VicksWeb upgrade Location upload ads trending
VicksWeb USA

Welcome to VicksWeb™

Flag Counter

© VicksWeb Inc.

About | Privacy | Help | Terms | Feedback | Security | Services

‘The Walking Dead’ Season 10 Premiere Will Remind You Why It’s the Biggest Show on TV
Publisher:  Decider
Monday, 23 September 2019 08:30

Read our spoiler-free review of "Lines We Cross."

Chevy Bolt EV review: An electric car that combines cool tech with a good price
Publisher:  VentureBeat
Monday, 23 September 2019 08:30

Chevy Bolt
Yes, I'm afraid that might have been me you spotted driving around in a 2019 Chevy Bolt EV electric car. Here's my review of the tech inside.Read More

Mon Sep 23 '19 Announcement from Be a part of my debut classical crossover album!
Publisher:  Indiegogo: Announcements
Monday, 23 September 2019 08:30

Hello,

On Friday, September 27, I am releasing the album "Inside My Heart" exclusively at jasonantone.com. Your contribution to the campaign helped raise the funds to record it.

Below are the DOWNLOAD AND BEHIND THE SCENES incentives that you so generously paid for. Please don't share them as they are exclusive to this group.

Thanks again and enjoy!

Jason

 

Download available at :

www.jasonantone.com/press

Password: insidemyheart5000

 

Click here for the behind the scenes video : https://youtu.be/hSCoxPZIw08


Morning Digest: Massachusetts Rep. Joe Kennedy III challenges Sen. Ed Markey in Democratic primary
Publisher:  Daily Kos
Monday, 23 September 2019 08:30

The Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest is compiled by David Nir, Jeff Singer, Stephen Wolf, Carolyn Fiddler, and Matt Booker, with additional contributions from David Jarman, Steve Singiser, Daniel Donner, James Lambert, David Beard, and Arjun Jaikumar.

Leading Off

� MA-Sen: On Saturday, Rep. Joe Kennedy III announced that he would challenge Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey in next September’s Democratic primary, setting up what will be one of the most high-profile nomination fights of the cycle.

Campaign Action

Whoever wins should have little trouble prevailing in the general election in this very blue state, but along the way we’re sure to see a very expensive intra-party fight. At the end of June, Kennedy had a small $4.2 million to $4.1 million cash-on-hand edge over the incumbent, and each man has the connections to raise a whole lot more.

Kennedy will be 40 on Election Day while Markey will be 74, and the congressman has spent the last month arguing that he can bring change to the political system Markey’s inhabited since before Kennedy was born. However, this primary is anything but a traditional battle between the party establishment and an insurgent outsider, and any ideological fault-lines are hard to find.

To begin with, Kennedy is a member of the most prominent political family in the Bay State, and perhaps in all of America—a grandson of Robert F. Kennedy and a great-nephew of both former President John F. Kennedy and longtime Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy. Joe Kennedy is also a four-term House member who served as a DCCC regional vice chair during the last election, so he’s been an ally of the party leadership. He was chosen to give the official Democratic response to Donald Trump’s State of the Union address in 2018.

Markey, who was first elected to the House in 1976 and won a 2013 special election to the Senate, also very much looks the part of member of the party establishment. However, the senator has the endorsement of New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who very much does not. Markey and Ocasio-Cortez have worked together to promote the Green New Deal, and AOC recently praised Markey by calling him “the generational change we’ve been waiting for.�

The DSCC is also in Markey’s corner, though it remains to be seen how much money, if any, they’ll spend to defend him in a contest that’s taking place less than two months before Election Day. In addition, Markey has the backing of several prominent Massachusetts Democrats. While fellow Sen. Elizabeth Warren is close to Kennedy, who was her student in law school, she’s sided with the incumbent. The senator also has the endorsement of five of the state’s eight other House members as well as Boston Mayor Marty Walsh.

Despite that support for Markey, two recent polls have shown Kennedy with a lead in the primary. A Suffolk University survey found Kennedy winning 35-26 in a four-way race, with no one else even clearing 1%; in a two-way race, Kennedy’s edge increased to 42-28. (Labor attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan and business executive Steve Pemberton were already challenging Markey, and Pemberton said earlier this month that he would not defer to Kennedy.)

