David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
The name “American” doesn’t mean what it used to mean. The corruption of its precious significance is a studied effort of its enemies. The first line of their attack is always the meaning of words. It almost seems an inevitable evolution, like rust, decay, or various forms of rot in the world. The enemies of truth infect words.
Last December (2009), there was a notable arrest of five “Americans” by the Pakistani government. It was headline news, and the the word “American” was perverted in the worst possible way. The men were not “American” in any sense of the word. They were Muslims who happened to have somehow gained American citizenship. But only by very diligent search of the news reports could we discover that they were Middle Easterners, all. Two were Pakistani, two were Yemeni, and one Egyptian. This is what they are, not “American.” They don’t even know what it means to be American. They hate everything they know about America. They went to their home countries to join the jihad.
The “American” Middle Eastern Muslims, arrested in Pakistan, December, 2010.
To own the word “American” is the goal of every deceptive, lying, satanic Muslim with the purpose of attacking America. They have full cooperation of the American government and the media, the legal system, and all liberals. This kind of liberal thinking makes tunnel vision of principle, blindness of ideology, and foolish self-destruction of compassion. It is all a social autolysis, beyond reason and even common sense.
The current president, Barry “Obama” Soetoro, of course, who believe the United States Constitution is aberrant, is contributing in every way possible to the change of meaning in the word “American.” American, to him, means a bad thing, somethign that must be changed. He means humbled, denigrated, made into a Third World country, like all the rest. All liberals think this way. Barry is just a lacky for a the real liberal elites, whose power and wealth are untouched by the conditions in America. Indeed, they may profit from America’s demise.
People who hold values which are antithetical to America, the historical America, should never be allowed to become American citizens. Indeed, they should never be allowed on American soil. But then, the liberal debate focuses on the meaning of the word American. Just what is an American? They immediately assert that their ideology is fundamental to being American! To them, being American means to destroy America. To them, no dictionary description will suffice. Dispense with history. It’s what they think American means. If you don’t aggree with their Communist ideology, you are not American. You are some crippled, uninformed, paranoiac, clinging to your gun and your Bible.
We should all understand by now that American citizenship, as a term, means nothing. (Indeed, wearing the United States military uniform means nothing.) These are only forms, which satanic Muslims and liberals fill with their purposes. Forms guarantee nothing, except deception, really. Forms invite falsehood. Forms tempt the devils. They rush in to own. They take advantage of necessary realities. They betray the most basic trust in any social norms and communications
For those of us who know what the real meaning of “American” is, this is all tragic, of course. What can we do? We can be willing to live with distrust, mistrust, and be brave enough to recognize enemies, to name them, and to work against them. That’s all.
“American” does not mean fostering self-destruction. “American” does not mean completely tolerant or irrationally equal. “American” does not mean an open door to everyone and everything. “American” doesn’t simply mean anything anyone wants it to mean. If the word does have meaning, it does so by definition, and definition is limitation, description, distinction, and differentiation.
John Locke said it all in 1651 (Leviathan, Part I, Of Speech):
In the right definition of names lies the first use of speech; which is the acquisition of science: and in wrong, or no definitions, lies the first abuse; from which proceed all false and senseless tenets.
Change, as Communists would have it, is based on the abuse of speech.
17 responses so far ↓
1 geronl // Mar 3, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Its based on the abuse of everything.
2 David Yeagley // Mar 3, 2010 at 2:29 pm
It certainly involves the abuse of everything. The wording, though. They always have to have a fancy wording. Just like the serpent in Eden. Make words mean something other than they normally mean, than they originally meant.
I have a theory that there is an initial, ordained meaning of words. Time develops that, seemingly naturally. But, the revolutionary, the power grasper, consciously manipulates the process.
America’s revolution was probably the most unique in modern times, in that it was based not on words, but on actions, the wrong actions, of England toward the colonies. The cries of the Communists are always subjective, interpretive, and manipulative.
