Therefore, their first object is to accuse others of hate. To a true liberal, Muslim, Communist, or other anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-white person (even if an Oedipal white), the one cosmic sin in the world is hate. If you hate anyone or anything, you are evil. If you disdain anyone or anything, as is the comedic custom of many conservative talk show entertainers, you are the embodiment of evil. If you are averse to anything but hate itself, you are low and vile. To the self-righteous liberal and associates, the supreme triumph of soul is to hate hate. (The key word there is “hate.” You must hate!)

And so we have the new Muslim hate site, which loves to hates those to oppose Islam, Loonwatch.com (reg. April, 2009), a slow-loading “DomainsByProxy” site, the perpatrators of which are too cowardly to identify themselves. The top heading of the site identifies the targets of the hate: Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Bat Ye’Or, Brigette Gabriel, Daniel Pipes, Debbie Schlussel, Walid Shoebat, Joe Kaufman, Wafa Sultan, and Geert Wilders. And maybe, just maybe, they’ll add David Yeagley. (This is what I get for quoting Debbie Schlussel and Pamela Geller, and for being quoted by Robert Spencer, Pat Buchannan, Michael Medved, and others.)

Yesterday, Loonwatch.com posted a lampoon called, “David Yeagley: Bad Eagle or Plain Loon?” Typically, the liberals demonstrate that their wondrous, mystical respect for the American Indian is wholly dependent on that individual Indian’s political position. If an Indian happens to think as a conservative patriot, then that Indian is a very bad Indian, and deserving of hate, ridicule, belittlement, denigration, degradation, humiliation, and any other hate art form. As I said in 2001 (FrontPageMagazine), “The Only Good Indian is a Liberal Indian.”

To be charitable, the spirit of the piece is nothing but a juvenile lampoon. However, it cites the standard libel for which I am presently suing Google, Amazon.com, the University of Nebraska, Kos Media, Independent Media Center, Los Angeles Times, Al Carroll, Brent Davids, and Cinda Hughes. This is an example of the extent to which libel is disseminated by the internet service providers. These providers, of course, are desperate to exempt themselves from all responsibility, citing out of context the recent Congressional “finding” 47 U.S.C. § 230 (c)(1), etc. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they do not. But this is a different issue. Suffice it to say here that Loonwatch.com is just another of the many anti-Yeagley, anti-Indian sites that use racism, identity theft, and other tactics to deny an Indian freedom of thought.

Naturally, as a Muslim hate site, Loonwatch.com spends the bulk of the article on my remarks which vehemently reject Islam, and Muslims in the free world. That is the point. The vainglorious and libelous misinformation about my identity is just par for the course for anyone who is racist, hate-filled, anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-white. These crippled, mechanical responders simply cannot abide an American Indian conservative, Republican patriot. Such a being cannot be allowed to exist. Therefore, they simply say I’m not Indian.

I say this is the lowest kind of racism there is. This is an ineffable hatred, expressed by cowards who won’t even identify themselves. They’re all like Barry Soetoro, all trying to hide who and what they really are. They hide behind their accusations. They hide behind their rhetoric. They hide behind ridicule. They hide.

The Loonwatch piece is the latest revival of the old libel for which I am in suit. It seems to me that, until I actually win the suit, or some essential portion of it, this kind of internet publication, distribution, or dissemination of libel will continue.

I cannot object to ridicule or lampooning. I cannot object to denial or rejection of my ideas or political positions. I cannot complain about personal attacks. I sue only for libel–the completely false and malicious, racist, hate speech that I am not Comanche, not the direct descendent of Bad Eagle. This denigrates my mother, my relatives, and my ancestors. This is against the law. Certainly against Oklahoma law, and that’s where I have filed the suit.

So how and why did I get on FrontPageMagazine, the huge neoconservative web site of David Horowitz–former Communist, ’60’s radical-turned-”conservative”?

I was in my fifth year of teaching at Oklahoma State University (OKC campus). (I had also taught a year at the University of Central Oklahoma, Edmond, OK.) I taught intro courses in humanities and psychology. I became absorbed in the subject of nationhood. I was not political (though Republican by family tradition, with little ideological understanding of why, really). But it was clear to me, after having presented the story of world history innumerable times every semester, that there were certain elements which comprised a nation. Without these, a nation was likely to dissolve, or evolve into some other entity, or to become part of a larger social entity, like an empire.

Patriotism was the key. Love of country. This is what preserved a nation. I knew I loved America. Therefore, I begin to advocate American patriotism in the class room.

I was dumbfounded to realize my students were either shy about, disinterested in, or averse to the idea of patriotism. Perhaps it was the liberal university context, but, I would not accept these conditions. I went to then-governor of Oklahoma, Frank Keating, and suggested patriotism be formally taught in Oklahoma public schools. He agreed. But, our legislation was stalled by Democrats–and some liberal Republicans.

