Header Image


Bad Eagle Journal

When Democrats Are Right

by David Yeagley · January 24, 2010 · 27 Comments ·

What Harry Reid said in 2008, about Barry “Obama” Soetoro, was absolutely true, and there was furthermore nothing wrong in him saying it. Barry appeared to be a higher class black, and more acceptable as a candidate for the nation’s presidency. Reid said Barry was “light skinned,” and spoke “with no Negro dialect.” (Of course, Joe Biden had already declared Barry to be “articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,”–and “the first mainstream African-American” to be so.) There was no reason for Reid to apologize. He did so only because conservative talk shows were outraged–but not because they necessarily thought differently, rather they were anxious to treat Democrats and liberal media the way they knew they–the conservatives and Republicans–would have been treated if they had said anything like that about a Negro, or even used the word Negro. Thus, their outrage actually obfuscates their own position in the matter. (At least one American Negro said he was not offended by the remarks of Reid or Biden.)

Senator Harry Reid

Arlen Specter’s “name calling” of Michelle Bachmann was another case of a perfectly honest, appropriate term. Michelle Bachmann is a lady (–as opposed to Sarah Palin, who herself insists she is only a “jock,” or, an athlete type.) Spector was also right about the radio interview he was sharing with Bachmann. It was beginning to sound like a free for all. Of course, what he failed to acknowledge was that the style of talking over someone else, faster, more loudly, more rudely, is a distinctly Democrat style. They invented it. That’s exactly what he was doing to Michelle. Why, he was terrified that Bachmann was quick, on the money, and not intimidated.

But, to be honest, he was just being fatherly. He is old enough to be her father, and she is truly picture pretty. I think he was merely charmed. That’s all. He wasn’t able to be political, fatherly, and charmed, at the same time. Insisting that her being a ready opponent was unbecoming to a lady was a bit of a revealing moment. He knew she was a lady, and that’s all he really wanted to say about her!

The Specter/Bachmann exchange.

But, again, in the professional political fervor of the moment, Republicans and conservatives were obligatorily outraged. The Huffington Post reports:

On Friday, RNC Co-Chairman Jon Larimer released a statement slamming Specter’s comments as “rude and arrogant” and “demeaning to all women.”

“Senator Specter should immediately apologize to the Congresswoman and to all of his constituents for such disgraceful behavior,” Larimer said. ” Women should never be treated as second class citizens.

So, are we to understand that Republicans and conservatives can now compete with Democrats, in the arena of loud mouths? Is this an accomplishment? Have Republicans achieved “equality?”

And I have to say, the interview Glenn Beck did with Sarah Palin, in which he asked who her favorite founding father was, is another example of strange behavior on the part of conservatives. Beck was so enamoured with Palin that he behaved like the true seventh-grader he really is. It was embarrassing. As she gave her initial answer, that she regarded all of them equally, he mumbled, “B— C—!” He was gently out of control, so excited he was to be talking to her. (It is actually a very special interview.) I note this, not because Beck is wrong in his fundamental ideas or values, but, because he is human. All the conservative talk show hosts, O’Reilly, Hannity, Ingraham, Beck,–these people are just human. There are in our face 24/7, and that is extraordinary, abnormal, and probably not healthy. But, that’s a different issue.

Beck and Palin. The founding father question occurs around 4:30.

Conservatives are right when they say the liberals (Democrats) get by with things that they crucify conservatives for. Conservatives are right that the Democrats have a huge double standard, and that they are pathological hypocrits and liars. This is all perfectly obvious.

However, what is also obvious, at this point, is that conservatives are sacrificing reality points here and there, sometimese important points, in the name of loud-mouthing political sport. If it is true that a lighter skinned black, who doesn’t talk like the average Negro, was a more acceptable candidate, then why protest? If it is true that Michelle Bachmann is a true lady, why on earth object?

Unless these remarks by Reid and Specter are cited as examples of moral failure in and of themselves, it is shameless to make an issue. Even if these remarks are cited as examples of the serious immorality of hypocrisy and double standards, the outrage is but ill spent. Perhaps they are such examples. But, let’s not bury the truth in outrage. Barry is a smooth Negro. Michelle is a lady.

Specter and Bachmann.

Posted by David Yeagley · January 24, 2010 · 9:48 pm CT · ·

Tags: Bad Eagle Journal · Conservatism · Liberalism · Negro Race · Politics · Race · Women

Read More Journal Posts »

27 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Duckys-here // Jan 25, 2010 at 8:30 am   

    All the conservative talk show hosts, O’Reilly, Hannity, Ingraham, Beck,–these people are just human. There are in our face 24/7, and that is extraordinary, abnormal, and probably not healthy.


