November 28, 2007
Ahmadinejad Against Peace

Iranian President Ahmadinejad is against peace. He wants war. The mullahs of Tehran earnestly desire destruction.

That much we understand. But, for our sheer entertainment, Ahmad the Mad has a suggestion for the United States. To England's Communist paper, The Guardian, (always a supporter of destructive forces like Mohammadanism), Ahmadinejad comically presumed to assert himself as a monitor of the coming US presidential election:

"If the White House officials allow us to be present as an observer in their presidential election we will see whether people in their country are going to vote for them again or not."

How out of touch with reality can a national "leader" be? First of all, George Bush isn't running for president in 2008. Secondly, White House "officials" are appointed, not elected. This is international ignorance perhaps reflecting the mullahs more than the politicians of Iran. Iranian scientists are among the top in the world. How agonizing that the leaders of the counry are so historically retarded.

Ahmadinejad.jpg2.jpg
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at an OPEC summit in Riyadh earlier
this month. The Iranian leader on Wednesday predicted that Israel would not
survive, as he lashed out at the US-hosted conference seeking to relaunch
the Middle East peace process. Ahmadinejad has courted controversy by
predicting Israel is doomed to disappear, most notoriously calling in 2005 for
the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map
".(AFP/File/Hassan Ammar)

And now the concern is the peace conferences between President Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas met in Annapolis to commit themselves to peace between Israel and the "Palestinians." (Well, since there is no "Palestine," and there are no "Palestinians," first of all, how can you have a "President," and secondly, how can you make peace with a political illusion?) Whenever I hear the terms "Palestinian," I think of ethnic fraud, and anti-Semitism. That's all it is, and all it has ever been. Peace with that? How? The people called "Palestinian" are mostly Jordanians, and Syrians, (and some violent Saudies I believe, along with Iranian mercenaries). Israel has patiently face the most hideous international monstrosity in the history of the world--the Arab world, the Mohammadan world. Again, there is no "Palestine," and there are no "Palestinians." This is a political fantasy invented to war against Israel, daily, moment by moment. It makes the miserable Arabs feel just a little better. It gives reason and purpose to the mindless Mohammadans and their slavish, destructive, and cruel approach to life. Peace, with this? $85 billion for "Palestinian" refugees? Why don't they just go home to their countries of Syria, Jordan, and Saudi? The world has given money for "Palestinians" before. What did Arafat do with it? He built himself a palace. What else did anyone expect?

But Iran gives money for weapons, violence, and death. That's what the Mohammadnas want. That's what Ahmadinejad wants. No peace, no settlement, or no end to blood. That would make all the Mohammadans useless and meaningless. They would get no attention, no media coverage, and no sympathy.

Interestingly, David Horowitz himself has a problem with the Annapolis peace conference, not because he is against peace, but because he fears Israel is going to be compromised and imperiled. He published an article today by P. David Hornik, "Moral Inversion at Annapolis," noting how anti-Zionist Mohammadan leaders were the chief representatives of the "negotiations" with Israel, such as John Ubek, ambassador of the Sudan--the country openly accused by President Bush of "genocide." Horowitz has also issued a private email announcement (calling for support of Israel) which he begins:

As you read this letter, America's war on terror is being compromised and Israel's future is being threatened by a meeting that was convened by an American government on American soil. The ironies are chilling: unrepentant terrorists invited to a "peace conference," where the only democracy in the Middle East had to defend its right to exist.

Horowitz proceeds to question the entire approach of US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and President Bush:

The ambush Bush and Rice prepared for Israel in Annapolis will fail because the Palestinians are committed to terrorism and regard negotiation as violence by other means. Seventy percent of Palestinians support suicide bombing and seventy percent support Hamas. The other thirty support the Islamo-fascists of Fatah and their terrorist armies: the al Aqsa Martyrs Bridge, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Palestine Islamic Jihad.

So, Ahmad the Mad and David Horowitz both object to Annapolis, and both prophesy that the process will fail. Any change will only be the result of Israel's having been compromised and imperiled.

To mad Mohammadans, there is no peace. The call for peace is a manipulation against Israel. To blame Israel for the war the Mohammadans cause is a manipulation of language. It is as if liberalism or Leftist thought is all on the downward slope to barbarism, or, Mohammadanism. On might not have guessed such a thing, in modern times, but, it is quite obvious at this point.

Weak white people trying to grasp power from strong white people--that's all this is. That's all Left against Right, or Liberalism against Conservatism, really is. The war is between the whites. The rest of us are only pawns. Mohammadans are pawns of the Left at this point. Actually, maybe their "bishops."



Posted by David Yeagley at 02:06 PM | Comments (146)
November 27, 2007
My Mother's Comanche Politics

A phone call can be a wonderful thing. I used to love to talk to my mother, long distance, when I was away from home. A phone call this morning to an elderly Comanche woman in southwestern Oklahoma has a great pleasure, too. She helped me remember a few things more clearly about my mother.

I must say, when my mother, Norma Portillo Yeagley, was involved in Comanche politics, I was living in Connecticut. I was in social work (--a resident counsellor in a residential treatment center for emotionall disturbed children). I was not acquainted with all her professional activities, but I did find out about some of her accomplishments--which made me very proud of her. Most of the information I got was demonstrable and documented. But, I must admit, some of it I misunderstood rather dramatically.

My mother was not the first woman to serve on the Comanche Business Committe--the seat of our tribal leadeship. I have had this story completely wrong in my head, and for a few years now have been telling others, publicly, the wrong story. My mother was the first in her family history to run for office, on both her mother's and father's side. (Her mother was on the Comanche rolls, although she was also Chickasaw.)


Norma, far right, next to Louise, Ernestine, George Portillo
(father of all), Edna, Ray, and Virginia. Ca. 1980's, after the
death of their mother, George's wife.

Here is the utterly incorrect story I have told: Gevena Tappto was the first woman to be elected to serve on the CBC. For some reason, she was not able to serve out her term, and she recommended that Norma (my mother) serve out her term, which my mother did. Then my mother ran for the office herself, and lost.

Here is the true story: Geneva Tappto only ran for the office of CBC member, nor was she the first woman to run. She did not win. My mother never filled in for any CBC position. My mother and Geneva happened to run during the same campaign (1984 or 1986?), but neither won. My mother ran in 1984 and 1986, and did not win.

I have not seen the actual records, but, at this point, I am told that the first woman to be elected to the CBC was Julia Mahseet, and that was the 1970's. I will varify this shortly.

And I wondered why no one could quite remember my mother on the Committee! Well, I got the story wrong. That's why. During the last ten years of my mother's life, I was never involved in Comanche politics. I just pow-wowed with my gourd. Thus, I never asked her about her involvment. As I have come to be involved, I can only remember things she told me from the '80's. She is no longer here. She died April 9, 2005.

So, with great candor and apologies, I testify that, without my mother to talk with, and without yet having actually seen any elections records, I have apparently told a wrong story. I was mistaken. (And please, for anyone with a conscience, understand that there is a difference between repeating mistaken information, and lying.)

Now let me thank the Sapcut sisters of the Comanche Nation, particularly Beverly Isaac, for their concern over the matter. Beverly (otherwise known as "Comanchemoon") has been particularly persistent in the pursuit of my corrections, and informing others (even out side the Comanche Nation) of my error. Comanche woman Iola Hayden (Oklahomans for Indian Opportunity) also contradicted my story a few years before this, but never confronted me face to face. So, an indirect thanks to her as well.

So, what other stories have I gotten wrong? I don't know. So far, no one has contradicted my claim that my mother and her sister Edna Marie were the first Comanche women to become registered nurses. That story was printed in the Comanche Nation News (September, 2007, p.13), in my Aunt Edna's obituary. I know my mother graduated from Oklahoma University School of Nursing in 1947. She got some kind of graduate degree or certification in Nursing Home Administration from OU in 1977, and got further qualifications from Tulane University, 1974-75. ("Federal Investigative procedures for Health Facilities" is what her resume says.) If I remember right, she was one of only 300 RNs in the nation to qualify for a special license. She specialized in geriatrics. She was apparently the first woman (and certainly the first Indian woman) to own and operate a home health care service in the state of Oklahoma. (She had served as a federally appointed Oklahoma State health inspecter before that, concentrating on nursing homes.) Her company was called American Professional Home Health Care, Inc.

Well, can I count on faithful Comanche women to correct me on any errors in these stories?

These are the facts in the case of the Portillo-Yeagley involvement in Comanche politics--at least up to this point. Again, my apologies to any offense or embarrassment I may have unintentionally caused anyone. For me, my present involvement with Comanche people is a wonderful opportunity to offer the people what is theirs. Whatever I am, whatever I have, belongs to the people. If they want it, it is theirs. I am honored and happy to give it to them. If they can't see any use for me at the point, in these circumstances, as an office holder, or even an employee, that's okay too. I am not offended. I am happy to have been nominated, and happy to offer myself. It is the only respectable, responsible thing to do, as I see it.

