David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
No more Negroes in politics. Puh-leeze!
We should say, “No More Liberals, Please.” Ann Coulter’s new book Mugged (October, 2012) will surely clarify all confusion regarding the role of the Negro in American politics, a role created by the liberal Democrat “Communists;” but, in the meantime, we have to point out how silly the race is made to look in the media coverage of blacks in politics.
Take the new Democrat “attack” ad against black Republican congressman Allen West:
A tricky piece, to be sure, with illusive error on all sides, all raced-based, and self-contradictory.
Palm Beach Post staff writer George Bennett published an interesting summary, “Rep. Allen West says ad plays on racial stereotypes; NAACP disagrees.” West is right on the stereotype of the black male hating the white female. Indeed, that is an Obama trait, according to the interloping president’s own words about his white grandmother. Obama has always endorsed racism. It is an inevitable trait of the liberally-trained Democrat Negro.
But the NAACP’s Hilary O. Shelton (Washington Bureau Director) is blissfully blind to any offense. “A typical campaign ad,” she said.
However, both West and Shelton (and apparently everyone else) missed an even more important, erroneous, and therefore more offensive “stereotype”: the typical middle class family being black, or, the typical black family being middle class. It’s as if the liberals tried to slip this one passed the public.
According to the Census Bureau (probably one of the most unreliable bureaucracies extant), the average American black family has an income of just over $30,000. This is not middle class. The poverty line is $22,000 for a family of four. Black stats are deceptive and misleading. BlackDemographics.com (which features white women in underwear for site ads) says the single black male living alone makes more money than the single black mother, on average $10,000 more a year.
This is all completely misleading. And, are we to assume the 43% of blacks are in actual marriages, sharing a home, with children? Are we to assume such arrangements are permanent? From any angle, these statistics are more or less meaningless. Liberals are constantly taking advantage of the opposite statistics–the real statistics.
But, let the ad against West stand as “stereotypical.” Black men hate white women (for various psychological reasons, like sexual frustration, envy, feelings of natural denigration); most black Americans come from upstanding middle class families. This is what the liberals have presented in this ad.
It’s self-contradictory.
Liberals capitalize on the poverty and pity of the Negro race. This is what welfare is all about. Yet, the West attack ad clearly presents the “typical” black family as middle class. The ad presents the Negro male as hateful toward the white female, but that interpretation is not recognized by the liberals. Why, a picture of a black man punching a white woman has nothing to do with race! Or sex. Just politics.
Apparently, there are no elderly black women (or men) from whom Rep. West intends to take any money from. Just white women. Apparently, there are no white middle class families that will be affected by West’s proposed policies. Just black families.
Smoke and mirrors. Double standards. And outright lies. This is what we get from the Democrats. Surely, the Republicans can outdo this. Larua Ingraham said Obama’s slogan is “Vote for me! Get stuff free!” So what’s Romney’s slogan, “Vote for me! I’ll let you be!”? People are weak, by nature, especially now in America’s video society. Brain power is dormant, anesthetized by entertainment. “Get stuff free” is much more appealing to the indolent. The public is infantilized. They want to be taken care of, rather than care for themselves. It is the Democrat way.
But we shall meet the cold concrete, in due time.
In the meantime, it is useless to bring the Negro into the political conversation. It is a waste of time, a futile exercise in the rhetoric of equality. Obama demonstrated dramatically what BadEagle.com proposed a good while ago: minorities can’t lead. Certainly not majorities. There is no reason for a white conservative to vote for a black conservative, or any other minority conservative. This invites racism, racial tension, and a train of malignant issues. It is a school boy’s naivete to think it solves anything–least of all “equality.” Indeed, it is the opposite. Pity is not fairness. Equality is not pity, either.
26 responses so far ↓
1 Sioux // Aug 12, 2012 at 2:57 pm
The reason for the Black family stats being so crummy and getting worse in the last 40+ years is the growing proportion of single women heading up the family. For Blacks (as your table shows) – going on 50%. That is the single leading indictor for poverty regardless of race.
My neighbors are a very nice Black couple who have no children – they count as a family. Don’t know how they count us single people or if they even do beyond the individual stats. Probably get counted under “household.”
