ARGU PARR's Newsletter Volume 8 No.2 Spring 2004

AMERICAN RIGHTS GUARDIAN
UPDATE
US Flag

VOLUME 8 NUMBER 2 SPR 2004 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.

      Another spring has arrived. The grass is greening; the flowers are blooming, and unfortunately another sign of spring is the emergence of the fisheries destruction parasite, “The Walleye Warrior.” We are witnessing a new twist this year in the continuous attempted justification of spearing spawning fish. On the DNR’s web site we were able to locate the bag limits for 2004-2005, but the Chippewa’s 2004 spearing declarations were obvious by their absence. After a couple of weeks of searching we were able to come up with the declarations. We didn't expect what we got. The declarations were presented on a Microsoft Excel spread sheet (a work sheet). This is not the usual format for publication. Apparently there was no intention to make these records public. Previously these declarations were always available by early March. Now they are nonexistent. Why???
      Coupled with that, the complicated bag limits (total bag limits) on various lakes makes taking 5 fish a day within the parameters of these bag limits, a nifty trick.
      The above bureaucratic smoke and mirrors is normal for Wisconsin 2004. For example, we have been trying for several months to get an answer to our question;” how come the Indians can donate large sums of money to political campaigns, when the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, says they cant?” PARR has posed this question to our entire Federal delegation in Washington D.C. From the total lack of response one could deduce that aliens have abducted the entire Wisconsin federal delegation.

Bureaucratic Stonewalling
(By J.E, Schumacher)      Considering the lack of response to PARR’s letters, (see Illegal use of gambling money ARGU Vol.8 #1) I fired off the letter below to our Federal delegation in Washington D.C. (all 10 of them and Senator Inouye). This second request was sent over a month ago and still no response.
March 20, 2004,
To: Wisconsin’s Federal Delegation in Washington D.C.
Dear Sir/Madam,
     On December 31, 2003, Protect Americans’ Rights & Resources (PARR) sent you a letter (copy enclosed) requesting your views on the legality of Indian tribal gambling monies being given to American political campaign coffers as it pertains to current United States legislation.
     PARR also requested your opinion on the constitutionality of Senate Bill 578 as it pertains to the rights of non tribal member United States citizens.
     It has now been almost four months without a reply from any of you. PARR is not a high powered lobbying group, therefore we cannot, legally or illegally, donate to your campaign coffers. However as United States citizens, we do think we are entitled to your response on these two most important issues. That is, unless this country is no longer a representative form of government. Once again, the courtesy of a reply is respectfully requested at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Yours truly, J.E. Schumacher. §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Tribal Contribution a Mere Pittance
(By Bob Manzke Taken in Part From a Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel Article)      Tribal gambling in Wisconsin has a multi billion dollar take. The latest gambling compacts negotiated by the Doyle administration require the tribes to pay Wisconsin about $100 million a year.
     But the public's stake in this matter doesn't end there. For the state to properly police the casinos, it needs to have access to their financial records. And to ensure that everything is on the up and up, the public should have access to those records, too.
     Regrettably, Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager doesn't agree. Lautenschlager determined that confidentiality was a condition of getting the tribes to provide those financial details to the state in compact negotiations. It's more important, she wrote, for the state to be able to adequately regulate the casinos than to let the public see the records.
     In PARR’s view, the two are not mutually exclusive. Given the money involved casino gambling is a billion dollar industry the public has as much of a stake as state government in assuring that there are no irregularities.
     Assistant Attorney General Maureen Flanagan said the state was forced to accept the confidentiality provision because the tribes are sovereign nations and not bound by state statutes, including the open records law.
     Consider that Bill Lawrence, a Minnesota newspaper publisher and a member of the Red Lake Chippewa tribe sued two tribes in that state for release of their casino records. His argument? Such records should be public to help check potential corruption. The public, he said, should see casino records because those businesses are "state sanctioned monopolies," Lawrence said. He makes a good point, which is why his paper won its long standing suit last year.
     There is another reason for the public in this state to want access to casino financial records: Without those state audits, there is no way the public can verify that the payments guaranteed to the state under the compacts were calculated properly, according to an attorney for the Journal Sentinel.
     And it bears repeating that those calculations are worth $100 million a year.