I just hope not too many people fall into evil thoughts about me. It isn't worth it--to them. Tribal people seem prone to malice and gossip (--that tribe would include modern American society, if not mankind in general), so I would like this humble campaign to be a demonstration of good will to all and for all. I know that's my personal attitude. I'm thinking it can be for everyone else involved, too.

Posted by David Yeagley at 12:39 PM | Comments (131)
November 25, 2007
Guns and Nationhood

At the David Horowitz Freedom Center convention in Palm Springs (November 15-18, 2007), Chris Burgard showed his new film, "Border: A Man, His Dog, and the End of America." Created by Little Bonanza Productions, LLC, the film is being screened all over the country, and it is already available on DVD. It is a stunning film, every whit as ghastly as the jihadist films that have been shown at the Horowitz conventions recently. Indeed, Mexicans and Mohammedans are the primary concerns of American nationhood, along with China, Russia, and the globalists in Washington, DC.

Chris Burgard appear at the conference in a big, ten-gallon Texan cowboy hat, jeans and boots. I introduced myself to him, looking very much like a wandering Apache. He seemed approachable enough. I said I was Comanche, from Oklahoma. He asked what I did. I said, "I write, and I compose classical music..." Then he responded, "Oh, really? I used to do ballet." It was an odd thing to hear, coming from him. He looked like a Texas bull rider. Then again, I looked like the half-breed wind rider I am, and the term "classical music" must have impressed him with the same sense of surprise I felt when he said he use to do "ballet." Well, so much for introductions. I was telling the truth, of course. Somehow, I don't think he was! I could be wrong.

The point is guns, however. Border is about the coming war, in which American citizens will have to arm and defend themsevles, not only against Mexicans, but against the American government and law enforcement. Movie trailer No.1 quotes a border patrol officer saying, "[people] are afraid to the point that they are going to start shooting, pretty soon." Trailer No.2 quotes a woman who says "It's a guerilla war," and another who says the ranchers of the borders "have to take measures." The number of people who have been killed, butchered, starved, kidnapped, and otherwise destroyed is phenomenal. The "culture of violence" is coming into the country, and one man said 10,000 people have been killed by illegal aliens since 9-11.

Guns are going to become a necessity. Indeed, they already are. Freedom costs. Pulling the trigger is the price to be paid. It is abundantly clear at this point--even in our own country, on our own borders. Guns are the key to maintaining nationhood. Indeed, guns were the key to creating a nation of freedom to begin with.

So what does our anti-American government do? It immediately tries to take guns away from the people! There's a frightening story out of New Orleans, during the Katrina mess, which hasn't been told yet. It's coming out now. In a new book, The Great New Orleans Gun Grab: Descent into Anarchy (2007), by Gordon Hutchinson and Todd Masson, we are told of incredible abuses by government and law enforcement. There was mass confiscation of guns from American citizens in New Orleans--especially from those who had stayed in unflooded areas to protect their own homes and property. The 2nd Amendment was made null and void. America was suddenly not America--not in New Orleans. Ray Nagin ordered it, on the basis that the people had not evacuated, and therefore were criminal. It was made illegal to protect your own property!


The Great New Orleans Gun Grab (2007)

My very first article for FrontPageMagazine was called "Warriors and Weapons." I said that he who takes my weapons from me is my enemy. Always. No question about it.


Nathaniel Hawthorne, 1804-1864

The American governemnt is very truly beginning to appear like an enemy of the people. Certainly, the Constitution is being attacked daily--by members of Congress, and even the White House itself is not innocent. This social development may be inevitable, but it must be therefore resisted with profound resolve. Nathaniel Hawthorne predicted it would come to blows in "The Grey Champion" (1837). The same year, in his Farewell Address of March 4, Andrew Jackon said, "Eternal vigilence by the people is the price of liberty," and "It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." Daniel Webster said, "God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." (1834) And Thomas Jefferson wrote (to William S. Smith) in 1787:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

The English political philosopher John Lock wrote in 1690:

Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.


Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson

This is modernity. This is the modern world. This is where we are. We are not under a monarchy, or an oligarchy. America was created on the idea that the government was created by the people, to represent the people, not to be a agency to rule over the people with coercion and oppression. That idea, of course, was based on the other idea that the people were all to be Christian, moral, and otherwise qualified to rule over themselves. When they aren't, tyranny awaits in the wings.

The war has begun in Texas. Let's hear a rousing cheer for the first American patriots of the 21st century. Let's stand behind them, with our own guns loaded, knowing we are next in the line of battle.

Posted by David Yeagley at 01:12 PM | Comments (102)
November 23, 2007
Being spoken of--a traditional pastime

from Poem the 7th, Canto the vii, of Jahan dideh, by David Yeagley, (1984)

Affairs of state are daily bread
on any lowly, simple street.
August names and places sore exotic
spice the dull conversations in the slums--
For many can read as well as drink their bitter coffee;
Rancid grease, with flies and butter melted
alter not the words of language,
nor the atmosphere of speech,
nor the graphic effluvia of the Press,
nor the senseless mummery of the News
and their stale redundancies.

All can honor their own tongues
with the names of kings,
for there is no price on pronunciations.
The vagrant readily advises lords, in the empty air;
Anyone can triumph in a sentence
over any Monarch ...

Being spoken of--
This is the pirce of Princedom,
as the children spill the milk,
as the cat awaits an opened door,

Being spoken of--
by all
by any,
from all points of view
as the builders hoist the bricks,
as the market bustles with advantage,
as the athletes compete in pain,

Being spoken of--,
the king cleans his teeth.
Being spoken of,
God waters the wildflowers.

I learned much from the life story of Farah Diba Pahlavi, former Empress of Iran, wife of the deposed and departed Shah. It was in the early '80's, and I was in the rues and throes of social work, hand-to-hand combat with emotionally disturbed youth, in a residential facility in New Haven, Connecticut. (It was a Catholic group home complex.) I was a resident counsellor, and lived with the kids, day and night. The life of the Shahbanou ("queen") seemed to hold the answer to many distorted and confused feelings. I'll never forget those days, when I learned how fragile reality was, and how resilient the human spirit could be.


Farah Pahlavi and David Yeagley, 2006

I needed some kind of strength, some kind of measure of the madness in which I found myself. The acute, galactic irony in the life of Farah Pahlavi seemed to trump all other ironies. For me, it was a kind of psychological salvation. (In any case, it seemed a great necessity.) I had written a lot of poetry before the epic Jahan-dideh ("wise one," or, "one who has seen the world"). Yes, most of it was about female persons. The short stories were agonal, but the poetry was always salvific. It was always about how some girl or woman was able to lift me to a higher plane of consciousness, or spirituality. Yes, it was nothing more than old-fashioned romanticism, in which the female is idolized in one way or another. Jahan-dideh was really the same, only on the grandest scale possible.

From my egotistical point of view, it was as if the Empress was simply a damsel in distress, and I had to rescue her. But, psychologically, I'm sure it was the other way around, and not so noble at all. It was I who was trying to rescue myself, using her life.

Ah, well, what I learned about the public life, hers falling apart while mine was buried so far in madness and insignificance, was that the great currents of thought and opinion are simply controlled by greater powers, greater influences. And that whatever happens on the global scene is no different than what happens in the most humble circumstances. The laws of consciousness are the same. Human experience is wonderfully uniform and profoundly simple.


Farah Diba Pahlavi

As I entered "public" life, in the political scene, I found all these lessons recurring. And yet, I always feel surprised and even angered! I'm plagued by a perpetual sense of naivete and innocence, when I've already been through the same thing a thousand times! When the lessons come again, I act as though it is the first time! It is as if I never learn. I never remember.

Mabye this is why I have the sympathy for the Jews that I have. I read the Bible. I find myself in them, in their experience:

Our fathers understood not thy wonders in Egypt. (Ps. 106:7)

It didn't matter how many times the children of Israel met impossible circumstances, and were miraculously delivered, each time they faced a new obstacle, it was as if they didn't know God, had no idea of His power, nor had any faith that He cared for them at all.

That would be me, for the most part. I accepted public life in politics, and now I'm even running for vice-chairman of the Comanche Nation. I feel surprised and hurt that anyone should oppose me, or say anything false about me. I act offended that anyone should be angry with me, or lie about me. I act like I've been wronged.

You'd think I never read the Bible.

Who is this that cometh?
of the rumbling of the earth,
of the grumbling
of the tumbling
of the pangs which all engirth.

Who is this that cometh?
on the crest of mighty waves,
in the tumult of a moment
resurrecting many graves.

Jahan-dideh, indeed. Would that it could be me. Would that I could see, and remember, and understand. Until that day, I shall have to wait for wisdom to take root. In the meantime, I will apparently continue to be surprised, offended, hurt, angered, and otherwise motivated to clean the bathroom. I might even criticize the president. When I get really feisty, I'll pray to God. (Yeah, that's about the size of spiritual life for me. I pray when I'm desperate. Even when I give thanks for falling leaves, it is from fear of not seeing them, from fear of not being at all.)

