Header Image


Bad Eagle Journal

The Redford Raid Begins

by David Yeagley · January 18, 2005 · 27 Comments ·

This evening, 6:30 Central Time, I’m scheduled to be on KTKK 630 Talk Radio, “The Voice of Utah” out of Salt Lake. I’ll be on the Kyle Betton show, “Kyle 2K,” which airs weekdays from 5pm to 7pm (Mountain Time). This is curious, because Betton had no idea of my issue with Sundance Institute and Robert Redford. He’d been looking at my recent articles on FrontPageMagazine, and contacted me. How apropos, then, that the capital city of Utah, Salt Lake, some 27 miles north of Redford’s Sundance Ski resort, is the place from which we launch the first stage of attack!

It has become immediately apparent, of course, that the front line of Redford’s defense will be the hordes of tan-skinned, dark-haired, dark-eyed women in the world who simply idolize him. They know nothing of his ideas, his intents, his Institute; they only know what a grand attraction he is to them, and they think only of his wonderfully “American” movies, like The Horse Whisperer (1998), The Natural (1984), and of course, The Sundance Kid (1969). I mean, how “American” can make a guy? We’ve already noted his famous ‘Indian-killer’ movie, Jeremiah Johnson (1972), which, however, paraded no special patriotic cause, no triumph of anything but Redford’s macho image. Horses, baseball, cowboy/western outlaws, and Indian-killers, what more could they pack into an American icon?

from The Horse Whisperer,

No, I doubt that I will be able to enlist many women in this cultural raid, this soon-to-be cause c

Posted by David Yeagley · January 18, 2005 · 1:02 pm CT · ·

Tags: Bad Eagle Journal

Read More Journal Posts »

27 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Sheila // Jan 18, 2005 at 3:30 pm   

    So, Doc, since the inception of the Sundance Institute in 1981, you’ve been upset with Redford, or is it just a recent thing? While you attack him, be aware of all the Jews that are on his board of trustees. How “Christian” of you to attack a fellow human in his own backyard, no wait, that’s a terrorist trait. What about free enterprise? Are you jealous of his success? It’s a sad thing to watch you idolize the persian princesses that you do and attack a fellow American – I don’t think this is about the use of the name “SunDance” at all…just a flailing attempt at notoriety…which the Comanches don’t need.

  • 2 David Yeagley // Jan 18, 2005 at 4:21 pm   

    Sheila, thank you for demonstrating my point about women! (I already predicted I would be accused of jealously, too.)

    They say never to confuse a woman with the facts, but, look at his enterprizes, and read carefully what I’ve said. This isn’t about him. This is about what he’s doing. This is about the LEFT.

    Keep the idol. I’m going for the program. I’m going for the Soros connection, and the rather arrogant presumption that the institue OWNS the name Sundance, to the point that Redford SUED another white businessman for using it!

    Please take a look at the last several blogs…
    This revelation is just beginning.

    The point is also to show how unbelievably inconsistent the Left is. They will sue the Braves, but not the Sundance. I wonder why.

  • 3 Sheila // Jan 18, 2005 at 5:43 pm   

    Dr. Y, I’m not out to prove anything. Only question why you are suddenly on the attack of an institute that has been in business for over twenty years. I think its only an attention-getting scheme…sad really, that you would stoop to such sensationalism. Who knew the Sun Dance meant so much to you – don’t recall you speaking out about it back when the institute began… The Braves are a profitable venture, the SunDance Institute is listed as a non-profit organization. I suppose these days, ownership of any name is questionable. Just a matter of time until the Red Ford people join you in your quest…BTW, I have only one idol, it ain’t Redford. I’m not confused by the facts, either. The LEFT will ALWAYS be around, that’s the checks and balances of life. Soros is new to the equation. Go after him. That seems more respectful. I see this embarrassingly going to Hannity and Combs or O’Reilly, or whatever. I can’t watch…

  • 4 Betty Ann // Jan 18, 2005 at 6:58 pm   

    Why make reference to Indian women going on this raid with you. Take some of the Indian Braves, Cleveland Indians, Washington Redskins with you.

    If you men want to start a war party, then this time leave the Indian women out of it. When we do become involved we are left out there to defend for ourselves when the topics become too heated.

    I agree with the lady, that this issue needed to be addressed years ago.

    PS: Why don’t you gather some Indian men here on and go on another kind of war party or raid. Read Buzzy’s article on Victoria’s Secret panties. Go over there and play for awhile.

