ARGU5-3FALL2000

AMERICAN RIGHTS GUARDIAN UPDATE
US Flag

VOLUME 5 NUMBER 3 FALL 2000 Bald Eagle

The Only Printed Voice of opposition to Federal Government Indian Policy in Wisconsin.
Published by Protect Americans' Rights & Resources to maintain an informed membership.

While plotting a course for PARR’s future, after extensive discussion, members attending the annual PARR Membership Meeting decided that PARR should put more emphasis on some of the other assaults on individual rights, e.g. the constant attempts to deprive us of our 2nd amendment right to bear arms and the unprecedented acquiring of land by all branches of government and then putting this land off limits to all but the self-anointed-elite.
In PARR’s position statement, originally established over ten years ago, PARR
is committed to address these issues as well as Indian Treaty rights. To refresh your memory
see PARR’s position statement below.

PROTECT AMERICANS' RIGHTS & RESOURCES
POSITION STATEMENT
WHAT IS THE CONTROVERSY?
The push by "BIG GOVERNMENT" advocates to gain more federal control --- the results being to infringe on/or abolish individual rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.
PARR
STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INDIAN POLICY!   A minute portion of Wisconsin's population (.8 of 1 percent of the population of the state…the Chippewa) were court awarded 50% of the natural resources in northern Wisconsin. This means the non-Chippewa angler gets what's left after the tribe is finished, providing the Chippewa take less than 50%. If the tribe takes the full 50% the non-Chippewa angler gets nothing. Stop these unjust Indian fishing and hunting tactics that result in our economic hardship because of two fish and possibly zero fish bag limits, causing the erosion of the non-Indian’s citizenship status in the areas of fishing, hunting, gambling, and sovereign rights. PARR
MORE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INDIAN POLICY CONTROVERSY!   By Federal Action and state failure to conduct oversight, the Federal Government actions result in; Indian gambling casinos are being created from public and private lands, which in turn erodes the tax base and sovereign jurisdictional power of the state. Furthermore we now have biased and inaccurate Indian history and culture (mandated by the state) being taught in our public schools. And biased and unequal off reservation law enforcement by tribal wardens and police who are exempt from obeying the very laws they enforce. PARR
OTHER ISSUES!   The Gun Grabbers, (government and private) are using the hysteria of the moment to further their agenda. This agenda is aimed at sharply reducing or completely eliminating individual rights to own guns. This right is guaranteed by the second amendment to the constitution as affirmed by federal courts. The Eco-Freaks: Here again, both government and private militant efforts to deny, and or diminish the rights of property ownership; and control public lands according to their whims. PARR
WHAT IS PARR's PURPOSE?   To protect our property, lives, rights, heritage, culture and natural resources from Indian treaties that were years ago declared legally dead by the Indian Claims Commission. This death certificate was issued based on testimony of the Indians, themselves. To protect individual rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. To protect the legally acquired property of individuals from the land grabbers. To protect the right of equal usage of all public land for all people. To fight for a reasonable program of equitable usage of all natural resources on public lands. PARR
WHAT IS PARR?   A grass-roots organization of concerned citizens from all walks of life, including Indians. PARR
WHAT DOES PARR DO?   We have filed legal actions and complaints, participated in sports shows visited Washington Senate committees and are involved in lobbying activities. Write letters of complaint and protest, publish newsletters; fight the injustices, lies and propaganda (funded with your tax dollars) of a slick marketing campaign by the government, the DNR, the Professional Indian, the Gun Grabbers, and the Eco-Freaks all apparently in collusion with one another. Question: Can you say "that vast left wing conspiracy?" PARR
WHAT CAN YOU DO?   If you agree with us, please join us! Become a member. There is strength in numbers. Remember that one person who voices his/her opinion is worth more than ten thousand who remain silent! The professional Indian and politician have learned this lesson well. We must, also! Click here Membership Application to become a member. PARR