Meanwhile, a Change Research poll for the pro-charter school group Education Reform Now Advocacy had Kennedy winning by an even larger 42-25, while Pemberton and Liss-Riordan took 7% and 5% respectively. However, despite these early deficits, Markey has repeatedly said that he won’t retire and will fight to keep his seat next year.

Senate

â—� CO-Sen: In a true blink and you'll miss it campaign, former Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce chair Denise Burgess dropped out of the Democratic primary on Thursday just four days after she entered the race to take on GOP Sen. Cory Gardner. Burgess denied that she quit the contest because of a Colorado Sun investigation into her tax liens, though she acknowledged that she owes about $36,000. The now-former candidate just said, "We really thought we had big momentum," but, "We did not."

Believe it or not, though, this isn't the shortest Colorado Senate campaign in recent memory. In 2004, then-Rep. Mark Udall announced that he would seek the Democratic nod for what was an open seat, but he dropped out less than 24 hours later and endorsed state Attorney General Ken Salazar's ultimately successful campaign. Udall won the other Senate seat in 2008 without any serious intra-party opposition, though he lost re-election to Gardner six years later.

â—� KS-Sen: Wealthy businessman Wink Hartman recently confirmed that he's still considering seeking the GOP nod for this open seat even though he'd need to face his old running mate, former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. Hartman, who was Kobach's candidate for lieutenant governor last year, said that his decision would have nothing to do with the former secretary of state.

Both men originally ran for governor in 2017, with Hartman at one point slamming Kobach aggressively, saying he was "not doing his current job, he's not going to do his next job, and he keeps auditioning for new positions wherever he can find them." But Hartman ended up dropping out well before the primary, and he soon joined Kobach's ticket as his number two. Hartman loaned their joint campaign a total of $2.31 million, which made up the majority of the $3.65 million that Kobach brought in, but the ticket lost to Democrat Laura Kelly 48-43.  

â—� MN-Sen: Former GOP Rep. Jason Lewis spent years as a conservative radio shock jock spewing racist and misogynist hate across the airwaves, and it probably won't surprise you to learn he also has a history of on-air anti-Semitism.

CNN's Andrew Kaczynski reports that during a 2013 show, Lewis argued that the GOP had "dual loyalties" to Israel in part because of "a very strong American Jewish lobby." Lewis also claimed that a number of former senior Bush administration officials, including former UN Ambassador John Bolton, were dual citizens of Israel and the United States. (Bolton is neither Jewish nor Israeli.)

Lewis' rants were unearthed by CNN after he declared that Democratic Rep. Ilan Omar was anti-Semitic. Lewis is the GOP primary frontrunner to take on Democratic Sen. Tina Smith.

Gubernatorial

â—� AL-Gov: GOP Gov. Kay Ivey announced Thursday that she has been diagnosed with lung cancer, but she declared that she would remain in office and that her treatments would "have a minimal impact on my schedule." Ivey said that her doctors told her the "treatment has a very high rate of success."

â—� WV-Gov: The National Journal reports that two Democrats are close to deciding whether they'll challenge GOP Gov. Jim Justice. Kanawha County Commissioner Ben Salango said on Sept. 13 that he expected to make up his mind over the following seven to 10 days, so that would put his deadline at right about now.

Salango, who is the founding partner of a Charleston-based law firm, was appointed in 2017 to a vacant seat on the three-member commission for the state's largest county. The following year, he was elected to a full term without any opposition. During his time in office Salango helped build the Shawnee Sports Complex, which the local ABC affiliate reports has been responsible for a big increase in business for local hotels and restaurants.

State Sen. Ron Stollings also has talked about running since Sen. Joe Manchin announced he'd stay out of the race, and he recently told the National Journal he was "95% in already." Stollings, who works as a physician, said the only reason he hasn't already announced a bid is that he wants to make sure his patients will have access to care if he wins. Stollings, who describes himself as a "centrist," won his fourth term 57-43 last year in a southern West Virginia seat that had backed Donald Trump by a massive 78-19 spread.

The National Journal also says that there's been talk that TV personality Mark Bowe could run, but there's no information about his interest. Community organizer Stephen Smith currently has the Democratic primary to himself.

