Tonight, at sundown, is the beginning of the new year on the Hebrew calendar. And today was the day that the United States Congress faced an completely fabricated financial "crisis," which the people of America refused to recognize as such. How apropo.
I have stated many times that the cues for a successful nation I believe are to be taken from the ancient Hebrew scriptures. There are fascinating principles in the Torah about economy. Maybe this Jewish New Year is a good time to reconsider them. They may seem incomprehensible and impossible to many, but, they shouldn't be, certainly not to a believer.
1) Do not lend with interest to a member of your own nation. (Lev. 25: 35, 36). This is said also of an immigrant living in your nation, having adopted your nationality.
Can we imagine the effect of such a prinicple? Your country can charge interest to foreign nations, to any nation, but not to it's own people. This is a remarkable concept. Money is not a commodity within your own nation, only on the international market--if in fact you do deal with foreign nations.
2) Family land and heritage cannot be permanently sold out of the family. (Lev. 25: 23)
Well, this seems like total fantasy at this point in American history. It is unimaginable. But, the idea is this: you cannot be so poor that you lose your land (and domicile). In the ancient days, if the poor did have to sell, the land would be returned to him or his family the year of "jubilee" (v.28)--every 50th year (vs. 8-10). There was no "real estate" business as such, not within the nation. No land speculation.
3) Tithe (on tenth) of your increase, and regular offerings (for various causes and purposes) is to be brought to the Temple. This was essentially the government income. The priesthood (the tribe of Levi) was supported solely by the national tithe and offering. The priesthood was not a business. (Malachi 3:10, 11.)
Call it the federal income tax. Counting the tithe and all the national festival offerings, it is estimated that about one third of a family's annual income was to support the national religious sevice--which was basically the government. (This was in the days before the kingship was established, before 1000 BCE.) But, there were no other fees, taxes, duties, or tariffs required of the Hebrew citizen. Ancient Israel did not import. The Lord provided all. There was no need to buy from other nations. Indeed, Israel was designed to be completely independent, and in fact was not to from alliances or "trade" agreements with foreign nations. (Talk about avoiding "unnecessary entanglements"!)
So impressive, effective, and successful was this self-contained system that at one point, during the reign of Solomon, the then known world voluntarily made Jerusalem the world bank. (See, I Kings 10; cf. 2 Chronicles 9.) Heads of state brought wealth to Zion, without war, without oppression. Of course, this internationalism was not the way of the Lord, and it did not last, but, it is a strange testimony to the world's acknowledgement of His nation, once upon a time.
4) Israel must not to intermarry with other ethnicities. (Deuteronomy 7:1-6.)
Another impossibility for America today, it might seem, but, think of the concept. Consider the ideal, the prinicple. Of course, the reason given in the Torah for the ban on intermarriage is for the preservation of the faith, the religion of Israel. This is what is emphasized, and not specifically the preservation of the race. In those ancient days, of course, a different ethnicity meant a different god, and that was what was prohibited. The Lord said, through Moses, that the bond of marriage, the influence of the spouse and family, was a most telling influence on the holy faith. You marry an unbeliever, and you go their way. They don't come over to your way. Unbelief is easier, seemingly more natural. It takes special effort and discipline to belief, trust, and obey the Lord.
In moder terms, we can find great utility in these principles. There are American women who have united with foreigners who do not share American values or principles. These marriages (when and if they are actually legalized) do not produce patriots. Far from it. They've been known to produce terrorists. The point is, marriage, or even cohabitation with children, is a profound influence in a person's life. The thing to remember is this: it is easy to go downward. Down hill is always the natural trend. Anyone with any weakness or lack of vision in himself will always be more easily pursuaded to go downward. That is the lesson.
And, interestingly enough, in ancient Hebrew religion, New Year's Day is not a time of drunken revelry and mindless dissipation. It is a time of solemn reflection, a time for the renewal of prinicples, for the revival of life's truest values. If there was ever a time when America needed such a New Year's Day, it is this present time. We the people have been buried alive with media illusions, and congressional deception after deception. We are dizzy from DC dope! We naturally look to media, but it is a most unhealthy proposition. We should learn how to wean ourselves off it, perhaps. It has become a form of entertainment, complete with fashion personalities--and clothes. It is a virtual personality contest.
Can we recover? Are we beyond recovery?
In the ancient days, the Lord promised to "turn the captivity" of Israel, when the people repented, and sought Him. It is human to err. It seems perfectly inevitable. But then, the promise of restoration is ever so critical--and, thank God, the promise is ever present. Solomon prayed for such a provision. (1 Kings 8: 33-40). Indeed, the Lord Himself promises: "Return unto Me, and I will return unto you." Malachi 3:7.
I think there is hope, certainly. And even though America is a long way down the road, historically, from ancient Israel, I fancy that the incorporation of the Hebrew principles of nationality, of nationhood, of self-reliance, indeed, of sovereignty itself, would do America great service.
Can a Christian be a patriot?
Sounds like an obviously rhetorical question, if not a little offensive, seeing that the founders of America were Christian, and most passionately advocated the Christian religion as that which would produce the best country, the best population, and essentially the best government. Most of us have pledged our allegiance to the American Republic and its flag. We have understood this to be our nation, our national identity, and our national responsibility.
But what of one's spiritual allegiance? What happens if one's government, one's country, one's nation falls into apostasy? Certainly, one seeks to change the course of the nation before that happens. One works, through every means possible, to save the nation from such disaster. Those means, historically, have been represented by everything from politics to raw violence, from voting to rank revolution. How far can a Christian go on the road to national 'salvation'?
Of late, American nationalists have pointed out the loyaties of Muslims. It appears that Muslims' first oath is to Allah, and that Islam is inimical to every nation on earth. This is rather blatant, brazen, and unabashed. Historically, even the Roman Catholic church has been accused of such a priori oaths to the Pope and to the Church as would make them suspect as patriots of any nation they are in. Other sects and cults have come under the same suspicion. Even the Jews are accused of subversive loyalties by some nationalist zealots around the world.
But are not Protestants under the same question? Are not true Christians bound by their vows to the Lord--above any other commitment? Luke (14: 26, 33) calls for a separation even from family if necessary. Surely, one cannot expected to be loyal to one's nation if that nation steps outside the will of the Creator. Of course, in a true theocracy, the national government is going to profess that it is representing the will of God, and therefore, the laws of the land must be obeyed.
We've been down that road before. That's when the government becomes oppressive and tyrannical. When a government comes to enforce religion, we're in big trouble.
So, is "religion" the issue? What is religion? What qualifies as religion? When is the government enforcing religion?
I propose that religion can mean two things: moral values, and cultural traditions. There is a difference between behavioral codes in social relations, and ritual, cultural customs pertinent to a denomination or social institution. One must distinguish morality from any stylistic accoutrements in its social expression. Liturgy is not morality. The law of the land may concern itself with morality, but not worship.
American Christians can certainly thank God for the wonderful country of America, and its extraordinary freedoms. Surely every Christian should do whatever he can to preserve the nation, and to keep it from wandering off the straight and narrow way. Amercia is a Christian nation, (despite the fact that Obama has publicly said it isn't). And that being the case, it is understood that the US Constitution was written with a Christian population in mind. A population without self-control obviously cannot abide serious morality as implied, yea, required, by the Constitution. Indeed, at this point in American history, the burgeoning of the legal enterprise (or "profession") as a competitive business only testifies to the fact that people are generally wandering outside the confines of fundamental morality. Government supported abortion is probably the loudest sign of that alarming reality of the trend toward national apostasy.
So, we are pledged to the Republic, and we are pledged to the Lord. "We ought to obey God rather than men," said Peter on trial (--in a Jewish court! Acts 5:28, 29). That leaves no room for doubt as to the Christian's ultimate loyality. But, in a land where Christians can vote, and peacably influence government, surely the Christian has a profound responsibility to do just that--on the side of morality. Ironically, that's the one thing I did learn at Yale Divinity--from William Muehl, a "conservative" Episcopalian professor. He even gavie me an autographed copy of one of his books, Politics for Christians (1956). He noted the once common Christian attitude that "to become involved in politics is to become contaminated by the conflicts and compromises that it seems to demand" p.44. Well, "you've come a long way, baby!" we can say to the American Christian caucus.
Personally, I can only pray that the Christian church doesn't start advocating liturgy or church cultural accoutrements, even though I would prefer those to those of any foreign religion. I don't believe America was designed to be a haven, or spawning ground for every religion in the world. Take these things hence, I say. Just don't bring in church decorative customs as law. Then you challenge my allegience. You interfere with the purpose of government. Judeo-Christian morality, yes. Budgeting Christmas lights for city hall? Hannukah lights? While I personally love both, I don't think either should be law. And I think certain visual emblems of other religions should definitely be against the law. But, if one is legal, the others can claim they are too, and the ACLU will use tax payer dollars to defend them.
Delicate issues here. National ground. Sacred ground. If the laws don't express the heart in this matter, the laws are askew. When the heart is offended, any too long or too deeply, there will be war eventually. Therefore, the Pledge of Allegiance, and American citizenship, must be bestowed only ever so carefully, only on worthy persons. Being born here does not qualify one as an American. Not any more. We have to make sure that at least everyone's heart is "in the right place," like they used to say at Yale, even if their politics, or even their theology, is a little mixed up.
Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God. I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon to them that know me: behold Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia; this man was born there. And of Zion it shall be said, This and that man was born in her: ... The Lord shall count, when he writeth up the people, that this man was born there. Psalm 87: 3-6
Nationality and individuality are both aggrandized in this amazing piece of ancient Hebrew scripture. It is an apolcalyptic vision of the new Jerusalem, and the day when it becomes the center of all human culture and divine worship.
"This man was born there." Doesn't that rip your heart out?! In all eternity, your personal identity includes the very place you were born, the very people among whom you were born. Divine judgement, of everlasting consequence, considers your country of origin. Your nationality. Your ethnicity. Yea, some were even born in Zion. Most of us were born in heathen lands, but, in the end, we will worship the true God in Zion. And it will be noted where we are from, and who our people are. I think this is incredible. There is profound encouragement in this vision.
In a day in which money (or, "economy" as they like to call it) supercedes all other considerations, we do well to remember the basis of divine assessment of the man--that was born here, or there. No mention is made of his social status, or his economic status particularly, or even his profession. Just where he was from. Where he was born. Who his people are. And even that isn't part of his individual moral evaluation, necessarily.
Certainly, one's place and circumstances of origin have profound affects on his person and character, and outlook on life. This is obvious. But we can be pleased that our Creator acknowledges this in an eternal way. Indeed, this Psalm is virtually celebratory about it. Musicians are there to give it a note of praise!. "As well the singers as the players on instruments shall be there," declares the last line.
