This is the final step. The satanic deceivers of Islam have penetrated all things white and American. The white woman is now utterly and profoundly fallen. The great white savior woman is turned against her own, against the white, Judeo-Christian civilization. She was to great, too white, and too much a savior.

Colleen LaRose, 46, from an undated image from WPVI-TV. LaRose, an American woman operating online under the name ‘JihadJane,’ has been charged with recruiting people in the US, Europe and Asia to carry out terror plots. Photo:/AFP

The cutting edge of Islam has been infiltrating the West with lying deception for decades now. No aspect of Western life is exempt from their murderous schemes. There is no person, place, or thing that cannot be made an instrument in their evil hands, no object, no device, or circumstance. The natural lure of murderous vice wields its own power, but, through the skilled psychological techniques of Islam, it is ’sanctified’ into the highest motivations, the loftiest goals, and the most irresistable compulsions.

The social effect of the presence of Islam in the West is simply mistrust–distrust of everyone, everything, and every moment. It is an iron cowl of fear and depression. This is the effect of Islam. Islam is a profound and virulent curse.

And now white men must acknowledge the ultimate victory of Islam: white women. The most triumphant division of the white race, separating the white female from the white male, the most deadly blow to racial dignity and honor, the most devastating reality ever coerced upon Western Christian civilization, has been accomplished before our eyes. It is unspeakable. It is ineffable.

If I were a white man, I would consider this matter very carefully. At this point in history, the case of Jihad Jane may mark the turing of the tide. Islam is winning. Hatred, destruction, murder–all part and parcel of the “religion of peace,” are all here, in the bosom of the white woman. It has happened.

Now America cannot even trust its own mother. Now America cannot rely on its own wife. Now America cannot be sure of half its population. This is Islam. This is the effect of Islam. This is the purpose of Islam, to destroy–by any and all means available and necessary. All aspects of reality are potential tools to destroy it.

Jihad Jane is the result of tolerance. Jihad Jane is the product of liberalism. Jihad Jane is the creation of satanic delusion, and the criminal abuse of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

It doesn’t really matter that Colleen LaRose, most recently living in Pennsburg, Pennsylvania, may have had serious socio-psychological problems, or that she appears to be simply Texas white trash (from the San Angelo, TX), drunk, divorced, despondant. Her personal problems, and the vulnerability they created for her, are not the issue. Islam is the issue. A killer principle in essence, and a powerful social bond for the lost, Islam is attractive to failure. Islam is appeals to people who are angry, and who have no hope of assuaging their personal frustrations. Islam provides excitment, purpose, and drug-like distortion of reality. Its psychological manifestations are those of addiction, nothing less or other.

It doesn’t really matter that there are many Muslims who are not into this satanic focus of death and deception. Many have no desire whatsoever to opperate on these principles. Amil Imani, however, tells us that this majority of “good” Muslims are free-loaders, and aren’t really Muslim at all. They don’t know the Qur’an, nor are they interested. It’s just a cultural ID, and brings a certain comfort to them when they are in foreign lands. (For Iranian-Americans, who have any regard for Islam, it is simply a means of social organization for funerals, weddings, etc., and hardly a ‘religion’ at all.)

The case of Colleen LaRose is a fearful example of the risk of allowing Islam to grow in the free world. Mr. Imani has advocated that the cult is in fact not a religion, and that it should be forbidden in the free world. It is dangerous, destructive, and provides no positive contribution. As former FBI agent Brad Garrett says, (in ABC’s report from saccharine liberal Diane Sawyer), “The whole terrorist community are looking to women [white American and European woman] as a place to expand.” The report acknowedges now that the white woman is the new face of terrorism, and that there is no way now to spot a terrorist based on appearance.

And so, as liberal news has it, we’ll just have to sit and watch ourselves be murdered–even by white women. Can’t point the finger at those dark Middle Eastern male Muslims anymore. We must allow white women to wreak equal havoc. Isn’t this beautiful? Isn’t this just the peak of liberty, the zenith of equality?

White men in power, I challenge you. This is your problem. This is your crisis. What will you do? You first enemies are liberal attorneys. Your second enemies are politicians, intelligence and law enforcement. Your third enemies are your news and education professions. Looks like you’re surrounded. I am concerned. I don’t know what you can do. It appears that you are at the end of your rope. Your race has brought itself to the brink of destruction. The enemy within has approached the throne. He is about to usurp it forever.

