December 24, 2007

YEAGLEY DOESN’T RECOGNIZE HIMSELF IN MIRROR

from the Bad Eagle blog

Today, David Yeagley saw himself in the mirror. The great porcelain pontificator, as if ascending upwards in a puffy nimbus of shiny white grandeur, is crying foul on Rush Limbaugh’s discrimination against Indians based on inaccurate stereotypes?

Now, wait a moment ... like, WHAT?!

Yeagley — “Rush has no concern for Indians, in other words. If he did, he would not be so quick to make sport of Indians who are being used in this way. He would not be so willing to write Indians off... He would make a little effort to find out what Indians really think, and what most really believe.” (12-24-07).
Yeagley is mistaken about his conclusion that some grand “liberal” scheme is out to denigrate Indians, as that is Yeagley’s own slant and rant. Not liberals. But Yeagley is looking in the mirror, of course, so what ought we to expect from him, after all, a one-percent Comanche who sees things always as black-and white. Simpleton.

With his own simplistic dualism he sees evil against goodMuslims against Christiansand all the world is in a devious plot against America. He is the paranoid patriot, who is so confused that he cannot even see past his own image when confronted with it. Confronted with his own fakery, he doesn’t know how to even think it through correctly.
Yeagley — "the message of Christmas isn't political... but, that is the hope of many, certainly through legislating the moral values of the Judeo-Christian morality... Everyone, except Mohammadans, wants peace in the world" (12-25-07).
Warring to bring peace, what an concept. Legislating morality, another idiotic pursuit. Our constitution is, thankfully, godless. Whether founded by agnostics or not, it is intentionally godless and avoids religion — on purpose. Largely because Christianity has been one of the supreme destructive forces in the world, it was wise of the founders to exclude it from our Constitution.

It is amazing how many loyalist believers, like Yeagley, are willing to advocate killing to somehow foster peace. Yeagley's reasoning is ass-backwards. Killing to bring peacefulness? Yeagley's "faith" is nonsensical. Yeagley's morality is to wage war in the destructive pursuit of mono-culture, everyone believing in the same foolishness.

No thanks, simpleton. I place my trust in the Constitution and in evolution. If war-mongering adds up to Christian kindness, I'd rather see Christianity fail. Imagine the world with no religion, imagine peace.


Time after time, blog after blog, Yeagley has ranted against those of us who have been disgusted by the American Indian stereotypes, stereotypes that are negatively influencing our educational system as well as our common-day lives as Native people.

When we legitimately speak out on this abuse caused by these phony pseudo-Indian images masquerading as the real thing, Yeagley rails against us to support these degrading mascots. “Make more” of them, Yeagley pontificates, as if he had no skin in the game, which he really doesn’t to be honest about it.

So little david ends the year with sour-grapes, complaining that Rush has failed to see the real Indian, that Rush did not take a moment to look past the stereotypes of American Indians. Little david has confronted himself in Rush, one neocon pundit squarely looking at a clone of himself, and still failing to see the truth of the encounter.

What goes around, comes around. If the porcelain pontificator wants to spread disinformation and create more false stereotyped images, he is first in line to billow forth a misleading fog.

But when it works against him, Yeagley laments about a failure to see real Indians through the blanched-over whitewash.

It is truly astonishing that Yeagley cannot see the direct connection here, the causal parallel is exact. Yeagley cannot even see the stereotyped discrimination that he has created for himself — let alone for others — even when it appears to him in the magic mirror on a silver platter. If it causes war and hatred, Yeagley is all for it, no matter what it is, even defining patriotism and religion to justify his phony warrior face makeup.


Hands down, Yeagley wins the Bad Eagle Pixilated Hypocrite Award for 2007.

December 20, 2007

WHITE SUPREMACIST SUFFERS HUMILIATING DEFEAT IN RUN FOR COMANCHE NATION VICE PRESIDENT

from Racial Justice

David Yeagley, a white supremacist who has made a career out of posing as both a mainstream conservative and part-Comanche, fared extremely poorly in a special election for Comanche Nation Vice President, coming in a very distant fourth place out of four candidates.