House

â—� CA-50: San Diego Union-Tribune columnist Michael Smolens wrote Friday that state Sen. Brian Jones was expected to launch a bid against indicted Rep. Duncan Hunter, a fellow Republican, in "the next week or so." Jones himself said that Republicans couldn't take the chance that Hunter could advance past the March top-two primary and lose this conservative seat to Democrat Ammar Campa-Najjar, and he added that he'd have an announcement in the upcoming week.

Jones is a longtime politician in inland San Diego County. Jones, who had been serving in the Assembly, defeated his Democratic rival 53-47 last year to win an open state Senate seat that Donald Trump had carried 50-44. Jones' new constituency takes up 87% of the 50th Congressional District, and Smolens writes that the senator "has strong ties to local faith-based organizations."

However, while Jones says he might run to try to stop Hunter, who is scheduled to stand trial in January for corruption, from making it out of the top-two primary, he may end up helping the embattled congressman by splitting the GOP vote. While he may scare a few local Republican candidates out of the race, Smolens says that former conservative radio host Carl DeMaio isn't going to defer to Jones.

Smolens adds that, while Jones had been waiting to see whether former 49th District Rep. Darrell Issa would run before making up his own mind, the senator appears ready to run no matter what he ends up doing. Issa had previously suggested that he'd run against Hunter if he wasn't confirmed as director of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency by Nov. 3, and Jones recently said, "It doesn't make sense for others to wait until Nov. 3."

Issa's confirmation hearings were indefinitely delayed on Thursday while the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee waits to see his FBI file, and the former congressman hasn't said if he'd stick to his early November decision deadline. California's filing deadline is in December.

â—� IL-14: It's quite fitting that GOP state Sen. Jim Oberweis, who has a terrible record running for office, would release a poll from McLaughlin & Associates, which has a terrible record helping Republicans running for office. However, McLaughlin's newest survey, which was finished all the way back in early August, is strange even for both of them. They find freshman Democratic Rep. Lauren Underwood beating Oberweis 47-38, which is quite a surprising result coming from a firm that's notorious even in Republican circles for providing very rosy numbers for its clients.

So why would Oberweis release such a bad, and also stale, result? McLaughlin's memo, which was posted on a blog run by a GOP state representative, argues that Oberweis pulls into a 51-37 lead after "a series of issue message questions" are asked. Unsurprisingly, they don't provide the language of those "issue message questions."

The poll goes on to argue that Oberweis is the clear frontrunner in the March primary to take on Underwood, but they're even less convincing here. To begin with, their primary poll only samples 200 Republicans, which is well below the 300-person minimum that Daily Kos Elections requires in order to write up a poll. (The general election sample is exactly 300.) And as Politico notes, the poll left off a few candidates while another contender, former Trump administration official Catalina Lauf, announced she was in well after the survey was completed.

â—� MA-04: Democratic state Sen. Paul Feeney, who represents a seat in the Attleboro area, said Thursday that he would spend "the coming days" considering whether he'll run to succeed Senate candidate Joe Kennedy III.

State Rep. Tommy Vitolo, a freshman who represents part of Brookline at the northern end of the seat, also hinted that he'll decide if he's entering the Democratic primary in the coming weeks. Vitolo said, "Within the next few weeks people either have to get in or be out. It's hard to imagine coming in later than that and putting together successful campaign, but the exciting thing about elections is there are always new ways of doing things." However, state Sen. Cynthia Creem said she would not run.

â—� WI-07: Wisconsin Public Radio reports that Wausau School Board president Tricia Zunker is considering seeking the Democratic nomination in the upcoming special election.

Mayoral

â—� Des Moines, IA Mayor: Former state Sen. Jack Hatch, who was the 2014 Democratic nominee for governor of Iowa, announced Thursday that he would challenge Mayor Frank Cownie in this November's nonpartisan race. Cownie, a fellow Democrat, was first elected in 2003, and he's already the longest-serving mayor in Des Moines history. A few other candidates are running, and if no one takes a majority on Nov. 5, there would be a runoff Dec. 3.

Hatch, who works as a developer, argued that the city needs to do a better job improving infrastructure and mental health care. He also said that Des Moines' new zoning code "fast tracks" development projects, which will mean less input from the neighborhoods that will be impacted.

