There are a number of imperious stories in the world right now, among them Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, NFL games (the Redskins beat the Cowboys 27-6) and certainly the American presidential election of 2008. There are points of compelling interest in each. Pakistan has an unstable government, nuclear weapons, and al-Qaeda mass murderers on the loose; it looks very much like the liberal Democrats (specifically Hillary Clinton) had a vested interest in seeing Benazir Bhutto return to Pakistan to further disrupt the country and thereby to defeat President Bush's purposes in the Middle East; it seems Bhutto was more socialist/Communist than Hillary Clinton; Iran continues its nuclear program unabated, with announcements that its first nuclear energy plant will be operating in 2008; North Korea is not keeping its committment to reveal all its nuclear programs and weapons programs; the Redskins are now in the play-offs, called "the hottest team in the NFC."
Republican Congressman Ron Paul, today, and as
a young USAF surgeon in the '60's.
But, what about Ron Paul? Why does the Republican Party (GOP) and all the media continually shut him out of the big publicity events? He is a conservative Republican congressman, running for the office of President of the United States. Why is he kept out of the picture? The man raised $6.026 million dollars in one day this month, December 16, but even that didn't make the liberal AP wires. This is most interesting. Why does the media, including Fox News, seem happy to attend to the affairs of the "leading" candidates, but Ron Paul is left out in the dark?
Ron Paul is a medical doctor (a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology), and served as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force in the 1960's. In 1976, he was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president.
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Well, there you have it. At least some of it. Doesn't sould like he would be too popular in Washington at all. I personally don't quite understand his vote on the Patriot Act, or the Iraq war. In fact, it does seem that he is known for voting no on issues that are basically against the Constitution, but, on the other hand, he does not promote some major vision for what the government should do. Paul is all about what the government should not do. That really is interesting, because the founding fathers were all about limited government, completely. It is unfortunate that Paul should appear as the "no" man, when actually he is only advocating what the founders of the American government wanted. This is a remarkable political phenomenon, really.
Paul values home schooling as well. I personally find that encouraging. And he's a great advocate of American independence and sovereignty, voting against giant schemes like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA. This is wonderfully refreshing. Obviously, Paul is strongly against illegal immigration, amnesty, or any other social development which is detrimental to American society. On his campaign website, however, he does not address the conflict in Iraq, but only the principle of war itself:
The only proper way to go to war, the only legal way to go to war, the only constitutional way to go to war is to declare the war, by the congress, not by the president. The people should be behind it.
I agree with this, even though Congress has not declared war since 1941 (WWII). I don't agree, however, that the United States entered Iraq based on false information. Bush had a vision in mind, and Congress happened to agree with him at the time, as did most of the civilized world. No, it was not gone about in the constitutional manner, but, apparently America is not doing that anymore. How to recover constitutional principles is a major challenge. (According to the 13th Amendment, 1865, for example, slavery can be used as punishment for criminals. Congress was given the power to enforce the amendment with legislation. Are we going to revive this?)
But, Paul is all about following the Constitution. That is why he comes off as a "no" man. The United States government has been doing so many, many things that it isn't supposed to be doing, for so long, that the American public--as well as Congress itself, do not have a correct concept of what American government is supposed to be. That is the plain fact. How to get back to the basics at this point is beyond rhetorical articulation. That is the plain fact, also.
In the meantime, Go Redskins!
Washington Redskins cornerback Fred Smoot (27) breaks up a pass intended for
Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Miles Austin, right, during the fourth quarter on
Sunday, Dec. 30, 2007, in Landover, Md. The Redskins won 27-6.
NKorea to delay nuclear disablement, reads the headline, because, as Hyon Hak Pong, vice director-general of North Korea's Foreign Ministry, was instructed to say, North Korea hasn't received the economic aid it was promised in by the United States, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia in return for disabling its nuclear facilities by the end of 2007. So, a delay in the goods, a delay in the shut down of NK's nuclear weapons program.
Makes sense. The Third World's radical rogues have all been trained to act up if they don't get what they want, and to act up to get what they want. Like undisciplined, spoiled children, such nations throw a fit, threatening to kills others as well as themselves, unless they get their way. So much for the Big Brother theory of civilization. The only eye he has on anyone is the Western free nations--seeking every opportunity to wrest their freedoms from them. That's part of the draw back for "independent," productive nations. They pay attention to the Third World only when there is a business advantage. Otherwise the miserable darkies of the world are responsible for their own plight, and deserve their own problems. If they will not adopt western values and be responsible, if they will not whip themselves into gear and be productive for their own benefit, they let them lie in their own flea-bitten beds, or better, let them be sheep to be shorn.
How else could we have come to these predicaments in the world? North Korea's Kim Jong II as literally starved his country to the point of death, all for the sake of his personal fantasies and earthly indulgences. In 1998, it was reported that 2.8 million North Koreans had starved to death. In March, 2007, Columbia University Press published Stephan Haggard and Marcus Noland's Famine in North Korea: Markets, Aid, and Reform Claudia Rosett wrote an interesting review of the book for the New York Sun, entitled "Let Them Eat Nothing."
Is it a hard thing--to hold someone responsible for his actions? It is hard to stand and watch him suffer the effects of his own wrong doing? Is it unkind? Is it unpleasant? How does it feel to know, as a parent, your own failure in training the child has cause him his misery? Well, no nation parents another nation, but, in the metaphoric dimensions so vibrant in political jargon, particularly liberal jargon, apparentlly the stronger nations should. That's what the liberal likes to do--to blame the strong for the weakness of the weak. The liberal blames the strong that the weak are weak. Why, you can't become strong without taking advantage of the weak, or by making them weak in the process of becoming strong. In the liberal mind, there is no justification of strength. None. All must be equal. The only purpose of strength is to make the strong weaker and the weak stronger. All in the hideously abused and psychotic, abnormal name of "equality." That is liberalism.
Communism is the political ideology which embodies this obviously destructive notion of equality. Marxism, after Karl Marx, articulated it in the modern world, beginning in the mid 19th century. It is also known as socialism, the Left, or being Progressive. It's all the same ideology.
That North Korea should receive aid from the United States, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia merely displays the triumph of wrong. Look at the difference between South Korea and North Korea. South Korea adopted democracy, capitalism, and prosperity. North Korea adopted Communism, tyranny, and starvation. Can there be any doubt in anyone's mind? If so, how? Who can not see the difference? Why can't he? Why won't he?
North Korea has a population of 23,301,725, and South Korea 49,044,790. South Korea's GDP (gross domestic production rate), as per purchasing power, is $1.196 trillion, whereas North Korea won't even publish any figure at all. South Korea has a per capita average income of $24,500, whereas North Korea is $1,800. The comparisons are heartsickening, with all their unspeakable implications of human suffering. Why on earth would anyone want anything to do with such a government ideology? Who could not see where it leads?
Alas, in the midst of prosperity, such Communist, destructive ideology is pawned off as the illusion of caring, responsible government! In the whirlwind of Western achievement and prosperity, Communism seemed disguised as socially responsible thought, and compassion for the poor! (Ask the North Koreans about the compassion of Kim Jong II. By the way, his countries labor force is estimated at 9.6 million. South Korea's is at 23.98 million. In North Korea, there are no estimates of poor people, or standards of poverty. That the indication of the state of affairs for those under the 'compassion' of Kim Jong II.) On American television, and in American media, the liberal is refulgent with love and compassion for all human begings--especially those who hate freedom, and desire to destory it. Liberals in the midst of prosperity have the insulation that not only protects their ideology, but allows them to seem ever so warm and righteous about it.
The world tells quite a different story than western media. Reality is quite different. Radically different.
I think it is a great and stupendous error for Republicans and conservatives to say Communism was defeated. Bragging that Ronald Reagan won the Cold War is quite the misapprehended take. Communism isn't over at all. Russia is no friend, nor ally, nor partner. China is an avowed enemy. Both nations are essentially godless in government, with no scrupples whatsoever. Communism, in principle, reigns in the American Democrat Party. Conservative jargonists that like to ennumerate conquests need to leave Communism off that list.
In a private conservation I once had with Fred Thompson (at the first David Horowitz convention I attended, in 2001, just month before 9-11), I commented to him, after his speech, "Mr. Thompson, you make it sound like economics only delays wars, at best." He replied, "Some people think these are the only two alternatives. You either have wars, or you have economic competitions. Sometimes, those lead to wars."
So, is that why the United States, South Korea, Japan are willing to work out economic deals with Korea--in order to avoid some kind of war? Is this why the world indulges Madman Ahmad (Ahmadinejad, President of Iran), for fear that he might start a terrible war? We delay these wars with economic indulgences, or some other such "compsensation" for their self-restraint?
Not an inspiring scenario. Indeed, a very ugly child, the "rogue" nation. We deny our every moral principle when we indulge them. We encourage other nations to rise up and make trouble. We train the world in misbehavior. And since the world loves to hate America, since in makes the scoundrals of the deserts feel so very proud and mighty to get America's attention, since it inflames the souls of the weak with grandeur to criticize, yea, condemn the greatest and best nation the world has ever seen, they will continue to do so. It just seems a shame that the United States would indulge their petty yelps with candy and stakes--just to avoid a war, or another terrorist attack. It is so utterly immoral.
Maybe America is a parent after all. Maybe it is a child-rearing process. Economics--personal freedom and material prosperity--are the only discpline we effectively employ. Of course, Iraq has been an interesting experiment. We use some force there. That could really change the future of the world, if it turns out well, and really, it seems to be going a lot better than the media is ever willing to admit. (Peronalities like Tom Foreman on CNN's This Week At War inevitably appear clownish in their efforts to condemn the effort in Iraq, and to condemn the United States.) But it is hard to tell what the final effects will be.
There are wonderful things happening in the world, and there are horrible things happening. The media has a choice, but, "economics" will hardly allow it. Political agenda will scarely provide the opportunity for it. In the end, each person has to be his own reporter. Each individual, each thinking, responsible individual, must make his own headlines, and choose his own news. We must creat our own take on the world. We must be the arbiter of our own emotional directions.