    Betty Ann

  • 5 Betty Ann // Jan 18, 2005 at 7:02 pm   

    Hmmm. Well there certainly is something intriguing about a blonde blue-eyed cowboy. I guess one cannot hold a candle to them blue eyes and blonde hair. And the cowboy hat!

    Betty Ann

  • 6 Nadine // Jan 18, 2005 at 7:06 pm   

    Hmmm, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking as concerns this issue. And after a great deal of thought, I find myself ambivalent — on the one hand, I can see where poster Sheila/spb is coming from (my thoughts *exactly* btw) — yet, OTOH, I can also see Dr. Yeagley’s viewpoint to some extent, insofar as it deals with the name “Sundance” & one or two other things.

    Still, I maintain that there are far more worthy causes to fight for than this one. Also, to be frank, it makes Dr. Yeagley out to be exactly what he protests against (i.e. “professional Indian protestors”, especially those that have protested to remove ALL American Indian images, logos, emblems, etc. from America). Now look what he does — kinda hypocritical, if ya ask me. (;^)

    By the way, something important to note, the case where Robert Redford sued the “Sundance Theatre” in a small Texas town was eventually resolved (please see Forums section under ‘American Indian Accountability’). The gentleman who owns said theatre was allowed to use the name locally, whereas Redford’s Sundance Institute owns it nationally. Sounds agreeable to me.

    Finally, I agree with poster Sheila/spb wherein she stated something to the effect of Dr. Yeagley should just go after George Soros, as that is whom he seems to have a beef with, instead of dragging the whole Sundance Insitute into this melee!

    Peace, Nadine

    P.S. Btw, Doc, please don’t start making those “sexist” remarks again, as you did when you appeared on ‘Native America Calling’. Once you do so, you lose all credibility. JMHO.

  • 7 Sheila // Jan 18, 2005 at 7:14 pm   

    Stick to the attack of the Village People, Dr. Dave. They are a real concern for the American public, and have so much to do with rez life deplorable….none of this seems to make any sense other than to get your name in lights somewhere, and you are as insincere as the rest of the world. Good to know. I thought you were the “hide behind the Jews” guy. I appreciate you dumbing it all down for me – I’ve been reading the blogs. I just thought I’d make one last effort to keep you from embarrassing yourself. But then, possibly, I am just confused by the facts. What macho bullshit!

  • 8 Nadine // Jan 18, 2005 at 7:17 pm   

    Lol, Betty Ann, you made me lol with that comment about Victoria’s Secret. *huge grin* (:^DDD

    By the by, I’m one American Indian woman that prefers the proverbial “tall, dark, and handsome” (preferably Indian men, but George Clooney isn’t bad either). However, that doesn’t prevent me from admiring/goggling over such actors as the young Robert Redford, Brad Pitt, Jude Law, et al. Handsome is handsome, no matter the race. (:^)

    Peace Out, Nadine

  • 9 Betty Ann // Jan 18, 2005 at 7:22 pm   

    Hi Nadine:

    I love blonde blue-eyed cowboys. They are just so precious. But kinda take to darker, real dark skinned men too.

    Yep, let them raid your Victoria’s Secret lingerie drawer.

    Betty Ann

  • 10 Betty Ann // Jan 18, 2005 at 7:27 pm   

    Dark as in Ludacris and his song, “GET BACK”, You don’t know me like that!

    Betty Ann

  • 11 David Yeagley // Jan 18, 2005 at 7:39 pm   

    So, three Indian women are the first to respond, negatively, to the raid on Redford’s Institute. Hmmm. Isn’t that just dandy. Did I not predict?

    Hey, Redford is a classic. I realize he is an icon. We’re all sensitive about our icons. Darker people are always sexually attracted to lighter people, for a variety of reasons. (Often the reverse is true also.) This is not the issue.

    All I’m saying is, just because he is a movie star icon should not give a free pass to use American Indian things to “bless” his anti-American agenda.

    It time, you will see, plainly, that he is not a patriot. Well, put it this way, he has not shown patriotism. Maybe he will change. Maybe he will walk a straighter path, a truer path, in the future.

    Look at the path Russell means has carved out for himself. He helped oust Daschle! He has drawn up a new constitution for the Oglala Sioux. People develop. People with open minds move forward.

    I will demonstrate in future blogs and perhaps in a new Redford Forum, the true nature of Redford’s enterprises.

    Sheila, why do you think non-profit means no one profits? It’s only a tax loop-hole. Unbelievable amounts of money go into and come out of “non-profits.”

    And George Soros did not invent the use of Indian images for profit (or “non-profit”). He joined up with Redford’s SUNDANCE Institute. What is there to protect about Redford in this? It was his decision to admit Soros.

