BadEagle.com Header Image

 

Bad Eagle Journal

Obama Lie, Trump Call, Mourdock Remark, and a Coulter Quip

by David Yeagley · October 24, 2012 · 24 Comments ·

Obama Lie: It is profoundly true that Obama and his administration lied to the American people in the most intentional, blatant, and false way. They circulated an utterly fabricated story, knowingly, as though it were truth. They should all be impeached, fined, and jailed, as enemies of the people. The liberal crowd made a film against George W. Bush called “The Death of a President,” (hiding its American origins under a British front–showing how much we can trust the Brits). No liberals protested such hate speech. So, let us now have a film depicting at least the impeachment, fining, and imprisonment of “Barack Hussein Obama,” Susan Rice, Jay Carney, and everyone else–including news reporters, who created the “video” lie and promoted it. Surely, many honest Americans would want a more appropriate sentence for the crime of treason.

Trump Call: Donald Trump has released a video (now on YouTube) in which he offers “President Obama” five million dollars ($5,000,000,000) if the president will release all records connected with his education (grades, applications, etc.) and his passports. Such an offer mocks the lack of honesty the president has already displayed so very blatantly and defiantly. The man is not a natural born citizen of the United States, because the man he claims as his father (Barack Obama) was never an American citizen. Why this has been allowed to pass, and why Trump himself allowed it to pass, makes this latest offer a scoff, indeed. And the money going to charity is hardly an incentive for Barry Soetoro (“Barack Hussein Obama”). In a way, the offer mocks the whole idea of charity, too. It isn’t ‘blood money,’ but ‘truth money,’ paying someone to tell the truth. A bribe to be honest? Obama became president by lying. Why tell the truth now, for any reason? Liberals will no doubt soon protest this Trump card in full force.

Mourdock Remark: Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock found himself pushing the envelop of conservative views on abortion to the edge of the table, perhaps more dramatically than even Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin. Mourdock said, “I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” He pleaded the cause with with a heartfelt burden. Naturally, the liberal media turned it into more of the Republican war–on women. Never mind the child. Damn the unborn. That’s the liberal position. Get rid of that thing, now!

Tough call. Liberals will have their victims (women alive, that can vote), regardless. The question of “legitimate” rape (i.e., was the woman actually raped), or the statistic indicating how many actually raped women actually become pregnant thereby, do not interest liberals at all. They want the unborn, and newly born, slaughtered, as population control, and they want old people eased out as quickly as possible. The party of death, the Democrat Party.

Coulter’s Quip: Ann Coulter slipped a quip that has exploded in the volatile, nitrate-natured liberal media. Jay Busbee offers a forcefully feigned intellectual response to Couler’s use of the word “retard,” that inspired Busbee to heights of cognitive manipulation and pricked platitude that has perhaps never before reached. Dylan Satbleford leaped into the act as well. Ann was on Twitter, mocking liberals for feigned intelligence:

I highly approve of Romney’s decision to be kind and gentle to the retard.

“If [Obama's] the smartest guy in the room, it must be one retarded room”

Special Olympics people have been taught, by liberals, to protest the use of the word “retarded,” which comes from legitimate psychological history, much as the word “Negro” (or even “nigger”) comes from actual history. But, John Franklin Stephens, a 30-year-old Special Olympics athlete with Down Syndrome, was inspired (or encouraged) to write an “open” letter to Coulter. Only a brilliant liberal would do such a thing, no doubt.

The point is, Ann is mocking the apparently consciously feigned intelligence of liberals, and neither she nor any other mature person would ever reprimand or deride a retarded person for being retarded. The remark pertains to the incredibly insulting stupidity liberals pawn off as reason, and worse, their even more insulting practice of blatantly lying, publicly, forcefully, and treasonously, to the American public. It is indeed difficult to find a word to describe liberal thought. (Would “demonic” be more appropriate, Ann? Are the liberals less offended by being called demonic than they are retarded? Perhaps “Retarded” should be the next title of your book. “Retarded, in the Liberal Sense.”) Reasonable people are quite weary of official Democrat lying, and especially that of the president and his administration. This perpetual prevarication isn’t as careful was that of the Clintons, but even more aggressive against the American people.