It has a lot more to do with self-control than with the "economy, stupid." Indeed, stupidity has to do with the lack of self-control (as a certain former president so well displayed). Funny, how the economy is created and sustained by achievers, by aggressive producers, not the weak. The liberal politicians, so very stupid they are, love to condemn the achievers, while at the same time thinking (and preaching) that good economy is the result of the redistribution of wealth, and that the sole purpose of the strong is to become weaker so the weak can become stronger. I'm afraid that's all a social manipulation, nothing more.
I would not pay North Korea to stop being bad. I would have long ago removed Kim Jong. I would pay North Korea if it were good. I would pay them to learn to be good. But, if international relations are something other than economics, if nationhood is something other than threats and consequences, then, in a way, America is obligated to do just what Bush has been trying to do in Iraq--spread freedom. Spread the knowledge of how to be free, how to be self-reliant and independent. That's the only reasonable thing to do. So, how did we miss North Korea? How have we missed the Madman Ahmad of Iran? Is this too some hidden economic-rather-than-military war?
Though I think most of the "merry" in Christmas doesn't have a lot to do with Jesus, BadEagle.com wishes all good things to all people on this Christmas Day, December 25, 2007. As a matter of fact, BadEagle.com wishes all good things to all people every day. May not one day be diminished in value by the tradition of concentrated well-wishing on Christmas Day!
And we wish good things upon our enemies, the best of those things being a change of heart, an open mind, and a desire to honor fellow human beings, rather than destory them. Now, we all have the propensity to want to "correct" others, to make them think like we think, or certainly, we don't want to think like they think. That is understood, or assumed. But, there is definitely a contest out there in the world. There is definitely a battle for the mind. And, as we all know, there are no rules in war. There is only an object--to win. To defeat and to destroy the enemy. Of course, in sports, you simply want to win, not to destory. But, these days, there are hordes of desperados in the world, and they prefer to kill. Bad sports they are, the kind that need to be kicked off the field until they learn how to play nice.
We have seen in recent years an American president who believes that God wants all men to be free, and he has made an effort to express his belief. President George Bush has invested a great deal in the hopes that Iraq will experience this freedom. It seems to be happening, slowly but surely. This is a phenomenon that will not be appreciated until Bush is long out of office (--unless the Democrats manage to hurridly blow it before the Iraq effort comes to full fruition.) I'd say Bush has done something mighty in the world. Mighty grand.
The cult of Mohammad has brought a great curse on the world, with great fervor and maniacal glee. Whatever might be said about the culture of the Qur'an, whatever efficacious discipline it has brought to animiist, tribalist peoples historically, the effect of Mohammad in the modern world is devastating and horrible. It is an enemy of all good things. No, not every word in the Qur'an is evil. Not every thought in Mohammadanism is wicked. Believe me, after I visited Iran in 1998 (on a lecture tour), I was sent many books on Islam from Astan Quds Razavi University in Masshad. (I was still teaching at OSU-OKC at the time, and don't think eye brows weren't raised when bag-loads of books came to the adjunct professors' office with my name on them!) But, the literature of Mohammadanism isn't the issue here, but the effect of Mohammadanism in the world. The major wars going on in the world right now are caused by the Mohammadans. It is an aggressive war cult, and always has been.
In fact, the only reason we're English-speaking Christians in America today is because Catholic Europe was willing to fight against the Mohammadan Arabs (and later the Turks) from the 9th through the 17th century. The world has a short memory! The cult of Mohammad is merciless and relentless. It's goal is to force the cult on all the world. Plain and simple. And bloody.
Former Prime Minister of England, Tony Blair
So, with that in mind, we note former Prime Minister of England Tony Blair recently became Roman Catholic. It would seem that many in Europe will follow his example. With the cult of Mohammad breathing the stench of death in the face of Christian Europe, it would seem that Europe could do with a renewal of it's fundamental values. True, there is the blight of division in Christianity, the Catholic/Protestant issue, but, historically, it was the Roman Catholic nations who fought to defend and preserve Europe from the black curse of Mohammad, its oppression, its slavery, its peremptory insult and denigration. The nations of Europe simply were not Protestant at that time. We can't say that all Europe should be Catholic, but was can say it should be Christian, even if its Christian roots seem to have been Catholic.
The world is under seige. Yet, the message of Christmas isn't political. The peace it bespeaks is not between nations, but between human beings. Christmas is personal. Nations have become like corporations, and cannot be personal. They are inevitably irresponsible--to the extend they are depersonalized. I don't know how a nation could be "Christian," but, that is the hope of many, certainly through legislating the moral values of the Judeo-Christian morality. (By the way, those moral values are from the Torah, the sacred Hebrew scriptures. There is not one new value proposed in the "New Testament." No, not one. Christianity is simply an inevitable cultural expression of the Jewish morals--that is, a Gentile cultural expression of those Jewish morals. Yes, a bit of a heathenish expression at that, if not somewhat idolatrous. We Christians must be willing to confess that to our Jewish friends and fathers.)
Everyone, except Mohammadans, wants peace in the world. The "orthodox" among the black cult want to bring on the end of the world through war. That is their express motivation. That is all politics means to them--not peace, but war. Funny, how the Western Judeo-Christian civilization is what has given the Mohammadan countries their place and power in the world. The West has built these 'nothing' countries into giant forces--through industrial development. The West has made them what they are, and yet they verily bite the hand that fed--and still feeds them. This only displays human nature. The will to power. Nothing about honor, dignity, pride, or truth, or anything that smacks of gratitude. It's all just about a quest for power. Boasting, threatening, arrogance, etc. When the opportunity appears, a country will spit on them that created it. (And no, America did not spit on England. England did not build America. Americans did.)
In any case, Christmas is personal well-wishing, for the human race. For that, we again wish the best of life to all. It isn't an unqualified wish, of course. Anything can happen, but, to make the focus effective, we wish eternal life for all. That is the desire. That is the value. And that is the gift of God. We are told it is by the sole efficacy of the blood of Christ.
So, Merry Christmas, for that.
On the Rush Limbaugh show today, he publically condemned the hyprocrisy and manipulation of the Democrats who use the Gobal Warming fantasy as a ploy to raise taxes and expand governmental bureaucracy and controls. Unfortunately, in the process of this very legitimate rant against Democrats, Rush cited the testimony of a young Eskimo girl, Cheryl Charlee Lockwood, a Yup'ik Eskimo from the community of St. Michaels on the Bering Sea, today given before the House Select Committee on Global Warming and Energy Independence. Sentry News Digest offers one of the first internet reference to both the testimony and the Limbaugh rant. Of course, Media Matters is in on the kill. Both of the reports are inaccurate, if not false, on several points, of course, but, that isn't what matters here. What's important is the fact that Rush played into a racist stereotype, and gave the liberals another perfect opportunity to not only utterly ignore Rush's point about the falseness of Global Warming, but to accuse him of bashing American Indians, of mocking American Indian youth. How evil can he be?!
Rush, enjoying an American Indian original. But, as
many conservatives, Rush has no disposition to acknow-
ledge Indians for any reason, nor to consider the fact
that Indians are basically conservative by nature.
Truth is, Rush is no fan of Indians. Never has been. Why? He sees Indians a a tool in the hands of the enemies of America. Rush, and many other conservative spokesmen, have therefore no use for Indians, and not disposition to consider the fact that their might be such a phenomenon as a "conservative" Indian. Most of these media conservatives are not interested in Indians, or Indians affairs, or in learning that the majority of Indians are in fact very conservative. For conservative talkers, it serves their purposes better to have Indians be liberals, just like it serves the liberals cause, in fact. The liberals have the advantage, because to criticize the liberal Indian is considered racist (falsely, of course), and the liberals come off as having the moral advantage, great lovers of humanity that they are--as long as they have complete control over humanity.
But Rush also mocked "Iron-eyes Cody," the Sicilian (Italian) actor who did the old ads about littering, dropping a tear at the sight of white Europeans (Americans) throwing trash out their car windows. Rush, in his dramatization of the insanity of the Democrats, the hypocritical tyranny of the liberals, is quite willing to use the liberal Indian images to make his point. Rush is not willing to point out, however, that Indians are being exploited as Indians. Rush makes no rebuke of the liberals for using Indians in this way. Rush has no concern for Indians, in other words.
If he did, he would not be so quick to make sport of Indians who are being used in this way. He would not be so willing to write Indians off in this liberal stereotype. He would make a little effort to find out what Indians really think, and what most really believe. As I said, he is content to rant against the liberal Indian stereotype.
None of the callers picked up on the Indian issue, of course. Rush doesn't take any Indian calls, nor does Glenn Beck, etc. They have made the abject error of accepting the liberal image of the American Indian. They're not interested in allowing any other kind of Indian to exist.
Look at a piece of the Limbaugh transcript:
LIMBAUGH: And here -- you gotta hear this 13-year-old [sic] girl -- let me find her name here. I get the -- I put it at the bottom of the stack. I thought we were through with it, but I'm getting requests to hear this again. And I know what -- the requests really aren't to hear this. The requests are for my reaction to this. This is Cheryl Charlee Lockwood crying in House testimony -- Ed Markey's committee today, the House Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee.
LOCKWOOD [audio clip]: Just through my lifetime, I've seen so many changes in our community that it just hurts to not be able to have our -- it's really scary to live -- lose our tradition, our culture, and we've been living here for thousands of years, and it's not just that we're losing our food, it's losing our homes. And -- 'cause we are spiritually connected, and emotionally and physically connected to our homes, and there are so many, so many communities that are in trouble.
LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, that's true. A lot of communities in trouble over a lot of things. Go to New Orleans. How about losing homes? Wah, wah -- sorry. I'm just reminded here of the old -- remember the old television PSA that used to run back in the old days when we were kids? Iron Eyes Cody, the Indian -- the Native American, sorry -- standing by the roadside as, you know, worthless Americans drive by on the way to their trailer parks and so forth, and throwing trash out of the window of the car -- and they zero-in on Iron Eyes Cody, a founder of the country, a true founder -- a Native American.
Turns out he wasn't -- he was an actor, made up. But, doesn't matter. A little tear starts rolling down his cheek over what the white Europeans have done to his country. This stuff is -- it's oppressive. It's always been around.
