BadEagle.com Header Image

 

Op-Ed Column

Are Tea Party Conservatives Anti-Semitic?

by David Yeagley · February 7, 2010 · 86 Comments ·

There is growing concern about anti-Semitism among mainstream conservatives—not the white supremacist movements like the Ku Klux Klan, or the neo-Nazis. This new concern is about anti-Semitism among today’s leading conservative ‘opinion makers,’ even among the Tea Party people.

Debbie Schlussel has recently noted Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Rand Paul (son of former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul) as an endorsement of anti-Semitism. Rand’s father, Senator Ron Paul is certainly not known for support of Israel. Ron is known as the most “constitutional” of the conservative candidates. (Alas, the Tea Party seems less than completely supportive of Ron Paul, at least in his home state of Texas—where he now faces three other candidates for his senate seat, all three of whom claim the Tea Party as their inspiration.)


Sarah Palin, at the Tea Party in Nashville, TN.
UPDATE: On her Sunday FNS interview with Chris Wallace, Sarah Palin definitively stated her support for Israel. In context, she said that one of elements which would cause Obama to lose if her were to run for election now is lack of support for Israel. She state that supporting Israel is what “I would like him to do.”

But Sarah Palin, in her premier address to the Tea Party last night (February 6, 2010), said that the movement must not be associated with any single candidate or person. It is a people’s movement.

Nevertheless, Rand Paul considers himself an important part of the Tea Party movement, even offering a definition of it on CNN. Rand Paul, (an MD like his father), is running for a US senate seat for the state of Kentucky.

Schlussel said recently of Rand Paul:

Our friend, Sultan Knish a/k/a journalist Daniel Greenfield, has a great, MUST-READ piece summarizing the anti-war, anti-Gitmo, pan-terrorist, 9/11 conspiracy theory, pro-Iran, and anti-American views of the Paul son. He quotes from Paul’s appearances on the openly anti-Semitic Anti-War Radio (owned and run by gay neo-Nazi Justin Raimondo, who frequently bashes me for being Jewish) and Alex Jones shows (Jones is a well known 9/11 Truther and constant basher of “the Zionists”). In my view, Rand Paul’s presence on these shows alone should disqualify him.

Following this revelation, Schlussel notes the friendly association of famous conservative pundit Michelle Malkin with anti-Semite advocate Emily Marie Zanotti. Schlussel points out that Zanotti is enthusiastically endorsed by Eric O’Keefe, leader of the Sam Adams Alliance, which, according to Schlussel, “illegally” hired Zanotti to campaign for Sarah Palin in 2008. Zanotti is very much part of the Tea Party movement. Zanotti is, according to Schlussel, avidly anti-Semitic. Schlussel’s revelations appear ominous, indeed.


Zanotti (far right), with Mary Katharine Ham,
Michelle Malkin & Melissa Clouthier

I certainly wouldn’t call Debbie Schlussel a liberal, but she fearless defends Jewish interests, including Israel, specifically. Therefore she watches with eagle eye the tenor of conservatism. When ant-Semitism shows up in the general conservative movement, it is indeed cause for her concern.

I am concerned also. I myself am scheduled to speak at the 10th American Renaissance Convention in Washington, DC later this month (February 19-21, 2010). This ‘movement’ is not known for pro-Israel positions. In fact, there are publicly professed anti-Zionists among the associates. Not to argue here the relationship between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, but, I do find myself somewhat associated with ideas and sentiments which I do not share. Therefore I am seriously concerned when I note Debbie Schlussel’s observations. I am concerned about myself, my own reputation, and the clarity of my own positions.

Let me state them plainly: I believe in American Indians. I believe that Indians should make every effort to love, honor, and preserve what is left of our race, land, and culture. It is my belief also that I must allow this same privilege to all other peoples. That includes white nations, colored nations, and certainly, the Jewish people.

Jewish people are white people. “Semite” comes from the name “Shem,” son of Noah, progenitor of the white peoples. While I must admit that there are Jewish people at the cutting edge of liberalism, leading the anti-white, anti-Christian, and anti-American political and legal movements in America, these do not represent all Jewish people. There are strong conservative Jewish movements in the country and have been for the past several decades. They used to be called “the new Jewish Right.”

I realize that many white American conservatives who consider Jewish liberals to be the root of all adverse forces. I may encounter such folks at the American Renaissance conference. However, I am not fearful of my own beliefs. I intend to make my case for the honor and dignity of race, land, and culture. I have a theory of Jewish liberalism, its origin and raison d’etre. I will reveal this theory at the appropriate time, in the appropriate way. For now, I must simply state the fact that I believe nationhood is of divine origin. Race and culture are appointed by the Creator of all.

Posted by David Yeagley · February 7, 2010 · 10:25 am CT · ·


Tags: American Patriotism · Conservatism · Jews · Op-Ed Columns · Politics · Race · White Race




Read More Op-Ed Columns »

86 responses so far ↓

  • 1 beakerkin // Feb 7, 2010 at 11:45 am   

    Doc

    The Tea Party movement is not anti Semitic. I attended the huge rally in DC as an easily identified Jewish Person and did not hear a single bad comment.

    I am troubled by the presence of Ron Paul who is clearly a crank and an anti-semite. His son should be questioned on his own views.

    The conference you are attending is a far more ominous event. Nick Griffin is a well known Holocaust Denier. Moreover, Jews are deeply offended by anything that goes near the infamous Nuremberg laws. We all are very familiar with how that ended.

    Of course as stated earlier you could rise above such matters and speak about Holocaust denial and where the Nuremberg laws went. This would require a type of vision and courage that you seem to lack.

    As for your inane comments that I do not have enough information. I need not attend a KKK rally to decipher what is going on there. I need look no further than Nuremberg to see where this may lead.

  • 2 David Yeagley // Feb 7, 2010 at 12:11 pm   

    The Tea Part is not a political party. Therefore, you can’t say it is or it isn’t. It’s definitions are only in the form of a couple of general principles. There are no doubt anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers sacttered in it’s ranks. Wanna bet?

    Therefore, you should be so generous with a simple American Renaissance conference. Jarod Taylor, the president, as carefully pointed out to you, is neither ant-Semitic, nor a Holocaust denier.

    The bigger the crowd, the more likely to have a mixed ideology within. Besides, what do you do with all the anti-Zionists Jews? Are they to be considered anti-Semitic as well? (You know, the “self-hating” Jew bit.) What is your position on Israel? (Don’t know that I’ve even asked. I assume you’re pro-Israel.)

    Maybe I should ask your position on Debbie Schlussel. Nah. Never mind.

  • 3 beakerkin // Feb 7, 2010 at 1:13 pm   

    Doc

    My position on Israel is obvious from reading any basic exchanges.

    Nick Griffin who is the featured speaker is a Holocaust Denier. Why don’t you just go up and ask him?

    As stated before I was at the huge DC rally as an easily identified Jew and did not hear one single word about Israel or the Jews. My friend
    Always on Watch did see some kooky John Birch Society lunatics but they were not in my direction and I was looking for them.

    Jarod Taylor knew about Griffin’s Holocaust Denial when he invited him to speak. This is not something that is secret.

    I suggest you speak to the sponsor and ask him how to respond to a Jewish reader who thinks his message is unAmerican and smells like the spirit of Nuremberg.

    I will point out that I am whiter than you. For me it is a mere attribute and I place no more thought on the subject than shoe size. I am an American and that is the greatest honor one can bestow on any person. My country does not have second class citizens, Black or otherwise.

    Most of the anti semitic so called Jews are not Jews. Kindly spend some time reading about the religious dimensions of Communism. This is not a new position and was held by my grandparents who knew about communists first hand. Communists were considered pariahs and were not accepted by members of the community. Even Ethel Rosenberg’s father did not speak to her for years.

    Your approach of dividing society into races is more akin to the Marxist approach than my Americanism. In fact crack pot Pastor Wright preaches what is commonly known as Black Liberation theology or Malcolm X crossed with Marx.

  • 4 geronl // Feb 7, 2010 at 2:02 pm   

    There are no member lists, there is no central organization. These are just groups of people who believe the government is too big, too intrusive, too expensive and too often.

    The Paulitos have tried to claim ownership from the start but they are at the margins and they know it. The minute they start spouting their foreign policy ideas they marginalize themselves.

    The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) movement would boo someone off a stage if they started trying to deny the holocaust or spout anti-Israel propaganda. I think we all know this.

    It is a very new movement and its very fluid, its expected that many groups will be out to co-opt it and try to control it. This includes the actual GOP, which should never be allowed close to it.

    Anti-Semitism is not going to find a home with the modern conservative movement that basically wants the government to butt out. They will always be a fringe movement trying to tag along and pretend to belong. Real ani-semitism does have a home within the Democrat Party, albeit they’ll never have a majority there either.

    Also: The TEA Party must not be co-opted, it must instead infiltrate and take-over the GOP from the inside. A party within a party with its own structure and organization and fundraising mechanisms.

  • 5 David Yeagley // Feb 7, 2010 at 2:09 pm   

    Sarah Palin does support Israel. She said so today, (last night), on the FNS interview with Chris Wallace. There is the quote, from the transcript:

    WALLACE: I know that three years is an eternity in politics. But how hard do you think President Obama will be to defeat in 2012?

    PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day. Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, I do not think Obama would be re-elected.

  • 6 David Yeagley // Feb 7, 2010 at 2:18 pm   

    Beak, trying answering direct questions once in a while, please.

    Also, you have no angle on my conduct or words at the conference. “My position on Israel is obvious from reading any basic exchanges,” to quote your own words. I know you’re sincere, but, you don’t have to be presumptive and arrogant all the time. Concede to the fact that others have intellegence as well. And also a lot more decor and manners.

    Your natural arrogance (befitting more the stand-up stage than an intellectual discussion, many times), beclouds your reasoning sometimes, or certainly your ability to take in at all what someone else is saying.

    There are anti-Semites in EVERY GROUP–including Jews. There is no other point to be made here.

    The purpose, however, at the conference, or anywhere else, is communication. I doubt you would have the ability to do that, if your repsonses to me are any indication of how you communicate.

    Yes, you have much to say. But, it comes out best when it is not in a feigned response form. It’s better when you just say what you have to say. That way, when you miss the mark entirely, it isn’t so obvious.

    Evidently, we agree more on the Jews than on America. But, I haven’t fully stated my position on Jewish liberalism, anti-Americanism, and its anti-Zionism. It will come out soon. Thank you.

  • 7 David Yeagley // Feb 7, 2010 at 2:22 pm   

    Rev. Wright, Marx? Let blacks be separate. Totally separate, if they want to be. What’s wrong with that?

    You’re liberal Beak. I say let people do what they want to do–with themselves. You want people to be told what to do. By your reasoning, it’s wrong for Indians to be Indian, to be together, separate, and race-based.

    Tell that to Jews in Israel. Who are you kidding?

  • 8 beakerkin // Feb 7, 2010 at 2:22 pm   

    Doc

    Palin’s views on Israel were not widely known.

    Obama was elected as Palin stated on little more than droning on about Hope and Change. At the time I stated change for the sake of change was stupid.

    Obama has a tin ear and if the economy does not start improving the next election may be a train wreck for the Democratic party. He may also find some candidate opposing him for his party’s nomination.

    Obama was elected merely because the banks failed at a key moment in the election cycle. He was trailing in the polls and never gave an answer. McCain failed to state a clear plan about how to fix the banks and create jobs. The media spun everything pro Obama.

    Obama has breathed life into the GOP with his tin ear and penchant for hanging out in the social science faculty lounges instead of Walmart parking lots.

  • 9 David Yeagley // Feb 7, 2010 at 2:29 pm   

    Now the matter of Palin’s endorsements is intensified. I personally guessed that she was a supporter of Israel all along.

    However, if she endorses someone who happens not to fully commit to such a position, then we have to adjust our ideas about what her endorsement means.

    This strikes me as fairly serious, though, maybe I’m over-blowing it. To her, endorsing John McCain is obviously a gesture of good will, an expression of no hard feelings to the man personally, despite how his campaign managers ‘abused’ her.

    Fine. But, as Levin pointed out, a number of the most hurtful, liberal pieces of legislation that came out during the Bush adminstration came from JOHN MCCAIN.

    So, I’m caught myself. I don’t endorse anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism. I am, however, attenting a conferense where there are some
    people that do. Doesn’t mean I do.

    This is brain cracking.

  • 10 beakerkin // Feb 7, 2010 at 2:51 pm   

    Here we go again

    My positions on any subject are apparent in any
    basic reading of the thousands of words I have written on your site. You have seen them countless times and I do not have to remind you
    who is the relentless foe of Marx and his minions.

    As stated in the earlier post Communists are not Jews. This is not a new position and dates back from the time of my grandparents. My family fought for Poland in the war of 1920. Any
    family member who fought for the other side was shunned in one case for well over 50 years.

    Who is comparing Israel to racist enclaves. If you want to be an Indian you are free to do so
    and promote Intramarriage.

    Israel has a Jewish character but it is hardly defined by race. There are Jews in every color hue and they are equals under the law. The apartheid ethnically cleansed states are adjacent to it. Christians flee the West Bank and Lebanon and have been emigrating to Israel quietly.

    America was formed with a different concept than Israel. It is an egalitarian republic which unites people under the banner of individual rights. You seem to be forgetting the parts about all men are created equal and the pursuit of happiness.

    You are free to preach whatever you wish. What you are preaching is Unamerican in charachter. This nation has no second class citizens Black or otherwise.

    Liberal??? Is this the best you can do. I never claimed to be a Conservative. I am an American
    patriot in the true spirit of the term and beholden to the gifts of our founding fathers.

    I will point to your sudden embrace of Reaganite Mark Levin. He is a genuine Constitutional scholar and a real conservative.
    He wouldn’t be caught anywhere near that conference. Moreover, his critique of it would be
    almost identical to mine. I encourage you to ask
    him and you will be lucky if you get the Ron Paul treatment.

    I encourage you to read many of the articles that discuss the religious dimensions of Communism. Even David Horowitz has quipped
    that Marx should be handled in the theology department. Jews do not consider converts to other religions Jews. This is something one would grasp from being a member of the community and not an outsider or reading books.

  • 11 beakerkin // Feb 7, 2010 at 2:59 pm   

    Once again I have not accused you of anti semitism. However, as you are in a room that does clearly contain Holocaust deniers a sentence or two stating your opposition is clearly warranted.

    I want to point out my opposition to this philosophy would be identical to the critique pointed out by Jack & Jill who writes on my site as Pagan Temple. While you are free to spout
    crazy ideas the selection of a spouse is a personal decision. The government has no interest in dictating the most private of choices by its citizens.

    This philosophy does smell eerily similar to the spirit of the infamous Nuremberg laws. We know
    what that led to, although some people at the conference feign ignorance for political purposes.

  • 12 Freemarketguru // Feb 7, 2010 at 3:29 pm   

    Hi David,

    Great post and your concerns, especially about Paul are valid. As a Jew, lifelong Zionist and father of two, anti-Semitism always concerns me. But I’m happy to say that the Tea Party movement understands national security issues and is overwhelmingly pro-Israel. Of course, every movement has a lunatic fringer – enter the Paul family, but their time and influence are fading.

    Speaking of lunatic fringer – Debbie Schussel. Her endless attacks against Emily Zanotti are unfounded and disturbing. I have met Zanotti at Republican Jewish Coalition events in Chicago and personally heard her express her support for Israel. I wish most of my Jewish friends supported Jewish causes as much as she does.

    As far as Schussel – I can only conclude that her beef with Zanotti is personal not substantive. As a Jew, I appreciate the support Israel and Jews receive from our Christian brothers and sisters. I fear that voices such as Schussel only push people away who we may one day need to save us.

  • 13 TNT // Feb 7, 2010 at 3:35 pm   

    http://www.stormfront.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-241166.html

  • 14 JackInJill // Feb 7, 2010 at 3:54 pm   

    Doctor Yeagley-

    “Rev. Wright, Marx? Let blacks be separate. Totally separate, if they want to be. What’s wrong with that?

    “You’re liberal Beak. I say let people do what they want to do–with themselves. You want people to be told what to do. By your reasoning, it’s wrong for Indians to be Indian, to be together, separate, and race-based.”

    I can’t speak for Beak, but personally, there is nothing about what you are saying that is conservative. Indians can be together, separate, and race based if they so desire, while blacks and whites have the same privilege. No one is forcing whites to move into black neighborhoods, or vice versa. No one is forcing blacks and whites to intermarry.

    You seem to be suggesting that blacks not be allowed to move into white neighborhoods, or that blacks and whites should not be allowed to intermarry.

    Kindly explain to me what is conservative about that. A hint-it’s not. Government has a perfect right to protect the rights of all its citizens of any race. It has a duty, actually, not a right, to do so, and it has a right to protect those who engage in interracial marriages or other relationships, or the right of a black man to seek gainful employment, etc.

    Forcing blacks to move away from white neighborhoods, or forbidding blacks to marry whites, or allowing companies to refuse to hire blacks based on their race, would not be conservative under any stretch of the imagination. Can’t you see that?

  • 15 David Yeagley // Feb 7, 2010 at 3:58 pm   

    FMG, thank you so much for your comments. When it comes to actual Jewish affairs, I do need input. I have my own experience with Jews and Jewish studies, but, the Jewish “community” is a really mixed bag–in many cases, ideologically. People are people!

    I don’t exactly know how Schussel fits into the bigger picture. (Beak hasn’t even commented on her at all.) She’s has a killer blog, I must say! I find it has an almost frightening impact.
    But, is she not accurate in what she’s saying?

    The Tea Party is rather huge. Monstrous, really. There are going to be all kinds of folk involved. All kinds.

    I just can’t figure out what Palin is doing with these associations and endorsements. She’s a free spirit. Kind of like me, I think.

    Hey, Palin is not unusual for a Jewish name, but, Todd Palin’s father, Jim Palin, is not Jewish. Todd’s family does have a number of divorces in it, however, and all the “step” relations. Todd is from the ‘rural’ life, very isolated, and from a family plagued with a lot of the typical social behavioral problems connected with such a life. Todd came out pretty strong, however. I just wanted to be sure about any Jewish connections. There appear to be none.

  • 16 beakerkin // Feb 7, 2010 at 5:25 pm   

    Doc

    My sentiments are the same as Jack and Jill aka Pagan Temple. There is nothing conservative in what you have expressed. The odious views you have expressed are anathema to American values
    as expressed in our founding documents.

    Like Free Market Guru I have attended Tea Party events. I can tell you with certainty any dolt who would spout anti-semitic crap would get booed by that crowd. Holocaust Deniers and 9-11 Conspiracy clods would get booed non stop.

    I have no opinion on Debbie Schussel. I do not follow her. Pam of Atlas Shrugs does have mutual friends and is familiar with my name. Jews do not seek other Jews for affirmation of their beliefs. Our opinions are as diverse as Mark Levin and Alan Dershowitz.

    What is this obsession with looking for crypto Jews. Perhaps you should post a link to our greatest western hero. His experiences were captured in the song the ballad of Irving

  • 17 David Yeagley // Feb 7, 2010 at 6:22 pm   

    Beak, you and your friends are simply liberal. No question about it. Accept all, love all, honor all–except Communists. Morality is not a political ideology. So, your conservatism is moot. You have a liberal interpretation of “equality”–the sole word in all American history that you value.

    Why? It protects YOU. Fine. It is a survival tactic.

    You can’t bring it into true nationhood. Nationhood is not ideology. Nationhood is a pithy, gutsy, bloody reality in the flesh. Politics can never become “spiritual.” You’re trying to make an idea a politic. I’m not saying there’s not merit in that. I’m saying you wholly misinterpret the founders. You apparently are unaware of their circumstances and what they were thinking about when they framed the politic.

