Thursday, December 2, 2010

Why is Sen. Dianne Feinstein Working For Tribes That Violate The Civil Rights of Their Membership?

UPDATE:   Malcolm  Maclaclan  has more to the story at CAPITOL WEEKLY   A portion of that:

It appears unlikely that either approach would pass before next year, leaving current urban casino efforts in limbo. In the meantime, anti-casino groups continue to fight the Point Molate project and another proposed casino, this one by the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria. That tribe has been fighting heavy opposition to a proposed casino in Rohnert Park, a city of 41,000 located 50 miles north of San Francisco. That land has been taken into trust. On Oct. 1, the National Indian Gaming Commission granted the tribe clearance to build a Class II bingo style casino if they wanted; they need a state compact if they want to build a more lucrative, Class I slot machine-based facility.






Senator Dianne Feinstein has an editorial up in the Contra Costa Times 

CALIFORNIA VOTERS settled the question of casino gaming back in 2000 -- or so it seemed. Proposition 1A authorized the governor to negotiate gambling pacts that would make Nevada-style casinos possible for "federally recognized Indian tribes on Indian lands in California."
The words "on Indian lands" are the key to Prop. 1A. This made it clear that gaming is appropriate only on a tribe's historical lands. Voters endorsed this bargain, approving Prop. 1A with 65 percent of the vote.
But today the spirit of this proposition could be violated by major casinos proposed around the state on lands that are not "Indian lands" -- some of which are more than 100 miles from tribal headquarters.
This is "reservation shopping," in which tribes from rural areas seek federal approval to acquire lands in trust in densely populated urban areas.
The goal: To put casinos where the most potential gamblers are -- even if it disregards the will of California voters
The most recent Propositions on Indian Gaming in California, promised us balanced budgets. That not only didn't happen, we are getting less money than before.


In her editorial Mrs. Feinstein willfully disregards what is happening with California's Indian country. Civil rights and human rights are being violated by tribes such as the Redding Rancheria, Picayune Rancheria (Fresno area) and The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (Temecula). What do they have in common? Their lobbyist IETAN. They are working with Sen. Feinstein to stop expansion of gaming by other tribes. Each of the aforementioned tribes have terminated a significant portion of their membership so they can steal those eliminated tribal members per capita checks. Original Pechanga's Blog has details that local news seems not to care about, though more truely, they want to protect their advertising revenue from gaming.

WHY are gaming tribes against smaller tribes gaining a casino? To control market share. Is Indian self reliance only good for those tribes that have gaming NOW? What about the 50 or so other tribes in CA that would benefit? Ask yourselves, WHO benefits more from Sen. Feinstein's legislation? Californians, or gaming tribes?

We will have more on the lobbyist IETAN shortly..
Post a Comment