GOP Candidate Thad Wasson’s platform – Give the Black Hills back?

The point everyone misses is, there’s nothing to give back. It’s already legally theirs. Read the treaty.

Now, before everyone goes ape-sh*t, think about it. If what I am saying isn’t true, there wouldn’t be an issue. Right?

Well if the guy wants to get some press, this is genius… he could hammer the heck out of this. Is he going to become a single issue candidate?

Or is he just a wacko without a clue?

He should go read the book “Scalp Dance, Indian Warfare on the High Plains” by Thomas Goodrich to learn the truth about how the “Great Sioux Nation” treated white settlers that were trying to raise families out west.

http://www.amazon.com/Scalp-Dance-Indian-Warfare-1865-1879/dp/0811729079/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256413186&sr=1-1

Thad Wassen for President!

Thad Wassen won’t even get his signatures collected to make the primary ballot.

Can you believe this guy gets media attention? Curd & Nelson are serious candidates and having to see their picture in the paper next to this guy everytime our congressional race is discussed has got to suck!

I’d like to see a new law come into effect in 2010.

Let Thad Wassen collect his signatures already like he wants so I can vote against him ASAP!

Dude… it’s WassOn. “O” not “E.”

So what are Republicans doing to help improve the situation for Native Americans living on the reservations? Oh, that’s right, absolutely nothing.

The entire idea of reservations outside of normal jurisdictions makes no sense. The native nations that were defeated should either have been absorbed or had new boarders determined to delineate their sovereignty. They got neither. We should have dissolved their sovereignty and incorporated them into our government just like everyone else under the federal constitution where they would have gained self-determination and influence in the creation of state government. There would have been nothing stopping them from living as communally as they wanted. The only other legitimate action would be continuing their sovereignty inside their boarders where they would have received no special aid outside and US laws.

As far as giving them land “back” now. However it is we ended up owning the land, it is no longer theirs and I’m not in the habit of supporting my government offering up goodies just to “help” people and feel good about itself. It isn’t exactly constitutional.

I say let them have the Hills.

O- Brother!

Yes, they would like the Black Hills back, but there are certain areas some would be more than willing to accept if it was offered. It will not happen most likely. Those who are promising to work for it will not get anywhere. That is why certain elected officials and hopefuls make the promises they do and get the votes.

I agree look at the treaties. Also, they have money there for them but they refuse to accept it…give in. There are problems within the hiers also. Continue…….

Wasson is done hardly getting out of the gate.

The wacko is the one who voted for the corporate values over moral values our own man in the empty suit John Tune.

4:58: and what have the Democrats done? The Rez whines that things are getting worse and worse. But who does the Rez vote for, over 90 percent? Dems.

DUDE! WASSSSSONNNNNN! *tongue sticking out and making cool finger gestures while wearing baggy pants and holding a bud light*

WASSSSOOOOOOON!

In answer to #4, yeah, he’s wacko. You mean young Mr. Fleming, right?

If I understand Mr. Wasson’s proposal correctly, he advocates giving back federally held land, i.e., BLM and Forest Service land. It’s not as if they’d come and take my house (which happens to be in the City of Lead).

Has anyone tried to figure out what would actually take place if the U.S. government gave all its Black Hills land back to the Tribes? It’s a beautiful theory — but would it play out in real life?

