May 31, 2007

David Yeagley sells-out US Soldiers for personal gain

from the Bad Eagle journal

“I for one resent lies” (the piano doctor, Mar. 2003)
David Yeagley hates liars, so he continually says. But, of course, like the blogger he is, he loves neo-con liars just fine, like Dubya Bush. In fact, Bush’s neo-con media whores assist David to maintain his delusion of being a Comanche, when no Comanches themselves will do that, so Yeagley loves them.

But despite the obvious benefits of his own personal gain, why is Yeagley continually supporting the neo-con agenda like immoral preemptive war, horrendous US torture policies, and the unconstitutional unitary executive?

Maybe it’s because he cares more about his own image than the lives of our soldiers.

Maybe it’s because he loves his masquerade as a phony Comanche more than he cares about doing what’s good for our soldiers.

Maybe it’s because he cares more about his own fake “warrior” image than he cares about the genuine warriors.

Maybe it’s because he values his man-in-the-mirror vanity more than he values the concrete boots-on-the-ground reality.

Maybe little david, the piano doctor, selfishly cleaves to the image of his own golden idol at the expense of the truth, the reality, and the US soldiers and their families.

David Yeagley’s “warrior” fantasy:
“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” (the piano doctor, Nov. 2001 )

“We are willing to pay a horrible price, to prove simple point: we are compassionate ... we hope the world will see our superior approach to the whole matter. If thousands of our soldiers die, this in fact is what they will have died for: the character of America... Let's hope that after it's over, there will indeed be ‘malice toward none’” (the piano doctor, Mar. 2003).

“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... Bush stands alone because no one else could, or would. Bravo, Bush. You are one brave man” (the piano doctor, Mar. 2003)

“the way in which the United States and Great Britain and the coalition forces have conducted this military effort make it demonstrably the most humane, considerate war in the history of mankind... the world will see what a great character America has as a country” (the piano doctor, Mar. 2003)

“America is about the only major civilization in history not to make a fundamental practice of torture... torture never became an established practice of the American government or of the American military” (the piano doctor, Mar. 2003).

“War has an end. War, real war, can end ‘terrorism’” (the piano doctor, Oct. 2003).

“President Bush gave a very sincere and matured speech last night. It was visionary... It was a beautiful thing... Indeed” (the piano doctor, Jun. 2005)

“people just can't deal with the hard work of George Bush, and the 'war on terror.' ... Iraq is actually a tremendous victory. Historical, and unprecedented... The American soldiers don't want to pull out of Iraq” (the piano doctor, Nov. 2006)
Just like the other neo-cons and his personal savior Dubya Bush, David Yeagley would never for a moment question the need to make war, nor think too much about which country to destroy and occupy. For Yeagley, however inconceivable this logic remains, he actually champions war as a means to achieve peace, as if this type of pseudo-peace could ever be lasting or genuine. Just as Bush calls incessantly for America to “STAY THE COURSE,” the piano doctor continually rallies to destroy and occupy other countries to “end terrorism?” If we consider Martin Luther King Jr's advice, what Yeagley stands for is ultimate weakness. Who would you trust with the future of America, Yeagley or Dr. King?
“The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction. The chain reaction of evil — hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars — must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the darkness of annihilation” (Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., 1967. “Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?”)
The ill-logic of Yeagley's 'eat or be eaten' warrioresque fantasy is breathtaking in its recklessness. But Bush’s and the neo-cons' problems are just beginning.
Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas recently finished a Newsweek article (June 4, 2007 issue), called “Bush's Monica Problem: The Gonzales Mess,” that identifies Dubya has having direct control over the political ‘hit list of judges’ created by Alberto Gonzales. Not only did Bush know about the neo-con politicizing of the Department of Justice, he was controlling it:
“Gonzales, the president's lawyer and Texas buddy, is twisting slowly in the wind, facing a vote of no confidence from the Senate. Bush's role has remained shadowy throughout the controversy over the eavesdropping program. But there are strong suggestions that he was an active presence. On the night after Ashcroft's operation, as Ashcroft lay groggy in his bed, his wife, Janet, took a phone call. It was Andy Card, asking if he could come over with Gonzales to speak to the attorney general. Mrs. Ashcroft said no, her husband was too sick for visitors. The phone rang again, and this time Mrs. Ashcroft acquiesced to a visit from the White House officials. Who was the second caller, one with enough power to persuade Mrs. Ashcroft to relent? The former Ashcroft aide who described this scene would not say, but senior DOJ officials had little doubt who it was - the president. (The White House would not comment on the president's role.) Ashcroft's chief of staff, David Ayres, then called Comey, Ashcroft's deputy, to warn him that the White House duo was on the way. With an FBI escort, Comey raced to the hospital to try to stop them, but Ashcroft himself was strong enough to turn down his White House visitors' request.

The morning after the scene at Ashcroft's hospital bed, the president met with Comey. "We had a full and frank discussion, very informed. He was very focused," Comey later testified, choosing his words carefully. But it wasn't until Bush had met with Mueller that the president agreed to take steps (still unspecified, but probably involving more oversight) to bring the eavesdropping program back inside the boundaries of the law. Mueller has never said what he told the president, but it is a good bet that he said he would resign if the changes were not made. Bush could not afford to see Mueller go, nor could he risk losing the rest of the Justice Department leadership over a matter of principle in an election year.”
So David Yeagley hates liars, does he? I think he hates to lose his own phony “warrior” image, that’s what I think. In fact, Yeagley is so consumed with his fake Comanche persona that he is willing to sacrifice all else to keep it going, including the selling out of America’s core values, and selling out our troops in the bungled and unnecessary war. Yeagley is the supreme sellout, arguing to crucify increasing numbers of US troops and countless more civilians for a few pieces of silver.

How do I spell "Yeagley?" J-U-D-A-S.

May 30, 2007

White Comanche (1967)

Customer Reviews
10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

With Yeagley and Captain Kirk?!!!, May 30, 2007
By Comanche Elder
See all my reviews

“White Comanche” ... Two brothers who are twins, half white and half Comanche (an evil twin, Notah, played by William Shatner, and I forgive him for this), cannot reconcile their Indian selves. I watched for laughs until David Yeagley (the supposedly good Comanche, named Johnny) appeared in regalia with pink feathers. I lost it then ... my stomach still hurts from laughing!

