Who's afraid to call Barak Hussein Obama by his own name? Why?
Why on earth did the wormy-acting John McCain feel he had to apologize--for someone else--who used the Illinois senator's name? Nathan Cunningham, liberal Time/CNN reporter, himself noted this oddity.
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr,: that is the full name of the junior Senator from Illinois--neither a contrivance nor, at face value, a slur. But John McCain couldn't apologize quickly enough after Bill Cunningham, a conservative talk radio host, warmed up a Cincinnati rally with a few loaded references to "Barack Hussein Obama." Asked afterwards if it was appropriate to use the Senator's middle name, McCain said, "No, it is not. Any comment that is disparaging of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is totally inappropriate."
The pundits were quick to applaud McCain's fatwa against the use of Hussein, and broadcasters began trying to report on the controversy without actually saying the name too much, dancing around the offending word as if they were doing a segment on The Vagina Monologues. In both cases, the word comes off as not quite illicit, but certainly a little taboo.
Barak Hussein Obama, not willing to take personal criticism? Too sensitive
to be teased? Poor thing. Let's make it a pity-fest.Jessica Rinaldi / Reuters
Then there is Michelle LaVaughn Roberts Obama. Her reaction is telling as well. She thinks her husband's opponents want to use the name "Hussein" as a "fear bomb," knowing that many Americans obviously associate the name with Saddam Hussein, the 'butcher of Baghdad.' But this is of course completely over-stated, in a typical, Democrat, hysterical way. No one thinks "Barry" Obama is comparable to Saddam. But everyone wonders why Barry Hussein Obama would insist on parading a name that represents foreign values, foreign religion, and foreign people.
Think of the countless Italians, Poles, and Germans who all changed their names when they came to America in the late 19th and early 20th century. They wanted to be American. They didn't come here to parade their ethnicity, to market their difference. They wanted to fit in. They had no disposition to aggrandize their foreignness. Barak Hussein Obama--running for president of the United States, no less--represents a profound insult to the people who actually contributed to the great society of America today. True, since WWII, many foreigners haven't changed their names. But, how many of them have run for the presidency?
And clearly, Hussein caters to the haters of America--the Third World Communists. They all see a great affinity in Hussein's grand socialism. He represents the anti-American Third World a lot more clearly and accurately than the white woman, Hillary Clinton.
The liberal grey lady, the desiccated rag, the New York Times, today ran a front page piece expressing concern over Hussein's political future. Adam Nagourney admits that, so far, everyone's handled Hussein with kid gloves.
But, if and when he becomes the Democrat candidate,
he will be playing on a more treacherous political battleground as his opponents--scouring through his record of votes and statements and his experiences before he entered public life--look for ways to portray him as out of step with the nation's values, challenge his appeal to independent voters and emphasize his lack of experience in foreign policy and national security.
These, of course, are the neutral, liberal way of identifying his positions. Lack of experience really means outright anti-American values in both foreign policy and national security.
But Hussein will never overcome his own name. He won't win. He many not even win the nomination. It depends on how serious the opposition is in its efforts to expose all the truth about Hussein. Ann Coulter was the first to point out the pain in "Hussein." BadEagle.com has certainly never played nice about it. McCain's weak and liberal "apology" tactic--no doubt another fine example of his "reaching across the isle"--really counts against McCain, his manipulative politics, and general unreliability. "Maverick?" I'd call it a weak link. A dangerous link.
So, it takes a foriegn Negro (--remember the Negro in Obama is not American Negro but African) to suggest "respect" in an American political campaign? Even Hillary's tougher than that! We simply have to ask the question, Why should Barak Hussein Obama (may his name be changed--inshallah) be treated any differently from any other candidate? Is McCain going to lie about him and twist his words like he did Mitt Romney's? Is Hussein (may his name be changed-inshallah) going to get equal treatment, or is it to be special treatment?
"May his name be changed," is a phrase sarcastically echoing the Muslim custom (--I should say, Middle Eastern custom) of prouncing a blessing upon the name of a saintly personage when mentioning that saint's name. It is a kind of formal respect and honor. The Qur'an itself is full of such well-wishing. Secondary writers and commentators always include such addenda in pronouncements, like, "may his children multiply," "may his fields increase," "may he prosper in all things," or "may he live forever and all his family be forever blessed," etc. So, for me, it's Hussein, may his name be changed--inshallah. "Inshallah" is Arabic for "with the help of god, with god's help."
The Muslim world loves Hussein. They find affinity in him--for very obvious reasons. Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah) with therefore never unify anything. He will cause WWIII, in spite of himself. His threat to bomb Pakistan--which has nuclear weapons, in order to destory Bin Laden and al-Qaeda impressed no one, since it was so obviously meaningless.
Indeed, Hussein is meaningless as a candidate. His candidacy is based on fear, race, and sublimated sex. Michille is quite mistaken. The fear of Hussein is not of his name, but of his skin. But, at least if he changed his name, we might not have the religious concerns.
More and more news is coming out about Barak Hussein Obama (may his name be changed). He is not the innocent "nobody," coming out of nowhere, that all the naive people and manipulative media have thought. He is a calculated puppet of larger Third World forces. At least, to all appearances.
Barak Hussein (may his name be changed--inshalla) Obama
It seems he has been financed by billionaire Iraqi crook Nadhmi Auchi for some time. (Auchi was convicted for fraud and expelled from France a few years ago.) We're just beginning to see these things. Ah, but the money comes through the hands of the corrupt Syrian Antoin "Tony" Rezko, the middle man. But Hillary Clinton has already predicted (according to British TimesOneline):
Hillary Clinton has sought to make Mr Rezko, who has bankrolled Mr Obama's political career since his first run for the Illinois state senate in the mid-1990s, into an election issue by calling him a "slum landlord" in a televised debate. She has repeatedly suggested that Mr Obama has effectively not been "vetted" by media scrutiny and will not withstand "the Republican attack machine".
Indeed. Of course, the Clintons themselves accepted a lot of money from Rezko. In fact, the slippery Syrian even raised money for George Bush in 2003. Like many Third World financiers, Rezko just wants his hand in the game. It's called power and influence--through money.
The point is, Barak Hussein Obama (may his name be changed) has the kind of close connections to Third World shadow figures that make him totally suspicious--especially since he is marketing his Third World name Barak Hussein Obama (may his name be changed). His loyalty to the United States of America is utterly untrustworthy--as is that of all socialists, Marxists, Leftists, liberals, and many Democrats. And this point, we even have to question many Republicans about their values as well. Nationhood is up for grabs these days, since most people have no working concept of what a nation is, how it comes about, why it exists, and how to preserve it. With people like George Soros preaching that nationhood is "tribalism," a thing of the past that needs to be eliminated, is there any wonder why so many ignorant, naive Americans 'cathart' their ideological frustrations on a fringe foreigner with an African father, who poses as an American Negro? Obama validates their confusion. Obama focuses their impotence.
It's an ancient hunting tactic: confuse the animal, and it is weakened in its own response to your attack. In a way, America is a weakened, crazed animal, confused by competing ideologies, Third World values, one world globalism pawned off as the solution by power hungry men. America is psychologically suffering, and the Third World icon--Barak Hussein Obama (may his name be changed--inshallah) appears as the savior! What a script. What a fateful coincidence. A convergence of sociological inevitabilities.
I was on the radio with Pamela Furr (WVNN 770, Huntsville, Alabama) Tuesday. She asked for evidence that Obama had foreign values. I said he is a socialist. Furr conceded. She insisted, however, that he was not a Muslim. I said it didn't matter what Obama says about himself. He is perceived as Muslim by Muslims. He is supported by radical Muslims, as well as moderate Muslims. (Part of the point here is that so-called "moderate" Muslims often serve as fronts for the radicals. In other words, you can't tell which is which--by design.) This is the religion that destroys what it does not convert. They obviously see in Barak Hussein Obama (may his name be changed--inshallah) their ticket to a bloodless coup, one that in time will "change" America, indeed. I say it will "destroy" America.
