Header Image


Bad Eagle Journal

Why War, at Christmas, or Ever?

by David Yeagley · December 2, 2012 · 17 Comments ·

Christmas season has begun, but the problems of the world are unaffected by it. The worst problem is war, and the Muslim jihadists delight in violence and mass murder on any Judeo-Christian holiday. They will do anything to denigrate and destroy the values of others. So, let’s talk about war this Christmas. The promotion of undeclared war (against America) is part of the White House plan for the new normal, is it not?

Before political correctness, politicians, and attorneys distorted the meaning of the word, war meant an armed encounter between countries, or, originally, between tribes or ethnicities. The abstract concept of “armed conflict” itself is neither accurate nor helpful. There are constant armed conflicts in the streets of the world. That kind of “war” means nothing. The fact that the United States hasn’t declared war against another country since 1945, despite major and innumerable “armed conflicts” and missions in the world, is a fact that belies a lethal fantasy itself–the fantasy that problems between countries are not solved by war. Thus, “armed conflicts” burgeon in the world. This is based on the fallacy of perverting words–the fine art of Communists (socialists, Leftists, liberals, whatever). There is no war, only violence.

Liberals say that war may not solve anything either. But let liberals be reminded that America was founded on war, not endless negotiations, not by being bled to death. America was created by war, by decisive force of arms. Without war, there would have been no America. The White Anglo-Saxon Protestants made war on all sides, against Indians, against England, in order to achieve what they wanted. An American patriot simply cannot dismiss the reality of declared war. Politically abstracted military missions, or even sociologically-based “nation building” is not war, and no real victories come of them. No lasting achievements.

Israel begins studied counter moves against the
“Palestinian” fantasy state.

And a country declares war on another country! Not on a group, an ideology, or a condition. To declare war on a group within another country, an organized “gang,” or even a corrupt government within a country, is not what the declaration of war does.

When the Muslim jihadists attacked the New York World Trade Center, the United States should have immediately declared war on Saudi Arabia. Instead, President Bush declared some cockamamie war on terror. That scheme was the obvious end of hope right then. There would be no resolution. World conditions would forever worsen at the craven, gnarled hands of jihadists. They have won, mightily, victory after victory, ever since.

Again, why? The United States did not declare war. You simply cannot get on in the world, confronting something like Islam jihadists without declaring war. And you must declare war against a country, not against some ill-defined, clandestine representatives of murder. Always, war is against a country, not an idea. Otherwise, you never, ever win.

Where does this “no war” fantasy ideology lead? To more war.

A we now have a fantasy group, “Palestinians,” (who are mostly Jordanian, Syrian, and now no doubt Saudis and even Iranians), pretending to wield the power of “statehood.” What is that, a country? (And by the way, why has Israel always been called a “state,” and not a country? States are components of a larger political entity–a country. The geographics and demographics aren’t determined by quantity of land or people, either. It isn’t size that matters, but legal definition. How about “The Community of Palestine,” or better, “The Neighborhood of Un-repatriated Jordanians.” The pretentious executive in the White House would indeed have a pertinent resume.)

Armed conflict loses all dignity without the declaration of war. It is merely a protracted street fight, a endless gang conflict, a mobster amassing. There is no national purpose, focus, or victory without closure or finality. Only victory can achieve that sense, and victory is something won by war–against a country, not against some narcissistic, maniacal group within that country.

Serbian national symbols.

If a country harbors murderers, and lets them develop their demonic designs on other, outside that country, then every country outside that country–especially the one who suffers the mass murders, needs to declare war on that country, and destroy it. All of it. There must be no quarter given. No mercy, until that country is ended. Then, and only then, might “nation building” have meaning. And that would be nation re-building.

Is it curious that Serbia was one of the few nations that abstained in the vote to recognize the new fantasy state of un-repatriated Jordanians? Why should we suppose? Well, the world was against Serbia when the Muslims literally stole Kosovo from Serbia. Russia alone refused to recognize Kosovo as an independent state. Why should Serbia get excited about voting with the world about anything? The world is a very untrustworthy partner for Serbia. The United States, under Bill Clinton, tried to destroy Serbia. The United Nations was against Serbia.

