It is currently Sat Sep 20, 2014 7:02 am


Post a new topicPost a reply Page 8 of 26   [ 510 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 26  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: A state of war between Crow Creek Dakotah Oyate and the US
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:38 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:58 am
Posts: 464
Location: Crow Creek, Dakota Territory
I pulled this information directly from the United Nations website. Seems to me much of this happens everyday in the united states but i don't see no blue helmets in this country to help those who are the victims of the crimes of genocide, aggression and crimes against humanity.

The crime of genocide

Support for the inclusion of the crime of genocide is virtually universal. Establishing an international criminal court where such crimes could be tried is felt by many to be an important reason for establishing the Court. Punishing the crime of genocide has been on the agenda of the United Nations since its formation.

Although crimes qualifying as genocide have been perpetrated since the earliest history of humankind, the term "genocide" is relatively new. It is said to combine the Greek genos, which means race or tribe, and the Latin cide, which means killing, and was coined to describe the Nazi activity in occupied Europe. Following the extermination of many Jews and members of other groups deemed undesirable by the Nazis in the Second World War, the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal recognized "persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds" as one of two categories of crimes against humanity, and established the principle of individual criminal responsibility for such crimes. As early as 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed the principles of international law recognized by the Charter and Judgment of the Nürnberg Tribunal (the Nürnberg principles). In 1948, it adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which defined genocide and proclaimed it a crime against international law, "whether committed in time of peace or in time of war". It was in the resolution adopting that Convention that the United Nations General Assembly first considered the establishment of an international criminal court. The General Assembly recognized that there would be an increasing need for an international judicial organ to try "certain crimes" under international law.

There is broad agreement to use the wording of the Genocide Convention in the draft statute for the Court. Article 5 of the draft statute has been taken directly from the Convention:

". . . Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

killing members of the group;

causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The following acts shall be punishable:
genocide;

conspiracy to commit genocide;

direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

attempt to commit genocide;

complicity in genocide."


Crimes against humanity

The definition of crimes against humanity in article 5 of the draft statute is based on the Nürnberg Charter and takes into account subsequent developments of international law, particularly relating to the recent ad hoc international criminal tribunals. Proposals for the definition of crimes against humanity include acts which would constitute such a crime when committed in a widespread and/or systematic manner, and/or on a massive scale, and/or on specified grounds.

The definition of crimes against humanity contained in the Nürnberg Charter included the requirement that the prohibited acts be committed in connection with crimes against peace or war crimes. A decision has yet to be made as to whether the definition of crimes against humanity contained in the Statute will also include such acts when committed in peacetime. In this regard, the Yugoslavia Tribunal stated, "It is by now a settled rule of customary international law that crimes against humanity do not require a connection to international armed conflict."

According to the draft statute, the definition of this crime would include the following prohibited acts:

murder;

extermination;

enslavement;

deportation or forcible transfer of population;

torture;

rape or other sexual abuse of comparable gravity, or enforced prostitution;

persecution against a group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural or religious (and possibly gender) grounds;

enforced disappearance of persons;

other inhumane acts causing serious injury to body or to mental or physical health;

detention, imprisonment or deprivation of liberty in violation of international law.
In the draft statute, extermination is defined as including the infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population.

Torture may be defined as it is in the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984, which requires that the acts be committed by a public official. Or torture may be defined as the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, but excluding pain and suffering arising only from lawful sanctions.

The increasing number of forced disappearances of persons throughout the world prompted the United Nations General Assembly to adopt, in 1992, the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Under the Declaration, the term enforced disappearance also covers situations when persons are arrested, detained or abducted against their will by or with the approval of a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that abduction has taken place and the denial of information on the fate of those abducted, thereby placing them outside the protection of the law.