Chippewa Treaty Rights
(by J.E. Schumacher)   With the recent Menomonee treaty rights lawsuit (which they lost) and the recent Chippewa spear fishing declarations that would institute zero bag limits for non-Chippewa fishermen, controversy is once again raging regarding this issue. It may be advantageous to review the Chippewa treaty rights issue in order to gain an insight as to why so many people are opposed to them.
   The Chippewa treaties of the 1830’s were all of limited duration and the conditions of same were all carried out, except one. More on that, later. There was no mention of guaranteed perpetual hunting and fishing rights. The federal court concocted that guarantee in the twentieth century.
   In 1850, President Zachary Taylor issued an Executive Order mandating that the Chippewa remove themselves to west of the Mississippi River. The Chippewa refused. The federal government did attempt to trick them into leaving Wisconsin, but failed. The government stopped short of forcible removal. Meanwhile, the Chippewa were lobbying for reservations in Wisconsin, which the federal government granted in the Treaty of 1854. Now you have it; the Chippewa refusal to remove themselves was the one treaty condition that wasn't met. Federal treaty law states that if either party violates a condition of a treaty, that treaty is null and void, but ironically, by violating a condition of their treaties in the 1800’s, the Chippewa gain control of 50% of northern Wisconsin's resources in the 1990’s. There is another reason why many people argue that Chippewa treaty rights do not exist. That is the Indian Claims Commission (ICC). The ICC was instituted by Act of Congress in 1946 and was in effect into the 1970’s. The purpose of the ICC was to address and adjudicate the many claims being brought forth by Indian tribes, countrywide. The Chippewa bands went before the ICC with their complaints of treaty discrepancies and were awarded over $20 million in three payments. In. receiving these payments, they testified that they were surrendering all rights relating to the treaties. Section 22 of the ICC Act is interesting. It states, "The payment of any claim...shall be a full discharge of the United States of all claims and demands touching any of the matters involved in the controversy. A final determination against a claimant made and reported in accordance with this Act shall forever bar any further claims demand against the United States..." But yet, within a year of receiving their final payment, the Chippewa sued the citizens of Wisconsin for the same rights they testified they had relinquished before the ICC!
   Next, let's review the reasoning of the federal court in awarding the Chippewa treaty rights. The first problem was how to get rid of Zachary Taylor's 1850 Removal Order, mentioned earlier, as an Executive Order has the same effect as law. Here's what happened. The court determined that the Chippewa retained usufructuary rights under a provision in an 1837 treaty that provided that the Chippewa signatory bands could continue to enjoy usufructary rights on the land they ceded to the United States "during the pleasure of the President of the United States," a term the court found to be ambiguous. It could mean an "at will" kind of occupancy in which the President was free to order the Chippewa out of the territory at any time for any reason or it could mean he was free to do so only if the Chippewa misbehaved and incurred his displeasure. Or it could mean? Curious, no? Remember that this is the court talking. But then the Chippewa produced contemporary reports that supported their contention that when the tribes had signed the treaties in 1837 and 1842, they understood that "the pleasure of the President" meant their right to hunt, fish and gather would continue undisturbed unless they misbehaved. The Court then concluded that the President issued the order without any evidence that the Chippewa had misbehaved and declared the order illegal; neither authorized by the treaties nor within the scope of the President's power.
   There are two problems with the Courts reasoning. First, twenty years prior to 1850, Congress enacted the Indian Removal Order, giving the government the legal right of removal, upon Indian approval. Second, the misbehavior Issue. The Chippewa of the time knew full well that the government didn't punish Indian misbehavior by sanctioning the entire tribe. They punished individuals for misbehavior, just like everyone else. If memory serves, through legal maneuvering, these two issues were never brought before the Court. Furthermore, the Chippewa themselves never raised the misbehavior issue during treaty negotiations. It was only years later that they raised it. And at that time they were not saying that they could remain if they behaved; they were complaining that they could not understand why they were being pushed out of their lands earlier than a verbal promise by Indian Superintendent Stuart that they could remain for a long time.
   The court had one other problem, inasmuch as it had to somehow dismiss the Chippewas own contemporaneous statements indicating they understood they had sold all their rights to the United States in their treaties. Chief Buffalo, senior chief and elder statesman of the Chippewa, plainly indicated that the Chippewa in 1854 were giving up their rights in exchange for reservations and the promise that they would not be forced to resettle outside Wisconsin. How did the Court resolve this problem? Simply by claiming that the Chippewa had misunderstood the 1837 and 1842 treaties, and that Chief Buffalo's expression of understanding and acceptance had nothing to do with the rights "retained" under them.
   As Professor James Clifton, foremost authority on the Indian of the Old Northwest Territory, wrote six years ago, "In this way, while seeming to hew to the letter of the law, the 7th Circuit Court drastically revised history so as to amend the Chippewa treaties, awarding to the late twentieth century descendants special rights no one at the time had intended or anticipated. This is the legal basis for the growing human conflict which promises to embroil the citizens of Wisconsin for decades to come."
   It is now nearly three decades and counting. The controversy still rages with respect to Chippewa treaty rights. The Menomonee tribe sued the citizens of Wisconsin for treaty rights in the eastern third of the state. Same scenario. Once their ceded lands were surveyed and offered for sale by the government, they were to remove themselves. We all know this was done, but the Menominee, too, refused to remove and successfully lobbied for a reservation. The Menominee, too, went before the Indian Claims Commission and were awarded $8.5 million. However in the Menominee case, their participation in the ICC was used as evidence, and they lost.
   So. Do the people who are labeled "anti treaty" have a case? We think so.
PARR ED NOTE: Because we will be addressing other issues we felt it necessary to clarify, with the previous article, PARR's basic commitment to Chippewa Treaty Rights issues. PARR

Black Gold Blues
(By David M. Bresnahan)   Alaskan legislators, trying to block the U.S. government's controversial treaty ceding to Russia eight islands belonging to Alaska, now have one more reason to fight -- in addition to sovereignty, state's rights and the fishing industry -- namely, oil.
   "The issues involve not only state sovereignty over vital territories but also significant national defense concerns and substantial economic losses over fisheries and petroleum," said Alaska state Rep. John B. Coghill, R-Dist. 32. The U.S. State Department cannot continue to allow further encroachment of Alaska's states rights and valuable economic resources." The Democrat dominated Senate ratified the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Treaty in 1991.
   The Alaska House and Senate were never consulted during the treaty's negotiations, however, and recently have teamed up with the governor to send a strong message of protest to President Bill Clinton; without apparent effect, however.
   Alaska is believed to have some of the largest oil fields in the world. Much of Alaska's oil cannot be pumped, however, because of wilderness designations placed on much of Alaskan land, said Coghill, who believes access to vast oil fields may now be lost to Russia if the transfer is not reversed. Earlier this year, World Net Daily reported that, according to national security advisers on Capitol Hill, oil ministers from OPEC nations had quietly confided to them that oil production cutbacks -- and resulting price increases -- had been implemented at the request of the Clinton administration on behalf of Russia, Indonesia, Mexico and Iran.
   The idea was that higher oil prices would help Russia, a major oil exporter, to generate funds to get out of massive debt and rebuild the Russian economy.
   Carl Olson, chairman of State Department Watch, a public interest group, agreed that Russia benefits greatly from the increase in gasoline and oil prices.
   "Russia is one of the largest oil producing nations in the world. Guess who's benefiting greatly from this run up in oil prices? The Russian oligarchs in Moscow who stick all their money in Swiss bank accounts. They love this thing. They've got giant lobbyists in Washington," said Olson.
   "If you look at the worldwide scheme of things in terms of production and oil purchasing, there's been a gigantic leap up in prices for no good reason for the American consuming public. What we have to do is look at who's getting rich in all of this,
big oil companies and big governments," he said. "Think about this," said Olson. "If you had just one island with only one square mile and you drew a 200 mile circle around it, do you know that's 125,000 square miles of potential sea bottom for oil exploration? It's totally anti-public, anti-Congress and anti-state actions -- but unfortunately the State Department thinks it has the power to adopt this boundary line with the Russians without anybody's consent outside themselves," he said.
   Coghill sponsored Alaska H.J.R. 27, a resolution that was passed in the state's House and Senate then enacted by Alaska Gov. John Knowles in 1999. It was intended to "require the federal government to begin a new dialogue with Russia over the disputed maritime borders, insuring that Alaska is sitting at the negotiating table, as well as prevent the impending giveaway of eight Alaskan islands," said Coghill.
   "They have not responded in any way," Coghill said. Negotiations between the State Department and the Soviet Union began in 1990 when a proposed treaty agreement was drafted. The federal government has honored that agreement -- which changed boundaries -- even though it has never been fully ratified and the Soviet Union no longer exists. "It's an unratified treaty with a non-entity," quipped Coghill. The United States-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary moved the line between Russia and Alaska in such a way that eight islands that were specified as part of Alaska when it was purchased from Russia would become part of Russia once again. The State of Alaska was not included in the negotiations at the time of the agreement, or at any time since, complains Coghill.
   "There were representatives of the Fish and Game present to answer questions," he said, "but there was never any opportunity for input." Coghill's resolution demands official representatives from Alaska be present and have authority to participate in any further negotiations. The agreement transfers to Russia the islands of Wrangell, Herald, Bennett, Henrietta, and Jeannette Islands in the Arctic, and Copper Island, Sea Lion Rock, and Sea Otter Rock on the West End of the Aleutian chain.
   The problem, say Coghill and his colleagues in the Alaska legislature, is that it gives Russia access to vast oil and fishing areas without any compensation to Alaska. There has been a long history of disputes over which country owns the islands, particularly Wrangell Island, which is about the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. According to credible reports, Russia used it for a concentration camp until recently. Alaska claims the islands on the basis of the original sale agreement for Alaska and other transactions.