The Hague, led by the United States, in affirmed betrayal of Serbia and its heartland, Kosovo. A great moment of shame, 2010.

(Interestingly, the Serbian member of the three-member Bosnia-Herzegovena leadership was actually pro-Israeli Of 193 nations in the UN General Assembly, 41 nations abstained from the vote, nine voted against it, including the US.)

This kind of improvisational, impromptu conflict is what happens when there is no declaration of war. Anyone with enough power can do anything, and get by with it. The idea of international law is ludicrous and lethal, for it could only be enforced by the nation or nations with the most power. There is no special morality or transcendence even in the concept of globalism. It is simply the extension of all the worst, covetous impulses of the human community–the very impulses the liberals religiously denounce! They are against nationhood only because they want a one-world government. A one world nation. That’s what they “covet.” It is the biggest prize.

The absence of the cold, hard, declaration of war has led to capitalist imperialism, a lusus naturae that fills the bill of Communism perfectly. This is why Communists need the United States so desperately, and managed to set a puppet in the White House.

In the end, we follow our American Constitution, or we don’t. The Constitution provides for the declaration of war–war against another country, not against an ideology, a religion, or any renegade group within a country.

Every year that passes, the United States federal government moves farther and farther away from the Constitution. The new normal, created by liberals and their media and their produced politicians, has succeeded. No one in Washington is strong or brave enough to declare war on liberals. The military does have the legal right to take over, when domestic enemies have risen to power; but, they aren’t brave enough either, sorry to say. Too many liberals have “infiltrated” military leadership as well.

Christmas season thoughts, anticipating Muslim actions.

Posted by David Yeagley · December 2, 2012 · 9:09 pm CT · ·

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

Read More Journal Posts »

17 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Bonus Gift // Dec 3, 2012 at 7:05 am   

    “Globalism” is communism by another name. Not declaring war is a technique to allow for the near certitude of not even trying to achieve victory. That whole “modern” approach to “conflict/violence” seems to me to be just another communist technique of subterfuge and related semantics games. In essence you make it impossible for a militarily superior force to achieve victory by either (A) making the goal(s) impossible or (B) by constantly changing the goals (which is hard to do if you formally declare war ala the Constitution). For example, the original goals of invading Afghanistan were twofold: (1) killing or capturing “OBL”, and (2) punishing the Taliban for harboring him and his organization (a rough “payback”). Within a few months these goals were largely achieved (although OBL wasn’t captured but it was suspected he was no longer in that country). OK, time to declare victory and head home right (or to Pakistan to get OBL)? Not so fast, then out of the blue we are told we need to “nation build” (and attack Iraq, etc.). Then the national building goals changed almost constantly. During that time OBL is killed in Pakistan, yet even then there is no mention of declaring victory and heading home (or to Pakistan for payback for harboring him and the Taliban). No the point isn’t to win but merely to play semantics games while people die for no good reason and the people we are told we are helping nationbuild by and large don’t seem to want us to be there. The formal declaration of war is anathema to communists because it tends to result in goals that can be met and are against their interests (which is for the US in its intended form to cease to exist and harness what is left for the globalist goals). It’s ironic that the country is no longer allowed to have national goals only globalist ones, and the lack of a formal declaration of war is a symptom of a much deeper communist pathology that has infested this nation. Hence we can only be globalists never again Americans.

  • 2 David Yeagley // Dec 3, 2012 at 3:24 pm   

    WWII has become to distant, historically, for the new generations to appreciate. The population that luxuriated in the victory and triumph of WWII, who know what victory means, I fear is long passed from among us.

    The immature and greedy actually think that a Globalist government would eliminate war! That is a fundamental (if not subliminal) sell.

