Most Americans have little knowlege (or interest) in Eastern Europe. With the media misrepresentation of the Albanian Muslim takeover of Seriban Kosovo, Americans are generally acquiescent to the US government's betrayal of Serbia. Americans simply have no idea of what's happening there.
Historically, Eastern Europe--specifically the Balkans, has always been a problem to the rest of Europe, of not to the rest of the world. Friedrich Heer, eminent historian of Medival Europe, wrote in The Medieval World (1961), p.358:
It was the people living to the east who were the main objects of German mass hatred and hysteria, a legacy of hate which has bedeviled Germany's relations with her eastern neighbors down to our own times.
Who knows? Maybe it all traces back to Dracula, original target of the German press. Maybe it was the massive Gypsy population, or the Jewish population, or the Turks themselves. Hitler apparently considered Eastern Europe the "white trash" of the continent, and wanted to clean out all the foreigners--people he considered foreign, anyway. (The Jews were settled in Cologne as early as 300 AD, so I'd say that's a hard call).
A 1499 woodcut from Nuremburg, the town, nevertheless where Emperor
Sigismund 'ordained' the Order of the Dragon, some 70 years before.
BadEagle.com observed, however, that when people seem uncertain about their ethnicity, they tend to look German-ward for guidance. It is a mystery how a Roman Catholic hierarchy dominated by Hispanics (and African Negroes) could elect a German pope so enthusiastically. Catholicism is basically a European thing. Perhaps they all felt Europe is threatened of late. Perhaps they are worried about Islam. BadEagle.com also noted the enthusiasm in the election of Austrian Arnold Schwarzenneger as the governor of the heavily hispanic state of California. These facts deserve some objective consideration. I brought this subject up to Tammy Bruce, only to have it swept away with the superficial swipe, "Germans are just great people!" Yeah, right.
But now, what of the Slavs? The Balkan tribes?
Of late, there are those pondering their "Aryan" roots. In an piece by "Samsam" on Iranian.com, he notes that a number of Croatians, Serbs, and Bugarians, even Gypsies, are claiming to be Iranian (Persian), or "Aryan." Video Serbs & Croats rant their Irani origin These groups are actually competing for proof. They are wanting to rise above the "Slavic" identity. How do you do that? You go "Aryan." The German way. Hitler's way.
Now, linguistically, the Balkan people speak Slavic languages. Except for Austira, Hungary, Romania, Lithuania and Latvia, all of East Europe is Slavic, including Russia. But, does this mean the people are ethnically Slavic? What is the Slavic ethnicity?
Some Serbs are claiming they came from Iran (Persia), through the Caucus Mountains. So, where did they pick up the Slavic language and alphabet? (Well, Samsam claims there is a book that cites 4,000 common words between Serbian and Farsi.)
I don't suppose the German peoples are terribly impressed with this theory of Eastern Europeans being "Aryan." Hitler despised the "Slavization" of the German people. It was "of an excessively disgraceful character," as it was happening in Austria. (Mein Kampf, p.129).
So this is a very interesting social development. Ethnicity. Who are the Balkan people? Who are the Slavs? Is this all propaganda out of Iran? I can't imagine that the Serbs would swallow much of it. Their problems have to do with Mulims! Samsam's cited videos are dominated by claims of the Croations. Croations are claiming direct association with Iran! Islamic Iran. This is curious. Croatia has been historically Roman Catholic. The rather sudden idenfification with Islamic Iran is rather stunning.
Croatian novelist and journalist
Slavenka Drakulic tells a story of breathtaking brutality
from the 1990 Balkan wars. So what else is new?
This is all abstolutely captivating. It is a scattered effort, but, the key seems to be uniting with larger groups. Smaller "tribes" want to hook up with the larger nations. This is a trend. Even among some American Indian tribes, there is this tendency to want to identify with larger groups, as if that somehow means strength and honor. I don't see it myself.
For example, some Comanches find great pleasure in associating with Shoshoni these days. Why? Similarity of language. There is established now an annual "reunion" they call it. I say that's going backwards. The Comanche did not become the wondrously great people we were by uniting with larger groups. It was by being totally and utterly independent that we developed into the "lords of the plains." A Comanche "group" on the plains was just an extended family, from 20 to 30 people usually. Maybe a little more. But each "band" was self-sufficient. Indeed, the Comanche hunting band was the most independent social entity in the history of the world. In this form, small bands, with no central government, chief, or religion, Comanche people created the largest single hunting empire in the history of the North American continent. The Shoshoni did not do this. Why share our singular honor with them, or with anyone?
I don't personally see the benefit of identifying with a larger group. That represents a species of weakness, really. Some longing for belonging. How terribly un-Comanche! My advice to the Balkans? Forget it. Be who you are. You're not Persian, unless you want the world to believe that you, as well as everyone else, have been mistaken for two or three millenia. Bit of a stretch, I'd say.
Blast the liberal media!
Every major media agency in the world seems dead set on misrepresenting--if not destroying--the nation of Serbia. Look at this headline:
Busloads of ultranationalist Serbs pour into Belgrade for pro-Karadzic rally
The media wouldn't dare use the word "patriot" to describe these brave Serbians--who love their country. No, no. It has to be "ultranationalist," like some sort of extremist. If you love your country, if you are willing to fight for it, even to die for it, you are an extremist. That's it. There are no patriots. The anti-American Barak Hussein Obama is regarded as 'patriotic' by his supporters. That says it all. The patriots in America have been silenced.
Only the Serbs stand for patriotism.
The media story calls the present government of Serbia "pro-Western," in a bid to make the "nationalists" appear the enemy. I wouldn't be pro-Western either, if it meant giving up my country, and denouncing the founding fathers, the great war leaders, and patriots.
The Serbian national flag. The bottom of the flag is white.
I am simply astounded at how the whole world can unite against this one country, Serbia. The world is trying to hang or (or have murdered) all their war heroes and patriots in the Hague. The under both Clinton and Bush adminstrations, the West has been trying to take away a third of their country and give it to foreign Muslims (under the liberal code word "ethnic Albanians," as if Kosovo deserved to be an independent nation!
Two world wars were started in the Balkans. Are we ready for a third?
The world has learned nothing from Serbia. Here one small country will stand though the heavens fall, and has demonstrated that again and again, and yet the world feels challenged to destroy Serbia. The world is intent on crushing this land of mighty patriots. But the world underestimates Serbians. They will not be destoryed, and they will not have their homeland taken from them. No matter how many times the world tries, it will never happen. The Serbs will never accept it.
The western media has greatly misrepresented also the break-away states of the former Soviet Union. The west hailed Chechen war when the Chechnyans stood up against Russia. They were hailed as "freedom" fighters, brave patriots, deserving their own independence. They were sunni Muslims! This was not about patriotism at all. This is about Muslims defying history, culture, and nationality.
So is Kosovo. Kosovo is about Muslims wanting to destroy other nations, and make everyone Muslims. Kosovo is about robbing Serbia of its historical heartland.
There is a movie, The Marksman (2005), which stars Wesley Snipes as the hero. It's all about a Chechen take-over of a Russian nuclear plant. Gen. Egor Zaysan is an evil Russian general from the Bresznev days who reserfaces in Chechnya. Snipes, a special agent, has to stop him. It is a twisted plot, but contains the typical black male-white female romance element mixed in. The point is, the movie is about as close as anything came to making entertainment out of the Chechen story--but, by 2005, when the movie was made, Chechnya had been through its two wars, and settled into a federalist republic. "Separatists" movements within had died down to occasional uprisings. Akhmad Kadyrov was elected by 83% in 2003, though the separatists considered him a traitor.
So, the thing to observe is the media's choice of words. If are the bad guy, you are a separatist, a rebel, an insurgent, or a 'confederate,' or even a nationalist.' If you're the good guy, you're a loyalist, a unionist, a globalist, a hemispherist, or a New World Orderist.
In all this media coverage, the word patriot is absent. There's no such thing anymore. Even Steven Segal's The Patriot (1998) posed social fringe paramilitary rednecks as patriots, and Segal, who fought against them, as the real "patriot," whatever that is.
This reminds me of my students at Oklahoma State University (OKC campus), when I was teaching. The students did not have an idea of what a patriot was. The word "patriot" in the minds of many students (liberalized unawares perhaps) meant social marginals, skin heads, paramilitary types.
And thus, I began my campaign to have patriotism taught in Oklahoma public schools--with Governor Keatings endorsement, I might add.
Today, were I teaching, I would be using Serbia as the last vestige of what patriotism really means. Standing alone. That's what it's come to mean. Standing for your people, your land, your religion, your "ethnicity," even when the whole world is against you.
I should think every American Indian would understand that. I'm quite sure Jewish people, particularly Israelis, have a deep appreciation for that. I suppose it is because of globalilsm, and the craze for world dominance by independent businessmen competing with nations, that Serbia is so hated. Serbia stands for everything that would prevent people like Al Gore, George Soros, and the international bankers from accomplishing their ambitions of global control.
I say this. If Serbia falls, all nations will fall. If Serbia caves in, there will be no more nationhood, anywhere. Nationhood will all become an illusion, a facade, a mere marketing device. A souvenir. A traveler's trinket.
Long live Serbia! For the sake of all nations, Long live Seriba!
A church in Belgrade. From J Tinsley's photostream
There are several offices to be filled Tuesday, July 29, 2008. I have concerns, of course, like any voting person should. No, I don't think everyone should have the right to vote, but, those that do should take if very seriously. For this cause, I want to offer some comments about some of the people running for office here in the Oklahoma City area.