Radical enemies require radical defense. A lying, deceptive, murderous enemy requires more than “fairness” to hold at bay. Will white men rise up and save what they have created? Will white men uphold their throne?

From the ABC news piece by Diane Sawyer.

Ensconced within an article about white and black Barbie dolls, there is an ABC video in which saccharine liberal Diane Sawyer comments on a rather artificial interview of a number of black children. The children are shown two dolls, a black and a white doll, and asked simple questions of preference. After viewing the video, it is easy to observe the children’s preference for the white doll, but there are other elements not so evident in the circumstances:

1) the children are all in uniform
2) they are obviously in a private school
3) they are aware of the interview, but answer honestly anyway
4) the boys are not considered to be different from the girls.
5) the girls associated bad behavior with the black doll.
6) the programmed, liberal interview shows the truth of how they feel

Agonizing as it should be to liberals, Sawyer blissfully ignores the stark raving truth that the black children prefer white skin–even though they themselves are black, and Sawyer simply pontificats that superior modern white liberal society, which has risen above all racism, can naturally congratulate itself on the interview with black children. The interview in itself was sterling righteousness. Never mind what the children said. Liberals congratulate themselves, regardless.

The biased and somehow rather uninformed Dr. William Julius Wilson, interviewed in the short news piece, is completely unwilling to face the truth of what the children feel, but instead claims their feelings are inherited through cultural circumstances. The children’s natural feelings are wrong, and therefore not their own, and therefore the result of modern white society.

At the beginning of the news report, Sawyer references an early study (1940) by Dr. Kenneth Clark and his wife Mamie, also using dolls. At that point, 63% of the black children preferred the white dolls. Today’s retake yielded only 44% preference for the white doll. But, even in that circumstance, most of the black boys considered both dolls equal in preference. Yet, 47% of the black girls preferred the white doll.

Of course, the questions were loaded (giving the options of only “pretty” or “ugly”), and the responses were necessarily limited. Nevertheless, the children’s answers were dramatically revealing–to liberals who may not be fully decided on their positions. Hard liberals, like Sawyer, simply don’t see the facts, and see what they want to see. They are never shocked by the truth, because they habitually won’t see the truth. This simply video report displays that so perfectly.

The context of the video, an article on black and white Barbie dolls, is a simply report on the fact that Walmart stores are selling dark dolls for half the price of the white dolls. Obviously, either the store calculates that the minority children are going to have less money to spend on toys, therefore, the store gives them a break. However, anal idealists (in the Freudian sense) claimed Walmart was “devaluating” the dark doll. These same kinds of liberals, who claim non-white people are owed everything in the world to them, by white people, owed everything the richest white person has, are nevertheless protesting a price break given to non-whites, because it seems demeaning when so dramtically juxtaposed on the store shelf.

BadEagle.com has written about all this before, in Race in the Face, and elsewhere. The important tests done by Judith Langois (University of Texas) in the ’80’s and ’90’s showed that even infants, just days old, had preferences in faces. They so happened to prefer what adults prefer: beauty. Sawyer’s report was, again, blissfully unaware of the more serious, scientific studies.

If black children are uncomfortable being around white children, of they feel offended at their own appearance by comparison, then what they need is education about themselves, not federally coerced integation and the interracial sexual reproduction which inevitably results. White people cannot make black people feel better about themselves. That is a superficial illusion–dramatized in Malcom X, when Malcom (Denzel Washington) forces his white girlfriend to kiss his feet. It did not make him feel any better about himself.

Given the dimensions of sex and guilt touched on in Freud and Foul Language, it is obvious that the naturally negative emotions involved in sex are compensated in the dark male, when he seeks a white female. That’s supposed to be cleaner. Better. Higher. (Never mind what the white girl actually looks like! Remember what Eldridge Cleaver wrote in Soul on Ice (1968):

I’d jump over ten nigger bitches just to get to one white woman. Ain’t no such thing as an ugly white woman. A white woman is beautiful even if she’s baldheaded and only has one tooth.

Well, it was an imaginary conversation in the section, “The Allegory of the Black Eunuchs.” But the point is just the same. The thoughts are there, in the open.