Yeagley only got 102 votes, or slightly over 10%, in an election that also had an extremely low turnout of only 10%. That means that the number of eligible Comanche voters who cast their ballot for Yeagley was about 1%. Already Yeagley's loss has earned him a new nickname in Indian Country, ""1% Yeagley."

Yeagley and his supporters, in a rather bizarre denial of reality, claimed victory since he expected to only get "about five votes." Yet elsewhere in Indian Country, Natives that are familiar with Yeagley's chequered career are celebrating his getting his head handed to him.

Yeagley became enrolled with the Comanche Nation by accident, because his stepmother was Comanche. Kiowa disabled rights activist Cinda Hughes investigated and uncovered that it is a fairly open "secret" among Comanches that Yeagley was adopted.

Comanche traditions do not allow for banishing anyone, no matter how contemptible their actions or beliefs.


Yeagley is a member of the white supremacist One Nation, which works against American Indians, especially on the issue of tribal sovereignty. He also is a speaker for the notoriously anti Semitic John Birch Society, best known for its bizarre conspiracy theories.

Yeagley also is a supporter and associates with members of the National Alliance, the neo-Nazi skinhead group Storm Front (a Storm Front member moderated a section of Yeagley's message board on Jews), the eugenics website Gene Expression, and self described white nationalists and anti immigrant vigilantes the Minutemen.

Yeagley has long been a notorious character in Indian Country. He routinely refers to nonwhites (including American Indians) as "darkies." He has called for the mass murder of illegal immigrants and the mass deportation of all Arabs and Muslims.

He frequently describes his admiration for Hitler, Columbus, and the Shah of Iran. Yeagley once compared Janet Jackson to an ape and called Martin Luther King "a blight on history." Yeagley received the strongest criticism when he attacked the Virginia Tech University shooting victims as "cowards."


Yeagley tried various tactics to boost his vote count in the campaign. According to one source in the Comanche Nation, literally every last vote for Yeagley was an absentee ballot. This suggests that Yeagley pushed his backers to vote early, before anyone could discover his unsavory past and beliefs.

Yeagley's campaign was marked by almost comical mistakes on his part. He gave a speech discussing Comanche clans. The problem is, the Comanche do not have clans. Yeagley was asked during a debate about the Indian Child Welfare Act, one of the most controversial issues in Indian Country. Yeagley was forced to admit he had never heard of it.

Perhaps the most amusing fumble in his campaign came when Yeagley went to the Comanche courthouse, only to hide out from a group of Comanche women asking why he had lied about his stepmother being elected to a tribal post.

Such mistakes in Yeagley's attempt to pass himself off as Comanche are not new, and have long made him the butt of jokes in both the Comanche Nation and across Indian Country. Yeagley has often become an unwitting source of amusement at tribal council meetings, where anyone enrolled may speak.

He once argued for the Comanche Nation to be the first to set up a tribally run bank. The first American Indian tribally run bank was begun more than twenty years ago, and more than two dozen exist today.

His attempts to "look more Indian" also make him hard for many to take him seriously. Yeagley straightened his curly brown hair and dyed it black, and is fond of pancake makeup and turtleneck sweaters.

Rumors swirl that he has had plastic surgery and have earned him another nickname, "Michael Jackson."


Yet his attempts to use dubious claims of American Indian ancestry to promote his white supremacy beliefs are no joke. Sometimes hardline conservatives find him useful to use as a token, and quote him as though he had a serious following within Indian Country.

In this he follows in a long tradition of others claiming to be American Indian being used by the right wing such as 'Princess Pale Moon" and "Chief AJ." (Dr. Al Carroll, 12-17-07)

December 6, 2007

BAD EAGLE — START SEEING MOTORCYCLES

from the Bad Eagle journal

Fresh from his great loss at the Comanche Nation elections where 99% of the Comanche people did not vote for him — a literal 99% — Yeagley is right back to his misogynist and white supremacist rants. Check out this recent gem:

Yeagley — ”Any bid for racial purity these days seems a lost cause—at least among the countries of Western Civilization. All is overrun with invading foreigners of the Third World... Obviously, the white world is the prize, and all darker races seek to mix with the white, both culturally and sexually. There seems a studied effort to obliterate nationality... the craze to destroy nationality and race ... I've said elsewhere (on the blogs), the seat of power in the world is white. The Great White Throne, I've called it. White people have charge of the world...” (Dec 2007).
When Yeagley tries equating nationality with race, he slips into his largest mistake about America — America is not white. America is a cosmopolitan country both racially and religiously. There was never a ‘good ole era’ when mixing stopped occurring, whether prescribed or not, biblically or not. The wide variety of codes and rules have historically mattered very little, as interrelations have always been the norm not the exception. Anyone fearing this reality is simply cultivating some revisionist and reductionist thinking, or some type of modern-day bigotry.