    Tell my why you are defensive and protective of Redford.

  • 12 Sheila // Jan 18, 2005 at 8:00 pm   

    From the Sundance Institute’s site:

    “Founded by Robert Redford and dedicated to the development of artists of independent vision and the exhibition of their new work, the Sundance Institute is celebrating its 20th Anniversary in 2001.

    In 1981 Robert Redford gathered a group of colleagues and friends at Sundance, Utah to discuss new ways to enhance the artistic vitality of the American film. The result was the establishment of the Sundance Institute, dedicated to the support and development of emerging screenwriters and directors of vision, and to the national and international exhibition of new, independent dramatic and documentary films.

    Since that beginning twenty years ago, the Sundance Institute has expanded its scope to include a range of programs that reflect the original mission of nurturing developing artists in a variety of disciplines and encouraging the independent spirit in both artists and their projects.

    A nonprofit corporation, Sundance’s $10.6 million budget is met by 35 percent earned and 65 percent contributed income.

    Sundance, Utah is home to many of the artistic activities (Labs and Theatre productions) of the Sundance Institute. The Sundance Film Festival is held every January in Park City, Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, and Sundance, Utah. Sundance’s administrative and program offices are located in Salt Lake City, Utah and in Beverly Hills, California.

    The Sundance Institute is governed by a 25-member Board of Trustees, currently chaired by Walter Weisman.”

    I would imagine, like any big business, the Board of Trustees manages most of the wheelings and dealings of the institure. Does Redford know all the comings and goings at the place? Doubtful. I continue to believe he created the institute to help establish new filmmakers, screenwriters, actors, and such, away from Hollywood. Is that not admirable to you? I understand the tax loop-hole. How could he stay in business if he did not have funding? Isn’t that what we all seek? Validation of our craft with monetary reward while being able to pursue life? I am no different, are you? Does that make me some sort of leftist commie pig? I disregard your fight against the name Sundance, and of the man Redford. The time to object was over twenty years ago. Where were you then, Harvard finishing school, drooling over D Von F and Farah?

    I have seen a prison movie with Redford, in which his last moment of life is used to raise the American flag. Maybe it was a Hollywood gimmick, but if so, not much different from yours.

    If you will look up the story of Jeremiah Johnston, the mountain man, you will find the story of the Crow fighter that avenged the death of his wife and children.

    You asked in your blog why does the left make a difference in the Braves and Sundance? I suppose it never occurred to anyone. Just like the casino industry, if the right person doesn’t have their hand in the pot, there will be some people to cry foul. I just can’t believe you have sold out for a meazly headline somewhere in airwaves over Utah.

  • 13 Sheila // Jan 18, 2005 at 8:16 pm   

    You have conveniently left out the movies that fry the Republicans and their shenanigans, such as Watergate – “All the President’s Men,” and “The Candidate,” a look at the minipulative side of elections and political candidates. And the name of the prison movie that I found so outstanding is “The Last Castle.” EVERYONE should watch it – especially for the last few minutes to see the American flag flying. But watch the ENTIRE movie for the STRUGGLE to put the flag up. It’s a bit patriotic.

    American Indian issues didn’t come to mind once when I was watching, imagine that. Should I have been offended of his use of the flag? Jeez, you talk all the time about Indians moving on and not living in the past, but you are digging up bones, Doc.

  • 14 David Yeagley // Jan 19, 2005 at 8:57 am   

    Sheila, there must be a terrrible blindness or misunderstanding here, somewhere. By the definition of American patriot, if you concede there is such a concept, Redford’s enterprises don’t meet it. He’s far left. These are the people, like George Soros, whom Redford is pleased to ally with, who want to destroy what America is supposed to be.

    Now, I’ll admit that Bush has his own globalist leanings, which actually threaten the sovereignty and independence of the United States. I speak of the “trade” agreements and “treaties.”

    But, one has to USE the tactics of the Left AGAINST the Left, otherwise they win, automatically. It’s like surrendering before you’ve even fought.

    In a fight, you have to get dirty. You can’t win by acting like you’re above getting dirty.

  • 15 desertrat77 // Jan 19, 2005 at 9:37 am   

    I understand that you are going after the Left. So be it, you will lose, progress will not be stopped. As for using the name Sundance, you are upset that a man is using a religious term, to promote individuality among today’s cookie cutter movies?

    So he’s an icon. OK, but I have never heard anywhere that he considers himself a patriot. By what definition is one a patriot? Must they love “god” of Jews and Christians? Must one think that America is the “chosen place” for this “god’s” values? Must one subscribe to the values of the Right? I have only been reading your blog for about 6 months, and maybe I have missed your definition of what a patriot is(other than the team that’s going to win the Super Bowl, Damn)?