Apparently, the common view of Yeagley is that he is “touched.” They tolerate his presence because Yeagley is viewed as crazy. So, the Comanche view him as relatively harmless. The overall view though is that he is not welcome at tribal gatherings. But, since he is crazy, no one wants to really talk to him. Well, given that Yeagley grew up as a runt with a childhood disease and couldn't play rough and tumble sports, played the piano, was half-not white and grew up in a white neighborhood, I'm willing to bet he got picked on and bullied quite a bit and now that he's bordering on being an old man with his own playground he can act out those fantasies of tormenting and getting even with the types of people who he thinks picked on him when he was a young runt.

Yeagley’s Comanche mother did not raise little David within Indian culture, because she disagreed with Indian ways and customs. Therefore, David “was raised with the values of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants” according to his blog. Yeagley was not taught Indian ways and cannot be considered Comanche. Much of what he thought was “Indian” came to him through his experience with whites. So, I suppose the film's one saving grace is the title, WHITE Comanche, truth be told.

May 22, 2007

David Yeagley: "Rantings of a Conservative Comanche"

A book preview from the Bad Eagle blog

David Yeagley — “The book is out now. It's not in the stores yet, but it's available” (5-20-07).
How do you spell y-a-w-n in Comanche?
David Yeagley — “My original title for the book was: American Patriotism, Indian style. Of course, when the book company makes the investment, they also assume the authority to make it what they want. So, I had to defer” (5-20-07).
What we have here is a protective publisher, protecting their own reputation that is. We prefer “Pantings of a Cromwellian Comanche” actually, an even more accurate title.
David Yeagley — “In any case, the book is a collection of my published articles, from 2001 to the present” (5-20-07).
How do you spell h-i-g-h-f-a-l-u-t-i-n in Comanche?
David Yeagley — “Hopefully, this is the beginning of a serious fundraising effort for the Foundation ... Shortly, this book will be promoted by a number of serious agencies” (5-20-07).
I see, it’s all so very “serious” then. Well in that case, let’s do an official preview, shall we?

David Yeagley: Rantings of a Conservative Comanche
A preview by Bad Eagle blog

Cromwell would be proud of David Yeagley’s self-proclaimed “new” book, although ‘new’ is a stretch; the book is actually a compiled collection of his blogging efforts in 195 pages. What can we expect from this read? Well if it’s any indication, Yeagley’s publisher disavows the content while promoting it for largely commercial purposes; the publisher remains unwilling to adopt Yeagley’s own book title “American Patriotism, Indian style” preferring the change to the current “Rantings...” title, thereby removing accountability on the publisher’s part to condone anything formulated therein by David Yeagley, D.M.A. (a music degree in piano performance).

A rather smart move on the publisher’s part, considering some of Yeagley’s most characteristic and disgraceful writings are not suitable for children or adults. So, if I were to name the compilation definitively, it’d be re-titled “David Yeagley: Pantings of a Cromwellian Comanche,” a more apropos designation. In his own words:

David Yeagley — “The darkness of the Negro has always repulsed other races” (3-1-02).

David Yeagley — “The same people who want to remove the word ‘n_gg_r’ want to remove ‘Christmas,’ and ‘God’” (12-8-06).

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” (2-26-02).

David Yeagley — “Hitler may have wanted to dominate the dark races, but, he didn't want to destory [sic!] them” (1-16-07).

David Yeagley — “I'm beginning to think there's no such thing as racism. If there is, it is very rare” (4-22-05).
What’s rather puzzling is the patronizing of the compilation by a seeming pastor turned get-rich-quick enthusiast, and a minister turned divorce counselor, who both have children. Would you or I subject our own children to the rather obscene quotes pontificated by a hate blog or the resultant compilation? I suspect not. However, both so-called family men, Randy Allsbury of Edmund, OK (5 children), and Jim A. Talley of Oklahoma City, OK (3 children), have come out in favor of Yeagley’s brand of rhetorical megalomania by financing its publication.

How someone can advocate the return of the word “n_gg_r” as Yeagley has decreed, and in the same breath counsel couples on the best ways to raise their children is beyond me. But here we see it, nonetheless.

More to-the-point of the compilation’s content, its purpose seems to be the championing of an unheard-of voice, the non-university educated Indian, although it must be quickly pointed out, ironically, that David Yeagley, D.M.A, and his forthcoming compilation are of the ‘university educated’ variety.

David Yeagley — “The Indian voice has not been develeped [sic!] into a serious political force... only a relatively small ‘university educated’ cadre of Indians...form national organizations with a few Indians on the boards; this is not the real Indian voice. That voice remains to be heard. That voice the Bad Eagle Foundation hopes to lift, in due time” (5-20-07).
To truly understand Yeagley’s compilation however, one must comprehend his blog writings and their seeming purpose. A quick look at his blog confirms what most American Indians have known for awhile now, David Yeagley is more a white supremacist than a Comanche, with a particularly denigrating attitude toward nonwhites — he functions more as a magically white sheep in a borrowed Comanche robe.

Setting himself up as an ‘Indian’ savior, Yeagley proclaims of himself, “People have actually told me, privately, they're waiting for an American Indian leader” (David Yeagley, 5-22-07). Although one blogger quickly saw through the ruse by posting this followup response, Heil mein Fuehrer!” (Yaaawning Injun, 5-22-07), just before Yeagley DELETED this response from his blog. Gotta control the blog with an iron hand I suppose, no such dissent will be tolerated.

From this author’s perspective, Yeagley’s blog predominantly relies upon Yeagley's misperceived impression that he labels American Indian "failure," which probably accounts for his general unpopularity within Indian Country. Yeagley cannot write authentically about people he does not really understand, namely American Indians.

If I were to give my overall assessment of his position, it would be similar to the sinking ship analogy.
In Yeagley’s world, Indians are sunken already or at least sinking with the ship (just look at his denigration of Indian men to confirm this observation).
So, in response to a misperceived Indian ‘failure,’ Yeagley has decided to jump ship and head for the frothy shores of white supremacy, where he abandons the dying concerns of old Indian Country in favor of squatting in the white wing of the shiny city upon a hill.