  • 3 Thrasymachus // Dec 3, 2012 at 5:13 pm   

    The wealthiest families on the Earth — at least in the West — want world government. Really, though Brave New World was a fable, it was also true that Aldous Huxley believed, one hundred years ago, that the wealthy elites were moving in this direction.

    The really radical reasons for the “Sexual Revolution” are revealed in the history of certain “social science” movements having to do with that subject. Their goal still is, as in Brave New World, the dissolution of the family and a global society of atomized human beings with absolutely no ties of family, blood, or faith. A world of “individuals” only. Also, of human beings with “NO FREE WILL.” Persons controlled by psyschology, conditioning, and the self-censorship of political correctness to serve the World Government in an otherwise meaningless existence.

    Although no substitute for the book, here’s a made-for-television movie version:

    Brave New World (television adaptation in 1980)

  • 4 Sioux // Dec 3, 2012 at 6:05 pm   

    So, no declared wars since WW2. Armed conflicts abound. Now my own Govt. is fomenting WW3 in the Middle East at the behest of our 9-11 enemy, Saudi Arabia. False flags are harder to come by now. The truth is rapidly emerging on the Benghazi debacle. Fast & Furious on Steroids – shipping Libyan weapons to Syria via Turkey. You can be sure there will be some poison gas in the supply so Barry Soetoro can blame it on Assad.

    If it ever looks like the good guys are winning against islam, calls for “cease fire” stop everything and let the enemy regroup – this is how OBL escaped in Afghanistan. This is how Israel keeps getting creamed.

    There are no Patriots left in Congress, or they would be showing themselves by now – resigning their positions – making a SCENE!!! Boehner is stripping committeeships from the few conservatives left. The fix is in. I declare WAR on them all.

  • 5 David Yeagley // Dec 3, 2012 at 8:28 pm   

    Clearly, the WMDs of Iraq were in fact secretly shipped there from Iraq. Bush was right on that one. How else would a place like Syria have them? No one has mentioned or commented on this. I tweeted it yesterday or today.

    I pity humanity. We cannot trust our governments. They are in the private world of their making. The rest of us have to suffer through it, whatever it is.

  • 6 Bonus Gift // Dec 4, 2012 at 12:13 am   

    I’m with Sioux on this one. Again, the country is no longer allowed to have national goals only globalist ones, and as Thrasy points out those are perverted ones at best. Again, we can only be globalists never again Americans. Truly ironic that something like unconditional surrender/victory is the apparent globalist agenda but never an American one, that is, until all true Americans are dead. I guess the reason unconditional surrender was even a goal anyway (see Potsdam Declaration) was due to the insistence of the communists embedded in our government (and not just Uncle Joe). Communists will use any means to their preferred end, and we are scheduled for unconditional surrender and effective execution.

  • 7 Thrasymachus // Dec 4, 2012 at 11:04 am   

    Listen to this leading Atheist’s apologist’s speech in which he makes the case AGAINST free will and advocates that human behavior be “rid of evil, i.e. — controlled — by CHEMICALS — a.k.a. DRUGS — administered by government. Also notice the mention of the “global community.” If this is not Brave New World in the making, I (for one) don’t know what is.

    Sam Harris on “Free Will”

  • 8 Thrasymachus // Dec 4, 2012 at 11:10 am   

    His logic is very simple:

    I. Human beings cannot choose their own behaviors, no, not even to the smallest degree. (Determinism)
    II. There are many undesirable and indeed intolerable behaviors in the worldwide human population — we call these behaviors “human evil.”
    III. “Miracle drugs” will be available in the future to eliminate “human evil” entirely.
    IV. We live in a “global community now.”
    V. To have peace and safety in the world, the power of government must be used to make certain that “human evil” is eliminated through the forced administration of these curative “miracle drugs” of the near future.

  • 9 David Yeagley // Dec 4, 2012 at 11:37 am   

    Sounds like total demonism. A scarey prospect, indeed. As if, the real “human evil” is brought about by those in power!