This is a pitiful plight, really. Is it then a terrible disservice to black people to force integration upon them? Do blacks today feel any different about themselves than they did a hundred years ago? There were plenty of achievers back then, even without civil rights. Something about this whole modern approach to race is superficial, and leaves out the most basic and obvious psychological factors. Wealth doesn’t make a black person white. Fame doesn’t make a black person white.

Blaming whites for their deep discontent doesn’t help black people. this is all weakness and abject dependency.

So, apparently the dolls tell all. Perhaps a little humor would be useful about now. Try, Leftists Rape Indian Barbie Doll (March 18, 2002). I was spoofing white Professor Patricia A. McCormack for her unsolicited protest to the fact that the American Indian Barbie doll had on buckskins and fringe, instead of McCormack’s preference of a three-piece business suit, a doctor’s uniform, etc. Why, that ol’ buckskin thing was denigrating, or at least limiting, to the American Indian woman. I guess McCormack never went to a pow-wow.

People who have grown up in environments without language control often do not understand the very concept of good language and bad language. They seem to wonder at the hang-ups of those people who do not use foul language. Foul mouth people seem to feel superior to the neurotic types who act so offended when bad words are used. Law and political correctness, in a desperate media environment, are not enough to explain why there is such a thing as foul language and pure language.

Sigmund Freud, (1856-1939), who said, “Sometimes, a cigar
is just a cigar.”

The best explanation, in modern thought, comes from Sigmund Freud’s psychological theory. In many different published works, he offered a relatively simple account of the generation of linguistic hierarchy. Let’s begin with the infantile experience. (Keep in mind, Freud died in 1939.)

The very first aversion learned is related to a whack on the little behind, at birth, which rude awakening, theoretically, is never forgotten. The next aversion the infant learns is toward his own bodily wastes. The physical discomforts associated with offensive odors, and physical discomfort if the these bodily wastes are not removed from the infant’s body, are part of the initial creation of pain and pleasure complexes in the consciousness. Passing these wastes is essentially a pleasure, but, their presence is highly averse to any normal human being, at any age.

After the child lives twelve years or so, then something extraordinary happens, which is profoundly confusing to these learned and essentially natural aversions. The very bodily organs involved in waste elimination (urination) come to have an entirely different function–sex. In time, this new sexual function comes to be associated with the more intimate, desirable pleasures the human being can know. So, bodily speaking, where the child goes to the bathroom becomes the same place the young adolescent goes for intense human encounter of an acute bonding force. Whereas that which caused aversion and repulsion is now the basis of a unique bond. This paradox continues throughout life.

However, according the basic Freudian theory, the infantile and childhood impressions of aversion toward the original (and continual) functions of those very bodily organs remains, and finds expression in feelings, attitude, and finally language.

A simple examination of nearly each individual word which is regarded as foul, “four-letter,” or “bad,” will demonstrate clearly that the person using them is expression the original aversion to the organs and elimination of bodily waste.

The “f-bomb,” of course, is no doubt the most revealing of the double dimension of consciousness. It is at once used to express hatred and personal pleasure–both of aggressive nature, and in the extreme dimensions of human emotion. It is used to dismiss and to desire, to separate and to unite, to curse and to bless.

Foul phrases, like “kiss my —-” are obviously an overt recall of the original and painful whack on the rear end at birth. While people use such phrases to express profound denigration toward another person, the one who says such a thing is actually, according to Freudian theory, actually expressing a latent desire to have his bottom regarded with affection, rather than pain. When it is used to condemn a “brown noser,” it means to condemn the idea of doing the most self-degrating acts simply to please someone else.

As languistic analysis broadens, we find that there is a mix in all foul language. Generally, it is the use of bodily organs and functions to express disdain or denigration, but, nevertheless, it involves the pleasure principle as well.

Foul language is the perfect example of the paradoxes in the human mind. The unconcious expresses itself, continually, in the conscious. Now, according to Freud, we learn self-control. It isn’t natural. The libido, the raw energy of the psyche, would destroy itself rather quickly through unrestrained indulgence. Mayhem, cannibalism, and all the most immediate forms of consumption, are the libidic agenda, without rehearsal or instruction. The super ego, of course, is the composit of authority, what we are taught, what we pick up from our environment, as far as what we can or should do. The ego is simply the manager of the conflicts between the inner and the outer life. (The popular use, as in “He has a big ego,” is generally quite the misuse of the Freudian term; but, that’s the price of making refined thought public. Things get distorted quickly.)