This is classic. This is very unfortunate. I am saddened that conservative entertainers and informants are so willing to thing of Indians as nothing, and not make any effort to know the truth about Indians. I think they have allowed professional concerns to override their responsibility to know the truth, at least in this case.
I am a conservative Indian. I believe most Indians are conservative. I believe Indians are American patriots. We have no national organization, no national focus. This is what I hope to develop through the Bad Eagle Foundation. I know the potential is there.
In the mean time, Indians will just have to realize that it is a commercial world out there, this capitalist world. It isn't a perfect one, obviously. In the process of professionalism, somethings are over looked. Conservatives tend to overlook Indians. Liberals rather use Indians for anti-American purposes. That's the situation we're in. Liberals are capitalists, but just not in power, not in the tyrannical power they really want. They use Indians as a political commodity (--as they use anyone and anything else), merely to try and gain more power.
Conservatives would be a lot smarter to look into the conservative Indian reality, and to counter the false image that liberals have made of the Indian.
Finally, remember that Rush is bashing Global Warming, not Indians. He has no thoughts about real Indians, only about the image liberals have created of Indians. Rush is infuriated at the Democrats, and the remarkable hypocrisy and tyrannical intents of the liberal movement. I will grant him that much.
I don't know that conservative entertainers are against Indians. I know that Mark Levin (who so far has refused to take the BadEagle interview) believes that Indians being on reservations is wrong. He told me, personally, at the Horowitz convention in Florida this past November. He believes Indians were horribly mistreated, and that that treatment was continued through the institution of reservations, which he called "ghettos." You see, my fellow conservative Indians, we have a lot of educating to do. Conservatives haven't a clue about Indians. It's up to us to make the effort to educate. They're not going to do it. As I said, they seem to be content to believe the liberal image of Indians.
So the Lakota are withdrawing from the United States? The Lakota Sioux are 'walking away' from the 150 year-old treaties with the United States government?
Sounds like another grand publicity stunt. Russell Means is speaking for the movement, but, there are apparently no tribal leaders involved, of any Sioux. This is another one of those "white" Indian schemes, behind which white Communist-oriented liberals seek to create racial agitation. They love to use Indians for this kind of stunt. They make their careers off this--off using Indians. They've trained certain Indians to front for them. Well-trained them. AIMsters still live high, (though Floyd Westerman and Vernon Bellecourt have passed on recently).
Russell Means
The "Lakota delegation" sported their theoretical wares in Washington, it looks like, visiting the embassies of certain South American nations--which of course love to hate the United States, and of course are filled with "Indian" populations. That must have been a curious race fest there in the national offices. But, this is what happens when you base a whole movement on an anti-white position. You become a reverse Nazi. That's what all these "skins" do nowadays. Anyone who is not white is automatically "Indian," whether Negro, Oriental, Pacific Islander, or homosexual. And so an Indian like Russell Means fronts for anti-white people and anti-American people, gets well-paid for it, but at the same time he actually wants to do something for Indian people. This is the predicament. Means becomes associated with the reverse Nazi racist movement which seeks to unite all non-white people against the United States. This is pure racism. Racism in its most obvious form. This is Hitler, as an Indian.
Of course, BadEagle.com has long presented various radical theories for improving Indian country. I myself have suggested the Indian nations act like nations--particularly when it comes to casino businesses. I suggested to Governor Schwarzenegger that all Indian casinos in the United States should have one currency--separate from the US government. I have public suggested passports, and even national levies, tariffs, and taxes on the money changing itself. You should have to use Indian money to gamble in an Indian casino. And when Indians want to spend the money in any American markets, for anything, they have to change it into American money, etc. I have offered many radical ideas about Indian nationhood.
However, Indians nations are United States nations. More like states. And I despise association with other third world nations. They have nothing to do with American Indians, and they could never have fought and defeated any American Indian tribe. At least not any Plains Indian tribe, nor any of the major Eastern tribes, either. We owe them nothing, not even the time of day. To reach out to them for affirmation is hideous, ahistorical, and is terribly degrading to American Indians. It is the epitome of weakness.
But that's the racism involved in these publicity stunts. Indians are being used by white Leftists, and made into absolute fools. The Indians involved simply take in the money, and really don't care what happens. This is leading in the wrong direction. Furthermore, I repeat, there are no tribal leaders involved in this Lakota thing. This is strictly a publicity stunt for the old AIMsters, and their activist heirs. This is a disgrace to all American Indian people--especially those trying to accomplish something in the way of self-reliance, a job, economic independence, etc. This holds everyone back--especially in the primitive white areas of the country, like the Dakotas, and the plains states. This kind of thing makes it harder for any real Indians to have any real professional success in the world. This is a bad thing. A very, very bad thing.
Just let everyone remember that it is white people that create these anti-white racist movements. This is the work of white Leftists. Lets not blame Indians for this, in spite of the few that get paid (by white people) to protest.
For Indians, it is only a dance. It is the Ghost Dance. It is a particularly cruel version of it. All this Lakota movement does is suggest a stepped up version of the reservations. To seek to be recognized by Third World countries doesn't mean anything. Their recognition is worthless. Their recognition doesn't suddenly make the Indians into bonified nations in the world, on a par with all the others. They cannot treat American Indian people as real nations. American Indian nations exist withint the physical boundaries of the United States. It is the United States they must relate to. There are laws about international commerce. You can't just pretend there are no borders. (Or, can you?! Mexicans and Democrats do. Even some Republicans do.)
Therefore, this is perhaps the most ridiculous publicity stunt the old AIMsters and their white Leftist racist backers have ever come up with. This is the most denigrating, foolhardy gimmick they've ever invented.
Real Indians love America. Most real Indians are all Christian, too. Look to the elders of any tribe in the United States. Not the new casino pop-up groups (many of whom aren't even Indian), but to the real, historically great tribes. The elders are all Christian. And American Indians serve in the US military in the highest percentage rate of any ethnicity, with nearly 100,000 living veterans. There are veterans in almost every family.
The Bad Eagle Foundation hopes one day to create a national organization for the real Indians, the American patriot Indians, the Christian Indians, the conservative Indians--who are the vast majority of Indians, but who have no focus, no organization, and no leadership. It is late in the game, but, hey, Comanches were late in the game before, and burst out on the southern plains and took over! It can happen again.
Of course, I do not speak for Comanche people. I am not an elected leader. But I know of no offical, elected Comanche leader who has ever been involved in any of this kind of racist, anti-American publicity stunt. Comanches don't do that. An individual here and there might, but, most would never think of it. This is true for most American Indian tribes, too.
Finally, I do know for a fact that the great Sioux people do have special challenges. The level of white civililzation up in the Dakota territories is among the less developed in the country. The relations between whites and Indians is probably the worst of all. It would seem radical measures are called for, indeed,--but rational measures. Not racist measures. This last stunt does not light a fire under Indians to make them want to live differently than they do. This kind of nonsense makes Indians even more dependent, psychologically. This means they can't participate in America, ever. This destroys all hope. This kills all the natural ambition, the innate aspirations of Indian youth. This is a horrible curse, really. This level of profound discontent is the worst thing that any Indian could promote.
As I said, let's remember that white Leftists, white Commies are behind this, and always have been. I can only hope that reasonable white people understand this. This is not an Indian movement. This is a white political movement, using a few well-paid Indians to front.
The world renowned master Rabbbi Ari Kahn has deigned BadEagle.com worthy to note. Rabbi Kahn is now a registered member, and when time permits, he is willing to recieve questions regarding Judaism, sacred scriptures, and tradition, and to offer Jewish, rabbinical perspective on the issues we attempt to address here on the site. The rabbi's offer is a most significant event in our history as an internet community. Those familiar with BadEagle.com know that we have long featured the written work of Rabbi Kahn, as well as the new addition, the Kahn Shiur (the audio recordings of his live lessons to an adult class). That the rabbi should kindly offer his personal, active presence to BadEagle.com is more than flattering. Our topics are wide ranging in the world, and our members are equally as diverse in experience and character. We are ineffably rejoiced that one so refined as Rabbi Kahn would join us.
(From a published biographical sketch): Rabbi Ari Kahn received his rabbinic ordination from Yeshiva University's Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary where he studied with Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik. He graduated from Yeshiva University with a BA in psychology and an MS degree in Talmud. He is Director of Foreign Student Programs at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, where he also is a senior lecturer in Jewish studies, he is also a senior educator at the Aish HaTorah College for Jewish Studies. Rabbi Kahn has recently been appointed Vice President of Migdal Ohr Institutions in Israel where he is working closely with Rav Yitzchak Dovid Grossman founder and Dean of Migdal Ohr. He is a renowned speaker, and has lectured worldwide. Rabbi Kahn recently published two books, Explorations on the weekly Parsha and Emanations on the Jewish Holidays. Drawing upon the vast reservoir of rabbinic literature -- from Talmud to Midrash, from Zohar to the chassidic masters -- Rabbi Kahn combines the mystical explorations of kabbala and chassidism with a highly-intellectual and broad-minded approach to Torah study. He applies psychology, literature and Jewish history to the understanding of esoteric midrashim and the Zohar. Four volumes of "Explorations" have been published in French. He has lived in Israel for the past 22 years with his wife Naomi and 5 children.
I first met Rabbi Kahn in Cesarea, Israel, in 1998. It was at a meeting of a socio-political group (--what group in Israel isn't!) called Common Denominator. The meeting was held in a private home, and orthodox Jews were there (except for one Comanche from Oklahoma). At the time they had a radio show called Burning Questions, and they held seminars in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. It is considered a far-right group, but its whole purpose is to reach out to others and to communicate.
I took a serious liking to Rabbi Kahn then, and was able to maintain contact with him when I returned to the United States. I am a student of scripture, and find endless, difficult, and fascinating questions therein. I am always wishing I had a private rabbi to ask any question I wish, whenever it occurs to me. Not that we can expect Rabbi Kahn to be available 24/7 for a place like BadEagle.com, but, I know that when I finds a moment, he will try to respond to sincere questions. I have created a special forum for him, "Ask the Rabbi," in the Literature category. I invite any and all to visit, and register if you haven't done so. This could be interesting! This will make the fourth specifically Jewish forum on BadEagle.com. (Ain't I proud!)