    The Right has historically lost every fight that it has picked. (Social Security, Child Labor Laws, the fights against the Unions, Abortion, minimum wage) Like I said earlier, you cant stop progress. Let me leave you with this thought: Geroge W. Bush won this election, so did Andrew Jackson, AJ is probably one of the most polarizing Presidents in History, but his legacy is the Trail of Tears. GWB shares the same polarizing affect that Andy had, but W’s legacy will be that of an ineffective man, who took advantage of a tragedy, and turned it into 7 more years of office. (Look at his approval rating before 9/11 if you think he would’ve been re-elected if it hadn’t happened)

    PS: Please, dont think that I dont know what you are talking about, you said it perfectly when you said it a raid against the Left. This is just another front on the battle of Left vs Right

  • 16 kaktuskid // Jan 19, 2005 at 9:57 am   

    “The Right has historically lost every fight that it has picked. (Social Security, Child Labor Laws, the fights against the Unions, Abortion, minimum wage)”

    Really? Who runs the Congress? Who is President?

    “Social Security”
    AKA Ponzi

    “the Unions”
    Where are they in power anymore, except for Gov’t burrocrats?

    “minimum wage”
    Since when is it the business of govt to tell me how much I can pay someone?…notice that the dime stores are out of business due to “minimum wage”?

  • 17 David Yeagley // Jan 19, 2005 at 9:59 am   

    DR77, “Your objection has been noted,” as the judge says in court…

    I however object to your use of the word “progress.” This is as if to say all America’s beginnings need to be “progressed” away from, as if they were improper or erroneous. Can this indeed be?

    Our country is progressing towards socialism/communism, and the curtailment of our freedoms. Shall we call that “progress?” I believe it’s in the wrong direction.

    Therefore, I am behooved to work against this, in any way possible.

    GWB hasn’t tried to “remove” Indians, that I know of. He increased the BIA budget for 2004, by over $164 million. A drop in the bucket, yet, but, not a negative thing…

    No, it’s the LEFT who wants to remove all visible images of Indians in the country, to remove all names, etc.

    I don’t want to remove the name Sundance. I just don’t want it used for anti-American values. I have to use the Left’s own tactics–against the LEFT. That’s all this is.

  • 18 Fausta // Jan 19, 2005 at 10:16 am   

    This winter-pale-skinned, dark haired, dark-eyed woman is certainly not enthralled with Redford, and am glad you are bringing this issue to the fore.
    My best,

  • 19 desertrat77 // Jan 19, 2005 at 4:17 pm   

    alright kak,

    here you go, the Right is currently in power, but if you look at history, it always swings back the other way, such is the cycle of life and energy in the universe, balance. Show me an issue battle that the Right has picked and won? Come on, I dare you? Enough said.

    I dont see the march towards socialism/communism that you do. What I see is a march towards a society that finally reaches the point of where the states rights and the rights of the individual are balanced. You see the Left as playing dirty, try this one on for size, the NRA (roughly 3-4 million people, and 1% of the population) has enough influence that they can hold enough seats in Congress hostage so that the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire, when 72% of the American population said that it shouldn’t?

    I see the Right as one who wants to force Jesus down the throat of all of us, wants to control what we see, hear and read, and allow the State to control the flow of information(sounds kinda like Germany 1935 dont it), and also one who manages to sacrifice the lives of its Soldiers and Marines in an ill thought out war(Iraq, not Afghanistan, that one is righteous), and then lies about the WMD(I didnt hear a peep out of you or the Right when the news broke that the teams searching for the WMD came home before Christmas, empty handed at that!!).

    I think that there are much worse offenders that you could after, (ELF and ALF come to mind.) You still never answered my question about what you’re definition of a patriot is?

  • 20 kaktuskid // Jan 19, 2005 at 5:46 pm   

    ” assault weapons ban was allowed to expire”

    Define “assault weapon”…machine gun? (those have been outlawed for years!)…big scary looking gun?…you wouldn’t know an assault weapon from a salted peanut!

    “I see the Right as one who wants to force Jesus down the throat of all of us, wants to control what we see, hear and read”

    As compared to you Sovietizing atheists who want to take the “G*D” word and/or any religious symbol- no matter how small (like on the county seal of Los Angeles- the “city of Angels”) out or off of any item visible to the naked eye!…BTW the Nazis were PAGANS, not Christians!