The crime of aggression

There is support for the inclusion of the crime of aggression in the Court's jurisdiction, and there is opposition. Part of the debate centers on finding an acceptable definition of the crime of aggression. While arguments to include aggression centre on its extreme gravity and international repercussions, arguments against its inclusion centre on the lack of a sufficiently precise definition. Another part of the debate focused on the role of the Security Council in this regard. Pursuant to Article 39 of the UN Charter, the Security Council "shall determine" the existence of an "act of aggression". Consequently, the issue is inseparably linked to the role of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security. It has been a difficult task to find an acceptable way to reflect in a balanced manner the responsibility of the Security Council, on the one hand, and the judicial independence of the Court, on the other.

The Nürnberg Tribunal condemned a war of aggression in the strongest terms: "To initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." It held individuals accountable for "crimes against peace", defined as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing...." When the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed the Nürnberg principles in 1946, it affirmed the principle of individual accountability for such crimes.

Early efforts in the United Nations to create an international criminal court were set aside while the international community set out to define aggression. In 1974, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a definition of aggression. It defined aggression as necessarily being the act of a State, and described the specific actions of one State against another which constitute aggression. In its work on the draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, the United Nations International Law Commission, echoing the Nürnberg Tribunal, also concluded that individuals could be held accountable for acts of aggression. The Commission indicated the specific conduct for which individuals could be held accountable -- initiating, planning, preparing or waging aggression -- and that only those individuals in positions of leadership who order or actively participate in the acts could incur responsibility. Its definition focused on individual accountability rather than on the rule of international law which prohibits aggression by a State.

The difficulty, according to some, lies in framing a workable definition of aggression which would apply to a wide range of situations. The definition must be precise enough for individuals to know what acts are prohibited; and it must be general enough to cover a wide variety of acts which may occur in the future, and which may not yet have been conceived of. It must also describe the magnitude of the violation of the prohibition of the use of force contained in Article 2 of the UN Charter that would constitute the crime of aggression for which individuals may be held responsible and punished.

Some States are of the view that excluding aggression would leave a significant gap in the Court's jurisdiction. Another reason supporting its inclusion is also one of the strongest reasons put forward for creating the Court: to break the cycle of impunity. To hold individuals accountable for war crimes or crimes against humanity while granting impunity to the architects of the conflict in which those crimes occurred is not justifiable. Others also hope that holding individuals responsible for the crime of aggression will act as a deterrent, and that by deterring an aggressor from beginning a conflict that may lead to a conflagration, the attendant war crimes and crimes against humanity might therefore also be prevented. Some also believe that it would be retrogressive to adopt a statute that does not include the crime of aggression 50 years after Nürnberg recognized such conduct as an international crime.

Some of those seeking a way to include aggression have proposed lessening the need for a definition by allowing the determination of an act of aggression to rest with the Security Council. The argument is, if States commit aggression for which individuals can be held accountable, then the Security Council should determine whether an act of aggression has been committed by a State and the Court should determine whether an individual was responsible for that act. This proposal elicits a concern regarding Security Council involvement which is also heard in other contexts: linking the work of the Court to the Security Council may lead to politicization of the Court. Some States are concerned regarding any connection between the Security Council and the Court.

The draft statute contains two options concerning the definition of aggression. One possible definition lists the specific acts for which an individual in a position of responsibility could be held accountable for aggression. The following acts would constitute the crime of aggression under this definition: planning, preparing, ordering, initiating, or carrying out an armed attack, or the use of force, or a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties or agreements, by a State, against the territorial integrity of another State, against the provisions in the UN Charter.

A second possible definition provides a list of acts constituting aggression, which includes the following:

invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or military occupation, or annexation of territory by the use of force

bombardment by armed forces of a State against the territory of another State

the blockade of ports or coasts of a State

the use of armed forces of a State which are within the territory of another State in violation of the terms of an agreement between those States

a State allowing its territory to be used by another State for an act of aggression against a third State

a State sending armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries to carry out grave acts of armed force against another State
Consideration of the definition of aggression will continue at the Conference in Rome.

