Standing UpWrite
Mood:  irritated
Now Playing: Fat Men Doing Bad Things
Topic: morality and ethics
Standing UpWrite
by Darrin F. Coe, MA

"I could not understand this, and I thought much about it. How could men get fat by being bad, and starve by being good?"
- Black Elk Speaks

I think the answer lies in the mirror. We, the populace, allow fatness. We allow such things as the Patriot Act. We allow such things as high gas prices. We allow such things as poor education. We allow bad governance and breach of our federal Constitution. Our country was founded on the principle that humans have the inherent liberty to govern themselves and when we fail to govern ourselves others will get fat from the apathy.

I think we've got to get past the "don't rock the boat" mentality of personal satiation. It seems that as long as we have our paycheck, our ESPN, and our TV dinners, we're content to allow the power brokers to broker, the warlords to war, and the industrialists to industry. But what happens when they begin to affect us? What happens when the brokering, warring, and industrying, begin to affect our lives?

Did you know that there is a proposal in the upper echelons of power to tie education to military or civil service? Did you know that there is a proposal to bring back a version of the draft? Did you know that a vast majority of the money that could be spent on education is now being spent on the military?

When do we stop being government dependents and start being government? The founders of the great experiment known as America believed that people were government. There was to be no such thing as government separate from the populace. When that happens we begin to spiral into despotism. The United States Constitution is fraught with mechanisms for the masses to change government if what's current is not to their liking. Sadly, few today have ever thoroughly read the Constitution, let alone study it and apply it.

We've lost the study and application of history. We wander around like automatons accepting all we're told at face value and never taking the time or initiative to investigate issues ourselves. We actually still believe in the original "thanksgiving" events as portrayed in our history books. We still believe that President Lincoln was a great man who cared greatly for the slaves. We believe our current President is simply a bumbling patriotic idiot mislead by his intelligence community, and that all we have to do is vote to change things.

There are layers upon layers of truth within the glut of information now available to we the American people and it behooves us to work at assimilating that information. In a world such as we now have it is imperative that we wake up from the walking dream that the inner circles of power have created for us.

Believe me there are inner circles of power and there are upper echelons of money and power that we the people can no longer comprehend because we've allowed our society and our country to be usurped by those who crave money and power.

The Constitution allows for the impeachment of judges, the president, and any number of other elected officials. The constitution's second amendment was included because the framers knew that the last stance against tyranny and despotism would be an armed populace and when all the smoke clears and the mirrors are shattered we the people must govern ourselves and take power away from the power lusting mongers. We can no longer allow men to get fat doing bad things.

Standing UpWrite
Mood:  bright
Now Playing: The 2nd Amendment and Black Helicopters
Topic: Politics
Standing UpWrite
by Darrin F. Coe, MA

Ronald Reagan was a member of a Luciferian secret society; the United States government constructed the 9/11 tragedy for the purpose of padding the pockets of elite, secret societies such as the Bilderbirgs; and John Kerry is the puppet of elite zionists Ah, the conspiracies run amuck. I get information from several sources that allow me an inside peek at current conspiracy theory and there are some really good ones currently exant.

A man in Washington state is claiming that Flight 77 never struck the Pentagon and in fact, the Pentagon was struck with a missile and a smaller f-16-like fighter jet. Based on evidence from engineering, forensics, and witness testimony this man believes, along with others, that Donald Rumsfeld was the mastermind behind 9/11 and the blood of all those killed in the Pentagon and the Twin Towers should be laid at the feet of our federal administration.

Another related theory links President Bush to Osama Bin Laden through the oil and banking industries. This theory states that there are no terrorists planning to continually bomb our nation; that once again the 9/11 tragedy was either created or allowed by our administration; the war on terrorism is maintained as a way to slowly erode the our individual rights while at the same time padding the pockets and power of a number of groups including the Bilderbirgs, Riggs Bank, and the Carlyle Group.