Foul language is not healthy for the mind. Expression of such fundamental psychal aversion and its pleasure principle at the time makes for selfish, denigrating influence. It is obviously anti-social, and there is no benefit from it. It is not the expression of strength, power, or triumph, but rather the opposites. It is a cheap, cheating trick for influence, for impression, for power, and, at the very least (or best), it is a convenience. It quickly expresses disdain, but, even if foul language is habitual, it accomplished nothing. It is a psychal expenditure, with no actual profit at all.

Of course, those who feel most “guilty” about sex use the most foul language. Those who, according to Freud, think sex is actually dirty, or that sex is itself something foul, are those whose conscious psyche has the most leaks.

Notice, finally, that, for the most part, foul language is associate with those people of low social cast, who have never been around people with self-control, but rather have witnessed only dissapation, violent indulgence, and all other forms of human misery. No, they’re not fully conscious of any of this, really. Their habits were inherited.

However, the infantile oral/anal complex so obvious in “rap” and street language in general, has been made into an industry, and people of low social cast are not responsible for that. Those in higher positions of power have made a business of foul language, as well as foul behavior. Lower cast people have not been encouraged to evolve into better persons, or to develop better behavior. They have been paid to wallow in their own filth. This is, we can say, evil.

Sex is officially associated with frustration, aversion, and aggression. Sex is about prestige, achievement, even superiority now. This has become the professional approach, and even involves a racial element these days. Those in power are slaving the Negro as an animalistic Afro-disiac, as it were. It is all based on the natural human condition–the one condition which Hannah Arendt never addressed, but the one Sigmund Freud made fundamental.

Hannah Arendt, (1906-1975), on of the most influential
social philosophers of modern times, it is said.

Susan N. Herman, President
American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004

Dear President Herman,

My name is David Yeagley. I am an enrolled member of the Comanche Nation here in Oklahoma. I was recently invited to speak at the American Renaissance Conference in Washington, DC, but the conference was cancelled due to organized harassment and intimidation. First Amendment rights were denied myself and members of American Renaissance, a benign intellectual organization of researchers and theoritsts. American Renaissance is not a political entity, nor is it involved in social activism.

We were denied the right to assemble, and denied the right of free speech. Due to the harassment and threats (including death threats) to hotel management and hotel workers, the 2010 American Renaissance Conference (scheduled for February 19-21) was cancelled.

Some of the opponents who successfully intimidated the hotel management and workers have been identified.. They include at least three different organizations, as well as individuals.

I informed US Attorney General Eric Holder of this matter on February 24, since last year he publicly accused Americans of being “a nation of cowards” for their fear of talking about race. I have not received a response as yet. I suggested he host American Renaissance himself, and be the keynote speaker.

I now appeal to you as leader of the one organization in American most notable for the defense of rights. American citizens were denied their rights. I would hope you would be willing to direct a very serious response to this significant incident. A federal crime was committed, in fact. (18 U.S.C. § 241. Conspiracy Against Rights)

Please consider this case and the First Amendment. We look for a balanced application, of law, and the fair and just efforts of the ACLU. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Dr. David A. Yeagley (Comanche)
P.O.Box 75017
Oklahoma City, OK 73147

cc: Anthony Romero, Dorothy Ehrlich, Steven Shapiro

Last December (2009), there was a notable arrest of five “Americans” by the Pakistani government. It was headline news, and the the word “American” was perverted in the worst possible way. The men were not “American” in any sense of the word. They were Muslims who happened to have somehow gained American citizenship. But only by very diligent search of the news reports could we discover that they were Middle Easterners, all. Two were Pakistani, two were Yemeni, and one Egyptian. This is what they are, not “American.” They don’t even know what it means to be American. They hate everything they know about America. They went to their home countries to join the jihad.

The “American” Middle Eastern Muslims, arrested in Pakistan, December, 2010.

To own the word “American” is the goal of every deceptive, lying, satanic Muslim with the purpose of attacking America. They have full cooperation of the American government and the media, the legal system, and all liberals. This kind of liberal thinking makes tunnel vision of principle, blindness of ideology, and foolish self-destruction of compassion. It is all a social autolysis, beyond reason and even common sense.

The current president, Barry “Obama” Soetoro, of course, who believe the United States Constitution is aberrant, is contributing in every way possible to the change of meaning in the word “American.” American, to him, means a bad thing, somethign that must be changed. He means humbled, denigrated, made into a Third World country, like all the rest. All liberals think this way. Barry is just a lacky for a the real liberal elites, whose power and wealth are untouched by the conditions in America. Indeed, they may profit from America’s demise.