3 wyoman // Mar 3, 2010 at 5:30 pm
I believe we must redefine American citizenship. Being born here is not enough. Place of birth should not be a determining factor. Your parents or at least one parent should be a legal citizen. Also at a given age, 18 or 21, you should have to either renounce any citizenship other than American or lose any claim on American citizenship. I have a nephew and a niece that were born in Saudi Arabia. My brother was working for ARAMCO at the time. There is no way they could claim Saudi citizenship. Why should a child born here to Saudi parents be able to claim American citizenship? I realize Saudis are not a large issue but the example holds for all nations. An inability to control borders and citizenship is the death knell for any nation.
4 David Yeagley // Mar 3, 2010 at 9:38 pm
You are quite right. This truth is even more obvious among very small “nations,” like American Indians. If we don’t take some drastic measures, in a couple of generations, there won’t be any full bloods. A few more generations, and no Indians at all. Just a historical club of some kind, with membership open to any.
Of course, our problems are not do to law, but to dissolute, careless sexual behavior, and a lack of definition of marriage and family. I should say, a lack of willingness to accept the definition. Something like that.
5 geronl // Mar 3, 2010 at 11:08 pm
When “everything goes” then nothing really matters and that leads to … whats the word… dystopia?
6 One Salient Oversight // Mar 4, 2010 at 2:13 am
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. – Amendment 14.
Nothing there about race. In fact it was passed in 1868, after the civil war and the end of slavery, so in its historical context it is deliberately race blind.
I suppose you could try to repeal it, if you want to.
7 Stella // Mar 4, 2010 at 5:21 am
“I have a theory that there is an initial, ordained meaning of words.”
So when a poet, for example, or an Old Testament author, uses a word in an innovative way — metaphorically, for instance — that is a kind of “usurpation”?
What about a relatively new word, like “American”? Was the “initial, ordained” meaning established before America existed, such that the place named by that word kind of fell into the form established by the name?
8 David Yeagley // Mar 4, 2010 at 8:44 am
OSO, frankly, I did not find any evidence in the news that the five men arrested in Pakistan were born in the United States. Even if they were (which they obviously weren’t), it would not mean they had anything to do with the country.
If you wish to define a country according to your own sentiments, fine. I’m glad you’re not in charge.
9 David Yeagley // Mar 4, 2010 at 8:48 am
Stella, the word of concern here is “country.” The word I’m concerned with is “nation.” “America” is simply the name of a particular nation, with a particular concept behind it.
But, I don’t expect logic from you. Only contradiction. So, it is not productive to have a conversation with you. That is your preference here, obviously. Intentionally backwards thought is a poor illusion of intelligence.
LIke OSO, if you have your own definition of the American nation, fine. I’m just glad you’re not in charge.
I find no pleasure in unravelling your intentional stupidity. Please don’t bother to post here. I have already deleted some of your posts.
10 David Yeagley // Mar 4, 2010 at 9:02 am
Stella, let me play the part of a third grade teacher. This may help you. There are different kinds of words. We have nouns, verbs, etc. And we have something called a “proper noun.” Do you know what that is? The name of something, the name of a person, place, or thing. “America” is a proper noun. It is not a concept word, in and of itself. Do you know the etymology of the word “America?”
Doesn’t matter. The word “country” or “nation” is what we’re talking about here. Perhaps you should look those terms up in a basic dictionary, though, these days, that might not suffice. Try to find a dictionary published before 1970.
I just trying to make sure here that everyone can see your deceptive, sinister spirit and lying intent. That’s all.
11 Stella // Mar 4, 2010 at 9:31 am
“The men were not “American” in any sense of the word. They were Muslims who happened to have somehow gained American citizenship.”
If they are American citizens, then they are “American”.
That’s because America is based on the concept of civic nationalism, as opposed to, say, ethnic or religious nationalism.
To the extent you wish to withhold the adjective “American” from any American citizen, then it would appear to me that it is you (and not “liberals”) who is using the word “American” in a way that is not consistent with American traditions and American law.
