January 28, 2007


DAVID YEAGLEY — “there were plenty of cosmetic and hair products to make black women look lighter ... the world is not against black people. Black people just react naturally in an environment in which they feel inferior... there is still a very strong impulse to look ‘whiter’ ... So, it shall ever be so... One must accept the world as it is, and accept one's place in it... There should be no anger or resentment for the evolutions of nature. Nor should one rebel against one's place... America is a white, Anglo-Saxon protestant establishment... you can't blame white people for your being black. They had nothing to do with it”
(DY, May 19, 2005)

Try as he might, David Yeagley is having a difficult time understanding the basic way life works. Where he sees slander and inequity, the rest of us see truth telling and cause-and-effect. From his own numerous admissions, it is painfully clear that he does not know what being an Indian is really about; so, why would any reasonable person trust anything else he says about Race, Women, Indians, Minorities, Blacks, Muslims, Iranians, Politics, Patriotism, or Serbs? The answer is, of course, no reasonable person would trust any of it.

So what are the TWO THOUGHTS about? Well, identity and responsibility, frankly. Though Yeagley would probably say “blood,” and “time honored” something-or-other. It is in this arena of identity and responsibility where Yeagley does not seem to behave reasonably, acting what most would see as anti-Indian. Why he behaves this way, no can know but Yeagley. We cannot know his motivations, except that they seem rather unhealthy for their lack of community conscience.
DAVID YEAGLEY — “This is language abuse. This is word robbery. This is making a word mean something it doesn't mean. This is dictating to me what my own words mean. This is tyranny” (DY, Jan. 29, 2007)

What we do know, as evidenced by his own writings, is his dedicated disdain for anything other than pure white bloodlines and a monotone fascination with labels and word games that bear little meaning in the world of reality. It is his arrogance born of ignorance; for example, Yeagley falsely reasons that the poverty of Indians must be somehow similar to that of non-Indians, and therefore the solutions must also be similar — ignorant of the Indian reality, thereby ignorant of genuine understanding — but insistent upon his own unreasoned certainty as the gospel truth. He even sees a conspiracy to 'control' HIS speech (which, in reality, is nothing more than simple cause-and-effect), painting himself as a victim of language misuse when he's the one victimizing himself with it all. Circular logic at its best.

In other words, Yeagley doesn't truly know his Indian identity (except what he has gleaned from non-Indians), but thinks it's probably the same as being white, so he concludes being white is a better way to approach Indianness ... if you can follow that odd twist. And, he's certain he's absolutely correct in assuming it. So, for Yeagley, Indians suffering from poverty are not "true" victims of historical genocide nor institutionalized racism today, but simply "lazy" and "woeful" creatures who have squandered the status afforded their white privilege. Get it? There's no such thing as the "Indian Holocaust," Yeagley argues, only Indian whiners who don't rise up to accept the inherent superiority of being white.

DAVID YEAGLEY — “The people that are not accusing me the most fraudulently, are people who have given the very least information about their own Indianness. They haven't given family names. Therefore, they are not to be trusted. Sorry, but that's how it works” (DY, Dec. 13, 2006).

To the reasoned thinker, Yeagley appears ignorant, arrogant, sorely out-of-touch, and still he wonders why so many Indians question his identity while others lack even the slightest curiousity toward proving our own Indianness. He simply doesn’t get it. Why is he continually questioned on his identity, when his detractors feel no need to prove anything? The query has stuck itself under his craw, and shows no sign of going away, largely because of cause-and-effect. This is why sound reasoning illustrates the ability to put two and two together, to put two thoughts together in a coherent manner, namely, identity and responsibility.

Where Yeagley seems to relish the seeming inequity in this situation, wearing it as a “waffling warrior’s” badge of “blood,” most of us can easily see the reality of it — the cause-and-effect reality. Most Indians do not have to prove blood because that “papered proof” is not all that important in-the-end, so long as one respects and empowers the Indian communities in thought and deed. Yeagley does not do this however, and is thereby highly suspect as being non-Indian himself. Yet, he does not seem to understand the issue in these simple cause-and-effect terms, to him it is downright inequitable.
DAVID YEAGLEY — “Brent ... has never mentioned family lineage in any way. No one knows his kin. (Does he?) He says he is Mohican, but also says he is Stockbridge-Munsee. He never speaks or writes of either people or his relations with them”
(DY, Oct. 12, 2006).

DAVID YEAGLEY — “Know what I think? I think I'm trying to be a father to Rudy. He's on a wrong course, and I must straighten him out. I simply must! ... That is critical... I think I'm trying to counsel the young man with a stern hand. I think it's necessary”
(DY, Dec. 31, 2006).