Hatch announced his campaign on the day of the filing deadline. He explained, "I waited this long because I was hoping someone else would get in," but, "Nobody has. I've got seven weeks to make a case." Hatch also acknowledged he was the "underdog." Cownie won his last re-election campaign in 2015 with 80% of the vote. Hatch was last on the ballot during the 2014 GOP wave when he lost to Republican Gov. Terry Branstad 59-37.

Grab Bag

â—� Where Are They Now?: Donald Trump nominated former Rep. Bruce Poliquin, a Maine Republican who narrowly lost re-election to Democrat Jared Golden last year, to lead the Board of Securities Investor Protection Corporation on Friday. While this is a volunteer post, it still requires U.S. Senate confirmation. Poliquin may want to hold off on updating his business cards, though, because other sitting and former U.S. House members have had a decidedly mixed record getting confirmed for Trump administration posts.

Most notably, former California Rep. Darrell Issa's bid to become director of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency has been stalled for a year, which is a fate that Poliquin would certainly prefer to avoid. That's still better than what happened to former New Jersey Rep. Scott Garrett in 2017, though, when his nomination to head the Export-Import Bank was outright voted down. However, Garrett later was hired for a job at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Some of Poliquin's other former colleagues have also had problems getting through the Senate. Also in 2017, Trump picked Pennsylvania Rep. Tom Marino to be director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. However, Marino withdrew in the face of a devastating report that revealed he'd pushed legislation at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry to deliberately hobble the DEA's ability to crack down on the black market flood of prescription narcotics. (Marino was re-elected in 2018, but he resigned early this year.) This summer, Trump picked Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe to be director of national intelligence, but he bailed after less than a week.

Poliquin also could end up waiting a while even if he does ultimately get approved. Trump nominated former Louisiana Rep. John Fleming for a post at the Department of Commerce in June of last year, but he only got the affirmative vote from the Senate in March. At least Poliquin will be comforted to know that, unlike in his home state of Maine, the U.S. Senate does not use instant-runoff voting.


Housing Markets Turning Ugly In 2019
Publisher:  Forbes Real Time
Monday, 23 September 2019 08:30

U.S. housing is sending mixed signals this year, so find out which markets are in potentially troubled waters.

6 Native leaders on what it would look like if the US kept its promises
Publisher:  Vox
Monday, 23 September 2019 08:30

A figure on a windswept road walks past a series of flags. An activist fights the wind while walking along Flag Road in Oceti Sakowin Camp as blizzard conditions grip the area around the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation outside Cannon Ball, North Dakota on December 6, 2016. | Scott Olson/Getty Images

The US has signed hundreds of treaties with Indigenous peoples. Here’s what would happen if the government actually honored them.

“‘We the people’ has never meant ‘all the people.’�

These were words of independent presidential candidate and Navajo Nation member Mark Charles as he spoke, to great excitement, at the first presidential forum dedicated to Native American issues in over a decade.

In August, hundreds of Indigenous peoples gathered in Sioux City, Iowa, for the two-day Frank LaMere Presidential Forum. People had traveled from as far as Laguna Pueblo in New Mexico to Wampanoag communities in Massachusetts, eager for a chance to be heard. Aside from Charles, eight Democrats, including frontrunners Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, were in attendance. The forum marked the rare presidential cycle where candidates are simply acknowledging that Native people exist.

Presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders stands onstage speaking into a microphone and pointing at the audience. Also onstage are seated representatives of Native peoples and the flags of many tribes. Stephen Maturen/Getty Images
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks at the Frank LaMere Native American Presidential Forum in Sioux City, Iowa on August 20, 2019.

Questions covered a lot of ground: climate change, the 2020 census, the consultation of Indigenous nations on federal decisions, and the Indian Child Welfare Act, a 1978 law meant to reverse the disproportionately high number of Indigenous children removed from their homes by government agencies. Candidates’ plans were discussed as well: Warren’s includes massive increases in spending to help bolster Indian Country; Julián Castro’s notes the need to develop cultural competency in federal relationships, while also giving tribes enhanced self-determination.

But for all these current issues, historical grievances were aired, too. So one has to ask: What long-unfulfilled promises to Indigenous peoples can presidential candidates actually make good on? Where do we go from here?