RICHARD ENGLE: candidate for County Commissioner. Engle is immediate past president of the National Federation of Republican Assmeblies, as such, a national figure. He's been quoted on FoxNews.com, and USA Today, among other places of note. Engle has one of the highest IQ's of anyone I personally know in politics. He is a dedicated Christian and American patriot. From what I know of him, I would vote for him no matter what office he was running for. I trust him. I have known him several years, through Charlie Meadows' Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee. Yes, Richard has published some of the customary rhetorics of hysteria when it comes to American Indian issues, but that was clearly for effect. I happen to know what he really believes. He wants to see the Indian treaties renegotiated, that's all. That's his position. That's very reasonable. Indianis can't live on hardened suger, rotten meat, and old coffee forever.
DANA MURPHEY: Coporation Commission. BadEagle.com has already endorsed Dana. Any girl that has three brothers and likes to play in the dirt is our kind of girl! Seriously, Dana is by far the most qualified person I believe ever to run for the office. (It's either Dana, or homosexual activist Jim Rothy--who, while in the office of Oklahoma County Commissioner, was active in trying to get homosexual children's books place on the most conspicuous shelves in OKC public libraries! Commissioners are supposed to be taking care of streets and roads. Roth was temporarily appointed to his current position, Corporation Commissioner, to fill in for the resigned Denise Bodey.)
STAN INMAN: County Clerk. I've been acquainted with Stan Inman for several years, also through OCPAC. Stan is a most gentleman and a Christian, a most elegant, eloquent advocate of conservative values in government. He's running against a tired incumbent, Carolynn Claudill, a 26-year veteran of local politics. All I can say is, the word for and against Claudill is so contrary, so perfectly contradictory, I don't know how it could be. She's had very, very serious problems, as well as significant awards. The record is so long, it has to be time for a new officer. That's just common sense, at this point. The Oklahoma County Republican Party censured Caudill, and revoked their endorsement. She is simply not reliably Republican, having supported Jim Roth in past elections.
Finally, there is the matter of Jason Nelson vs. Andrew Winningham for House Representative, District 87. BadEagle.com has posted on both men, originally endorsing Nelson (not having explored Winningham's positions at the time). This is a most difficult prospect for me. Jason has a very rational, positive approach to Oklahoma Indians, and a futuristic vision of cooperation. Winningham has not made any formal statement of his position that I consider representative. I know he did send out one flyer that cited the Chickasaw Nation as a contributor to Nelson's campaign. I don't have a copy of that flyer in hand, but I met with Winningham last week at OCPAC and looked at it. The issue was campaign contributions that represented "special interests." Winningham's main objection to Nelson is that Nelson has been a professional lobbyist--one completely directed by contributors.
Nelson, on the other hand, mailed out all kinds of implications and insinuations, and even clear misrepresentations about Winningham. I found this 'deeply troubling.' Fortunately for Winningham, the Nelson attack came out several days early, so that Winningham had time to respond. His wife Jennifer wrote a simple, candid explication of every point Nelson had raised. The whole attack vanished like a vapor. In my mind, it was all a negative reflection on Nelson's campaign. I certainly don't appreciate being misrepresented. I don't like it when someone else is, either. Winningham was certainly the winner in that round, in my view.
Andrew Winningham, candidate for OK House Rep, Dis. 87
Just today, Sunday, July 27. 2008, I got a phone message from the Nelson campaign. It was from a law enforcement person, I believe, but I am not sure, because the message started in the middle of a sentence. There was no ID at the end, either. In any case, the point was that man was claiming that Winningham wants to make marijuana legal. Well, considering the other claims that were made against Winningham, and how very twisted and misrepresentative they were, I have no disposition to believe this phone campaign message. In fact, I rather doubt it is true. It could be based on some earlier idea Winningham may have considered. And it may have had only to do with medical use of marijuana. I suspect is was the position of the Democrate presidential candidate whom Winningham once supported. I doubt Winningham has such notions at this point. I don't know. I do know that the Nelson campaign has strongly misrepresented Winningham before.
Andrew Winningham and wife Jennifer
Winningham is young, yes, and has changed his thinking a lot over the last five years. His wife is developing her political positions as well. But, I hardly think this is fault. On the contrary, I find it rather encouraging. The fact that Winningham decided to hook up with Charlie Meadows' OCPAC says worlds about the sincerity of Winningham's conservatism and his continuing education therein.
Ah, but there's that Indian position. Winningham's campaign mailer cited the Chickasaw Nation as a "special interest" group. I hear the voice of my friend Charlie behind this one. We've discussed it before. And Charlie has actually let me speak to OCPAC on behalf of Indian sovereignty. The whole subject is a developing phenomenon. Now, Charlie wants to see the reservations and the sovereignty dissolved altogether. I don't think that's Richard Engle's position. I still do not know what Winningham's position is. It is a colossal thing, to run for state representative. We can't expect him to have perfectly developed ideas about absolutely every issue. And, after all, I'm just getting to know Winningham. I need time to give him the right ideas about Indian issues!
At this moment, and for nearly a week, I have the yard signs of both Nelson and Winningham in my front yard. I'm having great difficulty in deciding this one.
Amercian Indians comprise nations. This is the history of America. They are not special interest groups. Treaty provisions are not hand-outs; government compliance with the treaties is not welfare; and Indian expectation is not entitlement. It is a grave, historical error to regard the American Indian treaties as some antiquated social support system. Indians agreed to stop killing white people in exchange for certain guarantees. We gave up our land, and our freedom, for the right to remain who and what we are--to whatever degree we can be. This is incomparable. This is not similar to the circumstances of any other group in the history of America. Indians are unique. It is pure racism to deny this.
Now, is may also be psychologically unhealthy to deny the ill effects of limiting one's life to the provisions of historical treaties. But, that's a different issue.
UPDATES: Important details and discussion.
Obama's tour of the world is winding down. He has intentionally denigrated America every place he has been, true to the liberal script for him, and he'll end the American-bashing parade in London tonight, Friday, July 25, 2008. He went to the Middle East, and Europe. Interestingly, has hasn't been to the Orient, at least not in a public, pretentious way. (Orientals are not quite so ostentatiously open-hearted to Negroes, historically, or today.)
The whole concept of the tour was not to win votes at home in America, but to display an international image of Obama as a world leader--not as an American, particularly, but as "a citizen of the world." Citizen Kane, in reverse, ironically. Obama apparently has no soul to lose. He's never had any idealism to sacrifice. His whole impetus has been devotion to the ascent. He's never thought anything that he doesn't think now.
The tour was play-acting. The tour was as a presumed president. The tour was about creating the image of Obama leader of the world. America is over. White is over. The world is now united in Third World standards, and the darkest of the non-white races is at the helm. What a precious, glorious triumph. Never before has the media invested itself in such a campaign.
So-called conservative TV talking heads are continually falling in step, one by one. Fox News' Trace Galligher today emphasized the "humility" of B. Hussein O. in Paris, when Hussein thought it was appropriate to "remind" everyone that he "was not the president," but "just a senator." How noble, how self-possessed.
How arrogant. Such a remark presumes everyone is already thinking he is President of the United States.
But not to worry. The presumption will continue till the end, in spite of the fact that this magical memory tour has not helped Hussein in the polls by one vote. In fact, his numbers are down. Well, why should Americans--the ones that are doing the voting about Hussein's future--be impressed with a man who tours the world in pretense, criticizing America, condmening America, and blaming America for the world today? The level of political presumption here is astounding. Americans may surprise old Walter Cronkite after all. He thinks Americans are too dumb to elect the right politician. Wait till Hussein loses the election.
And how about that 'magic,' that hysteria over Obama? It's about race, about socialism, about class struggle. It's all about image and stereotype. In Europe specifically, it was most obvious in Germany. In the country notorious for the worst racism in modern times, the guilt-recovery victims have always been over-anxious to demonstrate dramatically how much better they are than Americans. Why, look how horribly America treated Indians and Negroes. Why, Germany is so far above that. Of course Obama had to go to Berlin, not only to immitate JFK and Regean, and to try and cash in on their image, but because, as a magic Negro, he would bring out what's left of the German compensatory racism. They would be happy to show how much they honor the Negro, unlike America, historically anyway.
But the Middle East thing was good for the tour, too, except for Israel. Obama is not appreciated there. He is so painfully obviously ignorant of the mind set of Israel's enemie he would be Israel's worst nightmare. Otherwise, the Middle East Muslim world is proud to claim Obama as one of their own--whether he is or he isn't. That is their perception of him. He is one of them. He is non-white, non-Christian, raised a Muslim, and hates America. That is their view of him. They love him for that.
France? Obama said that the reason America was great, and France was great, is because their doors were open to anyone. Opportunity to rise up on the socio-economic scale was apparent. Nations with such open doors would always be the strongest nations. Interestingly, no one is saying that each individual nation that produces the hordes of les miserables has any responsibility. The only responsibility anyone has is the person or nation that has achieved success. Somehow, success means that the successful owes the unsuccessful. The winner owes the loser. Certainly not the philosophy that ever made France strong. In fact, that philosophy has just about destroyed modern France.
Last stop: London. The origin of the American experiment. Obama has nothing special to say there. There is nothing for him to say that is meaningful. If he takes the race route, London is falling under the weight of foriegners. If he takes the historical route, America was formed in direct contest to England. If he takes the ally route, he can only congratulate. As a fringe American, an African foreigner at heart, an international liberal in mind and schema, he will inevitably "damn with faint praise," as Shakespeare might put it.