It is denigrating to us, and we are sick of it. We are frustrated by lying. We are tired of it. We are ready to rise up against it. But, until we actually do, we resort to words, and thus tend to fall into the liberals’ hands–who have usurped every meaningful word in American society, and made it serve every anti-American sentiment.

Posted by David Yeagley · October 24, 2012 · 4:17 pm CT · ·

Tags: American Patriotism · Bad Eagle Journal · Conservatism · Liberalism · Media · Politics




Read More Journal Posts »

24 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Sioux // Oct 24, 2012 at 4:39 pm   

    Trump just wanted to remind everyone that we still have no proof of who our President really is (except for all of his actions during the last four years) – The Donald’s $5 million is safe.

    Mourdock: Why Why Why did you have to go there? God intent??? Really??? I am against abortion, but I would never say such a thing to a victim of rape…ever.

    Coulter: Well, what can we say about her Retard comment other than she knows exactly what she’s doing. I LOVE your title for her next book, Dr. Y – it would be a classic.

  • 2 Thrasymachus // Oct 24, 2012 at 5:15 pm   

    The Liberals have been using the psychological weapon “All intelligent people are, of course, liberal” for quite some time. Liberals routinely accuse conservatives of “ignorance.” They’ve done this for decades. Liberals simply love to state that “Liberalism = High Intelligence.” Liberals believe that they are intellectually superior to other, in the same way that the new Atheists claim intellectual superiority over Theists.

    Sioux: Thank you for your understanding of how radical feminism within the Liberal Movement attacks males in our modern society. I am totally FOR all things that respect and honor girls and women. A war between the sexes is totally unnatural; harmony and mutual love and admiration is what’s natural. This harmful conflict is part of the “divide and conquer” strategy of the modern Liberal. Liberals want a weak society so that they can enrich themselves.

  • 3 Sioux // Oct 24, 2012 at 5:37 pm   

    Thras – Libs are Liars for the most part, especially when it comes to promoting their ideology. They are superior in their own eyes and that’s why they don’t like to hang out with people like us.

    I took particular delight in hearing the news from the Marines today about the two women washing out of the Infantry training. The Marines’ response, however, disheartened me – Let’s lower our standards so that women won’t wash out. If the Marines go this route, all hope is lost for defending our nation. The Navy and Army are trashed already.

  • 4 Asaph // Oct 24, 2012 at 5:45 pm   

    A billionaire offers 5mil? Really? If he’s a patriot, why not 50? Why not 500 million? If you are trying to back someone like Obama into a corner, for the sake of the nation, make it impossible for them to duck the offer.

    The Founders sacrificed their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.

    Trump has none of that.

  • 5 Thrasymachus // Oct 24, 2012 at 5:58 pm   

    Asaph:

    My opinion is that the ultra-wealthy (many of them — certainly not all) really would prefer to pay no taxes at all. That is pretty much the extent of their “patriotism,” in my humble opinion. There comes a point where making money becomes an obsession and NO amount of wealth can satisfy.

    I’m not saying that Mr. Trump is personally in this category, as I do not know the man and have no way of ascertaining such a thing.

    And do not think that I am for high taxes. The ancient Chinese sage, Lao Tzu, said: “Why are the people starving?” His answer was that taxes were making the people starve in ancient China.

  • 6 zephyr // Oct 24, 2012 at 6:38 pm   

    Sioux: “Mourdock: Why Why Why did you have to go there? God intent??? Really??? I am against abortion, but I would never say such a thing to a victim of rape…ever.”

    Amen.

    There are some good reasons for “exemptions” in abortion–mother’s health, baby’s health, incest, rape.

    In those cases, the state has NO business making the determination of who lives or dies. A woman has no choice at all in a true rape situation.

    Most abortions are a matter of convenience, where the woman DID make a choice to have sex. And usually another choice–to do so without birth control. In those cases, women should be held accountable (as well as the men who impregnated them).

