least not in a way that involves in any way disciplining anyone else, or denying his slightest whim. No one wants to be sued.
Yes, 400 years ago, Shakespeare put it all in the worlds of Hamlet. "Conscience doeth make cowards of us all." (Act 3 scene i, 85.) Only today, we'd have to say, "Attorneys make cowards of us all." Everyone's afraid of being sued, of being called hateful, prejudiced, mean-spirited, or otherwise sensible. Modern politicized attorneys "make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate." Isaiah 29:21. In Isaiah's day (6th century BC), the gatekeeper was the first line of security for a city. He kept track of everyone who went in and came out. So, even in that ancient day, a man's job could be attacked for a simple "yes" or "no" as to who passed through the gates. As it is today, people are pratically afraid to do their jobs. Especially is this true for authority jobs, like Port Authority, city police, and the ultimate authority--the military.
Just in the way this simple story is told about the idiotic Ahmadinejad, we can see the mind set of our society. No one wants to put any rebuke in writing. No one in authority wants to tell Ahmadinejad what a maniac he really is. Why, it might offend him. He might get mad and blow something up. But, ever more importantly, we don't want to be accused of mean-spiritedness. We don't want to express any aversion, any intolerance, any anger. America, land of the liberals, is white, clean, beautiful, more than Christian, and simply the most wonderful society ever evolved. And we owe it all to the Democrats, the ACLU, and the media. The liberals.
Just like we owe Ground Zero. Or something like that. (Remember, all Clinton could do was order the indescriminate bombing of Christian Serbians citizens in their own country, Kosovo. He made no effort to stop the Muslim onslaughts in the world. He supported them.) Why, the whole world loves Muslims. Europe has given itself in luscious social matrimony to the dark Muslims. Europe is out of the picture. All that's left to resist the iron shadow, the cruel cowl of Islam is a few perturbed patriots here in America.
But, notice how the NYT article fails to cite nationalism, patriotism, or even war. The protest against Ahmadinejad was the sole domain of the poor victims of 9-11, and not the place of patriots! It's all personal for the liberal mind. There is no national outcry. There is no nationhood. Why, America has absolutely no basis for being offended at Ahmadinejad's request to put a wreath at Ground Zero. No whatsoever. In fact, he should be allowed to. But, some people were personally offended, because they lost loved ones. That is the sole basis for printed protest. No other motivation is allowed expression. That is the reason Ahmadinejad was denied, not because he was delighted by the attacks.
No other account of protest was cited in the NYT.
Ann Coulter caused a murder! Uh...Ann Coulter caused an attempted murder--of herself. Well, it was actually manslaughter--an accidental killing--of someone else, but intended to be her. Okay, so it was not even Ann. It was just the fantasy of Dick Wolf, or his writers. It was an episode on the Law & Order series, you know, the one with "Jack MacCoy" (Sam Waterson), "Arthur Branch" (Fred Thomson), etc. The blonde character playing Ann Coulter was called "Judith Barlowe." All I know is, it happened last night, (the episode, that is), 8:00 pm, Cox Cable channel 31, Oklahoma City (CST). It's not posted yet on the Law & Order site. New episode.
Can you believe it? The liberals have such animosity toward Ann Coulter that a major TV show decided to indulge their fantasy of killing her! Yes, at one point the accused actually tried to strangle her--the petulant lust in every liberal heart. Ah, how they languish, how they pine in their murderous hatred. Remarkable, really.
The latest Assistant DA, Alana De La Garza (Connie Rubirosa)
A young scientist, afflicted with Parkinson's Disease (like Michael J. Fox), is doing human embryonic stem cell research. He is offended by the things Judith Barlowe (the character who is cleary supposed to represent the very real Ann Coulter). He is so frustrated and maddened by the things Barlowe says that he is goaded to literally shoot her, in public. Of course, he misses, accidently kills a young Christian student who is against his research. (So, the liberals score on another fantasy.) At the trial, Barlowe finally takes the stand--by command of the defense (Ron Silver) because they think she will obviously offend the jury with her 'meanness.' It will work to their advantage. The defendant, the young scientist takes the stand without meds, so he's gesticulating all over the place, (like Michael J. Fox), campaigning for pity and mercy, of course. (So, liberals couldn't avoid losing on that one. But, hey, it set up the more hatred they wanted against Ann Coulter. What's a little disease drama there, what's a little suffering, what's a little exploitation of misery--if it causes more hatred of Ann Coulter? Goodness! They used the Fox fate more shamelessly than Fox himself. All for uselessly killing human embryos.)
