A non-elected Supreme Court Justice, Anthony Kennedy, is exercising more power over the nation than the president. The society of the United States is being shaped by the private opinion of a non-elected social architect--Justice Kennedy.
In recent weeks, three major decisions of the Supreme Court were decided on a 5-4 vote, the "swing" vote being Justice Kennedy's, in all three cases. There are four very liberal (anti-American) justices: John Paul Stevens, DAvid Hackett Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Stephen G. Breyer. There are four conservative justices, faithful to the United States Constitution: Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr., Atonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and John G. Roberts, Jr. Justice Anthony Kennedy is the deciding vote. This is the way it is for now. Whatever he thinks just happens to be the final word. That is the dictum of the binary "vote" system we have accepted. The people are only remotely related to such power. We elect presidents and congressmen. The president appoints the justices--with congressional approval. "Balance of power," it is called.
Justice Anthony Kennedy
The three most recent cases in which Justice Kenney's vote was the critical vote are:
District of Columbia vs Heller (against gun control) June 26, 2008.
Kennedy vs Louisian (against death penalty for child rapist) June 25, 2008.
Boumediene vs Bush (granting citizen rights to prisoners of war), June 12, 2008.
Probably, most Americans are happy with the gun decision, which upholds the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. The people, personally, have the right to possess and bear arms. But, probably, again, most Americans are unspeakably outraged at the other two decisions, that child rapists are not worthy of death because they didn't kill anyone, and that enemy combattants of the United States have the right to America's court system.
The point here is the obvious precarious position our society is in, when decisions are made by a group of so few people--none of whom are elected, and therefore none of whom really represent the people's voice. Their appointement is remotely related to the people--yet the justices wield the greatest power over American society. I'd say this is an imbalance of power, not a balance.
Article III of the Constitution is not so very clear as to the process of cases which are to come before the Supreme Court. (And we might note right off that the Supreme Court has not made a decision regarding Treason since WWII, even though Section 3 of Article III is the only direct and specific application of the Court's power. The state of California indicted Adam Gadahn--Azzam al-Amriki--an American citizen, of treason in 2004, but the maniacal Muslim convert is still at large.)
And the deeper question is this: who decides what cases the Supreme Court is going to hear? This process is the real "pinnings" of social architecture. Yes, the process of filing is published, but the process after submission is utterly secretive. This is what the public does not know. Herein is the point of indignation. The power of decision is first in the hands of totally unknown persons--those who decide what cases will be submitted to the Supreme Court Justices, which are "worthy," which have "merit."
The Supreme Court, of course, makes no effort to let the public know of the process. Those in volved are certainly well protected. And most of the time, the public doesn't even think of this process. It doesn't even occur to the public that there are people other than the Supreme Court justices essentially "deciding" their cases, in that they decide whether the Supreme Court will even see the case, let alone decide it.
This is the missing link--the court 'lackeys," the flunkies, the nameless clerks and assistant clerks. And who, pray tell, appoints these invisibles, hic corpus invisibilis? They certainly aren't elected. They are mere applicants, at best, appointees at worst. But the power is theirs.
Power is in the mechanics, the system, the process. Yes, someone like Justice Kennedy appears to have tremendous power, but, it is not without much power beneath, or behind, or before. He is the tip of the iceberg. The lesson in all this is for citizens to take great responsibility at local levels, whenever possible. We cannot control who elected officials appoint, but we can make greater effort to determine who is elected. And we should be concerned about the process of appointments. It is a huge, complicated world, and the average citizen seems cosmically distant from the powers that control his life, but, each citizen should exercise ever right he has, and make the most of it.
And when we consider how far our own government can wander from the will of the people, we should go easy on the citizens of other countries--whose systems of government are generally far worse than our own.
NOTE: public sources say the Supreme Court hears a case when four of the justices agree to hear it. Out of some 8,000 cases submitted, per annum, only 70 to 80 are heard. I rest my case, necient as I am.
Geronimo, the great Chiricachua Apache warrior and leader, was held as a prisoner of war for 23 years by the United States government. He was captured (by surrender) September 4, 1886, until the day of his death, in Lawton, Oklahoma, 1909. He was first held in Fort Pickens, Florida, then Mount Vernon Barracks, in Alabama. In 1894 he was moved to Ft. Sill, Oklahoma. He was buried in the Apache Prisoners of War Cemetary. He was never allowed to return to his home or to his people.
Geronimo, 1886, with his warriors. Le meilleur d'haute mode! Magnifique!
Muslim enemies of America, Afghans, Arabs, Pakistanis, etc, have been held in a modern, sanitary facility for merely six years. Contrary to popular belief, most of these captives are not Afghans, though taken in action in Afghanistan when the war began. (Count 76 out of 750 originally listed.) Most are Saudis. Foreign men, captured in a foreign country, held as prisoners of war in yet another foreign country (Cuba). Okay.
Geronimo, held 23 years. Muslims six. Geronimo held in what to him was a foreign country, and wasn't dare offered Apache religious paraphernalia. But the US government has bent over backwards to provide the Muslims prisoners with their every whim of desire.
I'm confused. Did the United States government fear Geronimo that much? Was there that much threat were he to return to his home? The liberal United States today, our wonderfully avaricious courts can't send these enemy Muslims home quickly enough. Ah, but what the public doesn't know is that the US can't get any countries to accept the prisoners! Like so-called "Palestinians," no one wants them--because it is more advantageous for Muslims, politically, to have something to blame Israel for, or to blame the United States for. The Muslims want the United States to be stuck with the prisoners.
Ta-ayz-slath, wife of Geronimo, with child, 1884.
And look at the gloriously degrading results: the enemies of America, the prisoners of war, are being given the rights of United States citizens! What greater reward could be given the enemies of the United States. Geronimo was never made an American citizen, (but he did ride in President Theodore Roosevelt's inaugural parade in 1905). Geronimo didn't need any honors. He knew who and what he was. It was just a hard road--the transition from one way of life to another. No court came to his defence, no liberal attorneys, etc. Life was his court, and his prison. To perceive the values of a "Martian" invader and a new "civilization" was quite the stretch.
Not something Muslims murderers have been very good at. Their aim is destruction of all that is not like them. They have no disposition to consider anything else. But they will sit in American courts, honored with the best America has to offer. Not exactly riding in a car with the president's parade, but, something along the lines of trophy-ism.
Yet, a far cry from heroism born in war. Muslim enemies sitting in American courts, with the rights of American citizens, is the trophy of emasculated legal "warriors" in the court, whose "masculenity" is demonstrated by pricking outrage. Hopelessly lost in powerlessness where it counts, the courtiers wreak their aggressions out against common sense, descency, honor, national pride, and anything a basic American citizen values. This is "heroism" for the courtiers. Insulting America, in the name of equality. That is their sole act, their raison d'etre.
The American men of war prized holding Geronimo for ever. In a way, this only shows how powerful the Apache, in deed the American Indian, really was. Indians today might look at Geronimo's captivity as a great honor, as an unpredicented honor, acknowledging the inimitable power of the Apache, and of the American Indian as a whole. America was terrified of the Indian. (Perhaps America also felt some guilt.)
But America is not afraid of the murderous Muslim. Americans apparently love to be raped by the Muslims. Our own courts are the pimps in the operation. And the media has a steady job covering the story.
Alas, America was never so brave, never so great, and never so proud, as when America faced the American Indian. So be it.
Liberal demostrators in DC, protesting imprisonment of Muslim enemies, Jan., 2008.
No liberals in 1886, protesting the imprisonment of Geronimo, or American Indians.
