Members of the Iroquois Nations lacrosse team, advertising their status in New York City. Are they wearing those special Niki sneakers made especially for Indians?

The Iroquois passport, and Britain’s refusal to recognize it, magnifies the issue of the American Indian status in the world, as well as in the United States. As of this date, July 16, 2010, the Iroquois Nationals, the lacrosse team of the Iroquois Nation, has not been allowed in England to participate in the world championship games being held in Manchester. The Iroquois Nationals have already been forced to default their first game. They hope to be in England for their second. It doesn’t seem likely. Again, this is all because England will not recognize the “Haudenosaunee” (Iroquois) passport.

House Representative Daniel Maffei, Demcrat, asking the House Speaker to urge Britain to recognize the Irquois passports, and to let the Indians play lacrosse in the world championships.

So, are the Iroquois required to show their passports every time they leave their “reservation”? Must they show their passport when they go to the supermarket in the next town? Are non-Iroquois people required to show their passports when they enter Iroquois territory?

The issue of reservation boundaries and laws is an issue I have dealt with in the process of discussing American Indian casinos and associated businesses, and the whole issue of sovereignty.

My suggestion (to Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of California) in 2004 was a national bank for all Indian casino money. Indians need our own currency. This suggestion was based on the idea of Indian tribes being the separate “nations” we claim we are. Though we don’t have a military, and we can’t feed ourselves presently, there are ways we can operate that are more in keeping with the concept nationhood. Having our own currency is one of those ways.

Many conservatives had frowned on the idea of Indian tribes as actual, separate nations. “You can’t have a nation within a nation,” is the most common way of stating that position. “It’s balkanization,” is another way.

I say both these statements are misstatements, and misleading.

It may be a historical anomaly, Indian tribes being separate nations within a nation, but the fact is, the “United States” nation was build around (or on top of) the Indian tribes. It is the United States that is a nation in the midst of other nations. The United States is, of course, bordered by Canada in the north, Mexico on the South; the United States just happens to have a lot of Indian nation borders within its own borders. I see nothing inimical or hazardous in this, not ideologically, anyway. It’s just the way it is.

This relationship is based on treaty, on a historical handshake, on a word of honor. Do the treaties need re-thinking, or re-negotiating? Most definitely. But will they ever be annulled or abrogated? Not as long as the United States Constitution has any validity. (This is why, as an Indian, I cannot abide the alien, lying black African Communist traitor in the White House. All validity is threatened by his hostile regard for the Constitution.)

But, nationhood, in the way of currency and passports, is something that can and should be achieved by all Indian nations. It may seem intolerably inconvenient to many, both Indian and white, but, it is something to think about and work towards.

This separateness, however, is not to be conferred or attributed to any other ethnic group within the borders of the United States. Indian nations are not based so much on ethnicity and religion as they are war. I do speak as a warring plains tribe descendent, but, obviously, the Iroquois feel the same cause.

Nationhood is the right of Indians, here, surrounded by a larger, grander nation–indeed the conquering nation. It may seem a “privilege” from the point of view of the stronger nation, at this point in time, but it is in fact a historical right, by treaty between nations. Such legal separation however is not the right nor the privilege of any other people within the borders of the United States. Indian nationhood must never be thought of as just another ethnic complaint card in the game of racial politics. This is uttterly denigrating to Indians. Our history is incomparable with other ethnic groups in white America. This is our land. We are on our own land. We did not immigrate to America. America immigrated around us.

As an American Indian, I do not support any social, economic or territorical claims of any immigrant group evolving in American borders, regardless of its origins. Immigrant groups, or those historically imported (such as the Negro) will find no support from me in their completely unfounded demands on the United States government. American Indians fought that government, and made treaties. We are worthy of our legal relationship. All these other groups have no such worth or privilege. It is all gratus, from the generous American government.

About the recent “pop-up” casino tribes, I would say that most of this is fraudulent and brings shame upon American Indians. “Federal recognition” has become a by-word in American conversation. Everyone knows that these “pop-up” tribes are the creation of corrupt politicians, the syndicate, and land developers. It has all become a blight on the reputation of honor which the American Indian has long held, and for which so much of American culture has been named for. The American Indian name and image has appeared on American currency! What conquering nation has ever honor the people it conquered in such a way? And think of all the sports teams that covet the savage strength of the Indian warrior.

Of course, psychologically inverted white liberals want to denigrate the Indian to nothing, removing all visual presence of the Indian, but using the Indian only when there is an opportunity to insult the United States government, only when they can validate some anti-American position by using the Indian.

I say, rather, for the Indian, and for America, “a nation within a nation” is a unique, proud, and beautiful thing. There is nothing like it in the world. It is a great honor to both the Indian father and the grand step son of America.

BadEagle.com has presented the idea that America is the adopted son of the Indian, and that the Indian should be a very proud father–since the greatest nation in the world was very much his own making. Every stage of American development was shaped by direct encounter with American Indian nations.

Ishatai (Eschiti), last Comanche visionary
of the free days, once believed himself invulnerable
to the bullets of the white man. Deceased Comanche
elders said Bad Eagle was cousin to Ishatai.

This fanciful tale may seem a hard sell to many. The thought of an American Indian patriot is intolerable to Communist liberals, of course, and probably to most Democrats. (For this cause, they say I’m not Indian. For that cause, I presently sue them.) Many people seem to think the Indian is best served by his resentment and discontent. Most people certainly expect to see Indians protest America, in some prolonged pricking of social conscience. Liberals cannot abide an Indian patriot. The stereotype of Indian anger is much more politically valuable–and lucrative, for the cause of the anti-American Left.

So, what’s good for the Indian? What’s the best path to take.

BadEagle.com has at least tried to create an alternative to resentment. History may appear to spell a deafening disquietude and abject heartbreak for Indians, but, I say history can be read a different way. That’s all. There is another way to think about it.

The role of a perpetual malcontent is a political assignment of the white man for the Indian. And it isn’t a true Ghost Dance. The Ghost Dance was full of hope. The politics of discontent is a different dance altogether.

