June 29, 2007
The Curse of Islam and Immigration

The modern history of India presents a loud and colossal lesson about the ill effects of Islam, but a lesson seemingly forgotten (--by everyone but India.) Because of Islam, India lost enormous territories on its western and eastern borders. Two separate countries came into being: Pakistan (on the west) and Bangladesh (on the east). Wherever Muslims gather and multiply, they eventually become "independent." It's their way, or no way. Mahatma Gandhi has a beautiful vision for an independent India, but, underneath the surface was the enormous Islamic factor, which took advantage of the opportunity the minute the Biritish loosened their controls over India. India became independent in 1947, but Pakistan became independent also, in two parts. West and East Pakistan. In 1971, East Pakistan became Bangladesh, independent from Pakistan.


Mahatma Gandhi, 1869-1948

There is no question but that Islam is devisive, unable to peacefully coexist, and it is the destroyer of nations. Islam is intolerant, uncooperative, and deadly. It is a curse to the nations of the world.

Now look again at Kosovo, the Serbian province trying to break away as a separate nation. Why? It is overrun with migrated Albanian Muslims. Muslims cannot and will not abide under any other jurisdiction but their own. And they will bring everyone under their jurisdiction. Again, it is their way, or no way. It is only a matter of time, and usually not much time. They will have their own nation--in your face--made from your land. Islam will take from you that which is yours.

The only Islamic people out side Islamic countires who do not impose themselves or their religion on host countries are the Iranians. The Iranians of Sweden, Germany, England, America, etc., are not interested in evangelizing anyone. In fact, it might be said that their version of Islam is not really Islam, and it suits only their personal communities, and is of no interest, no concern, and no threat to anyone else (--except maybe the jihadists). The Islam of the Iranian diapsora is a a religion of reverence, and quiet social custom. Quite innocuous, as far as anyone has ever known.

Otherwise, Islam, real Islam, is a threat to every nation in the world. It is a threat to freedom, a threat to prosperity, and a threat to life. This is the blatant track record of this religion in the modern world, and of every people who espouse it.

Islamic immigration into other countries is invasive. It is colonization with the plan to spread the iron cowl of cruelty and oppression on all it overshadows. There is no place for Islam in the modern world. It should be confined to its historical environs, and not allowed anywhere else. It should be banned from the free world. It is an aggressive, deadly enemy.

Remember India. A divided country. India lost 943,940 sq.km. of territory (144,000 on the east, 803,940 on the west) to Islam. True, the people was of the Hindu race. They were not immigrated to India. But that shows even more the power of Islam to divide--even a unified racial base. The people of India are Hindu, all. Those that espoused Islam are Hindu by race. The word "Hindu" came to mean the non-Islamic, generic religion of the indigenous people, the Hindus. Think of the wealth of resources, both in people and in earth, that were lost to India because of Islam. That is a stunning, overwhelming lesson--but one that seems wholly forgotten in the world, as liberalism blesses Islam in the name of tolerance.

Tolerate the intolerant Islam, and see how long your toleration lasts.


Masses of non-working, violent, murderous Muslims in Indonesia

What of Mexico? Mexico doesn't bring Islam to America, but it brings a foreign culture, a foreign language, an alien people, and a lawless mass of careless, moral-less people who have no interest in America, and no comprehension of what it means to be American. The same results will evolve as with Islam. Be it mass of alien ideology, or a mass of earthen, mindless humanity, and you have an independent nation on the rise. Of course, in the Mexican case, the Communist/Nazi brown shirts of radical anti-America movements have long articulated the slogan of "Make America Mexica." The Southwest belongs to Mexico, they say. "Aztlan," they call it.

Masses of immigrating people, foreign in ideology or national identity, spell nothing but loss for the host nation. History has provided lesson after lesson, even in modern times, but liberals and globalists turn their head. Thus they are party to the destruction of nations. They foment revolution, at the same time trust that the creative builders of nations are too busy building, so that they won't rise up and resist the liberal/globalist destruction of their nation. That's what their counting on. That's what Bill Clinton always counted on. Creative, productive people, the conservatives, essentially, are too busy building the world to take time out and defend against those who are secretly destroying it.


Mexicans and Muslims protest in California. Check out the videos.

The recent defeat of the US Senate's immigration bill? A little surprise to the liberal/globalist crowd, perhaps. The voice of the American people became so loud it silenced both Democrat and Republican liberal/globalists. Perhaps we should be encouraged. Perhaps we should think the voice of the people yet lives in America. It's possibly true.

However, we're still in chaos. Our laws are still not being enforced. This immigration bill was a theatrical opportunity for so-called conservative politicians to appear concerned. They can heroically voite "no," and sound even patriotic; but, until our law enforcement agencies--including private citizens--are free to enforce the laws that currently exist, there no progress, and the defeat of the immigration bill is a mock step, not forward, but to a stand still. We're right back where we were, and chaos continues. Illegal immigration continues.

The matter is still in the hands of private citizens, ultimately. The government stands alienated from the people, and the people resent it. That's the state of affairs.

America has two major threats to our nationhood: massive illegal immigration, and Islam. The solutions are quite simple, really: a moratorium on all immigration for ten years; the proscription of Islam in America. The US government has deported people before, and outlawed These things can be done. The government simply won't do it, because the senators are bought off, apparently. The American middle class, the "mass" of America, is attacked from all sides, and the moratorium on all immigration is only fair and necessary; since Islam is not a relgion, but an aggressive power play of coercion, Islam should be outlawed. This would bring more relief to the American public, not only in terms of psychological relief from anxiety over terrorism, but also financial relief from the incredible waste of time, money, and inconvenience caused by "security" measures against Islamic murderers.

Immigration and Islam, unchecked, will destroy America sovereignty, and thus the nation. America will become an illusions of the past, a romantic dream of yesteryear. Already, it has changed. Already, America is different. The America we all loved, honored, and died for, is no more. America is being taken from Americans, by greed, corruption, and lying politicians.

To all disallusioned Americans, I say, American Indians know how you feel. Let me be the first to welcome you to Indian County! Welcome to the society of Ghost Dancers. Welcome to the past. Welcome to hope in the past. We've been long waiting for you.


Bone Necklace, Lakota Sioux


Posted by David Yeagley at 10:14 AM | Comments (271)
June 28, 2007
Liz Ewards Misses the Mark

Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards has come on with the most feigned political righteousness yet. "Stop the personal Attacks!" Her husband, slick John, the Southern attorney, has just about run out of ideas for his dying campaign. So what does the loyal wife do? She jumps in the act. The Edwards have exploited every possible element of their personal lives in their campaign, and now, having failed to muster votes, Elizabeth decides to attack Ann Coulter. That's right. "Attack."

What did she use for ammo? The simplest one-upmanship tactic of all. "I'm married. I'm a mother." Since Ann is neither, Liz thinks she automatically wins. Authority by experience. A tricky trump, but just the kind that characterizes the Edwards campaign.

