September 30, 2003
Humans Rights to the Rescue?

Humans Rights activists can destory culture. Mark Percival, leader of the Romanian Think Tank wants to destroy Gypsy tradition. Nicolae Stefanescu-Draganesti, president of the League for Human Rights says Gypsie young people are being raped. Baroness Emma Nicholson, the European Union envoy to Romania says Gypsie child marriages are to be dissolved.

Birita Mihai, 15, and Ann Maria Cioba, 12

Well, Roma Gypsies have been arranging marriages for their children for thousands of years. It's their way. Parents are intimately involved in the process. It isn't done in the dark. It is a community affair. Lots of people are involved.

Do non-Gyspies have a "right" to tell Gypsies how to be Gypsies? The marriages of Gypsies were not connected to Al-Qaeda and the WTC attack. They have not contributed to the downfall of Europe, nor to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The traditions of Gypsies have not affected the European Trade Union, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The customs of the Roma have not interferred with the OPEC, the WCC, or any other globalist effort. Why should anyone interfere with the Gypsies?

Former US President Jimmy Carter brought "human rights" to the forefront in the late 1970's, the decade after the American Civil Rights movement developed. America must assert it's values on all other countries in the world. Well, if they are better values, if they make the world a better place, if they make for a better life for those people upon whom they are asserted, perhaps there is a point to "human rights."

The problem arises when people don't want them, when people do not value them, when they have a different idea of what those rights are. Don't they have rights to their own cultural idenity, as long as it isn't coercing someone else's? Who has the right to say what rights are?

As an American Indian, I have to be defensive about cultural rights. I have always felt an affinity for Gypsies, and in this case, I will also quickly point out that arranged marriages last longer, by no comparison to "romantic" marriages.
The Western world is ego-centric about eros, and as a result of this selfish approach to marriage, divorce seems predominant. (This may be liberal media hype, however. Stats are always slanted, and usually not terribly reliable)

There are arranged marriages all over the world. It is the normal thing in many, many societies. Objections on the part of the youngsters are simply outgrown. Objections on the part of adult Westerners are apparently not. Arranged child marriages last. Romantic flings in the West end in divorce.

Human Rights can be very destructive as a political manipulation. The lure of the Western ego is strong, but, sometimes it just isn't the best path to follow. There are more important considerations that the individual ego. To idolize the self is to destroy the society.

I say let the Gypsies marry, young. Te djivel e Romani!

Posted by David Yeagley at 05:22 PM | Comments (449)
September 29, 2003
Keepers of the Gates

In ancient times, the news media comprised the gate keepers of the walled cities. The gate keeper noted who was coming in, and who was going out. For such knowledge, one always consulted the gate keepers. It was an enormous and prestigious responsibility.

Syndicated columnist Rober Novak may have denigrated the gate keeper's honor last summer when he "broadcast" the name of a CIA agent, the wife of former U.S. ambassador to Iraq Joseph C. Wilson, Ms. Valerie Plame. Of course, Wilson blames the White House for a deliberate smear job, together with the leak, but, the White House denies it. Wilson feels he's being made the "fall guy" for the questionable status of WMD reports prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Novak named Valerie as a CIA agent in July (14) in his Chicago Sun-Times oped. (The whole news mess is covered by Krugman in the National Review.)

The point is this: when insiders know something, that's one thing. When the news media makes it national knowledge, that's another. Is there any rule at all regarding national security when it comes to the news? Of course, journalists rely on the 1st Amendment. This is their blank check. National security is therefore not their concern, nor is anyone's privacy. Therefore, if someone broke the law in the revelation of Plame's identity as a CIA agent, then Novak is wholly complicit, and should be included in the implications.

Robert Novak

Condoleezza Rice was grilled on major media Sunday, and stood firmly for the White House. In the midst of all mud-slinging, accusations, and implications, Rice held her head high, and came across as wise, caring, sincere, and truthful. She is certainly the picture of poise, or "grace under fire."

Condolezza Rice

She reminds me of my first grade teacher. Those of us from a little older generation can remember what implicit trust we put in our early teachers. We can remember how they were like second mothers. They were our first "parent" away from home. Those feelings of trust are indelible memories. Condoleezza Rice brings up all those memories in me, the confidence, the trust, even the love. Cielo mi guardi! I hope she's right on this White House issue!

Newsmen on the other hand are like lawyers. It's all just a business. They really don't care about people. They can't afford to. They're looking for a story, or a case. That's what's important to them. I know. I've been guilty of the same at times. But this Wilson/Novak case is so critically important that I am seriously affected by it. I hope other news people will consider the issues.

Newsmen need to be patriots, not simply avaricious businessmen. The country should always be put first, not the news. Newsmen need to be more responsible gate keepers. They're not to be gossip-mongers.

I think Condoleezza Rice is coming across as a great patriot. I am greatly encouraged, despite the mean-spirited media.

Posted by David Yeagley at 12:51 PM | Comments (25)
September 28, 2003
Israel and Old Comanche Women

A "Colonal Ran," one of the 27 Israeli pilots who signed the letter of formal defiance toward the the Israeli government, regrets signing the letter, and has changed his mind.

A good sign, I trust.

I mentioned my mother's "Comanche" view of the Israeli Air Force.

And now I must report another old Comanche woman. I was at the 12th Annual Comanche Fair this week-end, (rattling at Heaven's door in the gourd dance), and I heard something quite interesting. During a break, I went over to talk with the MCs. While I was there, an elderly Comanche women came up beside me, to make a request for an announcement.

"Please," she said, urgently to MCs Thomas Chibitty and Eddie Mahseet, "This October 26, all the Christian churches across America are going to pray for Israel. You must make this announcement, please. We want everyone to pray for Israel!" She was wearing a beautiful, bright read Indian blouse with ribbons hanging from silver broches, and her hair was completely white.