  • 10 Thrasymachus // Dec 4, 2012 at 12:55 pm   


    What’s really disturbing about the Determinists is the outcome of their philosophy.

    You see, this belief undermines — an understatement — our natural belief in our personal Will. (I’ll explain the use of “Will,” as used here, in a moment.)

    In order to have and exert Personal Power, in the moral sense, one must have faith in one’s own Will.

    The Determinists want to make helpless sheep of us all. They want a world plantation where all the people are serfs. This is the goal of Liberalism — what used to be called Communism, which has now taken over Liberalism.

    In 1907, a Methodist minister — Wesleyans have always been defenders of moral freedom — and Psychologist, Dr. Haddock, published a book on the subject of Will. He was a disciple of the brilliant William James. (James said that his first act of Will was the decision to believe in its freedom.) In his book, Haddock explains that the term “free will” is actually a tautology. The proper definition of “Will” is the power of free choice itself. The Will does not will; it is the Man who wills — the human Person — the Soul. Will is a spiritual “faculty” or power.

    Therefore, if the Will is not free, it does not exist. After all, it is a function, not a physical thing.

    I share this point of view, although I accept the term “free will” as a matter of convenience.

    It is actually the retrospective view that one could not have done otherwise that is the illusion. The reason is that Time is always only the NOW. Once we have performed an action, it’s full nature fades and we are sometimes left with the impression that other possible causes were not present. But Einstein’s Relativity shows us that Newtonian Physics with its simple cause-effect relationships are not all there is. We do not live in a purely mechanical Universe.

    The doctrine of Determinism is very seductive. It absolves us of all guilt. But it also removes all incentive to learn from our mistakes and resolve to do the right thing the next time.

    I recommend the book In Defence of Free Will by C.A. Campbell for those interested.

    By the way, free-will likely cannot be proven (though psychologist Henry C. Link, in The Rediscovery of Man says that it HAS been proven); rather, knowledge of it is — at least at the first — experiential and subjective.

    Final point: An Oxford Dictionary defines Will as follows: “Mental power by which a person can direct his thoughts and actions or influence those of others: the freedom of the will * Man has (a) free will.

    The above definition again reinforces — for me, at least — the idea of Will as the Soul Itself Exercising Self-direction.”

    Prof. Haddock put it this way:

    “The Will is a way a person has of being and doing, by which itself and the body in which it dwells are directed.
    It is not the Will that wills, any more than it is the perceptive powers that perceive, or the faculty of imagination that pictures mental images.”

    He concludes: “The Will is the Man.”

    In my opinion, free-will is essential to religion. It is the only way for God and Man to have a relationship — which is what religion truly is all about: finding God and interacting with Him.

    For further investigation on this topic, the reader may consult these pages:

    The Problem of Free Will

  • 11 Bonus Gift // Dec 4, 2012 at 1:26 pm   

    I’m with DY, evil is as evil does. Interesting bit although, and I watched one or two YouTube clips with him questioning Mormonism (Romney specifically, but not Barry Soetoro of course) and factually stating that Islam is an evil religion (actually as we all can agree; really not a religion but more of a political cult). Also, he mentioned Jared Diamond, and that it is a good thing Uday Hussein was killed, etc. Those few, and other, matter of fact opinions and references pretty much told me all I need to know. In short, he is one of our current and future communist overlords deciding who lives and who dies in the new cultural Marxist utopia that is America and the rest of his global empire. Also, he does indeed seem very taken with his own thoughts and was somewhat impatient with his followers.
    Regarding free will or not I kept listening for his “scientific” proof on why we lack free will and the best I could glean was that certain areas of our brain fire up (i.e., show neural activity on MRI type equipment) just before we “decide”. That hardly shows lack of free will as clearly we decide then do. In short, whether or not there is neural network activity prior to our thinking we made a decision hardly constitutes free will or a lack thereof; it does show that in all likelihood we process thoughts then decide but actually think we decided later than we actually decided. Regardless, he has a tendency to state his key positions as self-evident when in fact they are far from self-evident and in addition no concrete proof was forthcoming.