_________________
Damakotah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A state of war between Crow Creek Dakotah Oyate and the US
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:09 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:02 am
Posts: 58
Location: Zeeland, North Dakota
ghostwarrior wrote:
I pulled this information directly from the United Nations website. Seems to me much of this happens everyday in the united states but i don't see no blue helmets in this country to help those who are the victims of the crimes of genocide, aggression and crimes against humanity.

The crime of genocide

Support for the inclusion of the crime of genocide is virtually universal. Establishing an international criminal court where such crimes could be tried is felt by many to be an important reason for establishing the Court. Punishing the crime of genocide has been on the agenda of the United Nations since its formation.

Although crimes qualifying as genocide have been perpetrated since the earliest history of humankind, the term "genocide" is relatively new. It is said to combine the Greek genos, which means race or tribe, and the Latin cide, which means killing, and was coined to describe the Nazi activity in occupied Europe. Following the extermination of many Jews and members of other groups deemed undesirable by the Nazis in the Second World War, the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal recognized "persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds" as one of two categories of crimes against humanity, and established the principle of individual criminal responsibility for such crimes. As early as 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed the principles of international law recognized by the Charter and Judgment of the Nürnberg Tribunal (the Nürnberg principles). In 1948, it adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which defined genocide and proclaimed it a crime against international law, "whether committed in time of peace or in time of war". It was in the resolution adopting that Convention that the United Nations General Assembly first considered the establishment of an international criminal court. The General Assembly recognized that there would be an increasing need for an international judicial organ to try "certain crimes" under international law.

There is broad agreement to use the wording of the Genocide Convention in the draft statute for the Court. Article 5 of the draft statute has been taken directly from the Convention:

". . . Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

killing members of the group;

causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The following acts shall be punishable:
genocide;

conspiracy to commit genocide;

direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

attempt to commit genocide;

complicity in genocide."


Crimes against humanity

The definition of crimes against humanity in article 5 of the draft statute is based on the Nürnberg Charter and takes into account subsequent developments of international law, particularly relating to the recent ad hoc international criminal tribunals. Proposals for the definition of crimes against humanity include acts which would constitute such a crime when committed in a widespread and/or systematic manner, and/or on a massive scale, and/or on specified grounds.

The definition of crimes against humanity contained in the Nürnberg Charter included the requirement that the prohibited acts be committed in connection with crimes against peace or war crimes. A decision has yet to be made as to whether the definition of crimes against humanity contained in the Statute will also include such acts when committed in peacetime. In this regard, the Yugoslavia Tribunal stated, "It is by now a settled rule of customary international law that crimes against humanity do not require a connection to international armed conflict."

According to the draft statute, the definition of this crime would include the following prohibited acts:

murder;

extermination;

enslavement;

deportation or forcible transfer of population;

torture;

rape or other sexual abuse of comparable gravity, or enforced prostitution;

persecution against a group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural or religious (and possibly gender) grounds;

enforced disappearance of persons;

other inhumane acts causing serious injury to body or to mental or physical health;

detention, imprisonment or deprivation of liberty in violation of international law.
In the draft statute, extermination is defined as including the infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population.

Torture may be defined as it is in the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984, which requires that the acts be committed by a public official. Or torture may be defined as the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, but excluding pain and suffering arising only from lawful sanctions.

The increasing number of forced disappearances of persons throughout the world prompted the United Nations General Assembly to adopt, in 1992, the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Under the Declaration, the term enforced disappearance also covers situations when persons are arrested, detained or abducted against their will by or with the approval of a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that abduction has taken place and the denial of information on the fate of those abducted, thereby placing them outside the protection of the law.

