David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
While it was Barry Soetoro’s heinous decision, his attorney general appointment Eric Holder is willing to take credit for it, and the heat. Bringing our national enemies to American civil court, at the very site of their mass murders, is a wonderful example of Barry’s way, his anti-American way; and when Holder pretended that Barry knew nothing about the decision, it was a stellar display of Holder’s lying ‘execution’ of Barry’s dictates.
US Attorney General, Eric Holder, appointed by Barry Soetoro
(a.k.a. “Barack Hussein Obama”), another black avenger?
At this moment, Holder is defending “his decision” before Congress. The obvious and dramatic impropriety of the very idea offends all who have the slightest sense of value for America, or even for their own lives. So, what we have here is an established concept of Obamahood. This is an “Obama Moment.” It is an act of irony, an act of outrage, and an act of anti-Americanism. This is what Barry Soetoro is known for now. He likes to stage outrage, to feed his narcisissism, to totally disdain America.
Even Ann Coulter admitted today, along with Laura Ingraham on her show, that “Obama” thinks and behaves like an immigrant. Ann reference a Hispanic woman friend who suggested this thought. (Of course, BadEagle.com has been saying this from the day “Obama” announced his presidential candidacy. The man is an alien, lying, black African Communist traitor. This is obvious, and the only reason it isn’t mentioned is due to the media talkers’ fear of being fired, sued, or otherwise persecuted.)
So, the Obama Moment is what all his lackeys strive to create, or at least to implement. Holder is nobly trying to cover for Obama, but is lying profusely, even as his mentor lies continuously. In fact, this entire Barry Soeotoro administration is a continuum of false reality, an administration of empty words.
Worse, a hostile take-over. To wit, Obama is expected to appoint a host of liberal appellate court judges (1/3 of the national pool), so that the triumph of anti-Americanism will be assured–through courts, not through the people’s vote. While this might all seem like a natural autolysis, an inevitable rotting, and to a great extent may be, it is does involve actual, conscious, calculated moves to implement the process of “changing” America into something is isn’t, wasn’t, and was never supposed to be. There are those who are guilty of treason. Or, is that some old, lost Romantic notion?
So, through US Attorney General Eric Holder, Barry boy holds America hostage. Through media, through a vast network, a giant wave of profound aversion to the American Constitution, the people of this country are hotly disdained. The public is denigrated beyond recovery.
For Barry Soetoro and Eric Holder to declare America’s national enemies equal to American citizens is the overthrow of America. (Listen to the often wimpy Linsey Graham’s heroic arguments against the “Holder” decision.) It is the utter disengagement of the American military. It is the ultimate castration of the armed forces, the supreme disarmament. It is the ultimate perversion of law–to the end that a nation’s laws are used to destroy that very nation.
This is the Obama Moment, par excellence. This is Holder, holding America hostage. BadEagle.com calls for the immediate removal of these men from office.
13 responses so far ↓
1 Walksthrough // Nov 18, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Oo-oo-oo-h, I would say this is the Liberal Moment. BS merely personifies it. I see your point, but just let us not forget the great dragon behind him.
A civil war might remove them. But a civil war would not remove the liberal worldview, merely temporarily subdue it, like nazism (national SOCIALISM) was subdued in Germany’s WWII loss.
Like with the Nazis, liberalism with its political and theological applications has as its author and mentor the great dragon.
The Liberal disregards the safety, wellbeing and supply of our military, and makes it his priority to secure precious American rights for confessed terrorists. As it should be: a terrorist launched the Liberal.
2 David Yeagley // Nov 18, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Okay, Walk. What do we do? I mean, how far can we go? Even those of us that have a world end view that does not result from the good will of nations, can we not do the best we can to preserve what we value most, here and now?
I realize this is a serious question. It is a theological, eschatological question. Not exactly political, huh?
I sincerely ask, what is your opinion about a believer’s participation in his country’s politics? Or in the affairs of the world in general?
I think we should do the most we can to promote and preserve what we value most in the way of secular government.
3 Walksthrough // Nov 18, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Believers are doing the “best” they can when they continually strive to share, preach, educate, warn, exhort. If our country was founded upon Christian principles (it was), there really is no secular government. If our country is in a death throes of changing to liberal principles, still there really is no secular government. What does secular mean? I had to look it up. The first definition said pertaining to worldly things. The second definition, not pertaining to or connected with religion. The third, concerned with nonreligious subjects.
Come now, in this world today, steeped in growing interest in (ancient) new age spiritualities of all sorts, atheism and agnosticism thrown into the bunch, can an argument by made that anything is void of religion of one sort or another? As I said before, liberalism is about glorifying man. It is false worship, idolatry. So, secularism is a word that serves a sort of purpose, but finally it is only science fiction (SF being a man-worshiping exercise of the imagination). Idolatry is idolatry. That is why there is only one true God, of the Bible, Israel’s God, who sent His Son Jesus Christ into the world to save sinners.
That said. And I apologize for any tediousness and cumbersomeness.
Believers in America are doing the best they can, when they hold forth the Word of life, whether in the political arena, or the private sector, or while receiving government unemployment “benefits.”
To call attention to the big picture while considering a marker in the road is not a lack of participation. It is participation. It is just that America and the world has less and less of a taste for that big picture, except those boys who put pyramids on dollar bills and hold secret meetings from time to time, albeit to a lesser extent.
Before a reclamation of our constitutional republic can be made, the people must know the reason why an accurate big picture is essential. For many listening to conservative talk radio and reading the internet, they are not given that biblical worldview apart from endtimes writers and preachers (who themselves present differences), because it is considered to be for churches and synagogues to handle, and many do not. Lack of this knowledge happens to be everything to do with our problems.
I think a “preacher” goes further than an activist can ever claim to dream. If we believe God can reach and change a heart through the preaching of the gospel, how much more can a gifted and prepared believer enter politics or the private sector and make a difference over the vanity of liberalism and the vanity of conservatism striving to reclaim this constitutional republic without acknowledging our need for public confession of God in every aspect of public and private life?
4 David Yeagley // Nov 18, 2009 at 6:43 pm
I just have a certain sense of futility when it comes to ‘describing’ what’s going on in Washington. The talk show hosts, like Limbaugh, devote their souls to identifying everything carefully, accurately, but, it’s mostly horrid, disgusting news. I don’t find it healthy to even listen to, but it has become our daily bread. Bad news. Evil news. Sinful behavior, of one kind or another. And in between, all we get is advertisements–the most distorted, cocked, and insulting form of human communication.
So, I’m willing to work against the tide of idolatry, but, except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build. Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.
5 Sioux // Nov 18, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Why do Barry Soetoro and his evil minions want this show trial??? These men have all admitted their guilt and want to be executed. So, again, why the trial — in NYC of all places? Why are the politicians all cooperating when they should be doing the exact opposite? It’s all about the ruination of Bush & his boys. I say hang ‘em all – the muslims slimeballs and BS and his gang of thieves. Civil war is inevitable….
6 David Yeagley // Nov 18, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Show, indeed. But also, denigration show. Psychological denigration of America. Note, it is black men doing this–the puppets of white liberal men. Let the Negro indulge his revenge on white America.
It is self-flagellation. But don’t worry, the big white power boys are giving up a nickle of their wealth, or a inch of their power.
7 John Sandusky // Nov 18, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Simply just a continuation of the lefts assault on America’s ability to defend herself against terrorism.
“Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.”
Holder’s Hidden Agenda
8 Walksthrough // Nov 19, 2009 at 12:10 am
What struck me in hearing that Holder is saying that the men will be found guilty, and if found innocent they will still be held–this is bizarro. In America (yes, I know: which America do I mean?), a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. So at the highest levels, American law is rendered moot by liberal application (by way of a crisis of course), or the President’s attorney general is simply lying.
9 David Yeagley // Nov 19, 2009 at 10:41 am
Narcissism=destruction.
American leaderships has become a playground for people working out their personal passions. People like Holder and Barry have no working concept of a country. They are incapable of patriotism. They love only themselvfes. Michelle “Obama” is perhaps the most obvious example. Very disappointing–in a genuine American Negro. Barry isn’t even that.
But, in any case, it’s all about self. There is no country. Just self.
10 Gary DeLoriea // Nov 19, 2009 at 11:09 am
First off this country was not founded on xtian principles. It was founded on the principles of the age of reason. Many of the men we think of when we use the term “Founding Fathers” weren’t xtian. Men such as Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and
Thomas Paine were Dieists. This is a belief in a personal God that one can pray to but is not the God of the xtians. As a matter of fact Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase wall of seperation of church and state and he also signed the treaty of Tripoli which states that the united states is not a xtian nation. The Founding Fathers knew their history. They knew that Theocracies always prefer the tyrant. a look at European and colonial American history confirms this. A few examples being the slaughter of 5000 saxons in northern France by Charlemagne (called kin killer by those who actually know their history) for the crime of not converting to xtianity. To the steadingers in Holland who were xtian but wanted to keep the freedom they were promised, and the fruits of thier labors. (the Bishop wasn’t satisfied with the thithe that was agreed upon origionally he wanted the 90 percent and have the steadinger beg for scraps from his table) There are also the well known Puritan abuses up to the the present day. I had some personal experience with such recently. My friend Daniel Halloran ran for city council in ny city 19th district in Queens. His opponents campaign ( Kevin Kim) had slam pieces published in the paper about our faith (Theodism). The insinuation being that since Danny is no longger a xtian he has no place in society. Forget the fact that his family has lived in the neighborhood for 5 generations or that he was a cop before he became a lawyer. Though i’m happy to say that these dishonorable tactics didn’t work. He was elected 52% to 47%. In my opinion the Fenians of Ireland have it right. As long as you respect the language and laws of the land nothing else matters. Which means no sharia law no bi lingual government forms . you learn english you follow our laws. state enforced religion actually diminishes faith. if you don’t believe me look at Europe religion is on the decline because it was forced on the people for so long
11 David Yeagley // Nov 19, 2009 at 11:20 am
Pretty inaccurate stuff there, Mr. G.L. We’ve all been through these issues, this historical documents, the personal lives, letters, and testimonies. What you say is very superficial, and hackneyed at this point.
I grant you, however, that the language of “Reason,” the jargon, the mode, was very much reflective of the day–the European day. Public language goes through periods of infusion with this mood, that mode, etc. One mustn’t be too literal in the association of a jargonized phrase with the philosophical tenor from which it is excised–especially when we have unlimited references to Christ, the Bible, the Creator, permeating all the personal writings of the fathers. Their belief that the Bible was the best education source for making good citizens is beyond dispute. You should have a look at David Barton’s work.. This might be new information to you. I don’t know.
Why would you argue against the foundations? I mean, what is your goal?
12 David Yeagley // Nov 19, 2009 at 11:25 am
I’m not saying, however, that Christianity should be forced on people.
The issue is the nature of successful social laws. What are the most successful, the most necessary, etc. What is the nature of these laws, and why are they successful? What is their origin? Trial and error?
If you study the Bible carefully, you’ll find nothing original in Christianity. It’s all Jewish, down to the very Spirit. Love thy neighbor as they self is Leviticus 19:18.
But the Ten Commandments, which are Jewish, which are universal? Only the Jewish law addresses motivation. Thou shalt not covet. This is about emotional state, motivation, inner pschological conditions.
Thou shalt not kill (murder). Universal?
Honor thy father and thy mother. ?
Thou shalt not make graven images? Very, very Jewish. True Christians obvserve this.
Anyway, I think the issue is: What laws are “religious” and what are “secular?” I think some are both, always.
13 Gary DeLoriea // Nov 20, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Actually Mr. Yeagley norse germanic law deals with motivation implicitly. One example being the the concept in old icelandic law of there are no accidents. It was understood that an true accident would be delt with by the parties in question at the time of the incident in question the inplication being that if the matter actually made it to thing then the offending party ment to do it. (Thing or Allthing was a gathering of land owners and freemen that happened every season through out pre xtian scandinavia with express pourpus of settling disputes the form of wich is that the plantiff and defendant argue thier case in front of 12 freemen who pass juudgement on the matter. Sound familiar?) the forms of government and concepts of justice we use are a hodge podge of roman (THe concept of a man being innocent untill proven guilty and the rights of the accused) the right to be judged by a jury of our piers coming from heathen scandanavia. even the form of our government is a mix of Roman republicanism and concepts borrowed from the old Iroquois confederacy. the best argument for seperation of church and state come from the founding fathers themseleves. They put it in the U.S constitution that there shall be no religious limitus test for office. THe question was even raised by those who would have made this a Theocracy ( Chief Justice Byrd comes to mind) what if a Pagan or Muhommadist (What they called a muslim at the time) should get elected. Their answer? If they are the ones who are the best qualified to lead then they should get the job. Some of the founding fathers realized that xtianity might not be the dominate religion in the coming centuries and wanted to do what they could tho secure the best leadership possible. I’m not saying that there weren’t founding fathers who were’n't deeply religious xtians the fact there were is part of the historical record. What i’m saying is that it’s also part of that same historical record that this was never ment to be a xtian nation exclusivly
You must log in to post a comment.