Welcome to the new BadEagle.com!
Thanks to generous financial assistance from the BadEagle.com community, we were able to hire Richard Lawrence Poe -- former editor of David Horowitz's FrontPageMagazine.com -- to redesign our site.
We invite you to explore the new site and enjoy its many new features.
BadEagle.com remains a work in progress. More and exciting changes lie ahead.
Please feel free to give us your feedback on the new design. We welcome your suggestions -- as well as your continued financial contributions!

Be sure to check out the "Bad Eagle Biography".
This present Bad Eagle Journal is on MoveableType software, and will shortly be closed. The former BadEagle.com site has already been closed. All the old Journal entries have been transferred to the new site, and the old Forums page has been preserved on the new BadEagle.com The new BadEagle.com is converting all the "editorial" articles from the forums to the new "Op-Ed" category.
So, on the new BadEagle.com, on the right column, you will see Bad Eagle Journal entires, and Op-Ed Columns. Now, which ever is the latest post, that post will appear in the middle, main column on the home page. Whenver a new post occurs, the former one will be filed according to its tag, either Journal or Op-Ed. Cleaer enough?
Again, this MoveableType program for BadEagle.com will shortlyl be closed. I suggest that those of you who have bookmarked or 'favorited' this address, please change your address to the new BadEagle.com. All is preserved, all comments, all posts, etc. It will simply not be available at this old address much longer--specifically this Journal.
Just go to the new BadEagle.com, and all is well. Hope to see you there!
Long live the Queen. Ann Coulter has been going on TV shows to promote her new book, Guilty, and has been willing to appear with people whom she has severely criticized. She recently appeared on Mike Huckabee's show, for instance, toward whom she had previously proffered scathing rebukes, and naturally he confronted her on them, specifically. She of course did not back down an inch. He denied her public accusations of him, but she kindly stood by her positions. Ann has posted most of this intervews on her site, AnnCoulter.com.

Ann Coulter
"The Guardian of the Republican Party," she has become, indeed. Let's observe something here very carefully: there is a Republican Party. Because there is currently no leadership, because Congress is full of traitors and RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), and because the Republican values have not been manifest for some years now--this does not mean there is no longer a Republican Party. This does not mean there are no Republicans in America.
Surely, Ann Coulter is heaven sent, as one who does not bend, manoeuver, slip or slide around Republican principles in order to even appear to cooperate with liberals (Democrats). (Who her cognate in the Democrat Party would be is an interesting question.) Ann is not a compromiser--as even many of the conservative media personalities have become. Ann is independent, and does not adjust her views to please the power she works for, like other conservative media personalities. Ann has earned for herself the luxury of freedom found only in the realm of independence. She is the American dream in this sense, an entrepreneur who has won her kingdom, and all the rights and privileges pertaining thereunto. In other words, she doesn't work for anyone. She is her own boss. (And no one works for her, either.)
But there is more. We need to understand that the media is in fact a competitive business. Talk show hosts, on TV and radio, are all competitors, looking for their own space. People like Mike Huckabee and Glenn Beck have carved out for themselves a "middle of the road" position by condemning what they see as excesses on both sides. Thus, they attract a large audience which is confused, frustrated with both sides, and willing to hear these new artificial moderates. (Lou Dobbs is the genuine article when it comes to assessing the ills of either side. He was the original alternative, but I wouldn't call him "middle of the road" at all. He's not seeking a political venue. He seeks the truth, or so it certainly seems.)
But Ann has no use for any "moderate" position, be it politically produced, or be it the product of competing entertainers. She's lately willing to use the word "entertainment" with regard to herself, but, this is as far as she's ever gone in assessing the nature of her own work. However, that is not a political assessment, but a professional assessment. Politically, she is a true, conservative, Republican. Thankfully, she will not budge.
