digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

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

foxnews.com — The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States.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," Indian rights activist Russell Means said.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • kent0101, on 12/20/2007, -25/+165I think this is fantastic, now we wait and see what the US Government will do. If the Lakota do in fact have all of there ducks in a row, then I think they may have more citizens then they expect and the US Government could be in for trouble.
    • sjl127, on 12/20/2007, -6/+21I'm curious to see how this fans out.
      • Step1Mark, on 12/20/2007, -8/+139I think we will just have to deport those ungrateful Indians back to where they came from.
        • Drahkar, on 12/20/2007, -36/+4Please tell me you were using sarcasm.
          • VanillaStarfish, on 12/20/2007, -1/+28Please tell us all you're not that damn gullible.
          • williamdyer, on 12/20/2007, -0/+18Vooosh!
          • looselips, on 12/21/2007, -2/+7"back to where they came from" should have been your final clue, after deport.
            Wooosh!
          • diktator279, on 12/21/2007, -1/+8You're sort of retarded, aren't you.
        • BossKey, on 12/20/2007, -8/+44Damn straight. Send them all back to India!!!!!
        • ethanpack, on 12/20/2007, -5/+15@Drahkar: Please tell me you know where the Lakota Indians came from.
        • andycr512, on 12/21/2007, -0/+9Reminds me of this: http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/9826/92axbkmm1. ...
        • WIKMUNKEIOYONQA, on 12/25/2007, -0/+0I wish everyone would just call them Native Americans, that would make it so much easier! How about a little accuracy, wasn't it that dumb-ass Columbus that called the South Americans - Indians in the first place? Isn't that how this ignorance started?
      • thax, on 12/20/2007, -0/+24I think you mean "pan out", which I think comes from panning for gold and if something pans out you got some precious minerals.
        • florence0rose, on 12/20/2007, -19/+1yummy, there's no need to feel down. i said, yummy, pick yourself off the ground...
          • WebWorker, on 12/20/2007, -3/+7Dude... if I could digg you down twice I would..
            A) For the baseless Village People reference
            B) It's "Young man, there's no need to feel down, I said young man, etc" (Digg me down for even knowing this lyric...)
          • bstew22, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1lmfao! YUMMY!
          • Azuroth, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1"Pour some shook up ramen..."
      • EvilDr.X, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4Maybe he means "fans out", like ***** hitting a fan and spraying outwards? Or maybe "clam spout" like... well, I have no idea where to go with that one.
        • AttilaD, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1or like a poker hand?


          Btw, "clam spout" made me choke on my coffee.
      • tgc1, on 12/20/2007, -3/+7Fan out as in smoke signals?
        • izlander, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2I almost feel guilty for laughing at that comment.
          • expert01, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7Strange, I didn't laugh until I read YOUR comment o.0
      • Locke2053, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4How will it [p]an out? They will be ignored by the government and by all major foreign governments. They will eventually do something stupid, like tax fraud, and get arrested. They will then either end up in jail or as refugees in some crappy little dictatorship country.

        Rage Against The Machine will reunite and do a song about them, then Adam Sandler will start making comedy CDs again *WHACK* Damn. My crystal ball is goin' out.
    • Chirp08, on 12/20/2007, -9/+21what about economic situation, they do realize they would need to provide everything from a school system to healthcare to civil services. If this were to pass the budgets for them are gone, and they have no means in place to replenish the money. Its not as simple as drawing some new lines on a map..
      • Drahkar, on 12/20/2007, -6/+27The economic side of it would be handled totally differently. They don't have to adhere to a capitalistic mindset if they are not part of the US structure anymore. I've extremely curious to see how this plays out because it is completely within their rights to do this.
        • PeppermintPig, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Uh.............. what? Even barter is capitalistic. You say it as if they have no choice but to become communists because they, for some reason, will be an economic 'island'. That's simply not the case. Border towns have no problem accepting money from people across the borders. They'll be just fine, I think.

          Oh, and maybe sjl127 meant it like this:
          Everybody knows what to do, now fan out!

          That's from a movie, I think.
        • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0Capitalism is an economic system that coincided with the Industrial Revolution. Barter System, and Market Economy predate Capitalism. The Romans had a Market Economy for crying out loud. Don't believe the Soviet hype, Market Economy does not equal Capitalism. The Market Economy existed long before Capitalism and will exist long after Capitalism's demise.
      • AttilaD, on 12/20/2007, -2/+21Well now that they have National press coverage, they can effectively hold out against various state agencies and stuff without being Waco'd, and the state/feds will probably end up renegotiating the treaties, resulting in some big cash payouts. I don't think they're really in it for the long-term nationhood.
      • conna, on 12/20/2007, -3/+13what about economic situation? They don't have government agents running civil services for them. The Indians run the civil services themselves. Tribal police, Tribal health care. They live and work providing for themselves. The free market works best without the hand of government.
        • ZenMojo, on 12/20/2007, -13/+6Actually, the free market works best when you own casinos and don't have to work for the mob. By the way, the Lakota ARE a government, and by shirking the federal government they become a FEDERAL government themselves.
          • Terr01, on 12/20/2007, -0/+18It's only a federal government if they are a federation.

            Perhaps you mean "soverign" government?
          • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0Yeah dude, they would be a local regional government, most likely. I doubt they will make it a Federal government.
        • Terr01, on 12/20/2007, -5/+6The free market cannot run without government.

          You can argue for a lighter hand, but even Adam Smith's vision had to do with certain things that government provides. His model of "free market" relied on a free flow of information to consumers, e.g. what company owns what brand. If that is secret, then one company can avoid suffering from market backlash for, say, killing thousands of people with bad food, and the system has broken down.

          Similarly, when it makes economic sense to assassinate your opponents and torth their offices, clearly government must be involved.
          • diggduggjoe, on 12/21/2007, -3/+7Government is required to enforce contracts and property rights. Without that, commerce will fail. Capitalism is not immoral. People are. Create a system where corporations are treated like they were designed for, as a gift offered to a group of people to facilitate a public good. Gifts like treaties can be taken back. When the public declares your corporation evil, you have the charter removed and the share holders get the shaft. Very quickly we would see corporations become great citizens. Today, they only have to make money, murdering people in the process is A-OK.
      • cranium, on 12/20/2007, -13/+9WTF? What makes you think that Native Americans aren't capable of this? Because they're not white?
        • darkmatter30, on 12/21/2007, -3/+11Being a Native American, I beg to differ. They won't succeed because it is an idiotic idea, and their failure to thrive in the American economy is due to their unwillingness to bend with the times. There is no right of cultural survival! In ethnological terms, a culture is simply a set of learned behaviors shared across some population. As learned behaviors, they are supposed to help people deal with the World and each other, and hopefully helping members of the culture to survive and thrive. As learned behaviors, they have no more validity than a canceled stamp, if they don't help, and are subject to being revised or dropped as needs dictate. However, because culture is so ingrained in us from birth, people like this small group of Lakotas do not understand that there is nothing sacred about their culture, and that their failure individually and collectively to thrive is because they cannot or will not learn new behaviors in order to deal with the World as it is. There are many tribes that are in fact thriving while retaining their identities as tribes. In particular, there are the Choctaws, who celebrate their traditional culture, and value those aspects that are of benefit, but have always been willing to adapt and learn.
          • aukxsona, on 12/21/2007, -3/+8Well, as a descendent of Native Americans I hope they succeed. I would love to have a home to come back too. Do you know what it is like to have black hair, dark eyes and white skin most of the year...minus summer? Neither Native peoples nor the white people accept you. Funny thing is men love me. I can not prove my lineage because my father's side is Native American. They want nothing to do with their heritage and are embarrassed by it. I hope they succeed... so those of us that have no "place" will fit in some where. I have to say I descended from Native Americans, not that I am just because I don't have my "papers".
      • bono4u, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3tax free? isn't that good for game halls? And instead of giving your money to the cayman islands you can give it into continental bank.
      • Richandler, on 12/21/2007, -2/+4Chirp08 is right. This has happened before a couple times with indian tribes and they fell apart as a society. Poverty and lack of opportunity were the main themes. It's history and it looks like it may repeat if they aren't careful. A lot of you speak to defend there action far to swiftly before undertanding that his has happened before and it doesn't end well.
        • CronoTrigger, on 12/21/2007, -0/+7if it doesn't work, I'll still support them, because I support their right to self determination.
      • hottyson, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2 ..."what about economic situation, they do realize they would need to provide everything from a school system to health care to civil services"...
        Why do you say that?
        The US does not provide adequate health care.
        The US public school system is a freaking joke and it propagates mindless sheep.

