David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
A pit bull took a bite out of the liberal media–literally! Kyle Dyer, anchorwoman at NBC’s KUSA Denver affiliate, was attacked by the wonderful, affectionate dog/person, live, on camera. The “Argentine Mastiff” was in fair condition, after being itself bit by a wild coyote the day before.
The fang-bared truth about liberals.
Liberals are willing to die for love–that is, love of the most dangerous, the most likely to attack. In this highly publicized incident, the symbol of all that is liberal is displayed in dramatic truth: liberalism is about the dare to die. Barbara Walters held an infected, infectious AIDS infant on national TV (but, I can’t remember if that was before or after Barbara Bush held one!). The American government, through individuals like Grover Norquist, urge America’s worst enemies–the murderous Muslims, to come and destroy America. And now, a lovely liberal media lady tries to kiss a brute animal, and is bitten in the face.
So much for the liberal’s triumphant love of danger. We sympathize enormously with Ms. Dyer’s horrific experience, but, can anyone see a warning here of the terrors to come upon us all–through liberalism?
Bill O’Reilly, bull dog of all cable talk show hosts, himself displayed a lethal gap in knowledge of the liberal way. Two nights ago he confronted Sandy Rios on the impropriety of singling out Planned Parent Hood as a target for withdrawing funds. “What’s the difference between the McCarthy era Communist blacklist and the million mom’s” protest to JCPenny’s hiring of homosexual Ellen Degeners?” O’Reilly placed himself in the ranks of the most profound liberal viewers of modern American history. He discounted the McCarthy effort to identify Communists working in the United States government as a “witch hunt.” Evidently Bill hasn’t studied Ann Coulter’s incomparable expose, Treason (2004) There is no finer account of how liberal media was born in the effort destroy Senator McCarthy. O’Reilly’s sporting around with opposing ideas frequently lands him on the side of the most liberal people in America.
And what about the arch-enemy lobbyist, Grover Norquist, that fine GOP figure head and ATR representative? Norquist lies intimate with Islamic terrorists! He works with them in profound ways, knowingly, with impunity. This man is known as the “architect of conservatism,” and chief adviser of the Republican Part (–that is, before Karl Rove took the media slot for the same role).
All together, connecting the dots, we see that modern social morality means to allow your enemy to bit your face, take your money, and destroy your country. All together, it appears that conservatism is in full cooperation with liberalism–on the bottom line. They both sign the suicide pact. In the name of morality, goodness, tolerance, even Christianity, Western society falls on its sword.
Christianity itself has become a false religion. It is suicidal, yet pays for no one’s sins. It lies down and cries, “Rape me, rape me!” Destroy me. I will love you. I have nothing but love for my enemies.
Modern Christianity–without Christ, is more of a death oriented cult than Islam itself. The West has become a woman, an immoral woman. Islam is just normal dog in heat.
The truth is deeply disturbing, isn’t it?
The Christian religion is personal. It was never meant to be acted out on a national basis. A nation of Christians can never behave like an individual Christian. It will self-destroy.
You can be a free Christian, or a persecuted Christian. America was created by men who wanted to be free Christians. Did they err in this? Was America a mistake? To be a free Christian, or free at all, requires a price–usually blood. America’s fathers paid that price. To give that freedom away in the name of some imitation Christianity, some Christ-less notion of auto-erotic self-righteousness, some Freudian libidinal inversion, some latent, male homosexual Oedipal impulse, is the catastrophe of our age.
Where have all the warrior’s gone?
19 responses so far ↓
1 David Yeagley // Feb 9, 2012 at 4:44 pm
I wrote an article forAmerican Enterprise some years ago. Thrown to the Dogs. It involved a story about a man who had stabbed a pit bull to protect himself from its attack. He was jailed. I called the legal decision liberal. A woman pit bull breeder wrote to me (commented) and condemned me as strongly as possible for being so insensitive to the lovely, loving pit bull, so heartless as to justify a man for defending himself by killing beast.
2 Thrasymachus // Feb 9, 2012 at 8:08 pm
This is truly one of the most powerful analyses of liberalism that I’ve read in quite some time. Here we actually have a concrete and vivid example of the philosophy in actual practice (I am speaking of the reporter and her imprudent attempt to show affection to an animal known to be wild and dangerous.)
Liberals know that there exist particular, rare exceptions to many phenomena, and they reason that these exceptions SHOULD become the norm — as if this were possible. [So the extremely rare case of the bird that feeds the hungry, motherless kitten, and the two animals become friends and are harmless to one another, is the model for all life.] There is a philosophic reason for this — liberals have long ago rejected a noble tradition in Western thought. Liberals do not believe what the great Western thinkers have always believed. Liberals have rejected the ancient belief of the wise in the concept of Natural Law.
3 zephyr // Feb 9, 2012 at 8:52 pm
They are so blinded, they simply can’t recognize danger. Danger doesn’t exist in their imaginary world where relativism reigns supreme.
