Oklahoma sovereignty & Lakota sovereignty

Oklahoma claims sovereignty? This may sound impressive, but states have a certain amount of sovereignty and they have the right to say this at any time. The article on World Net Daily makes us sound like heroes against the establishment:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67229

As someone who cares about the Constitution, I do like what State Rep. Charles Key says:

"The more we stand by and watch the federal government get involved in areas where it has no legal authority, we kill the Constitution a little at a time," he said. "The last few decades, the Constitution has been hanging by a thread."

Hmm... a bunch of states tried this in the 1860s because they were forced to buy more expensive Northern products when they could trade cheaper with other countries at their own ports; they opposed having to carry the overwhelming burden of the federal tax burden; and they opposed foreign involvement in US banking.

They went all the way and left the Republic. But they paid a heavy price: they felt the heavy hand of the federal government and the official "history" was re-written to make it appear they were fighting to maintain slavery.

Even today, professors can be threatened with termination simply for teaching historical facts that disprove the "South fought for slavery" view. Even "conservative" talk radio hosts tell the wrong story simply because its good for the Republican party's image as the "Lincoln's Party". (nobody stops to realize that a radio person who argues on a different topic every day will never be an expert on any one thing).

For you young ones out their who were raised to feel outrage at the mere mention of the Confederacy, just remember, that's the establishment talking. If you are interested in learning about the abolitionists that fought for the South, i'd be happy to share. But if your inner conformist wants your history in a neat, non-threatening package, then stay far, far away from that pandora's box.

Sorry, I didn't mean to get into all that. Anyhow, the point is that the big government take over that conspiracy people want to happen (so they can fight it) already happened. That's why traffic signs are the same all across our continent, that's why all states have the same currency, etc...

With the thousands of Civil Ward dead in mind, it makes me wonder, what exactly is Oklahoma sacrificing to in order to make that declaration? There are no federal gunboats provoking a state response like at Fort Sumter. In other words, there is no great emergency or crisis that necessitated the declaration.

The Oklahoma declaration was a protest, in part, against unfunded mandates from the fed government: in other words, sometimes the federal government wants our state to do something that we didn't ask for, BUT we have to fund it ourselves. Where do they think the federal dollars dome from in the first place? Oh yeah... the Treasury prints more money all the time.

It makes some politicians sound like good ol' boy patriots, but be careful... they do this kind of thing to get rid of assistance programs for single mothers & poor, WIC program, etc. If you look at the $ amounts, you'll see these programs for the poor are a mere pittance compared to other things such as dolphin-explosive training programs and research grants to pharmaceutical companies.

So is this a heroic statement of states' rights in anticipation of something sinister, like the North American Union? I don't think so, because nobody is ready for that kind of sacrifice. If you drive around Oklahoma, you'll notice road construction everywhere. That's federal money. While our legislature is talking like patriots, they have no proble taking money from the same federal government to fix roads. So we really aren't ready to put our money where our mouth is, are we?

Sadly, we are not the same kind of American that lived in the 1800s. Even our grandparents in the 1940s lived on rations during WWII. And during the energy crisis of the '70s Americans become concerned with conservation (root word: conservative. think about it.)

Now? Who in 2008 is willing to live differently or more simply for the long haul, or for a higher cause? Americans want to drill, debate with Saudi, and change policies... to fight fascism? No, just to keep gas prices convenient. Just to maintain a lifestyle. We are simply not made of he same stuff as previous generations. And that includes me.

When the Oklahoma legislature can do something so obvious as allowing our wine-makers to distribute with their own state and they stop fulfilling the wishes of lobbyists funded by out of state wine makers, then I'll know they mean it when they talk about the rights of local government.

It reminds me of the recent "Republic of Lakota". I am ALL about self-determination.

http://www.republicoflakotah.com/map.html

Kinda cool... a tribe that wants to withdraw from treaties, because the US government said it could undo treaties whenever it wanted to. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

First of all, for the Lakota to be a separate nation-state they need the practical and legal ability to control their own land, borders, run their own defense, police, etc. But there are so many whites that live on and around the Lakota reservations. Tribal law doesnt apply to them or their businesses for the most part.

But more importantly, if you withdraw from treaties, you run the risk of federal courts interpreting that to mean that you give up the sovereign status as a tribe. Indian tribes may be poor and unable to act like modern governments, but the existence of that treaty relationship is the only thing that keeps anti-Indian interested from terminating tribal sovereign status!

I hate to say it but just by the fact that Russel Means is the spokesperson, makes it look like a publicity stunt. I am looking at the website right now actually... for the first time. At closer glance, this doesn't have any input by real tribes at all. Its just four guys. An ad hoc organization isn't a tribe... so they have no treaties to withdraw from!

No Warriors Society... no violence? Sounds politically correct and "tolerant" but they certainly don't have the intention of being a real goverment if there's not a plan to keep order, protect the innocent, and enforce the law. You cant defend your nation with niceness. Warrior societies are the traditional methods of not only recognizing living veterans and fighters but also remembering past and fallen warriors- those that died defending the tribe. At least that's the usual. Things got weird on the Oglala reservation in the 60s and 70s, so "Warriors Society" may mean something different for them.

Ahhh... whatever.