Then there's Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama. She's had some fancy finacing herself. From the Chicago Sun:
She is a 1985 cum laude graduate of Princeton University, a 1988 graduate of Harvard Law, a former associate dean at the University of Chicago and currently vice president at University of Chicago Hospitals. Michelle...sits on six boards, including the prestigious Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools.
In 2006 she was paid $273,618 by the University of Chicago Hospitals alone, to say nothing of her salaried positions on other boards. So much for the poor people's image. Yet, she was never proud of America until now, when her non-American Negro husband appears to have a chance to be president of the United States.
This is a bad ticket. Very bad. Very un-American, through and through. Very race-based, inevitably divisive--despite the clarion cry that Barak Hussein Obama (may his name be changed--inshallah) is a "unifier." Do people honestly think his black skin and bi-racial, Third World nature can unify anything or anyone? This is the real fantasy, not his idea about the Iraq war.
These are not the people to lead the United States. They see themselves as world leaders, like all socialists. The trend is mighty. It could be that Barak Hussein Obama will be the Democrat nominee. He might even be elected president, but, I rather doubt it. I doubt Americans will simply through the country to the Third World. Yes, Bill Clinton tried in every way possible to give America away (particularly to China). But, I'd like to think America was duped into that. At this point, surely the people understand what is happening.
Let the Democrats have their fantasy of world peace through Barak Hussein Obama. Let them be swindled into the slavery of Communism (socialism) and interracial sex and the breeding out of the white race. Apparently that makes them feel righteous. But, if such a fantasy ever came completely true, and they finally awakened, then it would be too late to recover. They will be forever changed--for the worse.
This is about nationhood, really. That's what's on the line. That's what people need to be educated about. What is a nation? Why does it exist? How does it come about? Show does it stay? The Obama phenomenon begs these questions. He is the door out of nationhood. He is the path to Third World dominance. He is the way to the one world globalist fantasy of the internationalists. There are mighty forces behind him. Those forces may not be quelled by political machines and media. The challenge is to the people. One vote. We each have one vote. Media tries to influence many votes. The media is generally the enemy of the people. This looming Obama catastrophy is perhaps the greatest challenge to the America people since WWII. We stand to lose everything America is and was meant to be. If we lose, it is because not enough people understood the issues. Just exactly why that condition evolved will be a subject of social historians.
The popularity of Barak Hussein Obama is based on vicarious and sublimated sexual fantasy, provoked by his blackness. It is also based on a vicarious and sublimated fear of Islam (Mohammadanism). The American public that is memsmerized by Obama is behaving like a swooning teenaged girl--a teenaged white girl about to have sex with a a black man.
But that's the visceral element. Psychologically, and culturally, in terms of American history, it is deeper. White Americans have had black people thrown in their face for decades now. Martin Luther King's "nightmare" has come true. Mixing little black children with white children--both of whom have been clinically shown to have natural aversions to one another, has finally resulted in the sexual triumph of the black male. Obama has born this out, obviously.
Louis Farrakahn (Louis Eugene Walcott) has pronounced this reality before the public:
"A black man with a white mother became a savior to us," he told the crowd of mostly followers. "A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall."
Herein is all that is racist in blackness. A white mother doesn't make a black man white, but the white mother only validates his blackness! Black is ever and only black.
America's "fall?" What would that be? Failure to fully intemarry with the American Negro? It is abundantly clear from Mr. Farrakahn's remark that this is about interracial sex. Nothing more, nothing other. This is the goal of the American Negro, according to Louis "Black Muslim" Farrakahn. Plane and simple. That's what this is all about. Sex. Sex with Negroes. Sex of non-Negroe people, particularly and specifically white females, with Negro men.
Louis Eugene Walcott "Black Muslim" Farrakahn
Black leaders, mostly male, have been historically proccupied with interracial sex--with a white woman. That seems to be the inevitable expression of their idea of "equality."
Now, what of the "black Muslim" bit? What's that all about? Resentment. Rebellion. Cultural immaturity, the kind that would espouse its own historical enemy (the great slave mongering Arab Mohammadan), the kind that would embrace its own slave master. This sector of the America black race acts as if it's on dope, psychologically. It's drugged. It is in love with that which destroys it. A race of addicts, whose very nature is addiction, is that not the black race?
The murderous mania of Mohammadanism, and reality-altering power of satanic murder-ism and torture--the very heart of Islam, has so terrified, so unsettled the world that immature white America feels an uncontrollable thrill in embracing a black Muslim. If they hug Obama, all will be healed. All the hatred of America will cease, and the world will be wonderful. Just reach out and touch black skin, foreign black skin, foreign religion, and fully surrender to its sexual ravaging, and you are "saved." Just surrender to blackness. "Darkness will prevail!" my old friend Zack used to say. He's gone now, but, his words may actually come to pass.
But I have always believed that the American black race has never had quality leadership. It has had only writhing puppets. Slaves, as it were. It has never really been helped by the leaders white people have created for it. No, the Ethiopian cannot change his skin, but, his self-concept--cannot that be self-created, rather than borrowed from circumstances? Shall American blackness ever only be a reaction? Can't black be something besides a reaction to white?
Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama apparently doesn't think so. Her B.A. thesis at Princeton showed nothing but her personal frustration with being black--in a dominant white society. It was an honest thesis, but not a complete thesis. It was subjective, and personal, just the kind of thing one would expect, and one has come to tolerate due to the liberal race-bating disposition of American universities--who cater to white-hating minorities.
Michelle Obama's senior thesis at Princeton University
shows a young woman grappling with race and society.
She meant exactly what she said when she said she wasn't proud of America. Only now, with the hope of the White House, does she feel that maybe America has "accepted" the Negro. In other words, only if the Negro is allowed to do any thing and everything the white person does--including sex with white female--and residence in the White House, will the Negro feel "equal" and "accepted." It appears that black people are still enslaved in their own skin--and they inevitably manipulate white people. America's reaction of pity is proving to be, not the savior of America, but the same enslavement--vicariously.
This is truly sick. This is immature. This is dangerous.
This is the result of 50 years of "civil rights" social agenda. This is the curse of Ham. It cannot die. Continents cannot resolve it. Miles cannot escape it. Legislation cannot cure it. It is all about sex. Nothing more or other. Of course, we can get Freudian about it, and write it off as inevitable. Everything is about sexual energy, disguised in a variety of ways. The great harness of sublimation is what helps the world carry on.
But now, at this point in the culture, the harness is coming loose. Obamamania. Worship the black male. Black phallicism. I'm afraid that's what this is all about. Very low. Very servile. And thus, the hysteria.
Could Barak Hussein Obama be a "sleeper cell" candidate? Could he be part of a larger plot to destory America? Could he be involved in a political "sleeper cell"?
What a ridiculous thought. How insane to even suggest it. And yet, it is an inevitable thought--at least to those who think. The idea is unavoidable. It has to be thought, and thought through, carefully. No one ever dreamed the Mohammadan murderers would hijack our domestic passenger airplanes and fly them into New York city sky scrapers. We have always had all kinds of military protection for that air space--and for the Pentagon--which, but for the brave American souls on board the plane, the Mohammadans would have also destroyed. But the enemy came in where we did not expect him, and in a way we didn't expect. And now, like science fiction horror, every possible aspect of human existence is suspect. The horror is complete. Life is saturated with it.
So why not suppose a person born of one foreign father, raised by another, and reared in an alien, hostile religion, could and would run for president of the United States? Why not suppose the plotters of the Third World--and their Leftist allies in Washington, would conspire to produce a presidential candidate--one who represents their values? Bombs are expensive, and cost enemy lives as well. Perhaps al-Quaeda has stepped up, or up-scaled its tactics. Social theory constructs at this point demand such a possibility. There have been many lethal enemies of America who have held positions of trust, in universities and in the senate. Some are foreign born, some are not. Some are highly educated and professional, others are not. Some hold high positions, others less authoritative positions--but such positions as put them in critically important power roles, like sitting at switchboards, or at computers. Why not a political condidate?
