Back to back catastrophies: the Myanmar (Burma) cyclone, and the China earthquake. (Added to the Myanmar natural disaster is the human intent to destroy by disease and starvation nearly two million lives). Nearly 30,000 are known dead in Burma, and the death toll in China is expected to reach 50,000, to say nothing of the tens of thousands injured. (Plus, a new plague is hitting children in Beijing.)

A woman faints after hearing that her daughter was killed when a school collapsed
in the earthquake-hit Hanwang town of Mianzhu, Sichuan province, May 15, 2008.
(Stringer/Reuters)

From the hand of God, or the heart of man, or the unbridled power of nature, evil comes. It is constant, and unrelenting.

This is hard to bear. This is difficult to understand and to respond to in a rational way. The curious element is the "mass" element. Mass destruction. Of course, this is generally due to the fact that masses of people live in close proximity. Nature, like modern Muslim murderers ("terrorists" they're called in the media), picks areas of concentration, to maximize the numbers of people destroyed, or so it seems. What good is a storm at sea? What good is a tornado on the prairie? Cities is what we're looking for. Large cities. The efforts of disaster must not be wasted. There must be adequate returns.

As one who has studied the Bible for a long time, I can't help but think of all the different scriptutes about these things. Famine, pestilence (epidemic), storm, earthquake, war, all are agents of mass destruction. Destruction, as a sudden event, is very much the converse of creation itself. The Hebrew teaching is that God created the world ex nihilo, from nothing. Catastrophic destruction, even explosive, is the inevitable suggestion. If something can come into being instantly, it can go out of existence equally as suddenly. That's the philosophical rationale.

But the association of destruction with evil, with sin, that is the Biblical take. That's what makes these things so profoundly serious--to anyone who wants to believe in God as Creator and Redeemer. How shall we regard these events of mass destruction, the way a child responds to a spanking?

Once King David, when facing divine retribution, was given a choice: famine, war, or disease (epidemic). David chose "the hand of the Lord" over man, for the Lord's "mercies are great." An epidemic immediately killed 70,000 people. As the angel of the Lord approached Jerusalem, David fell on his face and pleaded for God to spare His city. David owned his own sin before the Lord, and the plague was stayed. (2 Samuel 24.)

The prophet Micah (as well as many other prophets) dramatized events of mass destruction. Ultimately, all the prophecies have an application in the ultimate destruction--the end of the world.

Shall the end of the world then also be associated with a general condition of mass immorality? Is mass destruction the outcome of mass sin?

In a sense, yes, this is our only hope. That there is a reason for events of mass destruction comprises our occasion to think positively, otherwise our situation would be abject. If we can know some reason, some cause, we can at least think to alter the circumstances--especially of that cause is connected with our own behavior. Certainly, that is the religion of the Global Warming crowd--albeit theirs is no moral concern at all. Indeed, the absense of moral assessment is the primary clue that theirs is a false religion.

But, who can make moral judgements? Who can name sin?

If the Biblical account of reality is true, then the word of the Lord is the moral judgement--given to all, for the benefit of all. We can't just make up our own ideas of right and wrong. These will not suffice to stay the plague, or avert the storm. That kind of power is in God's hands, not ours. We can manipulate our own behavior, by politics, by law, or fear, but, if it is not connected to the Creator, such alterations are meaningless and ineffective. Self-righteousness cannot turn the wind. Idolatry of human ideas cannot shield us from evil.

I think we're getting to a point that we are generally recognizing that we do not have control over this planet. We do not have control over ourselves. Fear is running rampant. Looking to leaders, religious or political, may seem to assuage the fears of many, but, it is a pitiful thing to see masses of people as sheep being led to the slaughter.

Is there not a God? Can he not be appealed to? Events of mass destruction seem to be on the increase, and the destruction seems greater. Of course, population has increased, and the concentration of people has increased. But the inevitabilites are not reason to cancel concerns.

Perhaps we should spread out more. That's another lesson of the ancient Hebrews. When man concentrated himself at the tower of Babel, the Lord intervened. (Genesis 11). That's where different languages were born, the whole purpose being to coerce rebellious man into separate groups, to force him to spread out, and inhabit the earth, as was the original design of the Creator. The concentration of fallen, sinful man in one place, in one government, in one vision, leads to only one kind of unity: rebellion against God. The idea of a one world government itself is the seed of aversion, indicating the rebellious nature of man. There is no peace to be achieved in a one world government. Globalism is disastrous. It is possible that globalism itself is bringing on events of mass destruction. That would be the pattern, anyway, according the the ancient Hebrew take.