OK, Bill. I have not read the treaty, but I did look at it. Here is Article 2:
ARTICLE 2. The United States agrees that the following district of country, to wit, viz: commencing on the east bank of the Missouri River where the forty-sixth parallel of north latitude crosses the same, thence along low-water mark down said east bank to a point opposite where the northern line of the State of Nebraska strikes the river, thence west across said river, and along the northern line of Nebraska to the one hundred and fourth degree of longitude west from Greenwich, thence north on said meridian to a point where the forty-sixth parallel of north latitude intercepts the same, thence due east along said parallel to the place of beginning; and in addition thereto, all existing reservations on the east bank of said river shall be, and the same is, set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the Indians herein named, and for such other friendly tribes or individual Indians as from time to time they may be willing, with the consent of the United States, to admit amongst them; and the United States now solemnly agrees that no persons except those herein designated and authorized so to do, and except such officers, agents, and employes of the Government as may be authorized to enter upon Indian reservations in discharge of duties enjoined by law, shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in the territory described in this article, or in such territory as may be added to this reservation for the use of said Indians, and henceforth they will and do hereby relinquish all claims or right in and to any portion of the United States or Territories, except such as is embraced within the limits aforesaid, and except as hereinafter provided.
Near as I can tell, this includes Rapid City. It appears to me that you, a white man, are trespassing. I would think that since you are always so intent on having people do what you think is right, it should only be right you give your home and any other property to the Lakota people as expressed by the 1868 Ft. Laramie Treaty. After all, you are not giving them anything of yours, you are only giving them what is rightfully theirs.

Some practical affects would be:
1) the Black Hills would remain in federal jurisdiction. The jurisdiction would merely move from USDA to DOI.
2) forest management would improve. In every example and by every measure tribally managed forests are in better shape than are forests managed by alphabet agencies (even though the Black Hills is pretty well managed).
3) enforcing at least the spirit of the law since only federal land would be transferred (though the Treaty was for all lands).
That’s a start.

Dugger, I think that inludes the whole of western South Dakota, half of Nebraska and a great deal of WY, MT, and ND. In fact, there’s a map at http://www.republicoflakotah.com.

Apparently, if you renounce your US citizenship you can live tax free within the Republic of Lakotah. I wonder if Mr. Wassen should be running for office there.

Sure, he should be running, he just should not be winning. It is not that I am advocating this, it is just that with Mr. Fleming’s sense of justice and his consistent calling people out for not being consistent, it seems to me that when he says they already own land it is rather hypocritical for him to tell us to turn land over to the Indians according to the treaty but not be willing to return the land he owns to whom he considers the “rightful owners”.

Yes, duggerSD that is the issue precisely. The land that was sold to me technically doesn’t have clear title. Every land holder would need to be made whole. The legislative fix must address this, one would assume.

So Bill, do the right thing and give it to its rightful owners. Why should you need to be made whole? If you bought something from someone who did not own it, that is on you. You knew about the status when you bought it, right? There is no need for a legislative fix for you to do what you would tell other people is the right thing. You are being hypocritical again.

This guy has absolutely no chance of getting elected he probably won’t get on the primary ballot. He clearly has zero idea what he is doing. This is a dead issue, there is absolutely no point in discussing it.

Mercy me Thad! From the fying pan into the fire. The rez won’t elelct you Thad, you aren’t near blue enough. Bill, knowingly buy a stolen car and tell me how the fed’s are going to make you whole.

The process would take massive years to find the issues related along with all signed agreements dealing with land issues and other items related to the whole.

No clear title? I would think this matter would be a court issue, not a federal legislative dealing. Then it all depends on the treaty and all agreements made post.

druggersd could have a point Bill.

Right, that’s why the last proposal only dealt with public lands (State and Federal) and handled private lands on a first right of refusal basis. i.e. when property goes up for sale, the tribes have first option on it. I’d have to review it to be sure, but that’s roughly how it went, I think.

Go ahead Bill, do the right thing. Turn your house over to the rightful owners. As I see it, you would consider yourself to be in possession of stolen property.

i’m interested to see you’re going to answer duggers’ point, bf. are you going to wait for the government to tell you do the right thing?

dugger, i notice that a lot of liberals do that: they say “raise taxes,” but they don’t first voluntarily send in extra income to the treasury. i bet they take every possible tax deduction offered to them, as if it were compulsory. yet on average, they donate less to charity than conservatives do.

they say “lessen your global footprint” — or some nonsense like that — after leaving their homes that use incandescent light bulbs, getting into their SUVs that take them to their private jets.

they say, “take away the guns,” while their fully-strapped bodyguards stand by their sides (e.g., rosie o’donnell).

now they say, “give the land back to their rightful owners,” from their homes that sit on land that they apparently don’t rightfully own.