“If ya wanna show your grit, pilgrim,
pick a fight with the Comanche.”

The Declaration of Independence itself points out the fact that white men, particularly non-American, European white men, have always tried to use the Indian against the Americans–much like the Arabs use the so-called “Palestinians” against Israel. King George is said to have intentionally provoked Indians against the colonists. Anti-Americans continue this strategy, and many Indians find themselves in the role of anti-Americanism–especially those who are educated and trained as professional protesters, making personal careers as servants of the Left.

The 4th of July ought rather to mean something more along the lines of Indian pride, rather than protest. America, this great son of ours, grew up on our land, in our house, in our face. How can we deny him?

Of course, I speak as a Comanche, a nation which behaved very much the same way as America did. Comanches came, saw, and conquered–anyone and everyone in the southern plains. Comanches took what they wanted, and moved everyone else out of the way. In a way, the Comanche were pre-American Americans! Even in the white man’s version of the Comanche story, the white man sees himself in the Comanche. In this sporting affair of land grabbing and war power, the white man always considered the Comanche the supreme opponent. Yes, there were many worthy Indian nation opponents before, but, popular history and the movies remember the last one, and that would be the Comanches. John Wayne never missed an opportunity to match himself up with the Comanche. The greatest hero needed the greatest opponent to show his own greatness.

From the Oklahoma Cowboy Hall of Fame. Photo by Richard Poe, 2008.

So the Comanches were finally out-numbered, out-gunned, and out-manoeuvered. But, did the white man do anything the Comanches hadn’t already done to everyone else–Indians and whites alike on the prairie? The Comanche may have done it more efficiently. The Comanches were always relatively very few in number. So, man to man, the Comanche was a far greater warrior. That’s a fact. He was obviously the greatest. He was better at what he did! The white man simply out-numbered him, developed more effective weapons, and destroyed the Comanche food chain. The white man overcame the Comanche by circumstance, not by prowess or spirit.

Then, does a warrior complain about being defeated? Does a strong man lament strength in his oppnent?

I think not. I think the appropriate response is not to waste time trying to change history, or even trying to return to an impossible past, but to explore a new world–indeed, the white man’s world. Indians can ‘come, see, and conquer’ there, too. That’s what a real Comanche would do. Without fear. Without hesitation. He would take what he wanted. He would risk his life, with great enthusiasm. He would honor his people, and they would honor him for so doing.

Independence Day is for the strong, the brave, and the explorer. The American Independence Day is for all men, everywhere, who value the virtues of manhood, and who are willing to sacrifice all for those dignities of soul which resound in every heart. I cannot speak for the historical circumstances of every Indian tribe, but, for the Comanche, Independence Day is certainly not alien to our ethos. As proto-type Americans, the Comanche represents the essence of this day.

Is Diane a feminist, then? Is she a profound liberal? Again, she is unique, and therefore, one cannot assess her life and work in conventional ways. She has been associated with grand dames of feminism, but, that image does not dominate her public image at all.

First of all, she was never supposed to be born into the world. Her mother, Liliane Nahmias, was a Holocaust survivor, and greatly affected by physical suffering. Liliane was told that she could never have a child. Yet, she bore Diane Simone Michelle Halfin into the world on December 31, 1946.

Diane married German royalty in 1969, Egon von Furstenberg, and immediately decided she must earn her own identity. “I wanted to be someone of my own, and not just a plain little girl who got married beyond her desserts,” she recalled. Diane was a model herself, and became a world famous fashion designer. She went from dress design, to perfume, to accessories, to interior design. (I expected politics as the next logical step, but, Diane has never volunteered any formal association.)

At this point, Diane Von Furstenberg (DVF) has the most spectacular web site on the internet. It is an exciting adventure, to be sure. There is a special “time line” on which one can view her career and accomplishements, beginning in 1971. The 1976 point displays that famous Newsweek cover of Diane and her famous “wrap dress.” She is the author of several books, Book of Beauty (1979); a triology of rituals known as The Bed (1991), The Bath (1993), and The Table (1996), and A Signature Life (1998). One of the captivating things about the site is its alluring simplicity. It is actually very complex, and contains infinitely more than appears on the surface.

Diane Von Furstenberg, the seasoned philosopher, at the
Women’s Forum Global Meeting, 2009.

Diane is an international philanthropist, to be sure. And, it is pure philanthropy, not political. This is what we mean by “quiet warrior.” There is a fundamental feeling she has for uplifting people that is quite apart from the political process. Her idea of social reform seems to have its foundation in the idea that the woman should value herself. It is almost as if to say, the secret of the world’s well being is in the woman’s attitude about herself. Diane may associate with various “liberal” causes in the world, but, there’s something merely utile about that. Her real gift to the world is that special focus on the woman’s attitude about being a woman. Causes of the world are only avenues of expression.

In 2009, Diane gave a speech at an event called SEVEN, at the Women’s Forum Global Meeting. It was sponsored by Vital Voices. In this speech, she declares that all women, every woman is strong.

“I have yet to meet a woman who is not strong. They don’t exist. Everyone woman is strong. Sometimes they don’t show it, because of where they live, because of a father, a brother, a husband, or because of circumstances. But when things get bad, all of a sudden, the strength comes out.”

Diane went on to say that women must be confident. Through fashion itself, Diane purposed to inspire confidence. The whole fashion career was only a tool–through which she might share confidence with other women. She would create clothes that would
make women feel confident and beautiful.

When a woman is confident, she is beautiful.

This is the Von Furstenberg philosophy in a word. This is the attitude on which civilization is built. This is the earthly mortar.

But, let’s say it so a man can understand it. A woman wants to be beautiful. A woman wants to be desired. That’s all. She wants a man to be enthralled with her. She wants to be loved.

It is ironic that, women who wield the most power to attract are often the most removed from real love. They are isolated by the expanse of their draw. The more men who are enslaved by their singular beauty, the less confidence they have in any individual man’s sincerety. This is an agonal irony, but a price to be paid for publicized sexual appeal.