And this isn't the Manchurian Candidate idea, either. Similarities are only superficial. The Hussein Theory is but a simple scenario in which a person with background outside America, with global vision rather than national vision, could easily function as a "sleeper cell" candidate, ready to be employed by the dictates of killer cult--Mohammadanism. Why not? The more outrageous the thought, the better suited to the enemy, and the more likely the enemy will use it. They've done it before! They've used precisely that psychological construct--on September 11, 2001.
We simply have to consider the possibility that the enormously popular Barak Hussein Obama is an otherwise unaccountable candidate. He has come too far, too quickly, without connections. That is to say, the connections have come to him far too quickly.
There are some real risks here, in writing out such thoughts. I mean no personal insult or harm to Mr. Obama--who decided to retain and parade the name of the irresponsible foreign father he never knew. This really has little to do with the man Barak Hussein Obama. This has to do with circumstances, the context in which he has come to public light. (And how interesting that his mother is no longer living so that she cannot be consulted--or examined.) The circumstances cannot be ignored. Again, the louder the outrage against a "sleeper cell" candidacy, the more important to examine it thoroughly. It is at least unfortunate that Mr. Obama should bear the name he does, at this time, and that he should be running for president with such a name. I would think he could have considered that. Yet, it has not stopped him from personal success so far. That is all the more alarming. He is riding an obviously pro-Islamic wave in America. Thus, the "sleeper cell" candidate theory is compelling. Many people are so terrified of Islam that they have burried it in their social collective unconcious. It is coming out as a grand embrace of an Islamic name: Barak Hussein Obama. The sublimated fear is expressed as hysterical favor toward a black man--who isn't even an American Negro. He fits the part perfectly. It was as if he was engineered for the part. He was groomed for it, long ago.
I introduce this now, with none but logistical constructs and deduction. The fact that his mother married two different foreigners, both Muslim, and the fact that he now retains the foreign name, which represents a foreign religion as well, only means he intends to bring foreign values to the forefront. What else could it mean?
His resistance to NAFTA isn't about nationalism or patriotism. It is about votes from unions--who don't want anymore jobs sent overseas, or given to foreigners here. If Barak Hussein Obama cared about American culture, or if he even knew what it really was about, he would have dispensed with foreign 'social paraphernalia' long ago--especially if he professed to represent America as an elected offical. Right now all he represents is the hidden fears of America. His supporters act as if they embrass his foreigness, all will be well. In him, they can love all those nasty, angry, hurt, murderous and juvenile Muslims. It is a fine situation. Extraordinary.
Michelle Obama doesn't seem quite comfortable with her new role. This is telling. She's a strong woman, but one gets the impression that this catapulted position was not one that involved a lot of discussion at home. It seems like something that was thrust upon the family--like through a single phone call some quite evening. "Your in, Mr. Obama."
Of course, this is a conspiracy theory. This is not a personal accusation. I personally don't like it when people weave me into some giant and false and ridiculous conspiracy. So why am I indulging this kind of thing on Barak Hussein Obama?
He's running for president of my country. That's why. This is not something you play nice about. This is not something you take for granted, or for which you leave any stone unturned. This is America we're talking about here, not some Indian commentator in Oklahoma.
Barak Hussein Obama is a far Left political advocate. He wants to change America. He has "hope" that he can change America into something it isn't and was never meant to be. I call that destroying America. I don't want such a person leading my nation. I have a right to say something about it. In as much as he insists on a foreign name, representing a foreign religion--one that is at war with everything the United States was founded upon, I will consider all possible angles on Barak Hussein Obama. I hope everyone else does the same.
Patriot Serbians in Belgrade stormed the U.S. Embassy there, and set fire to it. They are protesting the US support of the Albanian Mohammadans living in southern Serbia--who have declared themselves independent from Serbia. But the Serbians are letting the American government know they will not have their sovereignty destroyed.
The U.S. embassy in Belgrade burns after masked attackers broke into the building
and set an office on fire at the end of a massive protest against Western-backed
Kosovo independence, in the Serbian capital, Thursday, Feb. 21, 2008. More than
150,000 Serbs gathered at the rally vowing to retake the territory which is viewed
as Serbia's religious and national heartland. (AP Photo/str)
This is a good thing. This is a wonderful thing. The world needs to be reminded that you simply cannot with impunity move in on someone else's land, and take it over simply because you swarmed them with numbers. But I have repeatedly cited Serbia as an example of what happens when massive numbers of foreigners congregate in a host country. It is only a matter of time until they demand their own country. "Rights" generally lead to "nationhood." Rights are restless until enthroned. The Albanian Mohammadans, deluded, believe the southern province of Serbia is theirs! Simply because they are there.
Only this is robbery. This has nothing to do with "rights," and certainly not the dignity of war. This is simply robbery. This European and United States-backed overthrow of Serbian sovereignty is a classic example of bullying the small guy. Kosovo is a province of Serbia. Kosovo is Serbia. It is not Albania. Never has been, and hopefully never will be. Why should it be?
Why do the United States and Europe want to see a new Muslim nation, full of radicals, mass murderers, al-Qaeda, and mafia? That's all this would-be nation is, a haven of the world's worst--right at the door step of Europe. (Ah, Where's Dracula when you need him?!)
Strange infatuation, the way the West submits to the cult of Mohammad. Strange suicide, indeed. It is as if the West imitates the mass-murdering Mohammadans in reverse, on a national basis. Nation suicide. That's what is happening. The West wants to see nations and nationhood dissolve. That's the game plan. The cult of Mohammad is only a tool, apparently.
Only Serbia protests! Thank God Serbia protests! All patriots of the world can be grateful. At least someone in the Western civilized world besides American Indians still know the value of nationhood, and cultural identity. It's something to die for! It doesn't matter how many hordes come in and overrun the land. You must fight. Indians earned our treaties and reservations, our lands, our "rights" from a mighty foe. We fought to the end. And we're still here. We didn't lose, really. Not completely. We were profoundly affected, but, we're still here.
America has this wonderful historical lesson right in its face, but does not listen. And now Serbia is showing the world what it means to stand for your country and your land, but no one's listening to them either. When you are small, you are understood as weak, and without will. You can be overcome, it is presumed.
Tell that to Israel.
Tell that to the Comanches.
Tell that to the Serbians.
And yes, tell that to American patriots. America is being flooded with foreigners, en mass. Never mind how they get here, why, who by who's hand. The point is, they will demand their "rights," and eventually have their own mini-nations within America. (And no, this is not comparable at all to the American Indian lands. It is the opposite. America has become the Indian now--being overrun with foreigners.)
Muslim or Mexican, the process is the same. There are fewer Muslims, but their demands are lethal. The Mexican masses are evolving into their own "nationhood" within America. No one's shedding blood. There is no war. It is a give away--by law.
It is the same thing the West is trying to do to Serbia--to give away her land to foreigners. This is some cosmic form of Communism--no one owns anything, everyone owns everything. Don't you dare act like you own anything individually. It will promptly be confiscated, with force. So say the One World globalist powers.
Two world wars were started in the Balkans. We may be witnessing the beginning of the third. The Serbians will never accept this rape of their nation. They will never cease fighting. Many, many people will die. Bill Clinton and his attack dog Wesley Clark, under the guise of the UN, indescriminately bombed Serbian cities and civilians in 1992. Why? Serbia had begun strongly resisting the mess of foreigners in their southern provinice of Kosovo. Serbia wasn't allowed to resist.
But resist she will. Resist she must.
I can only hope that every nation in the world will take this lesson to heart: beware foreigners. Beware especially mass numbers of them. Beware conclaves of them. (And remember that the American Indian presence here in the United States is a complete exception to the historical circumstances of these other examples.) Remember the words of Aristotle: The Politics, Bk.V, ch.3 (trans. Sinclair).
...a state cannot be made out of any and every collection of people, so neither can it be made at any time at will. Hence civil strife is exceedingly common when the population includes an extraneous element, whether these have joined in the founding or have been taken on later.
And his famous teacher, Plato: The Laws, Bk. VI (trans. Saunders)
Indescriminate equality for all amounts to inequality, and both fill a state with quarrels between its citizens...The founder (of a state) must always make justice his aim.