David Horowitz, who twice
removed my name from the
FrontPageMagazine columnist list.

My mother suggested I write David Horowitz. “He has a brain,” she said. He’ll know what to do. (My mother listened to a lot of radio in her elder years. She know everything about everyone, it seemed.)

I contacted him by email, and the next day I was interviewed and an article was published about me. Almost immediately, I was on national radio and television. It was apparently the novelty of an American Indian college teacher who believed in American patriotism. I was cast into the arena of American political commentary, without knowing the rules, understanding the terms, or knowing how to fight. All I knew was that patriotism was my concern. Love of country, love of one’s people, love of one’s community. These were simply Indian values, really. It was all an Indian intuition of nationhood. I felt that America desperately needed this, in the most fundamental sense. I took a kind of fatherly responsibility for the nation, as I saw it.

I didn’t know what “conservative” meant, nor what “liberal” meant. I had to learn what “Right” and “Left” meant. I think I was a fast learner, since these terms represented fundamental human notions of society. Love of country and nationhood were my guides in understanding political talk. This came down on the “conservative” side. It was obvious that liberalism was not something that a nation could be built on. Liberalism, Leftism, Communism, Socialism, Marxism, were all the same. Progressivism, too. These ideologies were all about condemning America, changing America, and being very negative about history. I was repulsed by liberalism. it was the worst possible approach to reality, and took advantage of youth and their natural impatience with restraint. Liberalism feeds on adolescent rebellion. Liberalism is perpetual immaturity, and preaches dependency, and thereby fosters tyranny thereby. You’re the slave of whomever you depend on.

I saw Indians as naturally conservative patriots. No one loves his people more than an Indian. Indians have our own nations, to this day. We have our languages, our religions, our customs, and still some kind of borders. We love this, forever. Our fathers gave their lives for it. I thought America could really benefit from the reminders that Indians provided right here at home. I saw Indians as a kind of political talisman for American patriotism. Indians could revive patriotism, and set the pace for love of country.

I was opened minded about it, I thought. If I believed in preserving Indian nations, I naturally had to give the same right to all other ethnic groups and races. America was a white Anglo-Saxon nation at root, and I honor that, (so I am accused of being a white supremacist). I also honor the right of Jews to have their nation, Israel, (so I am accused of being a Zionist). Italians have Italy. Scots have Scotland. The Chinese have China. It was all perfectly simple and clear in my mind.

But I was opposed for this. Liberal white people had already claimed Indians as validation for their “hate America” agenda. Why, no one was wronged more than Indians. If anyone had a complaint against America, it was the Indian. My American Patriotism was the antithesis of their use of the Indian. Therefore, white liberals, and the few Indians they trained as professional protesters, all attacked me from the start. I was politically naive and ignorant enough that this came to be as a painful surprise.

Then came the libel, the lies, the false information, the defamation, etc., and even the professional libel from non-Indians and Indians(for which I intend to sue). This libel has not ceased. It has burgeoned, and continues to shame those involved in perpetrating it. Many Indians have been influenced by the incredible lies of the white liberals and the non-tribal leaders they have trained.

But this is mostly political talk. The values of American Indians are quite obviously conservative and patriotic. I recommend to Indians today however that we all pay even closer attention to our ethnicity. Nationhood without ethnicity is ill-fortuned, and will not last. Intermarriage and cultural mixing is polluting our nations more and more. We have to make concerted efforts to stem this tide. Nationhood demands it, and we are too few to ignore it without profound peril to our own continuity of existence.

My liberal opponents think that my idea of nationhood is racist. But, I say, to attempt to dilute and destroy a people and their nation–this is racism. This is liberalism. The conservative wants to “conserve” or “preserve” his nation and his people. Indian people would never knowingly advocate the dissolution of our tribes, our peoples, or our nations. The few that have been educated by liberal, American-hating whites at the universities, however, mistakenly believe that Indians must be open to all races, accepting of all intermarriage and intercultural exchanges. However, these few liberal-ized Indians do not represent Indian people or Indian values. They have been trained to represent liberal values. The liberal does not believe in nationhood. The Communist would dissolve all elements that separate people from each other. In the name of Communist, liberal “equality,” nations should be dissolved. That is the ideology.

Indians are forever against such a notion. I know that. Indians know that. I speak for all Indian people on this matter. The problem is, Indian people have not developed a positive notion of America, and easily fall pray to America-hating ideologies, like liberalism and the Democrat party lines. What I have tried to do is offer a positive view of America, for Indians, and for this, I am opposed. It seems contrary to reason.

But, on the contrary, it is pure reason.

The cry of “racism” by liberals is foolish. Like most terms used by liberal Democrats, it is used as an accusation against those who oppose liberalism, yet, the liberals themselves wish to destroy ethnicity through intermarriage and open borders. Liberals despise nationhood. They only use it as a tool.

