BLOG
ARCHIVES

JUL. 2008
JUN. 2008
MAY 2008
APR. 2008
MAR. 2008
JAN-FEB. 2008

JUL-DEC. 2007
JUN. 2007
MAY 2007
APR. 2007
MAR. 2007
FEB. 2007
JAN. 2007

DEC.  2006
NOV. 2006
OCT. 2006
SEP. 2006
AUG. 2006
JUL. 2006
JUN. 2006
MAY  2006
APR. 2006
JAN-MAR. 2006

JUN-DEC. 2005
MAY-JUN. 2005

APR. 2004
MAR. 2004
FEB. 2004

BACKLOG
Of Unorganized
Diatribes

Saturday, 30 August, 2008

WILL THE VICE-PRESIDENT CHOICES WIN THE DAY?

The presidential campaign has just become considerably more exciting.

With his choice of Joseph Biden, the charmer from nowhere has chosen age and experience for a running mate, and the man of experience with a long and distinguished history has chosen a charmer who seems to come from nowhere.

McCain has definitely rounded out his ticket rather nicely with Sarah Palin (in many more ways than one), and shown he's got pretty good taste (at least from Pridger's point of view – and this just from seeing her photo!). 

The Democrats (and may Republicans), are stunned. Obama was almost at a loss as to how to respond – and pundits are asking "What was he thinking???!!! Does he have a political death wish?" 

Pridger doesn't know what McCain was thinking, but maybe that old man is as sly as a fox! And maybe he's not really all that dirty. Based on sheer imagery and McCain's Maverick-like boldness, Pridger is almost inclined to become a McCain supporter himself.

Talk about change! McCain seems to be going that route too. And from the little Pridger has thus far learned of Palin's politics, she seems even more attractive. By extension, this translates into making the McCain ticket more attractive too.

Refreshingly, Palin seems to stand for many of the things "old style" conservative Americans hold dear – not the least of which are family values and a genuine reverence for life.

With Sarah on the ticket, its almost possible to overlook all of McCain's inherent flaws. Palin addresses many of the issues most rational conservatives have with McCain. Palin is even being smeared by Democrats as a "Buchanan conservative" – and that alone is enough to tell Pridger that Palin has a lot more to offer than just a new, refreshing, and attractive face.

The Democrats will have a field day with Palin, of course, but just how it plays will have a lot to do with how she handles herself on the campaign trail. And, naturally, it will also have a lot to do with how the media chooses to treat her. She seems to stand for almost all of the things a woman candidate is "not supposed" to stand for. She's not the sort of "minority candidate" the liberal establishment likes.

The Democrat's first line of attack is that Governor Palin doesn't have the experience to become president should something happen to McCain while in office, and Joe Biden does. Naturally, the McCain camp is saying the same thing – their presidential candidate has gobs of experience, but Obama, the actual Democratic candidate, does not. It will certainly make for some interesting debate, because the Democrats are on record as conceding that McCain is well qualified to be president.

The question that flows from this, of course, is: Would we be more comfortable with a young president who is not qualified in the eyes of many, but has a vice president competent enough to take over – or with a president acknowledged to be well qualified who has a young inexperienced vice president? The embarrassing thing for the Democrats is that, with only two years experience as the governor of Alaska, Palin clearly has much more executive branch governing experience than Obama.

Would we want an inexperienced president who promises change with a vice president that represents the Democratic status quo, or an experienced Maverick Republican with a vice president that appears to be the very epitome of change?

What if something happens to the sitting president, and the vice president takes over? The Obama successor would be purely Democratic establishment material, and the McCain successor would represent a real change from the status quo.

It's actually possible, that a Republican victory, would result in more change than a Democrat victory (even if nothing happens to the president).

John Q. Pridger

Thursday, 21 August, 2008

WORKING TOWARD WORLD WAR THREE?

Some have characterized the War On Terror as World War Three (or four). But, as serious as the "terror" situation may seem, it's little more than a distraction, made big by our multiple responses to 9/11 – a galvanizing terrorist attack upon our nation. 9/11 was a wake up call, of course, but (as barbaric and ghastly as it was),  our response was out of all proportion to the event, considering that it was perpetrated by a small band of Moslem extremists. But there were reasons why we were attacked. They go a long way back – and they were not the reasons that were used to justify our disproportionate response. Long-term policy errors were at their core.

It's pretty clear that each war sets the stage for the next one. In the case of "World Wars," the Great War, which we weighed into in order to cover Great Britain's mistakes, ended up being the seed of World War Two, rather than "the war to end all wars," as it was billed in the advertisements.

In both world wars, we are the ones largely responsible for making them into "World Wars." Without us, both would have been just been another of Europe's long train of European wars, and far less deadly and destructive than they ultimately became.