Interestingly, the ancient Israelites couldn't handle the idea of spreading out even within their own tribes. They got to the point that they had to have a king, a unified secular government. Even twelve tribes of the same ethnicity couldn't trust that the Lord God could rule them. It just isn't in human nature.

If all the countries of the world would be faithful to God, there would be no need of "trade," "international commerce," currency, or any such notion of globalism. Countries should be completely independent of one another, separate, and circumspect. Of course, this will never happen. As noted, Israel couldn't do it even within herself. Humanity just can't trust God. Humanity must work out it's own solutions, and suffer the consequences.

Individual believers can only hope for presonal surival. As Micah (7:7-9) they say,

7: Therefore I will look unto the LORD; I will wait for the God of my salvation: my God will hear me.
8: Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall arise; when I sit in darkness, the LORD shall be a light unto me.
9: I will bear the indignation of the LORD, because I have sinned against him, until he plead my cause, and execute judgment for me: he will bring me forth to the light, and I shall behold his righteousness.

I'd say the best bet is on God. That should become more and more obvious. I wonder, if He were running for office, would we elect him?

"It would not be prudent for Obama to visit a reservation," said Russell Means.

According to reporter David Kranz, who offered a hasty, somewhat bobbled article for the Sioux Falls paper, The ArgusLeader, Monday, May 12, 2008. Obama is scheduled to make an appearance in South Dakota this Friday, May 17. The Kranz article was not initially posted on the ArgusLeader web site. A Sioux friend of mine called me from Sioux Falls, and read it to me over the phone. I searched diligently for the article, and ended up calling the media department of the paper the next morning, before 9:00 am. By late afternoon, the article finally appeared on the online edition. It was obviously posted somewhat carelessly, with a large section displaying incorrect margins.

I was most curious at this. I actually wondered whether the paper, or certain employees, were averse to Means' comments about Obama and the Democrat Party. I wondered whether or not they intentionally withheld the article from the online edition of the ArgusLeader.

Russell Means, uninhibited by political parties,
seeking the best for Indians in South Dakota.

Means has been "often critical of the Democratic Party’s inability to bring meaningful change," said Kranz. According to Kranz, Means considers Obama a kind of "perfect candidate" who has been "placed on the fast track to the White House." The implication is clear: Obama is not the choice of the people, but of the high-up political manipulators.

Speaking of the Sioux in South Dakota, Means said “the ones who will vote in the national elections will always vote Democrat “because they are brainwashed,” he said. Put simply, Means calls it “colonized.”

“They do it over and over again, and yet they expect different results. Year by year, things get worse for Indian people. Life expectancy dwindles, health becomes worse, the housing situation gets worse,” Means said.

Nothing more discrediting (and true) could have been said about American Indian political voice. I have said it myself, more than once. Indians tend to vote Democrat, without understanding what the Democrat Party stands for. Indians have never invested in any political voice in thie country. This country's government has never been something Indians have been interested in, for obvious, historical reasons.

In recent years, Russell Means has supported the Republican effort in South Dakota. He directly supported John Thune, who of course ousted Tom Daschle in 2004 It was the first time a Senate party leader (Daschle was the Democrat leader in the U.S. Congress) was ousted since 1952. The Sioux of South Dakota definitely have a political influence these days.

Bruce Whalen, a Republican Sioux in South Dakota, also supports the effort to educate Indians about American politics. "Whalen supports Means’ efforts to do what he can through the news media to educate people about Native American and racial issues," says Kranz. “It is an effort to produce change,” Whalen said. Yes, change from failed Democrat ideology to something different.

A different kind of change than Obama touts. Indeed, there is nothing new in Obama's ideology whatsoever, as Rush Limbaugh daily points out. The only thing new about him is his skin--running for president. From the news we're getting out of South Dakota, it doesn't look like his skin is going to get him Indian votes. This is a good sign, a sign that Obama's racist presumptions--that all non-white people automatically support him because he is black--are erroneous. He will not be so welcomed in South Dakota as anticipated.

He will have to pay out much money to get people to line up to see him, and to act like they're crazy about him. I was told that offers of $1,000 to $5,000 dollars were made specifically for that purpose. Well, Indians have been paid with cigarettes and booz all along by Democrats. That's standard.

But the Hussein Campaign really doesn't prize the Indian endorsement at all. This is the truth that Indians need to understand. He doesn't care about Indians. He proved that in his infamous "race" speech, where he utterly ignored America's original invasion of Indian Country. Why, America's "original sin" was slavery of the poor Negroes. Forget the Indians. They're not part of the race story in America. Not according to the great American historican and social artchitect Barak Hussein Obama. The Hussein Campaign doesn't care about the Indian vote. Obama doesn't think he needs it at all. Indians are lower than that poor white workers in Pennsylvania--who bitterly cling to their guns and Bibles. In Obama's thinking, Indians bitterly cling to their traditions, their languages, and their lands. Elitists like Obama disdain Indian values, for they are the antithesis of liberalism.

