Saturday, November 14, 2020


I speak for no one but myself when saying it is saddening that Tulsa Union High School has followed the lead of the NFL’s Washington Team, by dropping its mascot name of “Redskins.”

Through the early 20th Century, United States Indian Policy involved taking Indian homelands and confining the Indian people to reservations, where they were humbled. Their dignity destroyed by poverty, alcoholism, lack of education, public scorn and ridicule, the once self-sufficient occupants of America were forced to depend on the mercy of Indian Agents and profiteers.

Meanwhile, several tribes that were relocated under authority of the Indian Removal Act, realized their future depended on working to improve their situation. They instituted governments, schools and societies that respected their heritage, but understood that they must adapt to survive.

During these trying times, “redskin” was surely a derogatory term that conjured images of “wild Indians” attacking white settlers, or drunken Indians on a reservation. These “Redskins” were not generally considered productive members of society, regardless of tribal accomplishments. However, the accomplishments of individuals such as Jim Thorpe and Will Rogers were becoming recognized, and terms such as “redskin,” “braves,” and “warriors” were often laudatory, not derogatory.

In my opinion, naming a team “Redskins,” “Braves,” or “Chiefs” is a tribute to the fighting and winning spirit of the aboriginal occupants of America that in spite of devastating wars and diseases, brought by Europeans, still thrive. To think a sports team that has the goal of winning on game day would name their team after people they consider losers is ludicrous.

In the mid 1970’s, along with Kugee Supernaw, Pam Chibitty and others, I was involved in the incorporation of The Tulsa Indian Chamber of Commerce, as the founding president. During this time, I was called a name by a few Indian detractors that bothered me more than anything a white person ever called me. They called me an “Apple,” saying I was red on the outside and white on the inside, because I was working to pull Indians into a white man’s world.

In my life experience, I have been called “Chief,” “Red-man,” “Redskin,” “Brave,” “Blanket,” and others, but I always had enough sense to know when these were used derogatorily by opponents, or in recognition of my heritage, by friends.

May my “Redskin” brothers and sisters ever thrive in this great country.


Sunday, June 7, 2020

My White Privilege

I am a direct descendent, five generations removed from Captain George McColloch, who along with his brothers, sister, and brother-in-law, Ebenezer Zane, settled what is now Wheeling, West Virginia and the surrounding area. Born into a family of patriots that fought in the American Revolution, that settled the old west, that were famous Indian fighters and that took up arms for the Union, in the Civil War, it might be thought that I am at the pinnacle of “white privilege.” Save for one thing; I am also a Cherokee Indian.

I realize that in today’s world, it has become a “badge of honor” to have American Indian ancestors. Even a recent candidate for the presidency of the United States falsely claimed to be a Cherokee. But this was not always the case. Let me take you back to 1911, the year of my mother’s birth. The Indian Wars ended 25 years earlier with the surrender of Geronimo, who spent the last years of his life as a prisoner of war and died in 1909. Oklahoma, though a new state, was still very much Indian Territory and to many living people that fought the Indian Wars, “the only good Indian was a dead Indian.”

My mother was born in Welch, Oklahoma, to a Cherokee woman who was at the time of the Dawes Commission enrollments, eleven years old and an orphan. Mariah, my grandmother, was later placed under the guardianship of a white attorney in Vinita, that took possession of her land allotments. Poor and uneducated, Mariah married a Scotsman named George Buchanan and gave birth to three children; two girls, of which, my mother was the youngest, and a younger boy.

When my mother was around three years old, George deserted the family and Mariah was forced to put the two girls in the orphanage at Pryor, Oklahoma. Within a year, my mother was placed in the Home of James Rogers, a prominent Cherokee rancher, on an indenture contract, meaning she was required to work for her support. Her older sister was also placed under an indenture contract to a woman in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, where she was worked like a slave. The two sisters knew nothing of each other for years, until they accidentally met as young adults.