    Gee, Dr. Yeagley, better watch where you put your nose. They ain’t in my face, I prefer intelligent dialog to these gibones.

    But keep thinking that lunatics like Michele Bachmann are going to restore the nation. You sound like some poor soul still doing the Ghost Dance.

  • 2 David Yeagley // Jan 25, 2010 at 8:47 am   

    Well, you caught me in a generous mood. I’ll leave your useless post, as an example of a superficial, non-thinking, response.

    I would say, however, that I don’t listen to liberal shows. Nor do most people, if stats mean anything. However, were I to expose myself to them on such a regular basis, I’m sure I’d experience a certain ennui and frustration with them as well. It is the abnormality of the circumstance of mass media.

    If you insist on trying to post here, I suggest you offer some substantial thought. And, no, I don’t bother to be offended by racist, derogative remarks toward me personally. I expect racism from liberals.

    The Ghost dance is for thinking people, who recognize their circumstances. I doubt you could ever learn it.

  • 3 Duckys-here // Jan 25, 2010 at 11:31 am   

    You don’t listen to “liberal shows” (whatever that means). Boy that’s a shocker.

  • 4 Duckys-here // Jan 25, 2010 at 11:53 am   

    Just curious, Doctor Yeagley, do you have a job?

    Being a greeter at an Indian casino doesn’t count. What’s the deal?

  • 5 David Yeagley // Jan 25, 2010 at 1:12 pm   

    Study my site, research me on the net, and then ask questions. If you can’t do better than you’re doing, I’ll have to delete your posts. I don’t like pretense, or pointless attempts at needlessly insulting humor. Last warning.

  • 6 JackInJill // Jan 25, 2010 at 4:16 pm   

    Doctor Yeagley, you mentioned something about Ennui. I don’t know what it is but it sure sounds like fun. And know, you mean old man, contrary to your earlier accusations towards me I am not a Sandusky or PMS or whatever the person you said, I am just an average, run-of-the-mill transvestite (soon hopefully to be transsexual) trying to make my way in a world I never made.

    The fact that you don’t listen to liberals speaks volumes. How can you call them racists when you don’t listen to them? Explain that one. It’s good to know though that you are getting tired of O’Reilly and that bunch of whack-jobs.

    Anybody knows deep down what Harry Reid meant, for example, which you admit. He was talking about voter perception. Take it from somebody that knows from sad experience, perception is everything.

  • 7 David Yeagley // Jan 25, 2010 at 4:29 pm   

    My experience has been that pretty much all communication is advocacy. I advocate. Those who oppose me advocate.

    It is a challenge to offer public discussion, knowing there are pretenders, immature manipulators, and malicious opponents, who are willing neither to discuss nor learn, but simply to attempt to advocate that which is unwelcome on a particular site.

    The internet is a particular haven for pretenders, since, it is simply written words. However, in due time, one’s values are apparent. Unfortunately, respect and decency are not usually the shared values.

    Then there is the matter of labelling. There are only so many labels out there to use. Liberals have usurped, most of them, like “equality,” “freedom,” and even “truth.”

    I know that certain people have been encouraged to come to to attempt to cause trouble, being easily influenced by others. This is the risk one takes with a public forum.

    To denigrate me, to degrade me, personally, is their purpose. It transcends ethnicity, or even nationality. It does not, however, transcend morality.

  • 8 Chato1 // Jan 25, 2010 at 5:37 pm   

    Not to worry Dr. Yeagley. it is common among Liberals to denigrate, label and usurp. Years ago I was removed off the college campus for simply stating that I believed the war in Vietnam was a noble cause. Liberal academe loathed the idea of my enlisting in the military and should hang my head in shame for an American Indian to fight in a white mans war. See, Liberals believe freedom of speech pertains to them and only them. Keep on keeping on, my brother.

  • 9 David Yeagley // Jan 25, 2010 at 6:10 pm   

    Chato, I have always believed that Indians are conservative by nature, and patriotic by a kind of instinctive macho choice.

    I know probably most Indians in Oklahoma, for instance, vote Democrat by tradition, without even understanding what the parties stand for. I translate Indian values into conservatism, myself. But, that’s coming across as a new thing.

