Not a favorite among Indians of strength and character, professional protester and feminist advocate for some Indians Suzan Harjo offered a rather detailed but distorted justification for the Indians who are supporting Barack Hussein Obama, the foreign, Communist (Marxist) candidate from Africa. Her tortured testimony didn't appear on IndianCountryToday, as have other pieces she's written in the past. It popped up on the equally liberal and possibly more popular Indianz.com.
"Sen. Obama's words matter more," it was called. (Monday, October 27, 2008.) Rather obviously flawed from the title, the article's sentiment is averse to the most ancient, universal wisdom--"actions speak louder than words," or as she herself quotes former tribal chairman now doctoral student Deron Marquez (San Manuel Band), "Deeds, not words, should persuade tribal nations." (Oddly enough, that piece did come out in ICT, odd, because Marquez supports McCain.) But, Harjo is not exactly known for rationality, but instead, liberal causes, like suing the Washington Redskins on the basis of white institutional psychology ("it hurts Indians") after Peter Harris Research Group (2002) found that 83% of American Indians surveyed did not wish to see professional teams stop using Indian mascots, nicknames, or symbols (logos). In any case, her suport for Obama is along the same line of loosely strapped thoughts. Normally, we would pay no mind to any such nonsense. However, the Indian vote is becoming more important, and to whatever extent it may have an influence, we address this lowest of bases--out of respect for Indian people in America. We would not want such ill-founded support of Obama to represent any too serious a percentage of Indian people.
Harjo claims Marquez has misinterpreted McCains record on Indian issues (repatriation of land and sites specifically). She claims special authority to make this judgement, not because of her own education or intellectual abilities, but because, she says, she was "one of the people who made and wrote repatriation history and law." How's that for authority coming from someone who apparently has no education, or none identified. Not even a college degree. (One has to assume she has a high school diploma, or a GED. She's published quite a number of pieces in her life, and entertained at many an academic gathering. And, after all, she does recommend education. And she did publicly rebuke Ward Churchill (--though not for being an academic fraud, but for claiming to be Indian when he wasn't; she herself, of course, is a descendent of two different tribes, not just one!).
Suzan Harjo
Harjo says McCain was scarcely involved in writing the NAGRA law, and points out that he doesn't campaign among Indians using such a claim as being a main author of the law. (Actually, we don't see any candidate particularly campaigning national on his "Indian" position. Like, that isn't how to win 300 million votes. It just isn't--not when there are only 2 million Indians around.) Then Harjo starts a tedious harangue on law history! She avows that no senator originated any of serious modern Indian laws about repatriation, but gives all the glory to Indian activists (like herself). Therefore, no white man senator can ride this horse. (But an black foreign Communist can promise to ride, and that's good enough, in Harjo's highly educated, refined opinion.)
Then we get more of the personal testimony of her involvement, which was significant, as she puts it, anyway, Her testimony is that McCain was a hindrance to the development and passage of the repatriation laws. McCain's careful considerations and patience with the meticulous process she interprets as inhibitive. She claims McCain was responsible for excluding some Apache activists from a voice in the fray when Arizona put up the giant Hubbard Telescope on Mt. Graham (Ariz.)--a very well-used mountain, whose "long history is one of logging, settlement, recreation, summer-home building and road construction. It is not a protected area. It is large, accessible, and the telescope complex represents a small part of the summit ridge." (To be "fair," here's an article on the Indian activist coalition against the project. Different story, for sure.)
Short of calling McCain anti-Indian (which would be too ludicrous for even Harjo to claim), she immediatly concludes that, because the African foreigner, the Communist (Marxist) racial agitator candidate Barack Hussein Obama has PLEDGED to protect Indian culture and sacred sties, he's automatically the better choice.
This is the kind of superficial reality that Obama creates with words, and the kind of reality that a lot of liberal, professional protesting Indian love to live in. Indeed, if there were ever a perfect testimoney of the dangerously deceptive nature of liberalism, it is Harjo's testimony: Words are more important than deeds. Totally unfounded promises are more important than hard-core record of accomplishment, however unsatisfactory it may be made to seem by white-trained liberal activist Indian feminists.
Now, as one who recently supported the Comanche Nation's preservation of Medicine Bluff, I am certainly sensitive to the plight of Indians who are trying to preserve what little we have left. However, there has to be some common sense here. We simply cannot claim back every inch of American soil--even though we undoubtedly have the bones of our ancestors in every inch. We can't simply claim this or that area of land is suddenly "sacred," as if "sacred" is a win-all, magic word which over-rides every other consideration. It simply doesn't. Another Indian woman liberal activist, Winona LaDuke is a great advocate of "sacred places" for Indians. She claims White Earth, up in Minnesota, even though the land on which the White Earth Band of Ojibwe live today was never a home of any band, historically. But LaDuke called it "sacred" land. I called her a "Ghost Dancer."
This is a line we have to draw. There is a limit to what can be repatriated. Late coming claims are hard to press. Indians sometimes have to concede. It is a difficult process, but laws have been encouraging, of late. McCain has been involved in that process. Obama hasn't. But liberal activists like Harjo will cling to untried words of a public prevaricator, nonetheless. And she proposes to know more about the law than Marquez, and more about McCain's record--citing however only one dubious, vauge incident--Mt. Graham and the telescope. Harjo's thinking is as superficial as her words, really, and in this case, the support of a Communist foreigner shows just where such superficiality can lead.
The thought that being anti-American is good for Indians is the other result of such specious reasoning. I have to vote no on this one--for Harjo as well as Obama. (This is despite Harjo's other legitimate accomlishments for the good of Indian people.)
Why do terrorists like Obama? He's never been directly involved in any terrorist organization, has no record of involvement in any violent act--political, subversive, personal, or otherwise. Why does he seem to have this comfortable relationship with people like Bill Ayers and Rashid Khalidi, and other extremists?
The lastest: The LA Times has a video of a farewell party given for PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi. B. Hussein. O. was a special guest at that party, and honored as a friend of Khalidi. But the LA Times refuses to release the video. Oh, yes. That makes us also wonder why the media supports Obama, but, we're tired of asking that question. We live with the fact. (According to the media, Obama has been way ahead in the race from the begining, and the race is basically over.) Now, the McCain campaign has formally demanded the release of the damaging video, but, the LA Times is under no obligation to release it. Ethics, fairness, or truth have never been the strongest suit for the LA Times anyway.
Rashid Khalidi, a professor and activist tied to the PLO, was
feted by Barack Obama at a farewell dinner for the Palestinian
activist. (AP photo)
But, really, it's just a professional media ploy. The LA TImes was certain to let the word out that it had the video. That intentional "leak" would get attention, and boost subscriptions, perhaps. Competition out there among the liberal misinformation institutions is fierce.
Yes, we would like to know Obama's reaction to the anti-Zionist, anti-Semitism expressed at the party. He seems comfortable in the presence and friendship of people who hate America and who hate Israel. That is an established image--which he himself created, inevitably, indeed carefully.
Obama Affinity to Marxists Dates Back to College Days, says a late report. Obama himself says:
"I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structuralist feminists."
But the story now is not about Obama. This is about media. This is about the utter untrustworthiness of media. Reporters have betrayed their trust. The public can never again look to professional media for truth, or even the whole story. Sure, stories are always "developing," but, we have seen the media manipulate, hide, distort, and otherwise falsify story after stor--even from the beginning of the story.
The media is bound and determined to force the White House with their chosen man, B. Hussein O. They have presented poll after poll declaring Obama the winner. The presumption, the arrogance, the assasult on reality, it is all unprecedented, and might succeed. If course, it already has succeeded, if you look only to the media. This, of course, is to get everyone used to the idea.
And it's a win-win situation for the liberals, no matter who wins. If Obama doesn't win, the public chaos which will ensue will result in more power exercised by the government over the people--for our "safety." All the voter fraud ACORN (i.e., Democrats) has created, the fraud involved in the polling, the fraud the media has generated and magnified--all this will lead to precisely the kind of expansion of government control which the liberals want. This is all texbook Marxism. This is how social "change" is brought about. This is all according to plan. Create chaos, then take over. The Third World will monitor American elections. The UN will control American armed forces. The New World Order will hold in subjugation all concepts of "sovereignty." Nationhood will at last fade into a romantic memory.
