September 30, 2004
Portents of the Debate

Tonight, Senator John Kerry will be attempting to demonstrate, by words, that he is the better man to lead the United States of America. In this lofty notion, there are some basic obstacles in the way of his flight of fancy.

He has no record of decisive leadership. He can provide no evidence of his ability. He can only assert ideas that criticize or condemn what Bush has done. In other words, it is a total spin operation for Kerry.

What he has demonstrated is precisely the kind of ambiguity, confusion, and indecision that makes the very worst kind of leader. What he has shown is a willingness to decry America, to degrade the armed services, and to sleep with the enemy. For this, he has been indeed recognized and rewarded.

The very fact that he is in the position to debate the president bespeaks a great breach in the soul of America. The fact that someone can get to that level of significance, by words only, with a factual record of absolute traitorous testimony, and disgraceful, dishonest conduct, demonstrates how powerful words really are.

Everyone word of Kerry is hollow, by virtue of his own past record. Let's forget the past, indeed. Let's move on, indeed, before Kerry deludes us all!

But one author claims that a mans character doesn't change after he becomes president. James D. Barber's The Presidential Character (1972) is a standard reference in many political science deparments. It's used by liberals, since Baber predicted the downfall of Nixon, but, the study is rather objective in itself. Interestingly, the New York Times posted Barber's obituary(Sept. 15, 2004), and an anti-Bush article (Sara Rimer, Sept. 17) in close succession. It seems there may be a convenient connection for the anti-Bush campaign of the NYT. Rimer's article is entitled: "Portrait of George Bush in '72: Unanchored in Turbulent Time."

Now, we can never expect such a newspaper to get the story accurate, so, with that in mind, we read Rimer's statement that in 1972, the year of Barber's book, George W. Bush "dropped off the radar screen." The rather sophomoric notion that demonstrably forged documents about Bush's National Guard service can be somehow buttressed by implied association with Barber's theory that character does not change in office, shows how far the NYT is willing to go to support their boy Kerry. Why, Bush can't be depended on in a crisis. Look what he did! He didn't show up for duty! This is the NYT implication.

People can question the National Guard records ad infinitum, et ad nauseum, as Bush opponents have since the day he ran for political office in Texas. The fact is, he was honorably discharged. (He served out his time early, it seems, and really didn't have to serve duty in Alabama, as if it was an unnecessary formality, apparently. The circumstances can easily be made into a story of negligence, but more negligence on the part of story tellers than of Bush. Bush volunteered for Vietnam service, but his flight experience was in an obsolete jet, we are told, and he would never be useful. Even's Eric Boehlert, in is rush to malign, lets out that Bush signed up for six years, and basically took the last two off. Guard service, back then, was a matter of time put in. When it was put in, was apparently a variable.)

The point is, Bush, as president, has done anything but run from duty. Kerry's record, on the other hand, is replete with not only running from duty, but devotion to America-bashing, and denigration of his comrads. He has always been a careerist. Whatever he says his "convictions" were back in the Nam years, he made a career off of them.

The only way he could possibly hope for open ears at a presidential debate now is if the audience consciously deletes his past from their minds, and listens, not to any new evidence of a change of character, but simply his new words of criticism for Bush, and Kerry's implied superiority.

This very debate is an insult to America's intelligence, what's left of it. The chicanery and protracted delusionary methods of the Left have benumbed the sensibilities of many. Kerry is debating with superficial word tactics alone. He has no person, character, nor record to present. He has only serpentile manoeuvering with speech as his defense, and only criticism of Bush as his offense.

Kerry will make a good show. He is validated to an extent, simply by the position of being able to debate the president. His delusional positions will be given new life, temporarily, and he will be greatly encouraged. Democratic leaders will harden their robotic lines with renewed energy, and they will have a sense of great excitement, and they will no doubt pronounce to the world that Kerry has won a great victory. That's all they have to say. It's only a matter of words. If they say Kerry won, enough times, other non-thinkers will naturally believe them.

Posted by David Yeagley at 12:33 PM | Comments (139)
September 27, 2004
Are Indians Like Nazis Now?

Everyone knows about the new National Museum of the American Indian, in Washington, DC. What few people realize is racist base behind the "vision." According to the Museum, all "indigenous" peoples of the Americas are now properly referred to as "American Indian." Thus, the special, historical significance of the name is completely obliterated, as all "natives" of the western hemisphere, including Pacific Islanders, are to be honored as "American Indians."

It's like when Hitler said all the Aryan race should unite, under the control of Germany. Like when the Japanese thought they should dominate all peoples of the Orient. Now, the Museum testifies to the same mind set: all "skins" of the western hemisphere should unite, and celebrate themselves as one happy family, forgetting their past wars, their past enemies, and just unite to protest the white European presence in our half of the globe.

Why, we're all alike. We're all "indegenous." We're all non-white. That's makes us all equal, all united, naturally. Never mind our differences of culture, language, religion, and levels of courage. Some indigenous people over here never sounded a war cry, or lifted a bow. Others of us did. We paid the ultimate price.

We true American Indians, who spilled much blood for our identity, are thus utterly dishonored by the National Museum. Our distinct courage and strength has been virtually robbed from us, and given to the weak and incapable. The Museum is a monument to Marxist ideology, the redistribution of wealth. Take from the rich, and give to the poor.