There is no easy answer as to how to improve the over-400-year relationship between Indigenous peoples and the United States. In part, because Indian Country is so diverse. There are more than 5.2 million American Indian and Alaska Native people who live in America and 573 federally recognized Indian nations across the country, each with distinctive histories of colonization since European contact. Then there are state-recognized nations, unrecognized nations, and Indigenous communities living in the diaspora, too.

While people in a single community will provide a range of perspectives — much less in all 573 federally recognized tribes — more often than not, a version of one answer always comes up about what the US needs to do: honor the treaties.

The US government signed 370 treaties with numerous Indigenous nations from 1778 to 1871. While the language in the treaties is diverse, there are often certain common features of the pacts: a guarantee of peace, a definition of land boundaries, preservation of hunting and fishing rights, and provisions for protection against domestic and foreign enemies.

But these pacts were signed across significantly different periods of history, with incredibly divergent views of what Indigenous nations were. That’s why listening to what Native peoples are actually asking for is so important.

So while just about every candidate at the LaMere Forum said they would honor the treaties or the “Supreme Law� of the United States, what does that actually mean as far as tangible results?

We asked six Indigenous academics, community leaders, and activists what would it look like if the US were to fulfill their trust and treaty responsibilities.

Dr. Cutcha Risling Baldy, Hoopa Valley Tribe/Yurok/Karuk, assistant professor and department chair of Native American studies at Humboldt State University:

Here in California, we actually do not have treaties. Well, we do have treaties, but those treaties were not ratified. There were 18 in total that were made with California Indians in the 1800s, but at the time, Congress decided not to ratify them and then put them under an injunction of secrecy.

Our people had agreed to these treaties in the hopes of finding reprieve from the genocide that was being perpetrated against us by the California government and citizens. Some of my own family members signed these treaties, and later they would tell stories about how hard-fought these negotiations were and how they struggled to reconcile what they had to compromise in order to protect future generations and to protect our lands and more-than-human relatives. When tribes would come to the table to negotiate treaties, they weren’t thinking only about the present, they were thinking about many generations into the future. Their negotiations were about relationship, responsibility, respect, and reciprocity.

The mouth of the Klamath River viewed from the Klamath River Overlook. Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
The mouth of the Klamath River viewed from the Klamath River Overlook, overlooking a 1,200-acre parcel the Yurok Tribe is hoping to acquire for their own tribal park inside the current boundary of the Redwood National and State Park as part of an expansion of reservation land under their control.

Not every tribe in California was able to renegotiate or become recognized after the treaties were rejected. Some tribes who have signed treaties are now “unrecognized� tribes. In 2014, the National Museum of the American Indian featured one of the unratified California Treaties in their exhibits. A colleague visited this exhibit when it opened so she could view this treaty which was signed by some of her relatives. She told me that as she stood before the document, she cried silently to herself. To this day, the federal government does not recognize her people as living California Indians.

Treaties are foundational agreements the United States made with Native nations. Nobody fooled the US into entering into treaties, nobody tricked Benjamin Franklin (or whatever founding father) into building a nation that also had many other nations within it. This is the nation they built; these are the agreements they made. If we honor the Constitution, we have to honor the treaties. If we are truly going to honor the treaties, we have to center Indigenous histories, support self-determination, and build decolonized futures by giving back stolen land. This has happened all over the world, and it has even happened here in California. The return of stolen land is how we truly honor the trust responsibility.

Matthew Fletcher, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians/Potawatomi descendant, director of the Indigenous Law and Policy Center at Michigan State University College of Law:

Our understanding of the federal government’s duties to Indians and Indian tribes could be on the verge of changing dramatically. But right now, the federal government fails horrifically at the fulfillment of its duties — just look at Indian country’s poverty, crime rates, suicide rates, and poor health indicators.

The original understanding of the federal-tribal relationship was that the United States agreed to undertake a duty of protection to Indians and tribes. This means that the tribes gave up much of their exterior sovereignty, but they were to retain all the internal governmental powers they possess, like the power to make laws and enforce them within the tribe’s territory.

In many treaties, the federal government agreed to guarantee education, health care, housing, and other services to Indian tribes. The United States also agreed to manage and protect Indian tribes’ resources, such as lands and timber.