        ..."WTF? What makes you think that Native Americans aren't capable of this? Because they're not white?"...
        Good point. This is exactly the the horrid situation the US government places American Indian people in.
        It keeps American Indians powerless under a heavy foot of control.
        I don't know if a new nation can fix this but the best of luck to all peoples under oppression.

        from wikipedia:
        Oppression is the act of using power to empower and/or privilege a group at the expense of disempowering, marginalizing, silencing, and subordinating another. It is particularly closely associated with nationalism and derived social systems, wherein identity is built by antagonism to the other. The term itself derives from the idea of being "weighted down."
      • WIKMUNKEIOYONQA, on 12/25/2007, -0/+0They don't have to have a society like ours at all. They don't need schools, if they went back to their old traditions and way of life then they would have the problems that our society has created. I think the natives understood that when we get too interested in material possessions and places of power it's the beginning of the end for society. When society stays humble and wise and respect one another it will survive.
    • uberlit, on 12/20/2007, -20/+3I knew i kept all those mardi gras beads for some reason! I can trade them in for some wompom and fireworks!
    • sockpuppets, on 12/20/2007, -4/+18Dances with puppets approves.
    • n8r0n, on 12/20/2007, -9/+7Perhaps they should talk to the Indians that tried to take over Alcatraz Island, it didn't work then and I doubt it will work now.
      • lail, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4Apples and oranges - I defy anyone to live solely on the natural resources of Alcatraz island. It's a rock covered in cement. The Lakota lands are something else entirely.
        • Richandler, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3The Alcatraz movement ended with military involvement. Not because they ran out of resources.
    • digggggggggg, on 12/20/2007, -10/+5In order for them to have any sort of economic development over subsistence farming, they'll need to get foreign trade going. This is not going to be easy since they're surrounded on all sides by the US, the nation that they're... not a part of anymore.
      • conna, on 12/20/2007, -4/+4Who do you think will buy food from them? How about the locals for one. US or Lakota citizen. Getting food from China, shipped to Mexico and finally into American super stores only work as long as fossil fuel is abundant.
      • jspayne, on 12/20/2007, -1/+22Um, hate to break it to you, but that border across the top of Montana and North Dakota doesn't just fall into the void. Believe it or not, there is a whole freaking country up there!
      • dinostabOMG, on 12/21/2007, -2/+6Everyone seems to be applying the American model to this. While I doubt the US government will allow it to work out as it rightfully should, they now have the opportunity to run their affairs however they want, and best of luck to them. Maybe they will manage to create a large-scale sustainable community despite the US? I wish I could see this happening closer up, but it is exciting.
      • WIKMUNKEIOYONQA, on 12/25/2007, -0/+0They don't need to trade if they don't want to. They can become self sufficient like they were before the settlers murdered them and introduced them to alcohol and the plague.
    • killdashnine, on 12/20/2007, -0/+8This is kind of cool actually, and is probably being done to ignite social interest in a real problem. Still, not that long ago there was a plan to take part of Oklahoma and make it into a separate state.
    • Elranzer, on 12/20/2007, -1/+18IF this works... it would be interesting to see if Vermont, the Free State Project and Cascadia could now actually go through with their goals...
      • wiggles, on 12/20/2007, -3/+1All of those you mention would need popular support, which they don't have.
        • PeppermintPig, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2That's probably true, but that doesn't make it any more right. Else it is proven that we do not own our own property.
          • wiggles, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1We don't own our property. The constitution gives the government the right to force us to sell it to them for whatever purpose they deem necessary.
    • floorman56, on 12/20/2007, -14/+12First the U.S. government stops all the welfare payments , stops paying for the teachers in the school. shuts down the only hosp for 100 miles turns off the gas pipe line that goes through the rez. stops food deliveries If you was to leave the rez ...we will need to see your passport.
      • izlander, on 12/20/2007, -11/+6That's exactly what will happen. Enjoy dirt roads, candles for lighting, poorer education and international trade taxes.
        OR... a worse scenario. we treat you as a hostile threat in our country and take your land away completely.

        WHOOPS! backfired!
        • williamdyer, on 12/20/2007, -4/+13So, apart from the fact YOU are the kind of ***** who would do that, why do you think the rest of us want our government to do that?
          • floorman56, on 12/20/2007, -7/+4Because if they dont want to be part of the U.S. why should we give them money?
          • dinostabOMG, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7@floorman: Fine, we can stop, but that means we recognize their independence.
          • izlander, on 12/28/2007, -0/+01) Why would our government allow another country to be created within our borders? It wouldn't. If you think it would you are naive.
            2) Why would our government completely support the formation of another county without funding. It wouldn't and the fact that these people are being given money by our government suggests they don't have piles of cash lying around to fund it themselves.
            3) "assholes" like me have run this government since it began and do these things all the time.
          • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0"Enjoy dirt roads, candles for lighting, poorer education"

            That's what they got right now. Honestly, the point you've made is that there isn't much to lose, not the other way around.
      • Nerys, on 12/21/2007, -0/+5Well they have the casino's assuming they can use the courts to prevent the US from illegally embargoing citizens from going there to use the casino's that can finance everything.

        Solar power JUST got very very affordable $1 a watt and they live in the best places for it. They also have natural resources (it all depends on HOW BIG there territory is really)

        These people are not 3rd world poor folk being slaughtered. They are modern organized intelligent and resourceful. They know how to live off the land if need be but trust me that won't be needed.

        The only thing they need from us would be economical and all they need for that is a treaty for PEOPLE to flow back and forth. thats it. They can wrangle that out in the courts.
        • quasipalm, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1They live in the least populated area of the country. It doesn't exactly scream out for a casino.
        • lail, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3Yeah, but Nevada wasn't exactly brimming with residents pre-Las Vegas either.
    • Armando57, on 12/20/2007, -14/+4This sets the stage for what I've been talking about for a while. The reannexation of California, Arizona, Texas and New Mexico. It's time for us to reclaim what was stolen.
      • krisjturn, on 12/20/2007, -2/+8Armando... if you are referring to reclaiming it for Mexico??? Oh boy. You are one of those...... ha! Get a life. Part of Arizona was purchased. Read your history. New Mexico and the western states where originally explored by Spanish explores.. So if you really want to reclaim stuff... then it isn't going back to MEXICO! Also, it was fought for and not stolen. Remember an a military leader who ended up getting his butt kicked named Santiago? The whole purpose behind the Alamo??? And the war cry.. Remember The Alamo?????? I say.. you want it back.. try to get it back.
        • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0The whole purpose behind the Alamo was to get more slave states for the United States. Mexico outlawed slavery, but White North Americans refused to obey the law when the emigrated, so they created an insurrection and declared independence so they could have a country(and later state) with slaves. They weren't heroes, they were greedy land-stealing slave master imperialists. The fact that they won is a tragedy.
        • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0Oh, and BTW, it's Santa Anna, not Santiago
      • geomon, on 12/20/2007, -1/+7Reclamation? You really think Mexican-Americans want Mexico to administer these states when they look across the border and see what a the economic conditions are for the rest of the country are?

        You are kidding yourself. If they start a separatist movement, expect a return of the Republic of Texas. That territory declared independence from Mexico and was certainly NOT stolen.
      • lajaw, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4Jeez......... I'd like to see it tried.
        • aukxsona, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2No ***** *****. The Texans kicked their ass once...imagine the double shame. Texas should be it's own damn country. It has the balls.
        • MetalHead73, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1YEAH!!

          Not to mention the largest single-state military force in the country.
          :D
        • Armando57, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Piece of cake, ever hear of the Trojan horse?
        • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0It would be interesting if the United States turned into Israel/Palestine, with all minorities and conquered and displaced people, using guerrilla and urban insurgency. Imagine reading about Puerto Ricans in New York resuming their bombings, the reformation of the Black Panthers and Black Liberation Army, fighting occupation police forces in Detroit, Chicano/Mexican New Brown Berets firing RPGs and Motors into Beverly Hills.
        • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0Yeah, I think I actually WOULD like to see it tried... And I'd like to see your face when it IS tried...
      • cranium, on 12/20/2007, -4/+4Please please please oh PLEASE, take California. Also, you can add Utah to the list, it once belonged to Mexico as well.
      • matu4251, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4Mexicans flee Mexico for a good reason. It's like a bad lover looking for a "menage a trois"... They can't take care of what they have, why being in charge of more would make it any better? Ola!
        • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0The US ***** up Mexico by forcing their corrupt government to sign NAFTA, which resulted in the destabilization of the peso, the loss of farm land on a massive scale when Article 10 of their Constitution was abolished, the result was mass unemployment, and then obviously, mass migration was the result. Mexico was never in great shape, but the US just completely ***** it up with NAFTA.
      • philipl411, on 12/20/2007, -0/+8Just imagine being part of Mexico. It’s a cess pool of poverty, a ***** hole of corruption. Yep that’s where I want to go, Mexico! NOT
        • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0Actually the same is true in any ghetto of the USA.
      • tito184, on 12/21/2007, -1/+8Hell no am I becoming a part of Mexico! There is a reason people are literally dying to get to Arizona and the rest of the US.

