image stats
date added
previous votes
log in


indent register
indent recover

US vs Native American Indian Nation

1 star2 stars3 stars4 stars5 stars
US vs Native American Indian Nation

Comments for: US vs Native American Indian Nation
madmex2000 Report This Comment
Date: December 20, 2007 09:30AM

Lakota Indians Withdraw Treaties Signed With U.S. 150 Years Ago

Thursday, December 20, 2007

* E-Mail
* Print
* Digg This!

WASHINGTON — The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States.

"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us,'' long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means said.

A delegation of Lakota leaders has delivered a message to the State Department, and said they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the U.S., some of them more than 150 years old.

The group also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and would continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months.

Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free - provided residents renounce their U.S. citizenship, Mr Means said.

The treaties signed with the U.S. were merely "worthless words on worthless paper," the Lakota freedom activists said.

Withdrawing from the treaties was entirely legal, Means said.

"This is according to the laws of the United States, specifically article six of the constitution,'' which states that treaties are the supreme law of the land, he said.

"It is also within the laws on treaties passed at the Vienna Convention and put into effect by the US and the rest of the international community in 1980. We are legally within our rights to be free and independent,'' said Means.

The Lakota relaunched their journey to freedom in 1974, when they drafted a declaration of continuing independence — an overt play on the title of the United States' Declaration of Independence from England.

Thirty-three years have elapsed since then because "it takes critical mass to combat colonialism and we wanted to make sure that all our ducks were in a row,'' Means said.

One duck moved into place in September, when the United Nations adopted a non-binding declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples — despite opposition from the United States, which said it clashed with its own laws.

"We have 33 treaties with the United States that they have not lived by. They continue to take our land, our water, our children,'' Phyllis Young, who helped organize the first international conference on indigenous rights in Geneva in 1977, told the news conference.

The U.S. "annexation'' of native American land has resulted in once proud tribes such as the Lakota becoming mere "facsimiles of white people,'' said Means.

Oppression at the hands of the U.S. government has taken its toll on the Lakota, whose men have one of the shortest life expectancies - less than 44 years - in the world.

Today is my birthday .....nice gift.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: December 20, 2007 11:33AM

hmmmmmmmmm Waco 2?
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: December 20, 2007 12:53PM

If any young guys out there never seen this movie, go rent it, one of my favorites. The devil-tongues around here should listen carefully. Even today they tell us what's best for us, you see what Native Americans got for trusting the government, it hasn't changed, it's just more hidden. The Ron Paul message comes out once again, he's not promising a paradise, just equality.

Damn Straight! More power to'em....

They were just trying to help Native Americans

Did you know uncle Leo (Abe) from Seinfeld was in it?...... "shoot'em now Abe, shoot'em now!

Put this on a mp3 player, go out into some wilderness, and see THE light.....


And don't forget, "A Man Called Horse"
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: December 20, 2007 02:10PM

both are great movies.thumbs
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: December 20, 2007 03:32PM

Schlacht Von D Geschlecht Muchacha De Dematian De Severina Vuckovic En Video De la Accion El video de Vuckovic Porn de Severina en la pelicula del Vuckovic neto bajo el nombre de la " muchacha espanola cogio . " A.Z. FOTO artiva De Deciembre El 16 De 2007 Moral : Congrat to your upcoming wedding ! the finger
woberto Report This Comment
Date: December 20, 2007 03:49PM

That's an Edward S Curtis photograph.
He supplied his own clothes, necklaces and headgear to make the photo's look "more Indian".
The result is an incredibly inaccurate historical record.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: December 20, 2007 07:57PM

that is true that they were dressed up, but they were dressed in traditional ceremonial garb that werre only worn at special occasions. weddings etc...not every day clothing
madmex2000 Report This Comment
Date: December 20, 2007 10:43PM

the chiefs were made to dress up. And did so under duress. Chief Dan George who played the old indian in the movie Outlaw Josie Wales was found of the Tall Hats the European and Societly men wore at that time.
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: December 21, 2007 12:51AM

It is refreshing to see that there are others that know whats going on..........

