BadEagle.com Header Image

 

Bad Eagle Journal

Democrat America Is Prepared to Surrender

by David Yeagley · December 4, 2012 · 20 Comments ·

The United States government won’t respond to acts of war committed against our country by other national governments, let alone acts of war committed by individuals. On what conceivable basis then shall the United States dictate to the Syrian government what it can do or not do?

Libya brutally murdered American citizens on American property in Benghazi. Obama carefully did nothing. Iran shot down an American drone in indisputably international air space. Obama carefully did nothing. (News reports offer contradictory information about the shooting, naturally.)

Now the US Court of Appeals removed the judge from the military trial of Muslim jihadist murderer Nidel Hasan because the judge (Col. Gregory Gross) appeared biased.

In the Islamic religion, as illustriously portrayed by Muslim jihadists (key word being “lust,” as it were), to kill and to be killed is always honorable. It is a death wish cult, from start to finish.


Hillary in egregious irony warns
al-Assad against using WMDs.

Therefore, it is the height of irrationality and foolishness to ascribe or apply any Western, Judeo-Christian morality to Muslims. They have their own standards, which are different. There is no bridge, no communication, and no sense in attempting to understand. Liberals think they can abstract some human morality from the Judeo-Christian religion, divorce it from Western culture, and pawn it off as superior. As a result, liberals play directly into the hands of the West’s worst enemies, Communism and Islam. Communism is anti-religion altogether, but Islam is specifically anti-Jewish and anti-Christian, as manifest by every Muslim government espousing the Brotherhood.

Liberals are solipsistic suicidalists, with the Freudian oedipal complex motivating their political schemes.

Therefore, being ourselves, as Westerners, is to the Muslim’s advantage, always. Being Westerners, we are weak by virtue of our ideology of human dignity. Even liberalism fails to impress the Muslim. In fact, liberalism is to the Muslim’s highest advantage–an advantage which he immediately takes, always.

Therefore, the Democrat American government’s objection and threats to the Syrian government about using chemical weapons appear positively stupid and stunningly hypocritical, or just, liberal.

It is as if the Democrat government is trying to counter (or compete with) the grand Bush plan of making democracies out of first Iraq, then Afghanistan, and finally Iran–together with all the other Muslim countries which hold vast fuel resources. The different is, the Democrat plan is invokes chaos, based on the natural violence of Muslim jihadists. Letting the Muslims have their way produces the antithesis of democracy and freedom. It is as if the Democrat plan, so carefully articulated by Hillary Clinton and “Bad” Barry Soetoro (a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama), is some covert design to eradicate Jews and Christians from the Middle East. They know this is what happens when the Muslim jihadists (Brothers) gain power. They persecute and slaughter Jews and Christians. The Democrat liberal plan is obviously a plan of nasty appeasement, but it suits the liberal hatred for the Bible and any culture based on it. (No, Islam is not based on the Bible.) This has been Michael Savage’s take on the liberal love of Islam from the beginning.

And, by the way, BadEagle.com has tweeted (@DavidYeagley) a few days ago that the chemical weapons in Syria which the Democrats Hillary and Obama are so terribly worried about are no doubt the WMDs which Iraq quickly and secretly shipped out of the country before the U.S. military came into Iraq. (Breitbart in fact brought this up on July 14, 2012.) There were, after all, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush was right. The intelligence that the world used to unite against Saddam Hussein was correct. The Democrat government in DC will certainly keep this information well-hidden, as long as bureaucratically possible. They can’t even be honest about Fast and Furious, let along Benghazi, or any other fraud scheme promulgated as “government.” The US government and its media are wholly, utterly untrustworthy. That is beyond dispute at this point.

Islam is a powerful tool, pugnacious, arrogant, irrepressible. Governments of the world have to use it, one way or another. Islam is in your face, in the world’s face. It will not be ignored. Liberal Democrats see it as the perfect tool to destroy all Biblical values in America, and thus to advance the cause of Communism in the world. Of course the Democrat American government will never oppose any Islamic nation, nor any jihadist individual, really. Islam is a sword in the hand of liberals, or anyone else who wants to use it. Indeed, it will use itself, automatically. It is lethal, and insistent.

And it’s all coming to a city council near you, sponsored by your local liberal Democrats, Christian or Jewish, and of course, Muslims.

Posted by David Yeagley · December 4, 2012 · 1:14 pm CT · ·

Tags: American Patriotism · Bad Eagle Journal · Islam · Liberalism · Politics




Read More Journal Posts »

20 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Thrasymachus // Dec 4, 2012 at 3:16 pm   

    Power article.

    I get weary of the term “radical Islam.”

    The truth is, Islam IS radical.

    Some Islamic mystics may be men of peace, but the religion in which they operate is not a religion of peace. It is a religio-politico system of LAW and world conquest.