    As for WMDs (which can be made from many innocuous materials…chlorine comes from salt)….if Bush lied, then so did Clinton, the UN, Turdy Kennedy, the Frogs, the Krauts, the Russians…etc..etc.

    As for jerky-face Redford…I consider him the male version of a dumb blonde!

  • 21 David Yeagley // Jan 19, 2005 at 6:34 pm   

    DR77, I don’t think there’s any question that Hussein manufacture the means for weapons of mass destruction. I’ve seen enough TV news documentaries (not Hollywood/Moore propaganda) to convince me. If you have a rifle stock in one room, a barrel in another house, ammo in a hotel room, a scope buried on the edge of town, I think it’s safe to say you have a rifle.

    Jesus isn’t in anyone’s face, at least not more than in the founders’ faces. One must make the effort to read their private lives, letters, and community experiences. They were Christians. This nation was founded by Christians, with Christian values. In that sense, it is safe to say it is a “Christian nation.”

    However, I do not advocate using the state authority to enforce any “cultural trappings” of Christianity. Yet, I do not believe the government has any right to forbid the same. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Thanks to the diseased minds of attorneys, the public seems unable to read this simple principle for what it is.

    Patriotism is love of country. One must understand what the country is, of course. I believe the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are principle. I also believe in the natural, psychological, emotional attatchment to land, scenery, and social bodies. Patriotism is an intuition, an instinct. All men have it. But it must be informed, and rightly understood, or something besides “the country” will take its place.

    I don’t think Redford is a patriot. Movies are one thing. The man’s individual intents and values are quite another.

  • 22 boethius // Jan 19, 2005 at 7:11 pm   

    Let me just respond solely to the charge that the Right is trying “to force Jesus down the throat of all of us.”

    Aside from the obvious fallacy that it is possible to “force” you to believe anything (sort of like Catholic missionaries who “converted” Indians or else killed them if they didn’t) I can say that being a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, evangelical Christian who spent the first 27 years of his life being a far-Left agnostic, I can understand the concern, but from the perspective of a practicing believer I can say your concerns are fundamentally unfounded.

    Few politicians with any sway to speak of–including President Bush–have or ever will have enough sway to substantively change or legislate the idealogical direction this country has been rapidly heading toward since the “free love” ’60s. Those on the Left often seem to be consumed with the misplaced perception that Jesus freaks are somehow going to infect them or society at some fundamental inflection point that society begins to drift its core idealogy toward God. Leftists have made the false assumption that the so-called “red states” are just a bunch of knuckle-dragging Jesus freaks who re-elected Jesus freak GWB back into office and now, uh-oh, we better watch out what those Jesus freaks are going to do. I believe Ted Rall ignominiously derided the flyover states as “Jesusland.”

    As a Christian I can say it is very clear this is not happening yet paranoid Leftists seem constantly fearful of some government-sponsored Inquisition. The Bible seems very clear on the subject: “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (Matt. 7:14). In other words, not many are going through the “gate.” This doesn’t mean Christians will not preach the message–and those who perceive this as Jesus being forced down their throats won’t like that regardless–but it does mean most will choose not to hear it.

    Most Christians I know are concerned much more with developing relationships with and helping people, believing and non-believing, and introducing and developing their faith in an unassuming manner. Yes, some are overt, some will accost you in the street with Bible in hand, and you can always flip the channel off Benny Hinn, but believe it or not it is through the foolishness of preaching that people get saved (1 Cor. 1:21). Fortunately here in the US we still have the right to preach our foolishness. If some on the Right push a “Christian” agenda, it is an endeavor to at least preserve the right to believe what we believe–and also, by definition, for those who choose not to believe to continue doing so–and at least slow the “progress” of the US to be a mirror of a post-Christian, effectively amoral Europe. It seems to me that this is the hardest part to fathom for most on the Left–that in fact our society’s core value system is crumbling at all. The failure to recognize this seems to me the basic reason why the Left cites nebulous coercion by “Christian” politicians as the beginning of some surreptitious effort to forcibly “convert” the unwilling.

  • 23 Bodvar // Jan 19, 2005 at 7:21 pm   


    Novel as it may be on this thread, let me go back ON TOPIC and congratulate Dr. Y for his opportunity to strike a blow against an entrenched liberal icon…you know the type…the sort against whom it’s gauche to speak….

    Dr. Y, I don’t expect that it’ll get much traction. If Condi Rice is viewed as a “black traitor” for being conservative, I can imagine that Dr. Y will be dismissed as either a “red traitor” or as a crank. Nobody wants to hear any more about the idiotic issue of sports mascots, and a reaction against it — even as original as Dr. Y’s position is — will be dismissed.