The kind of change Obama wants is not the kind that will help Indians.

"It would not be prudent for Obama to visit a reservation." Russell Means

Maybe the Hussein Campaign can muster a few "homeless" alcoholic Indians from the inner city of Sioux Falls, and give them a bottle of whiskey to have their pictures taken with Obama. That would be typical.

The truth is, white women are the ones supporting Obama in Sious Falls--especially the white women who are with black Africans. There are goodly number of these. This is the change Obama brings: change of race. A darkening of the white race, a destruction of the Indian race. This he brings, whether he intends to or not. This is his influence: interracial marriage. These are the people that support him the most, in Sioux Falls.

This is not what Indians need. We are few. Whites and Blacks are many. They are not concerned about their races. Indians are concerned about ours. Whites and Blacks apparently do not love their race. Indians love ours. Whites and Blacks are willing to destroy race. Indians fought to the death to preserve ours.

So who's racist?

Since 1999, the policy of Marxist tyrants to rid their countries of masses of unwanted people has been in print. The evidence in Harvard's The Black Book of Communism is overwhelming. Marxist leaders have used a variety of means, from wholesale slaughter to mass 'resettlement' and arranged famines. They have taken advantage of war and natural disaster, regularly.

It was obvious to the world (or, to anyone paying any attention) when "We Are the World, We Are the Children" (the famous self-serving Rock charity effort in 1984-85 tried to save the starving people of Ethiopia. Much of the food sent actually rotted in the harbors. The Russian-backed Marxist Derg (Dergue) junta said they didn't have the means to transport the food from the harbor to the people. No trucks. The fact is, there was a civil war going on, as well as a drought, and the Marxists took advantage of the circumstances. They wanted to be rid of a large portion of the population--their US-backed opponents. There were forced 'resettlement' programs as well as starvation policies; between 50 and 100 thousand people were actually killed by slaughter. Over a million died of starvation.

Villagers rest on the outskirts of hard-hit Bogalay town in southern Myanmar. A Red
Cross boat carrying relief supplies sank, and aid groups warned that up to 1.5 million
people are in desperate need of clean water and sanitation. (Associated Press)

Today, we see exactly the same mind set in the Marxist junta in charge of Burma (Myanmar). Again, it is a group of genocidal Marxist leaders taking advantage of a natural disaster to kill millions of people by starvation. Foreign governments have sent seemingly unlimted amounts of medical supplies, water, and food--all in vain. The latest stats show that the death toll is over 34,000, with over 27,000 missing or unaccounted for. The UN thinks the death toll will reach 100,000. Hundreds of thousands of people are amassing in refugee camps. At this point, it has been estimated that nearly 2 million people are right now at risk for disease and starvation related to the lack of basic food.

Rice farmer U Maung Saw, 58, is rebuilding his own home
from scratch and trying to salvage hundreds of pounds of
unmilled rice soaked by the cyclone, before it rots. He says
his village, Kyaiktaw, has received no aid at all. "The govern-
ment never gives us anything," he says. "We're not angry.
We're not surprised. We don't expect anything else."
(Los Angeles Times / May 11, 2008)

Let this be a lesson to all about how Marxism really works--or doesn't work. People are dispensible. People are a commodity. They can be moved elsewhere, sold, or eliminated. They are merely an item--for the Marxist government to play with in its selfish, self-aggrandizing schemes. The manic regime of Kim Jong Il of North Korea is another fine example of the carelessness, the resentment, even the downright hatred for people that is the fundamental principle of Marxism.

Only in a prosperous, capitalist, free-enterprise, free society, like the Western countries have fostered, and particularly the United States, can Marxism be pawned off as some legitimiate ideological alternative, or some theoretical, academic "balance" of ideas. Marxism, which is Communism, or Socialism, or Leftistm, Liberalism, or Progressivism, is a killing machine. The record shows that this machine is directed at its own people. Therefore, Marxism is self-imposed genocide. It is deceptive, yes, but the record is abundantly clear and published--and currently demonstrable at this moment: Marxism is pleased to eliminate masses of people at once.