Of course, fashion is for all, so this predicament is unavoidable. The final decision for true love is based in fact not on the strerngth of the attraction, but on the “confidence” in sincerety. That sincerety is something that has to be demonstrated over time. And it’s more than a convincing record of performance. There is a certain feeling that dominates. Even when circumstances have crumbled the ediface, and what’s left stands on moral principle alone, the feeling yet lives in the ruins. The pillars of memory and experience stand forever.

Personally, a woman simply navigates the contest of desire. In the case of Diane Von Furstenberg, we have a woman of original and classic beauty, but one who always managed it with an objectivity and purpose–a purpose of compassion. This is far beyond feminism, or any political attempts at improving anything. This is philosophy–in action. Diane is Jewish, don’t forget. That transcendence is uniquely manifested in her use of fashion design. The idea is to be confident, independent, and thus free.

Yes, most people see fashion as a loud, fast lane, noisey whirlwind of dizzying egotism, but, in the hands of Diane, it is a humanitarian opportunity. She has made it something it never was before. Diane transformed fashion into something functional, beyond entertainment. For Diane, fashion is a ‘teachable moment.” Fashion is virtually didactice. She is a pedagogue of female performance.

This is a little esoteric for men, but, it is important to know that women have a voice within their own issues that presents them with perhaps the most innocuous, salubrious solution to their natural frustrations. Where Diane Von Furstenberg fits into social modernity is the place she made for herself–but that place is open to any woman who may benefit from it. She did it for them, as well as herself. If there is “liberalism” in Diane Von Furstenberg, is it a transcendent order, and would never bother with the writhing of political process.

A quiet warrior, that is Diane von Furstenberg. A world conqueror, but, one whose personality remains as simple, confident, and sweet as a newborn lamb. Arrogance is absent. This is evident in her immediate personality, should you have the pleasure of meeting her. Beyond the dazzle, beyond the captivation, Diane is a simple, caring woman, who cares particularly for women who struggle to understand themselves, who don’t quite think well enough of themselves.

And, I’d say, any woman who can make something like fashion into a functional tool in social reform has to be one strong woman. Any woman who can turn female confidence into world philanthropy has to be Jewish! In the hands of a sincere Jew, anything can be made into an instrument of uplifting. In Diane’s philosophy, every woman is destined for fellowship with the zaddokim. And she can wear a dress while she’s at it. (Move over, Yentl!)

Diane Von Furstenburg, 1972.

Xena, the classic warrior woman.

Ann Coulter has to be at the top of the list, but, she’s careful enough so that she’s still alive, after seven New York Times best sellers. Michelle Malkin brings an “ethnic” (Filipino) touch to female conservatism. There’s Laura Ingraham, Monica Crowley, and Tammy Bruce. And we add Cao and Kirkland (America’sWarChick.com) to the list of the relentless. All-American gals there.

And then there are the Jewish women. Given the stakes, I’d say these women are the bravest. They’re more likely to be physically attacked (though Ann Coulter is the one who gets the pies thrown at her on stage). The Jewish female conservative finds herself doing hand-to-hand combat with Jihadists, and the hordes of murderous Muslims. This is not fun, nor plesant, nor entertaining.

Pamela Geller is the commander of this group, and in the trenches as well, along with Debbie Schlussel (”Deadly Deb”), and the latest street fighter, The Mad Jewess (–whom we suspect uses brass knuckles in close contact). These three bloggers are such fast movers it is difficult to keep pace with their campaigns. It is a remarkable array of explosives they present–several times a day. One has to look at their blogs requently. And not to forget Ilana Mercer, with the more intellectual flavor to savor. She is a truly a world commentator (having been there).

Fighting women are certainly not a new thing in the world. Women have been warriors from ancient times, and even commanders of ships. (A must read on this kind is Jan Druett’s She Captains, Simon & Schuster, 2000.) My personal favorite, among many, is, of course, Joan of Arc. Too, there were American Indian woman who did what they had to do, like the Apache, Lozen (Victorio’s sister). There have been numerous Indian women in modern times who have fought relentlessly for various and worthy Indian causes. (The bravest kind are like the Sioux woman, Betty Ann Gross, who fight alone.)

We could even consider Annie Oakley, and Bell Starr among the women who approached the man’s world without fear or hesitation.

Interestingly, we don’t find liberal woman known for heroism, generally speaking. There have been numerous activists over the decades of modernity who have accomplished great changes in society. But, certainly, in terms of women in modern politics, there is not the same status of heroism and bravery for liberal women. It is simply not required of them.

The Palin effect: political attack hair.

Conservative women like Sarah Palin, for example, and now Jan Brewer (Governor of Arizona–who apparently modified her hair style after enjoying the support of Palin), are considered the vortext of liberal hate. We could include Michele Bachmann in that center as well. A conservative woman, married, with children, in the political war against liberalism, represents the antithesis of everything liberal. Therefore, she is the focus of supreme loathing and piquant animosity.

For the warrior woman to be conservative simply destroys the liberal take on feminism. The conservative warrior woman robs the liberal feminists of their claim to strength, aggression, and all the other masculine traits they have sought to take from men. Leftist women fervently espouse female homosexuality because of the imitative masculine behavior so often associated with Lesbianism. The stereotype of the woman warrior is a Lesbian, or at least a bi-sexual. The once intensely popular show Xena: Warrior Princess (1995-2001) demonstrated all that ever so gradually, artfully, and finally.

The feminist liberals have tried to claim for themselves the credit or association of every thing a woman does that is physical, or in any way associated with a man’s behavior. The feminist liberals even tried to claim softball as a lesbian specialty, and were proud that the stereotype apparently subsumed the identity of Elena Kagan, Supreme Court nominee of suspected bi-sexual Barry Soetoro.

