Awakening the World with Truth and Creating a Better Future.
President Obama is voicing support for a U.N. resolution that could accomplish something as radical as relinquishing some U.S. sovereignty and opening a path for the return of ancient tribal lands to American Indians, including even parts of Manhattan. Manhatten 2009 - 1609
The issue is causing alarm among legal experts.
In recent remarks at the White House during a "tribal nations conference," Obama endorsed the "United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People," which includes a sweeping declaration that "indigenous peoples have a right to lands and resources they traditionally occupied or otherwise used" but that later were acquired by occupying forces.
“U.N. resolutions like this claiming amorphous rights can be a stalking horse for future attempts to have international courts enforce broad interpretations of those rights at the expense of American sovereignty," said Theodore Frank, a fellow with the Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute, a leading public policy think tank in New York City.
Academic legal experts indicate that American Indians during the Carter era first drew up plans for reacquisition of lost tribal lands, setting the stage for the U.N. resolution that Obama is embracing. The feasibility study, eyeing 650 million acres of federally owned land in the U.S., was conducted by the Indian Education Institute at Eastern Oregon State, one expert recalled.
Re-purchase would restore land back to its original owners thus strengthening tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction over its people and land," Julianne Jennings Nottoway, a professor of anthropology at Pima Community College in Tucson, Ariz., said. "Also, it would allow tribes the opportunity to develop socially, politically and economically as competitors as nation-states within a global context under the act of self-determination."
The Bush White House refused to support the U.N. resolution. But last year, the Democrat-majority House and Senate passed a resolution that, in Obama's words, acknowledges "the sad and painful chapters in our shared history – a history too often marred by broken promises and grave injustices against the First Americans."
The president said, "No statement can undo the damage that was done. But it is only by heeding the lessons of our history that we can move forward."
Obama's interest is personal. He noted during the 2008 presidential campaign he was officially adopted by the Crow Nation, an Indian tribe in Montana, and he was given an Indian name.
"My Crow name is 'One Who Helps People Throughout the Land,'" Obama said.
The U.N. policy that Obama wants the U.S. to embrace would enact the following measures on behalf of his adopted peoples, including repatriation of land and regulations forcing the media to reflect the values of indigenous cultures:
There are 47 articles in the U.N. resolution.
The international agreement is very serious business, one legal expert said, and could cause problems for the U.S. long after Obama is gone from the White House, if made part of U.S. law.
"One can anticipate that some tribes will seek to use this resolution to re-litigate centuries-old land disputes that courts have already rejected," said Frank at the Manhattan Institute.
The litigation process, according to the roadmap drawn up during the Carter era, would seek, however, to create a "non-hostile environment" in which tribes could repurchase lands and "extinguish the rights of current occupants," said Jennings Nottoway.
The anthropology professor reckons that 30 percent of aboriginal land was not ceded to Americans through the process of treaty, "but assumed – false premise or without proof – ownership and subordination," she added.
"Tribes are not asking New Yorkers to leave Manhattan and leave their homes, memories and the lands on which they are built upon, but to make available open lands/spaces for repurchase that would be used exclusively for tribal affairs."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been softening the ground for this Obama policy for some months. The U.S. Department of State indicates on its website that it has completed a "policy review" and "tribal consultation" on the indigenous peoples treaty in recent weeks.
During the White House conference, Obama said it is his aim to ensure that American Indians "had a voice in the White House … so long as I held this office, never again would Native Americans be forgotten or ignored."
Tags: Crow Indians, Land, Manhatten, Obama, U.S. sovereignty
Permalink Reply by Bear on December 27, 2010 at 6:31pm
If there's not any old saying there should be one.....if you fill a man's plate enough times, eventually he will leave the table.
I'm Curious George.
Are the Americans getting the "Time for Change" the majority voted for, and can your Pres do the above..... survey says:
Here in Canada we have plenty of native issues, in Ontario alone, Caledonia, Ipperwash, Sauble beech just to name a few. If you want to start a 'firestorm' just bring up the above issue. A can of worms me thinks - best not opened.
Governments throughout the world are well known for creating (or expanding) a crisis. Usually as a tactic to side step the main issues of the day. Bait and Switch. The majority of the population has a retention span of how long? Many a couple months.
So here's what I'm wondering, is your Pres purposely trying to break up your country or is he trying to side-step certain issues (maybe both). Remember the old "Divide and Conquer" theory?
This is not to diminish the severity of the above topic, but native or non-native I'd be asking myself "by bringing this (these types) issue to the forefront is it not diverting attention from the real agenda"?
And if the real agenda is the NWO or population control it's not really going to matter much who thinks they own what! Perhaps you Americans should be saying:
Hey, how about this! Perhaps natives should be checking into on what land FEMA camps and underground bases are located. Now there's killing two birds with one stone, perhaps get some land back and a place to retreat in case any Doomsday prophecies come true. Sounds like a winning scenario to me.
Bear...(always thinking to serve you better..........lol)
Permalink Reply by Kerry P Hay on December 29, 2010 at 1:35am George Schilling, Returning some land back to the traditional American Indian's is wonderful news; but will they hold it in Fee Simple title? The US government has never given the land to Indians on their Reservations without some-kind of veto over it, but we will have to wait and see! The American Indians had the land stolen from them in much the same way as the Aboriginals in Australia had their land stolen. Terra Nullius, a Latin term meaning land belonging to no-one, or unoccupied land. At the time of white discovery and settlement of "New South Wales, the British apparently considered that the area was terra nullius, because the "Aborigines did not occupy the land in a European sense. The British believed that if the land was terra nullius (according to their definition), then the first Europeans to discover it, and to occupy it, were entitled to it. The British were once the cruelest people on earth.
Sincerely' Kerry Hay, Esq. http://www.kerryhay.spiderweb.com.au
Permalink Reply by Bear on December 29, 2010 at 9:21pm
Kerry
You are quite the historian.
Giving back land may sound good at first, but when looked at in depth it is far from simple. Has this land been developed, is it recreational or resource rich. Are you willing to give up the house you own right now? How about the rights to waterways, commercial fishing, etc. Am I to here to correct past mistakes? These are just a few of the problems we are experiencing here in Canada.
But I still go back to my original reply to this posting, this is a great way for the Government to divert attention.
Permalink Reply by Mother of 7 on January 23, 2011 at 4:59am If you support our efforts please consider making a one time donation, click the Donate button below. Thank you so much for your support on the website and financially!
© 2012 Created by Glenn Canady.