    White liberals I find the most racist people of all, and it comes out most clearly when they are doing “charitable” work for “minorities.”

    But, that said, I’m still trying to communicate this conservative translation to conservatives! The fact is, major conservatives are afraid to address the Indian subject at all. They feel bad about what happened to Indians, and it embarrasses their agenda.

    This needn’t be, at all.

  • 10 beakerkin // Jan 25, 2010 at 7:39 pm   


    Ducky is from my site and Jack and Jill also is from my site.


    One can not criticize the Dr on his views of Blacks wile denigrating Native Americans. The comments about Casinos and Ghost Dancing
    are disrespectful.

    Dr Yeagley does respond to serious questions
    and I usually play the role of liberal antagonist
    in my own way.

    Jack and Jill has a point. How can you grasp liberal thought when you don’t expose yourself to it.

    Onto the subject at hand. The comments of Reid and Biden were reprehensible and if said by the GOP would have ended a career. In essence we need to stop this hypersensitivity
    and move forward. Of course when leftists like
    Rep Moran blame the Iraq War on Jews or Charlie the Red Rangel compare Iraq to the Holocaust there is no similar response.

  • 11 Thrasymachus // Jan 25, 2010 at 8:01 pm   

    “How can you grasp liberal thought when you don’t expose yourself to it.”

    Two ways. (1) Study what liberal intellectuals have written and study what “The Oxford Companion to Philosophy” and “The Encyclopaedia Britannica and other highly respected books have explained to us about liberalism. After all, once the philosophy has been thoroughly examined and understood, it has been “grasped.” All that remains is perpetual reiteration — after all, liberalism is not a deep and mysterious doctrine. (2) It is impossible not to refresh one’s knowledge of liberal thought, since Liberalsim is the leading intellectual and political power in the world today. Anyone active in politics will of necessity hear the liberals expound their views on a daily basis.

  • 12 Thrasymachus // Jan 25, 2010 at 8:08 pm   

    “The fact is, major conservatives are afraid to address the Indian subject at all. They feel bad about what happened to Indians, and it embarrasses their agenda.

    This needn’t be, at all.”

    Whites have done evil in the world; Whites have also done much good. They have been an equal opportunity agent in both!

    It certainly does not please me wherever Whites have done wrongs to others in the past.

    But look also at the Industrial Revolution. Whites treated white children worse than slaves. They literally worked white children to death. Treated them worse than animals.

    This shows that psychopathic Whites have always exploited those unable to defend themselves.

    The American Indian, to his great credit, did defend himself! I respect him for that.

    In my opinion, it is time to realize that in this, all peoples have sinned and only those who have directly engaged in these evils need feel responsible and guilty.

    The world needs a clean slate and a wholesome, fresh approach to solving its problems. And this approach needs to be based on solid moral principles, for once.

  • 13 David Yeagley // Jan 25, 2010 at 10:25 pm   

    In the primitive world, in areas of more sparse population, social conflict could be resolved by simply moving elsewhere. Comanches were expert at this. Each hunting band, or extended family, numunukahn was strong enough, independent enough, that it could survice on its own.

    However, in more crowded times, conflict is resolved by force, then law. Whites always applied both, in that order. And, yes, whites could be exceeding cruel–to their own. England is the grand example. The best and the worst. Civilized the world, through the backs of its lower casts, really. I mean, anyone who could subjugate the Scots and the Irish had to be the meanest ——- that was ever born!

    We are beyond the time of moving out. We have to live face to face with each other. Force and law, are again the encounter. Better to be a strong force, or else be subject to someone else’s law. That’s the way it is.

  • 14 JackInJill // Jan 25, 2010 at 11:25 pm   

    The only answer is, you have to force people to love each other. I know some will say this is impossible, but it truly is not. You just use the carrot and the stick approach. You offer certain people stipends, and threaten to take it away if they don’t meet their basic human obligations of decency, tolerance, and respect.

    May there come a time when we all accept each other as we are, learn to live with each other. Our welfare checks and/or our tax breaks are in the balance.

    Isn’t that better than guns and knives?

  • 15 Thrasymachus // Jan 26, 2010 at 2:04 am   

    “The only answer is, you have to force people to love each other.”

    Unbelievably liberal! Liberalism in a nutshell!

    You know, there are scientists working on just that. They wish to create a pill that people can take on a daily basis that will make them love others.

    This is already possible to a certain extent, as some pill already do turn mean-spirited misanthropes into rather amiable, easy-going persons.