People who hold values which are antithetical to America, the historical America, should never be allowed to become American citizens. Indeed, they should never be allowed on American soil. But then, the liberal debate focuses on the meaning of the word American. Just what is an American? They immediately assert that their ideology is fundamental to being American! To them, being American means to destroy America. To them, no dictionary description will suffice. Dispense with history. It’s what they think American means. If you don’t aggree with their Communist ideology, you are not American. You are some crippled, uninformed, paranoiac, clinging to your gun and your Bible.

We should all understand by now that American citizenship, as a term, means nothing. (Indeed, wearing the United States military uniform means nothing.) These are only forms, which satanic Muslims and liberals fill with their purposes. Forms guarantee nothing, except deception, really. Forms invite falsehood. Forms tempt the devils. They rush in to own. They take advantage of necessary realities. They betray the most basic trust in any social norms and communications

For those of us who know what the real meaning of “American” is, this is all tragic, of course. What can we do? We can be willing to live with distrust, mistrust, and be brave enough to recognize enemies, to name them, and to work against them. That’s all.

“American” does not mean fostering self-destruction. “American” does not mean completely tolerant or irrationally equal. “American” does not mean an open door to everyone and everything. “American” doesn’t simply mean anything anyone wants it to mean. If the word does have meaning, it does so by definition, and definition is limitation, description, distinction, and differentiation.

John Locke said it all in 1651 (Leviathan, Part I, Of Speech):

In the right definition of names lies the first use of speech; which is the acquisition of science: and in wrong, or no definitions, lies the first abuse; from which proceed all false and senseless tenets.

Change, as Communists would have it, is based on the abuse of speech.

The Litwin-Markiw Duo

From the very first sound of the album, an arpeggiated chord in the first song (Obradors‘ “La Mi Sola Laureola“), pianist Victor Markiw assures us of transcendent command and a compassionate, generous order with felicity, grandeur, and wealth for all. From Markiw’s hands, the mere arpeggiated chord is a dramatic melody. What follows from the piano is every whit as vocal as the soprano with whom Markiw shares the music. Markiw is a true and compelling artist.

Litwin’s voice is pure silver so polished that she seems to reflect the very soul of each different composer she sings. Her voice embodies a refulgence of scintillating variety. Completely liquid, lavishing, and lyrical beyond description, Litwin is a living ambassador of every composer’s dream.

An Elysian elegance transpires as the two poets recite. The musical intimacy is seemingly miraculous, so that when the album is finished, one immediately yearns for more. This is a most unusual effect. Indeed, the musicians make music of their own—something beyond the score. It is virtually necromantic. Such is the rhapsodic nature of this new album.

Pianist Victor Markiw and soprano Jennifer Litwin.

There is significant artistry even in the selection and ordered arrangement of the art songs on the album. We begin with Fernando Obradors, the Spanish poet, conductor, and composer. His songs are all irresistible, and performed with an enscorcelling power. They are each innocent enchantments, yet consciously convincing. They are followed by moments of Germanic and Italian fantasy, from another time, from another world long passed: Franz Schubert’s “Der Hirt auf dem Felsen” (The Shepherd on the Rock) and Franz Liszt’s “Pace non trovo” (I Find No Peace). The Liszt song, with lyrics from a sonnet of Petrarca, is memorably moving. In the one Schubert song, we have the added luxury of clarinetist Gregory Lunin.

Next we hear the swooning bewilderments of Claude Debussy, and four completely unique musical caricatures, ending with “The Apparition,” which is perhaps the most artistic event on the album. Lest we be forever charmed, however, these songs are followed by the heart-bleeding strains of Rachmaninoff. There are no words to sufficiently describe the subliminal confessionals of Rachmaninoff. After such Stygian murmurings, such ponderous drones, one can only gaze plaintively upward.

And then something truly magical happens. After this profound journey into the wilderness of human experience, we hear Aaron Copland’s arrangement of the old Shaker hymn, “Simple Gifts,” which feels heavenly. This song, along with two other Copland songs, cleanses the soul’s palate for the finale dessert, Bernstein’s “Glitter and Be Gay,” from Candide. Bernstein never did employ any but a mundane mode, and the essentially “popular” musical event was his real achievement. Bernstein is, simply, forever pop. An appropriate ending for such an album, indeed, The Litwin-Markiw Duo will surely become thus popular, certainly among those artistically inclined.