Four Types of Government Operatives: Bullies, Muggers, Sneak Thieves, and Con Men

--- by Robert Higgs ---

Somehow it seemed as though the farm had grown richer without making the animals themselves any richer – except, of course, for the pigs and the dogs.

~ George Orwell, Animal Farm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
The beginning of political wisdom is the realization that despite everything you've always been taught, the government is not really on your side; indeed, it is out to get you.

Sometimes government functionaries and their private-sector supporters want simply to bully you, to dictate what you must do and what you must not do, regardless of whether anybody benefits from your compliance with these senseless, malicious directives. The drug laws are the best current example, among many others, of the government as bully. Our rulers presently enforce a host of laws that combine the worst aspects of puritanical priggishness and the invasive, pseudo-scientific, therapeutic state. They tolerate our pursuit of happiness only so long as we pursue it exclusively in officially approved ways: gin, yes; weed, no.

Notwithstanding the great delight that our rulers take in tormenting us with their absurdly inconsistent nanny-state commands, they generally have bigger fish to fry. Above all, the government and its special-interest backers want to take our money. If these people ran a store, they might aptly call it Robberies R Us. Their credo is simple and brazen: "you have money, and we want it."

Unlike the sincere street criminal, however, the robber in official guise rarely puts his proposition to you in the blunt form of "your money or your life," however much he intends to relate to you on precisely such terms. (If you doubt my characterization of these intentions, test what happens if you steadfastly resist at every step as the brigands escalate their threats: first ordering you to pay, then billing you for unpaid balances plus penalties and interest, sending you a summons, and ultimately beating you into submission or killing you for resisting arrest. Your sustained, open resistance always ends in the state's use of violence against you, in either your forcible imprisonment or your removal from the land of the living, after which your memory will be defamed by your designation as a criminal – governments never settle for mere brutality, but always supplement it with unabashed presumptuousness.)

When I say "rarely," I do not mean that the authorities never carry out their plunder blatantly. Throughout the land, for example, criminal courts, acting as de facto muggers, strip people of great sums of money in the aggregate by fining them for conduct that ought never to have been criminalized in the first place – drug-law violations, prostitution, gambling, antitrust-law violations, traffic infractions, reporting violations, doing business without a license, and innumerable other victimless "crimes." The predatory judges and their police henchmen care no more about justice than I care to live on a diet of pig pancreas and boiled dandelions. They are simply taking people's money because it's there to be taken with minimal effort. In this manifestation, government amounts to a gigantic speed trap.

The more common way for government officials to rob you, however, involves their seizure of so-called taxes, which take countless forms, all of which are purported to be collected in order to finance – mirabile dictu – benefits for you. Such a deal! You'd have to be a real ingrate to complain about the government's snatching your money for the express purpose of making your world a better place.

Sometimes the "political exchange" into which you are hauled kicking and screaming rests on such a ludicrous foundation, however, that honesty compels us to classify it, too, as a mugging. I have in mind such compassionately conservative policies as stripping taxpayers of hundreds of billions of dollars and handing the money over, for the most part, to rich people engaged in large-scale agribusiness and, sometimes, to landowners who don't even bother to represent themselves as farmers. The apologies that the agribusiness whores in Congress make for this daylight robbery are so patently stupid and immoral that the whole shameless affair resembles nothing so much as the schoolyard bully's grabbing the little kids' lunch money and then taunting them aggressively, "If you don't like it, why don't you do something about it?" Every five years, when the farm-subsidy law expires and a new one is enacted, a few members of Congress pose as reformers of this piracy, but truly serious reforms never occur, and even the minor ones that come along from time to time prove unavailing, as the farm-booty interests invariably suck up "emergency relief" payments from the public treasury later on to make up for any shortfalls from the main subsidy programs.

Government sneak thieves, in contrast, fear that they may occupy more vulnerable positions than the agribusiness gang and similarly impudent special-interest groups cum legislators, so they dare not taunt the little kids so flagrantly. Instead, they specialize in legislative riders, budgetary add-ons and earmarks, logrolling, omnibus "Christmas tree" bills, and other gimmicks designed to conceal the size, the beneficiaries, and sometimes even the existence of their theft. At the end of the day, the taxpayers find there's nothing left in the till, but they have little or no idea where all of their money went. Finding out by reading an appropriations act is next to impossible, inasmuch as these statutes are almost incomprehensible to everyone but the legislative insiders and their staff members who devise them and write them down in a combination of Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit.