The Lord pitieth them that fear him. For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust. Ps.103:13,14.

Lucky me.

Posted by David Yeagley at 10:27 AM | Comments (153)
November 22, 2007
Thanks for Thanksgiving

The Spanish came for gold, for labor, and to convert Indians. The French came to explore, and to trade. The Dutch came to invest. The English came to stay. These motivations and attitudes revealed themselves in the future history of each group here in Columbia. (That's right, America used to be called Columbia, after Columbus, not America, after Amerigo Vespucci. Vespucci came to South America, a continent Columbus believed he'd already discovered.)

So, what about the English? At Thanksgiving, we think of the Pilgrims and Plymouth Rock. We think of 1620, up there in a place we still call by an Indian name, Massachusetts. But that wasn't where the English began. They started in an area further south, in another place we still call by an Indian name, Chesapeake (the bay ara). That was in 1607. Before that, the English had tried Roanoke (another Indian word, of course), even further south in what came to be called North Carolina. That would be 1587.

So why is there no grand, national celebration of these earlier settlements? Why is there no national holiday commemorating the work of Sir Walter Raleigh (Roanoke) or that of Captain Chistopher Newport and John Smith (Jamestown, Virgiinia)?


Christopher Newport, the "privateer." Sir Walter Raleigh, the businessman.
They both failed for lack of true purpose, for lack of faith.

The answer is very simple: these setllements were not succesful. They were economic-based, and the bottomed out. Raleigh came under The Virginia Company, a consortium of London stockholders investing in dreams of material wealth. Newport was basically a professional pirate, a nationalist thief on the high seas. Employed again by London "privateer" merchant companies. Raleigh ended up in the London Tower for blasphemy and treason. Newport abandoned his "colonists" in Jamestown, and returned to London to report fantasies of wealth and prosperity to the investers.

The colony of Jamestown was particularly unsuccessful and actually quite miserable. in 1610, the company sent Lord De La Warr (Thomas West) to try an make a military establishement out of it. The people were exceedingly sickly, many had fled to the Powhatan tribes for survival! (Yes, Indians "saved" many a lost and desperate European colonist--a blatant fact so often ignored by proud Americans. It says worlds about the Indian disposition, as well as that of the early European.) De La Warr, of course, was later honored by the name of a state: Delaware.

The depression, the irresolution, the utter failure of self-reliance and self-sufficiency which characterized both the Chesapeake and Roanoke settlements was, in my opinion, due to the fundamental lack of religion. Theses were mere economic ventures, and lacked any vision or understanding of the hard, cold realities of "wilderness" living. Modern historians have offered some 'collective' psychological explanations of the lethal lethargy found in the early settlements--the fear, the homesickness, the unhappiness, the stark want and hunger. The people lost all initiative. They languished in inactivity and lack of will to undertake the necessary responsibilities of survival.

The English Pilgrims, on the other hand, were a people of vision. Theirs was not an economic undertaking. There's was not a business enterprise. The only purpose they had was to worship God according to the dictates of their 'collective' conscience. They wanted religious freedom. That's why they were here. They didn't come to convert natives. They didn't come to find gold. They didn't come to prosper for some London investors. They came to be free from religious persecution, from state oppression, and from perverted Christianity.

The Pilgrims were unwanted in Europe. They represented a pathetic, pesky, anti-social group of withdrawalists, who meant nothing to anyone but themselves. Their dogged independence on religious matters made them objects of opprobrium if not anathema. They were more like escapees, or fugitives, than paid servants of some secular enterprise.


Alone, afraid, but confident that God would privide them freedom to serve Him
in the way they knew to be right. These were the first real "Americans" in the
political sense, historically.

Indeed, they were not secular, at all. They were utterly religious. This, I believe, was the cause of their success. Yes, they met all the perils of the other groups. They faced the same indescribable hardships. And yes, they were lent a saving hand by local Indians as well. But, they endured because of their religion, not because of financial or materialistic hopes. Their hope was solely in God. That's what they were about. No one could take that from them, and no hardship could dim their faith. (Indeed, faith thrives on hardship!)

These Pilgrims, these Puritans, these were the people who endured, who had vision, and who finally formed the government of what became the United States of America. America is the hertiage of Pilgrims--people who wanted religious freedom. Christian freedom. Bible-based freedom. They were not Mohammadans, Voodooists, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, or animists. They were Bible-believing Christians. The heritage they left for their descendents was the heritage of faith, desperately hard work, endurance, hope, and good will.

That's what made America what it is. Not economic enterprise. Not greed for gain. Yes, that developed later--to devastating degrees in many ways which we still live with today. But, originally, the force that forged the spirit of America was self-discipline, self-reliance, responsibility, and strength of soul. It wasn't about money. Not for the Pilgrims.

This Thanksgiving Day, November 22, 2007, let's remember that. The spirit that developed the American ideal was not avarice, but humility and faith. The animus of of American society was the collective worship of the true God, the God of Abraham. The public gatherings were to honor Christ, not King James or King George.
I think history is pretty clear on this. America, that is, the colonies that lasted, and developed into the United States, is a nation of faith.


How could the white man ever forget who he is, or what
he lived for? Indians have never forgotten who we are,
or what we live for.

I'd say the recolonizaation of America by Mohammadans evinces a complete loss of that faith. The willing submission to a mass of avowed murderers, the willing invitation to another mass of illegal and foreign workers, and the willing self-destruction of a power-crazed Congress, all demonstrated that the faith of our fathers is long lost. To our peril, we forget the point of America: Judeo-Christian life. That is the Purtian point.

Not even Indians can help America remember. There seems to be no remedy. Even Indians have forgotten our original generosity and care for these lost Europeans. They're lost again! Indians need to come to their rescue, again. We need to remind them why they are here. That is our purpose at this time, as I see it.

Posted by David Yeagley at 09:53 AM | Comments (157)
November 21, 2007
Al Jazeera Exploits American Indian Poverty

In their zeal to condemn America, Al Jazeera television reported on the poverty of the Pine Ridge Indian reservation of South Dakota. On a YouTube clip entitled "Poverty USA-Native Americans," the Arab telecast exploits American Indian poverty. Anything that causes America to appear evil or wrong is highly valued in the eyes of America's enemies, of course. And what better example of American evil than the poverty of the Sioux? (And remember, Pine Ridge is the most famous sink hole in the world. Every Third World country on the planet has to spend their two cents worth of feigned, professional compassion on Pine Ridge. Even Oprah's in the act. Makes them all feel to elevated and holy. Or, at least better.)

But let's analyze this Al Jazeer approach. Notice the British accents on the prim and proper reporters. Nothing makes a darkie feel more civilized than that Londonese air. Put an English accent in the mouth of the heathen and he thinks he's on top of the world. Well, cheers then for the jolly Brits. A merry lot of saviors. Professor Higgins, every one. Unfortunately, the "gutter snipe" lurks beneath the flowering lady. Sometimes it's rather obvious, as in the case of this Al Jazeer report. They simply want to use American Indian poverty to make themselves appear grand and accomplished, both culturally and politically. That only indicates the perpetuity of their low cast. Their miserable Arab countries don't have any schools of their own. The Mohammadans have to go to a British university to feel educated. Well, this is the visual impression. The Indonesian female reporter ill bears the English accent. The male reporter seems ambiguous in origins, though clearly more natural with the accent. At this point, England has brought in so many foreign cultureal "trophies" that its pride in ownership is a bit stretched. The great white hunter is himself becoming a trophy of the Third World.

Al Jazeera of course is pawned off as Arab television, broadcast from Qatar. Why, the English broadcast must be global English, and not some watered down American English. After all, the English were first in the Arab world. Now, we all know Arabs are the most refined people in the world, with no poverty, and a wondrous religion of peace and kindness. No domestic violence there. No want. And no empty gas tanks. Mohammadanism (no longer to be called "Islam") is a luscious salvation for many millions. Particularly pleasant for women, who feel its loving touch daily.


Mohammadan woman prepared for execution by stoning, reportedly in Iran, where
it has been estimated that 100 women are stoned per year.

And, too, it is ironic that it is in fact the Socialist, Communist English that created Al Jazeera. It's really a Leftist British enterprise. Many Europeans love to call attention to Indian poverty in America as a way of denouncing America. And it makes them feel like they're so much better than America. They are not racist. They are not oppressive. Why, all that pride and glory of American accomplishments is just a lot of hot air. Why, America is bad. America is evil. Just look at what happened to Indians! (or, "native Americans," as the foreigners mistakenly call us).

This Al Jazeera report is puerile, on the level of a junior high social studies paper. The writers clearly have no understanding of American Indian life or values, but rather have their own agenda of condemning the United States. They simply use Indians for this purpose. They care nothing, absolutely nothing, for Indian people. It's just something to write about. Quote a few Indians, put their remarks in the context of anti-Americanism, and you've created a powerful news story, right? Wrong. You've created another boring, useless indulgence of Communist class struggle.

