Love for Life

Please watch this important statement by Russell Means, and spread this far and wide.

Lakotah Elder: Russell Means Speaks Out!
Lakotah Elder: Russell Means Speaks Out!

or try

EXCELLENT MUST-WATCH: RUSSELL MEANS ON THE LAKOTA REPUBLIC Central banks worldwide and other investors are salivating to invest in the new Lakota Nation, but that nation refuses to talk to them. There are other excellent videos to view here as well.

Intro to the movie: The Canary Effect - Kill the Indian, Save the Man

And learn about what's happening in British Columbia

North American Army created – without OK by Congress - U.S., Canada military ink deal to fight domestic emergencies
IMPEDING ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH SELECTIVE MORAL DISENGAGEMENT

Learn about secret NAFTA private contracts resulting in foreign control over BC's most important river environments, precious water and water power ...
Save Our Rivers Society
Hydro Facts in British Columbia

THE SACRED HILL WITHIN - A DAKOTA/LAKOTA WORLD VIEW by LITTLE CROW: http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/4399

Indian In The Machine - The Website For Dieter Braun: http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/4657

FROM THE GATHERING - THE WISDOM OF LITTLE CROW: http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/4400

Video & Website: Welcome To The Rebublic of Dakota - Lakotah Elder: Russell Means Speaks Out! Republic Of Dakota: http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/4183

Famous psychologist, Albert Bandura, lays out the psychological process by which humans are ignoring their relationship with the earth community, rationalizing doing so, and thereby destroying it. I cannot help but connect it with the words of Russell Means in the above story. Our disconnection from indigenous values have brought us to where we now are. Only a reconnection with those values will allow us to survive the collapse of civilization.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

PREMEDITATED MERGER - WorldNetDaily
North American Army created – without OK by Congress
U.S., Canada military ink deal to fight domestic emergencies
Posted: February 24, 2008
By Jerome R. Corsi

In a ceremony that received virtually no attention in the American media, the United States and Canada signed a military agreement Feb. 14 allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis.

U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of USNORTHCOM, signs agreement Feb. 14, 2008, with Canadian Air Force Lt. Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command (USNORTHCOM photo)

The agreement, defined as a Civil Assistance Plan, was not submitted to Congress for approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of a wide range of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorist attacks.

In Canada, the agreement paving the way for the militaries of the U.S. and Canada to cross each other's borders to fight domestic emergencies was not announced either by the Harper government or the Canadian military, prompting sharp protest.

"It's kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration," Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians told the Canwest News Service. "We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites."

The military Civil Assistance Plan can be seen as a further incremental step being taken toward creating a North American armed forces available to be deployed in domestic North American emergency situations.

The agreement was signed at U.S. Army North headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, by U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of NORAD and U.S. Northern Command, or USNORTHCOM, and by Canadian Air Force Lt. Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command.

"This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align our respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other nation's requests for military support of civil authorities," Renuart said in a statement published on the USNORTHCOM website.

"In discussing the new bilateral Civil Assistance Plan established by USNORTHCOM and Canada Command, Renuart stressed, "Unity of effort during bilateral support for civil support operations such as floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and effects of a terrorist attack, in order to save lives, prevent human suffering an mitigate damage to property, is of the highest importance, and we need to be able to have forces that are flexible and adaptive to support rapid decision-making in a collaborative environment."

Lt. Gen. Dumais seconded Renuart's sentiments, stating, "The signing of this plan is an important symbol of the already strong working relationship between Canada Command and U.S. Northern Command."

"Our commands were created by our respective governments to respond to the defense and security challenges of the twenty-first century," he stressed, "and we both realize that these and other challenges are best met through cooperation between friends."

(Story continues below)

The statement on the USNORTHCOM website emphasized the plan recognizes the role of each nation's lead federal agency for emergency preparedness, which in the United States is the Department of Homeland Security and in Canada is Public Safety Canada.