I’ll make my mortgage payments to whoever owns the land. The tribes, WaMu, whatever. They’ll have to work it out. This is not a deal I can settle on my own, since I don’t own my house. But I have no problem offering to sell it to the tribes first before I put it on the open market when it comes time to sell it. Beyond that, the Bradley Bill sounded like one possible way to approach the whole issue. The first, and perhaps easiest part would be to cede back the public lands.

By the way, if someone sold me some stolen property, I would have recourse to getting my money back from the thief, provided they still had the money to pay me back. In this case, the thief would be the US Government.

you wouldn’t get you money back, bf, if you knew the property you paid for was stolen.

in fact, you’d go to jail.

Bill, since the property is stolen in your mind, and since the tribe or whoever does not want to sell it, you have no right to pay a mortgage to the “owners”. Why should the tribe have to “buy” from you what is already “theirs”? That would be like if someone stole my car, sold it to you even though you knew it was stolen and then offered to sell it to me. The first and perhaps easiest part for you is to give the land your house sits on back to the tribe. Too bad about borrowing money, you still have to pay that back. If you want, you can perhaps sue the person you bought it from, but since you knew it was stolen, I don’t see as you have a case. Anything less is hypocritical. But then, that does not surprise me about you.

This is stupid and rediculous. The tribes are going to get nothing and like it. What’s next? Slavery reparations to the tune of 1 trillion like the 5-time removed whackos that want it. Hey, how about the Irish, forced to live in slums in NY and Chicago forced to take jobs as cops, fireman and meat workers? Everyone tries to get something for nothing. Tribes battled and lost. If they got screwed, they’ve been paid in subsidies and welfare for years. New topic. Better go get your Wall Drug cups and donuts before they get looted….

It’s not stolen “in my mind,” duggerSD, it’s stolen as a matter of law. I’m not stating opinions, or even arguing my own. I’m just stating the facts.

Bernie Maddow’s victims are suing to get their money back, lr.

Bill

What gives on being anonymous now?

“stolen as a matter of law?” that’s classic!! i didn’t realize there were two realms of “stolen.”

Sorry, Pat. My comp at work must have blown its cookie. I’ll have to check it. The anon was not intentional. lr, there are many, many realms of “stolen.” Think property tax, income tax, broken treaties, eminent domain, capitalism, socialism, imperialism, plagiarism, baseball, cookie jar, etc.

So Bill, you still will not give back to the rightful owners what is not rightfully yours. Whether it is a matter of law or matter of what you believe the bottom line is you have defined yourself as a squatter. And did you buy your place from the US government or a private party? It is funny when you know you are wrong. You have not denied you are being hypocritical.

so, if the land is stolen in the realm of broken treaties, it’s okay for you to receive it? sorry to say it, but dugger’s got you cornered, bf.

Got me cornered, lr? How so? I’m stating the facts. Do either duggerSD or you dispute them?

Bill, it does not matter what we dispute or not. What matters is the following is not in dispute:
Bill Fleming has said he agrees with Thad Wasson’s proposal to return public lands back to the tribes.
Bill Fleming pointed to a treaty.
Bill Fleming admits the land he has his house on is in the area included in the reservation according to the treaty.
Bill Fleming has stated the land was stolen.
Bill Fleming appears to have known this ahead of time.
Bill Fleming has admitted he is in the possession of stolen property.
Bill Fleming rationalizes as to why he is still in the home that is on land on stolen property.
Bill Fleming has admitted to being a party to a felony.
Bill Fleming would call another person who did not live up to his words a hypocrite.
Bill Fleming is a hypocrite.