This is the same logic that idiots who try to make pets out of predatory animals use. Libs always pretend to be shocked that the tiger, or lion, or whatever, attacked or killed its owner. They really think human love can overpower natural instinct of predatory animals.
Really, it’s extreme arrogance. They believe they transcend all natural laws.
4 Thrasymachus // Feb 9, 2012 at 9:00 pm
The reason liberals have rejected Natural Law Theory comes from their mistaken assumption that the theory requires a belief in God and therefore would impose religious laws and regulations on the people. A thorough investigation into the subject, however, will show that although many who believe in Natural Law Theory are religious (i.e. have been theologians), others are not, and that the ultimate religious — read “Christian” — foundation of the theory is a false assumption.
Natural Law Theory has its roots in classical Greek philosophy and is perfectly defensible in non-theological terms. I say all this because different theologians have different opinions on ethics, whereas Natural Law Theory is intended to be grounded in empiricism and derived from observation of the laws of nature itself and the known workings of the universe.
Therefore, contrary to the mistaken opinions of liberals, to believe in Natural Law Ethics is not to impose the ethics of a particular religion on persons who do not follow that religion. Rather, Natural Law Ethics is based on the behavioral norms of each SPECIES of life on this planet.
5 Sioux // Feb 9, 2012 at 9:07 pm
Where have all the Warriors gone? I don’t know, but some of them are now having sex with animals (not that there’s anything wrong with that), and some are adopting chimps as their very own chilren (while their friends get their faces ripped off), and some are living among the bears (only to be unceremoniously killed for dinner).
I believe that God told us to have “dominion” over the animals, not to treat them as equals to humans.
O’Reilly is a Populist, not a conservative – he says things that lots of people like to hear, but when push comes to shove, and Bill finds his opinions aren’t popular, he changes with the wind. His example about Planned Parenthood, baby murderers incorporated, is laughable. Why does anyone take him seriously. I sure don’t – can’t stand to watch any of them on Fox any more except for John Stossel and Judge Napolitano.
I have read a new term (new to me) called Churchianity as opposed to Christianity. There aren’t many true Christians out there but plenty of devoted Churchians (pick your own mini-denomination – one that makes you feel real goooood).
6 Thrasymachus // Feb 9, 2012 at 9:31 pm
Here is the story alluded to above:
Crow and Kitten are friends.
Liberals think that these exceptional incidents should be the pattern of all life.
7 agrneydgrl // Feb 9, 2012 at 11:22 pm
Speaking about the judge [Napolitano], I hear he is being cancelled. I e-mailed irena and complained
irena.briganti@foxnews.com
[Irena Briganti, Senior Vice President
Media Relations
Phone: 212-301-3608
... Fax: 212-819-0816
E-Mail: irena.briganti@foxnews.com]
[Edit.]
8 whitetrash // Feb 10, 2012 at 7:57 am
The cardinal differences between the Dems and the GOP are motive and effectiveness: The Dems act on ideological lunacy. The GOP acts the same way, but to realize a profit for a very few while enticing their followers with notions of “getting rich too.”
It is the cold blooded rationality of the GOP that led us diluted resistance. The idiocy of the Left was the perfect foil.
9 Prayer Warrior // Feb 10, 2012 at 8:12 am
While I am sorry for this woman being bitten by the dog, she should have known better! It is really her own fault for being careless. She ought to have realized that she was a stranger to this animal and that her bending down in his face was probably perceived as a threat by the dog. Pit Bulls have gained a bad reputation because they are aggressive, which is probably due in part to their fearless terrier blood, which also makes them great watch dogs, however, I believe a lot of the bad behavior attributed to this type of dog has to do with their owners. Too many of these poor creatures are bred to be procured for illegal dog fighting and are terribly mistreated by their owners to make them more vicious. As far as adopting wild animals as pets, although I loved the movie, “Born Free” and watching the program, “Gentle Ben” as a kid, I believe there is a reason why God made certain animals to dwell in the wild and others-like dogs and cats-to be domesticated and made into pets and companions for human beings.
For example, Joy Adamson, the woman who took care of Elsa and her cubs in the movie, “Born Free” was later mauled to death by another lioness.
Bill O’Reilly is an opportunist (he is always trying to sell his viewers something) with a political agenda, just like every other media talking head out there. For him to defend Planned Parenthood not only makes him an advocate for the continuation of the ethnic-cleansing-through-infanticide- mandate of the group’s founder, Margaret Sanger, but a hypocrite of his professed Roman Catholic religion, putting him in the same boat as Nancy Pelosi. In fact, I would not be the least surprised if the former Speaker of the House shows up as a guest on old Bill’s program one of these days!
10 David Yeagley // Feb 10, 2012 at 12:27 pm
That would really be a sight, huh? The arch-grandmother with the arch-bull dog.