PARR Ed Note: Having huge sums of money handled without supervision is an invitation for trouble. Many tribal leaders have already been busted for helping themselves. The $100 million the state receives is a drop in the bucket when looking at what it cost the various communities to supply services (utilities, roads, etc.) to the tribes.
      Consider this: What's to prevent the tribes from becoming greedy, fudging the figures, and just like that the $100 million becomes $12.98? §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Issue Item      Now that the tribes have all this money, why not start their own bank? The Blackfeet of Montana have already established an offshore bank on their reservation three years ago, and now the Navajo are planning the same thing.
     They claim no Legitimate U.S. investors could deposit money in their bank, and that Navajo sovereignty would shield them from state and Federal banking laws.
     Now this scheme sure has all sorts of potential. The excess unscrutinized tribal casino funds could easily find their way into these banks, because after all tribes are only part of the United States and sovereign when it is convenient to them.
     And how about laundering drug money? Consider the convenience to terrorists. Foreign countries could set up accounts to finance terrorists operations in this country. The question here is, do the tribes possess the integrity to be trusted with something like this? §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Setting the Politicians Right
(By JE Schumacher)       Roger Breske State Senate 12th District.
Dear Mr. Breske:
      Protect Americans’ Rights & Resources (PARR) is in receipt of a letter you sent to Mr. Larry Parks of Arbor Vitae, Wis. on 3/23/O4.
      In your letter, you state that Indian tribes can legally contribute to political campaigns because neither Wisconsin state statutes nor the Indian Gambling Compacts specify how a tribe must spend revenue generated front gambling.
      However, the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act does specify how tribes can spend their gaming money, and donating to political campaigns is not one of those specifics.
     Now the question arises: Is the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act a law that Indian tribes and their political beneficiaries (AKA political campaign coffers) will ignore at their whim? Please advise.
      You also state that it is legal for tribes to give to political campaigns because federal campaign laws state that candidates cannot accept money from foreign nations. Whether foreign nations or not, how can the tribes violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act mentioned above?
      You then state that if they wish, Indian tribes may become a sovereign nation, but the United States does not apply the same laws to sovereign nations as it does to foreign nations. Two questions: First, what is the difference between a sovereign nation and a foreign nation? Second, what United States established law allows Indian tribes to become sovereign nations "if they wish” and then acknowledges same?
      If this were true, it would seem to fly in the face of numerous federal Supreme Court decisions over the last 175 years refuting the myth of Indian tribal sovereignty! Please advise.
      A reply is respectfully requested at your earliest convenience.
PARR Ed Note: As of press time, no word from Senator Roger Breske. The aliens must have got him too. §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Wisconsin’s own Turncoat
(By Bob Manzke)       After the Wisconsin Senate passed SB, “the Concealed Weapons Bill” 24 to 8 and the Assembly passed the same bill 64 to 35 Governor Doyle vetoed it. Then, in a dramatic 65-34 vote, the Assembly failed to override Doyle's veto of the bill that pitted gun owners against a first term Democratic governor.
      Rep. Gary Sherman (D-Port Wing), a National Rifle Association member who voted for the bill just three months ago, cast the deciding vote to sustain the veto. An assistant party leader, Sherman accused Republicans who control the Assembly of pushing the vote only to embarrass Doyle.
     Sherman said he could pay a steep political price for his vote when he seeks reelection in November, if gun owners and the NRA work against him in his northern Wisconsin district.
     Asked if his vote could cost him the Assembly seat he has held since he was elected 1998, Sherman said, "I don't think it will, but I don't think it's inconceivable."
      Regardless, Sherman said: "I still have my character. I still know who I am. "I believe in political courage. I didn't come down here to play the odds, or address percentages, and chicken out."
PARR Ed Note: With the Governor's veto power the majority sure doesn't have a chance, especially when the Governor's only concern is to accommodate those who bought the Governor ship for him.
      At this time PARR would like to nominate Assemblyman Sherman to the “pathetic excuses hall of fame.” Beating his chest and proclaiming, "I still have my character. I still know who I am. I believe in political courage.” Loosely translated means, “I got the OR ELSE message and am complying, make sure the check is made out to cash!” §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Review of Gun Gestapo Activities
(By J.E. Schumacher)       Time to report on the Gun Grabbing Gestapo in Washington, D.C. and what they're up to. We pretty much know who they are. We have Herr Kennedy, Schumer, Nadler, Lautenberg, Kerry, to name a few, and let's not forget the Frauleins; Feinstein, Clinton, Jackson Lee, to mention a trio of better known names.