And so the business is trying to distance her, to label her, to box her in, as a far right wing radical. The business needs more space for new competitors--entertainers who are safer, less controversial, less likely to bring a legal suit to their doors. "Moderates" are actually traitors, and, like Karl Rove, want to see Obama be a "success." This idiotic motive is tantamount to saying they want to see Marxism be a success in this country. Even Bill O'Reilly has advocated this position of wanting to see Obama be a "success"--for the sake of the country, no less, as O'Reilly has said.
This all calls to mind a certain scripture of Revelation, 3:15, when Christ assesses the church of the Laodiceans: "Thou are neither cold nor hot. I would thou wert cold or hot." the thought here is that "moderation," at least some times, has no place. Sometimes, moderation is compromise, surrender, or, essentially, joining the opposition. This is what the Democrats and liberals always expect of the Republicans, and, of late, have not been disappointed.
If it is not blasphemous to draw an analogy, we could say Ann Coulter is like one of the angels sent to the churches--to the Republican church, as it were. "Get in, or Get out!" You're either Republican, or your a liberal. A moderate is nothing but a liberal, and may as well be a Democrat. That is the bottom line. And that's what's wrong with the Republican Party. Too few carrying that name are willing to be true to it. They have reduced the Party to some local social player in a larger game--the globalist game. They think the bigger picture is the true picture. The true Republican, however, the true conservative, paints the picture. He creates the picture. He doesn't seek to fit into some architecture of fate. He doesn't try to blend in with the miasmic sludge of cultural effluvia--the grand digestion of nationalities. The true conservative holds his own, forever. He believes in his values. That's why he holds to them. Globalism is not one of his values.
Thus we expose a deep liability in the free market: the confusion of "competitive" ideas. When law and politics become entertainment, we know were going down. When news media personalities compete with politicians for social authority, we know were on the way out.
Ann, you were wild once. Don't let them tame you.

It's official. NBC has named Ann Coulter "Conservative Queen." (Hope For America has posted the video clip of her interview with Matt Lower on NBC's TODAY show.) It was sub-titled, "Coulter's Assault on Liberal America."

Queen Coulter
Matt does a pretty poor job, but, let's give him two points for trying--that is, for being brave enough to encounter Ann Coulter at all. (Of course, he was no doubt commanded to, by higher powers--fearful of repercussions if he didn't.) Matt, like most modern male hosts, simply doesn't have the IQ to have a conversation the "Queen of Conservatives." His barbs were terribly off-target. Quite prejudicial, actually. (Harry Smith was an even weaker challenger on CBS. Of course, Ann is being relatively cool to this incompetents, because she's trying to promote her new book.) About all Ann's supposed critics can do is criticize her sense of caustic humor, claiming it interferes with her "serious" points.
Why all this ado?
Ann's new book, Guilty? Or, rather, the fact that her scheduled NBC's Today interview was cancelled, or 'bumped' twice? The immediate reaction of Matt Drudge was a published report that said very clearly that Ann Coulter was banned from NBC, forever.
The nation's top selling conservative author has been banned from appearing on NBC, insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT."We are just not interested in anyone so highly critical of President-elect Obama, right now," a TODAY insider reveals.
But a second top suit strongly denies there is any "Coulter ban".
"Look for a re-invite, as soon as Wednesday," said the news executive, who asked not to be named.
NBC's TODAY show abruptly cut Ann Coulter from its planned Tuesday broadcast, claiming the schedule was overbooked.
WorldNetDaily immediately reported the "ban" with great drama, (but was careful not to mention the Drudge Report):
'It's over': Ann Coulter banned for life by NBC 'We are just not interested in anyone so highly critical of President-elect Obama'
Of course, NBC immediately denied it; the New York Post denied it, etc. The explanation was that she was simply bumped because of "over-scheduling," or that Gaza news took precedence. (Tony Blair, to be specific.) Why, NBC had re-scheduled her (when?) from the start. It was all then an NBC publicity stunt?

