Justice for American Indians: New York Times Editorial, 2-22-09

In the Editorial - Justice for American Indians - NYTimes.com, published on February 22, 2009, the editorialist addresses the Navajo Nation, and the American people and our past and present government by writing:

"The federal government has a long history of cheating American Indians, and not all of this dirty dealing is in the past."

( Mainly I believe the editorialist is trying to persuade Obama and rally support on behave of the Navajo Nation.

In this statement the editorialist mentions "a long history" without giving specific examples.) *

Peabody Coal had a lease to mine from areas of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah which is where Navajo's reservation is located. 

"The United States holds the lands in trust and manages the large coal deposits." 

(Implies that the United States has a vested interest in the financial gain of Peabody Coal.) *

The Navajo had appealed to the United States Supreme Court because in the original agreement between the States and the Navajo Nation, Peabody Coal was supposed to pay a "royalty rate to 20 percent of gross proceeds" starting in 1984 and Peabody Coal protested about the increase in paying so much. The interior secretary during the Reagan years met with Peabody  Coal and didn't notify the Navajo and a deal was made without the Navajo represented. 

The increase was blocked by the Interior Secretary forcing the Navajo into negotiations and under financial strain of their people, they accepted a "rate of 12.5" that cost them as much as "$600 million in royalties".

(The author's creditability is backed by a three-judge panel.  The figures given are vague and what the award amount is not stated. )*

According to the editorial, the Federal Circuit, United States Court of Appeals stated that our government did not follow through on the agreement, was "indefensible" as described by four former interior secretaries who had "submitted friend-0f-the-court briefs to the Supreme Court."

(The Interior Secretary who met with Peabody Coal was not mentioned by name. And neither was the four interior secretaries who made submissions as friends-of-the-court mentioned by name. This would of added to creditability.)*

Also, the writer suggests that Obama's administration should not follow Bush's administrations lead by not standing up for misdeeds of our government. 

(This ending seems to surface a new agenda not previously mentioned by the writer and seems to be goading Obama instead of just trying to bring information about an injustice that was done to Native Americans.)* 

For the final evaluation, the author reached his intended audience of the American people who read the New York Times. Maybe he did not reach the Navajos on the reservation. That would be dependent on how many Navajos of that area read the New York Times. The government and judicial bodies would most likely have a higher percentage who would read the NewTimes than those who are poor and lack funds for an extra newspaper or internet service in such a rural area.

The editorial does a good job of pointing out an injustice that was done to the Navajo. Although he doesn't give specific examples of the long history of the broken treaties and mistreatment of the Indian Nation, it is a feasible and coherent argument since so few Native Americans are still living. Genocide generally isn't fair and just treatment. 

I agree with what he states the Supreme  Court says about the Interior Department having "interests adverse to" the Navajo, and "had misled the Navajo about its actions."  This seems to be the most plausible argument against our government. 

And although I do not feel Obama is responsible for this injustice, I believe that he should make right what was done wrong in order to see the Navajo People's contract upheld.  If Peabody can't pay up then they are not financially responsible and should lose their federal funding or whatever benefits they receive by being in business with the Government who was supposed to have its people's rights in mind before basically changing the percentage rate.  If  Peabody Coal holds people responsible for their goods then what would they do if everyone that did business with them decided to pay them 7.5 percent less interest then what they currently charge. The consumer would be cut off or taken to court for redemption. And it wouldn't take approximately 24 years to rectify.     

Overall I liked this article and like to see Native American rights hopefully winning for a change and also being acknowledged. *

*My View in Orange Bold 

  

The Right View? Is it Through? My Top Blue View

Alan Keyes is all over the place trying to spread the fear in the video footage. What I noticed most is that the shield glass protecting President Obama was very noticeably on the right. 

Why doesn't N.A.S.A. create a force field or something equally high tech to protect him without impeding the view. It seemed to be distracting to him as well. And what was up with the camera crew shooting to emphasize it. Surely, these professionals shooting the footage realized what a crap view it was and should of set up on the other side.  Is this a play for mass sympathy? Barack seemed annoyed a bit by it.  Was it's placement influenced by the political cartoon OpEdNews » Black History Month; The Subject that Segregates?  

I think Keyes is a fear monger from a fear filled administration and I am beginning to think that fear power is residual, much like Uranium, can never be destroyed. They break down but still will effect generations to come.  

Also I went to the artist website Sean Delonas who drew the pic. His art isn't racist, in my opinion, but what the heck was he thinking?  Just my two cents on that. I hate to give him homage through a pic meant to take the focus off the real issues in our country and our citizens and soldiers overseas but I was curious to see.  What a crap way to fame. 

WHIG'IN Out or Whig the Dog?

Whigs to the left of us, Whigs to the right of us. Here I am stuck in the middle with you. 

What's a Whig? Dennis Kucinich explains it's definition on the floor as our other representatives scatter away in the video and article linked to this assignment for our government class. 

 

WHIG'IN Out or Whig the Dog?

'Wag the Dog' was a movie based on the 'novel' idea that our government is orchestrated by a 'producer' and the government in which we live in and all it political entities are the players in a world theatre of directors.  If you have ever felt like our government and national events seemed staged, please see this movie.

Why I use it in my title is because this was an important issue that got interestingly overlooked by the popular media and  our representatives who scattered as soon our Rep. Kucinich took the floor. "WHIG is the White House Iraq Group. The department of defense has engaged in a secret domestic propaganda campaign to promote and market the invasion and the occupation in a false war with Iraq." (para.) 

This moment in our history is important because it may be one of the last stands of the people using our government system to fight for the constitution to be upheld and adhered to by our representative government. It failed.  There may never be another chance if our constitution isn't being upheld by our representatives. If our government is 'orchestrated' and we are entering into a socialist government by abandoning the constitution then Kucinich will go into history as one of  the last representative to fight for our constitution using our system. It is too bad that the men and women that we elected would choose to participate in destroying our constitution and take away our rights to lead us into a war, to accept whatever policies they want us to accept. It angers me to see the house seats empty in this video. To me, it seems they are afraid of the public knowing what is  actually going on and are using the cover of war and the blood of people to enforce their global agenda of 'events' without regard to our constitution or us the common people who's blood is being spilled in an 'orchestrated' war. It also angers me to know that my tax dollars are funding a hidden agenda not based on the constitution. Does anyone  have opinions on this? If not, I guess it is just me and Dennis.  Also this is an example of government tyranny over the weaker masses which suggests the final stages of  decomposing Federalism.  I miss my rights. How about you?   

Jim Willie New World currency coming son backed by gold!