    I take it your friends are all like you? Liberal in the matter of “equality?” Tolerant of all but Communists, and maybe Muslims? Liberal in all matters of sexuality? if you know what I mean…

    The basis of conservatism is Biblical morality. There is no other base, other than race and sheer man power to hold the land. The rules for living, in America, were founded on the Bible. If you think otherwise, you are from Mars.

  • 18 JackInJill // Feb 7, 2010 at 6:43 pm   

    Doctor Yeagley-

    You are so wrong, and on top of that you are contradicting yourself. On the one hand you criticize Beak for bringing his moral viewpoints into the political equation, then on the other you say Biblical principles are the basis for the constitution, which is partially correct.

    One, you can’t divorce morals from politics. There’s no way a political person will not be influenced to some degree by his morals or his religious beliefs. The founders realized how that could be dangerous, which is one of the reasons for the First Amendment.

    By and large though, the main point is, you don’t get the conservative philosophy. There’s more to it than conservative moral values and low taxes. It is also limited government and respect for individual liberties.

    You can’t have respect for individual liberties and limited government and go around telling people who they can and can not marry. That would be turning conservatism into an obscene joke. Please try to comprehend this.

  • 19 JackInJill // Feb 7, 2010 at 7:15 pm   

    In other words, Doctor Yeagley, you, not Beakerkin, are the liberal. Liberals are, you know, the ones that want to go into every aspect of a person’s life, private or otherwise, and try to influence if not control it. That is what you are suggesting, or seems to be.

    Most of the hard-core social conservatives you seem to be so enthralled with, I would remind you, happen to have originated with the Democratic Party. Even Jerry Falwell was a Democrat. I bet you didn’t know that, did you?

    Anytime somebody goes on about using government to try to control people’s lives, including even their private lives, and even take it to the extent of wanting to enact constitutional amendments to that effect, I have to consider their conservatism suspect, to say the very least.

    Conservative is as conservative does. When it comes to encroaching on individual freedoms, conservatism doesn’t do a whole lot, and what little it does is generally limited to protecting others rights from undue and unwarranted encroachments by others.

    It’s really none of your business if an inter-racial couple date, marry, or have children. You have no rightful cause to object, however the thought of it offends you personally. That is what it all boils down to.

    I have an idea. Why don’t you start a movement amongst conservatives, just as an experiment, to demand that either Justice Thomas divorce his white wife or remove himself from the Supreme Court.

    How long do you think it would be before most conservatives would be ready to literally ride you out of town on a rail?

  • 20 beakerkin // Feb 7, 2010 at 7:50 pm   

    Doc

    Where have I called myself a Conservative? That being said I do no see Mark Levin agreeing with the crazy ideas you present.

    As the Pagan has stated you are making a mockery of American values. What part of the Constitution supports the promotion of second class citizens and laws that flow straight out
    of Nazi ideology. Did you miss the words of the founding fathers about the pursuit of happiness. Society has no vested interest in involving itself with laws of racial purity.

    You talk of nationhood and do not grasp what makes America unique amongst nations. We are a nation of shared values and ideas and we celebrate intellectual freedom. We do not have second class citizens Black or otherwise.

    As for my friends they include your most widely respected poster Warren, Mr Beamish, AOW, Junglemom and Farmer John who are all very conservative and many who are not. However,
    none of my friends on the right support anything close to this.

    The Pagan has told you the error of your ways.

    You seem to think my opposition to this conference is limited to Holocaust Deniers and Joooo haters. My opposition is based upon my
    belief in American values.

    Blacks serve in this country in every branch of the government. African Americans serve with
    honor in our military, law enforcement and every other branch of the government.

    Blacks are equal citizens of this great country.

  • 21 David Yeagley // Feb 7, 2010 at 9:23 pm   

    Beak, you and your friends are totally superficial in this matter, and do not read carefully or thoughtfully. You are thoughtful, but not when it comes to reading someone else’s posts.

    JJ, your attempt to turn my post upside down is utterly obvious and practically juvenile.

    But let me be specific: I have accepted a morality which I did not invent or design. I simply chose it. It was a historical precedent. I do not attempt to create my own morality.

    Beak & friends obviously do. You have the freedom to do that. I think you are mistaken to call that “American.” It isn’t. It is a corrosion. A metamorphosis, a “perversion” of history. You are also free to do that.

    The problem here is you think you are right. And yes, you are free to think that, as well. But, you think you are right because you simply do not know American history. I’m afraid that’s the problem here.

    Racial equality has nothing to do with this discussion, though Beak rests his soul on asserting it, time and time again. It is irrelevant. It is a puerile focus, and it’s a form of beggary, actually.

    As an Indian, I am willing to recognize a fundamental charity in the white man, notwithstanding his aggressions.

    I’m not interested in manipulations, however. To try and prick someone else’s conscience for personal gain, this is unmanly, weak, and disgraceful.

    I suppose it has to be done from time to time, however.

    I think it is obvious to all, Beak & Friends are simply liberals, “using” the idea of equality to justify personal taste, subjective “morals,” and for personal protection. That doesn’t appeal to me. That’s all. In fact, it offends me.

    But, maybe this is a matter of poor communication.

  • 22 JackInJill // Feb 7, 2010 at 9:46 pm   

    Doctor Yeagley-

    No one mentioned anything about equality. Equality is impossible. The only equality possible is equality and fairness of opportunity. No one has a constitutional right to be successful, or wealthy, or “equal”. However, in whatever way they might fall short of achieving their goals in life, it is supposed to be due to their own fortunes or lack thereof. A good lot of the time, it is simply a matter of luck.

    It was never supposed to be a matter of genes. Blacks, white, Indian, Orientals, etc., as long as they are American citizens, are under our constitution guaranteed the same EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY!. They have the right to live, work, play, and be successful (or fail) of their own volition. There are to be no restrictions placed on anyone in life in the US, certainly not based on race. Such a thing is a perversion of American values. I’m sorry, but that’s just the facts.

    It’s really unfortunate that you can’t see this. I think deep down you do, but for some reason you either dislike black people, or you are afraid of them. It’s up to you to work that out.

    What I do know is there is no way by any stretch of the imagination anyone can justify limiting their freedom and their constitutional rights in relation to whites or any other group, and that would be including their right to marry any willing partner of their choice of any race.

  • 23 Thrasymachus // Feb 7, 2010 at 10:00 pm   

    “The conference you are attending is a far more ominous event. Nick Griffin is a well known Holocaust Denier.”

    Beak,

    This is not true! I’m no fan of Griffin. But I heard him at Michigan State University state positively that the Holocaust did “Yes, of course” take place.

  • 24 REG // Feb 7, 2010 at 10:08 pm   

    I think that “Poor communication” fits. Insults and name calling abound and I don’t think it’s the host that’s starting it. Dr. Yeagley ussually asks good questions and immediately the mud slings. When I had a subscription to a Jewish magazine, there was an article regarding a conversation between a Christian evangelist and a Jewish citizen. The citizen asked, “Are you not satisfied that six million of us died that you wish to destroy the rest of us by making us Christians?” To that person, to lose their heritage would be to lose their identity. Booker T. Washington said that if Blacks wanted to be equal to whites in America they would work together to educate their children and by that take their rightful place in America. He was shouted down. I’ve worked with and known numerous Indian people in New Mexico and Oklahoma and have found them to be good people who are very patriotic Americans (US Citizens) but prefer to be called Navajo, Osage, Delaware or Cherokee rather than just plain vanilla American. Which is not accurate anyway since America is a continent, like Europe and Africa. I don’t see anything to criticize.

  • 25 Thrasymachus // Feb 7, 2010 at 10:11 pm   

    JJ,

    “You can’t have respect for individual liberties and limited government and go around telling people who they can and can not marry. That would be turning conservatism into an obscene joke. Please try to comprehend this.”

    History easily refutes this. All 13 Colonies, at the time of the Constitutional Convention, had marriage laws — anti-miscegenation and anti-abortion laws. All THIRTEEN! The Founders obviously did not share your belief.

    Besides, American Renaissance and White Nationalism are primarily about reversing the decline in White births — Whites are not having enough White babies and are far below replacement level. The purpose of “the Movement” is to reverse this trend. Not everyone thinks that marriage laws are the ideal solution. But SOMETHING must be done to increase the White population, or it will vanish from the face of the Earth. And long before that reality is achieved, Whites will have lost their political power altogether. They already have lost a great deal of it.

  • 26 Thrasymachus // Feb 7, 2010 at 10:26 pm   

    “There are to be no restrictions placed on anyone in life in the US, certainly not based on race.”

    JJ,

    Tell that to the Founding Fathers, who, in their laws, forbade non-White immigration to the new nation! It took a total reform of immigration in 1965 to replace the Founders’ very racially-motivated immigration program.

    Racial equality is relatively new in the U.S., so far as widespread acceptance of the concept is concerned. The real problem is that racial equality is not a biological or psychological reality. Moreover, the Bible does command respect for racial boundaries. Any people has a right to preserve themselves, and I, for one, agree with the use of the acronym ORION – “Our Race Is Our Nation.”

    I long for White Brotherhood to become a reality once again.

    As for Jews, let them participate in this brotherhood, if the see themselves as White. Now American patriot will persecute Jews on the basis of religion, and Jews may marry Jews if that is what they prefer to do. The choice of marriage between Jews and non-Jews is something the Jewish community itself has to decide for itself.

    I am against the anti-discrimination laws when these violate other rights.

    For example, I should be allowed to sell or not sell my home (or any other possession) to whomever I please, for whatever reasons I please. If I dislike a prospective buyer because I think this teeth are crooked, and don’t want to sell to him for that silly reason, that should be MY business, and not the government’s. The government has no right to interfere in matters of person transaction of this kind — including the hiring practices of employers! If citizens want to discriminate on the basis or race or religion in private matters, they have a right to do so. Demanding racial quotas in hiring practices is immoral — even if the intentions are meant for good. After all, there will always be plenty of employers who will hire a better qualified Black over a lesser qualified White. Most citizens are no that racially prejudiced.

  • 27 Thrasymachus // Feb 7, 2010 at 10:50 pm   

    “. . .for some reason you either dislike black people, or you are afraid of them. It’s up to you to work that out.”

    I certainly won’t speak for anyone else, least of all this website.

    As for MYSELF ALONE, regarding Blacks:

    As individuals, I try my best to judge each one on their personal merits or demerits. As with Whites, I’ve met both good and not-good Blacks.

    As a race, I both dislike and fear Blacks. When a situation that involves conflict between individual who differ in race, it is often much more dangerous and damaging than a similar conflict between to persons of the same racial background. And the presence of large numbers of Blacks living in forced integration among Whites spells the certain death of the White population and its culture.

    But the chief problem is simply that the White Race cannot possibly survive forced racial integration. Sorry, but History proves this and there is no example anywhere of forced integration of Whites and Blacks on the basis of equality producing a stronger, healthier, more prosperous and morally superior society.

  • 28 beakerkin // Feb 8, 2010 at 4:42 am   

    What you are preaching is not conservative. It is torn from the pages of the Nuremberg laws. If you think for a second that any Jew with a sense of history is blind to the odious crap you just wrote you are dead wrong.

    What you have just stated is not Conservatism. Reagan opened the doors to all who wished to believe. You may call me a liberal if it suits your fancy but you need to read Jonah Goldberg to read the progressive roots of Nazism.

    Tras

    I am not white and neither is Yeagley. Yeagley is the product of miscegenation. His parents were far more enlightened than the Dr. himself.

    I have read Taylor’s own words. He wants to make it legal to discriminate against Blacks in housing and in the job market.

    Sorry, but I am for individual merit, achievement and rights. You can fear whomever you wish, but it is not rational.

    I may have alabaster skin and green eyes, but I am not white. I am American and my core values come from the Constitution. You do not have a clue.

  • 29 Thrasymachus // Feb 8, 2010 at 6:38 am   

    “I have read Taylor’s own words. He wants to make it legal to discriminate against Blacks in housing and in the job market.”

    I know, and I agree with Taylor. Even if some consider discrimination an “immoral act,” it still should be legal. A house is private property. I would not sell mine to Blacks or Asians, given the right to choose. I don’t want the government involved. If a woman has a “right to choose” not to have her baby, I certainly have a right to choose not to sell my house to a Black.

    My town had no Blacks living here when I was a child. Now it is in full White Flight. A man has a right to discriminate when selling his home — his most personal of all possessions, Otherwise, it is not truly his possession.

    Forced Racial Integration is part and parcel of Liberalism. I am opposed to it.

    Thomas Jefferson insisted on sending the Blacks back to Africa. Jared Taylor has never claimed this as an option.

    Jefferson wrote:

    “The bill on the subject of slaves was a mere digest of the existing laws respecting them, without any intimation of a plan for a future & general emancipation. It was thought better that this should be kept back, and attempted only by way of amendment whenever the bill should be brought on. [Note 1 Cf. post, with Notes on Virginia in this edition.] The principles of the amendment however were agreed on, that is to say, the freedom of all born after a certain day, and deportation at a proper age. But it was found that the public mind would not yet bear the proposition, nor will it bear it even at this day. Yet the day is not distant when it must bear and adopt it, or worse will follow. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be pari passu filled up by free white laborers. If on the contrary it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up. We should in vain look for an example in the Spanish deportation or deletion of the Moors. This precedent would fall far short of our case.”

    http://www.jrbooksonline.com/Jefferson_negroes.htm

  • 30 Thrasymachus // Feb 8, 2010 at 6:59 am   

    “I may have alabaster skin and green eyes, but I am not white.”

    I know you are Jewish, so it is most interesting why you hold back from personal identification with the White Race. I sense a dislike of white people in your statement.

    In any event, given your physical description, should the non-white world ever gang up on the white population of the planet, to annihilate and destroy it — and I firmly believe that American Indians –should they manage to survive by resisting miscegenation (as I hope and pray they shall) — will refuse to participate in such an atrocity (they have too much honor and integrity) — you, my friend, will be taken for a White, whether you like it or not!

    Many Blacks are rabid anti-Semites and strenuously and vociferously oppose the “apartheid State of Israel.”

    In the end, the Liberals are NOT on the side of Jews:

    UN World Congress Against Racism

  • 31 JackInJill // Feb 8, 2010 at 7:43 am   

    Thrasymachus-

    The Constitution was forged in the spirit of compromise. Had there been no guarantee of the right to own slaves, to use just one example, the Constitution would never have been ratified.

    The founders were wise enough to know that time and circumstances change, as do attitudes and beliefs. They understood very well that if they were not careful, they would create a system that by it’s nature would become an anachronism over a period of fifty years or less.

    At the same time, they wanted to insure that the basic principles of the Constitution remained intact throughout all time, if that were possible.

    That’s why they inserted the amendment process into the constitution. I guess by now you see where I’m going with this, right?

    Those anti-miscegenation laws are no longer valid. They are null and void, due to the amendment process.

    Don’t get me wrong. I am all for states rights. I am a Federalist. Please note I spell that with a capitol “F”: I am far more of a Federalist than I could ever be conservative. It just so happens that in most instances, conservatism is a better fit with federalism.

    All that being said, no state or municipality has the right, constitutionally speaking, to pass laws that denigrate or minimize the constitutional rights of any American citizens.

    Immigrants don’t come into the equation. I am speaking solely and exclusively of American citizens.

    You have a perfect right to refuse to associate with blacks or other races. Speaking frankly, I would never marry a black woman, no matter how much I thought I “love” her at any given time. Love is transitory. When you marry a woman, like it or not, you have to take her as is, and that is including her family.

    And frankly, I could never marry into a family when I know the vast majority of them are probably going to be liberals. That’s just the long and short of it. It has nothing to do with race. I just dislike, and in a good many cases, I literally hate liberals.

    I have one major liberal belief. Democrats should be allowed to abort their unborn fetuses with no objections from the right. They should not only be permitted to do so, they should be encouraged to do so. Give them god damn tax breaks to do so. Give them god damn federal funds to do so. I don’t care, it would be tax money damn well spent.

    Again, this has nothing to do with race, it is all about the liberal.

    That being said, that must now and forever remain a personal choice. The minute somebody tells me I can’t associate with black friends, or hire a black worker, or rent to a black tenant, or have sex with a black woman, or for that matter marry one in the unlikely event I should ever change my mind, I am going to raise some sheer ungodly hell, and it won’t be pretty, for the simple fact no one and damn sure the federal government has no right to tell anyone who they can marry or otherwise associate with.

  • 32 Thrasymachus // Feb 8, 2010 at 7:46 am   

    A majority of White people worldwide must come to regard miscegenation as undesirable and eschew it accordingly, if there is to be any chance at all for White Survival. A considerable majority of Whites must practice limited racial discrimination in certain very private matters, or the race and civilization are doomed to extinction. Sorry, but these are the unpleasant facts of the situation. Life cannot always be totally fair, nor can it be all that we want it to be.

    Hey! If I had my way, flies,mosquitoes, and fleas would not exit to plague both man and beast alike.

    There must be an established White Identity and a System of Values to support it, if European civilization is to survive Otherwise, following the path of Liberalism, the entire Western world will simply be an extension of the inner city of Detroit.

  • 33 JackInJill // Feb 8, 2010 at 7:47 am   

    Tharasymachus-

    One other point, about your concerns about selling your house. You have a perfect right to sell your house or not sell your house to whoever you see fit, so long as you do so directly. The minute you go through a realtor, it becomes a different story. A realtor is obliged to follow the law and the constitution when it comes to housing and anti-discrimination laws, for the simple fact that they are a business and must not exclude any American citizen in participation in the housing market.

  • 34 Thrasymachus // Feb 8, 2010 at 8:10 am   

    “The minute somebody tells me I can’t associate with black friends, or hire a black worker, or rent to a black tenant, or have sex with a black woman, [. . .]”

    I don’t believe that Jared Taylor is proposing laws to forbid these things.

    Modern race-realists are searching for humane ways and means to discourage the liberal ideals and beliefs — such as the belief in biological racial equality — that, when held, lead to a drastic reduction of the White population and to its ultimate dissolution.

    The assertion that the average Negro intelligence is biologically inherited and remains stubbornly at 70 is one such tool in our cause. The argument that average black intelligence is extremely low is just one argument used to discourage rampant miscegenation.

    We want all the truths to be told, regardless if people do not like some of them.

  • 35 Thrasymachus // Feb 8, 2010 at 8:13 am   

    Here is a black preacher saying what no white man would ever dare say in public, despite the fact that what he’s saying is true:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCu4yV6vgIk

  • 36 David Yeagley // Feb 8, 2010 at 9:46 am   

    Make me cry, Thras. Make me cry.

    I’ll do a post on this. I think I know how to identify “what’s wrong with the black man’s mind.” I think I know what Manning is talking about. He never did answer it, in that clip. He just made it heart-breakingly obvious that there is a problem.

  • 37 David Yeagley // Feb 8, 2010 at 9:53 am   

    Gentlemen, I thank you for contributions. Heavy discourse, here, and most valuable.

    (But, hey, where are the ladies?)

  • 38 JackInJill // Feb 8, 2010 at 10:19 am   

    “(But, hey, where are the ladies?)”

    I’m guessing after reading all this they’re out trying to find them a great big ol’ black stud.

  • 39 David Yeagley // Feb 8, 2010 at 10:37 am   

    Ha! You slaver!

  • 40 Thrasymachus // Feb 8, 2010 at 11:53 am   

    Well, in all fairness, with today’s liberalism, there’s something wrong with the White Man’s mind as well. That is to say, we’re living in troubled times.