But Liz had such incorrect things to say, not only on her call-in episode on Chris Matthews show yesterday, but today on John Roberts' CNN morning TV interview. Now, Ann has some outrageous things to say now and then (like, usually), but for Liz to act so sanctimonous toward Ann is almost laughable. It is pretense beyond the pale. Naturally, the Matthews interview is posted on the Edwards campaign site, in hopes to help raise money, as one would expect. When Roberts mentioned that, Liz evaded the question entirely, as she did several other of his penatrating questions. Liz is a slick as her husband.

Liz is on her own liberal campaign to attack conservative Coulter, and does so by taking bits and pieces of Coulter comments, and distorting not only the meaning, but the intent. ( Of course, it is the intent that terrifies the Edwards campaign.) Here's a great example, directly from, not Ann, but the Edwards website (distorting Ann's words):

This Monday, Ann Coulter took her pattern of personal attacks to a new level. On national television she said that rather than hurling more homophobic slurs, "If I'm gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

Homophobic slurs? Ann early had sarcastically commented that she couldn't talk about the Edwards campaign because she'd have to go to rehab for using the "f" word (faggot). It was political satire, something the liberals like Liz and John simply cannot endure. Why, it's just so mean spirited. Now, distorting someone's words isn't. Coming on with sanctimony and motherhood is appropriate. Totally misrepresenting someone else is good child rearing. And that what all this women annoyed with Ann are trying to do--talk down to her because she's not married and doesn't have children. Anti-single-ism. Yep. That's what it is. Ought to be a law against it!

Killed in a terrorist attack? That's exactly what Bill Maher said he wished had happened to Dick Chaney. Not a single word of reprimand came to the sickly liberal Maher for this comment, which he meant seriously, and said with a straight face. Ann was simply killing two birds with one stone, verbally. She rebuked the hypocrisy of the liberals and Maher, and at the same time belittled Edwards beyond recovery.

The problem with Ann is, most people cannot comprehend her wit. They resort to emotionalisms, like "I'm a mother and you're not," and that's supposed to negate anything Ann has said. "I have children and you don't" is about as irrelevant to campaign issues as imaginable--coming from the Edwards campaign to smear Coulter.

The personal attack bit is the height of liberal hypocrisy. It was they who originally and vehemently engaged in it. The conservatives insisted upon focusing on issues. But, in the usual order of events, the liberals turn everything around. The slightest inference that there is anything faulty in the saintly character of the liberal (like Bill Clinton), and the liberals now come back whining with, "Stop the personal attacks." Thus, they acused others of doing what they themselves are infamous for doing first. Always the same pattern.


Ann Coulter

And what's personal about anything Ann has said about Edwards. She hasn't said anything about his character, his campaign, or his family. Nothing serious. Nothing readily available. The latest Coulter comment on Matthews was brought up by Liz, from three years ago, about Edwards and "bumper stickers." Edwards loves to call the Bush war or terror a "bumper sticker" slogan. Thus Edwards personally attacks every soldier who has served, been wounded, and died. But he is never reprimanded for belittling America and denigrading the troops for this. So ,Ann made some remarks about the way Edwards campaigns with his personal life and family, and she's committed a terrible sin? She merely pointed out how John Edwards hypocritically, sanctimoniously claimed he would not use his son's death as a campaign ploy for the sympathy vote--while at the same time exploiting it for all it was worth, for example, establishing the Wade Edwards Learning Lab during his 1998 senate campaign and using ads featuring the Lab, and using his son's death like "a bumper sticker."

All Ann did was point out the hideous hypocrisy of the liberals. This they cannot endure. So, when all else fails, they resort to personal attack, and claim the opponent is doing it. That's what liberal Liz is doing, only adding a little extra "I'm a mother and you're not." I'm better than you. You're not even a full woman. You are just an immature, spoiled child. Oh, but this isn't personal attack, is it? This is the grandeur of true liberal hypocrisy. That's what it is. Exempt from all criticism.

And Edwards' hypocritical sanctimony about not using his son's death as a political ploy was not the only case Coulter cited in her scathing op/ed. Gephardt, Gore, Dean, and Sharton were among other recipients of the Coulter comments. The article (The Party of Ideas) was about liberal hypocrisy and feigned issue focus, while exploiting personal sufferings alone to fuel campaigns.

Liz just blew the last chance of respect for the Edwards and their slick campaign. It slipped right out of their hands now. Starting out with John Kerry, it never was anything anyone could hold on to.

Stop the "hate" speech? How about "stop the hypocrisy"? Normal people hate hypocrisy.

Posted by David Yeagley at 08:40 AM | Comments (169)
June 26, 2007
The Next Time I See Paris

The next time I see Paris Hilton, I'm going to think of what remarkable injustice was done to her. No, not by the law, but by the Los Angeles. No, she doesn't really see it now, but she felt the weight of it in her own person. Her conscience was touched, I do believe. That is a good thing. But, what about the fact that this was really all about being a rich, white, blonde, and female? What about the ridiculous, feigned conscience of the media, of the court, and the country? What about such mock "justice" at such an intense level? What about the fact that LA is a Mexican town, and the 'white' LA court delighted to show its ability to self-correct, to slap a white idol in jail? What a triumph of self-righteousness for those in charge. What grandeur of dignity and transcendent morality.

But if her name was Delgadillo none of this would have happened to her. Michelle Delgadillo, wife of Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, was driving his city-owned GMC Yukon with a suspended license when it was damaged in an accident and later repaired at city expense in 2004. He has since apologized and, after the incident surfaced publicly, repaid the $1,222 bill. She wasn't arrested, taken to court, or made to pay a fine, or made to go to jail. Hey, the mayor himself had driven the couple's personal sport utility vehicle without insurance for more than a year. No problem. No fine. He also was fined $11,450 for 30 counts of violating campaign finance laws, and an accusation by Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley that Delgadillo had been filing misdemeanor charges against defendants who could have been charged as felons, to keep the cases in the city attorney's jurisdiction.

But Rocky Delgadillo was of course furious when Paris Hilton was temporarily release from jail on medical grounds.

Michelle Delgadillo also evaded consequences for a 1998 incident in which she was charged with driving on a suspended license, without insurance and in an unregistered vehicle. In that case, she had an outstanding bench warrant for years before pleading no contest to driving without a valid license last week after an article in The LA Times disclosed the warrant.

Clearly, this mania against Paris Hilton was a moral fantasy. And amoral entertainers like Al Sharpton were sure to cash in on the opportunity to display profound hypocrisy. The media loves that sort of thing. Everyone joined the feeding frenzy on the rich white blonde girl. It was unforgettable. And it says so much about media, culture, and American society.


Paris Hilton, alone worthy of justice.

Oh, and Michelle Delgadillo operated a consulting business in LA without a license, and failed to return any tax reports for over several years, and was delinquent on at least five parking tickets during the same time. The Delgadillos are both under investigation for personal use of public resources. It is a long nasty mess, apparently. Both the Los Angeles Ethics Commission and the State Bar of California have launched separate inquiries

Why do the Delgadillo's get a free pass--to commit ten times as many infractions as Paris Hilton? Why isn't the media so very concerned about their behavior and betrayal of public trust? Why isn't Michelle Delgadillo in jail?