So, my mother’s “white privilege” was to be a “half-breed,” abandoned by a white father, placed in an orphanage and farmed out as an indentured servant. But the benefits don’t stop there. When enrolled in a white school she was spat upon, called “nigger,” and ostracized by the other children. She told that as a young woman, people would cross the street to avoid her on the sidewalk. Her only job opportunities were as a domestic servant, kitchen laborer or plucking feathers in a poultry house. She had no birth certificate, did not know her birth name until I was grown, and was granted citizenship by Act of Congress in 1923. Life might have been tough if not for her “white privilege.”

My dad was surely the recipient of “white privilege.” His grandfather, William, was a Civil War veteran and William’s grandfather, George, was an officer in the American Revolution, a politician in Ohio County, West Virginia, land owner and pioneer settler. But for some reason, the “white privilege” did not immediately pass to my dad. His father, my grandfather, took to the rails and abandoned my grandmother with five children. Likewise, my dad, as a young man took to the rails. He told me that he “hopped a freight” to Newton, Kansas, when he was fifteen. Walking down the street he saw a man coming toward him that looked familiar. As they came closer together, dad realized the man was his father and said, “Hello, are you Frank?” “I am, but who are you?” Said the man. “I am Ira, your son.” Said my dad. Perhaps, my dad’s “white privilege” began when he accidentally met his dad at a rail-yard in Kansas.

By the time my younger brother was born, my parent’s had moved from Vinita to Tulsa, to start a new life, which was also the start of my “white privilege.” I was not shunned or teased because of my race, but I was, along with all other Indian kids, publicly recognized at the start of each school year, because the government paid a stipend to the school system for each Indian child they educated.

During this period in American history, Indian children were being sent to boarding schools far away from their families. Government deemed it necessary to strip the children of their language and culture, to ensure their assimilation into white society. When I finished Kindergarten my mother was approached to send me to a boarding school and I suppose that had it not been for my white father exercising “white privilege,” I would have been shipped off to California.

My parents came from different cultures and racial backgrounds that had historically clashed, but their backgrounds are similar, in that they had difficult childhoods and they realized that the only privilege they had was the privilege to work hard at improving their lives. They did work hard to improve life for themselves and for their children. The privilege they used to their advantage was and is available to all Americans. It is the freedom to work toward improvements in your life. My dad told me many times, “Son, the world owes you a living, but you will have to work hard to get it.” This is my “privilege” and it is the “privilege” I passed to my children.

Today, I am saddened by the numbers of young people that seem to think they should be apologetic because they are predominately white. They don’t seem to realize that the majority of their parents and grandparents that immigrated to this country were not blessed with inherent “white privilege.” Rather, the “privilege” they sought was the freedom to improve their lives.

To apologize for the “privilege” of working toward a better life is something I will never understand. Neither will I apologize for sending my children to integrated schools, or taking them to church, or teaching them to work, or to know the difference in right and wrong. These are not only “white privileges.” They are privileges available to anyone in this country that wishes to pursue them.


Saturday, April 25, 2020

Return to Normalcy?

Oklahoma and other states are now allowing businesses to open. Hopefully, we will return to normalcy soon, although I think the results will be with us for years. It seems to me that through this entire ordeal, people are motivated by fear and panic. I never thought that in my lifetime I would see churches in America, closed for any reason, but it happened, and with a surprising willingness. Fear has brought more allegiance to civil authority than to the Word of God. Government has demonstrated its ability to suppress the Church and in the future, it will be easier for government to control the Church. I do not mourn for the Church, it will reap what it sows. I mourn for the people that may spend eternity estranged from God because the Church has lost its autonomy. History has demonstrated that both, a church controlled by government, and government controlled by church, are dysfunctional and ineffective.