   Russia's claim over the boundary may soon reach a court of law. "Just last week we boarded a vessel that crossed the boundary -- and that's going to be disputed," said Coghill, referring to a Russian ship that was recently stopped in waters claimed by Alaska. The action may take the boundary dispute out of the hands of politicians and place it in the courts.
   Has the U.S. government handed over the islands to Russia yet? "That's not an easy answer," said Coghill. "There has been an acquiescence to Russia, yes. There has been no extinquishment of any legitimate claim that we (Alaskans) might have. It has been blindly ignored by our Congress." Secret agreement: On June 1, 1990, then Secretary of State James Baker signed a secret executive agreement with Edward Shevardnadze, the former U.S.S.R. foreign minister. It specified that even though the treaty had not been ratified, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. agreed to abide by the terms of the treaty beginning June 15, 1990. Coghill said the existence of the agreement, which is described in his resolution, is now well known by Alaskan and U.S. elected officials. At the time the treaty was presented to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, however, the existence of the secret agreement was not made known, he said. Although the Senate ratified the treaty the Soviet Union never ratified it, nor has Russia. Russians have always claimed they did not benefit enough from the boundaries offered in the treaty. The State Department is engaged in negotiations with Russia to change the boundaries specified in the unratified treaty even further, claims Coghill, who further says he doesn't know the status of those negotiations because the State Department is not responding to Alaskan officials on the issue.
   Russia is asking to move the boundary lines in such a way that an additional 40,000 square miles of ocean and seabed would belong to Russia. That would yield 300,000 pounds of fish per year -- fish that are normally harvested by Alaskan fishermen. If the transfer were made, Alaska would not be compensated for the loss, according to Coghill. Alaska's resolution demands new negotiations start back at the beginning, before the treaty was formed.
   "Along with the maritime issue, this needs to be discussed as well. Alaska needs to be in on it because, number one, it's a significant part of fishing in the world. Secondly, we have a legitimate historical claim that has not ever been addressed," Coghill said. The resolution demands that the Clinton administration start new negotiations; Alaska be a full participant in any negotiations with Russia; the State Department stop all negotiations that give fishing rights to Russia; illegal acts involving the effort to transfer land to Russia be prosecuted.
   Although the resolution has been in the hands of Clinton, members of Congress and the State Department for more than a year, it has been ignored, Coghill says. Coghill hopes U.S. citizens will call on their state legislatures to approve similar resolutions, saying all states should be concerned "because if they can do this to Alaska, they can do this to any state."
   Olson said the U.S. government has prevented oil companies from drilling by declaring areas of Alaska and other parts of the U.S. as wilderness areas. But the U.S. has more than enough oil to supply its own needs and export oil as well, he says.
   "The wholesale price of gasoline today is a very easy thing to look up in the Wall Street Journal because they run it every day. For unleaded standard regular gas it's $.89 a gallon, but it's selling for $1.75 to $2 a gallon. Somebody's making a ton of dough here and it's split up between the oil companies and the government," said Olson.
PARR ED NOTE: Well, folks, the previous article addresses what can be expected to continue with more vigor than the present administration if Al Gore is elected president. Mr.Gore wrote in his book (Earth First) that his agenda includes a per gallon price for gasoline that would put driving an automobile out of the reach of most people. There is no reason to believe that the complete trashing of the rights of the people of Alaska (or any other state that may get in the way of Al's agenda) will not continue (in spades), if he is elected. This whole thing is mind boggling, giving away all that oil. In essence what President Clinton is doing, without congress, is levying a tax on the American people to pull the Russians and others out of debt, by forcing outlandish energy prices on us. Folks this whole energy crisis was choreographed by the Clinton administration and Al Gore is right in the middle of it.
   As the prices continue to rise don't expect Clinton to use the bully pulpit attempting to lower prices as previous presidents did. Clinton doesn’t feel our pain; he creates it and so will Al Gore. PARR

Victims Have to Stay in the Limelight to Remain on the Dole   DENVER - Police arrested more than 140 American Indian and Hispanic activists protesting Saturday's Columbus parade, the city's first since 1991.
   The activists, saying Christopher Columbus was a slave trader who committed genocide against their ancestors, poured a line of red liquid across the route to represent their ancestors' blood.
   Police arrested 147 people on misdemeanor charges, including loitering and failure to obey lawful orders, but there was no violence and no one resisted arrest, police spokeswoman Mary Thomas said.
   Clashes among protesters and Italian-Americans during the city's 1991 parade had forced the annual parade's cancellation until this year. Italian-Americans and the activists had reached an agreement that there would be no protests if the parade was limited to an Italian pride parade, but several representatives of the Italian community later disavowed the deal.
   ''It was a total success,'' said parade organizer George Vendegnia. ''We had our parade and they had their protest and nobody got hurt. We got our heritage back after nine years.'' Police had cut down a section of a fence that had been erected to block protesters, and permitted demonstrators to take up spots on the street used for the parade. But after a brief demonstration, police moved back in, giving the Indians the choice of leaving or being arrested.
   Among the 147 people arrested was American Indian Movement activist Russell Means, who said the protesters would ask for individual jury trials. The charges can bring penalties of up to a year in jail. ''We broke no law today,'' said fellow AIM activist Glenn Morris. In 1989, Means and three others were arrested after throwing fake blood on a Columbus statue. The next year, protesters shouted anti-Columbus slogans during the parade. The 1992 parade was canceled moments before it was to start because of concerns about violence.
   Each October, about two dozen Columbus parades take place across the country, though none has had the intense protests of Denver, city manager of public safety Ari Zavaras said. Italian-American groups in New York and in San Francisco have removed references to Columbus. ''It will remain a Columbus parade forever, unless they change it on the federal level,'' Vendegnia said. Columbus Day is a federal holiday celebrated the second Monday in October.
PARR ED NOTE: October must be the month that the dole bugs need to recharge their victim status, to keep the taxpayer dollars flowing for another year. These claims against Columbus are so ridiculous that no one in their right mind would draw attention to themselves. The same holds true for the controversy now raging in Wisconsin about the name squaw. No one would ever have figured that squaw meant something derogatory, however the victims saw need to conjure up a derogatory meaning, placing themselves in the limelight. PARR