America could not become great and be self-destructive at the same time.
An AP wire of June 24, 2008 says Iran would consider a "diplomatic presence" of the United States in Tehran. This is interesting.
A Foreign Ministry official quoted by IRNA Tuesday said "in principle, Iranian officials will consider requests they receive through formal channels."
The United States has toyed with the idea of "interest sections" in Iran, even as Iran has had an "interest section" in Washington for years. This isn't an authoritative, diplomatic, formal ambassadorship, of course, but it is pointed in that direction. Of course, the United States has had no such presence in Iran, of any official kind, since 1979 and the Iranian Islamic Coup. The US uses a Swiss embassy in Tehran to communicate messages to the official Iranian Islamic government.
Ayatollah Zanjani and Dr. Yeagley, Messhad, 1999. This was at a theological
seminary. Many students were present.
So, what is Iran? Who are the Iranians? What is the government? Most people in America think of Iran as an enemy, full of dark, mysterious, angry people who hate America--all the images created by the Islamic sedition of 1979, and the American hostage crisis. Iran has never overcome this image. Indeed, the Islamic government is quite proud of it. But the Iranian people never felt that way, and to this day, they regret the whole "revolution." My Iranian friends say, "The country was hi-jacked by Islam."
Islam, of course, is Arab. Arab religion, Arab language, Arab authority, Arab culture, and a lot of Arab intermarriage. Islam is about Arabs taking over the world. Nothing else, and nothing other.
But Iran is Persia. Iran is all Persian, Persian culture, Persian language (farsi), and used to be Persian religion (Zoroastrianism). Iran is an imperial place, with a history unlike any other. The Achaemenid emperors (550-330 BC) were probably the most successful and accomplished in the history of the world. They had great love and respect for all people, generally, and also for the religions of the world. They were ethnicists, in a way. The classic case of sending the Jews back to Cana'an, to rebuild the Temple in 538 BC, is an unanswerable argument in favor of the superior mind set of the Achaemenid emperors.
But today, the Arab Islamicists have no respect for Persian culture, Persian history, or anything that smacks of non-Arab ethnos. They are willing to destroy artifacts of the Achaemenids! It is an incredible thing, how that Islam turns a people against themselves, against their own culture--no matter how glorious. (Just look at what Islam has done to the English in England and the French in France.) Amil Imani is quite right when he says Islam is the greatest threat to the United States, and that the Arab death cult should never be allowed in the country. Imani cares more about America and Christianity than many Americans.
I have been offered the opportunity to return to visit Iran many times. It is a standing offer. I have also been invited to contribute to a new journal published by the University of Tehran. Naturally, I am hesitant and reticent. I have spoken so loudly against Islam, in many ways, even though my very first reaction in 1979 was one of respect for Islam. It was a short story, "Alam I Sugrah," published in Persian Heritage Magazine (Vol. 4, No.8, Winter, 1999). I wrote the piece in November, 1979, while living in Hamden, Connecticut. I honored the Muslim modesty in dress, deportment, and demeanor, as I perceived it at the time, anyway, in the female. I thought that, in the midst of the fury against Iran and Islam, we needed to recognize something very significant in the culture, the modesty of dress. My story was a historical fantasy, involving an ancient Imam, a 19th century British diplomat, and an early 17th century Pilgrim. It was an interection of time and culture, by contrast. I hailed the hijob. I honored the robes.
Dr. Yeagley by the famous garden statue at the tomb of the great Persian poet,
Ferdowsi. November, 1999
But this one story is not enough to justify the risk of return, I don't believe. Frankly, probably nothing would happen, should I return. Yet, I am not entirely sure.
And then I observe the mission stories, of Christians, particularly Seventh-day Adventist Christians, working to bring the love of God into the lives of oppressed Muslims in the Middle East. I read of a man named Zakir from Turkmenistan, a prisoner in Moldova (a country between souther Ukrain and Romania). He became a Seventy-day Adventist Christian in Turkmenistan, as was alientated from his family, whom he has not seen in 15 years. The mission article doesn't say how Zakir ended up in a Moldavan prison, but only that he is a sincere Christian. (Adventist World, March 2008.)
This story rebukes me.
I have spoken against Islam, publically, but I have not sought out Muslims I know personally and attempted to show them the better way. I have been an American patriot, a nationalist, and I have decried the destructive effects of Islam the world over. But, have I tried to persuade any Muslims personally? I have to answer, no.
Zakir, of Turkmenistan.
An ambassador of Christ is quite a different person from an ambassador to Iran--from any country. To represent the true God is not the same as representing one's country. Yet, I believe this is an issue. I believe Islam is the problem, the worse of the problem, worse than socio-economic problems. Islam teaches many good things, but, they seem to have no effect when it comes to mass murderers. Indeed, apparently Islam has the worst effect of all. How can socio-economic problems be addressed efficaciously if the religion is the foundation of the misanthropy? It seems the best ambassador to Iran would indeed be a Christian ambassador. A real Christian. An actual Christian.
Ah, Christianity, by doctrine, is antithetical toward Islam (or, I should say, the other way around). The Iranian (Arab) Imams try to dance around the Jewish values, saying they have no problem with Jews (while at the same time threatening to eliminate Israel); but they can't dance around Christianity. Christianity disallows Mohammad and his Qur'an altogether.
So, who will be sent to Iran? Barack Hussein Obama?
Obama is being morally attacked by a Southern "white trash" homosexual drug user and former convict, Larry Sinclair. This is unbelievable. I respond only because I know what obssesive accusers are, and how offensive they can be. That Barack Hussein Obama should be subjected to such offends me, even though I am not a fan of his at all. Indeed, this will be the last post I make about him,or homosexuals, for some time. I've had my fill of both.
Larry Sinclair claims that Obama used cocain with him, and committed homosexual acts with him twice, in 1999, when Barack Hussein Obama was an Illinois state senator. There is a web site called Larry Sinclair Obama Drug Scandal, with the entire history of the case, and of Sinclair himself. Larry Sinclair has absolutely no credibility himself, and no proof of anything he is saying. His criminal record, his health and financial records and his family history are known. He has provided them to the public. He is not someone to be believed.
He does, however, have an attorney, and a witness (a limosine driver). Sinclair (originally from South Carolina) has gone public with his accusations of Obama since Semptember, 2007. Sinclair says that
Over the following months until December, 2007 he was contacted several times by Donald Young who appeared to be Obama’s emissary. He was the choir master at the Trinity Church of Christ which was under the direction of Pastor Jeremiah Wright and where Barack Obama is [was] a member of the congregation. Donald Young informed Larry Sinclair that he, too, had a sex and drugs relationship with Barack Obama similar to his.
At first he suggested that Obama was seeking the assistance of Jeremiah Wright in making a statement acknowledging his use of crack cocaine as recently as 1999. But he had second thoughts in early December 2007. Donald Young was murdered in his appartment at Christmas 2007.
Young was 47, single, lived in an appartment with a roommate(?), and was a specialist in elementary education. His death was featured in a homosexual site, and Young was apparently an 'openly' homosexual person.
There are live interviews of Larry Sinclair with Jeff Rense posted on the Sinclair web site, as well as with other radio hosts like Bill Cunningham (with Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily--who takes the story quite seriously). It is an impressive site. The information is stunning and appalling, frankly. And Larry Sinclair has a YouTube posted which is heart-sickening, too disgusting to post here on BadEagle.com. I note these things simply because they exist, and, even on the remote chance that any aspect of the story might be true, or partly true, because it is a devastating story. By the way, Jeff Clark (Huffington Post) also takes the story dead seriously, at least as of June 16, 2008. He writes a blazing, blistering piece on the matter. (However, Clark is utterly erroneous in the idea that the "the burden is on Barack Hussein Obama to prove that he never indulged in cocaine and oral pleasure with Larry Sinclair." Nothing could be more wrong. The burden is on the accuser! Sinclair must provide the proof. Therefore, Clark's 'Huff and Puff" post risks complete failure--except in showing his lack of knowledge of the most basic legal procedure.)