America media has played its part. It has become propaganda. That's the long and short of it. We've lost that battle. If McCain ends up defending the Constitution at all, it will by by default, in contrast to Obama's candid, shameless attacks on the Constitution.
That's where we are. We know McCain actually loves America, very deeply. We know Obama is homeless. A man without a country, without love or loyalty, having never known what it means. You've heard of 'crocodile tears,' well try a crocodile smile. A satin smooth personality, void of nationality, and determined to destroy America. That's the "change" he preaches. A different country. Not a different America, because it won't be America. It will only be called "America"--the ultimate liberal usurpation of words.
The jig's up, as Ann Coulter would say.
Obama's true political 'color' is blazen now. His atribilious social philosophy is fully exposed. In an National Public Radio interview in 2001, Obama denounces the United States Constitution. He denounces the Supreme Court, declaring that, under Chief Justice Warren, the Court was not radical, and did not seek to redistribute wealth as it should.
Laura Ingraham has been talking about this all morning (Monday, October 27, 2008). Many people are offended at the heavy egos that comprise conservative talk radio, but, the fact is, those egos do go after the truth. Laura could not have been more accurate, more cutting, and more truthful, on all fronts (--including her assessment of the failure of McCain's campaign managers).
Here's the audio of the Obama 2001 NPR interview. Listen carefully to the entire interview. A choice quote:
OBAMA: "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical I think as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.
Laura also played a 2001 Boston radio clip in which Obama says the Constitution is incredibly biased, has an enormous blind spot, and continues to influence American society today. He said the Founders had this same blind spot.
This is essence of the anti-Americanism in Obama, the same as that in Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and other close associates of Barry "Frank Marshall Davis, Jr." Obama. It is very, very clear. Barack Hussein Obama, although not confident that the US Supreme Court will impliment his ideas of economic egalitarianism (Communism), believes that the Court should in fact be doing just that. The Court needs to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution." What could be more explicit? What kind of justices can we expect Obama to appoint if he is president?
The Supreme Court of the United States must coerce economic equality on the American populace, according to Obama. Free enterprise is a bad thing. Economic freedom, individual opportunity to excel, to get ahead, to develop one's own life according to your own abilities, enjoying the fruits of your own labors--this is all wrong. This is bad. Obama & Co. wants to end all this freedom. No one is allowed to have any more than anyone else (--except for the Communist leaders who want control over all wealth).
"Social justice," Obama calls it, exactly as the Communists of America's '60's radicals like Bill Ayers called it. In other words, it is unjust that anyone should "poor," or have less than anyone else. Material inequality is morally wrong, according to these Communist leaders.
If I don't have everything you have, I've been wronged! And you wronged me! If I don't have exactly what you have, it has been kept from me. I not only deserve it, but it is the government's responsibility to make sure I have it--by taking from you and giving to me.
This is the most denigrating concept of human nature that there is. It is wholly self-justifying, regardless of one's character or the lack thereof. This is a dark deception. This is political sophistry. This is a devoted, concentrated rebellion against the 10th Commandment--"Thou shalt not covet" (Exodus 20: 17). Obama's principle is satanic.
Communism is satanic. The idea that it represents "hope" to those who don't have high definition TV is the most degraded concept of human nature ever to be pawn off on the American people--or any people in history. It is epitomized in the "universal health care" plan. It is across the board, regardless of individual health habits, or even citizenship. In other words, all you have to do is be born. (And you didn't even do that!) All is owed you. All is your right. All is yours.
The Declaration of Independence says government must protect your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The satanic polilical philosophy for which Obama has been made the representative says that the government must take your personal earnings and give it to those who haven't earned as much. This has nothing to do with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is a godless, spiritless, satanic indulgence of covetousness. That is the secret of it's success. Most people are relatively "poor." Therefore, most people will vote satanic.
Thurgood Marshall, another smooth anti-American.
So, Obama & Co. believe they know better than the Founding Fathers. They think they can create a better country--and still call it America, of course. They think they are superior to America's fathers. They think they are morally superior. As Thurgood Marshall, they believe America is wrong, bad, and an immoral mistake.
Do Americans agree? Is that the idea that Americans are going to vote to affirm? Do Americans condemn America?
If there is one overwhelming influence that the Obama campaign will have made when it is over, one way or another, it is that American citizenship no longer means anything. Through the incredible vaguaries and ambiguities of the personal identity of Barack "Barry" Hussein "Obama," American citizenship means nothing. Any person born in the world not only has the right to everything America is, but also has the right to run for, and to be president of the United States.
Pennsylvania attorney Philip Berger brought up the issue of Hussein's personal idenity, suing for a legally recognized and valid birth certificate for the candidate. As of yesterday, the case was thrown out. The reasons are precisely what destroy any meaning in the concept of American citizenship. The abject and profound refutation and denigration of American citizenship is now complete and official.
U.S. District Judge Richard Barclay Surrick not only denied Berg's request for a temporary restraining order (August 22) against the candidacy of Obama, but finally dismissed the entire case. In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Berg's allegations of harm were "too vague and too attenuated" to confer standing on him or any other voters.
Surrick ruled that Berg's attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion." The judge also said the harm Berg alleged did "not constitute an injury in fact" and Berg's arguments to the contrary "ventured into the unreasonable."
The Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission said that Berg's claims were "ridiculous" and "patently false," that Berg had "no standing" to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for president because he had not shown the requisite harm to himself.
Thus, the plantiff's character and identity were sacrificed. This is the nature of legal defense nowadays. Accuse the accuser. Defame the plaintiff. Destroy character. It's all about a cruel denigration of human character. That's the best defense. It seems Democrats have excelled at this, first and foremost.
Judge Surrick was appointed to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, by former President Clinton, June, 2000.. He is apparently a liberal activist of sorts, but seemingly in a good way. Quite tight, as in the case of rapper Beanie Sigel.
Now, let's be clear. The DNC and the FEC made rather anti-American accusations against Berg, in their request to have the case against Obama thrown out. They said he had no standing, and could show no injury. This is totally anti-American, as well as red herring. The fact that Judge Surrick threw out the case, as they desired, doesn't mean he assented to their reasons, at all, necessarily. We shall have to access the 36-page opinion.
Jeff Schreiber, (AmericanRight)who covered the Berg suit from the beginning, posted his reaction on FreeRepublic.
The question running to the heart of the standing doctrine is whether or not the plaintiff indeed has a personal stake in the outcome of the otherwise justiciable matter being adjudicated. As has been discussed before many times here at America’s Right, a plaintiff wishing to have standing to sue must show (1) a particularized injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress.
Schreiber examines the whole issue of "standing," indeed, as Berg presented his reaction.
Every American citizen had standing, until now. With this federal precedent, no American citizen has standing. No voter has standing. No one can sincerely question or reasonably object to anyone else's citizenship. This is anti-American liberalism, regardless of what Judge Surrick's final reasons actually were. The judge's decision has an anti-American effect. Even TownHall.com failed to note this effect.
Thus, Obama has again degraded America into meaningless. His influence has been detrimental from the very begining in this regard. BadEagle.com has always regarded him as foreign, or alien. Now his influence has proven to be exactly that. An American citizen cannot question the identity of another American citizen. And, under an Obama presidency, illegal immigrants would be granted full American citizenship as soon as possible, along with drivers licenses even before they are citizens, again emphasizing the meaninglessness of the concept of American citizenship. It best, it is simply a materialistic opportunity for anyone born in the world.
Communism is Christianity--without Christ. How can it be? It is simple: substitute roboticism for self-abnegation, mechanicalism for equality of soul, and voluntary coercion for free-will. Communism is an appeal to the most profound aberrancy in human nature--the quest for self-righteousness, which is itself the fundamental delusion which true Christianity remedially addresses, directly. In Christianity, righteousness is a gift from God. Indeed, in biblical Judaism, HaShem is called, "The Lord Our Righteousness," Jeremiah 23:6. Humanity cannot justify itself. That is a misconception.
Conservatism is not religion. It is simply the most productive way of living in society. It presumes Judeo-Christian morality and social values, however. But, conservatism is about politics and government, not about morality. Communism is about morality--the coercion of values. Communism is about values antithetical toward the Judeo-Christian religion, but Communism is itself a religion. (Remember, Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Leftism, Liberalism, and Progressivism are all the same, just different labels--for coercion.)