There is something very serious going on here. The NBC "insider" who spoke to Drudge did so either intentionally, or else made a serious faux pas. In other words, the individual either intended this "ban" be known, immediately, or spoke completely out of turn, with no authority to do so. In any case, NBC has not revealed the name of the individual. Nor have any additional reports ensued. We're left to understand the incident as an innocent misunderstanding, dramatized by media--for higher ratings, obviously.
But Coulter is not a game player. They can try to play with her, but she doesn't play. She's sincere. She is completely independent. The liberal media personnel are all part of tight machinery. Rather sinister machinery. I can't see her taking part in this, willingly. If it was a self-serving NBC stunt, it nevertheless suggests just what all conservatives are surmising--that censorship is on its way. Serious, job-killing, career-ending censorship. Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi have been advocating this for some time. For Hillary, it was a matter of first getting control over the internet. (See, Richard Lawrence Poe, Hillary's Secret War: The Clinton Conspiracy to Muzzle Internet Journalists, 2004). For Pelosi, it's all about reviving the Fairness Doctrine.
Fortunately, for Queen Ann, her notoriety and accoutrements of power (i.e., friends in high places), she could not be censored for more than a day or so. But the gesture was made. The act was committed. The words were published. The idea was implemented. It happened. If for only a day--she was censored. It is in fact ominous.
The rest of us could never recover. It's survival for the successful. Big time successful. Others can be easily banned, censored, libeled, discredited, etc., with no recourse, no defense, and no hope. That is the message here. Someone of Ann Coulter's status can survive such an attack. Lesser lights would go forever out.
The Queen of Conservatives was essentially and in fact the first martyr of Hussein America. She resurrected, but, the tone is set: beware, conservative commentators, all. The honor is hers, but the war is ours.
For those unaffected by artifice and illusion, the inauguration of the alien black African Communist posing as a mock American president will have no serious interest. This cultural fluke is a creation of Democrats and their chief ally--propaganda, or, mass media. The incessant coddling of Hussein & Co. in media is merely promotional. Of course, it is intensified strickly because Hussein is black. His wife and children are black. Many members of his new admistration are black. It is the new Black House in Washington. It is a wonderful opportunity for elitist white liberals to indulge their latent, unconscious sexual curiosity. (Now, if Harry Reid and the Democrats in Congress just don't spoil it by making such an issue out of black Roland Burris!)
The media's maudlin, childlike naivete regarding blackness of Hussein & Co. is of course an unspeakable insult and denigration to the American public, but, the white media moguls feel they are serving a genuine purpose of promoting racial equality, acceptance, and good will. It has become a faithful, daily dose of "See? Why, they're just like us!" The truth is, the idiotic media fawning is deeply sinister and racist. It is tantamount to doting over a cute little company of chimpanzees who seem so wonderfully human, so much like us. Isn't that just heart-warming?! Awe...
The Democrat leaders will have a perfect leader. Their immature and maniacal hatred of Bush is to their own embarrassment, historically, and they are determined to present to the world the Magic Negro, one without fault, who can do no wrong, and has only positive contributions to make. The media will surely uphold this vision with profound faithfullness.
Hussein & Co. have understood the mechanism of media propaganda from the start. It is all imitation celebrity. Stars are made these days. It's all in the sell, the package, the promotion. The media can create significance--out of nothing. Yes, media has great power. As BadEagle.com has observed before, you know your country is sinking when media personalities (conservative or liberal) vie with politicians for public influence. Today, media anchors think they are movie stars, as well as politicians. They see themselves as critically influencial in the country. They become moralistic about it. They have "responsibility." That is the power of media.