I was stunned. I knew there was a "Prayer-Warrior" tent set up among the many venders and booths at the fair. I hadn't visited it. I don't know that this woman was connected to that or not. All I know is, here was another old Comanche woman concerned about Israel! She feared for Israel.

The Comanche Nation Flag

Something really deep is going on here. When the name of Israel reverberates in the sub-conscious of old Comanche women, something's up! I don't think it is the Christian connection, either. I think it's just what I said it was. Comanches know, intuitively, what it means to be out-numbered, even when you're the best warriors. Old Comanche women feel this, still. They're like mystical "generals" of some kind. They have a sense of command. They feel they know what needs to be done. They know when something precious is threatened. Picture it: an old Comanche woman in Elgin, Oklahoma, with her heart set on Israel. Unbelieveable!

Not all Indians are pro-Israel, however. Many have been liberalized by the university, and have become peace-niks. Always ready to surrender, to hand over the goods, to give in, in the name of peace. All you get is death and nothing when you do that. You'd think Indians would know that, by now.

Old Comanche women know.

Posted by David Yeagley at 08:57 AM | Comments (20)
September 26, 2003
L'Shana tova!

The Jewish New Year begins tonight, at sunset. It is the year 5764 on the ancient Jewish calendar. If you've never experience Jewish High Holiday services in the synagogues, you have a wonderful treasure awaiting you.


As an Indian, I have always been fascinated with the Creator. This is really what Judaism is all about, as I see it. The Creator is a wonderful person. Any Indian knows that. The very idea of such creative power brings unspeakable joy and inspiration. What Judaism speaks to, however, are the mysteries of life, like suffering and injustice. Judaism seeks really to defend the Creator against false accusation, for, most of humanity, particularly civilized humanity, has a problem with the Creator. He is accused on earth. There is a lot of pain here, and most people have a lot of pent up resentment toward God. Judaism, (and I must say, Christianity--the famous Jewish sect), seeks to remind humanity of the glories of the Creator, and the joy in knowing Him

In Rabbi Goldson's Rosh HaShonnah article, this thought is magnified. We are not to get lost in our own suffering, miserable as it can be, but rather we are to lose ourselves in the glories of creation, and in the wonder of the Creator Himself.

Rabbi Goldson's thought at one point sounds very much like ol' Cotton Mather's "predestination" view. "Every leaf falls to its appointed place," said the New England minister. Rabbi Goldson says, "Every grain of sand upon the shore resides in its place and follows the course chosen for it; so too is every seeming whim of fate rather an unfathomable pulse from the primordial machine that steers the unfolding of eternity."

I know both men are trying to reassure everyone that the Creator is in fact in control--of everything. We're not to think that tragedy is utterly accidental.

But, personally, I believe the thought that the Creator is somehow connected with tragedy is what makes people angry at Him. What both the rabbi and the minister have not included in their universe is the presence of Satan, the real cause of suffering and injustice. I can believe that the Creator ultimately manages Satan's influence on earth, but even in that sense, the Creator can still seem to be "blamed" for suffering, for He can always reverse the course.

However, in the case of the Jewish "management" of suffering, intellectually, within the individual, it is quite true that the emphasis is on personal realtionship directly with the Creator. Satan is clearly revealed in Job, and even more clearly in the New Testament, but, in the classic cases of Moses, David, and I believe even Jesus, the challenge is to relate directly, personally to the Creator. One is not to "figure" in Satan any too carefully. Pain is personal, between the individual and his God.

This is the more "emotionally economical" way of managing suffering. It is psychologically efficient, and keeps the conscious connection with the power that can help, that is, the Creator.

So, Happy New Year to everyone. L'Shana tova. May this new year bring new joy with new knowledge of the Most High, our supremely adorable Creator.

Posted by David Yeagley at 01:09 PM | Comments (20)
September 25, 2003
Liberals in the Israeli Airforce?

I suppose it was inevitable. It probably could have happened earlier. Israeli armed servicemen, airforce pilots to be specific, have defied their orders. It is only a tiny group of nine active pilots, together with 16 other inactive pilots. They drew up a declaration, saying the strikes on the "Palestinians" in the Gaza Strip and in the West Bank were "immoral."

Thousands of other pilots, of course, feel their moral standards have always been much higher than anyone else's. Other nations would never have allowed what patient Israel has allowed from the "Palestinians." Hundreds of pilots have already issued counter declarations in support of the IDF and their military officers.

Israeli authorities have grounded the nine pilots, and they face possible suspension, and even military jail. It is a terrible thing, not a noble thing, that these nefarious nine pilots have done. They have threatened the security of all Israel, and whatever other entities in the world are closely connected with Israel. The Israeli airforce is one of the most important institutions in the world.

My elderly Comanche mother has many times commented to me on her feelings about the Israeli Air Force. She has made comments early in the morning, while I'm cooking breakfast for her. She has made remarks at lunch. These comments have come from her unprovoked. They have been made "out of the blue," so to speak, not related to any previous conversation, not related to present conversation. She just makes the comments when she feels like making them.

"If the United States would just turn everything over to Israel, they could solve all the problems in the world. Those young Israeli pilots don't miss."

"If Israel goes, the United States goes."

"The Israeli air force pilots are the greatest in the world. Israel could clean up the whole Middle East, and the whole world. That's the confidence I have in that regime over there."

Israeli fighter jet

Obviously, my mother is being sort of "mystical" here. She doesn't know anything about the statistics of the Israeli Air Force. She has picked up this impression from years of news, and it some how resonates deeply in her.