So while blogging endlessly about all things white rice, white bread and white sugar, Yeagley is fundamentally abandoning the important struggles of American Indians for natural wild rice, indigenous fishing rights, and Indian self-determination. Rather than supporting the struggles of American Indians to write their own histories and correct degrading stereotypes, Yeagley attempts to champion those negative stereotypes from the bleached sands of his own perceived white superiority — all in an effort to bolster his own self-imagined position as a ‘leader.'

The primary purpose of Yeagley's blog is to secure a small reward for himself within the commercial power structures that promote Indian wannabe books and that romanticize Indian degradation for greater earnings in the marketplace. False information about Indians, plus mysoginist and racist attitudes run unchecked and unsensored within Yeagley's blog — and form the loathsome foundation of his book compilation as well.

I give “Rantings” 4.5 lemons for unoriginality and the general lack of understanding key American Indian issues. But hey, remember the old "time-honored" [sarcastic use of one of Yeagley's meaningless expressions: time-honored] adage about lemonade, perhaps a bitter cup to swallow but better Yeagley than Indian Country.

May 21, 2007

Yeagley praises Michael Moore’s new film?!!

from the Bad Eagle journal

David Yeagley praises Michael Moore’s new film, or he should praise it if he cared at all about poor folks and the abysmal lack of adequate health care in this country due to rampant corruption. Perhaps Yeagley will avoid commenting on it altogether; it's not easy to predict such a scattered blogger.

Although I suspect the piano-playing cosmetically-challenged (cosmetically-altered?) Michael Jackson lookalike will take the usual partisan route by supporting greedy corporate and neo-con government interests — blasting the film without even seeing it — most likely.

From the early reviews however, it looks as if Michael Moore’s new film, SICKO, will be rather well received in the USA by all manner of political thinkers.
For more on this new film and the full story Go Here:

CANNES, France - Michael Moore unveiled his latest attack on America's shortcomings at Cannes on Saturday with "Sicko", a scathing documentary that exposes the dark side of the US health system and its powerful insurance lobby. In the film, played to a packed-out crowd in the film festival's biggest, 2,000-seat theatre, Moore flays a health system that leaves 50 million Americans with no access to medical care — and which even cruelly pulls the rug out from under many of those who mistakenly think they are properly covered...

The problem in America is that private Health Maintenance Organisations run the system (under legislation brought in by president Richard Nixon) — and they do so by limiting coverage and payments, and by "buying off" politicians, the documentary alleges. "They are legally required to maximise profits for their shareholders," Moore noted, adding that he feared any reform that might come in under a new president could simply end up putting "tax dollars in the hands of private companies".

The real solution, he opined, was to "steal" what worked in other Western countries and apply that to the United States. Asked whether he was prepared for the inevitable backlash from the deep-pocketed US medical insurance companies, Moore admitted "they may be a scarier force than Karl Rove or George Bush" but added: "It is my profound hope that people will listen to this film." ...

Stephen Schaefer, a US critic for the Boston Globe newspaper, hailed the new movie and predicted it might do even bigger US box office business than "Fahrenheit 9/11".
While the facts "Sicko" lays out "make me sad as an American," Schaefer said it was "a very strong and very honest documentary about a health system that's totally corrupt and that is without any care for its patients." (Marc Burleigh, AFP, May 20th, 2007)

May 18, 2007

White supremacist David Yeagley loves “playing” Indian

from the Bad Eagle journal

Yeagley continually astounds with his white supremacist attitudes, but he really seems to be losing it lately. First, Yeagley declares that "America’s makeup" is largely white when the truth is America’s pluralistic and cosmopolitan makeup defies any such monolithic exaggeration. Yeagley probably masturbates to images of America 'in white makeup.’ But Yeagley also suggests that no American Indians are left that matter — only historical Indians matter — as if Indians are no longer around today and do not significantly contribute to that which we call “America.” This is exceedingly funny considering that modern-day Yeagley is playing Indian himself for kicks, giggles and much sought after attention; how one can be so ‘self-loathing unaware’ is beyond comprehension.

David Yeagley — “The new American Indian is white... America today, like the Indian nations of old, has been generous, tolerant, and gracious to any and all... What happened to the American Indian will eventually happen to the United States, to white, Christian America... White America mustn’t kindly give away the land to foreigners—not in the name of equality and kindness... America mustn’t lose” (May 14, 2007).
Moreover, Yeagley simplistically attempts to co-opt “American values” to mean “white” values, while ignoring the rather blatant fact of America’s mixed lineage as a country of foreigners. Failing to see his own attitudes in the mirror, the great pontificator attacks Muslims and Mexicans the same way Americans did when they committed the American Indian holocaust. Ignorance is as ignorance does. And here’s the kicker, the piano doctor actually tries passing himself off as some sort of plastic medicine man, as a white man “playing Indian” to a white audience to preserve an imaginary white mythology of white superiority. However, Yeagley’s white supremacist continues to show his true color, when he consistently bashes nonwhites and envisions paranoid plots of white destruction, such as Mexicans joining forces with Muslims to destroy white America. Yeagley Yahoo is no more than fear-mongering on the false premise of white superiority and with a philosophy of reviving some narcissistic form of manifest destiny. David Yealgey is utterly ridiculous.
David Yeagley — “America is presently being colonized by foreigners—heathenish characters who do not share American values at all. And they will not leave any reservations for the ‘white’ American Indians. America will convert, or die. So, as a “red” American Indian, I counsel white America ... beware the betrayal of nationhood... The Muslim plague is epidemic. The Mexicans are rampant... They are in league with the Muslims” (May 14, 2007).
Almost needless-to-say, David Yeagley is an extreme Patriotamentia Sufferer with a bent toward moralistic paranoia, but there are better (and more logical) ways to look at American Indian issues. The stereotyped Indian mascot issues, for example, are increasingly being researched rather than remaining in the plastic realm of Yeagley’s imagination and heightened emotions. For a better read on the mascot issue, check out this very thoughtful and researched article published in The Chronicle of Higher Education:
'Playing Indian': Why Native American Mascots Must End

American Indian icons have long been controversial, but 80 colleges still use them, according to the National Coalition on Racism in Sports and Media... Why, nearly 30 years after Dartmouth College and Stanford University retired their American Indian mascots, do similar mascots persist at many other institutions? ...

