On Dec. 17th the Lakota Souix withdrew from their treaties with the U.S.
Dec. 19th: Lakota Sioux Indian representatives declared sovereign nation status Wednesday in Washington D.C. following Monday’s withdrawal from all previously signed treaties with the United States Government.
Dec. 28th: Lakota to reveal national boundaries on eve of Wounded Knee anniversary. May look something like this:
They will also issue their own passports and drivers licenses and anyone is free to join them and pay no taxes by renouncing their U.S. citizenship.
Property ownership in the five state area of Lakota now takes center stage. Parts of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming and Montana have been illegally homesteaded for years despite knowledge of Lakota as predecessor sovereign [historic owner]. Lakota representatives say if the United States does not enter into immediate diplomatic negotiations, liens will be filed on real estate transactions in the five state region, clouding title over literally thousands of square miles of land and property.
"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," call out the Lakota.
Alex Daniel Zelaya
www.thirdeyeconcept.com/?page=171Lakota Sioux Indian representatives have declared sovereign nation status in Washington D.C. following Monday's withdrawal from all previously signed treaties with the United States Government. The withdrawal, hand delivered to Daniel Turner, Deputy Director of Public Liaison at the State Department, immediately and irrevocably ends all agreements between the Lakota Sioux Nation of Indians and the United States Government outlined in the 1851 and 1868 Treaties at Fort Laramie Wyoming.
"This is an historic day for our Lakota people," declared Russell Means, Itacan of Lakota. "United States colonial rule is at its end!"
Although the news of this declaration is still in it's infancy, has it been long overdue?
Russell Means is one of contemporary America's best-known and prolific activists for the rights of American Indians. Means, an Oglala Sioux, was born on the Pine Ridge Reservation; both of his parents had been educated at Indian boarding schools.
In 1968, his life turned around when he joined the American Indian Movement and quickly became one its most prominent leaders. In 1969, Means was part of a group of Native Americans that occupied Alcatraz Island for a period of 19 months. He was appointed the group's first national director in 1970. Later that year, Means was one of the leaders of AIM's takeover of Mount Rushmore. In 1972, he participated in AIM's takeover of the Bureau of Indian Affairs office in Washington, DC, and in 1973 he led AIM's occupation of Wounded Knee, which became the group's most celebrated action.
In 1974, Means first ran for the presidency of his native Oglala Sioux tribe against the incumbent Dick Wilson. Although the official vote count showed Wilson winning by two hundred votes, Means charged that this was due to pervasive vote fraud and intimidation by Wilson's agents. An investigation by a federal court agreed with Means and ordered a new election. However, Wilson's government refused to carry this out, and the court declined to enforce the ruling. (read more here)
The Lakota relaunched their journey to freedom that same year, 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.
Phyllis Young, a former Indigenous representative to the United Nations and representative from Standing Rock, added, "The actions of Lakota are not intended to embarrass the United States but to simply save the lives of our people. We have 33 treaties with the United States that they have not lived by. They continue to take our land, our water, our children."
Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.
Property ownership in the five state area of Lakota now takes center stage. These states have been illegally homesteaded for years despite knowledge of Lakota as predecessor sovereign [historic owner]. Lakota representatives say if the United States does not enter into immediate diplomatic negotiations, liens will be filed on real estate transactions in the five state region, clouding title over literally thousands of square miles of land and property.
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 added.
"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, Means 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."
Following Monday's withdrawal at the State Department, the four Lakota Itacan representatives have been meeting with foreign embassy officials in order to hasten their official return to the Family of Nations.
However, have the Lakota now exposed themselves to exploitation by other foreign powers and retaliation by the United States?
A New Face to Terrorism
Lakota's efforts are gaining traction as Bolivia, home to Indigenous President Evo Morales shared they are "very, very interested in the Lakota case" while Venezuela received the Lakota delegation with "respect and solidarity."
"Our meetings have been fruitful and we hope to work with these countries for better relations," explained Garry Rowland. "As a nation, we have equal status within the national community."
How will the Bush Administration answer, when Mr. Bush himself stated "you are either with us, or with the terrorists," a few years ago?
U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331, states that the term "terrorism" as follows:
As used in this chapter -
(1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(2) the term "national of the United States" has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
(3) the term "person" means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term "act of war" means any act occurring in the course of -
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. (read more here)
Have the Lakota become enemies of the state, the new face to terrorism?
How will proponents of HR 1955, titled the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007," respond to this? This bill specifically targets the civilian population of the United States and uses vague language to define homegrown terrorism.
The definitions of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism found in Section 899A of the bill, state:
`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. (read it in it's entirety here)
Will this be a short-lived story, soon to be settled by the United States, as it dumps billions of new dollars into Indian land? Or will this be a case where history repeats itself?
The above quote makes some interesting points. Bush may use this to declare a national emergency, send in the troops and declare martial law.
