BadEagle.com Header Image

 

Bad Eagle Journal

Lakota Sioux Secede from the Union–NOT!

by David Yeagley · September 30, 2012 · 16 Comments ·

It’s a hot story, and even Drudge posted it at the top of his page over the weekend. But it’s all a PR stunt. The Lakota Sioux have not seceded from the United States. It’s just a wishful theory of Russell Means. Now consider the sources of the new version of the story.

Drudge used a CNSNews article by Dan Gainer, “Secession! Lakota Sioux Nation Leaves The Union! (Again),” September 29, 2012. Gainer’s source was an article from La Voz de Atzlan, the anti-American, anti-Semitic Latino racist web site. Of course, today, a day later, the CNSNews.com has pulled the Gainer article, and it is found only in cache form. The article is not found on La Voz de Atzlan site, at all.


Russell Means, suffering from throat cancer, 2011.

The fact is, the story is old news in Indian Country. Russell Means suggested this idea of secession in 2007, if not before. It is only a historical theory. News reporters are so ignorant of Indian law and Indian leadership, and so careless about Indian news, that everyone, liberal and conservative, have overlooked the facts. Russell Means is not a tribal leader, has no authority, and never has had. He is simply a man with ideas and some influence. Interesting ideas, indeed, but he has no authority to make any of them come to pass. He is merely a tribal member, nothing more, when it comes to Indian authority.


Russell Means, in a recent video of anti-white, anti-European rhetoric, as if Indian society had no structure, no hierarchy! As if the white race never existed in tribal form!

(Also, Russell Means is suffering from esophagus cancer, and is in advanced stages. The video of Means being posted with these new reports is an old video, from 2008. A more recent video, April, 2012, shows a suffering man, although with some improvement.)

We don’t know why the media (conservative and liberal) would choose to attempt to make a new story out of a hackneyed, tired one, but, it has happened. No one has researched the truth of the matter at all, but everyone has just jumped on board with the story. Obviously, the lesser lights continue to flicker with the story, but the source everyone quotes, the Gainer article for CNSNews.com, has been removed, the article Gainer referenced from La Voz de Atzlan is not to be found.

This is an an embarrassment to media, specifically conservative media, and shows how manipulative, careless, unreliable, and unworthy media has become.

Liberals have always loved to use (and pay) Indians (or wannabees) to decry and condemn America. But, in this particular case, some conservatives are trying to use the old Means theoretical secession of the Lakota as a sign of how bad things are under Obama! (See, InAGist.com).

I’ve always admired the creative thinking of Russell Means, though I find myself in utter disagreement with his history, logic, and conclusions. Many Indians have the same goal in mind for Indian people, but have very different ideas about how to reach that goal.

When I ran for Chairman of the Comanche Nation (2012), one of my platform points was “Sell the Tribe.” I meant that we would be more independent, more sovereign, if we were under private ownership, or corporate management. We would not surrender our relationship with the United States government, but we would receive no money from the federal government. We would be economically independent. We would have our land, our people, but we would not have to abide by government programs.

It was only theory, just like Means’ theory of secession.

I do have to wonder, still, why the old Means story would be revived in the way it has. If it is conservatives, trying to use Means to decry the Obama regime, saying that things are so bad that the Lakota have seceded from the Union, I’d say conservatives are deeply faulty on this one. As I said, such a secession has never happened, and Means has absolutely no authority whatsoever to make it happen. This is ludicrous and wildly ignorant on the part of conservatives.

Conservatives need to advocate secession of the states–for the sake of states rights. Now, that would make sense. But the abuse of the anti-American theories of Russell Means is really a bad move. Conservatives should have been listening to me, and reading BadEagle.com, long before this. But, as I have concluded before, the American Indian has no real function in the American conservative conversation.

And they should have talked with me about Elizabeth Warren, too. But, no, conservatives think they know everything about Indians. They’re in complete control over all things Indian. They don’t need a conservative Comanche from Oklahoma to tell them anything.

I hope conservatives win, but, they are certainly aberrant in Indian affairs. This revival of the old Means secession theory proves me right on all points. Sorry.

Posted by David Yeagley · September 30, 2012 · 9:55 am CT · ·

Tags: American Indians · American Patriotism · Bad Eagle Journal · Conservatism · Hispania · Liberalism · Media · Politics · Race · Sovereignty




Read More Journal Posts »

16 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Kris // Sep 30, 2012 at 10:24 am   

    Thank you Dr. Yeagley…you always inform …I never knew any of this and your insights are well-tempered and meaningful…

  • 2 David Yeagley // Sep 30, 2012 at 10:40 am   

    Thanks for that “well-tempered” part. I’m working on that!

  • 3 JeffS // Sep 30, 2012 at 5:44 pm   

    Thanks for the explanation, Dr. Yeagley.