In other words, materialism is not the manifestation of equality upon which to organize a society. And foreign elements will never feel equal until they are in charge. (Enter: Barak Hussein Obama.) But the moral truth is, wealth is not the measure of justice. Class struggle is based on a heathenish, visceral materialism. It tends to destroy nations.
In the dissolution of nationhood we risk the wrath of God. So saith the scriptures. It is Satan's work. It is he "which didst weaken the nations." Isaiah 14:12. The nations are sacred. The nations are ordained of God. Yes, they seem to evolve according to the aggressions of man--as God allows, but woe be unto him that would destroy a nation, to trespass a nation, or to "weaken" it.
Apparently the people of Wisconsin are less informed than we thought. B. Hussein O. (may his name be changed-inshallah) just won another state. Apparently they didn't know he's against babies. That is, he voted against Senate Bill 1095, The Born Alive Infant Protection Act. He supports killing babies--after they are born! He first voted against the bill in March, 2001, as an Illinois senator. Here is part of his testimony (p.86):
Whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that they are entitled to the kinds of protection that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child, that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.
This might mean I would never have known one of my best friends, Zack, who just happened to have been a premature baby.
He opposed it again in March, 2002, as Senate Bill 1662 Born Alive Infant Protection Act. He had a new take, that it would place an undue burden on the delivering doctor to determine whether the fetus (child) was alive (viable). A second opinion would have to be wrung out of another doctor. Why, two men ganging up on a poor woman who might want to kill her new life. That was just unfair, as well as too complicated (pp.32,33.)
Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah).
In 2003, Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah) was chairman of the Illinois State Health and Human Services Committee. When the bill came up again, with necessary changes, he prevented it coming to a vote.
Well, this is all wonderfully documented by Jill Stanek, a nationally known Pro-Life advocate.
Ah, but Wisconsin is a great Leftist (Communist) haven, right? A bastion of liberalism, for 60 years. White labor unions, they say. All caught up in the insane Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah) hysteria. On February 13, BadEagle.com pointed out this abnormal ferver. The next week, Limbaugh (and then Hannity) played a tape of various moments in the Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah) campaigns in which women have fainted. Of course. As I said, it's the Beatles all over again. Elvis. What I also said was that the hysteria was "Hitlerian." Well, I'm glad other commentators are at least picking up on this now. (But will they read anything as sinister as Nazi reverse racism in the Hussein (may his named be changed--inshallah) campaign? Michelle Obama has already professed her condemnation for America.)
Interestingly, Hussein (may his named be changed--inshallah) may not be the best candidate for an entirely different reason than most opponents cite. Certainly, we all cringed at the thought of his natural affinity with the murderous Muslim religion, and the black racist preacher of hate he acknowledges in Chicago. Certainly we are aware that the Mohammadans living in America generally support him. I doubt any murderous Mohammadans in the world would object to Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah).
But what about Hillary? If there is anything the darkies of the world fear, it is a white woman. If there is anything that makes the Third World shudder it is the pearly white skin of a fair-haired, bright eyed female. Especially an American female. If there is any sexual attraction that utterly discomfits the dark, superstitious religionist it is the bright, white skin of Caucasian princess. I have a Christian American Lebanese friend back east (Massachusetts) who suggested this aspect of Hillary. She is a conservative Republican, but she does make an excellent point here. In terms of the power play, Hillary could be a more influencial dealer with the Arab Muslim world. If she decided to crack the whip, they would scatter like scared rats. Ah, but she probably wouldn't exercise such authority. Such thoughts are not so realistic, though their potential is truly awesome.
Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah) is riding a mighty high wave right now, inflating the emotions of the mindless, bored public beyond anyone in recent years. Too bad he doesn't offer much hope to unborn children, or even to those born prematurely. They'll never see all the glory he professes. They'll never luxuriate in all that fantasy. He won't let them. He'd rather let their mothers kill them. He'd rather empower the mother to murder.
I"m quite sure that, if he even comes close to winning the nomination, the darkest shadows of his life, his work, and that of his wife, will all come out in the bright light of American media--despite it all. Even a liberal newsman can scarce resist a good story. Problem is, after the Clinton years, there's no outrage left. The story might fly on a sentiment of protest, but it will have no effect on the public. The people are benumbed. The press is, in a way, insuring its own demise. Their only "hope" is youth, inexperience, naive, and ignorant yout--who will buy anything. Hook, line, and sinker--the first shiny spoon with pretty feathers on it. Youth are the only hope of a lot of folks out there, a lot of crooks, salesmen, politicians, and even preachers. Youth are here, and they must be dealt with right smartly. But, to turn them lose in the electorate?
Public hysteria is a common thing, and it happens in periods of prolonged confusion, frustration, and disappointment. The people look for a big stir. They thrive on being part of it. So be it. But remember,
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
You'll be a Man, my son.
Rush Limbaugh points out that neither Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah) nor his wife Michelle have suffered anything of the common life, yet they cop an identity with the poor because they are black (--and at least Michelle is an American Negress). They very well play into the common man theme, though it is not their life. They are politically "common," that is, common for politic's sake. Most politicians are. (John Edwards was the only one who was sincere in his idenity with the poor--at least in so far as his own personal life was.)
If all men count with you, but none too much,
Maybe people should remember that line from Kipling's poem, too. This is a season of idolizing candidates. It's a great team sport. But, the disappointment can be devastating. Let's "hope" people can be more objective in this matter, and think. Let's "hope" that people can consider the facts about the candidates, and not their speeches. Indeed, we really do need "hope" in this regard. Not something Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah) is provided a lot of--unless you're past nine months old.
Serbia has been betrayed by the world. From this day forward, all "nationhood" is liable. No nation is safe, no ethnicity is secure--except those being used to destory others.
Today, Sunday, February 17, 2008, the Albanian Mohammadans (Muslims) living in the Serbian province of Kosovo have declared themselves an independent nation. They have the full support of Europe and the United States. Only Russia opposes the move, based on some dim, past notion that Serbia is part of the once grand "Soviet Union."
BadEagle.com has been a faithful support of Serbian nationhood and sovereignty. With numerous journal entries and many posts on the East Europe Forum, we have noted the unspeakable outrage the world has committed against Serbia. We have noted the history this Serbian province of Kosovo, and how the media has always built it up as a deserving state, always calling it Kosovo instead of Serbia. We have noted how Serbian leaders have been apparently poisoned while awaiting trial in the Hague. We have noted how President Bush went on a special visit to Albania to acknowedge the Albanian people.
Serbia has been lost before our eyes. The Kosovo privince is overwhelmed by the migration of Albanian Muslims--which the press always refers to as "ethnic Albanians," and never the murderous Muslims they really are. They foster Turks, Arabs, and al-Qaeda, so that Kosovo is a giant cell, a colossal bomb on doorsteps of Europe. The degrading process is very clear: mass immigration, or migration, or trespassing, is all it takes. Masses of foreigners, masses of people against the host country, move in, and it is only a matter of time until they claim the territory as theirs, with or without war. Everywhere in the world where Mohammadans amass themselves is a potential break-away state. This is why they should never be allowed in any but their own countries. Mohammadanism should be outlawed from the free world, for it is inimical thereunto. This is the most obvious fact in world social history.
Yes, the news is all wrong, of course. The people of Albania in Kosovo are all deluded, their understanding is totaly mistaken. Albania is not part of Serbia, never has been, never will be. Albanians moved into Seriba (Kosovo), that's all. They are claiming what is simply not theirs. It never has been. Their declared ownership today is a giant lie. It is a profound error, which can only be compared to the people of Europe who came to the Americas and simple claimed the territory as theirs. Serbians have become the American Indian of eastern Europe. Serbians have had their nationhood, their land, and their honor trampled in the dirt by not only Europe, but by the United States. One would have thought the United States would have deigned to show more respect for its own history, and not repeat the same error. Instead, the US is committing exactly the same error, only thinly disguising it as some notion of justice for the underdog, the foreigner, the oppressed. This is the most mistaken application of historical justice committed in modern times. The United States has apparently learned nothing from it's experience with American Indians. It is like the United States is vicariously punishing itself, in the form of white, Christian Serbia, by robbing her of her nationhood, and giving it to the 'dark' Mohammadan. Up with the dark foreigner, down with the white Christian nationalist. That's the message, inevitably. Never mind the political scheming, the economic factors, or any other elements. The theme is the destruction of nationhood.
