December 30, 2008
Blagojevich Strikes Black

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich made his mark today. He appointed black Roland Burris, former Attorney General of Illinois, as the replacement of B. Hussein O.'s senate seat in the U.S. Congress. Against all odds, Blago shows himself without fear, and with sharp political prowess--even in the Democrat cess pool of Chicago. He has played the ace race card (--ace of spades, as it were). Black Democrat U.S. House Representative Bobby Rush immediately drarmatized the appointment as a matter of national importance. The appointee must be black, he said.


Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich announces that he wants former
state Attorney General Roland Burris, right, to fill President-elect
Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat Tuesday in Chicago.
(AP Photo)

Washington Democrat Senate majority leader Harry Ried had already vowed to deny accepting any appointment of Blagojevich. Senator Dick Durbin urged Blagojevich to step down from the day scandal broke about the governor's alleged corruption, as did mock-president elect, the alien black African Communist Barak Hussein Obama. And the black Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White said he will not approve or process the papers for the appointment. Illinois Lt. Governor Pat Quinn said the appointment insults the people of of the state--that is, the fact that Blagojevich appointed anyone. Why, there's clearly no racial prejudice in Chicago, or in the state of Illinois. The politicians are willing to use any black, any time, for any thing, or so it appears. A rush to blackness, it is. International, indeed. It works. It is a politically viable, volatile manoeuver. Vote black. Be black. Foreign and black is even better. Note: alien black African Communist mock president-elect Hussein immediately appointed the son of black Barbados immigrants, Eric Holder, to be the Attorney General of the United States!

But, will the Democrat Senate in Washington follow through on Harry Reid's vow to deny any Blagojevich appointment? In this case, it would mean voting against an experienced black politition for no reason, essentially. The Democrats of Illinois had their chance to call for an election. They didn't. Now according to law, they have to accept Burris. If the Reid machine boots Burris out, then Reid will forever go down as prejudiced. The Democrat Party will never again deceive anyone of its true nature. It is a white elitist club that uses blacks when convenient. (Case in point--the alien black African Communist, mock president-elect Barak Hussein Obama.)

Well, this is an interior affair. On the international scene, some people are already predicting that Hussein is going to end up defending conservative Right positions. (Indeed, BadEagle.com already stated as much.) Persian Heritage Monthly (December, 2008, p.4, English section) posts an article by Kam Zarabbi entitled, "Obama and Iran." We read:

Ever since his slection as Obama's Chief of Staff [Rahm Emanuel], dissident and anti-war web sites have been flushing out Emanuel's family background, personal history and political record, alarmed that he is among the most hawkish pro-Israel activists in the US Congress, has Israeli citizenship and has served in the Israeli army. The Arab world, meantime, is now dismayed that hopes for a more compassionate or at least a more balanced new American administration under Barak Hussein Obama have been quite premature. Some observers and critics go as far as claiming that an Obama administration will prove to be more pro-Israel than the Zionist Neocon-run Bush administration.

See? This race bit in America is so subjective, so interior, so meaningless in the real world. It is only a cultural illusion of importance in American culture. On the international seen, it means very little--that black race card. (Who knows? Maybe this means equality has at last been achieved.) Blagojevich can play the card there in Chicago, and make a big noise of defiance with it, but, the test is always Israel. Of course, Obama has been very quiet during these last four days of war in Gaza. Hasn't made one important statement, yet. Blackness doesn't help a politician make better decisions. It is merely a tool to help get him into office. After that, he's on his own, really. Whatever kind of man he is, it reveals itself then.

Posted by David Yeagley at 04:17 PM | Comments (2)
December 29, 2008
Should Israel Exist?

The present conflict in Gaza appears to be one of those points in history in which the entire world is affected by what happens in the Promised Land, the land of Cana'an, the adopted home of Abraham and the Jewish people.


Will Israel commence with a ground assault now, after three days of air strikes?

Israel says Gaza assault 'war to the bitter end', reads the Washington Times headline today. Of course, the assault means to end Hamas--the terrorist organization (according to the Bush White House) which has provoked this terminal action by Israel. The White House defends Israel. But, as of this day, the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel actually continue. It is an 'all-out' war between Israeli forces and the Iran-backed Hamas.

And the conflict will certainly affect the incoming Hussein adminstration in the new Black House, the new alien, black African Communist administration posing as an American institution. Bloomberg news already well notes this. Israel is like a thermometer of world issues, a laboratory, a testing ground. (Indeed, Barak Hussein Obama may end up acting more American than he ever dreamed or intended--just to survive as a mock president. His Third World nature and ideology will not serve him well when dealing with Israel. Israel stands for everything he despises when it comes to social values. Israel is an achiever, not a dependent, at least in behavior. Hussein may have to face that fact in a most humiliating way. No race card trumps the Jews'.

So, what makes Israel so important in the world? Is it some inherited right? Is it the result of superior manipulation of political and social circumstances? How could so few be so powerful? Why is the world apparently mesmerized by Israel?

These are impossible questions. There is one observable fact, however, which may be useful. In all Biblical history, there was never a time when Jews congregated in Cana'an, their Land of Promise, without the direct ordination and guidance of the Lord. Indeed, once Abraham was promised the land, and actually bought a piece of it (the cave of Machpelah--in which to bury his wife Sarah), the only time the Jews were not in the Promised Land was when they were fulfilling some mysterious prophecy, or suffering the affects of their disloyalty to their Creator. This is the Biblical record. It follows then that anyone who professes to have a serious belief in the Bible simply cannot exclude the idea that Providence has provided the modern nation of Israel (1948). It is not necessary to have some evangelical, prophetic understanding of times and events; it is not important that one have an indisputable scriptural justification for the existence of Israel today. It is the simple fact that, historically, there was never a time when the Jews were in Cana'an that wasn't brought about by the God of Israel, according to the Bible. Is today's Israel some historical fluke? I say, probably not. I don't see how any believer could say so.

Certainly, in sheer secular terms, the Jewish people have as much "right" to have and be a nation as any other people, if "right" is the appropriate terminology to employ in the discussion. Even if one says no, like the Muslims, atheists, and other anti-Semites, and attributes rather Israel's remarkable success to the result of their superior intellect, manipulation, politics, prowess, etc., one still has to acknowledge that Israel is unique in the world, and that the reason so few are so powerful has something more to do with the failure of the world, rather than the wrongness of Israel.

The outcome of Gaza 2008 shall be telling, for sure. It will affect the future of the world. We can only pray and trust that it will be for good. I don't see how anyone can see Israel as an enemy of the world, or an inimical influence. Israel does not choose enemies, but rather only those appropriate and necessary to respond to. So, how can Israel be the superior cause of all the problems of the world, and the minority underdog at the same time? The world needs to consider that. The gainsayers of Israel need to recognize the fundamental contradiction in their accusation gainst the Jews.

(And remember one thing: America had nothing to do with the establishment of the modern state of Israel. Not one rifle was given. Not one bullet.)

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:27 AM | Comments (6)
December 27, 2008
Israel Defends Herself, Finally

How many hits does a country have to take before it strikes back, lethally? Hamas hit Israel 80 times in one day. Israel today (Sabbath, no less) sent in a 100 fighter jets to hit 170 Hamas targets in Gaza.


Le immagini del bombardamento su Gaza City

And, "Hamas vows revenge" because Israel struck back. If life and death weren't involved, Hamas would be a comic class act--of juvenile dilinquency.

Hamas has been firing mortars and rockets, daily, into Israel, ever since the six-month truce ended earlier this month. The rocket barrages increased. Israel finally decided to end it. "Palestinian militants frequently fire rockets against Israeli towns from inside the Gaza Strip; large numbers of rocket and mortar shells have been fired at Israel in recent days." That's the long and short of the story.

Israel says it will widen its attacks on Hamas if necessary to stop the Palestinian militant group firing rockets from the Gaza Strip. Israeli F-16 bombers hit targets across the Gaza Strip on Saturday, killing at least 227 people, local medics say. Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak said operations would continue on the ground if air strikes were not enough to change Hamas's behaviour.

Some anti-Semitics will say this was all staged to ruin the Christmas season, to draw attention to the worst human behavior, as most of the world is trying to look for the best. That may be an inescapable accusation, but, it doesn't make it true. If any part of it is true, let the critics observe the fact that Hamas is the faithful instigater. Israel would never chose to be attacked. Israel has bee amazingly 'slow to anger' when it comes to responding to attacks. But, there is a limit to her patience. It's time to put and end to this ever increasing menace call "Hamas."