True American Indian warriors will not celebrate such a Leftist abuse of our identity. We will not rejoice to see our worthy blood diluted to water, and aspersed upon all the "brown skins" of the western hemisphere.

We protest the National Museum of the American Indian. We protest the liberals like Rockefeller who were behind it, and we also protest people like Robert Redford and Teresa Heinz-Kerry who were whooping it up opening day in DC. These people do not understand what it means to be American Indian. Leftist-trained Indian "representatives" have contributed well to this confusion.

American Indian warriors are not "hemispheric" racial entities. We do not unite with the anti-White, anti-European sentiments. We recognize the greater powers in the world. We recognize the United States. We are not racists, like the white Leftists would have us be.

Mr. Bush: Clean out that museum!

Remove every tribe, every people, who are not American Indian. We don't need now a new racially based, brown skinned United Nations. Protect our name! We don't want Kofi Annan to become the next Chief of the American Indians!

All American Indians should go to DC and hold an organized protest to this fraudulent usurpation of our name. Alas, we're already too late. Already American Negros have been recognized as American Indian. The Mashantucket-Pequote Club accomplished that. That set the pace. And remember Stacy Stahl, the adopted Inca Indian girl in Ohio who wanted to be the American Indian mascot for her highschool team, the Anderson Redskins? She was South American. She was Indian. Why wasn't she "American Indian?"

Anyone is Indian now. Everyone is Indian. How ridiculous can this be? Indians should not stand for it. Indians should not try to act like generous, tolerant, accepting, non-racially conscious blobs. We should act like the proud warriors we once were, protecting our people, honoring and preserving our people. This new Leftist Indian country is [i]not[/i] historically accurate, and is basically the creation of Liberals, who operate on that "white guilt" principle of self-righteousness, thinking that if they can usurp all words and names, they can control the world. They merely use Indian, and all "skins" of the world. It is a triumph, not by fighint, but by funding. Celebrate the skins, and you've got complete control over them.

Sometimes I wonder if these whites feel any guilt at all. As long as they're in control, I don't see how they can.

And the real Nazis today have managed to hide behind other names. The real Nazis aren't the skinheads, the KKK, or the white supremacist groups. The real Nazis are the Left, or the Liberals. They hang out with the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:50 AM | Comments (130)
September 24, 2004
Holy Days and Holidays

This evening at sundown begins the Jewish day of turning, of the change of heart, of renewal. It is known today as Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. Interestingly, there are no such names in the actual Hebrew scriptures. It is identified as "a day of atonement" in Leviticus 23:27. It is indeed "an holy convocation," but not a feast day, not like Passover, Sukkot, or Shavuot. It is an introspective day, like Rosh Hashanah. On Yom Kippur, the Jew is to "afflict" his soul. (23:27, 29, 32). It is a very solumn obligation, upon which the Jew's inclusion in the community of saints is pending.

This is the day that the high priest makes atonement for the sins of the entire community, collectively, in one annual ritual. (See Rabbi Ari Kahn's commentary.) This is the day of confession, repentence and turning away from sin, turning toward the life honoring the eternal verities.

Shawn Green, Los Angeles Dodger knows about these things. The star first baseman has sat out games that fell on Yom Kippur before (2001) when the Dodgers were in an important playoff series against the San Francisco Giants. This year there was another big question, like a deja-voux. Another series against the Giants. The news dramatized Green's predicament. Would he play, or not?

Shawn Green, of the Los Angeles Dodgers

He decided not to play. The Day of Atonement was more important. National Public Radio (NPR) featured Alan Schwarz's commentary, in which Scharz praises Green for his decision. Truly, any sincerely religious person would understand. Any one who was faced such intensely conflicting values appreciates the man who choses the higher value.

Of course, there were those who protested the 2001 sit-out of Green. There are those who tried to point out inconsistencies in Green's practice of his religion. Hey, Dodger fans want the Dodgers to win! Green is a great player, and a very highly paid player, like, $16.6 million (2004).

But Green is also highly respected, by most, across the board. Just read some of the articles about him. He is a humble man, sincere, and unpretentious. (Green doesn't profess to be terribly religious, in the ritualistic sense, anyway. He is simply a moral man, living a moral life.)

However, I have only one concern: what about the Sabbath? Any religious Jew will tell you that the Sabbath (Gen. 2: 1-3) is the foundation of all holy days, and the most holy of all. The Sabbath comes every week, Friday night sundown till sundown Saturday night. Many Jews will show up at the synagogues at which they are affiliated for the annual "high" holidays, like Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur. Yet, they rarely ever show up for a Sabbath service.

Is it too routine? Is the weekly sanctity of Creation's memorial benumbed by its repetition? It is so much more abundantly available. Why would the annual holiday be more significant in anyone's thinking? How could it be considered more accessible, more holy, or more important? The stakes are high, indeed, but, I'd think one's weekly observances would help one understand just how high those stakes really are.

There are Catholics who show up at church on Christmas and Easter, but hardly ever any other time. It is the same kind of manifestation of human nature, I suppose.

For one, my life has been forever molded (some say "warped") by the sanctity of the 'routine' Sabbath. Career changes, marriage possibilities foregone, financial loss--the Sabbath has been a strange blessing to me. It seems to have barred my participation in this world. (I should have moved to Israel 40 years ago. What a different life I would have lived.) My faith in the Creator would never have survived on a mere annual event.

