Search the Community

I see no posts on the forum about this yet, so I'll start off with the MSM view of what's going on, for those who aren't familiar with the situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFwhucvZ9D8 http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/09/493280504/judge-rules-that-construction-can-proceed-on-dakota-access-pipeline http://thefreethoughtproject.com/water-protector-dapl-grenade-destroys-arm/ Now.. I have NEVER seen a topic with such intense virtue signaling. Which why I am making this a video request as well as a thread for general information. I don't know how much this really contributes, but this is my rant on the subject, from the perspective of a descendant of Cherokee indians. (Not targeted at the audience of this forum) Considering the federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction over those lands according to the constitution. Consider the constitution also makes no provision to delegate rights to a fictional entity called a corporation. Consider the federal reserve has a duty to keep the value of the dollar stable over time. What are we left with? In the case of the landmass acquired by the Louisiana purchase, which includes N and S Dakota, that would total to 530,000,000 acres for a price of $11,250,000 USD, or $0.02 per acre as the final cost of the land. Land, purchased with the peoples purse, belonging to them and morally redeemable for said amount. WHY does this matter? There are several reasons. First, the basis of their legal case in the current DAPL situation is based upon violations of the Clean Water Act, National Historic Protection Act, and National Environmental Policy Act. All of these policies are based on one thing: federal ownership of those very public lands which as I said above is absolutely illegal according to the document which gives the federal government ANY power. The acts themselves are illegal and by coincidence immoral, since ALL of the land belongs to the states and respectively to the people for the price of $0.02 per acre, provided the land was put to use not just hoarded by the first people to show up. [You can read common law to understand how ownership of land can be assessed from a neutral standpoint without governments.] Their virtue signaling names [the acts] don't change the facts of what they do: steal the land from ALL Americans, not just the land in question in this current DAPL case. How do we solve this problem of corporations stealing land from people? how do we solve this problem of the government constantly allowing said corporations to pollute the land? Simple. We allow the TRUE ownership of the land to be manifested, which is ownership by the states and the people, NOT allowing Washington to sell the land to corporations that have no legitimate claim to use the land. If the tribe owned the water source that they drink from, any company that polluted that water supply would be destroying their property and CRIMINALLY liable for the damages just as if someone came and dumped oil on your house or in your glass of water. Instead today, the government owns the land, so the people have absolutely no recourse to this problem. The government lets the people off the hook with only minimal cleanup fees, usually taking the money from the taxpayer. Since corporations are not criminally and civilly liable for the damages they commit due to government stealing the land regular people live on, they will keep spilling, until they are held accountable by the owners of the land. The government will NEVER be a good steward of the land. So in the end, if they end up winning this case by blocking access to the pipeline being built using the arguments based upon the acts outlined above, it will solidify in precedent that the Indians do NOT own or control the land, that in fact the federal government owns and controls ALL of the land. This is the only way for the acts to be enforceable. I admit on the surface, this does seem like a clear cut case where the protesters are in the right and should win the case. However, that would be DEVASTATING for future tribes, as it would allow the federal government to be the due arbitrator of how those lands are allocated. They could easily repeal the acts, then using the president set by the case that the federal government owns the land, then go in and build as many pipelines as they want, without consulting the tribes in any way. So this case has very far reaching negative consequences not only for the natives that live in the areas but ALL Americans who wish to work and live off of the land, myself included. What's the solution? Well ideally they would be allowed to purchase the land for basically nothing, and then they would have FULL negotiation rights with the oil companies, NOT having to go through the FAKE owner and arbitrator of the land, the SAME federal government, which is currently blowing peoples arms off with grenades at the site. Yeah, I'm sure they're going to give them a great deal!!! Just like the last THOUSAND deals the Indians made with the government!!! WHAT COULD GO WRONG? I disagree with the protesters motives because they are taking actions that will cripple the tribes in the future. Not just that tribe, ALL of the others too. But i disdain some of them, for the simple fact that they are falling into the SAME trap they have been falling into for hundreds of years. What is the answer? The answer is to stop using violence as a means of organizing society in the form of government. We're getting there, but not very soon. So what to do NOW? Well we can look at extremely similar cases that turned out very different. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Bundy standoff and the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. It was similar in the sense that both parties had contracts with the federal government. One was an Indian tribe, the other cattle ranchers whose families had been living in the area growing free range grass fed cattle for hundreds of years. Just a little back story for context: They OWNED the grassing rights to the land, yet the BLM and federal government came on their property, and lit entire fields on fire, burning cattle alive, killing cattle with tractors and burning them in the ground. They threatened to kill the ranchers, and lit fires near their houses. Some ranchers lit backfires so that their cattle and homes would not be burned alive and destroyed. They were arrested on federal terrorism charges, even though the government had set fires on the same grassland on the same day purposefully. Anyway enough backstory, there is a lot more to that of course, but it's enough to illustrate where the differences begin to appear. How did the bundys and others respond? Thousands of people on horseback and foot showed up with hundreds of AR-15's AK-47's Barret .50BMG sniper rifles, and various other weapons. Not threateningly, merely in self defense against aggressors. They knew they owned the land and they were willing to die to defend it. They knew the government is rooted in evil, and they knew the BLM would kill them if they had the opportunity. In fact, they did murder one of them in cold blood in an ambush later on during the Oregon standoff which failed for a variety of reasons, including lack of grassroots support in the area and government infiltration of the camp. Nevertheless, not once did any of the protesters point a gun at police, despite police waving AR-15s at unarmed women and children. Nobody was injured during the event. Why? Because the FEDs knew that if they shot an innocent person or harmed one of them, the people would defend themselves and make VERY short work of the de facto terrorists known as the BLM, or die trying. For days they peacefully advanced to occupy the ranch. Eventually, the cattle that had not been mercilessly slaughtered and left to bleed out underground and their meat left in the sun to rot, were returned to the bundys, and the land was returned to them. Two VERY similar situation, two VERY different outcomes. Why? Racism? No. Two VERY different kinds of people. One camp is a "gun free zone". So much so they are willing to attempt to commit vehicular homicide against DAPL employees driving on their owner properties while armed. This group effectively does NOTHING except argue for MORE federal control over their lands, increasing the problem. The other group, the bundys, approached the issue from a totally opposite perspective. The perspective of we KNOW we own this land. We KNOW you are the aggressors and terrorists against us, and we will DIE not helplessly, but DIE defending the ones around us from your senseless violence. They were not asking the government to protect them against someone, they were telling EVERYONE they owned this land and if you want it COME AND TAKE IT. Why do the protesters ultimately not gain my respect? Because they cower at the evil of government. The FEED into the power of government by doing so. They ENSLAVE themselves and the future generations even further with the precedent this case would sets. /rant Thoughts appreciated.