Intellectual life is so precious to the human experience, I can't help myself in this matter of Jewish studies. The scriptures, and the centuries of Jewish though following, I find to be the superior body of literature in the history of the world. Vastly superior. I say this from experience. I have examined other venues, and find them less challenging and less rewarding. I say this from as an objective view as I can muster. Even Jewish folklore is superior to other folklore--no doubt due to its source--the Jewish life, i.e., the Torah. It all comes from the Torah.
And I'm well aware that this is the Christmas season. Well, Jews these days, particularly conservative Jews, are not showing any mechanical aversion to the Christian religion. Indeed, people like Ben Stein, Don Feder, Dennis Prager, and a host of other nationally known commentators are simply telling it like it is. There is a Judeo-Christian ethic in the world, and America was founded on it. Jews who love America are not the ones attacking Christmas, or the Christian religion.
So, personally, I consider Rabbi Kahn's offer to join us here at BadEagle aas a true gesture of charity, of giving, and reaching out. The Christmas spirit? as it were... I consider this the greatest honor shown BadEagle.com since its inception. I don't mind saying so. Here are the current forums that feature the work of Rabbi Ari Kahn on BadEagle.com:
The Jewish Forum
Torah Readings
The Kahn Shiur
Ask the Rabbi
The Lord knows the issues I have faced due to my love of Jews and Judaism. I've been accused of being a judophile, an anti-semitic--disguised as a judophile, and simply of being proccupied with Jewish things. I regret that I have presented such a confusing image to people. I know that when I created the White Race category, with three forums--White Nations, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, and Anti-Semitism, I was advised against using the term White Nations. Mark Briskman, southwest regional director of the ADL (Anti-Defamation League), Dallas, Texas, said, "You don't what to use that term. It will draw the wrong kind of people, believe me." I was hoping to find white people who were proud and honorable, and who cherished their ethnicity, but, I only attracted white people who were anti-semitic. This was a big disappointment to me. Some of my writing has even appeared on white supremacist sites! My thought that people should love their race was seen as an affirmation of the white supremacist disposition. When some of these people came to BadEagle.com and saw all the Jewish elements, they were sorely chagrinned and offended. Such is my naivete, I suppose.
I know Rabbi Kahn has observed BadEagle.com. I know he is fully aware of the characters that make up our usual posters. I can only pray that respect and honor will be shown to him. We have spent a lot of time in the gutters, with somewhat inutile personal attacks. And other times we have quite elevated, helpful discussions. I don't know this is par for public forums, but, I know it's par for BadEagle.com. Life is part gutter, you know. I think the whole purpose of religion is to help reach out and pull people out of the gutter. To overcome our own compulsions of anger and revenge, this is the great quest in life. I do pray that the Rabbi might at least occasionally lend us a helping hand in this matter. Knowledge of the truth, of the human personality, is surely a foundation on which to rise and move forward.
On that note, we heartily and respectfully welcome Rabbi Ari Kahn.
Electrical power returned to my house Monday, December 17, 2007, near sundown. After some eight hours short of a week in a pre-modern state of living, suddenly I was cast into the world of technology once again. The state of mass dependency. This is the modern world. All are vulnerable, all the time. That is modernity.
I drove home from the OSU-OKC library, and my neighbor came over to announce the good news. "Power's back on!" I was incredulous. He looked at me a bit puzzled. Then I confirmed his suspicions. I said, "Are we sure? Do you believe it?" He resigned to a smile, and said, "Let's go see."
I admit, I was neither elated nor even relieved. Why? I had fully adapted to the condition of not having electricity. I had devoted myself to survival without it. I was able to accomplished serious musical composition during this time. Candlelight, flash light, and then this same neighbor had brought over a small generator for a couple of days. (It cost a fortune to keep the gas tank filled, I hasten to add.) I had one lamp, and a small hot plate. I was ready to live like this indefinitely. The public laundry mat was the next ordeal, but one I had experienced years of, in the past. The lesson of poverty is simple: there is no privacy. Poverty is all standing in lines with other poor people, constant and increasing public exposure, and penalties--for being poor. It is a vice-gripping vortex of self-multiplying needs, one leading to another. But I was set. I was still able to study and compose.
So, what was I to think about the return of power? Is life easier? Is it more productive? Is it better? Maybe. Is it more meaningful, more fulfilling, more 'happy'? Maybe. I feel forever changed by the last week. Living in darkness, with the companionship of candle flames and silence, created a deep perspective on life, for me, anyway. I must say, before I determined to press on with my work, without electricity, I actually considered fear, and mass hysteria. Why? Too many tens of thousands of people were without power--and many still are out here in the midwest--the Bible belt, the heartland, the place of faith. There comes to mind a 19th century book called Extraordinary Popular Delusions and Madness of the Crowds (London, 1844), by Charles Mackay. It tabulates sixteen major cases of mass hysteria that swept over the Western populace nearly two centuries ago, everything from financial swindles and speculations, to religious fervor over prophecy, to fear of mass poisoning, to witch hunts, even to duels and ordeals. Basically, the book is about how media herds the masses. That's right, media, or, news--even before the days of electronic communication. During the week of darkness, I contemplated what would happen if the absence of light and heat continued. How long could the public endure? What would be the breaking point? What would people do? Would they become violent? Would they storm public places that did have light and heat? Would they storm the homes of others?
I think of another book, When the Lights Came On (in Georgia), by Terry Kay. The novel was published in 1976, but it's about the time electric lights came to northeast rural Georiga, shortly after WWII. That would be in the 1940's and early '50's. It so happens that heard a first hand account of that time by an author at a writers class I took when I was in Atlanta, in the late '70's. He had experienced that time when the lights came on. It was a remarkable thing. The psychology, personal and sociological, of electric light, of electricity in general, is an important dimension of modernity, but one that has received little if any significant attention. Now days, we are overwhelmed with "electronic devices," as the stewardess says on the airplanes--devices which accompany us wherever we go. They are utterly personal. They are companions. Electricity is some kind of strange companion. It removes our brains, and puts them in our hands. Only when I was without its presence did I recognize something of its personality.
It is a god. It is a lure. It is seductive. It is a wondrous thing, and yet the price we pay is utter dependency. That's the part that comes to unexpectedly, before we know what to do about it. Those of us who have spend entirely too much time on the internet know how agonizing withdrawal can be. It is very much like a vice--this electronic life we live.
Terry Kay's telling of the story brings out the status of having lights, when other's didn't. I experienced that right here in Oklahoma City, in 2007, in a way I never before have. They have electricity, and we don't! Oh, for shame! We've been wronged! Yes, it's someone's fault. Yes, yes, we without did not have such humility as those without in Georgia. We were angry about it. We felt humliated, not humbled. We blamed the company, the workmen, the priviledged! We'd been wronged!
Oh, yes, our old neighborhood has outages 3 or 4 times every summer--every major thunderstorm, really. But it only lasts a day or two, usually. Power is restored, and we expect it. We've learned to live with the failures of OG&E, our Oklahoma City power company, and the corporate greed--for which no one, of course, is responsible. All executives and employees are perfectly innocent, always. But, after a week without power, when there was no word of when to expect restoration, I had ceased to expect it. I was fully given to the disposition of not having it, and had learned to deal with it.
When it came back, I could have spit in it's face, frankly. I don't like being toyed with. Ah, but it was all about my personal, psychological problems, eh? It was a test from God, eh? Well, there was a woman in Ninnekah, Oklahoma who was paralyzed from the neck down when a iced tree limb fell on her. Michelle Watson was carrying free water to an elderly neighbor. Michelle is a Christian woman, wife and mother of young children. Much to dismay of atheists, however, she is a woman of faith, who believes Christ can restore her, as it is His will.
Michelle Watson
So, what happens to theology at times like this? People pray. Some are spared. Some are not. I didn't suffer. I plainly didn't suffer. Others have. Mightily. Am I to conclude that I could not have borne such catastrophy at this time? It disaster meted out in careful doses? Am I to consider myself weak?
I really have no idea. I know Job's friends were all profoundly mistaken in their assessment of Job and Job's God (Job 42). The Lord commended Job for his refusal to draw any theological conclusion, and strongly condemned his dear friends for theirs (42:8). There is therefore a great sense of happenstance, of chance, of luck, at work in the human experience. Indeed, trust in God is the only "theology" required. (I remember I truly hated theology when I was at Yale Divinity, I must say.) A personal experience, a postive, hopeful and happy state of being is the offer. It is not a formula, and not based on theology. It is a visceral pleasure. Yes, it is guided by concepts, by principles, and by law, but, it is a relationship, not a philosophy. Sort of like marriage, I suppose.
But I hope I'm never the same, after this ordeal in ice, this season of darkness. I changed, inside, psychologically, to meet it. Then power was restored. I suppose the best thing to do is totally forget about it, and move one, quickly. Nah, but I'm a romanticist. A dramatist. I will remember this. I will writhe in it, no doubt. It is the nature of the artist, of course.
I think I passed through some kind of archetype. I accepted the challenge, then it was removed. Yeah, probably I was not capable of enduring more, so the Lord spared me. That would be thinking lowly of myself--which I am quite willing to do. But, to accept the ill, what was that all about? Why did I do that? What does that indicate? I really don't know. I know that I have recently signed a contract which demands that I write a great deal of music in fairly short amount of time. I know that I cannot be deterred in this. I would not allow darkness to hinder progress. I pressed on.
Yet, I have to admit, I did not feel an overwhelming sense of relief or gratitude when the lights came on. I just didn't. The holy flame of the candle, so humble, so noble, so grand, had changed something in me. It was utterly personal and intimate. Electricity is a cosmic blob. It has no personality. It is merciless as well.
Before that trend of thought goes too far, I have to remember that the the fallen electric lines caused fires, and those flames destroyed a lot of property in Oklahoma. No, the Lord is not in the fire, the wind, or the earthquake, as Elijah so dramatically discovered (I Kings 19:11-13). He speaks very quietly at times.
We press on, in faith. The house of the Lord is ever present. So saith David in the Psalm (23).