Yet, these are not religious comments at all. These sentiments aren't based on Biblical prophecy, or some evangelical interpretation thereof. These are simply the intuitions of a warrior's blood. These are the reactions of an Indian who deeply feels what it means to be out-numbered, but to be the greater warrior. All Indians know what it means to be unwanted, to be surrounded, but to believe in your own superiority.

Something like that.

She hasn't heard about this ignoble nine group. I'm afraid to tell her. I know she won't be pleased.

Posted by David Yeagley at 03:52 PM | Comments (19)
September 23, 2003
Purging American Armed Forces

Is this what it has come to? We can't trust any foreigners in the American Armed services? How utterly naive that we could have, in the first place. Whose idea was it? What anti-American liberal senator pushed such a thought?

An American Negro Muslim convert attacked his fellow American soldiers in a camp in Iraq. Many Muslims and anti-Americans actually defend and praise him. Others merely excuse him, saying he endured racism and religious prejudice.

And now another so-called "American serviceman," arrested last July, has been found guilty of treasonous acts. Senior Airman Ahmad al Halabi is accused of espionage.

Yet another, U.S. Army Islamic Chaplian James Yee has been arrested on suspicion of the same kind of espionage.

U.S. Army Chaplain James Yee

American Negro Muslim convert, Arab Muslim, or Asian Muslim, it makes no difference. Muslims simply cannot function in the American military. Oh, these cases are the exception, some might argue. In this life, however, some times the majority is made to suffer for the few. Here in naive, immature, idiotic liberal America, the government wants all Americans to suffer, rather than bar, ban, and otherwise deport a few Arab Muslims. Now we have to include all American Negro Muslims, and all Asian Muslims. The risk is spreading rapidly. I say America must turn it around, and punish the few, not the many, while America is still basically white and Christian.

Who's acting like the concerned patriot? Ultra liberal, respectfully Jewish Charles Schumer (D-NY). Schumer says the American Muslim Foundation and the Graduate School for Islamic Social Sciences are both under investigation. The U.S. government relies on these agencies to train young interpreters and Muslim chaplains, or, should we say, young treasonists.

Senator Charles Schumer

Of course, Schumer is deeply concerned that the enormous Islamic charities in the U.S. stop supporting Palistinian terrorism against Israel. And he's shown concern over Islamic chaplains in American prisons, preaching murderous hatred to the inmates.

Well, liberals can get by with anything. Let's hope they can get by with radical patriotism, too.

Posted by David Yeagley at 09:25 PM | Comments (139)
September 22, 2003
Wesley Clark, Attack Dog?

Wesley Clark, the renowned Democrat military man, (their only candidate than can claim that ultimate macho status), is the man who authorized the use U.S. Armed forces against the law-abiding citizen David Koresh and innocent women and children at the Waco, TX compound in 1993. Neither did he refrain from the slaughter of innocents in Yugoslavia in 1999. He commanded NATO forces in Kosovo. His tactics are infamously ruthless. Some might call it 'getting the job done.'

General Wesley Clark

The Waco attack forces came from Ft. Hood, and Clark was in command at the time. Koresh was served a warrent. His refusal to respond appropriately caused him to be labeled a law breaker. Like Judge Moore, in Alabama, Koresh was made a lawbreaker by inappropriate exercise of authority by those enforcing the law. All the authorities have to do is accuse you of breaking the law. If you protest or resist the unlawful invasion, you become a law breaker. In Europe they used to call that the Inquisition. Accusation alone suffices. You're finished.

And the NATO operation in Yugoslavia was terribly complex. There are a thousand ways Clark can deny any wrong doing there. It was a war situation (albeit undeclared). Clark did what he felt was appropriate.

Waco or Yugoslavia, there is plenty of opportunity to pass the buck in each case, from General Clark to Janet Reno to Bill Clinton.

Everyone knows Clark is Clintonian. The Arkansas background of the two men is common knowlege at this point. But what isn't so commonly regarded as truth are all the murders connected with Bill Clinton himself. This kind of information as been around for a long time, but hasn't seemed to have had any public effect.

But let's imagine for a minute that it's all absolutely true. Clinton takes out anyone necessary. Clinton does whatever he wants to do, whatever he can get by with.

That basically means no one is going to get far in Democratic politics without his connection and approval. That means Clark is a terrific candidate. He's ruthless, too. But the real test is whether or not Hillary runs. We're all waiting.
If she runs, I doubt Clark will be anything but a vice-presidential candidate. If she doesn't, he may end up being the main candidate.

Perhaps these are foolish thoughts, too superficial, too imaginary. The facts about Clinton, however, are mean and ugly. The facts about Clark are scarey and groteque. The connections and associations are just too close for me. I think it's something to be concerned about.

Communists, of any country, have shown that they are willing to slaughter the defenseless and unwanted populations in their own countries. The Clinton/Clark combo looks really ominous when added together, when seen objectively. Clinton proved the presidency can well serve the enemies of America. Clark has demonstrated that the U.S. military can and will attack American citizens, and citizens who are not fresh immigrants from Muslims countries, not illegal immigrants from Mexico, and not engaged in anti-American activity.

Posted by David Yeagley at 06:32 PM | Comments (681)
September 17, 2003
Anything to Bring Us Down

Science as a profession has long disassociated itself with religion. Science, humanism, liberalism, communism, atheism, non-theism, they all manifest the same attitude. They alone know the truth, or what can be known of it.

Now "scientists" at Emory University are just sure animals (i.e., primates, i.e., monkeys) have human values. Why, they're just like us. We're like them. We're all one.

The Capuchin Monkey has a divine sense of justice, and fairness, and equality, and every other ideology on the liberals' political agenda. According to Emory University's Sara Brosnan, the animal is virtually moral in nature. Man and monkey inherited a sense of fairness from some common ancestor. She feels her experiments justify her notion. "This implies that we evolved this way."

