October 29, 2004
Liar to the Last

Wednesday, October 27, I saw the documentary, Stolen Honor, the film Sinclair intended to broadcast, but backed down under incredible pressure, even the threat of going out of business. It was shown at the regular meeting of the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee club. A member bought it, and the club, along with other supporters, have actually bought local television time, and may even be able to support a national broadcasting.

It will be shown October 30, at 8:00 pm, on the Oklahoma City station KSPI channel 52 (cable 9), and KWHB channel 47 (cable 7) in Tulsa, October 31 at 4:00 pm. This will reach about 1.5 million households in Oklahoma. We can only hope other states have had the same determination to know the truth.

Stolen Honor is 42 minutes long, and bears the personal testimony of Vietnam veterans who were prisoners of war during the time Kerry was committing treason, and publically condemning American forces as criminal.

In Stolen Honor, these precious, captive souls are able to articulate the immediate and direct effects which John Kerry's lying treachery had on their lives. The men were told by their satanic captors to confess to war crimes, the crimes Kerry accused them of, or be tortured even more than they already were. Get that? Tortured to confess to war crimes which they did not commit, but which the great John Kerry accused them of, publicly!

And Kerry wants Bush to confess to making mistakes in an unpredictable wartime situation in Iraq! Kerry is a virtual madman.

All Kerry wants to do is condemn people, condemn the country, condemn anyone who is in his way, or who might serve as a whipping post, or a ladder for him to climb upon, raising himself up from insignificance and a fraudulent and failed character. He is a miserable man, and can only lift himself up by condemning others, ever so thoroughly. Thus he reveals his own abject depression, so obvious in his demeanor and body language.

Stolen Honor says it all. It is an unbelievable film, and Kerry's campaign would have ended long ago had this film been broadcast. Kerry willingly, knowingly lied about the events in Vietnam. Kerry gathered false testimony of many tramps who were not even Vietnam veterans! The whole thing was utterly fabricated, and Kerry unquestioningly committed treason against the United States. His quasi-intellectualism, (which bespeaks the immaturity of the '60's), and his verbal eloquence merely made his story the more effective to the unwarey, and more torturous for those men in uniform, and in prison.

This is wholly unforgivable, and the man won't even acknowledge the slightest error in any of it.

Kerry has been hell-bent on accusing, reprimanding, and condemning America from the day he purposed a political career. His depressing drone of criticism of America shows a deep-seated contempt for authority, and a conscious, chronic purpose to rebel against it and to overthrow it.

Kerry is a traitor, and unfit to be called even an American citizen, let alone even thought of as the President of the United States. Perish the thought, before his infectious cowardice plagues the country more than it already has.

Remember, Kerry enlisted in the Navy. He wasn't drafted. He went knowing, as a Yale graduate, he would be a commissioned officer. He would have a career. He lasted only four months in Vietnam, and, as the Swift Boat Veterans have clearly shown, his record is most dubious, and he was a horribly unpredictable leader, and the majority of people who served with him were averse to him. He was a egotist, eratic, and rash.

Kerry cares nothing for the country, nothing for his fellow Americans, and his entire approach is pure self-serving, the very worst kind of motives. The good wishes of his wife, once greatly influence by her Republican husband John Heinz, are not to be confused or even associated with Kerry's nature or purposes. Kerry is obsessed with condeming President Bush. This is his campaign strategy. Not criticizing, but condemning, on virtually every action of the White House since Bush was in office. Never mind the socio-psychological effects on the country. Kerry doesn't care about the country, but only himself, just like he didn't care about the US armed forces in Vietnam. He cared only for himself, and his career.

This campaign is truly a disastrous display of foul thinking, of "evil speaking" and denigration on the part of Kerry. It destroys every sense of self-respect an American could and should have for himself and for his country.

So what will the election be decided on? Partial information. Media distortions. Emotions. Circumstances. Finally, attorneys and judges, over the invalidation of votes, en mass.

If you are a praying person, it is time for the most sincere prayer for this country. Then we must trust in the unerring hand of Providence, for better, or for what may seem to be for worse. We can only hope to live our own individual lives with honor. The wide-spread failure to to this is no doubt the reason so many are not offended by such a dishonorable person as John Kerry.

Posted by David Yeagley at 07:19 PM | Comments (139)
October 27, 2004
When the English Cry

With profound anxiety and caustion, the world must consider the recent news stories and videos of English captives in Iraq, and their extraordinary behavior. Their pitiable pleas are completely understandable, and heard with clarion resonance in the souls of all humanity, no doubt, and particularly with those with that virulent, pathological condemnation for America and the war in Iraq.

There can be nothing less than complete sympathy for their terrible plight.

Yet, it must also be observed that their conditional behavior is in fact anomalous when compared to the universal, stereotypical English image of the "stiff upper lip" in crisis. The world first saw Kenneth Bigley (62), of Liverpool, begging for his life, with tearful pathos. Bigley was murdered (beheaded) by his captors October 8th, with grand drama.

And now the murderers have a female captive, Margaret Hassan (60), Dublin-born Britisher, and have recorded her crying and begging for her life as well. They have not murdered her yet. They will wring more tears from her.

Margaret Hassan (even married to an Iraqi,
still no mercy for her).

The Arab Islamisist murderer revels in the power and value of humilation, denigration, and arrogance. These internationally broadcast videos of Britishers begging, grovelling, in tears, with their ennobled grey hair, their mature age and life experience, are a socio-psychological triumph for the greedy Arabs. The Arabs have succeeded in reducing the English to pathetic begging. What could be more impressive? This is astounding. Think of it, to terrorize civilian captives in this way. This is truly the pith of Arab Islamicism: denigration of humanity. The Arab wants to show superiority, even through his doggish, satanic mania. It is the sense of superiority that he cherishes most. This he will have, at all costs, even his own life, which means nothing to him.