Personally, I just see woman as people who like doing different kinds of things. Some women are extremely athletic. Others are soft as warm, wet noodles. Being physically aggressive is generally associated with masculinity, but, that’s only a cultural gender tradition. There are women who are physically aggressive who are simply not homosexuals, and not transvestites or confused about who they are. And, yes, there are homosexual women who love to act and look like a man. There are a variety of behaviors within each category.

We know that, in modern times, as early as 1977, the Israeli Defense Forces determined that it would be better not to have women in actual combat. Women just aren’t wired the same as men, and this creates unnecessary hazards on the battlefield. BadEagle.com has addressed this issue before, in “Women Warriors” (2002):

Why didn’t anyone listen to the Israeli Defense Forces back in 1977? A senior female officer said, “From the very nature of the army, you can’t have quality of the sexes in it. A woman’s just not built for fighting, physically or mentally.” Psychologist Tamar Breznitz-Svidovsky reported that nearly 90% of Israeli women surveyed did not want to see women in combat. “Women scare too easily” and “Women are too weak” were the most common reasons. These quotes, and many others, were presented by Lesley Hazleton in Israeli Women: The Reality Behind the Myths (Simon & Schuster, 1977).

Fighting Israeli women of the 1948 era earned the reputation of being unfeminine, as well as insignificant soldiers, according to Carol Clapsaddle (”Flight From Femminism,” in Response: A Contemporary Jewish Review, 18 Summer 1973). They couldn’t do much about their limited soldiering, but the unfeminine image was rigorously attacked in the 1970s with the advent of “beauty” contests in Israel.

This issue seems always the same. The woman wants equal privileges as the man, including that of acting like a man. Most women, however, like being feminine, because that gives them power over men–which otherwise they could not wield. This is understood. (And, I suspect, it’s a lot easier, in most cases.)

Ah, but too much attention to the women is not good, not for the men. I think of the words of Yosi ben Yohanan of Jerusalem (pre-Mishnah father, BCE):

“Do not talk much with a woman.” They said this of a man’s own wife: how much more of his fellow’s wife! Hence the Sages have said, “He that talks much with women brings evil upon himself, and neglects the study of the Law…”

See, Jacob Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70 (Brill, 1971), Vol. 1, p.16.

Well, no wonder I suffer so! What’s a modern man to do? In the end, we can’t blame the woman. At Judgment Day, the fault lies with the man, and his abuse of the woman, regardless of her tempting powers. Check it out: Revelation 21:8 and 22:22:15. “Whoremonger” means dealer, one who deals women. I presume that means anyone who makes a nickel off the woman, from her hairstyle to her toe nails. But, who really knows?

My opponents, white, Indian, and otherwise, simply say I’m not Indian. (For this politically motivated libel, I’m currently suing Google, Amazon.com, Los Angeles Times, University of Nebraska, Kos Media, Independent Media, Brent, M. Davids, Al Carroll, and Cinda Hughes, and perhaps others.) Their tactic is essentially identity theft and racism, as well as libel, defamation, and other torts, like interference with contract, denial of free speech, etc.

So, this is what happens when an American Indian loves America, and believes in patriotism, and in preserving the country. This is what happens when an Indian (an enrolled Comanche from Oklahoma) takes a positive, aggressive stance in the face of adverse history. This is what happens when an Indian presents a new view, one that allows Indians to honor that white warrior who came her so long ago, in the form of a lost family that washed up on Indian shores. This is what happens when an Indian takes ownership of himself.

America, all of it–the history, the people–belongs to the Indian. Yes, the white man grew mighty. In him were the seeds of giants. We didn’t know that. Maybe he didn’t know it, either, really. We just saw some suffering people, who needed a helping hand. We gave to them. We made room for them. The white man was just another guy, trying to raise a family.

When he seemed to outgrow us, and push us back more and more, out of our own home, there was conflict, to be sure. In the end, he put the old Indian in a nursing home. The Indian didn’t want to join the new family, and the white man did the best he could in managing the cultural train wreck. Indians were allowed to keep at least a piece of our home lands. Why, the white man even promised to take care of us, forever. A kind thought, seeing he outnumbered us 100 to one, and could have finally annihilated all of us, or so it seems.

Our adopted son became the wonder of the world, indeed. So, I’m proud of him. He was exceedingly great. Should we not claim him as our own? Did we not raise him? Was not his development at every stage shaped by his constant encounters with us? Weren’t we the people who actually made him a nation? We were the first “foreign” people he ever made a treaty with. Later, his Declaration of Independence calls us merciless savages (as employed by King George, anyway), but in his Constitution he calls us nations. He made treaties with us from his earliest days among us. Did we not raise him? Is he not what he is because of his time with us?

Yes, I love America. America is too grand, too fine, and too precious to scoff at, or to despise. Why should I lock myself into perpetual resentment and discontent? Why should I imprison myself forever in anger and tragedy. How shall I be blessed with a broken heart?

My opponents are terrified at new thoughts. An Indian cannot possibly rise above the sense of wrong. They act as though their very soul is dependent on hating America. The must condemn America, or they are not Indian. (This is the modernized, white liberal articulation of the Indian position.) Their identity Indians is based on a historical perspective. It’s that fragile. They don’t see how an Indian can be Indian and allow himself to enjoy anything that isn’t Indian, let alone love the whole country, kit and caboodle.

I say they just aren’t brave enough. They don’t want to explore new land, so to speak. They don’t want to venture out. They’re too used to thinking the same way. They’re on a reservation in their minds. Me? I’m still a free Comanche, looking over the next new hill. The prairies of the spirit are still wide and free.

For my opponents to conspire to create a false “fact” that I am not Indian, simply because I am free–free to love and admire America, is dastardly, more than desperate. It is, I’m afraid, typically mean and low-down. It insults my mother, my father, my family, my extended family and all relatives. Finally, it insults Comanche people, and it insults all Indians. I doubt real Indians would ever do such a thing as to declare an Indian not Indian simply because they disagree with his ideas. This is the political tactic of white liberals. They may ‘hire’ an Indian here and there as political lackies, but, that doesn’t disguise the nature of the affront. Then again, sometimes, Indians just enjoy fighting–doesn’t matter over what. That’s what Indians do, you know. That’s our thing.