Why the enormous appeal? Why do so many people instinctively tend toward Communism? Is it simply the notion of social justice, the redistribution of wealth, or the idea of equality? I say it is deeper. It is about self-justification. The somber denigration of human society is the price for wholesale self-righteousness for the masses. Of course, there is no personal morality required by Communism. It's all about social behavior. No one, except the elite dictators, is allowed to excel. In the name of equality, all are forever equal. The measure of equality? Materialism. If one has a Cadillac, everyone else must have one. No one is allowed to rise above anyone else. All will have donkeys, rather than any one person have a car. That is the principle. It is a mechanization of the human experience, and that does go very deeply personal. Was it not Lenin who infamously said sex should be "as simple and unimportant as drinking a glass of water"? Today's "Leninists" still defend the concept of meaningless sexuality. (Ann Coulter makes the quote in Treason, p.289, but gives a reference to S. J. Taylor, Stalin's Apologist: Walter Duranty: The New York Times Man in Moscow, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990, p.116.)
Communsm's coerced denigration is more cruel than the nihilation of Buddhism. Buddhism is individualism. There is always the potential of dignity in that, or at least the illusion thereof, however perverted and self-immolating as it can be. But Communism, by nature, is "communal." It is a herding process. It is about masses of people being made into sheep. That is a denial and degradation of self beyond the individual will. True Christianity is also communal, but it is about uplifting the individual. That is the function of the Christian community. The Communist "commune" is for the purpose of eliminating the individual--by degrading it beyond human recognition. Animals and plants are given preference, in a grand vision of misplaced sexual energy. Coulter says Liberals are the same as Druids in Godless, p.3. You know, like Gaeans, or Mother Earth worshippers--taking the metaphor literally.
Yet, to those who actually prefer unbridled sensuality, it is more pleasing to talk to a psychiatrist than to open the soul to it's Creator. It is more acceptable to fallen human nature to submit to profound denigration rather than renounce sin. It is actually seems easier to torture oneself, bodily, and to massacre others through abortion, than to crucify the lusts and passions for evil doing. What weighty burdens the enslaved conscience will bare, rather than in faith to release them on the head of the sacrificial Lamb. A life of crippling guilt, rather than one day of true Atonement--that is the preference of human nature.
This is Communism. It is the coercion of self-righteousness. The gainsayers of Christianity, who love to pose Jesus as some radical liberation theologian of his day--in order to justify their own social perversions, need rather to reconsider: the Pharisees were the radicals. They were the Communists. They were the brokers of self-righteousness. Jesus was the conservative--the orthodox. Indeed,
Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matt. 5:20.
Communism is the coerced social application of human nature, through government. Conservatism is simply a concept of government that allows an individual to exercise personal freedom. If that person is a true Christian, conservatism will be the government of his choice. No, not all Christians are conservatives. But then, not all liberals are personally evil. We're just talking about concepts here,. not exceptions.
Obama's vice presidential candidate Joe Biden has spoken the truth. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy," Biden said at a Seattle fund raiser. But was it another Biden blunder? Did the mature Delaware senator muddy the waters for his "clean, articulate" Negro?
Conservatives have certainly picked up on the question. Rush Limbaugh pounced on it. "Biden Guarantees World Crisis Under Obama within Six Months," was his headline yesterday, October 20th, the day the news of the Biden statement was out. Newsmax put out the headline, "Biden: The World Will Test Obama," and opend their article with thoughts of a looming world crisis.
Senator Joe Biden, Democrat, Delaware.
It certainly seems like Biden is predicting a horrible storm ahead. But he said, "we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." Get that? "Generated crisis." That means what, that the Third World is going to stur up dust, because they consider Obama a weak, know-nothing push-oever? They're all going to see what they can get out of loud-mouthed promiser, or what they can get by with? Any way you look at what Biden said, it sounds terribly ominous. Biden developed his thought, and dramatized it more and more.
Biden "told the crowd to continue to stand by Obama and know they made the right choice even when the going gets tough," reports FoxNews. In other words, the whole Obama campaign is already having doubts about their "magic Negro." Now's the time to stay with him, and not lose heart, says the mature senator from Delaware.
Limbaugh turns it all face forward.
He [Biden] says it would be patriotic to pay higher taxes and that this country is going to face an international crisis or two only if Obama is elected. We will not face an international crisis, according to Biden, if McCain is elected. See, under McCain what we would get is lower taxes and apparently a far more peaceful world. McCain's been tested, no one will screw with him according to Biden.
That is what the Biden statements imply, inevitably, but, surely this isn't what Biden intended to say, or to be understood to have said. Clearly, he simply means that Obama is going to be tested, and he will triumph. But, it certainly is an odd point in the campaign to be saying it, two weeks out, before the election has occurred, let alone the presumptuous victory of Obama in that election. It is impossible to escape the implications Limbaugh has articulated.
So, if Obama is elected, we must look forward to horrendous crises on all fronts, in the world, in the nation, and in our personal lives. We've been forwarned--by the seasoned Democrat candidate for vice president, the running mate of Obama.
In the campaign, Obama has already shown such subjective sensitivity over his middle name that no one is supposed to us it. "Hussein," it is. Why, to use it means you are an Islamophobe, a Muslim hater, and prejudiced. It is 'hurtful,' 'insulting,' and 'disrespectful' to use the man's middle name. But, as Michael Savage recently pointed out, this leaves us with an inconsistency. We refer to many past presidents by their initials: FDR, JFK, LBJ, etc. So, if we can't use Obama's middle name, will we have to refer to him as "B.O."? Now, we can't imagine the Liberals would allow that. But to use "BHO" would be refering to that notorious middle name.
Now, this is precisely the kind of infantile weakness that concerns Biden, obviously, by the very ironic fact that he especially emphasized the "steel in his spine" when predicting what the world 'testers' would find in Obama. But we know what you really mean, Senator Biden. The cut throat, muderous clientel of the Third World know exactly what they'll find in Obama--a complete pansy. Nothing but weakness. Pride in words. No guts at all. The sharks of tyranny can smell blood a mile away, like any vultures.
Biden is quite right to be concerned. A terrible crisis will come if Obama is elected. The thugs of the world will go nuts. Obama is a free pass to chaos. We have it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. We have it from the experienced senator who knows all. "As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it is going to happen."
Why is everyone publicly afraid to use the word Communism anymore? When Barack Hussein Obama told Joe the plummer that he wanted to "spread the wealth," McCain and other Republicans, and even news media, were willing to use the word "Socialism" to identify Obama's economic concept. Even Sarah Palin has used the phrase "redistribution of wealth," and named it "socialism." But the fact is, redistribution of wealth is the very heart of of the theory of Communism--as conceived by Karl Marx. Redistribution of wealth is Communism, with a capital "C." Socialism is too weak a word. Times are too desperate for such hedging.
Foreign black man tells American white man he will take money from him, and give
it to others.
Historically, Das Kapital (Capital) and The Communist Manifesto were regarded as the sources of Communism, but were first referred to as 'Marxism.' It was a mid-19th century reactionary sort of notion, perhaps inspired by the whole freakish human conditions created by the industrial revolution, and the factory labor phenomenon. Difficult to say. Even American author Herman Melville was concerned about the psychological, spiritual effects of physical habituation due the same motions of labor on a prolong basis--even if the work was just a desk job. Melville expresesed his concerns in the short story, "Barnaby the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street" (1853). To my knowledge, no one has attempted to explain the impetus behind Marx's notion of "equality." Obviously, it evolved within him in the midst of central European culture of the mid- and late 19th century.
Marxism, Communism, and then Socialism. The terms became more vague in political application, as they were offered to the public. (I should say, coerced on the public.) If it was all an effort to overthrow the monarchies of old Europe, and their notorious social inequities, it also become a popular cause against "capitalist" societies (namely, America), in which business 'monarchs' had develolped. Men had become kings through economic production and free enterprise. Capitalism produced only another kind of monarchy, according to the Communists. America did have a 19th century stint with the "commune" untopias, but, Communism was never associated with that fad of social withdrawal-ism. Communism came to be associated with the incredibly brutal political regimes of people like Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, and today Kim Jong Il of North Korea. Communism is associated with Russia, central Asia, East Europe, Cuba, and a host of South American governments and revolutions.
Unfortunately, for purposes of communcation, the word Communism today has fallen out of use. With the fall of the Soviet Union of Socialist Republics, "Communism" is considered a thing of the past. Never was there a more mistaken public notion.