Notwithstanding the fact that Mohicans and Stockbridge-Munsee are the same people, how come no one clamors for proof of my identity, when nearly every Indian Yeagley encounters questions his? How come no one cares whether Rudy Youngblood is Indian or not, when to Yeagley it seems downright criminal? Such blasphemy, decries Yeagley! It is not fair.

Of course, it is not blasphemy, not even notorious. The truth is, the issue is rather unimportant in the real world where the rest of us Indians live and work. Yeagley’s own plight, the martyrdom he wears on his sleeve and spits out on his web page, is the result of simple cause-and-effect, nothing more. It is no grand scheme of liberals to treat him inequitably (we don’t concern ourselves with him that much), nor the “liberal media” (which, in reality, amounts to only 10% of all the media). No, he behaves as if he were non-Indian, and consequently gets identified as such, plain and simple. No scheme, no plot, no conspiracy. Just smart people who can easily see the truth of the situation.

A case in point. First, Yeagley says something like this:
“People that think all darkies of the Western Hemisphere are all the same, and it doesn't matter whether you distinguish or not, are RACISTS” (DY, Jan. 5, 2007).
But Yeagley fails to recognize that he has created and sustained the very category he claims to despise with his phraseology “darkies.” Yeagley, himself, identifies “darkies” and then claims that people who see benefit in grouping together the “darkies” of the world are racist. However, Yeagley constantly denigrates them as one dark-colored group (see first quote above). Using his own rationale, Yeagley himself is racist though he inconsistently claims otherwise. He has not put two-and-two together.

A deeper point. David Yeagley behaves as if he has no Indian connections, and thus he is questioned on it constantly. He acts without conscience toward the Indian communities, even working against those communities and, as a result, is himself suspect by those communities. In stark contrast, my own identity is rarely questioned, largely because I am outspoken as an advocate for Indian people and communities — even regarded as “a troublemaker” sometimes — but always in support of Indians. Always.

Putting two thoughts together like identity and responsibility (such as following a cause to its logical effect), is the reason Yeagley’s Indianness is questioned, and equally why mine is not. There is nothing inequitable about this situation, each has earned or ‘caused’ what each receives, and in a real way the results are justified. Yeagley is earning his just rewards and that is exactly how things are supposed to work. The universe is okay, things are going the way they should. Yeagley is exactly where nature intends him to be, in a place of suspect identity and questioned purpose.

And from his earned place of suspect, anything he pontificates about should taken with a grain of salt. Until Yeagley gets himself straightened out, to the point we can actually see it in his behavior, it is wiser to employ healthy skepticism and continue questioning as a rule. As for advice directly to David, perhaps you should accept the world as it is, and accept your place in it, without anger or resentment; you can't blame Indians for your being a reject. They had nothing to do with it.

January 27, 2007

Less Than Half a Claim

This news just in, David Yeagley is not even half Comanche and far less than previously claimed. That's actually kind of a small relief, isn't it? (Well, in Yeagley's case, perhaps not). But to read the entire scoop, go here.

Uncle Tomahawk 07

January 18, 2007

David Hates Himself and Everyone Else Too

David Hates Himself
(& Everyone Else Too)

After performing at the National Museum of the American Indian on piano, David Yeagley is back to his old tricks, biting the hand that has graciously fed him. He performed at the concerts of American Indian performers only because he rode that wave of Indian "special interest." But, as soon as he gets back to his own blog space, he once again shows what idiocy he places over his own hearth, or should I say “his own heart.” Can you spell “professional hypocrisy?”

David is supposedly a Comanche, at least a self-proclaimed Comanche "darkie," to highlight his very own racist phraseology. Yet he blasts the NMAI who has helped him receive a significant portion of his own meager accomplishment in music.

This rant below, not only reeks of self-loathing on Yeagley's part (at least that so-called "darkie" part of Yeagley), but also smacks of that "sky is falling" fear mongering rhetoric. Do you really get the logic he uses below? It is utterly devoid of sound reasoning, nothing more than apocalyptic lexiphanicism. To identify an imaginary "trend" as a great catastrophe, crying "danger!" ... "beware!" ... the "sky is falling" ... “time is running out!” ... BEWARE!

Okay, you’ve earned it David, so I must say outright, you are one deluded mental case. Your voice is off-puttingly obnoxious, and your reasoning is amazingly infantile for someone boasting a college degree. I may be one of your so-called 'heathens' myself Yeagley, but I can reason (and spell) far better than you on your best day.