So fight me! You think it’s bad for Indians to have a positive attitude about their social environment? You think it’s hurtful to Indians to have hope and aspirations withint the superimposed, dominant society? I’ll fight you. You’re wrong.

America? I’d say, Give us a minute to settle this internal argument, and we’ll get back to you. But, I know you really don’t care, too much. The Indian is a separate thing. The Indian is a museum piece to you, a relic, a token of a glorious, dusty, bloody past. Why, you earned your oats fighting the “merciless savage.” We made you great. We gave you opportunity to show how great you really were. But, other than that potent memory, Indians don’t mean anything to you to day. In fact, we’re at best some vague political ploy, and at worst, a pain in your neck. I know that.

So, we remain separate. The Indian is ever Indian. America is what it is. We live on the memory of bloody handshake in history. That’s the way it is. Noble enough. Blood brothers, like it or not.

On this Memorial Day, I just wanted to say to America, I love you, I love your grand spirit. I love your warriors. I love your greatness. I honor you for this.

You don’t have to love me. I did what I had to do for my lost step son. He became the greatest. I’m proud of him. I am content in myself, for that.

David A. Yeagley, great, great grandson of Bad Eagle
(quin-ne kish-su-it), a quahada Comanche.

Rima Fakih, “representing” America in a 2008 pageant
in Batroun, Lebanon.

This cute little Indian episode was noted by Debbie Schlussel, by way of the anti-Jewish slur made by CNN’s Senior Editor for Arab Affairs Octavia Nasr, in a report about Rima Fakih. Of course, such remarks by Nasr’s were inevitable, since Debbie Schlussel has pounded the Arab dust out of Muslim Rima’s terrorist connections. “Deadly Debbie” is not to be trifled with, indeed, by “the Arab view” or by any other.

Interestingly, Miss Fakih donned her American Indian image when, in 2008, she returned to Lebanon to represent America in the Miss Lebanon Immigrant pageant (which she did not win, but placed second). She was obviously proclaiming herself an “American” to her Lebanese compatriots in Batroun. (Perhaps the Indian “mascot” bit lost her the contest, who knows.) The obvious purpose was to represent “America,” since that where she was “from,” so to speak. She was trying “representing” America to her own countrymen–where she was really from. So much for “the Arab view.”

Rima Fakiah, the “Indian” American Arab in
Miss Lebanon Immigrant, 2008, in Batroun.

The Indian costume, used in this way, is fraught with layers of skin, for sure. Irony, confusion, and even deception. Political intrigue is always involved in an international pageant, but this was exceptional.

Yet, using the American Indian theme to represent America is certainly not unusual. Shandi Finnessey did in 2004 for the “national costume” part of the Miss Universe pagant. Hey, she wanted to represent America! What more appropriate attire than an American Indian costume? The girl knew who owns the foundation of America. She knew where she came from, indeed, even though she was a blue-eyed blonde from Missouri. She knew the heart of America.

Shandi Finnessey, Miss USA 2004,
with her “Indiannized” display of her body.
Not the way Indian women attracted men,
traditionally, anyway.

BadEagle.com took a positive view of Finnessey. Her costume itself did not pretend to be authentic in nature, but only in intent. Fakih, on the other hand, was trying to authenticate herself. (Truth is, her costume might have more authentic, or at least more realistic than Shandi’s, though much less dramatic. Fakih at least wore moccasin boots, and not high heels! And Fakih didn’t make a bikini out of the costume. How unusually modest of her. How ‘out of character.’)

BadEagle.com also did not completely condemn the Negro group Outkast for their utterly inauthentic “Hey ya” number. Their costumes weren’t even intended to represent anything but a completely superficial and visual stereotype. BadEagle protested the low moral nature of African dance as the antithesis of American Indian dance.

But aside from these issues, the response to Debbie Schlussel’s observation about the Indian reaction or lack thereof to Rima Fakih’s pretense should be a renewed emphasis on the fact that Indians in media are all liberal. She is correct in expecting little or no response. Indians that go anywhere near media are very liberal Indians. They think it is a crisis that the Washington Redkins use an Indian name and logo. They think it is a threat to their soul’s existence that the University of North Dakota uses the name “Fighting Sioux.” Liberal Indians are as crippled in their thinking as any other liberal. The Democrat Communists have trained them all. Rima Fakih herself will find full liberal support, and will never be accused of any kind of racial offense. Anything that degrades, demeans, or even confuses the issues has full support of the liberal mind set.

BadEagle.com has always been pro-Indian mascot. It is a warrior image. The Indian image represents strength, courage, and a fearful prospect which one is obliged to respect. Even cartooned, the Indian image exploits the same power. The girly image? The female with a head dress and pretty legs? Well, that’s a kind of female ploy. That’s for sexual attraction. The Indian warrior image just makes the soft and tender female body all the more attractive by violent contrast suggested by the attire.

That’s the way of the world. Indians can’t change that. And liberal Indians can’t even protest girls like Finnessey and Fakih–and at the same time protest the Redskins, or the Fighting Sioux. But now, consistency has never been the strong point of liberalism, has it? In fact, Indians did protest Shandi Finnessy’s costum. A few even protested Outkast. I’m assuming they don’t know about Rima Fakih’s Indian outfit. Schlussel is just so far ahead of the game here (and on most important new stories) that we’ll have to wait a spell to see the Indian reaction. Debbie says they won’t react. She may be right.

Non-Indian liberals, or even most conservatives, would never protest the Indian warrior costumed worn by a non-Indian beauty contestant. The female body is what the pageant’s all about, not ethnic or political implications of the costumes. But, Debbie’s right about one thing: liberal-trained professional Indian protesters will never unite and make an assault on Miss USA, Miss America, Miss Universe, and certainly not Miss Lebanon Immigrant.