  • 12 Thrasymachus // Dec 4, 2012 at 1:41 pm   

    Bonus Gift,

    I agree, and I appreciate your insights.

    Determinism has always been an a prior conclusion. It is in fact DOGMA.

    Have you ever noticed how the Marxists and other would-be world dictators have loved this Dogma? What better way to enslave your subjects than to convince them that they literally have no choice but to obey your orders? Political murderers and cult-leaders thrive on this. Given this deterministic position, Might truly does make right. Just ask John Calvin, who put those who dared to disagree with his dictatorship of theological thought to death — sometimes at the stake. “Freedom of conscience? There must be no tolerance for such a thing!” declared Calvin. Islam teaches the same evil doctrine.

  • 13 Thrasymachus // Dec 4, 2012 at 1:52 pm   

    An a priori conclusion.

    Check out these two examinations of Calvinist dogma — and note especially the conclusion as to what kind of men favor this deterministic doctrine (NOTE: the man who made these clips is an Atheist — but that does not invalidate, for me, his criticsm of Calvinism):

    The Doctrine of Unconditional Reprobation

  • 14 Thrasymachus // Dec 4, 2012 at 1:53 pm   

    Correction to the second link:

    Calvinism — Troubling and Reason-Defiant

  • 15 Thrasymachus // Dec 4, 2012 at 2:21 pm   


    There is some fairly intelligent but very immature British teenager — he already has all of life figured out (perhaps I was just as immature when I was his age — but certainly not as cocky!) — on YouTube who has been entirely taken in by the New Atheists and their school of thought. This shows that Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens et al do have powerful influence. And they are all Liberals and Cultural Marxists, to be sure.

    A 14 Year Old’s Opinion On Agnosticism

  • 16 Bonus Gift // Dec 4, 2012 at 3:14 pm   

    At first I didn’t get where the kid was going, then he did that leg slapping Q.E.D. thing at the end. Yep, I’m fairly confident we all thought we had it figured out when we were kids. I can remember my father patiently letting me tell him my latest insight only to be told that there was nothing new under the sun and he had read or heard that one before. I was crestfallen but always came back for more. Yes, the arrogance of not just youth, but the likes of Sam Harris are truly breathtaking in their overall arrogance. The problem with that type of kid is that much of society (i.e., the part controlled by cultural Marxists – most schools, politicians, global businesses, and media) is not just encouraging that type of thought pattern, but in fact is rewarding him for it.

    Also, yes the Calvinist unconditional reprobation shtick reminds me of some cultural Marxist type justification(s). All in all, it all seems just too neat to wrap things up in a deterministic cloth and then dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as childish. For me, and ignoring Calvinists for a moment, the real irony is having a child on YouTube flippantly lecture adults of their silliness to believe anything in what he called the “Christian Bible”. I almost had to laugh when he kept his ridicule focused on Christians but then added as he hasn’t read the Koran he is unable to make a similar statement about Muslims. He truly has learned his cultural Marxist talking points: (1) effectively defecate on Christianity only, (2) make sure you don’t insult non-European Christians, (3) insult your targets (again, i.e., European Christians), and (4) prove your point without actually proving your point (i.e., proof is all relative and equal, but “some animals are more equal than others … four hooves good, two baaaad …”). Yes, the cultural Marxists are just running around anywhere and everywhere with sharpened scissors in their hands running full speed over a soaped floor warning us to get out of their way because they got it all worked out in their utopia which we will have the pleasure of paying for just before they eliminate us.

  • 17 AvengingAngel // Dec 7, 2012 at 5:03 pm   

    Haaaaaaaaa. Rez dog Yeagley seems to have a problem with Blacks. But see, Blacks are strong. They came as slaves to America and have produced great people. Meanwhile the LAZY NATIVE REZ DOGS just keep on whining. Use your energy to save your pathetic race and leave Blacks alone. Weird-looking donkey.

You must log in to post a comment.