In World War Two, we baited Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor in order to join in the battle against Hitler's Germany, and pull England's chestnuts out of the fire for the second time. And our entry into the war made it into the first truly "global war" – worse than anything that had ever been seen before. In both cases, England had declared war against Germany – a continental military power they knew (or should have known), they could not beat without our help. And, in keeping with national tradition, we had been a neutral nation both times – or was supposed to be – but finally took the bait and the bit. And we (along with our Soviet ally), made the difference – and a very big difference it was – in the outcome of the war.

Hitler, was the answer to the grossly unjust settlement imposed on Germany in the wake of World War One. And Hitler's only real aim was to regain German territories and peoples lost in World War One, and expansion eastward to insure an economically independent Germany.

Hitler's ultimate target, as had been made clear in Mein Kampf, was Soviet Russia and the defeat of Bolshevism, not France – and certainly not England and the British Empire, which Hitler regarded as the lynch pin of western civilization (of which he considered Germany an important part). Germany considered itself, and had always been, the great buffer state of Europe, a western nation defending Western Europe from the hoards of the East.

Hitler envisioned a global partnership between England, with its global empire, and a revived German continental empire – with the United States essentially left alone in its powerful and secure isolationist glory in the Americas.

Poland was the final trip-wire that set off World War Two, thanks to England's foolhardy guarantee to defend it against Germany. But Hitler only wanted the German city of Danzig and a passage to German territory (Prussia), to the east. In fact, Hitler was eager to have Poland as an ally against the USSR if it would only give up Danzig.

But when England guaranteed Poland's security against Germany (a guarantee England knew it could not deliver on), the Poles refused to part with Danzig, and refused to listen to Hitler's proposals. Because of this, the world was plunged into the most destructive war of all time, as England declared war on Germany on behalf of Poland.

Poland suffered because of England's guarantee, as did tens of millions of other people. To save Poland, the entire world was set aflame, and Poland wasn't saved. It was eaten by the Bear to the East, along with all of Eastern Europe and half of Germany.

And now the stage is potentially being set for another World War, with Poland once again at the epicenter, as we surround and confront Russia, which is still a huge and powerful nation with plenty of resources at its disposal.

Ironically, when the USSR collapsed, and the end of the Cold War, there was a great opportunity for an enduring peace. But we chose to blow that opportunity. Our answer has been to keep and expand NATO (a western alliance against the USSR), right into the former USSR republics, and a tighten the encirclement of Russia – a still formidable nation that had been on the brink of becoming a member of a greater Western community of nations.

After it was finally freed from Soviet domination, Poland was quickly welcomed into NATO, along with other former Soviet Republics. We now effectively say that NATO is the alliance of the "good guys" and, in effect, told Russia that it doesn't yet qualify. Naturally, Russia still considers NATO an anti-Russian western military alliance. What else could it conclude? That's what it obviously is.

Naturally, Russia hasn't been welcomed, nor has it sought, membership in NATO. Doing so would be ludicrous. What NATO actually is now is the international military alliance of the New World Order – and Russia has some serious reservations about a New World Order dominated by American corporate interests.

So, how does it look to Russia as we place a nuclear defense shield in Poland? Simply stated, it doesn't look very reassuring. In fact, it looks downright provocative – especially with our ongoing courtship with other former Soviet Republics, such as Georgia.

Apparently Russia drew some sort of line in the sand with regard to Georgia. And here we stand, guaranteeing Polish security and engaging in a lot of tough talk about Russia's actions in Georgia. It remains to be seen whether Russia will draw any other lines in the sand. Poland's alliance with the West, and a nuclear "defense" shield, seems pretty much a done deal. Maybe Russia will learn to live with it. Maybe not. Whatever the case, Russia will never be happy with the situation – and it is bound to begin to build and brace for future conflict.

We don't hear much about Germany these days. Germany is technically still an occupied nation, hamstrung by the legacy of its World War Two defeat. Yet, it is nonetheless the European lynchpin of NATO's continental military power, and the heart of the European Union.

One wonders when Germany will finally shake itself free of its old wartime obligations, and "guilt complex," and start thinking for itself again. That will inevitably happen some day. France, under DeGaulle, once shook itself free of the Western alliance, putting itself on a more independent footing. There's no question that Germany will eventually shake itself free of its occupied status. When it does, it will still find itself between east and west, with a lot of grievances stemming from the two world wars, their aftermaths, and lingering effects.

Europe still lives under America's Cold War nuclear umbrella, and NATO is, of course, regarded a continuing affront to Russia. The more things change, the more they seem to remain the same. Russia is still the great Bear. We have lost the opportunity to make it a true partner in a peaceful Europe, and seem determined to continue the cycle that has twice erupted to set Europe aflame. Before it was England that held the match that would set it off. Today, we hold the match and most of the bombs. But Russia retains plenty of pyrotechnics.