Amercian Communists of course continued to disguise the tyrannical designs of the philosophy by offering different names. Socialism was better than Communism, and did not have the nasty associations. But, "Socialism" still carried a negative connotation. It still had a certain foul smell. Obviously, it yet carries that order today, as the McCain campaign refers to Obama's "socialism" as something that is bad, or at least in contrast to what McCain offers.
But, no one is willing to use the word Communism.
In the last twenty years, the word "Left," or "Leftist" took the place of Socialism as the term for Communism. Left, as opposed to Right. It is unclear how exactly this term was arrived at, or decided upon, as the new substitute. One thing is certain, however: Marxism, and especially Communism, are words which are definitely negative in connotation, and to promote the political, economic philosophy they represent, their advocates must continually disguise their movement with different, and new terms--less offensive, more acceptable terms. And, the terms must be less and less understood by the public.
Left gave way to "Liberal." Liberal was a wonderful term. Liberty, liberation, liberality--all the finest inspirations to be found in the human heart. This was the perfect term. It has generally taken well to the public venue of political dialogues and conversations. While the word has glorious historical connotations, today, conservatives use it to represent repugnance and loathing. Conservatives mean the worst ideas of government, the most oppressive, the most cruel, and the most tyrannical, when they use the word "liberal." This is the truth. This is, in fact, what liberals represent: Communism, again. And nothing angers Liberals more than to have their disguise torn away.
Finally, "Progressive" came in as the last fad, but, it didn't really take like Liberal. Even Al Gore couldn't make Progressive stick. It sounds exciting, energizing, and new. It is completely positive. You'd think, as a deceptive term for Communism, it would have been more popular in the promotions.
In any case, until people can start understanding that "redistribution of wealth" is Communism, the conservatives and Republicans will never deliver a knock-out punch. Communism is the necessary word here. But, the Liberals will no doubt sound their historical battle cry, "McCarthyism! McCarthyism!." That kept their tyrannical purposes disguised for 50 years, according to Ann Coulter's Treason (2003). The spector of Joe McCarthy, on his infamous witch hunt, finding Communists among those dear, beloved and honored sons of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant and their Ivy League hants, is enough to embarrass anyone from even using the word "Communist."
So, how to conservatives effectively emphasize that Barack Hussein Obama is Communist? He doesn't have to carry a card, or be a member of the Communist Party. He just has to think like a Marxist, like he does--just like all his associates do. (We can't really call them "friends," can we?) Is that an over-kill? Would that turn everyone off--to come out and say Obama is Communist? It seems putting the proper label on anything he things or says is tantamount to racism, or being mean spirited, or unkind. It's unfair to call a spade a spade. It's cruel to say the truth about Obama's ideas. That's how Liberals always defend themselves--by accusing anyone who objects to them as a bad person, an un-Christian person.
Barack Hussein Obama is a Marxist, a Communist, a Leftist, a Liberal, a Progressive, and all that these words represent. He is a foreigner, who has not demonstrated his place of birth, and he is anti-American. Nothing could be clearer, or of more concern--to anyone who loves America. The problem is, too many people in America don't know what America is, or what "America" they love. They don't know what Marxism is, nor Communism, nor Leftism, Liberalism, nor Progressivism. They just vote for the candidate who promises them a Cadillac--most convincingly.
Note how Communism is being disguised today in the form of discussion about "taxes." Higher taxes for the rich, lower (or none) for the poor. Some say Obama also wants to give government checks to 40% of the population--who don't even pay taxes!
"Spread the wealth," that's the only Obama line to remember. "Redistribution of wealth" is Communism.
In the early spring of 1836 there began a decisive battle in the history of the United States. It lasted thirteen days. One hundred and seventy-four (174) men, mostly volunteers, resisted ( I say successfully) over 6,000 uniformed Mexican soldiers. The Alamo, it's called, a small Franciscan community made into a fortress, was the place. It was the mission of Bexar, near San Antonio.
The battle was decisive, not because the volunteers won. Indeed, they were all killed. But they accomplished what was needed, a delay, so that Sam Houston and others could muster greater forces. The men of the Alamo provided not only a dely, but a serious dent in the major Mexican forces--much of which was due to the length of Santa Anna's march to Bexar, the weather, and the shortage of supplies. And then came the crushing losses during the 13 days. The whole battle is legendary. Jim Bowie, one of the American heroes, wrote just days before the battle:
the salvation of Texas depends in great measure on keeping Bexar out of the hands of the enemy. It serves as the frontier picquet guard, and if it were in the possession of Santa Anna, there is no stronghold from which to repel him in his march toward the Sabine.
There is a great lesson for American patriots today in this story of a century and a half ago. It isn't about winning the battle, but winning the war. Sometimes it looks like the war is going to be lost, but that's exactly the time when individual battles are so critical and decisive.
Jim Bowie, 1796-1836
Remember the Alamo, indeed. Remember that every battle, no matter how small, has an effect on the war. We never really know whether our particular battle is the telling event and determines the outcome of the whole war. We have to remember, too, that good always appears to be outnumbered. Always. But, as the ancient prophet Elisha said to his young, trembling apprentice when they were surrounded by the hosts of the Syrians (2 Kings 6:16):
"Fear not, for they that be with us are more than they that be with them."
Elisha had compassion on his young servant, and prayed that the Lord would open his eyes so that he could see the truth. (Elisha, a man of faith, did not ask to see for himself, but only that his fearful young servant might see!). The Lord did open the young man's eyes:
"Behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha."
I guess American patriots need to see those chariots of fire, eh? Now and again. We lose sight of them, of the angels of the Most High.
Remember our troops, and our patriot
citizens at home.
Media blinds our eyes. Government blinds our minds. Our educational systems blinds our souls. But, the Lord reigneth. We indeed may lose some serious battles, but, we are assured of victory in the war. That is the archetype. That is the shape of history. Good always wins, in the long run. And the good always appears to be vastly out-numbered in the meantime. The believers in good are creatures of faith. We must always act against what appear to be overwhelming odds. Yet, again, "They that be with us are more than they that be with them." Vastly more. Remember the chariots of fire.
Remember the Alamo, November 4.
The land shall not be sold forever: for the land is Mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with Me. Leviticus 25:23.
Since I was a teenager, I was impress with these peculiar words. This evening, October 15 (sundown, Oct. 14th), began the Feast of Tabernacles, or, sukkoth, the Hebrew word for "booths," or "huts." (Leviticus 23:34.) It was one of the three major "pilgrimage" holidays, for which male Jews of age were required to present themselves before the Lord at Jerusalem--no matter where they were living. For Sukkoth, they came to Jerusalem and basically "camped out." And those that lived in Jerusalem did the same. (No doubt, the holiday of Sukkoth is the origin of the Christian "camp meeting," if the truth were known.)
A single "sukkah" in Herzliya, Israel.
If you have a home, if you have a piece of land, why would God require that you annually, regularly prentend you don't? Why must you remind yourself what it's like not to have a home? Why would God require you to be temporarily homeless? A spiritual exercise in dependency? A reminder that we are "strangers and sojourners" with Him? This is a captivating prospect.
And how in the world could God consider Himself "homless?" Well, He dwelt in a tent for nearly 400 years. The very Tabernacle of the Most High was portable, carried on the shoulders of Levites whenever the tribes of Israel moved to a new place. Even when they settled in Cana'an, and the Tabernacle was set up at Shiloh, it still was the same tent they had used in the wilderness days. This is remarkable, really. God wasn't particularly impressed with David's 9th century idea to build a fabulous stone temple, either. At first He refused altogether. (I Chronicles 17:1-6) The Lord says the land is His. He created it. Yet, He deigns to be but a traveler upon it. His people He declares to be alien to the world as well. Foreigners and, well, just campers. Temporary dwellers. Moving elsewhere.
What a concept of life. No idolatry allowed! Not even of home. Not even of the deepest comforts of life.
In a day when America seems to be turning foreign before our eyes, there is a profound lesson in Sukkoth. There is a required objectivity. Mandatory independence, we should say. So be it. Independence of mind, heart, and soul. It will take a giant's strength to remain American, if but in spirit, as we see the American government teeter on permanent "change" into something it never was, and never was meant to be. This is what lies before us. Soon, true Americans, who understand the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, may become ideological campers, just temporarily waiting it out. We know what it's supposed to be. We know what's happening instead. We can only look on in coerced "objectivity."