Then again, I'm heathen, not Jewish. My reach for the stars is an intuitive thing, not an inherited genetic coding. Indeed, I'm coded for a very different experience. Nevertheless, I consider the sanctity of time the greatest challenge to the human consciousness. As one of a warrior race, I instinctively look for the greatest contest. I have been forever inspired by the provocation of the Sabbath. I appreciate the significance of the other holy days, and the Jewish experience entirely. But, for me, the Sabbath alone imprisons me in the crippling, servile covenant of the living God. Dayehnu, as they say at the Passover blessings. It is enough. For me, the content of the other holidays are all contained in the Sabbath. They are subsumed thereby.

Indeed, this year, Yom Kippur comes on the Sabbath!

Posted by David Yeagley at 09:56 PM | Comments (186)
September 22, 2004
Coughing up Kofi

Kofi Annan speaks like a megalomaniac racist. As Secretary-General of the United Nations, he speaks like he thinks he runs the world. He creates an impression that he feels he is in charge of all nations.

He is an African Negro, from Kumasi, Ghana; he was educated in the United States and Geneva (Switzerland); he is married to Nane Annan, a white woman from Sweden (attorney by training, artist by vocation); the organization he leads (the UN) is headquartered in New York City, of course.

Nane and Kofi, back stage at the UN

Under his 'reign' at the UN, there have been genocidal movements in Kosovo, Somalia, North Korea, Iraq, the Sudan and Rwanda, to name just a few. He wasn't quite able to lay the blame on the United States for those. Remember that the only way for the powerless to gain status in the world is to condemn the United States, or the Jews, for something, somewhere.

After innumerable UN resolutions against Iraq, and the unanimous vote of the Security Council for the use of force against Iraq, this power-crazed illusionist Mr. Annan declares to the world that the Coaltion entry into Iraq was "illegal." He has the foolish and unmitigated gaul to condemn the United States.

This self-imagined, dimented potentate presumes to pontificate to the greated nation on earth, the United States. Kofi Annan is nothing. Kofi Annan has no authority over anyone, anywhere. He is a complete fake, and only has so much influence as that given him voluntarily by whatever nations see use for him.

He knows he is nothing. This is why the only hope he has of creating a sense of authority for himself is to condemn the United States. To unite the world against America, this is his mission presently, else he is out of the picture.

The United Nations is communist by charter, and actually encourages conflicts throughout the world just as Russia once did. This is the Socialist agenda. Create racial, ethnic agitation, uprisings among the "oppressed," and then blame everything on the United States.

But Annan, the African Negro, marries a white European, so no one can accuse him of racism. But he advocates the forumla for the dismantling of nations, the weakening of powers, so that the UN can ascend to power. He wants to disarm all nations, putting the only military power in the world under his control. This is the published position of the UN.

Get Us Out is a grass roots organization that advocates the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations. More and more people see the costly foolishness of the UN, and the danger is poses to the free world. The UN is an enemy of the America, and the UN should be immediately moved out of this country. Not "Get Us Out," but "Get Them Out," should be the slogan, as well.

Annan has publically denigrated the President of the United States with accusations of illegality and implied immorality. This, after Bush asserted the humanitarian triumphs in Iraq, and announced hopeful visions of the future. "No one is above the law," Annan declares. Who's law? His? What kind of absolute fantasy world does he live in? Nobel prizes like his are reserved for pure egotists.

Annan is a desperate man, and a threat to world peace. Not that removing him from the UN would make anything better, but, there are less foolish men that could hold the position of Secretary-General.

Kofi Annan, the foolish man who thinks he is more righteous than the President of the United States, the man who thinks he has more authority than the American Commander and Chief. Kofi Annan, a grotesque, political misanthrope, and a deeply aberrant commentator. Diplomate? Good talker? Man of peace? No, just a very deceptive man who abhors freedom. "Get him out."

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:16 AM | Comments (179)
September 21, 2004
Lessons in Lying

It's been called 'passing the buck,' and we've just seen a spectacular case of it. Dan Rather pushes a story over the edge; the bloggers call him on it; CBS defends him. That's scene one.

Scene two: the truth about how the story was created, obtained, and broadcast, all came out, and it was impossible to hide. Dan Rather "regrets" it happened; CBS says it was misled by the sources; everyone involved admits error in judgment, etc. All regret the story, after they were all caught, and couldn't hide. Such integrity is historical--historically odious.

Dan Rather, media baffoon, alla Clinton under fire

Scene three: [yet to be acted out] no one has apologized to President Bush; no one has apologized to the National Guard; no one has identified the source of the forged documents; no one has identified them as criminal, no charges have been filed, no admission of culpability in crime has been made. No one has asked why, if there were doubts, they all went ahead with the story? "We thought it was true," is like saying, "I didn't know it was loaded," after you've blown someone's brains out with a pistol. There were all kinds of professional doubts about the story before it was ever aired.

Yet, in a way, the way the culprits are reacting to their plight of having been caught red-handed, it is as if nothing really wrong has happened. It was all just a mistake, not a moral failure, not a nasty plot. No one really did anything reprehensible. It's just a mistake. There is no ill-will or wicked motive involved. No one meant any harm.

Bill Burkett, noble protector of the criminal source?

These are the implications of silence, made by every individual involved with the forged documents.

This used to becalled "cover-up." This used to be called libel, and slander. This used to be called LYING.

But, as has been noted before in BadEagle, lying has lost its outrage. The Clinton Legacy is that everyone calls everyone else a liar. The biggest liars call others liars first. Add to this the proliferation of media opportunities, and more and more people obtain their 15 minutes of fame through lying.

It's a lying culture we live in today. Our national media has demonstrated that now beyond doubt. Perhaps we will later find out about who actually forged the documents. Bill Burket says he can't say who gave them to him, because he vowed silence for that source's protection. (However, most recently as today, September 21, Burket says a woman in Houston, Lucy Ramirez, provided him with the "file" on Bush. Obviously, the next question is, where or how did she come by it?)

Beautiful. "The Final Source." Sounds like a movie. We know it is a criminal source. It is obviously political in intentions. It is anti-Bush, therefore it must have generated from the Left, perhaps the Democrats. The association with the National Guard is a tragic blight on the US Military, but, that's a good thing for the Left, the Liberals, and probably a lot of Democrats. Whats bad for the country is good for them.

This is the count down, then. How long before we know the final source of the criminal documents? Quickest way to find out is a legal suit, not a government investigation. (They still haven't determined who leaked the name of a CIA agent to Robert Novak. Sources must be protected, again.) CBS should sue Burkett, the one who delivered the documents. Burkett should then sue whomever gave him the criminal papers.

It looks very much like the media is a liar, anyway. But, lying is an accepted way of operating. Everybody does it. It's the thing. It's exciting, and makes a great story in itself, especially when the professional newsmen lie. It's autolytic for the media. It feeds on itself. Corporate narcissism in news media, the latest American pass time.

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:01 AM | Comments (125)
September 19, 2004
Internet Liability Lessons

Major media acknowledges now that the internet, particularly the bloggers, have forever changed news. Bloggers have shown themselves ahead on stories and facts. The internet is the place for the truth.

Yet, it is also the easiest place to start falsehood. In the case of the Bush National Guard "documents," it was first on the internet that the story of the documents was posted and circulated. The net was the fertile ground for fraud. Former National Guardsman Bill Burkett sent information to the "Texas Democrats", an independent internet group of some 570 members, (a sudden surge from the 490 still listed on this free Yahoo geo-cities site). This action precursored the "release" of the apparently forged documents. CBS is riding on the issue, Dan Rather facing the biggest scandal of his career. O'Reilly has hit him pretty hard.

Richard Poe, in Hillary's Secret War (2004) is quick to point out that Hillary Clinton in 1998 made some very strong statements about controlling the internet. She advocates an "editing function," or a "gatekeeping function." She is concerned and worried that such an influence as the internet should have the power to throw a system "out of balance," political, economic, or technological.

Is there really cause to worry, though? George Soros has managed to keep out of the heavy fire. Poe exposed him in the May 2004 issue of NewsMax. Poe went on O'Reilly with the exposure as well. Yet, Soros continues to run free of the dark shadows Poe factually wraps over him. The internet generally seems generally indifferent to Soros, if not supportive. Poe, first and alone, really exposed the terrible threat this man poses to freedom. But that's as far as it has gone, so far. Some news shows are beginning to mention him, but with little information and understanding. Poe should be on every TV talk show, in a hurry!

So, what of the internet? Does freedom mean the opportunity to lie? Why are liars, like the Clintons, so terribly worried about being lied about? John Kerry keeps pounding away his negative picture of Bush (but still not offering any concrete alternatives); the Democratic Party continues to put up front men who pound away on distorted information and outright lies. A few moments of prime time TV news shows what would appear to be a well-biased Democrat, liberal picture of America and the world. Repeating the lies seems to work. Quantity qualifies, in the mind of the unwarey. Repeat the lie enough times, it seems to be true. It develops a life of its own.

Poe's book, Hillary's Secret War, has been acclaimed as the best assessment of the effects of the internet in the '90's. Poe's closing chapter makes it very clear that the internet is the last stronghold of freedom. Cyberspace is the last fortress of truth. Poe says the internet effected the decisive difference in the 2000 election which defeated Al Gore.

Let's hope the 2004 election is finished before Hillary's "gatekeeper function" is installed. The Democrats have tried to say that Republicans created the Memo-gate scandal as a distraction. The Democrats have said the Swiftboat issue is a Republican invention. The Democrats have one tactic: to accuse.

Now the forged National Guard memos will be cited, by the Democrats, as evidence of the need to control the internet. Be first to accuse, and you will always seem to have tactical advantage. This is the lesson of the Democrats.

Posted by David Yeagley at 10:30 AM | Comments (190)
September 15, 2004
L'shanah Tovah!

Let the trumpet sound!

This evening, September 15, begins the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah. According to the Hebrew calendar, it is the year 5765. In the ancient Near East, the sunset is considered the beginning of the new day. The modern Gregorian calendars will note September 16 as Rosh Hashanah.

Rosh Hashanah takes place in the ancient Hebrew month of Tishrei, the seventh month, to which the Gregorian calendar corresponds with mid-September to mid-October. Interestingly, this is the season of Autumn, not Spring. For many cultures, the New Year is in the Spring, at the seemingly more appropriate season of rebirth. The Persian calendar, for instance, celebrates NoRooz, marking the solar year which begins some time during March or April. So why would the ancient Hebrew calendar begin the new year at the season when leaves begin to fall?

The Jewish holiday proports to commemorate Creation itself, on an annual basis. Thoughts are directed to the Giver of Life, the Creator, and the holiday involves renewal of ones essential spiritual relationship with the Almighty. Of course, Sabbath itself is the weekly commemoration of Creation (Gen.2:2-4; Ex. 20:8-11), but there is also the special marking of the new year in Torah (Lev. 23:23), the first day of the seventh month.

Tishrei, then is not the first month of the Hebrew calendar. Instead, the first month is Nisan/Abib, in which Passover (Pesach) takes place, and that in fact is in the Spring. The tenth day of Nisan/Abib (Exodus 13:3,4) is the day the children of Israel came out of Egypt. This begins at the new moon. Passover is the birth of Israel as a nation. Rosh Hashanah is the birth of the world.

Lest the non-Jewish mind become confused, however, with the numerous calendars of use in the world, historically and even today, it should be recognized that the point of Jewish holidays has always been spirituality, and that is something invited in all and offered to all, every Sabbath day (Saturday). Sabbath is the true basis on which to build an understanding of all the other holidays.

Holidays are relatively somber, but for a reason: the greatest joy is achieved through self-understanding, and not revelling and abandon. Lasting inner peace and strength are not evolved through jubilance alone, but through deep searching of heart, and complete commitment to life's grandest values.

It is a stunning moment, to be in a Jewish synagogue during the High Holidays. I recommend it for everyone. The Jewish prayer books are profound in their address to the human heart. We should all make such an effort. Renewal of the soul is not so costly as prolonged self-deception. Better to face the music, the shofar, (the ram's horn, the trumpet call), than to hide in goodly Babylonish garments. Better to be honest with oneself, than to constantly trying to impress others.


Leshana tova tikateiv v'techateim. Leshana tova tikateivi vetichatemi. And a healthy gut yoar to all.

Posted by David Yeagley at 08:16 PM | Comments (222)
September 14, 2004
The Gates of Hell?

"The gates of hell are open in Iraq," said Arab League chief, Amr Mussa, today, as nearly 60 people were killed during two Islamic murderist attacks. The attacks occurred in Baghdad and Baquba. Both were against Iraqi civilians and civil authorities.

So who opened the gates? Who is bringing on the hell? Who's killing the innocents?

Who's kidding whom?

French President Jacques Chirac, that bastion of integrity, fortitude, and reliability, said Iraq was like Pandora's Box. He of course fails to mention that he has supplied that box with a good deal of it's stinging insects.

The Islamic murderists seem indeed on the increase, but, who is supplying them with their weapons, and who's financing their tirades of murder? Russia, Syria, Iran, the usual suspects. Of course, Bin Laden.

This is all begining to sound like Kerry's political campaign. Just morally condemn your opponent. Just call the opponant a liar. Even if you are a known, career liar yourself, just keep calling the opponent a liar, trust in the power of the repeated words, and you very well might win. Indeed, if Kerry wants to call Iraq another Vietnam, then we can know for sure what he'll do--condemn America, support the enemy, and degrade any sense of American pride, purpose, and dignity.

Of course, one must formally condemn all murderists, even as the Arab League has: the ministers "condemn all forms of terrorism in Iraq targeting civilians, police, security force personnel and journalists, as well as diplomatic missions and humanitarian or religious groups bringing aid to the Iraqi people."

But the whole American military effort is there as a humanitarian effort. Yet the Arabs wouldn't dare condemn any Islamic murderist for killing any Americans. What do they mean, "bringing aid to the Iraqi people?" Who is there not doing that--except the Islamic murderists?

The Arab League did say that the interim Iraqi government should be given international status, to enhance the political process in restoring order to Iraq.
The draft calls on the league's 22 members "to restore diplomatic relations with Iraq to their pre- invasion levels in order to bolster the political efforts being exerted by the interim Iraqi government."

Yet, the other problem, Syria's occupation of Lebanon, was not referenced at all. Syria's utter domination of Lebanon is not considered an offense to the Arab world, apparently. Perhaps this is because of the large number of Christian Arabs in Lebanon. Islam would rather dominate, in tyranny, any Arab community. Tyranny is okay, as long as it's Islamic Arab tyranny. Lebanese Christians are a forgotten cause in the world, it seems.

So much for Arab racist politics. If you're considered Arab, you're not allowed to be anything but Muslim.

The Gates of Hell, indeed. The demons seem to be Islamic murderists, quite clearly. The domain of Islam is theirs. America should be lauded the world over for being brave enough to go in their and try to redeem some souls with freedom! This is a grand thing America has started. It is phenomenal!

We can only pray that we will finish the job this time, and not let Kerry do his lying, traitorous thing a second time, for that is surely what he will do.

Unto the strong belong the spoils. The greatest accomplishments cost the greatest risks, the greatest efforts, and the greatest courage. Kerry has none of these qualities. His belabored campaign efforts are characterized by one theme: accusation of Bush, condemnation of the administration, and false pretenses, forgeries, and hackneyed lies. His political demeanor is becoming uglier and uglier, with each passing day of this campaign.

Shall we expect him to being communion with the Arab murderists already? Shall we not see him aiding and abetting the enemy very soon? This is what he is famous for. This is what he delights in. He might as well campaign on it.

Posted by David Yeagley at 03:25 PM | Comments (65)
September 13, 2004
The Kerry Factor

The official web site of the John Kerry/John Edwards campaign is entitled, "Make History With Us."

So what kind of "history" has John Kerry made, so that one would want to join him?