        Also, we Arizonans are very well armed so it would be a lot like invading Switzerland...but with less chocolate and clocks.
        • kelt65, on 12/21/2007, -5/+7not as many clocks, but way more cuckoos
    • fugazied, on 12/20/2007, -1/+8Bush invades Lakota Indian territories for some dodgy reason in 3, 2, 1......
    • dimitrisokolov, on 12/20/2007, -14/+4Kick those mother ***** out. Deportation bitch.
    • sailadayaway, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4Didn't Peter Griffin try this?
    • darkmatter30, on 12/21/2007, -1/+20It is a horrible idea, and they are doomed from the start. They have failed thus far because they will not grow and adapt. I'm a Native American, and am a member of several tribes, but I understand ethnology well enough to know what culture is, and that there is no such thing as a right to cultural survival. Culture is, in anthropology and ethnology (a sub-field of anthropology) defined as a set of learned behaviors shared across some population. As such, a culture is supposed to help its members deal with each other and the World, both natural and human. To the extent that any individual learned behavior is detrimental, it should be either dropped or revised until it is helpful. These Lakota have simply decided to value their culture over the purpose culture is supposed to serve. Therefore they will fail even more miserably than they have thus far.
      • Subliminational, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7Interesting, Never heard culture described in that way before.
    • poopz, on 12/21/2007, -3/+1why are you rooting for these people against the united states? why is it 'fantastic'? hey while we're at it lets give the entire country back to the indians. since they called first dibs on it. that makes sense

      oh no wait the most powerful civilizations win out in the end. this is how mankind works. so no, they'll still get ***** in the end. sorry
      • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0Right, the most powerful win, just like the South Vietnamese when they kicked the United States asses all the way back across the ocean with their tails and tiny dicks stuck between their legs because they were ass raped by a bunch of rice farmers with nothing but those round hats and a bowl of rice! Hahaha, the United States is so weak they currently can't even occupy two backwater countries called Iraq and Afghanistan without getting a bloody nose! So much for "Super Power," more like "Super Target." BTW, have you found Bin Laden yet? Hahahaha!
    • sniperhare, on 12/21/2007, -3/+0We need to go in there and take back our land. Old West style.
  • 2blackhorses, on 12/20/2007, -10/+38I thought we we have been independent nations? I am more than curious to see if we end up with some weird WACO thing...
    • sockpuppets, on 12/20/2007, -6/+1How do you say "starbucks" in Lakota?
    • diggydougie, on 12/20/2007, -0/+20Not Waco, Wounded Knee.
    • JoeMax, on 12/20/2007, -4/+2Perhaps your history knowledge isn't as good as you think. Take a look at wikipedia for "Wounded Knee" and "Wounded Knee Incident"
    • ICSU, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2I already saw this in Family Guy.
    • poopz, on 12/21/2007, -3/+2NOTE: For all you ***** rooting for the indians, its not quite that easy. You think you can just say "lol im my own country!!!!!" and seperate from the US?

      they'll get ***** in the end. history repeats itself. and there will be no armed conflict, obviously because the indians would never stand a chance, nor have they ever
      • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0The Vietnamese never stood a chance against the US or French or Chinese with all their sophisticated weapons of warfare and super power armies. So how is it they won? How is it the Iraqis and Afghanis are still taking potshots at the US Army? Simple, the guerrilla doesn't give a ***** about these things. He is a fanatic, he doesn't care about odds. The Guerrilla wins by not losing. Eventually your occupation army will tire, falter and then retreat.
  • NorthRider, on 12/20/2007, -34/+3owned...lol
  • Ritterbeck, on 12/20/2007, -41/+32I would gladly give up my US citizenship if this is true and if the Lakota have a viable economy.
    • thcobbs, on 12/20/2007, -10/+32That's a lot of "IF"s ke-mo sah-bee.
    • krisjturn, on 12/20/2007, -34/+13One word my friend... CANADA! (Why wait, move to Canada and give up your citizenship now. After all... a U.S. citizenship.. who wants it anyway??? Oh wait.. the millions of people each year that come from other countries to make a better life for themselves I guess????)
      • AttilaD, on 12/20/2007, -6/+12Wait a few decades... when the Peso is worth more than the Dollar we'll all be pissed that we built that f'n wall... how will we get to work?
        • williamdyer, on 12/20/2007, -1/+7It won't take decades for the petrodollar to collapse.
    • FreeStater, on 12/20/2007, -16/+13If they have no legal tender laws, and allow people to barter the way they'd like, their economy will be a better off then ours.
      • bfellow, on 12/21/2007, -2/+0Are you kidding me? Do you really want to go down to the car dealership and pay for it in loafs of bread? Or work for two weeks only to find you don't get a check, you get a chicken? Thank God you are not an economist! Buried.
        • DrPaul2008, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3First of all, you're an idiot. Secondly, FreeStater's comments show a lot more recognition of economics then that ridiculousness you just said. Thirdly, yes. It would be a small price to pay for the freedom it would bring, wouldn't it? Lastly, you could trade chickens, or a loaf of bread, or anything else of value if you wish, or you could trade worthless items, such as fiat currency from whatever nation you favored. Just because you can't fathom things like gold, and silver pieces, or the convenience, and privacy of things like eGold, or eLiberty Dollars, doesn't mean we wouldn't be a whole lot better off with those options.
        • FreeStater, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3You're right. I can't imagine the car dealership thinking it could pass off a car instead of good ol fiat currency.

          You're one of money who mistakenly thinks there is such thing as purchasing exclusive to exchange or barter. Money is just a convenient medium of exchange, as long as someone else will take it. If it's valuable on it's own, there is no need for the threat of a gun for someone to take it. If it's fiat currency, however, that's another story.
    • JoeMax, on 12/20/2007, -8/+7Yeah, lets see, $3700 a year average family income, Average age of 48, not exactly someplace I would want to live. Maybe as a country we should actually help these folks out a little bit. Bill Gates, where are you?
      • Pherdnut, on 12/20/2007, -3/+3Bill's out somewhere crushing competition before they get a chance to thrive I suspect. Or he's coming up with a new business practice to sell more stuff that doesn't involve actually improving his product because he's already crushed/bought out all competition in that particular market place. Yeah, total free market capitalism would be AWESOME. Balance people, please! Even the pre-neo con GOP wasn't talking zero checks on capitalism. It takes competition to thrive even thought the people buying your candidates and effectively your votes don't want you to know that.. Without gov. interference there is no incentive to allow competition to exist.
        • caboosemoose, on 12/20/2007, -0/+7For all of Microsoft's problems in the marketplace (which, with the continued success of Java, the surge of Mozilla, the wild success of Apple, the continuing flourishing of open source communities, Linux now being offered by companies like Dell, hardly indicates to me the death of competition anyway), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had assets of $33bn, gave grants of $1.6bn, and had a further liability for $3.4bn of approved grants as of the 2006 financial report. Gee, what a complete robber baron ***** Bill must be.
        • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0Compared to the amount of his ill gotten gains (or at least suspiciously gotten gains) that's just his guilty conscience giving crumbs from what he drops while he raids the vault.
      • ZenMojo, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4It'd be funny if Bill Gates showed up tomorrow with a check.
    • catalysis, on 12/20/2007, -6/+3Do you honestly think they will allow the "white man" into their tribe?
      • texpundit, on 12/20/2007, -3/+3Probably not...but they might let someone like me in: part Irish, Irish Jew and American Indian (Apache, Comanche, Cherokee and Kiowa Shawandassee).
        • TheKrillr, on 12/20/2007, -2/+2interesting. im an irish jew, austrian, and american indian (cherokee and choctaw)
        • ZenMojo, on 12/20/2007, -1/+6But you're not Lakota. Which is sort of how tribes work.
          • aukxsona, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4They said any one in the 5 state area...they didn't say and Lakota.
          • sinrtb, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4From what i have read so far they will take all of us as long as we renounce our US citizenship
      • popfrogs, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6Actually that's a valid point. Most "Americans" that have been here for a few generations have indian blood to some degree. My friend is 100% full-blooded Choctaw, and he said most people that take advantage of Choctaw services are what he calls "teeners", people that are 1/10th, 1/16th or whatever rather than half or even full-blooded. He was surprised to see a black guy at the Choctaw hospital once.
        So, depending on your bloodline, it's very possible that you have some percentage of Lakota or another tribe (honestly though you're more likely to be Choctaw or Cherokee) and therefore might be able to join in a Lakota Nation.
        • ZenMojo, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3If you can document it. Interestingly enough, the Cherokee nation has begun throwing out black members who were at one time accepted into the tribe as honorary members because they intermingled so much that the white American government's arbitrary labeling of black and Indian based solely on skin color was completely inaccurate.
          Now, in modern times, white people of Cherokee descent far outnumber those of full-blood or black Cherokee descent so they've gone back to the rolls in order to throw out people who were labeled black but accepted as Cherokee because of the arbitrary one-drop rule in the US government. In other words, white people took over the Cherokee tribe.
          I'm 1/4 Cherokee and black, which means I'm probably even more Cherokee than I say I am but the US government arbitrarily deracialized my people, and I find the whole shift in tribal complexion to be a startling thing, but the fact that the Lakota are willing to say "***** you, USA" gives me a little bit of hope.
      • Pherdnut, on 12/20/2007, -3/+1I suspect not all of them would assume we're all racist. Besides they need skill sets they've only been able to acquire very slowly for themselves.
        • ZenMojo, on 12/20/2007, -2/+3Thanks for proving you yourself fit the profile of a racist. Holy *****...
        • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0Seriously, the Redman was doing FINE for himself before your white asses came and F'd everything up and took their livelihood from them.
    • prax, on 12/20/2007, -4/+15Please, I hope you stick to these words. The US is far from perfect but I would never give up my citizenship.
    • CARHINO, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1Good riddance!
  • Rox50, on 12/20/2007, -40/+18They are going to have to come up with their own currency and something on which to base it. They are no longer eligible for any kind of US benefits, such as Social Security and Medicare. They are going to have to have their own standing military. Like it or not, this is America. Anyone who doesn't like it here is free to leave. If they're going to live on the premises, they're going to have to pay some kind of rent. No taxes? How are they going to survive? Sounds to me like this is just a ploy to get something else.
    • Ritterbeck, on 12/20/2007, -18/+23Don't kill this idea. It's nice to see someone sticking it to those Neo-nazis we call the U.S. government.
      • abeasley43, on 12/20/2007, -22/+9Why don't you go join the true Neo-nazis in other countries if you don't like the US Government and see how long you last. If it wasn't for the US Government you would not have your freedom to express your views. In Russia and china they kill people who use their freedom of speech and in Venezuela Pres. Chavez tried to take his peoples freedoms from them but guess what elections prevaled and those people kept their freedoms.
        • krisjturn, on 12/20/2007, -15/+3I agree with you abeasley all the way. If Ritterbeck can't afford the airfare, then driving to Mexico or Canda should be pretty easy to do.
        • Tarvok, on 12/20/2007, -3/+22Replying to "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" is disingenuous, because there IS nowhere else. However, if the Lakota manage to pull this off, there may be somewhere else. Or not. All the lands are dominated, and the US isn't even the "least bad" for radical freedom lovers anymore.