Serbia is a small nation in Eastern Europe. The great powers of the world think they can get by with dumping on Serbia. It is all insignificant. And it may appease the murderous Muslims. (Like, that's a proven success anywhere in the world.) No harm done here. Why, little Serbia will be just fine. It will recover from its wounds. So saith the world.
Interesting, Albania, as a nation, is lying low right now. Yes, the Albanian Mohammadans living in Serbia (Kosovo) are flying the Albanian national flag, but, the idea is that Serbia (Kosovo) is going to be an "independent" nation, neither Serbia nor Albania. Now, isn't that the most obvious posturing in the world, flying the Albanian flag, and claiming to be now an independent nation? Note in the video clips that the American flag is flying along with the Albanian flag. That's is the the most whorish, denigrating use of the American flag in modern history. That's worse than putting anti-American socialist/Communist Democrats in front of it, in Congress.
Kosovar Albanians wave U.S. and Albanian flags on the Albanian side of the ethnically
divided town of Kosovska Mitrovica to celebrate the upcoming independence of Kosovo,
Sunday, Feb. 17, 2008. Kosovo's predominantly ethnic Albanian leadership is expected
to proclaim independence from Serbia on later Sunday with Western backing. AP
We owe al-Qaeda an apology. China is the terrorist organization, beyond all others. We own Iran an apology. China is the worst terrorist nation in the world.
China just poisoned hundreds of people in Panama. A chemical (diethylene glycol) used in anti-freeze and brake fluid was put in cough syrup by a Chinese manufacturer.
There was the Fischer-Price (Mattel) toy manufactured in China that used a date-rape drug (GHB) which threatened the lives of tiny children in Australia and America. Acqua-dots was the toy. Exported poisonous toys are a real speciality of China.
And we thought 2007 was the worst of it? The list of high crimes of China has become longer than the Yellow River, with more polutants! Toys, toothpaste, tires, medicines (even including "traditional" herbs), baby furniture, clothing, food (for human or animal consumption), you name it, and China has a poisonous version of it. This is incredible! Our beloved American politicians have a hands-off policy toward China. We are to honor China, to bring her into the modern world, into freedom--through trade. Like, it doesn't matter what the character of the people are, the philosophy, the social mores, or even the quality of the product. China is in, regardless. The world brings the 2008 Olympics to Beijing. (Mitt Romney's proud of that?) Like, that will help China straighten up. Treat a woman like a queen, and she acts like one, naturally. Right?
So, is China really the great murderous blob in the world? Is China so overpopulated and under-educated and underdeveloped (and unintelligent) that it can be involved truly in mass-murder plots beyond anything al-Qaeda has yet imagined? There are some explanations, albeit they don't change the facts or the fears.
China is incomprehensibly over-populated. China is very rural and primitive for the most part. The people are not educated--meaning they are superstitious, and to not 'connect the dots' in a Western, God-fearing way. (Have another look at the movie Sand Pebbles, 1966, if you want to really understand this.) The people do not have the same concept of reality or morality that the Western world does. They may not have concious mass murder at heart, like the Mohammadans do, but they have a certain careless regard for life--outside as well as inside China. A century of Communism has solidified all their psychological incapacities or inadequacies. China is a gigantic mass of humanity that does not think like other portions of humanity.
There are extremely primitive conditions which, operative in the mind of an uninformed Chinaman, lend themselves to mass murder, mass mistakes, mass numbers of mass everything. There is massive waste. But the idea that this chemical or that chemical can be used in this product, or that product, is of no consequence to the Chinese mind. Why can't this pretty fluid be used in this other fluid? It seems logical enough. More products can be made, more cheaply. More money can be made. There is positively no regard for consequence. There is no adequate conception of cause and effect.
Perhaps China is more liable, more dangerous, than malicious. True. And, with soul-less American businessmen ever-so-anxious for the cheapest slave labor money can buy, the poisonous product reflects their character, indeed.
But, then there's the matter of constant Chinese spying. Case after case of Chinese workers in America shows them stealing highly classified technical or military information. That's not a matter of circumstancial convenience, like pouring one bucket of chemicals into another. But, spying? It is a shame to acknowledge it, but Bill Clinton opened the door to this. Maybe Richard Nixon before him. How? By sharing information. Good will. "Free trade." Americans opening businesses over in China. The Chinese mind sees it as sharing, not spying. That is based on a different moral value--one not in China. It appears that there is really no right or wrong in China, not as we of the West understand it. Spying is not stealing.
Zheng Xiaoyu, former Chinese State Food
and Drug Administration director, executed in 2007.
In all probability, Zheng Xiaoyu (former State Food and Drug Administration director) was executed as a face-saving honor, not because anyone thought he did anything morally wrong. What he did "wrong" was embarrass China. After all, there is the matter of that Oriental "honor."
This is a hopeless situation. People of the world don't change, not en mass, not often, and not quickly. The Judeo-Christian religion changed Europe in a positive way over time. But all other religions have not produced such effects. Instead, they have enslaved people in ignorance, hate, superstition, and vice. "Freedom through trade?" What kind of superficial, idiotic notion is that? It is the mantra of the globalist. But is materialism god? Well, only to the idolater, only to those who know not the true God, (and unfortunately, to many who profess to know Him, apparently).
For now, I say, ban and boycot absolutely every product coming out of China. There is no escape from this conclusion. We may add, again, our glorious American politicians have no concern over this. They laud China. They in fact are dependent--not on Arab oil (--US buys the least amount of its oil from the Arabs), but on China's mindless, superstitious labor. With a profoundly different cosmos, the Chinaman is the liability. However, those who have used him, both Chinese leader and American businessman, have made him into the world's greatest enemy.
And no, China is not alone in bringing dangerous products to market. American manufacturers have their contributions. However, in most cases, there is foreign labor involved. Moral of the story? An immoral people, or an amoral people, cannot make a good product, not on a mass scale anyway--especially when managed by immoral or amoral individual men. There's just too much cheating. The idol of money demands it. Her worshippers never fail her.
B. Hussein O. (may his name be changed--inshallah) is neither new, nor different. The only change he brings is skin color. Indeed, his blackness is a talisman to a morally mesmerized and already opiated public. Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah) has yet to present any significant ideas, but instead, he offers only hackneyed reactions to standard error. Yet never has there been such popularity over nothing. Never has emptiness of thought been so intensely idolized by media. Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah) is like a political rock star (--speaking of tasteless void). Indeed, the public is getting high on its own excitement. It's the Beatles again. It's Elvis, and all the immaturity and poor judgement. The hysteria is Hitlerian, frankly.
But why? Are mass highs simply what people do, in one way or another? Is this just some social auto-eroticism? Is it inevitable? And is it dangerous?
Let's try to be practical here. What does Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah) represent? (Is that even a legitimate question?)
Start with his name. His name is completely foreign. It represents a foreign nationality, a foreign culture, a foreign ethnicity, a foreign language, and a foreign religion. In his case, it also represents a long, long lost irresponsible, sexually aggressive, and utterly unstable father. (And it also represents a very strange mother, who had profound identity issues.) It represents everything America eschewed in the beginning. His name represents all that is wrong, weak, unwanted, and anti-American. Mohammadanmism and Africa, two of the most undesirable elements in the world. Anti-Christian, anti-American, and anti-civilization, really. Tyranny and ignorance. Sexual confusion and self-disdain. Abandonment and false values. This is what the name "Barak Hussein Obama" (may his name be changed--inshallah) represents.