Capuchin Monkeys

Her assumtions have been questioned, of course. Charles Janson of SUNY Stony Brook thinks the animals behavior was picked up in the laboratory. Naturaly, Brosnan denies it. Brosnan doubted the behavior was laboratory learned, saying most animals "cannot learn things which they do not naturally do in the wild."

But her deeper presumptions have not been addressed. The fruit-eating monkey did learn to eat grapes in the lab. Furthermore, it really likes them. What omnivorous animal would prefer a cucumber to a sweet grape? Animals do have preferences in taste. This is the point of tension between the monkeys. They simply prefer the grape, and act dissatisfied when they see another monkey getting it. This has absolutely nothing to do with "fairness," "justice," "equality," or anthing moral. This is "I want what I want."

But two dogs together. Give one a stake, and the other a dead woodchuck. You see a fight pretty quickly. This isn't about fairness. This is about getting what you want. That is the epitome of animal behavior. Quaint, that a liberal scientist would miss that point.

Brosnon's experiment proves nothing except that the liberal disposition sees man as only an animal, and these days, it wants to see animals as men. All in the name of equality, of course.

It happens in court, as well. Be carefull how you treat dogs these days. You might get fined and jailed. You might face murder charges. (It remains to be seen how the court will handle sex abuse cases involving animals. No animal victim of human sex abuse has yet voiced a complaint. I'm sure, in time, the PETA will give the animals their voice. Tough call, though, without offending those "humans" who use animals for sexual acts.)

Posted by David Yeagley at 06:06 PM | Comments (182)
September 15, 2003
Liberals Win in California

When all else fails, use the judges. They're liberal. Liberals know it. The ACLU used the federal judges in liberal San Fransisco, California to delay the re-call of Gov. Grey Davis. Six counties, making up 44% of the voters, would be using voting machines that create "hanging chads," those little punch-out holes which were falsely used to create the dramatic but false issue in the presidential election of 2000, centering in Florida.

The desperate Davis, awash in fomenting fraud

So, it looks like California won't be participating in any elections for a long, indefinitely long time. That is, if there were true logic or consistency in the political process. But we know it's all a sham. The state isn't going to replace all voting machines in 6 months. The liberals knew neither Davis nor Bustamante would win. They obviously knew. Therefore, they stopped the election.

It's a beautiful thing, to know that you have federal judges in your pocket. You can make anything happen you want. The people, in your liberal, communist estimation, are only "useful idiots," who cannot be depended on for anything except to vote "welfare" benefits for themselves. Thus, you're in like flint. You know the people can't read, write, or vote. You tell them so, regularly.

And guess where they all got the idea? Bill Clinton, of course. He's been out there advising Davis. Clinton remembers 2000 well, I'm sure. They almost got Gore in, with the same fraudulent confusion. Why not try again in California?

If the recent ruling were to hold, the gubernatorial election might be delayed until March, 2003, at which time the presidential candidates will be included on the ballot.

Well, if no one is going to be voting due to faulty machines, the Dems can still stay in office. There isn't any fair way they can stop the Republican conservative revival. They have to resort to fraud and confusion. It is their last hope. Elections will never be the same. They will never be trusted, unless, of course, the Democrats win.

Posted by David Yeagley at 04:19 PM | Comments (326)
September 14, 2003
The Republican Dilemma in California

"If you're squeamish at all, don't go into politics," said Prof. Harvey Klehr, to his graduate students at Emory University years ago. I was one of the students in his political theory course at the time. Klehr was actually interpreting the message of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) in The Prince (c.1520) and The Discourses. If you weren't prepared to make egregious compromises, horrific but necessary decisions, and to commit impossible error, then you shouldn't be involved in politics.

Arnold Schwarzenegger's bid for governor of California reminds us all of the muddy, murky waters of leadership. The Republicans of California are sufficiently devided between Schwarzenegger and McClintock so that, if they do not quickly unite, the Democratic candidate, Bustamante, will easily win the election.

Arnold Schwarzenegger

What are Republicans to do? Is it always a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils? Some believe in the true conservatism of McClintock, but, if they don't vote for Schwarzenegger, then they'll have to live with Bustamante the anti-American "Latino" racist. (Or, has Busatamante changed since his younger days?)

Sometimes, choosing a candidate is like assessing a legislators voting record. It is not an easy matter to sort out.

When the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committeee (OCPAC) assesses the conservative voting records of Oklahoma politicians, how can they be sure what the legislator really believed about a specific issue? Bills come across the desk with numerous attachments and complex connections, so that voting "Yes" or "No" is always shooting from the hip. The legislator has to decide between the lesser of two evils even in voting for a single bill.

Electing an official is about as blurry. It often seems like a hopeless compromise. "Extra" canditates can turn an election. Remember what happened in 1992? Ross Perot ran as an independent candidate, and took enough votes away (20%) from father George Bush so that Bill Clinton won the election. He later formed the Reform Party. Surely Californians remember this, and would not want to make the same mistake.

Ross Perot

The citizens have to think of themselves as Machiavellians! There's only one s Perotdifference: they don't have a choice about entering politics. As citizens, they're in, like it or not. And, the current situation being what it is in California, I'm sure millions of non-citizens will be "voting." Californians are going to have to set an example of what it means to be an American patriot, or lose the whole state to subversive forces. Either California sets the pace of the revival of true patriotism, or else California will be first to fall away from America by negligence, greed, and subversive politics, all initiated by white people, liberals and businessmen alike.

There are apparently no more Ronald Reagans in the state; but there should be enough patriots left to save her. The rest of the country awaits breathlessly.

