It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conservative group: Obama will give ‘entire land mass’ of the US to ‘the Indians’

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
www.rawstory.com...


Stop us if you've heard this one: President Barack Obama wants to return the entire land mass of the United States of America to Native American tribes.
______________________________________________________________________________
They were reacting to a Thursday announcement by President Obama, that the US would sign a non-binding United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, which has been endorsed by 145 countries.

The declaration states that "indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired," and nations "shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources."


RELATED NEWS ARTICLES

www.washingtontimes.com...
www.voanews.com...
www.boston.com...

The Document

The fear is that when signing this non-binding resolution the United States under President Obama will be handing back all of the land and power to the Native American tribes. Thus the country would be run strictly by these Native American chiefs and tribal leaders.

So what would happen then? Would Obama become head ‘chief’? Would we have a new leader over these lands who would be required to be a Native American?

Well I very strongly doubt any of that will even remotely come to fruition in any form other than the radical mind of an extreme Conservative whack-job. What I can hope for out of this resolution is further self-determination, independence, and power handed back to the Native Americans for their own lands. Maybe more lands given to them and a greater expansion of rights, that would be great for the Native Americans and for human rights.

However I do see some hesitation in supporting this resolution for the simple fact that the international elite are always trying to push an agenda using the UN. So what could be in this that might be conspiratorial? Could their dream of environmentalism be pushed through giving more power back to the Natives? Could their hopes of destroying the Western civilization be speeded up through this resolution?

There could be a conspiracy in this, however I doubt it is anything too serious.
edit on 12/22/2010 by Misoir because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   

However I do see some hesitation in supporting this resolution for the simple fact that the international elite are always trying to push an agenda using the UN. So what could be in this that might be conspiratorial? Could their dream of environmentalism be pushed through giving more power back to the Natives? Could their hopes of destroying the Western civilization be speeded up through this resolution?



I think you may have gotten this backwards. If the lands go over to the natives, look for the corporations to offer them big time money to go in and exploit the natural resources on that land. The always cash-strapped Native Americans will take the deals to get back on their feet after centuries of US oppression and the corporations will be able to rape the land that is no longer under US environmental protection.

Its always about making more money for the corporations, that is the true agenda of the NWO insiders.

Of course that's just my wild speculation on this issue, I could be wrong.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
The fear is that when signing this non-binding resolution into law the United States under President Obama will be handing back all of the land and power to the Native American tribes. Thus the country would be run strictly by these Native American chiefs and tribal leaders.


Who's fear? The ignorant? it's a non-binding resolution. Seems harmless to me.

On non-binding resolutions:


A non-binding resolution is a statement passed by a governing body that cannot be converted into legislation. It stands as a confirmation of the current position of the branch of government on a particular issue.



Often, a non-binding resolution is used as a way to ensure the minority opinion is heard. If a motion or law cannot gain enough support within the legislative body to be passed, a non-binding resolution can at least show that there were those in favor of the concept. It may also be used to support concepts where a law is unnecessary


www.wisegeek.com...
edit on 22-12-2010 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I bet this is more of a symbolic gesture. There is no way all land can be handed over legally like that.

I think it's clever way of saying; "This land is your land, this land is my land... now get the heck out of here!"



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
He is just returning some stolen property..

2nd line



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
That's freaking brilliant.
He's handing over all of the debt ridden cities and other properties into the hands of indians.

It's an evil move. I like it.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
This does seem to be more of a diplomatic gesture on the U.N.'s part. But even if it meant that the "elite" were giving all of the world's lands over to the original inhabitants...would that really be a bad thing?

I'm sure someone could argue economic collapse, lack of experience in government/business, etc.. But we're already in the middle of a worldwide (imo orchestrated) economic collapse and as far as lack of experience in govt. and politics and business, would that really be a bad thing?

SO I don't think anything is going to come of this, but even if it did, I think it would be pretty amazing.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
The land your tribe walked over doesn't really count.

It is the land that your tribe tended to stay in for periods of time. Where you "summered" or "wintered" would.

Most of the world, peoples were not travelling about in the vast wandering way that some of the tribes of North and South America and Australia were. 145 countries don't have the same issue, and in most of those places the idea of "native" is rather less problematic. They signed it, and they ARE the natives. Or they drove the natives out, or bred them in hundreds to thousands of years ago.

The UN might want to be VERY careful with these pieces of legislation. The long term effects might not be apparent currently.

If I move my family to our "ancestral" area (Ireland/Scotland/England/Germany/France) do I have "native" rights? Do I get an automatic vote based on that? A plot of land?

If you live in an area which is primarily inhabited by the "natives" of that area, do they get to claim that immigrants shouldn't be allowed to buy property as it infringes on their "ancestral rights?"

Not well thought out.


edit on 2010/12/22 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


I was only summarizing the viewpoint of the Conservative who holds those fears, they are not my fears.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


This isn't a "Law" though ... it's a "Treaty" aka "Guidelines" .. A Law would start in either the House or Senate.



So assuming that was even the point of this "Treaty" it still would have no effect unless we made a "Law" to coincide with said treaty ..

The treaty is basically saying don't abuse natives. If, after dozens of generations they really are "Native" .. And then defining whether or not "Native" means literally the first people in a specific area.. or the last known occupier of said territory.. because Native Americans were only Native to Europeans, but were not in fact "Native" to themselves, and the nations and people before them would have been considered "Native" .. unless we are talking strictly racial, then all of Siberia, China, Japan, Islanders, SE Asian etc etc etc have a natural claim to all us land because "Natives" are Asian..

All so very complicated..



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


I was only summarizing the viewpoint of the Conservative who holds those fears, they are not my fears.


I didn't figure those were your fears...Only pointing out that it is ignorant to have such fears revolving around a non-binding resolution. Hopefully you didn't take offense, as that was not my intent.




posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Good catch on the whole 'law' thing. I removed that because this would never become law, atleast not to my knowledge.




posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
This is awesome news!
When does he sign it over?

I'll be taking off the rest of the day now to go shopping for my new feather hat.
edit on 22-12-2010 by Alethea because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons


If I move my family to our "ancestral" area (Ireland/Scotland/England/Germany/France) do I have "native" rights? Do I get an automatic vote based on that?



If you had an Irish-born Grandparent you can become a citizen. And as an Irish citizen you would be free to live and work in any member country of the EU..... Scotland/England/Germany/France etc.

No need for residence or work permits.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Oh - Bryan Fischer of the AFA said it. He's a nutjob.

I'm going to say this as simple as I can. I lean right on some issues - but I also lean left on some. Overall I lean right more than left so that probably makes me a conservative in the eyes of some folks and I'm ok with that.

So, since I lean right I'll say that Bryan Fischer is a nutjob. I've said it threads here before and I'll say it again. He's the same whacko that advocated killing all the grizzly bears in Yellowstone, said that homosexuals gave us Hitler, etc. I honestly can't think of anyone he speaks for other than other extremists - he's just a nut that for reasons beyond me somehow wound up with a soapbox. To equate him with all conservatives would be like equating Westbrough with all Baptists, Code Pink with all Democrats, etc..

The resolution is non-binding bit of feel good fluff. As a country the US (and many others ) have treated their indigenous populations very badly over the years. This isn't going to give them land back and I honestly doubt it will improve much of anything for them.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by UmbraSumus

Originally posted by Aeons


If I move my family to our "ancestral" area (Ireland/Scotland/England/Germany/France) do I have "native" rights? Do I get an automatic vote based on that?



If you had an Irish-born Grandparent you can become a citizen. And as an Irish citizen you would be free to live and work in any member country of the EU..... Scotland/England/Germany/France etc.

No need for residence or work permits.


Well the original legislation did not include females, only males. And my last Irish born ancestor is my Gr-Great Grandfather.

And he was put on a boat and sent over here as an orphan so that some nice Irish catholic bishop could bugger him apparently.

Since the legislation didn't account for females, my last female Irish born ancestor was my Great Grandmother. Whose family is quite well-to-do over there, and wish that we didn't exist.

How many generations is it until one is considered "native" to an area? My longest lines appear to be in North America for 10 geneartions.
edit on 2010/12/22 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Here in Australia there are a lot of issues with Native land, it is still pretty big and empty of development. It is refreshing to even hear that such a thing would be considered. Need some time for council.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Gotta love the way people jumped on this. They'll use anything against Obama. I doubt they're complaining about the long-term detention of prisoners at Gitmo, which in my opinion, is far more important at this point.

I don't want the land that my ancestors lived on. It's full of second homes and subdivisions.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I'd rather the Native Americans run this place.

We'd have more freedom than we do today.

Too bad it's a non binding resolution.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   
He might give them the land back.....BUT he still wouldn't let them ship cheap cigarettes to the rest of us.

Seriously, tho, considering the amount of debt Obama has run up in the 23 months he has been in office and the crazy health care bill and the net neutrality bill and his insane Dream Act ideas, the Tribal Elders could not possibly do a worse job.

Nor would they want to take on all that debt and the wars.

I do like the way the tribes discipline their juvenile delinquents by sending them off into the wilderness alone to learn how to fend for themselves and to grow up a bit.

Also like the idea of a council of elders who advise the head man. Right now we seem to have a Council of Crazies advising Obama and he agrees with them. We are headed into bankruptcy if the new Congress does not take charge of some things and start eliminating some federal agencies and bureaus and doing something about the wasted dollars in all of them.

The UN proposal is a nice idea but the logging companies and ranchers are still going to be tearing down the Amazon rain forests and chasing those people out. Our own North American tribes will still have far too many living in terrible poverty.

I have often wondered why our companies with phone centers in India don't offer to build those phone centers right here on our own "Indian" reservations and give the tribes some jobs. Same for insurance companies who send a lot of their claims work outside the USA.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join