    Now, as to the aptly named desertRAT:

    His responses (and others on this thread) rather handily illustrate a point George Will made over 20 years ago. He said that if you disagree with a conservative, he’ll think that it’s because you’re stupid. If you disagree with a leftist, he’ll think that it’s because you’re evil. He might also think you stupid, but first and foremost, you’re morally bankrupt.

    Once again, I refuse to call folks who would regulate and anathemize the rights, speech and aspirations of others “liberal”, as they aren’t.

    It’s amazing that our liberal/leftist neighbors see the world as about as deep as a birdbath and as entirely monochrome. You’re either black or white.

    So, here are a few responses:


    “I dont see the march towards socialism/communism that you do.”

    …that’s because you’re stupid. See how that works? Handy, no?


    “What I see is a march towards a society that finally reaches the point of where the states rights and the rights of the individual are balanced.”

    …what does THAT mean? States rights? The Democrats used to be all over that one…back when that meant “defense of slavery”…they still defend plantations, but only those from which they themselves benefit…like minority bloc voting without reciprocal representation or benefit, etc….


    “You see the Left as playing dirty, try this one on for size, the NRA (roughly 3-4 million people, and 1% of the population) has enough influence that they can hold enough seats in Congress hostage so that the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire, when 72% of the American population said that it shouldn’t?”

    …as Kak observed, you might not know what an actual “assault weapon” was if it were lodged between your teeth. By definition, it is a long arm which is selective fire, meaning that it can fire semi-auto (one trigger pull/one shot) and either burst (one trigger pull/two or three or four shots, then you have to pull the trigger again) or fully automatic (one trigger pull/it fires until either you stop pulling the trigger or the magazine is empty). Such arms have been heavily regulated — and have never been BANNED — since the 1930’s, in reaction to the entertainment entreprenuers of Chicago and elsewhere being able to buy (and use willy-nilly) Thompson submachineguns at the local hardware store. Since FDR’s first term, I believe, you’ve had to be licensed to own that sort of firearm…which is one of the more conservative proposals made by the gun-control fascists, licensing gun owners to own guns.

    In the interest of accuracy (thin on the ground in this entire issue, and in the gun control debate generally), the weapons you’re unwittingly referring to are military-style (“army guy looking”) semi-automatic sporting rifles with magazines holding in excess of five rounds.

    The fact that the proponents of this skewed set of laws, both federal and state, don’t have any idea what they’re talking about is at the heart of the issue.

    The gun-control totalitarians and pollyannas proposed the laws as, at the time, the latest set of “feel-good” laws in reaction to an outrage. Laws which are an emotional reaction to an incident are almost always both bad and unjust laws. They are usually promoted by folks high on their own emotions and outrage, with little concern for facts or other people’s rights.

    The Gun Control Act of 1968 was a reaction to the assasinations of King and Bobby Kennedy, pushed by, among others, a weepy John Glenn, who went on TV figuratively waving Bobby’s bloody shirt. It was a bad, stupid and unfair law, which ultimately only controlled those who obey the law.

    So too this latest stupid law, which did nothing to stop people from being able to shoot a lot of people at once, or kill family and friends. The murders simply reload more often, as at the mass-murder spree at Lubys in Killeen, TX or the McDonalds “Big Mac Attack” in San Diego back 20+ years ago, or the two bank robbers in Southern California a few years ago.

    In the case of the bank robbers, both felons (I believe), they HAD to have obtained their AUTOMATIC weapons illegally. In their case, it’d be wiser to propose body armor control, as their nearly head-to-foot kevlar is what enabled them to be as destructive as they were.

    The issue is emotional, charged, and all out of focus. What we need to remember is this: be VERY, VERY careful which rights you take from OTHER PEOPLE. The gun control folks aren’t usually don’t lose anything when guns are banned, so they aren’t rights which they ever miss. It’d be different if proposed that one had to have done one’s homework before proposing a law or incur a fine. That’d burn ’em.


    “I see the Right as one who wants to force Jesus down the throat of all of us”

    That could be answered two ways:

    1) (secular) Are your beliefs so fragile that even the MENTION of Christianity sets it tottering. If so, go find where Newdow’s slunk off too and have a pity party.

    2) (religious) It is a feature of Christianity, well and repeatedly documented in that pesky founding document, the Bible (I won’t further “oppress” you by citing Scripture), that righteousness convicts the wicked. John Calvin stated in the first pages of his “Institutes” that ALL mankind is born with a knowledge of God, if not of the Gospel, even in their fallen state. That means that they can, even if vaguely, feel that they’ve somehow messed up. Then, you present them with the Gospel, and they begin to skurry like cockroaches or sit and sputter like a guy caught with his hand up his best friend’s wife’s skirt. They’re outraged, most of all because they’ve been caught in their sin.