    Taxes should never be used to pay for such abortions.

    I know 2 women who first became pregnant at the age of 11. Very high risk for both mother and child and both cases of rape. In these situations, the mother is as much a victim as the child. These are not “Fluke” situations.

  • 7 David Yeagley // Oct 24, 2012 at 6:55 pm   

    I think Jewish tradition has always sanctioned the mother. If there is an issue, life goes to the mother. She can have another child.

    What happens when the mother dies, and the baby lives?

    This things are very, very deep. I don’t know that a single abstraction or “principle” can cover everything.

    After all, we’re sinners to begin with.

  • 8 Mjazz // Oct 25, 2012 at 2:10 am   

    Debbie Wasserman said Romney didn’t even mention Israel and he did 14 times.

    I’ve seen emails that said things like “if you took all the money from all the rich people in the US it would run the government for four months” – not an exact quote but you get the picture.
    We need to balance the budget and eliminate the deficit. There’s tons of wasteful spending that can be eliminated. We don’t need to spend millions on teaching Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly or study monkeys smoking crack and PCP. And PBS does quite well without our tax dollars.

  • 9 Bonus Gift // Oct 25, 2012 at 2:48 am   

    The point of the cultural Marxist fixation on using the very uncommon case of rape and abortion as a litmus test on “women’s rights” is in my opinion at least threefold:
    1. They don’t have a moral or ethical case in any other aspect of abortion, so if they are to hold the line it is focusing on the exception, not the rule (their standard practice is to do this, almost always, exception but not rule is brought forth as proof); and, for what it’s worth I agree with Thrasy and Sioux on this one. I don’t know the number of cases of rape caused abortions relative to all others cases but I suspect it is miniscule in the extreme (i.e., you probably have a better chance of being hit by lightening, literally). That noted, I can understand why some people take an absolutist position on no abortions, regardless of circumstances. It is somewhat ironic, and instructive, to watch cultural Marxists attack people for what they deem an indefensible absolutist position yet by doing so they expose themselves to the same charge (obviously, they do not see it that way, and, hence the irony).
    2. It is another part of the “progressive” litmus test used to screen out undesirable politicians, academics, journalists, etc. The key for the cultural Marxists is to never just allow someone to have an opinion, but to enforce their opinions on all others. It is never permissible to allow a “conservative” to be left alone. The individual in question must be forced publically to recant and tow the cultural Marxist line. That is why RINOs are accepted and free men are not. Additionally, that is why, for example, the media has such a negative impact on voting and why they will not let this go without a monumental fight (and why the Yeagleys of the country should be kept in their place).
    3. It is an emotional issue. The basic cultural Marxist playbook is to use emotion and not logic to ram their agenda home. What could be more emotional to a “progressive” woman than talking about abortion with a man that says he is against abortion in any form (i.e., there are no circumstances under which he thinks it should be allowed, and certainly not receive government sanction and/or support)?

    Regarding Barry Soetoro and Donald Trump, what can one say? What evidence there is combined with basic logic minimally shows the following:
    1) He is not a “natural born” citizen. That is, and as Mr. Yeagley pointed out, his story is that his father was Kenyan (i.e., at the time legally a citizen of Great Britain as Kenya was a colony). It is entirely possible that was not his father, if so then fraud would likely disqualify him.
    2) Failure/fraud with respect to the requirement for male citizens to register for selective service disqualifies him from everything from president to local dog catcher.
    3) The fraudulent use of a dead Connecticut man’s social security number should have put him in jail already, and certainly deported him long ago to whatever place he is actually a citizen of (most likely Indonesia).
    4) Which brings us to Indonesia; it is likely his legal name is Barry Soetoro as he was adopted as such and never changed it legally. In addition, it is for similar reasons likely he is/was a citizen of Indonesia (again, clearly disqualifying him from most political jobs and especially local dog catcher).
    5) Etc. etcetera …

    In short, much like Ross Perot, if Donald Trump really wanted to bring out the truth and help America he should have shown not just momentary spine, but actually taken a stance and pushed until proven right and just put up with the cultural Marxist media ridicule knowing he would be proven right at some point. Instead he got us to get excited then let us down. Imagine if Mr. Yeagley had the money the Trump says he has, would Yeagley have backed down after being called a “birther”? I still like that Trump is at least putting it out there; but, how does it go: “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.” As with most things, I’ll just try to leave it at fool me once; and the same goes for the cultural Marxist litmus tests for RINOs.