Friday, April 10, 2020

Unalienable Rights

When so-called “unalienable” rights, commonly understood as freedoms, are abrogated by government authority, it is self-evident that these freedoms are not “unalienable,” but are granted by an entity with the powers of enforcement. It does not matter if abridgments come from an elected official, or from a dictator. It does not matter if there are “good” reasons, or wanton desires for restrictions. When armed force is employed to arrest those that violate suppression of “unalienable” rights, freedom no longer exists.
Benjamin Franklin is often quoted as saying, “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” This suggests that from the creation of The Declaration of Independence, there were Americans willing to sacrifice freedom, for personal safety. This was perhaps the primary distinction between the “patriots,” and “loyalists,” of the day. Patriots were willing to sacrifice everything for freedom, and Loyalists were willing to trade liberty for safety, under the Crown of England.
While this desire for safety has been with us since our Founding, it has grown exponentially since Joseph Fletcher’s thesis on “Situational Ethics,” in the 1960’s. Fletcher’s theories that there are no absolutes and that every decision should be motivated by love, found fertile ground in classrooms around the world. Today, Fletcher’s influence may be seen in every human endeavor from politics to religion, from charity to the workplace, in that “moral absolutes” no longer exist. The situation determines the response. For example, lying is not wrong if done to protect another person’s feelings, or theft is not wrong, if done to feed a family.
This is the lens through which “freedom” is viewed by many people today. For these, the situation determines whether or not, freedom is allowed, or allowable. However, freedom is an unalienable right and as such, freedom is not something to be authorized by a governing authority.
Furthermore, if freedom is unalienable, it must also come with moral responsibility. It is a moral responsibility to end one person’s freedom where it collides with another person’s freedom, and failure to do so is immoral.
Certainly, government has the righteous authority to determine when and where an individual’s moral freedom infringes on another and therefore, becomes immoral. For example, an individual has freedom to own a dog, until that dog bites a neighbor. At that time, the government has the moral authority and responsibility, to intervene. However, it is subjugation of the dog owner’s freedom, for government to decree that the man cannot own a dog, for fear that a dog may bite someone. On the other side of this situation, the neighbor has the moral right to defend himself against the dog, and it is infringement of his freedom, to restrict his doing so.
American society has come to the place where fear of what might happen, and the attendant desire for security has undermined freedom in every sector of life. One cannot start a business; engage in a profession or trade; build, repair, or remodel a home; drive a car; dig a pond or harvest a forest without government permission. Bank accounts are monitored and one cannot withdraw or deposit large sums of cash without government oversight. We are no longer secure in our homes, persons or papers. Law enforcement can knock down the door of the wrong house, and if the owner resists, his life may be forfeit with no accountability.
How does this differ from the conditions in dictatorships that we Americans rail against? There is no difference, and all one need do is look at responses around the world concerning Corona Virus to know this. Americans are at the crossroads. If we continue to cower in fear of what might happen, government will not need a pandemic to tell you when you may leave your home, or where you may travel.


Tuesday, March 10, 2020

If You Think Corona Virus is a Threat

Wait until you feel the effects of the Saudi Arabia/Russian oil flood. For over 40 years, the sale of U. S. oil to foreign buyers was mostly banned. This was in part, an effort to preserve the national oil reserves, and assuage those that feared exhaustion of domestic oil.

This fear also spawned myriad environmental regulations that morphed from protecting oil reserves to protecting the climate. These regulations severely limited domestic oil production and exploration, making the United States more and more dependent on foreign oil. For decades, the U. S. was fleeced by the OPEC countries that limited production to keep oil prices high, while billions, perhaps trillions, of U. S. dollars flowed into the economies of these oil rich countries.

Finally, in the second decade of the Twenty-First Century, thanks to new technology and political persistence by oil companies, the U. S. achieved oil independence. Oil prices dropped. Americans were freed from the yoke of OPEC. Not only did the U. S. become energy independent, but it was determined that the U. S. had the largest known oil reserves and had become the largest oil producing country in the world. The possibility of an oil economy no longer controlled by the Middle East “Robber Barons” was within grasp. But the Globalists among us were not happy. The particular reasons I do not know, but it is reasonable to think they all involve money.