For example, for many years, a single congressman from northeastern Pennsylvania – first Dan Flood and then Joe McDade – substantially enriched the anthracite coal interests of that region by inserting a brief, one-paragraph limitation rider in the annual appropriations act for the Department of Defense. The upshot of this obscure provision was that Pennsylvania anthracite was transported to Germany to provide heating fuel for U.S. military bases that could have been heated more cheaply by using local resources. This coals-to-Newcastle shenanigan was a classic sneak-thief gambit, a thing of legislative beauty, but every year's budget contains thousands of schemes that operate with similar effect, if not in an equally audacious manner.

Unlike the government sneak thieves, the government con men openly advertise – indeed, expect to receive great credit for – certain uses of the taxpayers' money that are represented as bringing great benefits to the general public or a substantial segment of it. Surely the best example of the con man's art is so-called national defense, a bottomless pit into which the government now dumps, in various forms (many of them not officially classified as "defense"winking
smiley, approximately a trillion dollars of the taxpayers' money each year. The government stoutly maintains, of course, that all ordinary Americans are constantly in grave danger of attack by foreigners – nowadays, by Islamic terrorists, in particular – and that these voracious wolves can be kept from the door only by the maintenance and active deployment of large armed forces equipped with ultra-sophisticated (and correspondingly expensive) equipment and stationed at bases in more than a hundred countries and on ships at sea around the globe.

Without dismissing the alleged dangers entirely, a sensible person quickly appreciates that the threat is slight – just do the math, using reasonable probability coefficients – whereas the cost of (purportedly) dealing with it is colossal. In short, as General Smedley Butler informed us more than seventy years ago, the modern military establishment, along with most of its blessed wars, is for the most part nothing but a racket. Worse, because of the way it engages and co-opts powerful elements of the private sector, it gives rise to a costly and dangerous form of military-economic fascism. Lately, the classic military-industrial-congressional complex has been supplemented by an even more menacing (to our liberties) security-industrial-congressional complex, whose aim is to enrich its participants by equipping the government for more effectively spying on us and invading our privacy in ways great and small.

Worst of all, despite everything that is claimed for the military's protective powers, its operation and deployment overseas leave us ordinary Americans facing greater, not lesser, risk than we would otherwise face, because of the many enemies it cultivates who would have left us alone, if the U.S. military had only left them alone. (Yes, Virginia, they are over here because we're over there.) The president routinely declares that the hugely increased expenditures and overseas deployments for military purposes since 2001 have reduced the threat of terrorism, but, in fact, terrorist incidents and deaths have increased, not decreased. Although privileged elements of the political class gain from militarism and neo-imperialist wars, the rest of us invariably lose economic well-being, real security, and all too often life itself. In 2004, people who said that security against terrorism was their top concern voted disproportionately, by an almost 7-to-1 margin, for George W. Bush. They had been conned.

Although the mugger, the sneak thief, and the con man are not the only types of government operatives, they make up a large proportion of the leading figures in government today. The lower ranks, especially in the various police agencies, have a disproportionate share of the bullies. No attempt to understand government can succeed without a clear understanding of these ideal types and each one's characteristic modus operandi. With this understanding firmly in mind, you will remain permanently immune to the infectious swindle, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." The truth, of course, is the exact opposite: I say again, the government – this vile assemblage of bullies, muggers, sneak thieves, and con men – is not really on your side; indeed, it is out to get you.

December 20, 2007


Do yourself a favor and subscribe to this intelligent site.
woberto Report This Comment
Date: December 21, 2007 07:45AM

Quoth the fossil
"that was a long post"
"what did it say"
Non verbatim

Hey, remember when there was a brand of 5 1/4" floppy called verbatim?

Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: December 23, 2007 01:52AM

Do you know who the "Chief" up in that "Damn Straight! More power to'em!" top link was...

"ehhh juicy fruit....."
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: December 23, 2007 12:35PM

red man?