Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Here we go again Kook convention of Lunatics on Again

After much trouble the bigots AMREN convention is back on again. The main speaker the head of the BNP has obviously decided this meeting is not worth the headache.

As an American these idiots have the right to free speech. It is wrong and odious to threaten facilities and staffers. That is criminal intimidation and just as the bigots convention is unamerican so are threats and intimidation.

No doubt Dr. Yeagley will make a speech. If he had any sense of self preservation he would have remained home. Then again if he had any sense whatsoever, he would not be Yeagley.

Yeagley has stated he will directly and in no uncertain terms address the Holocaust and Holocaust denial. This was interesting because when I proposed this his initial reaction was negative. The Pagan Temple also mentioned it as well. The Dr. is aware that this conference will potentially be ruinous of what was left of his reputation.

The sad truth is that the best way to deal with political freaks is satire. As imbeciles they do not grasps how stupid they look to the general public. This goes for Marxists like Prof. Kultur and for White Supremacists like Dr. Yeagley.

17 comments:

The_Editrix said...

Frankly, I was quite taken aback when it seemed that they might be unable to hold the conference. First out of principle (they may be unpalatable, but is that reason enough to bow to politically correct leftist thuggery and do away with their free speech rights or their freedom of assembly -- I guess something like the latter is guaranteed under your constitution?) and because Yeagley wouldn't have been able to make an ass of himself under maximum exposure and publicity.

I hope it will take place.

Anonymous said...

While Holocaust denial is deplorable and should be confronted directly, so to should the quack racial theories that will be discussed there as well.

Personally, it means absolutely nothing to me to have the opera hero, Davey Yeagley, condemn Antisemitism amidst a white supremacist gathering, where disgusting 19th century theories of the genetic inferiority of blacks and others are greeted with unbridled enthusiasm.

The only real meaningful rebuttal possible, were one to attend, would be to condemn the very premise of the gathering's basis for coming together in the first place. To simply cry out against the hateful Antisemitism without decrying everything else, does very little, in my not so humble opinion. By the way, until I stop being lacy and re-register, I'll sign in as Anonymous and sign my name below.

Ray

CM said...

Off again on again,

I want him to show his true color....WHITE. Is white a color?

The Hotel is getting publicity thats all it amounts to, and yeagley even posted their numbers for all to call and congratulate them....he is grasping at straws....I wonder if the airlines will scann him, I know he has "NOTHING" to hide!

I'm actually glad he speaking, but he damn well better not use the Comanche Nation in his speech!

This gathering of white supremists must not get much Media attention, I listen to CNN all day long and don't recall this ever being mentioned!

CM

CM said...

Hey...AMREN IS OFF AGAIN!

These Hotel people know who butters their bread, and its not the yeagley types!

I might just give them a call now and THANK them for thinking of the majority. Our Capitol Building is just behind them in the picture yeagly posts....and he was so proud...teehee...turned away from his own people, the caucasions.

Ajibik is my hero(along with Naiche, of course)...he is right on....looks like he may be roasting some pig soon, hope his cute wife is along for the ride!

CM

The_Editrix said...

"Personally, it means absolutely nothing to me to have the opera hero, Davey Yeagley, condemn Antisemitism amidst a white supremacist gathering, where disgusting 19th century theories of the genetic inferiority of blacks and others are greeted with unbridled enthusiasm.

The only real meaningful rebuttal possible, were one to attend, would be to condemn the very premise of the gathering's basis for coming together in the first place."


Absolutely! Given the context of that event, his speaking up against Holocaust denial even de-values that cause. But what is his stance worth anyway? I am under the impression that his oh-so-great affinity with the Jews first comes from his nutty cult and second that it serves to pit one minority (Jews) against another one (American Indians). He is good at playing people off against each other. His forum used to thrive on it.

That he gives an aviating fornication for the Jews shows, for example, this:

"The Holocaust terror at least had a racial divide of some kind. During the French Reign of Terror the French endlessly slaughtered each other. Which is the more reprehensible?

And the French Revolution was not about ridding the country of Jews. It was the pent-up frustrations against the Catholic Church. They burned Bibles, exiled or slaughtered Christians.

I should think it would have been much worse to have witness [sic!] the French Revolution, if you were French, anyway."


I'm not quite sure what the moron is trying to say, but I am under the impression that he thinks that the Holocaust had, as opposed to the French Revolution, the redeeming quality to be at least "about race".