Enough. The non-functional senator from Illinois will campaign on anti-American internationalism to the end. The globalist capitalists and the globalist Communists (socialists) and the salivating media are united in fantasy. They want one cozy little world--under their benign control. Makes them all feel so humble. "Ah, our little world. We'll care for it so tenderly. We won't let anyone kill anyone else--except for abortions. We won't let anyone go hungry--excpet those who eat meat. We won't let anyone pollute the air--except Al Gore.
But that Fox News bit: Hussein was "humble" because he said, "I am not president." The whole tour was to create the image that he was. And even beyond that--that he was the leader of the world, free or oppressed. "I am not the president." Let's all repeat that, "I am not the president." "I'm beyond that. I'm not only a citizen of the world, I AM THE WORLD." "I am the leader of the world."
"I am not the president."
Got it?
"I am the leader of the world. President is passe. I'm something far greater than that."
Call me liberal, but Berkeley's Memorial Oak Grove is one of the few naturally beautiful places in the city. But City Hall wants to cut them all down. If I were there, I'd probably be up in the trees protesting with the professional radicals and starving trouble makers. Hey, everyone has a right to get in on the act. Some famous people have climbed trees to protest. I've been to Berkeley, as one in the first class of American Indian Ambassadors under a Kellogg Fellowship in 1993. I've seen the oak grove. It is spectacular.
An unidentified protester traverses the branches in a grove of oak trees Tuesday,
Oct. 30, 2007 in Berkeley, Calif. on the campus of the University of California, where
protesters fighting the university's plans to cut down the trees to build a $125 million
athletic facility have been camping out since December of last year. A judge ruled
Monday that the protesters must come down from the trees. (D. Ross Cameron/
The Oakland Tribune)
Of course, Berkeley City Council is the group that didn't want any Marines in town, remember? The anti-American "Commie" group is nevertheless more than willing to destroy the ancient oaks, the last semblence of natural beauty in the Berkeley environment. Well, this is the point: the true liberal is willing to destroy anything in his path, for whatever reason suits his fancy.
The University of California at Berkeley wants to build a high-tech sports center to replace the wondrous feats of nature--the glorious oaks. This is entirely unnecessary. This is all about money, authority, and ego. Nothing else or other. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Barbara J. Miller has sided with "progress," and opened the way for the axes and chain saws.
The City of Berekely was desperate to declare their rights, with an almost conservative, Republican tone. But this is part of the curiosity of the circumstance. It's liberal against liberal. And whenever a liberal gets in bed with business, his words come out "conservative"-sounding, in spite of his professed liberalism.
It reminds of Oklahoma City Council member Ann Simank, liberal Democrat, famed for her role during the Oklahoma City bombing (1995). For the sake of business opportunity, she de-forested the oldest acreage of Oklahoma City, all along both sides of General Pershing Boulevard, from May Avenue and the State Fairgrounds eastward through Mulligan's Flats, all the way to Pennsylvania Avenue. (I say Ann did it, simply because it is in the middle of her territory, Ward 6.) It was the most destructive act in the history of Oklahoma City. For a decade, the properties have all been laid waste, empty, overgrown with weeds. All for sale. All for business. All for "economic development." (Industrial zoned.) And all that came out of it was her own personal project: a social worker's dream housing center for derelicts, the Pershing Center. (Simank is a social worker by trade, council member by sport, I suppose, on OKC Council for over 12 years. She ran for County Commissioner in 2007, but lost, and still serves as a city council member. By the way, she ran to replace Jim Roth, the famed homosexual advocate, whom she fully supports.)
Ann Simank, card-carrying
Choctaw, the ultimate irony.
So, what really is the position of liberals on the environment? Is there one? Are they protective or not? Are they tree-huggers or not? The tree people of Berkeley certainly are. Oklahoma City Democrat Ann Simank certainly is not.
Now, on a national level, the liberals protest the development of oil drilling enterprises precisly on the basis on protecting the environment. The national health is of no concern. Indeed, the liberals want to see America brought down to the level of a Third World country--in the name of equality. Yet, on a local level the liberal will destory, ever so quickly, any element of the envirnoment that stands in his way of making money. This is more than simply circumstancial inconsistency. This is a sociological pathology of some kind. It is the naked assertion of authority and dicatorship--and that is precisely why it is inconsistent. It's all about the presumption of power--over others. On any level, whatever the course needed to presume power over other, it is taken. Whatever sacrifice is required, it is made. Liberals may accuse the free-enterprise folks of idolizing business to the detriment of this, that, or the other. But liberals idolize power--under any guise, for any reason. And it is not the kind of power created by self-reliance, work, or creativity. It is parasitical power--power grabbed up from what someone else has created. It's a cheat, really. Liberalism is power over others. That's all.
So farewell to the oaks of Berkeley. The liberals in power really didn't care for you. You have served your purpose. Time to be rid of you now.
There is a great lesson in this liberal vs liberal contest out in the Bay area. Look again at how the Berkeley City Council arraigns, accuses, and maligns the tree people.
We all love trees and want to protect them, but Measure S is not just about protecting trees. It is about creating a new Berkeley tree bureaucracy with enormo us powers over the City Council, City Manager, Fire Department, and others.
The city liberals accuse the tree people of the ascent to power. This, coming from a liberal, accusing another liberal, is a telling testimony of the preoccupations of both.
Ah, well, liberal or conservative, maybe it doesn't matter. Like Marty Robbins said (sang) for the rabbits,
Soon will be gone all the desert
Cities will cover each hill
Today will just be a fond memory
Man walks among us, be still, be still
Man walks among us, be still.
Representing the 6th District of the very liberal, "socialist" republic of Minessota, US Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is like a breath of fresh air. A non-parading, non-pretentious person, Michele Bachmann makes conservative values seem perfectly natural. She seems overflowing with common sense, in an uncommonly socialistic political environment.
Michele Bachmann, R-MN
She's just returned from an official fact-finding trip to Alaska, to evaluate the circumstances of energy resources in the region of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). "Drill here. Drill now" is the conclusion of Michele and the "American Energy Tour," which included John Boehner, Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Mary Fallin (R-OK), Dean Heller (R-NV), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Robert Latta (R-OH), Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Steve Scalise (R-LA), and Adrian Smith (R-NE). The Tour also visited the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. The two stops, ANWAR and REL, reflect the energy plan promoted by House Republicans to combat high gas prices – a plan that increases production of American energy, encourages more conservation and efficiency.
The American Energy Tour, Michele Bachmann second from left on front row;
Oklahoma's Mary Falin in the red coat, front row, second from right.
Bachmann was on FoxNews this morning, July 22, 2008, reporting what she saw. She said the Northern Slope's ANWAR is all under ice most of the year. The wild life that she saw was around the Alaskan pipeline, which passes by ANWAR only about 75 miles away. She named several species, and said they all seems perfectly adjusted to the above-ground pipeline. Of course, this is natural. Animals are always curious about man's work. They're not afraid of the work, but only man.
Hear Michelle talk about the trip. Note: Democrats weren't interested. Bachmann
responded very intelligently to mistaken notions of CNN's Ali Velshi. It is a classic ex-
change. See Michele's entire YouTube channel.
Michele's goal is that American should be completely independent. America's energy resources are greater than any other nations, therefore America should be completely independent. There is no need to conjecture about America's resources and their affect on world prices. World prices are irrelevant. America can be totally independent. It should not matter to the US what the world prices are. America should not have to buy any oil from anywhere. (And few people know that Russia now produces more oil than Saudi Arabia. Besides that, America buys most of its imported oil from Canada.
Critics like to say America uses more oil than any other nation, and is therefore the biggest consumer. Yet, America may actually more resources than any other nation. So, why are we not developing our own, even marketing our own? Democrats and their environmentalist wing, basically. It is as simple as that.
Interestingly, Canada actually exports more oil ("total petroleum") than any other country. Again, most of the American imported oil and natural gas is from from Canada, 25% and 80% respectively. By the end of Bush's first term (2004), the United States was importing 57% of the oil it consumed. Of course, that was only a 4% increase since he first took office. The US first began importing oil in the 1940's. In the seventies, oil production in the US began what Godfrey Hodgson calls "an irreversable decline." Why? Why the cut back on refineries, and the growing dependency on foreign oil?
Was this a kind of "out-sourcing"? Was it cheaper to produce it all across the sea, then sell it? The oil companies wouldn't lose anything at all. But America would become addicted to it. The economic effects of this original out-sourcing have been such as was not anticipated, perhaps. It back-fired on the oil companies. They're strapped down as aliens of the American public! The Democrats are pleased to keep them thus alienated. It makes the Democrats seem like defenders of America, when their juvenile revenge is destroying America.
But aside from all the statistic wars and political interpretations, oil is here stay, and there's plenty of it under American soil--and water. We need to put it all to responsible use.
Man did not create oil. Nature created oil. Petroleum is produced by nature, and will not be exhausted (if you believe the Russian scientists, anyway). There's nothing evil about it, nothing inherently destructive. It is a vast resource of fuel which nature has provided. Any other interpretation is superstitious! It is the human management of the natural resource that needs adjusting.
No other country is hesitant to develop their oil resources. Why should the United States be? Only those who wish the United States to be reduced to the level of a Third World country would advocate such a nonsensical direction. Only those who hate America, in the name of Communist "equality," who wish to bring America down, in the name of self-righteous crusades for personal power, would even consider such a self-destructive course for the nation.
It is a wonder that someone like Michele Bachmann could grow out of the environment of Communist Central--the Great Lakes area of the United States. She is a tax attorney, and has very aggressive ideas about tax reform as well as energy development. She was recently named Hero of the Taxpayer by an advocacy group in DC (Americans for Tax Reform).
Michele is also the mother of five children. She and her husband Marcus have over the years cared for more than 20 foster children. Michele is a great advocate of personal child care.