"It's not a tragedy to me," said the Indian pushiing his car down the road. "It's everyday life for a Lakota." The Indian world was expressed in those words. He didn't ask for pity. He wasn't ashamed. But the socialist, anti-American white person, the liberal do-gooder (who does nothing good but talk) can't see the truth even when it kicks him in the teeth. Those Indians didn't care what British-speaking Al Jazeera reporters think, or what anyone else thinks. Not much.

These incredibly and totally ignorant white people don't understand what it means to be proud, to be content, to be happy with who and what you are. Indians have that treasure. Communists agitators try to take it away from us. They try to make us damn America, as if that is our duty and our cause. But, most Indians don't feel that way at all. Only the Communist-trained Indians do that Commie-speak thing.

The reporter John Cookson tried to contrast the grandeur of the mighty Sioux of the past with the appalling poverty of today. That was the whole drama of his report, the oldest trick in the book. All this showed was Cookson's superimposed socialist construct, as he tried to market his "compassion" in the form of implied anti-Americanism.

There's an important lesson here. I hope Indians see it. Indians feel no shame in poverty or living close to the earth. The modern standard of living is not particularly prized by the Indian. He for the most part isn't even interested in economic "improvement." He might not reject it, if it is handed to him, but, he certainly isn't motivated to work for it. Why should he be? Many, many Indians are simply not attracted to American culture, and have no desire to be part of it, much less to excel in it.


Step right up, ladies and gentlemen! See the only junk car left in the world!
Only on Pine Ridge. No where else. The genuine article. Only on Pine Ridge.
There is nothing like this anyhwhere. Never before. Never again.
Al Jezeera

Personally, I believe there is deep greatness in this. It shows just how deeply independent the spirit of the Indian really is. He doesn't have to have what others think they have to have--and what they think the Indian has to have. The Indian is different. In a way, the very poverty of the Sioux stands as a cosmic testimony to their very greatness. They are still great. They still have deep grandeur within them.

I have wondered if "The Fighting Sioux," that inexorable tribute paid them by the University of North Dakota, doesn't somehow lock them in indifference. They don't have to change or improve. They are great, always, just as they are. But, can it be? Is this true, in fact? It is as if the Sioux are on the farthest edge of social reality. They are the closest to the past. They are the link between the present and the former days of glory. They are the Ghost Dancers. They dance for us all. The power is in them. Everyone knows it. Everyone feels it.

Ah, but, a life span of fifty years can't be enough. The Sioux indeed must improve. They must take command of their people. If the white protesters and the white theorists will stop interfering, I think improvement will develop sooner. To encourage resentment toward America only retards spiritual progress, and shows a complete lack of understanding of the Indian spirit. The "you owe me" mantra taught by Marxist materialists is an arrogant asserion that cripples the psychological powers of the people. The Al Jazeera report is only a classic example of this obfuscatory intrusion.

Al Jazeera is part of Allied Media Corporation, with offices on Cherokee Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia. How's that for irony. It is a globalist effort, of course, as all modern business tends to be. It's just too quaint that American Indians are used by the highest powers in the world, right down to the name of the street where the corporate offices are.

Posted by David Yeagley at 09:00 AM | Comments (282)
November 19, 2007
A New Indian Country

ANNOUNCEMENT: Article by Ahron Katz in the Jewish Forum: "The Call of God." This is one of the best articles on the subject of religious pacificism and religious responsibility of self-defense.

I want to see change in Indian country. I'm not talking about new cars, dental work, or even Nikes. I'm talking about attitude. I'm talking about our view of ourselves in American history, and especially in our modern day.

But old AIM (Angry Indian Men) still holds the dominant and destructive image over many Indians today. Casting blame on America's past is still the easiest self-starting motivation for many Indians. They learned to protest in college, and this is still an important part of their lives. But it is a deceptive self-start. It sets forth before our young people that the media is the only goal in life. To hold a protest, to be seen, to be heard, to be in the papers, to be in TV--this is all there is to live for. This is the meaning of being Indian. What is the cost? Psychological disconnect. Negativity, a crippling outlook on life, and a penchant for strife and corruption.

AIM set the example. AIMsters were immoral, ganster like people. Ask anyone who was alive then, and knew the people who involved. A few have learned better, but the damage was done, and the dye was cast. No, not everyone who protests is a bad person, at all. But bad people set the example. Why follow them? What is there to be learned from them?


American Indians and their supporters march at the state Capitol on Friday to
bring attention to their role in Oklahoma 100 years ago
. MICHAEL McNUTT /
The Oklahoman / AP Photo

Oklahoma is celebrating its hundredth year since statehood, 1907-2007. Oklahomans are proud of their state, and are celebrating their accomplishments. So, what do some Oklahoma Indians do?

About 500 Indians mark centennial with protest march at state Capitol

"We want to remember ... where we came from" Native Americans demonstrate: Some don't want revelry

Protest gives Indian view of history

And so forth. Yes, a few Comanches were involved, much to my embarrassment. I quickly testify to all, they do not represent the Comanche tribe, nor the sentiments of most Comanches. Most Comanches have a lot better manners.

And that's really the point, isn't it? To defecate on someone else's parade is not my idea of nobility, of grandeur, or of dignity. It's that Communist-funded "in your face" style of communication started in the '60's, when a few lost souls among the Indians were grabbed up by the white racial agitators and paid to protest. It's still going on. The same spirit, the same self-denigration of those involved, and the same shame brought upon the larger sector of the Indian world. We all have to live with this.

As a candidate for Vice-Chairman of the Comanche Nation, I will certainly work to discourage such useless, indeed harmful activities. I do not want young people to see this, nor to think that it is appropriate, much less important.

Yes, everyone is free to express his opinion. Certianly. People the Whitefeathers, who carried a sign complaining that true history wasn't taught in the schools, are also free to homeschool their own children, and to write Indian history books for K-12 public schools, and also to lobby for their acceptance by the NEA. But, no, it's easier to organize a protest and make a scene, insulting someone else's joy and self-respect. That's really brave. Indians can be so proud of the protesters. What a grand purpose--to poo-poo on someone else's celebration day.

The time, the place, the propriety--this is all lacking in the Communist style protest. No, we never look for decent people among this kind of protest, in spite of the fact that there are some, and in fact the Whitefeathers are no doubt among them. However, to imitate the ways of the anti-American Commies, the Leftists, the socialists, the Marxists, the "progressives," the pink-o's, proclaiming their weakness and helplessness, this is hardly where the American Indian belongs! A shame that any should be seen in such a role. Indians want to complain about history? They should. They should complain that no one taught them whose path they are following. I sure they don't even care, these few protesters. They think being anti-American, and incredibly rude about it, is what it means to be Indian. How deeply wrong they are. How uneducated they really are.

I look forward to the day when Indians don't have to care what white people think. I envision a time when Indians have our own textbooks, our own schools, run by Indians, with Indian teachers. Anything less certainly fall short of self-sufficiency, and probably sovereignty. Anything other is self-confessed weakness. Complaining about that is self-proclaimed failure.

Okay, so my ideas are a little futuristic. But, I say, we at least have to be pointed in the right direction. Protesting is actually looking backwards, and preventing anyone from moving forward. As Vice-chairman of the Comanche Nation, I would advocate the idea that protesting would be allowed only if equal time was spent actually bringing about the goal. Indeed, I would advocate productivity rather than protest.

Young people need to have their natural feelings of aspiration and ambition to be affirmed and encouraged. The worse thing to do to a young person is to orient him in negativity. Teaching him the truth about history may sensitize him to deep tragedy, but teaching him to be angry about it ruins his outlook on life completely. It destroys him. I think more of our youth than to enslave them in a life of resentment.


Rodney Factor of Seminole holds his
eagle staff during the Oklahoma Indians
Survival Walk and Remembrance Ceremony
near the state Capitol on Friday.

BY JACONNA AGUIRRE, THE OKLAHOMAN

Notice, in the above picture, "The Guardian" stands atop of the Oklahoma Capitol dome. The great Indian statue was created by former state senator Enoch Kelley Haney, a Muskogee/Creek Indian. How perfectly ironic. What a classic disconnect among Indians.

Posted by David Yeagley at 05:26 PM | Comments (191)
November 18, 2007
Curses on AIM

I am convinced. The American Indian Movement (AIM) has severely crippled American Indians. Future paths of positive accomplishment and participation in society have all been nearly permanently barred, condemned, or otherwise obfuscated by the foul breath of protest and lethal mantra of "I've been wronged." A haunting isolationism, a daunting discontent, and an impossible context of tragedy, have all been made into a public image that disallows American Indians from postive regard for the country in which we live, and worse, made it impossible for the dominant, white society to think of Indians as anything other than sad relics of a tragic past. Casualties of history, we are, with little if any place in the present realities of American life, and an inexorable social misanthropy created by professional protesters. This was the fine work of the Left, of the racial agitators, and the anti-American Communist designers of the '60's. Indians learned the new white tune well. Indeed, many were already humming in the same key. The great white liberators invested in the Indians education toward protest, and a grand, shrieking, stinking symphony of resentment has become the permanent proclamation of Indian sentiment, and the iron door which slams shut on the natural aspirations of the human heart.