Senator Obama at this point has not responded at all to the allegations. Does he even need to? Probably, he's thinking not to dignify such a "mentally ill" accusation with a response. That is perfectly understandable, but accusation is so ominous and odious that it really can't be ignored, not forever.
I've endured accusation of a similar quality--that of being founded in imagination, without fact, evidence, record, or any such element as would give the accusations even a semblence of reality. I too have ignored them, for some time. But I must say, now, I would advise Obama not to ignore the accusation. Respond, immediately, and with force. The lies compound, and the accusers quote themselves, and thus create a fantasy presence on the internet, and thus the illusion of reality. As I said, I am no fan of Barack Hussein Obama, but I will not stand for any irresponsible accusations of someone, simply because he is a public figure.
Yet, sometimes, a person has to be humble, and, for the sake of the public, say "Yes" or "No"--even to the most irrational accusations. There is no limit to liars, or their lies. Obama should definitely respond. If he does not, ever, nor anyone in his campaign, then we have a serious problem.
If anything Sinclair says is true, if the story is fact, Obama is finished. The Democrat Party is finished as well. For Obama's sake, I hope the story is not true. For the Democrat Party's sake, as is, I hope every word of the story is true.
Change you can live with? The White House becoming black?. Pastor James David Manning, the black preacher against Obama, has said to the American public, "Wake up and smell the blackness."
I think he means "fakeness." Interesting view. Not something I want to live with. As the slavish media continues to blather on about Michelle and Barack Hussein Obama, we note that the ghetto level behavior of black "culture" has already accompanied them--even to the forefront of their campaign. It's all about the "fist bump" now. (Has been for a week or so, since June 6, the first night Hillary was supposed to have conceded the race, when Michelle and Barack Hussein did a fist bump on stage.)
Is this what's going into the White House? Black ghetto-style behavior? (Well, at least the Black House will have style, unlike the Clinton white trash behavior.
But what's absolutely vomitable about this strain of ignorance is the fact that everyone's pretending this behavior is new and cutting edge. Yet black athletes, and black gangs, and have been bumping for at least a decade. (Maybe a lot longer. It's like a black power fist turned horizontal.) The level of pretense of those blacks who would feign elitism is egregious and insufferable. On The View, someone as savvy and experienced as Whoopie Goldberg pretended not to know what the fist bump was! (Or was that a media-scripted opportunity?) Michelle Obama pretended to have discovered it from the youth among the campaign staffers.
This is preposterous. Is the public expected to believe this? Yes. The media always takes the public for an ignoramous, for a blithering idiot, for a fool--who can be led about at will, as a dumb ass (--donkey, that is).
In other words, Michelle Obama is quintessentially hypocritical. She feigns (and fawns) over her supposedly lowly background near the street--the very kind of place were faddish behavior is breeded, where raw egotism can find no other means of distinction than some physical, sensual expression, then she brags about her fluff academic career (the true level of which is revealed in her actual writing), and then pretends to be above--very far above, black people in general. She wants all angles covered. You'd think the Obamas were white. Or, at least, that they think they're white.
It is clear of her now, as it has been of Barack Hussein for some time, that we simply don't know Michelle, or her husband. We don't know who they really are. The media and political handlers has tried to help them create a squeakly clean image, but it is as fake as tinsel town. Only those willing to be duped, anxious for 'hope,' can't see this.
The View episode was the nadir of American culture. Pretense, willing dilusion, and fantasy indulgence. It was truly incredible. And this is the show heading for the White House. The Black House it will be. The blacks there will of course pretend to be white--to be above blackness, to find charm and entertainment in black ghetto behavior.
It is a staggaring prospect, such pretense. Professional fantasy world--it's okay in the arts, but, in politics? In social reality? How can it possible last, let alone accomplish anything at all? Obama's remarks about the world around him are so blatantly theoretical and mistaken that one has to conclude a terribly sinister motivation in those who have created him. Oh, what havoc they wreak, what agony they intend! The Obamas are no doubt blissfully unaware themselves. They're just happy to be used. Michelle's vision really is at a street level. Barack Hussein's however, is Marxist theory. Anything he says that remotely resembles intelligence--and does so only to the uninformed or uneducated--is the result of speeches written for him by Marxists.
In any case, will media fantasy land the Obamas in the White House? They say Joseph Goebbels believed that propaganda made the Third Reich. Opponents on either side of any issue accuse the other of fraud, false information, deception, in short, propaganda. How does one determine what's really happening? In the case of the Obamas, one thing is clear: the blacking of America. The constant visual, in your face "change" of color. White liberals are giddy about it. It's no threat to them. And it might be their way of ousting the hated white conservative power.
Homosexual marriage is a hot topic right now, as California just passed a law allowing it (despite the overwhelming vote of the people against it.) Discussing it this morning on the Laura Ingraham Show was substitute Monica Crowely. She based her defense of marriage, that is, her rejection of homosexual marriage, on a repeated use of the term "sacred." Marriage is sacred. It is between a man and a woman, not between members of the same sex. Marriage she wanted left alone, as sacrosanct. She did not damn the idea of homosexuality itself, but she insisted that it was not marriage, nor could be identified as such, nor put in such a context as marriage.
Monica Crowley
Of course, these are not new positions. The sanctity of marriage is the fundamental concept of nearly all who are against homosexuality in principle, let alone the idea of homosexual marriage. However, I am concerned about the use of the word "sacred." This is not a light term, yet I wonder if most people understand its meaning. What are the publically accepted connotations of "sacred?" What is "holy?" Does it matter, after all? If one is using it in an argument to define and justify something, and to disallow something else, I think the sacred needs some explicit definition.
In my book, Altered States, The State of the Dead and the State of the Holy (2007), I devote the entire second half of the text to examining the history of the idea of what is holy. Whether a natural, psychological hierarchy in the human consciousness, or whether a supernatural revelation, one thing is certain: the ancient Jewish concept of the sacred is unique from all others known in history: the Creator alone has power to declare something holy. Man simply does not have this power. As to the holy, he can only respond to it, when informed of it. Unfortunately, in terms of its use the world over, most things called "holy" were declared such by man. The holy is merely a sociological power tool, for social organization or psychological power. Even such mammoth religions as Christianity and Islam do not demonstrate a correct understanding of the meaning of "holy." My book goes into all the historical and linguistic background, but, suffice it to say here that "holy" generally is used spook people into desired behavior--desired by those in power. "Holy" is such by means of guns, blades, or lashings.
Interestingly, the Torah does not declare marriage holy. Marriage is simply part of the definition of man. The word "wife," or ishshah in Hebrew (meaning wife or woman) isn't used in reference to Adam and Eve, but the future woman who would become part of their future child's body (Genesis 2:23,24). "Marriage" (chathan) doesn't occur until Genesis 19:14, in reference to Lot's sons in law--who had married men of Sodom. Certainly, in the New Testament, Paul wrote that "marriage is honorable in all, and the bed holy and undefiled." (Hebrews 13:4.) But this would infer that sexuality, or intercourse between a man and a woman is what is holy. In biblical terms, that sexuality is reserved for the contract of marriage, indeed. But, in and of itself, marriage is not declared holy.
The seventh commandment of the Decalogue (Exodus 20:14) forbids adultery--sexual intercourse with a human being to whom one is not married. (This therefore includes all fornication.) But this still does not use the word "holy" in reference to marriage. It is the sexual experience between a male and a female that is declared holy, at lest by St. Paul.
There are conservatives who actually want to remain non-condemnatory of homosexuality, very much like Monica Crowley. There are those who say that the Republican Party itself has no official stance against homosexuality. Why, there are great examples of conservative, Republican homosexuals, like Tammy Bruce, Andrew Sullivan, etc. However, I believe this theoretical position results from a wrong understanding of what is holy with respect to sex and marriage. Conservatives are wanting to steer away from actually condeming homosexuality while they want to preserve the legal definition of marriage as something that includes only the male/female relationship.
Tammy Bruce
I have to say this is error, or weakness at least. While it may be advisable to reserve the legal term of marriage for male/female partnership, the assertion that marriage is holy or "sacred," or sacrosanct, as Monica Crowley insists, is an assertion of mistaken concepts. It is an agrument of mere tradition. It is a conclusion of the preponderance of historical precedent. It is not a biblical doctrine.
Now, if Crowley is willing to employ the word "sacred" to marriage, what else will she apply it to? Is it a transferrable concept? Is "holy" to be used, at will, as some kind of ultimate authority? If so, it is not divine authority, at least not biblical authority. It is human authority. Once that idea of "holy" is accepted and practiced, consciously or unconsciously, the path of Islam is assured, believe it or not. Islam is all about what man declares is holy. That is the authority. Nothing more, else or other. Wars are fought over this. To suggest or act on the idea that man has the power to declare something holy, is to guarantee war.
My question is, if Monica Crowley believes marriage is holy, or sacred, what is her source of authority? If it is the Bible, then I'd say there needs to be a refinement of concept. If it is tradition, or her own sense of values, then the argument has little weight. Again, It seems to me that this perilous position is the result of not being willing to condemn the sexuality of homosexuality, and instead concentrating on the socio-economic value of marriage between a man and a woman.
I think conservatives need to be careful with the "holy." It's not just another word in the language, to be used at will. It is an extreme word. It's meaning is profound. Indeed, the lack of understanding of what it means results in confusion, misapplied authority, and, yes, cruelty. Unless "holy" means what it is supposed to mean, it is merely a tactic of tyranny.
Altered States was my attempt to outline the meaning of the world "holy" as it evolves in the Jewish scriptures. The first thing declared holy in the world was the sabbath, (Genesis 2: 3), the invisible, untouchable, unalterable phenomenon of time--and only a specific, recurring segment of it. That is the place to begin, then, sabbath. The understanding must develop from sabbath. (The word "holy" isn't even used in reference to the Lord Himself until Exodus 15:11, some 2,350 years after creation, by orthodox calculation of the writing of scripture and its content.)
Beware, then, brokers of holiness. Beware priests, objects, places, persons, and even books. Beware man-made "holiness." That's all I'm saying. Just beware. It could really be some kind of idolatry. That which is truly holy is much, much deeper. But the right concept of the holy has to be in the mind first, or the eye cannot recognize the holy. That's when life can be very dangerous.
Wallace Coffey, great, great grandson of Ten Bears, has served two terms as chairman of the Comanche Nation. His second term will expire after this current year. I wish to offer this brief commentary now, as a gesture of appreciation. Positive assessments after a man is out of office are no substitute for support when he's in office. Aftermath essays are like eulogies. Why not cast the wreathes when the man can wear them?
When I returned to Oklahoma, Johnny Wauqua was still chairman, so I remember Coffey's first campaign, as well as his second. Though I have come to know him more personally in the last few years, I first want to comment on the campaigns, and the crises in office.
I cannot describe the drama of a Comanche election. The intensity of opposition--toward any candidate, makes a far more noise than the support--even if the candidate wins. The number of circulated fliers and letters are often bewildering, and the content is unspeakable. The things that the opposition is willing to put in print about a candidate is incredible, literally. Much of it simply cannot be believed, or trusted, no matter who the source is (--and it's often annonymous, but also often signed by someone--usually a female elder). So, no matter who is running for office, there is equal opprobrium for all. I must say, if I believed everything I read (and in the beginning, I tended to do just that), I would wonder how the candidate could be a living, breathing human being. If he were that evil, he'd drop dead, struck down by lightning. The evil contumely heaped upon any candidate is simply astounding. (Call it war. Comanches are content to slaughter each other today, since we're not free to roam and raid anymore, and we're fenced in so tightly, psychologically. Who else can we attack?)
Now, Wallace Coffey was imminently qualified for leadership from the start. And his qualifications have only increased over the years. He is nationally known in a number of capacities, particularly education, but also universally beloved as a pow-wow Master of Ceremonies (MC). Even so, this still isn't what qualifies a man to be chairman of the nation. Over the past decade, I have come to understand more of why it is that Coffey is the leader he is. It has been a most encouraging experience for me, personally.
Wallace doesn't get mad at people, even people who lie about him, malign him, or work against him. That's rule number one. Now, he'll take action, but I don't get the impression it's ever with malice or vengeance. Only when I began to accept this way within myself, did I begin to notice it, and appreciate it, in Wallace. It is the nature of a Comanche leader today that he must endure constant and malicious criticism, along with phantasmic accusations. And he must endure it with patience and a smile. Wallace has done this with exquisite kindness. It is remarkable. I've seen it, again and again, with my own eyes. I'm aware of the accusations, the opposition. (You can't be Comanche and not be aware.) I just want to say that his ability to handle it gracefully is, in my opinion, what makes him a superior person. That is the lasting impression of the man. He is a gentleman. Whatever else he is, or is believed to be, the final impression of Wallace Coffey as a Comanche leader is that he is a refined man who honestly loves his people--Comanche people.
This is what it takes. A Comanche leader cannot become personally offended, even though attacked with the most outrageous, libelous, vicious words. If one loves the people, one accepts this horrid behavior from the people. One lives, willingly, with these conditions. This is perhaps all some left-over distortion from the earliest days of captivity, really. It is the product of our artificial circumstances. It is the writhing of our confinement. It is the misapplication of the authority of our women elders. It is what we live with--especially under our present BIA superimposed constitution of 1934--alternatives to which I have repeatedly suggested.
No, I haven't agreed with Wallace on all things, but, in sense, I should have. I feel that I should have. He is worthy of it, in my eyes. But, yes, I always feel that what I'm doing is essential for the future security of the Comanche Nation, and all that. I didn't think Rudy Youngblood should be allowed to rip off a honored Comanche family name (Tahchawwickah) without naming his parents--which to this very day he has refused or failed to do. I don't think that issue was delusional at all, on my part. I thought it was completely and desperately necessary, or else any non-white individual anywhere could claim anything he wanted, any time. But, Wallace blessed Rudy, publicly, and never addressed the issue. Wallace saw benefits in Rudy that I didn't see. But Wallace never publicly rebuked me, or maligned me, or worked against me (that I know of!). Of course, I wasn't intentionally working against him in the Rudy affair, either. It was simply a issue. Wallace faces innumberable and critical issues daily. He cannot afford to be absorbed in any one of them.
My mother had something to say about Comanche men. She wrote down a lot of notes in her old age. In 2001, at the age of 79, she wrote of "the elegant Indian male," who would never "openly dispute at social or business meetings." She must have been thinking about Wallace. The Indian men "do not get upset of they have to wait hours for a meeting to start, or for someone to arrive. The word 'rush' has no meaning to them." She said the Comanche had "no fear but lightning." Yes, she was thinking about Wallace, I'm sure!