We began to study these mascots while we were graduate students in anthropology at the University of Illinois in the early 1990s. American Indian students and their allies were endeavoring to retire Chief Illiniwek back then, as well, and the campus was the scene of intense debates. Witnessing such events inspired us to move beyond the competing arguments and try to understand the social forces and historical conditions that give life to American Indian mascots... We wanted to understand the origins of mascots; how and why they have changed over time; how arguments about mascots fit into a broader racial context; and what they might tell us about the changing shape of society.

Over the past decade, we have developed case studies on the role that mascots have played at the halftime ceremonies of the University of Illinois, Marquette University, Florida State University, and various other higher-education institutions. Recently, we published an anthology, Team Spirits: The Native American Mascots Controversy, in which both American Indian and European American academics explored "Indian-ness," "whiteness," and American Indian activism. They also suggested strategies for change — in a variety of contexts that included Syracuse University and Central Michigan University, the Los Angeles public schools, and the Washington Redskins. Our scholarship and that of others have confirmed our belief that mascots matter, and that higher-education institutions must retire these hurtful symbols.

The tradition of using the signs and symbols of American Indian tribes to identify an athletic team is part of a much broader European American habit of "playing Indian," a metaphor that Philip Joseph Deloria explores in his book of that title (Yale University Press, 1998). In his historical analysis, Deloria enumerates how white people have appropriated American Indian cultures and symbols in order to continually refashion North American identities. Mimicking the indigenous, colonized "other" through imaginary play ... has stereotyped American Indian people as bellicose, wild, brave, pristine, and even animalistic.

Educators in particular should realize that such images, by flattening conceptions of American Indians into mythological terms, obscure the complex histories and misrepresent the identities of indigenous people...

That higher-education institutions continue to support such icons and ensure their presence at athletics games and other campus events — even in the face of protest by the very people who are ostensibly memorialized by them — suggests not only an insensitivity to another race and culture, but also an urge for domination. Power in colonial and postcolonial regimes has often been manifested as the power to name, to appropriate, to represent, and to speak — and to use such powers over others. American Indian mascots are expressive practices of precisely those forms of power...

The majority of Indian mascots were invented in the first three decades of the 20th century, on the heels of such formal attempts to proscribe native dance and religion, and in the wake of the massive forced relocation that marked the 19th-century American Indian experience. European Americans so detested and feared native dance and culture that they criminalized those "pagan" practices. Yet at the same time they exhibited a passionate desire for certain Indian practices and characteristics — evidenced in part by the proliferation of American Indian mascots...

Although many supporters of such mascots have argued that they promote respect and understanding of American Indian people, such symbols and the spectacles associated with them are often used in insensitive and demeaning ways that further shape how many people perceive and engage American Indians. Boosters of teams employing American Indians have enshrined largely romanticized stereotypes — noble warriors — to represent themselves. Meanwhile, those who support competitive teams routinely have invoked images of the frontier, Manifest Destiny, ignoble savages, and buffoonish natives to capture the spirit of impending athletics contests and their participants. In our studies, we find countless instances of such mockery on the covers of athletics programs, as motifs for homecoming floats, in fan cheers, and in press coverage.

For example, in 1999, The Knoxville News-Sentinel published a cartoon in a special section commemorating the appearance of the University of Tennessee at the Fiesta Bowl. At the center of the cartoon, a train driven by a team member in a coonskin cap plows into a buffoonish caricature of a generic Indian, representing the team's opponent, the Florida State Seminoles. As he flies through the air, the Seminole exclaims, "Paleface speak with forked tongue! This land is ours as long as grass grows and river flows. Oof!"

The Tennessee player retorts, "I got news, pal. This is a desert. And we're painting it orange!" Below them, parodying the genocide associated with the conquest of North America, Smokey, a canine mascot of the University of Tennessee, and a busty Tennessee fan speed down Interstate 10, dubbed "The New and Improved Trail of Tears." What effect can such a cartoon have on people whose ancestors were victims of the actual Trail of Tears? ...

Such images and performances not only deter cross-cultural understanding and handicap social relations, they also harm individuals because they deform indigenous traditions, question identities, and subject both American Indians and European Americans to threatening experiences...

Environmental historian Richard White has suggested that "[White Americans] are pious toward Indian peoples, but we don't take them seriously”... The omnipresence of American Indian mascots serves only to advance the inability to accept American Indians as indeed contingent, complicated, diverse, and genuine Americans. Ultimately, American Indian mascots cannot be separated from their origins in colonial conditions of exploitation. Because the problem with such mascots is one of context, they can never be anything more than a white man's Indian.

Based on our research and observations, we cannot imagine a middle ground for colleges with Indian mascots to take — one that respects indigenous people, upholds the ideals of higher education, or promotes cross-cultural understanding. For instance, requiring students to take courses focusing on American Indian heritage, as some have suggested, reveals a troubling vision of the fit between curriculum, historic inequities, and social reform. Would we excuse colleges with active women's-studies curriculums if their policies and practices created a hostile environment for women? ...

American Indian mascots directly contradict the ideals that most higher-education institutions seek — those of transcending racial and cultural boundaries and encouraging respectful relations among all people who live and work on their campuses. Colleges and universities bear a moral responsibility to relegate the unreal and unseemly parade of "team spirits" to history.

Charles Fruehling Springwood is an assistant professor of anthropology at Illinois Wesleyan University. C. Richard King is an assistant professor of anthropology at Drake University. They are co-editors of Team Spirits: The Native American Mascots Controversy (University of Nebraska Press, 2001) and co-authors of Beyond the Cheers: Race as Spectacle in College Sport (SUNY Press, 2001).

May 15, 2007

David Yahoogley’s "bosom buddy" John Shawlsoldier

by Michelle Shining Elk (May 10, 2007)

Native women, actually all women, be careful and leery of the myspace member JOHN SWIFTHAWK. He is a man of many personas and names, but my experience has led me to believe that he is a predator who befriends women on this site under false pretenses.