So, we give Michele Bachmann the Bad Eagle Award for best woman in the news, or some such special recognition. We'll have to send her a feather. Any beaders out there to contribute?
Where are the real environmentalists when you need them? Has the public actually seen the hidious, surrealist visual effect of the new giant wind mills? They make you feel like your in an X-File episode, or in some lost Twilight Zone segement. The giant, white windmills look like some creature droppings from outer space.
T. Boone Pickens is just out of gas, so to speak. The billionaire Texas oil man is looking for something new to make money on. That's all. Funny, too, I heard him speak a year ago, and he was lauding all the unexpored oil resources in the world. (That was at a David Horowitz convention in Florida.) Looks like Pickens is just not quite cutting the grade in oil these days. The Pickens Plan is revivifying for an elderly tycoon, and I'm sure means much. Pickens is a creative person, and a most admirable businessman. He's just wrong on this one, however promising it might appear. At least that's my unbusiness-like opinion.
T. Boone Pickens, on NPR.
BadEagle.com is utterly against wind power. It appears to be simply a new craze in big business. Energy is where it's at, that is, finding new resources of energy. However, wind power is the most uneconomical of all--not because the source isn't free, but transferring it to the centers of consumers--the cities--is going to be one of the most expensive processes in modern times. (I'm not alone in questioning the new fad for wind, either. The whole idea is based on very inconsistent data, inconsistent wind, and completely unstable research. But never mind the utter inefficient, undependable and unreliable outcome of energy. The visual effect is sure and permanent:
A windmill that produces significant amounts of electricity must be very large. For example, the 750 kW model windmills recently built in Iowa and used in the earlier illustrations have towers that are 213 ft. tall and rotor blades that sweep in a diameter of 164 ft. Thus, the total height -- from the ground to the end of the blades at their highest point -- would be about 300 feet. The height of one of these new windmills is almost equal to the height of the US Capitol building measured from the ground to the top of statue on the Capitol dome (300 feet). A different perspective is that these windmills are twice the height of the Statue of Liberty.
Windmills on the Tehachapi Mountains of California. Photo: Steve Mulligan
What's worse, the rows of giant, phantasy wind mills turn the natural beauty of the horizion into a science fiction scene. The public apparenlty has no idea of the size of these I've seen too much of this already. The Wichita Mountains, for instance, in southwest Oklahoma (--the heart of Comanche land) are already affected by these bizarre behemoths. You're up on the top of Mt. Scott, surveying the wonderous beauty of the southwest Oklahoma countryside, and behold, to the north, the horizon is forever scarred by the galactic, creeping, crooked and alien hands. It is hidiious, I tell you. Perfectly ghastly.
Wind mills of this nature are an affront to every sense of natural beauty there is. You'd think the most avid and 'religious' of the environmentalists would have raised a protest by now. Does beauty have no value any more?
These wind mills are like body piercing of the land, worse than roads, worse than Wal-Marts. The giant wind mills dominate the vision environment for miles and miles around. The public has no idea of how huge these mills are, and how perfectly awful they look.
On the Texas plains. Photo by Will MaCarley
I say the public needs to quickly raise a forceful protest, writing every congressmen in their state, and in DC. This wind power craze is a fad, a new frontier for greedy businessmen. This has nothing to do with saving anything, or lowering any prices. The wind is free, but that only means pure profit for the new hot-air industrialists. The public will see no relief, but only a new way in which they will be taken advantage of. That's the nature of business.
It's already too late in some places. The warped arms of the intruding mills aready twist the eye in all directions. It makes me sick. This has already happened!
America isn't Holland. The great plains have no need to be pumped of swamp or marsh. This whole visually devastating enterprise is completely unnecessary. If gasoline prices are being made the motivation for the new wind industry, just remember that cars don't run on wind.
T. Boone Pickens is trying to hoodwink the public. That's all. The public hatred for Bush and oil, generated by Democrats and people like Harry Reid and Nacy Pelosi, is simply misplaced and misleading. Oil is renewable. Carbon is not a polutant. The wind is a fantasy solution. This public hysteria and speculation reminds me of Charles Mackay's 19th century work, Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (London: 1841). The parallels are "extraordinary," indeed. The Democrat leadership has brokered fear and doom, and people like Al Gore have been award international prizes for their expertise in promoting public hysteria. The time is right for another major rip-off, but who'd have ever thought it would be the wind. Yes, Peter, Paul, and Mary said the answer was "blowin' in the wind," but, no one thought the answer would be the wind. Of course, wind isn't the answer. That's the point. Transferring the wind power to the cities is at best a regional concept, and at worst an unecessary and very expensive one. Again, the public will pay all. It's pure profit for the wind-mongers.
All I can say is, you have to see it. You have to see the forever ruined visual environment. You have to see the beauty of nature changed into an alien, weirdly scarred thing, a freak miscarridge of some kind. Oh, some will say the old oil well towers must have had the same effect in the beginning. In fact, one could even say cities themselves--civilization itself--destroys the beauty of natural environment. So where does this issue begin and end? People are here. We have to have places to live. We have to use energy. We can't really go backwards. Therefore, I say, we should refine the sources and resources we have started already. No point in carving up new virgin dimensions with wholly unnecessary enterprises. Oil needs some revamping as an industry. That's all. Let's make better what we alrerady have. Let's make the most of the scars we've already made, not make more.
Forget T. Boone Pickens. He's just tired of oil, or sees no major profits for himself in the industry anymore. Wind? That's just his new business frontier. I think it's a lot of wind, too, as it were.
Call it Democrat desperation, female hysteria, or just exaggeration. Maybe even raw anger. "You name it," and United States Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is exhibit A. She has set the worst possible example of total irresponsibility in word and behavior. She said today in a CNN interview,
"...president of the United States, a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject,"
Ms. Pelosi feigned such lofty wisdom, such transcedent objectivity.
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi
While President Bush has always treated her with respect, always behaved like a gentleman to even his worse bad-mouthers, like Pelosi, she has the unmittigated 'disjunctitude,' the unprecedented dysfuntionality, the most egregious arrogance to think she can sit in judgement of the President. Pelosi, who has accomplished absolutely nothing but retardation of every initiative that would benefit America, who leads a Congress with the lowest public approval rating in American history, herself conjures up a concomitant, unlikened arrogance and the greatest impropriety in Congressional history.
Call it frustration, projection, or just immaturity, Pelosi demonstrates what's wrong with the spirit of liberalism and Democratic leadership. It is basically braggadocio in one form or another. Self-aggrandizement. Or, maybe just willful distortion, or intentional drama. The Democrat-controlled Congress chaffs under an 17.3% approval rating, of course, and obviously, their ineptitude and poor focus have made them loosers beyond the pale.
But forget the arguments, the statistics, the polls, and just consider the behavior. Criticism, condemnation, blame, accusation, malignment, name-calling, it is a disgrace to our country. The spirit is pure contention. Strife. Mistrust. When the highest ranking woman in the country stand up and calls the highest ranking man in the country "a total failure," we can now the end is ever with us. Not just near, but here. Now.
Pelosi represents all that is ill with American society. It's all about people contesting for the highest authority. It's about people not knowing their place, abusing whatever authority they have, about fighting, about striving for the highest place. It's about all those things the church was supposed to cure people of. It's about the ills of human nature, which the church was meant to heal. It is human nature unleashed. We're reminded of 2 Timothy 3:1-5:
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
In a way, it is good that Islam is in our face. The dark monster has come--only because the West has forsaken it's values. The hordes of Muslim murderers are loose because American society has failed--not George Bush. Because people like Nancy Pelosi have no sense of propriety, respect, or honor. Indeed, she represents most of the country, and precisely the reason the pits await us, and the dark smoke has ascended therefrom.
Okay, so some Oklahoma Indian condemns the Speaker of the House. Is that the same thing, part of the same chorus, in the same trend? Maybe. I think differently than the Speaker. We can't both be right, therefore, she's wrong. Is it that simple? Not really. I find her behavior and words offensive, yes. Is my reaction offensive as well? That is a possibility. And if it is true, then my words might be as offensive to others as Pelosi's are to me.
Just note: the Muslims are here. Somebody's wrong.
How can a Catholic be a Democrat?
The Democrat Party, and its leading star, Barack Hussein Obama, are the most lethal advocates of child murder that ever evolved. "Abortion" they call it. "Planned Parenthood." But it is wholesale, or rather, retail child murder. Government supported, tax-payer supported murder. This is such a gigantic social ill it is almost beyond comprehension, beyond outrage, and beyond belief. Yet, it is the daily lot of modern times. (Close to 50 million human beings have been slaughtered since 1973).
The Catholic Church has been against such an enterprise from the beginning. How then, could even a superficial Catholic be a Democrat?
Now, your basic American Catholic these days has, like any other group in America, developed a sense of independence, for sure. The American Catholic is likely to openly express his disagreements with the church, and even the Pope. Former Oklahoma Governor (Catholic and Democrat) David Walters did, back on the matter of the death penalty. (The Catholic Church is against the death penalty, in principle.) Of course, Walters had problems of his own back in the early '90's.
But, historically, the European immigrant Catholics coming to America, the Irish, the Italians, Poles, were all poor, working class folk, and automatically sided with any "people's party." They were all Catholic, and naturally gravitated toward labor parties. However, this put them all in with the Marxists, the Communists, and even some anarchists. From their beginnings in America, the Catholics have been associated with the street, the labor parties, the trade unions, and, yes, violence. Indeed, throughout Latin America, the western hemisphere, the Roman Church has associated with the people parties, those against oppressive regimes. Interestingly, the Catholic Church found itself in conflict with Marxists--because the Marxists (Communists) were against religion, against Rome, and against the political competition Rome presented.
Amerigo Rossi, President of the Italian
Catholic Federation (San Francisco),
1928-1935.
American Romanism has come a long way since those late 19th and early 20th century days. Indeed, with three Catholics on the Supreme Court of the United States of America (two Italians, no less), one can say there has been quite a social evolution. From far left wing political associations, the Roman Church has become a great center of conservatism. Her doctrines have not changed. The circumstances around her have changed.
On the matter of abortion alone, however, I should think it would be impossible for a conscientious Roman Catholic to be a serious Democrat. In fact, these days, even the necessary move to center within the Democrat Party--for the sake of unifying the party, isn't enough to solve major theological and ideological conflicts facing a Catholic in the Democrat Party.
The irony is the fact that your average American Catholic is very consciously patriotic, ironic because the Catholic is loyal to the church first, then his country. But, such are the social conditions in America that the average Catholic is viscerally patriotic! Especially the Italian Catholic--who is likely to be first in line in any parade for the glory of America--and often first in line on the battle field. Now, Italians are great traditionalists, and many are quite Democrat, since that was the first political tradition of Italians in America. But, there are a fastly growing number of Republican conservatives among the American Italian community--who are every bit as Catholic as their fratelli democratici.
Now, there are a lot of anti-war Catholics, of course, and they will always associate with weak and wild Democrats and the far Left--Cindy Sheehan being a case in point. But, again, who brings the crucifix onto the battle field? Who brings the prayers and the rosary in the fox hole? Indeed, the Catholic warrior is a lot less intimidated by "religious correctness" than many Protestants. America is a Protestant country, yes, but, one in which a lot of intimidation has evolved through our perverted legal system. The Roman Catholic is never so concerned about offending others with his religion.
As I see it, the Catholic is a conservative Republican, by nature. At least, that's the evaluation in todays socio-political circumstances. The days of Roman Democrats are perhaps passing. Every Catholic should begin to re-evaluate his understanding of how Catholocism plays out in today's American political scene. In 2005, statistics showed that 41% of American Catholics were Democrat, 37% Republican, and 22% Independent. (D'antonio's story in the National Catholic Reporter is an excellent reference in this matter.) It seems the matters of abortion and same-sex "marriage" are two of the major issues which are driving Catholics from the Democrat Party into the Republican Party. One would think the matter of Islam (Muslimism) would be an issue, but, since the Pope kissed the Qur'an in the name of peace, the Catholic political position regarding Islam is not so well defined..
Pope John Paul II, ca. 1983
However, I predict in the future that the Pope's kiss will come to be seen as the kiss of death. You know, a mafia-style farewell. After all, it was the Catholic nations of Europe that fended off the Muslims at both the east and west doors of the continent. Remember, Dracula was a Catholic crusader, funded by Emperor Sigismund in the 15th century. The Order of the Dragon was created to resist Islam in eastern Europe. In other words, because of the Catholic nations, Europe is still basically white, basically Christian, and still has basic nationalities in tact. Whatever's left of Europe today is properly attributed to the Roman Catholic Church. I cannot believe that Rome intends to stand by and watch Islam subsume the world.
Of course, the matter of political intrigue, and Catholic manipulations behind the scenes, who knows? There are those who believe Rome has been intimately involved in the affairs of the world--and world wars--from the beginning. Some (like Mother Jones) even say the CIA supports Rome in her intrigue--using the church for it's own designs. Could be. The CIA definitely seems to have an independent life from the United States government.
But, for now, let's just say that a good Catholic can't really be a Democrat at this point. All in all, the Democrats just don't stand for what Romans believe. The Democrat Party pushes in fact the antithesis of some very basic Catholic values.
UPDATE: Cover of the lastest NewsMax Magazine:
THE GREAT CRUSADER
Pope Benedict XVI's historic visit to the United States came at a critical time for the Roman Catholic Church and the West. The Pope and His Church are grappling with a growing secularist trend in the U.S. and Europe--and a rising global threat from militant Islam. Newsmax magazine's special report "The Great Crusader" reveals the behind-the-scenes effort the Pope is making to revitalize the ancient Church for its present battle and the important role he sees the United States and her people playing.
So maybe I'm right about that 'kiss of death' for the Qur'an.
President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran. A headline like that, from the (July 13, 2008), would certainly encourage one to think that, in fact, Israel is going to make a hit. A preemptive hit, of course. And not an attack on the country or people of Iran, certainly, but simply a hit on certain specific nuclear production facilities. Probably only a few such hits will do.
President George W Bush: US officials acknowledge that no American president
can afford to remain idle if Israel is threatened. London Sunday Times
President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.
But, is this what we're waiting for now? Will this be the last act of the Bush administration--to give Israel the go-ahead? Israel certainly has the right to do whatever it believes necessary for survival. And if anyone is worried about reprisal, response, or counter-attack, let's consider a few facts. The Islamicists have been attacking American interests abroad (and on our homeland) for years. They've attack military objects as well as civilian objects. Our presence in Iraq was the final result of all that. (Talk about response! We've been changing an entire country.)
The Times reports that America is prepared to deal with consequences of the Israeli strike on Iran, but also says America will not assist Israel in any way. Israel will not be able to use any US bases in Iraq for support. Furthermore, the US government officials have virtually scoffed at the recent test-firing of Iranian ballistic missles. It's still all bravura at this point.
Yet, it seems to be increasing in volume. Iran will surely strike back in an impressive way. Iran is feared in the Middle East. Iran is the only great nation over there, besides Israel. Iran could do serious damage. However, the fact is, the Arab world will not really unite with Iran. We can count on the Arab racial predilections and preferences--and precedents, to prevent any real unity in the Middle East. Iran will never be dominated by Arabs again, nor vice versa. However, Iran embarrasses itself with the Arab, Islamic religion. It is foreign to Iran, at root. It is a great irony that Iran flaunts Islam.
Islam is a Arab thing--an Arab language, an Arab "spirituality," an Arab culture, and a lot of Arab intermarriage. It is most definitely not Persian. However, it is imperial Islam is a world religion. Indeed, the Arabs once ruled most of the known world once upon a time. The imperial appeal is what no doubt keeps Islam alive in Iran. The Persians are emperors at heart. World managers. Their descendents, the Iranians, have this strong genetic coding. Unfortunately, Islam is not a humane religion, and does not produce humane leaders, as did the ancient Achaemanids, the ancient Persian leaders.
It is an error for Iran to trust that Islam is a dependable unifying influence. Transcendent as it is, Islam is destructive to nationality. Iranian leaders at this moment seek to destroy the ancient records of the Persians! "We are not proud of those things," an Iranian Muslim muezzin (prayer caller) once told me. Even as we write, the Iranian government attempts to inundate the Tomb of Cyrus, (559–529 BC), the great emperor of ancient Persia--one of the greatest emperors of all time. Islam is no friend of nationhood, culture, or diversity. Islam is a monomaniacal impetus in the world.
Iranian President Ahmadinejad
The notion in Mr. Ahmadinejad that he should threaten to annihilate the state of Israel is the demonic antithesis of the spirit of Cyrus, "the Lord's messiah," (Isaiah 45:1) who ordained that the Jews should have their nation on their ancient homeland, and should have their temple to their God there. (See, Ezra 1:1-4) Thus we see clearly that Islam procedes not from the Spirit of the Lord.
And for those who tend to accuse the Catholic Church of similar imperialism, I say this: at least the Catholic Church never tried to eradicate culture. Transcendent and global as Romanism is, it has no intent to totally destroy history or culture. Never has. On the contrary (Documents of Vatican II, 2.7,123):
The Church has not adopted any particular style of art as her very own; she has admitted styles from every period according to the natural talents and circumstances of peoples, and the needs of the various rites. Thus, in the course of the centuries, she has brought into being a treasury of art which must be very carefully preserved. The art of our own days, coming from every race and region, shall also be given free scope in the Church,
And the most classic cultural ideology and testament of all: (1.3-D,37)
Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples' way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.
Let's say, Romanism is actually nation-friendly. Islam is certainly not. Now, both religions may have a problem with national sovereignty, eschewing the principle at heart, but Islam has a problem with culture, period.
I think Iran's focus on threatening Israel is simply a ploy to try an unite Arabs and all Muslims--who are made anti-Semitic by Islam no matter what their nationality or ethnicity. The continual threat of Iran toward Israel is like an international call to Muslim prayer. Ahmadinejad is like a global muezzin, summoning all Muslims to the focus of hate. It is a psycho-social illness, this anti-Semitism. It is epidemic, and tends to be lethal. While I believe it is possible to be critical of Jews and not be anti-Semitic, I say honest evaluation is the exception. The norm is hate. Iran hopes to 'capitalize' on that Islamic-engendered hatred of Jews and Israel. Iranian Islamicists only want to use Islam, to gain control over the Middle East.
Yes, it's that superficial, that obvious, and that alarming.
It's all about black, the national obssession now. Black is becoming "presidential."
Due to liberal white people, assisted by conservative white people, we're all stuck with race in the face at least until November, if not forever after. It is remarkable, the frustration of the white race. They will never admit their natural revulsion toward the black race. They simply cover it, disguise it, re-package it, in any way possible to turn their aversions into 'wonder working power.' (But it's not "power in the blood--it's power in the skin.)
There black people who realize all this, and surely laugh all the way to McDonald's, or to the theatre, or, in this latest case, to the White House.
