Left to their own devices, the Native Americans would have preferred to have
lived on their lands, in their own way without the interference of european
settlers. With european settlers, came disease, alcohol, and an inordinate
lust for lots of money. Most Native Americans were dessamated by disease,
alcoholism, and poverty after the arrival of european civilization. But
some may benefit from the white man's propensity for gambling.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of R. E. Driscoll Sr
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 3:36 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: A Homeland Is a Country That Allows Domestic
Use of Military
Miriam:
In this area of New Mexico and the Plains of Texas to the east there is a
strong attraction in the form of Federal Funds paid to residents of
Reservations and Pueblos and Casinos operated by the Indian Nations in these
areas.
R. E. (Dick) Driscoll, Sr.
On 1/26/2016 10:39 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Well, whatever the disgusting ways in which those Indian
reservations were
formed, American Indians who live on them, choose to do so. They
want to
live on the land in their own communities. Those who don't choose
to, can
leave. Yes, certainly, there are economic and social barriers
confronting
people of color and women. But there's a very big difference between
those
barriers and prison camps.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 11:29 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: A Homeland Is a Country That Allows
Domestic
Use of Military
Mention of FDR's Internment Camps for Japanese American Citizens
during
World War II reminds me that we don't need to look back so far to
see what
internment does to a people. Just look for starter at the
Indigenous People
shoved onto lands not needed by our Empire. Take a trip and wander
through
these enforced camps. Want something closer to home? Just wander
down to
your city's Central Slums. Take a look at the people crammed into
these
internment camps. And be aware that there are those who would put
Muslims
and all non Christian people in special camps. Women are no longer
safe
from those who would run their lives for them.
That is what Internment Camps are all about. Controlling the lives
of
others. And we are a nation chock full of them.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/25/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Domestic Use of Military
A Homeland Is a Country That Allows Domestic Use of Military
________________________________________
By davidswanson - Posted on 12 January 2016 Have you seen
Dahr
Jamail's report on U.S. military plans for war games in
Washington
state? I'm sure some observers imagine that the military is
simply
looking for a place to engage in safe and responsible and
needed
practice in hand-to-hand combat against incoming North
Korean nuclear
missiles, or perhaps to rehearse a humanitarian invasion of
Russia to
uphold the fundamental international law against Vladimir
Putin's
existence.
But if you look over the history of domestic use of the U.S.
military
-- such as by reading the new book Soldiers on the Home
Front: The
Domestic Role of the American Military -- it's hard not to
wonder
whether, from the U.S. military's point of view, at least a
side
benefit of the coming war game isn't rehearsing for the next
time
citizens in kayaks interfere with a corporation intent on
poisoning the
earth's climate with fossil fuels.
Soldiers on the Home Front is almost rah-rah enthusiastic in
its
support for the U.S. military: "Our task here is to
celebrate the U.S.
military's profound historical and continuing contribution
to domestic
tranquility, while at the same time ... ." Yet it tells a
story of two
centuries of the U.S. military and state militias and the
National
Guard being used to suppress dissent, eliminate labor
rights, deny
civil liberties, attack Native Americans, and abuse African
Americans.
Even the well-known restrictions on military use put into
law and
often ignored -- such as the Posse Comitatus Act -- were
aimed at
allowing, not preventing, the abuse of African Americans.
The story is
one of gradually expanding presidential power, both in
written law and
in practice, with the latter far outpacing the former.
Some of us are grateful to see restraint in the approach to
the men
occupying a federal facility in Oregon. But we are horrified
by the
lack of similar restraint in using the military or
militarized police
against peaceful protesters in U.S. cities. Police
departments as we
know them simply did not exist when the U.S. Constitution --
virtually
unaltered since
-- was cobbled together in an age of muskets, slavery, and
genocide.
Among the developments that concern me far more than the
authors of
Soldiers on the Home Front:
Numerous drills and practices, and the locking down of
Boston,
desensitizing people to the presence of the U.S. military on
our
streets.
Congress members threatened with martial law if they vote
against
their oligarchs.
The legalization of lawless military imprisonment without
charge or
trial for U.S. citizens or anyone else.
The legalization of murder by drone or any other technology
of U.S.
citizens
or anyone else, with arguments that apply within the
Homeland just as
anywhere else, though we've been told all the murders have
been abroad.
Nuclear weapons illegally flown across the country and left
unguarded.
Mercenaries on the streets of New Orleans after a hurricane.
Northcom given legal power to illegally act within the
United States
against the people of the United States.
Fusion centers blurring all lines between military and
domestic
government violence.
Secret and not-so-secret continuity of government plans that
could put
martial law in place at the decision of a president or in
the absence
of a president.
The militarization of the Mexican border.
The gruesome history and future of the attack on the Bonus
Army, the
bombing of West Virginia, Operation Northwoods, tin soldiers
and Nixon
coming, and Franklin Roosevelt's actual and Donald Trump's
possible
internment camps.