This is how governments gain tyrannical power over people, by creating chaos, threats, or by taking advantage of natural disaster. Marixm causes the problems it creates, professes to solve, but never does. The American Congress refuses to allow development in oil and oil production (refinement for fuel, etc.), and then blames the oil companies for the high prices of fuel and all related consequences. The liberals of America claim there is a shortage of oil, and therefore new fuels are needed. Then they claim that using corn for fuel is causing a food shortage and a rise in the price of food! Of course, it's all because the use of oil (and the flatulance of cattle) is causing global warming. This dog-chasing-its-tail technique keeps the uninformed population all frightened and willing to follow. Thus, tyranny waits in the wings.

Ah, but the liberal Rock stars will save the world. They're planning another "coup" for self-righteousness. Ah, but this time it's "Christian" rock stars. Well, that'll make a big difference in the world, right? On the other hand, ineffectiveness is no excuse for inactivity...

The stats showed that the large Negro population of North Carolina voted for Barak Hussein Obama. (The 2000 census put the black population at 22.1% of the state's total population.) The Hussein Campaign also garnered a great deal of the new, younger, first time voters, obviously youngsters who have experienced coerced integration from day-care days through high school and college. They feel voting for Obama validates their own otherwise uncomfortable experience.

So, how did this same state elect Bev Perdue as Lieutenant Governor in 2000? In 1987, she was one of the two Democrats who voted against a state bill ( HB 726) which allowed more rigorous investigation into hate crimes--without local request. Some of her opponents, particularly gubenatorial candidate Richard Moore, imply that Perdue therefore is supportive of the Ku Klux Klan.

Lt. Gov. of North Carolina, Bev Perdue

In other words, Bev Perdue (now running for governor of the state), a white women, a Democrat, can get elected Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina, but, Hillary Clinton, also a white woman Democrat, cannot get the nomination for Democrat presidential candidate in the same state. This seems a bit of an anomaly. Did Hillary need to join then the KKK? Would that have helped? Is that what Hillary lacked?

Well, seriously, there is a something to say about association here. Republican Ron Paul has seemingly so many strange and marginal assocations (via supporters), including KKK members, that it is difficult to understand his campaign. Contributors, anxious to influence the election, can become liabilities to the candidate. (Bev Perdue just returned contributions from alcohol industries for that very reason. I wonder if the Klan ever contributed to her campaign.)

Now, patriotic state that North Carolina has been, how could they support someone like Barak Hussein Obama?--who has the most anti-American associations of all, including Muslims, Marxists, and manic baby killers. This is indeed a mystery. Perhaps it is the ignorance and emotionalism of youth, (a specialty of the Hussein Campaign), or the social self-purging of white liberals in North Carolina (many of whom are no doubt "immigrants" from New York, (or trespaasser from Mexico; the "hispanic" populations of North Carolina is by far the fastest growing minority there).

The media would certainly have us believe that the demographics of America have forever changed, drastically, in the last 20 years. The media would have us believe that it's all about diversity. Whites are passe. The cool thing is color. Hussein is in like flint, so to speak. Youth live in media. They obviously think like the media has trained them to think. The media is liberal, and set against anything traditional or "status quo" about America, and that includes the white race. America must become a dark race now. A colored race. A non-white race. That's the whole effort here.

I've said before, American Indians should be the first to dread such a move. The ascent of the darkie onto the great white throne of America will bring no blessing to the American Indian. Indeed, unless it is an Savage in the White House, Indians will be humilated beyond calculation. A marginal Negro like B. Hussein O. bespeaks a profound schizophrenia in the whole country. The associations of Obama are entirely averse to all American history and ethos. He could not bring himself to speak of American Indians in his infamous racist speech, (only mentioning "native American children" once, in one sentence, along with Asian and Hispanic children). To Obama, American Indians do not exist. Indians are not part of the fabric of American politics. He knows nothing, absolutely nothing about America Indians, or American Indian history.

The political behavior of North Carolina is therefore of great concern. BadEagle.com just finished a month of blogs on Confederate History (April, 2008). And now we observe the strange and unaccountable "voting" behavior of a Southern state--not the deep South, true, but one certainly a big part of the Confederacy. Can this behavior be an indicator of the future of the American public? Has the liberal media been this successful?

Rush Limbaugh, radio host.

And one more thing. Rush Limbaugh is being "accused" of influencing the election with his "Operation Chaos"--his effort to keep the Dems fighting over Obama and Hillary--through supporting Hillary. (By the way, that was Ann Coulter's idea.) This is a typical piece of liberal hypocrisy. The campaign efforts themselves are designed to influence the election! That's the whole point. Contributors are influencial, because they give money. However, the media can get a handle on the money issue. Why, that's unfair and undemocratic. Why, you can't buy an election. But the liberal media can't get a handle on Rush Limbaugh. Radio. Free speech. Mass communication. Accusing Limbaugh just isn't going to work, is it? It's okay for Obama's campaign to "influence" young, immature, inexperienced, and uninformed voters in North Carlina; but it's not okay for a radio talk show host to influence anyone. If he were a professional campaign worker, maybe. But just a free speaker. Can't have that.