Of all the works, the Rachmaninoff “Vocalise” is the most curious. Litwin’s timbre is so varied, and even unexpected, that the work sounds completely improvised. Of course, this was no doubt the intent of the composer. Litwin’s ever-changing tone makes this work especially captious. Markiw’s accompaniment is equally spontaneous. Their rapport is matchless.

Soprano, Jennifer Litwin.

Ms. Litwin earned her Bachelor of Music at the Oberlin Conservatory, and her Masters at Yale University School of Music. She debuted with the Sarasota Opera as Olympia, in Jacques Offenbach’s Les Contes d’Hoffman. She is a professional pedagogue, as well as a successful Wall Street persona. Markiw holds a Bachelor of Music from the Hartt School, a Master of Fine Arts from the State University of New York at Purchase, and a Doctorate from the University of Connecticut. He teaches at the University of New Haven, and will publish his first scholarly work through Edwin Mellen this year, Myroslav Skoryk: Life and Solo Piano Works.

For the artistic audience, the album is pure luxury. For young musicians, it should be required listening. It is a musical reference library, with a treasure of lessons. This collection will actually create finer ears in sincere students. It is a sparkling work, in all respects.

John Wayne, not exactly a WWII hero, but his
heart was in it, and he served the USO in quite
dangerous Japanese territory.

Wills, as all liberals, works to usurp authority, notoriety, or any other influence, to enforce a disdain for anything that smacks of patriotism, or love of country. A book demeaning not only John Wayne, but the America he came to symbolize, was a typical example of the tactic. Also, like hypocritical liberals, Wills is quick to condemn a conservative for not living up to conservative standards (such as patriotism)–which standards liberals hate. In this case, Wills, again like so many liberals, was a little too quick.

According to Gagliasso, referencing a number of established, authorative biographies of Wayne, the young Duke had hoped to get a make a Navy career beginning in 1925, and the Naval Academy. He was chosen as a first alternate candidate, however. He was later seriously injured in a surfing accident, which cost him a USC football scholarship in 1927. He later made innumberable “B” western movies, and hurt his back performing his own stunts. In addition to this, he had a chronic ear infection, developed from underwater film shoots for Reap the Wind, in 1941. All of this would earn a 4-F for anyone. But Wayne never sought that.

Wayne was actually classified by the Selective Service as 3-A (deferred for family dependency) at the time. At the age of 34, he was separated from his wife, and had four children to support. In 1944, he was indeed re-classified as 1-A, due to the nations growing concern for lack of military manpower. Wayne never protested, but, his employer did. Republic Studios requested a 2-A classification–deferred in the national interest, (i.e., war bond drives, visiting the troops, etc.). Republic Studios got their way. Yet, as Gagliasso reports, Wayne actually tried to get a commission from the Marines in 1944. John Ford says he couldn’t get Wayne in as an enlisted man, let alone an officer. It’s pretty clear from the records that Wayne really wanted in, big time. But, it just never happened.

Gagliasso was an unbiased researcher in the matter. He says:

By 1943, with officer’s slots all filled, the only way Wayne could have gone into the service was as an army private; he had waited too long. Years later Wayne told Dan Ford that as a private, “I felt it would be a waste of time to spend two years picking up cigarette butts. I thought I could do more for the war effort by staying in Hollywood.” Almost all of the stars who served went in the armed forces knowing they would receive officer’s commissions. Most stars in the service found they were relegated to public relations duties out of harm’s way strictly for morale reasons. Adolph Hitler, a huge Clark Gable fan, reportedly put a bounty out for Gable’s capture Both Gable and Jimmy Stewart managed to cajole their way into combat, Gable in charge of a film crew aboard a B-17 and replacing wounded gunners more than once and Stewart flying twenty combat missions as the pilot of a B-24.

The point of this report is to demonstrate how willing the liberal is to distort, misrepresent, and flat out lie. All for the cause, of course. The ends justifies the means, always.

I knew I grew up with John Wayne, as did most of my generation. I remember his remarks (as Davey Crockett in The Alamo, 1960) to Col. Travis about what the word “republic” means, and how it brings a lump in your throat–because it is the best man can do, because it’s worth dying for.