      Let's see if we can at least attempt to follow the logic of these folks and their proposed gun legislation.
      H .R. 899, introduced by Nadler (NY), would require law abiding Americans to seek to seek permission from the government and obtain a license in order to own, or purchase a handgun. Those not granted a license would be required to turn in their handguns to the government. Where is the logic? If a law abiding citizen applied for the license, why wouldn't it be granted, thus forcing him to turn in his handguns? Or course, the criminal degenerates and terrorists wouldn't apply in the first place. Verdict: Flawed logic, junk law.
      H. R. 2403, sponsored by Kennedy (RI), would give the U.S. Attorney General the power to ban any firearm or ammunition that he/she deems to be "unsafe". What criterion is to be used in defining the word unsafe? It must be remembered that guns and ammunition, in and of themselves are not unsafe, but depending on the human factor, they are inherently unsafe. Verdict: Flawed logic, junk law.
      H. R. 76, sponsored by Jackson Lee (TX), would hold you responsible and mandate federal prison time for you if a juvenile criminal degenerate steals your gun and then uses it to commit a crime. This is getting tough. I guess the logic here is that you or I are supposed to be responsible for someone we don't even know! By the way, if that juvenile steals your gun and doesn't use it in a crime, are we to assume that all is well and good in liberal la-la land? Verdict: Flawed logic, junk law.
      S. 969, sponsored by Lautenberg (NJ), would impose national gun registration on law abiding American citizens in the name of “fighting terrorism.”
      So, now we've got the law abiding public's weapon registered with the federal government in the name of fighting terrorism. But did the terrorists and criminal degenerates register their weapons? No, they didn't, they're just laughing in Mr. Lautenberg’s face. Verdict: Flawed logic, junk law.
      Why write this stuff? Well, for one thing, yours truly has just vindicated himself for calling the above mentioned idiots “Gun Grabbing Gestapo.” §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Who Owes Reparations?
(By Bob Manzke)       I recently read an article by a victim advocate demanding US Government pay reparations to relatives of slaves. The writer made a very good case. Unfortunately it was based on the flawed premise that in The United States of America, the present generation is responsible for the sins of their forefathers. This may be the case in some Middle Eastern countries, but this is not the case in this country.
     The writer went into great detail about who would qualify, and who would get what. However, several things were overlooked. Would these relatives be willing to pay a percentage of that reparation to the relatives of the soldiers who fought for the freedom of the slaves? Would the payment be higher for the descendants of soldiers who died in that war? What about those who arranged and manned the Underground Railroad? Do they not also deserve a portion of that reparation? Apparently not because they did not fit into the “victim template” created by the writer.
     Another flaw became apparent, and that is the demand that the United States Government make all these reparations. Why should the US Government have to foot the entire bill? After all there are 572 “sovereign Tribal Governments” within the borders of the United States, and prior to the civil war many of them owned slaves.
     These were not enemy captured in battle and integrated as slaves into the victorious tribe. They were black people purchased from slave markets.
     I investigated the web site: Estelusti The Lives of The Freedmen of Indian Territory The Slave Narratives of Indian Territory. I found several 1937-1939 interviews of Negro exslaves of Indians. A couple of the interviews follow.
      Frances Banks Choctaw Freed woman: I was born on a farm near Doaksville, near Hugo, Oklahoma, befo' de Civil War. My parents belonged to an Indian family when I was jest a little child. After the rebellion on, with the family, and I lived near the family of Governor Allen Wright for sixty years. I nussed all his chillun' and den later, long come dey's chillun' and I nussed dem, and I'se even nussed the great grand chillun'.
     After the War I was what you call a Freedman. De Indians had to give all dey slaves forty acres of land. I'se allus lived on dis land which jines dat of Old Master's and I'se never stayed away from it long at a time. I'se allus willing to go back and nuss de sick and 'flicted but I allus come back home for a while.