In January, 2016, under the Obama Administration, restrictions on U. S. oil exports were lifted and U. S. oil began flowing to foreign nations. While this may, at first, seem to be a good economic move because it opens foreign markets to domestic oil producers, the down sides are that it ties domestic oil prices to foreign oil production, and makes the U. S. a competitor in world oil markets. Even more problematic is that this move made the U. S., once again, vulnerable to market manipulations by OPEC.

In recent weeks, while the media focuses on Corona Virus, the price of oil is dropping daily, as Russia and Saudi Arabia are in an advertised battle, to see which of them can produce the most oil. The increased production naturally lowers the price and because U. S. oil is tied to world prices, Americans are enjoying the lowest gasoline prices in years. While this feels good for the moment, be sure there is a price to pay.

Earlier in this writing, I used the term, “Robber Barons” because one of the schemes used by the original “Robber Barons” was to lower the price on a product until the competition was forced out of business, and then, having a monopoly they could charge what they wanted.

Foreign oil producers can survive on lower prices, simply because U. S. oil producers have higher production costs. If the world market oil supply continues to increase, the price will continue to fall, and U. S. production will cease. When U. S. production ceases, OPEC will again own the game and prices will skyrocket.

While the media focuses on Corona Virus, our economic enemies are plotting our economic downfall and Washington seems oblivious. Remember, when the price of gasoline triples that “Washingtonites” don’t buy gasoline. Their cars, chauffeurs and fuel are provided by the taxpayers that have no say in the “global economy.” 


Saturday, February 22, 2020


      In more reasonable times, it was understood that the “burden of proof” rested on those that sought to deviate from normally accepted standards of morality. These “accepted standards” were usually based on long-standing religious doctrines, or cultural niceties, and often had no legal standing. For example, lying to your mother is not normally acceptable to society, because it is morally wrong. However, lying to mother is not normally illegal. On the other hand, murder is both morally wrong and illegal. Again, “in more reasonable times,” moral standards were as effective in determining behavior, as were legal prohibitions. Indeed, most people were more concerned about “right or wrong” than they were about “legal or illegal.”
      Throughout the ages, wherein morally right governed people as much, or more, as legally right, it was understood that deviation from “normally accepted standards of morality” required a much higher burden of proof to do so than simply stating, “it is illegal.” Legal or illegal may be determined by the wishes of government, but morally right is determined by higher authority. While I personally believe God is The Higher Authority, I realize that many people do not agree with my belief. Therefore, let’s identify the higher authority as being the welfare of society. The “Welfare of Society” is a much higher standard than legal or illegal, because that which is “legal or illegal” by man-made decree, is not always best for society. Slavery was an example of “legal” and Prohibition was an example of “illegal,” but both proved detrimental to society.
      Today, the law, which only defines “legal,” or “illegal,” and often does not consider “right,” or “wrong,” is being used to determine the moral standards of society. Keep in mind that societies existed long before written legal codes, but every society that failed to maintain a moral code, failed.


Sunday, December 9, 2018

Representation Without Taxation

I believe the Founders realized the downfall of a pure democracy is allowing voters to elect politicians that promise benefits from the public treasury. The safeguard against this was allowing only property owners and heads of households to vote. Of course, this long ago went by the wayside, but nothing short of restricting voting rights to taxpayers will stop the runaway spending, because voters with no skin in the game always find it easy to spend other people's money.

A Republic demands equality under the law, respects the property rights of the individual and derives its just powers from those who work to support it. A Democracy demands equal suffrage under the government, expects the distribution of wealth and is destroyed by those who contribute nothing. Our Founders rebelled at “taxation without representation,” but neither did they desire representation without taxation. The voter ID America needs is a paid tax receipt.


