UN Resolution

Nomad

Beginner
Sep 25, 2010
28
0
I’m getting that “Warm, Fuzzy feeling” again??? HHMmmmmmmm….maybe like water running down my leg?


Obama Announces Support for UN Resolution Stating 'Indigenous Peoples Have the Right to the Lands ... They Have Traditionally Owned, Occupied or Otherwise Used or Acquired'

Tuesday, December 21, 2010
By Penny Starr

President Barack Obama greets audience members after speaking at the White House Tribal Nations Conference on Thursday, Dec. 16, 2010, at the Interior Department in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama, addressing [2] a tribal nations conference at the White House last week announded that the U.S. government is now supporting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People includes a sweeping declaration that "indigenous peoples" have a right to lands and resources they traidtionally occupied or "otherwise used."

"Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired," says the UN resolution.

The Bush administration had declined to support the resolution.

At the White House Tribal Nations Conference, Obama reminded the group that last year he signed a resolution passed by Congress that “finally” recognizes “the sad and painful chapters in our shared history--a history too often marred by broken promises and grave injustices against the First Americans,” he said.

The president added that “no statement can undo the damage that was done,” but he said the resolution can “help reaffirm the principles that should guide our future.”

“It’s only by heeding the lessons of our history that we can move forward,” Obama said.

In his remarks, Obama also recalled his trip to a Montana Indian reservation during his presidential campaign where he said he was honored with a new name.

“I remember, more than two years ago, in Montana, I visited the Crow Nation -- one of the many times I met with tribal leaders on the campaign trail,” Obama said. “You may know that on that trip, I became an adopted Crow Indian.”

“My Crow name is ‘One Who Helps People Throughout the Land,’” Obama said. “And my wife, when I told her about this, she said, ‘You should be named ‘One Who Isn’t Picking Up His Shoes and His Socks.’”

Another reversal of Bush policy

The president told the Native Americans the U.S. will now support the U.N Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples [3], a resolution the U.N. General Assembly adopted in 2007 but the Bush administration rejected because of language it described as vague and open to interpretation.

The U.N. declaration begins by affirming a view of equal rights that seems consistent with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, namely that "indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples" and "should be free from discrimination of any kind." But then it goes beyond that.

The declaration expresses concern that indigenous peoples have "suffered from historic injustices" as a result of colonization and "dispossession of their lands, territories and resources," and recognizes "the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights" of indigenous peoples -- "especially their right to their lands, territories and resources."

The U.S. State Department, in a Dec. 16 posting on its Web site, explained the Obama administration’s decision to support the U.N. resolution, saying it “resulted from a comprehensive, interagency policy review, including extensive consultation with tribes.”

The State Department noted that the U.N. declaration is not legally binding, but it “carries considerable moral and political force and complements the president’s ongoing efforts to address historical inequities faced by indigenous communities in the United States.”

Brent Schaefer, an analyst with the Heritage Foundation, told CNSNews.com that although the U.N. declaration now supported by the Obama administration is non-binding, it represents a “significant policy shift” from the Bush administration.

Schaefer also said that before crafting legally binding international treaties, the U.N. usually starts the process with a non-binding resolution -- a fact that will put the U.S. in a more difficult position if it objects to similar language in a formal treaty.

“It puts our negotiators in a weaker position going forward,” Schaefer said.

The Bush administration voted against the resolution in 2007, noting that under U.S. law, Indian tribes already are recognized as self-governing political entities.

The Bush administration said many of the issues covered by the U.N. declaration already are covered by U.S. law, including self-determination, lands, resources and redress for past mistreatment.

The U.N. declaration includes 46 articles, many of which dictate how nations should deal with their indigenous peoples.

Article 26 reads in part, “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired,” and it says nations “shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources.”

The Bush administration called Article 26 “particularly unworkable,” because it “appears to require recognition of indigenous rights to lands without regard to other legal rights existing in land.”

The text “could be misread to confer upon a sub-national group a power of veto over the laws of a democratic legislature,” the Bush administration warned. “We strongly support the full participation of indigenous peoples in democratic decision-making processes, but cannot accept the notion of a sub-national group having a ‘veto.’”

Article 21 reads in part, “States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their (indigenous people’s) economic and social conditions. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities.”

Article 16 directs nations to “take effective measures to ensure that State-owned media duly reflect indigenous cultural diversity. States…should encourage privately owned media to adequately reflect indigenous cultural diversity.”ution
 
Yeah, this is a worrisome development. I read the article in several news accounts yesterday. Here in British Columbia, various native bands have laid claim to about 150 percent of the land. This is due to the multiple overlapping claims. What is worse, it is a mess each time the provincial and federal negotiators attempt to sort out the situation. When it is said and done, the sucking sound I hear is money being removed from my wallet.
 