    How can Liberals be so stupid? They desperately desire personal freedoms and then turn around and welcome and embrace the boa constrictor of all personal freedoms.

    David Duke is wrong. Islam is no friend of the West. This Islamophile position of his suggests that he possibly has an element of fascism in his character. I don’t really know.

    Europe has historically driven Islam out. Why have they changed their minds to now look on it as compatible with their way of life?

    Jews — well, sadly, the liberals among them see Islam as revenge against the West for injustices they suffered in the Middle Ages. Of course, many Jews do not hold this position. I know many Jews do not desire this outcome.

    Rabbi: Muslim takeover of Europe is good

    At least young people in Europe are beginning to wake up to the Islamic threat:

    French Patriots Against Islamic Fascism — CBN News

  • 2 Bonus Gift // Dec 4, 2012 at 3:33 pm   

    DY:
    Nail meet hammer. That is, you hit the nail on the head. Their actions say it all: (1) always encourage Muslims by never helping or supporting Christians, and (2) as Churchill warned about feeding a crocodile in the hopes of being eaten last, always let the musis know that you will never respond to their provocations/killings with overwhelming force and/or a declaration of war (wink, wink). For Christ sakes this has always been about a war of religions and cultures, can’t we just be adults and call a spade a spade? Answer: Of course not, then we would declare war on Islam, control our borders, stop importing Muslims, etc., etcetera … No, we live in a world where up is down and down is up, black is white and white is black … “The beatings will continue until morale is improved” … If these are not insane times I seem at this point unable to come up with a better name.

  • 3 David Yeagley // Dec 4, 2012 at 10:27 pm   

    People seem to be willing to give their lives for what they believe in, if they really believe in anything. And some people give their lives for things not worth believing in. That’s the confusion. Human life is our highest currency. To spend it foolishly denigrates the whole human race, really. To produce life stupidly, mindless, aimlessly, also denigrates life.

    But, what is the quality of life everyone instinctively seeks? Or, is that concept an illusion in and of itself? Is everyone born with the American Dream in them? I wonder. We can’t then turn around and evaluate the lives of others with that. They may not be interested!

    (Indians never really were, for instance.)

    We can’t declare people suffering because they don’t happen to be experiencing the American dream.

    And what is the American Dream?

  • 4 Bonus Gift // Dec 5, 2012 at 12:26 am   

    For me, and if there really is anything you could call the American dream, I would say that It has to do with be allowed the dignity of having a degree of autonomy or freedom that people were generally not allowed before the formation of the country we call America. Maybe I am just odd but I have always been uncomfortable when especially politicians have declared the ‘American dream’ to be X, Y, or Z. First problem for me is that it seems to change. For example Bush II at some point(s) declared it to be home ownership. Really, home ownership, are you kidding me?

    “This Administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country.”

    - President George W. Bush, December 16, 2003

    There was something called the “Home Ownership Act” which just put Clinton’s efforts of pushing lenders and largely forcing them to accept any and all comers who wanted to buy (especially blacks). That combined with Fed induced artificially low rates and we ended up with what is likely the biggest real estate bubble and misallocation of resources in our country’s history. Default rates for blacks and illegal’s were/are through the roof (Remember the ¾ million house bought by the illegal strawberry pickers who couldn’t speak English?).

    I looked it up and apparently, it was originally coined by a fellow who meant upward economic mobility. Anyway, the term as spoken by people who want your money and your lives has always given me the he bee gee bees (i.e., as for me it has always been more related to personal freedom than monetary things).

  • 5 David Yeagley // Dec 5, 2012 at 11:12 am   

    Shows how Communist we’ve become. Communism is materialism, exclusively (warned against by Plato, by the way). It is low and mean. Equality and justice are all measured by hard core material standards.

    Communism is actually based on greed.

    This is America, today. Maybe it always was, but, freedom for the lively to live, as opposed for the dead to bury everyone.

  • 6 Thrasymachus // Dec 5, 2012 at 12:30 pm   

    The “American Dream” — a term I always instinctively distrusted — probably originally relates to the Declaration of Independence? The “pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness?”

    Now it is the pursuit of material possessions.

    But with “equality,” as understood by the Liberals, everyone ought to be entitled to an equal slice of the materialism pie. As noted above, this is pure Communism. This pursuit of material possessions is as anti-Christian as one can get. Luke 12:15.

  • 7 Thrasymachus // Dec 5, 2012 at 12:34 pm   

    With liberal “equality,” should every American citizen likewise be “entitled” to an equal portion of the staggering national debt? And should not immigrants to this country also take upon themselves such an equal portion of national debt? If not, why not?