Now, the matter of race. Remember that the Negro in Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah) is not American, but African. I would think a proud American Negro would make a distinction, but, of course, there are too few proud blacks to make a difference at the polls, or anywhere else. The tide of blackness is simply a giant reactionary wave which, as a leech, lives off the circumstances. It is only as reliable as its host. It is a weak thing, a slavish thing, actually. (A proud, independent black man is too precious to be tolerated, or even known about. He is inevitably accused. Circumstances don't allow him freedom. The leopard cannot change his spots.)
But why would white Americans get off on Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah)? Adolescent rebellion. Frustration. Vicarious sexual indulgence. A number of reasons. It is socio-psychological. Excitement, as noted earlier, is endemic. It is nearly vice-like once it starts. Politics is a sport, but the contest is not strength or skill, so much as personhood. That's what's so personal about it. Everyone is involved, personally, because everyone is a person. So here are some elements in his "personhood:"
1) Hussein (may his name be changed-inshallah) is in because of what he is--a Negro, a Negro in America. The historical context is obvious. His is not successful because of his ideas, for he has no ideas. He is the most liberal senator in Washington, according to the voting record.
2) He is fairly young, younger by far than the other condidates. This is refreshing. He has no record, no experience, no accomplishments. He can't be accused any too seriously of wrong or error, because he has no record. On the infantile level of public thinking, this means he's automatically "good." And there is that voice of rebellion or frustration he inevitably suggests. White youth are saying, "We don't trust anyone in Washington. They've all betrayed us. They made us grow up with minorities. They integrated us all until it's a white girl's duty to have sex with a darkie. So, we'll put a black in the White House. So there!) Hussein (may his named be changed--inshallah) has a one-word campaign: "change." That's strictly emotional, without subtance. Fill in the blank with whatever you want changed. Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah) will change it for you. Never was there a more obviously superficial campaign in American political history. That a sizable portion of the American population would fall for such an empty wind is indeed alarming.
3) As a black man, Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah) represents the bottom of the barrel. The place-less role of the typical American black male is the weakest point in American society. To vote for a black male is the ultimate self-cleansing, the supreme vote of moral hope, the final gesture of right doing before the world. It is the most convenient act of purgation. After all, the average liberal, the average white Democrat, doesn't live next door to a Negro. What difference does it make if a Negro is in the White House? These same liberals made Bill Cosby so popular, and then Oprah Winfrey. As a religious sacrament liberal whites "watched" Negroes on TV. That was safe. That was sufficient homage. Let the Negro become rich and famous, by watching him, and let him have all America has to offer. That would do the trick for assuaging any vague, fearful rumblings of conscience. Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah) in the White House--perfect timing, perfect opportunity, perfect solution to all America's social problems. Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah) in the White house--the perfect anwer to the world's accusation of America, the consumate expression of America's repentence and self-oblation.
3) And the matter of sexuality cannot be overlooked. I have written about this before, more than once. The black male is obligatorily proffered as a desirable sex object. ("Black is beautiful" actually represents the converse of reality.) The human being, minus visual attractiveness, remains a visceral sexual object. That is all there is left--especially if there are no ideas, no substance, no intellect concomitant which balance the human reaction to the person. Any psychologist can see this. People are afraid to speak of these things, however, for fear of offending. Thus, the Negro has been allowed to make hypocrites of the public. It's not really his fault, either. He didn't create the races. He's just one of them.
We've come to a point in American cultural history where dignity is an inalienable right. It is assigned, by law. It has nothing to do with quality, character, or values. It is "equally" redistributed to all. All are beautiful, all are talented, all are intellectual, all deserve the White House. A simple vote for Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah) rights all wrongs. It is an irresistable opportunity for the weak and weary to express their dying sentiments. It is the last desperate "hope for change." It is the rues and throes of a lost society, benumbed by a torturous materialism and amoral social constructs. It is a sign.
On the other hand, Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah) is not only amicable, but has a natural dignity of demeanor. He as yet has no ideas to offer, but, he has a life of self-discipline and positive thinking, depsite strange and adverse personal circumstances. He is admirable, as a person. Unfortunately, these electability assests are overwhelmed by his dangerously liberal political notions, his utter lack of knowledge and experience in national leadership, and the impersonal circumstances of race and American social history which have created this race rage. He does not transcend race at all. He aggrandizes it, and is riding the wave it has created for him. People do not have the time nor the disposition to think through this, and to see that the "momentum" has nothing to do with Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah). It has only to do with the way weak sector of the American public--the white sector too fearful of identifying with its own accomplishments. Weak white America is trying to work out its own self-righteous social salvation. In other words, the popularity of Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah) has nothing to do with him, but the social circumstances in which he has placed himself--that of a bewildered, benumbed society--begone in due time.
If Hussein (may his name be changed--inshallah) really understood and valued America, he really would change his name. That he should cling to such an affront is beyond personal. "Barry" is marketing anti-American values. That is explicit. Yet, the public remains oblivious. Why? He's black. In the context of American social history, justic demands a Negro in the Oval Office. This is truly infantile thinking. But, if it must be, it's a terrible misfire. A major distraction. His name should be something like Moses Freeman. At least that way it would seem relevant.
Do you feel that the country you loved and cherished is no more? Do you feel that your patriotism is offered to the wind, that your love for your country has become some romantic notion of the past, forever past now, gone with the wind? Do you feel that your country is a memory now? What you loved is no longer?
Welcome to Indian Country. Let me be the first to welcome you. I invite you to the world of living dreams.
Don't worry. We have gone before you. We can teach you again how to be a nation--in heart. For the second time, we can show you how to live here. You can survive colonization, in your case, by the murderous Mohammadans. You can survive the betrayal of your own leaders, who are rather to be pitied than condemned too greatly. They convinced themselves that they were turning over your country to the enemy--for your good, in the long run. You can survive the public and political disdain for your tenacious preference for your own culture, religion, race, and language. You can survive condemnation for being who you are, and for preferring to maintaining your identity. You can survive being regarded as a disruptive, divisive influence--even a threat to the new order.
Wolf Robe, Southern Cheyenne
Oh, you may not be able to hunt buffalo like you used to. You may not have the ability to be everything you were before, but rest assured, those wonderful creatures in Washington are sure to let you pretend you are you you are. They're happy to let you think you are still you. And you are free to think just that. Washington may not keep every promise made to you (in fact, very few exactly), but, you will always have the right to some cultural "reservation" within the society, if but in isolation--and you will prefer that, rather than assimilating into values you have no interest in, and may even consider wrong.
You will become a relic, just like American Indians, only you will be an imperial relic, and no one will really express any regret over your passing into history. No one will feel guilty over what happened to you. No treaties with you. No reparations. You're just a living museum of losers, like Indians. Yes, you had a conscience, and you have regard for the Indian. But those who replace you have no conscience. They are automatons, living out a drone of human consensus. They make only mindless gestures of humanness, empty signs of genetic identity. They are a heartless echo of mere imitation of humanity.
Some of you may be just as admirable as Indians, thought. Some of you may have fought to the last man. You would rather have died that be something else, than to see America change into something else. Some of you may have been imprisoned in your own country, for your patriotism. Some of you may have given your lives here, on this land, for this country!
And I welcome you. I sincerely welcome you to Indian Country.
I suggest to you that you remain American patriots, whever happens to you. If you consider this nation an ordained gift of God, then you are obliged to maintain it, if only in your own hearts. It is nations, not automatons, who are saved, who walk through the Pearly Gates (Revelation 21:24). It is ethnicities, not generic evolvants who inherit the healing tree of life. (Revelation 22:2). It is nations who finally assemble before the Lord in Zion (Micah 4:2) and walk through Jerusalem in pure, phenomenological ethnicity (Micah 4:5).
Regardless of your fate here, I encourage you to remain who you are. Let Indians be an encouragement to you. It can be done. You can be content with who you are, and even grant the same privilege to others. You can love who you are, survive as who you are, and even have hope for the future. Take my personal word for it.