I just want to say that, personally, as I have come to know Wallace, to the extent that I know him, he is one of the kindest, most generous, spiritual persons I know among the Comanche people. He loves the people. I realize that, by making these statements, I will incure the wrath of his enemies, and will increase their wrath against him, but, this is all to be taken none too seriously. It is part of our modern Indian life.
I see Wallace Coffey as a model leader. I have told him myself that I simply want to offer who and what I am to the people. It all belongs to them, if they want it. If they don't see any use for it right now, that's okay, too. It's not something to become angry and frustrated about. That's not the true Comanche way. He understood exactly what I was saying, and commended me for it.
Now, I attribute a lot of our social problems to our inept and inappropriate constitution, but, I also attribute it to our sense of strife and fighting. It's what we do. It's what we've always done. We have a little Christianity thrown into the mix, historically, but that really only dramatizes our situation. We generally don't behave as Christians around election time. (But, who does?!) Yet, we can never deny ourselves. Whatever the psychological and even social cost, we are Comanche. We live with each other. Those who learn to live with that most effectively, tend to become our leaders.
Once again, the Supreme Court of the United States has betrayed the country. The Court has betrayed the constitution, and the people. Once again, the Supreme Court has demonstrably proven that it is the No. 1 enemy of the United States of America. How can this come about? Attorneys. The weight of the competitive business of law practitioners. A horde of money hungry attorneys, scarfers they were, drove the court to make such a horrendous decision as to grant rights of United States citizens to hostile, foreign combatants, captured in war, in the field. Attorneys, in the dissembling profession of "equality," have given the avowed and violent, murderous enemy the same rights as loyal American citizens. (Attorneys must have work. This is a right-to-work issue, really.)
United States Supreme Court, Washington, DC
By order of the Supreme Court, American citizenship means nothing. Absolutely nothing. Worse, it means that the enemy has the Supreme Court-granted right of killing Americans. That's it. The United States Supreme court has just given the enemy the right to legal defense for warring against Americans.
This is hard to accept. So hard, in fact, that it doesn't seem possible. It is incomprehensible. The only explanation is the fact that judges are all former attorneys, with law degrees, and generally dull (if not failed) law practices. There's a joke that goes like this: How do you address an attorney with an IQ of 40? "Your honor." There is truth to this.
Robert H. Bork's book, The Tempting of America (1990) traces the rise of the attorney profession, but does so on the basis of its "political seduction." That is to say, he explains the current circumstances--the rise of the profession, in terms of it's political influence. Lawyers gradually gained power by interpreting political activity in terms of law, or, by making the political process essentially a legal process. "The political seduction fo the law," is the subtitle of Bork's book.
But this isn't really true. It certainly isn't the whole story. Free enterprise is how attorneys rose to power, and how they stay in power. Law is a competitive business. Attorneys make law their means of earning money. They insure their existence and power--by the laws they make. They are in control of power, not the politicians. I'm not saying we should 'socialize' the practice of law, but the thought has occurred to me. That truth should be made a sport, with only a 50-50 chance of coming out on top of error, is a travesty. Law, as free enterprise, offends the soul.
If it's all a Nietzschean power grab, then, as long as we're being non-violent about it, lawyers win. They must have a job, they must have a case, and they must win--at least 50% of the time. As I said, a horde of attorneys pressured the Supreme Court (or the law school flunkies and lackeys that decide what cases are going to be heard by the Court), and thus the Supreme Court again was able to assert itself above all other authority in the country. Bush will cooperate? That's because he is through. He is finished. He has no disposition to fight anymore. The judges on the court, who are basically burnt out attorneys, enliven their souls by feigning some grarnd mission of mercy in the world. This is personal indulgence. Self-righteousness on display. What the Obamas are doing to the concept of the White House, the justices are doing to the concept of the Supreme Court. It is an opportunity for personal indulgence.
Of course, there is the matter of dissenting oppinion. Yesterday's Reuters report cites Chief Justice Robert and Jusice Scalia as having negative opinions about the Court decision, yet Reuters says the vote was 5-4. So which of the justices voted which way here? Justice Kennedy was the deciding vote. Reuter's James Vicini called Kennedy the "moderate conservative." (Both Roberts and Scalia were against the decision.) So let that be a lesson. A "moderate conservative" is a liberal. An anti-American liberal. An anti-constitutional, anti-people, anti-American liberal. (Are you listening, John McCain?--who was always against Guantanamo anyway.)
If prolonged imprisonment is the objection, then tell that to the terrorists. But when the Supreme Court interferes with military operations, we know that the Supreme Court is alien to the United States. When attorneys put their own jobs and careers above the "defense" of the United States of America, we know they are fundamental traitors, untrustworthy, and deserving of prison themselves, if not execution for treason.
But, this is what it's come to. This is the trend, for some time now. We're all witnessing the last of America. An American patriot is living in a fastasy world now. An imaginary world, a world that is past. I've said it before, American patriots are becoming like Indians--living in the past. Again, I welcome all patriots to "Indian Country."
Michelle Obama, wife of Democrat presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama, symbolizes everthing ill about the politics of race. She also represents the very lowest motivation in life: envy and revenge. Some call it social justice, but that's only a fancy name for the base reaction to life-- pure materialism. It's all about fame and fortune. Ultimately, now, it's about the White House.
The Obama's degrade the very idea of the White House. Instead the home of our country's leader, they are suggesting that is should be the triumph of envy. Economic jealously. The lowest of the low should sit in the Oval Office. This is justice. This is the juvenile insult the whole world offers America through the Obamas. The Third World believes it has a right to sit on the throne of power. The Third World had nothing to do with the creation of that throne, nor any capacity to contribute to it, nor has it any comprehension of how the throne was established, or what it means, or what it's worth. The "have nots" simply look at it, and envy it, and are angry that they don't have it. The Obamas represent the non-white Third World. They represent envy. This is the secret of their popularity.
In the name of race, the Obamas stake their own claim to the throne. Nothing could be more denigrating. This is ignorance, misconception, selfishness, even narcissism, on all sides. That so much of the American public does not grasp this only shows how out of touch the public is with historical reality and basic morality, and how easily duped the public can be by the anti-American media and the concomitant legal system which guides it. (A reporter cannot advocate anything that smacks of patriotism--or he will be quickly sued.)
The White House will become a symbol of race. A token of racial arrogance. Until Michelle Obama is living there, she will not feel proud of America. So, who cares whether she's proud or not? Only those who feel like her, those who feel that the world owes them the White House--or all the material blessings the world has to offer. Power, prestige, money. Michelle feels that, by being born a black woman, she deserves all of this. That is the delusion that drives her.
Obviously, many, many people feel the same way, though not quite as successful in living out that delusion.
The Obamas represent racial manipulation, not unity, not harmony, and not equality. Just manipulation for power. This is the result of, not white guilt, but weak white Communists who cannot themselves achieve power or control. They are beaten by the better whites. They are driven to appeal to the darks, the non-whites. This is their ownly hope. It is about numbers. They must unite all non-whites of the world on a platform of racial unity.
It does not appear that this juvenile, base racial approach is going to change. (There is absolutely no change in, about, from, or through, the Obamas--unless it's change for the worse.) The media is the right arm of the race campaign. Race well suits the cause of breaking down America into a Third World warehouse. The Clintons ignited that cause two decades ago. The current race rage only further enflames the purpose. In the name of equality, a fringe foreigner Negro, and an American Negro, simply must have the presidency. It isn't about leadership (unless we mean leading American down). It isn't about the nation. It is about the personal vindication of Barack and Michelle Obama, and all they represent.
The presidency as justifiaction. The White House as vindication. That's what this has become. It has nothing to do with our dear and beloved country, America. It has only to do with Barack and Michelle Obama, and their personal problems. This is the trend Bill Clinton set back in 1993. This is the Democrat philosophy. The poor man deserves the highest honors--by virtue of his poverty alone. In the case of the Obamas, the black race deserves the throne, by virtue of their blackness, alone. The success of the Obamas will demonstrate above all, not the desirability of the black race, but the opposite.
This is the formula for the downfall of the nation. It is approaching full swing.
If Michelle Obama is emotionally disturbed, would it be appropriate to talk about it? If she sustained some deep emotional damage in her past, would it be out of line for the public to know about it?
I make this suggestion with a conscious sense of 'anti-temerity.' I have a certain experience in social work, in the trenches of inner city New Haven, Connecticut--'grand central' for mental illness and experimental treatment. My very first job after graduating from Yale Divinity was through Yale Psychiactric Institute. I wasn't hired by YPI directly, but by the wealthy family of one of YPI's long-time patients. I was hired as a live-in companion to a chronic schizophrenic. Later, I was a resident child care worker in a treatment center for emotionally disturbed children. I also was a teacher's assistant (and transportation assistant) for a secondary special education facility in Hamden, Connecticut.. I say all this only to form some basis for saying what I feel about Michelle Obama. I have been around a variety of mental and emotional illness, in professional circumstances. I have seen various effects that people live with, and carry into their lives. No, I am not an expert, nor really even a bonified professional in the field. I simply have a significant hands-on experience with mental disturbance and imbalance.
Micelle Obama, a First Lady?
I see this disturbance in Michelle Obama. I see someone who is terrified of the public eye, and who is most uncomfortable in public.
Her disposition of resentment or anger, her professional victim hood, is merely a shell which she wears. It's not really her. The "black female victim" role is a cover, it seems, under which she hides a deeper, personal problem. It seems her life of race fluff cannot wholly disguise some other problem, some abuse, perhaps, which makes her seem so terribly inappropriate in public. It is as though she knows all this, she feels she is completely undeserving. She is made woman, a created person--created by race policy, race quota, and professional race agenda. Her background, education, and professional career was all based on race, not accomplishment, nor even talent. Hers has been a completely fake or "fluff" experience. She knows it. She feels it intensely, and this is why she cringes in public. She doesn't know how to act or talk, and this is because she feel totally out of place. Totally out of her comfort zone.
Now, what I have said is utterly opinionated. I have no evidence. I merely interpret her behavior and words, and her demeanor. There has been no examination of her personal life. There has been no investigation of facts. I certainly have no capacity, authority, or financial wherewithal to launch such needed enterprises, but I can only suggest that, for the sake of the American public, for the sake of our nation, we need to know the truth about Michelle. That our nation should elect such an untried, untrue, and unprecedentedly unqualified person into the White House is absolutely unthinkable.
I know these thoughts will seem egregious, cruel and even criminal, to those who support the Obamas. And I have truly tried to express myself responsibly. I am concerned. I believe Barack Hussein Obama is a raving Marxist, out to destroy America, to change it into a socialist, tyrannical, oppressive government, to destory freedom, and to try and get elected based on an emotional appeal to class struggle. I believe he appeals to envy and resentment, as well as race and racism. But this is aside from the issues Michelle brings.
"Lay off my wife," he said to the media. Of course. She is obviously weak, unprepared, and inapprorpriately cast into the arena with all the lions. Only she can't be 'lionized.' She will be spit out. Only a weak and manipulative man, a liberal, would demand that his wife receive no scrutiny, and that she be accepted with no examination--simply because she is a black female, with fluff credentials, and because she is his wife. This is pure racism. Pure sexism. And pure hypocrisy. This is the liberal way, and the Obama epitomize all that is ill with it.
The campaign of racial revenge. "You owe me!" is the theme. But Michelle is
obviously extremely uncomfortable with it.
Michelle cannot be allowed to go on The View. She would be a disaster, and everyone knows it. The Obama campaign can't risk it. Now, after several cancelled appearances in the past, she is again scheduled to appear as a co-host on The View this June 18. Will it happen? Monica Crowley, subbing for Laura Ingraham today, suggests that the Obama Campaign has Michelle 'locked up,' knowing she will sink the campaign. Crowley said, "I wonder how long it's going to be before Obama says, 'That's not the Michelle I know,' or 'That's not the Michelle I've known for twenty years.'" Good point. (Crowley said more on that one sit-in than most talk show hosts say in two weeks of blabbing.)
So, what about Michelle? The biggest liability--for the Obama campaign, yes. But, what about the nation? Do we want a fluffed life, a victim-based careerist, in the White House? Is this the example? Is this the triumph?
This is about emotional avarice, more than anything else. Nothing will satisfy Michelle but the White House. And she probably fears such a fulfillment of a falsely-based desire. She is set in resentment, a sense of injustice, and protest. No degree, no salary, no position, no media coverage, and no amount of praise will satisfy a person who's deepest disposition is resentment and envy. She wants the whole country to prove to her that she is the queen. The media is set to fulfill her fantasy, but, the impropriety and dishonesty in her soul cannot render the appropriate behavior. She comes off as too uncomfortable with herself and her own disposition. It's all a facade, and she apparently knows it, deep inside.
This is something often characteristic of the disturbed. They are inevitably honest at heart. The soul cannot be fooled. The soul rises. It comes out. And the world can't hide it for her. The soul speaks for itself. Michelle's speaks most eloquently.
Truckers are taking over the highways in the Iberian Peninsula. The truckers of Spain, Portugal, and also France, are blocking the main highways with their huge rigs. Why?
To protest fuel prices.
Truck drivers block traffic on the motorway into Madrid
as they demonstrate against rising fuel costs. Tens of
thousands of truckers in Spain, France and Portugal have
stepped up protests against rising fuel prices, causing
mayhem on highways and blocking border crossings.
(AFP/Philippe Desmazes)
Spain's Truckers in Fuel Protest
This is what it is coming to. Cities and towns the world over are all dependent on truckers of one kind or another for their goods. Truckers are being put out of business due to fuel costs. These truckers protesting truckers should be thanked and praised by the world, as harbingers of a real showdown. We all know the main problems in the world are caused by our business leaders, and their blind greed. Human crises are caused by political leaders with no will to resist the dictates of the tycoons.
The people have to rise up, from time to time. It is a normal thing. The cutting edge can become quickly violent, even if not intended to be so. Crises bring out the most courageous people. Truckers have taken action. They are the first to do so, as an identifiable group.
MADRID (AFP) - Tens of thousands of truckers in Spain, France and Portugal on Monday stepped up protests against rising fuel prices, causing mayhem on highways and blocking border crossings.
Huge tailbacks built up around major cities and on the French-Spanish border as French fishermen in Mediterranean ports ended their three-week strike over the spiralling cost of fuel.
Spain's second largest hauliers' union Fenadismer, which claims to represent 70,000 out of Spain's 380,000 truck drivers, launched an open-ended strike on Monday. It said it was "peaceful" but followed "massively".
Will it happen in America. There's a very real possibility. People can only take so much. There really is such a thing as "abuse" of the people, by indifferent, careless, or oppressive governments. There is also abuse cause by avarice on the part of business, obviously, and, combined, government and business can crush the people to nothing. Then, revolution.
America was once into revolution. That's how America got started. While it is true that Communism has given social change a bad name, representing everything odious and erroneous, but, there still is such a thing and genuine uprising against genuine oppression. Error does not erase or negate truth. It merely obfuscates it, or beclouds it.
Now, this is all political. What about the actual cause of the high fuel prices? Hard to get a straight answer from anyone, anywhere. In fact, once you get into the subject, it's difficult to understand why there is a problem at all. There is absolutely no shortage of oil in the world. (Even the Arabs know that.) It's all a matter of management: exploring, drilling, refining, and then marketing. Any problems, and we have to look to those in charge.
Free enterprise says let the market handle it. It will all take care of itself, eventually. The last think we need is government control over an industry or a business. That is a sure formula for failure and worse oppression. Yet, business is doing essentially the same thing. It is taking advantage of a necessity. More accurately, it is taking advantage of an artificially created demand--because there is no lack of supply.
America has created it's own problem in this matter. We want the Saudis to produce more. Why don't we produce more? We don't even buy from the Saudis. This is no solution. It is only foolish political talk. The public has no trust in government or business. That's the sad fact.
That's the dangerous fact, really. The money men play their cards shrewdly. They want as much profit as possible withoug killing the market. They will let people suffer just to the point of revolution, then perhaps allow some relief. This is what the people see in the character of those in charge. It is all an ancient game, an ancient sport--playing the people. Leaders playing the people.
Sometimes, leaders pay the ultimate price for their treachery, blasphemey, and selfish, traitorous intents. But it seems, the more people have to enjoy, the less likely they can be moved to action. Bill Clinton banked on that, quite manipulatively. Now it's the established custom. Why, Americans will never rise up over anything. Not as long as they have their TVs, computers, baseball games, and apple pie.
Video clips of tenor Antonio Giuliano singing vocal works by David Yeagley (that would be me) have recently been posted on YouTube. Giuliano is a well known singer who sings opera, art songs, and popular ballades. He lives in the Washington, DC, area. Giuliano is also a soldier, SFC, in the United States Army, the senior vocalist of "Pershing's Own" army band. (He was featured in NewsMax, June, 2007.) The only way to really begin to get an idea of the scope of Antonio Giuliano's life is to study his marvelous web site: antoniogiuliano.com
The singing sargeant, Antonio Giuliano, "first class."
Giuliano is a very special person, indeed. His breadth of knowlege and experience, both in life and in music, is grand. His mission statement (from his web site):
As an American soldier/musician, my mission is to serve as a musical ambassador of the American combat soldier, instilling pride in our troops, promoting a spirit of patriotism within our nation, and sharing a universal vision of peace and freedom through music.
Our kind of man, indeed!
During the "Classica Native" program at the National Museum of the American Indian, November, 2007, Giuliano sang two art songs from my collection, Art Songs (1990-1993). This cycle contains three songs in English, two in Italian, one in German, and one in French. Giuliano sang the German song, "Denke an mich," and one of the Italian songs, "Signore, non correggermi." The purpose of the cycle was to offer a perfectly ecclectic specimen of truly classic styles of German, French, and Italian song, (and contemporary modern English song). I cherish these historical modes as everlasting, and wish to honor the human cultural achievement represented by each. I had no thought of being outrageously original. This cycle is an act of homage to European expression of the classical mode.
Here is "Denke an mich" (Remember me). The text is Luke 23:42; Job 10: 8,9; and Psalm 31:6. I prefer to combine different biblical texts into one lyric. A phrase here, a phrase there, and you have a wonderful text. These are not, however, paraphrased. There are simply juxtaposed in a meaningful order.
Denke an mich venn du in dein Reich kommst.
Hoffe ich auf dich.
Deine Haende haben mich gebildet.
In deine Haende befehle ich meinen Geist.
Tenor Antonio Giuliano singing Yeagley's "Denke an mich," accompanied
by Kathryn Lewis, piano.
Interestingly, Giuliano interpreted this a bit differently than I had expected. I conceived of it as a late Beethoven or apogean Schubert Lied, but Giuliano felt it as a grander, Mahler-type of vocal expression. It comes of quite appropriately in the Mahler mode, I must admit. (Thank you, Signore Giuliano!)
And here is "Signore, non correggermi," (O Lord, rebuke me not in thine anger), from Psalm 6: 1, 2, 4. This is an operatic work, with archtypical Italian drama. The opening chords on the piano, a dominant 7th on A major--in third inversion, spells crisis from the first sound. That the 7th of the chord would be made the basis of the whole harmonic image, and be placed so low in the resounding bass, is meant only to show the intensity of purposes. The "b" section, the middle or bridge, presents a radical change of emotion, from terror to pity. Giuliano certainly created that effect masterfully.
Signore, non correggermi nella tua ire.
Signore, non castigarmi nel tuo cruccio.
Abbi pieta di me, e salva mi!
Per amor della tua benignita salvami!
Tenor Antonio Giuliano, singing Yeagley's "Signore, non correggermi,"
accompanied by Kathryn Lewis, piano.
Salute! Alto belle, Giulano!
Giuliano has a new CD out, as well:
(One final note, my appologies for the foreign language incapacities of MoveableType software and of my present web site programming. The new BadEagle.com will not have these limitations.)
Time out! Time out! Forget Hillary. Forget Obamer. Forget the Muslims!
Cattle and sheep are not allowed to pass gas in New Zealand! That's right. Scientists are developing a "flatulence innoculation" for livestock. The world's first anti-natural gas law is coming! Animals are being treated as less than human! This is cruelty to animals--beyond any precedent. Have animals no rights? Animals must toot! It's only natural.
PETA Pam, Where are you?!
Where's PETA Pam (Pamela Anderson) when you need her?! We know she's preoccupied with enlarged breats (the Colonel's chicken breasts, that is), but, this matter of animal toots must be made a top priority. Surely toots trump the breast. And this is a matter of life and death for the animal kingdom. If PETA Pam doesn't intervene, we're going to have exploding animals around the world--slaughtered before their time. Butchered by their own gas.
But scientists claim the animal gas accounts for 90% of the green house gas in New Zealand. Cattle and sheep are contributing to the ominous global warming conspiracy. They must be plugged--immediately.
Phil Goff, New Zealand's trade minister, told an Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) in Paris yesterday that a solution was in sight. "Our agricultural research organisation just last week was able to map the genome ... that causes methane in ruminant animals and we believe we can vaccinate against" flatulent emissions, Mr Goff said.
And Pammie, we know you're deeply into spiritual things, so, you must put in a bid to save the wil o' the wisps of the world. You must save all the jack o' lanterns. You know, they're all methane, too. Swamp fire, or swamp light--it's caused by subaqueous decomposition of vegetation. It's pure methane. You must save the spirits, Pammie, as well as the animals' right to toot.
Ah, well, liberals will drive you crazy if you let them. Maybe they're really trying to give animals equal rights after all. Look at all the pills and meds we've developed to curb human gas. Shoudn't we do the same for our beloved animals? Don't they have a right to their pride? Shouldn't they be allowed to have a romance without embarrassment? Can't they be gas-free, too? What wonderous projection. What noble aggression--to go where no man has gone before. Gas free animals. Think of it.
On the other hand, gas free plant life is a bit of a stretch. I don't know that Pammie's deep veganism can help us with the jack o' lanterns. We may have to say good-bye to spirituality altogether. With no spirits in the swamps, we're left to wander in the dark complexities of politics and economics. Yeah. It's all symbolic.