John Kerry, the destroyer.

The outstanding contribution of the Kerry presidential campaign it that John Kerry has set American veterans against each other. John Kerry knowingly brought before the American people the issue of honorable vs dishonorable service. His own service has always been questioned. In his presidential campaign, he has brought this duplicity, this depressing ambiguity, to the forefront. It is a political error to say he served honorably to mollify his disreputable conduct. It only intensifies his ill effect.

Kerry has succeeded in turning our own vets against each other, for the sake of his own political ambitions. This is perhaps the most degraceful public effort in the history of politics. Clinton's immorality and psychologically disturbed personality absolutely trashed the White House, and baptized the presidency in unprecedented filth and nihilism. But that was the White House. The heart of the American public is our veterans. That's where we all are involved. That's were we all serve the country through our families. Kerry has now trashed that.

Never again will the military service remain the same in unquestioned honor. Never again will America's armed forces wear the badge of courage without suspicion. Perhaps Kerry is only the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps the trend has been downward, ever since sex in the military was made an issue by Clinton.

The military was the last stronghold of integrity and strength. Kerry has paraded his own untenable assertions in such a dramatic way as to set veterans against each other, thus bringing all the military into question before the public.

This must have been a mission of the anti-American forces. How else could the Democrats have elected Kerry? Why else would he run at all? How could he expect to run without this anti-military effect? Surely, it was an attack on the integrity of our most sacred institution. Kerry doesn't need money. This campaign is entertainment for him. Worse, this is a design to degrade the United States in an unprecedented way--through unsulting the American uniform.

This is the Kerry effect. This is the message, and this is the image that will be remembered. Kerry is a political whore, who marches down the aisle to profess loyalty in marriage to the American public. It's all a betrayal from start to finish. The military, our front line strength, is cut to the quick by the lowest blow anyone could ever render: cowardice in uniform, with decorated for treachery. Campaigning to undermine the foundations of our national pride.

Indeed, Kerry has made history.

Posted by David Yeagley at 09:49 AM | Comments (198)
September 10, 2004
Remembering 9-11?

What would a survery reveal, were people across the country asked, What do you remember most about 9-ll?

I remember frustration. I remember not feeling the least satisfied with our national response. I wanted to declare war, but my FrontPage article was preempted by senior writers, and I wasn't published until a couple of days after.

I remember the Muslims and wanting to deport all Arab Muslims immediately, not for hatred, but for security.

What's to remember otherwise? Of course we are sorry for the dead. This is unspeakable. But is mourning more important that securing the furture? Is mourning the only legitimate way to "remember?"

Let's remember that the response of our country, indeed, of the world, has been weak, vascillating, and 9-11 continues to be used as a financial ploy. Let's remember how despicably our society behaves in the fact of threat.

Let's remember how our government decides to delimit our American freedoms so as not to offend or curtail the freedom of the Arab Islamic murderists. Let's remember Homeland Security and how we strip search elderly grandmothers in the airport lines, while immigrant and minority baggage inspectors rip off unsuspecting travellers. (There was an article on this in todays news, but it was removed from the internet headlines after a brief exposure. Homeland Security is paying over a million dollars in baggage theft claims.)

Let's remember how we've been scarred, not by the WTC tragedy, but by the crippled, irresolute response of our own liberal government, which would rather take freedom away from our citizens than from our enemies.

Let's remember a government that has made American citizenship nothing more than an "in" for international Muslim murderists, and degraded the meaning of being American.

Things are the things I remember about 9-11. I'm still too angry to mourn. I appreciate deeply what Bush has tried to do, and his judgment, I pray, was wiser than mine would have been. I do not believe that Islam is a religion of peace, but a religion of coersion. But Bush said immediately after 9-11 that Islam was not to blame. I pray that more peace has resulted from that rational response. I don't know. I know I would have deported all Arab Muslims immediately, by executive, emergency order.

Posted by David Yeagley at 06:55 PM | Comments (165)
September 09, 2004
A Double Lie?

It has already been established that when a liar calls someone else a liar, the truth is denigrated. This is the Clinton legacy.

However, Kerry is putting a new twist on it all. If he, a known liar about his Vietnam experience, can make it even appear that Bush has somehow lied about his National Guard serivce, then Kerry gambles that two liars cancel out each other, and hopefully they can move on to other issues.

Kerry errs on at least two major points. One, Bush never dramatized his National Guard service, so whatever confusion there is over it, it doesn't reflect nearly as bad on his memory and motives as Kerry's own blatant lies about his Vietman service do on Kerry's trustworthiness, and dramatizing this issue exposes Kerry's incababilities as a leader in crisis; two, if he thinks he as achieved equality in lying, through the Bush confusion, and that they can move on now to the bigger issues, Kerry is quite mistaken in that Kerry's entire career has been anti-war, justifying and praising the enemies of freedom, humiliating his American countrymen, and establishing himself as the most "liberal" of all senators in Washington, more abbrasive that Ted Kennedy, his mentor. America is deeply involved in a war on global Islamic murderism (terrorism). Kerry's life record cries out as a testimony against his ability and will to fight.

Indeed, Bush's National Guard experience is a bit confusing, but that's because the National Guard was not the same organization 30 years ago as it is today. It was a much more loose affair back then. Add to this the design of the desperate Kerry campaign to make Bush appear as big a liar as John Kerry, and you have a lot of media fodder, all based on historical ignorance and political prejudice, as usual.

Kerry's gamble won't win for him. Instead, it further demonstrates his chronic, negative take on life. His mournful speech tones belie a dreary disposition behind his feigned promises. He's already proven himself a most willing and able traitor, a most selfish, self-serving opportunist, willing to abuse and misrepresent the US armed forces in the most degrading way, and to ride the crest of anti-American values. He demonstrated dramatically that he valued communism more than freedom and democracy. That's how his political career started, and that's what keeps it going.

There are enough left-over pot-head hippies around to give him a campaign, but they can't take him to the white house. Their era is over. All Kerry can hope for now is the single mother's vote, and that's not enough, either. Kerry has stirred up a lot of sick memories of a sick time, and America really should move on to the bigger issues, like, how can a society produce so many sick people that support such a sick man.

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:48 AM | Comments (167)
September 06, 2004
The Heart of Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton will find a way to be in the media limelight, one way or another. This time it's his heart surgery. What could be more dramatic and personal? It's his new national show. He seems averse to privacy, or is unable to sustain the experience of privacy. For him, life is a compulsive public display, always.

Bill Clinton the actor. It's another sleight of hand,
over genuine heartlessness, indeed.

But, should we feel any sympathy? He has dragged the public into all the seamy, sordid aberrations of his personal life already. He dragged the whole nation into the muck of his endlessly scandalous life, while he also worked tirelessly to bring America down to the level of a dysfunctional third world country, trying desperately to make sure China was strong enough to defeat America in every way, militarily and economically. Add to this the ominous list of bodies in the wake of his misadventures.

I was silent, inside, when I heard the news. I thought of all the abuse he has brought on other people; I thought of all the disgrace and danger he brought upon America; I thought it would not bring harm to anyone should he pass out of this life. But I did not rejoice. I did not indulge in a piquant sense of justice. I was silent.

The person I expected to dance on his grave was my own elderly mother, who has expressed ceaseless disgust with both Bill and Hillary Clinton, read several books about him, and could never see any redeeming factors in either Bill or Hillary.

Instead, at the news of his heart condition, she was overcome by complete sympathy. "Oh, you never wish harm on anyone, personally," she said. Maybe it was her background as an RN, and a career health worker. She even expressed sympathy for Hillary. She imputed full humanity to both, and felt genuine 'motherly' sympathy. My mother was touched for Hillary's sake, knowing what it is like when the husband suffers. She remembered the death of my father.

I still protested. "They are not normal people!" I said. "And don't you remember your own words? You once asked the question, Why hasn't somebody assassinated Bill Clinton?" I do not understand my mother's turn of sympathy. I don't wish ill to befall anyone, but, for the sake of the country, I withhold sympathy from the Clintons. The country would better off if they were both living in Antartica. The damage they have done, morally, socially, and economically, to the country, leaves me no room for feel any sense of empathy or natural sympathy for them. They are unnatural.

Dr. Paul Fick tried to point that out early on, in The Dysfunctional President. For someone as troubled as Bill Clinton, all life is a manipulation. Media limelight is a haven, a refuge, a security hide-out.

I predict Clinton will try to campaign for Kerry from the hospital bed. He will have all the cameras, all the microphones, right there at his bedside. This is nothing but a political opportunity for him. Clinton will try to make a noble hero out of himself, through the media. The man has seared his conscience to the point of vacuity. His only focus and guide is fame and power, apparently. His devotion to someone like Kerry is a vicarious sacrifice, indeed. Vicarious narcisissm.

I don't wish him well, I don't wish him ill. I feel his influence in the world is detrimental, and I do wish he had no such influence.

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:09 AM | Comments (132)
September 03, 2004
Free at last, Free at last, Free at last!

The American Negro male is now free to have a sexual relationship with a white woman, under any circumstance, for any reason, and of any type. This wondrous news comes as President Bush sincerely lauds the decency and strength of American soldiers abroad; as Chechnyan murderers slaughter innocent women and children in a Russian school; as protesters in NYC exibit a hatred of America beyond juvenile delinquency.

President George W. Bush, 9-2-04

A day of strange convergences. Koby Bryant, as predicted (July 25, 2003) is free. A miserably weak and intimidated judge, Terry Ruckriegle, succombed to attorney and media pressure, whose forces were able to crush the young Katlyn Kristine Faber's case by surrendering information to Kobe's defense attorneys and to the media (i.e., the public). Through excessive delay, and a horribly improprietous jury selection process, the circumstances became obvious: Koby would be free, regardless of her testimony. She finally decided not to go through with it.

So the American white woman is nothing. The self-afflicted white male in American politics and law has succeeded in degrading his white female to the very lowest level of social identity: a free indulgence. In this case, it wouldn't have mattered if the girl had sex with ten men, before and after Kobe. This is not relevant to whether or not he raped her. But her other alleged sexual activity is precisely the point where the great white race honored the black man, above all else. She is regarded as a hopeless tramp, and Kobe is dignified.

Even Chris Ruddy's initial reactions to the case foretold the positive outcome for Kobe. Ruddy's reactions to the earliest reports were all wrong, especially about Kobe's personal history, but his prediction about the legal system's principles were correct.

So beware white women. Trash or class, you're nothing in the eyes of the white legal system. So don't play around and then expect to be defended. Those days are over. You may end up raped or dead. The American Negro male is "free at last," at least from your legal threats.