Posted by David Yeagley at 12:04 PM | Comments (107)
September 12, 2003
Anti-American Negress Honored in Berlin

Anti-American congressionial representative Cynthia McKinney has accused President Bush of knowingly allowing the catastrophy of 9/11 to happen. In fact she initiated the idea of having an investigation.

Cynthia McKinney

The negro Democrat from Atlanta's 4th Congressional District was honored in Berlin this September 7th, 2003, just a few days before the 9/11 memorial services. It was at Berlin's International 9/11 Summit. This assembly was all about holding the United States, not Arab Muslims or Saudi Arabia, responsible for 9/11. McKinney was the keynote speaker. Her speech was definitely in the key of victimhood, indeed, as she aggrandized her slavery roots, and presented herself as the representative of all oppressed people in the world. If the world would just look to the American Negro, all its problems would be solved. The American Negro is the king of victimhood. Naturally, she claims to be the leading American "patriot." As I said (to David Horowitz) August, 2001, just a couple of weeks before 9/11, "Whoever owns the word 'patriot' wins." The name is certainly up for grabs in today's meaningless political jargon.

Interestingly, those that have tried to defend McKinney don't really read her speeches very carefully. She is very clear on what she means with respect to the Bush administration and President Bush himself. It isn't implication at all. It is direct accusation.

There are those in the Green Party who want McKinney to run for president! This is not really remarkable. Her congressional encorsements already contain a substantial list of "progressive" socialist, communist, anti-American organizations.

Furthermore, what is not so well know is the number of anti-american Muslim backers she has had all along. This has been exposed by ol' "One-Eyed Jack" in his August 21, 2002 blog entry. Out of 157 campaign contributions to her congressional bid, only a dozen were not "foreign."

Jack says, "It so happens that one of McKinney's donors is Aly Abuzaakouk, executive director of the American Muslim Council. Imagine that. Also in the mix, I found that another donor by the name of Abdulwahab Alkebsi, Executive Director of Islamic Institute." Abuzaakouk, of course, was a leading opponent of Lybia's M. Quadafi, so, I suppose that means he's good guy?

Then there's Rajaie Qubain, of the American Arab Anti Discrimination Committee, and Margaret Zaknoen, of American Muslims for Jerusalem, and others. Jack even gives us the link to the money trail: Political Money Line. McKinney is a fake patriot, indeed. A sham artist, and much worse than even Sharpton or Jackson.

Of course she's going to accuse Bush and his administration. She is clearly in line with Arab Muslims. It's a cultural love affair. She is anti-American, and they love her for it. It is a fairly simple forumla.

But now, what of this Berlin connection? Is this just more of those post WWII Germans awash in cultural guilt, looking for opportunities to show that they love Negros, and that their not nearly as prejudiced as those evil white Americans?

Well, they have their questions about 9/11. Lots of people do. But their preference for McKinney makes their whole position suspect.

Posted by David Yeagley at 10:28 AM | Comments (125)
September 11, 2003
9/11: An Indian Memorial

Old Glory

Today marks the second year since the Arab Muslim attacks on New York City and the Pentagon. There are major ceremonial rememberances going on all day. Of course, NYC is getting most of the media coverage, because it is such an international place, and DC is considered more exclusively "American," therefore, not quite as politically correct. Media is more interested in the foreign-borns were were killed in NYC.

The general grief management principle is to idolized the international victims into "heroes," as well. Of course, there really were heroes, like the firemen and policmen who tried to save people. And there are even some brave citizens who risk their lives in trying to save others.

But the general tenor of the "commemoration" story is one of mourning, naturally. It is a profound loss that the people of NYC felt. Why, they were innocent human beings, not like those guilty war machines at the Pentagon.
Why, this NYC thing is an opportunity to unite the world in sadness, to blend humanity's common emotions in one dramatic dirge.

The burden of resolve and response was left to the Texas white boy, George Bush. He alone lead the nation to at least an ideological focus of resolve: a war on terrorism. (Reliable reports from military personnel in Iraq, as opposed to biased, communistic, anti-American media reports, say the work in Iraq is progressing with great success. This is just the beginning. Bush said it was going to be a long haul.

But for for today, the "commemoration" of 9/11 is about internationalism. It is about common tragedy. The liberal media will give us that, as well as a reminder that the world hates America. We can count ont he NYT to create a point on that. That's the NYT's idea of fair and balanced news.

I noticed the children's choir singing "America the Beautiful." How sweet it is. Yet, I couldn't help but notice most of the children were non-white. It was more of an "international" choir. In a way, this was the greatest moment in the commemoration. If it can be looked at as a testimony of how the world feels, rather than a misrepresentation of the people who created this country, it is truly a memorable moment.

But I don't know if most Americans are ready to feel that America belongs to the world, or that that world owns America. The white liberal commies of American government and law certainly want it that way. They want to completely change the face of America, to completely forget how and why America came about, and they do this by condemning the past as sin. They do this by denigrating the white race in every way possible, directly or indirectly, by preaching that the world has a right to own a Cadillac, and it's evil for a white man to have one without providing one for the tribesman of Somalia.

Ah, but the real owners of America are the Indians, in terms of social structure precedents (the Iroquois Confederation), and trade establishment (the routes, the centers, even the goods, in the earlier days). Indians generally don't see this, because we've been duped by communists into thinking our duty as Indians is to opposed America. But it isn't so. Indians should feel we own America, we are responsible for America, and America is our adopted son. A bit cocky and ungrateful towards us, but, still, he is ours. We let him grow up here. We took him under our wing. We raised him from infancy. We should be very, very proud.

This is my memorial of 9/11.