    And I admit, someone should have asked SOMEONE familiar with tribal governments. Including myself, and I have limited dealings with a few tribes in my job. Where I have to proceed carefully, because my ignorance.

  • 4 David Yeagley // Sep 30, 2012 at 9:36 pm   

    This was all a kind of low-level conservative reporting, more in the blogosphere than anywhere else. But, we would expect more of CNSNews. Well, they did pull the article right away.

    And my explanation, the one true explanation, won’t make it past my own blog!

  • 5 Ellendra // Oct 1, 2012 at 11:25 am   

    Seems to me if someone isn’t willing to stand on their own two feet financially, then secession would be the last thing they’d want. Then again, maybe it’s the same dynamic seen with teenagers everywhere, they want to run their own lives, but still want Mom and Dad to pay for everything.

  • 6 silaada // Oct 1, 2012 at 2:38 pm   

    And if Oyate Wacinyapi is just trying to protect his people by « any Means necessary »? And if it’s a sign for other tribes (how well do you know warrior club‘s manataka?) Seccession? Isn’t it our reality, no matter what’s been written or said? In case of “social distress” who is going to take care for “Indian citizens”? Do you know how many of us won’t survive this winter, even in time of “peace”? Your view on “leadership” is not an Indian view. We will not consider a leader a son of a BIAtch, a greedy traitor or a rep with fake pedigree (no matter how pretty).Oyate Wacinyapi is seen by many people as their rep (Oglala or not) and since he spent his life walking the red road he deserves respect. You introduce yourself as a Comanche so I won’t wear white gloves: you are undoubtedly a talented person and an authority on some topics, but as an Indian you are not a teacher but a seeker. You’ve spent time and energy to fight for a paper that means absolutely nothing for our community. If your eyes are brown and an idiot tells you they’re blue will you fight to prove it? People will always taunt you, you will taunt back-this are our ways, have always been. But our community does not wait for a paper or accept because of a paper. If you fight like an Indian, if you reason like an Indian, if you have Indian eyes and Indian heart, then your people claim you .You quote foreign sources but not our own, how well do you know and respect our teachings? Would your grandfather be proud of you or would he kick your arse out of your clan (paper or not…).Me too I was the only Indian in a white school. I was called a “timber nigger”till I organised bigger kids in a “special unit”. I could count on gentlemen bikers, on gentlemen skinheads to protect not only me but what’s sacred for me. Winter or summer I would wear a leather jacket made by Elders from war club-my piece of sacred Arizona sky. You say you wouldn’t like to be viewed as a racist; you mention you attended a black church. Would you like to be viewed as a white supremacist by Indians? Elendra, whoever you are, you sound as a supremacist bitch insulting my people. If your body is not oozing uranium (“mommy and daddy” gave you), if you have not witnessed your relatives been beaten to death, if you weren’t fighting in Afghanistan to hear later how “immature» and “assisted» you are –shut a fuck up. Maybe a dictatorship is needed in the “USA”…While some folks seem clever and straightforward like Maharishi, others seem not to have a clue what suffering and fighting is all about.

  • 7 David Yeagley // Oct 1, 2012 at 3:23 pm   

    [Silaada] “Your view on “leadership” is not an Indian view.”

    If you’re speaking to me, I say, We’re not living in ‘Indian times.’ Leadership can’t be what it was before.

    Anyway, I’m not sure what you’re objecting to. I’ve shown now disrespect for Means. I know him. I’ve eaten dinner with him. He’s the only old AIMster who has, I believe, an open mind, willing to try knew things. I think he’s very wrong on a lot of things. I think he talks the liberal white talk, adapting it to Indian lore.

    White people rule the world. We have to relate to them, on their terms. The US makes the historical gesture of trying to act like it recognizes the treaties. The public considers it all “hand-outs” and “welfare,” even though the treaties are NOT. They are blood-bought agreements.

    I don’t really have any control over whether someone considers me a racist or not. As an Indian, I believe in preserving what’s left of us. I give others the same right, including Jews, Serbs, (and even Gypsies. ) Racist is a rather stupid term at this point, seems to me, in any context.

    So, you post is little confusing, actually. You always say meaningful things. I’m just not sure what’s going on this in post.

    Boy, if you be drinkin’ don’t be postin’! (I say this to every poster, now and then. The Maharashi’s brain damage is abject, however! Ha, ha!)

  • 8 David Yeagley // Oct 1, 2012 at 3:24 pm   

    By the way, some people (my liberal opponents) love to accuse me of being a white supremacist! Funny. They are the ones that don’t know anything about Indians, or being Indian.

    They are also anti-Semitic.

    Once you say, Indians will preserve ourselves (or what’s left of us), and you let others say the same about their people, I don’t know how that can be considered a negative thing.