I was never so aware of this deplorable conditions, and the curse of AIM, until this Restoration Weekend, sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center. It was a gathering of great names in political conservatism, such as Michael Barone, Rush Limbaugh, Fred Barnes, Steve Emerson, Robert Spencer, Mark Levin, and many others. Conservatives don't want to talk about Indians. Indians mean trouble, protest, and unaswerable guit. It is the most crippling, stifling thing I've ever seen. My eyes have truly been opened. I see what AIM has done to the American Indian image, the profound prejudice it has created, and the near impossibility of doing anything about it.
The Indian thing is a negative thing. It is something conservative people shun. They would rather stay away from the topic. Why? Futility, negativity, regression, and generally unpleasant feelings. When they think of Indians, they think of bad feelings. They think of hopeless discontent, useless condemnation, and waste.

Of course, no one articulated these thought to me. No one spoke any such words. No one communicated such sentiment verbally. It is the formal absence of the Indian subject, the Indian perspective, the Indian presence, that tells me these things are so. There is a giant, silent resistance to the matter. There is no place for the Indian in the discussion of America--domestic or foreign dimentions. The Indian is unwanted. The Indian means a weakening of conservative resolve. The Indian means a loose, weak link. The Indian is a liability, a risk, and an unnecessary one. The Indian has nothing to contribute to the great cause of preserving America, of guiding America, of uplifting America. The Indian doesn't belong in the discussion. the Indian doesn't belong in America.

This is the effect of AIM. This is the image AIM created. American Indians live with this, like it or not, agree with it or not.

I did manage to have several private conversations with different luminaries are the convention. I feel as though I made a good contact or two. Of course, I've felt that before, in the past, but, if one persists, perhaps there is hope somewhere along the way. BadEagle.com continues to promote the idea of the Indian as a positive force in America society, and a esential element in the shaping of the national identity.

It is 7:00 in the morning, here in Palm Beach, Florida. I must prepare to depart. I shall write more on these things later. These were my thoughts this morning. I realize AIM has meant a lot to a number of Indians. It seemed like a hope, like a voice, but, I can't say it was a positive one, or even a helpful one while it was sounding. It has left a profoundly negative impression on American society. To see the Indian as a positive influence is the challenge now. Never was it more needed.

Posted by David Yeagley at 06:09 AM | Comments (38)
November 14, 2007
As the Moon Turns: Comanche Trends

ANNOUNCEMENT: BadEagle.com forums will be upgraded this evening, beginning approx. 10:00 pm, EST. There may be a temporary shut down.

The first public "debate" by the Comanche vic-chairman candidates was cancelled. It was scheduled for tonight, in Norman, Oklahoma. Hopefully, there will be another scheduled before December 1, the election. Only two of the candidates were committed to appear, myself and Sandra Gallegos. Probably, the next public debate will be in Lawton. Surely, there is enough interest in this election to merit public discussion among the candidates. However, the fact is, the Chairman, Wallace Coffey, called more than one General Council meeting for nominations. Not enough people showed up for a quarum the first time. The second time (November 3), however, more than enough people came.

There are a great number of Comanches who do not live in the Lawton area, nor where there is a voting office set up, as in Oklahoma City, for example. The importance of absentee ballots cannot be over emphasized. However, in this short span between November 3 and December 1, the Election Board of the Comanche Nation must not only send out ballot requests to all distant members, but the members must respond and request an absentee ballot; then the Board must send the ballots, and the members must mark them and send them back--all within an impossibly short time frame. Absentee ballots usually decide the important elections. In this case, there will be many that simply were not sent the requests in time.

We're all doing our own campaigning, too. There is little publicity offered. Dan Bigbee's Campcrier.net presented taped interviews of all four candidates. The Tahchawwickah family web site, MARUAWE!-WELCOME, is sharing publicity with all the candidates, as BadEagle.com has been doing. Right now, they have posted for me. "Vote David Yeagley For Vice-Chairman!" Keep in mind, Nick's younger sister Sonya Tahchawwickah was nominated before I was! She has a page on the family site. Here is her campaign page. I don't have any pages for Sandra Gallegos or Ron Red Elk, or I would post them. I'm sure the Tahchawwickah site would also. I am still seeking more information on Gallegos and Red Elk, and photographs.


Vote Sonya Tahchawwickah for Vice-Chairman of the Comanche Nation!

This is notable, this sharing of publicity space on the web site of opponents. It is historical, really. It has been my purpose from the beginning. Our internet space is for our people, not just ourselves. And elections are for all of us, not just for our families and friends. Nick Tahchawwickah proved that when he nominated me, just after his own sister was nominated.

Now, I want to clear something up that may be bothering some Comanche members. It is a family matter, but recent history, and it has offended a few. (Since most Indians are very quick to be offended, and very slow to forgive and forget, I must deal with this now.) I have always said my mother was the first Comanche woman to serve on the Comanche Business Committee. I must say, I may have presented inaccurate information on that. I have posted the factual information I have on the BadEagle forums. I know she ran for office in 1984 and in 1986. I have not yet found documents about her actually serving a term. The story she told me, as I remember it, is that Geneva Tappto was the first woman elected to office. (What office, I don't know, actually. I assumed it was the CBC). She was not able to serve out her term, and she recommended my mother to replace her. The Committee approved, and my mother served. My mother obviously ran, as well. But I understand that she did not win in a three-way final run-off. I clearly may have jumbled this story, and the information. I will shortly execute a thorough search into the matter. Many Comanche woman are viciously intolerant of error in these matters, and are not known for gracious responses. Already, there has been offense, and for that, I must acknowledge any error I may have presented. As soon as I am able, I will pursue the matter, and clear it up once and for all. For now, I wanted everyone to know I am responding to the issue. My mother's involvement in Comanche politics was in the 1980's. I was in New Haven, Connecticut at the time. I knew very little about it. Fifteen to twenty years later, when she told me the story, there may have developed a margine of error.

Aside from such unfriendly regard, I happily present my ideas for the future of the Comanche nation. In the matter of Sandra Gallegos, whom I expect to win the election, I will advise. Sandra is a trench fighter, very informed, and very willing to correct wrongs when she comes across them. This is a great asset, and also a great liability, on this wise: error abounds. To pursue its remedy, on all fronts, at all times, can cause more trouble than it solve. I would say that Sandra should not campaign to strongly on correcting wrongs, and fighting corruption. As far as I can tell, that is her strong suit. Campaigning on "reform" attracts many voters, but mostly the discontent and disgruntled. I would humbly point out, the last reformer on the committee was overwhelmingly (3 to 1) out of office. That would be Darrel Bread, last Spring. He was a kindly elderly man, and soft-spoken. Sandra is neither elderlyl, nor soft-spoken. I think Sandra should consider that Spring vote. Reform is needed and necessary, but it is like medicine. Too much can kill the patient.

I think being a committee member is about cooperation at this point. Untill we have a new and appropriate constitution, I do not expect to see major or significant reform. Many Comanche people believe our present constitution is just fine, only we need honest, upright people to uphold it. Well, there goes half my campaign! I'm all about a new constitution. I want a government that can accommodate our historical band structure, and also the modern pace of the business world. We definitely need an executive officer, but the senate (--I envision about 30 to 50 people), but address issues on a regular basis. Yes, the executive director, the "president" if you will, must be able to make decision on the spot. It is not always possible to call a General Council meeting of the Comanche people. This is an archaic system, and does not, in fact, reflect our old ways. That is an illusion. The Comanche people never all came to gether to decide anything. That was only in regard to our small hunting bands, our family clans, etc. Not several hundred people, who live miles and miles away. Today, we need a senate, and executive director, and of course, a judiciary.

It would be wonderful if we could have our own court. Our own judges. And our own lawyers. This is a vision, indeed, but one we should work for. Our sovereignty must be understood and carefully guarded. Right now, our small per capita payment (from casino income) is taxed by the federal government. I say this is a breach of our Comanche national sovereignty. This is an example of how changing times and changing money sources can change our status as a nation. Eventually, I expect that the whole concept of our sovereignty will be reconsidered, and even the treaties will be renegotiated, or at least redefined.

I have confidence in our people, but we are inhibited, I believe, but a constitution that does not fit. I cannot say, at this time, that I have confidence in our Constitution Revision Committee. However, they have gone about their work in a very reasonable way, ideologically speaking. The practical outcome is, however, negligable. They have an allocation of annual funding, for three years now, and have not produced a document for the nation. There was no time limit given to them, as I understand the project. There should have been.