Another theory states that Osama Bin Laden worked for the CIA recruiting terrorists, which were then trained by the CIA, to fight in Afghanistan. We are now using these same terrorists as mercenaries to maintain the war on terrorism. .

There are so many allegations indicating government complicity in the 9/11 tragedy and the creating of terror that one can become lost in the twists and turns. Sadly, there seems to be just as many twists and turns in the information being disseminated by the government. So what does one believe? Is the U.S. government run by evil, elitists from the Vatican or are we actually under constant threat of destruction via Islamic extremists? It really doesn't look good for the government, given the deceptions that've legitimately been exposed.

I do know that our government appears duplicitous and deceitful. Now if you'll excuse me I need to go study the second amendment for the coming revolution and hide from the black helicopters.

Standing UpWrite
Mood:  on fire
Now Playing: The First Amendment and Gay Marriage
Topic: morality and ethics
Standing UpWrite
by Darrin F. Coe, MA

The First Amendment and Gay Marriage

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech . . ."

The first amendment's prohibiting and freedom of speech clauses effectively prohibit the legalization of gay marriages. Currently in our country if gay marriage is legitimized through legislation this will both prohibit the free exercise of religion and abridge freedom of speech.

There are many churches who believe and actively teach that homosexuality is wrong. Many ministers will not marry homosexual couples and openly speak out against living a homosexual lifestyle.
If homosexual marriage is legalized will ministers be forced to perform marriage ceremonies? If they are this is a prohibition on their free exercise of religion. If homosexual marriage is legalized will preaching and teaching against the homosexual lifestyle become a hate-crime? If it does then this becomes a prohibition on the free exercise of religion and abridges freedom of speech.

The first amendment guarantees that no law shall abridge the freedom of the press. If homosexual marriage is legalized will literature teaching against it or letters to newspaper editors speaking against it or articles in religious publications against it be censored? If they are then freedom of the press is abridged.

Some may argue that not legalizing homosexual marriage would support one system of faith over another and violate the first amendment. This is not true due to the fact that there is not just one system of faith that teaches against homosexuality. There are just some that are more outspoken than others. Finally, by legalizing homosexual marriage you'd be violating the establishment clause by giving preference to those systems of faith that support homosexual marriage.
If states want to pass legislation creating civil unions between homosexual couples, which can be recognized by religions at their discretion, this would be much more constitutional than legalizing gay marriage. This also allows for the rights of the states to manage their own affairs.

The legalization of homosexual marriage comes much to close to leading to violation of three of the clauses in the first amendment. We don't need a constitutional amendment defining marriage we simply need to consider what the ramifications of legalizing gay marriage will have on our first amendment. It could be a constitutional disaster.

Standing UpWrite
Mood:  cheeky
Now Playing: Laura Ingraham is a Silly Woman
Topic: culture and religion
Standing UpWrite
by Darrin F. Coe, MA

I've been reading the book, Shut Up & Sing, by vaunted radio talk show host Laura Ingraham. I'm unimpressed with Miss Laura's logic, ability to connect cogent evidence and conclusions and inability to see beyond the conservative blinders that so limit her ideology. (Which she would expect me to say)

The book is a superficial lambast of the "elite" of the world. She attempts to show that the vast majority of people from large cities, who are democrats, who desire world peace, and who speak out against Republican presidents are stupid, evil, and anti-American.

In, Shut Up & Sing, Miss Laura posits the theory that liberal "elites" are angry over the 2000 Presidential election; that the belief President Bush was selected instead of elected is a falsehood which the liberal elite are trying to propagate to the masses. What she fails to mention is that the President was selected. He lost the popular vote and won the electoral vote. He did not get elected by the people.

She believes that the Democratic and liberal political parties are crumbling and conservative Republicanism is the most popular thing since sliced bread. The vast majority of political polls indicate the country is almost equally divided.