It is a tragedy, indeed, from all sides, but it affects far more than dear families of the victims. The tragedy is that these poor souls have cracked under the pressure. Most people would. Many soldiers would not, but, these captives are not soldiers. These are civilians. They are not trained to endure torture. And they are not politicians, but they are apparently not supportive of war, nor apparently assent to its occasional necessity in the world.

These incidents are truly a Liberal-fest, with no regard for the Liberal's life in the end. It is total vanity. The compassionate, anti-war captives are allowed to cry and plead on international TV, to be used to make the most pitiable and passionate, desperate appeal for the anti-war lobby, and yet their lives are ended anyway, by the satanic murderists, whom the victims imply are justified.

That's the orchestration of the murderists. That's the message. No mercy. Why? The murderers are incapable of appreciating it. They are possessed. To give them mercy is to allow them more opportunity for cruelty, as in the obvious case of Abdullah Mehsud, captured, release, and murdering again.

So what of that universal stereotype of the Britisher who remains stone-faced in crisis, with unshakable stoicism, determination, and bravery, much like that of an American Indian? The English are known for complete mastery of self-control under the most extreme pressure, even agony. Remember Alec Guiness, in Bride over the River Kwai? And Basil Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes? And certianly Winston Churchill and the whole British population during World War II. The Englishman is supposed to witness the catastrophies of Job, and take a puff on his pipe and say quietly, "Good show!" Weakness is not allowed. The Englishman holds his head high, always.

Winston Churchill

But the Arab effect is the denigration of the world. Or should we say, the ideology of the Left allows the supreme pleading, with tears? even from the British.

Again, no one will deny the horrid predicament of the victims. No one will without one pulse of sympathy from them, or from their families. (No one, except the Arab murderers.) This is sacred ground. This is not to be touched.

The concern must also be, however, for the larger picture of the world. Iraq is a land of cruel monsters, in breeding for 40 years. Saddam Hussein's regime was the sustained climax of it all. That civilized people should fall into the hands of the monsters is a devastating blow to caring souls, but also the very greatest opportunity for the anti-war movement to attempt to validate its position. Rather than see the Arab cruelty as something that needs to be erradicated, anti-war Liberals blame the Arab cruelty on civilized greed. It's our fault, not the Arab's fault. He's just a mechanical entity, an animal, a dog. He can't help his natural reactions.

These British tragedies have done no good for anyone, on either side of the issue. They have been made to be tools of the enemy, within and without America and England, and anywhere else decency is valued. That is the greatest tragedy of all. The tears of the victims have been made poison.

Posted by David Yeagley at 05:30 PM | Comments (212)
October 25, 2004
O'Donnell: the Devil Unleashed

The recent episode of Larry O'Donnell on Scarborough Country (Pat Buchanan substituting for Joe) was a stellar example of everything wrong with America. O'Donnell displayed the kind of immaturity, the gross hatred, the wholly improprietous behavior that good parents seek so earnestly to train their children to avoid. A professional, national talking head intentionally, purposely, and in an obvious planned manner, indulged in the vilest, Satanic passion probably ever exhibited in media. O'Donnell made Hitler look like a mere school boy, and encouraged bad children to behave worse.

O'Donnell, (right) the screamin' demon, and O'Neill (left) the
patient, enduring truth bearer.

It was the Friday, October 22 show. The transcript is not yet available), but bloggers have noted the episode. Anticipatory Retaliation has some quotes, and a video connection. (Drudge played a clip of the exchange on his radio show, Sunday night, Oct. 24.) Captain's Quarters makes observations. Michelle Maulkin's blog weighed in.

But what these comments have left out is what BadEagle already observed. It is part of the "professional" character of Larry O'Donnell, (and apparently the Left in general): false righteousness. The commentators are missing the deeper causes for this behavior. Remember it is this same screaming, demoniac accusor, Mr. O'Donnell, who presumed to invalidate the faith of President Bush, immediately after the third presidential debate. President Bush responded to Bob Schieffer's question about faith and presedency, and Bush gave a very telling, personal testimony. Demon O'Donnell seized upon the moment, and in transcendent, lofty tones, in sublime superiority of thought, with eternal confidence, O'Donnell proceded to utterly condemn Bush's faith, declaring it dangerous for the world. O'Donnell pronounced his eighth-grade level "theology" over the air waves, as if he was divining for the nation. O'Donnell looked into the camera, to the national TV audience, not at his host, again Pat Buchanan, to whom he was supposed to be speaking. No, O'Donnell presumed to prophecy in behalf of America.

And so now the presumptive seer has shown his true nature, that of an uncontrolled child, in a temper tantrum. Now we all see him.

Aside from that, however, is something more important. There is calculation involved here. Why would a grown man, an adult, on national TV, display such obvious misbehavior, such universally disgusting charades? Because it sells. The American TV audience is apparently used to emotionalism, to the point that it actually impresses people. There are apparently enough dumb, non-thinking people out there actually influenced by such behavior. such raw and ugly emotionalism. "Wow! O'Donnell is really a powerful man. Such wonderful passion! He's not afraid. He's got guts! What a brave man!" If such behavior is acceptable, even honored, it only shows how very low the public taste and value has sunken.

And O'Donnell's screaming was all accusatory! He could not bear to hear the testimony of John O'Neill, the Swift Boat veteran, talk about Kerry's very, very dubious military record. O'Donnell just tried to shout over O'Neill so that no one could hear what O'Neill was saying. O'Donnell felt he was righteously jusfitied in screaming down O'Neill. That is the sick part of it. O'Donnell had no shame. The whole thing was a noble effort to silence "lies." "You filthy liar!" O'Donnell screamed at O'Neill. Ah, such grand, examplary effort.