          I would move to Switzerland, if I could.
          • CARHINO, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1unfortunately the open minded Swiss have that little issue of actually having an Immigration policy, which they Enforce.
        • ordig, on 12/20/2007, -2/+17"in Venezuela Pres. Chavez tried to take his peoples freedoms from them but guess what elections prevaled and those people kept their freedoms."

          Chavez was trying to do away with term limits, so he could remain president. The people turned it down. Keep in mind however that this was after a US backed coup attempt in 2002 that failed only because 100s of thousands of people took to the streets to get Chavez back. He was not trying to "take peoples freedoms." Quit watching fox news.
          • CARHINO, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2Start listening to the news, and What Chavez Himself Says.He has closed down radio stations, TV networks and newspapers that don't agree with him, any news source that doesn't follow his Socialist agenda is shut down. Property and business owners are being run out of the country. Actually sounds like Congressional dems like Pelosi and Reid would fit right in.
          • Sketchcast, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2Actually CARHINO, not a single thing you said in that post is true, but then again truth doesn't matter to the right wing, you're so obsessed with beating the war drums that you simply can't hear above the noise anymore.

            Chavez didn't shut down any radio or tv stations, his government simply didn't renew the broadcasting license of one single television station that just so happened to actively support the 2002 coup attempt. Yes thats right, he didn't renew the license of a station who's owners and operators were co-conspirators in a US backed coup attempt.

            To put that in context; if a US television station had supported an Iranian backed coup against the US Government, the operators would have been executed under charges of treason. Period. It's as simple as that, if those events had transpired in the glorious and free united states of America, the operators of that network would be dead today.

            Now stop watching Fox news jerkwad.
          • CARHINO, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1I like fox they show the daily Executions carried out by our Govt(what an asinine statement, No media members have been executed in this country for political reasons), Everthing I said is true, and if you were telling the truth the editors of the NYT would be on trial right now. We haven't evev executed the bombers from the first world trade center attacks, or the Muslim U.S soldier who rolled grenades into his COs tent. The left ignores the dangers of the world to advance the socialist world rule. Do a little research and learn the truth, if you are unwilling to do so then you are part of the problem.
          • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0Actually Chavez has shown admirable restraint to foriegnly-funded anti-government media. He has let a lot of those papers and news channels stay open. Do you think the USA would allow Iranian, Russian, Chinese governments or whomever to broadcast anti-government propaganda and print anti-government news in the USA? THEY SHUT DOWN AL JAZERA IN IRAQ! And Al Jazera, if you've actually ever watched it, is mild, and no where nearly as biased as American news outlets.
        • TheKrillr, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2dude. punctuation. its whats for lunch. eat it.
    • CheyenneArapaho, on 12/20/2007, -8/+33yeah .... like social security and medicare really benefited the man that dies at 44 or the teens that commit suicide.... pay rent? the lakota's were on that land since the iceage ... taxes? easy ... only on sales and services not on income...
      • lilrabbit129, on 12/20/2007, -8/+3Yes cause the measure of a good government is when NO one dies for any reason at all?
        • williamdyer, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2One measure of a good government is that it does not make tax slaves of the people. If the Lakota avoid that, good for them for setting an example for us.
      • CARHINO, on 12/21/2007, -3/+1What did the native Americans do to the inhabitants here before them. Most indian legends mention the OLD ONES? Also if they have been here since the Ice Age, can we blame their carbon footprint for melting the glaciers, since the consensus now is that global warming is man made.
        • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0They were the first inhabitants according to the consensus of most historical anthropologists. As far as Global Warming, that has most to do with the industrial output of various gases.
    • thcobbs, on 12/20/2007, -11/+57It already IS their land.
    • kooft, on 12/20/2007, -7/+70"They are going to have to come up with their own currency and something on which to base it."

      No reason they couldn't continue using US currency. I'm fairly certain that areas bordering the US accept US currency. I'm sure they'd eventually come up with their own, but it's not urgent.


      "They are no longer eligible for any kind of US benefits, such as Social Security and Medicare."

      Obviously.


      "They are going to have to have their own standing military."

      Nah, the only people they'd have to defend themselves against is the US because America's not likely to let Russian Migs strafe parts of former Nebraska.


      "Like it or not, this is America. Anyone who doesn't like it here is free to leave. If they're going to live on the premises, they're going to have to pay some kind of rent. No taxes? How are they going to survive? Sounds to me like this is just a ploy to get something else."

      Like it or not, they were here before the European Caucasians. This was their land and it was taken from them. They were subjected to genocide and forced to live on 'reservations' (refugee camps). If they want to declare independence, I fully support them. It's not like America doesn't support independence declared by others in other parts of the world.
      • FreeStater, on 12/20/2007, -6/+13"They are going to have to come up with their own currency and something on which to base it."

        No they don't. If they really feel the need to have their own currency for some reason, they'd be wise to use metal backed currencies, and not fiat. However, they could easily have no legal tender laws, and allow people to barter with Euros, US dollars, chickens, gold, silver, Walmart gift certificates, etc.

        "They are no longer eligible for any kind of US benefits, such as Social Security and Medicare."

        They are no longer liable for the costs of our ridiculously large, and out of control government, including the busted Social Security scam, and Medicare.

        "The are going to have to have their own standing military"

        So you expect that we will invade, eh? Unfortunately, you're probably right. No one else is going to attack American soil. Though, they may want a peace keeping, public service force like we use to have in our police.

        "Like it or not, this is America. Anyone who doesn't like it here is free to leave."

        Yes. If the United States' don't like it, they should leave North America.

        "If they're going to live on the premises, they're going to have to pay some kind of rent."

        Maybe they will let us stay "rent" free if we agree to honor our agreement with them, and let them be.

        "No taxes? How are they going to survive? Sounds to me like this is just a ploy to get something else."

        If freedom is too scary for you, I'd suggest you not try to live there. The United States has dropped out of both the top ten economic, and socially, free nations in the world. Sounds like it's heading in just the direction you'd like.
        • jonshipman, on 12/20/2007, -2/+11No taxes was the battlecry of the colonies for the american revolution
          • AttilaD, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6Ironic, isn't it?
          • TheKrillr, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4actually, it was the taxation with lack of representation that was contested. There was no true representation of the colonies in parliment, they had no voice on what they got taxed on and by how much. Learn some history, will ya?
          • popfrogs, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3More specifically, no taxation without representation. A foreign power was making key political and economic decisions with zero input from their tax base (early European settlers). They had no delegates, no foreign ministry, no voting power, etc. So everytime King George wanted a few more shillings, he upped the taxes and there was nothing the settlers could do about it.
          • Jobu71x, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2No it wasn't. No Taxation without Representation was the battlecry. Which we now have. Dugg down for an uninformed comment.
          • Jobu71x, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1PWND!......... forgive me, but it could not be helped.
          • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0They should be able to get whatever money they have put into the Social Securtiy and Medicare program returned to them. After all, they paid their money in taxes for it. The US won't do that though, they'll keep. Same thing is hindering Puerto Ricans from declaring independence. Finny how America was once the colony without the representation. Now The US has Puerto Rico as it's colony as flips that battle cry arround and reverses it "No REPRESENTATION without TAXATION."
    • itux1985, on 12/20/2007, -0/+16"If they're going to live on the premises, they're going to have to pay some kind of rent."
      Ok Just let me come over to your house, take over your premises and make you pay rent.

      /sarcasm
      • Nerys, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1sadly already in place with illegal property taxes. you see one of the founding principles of this country was PROPERTY RIGHTS. we have NONE in the US any longer. Except some rare cases in texas you DO NOT OWN YOUR PROPERTY. the united states government does. Its called FEE SIMPLE title. actual ownership is called Allodial Title. we USED to have allodial title that has long since been stolen from us and most people do not even know it.

        HOW ELSE do you think they can "tax" you over and over again every single year. its because you don't own it.
    • subterfuge, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5"Anyone who doesn't like it here is free to leave."
      i would have thought that too, considering america is supposed to be the land of the free. but there was this "civil war" thing that happened once, which seems to no support the idea.
    • tdogg241, on 12/20/2007, -4/+19"If they're going to live on the premises, they're going to have to pay some kind of rent."

      Ummm...if anything, we should be paying them rent.
    • IndridCold07, on 12/27/2007, -0/+0I'm no professional in this subject nor am I a good legal reference but I'm pretty sure that this quote (taken directly from one of the treaties) is a good reference to use when trying to determine what they're up against.

      "That the Sioux Nation grants unto the United States for the purpose of the establishment of military posts, nine miles square at the mouth of the river St. Croix, also from below the confluence of the Mississippi and St. Peters, up the Mississippi, to include the falls of St. Anthony, extending nine miles on each side of the river. That the Sioux Nation grants to the United States, the full sovereignty and power over said districts forever, without any let or hindrance whatsoever."

      FOREVER, without any let or hindrance whatsoever. I have yet to find other similar treaties where the land was actually divided up and signed over to the US but if they're anything like this one.. (not to be the devil's advocate) I really think it would be hard to pull out unless there's some sort of stipulation defining the finer details of the agreements.. correct me if i'm wrong.

      However.. with regards to the above comment, if said treaties do include certain deals and/or stipulations regarding actual deals the US made with the Lakota outlining conditions to be fulfilled for said agreement to be valid, I would hardly think the lakota would have to worry about anything along the lines of Rent.. since, backing out of the treaties, the land would, from a logical standpoint, be returned to the Lakota.
  • jghjehcc, on 12/20/2007, -40/+23Brilliant idea! I couldn't think of a better way to get so many people off of the government dole. Since they will no longer be a part of the United States, we can cut all government subsidies and programs. Oh yeah, we will also require passports to enter the United States from their little "country" and require work visas for any of their "citizens" who wish to have a job in the real world.
    • CheyenneArapaho, on 12/20/2007, -10/+15yeah .... like social security and medicare really benefited the man that dies at 44 or the teens that commit suicide.... pay rent? the lakota's were on that land since the iceage ... taxes? easy ... only on sales and services not on income...
      • abeasley43, on 12/20/2007, -14/+5Social Security and medicare is not set up to benefit a man at 44 or teens. It is call work for a living. That is what is wrong with SS & Medicare it is being eaten up by people that want handouts. GET A JOB AND JOIN SOCIETY> Get your teens educated and start telling them about college. There is so many programs for College that anyone can go to college these days. That is what you need to do instead of talking down to your people telling them how they are mistreated tell them their future is in their hands and they can do anything they want. It benefits the people in their tribe at the top to keep the Poor Me Syndrome.
        • Coven, on 12/20/2007, -2/+7*whoosh*
        • greenm1981, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4So, if you and you're entire family were in a car accident and everybody except you died upon impact, instead you were paralyzed from the neck down, would you then look at SS as a "handout?" Imagine if you were an average, blue-collar, working American and could no longer work. How would you support yourself? I guess you would say that somebody in that situation should be bankrupt and on the street, because they wouldn't "GET A JOB AND JOIN SOCIETY."
          • Jobu71x, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1So what you're saying is that the reservations are full of parapalegics?
      • krisjturn, on 12/20/2007, -9/+1Once again. Take responsibility for your own actions and stop blaming other people. So the Lakota's where on that land since the iceage. hmmm... must have been cold living on all that ice that covered that land???? Fire anyone???
        • kooft, on 12/20/2007, -1/+13Edumacation anyone?
        • greenm1981, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2I suggest you take a geology class sometime. Not all of North America was covered in ice during that period.
        • krisjturn, on 12/20/2007, -1/+0Yes. But you should look yourself. At one point the ice cap did come down that far. I was making a point that if they where here since the Ice Age... sure they where.. freezing their butts off waiting for the U.S. to become a state to provide them with aid to help keep their lazy butts warm.
        • Lyk4n, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Your IQ can't possibly be that low..
        • tim620, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1"Yes. But you should look yourself. At one point the ice cap did come down that far. I was making a point that if they where here since the Ice Age... sure they where.. freezing their butts off waiting for the U.S. to become a state to provide them with aid to help keep their lazy butts warm."

          You are correct. The ice cap did come pretty far south and into "Dakota Territory". However, it was not likely the Lakota, Nakota or Dakota Sioux lived in the area at the time. Many moons after the "ice age" they were forced into the Dakotas by other tribes that where forced west by the U.S. They lived a much better life, prior to the U.S. Empire taking their land and trying to force them to become independent farmers and trying to force the White way of life on them. The U.S. "aid" (along with all encounters with the U.S. government) has done nothing but harm.
    • Tarvok, on 12/20/2007, -2/+14Heh, you speak with sarcasm, but I actually think it's a good idea. I'm amazed by how many people think government subsidies and programs are required for living.
      • Chirp08, on 12/20/2007, -6/+2Did your school build itself? Did you buy those text books in highschool? Who paid your teachers salary? Who pays the garbage man? Who provides you water? Who makes sure the electricity is always running? It's amazing how much ***** people take for granted, even if this country is ***** up..
        • Boondoggle, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5On the reservation I used to live on, the school sure looked like it built itself. Plenty of people living in shacks w/o water or elec. So I don't see a big net change for those folks anyway.

          And in general the government doesn't run the power companies.
        • surf314, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5Umm we pay for all of that stuff. Where do you think the government gets its money from???? No taxes just means people will have to pay for it directly, which will probably lead to them getting more for their money.
        • AttilaD, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2I don't know WHO bought the 20-year-old textbooks at my school, but they can keep them. I has an interweb.
        • williamdyer, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Local taxes pay for those in my town. The Lakota will get along fine without corrupt Uncle Sam skimming their revenue stream.
    • Spectre74, on 12/20/2007, -1/+10They don't care.
  • CheyenneArapaho, on 12/20/2007, -21/+13yeah .... like social security and medicare really benefited the man that dies at 44 or the teens that commit suicide.... pay rent? the lakota's were on that land since the iceage ... taxes? easy ... only on sales and services not on income...
    • Coven, on 12/20/2007, -0/+11You made your point the first three times you posted this.
    • CheyenneArapaho, on 12/20/2007, -2/+4yeah sorry but it's my first time on... can't delete first two ... my apologies
    • Ap31r0n, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1We get it,



      you are Dadguy's puppet account made for this topic.





      STFU already
  • 5thwave, on 12/20/2007, -22/+9Two comments. I agree that the Lakota were chased off "their land" however, who was there before them? I think we need to find out and then give the land to those people! Second, I thought this was FOX, We report you decide! The editorial comment, "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." belongs on the EDITORIAL page.
    • thcobbs, on 12/20/2007, -0/+12That was a quote from a Lakota.
      • CheyenneArapaho, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1if it's fact then it's not editorialized ... however i agree with you in so far as the use of the word "oppression" ...... that's obviously an opinion
        • bfellow, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Of course its an opinion! Its the opinion of the person who said it. The was said in a quote! Nice one there inspector.
      • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0Oppression is factual, not opinion. Jews were oppressed by the Nazis. Slaves were oppressed by slave masters. The Native Americans are oppressed by the United States.
    • nblsavage, on 12/20/2007, -2/+55thwave, it's likely that there wasn't anyone here before the native americans. Humankind migrated here.
      • Ogopogo, on 12/20/2007, -3/+2The caucasian 'Kennewick man" people were here before the 'redskins' arrived and massacred them. The Lakota are not 'first nations'. See: http://www.newnation.org/NNN-kennewick-man.html
        • nblsavage, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Kennewick Man was in fact not European but rather resembled south Asians and the Ainu people of northeast Asia

          Doesn't sound Caucasian to me.
          And how do you know they were slaughtered? We have one skeleton with what appears to be spear damage. Someone of his own kind could have done that.
      • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0And BTW, the Natives who came via the Bering Strait beat the "Caucassian" Kwennewick man to settling North America by several thousand years.
    • jonshipman, on 12/20/2007, -2/+2Give it to the buffalo?
      • tim620, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1What Buffalo? (I assume you mean Bison, since there is another animal in Africa and Asia called the Buffalo as well). Most Bison today are cross-bread with cattle. (some call them beef-alo). By 1900 there were less than a dozen full blooded Bison left. Some guy saved them and started breeding them again. It is somewhere in the thousands today. Still a small number compared to the 50 million or so that used to roam the plains. We can thank the U.S. government for that one too (they sponsored the slaughter of the Bison).
  • abeasley43, on 12/20/2007, -28/+11People who always want something from the government then blame the government for their short lifespan and their suicides is ridiculous. Maybe because they have not joined the rest of the world and want handouts, they keep their people under. Instead of trying to go with countries that would kill you first and then take over Lakotas need to do what Moses said 'let my people go' and let them join society forget their free handouts and not keep them down.
    • Tomgoldenbear, on 12/20/2007, -4/+17The Native Americans extended their welcoming hands to the European Pilgrims. They invited them into their house, which was called TURTLE ISLAND.. The Europeans took over the Native Americana's house, and gave them a closet to live in. Any attempt to justify that ...is unworthy of comment!!!
      • krisjturn, on 12/20/2007, -13/+5At least we gave them a closet.... other civilizations didn't even do that. Stop crying about something that happened in the past.
        • greenm1981, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Just because it's old news doesn't negate the fact that they have a legitimate claim based upon US law.
      • kooft, on 12/20/2007, -2/+12Wow. So that's your standard for treatment? Being just a little better than others? Is that what makes you proud about America? A kindler gentler genocide...
        • Jobu71x, on 12/20/2007, -1/+0Before you get all high and mighty, you had better make sure that there were no genocides/pillaging/crusades/jihaads/inquisitions in your cultural or countries past.
        • kooft, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Good idea, let me double-check my cultural past/country's past before I get all high and mighty.

          Okay, I'm done checking. Let me divulge the results of my 'check'. It seems that 'my country' perpetrated a crime called genocide against the indigenous people of the continent they colonized. Those that they didn't kill were forced to walk hundreds or thousands of miles to refugee camps across the country. While this was happening, other humans were bought from overseas to serve as slaves and were forced to work like animals for generations.

          Care to guess what my culture/country is? It starts with 'United States' and ends with 'America', you get one guess to fill in the missing word. (Hint, it starts with an 'o' and ends with an 'f').

          Thanks for keeping me from getting all high and mighty. I almost embarrassed myself.
      • Zasz, on 12/20/2007, -6/+2So before Europeans came to North America, all the Native Americans were living in peace and harmony? They weren't killing each other and living in lands previously lived in by other tribes? Damn history for getting in the way of your idealistic views.
        • Boondoggle, on 12/20/2007, -1/+9So if my neighbors are fighting it is alright for me to go steal their car.

          Thanks for the tip.
        • BossKey, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6You cannot make your own actions any more moral by claiming that you're less immoral than or just as immoral as that other guy. Your actions stand on their own.
        • tattertech, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1BossKey, last time I checked, they weren't my actions.
        • Schneckehaus, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Zasz, none of them signed a treaty with us, thats the difference,
        • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0Just because the Natives weren't perfect, it does not negat the fact that they were deliberately and systematically removed and eradicated in genocidal policies designed to steal and conquer their land.

          That would be like me saying, you didn't go to church on Sunday so I can steal your house, rape you mom and kill your brothers and sisters.
    • tim620, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1There are many things wrong with your comment. The Native Americans are free to join "the rest of the world". But many choose not to. They have gotten used to the hand outs, but it wasn't their idea. It was the idea of the government in its attempts to "civilize" them, turn them into farmers, etc. There old way of life is long gone, but it was not a wrong way of life, just different from the way most White people wanted them to live. It was the U.S. government that forced them onto the reservations, took away their land, their hunting land (they where hunter-gatherers), took away (by sponsoring the killing of) the Bison on which they relied, gave them individual land allotments which broke up their families and broke up their communities, mixed them with White farmers and settlers (many reservations today are more than 50% white). Their way of life was destroyed (thanks to the U.S. government). The government tried to "help" them, by giving them handouts until they became "civilized". All of the above resulted in them relying on the handouts. Poverty, depression, drugs, alcohol have become the new way of life for Native Americans, thanks to the government.
  • Tomgoldenbear, on 12/20/2007, -18/+78 The DEAD DOG IS BARKING, and has awakened a once great nation! May the Great Spirit guide and protect you on this noble project, while your Ancestors rejoice in your sanity...reclaim what is rightfully yours, and establish your own immigration laws, and HOMELAND SECURITY!
    • miroj1, on 12/20/2007, -7/+4Proud nation! Any group of people with Russell Means as its leader cannot be termed as proud. He's got a criminal record as long as the South Dakota prairie.
      • MadEnvoy, on 12/20/2007, -0/+10"He's got a criminal record..." - by whose law?
        • floorman56, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3On December 20, 2007, Means publicly announced the withdrawal of the Lakota Sioux from all treaties with the United States government, [6] declaring the Lakota a sovereign nation with property rights over thousands of square miles in South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming and Montana.[7] His authority to speak for the Sioux, let alone make policy declarations on their behalf, is not clear, as his repeated attempts at election to the Presidency of the Oglala Sioux have been rebuffed by the Sioux people at the ballot
        • kajoob, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1ooooh that was deep.
    • kajoob, on 12/20/2007, -4/+1OH, THUNDERBIRD SPIRIT!!! I see old glory over on the horizon!! I see the tattered standard of an invading army and their numbers ARE LEGION!!!
    • Ripoff13, on 12/20/2007, -1/+7The government of the rez is more corrupt than the US government has ever been. Selling cocaine, meth, weed...
      You know who I'm talking about too, unless you are out of touch with your proud? people.
    • MyBacchanalia, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4I really hope that this is an honest move that will not be so heavily rooted in corruption. I grew up next to a reserve in the prairies, and yeah there is an obscene amount of poverty, suicide, physical abuse and drug abuse. People live short, difficult lives and I guess if you grew up with ***** all and then are given $15 million to manage, I can see how that money could lead you astray. Without the government interference, I believe there is a good possibility for positive change. At the same time, the drug dealing and organized crime part of the equation most likely not change.
    • JohnboiWaltune, on 12/21/2007, -0/+41 Declare independence
      2 Sell tax free firewater and tobacco to the whites
      3 Build casinos to get the whites to gamble away all their wampum
      4 Profit!
  • starhowle, on 12/20/2007, -10/+26This move is due to the bitter taste in the Lakota's mouth, but is it really the right time to do this? As reported, the conditions are very bad (due to the US government not helping enough), and will it only get worse. I hope they have a plan to survive and flourish with this move. I also believe that there is something else involved here, and I hope it works out for them.
    • nimbleprune, on 12/20/2007, -9/+34I live in an area very close to a lakota reservation...the US govt not helping enough? thats laughable. The Lakota get everything payed for...free housing a huge check when they turn 18 and a check every month from welfare plus more added on to that for reperations...the only thing stopping them from being a successful people is themselves.
      • starhowle, on 12/20/2007, -3/+5Oh, I did not know that, so this does make it a very questionable move! Thanks for the info!
      • krisjturn, on 12/20/2007, -5/+7Every Indian Trib.. Nation.. whatever you want to call it gets funded by the U.S. Government. I have always felt that it is time to stop the funding. This issue with the Lakota's is a perfect example. However, if you look at tribes like the Sandia Pueblo in New Mexico some of the Apache tribes in the state of New Mexico they have done very well for themselves. The Sandia tribe now can send anyone of their people to any college in the world on their own dime. See... they don't play the blame game like the Lakota's. They basically took lemons and made lemonade... too bad people like the Lakota's can't do that.
        • kooft, on 12/20/2007, -4/+11Link to sources backing up your claims. Otherwise you're just bashing Lakota's.
          • nimbleprune, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1sorry not many links..I will try to find a few. Most of this comes from knowing a few Lakota and just living next to one of thier reservation areas. If you ever make it to North Dakota just visit Fort Yates along 1804...there are a few more Cities but thats just an example. You will see if you spend just a little time there.
        • CheyenneArapaho, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1I agree.
      • smittyme, on 12/20/2007, -7/+5It's a shame...these people are comparing themselves to us...the people who are not trying to hide from everyone...not trying to sit back, drinking excessive amounts of alcohol, uneducated in every way that makes one a part of this great nation. It's no wonder they are not smart enough to survive past their mid 40's!
        • CheyenneArapaho, on 12/20/2007, -4/+1wow... kinda like the blacks when they were just dumb/high animals .... yeah it wont work.
      • jonshipman, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2You can't put a price on freedom.
      • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0They are doing for themselves by forming their own nation and saying they don't want the US gov't's "help" anymore. I guess that's called the "blame game,"?
    • LukasSmith, on 12/21/2007, -4/+4Well we can all laugh about this. Some nutjob who IS NOT the leader of the tribe claims independence without any support from his tribe. Basically he is wasting his time. why would the indians want to give up treaties that give them free education and healthcare. The fact that they only live to 44 etc is thier own FAULT. Ha. Imagine if we cut off thier alcohol supply. They would surrender in 1 week. Besides a nation is only as real as its ability to repel invaders. European countries borders have changed countless times in the last hundred years mainly because the owner couldnt protect it. Thats why its important we get a grip on our southern border. The few hundred thousand people who flood across that border almost freely threaten our sovreignty. Some parts of the US border area are so heavily populated with spanish speaking peoples illegal and otherwise that if Mexico were ever to become a world power stronger then the US(fat chance), those people would defect with the land to mexico. Unchecked illegal immigration could create a whole southwest similar to los angeles with little allegiance to the USA. Didnt take Texas long to defect from Mexico. We have been too soft. I think we need to send a clear message of dominance to Mexico and latin America. I think a few land mine fields and machine gun turrets would do it. By making a few examples we could pretty much end illigal immigration and confirm our countries right to exist. I wonder now if we had a a civil war if our government would bother fighting to put the nation back together or would just be like oh cant do that, everyone has the right to do whatever the @#$% they want.
      • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0The only illegals in Texas, California and Nueva Mexico are White North Americans, who toke the area by force in war designed to create more slave states. I don't want to have any alliegance to a country that does that.
  • thatguy73, on 12/20/2007, -4/+97I just want to get that stamp in my passport
  • thatguy73, on 12/20/2007, -9/+61Oh yeah, One more thing what would happen if some Middle eastern country wanted to "rent" some land to build a base there. Sound crazy? We do it all the time.
    • surf314, on 12/20/2007, -2/+12If that were to happen then they would be demonized and sanctioned, possible invaded and arrested. That said am I the only one annoyed at all of these hypotheticals people keep tossing out? If the US was about to be destroyed by aliens and you had to kill a puppy to stop them would you? It's a completely ridiculous question because neither party would be stupid enough to attempt this.
      • DrCyclops, on 12/20/2007, -1/+6Agreed.

        What if they start a nuclear program?

        What if they put a man on Mars?

        What if the dig secret tunnels to Washington and kill the President?

        I think some people are just praying for a crisis.
    • AttilaD, on 12/20/2007, -2/+10That would be great! Then we wouldn't have to travel as far to invade. Wait, do they have oil? If not, then forget it.
  • GreatSunJester, on 12/20/2007, -14/+16Interesting concept but I can not help feeling that this (if true) is just a scam to get more cash..... "pay up or else"
    • CheyenneArapaho, on 12/20/2007, -3/+0yeah but i think it's gonna hurt both sides first ... the US won't get there tax money and the Lakota's are gonna have to go into debt to launch there new nation...
      • andymadigan, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2I really doubt any Indian nation pays more taxes than they receive in benefits.
      • AttilaD, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4Bush: "Damn it! Now we have to cancel the war! The Lakotas stopped paying taxes!"
    • Ogopogo, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1I didn't see anything about them refusing to accept their US gov't welfare checks or other multi-million dollar tribal subsidy payments. It'll be interesting to see if they can figure out how to pay for all the 'white-man' ammenities (paved roads, airports, phone, internet, etc..) They'll have to negotiate the right to legally receive DishNetwork and DirectTV if they want to watch satellite. Or.. maybe they'd prefer StarChoice and ExpressVu if they can make a deal with them.
      • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0Yeah, cuz watching TV will be first on their agenda of how to deal with their problems...
  • dadguy, on 12/20/2007, -8/+21A most unfortunate turn of events.
    By becoming a new country the Lakota have exponentially exposed themselves to exploitation by another foreign power and retaliation by the United States. Already the speech in the article points to the Lakota seeking formal relations with regional leftist nations.
    Has anyone considered the easiest way for America to recapture Lakota lands would be via Lakota independence and subsequent affiliation with Americas enemies?
    Will the Lakota raise an army? Establish foreign treaties and alliances for mutual defense? Buy weapons from whom and for what purpose? Nothing is as it seems, this is no "power to the people" cry.

    Men who seek conflict will always find it.
    • smittyme, on 12/20/2007, -8/+9They will also be a landlocked nation...what a joke!
      • johndi, on 12/20/2007, -3/+9Tell that to Luxembourg, Switwerland, Austria, and Hungary. I don't think they will agree with you.
        • mythicflux, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Accept those nations aren't surrounded on all sides by a superpower. If the US really wanted to they can cut all economic ties to this nation by outlawing or blocking both air and land based transportation.

          In the end being land locked is not desirable if you don't have multiple neighbors to trade with. Of course maybe their territory crosses or borders Canada in North Dakota.
      • Endeavorer, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Its more like the Vatican, surrounded by one country
    • CheyenneArapaho, on 12/20/2007, -5/+1thats a pretty well thought out plan however by aligning ones self with the "enemy of my enemy" nations can levy more influence. further i believe that it will ultimatley strengthen the ties between native americans and the US considering we can easily benefit from each other moreso than the latter of you mentioned. time to be business smart and not emotional.
      • waynemarcum, on 12/20/2007, -2/+0Greetings;

        How does the Lakota's plight differ from the White?(I would much prefer to call us Americans) It appears to me that both "Nations" have the same social problem's differing only on scale. Is welfare to the white more productive than welfare to the Indian? Does it matter our ethnicity or should we explore in earnest our mutual capabilities that would make us a better united people?
        As to separate Nations, does the Lagata have a better way to secure our "Freedom, peace, and tranquility" as a common people. As Mr. Lincoln noted, we can not be easily separated.
        As for taking lands, did not the generic Indian also wage war, pillage adjacent tribes and take their property? Is that really unique to the "white man"? How do the Lakota take the moral high ground based on history? The basic instinct of the Indian is the same as that of the others as we have a common creator.
        Was it fair that we took their land....No, of course not. But it is past History and can not be redone or changed. "If you stand with one foot in yesterday and the other in tomorrow, you will piss all over today"
        Isn't the real question one that begs a manner in which we can respect each other and find ways to preserve our different heritages but remain United in that we can not be physically separated? Fighting to preserve the Constitution and ensure it's application is still mans best hope in my opinion.

        The very essence of the fact that the spirit that pumps blood through my veins is the same that pumps blood through the Lakota, or any label we seem foolishly bent to separate ourselves from each other. We are, in fact, all citizens of the Universe.
        I grieve for their hardships as a people and fear they are set on course of continued hardship.

        • CheyenneArapaho, on 12/20/2007, -0/+0that my good sir is the truly stimulating debate that we must begin. i enjoyed your recount of history, however, eloquent, your response, i seemed to have missed the other side of the argument. to begin a civil debate i suggest you develop a deeper understanding of this position simply by researching NA vs Americans ( due to your request i happily oblige) and hopefully, we can establish a prosperous trade once again that is/was beneficial. Such as, a decrease in prescription drug cost, non EPA involved development of Natural gas and Oil, a "no capital gains cost" where industry can flourish and labor is cheap, preventing exportation of our precious American Dollar. I anticipate your response but please let us remove ourselves from "an emotional debate" in light or your well thought of complaint. WE, you and I, have the power, with level heads, and communication, just might turn the tides on a issue that is quickly headed towards an all out, uninformed racial debate, i'm certain we can make it work. i'm counting on it.
          • waynemarcum, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0Hi Joe;
            It is not clear to me what the civil debate is. But, I suggest debate without emotion and passion is not heartfelt especially on matters as significant as currently discussed. I am, nonetheless, completely open to be informed and educated as I will readily admit I am often ignorant of the truth of history. It is clear to me that the Native American was not the savage that my generation offered,(I'm 68) but being part of the human race, I know he was and is subject to all the failures and successes attributed to people. My point is that we are brothers regardless of personal feelings. I believe this is true of all habit ant's of earth. As to the rantings of many who portray Lakota as a drunk and weak in nature, I would offer my previous argument, how does this differ from rest of the peoples of this country, or the world for that matter. I do have some knowledge in this area, I have been sober for 15 years now and belong to a self help group. Am I correct in reading that you feel these things irrelevant or not germane to the issue? Your interest lies more in concurrence that a separate NA nation can engage US commerce and solve the problems that our current Congress has thoroughly avoided while attacking each other rather than the problems? If that is your position, I can agree on theory, but disagree on the practicality of it.
            I regret I was unable to get back in a timely manner. I suspect that you are moderate in thought and sincere in purpose. I can respect that.
          • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0Well, we must remember the lessons of the past, or we are doomed to repeat i. Any savagery committed by the Lakota does not exonerate the savagery of the United States of America against the Lakota. However, beyond the past, in the present, the treaty that was until recently in effect, allows them to withdraw, and so they have. I think the United States Constitution is horribly outdated, and does not provide the framework need for the 21st Century because it is too rooted in the problems of the 19th century. Furthermore that Constitution is more tailored to the needs of White Americans than to people like the Lakota. I think this is the smartest move for them.
      • Ap31r0n, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1We get it,



        you are Dadguy's puppet account made for this topic.





        STFU already
    • antifreze, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Anyone else trying to find the secret meaning to the term "ABUHAWN M"?
    • altgeeky1, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1I misread your post for a few minutes... I thought you might have been talking about CANADA!

      But seriously, if they have oil and resources, they can just hire a country to defend them. Hiring mercenaries and mercenary nations is a common practice for many Arab states: Dubai, Kuwait, UAE... even the "mighty" *cough* Saudi Arabia.
      • matu4251, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1You need money to to hire mercenaries...
      • bfellow, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0They are land locked. Like the US Gov would really allow for heavy weapons and mercs to travel across Texas to build an army. And I'm sure aligning themselves with Bolivia and Venezuela really going to help there cause. Back during the first Gulf War Iraq had one of the biggest armies in the world. A 42 day air campaign and 100 hours on the ground crippled them. That was almost 17 years ago! I doubt that Bolivia has built up a sufficient army to protect the might Lakota! I say f*ck up. Send them pox blankets.
        • SonOfUncleSam, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0And yet the United States can't even secure the road to the Airport in Baghdad and stop reporters from being kidnapped! Some super power, the South Vietnamese rice farmers kicked their super power ass. The US hasn't won a major conflict since World War II, and hasn't had a lot of recent success with guerrilla wars recently either.
    • ptoomey, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5They can't easily bring in foreign help either in the form of weapons or soldiers, anything coming in passes through US airspace or over US roads. That's not going to happen on a large scale so I don't see much coming of this. Sounds like a cool idea on the surface but unless they've got some major resources the only thing that will come of it is some press. My guess is that this is all planned to get media leverage to negotiate more aid from the federal government.
  • nimbleprune, on 12/20/2007, -20/+52So does this mean the feds don't have to give them free housing money and infrastructure anymore?...if thats so I am all for it.
    • CheyenneArapaho, on 12/20/2007, -14/+13you mean the free housing and the God awful amounts of money the US spends on poor little indians? sorry my friend but it doesn't exist. i know, i am Native American
      • nimbleprune, on 12/21/2007, -2/+4hmm you must not be filling out the right forms or something
    • halicon5, on 12/20/2007, -3/+16I'm suspecting you don't live on an Indian reservation or anywhere near one, nimbleprune. I would hardly call what is in place on most reservations "infrastructure." I live near several and I would compare them to bad sections of LA, Chicago, or any of our biggest cities, except with far less support from the local or federal governments.
      • jedicurt, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1Don't know... with all the Indian casinos in Oklahoma... they seem to be doing much better now than they were just 10 years ago... but that is in Oklahoma... i can't speak for elsewhere
        • GhostRidr, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Look closely at where that casino money is going. It's not like Indian citizens in Oklahoma are getting checks from the casino payouts. The Cherokee tribe, for instance, is far too large to do such a thing. Most of the money goes back into the casino or into other business ventures.
        • DrCyclops, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2First, not all Indians run casinos. Second, the ones that do don't share the money with their tribes. Indian casinos are just like any other business: they make money for the people who run the business, and nobody else.

          Tribes being made wealthy from gambling is a myth.
      • nimbleprune, on 12/20/2007, -3/+3it was infrastructure when the govt built it for them...it did deteriorate after a while since no one took care of it...and yes I live near a reservation and yes most Native Americans do get money, lots of money...if on a rez they do get free housing then get welfare...free health care...then add reparations onto that. A good friend of mine is native American...got 20,000 for turning 18....been told that check can get as high as 40,000 depending on the area and financial status. It is supposed to help Native Americans start out on themselves. If it was me id spend that money on school...that usually doesn't happen though....oh wait in my state College is free for Native Americans so I guess not.
        • CheyenneArapaho, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1you are a liar sir, plain and simple," your good Indian friend" got nothing other than a form to fill out signing himself up for selective service.
          • nimbleprune, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1if anyone wants to get a federal loan or any money from the govt then yes most people do have to sign up for that....I had to sign up to get a loan for school....they sign up to get free money.....
          • bfellow, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2My wifes brother is adopted. Native American heritage. He gets LOTS of perks. And this isn't some friend. Its my brother in law. Cheyenne wants to hide the perks so that he can get more. I think indians should only get US Gov money if they can prove that they themselves, not a distant cousin was forced off land by a federal official. Last time I check, the US 1st infantry wasn't harassing indians in Nebraska. Move on.
        • yaryarhumphump, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2CheyenneArapaho - your a bit more ill informed I grew up around plenty of Native Americans and that is just how it is.....
          they are handed everything and do nothing with it on the majority.

          Big props to the ones that do however.
    • cyanne63, on 12/25/2007, -0/+0I usually find it is best to educate one's self prior to making strong statements which other's might read. Otherwise, it can make one appear ignorant. You might benefit from trying it yourself:)
  • SiNN4R, on 12/20/2007, -11/+24I am myself an injun and all I have to say is good. Hopefully the US government doesn't begin a campaign of shock and awe.
  • krisjturn, on 12/20/2007, -27/+9This is one of those stories that just make you laugh. Sure, become your own country. Who cares anyway? I just love hearing how the "man" has kept you back. How the "man" has cause you all this grief and pain. Maybe the word "responsibility" should be added to the Lakota vocabulary? Maybe you should start taking "responsibility" for your own issues and stop blaming other people. Did the U.S. government hold you back from moving to another country to "better" yourself. Hey, I hear Canada or Norway is nice. I mean, the Lakota's do have it tough don't they? Government aid, college assistance, medical, etc. Hey, get drunk crash your truck blame the U.S. government and get a new truck? All paid for by who??? The U.S. government. That same government that has held you poor people back for so many years. I am all for the Lakota's to break off from the U.S. We can take that aid we have been paying for and put it to good use. Maybe like putting another head of a president on Mt. Rushmore? I think that is a better way to spend that money anyway? Anyway, I better stop here cause I could go on and on about how stupid, oh I mean how great of an idea this is. You honestly think your lifestyle will improve. GET A LIFE. It isn't the U.S. governments fault you are in your situation. You are to blame for your own actions. Oh, one more thing. Since they want to cancel the treaties we signed with them. They should give up the land they are borrowing. Since it is truly the property of the U.S. government at this point.
    • tba2287, on 12/20/2007, -6/+1They're about as much of a country as Petoria was on Family Guy.
      However, by all means continue, members of the Lakota tribe. The feds need to address the very REAL problems of poverty on the reservations.
    • Tarvok, on 12/20/2007, -6/+3That's like blaming the woman who has the temerity to walk outside her house at night, if you know what I mean.
    • kooft, on 12/20/2007, -4/+11"It isn't the U.S. governments fault you are in your situation. You are to blame for your own actions."

      First off, there's only one US government. Secondly, yes, it _is_ the US government's fault (lurn to reed). They pushed the indigenous people of this continent onto reservations after subjecting them to years of war and genocide.


      "Oh, one more thing. Since they want to cancel the treaties we signed with them. They should give up the land they are borrowing. Since it is truly the property of the U.S. government at this point."

      Sweet. So if I kick you out of your house I can claim it as mine? Hey, all I have to do is sit in it for five minutes then I can tell you to move to Norway and to quit crying about the past. That sounds like a strategy that's sure to decrease human suffering throughout the world.
      • lilrabbit129, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1What keeps someone from doing exactly that? The police. Or to put it another way laws, and enforce of laws by a higher governing body. When there is no higher governing body to keep people in check, then the highest governing bodies can what the situation allows.

        Sucks but its reality. To think that any other nation would do otherwise is pure folly.
      • Ripoff13, on 12/20/2007, -3/+0Genocide?????? If any other 'settlers' would have come instead of us, do you think there would be ANY Natives left???
        You are right on the Government's fault issue: It is our fault that we keep WASTING tax dollars to feed this situation on the rez. $$ doesn't help them. They need an education (try keeping a Native in school until he or she is 18, laughable), and a work ethic.
        • kooft, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2You're justifying the genocide of Native Americans for the fact that someone else _might_ have killed more of them than we did? Are you serious? And you have the nerve to say that _they_ need an education?
    • CheyenneArapaho, on 12/20/2007, -3/+2i liked the word responsibility you used...... i think we will see more in the Lakota's than in the US with time.
    • wenjerall, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2If standing up and flipping the bird to the feds and saying "thanks, but we'll be fine on our own" isn't taking responsibility, please explain what is.

      The cult of worship of the federal government that has existed in this country since it was instituted by force under Lincoln (and as dreamed of by Hamilton) is long overdue for a wake up call. I, for one, salute the Lakota for their stand, and will pray for their success.
  • jghjehcc, on 12/20/2007, -14/+101The primary reason for the short life span of the Lakota is alcoholism and substance abuse and related violence. This is a direct result of government programs intended to help Native Americans and to compensate them for wrongs done to them in the past. In practice, these programs, which essentially give individuals money for nothing as long as they don't have income over a certain (relatively small) amount and give unmarried girls more money for having more babies, take away the incentive to get meaningful jobs, work hard, better oneself, and generally behave as a responsible adu