DA Jack MacCoy (Sam Waterson) who didn't want Judith (Ann) on the stand at all,
because she would enflame everyone.
So, the scientist is convicted, of course, painfully to all parties concerned. But the closing moments of the aftermath court scene is an inimate camera shot of Judith (Ann Coulter) smiling ever so impishly that the bastard was convicted. Yes, the poor, humiliated, miserable scientist was convicted of the murder he attempted--as well as the one he accidentally committed. Conficted of manslaughter. But, Judith's little smirk was the triumph of liberals. That any person could congratulate themselves on the demise of a suffering human being; that any human being could delight so personally in the triumph of words over feelings, only reveals the true monster the liberals think Ann Coulter is. The thought of killing her, with satanic, not heroic malice, shows the true misanthropy in them.
In a way, this is very disturbing. Yes, Law & Order is just entertainment, as is the practice of law in American society at this point anyway. Court is like a casino. You might win. Truth is a sport. Lies are of equal value. Ah, yes, only in American courts is equality achieved. LIes are the same as truth. They are cards which the attorneys play. A show like Law & Order just gives the profession a chance to make things come out the way they want. The sell is that the people cherish justice, intensely? Why? Most people feel they haven't gotten it. Therefore, the entertainment value of such shows is very high.
But, fantasizing about killing Ann Coulter, that is about like the documentary about killing George Bush. Is this all liberals think about? Killing their enemies? Murdering those who oppose them? Eliminating those with different (and better) ideas? Man, this is awful!
Now, Judith points out that she has four best sellers. If she is so hated, then who's buying all those books? The show made a lot of pretty accurate statements. And it was probably pretty accurate in showing how liberals really want to kill conservatives. A murderous horde liberals have become, or so it would seem. Almost like terrorists. But, they diguised all their frustrations behind a young scientist afflicted with Parkinson's Disease! Interesting. Does this mean liberals consider themselves diseased after all? Was Michael Savage right when he said it liberalism was a mental disease?
Well, the truth in the matter is simple enough. Ann has never courted anyone's favor. She hasn't had to. Her career as a writer has been the result of her own efforts. She is not associated with any funding organization, any major corporation, any political backing. She has advocated Republicanism as the best attempt to actualize the US Constitution. She has defended, valiantly, every historical position during American crisis periods that have been so persistenlty misrepresented and maligned by the malicious enemies of America. Ann has created her own career. She is independent. How many professionals out there can say that? How many blabbers can boast such a coup? Ann is who she is because masses of people see the truth in her. Okay, so she gets a bit snappy now and then. Maybe often. (Like, constantly?!) But style is not the measure of truth. No one has more pleasing address than Chuck Schumer. But, would any sincere American patriot entrust him with the soul of the country, or even the local store? We can't help it because liberals have a juvenile delinquent style of behavior. Just because Ann out-talks them, they want to murder her? Yeah, that's juvenile, I'd say. Pretty low down.
But, you know, it shows how weak liberals really are. A woman's privilege is to talk. She doesn't fight, physically. She out-talks you, if there is a fight. But liberals, feminists that they all are at heart, can't fight Ann. She's smarter than they are. Their cat fights fail, because they just don't have the skill to fight. Apparently, intellectually they are like mad kittens at the feet of a Lioness. Not a contest.
If the fight is between liberals and Ann Coulter, if the dialogue is national, I'd say Ann is America's woman. People want her books, becasue they are great. Very few people want to read anything Hillary or Bill Clinton have to say. Number of sales is the measure there, not media hype for release dates, or TV interviews.
So, Ann is at a new level of public appreciation now. The liberals are fantasizing about killing her. The fantasy is not private, not on some YouTube cartoon. It was on one of the most popular shows on TV.
We're done in, by now. We don't expect good news. It's not that we want to thrive on bad news, but, the way the media handles news, the only thing that holds our attention is worse news. The only thing they have to sell is news worse than the day before.
We're accustomed to betrayal, dishonesty, hideous sex abuse, brutality, in short, all the behavior which brings down judment on the heathen--fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah. We're used to hearing this, seeing this, and many of us are used to experiencing it. This is an alarming state of affairs, is it not?
Glenn Beck's radio show this morning touched on this. He reported stunning news from the Middle East, like the fact that Syria apparently just made a nuclear arms deal with North Korea (--remember the "Axis of Evil?"). And we wonder why Israel has to keep its neighbors in line (with alleged bombings). Beck reported the great run on the banks in London, as customers withdrew billions in fear of a crash. Beck couldn't understand why the OJ Simpson thuggery case would dominate the news for days, when the world is changing shape for all of us. Beck said maybe the news was just providing a diversion, because people couldn't handle the real stories.
The Spring 2007 issue of Reflections (a journal of Yale Divinity School) presents an interesting take. The issue is called "God's Green Earth: Creation, Faith, Crisis." It advocates extreme liberal, or "green" point of view, but with an alleged 'scientific' vengeance. The lead article is by Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim, founders of The Forum on Religion and Ecology (recently jointly appointed to the Yale Divinity faculty, the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and the department of Religious Studies).
There is a dawning realization from many quarters that the changes humans are making on the planet are comparable to the changes of a major geological era. The scientific evidence says we are damaging life systems on Earth and causing species extinction (20,000 species lost annually) at such a rate as to bring about the end of our current period, the Cenozoic era. No such mass extinction has occurred since the dinosaurs were eliminated 65 million years ago by an asteroid. p.4.
In this intense compound of theory, I note first that capitalization of the word "Earth." That speaks worlds about the "religion" of Ms. Tucker and Mr. Grim. (A grim tucker, eh?) And right away, I'll have to note that any profession of religion, particularly Biblical religion (--or should we not expect that from a liberal institution like Yale Divinity), that does not understand the divine revelation on the matter of earth, cosmos, and history, is quite the false front. Leading minds of the world see trouble ahead, and they think the solution is in social adjustments of human behavior. Well, that would be a biblical tradition, if those adjustments had specifically to do with moral behavior. Alas, in the case of the liberal take, no such considerations are involved.
Ah, well, Christopher Glenn Sawyer thinks "believers" should at least be able to talk about environmental issues in "faith" terms, p.46. Sawyer (YDS '75) is chair of the Divinity School Advisory Board, and member of the Leadership Council of the School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. Great. Wonderful sentiment. But how are people of "faith" going to talk about the environment in Biblical terms when they really don't believe what the Bible says?
"...the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervant heat...Nevertheless we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth rigtheousness." 2 Peter 3:12,13.
The same vision is shared by John in the Revelation (21:1-5). It's basically what Jesus himself taught.
So, basically, we are not to look for the resolution of our problems here on this earth. The Republicans can't fix them. The Communists fail. The Muslims are the worst of the problem, and they will not be eliminated. Indeed, there is a drone of bad news out there, and it's getting louder and louder. We cannot escape it by a fleeting sense of justice because OJ got jailed, because a murderer got pinched for a stupid robbery case. We cannot write off doom because we've seen a thousand Hollywood movies about it, or because conservatives expose the absolute evil intent of the Muslims.
Doom is doom. The language of "faith," my dear Yale Divinity friends, is the language of belief. If you are embarrassed by what the Bible says about the overthrow of your "Earth," as if it's some vision from Edgar Allan Poe's "Conversation of Eiros and Charmion;" if you are ashamed to be accused by scientists of illogical thoughts, and prefer instead their ineviscerable impactions of non-demonstrable theory, then exactly what "language of faith" are you speaking? The faith that what you say is right? The faith that your words are correct, and your forecasts are accurate?
So, then, you just use the tradition of Christian religion as back-up? Is 2,000 years of church history just a support system, like, your "authority" among willful and arrogant unbelievers? Why then should anyone, most of all scientists, have any "faith" in you? You confound everyone. You're dubious position can ill bear the weight of even historical truth. The ancient Judeo-Christian faith is not yours. Nor does it authorize or authenticate you. You are the unbeliever, only, you want everyone to think you represent the position of belief, or "faith."
Sorry. No cigar. I should say, No pipe. Professors like pipes. Well, you'll have no tobacco offering from me. As an Indian, even, I denounce your unbelief, and your denial of the plain word of the Creator, blessed be He. A myth? A first century fancy? A folk tale? Zecharia has a word for you (3:2):
"The Lord rebuke thee."
The only good news to be had today is the message of the new heaven, and the new earth. This one will not be redeemed, but recreated. And this is by the hand of God, not by the decisions of boards or committees. It isn't about social policy or politics. Any leader or organization that obfuscates the realities prophesied (not "forecast") by the inspired men of God is a thief and a robber. Professing to believe, such a deceiver is actually denying the very thing he professes to believe, and willfully misleading others--for what, the sake of just having authority?
Strange infatuation, eh? This thing we call "authority." We also call it fame, fortune, success, anything but what it usually is--a pact with the Devil. And yet, many, many people who see the outrageous hypocrisy and culpability of the great powers in the world still will not entertain the thought that there is a God in heaven, and that He does in fact reign over the affairs of men, and in due time, "every knee shall bow."
All this means is that the truth will triumph in the end. And that truth is not an economic theory. It is a prophecy. It is not an environmental policy. It is a Creator. The Almighty.
What could it be, heaven?
It seems man has always had thoughts about it, whether as a state of mind, a feeling, a place, a condition, or some imaginary resolution of all ill. Different cultures, in different periods of history have offered what seem inevitably psychological fuctions. Elesian Fields, Happy Hunting Grounds, Paradise, even Nirvana. This is all a natural mechanism in the mind. Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) said it was a deep memory of the womb, a feeling of peace, contentment, of unconscious origins. It lingers forever in the mind, and we basically grope for it the rest of our lives.
So how does "heaven" function in the minds of the living? If it's not the product of poetry, drugs, or insanity, how shall we intelligently entertain the thought of heaven, and the fact that man has persistently insisted upon it from time immemorial?
As a revealing exercise, let's consider a beloved parent, passed from life. A lost loved one, what could be more agonizing, sorrowful, and finally sentimental--of the most profound dimension? My mother passed on April 9, 2005. I miss her intensely. So, what is heaven to me, in this condition of mourning? To see my mother again? To never be separated from her again, or from anyone else I love? That is certainly an instinctive desire. That is a natural hope. It is the only thing that assuages the sorrow to any significant degree.
But, my mother died an elderly woman. You know, one of those gentle, creeping things. One of those ancient things. If I ever see her again, if I am ever restored to those I have lost, what age will they be? What age will I be? And, yes, that matters. That is a critical consideration. Eternity demands it.
Will she be forever young? Forever old? Forever older than I? What of children that die? If they are ever restored again, will it be as children? Will they "grow"?
My mother and her firstborn, Fred, my older brother. He
preceded her in death, Jan. 2000. Every person changes. There
are several stages programmed for us. I have loved each one,
in each person, but, which one is forever?
I know there are various well-established theories and beliefs regarding these concerns, but, just in basic terms of emotions, or psychological desires, what is it exactly that we are looking for? What is it we really want? For most of us, our thoughts of heaven are highly undeveloped. We never get beyond the spectacular, the sensuous, the visuals, in our brief imaginings of heaven. (I journeyed through Dante's Divine Comedy, and I can't say there's anything in the "Paradiso" that appealed to me. My doctoral thesis, in fact, was on the Franz Liszt's 1838 piano composition, Apres une Lecture de Dante: Fantasia Quasi Sonata--the "Dante" Sonata. I must say, heaven is going to have to be more than a few moments of grand music.)
I have come to realize that, while my emotional desires are completely drawn to heaven, my intellectual comprehension is quite lacking. I don't know what heaven is. I only know it sounds good. It feels good. It is irresistably attractive to me.
So what sounds good? Well, I'm a bit jaded. I've studied the Bible most of my life. I am accustomed to words and depictions that are well-suited to at least my emotional desires. I generally plug in those ready-made visions to help resolve abject frustrations when they become intolerable (--which seems more frequent the older I get). Yes, I "use" heaven. It is a medicine. It is remedy, and a faithful one. It's always there. (The emotional economy of scripture has always amazed me.)
My aged mother, Christmas, not long before
her passing, in 2005.
However, perhaps ironically, the emotional desire is the one most ably resolved. Intellectual pursuits become quite competitive, or, man-made, and lead to more frustration, actually. The most satisfying thing I know here, now, on this earth, is love. I was given love, by my parents. I can't say I have given that kind of love to anyone else, but, I know that I love many people, very dearly. I love them permanently. I can't say that love is always mutual, but, I never forget a person. I am consciously pained when people go out of my life.