Ah, but the Lord would have us volutarily homeless. Maybe that's a lesson we should have learned by now, and if not, we'll have to learn it without any training. We're about to be thrown into an alien culture, in which we will have to survive by ideological camping out. Our hearts are with America, the real America, not the one coming on. We'll just have to sojourn in our own minds, until another day.
I don't know that it will ever be publicly understood how America came to this treasonous "change." A combination of forces, perhaps. Maybe simply an inevitable result of success. "Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked...then he forsook his God, which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation." Deuteronomy 32:15. Certainly, our words are all usurped. "Equality," "justice," and "freedom" don't mean what they are supposed to mean at all, but quite the opposite. People have come to expect everything from the government. They are heavily taxed, therefore, they expect returns--in the form of personal belongings and pleasures, property and opportunity. "Rights" we're taught. We all have "rights" to these things. All the Declaration said was that we have rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing there about economic parity, or any other materialistic measure of equality.
Somewhere, the country got lost. The people have been misled. Democracy has come to mean mob indulgence, and mob rule. And what the mob can't gain by votes, it manipulates by psychological coercion--if not literal.
If the true Americans have not the power to stay the tide or error, how will we ever regain the country? It seems the country was subverted through deception, manipulation, and economic coercion--in the very face of the Constitution. It seems that it can therefore only be regained by revolution. By force. Just like 1776, again.
In the past, Communism gained control through the masses of the poor--in all the other countries it dominated. Now it is gaining control of the wealthiest mass of "poor" the world has ever seen. It is a wonder how such a thing could happen. People with plenty--are still subject to the egotistcial, self-righteous, self-aggrandizing indulgence of "equality."
So, let's be prepared to camp a while. Build your mental sukkoth, ye true Americans. We may have leanness in our souls for a while, but, we can always hope. We can always work for truth.
And I say to all, American Indians are still here, even though our way of life was forever "changed." We still maintain who we are. We are still determined to hold on to what we can. Many may consider us museum pieces in the culture of America, but, we are still here. I can only hope that the true Americans, if quickly becoming museum pieces, will hold fast to their Americanism, and never, ever give it up. If you have to camp out in an imaginary America for a while, in some dream of the past, just think of it as some kind of national Sukkoth. Indians still have our tipis.
Yeagley Columbus Day article on VDARE.com.: "Once, We Had Heroes."
Given the Great American Sell-Out in Washington, I'm seriously considering shutting down BadEagle.com. Given the fact that the United States government has abandoned the Constitution on which the country was founded, why have a web site for American patriotism? Why promote something that doesn't exist anymore? There are no patriots in Washington. How can there be? They don't value the Constitution. They have no use for the Declaration of Independence. They are treasonists. What can a simple Indian patriot web site expect to accomplish in the way of resistance?
Great thoughts, eh? on this 'displaced' Columbus Day, October 13, 2008. (It's supposed to be October 12, but like most of our American holidadys, it's been switched to a more convenient day. Even our presidents' birthdays have been moved to more convenient days. It's all about convenience, that is, economic opportunity. Longer weekends. Extended sales. Why, it doesn't matter what day the holiday is, as long as you observe some day, some time. Sounds like the old Protestant argument for observing Sunday instead of the true Sabbath, Saturday--accoring to Exodus 20:11.) It's a free-for-all these days. Just like the Democrat voter registration process. Just like Congressional legislation--throwing every pork slab onto every bill that comes across the table.
We're in a different gear now. Nothing matters but winning, or getting what you want. It's all an infantile sand box play time. There is no vision, or memory. I posted a Columbus article on VDARE.com today, "Once, We Had Heroes." The public has come to disdain hard core sacrifice and accomplishment. The public wants a catharsis of some kind. That's all that matters. Enter: the foreign Negro, Barack Hussein Obama. The Obama campaign is not a political campaign. It is a social movement. It is a social catharsis--complete with hysteria and irrationality. It feels great for many people, people who have no standard, no moral compass, and no vision--or worse, a wrong vision, a mistaken expectation.
This terrible wind of "change" is indeed ominous. And it does not appear that the Republican Party is offering a clear and present alternative. Some people in America hold to their patriotic squabbles, yes. There are hundreds of major patriot web sites, organizations, campaigns, and magazines, etc. There is a steady effort through many Christian churches to emphasize American patriotism, Judeo-Christian social and moral values. There are many, many talk radio shows, and even a TV show or two, like the new Huckabee show on Fox. But Republican Party leaders, such as the current presidential candidate, are not marketing the idea of American patriotism. They are not aggrandizing the American Constitution. Only Ron Paul did that, and he seemed like a flake in a whirlwind.
The US government has crossed the threshhold into Communism--controlling the economy, ownership of both production and the means of production. It has most recently focused when the government got into owning money itself. The government is now into owning banks, buying up loans, debt, and credit. Thus, the government owns the people. What a painless transition. The wind will still blow. The sun will still shine. The land will look the same. The government buildings will all remain. The flag will still wave. But, already, the change has come. Right under our noses. It is a different governemnt now.
I think we may have to resort to localized resistance. It appears that the only hope is a revival of states rights. I know a Civil War was fought over that issue, and it was supposedly resolved. But, in principle, it wasn't. The issue is before us once again. Only this time, the issue is not about a system of privately owned labor, but about private property itself. Interestingly, the original draft of the Declaration of Independence had it "pursuit of private property" before it was changed to "pursuit of happiness." So goes the story. When states were guilty of injustice within their boundaries, then the federal government would step in. That's the Civil War. But who steps in when the federal government wreaks injustice? The Hague? That's the trend. Some international sense of Jimmy Carter's "human rights." I'd rather return to states rights than go to the UN. I rather go inside, into the people of our land, our states, than go outside the country to foreigners.
Logistically, if there is any hope, it is in states rights. Local authority. So far, that hasn't worked for patriotism. It has worked for the breakdown of American values, of Judeo-Christian values. As long as that's happening, the federal government supports it, through federally appointed district judges--who indeed often instigate the treason. But, what would happen should state governments defy the federal government? The state would lose all its federal funding. Can the state survive without that? Maybe we should seriously consider the figures in this matter. How much federal funding does a state actually need, percentage-wise? This is what state legislatures should be considering.
Just thoughts for the day--a day when there appears to be no hope of patriotism and nationalism coming from our federal government in Washington, DC, a day when our government has trespassed the very spirit of our nation, its founding documents, and the will of the people. Conservative alk radio isn't going to turn the tide. Sorry, but, its just not that influential. Society is all about fame and fortune, and mirrored views of the imaginary populace. It is illusory. We need to get back into states rights, even county, and city politics. We need answer only to ourselves, not some media reflection. We have to be self-reliant, and not make our every move in reference to some national image.
We have a lot to re-learn about life. America has become one B-rated TV show. It's that "fifteen minutes of fame" thing, only it's a constant urge, a deep, abiding desire. Do something wrong, and you'll get in the news. Do something outrageous, and you'll have your fame. Politics today is about media, nothing more. Make that a C-rated TV show.
I'm beginning to think rebuilding takes more courage that building in the first place. Columbus sailed into new territory. Are we willing to sail back into old territory to recover what we've lost?
America is over. May she rest in peace. The body will continue, but the soul is aflight.
Most Americans will carry on, like robotic ghosts, as though nothing significant has happened. But something profound has indeed happened. And we didn't need an alien Negro to "change" anything. It was already changed. The white liberals, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant oedipalists have won. (Their black foreign puppet was a perfect diguise.) The treasonist WASPs have, though long and continuous effort, succeeded in subverting the American government. The United States Constitution is now as worthless as the paper issued by the "Federal" Reserve Bank--itself a monument to subversion.
George Washington, bowed in prayer at Valley Forge. How tragic it seems now.
Has his country betrayed him, or simply inevitably changed? What do we pray about
now? To return, or to evolve into an international anti-American warehouse?
BadEagle.com has never advocated a conspiracy theory as the cause of liberal triumph. The cause is instead an intersection, a convergence of several 'conspiracies.' Power politics, international banking, globalist capitalism, Communism, and astute appeals to the lower elements of human nature through media, have all contributed to the "change" of America. It is hardly purposeful to outline the effects of each. Together, the current has gone down stream, naturally, to Communism, Collectivism, or dependency--under coming cruel tyranny.