It was ultimately the Russian army that broke the back of the German army in World War Two. But what a fight Germany put up – on multiple fronts against almost the whole world! Today Bolshevism is history (hopefully), so there is no longer reason to consider it the major threat to Germany and Western civilization that it once was. It seems unthinkable, but an alliance between Germany and Russia (and throw China in for good measure), would totally change the entire global balance of power.

Time can do many things. Just as nobody imagined that Hitler and Stalin would unite for common purpose at the beginning of World War Two, today nobody can conceive of a modern German-Russian military alliance. Bedfellow swapping, and marriages of convenience, become common when the familiar begins to unravel.

Post war America has replaced England and Germany as naval and military superpowers, and has become the world's most war-prone nation. Imperialistic commercial capitalism has replaced the great European colonial empires – so we have a lot of "American interests aboard" all over the world. Our ability to defend those interests is slowly waning as our economic fortunes (making us dependent on "others elsewhere" for so many of our vital needs), robs us of our economic vitality. We're crippling ourselves with debt, multiple dependencies, and economic and military obligations.

These many "American interests abroad" are the primary cause of our continued war making. So far, they've only been small, but incredibly expensive, wars. Let's hope we don't manage to ignite a big one in which the world will change dramatically once again.

The American people have been spared the hardships of war since World War Two – and they haven't known war on the home front since the Civil War. They do not remember what war actually is (to most, its simply something they watch on TV in the comfort of their living rooms and dens), and Americans don't have much stomach for hardships.

Nearly five thousand American servicemen and women killed in Iraq in six years of war troubles many, but is hardly up to the yearly murder rate in our own peaceful cities – and little enough to pay to avenge the deaths of 3,000 innocent citizens on that fateful day known as 9/11. But, in spite of all of our triumphs, America is more strategically and economically vulnerable today than it has ever been in its history. 

We still carry very big sticks, and we use them, but at the same time we have made our house into a house of glass.

Let us hope and pray that we are not destined to live in the most interesting of times – perhaps amid broken glass.

John Q. Pridger

Wednesday, 20 August, 2008

WATCHING THE BOOB TUBE - RELIGIOUS ENLIGHTENMENT

CNN's Larry King Live is often entertaining, as it was last night when Bill Maher was the guest of honor, though Pridger couldn't bear to watch all of it. Bill Maher gained his initial fame (so for as Pridger knows), as host of his own show, "Politically Incorrect." He is a comedian and somewhat of a political junky, and being politically incorrect was an interesting challenge.

He lost that job one late in 2001 by uttering something a little too politically incorrect about the 9/11 high-jackers – something like (paraphrasing from memory), "Cowards!!?? They don't seem like cowards to me. It seems like the epitome of courageousness and heroism to highjack airliners with box cutters and ram them into buildings. Going down in a blaze of glory, for a cause, isn't cowardice."

That was far too close to the truth to go over well on network TV. Nor did it fly even as a politically incorrect "joke." So he lost his job. Pridger hasn't been paying too much attention to Maher's career, but believes he's got another network job somewhere. Though the Larry King's chat was entertaining, Pridger quickly tired of the subject matter and switched to the "Easy Instrumentals" music channel and went back to his book.

One Pridger saw last night was Bill Maher plugging atheism and agnosticism. It seems Maher, believing himself to be an enlightened original thinker, just can't quite swallow the story of Adam and Eve. And he finds the idea of talking snakes totally ludicrous. So, he's now "talking sense" to whoever his audience may be, while making it not only funny, but (at least in his eyes), downright "instructive."

"How can people believe in such fairy tales in this day and age?" he was asking. And, of course, he figured he was talking sense and saying what needs to be said. His message: It's time to wake up, grow up, and get real – be adults.

Since Pridger went through the same thinking processes at about puberty – before even entering high school – he find's Maher's enlightening message somewhat juvenile. (But what does Pridger know?)

Actually, Maher is doing, in comedian fashion, what the Great Agnostic, Robert Ingersoll, was doing a hundred and fifty years ago, and what Voltaire was doing a hundred years before that. They weren't the only ones, of course. Throughout history we have had thinking men who have traveled up and down, back and forth, the same ground that Maher has managed to discover. But they have yet to totally vanquish the Church or popular religion. Hopefully, Maher won't either.

Here we are in the early twenty-first century and Bill Maher has apparently had some sort of a revelation. He admits that at one time he "had faith" (or fear), himself. But now he's enlightened, and he hopes to finally set the inhabitants of Christian America straight.

The trouble is that Maher, like Bob Ingersoll, is attacking the wrong idols when he attacks religion itself. Unlike Bob Ingersoll and Voltaire, Maher and most other latter-day prophets of Secular Humanism, have very little else to offer – at least as far as Pridger has been able to observe.

Like Maher, Pridger is a great believer in Common Sense. But there is such a short supply of it that it has never been able to overcome the perverse and the downright evil among us. Only a firm religious foundation and anchor among "the masses" has been able to produce an orderly, halfway consistently civil society.