I haven’t even done that. I’m pro-mascot! I’m pro-Indian warrior mascot. I am not, however, pro-female abuse of the Indian image by non-Indians and by non-Americans. I observe rather their motives in chosing such an image to represent America. That, I believe, is revealing–more of truth than of the body. Indians do represent America. That’s the bottom line. These girls chose that image for that reason. There are a thousand ways to show off the body. They chose the Indian costume. An American girl, and a foreign girl, both. That speaks volumes.

So let it speak.

He can’t do anything right. Unless he is praising the poor Negro, or lauding some forlorn “indigenous” people of color somewhere in the world, the white male is universally regarded with moral ostracism. He is believed to be the inventor of all ills, the abuser of all races, and the war-monger-in-chief across the globe.

Ann Coulter, a media concession
for conservatism?

These hysterical blatherings, of course, were created by the weaker portion of the white race. Very much expressive of the “slave ethic” so carefully articulated by Friedrich Nietzsche in The Genealogy of Morals (1887), it is today called Communism. It is a process whereby the weak prick the conscience of the strong, and then rise to tyrannical power by the usurpation and elimination of freedom. It is an inverted aggression, a parasitical deception.

Indeed, the worst enemies of the white race are white people themselves.

These self-destructive types are delighted to use every darkie in the world to validate their white self-flagellation, their ritualistic politics of self-condemnation. It is clearly a form of self-righteousness, the repulsive like of which finally gave birth to Protestantism. Today, Communism is giving rise to an American Renaissance, a revival of American values—from ethnicity and religion to economics and political freedom.

Michele Bachmann, another media concession. Is she man
enough to lead the country?

The war is certainly wrought with agonous uncertainties and defeats, and is by no means alleviating in the near future. The strong white male has yet to even enter the fray. He stands by silently, watching white women attempt to wield his power.

A substantial group of mild-mannered middle-aged white American males attempted to hold a conference in Washington recently. It was called the 2010 American Renaissance Conference. They intended to hold a gentleman’s discussion on their plight, and to assess their future. However, Communists harassed and threatened every hotel facility which the conference attempted to secure. The conference was cancelled. Not one word of this outrageous incident was reported in American media.

But when a tall blonde American white female has a brush with a Canadian university, it is prime time news. Media couldn’t get enough of the Ann Coulter story at Ottawa. It was a human rights violation.

This is where the white man is today: unimportant, unattended, and hidden. Worse, he is loathed. Only white women like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Ann Coulter are paraded in media. The white male is anathema.

As a Comanche Indian, descendant of a warrior race, I have a word of advice for the white male: do not presume superiority. I know the white man is a grand old warrior. I know his accomplishments are unfathomable. Yet, I see in him a humility which is costing him his world. I see in him a pride that is making him impotent.

The warrior does not have the luxury of choosing his enemies. The warrior must never be too proud to fight.

Sarah Palin, the “guy” gal in conservative
politics. Is this what the white race offers
up for consumption now? White women?

Pride is the secret of failure in Indian country. It is becoming the obvious cause of failure in the white man’s world. The proud white warrior seems too lofty, too indifferent, and too complaisant to fight. He lets his women be used and abused by any and all; he thinks she can do all the work now; he presumes that change is inevitable. He seems to feel somehow insulated, or simply at the end of his era.

Racism is his biggest fear. He cowers before such a thought. Though the term is not defined, the accusation is the deadliest weapon in the ’slave ethic’ arsenal. The white man, who has mightily defeated all other races in the world, is terrified of the mere word “racist.” What a glorious trick. What a wondrous swindle of his power for his conscience. This is the Communist precursor of defeat. “Racism” is the dope, the anesthetic, before the tyranny of Communism triumphs. The constant drone of moral condemnation for strength and success finally weakens the white man into submission to the immoral imperative of Communism. “You owe me!” cries the morally pretentious Communist. “I’ve been wronged!” he shouts to the ignorant world, which is ever so anxious for justification and significance.

The middle-aged white male—this is the victim of modernity. All that he has accomplished is cursed. Freedom itself is damned. The morally worthless Communist makes his way by words. His lying pen is mightier than the honest sword.

The media has absorbed the Sarah Palin image with a ‘roguish’ rigour, indeed, but this is not a special feat, since she lends herself so well to the utmost attention of all. Democrats believe that she will divide the Republicans so abjectly that the Democrats can easily win whatever election she campaigns for, hers or anyone she supports. Therefore the liberal media gives Sarah 24/7 coverage. They made “Obama,” so they figure they can break the Republicans with Palin. Republicans are thrilled that she is a grass roots, frontier women, not another crooked politician, not seasoned in fraud and double talk.

Sarah Palin, whom indolent, self-indulgent men would rather look at, then compete with; whom white American men would rather send into battle, than to stand up and fight for themselves.

Everyone delights to look at her. That’s the one unifying factor. (FoxNews is even happy to have its errors in reporting about her dramatized!) She’s one fine looking woman. And she has a fine, tempered steel strength, like all beauty pageant girls. She’s known how to take hits since she was very young. She will never crumble under pressure. (She may resign when wise, appropriate, and necessary to do so for the benefit of all parties concerned, as she explains in her book, Going Rogue. But that isn’t buckling, at all.) Take Carrie Prejean, for another, younger example. She has a new book out, too, defending herself. There is no silencing or intimidating a pageant queen. Most people have no idea about that pageant personality. No one should be particularly impressed with Palin’s public behavior. She thrives on productivity and aggression.

But that so many men would look to a woman for a triumph is the loudest element in the Palin story. It just means that American men have resigned. It is yet another sign that American men have abdicated their responsibilities in true, patriotic, American leadership. They want someone to stump for them, to pinch hit for them. This is a national shame, really.

A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground, as the Cheyenne proverb says. When women aspire to national leadership, that tells me they think very low of their men. They are without confidence in them.

Sarah Palin is a novelty, an intensely entertaining novelty. She is a frontier woman, the like of which hasn’t been seen in the political public in a century, and never before in the presidential realm. But, consider this phenomenon in context.