     Mary Grayson Creek Freed woman: Mary Grayson was interviewed in 1937 from her residence in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where she lived with her daughter and son-in-law Robert and Jessie Ligons. Her narrative has been described as one of the best narratives of the WPA Slave narratives, because it is a "rare piece of autobiographical writing against a vivid background in time and place," and that it also contains "high literary merit." These remarks are those of Benjamin A. Botkin who directed the Federal Writers Project in 1940. Her interview was also published in "Lay My Burden Down" published by Botkin and also in "Bullwhip Days" published by Mellon. The narrative with other pertinent footnotes and references can be accessed in the work, "The WPA Oklahoma Slave Narratives"
      I am what colored people call a "native". That means that I didn't come into the Indian country from somewhere in the Old South, after the War, like so many Negroes did, but I was born here in the old Creek Nation, and my master was a Creek Indian. That was eighty three years ago, so I am told.
      My mammy belonged to white people back in Alabama when she was born, down in the southern part I think, for she told me that after she was a size able girl her white people moved into the eastern part of Alabama where there was a lot of Creeks. Some of them Creeks were mixed up with the whites, and some of the big men in the Creeks who come to talk to her master were almost white, it looked like. "My white folks moved around a lot when I was little girl,” she told when mammy was about 10 or 12 years old some of the Creeks begun to come out to the Territory in little bunches. They wasn't the ones who was taken out here by the soldiers and contractor men they come on ahead by themselves and most of them had plenty of money, too. A Creek come to my mammy's master and bought her to bring out here.
PARR Ed Note: We suggest that the reparations advocates make certain that all the governments condoning slavery be indicted for reparations.
    The Estelusti web site contains depositions taken from 27 black people in the late 1930s. Because of space we chose the two above. §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
One Nation Under God
(By J.E. Schumacher)       The U.S. Supreme Court is now pondering whether the words “under God” are unconstitutional as they appear in the
Pledge of allegiance. This brings up a very intriguing question.
      Consider the following phrases:
   >… The separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...
   > ... That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...
   >... Appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World...
   > ... With a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence.
Of course, these phrases are contained in our country's founding document, The Declaration of Independence.
      Now, should the Supremes decree that reciting the Pledge in public with the words “under God” in it, is indeed, unconstitutional, then shouldn't reciting the Declaration in public, with it's references to God, also be decreed unconstitutional? Logic would seem to dictate so.
      But wait! Wouldn't ruling the Pledge unconstitutional put the Court at war with the ultimate source of its own authority? And what is that ultimate source? Why of course, its the Declaration, just mentioned above.
      Interesting dilemma, don't you think? Just ponder it! The nine justices of the highest court in the land ruling the ultimate source of their authority unconstitutional, and thus, ruling themselves unconstitutional and irrelevant. §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Issue Item       Mexico's President Vicente Fox asked President Bush for amnesty for illegal aliens and open borders for migrant workers. He wants Mexicans to have the right to take American jobs. Fox wants to obtain the same rights for Mexican tourists in the U.S. that Canadians enjoy. It's about time. Americans are sick and tired of the Canadians coming down to this country and taking jobs away from our Mexicans. §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
PARR Editorial         Do you remember Rep. Gary Sherman (D-Port Wing)? Rep. Sherman’s turncoat votes to support Doyle's veto of the concealed carry law was a forecast of the Doyle camp and lies to come.
       After a little over a year, Doyle and his administration probably have set a new state record for lies, broken promises and favoritism to those who bought the office for him. Anybody who didn't donate big bucks to his campaign got vetoed. And honest members of his party were forced to prostitute themselves to Doyle's agenda.
       Representative Debi Towns (R-Janesville) had a great idea. She wrote a bill to help meet a skilled labor shortage in Janesville and help folks get the training necessary for good paying engineering jobs. Rep. Towns’ bill (AB 830) creates an engineering job training partnership between south central Wisconsin businesses and the University of Wisconsin Rock County. As this bill progressed the Gov. repeatedly guaranteed passage. Then caving to special interest pressure, Governor Doyle went back on his word. He retreated behind closed doors and vetoed AB 830 in secret. So much for Doyle's rhetoric about how he is going to create all sorts of high paying jobs in Wisconsin.