I'll just tell you that in my opinion, this is a great way to cause financial collapse. I for one will default on my mortgage if I'm seen to be "squatting" on someone's ancestors' lands, despite my having paid for the lands and done significant improvements. I'll burn the house down and salt the yard before I leave, too. I'm so sick and tired of all these whining people bitching and moaning about how they got a raw deal. I've gotten raw deals in my life, too, but I discovered while I was out of work (with zero income) that I made too much money in prior years to qualify for any assistance. Imagine that! I had zero income, but because I was successful before, I was punished - kicked while I was down! The (new) American Way!

I'm all but ready to leave and resign my citizenship. If I could find somewhere to go that would allow me to bring my guns, and buy handloading supplies, I'd leave at the first opportunity. I'm afraid this country has reached the point we're too stupid to live much longer. We'll see if anything changes anytime soon.
 
dubyam":2t72h300 said:
I'll just tell you that in my opinion, this is a great way to cause financial collapse. I for one will default on my mortgage if I'm seen to be "squatting" on someone's ancestors' lands, despite my having paid for the lands and done significant improvements. I'll burn the house down and salt the yard before I leave, too. I'm so sick and tired of all these whining people bitching and moaning about how they got a raw deal. I've gotten raw deals in my life, too, but I discovered while I was out of work (with zero income) that I made too much money in prior years to qualify for any assistance. Imagine that! I had zero income, but because I was successful before, I was punished - kicked while I was down! The (new) American Way!

I'm all but ready to leave and resign my citizenship. If I could find somewhere to go that would allow me to bring my guns, and buy handloading supplies, I'd leave at the first opportunity. I'm afraid this country has reached the point we're too stupid to live much longer. We'll see if anything changes anytime soon.

Tell us how you really feel buddy! Scotty
 
Scotty,

Please know that I love this country. I live and breathe the ideals that it was founded upon, and like Patrick Henry, I love liberty more than life. I am disheartened about the dearth of leadership in this country, and the decay of work ethic and the whining.

I will contrast that with the respect I have for men like yourself, who, for love of country, serve. Never let it be thought that I might forget that I get the privilege of coming on this board and "telling how I really feel" because men and women like you picked up a rifle and stood a post. My brother served in Second Armored before it was mothballed, and I still have a nice "Hell On Wheels" patch in my loading closet. So don't mistake my distaste for the current situation, and the long uphill climb we have to get out of it for anything derogatory about you or your compatriots. Or for the idea that a person should have the choice to self-define, and to choose their own destiny, and that liberty is life, and the two are inextricably linked.

Thank you for your service, Sir. And thank you to your friends. I can only hope we are able to save the republic from the slick enemies within while you protect liberty from those outside.
 
I agree with you buddy~ I could tell you were fired up some! Thank You. Scotty
 
Let's keep this as simple as possible.
Get the US out of the UN and get the UN out of the us. Nuff said?
Paul B.
"What good fortune for givernment that the people do not think."
Adolph Hitler
 
Could it be that the intent is to dispossess white middle class America? Could the criminal failure to enforce immigration law and protect the borders really be a way of swamping the white conservative vote as a means of disenfranchisement? Who has evidence that this is not exactly what the game plan is? Not pretty, is it?

What do you do with a mass of disenfranchised and dispossessed people? Hmmm. Does the answer lie in the history of Germany in the late 1930s? Not pretty, is it?

We are having our country jerked right out from under us, and we had best come to grips with the reality of the situation.

Not pretty, is it?
 
DrMike":26phqxu8 said:
Get the US out of the UN and get the UN out of the us.

+1
Its almost that simple. We need term limits (1) and no retirement or insurance for politicians once they are out of office. If they all had to go home and make a living the way great great Gandpa did, they might do things differently while in office. CL
 
You know what, cloverleaf? I used to think term limits was the answer, but someone who I held in high esteem disagreed emphatically with me on it and would never tell me why. I guess he wanted me to figure it out on my own, and I finally did. Here is what I came up with...

The issues that we think would be effectively addressed via term limits would NOT be, ultimately. Consider:

- without the motivation to be re-elected, why would a snaky individual feel constrained? He'd only be motivated to commit his misdeeds in a more vigorous and overt manner.
- what about the rare-for-today statesman? I don't want guys like Jim DeMint, Joe Barton, or Michael Burgess tossed out when they are not the problem.

No. Term limits would be just another distortion of the Constitution and in fact, that is the root cause of our distress today! If the Constitution were properly utilized to constrain the federal government from usurping and assuming powers not granted it by said document, we would be having none of the problems we face right this minute. Without those stolen powers, the trappings of federal government would not be an attraction to every power-hungry, self-serving cretin with slick hair to come down the pike. Neuter the federal government and hold it to the contract (a.k.a. the Constitution of the United States) by which We the People allow it to exist, and there would be no opportunity or motivation for the blatant corruption that is eating us alive.
 
Back
Top