Thursday, December 28, 2006

Is Yeagley Truly Native? Part II

The evidence is remarkably consistent. There is nothing that says that Yeagley is Comanche except for the tribal enrollment mistakenly given him because of his adoption by a Comanche stepmother. His adoptive family (not surprisingly) has not come forward to defend him in the four years since he began preaching his anti-Indian hatred. According to the testimony of a neighbor, his brother and nephew have in fact always identified as white themselves.

(See Part I at

A conversation on the Native forum turned up a number of Oklahoma Indians who asked around and could not find a single Comanche or other Native who had heard of Yeagley before David Horowitz plucked him from obscurity and promoted him as a Professional Indian Token "Conservative."

(As discussed at this archive before, Yeagley's actual views are white supremacist, and he has no conservative support.)
I asked Garrison T. "So how 'bout that Dave Yeagley?" He said, "Who is that?"

I asked Elton Y. "So how 'bout that Dave Yeagley?" He said, "Who's that?"

I asked Shane H. about "that Dave Yeagley...." she said, "Who TF is that? Some preacher?"

I asked Paul D. "So how 'bout that Dave Yeagley?" He said, "Never heard of 'im."

I asked Mario T. "So how 'bout that Dave Yeagley?" He said, "Who does he sing with?"

I asked Harry W. "So how 'bout that Dave Yeagley?" he said, "Who is that?"

I asked Sonny C. "So how 'bout that Dave Yeagley?" he said, "Don't know 'im"

I asked Sammy T. "So how 'bout that Dave Yeagley?" he said, "Who is that?"

I asked Leo L. "So how 'bout that Dave Yeagley?" he said, "I don't know who he is."

I asked Daryl T., a Comanche musician, "So how 'bout that Dave Yeagley?" He replied "He must not be very well known."

All Comanches, all from OK, all recent. Maybe we're dealing with a ghost.

I never heard of him until people kept bringing him up on here. Never saw him anywhere in Oklahoma. I do not go to Comanche dances but to Red Earth every year and never see him there. I do see the same people at the powwows I go to. He was never around Oklahoma AIM people or Indian events in Oklahoma. Never heard or read anything about him in the media. In the real world he doesn't exist. It appears his people don't know him either.

Naw, never heard of Yeagley either until joining up here and am in Oklahoma. Rub elbows with the Comanche folks all the time and only a few ever heard of him as well. For a guy that wants to be a famous Indian he sure missed the boat here.

Thunderbeing(who is not Native):
He sounds like an ndn hater to me..I wonder why he claims to be ndn if he thinks that the ndn people are such trash....What benefit would that claim give him?...I am only asking you because I dont know anyone else who knows him.
He seems a contradiction within himself. I read, about numerous severe health problems, he had suffered throughout his life, on the one page of his site I did read. Are they true?...or are they fabrication, as his explanations for different things?

Friday, December 22, 2006

Is Yeagley Man Enough to Enlist?

A humorous article about Yeagley that has some serious points:

Is Yeagley “Warrior” and “Patriotic” Enough?
by Brent Michael Davids, 12/20/06

Bush is about to, foolishly in my view, increase troop levels in an Iraq “surge,” David. Now is your big chance!! You can finally become a true warrior, and serve the government you espouse to “love.” No need to worry about pesky military fit-for-duty requirements that may have hindered you in the past, today’s contractors are carrying the load of the Iraq occupation these days. You can join and go fight!! It’s an opportunity not to be missed! Show your “patriotism” and “warrior” prowess!“

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush asked his new secretary of defense to draw up plans to increase the overall size of the Army and the Marines, according to an interview with the president published Tuesday in the Washington Post. ‘I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops — the Army, the Marines,’ Bush said.

It’s easy David, why not go get yourself employed by one of these companies, and head on over to Iraq? Are you “warrior” enough? “Patriotic” enough?

3D Global
Alpha Point

You should really do it, David! Work along side the US Military! I hear that today’s military, those true warriors, are really becoming more reasonable in their outlooks about gay folks on the job. I personally think being in that particular environment might do you a world of good. Trust me on this point, and check out this latest Zogby poll. It seems that 3 of every 4 American military patriots think it’s just fine for warriors to be gay.