  • 8 Bonus Gift // Dec 5, 2012 at 2:07 pm   

    The national debt is really just the old Ponzi scheme in another guise, namely alchemy or the initial appearance of a ‘free lunch’. It may be a cliché, but alas a true cliché, that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The moral vapidity of the ‘national debt’ is the attempt to mostly saddle future generations (and current) with the communist stupidity of current voters and politicians. Do people really think the devil will not collect on the bill? Clearly they do but that is not the way the physical world works. We know, that “for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction”; whether the communist media reports on it or not. I would like to think DY and the rest of us are testament to that. We sit and watch and yell out that the actions of our current communist overlords are wicked and base in the extreme. We indeed are reacting to the evil that now surrounds us all, although not exactly equal in the balance or ledger of good and bad. In my mind I am not convinced of the justice to come, but in what remains of my hope and heart I do know that there will be a reckoning and the ledgers may not exactly balance out but that the evil will not go unpunished.

  • 9 whitetrash // Dec 6, 2012 at 12:58 pm   

    The question in Thrasymachus’ comment 7 is about as compelling as any I have encountered in a very long time.

  • 10 Bonus Gift // Dec 6, 2012 at 2:12 pm   

    whitetrash:
    I think you miss the whole communist/cultural Marxist intent of the debt and “immigration”. The debt is mostly meant to mask what is happening to the economy and funnel proceeds to favored constituents but is really never meant to be paid back (see, e.g., Greece, Spain, etc., etcetera …), that is, at least not by those taking it out and spending the proceeds. The “immigration” is meant to replace you, Thrasy and especially your kids with more compliant socialists/communists of a darker hue (i.e., a gentler kind of genocide).

  • 11 whitetrash // Dec 6, 2012 at 3:46 pm   

    Interesting argument, Bonus Gift, but I would suggest you overlook the obvious preeminence of Capital over Labor, with Labor being the concern of a reaction to capitalism, namely, Marxism. This seems the more rational observation… with multi-cultism, or cultural marxism being the clown show of useful idiots. The immigration act of 1965 was purely Marxist / Multiculti anti-white racism, no two ways about it, but the more impactful immigration over the border was absolutely the work of Capitalists. That’s simply a fact. And it is hardly unprecedented.

    If you are going to account for the role of immigration since the late 19th century, you have to account for who determined the level of immigration, and who set up the numbers as to who would immigrate. This is true of the oft cited “Ellis Island”, and it is true of illegal immigration during our times. The purpose being to drive down wages on native born workers. Immigration reform in the 1920s was not the work of capital, but rather the result pressure form a restless working and middle class who was beginning to warm up to Bolshevism. Sound familiar? This is simply historical fact, but one only needs to recall how the Latino invasion was simply a matter of “jobs Americans do not want.” Capitalist love a free market only when it favors capital. For all of the railing against Obama, the Tea Party, heavily back by capital, never once made a fight with Wall Street.

    Now the hysteria over these same cheap workers illegally voting for a president the capitalists did not want, is nearly as ironic as giving Teddy Roosevelt the vice presidency to render him harmless during the Gilded age. It’s merely the result of capitalist being just a little too clever by half. Sew to the wind… reap the whirlwind.

  • 12 Bonus Gift // Dec 6, 2012 at 11:04 pm   

    whitetrash:
    I think we mostly agree with each other on this one; but I probably differ on the capital breakdown and the current why of the thing. To wit, the biggest pushers for driving down wages have been largely the largest beneficiaries (e.g., large publically trading companies like Microsoft, GE, etc. have been relentless even in the face of what seems to be clearly a depression for the unconnected, i.e., non-FIRE or defense industries – FIRE is Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate). Clearly, long run this type of thing destroys the overall economy as working wages are crushed by simply demand and especially supply dynamics, and creativity is obliterated by importing gobs or non-creative non-Americans (that are also largely not able to assimilate, or simply don’t want to). In short, we hardly needed another underclass (or set of them) with claims on resources that they didn’t produce or secure in the first place. Where we likely differ is that I don’t lump all capital together on this as I don’t see that all of it pushed for our living nightmare equally. Some capital didn’t push for it, but certain capital also believed in the cultural Marxist stupidity/evil and still does. I ask the following, for example: Who were the biggest supporters of both Barry Soetoro and Romney? In essence, yes, by all means “follow the money”. Barry and related traveler had overwhelming support of the likes of George Soros (communist), and Romney and other RINOs were boosted by the likes of Sheldon Addelson. Hum, this is the new twist on the Robber Barons that is virtually never mentioned when “capital” is mentioned. Why do I make this distinction? Because during the “Ellis Island” times and the subsequent breather from it those capitalists of those days actually stopped pushing for more supply of workers, while the current crop will not. I would submit that the current pushers of our genocide want our genocide not so much to make more money but because they want our genocide. During Ellis Island times and the last depression most Robber Barons were not cultural Marxists while now they mostly are, and it matters for they will not stop because wages are too low, no they will only stop when you and your children no longer exist. That is, this time is is only partially about wages, it is much more about genocide of white Christians (and that is a qualitative difference that matters).

  • 13 Bonus Gift // Dec 7, 2012 at 2:02 am   

    Essentially, the “capitalists” are hardly the Gilded Age capitalists, and that matters for immigration and the chances of a breather or stoppage. In effect, genicide is one goal, whereas during Ellis Island it was almost exclusively reducing wages. Therefore, if true, genocide is a feature for many of the current set of cultural Marxist *capitalists”, not a bug.
    .

  • 14 David Yeagley // Dec 7, 2012 at 9:54 am   

    I’ve always consider the issue to be labor v management. It’s always the same issue. It is the nature of human existence, in one dimension or another. It begins in the family unit: the division of labor is where the problems really are.

    But, given the givens, slavery itself is simply about labor. The concept is not a sin. It’s all in how one treats the permanently hired employee.

    Ironic, that America had both the principle of capitalism and free enterprise–and mass PHE (permanently hired employees) at the same time!

    Maybe it wasn’t so ironic.

  • 15 zephyr // Dec 7, 2012 at 10:49 am   

    BG: “the current pushers of our genocide want our genocide not so much to make more money but because they want our genocide. . . it matters for they will not stop because wages are too low, no they will only stop when you and your children no longer exist. That is, this time is is only partially about wages, it is much more about genocide of white Christians (and that is a qualitative difference that matters).”

    Amen.

  • 16 whitetrash // Dec 7, 2012 at 11:41 am   

    Again, you make some very good points, Bonus Gift. Not much I would take issue with in your comment, other than to submit that you give the Robber Barons way to much credit. By the time immigration was reformed in 1924, Labor had gained significant ground via anit-trust legislation, collective bargaining, and fear of Bolshevism.. When TR ascended to the presidency, anti-trust activism greatly reduced the power of the Robber Barons. But those are just small points made to nuance your argument, not correct it.

    I would imagine it useful to make a couple of more points for clarity.

    1) When I refer to capital, I refer mainly to financiers, not people who actually build or make things useful to society. This is a liberty I take, and not one you are at all obliged to accept. Anyway, conflicts between management and labor that Doc eludes too, can be interdicted via negotiation.. But in my view the issue at hand would be Big Banks and Big Corporations, who answer only to government, hence big money backing both parties, and both parties being hostile to the Constitution and redefining the legacy of American exceptionalism. The preeminence of Goldman Sachs executives in Obama’s cabinet is pretty telling.

    2) I would also submit that the elimination of the White Race, so to speak, is almost certainly about money. Reason being, no other collective on the planet, aside from the Chinese, who reside outside the reach of the financiers in the West, have the power to resist this Global agenda. The source of that “White” power was consensus, and both political parties in the U.S have been overhauled to break that consensus among Whites, and keep it broken. Yes, the multi-cultists have their say, but again, I would argue that these academic and Hollywood types are useful idiots, and little more.

  • 17 Bonus Gift // Dec 7, 2012 at 12:24 pm   

    whitetrash:
    I think we are close on this one; some semantics differences on capital and labor but overall close on these and related issues I suspect. Also, in case it was not mentioned, the media has a large impact overall as well and that feeds back strongly into the equation. The point about the West, China and useful idiots may be truer than you know.

  • 18 whitetrash // Dec 7, 2012 at 12:28 pm   

    “Ironic, that America had both the principle of capitalism and free enterprise–and mass PHE permanently hired employees) at the same time!”

    Interestingly, Doc… the letters of men involved in the debates preceding the Civil War, including those not really interested in abolition of slavery… seem to agree on a notion that in the South, poverty among Whites was quite striking, whereas in the North, Whites were much better off, and their communities more vibrant. Even Grant, a man who was not interested in politics, and barely interested in the military prior to the Civil War, made such observations.

    People working for their own prosperity always out perform those who are in servitude to a master. The slave holder, like the modern Wall Street Bankster… diminished, rather than enhanced improvement of society.

  • 19 whitetrash // Dec 7, 2012 at 12:31 pm   

    “…the media has a large impact overall as well and that feeds back strongly into the equation.”

    Agreed.

  • 20 Is America Prepared To Surrender? By David Yeagley, Bad Eagle « THE WAKING GIANT // Dec 13, 2012 at 4:28 pm   

    [...] the end.  When you’ve finished reading this article Please visit David Yeagley’s site, BAD EAGLE for more poignant articles written by an American Indian Patriot. David Yeagley is the great-great [...]

You must log in to post a comment.