These are the important questions to ask, not whether Paris Hilton 'learned her lesson.' Maybe she did. She'll be the better off for it. But it looks pretty clear that no one else learned anything. All Michelle Delgadillo had to do is say she was "sorry."

I think this is all about race and class struggle. I think that is abundantly clear. I'm no fan of Paris Hilton, but she is the heroine of the story. No one else had to pay for anything. She did. She was worthy of justice. She was white, riche, blonde, and female. Looks like that's all anyone really values.


Rock and Michelle Delgadillo at an interview

Posted by David Yeagley at 06:20 PM | Comments (197)
June 24, 2007
The Cutts Case: Just another race crime?

I took no particular interest in the "missing pregnant woman" case of Jesse Davis. I knew it was just another case of 'black man beats white woman.' The usual story. I felt no overwhelming concern or emotion, not when the news reluctantly revealed that Bobby Cutts was a Negro. Jesse Davis was just another one of those foolish 'corn-fed' white girls trying to be a social missionary. (That's giving her the benefit of the doubt, actually.) This story was particularly pathetic in that regard.


Jesse Davis

How many times does this kind of thing have to happen to white women before they learn their lesson? They simply can not make a black man feel better about himself, if he feels frustrated, angry, and depressed already. They can't "save" him.

Apparently, the very worst thing a white woman can do to a black man is to offer him sex. That makes him feel worse than ever, if the truth were known. It is the manifest, tactile confession of his feeling of inferiority. Remember the movie Malcom X, with Denzel Washington? Remember early on in the movie where he makese his white girlfriend (Kate Vernan) kiss his feet? The frustration that a black man feels with a white woman is irremediable. There's no point of even going there. It is based on ignorance, white ignorance, black feeling of abject alienation, and some real stupidity mixed in. It is aberrant and bound for violence.

They can try to cover it all up with fame and fortune, like Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren, or Seal (Henry Olusegun Olumide Adelo Samuel) and Heidi Klum, but it can never amount to more than some strange, pathological idea of "romance." It certainly is a most selfish, inconsiderate, and cruel heritage to leave in the child. (Ah, but who cares about the child when we're talking sex?)

And even that case of Ashley Smith "saving" Brian Nichols down in Atlanta doesn't make the point any less stringent. Nichols was just so exhausted, and Smith was so kind and caring, he didn't commit any further crime. He just quit. But the sexual overtones were still there. The white women is still a savior type to the black man, and he thinks somehow a sexual experience with her is his most cherished desire. Surrendering his emotion to her is somehow going to relieve all his unspeakable frustration and anger.

But this is all pathological. It is an illusion. This case of Cutts and Davis is too classic to comment on. It's all obvious. It is in fact, disgusting.

There is little pride left in the white race. Those who have it don't express it. The white supremacists and neo-Nazi groups do not have white pride, at all. Like Hitler, they love neither whites, nor their own countries. They love rage, fear, and power. Their only focus is hating Jews. Yet most conservative whites are afraid to say what they really feel. Instead, they look for conservative non-whites to speak for them. I don't know where white pride is anymore. It is some silent fantasy.

In any case, the liberal media has really tried to kill two birds with one stone in this Cutts case. All the emotion of "tragedy," "sadness," and "sorrow" the reporters tried to muster was really a mask for the racial "equality" bit--the kind that can only be achieved when the white women gives her body to a black man. That's supposed to make all things truly equal. Why, if we can call this a legitimate tragedy, and not a utterly ignorant and stupid mistake, if we can solicite genuine emotion from the public, real feelings of sympathy for Davis and Cutts, we can rise above that evil racism against blacks. We can welcome poor black Cutts into the world of white men, to be accounted equal in feeling, passion, and love. Funny, I don't recall such media sympathy for Scott Peterson. I don't remember such objectivity. Ah, but the press must be very careful not to incite any ill will toward Cutts--because he's black. He must be considered equal to the most noble of white men. Sex equals equality. And now murder of a pregnant woman mean equality. At least with Scott Peterson. If a white man can do it, a black man can.

Didn't quite work for OJ and Nichole Brown. Tell me race was not a factor? Can I prove it was? Probably not from the media, or even from the overwhelming stats about black male crime against white women. I'm thinking you just have to be in social work. You just have to be around places where this happens. You have to see it. Beat up white women, with half-black children. It's become a common sight, but you'll never see it in the media.

Of course Jessie Davis didn't deserve to be murdered. But that's not really the point. She treated marriage like a game, and sex like a tool, and race like saving grace. She put herself and her children at risk. Will anyone learn anything from this? Has the tenor of consciousness in this country become so narcissistic, so completely self-centered that no one can see the bigger picture?

No, it's not really interracial marriage that is the issue here, though that is percarious enough. It's black men and white women. That's the issue. In this case, miscegenation is misogyny. Exogamy is pathology.

Posted by David Yeagley at 01:00 PM | Comments (225)
June 22, 2007
Reassessing Rudy No Blood

BadEagle.com has devoted a good deal of space to the identity of Apocalypto star Rudy "Youngblood." The question of his ethnicity was brought up as early as September 9, 2006, and directly challenged on December 9. By December 12, 2006, it was open season on Rudy. BadEagle.com posted an editorial on December 12, and by December 25, the issue was noted in The New York Daily News. March 28, 2007, it was featured in the Los Angeles Times, and a LA actors magazine. (Since then, both these references have been archived.)


Rudy "Yo Blood" Gonzalez

What did all this accomplish? What did we learn about Rudy Nathaniel Jamal Gonzalez, the black Latino? Hopefully, we learned the unpleasant but somewhat intriguing truth about Rudy. Hopefully, the integrity of being American Indian identity has been renewed, to some degree, and with it the respect American Indians deserve. (Hopefully, the claim of being American Indian will be taken more seriously now, though that doesn't seem too likely, seeing that the casino industry continues to produce more whites and Negroes claiming to be Indian. High dollar pressures threaten Indian identity infinitely more than Christopher Columbus ever did.)

In any case, it has been some ten months now since the question of Rudy's ethnicity was first brought up. To this date, he has not named either of his parents. He has not produced one shred of evidence, of any kind, that he has one drop of American Indian blood in him. He has openly lied, and openly confessed that he lied, on the matter of his father. He claimed it was Preston Tachawwickah, then admited (to the LA Times) that Preston was not his biological father--as he intended everyone should think. He claimed he could come up with a family tree, which would demonstrate that he was Comanche. This he hasn't done. He has no enrollment number in any tribe, anywhere.

Yet, despite all this, Rudy cannot be accused of ill will toward American Indians. He has no political agenda to speak of. He has not 'used' the American Indian identity to promote anything but his own personal acting agenda, and that seems to have been good for only one movie, Apocalypto. He made statements that did not intend to play Indian roles, but a variety of 'ethnic' roles. (There were rumors of his playing the role of King Tut in his next movie, but, this has not come to pass as yet.) He was given an award by in Hollywood by an Indian actors group, and Chairman of the Comanche Nation Wallace Coffee was there to stand by his side--and also by the side of the new president of Haskell University, Comanche woman Linda Sue Warner. Of course, standing among Comanches doesn't make you Comanche. Hanging out with Indians doens't make you Indian. Doing an Africanized grass dance doesn't make you Indian. Saying you are Indian doesn't make you Indian.

Rudy's management realizes all this. They have taken down his web site (RudyYoungblood.com) completely. His former manager, or shall we say mis-manager, Michelle R. Hall "Shining Elk" is apparently out of the picture entirely. And the fact is, Rudy showed no special acting ability in Apocalypto. Gibson wanted a brown body that could run. Rudy supplied that. There was no other significant requirement. Rudy has serious work to do, if he is determined to become a serious actor. Big, round, rolling eyes and big white teeth do not an actor make.

BadEagle has done some further research into Rudy's background. It is essentially chaos. Misinformation, contradictory information, changing information, and continual confusion seem to be the nature of Rudy's image. Does this all work to his advantage? Maybe. For a while. One thing is certain: he is not a member of the Comanache Nation, or of the Yaqui Indians. Neither enrollment office has any record of him or of his family, or any factual record that he is kin to anyone he claims kin to. Certainly, there are internet sources which are capable of offering false information, and this is something that cannot be effectively curbed. Anyone is free to say anything, and it happens.

But he's carried the Indian image bit as far as he can. It got him a movie role. Now, if he intends to become a real actor, he will have to do that on his own, with whatever talent he has. False claims of Indian ethnicity are impertinent now. He stands or falls on his own merits. Surely, he is aware of that, at this point.

It is possible that he was astute enough to take advantage of all his peculiar circumstances. He may have been perceptive enough to grasp his 'ethnic' opportunities. He was apparently manipulative enough to make everything work in his professional favor. Most people would commend such an alert young man. Yes, he lied about many things, and apparently continues to do so, but not with malace, not with intent to harm or injure others. He's simply trying to work for his own personal advantage. And what's to condemn for that? The chaos of his own personal life is not to be held over his head like the sword of Damocles. If he want's to claim Indian blood from every major Indian tribe on the North and Central American continents, and father an illegitimate child--which, to all indications, is his own experience, what does that have to do with his talent? Acting is about image. Success is about image. Rudy has a reticent of not quite questionable personal image, but, that is part and parcel for just about any actor, and that's usually what they act about on screen. So, if he has any acting ability at all, his personal image of fraud and deceit certainly won't affect his acting career.

One more thing. The detractors of BadEagle.com, those that have doggedly asserted the libel that I myself am not Comanche, will no doubt continue. This is their only response to the terror they apparently feel at my words. This has been their position since Cinda Hughes maliciously published (2005) misinformation given to her (which she apparently did not know was false at the time). My birth certificate, my mother's, her father's, historical records from the Ft. Sill Military Museum, have all been supplied to various media outlets, including internet outlets. Few are willing to recognize these obvious truths, simply because they cannot abide my political positions. I have given the name of my parents, my grandparents, my greatgrandparents, even to Bad Eagle himself. This truly terrorizes my opponents. They deny everything, as if there is power in simply denying.

So, whether it is a political position I advocate, or an objection I make to someone else's claim to be Indian, to be Comanche, when they have not only lied about it, but also provided no evidence for it, --my distractors have but one response: "Yeagley is not Indian." That's suppose to invalidate anything I say. Well, the fact is, I am Indian. I am Comanche. I come from a demonstrable family line. Most of my detractors are not Indian. I should say, they, like Rudy, provide no names, no family, no enrollment, no evidence that they are. I do. That it the simple fact.

Rudy has no political agenda. For that, he cannot be accused of certain things. He is free from most opponents. Indians generally are attracted to fame and fortune, like anyone else. It was flattering to a few Comanche people to think that Rudy was Comanche, even though nobody knew who he was, and still don't. He has no Comanche family, or any other Indian blood line. But, still, he was a skin of some kind. A non-white. Why, he could pass for Indian. A few "accepted" him, by social adoption, at least. They had their pictures taken with him. They gave a private party for him.

I do oppose such a superficial experience. I don't think it conveys any sort of values that would be exemplary to young people, or to anyone else. Yet, if a person with such a false, confusing background, a person who has survived by self-written story lines, who has walked into professional fantasy land (Hollywood) by his own ingenuity, can come out on top, maybe that is in fact something others like him can draw inspiration from. That's a sad commentary--both on Indian people and on Hollywood. But, it is a part of our world today. That's a fact.

Rudy's a charmer. Anyone who has done any social work knows the type. Young children from broken homes, or from no homes, learn quickly how to manipulate, how to play the heart strings, how to survive. They know what people want to hear and think and feel. Can we call that a talent? Maybe. It is an ability. It is a character shaping. It's the way they are.

I suppose what I'm saying here is that Rudy's personal story is probably a very powerful one. He needs a personal, truthful biography. Frankly, that would be the useful thing he could offer.


Posted by David Yeagley at 09:58 AM | Comments (141)
June 21, 2007
Christian Rising--in Iran

I have prayed for Iran for a long time. In 1998, I went there to pray. I bowed my face to the earth and lifted my heart heavenward. It was out in the dry, deserted fields west of the small village of Torbat-e Heydariyeh, in eastern Iran. I have written about that event before.


Dr. Yeagley (2nd from left) and friends, in eastern Iran, 1999.

I more recently published a piece in Persian Heritage Monthly (February 2007) called "Iranian-American Religion," in which I invite the Persians to try their hand at Christianity. (I later posted this article on BadEagle.com.) Most Christians agree that the religion could use a face lift. Persians are especially talented at taking culture from others and making something new and uniquely Persian out of it.

I reported about a young girl, Gunel, of Azerbaijan (on the far northwestern edge of Iran), and how she was invited to church by an angel.


Gunel, of Azerbaijan

I know for a fact that, at least during the time I went to Iran (1998), there were two small congregations of Adventist Christians in Tehran, with one pastor. ( I even had his phone number, but did not call. I was afraid of bringing attention to him. I was there on a national speaking tour.)

So, I see now three points of Christian interest, from my own personal experience and knowledge. I have reason to hope. And, historically, Ancient Persia was too kind to the people of God, too faithful to the truth, too generous to the cause, to be abandoned wholly to the darkness of a murderous Islam. I pray to God for mercy upon them. God never forgets. I say, in a way, He owes them one. Cyrus and the Achemanids ordered the restoration of Israel in 538 BC. This is not swept under the rug. This is the foundation of mercy today. May God remember Persia, for this grand thing they did.

And now, look at this video: Iranians Turning to Christ, Despite Threats, Persecution. It's from the Family Security Matters web site. Well, actually, it's from the 700 Club files. I want to believe this, I so very much want to believe this. I don't know what sincere person would not want this to be true.

Christianity comes in many different cultural forms, but I'm sure, before they're through, Iranians will develop their own style of it. And why not? Everyone else has. Christianity is free, in a very real sense.

I don't know what the alternative would be for a Muslim country like Iran. They're not converting to Judaism, rest assured of that. Most aren't particularly interested in Zoroastrianism, their ancient national religion. What other form of religion could crack the iron cowl of Islam? What other religion would be supported by world hosts of "brothers and sisters"?

Like I said, I really want to believe that the video is true. I hope it's not just a demoninational "sell."

I love Iran. I always have. I know something is deeply wrong, but the people are deeply beautiful. It is time that they come out into the light. So many have never known the truth about anything outside the shadow of Islam. They are a religious people. They enjoy religion, very deeply. It is their nature. Shouldn't they have the privilege of knowing the real thing? I promise you, once they get a hold of it, it will be more "real" for us all, as never before.

Posted by David Yeagley at 08:44 AM | Comments (34)
June 19, 2007
Greece Resists Albanian Muslim Invasion

It isn't just Serbia that is being invaded by Muslim Albanians. The invaders are having a go at Greece now. It will be critical, soon, if it already isn't a crisis.

Greek police have been rebuked for man-handling a couple of Albanian Muslims.

ATHENS, Greece -- A video has aired on Greek television apparently showing a policeman slapping, kicking and beating two Albanian immigrants, prompting an outcry from Albania and calls for Greece's public order minister to resign.

Of course, when you read a liberal AP article, you can almost certainly know that half the story is missing. The word "Muslim" is missing from the entire account, just like it is from most stories about Serbia's Kosovo province--so overrun with "ethinic Albanians"--all of whom are Muslim!

This is why the western world, including the United States, has greatly erred in supporting break away states asserting independence from Russia. Sure, ignorance lauds the deconstruction of the archaic Communist empire. But many of these break away states are Muslim! Take Chechnya, for example, or even Abkhazia, Osetia, and Nagorno-Karabakh.

A most informed and excellent commentator on these matters is Ioannis Michaletos. But in a recent commentary on the break-away states, even Michaletos doesn't even mention the word "Muslim." This is a critical error, in my opinion, to ignore this fundamental cause in the social process in this region of the world. There are some peoples of the Caucasus who may wish independence from Russia on their own ethnic grounds, which are not Arab-based. As a matter of fact, Russia's refusal to support the independence of Kosovo may not be directly related to any aversion to the Muslim element.

However, given the givens in Serbia's Kosovo, I think it is quite unfaithful and foolish to fail to point out the Muslim surge in the world. It is desperately aggressive, and deadly. It destroys all in its path. From Family Security Matters, a most excellent, American patriotic site, we find "Muslim Immigration: A Winning or Losing Proposition for America?" by Glen Reinsford. Reinsford asserts the stats and the probabilities. The Muslim invasion of the world is dangerous, plain and simple.

Muslim immigration is a losing proposition for America. At best, it is an unnecessary risk that offers no comparable benefit. At worst, it is suicidal.


Muslims on Coney Island Ave. Brooklyn, NY

These people are not fleeing persecution. They are not hungry, tortured, or escaping a dictatorship. They have their own countries. Fabulously weathy countries. They should all go back to their own countries. They do not belong elsewhere. They are unwanted. They make themselves permanently foreign, and a social insult to everyone. They faithly earn the repugnant reputation they have. They here to spread their foreign ways. This is terrible.

This is what Bad Eagle's Amil Imani (American Iranian patriot) has been crusading against for some time now. Islam must not be allowed to spread. It is a harsh, oppressive religion, devoted to the destruction of all, and the eradication of freedom from the world.

On a positive note, Christianity is spreading in Iran! Underground! I will write on this later.


Posted by David Yeagley at 10:53 AM | Comments (490)
June 16, 2007
To Jail with Nifong

Nifong disbarred? Not enough. That's not punishment. Nifong needs to be sued for every penny he has, and then sent to jail. He needs to endure precisely the penalty of the crime he accused the Duke players of committing. That's "justice." Whatever he wanted slapped on them, it should come down directly upon him. Simple as that.


The nefarious Nifong, former DA of Durham, NC.

BadEagle.com declared the case a fraud from the beginning. The black girl [Crystal Gail Mangum (Alias: Janette Rivers)]
was a complete liar and obviously emotionally disturbed, manipulative, and wholly abandoned, morally, as was her so-called partner Kim Roberts. But my critics accused me of "racism." Yeah, right. Racism. What a stupid word to use these days. It is a joke, that belongs in the mouth of clowns, like Al Sharpton, entertainers like Jesse Jackson. The word has become meaningless.

The only racists in this case were the two dancers and Mike Nifong. Nifong used black people. He didn't care. (And neither do Sharpton or Jackson.)

Nifong and the two dancers owe all the blacks in Durham a huge apology. They willfully, willingly misled the whole community, and made fools out of everyone. Where's the punishment here?


Shamed but not yet punished, Mike Nifong.

Disbarred? That's a slap on the wrist. That's nothing. To regard that as a significant disgrace is implying that the American legal profession is some grand, noble thing. Everyone knows it's only a competitive business, just like any other business. There's absolutely nothing sacred about the American legal system, or those who operate within it. It's just a business, like sales, cars, real estate. Indeed, the profession has its tendrals locked on every activity known to man. It has itself become a disgrace to our society.

Disbarred? That's not even a disgrace. Nifong was just was too obvious about his evil motives. There are innumerable attorneys that should be disbarred. They just don't get caught. All his property, all his assests, all that he owns, should be taken from him. He was willing to take everything from three young men, even from the LaCross team, and the whole university. Nifong was uttely careless, wreckless, and deadly. The man is dangerous to society.


Former Duke lacrosse players Reade Seligmann, from left, Collin Finnerty, and Dave
Evans chat during a break in Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong's North
Carolina State Bar trial in Raleigh, N.C., Saturday, June 16, 2007. Seligmann holds
a book about the case called 'A Rush to Injustice'.
(AP Photo/Gerry Broome, Pool)

The story will still be about injustice, not the injustice done to the boys and their families, but the injustice in the case of Nifong. Unless his life it trashed, in the same way that he intended to trash the boys' lives, there is no justice. That the boys were proven innocent is not justice! Relief from injustice is not justice. Any theory of justice is based on equity, not mere relief.

In a way, the boys are in a position to make a mark on the corrupt American legal system that has been long in coming. They were going to be made an example? Let Nifong be made the example--of what most Americans feel about the legal system. Let him take the brunt of all the anxiety and frustration and anger that the American people feel toward attorneys, judges, and the whole system. Let him be ruined, irreparably, just as he intended to ruin the lives of these young men. He didn't care. So let's not care. Shall we not, in the realm of social justice, treat him as he would have the boys treated? Isn't that justice?

Unless he's jailed, is will be the same kind of cosmic dud that Colin Powell offered immediately after 9-ll: "A terrible, terrible tragedy has befallen my nation." Like, that was a right response? How about, "Bomb Saudi Arabia!" President Bush said, "We will hunt down and punish those responsible." "We will bring the perpetrators to justice." I haven't seen any Arab nations punished. I haven't seen any Islamicists deported from the free world, and confined to their own miserable countries.

Leaders are not in touch with the people. Those in charge do not feel what the people feel. This is where we are in American history. A great gulf lies between us and our officials. They do not hear our voice. They do not respect it when they do hear it. It's us and them. They are the elite, the righteous, and the powerful. We are their sheep, to be shorn at their convenience.

Throwing Mike Nifong in jail would feel like just a touch of justice in the world. Just a breath of hope. Instead, we see Paris Hilton in jail. That's the American legal system.

Well, at least we don't cut peoples' hands off.


Posted by David Yeagley at 10:36 PM | Comments (1032)
June 15, 2007
Is Israel an Apartheid State?

Is Israel an Apartheid State? That hypothetical, insinuating question is the subject of a recent concerns addressed by The Simon Wiesenthal Center (Los Angeles, CA) in a special effort to counteract the propaganda being disseminated on American university campuses. The propaganda against Israel is coming on very strong these days--even in the bastions of liberal "communism" in the free world, the American universities. These institutions are giving place to some very serious anti-Semitism. (Yes, it's mostly coming from Muslims groups on the campuses.)

There is a "Campus Outreach" program, promoted by the Wiesenthal Center, which features films designed to make the truth available not only to Jewish students, but to all students. One such film is the recent "Ever Again," narrated by Kevin Kostner, which examines the resurgence of violence and anti-Semitism in the world. There's a new brochure countering the anti-Holocaust revisionists, too: "Reponses to Holocaust Revisionist Arguments." Another new brochure the Center publishes is "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid." This brochure exposes ten major fallacies and errors advocated by former US President Jimmy Carty.

"Is Israel is an Apartheid State?" Islamic organizations on American campuses say yes, and they promote intense anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic senitments. "Israeli practices are equal with, if not more brutal than, those practiced by occupying Nazi soldiers during the Second World War," so says the popular, liberal propaganda. These are some of the demonizing "Big Lies" that are being thrown in the face of Jewish students on university and college campuses across North America. Jewish students who support of the Jewish State are under special attack.

At the University of California, Irvine, the Wiesenthal Center protested the Muslim Student Union's 'blood-smeared' Israeli flag and so-called apartheid wall, (photo below).

The fact is, what we see in Israel are the elements of nationhood--in their simplest forms: borders, language, race (ethnicity) and religion. These are the foundations of any nation. Hatred against the Jews is so ubiquitous and volatile that to allow any majority of non-Jews to be citizens of Israel would insure the destruction of the nation. Jews comprise the state of Israel, not Arab Muslims, who hate Jews, and who are devoted to the demise of the state of Israel.

Nationhood involves the basic right of a nation to determine it's own identity, and it's own population. It cannot be otherwise. Apartheid was a term from South African politics, referring to the ruling white Europeans who created the country of South Africa. Black Africans migrated to the prosperous South Africa in huge numbers, until they eventually vastly outnumbered the whites, then they asserted their "liberal" rights to own and control the country--which they did not build, nor have they shown themselves competent to rule over. Apartheid was basically the efforts of white South Africa to maintain it's own nationhood.

But the racist liberals of the world would not allow it. They tore South Africa out of the hands of those who created it, and gave it to the murderous barbarians. The murders continue. Just like they continue on rural areas of Israel, where Arab Muslims (so-called "Palestinians") attack Israeli land owners and farmers.

What the liberals and the Muslims want to see is the dissolution of Israel. Where they do not use violence, they use lies and propaganda. Israel is "racist" for wanting to keep the deadly enemies out of the country. Israel is "abusive" to Arabs for not turning over to them the keys of the kingdom--which kingdom the Arabs could never have created. Israel is "unjust" for prospering in the face of miserable Arabs, for accomplishing great things, for turning a wasteland into a leading nation in the world.

Apartheid? Call it preservation of a nation, of a people. That's what it really is. Preservation is not racism. The desire and effort to destroy a nation, to destory a people, that is racism. That's what Muslims want. That's what liberals want. They are the racists.

The world loves to complain about the Jews, and to decry their accomplishments and power. I say it's time to quit complaining. Instead of condemning the Jews for surviving and prospering, start imitating them! Do as they do! It is the heighth of indignity and immaturity to pout and moan because someone else accomplished something you didn't. It is most unmanly to envy someone else's achievments when your own ineptitutdes and failures are the result of your own attitude and indolence, or your own primitive, inhibitive, tyrannical religion.

I say it's time to be a man about this. Be a warrior. If someone is more advanced that you, if someone is stronger than you, figure out why, and how they achieved that position. Then learn to do as they do. Be strong, like them.

The world needs more Apartheid states. The world needs to re-learn the lessons of nationhood. The nations are ordained. To toy with them, as if they are goods in a market place, is a blasphemy. Honor the nations. Do not encourage their destruction. And do not be deceived: multiculturalism is an aberrant fraud. And integration always means intermarriage. Intermarriage always leaves the offspring to wander about in ideology, looking for a home. Psychologically homeless people do not a strong nation make. A nation is not just an ideology. No one exists for long in the abstract.

Let the earth lead. The people and the land are one. That is the ancient way.


Posted by David Yeagley at 10:22 AM | Comments (121)
June 13, 2007
Serbia: The End of Nationhood?

What is happening in Serbia today is the harbinger of the end. Nationhood is being destroyed before our eyes. For me, as an American, as an American Indian, this is unbearable. And the worst of it? My own president, the president of the the United States, George W. Bush, whom I have supported, is leading the charge against nationhood.

When he recently visited Albania, he received a hero's welcome, and announced that Kosovo would become an independent nation. Kosovo, the southern province of Serbia, is overflowing with Albanian Muslims, and now with Turks and Arabs, even Al qaeda terrorists.


Bush receives hero's welcome in Albania, Sunday, June 10, 2007. (AP Photo/
Gerald Herbert)

Lesson: all you have to do is move in, multiply, and in time, the land becomes yours. Possession is nine-tenths of the law, right?

Wrong. Kosovo is historically Serbian. The United Nations, with the support of Bill Clinton and henchman General Wesley Clark, have supported the immigration of Albanian Muslims into Kosovo for almost two decades. This is apparently a planned destruction of Serbia. Why? The minute Serbia raised arms in resistance, to protect their own country and countrymen, the world, the media, the UN, and Bill Clinton, condemned Serbia as evil.

President Bush has taken up the false cause of slicing off a huge piece of a country--simply because foreigners and aliens have massively populated it, witht their intolerant, violent religion. And no violence against them shall be allowed. There shall be an independent Muslim state of Kosovo. Thus saith the world--and George Bush!

Thus endeth the lesson. Thus ends nationhood, and the whole concept of sovereignty.

There is no longer any meaning in nationhood. Nationalism is only a marketing tool in this globalistic world of today. It is a means to an end. When it is useful--particularly in the case of a pitifully weak third world country invading a strong nation (i.e., Mexico's "rights" to the United States), it is promoted. When it is dangerous, as in the case of Serbia standing up for its rights, it is condemned and will be crushed by the powers that be. And those powers that be are not nations, but globalists and financiers.

It is a sad, very sad day. The the assault on Serbia is underway. Western countries supporting the Muslim Kosovo independence are already amassing troops at its borders, to prevent Serbian self-defence. Courts continue to condemn, malign, and murder Serbian military prisoners, and civilian leaders. Another was just sentenced to 35 years in prison. Milan Martic, 52. It wasn't patriotism. It wasn't defending Serbia. It was "murder."

"It is clear that Milan Martic endorsed the goal of creating a unified Serb state," UN Judge Bakone Moloto said.

All efforts for nationhood are evil now. So says the UN. So says the United States government. So says George Bush.

This is a turning point in Western history.

Posted by David Yeagley at 08:14 PM | Comments (144)
June 11, 2007
The Last Time I Saw Paris

It wasn't in a movie. It was in a police car, with a police escort. It was on some TV news report, on some channel, in some city. Some station, pick a station, any station. It's all the same. Paris Hilton, in and out of jail. Paris Hilton, feeling good, feeling bad, feeling better, feeling worse.


from the Paris Hilton Zone

Only two major commentators have tried to speak a word in her favor in the midst of this frivolity and professional superficiality: Ann Coulter, over the weekend, and tonight (Monday, June 11, 2007), Sean Hannity. Coulter thinks none of this would have happened except for the fact that the convicted person was Paris Hilton. Coulter even suggested it was politics and notoriety on the part of the judge--for his own satisfaction. No other drunk drivers or probation offenders (in Southern California, anyway) get what Paris got. Everyone knows, most are out in 3 or 4 days, tops. Sean Hannity thinks the experience has called forth some ideas and notions out of Paris Hilton that have to heretofore ever been present in her words. It means something has affected her, to some extent, in a positive way.

Whatever. The rich, the famous, the glamorous. This is all for public entertainmnet. This isn't about Paris Hilton. Any conscience in her, any resolution, and any moral or social campaigns Paris goes on after this--will also function as public entertainment. The public isn't interested in whether she's reformed, matured, or better. The public (or should we say the media) isn't interested in her. The public is into vicarious fame, fortune, and romance. The public is into fantasy life. This is all for the public. This is why people like Paris Hilton, Pamela Anderson, even Princess Diane, exist like they do in public image. The public apparently needs it, for finds it entertaining. Surely, Paris knows all that. It is a show. She's a show girl. She's for everyone to see and talk about. That's all.

August names and places sore exotic
spice the dull conversations in the slums--
For many can read as well as drink their bitter coffee.
Rancid grease, with flies in butter melted
alter not the words of language,
nor the atmosphere of speech,
nor the graphic effluvia of the Press,
nor the seneless mummery of the News
and their stale reduncancies,

All can honor their own tongues
with the names of kings,
for there is no price on pronunciations.
The vagrant readily advises lords, in the empty air;
the self-conscious slave shall exorcise every imp of the state.
Anyone can triumph in a sentence
over any Monarch ...

Being spoken of--
This is the price of Princedom,


as the children spill the milk,
as the cat awaits an opened door,

Being spoken of--
by all,
by any,
from all points of view

as the builders hoist the bricks,
as the market bustles with advantage,
as the athletes compete in pain,

Being spoken of--
the king cleans his teeth.
Being spoken of--
God waters the wildflowers.

from Jahan-dideh (1984), Poem the Seventh
"Resurrection," Canto VII, Finale "Alam I Sugrah"

Posted by David Yeagley at 09:55 PM | Comments (149)
June 04, 2007
Death by Choice: The Kevorkian Quandary

In the old days, when a plains Indian came to the end of his road, he did not burden the community. He sang his habbe we-ich-ket (death song), found an out of the way spot, sat down and died. There are a few cases known where a Comanche actually killed himself, or his terminally ill spouse. It happened among the Nez Perce. In the movie, I Will Fight No More Forever (1975), there is an actual feature of such a moment, a death song, when an older Indian man cannot keep up with the tribe on the trial. He sits down and starts chanting.

Enter: Dr. Jack Kevorkian. This isn't about the right to life, but the right to death. This isn't about murder; this is about a person deciding no longer to live. Does a person not have the right to call the game of his own life? The Jewish tradition would at least imply not. (Proscription by omission. If it's not mentioned in the Torah, it's probably not to be.) But George Soros , some kind of "Nazi" Jew, certainly wants society to be able to rid itself of crippling costs of keeping people alive, so his Project on Death actually advocates the right to die. His program is apparently designed to given the government power to kill of hundreds of thousands of elderly people, or terminally ill people, rather than spend fortunes on keeping them alive.


Dr. Jack Kevorkian

But there's something amiss here. The old Indian way, and the Dr. Kevorkian way, this is not really what's going on in the Soros plan at all. This is what the sincere person may think is going on--the right to die with dignity, etc. But the Soros way, and the Hillary Clinton way, is all about making sure you die, rather than be a burden to society. The right to die, by choice, means you are supposed to be able to say, "I'm ready to die now." But the Soros/Clinton way is to say "We will determine when you are ready to die." We will determine when it is too expensive to keep you alive. We will determine. That's the point. Not you.

Remember Terry Schiavo? Remember how she was killed? She certainly had nothing to say about it. Nor even her family. The state ordered it. Richard Poe exposed all the issues in that case, and issues that are already completely lost or confused in the present Kevorkian conversations. Look at The Economics of Euthenasia. It's all about money--the cost of healthcare.


George Soros and Hillary Clinton, the real killers?

So, really, the "Right to Die" slogan is a facade. That's what the socialists (Communists) want everyone to think. Just like they want everyone to think that abortion is about women's rights. They love to use that word "rights." Why? "Right" is a moral term. It is heavy laden with moral overtone. If you are said to have a "right," it means it is a sacred, ancient, eternal duty or definition of being human. This is why "rights" is a key word in all Leftist jargon. It is a ploy for moral authority. You have the moral right to end your life, they say. What they mean is, We have the moral right to decide when it's time for you to die. In other words, this death issue is about government "rights" to end your life, not your right. They just proved that in the Terry Schiavo case.

In the old Indian way, it was the individual who made the decision, not the tribe. Not the community. Not the "government."

Kevorkian still believes in his cause of "assisted suicide." He has been accused of all sorts of hypocrisy, but, politically, he was never identified as a Leftist player. He was a maverick sort, pushing his individual philosophy. (Mike Wallace interviewed him, right after Kevorkian was released from prison.) I don't recall any major Leftist policial rallies in support of Kevorkian, before or after his trial, term, and probation. I don't remember any mass media attempts to identify him with Soros or Hillarycare. But Poe links it all up. Medical care will be rationed. The Left doesn't have to support Kevorkian. Indeed, all they have to do is allow him to be a front, of his own volition, his own cause. It's all under the "Right to Die." That covers the Left, and their "Right to Kill You" agenda.

What a nifty arrangement. They don't have to articulate their position to the public. They don't have to exposed themselves. They just let Kevorkian champion the "rights" of people to chose their own death. All they have to do is let him go at his compassion cause publicly, and they advance their killer cause behind the scenes.

Sometimes the Left just gets lucky.

Posted by David Yeagley at 12:08 PM | Comments (388)
June 03, 2007
Love in the Midst of War

The most significant human love story I know about is that of my own parents. Their story took place during WWII, like hundreds of thousands of other couples. The movie industry really took advantage of of that era, too. Fact is, I'm still quite affected by my mother's death, two years ago April 9. (Her birthday is coming up, June 8.) And I'm still quite sensitive to old black & white WWII love stories. The American life in that day, that was my parents' life. That story was their story.

There are two movies that seem paramount in their appeal: The Clock (1945), with Judy Garland and Robert Walker, and Miracle in the Rain (1956), with Jane Wyman and Van Johnson. Interestingly, both take place in New York. Old New York. The one that is past. It must be a combination of feelings: a grand old city, a grand war, and "the greatest generation," as Tim Brokaw puts it--the generation of my father and mother. Yes, there are modern movies that touch something of the emotional tenor so pronounced in those days, such as Saving Private Ryan (1998) with Tom Hanks, but is it essentially removed. And it's not a romance.


Robert Walker and Judy Garland

Romance in the old days seems so wonderful, so real, clear, and even healthy. Tragedy was comprehensible, it seems, back then. The old black and white movies just make it the more romantic. The grey mist of time enshrouds the story, the actors, and the city, with a veil of sacerdotal feeling--human feeling. I feel my parents in these old movies. I know their story, and how similar it was to these old movies.

WWII romance stories epitomize all that comprises Western love, Western concepts of conjugal, romantic love: the total freedom of the encounter, the improvisatory circumstances, chance, fate, together with the piquant sense of Providence, or "it was meant to be!" These elements are astoundingly dramatized in The Clock (1945), indeed, only as Judy Garland could portray. The young Robert Walker, a serviceman on leave, and about to leave NY, meets her, and in two days, they are so entwined by circumstance and intense feeling that they are "in love," and actually get married. Then he leaves, and she walks home fully confident that it was meant to be, and that she will have him home safe. Surely, this was the feeling and hope in the heart of every woman in America at the time. This movie was like a special favor, a special message of home, to all the women, mothers, and young brides in America. A remarkable moment in Hollywood, actually.

Miracle in the Rain (1956), set during the war, also plays on the heart like a Stradivarius. This one, though involving an incredible reverse tragedy--the waiting woman herself dies--is still actually about hope. It is an "old New York" film, with a gentle, old style Catholic miracle story. The love lives, after the young woman dies. The soldier accepts it, even from the other side. It is a wonderful story.

Both black & white, both in "old New York," and both about love, during WWII. It was a grand war. America was there to save the world. It had dignity, time frame, boundaries, and clarity of beginning and end. These things address romance. For all the improvisation in Western European-based romance, the idolizing of the insignificant, the dramatizing of the mundane, the sanctification of chance, WWII is a most choice setting for romance--and, as I said, particularly for someone whose parents are of that era, and whose love was born precisely under those circumstances. Sure, there were many an ill-formed marriage contracted during that time of separation and uncertainty; many children born in that time have suffered the effects, as well. But the sheer artistic beauty of the age, the grandeur of life, make it well worth re-visiting.

We lack this sense today, it seems to me. Only one movie that I know of brings romance into the Vietnam era, and they had to use a retarded Southern person to bring it off: Forrest Gump. This is a beautiful movie, indeed. It is probably the best attempt at realism in the Vietnam era, certainly the best at romance. But so confused does this country remain (thanks to Leftist media and the Democrat Party), any positive regard for Vietnam had to be cast in the setting of a retarded life, where honesty, sincerity, and truthfulness, indeed, even love, could be pictured without political overtones. A pathetic testimony, in fact. Hollywood just could never bring itself to give any credence or dignity to Vietnam veterans. This sore has never healed. Hollywood became permanently infected during Vietnam, and has never recovered, but instead has become more diseased.

Love and war. Love in war. What a combination of circumstances. In WWII, it was white against white. Christian against Christian, culturally speaking anyway. American against Germany. That was a good fight. Even. Square. Then the Japanese thing. That was a weird one. A different race, different religion, and a different environment. All very foreign. There were a few romance stories there, but, after the war, and pertained to the Korean 'conflict.' Probably the most famous of those is Marlan Brando and Sayonara (1957). Things can get strange when you put the good guys in love with the women of the bad guys. Interracial romance, especially during time of war, can be dramatic, but, in the end, it is unsatisfying as a drama. Better to have a people love their own, any time. Better romance.

What of the Middle East, today? Romance? Anything significant? Interracial is about the best film makers can make of it. This is cheap, and uninteresting. The circumstances don't yeild the romance WWII did. Why? First of all, there is no declared war. Congress hasn't declared any since WII. Society is awash in liberalism, tolerance, political correctness (read anti-Americanism), and the best we can do is see Iraq as a mission. Our soldiers are missionaries, on a very dangerous, dealy mission, but, in fact, only a mission. The socio-psychology of war is simply not in gear. This is a different phenomenon. The only one who even approached the level of human emotion that might be somewhat associated with romance was Cindy Sheehan, who was totally "disassociated" by the death of her son Casey. That was a parental thing, and she was given screen time because she was against the "war." All the mothers who honored their sons, who lost their sons, were scarcely noted in comparison.

Romance and the Middle East conflict? Nah. It ain't there. Not yet anyway. Not on a scale or in a dimension remotely comparable to WWII, and the American life.

My mother preferred The Glenn Miller Story (1953). She said it reminded her most of her own story. She was a country girl (indeed, an Indian girl), from southwest Oklahoma. She married a handsome GI, a jazz musician, from back east. (My father had come to Ft. Sill, Oklahoma, from New York, where he was playing with a band at the Sherry-Netherland on 5th Avenue.) They met at a dance, in Lawton, OK. (My mother loved to dance.) My father said she was the prettiest girl he ever saw. During a break, he walked right up to her for a direct hit. He never let up. Some three years later, they were married, in 1946. They went through the terrible separation during the war years, but theirs was a very common kind of affair of those days. Mother was in nursing school at the University of Oklahoma. They married in Oklahoma City, where all four of their children were born, I being the second.

My, how I miss my parents! For more reasons than I could ever have imagined.


Norma and Ned, ca. 1946

Posted by David Yeagley at 01:22 PM | Comments (595)
Journal Weblog Archives