Bad Eagle (David Yeagley)

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:59 AM | Comments (115)
September 10, 2003
Bustamante: Reds, Whites, and Blues

The magic "polls" say Bustamante has the lead in the Californial governor's recall race, by 5 points.
Well, he's one of the candidates who, ironically, doesn't have a foreign accent, unlike Schwarzenegger and Arianna. Yet, clearly, Bustamante is being identified with the foriegn, Mexican element.

Bustamante. Reuters

This is curious, because he himself is of a generation of Mexicans who were born and raised in the United States. Before him, there's a generation of even more strongly American Mexicans. In that generation we find some of the most conservative, patriotic people in the country, very conscious of being American, rather than Mexican, and extremely proud of it. I have personal experience in all this, albeit in Texas and Arizona, rather than California.

Funny, his official website says, "No on recall, Yes on Bustamante," meaning he was not fighting against Gov. Davis, but, if there is a recall, Bustamante's running. Just Tuesday, the Bustamante campaign has decided to drop the "No Recall" slogan. Bustamante is running, all the way.

So, a Greek-born female who married American money (like Jacky Kenney married Greek money); an Austrian-born weight lifter who made it on his own; and an American Mexican, who has no foreign accent, but who is deeply involved with the illegal Mexican take-over of the American Southwest. What a scenario. Isn't there a white American out there capable of running the state?
This is pathetic, in a way. Gray Davis represents all the middle-aged white men in America who have ruined everything through their own greed, dishonesty, and lust for power. They have lied, swindled, and otherwise defrauded their own people. Like an absolute fool, Davis signed the bill to give driver's licenses to illegal Mexicans. What could be more traitorous? It contradicts Federal law on immigration, which Congress has direct authority over. All to get Mexican votes! Davis is an enemy of America, clearly.

Davis signing the illegal bill

And Bustamante has been, too. He has been into the "Reconquistador" movement, based on the idea that Southwest America belongs to Mexico and Mexicans. He's been deeply involved with separatist Latino movements, like MECha. He's been a white hater. For this, liberal white communists will spare no effort or dollar to make sure he wins California. And of course, he's already accepted large donations from the Mexican "Indian" pop-up casino tribes of California.

He may not have a foreign accent, but he has some deeply foreign ideas.

I suggested before that Schwarzenegger might actually win as the result of a desparate cry from white people in California who are worried about losing their state to a race of foreigners. His superficial and actually false association with the Nazi regime is reminiscent of racial concern, and a concern that wants to keep the white race independent, strong, and free. Schwarzenegger's liberal communist enemies have thought this would work against him, but it won't. It will work for him, at a psychological, even subconscious level.

Remember, this is Hollywood. This is gutsy, rip-roaring drama. What could be more dramatic than race, history, and patriotism?

Arianna married money. Schwarzenegger made his own. No comparison there. Bustamante has an anti-American past, personal and visceral. No comparison there, either. Schwarzenegger will win, unless they count the illegal Mexican votes, which they most assuredly will. It will be a nightmare, a mess completely out-sizing the Florida 2000 presidential election.

In this case, it's just a pity that we don't have a real American running for governor of one of our most important states. Mark ye well, patriots.

And if this country has a fascination with foreign-borns, then the person who should be plugged in is Reza Pahlavi. I personally think he actually has too much class as a person to be involved in a pathetic political catastrophy like California, but, he'd be the best candidate of all. Think of him as an ancient Persian emperor, renowned for brilliant management of cultural diversity! I think our country could really use the input of these brilliant American Iranians, if we insist on "ethnic" diversity in office.

Reza Pahlavi

Of course, the Iranians are the original Aryans, so I guess we can't really call them ethnic, can we? But, if America is charmed by an Austrian, wait till they see a real Iranian! That privilege has been robbed, since the 1979 hostage crisis, but, think again. California is considering the son of a Nazi, and a fairly recently avowed anti-American Mexican, the man himself, Bustamante.
I say its time to consider the American Persians for office.

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:40 AM | Comments (43)
September 09, 2003
More Freedom Lost to Law

The new Transportation Security Administration now plans on 'rating' passengers according to their perceived security risk. Personal information and criminal record will result in a "color" code selection for each passenger, or a letter code. The Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-screening System II does not however reveal whether or not the passengers are aware of their own status or each other's status.

The principle here is to make everyone suffer equally, in order to insure everyone a modicum of "rights." Rather than bar all Arab or Pakistani Muslims from travel on all American flights anywhere, the TSA wants to simply confiscate a degree of privacy and freedom from all Americans. Why, that's the most equitable solution, in their tyrannical minds. Less freedom for all, rather than no freedom for a few. Penalize Americans, rather than bar foreigners who are used as a cover for our sworn enemies.

The TSA program has been modified more than once, already. Law suits have been filed against the TSA for not being forthright about the passenger information gathering process. There is also completely inadequate information on reprisals for false or mistaken coding of a passenger.

The security concerns since 9-11 have become momentous, no denying that. But it seems that America's approach to security is self-destructive. American citizenship is handed out freely, almost mindlessly. American borders are becoming theoretical. American values are being made so diverse, in the name of equality, that American culture is becoming indistinct, or I should say, extinct.

The American government is not willing to take the right measures. It is willing to take radical measures against all Americans, but not against foreigners from the land of our sworn enemies. Fear of being accused of racism, bigotry, prejudice, religious aversion, and other hot items for American Civil Liberties law suits, all prevents America from being strong. These idealistic accusations grew out of a different era. They are passe at a time like this. To keep grinding them into America's cultural face is indeed a nostalgic '60's notion, kept alive by the middle-aged and post middle-aged liberal communists who created them.

The American government gave in on alcohol, Dec. 5, 1933, with the 21st Amendment. Alcohol used to be prohibited. But the government realized (no doubt through the illustrious, clear vision of dollars) you just can't succeed going against human nature very long. So why doesn't the government realize that love of one's race, love of one's culture, one's country, one's identity, is also natural? How long does the American government expect to go against these fundamental elements of human nature?

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:35 AM | Comments (113)
September 08, 2003
Supreme Court to Dictate Campaign Process

The Supreme Court of the United States is about to make another abridgement of American freedom. The Court will hear a case on campaign finance law as it convenes a month early this year just to hear the case. In fact the hearing begins to day, Monday, September 8, 2003. The Supreme Court is hearing a lower federal court ruling which pertained to campaign finance.

This is all about the McCain-Feingold bill which purports to prevent political corruption by limiting campaign finance, which directly effects campaigning itself. The law is designed to prevent big money from ruling politics, yet, it will criminalize free speech, and the right of organizations to associate with politics at all.

"If the justices uphold the law, it could mean a major change in how political parties operate," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "It will be interesting to see if they accept the idea that not only actual corruption in politics needs to be addressed, but the appearance of corruption as well, ensuring public confidence and all that."

"If the justices uphold the law." Now there's the tell-tale attitude of an attorney. Why, there is in fact a law, and just ask me what it is and I'll tell you. These are the minds that rule the country.

"Appearance of corruption?" "Public confidence?" Dream on, Mr. 'social architect' Noble. Nothing will achieve that short of barring all campaign contributions.

I'm afraid law always tends to be liberal, in the "take away your freedom- and give it to someone else" sense. Media is of course liberal, because organizations don't want to be sued. Media supports law, too, like praising the Supreme Court, or at least never criticizing it. But this is biased. The hypocracy is bewildering.

For example, one could say, "No person or married couple who makes less than $70,000 a year should ever pay income tax." But we all know, it's only those who make big money who have tax shelters, and "legally" avoid paying taxes.
It's all set up for the rich, to bleed the middle class. The middle class bears all the burdens, including paying for all the welfare of the poor. The rich can afford to avoid paying. Appearance of evil? Public confidence?

And the Supreme Court wants to make a stink about campaign finance? What's the point?

Noble wants us to be concerned about "appearce" of corruption? How myopic, self-righteous, and just plain stupid can lawyers be? Ideologues in ivory towers, nothing more, laying burdens on the people "greivous to be borne" but don't lift a finger to help. (Luke 11:46)

"Oh, it's the system," they say. It's not the individuals, its the system. It's the inevitable fall-out of the system. But it's a great system. It's the best in the world, they say.

Well, the system is made up of individuals. So, in proportion to their submission to the larger system, they are thereby exonerated from personal responsibility? The system made me do it?

Legislators think it is their job to make laws. It's an endless activity. But wouldn't it be nice if some of the responsibility was to remove some laws, to do away with some laws? Shouldn't that be part of the legal process, too? Not to add more, but to take away the useless impediments. Or how about just enforcing the law we already have?

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:45 AM | Comments (187)
September 07, 2003
Israel Makes Her Move

Israel has closed the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, the two areas with concentrated "Palestinian" population.

CNN Map of Israel and surrounding territories

Finally, Sharon is taking measures that should have been taken years ago. Israel has had enough. Israel must protect itself from terrorist-murderers. She has taken too much abuse, for too long. Israel has tried to cooperate with the United States, with Arabs, with the U.N., over and over again. Israel has released "Palestinian" criminals, thugs, allowed people like Arafat to remain alive and in power. But it has all been to no avail. The Arab Muslim terrorist-murderers have only grown stronger and more numerous, infiltrating more and more into Jewish society. Sharon had to crack down, once and for all.

The endless threats and self-justifying rhetoric of "Palestinian" militants, murderers, and mullahs, cannot to be regarded as political policy to be respected or incorporated into future plans. And Israel has the right to make it's own decisions on how to protect itself. Never mind the world's opinion.

No, it isn't easy to eliminate the terrorist-murderers, for they use their own people for cover. When a strike is made against them, it is nearly inevitable that "innocents" will be hit as well. Innocents in the crossfire--the history of the world. Well, one has to chose one's enemies. If you're a "Palestinian innocent," your enemy is either Israel or "Palestinian" terrorist-murderers. A hard choice, indeed.

Israel has let many Arabs remain within its borders. In fact, 18% of Israel's population are Arabs with Israeli citizenship. Reports show that most of them are younger, and identify with the Arab "Palestinian" cause. Their birth rate is much higher than that of Israelis. (Yet a recent MERIP report says most of these would not consider relocating to any new "Palestinian" state.)

So, the game plan is to simply out-number the Jews, and you have destroyed Israel. It's a game plan fashioned in America's Civil Rights initiatives. Enough "blacks" move to the city, and you'll have a "black" mayor in due time. Enough Mexicans move into the United States, and they'll have a new country for themselves. It's all a matter of numbers and time. And it's all non-violent, and blessed by Martin Luther King and the U.N.

But this is why Israel has Jewish settlements within the Gaza strip and the West Bank. It is a necessity. It is to protect the national identity. Wherever there is a majority of Arabs, there is no Israel. Israel can't just set by and watch itself be gobbled up. This is called politics by population. Of course, Israel is condemned for this, and is supposed rather to let the Arabs multiply within Israel's borders. The world's mandate to Israel is suicide, indeed. (Funny, there are 1,639,410 residential dwellings in Israel, and some 82,042 are vacant. That's essentially one tenth of the available dwellings. What does this say?)

So, Israel does what it has to do to survive. America could well learn a lesson. all things are naked in Israel. America has such luxurious political clothing that necessity is lost in self-righteous rhetoric. This is the liability of material success and freedom. These are self-destructive unless very carefully guarded. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty," indeed.