  • 9 David Yeagley // Oct 1, 2012 at 3:38 pm   

    Of course no Indians (or anyone else in America) would survive the winter without the right means to. For an Indian tribe to be “independent,” as in full nationhood, we’d have to be able to produce good for sale, trade, have our own standing army, and accept no money from the United States government.

    Now, do you really think Indians are “sovereign?”

    So, our way of talking about Indian life has to reflect our “white” circumstances. This is the way it is. I know we’re all Ghost Dancers at heart, but, we won’t be around much longer to even do that–unless we relate to the world around us.

    I say, Indians need to recognize and to accept new enemies–namely the ones in our face. There is no place to run. Theories like Means really don’t help one bit. And especially when they’re ensconced in white liberal social theory.–anti-American, anti-European social theory at that.

    We’re in the bosom of America. We’re here, now. We’re not in some dream of the past, or of the future. Fight now, not then or later. Fight now.

    Isn’t that what you’re saying, actually?

  • 10 Maharishi of Mayhem // Oct 1, 2012 at 4:35 pm   

    “The Maharashi’s brain damage is abject, however! Ha, ha!” DY

    Nigga Pleeze…The Maharishi decides to sit this one out because I don’t have the authority to speak on this subject and this is what I get???

    I am accused of having Drain Bamage?

    I’ll have you know that my dementia has been forged and fashioned in the highest halls of learning and in the lowest dives of yearning.

    Now, since the Maharishi has been mentioned a couple of times, let me let you know my take on this idea of sovereignty and nationhood. I am not claiming to be infallible, just my thoughts.

    First, IMHO, the Indian Treaties meant something to the Indians, for they entered into them with a measure of honor. However, those treaties have never meant anything to the U.S. Government, and never will. The Indians were, and still are considered a “problem” by the government, so the action taken has been “appeasement” disguised as treaties. This is my take based upon my limited understanding. Please don’t take offense.

    Now, in the larger view, this same “Government” that screwed the Tribes through Treaties is now screwing all citizens through the same “appeasement” policies. What do you do with those pesky and unruly Blacks? Well, you give them lots of Section 8 Housing, Obama Phones, and lots of food for those Mommas without Baby Daddies. What do you do for the Mexicans and others who come to this country illegally? Well, you give them all the things that you give the Blacks, plus you give them a pardon for their CRIME of entering this country illegally. Of course, the Democrats benefit from these policies by gaining the votes of those whom they have “bribed.” I agree with Yeagley that the Indians did not get handouts, for this was a settlement Treaty. However, the Government never sees it that way.

    Now, finally, I want to address the issue of Nationhood. I want to say, unequivocally, that we no longer have a Nation. In fact, there are truly no Sovereign Nations that exist any longer, save the Holy See (Vatican) and all of its corruption. The Globalists (owners of this world) have torn down all walls of separation. Citizenship means nothing. Heritage means nothing. We are all just DNA on this big “Green Planet,” that is controlled by Criminal politicians like BRObama, Financiers, and Faggot entertainers.

    The only thing that I cling to is my Sovereignty as a soul created by God. I was born free, and thereby I have the choice as to be a subject or a free man. I have the choice to submit to tyranny, or to raise my rifle in rebellion. No entity, Save God, has the right to steal my God-given liberties. I will not stand for it, and until others in this country get pissed off enough to do the same, then we will fade into history like Greece and Rome. To me, it has already happened and is beyond repair.

    So, in my opinion, no group can stand together as a collective force, nation, or tribe in today’s withered world, unless each and every one of those collective members has come to the unique and privileged realization that they are Sovereign Under God as an individual first. Only those who acknowledge the uniqueness of their Providential appointment as a Created Son or Daughter can band together for the collective good.

    Here is a video of the often profane George Carlin. I disagreed with his atheism, but I have to agree with this statement (Strong Content Warning): Good part begins at 3:12 (about owners).

    Yeagley, yes I am brain damaged. But remember, reality is for people who can’t handle drugs.

  • 11 Maharishi of Mayhem // Oct 1, 2012 at 4:37 pm   

    Oops: the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dY4WlxO6i0

    Abject Brain Damage at work.

  • 12 Maharishi of Mayhem // Oct 1, 2012 at 4:59 pm   

    Why George Carlin does not vote (Strong Content Warning):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxsQ7jJJcEA

  • 13 David Yeagley // Oct 1, 2012 at 7:25 pm   

    Maharashi, let me rephrase that, from abject brain damage to objective train rampage. You know, sort of, ‘roll you over’ in an obvious way!

    But now, what about God-given liberties? Have they existed, unchallenged, since the Fall? Whenever they have been experienced, since, have they not been bought with blood?