To your point on the subtle and not-so-subtle racism in the Leftie Dem ads against him – it’s just laughable. Is that the best they got??? Just like this lying piece of crap being defended by the Lefties on Romney killing the steelworkers’ wife cuz they shut down his plant and he lost his insurance. I knew before it was over that I was being lied to about his wife not getting care at the hospital.
Rather than defend and protest, Col. West and others under attack just have to start laughing out loud at these idiots and talk right into the camera to the people and give us the straight shot about the Truth. I’d rather go down that way than defending myself against Nancy and Debbie and Harry – gag me with hag…
2 David Yeagley // Aug 12, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Well, that’s the political environment we live in. Some lame, perverted notion of “equality” makes everyone think there is no race, there are no racial issues, and that a man of “race” can transcend it.
Good grief! We just saw through Obama how utterly and terribly UNTRUE that notion is!
3 Thrasymachus // Aug 12, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Good piece.
Consider these points also:
1. White women are more likely than White men to vote for a Negro.
2. I think that perhaps Black elderly are more likely to be on Medicaid than Medicare. (I’ll need data on this.)
But the real whopper in this is the Black middle class family as the typical American middle class family!
If they had to make an ad like this, it might be appropriate to have the Black woman representing American woman because Black men are, according to Black Pastor David Manning, notoriously unkind and unfaithful to their own Black women. (So the add should have had a Black woman getting punched and a White middle-class family, if it wanted to be less overtly “racist.”)
But really, the whole add was thoroughly in bad taste — disgusting, even. An appeal to raw emotion, rather than to facts and reason. Only a dumbed-down electorate would watch this ad without puking.
By the way, enjoy the new social and cultural behavior of our White elites, as exemplified by our own Hillary Clinton! These are our leader’s values now! The White Male and Mozart are left out in the cold in the Brave New World of “post-racial politics.”
4 Thrasymachus // Aug 12, 2012 at 3:40 pm
When low-class gladiatorial-style campaign ads are combined with a mixed-race population, there are all kinds of trouble in the brew.
Why did this ad not feature a Chinese or Japanese person? That would have fit the Middle-Class family. And why not a Mexican elderly person? IN OTHER WORDS, why just Black and White? It should have been more multicultural! Is the U.S. population just two competing races?
This entire ad was folly in the making. It is impossible to show a person of one race punching someone of another race without offending racially-sensitive citizens.
5 Thrasymachus // Aug 12, 2012 at 3:47 pm
I will not vote for a candidate who is not a member of my own race, and I’ll tell you exactly why:
“Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.” — Deuteronomy 17:15
If this principle was true for Ancient Israel, it is a good and exemplary for any nation. No Comanche should set me in office over his people. I do not qualify, biblically. I cannot fault Negroes for voting for a Negro candidate over a White one. It’s natural and instinctual.
6 Sioux // Aug 12, 2012 at 6:17 pm
It’s all about the CHAOS both current and that yet to come. Dr. Y – your opening line – “No more Negroes in politics” – you may be right cuz our PINO ruined it for everybody. I feel sorry for people like Col. West who is one tough dude. It sounds like he deserved his promotions in the Army. Because he is not on the Black Reservation, he will be given no rest on anything, just like Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, et.al.
7 Sioux // Aug 12, 2012 at 6:19 pm
Thras, have to disagree about voting for someone just because he is your race…pick your friends that way, but in politics do that at your own peril. Should I vote for Hillary because she’s my gender? Yuck, no way…and wouldn’t want her for a friend either.
8 Thrasymachus // Aug 12, 2012 at 6:44 pm
It’s a thought that occurred to me when I read the verse recently. I realize that it’s controversial. I am just wondering if it is the Scriptural message for all nations? Perhaps it’s a matter of interpretation.
Look at how Colin Powell has betrayed us! After all that was done for him, he endorsed Obama! Can Whites really trust any Negro with high office and supreme power? Trouble is, when one race governs another, when serious problems or conflicts arise, this situation seems to breed resentment and sometimes violence in a degree that is exceptionally severe, and one racial group will often exploit and abuse another when given the chance, will it not?
Just food for thought. Perhaps there is a litmus test to resolve this issue in some other way than what I have suggested.