Those who have valued freedom, individualism, achievement, and responsibility are simply in fewer numbers. Very much fewer. But the world is an infant. There are few fathers among us. The masses beg, cry, eat, poop, and grow. The key word there is "grow." In a way, mindless reproduction, or population-out-of-control, could be named as the major culprit in the multi-conspiracy onslaught. The liberals, Democrats, and other Communists always use the quick fix method, which is either genocide or infanticide (abortion). That's after they've use the massive numbers of the weak populations for "votes" to support their ideology of cruelty and waste.
But it doesn't matter now. The dark side has one. Can we be surprised? Human nature is fallen. Why wouldn't the dark side win? Whether Obama or McCain wins is of no consequence. The war is over.
Notice the "word trail." Marxism was elevated to Communism. Communism was disguised as Socialism. Socialism found its permanent home in the modern Democrat Party. Then the ideology was called the Left, and later Liberalism. The latest term was "Progressive," but even Al Gore couldn't make that stick too well. Notice how each term was more and more accepted by the public. Even though each term represents the same nasty ideology of cruelty to the masses while professing compassion on them, each term was more disguised, more modified, more popularized, until the people don't even know what don't think it exists anymore. They don't recognize it.
Fine. They've got it coming now. It's here. Now. Republican leaders have not prevented it. They have completely failed their duty. They are fallen human beings. Why wouldn't they fail? They can hold up the banner of truth only so long, if they even knew exactly what it was. Then they go the way of personal success. They sacrifice principle and oath, feeling that their one vote in the senate won't make any difference. And it hasn't. Numbers win, every time. The greater numbers are without principle. The Constitution is a hindrance to them.
Ron Paul was half a century too late.
I've said it before, more than once, "Welcome to Indian Country." When everthing you were becomes only a memory in your own mind, you are in Indian Country. When you are standing on your own land, surrounded by a different world, with different values--which now control you and your land, you are in Indian Country. When your people fight over "hand-outs," which the government "owes" them, you are in Indian Country. (Sure, it's true that, in the case of the American Indian, treaty provisions are not the equivalent of welfare at all. Nevertheless, the dazed and duped American public counts welfare as their entitlement, their just deserts, their "treaty provision"--for just being born, or just crossing the border.) When the same sun shines on a different government, when you are limited now to what land you can stand on, and what you can do on it, you are in Indian Country.
Our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Prostant and republican government.
Those words were written by an older woman, some 123 years ago (1885). Her name was Ellen G. White. Many believed and still believe her to be a prophet. It certainly appears that she was. Just the fact that such words were written at all, with such specificity, so long ago, speaks for itself.
Thomas Jefferson, wise if not prophetic, is alleged to have written,
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
(These words were first found in print in 1937, but allegedly come from a 1802 letter from Jefferson to Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Galliltin.)
Evidently prophecy is possible without directly divine inspiration, we dare say. A conscious parent can predict the outcome of his child's behavior.
America became the great nation it became because it held certain values and created a government that protected those values. The government was tailor-made, not superimposed. The original population of America was not wealthy, not powerful, and not numerous. They simply had a vision and gave their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to it.
Today, American leaders have neither vision, nor the courage to act on it. That's the difference.
Rest in peace, America. To the remnant, I again welcome you to Indian Country. Your children will admire pictures of you.
On January 9, 1873, Wisconsin Governor Cadwallader C. Washburn delivered an annual address in which he said:
Some law seems to be required to break up the schools where gamblers are made. These are everywhere. ... lotteries, prize packages, etc., are all devices to obtain money without value received. Nothing is so demoralizing or intoxicating, particularly to the young, as the acquisition of money or property without labor. Respectable people engaging in these chance enterprises, and easing their consciences with the reflection that the money is to go to a good object, it is not strange that the youth of the state should so often fall into the habits which the excitement of games of hazard is almost certain to engender.
The separation of money from value; the separation of money from labor; finally, it's the separation of man from the earth. That's what's going on in America today. But worse, it's not just the failure of financial fantasies on Wall Street, or main street. It's the long-awaited Communist (call it Socialist, Marxist, Leftist, Liberal, Progressive, whatever) take-over of America. It's here! It's about the government owning not only production, but the means of production. It's about the government owning everthing, and everyone. We're there, finally. We've walked through the door now. We're on the other side. We have the price to pay. We gambled, and lost.
Wisconsin Governor C. C. Washburn, 1872-1874.
The immorality of gambling, as Gov. Washurn would call it, isn't found so much in the individual now as in the collective experience of the population. The violent abstraction of speculation--a fancy word for gambling--and the removal of value (even money) from labor, from natural resources, was only the beginning. That's been going on a good while. The idea of betting on money, of "growing" money, of making money on money, this is the basis of the liability that has now come to fruition.
And it is not, I repeat, not the free market principle. Money is not on the market. Money is an abstraction. To toy with a fantasy, with the "audacity of hope, indeed, is to invite the cold, hard concrete--in your face. Laura Ingraham repeatedly cries out "We must protect the free-market system!" Yes, but Wall Street is not the free-market system. That's like saying we need to protect casinos. There is nothing sacred or valuable about Wall Street. A stock market is a false analogy. Money is not a product, or a commodity--except when gambling with borrowing and interest, credit and investing.
And Wall Street isn't safer. The odds aren't even better. It's just slower, and seems more controlled. Funny, when someone loses his shirt in a casino, does anyone look to the government to buy him a new one? Yet, because of our modern, mistaken way of financial management, if enough people lose on Wall Street, they think it's the government's responsibility to pay for their loss.
This kind of socially acceptable gambling is the way of life in America. It has been for some time. It's about credit, not even about cash. The medium of exchange is the first big abstraction. But credit is the second. Today we witness the place where those two steps lead: loss of everything.
"Economy?" What is "economy?" That's a red herring verbal tactic. The economy is never "good" or "bad." "The economy" is an elusive term. It is a critical illusion. "It's the economy, stupid!" is Bill Clinton's preference of fantasy above fact. Like the word "weather," or "feeling," it is relative, and has meaning only for the view at hand. It is indeed "stupid" to even think of "the economy."
But, if you are making profit, you're 'economy' is good, right? That's so you can get the things you want, or need. But if you have no profit, you can get "credit." So, if you can get those things you want, and more, on credit, your 'economy' is still good, right? That's what the American people have come to believe. That's the 'economy' the government helped create (since the New Deal) and is now taking advantage of. The government will give you unlimited credit. The government will then own everything you have and are.
I say you've lost. You are a 'comrad.' You are owned. This dim prospect makes freedom look like the illusion.
Many wealthy people have made much of their wealth on speculation, or gambling. "Wise investing," they congratulate themselves. Fine. They got theirs. They risked, "wisely," and won. Some people can drink without getting drunk, too. Some people can get married and have children without become a sex addict or pervert.
Our population might not have fallen into the great credit scheme (scam?) of living had not the basic element of covetousness been present. It is human nature to want what others have. (Exodus 20:17.) Right now, our government has determined that this sinful impulse should be honored--to the point of changing the nature of the American nation. Just plain materialistic envy has been indulged, and encouraged, to the point that the American Constitution is passe. It has become as meaningless the paper of stocks and bonds--even the dollar bill. It is simly an empty promise now.
The government professes to be helping the people out of their fears, but promising to own them. Ah, the bosom of the Great White Father.
Well, let me tell you, Indian people have been there. It ain't what you think it is! And we fought wars--to the death, to earn what little we have left. But American people are simply gambling away their lives--I should say, giving their lives away to the government. Worse, they think the government owes them their house and car, and college education for their kids. So, working 9 to 5 makes them like Indians? Are taxes the white people's "treaty"?
I don't think so. The Constitution, had it been followed, would never have allowed such circumstances. The government would never, ever have over-taxed the people so phenomenally, and the people would never have become indendured servants, or fallen into the condition of involuntary servitude--slavery, if you will. (See Amendment XIII of the Constitution.)
Hussein is diving into Communism head first. McCain feigns the spirit of resistance, but his words and plans show the same direction. It will take much more than a maverick to turn things around now. The door of Communism always slams shut quickly, once you've walked through it.
Major Gen. C. C. Washburn,
ca. 1863 (Union Army)
I don't blame bankers or even the "Federal" Reserve. I blame preachers. I blame religious leaders. They didn't teach people the right moral values. The gospel of prosperity is a far cry from the cross. Equality in Christ doesn't mean everyone gets a Cadillac, or intermarriage, or one world government. The truth might mean you just don't get as big a piece of the pie as your neighbor got. That's all. Can you "handle the truth"?