And the end of my third case of cancer, in 1992. I was living with a family in South Windsor, CT, while on chemotherapy. I lost a lot of hair, and cut short what was left. This was before I developed skin cancer on my face and elsewhere. I began my doctorate at the University of Arizona in the fall of 1992.

So, those with open minds will find a lot of inconsistency in the Democrat Party, and they will find liberal values among Republicans as well. I find myself more consistent than any other political commentator on the matter of nationhood and race. Most people, however, cannot see the bigger picture, and get hung up on terms, emotions, and political partisanship.

For me, Indian nationhood is the guide. Indians have sacrificed all social and material advantages for the love of our people, our nations, and our race. Indians, without thinking or planning, have the most natural sense of patriotism in the Western world. As the European nations approach dissolution, as America trembles as a tottering mass of confusion and racial invasion, I say to all: consider the sacrifice of the American Indian. Consider the nobility of patriotism. We’re still here, as Indians. It came at a terrible price. But, those who love their nations will proudly pay that price.

In his new book The 10 Big Lies About America, leading talk show host and movie critic Michael Medved quotes extensively from my column, “What’s Up With White Women?“

I was tipped off by a friend who was reading the book. Medved cites me in the introduction, on pages 9-10. He quotes a full 221 words from my column, “What’s Up With White Women?” Here is what Medved wrote:

An American Indian academic and musician named David A. Yeagley (an enrolled member of the Comanche Nation) tells a sobering story about one of his students at Oklahoma State University-Oklahoma City. A “tall and pretty” girl with amber hair and brown eyes, she spoke out in a class discussion about patriotism. “Look, Dr. Yeagley,” she declared, “I don’t see anything about my culture to be proud of. It’s all nothing. My race is just nothing.”

“Look at your culture,” she continued. “Look at American Indian tradition. Now I think that’s really great. You have something to be proud of. My culture is nothing.”

Concerning this unforgettable interchange, Professor Yeagley observed: “The Cheyenne people have a saying: A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground.

“Who had conquered Rachel’s people? What had led her to disrespect them? Why did she behave like a woman of a defeated tribe?

“They say that a warrior is measured by the strength of his enemies. As an Indian, I am proud of the fact that it took the mightiest nation on earth to defeat me.

“But I don’t feel so proud when I listen to Rachel. It gives me no solace to see the white man self-destruct. If Rachel’s people are ‘nothing,’ what does that say about mine?”

Back in 2002, author and sometime presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan also quoted from my column “What’s Up With White Women?” in his book Death of the West. See quote at Google Books.


Medved’s citation of my article was also noted on a blog called The DU d’RAT Review. Interestingly, I discovered upon closer inspection that d’Rat was not quoting directly from Medved’s book, but rather from a column Medved wrote at Townhall.com more than a year ago, on December 5, 2007. Medved’s article was called, “Resisting the Smear of a ‘Tainted Legacy’“. Evidently Medved incorporated this 2007 article into his just-released book The 10 Big Lies About America.



David Horowitz first published my column “What’s Up With White Women?” in his FrontPageMagazine.com, May 18, 2001.


Medved on the Indian Question

The very first chapter of Medved’s book is about American Indians. The first of the “10 Lies” he seeks to debunk is: “America Was Founded on Genocide Against Native Americans.”

In fact, Medved has been on this topic for some time. Back on September 19, 2007, he published “Reject the Lie of White ‘Genocide’ Against Native Americans” at TownHall.com. Medved wrote, “I’ve never denied that the 400 year history of American contact with the Indians includes many examples of white cruelty and viciousness.” But he denies that the “mass migration of Europeans to the New World and the rapid displacement and replacement of Native populations”, as he calls it, rises to the level of “Hitlerian, mass-murdering” genocide.

Medved argues that America’s white settlers — unlike Hitler — never set out consciously or deliberately to exterminate an entire race of people. He notes that most of the killing was done by epidemic diseases which wiped out 95 percent of America’s native population.

Medved is partly right and partly wrong. It is true that diseases killed far more Indians than did the guns of white settlers. However, it is also true that prominent white Americans called openly for the extermination of Indians as a race — among them Civil War hero and Indian fighter General William Tecumseh Sherman — a fact that I have noted many times, most recently in an interview with the San Diego Jewish World.



Jihad Watch founder Robert Spencer quoted from my column “What’s Up With White Women?” in at least two of his books; Religion of Peace? and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam.


The Hearts of White Women

Still, I agree with Medved’s larger point. There is no reason to single out white Americans as a uniquely evil or brutal race. They are not. What Medved calls the “mass migration” of white people to America and the “displacement” of Indians from their land is a type of drama which has been repeated many times, over many thousands of years, on many different continents, among many races of people.

Medved writes, “A nation ashamed of its past will fear its future”, and he is right. America will not survive if Americans — and white Americans in particular — keep teaching their children to be ashamed of who they are.