The statement then noted the newly signed plan was designed to facilitate the military-to-military support of civil authorities once government authorities have agreed on an appropriate response.

As WND has previously reported, U.S. Northern Command was established on Oct. 1, 2002, as a military command tasked with anticipating and conducting homeland defense and civil support operations where U.S. armed forces are used in domestic emergencies.

Similarly, Canada Command was established on Feb. 1, 2006, to focus on domestic operations and offer a single point of contact for all domestic and continental defense and securities partners.

In Nov. 2007, WND published a six-part exclusive series, detailing WND's on-site presence during the NORAD-USNORTHCOM Vigilant Shield 2008, an exercise which involved Canada Command as a participant.

In an exclusive interview with WND during Vigilant Shield 2008, Gen. Renuart affirmed USNORTHCOM would deploy U.S. troops on U.S. soil should the president declare a domestic emergency in which the Department of Defense ordered USNORTHCOM involvement.

In May 2007, WND reported President Bush, on his own authority, signed National Security Presidential Directive 51, also known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20, authorizing the president to declare a national emergency and take over all functions of federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, without necessarily obtaining the approval of Congress to do so.

Link to this article: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=57228

----------------------------------------

’Come to the edge,’ He said.
They said, ‘We are afraid.’
‘Come to the edge,’ He said.
They came. He pushed them... and they flew.

Guillaume Apollinaire (1880-1918)
pseudonym for Wilhelm Albert Vladimir Apollinaris Kostrowitzky
French poet, writer & art critic .

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Republic Of Dakota

Lakotah Elder - Russell Means Speaks Out!

Lakotah, formally and unilaterally withdraws from all agreements and treaties imposed by the United States Government on the Lakotah People.

FREEDOM!

Today is a historic day and our forefathers speak through us. Our Forefathers made the treaties in good faith with the sacred Canupa and with the knowledge of the Great Spirit, They never honored the treaties, that is the reason we are here today...Garry Rowland, Wounded Knee

Lakotah Unilateral Withdrawal from All Agreements and Treaties with the United States of America

We as the freedom loving Lakotah People are the predecessor sovereign of Dakota Territory as evidenced by the Treaties with the United States Government, including, but not limited to, the Treaty of 1851 and the Treaty of 1868 at Fort Laramie.

Lakotah, formally and unilaterally withdraws from all agreements and treaties imposed by the United States Government on the Lakotah People.

Lakotah , and the population therein, have waited for at least 155 years for the United States of America to adhere to the provisions of the above referenced treaties. The continuing violations of these treaties’ terms have resulted in the near annihilation of our people physically, spiritually, and culturally. Lakotah rejects United States Termination By Appropriation policy from 1871 to the present.

In addition, the evidence of gross violations of the above referenced treaties are listed herein. Lakotah encourages the United States of America, through its Government ,to enter into dialogue with Lakotah regarding the boundaries, the land and the resources therein. Please contact the Republic of Lakotah at (605) 867-1111 or i...@republicoflakotah.com.

Should the United States and its subordinate governments choose not to act in good faith concerning the rebirth of our nation, we hereby advise the United States Government that Lakotah will begin to administer liens against real estate transactions within the five state area of Lakotah.

Lakotah, through its government, appointed the following representatives to withdraw from all the treaties with the United States of America based on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties entered into force in 1980 and the

U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007:

Tegheya Kte
Heretofore known as Garry Rowland
Oyate Wacinyapin
Heretofore know as Russell Means
Mni yuha Najin Win
Heretofore known as Phyllis Young

Republic Of Lakotah P.O. Box 99 Porcupine Lakotah 57772,
http://www.republicoflakotah.com

Lakotah
Political and Diplomatic Relations with the United States of America

The first official contacts between Lakotah and the government of the United States of America began in earnest after the United States conducted a commercial transaction with France, commonly known as the Louisiana Purchase, in1803. Prior to that time, Lakotah exercised complete and unfettered freedom and independence in their territory.

According to the fantasy of United States’ history, the Louisiana Purchase was a purported sale by France to the United States of 530 million acres (2.1 million sq.km.) for $15 million. Part of this sale included the territory of Lakotah who, of course never had knowledge of, nor gave consent to, the sale of their national territory.

The first treaty between the U.S. and any segment of Lakotah occurred in 1805, , and various other treaties of “peace and friendship,” between Lakotah and the U.S. As citizens of the U.S. began to invade and encroach on the territory of Lakotah in increasing numbers, tensions and violence erupted. To prevent full-scale war, the Fort Laramie Treatyof 1851 was requested by the U.S., to allow a transportation route through Lakotah territory. The treaty did not impair the sovereignty or the independence of Lakotah. In fact, the treaty expressly recognized Lakotah as an independent nation, and the treaty respected “all national business” of Lakotah.

After repeated violations by the United States of the 1851 Treaty, warfare broke out between Lakotah and the U.S.

Lakotah defeated the U.S. in the so-called “Red Cloud War,” leading to the U.S. to call for another treaty conference at Fort Laramie. The second treaty agreed for the U.S. to abandon the Bozeman Road, and the accompanying military forts that had been built along it, and promised to keep U.S. troops and settlers out of Lakotah territory.

Almost immediately, the U.S. began violating terms of the treaty, allowing railroad and mining interests to trespass and steal Lakotah resources and territory. In 1874, the infamous U.S. military commander, George Custer, led an invasion of the most sacred part of Lakotah territory, the Paha Sapa (Black Hills), prompting an invasion of gold seekers, and provoking another war between the U.S. and Lakotah. As a result of the war, Lakotah territory was illegally occupied by the U.S., and billions of dollars of natural resources have been stolen from the occupied territories of Lakotah.

The United States has engaged in multiple military, legal and political strategies for more than a century to deny Lakotah our right to freedom and self-determination. In 1876-77, in violations of the treaties that it had signed with

Lakotah, the U.S. engaged in a sell-or-starve policy to coerce Lakotah to sell our national homeland. Lakotah refused, and has consistently refused to the present time.

In 1871, the U.S. decided no longer to enter into treaties with indigenous nations, but the U.S. treaty-ending legislation made explicit that the new policy of the United States would in no way impair or limit those treaties already in force between indigenous nations and the U.S. Lakotah have consistently relied on the sanctity of the treaty between the U.S. and Lakotah.

As mentioned above, the United States has consistently violated the treaties between Lakotah and the U.S., resulting in the loss of life, resources, and territory for Lakotah. Although the United States was willing to take the benefit of its bargain (i.e., territory and natural resources) in signing treaties with Lakotah, it was almost immediately unwilling to respect the mutual bargain to the Lakotah. The U.S. began to use U.S. law and policy to attempt to diminish the political, economic and cultural freedom of Lakotah.

After signing the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty, the U.S. allowed its military, and its civilian citizens to invade Lakotah territory to steal gold, silver and other natural resources. The U.S. unilaterally violated the 1868 Treaty throughout the 1870s and 1880s by coercing alterations in the Treaty onto Lakotah, without the required 2/3 agreement of Lakotah, as required in the Treaty.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the ongoing freedom and independence of Lakotah in the landmark case of Ex Parte Crow Dog (1883), two years later, the U.S. Congress attempted to steal Lakotah independence through the passage of the Major Crimes Act, that unilaterally extended U.S. criminal jurisdiction into Lakotah territory.

These actions were followed by more arrogant actions of the United States, culminating in the shocking Supreme Court Case of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903). Although Lone Wolf involved the Kiowa and Comanche Nations in what is now the State of Oklahoma, its impact adversely affected Lakotah. In Lone Wolf, the United States not only said that it could violate, change or abrogate treaties with Indian nations unilaterally, but it also said that the U.S.

Congress possesses plenary (absolute) power to legislate in any way in indigenous affairs without the consent or consideration of indigenous nations.