Today is Sunday, December 16, 2007. The sun is shining brightly, with not a cloud in the sky. Remarkable, the change of face nature makes to quickly, so indifferently, so impersonally. Before the time passes, I want to offer some observations about feelings I experienced in darkness. Yes, for nearly a week, Oklahoma City was enshrouded in an oppressive cloud, impenetrable fog. These conditions of natural darkness, combined with the plight of having no electricity, made for some fascinating states of mind.
Darkness is intimate. Silence is most personal. I had forgotten the power of the single flame of a candle light. How eloquently it speaks to the soul. How noble, how grand. It was a primitive intuition, a primal glory, a profound event. I had touched humanity in the cave. I was--man alone. Add two or three candle flames, and you've a symphony of raving holiness. My dark house was a cathedral. Indeed, I found myself singing hymns in the night, loudly. Scared, was I? Probably. But, primarily alone. Being alone, with no communication possible, and no hope of change, this is an important state of mind to know and understand. What are one's resources within? What does one do? Well, being a life-long student of the religious study, I was overwhelmed with a rush of memory, of innumerable scriptures--none of which had any effect. No affect, that is, until I listened to my own feelings. Incredibly, I missed taking care of my mother. That's all. It was an exquisite sorrow. There was no one for me to help. I'd done all I could do for myself. I lit the candles.
Then, there were the flashlights. Well, that was a major step up. That was science. That was technology. That was modernity. I found several in the house, with batteries. The light was, however, mechanical, and not the ghostly, sacred light of the flame. Flashlights brought a sense of contemporary living in to thouse. I studied the Bible before retiring, and early in the morning, before sunrise. It was by flashlight. It seemed, too, that limited light on the page demanded a certain extra focus of thought. It was a powerful beam, and stimulated a disciplined train of associations.
Of course, the estranging element, really, was having to eat out. To go to a public place, for such a normally personal, family thing, was heartbreaking. Not that I haven't done it a million times in my life, but, under these circumstances, it seemed particularly cruel. I felt like a lost dog, out snuffing up something to eat, and at the same time on the lookout for criminals, bumbs, and other beggars. Not a pleasant way to start the day. (Also, a rather expensive way. I did have a credit card.) I went cheaply as possible, like, Sonic, McDonalds, etc. The people were looked weary, as I did. Mass social stress going on here. No one knew anyone else, but, there we all were, eating together in the same place. It was perfectly disastrous, psychologically. A meal is supposed to be a grand time of sharing. We were all strangers, though, and all out of power. Funny, how banks, restaurants, and businesses seemed open as usual. People were working in them. Did they not lose power? (I'm here at the OSU-OKC library. The school never lost power.)
The power companies for OKC, like Cox and OG&E, have been utterly helpless and ineffective for tens of thousands of people. Still, today. No one knows what to say, or when anything will change. Governor Henry got a message to President Bush, and we have an offical "disaster" reading for the state, but, it does nothing to restore power. Thousands of people are in shelters. Hordes moved into the Cox/Myriad entertainment center downtown here in OKC. I'm not in communication, though, really. I simply don't know what's going on at all. I know that our electrical wiring system in many parts of OKC, particulary the older parts, is utterly undependable and outdated. OG&E has done nothing to improve anything. How many decades does it take, I wonder. Upgrading is only for computers, I guess. Not public services. Not things people really need. The grand old companies just keep raking in their billions, and raising the prices. OKC can't survive a storm without a major breakdown. How would we expect to survive a serious Mohammadan terror attack? I'm sure it wouldn't affect the corporate profits.
Good news is, one of my neighbors lent me an electric line from his industrial generator (currently surving three houses). As of today, I have an electric lamp, and a hot plate. Oh, yes, the refrigerator is working--to a certain extent anyway. So, I'm not as bad off as I was. Of course I am grateful. I'm very thankful for surviving.
I've actually been pretty resourceful, I must say. I have worked on a musical project here in the OSU-OKC library, on the computers. I've been composing now by my lamb light. Survival takes up a lot of one's time, and credit, but, I've manage to get some work done, too. Thing is, it is exhausting. I'm beat.
There are personal frustrations. There is a deep strain on all human relations during times like this. One learns what one is made of, certainly, but also what others are made of. Personally, I'll give myself a passing grade, but, all in all, I'm pretty selfish, or at least, self-centered. I think that's why I though of my departed mother when I was at my lowest ebb. I missed taking care of her. In those final years of her life, my life became hers. I knew what it meant to live for someone else. I knew was being a servant really was. (Right after my mother died--that's when I should have gotten married! I think I might have been ready then.)
The arts make a person introspective, and self-oriented. I have often wondered if an artist could be a Christian, or be Christ-like. I still wonder, actually. Devastating, prolonged illness makes one self-oriented also. God knows I've had that, as well.
I made my way to church, Sabbath morning (Saturday), and out on a highway intersection, in cold, windy, dark weather, there was a beggar camped out right on the corner. (It is favorite spot of beggars.) I felt no sympathy. I was actually angry at the bumb. Of all the social provisions the churches make, the tax payers make, the social services the state makes, I cannot accept the arrogance and human denagration these faithful beggars make. They disgrace humanity, and set a horrible example for young people. They are utterly irresponsible, blah, blah, blah. So, you see, I cannot claim an indiscriminate disposition. An extremely sensitive one, but not without bias. And I'm only one step away from that tramp. Oh, yes, I've always had a problem with beggars. I've written several short stories about my experiences with them. They're in a state of psychological vice, actually. But, my point is, I was perfectly unChristian that dreary Sabbath morning.
My personal conscience is as loud as a candle flame. I'm not a mystic. I'm not a Buddhist. I'm as hot-tempered as I am compassionate. It's a mix, you know. A bloody mix. A miserable almalgamation--the kind Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote so often about, (and about which I wrote a Masters thesis at Emory University in Atlanta--when I was homeless.).
And so I offer these indiscriminations in the absense of light, these musings from the shadows, with the intent that those who would accuse me should be left impotent of motivation, and emptied of anxieties. True political force is not reactionary, but rises from personal experience and conviction. Social norm is engendered by the integrity of life, not professional manipulations or careerist tactics.
And, since it's Beethoven's birthday, I recommend everyone have a listen to the 5th Symphony, or the 9th. Never did an artist overcome more personal challenges--of poverty, race, handicap, and personal offensiveness. He offered us courage and beauty, in a very special way.
But, you know, until you decide to be strong, yourself, no one else's glorifications amount to a hill of beans.
Since Sunday, December 9, 2007, hundreds of thousands of people in Oklahoma (--multiplied in other plains states) have been without electrical power. We have been without phone, heat, or media (other than battery-powered radios). Twenty-four people have frozen to death--that we know of right now. This is much worse than New Orleans and the hurricane Katrina, because it is winter time! Forecasts say worse weather is on the way. Oh, there's been a few news stories, but they have sketchy figures. And what's more, the figures change from day to day! This is a real fantasy fest for reporters. I am currently in a part of OKC that does have power. I write from a computer at the OSU-OKC library. (I taught for Oklahoma State University-OKC campus for nearly six years.) Like so many others, I have no electricity in my home. I have no telephone. I cannot cook, but eat out (on credit cards). (For some strange reason, I have hot water, so I can shower--by candlelight.)
The psychological stress created by these circumstances is significant. The thought that power will be restored is no longer a present hope. Too many days have gone by, with no word of improvement or expectation. Oh, we know we'll get power back, eventually. But, for the present, we resign to the thought that we will not have it. One's mind really has to shift gears. Disasters like this, especially in winter, make the great plains states around here like the Third World. We are all like Kurds now, heat by sticks and fire. No electronic devices at all. Mabye radios, as long as the batteries work.
People across your street may actually have power. The pattern of outages is unpredictable, changing, and inexplicable. The situation is alienating for this cause. Corporations like OG&E and AT&T, and COX, are all completely unable to manage the needs. They, of course, have nothing to do but prepare for these kinds of things. They have existed for years, even decades, but they are no more prepared now than the day they first opened for business. They're not into preparation. They're a soul-less "corporation," see, and they have no responsibility. They exist to make money, and only to make money. Service to the people? Only a very, very strong man, as a corporation president, could ever hope to keep such a notion active and alive and operable in a corporation of more than 10 people.
I think of the movie, The Day After Tomorrow (2004). It was very effective. However, it seems an impossible thing to prepare the masses for large scale disaster. It is simply surreal. It is untenable. It is psychologically unworkable. The mind can't be preoccupied with the expectation of disaster. We want to move forward, and to be productive. Negative thinking is damaging, emotionally, and in every other way.
Yet, it is clear, preparation for large scale disaster is the present need of humanity, as never before. These disasters keep happening, on larger and larger scales. Instead of the hysteria about global warming, and the deceptive, sinister plot to seize power by frear, leaders instead need to develop back-up plans for power outages. That's all. If we're going to live by electricity, we need to figure out how to protect it. In general, Oklahoma City can't survive a simple thunderstorm without mass outages. That's how technically retarded our companies and governments are. Back-up plans should have been developed the day electricity was invented. (Same is true for the gasoline engine.) But, now, everyone plans only to make money, with no plans for power or fuel failures.
We all have the natural expectation that the bad times will pass, and all will be well again. Well, for the first time in my life, I know what it feels like to plan on the bad times! I know what it's like to not expect the return of good times. I know when I lived as a "homeless" student in Atlanta, Georgia, doing my second masters, I knew I could get through the three month summer quarter because I knew it would be over. I was returing to Yale that next fall (to finish my first masters). When you know the bad times are temporary, and you even know the exact time when they will be over, you can endure most anything. But, when you don't know, when you have no idea, when the bad times seem rather established, then you start seeing the world differently. You start feeling differently--about life, about people, about society, and about authority.
You may even think differently about your theology. It is interesting. People who don't pray have electricity. Others that do pray, don't have electricity. What is one to make of such a situation, theologically? Are the wires to heaven crossed? Is there an outage up there?
Certainly, it is a time to draw closer to your neighbors. It is a time to think of others. It is a time to open your heart in compassion for the needs of others, even while struggling to survive yourself. I can only hope that our city, indeed, our state, will find more of this spirit. God knows we've had a lot of opportunities in recent years. We have the cross of Jesus lit up on at least two of our major downtown banks.