    God-given, but devil-taken, or man-taken (from man)? It doesn’t appear that God gives them back to us. If we want them, we pay the price–in blood.

    I guess the final question is: if a person is not willing to pay the price for liberty, does he deserve to have it? Does he deserve to have what others have bought with their blood, for him?

    I wonder. Perhaps, if he is not willing to pay the price, he should be banished from the land of the free.

    Just sayin’. I’m not sure.

  • 14 Maharishi of Mayhem // Oct 1, 2012 at 8:37 pm   

    “Maharashi, let me rephrase that, from abject brain damage to objective train rampage. You know, sort of, ‘roll you over’ in an obvious way” DY

    Finally, a compliment that I can live with.

    If a person is not willing to pay the price for liberty, then they have have sold their birthright for a bowl of lentils.

    As a combat vet, I am disgusted by these low-life Blacks that always complain about what the government “has not” done for them. They riot, they loot, and they burn down their own neighborhoods. Why not? They know that the white taxpayer will have to rebuild it. And if they cry loud enough, then they will get some “Affirmative Distraction” and admitted to Harvard Law as a foreign student. Personally, I feel that these CRIMINAL Blacks that constantly visit our jails should be sterilized and put on chain gangs. We cannot allow these tax leaches to continue to breed. One kid, and then sterilization. Why should some Brutha be allowed to make multiple appearances on the Maury Povich show only because 15 baby mommas need his DNA Sample? I say cut it off and chain him to a mop.

    The illegal Mexicans? No Amnesty for these tamale rollers that want to come over here and burn the American Flag. Hey, Juan, you getting food stamps and medical benefits for Lupe and the kids? Fine, grab the mower, my lawn needs mowed. I’m a taxpayer and I’m paying for the problems you cause when driving without an accident and insurance as well as all of your drunken fights and countless breeding. Come on, pick some weeds…get going!

    And for all of the Metrosexual WHITE Fairies that want to prance around in their skinny jeans? I say we round all of them up, toss them into prison with Rastus, Mohammed, Armando, and Bubba. Free entertainment for the Sodomizers and we can pull out the guards and just lock the doors behind them. What a tax savings!

    No, if you have not sacrificed in some way for this country (being a VET, working hard and paying taxes, and staying out of prison), then you must go…..starting with you Mr. BRObama!!!

  • 15 Bonus Gift // Oct 2, 2012 at 1:36 am   

    So I am doing something on my computer and decide to check on what DY is up to over at BadEagle.com; and what do I see but a digression into the meat of the U.S. nationhood matter (i.e., at least the current prime cause of things). Unexpectedly as I skim the comments the conversation rotates from something I have not much of a clue (i.e., American Indian tribes being able to declare full independence from the Feds, and specifically the Lakota Sioux declaring it). For me, I’m more interested in states opting out of the union than the Indian tribes, but I get DY’s concerns and emphasis; I just don’t have exact same priorities as DY (of course, I do like his perspective and appreciate his opinion and where he “is coming from”). That noted, I think we can all agree that the issue of the day is the national question.

    Firstly, I agree wholeheartedly with the Maharishi of M. and his general attitude and specific critique of what I do not consider to be true Americans (namely American blacks who blame white Americans for their lack of “progress”, “good” jobs, cell phones, etc.; and illegal aliens, as well as most “legal” ones that act like most illegal aliens to their host), and I suspect that a clean majority of Americans would as well (i.e., if you could get them to honestly address the issue without the threat of being called a “racist, Nazi,” etc., etcetera).

    Secondly, it is said that “demography is destiny’, and that insight is more axiomatic than an insight. Also, and not to put words into DY’s mouth, I think that this is why DY emphasizes the “full bloods” in his Comanche rants on overhauling his tribe’s legal form. Instinctively we all know that the country is falling apart at least in part because the quality of the people is going down the tubes. If you want a third world country then populate it with third worlders. For example, when Detroit was considered the “Paris of the West” it was over 90% white, and now it is over 90% black and Arab. Los Angeles looks more and more like Mexico; I wonder why? Therefore, if you want to reverse the decline that is obvious to those of us with eyes, it is not just a moral battle but an immigration policy (or lack thereof) and commitment demographic one.

  • 16 Ellendra // Oct 2, 2012 at 10:37 am   

    “For an Indian tribe to be “independent,” as in full nationhood, we’d have to be able to produce good for sale, trade, have our own standing army, and accept no money from the United States government.”

    Thank you. That’s what I was trying to say, but I wasn’t sure I was saying it right.

    Whatever you call it, dependence on government cripples people. I still hold that the dependent relationship to the government matches that of a parent-child relationship. Lifelong dependence infantalizes people. I sometimes wonder if that’s part of why those who live their whole lives with such dependence often seem to have the same seething anger. The human spirit chafes.

You must log in to post a comment.