Issue Item America should be mourning the death of class. The gravestone should read (Born: 1776. Died: Sometime in the 90s). What died? America's sense of class, the quality that separates the truly dignified and responsible from the uncouth rabble who are fast taking over. PARR

The Rest of the Story
(By Darrel Smith)   On Friday, September 22, ABC’s "20/20" did a program on race relations in South Dakota. The program opened with Barbara Walters asking, "Are racial hatreds, long buried, rising again? Some American Indians out West think so because one after an other tribal members have been discovered dead, their lifeless bodies raising fear and suspicion." After listing examples, Lynn Sherr, "20/20’s" interviewer said, "Many Indians say Whites are responsible for all of the deaths." An Indian march was photographed with a sign that said, "Stop Lakota Ethnic Cleansing." Indian activist, Mark White Bull, was quoted as saying, "This is like the Deep South in the sixties, like apartheid." Throughout the story, "20/20" accepted the claims of Indian activists without question. They didn’t check or quote any official statistics or interview any knowledgeable officials about these deaths beyond the Many Horses case.
   They referred to six Indians found dead in Rapid Creek but didn’t mention that according to the Sheriff’s Department; two Whites have also been found dead in Rapid Creek. "20/20" also didn’t mention that the blood alcohol content of the six Indians was at least three times, to over five times, the legal alcohol limit. These deaths are still under investigation and to blame these and all other Indian deaths on Whites and White racism is totally irresponsible.
   How many Indians are being murdered in South Dakota? Statistics are maintained separately, out side and within Indian reservations. According to South Dakota’s Department of Criminal Investigation these are the off reservations statistics for the last years that are available:
                         Victims                  Offenders
      1998:     8 total 1 Indian      10 total 0 Indian
      1997:   11 total 2 Indian      12 total 2 Indian
   Thus three Indians were murdered in the entire State outside of reservations in the last two years that data is available. While every murder is a tragedy, this is hardly a "Lakota Ethnic Cleansing." The FBI and the BIA investigates murders within Indian reservations. While the FBI does not keep this type of statistics, both Mark Vukelich with the Rapid City FBI office and David Heller with the Sioux Falls FBI office strongly maintain that, "the vast majority of Indian murders on reservations are caused by Indian offenders." They called both Indian-on-White and White-on-Indian murders "rare" and "few and far between." How likely is it that, "Whites are responsible for all of the deaths" mentioned in the "20/20" report? Very close to zero. "20/20’s" propagation of these unsubstantiated, bigoted charges was ignorant, irresponsible, inflammatory, slanderous and racist.
   In response to allegations of fifty-seven "uninvestigated" and "unresolved" murders in South Dakota, the FBI issued a report in May, 2000 called "Accounting for Native American Deaths; Pine Ridge Indian Reservation; South Dakota." The report illustrates how dishonest allegations of Indian deaths tend to be.
   This report wasn’t mentioned by "20/20" either because of ignorance, or by design. After airing charges of Indian murders caused by White racism and perpetrators; ABC’s "20/20" focused on the tragic and widely reported Many Horses death. Upon hearing that the State’s medical examiner didn’t support a finding of murder or manslaughter, "20/20" said, "In other words, he [the States Attorney] couldn’t find any forensic experts to say being put upside down in a trash can, caused Robert’s death." Returning to New York, "20/20" contacted six medical examiners and found one that said Many Horses’ position was a significant factor causing his death. Another one said that, "If Many Horses was alive when he was put in the garbage can, positional asphyxiation was the cause of his death." "20/20" then confronted the States Attorney with the question, "If we could find these guys within a couple of weeks, why couldn’t you find anybody when you were doing this?" "20/20" seemed to assume the States Attorney should shop for evidence to support a prosecution like he would a shirt – simply keep looking until he finds experts to support his case. What would "20/20" think of their own legal ethics if the defendants were Indian? Thankfully, local officials have higher ethics than "20/20."
   The State’s original medical examiner had consulted with two other medical examiners before issuing his report, thus out of the nine medical opinions, two said positional asphyxiation was the cause of death. Would a judge, jury or anybody else accept this kind of evidence as being "beyond a reasonable doubt?" "20/20" quoted an Indian activist who told about his wounded, veteran dad who walked through the streets of a local town and observed signs that said, "No Dogs and No Indians Allowed." Very dramatic, emotional and incriminating. The only problem is that a group of long time, local residents in this small, rural community, where "everybody knows everything," insists that the sign never existed. It’s an example of an urban myth. Even if the sign did temporarily exist, what is it called when a negative isolated event is used to characterize a racial group? Throughout the program, "20/20" reported many ironic, negative charges. For example, an Indian activist claimed that South Dakota is "like apartheid." Neither this activist, nor "20/20," seemed to recognize the fact that—because of federal policy and some Indian’s demands, Indian reservations are designed for Indian separation and segregation the very definition of the word "apartheid." In an attempt to demonstrate racism, the program showed houses "where whites choose to live" and others where Indians live without noting the nearby tribal/federal-housing project designed for tribal members. "20/20" quoted a claim that, "Most Indians believe racial discrimination permeates all aspects of life in South Dakota." Unfortunately, nobody knows what most Indians believe because they haven’t asked them (Over 75 percent of all Indians have left their reservations to live in the general community).
   Racial discrimination does exist in South Dakota, but most of it is imported into the state. The word "Indian" is a racial classification. Federal Indian policy, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian reservations and tribal governments are all based on federal racial discrimination and significantly harm the lives of most Indians and many non-Indians in the state. What would we think about a federal White policy, a Bureau of White Affairs and White reservations run by White governments?
   Although "20/20" mentioned the Jurisdiction problems these racist policies create, they refused to seriously confront this official federal racism or consider the damage it inflicts on all the people of this State. Evidently, for "20/20," the idea of an America where everyone, including the government, treats all citizens equal was either too novel or too radical for them to mention.
PARR ED NOTE: We ran this article in its entirety because it is a beautiful example of the mainstream media bias. This is the same mainstream media that is standing on its head to cover up the true Al Gore. Just elect him to the presidency and this guy will make Bill Clinton look like an altar boy. We want to thank CERA and Darrel Smith for the above article. PARR

Kiss your Guns Goodbye
(Kent Snyder Liberty Study Committee)   National registration of all firearms as well as national registration (often called licensing) of owners of firearms will begin no later than January 20, 2001. It's not going to happen because of a law Congress will pass, but because of an executive order President Clinton will soon issue the action of one man. He will most likely issue the executive order just after the upcoming presidential election, regardless of who wins.
   If you think my prediction is far-fetched, think again. President Clinton and his supporters desperately want all firearms and all owners of firearms in the U.S. to be registered with the federal government. They desperately need national registration because, as we all know, what they truly want is national confiscation of firearms.
   National confiscation of firearms happened in Mao's China, Stalin's and Gorbachev's Soviet Union, Hitler's Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Castro's Cuba. Is Clinton's America next?
   President Clinton and his supporters will continue to actively push Congress for so called "reasonable, common sense" gun control legislation. However, when President Clinton and his supporters don't get what they want from Congress in the proper constitutional legislative process, he will spit on the Constitution by issuing an executive order to get what they want anyway.
   He's done it before and he'll do it again.
   Don't take my word for it. Take the Clinton administration's word for it. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said, "We've switched the rules of the game. We're not trying to do anything legislatively." [The Washington Times, June 14, 1999] Since President Clinton has grabbed millions of acres of land in the Midwest and West by issuing executive orders, why would he hesitate to issue an executive order to grab millions of guns?
   Secretary Babbitt warned us in June of 1999. John Podesta, President Clinton's chief of staff, also warned us in November of 1999. "White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, frustrated with the balky Republican Congress, thinks it's time for
President Clinton to show whose boss. How? Clinton plans a series of executive orders and changes to federal rules that he can sign into law without first getting the OK from GOP naysayers. Since it's Podesta's idea, aides have dubbed it 'Project Podesta.' The namesake told our Kenneth T. Walsh: 'There's a pretty wide sweep of things we're looking to do, and we're going to be very aggressive in pursuing it.'" [Paul Bedard, U.S. News Online, November 1, 1999]
   Paul Begala, as a senior adviser to President Clinton in 1998, gave us a big hint when he said, "Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool." [The New York Times, July 5, 1998]
   No, it's NOT cool! Legislation that will stop President Clinton in his tracks and prevent future presidents from acting like kings is now pending in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. Write your congressional delegation today, or get ready to hand over your firearms tomorrow. PARR

Issue Item When David Bruce murdered two children at their home with a pitchfork, I failed to see an editorial calling for a ban of pitchforks and a lawsuit against pitchfork makers. The Main Stream Media editors didn't blame the murderer, did they? And they didn't have guns to blame. So why don't they blame the pitchfork? Let's show some consistency here. If we can just save one child… PARR

Issue Item The first presidential debate suffered from an ‘ethics gap.’ In a marked sign of weakness, Gore simply refused to discuss his and Clinton’s many alleged ethical transgressions -- in effect, Gore ‘took the Fifth’ on everything from Chinagate fundraising to sexual assaults by his current boss. And with all due respect to Mr. Jim Lehrer, the debate moderator, he might have brought up the issue of the last decade in a way that was more than just an after thought." PARR

Squaw: To Be Or Not To Be
(By J.E. Schumacher)   Here we go again! Some of our politically correct ideologists have now determined that the word squaw is a derogatory term. They want it removed from all Wisconsin state place names, Squaw Lake, Squaw Creek, etc.
   So, how derogatory is the word squaw? A check of six dictionaries, with publishing dates ranging from 1922 to 1979, all revealed the same definition: A female; a woman; An American Indian woman or wife.
   According to Webster’s New International Dictionary, published in 1935, the word is a derivative from various Indian dialects, among them Narragansett, Delaware, Cree and Algonquin. Funny, the Narragansett word for squaw is spelled s-q-u-a-w!
   Well, see anything derogatory in the word, yet? Sometimes when it’s hard to find something, maybe it just isn't there!
   But the PC idiots will keep on trying to get the word banned; and when they do, then we can rest assured that somewhere down the line, if we inadvertently utter the word out loud, we’ll probably be arrested for a hate crime.
   By the way, do you think the Indian tribes will ban the word from their dialects? Or is it just the English language that’s being "cleansed"? PARR

Issue Item   A plan is in the works to allow one Indian tribal delegate in each house of the Wisconsin legislature. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel puts it, the legislature "might have to make room for two more seats soon and SHARE SOME POWER with the 11 Indian tribes in Wisconsin. (Emphasis PARR' s) Although the tribal delegates could not vote, they could participate in floor debate. How’s that for one (so-called) sovereign government weaseling its way into another sovereign government?
   While only allowed in floor debate, once that camel’s nose is under the tent, how long do you think it would take for the delegates to demand voting power? And if they got that, guess what? They would then enjoy greater representation than other non-Indian residents would. Why? Because tribal members can already vote in legislative races and they would also have two tribal delegates voting on bills.
   Now, the question is this! If all of the above comes to pass, will the 11 Indian tribes in Wisconsin reciprocate? Will they let on-reservation non-Indians into their tribal governments as delegates; able to debate and vote? Much doubt, much doubt. PARR

Issue Item Pop quiz: Who said, "We have an environmental crisis, a health insurance crisis, (and) substandard education. It is time for change." If you guessed Al Gore, go to the head of the class. When did he say it? Well, besides for the last nine months or so, he also said it in 1992, in his debate with Dan Quayle and Admiral Stockdale, Let's see. Crises in 1992. Same crises in 2000. Would it be too bold to ask where Al Gore and the First Prevaricator in chief have been for the last eight years? One thing is sure. It sure wasn't at Crisis management 101! PARR

Issue Item There is a need to talk a little about nobody's senator but yours, Herb Kohl. After he's elected he seems to fall off the radar until the next election. Then we are deluged with Herb Kohl Commercials proclaiming all the wonderful things he's done.
As of October 19, Kohl spent $3.31 Million on the campaign and his opponent Gillespie, spent $267,148. PARR thinks it's time to elect a senator that runs to serve his country and the people, not a rich playboy who buys the title as a status symbol. PARR

Membership Meeting Results   At the annual PARR General Membership meeting the following slate of candidates was in-stalled as the officers of PARR for 2000. The election results are:
      Chairman: Greg Graunke
      Vice Chairman: Larry Peterson
      Director of Administration: J. E. Schumacher
      Executive Secretary /Treasurer: Bob Manzke
      Directors: James Skowlund, Nancy Skowlund, Bob Goldamer, Ron Heinlein, Petra Heinlein, and Victor Bellomy.
   The membership also decided to donate $500 to PERM of Minnesota, because they are still in litigation with the same tribe that has spread so much charm in Wisconsin. The membership also decided to donate $25 to the Bong memorial in Superior, Wisconsin. PARR

Thanks PARR Chairman Greg Graunke, speaking for the entire staff would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who attended the meeting. It's always great to eyeball and glad hand the people who support us.
After the meeting when members come up and shake our hand and thank us, and tell us to keep up the good work, we're all charged up for another year. Not to say we don't appreciate all the members who couldn't attend the meeting and support us so well.To all of you, thanks. PARR

Address Change The post office decided to change the P.O. Boxes to a digital set up; whatever that means. It’s a pain for us. We couldn’t keep our old number so now PARR's new address is: P.A.R.R.
P.O. BOX 270007
MILWAUKEE, WI. 53227-0007

Back Issue
PARR

PARR