Posted by David Yeagley at 08:28 PM | Comments (155)
November 13, 2007
The Comanche Election Debates

ANNOUNCEMENT: BadEagle.com is undergoing renovations. The site may temporarily been down from time to time. The projected date for the new site is December 12. Please be patient if you encounter a temporary shutdown. It probably won't be long. Thank you.

Hear the candidates for Vice-Chairman of the Comanche Nation

The campaign for vice-chairman of the Comanche Nation is underway. The first public "debates" will be held at the Comanche Nation Outreach Center, in Norman, Oklahoma, Wednesday night, November 14, from 6 to 7:30 pm. (The location is difficult to find. It is listed as 1161 Sonoma Park, Suite 400, at the southeast corner of 12th and Robinson.) Hopefully, there will be an audience. There is a small group of Comanche people in the Norman area, generally associated with OU in one way or another. The center has never provided serious communication for the large number of Comanches in the Oklahoma City area. Of course, most Comanches live in southwestern Oklahoma, and no doubt there will be a public "debate" in that area before the election, December 1.

"Debate" really isn't the right word. These meetings are an opportunity for the candidates to present their ideas. The candidates are basically advocating their solutions to present issues, and soliciting support for their ideas. That support, of course, is in the form of votes by the Comanche people. I have attended these kind of meetings before, and there are prepared questions offered by a host (which, at the Norman center, is usually Iola Hayden). There is little or no time at all for the people to ask questions. But, with the popular YouTube internet versions of American national political debates these days, perhaps the host will incorporate the idea of letting the people have a voice.

The whole ill-suited location of the Norman center, I must say, is typical of the logistical problems that often face an Indian tribe in Oklahoma, where the members are not confined to "reservations." Communication becomes a critical issue. Word of mouth and telephone are the most reliable form, because schedules and events often change with the wind. Meetings can be called or cancelled at a moment's notice. This leads many Indians to neglect any personal involvement, for there is no confidence.


Dr. David A. Yeagley, candidate for Vice-Chairman
of the Comanche Nation.

Indian country, especially Oklahoma, is fraught with giant issues of trust and confidence, many of which are logistical in nature. However, there is something even deeper that makes for seemingly impossible logistics and sociological progress: family factions. Indians exist in families, clans, and what political science refers to as "factions." People generally vote according to family, extended family, and close family friends. That's the way it is. This spells "corruption" to most people--unless it is their particular family that is in power.

An elder, Vincent Pocawatchi once told me, "The people have never seen good government. They don't know what it is." The question is, Why? One can either say it is because of bad people, or bad organization. As is stands, we have suffered under the coerced 1934 BIA tribal "Constitution," and simply abandoned the idea that government is anything but bad people. We have never taken the approach that the government could and should change in form. Only in the last decade have Indian tribes been considering new constitutions--written by themselves. The Comanche Nation itself has undertaken just such a project. Yes, it could be that "bad people" will obfuscate progess along that line, but, at least the effort to offer a new form of government has been made--and made by the leadership of the tribe itself.

That is my campaign theme: new government. I want to see a new form of government. I believe that the historical sociological structure of the Comanche people should be the basis of our government. I believe a constitution can be written that will accommodate our 'genetic coding' in this regard. Elections are foreign to our original ways. In fact, uniting the innumerable hunting bands, or even the larger "tribes" within the Comanche people, is also foreign to us. We never had a chief before Quannah Parker--and he was forced on us by the federal government. We don't have a "leader" as such, not historically, and not practically. It doesn't work. We're small enough in number that you would think it could work, but it doesn't. All it does is set one family against another, and the feuding is endless and unfruitful.

I campaign for a senate. A large body of representatives from each of the families. That's the beginning. A senate would be composed of individuals appointed by their various families and clans. Of course, this would be based on an accurate and reliable knowledge of our genealogies. I've recommended this for a number of years now. I'm happy to see that there is more and more interest in this perspective.

There must come a day when there are no elections. These are destructive to our spirit, and alien to our ways. Now, there are those who are hysterical over the simple fact that I myself was nominated as a candidate! The gossip and speculation I have witnessed over this simple event, my nomination, is phenomenal, but actually very normal for Indian country. But, I'll make a major point here: I had no expectation of being nominated, even though the idea has been presented to me for a number of years. I never expected it to happen. The way it happened is even more curious. I was nominated by Nick Tahchawwickah--right after his own sister Sonya had been nominated! (I cannot remember who nominated his sister, but I know she has good support.) Nick set a historical precedent. Everyone knows it's all about family and what we call "nepotism." But Nick just blew that tradition out of the water! He publically demonstrated that the Tahchawwickah family is not about nepotism. Nick nominated someone whom he thought would be a good person for the position. He showed everyone that each Comanche should vote according to his best judgement, not according to his family connections. (Now, whether or not I am a viable candidate is surely the subject of debate, but, the point is, Nick showed everyone what he believed was the best way to vote--according to your convictions, not according to family or clan.) Frankly, Nick surprised everyone. He deserves a lot of credit for his bold action.

As I have said, I really don't expect to even come close to winning. I do expect to be able to advocate ideas for new government. I believe that our people are good, as good as any. I think much of our inner failings have to do with this foreign structure superimposed upon us. It just doesn't fit. Until we have a government structure that accommodates who and what we are, psychologically and sociologically, I do not blame our leaders, or our people, for the failings of the Comanche Nation. Besides, we happen to be making serious progress at this time in our history! Wallace Coffey is progressive, open-minded, and visionary. Yes, he has inherited the mistrust, the accusations, the condemnation, even the hatred, that any elected leader will inherit. Perhaps the people are a little too willing to believe evil, a little too anxious to see wrong; and perhaps the circumstances of leadership in our present times invites more of the same. Casino money brings great anxiety and mistrust, along with "progress." An elder lady told me once that she'd never seen the tensions this high in all her life. Casino money perhaps magnifies what's already in us.

But, I'm not going to call it mistrust. That's a misnomer. It's our sociological circumstances. We were a group of non-organized, independent hunting bands. We are now crammed together in an artificial way, and we simply have no ability to "get along." It ain't in us! So, I look to create a governemnt that will actually accommodate this profound independence in our genes. That's really all I have to offer, as I see myself, anyway. I offer ideas.

Posted by David Yeagley at 10:14 AM | Comments (78)
November 09, 2007
Muslims have no rights

A USA Today story suggests that Muslims have rights! The headline reads LAPD plan draws ire from Muslims, with the sub title: Groups charge religious profiling. Well, fancy that. A group of arrogant immigrants, who came to this country with the soul purpose of spreading their detestable religion and utterly destroying the American society, feels unfairly treated! The Muslims feel persecuted.

Actually, the Los Angeles Police Department is quite "liberal" in it's "compassionate" approach. Therefore, the loud-mouthed Muslims appear the more egregious. (Or, are we to consider them "conservative"?!) Here are the plans:

'MAPPING' PROJECT

The LAPD's Muslim "community mapping" project would:
1.Lay out geographic locations of Muslim groups around the city.
2.Identify groups that might be susceptible to ideologically based extremism and propaganda.
3.Study the language, culture, history, socioeconomic conditions and country of origin of various communities and neighborhoods.
4.Help groups integrate into broader society by offering access to government and social services.

Now, doesn't that sound perfectly reasonable? Doesn't that imply millions of dollars of tax-payer money to be spend on foreigners who are anti-American, and who have perfectly rich countries (ruled by careless tyrants)? Doesn't this sound like a perfectly "poitically correct' approach? How vulgar and mean for the arrogant Islamicists to object and criticize the wonderfully tolerant liberals in law. Naturally, the ACLU joins them in the attempt to destroy America in the name of equality for murderers.


Shakeel Syed

It is particularly infamous and satanic that the Muslims should now compare themselves to Jews of the Holocaust. Director of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, Shakeel Syed, boasts maniacally:

This is anti-Semitism reborn as Islamophobia. We will fiercely resist this.

I will fiercely resist deluded liars like Shakeel Syed, and vehemently urge them to leave the country. There is no place for such demonism in America, or for any people who participate in the hateful hysteria. Liberals, who obviously invite, coddle, and encourage such anti-Americanism, are here trying to bend over backwards to accommodate the Muslim presence, and merely trying to prevent it from growing into actual terrorism. But the bending of law to accommodate a foreign, averse, antithetical social presence only shows how anti-American liberals really are. Just a little odd and embarrassing that their efforts are slapped in the face by the true, blatant, un-disguised hatred of the Islamicists. The Muslims don't care if they appear anti-American. The liberals on the other hand want everyone to think liberalism is pro-America, when it clearly isn't. Thus, the rub between Muslims and liberals.

There is no possible comparison of Muslims living in America to Jews living in Germany. The parallels are strikingly impossible. The Jews lived in Germany since 300 AD (Cologne). Muslims have been in America only a few decades. Jews were part of the building of modern Germany. Muslims have contributed nothing to America. Muslims are actively demanding their religion be observed by the American public. Jews never demanded such honor. Muslims knowingly provide camouflage for violent mass murderers in America. Jews never plotted such evil against any one.

Let's not go on with this idiotic attempt at self-justification by Muslims. They are in no way comparable to Jews, nor is America comparable to Nazi Germany. The latter comparison is so insane that it should be held up as the example of Islamic thinking. it is the apogee of the Muslim mind, demonstrating its satanic logic to the fulleest.

Americans are quite sick of Islam at this point. There's no question about it. Islam is here to disrupt, to change, and to denigrate America. America is not without sin, of course, and there is rampant iniquity in all quarters. Perhaps this morally degenerate society is the actual reason that something as hideous as Islam could grow in its midst. Perhaps Islam is punishment. It is the stroke of God for the immoral foolishness of modernity in the West. Islam is a nasty whipping. The Muslims are not moral beings. They are machines of wrath. They are not worthy of hate. They simply need to be gotten rid of.

How? Probably by the revival of the original American Judeo-Christian values--nearly all of which have been perverted beyond recognition by boundless greed, 'capitalism,' and irresponsible selfishness of every species. Probably by a stiff dose of ideological astringent, like reading the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. Why, even believing the Bible. Not reading it, not even studying it. But, believing it.

In the mean time, we can chuckle as the Muslims call themselves persecuted Jews of the Holocaust, as they call America Nazi Germany, as the Muslims slap the liberals for trying to accommodate them and trying to look out for their interests; but we should be trembling in our souls that such conditions have been allowed, and that someone like Hillary Clinton may actually have a chance to be president of the country. Doubtful as that chance actually is, the media suggestion is enough to send distress signals to remotest posts of the empire.


Posted by David Yeagley at 09:11 AM | Comments (397)
November 08, 2007
Toy Terrorism?

I hereby declare war on China.

The latest "toy" recall proves that China is a true enemy of the United States of America. The toy called "Aqua Dots," a strange game of creating designs by arranging little colored beads, comes with the chemical (gamma hydroxbutyrate), a famous "date rape" drug, because it renders its taker totally helpess. At least two American children were hospitalized in comatose conditions. (Three children in Australia were also hospitalized in the same conditions.)

This is not an accident. Yes, stupidity is involved in letting any young child play with beads. American mothers were incredibly ignorant (if not criminally negligent) in letting their young children play with beads. But Chinese manufacturers obviously banked on that ignorance. Everyone knows, or should know, that with little children, everything goes in the mouth. Their little tasters are their key to the world about them.

This incident is an indictment of motherhood in the West, as well as the final arraignment of China's participation therein. This is toy terrorism, clear and present danger.

How many China toy recalls will it take to convince all those so-called conservative globalists who think we can buy China out of her aggressive tyranny and assault on the West? All globalists, Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, think that world trade is the answer to all problems. It clearly isn't so. It is an open door to the enemies of freedom. Whether illegal people or lethal products, globalism is their path, bringing them in without conscience or regard for consequence. The mere thought of making money is the sole guide of the globallists. Thus, America has no boarders.

The China terror toy was distributed by Toronto-based Spin Master (how appropriate the name). Wal-Mart named Aqua Dots on of its 12 top toys this year, and it was the 2007 Tof of the Year in Australia. Not that there is a international collusion in the terrorism, but an international fusion of profit--in which the terrorism slipped in. "Who would ever think about that [the date-rape chemical] in a toy?" said Michael Brown, a former Consumer product Safety Commission lawyer. Well, anyone who isn't thinking of the fact that America has enemeis; anyone unwilling to admit that the United States is the target of Third World terrorists; anyone who is a self-righteous pretender with self-destructive instincts.

The story didn't even make the front page of the New York Times, November 8, 2007. We don't want to hurt that business with China thing, right? Globalism must go on!

"This is a horrifying recall," says former CPSC chairman Ann Brown, who is not related to Michael Brown. "We're just not seeing any let-up in the kinds of dangerous products that are coming in from China."

The USA Today story lists the toy distributor company's web site: www.spinmaster.com, but it's apparently over-loaded with hits, and shut down.

Some philosophers of progress wil sit back and write off the ills as mere casualities of progress. Change always costs at least a few lives on the way, then the whole world arrives at a new plane of prosperity and happiness. That's been the globalist take on China at least since Biill Clinton, of not Richard Nixon. Why, it's through international trade that the world will be equalized, that the wealth will be redistributed. In a sense, global capitalism serves the purpose of materialist Marxism after all.

Posted by David Yeagley at 09:06 AM | Comments (139)
November 06, 2007
The Comanche Vice-Chairman: A campaign shtik

ANNOUNCEMENT: Yeagley's music is being performed at the Nationa Museum of the American Indian, November 8-11, 2007.

ANNOUNCEMENT: Hear all four candidates for the Comanche Nation Vice Chairman on CampCrier.net.


Is the position of Comanche Nation Vice-Chairman a position of leadership, or management? Is it a vision, or a job? What can it accomplish? Does it have the power to bring about significant change?

I already wrote out my deepest ideas for the tribe in my "New Comanche Constitution." That was eighteen months ago. (Yes, I got tired of waiting for the official Constitution Revision Committee, which hasn't produced anything in over three years now, starting at something like $150K a year, now down to about $70K.) Certainly, no significant change is going to come about over night. So, what can be reasonably expected out of a vice-chairman?


Dr. David Yeagley, great-great grandson of Bad Eagle

Ron Red Elk hasn't indicated so far that he is promoting in kind of radical change. Rather, he promotes Comanche culture now. He says, "Developing unity, building solidarity, and establishing a true accountability of all finances and program clarification is the motivation that has prompted my candidacy." Sounds like there's a bit of "reform" involved there. Mr. Red Elk, however, needs to vigorously campaign for the position. His long standing familiarity with the tribe, and they with him, do not guarantee the vote. The vote is like the wind. You have to set your sail right, if you want to catch the wind. Red Elk must not presume that familiarity equals votes.

Sandra Gallegos is all about reform! To her, integrity and fairness are apparently the prime causes to be brought about, and the prime focus of her campaign. Indeed, since the advent of Comanche casinos, mistrust of the Comoanche Business Committee (CBC), the managing body of the tribe, has been intensified beyond anything that normally characterizes Indian leadership. Historically, there has always been mistrust and dissatisfaction. We've all learned to live with that. But, the introduction of big, fast money, or even the idea of it, has brought on the nation an intensity of mistrust that might seem unbearable. Gellegos may appeal to most of the people on the idea of reform. Honesty, transparency, integrity, etc., are what everyone wants. However, talented as she is, Gallegos has only been immersed in specifically Comanche affairs in the past few years. People always need to know someone before they will trust--regardless of campaign issues. Theoretically, however, she could easily win.

Sonya Tahchawwickah comes from a very large, old, well-known Comanche family. As I said, she is the younger of the candidates. This could be a great advantage. Young people, in a society that traditionally honors elders, often and easily become disinterested in tribal affairs. Their opinions are not given consideration. They are not looked to for guidance or validation. Why should they even care about what goes on in the tribe? What's in it for them. I'm thinking they might relate better to a younger candidate. Sonya is a mother with children, and therefore will also appeal to other mothers with children. In the inner circles of the tribe, this segment of the population is critical to the future of the Comanche Nation. They simply must become concerned and empowered. There are all kinds of possibilities here for Sonya. A younger women's society, for example. However, she will also have to campaign hard, for she is not so well-known in the inner circles of the voting block in Lawton. Even though there's hardly a Comanche that hasn't heard the name "Tahchawwickah," they need to know about Sonya's ideas.

Me? I'm in this for the opportunity to introduce ideas. I'll say this: I was nominated by a Tahchawwickah family member, an immediate relative of Sonya. This was historical. In Comanche tradition, as in many other Indian tribes, people move, act, and think in terms of family. People vote for family members and close friends. Some sociologists call these factions. We call them the numunukhan. The band. The clan. The extended family. That a Tahchawwickah would nominate me, after a Tahchawwickah had been nominated, speaks worlds about the progressive take on Comanche politics that is found in the Tahchawwickah family. This is a very good sign. No, I don't expect many votes, but, I'm deeply honored to have been part of this historical moment.

As I said, I expect the contest to be between Red Elk and Gallegos, and I actually think Gallegos will win, maybe big. However, I'll have to suggest that she not push the "reform" shtik too strongly. That's all. One can cause more trouble, with a good cause, than is good for the cause. She is aggressive, and she will try to bring about reform--throughout the entire Comanche Nation administration. Personally, I'm thinking that lasting reform will not really come about until there is a new constitution that accommodates the nature of the Comanche people. In the immediate campaign, that's what I will be talking about--a new constitution.

The old 1934 BIA templete coerced upon us simply does not allow Comanches to be Comanches. We've lived with this for nearly three-quarters of a century. Time to change it. But, again, this kind of change doesn't happen over night. The immediate pressures of the casino business demand our full attention now. Land issues, ownership issues, and above all, sovereignty issues--these are what we face daily. Our present Chairman, Wallace Coffey, is a generous, progressive man, and has tried to lead in the direction of economic development. The people have voted down more than one opportunity he has presented before them, mostly because they did not trust the vision. Wallace is humble enought to keep trying. He loves the people more than progress. He won't do what Shah Mohammad Pahlavi did for Iran. The Shah lead the people too far, too fast, and they ended up rebelling against him.


Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, 1919-1980

Every leader faces this same challenge, to balance change with accommodation. Even if the change is obviously good for all, the people need time to absorb it. The gambling business is fast moving, and the changes it introduces and makes possible are sometimes more than the people can handle.


Comanche Nation Chairman, Wallace Coffey, on OETA Television

(By the way, "shtik" is Yiddish for an 'acting bit.' A role. And Yiddish is the old language of the Jews in central Europe. Some consider it a dialect of German.)

Posted by David Yeagley at 08:38 AM | Comments (166)
November 04, 2007
Yeagley Nominated for Comanche Vice-Chairman

Yesterday, November 3, 2007, I was nominated for the position of Vice-Chairman of the Comanche Nation.

Astounding? Offensive? Unbelievable?

Why? Probably because most uninformed people think Indians are all liberal protesters and hate America. That is the image the media has been pleased to create, and the image some so-called Indian "leaders" (read professional protesters) have devoted their careers to promoting. Why, how could it be that Yeagley--who seems to be the antithesis of all that the liberal Indians have fought for, would be nominated as a Comanche leader? What's up with the Comanches?


Dr. David A. Yeagley, member, Comanche Nation
son of Norma Portillo, grandson of George Portillo,
great grandson of Ygnacio Portillo, great, great
grandson of Cruz Portillo (better known as Bad Eagle.)

Very simply, it is a broad minded people. There are many educated people among the Comanches, but that doesn't mean they are liberal. (Indeed, Sherman Alexie thinks all Indians are 'redneck' conservatives. Of course, he's from the west coast, basically, so what does he know? Indians don't look to him for their opinions, or anyone else, for that matter. Certainly not Comanche people.)

Well, I expect about five votes on the December 1 election date. I shall definitely be disappointed if I get less! (And, out of sheer courtesy, I'll not reveal the names of those whose vote I expect.)

The other candidates are: Ron RedElk, Sonya Tahchawwickah, and Sandra Gallegos.

Red Elk is a long-time educator of southwestern Oklahoma, and has accomplished a lot in his 36 years of teaching, coaching, and administrating. He is a founding member of the Comanche Language and Cultural Preservation Committee. He was also a founding member of the Comanche Nation Museum Project, which has finally resulted in our new Museum in Lawton.

The other three of us, Tahchawwickah, Gallegos, and myself, do not have those years in direct service to the Comanche people. That's a simple fact. Gallegos is very smart, very informed, very aggressive, and also educated, well-experienced, devoted, and true. My guess is she'll run away with the election. Hard to tell though, because I don't personally really know how the majority of other Comanches regard her. (And she thinks Columbus was a bad guy! Rats. Do we have to vote for her?)


Comanche Nation chairman Wallace Coffey with Sonya Tahchawwickah.


That leaves Sonya and I. She is a young woman, and I think she has it over me on that score, on both accounts. Many of our tribe's social challeges have to do with single women with children. They naturally would look to a woman, not to some haggard crow who writes symphonies and a new constitution for the tribe. Ha, ha! And besides, we probably need another woman on the tribal Committee.

It should be interesting. I think I will definitely try and use the platform for the opportunity to suggest ideas. I have to be in Washington for several days, then in Florida for several more. The month of November will be half over before I will even beging to seriously campaign. I'm in Washington for the Indian classical composers concerts at the National Museum of the American Indian; I'm in Florida for a major political pundits conference, the David Horowitz "Restoraation Weekend" (extended a bit). These things were planned several months ago. My nomination for Vice-President of the Comanche Nation came to be as a total surprise.

Hey, I want my five votes!

Posted by David Yeagley at 09:18 AM | Comments (116)
November 02, 2007
Russia and Iran: A precarious precedent?

Some political commentators are thinking we have to have the cooperation of Russia and China to contain the Iran threat. I'd say that's a pretty weak bet, in spite of appearances. Russia and China have never been allies of the West. Russia has never been a friend of the US, nor trustworthy in any relationship. China has a solid record of perfidy. These are monstrous aberrancies in the world. Yes, they must be dealt with, but not as allies. That's what ruined the outcome of WWII in the first place.

But, concerning Russia and Iran, here is an interesting note. On March 28,1946, the New York Times healine read: "Russian, Defeated on Iran, Walks out of UNO." (That is, the Security Council of the United Nations.) Andrei Gromyko walked out, because he didn't want a discussion on Iran's dispute with Russia. He wanted it postponed (until April 10). Russia had army troops in Iran, and Russia's position was that the UN was to be controlled by the "big five" nations and not by piddle paddle. The United Nations was new then, and this was a dramatic gesture.

The Iranian ambassador, Hussein Ala, said that Russia was making dictatorial demands on Iran, and about to enforce them with military authority. Russia wanted Iran's oil, plain and simple. Russia claimed it had pacts, agreements, etc., and was ready to enforce them. The Iranian ambassador said he knew of no such agreements, and that Russia was completely out of place, trespassing the sovereignty of Iran. That's why he brought the matter before the Security Council. Indeed, Iranian Prime Minister Ahmad Ghavam had gone to Moscow the month before (February) to negotiate a withdrawal of Russian troops from Iran, and to end Russian intermeddling in Iranian affairs.

The NYT front page introduced actually four separate articles on the story:

Russian, Defeated on Rian, Walks Out of UNO
Iran's Story Told
Iran Again Denies New Soviet Pact
Gromyko Is Stern and Silent

And there was a clip in the "World News Summarized" column, also on the front page. In that important clip, we read that Russian would not withdraw its troops from Iran, Russia demanded the independence of Azerbaijan (the northernmost province of Iran) and proposed a joint Russian-Iranian oil company of whose stock Russia would own 51%.

Ironically, that same summary noted that Russian Navel Lieutenant Redin was arrested in Portland, Oregon, on espionage charges, and bail was set at $25,000.

The point here is that Iran was actually an ally of the United States right after WWII, and during the Cold War, despite some rough incidents. Russia and Britain had 'occupied' Iran during WWII to prevent the Nazis from taking it. But Russia has absolutely no loyalty or enduring faithfulness in any relationship with any country, before or after WWII. The godless government of Communist Russia is the same government that rules now. It is an anomaly.

Few people today understand the perfidy and danger of dealing with Russia. The United States was drawn into endless "unnecessary entanglements" because Russia was taking over the world, at every turn. Communism was a real and raving influence for oppression. Now, without the formal title of "Communist," the machinery opperates on a totally 'economic' basis. The world connections are all still there, but Russia is content to allow the glory of Ronald Reagan to overshadow any such grandeur of Russian global manipulations. Why, there is no more Communism! There is no more Soviet Union. It's all over and gone. Such a delusion is well suited for Russia's cover. The gangster government is alive and well. Russia will no doubt side with Iran, rather than oppose. Russia wan't the oil and natural gas opportunities. After all, Iran is just a southern neighbor of Russia. How convenient.

So, it is a great error to look to Russia for anything, any time, for any reason. In fact, the United States does well to keep a distance, to hold Russia ever in suspicion and mistrust. It is the only safe course. Russia is not European, and not Asian. Russia is a great and powerful nothing. The Muscovites represent the only cultural identity there, at least the dominant one. They picked up some cultural intelligence from the Germans in 1763 when Catherine the Great invited Germans farmers and ranchers to come to Russia and settle on the shores of the Volga and the Black Sea. She was apparently smart enough and humble enough to know barbaric Russia needed some help. (Actually, Catherine herself was a German.)

(Ah, but the barbarity revived, and many of the 70,000 "Russian" Germans removed from there and came to North Dakota! They settled elsewhere in the American plains as well. There are many in Oklahoma.)

Then there's the well-established arms trade between Russia and Iran today. "Brothers in Arms," the Council on Foreign Relations calls them. Another reason Russia will not aid in controlling Iran.


Ahmadinejad and Putin, meeting in China,
June, 2006

Americans need to understand: the United States has enemies. They are determined, and will not be dissuaded. It may seem a humiliating thing to face the fact that one has enemies, but, it is the way of this world. Perhaps many Americans need to be more humble, then, and come down off that high and mighty self-congratulatory, moral superiority throne, and fight for their lives. Parents fight for their children. Countries must fight for their people. Be it economically, militarily, or morally, one must defend. One must survive.

Indeed, he who attacks must vanquish, but he who defends must only survive.


Posted by David Yeagley at 12:13 PM | Comments (147)
Journal Weblog Archives