The advent of the internet has only magnified this power beyond historical measurement. In the name of equality, anyone, any person, can make a YouTube video, and achieve national or international prominence. The goal is always fame, notoriety--celebrity, as it were. We're a monkey see, monkey do sort of race, this human race. Some people have a real talent for imitation. Hussein & Co. have it down to a science. Sheer elitism and racism are all magically disguised as black. Hysteria over the family pet, the children's school, etc., while meant to laud and uplift, really only cry out the real sentiment of the media: "Ape in the White House." That's right. And we've been through this before. Abraham Lincoln was referred to as the Ape, and cartooned as such.
Perhaps this is why Hussein & Co. feel so close to Lincoln. Maybe it isn't all completely celebrity imitation. Hussein has done absolutely nothing in the world, accomplished nothing, and has no qualification whatever to be a president--except maybe of a propaganda machine. Yet, he seeks intensely to be associated, not with his real compadres, like Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Khalid al-Mansour, or more pertinently at this point, Rod Blagojevich, but instead with the great Americans of history like JFK, Rooselvelt, or LIncoln.
Try as he will, however, Hussen will never exceed his true identity as a Third World mix of nothingness on both sides of the family tree, a Third World mix of religion (dominated by Islam), and the illusion of greatness. (His mother's family was avowed atheist, according to NewsWithViews.) This is not a personal fault, however. No one is responsible for the circumstances of his birth. Some simply learn how to make use of things better than others. I should say, some have in mind certain goals to which their circumstances may be lent. Hussein's are surely potent, and his use of them successful--personally. Being black, the winning ticket, puts him in the palms of the liberal hands of power. He is their perfect puppet. Never mind his own personage, in any dimension. He has what they could use, and he has freely offered himself.

Democrat Senator Harry Reid
Illusionist Harry Reid is dramatizing a new Democrat buzz word, "tainted," as he seeks to block the Rod Blagojevich appointee for Illinois Senator, Roland Burris. Burris is "tainted," according to Reid. The media has picked up the buzz word, and commends Hussein's intelligence nominees Leon Panetta and Dennis Blair because "neither are tainted by associations with Bush adminstration policies." The Democrats and the media insist that Hussein has no assocations at all. They've made the magic Negro 'squeeky' clean. Their political rock star is flawless. (Note how faddish the liberals are in their languistic strategies. They have to have a new word for each instance of archaic corruption. Harry Reid himself has been under dramatic suspicion for his dubious land deals in Nevada, but the word "tainted" wasn't being used then, so he's not "tainted." Therefore, he's okay.)
Yet, the facts in the case of Barack Hussein Obama are clear. The artifice of how notoriety (--and that's all he has, with some power now) came about however, Hussein's utter lack of qualification, and the utter mania over his person, only show the most denigrating, humiliating, racist attitude the world has ever seen. Liberal whites picking an alien black African Communist (who can talk) to be president of the United States demonstrates just how precipitously condescending liberal white elitists really are, and how very, abysmally low they believe even their most talented, magic Negro really is.
Yes, there should be a "Palestinian" state--in Jordan. In Syria. These "Palestinian" people belong in their home country, not in Israel.
Land claims are moot if not meaningless. Only the strong hold the land. (Ask American Indians. That's right, we still have our land--not only literally, but legally. We're American citizens!--all declared such by the US government in 1924.) The Arabic people who actually do come from families in Palestine since 586 BCE are very few. Today's "Palestinian" is basically a Jordanian native, or a Syrian. And the first Arabic people in Palestine never formed a country, a nation, nor ever had a unified religion or social structure at all. We're not talking about an ancient nation here, with any particular claim or right to such a status or its accoutrments. "Palestinians" are not the descendents of some ancient Arab nation in Palestine.

"Palestinian" illusionist
rhetorician, Hanan Ashrawi.
What we're talking about today is an illusion, a professional reactionary social response. We're talking basically rhetoric, nothing more. We're talking Hanan Ashrawi. There is no "Palestinian" people, or any semblence of a "Palestinian nation." In 1949, Arab activist Musa Alami said of the Arabs in Palestine regarding the idea of a nation, "most of them do not know the meaning of the word." "How can people struggle for their nation?" "The people are in great need of a 'myth.'" (See, "The Lessons of Palestine," in The Middle East Jounral, October, 1949.) Sixty years hasn't created a nation, a nationality, a religion, a language, or any basic fundamentals of nationhood. It has produced a prolonged piece of failed political strategem, targeting Israel, which has brought nothing but suffering to all involved.

Hussein bin Talal, King of Jordon
Jordon's King Hussein said in a 1960 (Associate Press interview):
Since 1948, Arab leaders have aproached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner...They have used the Palestine people for slefish political purposes. This is ridiculous and, I could say, even criminal."
Cited by Terence Prittie, "Middle East Refugees," in The Palestinians: Pople, History, Politics, ed. Michael Curtis (New Brunswick, 1975)
The dynamic hasn't changed in the last 60 years, either. The "Palestinian" thing has simply been a black hole for any amount of aid, help, or personnel offered. As in any condition of mental depression, anger is the immediate (if not the sole) motivating factor. Enter: Hamas. Feeding on anger, frustration, and desperation, Islamic leaders keep the "Palestinian" people titilated with violence and passion. Whipped up emotion is the essence of Islam in these situations, and it is difficult to separate from the nature of the human species in volved.
The 'cause and effect' relationship has been actually reversed by the media in the last half-century. This reversal permeates all media perspectives, from the most basic, to the highest imagined academic political rhetoric. It's all a fabrication.
In Jordon, in 1958, UNRWA director Ralph Galloway declared,
The Arab states do not want to solve the [Palestinian] refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations, as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees [Palestinians] live or die.
Funny, Truman's administration recommended the "refugess" all re-settle in Iraq. At least 750,000 of them. This was especially pertinent at the time, since at least 120,000 Jews had just left Iraq to come to Israel. Britain thought Syria could absorb at least 200,000 "Palestinian" refugees. Alas, no Arab state wanted their "Palestinian" brethren. Not even Jordon. When eight and a half million Hindus fled from Pakistan in 1950, and six and a half million Muslims migrated from India to Pakistan, they just worked it out, not bloodlessly, but effectively. But the Arab states would not accept their own kin, despite their common religion, Islam. It was more important to have a strategic prick wherewith to poke Israel perpetually.
After a half century of poking, there are those who think there is actually a "Palestinian" people, with national identity, who are being cruelly denied something.
But, the world will never fool Israel. For Israel's sake, the world cannot be fully fooled about "Palestinians," either. The Arab attitude towrad the "Palestinians" has not changed. The only difference today is that the numbers of "Arabs" crammed into Gaza and the West Bank have increased. They have achieved the highest birth rate in the world, as well as a fine immigration rate--only the immigrants are militants come with weapons in hand. Truly, the only function of "Palestinians" is to hate Israel. The "Palestinian" social entity is a parasitic illusion, fueled with weapons from Arab and Islamic nations (like Iran).
In the last analysis, the "Palestinians" have only the Arab nations to blame. The 'Palestinian" is the illegal Mexican immigrant of the Middle East.
Crazy as it is, the Gregorian Calendar of the Western world is the only one of its kind. This January 1, 2009, is the only New Year in the world. The other cultures of the world see the new year in the Spring, when life returns. When there is new growth. The Catholic calendar puts the new year in the dead of Winter. Why is that? Isn't that just a little curious?
The Gregorian Calendar also divides time into a backward/forward table, like BC (before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini, "in the year of our Lord"). This causes a great deal of confusion to young people just learning world history, and it remains problematic even to adults. I know from personal experience in teaching ancient history to college level students. And to make things more confusing, we have the term "century" which does not match the numerological labels of years. For instance, the year 1620 is in the early part of the 17th century. Like, the year 321 is in the early part of the 4th century, etc. Fourth century does not mean 400's, and 17th century does not mean 1700's.
But to make matters even more confusing, when we're talking about Gregorian "BC" time, everything reverses. Time always flows forward (left to right) but, the numerical figures on Gregorian time begin in larger quantity, and decrease as they move forward! That is, until you're on the right side of Christ. (Also I must remind everyone, Annos Domini does not begin at the crucifixion of Christ, but at His birth.)
4000-----3000----2000----1000----0----1000----2009
Let's say we want to go back three thousand years. That would put as at 991 BC. The BC numbers all get smaller as you move to the right. And 991 BC is what part of what century? It is the early part of the 10th century, BC. (The year 1000 BC is the beginning of the 11th century, BC. That century-to-numerical year relationship is the same as on the AD side of the time line. The "century" is one number larger than the numerical year date.) So, "early" in BC time means the larger number: 991 is early on the time line than 990, or 899, even though it is a larger number.
This problematic system also extends to the concept of millennia, or, thousand year periods. The year 1620 is in the second millennium AD. The year 991 BC is in the first millenium BC. The year 1776 is toward the latter part of the 18th century, and the latter part of the 2nd Millennium. The year 991 BC is in the early part of the 1st Millenium BC.
Of course, the cherry on the mud pie is the fact that there is no year "0." The year 1 BC is followed by the year 1 AD. This fact has caused a problem or two when Bible prophecy enthusiasts (as well as scholars) calculate Biblical prophecies--most of which are from the "BC" period, though St. John's Revelation came in the AD 90's.
No other cultures have placed such awkward and unnecessary numerical abstractions on themselves. Even the Hebrew culture, on which the Christian religion is based, simply numbers the years from 1 to 5769 (today's Gregorian 2009). Why would anyone want to go against the entire world? What was Pope Gregory trying to accomplish? Some gigantic acknowledgement of Christ in the world? Is it all an unnecessary, graphic, iconographic, "idolatrous" superimposition? What is the purpose and effect?
The Gregorian Calendar became fixed and functional February 24, 1582 AD (latter part of the 16th century), on the authority of Pope Gregory XIII. What was the Catholic Church doing before then? Was it otherwise the year 5342? And what of the months of the year? And the number of days in a given month and a given year?
The Gregorian Calendar was a reformation of the Julilan Calendar, of course, which was a Roman thing, on the authority of Julius Caesar (45 BC). (The Catholic Church is definitely a "Roman" thing.) But this doesn't help us answer the question as to what year Gregory thought it was before his imposition of a new calendar. In fact, the only thing we can be sure of is that he was taking a Roman approach to time, and the Roman approach was itself rather novel, relative to the ancient Mesopotamian world.
In the end, the only thing we can be sure of is that civilization has always had twelve months, and that constituted some kind of year. And more certain than that, we know civilization has always had seven days in a week, and they have always been in the same order. This is of interest, because the Hebrew story of Bereshith (beginnings, or Genesis) actually begins with the week, marked by the holy Sabbath. Genesis 1:14 speaks of celestial lights which are "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." The world may have various understandings and interpretations of the length of months and years, but, there are phenomenon in nature which seem constant: sunrise, sunset; the cycles of the moon; the changes of weather (seasons), etc. However, seasons are what they are, of themselves. Man's calculations and labels have no bearing on the change of temperature or the advent of Spring. The only thing that has apparently never been affected by any of this is that mysterious weekly cycle--which has no natural account. There is no reason for it, or explanation for it, save that given in the Hebrew story of creation. And only the Hebrew story contains logic with the logistics. Other ancient myths fail to provide even the illusion of cause when it comes to the weekly cycle. The Hebrew Sabbath is il mistero di misteri, as our late friend Dr. Samueli Bacchiocchi might have said, "the mystery of mysteries."
I say, Happy New Year, in all sincerity, but I really don't know what year it is, or what day it is, numerically. The only thing I can really wish for is a Good Shabbas when it comes your way! Then we know we're on target!