      We can't review the Doyle administration's first year in office without mentioning the biggest disgrace this state was ever forced to endure; Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager. Granted she wasn't his running mate, but she was swept into office on the same well financed ground swell of special interest lies that trashed incumbent McCollum and got Doyle elected. With this lady, we see a new level of stupid arrogance. Arrogance that makes her believe that she is above the law, the law she took an oath to enforce. Her adventures range from drunken driving to improper use of a state vehicle, to unreported damage to a state vehicle, and when confronted, she can concoct the most idiotic excuses for her actions. Then, when the masses won't buy them, she claims a vast conspiracy against her. Conclusion: Our top cop's integrity is zero.
      The sad part of Doyle's agenda is when he leaves office; he will leave a political rubble heap strewn with the careers of good Democratic politicians, that were forced to do his bidding OR ELSE! We don't see Doyle doing more than one term if that much, but we don't think he really much cares about that, or who gets screwed along the way. He has already accomplished much of his mission to transfer a large piece of the State of Wisconsin’s sovereignty to the Tribal Governments.
      PARR doesn't understand why a recall isn't underway by now? §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Spearing Mysteries
(By Greg Graunke)        Hi Folks, I want to apologize for my not being able to provide you with the Chippewa spearing declarations for 2004. PARR hasn't been able to get this information from the DNR, or anywhere else. This is probably the strategy of the new intellectually elite. Keep the ignorant masses in the dark, because after all they are too stupid to handle the facts. The DNR web site has the bag limits posted, and the question posed is: how can bag limits be established without knowing the Chippewa spearing declarations? Appears that some sort of voodoo math is employed here.
       So far, PARR has contacted the Milwaukee DNR office; the spokesperson there referred PARR to another person (an authority) who said “duhhhh”.
       Eventually, we ended up at Spooner where the spokesperson invoked the 5th amendment and connected us with the “Public Relations Secretary.” Well we actually didn't get to talk to a human being. Employing the bureaucrat's secret weapon, the answering machine proclaiming, “I'm not at my desk right now but will get back to you just as soon as I can.” Interpreted this means don't hold your breath. This was on Wednesday, April 28th, and the second part of the recorded message roughly proclaimed: Shortly I will be become unavailable, because I will be making preparations to pose with the Governor for Holy Pictures at the fishing opener on Saturday May 1st.
       No doubt the 2004 spearing declarations are available and we just didn't look in the right place for them. This whole scenario may not be a run around, but it sure appears that way from our vantage point.
      Well, we finally got the Chippewa spearing declarations.
After over two weeks of struggling, we finally got the darned things, the day we were going to go to press.
       My copy came from Andrew Fayram…(Quantitative Fisheries Policy Analyst). Now isn't that an impressive title? Bob Manzke’s copy came from Senator Zein’s office.
       Now this poses a new question. How come, all of a sudden these figures are not as visible as they were in the past?
Immediately the red flags come up. With cover ups a way of life in today's society, why not!
     When dealing with a controversial issue like Tribal Spearing, “a little make it go away hocus pocus” might work just fine. §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Queen Crabb Strikes Again
(By Bob Manzke Taken in Part From an Article that Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel)       A federal judge in Madison on ordered the City of La Crosse to remove a tombstone sized monument depicting the Ten Commandments from the center of a downtown public park, but the Kentucky based advocacy group that helped bankroll and fight an earlier order immediately vowed to appeal the ruling.
      It was the second time U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb commanded the city to remove the tablets and the third time she has visited the question of the monument, donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in the 1960s.
      The Madison based Freedom from Religion Foundation spear headed a drive in the 1980s to have the marker removed from Cameron Park, saying that because it was on public land, it violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. Crabb at the time said that the atheist advocacy organization didn't have proper standing to sue.
      Then, in 2001, 22 La Crosse residents, joined by the foundation, sued again, and Crabb let the case proceed.
      City officials in the summer of 2002 tried to sidestep the question by selling a small swatch at the center of the park to the Eagles so that the monument could remain, though surrounded by fences and a sign that said the city didn't endorse the religious views contained therein.
       In May 2003, Crabb ruled that creating this 20 foot by 22 foot parcel was a dodge that didn't past constitutional muster, though she allowed the case to be reopened when the Eagles said they wanted to be party to the suit. On Tuesday, Crabb reiterated her position from last spring.