Four members of the Nisqually tribe stand and look at a document on display in a museum. Paul Morigi/AP Images for National Museum of the American Indian
Nisqually tribal members, left to right, Peggan Frank, Willie Frank, Isabella McCloud, and Hanford McCloud view the newly unveiled Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854 on display at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, DC, on March 23, 2017.

However, the duty of protection mutated politically into a guardian-ward relationship after a Supreme Court decision in 1831. It would also be the premise for the federal government to label Indian people legally incompetent. This way of thinking reached an apex in the 1880s when Congress federalized jurisdiction in Indian Country, broke up reservations into individual allotments, and made boarding school education mandatory. In the latter half of the 20th century, Congress restored and implemented a modern understanding of the duty of protection, which we call self-determination.

What remains are two kinds of trust duties. The first kind is an actual trust, in which the United States holds and manages Indian and tribes’ assets in a trust. The second kind is referred to by the Supreme Court, inaccurately, as the general trust relationship, a kind of moral obligation to assist tribal interests. Labeling the duty as a moral obligation effectively renders the federal government’s obligations voluntary and unenforceable.

The general trust relationship does have teeth, however. If Congress decides to provide services to Indians or tribes, this modern version of the duty of protection is a source of legal authority for Congress to do so.

But what if Congress chooses not to act? Or the president acts in opposition to tribal interests, seemingly contrary to the duty of protection? Indian nations gave up a lot in exchange for the duty of protection — lands, resources, sovereign powers — and to label the federal government’s duties merely voluntary is atrocious.

This could change dramatically, as I mentioned above. Justice Gorsuch stated in a recent Supreme Court case that he takes very seriously the exchange between sovereigns memorialized in Indian treaties. To paraphrase, he wrote that tribes didn’t give up that much for nothing: Tribes are entitled to something.

Also, and this is not intended to be an endorsement of Elizabeth Warren, if her Indian affairs legislative platform comes to fruition and federal services to Indian country becomes fully funded, that would be a massive step toward the fulfillment of the trust responsibility.

Karen Diver, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, director of Business Development of Native American Initiatives at the University of Arizona:

First and foremost, fulfilling the treaties means recognizing that tribal nations are political entities and respecting the right to self-govern. To support that, the federal government needs to fully fund its obligations that were pre-paid by tribes with land.

For example, while there are many issues that contribute to negative health indicators in Indian Country, the chronic lack of funding for the Indian Health Service only makes matters worse. It is time for mandatory, full funding of the Indian Health Service, which is responsible for providing federal health services to Native peoples in the US, as a start toward improving health care in Indian Country.

Another prime example comes from housing services. The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, which simplified the housing assistance process for Indian nations, expired in 2013. While small amounts continue to be funded, the act, as a step toward recognizing the homelessness crisis in Indian Country, needs to be reauthorized.

These obligations also extend not just to the amount of funding authorized but also respecting the self-governance that tribal nations have in relation to that funding. In plain terms, this means not just funding programs in Indian Country but allowing tribal nations to manage those funds in a manner they see fit.

This respect for self-governance also needs to extend to criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country. At the current moment, the Violence Against Women Act and its provisions to allow for prosecution of non-Indians who commit domestic violence on tribal members, expired last year.

The previous examples are just a few small steps toward honoring the treaty obligations of the US, but they are meaningful. They are symbols and recognition that there were fully autonomous self-governing peoples here long before the creation of this country.

DeLesslin George-Warren, citizen of Catawba Nation, consultant for Catawba Nation:

For me, honoring the treaties means truly honoring the fishing, hunting, and harvesting rights guaranteed in most treaties. As many tribes entered into agreements with the Crown and later the US, we were specific in reserving our right to fish, hunt, and harvest as we always have on our lands. And yet tribal members are regularly fined for exercising these rights, and the US and corporations continue to build infrastructure that disrupts our ability to practice our traditional food systems.

For the most part, the federal government and corporations replaced a truly treaty-based negotiation process with a weak and unenforceable “consultation� practice, which doesn’t require much more than asking Indigenous peoples what they think on a particular project. In many cases, as it relates to our sacred sites and treaty rights, even if there is staunch opposition, projects move forward, rendering consultation nothing more than a notification process. Our treaties don’t guarantee consultations that will be ignored.