While I don't think it makes much sense to charge the victims of one mass murder/genocide up against the next one's, the vast difference in victim numbers alone ought to have told him how preposterous his comparison is. He is so consumed by the thought of "race" that the Holocaust can't be all bad because it was AT LEAST about "race".

That thread, by the way, was started by one of his Stormfront buddies he appointed moderator of two of his fora.

Anonymous said...

Editrix (can I call you Nora?), you're absolutely right in your estimation of Yeagley's utter lack of real, tangible appreciation for Jews and Judaism. Along with viewing Jews and their religion through the lens of Adventist beliefs, he also seems to fall into a pattern of viewing all matters in terms of all or nothing.

If the man is a sociopath or at least a malignant narcissist, then it would mean that he follows a pattern of idealizing people/ideas, followed by an incremental process whereby he devalues them, eventually discarding them altogether for not living up to his confabulated view of them that exists in his warped mind. Note that throughout, he most likely never possessed an intrinsic appreciation for Jews (and other cultures by extension), only what he idealizes them to be. To the extent that people are more complex than the exaggerated stereotypes in his head, he reacts with extreme rage. Or, his usual arrogant style, he presumes to tell Jews and others what they really believe. He not only think he "out Indians other Indians," but out Jews real Jews."

On that narcissistic disorder of his, you'll not that main characteristic is delusions of grandeur and magical thinking. Check out his latest rant at Eric Holder. Writing Holder a "personal" letter is seen by Yeagley as significant, as though all eyes are cast his way, anxiously awaiting his every view and action. I also recall lauding himself with praise because he produced his documentation of his Indianess, but Obama hadn't, as though the president himself is supoosed to be aware of this loser's melodrama on the internet!

And I agree with your statement about him being adept at playing individuals and groups against one another, particularly Jews and Indians. Prior to developing the bright idea of using his Indianess as a means of disseminating what would otherwise be standard white supremacist rhetoric and far-right ideology, I doubt he gave his heritage much though at all.

Thus, his entire "career" as the noble hero typing away at home rather than working a real job is simply a long-standing Halloween act gone awry In my opinion, he's been playing Indian as means of receiving charity from white supremacist groups as a way of not having to apply for real jobs for around ten years now. If you've ever seen him give speeches or seen him live anywhere, it's really funny to see how hard he tries to "dress" Indian. Most Native folks that are comfortable in their own skin and with their own identity dress in a way that doesn't come across as forced or rehearsed.

Ray

The_Editrix said...

Ray, of course you can call me Nora! Everybody knows my real name anyway.

"If the man is a sociopath or at least a malignant narcissist, then it would mean that he follows a pattern of idealizing people/ideas, followed by an incremental process whereby he devalues them, eventually discarding them altogether for not living up to his confabulated view of them that exists in his warped mind. Note that throughout, he most likely never possessed an intrinsic appreciation for Jews (and other cultures by extension), only what he idealizes them to be."

That is what frustrated me and Mac (him a to a bigger extent because he had put more effort in it) no end. We tried to explain our cultures in a meaningful way and all he had to say in return were some glib clich├ęs. Case in point: I posted an article about a German "panzer ace" and one of the most highly decorated German soldiers in WWII called Hermann von Oppeln-Bronikowski because he had won a Gold at the 1936 Olympics at Berlin in dressage. I thought that an interesting juxtaposition because for the latter you'll have to me a musician, an aesthete and extremely sensitive on several levels, qualities one wouldn't necessarily associate with a "panzer ace". Do you know what the piano pounder had to say? Something to the effect that Hitler and the Nazis couldn't have been all bad because they let A POLE ("Bronikowski"!) become a general. I then posted a lengthy overview of the social history of the German eastern territories with a specific focus on the naming traditions of local aristocratic families. Guess the reaction? Right. None. It was a mistake to delete it all in a huff then, though, because it was interesting information.

You see, he LONGS to say something nice about Hitler and the Nazis.
I did a quick Google search and found the following information about sociopaths (excerpts) :

Interpersonal traits

• Glib and superficial
• Egocentric and grandiose
• Lack of remorse or guilt
• Lack of empathy
• Deceitful and manipulative
• Shallow emotions

Glib and superficial

Psychopaths are often witty and articulate. They can be amusing and entertaining conversationalists, ready with a quick and clever comeback, and can tell unlikely but convincing stories that cast themselves in a good light. They can be very effective in presenting themselves well and are often very likable and charming.