In truth, there is no “craze” to obliterate “race,” how ridiculous is that notion when race itself cannot even be defined with any accuracy beyond the cultural norms or genetic reductionism where everyone becomes an 'exception to the rule.’ Yeagley’s imaginary “throne” is pure nonsense and a rather destructive conceit designed wholly to race-bait and anger others.

What never fails to amaze me is the lack of awareness in other circles regarding the piano doctor’s outrageous behavior, such as in the musical communities and religious communities. Why is it that those who consider themselves good proponents of music, or good upstanding members of a religious community fail to put the stops on the piano doctor’s continued participation in public activities?

Sure, one expects him to be invited to college “republican” events, and pick up that $1000 check via the John Belch Society. Though one wonders why even so-called “republicans” would put up with Yeagley’s half-baked rants, save for their uncritical devotion to an agenda that only Karl Rove could love. If one believes the earth is only 10,000 years old, and that Adam and Eve’s children incestuously propagated the rest of the earth’s population, one can certainly entertain some white supremacy without flinching.

But what of the artists today, the American Indian organizations and the American Indian musicians and composers? What of the other so-called religiously faithful who see acts of humanity as a product of god’s goodness? Why is there a tolerance “blind spot” when it comes to what the scientific and reason-based community blatantly identify as racism and misogyny regarding Yeagley’s activities? Good question.

Bikers fed up with the destructive force of cars plowing into bikes on the highways, started a campaign to make motorists more aware of the obstacles and ‘blind spots’ of sharing the road with bikers. It is the same with music and religion, the parallel is identical and a much larger issue than the piano doctor’s particular idiocy.

In a country that is more polarized now than ever before, with warnings of nuclear dangers and terrorism being trumpeted from all corners, it is incumbent upon every citizen to make a concerted effort to deal head-on with the war propagandists and hate speakers. Tolerating hate — or ignoring it in hopes it will disappear on its own — are acts of complacency, not of benefit. Using religious quotations or biblical passages about not getting involved is a copout. Using the old free-speech argument is also a copout.

One can use biblical passages to support just about anything, reasonable and unreasonable. The supporting rationale is what is at stake in the discussion, not the biblical citation; those using biblical justifications simply rely on some imagined ‘supernatural’ authority to argue their position rather than using commonsense or science to argue it; this bible citation practice is intellectually lazy.

Want to quote the bible, it’s a free country, but the bible holds no actual authority when held up to reason and critique. Hiding one’s head in the sand while the hate-mongering rages on around you cannot be justified using religion. Civil rights occurred because people drew a proverbial line-in-the-sand and said “here and no further” to those harboring ideas of slavery and a second-class citizenry in America. The message: start seeing equal rights.


Free speech is a right, yes. However, paying for hate-mongering to occur or harboring hate-mongering activities is not prescribed in the Constitution nor in any free-speech law. Because someone has a right to free speech does not mean the hate-mongers must be hired or employed in places that wish to be free of such blatant bigotry. One would not hire Hilter to show his paintings at the national Holocaust museum just to prove the principle of free speech, no.

There is a difference between allowing free speech on someone else’s dime, and directly or indirectly supporting the propagators of the bigotry. American Indian musicians, composers and organizations have a cultural responsibility to make sure they remain free of supporting directly and indirectly the career bigot. Turning a blind eye toward this issue is inexcusable.

The
propagators of racism and misogyny are the issue here, not whether they wear religious or musical hats, not whether they quote the bible or compose music. Recognize your own responsibility in your funding and performance decisions. Take responsibility. Your decisions affect us all.

Message for you bible-only-centrists and music-only-centrists: Start seeing the people.