Government To Spend 2 Billion Buying Land And Giving It Back To Indian Tribes

[Locutus]

via zip

Unreal: Government To Spend 2 Billion Buying Land And Giving It Back To Indian Tribes



Meanwhile we are told we are having to gut military to its lowest levels since World War 2, and the Administration is touting the horrors of a sequestration that they themselves created.

Are those concerned happy with this arrangement? No, they already see the huge boondoggle coming and are fighting over their piece of the pie. Not to mention those who will be forced off their land and made to sell.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 (UPI) — The U.S. government is gearing up to spend nearly $2 billion on 10 million acres of land that will in turn be given back to Native American tribes.

The plan entails buying back reservation land from willing sellers and distributing that land among 150 tribes across the nation, the McClatchy Newspapers reported Sunday.

Congress agreed to the buyback in 2010 to settle a lawsuit.

“We can improve Indian Country if people will go along with this program and sell their interests back to their tribes,” Kevin Washburn, the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, said in an interview.

Meanwhile, tribe leaders say 45 percent of the land will go to just seven tribes, while other tribes will have to fight over the rest.

“We’re all going to be fighting for scraps,” said Chief James Allan of Idaho’s Coeur d’Alene Tribe
And, many believe that property owners are expected to be reluctant sellers.

“This is a modern day retaking of the land and, given the historical implications of that, they don’t want to relive it,” said Les Riding-In, assistant dean and director of graduate studies at the University of Texas-Arlington and a member of the Comanche Tribe. “It’s reminiscent of how the government took the land back when colonization was happening.”
​

 

[skookumchuck]

And of course nobody will notice that there are a few more rich natives and a thousand more starving. Same old BS, keep the majority stupid and drunk to make a few look good.

 

[petros]

“We can improve Indian Country if people will go along with this program and sell their interests back to their tribes,”

And that is going to happen? LMFAO!

 

[B00Mer]

Remember Van Jones, Obama's COMMUNIST Green Czar saying "Give them the wealth, give them the wealth." This is COMMUNIST BARACK OBAMA practicing his Marxist Ideology and redistributing the wealth.

http://www.theolympian.com/2013/08/04/2655816/us-gears-up-for-huge-difficult.html#storylink=cpy​

 

[Cliffy]

One of the ways the US (and Canada) broke treaties as by taking away reservation land to give to white settlers. I can see that it is a nice gesture, but the reality is that a few government approved chiefs and councils will gain from this while the rank and file will be stuck where they have always been. The US has not honoured one treaty and I doubt Canada has a much better record. But, as usual, white folk seem to think they know what's best for them pesky injuns.

 

[petros]

Who does know what's best for the pesky injuns? The injuns don't.

 

[B00Mer]

Who does know what's best for the pesky injuns? The injuns don't.

That's Racist calling Wagon Burners - injuns.

 

[petros]

These days they burn station wagons.

 

[Machjo]

Would it not be cheaper to simply allow land-owners who wish to do so to fall under Indian jurisdiction? The owner would still keep his land but instead of paying local city taxes, he'd then pay taxes to the local Indian nation. Of course the city would then have no obligation towards him ind instead it would be the Indian nation that would be responsible for him. He would no longer get to vote in municipal elections, but the Indian Nation would consider his rights within their community.

This could even be extended to the provincial/state level.

At least this way there is no buying or selling of land, but rather merely a reorganization of jurisdiction. Would that not be cheaper?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Remember Van Jones, Obama's COMMUNIST Green Czar saying "Give them the wealth, give them the wealth." This is COMMUNIST BARACK OBAMA practicing his Marxist Ideology and redistributing the wealth.

Reds under the bed, cher?


The GOP flips the script on Obama

By Dana Milbank

Republicans need to make up their minds: Is President Obama a socialist or a corporate stooge?

“The president claims his economic agenda is for the middle class. But it’s actually for the well-connected,” Paul Ryan, the GOP’s 2012 vice presidential nominee, wrote this week in USA Today, rejecting Obama’s latest proposal for a corporate tax cut. “There’s no doubt that it works well for them. But for the rest of us, it’s not working at all.”

Ryan, in his brief commentary, protested that Obama is “interested in tax reform for corporations — but not for families or small business.” He further accused Obama of implementing health-care and regulatory policies that favor big businesses and big banks.

That’s rich.

Ryan, after all, is the guy who just a year ago accused Obama of “sowing social unrest and class resentment,” of supporting “a government-run economy” and of “denigrating people who are successful.” He has charged the president with leading the nation toward “a cradle-to-grave, European-style social welfare state.”

Republican lawmakers seem to think that Americans have short memories and lack Internet connections, for their latest line of attack — that Obama’s health-care and tax policies favor the corporate elite — directly contradicts their previous allegation that Obama was waging “class warfare” with “socialist” policies attacking these very same corporate elites.

“Why is it,” Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.) asked at a Ways and Means Committee hearing last month, “that under this White House, Warren Buffett gets a break from Obamacare, but Joe Six-Pack, the single mom working at the local restaurant, they don’t get any kind of break?”

The theme was picked up Wednesday by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who, rather than crediting Obama for offering to cut the corporate tax rate, complained that Obama’s “scheme” would “actually require small businesses to pay higher tax rates than big companies.”

So Obama’s that rare socialist who is in bed with big business? Then again, the point of the Republicans’ critique of Obama isn’t to be logical; it’s to be critical — relentlessly, if not rationally.
Boehner, asked at a news conference this week about Obama’s series of speeches on the economy, replied: “If I had poll numbers as low as his, I’d probably be out doing the same thing if I were him.” Obama’s job-approval rating is 46 percent. Boehner’s is just over half that.

The indecision over whether Obama is a socialist or a plutocrat is but one of the contradictory critiques his opponents have yet to resolve. They also haven’t determined whether he’s a tyrant or a weakling, arrogant or apologetic. It all suggests the opposition is based less on principle than on reflex.
“We have a president that’s a socialist,” Texas Gov. Rick Perry said at one of the 2012 Republican presidential debates, disregarding both nuance and grammar.

But now, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is one of several Republicans complaining that Obama is unfairly boosting corporations by extending the deadline for them to comply with Obamacare. “We have big business being thrown a big bone,” he said on the Senate floor this week. “This is not fair.”
Likewise, Boehner says, “the president is not leading,” a charge echoed by other prominent Republicans. Mitt Romney called Obama a “weak president,” and Newt Gingrich, during the 2012 campaign, called Obama “so weak that he makes Jimmy Carter look strong.”

That should come as a relief to Republicans, who spent much of 2010 calling Obama a tyrant. Many of them still do. Darrell Issa (Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, says Obama is guilty of “imperial behavior” and “abuse of power.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) asserts that Obama is “someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch.” And Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) still prefers to think of Obama as “a tyrannical despot.”

If you’re going to be a despot, you might as well be a tyrannical one.

The Republican lawmakers may be so muddled because their thought leaders can’t agree on the proper line of attack. Karl Rove believes Obama is a “political thug,” Rush Limbaugh thinks the president is a “street thug,” and Grover Norquist concurs that Obama acts as if “someone made him king.” But Sean Hannity prefers to think of him as “weak.”

The confusion grew so intense during Obama’s intervention in Libya that some Republicans contradicted their own critiques in the span of days. Gingrich, for example, demanded in early March 2011 that the United States should “exercise a no-fly zone this evening.” Two weeks later, after Obama took the action that would bring down Moammar Gaddafi, Gingrich said, “I would not have intervened.”
It was a brave stand against the cruel tyranny of consistency.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...51a724-fafa-11e2-9bde-7ddaa186b751_story.html

 

[The Old Medic]

In fact, the vast majority of Indian Tribes and Bands in the USA are quite responsible. They share revenues with all tribal members.

Unlike in Canada, Indian Tribes are considered to be Sovereign Nations in the US. Their tribal lands are not subject to any state laws at all, on their reservation lands. They ARE subject to Federal laws, but never state ones.

Each Tribe or Band has its own rules on who is, or who is not, a member. There is no such thing as a "Non-Status" Indian in the USA.

In Canada, the Federal Government determines who is, and who is not, an Indian. They also determine if you are a "Status" or "Non-Status" person. Native peoples have nothing even remotely similar to the rights that they have in the USA.

Many, many Indian tribes lost lands that they were guaranteed by Treaties. Now, the US Government is finally starting to set things right, by purchasing land to give back to the Native peoples.

This s LONG overdue.

 

[Machjo]

In fact, the vast majority of Indian Tribes and Bands in the USA are quite responsible. They share revenues with all tribal members.

Unlike in Canada, Indian Tribes are considered to be Sovereign Nations in the US. Their tribal lands are not subject to any state laws at all, on their reservation lands. They ARE subject to Federal laws, but never state ones.

Each Tribe or Band has its own rules on who is, or who is not, a member. There is no such thing as a "Non-Status" Indian in the USA.

In Canada, the Federal Government determines who is, and who is not, an Indian. They also determine if you are a "Status" or "Non-Status" person. Native peoples have nothing even remotely similar to the rights that they have in the USA.

Many, many Indian tribes lost lands that they were guaranteed by Treaties. Now, the US Government is finally starting to set things right, by purchasing land to give back to the Native peoples.

This s LONG overdue.

So the US treats its indigenous peoples fare better than Canada does its then if this is correct.

 

[petros]

So the US treats its indigenous peoples fare better than Canada does its then if this is correct.

That's funny.

 

[damngrumpy]

Marxist Obama, good God give me a break, if this were Canada Obama
would be a conservative and most people don't realize that because they
are too busy believing their own propaganda.
Indian lands was carved off in both the US and Canada over time once the
treaties were signed. Its time to meet responsibility and compensate those
who lost property.
A classic case in the Okanagan is the Penticton Airport. That landing strip
was taken during WWII with the promise from government it would be
returned when the government didn't need it anymore. The government
gave the Penticton Regional Airport to the city the Indians be dammed.
American policy on medicare, and a host of other issues even by the Obama
administration is still quite conservative when compared to other countries.
Hysterical ranting about Communism is nonsense, Communism is dead even
in China replace by Fascism we fought against that less than a century ago
and now we do business with fascists. in China.
Two billion in terms of US money for the government is pocket change.

 

[petros]

Where else is there to land a plane in Penticton? None. So I guess it's still needed huh?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Right-wingers had it imbedded in their earliest development that "communist" means "bad." They have no idea what the word means.

 

[petros]

Right-wingers had it imbedded in their earliest development that "communist" means "bad." They have no idea what the word means.

Or how hard they fight to keep it alive.

 

[Spade]

Comrades, please, no bickering!

 

[petros]

Shut up and drink your horilka.

 

[gerryh]

Each Tribe or Band has its own rules on who is, or who is not, a member. There is no such thing as a "Non-Status" Indian in the USA.

yup, and for some, all that is needed to prove is 1/8 blood and you get your status. I've also heard, but haven't confirmed, status can be bought from some bands.