Skip to comments.Obama Praises Indian Chief Who Killed U.S. General
Posted on 11/17/2010 6:21:28 AM PST by USALiberty
A series of two-page spreads asks questions ("Have I told you that you are creative?") across from short tributes. He writes of Georgia O'Keeffe: "She helped us see big beauty in what is small: the hardness of stone and the softness of feather." His most controversial choice may be Sitting Bull, who defeated Custer at Little Bighorn: ("A Sioux medicine man who healed broken hearts and broken promises.")
(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...
C’mon now. Sitting Bull was not a terrorist. Let’s not diminish the word so quickly. Besides, you have to admit Custer had it coming.
I think it’s a stretch to call Sitting Bull a “terrorist.”
Little Big Horn = White Man got what he deserved
Wounded Knee = White man committed atrocities
Ya’ just can’t win if you’re a white man...
Obama will praise anyone that KILLS, TERRORIZES or MAIMS Americans because HE HATES patriotic AMERICANS!
Pet peeve of mine: wasn’t Custer a colonel when he was killed? Or a Lt. Col.?
Obama shares dreams for his kids in book on 13 Americans
President Obama’s picture book for kids, Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters (Knopf, $17.99), pays tribute to 13 Americans whose traits he sees in his own children.
The 31-page book, for kids ages 3 and up, is filled with lyrical questions for Malia, 12, and Sasha, 9, opening with, “Have I told you lately how wonderful you are?”
The book, out Tuesday, is illustrated with Loren Long’s paintings of the Obama girls and their dog, Bo, as well as the 13 famous Americans as kids and grown-ups.
A series of two-page spreads asks questions (”Have I told you that you are creative?”) across from short tributes. He writes of Georgia O’Keeffe: “She helped us see big beauty in what is small: the hardness of stone and the softness of feather.” His most controversial choice may be Sitting Bull, who defeated Custer at Little Bighorn: (”A Sioux medicine man who healed broken hearts and broken promises.”)
Obama’s publisher says he’s not planning interviews or events for the book. His royalties are to go to a scholarship fund for children of soldiers killed or disabled.
(I’d bet the proceeds if they go anywhere will go in Obama’s pocket. Obama HATES the military.
How come Obama didn’t comment on how the native Inddian SCAPED people and killed WHITE, CHRISTIAN people?
It does seem like there is very little that can go wrong in America that someone can't figure out a way to blame on a white guy.
General Custer had his permanent rank of Lieutenant Colonel restored following the Civil War. It is not uncommon to refer to a Lt.Col. as "colonel." Custer was usually addressed as "General" respecting his Civil War service at that temporary rank.
Yes. He made general during the war, but it was a brevet rank and he returned to the rank of captain when the war ended. He was promoted to lieutenant colonel when he got command of the 7th Cavalry.
Well, we can blame THIS one on a white guy. Custer blundered horribly and paid the price.
Its gotta Kill Obama
Can give the Bust back like Churchill. Little Kenyan is pissed.
Hmmmm, what is the subject of this sentence....?
Custer pretty much commited suicide, too bad he took a bunch of real troopers with him.
Sitting bull was a terrorist. You haven't read your history on the Indians yet, or have the wrong books. I was once a collector of antiquarian books, and you just cannot find better history than when reading the books of the actual times, when "history" was current events. These Indians were trecherous people, with no guiding principles to reign in their human instincts. And they were heartless butchers, routinely slaughtering women and children, asking for everything they recieved in return. They were not one iota different than the Roman Empire barbarians or the women and baby sacrificing Aztecs, both of whom were too base a people to build a real civilization.
You are exactly right - Obama is a hunk-o-crap (duh), but of course Sitting Bull was not a terorist.
It wasn’t exactly a great achievement to kill Custer; he wasn’t much a brain trust. Also, I agree with previous posters, Sitting Bull wasn’t a terrorist.
Actually, there were some very strong parallels between some Native American tribes and today's terrorists. Especially the Comanches (they made lopping off heads look like child's plan).
In fact if we emulated the strategy of the Texas Rangers today we could greatly reduce terrorism worldwide.
I thought it was Crazy Horse that defeated Custer!...............
How did Sitting Bull heal broken hearts and broken promises?
By doing what?
I think whoever wrote this was just entranced with the word ‘healing’. It’s very dernier cri.
the Native americans were warriors. It was a warrior society. Women were treated like beasts of burden. In the aftermath of the battle small children were encouraged to hack up the bodies to toughen them. so it goes.
The fight over history is usually about what gets put into the books.
I'm sorry, but the history of Indian affairs in this country is a largely shameful one. William Penn showed that it was possible to live peacefully side-by-side if affairs were conducted fairly.
The worst “history books” of all are the ones written by the people of the times................
Georgia O’Keeffe’e work may be beautiful, but is mostly va-jay-jays
WOW! Now the Kenyan Usurper is openly praising terrorists?
Custer was the damned terrorist.
Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse et alia were Red State Americans clinging to their guns and religion and antipathy to people who weren’t like them, who incidentally were also trying to kill them, their wives and their children. The defenders at the Little Bighorn understood the nature of the federal government and its benevolent intent early on.
That, unfortunately, was a two way street in the Indian wars.
These Indians were trecherous people, with no guiding principles to reign in their human instincts.
I assume you got this from your antiquarian books. Did those same books tell you about the soldiers who "routinely slaughtering women and children"? Probably not. A more accurate history requires a little distance from the events. Ask George Bush.