I composed a memorial for the OKC Bombing of April 19, 1995, entitled, "A Cross
Shines Over the City Now." It has not yet been performed. It is scored for full chorus,
piano, and organ. I first saw the cross (on the left building) when driving home to
OKC from Edmond.I was really take in by it. It was a custom at that bank before 1995,
but I had never been at an angle to notice it before.
It is of course important to keep your head at times when others are losing theirs. It is essential to keep your wits about you, during a time of chaos, fear, and desperation. I ceratinly have a new appreciation for what the people in New Orleans went through. However, I do note that the Midwest is not getting the hysterical coverage, the dramatization, the intense lamentation that New Orleans got. Of course, the midwestern cities are not famous for being the historical homes of American Negroes en mass, as is New Orleans. I'm sure that is a major difference. Lots of stuffy, red-neck white Republicans out this way. Why, no media tears for them, the ol' coots.
And so it goes. The cold makes it different. People aren't out in the streets. People are milling around. There are shelters. There are radio announcements. Communication is at a premium. And the odd thing is, there are whole neighborhoods with full power, right next to those without any power or phone. It is most confusing and frustrating.
All in all, the police say they have found no increase in crime levels. The power companies offer different estimates of who's out and who isn't, and when there might be restoration.
Finally, I'm not a particularly "righteous" person (though I want very much to be). I am generally impatient, if not seemingly vindictive--due to the impatience. I dislike stupidity and waste, though I am quite capable of both, in dramatic ways. Put simply, I sing hymns in the dark. I find comfort in that. I sing loudly. I sing praise. It is a command, of course. I would never have figured out such a mechanism. It does bring much courage. One simply determines to survive. There are ways. One finds them. As I said, theologically, it all must be taken on a subjective level, a personal level. Survival is between a man and his God, I think. You musn't blame God. That is the devil's aim--to make you hate God. That really is robbery. On the other hand, you musn't blame yourself, either, or anyone else. It is a challenge between you and God.
I look at life, and I do hope there is a way of evaluating it beyond appearances. By means of extended frustration, anger, and suffering, one is compelled to trust that the world is not the standard of judgment. The world offers an 'in your face' reaction, and we all feel it. It is natural, and psychological, but, a man of faith senses that there is another kind of judgment at work.
Will the world end? Is it healthy to consider such a prospect? I'd say at this point, we need to learn how that all works. Nature seems to be making the case--a lot more clearly than the advocates of Global Warming.
So Christopher Hitchens calls Mormonism a cult, and accuses Mitt Romney for his espousal thereof. And the news is all over Tom Cruise and his Scientology thing, which everyone calls a cult. So what is a cult? Why is it something to be concerned about?
A commoner's definition can be found in the American Heritage Dictionary (not a reference I normally make): it is simply a group of people considered extremist, and focused on a charismatic leader, often living an unconventional life style. The idea of religion is associated with a cult. Okay. Wikipedia has a good essay on cults. It mentions a certin "Church Committee" of the US Senate, but this is a kind of code name. That " Church Committee" was created to investigate illegal operations of US intelligence agencies. Spying on the spies, so to speak. It wasn't about spying on churches, hunting for cults or cult leaders. The Wikepedia article is correct, however, in the governmental concern, not only of the US but of other countries like France and Germany, over the matter of subversive groups--which cults tend to be. There are private religious cults, then there are non-religious, social cults. The Nazi Party of Germany started out very much as a private cult, then became the national identity. Cults are characterized by psychological coercion, and then physical coercion.
Tom Cruise "Christ" of Scientology and Republican candidate Mitt Romney
So, why are we talking about Mormonism and Scientology?
The problem is Islam! The cult of the world is Mohammadanism. The cult of Mohammad. Mohammadanism fits every notion and definition of a cult. It is an Arab off-shoot of extremism, involving an anachronistic life-style, the use of incredible force, as well as "brain-washing." Why is it considered a 'religion'? Merely because it uses the name of "God?" Well, that's only in English. "Allah" is not God, not the God of the ancient Hebrews.
Adolf Hitler, Nazi idol, and the new animated film, Mohammad
Yes, Christians generally accuse any professed Christian group not focused on Jesus Christ as a cult. Thus, Mormons come under fire for their focus on Joseph Smith:
Commonly, religious defenders - usually Christian apologists - use the term "cult" as cudgel to attack small religious groups or, even worse, minority Christian faiths which do not adhere to all the traditional Christian doctrines. Thus, even the Mormons are regarded by many as a "cult." (When the Southern Baptists held their convention in Salt Lake City, they engaged in extensive efforts to evangelize and convert Mormons).
But this is nothing compared to Islam, or the "religion" of Muslims. The proper, historical term for this "cult" is Mohammadanism, after the founder, Mohammad. In this crazed concept of religion, a man came along and dramatized, yea, idolized, the barbarity of his own Arab culture. In the 7th century, all desert peoples of the Middle East wore long robes. Covering was essential for protection from the sun, of course! Everyone was always covered, already. Mohammad comes along and makes it the command of "Allah"--something that every human being must be forced to do anywhere and at all times. What kind of absolute nonsense is this? That's like saying God commanded American to wear dark glasses and to use tanning lotion-and to make the rest of the world do the same. (Well, we have scientists who serve as a kind of "Allah" for that--and many other of our customs. We have our sanctioners. We have commercials of an intensity that vies with mind coercion. We have our Mohammad approach in our society of marketing.)
And the Arabs have never demonstrated any descendency of Ishmael, either. The world Arab is used only a handful of times in the Qur'an, anyway. If there is supposed to be any authority based on their being children of Abraham, it was long rejected and removed from the maps before Mohammad came along. The implied connection to the God of the Jews is really more of a usurpation of power by asserted association. Any indications of the sons of Ishamel and their presence in the Middle East was not indicated geographically as it once once. I am not presently able to offer with exactitude the dates, or even the era, when the ancient names of Ishamelic regions were changed, but, the fact that they were indicates the pre-Mohammadan attitude of the Arabs toward any descendency from Abraham. It was apparently despised.
So, the major cult in the world right now it Islam (Mohammadanism--as it was originally called, since it was all about Mohammad, and nothing else). As such, it does not fall under the ruberic of the 1st Amendment of the United States. It is not a religion, but a subversive ideology of dominance by coercion. It should be considered legally forbidden. It should be illegal. Islam should be banned from American society--and any other society that values freedom.
The wind blows for B. Hussein Obama, son of black Kenyan Muslim and American white mother, Hawaiian-born American citizen, candidate for the president of the United States. If it ever was about diversity and tolerance, that's over now. It's about race. The wind is blowing--that is, black woman Oprah "free wind" Winfrey. Oprah was never involved in politics before. She's staunchly avoided it. But now she's leaped in, head over heels, stirring up a perfect political storm for her boy Obama. Why now? Why Obama?
Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., center, and his wife
Michelle, left, are joined by Oprah Winfrey during a rally in Columbia, S.C., Sunday,
Dec. 9, 2007. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome)
Obviously, she's black. B. Hussein Obama is black. There is no other reason. It's pure race. Nothing wrong with the bothers and sisters hanging together, of course. But, just in case anyone thought Oprah Winfrey was white, or, risen so high above race on the wings of wealth and notoriety (--for what no one seems to know) that she would never be found catering to blacks, this little political interlude demonstrates the truth of the matter: black is out for black. Plain an simple. Again, there's nothing wrong with this at all. It's just important to remember this kind of thing, whenever one starts idolizing the social triumphs of a "minority" (i.e., a black) any too much. Only the white race, in general, has succeeded in denying itself the cast of race. The status of non-racial identity is achievable only by whites. The rest of the world is a "race."
There are so many black women in America who are just as fat (or thin), with just as many failed affairs, just as loquacious, and just as smart, that the rise of 'Open Windfree' remains a media phenomenon. Apparently, American society needed to pay homage to a black woman in a safe, entertaining way. Americans could watch a black woman talk on TV, and not have to live by her, or go to a party with her, or invite her over for dinner. So, Winfrey seems to have evolved into the whirling vortex of the national, sublimated charity, pity, and maybe guilt, at least on the part of American white folks. Fine. It's a non-violent social safety valve. It lets off psychological steam. It makes everyone feel better, supposedly--to pay attention to a black woman, to buy her book, to spend time with her, vicariously.
But, Obama? Barak Hussein Obama? Oprah Winfrey is going all out to support B. Hussein Obama ? Well, nearly all big media people are liberal or Democrat. So, why not support a woman, like Hillary? Hillary is the first woman with a real chance to be president. Apparently, race trumps gender. This isn't really about politics or ideology, or the Wind's direction on Iraq, healthcare, or taxes. This is just about a black media star lending full support to another black who is running for president of the United States. This is a fantasy about a black person becoming white, or, living in the White House.
Two blacks unite for career achievement, and, of course, for the "advancement of colored people." It isn't about tolerance or diversity at all, really. It's about personal ambition. Two blacks unite to demand tolerance--of themselves, personally--of their race, collaterally. And there isn't anything wrong with that, either. It's just obvious, that's all--and obviously the opposite of the profession of racial transcendence. Both B. Hussein Obama and Oprah Winfrey have experience much more social success than millions of white people ever will. They don't need tolerance or diversity in their lives. They're not representing a racial cause, either. They're not demanding 'equal rights' for the black share croppers of eastern Arkansas or even for the black folks flooded out in New Orleans. In a way, one might wonder if either of them are even interested in the black people.
We know that Oprah is, though it isn't always specifically black. (And at least Obama had sense enough to marry a black woman.) So, in this sense, they have every right to combine forces for Obama's presidential bid. Why not? It is surely a good thing for black people, no?
But now, will we have to reassess Oprah's politics (if she has any)? Does she support Obama's political positions? Obama may or may not salute the flag of the United States. He wants to end the war in Iraq, not win it. He's never really impressed anyone as being particularly American. Black people are greatly mistaken if they think he feels about America what most of them feel. Obama is essentially a kind of foreigner. Now, Oprah's claim to fame is essential Americanism--the American dream, a simple, insignificant black woman rising to unparalleled heights of fame and fortune (and keeping her head pretty much together while she's at it!). But, association with her isn't going to make him an all-American boy. It's just not going to happen--not with is background, and not with the name Barak Hussein Obama. Never in a million years.