His real name is John Martin who goes by TALLSOLDIER77 on many web forums and JOHN “SWIFTHAWK” here. He has a mean and hatred demeanor and will viciously and unnecessarily attack you if you go again his idle DAVID YEAGLEY, which I have done in the past. He loves all things of the non-Indian rightwing nutcase DAVID YEAGLEY. Those who don’t know who David Yeagley is, he is a very disliked by many in Indian country because he is hatred, racist, sexist and more, you can see the type of things David Yeagley says HERE.

"JOHN SWIFTHAWK" befriends women here with the facade that he is gracious and kind, when in fact he is neither. He berates women, even elderly women, if you say or do something he doesn't like and he takes great pride in his spiteful and viscous behavior, even if you are an elder — in the most disrespect manner.

I am writing about this because I too was duped by this man here on myspace. I didn't realize he was one in the same, or three as he is: John Martin, TallSoldier77 and John "Swifthawk."
He has been berating and attacking me for months over at badeagle because I have stood up against attacks by David Yeagley.

When, at the same time, unbeknownst to me, he was being misleading kind here on myspace (sometimes on or within the same day). It wasn't until someone recently emailed a post with “John/Tallsoldier’s photo
and his photo HERE that I made the eerie realization that he is one in the same.

Here are some of the lovely things John/Tallsoldier has said about me over at tryworks and badeagle after I stood up against his personal attacks against a client and myself — it is the only way he knows how to engage in a debate... and I have never met this man and he knows nothing about me.

February 25th, 2007 at 7:05 am

Michelle, you look cheap and dirty, botox baby, get some injections ASAP, your face looks like it’s beginning to melt."


February 25th, 2007 at 6:40 pm

My dear Michelle,
You really are a conniving little skank/lemur/liar, however that is neither here nor there, you are washed up and you know it. You are the definitive Hollywood runaway tragedy, 45 years in the making, or are you 50? Actually you look 60. (LOL)...Can’t you afford some cosmetic surgery for your haggard old visage?" "Someone stick a fork in this smelly broad, she’s done, next!!!!"

February 25th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
"Michelle is too dense to comprehend what Metaphysics means, but she is, without a doubt, the biggest Indian hater I have ever had the misfortune of reading. Like Michelle’s ugly face, this site get’s old fast, agree?"

February 26th, 2007 at 5:49 am

Whew! Damn Michelle you really need to control those emotional outburst, it is very unlady like, or is it that time of the month again?
There is no use for big words on a skank like you, we are all in the same gutter here, you just too full of your own self-important stench to see through your own bs. I was really expecting more from a woman with your alleged education. I don’t think that you’re even pissed at me, your stinky panties are in a bunch because your monkey-boys film didn’t even merit a single Oscar. Poor little urban indian, you have my sympathy. Kiss, TALLSOLDIER77"
This is only part of it, the rest can be found HERE and HERE.

All while he was also posting comments on my, myspace like:
Feb 4, 2007 6:56 PM

Michelle, Da Bears lost, oh well, the "Redskins" would have kicked butt. LOL. John.

John Mar 4, 2007 2:10 AM
Hey M. I see you are off and running. Good luck, J.

Mar 3, 2007 10:59 PM
What up baby? What's a fine looking woman like u doing 2-nite? J.

John Mar 1, 2007 12:58 PM
What up? My week is going great, I'm flying up north this weekend to pay a call on a friend. Hope all is well in your neck of the woods. J.
These and more can be found on in my comments on my, myspace page.

This realization that the man befriending me here on myspace; was the same man who has has been ill-behaved toward me on others sites; was the same person who attacked my deceased Grandmother in March; and, who was the same guy who made the statement that "he knows I live in Long Beach, CA — Was, and is, nauseating, to say the least.

I probably would have never been the wiser if he hadn't posted the same photo of himself on badeagle and on myspace.

I am disgusted and creeped out beyond belief.

So women, be careful and leery of this man who clearly enjoys misrepresenting who he really is.
He claims he is Indian, but never grew up around Indians, he has lived in Los Angeles since he was five years old, in fact this is what he has to say about Indians:
John Martin — "Native Americans are inherently bigots and racists, it's part of our genetic code, it has been deeply rooted into a derelict stand of our collective DNA. This took place just over the last 500 years."
I'm not saying you have to delete him, dislike him, or do anything about this, I just want to let you know what my experience has been and to advise you to be careful.

May 7, 2007

David Anthony Yeagley: Are D.A.Y. and N.P.D. related?

from the Bad Eagle Journal

Who exactly is NPD? Why “narcissistic personality disorder,” that’s who.

Why not read through these interesting facts about Mr. N.P.D. and simply consider the striking potential for a relationship here. Is there any truth to be found in this connection? Don’t you find the DAY-NPD kinship question rather compelling? Is there a “pervasive pattern” present? How many of the 9 indicators are present? What about DAY’s upbringing and parents? If you find this interesting, put on your thinking cap and consider the NPD behind the image DAY tries to project. Do we have a "Dr. DAY & Mr. NPD" thing (Jekyll/Hyde
) going on here?

Travel Note: You are invited to leave comments, and I will administer them while I am away for this coming week (May 8-14); rest assured all comments will be posted. I'll find an internet cafe or something if I can! And, of course, I will be back May 15, the Ides of May! Have a peaceful week.

Read on ...

Diagnostic criteria

At least five of the following are necessary for a diagnosis (as with many DSM diagnoses, they must form a pervasive pattern; for example, a person who shows these criteria only in one or two relationships or situations would not properly be diagnosed with NPD):

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance

2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people

4. requires excessive admiration

5. strong sense of entitlement

6. takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

7. lacks empathy

8. is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her

9. arrogant affect

Clinical experience

Pathological narcissism occurs in a spectrum of severity. In its more extreme forms, it is narcissistic personality disorder. NPD is considered to result from a person’s belief that he or she is flawed in a way that makes the person fundamentally unacceptable to others. This belief is held below the person’s conscious awareness; such a person would typically deny thinking such a thing if questioned. In order to protect themselves against the intolerably painful rejection and isolation they imagine would follow if others recognized their supposedly defective nature, such people make strong attempts to control others’ view of them and behavior towards them.