  • 41 MariaAnastasia // Feb 8, 2010 at 1:50 pm   

    I am Jewish on my mother’s side. I was raised a Jew. I am very conservative, and a member of the John Birch Society as well as the Tea Party Movement.

    I resent the poster who referred to Birchers as loonies. We are not.

    I resent the poster who referred to Ron Paul as an “antisemite”. He is no more an “antisemite” than I am.

    Mr Paul opposes ALL foreign aid, to ANY foreign country. This includes Israel. I agree with him 100%. That does not make him “antisemitic” anymore than it makes him anti-German, anti-Haitian, or anti-Korean.

    I am not a zionist. I am an American first, last and always.

    Thank you Mr. Yeagley for recognizing that not all Jews think alike.

  • 42 MariaAnastasia // Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 pm   

    I forgot to add…

    I also identify with the White European race of peoples. One of my parents was a White European (actually, both were, although one was Jewish and one was not).

    My skin is White. I relate to White European culture and heritage. Although neonazis would not regard me as White, I identify this way because it is how I feel deep down in my soul and souls, and have always identified.

    My DNA haplogroup is U5, which was the very first group of White people to settle Europe. We were the first Europeans!

    I am 100% against miscegenation. White people are being harassed, hoodwinked and guilttripped into accepting integration and racemixing, and they need to WAKE UP.

  • 43 David Yeagley // Feb 8, 2010 at 2:41 pm   

    Thank you, Maria! (shall we say, Miriam?)

    I needed that! I know it’s true. On forums, though, when people get to talking, one tends to feel representative of all, even when it is obviously not true.

    It is as if we validate, or at least emphasize, our own views sometimes by telling ourselves everyone things this way. Evidence or no- even to the contrary.

    Thank you again for taking the time to contribute!

  • 44 Darth Sidious // Feb 8, 2010 at 2:41 pm   

    Thrasymachus, your analysis is spot on. While I don’t agree with your views regarding race and IQ, your social views regarding race almost mirror mine. I think that Thrasymachus is the perfect name for a white racialist/nationalist.

    Thrasymachus recognized that notions such as “justice” and “equality” were foolish, and that true justice was only determined by power. While Thrasymachus was ultimately defeated in debate by Socrates, his views regarding justice and power are very relevant in today’s racial context.

    To Beak and JackNJill, don’t be so quick to condemn Jared Taylor simply because there are a few anti-semites present at his conference. Many Amren speakers have been Jewish, and Taylor personally came forth and denounced anti-semitism. Castigating Taylor for anti-semitism is no different from castigating Obama for Rev. Wright. While Obama did attend that church, he couldn’t control what Wright said.

    Also, in no way did our founding fathers support racial equality and mixing. Yes, they recognized that the constitution was subject to change. Marbury V. Madison subjected the constitution to judicial review. Therefore, the constitution changed in order to accommodate racial equality. I actually agree that no institution linked to the government should be allowed to discriminate.

    At the same time, our founding fathers did not envision a multiracial democracy. When they said “all men,” they meant white men. Heck, blacks weren’t even considered full human beings (3/5). So yes, while the constitution mandates equality, one has to analyze the document in the context of the founding fathers. This nation was never meant to be a multiracial harmony where blacks and whites lived in complete equality. The great emancipator himself realize this, and planned on deporting all blacks to Africa.

    So no, being a patriotic American does not entail embracing racial equality, integration, and overall inclusiveness.

  • 45 Thrasymachus // Feb 8, 2010 at 2:44 pm   

    MariaAnastasia,

    You are perfectly acceptable to this White Patriot! You think about things the same way as I do. All moderate “White Nationalists” would accept you.

    Besides, I have heard that the Biblical Jews were Caucasian. (And I happen to believe — though I could possible be wrong — that Jesus was White and looked much like this:

    Turin

    Or this (at age 12):

    Boy Jesus Image

    Yes, the miscegenation is destructive and must be reversed.

  • 46 Darth Sidious // Feb 8, 2010 at 2:49 pm   

    By the way, I’m new to the blog. I enjoy the topics, debate, and controversial positions of Dr. Yeagley.

    As a white person who grew up in the liberal/PC Bay Area, I grew up saying “Native American,” and hated myself for the theft of their lands, which was part of several manifestations of white guilt. I was also under the impression that every American Indian was a white/America hating radical. I have never encountered an Indian (except for a few that were 1/16 at the most). I find the Dr. Yeagley’s views interesting and unconventional, especially among mainstream Indians.

    Doc, I don’t agree with all of your beliefs, but I enjoy this blog immensely. Keep up the good work! Don’t be intimidated by your detractors who call you the Uncle Tom of American Indians.

  • 47 David Yeagley // Feb 8, 2010 at 4:19 pm   

    Darth, glad to have your contributions!

    We’re all struggling to find the truth. Sometimes, even when we’re advocating our own positions, it’s really in the spirit of finding something out from someone else!

  • 48 beakerkin // Feb 8, 2010 at 6:09 pm   

    Tras

    I am not white. I do not desire to be white, I want no part in this kook racial scam of Taylor.

    Maria

    I am sceptical of your claims. Moreover, like Yeagley you are a mere 50%. Unless that 50%
    is maternal you have zero claim to be Jewish.
    From your statements it is clear that you apparently were not raised Jewish. Moreover,
    real Jews ( not commies or bad writers props)
    never make the statement about being American first. In fact the genuine article would be offended at the mention of dual loyalty.

    Real Jews have no fondness for the John Birch society loons. I have seen the gamut of the community including Kahanists and Satmar and never found a Jewish supporter of the JBS.

    I think you are a bad writers creation.

    Doc

    You have ceased to be a mainstream pundit and now have officially become a circus freak.
    Congrats, you are not an antisemite. However,
    you are a hardcore racist obsessed with miscegnation.

    It is not your business who sleeps with whom so long as consenting adults are involved.

    This is not conservatism in any stretch of the imagination. This is Nuremberg 2.0 and only it
    is Blacks instead of Jews.

  • 49 Darth Sidious // Feb 8, 2010 at 6:48 pm   

    Beak, first of all, few of us care that you’re Jewish, and therefore not really white. If you’re a Jew who loves multiracialism, fine by me. Whatever floats your boat.

    Second, we are not advocating the rebirth of Nuremberg Laws when it comes to miscegenation in the United States. We simply believe that racial mixing yields negative results. Can you show me one successful multiracial nation in the world (and no, don’t say the United States, because we are still successful in spite of being a multiracial nation, not because of it)? I certainly don’t advocate anti-miscegenation laws, I just believe that race mixing is negative. Similarly, I don’t advocate the suppression of free speech, I simply don’t agree with what you have to say, and would encourage those I know to reject your sentiments.

    Finally, saying that railing against miscegenation makes Doc a hypocrite because he himself is 50/50 is a bad argument. The vast majority of American Indians are multiracial and have been stripped of a solid identity. I don’t presume to speak for Doc or other American Indians, but perhaps the spiritual devastation inflicted upon his community by race mixing and his own personal experience might have something to do with his opposition to interracial marriage.

    Malcolm X and Muhammad Ali certainly didn’t condone interracial marriage (don’t worry Doc, I’m not trying to say blacks and Indians are the same!), because they could see the psychological damage caused by the destruction of black genes and the large presence of mulattos.

    By the way, as I’ve said before, I don’t care that you don’t consider yourself white. You can reject whiteness all you please. Just don’t try to prevent me or others from embracing racial consciousness.

  • 50 beakerkin // Feb 8, 2010 at 7:24 pm   

    Darth

    Lets the Dr. is against recognition of Indians for mixtures with Blacks. Are we somhow now Orwellian with all Animals created more equal than others.

    Sorry, but this obsession with Black DNA sounds much like Julius Striecher’s obsession
    with Jewish miscegnation. After we are done hounding blacks then what?? Many Central Americans and Mexicans have more Native American DNA than Yeagley.

    Sorry, but Taylor is advocating housing and job discrimination. This is clearly headed in the direction of Nuremberg 2.0. The Nuremberg laws were not only about miscegenation.

    Is repackaged Nazi crank theories now called
    “racial consciousness”. What makes Yeagley who has never served his country in any capacity more worthy than the immigrant from Haiti serving in Iraq? I can show you Haitian professionals who tip more than the Dr. earns in a year.

    I reject Nazism 2.0 and any movement that judges any fellow American citizen on the basis
    of race. This is not conservatism and I will call it
    exactly what it is repackaged Nazism. This time the folks in jack boots are targeting blacks as targeting dem Joooos off the bat brings up
    disturbing imagery. Jews weren’t pushed in the ovens right away and there were incremental steps similar to what we hear now.

    These kook theories are not conservative or
    American in any definition.

  • 51 Darth Sidious // Feb 8, 2010 at 8:27 pm   

    Beak, for one, who ever said I was a conservative? While I am center left, I also happen to be a proud white person.

    I wouldn’t have such a problem with race mixing if it weren’t for the specific intentions of leftists. We are constantly hearing about how “this nation is becoming more diverse,” “we will one day all be mixed,” and “as this nation becomes more mixed, racial hatred will cease.”

    Unfortunately, there’s a major problem. For one, because liberals now embrace the “one drop” rule for their own purposes while advocating interracial marriage, they are essentially trying to destroy the white race. I know this isn’t entirely clear, so bear with me. Since both historically and in contemporary society, the offspring of whites/non-whites tend to be classified as non-white, non-white numbers increase while ours decrease as a result of mixed marriages.

    Therefore, when leftists/non-whites talk about the glorious day when we will all be mixed and married to one another, they are essentially looking forward to the demise of the white race. If they (leftists/non-whites) can’t wipe us out, they’ll breed us out. As a white person, I find this romantic obsession with mixed breeds very insulting. I’m also sure that people in Asia, Africa, and certain American Indians such as Doc find this insulting (once again, I’m not trying to speak for Doc or other American Indians).