Maher thinks that the nation's agnostics and atheists should stand up and make themselves heard as loudly and consistently as the evangelicals do, and a lot of problems would thereby be solved. His mistake is in thinking that just because someone is an agnostic or atheist, he is also a "thinking person" and an essentially "good" person – like him.

This is a fatal error. In fact there seems to be little or no evidence that atheists and agnostics, as a class, are better in any way than most "true believers." Most of them are not atheists or agnostics because of any enlightened thought processes or superior intellect, but simply because they've been taught "not to believe" and that religion is only for fools. Since they can't swallow the Adam and Eve story, they figure the only intelligent thing to do is to reject the entire Christian "message." This is called "killing the messenger and not reading the message."

In fact, the true believer (whether saint, fool, or prophet), is more likely to be good, and do good, in order to "be saved" and make it to Heaven, than are non-believers who have no such goal to focus on, and work toward. That is, or should be, simple common sense. Those totally liberated from religion (a significant number of them [not Bill Maher or John Q. Pridger, of course]), tend to express their freedom through a tendency toward varying degrees of "license" which too often overlap into negative, if not downright destructive, habits.

History seems to show that no civilization has survived long without religion. It is unlikely that ours will be an exception. "Rulers," of course, are usually a somewhat thoughtful breed, whether they be theological or secular in orientation. They, too, come in the good, the bad, and the ugly. Yes they (both civil and clergy leaderships), have often used religion (perverting it to their own ends), in order to control their peoples and their society. But without religion, the masses seem to tend to become ungovernable. When the masses lack the core values conductive of good self-government, they often find themselves under the rule of the iron fist. Under such rule, both the good and bad suffer, regardless of religious beliefs.

The United States has not becoming a more lawless nation (with the largest prison population in the world), because it has become more religious. It has become more lawless, at least to a significant degree, because religion is being discredited and abandoned in favor of the god of materialism and the worship of Mammon.

Ironically, in a lawless nation, laws proliferate, and police powers increase, until oppression evolves and becomes the norm. The police state is empowered as citizen's clamor for more protection against their non-God-fearing neighbors.

Pridger thinks people like Bill Maher should themselves "get real" – and stop trying to tear down the Temple. The Temple is already in bad enough shape. What we really need to do is drive the money changers from the Temple and start sorting things out. If we could get the Temple in order, and focus on our important problems, maybe we'd be able to solve them.

And yes, let those who find it to their advantage, be hypocrites. Hypocrites who are coerced by their hypocrisy to do good, usually make better citizens than those who free themselves from their moral fetters and obligations with the attitude that anything goes so long as there is pleasure or profit in it.

This may sound like getting apples mixed up with oranges, but this world is full of mixed up apples, oranges, and souring grapes. What we need to do is separate them and begin running an honest market.

Let good Christians evangelize. Atheists and agnostics do nobody any favors by evangelizing. Let them revel privately in their own esoteric world (and even do good works if the are of a mind to) – but stand aside and let faithful Christians do whatever they must do to find salvation. Let them tread the straight and narrow, follow the Ten Commandments, and live by Golden Rule – let them teach their children to do the same – and see how much harm is done.

John Q. Pridger

Monday, 18 August, 2008

WHO SHOULD NOT BE VOTING?

Doug Patton says "Voters Should Pass a Minimal Civics Test" and "We have a few questions for you..." (http://www.commonconservative.com/guest02.shtml).

Pridger agrees. Such a test would undoubtedly eliminate about 75% of the voters, and maybe result in more intelligent voting. Unfortunately, our democratic system guarantees that well informed, intelligent, and thoughtful voters will always be a small minority of the voting public. This is the big, long recognized, problem with democracy and universal suffrage.

On the other hand, almost anybody is qualified to elect the dog catcher. You simply vote for the guy who looks like he could catch dogs – or for your relative or friend, if he happens to be running. Voting for city, county, and state officials and representatives, is little different. But the more distant the seat of government from the voter, the less likely he is to be able to cast an intelligent vote, whether he knows his civics or not.

In fact, even those who can ace a civics test are unlikely to "know" those candidates running for any sort of high State or federal office. One must not only know the candidates, but the issues. And, even for those who know the issues, and take time to learn all they can about the candidates, usually vote their own personal interests. They seldom vote for what may be best for their State, the nation as a whole, or the people in general.

In general, people vote for the candidate who promises the most largess from the public treasury, or for any other special advantage. That's human nature – and that is why democracy is essentially unworkable at anything but the local level.

At the local level, most voters would not vote for more benefits from the local treasury, because they would realize they will have to pay for those benefits themselves through local taxes. Likely they will know this whether they can pass a civics test or can even write their own name. They may vote for such things as they perceive are needed by their community – such as funding to hire another deputy, improved roads or schools, or to purchase another fire truck. Chances are, not many of them would not vote for free lunches every day on the courthouse lawn, or a monthly check to cover their grocery bills or pay the rent. So, at the local level, democracy can work without a civics test.