    Yup…#2 is the explanation I favor.


    “…wants to control what we see, hear and read, and allow the State to control the flow of information(sounds kinda like Germany 1935 dont it)…”

    …the last I looked, the FCC had the DUTY to regulate the airwaves, and newspapers and libel law regulates the print media. This seems to be a bit of that old leftist childishness: I can’t get what I want when I want it, served on a silver salver into the bargain, so I’ll start calling people names. You’re welcome to Janet Jackson’s tits (shrivelled raisins that they’re reputed to be), and I don’t care…for my own part. But, I take exception to the PUBLICALLY OWNED AIRWAVES being used to air certain kinds of stuff, including a Backstreet Boy flashing a Jackson. I’d be as PO’d if it’d been Tito’s titty and not Janet’s. The whole family’s over-exposed, if you ask me.

    If you want porn without having to get cable, move to Europe.


    “…and also one who manages to sacrifice the lives of its Soldiers and Marines in an ill thought out war(Iraq, not Afghanistan, that one is righteous), and then lies about the WMD(I didnt hear a peep out of you or the Right when the news broke that the teams searching for the WMD came home before Christmas, empty handed at that!!).”

    Here you show your lock-step, “don’t look beneath the veneer”, “I believe all that I read in the New York Times” mentality.

    1) Saddam Hussein used Iraq as his personal playground, teaching his boys to murder at an early age, using opponents as training aids. He gave substantial aid and comfort to terrorists (Abu Nidal, a master of the art, died in Baghdad as the war was starting). This IS a war on terror, after all. Iran is more deserving of our full military attention, as is Syria, but one is wisest to take on the enemies you can beat at the time.

    2) Even after a year in office, the US military was still depleted from the frankly treasonous inattention and hostility of the Clinton years. Still, you have to fight with the Army you have.

    3) The whole “ain’t no WMD’s” canard doesn’t wash. Leftists insisted that the UN be brought on board — the same UN which was making millions in backhand money thanks to the whole oil-for-food hustle, both for officials and their families — so Mr. Bush and Mr. Powell made a good faith effort. If you’ll remember (I’d bet you don’t), EVERYONE (including both senators from Massachusetts) called for Saddam to give up his WMD’s. So, everyone thought they were there.

    4) It doesn’t make much difference what was said because, as we now know, 2/3 of the Security Council (China, Russia and France) were on the take from Saddam! Saddam could’ve gassed Topeka and Chirac would’ve turned up his gallic nose and phoned his Swiss banker.

    5) The Afganistan operation was absolutely brilliant!

    6) The dash to Baghdad, with the betrayal by “allies” like Turkey and lousy weather, was just as brilliant!

    7) Occupation duty just plain sucks. It especially sucks in the face of uncontrolled and uncontrollable cross-border infiltration of suicidal murders and arms (and caches of explosives and dynamite vests probably meant for Israel), in a country which has for centuries been secretively murdering eachother (Saddam is only unique inasmuch as he did it with a certain public panache), and in the face of fifth-columnism on the part of academia, the press and betrayal by the socialists in the European Union. Yup, just plain sucks.


    …so, DR, you keep up the good work. A good straight man is hard to find.

    — B

  • 24 Lila DeMarrias Mehlhaff // Jan 20, 2005 at 1:22 am   

    Hey Doc!
    Here’s one Native wiyan (Lakota woman) who’s not afraid to back you 100%! The truth is a bitter pill sometimes, but the Truth will set us free. I support your convictions because it’s applying the same standard to both the liberal and conservative. If this mascot controversy (wherever it occurred in time) is true against the sports teams, shouldn’t it also be held up against the Redford-money-making machine?

    Sheila, you offend my sensibilities when you throw the Christian word around and equate it with the word terrorist. I can’t even imagine what this country would be like if the Spirit of God were removed from the hearts of His people. Do you know that the only reason His wrath is not being poured out, and is being held back is because He is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentence” (2Peter 3:9)? But there will come a time when His Spirit will no longer contend with man…
    And being a Christian doesn’t mean we don’t speak out. Jesus Himself spoke out against hypocrisy. He got pretty angry about it too! That’s not un-Christian either. The time has past for us to sit back and let evil reign in our world.