      "I cannot find any meaningful difference between a city's own display of a religious monument and a city's grant of permission to one (and only one) private group to permanently display the monument in the same location when the monument is still surrounded by city property," she wrote in a 47 page decision.
PARR Ed Note: PARR feels that the antics of these liberal activist judges, just proves that a lifetime appointment to the bench is a mistake. Take your Casino And Shove it       In Dane County, the non binding casino referendum lost by an overwhelming margin.
      Casino advocates, funded by the Ho-Chunk, spent an estimated $1.3 million wooing voters, compared with about $45,000 raised by anti casino forces. It demonstrates once and for all that casinos are not a popular thing in Dane County," said Madison Mayor David Cieslewicz, who opposed the casino.
      If the constituents of the areas where other casinos are located had a chance to vote on this issue, no doubt every case would turn out the same as Dane County. The Ho-Chunk tribe, which already operates a casino 30 miles west of Madison, wanted to turn its DeJope bingo operation on Madison's southeast side into a casino. The move would generate millions in new gaming revenue, Ho-Chunk officials said.
      PARR does not know who made the following statement, which is a false claim of Governor James Doyle's authority. Judging by the absurdity of claim of the Governors power, it no doubt came from The Ho-Chunk tribe.
      “Gov. Jim Doyle has the authority to approve the location of new casinos. He has said he would abide by the outcome of Tuesday's advisory referendum.”
      Ken Artis, a legislative counsel for the Ho-Chunk, said he was disappointed by the outcome. "We had relentless misleading opposition... And the great many scare tactics about the alleged deleterious effects of gaming in a state where gaming already exists," he said.
      If the bingo hall was turned into a full fledged casino, Madison and Dane County would have gained at least $90 million over the next 12 years under a deal already negotiated with city and county officials.
      The question here is how much would this casino add to the gross national product? The wealth and financial power of a nation is its “Gross National Product.” PARR can't see how Indian Gambling Casinos do anything but subtract from the
“Gross National Product.” §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Indian Lobby VS. our Constitutional Rights
(By J.E. Schumacher)       One continues to wonder just what kind of blithering idiots are sitting on the federal bench disguised as judges. To explain this, let's just take one case, USA v. Billy Jo Lara. Without getting into the specifics of this case, let's just refer to a few sentences to make our point.
      “The panel reasoned, however, that Duro (another case) was grounded on federal common law, not on any constitutional limitation on tribal sovereignty.” What babble!. The U.S. Constitution does not recognize tribal sovereignty, so how can there be any constitutional limitation on it?
       Another sentence; these are federal judges talking, remember that. “Duro, however, was a federal common law decision, not a constitutional one; nothing in the Constitution, therefore, prevents Congress from prospectively redefining the scope of tribal sovereignty....” Wait a minute! If the Constitution refuses to acknowledge tribal sovereignty, then how can the U.S. Congress even think about defining, much less redefining tribal sovereignty? Now it would appear that Congress (another arrogant body of idiots) is showing supreme contempt for the same Constitution that they have sworn to uphold!
      It must be remembered that Justice John Marshall, back in the 1830s ruled that Indian tribes are not to be treated as sovereign entities. And he based that decision on the Constitution, the same Constitution that Congress and the federal courts are now trying to circumvent in order to give tribal governments the power to rule, not only over their own members, but the rest of us, also.
     One wonders why Congress and the courts are so willing to grant tribal governments their insane demands for so much power over all of us, powers that were never delegated to them neither in the Constitution nor in countless court decisions in the past. With Congress, it's somewhat understandable; all you have to do is put a couple of phrases together: Tribal gambling money and Political campaign coffers. With the courts, maybe it's as simple as wanting to be politically correct. As some of us old timers remember, the Indian Lobby's definition of political correctness is defined thus: “We want, you give. You refuse, you racist.”
Endnote: A few words of explanation regarding the reference to giving tribal governments the power to rule, not only over their own members, but the rest of us, also. The Indian Lobby, for the last number of years, has been attempting to attain this power through Congressional legislation and/or the federal courts. In addition to this, Senate Bill 578, introduced by Sen. Daniel Inouye, would extend this tribal power over American citizens beyond tribal reservation borders.