But can the leopard change his spots? Will the White House make black people white? Of course not. So then, what do we do with our natural aversions? Yes, we have natural aversions to one another. Or, we should say, we have natural preferences for our own kind. It's a fact, in infancy.
Dr. Judith Langlois, UT, Austin.
Dr. Judith Langlois (University of Texas) demonstrated all this some years ago. As early as 1987, her experiments in infant psychology and child sociology showed that even in its earliest days, the infant prefers beautiful faces. Such faces are "easier to process," as commentator Sadie Dingfleder put it. It isn't a cultural thing. It is a natural, neurological processing thing. Now, most of the popularized reports of Dr. Langois' technical research have been very careful to avoid one fact: infants prefer white faces. That little fact has been kept as secret as possible. Even in basic Intro Psych college texts like Davis and Palladino's Psychology (1996 edition) noted the infants preference for beauty, without noting the preference of even black babies for white female faces. (Indeed, the experiments themselves tended to occlude this element. Black male faces, for instance, were not used in the experiments, only white males and females, and black females. In fact, Langlois makes a point of asserting that beauty transcends race, age, and gender, even though clearly stating the subjects of the experiments were white adults and white infants of both gender. Science News, Vol. 139, [2-2-91], p.78, "Beauty in Diversity.") Essentially, in spite of her pretense of racial equality in the matter of beauty, Langlois affirms my somewhat infamous observation, "Superior beauty is in the white race, with its scintillating varieties of color: red, brown, amber, golden hair... green, blue, light brown, gray eyes. In the darker races, everything is always the same, dark brown and black a beastly bore."
When I was teaching Intro Psych at Oklahoma State University-OKC campus, I remember the response of a black female student: "It's the make-up. Make up just shows up better on white skin." That young student was absolutely correct. It's all about color. Color is exciting.
However, darks are a problem. Darkness can be absorbing, but not stimulating. It appeals to libido rather than ego. Now, add to this visual matter the moral conscience of the great white, and you have an inevitable, abject compulsion to remedy, to respond, to revise, or to repeat. White people are never going to say to the black, "I really don't like the way you look." What could be more hurtful, more depressing, more wrong for one human being to say to another? What people can't do that. Not these days, anyway. So, the inevitable alternative is sex. Yes, a few socially acceptable steps in between, but it all comes down to sexual "equality." Interracial sex. To compensate for the natural aversion between the white and the black, the white must laud some fabricated beauty of the black, and pretend it is desirable. Sex with the black means "I'm not averse to you." This is the white solution.
On a "presidential" level, it's all about Barack Hussein Obama--whose very name supposedly lifts him just a little above the natural American aversion to the black. Why, Obama's not even American, really. He's a Third World Marxist. In Obama, all the the whites who are awash in their own unhinged bleeding hearts can have a social catharsis. Vote Obama! It means you overcome your natural aversions. Vote Obama! It means you have treated that which offends you as though it doesn't. You have created equality. You are a true, Constitutional American.
You have purged yourself.
Senator Joe Biden made that clear from the start. Obama was "articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." In other words, 'What a relief from all the sloven-mouthed, dumb, dirty, and ugly blacks in the country.' Right, Joe? At last we have something we can support. See? How obvious can you get? If there's any racism going on here, it's not from BadEagle.com It's from whites.
Senator Joe Biden, Democrat
But, I say, let whites just be more open and honest about this matter. This isn't about "nigger" vs "Negro," or some more approrpriate or proper name with which to refer to the darkest race. This is about very real psychological conditions that exist by nature. To pretend otherwise is to confuse everyone and everything, and to ultimately exalt the unworthy. That's right. Obama is most unworthy. Obama has no idea what he's doing or saying. He's a puppet for people who think like Biden, really.
This presidential season is about race in the face. It's not about politics. It's not about ideology. It's solely about race, about white America's sympathy for the thing it detests. It's about white America's remorse and guilt for feeling antipathy and revulsion toward black people. Poor things. They can't help how they look, talk, or act. How dare the white race express the slightest aversion. How cruel. But now they have Obama! All is well. All can be healed.
Now, it's certainly a good thing that the white race has learned to be a bit more courteous to the blacks. But, the presidency? That's pushing it. To give the leadership of the nation over to someone as utterly incompetent as Barack Hussein Obama--just because he's black? That's way over the edge. Or, perhaps it really shows that no one believes in the presidency anymore anyway. It's just a token office. The big white business boys run everything anyway. What difference does it make who's in office? Why, they'll tell Obama just what to do.
Come on! Give'em a break! Let the white race indulge itself. Let'em have some racie relief! Let'em have their race party! Let them celebrate blackness--in the White House. Why, it will heal the whole nation. Even the world.
NOT.
Apparently, all a black man has to do is grab his crotch, or verbally refer to his male organ, and white women swoon. (Michael Jackson made it official.)
Now, we all are sickeningly familiar with the ghetto species who love to hang on to their own crotch in public, as a sign of masculinity. That's been a standard emblem of black culture for a long time. But now we have the "reverend" Jesse Jackson's remark, "I wanna cut of his nuts," speaking of Barack Hussein Obama. Laura Ingraham talked about it all morning yesterday, on her radio show, then again in the evening on her new Fox television show. Later that evening, Greta Van Susteren concentrated on it. True, they had different angles. Ingraham lauded Obama and fawned incessently over his wonderful opportunity to take the high road, as if he is different from Jackson. But Van Susteren decided to empathize with the poor "reverend," and let Jackson try to make amends, as if apologizing for he true character and sentiments.
Ah, well, there were many other white news anchor ladies who indulged their unconscious (or conscious) fantasies about the Negro penis. It was a great day for sex--brought to you by white media--the servant of Negro phallicism. (I've written about this, in some detail, in "Tall, Dark, and Scary.") Of course, there were many black women in the news commenting on the story, interviewed by white women, and naturally the black women minimized, empathized and justified both Jackson and Obama. Why, it was just a typical generational issue, nothing more. Why, there's nothing immoral or unusual about the low grade mind set of the black male as found in the "reverend" Jackson or in the lofty elitist "messiah" Obama to talks down not only to blacks, but to everyone--to America, period.
This is a fine example of the inherent denigration the black race has brought to American society. The whites just don't seem to be able to control themselves. In the name of equality, of self-righteousness, and every other delusion, they must pay homage to the Negro. America is truly black now. Sexually black. The only thing you can count on in America society is a full devotion to Negro sexuality. Black is beautiful, sexually superior, and deserves the White House.
It is also clear that "conservative" media is in on it. Fox News follows the same story lines, and pretty much supports the same thing the main stream does. Even Bill O'Reilly is afraid of the "reverend" Jackson. All must pay homage to the Negro, if they're in the media business. (It's not online, but in the June 2008 issue of the John Birch Society Bulletin, Arthur R. Thompson offered a great piece on how media tycoons, in professional--and even political party opposition, can still be advocating the same vision--Marxism. Horace Greeley and Charles Dana, for example.) It is therefore no surprise should, in the end, Fox News be found advocating the same directions as CNN or MSNBC. Even Rush Limbaugh has a confused image these days with his "Operation Chaos." This started out as his attempt to distract from Obama by supporting Hillary Clinton. But he's in over his head now, practically working for Hillary. It's hard to be independent when you're in the media business.
In fact, the only figure that really is truly independent is Ann Coulter. No wonder she's never broken into the media business as a radio host or tv show host. Then she'd be working for the big boys. Not "Annie Get Your Gun" Coulter. Never. The Great White Woman, indeed. One of the very few, if not the only.
So let the media extol the Negro, and all his deformity. Let the media and the legal system use the Negro to bring denigration into every aspect of American experience, from the Supreme Court to the bed room. In the mean time, we look desperately for strong black male leaders. The media will never bring them out, never feature them, and never honor them. The media is only interested in selling the Negro, in pushing the Negro off on society through sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll, basically. Concerned citzens will simply have to do whatever possible to encourage the true, sincere Negroes in this country to somehow brave the darkness and let their light shine. Self-reliance is the magic touch. There are those that have that touch, but the cameras are just not on them.
Oh, and Phil Gramm's comment about America having become a nation os whiners is quite true. It is the long range effect of the black race--or should we say, the media's use of the Negro, or the legal systems use of blacks. "You owe me!" is the tenor of America society. "I should have this," or, "I should have that." It is an attitude established since the '60's "civil rights" program of social complaint. It's was all about black people.
America is black. HIllary believes it. She had a statue of a big-bottomed, nude, black female featured in her White House--right along the public tour path. "Bertha," they called her. She was twice life-size, and steatopygian (big bottomed) honoring the special African condition. You see, white people are perfectly willing to share the Freudian oral/anal preoccupation of the Negro race. Gary Aldrich, Unlimited Access (Regnery, 1998), p.102.
My personal prayer is that God will endow some black person, somewhere, with compensatory moral superiority, and spiritual transcendence. I see none other then miraculous intervension for black people. As it stands, they seem to bring nothing but low, immoral life with them, wherever they are. It is slavish sensuality, the antithesis of spirituality. Even the black religions of Africa are not spiritual, but sensual. But, if the other races are willing to be absorbed into the darkness, then we can't really blame black people, can we? Why, that would make us all as weak as we accuse them of being. Whites think they can market black denigration, without being degraded themselves. Now, that's really racism.
Andrew Winningham is running for Republican House Representative, District 87, here in Oklahoma City. BadEagle.com has already endorced Jason Nelson, of course, for his clear and rational approach to Indian issues if for no other reason. But what about Andrew Winngingham? I've met Winninghimham at Charlie Meadows' OCPAC meetings (the Wednesday lunch assembly of the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee). I actually thought I would be supporting him, because he came there, and I have a great deal of trust in OCPAC, in their American patriotism--which they base on Christianity.