In the heaviest military strike against the Gaza Strip since the 1967 Six Day War, the Israel Air Force bombed over 170 targets on Saturday, killing more than 230 Palestinians, as Israel launched "Operation Cast Lead," aimed at putting a stop to Hamas rocket attacks against the South.
In two waves, over 100 fighter jets and attack helicopters dropped dozens of smart bombs and hundreds of tons of explosives on Hamas training camps, headquarters, weapons storehouses, underground missile silos and command-and-control centers scattered throughout the Gaza Strip.

Of course, the German paper Der Welt has to feature the headline, "Hamas-Chef ruft zur neuen Intifada auf" (Hamas-Chief calls for new Intifada), as if that is a serious thought, a serious bit of news. The French L'Humanite declares "Israel met ses menaces a exacution a Gaza" (Israel carries out its threats to Gaza), as if that is the point, that Israel kept her word. Never mind the outrage of the murderous Muslims of Hamas. (The current web page of BadEagle.com does not translate foreign language accent marks. Please forgive the French errors here.) Even the Italian Repubblica features the typical critique: Bombe a Gaza, oltre 200 morti. Abu Mazen: "Vigliacca aggressione" (Bombs to Gaza, beyond 200 dead. Abu Mazen: "Cowardly aggression") Ah, yes, everyone in media always agrees: Israel's response is always disproportionate to the offense. To kill the people who are trying daily to kill you is "cowardly aggression." So, what's firing constant barrages of morars and rockets in to civilian targets--bravery?

Headlines always reflect the bias of the newspaper. Headlines inevitably express an opinion. It is critically important to be aware of this, whenever one dares read any paper. Of course, talk shows based much of what they say on headlines, but, at least they can re-read them, and interpret them.

Of course, the real headline here should have read: Israel Defends Herself. That's the news, plain and simple.

And there could be one other headline: "There is no Palestine. There are no Paletinians." Jordanians and Syrians are attacking Israel. These people are not Saudis. They are not Arabs. Palestine is not an ethnicity, not a language, not a culture, and not a country. It's just a group of people who exist to attack Israel. There is no other purpose or meaning. The depth of mania extant in this circumstance is beyond the ability of most people to comprehend. One has to have seent it, and experienced it. It cannot be described in academic, sociological or poplitical terms. This kind of language is useless. The media will never come close to accuracy in reporting on "Palestinians." The media is incapable.

It seems that Islam is itself lost in the mania, if that were possible. It has unleased a natural, virtually genetic hatred which surpasses any framework of logic or principle.

An Iranian friend of mine once made a statement about the so-called "Palestinians." It deserves some recognition, because it is one of the more insightful remarks on the subject: "These people feel humiliated. They will never, ever accept that." Now, if there was such a thing as a "Palestinian," that would be something to work with. The fact is, there isn't, and therefore, even this statement of my friend does not provide a solution. People choose to consider themselves humilitated, and they have the freedom to pick the cause. Therefore, the situation is hopeless. You cannot live to appease someone else's sense of humiliation. That's their control mechanism, whereby they seek to control you. All you can do is treat them in the way you feel is fair. That is the most you can ever hope for. If that doesn't suit them, then strife is unavoidable.

The Middle Eastern Muslim, Syrian, Jordanian, or other, has created a horrible image of himself. He is mindless, murderous, and insatiable. He cannot live peacably, or, he has not demonstrated a willingness to live peacably. This is most unfortunate for all.

Keep in mind, the militants constantly grow in number, and fester. Occasionally, the boil must be burst, and the pustulence put to an end. Of course, it will immediately begin growing again, and the same process will have to be repeated.

The vigilance of Israel is mysterious, indeed. Instead of constantly condemning Israel, the world should look on in wonder, and admiration.

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:24 PM | Comments (13)
December 26, 2008
Beethoven, Music, and Society

Discrimination, the soul of art, is a phenomenon of the human mind. It rather exists in all dimensions, and functions like a pathfinder. It is generic. Consciousness is like a continual process of seeking fulfilment of some preconceived, intuitive sense of perfection.

In Beethoven's own life, in his field of musical art, he found the issue of vanity versus sincerity. There were musicians who were show-offs on their instruments. "Candidly," he wrote a friend in 1823, "I am not a friend of Allegri di bravura and such, since they do nothing but promote mechanism." Obviously, there was a point in instrumental technique beyond which genuine artful music could not pass.


Beethoven, the deaf conductor.

But there was a larger, coerced 'discretion' in Beethoven's life in society. In 1810 he wrote to his young female admirer Bettina von Arnim:

I haven't a single friend; I must live alone. But well I know that God is nearer to me than to the others of my art; I associate with Him without fear, I have always recognized and understood Him, and I have no fear for my music; --it can meet no evil fate. Those who understand it must become free from all the miseries that the others drag with them.

From one romantic to another, indeed, but Beethoven's thoughts represent a state of conscious alienation in which he found himself. The eccentricities of his person, the nature of his art, and his dispostion, all contributed to his strange status. He was a madman amidst the aristocrats of Vienna. They found his music curious enough, but he certainly did not fit in with them, in any way, otherwise. They considered him an uncouth barbarian. This hurt Beethoven, personally. But, it was inevitable and unavoidable.

The hugely popular Gioachino Rossini remarked (to Richard Wagner) about this case of Ludwig van Beethoven. In 1860, Rossini noted (according to E. Michotte) the unjust social predicaments Beethoven suffered. The compassionate Italian opera composer, after meeting with Beethoven, said:

I retained of my visit to this great man an impression so painful--thinking of this destitution and shabbiness--that I could not repress my tears. "Ah!," said Carpani "that's what he wants. He is a misanthrope, cranky and can't keep friends."
That very evening I attended a gala dinner at the palace of Prince Metternich. i was still upset by that vist [to Beethoven]...I confess, I could not rid myself in my heart of a sentiment of embarrassment when I swaw myself, by comparison, treaed with such consideration by that brilliant Viennese assembly. This led me to say loudly and without mincing words all I thought of the conduct of the Court and the aristocracy towards the greatest genius of the epoch, about whom one bothered so little and whom one left in such distress. The answer was identical with Carpani's. I asked whether nevertheless Beethoven's condition of deafness was not worthy of the deepest pity...Whether it was really charitable to bring to the fore the weaknesses attributed to him in order to find motives for refusing to help him.

Rossini actually went on a campaign to raise money for Beethoven! Well, this was perhaps unnecessary. No matter what his funding or salary, Beethoven always looked unkempt, lost, and otherwise insane. Or, so we are told by so many of his contemporaries. But, Rossini's heart went out to him. (We don't know if Rossini ever knew what Beethoven said of him: "Rossini is a talented and a melodious composer; his music suits the frivolous and sensuous spirit of the times, and his productivity is such that he needs only as many weeks as the Germans do years to write an opera!" This was written to Baden in 1824.)


The retired, elder Rossini, 1858

Maynard Solomon writes, "During these years [the last ten of Beethoven's life--which ended in 1827] Beethven railed openly against the nobility, the courts, and the emperor himself, seemingly oblivious of the possible consequences in Metternich's police state."

Dr. Karl von Bursy wrote: "He defies everything, and is dissatisfied with everything and blasphemes against Austira and especially against Vienna." (Memoir, June 1, 1816.) Peter Joseph even claims to have heard Beethoven say of Kaiser Franz, "Such a rascal ought to be hanged!"

I suppose there's a little 'Beethoven' in all of us. Maybe that's the appeal. He was a kind of archetype, an exemplar even--of all that is right and wrong with a human being. In 1813, he wrote in his journal:

O God, give me strengh to conquer myself, nothing must chain me to life.

Of course, this was said in regard to a terminating romantic relationship, terminating as he realize it would essentially interfere with his art, and that he was therefore incapable of a successful 'domestic' relationship. It was an agony to realize, indeed. In the same passage, he had written:

Submission, absolute submission to your fate, only this can give you the sacrifice...

Choice? Compulsion? Will? Who can know these mysteries? I think for most people, focus is negotiable. Life is a complex of things. For the artist, focus is a mania. It demands other things be sacrificed. Or, certainly, the artist wants everyone to think that the "art" is doing the demanding, as if it is some principle, some force, some thing, beyond the control of the artist. We shall have to look into these things more deeply. The key word there is "sacrifice, " which is basically a form of discrimination, or discretion.