"The National Museum of the American Indian, in Washington, DC, has featured Pacific Islanders, Hawaiians in particular. This is the trend. All brown skins of the Western Hemisphere are to be understood as 'Native American,' or 'American Indian.' Soon, all non-white people in the world will be called indigenous, and thus native, and finally, 'American Indian' It's only a matter of time... So, what do white Conservatives really think about the darkies? Rudyard Kipling said it was 'the white man's burden' to help the heathen. It was the duty of the white man to uplift the fallen, to educate the ignorant" (David Yeagley, piano player)

January 9, 2007



By Brent Michael Davids, 1/9/07
“President Bush gave a very sincere and matured speech last night. It was visionary... It was a beautiful thing... Indeed” (David Yeagley, Horowitz Homey)

“The war is going well... Where were our boys wreaking vengeance on the enemy? ... "There’s power in the blood!" says the old 1899 evangelical hymn... we need the blood of warriors” (David Yeagley, Horowitz Homey)
1. Bush Homey: Jack Abramoff
Bush is draining the ecomony and the poor,
Losing a preemtive war of premeditated murder.
Bush thinks escalating troops is a good idea,
Bush practices torture and assaults individual freedoms.
Abramoff was Bush’s homey, draining the Indians and the poor.
Abramoff was a Bush Homey — Bush’s Token Indian Lobbyist.

2. Horowitz Homey: David Yeagley
Horowitz is draining away education and freedom,
Losing a proselytizing war on free thinking and reason.
Like Abramoff, David Yeagley is Horowitz’s homey,
Proselytizing against Indians, Minorities, Women, Muslims.
Yeagley is a Bush supporter of this war of aggression;
Yeagley supports Horowitz's assault on individual freedoms.
Yeagley is a Horowitz Homey — Horowitz’s Token Indian.

Yeagley is worse than Abramoff; The similarities are important.
Should America torture? Is the war really "going well?"
Bush wants to steal money, Abramoff helped him do it.
Horowitz wants to destroy freedoms, Yeagley helps him do it.

Examine the quotations below to experience Yeagley's
moral "character," reasoning "ability," level of compassion,
apparent "patriotic"
bloodlust, and lack of basic decency.


David Yeagley — “A boy threatened to sexually assault the girls with a broom stick? Surely such a remark cannot be considered seriously. It is the refulgence of adolescent passion, and braggadicio [sic!] in the midst of a stimulating situation”

David Yeagley “A woman in tears is a wonderful thing. The world wavers. History awaits. No doubt mankind is a mystical outpouring of a crying female”

David Yeagley “The key to success here is to let women be utterly inconsistent, self-contradictory, and abjectly contumacious. If we can tolerate this, all is well”

David Yeagley “I'm not going to tell Indians that our history is not tragic... Are we doomed to alcoholism, immorality, dissipation and disease? Are we doomed to see our men run after blondes and our women lie down and be raped by Negroes? Somehow, I don't see dissing Columbus as a solution to these problems”

David Yeagley “From her [Miss Kentucky become Miss USA] brief interview, posted on the Miss USA site, she seems rather humble for one so beautiful”

David Yeagley “Why am I talking to an Indian woman about this issue, where are the men!”

David Yeagley “This is about an "enhanced" woman [Pamela Anderson] objecting to the "enhanced" chicken. It's about a woman given to the visual, whose false appearance is supposed to stimulate objection to animal cruelty... A pornographic icon is being used to merge the human emotion of conscupiscent [sic!] sexual indulgence with righteous indignation at the sight of cruelty to birds, birds with enhanced breasts, like hers”


David Yeagley “The sexual aggression of the Negro, particularly when surrounded by those not of his race, is well known”

David Yeagley “The darkness of the Negro has always repulsed other races”

David Yeagley “Maybe the word ‘nigger’ should stay. It should be carefully defined, and refined, and it should remain... Nigger should be used when and only when appropriate....Nigger means unwanted, repulsive, and disgusting. Nigger means everything that is despised. Nigger means vehement and utter rejection”

David Yeagley “It's never going to end. Blacks, African-Americans, Afro-Americans, American Negroes, whatever, have a perpetual ticket to glory in our wondrous American system. If they don't have a Cadillac, a house in a white neighborhood, money for college education ... then they've been wronged, and it's everyone else's fault. "You owe me!" is their mantra”

David Yeagley “I just think it is neurotic and preposterous to make the sky fall because somebody says "n_gg_r," ... It is ludicrous, in fact”

David Yeagley “Slavery, properly understood, is not an evil at all. True, the 13th Amendment is known as the Amendment which abolished slavery, but that was only as a commercial institution. Yes, the Amendment was passed ... in response to the hysterical rhetoric about racially-based slavery in the South”

David Yeagley “And American Negroes today always think their experience in slavery was the worst ... That's only because their skin is the darkest”


David Yeagley “Indian men...deserve to be at the bottom of the barrel....They cannot appreciate good will, they are possessed by envy, and have no higher thought than lies.”

David Yeagley “America did not commit genocide against Indians, and in fact was pleased to leave a good deal of land for relatively small population”

David Yeagley “And how can anyone forget about the hundreds of thousands (does it reach millions?) of white people who were slaughtered by Indians, whole villages burned, women raped, then sliced to pieces, etc.? Who do you think did all the torturing? It wasn't the whites”

David Yeagley “The Indian situtation [sic!] is not comparable to the Jewish Holocaust. Jews did nothing to anyone. Indians did....Like I said, it was a car wreak.[sic] An accident of geography and demographics”

David Yeagley “It’s their people that created America, not Indians. Only a diabolically self-righteous liberal politician would take America out of the hands that created it, and give it to those who either lost it, or never had anything to do with it”

David Yeagley “Indian men... and also typical of black women, together, is just the kind of thing that says these races deserve to be on the bottom of the barrel. They cannot appreciate good will, they are possessed by envy, and have no higher thought than lies”


David Yeagley “Judeo-Christian religion allowed the European Caucasian race to advance above all other people. The darker races now encroach through integration and intermarriage... "Maybe Hitler was partially right on 'the hated white race' thing”

David Yeagley “The Holocaust terror at least had a racial divide of some kind. [I.e. as opposed to the French Revolution.]”

David Yeagley “I new [sic!] a Jewish girl ... who once said, about Hitler, "You know...he was kind of...great." There is mixed reaction to the Nazi phenomenon ... primitive wonderment at its power and aggression... I think the Jewish girl ... was just being objective, being impressed with the incredible power Hitler wielded, and impressed with how he created that power... It's all about power... America values, made this country the most powerful of all... America is truly, truly great in the world. The Hitler thing is kind of an individual glory”


David Yeagley “But their [=the Arabs] wives had indulged their secret desire to be ravished by the black ‘ogres.’ Stark racial contrast itself was sexually exciting to them. The more hideous and repulsive the man, the more sexual passion evoked in the female, and the more abandon she felt”

David Yeagley “A Caucasian ‘curl’ in Asian hair? A bushy Afro on a white woman? ... How can the colored races be equal with the white race if they have to be doctored up to look white?”

David Yeagley “Superior beauty is in the white race...In the darker races, everything is always the same, dark brown and black a beastly bore”

David Yeagley “The white blood flowing is the purest I’ve ever seen”

David Yeagley “Which Arab setting next to you on the plane, with his lovely wife and children, is not a mass murderer?”

David Yeagley “Everyone knows, Islam is the religion of misery. Ask the feminists”


David Yeagley “I'm beginning to think there's no such thing as racism. If there is, it is very rare”

David Yeagley “He annihilated his foes without mercy. He filled their hearts with fear... Where is Dracula when you need him? Pacifists of the Christian Left, be warned. Had your ancestors thought like you, you would have no freedom to practice Christianity today”

David Yeagley “Untill [sic!] Arab Muslims are all deported to their own countries, until there is at least a temporary ban on all world travel for Arab Muslims...Muslim leaders are pimps, and their murderous minions are whores. Whoso invites and harbors them deserves their plagues”

David Yeagley “I have a theory that once a people or nation survives a great threat of extinction, that people become themselves aggressive expansionists, in their determination never again to be so vulnerable... it was men like Dracula who saved us... there is something in his ruthless conviction that we need today... Where is our Dracula today?”

David Yeagley “America could easily level Iraq, with just the right bomb or two... I for one am terribly grateful for such a man as President Bush... Bravo, Bush. You are one brave man”


David Yeagley “Well, Roman Catholicism is foreign to all of western Europe, in that it is not ‘indigenous’.”

David Yeagley “The same people who want to remove the word ‘nigger’ want to remove ‘Christmas,’ and ‘God’.”

David Yeagley “The Hindu people play well into the hands of the cause of ‘Indian-izing’ the dark races. Soon, Hindu people will be called ‘American’ Indian. All non-white people of the western hemphisphere [sic!] already are. It's only a matter of time and the people of Asia and then Africa will be called ‘American Indian’.”

David Yeagley “The Mexican immigration problem is now a critical part of the Muslim plan to attack America”

David Yeagley “But this wasn't a normal social encounter. This was a sexual encounter by nature, for that purpose, at least in spirit”

David Yeagley “Sally Hemings ... was about one-quarter black. If she mated with a white man, and her child mated with a white spouse ... Sally Hemings black blood would become essentially extinct, I would guess. Some black baby might appear down the line, as a total surprise”

David Yeagley “Liberals everywhere lauded the decision [i.e. to hand over property to illegal immigrants from Mexico as a compensation for physical assault], and denounced any manliness displayed by white American citizens, especially males”

David Yeagley “I'm quickly loosing any respect I had for your ability to read, think, or comment... This is kindigarten [sic!]”

David Yeagley “War, real war, can end ‘terrorism’.”

David Yeagley “I know a lot more than you think I know. So watch out! ... I know a lot of things ... One day, I will reveal all”

David Yeagley “If there is such a thing as a lie, as we all know, I dare say, there is such a thing as the truth”


David Yeagley “I would welcome with most warmest wishes any white man or woman with real pride and respect for the race and it's accomplishments....I want to hear plans. I want to see ideas about how, where, when, in what way, to build a white nation”

David Yeagley “The brave and courageous Japanese attacked us”

David Yeagley “It is a wistful thing, to remember Pearl Harbor ... the dignity of war, the purpose of victory, and the value of the spoils”

David Yeagley “What we really need is more news about what is actually being accomplished in Iraq in the way of progress. We don't need daily reports of bombings... I want to hear about it when one toilet flushes successfully”

David Yeagley “The real problem is people here are AFRAID of Bad Eagle.... Remember I come from a warrior race. Says so on my genes”

David Yeagley “I think genocide is a very relative term....Also, the germ warfare thing is hackneyed as well. It's been around for millenia [sic!]. No special horror, just the usual....War is war”

David Yeagley “The White Anglo-Saxon Protestants created the American government... There is a sense of political/social/spiritual superiority in that aspect, I dare say”

January 7, 2007

Uncle Tomahawk 01

For Yeagley, His Old
Acquaintances ARE Forgot!
THAT — and He’s Gathering
New Adversaries Quicker
Than Snot On A Doorknob

by Brent Michael Davids, 1/7/07

David Yeagley, known to many as a columnist for David Horowitz's FrontPageMag.com, delivers a bizarre anti-Muslim tirade in his latest blog post. I find this very hard to believe. This is not the guy I used to know back in the late 70s and early 80s when we both attended the New Haven Seventh-day Adventist Church--when he was working on his M.Div. from Yale Divinity School(!). I really feel sorry for him"
(Bill Cork)

Bill Cork, another former friend, finds David Anthony Yeagley has rallied off the deep end, ranting and raving about stuff that has little relevance to anyone, and is tasteless for most true American patriots.

Also, an excellent article was posted by the Editrix that you simply must read at editrixblog.blogspot.com, but here’s an excerpt:
“Today is Pearl Harbor Day, December 7... Forget the lamentations. Remember the victory. Lamentation is a Leftist specialty. All are victims, in their mind... Forget victims! Remember the conquerors! Honor the conquerors! There is no honor in victimhood... Today, there is no war. Muslims have no honor. Mass murderers disguise themselves as charitable human beings, with rights, no less! Every element of human trust and human relations they have desecrated. Professional liars and deluded deceivers like Jeff Sidiqqi (Pakistan-born "American" Muslim--I hate to associate the two words, for there is no association) epitomize the perfidy and odious character of the enemy. An enemy without honor is less than a dog. An animal has more pride than they... It is a wistful thing, to remember Pearl Harbor, to remember a real war. We haven't declared one since then. We haven't been allowed to. Liberals control our government”
(David Yeagley, piano player)

“Yes dear reader who has made it so far without throwing up, you're right! ‘Yeagley’, the Waffling Warrior is at it AGAIN! War "romantic"? War as something to be remembered ‘wistfully’? ‘Dignity of war’? Let's forget the victims? Did this drooling, bloodthirsty harridan, whose only way to physical and mental fulfillment is probably the thought of sweaty, gory young men, ever talk to a soldier who saw combat? I mean a real soldier, not the cartoon characters who are fouling up his idiot site...”
The Editrix)

January 4, 2007


Brent Michael Davids, 1/4/07

Personally, I suspect both. But let’s consider a few facts.

Yeagley strongly implies that his being fired from teaching at that university in Oklahoma was for being too radical, or that he somehow was victim to a political firing for being a “conservative” (neocon, actually). However, when the truth came out, it turns out the numerous and pointed student complaints regarding his “teaching” style, is the reason he was let go. A Yeagley supporter, including Yeagley’s biggest supporter (the man in the mirror), obviously clamor for the former explanation but that explanation wholly disregards the statements made by his University superiors alleging his confrontational interludes with the university students. In my book, Yeagley’s explanation seems a bit incomplete, wouldn’t you say? I’d wager Yeagley’s lie is more a “sin of omission” by failing to consider the actual perspectives of his immediate superiors in the matter — leaning too heavily on what he wished the reality to be rather than the way it really was.

When he declared his discovery of a new grand harmonic theory, a new discovery so noteworthy to be championed in his biography, he could not reveal it nor defend it with any reasonable critique by theoretical or compositional standards. It is a fact that many student composers experiment with all sorts of harmonic theories, self-created theories of harmonic organization, and perhaps Yeagley could be counted among them. However, what is not true is that Yeagley has discovered a grand new theory. It is nearly common knowledge among theorists and composers that development of new harmonic theories, as a field of exploration, has been largely exhausted. So exhausted is this field, that Yeagley’s discovery would out of shear uniqueness be trumpeted as the new E=mc2, or the new harmonic theory that breaks the mold, which is utterly ludicrous. No one has ever experienced this theoretical contemplation save Yeagley himself, probably when writing about it in his own biography. To me, this seems a bit more a sin of omission, by not revealing the whole truth, that Yeagley once got creative as a student composer and came up with a new harmonic organization that he personally liked, and tried composing with it. However, expanding that truth into a full-blown new harmonic theory of organization to which no other composer might be privy, is hot air — it is a ballooning story of a theory.

Though other fabrications and sins of omission abound, one must ask how many would it take to qualify Yeagley as a liar? 1000 omissions? 500? 10? How many? Though I am not qualified to answer that question, I have presented two documented cases above. There are others of course, such as Yeagley’s appearance on the Native America Calling radio program, when he implied he successfully smacked down Winona LaDuke; anyone hearing that episode would most likely see it all together differently. In the on-air debate with LaDuke, Yeagley rather feebly attempted to bolster his own position as a superior male warrior and got his clock cleaned by a superior woman. But the question of liars and liar haters seems somehow to coagulate with David Yeagley. He appears to be both liar and liar hater, which may account for the apparent odor of self-loathing that one gathers when wading through his blogging efforts. Again, as I’ve stated often before, why take my word for this, when one can go sniff around for yourself. Just remember to vent yourself off afterwards, and return to BadEagle.ORG for a bit of sanity.

As far as Yeagley’s so-called “Bad Eagle Restitutions,” I think he missed one — reason. Yes, he defines himself in the negative, obviously, by declaring this personage “bad eagle” as his own namesake, but reminds us that he is not actually him. Yes, he praises the Jews claiming many Jewish friendships, but quickly declares that he does not “sell himself” as Jewish. Yes, he thinks he could pass for Italian, but again identifies himself in the negative as not being himself Italian. The same for being Persian, yes he has Persian acquaintances but no, he is not actually Persian.

Why all the focus on race? Even by twisting the blog’s conclusion — to blindly equate "race" with “culture” — did not save Yeagley's goose from laying an egg. I think he still missed something about reason, you know, sound reasoning, healthy thinking. So let me add this bit, that perhaps Yeagley could pass for someone using reason? Perhaps he even has reasonable friends? However, considering the facts and lest we forget, maybe he is not actually reasoned himself. For 2007, this might be something for ‘bad eagle’ readers to keep in mind for the new year.



Blog Report, 1/4/07


It seems that the matter of my brother, Rudy Youngblood, is of great importance to David Yeagley. Please allow me to settle this once and for all. Rudy Youngblood is, in fact, my brother. He is family! What Rudy has said is absolutely TRUE.

Unfortunately, Mr. Yeagley, perhaps out of jealously or some other personal vendetta, is trying to discredit him. Why? I do not know.

Instead of attempting to taint his reputation, we, as Indian people, should encourage him. He is an asset to our race. He got where he is through hard work, determination, and dedication. Instead of knocking our youth down, we need to help them. We need to see to it that they accomplish more than the previous generations. So many bad things plague our race ... alcoholism, drug abuse, etc. Here is a young man that is trying to break that vicious cycle. But, instead of supporting him, Mr. Yeagley tries, and tries to enlist others, to make trouble for him. I have asked Dr. Yeagley…if that makes any sense?

So, this, is all I have to say ... I hope that this statement answers any questions or concerns Mr. Yeagley, or anyone else has, with respect to my brother.

Now, moving forward, I only ask that Mr. Yeagley and others respect my family and our privacy. My father, the late Preston Tahchawwickah rests in peace, I have pleaded with Mr. Yeagley to please stop and respect that he has gone to the other side — to stop speaking of him, about him, and talking about his family. My father is not here to respond to Yeagley’s attacks against my family and it is dishonorable of Mr. Yeagley to keep speaking of my father and his family. I only ask for respect — for him and my family. Please hear me Mr. Yeagley.

Thank you for your time. I wish all a happy new year and nothing but the best for you and yours.

Lance Tahchawwickah


Rudy Youngblood came to Lawton, Oklahoma at my request. He is from the Tahchawwickah family and his father is the late Preston Tahchawwickah. On behalf of the Comanche Nation we are quite proud of him and several of our members know him from the powwow circuit.

We were proud to welcome him home and had a wonderful cookout for him on Sunday evening.

As for his performance in APOCALYPTO, "he is superb, exemplifies tribal teachings, and possesses wisdom and strength of character to make it as an Indian actor."

January 3, 2007

Yeagley Unfairly CENSORS
The Facts and His Critics

Blog Report, 1-3-07

As "the great pontificator" has taken to regularly censoring and omitting alternative viewpoints from his own badeagle.com web site, BadEagle.Org is pleased to publish what David Yeagley is fearful to “allow” on his own site. In the spirit of open dialogue and encouraging full access to those dissenting views, here is a special notice from Michelle R. Shining Elk, who has recently been hounded by Yeagley’s diatribes to the point of justifiable rebuttal (below).
Michelle R. Shining Elk writes:



I cannot sit idle or silent any longer while David Yeagley continues to pontificate over what he thinks he knows about Rudy Youngblood. Mr. Yeagley is a man that is clearly jealous, ignorant, obnoxiously obsessed and eager to engage in over the top pettiness. Frankly, I am sick and tired of his outlandish comments and accusations. Whom does this man think he is to pass judgment on people he knows nothing about?

I have tried to post my own comments to the BLOG/ARTICLEs Yeagley posts, but of course, they do not get posted – not that I am surprised.

Mr. Yeagley imagines himself to be journalist (among the many other professions he claims he is experienced in??). However, he clearly has no ability to remain objective – he has no understanding of fair balance – his own monitoring of the comments attempting to be made in response to his BLOG/ARTICLEs, and his posting only those he approves of is a prime example. Somewhere along the line, this man, under delusions of grandeur, came to believe and oddly enough believes, he is the authority on ALL THINGS – literally, ALL THINGS???

Therefore, since he refuses to post my comments on his website, I will post them here. For it is only fair, as in all debates and in journalism, that rebuttal and responses be allowed into the equation. Like Mr. Yeagley, I will use this medium to exercise my own "freedom of speech."

Following is the last post I attempted to make, in response to his BLOG/ARTICLE of December 26, 2006 -- included herein below.

Comment by Michelle on December 26, 2006 on www.badeagle.com

Mr. Yeagley you are a bandwagon, party of "ONE (1)." I have found myself disturbed with the slander and libel you continue to put out there regarding people and matters you know absolutely nothing about. I have sought and received counsel from many on how to deal with your antics, including many from my own tribe. With respect to myself, I have been advised, and encouraged, to leave this alone and let you fight this fight because you are fighting with yourself, that you are disturbed. However, I have sat idle for days watching you attack and attempt to disparage my client and my friend. I cannot do this any longer. I have to stand up for what I feel is right – to get some realities and truths of these matters out there. To bring to light the things and issues that you do not seem to want to acknowledge or admit – let alone report on.

Mr. Yeagley, you have far too much time on your hands -- have you ever heard the phrase "those who cast stones should not live in a glass houses." As an American you have the right to "freedom of speech," with this right you have found a conduit in which to be bitter and spiteful towards others. What you DO NOT have the right to do is engage in slander and libel. You should be very careful with your words Mr. Yeagley; you are walking on a thin line with respect to libel and slander issues.

For this post, I will start with your attempts to defame me. Not that I owe you any explanation about who I am, or where I come from. BUT, I have to say, I find it interesting that you enjoy digging and digging and reporting your "findings and facts" when they are in your favor. HOWEVER, when you learn truths, you conveniently forget to post that information. You write with only the information you want in making your "informed decisions" to cast stones at others.

For the record, I just got off the phone with one of my tribal councilmen (you know who he is). He informed me he has been in contact with you; and, that have been enlightened by the fact(s) as they relate to my Indian affiliation and blood quantum, and you learned that: 1. I am an enrolled Colville tribal member (proudly I can say, my father was a full blood and my mother is over ¾); 2. I was raised and lived on the reservation my entire life; and, 3. I come from four of the largest families on my reservation.

How convenient it is for you to forget to post that information? So, contrary to what you want to say about me, which I am sure you will…at the end of the day, I rest assured that you got a dead end here pal and I have more Indian blood in my little finger than you do in your entire being and body. So say what you will. You will only bore me.

Moving on...with respect to Rudy Youngblood.

This is for your readers, I want to point out the following:

On the subject of the surname Gonzales. Since you keep hanging on this subject, I would like to point out to your readers, your very own writings, wherein you state the truth -- investigated and reported on by…YOU!@#?

"BadEagle has also been informed that "Gonzales," Rudy's legal name, is in fact an adopted name. It was his Mexican step father's name." Yeagley readers: You can see it yourself at: http://www.badeagle.com/journal/archives/2006_12.html#000928.

Mr. Yeagley, perhaps you should go back and re-read your writings and posts before contradicting yourself, as you seem to do more often than not.

AGAIN, neither my client, nor I owe you any explanation for who is he, or where he comes from. You are obviously fueled by jealousy and rage because you know, at the end of the day, very few (if any, including your own Comanche nation) will (or would) come to your defense or support any of your endeavors as they have for Rudy. Rudy has done good things, is doing good things and you can't stand that, get over it!

Here is what I know. I know, and have been a witness to the strong support system Rudy has in Indian country, coast-to-coast, and it is much larger than you could ever wrap your head around, or imagine having for yourself. What's more, it has nothing, whatsoever, to do with a casino in trouble, or whatever weak excuse(s) you orchestrate in further attempts to support your asinine assaults. You are grasping at straws here. Mr. Yeagley, regardless of what you think, or say, my client has a solid grounding in his tribal identity. He has listened and learned from many aunties, uncles, grandparents, family members and elders -- he knows his Indian ways, culture and traditions. I have been a witness to his knowledge and the respect he has for his people, cultural and traditional ways and families (extended and immediate). He is mindful and very respectful in every way. How about you Mr. Yeagley?

You claim you are the "first conservative American Indian in the American media," when the truth of the matter is that you are merely a predator who is using (and abusing) the terms "Indian" and "Comanche" in your neurotic quest to harass my client (and countless others) with your pervasive and negative rhetoric.

Here are a couple realties for you to muse on (for your benefit Mr. Yeagley: reality [re•al•i•ty] - 1.the state or quality of being real. 2. resemblance to what is real. 3. a real thing or fact.).

1. Unlike you, my client continues to work to give back to his community, all communities -- to continue living and nurturing his vision for the future of Tribal America and other indigenous peoples – with a good heart and good intent.

2. Unlike you, my client refuses to be a victim and live in a defensive mindset; instead, he is proactive and a visionary about what he, as a person (a human being) and as an artist, has to offer as a continuation and revitalization of the indigenous cultures of the Americas and other countries.

I do not believe the same can be said for you…you just want to point fingers and take what you can get and ultimately make a nuisance of yourself – failing to see how the words you throw out there represent you. For the record, it is not in a good way -- stop trying to fool yourself and others into believing that you are really a "do-gooder."

I know I have said this once, but I will say it again…Mr. Yeagley, you "might" be an enrolled Comanche, but it is clear you do not have the first clue, or any understanding of what being Comanche or Indian truly means. You should be honored that you are so lucky to belong; and hence, represent such in more positive ways. There is enough negativity out there in the world and in Indian country – the Indian community is a small community, we should be working together, not against one another. You do not get that.

Being Indian is about giving back when you have received; it is about living with dignity and having a respect of all things and people – that is what we are taught and how we are raised…to always keep in mind, in everything we do, those who have come before us, and those who will follow. You do not get that.

Clearly, you do not have an understanding of these basic ways, let alone live by any of them. How do you sleep at the end of the day? You have to know your ancestors are saddened by your negative actions and reactions. As for those who are to follow you...well, another sad state of affairs and I will just leave it at that - enough said.

Mr. Yeagley, you are clearly lost and uncomfortable in your own skin. If you want to attack people, be a man and engage in objective verbal warfare, fairly. You must stop using the veil of being Indian and a Comanche to get attention under false pretenses, and to beat on people you do not know, and know nothing about, including our culture and traditions.

Which brings me to my next point. Being the "super sleuth", you think you are. You know how my name change came to be (it is not difficult to put it together), but you fail to write on that because that would lessen the juice and weaken the reality of your stories. I am not Michelle "SHINING ELK," a supposed "Colville." I am MICHELLE SHINING ELK and I AM COLVILLE! I don't need to give any explanation to you about how my name change came to be – that's my personal life and contrary to what you say, I didn't and do not need to publicize why it changed. Not only do you disrespect me when you do not address me correctly you are disrespecting a person, and people you do not know, or know nothing about (yet again…). All par for the course, I guess, since the meaning of "respect" obviously eludes you.

Another point I'd like to make to your readers.

I find it interesting that you continue to use as one of your "reliable" sources, "Wikipedia," when you, yourself, have had your own issues with Wikipedia and has stated that it is an unreliable source as it can be edited by anyone.
"The new (my original) Wikipedia post, "David A. Yeagley" is not exactly what I put up. THere have been edits, and there are therefore some inaccuracies. I will BLOG/ARTICLE? on this tommorrow, if I have time before I have to leave. Otherwise, I will BLOG/ARTICLE? on it later, when I get to a computer. As I said, I don't know how long this present Wikipedia post will last. The enemy never sleeps.
Posted by David Yeagley at November 15:45 PM"

In closing: At the end of the day, Mr. Yeagley, I take great amount of relief in knowing that all anyone has to do is read your writings. Your writing speaks for itself. It says loads about who you are, what you are about and the troubled and fixated ill-willed paths you are headed down. Period.

I will pray that one day you find the right path and find comfort in who you are and not who you feel you need to attack.

Michelle R. Shining Elk at December 26,:47 PM