I also remember how that, to prove his supreme “grit,” it was always the Comanches he fought. He had to have the most “bloody thirsty savages” of all, if he was going to show his strength. (Listen to Gig Young’s commentary on The Searchers, 1956). I’ve said, many times, as long as John Wayne was alive, Comanches had hope! We would live at least as long as he did, as long as he needed the greatest enemy.

I never had any doubts about his patriotism. His love of country was particularly obvious. Indeed, his personal devotion to the making of The Alamo proves that beyond the comprehension of liberals.

John Wayne portrait with David Yeagley, at Oklahoma’s Cowboy Hall of Fame (unfortunately reorganized and renamed, National Cowboy and Western Heritage Center). Photo by Richard Poe, November, 2009.

Dan Gagliasso, obviously part of that “secret” society of conservatives in Hollywood, has given us a great work of research here, as we have come to expect from him. I would also recommend his review of AVATAR: ‘Avatar’ and the Myth of the Noble ‘Blueskins’: Part One, and Part Two.

Gagliasso was the co-producer of Comanche Warriors (2005), the History Channel episode I was featured in. Dan and I worked together closely on that story, and I learned to have great respect for his authenticity and sincerity. The Sioux acting troup used to portray Comanches in the feature were in fact quite serious about their proper “Comanche” attire for the film. We couldn’t pull a Comanche group together in time for production, and the Sioux have numerous groups ready for film making at a moments notice, it seems. Ah, the necessities of show business. I suppose John Wayne knows quite better than any. In The Searchers, they used Navajo Indians to portray the Comanches, and a German to play the Comanche chief, “Scar.”

That’s right. While the other Democrats were in Blair House trying to make history again with their boy Barry, trying desperately to hold the nation’s attention by pretending to “discuss” the Health bill, the Democrats in Congress were trying to get another piece of tyranny to transpire. This is not sleight of hand. This is pure dishonesty. The liberal Democrats are not magicians. They are liars. They are dishonest. They believe in tyranny. These things go together.

According to The American Prospect, the the amendment, referred to as the “Cruel, Inhuman And Degrading Interrogations Prohibition Act” of 2010, lists several prohibited acts, including waterboarding, “forcing the individual to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner”, beatings, electric shocks, use of dogs, inducing hypothermia or heat injury, stress positions, deprivation of necessary “sleep, food or medical care” and conducting mock executions.

Other prohibited acts include using the threat of force to “coerce an individual to desecrate that individual’s religious artifacts,” excessive cold or heat, cramped confinement, prolonged isolation, and use of hooding.

Texas Congressman, Democrat Sylvestre Reyes.

In other words, don’t try to get a word out of any prisoner–especially those whose intent is to commit mass murder against Americans, on American soil. Americans must die. That is the message of Democrat Sylvestre Reyes, House Representative from El Paso, Texas.

Why, any US government agent who “in the course of or in anticipation of a covered interrogation knowingly commits, or attempts to commit or conspires to commit an act of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” would face criminal sanctions of up to fifteen years, even life if it results in the death of the detainee.

Bust those CIA agents. Bust those men trying to protect American lives. Let Americans die, en mass.

Byron York first made this story public, yesterday, from an inside tip given him. He writes:

“This was done without committee review and without any feedback or input from the CIA,” says the House source. “It just showed up in the middle of the night. It specifically targets those who are keeping us safe. It doesn’t respond to what happened at Ft. Hood or Detroit. Instead, it targets the CIA for new criminal punishments.”

Republicans say they will try to strip the measure out of the larger intelligence bill. But first they’re trying to make sure people know what is going on.

Less than an hour later, Spencer Ackerman gave us more details, including a link to the actual bill. In another hour, Mark Ambinder reported that the House (Republicans) threated to veto the entire 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act because of Reyes’ amendment.

Good eye there, boys. Many thanks from the masses of Americans who were put at risk by the Democrat’s amendment.

Think it was a coincidence? Think the Reyes attempt at tyranny just happened to occur while Barry was entertaining over in Blair House? The safe thing to do is think again. Note how such an enemy of the United States, Sylvestre Reyes, is Chairman of the House Intelligance Committee. That’s Democrat “intellegence” for you.

February 24, 2010

Attorney General Eric Holder
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Holder,

My name is David Yeagley. I am a Comanche Indian, from Oklahoma. I wish to report a dramatic and illegal denial of First Amendment rights which occurred in the Washington, DC area, the week of February 15, 2010.