I think this explains why so many writers have been struck by my column “What’s Up With White Women?“. My account of the pretty college girl who was ashamed of being white struck a peculiar nerve in conservative American writers, from Pat Buchanan, who first quoted it in 2002, to Robert Spencer, who has used it at least twice, in his books Religion of Peace? and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).

In my column, I cited a Cheyenne proverb: A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground.

White men — conservative white men, at least — really feel the truth in that old saying. The arrow sinks deep in the heart. If white women’s hearts are on the ground, it is because white men have failed them. Most women need and want guidance from strong men. If they cannot find such men among their own people, they will look elsewhere.

The DU d’RAT Review closes:

“I applaud Michael Medved for featuring Dr. David Yeagley in this column; this is a man who has long known what to honor.

Please also go to badeagle.com–it’s linked on my sidebar. That is Dr. Yeagley’s website and he has many more useful things to say that you will enjoy.”

Instead of honoring the one national holiday in America that celebrates American Indian culture, the Mountain View Elementary School of Claremont, California was made to feel that it was necessary to disallow children from dressing up like American Indians. Michelle Raheja, an English professor at UC Riverside wrote a letter to a kindergarten teacher, complaining that letting children dress like Indians was “demeaning” and “dehumanizing” to Indians. At a school board meeting, she was joined by another professor from the University of Redlands, another from Riverside Community College, and another who is a former Pitzer College professor.

This is educated bravery at its finest. It takes real guts to destroy an elementary school Thanksgiving party.

Cody Lucas, Choctaw, and Vince Tran, Vietnamese. Costumes
are no problem for them. Children love to play. It is psycho-
logical learning.

Personally, I think every child in America ought to dress up like an Indian, regularly! It should be mandatory. Every child in the country has the right to know what it means to be Indian. Every child has the right to share the glory, if just for the ‘simple’ occasion of a American national holiday.

The Thanksgiving tradition is a wonderful opportunity for children to be educated about the identity and cultural perspective of the American Indian. There is so much they can learn about being kind to strangers, helping those in need, sharing with others—all uniquely authorized by the strength and warriorhood inevitably evoked by any American Indian image. The Indian image is the best of all worlds, the host, and the protector.

But, some people thought that being angry was the best representation of Indians. They thought a typical, hackneyed protest created a more helpful image. They wanted Indians to be seen as unhappy.

Racial agitation is, of course, straight from the Marxist playbook for changing the status quo, and Michelle Raheja apparently decided to go for a quick kill. She attacked the children of the Claremont Unified School District. Her protest was a design to educate the children, not in gratitude, hope, or cultural values, but in discontent, negative thinking, and self-absorbtion. It was an example of the worst kind of approach to life, the kind that will ensure perpetual personal misery—the result of disrupting the peace and good will of others.

I earlier pointed out how a certain political philosophy enlists children in its support. In “Why Communism Loves Children,” I gave a number of historical examples of why children and youth are important to movements of aggressive social change. This simple disturbance at Claremont was a fine example of everything evil in the cutting edge of Communism. The protest was a rude, party-pooping tactic, designed to destory good feeling. It was an attempt to rob children of the freedom to be children, to play, to pretend, to experiment, to share and enjoy the feelings of other cultures. It was all with the intent to train them instead to be discontent and unhappy, and to disrupt the pleasure of others. It was a lesson in aggrandized selfishness.

There are a few Indians that find meaning in this kind of sidewalk warfare. Most don’t. To me, I see the same issues in the costume controversy as I’ve always seen in the sports mascot issue. A few people want all the mascots removed—a vitrual ethnic cleansing of Indians. Most don’t. I want to see an American Indian warrior image on every school in the country. American Indians deserve that much. We own that glorious warrior image. This country even prints Indian images on its money. What conquored people have ever been so honored by the country that conquored them?

But Professor Raheja seems to despise the Indian image. “There is nothing to be served by dressing up as a racist stereotype,” she said. What exactly is “racist” about acknowleging the culture of another people? What if a black kid dressed up like a pilgrim? All clothing is associated with some culture at some time in history, present included. Raheja has no argument here.

Of course, her purpose was only to disrupt. No logic or justification is needed for that. Her intent was racial agitationm, and she succeeded. She created such intense controversy amongst the parents at a school board meeting that the district superintendent, David Cash, declared that the elementary schools would not participate in the costume tradition.

The children did anyway. How’s that for bravery? Good little Indians.

The Cherokee Nation recently voted to drop 2,800 “freedmen” from their national citizenry. The freedmen are descendents of African slaves owned by the Cherokee people. The Cherokee Nation has decided, by overwhelming vote, (over 70 percent of the voters), that the freedmen are no longer members of the Cherokee nation.

The Black Caucus of Oklahoma has decided to protest in federal court. The Black Caucus apparently doesn’t want these black people to be considered black—but some other race, in this case, Cherokee.