    But true love is a choice.

    If I really liked a young woman, who did not feel towards me quite the same thing, would I want to require her to take a pill to make her love me? Hardly! Would I want to be forced to take a pill to make me love some particular woman? Would that be true love? THINK!

    Your forcing everybody to love is tyranny. It sounds like something out of Orwell’s 1984.

    I don’t know about you liberals, but I would not want to live in that kind of a world.

  • 16 JackInJill // Jan 26, 2010 at 5:47 am   

    No one is talking about making people take some old pill, I’m talking about using the law to make people get along, and using education to make them see that’s the right way to live. No, it won’t be easy, and it will take a few generations of trial-and-error, but after so long it will come natural.

    I would remind you, sir, of those great, magnificent words from the Bible so many of you right-wingers put so much stock in-

    “Red and yellow black and white, they are precious in his sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world”.

    Maybe it’s just me, but I think government can play a role in making those words a reality in everybody’s hearts. And of course, churches will be expected to play a role too. Naturally there will always be these fringe groups such as the Southern Baptists, but we will deal with them over time. I honestly believe that even those bigots are not beyond the grasp of reason.

    If we all work together, I truly believe we will have a world where everybody is equal in every conceivable way, regardless of race, religion, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation(s).

    Would that be such a terrible thing?

  • 17 Thrasymachus // Jan 26, 2010 at 6:12 am   

    “If we all work together, I truly believe we will have a world where everybody is equal in every conceivable way, regardless of race, religion, creed, ethnicity, or sexual orientation(s).

    Would that be such a terrible thing?”

    Yes, race suicide is a very terrible thing–actually it is the worst thing I have experienced in this world–and I’ve experienced a lot of pain.

    The very Laws of Nature dictate that all things are created unequal.

    “To make a draught horse as fast as a race horse, you must first injure the race-horse.
    Likewise, to make a race-horse as strong as a draught horse, you must first injure the draught horse.”

    I can think of no greater nightmare world than one in which all people were equal in every conceivable way. Sheer nonsense. It can never be. There simply is no possible way to preserve true diversity — which makes this world interesting — except by having different places for different peoples. Integration ruins everything.

  • 18 Thrasymachus // Jan 26, 2010 at 6:43 am   

    I mentioned the “love pill” (as in “Love Potion #9” lol) because such a thing is actually theoretically possible.

    Many people are unaware of the fact that EVERY thought a person thinks is immediately ‘translated’ into brain chemistry. This process is called ‘encoding.’ This helps us understand why drugs can powerfully affect how we feel. Thoughts automatically generate feelings, as feelings are the chemical ‘translations’ of our thoughts.

    Thus when we are in love with someone (as just one example), our thoughts create corresponding chemicals in our brains. The process could be reversed, for all we know. Introduce the chemistry of love into the brain in the proper manner, and the subject may fall in love with some object. Thus love is forced upon the person.

    Emotions can be very powerful and take a remarkably long time to get out of our system (sometimes years).

    I just read today about a cat that, when its family moved to an apartment which allowed no pets and they disowned it, was so heart-broken that it refused to eat. The cat literally starved itself because of the loss of the love of its human family. It took three weeks of forced feeding to save this cat’s life. My point? Think how strong the chemistry in the cat’s brain had to be for that chemistry to overcome and totally suppress the natural craving for food for three weeks! The cat’s self-starvation even damaged its liver, creating a serious condition. This chemistry is essentially a drug.

    So when, through “education,” you demand that everyone think and believe and thus feel the same, you are doing as much control as drugging them–probably much more so.

    A world in which people are not free to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions –but must conform to some educational standard of “correct thinking” — is a nightmare world — an Orwellian world.

    And for me, the fact that race equality is a myth is so glaringly obvious that to contradict it is absurd!

    As to the Bible, there are plenty of places where inter-racial marriages are strictly forbidden.

  • 19 David Yeagley // Jan 26, 2010 at 8:08 am   

    JJ, “red and yellow, black and white” is not from the Bible, but from a children’s Sunday school song. It merely means that diversity does not inhibit one’s access to the love of God.

    Moreover, diversity sharpens the perception of such love. Morever, again, God made the red, yellow, black and white. It is a bit blasphemous to try and remove the differences, wouldn’t you say?

    Love does have to be taught, I think. But, that’s different from forcing it on adults through a nanny state. Perhaps we should be talking about what love is…

  • 20 Duckys-here // Jan 26, 2010 at 8:25 am   

    Dr. Yeagley, you have a fascinating personal history. One question, when you went to Iran were you a CIA asset?