I am sure you are concerned, since a year ago to the day, you declared that America was a nation of cowards because they are afraid to talk about race. I report to you that a group of people attempted to assemble peacefully to discuss race intelligently, and they were harassed, even with death threats, to the point of cancelling their conference—twice.

In a period of less than two weeks, The American Renaissance Conference attempted to procure hotel and meeting space for its members and speakers, and four different hotels cancelled their contracts due to harassment and threats made against their management and their employees.

I was one of the invited speakers at this conference, and I take these events quite seriously. I have presented the matter here as simply and abstractly as possible. I hope that you can see the gravity of the crime. The First Amendment was utterly denied me, and many others.

I appeal to you, because of your special perception of the race subject. I was impressed with your initial candor when you assessed the nation’s fear of race. I see this American Renaissance situation as a great opportunity for you to support those who are not afraid. Here a group of respectable people desired to meet together publicly, and to discuss race. They were denied. Opponents were afraid to let anyone talk about race.

Will you prosecute the offending opponents? Will you make good your word, and support the American Renaissance? This is a golden opportunity to do so. You yourself could host them in the future, there at the DOJ, and perhaps even be the keynote speaker.

Sincerely,

Dr. David A. Yeagley (enrolled Comanche)
P.O.Box 75017
Oklahoma City, OK 73107

CC: Oklahoma Senators Jim Inhofe, Tom Coburn

There were telephone calls made, and assurances given that the fax was received. We shall inform our readers the minute we receive any response from any of the offices involved. It is highly unlikely, but, this letter was an initial action taken in defense of the First Amendment. It is not known at this time whether American Renaissance has taken any such action at this point.

Eric Holder, 2009.

Not everyone knows it, but Eric Holder was deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, during the Clinton Adminstration. That should have sent shivers up the nation’s spine when Barry “Obama” Soetoro appointed him as chief of America’s Department of Justice. Of course, liberals (like those who control the New York Times) justified any failures and weaknesses in Holder a priori, by citing the liberals’ defeat of AG Alberto Gonzales, whom they smeared beyond repair with utterly false accusations. “Mr. Holder inherited a Justice Department that was deeply demoralized,” wrote the distortionists.

Well, nothing like appointing 9 terrorist attorneys, who, for the sake their otherwise floundering careers, willfully took the position of America’s most violent, murderous enemies. That’ll bring up the moral of the department right away. (And if the terrorists are the enemy, what does that make Holder and comrades?)

Of course, the firm Holder himself worked for has defended terrorists. Michelle Malkin reported a year ago January that Holder was senior partner in Covington & Burling, a prestigious Washington, D.C. law firm, which represents 17 Yemenis currently held at Gitmo. It’s only natural that Holder wouold gather other reptiles into his lair.

However, Holder has not named them. Byron York tells us Holder has admitted he appointed nine, but has so far withheld their identity from the American people. (I wonder why.) We already knew that two other appointees were terrorist advocates. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal represented Osama bin Laden’s driver, and Jennifer Daskal, previously advocated for detainees at Human Rights Watch. But who are the others, and why can the American people not know? (Barry’s “transparency,” no doubt. Such a blinding force it is.)

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. fought off criticism Wednesday (Nov. 17, 2009) before the Senate Judiciary Committee over his choice not to use a military commission. Doug Mills/The New York Times

The Council on Foreign Relations’ page on Holder points out that in 2002 Holder said the detainees in the “war on terror” are not technically entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions, but only that they should be treated in a humane way. That obviously means that they should have the full legal rights of American citizens. In fact, better rights–more expensive attorneys.

We don’t know yet that Eric Holder will deny basic human rights to American citizens. Until he is formally addressed in the matter of the recent American Renaissance event in the DC area, until he is called upon to respond directly to the complaint of harassment, threats of violence and death, all to prevent the AmRen conference from happening, we do not know his position toward the American people. We have no evidence of his concern for American people, but only our worst enemies. He is determined that they should be treated as our equals. That we know.

Whether or not Mr. Holder will allow middle-aged white men the brave honor and privilege of talking about race, as he himself is apparently so willing to talk about–with transcendent authority, we do not know. We will see if he even bothers to respond to the appeal for intervention and prosecution of the opponents of American Renaissance.