Why would the Black Caucus have anything to do with the decisions of the Cherokee nation?

Five black members of the “black only” caucus, itself racially exclusive, have said that is has to do with the rights of the freedmen. Caucus member and Democrat house representative Mike Shelton (who votes for higher taxes) has said., “The Black Caucus is not against the Cherokees or any of the Native American tribes. But they broke sacred treaty.”

This is a completely false statement, and is made in an attempt to gain respect by showing a feigned honor for Indian treaties, about which Shelton obviously know little.

Rights and privileges to non-Indians living on Cherokee land are not affected by the vote of March 3, 2007. That vote was just to declare that anyone who could not demonstrate that he had at least one Indian ancestor on the rolls, according to the Dawes Act of 1887, would no longer be a member of the Cherokee Nation. Cherokee “citizenship” was granted to the freedmen just a year ago, in fact. But now the nation has decided to revoke that idea, by national vote. (It was the largest turnout ever, more than turned out for a recent constitutional amendment.) The treaty of 1886 contained the ruling that all non-Indians living on Cherokee land would have the same rights as Cherokee citizens. It never said the non-Indians were Cherokee. In 1975, the nation reasserted its sovereign right to determine its own citizenship.

The Cherokee Nation website posts “Know the Truth,” a collection of statements correcting myths that incite people like Shelton.

And the truth comes out:

Shelton said he is a descendent of the Cherokee Freedmen. He said he is most concerned about people who are now uninsured because they were provided health coverage prior to the March vote by the Cherokee Nation. He said this adds to the larger pool of uninsured.

It’s about money. Why, Shelton’s just looking out for those black people. If the Cherokee won’t take care of them, that means some one else will have to. It just means 2,800 more black people on public welfare. (No wonder Shelton supports higher taxes, as every good Democrat does.)

And let’s be more specific: it’s about casino money. The black leaders are going to try to make a court case that “rights” of the freedman have been abused? This just isn’t the case. How can they have rights to casino-funded health services if the casino is owned by the Cherokee Nation, and they are not citizens, and never were? How can they have Indian rights, when they’re not Indian?

Yes, African Americans cash in at the Mashantucket-Pequot “Indian” club in Connecticut. Yes, the Seminole Nation backed off when the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) offered separate funding to Seminole black “members” denied tribal rights. But all this is about money, not about blood.

Indians only value blood money. Why? Our ancestors spilled their blood to preserve our identity. We can never give it away. It’s not up for grabs.

Blacks rejecting other blacks is a most extreme irony. For the Oklahoma Black Caucus to reject blacks, hoping to make someone else pay for their medical bills, is a kind of slavery. As Cherokee Mike Graham says, the Caucus is acting like the KKK, only the Caucus shows racism against others, not just blacks. The Caucus despises the Cherokee Nation.

The Black Caucus would rather see blacks as ‘owned’ by Indians, than to be true free men.

Reprinted from FrontPage, April 3, 2007

Do Indians need help? Are Indians welfare recipients? Are we dependent on the charity of the United States government? Many people believe so. Like General William “Tecumseh” Sherman said in 1868, they think Indians “have all to be killed, or be maintained as a species of paupers.”

Actually, the question of help and the question of welfare are two entirely different questions. It is especially important at this point in Indian history to sharply distinguish between the two.

If you ask Indian women at large, they will almost all say, Yes, we need help. This is from the point of view of poverty-stricken mothers, with dysfunctional families plagued with violence, physical abuse and substance abuse, together with the highest rates of diabetes and youth suicide. Republican Jeff Johnson, candidate for Minnesota’s Attorney General, ran an ad using a stereotypical American Indian as a stereotypical criminal—for identity theft, of all things.

The Indian social image is not very good.

Tribal leaders are apparently unable to stay the tides of social ills inundating Indian country. The cost of dealing with the problems far exceeds tribal funds. (Note the conspicuous absence of Indian casino fantasy money in this calculation.) Indian women leaders have sought assistance from non-Indian women’s organizations, private and public (state and federal).

There isn’t any question that Indian people need to change. If we can’t change on our own, then I think it is accurate to say we need help.

But how then shall we assess the matter of government ‘welfare’ to Indian people? First of all, Indians are not on government aid or welfare. This is an inaccurate stereotype derived from the Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” started in the 1960’s, or perhaps from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” in the 1930’s. Welfare is basically the government taking care of people who can’t (or won’t) take care of themselves. This is wholly unrelated to the history of American Indians.

Secondly, the government made treaties with Indians. The United States government was at war with Indian tribes. It is so written in the Declaration of Independence. America’s first international treaties were with Indians. It is so written in the Constitution of the United States. Through the treaties, Indians maintained land and were promised subsistence. The government was trying to end the wars by compromise.

In other words, whatever Indians get from the government was bought with blood, forever. This is not welfare. It is completely distinct, historically and ideologically. Indian treaty provisions, however paltry, shamefully meager, and oft denied, are not handouts.

Yes, today numerous groups of non-Indian people manipulate their identity to obtain “federal recognition”—in the dishonorable effort to secure casino rights. They’re trying to cash in on the honors earned by the blood of others. (Talk about identity theft!)

The American Indian image has also been usurped by anti-American leftists, and associated with radical social agenda, as in the case of the Soros-funded “Sundance” Institute, or the Leftist-funded American Indian Movement, starring Ward Churchill. This works against Indians. The Indian as preferred protester against all things American sets the Indians awry, and averse to our social environment. This makes it impossible for Indians to take a positive, pro-active role in American society. This leftist political use of Indians is one of our biggest problems. Some Indians may think we’re using them, riding above the waves, but we’re not. Others are in charge. Our sovereignty is token, and also in great jeopardy.

So, yes, I believe we need change. I’m trying to offer an alternative view for Indian country. I’m trying to circumvent the irremeable effects of historical tragedy. I say Indians should rather see America as our adopted son, for everything he’s worth. Indians should be very proud of America. He is, after all, our doing. He was shaped by his dealings with us, in the most profound psychological and sociological ways. We should take a deep ownership, with a fatherly sense of responsibility.

The alternative is but a protracted resentment, an abject protest—the very kind of psychological disposition that creates depression, dysfunction, and all other social ills. Indian leaders need to consider the long-range effect of such negative thinking on Indian youth. It is a great error to set ourselves against America. Rather, we should save America.

Reprinted from FrontPage, November 8, 2006

But since Churchill was an America-hating radical, the university left – which claims to honor Indians – was ready to rally behind an Indian imposter because his views were politically correct.

But it’s a different story when a real American Indian loves America, and publicly advocates patriotism. The radicals on campus can’t stand that. An American Indian patriot is politically incorrect and dangerous. I found that out by personal experience. Once my views were known, I was never given tenure, was eventually dismissed from Oklahoma State University’s Oklahoma City campus, and barred from coming on grounds.

The Association of American University Professors did not rush to my aid as it has to the Indian imposter Ward Churchil’s. There was no dramatic investigation into why I was fired. There were no public statements defending my freedom of speech, or my right to promote American patriotism. There was certainly no faculty petition drive in my defense.

But the Left was not content that I be driven from campus. Since I have continued to propound my patriotic views, the Left has decided to adopt a new tack to silence me: deny that I’m an Indian.

I’m the only conservative Indian in the media, but apparently that’s one too many. So they have taken to saying I’m an adopted child, not the son of my Comanche mother, therefore not Comanche. But that lie failed, so now they’re saying the Comanches have banished me from the tribe. Bald Beagle, one of the more sardonic anti-Yeagley blogs, announced that the Comanche Nation had officially banished me, July 28, 2006.

Any Comanche knew immediately that it was false.

There was no “tribal council” meeting in July. (There was a special session oin August 5, and the authoritative body is called the “General Council.” It includes all Comanche Nation members, not a select group of elected officials.) And contrary to the Bald Eagle article, Mike Burgess is not the tribal chairman. He wasn’t then, and after a run-off election August 19, he still isn’t. The chairman is Wallace Coffey. (And, contrary to Bald Beagle, Wilma Mankiller, Tex Hall, Winona LaDuke and Ben Nighthorse Campbell have never visited the Comanche Nation headquarters as a body, and certainly not recently, and not about me or my alleged banishment.)

“Bald Beagle” is an obvious take-off on Bad Eagle, my official web site. That’s the first sign of foolishness. There is no identification of who is behind Bald Beagle. The only identified author is Dr. Bald Beagle.

Yet the piece was immediately picked up by two other anti-Yeagley bloggers: Voice of a Native Son, and The Try-Works. Soon I was contacted by supporters of Bad Eagle anxiously inquiring about my banishment. Word gets around quickly in Indian country, even without the Internet.

I have not been banished. I don’t know if the Comanche Nation has ever banished anyone, at least in modern times.

I note that Try-Works was created by John Moredock, a Churchill disciple. Also, Voice of a Native Son is obviously a take-off from the title of Churchill’s book, From a Native Son. (In Leftist Indianism, “native son” is a code word for “not Indian,” or “fake,” like Churchill.) Churchill endorses both Try-Works and Native Son. I’ve certainly voiced critical opposition to Churchill, so, I should expect as much.

So the rumors of my “banishment” have been greatly exaggerated. And I am, in fact, applying for Churchill’s job at the University of Colorado.

Reprinted from FrontPage, August 21, 2006

Mike Wallace recently procured with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Wallace gave opportunity for Ahmadinejad to profess a fair and equitable disposition toward the Jews. Why, Iran has no problem with Jews. Look at the large and ancient Jewish population of Iran. Look at the number of Iranian parliamentary seats held by Jews.