Under “American” law, any American citizen has the same rights and obligations as every other American citizen, regardless of nationality, ethnic identity, religious faith, beliefs or any other secondary characteristic that is irrelevant to the distribution of political rights in our society.
In other words, you are free to use the word “American” in any way you wish, but you won’t necessarily be talking about America.
12 zephyr // Mar 4, 2010 at 10:39 am
David: “I just trying to make sure here that everyone can see your deceptive, sinister spirit and lying intent.”
Don’t worry–it’s quite obvious with both OSO and Stella.
OSO–as usual, you entirely miss the point. This isn’t about race–it’s about what America means. Apparently, you believe that America SHOULD support terrorists that come here to kill innocent Americans. But as an American, I have a problem with that.
I don’t know what country you live in or where you are from, but if you don’t support the concept of a republic with democratic principles, and you’re living in this country, please leave. If you’re not currently living here, please don’t visit us.
OSO and Stella–you have no understanding–as the founding fathers did–that every privilege comes with a concomitant responsibility. But then, people who are entirely self-centered usually don’t grasp that.
Being American is NOT about a piece of paper. It is NOT about entitlement or feigned “rights”. It’s NOT about whining.
And, OSO, the 14th was NEVER about anchor babies. Try actually knowing some history. Anchor babies are a cheap manipulative way to try to “get in”. That’s why there ARE groups working to repeal it.
13 David Yeagley // Mar 4, 2010 at 11:53 am
As all liberals, Stella is oblivious to American history. Abstracting the Constitution is like trying to be married without love between spouses. Perhaps that is more common than we would want, but, both Stella and OSO apparently have no concept of love of country. No liberals do. They like idealist definitions, where all is invested in mere words. They can always manipulate words. Comes with the territory of language and human intent.
OSO is capable of good posts, occasionally, however.
But, I suggest no one respond to manipulative posts, as I will likely delete them when I see them. I can’t be at the computer 24/7.
14 jo282271 // Mar 4, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Mr. Yeagley, I completely agree with what you say about stella, she’s only on here to disrupt and spread her perverted, oedipial ideology of liberalism. I would like to suggest a book though, it’s called “visions of order” by Richard Weaver. I been reading it and he really repeats a lot of your views about cultures, mainly American culture, and why they should be protected and preserved.
15 David Yeagley // Mar 4, 2010 at 3:43 pm
The thing about Stella and OSO, though, is that they’re not freak-outs. They’re calm, cool, and collected. I do appreciate that much. For that matter, so was ol’ “Tom,” no matter what cowardly and fake persona he assumed. I appreciate conversation without vulgarity.
However, their demeanor ususally is intended only to disguise their intent, which is not to have conversation, but to manipulate, provoke, insult, and otherwise contradict. Never to contribute.
Then that makes me mad! Then I seem to be the one out of line, or uncivilized. They’re aces at manipulation. It is a chronic sort of thing. I think it is immature, at best. At worst, it is sinister.
I don’t like arguing for arguing’s sake. I think that’s perverted. If they want to advocate liberalism, they can do that elsewhere. If they really want discussion, they’ll have to demonstrate that. So far, it ain’t happ’nin’.
16 wyoman // Mar 5, 2010 at 11:41 am
I would like to say to OSO that a constitutional amendment would probably be necessary to change the definition of citizenship. We have a process for that. It does seem strange to me that liberals usually want to use strict construction to defend their concepts when convenient but argue for the “living document” concept when it suits them. I personally am a strict constructionist at all times. That does not mean I do not ever want to change the constitution. I just want to use the means the constitution itself provides.
17 kris1414 // Mar 16, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Hey guys, my name is Kristopher Kirtland.
I am sixteen years old and got an assignment to write an essay about what i think being an American is. I stumbled onto this website and i had to share my thoughts.
According to the law (14th Amendment) you are a citizen of America, which makes you an American, if you are born on American soils or if you go through naturalization.
David, you criticized people for giving meaning to the word American, yet you yourself did not give your opinion on what an American is. I would love you know what you think an American is.
You must log in to post a comment.