America just elected an alien, black African Communist liar. Or, to put in more popular terms, America elected a Negro, a black man. For the first time. All social ills were absolved by such a sacrificial act. Or so the stupefied-by-materialilsm Collective Conscious of the country dictated. It was a most inebriated intuition.

But, when we make one mistake, we are inclined to make another. (So I was taught in Sabbath school, a thousand years ago, by an elderly educator, Dr. Brewer, whom I remember well.) We just foolishly elected an alien Negro to the white house. And now, we are considering electing a woman?

Is this more of the same ‘monkey see, monkey do’ tactic the Republicans used when they appointed Negro Michael Steele as head of the Republican Party? That was the Republican response to the election of Barry “Obama” Soetoro. Why, Republicans wouldn’t be out-done. They would play the race card, too.

So, it looks like Sarah Palin, the woman, might be the answer. It is all in the sport of using the White House, our sacred, national seat of power, to express popular idealism–whatever it is at the time. We elect an individual as an expression of our whimsical social mores at the time. This is very much the reason why Sarah Palin is becoming so profoundly popular. It is also the reason she might be another, even worse mistake.

Not possible? Don’t count on it.

Even if she represents everything conservatives and patriotic Americans believe in; even if she will actively pursue the exemplification of America’s most precious and beloved values; even if she seems the perfect person, she isn’t.

She means American men have bowed out. She means American men, white American men, have recused themselves from the court of public opinion. White American men have cowered from the battlefield of the country.

That’s what Sarah Palin ultimately means.

Some call to mind the great Margaret Thatcher, the iron-clad dame of Britain, who sent her Royal Navy to war when rights of a few British citizens were curtailed on a tiny island some eight thousand nautical miles and seven weeks away. Surely one could not ask for a stronger, better leader. But what has followed in England? The nation is about to succumb to Sharia law. The nation is about to be buried with foreign Muslims. English men have surrendered.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, 1982

It is the last act of the noble warrior, when all enemies are defeated, when all ills are vanquished, to kindly sacrifice himself. Without an enemy, the warrior kills himself. This is England. America follows.

Is a people good for only one war? After historical triumph and unprecedented victory, must a nation then dissolve itself? Even among the American Indian nations, the same is nearly true. American Indian men have failed to fight the kinds of battles presented to them in modern times. Our women run off with the first non-Indian that offers more than an Indian man offers her. This is defeat. This is failure. This is the dissolution of nations.

Palin, as governor of Alaska.

Putting Sarah Palin up for office, for the president of the United States, while it seems inevitable and right, is an omen following a disaster (Barry Soetoro). It can’t be better, even though most of us think it has to be. It cannot be worse.

But let’s not act on emotions alone. Let’s not operate from reactions, conditionings, or even inevitabilities. Let’s think about this. Let’s think objectively, historically, and wisely. The show boat king (Barry) doesn’t have to be followed by a show boat queen.

Where are the strong white American men? That’s all I can say.

Sarah goes “rogue” while
white men go fishing.

“The protest today is against US meddling in Israel’s internal affairs,” Yossef Mendelvich, one of the protest organizers, said to Ynet. Mendelvich is a writer and a former prisoner of Zion.

Well, there’s your story line. Indians are the epitomical symbol of protest against the American government.

‘Give back Manhattan.’ Protestors in front of the American embassy in Tel Aviv. (Photo: Michael Borodkin NEWSru.co.il)

Whenever someone feels the United States government is out of line, who do they put on the front lines? Not the Black Watch of Scotland, but the good o’l American Indian warrior. Any time someone has something to say against America, they use the Indian. The American Indian is the quintessence of discontent with Washington.

For this, I protest!

Yes, it is true, no people have a more profound cause to resent America. No people have a greater complaint. The Negro is a mere epidermic malady, some ephemeral notion of justice. The Scots and Irish, who got the worst of it in the way of slave labor, were always too strong a people to complain. The Italians have grown magnificent, even to the Supreme Court. The Chinese have been allowed to take government secrets back home without impunity.

But the Indian remains malcontent, or so the image portrays us. The American Indian alone has not excelled in American society. He rather protests its foundation, and refuses to participate. Thus, the Indian has come to be associated with the rabble of the land, and the Indian is made into the mascot of all discontent, a toy of any and all protesters.

Why, if you can use an American Indian as your mascot, you have validated your cause in a way no other emblem could. The American Indian is the validation of social immaturity, the stamp of all ill feeling.

So, why can’t the Indian validate all good feeling? In America, the famous sports monikers, like “The Fighting Sioux,” and “The Washington Redskins” certainly bring out a different aspect of the Indian image. Everyone treasures courage, bravery, and strength. Everyone who has any sense of manhood, that is. Everyone who has a sense of creativity and productivity and the challenges concomitant.

I deeply resent and protest this use of the American Indian as a symbol of protest against America. It is the most crippling, stifling, negative state of mind there is. It is the very worst state of mind to be in, and nothing is more damaging to young American Indians than to be trained in this constitutional resentment. This is the psychological foundation of suicide, socially and personally.

And to think, just two years ago, 2007, “Palestinians” dressed up as American Indians in Gaza to protest America’s support of Israel!

Some 100 Palestinian residents, peace activists held a peaceful protest at Huwwara checkpoint near Nablus in the northern part of the West Bank, dressing like Native Americans to send a message to the visiting US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

This is my point. It doesn’t matter who the people are, what nation, what race, or what religion, when they have a beef with the United States, they dress up like Indians. This is the world image of the American Indian–protesting the American government. This is what we are in the eyes of the world: protesters.

This is where we are, sociologically. This is where anti-American white liberals (Communist, Nazi, Socialist, etc.) have placed the American Indian–as the supreme validation of anti-Americanism. This is how they have used the Indian. Obviously, they care nothing about Indians in reality. They just want to use Indians to support their anti-American cause.