It is only the state of Israel that Ahmadinejad condemns. He asks why the Jews insist on a state in the midst of “our Arab homeland.” Why can’t the Jews have their state in Europe, in Germany, or in the United States?

Ahmadinejad doesn’t want to destroy Jews. He simply doesn’t want a state of Jews in the middle of the “Arab homeland.”

This is error on all sides. First of all, the Wallace interview offers a pretentiously naïve view of Iran, Islam, and Ahmadinejad. It intentionally presents a fabricated “good” side, and Wallace insisted on the wonderful humanness of Ahmadinejad. The Iranian madman was cordial, warm, and very rational.

Secondly, if Wallace is so ignorant of Iranians not to know they are the most charming, magical people in the world, then he shouldn’t have gone to Tehran for an interview. He was a dupe from the outset.

Thirdly, Wallace is so historically ignorant as to accept the false notion that Palestine is Arab homeland, or not to notice that Ahmadinejad identified himself with the Arabs when he is the Persian president of modern Persia (Iran), then Wallace should never have undertaken a conversation.

Finally, if Wallace is uninformed of the actual teaching of the Qur’an, and the fact that it does not condemn any state of Israel, then he should have consulted with someone before prostrating so pretentiously before the great and mighty Oz of Iran.

All the Qur’an does say about Jews in Palestine is simply a recount of their original entry into Canaan. “O my people! Enter the holy land which God has assigned unto you” (5:22). “We settled the Children of Israel in a beautiful dwelling place, and provided for them sustenance of the best” (10:93), and “Dwell securely in the land of promise” (17:104).

Did the prophet’s eye not see the violence and destruction involved in the Jews’ ousting the indigenous Canaanites from their homeland? Did Mohammed fail to recognize the ’social injustice’ of a few Jews taking over the homelands of multitudes?

If the prophet did not condemn Israel for being in Palestine the first time, why to the mullahs get hysterical about the Jews there now?

In 1999, when I visited Astan Quds Razavi University (a Shi’ite theological seminary in Masshad), Professor Khazee Ali pushed the same line. “We have no objection to Jews in Palestine. It is the ruling state of Israel that is unjust and immoral.” Fine. Just don’t say that’s what the Qur’an teaches.

Islamic Professor Abdul Hadi Palazzi is quoted in the July 2, 2001, Washington Times: “A good Muslims must be a Zionist.” “Classical Islamic sources do not support the so-called ‘Islamic anti-Zionism’ preached by radical groups.” “The idea of making Islam a factor that prevents Arabs from recognizing any sovereign right of Jews over Palestine is an artificial apparatus that has no precedent in Islamic classical sources.” Sheik Palazzi is director of the Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic Community.

So, Muslims have a choice about what to believe, after all.

On the other hand, the Qur’an leaves the door wide open for the most base anti-Semitism—and hatred of anyone who isn’t a Muslim. But that’s another column.

Reprinted from FrontPage, August 15, 2006

Of course, I would have to make a few demands: CU would have to offer me the same privileges it gave to Ward Churchill. Here are my propositions, based on what CU’s own committee found. To get the full Churchill treatment, I would demand:

* $200,000 a year starting salary. (Hey, at least I’m a real Indian.)
* immediate tenure upon signing the contract. After all, I do have a doctorate. Churchill does not, yet was given immediate tenure.
* the right to teach courses wholly unrelated to my degrees. Churchill taught “ethnic studies,” yet his master’s degree (from the early 70’s) was in communication. Therefore, I would expect the privilege of teaching Vietnamese floristry, Incan herbalist lore, or fashion photography criticism – beginning, say, with the work of Firooz Zahedi.
* the right to plagiarize in all my scholarly works, las the group found Churchill had plagiarized Canadian professor Fay G. Cohen, (Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia), then apparently threatened her, as he apparently threatens anyone who opposes him; it also states he plagiarized Canadian environmental group Dam the Dams Campaign and that he plagiarized Indian author Rebecca L. Robins the year after her essay was published.
* the right to plagiarize artwork. The study reported Churchill mirrored the artwork of Thomas E. Mails, and before that had copied a historical photograph of Charles M. Bell, and then pawned this work off as Churchill originals. In 1990 Churchill was blocked from selling his “work” as Indian art.
* the right to have my third wife hired with me, in the department in which I teach. Natsu Saito (Japanese), Churchill’s latest wife, was hired to teach in the Department of Ethnic Studies along with him.
* the right to be continuously investigated for 15 months, and then only after my viciously anti-American remarks (like blaming the victims of 9/11 for the attack) have received international coverage and disgraced the university.
* I demand all the details of my plagiarism and false scholarship be published in the national press for those 15 months, without repercussions. I also reserve the right to make “inflammatory and irrelevant” remarks to all who oppose me, and to freely threaten female opponents, and yet to be respectfully treated by committee chairs like Marianne Wesson, chair of the committee who examined Churchill.
* the right to create false information, and false research, the way Churchill fantasized about non-existent “blood quantum” statements in the 1887 Allotment Act, and in the 1990 Indian Arts and Crafts Act, and the way he completely fabricated “historical” information about “small pox infested blankets,” saying Capt. John Smith committed genocide against the Wampanoag in 1614 and that the U.S. Army did the same against the Mandan in 1837.
* the right to be recognized as the true champion of free speech and academic freedom. When students at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, along with Rep. Steve Nass, protested the speech of Churchill in March 2005, Chancellor Jack Miller declared that the “academy is at its best when it functions as a forum for the free exchange of ideas…The university must follow its conscience.” And Churchill was apparently that conscience.
* the right to enjoy this infamy with a stream of steady speaking engagements at $50,000 a pop.