Jesus was focused. He sacrified success, and life itself.

Indians tend to sacrifice, too, the focus being on preservation of who we are.

It's as if we all are born with a certain reservoir of value to spend, a certain bank account of identity. It's true for individuals, and nations. What will we do with it? How will we invest it? What is it that we want to buy with it?


Posted by David Yeagley at 01:10 PM | Comments (3)
December 24, 2008
What Child Is This? Christmas 2008

To be recognized for our good achievements, to be kindly tolerated in our failures, these are our inevitable pleas before our fellowman. Nor are we always gracious about either. We're a naturally demanding race.

Whatever the circumstance or predicament of life which apparently demands of us that we respond to this high and hideous calling of contradiction and self-condemnation, it was nothing that forbade the Lord from sharing that same lot with us. Whatever the crime in living, it was not shunned or disdained by Jesus--who indeed, "for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame." (Hebrews 12:2.) Sounds like pushing the envelop, a bit!

What was that joy? The joy of "brining many sons unto glory." (Hebrews 2:10.) It was for the eternal salvation of men that the Lord deigned to suffer with us here and now. And that suffering could only be convincing if he went through what we go through: birth, chiefly, then childhood, manhood, and a wicked death.

To be born one of us, that is the mystery of all mysteries. That is Christmas. And the reason for Christmas is simply for the efficacy, the qualification of that sacrifice on the cross. Christmas was a step, a glorious step, but only the first step on the villa dolorosa.

Yet we are so far from this thing, even this beginning. The Spirit of Christmas is so profound, so refined, so other than we are. From the moment of our birth birth we are fast into survival. We compete, and we become vicious in our technique of living. Fear of death seems the impetus of all we do or feel. We don't generally get along well with one another. It's too costly. Even our finest strivings in art or philanthropy are expressions of this fear. To achieve distinction, to create some perfect work or even act, or just to have a good name, a good reputation, for this we brutalize ourselves. A heavy burden we bear, indeed.

But "let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, though it not robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, and took on Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." (Philippians 2:5-8.)

Definitely not our style. An alien approach to life. These things He did, though, because He loves us, and wants each of us to share in eternity. Well, we don't have eternity to offer our fellowmen, but we act like he has it to offer us, and if we just perform well enough, and be demanding enough, and pay enough, our fellowman will honor us with something worthy. Alas, the people's approval doesn't bring eternity, or even that much satisfaction in this life--despite its soul-sacrificing cost. Our nature is generally deceived on this point.

But that little baby over there in the cow trough...He came from incomprehensible majesty, the honor of angels. His very presense, in the womb of that young girl, in the 'bloody murder' of birth, shows immediately that He even forfeited His own knowledge of His majesty. He voluntarily denied Himself. He didn't know who He was. He had to learn, same as anyone else. He had to be taught His idenity, from another. (He must have had one very fine, very unusual mother, more wondrous than Hannah, the mother of Samuel. I posited this thesis in a work called The Virgin Birth, which I wrote at Yale, and which I hope to have available for sale in the not too distant future.) Jesus had to believe. That is how far the Lord humbled Himself.

Jesus didn't have much of a family to brag about, or any earthly background to distinguish Him. Indeed, as the Son of God (--whose identity was known for certainty by Mary alone), anonymity was the perfect safe house. Obscurity was a necessity. Again, how foreign this is to our style! The only time we seek the shadows is after we've attained such stardom that we need a break from the pressure. Of course, after His life of hard blue-collar work, Jesus suddenly experienced more fame and pressure than ten Elvis Presleys at once. Then it all turned against Him--when He didn't do what the people wanted Him to. But He was completely independent of man. You can't save man if you seek only to please him, and let him tell you want he wants. When you are God, you know what man needs. That you give, and hope he figures it out.

That little baby over there in the hey feeder...He put Himself in a place most of us wouldn't take, even if we were paid eternity. We just can't do what He did. We can only admire Him for doing it. And faintly admire, for we scarcely appreciate it.

All in all, though, the way we do Christmas is still pretty charming. The story is irresistable, and gift giving is a delight. Christmas, like Hanukkah, is all about family and gifts, friends and treasures. It can be a glorious thing, ineed. For egotists, however, that little thing over there in the stall is one soul-searching seduction. Even the cattle look at the stars tonight. Something really special happened. It was pretty much unbelievable at the time, and still is today. We think we believe it. We sure know the story, but, I rather suspect we are like the donkeys. We have only an intuition of our Creator.

Posted by David Yeagley at 10:22 PM | Comments (587)
December 23, 2008
Beethoven on Life

"The world is a king, and, like a king desires flattery in return for favor; but true art is selfish and perverse--it will not submit to the mould of flattery."

These words were written in Beethoven's conversation books, March, 1820. (Remember that he was deaf, and people had to write their words out for him. He then wrote out responses.) The conversation was about his only opera, Fidelio. His friend Baron von Fraun had said (written) that eventually the opera would the enthusiasm of the uper tiers. Beethoven said "I do not write for the galleries!" He never permitted himself to make concessions for the taste of the masses. See: Beethoven: the man and the artist, as revealed in his own words, ed. Kerst & Krehbiel (1904; rpt. Dover, 1964), p.12.

Beethoven believed in art, as a religion. He believed himself a prophet, or seer, in this religion. "Truth exists for the wise; beauty for the susceptible heart. They belong together--are complimentary," written to Lenz von Breuning, 1797. Later, he wrote, "I despise the world which does not intuitively feel that music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy." This he wrote to Bettina von Arnim in 1810, about Viennese high society.

Was Beethoven just a misfit, or did he really have 'revelation' that set him apart? We know his appearance, manners, and personality certainly set him appart, in a most negative way; but, was there really something else? Was there some genius (or demon) that wreaked out of him such lofty words? He inevitably gave people the impression that he was in communion with the Creator! He knew it, he felt it, he composed music from it. Why couldn't other people see this?

Indeed, Bettina von Arnim wrote Goethe in 1810, describing Beethoven as a real weirdo, but who absolutely captivated her. (Beethoven was in his fifties, and Bettina was only 24, and not yet married.) She said he was crazy looking, but imposing and noble. He was deeply pock-marked, and had wild black hair (--something unnatural in Vienna, with or without a powdered wig.) Bettina seemed, however, to pick up on the finer strains in the man, and was finally quite taken by him, as he with her. (It was like a Pheobe and Clifford relationship, in Nathanial Hawthorne's House of the Seven Gables, where a young romantic girl finds a wondrous attraction in an older, 'mentally affected' man.) See, Beethoven: Impressions By His Contemporaries, ed. O. G. Sonneck (1926; rpt. Dover, 1964), pp.76-78.


The young romantic, Bettina (Brentano) von Arnim

But in reality, Beethoven did feel isolated and alienated. He behaved accordingly. Is this then the lot of the gifted? I think of the prophecy of Isaiah (60:1,2) some 2,700 years ago:

Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.
For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people;
but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.

When you have a unique experience, by definition, it separates you from others. You are sacrificed, in a sense, for the sake of others. What is given to you, is in fact for them, for their sake. Beethoven felt this in his very soul. It was indeed the basis of his whole war with his fellowman, his "brothers." They must accept him, in spite of his faults. They must accept his music--which he considered a new form of faith--for all men. That was the burden of his "inspiration."

So, do we really want such a revelation, such significance, such a place? Do we want a personal revelation from the Almighty? Is that what we really want?

I remember a lovely pianist, Cecile Marq, back when we were at the Hartt School in Connecticut. We talked about piano once, about performance. We were with our mutual friend, Ukranian-American pianist Victor Markiew. Cecile was French. I ask her the question all performers ask themselves at one time or another, and I asked it in the deepest way: "Cecile, when you walk out on the stage, and you sit at the piano, what do you want to happen? What do you really want to happen?" She paused, and thought deeply, as if she recovered a deep reservoir of desire. In a moment of classic French drama, she bared her soul: "I want the light of God to shine upon me! And I want everyone to know it!" I shall never forget Cecile Marq for that moment. I can still here her voice.

I don't know that this ever happened to her. The light of God does not always bring success, or acceptance by the public. Such an 'enlightened' one may in fact end up burned at the stake, or we should say, crucified. The light of God does not always rest well upon man. We don't handle it well.

We have to look for appreciation. We may find it in a younger person, as Beethoven did in Bettina, as Clifford did in Pheobe. We may have to look to acceptance among the distant, the impossible, even the fallen. The light of God is a wonderful thing, precious, and rare. It may cost us great humility. Beethoven knew that kind of poverty as well. After offending a dear friend (as he often did), he wrote, "I have fallen far below you!" "It was my unpardonable thoughtlessness." Beethoven confessed his 'bi-polar' disposition, his moods, his contrasts. He realized that he was a problem human being, but he wanted everyone to see the great gift he offered them. He lamented that his crippledness so frequently impeded his beneficence. See, J. W. N. Sullivan, Beethoven: His Spiritual Development (Vintage, 1960), pp.62,63.

In American Indian traditions, among the plains Indians anyway, the famous "vision quest" seems a bit different, though. Among the Comanche, a young man wasn't really required, or expected to have po-ha-cut (medicine, or "power.") Not really. It happened. Some had it, but, it was all individual, for the individual. It was his own manhood. It was for him, not for the people, not for the community. It was self-affirmation--for what that meant to the individual young male. It was not something for the guidance or benifit of the tribe. This is an interesting take on "revelation"--as so often the Comanche ways were (and are). It is the genius of solipsism, if there is such a concept. It is very natural.

"I want everyone to know it!" Cecile had cried. Is that the difference between the European and the Indian--the Comanche? I don't know. I'm simply observing. (Do I have my idols mixed up a bit?)


The passionate French pianist, Cecile Marq

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:44 AM | Comments (3)
December 21, 2008
Hanukkah 2008

So, how does a Gentile relate to a Jewish holiday, one that's not based on a command from the Torah, yet one that is hugely popular among modern Jews? No country with a sizable Jewish population can go too long without knowing something about Hanukkah, the "festival of lights." It is a day that celebrates a miracle during the days of the Maccabees, who led the Jewish resistance against the Greco-Syrian culture whose leaders (like Antiochus IV) were dominating ancient Palestine, and coercing their ways upon the Jews there, in the second century before the time of Christ.


The traditional Hanukkah menorah.

In most online accounts, we're taught about how to celebrate the day. Games, gifts, foods, customs, etc., are rendered in great detail. To many Gentiles, Hanukkah seems very much like a Jewish Christmas. Lights, shining things, fancy wrapping paper, and above all, family. Like Christmas, Hanukkah is very much about family.

But, the truth is, Hanukkah is about war. Hanukkah is a military holiday. Yes, there was a miracle involved (the Temple lamps continued burning for eight days, when there was enough oil only for one day), but, the reason for the crisis was in fact war.

Hanukkah is about religious persecution, and the victory thereover by faith.

Hanukkah is about faith!

The Jews, in their own homeland, refused to bow to the customs of the world, or the dominant world view, or the cultural trends thereof. That is the lesson of Hanukkah. That is powerful medicine, for any people. Yet, it is precisely the lesson all people need to learn, if they are to preserve themselves as a people.


Judas Maccabeus, archetype patriot.

Our world today is in the midst of a global trend of multiculturalism--the dissolution of nationhood. This is the Communist doctrine, in fact. But on the street level, among the low-minded politicians and the people, there is a conscious craze for the mix, the cultural mix, the sexual mix, racial mix, political mix, and certainly the theological mix. All are one. And there is one "god" over all.

But the Jews would have none of it. Not on their own land, not in their own Temple. That's right. They weren't going to allow the same "sins" of Solomon to be committed again (1 Kings 11;10). There would be no foreign 'statuary' brought into the Temple, or anywhere near it. There would be no alien 'gods' honored in the Temple of the Most High. Never again.

The Almighty was not an abstraction, not a summation, nor a congolmerate of human thought. He was the living Father, the Creator in Heaven. Ther was no compromise or interpretation. There could be no surrender of principle in the name of cultural cooperation or "peace." The Jews would have war, rather,--at least, the Maccabee family and their followers.

In a way, Hanukkah should become a very American holiday. Hanukkah stands for what needs to be stood for--the preservation of nationhood, and that includes the nation's religion.

But perhaps I err in this notion. Perhaps the American Jewish people would not have this emphasis. I don't know. I know I care about them, very deeply. It would never be my intent or purpose to bring offense upon them, or cause injury or difficulty in any way. I know I have celebrated many a Hanukkah in Connecticut. But, that was back in the '80's. I don't remember any political application of Hanukkah then.

Times have changed, though. Today American needs political instruction and guidance more than ever before. Our leaders have literally abondoned our Constitution! They have let loose that which defines America. With the alluring influence of mass media, our leaders are completely side-tracked from their duty. They are blinded by self-importance, power, honor, and that grossly immature and arrogant Clintonian notion of "legacy." They try to write the history of themselves and their effects--before that history has even occurred. That is presumption of the most egregious order.

Hanukkah would not have this. The festival of national preservation would never see such egotistical nonsense. Hanukkah would measure the devotion of the man to the nation, nothing else. It appears that there are few Maccabees among us today. The line of 'Judah' has dried up in country. Or, so it appears.

For me, I'll celebrate Hanukkah as a national warning. National encouragement, rather. Hunukkah tells us what to do, and tells us that it is honorable. We can trust any future legacy to that. Any other basis for legacy will end in shame and infamy, no doubt.

So, Happy Hanukkah, all. Happy American Nation Day.

Posted by David Yeagley at 04:06 PM | Comments (11)
December 19, 2008
Beethoven and the Stars

He often sought to be more than he was. Beethoven always wanted be higher, and better, and he sought relentlessly to improve--his music, that is. He may have had the "Napoleon" complex, being a bit short himself. When Ludwig van Beethoven was younger, he wanted to think of himself as royalty, or in some great blood line. He used to write "von" Beethoven, when he name was "van," as in a lowly, "of the beet garden" variety.

His grandfather Ludwig was the leading town musician, the local Kapellmeister, "chapel master," or, say, the leading court musician--which involved weeky church services. A minister of music, as it were in a small town congregation. Unfortunately, he died with the child Ludwig was only three. The miseries and abuses of the alcoholic father never did remove that grandfather's image from the little boys mind. LIttle Beethoven wanted something grand. Indeed, his drunen father wanted something grand, too. He whipped the little boy into midnight practice sessions when the child was only four. Johann, the father, was determined that Beethoven would be the next Mozart. Raw ambition, it was, the compensate for Johann's own failures, no doubt, like marrying the daughter of a mere cook, who had even worked as a "chambermaid." (Truth was, Maria Magdalena Keverich was about the same social standing as the Beethovens.)


Ludwig van Beethoven, 1770-1827

Whatever his personal problems were, the young Beethoven found identity, escape, and even victory through music. And he found power in music. He could do things in music. He could make grand things happen. As it turns out, he really was a fine creative talent. Indeed, he was a 'genius' creator. He could conceive of things others seemed incapable of. He broke ground in virtually every musical composition he wrote. Some new concept was growing, bursting forth, breaking boundaries, entering new dimensions. "The Shakespeare of Music," he was later called by some. He baptized music into the whirlwind of life, and all the staggering contrasts of human nature. He made musical form itself to shape around his own feelings. The older, strict, artistic, classical form was too confining for his spirit. He created larger, more exciting, rather incredible emotional events. Many thought he was partially out of his mind.

When he went to Vienna, he never could fit into the refined class he longed to be part of, and felt he was worthy of. He was always too coarse, rude, clumsy, loud, and emotionally violent. His music was barbaric in the ears of most. But, the message was so unbelievably strong, so compelling. He was a living compulsion. His mind was simply beyond. He invented new ways of playing the piano, new music always requires new technique. He was a trail blazer, a conquerer of new territory. The signs of war were always on his face.

But, there was something homeless about him. He was literally moving from apartment to apartment, constantly it seemed. His personal habits were Cretan, and he finally repulsed most of the romantic interests he entertained. (There'a a story once of friends sneaking into his apartment to put in some fresh clothes, since he apparently offended people with his rustic oders.) His place was always a mess, too. He was a mess.

But his mind was always creating fantastic order in new worlds. He brought together impossible contrasts, and shaped them into masterpieces of boldness. The man had power. Psychological power. Everything else was surrendered to that demon, as it were. Musically, and culturally--in terms of art, he created a new world order.

A German acquantence of mine, the artist and set designer Jorg Madlener, whom I met at an Aspen Composers Conference in 2000, talked with me about the whole German development of Western music. Clearly, Western music is a German thing, at least after Johann Sebastian Bach. Italy had given the foundations, and France had made it legible (communicable), but Germany took it to the wind. Music was airborne with Germany. The German composers reached for the stars, after Beethoven gave them the power.


Jorg Madlener, towering over the rest of us, intellectually, like
Aspen Mountain.

Interestingly, Madlener was hesitant to give it his blessing, on his countrymen, so German though he was. "Look," he said, "If it all led to the Holocaust, then we have to re-assess its nature." I was dumbfounded to here this. "We're still digesting all that, you know," he added.

Was Hitler a poliltical Beethoven? I don't know. I know there were German SS officers listening to Mozart while tossing Jews in the ovens. I mean, refined artistic achievement does not exorcise the demonry of human nature. There's certainly no guarantee--though I believe Beethoven is a much better influence than the Beatles, indeed! Yet, Wagner was Hitler's favorite. (Richard Wagner 1813-1883, of course, said Beethoven was the greatest composer who ever lived. I agree. Not the most beautiful music, not always the most popular, but the most meaningful, and the most powerful.)


Richard Wagner, 183-1883

Well, one more thing about Beethoven: later in life he really wanted family. He wanted children. As it turns out, a brother of his, Carl the cashier, had died of tuberculosis. Beethoven despised his 'iimmoral' wister-in-law, Joanna (an Italian), and won custody of his nephew Karl. The young boy was in for a horrible time of it. His mother fought his uncle tooth and nail, naturally. Beethoven became overburndened with the domestic responsibilities he had taken on, and himself became ill, as he often did. He took the young boy out of the private school he'd put him in, brought him to his own home, and began smothering the boy. The boy ran away, to his mother, and all hell broke loose. To make a long, pitiful story short, the boy finally found himself in and out of institutions and hospitals, and at one point even shot himself he was so unhappy. Beethoven finally gave in, and let the military become the "guardian." (He would not have that misfit, immoral mother shape the son's life. Or, so the story goes. So, what's the lesson? Geniuses don't make good parents either?)

One thing for sure: every musican since Beethoven thinks he has the right to act crazy, be homeless, and have messed up human relationships. Wild and immoral, they think, but Beethoven was neither. He was ust a low German, with very high ambitions, and a genius for creativity. In our views of great men, of any culture or race, we simply need to look at the good side, if we are going to look at all. There's always a down side. Where there is greatness, there is great error.

The man who wrote the Ninth Symphony, the "Choral" symphony, with the "Ode to Joy," was a man you probably couldn't spend very much time with. He was very difficult to have a conversation with, especially as he grew stone deaf! He was unkempt, smelly, and everyone said he was...not attractive, with crooked front teeth. He was gross, with a violent temper. Thank God there were enough people around him who understood, who gently tolerated his mania--for which he was tearfully grateful, often. He was always ready to apologize, and then, always ready to offend again. An artist pretty much can't help himself. In todays world, Beethoven wouldn't have been allowed. He would have been declared ED, or even LD, put in a group home, or foster care, and condemned for everything he was and did. But the world wanted his art. The rest they tolerated. Today, sufficiently distant from the 'monster,' we delight in his artistic power, and honor his noble devotion to it.


The death mask of Beethoven

Posted by David Yeagley at 07:12 PM | Comments (6)
December 18, 2008
Belated Beethoven Birthday Wish

My very first idol, Ludwig van Beethoven had a birthday yesterday (or, was it the day before?). He was christened on December 17, 1770, in Bonn, Germany. However, custom often involved a nearly twenty-four hours between birth and priestly aspersion. It is probable that the child was born the day before, December 16. Be that as it may, I became aware of him when I was between three and five years old. He held a special place in my heart then, and still does today.

My older brother was taking piano lessons, and I would immitate some of the tunes on the keyboard when he wasn't around. My father observed that I had "perfect pitch" when I was three. At some point, I was allowed to have some piano lessons. (We didn't last long, because we weren't interested in practicing.) I remember attracted to Beethoven's picture (drawing or painting) on the sheet music. He looked different from all the other composers of that magical elden time. He didn't look like Handel, Bach, Hayden, or Mozart. (He didn't wear a wig, for one thing.) They were dignified, refined, and jolly. Beethoven looked serious. Maybe messy, like, he was struggling. There was some mysterious pain in his face, a fury in his eyes, and a grand sense of power. He wasn't beautiful. He didn't really write beautiful music. He was like thunder, with sentiment. He was like a storm, like the wind, with a deeply personal sense about it. Looking back, I really don't know why he was so attractive to me as a little child. I think it was the strange suffering in him--of which I was completely nescient and innocent. Nor could I have begun to understand.


Ludwig van Beethoven, 1770-1827.

But, after I was decapacitated by cancer at age 11, I once again found myself at the piano. And, again, my interest in Beethoven was resumed. The ink drawing imprimatur of Beethoven on the G. Schirmer sheet music editions was compelling to me. I knew, intuitively, that Beethoven was my man. I read biographies of him, youth-style books, at first; then my father realized I was serious, and took me down to the OKC library, and we got a couple of huge biographies. I soon learned the first movement of the "Moonlight" sonata (Op.27 No.2), and proceded into other Beethoven works.

I learned that Beethoven had a very disturbed life, full of intense suffering, psychological and physical. Born in poverty, he was also of questionable ethnic origins. He was a bit swarthy, and kids called him "Der Spangol," or, the Spaniard ('spic,' as it were.) His father was a notably abusive alcoholic, and his mother died when he was only fifteen, and Ludwig had to assume financial responsibility for his whole family (father and siblings). They say Ludwig was a separated child, preoccupied, one who did not relate well to other children. He seemed always in his own, withdrawn world--terribly exciting though it was too him. He was composing music early. (Naturally, I had to try my hand at composing, too. My first "Minuet" was written when I was thirteen.) I was unable to play sports at this time, and music was all there was for me. I identified with Beethoven. Music was an imaginary world, but also took place in reality--performance. The composer imagined, the performer made it happen. I became a participant in both worlds, like Beethoven.

Decades and four degrees later, when I became involved in social work in New Haven, Connecticut, I realized some things about Beethoven I never before recognized. Today, he would be identified as an "emotionally disturbed" child, full of social maladjustments, and even a motory handicap. Of course, he began growing deaf when he turned thirty, so who knows what symptoms precipitated that. The studies on him nowadays reveal all sorts of problems. One wonders how the man even functioned at all. Of course, modernity is a lusus naturae of scientific detail, so that our vision of the past is doubtless distorted, despite of the fact that we think it is much clearer. Beethoven never married, though had many romantic interests over the years. They say he was pretty much an oaf of a person, very offensive, short tempered, and suspicious. Of course, when you can't hear, you naturally become more isolated psychologically, and naturally suspicious, or at least inquisitive. He was sick a lot through his life, too.

But one thing shines out with stellar attraction: nothing stopped him. Not even when he realized he was going to be deaf--in the prime of his life--he said, "I shall seize fate by the throat!" Out of the crisis we have wondrous works like the famous Fifth Symphony, and the "Appassionata." This music is stuns the soul. It is irresistible to all. Why? All suffer. All have challenges. Those that chose to fight are all heroes in their own way, in their own circumstances, in their own lives. Beethoven faced horrible inhibitions in life, but manfully faced them all. His is the music of heroes. Cowards need not listen.

Oh, yes, he lived through the Napoleonic invasion of Europe. At first he admired Napoleon, and dedicated the great Third Symphony, "Eroica" (Heroic), to him. Then when Beethoven learned that Napoleon had crowned himself emperor, literally taking the crown out of the pope's hand and placing it on his own head, Beethoven was infuriated, and madly tore up the title page of the symphony--dedicated to Napoleon--and pronounced the French potentate "a swine."

Well, this leads in to the topic of the political circumstances in which Beethoven lived. Born in 1770, he was a child of revolution. He lived until March 26, 1827. Let's see, how many major revolutions were there in that time? American, French, Greek,...the man saw it all! He had many things to say about politics, too, much more than many people are aware. One thing he was dead set against: royalty. Especially English royalty. He despised the presumption of superiority, and the social structure which was designed to preserve it. He was a "people's man," and a campaigner for freedom and equality. His famous Ninth Symphony, the one with the huge chorus (first of it's kind), is based on the famous poem of Friedrich Schiller's "Ode to Joy." Indeed, through this wondrous poem, Beethoven found expression of his deepest values. When it was all said and done, "All men are brothers," and the Creator embraces them all. In his misery, Beethoven knew the power of choice. For one who had seen, yea, studied, all emotion, he knew in the end that Joy was the feeling of choice, the state of preference.

Be embraced, Millions!
This kiss for all the world!
Brothers!, above the starry canopy
A loving father must dwell.

Can you sense the Creator, world?
Seek him above the starry canopy.
Above the stars He must dwell.

Be embraced, Millions!
This kiss for all the world!
Brothers!, above the starry canopy
A loving father must dwell.

We shall continue to look into Beethoven in the next several days. For now, here are a few books I recommend:

George R. Marek, Beeethoven: Biography of a Genius (Funk & Wagnalls, 1969)
Maynard Solomon, Beethoven (Schirmer, 1977)
Douglas Johnson, The Beethoven Sketchbooks (University of California, 1985)

When I was at Hartt School of Music (1988-1990), I did special work on the Beethoven sketchbooks. Among other things, I attempted to analyze his many doodlings in the margines. This lead to inquiry into the German psychological theories of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the kind of thing that stopped around 1940. Wonder why. Also, I analyzed specifically the sketches to the string quartete, Op.18 No.1. This is where I asserted the thesis that Beethoven had a neurological dysfunction, manifest as a motory handicap. Oddly, it was came out in "clutzy" behavior, like, everything he touch he seemed to break. Also, he could never learn simple dance steps, and it took numerous musical sketches to establish the basic rhythm of a theme. This all indicated a problem, in my estimation.

More later. For now, Happy Birthday, Beethoven! (The last time I seriously celebrated his birthday was in 1984, when Connecticut Public Radio aired an entire recital of my original works for piano, which program was given on December 16, exactly ten years before, at Oberlin Conservatory.) This is a time to reflect on the politics of art, perhaps. Beethoven was in the middle of it, the era, the philosophy, and even geographically (Germany). But, personally, he was a great example of the strength of will. He faced profound inhibitions, and triumphed over them. This is a wonderful example for all young people. There are few heroes of this order. We must celebrate them. We must emulate them. We must share the victory! Now that's what I call "equality."


Posted by David Yeagley at 11:40 AM | Comments (7)
December 14, 2008
My Thanksgiving Guests from New York

You may know of Richard Lawrence Poe as a New York Times-bestselling author, blogger, news pundit and former editor of FrontPageMagazine.com, but he's also an accomplished world traveller, a humanist and a deeply religious man. I have known Richard for eight years, but recently got a chance to know him better. Richard and his lovely wife Marie recently left their comfortable home in New York City to drive all the way out to a humble Comanche home in Oklahoma, to share the historical American feast of Thanksgiving.

Fancy that. In the crumbling dwelling of yours truly, my illustrious friends (Marie is illustrious in her own right; a television producer specializing in animation) celebrated with me one of the most fundamental aspects of being American: that heartfelt homage to the Indians which we call Thanksgiving. I was indeed honored that they should have chosen my modest abode for such an occasion.

Here are some pictures of the day, taken by Richard's new cell phone. Before their visit was over, Richard became quite expert with this simple cell phone camera.


Richard Lawrence Poe, and David Yeagley, Thanksgiving, 2008, in Yeagley's home.


The 'heavenly' guest, Marie, who served us all.


Marie and I, under the watchful cell phone eye of Richard.

Actually, the real reason they drove out here was to visit a sick friend; me. They knew that I had nearly died of "blood failure" (acute hemolytic anemia) some weeks before, and came to wish me well.

And so they came, with a most charitable spirit. Moved perhaps by the pitiful sight of my austere circumstances and my instinctive Spartanisms, Marie showed aggressive compassion, immediately stocking my cabinets to overflowing with the bounties of earth. (I'm still enjoying the wondrous supplies they left, nearly three weeks later.) The Poes tolerated with good humor my most tragic element of deprivation--no coffee pot. Marie improvised with the remnants of some ancient percolator found stashed away in chaos. Never a complaint from the Poes.

I should add that Marie is profoundly Greek, having grown up in an all-Greek enclave of New York, speaking Greek before she could speak English. Her Greekness was not pointedly manifest in the traditional American Thanksgiving turkey dinner which she cooked for us; however, her New York personality was quite manifest in her shopping instincts, especially when she zeroed in on a local (but famous) antique shop, from which she was able to walk away with two necklaces bearing the largest turquoise and coral stones I have ever seen--and at a bargain price! Her generous and ever-indulgent husband purchased the necklaces without so much as a wince.

Richard showed impressive survival skills out here on the plains. He is equally skilled at survival in the professional world. After being kicked around for years by the George Soros smear machine, Richard has come back swinging, as president and CEO of his own book publishing company, which he co-founded with Marie. It's called Heraklid Books.

I'm not at liberty to divulge everything Richard told me about this new venture, but trust me when I say that Heraklid Books will be shaking things up in the very near future.

But back to my house--the bathroom, specifically. My baby sister, who lives farther out west, was terrified that anyone should see the house as I live in it. She visits me from time to time, and simply and gently urges me to improve things. But when she heard that people from New York were coming, she nearly had a heart attack. I assured her that I rose to the occasion. I caulked the bathroom! With the right product, I also cleansed the shower floor and walls to their pristine glory of whiteness. (Believe me, it was a museum of decay before.) I also profusely thanked my sister for the wake-up call on this matter of my personal negligence regarding the house. (Our mother taught us that angels can't abide when cleanliness is absent. So, I prepared myself for the angels from New York. Well, at least they didn't complain about anything!)

There are many other aspects of their wonderful visit which I shall speak of, from time to time. Right now, I just wanted to honor them for their love and care. It was a very special treat for me to have such visitors in my... prison of circumstances. A lift, a breath of joy, a beam of light it was, for which I thank them immensely--even for the positive effects which I have not yet perceived.


Dr. David Yeagley, by the Comanche Nation Tribal Headquarters
just north of Lawton, OK.

Richard loved Oklahoma, by the way. He blogged on it with gusto (see his posts "Oklahoma!" and "Oklahoma Travelogue"). I will be sending his writings on Oklahoma to the proper officials who are always trying to attract more people to our fair state. We still have less than 3.5 million people here. Goodness, there are more Jews in Brooklyn! When our state officials see Richard's blogs, I'm hoping they'll hire him as an authentic source of objective and positive regard for this Land of the Red Man.


Marie and Richard, on the top of Mt. Scott, north of Lawton, OK.

One more thing. Here's a picture of some Christmas tree ornaments Marie bought at the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum (formerly and properly called The Cowboy Hall of Fame--name changed when new management took over some years ago, and changed the contents of the displays. I'd like to have a word with the managers about that, speaking of the Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department and "promoting tourism in Oklahoma," a phrase they make abundantly familiar to all Oklahomans, offering recognition and awards for those who make the effort.)


Cowgirl and Cowboy, with Cow-Santa in the middle! Santa is a recognizable figure
in any cultural setting. And now this fine set of Oklahoma ornaments is nicely hanging
from the Poes' Christmas tree in New York City.

ANNOUNCEMENT: The Founder's Second Amendment: Origns of the Right to Bear Arms, by Dr. Stephen P. Halbrook. Book Bomb for December 15, 2008.

Posted by David Yeagley at 01:11 PM | Comments (23)
December 11, 2008
Obama, Christmas, and the American Spirit

Christmas time is here
Happiness and cheer...
Carols everywhere
Olden times and ancient rhymes
Of love and dreams to share
Sleigh bells in the air
Beauty everywhere
Yuletide by the fireside
And joyful memories there


Melissa Manchester sings "Christmas Time is Here."

As we write, the American president-elect Barack Hussein Obama is covered in more scandal than any president-elect in history. His person is beleaguered by more confusion and contradiction than his own name belies. It is a heinous prospect America faces. Indeed, the American spirit seems a thing of "olden times and ancient rhymes." Of "dreams to share" and "joyful memories." These wonders are all things of the past, no longer with us, no longer possible. America seems just a lovely memory.

And what of the Christmas spirit? What of Christ? How does the Christian relate to so dim a view brought before him? An alien black African Muslum Communist, president of a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation? Can it be? What does this catastrophic circumstance portend?

As Herman Melville wrote in Moby Dick, as Ishmael contemplated the future of Starbuck:

But were the coming narrative to reveal, in any instance, the complete abasement of poor Starbuck's fortitude, scarce might I have the heart to write it; for it is a thing most sorrowful, nay shocking, to expose the fall of valor in the soul. Men may seem detestable as joint stock-companies and nations; knaves, fools, and murderers there may be; men may have mean and meagre faces; but man, in the ideal, is so noble and so sparkling, such a grand and glowing creature, that over any ignominious blemish in him all his fellows should run to throw their costliest robes.


Herman Meville, (1819-1891) a wishful thinker?

Is the Christian spirit, then, to cover for Hussein (may his name be changed, inshallah)? Shall we seek to look the other way, when nothing but grave suspicion has surrounded the man from the day he became involved in American politics (--to say nothing of the confusion and mystery associated with his birth, education, religion, and country of origin)? Do we just write it all off, and go with the flow, or, the plodding muck of inequity, or, the overwhelming, torpid tide of evil doing and sin?

That this aching dilemma should loom before us now, at such a time, in such a way, is truly remarkable. Unspeakable corruption, false images, facades of faith, whole betrayal, treachery, and cruelty of spirit dominate our national condition at this tragic time. The media is desperate. "Obama avoids stain of Chicago's political scandals," says Sharon Cohen's AP wire. How sick and laughable. His stains are deeper than Lady McBeth's, dark as his natural hue. "Obama calls on Illinois governor to resign," in order to "distance himself" from the crime center (Chicago) out of which he grew. Just another "I don't know him" tactic, like Obama used toward Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko, and others. How long does he plan to keep this up?

By contrast, Christians are warned against a time when they profess the most intimate and intense association with Jesus, only to hear His devastating pronouncement: "I never knew you." (Matthew 7:22)

So how shall we ponder the birth of Christ when we have the death of our country in our face, a country deconstructing before our eyes--by the hour? How shall we clothe our spirits with Lord's song in a land which has become strange to us? (Psalm 137:4)
Yes, America is fast becoming something it never was before, never intended to be, and specifically designed not to be. Patriots are becoming foreigners in our own land. Our hearts are truly broken. It is a desperate situation.

Is it anything prayer can change? (Indeed, was it the lack of prayer that brought forth the fluke Barack Hussein Obama and his "change"?) Can it be that only the force of arms can end this national ruin? Shall the people have to rise up against the government--as the government prepares to disarm them and to put troops in the cities? (In October, 2008, The Lakeland Times declared, "Barack Obama is the most radical anti-gun candidate for president ever, and, if he is elected, he will absolutely try to take your guns and your gun rights away.)


George Washington, in prayer before battle.

The question is this: Is armed revolution by the public the only thing that can save America? Arms and prayer were what created America, certainly. Is this the only hope for preserving America? If so, we need to organize, to prepare, to be ready. It appears the only alternative is to sit back, vote now and then, and simply watch it all crumble in our face. If we do nothing, we will see America dissolve into some other political entity, some hideous, atribilious amalgamation of Communism, corporate capitalism, all miserably mixed with elections--of corrupt individuals who will wreak only more of the same upon us.

America is about to be over, for good. It seems that a rally of righteous indignation is our last gasp for life. Yes, Christmas season is here. The wind will blow, the snow will fall, the lights will sparkle, many gifts will be given. But this Christmas, 2008, is shadowed by the very worst time American history. It is not the birth of Christ, but the yeaning of mostrous deformity that dominates this Christmas. It is not sentiment, but tyranny that prevails. It is an impossible Christmas. It was never so far from our present state of mind.

Do we give ourselves then to war? America has not had such a privilege since WWII. We're not allowed to have enemies as a nation. Congress has castrated us. (Pardon my Christmas spirit, but just about every Congressman in DC at this present time should be taken out and shot for treason.) Why, there is no war in the world. It's all individualism. We're not allowed to say Arabs and Pakistanis go home--to your own countries. It's all a "religious" thing. An individual thing. "Freedom," our enemies call it. We must deal with each Arab individually, and harbor his anti-Christian religion, giving him every opportunity to destroy ours, spiritually and ideologically, if not literally. The terrorists are all individuals. Why, there is no country to go to war with. There is no people to condemn. Just ideas.

The spirit of America is fast fading. How can we have a national spirit, if we're not allowed to behave like a nation? And we certainly can't have the sentiments of the Christmas spirit when the very country that provided us the freedom of Christmas is now controlled by the most vomitable, corrupt deceivers in history?

We're either going to be free Christians, or persecuted Christians. We're already tasting the latter. It will only get worse. The force of arms alone can change that. Force alone can change the change Obama is set upon. Will we see it? Will the blood of patriots once again water the tree of liberty, or will true Americans remain some mass of nosferatu (un-dead), living on some remote reservation of memory?

Posted by David Yeagley at 10:02 AM | Comments (17)
December 08, 2008
Obama, Nevermore!

I do not support Obama. I will not support Obama. I sense absolutely no obligation to support Obama. He is not my president. He is an enemy of American values.

I feel it is my solemn duty as an American to oppose him on every point at which he contradicts the United States Constitution--from his failure to identify himself by birth certificate and his apparently forged draft registration, to his international policy.

Nothing personal. It's just business.

Look at it like this: American politics is a football game. The American people are the paying spectators. The two teams are the liberals (Democrats) and conservatives (Republicans). (And yes, both sides have their traitors, but Republicans have more, and worse.) Say the Redskins are playing the Panthers. A Panther suddenly decides he's going to play on the Redskins side. So, he steps over the line, and says, "Hey, guys, I'm with you!" There he is, in the opponent's uniform, lined up with the Skins. How long to you think this scenario would last?

"No, man! You're not with us! You ain't playin' on this side! Get back to your own team.!" That's what every Redskin would say, immediately.

I see the big news commentators, like Karl Rove, wanting to allow the Panther to play on our side! Rove is trying to think positively about an Obama presidency. Big so-called Republicans reaching out, pretending all will be well. "He's our president. We want him to be a success."

I don't want him to be a success! I don't want any of his ideas to be implemented. I don't want the country to become Communist. (Alas, it's already there.)

Republicans and conservatives are making me sick to my stomach! The day George W. Bush took office, the liberals and Democrats opposed his every breath and policy, and condemned his soul. For eight years they demonized his every word and thought. And now they want to act magnanimous to an alien black African Communist? "We want our president to be successful." This is positively vomitable. The Republican party deserves to be dissolved. R.I.P. (Republicans In Prorogatio), at least.

If the American public were truly devoted to the game, it would abandon the stadium. Alas, the Fates have it that we must remain watching. We certainly have the best seats. No one really wants to leave. But the game is really lousy at this point. Big disappointment. A drone of "Boo's" is loud and clear. What a rotten government we have today. What a miserable game. Patriots all wish it were over. Many of us assume the game is fixed, the referees are paid off. It's all a facade. But, we're stuck in the stands.

But I'm not changing sides. I'm not going to root for the opposing team. Obama is not on my team. It is my patriotic duty to oppose him in every way possible--allowed by law. America deserves that much from me. I am not going to melt into some dumb and numb blob, or some non-thinking mass--in the name of unity.

In this fixed game, cooperation with liberals and Democrats is quick-sand. You only sink lower by "cooperation." That's what unity means for the liberals: their way, or no way. They never compromise. They only usurp words, like "equality," "unity," and "cooperation," expecting conservatives to concede, righteously.

Fine. I assert division! As never before, let there be division, disunity, separation--on the clearest lines possible. As never before, let there be focused opposition, crystal clear demarcation. Maybe the opposing sides be defined as never before. Send not peace, but the sword. Divide--and preserve the country!

This is not a time for peace, pacifism, or political careerism. That's what's wrong with the Republicans and conservatives. A bunch of careerists, thinking only of themselves. Too much "cooperation" with the enemy--who continually calls for "getting along," "comming together," and unity. A thousand times, No! Eschew cooperationi with the enemy. This is treason! Has the concept gone clean out of the country? Are their no traitors anymore? Well, when the standards of the country have been so intentionally eroded for so long, maybe it is truly difficult to identify a traitor. When all are traitors, only the patriot appears to be a problem.

So, Away with this notion of "We want our president to be successful." I don't want Obama to be successful. Successful at what, destroying America? Making America Communist?

I must stop now. I am too disgusted to write further. Karl Rove has become an abomination. So-called "conservative" commentators like him, the grand (and boring) news commedians are fast becoming equally abominable. Abomination. Indeed. Obamation. That's where we are.

I don't accept it. I will not accept it. Yea, I will work against it. Now, and forevermore. Obama, Nevermore!