PETA Pam, we're depending on you. Forget the plants for now. The animals are calling for you. This is your moment. The animals need you. Save the toots! The last thing we need in the world is Silence of the Lambs.
UPDATED, 6:00 pm Wednesday, June 4, 2008. See Below
Hillary won last night. Big time. Not in the huge victory in South Dakota, but the triumph of political manoeuvering. She did not concede. Hillary is an independent person, very strong, and very determined. Barack Hussein Obama is totally dependent on media hype. The look on his face when he came out to claim "victory" last night was a look of absolute despondancy and loss. He did not know what to say. He was utterly chagrinned and embarrassed. The strained look in his eyes was most obvious. He lost the move. Hillary put him in check.
(Hillary, handing the victory to the people.) Democratic presidential candidate
Senator Hillary Clinton gestures to supporters at her South Dakota and Montana
presidential primary election night rally in New York, June 3, 2008.(Gary
Hershorn/Reuters)
Her speech last night defied several days of mass media propaganda that she would concede the race to B. Hussein O. Indeed, the media has been saying "it's over" for months. The mass media, the "drive-by" media, the monster media, is a thing the the Clintons created, but they have seen it work desperately against them. The Clintons trained the monster to serve them, but, when it turned against Hillary, she was undaunted. She knows the machine and how it works, what its power is, and its limitations.
"I will be the nominee," Hussein said. Not, "I am the nominee." His demeanor last night declared that he is completely unsure, and doubts that he will be. His eyes shouted, "I just lost." Before Hillary took her determined stand, Hussein, along with the media, just knew it was over. But Hillary showed them, quite simply, it isn't over. Hussein felt the pain. He felt an agonizing loss. He lost the media moment. He lost the wondrous expectation of being the presumed nominee. The media turned up the volume for him, but it was all an echo, in an empty shell.
The look on his face spoke louder than any propaganda, no matter how high the volume. Today's endless and extravagant headlines of his "victory" are all a mockery of the obvious. There was no victory. Never was the media so out of touch with reality. It's delusionary image of Hussein was shot to smithereens, and Hussein knew it. He felt it. He showed it--to the world. He was trembling with a stunning deflation. He was at a loss for words.
The media is desperately trying to lift him up, to imply, in every possible way, with every possible headline, that he is the victor, the winner, the champion. But Hussein doesn't feel that way. He knows the truth. The battle will go on--all the way to the convention in Denver. It will be a knock-down-drag-out to the last minute. Hillary will win. It's a done deal, if the truth were known.
B. Hussein O. simply cannot win the general election. Giving him the nomination is giving away all hope of a Democrat win. Ultimately, the Democrat leaders know this. However much they want to kick the Clintons out, however much they want to present to the world an America that is like the Third World--by showing off a foreign black as a United States president, they know the American people will never elect Barack Hussein Obama.
All Hillary has to do is bide her time. Six months will take care of themselves. As the American people learn more and more about Hussein, his nature, his true character as a Marxist ideologue, and the more they learn about the emotional problems of Michelle Obama, they will never concede such a presence in the White House.
Can Hillary beat McCain? Maybe. McCain tries to "reach out" to Democrats, but Hillary doesn't reach out to conservatives, or Republicans. Therefore, McCain comes from a position of weakness. His "maverick" liberalness is a fissure of purpose that Hillary can easily take advantage of.
Just in these considerations alone, I'd say it's going to be a very interesting contest. Barack Hussein Obama is out. That's pretty clear at this point. McCain should be trembling in his boots. True conservatism is the only thing that can beat the Democrats this time around. This McCain does not have.
By the way, Hillary never looked so good, nor ever so confident. She was literally beaming. Hussein was in pain. The higher he held his head, the more obvious his disappointment. He was desperately trying to keep his head above water. He was drowning in disappointment and apprehension.
UPDATE: Clinton to end presidential campaign on Friday: ABC Sounds powerful. But, she's only "suspending" the campaign. This is not quitting or ending her bid. This is another technical manoeuver. She keeps all her delegates as along as she wants. She could throw the election in Denver. The press wants it to be over so badly, but, it just isn't. They announced she would concede. She didn't. Now they announce she will suspend her campaign. We'll see.
James Stern is a most pleasurable performer. He is an artist on the violin, as well as the viola. In the last two "classical" concerts at the National Museum of the American Indian, in Washington, DC, Stern has performed works of Dr. David A. Yeagley (that would be me). In 2006, he played the viola part in the trio, The Writhing of Earth Worms Under A Great Uplifted Rock, for oboe, viola, and bassoon. In 2007, he performed the Medidation and Rhapsody No. 2 for unaccompanied violin.
James Stern, violinist, associate professor
at the University of Maryland, College Park
I would like to call attention to the fact that his performance of my Medication and Rhapsody No.2 is now on YouTube.com., along with several other performances of my works, by other performers, all taken from the November, 2007 classical programs at the National Museum of the American Indian. This particular season my vocal works were featured. I have been experimenting with a new venue: a capella Latin vocal works with American Indian flute. That is to say, I've written for unaccompanied women's chorus with American Indian flute solo. In the performances on the YouTube.com page, the chorus is The Cantate Singers, conducted by Gisele Becker. The American Indian flute is played by Timothy Archambault (Kishesiperini). I have written a complete mass (Missa Naturalis), a Magnificat, and a Salve Regina. (The Salve Regina uses however an old Italian text, one used by Puccini.)
James Stern, performing Yeagley's Meditation & Rhapsody No.2 at the National Museum
of the American Indian, November, 2007
Stern's violin work is most impressive. It was a great privilege to employ him for this performance. He is sensitive to the foundational gestures and language of classical violin performance. Romantic style, yes, but, the music is essentially "gypsy" style, therefore, all Stern's manner (and mannerisms) are more than appropriate.
With the right funding, I hope to create an entire collection of Meditations and Rhapsodies and to record them on a professional label, as I did for my American Indian flute music--the collection of etudes and a sonata recorded by James Pellerite. The Meditation, the more reflective, expository statements, are introduced as a contrasting setting to subsequent 'indulgences' of the rhapsody. (Meat before desert, or workout before the game).
I might mention again the performance of my Meditation and Rhapsody No.1, performed by Lina Bahn during the 2006 season at the NMAI.
I think the character of the violin is quite singular, despite its long association with chamber music (ensemble music) and of course with the symphony orchestra. The individuality of expression which characterizes the violin, especially in the hands of an artist like James Stern, calls forth very individualistic music, in my opinion. The artist must be allowed to express such uniqueness. He must be provided music that accentuates the absolutely freedom so tempting on the violin.
I have to say, the Meditation and Rhapsody, a kind of 'invented' form I'm advocating, is not to be separated by applauses. There should be no applause between the Meditation and the Rhapsody. However, in both performances (2006 and 2007), the 'movements' were divided by applause. I shall have to write into the next program "no applause between movements, please." The movements are related to each other. One does not applaud between the movements of a sonata, for instance. I suppose this 'invented' form simply isn't clear on that point.
Violinist Lina Bahn, performing the Rhapsody from Yeagley's Meditation & Rhapsody No.1,
at the National Museum of the American Indian, October 8, 2006.
Finally, I announce herewith the opening (the groundbreaking, I should say) of my non-political web site, www.davidyeagley.com. On this site, I intend to present all my music, literature, and art. I will make available (for sale) all my sheet music and scores to my music. I will also advertise my literatary and scholarly works. I will try to reproduce my art work as well. Hopefully, this will all contribute to the development of the Bad Eagle Foundation.
Stern and Yeagley rehearsing before the November 12, 2007 performance at the
National Museum.