All this is only right, fair, and just. I’ve already demonstrated “grace under fire” when I was dismissed from Oklahoma State University-OKC for promoting patriotism. I didn’t file suit, even though I had Governor Keating’s support. I wasn’t investigated. I was simply ousted without fanfare. It would be much safer to hire me.

So, now I demand full acknowledgement, full recognition, and full compensation. Academically qualified patriots have a right to honor and a life of fame and fortune, too. And real American Indians have the same right to professorships at American universities that phony ones do.

If jobs were based on merit, I’d be a shoo-in. And if academia were as beneficent to conservatives as it is to hate-America leftists, I’d know what treatment to expect after I was hired.

Reprinted from FrontPage, July 10, 2006

Tecalpulco is a small village in Guerrero, Mexico, on Mexico’s southernmost border. It is just north of the city of Campuzano. Tecalpulco is famous for hand-made craft and jewelry. There is an internationally known artisans establishment there called ArtCamp. Vacationers know the place. The artisans run a coop, and they’re subject to the pressures of global market manipulation.

But their men don’t care. They’ve all moved norte, to join the mass trespassing movement in America.

And the women of southern Mexico are tired of this nonsense. They have expressed their protest to BadEagle.com, where a number of pieces on Mexican issues have been posted in recent weeks. BadEagle.com has received direct mail from the artisanas campesinas, the women who make the famous jewelry.

I’ve gotten permission to post this correspondence. The women write from the heart in imperfect English, as one might expect.

Here is the first, from May 4, 2006:

When our men went to the United States they were young and adventurous; They have had their adventure, now we want them to come home to us and to their families and to their home country. Close the border so that the ones who are here do not leave. We have work now and the men can help us to sand-down and polish the jewelry.

Our group is of women from the village of Tecalpulco. The tradition of our village is handcrafted fashion jewelry. Since the men have left, we women have organized a good business of fashion jewelry production in cottage industry. The men can help us, they don’t have any excuse to stay [in America].

Thank you very much from the hearts of the women of Artesanas Campesinas.

Rosalinda Mejia Baron

Eva Albavera Viveros, Contact Person
ealbavera@yahoo.com.mx

Telefonos:
001 762 62 73481
001 762 62 22758

So, the women of southern Mexico, far south, have lost their migrant men to the craze of invading America. Their husbands, the fathers of their children, have abandoned them for some grand “revolutionary” fling up north.

Here’s more, from May 9:

We want to thank you from the bottom of our hearts for acknowledging us as persons, we are so grateful that you recognize us for who we are, village women of Mexico.

We, the women in Mexico, are living under very depressed conditions for a long time. Most of the man in the villages have gone to the United States to work there and have left the women here with the children. At the beginning they were sending money but that was every 6 months or every year, and they weren’t always sending us enough to cover our basic needs. Frequently, these men drop out of our sight all-together.

We are campesinas, we have our cornfields and do work them, but we have learned that in modern times we can’t live off of them. We have to buy cooking gas, daily food, shoes for the children, school materials, etc. Now that the kids went into school again we barely got enough money to buy their uniforms and we are now working hard to pay the school every month and saving money to buy the rest of the materials that they need. It is impossible to live like this, yet we have no choice except to survive, even though we are inside a pattern where everything is costly.

We never asked anything from you, still we want to ask you to close the Mexico border to illegal migration because our men go north to get money and they remain up there sometimes with another woman and we don’t like it; we want our men to be deported since they are breaking the laws. Please isn’t there a way to have these men deported back to their homes and families in Mexico? That would be the best to happen for us! because we need their help in sanding and polishing the jewelry we have been producing.

Thank you, thank you so much in the name of the Rural Artisans Women of Taxco!

Sincerely
Tamara Hernandez Danel

This is as plain as it gets. Among the so-called migrant hordes of banditos are deadbeat dad, carelessly leaving behind their wives and children to fend for themselves. So, where’s the voice of international protest here?

Where are the feminists when you need them?

Reprinted from FrontPage, May 11, 2006