So, Oprah Winfrey is really risking alot in her own reputation. She has a lot to risk, true. She can afford it, no doubt. But, should we not be disappointed that her reckless political debut should involve such dubious American idendity as that toted by B. Hussein Obama? She'll never make her boy an American Negro. He will never be able to identify with the black people of America.
Are they naive enough to vote for him--just because he's black?
That is true race-ism. It is a positive form of it, but, that kind of race-based loyality can apparently trump patriotism. Color can transcend nationalism. This is "deeply troubling," right Hillary? No wonder Obama foes are trying to make him out to be a Muslim. (Urban Legends, or Snopes.com, seems to be a good thing to have around on points like this. See, Obama/Muslim.) Well, making him out to be something other than a blue-blooded American patriot isn't difficult at all. But, he's the one who wants to run for office. The American people didn't invite him to run.
Simply by the fact that he is running, and that someone like Oprah Winfrey has decided to support him fully, only shows where American politics is today. It's about race, religion, and gender. And, deeper than that, it's all a parade for social justice-mongers. Everyone wants justice. Some kind of justice. "I've been wronged" is the theme of American media-tuned society today. Politicians must appeal to the people's sense of justice. "I want what's mine! You get it for me!" is what the people demand. Thus, we have the politicians we have today.
Well, Obama wants to quit in Iraq, but wants to start up in Dafur--you know, the black African country. We must stop the genocide there, etc. (Why, Obama even divested $180,000 of personal holdings in Sudan-related stock.) Ann Coulter sums up that kind of liberal, Democrat thinking (If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans, p.137):
[they are] hysterically demanding that we pull out of Iraq because we're putting our troops in the middle of a civil war [while] demanding we send troops uninvited into Darfur into the middle of a civil war. I haven't heard a single Darfur "exit strategy" from the whole lot of them.
Oprah thinks Obama stands for change, but, change isn't a matter of race. It's a matter of ideas. I don't see anything particularly distinguished in Obama's message, nothing that can be differentiated from the most standard liberal, Democrat, even anti-American jargon. The only change Obama offers is the color of his skin. And that would only be for the White House. That would only count in the Oval Office.
What a weak ticket. President because he's black? Oprah may need to reconsider what she's doing. But then, who expected anything substantial from her? Who expected a perspective with depth from her anyway? If she had that, how could she have become so "popular?" Strong winds only blow over houses made of straw.
Ben Johnson, now managing editor of the David Horowitz FrontPageMagazine, published today a review of Pat Buchanan's new book, Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart (2007). Johnson's review is mockingly called, "Day of Rubbish." Johnson denounces Buchanan as a segregationist and a 'racialist,' as one who believes the white, Judeo-Christian culture is superior to all others. Buchanan is of course concerned that multiculturalism is suicidal for America and Europe. Johnson won't have it:
The book’s omnipresent focus on “race and ethnicity” is most clearly expressed early in chapter six, “Deconstructing America.” Buchanan laments, “America and Britain have embraced ideas about the innate equality…and about the mixing of all tribes, races, and peoples, that are not only ahistorical, they are suicidal for America and the West.”[ii] (Emphasis added.) To be clear where he stands, he continues: “[W]e are not the same people we were in 1957…we now reject as repellent and ethnocentric that the British [N.B.: Not the British culture – BJ.] who founded our republic and created the British Empire were not only unique but superior to other peoples and civilizations.”[iii] (Emphases added.)
Buchanan's Day of Reckoning is perhaps an intensification of his earlier book, The Death of the West (December, 2001), and sure enough, FrontPageMagazine denounced that book as well. Another editor, Jamie Glazov, in his review "Pat Buchanan and The Death of the West," scoffs at Buchanan's concern that " ethnic minorities will soon outnumber white people in Europe and the United States." Glazov asserts, "my own personal nightmare is to be stuck living in a homogenous society -- where there exists only one kind of people." Not to be objective, Glazov merely responds to the sense of inevitable multicultural, interracial mixing:
I couldn’t imagine life without multiculturalism. Of course, I recognize the destructiveness of multiculturalism as a policy or agenda. We know how the Left exploits multiculturalism as a vehicle to wreak havoc in society. But it is a far different matter to imply that multiculturalism is, as a reality in and of itself, something that is bad or negative. Yet that is precisely what Buchanan is implying.
I note here that Buchanan is older than Johnson and Glazov put together. (And, Glazov is himself an immigrant.) I think perhaps that is an important factor in evaluating what's going on here. Youth so often sees things quite differently from age and experience.
Author and commentator Pat Buchanan
I also not that, in Pat Buchanan, in Death of the West (pp.155,156) was the first to quote my familiar story about Rachel the white college coed who, in the psychology class I was teaching at OSU-OKC, denounced her race and her culture. (My original article, "What's Up With White Women?" was published May 18, 2001, on FrontPageMagzine.com. It has since been removed, but, that was the original source, and the source Buchanan quoted.) As I have previously noted, the same story was referenced again by anti-Jihadist Robert Spencer in his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades (August, 2005), and again in his latest book, Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't (August, 2007), on p.2. Ann Coulter referenced the story on her blog on June 25, 2007 (plugging my book, Bad Eagle: The Rantings of a Conservative Comanche). And now Michael Medved has cited the greatest portion of the article yet, in a piece called "Resisting the smear of a 'tainted legacy'," (December 5, 2007, on his Townhall.com website.) In fact, Medved listed a Young America's Foundation speech I gave on "The Warrior Code" on the page of his previous article, "Reject the Lie of White "Genocide" Against Native Americans" (September 19, 2007). "The Warrior Code" is a lenghty speech. Unfortunately, I cannot remember exactly when and where it was delivered.
I must ponder this predicament. I wrote regularly for FrontPageMagazine.com beginning in January, 2001, with "Warriors and Weapons." I wrote less regularly by the end of 2005. Should I wonder, is there any connection between the more recent dearth of Yeagley articles on FrontPage and the fact that FrontPage editors are feverishly denouncing Pat Buchanan, the seasoned national commentator who first noted my "White Women" article? I honestly don't know. I do wonder, but, I have no basis for evaluating the circumstances.
I believe that nations are ordained of God. I believe that race and ethnicity are sacred things in the world. I think anyone who tries to diminish the value of race, ethnicity, and nationhood, is a racist, and a tyrannist.
Dr. David Yeagley
So, how do I reconcile my position with the editors of FrontPageMagazine? I'm not in the age bracket of Pat Buchanan, but, I am certainly significantly older than Johnson and Glazov. Do I simply see things they don't see? Are they as disapproving of my positions as they are of Pat Buchanan's? This does matter to me, because David Horowtiz was the first major figure to give me a voice. I shall ever be conscious and grateful for that. I have published also on Peter Brimelow's VDARE.com, which holds different positions than FrontPage. I know it comes down to the different between neoconservatism and paleoconservatism. I am definitely a paleoconservative. Yet, I hold a special love and adoration for Jews and Jewish history, and I honor modern Israel. I don't believe there is such an ethnicity as "Palestinian," nor is there any nationality or culture to be called "Palestinian." I suppose the apparently irreconcilable contrasts in my own positions make it somewhat unlikely that I shall be espoused completely by either the neoconservatives or the paleoconservatives. I really don't know.
I know that I love America. I love the land. I love the greatness of the country. I love these trees, these rivers, these mountains. Not those of another land, or of another continent. This is home. This is mine. This is me. I'm not really a careerist. I believe in preserving race, ethnicity, and nationality. I believe in the Comanche Nation. I believe in the United States of America. It's like a mother and father. They are two different things. When we're born, we hear two voices. Reality is always a matter of two voices. At least two.
I"m also a musician, and harmony is my speciality. Harmonizing extraordinary chasms of aural conflict, that's a passion for me. Finding exotic, new places, through new harmonic bases, this is the joy of discovery for me.
So, I can live with Titanic difference. I have always met the challenge, to whatever degree I have been able. I have never run from it. I can only pray that the Almighty does have a hand in the war of awareness within me. I do pray that the victory is His, that He will deign to note my blood. Surely, I have noted His. Slaughter is not alien to the Throne.
A number of items have come up in the last day or two, which deserve some consideration.
1.) Amil Imani, whom BadEagle.com has featured and honored--before any major web site did, has just been interviewed by FrontPageMagazine (Jamie Glazov): "Fighting For the Soul of Iran." Mr. Imani has risen to great prominence in only the last couple of years. His work is immense, and he alone set the pace for public condemnation of the religion of Islam. Imani was first to assert that the problem is the religion itself. Though not appearing publically himself, personally, he has set the pace for others, notably like Dr. Wafa Sultan, who has openly and repeatedly condemned the Muslim religion.
BadEagle.com once referred to Amil Imani as The New Crusader: A Knight in Shining Words (May, 2006). When Mr. Imani first appeared on BadEagle.com, he was unfamiliar with American Indian attitudes and values, but, the variety of opinions and posters on BadEagle.com proved valuable to him. Mr. Imani is a native of Tehran, but now an American patriot. This is a significant personal experience. It is also important that an American Indian patriot web site be part of the history in the making of an American patriot!
2.) Concerning the recent (December 1) Comanche Nation election results: Ron Red Elk was the clear winner, with 46.10% of the vote (520 of the 1,125 people who voted). However, the rules are that the winner must get more than 50% of the vote to be declared the winner. As a result, there will be now a "run-off" vote, December 29. The race is between Mr. Red Elk and the Sandra (Yellowfish-Burgess) Gallegos, who, the first round, got 27.66% of the vote, or 312 votes. BadEagle.com was incorrect to announce prematurely that Mr. Red Elk was the new Vice Chairman of the Comanche Nation. At the present time, he is not. Not yet.
3.) The new BadEagle.com web site may see a delay in the promised launch of December 12. It's looking now more like early January. There will be a new registration process, a new face, and many new features. We have re-scripted the entire data base, and, thought the face features will be new, the forums are merely on a new version of Ikonboard. This new site will be more directly involved in varieties of advertising, promotionals, and development of the Bad Eagle Foundation.