Typically, psychopaths attempt to appear experts in sociology, psychiatry, medicine, psychology, philosophy, poetry, literature, art or law. A signpost to this trait is often a smooth lack of concern at being found out that they are not.

(TBC)

The_Editrix said...

Egocentric and grandiose

Psychopaths have a narcissistic and grossly inflated view of their self-worth and importance, a truly astounding egocentricity and sense of entitlement. They see themselves as the center of the universe, as superior beings who are justified in living according to their own rules.

Psychopaths are seldom embarrassed about their legal, financial or personal problems. Rather, they see them as temporary setbacks, the results of bad luck, unfaithful friends or an unfair and incompetent system.

Psychopaths feel that their abilities will enable them to become anything they want to be. Given the right circumstances—opportunity, luck, willing victims—their grandiosity can pay off spectacularly. For example, the psychopathic entrepreneur "thinks big," but it's usually with someone else's money.

Lack of remorse or guilt

Psychopaths show a stunning lack of concern for the devastating effects their actions have on others. Often they are completely forthright about the matter, calmly stating that they have no sense of guilt, are not sorry for the pain and destruction they have caused, and that there is no reason for them to be concerned.

Lack of empathy

The feelings of other people are of no concern to psychopaths. Psychopaths view people as little more than objects to be used for their own gratification. The weak and the vulnerable—whom they mock, rather than pity—are favorite targets.

Deceitful and manipulative

Lying, deceiving and manipulation are natural talents for psychopaths. Given their glibness and the facility with which they lie, it is not surprising that psychopaths successfully cheat, bilk, defraud, con and manipulate people and have not the slightest compunction about doing so.

Shallow emotions

Psychopaths seem to suffer a kind of emotional poverty that limits the range and depth of their feelings. While at times they appear cold and unemotional, they are prone to dramatic, shallow and short-lived displays of feeling. Careful observers are left with the impression that they are play-acting and that little is going on below the surface.


Stunning, eh? Everything what you are saying to a "T"!
(TBC)

The_Editrix said...

His "appreciation" of Jews is akin to his appreciation of women. He loathes and fears them, yet pretends to revere them. He has published N posts full of bitchy, snide remarks about that trashy Pamela Anderson (and implicitly about her breasts) and who but a woman hater (and a flaming moron) would write something like: "A woman in tears is a wonderful thing. The world wavers. History awaits. No doubt mankind is a mystical outpouring of a crying female." I bet he thinks it's poetry.

That's his latest howler:

"Tanith Belbin, from the US, eh? Sounds and dresses like a Czech. "Sounds" like a Czech? How? Does she have an accent? Did he hear her speak? Or is it the name? Tanith is Irish and Belbin is English. Back to "Bronikowski" again, are we? "Dresses like a Czech"? It's a COSTUME! Oh, well, she's Canadian. She does the "Moldavian Folk Dance" thing, and certainly flaunts a Jewish-sounding name. Now it's not a "Czech", but a "Jewish sounding" name? The father's name is Charles Belbin. That's about as English as one can get. And why "flaunts"? It IS her name. And why would one "flaunt" a Jewish name if it isn't one's own?

She definitely prefers the foreign name of her apparently Jewish father. "Prefers"? Over WHAT? "Apparently Jewish father"? I did a fairly thourough web search and found no hint that Charles Belbin is Jewish. And Belbin is an archetypical English name, which proably goes back to some Norman who came over with William the Conquerer. Again: What about "prefer"? It IS her name. What other name should she use? And notabene the logic Jews = foreign!!! What I don't understand is why people hide their ethnicity sometimes. What does she "hide"? About what is he talking? Shouldn't they honor and respect it? About what "ethnicity" to honour and respect is he blathering?

Ben Agosto's father is Puerto Rican Catholic, and his mother (Miriam) is Jewish. Who but somebody who is utterly obsessed with Jews would even notice that?

A lot of Jewish sources have proudly claimed Agosto, but none have delved into "Tanith Belbin." Wonder why? Maybe because she IS NOT Jewish? (Appently Belbin has done a lot of risque photo work. Soft porn?) "Apparently"! Again, I did a lengthy web search and could find NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER of "risque" photos, let alone soft porn.

We just have to do some deeper research sometimes..."Yeah! Like the one on the little Prussian Blue Nazi sluts where he didn't bother to read past the first page of the MISS USA website in his unappetising zeal to save the white race.

It's all there. His obsession with Jews and "race", his misogyny, the lies, the shamelessness, not to speak of his general moronism.

The_Editrix said...

Ray, I have a question to ask. I take it you have some Indian heritage, but apart from that: What do you think made us all (you, me, Beak, Mac, the 'gator and many other basically fairminded people) join the Violent Hummingbird and stay for a more or less considerable while? None of us can really pinpoint it or can somebody? Were it the airs and graces of a Renaissance polymath he lent himself? Was it the fake interest in our cultures (and ourselves)? After all, almost everybody likes to talk about oneself and what is dear to one.

Do you have an idea? I really don't have an answer.

Anonymous said...

Hey Nora, I was once caught up with someone that fit that criteria perfectly as well. A good friend that works in the psych field constantly warned me and others that this person showcased definite sociopathic/narcissistic traits.

I learned the hard way that such individuals never change. With age, they simply become better at manipulating people and covering their tracks. Furthermore, like Yeagley, attention of any sort is the very life-blood fueling them. It took a long time, some longer for others, to finally see through the years of his carefully constructed false image.

Now, it's as plain as day to see who he really is, not who HE would like us to see him as. There's a reason he's emailed numerous past posters, pleading for them to return. He needs the illusion of being important to stay alive. That sounds drastic but I truly believe that without his site and make-believe life of being a real pundit with pull in the field, he'd shrivel up and pass on.

I enjoyed reading through the German material as well. His responses to it are typical of his wanting to see things on his own terms, not matter how distorted or inappropriate they are. In school I once read of a famous philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead. He used a phrase to describe mistaken assumptions that fits Yeagley perfect. When we mistake the contents of our own minds as normative or with "truth," that is known as the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. How often have we seen Mr. Piano engage in that sort of thing?

Ray

Anonymous said...

Hi Nora, I think it's because people like Yeagley operate with a completely foreign value system. The "experts" claim that such narcissists operate using a false self. They loath their real selves or lack the strength, skills, whatever, to admit they have faults and are less than perfect. So, probably at a young age, he developed a fantasy identity, working tiresly to project this false self to anyone he comes into contact with. It's important to his very survival that this false image is mirrored back to him by others.

Part of such a person's appeal is that they come on really strong with their interest and make great first impressions. Most of us are accepting and respond positively, as it makes us feel important or special to have OUR interests so enthusiastically mirrored back at us. I supposed that makes us culpable, in that we MISTAKENLY THOUGHT we saw in Yeagley values and interests we have ourselves. When we discover that a person is nothing more than a complete fabrication, we rebel against the idea. By that time, we've invested a lot ot time, energy, and ideas into the relationship or friendship. I think some here, Beak most notably, engaged in a kind of bargaining with him and themselves. If only things could go back to the way things were, at the edenic beginning! Well, Yeagley was always an asshole then and remains so now. We just refused to see it until we had no choice. One can only excuse a person's lack of character so much before our own integrity screams out in protest.

I see David as a kind of emotional karaoke singer. He knows the words to a song but doesn't feel the music. In the same way, he realizes that the rest of us are motivated and moved by emotions. He doesn't have that ability, since he's all cerebral, but he does have the ability to pretend that he possessed them. That's how he manipulates people so routinely.

Lastly, most of us don't view every social encounter, online or otherwise, as be-all-end all challenges. He does. I think he makes more sense when you see that every thing he does and says is an attempt to elicit attention and to manipulate people. Google narcissistic supply. That's the fancy term for Yeagley doing whatever he can to have his false self mirrored back at him by others.

I hope that long-winded explanation makes some sense. In the end, he's not like the rest of us and works with an entirely self-referencial value system. As a tribal citizen with more centrist political leanings, I was intrigued by finding another Native person with seemingly similar interests. Oh, how wrong I was! Take care

Ray

The_Editrix said...

Ray: "In school I once read of a famous philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead. He used a phrase to describe mistaken assumptions that fits Yeagley perfect. When we mistake the contents of our own minds as normative or with "truth," that is known as the fallacy of misplaced concreteness."

Now that's food for thought. Learning about something like that makes attending online fora worthwhile and yes, that's about the philosophical underpinning of Yeagley's pathology.

"Part of such a person's appeal is that they come on really strong with their interest and make great first impressions. Most of us are accepting and respond positively, as it makes us feel important or special to have OUR interests so enthusiastically mirrored back at us. I supposed that makes us culpable, in that we MISTAKENLY THOUGHT we saw in Yeagley values and interests we have ourselves."

Yes, exactly that was what I felt, and, I suppose, the others as well.

You say: "When we discover that a person is nothing more than a complete fabrication, we rebel against the idea. By that time, we've invested a lot ot time, energy, and ideas into the relationship or friendship. I think some here, Beak most notably, engaged in a kind of bargaining with him and themselves. If only things could go back to the way things were, at the edenic beginning! Well, Yeagley was always an asshole then and remains so now. We just refused to see it until we had no choice. One can only excuse a person's lack of character so much before our own integrity screams out in protest."

I found this in the Internet: "It's also very hard for someone involved with a sociopath to be able to see what they know is happening, even after catching the sociopath in the lies and manipulation. It's incredibly hard to decide to leave a sociopath, as well as stay away from that sociopath.

One of the reasons for the above is that people can sense that the sociopath needs something, and they keep trying to give it and the sociopath/psychopath keeps trying to take it. But the sociopath cannot truly take in that healing energy of human contact. So, the sociopath becomes frustrated and instead looks to take unfair advantage. And the caregiver may give until it does him/her damage."
Of course, the latter is limited by the nature of an online relationship, but the mental mechanism is the same nevertheless.

Then you say: "Lastly, most of us don't view every social encounter, online or otherwise, as be-all-end all challenges. He does. I think he makes more sense when you see that every thing he does and says is an attempt to elicit attention and to manipulate people. Google narcissistic supply. That's the fancy term for Yeagley doing whatever he can to have his false self mirrored back at him by others."
TBC

The_Editrix said...

About narcissistic supply: "Having failed to procure for him his "drug' (Narcissistic Supply), the narcissist regards friends, colleagues, and even family members as dysfunctional, frustrating objects. In his wrath, he tries to mend them by forcing them to perform again, to function." That is to a "T" what Yeagley does when he calls, emails or PMs frustrated members to come back. Even more manipulative is to post more or less subtle provocative messages to make a former poster react. He tried it with me and I retorted with my travesties and when I finally saw the abyss of that mental depravity, I stopped even that. I have hardly ever touched the loony bin until the Beak brouhaha started. Yeagley is oh-so-subtle [not] to bring his former posters back. He does it with the Scots and he does it with that Kidist, so far without avail.

"I hope that long-winded explanation makes some sense. In the end, he's not like the rest of us and works with an entirely self-referencial value system. As a tribal citizen with more centrist political leanings, I was intrigued by finding another Native person with seemingly similar interests. Oh, how wrong I was!"

It makes sense indeed and it helped a lot. I think Yeagley's worst sin lies in the fact that he abuses what little Indian heritage he may have to get attention and to diss and humiliate Indians in the process. That is downright devilish. One indication that he was never interested in Indian culture is that he sucked up big time to Mac or me, while he marginalized --- no, totally ignored -- the 'gator, a white man with a vast professional and personal knowledge and deep understanding of Indians, their culture and heritage.

I think, too, that Betty Ann is more a victim of Yeagley than vice versa, although it's probably a give and take situation on almost equal terms. She obviously overstepped her boundaries lately and is now nice and quiet, so it seems that he DOES possess the power to rein her in. There we can watch two highly manipulative individuals working together and against each other. Grand old cinema at its finest, weren't it so sick.

Maybe his dysfunctional personality is even more devastating than his Adventist beliefs. I am sure that there are perfectly decent Adventists who ignore the demented teachings of Mrs. White. One needs to have a mind that is sick and warped enough to swallow it in the first place.

Glad to have met you, Ray!

CM said...

Editrix and Ray,

Absolultely everything you said is true about the little man.

In person, you would think the man is on drugs for his hyper actions. In speaking, he seeks out a person with eye contact and seems to actually plead for acceptance(now I view it as.. have pity on me..pleeeeze!). With a wink of acknowledgement and a nodd of the head, it might have worked at one time, after all he was on CNN. NOT NOW, NOT EVER AGAIN, with me its personal because he claims to be Comanche and uses this! A few(very few) Comanches knew of him, they said "YOU WILL FIND OUT, YOU WILL SEE". I found out how disrespectful he becomes when one has a different opinion....I found out his view on Blacks is not Christen. His view of our Government is not far from the views of the man who drove the plane into the building in Austen. If he weren't such a small man I might be afraid of him, not to worry about that, I could take him on in a finger fight!

CM

Anonymous said...

It was nice meeting and corresponding with you as well, Nora. I appreciate your thoughts and am enjoying perusing your site as well. There's a lot of interesting information there. Believe me, when you're a good person, it's easy to be taken in by people like Yeagley, on the internet or in person. No one should continue to beat themselves up; the man has an entire life's practice at being manipulative and fake, whereas the rest of us were completely sucker-punched!

Whether everyone agrees or not with my applying psycho-babble to David, I do hope everyone sees the absolute futility of engaging him or hoping he'll change back to a person he never really was to begin with. Hell, it's kinda like winning a bunch of money the first few times at the slots. Then, you start losing big time, so you keep putting more and more coin into the machine. You've already invested a crap-load by that time, trying desperately to get back to the first few times, when you won big. However, it's a futile effort. So to with continuing to try and get David to revert back to what we thought he was. Like a slot machine, it's designed to take your money and to give as little back in return. So too are "Yeaglies."

I think his personality disorder meshes well with the worst of his denominational beliefs. His problems most likely encourage him to align himself with the more bizarre, racist/ethnocentric aspects of Adventist beliefs much more so than a "normal" member would. He did ask that her less than kind words regarding Native people be excused, given the context she was prophesyzing in. However, he gobbles with great gusto her views of blacks as semi-human beasts.

CM, I've always understood your anger at this man, as he is an enrolled member of your tribe. Sometimes that card is really just a card, a card to be played for expediency. He has no real tangible ties to the community, or so I've heard and guessed. His leeching off the Comanche for political gain in racialist circles further underscores his willingness to exploit absolutely anything and everything, and I mean anything. I bet most Comanche familiar with him pity him. However, from a PR standpoint, has your council ever officially declared him a threat? Shunning him would be a victory of sorts as well, in that it wouldn't allow him to think he's receiving approval for his ideas, when in fact people are just being nice. He seems to equate Indians not wanting to be directly rude with approval for his ideas!

I enjoy posting here and getting to know most of you again, cyber-style! I was re-reading one of my favorite authors (Joe R. Lansdale) the other day and came across this line in one of his short stories. A father is bemoaning to himself how little his ex-wife respects him, and how bad he feels for what's become of his life: "Back then, things were pretty good, and I think her mother even liked me, and truth to tell, I thought I was a pretty good guy myself. I thought I had the world by the tail. It took me a few years to realize the closest I was to having the world by the tail was being a dingle berry on one of its ass hairs."

I'd say we're still waiting for Yeagley to realize this about himself.

Ray

CM said...

Ray,

yeagley has been shunned several times by the CBC and General Council, but he thinks he is above the Comanche People, he persists. One CBC member even threatened to beat his ass out in the hallway, I did not know the incident happened until yeagley had the floor trying to get his Media Project financed. This member asked him a question and yeagley feigned igorance about mentioning this CBC members name on the internet! He told the room full about the threat..I guess he thought he was going to get pity. yeagley has not been back to a meeting since he made a complete fool out of himself...no one aproaches him nor speaks to him, he is either stupid or plain nervy and thinks he is better than the people.

Wallace Coffey did not like yeagley, but was cordial to him. He told Barbra Duggan that yeagly was a far right Racist, and we laughed about yeagley questing Coffey about why no one understood him.

Our elected Chairman Michael Burgess likes Classical music and has asked the People at the College to see what he had to offer, but I happen to know he has a bad reputation with the College Staff. I haven't spoke to them lately to know if anything's transpired...he makes enemies everywhere because of his uppity attitude against the College Degreed Comanche people and and speaking against the Comanche Nation College. His hatred for strong outspoken Indian Women(all but the foul, vulgar breed betty ann owens)and Indian men whom he's degraded is well known. This is all in black and white and read all over...LOL!

I did tell Michael that yeagley was an asshole! He got a kick out of that...Michael is the Chairman, but we are the People!

CM



CM