Such a pathetic example for youth! This kind of yelling should have happened every time Clinton lied! We'd all be hoarse forever. But, no, the Lefties are first out with the cutting edge pretenses. They're always first at false fronts. Clearly, O'Donnell's move was calculated. It will stay in people's minds. Many people may actually think the Kerry has been falsely accused!

This immaturity reminds me of a little story I learned when I was a child, about the battle between the Sun and the North Wind. The North Wind bet the Sun that yonder man walking down the road could be stripped of his coat. The North Wind boasted, and blew, and the man merely wrapped his cloak around himself the more tightly. Then the Sun took his turn. The Sun opened up wide with the warm rays, and the man right away took off his cloak. It was too hot.

So, how will vehemence and blow-hard winds fare against the conscience of America? Will it break our will, and bury the voice of the soul? Will the ill winds cause us to hide our true selves? Or, will the warmth of faith and simple sincerety bring out the honesty in all of us?

There was a time when self-control was the measure of the man. Has this erroded through the media's "entertainment" values? Is that what news really is, entertainment? How utterly distorting.

In a way, O'Donnell should be banned forever from broadcasting. His example is so pernicious and destructive that he should be punished. This behavior of his is not valuable, and should not be emulated in any way.

It is apparently connected to his self-appointed role as national theologian, and is the more devastating to dignity and the public's self-respect. O'Donnell has forfeited respect himself, and needs to be fined for "hate speech." This was what is called true hate speech.

Entertainment? Some people murder for entertainment. We call them "terrorists." So what do we call a satanic news entertainer?

Posted by David Yeagley at 08:54 AM | Comments (186)
October 22, 2004
Trusting Our Attorneys?

Talk about the fox guarding the chicken house! America is now using attorneys to monitor our elections. In started back in 2002. It's already part of the election process. The most mistrusted sector of the American professional world is to be intrusted with America's power of choice?

It wasn't enough that the U.S. State Department has already invited an international, European organization to monitor the presedential election of 2004. Now we have to have our own lawyers involved. Or, perhaps our wonderful and powerful social heros, these American attorneys, took that international arrangement as an affront, and decided to wedge their own way into the American election. Perhaps our homegrown leeches felt left out, and decided to flex their muscle here at the last minute. Why, shall we say they've waxed patriotic?

Apparently, the American population diserves attorneys. There are too many dishonest, immoral, and conscious-less people in American society. The Liberals and the Democrats are guilty of the most political fraud, yet are the loudest criers for monitoring. There are too many people who will do "whatever it takes," like Al Gore. Only this time around, they have the heavy weights like George Soros on their side.

Richard Poe has the latest news on the Soros lackeys at work in the vote shops. It's from a Washington Times article by Jerry Seper. From Poe's FreeRepublic.com links, we can see that not many have confidence that the investigations of Soros will amount to anything. $15 million has already gone into the voter registration campaign of Soros' anti-Bush effort, all in the key battleground states, plus tens of millions through other anti-Bush organizations.

The Democrats and the Liberals have learned from the 2000 election. The leverage is in the registration, not in the number of votes, not in the counting of votes, not in the tally. It's in the validation of the votes. This way, no matter what the numerical outcome, there is a chance to change it by invalidation of votes. And that validation will be made by the court, not the people. The election is now out of the hands of the people.

America is delivered into the hands of our dearest professionals, the attorneys. Seper's Wasthing Times article is outrageous, but, the American people are powerless to do anything about the incroachment of their rights and freedoms.

Dishonesty itself creates tyranny, eventually. The people of America have become too tolerant of immorality, of every grade. This results in the loss of freedom. It should be clear to all, at this point.

And logistically, it's easier to "pressure" one judge, or one attorney than it is a whole population. The hundreds of millions spent on this election, certainly from the Democratic side, simply put them in a more advantageous position. Take the election away from the people, and you've only got a handful of ligitators to deal with. Piece of cake then.

Posted by David Yeagley at 07:42 PM | Comments (16)
October 20, 2004
Let Freedom Ring

With clarion ubiquity, the social architects of the country demonstrate that freedom is bought and sold. There is no real freedom in major media. Why? Ironically, because of free enterprise itself, conducted by attorneys, in the form of free-wheeling law suits. If they happen not to like what you're saying, they'll sue you. At least, that's what the Democrat side does.

There are two major media suits going on right now. The Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. has faced severe pressure from liberal Democrat leaders, terrified that the Sinclair film "Stolen Honor" will bury the already dying political image of Kerry. There is at least one suit filed already, before the film has even been shown. (The pre-election broadcast was announced as early as Oct. 9. But the attorneys won't get the real "damages" in the suit until after Kerry loses the election.)

Fox News figure Bill O'Reilly is beinng sued for sexual harassment, for apparently no other reason than to attack his powerful conservative influence, and to possibly effect the outcome of the November presidential election. The attorney who filed the case against O'Reilly is a Democrat contributor. O'Reilly, of course, is a favorite of Republicans. Both of the Sinclair case and the O'Reilly case seem to show the one-sided, self-serving nature of the Left, which wants one standard for itself, another for it's opponent. The Left wants freedom to destroy its opponents, but is desperate to deny that same freedom to its opponents.

Sinclair has begun its retreat. O'Reilly has 'not yet begun to fight.'