David Yeagley, Photo by SKY, 2008
And remember me, when you come into your kingdom, your fantasy realm, your living dream. Yes, I welcome you here, but remember that I spoke to you before you came. I called to you when you were afar off. I tried to tell you what was happening. I didn't want to happen to you what had happened to me. Your strength was a great comfort and security for me. I had hoped you could maintain your power forever. Ah, but your own "terminator" robots took over your world. Your nosferatu slaves of greed and power overcame you. I was sorry to see it. And I am worried for everyone now, everyone who loves something besides wealth and power, everyone who is not soul-less.
But, the Creator will at last have His way. He always does, in the end. Nationhood was never the product of man. It was the creation of God. We may rest assured that we will be who we are--or we will not be.
The Reuters headline reads, "McCain and Romney battle over who is conservative." Do you ever hear the Democrats arguing over who's liberal?
But liberals are sure happy to see Republican's arguing over who's conservative. Why? Liberals want that word "conservative." It is valuable. Therefore, they will own it, or destory it. Right now, they're destroying it, but they'd really rather own it. The fact that the Republicans seem unsure of what the word means represents an opportunity for the liberals to move in on the word. (It's an old, barbaric hunting trick. Confuse the animal, then attack it.)
This is a remarkable point in American political history. Again, the liberals are about to usurp and corrupt the last word, the last label, in the "conservative" bastion of values. They long since robbed the words "equality," "justice," "liberty," and "compassion." They're coming to own now even the one word that belonged exclusively to the Republicans: conservative. When the Republican presidential candidates, yea, the two front-runners, make an issue out of the meaning of their party's foundational ideology, we know the the liberals have succeeded. We know the end is near.
Whose the conservative? photo: Washington Post
Why the controversy? Because the word "conservative" stands for everything that is truly valuable in America, everything that the American nation and society was built on. Naturally the liberals want to own that word! The word "conservative" stands for that which is sacred to this country. Of course, it is resumed the Republican candidates are all "conservative." But the issue now is, Which is more conservative, or Who is the true conservative?
It doesn't matter to the liberals at all. This controversy among the Republicans means the liberals have weakened the word. They are owning it already.
That this is an actual issue only shows how deeply compromised the Republican Party is. This only shows how successful the liberals have been, how faithful the Democrat illusions have been. The consistent erosion has been brought about by media, financial pressure, and our beloved "political system." Free elections have come to mean that candidates are free to disort, confuse, lie, misrepresent, and basically bully the people, psychologically--all at gigantic expense. Sinful amounts of money are poured into campaigns, (particularly Democrat campaigns), while the poor miserable people vote for whomever will promise them the most privileges and advantages. The whole program reeks of profound impropriety.
But this issue over the meaning of the word "conservative" only demonstrates the high standard, the high ideals held by the conservativism--even if but in theory. We understand there are morals, there are spiritual expectations. The word conservative is precious. (Without high ideals, any society is lost to the dogs.)
There is no such issue among the Democrats. You never hear them argue about who's the most liberal. They all share that label "equally." No one vies for being the true liberal. Indeed, to distinguish herself from B. Hussein O. (may his name be changed), Hillary toys with conservative lingo. There is no other place for her to go. Of course, "equality" was one of those words the liberals early usurped. To them, it means a tyrannical, coerced redistribution of wealth. Equality means Marxism, or Communism. They play the same game with all words. Everyone is to share the meaning of all value words. "Intelligence" must be applied to all students. Why, psychology has identified many different types of intelligence, so that the street-wise thug can rightly be called "intelligent," as well as the astronaut.
You see, there are different kinds of conservatism. Yes, yes. That is the liberal interpretation. And that is exactly what's going on in the liberal-ized Republican Party. It no doubt has resulted from an unbridled populace who vote for whomever promises them the most largess, the most welfare, the most goodies. Republicans are in fact elected. They are in the voting arena. Therefore, they have to give the people what they want, if they expect the people to vote for them.
People are unprincipled, en mass. People want material things. That's all. That's all they want out of a government. All this glorious "rights" rhetoric, these "humanist" polemics, this is all but an eloquent verbal disguise of materialism. Nothing more.
But the conservative wants freedom to earn what he wants, to create what he wants. The liberal was the government to give it to him. The liberal is a slave. The conservative is a free man.
These concepts are really too deep for many people to comprehend. Ironically, free enterprise has created an advertising industry that absolutely mesmerizes the public. The media is the true opiate of the masses, to quote the Communists. Mass media every minute of every day is imperiously pounding wrong values into the populace. Self-idolizing, materialisic sensuality is our daily mental bread. The people must have fame, fortune, and sex, freely, uninhibitedly, and basically undeservedly. It is their "right," according to liberals.
Of course, no one makes us watch TV or listen to the radio. I known a couple of families in my lifetime who did not have TV or radio in their homes. (One was a Seventh-Day Adventist family in Connecticut, the other was an Orthodox Jewish family in Israel.) But, most of us like a feeling of being in touch with what's going on, or being involved with what everyone else is involved in. We like the feeling of belonging. But what a terrible price to pay--being deluded, being duped, being deceived by an over-exposure of wrong values.
Conservative? It may not mean much after this election. On the other hand, it has a chance to really recover it's meaning by November. So, all you true conservatives out there--go for it! This may be your last chance for the next 20 years, or even forever. The world is becoming one. People like McCain are, in the name of global business, willing to see national boundaries dissolve. "Conservative," is he? His is a conservatism without nationhood, if there can be such a thing. Is that what people really want? No nationhood? Liberals certainly do. All Communists do. That is the foundation of Marxism. George Soros is a grand advocate of the same.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Today, nationhood requires sacrifice, not prosperity. Patriotism means tighteninig the belt, not giving everything away. America needs self-discipline, not profit. Conservatism has been corrupted really since George Bush took office. It hasn't been practiced in government. A man can live a conservative life, but rule by compromised values. We've just seen that happen before our blearied eyes.
Nevertheless, we can rejoice that the word "conservative" is an issue among Republicans. The meaning of the word is not an issue among conservatives, of course, but, let's hope this political circus can get the act together for the public, through the media. How likely is that? I don't know. I know now is the opportunity, like never before. The Republican's last stand, as it were. If Republicans are not conservative, then the political system must dissolve--which, of course, is what the liberals want.
I never did like John McCain. I admired him once. Now I feel intensely offended. I watched much of CNN's broadcast of the Reagan Library debate, as the Republican party seeks desperately to invoke the blessing of Ronald Reagan--who would no doubt have no interest in supporting any of them. I saw John McCain in a state of presumption that was hideous. He was basically a hog. A rough and gruff bully, with a constant, demeaning smirk on his face everytime Mitt Romney opened his mouth, and a self-congratulatory grin when anyone else spoke. I saw John McCain freely dominate the air time, at will, and CNN most willing to allow it. I think the liberal media is definitely campaigning for one of their own. (Check the CNN transcript.)
Huckabee, Paul, McCain, and Romney, at the Reagan debate.
McCain of course markets his military experience as impeccable, irrefutable, and untouchable. With an apparent arrogance characteristic of special skills officers (in his case, those of a fighter pilot), McCain repeatedly asserted his qualifications for being president as it would relate to the war on terror (that is, the curtailing of the murderous aggressions of the Mohammadans). The one fact that he voted for the surge he held up to be the supreme evidence of his superior knowedge and experience. His only other strong point is that he has always been pro-life. These two points are apparently his sole basis for asserting superiority, though his assertion is constant, personal, and consistently involves denigration of the other candidates and distortion of their positions, particularly those of Mitt Romney, his chief rival (whose kind nature seems to forbid any real exposure of the true John McCain-kindness to a fault).
The truth is, John Kerry ruined any substantial validation afforded the veteran running for public office. People are so easily impressed or fooled by a war braggart any more. McCain certainly isn't to be compared to Kerry, by any means, but, Kerry set a precedent of hackneyed honor. Indeed, McCain's high flying arrogance beclouds his own true honor. Of course, not every combat veteran is so presumptuous, nor is every political candidate a former prisoner of war of the Vietnam days. But this simply doesn't translate into presidential qualification. Indeed, it throws red flags up all over the place. Mental acuity, judgement, and even emotional disposition. I am no expert in psychology, but I expect deep outrage and anger from a person like John McCain. From a pilot, I expect radical, daring moves. The man has a natural nerve beyond most people's comprehension. But, again, this doesn't automatically translate into presidential qualification. It might very well indicate the opposite. One could not be sure what the "maverick" would do. One would expect surprises at every step--like sponsoring profoundly liberal legislation in congress.