The crime of aggression

There is support for the inclusion of the crime of aggression in the Court's jurisdiction, and there is opposition. Part of the debate centers on finding an acceptable definition of the crime of aggression. While arguments to include aggression centre on its extreme gravity and international repercussions, arguments against its inclusion centre on the lack of a sufficiently precise definition. Another part of the debate focused on the role of the Security Council in this regard. Pursuant to Article 39 of the UN Charter, the Security Council "shall determine" the existence of an "act of aggression". Consequently, the issue is inseparably linked to the role of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security. It has been a difficult task to find an acceptable way to reflect in a balanced manner the responsibility of the Security Council, on the one hand, and the judicial independence of the Court, on the other.

The Nürnberg Tribunal condemned a war of aggression in the strongest terms: "To initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." It held individuals accountable for "crimes against peace", defined as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing...." When the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed the Nürnberg principles in 1946, it affirmed the principle of individual accountability for such crimes.

Early efforts in the United Nations to create an international criminal court were set aside while the international community set out to define aggression. In 1974, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a definition of aggression. It defined aggression as necessarily being the act of a State, and described the specific actions of one State against another which constitute aggression. In its work on the draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, the United Nations International Law Commission, echoing the Nürnberg Tribunal, also concluded that individuals could be held accountable for acts of aggression. The Commission indicated the specific conduct for which individuals could be held accountable -- initiating, planning, preparing or waging aggression -- and that only those individuals in positions of leadership who order or actively participate in the acts could incur responsibility. Its definition focused on individual accountability rather than on the rule of international law which prohibits aggression by a State.

The difficulty, according to some, lies in framing a workable definition of aggression which would apply to a wide range of situations. The definition must be precise enough for individuals to know what acts are prohibited; and it must be general enough to cover a wide variety of acts which may occur in the future, and which may not yet have been conceived of. It must also describe the magnitude of the violation of the prohibition of the use of force contained in Article 2 of the UN Charter that would constitute the crime of aggression for which individuals may be held responsible and punished.

Some States are of the view that excluding aggression would leave a significant gap in the Court's jurisdiction. Another reason supporting its inclusion is also one of the strongest reasons put forward for creating the Court: to break the cycle of impunity. To hold individuals accountable for war crimes or crimes against humanity while granting impunity to the architects of the conflict in which those crimes occurred is not justifiable. Others also hope that holding individuals responsible for the crime of aggression will act as a deterrent, and that by deterring an aggressor from beginning a conflict that may lead to a conflagration, the attendant war crimes and crimes against humanity might therefore also be prevented. Some also believe that it would be retrogressive to adopt a statute that does not include the crime of aggression 50 years after Nürnberg recognized such conduct as an international crime.

Some of those seeking a way to include aggression have proposed lessening the need for a definition by allowing the determination of an act of aggression to rest with the Security Council. The argument is, if States commit aggression for which individuals can be held accountable, then the Security Council should determine whether an act of aggression has been committed by a State and the Court should determine whether an individual was responsible for that act. This proposal elicits a concern regarding Security Council involvement which is also heard in other contexts: linking the work of the Court to the Security Council may lead to politicization of the Court. Some States are concerned regarding any connection between the Security Council and the Court.

The draft statute contains two options concerning the definition of aggression. One possible definition lists the specific acts for which an individual in a position of responsibility could be held accountable for aggression. The following acts would constitute the crime of aggression under this definition: planning, preparing, ordering, initiating, or carrying out an armed attack, or the use of force, or a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties or agreements, by a State, against the territorial integrity of another State, against the provisions in the UN Charter.

A second possible definition provides a list of acts constituting aggression, which includes the following:

invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or military occupation, or annexation of territory by the use of force

bombardment by armed forces of a State against the territory of another State

the blockade of ports or coasts of a State

the use of armed forces of a State which are within the territory of another State in violation of the terms of an agreement between those States

a State allowing its territory to be used by another State for an act of aggression against a third State

a State sending armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries to carry out grave acts of armed force against another State
Consideration of the definition of aggression will continue at the Conference in Rome.


all true ghostwarrior, except we do not get to read the invisible print that can only the high, royal, elite crooks can see and it reads something like: "None of this applies with regards to the indigenous people of a land, if they have been subdued by civilized, fancy talking, elite crooks"

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A state of war between Crow Creek Dakotah Oyate and the US
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:58 am
Posts: 464
Location: Crow Creek, Dakota Territory
"You (the federal government) have passed a law (the 1924 General Indian Citizenship Act) that says we are u.s. citizens... We did not agree to be citizens and we did not agree that your governments could have jurisdiction over us. We do not accept these laws. We are not citizens of the u.s."

Chief Irving Powless Jr
Onondaga Nation

_________________
Damakotah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A state of war between Crow Creek Dakotah Oyate and the US
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:44 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:58 am
Posts: 464
Location: Crow Creek, Dakota Territory
"The Corp of Engineers built five main-stem projects that destroyed over 550 square miles of tribal land in North and South Dakotah and dislocated more than 900 Indian families. Most of this damage was sustained by the five Sioux reservations that are the primary concern of this study: Standing Rock and Cheyenne River, reduced by the Oahe project; Yankton, affected by Fort Randall Dam; and Crow Creek and Lower Brule, damaged by both the Fort Randall and Big Bend projects... Army dams on the Missouri inundated more than 202,000 acres of Sioux land. Approximately 580 families (my big grandma fire cloud was one of these at Crow Creek) were uprooted and forced to move from rich, sheltered bottomlands to empty prairies. Their best homesites, their finest pasture, croplands and hay meadows, and most of their valuable timber, wildlife and vegetation were flooded... Removal of churches, community centers, cemeteries, and shrines impaired social and religious life on all five reserves. Loss not only of primary fuel, food, and water resources but also of prime grazing land effectively destroyed the Indians' economic base. The thought of having to give up the ancestral land, to which they were so closely wedded, caused severe psychological stress. The result was extreme confusion and harship for tribal members."

excerpted from Dammed Indians by Michael L. Lawson

what i find amusing is that no Nation of Dakotah Oyate has as yet received a dam dime for any of this. so when i say that they will not take another inch of Dakotah Land and certainly not 11 square miles i say it with a good heart and a willingness to give my life for my Dakotah People and the land that has given so much to the People. Madakotah!

_________________
Damakotah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A state of war between Crow Creek Dakotah Oyate and the US
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 4:14 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:58 am
Posts: 464
Location: Crow Creek, Dakota Territory
NATIONAL NATIVE AMERICAN
HERITAGE MONTH, 2009
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION


The indigenous peoples of North America—the First Americans—have woven rich and diverse threads into the tapestry of our Nation’s heritage. Throughout their long history on this great land, they have faced moments of profound triumph and tragedy alike. During National Native American Heritage Month, we recognize their many accomplishments, contributions, and sacrifices, and we pay tribute to their participation in all aspects of American society.
This month, we celebrate the ancestry and time-honored traditions of American Indians and Alaska Natives in North America. They have guided our land stewardship policies, added immeasurably to our cultural heritage, and demonstrated courage in the face of adversity. From the American Revolution to combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have fought valiantly in defense of our Nation as dedicated servicemen and women. Their native languages have also played a pivotal role on the battlefield. During World Wars I and II, Native American code talkers developed unbreakable codes to communicate military messages that saved countless lives. Native Americans have distinguished themselves as inventors, entrepreneurs, spiritual leaders, and scholars. Our debt to our First Americans is immense, as is our responsibility to ensure their fair, equal treatment and honor the commitments we made to their forebears.
The Native American community today faces huge challenges that have been ignored by our Government for too long. To help address this disparity, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act allocates more than $3 billion to help these communities deal with their most pressing needs. In the Fiscal Year 2010 budget, my Administration has proposed over $17 billion for programs carried out by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service, and other Federal agencies that have a critical role to play in improving the lives of Native Americans. These programs will increase educational opportunities, address the scourge of alcohol abuse and domestic violence, promote economic development, and provide access to comprehensive, accessible, and affordable health care. While funding increases do not make up for past deficiencies, they do reflect our determination to honor tribal sovereignty and ensure continued progress on reservations across America.
As we seek to build on and strengthen our nation-to-nation relationship, my Administration is committed to ensuring tribal communities have a meaningful voice in our national policy debates as we confront the challenges facing all Americans. We will continue this constructive dialogue at the White House Tribal Nations Conference held in Washington, D.C., this month. Native American voices have echoed through the mountains, valleys, and plains of our country for thousands of years, and it is now our time to listen.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim November 2009 as National Native American Heritage Month. I call upon all Americans to commemorate this month with appropriate programs and activities, and to celebrate November 27, 2009, as Native American Heritage Day.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