When it comes to voting for the most largess from the public treasury, most people consider money from the State or federal governments as money from heaven. There's a psychological disconnect between taxation and "benefits" when the benefits come from distant government sources. The universal feeling becomes, "They tax the hell out of us anyway, we may as well get whatever we can."

Voting for state and federal representatives require some idea of what kind of representation the voter would want and what kind of candidates are running. At this stage, he should know some of the issues as well as the candidate. State and federal congressional districts were designed to make this a relatively local matter too – one that would allow the voter to meet, or at least come to know the candidate in some manner.

It has become fairly obvious, that regardless of the quality of the voting public, all we can get into office in majority numbers are de facto mis-representatives. There seems to be no cure for this. And it probably wouldn't make much difference if every voter in the nation passed a basic civics test. And, in the case of presidents, there's seldom any meaningful choice at all. So, the Electoral College system is just as apt to elect the "wrong man" as the public. Since both candidates are usually the wrong one, it's hard to miss.

John Q. Pridger

Saturday, 16 August, 2008

GEORGIA ON OUR MINDS

We're accusing Russia of bullying Georgia, but what would be call our overthrow of Iraq? What is it we want to do to Iran if they don't knuckle to our insistent wishes? When it comes to bullying, the United States has become internationally recognized as the boss bully. Why is it that we can invade and bomb all around the Middle East and attempt to make former Soviet Republics into American satellite states, but condemn Russia for taking decisive action in it's own back yard?

A NATO missile defense system in Poland? (Formerly a member of the Soviet block – thanks to our "Victory" in World War II.) We're actually going to do that, using the "Threat of terrorism" as an excuse! What can we be thinking? Talk about baiting the Bear! How would we react if Russia decided to put up a nuclear defense system in Cuba or Mexico?

The answer is, Russia can take decisive action, and has done it in the case of Georgia (in response to Georgia's own military invasion of its own Russia-friendly break-away provinces). Bait a Bear consistently enough, and there is bound to be some predictable consequences. By our actions, and present rhetoric, it seems we are waxing nostalgic for the good old Cold War days. Trying to bring nations such as Georgia into the NATO, a Cold War relic, is a provocation that Russia could not be expected to welcome or overlook.

Patrick J. Buchanan gives the "other side of the story" with regard to what is happening in the Republic of Georgia – a former Soviet Socialist Republic.

http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/08/pjb-blowback-from-bear-baiting/

Pat Buchanan seems to have things pretty much all together these days. He has studied the lessons of history, including a considerable amount from the both the triumphs and errors of the Reagan years, and has watched with growing concern as every subsequent administration has led us farther from the light, and further and further into darkness. There's plenty of valuable reading on his blog at:

http://www.buchanan.org/blog/ 

Read Pat's latest book, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, to see how wars are made and the world changes. We've already got enough war going on, but it appears that we could stum-bumble into another major war just as England did – a war that destroyed the British Empire and built the Soviet Empire with our indispensable help.

It appears we have done the very same thing England did – guaranteed the security of Poland. England guaranteed the security of Poland in 1939, and that was what resulted in the Second World War. All guarantees notwithstanding, Poland ended up under German and Soviet occupation for the duration of the war and under the iron thumb of the Soviet Union for another forty years.

The situation is not really all that much different today, and certainly no less dangerous. It all depends on how Russia handles it now, and it would have to think twice before attacking Poland (whereas Hitler didn't feel obliged to think twice). But suppose Russia decided that our military is too tied down and over-extended in the Middle East to effectively defend Poland. What then? If Russia takes a gamble and invades, we'd have to respond and go to war with Russia to defend Poland – just as England was obliged to go to war with Germany in 1939.

We've got NATO behind us, of course, so Russia would have a lot to think about before taking such a gamble. But such a war would automatically take on the scope of a major European war, and it would likely evolve into a global war. Such a war could hardly be expected to become a gentleman's war. Nuclear weapons would probably be used. It's not a very pretty scenario.

John Q. Pridger

Friday, 15 August, 2008

AFRICAN-AMERICANS IN THE WHITE HOUSE

If Obama makes it to the White House, it'll be the biggest "racial event" since 1901 when Booker T. Washington and his family became the first black family to dine there.

Booker T. Washington Visits the White House

On October 16, 1901 Theodore Roosevelt ([president] 1901-1909) enjoyed dinner in the White House with his family and a few prominent Americans. There was nothing out of the ordinary except that one of his guests–the well-known educator Booker T. Washington–was a black man. It was not the first time an African American had called on a president. Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865) signed Sojourner Truth’s autograph book when she came to the White House. Rutherford B. Hayes (1877-1881) had Frederick Douglas at concerts of black performers. But Booker T. Washington, author of the famous book Up From Slavery, seems to be the first to be invited to a formal dinner. The next day, as usual, the newspapers published the names of the White House dinner guests (as they still do today). Many people were furious that Roosevelt would do such a thing. The president, only in office for one month, did not think there was anything wrong with having dinner with Washington, who he called "a good citizen and a good American." But Roosevelt never invited an African-American to a White House dinner again. He would meet Washington again, and would sometimes invite black officials to White House receptions. But even a leader as bold as Roosevelt was afraid to anger an American public that was not yet ready to accept black equality. Roosevelt learned a lesson about the strength of the White House as symbol.

(Source: http://www.whitehousehistory.org/04/subs/04_a02_e03.html )

A more than subtle hint as to how Booker T's visit to the White House played with many whites can be seen in the following poem, which apparently originated with someone at the Charlotte Observer, and was printed by other papers, shortly thereafter, and undoubtedly reverberated for quite some time. This clipping (graphically edited here from a single column), was recently found in the wallet of a Confederate Civil War veteran (one of Pridger's distant relatives, Voltaire Jones Camden, who died December 27, 1907). Apparently he found it prophetic enough to carry it in his wallet for six years.

Ouch!!!! The poem runneth over with N-words! You won't see anything like that in the Charotte Observer these days!  There would be riots in the streets and the editorial offices burned to the ground after all the presses were smashed. Both editorial staff and the author would be lucky to escape with their lives.

As it turned out, everything wasn't settled as the poem concludes. Roosevelt wasn't (politically) dead at all. The African-Americans in the White House didn't cut off his head – and he was reelected to a second term. Of course, he was probably a little more careful about who he invited to dine in the White House for the duration of his presidency.

The poem was resurrected for similar reasons twenty-eight years later by an acutely race-conscious Senator Cole L. Blease, of South Carolina (who is, probably erroneously, credited at the author). The following appeared in The Burlington (N.C.) Daily Times, of June 26th, 1929:

---

THE COLE BLEASE POEM

     Of all those who became excited over the De Priest incident in Washington, Senator Cole L. Blease of South Carolina seems to have been the most wrought up. Senator Blease, according to the news stories coming from Washington, introduced a resolution in the senate, directed at the Hoovers in the form of a rebuke for entertaining colored folks in the White House. The resolution was read by the senator, but under protest, he agreed to have it left out of the Congressional Record.
     A friend of ours handed us the resolution today and we are printing it herewith. It is rather amusing and shows very clearly that Senator Blease is not a poet. 

S. Res. 93 by Mr. Blease: Referred to the District of Columbia Committee:

Whereas, it has been reported in the press and otherwise that on Thursday, June 13, 1929, Mrs. Herbert Hoover, wife of the President of the United States, entertained at dinner the negro wife of a negro congressman named De Priest, who represents a negro Congressional District in Chicago, and that the wife of the Attorney General and of the Secretary of the Navy were seated at the table, and that the negro woman sat on Mrs. Hoover's right as her equal and as the guest of honor:

Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved, That in order to keep the conditions at the White House from becoming as follows: ...

(The above poem is then introduced and read for the benefit of the Senate and President and Mrs. Hoover.)

That the President and Mrs. Hoover be requested to remember that the house in which they are temporarily residing is the

"WHITE HOUSE"

and that Virginia, Texas, Florida, Tennessee and North Carolina contributed to their becoming its custodians.

---

What all of this illustrates, of course, is that we've already had a considerable amount of social "change" in this country – positive change included. Barack Obama wants more change, as if a black president in the White House wouldn't be quiet enough evidence of the sort of change of which he often seems to speak.

John Q. Pridger

SPEAKING OF RIOTS IN THE STREETS

If, by some miracle, John McCain happens to win the White House, it had better be by a respectable margin. We can't afford another 2000 type presidential election debacle. If the Supreme Court is confronted with deciding the issue in the manner that George W. Bush was "selected," and it chooses John McCain, we can expect trouble. They'd pretty much have to select Barack Obama (no matter who was the anointed one), in order to avoid a serious racial backlash. And nobody wants to risk that.

If Obama wins, of course, there won't be any riots – only a lot of lamentation and resignation on the part of a majority of the majority race. And who cares about them?

Ironically, Pridger doesn't think there would be nearly as much lamentation and resignation if (for example), a Colin Powell won the White House. One could hardly envision Colin Powell running a campaign wherein race would be a major issue. It would unavoidably be an issue, of course, but not the issue it has become in the case of the Obama campaign. (It's sad that Colin Powell shot himself all over the feet and legs by allowing himself to be used as George W's preeminent war advocate before the United Nations.)

The issue with Obama, in Pridger's eyes, is much less about his race, than his political youth, former obscurity, his extraordinarily peculiar pedigree, and his inexplicable rise to prominence and cult-like popularity – not to mention his ultra-liberal voting record and equally peculiar associations and heroes.

Obama's popularity seems largely media driven. This young, smooth, charismatic, even slightly haughty and arrogant, politician can do no wrong in the eyes of the establishment media. His experience and associations seem to be of no consequence. Not that he has done anything wrong. But, the truth is, if he were an equally brilliant German-American – or an equally inexperienced Greek-American  – he would never have stood a proverbial Chinaman's chance of winning the nomination.

Imagine the treatment a German-American presidential candidate, with a name something like Adolf Himmler Schmidt, would get by the press! And what if his father had abandoned his mother and gone to work for the government of the German Democratic Republic? What if his mother had then remarried to a Malaysian who placed him in a Moslem public school in Malaysia during his formative years?

Could such a man (assuming he was poor), ever have hoped to attend Harvard? What if Mr. Schimdt had spent 20 years as a loyal member of some sort of White Identity church in Idaho or Montana? What if his wife, also a German-American, had made a silly remark like, "For the first time in my life, I'm proud to be an American!"? And what if Mr. Schmidt took pains to publicly proclaim that he'd accepted Jesus Christ as his own personal savior? What if he ran on a platform of "change"? The press would have a field day, and he'd never have made it to first base.

Barack is, or has become, a "We shall overcome" symbol. But he seems to be saying "We still have more to overcome" – "We", meaning both white and black Americans need to overcome lingering traces of entrenched racism. But the change he represents perhaps goes far beyond breaking another racial barrier and vanquishing systemic prejudice. An Obama presidency will symbolically represent a major break from America's historic identity at an even more fundamental political level than the social and race issues.

A president Barack Hussein Obama will be the symbol of a multicultural, multi-racial, multi-ideological, even multi-national, break from everything that the founding fathers could ever have envisioned – and, perhaps, everything that caused our nation to become the greatest, most successful, nation in the history of modern nation states. In short, a president Obama might perhaps be considered the very first totally New World Order president (Move over George Bush 41 and 43! And, move over William Jefferson Clinton 42!).

Not that McCain would be much different with regard to the political essentials. We really have no real choices in this election. The only real choices are between black and white – youth and maturity – Democrat or Republican. In other words, no choice that amounts to anything of substance. But, significantly, the choice also represent the "new and untried" and the "old and familiar."

However, with the history of the present administration, we've got an electorate in a real quandary. The Republican party has proven that it no longer practices what it used to preach – the things that appealed to conservative Americans.

A lot of young whites (raised to appreciate "rap" and "hip hop"), are going to vote black. Almost all blacks will vote black. Many women will vote youthful "charisma." A lot of independents are going to vote against another Republican administration. And, of course, a lot of voters are fed up with the Iraq war. In other words, Obama, in spite of his name, seems to be the right guy in the right place at the right time to effect the sort of change that has been planned for us.

McCain has a chance – a very good chance – but it appears it is going to be a dangerously close contest.

John Q. Pridger.

Saturday, 2 August, 2008

EMAIL BAG – IMMIGRATION

The following email was apparently a letter to the editor of the Orange County Register (Los Angeles area, California). The letter makes a great deal of sense, and was thus considered too politically incorrect for publication. The writer's husband (whose introduction is included), unleashed it onto the Internet and it's making the rounds. 

New Immigrants
FROM: David LaBonte

My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to 'print' it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined.

Dave LaBonte (signed)

Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County Register

Dear Editor:

So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people, like Mr. Lujan, why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. 

Back in 1900, when there was a rush fro m all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York - and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households, and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.

They had waved good-bye to their birth place in order to give their children a new life; and they did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture! 

Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and the craftsmanship that they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity. Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along-side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France and Japan. None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini, and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people. 

When we liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German-American or the Irish-American. The people of France saw only Americans. 

And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.

And here we are in 2008 with a new kind of immigrant who wants MORE rights and privileges. They want to achieve that by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. 

I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill.
I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.

(signed) Rosemary LaBonte

KEEP THIS LETTER MOVING.

FOR THE WRONG THINGS TO PREVAIL, THE RIGHTFUL MAJORITY NEEDS TO REMAIN COMPLACENT AND QUIET. LET THIS NEVER HAPPEN !

I hope this letter is read by millions of people all across our nation!!

Unfortunately, though Rosemary is right on target, her sentiments are a little late. Since we didn't wake up en mass and rebel forty years ago, an awakening now is like waking up after the Trojan Horse has been disgorging it's legions inside the gates for over two generations.

The barn door was opened in the 1960s and has been wide open ever since. The majority lost it's voice, and effectively its vote, with the Civil Rights coups of that era, which resulted in the Immigration Act of 1965. 

Just behind the curtain in the 1960s there was a much bigger deal in the offing – a whole New World Order – something almost nobody ever mentioned except for a few individuals branded as conspiracy theorists. At that time, this remake of the United State and the world was merely awaiting a resolution of differences between the communists and capitalist blocks in order to be implemented.

During the same era, and also as the result of the various Civil Rights acts, the welfare state was initiated in an attempt to give disadvantaged peoples (mostly minorities), a leg up. (The poor whites of Appalachia were also targeted, of course. They were still a little too independent.) One of the things that the welfare state did was to make it unnecessary, for the first time in our history, for many of the most disadvantaged poor to work.

Welfare, and other entitlements, such as food stamps and government subsidized housing, made it possible for many poor people to avoid any gainful employment at all. Enlightened husbands and fathers began leaving their families so those families could gain the full benefit of the welfare state.

From that time on, we have effectively been importing a whole new laboring underclass in order to fill "undesirable" minimum wage, and sub-minimum wage jobs. So, while the stated goal of The Immigration Act of 1965 was to encourage "gifted professionals, scientists, and artists," a need for a lot more unskilled "laborers" soon developed.

Education, of course, became another casualty of Civil Rights initiatives. In order to integrate the "less fortunate" into the system, educational standards had to be dropped so they could "catch up" or "keep up." But the effect was that our public schools began to fail to produce graduates capable of going on to higher education. Both our universities and armed forces have found it necessary to institute remedial education in order to integrate both whites and blacks into their advanced curriculums.

Before long we needed to import a lot more Third World "professionals, scientists, and artists." Our educational system was no longer producing them in sufficient numbers. We went from one of the most literate nations (prior to Civil Rights), to a low rung on the ladder in comparison to other nations today – both advanced and Third World.

Of course, the language and standards of common decency began to change too – both under the cover of "freedom of expression." The white counter-culture movement factored into this change as much as accommodating such things as "Black English." It would be much easier to get us all "speaking the same language" if standards were lowered rather than held firm.

Those who didn't like it were simply written off as bigoted prudes, who wished to force their own standards on others. Hollywood, of course, went whole hog in accommodating and actively promoting these changes, and the Supreme Court weighed in on the matter too. Among other things, the porn industry found favor and has thrived, making America the world's preeminent promoter of professionally produced pornography.

The function of the U.S. Department of Education (created in 1979 and up and running in 1980), is much less about education than social engineering, formulating federal funding programs involving education, and enforcing federal educational laws and civil rights. The most striking result of the federal government's increasing role in funding and "overseeing" education, has been the correlation between the cost of education and the decline in educational excellence. While costs have gone up, educational standards of achievement have gone down.

"No Child Left Behind" is supposed to treat this problem with more government input into education at its foundations – our children's most formative years. Watch what happens. Costs will go way up, of course, but will educational standards go up too? Not likely.

None of this is to say that Civil Rights was wrong – merely that after institutionalized domestic discrimination was overcome, the movement went totally out into left field, with devastating long-term results, undermining long established standards and dividing the nation by minority blocks with special status because of past discrimination. In the end, these minority blocks are "voting blocks" continually getting special attention and special programs while "We the People" (the whole people), are reduced to a kind of Balkanization whereby the "nation's" real problems – the ones that effect everybody – are seldom addressed.

But, in Pridger's estimation, this was not exactly an accident. It wasn't really a case of unintended consequences. The planned New World Order had many goals which these consequences were intended to serve. Our present educational and immigration problems were effectively "created," and they were intended as one of the ways and means by which the United States (and the world), could be transformed into something they were not before the process began.

World government is the gold at the end of the rainbow for the global movers and shakers, and the destruction of the nation state system has (almost openly), always been part of the package. The United States, as the world's only remaining superpower, has been leading the way, with national suicide it's apparent goal. We are marching toward success even as we attempt to hold the whole world (and the American people), on a shorter and shorter leash.

Unfortunately, the world cannot yet be administered as a village. There are many nations ready to take advantage of our growing weaknesses and vulnerabilities to insure their own national survival. There are other great nations and superpowers in the making even now – and they will not surrender their sovereignty, dilute their national make-up, nor surrender their national advantages as we have done.

The only thing we've been careful to keep are our first rate military and our weapons of mass destruction. But those WMDs cannot hold the World, as we have transformed it, back. We (along with several other Western nations), are the ones being both deluded and diluted.

We still have time to wake up and correct our course. But, of course, we won't. We have far too much capital invested in our national folly. (Just look at our presidential candidate choices, and what they are talking about! They talk about change, but mean more and more of the same sort of changes we've been experiencing.) While pursuing our national folly, we will react to the changes and challenges we have actively helped bring about. And we will suffer the consequences of all of our policies and actions – military and otherwise. Folly begets folly – and there is always somebody waiting in the wings to capitalize on the misfortunes of others.

The entrenched powers that have guided us along thus far will survive. At least that is their plan and their hope. There are no guarantees, of course. But, so far, while America is in decline, the New World Order is still very much on track. But that track, in Pridge's modest opinion, leads into an unfinished tunnel. And we're entering at breakneck speed, pouring more coals on the fire as we do.

John Q. Pridger