    Also, I am not obsessed with genes in the same way Jared Taylor and American Renaissance is. Yes, I would like to see my bloodline remain white. Yes, I believe that racially mixed nations are weaker than homogenous nations. I would also prefer it if Western nations remained primarily white.

    That being said, I am not some eugenicist who believes that blacks are innately dumb, oversexed, and primitive. Believe it or not, I believe that nurture trumps nature. The only reason why I believe in preserving racial purity is because I believe in a solid identity. Also, I want people to look like me 50 years from now.

    Therefore, I DO NOT advocate anti-miscegenation laws or legal discrimination. If Jared Taylor advocates such policies, then I’m opposed. I believe that people of all races should be free to do as they please. I simply think that more whites should exercise their freedom to abstain from interracial marriage, cultivate greater racial consciousness, and advance their interests.

    What I object to is the way leftists brand any white person who speaks out against our current multiracial/PC madness an “extremist,” “white supremacist,” etc. We simply want to be left alone. We’re tired of being asked to accommodate bottomless pits, also known as demanding non-whites.

  • 52 David Yeagley // Feb 8, 2010 at 9:20 pm   

    Beak: Moreover,
    real Jews…never make the statement about being American first. In fact the genuine article would be offended at the mention of dual loyalty.

    In other words, in your view, Jews are not patriots? Jews can’t be part of anyone else’s country?

    You’re falling into trap after trap here, Beak. I do not believe that all Jews think like you do, or at least are not as double-faced (not two-faced) about it as you.

    You think America is an idea? America is a country. Countries are made up of people. Yes, people have ideas. But, if Jews cannot be “American first,” then you are admitting in fact that Jews are an ethnicity, and their true loyalty is to Israel.

    This is what your words mean. Maybe you actually mean something else. I don’t know. I think you love America, but, only an extracted idea (or two) about it–which happens to fit what you want. That’s probably true of a whole lot of people.

    Love of country–it is something you can’t really articulate. If you do, you lose it. Love defined is love destroyed. (Sounding a bit Buddhist here…sorry.) My point is, Everyone loves what he loves. It may be her hair. It may be her smile. But, something hooked you. America has many assets.

    I think she would be offended if you only loved her for her hair. Or her shoes.

    Do you know the woman?

  • 53 MariaAnastasia // Feb 8, 2010 at 9:35 pm   

    Beakerskin:

    Evidently you didn’t read my posts or you wouldn’t have said what you did.

    I said that my mother was Jewish. My father was not (although he did convert to Judaism when he married my mother.)

    My parents became frum Yidden (religious Jews) when I was young, and so I was raised as an “Orthodox” (frum) Jew.

    It might surprise you to know this, but there are actually a number of Jews who belong to the JBS, the founder of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) being one of them (for more info see http://www.jpfo.org )

    There is nothing wrong with being an American patriot. My parents taught me to always be thankful for this country; if it did not exist, my zayde and bubbe would never have been able to find a safe haven here in 1903, and would have perished at the hands of the Nazis.

    I have a lot to be thankful for, and unlike the scum leftist Jews, I will never do a single thing to harm or betray America.

    Its Jews like YOU that make me sicker than the flu ever could.

  • 54 MariaAnastasia // Feb 8, 2010 at 9:37 pm   

    Note: “MariaAnastasia” is my online pen-name.

  • 55 geronl // Feb 8, 2010 at 10:24 pm   

    1. There was a lot of non-white immigration before 1965. Unless that was a typo earlier in the thread. Lots of asians (orientals if you prefer) in California, for instance.

    2. It doesn’t matter to me what skin color someone is, I judge them by their actions and their words. I like Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell and I can name a thousand celebrity whites who are scum of the earth.

    3. Government should not encourage or discourage inter-racial marriage. It’s none of their business. Let people figure it out on their own how they feel about it, many never think about the “big picture”. That’s fine. Others will.

    4. If the “white race” is lost, even for all intents and purposes, will the world look more like Zimbabwe? North Korea? or Brazil? I hope not, but it could happen.

    5. And as a non-racialist I think most peoples eyes would glaze over trying to read the comment section for this column, and they’d probably declare you all crazy. =o)

  • 56 Darth Sidious // Feb 8, 2010 at 11:00 pm   

    Geronl, there was SOME non-white immigration before 1965. While there were diverse groups, particularly in California (where I live), immigration and diversity weren’t as pervasive as they are today.

    I too agree that the government has no business infringing upon peoples’ personal lives.

    At the same time, I am worried that this nation is starting to look more and more like Brazil and Mexico when it comes to its demographics. We all know how those nations are. Most people will call us crazy, but it will take some radical proposals and new thinking to reverse this trend.

  • 57 TNT // Feb 9, 2010 at 3:32 am   

    -if Jews cannot be “American first,” then you are admitting in fact that Jews are an ethnicity, and their true loyalty is to Israel.-

    But I thought you were Christian. Doesn’t God come first in your life? And what do you call yourself, a Proud Christian American or a Proud American Christian?

  • 58 Thrasymachus // Feb 9, 2010 at 4:51 am   

    “We’re all struggling to find the truth. Sometimes, even when we’re advocating our own positions, it’s really in the spirit of finding something out from someone else!”
    — David Yeagley

    This sums it up for me. I hate no one for racial reasons. I just am searching for the truth. It has always been my personality to question beliefs, regardless of authority, that seem to fly in the face of reality.

    BTW, when I stated the average Negro I.Q. at 70, this is in blackest Africa, where Blacks are unmixed. It is 85 in the States. Whites have an average I.Q. of 100, Asians 103 or 104, and Jews even higher than Asians, though I have not heard precisely what that figure is.

  • 59 beakerkin // Feb 9, 2010 at 5:10 am   

    Doc

    You are developmentally disturbed. Real Jews do not write the statement they are American first. In fact bringing up the subject of dual loyalty is something we find offensive.

    Moreover, you are now questioning my patriotism. Unlike you I took an oath of office to
    uphold the Constitution. I will not have my patriotism questioned by a failed academic trying to repackage Nazi racial theories into a more genteel form

    Once again I return to our founding documents.
    You remember them, the one I took an oath to
    uphold and you treat like toilet paper. Your views are antithetical to all known and accepted
    views of our laws.

    Furthermore, your crank racial theories violate
    the egalitarian ethos of the New Testament. That message is open to all.

    Bad Eagle is a fraud. He feigns a love of America while denigrating the ethos of the founding fathers. He claims to love American values, but does not know the first thing about them. Our society was founded on individual
    rights and liberties. We are a unique nation with
    an inclusive tradition of tolerance and respect for others.

    Yeagley claims to be a Christian. The message
    of Christ is and has always been open to all.
    This denigration of whole swaths of humanity
    on the basis of their DNA is neither American nor Christian in spirit.

    Once again I do not believe that this writer posses any Jewish DNA. Of course my community is diverse with many people with loathsome views. The real article would not write in this manner. Lets see we place a word
    or two in parentheses and some third grade Yiddish and perhaps a trip to Ask Moses and a
    poorly constructed writers alias is created.

    There has been a history of various fakes on this site.

  • 60 Thrasymachus // Feb 9, 2010 at 5:23 am   

    Let’s make something very clear. Today’s Left is extremist as well. Hitler and the Nazis went to an extreme. Today’s Left has taken the opposite extreme. The Truth lies in the middle, as is usually the case.

    The Left really belive that “racism” is the greatest social evil. They conclude that the very existence of distinct races is in itself evil.

    God, in other words, made a mistake in creating the human races. The Left’s way to “fix the problem” is to blend them all together into a World Man — a raceless being, without a History, without a Future, without an identity.

    Don’t believe it?

    Look no farther than Time Magazine:

    This very edition is what woke me up to the real game the Left is playing.

  • 61 Thrasymachus // Feb 9, 2010 at 5:28 am   

    The Left’s position is that God made a huge mistake in creating the races. The solution, according to these extremists, is to understand that the very existence of races is evil, because it is that which gives rise to the greatest social evil, viz., “racism.”

    The Left wants a “World Man.” A being without a History, without a Future, without and Identity.

    “Let us blend all races together into one,” proclaim these Leftist extremists. Then the “race problem” will disappear and we’ll have beautiful raceless Utopia!

    This is what woke me up to their thoughts and intentions:

  • 62 Thrasymachus // Feb 9, 2010 at 5:32 am   

    beakerkin,

    Why all the ad hominems against Dr. Yeagley?
    Is it because you, as a Jew, think yourself racially superior to non-Jews? Your offensive rhetoric begins to give that impression.

    I am sure that Dr. Yeagley is a man of great merit. But, in logical argument, the character of the man making an argument is totally irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the argument itself. A man’s achievements, his education, his level of income — none of these are relevant to the correctness of his reasoning in an argument or debate.

    Chill, man!

  • 63 Thrasymachus // Feb 9, 2010 at 6:29 am   

    The Left today is committed to the belief that the very existence of race — actually the White Race — is an evil. White racism is, they say, the greatest social evil. The solution is to create a world of raceless people. The goal of the Left’s extremisms is a “World Man.” He has no History, he has no Future. He has no Identity. He has no Culture.

    I did not wake up to this because of an extremist like Hitler (opposite extreme). I woke up to it when Time Magazine sent this issue to my front door step.

    God made a huge mistake, according to the Left, in creating and ordaining nations. Man, in his arrogance, must correct that mistake. This is, after all, what “pleases the Lord.” We’ll all enjoy a raceless, nationless earthly Utopia once race is “abolished.”

    Is this really logical?

  • 64 David Yeagley // Feb 9, 2010 at 8:12 am   

    Thras, Beak is simply liberal. He has said twice in this thread that he has never called himself a conservative. This is a revelation of himself. He has spent a good deal of time on BadEagle.com, been supportive in general. But, in time we come to understand one another’s ideas.