It’s time for real ‘hope and change’ for Indians. BadEagle.com has tried to provide a new way of thinking, a new path to take, a new vista. American Indians need to see America as our adopted son, and continue to nurture him. He appears lost at this point. We have neglected him. He is being led by an alien, black African Communist traitor, created by a population segment of white, latent male homosexuals with a severe Oedipal Complex–bent on patricide, on murdering the “fathers” of the country.

That Indians should support this lusus naturae of political dissembling is a tragedy. It is not courageous, brave, or strong. It is weak, obvious, and detrimental–to American Indians. That the Indian should be used as a symbol of America’s destruction is the worst possible role to play. Why? Because, given the circumstances of history, America offered the Indians the best deal available, horrid as it was. No other government would have left an Indian standing, let alone leave him land to stand on. Communists, Nazis, and other Socialists are known for eliminating populations they don’t want. These are the death machines of the world. And they are operative now in America.

But, about the Jews and Palestinians playing Indian as a means of political communication, my positions on the political analogies have always been clear: American Indians Aren’t Like Palestinians, and When Jews become Indians are just two of many pieces I have written. It is the Jews of Israel who fit the shape of Indian history. The “Palestinian” fantasy is in no way similar. So, I give the Right of Feathers to the Jews.

Well, there’s really nothing I can do when people want to play Indian, for any reason. It happens. I don’t control the image. It’s already set. I can only try to change the image. But, I have to ask, Where are the real Indian protesters? Where are the professional complainers? You know, those wonder warriors who make a living off protesting Indian sports mascots and warrior images? Why haven’t they protested the use of the Indian by other nations as symbols of complaint against the United States? Do they agree with that use of the Indian? Yet, they are such feminized, feminist “warriors” that they are “hurt” by the use of the Indian image to support courage, bravery, and strength! Manhood offends them!

No, I’ll stand for strength. Use the Indian image to represent the good things in life, strength of character, self-reliance, and the courage to provide for the family, yea, for the nation. This is the role the Indian should play: caretaker of the nation. That is our real image, and our first image. And that is our proper destiny.

“Fighting Sioux,” proud emblem of the University of North Dakota

LaDonna Harris (Comanche).

But there is another aspect to this image, which isn’t really liberal in the political, professional sense. Indians are often quite curious about the world. There is a genuine curiosity, even fascination, with foreigners. (A costly habit, considering our history!) Indians often fought with one another, mostly over honor and justice issues, but sometimes just for the glory of fighting–and the bounties obtainable thereby. Yet we must acknowledge the fact that, when foreigners–non-Indians–showed up, most Indian tribes met them with a macho generosity and human kindness. Indeed, the only tribes who immediately resisted foreigners were those who had heard of the treachery and cruelty of those foreigners from others tribes who had suffered.

Navajo artist, Chester Kahn (72),
member of the Baha’i faith.

Consider the elder Navajo artist, Chester Kahn (72). He is a long time member of the Baha’i faith. He’s into the global religion image, and the concept that Indian faith belongs in the world circle. The Navajo religion and the Sioux religion are perhaps the two most complex religious systems among American Indians, and such systems are easily associated with the globalist, universalist religions out in the world market. Why not make associations? In the anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-American world, Indian religion finds a wondrous acceptance, praise, and honor. Indeed, the historical record of American government measures to annihilate all Indian culture and religion serves as a perfect motivation for Indians to seek association with non-Biblical traditions and non-American cultures.

But I think this is weakness.

Association with others, for any reason, is not how Indians became Indians, nor it is how we shall remain Indians. As dramatically demonstrated by the Comanches of the old days, greatness is not achieved by leagues, associations, or alliances. Comanches became “lords of the southern plains” not by uniting with others, but by the opposite–by disdain for all other people! Independence is the word. Comanche groups were even independent from each other. Strength, natural grandeur, and power, all evolve from a spirit of absolute independence and self-reliance. Comanches became great through a sociological solipsism. There was no acknowledgement of or value in any other people. Comanches knew only themselves. Comanches valued only themselves and their freedom.

But this precious spirit is virtually lost today. Indians anxiously attempt to associate with other races, religions, and governments of the world. This is a kind of protest to American history, and it is probably a natural evolution. I say it is a weak one, and a wrong one, but I know it is a deep running one. Indians take a kind of naive, innocent approach, and are easy victims of liberal politics. Indians seem naturally inclined to validate everything on the liberal agenda.

My great-great grandfather,
Bad Eagle (Comanche), 1839-1909

BadEagle.com, of course, was raised up to counter this weakness. Independence and self-reliance are the political themes promoted here, and these principles are mirrored in the United States Constitution. American Indian life and values are reflected in the very foundations of the American society. Indian principles are at the foundation of the American government.

Those Indians who seek unity with the world have lost their warrior spirit. Those who seek hippie-styled peace and love are playing right into the hands of the world dictators. Peace is never established by unity, but only by freedom. Freedom comes only from independence. Independence costs a revolution.

I feel that real Indian values are radically conservative. Yet, even today’s Republican Party is far from conservative. BadEagle.com has sought association with the Republican Party, indeed. I myself am on the speakers list of Young America’s Foundation, the sponsor of College Republican student clubs across the nation. I am also on the John Birch Society speakers list.

However, I am still seeking to translate real Indian values into modern political language. I still hope that Indians may find a conservative political influence in America today. The liberal image of Indians is a superficial one, an ineffective one, and one I believe brings great confusion and false values into Indian country. If Indians have a natural resentment of America, it is due to a mistaken understanding of America, and a foolish recourse to the deceptive liberalism of the globalists–which is tyranny in the end.

David A. Yeagley, founder of BadEagle.com
and the Bad Eagle Foundation.

America belongs to Indians. It is our country. Its very government, in fundamental principles, reflects our early influence on the founders. I say America is our step son. We raised him, by default if nothing else. Every stage of his developement was nurtured by his terrific encounters with the fathers of the land–American Indians. Indians should be proud of this, and not run to the world for its faint praise and paltry compensations. This is shameful, and very un-proud.

I’m a proud Indian. I’ll take what’s mine. I take America!