  • 10 Bonus Gift // Oct 25, 2012 at 5:45 am   

    II forgot to mention, Coulter is right, according to ordinary slang Barry is a retard. From the dictionary: “re•tard 2 (r tärd )
    n. Offensive Slang
    1. Used as a disparaging term for a mentally retarded person.
    2. A person considered to be foolish or socially inept.”
    The emphasis Coulter might have explicitly made would be on the person in question is “considered to be foolish”. Furthermore, the mainstream press itself at least feigns on being retarded with respect to almost anything that doesn’t support their little treasonous pet or almost any aspect of their agenda; instead they launch emotional appeals and ad homonym attacks.

  • 11 David Yeagley // Oct 25, 2012 at 10:31 am   

    BG, wondrous comments, always.

    I truly appreciate the thoughtful contributions made by our readers. This is truly uplifting!

    I must say, I’m beginning to believe that the leaders reflect the people. This is a horrible indictment of America, considering the nature of our interloping “president.” How Democrats are able to denigrate so many, for so long, is demonic. Coulter is right about that one, too.

    BG:”The individual in question must be forced publically to recant and tow the cultural Marxist line. That is why RINOs are accepted and free men are not.

    Love that distinction, RINOs v. free men. That’s the headline of the hour.

  • 12 zephyr // Oct 25, 2012 at 2:29 pm   

    BG: “The key for the cultural Marxists is to never just allow someone to have an opinion, but to enforce their opinions on all others.”

    Very true. Can we all just agree to call them communists? That is what they are.

    Marx didn’t write the “cultural” or “socialist” Manifesto. I don’t think conservatives should agree to play the lib name-change game. We ought to INSIST on calling a spade a spade.

  • 13 Bonus Gift // Oct 25, 2012 at 3:35 pm   

    Zephyr:
    Sure, I can call them communists; and, yes, you are correct that he did write the Communist Manifesto and not the Cultural Manifesto. Not to be pedantic, but I will anyways; I use the term cultural Marxist or cultural Marxism because that it what the Marxism of the Communist Manifesto type Marxism has essentially mutated into, especially in the western world.

    A brief history might be in order; that is, if anybody cares to read on otherwise don’t. Essentially a group of somewhat committed communists/Marxists migrated (although there were others that didn’t migrate as well) from Germany (they were called the Frankfurt School since many hailed from the university in Frankfurt, Germany) to the United States (the Nazis kicked them out as they did not dig their anti-western, anti-European, anti-German vibe). Many took up shop at Columbia University in New York City (Gee, who else do we know with a connection to that school?). They essentially believed that communism of the day didn’t quit work but that Marxism was still good, although they felt it needed to be modified to be more effective, especially as it related to taking over institutions like academia, media, and government. For example, whereas communism of the Communist Manifesto did not dwell on race or other such issues (Also, if I recall correctly, Marx himself hated blacks and supported black slavery in America among other places, etc.; and given Barry’s and his alleged father’s love of Marxism, it’s ironic don’t you think?) cultural Marxists can and do. Ultimately we can trace things/gifts like affirmative action, abortion on demand, gender studies, race replacement of whites but not other races, cultural relativism, emotions deciding arguments and not logic, the UN, world government, bald face lying to win an election, etc. etcetera to cultural Marxism and not Marx’s Communist Manifesto type Marxism (maybe some Lenin as well). From a white American perspective I can deal with communism, for it is largely dead; what I really dislike is this reincarnation of it called cultural Marxism that is killing my country and my countrymen (as well as Europe and any other related country); which is why I called it cultural Marxism and not communism. I hope that clears up my terminology a bit, and I can sure call them communists, but I really hate the cultural Marxist bastards that are deep in the mainstream media, academia, and politics (and even large publically traded businesses). Anyway, you can trace, for example, various forms of accepted treason to the Frankfurt School bastards and their fellow travelers like that little retard bastard Barry Soetoro fellow we so admire (thank you Ann Coulter, I feel better now).

  • 14 David Yeagley // Oct 25, 2012 at 3:37 pm   

    I wrote in a blog once, all the names the Commies have used are just to make the dope seem more socially acceptable with each era.

    Communism
    Socialism
    Leftism
    Liberalism
    Progressivism

    All Communism. Now, I don’t really know how the word “Communism” became such an embarrassment to use. Probably the McCarthy smear did that. That was a Leftist (Communist!) media work, exposed with expertise by Ann Coulter in Treason, which is required reading for modern American history.

    Anyway, I agree, Z. I’m all for calling Communism Communism. It is a nasty-meaning word, for a nasty, death-oriented polity.

  • 15 zephyr // Oct 25, 2012 at 5:02 pm   

    BG ~ thanks for your comments. Like David, I just refuse to go down the label road ~ gives libs too much power, allowing them to manipulate the language as if they owned it. The end result w/ libs is a tyrannical government, always.

    Years ago I had to take a required course in grad school at a public university. It was the only course required for all anthro, archaeo, and Near Eastern Studies majors.

    They called it “Foundations in Archaeological Interpretation”. The course was supposed to discuss different developments in archaeological theory.

    About two weeks into the course, we began studying “cultural Marxism” and “structural Marxism”. Unlike the other theoretical underpinnings we examined, the Marxist section had very little to do with archaeology (go figure!). In fact, it was so far removed from actual fieldwork I could not comprehend (being young, naive, and not politically astute at the time) why on earth we were even discussing it. I recall asking some fellow class members if they understood the archaeological “link” better than I–but no one else did, either. Except for those few students who considered themselves (communist) political activists. They knew–but didn’t care to clue the rest of us in.

    Ultimately, we spent half the semester on “cultural Marxism”. There were half a dozen other major movements in archaeology, but we skimmed those to allow time to focus on communism.

    It wasn’t until years later that the true purpose of the course finally dawned on me. All those years I had just filed it away as an anomaly, another academic hoop to jump through, for no particular reason.

    And that entire semester, not once was the word “communism” (or any form of it) ever mentioned.

    I don’t like it when ppl lie to me. I don’t like it when they attempt to mask true motives or when profs manipulate students or language for political ends. It all reeks of putrid lies and foul coercion.

    I am thankful, however, that these deceitful practices are coming to light, finally, unfortunately after communists have established their beach head in American academia.

  • 16 zephyr // Oct 25, 2012 at 5:05 pm   

    I am certain that every other line of study in public universities–certainly in the behavioral and social science arenas–contains similar coursework. Basically unrelated to the chosen field of study and thinly veiled as a prereq to any further learning. Absolutely essential to the academic experience.

    Sure, if your profs are Marx and Lenin.

  • 17 Thrasymachus // Oct 25, 2012 at 6:15 pm   

    I have an old Encyclopedia — not the complete set, but a number of volumes that have survived. It was made in the 1950s, long before Roe vs. Wade. I happen to have the opening volume – A.

    It tells us that a “therapeutic abortion” had ALWAYS been legal in the U.S. That is, if a woman’s life were in danger, the doctor could lawfully perform an abortion to save her life.

    Also, in the Old Testament, there’s a law about a man who, by ACCIDENT, causes a woman to have a miscarriage. He’s not charged with murder.

    “”Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely. If no further injury results, the man who struck the woman must pay the amount of compensation the woman’s husband demands and the judges approve.” Exodus 21:22 New Living Translation

  • 18 Thrasymachus // Oct 25, 2012 at 6:17 pm   

    BG – I’m reading the book you recommended. Very interesting.