9 Sioux // Aug 12, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Col.West passed the litmus test for me when he took Chick-fil-A to a Congressional Black Caucus meeting (his turn to bring lunch) – Hah! They were so offffended.
10 David Yeagley // Aug 12, 2012 at 8:45 pm
I’m not saying a black man (or another non-white minority) can’t have the right thoughts in his head. I’m just saying his racial identity makes everyone doubly race conscious, and we miss very important issues in the craze to create “racial equality.” If affects our judgement, as in the case of Powell and Obama, for example.
Politics and voting are the problem. I think the problem is natural, in a sense. That’s why it should be avoided, and no one should take offense because of it.
A black man could not become tribal chairman of the Arapaho, or the Navajo. No one accuses Indians of being racist for that. Nor should anyone consider white Americans racist for electing a white man. It is perfectly normal.
11 David Yeagley // Aug 12, 2012 at 8:52 pm
Never forget the white-womanizing Herman Cain, whom everyone was so racially excited about. Equality! Conservative black man, etc., etc. I just don’t think this is quite mature.
Of course, there are black men more refined, educated, and able than a lot of white men. But, that’s still not the point. It isn’t about qualification. It is about the sociology of race and national identity.
Obama does not represent America in any way. Most Democrat leaders these days don’t. That’s why they support him so desperately.
They thought his black skin could hide all their anti-Americanism. It’s worked pretty well, actually. But, he may lose this time around.
12 Maharishi of Mayhem // Aug 12, 2012 at 9:02 pm
Oh, come on people….
I think you are being mean-spirited and hateful toward the groids.
Here is an obituary of a young, black entremanure who died way before his time:
http://www.goall.com/article/larmondo-flair-allen-a-convicted-felon-was-getting-100000-a-year-from-welfare.html
If only the boon community could produce more like this model citizen.
13 David Yeagley // Aug 12, 2012 at 9:09 pm
An astonishing link, for the ‘actually fairly ignorant on the subject’ people like myself!
The question is population control. National definition. You know, the serious solutions. Bad trends unattended, and soon the malignancy is inoperable.
Whatever shall we do?
14 WHEELER // Aug 13, 2012 at 7:50 am
In line with your “Pity is not fairness. Equality is not pity, either”, you should hear this talk from Ann Barnhardt on the meaning of “Nice”.
Ann Barnhardt on Nice
She emphasizes that she is NOT nice. Being nice is wrong.
15 zephyr // Aug 13, 2012 at 8:09 am
Thanks, Sioux! I checked out the link–and interestingly enough, HuffPo just published the story last week, but the lunch was SIX MONTHS AGO, way before the CFA Appreciation Day. And STILL they tried to make a story out of it. That is how sick and twisted these ppl are.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/allen-west-chick-fil-a_n_1752172.html
16 David Yeagley // Aug 13, 2012 at 8:48 am
See? Any time a black politician is in the mix, it’s all about race, no matter what the subject. I can’t say it’s their fault, but it just works out that way.
It is a distraction, and doesn’t contribute anything to the conservative cause.
17 Thrasymachus // Aug 13, 2012 at 3:47 pm
WHEELER:
Absolutely! The control of our language — the corruption of our language — through political correctness and feminism is a sinister form of mind-control that is destroying our Western Civilization.
It’s not “nice” to say “chairman”; you must say “chair”! (Somehow I don’t exactly relish being called a “chair”!)
Can’t say “watchman,” as Shakespeare did in Hamlet! Must always say “watchperson”! Ad infinitum.
From these simple and relatively harmless anti-traditional changes we can slyly be swayed to move to the more sinister forms of thought-control. Once one accepts usage rules of a psychological / political nature, the procedure can be expanded indefinitely to include any kind of thought-control the elites command.
18 David Yeagley // Aug 13, 2012 at 4:30 pm
In 2004 (October 3), I wrote a piece called, The Leftist Language Kill: An Exercise in Grammatical Error.
Leftists methodically destroy language and thinking skills. They make special targets of the accuracy and integrity in words. It’s not just through Clintonian doublespeak or even radical usurpation of word meaning. It’s through grammar itself, and the very structure of words.
I talk about all the basic, fundamental ways that Leftist ideology has manipulated the English language.
Have a look!