Pet peeve of mine: wasnt Custer a colonel when he was killed? Or a Lt. Col.?
Brevet Major General of Volunteers during the Civil War, Lieutenant Colonel in the Regular Army after the Civil War.
Just an aspect of the much smaller scale of the US Army after the war.
This is the only thing I agree with Obama about. Custer was an arrogant Indian killer who thought his 600 men could swoop down on a village of 12-20,000 Sioux and Northern Comanche and rout them. He deserved what he got. Too bad for the innocent soldiers that had to follow him. All he had to do was to wait for Gen. Terry and success would have followed.
Yup. Beautiful, colorful porn.
He sees traits of Sitting Bull in his two pre-teen daughters?
Ah, but this is The Obama. He sees whatever he needs to see in his daughters to get His Name praised.
I assume you got this from your antiquarian books. Did those same books tell you about the soldiers who “routinely slaughtering women and children”?
I think the Time Life series had a photograph of a cavalry trooper’s tobacco pouch made from an Indian woman’s tit. I loved the old matinee movies too, but they were kid’s entertainment, not history.
This is the only thing I agree with Obama about.
Obama does not always (although it seems that way at times) get his facts wrong, but his use of them is always perverted.
Correct; Sitting Bull was a freedom fighter, not a terrorist. The American Indians were mistreated horribly (a few deservedly, but most not so) for a lot of years. Remember that when we thought that Obama’s minions might become a physical threat to us (conservatives in general), we were prepared to fight them. And fighting “fair” only gets you killed quicker!
By the way, weren't Custer's attackers led by Chief Crazy Horse, not Chief Sitting Bull?
Lt. Col. And 2nd in command of the 7th Cavalry. The actual commander, Col. Samuel D. Sturgis, who replaced the original commander, Col. Andrew Johnson Smith, in 1869, never held a field command. Custer had field commander.
I thought it was Crazy Horse that defeated Custer!...............
My website will give you a fair idea...
Northern Cheyenne, not Comanche. As for waiting for Terry and success being assured, that's quite debatable...
Neither were chiefs, per se. Sitting Bull was a Hunkpapa Sioux and considered a mystic, Crazy Horse an Oglala warrior of influence (a shirt wearer). Both of the Teton division of the Sioux nation.
Northern Cheyenne, not Comanche. As for waiting for Terry and success being assured, that’s quite debatable...
Thus the infected blankets and extermination of the buffalo.
Oh, I failed to mention that the fighting strength of the Indian camp Custer attacked on June 25th was in the neighborhood of 1800 warriors.
It’s an interesting site, but I find it hard to read the dark text against the graphics in the background.
Because Obama knows what he's doing, he's distorting the truth for own purposes, namely, to divide the nation against whites. The Indians were nothing more than base barbarians who were constantly at war with each other, slaughtering each other for land, or just for the fun of it to see whose braves were better. I can only imagine what the European settlers felt when they arrived in America from a true civilization with great advancements in technology, building techniques, machinery, language, culture, universities, cities, medicine, and men treating women as precious ladies, (not as squaws), just to see these screaming, painted faced aboriginies running around naked and completely without scientific advancements. They were a throwback in time culturally, morally and mentally.
And for those of you who have been brainwashed with the lies that these aboriginies treated whites well and just wanted peace, you've been taught error, lots of error. The Indians were barbarians who did barbaric things to each other and to the white settlers. They seemed to especially like killing white women and children. That was their way to commit genocide against the whites; no women, no children, then eventually no whites. Sort of backfired though, didn't it?
Very good site. Concise and thorough. That was a lot of work!
Thanks. Someday I’ll get around to revising the site. Irons in the fire and all that... :)
It wasn't routine.
That's why the PC history books make such a big deal out of Sand Creek and a few other occasion where it actually took place.
Did women and children get killed? Absolutely, but in most cases as a result of collateral damage. At Sand Creek, quite a number of Chivington's officers objected strongly to his murderous orders to take no prisoners. The massacre was a huge scandal at the time, precisely because it wasn't "routine."
For an alternative where "kill them all" was the norm, may I refer you to the history of Argentine, which was fighting its last Indian wars at the same time we were.
Argentina has no Indian problem because it has no Indians. They killed them all.
OTOH, it was indeed routine for American Indians to kill white (and enemy Indian) women and children, often by torturing them to death.
Yup. You and me both.
The best site on the LBH is Friends of the Little Bighorn. It's a treasure trove of information, and a great organization to boot...
I could not agree more. Terrorist my a$$!
Calling Sitting Bull a terrorist is analogous to calling the little tin god an outstanding Christian and excellent president.
Both statements have equal levels of truth in them.
Moreover, Custer - at least from a military viewpoint - blew this one for sure. It didn't help the cause that there was a great deal of mistrust and dissention in the chain of command, bad intelligence, overconfidence, and lousy scouting either. But since he was the overall commander, the fault and the loss lies with him and him alone.
Quite true. But it's shameful because we violated our own laws and principles. What happened here is what has always happened whenever a primitive people comes into contact with a more advanced one.
William Penn showed that it was possible to live peacefully side-by-side if affairs were conducted fairly.
True, in the short term. In the long run, the exploding white settler population would eventually want the land of the Indians, who were declining in number. The only way to prevent them from taking it would be by means of an absolute monarchy which would protect the Indians.
Does anyone think there was some scenario by which white settlement could have been permanently stopped at the Appalachians or Mississippi? If the US had done so, it still wouldn't have saved the Indians, as the unprotected land would have been settled by some other white nation.