Financial pressures from all directions came at Sinclair. Sinclair faced advertiser defections, a viewer boycott and a plummeting stock price, as well as strong opposition from Democrats. Who can fight such forces? I can understand the advertisers, the stocks, and the Democrats. But, a viewer boycott? What kind of people watch WB stations? What kind of people are afraid of the truth, afraid of freedom, afraid of equality? Did these people object to Michael Moor's Fahrenheit 9-11? Was there any significant inhibition to the broadcasting of that fabricated fraud film, which has been shown the world over? Can we not trust the public now to stand up for the 1st Amendment? Apparently not, not when it allows conservatives to expose the crimes of the Left, the fraud of the Democrats, the anti-American nature of their leaders. And to think, Michael Moore sued a TV station because it would not air his Fahrenheit 9-11!

The O'Reilly case certainly sounds utterly ridiculous. Yet, the originally filed complaint is fearfully detailed, as are all such complaints, initially. Now, even if not a word of it is true, it could mean another fall of the mighty. The commentators are loving it, of course. What glorious fodder. O'Reilly apparently sued Andrea Mackris' attorneys for their 'shake-down' before they even filed their suit. Some one certainly kept O'Reilly informed of what was happening.

Mackris.jpg OReilly.jpg
Andrea Mackris and the accused Bill O'Reilly

The first rule for an attorney, as I was told by one, is to consider the collectability. Attorneys are trying to make a living by their trade, which is lawsuits. They simply can't be bothered with low-priority cases. Big cases mean big money, like the $60 million Mackris' attorneys wanted as hush money. If you even think you have a case, you go for it, one way or another, with or without tapes for evidence. As yet, there are no serious consequences for big stake mistakes.

Peole seldom file a suit based wholly upon imagination, however. There are usually at least circumstances which imply their case. This is the risk of women and men in the work place together, especially high profile, high salaried work places. Women always have the opportunity to claim sexual harrassment. If they like the attention, it's great. If they don't like it, they file suit. And they always have the freedom to change their minds.

But Bill needn't worry too much at all. Clinton proved there are no consequences for words or deeds of sexual encounter in the work place, or for lying about it under oath. And Kobe Bryant has demonstrated that you can even rape a woman at will, if she's anywhere near you, and her pleas are vapid and ineffective. (Of course, weak, liberalized judges and media personnel help make that happen.)

Now, perhaps O'Reilly's exalted moral position makes him a different kind of target, for no such expectations were ever held for Bill Clinton, or for a black athlete. Nevertheless, the white women of America is on the down swing, degraded to live stock these days anyway. It's all part of the quest for "equallity."

Miss Andrea is obviously involving a great deal of immaturity or outright lying in this case. If she were concerned, from the beginning there were other steps she had the right to take, and should have taken. The fact that she didn't implies she shared the fantasy, so to speak. To file a suit now implies she was a culprit at the very least, to say nothing of the implications of complete fraud. Mackris' attorney Morelli said (on video, "TV Host O'Reilly Accused of Harrassment") that O'Reilly engaged in telephone sex with her "against her will" three times.

Is Miss Mackris unable to hang up the phone? Is she unable to report the incident immediately to her superiors? How long ago did this happen? (Four years.) Just now making a case? Forgot to complain earlier, like, when it happened?

And we thought brunetts were supposed to be smarter.

Freedom means freedom to sue, to malign, freedom to deny others freedom, freedom to make money. That's what precious American freedom has come to mean.

These are heartbreaking, pathetic times. There is too often too little if any consequence for evil doing. Evil doing has outrun the efforts to curtail it. There are just too many evil doers. They overload the system. Who but God can end such a plight?

Posted by David Yeagley at 01:25 PM | Comments (631)
October 17, 2004
An Immigration Side-Effect

The AP headline reads, "Thousands of Britons Protest War in Iraq." A catchy title? Provacative? Disturbing? Why, England is a fatherly figure to America, right? The English are America's main genealogical blood line, right? "Britons" against the American-initiated war in Iraq? How unsettling.

But who are these "Brits?" The article saves that info to until the last line in the sharply angled account. They are the far Left, naturally, and so far Left that they embrace the Muslim Association of Briton. There's the key. The protest was a Muslim thing, no doubt.


Whose bones? Sudanese? Iraqi? The sure look like "white" bones to me. Who are they trying to kid? Whose elimination are they celebrating here? This is an AP photo taken by John D. McHugh at the demonstration. Anti-war protesters pulled a sculptures through the streets of London, Sunday Oct, 17, 2004, as thousands of anti-war and anti-globalization activists marched through central London, protesting the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. The march to Trafalgar Square marked the culmination of the third European Social Forum-- three days of speeches, workshops and debates largely dominated by Iraq and the U.S. presidential election. London's Metropolitan Police estimated that around 15,000 to 20,000 marchers set off from Russell Square. There were no reports of arrests or disruption.

Well, there is one source (The Guardian, 2002) that says there are 1.8 million Muslims in England, Wales, and Scotland. That's only 3% of the population. But most live in London, and make up one 7th of the total population of the city. And one must ask, How many of the protesters actually live in there? How many came over from France?

The Muslim Association of Briton declares it's purpose to be for the benifit of the Muslim community. It is obviously present as an invader, with designs to spread it's system throughout Briton. It's key disguise words are "cooperation," "society," "community," "human rights," etc. The usual suspects.

Now, the Stop the War Coalition of the UK is a bit more complex in its ambiguity and dissembling. There are all sorts of far Left professional organizations listed among their interests, as well as specifically anti-war groups. STWC also unites with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, a major anti-war organization. One thing for certain, the larger the coalition, the more people can be mustered for a professional protest. There's money in it for the demonstrators.

So protestors have actually lost clout in recent years. Only the most naive person would think these groups in any way represent the public. Half the time they don't even represent themselves.

But they always make good headlines. This is exciting. The outrage sells papers.

"I've never met anyone at a rally who was anti-American, even though that's how the media like to portray these protests," on of the veteran, professional protesters said. That's supposed to make Americans feel better. That's supposed to show great compassion and sincerity, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans supported the removal of Saddam Hussein and the invasion of Iraq.

So the protesters can keep their compassion. I feel just fine about America, and about the President, at least on this point. And that magic tactical forumla of separating a people from it's government doesn't guarantee one less drop of blood to be spilled. The professed 'anti-war' United Nations has caused more wars than America has ever been or ever will be involved in. The peace mongers, as they have been properly named, are just another self-interest group, really. Their voice in indistinguished, or rather, distinguished by direct dissembling.

War mongers are just as dangerous. In some countries plagued with abject squalor, killing is the quickest road to significance. It is like a drug fix for the soul.

But real war is not only necesarry, but must be valued, even honored. Any philosophical attempted to discount its accomplishments is a vote for anarchy and in fact more squalor.

Posted by David Yeagley at 04:34 PM | Comments (112)
October 15, 2004
How Low Can They Go?

Some people were impressed with the way John Kerry and John Edwards spoke about Dick Cheney's family circumstance--the fact that the Cheney's have a homosexual daughter. Some people thought it was grand magnanimity on the part of the Democrat candidates, a show of heart, compassion, etc., etc. But it really wasn't. It was classic double talk, classic Leftist-speak, which despises the very things it professes to champion. Perhaps because of the personal nature of this family element in the debates, the Liberal delusions went unnoticed by many in the audience.

During the Cheney-Edwards debate, Gwen Ifill asked about same-sex marriage. This was the subject. She wanted Cheney to talk about his position compared to that of President Bush. Cheney answered perfectly logically. But Edward, in a truly dissembling refulgence of sympathy and compassion, decided to bring up Cheney's homosexual daughter, Mary Cheney,

EWARDS: Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy.

Senator John Edwards

Under the guise of lauding the "wonderful" compassion of the parents, to be so "wonderful" that they should embrace their own offspring, homosexual that she is, only implies that Ewards thinks homosexuality is a horrible, horrible tragedy, a moral disaster. For every degree of 'wonderment' he expressed for their compassion, he implies the offensiveness, the hideousness of their homosexual daughter, and their consequent predicament.

There was no reason to bring up Cheney's daughter. Gwen had asked about the politics of law regarding same-sex marriage. She had asked Cheney's position. Edwards took the occasion to bemoan homosexuality, and point the finger at Cheney as though Cheney were some profound moral failure as a parent because his daughter was a homosexual.

Kerry did the same thing. When Bob Scheiffer asked whether homosexuality was a choice, Kerry brought up Cheney's daughter

KERRY: We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.

Why, just look at the this administration's vice-president. Why he has a butch for a daughter. Why, I'm sure she thinks homosexuality is a choice. Why, we can't condemn the parenting of Dick Cheney, now, can we?

Senator John Kerry

And then Kerry professed innocence when the Cheney's (Dick and Lynne) expressed offense at Kerry's ploy. "I said it in a very respectful way about their love for their daughter," he pleaded.

Then the Kerry-Edwards camp tried to condemn the Cheney's for "over-reacting" to the ploy, as if the Cheney's were "ashamed" of their daughter! Oh, how lucky Kerry and Edwards are, that they don't have to deal with the horror of homosexuality in their families! Why, they don't have to be ashamed! And my goodness, why should the Cheney's act offened by homosexuality. Are they ashamed of it?

So it is abundantly clear that the Democrat candidates have no respect for homosexuals, nor for their families. This is as low as any political manipulator can go, to profess to be complimenting your opponent, when denigrating homosexuals, denigrating their families, and denigrating themselves by their hypocrisy. Thus they denigrate the American people, who must endure having this kind of serpentile tactic caste in their face.

But this is the Left. Same tactic, every time. No sincerity, just desperation. "Whatever it takes," Al Gore used to say.

And just when we thought that was as low as they would go, Lawrence O'Donnell condemned the faith of President Bush, on Scarborough Country. Pat Buchannan was hosting for Joe, and showed a video clip of the President's testimonty of faith, given during the final debate. Schieffer had asked for the testimony. (Here is the October 14th transcript.) O'Donnell condemned every cardinal element of Bush's profession of belief and trust in the Almighty God. O'Donnell declared Bush's faith to be "dangerous," and particularly as it applied to foreign policy, and used Afghanistan as an example.

The President said he believed the God wants everyone to be free. Freedom was a gift from God, Bush said, and he was greatly encouraged by the newfound freedom in Afghanistan.

This is simple faith. Faith is always simple. And it always invites the sophomoric, pseudo-intellectualism of people like O'Donnell, to say, "Well, where was God before this Afghani freedom?" Why, that would imply that God was not with them before. That would be judgemental. And good Christ-less Leftist christians must never condemn anyone, or anything, but the real Christian. O'Donnell was not about to allow President Bush any such notion that America, under his Presidency, had in any way cooperated with the purposes of Heaven. No way. That, in O'Donnells lofty opinion, was nigh blasphemy.

Lawrence O'Donnell

In fact, O'Donnell was so lifted up in his thoughts, so carried away in his self-aggrandized rapture, that he forgot to look at Pat Buchannan, and instead looked directly into the camera as he spoke. He wanted to talk to the American people, not Pat. O'Donnell really thought he was a superior theologian. He was really impressed with himself there, contradicting the plain, simple, humble, working faith of the President of the United States.

I think we can cross off O'Donnell from any list of important commentators now. He's shown his self-conceits beyond public repair. We can count him with the Liberals who will profess to be complimenting when they are instulting, praising when they are viciously condemning, and blaspheming when professing to pronounce divine truth.

We're there, America. We're there.

Posted by David Yeagley at 09:10 AM | Comments (177)
October 11, 2004
The Afghans Did It!

Democracy in Afghanistan! Just three years after the overthrow of the Taliban, 10.5 million Afghans registered to vote, and 43% of them were women. October 9, under threats of violence everywhere, Afghans cast their ballots. Half a million Afghan refugees living in Iran voted; nearly a million in Pakistan voted. The ballots are coming in by helicopter, plane, donkey, and foot, in this historic region of the word, in this historic time.

They say it will take nearly three weeks to carefully count the ballots, but just think, they did it! They went through with it, in the midst of a war-torn country, full of oppression, ego-maniacs, and national opium dealers (better known as "war-lords"). And yes, there were accusations of fraud and irregularity from the opposition, and threats toward voters and murders of election workers, but even those voices were swallowed up in the overwhelming chorus of democratic fervor, as the people rejoiced in this magnificent testimony to the power of freedom. We must greatly, greatly admire the Afghanis for bravely following through.

Afghan women with their voting registration cards awaiting
admittance to a polling station in Shiberghan, northern Afghanistan.
Here's a case where the hajib pays off. The thugs can't tell who
they are! Nevertheless, they are some of the bravest women in
the world today.

And Americans and coalition forces should feel mighty happy about it. A great effort was made, and to this point, it should be hailed as a profound success. To all appearances, it is a monumental step forward for Afghanistan.

And there's an critical election coming up for Americans, too, and one where intimidation, intrigue, irregularities, and fraud are the more threatening because they are more subtle, more hidden, and more deceptive.

FrontPageMagazine has just posted a new three-part series of articles by David Horowitz and Richard Poe on the "Shadow Party" behind candidate John Kerry. The Democratic party is a crumbling coalition of special interest groups, and those in the know realize that the party is basically over as a political force. The new force has been created by independent financial backing from people like George Soros, who donate millions to radical anti-American (socialist) grass roots groups all over the country. It appears that the Soros family is the likely replacement for the tired, flagging Kennedy family for control over the Left.

The intensity of their efforts to "throw the election" process is becoming more and more apparent. It is beyond the usual political dynamic in a healthy democracy. It produces violence--the kind you find in a dicatatorship, when the opponent is literally attacked, and the election is "won" by physical threat and manipulation.

George Soros, planning the next move against America.

This November, in the dearest land of America, voters are overshadowed by threats as real and nasty as those pointed in the face of the Afghans. It is a pathetic phenomenon, but because of relentless, conscience-less, desperate men in America, the people vote in fear, in apprehension, and in disgust. We haven't been able to fly in an airplane in peace, since 9-11-01. Now, three years later, we can't vote in peace! The Afghans have their first election in two centuries, under great anxiety, but with great determination. The Americans have their first election in two centuries under extreme disallusionment, disappointment, outrage, and disgust. We can only hope that Americans--true Americans, not socialist, Communist, enemies of America--will have a least the determination of the Afghans to save our own country from the thugs, foreign and domestic.

Yes, the Left has finally made America a Third World country, before our blurry eyes. It's happened. It's already happened. It's here. We're there.

Now what?

Posted by David Yeagley at 07:50 PM | Comments (175)
October 08, 2004
A Third World Election--In America

Far more important than the presidential debates is the behavior of some Americans who are trying to kill freedom by stealing the election with violence and intimidation at the polls and the campaign offices. America is fast become like a third world riot, and this is because of persons in the Democratic Party. The vast majority are normal people, but the newsmakers, the leaders, the engineers, are radicals, who practice deceit, open lying, intimidation and violence.

Carter County Missouri left Bush and Cheney off the county's absentee ballot. Innocence? Incompetence? Ignorance? "No intent," said County Clerk Becky Gibbs.

Oh, well, the Wisconsin Democrats took Ralph Nader off the ballot entirely, even after he file more than twice the required number of petition signatures to be included. I'd call that intent.

And there are wonderfully 'innocent' mistakes these days, with all the immigrants, illegal and otherwise. Why, Maria Alquilar just mispelled eleven names on a $40,000 dollar mural for the city library of Livermore, California. The cocky Latino artist, from Brooklyn, operating out of a Miami studio, and marketing her Mexicanized work in California, not only did not apologize, but justified mispelling the names of people like Einstein, Shakespeare, Vincent Van Gogh, Michelangelo and seven other historical figures. She felt it was not only irrelevant to the art, but others looking on should have caught the errors. She agreed to correct the spellings, for another $6,000. So, error, and arrogance, are definitely part of the professional picture these days.

And so is nasty intent.

The Bush-Cheney campaign office in Knoxville, Tennessee was subject to a drive-by shooting Tuesday morning (Oct. 5). "Motive unknown," said the police department. Now there's in depth detective thinking for you. It was early when the shooting occurred, before the office opened. So, that means they weren't shooting at any person. So that means they were shooting at the Bush-Cheney office. "Motive unknown." Indeed.

Huge swastika signs were made on the lawns of Bush supporters in Madison, Wisconsin the week before. Three different homes with Bush-Cheney signs in their yards were subject to this style of hate-crime for supporting their candidates of choice. Political hate crime, mind you, not racial or sexual hate crime--unless the perpetrators were black female homosexuals. No, this is strictly political. There are a number of growing reports of this kind of Bush-hate behavior in swing states like Wisconson and Florida. Oh, it's all perfectly justified, because it's freedom of speech, and because it isn't racially or sexually based. It is pure ideological hate, therefore, above the legal fray. Yeah, right.

And there was another Bush campaign office seizure by the Kerry supporters in St.Paul, Minnesota, Oct. 5--same day as the office shooting in Wisconson. The out-of-control mob blocked the entrance to the Bush office, intimidating the people who were picking up tickets to hear President Bush's speech that week-end.

Oh, yes, there's the other Wisconsin incident in which more tha 50 anti-Bush demonstrators stormed the Bush campaign office in West Allis, committing numerous infractions of the law. They give new meaning to the phrase, "Get out the vote." They are obviously out to intimidate children, the elderly, and other volunteers. This is very primitive, third world-style of politics. And if it isn't prosecuted strictly, it will increase rapidly, as we approach the November election.

The Democratic counties of southern Florida, such as Dade County, were in charge of the polls during the 2000 election. Yet the Democratic voters were claiming hundreds and thousands of their voters were "disenfranchised" and that their votes weren't counted, etc., etc. There is still research going on about all the fraud that occurred then. It was on the Democrat side. And the lies and the cover-ups and false accusations still failed to win them the election. So, Gore declares, to this day, the election was stolen from him!

The the 2004 election trauma is just beginning. There has been voter registration fraud in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, and Florida. And we haven't even had our "October Surprise" yet! (What's up, Hillary?)

Richard Poe has published a new piece on Ted Kennedy in September edition of NewsMax (hard copy): "Teddy's Back." This is enlightening. Kennedy has been behind Kerry all the way, regaining the control over the Democratic Party which he had temporarily lost during the Clinton catastrophy. Kennedy is a socialist, certainly, but this article exposes the darkest sides of his decades of operations.

And remember Poe's work on George Soros? Everyone's talking about bits and pieces of Soros. You'll hear his name now and then on the news. There are even web sites devoted to exposing one or another aspect of his multi-faceted endeavors. But Poe is the only one who paints the whole portrait. News media seems to balk at that. They'd rather chew on the bits and pieces. They can't handle the full story.

Are Kennedy and Soros to be associated? Fly-fisherman John Venlet has the right instinct. He juxtaposed their names in a blog last June. And ask the National Rifle Association. They've drawn some very close ideological if not financial ties between Kennedy and Soros. One example has to do with gun control. Kennedy (and his puppet Kerry) has always been for disarming the public, as any socialist is. Gun control is a socialist priority. How can they control the country if its citizens are armed?

But few people know that George Soros funds the same gun control legislation. He funded the NAACP's New York lawsuit against hand gun manufacturers, which cost the manufacturers some $10 million to defend. US District Judge Jack Weinstein finally dismissed the case, and it was essentially a frivolous suit, but, it shows what money can do.

Buying the White House, as his accusers say, is what George Soros wants to do. He wants Bush out, and Kerry in. Therefore, Kennedy and Soros must cooperate. Soros will surely never have the influence in America that Ted Kennedy will. An old Hungarian Jew cannot compete with a old Irish Catholic, so they will inevitably work together for their political goals. Kerry is their representative at the moment: an eastern European ethnic Jew-raised Catholic. Perfect incarnation of both Soros and Kennedy.

But can the people of America vote in peace?

Doesn't seem to be so lately. We can thank both Soros and Kennedy for that. We can thank the Democratic operatives. The Democratic Party will change after this election. Perhaps the more civilized of their numbers will realize what's happening, and reform the party or leave it. That's the best that can be hoped for.

In the mean time, better take a baseball bat to the polls with you. Tell the police you're going to a sporting event. Self-defense is just another game in America now. Attorneys have seen to that.

Posted by David Yeagley at 04:22 PM | Comments (268)
October 04, 2004
All Men Are Not Equal

America's Declaration of Independence says that "all men are created equal." It does not say all men are equal.

The crisis in the Sudan demonstrates how men rate one another. Nearly 2 million people have died in the last seventeen years in the Sudan, from war and man-made famine. It is the longest on-going civil war in history. Eighty per cent of the southern, Negro population has been displaced, at least once, since 1983.

It's basically because of the northern, Arab muslims, and their murderous designs. The 'great' United Nations has called for the surrounding Arab nations to call a halt to their 'brethren' down in the Sudan. The United States has called for an end to the genocide. American activists have called for the same.

But these are just words, formal political etiquette. Russia, China, and Pakistan, for instance, didn't even want the US to suggest "sanctions" against the Sudanese government. Besides that, China, Malaysia, Canada, and Sweden all have enormous oil interests in the Sudan. We all know what happens when a country's oil interests are threatened. The Arab countries have made it clear they want no Western intervension, and have dismissed any threats of sanctions or accusations of wrong doing in the Sudanese affair.

But what is the real reason nothing is being done for the dying hordes?

It is because they are not valuable to the world. They contribute nothing to the world. They are simply not "equal," in a way that makes them wanted, or worth protecting.

But we won't hear any criticism for China, Canada, Sweden, or Malaysia for allowing the extended plague of death. Their situation is more convenient. They don't have to lift a finger. They're certainly not interested in bringing democracy or freedom to the Negro of the Sudan, like America is determined to bring to the Iraqis. They're certainly not going to bring a coalition government to protect the interests of the southern Sudanese. The northern, Arab muslims of the Sudan are their oil partners. Who needs the Negroes, Muslim or Christian? This population is wholly despensible.

That is the verdict of the world, the world wrapped up in international economics, devoted to the politics of oil.

Oh, but the 'great' UN can call an "emergency meeting" of all Arabs, lest Israel make progress in defending itself, steadily wiping out the murderers hiding out in the Palestinian centers. Why, immediate action is demanded! Never mind about the useless Sudanese. They're not important to anyone.

The world acts by priority. The world choses it's priorities. It's usually about money. In the case of the Israel, it's only about Islamic hatred. In the world's view, hating Israel is the top priority. It's even more prestegious than hating America. It has more history, more racial focus, more genuine rage.

The the Jews have made Israel into a paradise in the Middle East, or so the envy of the Arab Muslims would indicate. Instead of learning how to advance themselves, they are content to hate the superiority of Israel.

This is beyond politics. This is about freedom and creativity versus enslavement and willfully counterproductive motives. This is about those who produce, and those who don't. This is about men who achieve, and men who envy.

Men are created equal, but they don't remain that way. In this world, some men become more valuable than others. How? By contributing to the world, not trying to destroy it; by producing something for the world, not expecting to be forever supported by the efforts of others. Yes, the strong should have compassion on the weak, but that means helping the weak become strong, not idolizing their weakness.

Posted by David Yeagley at 10:07 PM | Comments (116)
October 03, 2004
Kerry's Obsession

"Bush is a liar" is the foundation of Kerry's campaign. A new ad, released now after the September 30 debate, says "Bush lost the debate. Now he's lying about it."

Lying, which is Kerry's specialty, has an amazing power. Accusing someone else of lying is even more amazing. Setting himself up as the king of righteous judgment, through repeated and consistent lying and through repeatedly accusing the President of the United States of lying, is Kerry's lesson to the world on his kind of leadership. Clinton did not base his identity on accusing others of lying. He was simply a liar himself. But Kerry is using lying, not as a self-defense, but as a offensive attack. Accusing Bush of lying is Kerry's ultimate weapon. It 'moral' America, it is the wouldl-be pugilistic knock-out punch.

But even some Democrats have realized that Kerry is the last straw. The Democratic party is losing what little respect is had. Martin Gross (Washington Times, Sept. 29) said, "The Democrats, in their not-so-slow drift leftward, have crossed the bounds of decent patriotic conduct during wartime, undermining the effort by impugning the honor and honesty of the president and commander in chief. If the polls are correct the Democrats will pay for their disloyalty on Nov. 2."

Kerry's careerism absolutely destroys all respect possible for himself, and undermines the spirit of respect throughout the country. Clinton was simply a pervert, deviant or of person. But he did not campaign blatantly with accusations. (Clinton actually had some visionary ideas back in 1992.) Kerry is showing his profound disdain for America, for the people, for the military, for the spirit of Old Glory.

He has shown, during Vietnam, that he is against America and Americans. His talk of superior thought, values, correctness, righteousness, etc., is all reactionary, designed to bring power to himself. All he has demonstrated is his devotion to his personal career, at the expense of everyone and everything else. He went to Vietnam, only to scratch himself, recommend himself for medals, aggrandize himself, then betray his countrymen, and united with the enemy. Nothing could be clearer about his character and values.j

That he should base a campaign for the presidency on moral accusations of President Bush, that he should make the foundation of appeal the declaration that "Bush is a liar," only shows to all how sick Kerry really is, how deep seated his own ambiguities, inconsistencies, and false professions really are.

It's quite clear that Kerry is the liar. But he's not just out there lying about himself. He accuses Bush of being a liar, constantly. Clinton used no such tactic. Kerry is a big step furrther into perversion. Kerry is worse than Clinton.

Kerry thinks he can use his dubious, unsatisfactory Vietnam experience and his traitorous aftermath anti-war campaign as evidence that he is a strong, decisive leader. Who is fool enough to believe this? Why would Kerry think anyone would believe it? How could a national political party think the country would elect such a deluded man?

Is America deluded? Are there that many non-thinking people out there voting?

Lester Dent sees the "quagmire" of Iraq as a stroke of policial genious, assuring that the war on terrorism should be confined to a certain area, far away from the United States. It is a containment exercise, attracting all the terrorist murderers there. Kerry calls it a hopeless endangerment of our troops. Kerry wants out, quick, just like in Vietnam. Kerry, let all remember, is not interested America, but in Kerry. Kerry's view of the world is all about Kerry's career, not about what's best for America.

Kerry can brag all he wants about "winning" a debate. All he has shown is that truth doesn't matter to him. Just the appearance of truth. He thinks he achieves that by calling Bush a liar. Kerry's idolatrous dependence on the superficiality of words, as is customary on the Left, only reveals his destructive effect on the value of words. Words are made only tools, in the mouths of power grabbers. Words don't mean anything, coming from them.

It is heart-sickening and maddening to watch Kerry destroy all meaning before our eyes. It is vomitable to see so many people willing to be duped in like manner, so willing to espouse delusion, so willing to abandon their own souls in this way. Surely, there is new significance in the ancient words of St. Paul, speaking of the last days: "Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." 2Timothy 3:13. "And for this cause God shall send them srong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth." 2Thessalonians 2:11.

Of course, these are scriptures pertaining to theological, spiritual truth, and not political realities. However, political realities do reflect spiritual values. There is no dimension that escapes the standard of the eternal verities. Therefore, it is evident that America has great cause for concern. "Lying lips are abomination to the Lord," said Solomon (Proverbs 12:22). Lying is contagious. Lying is malignant. Lying is dangerous. Satan "is a liar, and the father of it," said Jesus (John 8:44).

The Zoroastrians conceive of an entire 'enemy' reality which is false. It is referred to as "the Lie." (Yasna 28-34) The world knows, intuitively, that there is truth, that there is falsehood. What the world doesn't seem to understand is the contagion, and the raw vice of the lie, the trap, the iron clutches of the sin. "His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins." Proverbs 5:22. Like any other vice, lying becomes an addiction, from which slavery one cannot free himself lightly.

Believing a lie is vicarious lying, and it's effects are even more subtle, therefore far-reaching.

Bush didn't once call Kerry a liar, or accuse him of even falsehood. Bush simply spoke the truth, plainly and simply. Let's hope Bush continues this steady course. For anyone who values the truth, Bush is the winner. In fact, there's no contest.

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:24 AM | Comments (127)
Journal Weblog Archives