    Race exists for a reason. That should be obvious enough. Our efforts should perhaps be to at least understand that reason. Whether one believes in the Creator, the Biblical God, or whether one believes in evolution, race is the reality before us. It cannot be wise to actually, consciously work against it.

  • 65 David Yeagley // Feb 9, 2010 at 8:16 am   

    The “TIME” creature lacks Oriental (Mongolian) features. How disappointing. How racist.

  • 66 MariaAnastasia // Feb 9, 2010 at 8:38 am   

    I find it amusing that beak, a liberal, doubts my Jewishness simply because I honor what my parents taught me, and that is to be a patriotic American.

    Beak, I seriously doubt you are what you say you are. Unless you infiltrated the US military for nefarious purposes. It wouldn’t at all surprise me.

    Why do you say a “true Jew” would never place America first before Israel in their national loyalties? Are you implying that Jews truly are or should be disloyal to America? My father, a strongly committed American Jew (and even a Zionist, unlike me) would have slapped you silly for believing that.

    Unlike you (most likely), I was raised in an Orthodox Jewish family. I don’t need to prove my Jewishness to you. I have four children who are being raised as committed religious Jews. Being a typical liberal, you probably either don’t have children because you aborted them all.

    My (spiritual) loyalty is to Eretz Yisrael, the LAND of Israel, as my SPIRITUAL homeland. When Moshiach comes (may it be speedily and in our day), Physically my loyalty is to the land that gave my zayde and bubbe a safe haven from Tsarist pogroms. My family taught me to always be thankful for America and to be grateful for this country, and I am.

    If you knew anything about Halacha at all, you would know what we are taught in Yirmayahu: to be content in the land wherein Hashem has sent us into exile, and to pray/work for the peace and safety of that land, “for in their peace you will find peace”.

    That is what TRUE Jews believe and practice. Maybe you should study it sometime.

    And its interesting to know that you are dismissing the Jewishness of the like of the founder of the JPFO and Rabbi Mayer Schiller for not aligning their views with yours.

  • 67 Thrasymachus // Feb 9, 2010 at 9:08 am   

    Woops! The only reason my post was remade and recast three times is that some technical error was taking place — at least at my end. At the time I wrote these, all three failed to appear when I submitted them. So I had assumed that the submitted posts had all been irretrievably lost.

  • 68 Thrasymachus // Feb 9, 2010 at 9:26 am   

    “Race exists for a reason. That should be obvious enough. Our efforts should perhaps be to at least understand that reason. Whether one believes in the Creator, the Biblical God, or whether one believes in evolution, race is the reality before us. It cannot be wise to actually, consciously work against it.”
    — Dr. Yeagley

    I agree entirely. This is why, from a secular point of view, I also approve of the work of this website:

    “The Racial Compact

    A call for Racial Preservation, Racial Independence, Racial Rights and Racial Good Will”

    http://www.racialcompact.com/

    The basic principle in the title is what I regard as important. I respect all faiths and viewpoints and am not trying to force my personal faith on others. The issue of race transcends my own personal perspective, just as other moral questions transcend specific religions. Everyone need a moral compass.

    You know, I may have posted this before, but even Hinduism was a faith that took race very seriously. In fact, in that ancient religion (it predates Christianity), it would seem that rampant miscegenation is the root of all evil!

    “Out of the corruption of women proceeds the confusion of races; out of the confusion of races proceeds the loss of memory ; out of the loss of memory proceeds the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil!” – Bhagavad Gita

  • 69 Thrasymachus // Feb 9, 2010 at 9:36 am   

    And racial / ethnic / national preservation — and the right to practice it, is certainly entirely a moral issue!

    This is why, when liberals proclaim that races have no rights, they are making a moral statement of faith and, as I see it, are trying to force a position of faith on the “unbelievers.”

    Jared Taylor definitely likes to compare the belief in multiculturalism to a religion. The problem in the U.S. today is that this position has the authority of government behind it — something that certainly did not used to be true in America. I really cannot believe that the Founding Fathers, with their overriding concern for religious freedom, envisaged the ideas that Time Magazine presented us as the purpose of the new nation!

  • 70 Darth Sidious // Feb 9, 2010 at 12:03 pm   

    Thras, while the founding fathers envisioned an equal and free society, they certainly would be horrified if they could see the multiracial quagmire that the United States has become. Therefore, only an idiot would say that not embracing racial equality and anti-racism makes you an unpatriotic American. Yes, the constitution mandates equality, but one has to look at that document in the context of the founding fathers.

  • 71 egarris // Feb 9, 2010 at 12:44 pm   

    Antiwar Radio is hosted by Scott Horton (Jewish) and is affiliated with Antiwar.com, founded by Eric Garris (Jewish). The staff are followers of the works of Murray Rothbard (Jewish) and Ludwig von Mises (Jewish). Our late President was Burton Blumert (Jewish). The majority of Antiwar.com’s staff is Jewish.

    Regarding Justin Raimondo and Debbie Schlussel:

    A Google search for Antiwar.com shows no place where Raimondo attacks Schlussel’s religion or ethnicity.

  • 72 David Yeagley // Feb 9, 2010 at 4:54 pm   

    I’ll be the first to admit, I don’t know my Jewish bloggers. I find Debbie’s blog practically terrifying, some of the revelations.

    Malkin (Filipino married to nice Jewish boy) also has her connections.

    They pay for these connections. That’s why they have cutting edge news.

    But, as to who’s who, I’m afraid I’m as dependent on media as anyone else. Who has the biggest name is supposed to be the most important. I know this isn’t really true. It is only partly true.

    So, what about the Zanotti bit? A Lesbian assault against Debbie? I really don’t know. I know these things happen.

  • 73 MariaAnastasia // Feb 9, 2010 at 6:49 pm   

    Dr Yeagley, Check these Orthodox Jews out. This is one of my favorite websites (and they’re not even Neturei Karta!)

    http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com

  • 74 Robert77 // Feb 10, 2010 at 8:27 pm   

    beakerkin, it is because of Jew like you that there is anti-semitism. MariAnastasia sounds like a real patriot who puts America First and respects the rights of European Americans. The problem with so many Jews is that they are the hysteria of labeling any criticism of organized Jewry as anti-semitic and having an extreme double standard of supporting Israel as a Jewish ethno state while saying that Europeans and Americans have to commit suicide at the altar of dervisity.

  • 75 David Yeagley // Feb 10, 2010 at 9:02 pm   

    MA, that’s a heavy site. I know there are even rabbis in Israel who are not what one would call “zionist.” I’ve met some.

    But, aside from all that, I believe Jews have a right to have a nation. I don’t think every Jew has to move there, but, the Jews have a right to be a people, with a land, with a nation. I don’t know how to think otherwise.

    Just about every nation in modern times came into being through war. That includes the US. If that’s the reason to condemn a nation, then a lot of countries are going to have to shut down.

  • 76 MariaAnastasia // Feb 11, 2010 at 2:12 pm   

    Robert77: You would not believe how many nonJews say words to that effect to me (“If more Jews were like you there would be no antisemitism”). I have a few Jewish friends who also think like me, and people say the same to them.

    Mr Yeagley: I do believe that the Jewish people deserve a nation, but in Jewish teaching, the Messiah is the one who has to come before that can take place.

    The zionist entity in the Middle east was created by secular, atheistic, and actually antisemitic Jews in name only, most of whom were communists. They goal was to create a “Jewish” state that would take the place of the Jewish faith for Jews. This is one reason why they secularized Hebrew words and turned Hebrew into an everyday language, whereas Orthodox Judaism traditionally believes that Hebrew is too sacred a language for daily, secular use, but is reserved for worship (this is why Ashkenazi Jews developed Yiddish for daily use, and Sephardic developed Ladino, or Judeszmo.)

    I could go into much more explanation, but the whole foundation of that state is antisemitic.

    Traditional Jewish Orthodox teaching is that the Messiah must come first, and then HE will bring the Jews to the Land of Israel to set up a SPIRITUAL kingdom, not the immoral, secular state they have now.

    That website I linked to will give you more info about this.

  • 77 David Yeagley // Feb 11, 2010 at 4:23 pm   

    Ooo. I don’t know. I don’t know about this. I mean, I know you know more than I do, but, you make Israel sound a bit…off base, to say the least. Yiddish–developed to avoid Hebrew? Never heard that in my life. Always gathered it was a kind of casual German. Jews have been in German lands since 300 AD. (Colonia/Cologne), well established on the Rhine. I don’t think Yiddish goes that far back. In fact, German may not go that far back!

    Anyway, I don’t see the anti-Semitic nature of Israel. That is a radically new and radical thought, to me. What is the basis for that teaching? I’m curious. (You are always welcome to write me off line, if you think it more approrpiate) How does Israel work against Jewish interests, more or other than say, the ADL or the ACLU?

  • 78 MariaAnastasia // Feb 11, 2010 at 8:01 pm   

    Dr Yeagley, I would suggest you read “The Transformation” by Rabbi Israel Domb, c 1989, available from NKUSA PO Box 1316, Monsey, NY 10952 http://www.nkusa.org

    It is very hard to summarize in a blog post, but basically: Traditional Judaism has always believed that the reason why Am Yisrael (the Jewish ppl) were dispersed to many nations was as punishment for our sins (the siddur–prayerbook–says in many places, “for our sins you have exiled us from our Land”).

    The belief of traditonal, original Orthodox Judaism was and is that the Jewish ppl must wait for the Creator to miraculously return us to the Land of Israel, we are not to do it ourselves, for if we try, bloodshed will pursue us (Kesubos, in the Talmud).

    The Talmud indicates that if Jews ever try to return of their own strength, it will show a lack of faith and trust in G-d.

    Some of the very Orthodox believe the Nazi genocide was a punishment for the sin of zionism (which began in the 1800s, not 1948 as some believe.)

    The very Orthodox/Chasidic Jews I know are the most anti-zionist, I know this is hard to realize for those who think that being Jewish is synonymous with being zionist.

  • 79 Thrasymachus // Feb 11, 2010 at 9:15 pm   

    “The belief of traditonal, original Orthodox Judaism was and is that the Jewish ppl must wait for the Creator to miraculously return us to the Land of Israel.”

    Not too hard to understand.

    Old Time radio Bible teacher, Dr. J. Vernon McGee (I used to hear him when I was a child) used to say much the same thing. He taught that when G-d returns the Jews to the Promised Land, it will be miraculous and all the world will be very glad and rejoice in it, and that, therefore, the present “return” of the Jews to Palestine is not the return prophesied in Scripture.

  • 80 Alek // Feb 13, 2010 at 2:33 pm   

    I have heard you speak and I greatly respect your point of view. I am of Cherokee descent but I support a pro-American, and pro-American Indian position. As a mixed English and American Indian, I am proud of my bloodline. Regarding the Tea party movement, I think you are correct when you say some members may harbor anti-zionist beliefs. However, to call semetic peoples caucausions(white) is not correct. Though Jews have been part of Western Civilization since the early stages, they are a fundamentally different ethnic group. Semetic peoples were native to ancient Egypt, Ethiopia, Arabia and the Middle East. They developed entirely differently then the first Indo-European people. To compare the two would, in my mind, be the same as comparing the Asian nomads who crossed the Bering Strait to modern Asians. I wish you well at your speaking engagemnt at the AmRen Conference.

  • 81 Frog // Mar 4, 2010 at 3:03 pm   

    Dr Yeagley, this is my first post, thank you for the thoughts you share. I have just started looking at this site, the reading and dialogue here seems profitable.

    Maria, thank you for providing the counterpoint to beak. I have read and considered the http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com
    site for a couple of years now and must say that I agree with them. Their statements of the history of the 30s and 40s corresponds with what my parents and grandparents told me (I am a Polish born Christian, American for many years now). I thank you for posting the link. I fear for Israel, if it truly was a product of men and deception, then the Bible is clear on the outcome. We will see I guess. Maybe even soon. Anyhow, may the Lord bless you and keep you.

    As far as the Tea Party? I stand with the American Constitution. I have attended my local Tea parties. I believe that the movement of true Americans, who believe in the spirit of the Constitution, is large and dangerous enough to be a target for subversion. So the media ignores constitutionalists like Ron Paul and introduces media whores like Palin. The Tea party movement, whatever it is, will be subverted, accused, torn, in whatever way the powers that be can manage.
    As far as anti-semitic… I have not yet met any Tea party people who profess to hate all Jews for the sake of the name. On the other hand, there are many questions to ask about our government’s actions. For example, I question why the USA ignores the Goldstone report. To Foxman and the ADL I suppose that makes me problematic, anti-semitic. I guess I don’t know what anti-semitic means, the word is corrupt, meaningless, a slur. Are the rabbis behind “jews against Zionism” anti-semitic? If so, I’m in good company.
    My two cents.

  • 82 PM // Aug 15, 2010 at 10:40 pm   

    Two comments:

    (1) D.Y. says “The rules for living, in America, were founded on the Bible. If you think otherwise, you are from Mars.”
    But I’m not from Mars and it is not obvious to me that the rules for living in American were founded on the Bible. I think D.Y plays a little lose with history.

    (2) Several commenters appeal to the intentions of the founding fathers. I have always wondered why this gambit is so widely used in political discussions. It is almost like the founding fathers are deities. But surely it is more or less irrelevant what the founding fathers wanted. Certainly history has proven that they made some very wise decisions in the construction of the country — we would be foolish to ignore their choices completely . But really, the important question now is not what they wanted or intended, it is what we (the living) want and intend.
    Perhaps the founding fathers wanted a constitution 100% in conformity with the Bible. We, these many generations later, are not forever bound by their decisions. We have the same freedom they had to make choices. Perhaps we of 21st century America want society to be 100% in conformity with the Koran. Perhaps we want society to be 100% based on secular ideas. What the founding fathers might have wanted is just not relevant.

    PM

  • 83 djdeluca // Sep 10, 2010 at 1:55 pm   

    JackInJill….: “I have one major liberal belief. Democrats should be allowed to abort their unborn fetuses with no objections from the right.”

    I am still laughing. Sounds good to me.

    Tharasmachus, you are just plain scary. Who someone else marries is none of my business nor is it yours.

    I also am a member of the Tea Party Patriots. We are open to everybody until someone exposes himself as a racist or a crank. We do watch for elements of racism and/or anti-semitism. We are an extremely diverse group with very specific goals. I personally wear a cross and a Star of David as a statement of solidarity.

    One of the things we of the TTP are doing and promoting is to really dig in and study American History and exactly what our Founding Fathers intended. I have always been a student of history but I have found this to be very enlightening. I am impressed with their diversity of thought and belief and their determination to provide a Constitution that would guarantee religious liberty to all. It grieved most of them greatly to have to leave slavery alone in order to maintain a federation strong enough to defend itself against foreign invasion. Washington’s will provided for the freedom of all his slaves not previously freed.

    I have also learned that nowhere in the Constitution does it say one word about “Separation of Church and State.” The Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion NOT freedom FROM religion. Our forefathers very much intended that the Judeo- Christian ethic and morality permeate our national, social and political lives. How far we have fallen.

    I could care less what color my next door neighbor is. When my daughter was asked out by a black guy I left it up to her. He would have been a better choice than the white looser she married.

    I am a firm believer in “That government is best which governs least.” As long as it does not interfere with someone else’s rights whatever you do is none of my business.

    Judge not lest ye be judged.

    We need to quit quibbling over petty issues, live and let live, get to work and get the Socialist libs out of Congress. Get our economy under control and restore our liberty. We can’t accomplish that by imposing our personal paranoias into the mix. God created us all in His image. I am happy to share in this battle with all freedom-loving Americans.

  • 84 calliegal235 // Nov 5, 2010 at 1:04 am   

    Post 24 – The citizen asked, “Are you not satisfied that six million of us died that you wish to destroy the rest of us by making us Christians?”
    I understand what the citizen means, but this is so odd, since, historically, actually, Christianity came to Europeans through the Jews of the New Testament. Christianity, is not a western religion, originally. The first Christians, were Jews! Sigh, what a long way we have come….Well, the Christian faith, when taken to other countries, got mixed up with the cultures of those countries, so it doesn’t look like an eastern religion. A Wycliffe worker shared with me, that a tribe they were working with sang songs in a five part harmony. That was part of their culture. As they translators would get another page of scripture translated into the tribe’s language, those people would take those scriptures, and turn them into songs, singing them in a beautiful five part harmony. I think God and the angels must have enjoyed that very much!

  • 85 calliegal235 // Nov 5, 2010 at 1:48 am   

    Post 82 – PM -
    Prior to nations like the United States, most nations were ruled by kings or queens. Whatever they decreed, was the law of the land. At their whim, they could change such laws.
    In 1644 Samuel Rutherford wrote the book, Lex Rex. It was based on Deuteronomy 17, and made the case for constitutional law.
    (Lex Rex, the law is king – makes the case for the rule of law, and not the rule by a king nor by men)
    James Madison, the framer of the U.S. Constitution, and considered the father of the U.S. Constitution, ” … remained at Princeton to study Hebrew and political philosophy under university president John Witherspoon.”
    (above, courtesy of wikipedia)
    The section below is from the link below.
    (http://www.kneelingmedia.org/one/johnwitherspoon.htm)
    “THE MAN WHO TAUGHT THE MEN WHO SHAPED AMERICA
    As president of Princeton University, 1768-94, Dr. John Witherspoon graduated 469 students who directly shaped America. He actually taught them in small classes. One hundred and fourteen became ministers. Thirteen of the graduates went on to become presidents of universities in eight different states. One of his students, James Madison, served eight years as Secretary of State and eight years as U.S. President. Six men were members of the Continental Congress. Nine of his students were appointed to Cabinet positions, twelve were chosen as Governors of states, and at least 60 became Senators or Representatives in Congress. In addition, two honorary doctorates were given during his tenure, one to Thomas Jefferson and one to Alexander Hamilton. Many of Witherspoon’s former students left New Jersey to fill academic positions on the frontier of emerging America.

    Witherspoon Influenced Constitutional Convention through his Students
    Though Witherspoon did not attend the Constitutional Convention himself, one-sixth of its 55 delegates were graduates of Princeton University: Gunning Bedford Jr. of Delaware; David Brearley of New Jersey; William Richardson Davie of North Carolina; Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey; William Churchill Houston of New Jersey; James Madison of Virginia; Alexander Martin of North Carolina; Luther Martin of Maryland; and William Paterson of New Jersey.”

    John Witherspoon, heavily relied upon the book, Lex Rex.
    So, this is the historical thread, which led to our U.S. Constitution, the first constitution in world history. Poland was the second nation, after the United States, to also adopt a constitution.
    So, before you lightly toss aside a document and the intentions of its authors, which was constructed with great difficulty, even by these well educated men, I think you have a great deal of history you need to study.
    I can tell you, that the above is taught to every home schooler, but I doubt it is so carefully taught in the public schools, and I do think that is a serious problem which needs to be remedied.
    All of the lives of these men are worth studying.
    The United States is a Republic, which I very seldom hear people acknowledge. It is not a democracy, as people usually think of it. The founding fathers gave us a republic. I hear people talk about a democracy as if that is such a great thing. Without our constitution, if we were just a democracy, we would be left to the whims of any majority, with no laws whatsoever to provide any check or balance. A very scary form of government; picture the French Revolution.

  • 86 Honkies For Herman - - Page 4 // Nov 2, 2011 at 2:41 pm   

    [...] There is growing concern about anti-Semitism among mainstream conservatives http://www.badeagle.com/2010/02/07/a…s-anti-semitic Anti-Semitism Joins The Tea Party In Indiana | Oliver Willis [...]

You must log in to post a comment.