Miss Laura tries to convince people that our conservative administration is the epitome of what it means to be an American. Miss Laura is an ideologue who's bought the neoconservativism of Paul Wolfowitz hook-line-and-sinker. For Miss Laura there is only one form of conservativism and that is the one originating in the deep south.

Miss Laura fails to discuss the erosion of the bill of rights via the patriot act. She ignores the deception of Cheney and the totalitarianism of Rumsfeld. She presents all international bodies as communist plots to overthrow the United States.

Miss Laura needs to recognize that conservatives and liberals come in a variety of flavors. She needs to allow for the fact that it's ok to dislike President Bush or any other President and still be a patriot.

She believes anything not involving waving the flag; toting a gun; being a faithful church goer; deep faith in the righteousness of our President; or driving a pick-up truck are un-American.

President George Washington disliked military action; encouraged peace with all nations, working with all nations; allowing for the sovereignty of all nations; disliked political parties and the adversarial political system; and believed the constitution was the cement of our country. Miss Laura would probably think he's un-American.

Don't forget to check out the Secret Society For Peace and Liberty at http://dcoe1.tripod.com/peacelibery or Darrin Coe's writing site at http://dcoe1.tripod.com

Standing UpWrite/The UnVote Movement
Mood:  d'oh
Now Playing: The Liberty of Voting
Topic: Politics
The UnVote Movement
by Darrin F. Coe, MA

"In all cases wherein any freeman is to give his vote, be it in point of Election, making constitutions and orders or passing sentence in any case of Judicature or the like, if he cannot see reason to give it positively one way or another, he shall have libertie to be silent, and not pressed to a determined vote."
- section 77 of the Body of Liberties of Massachusetts 1641

"It is the constant liberty of the freemen, to choose yearly at the Court of Election, out of the freemen, all the general officers of this jurisdiction. If they please to discharge them at the court of Elections, by vote, they may do it without showing cause . . . by general officers, we mean our Governor, Deputy-Governor, Assistants, Treasurer, General of our wars, and our Admiral at sea."
- Arbitrary Government Described and the Government of the Massachusetts
Vindicated From that Aspersion by John Winthrop, 1644

"The parties or members of this body politic are reduced under two kinds, Governor and company, or Freemen: to the Governor it adds a Deputy, and eighteen Assistants: in these is the power of authority placed, under the name of the Governor (not as a person but as a State) and in the other (which is named the company) is placed the power of liberty: - which is not a bare passive capacity of freedom, or immunity, but such a liberty as hath power to act upon the chiefest means of it's own welfare . . . and that under two general heads, election and counsel: 1) they have liberty to elect yearly . . . all their Governors and other their general officers, viz., such as should have influence . . . into all parts of the jurisdiction; 2) they have liberty of counsel in all the General Assemblies, so as without their counsel and consent no laws, decrees, or orders of any public nature or concernment, not any taxes, impositions, impresses, or other burdens of what kind soever, can be imposed upon them, their families or estates, by any authority in the Government: which notwithstanding remains still a distinct member, even in those General Assemblies: otherwise our state should be a mere Democratie, if all were Governors or magistrates, and none left to be an object of government, . . . "
- John Winthrop, then Deputy-Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
1644

At the very foundation of our government system, are numbered several liberties all having to do with maintaining equitable government that does not become an aristocracy. These liberties are considered to be natural liberties invested in all people based on the fact that they live. The power of liberty and counsel are to offset the power of authority given to public officials. We have the liberty of electing officers and authorities and we also have the liberty of withholding our vote if the voter cannot see reason to cast it positively.

The withholding of one's vote is the last stronghold against arbitrary government. As those being governed endowed with various natural liberties it is our responsibility to stand against arbitrary administration and justice. We must take responsibility in directing the actions and behaviors of those who hold the power of authority.


I believe our United States has come to the point in which we are allowing our natural liberties to be impinged upon and it is time to invoke the right to withhold our vote.

Contact your representatives, public officials, and others who maintain the power of authority and advise them that you will no longer participate in a system that appears to be an aristocracy. We must return our country and society back to a balanced state between the power of authority and the power of liberty, for authority is beginning to tip the scales. If we do not maintain such a balance then we begin to see continued erosion of liberties and rights. Stand up and be counted. Don't vote.

Standing UpWrite/The UnVote Movement
Mood:  incredulous
Now Playing: George Washington and Partying
Topic: Politics
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.
"But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. - the disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an Individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."
- President George Washington 1796

"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism."
- President George Washington 1796

It would appear that our founding President was not a fan of any type of party system as related to the administration of government. One can infer from the above statements that his was a belief in "the best person for the job" regardless of factional affiliation.

All appearances would indicate that our current situation is traveling along the path that President George Washington attempted to warn us against. The two party system has fractioned and factioned our country with cliques of all shapes and sizes attempting to usurp power. President Washington encouraged the protection of the Union above all else and this included the avoidance of parties, political or otherwise.

We can see through history that the two party system has reached a point today inwhich it disbars those not of the proper affiliation from participating in the highest levels of government.

It also is contributing greatly to that "spirit of encroachment" President Washington warned against. We've seen the diminishing of the power of congress and a concurrent increase in the power of the judiciary; sometime acting with impunity in the course of national events. At the same time we discover that the executive branch engages in clandestine relationships that over-step the boundaries of executive power diminishing the power of the congress.

I am not an encourager of changing our Republican form of government beyond a return to it's origins. I desire to see the constitution manifested in all of its wisdom and each branch of government held to it's own sphere of power. Thus I call for a change in the campaigning and election processes and the legitimacy of the liberty of voting. I encourage all to not vote and to let your public representatives know you intend to withhold your vote until you see unity and change.
The Union of the United States people must stand up and demand a return to our foundational roots; liberty, peace, and government at the behest of the people through stratified layers of representation. We need a return to the constitution as it is written not as our leaders would desire it to be.

We also need a return to a non-party system in which all people have equal access to the highest levels of political participation without having to extend allegiance to a party. I encourage all patriots everywhere to disavow any party affiliation and to call those who represent you in government and tell them you want a return to a non-party system based on the competency of the candidate, not whether they have the appropriate affiliation. We know our system is moving toward despotism when we are faced with the knowledge that no third party candidate has ever received an electoral vote though they've received popular votes en masse. We need a system of deriving candidates that is not based on a party system. The Constitution is not based on political parties it is based on "Union".

Standing UpWrite
Mood:  incredulous
Now Playing: The Declaration of Independence: Then and Now
Topic: Politics
The UnVote Movement
by Darrin F. Coe, MA

The United States Declaration of Independence states, " . . . Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Our current form of government is unbalanced and in need of alteration. Our Federal administration is overburdened with bureaucracy, departments, ordinances, and hierarchy. The Constitution is not adhered to and slowly our country is developing much more of an aristocracy. The checks and balances among the congress, executive, and judiciary branches seem to be failing; our executive now creates laws and our judiciary engages in supralegislation, while our congress is bogged down in partisan haranguing while in the end the masses lose. I believe we've reached a place in which our form of government or the mechanics thereof need to be altered. We must return to the checks and balances placed upon the branches of government and allow each branch to do it's job while holding them responsible for over-stepping their boundaries.

I believe a first step in this process of alteration should be in election reform. We need to return to strict adherence to the machinery created by our Federal Constitution.

We must also redefine the limits of our judiciary in terms of legal interpretation, disallowing the creation of supralegislation. We should return the ability to legislate back to congress and hold them responsible for their legislative efforts.

We must also return to the states those rights not specifically given to the Federal government. Our country should be governed from the bottom up and not the top down.

"The United States Declaration of Independence continues stating, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Are we currently living under a despotic administration? Close scrutiny of recent elections; close scrutiny of recent legislation; and close scrutiny of our judiciary would indicate we are moving closer and closer to
" a long train of abuses and usurpations".

The general public has limited access to engage in the federal political process due to financial barriers; the liberties found in the Constitution have been eroded through such measures as the Patriot Act and the evasion of the Geneva Conventions; the power of the executive branch has been added to and enhanced to the detriment and rejection of the legislative branch.

Most do not notice the erosion of our liberties because most are uninterested, unmotivated, or unable to challenge them as well as being quiet and peaceful law abiding citizens who are unaware of the politics surrounding them. Let a person challenge the status quo and they will soon discover the extent to which rights have been eroded.

Some of the facts which motivated the Declaration of Independence are as follows:

1. The King of England had "refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only"

Our current federal administration has fought against redistrictiing of several states to ensure under-representation of those in opposition.

2. "He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public record . . . "

Our current federal administration has created legal policy concerning the evasion of the Geneva Conventions as well as creating secret alliances with other countries in efforts to engage in inhuman treatment of prisoners of war, for intelligence gathering purposes.

3. "He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."

Our current administration created an entirely new cabinet level position for the sole purpose of Homeland Security which engages in any number of questionable detention practices, as well as establishing a public relations campaign designed to terrorize our populace and create fear.

4. "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury."

Our current administration has made it legal to detain subjects indefinitely and with no stated purpose other then they are being investigated for purposes of homeland security.

George Washington in his farewell address warned we should beware the usurpers who clothe themselves in patriotism, generating popularity for themselves and their agendas through the vilification of other nations, sects, religions, or outsiders, while at the same time giving favored status to others. He believed this would lead to tyranny and despotism and a fractioning of our Union.

It is time for the concerned citizens and true patriots of the United States to stand up and demand alteration of campaigning, elections, and the return to the liberties found in our constitution and it's amendments.

The system needs to be ground to a halt and over-hauled; this can be accomplished through the boycotting of the election process. Just say NO! to voting. We must declare ourselves free once again and stop being mesmerized by fast food, steady work, and television.

The UnVote Movement
Mood:  on fire
Now Playing: No Such Thing as a Popular Vote
Topic: Politics
The UnVote Movement
by Darrin F. Coe, MA

I am confused. I can find nowhere in the United States constitution or it's amendments anything pertaining to a popular vote for President of the United States. There appears to be nothing authorizing or constructing the process we are subject to every four years. All voting for President of the United States is to be done via the electors of the several states. The only involvement of the populace in voting, as constructed by the constitution, is in the election of members of the house of representatives.

Article I: Section Two, states, "the House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states . . ."

Article I: Section Three, states, "the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof . . ."

Article II: Section One, states, "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress . . . the electors shall meet in their respective state, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each, which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate . . .the person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President . . ."

Amendment XII, states, "the electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, on of whom at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate . . . the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be President . . . "

There is no such thing as "the popular vote". We've been duped. Your vote counts for naught accept in the electing of state officials and members of the House of Representatives. Why is this? Why do have a popular election?


I believe that the power mongers and elite of the United States want us to believe that the power of the United States lies in the executive branch of our government, thus they waste tons of money at both the state and federal level promoting the popular election of the President of the United States when it does not actually exist apparently we are to "ignore the man behind the curtain". The true power in the United States lies in the legislatures of our state and federal governments. This is where "one human = one vote" really counts. Thus, we need to stop voting in national presidential elections until one of two things happen, either they disband the electoral college and allow for the popular vote to decide the presidency or the disband the waste of time and money we refer to as "voting for the President". It doesn't matter who you want for President. It does matter who you've elected to your state legislature because they are the ones who decide the mechanism and members of the electoral college and the EC is the body that decides who will be President.

King George states he wants to open the Constitution for amendment so that he can constitutionally define marriage. I suggest, instead, that we amend the Constitution to define more accurately the presidential election process. Given our modern communications technology and it's continually advancement we have the ability to do away with the electoral college and have a true popular vote that would result in the "people" choosing the President.

UNTIL THIS HAPPENS JOIN THE UNVOTE MOVEMENT AND JUST SAY, "NO!" TO VOTING!!

Standing UpWrite
Mood:  loud
Now Playing: King George and Those in the Box Suites
Topic: Politics
Standing UpWrite
06/23/04
by Darrin F. Coe, MA

June 2004 will go down in history as one of the most tragic months in recent memory. Islamic militants have beheaded three hostages and my guess is there will be more. When I saw the video of the first hostage being beheaded I became physically ill and felt like vomiting, much like I felt when I saw the Abu Ghraib depredations.

America is uniting in it's anger over the beheadings of civilians living and working in the Middle East but is our anger being focused correctly? Should we blame the militants? No I think we need to look much deeper than Islam and it's militants. The victims of Islamic militancy would not be victims if the United States under the direction of George Bush, Jr., Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, had not invaded Iraq.

Sadly, we should look to our own to find who's truly responsible for the atrocities that are being committed in the Middle East. A true patriot will not get caught up in the flag waving and rhetoric of King George and instead will begin to access information and become educated on what's really going on in this administration.

There is a mounting body of evidence and information now available indicating that our federal administration, at the top levels, has been disingenuous concerning the attacks of 9/11 as well as the purpose for invading a sovereign nation. Every rational this administration has put forth for invading Iraq has been shown to be without substance. Weapons of mass destruction - not happening; Saddam, Al Queda connection - not happening; pre-emptive strike to protect the homeland - not happening.

Ask yourself these questions: Who financed George Bush, Jr's. oil business, Harken? How did the several hundred page Patriot Act get written and passed within days after the 9/11 attack? Why has there been a ban on investigations related to the Saudi royal family and those associated with the royal family? Why did George Bush Jr. take time for a photo op after hearing about the 9/11 attacks?

If you want to be counted as a patriot stand up and question what our government is doing in the name of "freedom" because it's going to affect our "liberty" and it's getting people killed. George Bush Jr. claims to be a man of God but he's looking more like a failed businessman with delusions of dictatorship.

Standing UpWrite
Mood:  on fire
Now Playing: Oneida Success
Topic: Politics
As you know, every so often it's necessary to be exposed to some good news. Usually, when I'm in a rut, it means I've focused to much on the negative and not on the positive. In this light and because I love this country I want to share with you a story reported in Indian Country Today. It's well documented that we have a less than stellar history regarding Indigenous People but we do have our moments and this month we had one of our "moments".

The U.S. Solicitor General, representing our Federal Government, filed a brief with the Supreme Court supporting the Oneida Nation. The Supreme Court is deciding whether or not to issue a writ of certiorari to the city of Sherrill. Sherrill is appealing a 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling stating that land reacquired by the Oneida Nation is exempt from real estate taxes. The brief affirmed the position of the lower courts which stated the Oneidas retained Indian title to land in the 300,000 acres reserved to them by federal treaties but which was stolen by the State of New York

The Solicitor General's brief to the Supreme Court requested that a writ of certiorari be denied thus ending the appeals process for the City of Sherrill. Indian Country Today goes on to report that the U.S. government is also supporting the Oneidas and several other New York state nations in long-running land claims suits.

This type of information displays the good in our nation's administration. It lets me know that our federal administration is not plummeting into moral and political decay. Not yet anyway. I'm not happy with our current administration's policy and behavior but kudos must be given when they're earned. In supporting the Oneida Nation our Federal Administration takes a very large step in reinforcing the sovereignty of the Indigenous Nations within the United States.

I hope they'll continue this type of behavior with other Indigenous Peoples around the world. I hope they give this same type of support to Iraq and Afghanistan. Our history with the Native American Nations has been sordid and regrettable; the United States government has much to do in way of reparations and the support of the Oneida Nation is a wonderful step in that process. Now if we'd just investigate the Bin Laden family-Saudi Arabia-Al Queda connection.