    Free enterprise is a great concept, heck, I’m a business owner myself. As far as I can see, this is not about jealousy. Re-read the Dr.’s original posting again. And if this is such a stupid idea, why don’t we see what happens to it? If it goes the way of most stupid ideas, fine. If it picks up some momentum, maybe it’s worth some reasonable consideration. Why not let Dr. Yeagley’s voice and ideas be heard in the court of public opinion?

    And as far as there being a connection to the deplorable conditions of the rez… I think the liberal left and their ideology has done a great job keeping the people in a paternalistic relationship with them. “Keep us in power because without us, you won’t get any $$!”. It’s time for some change and it begins with opening up some eyes about truth.

  • 25 David Yeagley // Jan 20, 2005 at 7:50 am   

    Bodvar, a remarkable post! I may want to transfer that one to the forums somewhere, for easier access after this blog ends up archived…

    Lila, thank you! I realize I’m pushing things here. It’s a deep political issue, really. Redford represents the epitome of irony in this case. There is the thought, too, that Republicans, Libertarians, and conservatives in general, are above fighting, above getting dirty. There is truth to this. Our American soldiers are among the finest people in the world, I believe. They will not be brought down to the level of the murderous Islamic fanatics. Yet, they will fight! Well, we need to fight in politics, too. That’s what I’m doing here.

    Sheila? A terrific woman, whom we all love very much on BadEagle. Her objections? I consider them refinements. This is the glory of discussion. There are Indian women on BadEagle who faithfully oppose me. Usually, it ends in deeper thought, more thorough understanding, and I feel it is a benefit. I hope they do!

  • 26 desertrat77 // Jan 20, 2005 at 9:55 am   

    Hey Bod,

    You mistake me for someone who is a knee jerk liberal, who cant think for himself, and who toes the party line. Which the history of the my posts on this site, prove that I am not. The points that I mentioned were just examples of how the Right fights just as dirty as the Left does, so get off of your freaking high horse. I know what an assault rifle is(9 years in the military and counting). I could give a shit about Robert Redford, I wish Doc well in his crusade.

    As for my religious beliefs being so fragile, I think that they are not, once again its a shame that you can’t see the forest for the tree’s, these were just an example of the fallacy of the Right. Ted Rall sucks. Michael Moore sucks. Monica Lewinsky sucks (wait wrong example,and we all knew that). OK, I have told you time and time again that I actually agree with 75% of what Doc says, bottom line is that you want to destroy the Left, and ignore all of the good things that the Left has done in the last 70 years, or you want to minimize them to the point to where they become insignificant.

    As for the LA county seal,(I live in LA county by the way), it needs to go back to the original way it was, shame on the Board of Supervisors who caved w/o a fight. You see my posts as being controversial, but I am simply trying to be devils advocate most of the time, and trying to provide a voice of reason(or a semi-liberal point of view, take your pick) on a conservative website. I have never devolved to calling you names, so up yours about the Rat comment. The screen name comes from the fact that I was born and raised in Phoenix, and live in the high desert now.

    By the way, you should have that last post copyrighted is was so freaking long.

  • 27 Sheila // Jan 20, 2005 at 11:51 pm   

    Lila, sorry if I “offended your sensibilities” – that sounds more like a Southern belle phrase than Lakota :)

    I am not intending to be some constipated female Christian that cannot speak my mind, too timid to disagree with an almighty man. I disagree, simple as that. I mean no disrespect to Dr. Yeagley. He knows that, and that is the only one that counts in this arena. He allows a voice to all of us, ever with the best intentions to make our point. I agree that the institute has a huge liberal agenda – always has. I don’t expect that to change.

    George Soros gloms on to anyone that his sticky fingers can reach. I feel somewhat saddened that what I believe to be the intentions of the Sundance Institute, as Redford meant it to be in the beginning, has become a political indicator. Maybe it always was, and I saw nothing but the cowboy, attempting to be independent of Hollywood. I could admire that. This issue is quite thought-provoking.

    Hey, read about Jesus throwing all the money-changers out of the temple. It had to be done then, and needs to be done now. I just think going to Redford’s own backyard, so to speak, was a bit of a terrorist act. My impression.

    AND if the all powerful institute should decide to sue for slander, or any such garbage, then I am stepping back over the line of BadEagle. No question. I think Doc “offended my sensibilities” a bit – mostly because I was afraid FOR him. I will stand with him, nonetheless.

    The time for complaining about the use of the name Sundance was over twenty years ago. I find it contradictory to do so now. I feel sure there are so many, many issues for American Indians, and I hate to see wasted effort. But, IF I can get Dr. Y to clarify his idea for me, and he’s beginning to, then I MIGHT be pursuaded to listen a bit more…

    Best regards to all!

You must log in to post a comment.