The common use of the term “narcissism” refers to some of the ways people defend themselves against this narcissistic dynamic: a concern with one’s own physical and social image, a preoccupation with one’s own thoughts and feelings, and a sense of grandiosity. There are, however, many other behaviors that can stem from narcissistic concerns, such as immersion in one’s own affairs to the exclusion of others, an inability to empathize with others’ experience, interpersonal rigidity, an insistence that one’s opinions and values are “right,” and a tendency to be easily offended and take things personally.

Psychologists commonly believe that pathological narcissism results from an impairment in the quality of the person’s relationship with their primary caregivers, usually their parents, in that the parents were unable to form a healthy, empathic attachment to them. This results in the child conceiving of themselves as unimportant and unconnected to others. The child typically comes to believe that he or she has some defect of personality which makes them unvalued and unwanted.

To the extent that people are pathologically narcissistic, they can be controlling, blaming, self-absorbed, intolerant of others’ views, unaware of other’s needs and of the effects of their behavior on others, and insistent that others see them as they wish to be seen...

People who are overly narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any slight, real or imagined. To avoid such situations, some narcissistic people withdraw socially and may feign modesty or humility.

There is a broad spectrum of pathologically narcissistic personalities, styles, and reactions — from the very mild, reactive and transient, to the severe and inflexible narcissistic personality disorder.

Though individuals with NPD are often ambitious and capable, the inability to tolerate setbacks, disagreements or criticism, along with lack of empathy, make it difficult for such individuals to work cooperatively with others or to maintain long-term professional achievements.

With narcissistic personality disorder, the person's perceived fantastic grandiosity, often coupled with a hypomanic mood, is typically not commensurate with his or her real accomplishments.
The interpersonal relationships of patients with NPD are typically impaired due to the individual's lack of empathy, disregard for others, exploitativeness, sense of entitlement, and constant need for attention...

May 6, 2007

Renown Composer Coming to Comanche Film Festival

from the Bad Eagle News

Bad Eagle would like to report that, once again, internationally-respected composer Brent Michael Davids is being invited to the Comanche Nation College (CNC) Invitational Film Festival in Lawton OK. If you recall, Davids’ highly-successful silent film classic The Last of the Mohicans (1920) was screened to appreciative audiences at last year's 2006 Festival:

The Last of the Mohicans remake was one of the most popular of the 3rd Annual Comanche Nation Film Festival films. According to the CNC surveys; people traveled from outside the community to see this particular film. It was not only well received because of the beautiful scoring by talented Brent Michael Davids, a living Mohican; it was a beautiful remake of an historic film. The movie was a rich contrast of black and white with subtitles. The quality of the film was excellent. What a surprise that a film from the 1920s could have such a wide variety and range of color — from subtle to heavy contrast! It could be compared to having a double serving of art — rich vanilla ice cream with dark chocolate syrup — delicious! Brent Michael Davids' orchestration provided a powerful translation for The Last of the Mohicans movie. Thank you Brent Michael Davids for sharing your gifts and talents with Comanche Nation College. It was appreciated by the Comanche Nation, the audience, and certainly, the viewers” (Juanita Pahdopony, Director of the CNC Invitational Film Festival, 2006)
However, as reported by Bad Eagle last year, Mr. Davids could not attend the 2006 Festival given the quickness of the invitation and his busy schedule, but do expect him at the 2007 CNC Festival, bringing with him new films on which he served as film composer. Davids is expected to appear in person at the CNC Film Festival, and join in the celebration of the indigenous films being created by cutting-edge American Indian filmmakers. And look for some of Brent’s cutting-edge music as well.

If you missed the Ghost Dance production in Lawton, you can go here and read about it, but GRAMMY-Nominated composer Mr. Davids was among the celebrated contributors to the production’s music along with his GRAMMY Award-winning musical cousin, Bill Miller. When Lawton City Arts Council went looking for great music with a strong Native voice, they came to Brent Michael Davids, and Mr. Davids was honored to provide music for Ghost Dance. According to Davids himself:
“I feel it’s very important to put a good effort into getting quality music for all productions, concerts, films and theater, and to bring an authentic American Indian voice to those venues and audiences. Too often, we are confronted ad-nauseum with the same old stereotypes of Indian maidens and macho warriors, and we need to focus holistically on the entire culture, and to move away from the stereotyped tunnel-vision mentalities that, for example, make up the distorted mascots and avoid the multicultural and authentic indigenous realities. I’m proud to contribute whatever I can to the growth of American Indian education and toward better understandings of indigenous cultures" (2006).

May 4, 2007

David Yeagley: MayDay Bush and Pentagon Coverups

from the Bad Eagle Blog

Coverup #1 — Amazingly the numbers of dead and wounded are down in Iraq, but guess what: the military has stopped counting roadside bombs in that figure, at the behest of the White House. That’s right, no IEDs involved in US roadside killings are to be recorded and reported upon. So while David Yeagley wants to read about “any good news” from Iraq such as “one toilet being fixed,” the truth of the failure in Iraq is being covered up by Bush and the military leadership. “Car bombs and other explosive devices have killed thousands of Iraqis in the past three years, but the administration doesn't include them in the casualty counts it has been citing as evidence that the surge of additional U.S. forces is beginning to defuse tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims... [but] not counting bombing victims skews the evidence of how well the Baghdad security plan is protecting the civilian population - one of the surge's main goals. ‘Since the administration keeps saying that failure is not an option, they are redefining success in a way that suits them,’ said James Denselow, an Iraq specialist at London-based Chatham House, a foreign policy think tank.”