Financial-based (i.e., materialist-based) evaluation of men is not of divine origin. That's something we ourselves created, in our perverted quest for superiority or perfection. The 'money first' criterion leads to dire social relations. Materialist evaluaions end up leaving the poor more impoverished, multiplied, and miserable. In fact, this is the Communist, socialilst, (shall we not say "Democrat") approach to human sociology. In conservatism, however, some of which remains in Republican circles, the emphasis is on individual character. That approach is what requires the free market system. The free market system is dependent upon good character to succeed. Otherwise, we get exactly what we have now, a supposed "financial crisis," in which dishonest, lying crooks (Congressmen, mostly Democrat) attempted to destroy the free market, and make more people more poor. The housing give-way did not make the poor wealthier. And if the Democrat Congress has its way, it will make the general public poorer.
Character-based evaluation of men is the eternal standard. And, according to Psalm 87, a man's nationality and ethnicity are somehow related to that. A man's place of origin is a part of his identity, forever. "I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon," when the people come to Zion. I will mention where they came to Zion from.
The Democrats and the media will lie to the bitter end, and misrepresent themselves and their intents, and accuse conservatives and Republicans of failure, but the truth is beginning to surface, as it inevitably does. Wrong values lead to horrible results. Character requires freedom of choice in order to develop. Government coerced charity, laced with Congressional greed and private business profits, denies freedom to the tax payer as well as the poor upon whom such 'charity' is wreaked. The Lord commands charity--of persons, not governments. Charity is about personal character, not about political prowess.
Congressmen should be concerned about our nation first, not the socio-economic status of the population. Congress (Democrats, socialists, and Communists) should stop trying to play God to the poor and instead protect the freedom of the people. That's what the constitution defines government as. Government is to protect rights and freedom, not covetousness. A home and a Cadillac, and college education, are not guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Not even equal opportunity to obtain them.
"This man was born there." His place of birth might not yield him the same opportunity of "that man" who was born in Zion. His nationality, his ethnicity, the circumstances of his origin may keep him off Wall Street, but it won't keep out out of Zion.
And Wall Street can crash. But the walls of the New Jerusalem are eternal. It is a decision of character. It is a man's nationality that is "mentioned" in eternity, not his bank account.
Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works. All nations whom thou has made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name. For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone. Psalm 86:8-10
Are there not critical cues in this ancient Hebrew text? It was written by a man who had experience in internation affairs, certainly, and a very objective, 'lofty' view of the world. His son Solomon would see a day when Israel became the treasury of the world. Without a military move, the kings and queens of the earth voluntarily brought their treasures to Jerusalem. So the story is told in 1 Kings 10.
There are some key concepts in this passage of spiritual antiquity that are worth noting. I take it that, since Jewish culture has survived apparently longer than anything else, we do well to consider the concepts at the foundation of that culture.
Among the gods. There are other gods? Certainly--in the collective conscious of the various ethnicities of the world. Always have been, since the destruction of the tower of Babel and the dispersion of the human race (Genesis 11). There are natural differences in the imagination, the temperament, and the 'culture' of the different tribes of the earth. Perhaps this is all due to the nature of laguage itself. The Lord created the different languages, according to the story. For whatever reasons, there are different versions of deity in the world. Of course, according to the Hebrew view, as sung by David, there was no god like the Lord God of Israel. None had, even by reputation, acted in the world, and in history, as the Lord. The other gods were basically static myths about nature, and human nature. The Hebrew God was radically alive.
All nations thou hast made shall come and worship before thee. What will that mean? The gods engendered by ethnicity, by language, by culture, by even geographic environment--will all vanish as a mist before the light of the sun? Note, "all nations thou has made" does indubitably identify nationhood as the creation of God. Not something to be tampered with any too much, I'd say. And, given the nature of this world worship scene, we assume it is apocalyptic. I mean, people can intuitively perceive some grand supernatural power in the universe, even a creative power. But, here and now, our gods are like mascots. We're logo peddlers. Life is like the NFL. Everyone has his team. A sporting thing, this human race. This is what we do. We like competing, fighting, and demonstrating who's superior, or who's king of the hill. In that context, it is not likely that the world worship scene described in the psalm is anything designed and orchestrated by the United Nations.
Thou are God alone. This does not mean that the notion of one god, in a philosophical context, or a globalist "unity" fest, is in any way similar (much less identical) with the true and living God. Remember, the idea of global unity was tried before, at Babel. And a number of world empires have been attempted in the more recent millenia. Man has this imeptus for world control, but, this is not about unity, or the true and only God, I don't believe. It is a counterfeit of some kind. To say there is "one god" does not mean that everyone in the world worships him, or that you are talking about the one true, living God who created heaven and earth, and blessed the Sabbath day.
Man's notions of globalism seem based entirely on materialism, that is, business, profit, economics, and labor. Man thinks to transcend nationhood and ethnicity by trade, on the wings of mean dollars. Can it be?
Solomon's odyssey of voluntary, centralized global wealth was just that, an odyssey. It has never been imitated, before or since. It most definitely involved the one true God, but, that was before the days when basic human life was conceived through Judeo-Christian values. This is nearly global now. Then, the Hebrew way, the Jewish way, was radically distinct by comparison to other cultures. Perhaps the demographic world presence of Judeo-Christian social values inadvertently contributes to this recent development of globalist hopes. The only competitor is Islam, and Buddhism to a lesser extent.
So where will the capital of the New World Order be? Where will the globalist center be? Who will be the leaders? Who will rule the world? Are this not approrpriate questions? Don't they inevitably accompany the thought of a world economy, or a world order?
Finally, I have to say, even in St. John's decriptions of the earth made new, where there is no sin, no sorrow, and no death, we find scriptures acknowledging the existence of "nations." Of the capital, the New Jerusalem, he says:
And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shal be no night there.
And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. Revelation 21: 25,26
The tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month:
and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. Revelation 22: 2
Nationhood--it is the creation of God. The nations are ordained of God. Nationhood sounds like a permanent fixture of humanity--at least as presented in scripture. I'd say, whatever globalists have in mind for the present world, if it diminishes the reality of nationhood, it is not right. It is in the wrong direction.
I say we take our cues from the ancients here. It is the epitome of arrogance to ignore history, or worse, to prentend that our particular age of humanity can enter into experience that is novel, or alien to anything humanity has experienced before. This would be declaring ourselves other than human, or worse, more than human. We always tend to end up less than human when we try that. And after all, that was the Serpent's original temptation--to be like "gods." (Genesis 3: 4,5.) Did we achieve such a status? "Fallen," is the kinder term, but all-inclusive of the most self-destructive of human behavior.
The ancient Hebrew lessons, shall we not give a mind to them--especially as Americans, whose country professes to be based on the Bible? Globalism begs the question of whether or not the concept is anti-American in totality.
BadEagle.com covered the Oklahoma Federal Court case CIV 08 849 D from the first day, (and before), September 10, 2008: Comanche Nation v. United States (Fort Sill). As of today, September 23, federal judge Timothy D. DiGiusti ruled in favor of the Comanche Nation. This is the case in which the Comanches obtained a temporary restraining order (an injuction) against Fort Sill's military contruction site which was situated in the southern face of Medicine Bluffs. The site was deemed inimical to the historical and spiritual nature of Medicine Bluff. Naturally, the Fort moved to dismiss the injuction, and presented its case in the recent hearing. DiGiusti ruled against the dismissal this morning.
Nim a kou nik numunu (Comanche tipi), 1873, on Mecidine Creek,
near Mt. Scott. PHOTO: Mathers Museum, University of Indiana.
BadEagle.com has called the court clerk daily for the judgement. Today, the clerk informed me that the preliminary motion to dismiss was denied, and this implies that the case will go to trial. There is no indication, however, on the docket anyway, that the Fort intends to move forward to trial. I should think the wise and prudent move would be to completely drop the case, and simply move the construction site elsewhere.
The Fort's argument was that the delay in construction of their much needed TSC (Training/Service Center) was terribly costly, first to the tune of $1,500 to $2,000 a day, as originally estimated and reported by John Weatherly, the contracting officer. (In court he admitted that this figure was over estimated, and plaintiff attorney John Walters pointed out that the construction company TREND, out of Tampa, FL, stated in the contract that delay costs were $847 per day. In any case, taking this issue to court will cause interminable delay. How can the Fort make the same argument about costs, and at the same time invalidate it by refusing to act, in effect causing more delay?
The other matter of interest, again, is the fact that none of the Indian "news" agencies reported on the case. They used simple AP wires, if anything. BadEagle.com, the "conservative," independent site, alone, covered the story. I personally find this curious. As I reported earlier, William Voelker, the Chairman of the Board of the Comanche NAGPRA and Historical Preservation office told me and Joline Schonchin (editor Comanche Nation News) that he had contacted some fifty newspapers, radio stations, and television stations. I remember Joline saying, "Well, a reported just can't go out and do whatever he wants. They have to have permissiona and approval from their bosses." All the more curious.
And so we wait now for Fort Sill to either drop the matter, or to bring it to trial. BadEagle.com will report this decision as soon as it is known.
In the mean time, I think every Indian should re-evalutate the nature of Indian media sources, their bias, their interest, and their reliability. I realize Comanches have always had the reputation of standing on our own, having repelled all other tribes, historically; I suppose what I mean when I say "re-evalutaion" is that Comanche people need to re-evalutate the rest of Indian country--at least as it is manifested in so-called Indian media. There was an AP wire that was published by several papers three weeks before the recent hearings. BadEagle.com was not first to notify the world. It is highly unlikely that the BadEagle coverage of the hearings could have in any way aversely affected the attitude of these exceedingly liberal Indian news agencies.
I also know that the innate, independent nature of the Comanche people doesn't need nor particularly want media. We are a private people, fundamentally. That's a hard line to walk in these days of internet, added on to media in general, but, history is in the genes as well as in reality. Maybe the Comanches are still feared, alone, and regal. Indeed. Maybe the Comaches will always prefer a separate world. I know in the old days, Comanches were happy to be invisible. If you didn't even know they existed, they were perfectly happy. Magically content, they were. Magnificently self-reliant, more than Ralph Waldo Emerson could have imagined.
So, my expectations are all polluted with professionalism. I've been in media a bit, and naturally expected the professional protesting Indians and their liberal white backers to invest something in this Comanche Nation v. United States. I mean, what could be a better story? Fort Sill attacks Indian religion! Today. Now. In their face. What more could liberal Indian news want?
Money.
And they like to see Indians get money. Lots of money. That's why they've covered every day of the Cobell v. BIA story (Babbit, Norton, Kempthorne, etc.). That's all over the billions of dollars owed to one tribe. Comanches, on the other hand, are not getting any money out of this case against Fort Sill. It's only about preserving a sacred atmosphere around a sacred place. That's all. Too quiet. Too private. Too personal. That's just not newsworthy for loud liberal Indians. That's not "worth" reporting about. And besides, there are no Comanches in any serious media to bring the reporters professional attention or advancement. There are no favors to be done by reporters for liberal celebrities. No liberal cause to promote.
I hope this serves as a lesson. I certainly don't speak for the Comanche Nation, nor do professional liberal Indians speak for any tribe. Media Indians just comment and advocate. But, I certainly hope this case demostrates reality for all serious Indians. Liberal media Indians don't really care about Indians, just like feminists don't really care about women. Sarah Palin's nomination has demonstrated that. Liberal women care about liberal feminists and their own careers first. Professional Indian protesters, likewise. Let's dispense with those pestilential delusions that Indians are "united," or that liberal Indians care about Indians at all.