So, to me, heaven is love--that love I know here, without ever being interrupted, lost, denied, or ended. Love is the best feeling, the best experience, the best thing to know. The cessation of love is then the most painful, the most irreparable and irresolute. Therefore, again, to me, heaven is love.
It is very late here in OKC. This is Sabbath. I never post on Sabbath. I did tonight. Heaven is important. I sometimes wonder if I really have courage to walk through the gates. Evene if allowed, I don't know that I can. I think I need help. It sometimes feels terrifying. What if loved ones are missing? Well, the Bible's too careful to leave something like that out. "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying." Revelation 21:4. So, does that mean indeed that some will be missing? Well, I for one am fearful. I am afraid of heaven.
Love is a powerful thing. It is the hope for love lost, but also the reality. So, I really can't anticipate heaven. Any temporary, imaginary notion of grandeur, any fleeting sense of glory, any momentary beauty, is not what heaven is about at all. Our emotional intuitions fail us on this one. Our natural imaginations are a bit deceptive. If heaven is about real love, then there will definitely be tears that need wiped away. And when they are gone, then love is settled, forever. Maybe only the people who really know what love is, know what heaven can be, and what the potential pain and loss really is.
Yes, I definitely need some help. I tremble at the thought of heaven.
Tonight at sunset, Septeber 12, 2007, the Jewish New Year begins. (Year 5768 on the Jewish calendar, 2007 on the Gregorian.) Some how, this time around, I want more than a New Year. I want to sense a new world. Gratitude is natural, but so also is hope. This New Year, I want a new world. I want to see the world differently.
Recently, I've been studying Kirkpatrick Sale's The Conquest of Paradise: Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy (Knopf, 1991). Now, there was a new world. ISale's book was published the year before the quincentennial anniversary of Columbus' landing on San Salvador. The sense of 'new world' is alive and well within me. (And I mean something beyond the Plains Indian Ghost Dance--though that would be especially nice!)
But what of the old "New World" sense? Certainly, the great European explorations were necessitated by the Muslim choke-hold on the eastern and western territories of Europe. They did not occur until Islam had crossed the Danube and the Pyrenees. (We thank Mongolian Kahn clan for there interruption of the Islamic murder spree in Europe.) The Muslims were in Southern France by 732, and the Turkish Muslims (the Ottoman Empire) were at the gates of Vienna as late as 1683. Of course, the minute Muslim Granada fell back into the hands of Christian Spain, Columbus set sail for a new world. That would be 1492. It was all about experiencing a new world, in every way.
Kirkpatrick Sale's telling of the story is fabulous. Every sentence of the narrative is exciting, thoughtful, and practially poetic. (How could it not be, given the story?) He seems to have covered every major point--but the Muslim terror. And even when he brings himself to mention Istanbul (p.355), it is in reference only to a map by the Turkish cartographer Piri Re'is. Of course, Sale is a raving liberal. He is the founder of the New York Green Party, and board member of PEN American Center for the last fifteen years. Free enough, but not free to tell the truth about Islam. Not free enough to point out that exploration and expansion by Europe was a natural and defensive reaction to having nearly been choked to death by Islam. Instead, Sale spends his lyrics on contradictory praise and condemnation of European Judeo-Christian culture. All part of the poetic process, I suppose.
But on the matter of world wars and expansions, of surviving attack, then turning aggressive with a vengeance, this kind of thing had happened before in world history--a number of times. When Babylon had tried pushing over Persia, Persian came back, took over Babylon, and expanded into a huge empire. Then Persia stepped on Greece. Greece survived, and greated an even larger empire than Persia. Carthage tried to smash Rome, three times. Rome finally rose up and created the largest empire ever. By the time Islam, unprovoked, started its rampage of raping the world, Europe was entirely unprepared. Had it not been for that other empire, the Mongolian thing, Islam might have won the 'civilized' world. But as soon as Europe recovered (through the Mongolian hiatus of Islam), Europe went on the aggressive. Thus, the world then came under European influence, finally. The point? Those who survive the attack often become greater aggressers themselves.
But what shall be the New World, today? There is no more room here. Every seat is taken, so to speak. We're slipping into an economic empire mode now, and they're calling it Globalism. Globalist capitalism. Fine. That's all there is to do. I just wonder, though, for those who survive it's aggressions, what new empire will they create? What else is there to do? Where else is there to go? Is economic globalism the last autolysis? Is it the evolutionary climax--self-destruction?
I don't know. I know that, this New Year, I'm looking for a new world. Is it Abraham's country I look for? A better country, that is, an heavenly? Hebrews 11:16. I think it is time to look for something better. America was something better, once. It is still the best, but, I fear it is losing that status. (How is the gold become dim! How is the most find gold become changed! Lamentations 4:1) I don't think the globalist solution will create the new and better world. I don't feel it. I feels like the dissolution of all countries. How can no country be better than any country? No country certainly can't be the "better country."
For the New Year, in this world, I should think the best hope is instruction--guidance on what it means to be a country in the first place. Maybe that's the foundation whose builder and maker is God. ((Hebrews 11:10.) Maybe that's where we need to begin. The Bible says God created the nations. So what did He create? What is a nation? The Bible also says that nations are on probation, to prove themselves. So, what does a country have to do to be a winner? What constitutes a survivor? I think this is a Jewish question, fundamentally. It is a Biblically based issue. Thither we must look. That's what this New Year means to me.
Prayers on Brooklyn Bridge, NY, on a Jewish New Year, turn of the 19th century.
It was a new and better world for them. Does there yet await a new and better
world for us now?
Every year now, we do the grieving thing. It's called 9-11: September 9, 2001, when our country was attacked by murderous Muslims. We mourn. We grieve. It is a media fest. It is a public exercise. (However, as a personal witness to the Oklahoma City Bombing, April 19, 1995, I became immune to certain things, and angry about others.) September 11 will forever remain a memorial--to victims. That's the American media way, that's the American public way, and that's the liberal way. It is more righteous to mourn, than to respond. It is more saintly to grieve, than to be angry. It is more godly to forgive, than to fight.
That's the way the liberal would have it. That's the way they presume true religion would have it, with or without the nominal beliefs of the Judeo-Christian tradition. That be the American tradition. And now we going to add "good deed doing" to our methodology of remembrance. Why, we'll overcome evil with good!
I didn't respond this way at all. I still don't. I was angry. I still am. I wrote about it in "Comanche War Cry," just as soon as FrontPageMagazine let me. I was spitting mad. I was angry. I wanted to hear "war" declared. Silly me. In my rage, I forgot that Congress doesn't declare war on anyone. Not since WWII. It's not going to happen. It's politically incorrect--like, the ultimate hate speech. Why, we just can't do that.
I wanted to see some country nuked out of existence. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, whatever. It didn't matter. Someone was going to pay in a way that the world would never forget.
Instead, 'America remembers'--the victims. Americans will be kind to one another.
Well, I'm not really interested in that anymore. It is the weak response. It is the wrong response. It is the invitation to terrorists. It is the call for all mass murderers to do it again. It is the call for rape.
Sure, I might have more appreciation for the grand grief and good deed fest if I had lost friends or relatives, etc., etc. Well, I lost fellow Americans! And my response is on a national, patriotic level. Destroy the enemy! And destroy anyone who is harboriong the enemy! Destory their whole country! Forever!
But our President, Geroge Bush, took a different approach. He decided to build a different kind of nation in the Arab world. Yes, we struggle to make things different and better in Iraq. It was certainly an interesting response. I believe it has had its good effects, too. (Maybe it is a good thing that cooler heads prevailed. Had it been left up to me, there'd be some mighty holes in the desert, a lot bigger than those left on Liberty Street in lower Manhattan.)
No, I don't "remember the dead" like those who lost friends and loved ones, instead, I remember the nation, America. I don't despise grieving, of course. But I am outraged that the nation is not loved, not protected, and not honored. This has all been a strange epidode in history. The murderous Muslims are unleashed again, and their countries foster them. Their countries foster that which creates the murderers--Islam unbridled. I say, America has responded with a surprise attack--a demonstrable difference. Iraq.
Iraq is the only hope. If Iraq succeeds, it might really be better than any visceral revenge I could imagine. But, I must say, the true victory is the elimination of Islam. To change the mind of people, to enable them to see things differently--that is victory. What we hope to do through "democracy" and economic freedom, what we expect to accomplish through a secular ideology, is profound, indeed; however, unless Islam is understood as a harmful, dangerous blood cult, a death sentence, we have not obtained the victory. We have merely temporarily contained the monster. (I do not have the time or space here to list every book, study, report, and film on what Islam is actually all about, but, I am conviniced it is an evil thing in the world today. It is averse to progress.)
So, in this light, I see national grieving as a diversion of purpose. National good deed doing is entertainment for the muerderous Muslims. It convinces them, like nothing else could, that we are afraid of them. National mourning does not accomplish resolve, or inspire real victory. It is kind of righteous pastime. I'm sure it is wonderful for the bereft. But it ends up on the selfish side. It is nigh narcissistic. It is a religion. Yet, if it really were connected with the Judeo-Christian tradition, we'd be managing the country differently. We'd show a lot more respect for America, land of the free, home of the brave. Good deed doing is culturally cute, but, as a response to having the hell bombed out of your greatest city? Not going to cut it, in my book.
Sorry if I have offended sensitive souls. But, I will never forgive Islam. I will never forget 9-11, and the just but aborted response we should have rendered.
On September 7, 2007, Charles Rust-Tierney, 52, of Arlington, Va., was convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison. The charge? Downloading child pornography. Rust-Tierney served as President of the Virginia Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union for twelve years. These two facts, together, are not to be considered unusual.
The ACLU has been supporting child pornography for years. In a particularly notable case (1999, Massachusetts Federal District Court), the ACLU supported NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) in a suit claiming NAMBLA was instrumental in the brutal death of a young boy.
The ACLU is focused on destruction of human value. It is about securing the liberty to destroy human beings.
Rust-Tierney was convicted for downloading "what authorities said was some of the 'most abhorrent' child pornography they have ever seen." It involved the torture as well as molestation of children as young as 6 years old.
Rust-Tierney paid hundreds of dollars to subscribe to multiple illegal child pornography Web sites at least as far back as 2004, authorities said. When he was arrested, police found roughly 850 still images and 36 videos of child pornography.
Why should anyone be surprised?
When the ACLU was defending NAMBLA, they said child pornography is protected by the Constitution. The NAMBLA web site
does not ''urge, promote, advocate or even condone torture, mutilation or murder,'' ACLU attorneys wrote. ''Examination of the materials that have been identified by the plaintiffs will show that they simply do not advocate violation of the law,'' the dismissal motion states. ''But even if that were the case, speech is not deprived of the protection of the First Amendment simply because it advocates an unlawful act."
It so happens that the ACLU lost that Massachusetts case (Curley vs. NAMBLA, 2000), but the ACLU has always supported child pornography. Certainly, it has defended the production, dissemination and use of child pornography.
What most people don't know is the fact that public, tax-payer funds are the income of ACLU attorneys. They are encouraged to file cases, to access these public funds. In other words, we the people may very likely fund this defense of child pronography. After all, it's only the Judeo-Christian religion that forbids sexual abuse of children. If it's a matter against religion, the ACLU supports it. It seems likely that the ACLU could defend child pornography on the grounds of freedom from religion.
Still sounds like taxation without representation to me.
It stems from the 1976 Civil Rights' Attorney's Fees Awards Act. ACLU attorneys collect fees for their suits against crosses, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Ten Commandments. Of course, this is a plain abuse of the 1976 law, which was designed to help plaintiffs in civil rights cases. The ACLU uses it for First Amendment "establishment clause" cases. (In Utah, writes Phyllis Schlafly, the ACLU even announced a contest, a "scavanger hunt" with a prize for anyone who could find another Ten Commandments monument that an acitivist judge would remove.)
So, lets not act like the 'fall' of Charles Rust-Tierney is some make-believe tragedy. He never "stood" for the truth. Yes, the report says he has an otherwise "exemplary" record before this egregious offense, costing him years now, as well as dollars; but there is no reason to believe or feel that anything is unusual or inconstent about his actions. It is not to be expected that any ACLU representative would have any objections--to child pornography, or any other kind of human degradation.
Remember, the ACLU is about destruction--about the liberty to destroy. It's not about human value or redemption. Now if we can just get Congress to shut down the ACLU, by denying them public funding, we would all be very quickly better off.
Read about the ACLU in Alan Sears and Craig Osten's The ACLU vs. America (2005).
By the way, Charles Rust-Tierney is an attorney, and once let his membership in the Virginia Bar slip (--forgot to pay dues?). That would be 'forfeiture of license.' He was President of the Virginia Chapter of the ACLU from 1993 to 2005, we are told. The law license forfeiture was in 2002/3. I suppose one doesn't have to be a lawyer to be president of an ACLU chapter.
Iran isn't the first country hostile to the United States that has had nuclear ambitions. Russia (1949) China (1964) and North Korea (2006) were first in that line. Of course, India (1974) and Pakistan (1998) got into the race, along with Israel. These countries, however, are certainly not hostile to the United States, though, today, the Islamic rage would bring Pakistan under suspicion. Great Britain (1952) and France (1960) have had nuclear war heads for decades. (See: List of States with Nuclear Weapons.)
What about Iran? It looks as though Iran has no disposition to cease and desist from its ambitions. Ahmadinejad brags and every step in the development, as he did yesterday. And, as a matter of fact, his bragging may cost Iran. The Pentagon has now a three-day plan to knock out all Iran's air power.
"Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for 'pinprick strikes' against Iran’s nuclear facilities. 'They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,' he said." Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran.
This is more than talking about UN sanction. This sounds very serious. And President Bush is very concerned about Iran. Iran seems a terrible threat to the grand Middle East plan he has been pushing since he has been president.
Iranian President Ahmadinejad, showing no fear, and no respect. He may soon
have no airforce.
"President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East 'under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust'. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran 'before it is too late'."
America, of course, isn't the only country concerned.
Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down.
So far, the western news is not playing up Iran's military strenth, and the cost of attacking Iran's air power. Even a 'surgical' strick on pinpointed targets would be considered an attack on Iran, and there would be a major reaction.
In any case, Ahmjadinejad believes he has proof that the United States will not attack Iran and "the proof comes from his mathematical skills as an engineer and faith in God, the press reported on Monday." He essentially denies the Pentagon plan on the basis of his own calculations as an engineer. Fine. We'll just have to wait and see.
The point is, none of the other states in the world with nuclear ambitions have every made threats against the United States or Israel. In fact, Iran itself has not made threats directly against the Unites States, but only Israel, and US "interests."
Ahmadinejad's continuous statements of faith in God and religion must of course be put in context. Allah is not the Hebrew God of the Bible. Mohammad's reference to Biblical stories and events are at best third hand, and wholly inaccurate when not contradictory. The Koran is not comparable to the Bible at all, being a collections of writings by a group of Mohammad's followers, claiming to the record of Mohammad's sermons. It is, at best, the record of one man, in one moment of history. It does not reflect an objective view of the world.l
So, there is no need to be concerned about Ahmadinejad's "faith," other than the basic concerns to have with any leader who is fanatically focused on dominating others--in the name of religion.
Or, do I have that wrong? Am I missing something? Does Iran have sentiments of benevolence for all people of world? Do the mullahs of Tehran plan on peace for the world? I don't think so. They have said quite the contrary. Ahmadinejad expects the end of the world, to be hastened by war. In other words, Ahmadinejad's Islam encourages the blood bath, the nuclear holocaust--in order to bring on the end of the world, and the appearance of the Mahdi, the "savior."
Amil Imani, often featured on Bad Eagle, says the mullahs are deceiving everyone. Their power is based on money. Oil money, not faith, not religion. Imani says the mullahs are on dope! Interesting things, Mr. Imani continues to publish. From "Mullahs and Opiates":
"Lest you think these men should at least be admired for their self discipline and abstention from personal sins, know that the majority of mullahs are heavy opium smokers. In that land, opium smoking is still very popular with people who can afford the fruit of the Poppy. It is the Muslim's alcohol. Although its use is prohibited by law, with stiff penalties on the books, the use of opium continues and has become more endemic than ever under the mullahs' rule. This is in part because many of the mullahs as well as the law-enforcement officials are users and many officials make a personal fortune by getting their cuts from the traffickers. Opium is the drug of choice in the countryside, and heroin is primarily used by the more affluent city dwellers. Moreover, this is the drug that is used to calm the restless people. And don't think that a little of their stash doesn't make its way to the west."
Anyone who has read any BadEagle.com at all knows how much I love Iran, and Iranian people. I write this blog with a heavy, heavy heart. Islam has robbed the world of a beautiful gem. Iran has been taken from the world of peace and good will, and covered in an iron cowl of darkness and cruelty. Islam is an evil thief. That's how I see it. I would pray I am wrong.