And whence cometh the question, "Does Israel have a right to exist?" That, in fact, is pure rhetoric. Existence isn't a matter of "right." It is a matter of paying a price. Those not willing to pay may suffer the consequences, or forever owe their "existence" to the unreliable charity of others. And mindlessly reproducing ill bred, ill kept children is the lowest, most animalistic form of "existing." This is not the foundation of nation building, but rather the destruction thereof.

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:44 AM | Comments (172)
September 03, 2003
Afghan Wars Continue

Taliban leader Amir Khan Muttaqi is leading 300 new militant fighters in Afghanistan, resisting American attempts to establish order and democracy. Most of their attacks have been on Afghanis who are part of the new establishment, the Afghani police, soldiers, and aid workers. Al-Qaeda funded Taliban forces have declared war on all foreign influence in Afghanistan.

Taliban leaders

An AP story says the Taliban, with the support of Al-Qaeda, and certain Pakistani sources, is no longer on the run, but has reorganized itself, and is daily regaining influence. Gul Rahman Faruqi, Taliban leader, says the people are accepting them. A good story to turn Americans against the Bush administration and the Afghanistan policy.

Another AP story says the U.S. forces are nevertheless holding up well, and progress is being made, and in fact U.S. forces recently conducted a significant offensive against Taliban forces.

However, the Afghan national forces are the key to the future of Afghanistan. To that end, Oklahoma House Representative Hopper Smith (R-Tulsa), a USArmy Lt.Col, is about to be deployed to Afghanistan. Smith will be involved in further training programs for the Afghan national forces. An enlisted man and also a CO, Hopper has been in the Army for over 20 years. As a seven-year legislator, he is known as "Dr. No," because of his consistent opposition to liberal legislation. Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee's published index of voting records puts Hopper in the top ten conservative voters, averaging over 90% conservative votes on issues.

Rep., Lt. Col. Hopper Smith

Smith says the Army's aim is to teach major operations to the Afghans. "They can teach us about abush," he said. Their need is more of a conceptualized operation. They need to understand for example that there are not two moral/ethical standards for soldiers and officers, but that all are equal under the same military law. This is all about organization on a higher, larger level.

This is also something that tribal people rarely understand. And Afghanis are deeply tribal. Neither are they influenced by material wealth or economic prosperity. These are not their values. There are tribal leaders who are basically war lords, feuding over the control of opium/cocaine revenues. (Yet, like American Indian casino leaders, they seem to lose the money before it gets to the people.)

American leaders say they want the people to have democracy and freedom, for this is best for all. Most Americans believe that. Yet, there is enormous mineral, gas, and oil latent in Afghanistan. Most Americans will believe that, too. The pipelines must be laid.

Once again, it is a case of wealth in the hands of tribes, and the big boys of the world all want their hands in it first. The tribes are not sophisticated enough to manage the situation. I say, if tribes must be managed by greater powers, better to fall into the hands of America, than another other country.

Even in the American Indian situation, what America has left for Indians is far more than any other country or culture would have left. This is my message to all third world tribal people: go with America, while you can. There are enought "liberals" in the crowd to make sure you'll still exist.

Posted by David Yeagley at 03:25 PM | Comments (254)
September 02, 2003
'We Will Not Forget'

The Port Authorty Police Department of New York City recently released transcripts of 911 calls made September 11, 2001. The PAPD lost 37 officers in the horror. It seems that this "sacrifice," as the news call it, has never been noticed as it should be. It was the largest percentage of loss that any police department has suffered in U.S. history. "We will not forget," says Lt. Danny Carbonera. It is "our mantra."

Wall Street, after 9/11

What exactly will they remember?

America was never really allowed to respond naturally, noramally, and appropriately to 9/11. All the political correctness that has infected American society sublimated our rage against the enemy into lamenting our victimhood, and America's official responses were weak, mis-targeted, and anti-climactic. When Bush finally focused on Saddam Hussein, he helped vent a little of our frustration, but still, their has been no satisfactory response, not one that would show how we as a people really feel about 9/11.

The "war" on terrorism is too drawn out, too complex, too unfocused. American government has done more in the way of self-flagellation (like the Patriot Act), limiting the freedoms of all Americans, rather than overt retaliation, like deporting Arab Muslims and other obvious subversives, or direct and sustained attacks on the countries who support terrorism. (The way our liberals support subversion, we'd have to be considered one of those countries!) We've made no moral demands on Arab Muslims living in this country.

And now these 'slanted' news reports of more U.S. soldiers killed after the major invasion combat than during the invasion...this adds to the sense of prolonged inurement. Bush said it was going to be a long haul from the beginning. Many more soliders will no doubt die by the rampant, murderous terrorists too cowardly to fight openly. Wolfowitz nobly appeals to us for the support of our soldiers. Will the media listen?


It is the same story, really, and the one the media always misses. Unless Muslims themselves are willing to fight and die for freedom, they will never achieve it, and many American lives will be lost trying to give it to them. We must ask, Do they thus deserve it? Americans are committed to die for them, to give them something they're not really sure they want? What are we trying to prove?

Is this what America learned from the Civil War, 145 years ago? It wasn't the universal desire of slaves to be free. Most had no concept of what it meant, or any ability to manage it when given it. But the US government gave it to them anyway. We only assume the Iraqis want our kind of freedom. We only assume they will experience it our way. I believe we underestimate the power of Islam. We don't understand these people at all.

Surely our leaders know this. Therefore, we must be over there for different reaons than are apparent. Hopefully, they are worthy reasons. They are certainly costly.

Posted by David Yeagley at 10:20 AM | Comments (122)
Journal Weblog Archives