Posted by David Yeagley at 10:06 AM | Comments (30)
December 07, 2008
Apologies to Pearl Harbor Veterans

To all Pearl Harbor Veterans, this day, 67 years later, I offer my deepest, most sincere condolences and apologies for the way in which the American liberal media has besmirched your response, belittled your honor, and denigrated your dignity. Liberals are indeed the bane of America's existence, challenging every notion of good and greatness, demeaning all sense of true value and strength, and mocking any intuition of the sacred.


In this Dec. 7, 1941 file photo, the battleship USS Arizona belches smoke as it topples
over into the sea during a Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
(AP Photo)

They feign great praise for the dead and the past conflicts--but dare not associate any such pretence with present day military encounter. They feel righteous only in lauding death. They have no investment in present tense morality, or any just cause for war. But death is neutral, and can be made to serve any present political agenda--even an anti-American agenda.

Recall a certain folk rabbi's commentary on such liberals (Matt. 23:29-33):

Wo unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

Is this an hard saying? Can ye hear it?

Lavishing wealth and honor, praise and wreaths upon the dead in no way identifies you with their cause, qualifies you to be in their class, or in any way justifies your existence. Ancestor worship doesn't work in the religion of the true God. Only when you do as your fathers did, or should have done, do you have any reason to recall their memory, or have any authority to commend their honor, or have any place to be singing their praises.

The "Greatest Generation" is not great because some liberal son says so, nor does his saying so make him great, or one palpitation more honorable for so saying.

Liberals never understand the cause of war. They only luxuriate in the dead--any dead. They dishonor them, nonetheless, by condemning the cause for which they died. September 11, 2001, is the final proof of liberal pretense. Liberals are destructive fakes, a menace to health, psychological and social.

To the dead, to the families of the dead, to all those who have lost their lives for America, who died to save her, I can only apologize for the way your memory has been manipulated, abused, and disonored by those whose freedom to do so--you died for. I can only feel profound shame, and crushing embarrassment. I hope you understand. I hope you forgive us all for this horrible abuse.

I pray you can forgive us for aborting more than a million babies last year. Liberals daily kill more human beings than died on D-Day. Today we kill for nothing--for absolute selfishness; yet we profess to honor your death--which was for the cause of America. Our liberals have no wreaths for those whom they kill in infancy. But they want to put wreaths on your noble sacrifice for America.

I have one regret: the great wars of the world haven't taught us how to destroy these enemies within. Methinks we have become cowards, or certainly deceived and distracted. Our moral lethargy has allowed our lawmakers to condemn patriotism, to outlaw the notion of defending America--from domestic enemies. We aren't allowed to revolt the second time.

I apologize to all veterans. Beyond that, I am without words.

Posted by David Yeagley at 11:18 AM | Comments (9)
December 03, 2008
Long Live America!

Putin? Medvedev? Chavez? Castro? Ahmadinejad?

I'm convinced. All this protesting, posturing, and puerile opposition to the United States is nothing but envy. It is the pure immaturity of the Third World. It is a global immorality, set in like a nagging drone, or a pestilential stench. It is a festering pustule of epic proportions, indeed.

And electing an alien, black African Communist as president of the United States certainly has no positive effect on anything or anyone--except maybe a few racially enslaves blacks. The Third World sees this stupid move for the weakness it really is. The jackals sense the fear in the American government leaders. The vultures smell death, and are circling even now. They know. The craven always recognize signs of weakness, like wolves watching for a prey.

Russia is sending a war ship through the Panama Canal, not just to show the world its aging military remnants of yesteryear, but in hopes to strike up some terror in grey-headed old ladies in Florida--who remember and love the real America. And Russia wants to stir up all that hot pepper in the Latino mass south of the border. Ra-ra-rah!

These weak social entities of the Third World literally thrive on hatred of the United States. They cannot stand the presence of greatness. They live off hating it. It's wrong, in their demented minds. America is wrong. Israel is wrong. Success is wrong. That's the kind of leadership, the braggadocio, that reigns--I should say boasts--in the Third World. Threats, bombs, mass murder shows, demands, and above all, hatred for the United States--this is the Third World.

I have a Jewish friend who recently said some interesting things to me, in great humor. "Dave," he said, "You need to get into hate. You'll be more of a success! Hate the Jews! Tell everyone to hate the Jews!" We both laughed hysterically. "You'll get all the attention! You'll be famous! You'll be on all the shows!"

My friend had a point. The media seems to thrive on hate and hysteria. Hate flourishes. It is an exotic breed, able to blossom furiously before any sincere accomplishment. Envy, the choice flower of muck. Human swamp life.

Anyone who has been hated, unjustly, or even mistakenly, knows how disappointing it is, and how pathetic it is to witness. The writhings of anger, jealously, and stupidity--how humiliating to see. Is it something to pity?

Some think so. Liberals, Democrats, or traitorous Communists in American government think that giving in to it, responding to it, is in fact the right thing to do. They think it is compassionate and merciful to yield to envy and hatred, to bow to it. Democrat politicians and their mistaken minions believe that it is a righteous thing to obey every dictate of the miserable rogues of the Third World. This is truly a crippled view of reality. This is the White House view now, with the alien, black African Communist presiding.

I must reject all of this. Long live America! Long live greatness! Long live the Judeo-Christian social values that created Western Civilization.

And long live the American Indians--who would never give in to the errors or unnecessary perversions of that civilization! Indians count in American history. Relating to Indians is what shaped America from day one. So,Indians are part of America, too! A fundamental part. Perhaps the most honorable part left--still prefering to be Indian, as much as possible, rather than yield to superficialities of competative assimilation. Indians have always been willing to pay the cost of self-preservation. Would that all true Americans recover their sense of sacrifice and devotion to the greatest country the world has ever seen, and dispense with this nonsense of deferring to the juvenile--the immature arrogance of the Third World.

Posted by David Yeagley at 10:22 PM | Comments (13)
December 02, 2008
US Martial Law on the Way

Before the end of the alien black African Communist's first term, there will be US military forces on the streets of American cities. But it's not really Obama's doing. It's been in the works since the Arab Muslim attacks on the US on September 11, 2001.

It's for "domestic security," so says the Pentagon, via the Washington Post. The stocking of cities with military is also to help in time of natural catastrophy.

No one can control storms or earthquakes, but, the government could certainly control who's in the country and who isn't. The government could deport illegals, hostile legals, and close the doors to the country for a decade or so.

Instead, the government would rather use the opportunity of national insecurity to impose a more coercive, irremeable strong arm over the people. That's what all power-players want. That's the Democrat plan, which got a huge boost during the Bush Admnistration. Why? Bush had to deal with the traps the Clinton Administration set. Bush could have handled things quite differently, or so it seems.

Instead, the government would rather subject the country to terrorist infiltration, so that it can have the excuse to lay the irons on us. Obama's administration is already playing into this approach. Community service? Coerced non-combatant public service--like streets and roads maintainance, public building maintainance, etc.

Yep. Time to enslave all those young white boys. That's what the country needs. That will solve everything.
It's time to free all the black prisoners, too. Let's change things. Let's turn everything around, or upside down. That's the change we've all been waiting for. A change of color. A change of who's in charge. A change of 'who da boss.'

Oh, so the ACLU is concerned about the militarization of American society? Well, they've always encouraged freedom for killers, local and international--especially when the international is operating on the local level (read--terrorists). But, in their mindless, selfish subjectivity, they can never put two and two together. They see no connection between the violence they encourage, and the means required to contain it. They always forget that most people don't like being murdered. Freedom's a great thing, personal value, self-realization, and all that. But, if you're not around, you certainly have to freedom. What people want is freedom to be around.

We just have to face it: America is a Third World country now. That's what the Clinton Administration always wanted, and worked tirelessly to achieve. It has come to pass. It appears that this is the result of Clintons Communist values and policies. Who knows? Maybe it was all just inevitable. He merely tried to harness profit from the natural flow of things.

One thing for sure: the birth of America was not the natural flow of things. America was created by conscious effort to maintain certain clear-cut values. It was against all odds! As America passes, however, it may appear to be the natural order of human concourse. But, remember the fathers' opening declarations: "When in the course of human events..." To have anything other than tyranny, one has to fight viciously, even desperately for it. That's how valuable freedom is.

As we are all about to lose ours, being betrayed by our own government, we can only pray that the people, the people of America, the real Americans, will once again be willing to rise up to defend what their fathers won for them by blood. This may have to begin at the local level. In a way, states rights appear to be the only hope.

Reckon the South will rise again? !

Posted by David Yeagley at 10:20 AM | Comments (8)
Journal Weblog Archives