If the Gospel is about forgiveness, Yom Kippur is about behavior--change of behavior. Actually, Yom Kippur was about atonement (kippur), which procures forgiveness (celiychah [seleekah]), which then engenders changed behavior. My Jewish friend Lydia Saxton, back during our college days at Oberlin, said it best: "If you really believe you're forgiven for something, you don't want to do it again." That was the perfect truth.
But there is the matter of turning. What inspires one to turn to the Lord, having turned away before? Guilt?Suffering, misery, or deep dissatisfaction? "Repentance," we're talking about now, (nocham), breathing a heavy sigh, being sorry--for having misbehaved, and desiring a change of behavior. Ultimately, obedience is the result of repentence. Though nocham doesn't actually mean to "turn," or to "return," it does, when pursued, bring about turning, or a change, or, the proper behavior--which was the proper behavior from the beginning.
Of course, repentence is not exactly a one time deal. Obviously, Yom Kippur comes around more than once in a person's life time (usually). Indeed, with age comes a deeper sense of remorse, and a broader understanding of culpability. The case of Jacob (Genesis 32: 24-30) is spectacular. He had a unusually hard time of it, and his hour of crisis--his life repentence, was later known as "Jacob's trouble" (Jeremiah 30:7). It was all about guilt and fear. Years of conscious doubt and anxiety. It was acute knowledge of moral failure, and a sweaty wrestling with the fear of consequences. It was so intense that Jacob's anxiety took the form of the Angel of God! He wrestled with the Divine Presence. He writhed in desperation. "I will not let thee go, except thou bless me!" he cried out to the Angel.
Jacob prevailed. The Angel changed Jacob's name--from Jacob (the supplanter, who grabs your heel, or, cheats you) to Israel--one who wrestles with God, with his conscience, for the the life of his soul. Jacob's desire prevailed. He was crippled for the rest of his life, with a disjointed hip, so that he could never walk straight again, but, he had won the peace of eternity.
When I was in Messhad, Iran, in 1999, I visited a theological seminary. Several young clerical students were their, along with my host, and a revered Ayatollah Zanjani. Zanjani had a battery of questions to ask me (through my host and interpreter, Dr. Hashemi). It was a sort of public inquisition, designed to determine my spiritual condition, I suppose. The very first question was about the story of Jacob, in fact. Zanjani recounted the story, and emphasized the improbability--the impossibility--of a man wrestling with a divine being, and winning. "How can this be?" I was asked, with marked credulity. It was a question designed to discredit the Bible, really.
I thought a moment. It was an unexpected encounter on my part, for sure.
"Well, sir," I began, "I am not sure how that could be. I don't know how a man, Jacob, could be stronger than God, but, I think I know why that story is in the Bible."
Everyone waited with breathlessly, it seemed.
"If he can do it, maybe I can."
We went on to the next questions. No one said anything about my answer then. But, afterwards, on the way to the car, one of the young men walked with us, and said, "Dr. Yeagley, you are a humble man!" He said this with deep satisfaction. He gave me a book (Basic Teachings of Islam, by Tabatabai), and signed it, "To Dear Dr. Yeagley." I must admit, I was equally unprepared for his response to me, as I was to the ayatollah's question. My name is not Israel, but, his challenge is mine. I he can win, maybe I can.
The Ayatollah and 'me,' Messhad, Iran, 1999.
Later, in New York, when I was visiting my friend Jack Eisner (the Holocaust survivor), I related this story to him, in detail. When I told him how I had responded to the ayatollah's question about Jacob, Mr. Eisner smiled with fatherly approval. "That was a very good answer!" he said.
I don't know what else to say about it. I hardly justify my beliefs. I simply believe. Perhaps it is more arrogant than humble, more presumptuous than penitent. I have no methods in this thing. No discipline, nor order. It is all intuition, very real, very compelling intuition.
Change? Repentance is change--not to something new, but to something you were supposed to be doing to begin with. It is a return, not an exploration. It is a confessed embarrassment, not a vainglorious triumph of ambition.
This Yom Kippur, 2008, perhaps the American public and take a lesson from Jacob, too. Even a political lesson. We don't need change in the Obamic sense, at all. Quite the opposite. We need to return to our national, Constitutional values. Yom Kippur is a most fitting prospect for American society right now. The perfect holiday, indeed.
Some of the young seminarians at the school in Messhad, Iran, 1999.
Isn't it odd, how American Negroes are now immitating "brown shirt" idolization of Obama? (Only, they're wearing navy blue shirts, and camouflage army pants.)
Obama Youth--Junior Fraternity Regiment, crying "Alpha Omega" to their "messiah."
It is blasphemy, really. These are the very words of Jesus Christ in Revelation 22:13.
So now Obama is the Christ?
It seems very similar to the way Nazi youth were "indoctrinated" to think productively, positively, and in a self-discplined manner. Well, this is very helpful to black youth, who benifit greatly from organization, unity of action, and trained procedures. This is how the Nation of Islam attracted so many in the inner cities. There comes a sense of direction, purpose, and accomplishment.
But, were the German youth of the 1930's and '40's like American inner city blacks? Were they as socially depraved, lost, and "at risk?"
This is a new perspective to consider. Germans have had a hard time with race ever since the Nazi regime. Today they feel a special obligation to demonstrate that they are not racist--if only by verbally and constantly condemning the United States for racism. Considering the Obama Campaing, will Germans now have to understand themselves as once depraved, depresssed and purposeless as the American Negro inner city youth--who are desperate for some form of belonging? How else do they end up so easily in gangs? It's not just about threats.
Was the Nazi regime, then, just one huge gang development? Was it wholly thuggery at the base?--aimed at the lost and the aimless?
The Democrat election process in America is certainly plagued with downright thuggery. It's a tradition, in fact. But, the Obama campaign has taken on some weird dimensions, seemingly heretofor unprecedented in American politics, certainly in the 20th century. The hysteria has already been duly noted, as women fainted before the orator of the cult, Barack Hussein Obama. It was Hitlerian.
But now, this bit with children. Obama's campaign is into children--at least the ones that the Democrats haven't aborted.
Obama Kids and Hitler Youth Sing for their Leader
In this second video, however, we note the marked absence of Negro children. In fact, for the most part, the camera seems to studiously avoid the one black boy in the group. The group is mostly white girls (--accented with oriental girls.) (It's California!) It's that white woman savior thing again--surrender to the black man, a recurring theme in Western liberal sociology.
Now, it is not necessary to liken the Obama campaign to Naziism, or Islamism. Fanatical movements all have their similarities. It would be less than intellectually accurate to say they are all the same. What is accurate is to say that they inevitably use the same kinds of techniques to accomplish their social goals. Social architecture requires a thorough engagement of society--all society, all ages, all walks of life. It's called "community organizing." That's the Communist playbook term, anyway. (Ask Saul Alinsky.) The Obama campaign has just taken it to a national level. It's not just Obama, either. He's only the head piece. It is a giant, Democrat effort, using all the means of public coercion possible. Media, loans, intimidation (law suits), and moral condemnation--all are levied against the opposition. (Word is coming out now that anyone opposed to the Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac loan scam was threatened and intimidated. And all Democrat leaders can do is lie about it, and try to blame it on the Bush administration. The facts are coming out. This was a Democrat "community organizer" scam from the start--just on a national scale.)
It really could be that the Obama (Democrat) Campaign is very much like the Nazi regime, in that the German government then was based on thuggery, on intimidation and coercion. But, that business about using youth, that is 'deeply troubling.' Using little white girls to praise the black man, using black youth to idolize Obama in order to pull themselves out of the social pit, these are elements that call for a reassessment not only of what the Obama campaign is doing, but what Nazi Germany did, and why. I find it hard to believe that German people were equally has weak, naive, and hysterical as little white girls and poor black youth. Can it be?
Will American blacks and young white women turn out to be the tyrannical force that the Nazis were? This appears to be the pattern before us. It is a stunning, ghastly prospect. It is, of course, white liberals in America who are engineering this social misanthropy. They cannot achieve their goals without subterfuge and deception. Usurpation of words is only the surface--fundamentally important as that is. Law and court--this is where the real power is. Then they have achieved government intimidation. This is called tyranny. It's called the end of America. That's what the Obama Campaign will bring.
Hitler's program sounded mighty good in the beginning--in spite of the fact he had written out his real values in Mein Kampf, before he was ever in power. People just didn't read it, or take it seriously. Obama's ideology and associations are well known by now, yet, people continue to ignore the reality of his values, and simply get high on the promise of a better tomorrow. This hope, of course, has nothing whatever to do with Barack Hussein Obama. Indeed, he represents the antithesis of hope. (There's the new book title for someone.)
The financial "crisis" in America's economy is about credit, we are told. There must be 'credit flow,' as President Bush said. (UPI wire, Sept. 19). We were used to the established concept of "cash flow," but now we're obliged to understand that 'credit flow' is the same as 'cash flow.'
Perhaps the problem is philosophical. Money is, of course, a medium of exchange, and has no real value in and of itself, at all. It represents whatever is considered valuable. So what is valuable? Whatever people happen to want very badly?
On the basis of this undefined, amorphous, blog of a concept, financial pundits make statements like
..."millions of people have lost approximately seven trillion dollars in the last several years from stocks that they owned."
"...over two trillion dollars' worth of its market value has evaporated in less than 30 months."
How does value vanish? This is an imaginary, theoretical view of reality. It is not, in fact, reality. It is man's manipulation of it. In this view, money becomes simply a tactic of human relations. Life begins with the needs human body, indeed. Food, clothing, and shelter--these are the valuables. They are met with land, animals, and plants--with the provisions of Nature, to put it simply. Somewhere in the process of procuring or securing of these necessities, there came a collateral need for convenience--a medium of exchange. In its most primitive form, the medium was simply the goods of nature. The "exchange" was simply bartering--this good for that good. You have what I want, I have what you want. We exchange. Thus, goods were, even initially, an aspect or an expression of human relations.
Then the medium became more abstract. A piece of shiny metal, or a pretty stone. Gold, silver, or jewels. These were small, and could be carried around with minimal effort, and even hidden. (You couldn't put a camel in your pocket, plus, metals and rocks don't eat, or smell.) The medium became a matter of convenience, or, logistics. These seemed quite necessary, as the human population expanded--numerically and geographically.
Now, fast forward, say, to the Roman Empire, and you have something called "banking." "Interest." Making money on money. Loans. Time itself was priced. This is really weird, and only the human mind would ever develop such a theoretical reality. Only a godless human being would put a price on time, and charge another human being for it. This might appropriately be called the worship of "value"--the power to control what is valued, the power to create value.
"Credit." What is that? It is a loan, nothing else or other. It is a politically correct term for a financial weakness in a person, a financial lacking. If you need a loan, you are somehow inadequate on your own. You are dependent on someone, if even so impersonal as a bank, or a "company." But that sounds self-depreciating. That sounds like an inequality. Some people don't need a loan. Therefore, it is an inquity. So, what you have now is "credit." You are awarded credit. This means you are a good person, a qualified person, worthy person--even a 'valued' person. Your person is valued according to the size of your "credit."
But, somehow, this imaginary, artificial financial world is subject to severe reality checks now and then. The theory is demonstrably that--a theory. There are deeper, more solid realities. There is the concrete. There is still the land, the crops, the livestock, the water, the air. Now, yes, man has put a dollar value on everything there is--but this is all in relation to human relations. Nothing is "valuable" to itself. It is only the context of human relations--one human being relating to another--that things have "value." Value is an abstraction, therefore.
To play with value, to make a sport out of it, to gamble with it--this invites disaster. How is it that the "economy" of an entire nation can fall? Simple: when a nation has invested wholly in theoretical value, it risks a rude encounter with the concrete. How so? Remember the element of human relations. Some human beings are not so nice, and don't value other human beings the same as they value themselves. That's the long and short of it. Some people use other people, intentionally, rudely, and often very cruelly.
Real vallue doesn't vanish. Human character fails. That's different. Value is an expression of human character. Human relations don't vanish, but they can be very imbalanced, distorted, and harmful. That's what we're dealing with here. The government took money from responsible, working people, and by law, by coercion, gave it to irresponsible, dependent people. Value did not vanish. Human relations were distorted. Now everyone suffers, we are told. (Some people are told differently, however. Some banks are looking for people to give loans to!)
Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank, chief advocates of debt.
The "bailout bill" (H.R 1424) isn't even about buying up the loans that were given to the wind. That would be too simple. This bill is about financing pre-existing welfare programs. Time Magazine, amazingly, exposes its own list of "pork" in the bill:
$2 million excise tax exemption on "certain wooden arrows designed for use by children."
$49 million in tax breaks for people (in Alaska, mostly) receiving compensation from the litigation over the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
$100 million in tax breaks for "certain motorsports racing track facilities."
$179 million in tax incentives for "investment in the District of Columbia."
$49 million for a charitable deduction for corporations who donate books to libraries.
$33 million for an economic development credit in American Samoa.
$61 million in added credits for "steel industry fuel" also known as liquefied coal waste sludge.
$397 million for the "domestic production activities deduction" for film production
$81 million to extend and modify treatment of "certain film and television productions."
"None of this is change you can believe in." says Time Magazine. Fine. Does this mean Time doesn't support Barack Hussein Obama? He's the one who wants to raise taxes higher than they have ever been in the history of the United States--in order to support domestic programs, the programs for people who cannot achieve socio-economic advancement on their own.
Value? Is it then social status? Is it the three-bedroom house and the Cadillac? Is it college education? Is it food, clothing and shelter--gone Jonesy? You have to have at least as much as the neighbors have--even if they live in a different town? Is that the mission of media and advertising--to make sure everyone knows what everyone else has?
Maybe we need to talk about wrong values. That's what this "crisis" is all about. And remember, the poor are not exempt from the sin of covetousness. (Exodus 20:17 says nothing about social status.)
BadEagle.com previously declared the United States Supreme Court to be America's foremost enemy, but as of last night, October 1, 2008, the United States Senate established itself as America's public enemy--No.2, at the least. They passed the "bailout" bill. (We should say, Congress is America's public enemy No.2, since it set the precedent with H.R. 1424.)
Never was there such fraud, deceit, and lying--all committed in broad daylight--in the history of America. Our senators have made utter fools of themselves, without shame, without remorse, and without the lightest sense of the public.
The Senate pass the $700 billion "bailout" law, which includes staggaring pork and infamous earmarks--everything that the people despise, and everything that senators live on, and whose careers depend on. It is as if every senator pushed for his own private pet cause through this bill (--the cause his lobbyists demanded). It was an opportunity. The fabricated crisis, threating disaster on the public, was simply a marvelous occasion for more deception and abuse of public trust. (And that is the real crises: trust. The public no longer trusts the government, or any part of it. But the senators are too self-absorbed to even act aware of the public.)
The baleful bailout law includes government subsidies (i.e., coerced public tax-payer support) for insurance companies so the companies will pay for "mental illness" treatment--caused by "addiction" (p.310); for film and television productions under $15 million budgets (p.298); $500 million annually for rural school roads, enhancing forest ecosystems, land health and water quality, controlling noxious and exotic weeds (pp. 344, f.); for operating costs attributable to federally declared disaasters; for development of "clean renewable energy" (p. 115, 144, f.); for use of non-fossil, non-oil fuels (p. 181, f.); for using the right kind of domestic regrigerators and washers (p.223); for "green" construction projects (p. 229); and hordes of other "development" projects.
This H.R. 1424 is all about environmentalism, energy sources, "community" developement projects, and all the basic liberal causes in America.
This bill is not to bail out the failed loan companies (Fanny May and Freddy Mac); not to bail out the investment banks on Wall Street; and not to protect social security for the elderly, nor the college education savings of families, nor the retirement savings (investments) of life-long factory workers. This bill is about financing the liberal causes in American society. It is tax-payer funded charity, enviromentalism, and federal government ownership of American business. It was small step for senators, one giant leap for Communism.
Here is a clearer outline of the bill, H.R. 1424. It is truly unbelievable. The bill has been loaded down with other bills--which were not passed previously, like, the GENETIC INFORMATION NONDISCRIMINATION ACT OF 2008, involving employmnent, health insurance, etc. Congress is using the word "genetic" now, instead of "racial." Nothing to do with Wall Street. Nothing to do with "credit flow."
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