Andrew Winningham
However, I do not know Winningham's position on Oklahoma Indians, or on American Indian affiars in general. Interestingly, upon indirect request, I have yet to receive his formal position. On the BadEagle.com blog posted on Jason Nelson, there were some comments posted by his wife Jennifer. Of course, as a good fighiting wife, she stood by her man, and stumped for him. In response, I suggested she make known his position on Indians. After all, BadEagle.com is an Indian site, basically. In as much as I endorsed Nelson on the basis of his sound understanding of Indian affairs, I suggested Jennifer make known Andrew's views. But rather than compare his views to Nelson's, she said,
Andrew's only concern is that if we put up a Rep that is a lobbyist against a Dem that is a retired school teacher [Dana Orwig] (and was within about 200ish votes of Trebor [Worthen] last election) we may lose the seat.
In any event, Andrew Winningham is fending for himself these days. (The Republican primary is July 29th.) This week he mailed out a simple 5 1/2 X 8 1/2 two-sided card that indicates his general principles. He mainly distinguishes himself in terms of money. He doesn't believe so much of it should be involved in campaigns, taxes, or legislation (i.e., lobbyists). He has pledged himself not to spend more on his campaign than the average household income in District 87 (ca. $40,000--admittedly low, but District 87 has relative extremes of wealth and poverty--more poor than rich). Then, in a dramatic gesture, Winningham challenges Nelson to make the same commitment, as this alone will demonstrate who's the better candidate. Literally, the back side of the card is a pledge for Nelson to sign! It's the old Rick Lazio manoeuver--the one he pulled on Hillary during the New York senate campaign when he stepped over to her podium and asked her to sign the same kind of pledge, in fact. That was in 2000, over 'soft money.'
So Winningham hopes to win by being a superior fiscal conservative. Republicanism (in the campaign mode anyway) is about not being financed by special interest groups or political action committees (PACs). Well, that may preclude OCPAC's support, but will it leave out the Oklahoma Indian tribes?
This is the point of contention for me. Anyone who considers American Indian tribes to be "special interest" groups is to me unacceptable. Such a view of Indians denies American history, the colonial treaties, the Declaration of Independence, and the Unites States Constitution. It is preremptory, and in my opinion, racist in the most visceral sense. It virtually denies racial realty and American racial history--in the name of 'business' equality! That is a border-line Communist use of the term "equality." What some conservatives mean by "equality" is that no one should have any perceived advantage in the business world based on history or race. In other words, they, the white conservatives, don't want to lose any advantage they have won through the blood of their ancestors.
I involved myself in a fairly heated exchange over this recently. Terry Morris (local Oklahoma Christian conservative activist) has a blog called Webster's Blog, and he recently responded to my post on Jason Nelson with a blog called "Oklahoma Indians, here's your man!" He denounces my regard for Nelson altogether--simply because I base it on Nelson's respect for Indians. In the true spirit of racial paranoia, Morris apparently dreads any success Indians may achieve--because of being Indian. At the end of his blog he said,
the more Indians speak, the more I dislike them
A fair assessment I make, then? The exchange going on in the comments to Morris' blog is worthy, I believe. It shows that white Christian conservatives may not be dealing squarely with the Indian issue at all. They are applying a relatively superficial political principle (i.e., material equality) rather than a sound Biblical concept of race, nationality, and historical continuity. It seems that in their hearts they want to denounce Indians as rank heathen savages, and the existence of Indian "sovereignty" seems to insult their very idea of Christendom. Why, it can't be in America. Thus, the Indian is associated with "balkanization," with Muslims, with Negroes, with every other dependent, weakening element in society. This is, of course, in blind denial of American history.
But, to cut to the quick, if Indians chose to be poor, Indians are free to do so. If they chose to expect the US government to honor national treaties, they have every right to do so. If white people want to gamble away their money at Indian casinos, Indians have every right to accept. If Indian "sovereignty" creates the appearance of any sort of business advantage for Indians, that's just too bad. That's history. That's the United States Constitution. That's the way it is. How dare white Christians today deny the honor of their own ancestors.
It is most unbecoming for a Christian to decry ill-gotten gain of Indian casinos on the basis of apparent business advantage. That's practically irrelevant. Let the Christian denounce the evil profits on the basis of the immorality of gambling. A Christian should be a Christian first, then a Republican. And the Christian's Republicanism ought to be a lot more accurate in its accusations. For Christian to decry that one crook may have an advantage over another crook is quite less than Christian thinking. It is merely political thinking, and insults Christianity.
In the mean time, I still have no idea what Andrew Winnigham thinks about Indians! (I know he was a big Ron Paul supporter.) Perhaps I shall see him today at Charlie's OCPAC meeting. (Why, yes, I love this crowd. They love America. And they love the Lord. Why shouldn't I be there?! So they need a little instruction now and then. So do I. That's why I attend.)
"Honor killing," they call it. It's othing but murder, of course. (Fox Video)
Chaudhry Rashad strangled to death his 25-year-old daughter, Sandela Kanwal. Why? She was planning to divorce her husband. (Only the angels know why, but the rest of us can make a good guess: abuse.) The media of course is fawning over the 'tragedy.' The local Muslim authority, Shahid Malik, for some reason, laments the event. Here a perfectly good Muslim, Mr. Rashad, does what he's supposed to do, as a Muslim should, and the Muslim authority decries the even, or, at least announces to the world how "stressed and upset" the family is.
Muslim murderer, Chaudhry Rashad, 54.
Well, maybe it's because the whole thing happened in Clayton County, Georgia, in the good o'l US of A.
Why, it was a "Clayton County man," according the the media, in this case, FoxNews.) Why, just another typical, fine American, tragically fallen in sin. The news is trying in every way possible to make this event seem horrible and shocking, when it is the normal course for the sincere Muslim. The media tries to project our American values onto these foreign, murderous people--when the Clayton County man is a hero among sincere Muslims. He did what he was supposed to do.
Ah, but the local Muslim authority faithfully blames the United States, and the modern, western way of life. American society is the reason Sandela's arranged marriage didn't work out, said Malik, and why her husband moved to Chicago, and why she hadn't seem him for months.
Malik said arranged marriages are not uncommon for Pakistanis. He said the marriages are usually accepted and successful, although young people living in American might develop problems with them. "Their minds are changed when the live here due to this system," said Malik.
Note that the Atlanta news report (MyFox) won't give us the town, but only the county, were the murder occurred. Were the Pakistanis all living out in the cotton fields? Do they not live in a city? And it wasn't a white Southerner that was killed. Is the press afraid of repercussions from the KKK, or something ridiculous like that?
This murder was just another case of Muslim missionaries gone astray, that's all. The real Muslims are here not for financial advantage, no matter how expensive the home they live in. They are here for colonizing, and spreading revengeful Islam with a revengeful attitude toward the West. That's why they are here. Revenge. Cultural "honor killing," if you please. They haven't fled oppression in their own country. They came here to spread their own oppressions on others. They are here for converts. Sometimes, they just get a little uncomfortable with freedom. Why, it causes tensions in the family.
Well, fathers murdering daughters--anyone for converting to that value system? Contact your local Muslim representative. Wherever you are, there is one near you, by phone if not by car.
This is what you get in a real Muslim community, especially a missionary colony--like all those outside Arab countries, or Muslims countries. This is what liberals and Leftists love to see, of course--misery, death, and lamentation. That's their favorite news theme. Doesn't matter whether the Muslim murderer is Jordanian, Pakistani, etc. Homicide. Patricide. Fratricide. Infanticide. Any kind of "cide" will do. The media loves it, and will do everything possible to mediate, or, we should say, make the poor Muslims seem like the victim of American society! "America made him do it," was the message of Mr. Shahid Malik.
If the society is too different, too impossible, then let the Muslims go home. Indeed, repatriate them, by law. THe ones that appear to have "assimilated?" Watch them even more carefully. Those are the ones that attacked New York's twin towers. Obviously, they all need to be sent home. Why make the tedious effort of distinguishing the good from the bad? Whence is this mysterious, unwritten obligation? These Muslims all have their own countries. Why allow them to move into other peoples' countries? Why?
America is all about protest, from the beginning. The beloved Declaration of Independence is a protest to the unjustified intrusion of Great Britain into the lives of colonies which were independent from their founding. America is a Pilgrim thing, a Puritan thing, not an English economic venture. The British never had any right to any authority here, save for the few miserable economic experiments attempted in the southern swamps (e.g. Roanoke). The Puritan establishments were invaded, essentially, by Great Britain.
So, protest Pilgrims did. The Declaration of Independence cites their every objection to Britain. Justified or not, the colonists preferred to be free from England, the Church of England, and the Church of Rome. The ways of old Europe found no place in the minds of the founders of America. That's how they saw it, anyway.
The sons of the Puritans staking their claim in the world, the claim of freedom.
Protest itself has always therefore been an American tradition. We call it freedom, freedom to protest. Freedom to find fault, criticize, yea, even to rebel. Now, once the country was established, insurrection against it was not allowed--but a lively, active dialogue between the people and the government was always encouraged. Indeed, Jefferson said that every so often, the blood of patriots would have to be spilled--to keep the government from naturally becoming an oppressive force. This he said of the new American government, not of England. Any and all government must be kept in check--by the wise and able people.
Interestingly, in our somewhat fallen spiritual condition as a society, in our materialist, market-driven economy, our culture has evolved what we can call a professional protester--someone who protests for a living. A mercenary misanthrope. There are people who protest for hire. A mean lot they are, but, they are out there, willing to protest anything and everything, for the best dollar.