Then maybe we can get down to business. American Indian journalism has not contributed one palpitation, not one twinge of real brotherhood among any Indians. What natural empathy exists among Indians is due to various combinations of similarity in religion, geographic location, custom, trade, and common plight. Indians don't need media for that. In the last analysis, media is a white man's thing. That's all. It is what it is. Maybe it will never work for Indians.
Cut to the chase, pilgrim. If ya wanna show yer grit, ya need to pick
a fight with the Comanche.
NEWS: COMANCHE NATION WINS in Oklahoma Federal Court. DiGiusti's Ruling on the Comanche Nation v. US Government (Fort Sill), Posted September 23, 2008, A.M Court denies defense (Ft. Sill) motion to dismiss Temporary Injunction against construction at Medicine Bluff. This means the case may go to trial, if the the Fort wishes to pursue it. Court clerk advises no date set.
The answer may be blowing in the wind, as Mary (with Peter and Paul) may have sung, but the answer to our energy needs is not wind power. T. Boon Pickens has spent a lot of money on Bob Dylan's lyrics, so to speak, but no enterprise could be more misunderstood, misrepresented, and mistaken. I have posted before on the Pickens plan, but there are some new aspects I want to cite now.
As BadEagle.com readers know, I have recently observed the federal court case CIV 08 849 D, Comanche Nation v United States (Fort Sill). (The decision of Judge DiGiusti should be rendered this week.) The issue actually began with Fort Sill constructions sites on presumably Comanche burial grounds, but the tensions came to a focus when Fort Sill began construction of a large training "warehouse" center in the face of Medicine Bluffs, a place held sacred by the Comanche people, as well as other tribes in the area. (Of course, Comanches stood alone in our protests. No other tribe was willing to be involved. Therefore, in my opinion, they should never be allowed on Medicine Bluffs again.) The main issue came down to a disruption of the "viewscape," the spiritual environment, the visual disruption. This is the point now--to preserve the total spiritual environment.
Last night, FoxNews did a special on new American energy sources, and in one segment a "green" Alaskan environmentalist was interviewed. She protested drilling in ANWAR. She said something like this: "I like to sit on the side of the mountains and view the scene. But, if in my view I find an oil drilling rig, that changes everything. Forever." (I will try to find the links and transcript to this Sunday night show, 9-21-08.) I was quite taken by the similarity of this woman's testimony to those Comanche testimonies I heard in court here in Oklahoma. She claimed no religion, no tradition, and no authority. She merely urged the aesthetic value of pristine landscape, the emotional treasure.
And then there was the matter of the Berkeley campus tress, the famous "Oak Grove." Though the wacky protesters didn't even urge the aesthetic aspect, but rather implied some vague, vegan, earth-worshipping notion of Gaianism, their argument is actually in the same vein.
Of course, the T. Boone Pickens plan offers a ghastly destruction of all aesthetic functions. No larger dimension of viewscape (a legal term) could be more aversely affected than that involved in a massive wind mill farm. It is a terrible thing Pickens proposes. Only those who have not seen, been around, or lived in the vicinity of these giant spectacles of irony, entertain the mistaken idea that they are beneficial. The noise they make, the cost they require, the permanent scarring of the view scape--this is all quietly unmentioned by Pickens and advocates--as well as all media sources.
As if the new windmill is just an offsrping
of the dear old country farm windmill. As if
hundreds of thousands of giant, freak agonies
on the landscape cannot possibly disturb the
American countryside.
Add to this the even more deeply hidden affinity of the Piekens plan with NAFTA, and the SuperHighway plans. American patriots are, of course, more than warey about the anti-national sovereignty character of NAFTA. And, it is quite natural that wind power transmission lines should be logistically associated with the highway, even as telegraph lines were originally associated with railroad track. The open pathway of one industry invites use by another. So the propopsed international highway--build, owned, and operated by countries outside the United States, will be lined with the very costly windmill transmission lines.
It's all about globalism again. It's all about the sacrifice of individual nationhood. Sovereignty must be sacrificed, to whatever degree necessary, incrementally, to serve the purposes of a global "economy," they call it. I say it is a global "control." It's about world power. It's about "unity," "equality," and all those other precious words so faithfully usurped by the liberals, and made to mean the opposite of what they originally meant.
Sorry, the grandeur of the sunset doesn't sanction the
alien intrusion of these hideous wind mills.
I urge everyone now to vote against windmills. Go to a place where there are a number of them. Talk to people who live around them. But, mainly, just look at them. Look at their absolutely horrid invasion of the viewscape. Look at the unnatural, alien atmosphere they create. For people living in Oklahoma (where they propaganda pushes the idea that the University of Oklahoma will operate exclusively on wind power by 2013!), just go to the top of Mt. Scott, north of Lawton, in the Wichita Mountains, and look northward. Look at the hideous, writhing white spiders across the landscape. Your soul with scream with horror.
A national anacrophobia these monster mills will cause. Of course, liberals feel they have doped and sedated the American soul sufficiently, so that the big money mongers can slip this unforgivable agony through. This is just competition against big oil. Oil is every bit as natural as wind, and so is carbon dioxide. Every living plant breathes in carbon dioxide! Pickens is looking for something new. He is an aggressive businessman, and, even in his senior years, he is alive, enthusiastic, and daring. I commend him for his energy and determination, and vision.
However, this particular enterprise is wholly unwarrented, permenantly damaging, and above all, untried, unreliable, excessively expensive (--the transmission of the power from the mill to the city), and in fact connected to globalism (NAFTA), and therefore an influence against American sovereignty. So it plainly appears.
Much damage has already been done, so I say, we can't protest loudly enough or quicly enough, or any to much. The wind power delusion must end, now. Oil is the answer. Oil has always been the answer. If there are adjustments that need to be made, we shall make them. The industry is greatly improved in recent years, requiring much less land, indeed only fractions of lands, to effectively drill. The environmental impact has become less and less. The wind power enterprise will negatively, tragically impact the environment more and more. The emotional and mistaken notion that wind is clean and free is a deceptive advertisement. The harnessing of the power is very expensive, and source is experiemental. The materials of contruction and transmission are daunting. The association with NAFTA is, to any patriot, prohibitive.
The wind stops here! Oil, and even nuclear power, are much more effective, developed, and reliable. Alternative fuels are also costly and unecessary. Oil is king. The earth makes oil, naturally. There's your Gaian validation. (Where are the dancing nymphs with flowery wreathes about their air heads?) Carbon dioxide is a natural compound as well. Every living plant requires it. Humans breath out, after every breath intake of oxygen. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. The advocates of alternate energy are missing the mark altogether. We've simply been too slow in the advancements of management in the oil industry. Fuel efficient internal combustion engines could and should have been developed at least 170 years ago. The oil industry is like an obeise blob, but, with a little diet and exercise, and less Democrat interference, it can get in fine shape, rather quickly.
I don't post on Sabbath, but today, September 20, in the serenity of the Sabbath hours, I find a certain peace and tranquility which allows the kind of clarity and reflection of thought which I do highly value. I am going to make an exception, and try now to make some statements about certain recent issues I've been posting on. I have found the issues highly engaging and provocative, and no doubt my responses have been somewhat incendiary. While I want to attribute any excess to the recent illness and the pestilential effects of the medication I have taken (--which frustrations are soon at an end, thank the Good Lord), I also recognize my natural disposition is not one of renowned palcidity. In any case, I offer the following reflections.
1.) Comanche Nation v. United States (Fort Sill). There has been no decision handed down yet, and we're expecting something next week. I want to say that no one has been a greater supporter of the American military than I, and no one could be more proud to have a great and historical installation like Fort Sill in his home state. Of course, I obviously presented the Comanche point of view in my commentary, because we can't move Medicine Bluffs. Fort Sill can move its construction sites. I do not believe therefore that this matter has to be a choice between Comanche values and Fort Sill--our grand military force here in Oklahoma. This crisis, in my opinion, was simply unnecessary and could easily have been avoided. I think I was angry about that, more than anything else. I have nothing but admiration and support for the United States military, and certainly, to see Fort Sill in an easily avoidable collision with the Comanche Nation was more than I could bear quietly.
2.) Regarding the matter of Americans for Indian Opportunity and the issue of a hemispheric, yea, globalist approach to preserving "indigenous" cultures, I have only to say that I think this is not the best approach. While I believe AIO's goals and Bad Eagle's goals may in fact be the same, I cannot see that AIO's approach represents American Indian historical ways. It is in fact the redisribution of Indian honor on non-Indian people. I certainly mean no disrespect for the various non-American Indian people, such as the Eskimo, the Polynesian, the Asian, the African, or the homosexual. I simply believe that AIO is playing the numbers game--which is what all such liberal approaches are based on. Its about unity--for political power's sake. It seems to me that this is denigrating to each individual group. AIO's approach is political, a gathering of numbers, which attracts money as well as legislation. But it sacrifices the concept of the actual autonomy of the individual groups, iit is intolerant of differing opinion, and it obfuscates the tribes' distinct histories, and confuses the issues. It is a race-based approach to unity, it smacks of anti-White disposition, and as a social logistic, is certainly not the American Indian tradition. It is most definitely not the original Comanche way, as I perceive it.
I do distinguish between the warring American Indian tribes who fought to the death for our people, our ways, and our land, from those "indigenous" groups who did not. It seems to me that 150 years ago the warriors coerced the concept of rights from a aggressive, land-greedy American public on a westward expansion. That other "indigenous" groups should later benefit from these applied rights is not an injustice to American Indians, but to equate these non-warring, non-Indian groups with American Indians is an injustic, in my opinion, and an unacceptable outrage. I am not willing to distort history, to "share" the honor of my ancestors' blood, even if AIO's goals are the actually the same as mine. I believe the outcome of AIO's approach will not accomplish those goals, but rather result in the converse, finally, if unintentionally.
3.) On the homosexual element noted in "Some Indians Respond," my objection is on the same basis--that is, that the homosexuality has nothing to do with being American Indian, even as Polynesians have nothing to do with American Indians. To imply that ethnicity validates homosexuality is another stretch of liberal, non-thinking imagination which sullies logic beyond recognition. To use American Indian identity as a justification of homosexuality merely displays profound doubt about homosexuality. IndianCountryToday's use of an apparently non-Indian homosexual as a spokesman for liberalism (not Indianism, mind you) is completely insulting, in in my estimation--to the homosexual 'community' as well as to Indians. Are homosexuals now infiltrators? Ethinic spies? Have they no real dignity within themselves, alone? Must they be enlisted in a cause, or else they are unjustified in their existence?