19 Thrasymachus // Aug 13, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Thanks! I’ll be happy to read all about it.
20 Thrasymachus // Aug 13, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Is there not a strong correlation between abolishing the American Indian sports mascots, removing George Washington’s name from public schools, and the corruption of the English language? It all “theoretically” is supposedly “not nice” but rather “naughty” to keep these traditions. According to liberals.
In the very same way, it is not “nice,” but very “naughty” to say that “I prefer my child or grandchild to marry someone of our same race.” It is strictly forbidden to say this. If anyone did, there might be gasps or even a case of heart failure!
What amazes me, Dr Y., is that I see my entire family self-censor in precisely this way. If anyone in my family would not want his child to marry a Negro, I don’t know about it, because no one would dare say so. The same is true for most of the wider circle of White people I know. It’s just “impolite” to say such things.
I know a White man who was assaulted and robbed by a bunch of Negroes, but in telling family members about it, no mention was made of the race or color of the criminals! This is DEEP psychological conditioning.
21 Thrasymachus // Aug 13, 2012 at 5:16 pm
BTW, Shakespeare is not really a source of modern grammar, but an excellent source of vocabulary.
In Shakespeare’s day, English grammar was not yet codified and no official rules were established. School boys studied LATIN as the way of learning grammar. Shakespeare also learned, as did Wagner, Ancient Greek — but both men were apparently self-taught in this subject.
Shakespeare knew what English grammar should be but, for poetic reasons, he played with words to suit his own needs. It’s not unusual to find a plural subject with a singular verb in Shakespeare’s English, nor to find a “thee” where a “thou” would be grammatically correct.
In fact, the familiar form — i.e., thou, thee, etc. — was already pretty much going out-of-fashion in Shakespeare’s time (except in certain local dialects). The translators of the KJV Bible retained the familiar form thou primarily for grammatical reasons (at least I’ve read this) — namely, to reflect more accurately the usage and semantic distinctions found in the original languages.
22 Thrasymachus // Aug 13, 2012 at 5:29 pm
accommodation
aerial
amazement
apostrophe
assassination
auspicious
baseless
bloody
bump
castigate
changeful
clangor
control (noun)
countless
courtship
critic
critical
dexterously
dishearten
dislocate
dwindle
eventful
exposure
fitful
frugal
generous
gloomy
gnarled
hurry
impartial
inauspicious
indistinguishable
invulnerable
lapse
laughable
lonely
majestic
misplaced
monumental
multitudinous
obscene
palmy
perusal
pious
premeditated
radiance
reliance
road
sanctimonious
seamy
sportive
submerge
suspicious”
SOURCE
23 Thrasymachus // Aug 13, 2012 at 5:31 pm
My computer did something unexpected in the above post! Here is what was intended (and this is just a sample of the Bard’s creativity!):
Shakespeare’s Invented Words
24 Sioux // Aug 13, 2012 at 5:37 pm
Wheeler – thanks for the Ann Barnhardt link. This is the second time I have seen her name today, but didn’t know who she is. Am going to check out her website.
Dr. Y – do you think a shrink can help a person get over being NICE? I am so fearful of going 180 the other way and no one will want to be around me. Having worked in a female-dominated hospital, I think I am going nuts…just to survive….
25 Thrasymachus // Aug 13, 2012 at 5:57 pm
First it was “he or she / his or her.” Then I began seeing “she or he, her or his” and “s/he.” Finally, some writers began using just the female, while others would use the male pronoun on one page and the female pronoun on the next. All very cumbersome and pointless.
The English language was never, at any time, designed to discriminate against women!
26 David Yeagley // Aug 13, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Didn’t know Shakespeare was a neologist. Thank you, Thras. English is probably one of the most interesting languages of Europe. It is Teutonic (German) at base, but full of French, Latin, Spanish, Icelandic, Scottish, Irish, Greek, and Persian. “Shah-mat!” The King is Dead–otherwise known as “Check-mate.” Obviously Anglicised French version of the Persian.
I wonder if any of that old historical evolution was based on conscious political manipulation? I rather doubt it, but it could be true. I wouldn’t be for moralizing, though, like the liberals do.
Liberals always try to assert superior moral imperatives. That’s their deception, I think.
You must log in to post a comment.