We are seeing a fine example of their kind and their ways in Denver these days. The protesters constellating around the Denver Democrat National Convention this November present a spectacular array of the phenomenon of marketed protesting. There are viciously competing groups involved. Recreate 68, the umbrella group that wants to turn the convention into a '60's foray of disgusting, licentious belly-aching, itself comprises anarchists, environmentalists, and all in between. But the coalition has already split. The Alliance for Real Democracy, a new group, includes Codepink, Students for Peace and Justice, and Tent State University--Marxist revellers, all.
The protesters are all to be fenced out of the convention, of course. For this, the ACLU is seeking ligitation, naturally. This is to protest the protestation of protesters. The convention doesn't want to be disrupted by their own riff-raff, so they're fencing them out. The ACLU thinks this is "unfair." This is a remarkable social phenomenon, and advertises all that is ill with the Democrat Party. It is most definitely not about unity, pacifism, or freedom. It is about the chaos of selfishness, the confusion of egotism.
Interestingly, Denver's own Glenn Spagnuolo, main spokesman for Recreate '68, wishes the spitters well. No hard feelings. No one is talking about the cause, but Spanguolo claims the media caused this split. Great thinkers always find causes, right? They themselves, and their great thoughts, are never to blame.
Protesting the protesters, that's what it comes down to. They're protesting each other. The passion of protest is indiscriminate. It is like a virus, or a cancer. A lustful, lethal leech. It lives off the achievements of others, having no life of its own. Yet, it has no barrier against self-destruction. It will feed on itself, on it's own allies. In a sense, then, it protests its own existence. Perfect demonism.
Now, incidentally, this Glenn Spagnuolo is, I believe the same "Glenn Spagnuolo" who protests the Columbus Day Parade. He is well-known (should I say, infamous) among the Italian community, to their dismay, in general. I met him in Denver when I supported the parade in 2006. He is definitely an example of a professional protester. Any cause will do--as long as it is anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Western. Indeed, anti-anything. This breadth of concern is wise marketing. After all, protesting is a business, as any other. Diversification is a must.
But, sorry to say, this is all the dark side of freedom, the down side of free enterprise. It comes with the territory, of course. It is the inevitable perversion of something sacred, really. The original protesters, the Pilgrims, the Puritans, the revolutionary fathers, would never have imagined such a place for protesting in the free market. They had the cause of an independent nation at heart. They had "God's New Israel" in their vision. A city on a hill, a beacon of light to the world.
A plague of protesters is a pathetic blight on such a noble, heavenly vision. If philosophically inevitable, seeing that not all men are good Christians, not all men share the same vision as the fathers, it still seems a crying shame. What we need is a revival of the words "treason," "traitor," along with the word "patriotism," and "love of country." With an avowed Marxist like Barack Hussein Obama and his hateful wife, now talking patriotism, we can all know we are at the end of meaning. I'd like to protest their presence. I'd like to protest their perspective. That's how I want to restore meaning in the language. The Obama's represent the antithesis of the Fourth of July.
In a Janet Jackson-style breast flash at the 2004 Super Bowl show, black singer Rene Marie decided to "expose" her Obamac feeling about America by singing, unannounced, The Negro Anthem, instead of the American National Anthem, as she was hired to do. It was at a ceremony and speech held by Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, July 1. Of course she was nominally apologetic afterwards, as was Janet Jackson after her lewd act, but, no one took Janet's apology seriously, nor does anyone take Rene seriously. These women did what they wanted to do: they desperately idolized their blackness, and they brought profound denigration to American culture. That is their effect, if not their intent. And, of course, they don't see it that way at all.
All they see is blackness. The only America they are interested in is black America. Like Michelle Obama, the only America that means anything to them is the America that will seat them in the White House, or put them up front in the fame and fortune game. "What can this country do for me?" is their theme. "You owe me!" is their approach to life. And they get the "exposure" from the anti-American media. The black people who don't think this way are never lauded or recognized. (What's a few black 'conservative' columnists here and there? No sweat. Throw in a few liberal black commentators or anchor folks on national TV. No worry. Just don't give people like preacher Jesse Lee Peterson too much attention.) It's that slavery theme that gives the Negroes supreme moral advantage, and a position which they continually develop, protect, and market. Nothing else will do. With very little knowledge or understanding of economics and labor forces of the 18th and 19th century American culture, with even less knowledge of actual "slave" conditions, the modern black is wildly devoted to decrying their own blackness--which they disgused as a grand moral accusation of America, the grand indictment of slavery. (Never mind the Irish and Scottish indentured servants, and their suprior squalor; they were white, so their suffering doesn't count.)
Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, who
did not rebuke to the barbarian treasonist
Rene Marie when she refused to sing the
American National Anthem, for which she
was hired, July 1, 2008. His disapproval
was voiced the next day.
White liberals can, however, take the matter too far. Occasionally, their idiotic notions are evident even to the press. Recently, the Frontier Culture Museum of Staunton, Virginia tried to bring three bushmen from Nigeria (West Africa) to the museum to build an authentic African village mud-hut. Alas, the bushmen were denied visas because none could speak English, nor describe their purpose, nor able to make a living, nor had filled out applications properly. (What a slight! Never stopped any Mexican from getting in the country! Where's the cry of prejudice? Where's the outrage?)
The lust to denounce America is at a peak, as we approach July 4th, our national Independence Day. Of course. Every liberal and all media will do everything in their power to criticize and condemn America. They will try to insult, denigrate, provoke, and "damn" America with all moral authority, all fervor, and all "audacity of hope." The fawning fad over Barack Hussein Obama is a classic refulgence of puerile dilinquency and cultural immaturity. B. Hussein O. is the focus, the catharsis, of truly juvenile rebellion--of a generation or two of spoiled, frustrated, and 'abject,' failed Americans.
They are awash in misconceived and misapplied morality, disjunct from social reality. The passion to insult America is the impetus for such tasteless gestures made by Janet Jackson and Rene Marie. It doesn't matter that they may be personally innocent of any grand purpose of peevishness. They fit into the general trend of "America is bad." This is the cutting edge of American intelligence and character. This is where it's at. Anything that can contribute to such flow is to be lauded, aggrandized, and even well paid.
Like Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, whose speech ceremony Marie so unceremoniously disrupted by her barbarism, most Americans are afraid to step up and take action against such sacrilege. Why, it would be unthinkable, to publicly oppose or correct some cultural misanthrope. Instead, Americans take the hit, and walk away further benumbed. Angry, but benumbed. Beat up, to put it accurately. We're a staggering lot, we middle people, we nameless crowds of America lovers. And the black conservative crowd is more invisible than the white crowd. Talk about not counting.
Well, I know they're out their. They just don't have a national voice. Yet. Kyal Betton is trying.
If you're an Indian, and you live in District 87 (central Oklahoma City), you must vote for Jason Nelson for your state representative. I ran into Jason yesterday evening, while walking through my neighborhood. He was campaigning, house to house. I spoke a good while with him. I'm convinced, he's the best man for Indians.
No, he doesn't say a word about Indians in any of his campaign material or on his web site. But, I'm telling you, I spoke with him personally, at length. I know what he believes, feels, and thinks about Oklahoma Indians. He's our man! (Also told me his wife was part Chickasaw!)
Jason Nelson, for Oklahoma State Representative, District 87
Jason believes the future of Oklahoma lies in the cooperation of the state with the Indian nations. It is in management of rural Oklahoma, where all our resources are. Jason has complete respect for the Indian nations, and understands the unique history and circumstances. He knows the nations. He knows the important Indian leaders in the state.
As I said, he's not campaigning on this. He also knows the prejudice and fears of many uninformed conservatives toward the subject of Indian casinos. But he knows this casino binge is a temporary thing. Wise Indian leaders, like Chickasaw Governor Bill Anoatubby for instance, know that the tribes must diversify. They cannot afford to put all their eggs in one basket. They must invest in other businesses besides the entertainment business. (Jason said Anoatubby is a extremely talented businessman, as well as a successful tribal leader.) Nelson has travelled internationally with Gov. Keating and Indian leaders like Enoch Kelley Haney, former Oklahoma senator.
Jason Nelson, for Oklahoma
State Representative, District 87
This is where the tribes and the state must join hands and work together. Cooperation is the key. The state must learn to partnership with the Indian nations. Those who are up on Indian news already know how much money and services the eastern Oklahoma tribes (i.e., the big "civilized " tribes like the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek, Choctow, etc.) have contributed to the state, county, and local levels. Highways, power, education, etc., have all benefited from the Indian dollar. Nelson understands that Indians are bound heart and soul to the land. They are not "foreigners." They are here, and here to be dealt with. Nelson sees a great economic future in cooperation with the tribes.
Nelson was on former Governor Frank Keatings office staff, and there lobbied for lower taxes, and rebuilding Oklahoma infrastructure state-wide. Nelson is one of the more qualified individuals to run for state representative. With his special understanding of Indian issues and future roles in the state economy, I heartily recommend him to all Indians in the state, especially those living in District 87.
Jason and his wife Lori (and two children) have their own public relations firm, and a wood furniture business.
Lori, Grace, Benjamin, and Jason Nelson
Again, Jason is not campaigning on his Indian interests or views. Critical as they will be in the future, right now he's campaigning on a straight conservative ticket--pro-marriage, pro-life, faith community partnerships, lowering all taxes, rebuilding the sagging Oklahoma infrastructure (roads and bridges), and strong law enforcement. I just happened to meet him on a quiet, idyllic street in my neighborhood. I know what he thinks about Indians.
I say vote for him!
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001