BARACK OBAMA

_________________
Damakotah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A state of war between Crow Creek Dakotah Oyate and the US
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 4:18 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:58 am
Posts: 464
Location: Crow Creek, Dakota Territory
SIX DAYS LATER the united states internal revenue service auctioned off 11 SQUARE MILES of land that does not belong to the the People of the united states but to the People of Dakotah Oyate who live at Crow Creek. It would appear that the great black father is no better than any of the great white fathers who came before him.

Only silence comes out of washington...

_________________
Damakotah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A state of war between Crow Creek Dakotah Oyate and the US
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 4:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:02 am
Posts: 58
Location: Zeeland, North Dakota
ghostwarrior wrote:
Only silence comes out of washington...


The sound of silence is the loudest noise possible. It is the sound of the heart of the great black father shouting "I am the same as the great white fathers who came before me."

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A state of war between Crow Creek Dakotah Oyate and the US
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 4:40 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:58 am
Posts: 464
Location: Crow Creek, Dakota Territory
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-vi ... conference

Just another buffalo soldier to me... whose words are not worthy of listening to.

_________________
Damakotah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A state of war between Crow Creek Dakotah Oyate and the US
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 4:43 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:58 am
Posts: 464
Location: Crow Creek, Dakota Territory
Brandon Sazue the tribal chairman at Crow Creek refused to attend this event. And rightly so.

_________________
Damakotah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A state of war between Crow Creek Dakotah Oyate and the US
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 5:44 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:58 am
Posts: 464
Location: Crow Creek, Dakota Territory
The rock that this reminder is carved on comes from Minnesota just as the People once did. The Lakotah came freely to the Plains. The Dakotah came as prisoners of the united states army and by proxy the People of the united states.

I remember that we were Dakotah Oyate when the wasichu were weak and pitiful across the great water, the truly sad thing is that they are still weak and pitiful and so i pray for them everyday. If columbus had OnStar none of this would have ever happened.


Attachments:
Crow Creek Memorial Stone.jpg
Crow Creek Memorial Stone.jpg [ 80.46 KiB | Viewed 4541 times ]

_________________
Damakotah!
Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A state of war between Crow Creek Dakotah Oyate and the US
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:29 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:02 am
Posts: 58
Location: Zeeland, North Dakota
ghostwarrior wrote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/president-obama-opens-tribal-nations-conference

Just another buffalo soldier to me... whose words are not worthy of listening to.


Videos like that make it difficult for me to stick to my vow to not use profanity. But it does make me understand that a person does not have to be white to be (Insert word's of your desire here)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A state of war between Crow Creek Dakotah Oyate and the US
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:58 am
Posts: 464
Location: Crow Creek, Dakota Territory
That silence is indeed deafening... and in that silence i hear the cries of children once more at crow creek. in 1863 the hills around the original village of crow creek were filled with the graves of children who died from malnutrion and exposure.

_________________
Damakotah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A state of war between Crow Creek Dakotah Oyate and the US
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:13 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:58 am
Posts: 464
Location: Crow Creek, Dakota Territory
Lest we forget this about the children and their right to live as their Ancestors lived, with their own dakotah customs, traditions, values and language.