By extension, Lone Wolf has been used to violate hundreds of treaties between the U.S. and indigenous peoples, including Lakotah. Through the operation of Lone Wolf, the U.S. stole the sacred Black Hills, allowed the mining of billions of dollars of gold from them, admitted that the Black Hills were taken in violation of the 1868 Fort Laramie

Treaty, and then offered to compensate Lakotah at 1874 land values. Lakotah have, to this day, rejected the offer of payment, and continue to insist on the return of the Paha Sapa (Black Hills).

An overview of violations follows:

Homestead Acts

Allotment Acts

Citizenship Act forcing United States citizenship upon all American Indians

Indian Reorganization Act a.k.a. Howard Wheeler Act (the first Apartheid Act)

Forced relocation during the decades of the 1950’s over the 1960’s.

Supreme Court decision disallowing our religions.

Even though we are citizens of the United States of America, we are denied protections of the United States

Constitution while living on Indian reservations, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

The operation of the United States in the nefarious ways outlined above are a violation, not only of the sovereignty and independence of Lakotah, not only of the solemn treaty signed between the U.S. and Lakotah, but it

is a violation of the fundamental law of the United States itself. Article Six of the United States Constitution explicitly states that treaties signed by the United States are the supreme law of the land, and must be respected by every court and by every lawmaker, as such.

Referenced Documents

1. Treaties of Fort Laramie, 1851 and 1868

Full text of these treaties can be found at http://www.republicoflakotah.com/portfolio.html

2. Article VI of United States Constitution

Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

3. Vienna Convention on Treaties 1969; specifically Article 49, Article 60 Parts I and II Article 49- Fraud

If a State has been induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct govern questions not regulated by the provisions of the present Convention, Have agreed as follows:

PART I

INTRODUCTION

Article 1

Scope of the present Convention

The present Convention applies to treaties between States.

Article 2

Use of terms

1. For the purposes of the present Convention:

(a) ‘treaty’ means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;

(b) ‘ratification’, ‘acceptance’, ‘approval’ and ‘accession’ mean in each case the international act so named whereby a State establishes on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty;

(c) ‘full powers’ means a document emanating from the competent authority of a State designating a person or persons to represent the State for negotiating, adopting or authenticating the text of a treaty, for expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty;

(d) ‘reservation’ means a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State;

(e) ‘negotiating State’ means a State which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of the treaty;

(f) ‘contracting State’ means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty, whether or not the treaty has entered into force;

(g) ‘party’ means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force;

(h) ‘third State’ means a State not a party to the treaty;

(i) ‘international organization’ means an intergovernmental organization.

Article 60

Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach

1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as aground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.

2. A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles:

(a) the other parties by unanimous agreement to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in part orto terminate it either:

(i) in the relations between themselves and the defaulting State, or

(ii) as between all the parties;

(b) a party specially affected by the breach to invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation of thereaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting State;

(c) any party other than the defaulting State to invoke the breach as a ground for suspending the operationof the treaty in whole or in part with respect to itself if the treaty is of such a character that a material breach of its provisions by one party radically changes the position of every party with respect to the further performance of its obligations under the treaty.

3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in:

(a) a repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or

(b) the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.

4. The foregoing paragraphs are without prejudice to any provision in the treaty applicable in the event of a breach.

5. Paragraphs 1 to 3 do not apply to provisions relating to the protection of the human person contained in treaties of a humanitarian character, in particular to provisions prohibiting any form of reprisals against persons protected by such treaties.

4. United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Rights 2007; specifically Article 37

Article 37

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements concluded with States or their successors and to have States honor and respect such treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.

2. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as diminishing or eliminating the rights of indigenous peoples contained in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.

5. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903)

Full text of the decision can be found at: http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/ussct_cases/Lone_Wolf_v_Hitchcock...

Note: Lakotah precludes all litigation and political intrusions not relevant to Lakotah.

Link to this website: http://www.republicoflakotah.com