  • 21 David Yeagley // Jan 26, 2010 at 8:42 am   

    Ha! My Iranian friends have always asked me that. Some of them are still suspicious.

    A resounding, “NO.” I am not a CIA agent of any sort. It was not a government assignment. I was sponsored by Iranian friends in this country, who had professional connections in Iran. It was an “academic” affair.

    Many false things have been written about me, for which the perpetrators will shortly be sued. I have given everyone fair warning, of course.

    But the real reason I went to Iran is because I love Iran, and the Iranian people. I went there to pray for Iran, that God would remember Iran for the kindness it showed Israel, some 2,500 years ago. I prayed in the barren hills, outside a farm, south of the small town of Torbet e hiderya (sp?). This was south of Messhad, over in eastern Iran, not from from Afghanistan.

  • 22 JackInJill // Jan 26, 2010 at 8:51 am   


    You made me cry with that heart=breaking story about the little cat. I can understand that, I have a little gerbil named Thomas The Tank Engine who I would just never be able to part with. Shame on those people.

    However, you misunderstood my point. I am not talking about literally forcing people to love one another, I am just talking about the government protecting all of our rights and creating the environment and conditions to where over time people will be naturally accepting and tolerant of each other.

    It can start in schools, for example. They can have designated study groups and social clubs that can be divided up and arranged to where each one has a set percentage of white, black, Latino, girls, guys, and gays.

    The amount of prejudice in our schools is astounding, and rather hypocritical. No one thinks anything about it when a little girl comes to school wearing pants. Oh, but let a little boy come to school wearing a dress and high heels with cute little fish-net stockings and they would go through the roof.

    Again, it is spelled H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y!!!

    And no one need tell me it does not influence folks grown up actions. I could dress up like the sexiest woman you have ever seen and go out on the town and sashay up and down main Street and go to all the clubs and flirt with all the men and they’ll be all over me. Oh, but let me dress like a man and do the same thing and they’ll be all over me all right. They’ll probably kick my ass and maybe even put me in the hospital.

    How do I know this, you might insist skeptically. Well, let’s just say been there done that and leave it at that. I still have the bruises to show from last week’s fiasco, but I proved my point.

    This society is simply rife with bigotry and somebody needs to do something about it. If not the government, then who pray tell?

    Doctor Yeagley-

    “Red and yellow”, et.c, etc.

    Thanks for the correction, I always thought that was from the Book of Job for some reason.

  • 23 David Yeagley // Jan 26, 2010 at 8:53 am   

    That same little song has, in a chorus,

    “Jesus loves the little children…e’en the duskie little heathen far way.”

    Gotta love it!

  • 24 JackInJill // Jan 26, 2010 at 9:04 am   

    I made a mistake, I meant to say I thought it was in the Book of John, not Book of Job. Don’t know what made me make that mistake. John of course was the disciple whom Jesus loves. I guess that’s why he is called Saint John The Divine.

    Anyway, thank you again Doctor Yeagley for correcting that error on my part.

  • 25 David Yeagley // Jan 26, 2010 at 12:15 pm   

    There have been several versions of the little children’s song, in fact. It was original was in the style and purpose of a 19th century missionary song. D-H’s superficial post was inaccurate and misleading (and deleted, as promised). Here is a more original version of the song, and I’m still not sure of the original lyrics. Note the final line of the first verse:

    Jesus loves the children dear
    That he blessed when he was here
    And He never drove the little ones away
    For he said forbid them not
    And he never them forgot
    E’en the dusky little heathen far away.

    Why, it’s precious. For all those rich little blonde, blue-eyed Sunday School kids, opening their hearts to the less fortunate children in the world. Who could object?

  • 26 JackInJill // Jan 26, 2010 at 1:38 pm   

    You are right, Doctor Yeagley, it is absolutely fabulous. In fact, you have given me an idea. Since you corrected my error and informed me that this song is not actually in the Bible, I got to thinking and decided, you know, it damn well should be. Do you suppose that if enough people got together and requested it, they could insert it in one of the more popular and well-known books of the Bible?

    For example, maybe right after John 3:16. Or perhaps right before those lovely be attitudes.

  • 27 David Yeagley // Jan 26, 2010 at 6:43 pm   

    So long as the vast majority of the world doesn’t mind being called “dusky little heathen.”

You must log in to post a comment.