      Elaine Willman, chair of Citizens Equal Rights Alliance (CERA), made this observation in a letter to Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. “S-578 places every American citizen in peril of becoming resident aliens subjugated to tribal governance at the hands of a few misguided elected officials in the House and Senate. Removing Constitutional guarantees from a selected set of American citizens and subjecting them to government by another entity (tribal governments) is unprecedented in the history of this nation.”
      Scary stuff, folks. Anybody care? If anybody does, they may want to “send there very best” to Sen. Daniel Inouye. §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Dam Beavers       This is an actual letter sent to a man named Ryan DeVries by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, State of Michigan. This guy's response is hilarious, but read the State's letter before you get to the response letter.
      Dear Mr. DeVries: It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity:
      "Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond."
      A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department's files shows that no permits have been issued. Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, annotated.
      The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 2005.
      Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that our staff may schedule a follow-up site inspection. Failure to comply with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action.
      We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, David L. Price, District Representative Land and Water Management Division
* Here is the actual response sent back by Mr. DeVries: **
Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Montcalm County.
       Dear Mr. Price: Your certified letter dated 12/17/04 has been handed to me to respond to.
       I am the legal landowner but not the Contractor at 2088 Dagget, Pierson, Michigan. A couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood "debris" dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use of natures building materials "debris."
       I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no way you could ever match their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.
      As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they must first fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity. My first dam question to you is: (1) Are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers, or (2) do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through the Freedom of Information Act, I request completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, annotated.
      I have several concerns. My first concern is; aren't the beavers entitled to legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said representation so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department's dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event, causing flooding, is proof that this is a natural occurrence, which the Department is required to protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling their dam names.
      If you want the stream "restored" to a dam free flow condition please contact the beavers but if you are going to arrest them, they obviously did not pay any attention to your dam letter, they being unable to read English.
      In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam rights than I do to live and enjoy Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Re sources and Environmental Protection lives up to its name; it should protect the natural resources (Beavers) and the environment (Beavers' Dams).
      So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait until 1/31/2005? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then and there will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then.
      In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention to a real environmental quality (health) problem in the area. It is the bears! Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!)
      Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office. THANK YOU! RYAN DEVRIES & THE DAM BEAVERS
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Issue Item       Did you know that Federal Indian policy has created two classes of taxpayers, based solely upon race? Yesirree, Bob! Two soldiers sharing the same foxhole get different paychecks. How? Enrolled Tribal Indians in the military do not pay state taxes, but your son or daughter does!) That's because the Indian Lobby and G.I.s (no not soldiers Government Idiots) no longer believe in the Fourteenth Amendment to our Constitution.
      Another question is why are our sons and daughters that are defending our country are even taxed at all? Oh yeah it helps that pig in Washington, D.C. that our Congressional porkers are continually fattening up.
President Bush call your office. Can you say VETO! §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Crandon Mine
(By Bob Manzke)       PARR predicts that the Tribes will soon begin mining operations to harvest the estimated $1billion + in metals which lie buried under the real estate now owned by them. PARR also predicts that it will be learned that in 2003, the former owner of the Nicolet Mine, BHP loaned the Mole Lake tribe the money ($8 million) to pay for their share of the mine purchase.
      Billiton /BHP owned the mine till 2002, when they sold it to Connors, who in turn sold it to the tribes in 2003. The 2003 sale of the mine was forced by unbelievable government red tape. And the tribes and the environmentalists spearheaded the generation of this red tape.
      PARR just can't help but wonder how the Tribes are going to get around all the environmental concerns that brought this mine operation to a halt. Consider this: The tribes will no doubt have the US government put this property in trust. Then the mythological tribal sovereignty will kick in. This amounts to elimination of Uncle Sam's ability to tax minerals taken out of his ground.
      Will tribal sovereignty allow them to sell the minerals to the Taliban or anyone else who may use it to harm the USA. As you can see the predictions PARR can make stretches to infinity when dealing with this scenario. §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§

The name of the winner of the print “Shanty Town” will be announced in the next ARGU.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This newsletter contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of the political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues, including historical accuracy, as pertains to federal Indian policy/programs. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for research and educational purposes. Articles provided here without permission from the copyright owner are provided for the purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws. This material may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use".

Back Issue

Newcount669_3d