4.) Under BadEagle.com's "American Indian Veterans" forum, Cinda Hughes (Kiowa), who works in Washington, DC, posted a notice about the Congressional legislation (HR 4544, "Code Talker bill") that would "award Congressional Medals of Honor to all the tribes who had Code Talkers in WWI and WWII. Silver duplicates will be given to each Code Talker or surviving family." I responded with a doubt as to whether this was appropriate, citing individual Indians, as well as others, who have won the Congressional Medal of Honor on their individual merits in battle. This seems to de-value them, and every other individual awarded the CMH. I did not see that using one's native language is an act of particulary outstanding heroism, which is what the CMH is awarded for. This expression of my opinion was perhaps ill-advised, and I might have done better to have said nothing. But, I already posted in response, and even if I removed my post, any and everyone was free to cut and paste and may already have done so. Therefore, I thought I should publically address this issue here.
I personally am not a veteran, and my opinion is of no import in this matter whatever. My stated opinion might even be considered insulting by some. This is certainly not my intent. I merely trying to protect the definition of the Congressional Medal of Honor. That I should be found differing from the present Comanche leadership, which of course supports HR 4544, is not to be regarded as anything but that--a difference of opinion. I do not advocate anything, or publically promote any position on this matter. I merely stated my concerns, and that is the end of it.
I do point out that Cinda Hughes (Kiowa) is apparently the person who originally posted (on Indianz.com) the completely false and libelous affront that I am not the son of my own mother. The full consequence of this malicious lie has yet to be seen.
5.) Finally, I must confess a certain impossibility in relating to my "enemies." At today's Sabbath service, our congregation celebrated the Communion Service, that is, the Ordinance of Humility (communal foot washing) and the Lord's Supper (a wheat cracker and grape juice). This is about as powerful as Protestantism can get, liturgically. The present pastor gave a most touching portrayal of the significance of symbolic service, and what it meant in human relations. Of course, most of us apply that to our own particular 'brotherhood,' our own congregation. We tend to limit such extravagance as "forgiveness" to a chosen few in our lives. Out there in "the world," we are much more sparing and careful. The world is a cruel place, it seems, though we usually mistakenly think the church is a less cruel place. People lie, people defraud, people sin against one another. Whereas we may insist on our innocence of intent, we simply cannot be sure that we have not offended, brutally. In all likelihood, we have.
I have been called radical, divisive, and told I make many people very angry. Firstly, I should say, "Good! That's means there are at least some people out there thinking! Or, at least feeling." But secondly, I should say, while I see nothing at all wrong or culpable in divisiveness, and I consider the accusation a weak, liberal pretense, I will also say, in the light of Sabbath, it is a strange work I do. I feel that liberal Indian leadership is crippling Indian progress, and harming Indian people. I think this in turn is an unnecessary problem for the United States to deal with. Liberal Indian leadership classifies Indians with the enemies of America. This is tragic--for Indians. And so I protest it. I write and speak against it. I think liberals are the enemies of Indians, and they have deceived and abused Indians, training a few leaders to utterly misrepresent the Indian cause, and leading all Indians down the wrong path, psychologically and politically. I consider this a threat to our future, even to our existence as individual tribes. I rise up against it, with a sense of lethal rigor. It is a struggle for existence.
I merely hope to engage in that war with less rage and more acuity in the future.
September 14 (Sunday), I posted an entry entitled "Where Are The Indians?" in which I noted that the court case of the Comanche Nations v. Fort Sill (still pending) has not been covered by any Indian papers or web sites. This struck me as surprising, though perhaps it shouldn't have. Indians in media and in white-funded NGOs are all quite liberal, yes, but that's why I presumed they would be hot on the trail. William Voelker, Chairman of the Board of the Comanche NAGRA and Historical Preservation Office told me and Joline Schonchin that he had contacted 'fifty' different papers, radio, and TV stations. Schonchin, our Comanche Nation News editer is of course doing a story, but our paper is not online, and comes out only once a month.
So, it's pretty much been left to the Bad Eagle, indeed. I know my coverage has been a bit radical, perhaps imbalanced, and rather one sided. I know I was in a state of absolute infuriation for nearly a week. Not a healthy state to be in, and certainly not condusive to objectivity as a reporter. Well, I've resigned to the fact that I'm a commentator, not a reporter. The two professions engender very diverse essays. I can't wait to see what Joline writes.
AIO's LaDonna and Laura with Chickasaw John Harrington, first Indian in
space. From the AIO Newsletter, Fall, 2006.
In the mean time, I heard from some relatives and associates who were not happy with some of my sentiments in "Where Are The Indians?" Not responding at all to the Comanche Nation's concerns about Medicine Bluff, my "cuz" Laura Harris (daughter and now Executive Director of Americans for Indian Opportunity (whose president and founder is of course LaDonna Harris, my "auntie") decided to reprimand me for my remarks about the Alaskan natives. I criticized the idea that non-American Indians should cash in on the "rights" won by Indian blood, historically. There were no "wars" between the American government and the Eskimos. Why should they expect to be allowed to live in their traditional style forever? Why do they fell they have such a right? None of the rest of us were left unchanged--and that's after we spilled blood! We go to Wal-Mart for our meat and vetetables. We don't hunt buffalo any more.
Laura wrote:
Not only did the Native Alaskans fight against Euro-American oppression, my son's grandfather, Samuel W. Goodhope, a Inupiaq and shareholder of the NANA Corporation was a sergeant in the Army. He served 2 tours in Vietnam and spent several years in Germany. He received several medals and served his country like many many other Native Alaskans in the U.S. Armed Services.
Fine, but what has that to do with what I'm talking about? I'm talking about historical wars between the United States government and American Indian nations! I thought this response was so far off the mark I had to cite it. In fact, it made me quite angry, since it was on a list-serve (yahoo groups) of the AIO that a good number of people look at. It was like pure red herring, pure liberal diversion, pure irrelevence, ignoring the point, and instead inserting an altogether different one. Of course, the Native Alaskans did not "fight" against the United States government on any battlefield. Laura's opening sentence is completely vague, if not deceptive, if not completely false. I say this is natural liberalism, exhibit A. I find it exacerbating. Of course, I may not be on that AIO list serve in the future, as I'm given to understand.
Laura instructs all:
Please, all members of the Ambassadors list serve, let's talk about issues and facts and not lower the conversation to wild accusations, misinformation and hurtful rhetoric.
How about simply addressing those issues and facts presented? High enough?
Now, one "stayred73" (who is apparently unwilling to identify himself, like so many "braves" out there on the internet) also wrote to me on the AIO group. He actually did address my issues--with transcendent liberal-learned historical perspective:
How many wars were there in the 19th century? Just a little over 50 wars between the U.S. and some 28 tribes, 22percent of those conflicts happened after a treaty was in place between the tribes and the U.S. Government.
Truly astounding history here. Only in a totally feminist (anti-war), liberal fantisizer could such thought originate. I know not the text, nor the Leftist internet site were such falsehood was created. Let's see, from 1620 to, say, 1878--only 50 wars, and only 22 tribes ever involved in armed conflict. Isn't that stunning? And, gee, we're only talking about "federally recognized tribes" here, according to stayred73, and that's probably only about 447 tribes. Well, that's really "staying red." That's real proud Indian talk. Something we can all have great confidence in. Of course, Stayred73 tells me his mother was part Nez Perce and Yakima, so that gives him the authority so say Indians won nothing by war, and most didn't fight anyway. Make you proud? Make you honor your fathers? (Okay, so I take a Comanche world view here. Forgive me.)
So, this is an insight into the liberal Indian, the trained anti-war, anti-respect, anti-American racist liberal Indian. All Indians are the same, all indigenous people are the same, all non-white people are the same. And George Soros and Robert Redford's Sundance Institute will bless them all, including Polynesians, Asians, Africans, and homosexuals.
And if any ill-informed people think Comanches were "democratic" or "accepting of all people" or into a special sense of intertribal "equality," I'd suggest becoming more familiar with Comanche history. Sure, if a Comanche band made off with an Indian kid or an non-Indian kid, after a raid, and decided he was worth keeping for one reason or another, they didn't speak Enlgish, German, or French to him. They didn't iron his shirt for him. They didn't respect whatever ethnicity or culture he was from. He had to be Comanche from then on, in every last way. This is not called "multi-culturalism," much as liberals dream it was, insist it was, and lie about it and publish it to prove it was. It simply wasn't.
Personally, I look to the past for cues for the future. Comanche people did not become great by being inclusive, or uniting with other "skins" in an racial love-fest. Rather the opposite. By being completely exclusive, elite, and self-contained, Comanches became the "lords of the southern plains." By being conservative, frankly. Liberalism is designed to destroy nationhood, ethnicity, and culture. That's what Communism is all about. That's the document.
On the other hand, the whole purpose of LaDonna's AIO is to help indigenous people of the world preserve their identity! So, go figure! I suppose it is the logistic, the method, I hotly disagree with. Uniting with other non-whites, using the same identity jargon, seems racist to me. The method is liberal, even communistic, but with a goal wholly opposite! It's enough to drive you crazy.
I will say, however, the AIO Ambassador program, of which I was part in 1993-94 (the first class), was designed to teach consensus. It was a leadership training program, with emphasis on management of diversity of opinion. Consensus does imply difference of opinion, even difference of values. So I say things differently from some other Ambassadors. This should be most welcome, and faced head on. Anything else is again the opposite of the AIO mandate or purpose. I think AIO and I share the same goals. However, I think our methodologies are radically different, and I fear they actually lead to different outcomes.
I know that I feel no particular obligation to consider any other people equal to the Comanche. I have no disposition to share the glory. My fathers didn't die for the Eskimo, or even the Nez Perce. They died for me.
We got off on this Eskimo thing because some truly none-thinikng, 'imaginative' liberal writer on IndianCountryToday (Rob Capriccioso--American Indian?) made a comparison between Todd Palin and LaDonna Harris. Again, liberalism deluxe. Like, Todd, as the husband of probable Vice President Sarah, is going to be in a position to do great things for "Indians," same as LaDonna did (has), as wife of former Senator Fred R. Harris. This another classic example of the imaginary world liberals live in. It's just insufferable to me. Such preponderance of willful error soon produces a natural distortion, and then communication is impossible. Consensus is off the table.
Rob Capriccioso, on the British
'socialist' site, The Guardian.
Mr. Capriccioso hasn't yet re-
vealed his Indian family name
or lineage on the internet, only
his professional activity.
He also writes on a homosexual
blog, and has his own blog of a
similar vein.
Yesterday, September 15, 2008, Fort Sill made called its final witnesses in defense against the Comanche Nation injunction of August 18 (temporarily halting military contruction at the base area of Medicine Bluffs--the site held sacred to Comanche people). Friday, the defense had begun with witnesses who directly addressed the financial aspects of the Fort's cause of protest. Indeed, the Fort's defense of building the Training Service Center (TSC) in the face of Medicine Bluffs was based not only on a contempt for Comanche "spirituality," but on financial pressures and logistical necessities pertinent to the Fort.
Chief witnesses were civilian contractors and personnel hired by the Fort, such as John Roberts, and contracting officer John Weatherly, environmental director Glenn Wheat, and master planner Frank LePine. Finally, Fort Sill Garrison commander Col. Robert Bridgford himself testified.
Today, Tuesday, September 16, is the day federal judge Timothy DiGiusti made a personal visit to the contruction site so that he could see its effects on the environment of Medicine Bluffs. Comanche attorneys all strongly urged the Comanche people not to assemble, not to make any demonstration, or not to even be present. At this moment, I do not know who, besides the Judge DiGiusti, three other court personnel, and the attorneys, was present. I shall await information. Judge DiGiusti promised a decisioni as soon after this tour as possible. I'm assuming by the and of the week.
In summary, the Comanche Nation protests the destruction of the last "viewscape" on the south side of Medicine Bluffs. The Fort objected to the court-ordered cessation of construction on the basis of 1) a contempt for Comanche religion; 2) the urgency of the need for construction of the TSC; and 3) the financial pressures to complete it by a predetermined time. There was a pronounced lack, or at least feigned lack, of familiarity with Comanche ways on the part of the Fort Sill personnel involved, and a distinct lack of understanding, communication, and even respect. There was also a certain failure to organize a united protest on the part of the Comanche Nation. There were apparently mitigating circumstances on both sides, or at least factors that contributed to the breach of trust and aggression on the part of the Fort, as well as the difficulties in the normal communication process within the Comanche tribe among the different offices. Chief Wallace Coffey testified of a $48 million dollar budget he has to manage, as well as personal meetings with the lowliest members of the tribe. ("Lowliest" is my word, meaning, very poor, needy people--but whose opinions and lives are as important to Chief Coffey as any garrison commander's.) Chief Coffey simply cannot see every piece of mail sent to him, nor answer every phone call that comes in. He must deligate responsibilities. Likewise, the Fort obviously passed the buck many times in the process of the BRAC construction projects on the Fort. Indeed, it was quite clear from the defense testimonies that the Army personnel tended to blame the civilian officials invovled, and the civilians tended to blame each other. A lot seemed to rest on Wheat and LePine.
Also, before this TSC construction crisis, there had been an on-going issue about the disturbance of historical Comanche grave sites. That was all connected to the Fort's new housing construction. The Fort is simply expanding, rapidly, according to federal mandates, but it is expanding on Comanche terrorities, or areas of historical concern. It was quite clear, from the implication of various defense testimonies, that the Fort could expand in other directions, or renovate certain present facilities. The expansion to the north is encroaching on Comanche areas. Comanches were still fighting that issue when this TSC site at Medicine Bluff was slipped into the picture.
The urgency of the TSC location in the Medicine Bluff area was not at all convincing. The defense spent a lot of time arguing of the need for the TSC, but failed to justify adequately that it must be right where Fort Sill had started it. The testimony of the civilian personnel also showed that the TSC project was rather obviously and carefully manoeuvered into the construction plans so that the Comanche Nation was in fact not aware of it. That's certainly the impression I myself got from their testimony. Judge DiGiusti's questions to each defense witness tended to emphasis that element as well.
Even Col. Bridgford's testimony contained some curious contradictions. He pointed out the BRAC funds (federal funds) for the construction of the TSC would be lost if the construction were halted, and that the money would be returned to BRAC, and redistributed. If the TSC were moved, Fort Sill would have to re-argue or re-compete with thousands of other requests, and Fort Sill would have to reestablish the priority of the TSC all over again. He was afraid it would not be re-considered. I ask, if it is such a major, urgent prioirty, why is there doubt that it would be reconsidered?
I must say, though, to correct my most recent post, Col. Bridgford testified that he received some 100 emails from Indians all over the country urging him not to build at the Bluffs. He said that this was the result of a total misrepresentation in the Lawton Constitution--which said or implied that the Army was building on the Bluffs, but in fact, the Army was only building right near the Bluffs, on plain right below, on the south side.
Col. Bridgford's testimony implied that Indians were all confused about the construction, and specifically implied that the Comanche Nation officials were themselves in disarray in contradictory. He implied that they were uncoordinated in their messages to him, and in their positions. He presented himself as perfectly willing to cooperate, even calling for a work stoppage on the site the week of August 11, until Chief Coffey returned from a vacation and the matter could be resolved.
The Fort proclaimed its innocence and justification resolutely. However, the facts in their case were equally outspoken. They simply did not inform the Comanche Nation of the TSC site until they had already funded it and started it. Furthermore, plaintiff attorneys cited all sorts of correspondence that clearly revealed that everyone involved from Fort Sill knew of the serious religious issue and the encroachment on Comanche rights. I'm talking about correspondence between Fort personnel, Army and hired civilians. They all knew, all along, since 1974 when Medicine Bluffs was listed on the National Register of Historic Sites. Issues came up again in 1988, and it was quite clear what the Comanches' concerns were. Yet, in the present crisis, key Fort Sill individuals bull-dozed forward anyway. Master planner Frank LePine's testimony seemed particularly reptilian in this regard. He implied culpability in Mr. Wheat, in the end. He said he waited for a "cultural concerns" report from Mr. Wheat, which he never received.
At the end of Monday's hearings, at 6:30 pm, I spoke with Col. Bentley I had to say, "See what happens when you hire civilians?" We both laughed. (I also confessed my struggle to achieve objectivity in reporting. He seemed to understand.)
All in all, one got the impression that there was a certain passing of the buck back and forth between the Army officers and the civilian officials involved. Add to that the current Army commanders' complete lack of familiarity with Comanche ways, together with the Fort's urgent construction projects, and you have just what transpired: a gigantic offense and inconvenience combined. However, the Fort has a lot of options. The Comanches have none. Medicine Bluffs is the end of the road.
Medicine Bluffs north side. PHOTO by Nick Tahchawwickah.
Even Col. Bridgford admitted, "I have a different view now."
And I must say, Col. Bridgford is one admirable officer. He gave a great deal of professional background and experience has the defense introduced him. He was the final witness. I shall post more on him later. As I have said before, no one appreciates and supports the US military more than I. (I do wonder why there are not more high ranking American Indian officers in the service, though.)
Finally, I think the one voice that was stifled in the whole matter was that of William Voelker, chairman of the Comanche NAGPRA board, the man who really initiated the Comanche effort to protect the Bluffs, once he realized what the Fort was doing. He was not elected as a witness, nor was he allowed to testify in any form. I shall have to investigate this. (Surely he would not have been the maniac I would have been.!) He is a most knowledgable man in Comanche tradition and history. Also, Voelker said he had contacted nearly fifty newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations, but still, none are reporting on the story. Voelker himself is the only person once interviewed at all, and that was a month ago or more. He was not given opportunity to defend himself against the testimony of Col. Bridgford, either. That was pointedly frustrating.
One thing I have learned in obvserving this particular court process: I am a commentator, not a reporter. I offer opinion, not an objective reconstruction of the events. Especially in this case, I found objectivity nearly impossible. I was infuriated, silently, most of the time. Only by the fourth day did I begin to calm down. I had intended to interview all the defendence witnesses, for an exercise in balance. The US Attorney's office (Robert Troester) understood and appreciated my concerns, but advised against it until after the final decision was rendered.
BadEagle.com will post the decision of Judge DiGiusti as soon as it it available.
Beginning September 10, 2008, the Comanche Nation has been in Oklahoma federal court in a case against the United States Government, i.e., Fort Sill. This is perhaps the most important case in 20th century Comanche history. The Comanche Nations seeks to protect its most sacred site, Medicine Bluffs. Yet, no case has received less attention, less coverage, or less regard--by American Indians. I ask, where are all the notorious, liberal, Leftist, Communist-funded, protesting American Indians? Where are the famed trouble makers, the professional suit seekers, and the great AIM warriors? BadEagle.com alone covers the story.
Three Comanche braves, standing alone, ca. late 19th century
And above all, where are the professional reporters? Where are IndianCountryToday, NativeTimes, even Indianz.com? No, a simple AP wire, three weeks old, announcing the case, isn't going to cut it. And where is the basic liberal, Leftist media? Where are the Daily Oklahoman, the Lawton Constitution, the Tulsa World, and all the other infamously liberal media? Where are the state and regional TV stations? Where are the national media?
These liberal, communistic agencies are always first in line to insult America, to denigrate patriotic values, and to take the pure racist approach to any perceived offense by the United States. I'm surprised the international communist media like Inymedia, The Guardian, or even the BBC, the New York Times, or the LA Times haven't been on top of this story.
They don't care about Indians. Leftist Indians don't care about Indians, either. This has long been the conclusion of BadEagle.com. Now it is particularly, dramatically demonstrated as abstolutely true. These Leftist care only about their personal careers. Nothing more, else, or other. (Oh, liberals and liberal-trained Indians honor American Indian vets now and then, but only when they can avoid all association with 'love of country' in so doing.)
Ah, well, there's that little matter of the unprecedented independence of Comanche people, from the day they were first espied. Comanche people, from the view of others, have been considered "enemies" of all people. Some say our name itself derives from the Ute word "komats," which means "who wants to fight me all the time." That would be Comanche. That would also be a misinterpretation. Comanches simply took what land and game we wanted, and kicked everyone else out. No particular hatred for other there, just love of Comanches!
Could that possibly have anything to do with why there is no covereage of this story, save that here on BadEagle.com (and Meruawe, the site of Comanche Nick Tahchawwickah)?
It doesn't matter. The fact is, the AP wire went out in August. Everyone knows what's going on. The liberals, white and Indian, simply don't care. Comanches are on our own, as always. So be it, forever. We've done just fine.
But don't expect me to share the glory with the Shoshoni, the Kiowa, or the Apache. Don't expect me to share the glory with the Democrats, or the Eskimos. For that matter, don't expect me to share the glory with conservatives or Republicans. Whatever the outcome of this case, the honor is due solely to the Comanches. We stood our ground, like the Wolf Clan. (This story is far from over, too.)
No, the Leftist Indians are preoccupied with trying to steal the glory from Sarah Palin about now. In an unsual surge of idiocy, IndianCountryToday tried to compare conservative Todd Palin, Sarah's husband who is reportedly "part" Eskimo, to the very famous Democrat and elder LaDonna Harris, wife of former senator Fred R. Harris. This is to imply that, through his wife, Todd will work wonderfully for "American Indians," in a way similar to how LaDonna Harris did, when her husband was a senator (from Cotton County, Oklahoma).
LaDonna Harris, a relative, no less! In fact, I was
in the first AIO class of Kellogg Fellows, in1993-94.
I learned much, indeed.
Error on all sides. Harris was a senator, not a vice-presidential candidate. LaDonna has been involved in Indian country affairs (Comanche) from her birth. It wasn't about political opportunism. LaDonna is completely Democrat and liberal, actually, and idiologically the opposite of Todd Palin, we presume. In any case, she is a life-long professional (on a par with Hillary Clinton, actually, in terms of Indian country efforts). This ludicrous comparison of Todd Palin with LaDonna is insulting not only to LaDonna, but to Todd as well, who, to this point, has not shown any interest or involvedment in Eskimo affairs whatsoever.