Well, talk show hosts have to keep focused. Guest wander, often (like Dick Morris). Bill strong arms most of his guests, but this is probably circumstance. He is really bull-headed, and he inspires the same in his guests, then he has to turn around and keep them in the direction he wants. There is real art to this.
His deepest devotee, Laura Ingraham, has learned to bully. She even lashes out at guests if they contradict her.
All part of media entertainment.
11 Prayer Warrior // Feb 10, 2012 at 1:19 pm
“His deepest devotee, Laura Ingraham, has learned to bully. She even lashes out at guests if they contradict her.” -David Yeagley
I’ll take this one step farther and add that not only is she a bully, but like Bill she constantly interrupts the guests on the program-especially the opposition-when they are trying to make a point.
I find this not only an extremely irritating tactic, but very rude, condescending, and highly unprofessional behavior. Articulate and responsible television journalism is dead in America.
All we have today is a sideshow of genuine freaks.
12 zephyr // Feb 10, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Some breeds are bred to be aggressive. Inherently aggressive. Pit bulls are one such breed.
I had a friend who wanted a dog. She wanted something “exotic”. So she got a part wolf/part husky mix.
I suggested that, since she had small children at home, that mix might not be the best choice, as wolves have never been domesticated. But that was precisely what she wanted–the wild side. Owners usually choose dogs that they think reflect their own psyche on some level.
Two months later, she returned the dog to its former owner. First, it bit her son. Next, it bit her daughter. Finally, it bit her. After a couple ER visits, she decided that wolfie might just not fit in with their family life. All the attacks were unprovoked, but the dog was not a good house dog and he didn’t care for noise or high levels of activity–all of which were staples in their home. He was probably on edge the entire time he was there.
This happens all the time with ppl who have no understanding of animals. They think a dog will simply be another fashion accessory, or a show piece to incite envy in the neighborhood, like a new sports car. They can’t get it into their heads that animals are not inanimate objects.
Consequently, they never train them (and then complain when the dogs don’t “listen”) and never exercise them. It’s an animal, not an objet d’art.
13 David Yeagley // Feb 10, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Hey, even husbands and children are status symbols…
14 Prayer Warrior // Feb 10, 2012 at 4:00 pm
An Example Of Responsible Journalism: A Voice From The Past
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x_tg00n2g0&feature=related
Today’s “Journalism”, Or How A Yellow-bellied, Jealous Lesbian Can Get Away With Bad-Mouthing Michele Bachmann:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIQTxIg3DbY&feature=related
15 David Yeagley // Feb 10, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Just shows how far Left the so-called “main stream” media is. I hardly think anyone really “reports,” today. It’s all agenda-oriented.
16 David Yeagley // Feb 10, 2012 at 4:08 pm
By the way, the reason Ms. Madow does not actually READ the “highlighted” sentence she displays in Article 1 of the U S Constitution is due to the simply fact that the word “census” does not appear, nor appears any command or law requiring it. It is simply speaking of the process and qualifications of Representatives in Congress.
This is typical Leftism. Dramatic point proffered, but no evidence. She wanted everyone to THINK the Constitution calls for a census, and tried to deceive her limited audience into thinking it does by highlighting a sentence–which we all waited to hear her read!
What a fake moment. Typical, I’m afraid, of liberals. Deceit, lying, false impression, whatever.
17 David Yeagley // Feb 10, 2012 at 4:11 pm
One might assume that a census would be implied, due to the arrangements referred to in the Constitution, about numbers of population and representatives. But the key word there is “implied.” The word census is not in the document, certainly not where she claimed it was.
Now, can we trust what Madow said about Bachmann’s proposed law? Of course not.
18 Prayer Warrior // Feb 10, 2012 at 4:49 pm
I know that they take the census for political reasons, however, in more recent years it has become much more intrusive into the lives of the American people. For example, some people actually received 2010 censuses that asked questions like, “Does this house, apartment, or mobile home have hot and cold running water, a flush toilet, a bathtub or shower, a sink with a faucet, a refrigerator, a stove?” “Last month, what was the cost of electricity for this house, apartment, or mobile home?” “How many times have you been married?” Now tell me which of these questions serves the constitutional function of apportioning the number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives?
I remember watching Michele Bachmann speaking about the 2010 census and she said the only information that the American people are required to give are their names and number of people living in their house and that’s it!
19 Maharishi of Mayhem // Feb 10, 2012 at 5:23 pm
The Liberals pull off another horrific act:
The Secretary of the Navy today announced that they will be naming a combat ship after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords……OUTRAGE!
This liberal piece of feces was not supportive of the military when it counted. Now she gets a ship named after her?
Maybe if the assassin would have been a better shot she could have a monument right next to Lincoln.
This country sucks!!! I am done politically. I hate the government of the U.S., and I am a combat vet.
REVOLT!!!
You must log in to post a comment.