Lakota Indians Withdraw Treaties Signed With U.S.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


I believe it would not come to that.

Originally posted by deltaboy
I like to hear what Venezuela has to say about this. Be interesting if Venezuela does. Probably take advanatage of discontent?

No, nothing to do with that.

If a "land" declares itself a nation, it's up to other nations to recognise them. Some countries do not acknownledge Israel (still) and see Palestine as a independent sovereign nation (which the majority don't)

International law is complicated.

But, if the people want to be free. Let them. Why not? It's not like they are going to invade the United States or go to war with you. So whats the problem?

Originally posted by bodrul
question how many states can say bugger off and become their own country?
curious

As far as I know, Texas is the only state which would have a legal right to do so. Texas is the only state in the Union which actually owns it's own land. Texas is not federally owned at all.


[edit on 20-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
As far as I know, Texas is the only state which would have a legal right to do so. Texas is the only state in the Union which actually owns it's own land. Texas is not federally owned at all.

I recall reading about that. Any desire for Texas to become an independent republic again?

Originally posted by bodrul
reply to post by mythatsabigprobe

 

good on them
i see them getting off the sinking ship while they have a chance.
and with the US on the world stage and how its image has been tainted by the last few years this isnt supprising.

question how many states can say bugger off and become their own country?
curious

I doubt they will ever actually succeed their land away from US control .. though .. I don't know how the Gov will take this situation, it is quite unique and has not been faced in our modern times. Will we send troops? Will they fight? .. I have a feeling we will (we being Gov) just laugh at them and pretend it never happened, and most likely nothing will come of it at all.

But then they are involving open "anti American" governments such as Bolivia who America has nearly severed all ties to since the last election .. If they get support, perhaps funding or join a union of nations with Bolivia, and who ever else they seek for support.. well the US might take that to be a different matter then just one rouge revolutionary making a scene.

As far as "who can leave" any State has the right at any time depending upon their own constitution (number of votes needed within State government) they can leave the Union for what ever reason they deem worthy. Essentially each state is its own country, you being in the UK, the Union of American States is absolutely no different then the European Union .. we just have a bloated over sized oppressive and illegal federal government that has all but eradicated State rights.

However.. a specific group like the Lakota have no claims to take a significant portion of land from several states - think of it as not taking land from the US, but from North Dakota, from South Dakota, Montana, etc. Its different when a state leaves and a general insurrection occurs to take land from several states.

Not saying they don't deserve their own country, it wouldn't hurt the American economy to give them a good portion of plains land.

Another thing about this story I would like to ask the Canadians on ATS is how do you think this new declaration of the Lakota and Cree nations will bolster support for the Canadian First Nations?

Infinite, there are groups here in Texas who would very much like to see Texas become a Republic. I persoally am not one of them... I think Mexico would over-run ous if we made that unilateral decision.

I think really what all this boils down to is that they want to be able to live their life as they want to live it, which they have a right to do. As far as them seceeding from the U.S, it won't happen.

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth


Just read some crazy thing that states Texas is currently under US occupation

It was on wiki, but still, it was under the legal dispute of Texas page.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by bodrul
question how many states can say bugger off and become their own country?
curious

As far as I know, Texas is the only state which would have a legal right to do so. Texas is the only state in the Union which actually owns it's own land. Texas is not federally owned at all.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

All states must form their own government first, then apply for membership. To get membership into the United States the general requirement unless openly annexed is you must have so many people per square mile living in the boundaries of the territory (why western states are bigger then eastern)

Every State can withdraw if they wish, not just Texas. Also, not every state in the US is even a State. For instance, PA is a commonwealth, and there are a few commonwealths.

The whole concept of "you join but cannot leave" was instituted by Lincoln, who acknowledged that his war was an imperialistic war of conquest, not defense.. it was not a civil war, but a revolutionary war which they won. Why else was the South pushed into submission, even after they lost the war they burned the south, destroyed the governments, suspended membership to the union until each state had northern approved government officials?



The tings they DON'T teach in school.

reply to post by infinite



Infinite, while I am certainly not an expert on this topic, it is my understanding that President Sam Houston passed away before he actually ever signed the annexation papers for Texas. Now, whether that is true, I don't know.

Like I said, most Texans would probably only be willing to secede if the U.S government were to try and take a person's right to bear arms away or another evasive action of that nature.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Also, SoT

This is the part of the constitution that everyone claims makes leaving the Union illegal:

Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 1-3

1. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

2. No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

3. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in a war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

No where does it say a state cannot "leave the Union" .. It says they cannot form alliances WITHIN the Union, or Confederations WITHIN the Union, or trade pacts WITHIN the Union, or wage war WITHIN the Union.

But a State may LEAVE the Union, but no State can legally interact with it because it is then a foreign nation, which States may not practice diplomacy on their own.

Any State may leave of its own free will. Does that mean the Federal Gov wouldn't smash it to pieces? I have no doubt they would, but it would be their actions which would be illegal.

If my geography isn't left wanting here, I do believe that the new NAFTA superhighway (Mexico to Canada) would run smack through Lakota lands... which would cover transportation, ie: import/export problems.

Just as an outside observer, I'd say that something like this is accomplished in steps, with each stepping stone being the springboard for the next. The first has to be independence and to get that, they need recognition. The UN would be nice but I doubt they'd go against the US... right away anyhow. Venezuala is likely, and so is Cuba, Iran, North Korea... all the nonaligned nations. They would (it seems to me) immediately offer recognition. But this raises the question of just who you might actually 'want' that recognition from...

Just my opinion

I don't think Bush will allow this nation to form as it does not
fit into the over-all NWO scheme of the North American Union.
He will declare martial law in the region and quell the uprising
as presidents have done many times before. The Lakotas are
cutting their own throat. Not to say that their leader in this endeavor
will probably die from unknown circumstances in the not so
distant future for his actions and as a warning to anyone else
who tries to do the same thing. Bush will view this as a domestic
terror organization and use his power to treat it as such.
After that there will be no Lakota nation and they will all go back
to being NWO zombies waiting on the trilateral commission to
take over.

Also, I like to point out Mt. Rushmore (Presidents Faces in Rock)
are in that territory. Bush will not allow an American Icon like
that to fall under domestic terrorists hands (he considers).

Also, Lakota indian land is also on the agenda for the NWO
road infrastructure connecting Canada and Mexico. Bush
is not gonna give it up for any reason. The same thing is
happening in Texas right now, the government is confiscating land
to make way for the NAFTA superhighway. Which funds from the
tolls on that road will go to Mexico to improve roadway infrastructure
on the Mexican side of the border to make the journey quicker and
better and also to make troop movement expeditious.

With all that being said I agree with their intent and purpose. However
I wish them the best of luck, I feel it is a fruitless cause. Cuz as of
now it's too late for this nation to fix itself back to liberty without
a total recleansing revolution of the federal political infrastructure.
Means current politicians have to go The NWO
Endgame Stealth Program is too far along to be stopped now.
But it gives new meaning to the term: Broken Arrow

Best of luck to the Lakotas

Anyone know roughly what the population is for these indians?
There is another thread regarding these plastic containers that resemble coffins in georgia....perhaps the US government will use them for something.

Originally posted by WorldShadow
I see no names of tribal leaders in this so called delegation to washington. I do see names of AIM activist who represent who?. I question this as not the wishes of tribal leaders who represent there people.

I am Lakota and they can speak for me in Lakota matters.

AIM is highly regarded by nearly all Lakota and I believe many other natives as well.

Originally posted by tetsujin420
Well I know if this all comes to be, I will join the new Lakota nation. Another question, do you guys think that this will cause other tribes, like the Souix to do the same?

Based on your response, I dont think you are eligible.

Lakota are Sioux, as are Nakota and Dakota, although Sioux is derogatory.

Check this out people:
www.lakotafreedom.com...

Lakota men have a life expectancy of less than 44 years, lowest of any country in the World (excluding AIDS) including Haiti.
The Lakota infant mortality rate is 5x the U.S. Average.
The Tuberculosis rate on Lakota reservations is approx 800% higher than the U.S national average.
97% of our Lakota people live below the poverty line.
Unemployment rates on our reservations are approximately 85%.
Teenage suicide rate is 150% higher than the U.S national average for this group.
Our Lakota language is an Endangered Language, on the verge of extinction.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by cavscout]

The same thing is
happening in Texas right now, the government is confiscating land
to make way for the NAFTA superhighway

How's that when the land in Texas is not federally owned?

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
How's that when the land in Texas is not federally owned?

speaker, maybe you need a lil light reading to catch up
on the events. Here is Alex Jones Endgame movie which explains
a lot more details than I can or have time to do here. The movie
is in 13 parts on youtube. But you can watch the first one here:

Endgame Part 1

Be advised that all 13 parts will take over 2 hours to watch
But it is well worth it in my opinion.

If the US gov trys to stomp this then I see a domino effect waiting to be knocked down.

If the paperwork is as legit as Lakota claim and the American people are sick of what is already transpiring, a Us govn atempt to squash this could incite the US populations anger..There's been much speculation over a revolution and here's a match for a fuse. We're past the point of colonization and running around the country setting up flags to mark our territory. the plight of the Indians is a sore spot within ourselves and it may be the time where as a population (not a govnment) we're ready to give it back without a fight. I know I am.

I see fuse that leads to dynamite.

Of course it could be a dud, but my eyes are WAAAY open on his one.

b

More on the right of Mr. Means to make this claim:

He is an Itacan in this matter.

www.1851treaty.com...Before 1853, the Nakota, DaNakota, Dakota and Lakota, (Nakota Nation, misnomer "Sioux") depended upon a democratic manner of governing called "Oyate Omniciye" (DaNakota, pronounced ohyah'tay ohm nee' chee yeh) or "Circle Meeting of The People". Decisions of Oyate Omniciye are based upon consensus of all those present, both female and male, with the voice of each person heard and respected. Oyate Omniciye is the heart of DaNakota nationhood and has governed the Nakota people for millions of years, representing the true definition of the word "democracy" - which means "the people rule".

During important national affairs, General Council employed those highly skilled and trusted individuals who spoke the most sincerely, respectfully and eloquently to serve for the nation as "Itacan" or "expert" (DaNakota, pronounced ee tah' chah). Confusion exists which attempts to place a speaking expert "Itacan" into the category with that of a "chief, ruler, dictator, CEO or president". Unlike the "king/dictator/elected official" systems, the Itacan served the people and did not dictate, control, or make decisions without instructions from the people.

reply to post by Bspiracy

Bspiracy
I think you are absolutely correct. This could be the spark that
causes the wildfire chain reaction of the revolution. There is no
better organization for the gubment to claim a terrorist group.
Not too many in the population will by that garbage and Bush
will cut his own throat if he decides to do it. But I don't think
Bush will do it in an open manner. He will do it covertly so
as not to raise suspicion. His black ops teams will turn on
the Lakotas so Bush will have the plausible deniability claim.
Soon the black ops will make it all disappear just like the
twin towers. But the revolution against Bush can't start if
nobody can prove he had anything to do with the quelling
of the Lakota uprising. Then Bush wins again. It's still
too late for the indians and for this nation as a whole to stop
the NWO. A total armed revolution with a coop is the only way
to fix it at this point. And not enough people are willing to lay
down their lives for it when they don't even believe it's happening
in the first place. The sleeping giant awoke too late.