For those who may not know, there is an entertainment magazine by and about Indians called Redskin Magazine. You'd think that would break all those little liberal hearts out there--especially the ones that campaigned so desperately against the Washington Redskins professional football time (like, heavy-weighted Suzan Harjo). Well, well. Sometime, liberal-trained protesters are just wrong. They don't stand for Indians at all. I certainly never believed they did myself, but, then, those same liberals were just so very sure I was the one "off the reservation." (Or, should I say, still on the reservation? That liberal jargon is so hard to make sense of.)

Yes, Redskin is all about rock music, rockified Indian bands, Indian comedians, "models," etc. It's strickly a "pop" version of Indians. Perfectly normal. Not to my personal taste, but, that is entirely irrelevant. The magazine shows Indians in the "popular" mode, not the refined traditional or artistic mode.

The magazine is currently advertising a woman named Ashley Kahsaklahwee and her soon to be launched web site. Of course, she already has one, AshleySkin.com. It's pornographic, and she sports her silicon (or what certainly appears to be surgical artiface) like jingles at a pow-wow. Quite repugnant in my view, but, again, opinion is irrelevant. (I've long ago offered my opinion of Indian women acting like white women in efforts to attract men--all men, to their bodies: Indian Women Mascots, Nov. 17, 2002, and Have Indians Become Media-dependent, Too? Dec. 20, 2002.) American Indian porno, that's what Ashley is about. Her decision--to be like white women. And, again, that's my opinion.

Let's look into the matter of who's putting this entertainment rag out, anyway. First, here's some choice info posted as a mission statement:'

RSM is the ultimate entertainment resource for not only First Nations people but for all cultures world wide. Our publication enlists a global scope that appeals to men and women of various adult ages. We represent a refreshing, innovative and informative presentation of models, culture, fashion, music and all forms of Arts and Entertainment.

The likes of "sexual relationships," "erotic and sexual advice," "adult sexuality and entertainment," and "questions on sexuality" all enhance, shall we say, the introductory paragraphs. So, we're clear on the main attraction here. Of course, the magazine professes a grand scope of interests, none of which would hold attention without the pornographic aspect. Or, so the magazine's tacit content would seem to indicate.

So be it. There is a large group of Indians, younger Indians, say, under 50 or under 40, who seem hungry for their own society, and are quite averse to the "elders" routine. They have been offended by their own parents and families, if such can be called that. This magazine will probably be a success, among Indians. And, with the rarety of American Indian porno, it will, for a while, probably be a big seller to non-Indians. (Get that? Rarety of Indian porno. That's because it has never had a place in Indian culture. This is foreign to our traditions.)

Jody Martin and Mathew Hill are the owners/operators ( hill@redskinmagazine.ca ). Hillary Chambers is the editor ( chambers@redskinmagazine.ca ). Strong Indian names there. And note, the thing is created in Canada. It isn't an American Indian thing after all.

Interestingly, Sheena Wassegijig ( wassegijig@redskinmagazine.ca ) in the Media Arts department of the magazine, had this to say to Rob Schmidt (a fairly insignificant white liberal who condescendingly seeks to train Indains on how to be Indian):

Call me a Redskin! I'm proud to wear the name...RE-INVENTION IS A GREAT THING. I would honestly NOT be offended. Call me a wagon-burner...

I mean...a stereotype is no money out of my pocket, takes no joy out of my life. its just dumb people who think they are being smart by labelling someone else.

My, that must sting those liberals! How crushing. How devastating. She said what needed to be said to the likes of the liberal trenchman Schmidt. His desperate comeback was to compare Wassegijig to me:

You sound like David Yeagley, the anti-Indian white supremacist who once wrote, "Call me savage!" Do you really want to be associated with the likes of him?

I'm afraid the liberals the racists. White liberals like Schmidt, who think they know how Indians should think, and try to tell Indians how to be Indian, are simply wrong, and have been all along. I'm just smiling at the fact that I never was impressed with them, and now, obviously, no one else is, either. That's the point.

As to the porno thing, or the lower levels of entertainment, that's a different issue. I say that Indians are truly creative and artistic people. This entertainment magazine, like any other popular magazine of it's nature, simply doest not bring out the best, or the highest levels of Indian creativity. I think that's a fair assessment. It is what it is.