The authors of Soldiers on the Home Front claim that we must
balance
all such dangers with the supposed need for a military to
address
"storms, earthquakes, cyber attacks ..., bioterrorism." Why
must we?
None of these threats can be best addressed by people
trained and
armed to kill and destroy. When only such people have
funding and
numbers and equipment, they can look preferable to nothing.
But what
if we had an unarmed, nonviolent green energy brigade taking
on the
protection of the climate, and non-military police ready to
enforce
laws in crises, a major new Civilian Conservation Corps
trained and
equipped and funded to provide emergency services, a
computer whiz
team dedicated to fending off cyber attacks and preventing
their
ongoing provocation by U.S. government cyber attackers, a
publicly
funded healthcare system prepared for health emergencies,
and a State
Department redirected away from weapons marketing and into a
new project
of building respectful and cooperative relations with the world?
If the United States were to move from militarism to all of
the above,
the main problem would be what to do with all of the
remaining money.
.
. davidswanson's blog
. Email this
&&&&
. Home
. Books
. Article Topics
. Talk Nation Radio
. About
. Donate
. Search
. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
. Twitter
. Youtube
. WarIsACrime.org
. RootsAction.org
. Images
. RSS
. Store
. WorldBeyondWar.org
. War No More
You are hereBlogs / davidswanson's blog / A Homeland Is a
Country That
Allows Domestic Use of Military A Homeland Is a Country That
Allows
Domestic Use of Military
By davidswanson - Posted on 12 January 2016 Have you seen
Dahr
Jamail's report on U.S. military plans for war games in
Washington
state? I'm sure some observers imagine that the military is
simply
looking for a place to engage in safe and responsible and
needed
practice in hand-to-hand combat against incoming North
Korean nuclear
missiles, or perhaps to rehearse a humanitarian invasion of
Russia to
uphold the fundamental international law against Vladimir
Putin's
existence.
But if you look over the history of domestic use of the U.S.
military
-- such as by reading the new book Soldiers on the Home
Front: The
Domestic Role of the American Military -- it's hard not to
wonder
whether, from the U.S. military's point of view, at least a
side
benefit of the coming war game isn't rehearsing for the next
time
citizens in kayaks interfere with a corporation intent on
poisoning the
earth's climate with fossil fuels.
Soldiers on the Home Front is almost rah-rah enthusiastic in
its
support for the U.S. military: "Our task here is to
celebrate the U.S.
military's profound historical and continuing contribution
to domestic
tranquility, while at the same time ... ." Yet it tells a
story of two
centuries of the U.S. military and state militias and the
National
Guard being used to suppress dissent, eliminate labor
rights, deny
civil liberties, attack Native Americans, and abuse African
Americans.
Even the well-known restrictions on military use put into
law and
often ignored -- such as the Posse Comitatus Act -- were
aimed at
allowing, not preventing, the abuse of African Americans.
The story is
one of gradually expanding presidential power, both in
written law and
in practice, with the latter far outpacing the former.
Some of us are grateful to see restraint in the approach to
the men
occupying a federal facility in Oregon. But we are horrified
by the
lack of similar restraint in using the military or
militarized police
against peaceful protesters in U.S. cities. Police
departments as we
know them simply did not exist when the U.S. Constitution --
virtually
unaltered since
-- was cobbled together in an age of muskets, slavery, and
genocide.
Among the developments that concern me far more than the
authors of
Soldiers on the Home Front:
Numerous drills and practices, and the locking down of
Boston,
desensitizing people to the presence of the U.S. military on
our
streets.
Congress members threatened with martial law if they vote
against
their oligarchs.
The legalization of lawless military imprisonment without
charge or
trial for U.S. citizens or anyone else.
The legalization of murder by drone or any other technology
of U.S.
citizens
or anyone else, with arguments that apply within the
Homeland just as
anywhere else, though we've been told all the murders have
been abroad.
Nuclear weapons illegally flown across the country and left
unguarded.
Mercenaries on the streets of New Orleans after a hurricane.
Northcom given legal power to illegally act within the
United States
against the people of the United States.
Fusion centers blurring all lines between military and
domestic
government violence.
Secret and not-so-secret continuity of government plans that
could put
martial law in place at the decision of a president or in
the absence
of a president.
The militarization of the Mexican border.
The gruesome history and future of the attack on the Bonus
Army, the
bombing of West Virginia, Operation Northwoods, tin soldiers
and Nixon
coming, and Franklin Roosevelt's actual and Donald Trump's
possible
internment camps.
The authors of Soldiers on the Home Front claim that we must
balance
all such dangers with the supposed need for a military to
address
"storms, earthquakes, cyber attacks ..., bioterrorism." Why
must we?
None of these threats can be best addressed by people
trained and
armed to kill and destroy. When only such people have
funding and
numbers and equipment, they can look preferable to nothing.