A man in a feathered headdress and cape holds a sign that reads, “Stand with the Gwich’in, Defend the Arctic.� People beside him hold a banner representing a hand with two fingers up in a peace sign. Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
Native American leaders hold signs against drilling in the Arctic Refuge on the 58th anniversary of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, during a press conference outside the Capitol in Washington, DC, on December 11, 2018.

Treaties guarantee our right to traditional plants, animals, lands, air, and waterways. Projects that inhibit those rights are a violation of our treaties and by extension the Constitution of the United States.

Tara Houska, Couchiching First Nation, tribal attorney

To begin a chapter of US history that does not find its foundation in annually broken treaties, Congress must do its duty to uphold the law.

Realizing the trust responsibility is another matter. To me, it means recognizing and honoring sovereign Native nations as such: independent nations with full authority over criminal, civil, and self-governance matters. We must be able to protect our own people, enforce tribal laws, develop economically, and ensure healthy lands and waters to sustain our communities.

The world is in flux, our shared survival is on the line. Native peoples hold 80 percent of the world’s remaining biodiversity. We are the holders of the sacred. We are the canary in the mine of humanity.

Liz Medicine Crow, Haida/Tlingit, president and CEO of First Alaskans Institute:

It is critical to understand that the basic binding relationship between tribes and the US, and its state and territorial governments, is a political one, as between tribal nations. In essence, what it also means is that instead of trying to undo it, get out of it, or change it in a way that breaks it down, the US government must actually embrace it and do the most it can to uphold these obligations in a respectful government-to-government relationship — working with the tribes, not against them.

Native American participants in the 2019 Women’s March walk with bullhorns and hold signs reading, “Believe Indigenous womxn,� “Indigenous women have been fighting since 1492,� “We know it’s privilege because we don’t have it!� and “The future is female.� Robert Alexander/Getty Images
Native American participants in the 2019 Women’s March walk with signs and bullhorns in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on January 19, 2019.

And on a personal level, to be a patriot and a citizen of the US means to back up the commitments of this country by upholding and honoring these in-perpetuity obligations to the Indigenous peoples of these lands. Teach it in pre-K-12th grade schools, universities, technical, and trade programs. Make it a basic tenet of your community engagement and best business practices to establish good relationships with local and nearby tribes and tribal citizens. Perform meaningful land acknowledgments at your gatherings and conferences. Educate yourself, your families, and your faith and community organizations about these American responsibilities.

These relationships are a primary obligation of the United States’ nationhood. As a country founded on theft of Indigenous lands and lives and on the theft of black labor and lives through slavery, it means that this country must live up to its own ideals of itself and its legally binding promises, obligations, and commitments to the fullest extent. It means the US has to be honorable; and where it has not been, it must work to rectify this.

Rory Taylor is a Ckiri/Chahta journalist covering Indigenous politics, policy, and the intersection of race, culture, and society in America. Originally from the Los Angeles area, he currently lives on the territory of Ng�ti Wh�tua Or�kei in T�maki Makaurau and is pursuing a Masters of Indigenous Studies at Te Whare W�nanga o T�maki Makaurau.


Setting A Strong Foundation For Organizational Transformation
Publisher:  Forbes Real Time
Monday, 23 September 2019 08:30

While every transformation has slightly different objectives, success ultimately depends on how much the organization actually evolves from the way it currently operates.

AI In Procurement: Where We're Headed
Publisher:  Forbes Real Time
Monday, 23 September 2019 08:30

The next 10 years will be exciting times for procurement professionals poised to leverage integrated AI to the fullest advantage.

Building A Company While Fighting Cancer: This Founder’s Inspirational Mission to Improve Care For Women’s Privates
Publisher:  Forbes Real Time
Monday, 23 September 2019 08:30

Most women suffer from vaginal pain or discomfort at some point in their lives. Suzanne Sinatra just launched Private Packs after defeating cancer. Private Packs makes wearable, reusable therapy packs that comfort pain. The company just launched an Indiegogo crowdfunding campaign.

Four Bold Social Media Predictions For 2020
Publisher:  Forbes Real Time
Monday, 23 September 2019 08:30

What is next for social?

<< < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > >>