Most people know that, when Islam came into the world, the Arabs were the great slavers--slave buyers, traders, drivers, and marketers. Indeed, their world trade routes are still used today--and often for the same trade. (That may be simply because those routes were the obvious ones, but, let's give credit where credit is due. The Arabs are fabulous adventurers. Their lust for wealth and power has been matched by few other people. And their ruthlessness and denegration of humanity was unexcelled. Islam was a great impetus, a great organizer, and we must acknowledge the genius of Muhammad ibn Abdullah (570-632) was no slouch when it came to force and cruelty.
Today, however, there appears a certain irony on those old Arabian water ways. A strange development has evolved along those dusky coasts: black African Somali pirates.
Somali pirates, CBS news, Nov. 19, 2008.
So let's consider the score here. historically. The first "pirates," the mafia of the sea, these gangs of sea-faring thieves, were Arab--North African to be exact. They were Arabs and/or Turks, of the infamous "Barbary" coast--northwest and western Africa, the Barbary pirates of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, and Tripoli. This kind of sea-going plunder began in the 1500's, and went on well into the 19th century. The United States felt the edge of the scimitar in 1805. The birth of the United States Navy and Marines, as a international entity, came during this time, as the United States had to defend it's trade with Europe. The Islamic murderers wreaked havoc on the high seas--or those coasts which harbored them. The Barbary "states" were not a country, not a nationality, and not really a true ethnicity. It was an Islamic phenomenon--very much like Al-qaeda, or, terrorism, is today.
Back then it was all about slave trading, intercepting and capturing the human cargo and crew, and above all, demanding ransom. "Tribute" the would-be royalty would call it. These rogues, these ruffians of the waterways aspired through delusions of grandeur. But, today, already, as the story of Arab slave trade has been "revised," so as to give everyone equal credit, they're saying many of the "Arabs" were "Black," so that even early on, the Negro is to be given the same credit as the romantic murderers of the Arabian peninsula.
Barbarossa, "Red Beard," the famous
Ottoman pirate.
But today's headlines are all about Somali pirates--black Africans, eastern Africans, the hordes of the Horn. They have risen up against the cargo trade between the West and the Arab "nations." They are interfering with the Arab world. Now, they are all Islamic, but, apparently that makes no difference. (Apparently it never made any difference.) Dozens of ships have been 'hijacked,' crews taken captive, and ransoms demanded. Many are still being held by the Somali pirates. At this point, even Germany is sending in 1,400 troops on a naval frigate. It is an international problem, because the Somalis have no discretion. Any ship coming within their area of operations is fair game, Islamic-owned, or no. The pirates have included an Iranian ship on their list of hits.
It is an interesting evolution in social affairs, how the Arab used the Negro tribes (and other ethnicities), and now the black Africans are giving the Arabs the same treatment, if on a very small scale. We have to wonder how far this will go. The Somalis may have learned their lessons from the so-called "Ottoman Corsairs" (murderous Muslims) all too well. Either that, or someone (like Al-qaeda) is training them as we speak. We can't exactly look for Arab unity these days.
An international water patrol is going to have to come about. An international police force unlike anything the UN ever dreamed up. It will exceed any NATO operation. The logistics of controlling sea travel and port authority is quite complex. Like air affairs, where the modus operandi is a risk itself, it is always a danger just to be on the water, let alone to have armed encounters. The ocean is yet wilderness. The sea is still wild. Every vessel must have port, somewhere. The law of the land is inevitable. But ocean crime can change what happens on land.
Looks like it's more "change" we're going to have to live with.
Everyone knows by now the fiacso out in the Los Angeles school district of Claremont. The tradition of two elementary schools was suddenly and ruthlessly attacked by local university professors. It was pathetic, really-- adult professionals crashing the Thanksgiving party of innocent children.
But I had more of a traditional thanksgiving. My friend Richard Lawrence Poe and his lovely wife Marie drove all the way from New York City to my home here in Oklahoma City. We had a Thanksgiving turkey dinner, right here in this home of a great Comanche woman, my mother. She isn't here anymore, having passed on in 2005, but I know she would have been happy to see it. (Richard Poe used to be the editor of Frontpage Magazine, and he was the one who introduced me into the world of journalism, in January, 2001.) At the end of the seventh year of our friendship, we celebrated a genuine, traditional Thanksgiving.
I for one have never taken the position that the historical Indian images are hurtful, wrong, or incorrect. Warriorhood is the inevitable association, the unavoidable emotional appeal of the Indian in the white American mind. But, on Thanksgiving, the truer side of the Indian is brought out--the host, the provider, even the protector. This is equally if not more precious. Thanksgiving is the one American national holiday which emphasizes this first American Indian image in the white mind--the host.
I have always taken the position that protesting these two images, the warrior and the host, is gravely mistaken. As for Indian sports mascots, I believe that an Indian warrior image should be on every school in the country, from the elementary school to the university. I have never believed that Indians wanted those images removed. As for Indian costumes for children, I believe that every child should dress up like an Indian! Every child has the right to know what it feels like to be an Indian. Every American child should feel the glory, if for a moment.
The protest to Indian imagery is founded on white psychology of victimhood. It is articulated weakness. It is self-justified dependency. A few Indians are induced into this view, and have been taught to believe public protesting is important. They don't see that white liberals are using them to create a miserable image of the Indian--one who is discontent, angry, and unhappy. This, as the white liberals would have it, is the better, more helpful image for Indians, one that they should all have.
I reject it completely. In the past, I have spoken loudly and violently against it. At this point, I'm only trying to get people, especially Indian people, to see the inevitably negative image they are creating with this sidewalk skirmish bit. The accusative, provocative signs, the mantras of discontent, the atmosphere of trouble--this is not helpful to anyone. It is, I believe, especially harmful to Indians.
Let white people play Indian. Let all people pretend they are Indian. They all seem to want to, at least now and then. There's something special about it. Something very deep. There's something in the American Indian that everyone wants. How can expressions of this desire possibly hurt Indians? Whether there are adequate expressions or inadequate doesn't matter. None of it insults Indians. That is a false application of white psychological theory. I'm not saying it honors Indians either. It isn't that superficial. It is a deep desire for something in the Indian, a desire to be that.
I have a white friend in Connecticut who, when she was in second grade, wrote a little 'essay' on what she wanted to be in life. She came from a fairly sophisticated family. Here mother was a Registered Nurse and her father was a very successful attorney. But what did little Juleanne want to be? "I want to be an Indian," she wrote. "I want to live in the woods." At seven years old, she felt the draw. And this was only from story book tales about Indians, and pictures of a time long ago. There were no Indians for her to know in Connecticut, not in the 1960's. But even a child can feel the glory--just from simple stories about Indians.
The image of the Indian is eternal. It carries a grandeur like no other. I say the host, and the warrior, both. The provider and the protector. What is this modern "angry" Indian image? How weak, how mistaken, how wrong. It is a denigration. This is the work of the white liberal, the oedipal white liberal (OWL), who is striking out against his own kind, and using the people of color to accomplish his goal. This is gross humiliation for the Indian to be used in this way.
Let every child dress like an Indian. Let every child learn to be host and warrior, provider and protector. Away with this image of misery and discontent.
UPDATE: Yeagley Thanksgiving article on VDARE.com: The Whiteness of the Whale
I don't have a president right now. This is a dark, fluke time, a shadow presidency. I do think the real America will actually come through, finally, on the other side. I'm not sure what it will take to get through, but, we are definitely in the dark. The lights are out. We are 'outside' America right now. It will be some time before the shadow passes.
I have nothing personally against Obama. He may be a fairly good man, outside politics. Who can say his intent for America is malicious? I've always admired him for marrying a genuine black woman. He could easily have played the Tiger Woods game. And, from all sides, he really is a 'cool' character. Everyone enjoys that. Not presidential, not even dignified in the slightest. Just cool. For whatever 'cool' is worth, Barak Hussein Obama (may his name be changed, inshalah) is all that. (I don't suppose most Americans even understand what "presidential" or "dignified" even mean anymore. The Clinton administration destroyed that long ago. I don't agree with Obama's political view of America, or of the world. I think he will do more damage than the Clintons did. But, this is not to take away from his talents. He is what he is. He has lived a fascinating life, no question about it.
But, now, I appeal to Democrats. I appeal to the Left, even the far left. I know you all have hated George W. Bush with a satanic hatred, a most irrational, venomous, agonizing hatred. It was obvious to all that you were a co-dependent in your obsession. So I ask you, How do you think survive the last eight years? What were you telling yourself all that time? I don't think you were holding your breath. I think you knew Republicans were going to fail. You were going to see to that. You really did have a large part in making that happen. I'm not so proud as to think Republicans did this wholly our own. We had help in this colossal demise (temporary though it surely is).
I know you worked tirelessly in the streets, in back rooms, behind closed doors; I know you gathered every possible ally, from the most murderous of the Muslims, to the most traitorous of the white color Republican executives; I know nothing was beneath you, nothing was sacred, and there was nothing you would not do, as one of your great leaders Al Gore put it, "Whatever it takes." But, I still want to ask, How did you survive, psychologically? Whatever you told yourself, I know it won't work for Republicans. The psychological structure is too different. The value system is actually different--at least for real, true Republicans--who are always conservative.
Personally, I consider the country a blank right now. We're under water, or in a mirror. It isn't real. There is simply no leadership. No national, American leadership. Obama and those that put him in office are not American nationalists. They are Marxist globalists. They are using Obama. (I hope, for his sake, he survives. Their's is a merciless line to tow. And they won't hesitate to 'slave' him. If he doesn't do what they want, then he really will have reason to be compared to JFK., if yesterday's blog has any truth to it.)
Things will go from bad to worse, I'm sure. That's on the agenda of the world. I don't think Obama can be blamed for that. Indeed, he and his supporters will blame George W. Bush for all that is ill with the world, and all that goes wrong for the "Obama" administration. They've been doing that for some time now. They ran a campaign on it, with the Clinton blessing. "Change?" The only change in Washington, indeed, in the country, will be more Communism (call it Socialism if that makes you feel less terrified, if that makes you feel better). Change everyone will be forced to "live with."
But, no, I don't blame Barry. He's just going along for the ride, almost like a spectator. He's got the best seat. Why shouldn't he enjoy it? America is a huge country, with enormous presence in the world. As I have said before, the CIA, the US military-industrial complex, even the FBI, won't let Obama go too far off the road. It's their world, not his. He's only "a fly in the butter," so to speak, no reason to stop the dinner. Party on, thou grand players of the world! The feast goes on.
Those of us fasting will have to dig our way out. It's going to take a while, or so it appears. We may have to start a new country. If we can't redeem what's left, we may just have to start all over.
Ironic as it seems, one of our American presidents most famous for his assassination (November 22, 1963), once spoke against secret societies, conspiracies, censorship, and the responsibility of the citizenry to engage in public debate. Here is YouTube video, President John F Kennedy Secret Society Speech
(Here's a shorter version: The speech that got John F. Kennedy Killed
Liberals, of course, see it backwards. The media, the news people, all think this speech protects them, and their bias. They see this speech as something that condemns the Bush administration's "Homeland Security" measures which have protected the country from terrorism since September 11, 2001. They want to use Kennedy's speech as a position against any restrictions on America's enemies, foreign or domestic.
However, the speech was given to the news media leaders during the era of Communism and its aggressive onslaughts in the world. This was after the McCarthy period, when the media covered up, lied about, and ridiculed any notion that Communism had infiltrated the United States. Kenney was, by contrast, encouraging news media to keep everything out in the open. He encouraged debate, criticism, and controversy. Kennedy said the only business in the country that was specifically protected by the First Amendment was the news business. He emphasized the responsibility of the news, the broad scope of obligations to provide right, appropriate and necessary information.
Did Kennedy prophesy about the state of our American media today, which is blatantly biased, which is slavishly devoted to Democrat, Marxist agenda?
Never before was American media so slanted. Even FoxNews no longer represents solely the conservative view. And with the Democrats drive for the looming Fairness Doctrine, it won't be long until the media is totally and thoroughly liberal. Free market demostrates that people prefer to hear at least feigned conservatism in media. Fox News ratings are higher than any other cable news. Naturally, talk show personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and even Laura Ingraham, are all well aware of the implications of coerced air time for their competitors--who can't otherwise get an audience. Free market is the death of liberalism, really, in every aspect. They have to have laws to enforce their ideas, otherwise, no one would be interested.
So, Kennedy's speech was for an unbiased media. He called for a willingness to investigate, and bring out into the open all the conspiracies, secret societies, and,in short, anything that would be a threat to the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. That the liberal Marxist media in the country would mask their own mischief with a plea for freedom is simply a ploy to deceive the unwarey. That the enemy would thinly veil his venom with a call for antidotes is a rather ancient tactic.
The question is, Why do so many Americans not see this? I say, it's a century of mis-education, including the last half century of mass dis-information, (discourtessy of mass media), and the established public disposition that the government is responsible for everyone's welfare. "You ow me!" is the clarion voice of the people to Washington. "I've been wronged," is the Communist-designed mantra instilled, inculcated in nearly the whole American population.
Not something that can be undone overnight. And we have a dark four years more ahead of us.
Ayman al-Zawahri, the No.2 Al-qaeda commander under Osama bin Ladin, has just referred to Barack Hussein Obama, along with Colon Powell and Condoleeza Rice as "house Negroes."
Ayman al-Zawahri, reminding the world of the historical,
'traditional' Arab view of the black African.
Clearly a "demeaning racial term" said severely liberal NBC news, which implies "that the president-elect is a black American who does the bidding of whites." (Of course they do the whites' bidding. That's what they're hired for, as would do any other 'racial' persons put in those positions. But, in the case of B.O., he was indeed bought. That is to say, the White House was bought for him. B.O., that's B. Hussein O. That's Barack Hussein Obama.)
So, at last the debilitating liberal media finds fault with Al-qaeda! Something about the league of ruthless mass murderers is to be criticized, even rigorously condemned. Destroying 3,000 American lives in a matter of minutes on 9-11 was not reprehensible, but, calling Barak Hussein Obama a "house Negro" is morally outrageous! One liberal who was interviewed pointed out that Al-quaeda discriminated against African members, paying them less than Arab members. He said that Al-qaeda did not have the moral authority therefore to criticize America, since Al-queda obviously had race problems of it's own.
In other words, Al-qaeda is on a par with the United States! Al-qaeda is equal in importance and moral responsibility to the United States. This is the liberal mind set. All are equal, especially the Negro. Equal pay for the Negro, equal opportunity, indeed equal material possessions and equal job placement--even the White House, this is what's important in the world. Equal status to the United States, no matter what the nature of your social organization, that's what's important, as a given. Not terrorism or the slaughter of 3,000 Americans on American soil, in America's finest city.
In the case of the al-Zawahri "house Negro" remark, it is clear that the liberals (Democrats) find righteousness only in words. It's all about word control, word crafting, word policing. This is the easy power. This is access to law, to court, and finally to money and power. The right words. Actually, the wrong words! Or, the right words used in the perfectly wrong way.
Never mind what effect al-Zawahri's statements will have on the rest of the Muslim world. Never mind his assessment of Obama's role in the White House (as the House Negro-in-Chief). The real story here is that the liberal media finally was willing to condemn Al-qaeda for something--not for slaughtering people, but for making a racial slur!
And, actually, it's a bit of a weak slur. It is merely a historical perspective. A house Negro, or house servant, was once a common kind of employment. There are house servants today. We call them maids, butlers, foremen, people who work for someone else, and live on the property. A nanny, an au-pair, is also a live-in employee. By the way, au-pair is French for "on a par" with. Not exactly demeaning.
So, what exactly is offensive about the term, "house Negro?" Clearly, it was meant to be demeaning, but only in terms of position, not race. Of course, it could be that al-Zawahri is reflecting the attitude, the ancient Arab attitude, that the Negro race itself was designed or somehow destined to serve other races. It was a slave race, in their view. Of course, every race but their own was a slave race in their view, white Europeans included. This is actually where our English word "slave" comes from--slav, as in Yugoslavia, or, the slavic races of Eastern Europe, where so many were taken captive by the Muslims.
Personally, I don't think the word "Negro" is offensive at all. It has in fact historical grandeur. It means something, something very extensive. But, clearly, al-Zawahri means to denigrate Obama, essentially calling him the slave of whites. I really don't see what's offensive about that, either. It's completely true. Whites are in power. Anyone who is not white is, essentially, in a subordinate position. That's the way it is.
If the history of the modern world is darkies trying to rise to a material equality with whites, or a power-position equal with whites, then I think white people have a right to be concerned. What's the point? What's the point of creating a world, and pretending to hand it over to someone else? Is this a concession? a manoeuver? a tactic? What are whites afraid of, a world wide slave rebellion? Has modern history simply been a training session, where white are trying to make darkies ready to lead? even to be president? Fathers and Children(Vintage, 1975), as liberal Michael Paul Rogin might say. How noble.
I'm proud to say that American Indians, however, were never interested in the job. Sometimes I think American Indians are the only people left in the world who have pride. We naturally have a deep appreciation for the strength of the white man, but, lately, its what we remember of his moral courage, when he was brave enough to fight us, and not his present day politics, which shows nothing but unworthy weakness. That's for other people to imitate. Indians always prefer to ride our own horse. There are some weak among us today, confused and somewhat weary, but, as a general thing, Indians perfer to be Indian. Let the black man be white.
Where is that good feeling in the world promised after Obama was elected? Where's that global hug, where all people of all races and all religions are at peace and in love again? Where's that shining "black" nobility that Obama would bring out of Africa? Somali Muslim pirates are attacking international cargo ships with rigour.
November 17, 2008, Pirates seize another ship in Gulf of Aden. A Hong Kong cargo ship loaded with 36,000 tons of wheat headed for Iran was captured by Somali pirates (old style Muslim terrorists at sea) of the coast of Yemen. (The liberal FinancialTimes, however, cannot bring itself to say that the pirates are Somali.
November 17, 2008 Drama on the high seas Somali pirates (old style Muslim terrorists at sea) captured a Saudi oil tanker carrying $100 million dollars of crude oil--off the coast of Obama's beloved Kenya (--450 miles, anyway).
Also, September 21, 2008, Norwejian Warship Fights Pirates near Somalia This is clearly an international affair on the high seas.
Of course, September 25, 2008, Ukrainian ship seized by pirates off Somali coast. Somali pirates (old style Muslim terrorists at sea) captured a Ukranian ship loaded with tanks and military equipment (though the news does not say where the ship was bound for).
The only thing coming out of Africa is trouble. The "good feeling" is Not Out of Africa, as Mary Lefkowitz might say. And it's not coming Out of America, as Keith Richburg might say--at least not out of the Obama election.
FinancialTimes
The Muslims terrorists on the high seas are clearly disrupting the course of world supply lines--for ransom money. Money to contribute to more terrorism, obviously. Muslims terrorists may not be able to depend on the Al-qaeda command directly. They have to develop their own resources, which they are quite capable of doing. So, it's out of the mountains onto the high seas. It's a whole lot more difficult to control pirates than terrorists on land. Land security is easy in comparison. (And air security always happens on land first.) Water is a different venue. Quite unlimited. Muslims will never, ever give up. They're here to accomplish their purpose. Death. And death is no obstacle to them, personally, or collectively. As much death as possible. It is a wonderful thing.
So, Biden said Obama is going to be tested, eh? It looks like Obama doesn't have much to do with anything. He is a shadow boxer. The powers behind him are what will be tested. What is their resolve? Democrats are well established as the party of defeat and surrender. That is a trademark policy. But they may escape the embarrassment of surrendering America to another country. So, surrender will have to be from battle to bettle, from terrorist attack to terrorist attack. This wonderful new venue on the high seas may be very interesting.
It may finally be impossible to determine what or who Obama really is. The events of the world are well underway, and he had nothing whatever to do with them. What's a few terrorist, anti-American associations? He can't be blamed for doing anything. He's merely a front piece, it seems.
Again, it is foolish to expect anything significant attributable to B. Hussein O, however appropriate is name is for the Third World, however prized it is in the Muslim world. Obviously, there is no racial 'healing' so enthusiastically preached as he ran for office. There is no unity, whatsoever. That is always a foolish campaign slogan, designed to lure the unwarey, the weary, and the weak. There can be some common purposes, but, "unity," such as the Obama campaign preached, was fantasy from the start. Rather insulting fantasy, in fact. That beautiful Third World has already defecated on the Obama dream "change."
The world is scarely aware of the role cargo plays in world affairs. But the Somali pirates, the old style Muslim terrorists on the seas, have valiently brought that role to light. No doubt, such efforts will continue, until the world realizes that the Muslim murderers are in control. But not to worry, they won't be for long. They want to see the entire world end. That is their real goal. To rule, then to ruin. Pirates of the past may not have been so theological, but effective nonetheless, in wreaking the greatest havoc of their era, allegedly delivering over a million white Europeans into slavery. All in good faith, awaiting the coming of the 12th Imam.
People are tired of wrong, and wrong doing. Americans are just burnt out on moral outrage. They're tired of wrong being wrong. It's a pain. A pain to do anything about.
So, the simple solution: wrong's not wrong anymore. It just is what it is. It has equal rights to right. There's too much wrong, and it's too hard to correct. The American public just gave up this time. This election year was the great give in. The great go with the flow. Wrong's not so bad, after all. Let it slide. Nothing's really that bad. It can't be. Whatever it is, the Clintons got by with if for eight years. (George Bush has been pre-occupied with war in the East for eight years.) And now, Barack Hussein Obama, the alien, black African Communist in in. Hey, he's cool!
We don't know where he was born (though allegedly his paternal grandmother says Kenya). We don't know what country he is actually a citizen of (since he was a citizen of Indonesia and has no record of transferring citizenship to America). And now it seems he forged his American draft registration (a nice fat felon for starters).
But no matter. He's just a super cool guy. He says nice things. How can he be a bad guy? What could be "wrong" with him? He's part of a grand movement to save the world. He offers a mild sway for America, a gradual "change" into totallitarian Communism. After all, Communism is the more natural way, and takes absolutely no effort on the part of the people. It's something you can just set back and relax and watch it happen. The government will take care of it all.
The government will buy out and buy up (or "bail out," they call it) any and everything it can. Perhaps by the end of B.O.'s first term, the country will have basically arrived. America will not longer be America, but a Communist country merely called "America." That's the direction America's going.
Conservatives are truly in Indian Country now, on psychological reservations. Republicanism is some archaic facade at this point, rotting away as we speak. It is quite unlikely that Republicans will recover from their own neglect and duplicity. I encourage conservatives to hold on to their identity, nonetheless. Indians have survived. Conservatives can too. You have completely foreign government that has swept over you, but, you're still here. You're on the same land, you breathe the same air. You're still you. Never surrender your heart. Never. (If it's really your heart, you won't. You'll never think of it.)
Conservatives can try to rebuild. I don't think a son of Hindu immigrants (Bobby Jindal) or even a white woman (Sarah Palin) is the answer. I think a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant male is the only hope, if America is ever to be America again. This business of political manipulation through race and gender is like Jakarta shadow puppetry. It is a dance of masks and illusions. Such politics absolutely defies history with the kind of blind arrogance found in rebellious adolescents rejoicing in their newfound powers. It is so obviously mistaken.
It is wrong. But, again, for now, wrong isn't wrong. In this period of moral and spiritual abandonment, wrong is at least okay. It might even be right--in many people's minds. It's the new "equality." In the first flush of this nonsense, it seems wonderful to many. It seems so very right, in fact.
That's where we are, right now. We have to listen to the same media people day in and day out, and they certainly have no grip on moral or spiritual reality. They're wave riders, just like politicians. How else could they make a living? They're selling a product--their own personality--as employed by their liberal networks. (I'm afraid that includes FoxNews, the conservative facade in the media). Sure, there should be a law that we have to listen to the same anchor only for two weeks, then we get a new one. Talk show hosts should be allowed only two weeks, then be replaced by someone new. There should be no illusion of "friendship" or "faviorites" in the matter of news or news commentary. What a social warp this is, all created by media. But, this will never be corrected.
So, on with the show. On with the flow. Enjoy the wrong. The Clintons did, and do. Hussein was ushered in on the biggest tidal wave of illusion in the history of America. An unidentifiable, alien, black African Communist--in the White House, as president of the United States. Let that be a lesson to all wave riders, all surf riders.
Oh, ye oarsmen who labor 'gainst the waves, whence cometh thy weariness?
Ye stanchions of the sea, wherefore art thou releaved of thy strength?
Resolve thou to row again, evermore.
Against the tide, against the main, to win the ancient, everlasting shore.
Indeed, the return of freedom shall be long and fearfully awaited. When the people are still revelling in the illusions of freedom, securely funded by their newly "communized" government, they'll never be motivated to feel otherwise. It will take a terrible shock, a horrific awakening, to make them aware of their plight. We can only hope the American people will be American enough to fight their way back to real freedom, and the glory of individual responsibility, the dignity of manhood, and the honor of being.
Do people create a leader? Can a leader actually shape a people?
Certainly, a leader is someone who leaves room for the people. A leader is someone who is not so self-obsessed that the people are closed out. The people must be able to participate in the leader's life. He must invite them into himself, not bury them with himself.
It is a time of leadership crisis in America, and we have witnessed a number of troubling characteristics of leadership and the difficult relationships it can have with people. In the midst of such a social evolution, I would like to once again call attention to the leader of the Comanche people today, Wallace Coffey. This is completely voluntary on my part, of course, and there is no intentional self-serving on my part. It is simply an opportunity to make a point about leadership, and people.
When Coffey ran for chairman of the Comanches the second time (2004-2008), he handed out a one-page flyer, "Wallace Coffey for Chairman." It contianed an unusually simple layout of his background and goals for the people. He identified his family, of course. His great, great grandfather was Chief Ten Bears, his grandfather was "Eli Coffee." Interestingly, for leadership experience and qualification, Wallace listed four items:
1) Demonstrated success with 6 years experience as Comanche Tribal Chairman
2) Received an M. Ed. from Harvard University
3) Chaired the Board of Directors of the Native American Rights Fund for the past 3 years
4) Served as Tribal Liaison (for 5 years) at the Institute of AMerican Indian Arts (four-year college in Santa Fe)
I say interesting, because other Comanches, running for office, have put together virtual 'booklets' for their campaign.. Don Allen Parker, for instance, running for Tribal Administrator, put together a six-page flyer for his campaign. Gene Pekah, running for the same office (2006), put together eight pages, including xerox copies of his MBA degree and two other certificates. John Wahnee offered the same kind of packet--with nine pages, running for the same office. Heavy campaigning there!
But Wallace made no such display. He simply offered some basic, critically important essentials about himself, and presented five major goals he had for the Comanche people. It was as if he were inviting the people's confidence, rather than demanding it. He left room for the people to join him. His approach was not what we could call "competitive." He did not seem to be arguing his case. He wasn't promoting 'better' qualifications. To Wallace Coffey, the race was not about arguing for superior, competitive qualifications, but simply presenting who he was, and what he wanted to do. He wasn't trying to earn or demand confidence by virtue of his education or experience. In other words, he wasn't campaigning in the spirit of self-deserts. He never comes across as someone who thinks he deserves respect, confidence, or leadership responsibility. He doesn't present himself as one who ought to have it. (As a matter of fact, when there was a movement to actually recall him, that is, pull him out of office after the second year of his second term, he told me he was resigned to what appeared to be an inevitability. He wasn't angry, frustrated or vengeful. That's not the way of Comanche leadership, not the old way. Leadership is all about the will of the people. Even if it seems like something as unpredictable as the wind, it is as authorative as the thunderstorm. It's not something you argue about. Wallace is alway in tune with the old Comanche way, the spirit of the lords of the plains. And yes, that involves a lot of strong wind! By the way, he was kept in office by a more than two-to-one vote.)
Wallace didn't publish a book about himself to campaign with; he didn't make a video of himself, or present himself as the inevitable heir of the war bonnet because of who he was, or even because of what his ideas were. He was simply humble about the whole thing, and offered himself. That is truly the secret of successful leadership, at least among the Comanche. The people are the leader. The Chief is merely their voice--a sail at most, directing their energies. The people are the wind. You don't tell the wind what to do.
There are profundities of sociology and psychology in the Comanche people, and I believe America might to well to consider some of these. At a time when our country is over-burdened with showmanship campaigning, bewildering egotism and braggadocio in politicians, the spirit of true leadership seems nearly absent in the nation. Indian tribal leadership, especially among the Comanche, could be a great source of lessons in the exigent dynamics of leader and people.
Nick Tahchawwickah and I see precious value in our present leadership. We recently presented a proposal to the Comanche Business Committee about an amendment to our Comanche Constitution that would insure continuation of that leadership. When a true leader appears among the Comanche, we think the people have the right to maintiain his leadership as long as they want. Under our current Constitution, imposed by the Bureau of Indian Affiars in 1934, our chiefs can remain in office only for two consecutive terms. Then they must be out of office, at least one term, before they can run again. This is certainly foreign and contrary to the old Comanche ways. Leaders were 'elected' in the first place. They evolved into the position by natural selection. And they certainly were never "changed" regularly by scheduled elections. This is a bit bizarre for Comanches, actually. Tahchawwickah and I want an amendment which will allow unlimited terms. (The new, proposed Constitution, which hasn't come to a vote yet, does not even address the matter of terms or term limits.)
Personally, I think Wallace Coffey should be chief of the Comanches until he himself wants to rest from the burden. He is a deeply Christian man, or should I say, a deeply Comanche man! Just last November 6, he stated before the people at the CBC meeting that he was concerned that our Comanche young people were not being taught Christian values. This was going to seriously damage our nation in the future. I truly wish the world could have heard his testimony. Comanche leaders see Christianity as obviously something deeply similar to our own spirit and ways. Another CBC member, Lanny Asepermy, is also a deeply Christian person, and has made public testimony of his values--like at the last Comanche Fair, in September. "Only two people have given their life for you: Jesus Christ, who died for your soul, and the veteran, who will die for your life." Yes, Comanches, as other Indian people, have our own way of Christianity; we have our own 'genetic' take on the psychology. But, it is rather obvious in the person of Wallace Coffey that genuine love of the people flows only from the heart that is truly humble. It otherwise cannot be communicated. I have told Wallce myself that just watching him deal with the people has helped me be a better Christian. This I say, of my own Comanche chairman. (Not to say I am remotely Christ-like, but, only to say I feel the spirit of love and humility in my chairman! I'm sure the devil could feel that.)
I for one have a new standard of leadership when I look at politicians in the American arena. My own Comanche chairman has also made me a better American. I feel that way, in any case. I've always loved America, and I consider myself an American patriot. But, I must say, the Comanche Nation and our present chief Wallace Coffey has given me a deeper understanding of how America might benefit from some old Indian ways.
This day, November 12, the day after Veterans Day, 2008, I ponder the possibility of America's second revolution. The first one, in 1776, involved force, or military resistance. It involved separating from an oppressive fatherland or native government. It called for incredible courage, indeed "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor," so said the signers of the Declaration of Independence, July 4. BadEagle.com has contemplated these things before, as have many patriots.
Revolution II, David Yeagley, at Penn State
But, now, with an alien, black African Communist placed in the White House by oedipal white liberals, with every intention of a swift destruction of every idea and principle America was founded upon, designed to be, and envisioned as being, we must ponder more seriously the possibility of serious citizen resistance.
I ask, At what point must the citizens arm themselves as resist with force the political overthrow of the United States brought about by ignorance, delusion, and usurpation of all national powers? When is the line crossed? What is the final straw that breaks the camel's back? When will the patriots galvanize for the salvation of what's left of the American ideology?
Never before in American history were so many people so mistaken, so ignorant, and so deluded as to the identity of the United States of America, its social identity and culture. Never before were so many so ill-prepared to think and vote intelligently. Never before were there more candidates, Democrat and Republican, who had abandoned the United States Constitution.
Is it all over? Has the tide swept away all hope? It is too late?
We are told that Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." The struggle must happen. It is inevitable and natural. Tyrants are a constant liability. "Eternal vigilence is the price of liberty," said Andrew Jackson. Liberty costs blood, again and again. Tyranny requires no cost. It is the evil of human nature. It evolves quickly and naturally.
Conservatives, or, constitutionalists, are playing the political process right now, desperately trying to make the system work. Here in Oklahoma, there is a fine movement (Oklahomans for Initiative Rights ) to secure the people's right to petition initiatives. Naturally, the career politicians and local governments--including the Oklahoma State attorney general, Drew Edmondson, are dead set against it. Petition power threatens anyone in power. Edmondson is actually prosecuting individuals who are trying to advance the initiative rights of the people.
(These people could learn a great lesson from Comanche politics. Our people can remove any leader, any time we feel like it. Petitioning for recall. Happens regularly. It takes real democracy--and sovereignty--a sovereign people--for such a process.)
So much for the "civilized" process among American people. We all appreciate the non-violent efforts. We all honor the spirit of peace and prosperity. But, these things require freedom. Peace without freedom is in fact tyranny.
Is it lock and load time? Is everyone's power dry?
Will it ever be that time in America again? Will the people ever rise up, legitimately? We have the horrid example of '60's Communists, street level thugs and enthusiasts; we have the disgusting anti-Americans, the OWLs (Oedipal White Liberals) who design to dissolve America into a Third World force, a mere global coop manager; but, do we have patriots that are willing to be "activists" for the real cause, the true cause, the only cause for America? As patriotic zeal been so feigned, faked, and fabricated, so masked, mimicked, and mimed by ghouls greedy for significance that the genuine patriot is displaced and disarmed? Is the behavior of the true patriot-in-crisis already condemned by the facade of the fony? Is patriotism preempted by the pretenders, so that there is no place for pristine love of county--a love that will sacrifice blood to water the tree of America's liberty? Is any act of dedication to be associated with the complete chicanery of the Communists?
I fear. I fear this is so. I fear the people of America will not sacrifice. They may not pay the price. They may instead choose the path of "peace" and dependency. Thus, the true patriots will become fewer and fewer in number, and the any small group, or any individual, who is true to America, can easily be condemned and removed. This is the prospect before us.
What is the right course of action now?
Today is the day we express thanks to the men and women who have served in our country's military, who have often risked their lives in defense of our freedom, and who have made permanent and many times ghastly personal sacrifices. Today, we also thank the families of veterans, who themselves have suffered immediate effects of their loved ones' courage, agony, and triumphs. May the Lord bless them all.
This morning Laura Ingraham interviewed American veteran and newsman Michael Yon, who has covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for several years. He is regarded as one of the most reliable, truthful, and compassionate of all media reflectors in the war-torn region. He has a new book out, called The Moment of Truth in Iraq (April, 2008). It was a special privilege to hear Mr. Yon speak. The truth is ever so eloquent. It dignifies and enobles the one who speaks, beyond any media illusion such as we saw in the recent Democrat presidential campaign.
Michael Yon's new book, April 2008.
Ingraham asked a question about the military effort in the Iraq/Afghanistan region, and who was involved. Everyone knows that the United States is doing the "heavy lifting" in terms of supplies and manpower. But Yon had some interesting comments in addition.
Yon said that the Canadians have made a tremendous effort. Of course the British. And the Australians.
I find this observation of great interest. Together with the United States, this coalition represents the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant presence in the world. This is the strength, the power, the throne. It is specific, and obvious. The other Europen nations (NATO, to be politically correct) not only have not made the effort, but, apparently cannot or will not. Yon said more than once, "I'm not sure they can." The other big military powers in the world are Russia and China. Neither are involved in supporting the efforts in bringing freedom to Iraq or Afghanistan. And why would they be? They are oppressive states, uninterested in freedom. They see it as an inefficient management. They do not value freedom.
The mighty WASPS, the world's greatest warriors. From Michaels collection..
The United States, Britain (Scots especially), Canada (probably Scots again), and Australia (surely some Scots there)--this is the grand force of good left in the world, poltically and socially, anyway. I see no reason not to acknowledge this, nor am I hesitant to do so. These nations, this race, this ethnicity, these are the veterans of freedom in the world. These are the great ones.
Of course, no effort is without error, collateral damage, repercussion, and unexpected, unintended consequence. Indeed, where there is greatness, there is great error. However, we focus on motive. The intent. We sin boldly, as Martin Luther might say. "The white man's burden," as Rudyard Kipling said, this is the responsibility of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. And yes, he had somewhat of a path laid out for him by the Spanish Catholic, and the Italian Catholic before. But the great change in the world, the great wave of civilization, was brought on by the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.
According to Michael Yon's candid, disinterested observation, it is still true.
Is the world greatful for this gigantic, historic coalition of veterans? This generational army of freedom fighters, who have brought in calculable blessing to the world?
Human nature obfuscates any too natural a response. What we see these days is a concerted effort to condemn the whole white race, especially the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant coalition. Perhaps ironically, perhaps surprisingly, the global anti-history movement is is spearheaded by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants--I should say, the heirs of the kingdom. We call them "liberal," or Leftist, Socialist, Communist, or Marxist. This ideology of resistance and "change" has been their main political tool. If we can use psychohistory, and apply Freudian psychology to the cultural manifestations of the human race, then we can see this rebellious White Anglo-Saxon Protestant element as simply oedipal. It is the impetus to destory the father, to kill, to remove, to eliminate, to hatefully murder the father. The father land. The father's country. What the founders created. The Constitution. This is the target of the psychopathological WASP. It is a selfish, myopic view, and not objective or global at all. It is extremely distorted.
OWLs, we can call them. Oedipal White Liberals. They have managed to buy the White House, and place at the visible helm of the WASP world a black African alien Communist. This is an extraordinary achievment--with which their puppet had very little to do. It would seem the perfect ploy to assuage their insecurities, but more importantly, it is the perfect front, the most accurate arrow, to shoot into the heart of the father, the fatherland, and the Western World. That is the truth of the matter. It has nothing to do with race relations. Indeed, by making the alien African the American president, the OWL has humiliated the black race beyond salvation. That may be an unintended consequence, or perhaps it is a clear manifestation of prejudice after all. In either case, to make a man president because of his race is the ultimate disfiguration of racial dignity. It is the most dramatic denigration of all.
And so, on this Veterans Day, 2008, we can indeed celebrate the victories of the WASP freedom fighters, as they protect the right of oedipal white liberal perversionists to wreak their "freedom" on the population, yea on the world. The Veterans did their best. They gave their all. Before such dignity and courage, of course, we could only expect that the worst of humanity would take advantage. That is to say, the worst, weakest elements of the WASP, the oedipal white liberals, would come to the surface and revel in such precious freedom as created by the mature, father WASPs.
The "new" Veterans now may need to use some discipline on this wayward, perverted, prodical son that has grown up in America over the last century.
I'm only one American Indian, but I volunteer to apply that discipline. I want to be on the front lines of that war. I'm ready.
(One more thing. Yon said that the Dutch have made heroic efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Remember it was Holland where the 'American' Pilgrims sojourned before coming to the New World. This is a most pleasant curiosity.)
According to an anti-American liberal white judge in Arizona, illegal aliens are to be called "foreign nationals" in all court documents. Arizona Supreme Court Justice Ruth McGregor won't even allow the term "illegal immigrants."
The Hispanic Bar Association, of course, made the demands, and Ruth willingly submitted to cultural rape. (May the apparent disrespect in this description represent equallly the true and actual disrespect in-Justice McGregor has shown the American people.)
Of course, the Court has threatened to sue Judicial Watch for revealing the Court's decision. The Hispanic Bar Association (Los Abogagos) dictated the following terms as unacceptable, and lawless in-Justice Ruth promised to comply:
illegals
illegal aliens
aliens
resident or non-resident alien
illegal immigrants
invadors
Reconquistadors
anchor babies
also,
illegal immigration
immigration epidemic
immigration crisis
immigrant invasion
pro-illegal immigration activists
open border advocates
proponents for amnesty
So, let all Americans know, there is no fault in the mass of trespassing Mexicans (or any other group). They are guilty of no wrong, they, nor anyone who colludes, conspires, or aids and abets them. No one is at fault in any of this. So saith the Chief Justice of Arizona's Supreme Court, Ruth McGregor, a 'heart on the ground' defeated white woman--in high office.
Now, let's remember, too, the most brutal Mexican drug cartel, the Gulf, is preparing to enforce by militant violence its drug routes within the United States. Los Zetas (the enforcers) have stock-piled weapons in safe-houses in the United States, according to the FBI (as reported in the Washington Times). Regional Gulf leader Jaime Gonzalez "has ordered the reinforcements to a tactical operational territory, or "plaza," in the area around the southern Texas towns of McAllen and Mission, about 235 miles south of San Antonio and less than five miles from the border with Mexico." It's all in direct response to those cocky US officials who have had the nerve to crack down on the drug traffic. How dare them insult the rights of the free-enterprizing Mexicans! Are they ermanos to the Americans, in spirit?
An FBI buletin states, "These replacements are believed to be armed with assault rifles, bullet proof vests, and grenades, and are occupying safe houses throughout the McAllen Texas area," the bulletin states.
Nothing illegal there. Nothing that would be described as such by the cutting edge in-Justice Ruth McGregor in Arizona.
"Los Zetas is thought to be composed of former members of Mexico´s special forces who deserted or retired to work for the Gulf Cartel, a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) official familiar with the group told The Times. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of ongoing operations in the area, said that Los Zetas is thought to have taken control of the Gulf Cartel's operations."
Beautiful. America the beautiful. Liberty and justic for all--except Americans, except American patriots, except for anyone who actually loves the country. But they seem to be fewer and fewer these days. Most people have no idea what a country is, let alone patriotism. A country is like a football team or something. It has a logo, a name, and fans. It's supposed to win. That's all.
Now, does anyone supposed that the foreign African Communist president-elect is going to do absolutely anything about all this? He's already promised to give the illegal Mexicans drivers licenses, and to make them all citizens as quickly as possible, faithful racist that he is, basing all concepts and actions on race.
And American Indians think he's going to do something for Indians? First of all, not all Indians voted for him. Many did not. Says the popular Indianz.com:
Despite an unprecedented outreach by president-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, some states with significant Indian populations safely sided with Republican John McCain on election day.
Who knows what they mean by "safely sided? But the facts are the facts. Lots of Indians did not vote for the black African Third World Communist.
Now, I would like to see Obama do something new, different, and effective for Indian people--like enforcing the historic treaties. But, if that means giving masses of illegal, trespassing Mexicans all American citizenship, then I think Indians need to reconsider their support. Illegal Mexicans are not our friends, politically. They are competitors. Furthermore, they use our reservations for illegal entry into the country throughout the Southwest, and especially Arizona. It is a bit naive for Indians to think that race-based actions from an Obama White House are good for everyone. It is dangerous for Indians to think that race-based actions that hurt America are somehow not going to affect Indians adversely.
What if Obama ran for office in an Indian nation? What if he ran for president of Venezuela? That America has many oedipal white liberals who are intent on destroying America by playing on the country's pity for black people doesn't mean that Indians should join in the spirit of self-depreciation. We have treaty provisions provided by the brave warring blood of our fathers. We're not in the same class as the race beggars. We degrade ourselves when we unite with them.
Headline: White trash divorced woman with children moves into trailer home--"where she belongs," according to Oklahoma radio talk show host Mark Shannon. Sounds like political potential, no? That's what Communists, Democrats, and traiterous "Republicans" are concluding about Sarah Palin. She was just white trash from the frontiere. That's how she got in, and that's what killed McCain's campaign. They blame Palin--as predicted by BadEagle.com member and Obama supporter Tall Soldier (Lakota Sioux).
But we're talking about Pamela Anderson!
The three-time divorced white woman with children just moved into a trailer house. That's a qualification now, isn't it? (Let's hope that trailer is white--so Pammy can get used to it. Or, should it be black?) And she's a canook! A Canadian. Foreign by birth. Now, that has to be the top qualification.
And if America's chickens have come home to roost, we know PETA Pam is our gal for the White House. We know she'll take care of all those chickens. They won't have enlarged breasts--I mean egos, and they won't be beaten or eaten. All America's chickens will prosper again. The fowl will flourish. So, let's count our chickens before they hatch. "PETA PAM for PRESIDENT!"
She's evangelizing fellow sex image professionals too. She PETA campaigner just appealed to the vegan soul of Jessica Simpson. Not exactly a call of the wild, eh?
Anderson lashed out at Simpson during a recent appearance on an Australian radio show, branding the singer/actress a "[bleep] and a whore" after she wore a T-shirt with the slogan "Real Girls Eat Meat."
I say we have real political talent here. The stars are right, so to speak. It's all falling into place, just like silicon. In this era of error, I say we flaunt it. Let's go all the way--where no real man has ever gone. Let's buy the presidency for a white trash woman! Exalt white trash women! They deserve it more than any. According to Reverend David Manning, we already have half a white trash woman in the White House now. Another thrust of nihilism, and we'll have Pammy pimping the liberal goods.
Without fur! No fur flying. No further fur in the White House! Or even on the campaign. PETA Pam will never be found in 5th Avenue fashions like Sarah Palin. Why, that would be like pearls in a swine snout. Ear rings on a pig. She's faithfully faulted Armani fashion for his furs. A glorious righteousness priestly Pammy brings to the political arena. Beyond anything the president-elect could ever imagine, much less achieve.
Okay, so I'm a little disinterested in politics right now.
Sometimes humor is helpful as we try to recover hope. That is, real hope, not racist audacity or self-deceived puppetry. I'm not really too worried. What Eisenhower warned against, America's military-industrial complex, will keep the president-elect from any too rash a fantasy, or the attempts at implementation thereof. The CIA, the generals, they actually control things. They are like a government unto themselves. So, let the president-elect play around with politics in DC. Let him continue his cultural rape of white America. The big boys are in charge. If the world must go global, they'll make sure they're in charge.
That's why we ought to have a white trash woman in the white house! What difference does it make? Let the country indulge itself to the hilt, or, to the depths. The president-elect is only a prelude to bigger and better things, so to speak.
[This entry was originally titled, "If Obama Wins." It was written before the election was over. Note the "Update" at the very end of the entry.]
It is nearly 9:00 pm, in Oklahoma City. I feel compelled to say certain things now, before the results are in, before all hope lost, so to speak, while I still have a little enthusiasm. What I say is relative and applicable, even considering Obama's campaign success alone, and not the final result.
If Obama wins, it is because of young people, women, inexperience, and ignorance. It is because of the deceptive promise of wealth without labor--being given someone else's wealth, and because, collectively, people are generally weak. It is because of the lack of courage, and the resultant insecurity. It is also because of greed. The poor are never exempt from greed.
If Obama wins, it is because of decades of Communist ideology being established in the Democrat Party, permeating the American educational system, gradual brain-washing on an unprecedented scale in America, and because the masses always choose the easiest path. The "people" is always an infant, always dependent, and vulnerable, often victimized by those in power.
If Obama wins, it is because white Communist liberals have shoved race and sex in the face, in the bed, and in the lives of young people for the last 50 years. Obama is the result. A black, foreign, Communist leader is the epitome of alien focus which the Oedipal white liberal Communists have been working to bring about for half a century. They have triumphed. They wanted America to be a Third World country, so they--the elite Communist cartel, could be the leaders. America has been raped.
If Obama wins, it is because people feel sorry for the poor miserable Negro, and think that voting for one would represent the healing of the human Collective Conscious. All would be well, finally. They thought this cultural rape was deserved, that America needed to be humbled, and the world would be a better place.
If Obama wins, it is because most people are weak, and they like feeling they've been wronged. This gives them, they think, an instant moral advantage. "I've been wronged!" It is immediate value, without effort. "I've been wronged!" is the Communist message to each individual. "I deserve more! You've oppressed me!" This appeals to the imagination, the ego, the spirit of rebellion, self-justification, and even aspiration. But, in ignorance, the people know not what Communism really is, how it really works, and what its results actually are.
If Obama wins, it is because the American people can't imagine Obama could be so bad, or that he could cause anything bad to happen. In ignorance, they believe the good feeling he generates with mere words. They are willing to be swooned by the black foreigner. They are willing to be lead by fancy, or anything but the American Constitution, that hated dead letter of dead white men. The Democrats have been pushing for a Constitutional Convention for years, and recently. Hillary took the lead. It's all about a one world "Communist" government. They have to "revise" the Constitution to take America there. This is the "change" Obama preaches.
If Obama wins, it is because those who want world power created him, and want to use him to achieve their ends. He is their willing puppet. He is not a leader, but a follower, and a faithful one. (I shudder at the thought--if he steps out of line, how quickly they will remove him.) He has shown no evidence of concience thus far, but, he may find himself, he may find his true self, under world pressure.
If Obama wins, it is because American media has become propaganda, nothing more or other. Protestant capitalism and the work ethic have neglected to mind the store, so to speak. Too busy working, making success, the keepers of the gate allowed the weak to grow up ignorant and misinformed, following after their own inclinations, and subject to the first fancy foreign liar with dark skin.
If Obama wins, it is because Amerians have failed to hold themselves accountable. The whole country has taken the easier path.
If Obama wins, it is because politicans have taught that there is something wrong with being poor. People have the right to vote without understanding, without experience, without information, without intelligence, and without a healthy concern for consequence. People have been taught that a vote is an act of self-justification and indulgence. Voting is a way to achieve wealth without labor. Freebees. Self-awarded goods. For the asking. For the voting.
If Obama wins, it is because people have been taught it is right to covet, and right to have what everyone else has, or what anyone has who has more. Not only is this a natural, childish, immature, uninformed intuition of "justice," which, as a weed, would grow up and flurish on its own, Democrat politicians have actually preached covetousness as a moral doctrine! It is the deceptive message of Communism. The Communists say to the masses (which are always "poor"), "Look at those rich people, those evil rich people and their power! How dare them oppress you like this. They are rich because you are poor. They have taken from you! You've been wronged! Elect us, and we will see that you have more!" But all that happens is, the Communists become more rich. They blame the White House, but they simply move in, and occupy the seat of those whom they have accused and condemned before the public. Communists are simply fewer and richer than those they accuse. There is no change in the condition of the people. In fact, all history has shown that people under Communists regimes become poorer, if not starving (as in North Korea).
If Obama wins, it is because lies were successful, and human nature is weak.
If Obama wins, we're going to have a unspeakable mess to clean up.
[UPDATE] Welcome to Indian Country! To all white American patriots, your country is now gone with the wind. But, you are still here. You are still who you are. You are still an American patriot. You're in the same house, you eat the same food. You breath the same air. You're on the same land. Even though a whole new foreign government is over you now, a black cloud, indeed, don't be too discouraged. You are still you. No one can change that. No one can take that away from you. One day, you may have to fight again. I hope you have learned your lessons. We all know how well you can fight, when you've a mind to. So, don't stay in Indian country too long. You might get used to it!
In due time, American patriots will recoup, regroup, and regain all.
Their negligence and carelessness is what caused this fluke political event. They've long let the laws go bad. They must now finally take the responsibility, and start over--if there's anything left of America after this black African Communist third-worlder is finished, with all his white liberal Communist backers, and the American-hating Muslims.
As the 2008 elections approach, I want to endorse certain individuals I find worthy of the positions for which they are volunteering. No candidate is perfect; no platform is without flaw. All is ever arguable. My endorsements are made therefore with the understanding that, considering all the circumstances, and the availability of candidates running, these are the best choices possible.
Oklahoma House Candidate Jason Nelson and US Congressman Mary Fallin
I first mention local politics--my Oklahoma House District 87. Jason Nelson is the Republican candidate. I have endorsed him before, and I want to say, again, his position on American Indians, particularly in Oklahoma, is what I value in him most. No, he does not campaign on his Indian position. Why should he. Indians are too few in number to make a major campaign issue out of. It would distract from his purpose. However, having talked to him personally, in the streets of my neighborhood, I inquired. He told me, every open-heartedly, what he saw in the Indian tribes of Oklahoma: business partnership opportunity! He didn't say this in an improvisatory manner, trying to say something convincing to a haggard-looking Indian with an old walking stick. He was happy to state his positive, hopeful positions on Indians. He did not take an adversarial stance at all. He was genuinely positive. I feel Indians have a friend in Jason Nelson. Some conservatives may find this a problem, since some, like my very good and close friend Charlie Meadows, want to see all Indian sovereignty and "privileges" dissolved entirely! (Charlie is president of the Oklahoma Concervative Political Action Committee, a very poweful force in Oklahoma Politics these days.) Though I am actually a member of OCPAC, I simply don't see eye to eye on absolutely every issue. I see great American patriotic value in the Indian Nations, and our historical relationship to the United States.
Jason Neslon, for Oklahoma
House Representative
Jason Nelson is simply someone who has a natural and positive attitude about Indians, and sees a great future in Oklahoma State relations to the Oklahoma Tribes. What more could an Oklahoma Indian hope for?
Last week, when I was out walking again, (with my ancient tree limb of a walking stick), I was pondering these matters. I thought about Jason's natural regard for Indians, and then I thought about another person in politics who also displayed the same kind of natural positive attitude: Mary Fallin. When she was running for first term as US Congress (Oklahoma 5th District), Charlie Meadows invited her to speak at OPAC (as he did many candidates, and continues to do). Charlie grilled each candidate with a battery of 'fundamental values' questions. The last question he asked was their position on Indian sovereignty. He included his own position that Indian sovereignty should be dissolved.
Mary was a bit startled by the question, like, what in the world!
"...you can't do away with Indian sovereignty," she replied, initially, with a simple but solemn tone in her voice. It was as if she regarded Indian sovereignty as sacred--like the Constitution itself. Like, 'You can't change the American flag. Goodness, Charlie!'
This was straight from the heart. This it the kind of feeling that, as an Indian, I look for in a politician. Not an elaborate doctrine, or political position, but simply a straight from the heart feeling. Mary had it.
Jason Nelson had it, and more. So, as I finished my walk, I thought I would post on both of them, at the same time, as candidates with positive regard for American Indians. No, I can't say that they are at all campaigning for Indian causes. (Senator Tom Coburn has push for Indian Health issues more than anyone, for example.) I can't say they are known for their activism for Indians. I'm just saying that they have deep, positive regard.
Oklahoma Congressman Mary Fallin
Furthermore, I don't think Indians can expect public politicians to campaign on Indian issues. We are few in number. Even though Indians make up some 7.9 percent of the Oklaholma population (if US census statistics are to be regarded as anything reliable), we hardly matter as a campaign issue. That's just the fact. Indians should be humble in this sense, to realize that people volunteering for state office, locally or nationally, cannot gain winning votes by campaigning on Indian issues.
And so I though I would cite Nelson and Fallin as exmaples of what we can look for--the heart-felt positive regard. (And Jason even has visions for the Indian future with the state of Oklahoma!) Interestingly, when I came in from my walk, and checked my ever-late mail deliver, I found a Nelson flyer--an endorsement of Mary Fallin, no less! The coincidence was striking to me. And to top it off, the next afternoon, around supper time, Jason was in my neighborhood again, in front of my house, in fact. I got up and went out to meet him. We had a good chat, and I pointed out his sign in my yard (--along with the Mcain/Palin, Inhoff, Dana Murphy, and Fallin signs).
Jason is simply an up-beat person, with creative ideas. He includes Indians in that beat!
As I said, no candidate is perfect. Dana Murphy is being attacked for complications in her agonal divorce of fifteen years ago. She's running for Oklahoma State Corporation Commissioner, against homosexual activist Jim Roth, the current appointee of Democrat Governor Henry. Well, Dana should say, "At least I was married!" And Dana certainly doesn't accept heavy financial support from the very corporations she would be overseeing, like Roth does.
For Oklahoma Corporation Commisioner, Dana Murphy
In any case, regarding the presidency of the United States, Obama is out. The words out of his own mouth have utterly condemned him as the foreign Communist we have always said he was, here on BadEagle.com. Lately he's feigning a moral tone to his treason, condemning those who don't want to pay higher taxes as "selfish." He accuses the McCain/Palin campaign of making a "virtue" out of selfishness. In other words, he is making a virtue out of his own Communism, our ot coerced redistribution of wealth, our of government robbery of the people. This is as anti-American as you can get. His support should drop in giant sink holes.
An unbelievable intrusion he has been. A supreme deceiver and mocker of every American value. A cultural rapist, he is, used by all the Oedipal white liberals who created him. All they want to do is destroy America, while not losing a penny themselves, or making one ounce of sacrifice. Just put a fake American Negro behind the podium, and you can "change" America for good. That's their aim.
Unfortunately for Ron Paul, who alone was willing to talk about the American Constitution in a true and radical way, he did not offer hope, but simply demanded radical surgery. America must stop this and that. Just stop it. This is terminal cancer. This arm must come off. That leg must come off. Paul didn't say enough about whether any of us would be able to recover. Would we be able to walk, or cook for ourselves afterwards? Thus, in his radicalism, he attracted the marignals, the people whom the country does not trust.
Ironically, Paul lost out because he was white. Black Obama has hordes more radicals and violent anti-Americans behind him that Paul every had. At least Paul's marignals were pro-American.
Ten Bears, Comanche: The great peace maker. Would
that he were alive today, to counsel us on this election.
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