Coverup #2 — It was reported yesterday that the US soldiers themselves are being censored in all forms as of May 1st. In the past, soldiers were expected to “clear” questionable emails and blog entries that might reveal military sensitive information regarding troop movements or strategies. But what a moment — the pentagon has ordered that ALL emails and blog entries must now be “approved” by the commanders, whether they deal with military matters or not. So someone writing home to say “I love you Mom” or a soldier wanting to write her father she is “being deployed for a second time and will not be coming home” cannot do so without first obtaining permission from the high command. This is part of a coverup to prevent the true bad news from coming out of Iraq and being reported properly. Of course Yeagley doesn’t care at all about this, because he’s not there doing the dying. He’ll blog-to-high-heaven that your kids must go fight for these traitors Bush and Cheney, but he would never go himself. Oh no, not the great pontificator.

Coverup #3 — A singer revered and adored all across Indian Country — Joan Baez — was prohibited from performing for our wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Medical Center by the US military command for no explicit reason on Wednesday this week. John Mellencamp invited Joan to sing with him for our wounded soldiers, but after a month-long contract negotiation was successfully completed, a worried military command decided in the final 2 days to prohibit Baez from singing at Walter Reed. No explanation was given except that Joan would not “fit in,” the central reason given to Mellencamp for the prohibition. Yes, this is how a worried pentagon treats our wounded soldiers when they care more about politics than they do about our service men and women. And yes, chicken-hawk Yeagley’s obscene love of an AWOL President and a draft-dodger Vice President is the true mark of weakness — supreme weakness. Yeagley hurts and denigrates all of Indian Country with his anti-Indian and anti-Constitution pontifications.

Still a strong advocate for peace, Joan Baez had planned to sing “Day After Tomorrow” by Tom Waits, if she had been allowed to sing at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. And, all of Indian Country would have been there with her in spirit, except David Yeagley the anti-Indian.

Day After Tomorrow (Tom Waits)

I close my eyes every night
And I dream that I can hold you
They fill us full of lies, everyone buys
About what it means to be a soldier
I still don't know how I'm supposed to feel
About all the blood that's been spilled
Will God on his throne
Get me back home
On the day after tomorrow

May 3, 2007

David Yeagley at Proven Wrong Yet Again

from the Bad Eagle Journal

David Yeagley makes a big deal out of an exclusive holocaust applicable only to the Jewish genocide. He does so by using simplistic word games, such as suggesting an American holocaust could not have occurred because the "word" had not been invented yet, and other anti-scholarly opinions. However, it appears Yeagley is wrong again. Are we surprised?

David Yeagley — “Making accurate parallels is not a strong suit of many Indians leaders today. As I have pointed out, there was no Indian “holocaust.” Just about everything in that analogy is false or impossible” (Apr. 2005)
Not only is Yeagley playing with moot semantics (notice his problematic word game, below), but he tries to belittle the American Indian holocaust by claiming Indians are simply following the example of the Jews, as if the American holocaust is somehow a second-fiddle genocide. Why a false hierarchy is necessary at all is beyond me, to rate these genocides like a beauty contest is notably vile.

Yet Yeagley goes out of his way to denigrate the American Indian experience as somehow a lesser holocaust. Indians are only ‘copycat’ holocaust victims, you see. The ‘extravagant,’ ‘indulgent’ and ‘self-idolizing’ American Indian murders are not as “genuine” as Jewish victims, the Indian murders are not as ‘honorable’ as the Jewish casualties.

David Yeagley — “There's only one holocaust. The word "holocaust" belongs to the Jews... The efforts of the Jews to document their stupendous calamity have excited the envy of the heathen... there are people who like to use the world holocaust to identify the American Indian story... Such is the effect of extravagant indulgence, of theself-idolizing "I've been wronged" mentality... there was only one holocaust: the Jewish holocaust... I have denounced this NMAI attempt to redistribute American Indian honor on all indigenous people by including them all in the "American Indian" museum. Now I must denounce the holocaust conglomerates, and the idea that there are multiple holocaust stories, and that everyone deserves the honor of that word, ‘holocuast’ [sic!] ... they mean only to usurp the word ‘holocaust’ from the Jews, and to not only rip-off that 'honor,' but also to deny anything significant about it at the same time!” (Apr. 2005).
However, to Yeagley’s dismay, it turns out there is much examination of the American Holocaust in a film that directly compares both the Jewish and American Indian holocausts together. Joanelle Romero's film “American Holocaust: When It's All Over I'll Still Be Indian” is a hard-hitting documentary that reveals the link between Adolf Hitler's treatment of European Jews and the U.S. government's treatment of American Indians. Director Romero (remembered for her performance in ''Pow Wow Highway”) gives this statement:
''The film depicts disturbing parallels between these two holocausts and explores the historical, social and religious roots of America's own 'ethnic cleansing.' The film also examines the long-term effects of this on-going destructive process and possible ramifications to the future of American Indian people in the 21st century.”
The film won the Best Documentary Short at 25th Annual American Indian Film Festival, and garner both an oscar nod and was chosen for the Arpa “Armin T. Wegner Award” in 2005:
Arpa International Film Festival in Hollywood “Arpa is a resource for international filmmakers who address the issues of diaspora, multi-culturalism and global empathy. The non-profit art organization has grown into a dynamic forum for world cinema in Los Angeles. Joanelle Romero will receive the Armin T. Wegner Award for 'American Holocaust: When It's All Over I'll Still Be Indian', an examination of the link between Adolf Hitler's treatment of German Jews and the U.S. governments 'ethnic cleansing' of American Indians” (2005).
If you’d like to check out this film and are near the Sherman Indian H.S. Museum, they will show the film on May 19, 2007 at their Native Pride Film Festival:
Sherman Indian Museum
9010 Magnolia Avenue
Riverside, CA 92503
If you are not in their area, you can also view the film at Red Nation online here.

See Also:

Eating Fire, Tasting Blood: Breaking the Great Silence of the American Indian Holocaust
As you walk out of your front door tomorrow morning, look down. Look to your left and to your right. Touch the earth: the concrete, the sidewalk, or whatever surrounds you. Undoubtedly you will be touching the layered coverings of the remains of indigenous peoples. Not arrowheads, not broken pieces of pottery — but the very DNA of the first peoples of this continent.

For five centuries — from Columbus's arrival in 1492 to the U.S. Army's massacre of Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee in the 1890s, to the renewed assault in the 1970s — our continent's indigenous people endured the most massive and systematic act of genocide in the history of the world.