Furthermore, Eskimos are not American Indians, and share neither history or genes. It is a different people. They obviously prefer their own names and classifications, not that of "American Indians." Let it be. Let them fend for themselves. Why should they reap the rewards of our American Indian blood spilled on the battlefield to maintain our existence? What have they to do with us, or we them? And that crippled, uninformed letter circulating on the internet, "An Alaskan Native Speaks Out," how pathetic it is. We plains Indians have to go to Wal-Mart, to Target, to Arby's. We have to pay for gas, for heat, etc. Our lives were forever changed. And that's after war! And the Eskimos expect to be left alone, to live on their own fish and furs, without ever fighting? How so? By claiming the "rights" of American Indians--bought with blood?
This is all Leftist racism. And, as we note, a position which cares nothing for Indians. These theorists have not a twinge of concern for what is happening in the Comanche Nation at this very moment. They sound off only when it is to their personal career advantage--and then they claim their "rights," which they never fought for. The liberal media is generally quite happy to support such anti-white, anti-American racist voices--classifying all non-white "darkies" or "brownies" as one giant bowel movement in the earth, ready to drop on the White House steps. That should be quite clear by now. It's called the "indigenous movement." It is hemispheric these days. (LaDonna Harris is an avid advocate of that view. She includes Polynesians now in her "Americans for Indian Opportunity" fellowship program, as well as all South American Indians. Next we'll see Asians, and finally, African Negros, no doubt. That's the Soros/Redford approach at Sundance Institute.)
Comparing Eskimos to American Indians; comparing Todd Palin to LaDonna Harris; this is the great intellectual prowess of liberal Democrats. Isn't it brilliant? Isn't it inspiring? Doesn't it speak well of freedom, and promise a wonderful future?
I say it bespeaks the demise of nationhood--even the sovereignty of each individual tribe. The Comanches have had the right idea all long. Independence. Yes, in recent decades many Oklahoma Comanches have leaned Democrat, but I sumrise that is due to the Democrat environment of Oklahoma. Southwest Oklahoma, where the Comanche headquarters are, is one of the least populated areas of Oklahoma. This is not the hub of political life. Whatever the policial stats regarding individual Comanche people and their voting trends (if any), the numunu (the people) are essentially independent. Whatever notions and actions of generosity and fellowship the Comanche Nations shows to other tribes, this present crisis with Fort Sill shows that we are a singular people. We are apart. Alone, and fundamentally independent.
I, for one, will not share the glory.
Bad Eagle, 1836-1909
Disclaimer: BadEagle.com is an independent website, and does not represent any official or representative position of the Comanche Nation. Your web host just happens to be Quahada Comanche, a fifth generation descendent of Bad Eagle (quin-ne kish-su-it), born and raised in Oklahoma. I also happen to be an American Patriot, with abundant affection for the United States military. This Fort Sill crisis is unthinkable to me, and I attribute it mostly to the lack of familiarity with Indian history and affairs on the part of the current, newly appointed officers in charge.
The Fort Sill defense is all "red herring." Their case against the Comanche injunction (stopping Fort Sill construction at Medicine Bluffs) is based on a diversionary emphasis, an off-target, invisible straw man. It was a weak and crippled defense, in my opinion.
Today, Friday, September 12, was the third day in Oklahoma Federal Court in downtown Oklahoma City. Today, Fort Sill (US government) presented it's witnesses. These were individuals who gave accounts of the "damages" and "costs" to the government, should Fort Sill not be allowed to build the Training Service Center (TSC) at the base of Medicine Bluff, a very special, sacred site of Comanches (and other area Indians). The TSC, an imposing contruction design, if accomplished, would forever destroy the ambience of the beauty and sanctity of the critically important south side of Medicine Bluffs--the side the Comanches traditionally approached the Bluffs.
Fort Sill's defense, as presented by Attorney Tom Majors and Captain Teresa Ford, has basically two aspects: 1) denigration and contempt for Comanche spirituality, or for Indian religion; 2) a lengthy lament of the financial loses should the TSC be cancelled or the site be moved elsewhere. That is the scope of the defense. BadEagle.com has already touched (however inappropriately or vehemently) on the matter of public ridicule of Comanche religion by the United States Military lead attorneys. That is a matter of record now. That will never be forgotten, excused, or otherwise mitigated. The second aspect, that of financial damages caused by delay (i.e., the courts injunction against further construction efforts on the ground) or possibile relocation of the construction site altogether, were offered as an explanation for Fort Sill's objection to the injunction.
Note carefully, the contempt for Comanche religion was merely collateral damage from the Fort's effort before the court to dismiss the injuction. The Fort couln't care less about Comanche religion, nor were it's denigrations likely sincere, really. The point the Fort is trying to make before the court is that is must build. It is under federal obligations to build. It is part of a national program of restructuring the military of the United States. This current disruption--due to Comanche religion--is ridiculous, in their suggested reasoning. Why, the Fort is immediately connected to national defense, the war on terror, etc., etc. This Comanche business is frivolous, irrelevant, and even dangerous. These are the implications of the defense.
Col. William L. Greer, former Chief of Staff at Fort Sill, had testified of ealier problem with Fort Sill construction which violated historical Comanche grave sites. His point was that Comanches knew of Fort Sill construction initiatives, apparently implying that the Comanche Nation should have protested more strongly before the current situation. A weak point it was.
One Mr. Roberts was testifying for the court when I came in this morning (a half-hour late), giving details about the TSC site at the Bluffs, suggesting its necessity, its critical function, etc. The fact is, the present location of the main functioning TSC is miles away, and has been in use since 1978. Mr. Roberts gave the impression, however, that Fort Sill is in quite the dilapodated condition, with many facilities being outdated, out moded, and deteriorating. Therefore, a new TSC is urgent.
My point: that's not the issue. The issue is WHERE it should be built, not whether. Mr. Roberts testimony served no special justification for building the new TSC in the face of Medicine Bluff.
Col. Douglass Bentley, Jr. a logistics engineer, gave fascinating detail about the renovations going on at Fort Sill, and the regional Forts, and how BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure)--the federal initiative for reorganizing and overhauling the United States military--played out in the Fort Sill circumstances. However, not only had Col. Bentley not reviewed the BRAC recommendations for Ft. Sill, but he did not know that the new TSC proposal and location was not listed in the recommendations.
Nevertheless, Col Bentley explained the flexible concepts of "realignment," and also went into clarion detail of the BRAC financial aspects as applied to Fort Sill. But, once again, it was more red herring. The issue is where, not whether. No one is disputing the need for a new TSC facility. The dispute is over where it should be. There is no clear clear argument for or justification of placing it insultingly in the face of Medicine Bluff. (Judge DiGiusti even asked if the Fort had considered using the closed Fort prison as the new TSC facility, if the 'correctional facility' is sufficiently distant and out of the way of the Bluff viewscape.)
Fort Sill's contracting officer, Mr. John Weatherly testified at length about the financial damages incurred, should the current TSC construction project be terminated or moved. This was perhaps the meat of the defense, or at least intended to be. (However, there were some variant details. Weatherly's report had estimated $1,500 to $2,000 a day in costs due to the court's injunction against the construction. The contracting company, TREND, out of Tampa, Florida, however, states in their contract that such costs were $847. per day. There were other discrepencies in figures, but, the memorable fact is that Mr. Weatherly had not actually seen the construction designs for the new TSC, nor had he ever been asked to move a construction site before. (That's in 24 years of contracting negotiations.)
Judge DiGiusti (clearly the star of the show--in that he examined the witnesses himself, with truly insightful, careful considerations) asked Weatherly if he had consulted with TREND about their current costs related to the delay. He had not. Weatherly said the contract was a FY08 (fiscal year 2008) BRAC-funded contract, and if it wasn't done now, it would be terminated, and the money would be "reassigned." The judge suggested that the same contractor could be used, with a re-bid, and construction could still be completed on time--within the 2011 limit. Judge DiGiusti repeatedly explored possible solutions which neither plaintiff or defense attorneys had even brought up. This was truly impressive to the witnessing audience. We came to anticipate his contributions, and found ourselves waiting anxiously to hear them.
So, in summary, the defense position was, in my opinion, weak, based on contempt for another people's religion, and a line of red herring. Again, the issue is not whether to build, or only where to build the new TSC. It simply does not have to be in the face of the Bluffs. From what I heard, the defense did not even make this argument--why the TSC had to be there, at the Bluffs. They simply argued that they must have a new TSC. Now, I can write off my rage at the Fort for the disrespect rendered the Comanche elders by Captain Teresa Ford as my personal reaction. But, the fact that the Fort did not argue effectively the position that the TSC must be at the base of the Bluffs only tells me that the Fort is not prepared to win this argument. They did not demonstrate that the TSC must be at the Bluffs, nor that there were truly inhibitive financial damages for moving the site. As I said, Judge DiGiusti even brought up possibilities that there may not even be a need for a new facility, suggesting the former correction facility as as an alternative.
If my personal anger is assuaged at all, it is because of these mitigating circumstances: the major players of Fort Sill who are involved in this BRAC initiative are new to the Fort! They are unfamiliar with American Indian relations in the vicinity, and apparently have no particular interest or concern to know. They're just being soldiers, doing what they are assigned to do. This is more like a car wreck than an attack on Comanche people. These new officers seem oblivious to the cultural, historical circumstances of Fort Sill and the Kiowa-Comanche-Apache tribal community relations. This is a element in the mix here. Yes, there was disdain for Comanche spirituality on the part of Captain Teresa Ford, as she ridiculed Comanche elders with her obvious, condescending incredulity. But, she was doing her job as she saw it. She apparently had no sensitivity to any kind of spirituality at all.
This is the situation. A car wreck, cause by lack of cultural familiarity of certain military officers in charge, mis-communication on the part of certain unauthorized Comanche office workers (no longer in office), and the time and cost constraints of the BRAC initaitive. "We are a nation at war," said Col. Bentley said. He reference Iraq, training and deployment of our troops, etc. This was his "emotional" appeal for the BRAC initiatives.
Unfortunately, this had nothing to do with the location of the Training Service Center. It was red herring. Comanches are great veterans and patriots. There is no objection to the necessary improvements at Fort Sill. All we ask is that they not construct the TSC in the face of the Bluffs. There is no demonstrable necessity for that, nor inhibitive financial damages. The Fort simply erred in this one. They should move the construction site as quickly as possible, and withdraw their ineffective, misdirecting objections. This is truly wasteful. For that, the American public objects!
Heap Wolves, Comanche. Some white people wonder why
Indians have a living resentment of them. Is this such a
mystery? I wish that these court proceedings were on
tape, available to the public. This would answer many
questions.
Thursday, September 11, 2008 was the second day in Oklahoma City's Federal Court for the Comanche Nation, Case No. CIV 08 849 D, "Comanche Nation v. United States (Fort Sill)." It was at least a momentary victory for the Comanches At a critical point, after the Comanche case had presented it's principle witnesses, the defense (Fort Sill) attorney Tom Majors moved to dismiss the case. Federal Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti immediately denied the motion.
The Comanche Nation had this day presented a total of four elders to testify about the spiritual nature of Medicine Bluffs, and the Comanche involvement there, both historically and in the present day. This testimony was in addition to that of Jimmy Arterberry and Chief Wallace Coffey given yesterday. The elders were Bernard Kararah, Thomas Black Star, Sr. (83), Tawana Spivey (Chickasaw, and Ft. Sill Museum Director and Curator), and Rita Coosewoon. It was rather unique testimony, given the unfamiliarity of the court, and even of the Comanche attorneys (Jay Walters and Clint Cowan), when it came to anything Indian, and everything Comanche. For example, our Comanche elders, even Chief Coffey were initially asked, "How did you become Comache?"
As I have already vehemently noted, defense attorneys Tom Majors and Captain Teresa Ford showed not only unfamiliarity, but Captain Ford showed acute disdain and contempt for Comanche spirituality. That was the order of the day. Comanches had claimed religious privilege, therefore, Comanche religion was attacked, openly and unabashedly. That was the price we paid for being so very bold as to claim the right to our religious beliefs in this land of religious freedom. (Has an Episcopalian ever undergone such denigrating scrutinty? How about a Baptist?)
Nevertheless, our great Comanche men showed remarkable calm and dignity. I was astounded, by contrast to my own bewildering outrage--to see a white female treat these great Indian men with such unmitigated (and unforgivable) disrespect. I had to say something to our elders. "How could you remain so calm, like the still waters?" Kararah smiled and pointed heavenward. "The Spirit was with us," he said. Wallace said, "There's a time to use your anger, and a time to keep it hidden." Rita told me, "Never be negative." She spoke of the defense attorneys, "It's their anger, not yours. You're letting them put their anger in you! Don't do that." I have to admit, I felt really ashamed about myself. I was just too angry. I was impressed with my elders that day. And, from my own Comanche mother, I have quoted before, in my post on Chief Wallace Coffey:
In 2001, at the age of 79, she wrote of "the elegant Indian male," who would never "openly dispute at social or business meetings." She must have been thinking about Wallace. The Indian men "do not get upset if they have to wait hours for a meeting to start, or for someone to arrive. The word 'rush' has no meaning to them." She said the Comanche had "no fear but lightning." Yes, she was thinking about Wallace, I'm sure!
I know she wasn't thinking of me!
Towana Spivey's historical testimony about the Bluffs was stunning. And, being an employee of the Fort, he has put himself and his job on the line. He is standing for truth, that's all. He knows how this current crisis developed, and he knows the history of Fort Sill and all the Indians of the area. His testimony will no doubt prove an insurmountable irony for Fort Sill's defense team.
Fort Sill is in the middle of an enormous BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) process, which is a federally funded program of renovation, reconstruction, new construction, expansion, etc., which involves millions of dollars. Fort Sill must complete constructions by 2011, or lose the funding. Thus, the pressure to continue, and the "loss" caused by delays--such as court injunctions, or having to move sites, etc. This is a driving force behind the defense case.
There may be genuine confusion and lack of communication involved. The Fort has undergone fundamental reorganization, and there are new officers in charge of things, appointed in the last year--officers who have no knowledge of either the historical or present relations of Fort Sill to the Indian tribes of southwest Oklahoma. They are simply pushing the BRAC programs, with little consideration of the Indian circumstances.
The defense presented witness today, and their case was rather weak, unprepared, and ineffective. Judge DiGiusti re-examined Ft. Sill "archeologist" Kevin Christopher, and found his testimony quite problematic and unsatisfactory. As to specifically and clearly required "consultation" with the Indian tribes, Christopher could cite only emails and notices of project construction. "So, what you mean by 'consulation' is sending notification of plans?" the judge asked.
Tomorrow, Friday, the defense will present witness testifying about the 'financial damage' the injunction has cost them, and any more delay will cost, and any transfer of construction sites. This portion of the hearing is to last half a day. Court will reconvene on Monday, 9:00 am, 4th Street, between Robinson and Harvey, Room 503 (5th floor, south side). I understand that Tuesday, September 16, the court has considered an on-site visit to Medicine Bluff, and the proposed Fort Sill Training/Service Center (TSC) construction site. Never was a court more sincere in such a case.
In the interests of objectivity and 'balanced' reporting, I am hoping to interview the defense attorneys, particulary the military personnel involved. My anger is merely a reflection of the frustration admiration I have for the US Military. That they should treat Comanches, my people, great warriors and US veterans that Comanches are, with such carelessness and public contempt, is more than I can bear. And I'm no one. I'm not a vet. I come from a family of vets, but, I was rejected for childhood health problems. I have no service record. This is all vicarious for me. Perhaps that is the cause of my outrage. It is magnified by personal frustration. I feel I owe the military a voice, even if I think they're acting like blockheads, blinded by financial pressures. I'm supposed to request permission from First Assistant US Attorney Robert Troester. I may not bother. We all know the traditional military procedure. Don't ask, don't tell. Just do. Sometimes, it's just better not to ask. Don't give anyone the chance to say no. That's just what Fort Sill has done to the Comanches, or so it appears.
Before Rita Coosewoon was finished, she had invited all people to Medicine Bluff. "It is your Creator, too," she said to the defense attorneys. "The Spirit is there for all people." That was a rather special moment. Thank you, Rita! I also note, Captain Ford seemed actually respectful of Rita. I would say it was the spirit of stark feminism in her, rather than appreciation for what Rita was actually saying.
By that as it may, let's hope the weather holds Tuesday, so the court can visit Medicine Bluffs!
The first day of hearings for Case No. CIV 08 849 D in the United States District Court (Oklahoma City) began this morning at 9:00 a.m. (Well, actually, at 9:45 a.m.). The Comanche Nation v. The United States (Fort Sill) opened in the courtroom of Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti, a very level-headed, courteous, and kindly exacting umpire of law.
The case is simple: Fort Sill wants to construct an enormous warehouse/training center at the base of Medicine Bluffs, a four-peak crescent rock formation on Comanche land long held sacred by the Comanches, as well as other southwestern plains tribes. The Comanche Nation feels this contruction location is inimical to our spiritual traditions, and would permanently disrupt the long standing practice of those traditions.
Fort Sill claims that the warehouse project (TSC) has been a well-known undertaking, and the Comanche Nation is now inappropriately interfering. The Fort claims it has followed all the guildlines of communication and there is no legitimate reason for the Temporary Restraining Order obtained by the Comanche Nation on August 18, 2008.
Jimmy Arterberry
PHOTO by Nick Tahchawwicka
The Comanche Nation Chairman, Wallace Coffee, and other Comanche representatives, disagree completely. The communications guides were not followed, and the primacy of Comanche religious practice have precedence, especially since Medicine Bluffs was declared a "sacred site" listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1974. Recorded personal testimony indicates that the Comanche regarded the place as sacred as early as the 1830's, when Comanche people took over the area. The Comanche Nation would never have approved the colossal construction of alien nature right at the base region of the Bluffs had the Nation known of Fort Sill's intent.
As it turns out from testimony, there was actual miscommunication between the Fort and the Comanche Nation. I should say, there was unauthorized communication on the part of people not representing the Comanche Nation, and also clandestine intent on the part of Fort Sill. There was never a clear indication whatsoever that the Fort intended to build right at the base of the Bluffs. Now, all the Comanche Nation is asking is that Fort simply move the site elsewhere--to any of the numerous optional locations. A modest request, at most.
The Fort's legal defense comprises an attack on Comanche spirituality. This is the outrage. This is the offense. The Comanche Nation is claiming long-established religious regard for Medicine Bluffs. The Fort Sill legal team--in US Army uniform, no less, stood in court, and denigrated, belittled, and insulted the Comanche Nation and the individual witnesses. The US Army showed the most acute disdain for Comanche spirituality and religious sentiment.
William Voelker, who is one of the witnesses, was
outside the courthouse at 8:00 a.m., with medicine staff,
incense, and eagle feathers. It was a good feeling!
PHOTO by Nick Tahchawwicka
It was astounding to behold. That such raw hatred (however respectful the demeanor of its presentation) should still exist today, expressed by the great and noble US Army, was stunning. Jimmy Arterberry, a Comanche NAGPRA representative and also Director of Comanche Nation's Tribal Historical Preservation Office, was the first witness. At one point he was asked to mark on an arial photographic map the exacts spots where he had spiritual experiences on the bluffs! Lead plaintiff attorney asked Arterberry how he felt about that. "Humiliated. Insulted," was his answer. Personally, I wouldn't never have responded with such meek demeanor. I would have [EDITED] the female Army attorney (in uniform), and [EDITED]. Later, current chief of the Comanches Walllace Coffey was given the same demand by the same egregeous officer, only to have Judge DeGiusti declare the request unnecessary (although Wallace seemed willing to answer it).
Fort Sill is digging itself deeper, not into Medicine Bluff, but in national disgrace. What the Fort needs now is a way to show the most basic common sense and respect, and yet save face. It's all about saving face. The Fort is clearly out of line here. Of course, no recording of the court proceedings is allowed, and no news reporters were there (that I recognized). There was myself, and Comanche Nation News editor, Jolilne Schonchin. (I'm anxious to see how she handles the story!)
Arteberry appeared in a dark grey business suit, looking very professional. Chief Coffey wore a traditional Comanche beaver cap, with a bright red feather on top. He is a headman of a Comanche Warrior Society, and he wore their signature bright read vest. He had on black slacks, with tan leather Comanche moccasins.
The hearings continue tomorrow, 9:00 a.m., in the Oklahoma City Federal Court building, 4th Street, between Harvey and Robinson, on the 5th floor, Ct. Rm. No. 503 (south side). Tomorrow we shall hear from several individual Comanche people and their spiritual relationship to Medicine Bluffs. Indeed, the entire proceedings have been completely educational for the court, and no doubt for the defense attorneys and the Ft. Sill personnel. Yes, Comanches have been gravely insulted, denigrated, and even mocked! Yet, the people have remained dignified under fire. I know I could never have kept so cool. I was enormously proud of our Comanche people.
The Army appears yet to harbor a historical-based fear and dread of Indian religion. The mention of it calls for their obvious ridicule and disdain and aggressive attack. That is what I observe in the defense. They are basing their approach on an utter invalidation of Comanche spirituality and on visceral character assassination. They are trying to make Comanche spirituality appear vain and Comanche people seem pretentious and insincere. This is the worst possible approach. This should be on the front page of every news paper in the country. I can only pray that this attitude does not reflect the US government attitude toward American Indian people. Considering the laws passed in recent years to protect Indian tradition and values, I confidently say it doesn't.
Nevertheless, a strong, pithy prejudice still exists in the current Fort Sill attitude. Again, for the sake of those who love and respect the United States military, I recommend contacting representatives and encouraging Fort Sill to simply move the TSC site away from Medicine Bluffs.
Fort Sill's Public Relations: 580-442-4500 or 580-442-2521
media-sill@conus.army.mil.
Major General Peter M. Vangjel
Commanding General
Fort Sill, United States Army
7305 NW McNair Aveneue
Suite 100
Ft. Sill, OK 73503-9016
Dr. Robert M Gates
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1000
Mr. Pete Geren
Secretary of the Army
101 Army Pentagon
Washington DC 20310-0101
Express your concern that the military not behave in such an ungodly manner. This case should never have come to this point. It should have been settled outside of court. Fort Sill is making the worst PR move in the history of the Fort. Also, there is a story behind the story, which I was told today by one of our Comanche Business Committee members. I will reveal that story after I see what happens tomorrow. The Comanche testimonies about the Bluffs are simply wonderful. Yes, it is humiliating to have to lay out your hearts on the ground like this, and be subject to such infuriating denigration--with no 'in kind' recourse or response possible. But, Comanches have claimed religious rights, and we must attempt to communicate what we mean by "religion."
Plaintiff attorneys at the outset cited three aspects involved in the hearings: communication, religion, and clash of cultures. The introduction has proven correct, but incomplete. In needed to include Ft. Sill's prejudice, disrespect, denigration, and downright hatred. Never mind professional demeanor of the uniformed attorney. The meaning of words is always louder than the tone of voice. Never mind that it was a white woman officer doing the denigrating of Comanche men.
Fort Sill, Lawton, Oklahoma, the largest field artillery base in the United States (during WWII), has decided to try and challenge the Comanche Indian Nation. Ft. Sill wants to build a non-descript "storage facility" or "warehouse" training center on Medicine Bluff, the most beautiful and most sacred land of the Comanche people today. This is right outside Lawton, Oklahoma. I find it hard to believe that the commanding personnel of the present forces at Ft. Sill would find it to their advantage to try to get by with such an unnecessary and egregious offense.
Medicine Bluff. PHOTO by Nick Tahchawwicka.
There is little news about this significant breach of common sense and trust by Ft. Sill. The Lawton Constitution, the small, local Lawton paper, has even a smaller online edition, for which they charge a fee. The Daily Oklahoman has kept it as quiet as possible, and they charge for archives. Their piece came out August 23. The Norman Transcript has a piece available online: Federal injunctions prevents Ft. Sill from building on sacred ground. It is an AP wire, however.
Medicine Bluff. PHOTO by Nick Tahchawwicka.
One of the first pieces of the news of the conflict was first put in clear print I believe on Comanche Nick Tahchawwikah's site, Meruawe, (scroll half-way down), then apparently copied by Indianz.com. Nick then posted their 'official' version. The Tulsa World decided to put up the AP "injunction" piece today, Sunday, September 7. The temporary restraining order was issued by US District Court on August 18.
Intertribal Times posted a piece July 30. NativeBiz had something August 23. KSWO Lawton put in a piece July 30. In all the accounts, the purpose and function of the Ft. Sill intrusion are unclear, uncertain, and are entirely irrelevant to Comanche lands. The Ft. has land in all directions. There is absolutely no reason for the Ft. to strike out against Comanche people in this rather stupid manner.
"Storage facility," "warehouse training center," what does this mean? What is going to be stored there, something the army can't store somewhere else--because white communities won't allow it? I mean, where's the research here on this matter? Where are all those "investigative" reporters who are always so proud and arrogant?
Chief of the Comanches, Wallace Coffey
The Comanches have the upper hand on this matter, historically, legally, and honestly. Ft. Sill officials have utterly misrepresented not only themselves (their privilege), but the Comanche Nation. One Col. Robert Bridgford claimes there was long consultation with the Comanche Nation. Comanche spokesman and NAGPRA rep. William Voelker says the Col. is lying. No such consultation transpired. As early as February, Voelker had notified the Ft. of the unacceptable intrusion into Comanche life and territory. In July, the Ft. received its official notice from the Comanche Nation (signed by Chief Wallace Coffey) that the intrusion was unacceptable, and garrison commander Bridgford was asked to move the location of the "warehouse" site.
The Ft.'s behavior is outrageous and unacceptable. All Indians in America should be outraged. Of all the "warrior" tribes of the southwest, the Comanches have the greatest name, and I hasten to add, in modern times, the Comanche Nation has been the most well-known for cooperation with the non-Indian community. The Comanche Nation has made every possible effort to get along with the Lawton community and evirons, and, to this day, even with four casinos, the Comanche Nation has not encountered any significicant or publicized opposition (or even problem) with the communities around these casinos. This modern record, of the formerly most warring, conquering people, says something mighty grand about the Comanche Nation.
That Ft. Still commandos would try to act like John Wayne, and take on the Comanches--to what, boost their military reputation?--is practically laughable, considering the idiotic and dishonest, slip-shod way they are trying to launch this mock attack. Of course, Comanche people take the land issue with dead seriousness. The Ft. commanders appear like jokesters in this silly incident. I hate to say such things, being the American patriot I am, and having had so many relatives (including my own father) serve the country through Ft. Sill. But, this incident is so unnecessary, so offensive, and so "secretive" and misrepresented by the Ft., I must rebuke Ft. Sill commanders with the strongest language. They are making fools of themselves.
Major General Peter M. Vangjel, Commandant, Ft. Sill
Their foolishness will be revealed in Oklahoma Federal Court, on 4th Street, between Robinson and Harvey, downtown Oklahoma City, just south of the Murrah Bombing Memorial. Case CIV-08-849-D: Comanche Nation vs. USA. It is this coming Wednesday and Thursday, September 10 and 11, Court Room No. 503 (fth floor), south hall of building. (The deposition of Comanches leaders was taken last week.) The hearings start at 9:00 a.m. I encourage every Indian in Oklahoma to be present. Certainly, every Indian in Oklahoma City, and in the greater metro area should be present. It is open to the public. (Media cannot record.) This is an issue of grave import.
As a Comanche, who was nominated to run for vice-chairman last November, I can only wish that I had more authority to make clear the importance of this issue. The Comanche people have such a mighty history--of terror, indeed. Yet, in modern times, as I said, the Comanche Nation has created a wonderful reputation for working with all its neighbors. That the chaotic conglomerate called Fort Sill should allow an ambitious Colonel to muck up decades of trust and community relations--for clearly unnecessary and offensive motivation, with probably a lot of personal ambition--is a tragic and stupid catastrophy in Indian-white relations.
Everyone knows my position on American patriotism. One can't be more pro-American. Everyone knows my position of nationhood, and on the value of preserving it--both American Indian nations and the American nation. This current mis-manoeuver on the part of Fort Sill is a crime against both American patriotism and against American Indian nations. The commander of Ft. Sill, Major General Peter M. Vangjel, must end this logistical error immediately. Perhaps I error in my judgement of Col. Robert Bridgford. Perhaps he is just following orders. My apologies to him, if this is so. Maybe someone else, above him, is trying to be John Wayne. (Or, are they even in communication at all over this?)
Colonel Robert Bridgford, USArmy, Ft. Sill
For now, I am covering this story. I know there is a lot going on in American politics right now. The Bad Eagle Journal (BadEagle.com) has been covering the McCain-Palin story. And I know Ft. Sill is heavily involved in Iraq, and I know many Oklahomans have sons and daughters abroad. I mean in no way to diminish the spectacular, historical service of the US Army at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, nor any of its personnel.
What I mean to do is keep them from a very ill-advised, offensive, and needless faux pas, from which they will not recover in terms of public relations should they remain adamant.
Join me in supporting the right thing here. See you in court this Wednesday! (And thanks to Annette Arkeketa for the email notice of the court date.) And you might want to call Fort Sill's Public Relations: 580-442-4500 or 580-442-2521. Let them know your opinion. Let them know how bad this looks for Fort Sill. Email them at: media-sill@conus.army.mil.
Medicine Bluff. PHOTO by Nick Tahchawwicka.
Senator John McCain just gave the most meaningful speech since the days of WWII. His personal testimony about his love for America was the most inspiring, most profound, and most convincing that could be given. It was astounding. Surely, the country is changed already.
Senator John McCain, American, delivering the greatest
oration of our time, Sept. 4, 2008, at the Republican Convention
in Minnesota.
By contrast, Obama's personal life is merely interesting. It simply has nothing about America in it. America is just something to be used (even abused). But, for McCain, who has had such a different life, America is something to love, indeed, something that compels a deep love, a total commitment. Obama's life simply does not have any such element. He is an infant searcher, unattached. (His wife apparently hates America, as do so many of Obama's close associates.)
So,the contest is over. There is no comparison. McCain is the man.
McCain's life and character, or, we should say, his loves--that which he knows is precious, is all vastly clear. "America saved me," he declared, speaking of his days as a tortured prisoner in Hanoi. Love lifted him above it all, and preserved him from any cause but America herself. And, America is the people. McCain's commitment to the American people was expressed in words of unprecendented meaning and force. He meant what he said. His life, and that of his wife Cindy's, give authority to their words.
Naturally, this kind of character and story, about his humbling experience as a prisoner, and his sense of being dependent on others, being loved by others, being fought for by others, has called forth every response of strength in John McCain that he can muster. He is all about standing up and fighint for America, his first love. The truth of his words were compelling. The narrative of his life makes them so. He cannot be accused of manipulation, of fabrication, or of "politickin'." The facts of his life are too loud, too overwhelming. He acknowledges that God has shape his life and experience. He is a believer.
This may be incomprehensible to those lost in the delusions of liberalism, that nasty Oedipal affectation that hates all that is precious, self-sacrificing, and ever-so-naive as to love the country. Many liberals, like George Soros, don't even think nations should exist. It's "tribalism" to them.
I think the Republicans, that is, John McCain and Sarah Palin are going to win by a landslide. It's time. The level of frustration is beyond the pale.
John McCain and Sarah Palin, after McCain's speech.
McCain opened up vistas and visions that were much grander, much more to the heart, than anything Obama's non-American elitism could ever conjure. Obama inevitably appears completely vacuous and pretentious, compared to McCain. This isn't a criticism, but an observation. Obama has ridden a wave of frustration, yes, and risen quite high. But, it is not his wave, nor has he any part in its direction. His personal narrative is simply irrelevant to America. It is interesting, and appeals to many, but not for reasons that are especially germane to America values or American life.
I don't know that Obama plots evil for America and the world. I'm sure he doesn't, intentionally. I hope he doesn't. But, the latest news is hard to deny:
Obama Had Close Ties to Top Saudi Adviser at Early Age (Be sure to watch the video at the end of the article by Kenneth Timmerman.)
Obama has been affined to enemies of America all his life. That is his background. This is the man the liberal Democrats want to see become president of the United States! This is the man who wants to use America to please her enemies.
So, the contrast is complete. One man, McCain, loves America, because America saved him. The other man, wants use America, to exalt himself, as a "citizen of the world." Is there a choice here, for people who love America?
Generally speaking, the rather ignorant, inexperienced media agents we see day in and day out, have no idea of the kind of people that make up the great American North West. Much of their reaction to Sarah Palin is cultural aversion to that which with they are unfamiliar. Indeed, Alaska was America's last real land frontier. The spirit of the frontiersman, the aggressive adventurer, this is long lost on the "college" generation, the urban and suburban solipsists.
The kind of people it took to settle the wild country is a matter of complete ignorance on the part of the city elites across America. Everyone wants to think he's better than primitive, bettern than wild. Better than ignorant. The Washington crowd honestly believes itself superior to all other sectors of society. The ruling classes in all states, especially the great c