  • 19 Maharishi of Mayhem // Oct 25, 2012 at 10:39 pm   

    Let’s use some street-talk to describe the sickness of commie, Liberal Dems….

    Faggots, Dykes, baby-killers, drug users, crack whores, welfare thieves, liars, Peace Corps, Green Peace, 47%, Tree-huggers, White-trash, Angry Black Thugs, Black Panthers, National Association for the Annihilation of Caucasian People (NAACP), National Organization of Witches (NOW), Southern Poverty Lawless Center, Planned Abortionhood, National Education Association, AFL-CIO, United Autoworkers, New Age freaks, FBI, U.S. Justice Dept, CIA, BRObama, Moochelle BRObama, the BRObama niglets, Pelosi, vomit, HPV, AIDS, Genocide, Assassination, Cover ups, Black Liberation Theology, Metrosexual White Males, Coal-hauling white females, BRObamacare, voter fraud, etc., etc., etc.,.

    Always glad to be of help.

  • 20 Bonus Gift // Oct 25, 2012 at 11:55 pm   

    M of M, I like your list; and I suspect almost all spring from the Frankfurt School and communism generally. Thrasy, I think you will, at a minimum, profit from that book by a direct connect of the dots from Soviet style communism to “modern” communism/cultural Marxism (I know I did). Zephyr, I took a course like the one you did for business studies. Actually, even “sciences” are now infected by it. Where do you think man caused “Global Warming” comes from? Mr. Yeagley, you are correct, it’s all pure evil.
    OK, communism it is. I would just note that the language battle is a tough one as evil people with evil intent have probably been doing that since “civilization” first sprang up. My intent is for people to at least trace the roots or our malaise and the inherent evil; thus, I hope we can counter it more effectively.

  • 21 David Yeagley // Oct 26, 2012 at 6:46 am   

    BG, you’re correct about the language problem, for sure. The libs created the modern venue of the age old problem. You say “communism,” and everyone thinks you’re archaic, upset about some ancient bugaboo, and they make you think you’re superstitious or stupid–when they’re simply lying ignoramuses themselves. But, the liars always seem to have the upper hand, at least in the immediate present.

  • 22 zephyr // Oct 26, 2012 at 8:20 am   

    BG ~ I understand what you’re saying. My concern is that if we abandon the real definition behind all these terms, the average American who is more or less clueless re: history will not make the connection–all part of the Dem design. Suddenly “Marxism” doesn’t seem so bad.

    We need more ppl like you to educate ppl~ and we need idiots to LISTEN. That’s the hard part!

    It’s unbelievable to me how many ppl are still so stupid–and willfully so–that they vote for exactly the opposite of what they believe.

    A formerly good friend of mine (her choice) was a big Obama supporter in 2008. This friend does not believe in entitlements and has even less patience with that system than I do. Knowing her values, I asked why she was planning to vote for him. Her response: “He speaks well and dresses nicely.”

    HUH??? I doubt she ever even LISTENED critically to what he was saying. And yes, Dems capitalized on the apparently widely held belief among whites that a black man who can dress and speak well must think “like us”. Even Biden revealed his low expectations of blacks and Obama. They don’t even recognize that lowering their standards of some other races is racist. That collective white guilt is awfully effective on some ppl.

    I’m beginning to think a lot of Americans just don’t have the capacity to think–or don’t take the time to do so.

    A few months ago I was volunteering at our county fair Tea Party booth. A lady stopped by, reaming Obama left and right. (We recruit volunteers as much as possible at these events, so I was hopeful.) She understood his agenda.

    Then she started in on how wonderful unions are, how much they do for our country, and she really wants to see them grow.

    She chose not to believe that the unions are Obama’s base of power and that neither the SEIU or Teamsters would ever support him.

    I can’t even deal with these blind/deaf/dumb scenarios anymore.

  • 23 zephyr // Oct 26, 2012 at 8:29 am   

    ” . . . modern liberal philosophy . . . can be more accurately described as: “Forget personal sacrifice, keep sitting on your behind, and let the government rob your neighbor for you.””