In "Eating Fire, Tasting Blood," twenty established and up-and-coming American Indian writers from disparate nations and tribes offer stirring reflections on the history of their people. This is not a collection of essays about Native Americans but rather a collection BY Native Americans — the story of native holocaust on a tribe-by-tribe level as told by those few who have been fortunate enough to survive. Included are original essays by Vine Deloria Jr., Paula Gunn Allen, Linda Hogan, and Eduardo Galeano.

May 2, 2007 Wracked by Internal Squabbles

Originally Posted by (May 01, 2007)

In Yeagley's own words, his forum was dangerously close to tearing itself apart.

And naturally he had to resort to racist stereotypes about Indians to explain it all away.

The fact that extremely few ACTUAL Native forums get torn apart by fighting never seems to occur to him.

David Yeagley — "Too many people needed their heads off, and I wouldn't let it happen. Many people have better things to do than to allow the fights I have allowed here. They are often so useless, petty, childish, and they accomplish nothing but a negative image--which is the opposite of why I formed in the first place: to create a great and noble image of Indian people. I should say, to provide an opportunity for us to show our best side, our best nature. In a way, we have.

At least, we have shown what we value: war. This is plains Indian.
I only hope we can find the right enemies. Instead of warring against ourselves, we should war against that!"
Two of his oldest allies and longtime moderators have left his forum. Yeagley is refusing to say why, but from his comments it seems his bigotry got to be too much even for them.

Betty Ann Gross (BAG) was one of the extremely few supporters Yeagley had that was actually Native. Previous readers of this archive will remember that Gross was drawn to Yeagley by their mutual hatred and fear of Blacks. One of her more memorable claims was that Jesus and the Statue of Liberty were both blue eyed blondes that Indians should worship.

One the plus side, Gross did stand up against John Martin/Tallsoldier77 and his death threats and bullying, and did point out that Yeagley had a double standard with his habit of banning Indians more than whites.

It seems, though, that her open hatred of Jews was too much even for Yeagley, who prefers to pose as a friend of Jews even while spouting stereotypes about them.
"Beakerkin: I consider Betty Ann to be a friend but she always tosses in lines about Jews every time she leaves."
Mac or Macoineach is a self described Scottish nationalist and one who stood strongest against the many white supremaicists from National Alliance and Stormfront that Yeagley welcomed to his forum. He has left too, with Yeagley cracking more stereotypes about "fighting Scots."

It seems that in order to maintain control, Yeagley has instituted some of the most draconian control measures seen anywhere on the net.
David Yeagley — "For new people who wish to register on the BadEagle forums, it is hereby ordered (as it has be requested in the past) that you write first, declaring who you are, with basic information. More importantly, your intent. There is far to much spam, false registration, and manipulating trolls and troublemakers."
Michelle Shining Elk had this comment about the new policy's real intent:
"The little worthless blogger now dictates that you write him, personally, first before you can become a registered member. It's simply another way he keeps his fantasy world alive. First it was by censoring, then by deleting, then by banning, and now you have to "get" his approval before you can even have a voice in his little fantasy world.

He says anyone one can comment on his blogs and forums, but that's just another big fat lie and a joke -- the only way that's going to happen is if you are willing to stroke his little ego the right way and say the right things. And the right things always boil down to agreeing and supporting his demented thoughts and opinions and slamming other people and opinions. And be warned, if you do "pass go" and become registered, you cannot slam or oppose him because that's when he censors, deletes and bans -- he is desperately fearful of being "exposed" himself and takes very seriously "deleting" all oppositions and negatively that goes against him, i.e. the rebuttals, arguments and statements that are made to him, against him and about him. He can't handle it and hides behind his delete button. He runs like a scared little girl - it's such a farce.

It's all just more narcissistic behavior from the King of Narcissism."

May 1, 2007

Reality TV "Caption" Challenge: Bad Eagle on Rosie!

Once again we are putting forth another Bad Eagle "Create the Best Caption" challenge! What is the best caption for this photograph? You decide! Just put your caption in the comments, and enjoy everyone's captions as well. Perhaps you missed Bad Eagle on CSpan, or Bad Eagle on Insanity & Koans; so we're calling this create-a-caption challenge "Bad Eagle on Rosie!"

What's YOUR caption for this picture?

David Yeagley loses his main supporter

Just read this rather illogical blog comment; it's astounding how little there is of genuine self-evaluation going on with David Yeagley. Perhaps if he were better at it, his blog might be more reasoned and rational.

David Yeagley — “American Indian Mind Sets, and Indian Men: A Call to Arms, have apparently marked a change in Bad Eagle. These articles have brought about a turning point. Some truths about Indian Country are simply hard to deal with” (Apr. 2007)
What?! A “change”? You must be kidding David, there’s absolutely no change.

So let’s examine this hypothesis shall we? Let’s see, the “ Call to Arms” blog was about men becoming more aggressive because women are being raped; so you used rape (a fascination with you), to justify yet another in a long succession of anxious masculinity blogs. Okay, so no real change there.

Well, how about the “Mind Sets” blog? Any change there? That blog was about 3 so-called “psychological” categories of Indian: rez, urban and educated. As it turned out, these were easily disproved, and you were left with egg on your face, for trying to be a phony psychology scholar. No such categories exist and certainly do not constitute any sound theory. Remember that phony new harmonic theory you supposedly invented but quickly revealed as nothing but resume padding? Was this a real change? Obviously no change here either; you’ve put forth lots of unsubstantiated and haphazard theories before.

So basically, we see no change going on with your blog. You seem to have an amazing lack of self evaluation skills if you are now championing a big change. It's a good thing that not everyone is falling for it.

Main Supporter Lost: Maybe your forum members are finally wising up and leaving. At least it appears one of your main contributors, Betty Ann, just decided she’d had enough of your messy blog. There’s only so much Non sequitur thinking one can indulge before throwing your hands in the air. I think praise is due when one starts actually seeing the mess and finally walks away from it. Good going. And David, “Non sequitur” is latin meaning "It does not follow,” like your blog (NON = not, by no means, no; SEQUITUR = follow; aim at, strive for, support, observe).

You Go Betty!! (Our Bad Eagle Honoree for the day)