4.) Hillary Clinton has been exposed as an incredibly dishonest and criminal person, most recenty by Peter Paul. See: Hillary! Uncensored--the Trailer Banned by the Media. (The trailer is a bit scattered, but be patient. You will be stunned. The woman is truly criminal. It is an amazing story, how both the Clintons are able to evade conviction for the most obvious and blatant crimes.)
This trailer is from a 1 Hour Documentary now on pay per view- WWW.YOUPERVIEW.COM and on DVD from www.hillcap.org. The unedited trailer made internet history as #1 Ranked video on Google the day it was leaked to the public- and in the Top 100 videos IN THE WORLD on Oct 25. It disappeared from the Top 100 list while #1 on Nov. 2, after it was viewed more than 3 million times. THE FULL 1 HR FILM REVEALS THE OBSTRUCTIONS OF JUSTICE DIRECTED BY HILLARY THAT INVOLVES THE APPARENT CORRUPTION OF THE CHIEF OF PUBLIC INTEGRITY of the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND A FEDERAL JUDGE APPOINTED BY THE CLINTONS- SEE THE EVIDENCE ON THE PUBLIC RECORD www.hillcap.org an www.peterfpaul.com the Documentary uses exclusive Home Videos of Hillary taken by her largest donor, Peter Paul, to expose the Illegalities that won her Senate Election & the Obstructions of Justice That Keep Her There.
5.) My somewhat famous article, "What's Up With White Women?" was quoted, at length, by Michael Medved(TownHall.com). Of course, I am not identified other than by name. My writings are not identified, and the source of the article is not identified. BadEagle.com is not identified. None of that is apparently important or useful. (In fact, it might even be confusing!) The Medved article was noted on some other blogs, like DU d'RAT Review. Medved is of course a very big figure in conservative political and social commentary, with a specialty in Judeo-Christian shared values.
By the way, the "White Women?" article was originally published on FrontPageMagazine, but has since been removed. It is my most quoted piece, first referenced by Pat Buchanan, then Robert Spencer (in two of his books, including the latest one), Ann Coulter, and now Michael Medved. Don't know what it is about this article. It seems to speak to white people. White people seem self-conscious about their incredible achievements. They seem now afraid to own what they created. They seem staggering under the weight of their own castle. I do hope they recover their strength, and carry on--with good cheer.
On Monday evening, December 3, 2007, I presented a speech on the 2nd Amendment at Oberlin College (Oberlin, Ohio), my alma mater, whence I graduated many years ago. I was hosted by the Oberlin College Republicans (Mary Burke, president), who are sponsored by Young America's Foundation. (Hopefully, there will be a write-up in the Oberlin Review, which is published every Friday, for the last 130 years. BadEagle.com will post the link here as soon as it's available.)
"He Who Takes My Weapon is My Enemy" presented in the West Lecture Hall,
Oberlin Science Center, 8:00 pm.
Life is interesting. To have graduated as a piano/composition major from the music conservatory, and to finally return ages later to talk about love of country, was a most curious circumstance. The piano teacher under whom I graduated was there, Mr. Sanford Margolis. This was a very special occasion for me. The Republican club, myself, and Mr. Margolis all had dinner together, with the club sponsor, Timothy Hall, of the philosophy faculty.
The younger Mr. Margolis
The special point I attempted to make in my speech is that the possession and use of fire arms by citizens is something that needs more of a emotional base, and not simply an abstract "right" based on a historical theory of some kind. Weapons are visceral, and they need a visceral support. I pointed out that there was a time when the people of America placed their musket above the family hearth, right with the Bible. The sacredness, the honor of the weapon is irreplaceable, and must be quickly restored in the American mind. The weapon represents freedom! The weapon represents the commitment of the American soul to love of country. Nothing could be more essential, or more desperately needed. To put that old Winchester above the family fire place--this is the crying need in America today. Without such dignity and glory associated with the weapon, it will be taken from us, in due time.
Timothy Hall, Associate Professor of Philosophy,
advisor of Oberlin College Republicans
One of the liberal-minded students asked, "Do you think it was worth it? Do you think, as an Indian, that America is justified?"
"You want me to Ghost Dance?" I asked back. "Yes," he smiled.
I said, What good does it do to lament the past? Will that change anything? You want to hear my idea of justice? It will never happen until you all go home, until you go back to the countries you came from, until you're gone! Then I paused in silence, to let them understand that. Now, let's be reasonable, I continued. How likely is that to happen? Why then should I shackle myself with abject frustration? What good does impossible resentment do? It is a terrible thing to lay such a burdern on young Indians.
I went on, trying to get the liberal students to see the inutile, futile indulgence in such self-righteousness. Whom does this affect? Whom is benefited by such a negative world view? Not Indians. Such anti-American, anti-Western Civilization rhetoric does not change one Indian life for the better, not one bit. Does it make liberals feel better to talk about how evil America was to the Indian? It doesn't benefit the Indian. It makes for aggrandized depression. Liberals do Indians a great disservice when they support a profound level of discontent.
America is a great thing. I'll never believe anything else. And America was made by force of arms. America will be maintain by force of arms. I quote Thomas Jefferson again (in a letter to William Smith, 1787):
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms
But we've long forgotten this! Our country, in the economic development stage, fell into the trap of 'division of labor.' We thought to pay others to wield the weapons, while we went about our peaceful business of making money. We turned over the fearful responsibility of bearing arms to others, to "professionals." This was a terrible, psychological error. The result is, the average citizen, a law-abiding, decent person, is afraid of weapons, afraid of guns. Why? He doesn't know how to use them. He doesn't know the honor. He hasn't been taught. He can only condemn, through his own fear. He can only associate the weapon with crime and killing. This, in his emotional constructs, is evil. Let someone else be responsible for that.
Thus, my desire to see the rifle place once again above the family hearth. The father and mother need to understand that sacred obligation to the country--defense. The parents need to familiarize their children with this concept. Children need to be taught how to respect weapons, and see them as a duty in patriotism.
That's the old Indian way. A boy grew up with weapons. It was the definition of being. It was part of being a human person. And I must say, the Comanche way puts an interesting perspective on it. The only weapon that had anything of religious sentiment associated with it was, not the bow and arrow, but the shield. The shield is what kept you alive. (It was presumed that you were the best shot. You're only need therefore was to be able to deflect shots at yourself.) The shield was the magic.
This would mean that Americans need to understand that weapons are for defense of what you have, and what you are. Whatever errors of aggression that were committed in the past, the point is now to defend what was achieved. Freedom was achieved. Freedom was achieved through force of arms. It will be maintained by force of arms, not by law or theory. (There is no law without force of arms.)
Our government is not lord over us. We are lords over the government. The government does not rule us. We rule the government. When this is not so, we are not free. Rousseau's Social Contract has its place--only after the agreements are made. Americans must ever shield themselves from the government. In America, the people maintain the right, yea, they must maintian the authority over all agreements, or they have surrendered their own freedom.
Congratulations Ron Red Elk! New Vice-Chairman of the Comanche Nation
The Campcrier's unofficial results of the Comanche Nation election for Vice-Chairman: I got 10.02% of the vote. That's 113 out of the 1,125 people that voted! (That's from among about 10% of the Comanches that actually bothered to vote.) Well, I got more than I expected. ( I predicted five votes for myself.) I got lot more. I'm happy for that.
Ron Red Elk is the clear winner, with 46.10%. He can testify that, last Tuesday night, (Nov.27th), at the Anadarko forum, I predicted that he would win. He's been around too long, with an established trust and relationship to the tribe. The other three of us, regardless of family or reputation, simply haven't developed the kind of relationship he has.
No, Red Elk hasn't promoted any new ideas, nor advocated any too serious a reform in government. He simply promised to follow our 1934 superimposed BIA Constitution, and to what he could to see that others followed it. Personally, I thought Sandra Gallegos would have been more capable as a Vice-chair, having a more intimate knowledge of organization and operations, but, perhaps she intimidated people with such an image of a "controller." Every serious organization needs precisely that, however. Sonya Tahchawwickah and myself simply are not well-known enough, personally.
(An inside story, I will say that Sandra Gallegos, of the Yellowfish/Burgess family, represents a large voting block, but one opposed by an even larger voting block, as demonstrated when Sandra's brother Mike Burgess ran for chairman against Wallace Coffee a few years ago. Many people thought that the voting block supporting Sonya Tahchawwickah, which is basically the same that supported Coffey, would trounce the Gallegos bid, but they did not. Apparently, the majority of voters decided to bypass that whole contest, and simply vote for Red Elk. I don't think my own personal part in the campaign made any difference at all.)
However, I thoroughly enjoyed the campaign, short as it was. I was happy to present my ideas for the future of the Comanche Nation. I am definitely futuristic. Gallegos, on the other hand, represented the present. Ron Red Elk I think had that special element of the past in him, especially due to the fact that he is a major Comanche language teacher. (I will try to work with him in that department in the near future. I have ideas for that, some of which I've already seen come to pass. That's the way it works. I present new ideas, and others run with them. This is a 'good thang.') Red Elk represents a certain safety in tradition, something all Indians cherish dearly. Again, I don't consider him a progressive, but he is open to casino-based economic prosperity, and that, combined with his Comanche tradition base (i.e., the Coomanche language), made him the winning ticket.
I had asked Ron for a photo so I could campaign for him on BadEagle.com. He didn't like photos, he told me. No one had any of him. Other than his Campcrier.net interview, there was no photo available.
Ron notably older than the rest of us, too. He spent 36 years as a teacher, coach and administrator in southwest Oklahoma, including work in Walters public schools, Fort Sill Indian School, Riverside Indian School, and Anadarko High School. He has also farmed and ranched for 18 years. I mean, what more can Oklahoma Indians ask? He has been instrumental in the Comanche Language and Cultural Preservation Committee, and in the Comanche Nation Museum Project. He can do the job, eminently.
The people have spoken, clearly. Congratulations, Ron Red Elk
Oh, yes, Red Elk has been married for 47 years--to the same woman, Frances. I think that says it all.
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001