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22806

    “their intention is to transfer as much power as possible to the collective, as represented by the federal government.

    “For those who would parse words and say that Obama and his Democrat cohorts are socialist, let me remind you, the Soviet Union was a constitutionally socialist nation [as was the Nazi Party], and look what happened to them.

    “The only difference between socialism and communism … is time.”

  • 24 Bonus Gift // Oct 26, 2012 at 11:20 am   

    Z – I think most, if not all of us, have family and possibly friends where we can’t help but scratch our heads at the lack of logic/lack of critical reasoning. For example, someone might claim to value human life, claims to believe in the founding principles (e.g., light on “foreign entanglements” & the military is for defending the country, country of laws not men, preference for small government footprint, etc.), yet vote for a communist anti-American, retarded psychopath, come again?

    I had a college age niece who I was convinced was going to vote for the treasonous snake in 2008 (her first voting opportunity), yet she assured me that she did not because she knew she would regret it. I told her that I didn’t care if she voted for McCain (I didn’t, I voted for Chuck Baldwin), just don’t vote for the legally ineligible communist anti-American. I don’t know if she really didn’t vote for him, but I still count it a minor win in the scheme of many losses along the way. Her mother I can tell still rolls her eyes when I discuss the future of the country, but I really can’t speak the truth and apply at least what I feel is some semblance of critical reasoning to the analysis without turning some people off. I suspect it’s why we like Mr. Yeagley as he is a breath of fresh air from the mainstream propaganda. I can’t play a musical instrument if my life depended on it, am not from Oklahoma, am not Comanche, yet I know I have much more in common with Mr. Yeagley than the communist scum that whine about “conservatives” are bad and antiquated for believing in the founding principles, yet how we cannot question their traitorous “patriotism”, yada, yada … In the final analysis, I think that we can believe evil, be a tool or dupe of evil (the classic “useful idiot”), or fight it. Giving up, even if family and friends think we should is not an option as we will never know if we were on the precipice of victory or defeat until either actually happens. Besides, as my father would say, “what else are you going to do in a small town?” For me, I’ve decided that my general approach is to push critical thinking/logical reasoning whenever I can wherever I am (essentially lay out the truth and lessons that can be earned from it). Sure, I get a lot of eye rolling, but people know generally where I stand. Obviously, and as Alcoholics Anonymous knows, the first step is admitting we have a problem, then we can begin to address it (i.e., after deny it several times). What is most distressing today is that, and it is virtually worldwide, the communist controlled media suppresses even the discussion of what is wrong (e.g., the solution to too much debt is more debt; are they crazy? That was rhetorical).
    Ultimately, my hope is that as the economy continues its slow, or faster, motion collapse we will regain some semblance of truth and rationality as it will be forced on people outside of the readers of this and related websites with similar views. In essence, in the seeds of the communist collapse I hope will grow a better country; but I admit that it can also just slowly sink into a kind of dark age for freedom lovers (but it seems to me that we are already there anyways). It’s ironic that normally communist revolutionaries and related anarchists are the ones that want to bring the “system” down and delight in its destruction, yet it would seem to me that the shoe is now on the other foot and at least the direction of the economy is toward the downside and not up. All I can say to the pinkos now is “good luck with that comrade.” It reminds me of a Far Side cartoon where two deer are standing up and leaning against a tree. One of the deer has a bull’s eye on his chest and there is a hunter lurking in the background. The bull’s eyeless deer says to the other deer: “Bummer of a birthmark Hal.” The difference is that today the commies painted the target on their own chests and are now claiming its some magical invisible shield where the bad hunter cannot see them. Well, the king has no clothes and reality will eventually impose itself on the believers of unicorns and free skittles, we just need to keep pointing out the obvious and when people are ready (i.e., if ever) they will regain their senses. What’s the quote: “Men lose their minds in herds, but e=regain them one man at a time.” But it begins and ends with truth, critical reasoning, and standing firm in the face of obvious evil.

    How’s that for what I thought would be a two sentence response?

You must log in to post a comment.