"The Zogby Interactive poll of 545 troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan was designed in conjunction with the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and conducted by Zogby Oct. 24-26, 2006. It carries a margin of error of +/- 4.3 percentage points.Of those in combat units, 21% said they know for certain that someone in their unit is gay or lesbian... The data also indicate that military attitudes about homosexuality have shifted. In the early 1990's, many senior officers argued that U.S. troops could not form bonds of trust with gays and lesbians, according to Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center, who has written widely on the subject. According to the new Zogby data, however, nearly three in four troops (73%) say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians.”

A very funny article.

The big question is, would Yeagley run scared once he was in Iraq, or would he try to massacre every Iraqi he saw? He did write an article arguing for genocide against Iraqis, that the US should kill every Iraqi woman and child so no one grows up to be terrorists.

Truth is, Yeagley himself is a friend to terrorists, such as his Storm Front supporters. Most terrorists are white and claim to be Christian.

He was the right age for both the tail end of the Vietnam War and the Gulf War, and was too hypocritical to join either time back then.

Thursday, December 07, 2006

David Yeagley: "The Word Nigger Should Stay"

Nothing I say could show Yeagley to be more of a racist than to simply quote his own words, two long editorials of his defending the use of the word nigger and claiming those opposing use of the word are "like Muslims." (Which, to a bigot like him, is a horrible thing.):

"Some media people have been writing 'n-gg-r' instead of 'nigger,' as if leaving out the vowels some how ameliorates the guilt of using the word, or entirely releases them from using the horrid word. This is a curious thing. We must realize, again, 'nigger' is not holy. That media writers would handle the word in a way similar to the way a holy word, the name of God, is handled in Jewish tradition, is a remarkable thing.

'Nigger' is not the opposite of God. 'Nigger' does not mean Satan, either. Why is 'nigger' being given such incredible consideration? What kind of neurosis is evident in this utterly artifical empowerment of the word 'nigger?'

'Nigger' is not a newly invented slang to try and mollify or detract from something else.

'Nigger' is a historical term, which never meant anything other than what it means to day, in fact, it meant much less, if anything. It was a lazy way of saying Negro. That's all.…

The word 'nigger' is not holy. It is not sacred.

It is very hard not to say what one feels. It is not likely that a man will refrain from saying what's on his mind. To 'get along' in the world, we generally put a curb on our words, but, to someone, in some circumstance, somewhere, we will say what we feel. We have to, in order to live with ourselves....

This appears to be about perfectionism--the perfection of control over others, the perfection of tyranny, and mean spirited human relations...

Attorneys have become like a swarm of Africanized bees, or a plague of viral infections, a horde of invading gloomists. They are like Muslims, in fact. They aren't protecting the law, they are morphing it. They are making it into something it was never meant to be. They make it a power game--power over you. That's what it's about.

Maybe the word 'nigger' should stay. It should be carefully defined, and refined, and it should remain--as a testimony to the intent of law, and not as the bread and butter of vainglorious, self-righteous attorneys.

'Nigger' should be used when and only when appropriate. It is a word. It exists. It has meaing[sic].

...there can't be any law against it. You can't make laws against natural aversions, only hate. Sound like oppression to me.…

Well, then, let's be Christians. Otherwise, we'll all soon be Muslims."

His second editorial defending the word, at the same link:

"No one is going to come out and say it, so will have to do the dirty job.

'Nigger' used to mean just a Negro, a servant, or 'slave.' Today, 'nigger' means unwanted, repulsive, and disgusting. Nigger means everything that is despised. Nigger means vehement and utter rejection. …

To call a person a nigger today means you don't want to look at him, you don't want to hear him, you don't want him around you, and you don't want anything to do with him. Nigger means all that no one wants. It can refer to physical appearance and all its aspects; it can refer to character and behavior, style and 'culture.' It can refer to language, manner of speaking, or any and all aspects of being a human person.…

Gloria Allred loves 'niggers.' Gloria Allred loves to have Negroes remain slaves to the opinion of others...Give Gloria Allred a Negro, especially a young male, and she will make a 'nigger' out of him. She will make him unwanted, repulsive, and disgusting...

Aren't there any black leaders out there that care at all?

...They aren't men. They aren't full human beings, yet. "