The Chechnyan Muslim murderers may be free also. Russia doesn't have enough coordination, focus, or resolve to battle anyone over anything anymore. Russia's trying to act like a legitimate member of the world society, but only as an American-defying liberal. Since when can we expect a liberal entity defend itself or it's values, or its people from the deadliest enemies? Remember, Putin oppposed the US entry into Iraq, and then later tried to say he warned the US about 9-11 and Hussein's WMDs. Russia will revel a while in victimhood, until it can establish itself as a bleeding-heart liberal partner to all others with such sentiments, especially like those in Europe and in the US. It's called reviving the Communist base. You have to have a real cause. You have to be oppressed a while. The Chechnyans will do doubt soon have their independence, in the name of Islam.

The only really hopeful headline is President Bush's 2004 RNC acceptance speech, and the words about Americas fine soldiers:

I've met with parents and wives and husbands who have received a folded flag and said a final goodbye to a soldier they loved. I am awed that so many have used those meetings to say that I am in their prayers and to offer encouragement to me.

Where does that strength like that come from? How can people so burdened with sorrow also feel such pride? It is because they know their loved one was last seen doing good because they know that liberty was precious to the one they lost.

And And in those military families, I have seen the character of a great nation: decent and idealistic and strong.

This alone is the real. This is the healdline we need. These senitments alone are pure, sincere, and inspiring. Yet, only one who holds the right values himself can see them in others.

No, we can't all be on the front lines, but we can emulate the values expressed there, on the front lines of our own individual lives, with our families, and with our neighbors.

That's how real freedom is established in the land.

Posted by David Yeagley at 10:57 AM | Comments (35)
September 01, 2004
Protesters and Terrorists

Today's news headlines inevitably juxtapose the NYC protesters, dramatizing their hatred for President Bush and the Republican Party, and the violent Chechnyan "rebels" who seized a public school early this morning. The parallels cry out with unprecedented urgency.

Rescuing children from the Chechnyan murderers Reuters

Both groups, the protesters and the "rebels" wish to bring about social change. Both are public and open about it. There is but one distinction so far. The NYC protesters are willing to break the law, but not willing to kill anyone, yet. The Chechnyan "rebels" are quite willing to kill. They are beyond negotiation.

Protestors at the 2004 GOP Convention in NYC

So when will the protest crowd reach that point? When will the Bush haters, the enemies of Republicans, become quite willing to kill? It is a legitimate question, is it not?

The Chechnyan "rebels" are in fact Muslims not Arab Muslims, but Caucasian. The Russian government is said to have bloodily persecuted the Islamic population. The conflict of 1994-1996 reduced the Chechyan ethnic population from 800,000 to 500,000. Apart from these figures, one can say Muslim people prefere independence from any other influence, be it atheist (Communist) or Christian (democratic).

It is, however, important not to draw any parallels between Russia and the United States, and the conflict against Islam. Russia is not an established democracy or a republic. Russia is a leftover mess of Communist tyranny, and now very much controlled by private interests and organized crime at the highest levels. It is not appropriate that they should have the sympathy of America, or that their problem with Chechnya should in any way be compared to the US conflict in the war on Islamic murderers. Though the murders are the same, it is not safe to ally ourselves with a most untrustworthy entity as Russia, simply because Russia is being attacked by the same "enemy." Does the United States have a history of slaughter of dissidents as does Russia? Is the reason the murderes attacked the World Trade Center the same reason the Chechnyan murders are attacking Russian schools? I think not.

America allows difference of opinion, and even dramatic public display of anti-Americanism. Remember the German-American "Bund" of the 1930's? Remember their famous rally in Madison Square Garden, in 1939? (My father could remember it. He was living in NYC at the time.) America allowed rally of over 20,000 uniformed Nazis to march, meet, preach, and the media covered it with rigor.

Did the Nazi protesters turn violent? No. Did Hitler, whom they idolized? Yes. We all know that story. The German-American Bund dissolved in 1941, as America entered World War II. The leaders of the Bund were arrested and found guilty of all sorts of fraud. The point is, they were theretofore allowed their freedom to express themselves.

So what does this mean? Are we to regard the NYC protesters as representative of an evil force like Hitler's Nazi regime turned out to be? Can we expect the NYC protesters to turn violent one day, like the Chechnyan "rebels?" Do they not believe in their causes to that extent?

Perhaps not. Their causes are so self-oriented, so narcissistic, so utterly immature, socially, that they probably could not effect any sort of real "military" type action. That would require self-sacrifice, not something these folks understand. However, for the right price, things might change. Richard Poe reminds us that George Soros financed revolution in Eastern Europe, and succeeded in changing regimes there, notably Czechoslovakia and the former Yugoslavia. Goerge Soros has vowed to do the same in the United States. He is devoted to the removal of George Bush. Could it be that the NYC demonstrators won't be called upon for actual bravery, courage, and fortitude? The change could come by non-violent means, like paying voters, paying media, manipulation and fraud?

It is a timely configuration today, Chechnyan murders and NYC demonstators in the headlines. Social change, indeed. The Republicans are looking like the only thing "American" still left in this great country. Schwarzenegger's speech was epitomical. "You know you're Republican when..." When everyone else is trying to destroy all the values the American Republic was built on.

Posted by David Yeagley at 10:46 AM | Comments (175)
Journal Weblog Archives