No, not every veteran has such dubious, creative political notions about his service as did John Kerry. For that matter, not every woman is the consciously manipulative mirrorist that Hillary Clinton is, saying whatever is popular, even if it means repeating what her former opponent John Edwards said the very next day, with tears. Its not that a woman is an impossible candidate for president, but only that HIllary Clinton is. Though she might make as good a president as John McCain, neither are anywhere near safe for the country.
The pathetic appeals to Reaganism as validation, by these Republican candidates, would make Ronald Reagan turn over in his grave. Though the debates in his memorial library were planned from the beginning, and announced a year ago, no candidate has developed any ideas more resembling those of Reagan since. When Newt Gingrich said the era of Reaganism was over, he may not have been so far off the truth as Rush Limbaugh wants to insist. The candidates are not reflecting conservatism at all, except for Ron Paul, and his conservatism may be illusory--the product of libertarianism. Hard call. (Interestingly, The Huffington Post displays a nice video clip of Romney's assessment of McCain's "conservatism.")
McCain's profound presumption is yet irresistable to weak-minded people. He emanates great strength and confidence. This is appropriate for a POW fighter pilot of Vietnam. But this is not in itself politically identifiable. It is a huge but neutral asset for McCain, nothing more. McCain supports the grand globalist schemes of the one world crowd, the great business men of the world. He is quite willing to legislate away American sovereignty. And he is not a great fan of freedom of speech. How can these facts be overlooked in some timorous public fawning before his POW experience? (He's counting on that, apparently.) As BadEagle.com has suggested before, this sacred victimhood he holds politically is precisely the liberal card played by the Widows of 9-11 ("The Witches of East Brunswick"), which Ann Coulter so ably exposed. The card is thought to trump any criticism, making the player invulnerable, and exempt even from discussion.
Of course, not being a veteran, a pilot, or a political office holder, I am the last person to assess anything in the way of John McCain's personal qualifications. He is no doubt capable. I simply don't trust him. He offends me. His attitude, though perhaps quite commendable in itself, I find wholly inappropriate for a president. He is every bit as quirky as Ron Paul, more unpredictable, and assuredly less conservative. McCain is a liberal with two conservative quirks: he voted for the surge, and he consistently votes pro-life. That's it. I resent his presumption and prentense of superiority, his air of unquestionable authority, and thuggish personality techniques. Of course, these are all liberal traits, and probably represent the truer indications of his political identity than even his voting record.
Succinctly, I do have great respect for the man. I simply don't like him. I don't trust him, and I will not be voting for him. This I say, not as one particularly qualified to judge, but, as one simply giving an opinion--at least as long as there is freedom to do so--something John McCain has already worked to curtail. It is clear that Republicans have forgotten who they are and what they stand for. It's only party politics now. Labelism. Football spirit. Team spirit. Winning the game--of getting elected, not of preserving America.
Who said Communism was defeated and dead? It's grandstanding. It's staged daily.
If there was ever any doubt that the American university campuses--and the cities that host them--are centers of Communist propaganda and visceral anti-American sentiments, the recent incidents at the Berkeley US Marines recruiting center have removed it. The City Council of Berkeley voted 8-1 that the US Marines were "uninvited and unwelcome." That was Wednesday, January 30, 2007. (Mark that date down for the fall and alienation of the corporation of Berkeley, California.) Two resolution were passed Tuesday which gave full freedom to those who protest the Marines and denounced their presence in Berkeley.
The Code Pink man-hating feminist group staged a protest the next day, Thursday, January 31. Of course, that was all big news, immediately, on the conservative sites. The incident was hotly protested, more that the protesters protested the Marines. (Berkeley City Council members are hiding out now, according to Melanie Morgan. "Berkeley City Officials Hide Phone Numbers from public," but then she cites blog sources for their phone numbers. Of course, the AP wires came out a day later. The Pinkos have been protesting since October, 2007, after the Marine recruiting office was defaced and vandalized in September. Their recent protest on Thursday, however, did not receive the blessing of heaven. It rained, mightily. And the Marines had taken the day off. Pinkos planned a mock debate Thursday, but no conservatives were present. Just the kind of "debate" liberals love.
So, what of this use of women, mothers, grandmothers, to insult the United States military? It is certainly an ever-present opportunity, since men are always born of mothers. What does it mean when a grandmother type steps out and says,
"By taking a stand against recruitment we are protecting the health and safety of our youth," said Phoebe Sorgen, a member of the Berkeley Peace and Justice Commission. "I see the protest as taking a proud and courageous stand."
Protester Phoebe Sorgen (center) talks to 17-year-old David Felkins at the Marines'
recruiting office. Chronicle photo by Paul Chinn
It just means some people don't appreciate their privileges, nor the price to be paid for them. They ignore reality in their face, and prefer some virtual reality of utopian ideology. It means they are immature. It means they're willing to be insulting, denigrating, and to insist on some dramatic, public declaration of their own self-righteousness. (Sounds rather demonic, actually.) It means some people don't know history, but only mantras, slogans, and dispositions. Surfers, indeed. In this case, it means the orchestraters are willing to use "whatever it takes" to try and validate their positions. Grandmothers. White-haired mothers. How could they possibly be wrong? Thus, the manipulaters denigrate all value in any status of anyone. Everyone and anyone is just a pawn or ploy in the larger designs. "Politics," they sometimes call it. "Activism." More like sensationalism. Offensive-ism.
And what of this "independent" city thing? Some cities, like Berkeley, and the "sanctuary cities," are acting like they are a government unto themselves, with no responsibility to the state, or to the federal government. They voraciously bite on the hand that feeds them. Local seats of power seem to be turing ravenously Communist, right down to the school board committees. How did states rights get lost in this? That's what we really need. Does not the state have authority over the city? Try reading the Bible in school. Try putting up a Christmas tree in front of city hall. Try hiring whom you want, freely, in your business. You'll not be given such "independence" as the Communist enclaves have enjoyed.
Does the Governator have any say in what goes on in Berkeley? Ah, well, Schwarzenegger is already supporting John McCain for president--the intensely liberal as well as unpredictable Republican-in-name-only. McCain, the amnesty candidate, supports NAFTA, NAU, and various anti-American concepts. (Of course, many of those cues were suggested by George Bush, sorry to say.) McCain is into good green globalism, global warming hysteria, and other fine liberal causes. Sure, California will support McCain. In some giant peristalsis of delusion, some socio-psychological evacuation, they will relieve themselves of the ineviscerable responsibilities of American patriotism. They hope.
Arnold Schwarzenegger and Nancy Reagan in the audience for the debate
at the Ronald Reagan library, an event rejoiced by all Communist entities. To
create an utterly false illusion that McCain is in anyway to be associated with
Ronald Reagan is the fundamental purpose of the liberal press. The aim is of
course to destroy America as an independent, sovereign nation.
McCains just the kind of man they want. "Cooperation," "compromise," "working together." Reaching across the isle to shake hands with the Democrats (Liberals). Cooperation with Democrats means the Democrats get their way, that's all. Working together means doing it their way. Reaching across the isle means abandoning principle and surrendering to the will of the liberal. Nothing more. "Doublespeak," it's called. Lying.
Liberalism has taken a beautiful word, "liberal," which once stood for the grandest values and compassion known to man, and made it stand for the very worst dispositions in human nature. Liberalism puts grandmothers on the front lines of anti-Americanism, anti-patriotism. Liberals have no pride, no respect, and no consistent moral values.
Ah, California. I remember years ago, my old Comanche mother said, "I wish that whole state would fall off into the ocean." Now wouldn't that be a terrific closing act of this comedic musical, in this theatre of illusions?!