But what
if we had an unarmed, nonviolent green energy brigade taking
on the
protection of the climate, and non-military police ready to
enforce
laws in crises, a major new Civilian Conservation Corps
trained and
equipped and funded to provide emergency services, a
computer whiz
team dedicated to fending off cyber attacks and preventing
their
ongoing provocation by U.S. government cyber attackers, a
publicly
funded healthcare system prepared for health emergencies,
and a State
Department redirected away from weapons marketing and into a
new project
of building respectful and cooperative relations with the world?
If the United States were to move from militarism to all of
the above,
the main problem would be what to do with all of the
remaining money.
. http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php
http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php
. davidswanson's blog
. /forward?path=node%2F5023 Email this
Home
Books
Article Topics
Talk Nation Radio
About
Donate
Search
Facebook
Twitter
Youtube
WarIsACrime.org
RootsAction.org
Images
RSS
Store
WorldBeyondWar.org
War No More
You are hereBlogs / davidswanson's blog / A Homeland Is a
Country That
Allows Domestic Use of Military
A Homeland Is a Country That Allows Domestic Use of Military
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
----
By davidswanson - Posted on 12 January 2016
Have you seen Dahr Jamail's report on U.S. military plans
for war
games in Washington state? I'm sure some observers imagine
that the
military is simply looking for a place to engage in safe and
responsible and needed practice in hand-to-hand combat
against
incoming North Korean nuclear missiles, or perhaps to
rehearse a
humanitarian invasion of Russia to uphold the fundamental
international law against Vladimir Putin's existence.
But if you look over the history of domestic use of the U.S.
military
-- such as by reading the new book Soldiers on the Home
Front: The
Domestic Role of the American Military -- it's hard not to
wonder
whether, from the U.S. military's point of view, at least a
side
benefit of the coming war game isn't rehearsing for the next
time
citizens in kayaks interfere with a corporation intent on
poisoning the
earth's climate with fossil fuels.
Soldiers on the Home Front is almost rah-rah enthusiastic in
its
support for the U.S. military: "Our task here is to
celebrate the U.S.
military's profound historical and continuing contribution
to domestic
tranquility, while at the same time ... ." Yet it tells a
story of two
centuries of the U.S. military and state militias and the
National
Guard being used to suppress dissent, eliminate labor
rights, deny
civil liberties, attack Native Americans, and abuse African
Americans.
Even the well-known restrictions on military use put into
law and
often ignored -- such as the Posse Comitatus Act -- were
aimed at
allowing, not preventing, the abuse of African Americans.
The story is
one of gradually expanding presidential power, both in
written law and
in practice, with the latter far outpacing the former.
Some of us are grateful to see restraint in the approach to
the men
occupying a federal facility in Oregon. But we are horrified
by the
lack of similar restraint in using the military or
militarized police
against peaceful protesters in U.S. cities. Police
departments as we
know them simply did not exist when the U.S. Constitution --
virtually
unaltered since
-- was cobbled together in an age of muskets, slavery, and
genocide.
Among the developments that concern me far more than the
authors of
Soldiers on the Home Front:
Numerous drills and practices, and the locking down of
Boston,
desensitizing people to the presence of the U.S. military on
our
streets.
Congress members threatened with martial law if they vote
against
their oligarchs.
The legalization of lawless military imprisonment without
charge or
trial for U.S. citizens or anyone else.
The legalization of murder by drone or any other technology
of U.S.
citizens
or anyone else, with arguments that apply within the
Homeland just as
anywhere else, though we've been told all the murders have
been abroad.
Nuclear weapons illegally flown across the country and left
unguarded.
Mercenaries on the streets of New Orleans after a hurricane.
Northcom given legal power to illegally act within the
United States
against the people of the United States.
Fusion centers blurring all lines between military and
domestic
government violence.
Secret and not-so-secret continuity of government plans that
could put
martial law in place at the decision of a president or in
the absence
of a president.
The militarization of the Mexican border.
The gruesome history and future of the attack on the Bonus
Army, the
bombing of West Virginia, Operation Northwoods, tin soldiers
and Nixon
coming, and Franklin Roosevelt's actual and Donald Trump's
possible
internment camps.
The authors of Soldiers on the Home Front claim that we must
balance
all such dangers with the supposed need for a military to
address
"storms, earthquakes, cyber attacks ..., bioterrorism." Why
must we?
None of these threats can be best addressed by people
trained and
armed to kill and destroy. When only such people have
funding and
numbers and equipment, they can look preferable to nothing.
But what
if we had an unarmed, nonviolent green energy brigade taking
on the
protection of the climate, and non-military police ready to
enforce
laws in crises, a major new Civilian Conservation Corps
trained and
equipped and funded to provide emergency services, a
computer whiz
team dedicated to fending off cyber attacks and preventing
their
ongoing provocation by U.S. government cyber attackers, a
publicly
funded healthcare system prepared for health emergencies,
and a State
Department redirected away from weapons marketing and into a
new project
of building respectful and cooperative relations with the world?
If the United States were to move from militarism to all of
the above,
the main problem would be what to do with all of the
remaining money.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> This email has been sent from a
virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