Wednesday, November 28, 2018


      Throughout medieval and modern history, nations have sought to reclaim lands they or their allies were forced to cede. There are many examples. A few of them are: Crusades were fought to reclaim “The Holy Land” for Christendom; Hitler began his rampage by invading countries that had taken German lands following WW1; Argentina fought the British, attempting to reclaim the Falklands; Iraq sought to reclaim Kuwait, claiming Kuwait was a natural part of Iraq, lost in the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913; Today, the longest running example, in modern history, of armed conflict to regain territory, is along the borders of Israel.
      In a treaty, signed in 1848 between Mexico and the United States, ending the Mexican-American War, Mexico lost claim to all lands north of the Rio Grande, meaning Texas, and all lands in states now known as: Arizona; California; Colorado; New Mexico; Nevada; Utah and Nevada.
      Given the history of nations seeking to reclaim ceded territories, it is not surprising or unusual to think that Mexico would desire the same. In fact, it flies in the face of history to think otherwise. However, it would be sheer foolishness, for Mexico to attempt a military invasion of the the world’s greatest super-power. But it is possible they learned a lesson from their own history.
      Following Mexico’s War of Independence, settlers from countries other than Mexico and Spain were invited to Texas. It took less than ten years for the Mexican government to realize their error and prohibit immigration from the United States. However, by this time, residents of Mexican descent were outnumbered by more than 4 to 1 and the fires of independence were burning.
      Allowing unchecked immigration led to Mexico’s loss of Texas and the same is happening today across Europe. Muslims there have increased in numbers allowing them to control large geographic areas, both physically and politically. London has a Muslim mayor and Sharia Law is being recognized in their legal systems. Without firing a shot, Muslims are changing the religious and political economies across Europe because of unchecked immigration and their refusal to assimilate. Like it or not, Muslims are doing the same in the U. S.
      The lessons of history are not lost by people that pay attention, they are only lost by people that think they are above history. Mexico seems to be paying attention. Why would they allow a seemingly endless stream of people, from south of their border, to trek across the full depth of their country, while aiding and abetting them?
      Perhaps, Mexico desires to see these Spanish-speaking people enter the U. S. because they know a common language binds people together; They know from their own history that it is possible to take control of a country through immigration; They know that supplying the required numbers of immigrants from their own people would disrupt their own society and economy; They know that facilitating sufficient numbers of Spanish-speaking people from outside their own country, to invade the U. S. will allow them to re-take lost territories without firing a shot or supplying the manpower.
     Mexico probably has little interest in regaining sovereign control of its lost territories. They do not want to build a fence between the Southwest and the rest of the U. S.  They are happy to leave government and the expenses thereof to the U. S., while they receive the windfall that comes when they control the economy.


Wednesday, September 19, 2018

It is Time to Rethink Using The Number

Today, Annie called AAA in Bartlesville for a quotation on an insurance policy to cover a property in Grove, OK. She was told that no insurance company would give us a quotation without our first giving them our Social Security numbers. We refused. Interestingly, our Social Security cards have the following on the face: “For Social Security Purposes Only Not For Identification.” Additionally, our Medicare cards were recently replaced with cards that do not have our Social Security number on them. Apparently, in the midst of fraud using stolen Social Security numbers, the SSA is returning to its original policy. Perhaps, it is time for legislation to prevent the use of Social Security numbers for any reason other than Social Security business.


Friday, August 17, 2018

Amendment I

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Beginning with the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, which declared religious tolerance for Christianity in the Roman empire, The Roman Catholic Church began some Fifteen Hundred years of political power and influence in Europe. Though papal authority was rejected by England’s monarchy and supplanted by The Church of England, the political power of religion continued. Even today, “Defender of the Faith” is a title belonging to the sovereign of England. The problem existing during these periods when religion and government were intertwined was that anyone who opposed the ruling class or their religion was branded a heretic, and punished to the satisfaction of the government and religious leaders.

Clearly, the intent of the First Amendment was not to stifle religion, but to guarantee religious freedom. This amendment guarantees government neutrality in matters of faith by specifically prohibiting actions that historically were used to prevent free exercise of religion. Government cannot establish a state religion forcing acceptance as did Constantine in Rome; government cannot abridge freedom of speech, silencing those preaching or teaching religion; government cannot prevent the use of the printing press to print Bibles or religious materials; government cannot prevent the people from peaceably assembling to worship or conduct religious affairs; government must receive petitions for redress of grievances in these matters, that is, government must act to stop any intervention of these freedoms.

Interestingly, prior to the Twentieth Century and World War II, the “social architects” made few rulings concerning the intent of the First Amendment to our Constitution. Perhaps, society understood full well that the First Amendment was instituted to protect citizens from oppression in the name of religion, such as existed under the rule of England’s monarchy in particular, and European monarchs in general.

Today, the First Amendment that was ratified to protect freedom of religion is being used to attack religion and religious values. The First Amendment was not written to empower or shield, secular news organizations, or pornographers, or filthy language, or riotous protests, or the banning of religious symbols.


Tuesday, October 24, 2017

If the words of the Old English Proverb, “The Pen is Mightier than the Sword” are true, then a population should surely fear the suppression of the written word as much as they fear the restriction of arms.  Many legal and political battles were fought during the Twentieth Century, demonstrating that many Americans hold both “Freedom of the Press” and “The Right to Bear Arms” in high esteem, because both are necessary to freedom.
            However, while the rights to publish everything from daily news to pornography have been defended and protected, there are areas where the rights to publish are totally restricted.  In our judicial system, judges at every level have the authority to ban publication of facts, by the use of non-disclosure agreements, gag orders, sealing of records, closed courtrooms and other restrictions on the publication of facts.  Hardly a day goes by without disclosure that some public figure is hiding behind these barriers to truth.
            So, who benefits from these suppressions of facts; the public or the miscreants?  Is it in the public’s interest to shield a sexual predator, corporate thief, or corrupt politician, by banning publication of their misdeeds?  How can we have free and open elections when politicians’ backgrounds are hidden behind court orders?
          It is time for legislation to restrict the use of judicial fiats that prevent disclosure of truth.

Monday, September 25, 2017


          I am a combat veteran that graduated from the Army Infantry School named Tigerland at Ft. Polk, Louisiana and served in Vietnam with the 9th Infantry Division.  I am tired of hearing that I and my brothers in arms from all wars our Nation fought did so to defend someone’s freedom to disrespect our flag.
My generation’s war was not fought to protect our borders from invading armies.  Rather, it was fought to stop the spread of an ideology called “Communism” that rejected most everything we held dear, including personal freedoms, private ownership and rule of law, not men.  “Communism” and the “Cold War” were threats to our way of life that are today unknown, but in 1966 they were real and our Nation’s leaders felt it was better to fight it overseas than within our own borders.  I agree our involvement in Vietnam was long and costly.  Furthermore, I would not trade one of the people listed on “The Wall” for the entire wretched country, much less the more than fifty-thousand that died.  But understand I and my fellows did not go there to capture real-estate. We went there for an ideal; a belief that we lived in the greatest nation on earth and that it was our time to defend it against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Today, as then, the “Stars and Stripes” is the iconic symbol of our great nation and from its humble beginnings in 1776, only those that would destroy this nation, seek to dishonor its flag.
I did not slog rice paddies, sleep in the jungle, stay awake all night on a perimeter and see my friends die so that anyone who enjoys living in this great country would kneel like a slave before the greatest symbol of freedom ever known to the world.  I fought so that flag would continue to wave over our country and institutions, and so people could stand tall in its presence with confidence that as long as it waves, it symbolizes the greatest nation on earth.  I am convinced those that fought and died in the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War, and every other war our nation fought did so for the same reasons.
A final thought:  Military deserters and traitors forfeit their honor and are denied the privileges of their rank and the privilege of saluting an officer or our flag.  This old soldier would much rather see our young people identify with those that fought and died for our flag, than to identify with those that betrayed their flag.