Planned Congressional Apology to American Indians

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas attached an apology to a bill subsidizing Native American tribes. In it America at large apologizes for wrongs committed against Native nations for misdeeds and depridations of all shapes and colors in years past. Most Indian leaders and activists say they appreciate the gesture but the tone to me indicates they wouldn't oppose a boat load of reparations either. Did the United States government commit harm and acts of ill will against tribes and their members? Absolutely. Were tribal women and children slaughtered during armed conflicts with armed United States soldiers? Indeed they were. Did the natural progression of humankind including western expansion in the United States and its territories have a negative effect on the nomadic and hunting culture of the American Indian? It no doubt did.

Okay, that is as much boo-hooing as I can muster. First and foremost, the Native nations that we support with taxpayer dollars did not spring from the ethos as activists and sympathizers would have you believe. They are not indigenous to the parcels of Earth they now reside on. They had to come here just like everybody else did. What you say? Oh, they were here FIRST? That's like saying I built my house on this block first so no else can build now because I'm indigenous to this piece of land. Hogsnickers.

What about the modern reservations themselves? They are a blight on the countryside and signs of the oppression of an earlier and far less advanced time. They are filthy and the elected leaders touting their tribal sovreignty fail in managing the economic and social issues of their Indian culture. The reservation system is a disaster. Why don't we cut off the taxpayer money and disband reservations altogether? Yeah we'd be breaking a treaty or two but for goodness sake the current system is unarguably broken. Why couldn't we focus from the beginning on assimilating Indian culture into modern America thus allowing Indians to reap the rewards of a free market capitalistic society? It worked with immigrants from Italy, Germany, and Ireland. You've heard "out of many one." If anything, subsidizing Indian life is proof positive that entitlement programs are destined to fail and promoting a culture of victimization and dependence further dooms the future for these people and generations of their children.

Okay, bad old America did bad things during conflicts especially during westard expansion in the mid to late 1800's. But were the atrocities any more harmful than innocent deaths in any conflict in any time period? How about the 3000 innocent lives lost on September 11, 2001. Was that loss of life in one day more or less tragic than what we're analyzing here? How many innocent victims were killed and labeled as collateral damage in World War One or World War Two? Just how mean and cruel was the American government when viewed objectively? Why don't you do a little research and see just how friendly and cordial the Sioux tribes were in dealing with other tribes in other geographic locations on this continent. How about the gentle persuasion of the Blackfeet when it came to interactions with other tribes? These tribes gained power, hunting territory, and assets (stolen horses for one) through absolute and vicious murder, theft, and enslavement. There wasn't much need for retail shops in this enterprise unless you sprung for a hatchet and arrow shop. They weren't being attacked but rather provoking attacks to propel themselves to absolute dominance within any area a chieftain saw fit. Do Native Americans now believe that the nomadic hunters in the 1800's possessed the divine right to slow the progression of humankind and its science, culture, and advancements from populating the world? Bad is bad but it swings both ways baby, remember that.

What about the notion that Native Americans are the true and most natural environmentalists of all time? Certainly a modern assessment of this claim is indisputably proven to be false. What about during nomadic times? There is plenty of stunning evidence to suggest that tribal encampments were moved only after polluting one area until it became uninhabitable and then moving to the next and continuing the pattern. You don't like what I'm saying? Take a drive sometime and make sure you pay enough attention to look out the window as you're passing through. The truth hurts but denying it will never fix anything.

In regards to this Congressional apology Steve Ortiz, tribal chairman of the Prairie Band Potowatomi Nation in northeast Kansas called the apology "a great gesture" but said he doesn't want the Congress to lose sight of the more practical needs of American Indians. "In the end, it's Congress' committment to helping the Native nations with healthcare, education, housing, and infrastructure. That's what counts," Ortiz said. Well Steve, how about helping yourselves? Why don't you promote the dismantling of entitlement driven reservation systems and focusing on promoting your people as capable components of American society rather than victims living with ghosts of hurts committed 150 years ago? In claiming Indian healthcare could be better there are those of us who have no healthcare at all and I certainly don't expect the government to pick up the tab. The only help you can hope for is helping yourself out of a hole created by being all too eager to suckle from the teat of America's coffers and failed entitlements. Invest in your children, stop the social chaos of unwed fatherless pregnancies on the reservations, and give your people the hope that the best way to flourish is to break self-imposed bonds and trek beyond the status quo.

2008 Presidential Election Fatigue,,,,,Already.

DEMOLIBS:

Let us review for posterity shall we? The 2008 election is nearly two years away and the deluge begins. Keep reading, I'll make fun of some of the Republican candidates too. But as is my personal preference and tradition, I have to start with the Demolibs and I will make it trickle down (Reagan pun) from there.

As Gomer Pyle would say, "Surprise, surprise, surprise", Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her intention to seek the nomination for the White House via a warm and friendly fireside chat that found its way to her website. Doesn't she exude warmth and compassion? Yuck! It is kind of like letting a wolverine into your living room and asking it not to tear up the furniture or soil the carpet. Warmth and Hillary Clinton are mutually exclusive philosophical tenets. Every time I see her speak I medicate myself to control the impending autonomic gag reflex that inevitably ensues. She in no way shares an atom of the political prowess or magical elocution possessed by her morally corrupt husband. Let us agree, Bill Clinton could sell a Quran to a Methodist minister. She does share the Pelosian ability that allows her political flag to stiffen into whatever the current Beltway wind may be. Do not let her attempt to cuddle with you distract you from who Hillary Clinton is. She is about two hundred yards further left than Billy boy. This is a woman that supported legislation for late term and partial birth abortion until even the most disgusting elements in the child murder field became fidgety with the issue. Once the heat escalated, she backed away and turned the other cheek. Apparently she has no strength of conviction and that impunes any chances of sustaining integrity in the office of President. She promotes big government, high taxes, and income redistribution utilizing taxpayer dollars to fund entitlements including government run health care. Oh yeah, although her public tune may change she apparently maintains the personal opinion that womb vacuuming is tolerable.

John Edwards is really missing the boat. Why is this guy muddling about in politics instead of starring opposite Julia Roberts in Hollywood blockbusters? I forgot. He cares about you. He now dedicates his life to helping you and all the victims of misfortune get a fair shake. I mean he certainly has the background for it doesn't he? He made several lifetime fortunes suing corporations for their nastiness and latent harm committed against society at large. Oh yeah, a convenient by-product of such activity made him stinking rich. No problem there, I encourage capitalism. It just seems to me that the pot always calls the kettle black. Edwards claims there are two Americas, the haves and the have nots. Isn't it a little creepy that Edwards clamors and denigrates the very system that made him wealthy from the lanai of his multi-million dollar palatial estate? A high powered lawyer and politician that claims to understand and feel the pain of the common man. Oh yeah, he grew up as a less fortunate kid. Instead of hailing America as the place where dreams come true, he wants to change it like all liberals do by punishing those that achieve success and taking their earned money through government control and redistributing it to many who could care less.

Bill Richardson is the governor of New Mexico and a former Clinton cabinet member. He is pro environment which in liberal terms equates to the cessation of economic activity and a return to a foraging and agrarian economy like the Hopi's utilized. He is pro-amnesty and would probably pay good government money for illegal immigrants to storm the country. I do not like this guy.

Barack Obama, the African American rock star. He has no experience at all. He probably still gets lost in Washington between his parking spot and the Capitol building. He is photogenic and well spoken. If that is where we set the bar for electing Presidents, why not really change up the system? If experience, including life experience no longer fits into the equation, let's nominate George Clooney and perhaps a cartoon character like Bugs Bunny to serve as the vice presidential nominee. Bugs never got caught once by the coyote or the martian or Yosemite Sam. That ability could prove invaluable in waging a war against global terrorism.

Evan Bayh, don't know him. Tom Vilsack, don't know him. Al Gore's global warming apparently cooked his cranium and he carries far too much Clintonian baggage anyway. Besides, every time he talks he proves to me that he really is an android from a Lucas film.

REPUBLICRATS:

Sam Brownback, U.S. Senator from Kansas, is probably the best choice for us neocons unless too many skeletons fall out of his closet. He supports small government, low taxes, anti-gay legislation, and stands against abortion. I hope against hope his camp can generate some steam. I hate to contemplate the political reality that dictates him moving to the center during the course of a campaign.

John McCain is clearly a front-runner. I like his temper but he seems unstable at times and almost flashbacky. McCain has the foreign policy experience, probably hates radical Muslims, and could easily blow back Nancy Pelosi's stiff hairdo. McCain does not receive support from me yet because he stands against the basic roots of problems in our country. He is pro-amnesty, pro-gay, and wishy washy on Christian principles that have guided this country for years. He may have more of an uphill battle than he thinks.

Mitt Romney is the sleeper Republican. He has made progress in Massachusetts, yes MA. He is working on health care, opposes Rosie O' Donnellian behavior, and seems fairly tough on military issues. If he is a fiscal conservative, he deserves some attention. I can't write more because he hasn't really stepped into the spotlight so to speak.

Rudy Giuliani deserves some attention because of his control of New York after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The praise stops there. Giuliani will not win the primary unless Republican voters sniff thousands of gallons of glue the night before the primary election. Giuliani is a closet Clintonite. He is pro-gay, pro-choice, and therefore anti-morality. Being a fiscal conservative and tough on terrorism doesn't cut it if you abandon the issues so important to the moral fabric of a country and the stewards of the conservative movement.

At any rate, take the candidates and their words with a grain of salt. Let's elect someone not on what they say but on what they've done in their past public service and private lives.