Attachments:
memorialflags.jpg
memorialflags.jpg [ 33.13 KiB | Viewed 4519 times ]

_________________
Damakotah!
Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A state of war between Crow Creek Dakotah Oyate and the US
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:58 am
Posts: 464
Location: Crow Creek, Dakota Territory
Lest we forget this about the Ancestors who have passed into the spirit realm. My Ina i will not disrespect her dakotah name by posting it here but in english it would translate as red star woman. My Ina is buried in crow creek next to her mother and father (my grandfather charles went ashore in normandy) and her brothers (my uncle france who fought in and survived vietnam) and sisters. To the People of the united states i remember that the bones of my Ancestors are sacred and you will take no more land from us.


Attachments:
Inaxmastree.jpg
Inaxmastree.jpg [ 47.02 KiB | Viewed 4518 times ]

_________________
Damakotah!
Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A state of war between Crow Creek Dakotah Oyate and the US
PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 6:06 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:58 am
Posts: 464
Location: Crow Creek, Dakota Territory
http://www.crowcreek.k12.sd.us/hs/


We the People of Crow Creek have children that we love and care about as well as those of the rest of you in the united states. Our children are no less human being than yours and according to the values that you hold sacred... all our Equal. Yet you the People of the united states would take our land... How do you think that makes our children feel about themselves? About their long and storied Dakotah history, culture and Tradition? About their Ancestors?


Attachments:
chieftanslogo.gif
chieftanslogo.gif [ 3.64 KiB | Viewed 4495 times ]

_________________
Damakotah!
Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A state of war between Crow Creek Dakotah Oyate and the US
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:01 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:58 am
Posts: 464
Location: Crow Creek, Dakota Territory
It would appear that conflict has been avoided... for which i am most thankful. In the way of the People war is something that must be deeply considered before being embarked upon as a course of action.

The People of Mdewakanton Dakotah Oyate have decided to float the People of Crow Creek Dakotah Oyate a loan for the 3.1 million dollars in question to be paid back over a period of 15 years. So that we as Dakotahs can once again pay for something that Creator already gave to us as a People. A decision i do not agree with because it sets a dangerous precedent when dealing with the united states government because i still do not understand how the People of Dakotah Oyate or any First Nation for that matter are required to pay employment taxes to a foreign nation for doing business within the confines of duly and legally constituted borders. Borders i might add that were defined and set forth by the united states as the borders of soverign nations in more treaties than i care to count.

_________________
Damakotah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A state of war between Crow Creek Dakotah Oyate and the US
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:08 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:58 am
Posts: 464
Location: Crow Creek, Dakota Territory
http://twincities.indymedia.org/2009/de ... d-not-sale

_________________
Damakotah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A state of war between Crow Creek Dakotah Oyate and the US
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:10 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:58 am
Posts: 464
Location: Crow Creek, Dakota Territory
http://issueswire.com/releases/CAN-DO/C ... 310674.htm

_________________
Damakotah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A state of war between Crow Creek Dakotah Oyate and the US
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:16 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:58 am
Posts: 464
Location: Crow Creek, Dakota Territory
I feel that paying the greedy and corrupt government of the united states illegal employment taxes can only lead to more problems for the People in the future. The united states will return to that particular well again and again now. What was the reason for the founding of the united states? NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION! Where are the representatives of Dakotah Oyate in washington, d.c.? Who represents the People? Certainly not the distinguished thieves and honored liars of congress.

_________________
Damakotah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A state of war between Crow Creek Dakotah Oyate and the US
PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:11 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:58 am
Posts: 464
Location: Crow Creek, Dakota Territory
RT once again you do me honor by your words... and it is a great honor to call you koda. The signs the Ancestors left for the People to follow are all still there... they are called Traditon. When one is upon a journey he must look for the signs... and life is all about the journey.

_________________
Damakotah!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post a new topicPost a reply Page 8 of 26   [ 510 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 26  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron