Friday, January 30, 2009

Article: Inouye's Talk Spurs Protest, Calls for Political Mobilization

Tim O'Leary has an article explaining the Candlelight Vigil from many tribes at Pechanga

A visit to Temecula last week by US Senator Daniel Inouye, a World War II hero and champion of Native American rights, sparked protests by one group of Indian activists and calls for political mobilization by another. OP: Inouye champions only those who pay for it, not those in need.

The Pechanga Resort & Casino – the site of Inouye’s keynote speech and a reception held in his honor afterward – was ground zero for both gestures.
As a result, a bitter feud over Pechanga’s tribal membership surfaced publicly as Indian leaders from across the country pondered their role in reshaped federal policies and spending.
“This is a new day for us,” Lynn “Nay” Valbuena, the vice chairperson of the Highland-based San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians, told conference guests. “Right now, the opportunities are there for us. The doors are open for us.”
Valbuena, who is also the chairwoman of the Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations, was one of the moderators at a two-day conference sponsored by the American Indian Resources Institute. OP: TASIN is the group that allowed one tribe, Pechanga's sovereignty to run roughshod over the Ramona Band's recently

The conference was titled “Tribal Sovereignty and Self-Governance in a New Era: Forging Fair and Equitable Governance in a Time of Change.” OP: Fair and equitable governance? To WHOM? Certainly not those who have been denied their civil rights.

The conference drew representatives from all four corners of the nation’s self-described “Indian country.” OP: And protesters from all parts of California, Redding; Chukchansi, San Pasqual, Pechanga, CREEK FREEDMEN

Event sponsors included tribes from as far away as Mississippi, Florida, the Great Lakes, the Columbia River basin and Jamestown, VA.
As the conference unfolded, Pechanga leaders found themselves cast in the roles of congenial host and the target of criticism over decisions to eject certain families. OP: Mark Macarro, the corrupt one, Andrew Masiel, of the crime family; Butch Murphy, adopted one who backstabs real blood Pechanga, Mark Calac, doofus.

A group of ejected Pechanga members had set the stage weeks earlier by unsuccessfully trying to arrange a meeting with Inouye during his visit. OP: Tim, NOT just Pechanga, but many other tribal members and those who SHOULD belong. Not even the courtesy of a response to those representing THOUSANDS.

As a host, the Pechanga tribe sponsored the luncheon where Inouye spoke and also made the clubhouse of its recently opened golf course available for that evening’s reception.
Pechanga Tribal Chairman Mark Macarro gave the conference’s opening remarks both days.

His wife, Holly Cook Macarro, was a moderator in a panel discussion on how tribal governments can play a role in President Obama’s administration. OP: Want to bet they didn't talk about fairness toward disenrolled, moratorium people and elders they abused.

Read more of TIM's article HERE


Anonymous said...

“And thus, I call on you to help me help you,” he said. At the end, Inouye’s remarks netted him a standing ovation from much of the audience.” …
…When questioned after the speech, Inouye said he opted not to meet with the group of ejected tribal members nearby because doing so would interfere in internal tribal matters.
“It’s not for me to tell them [tribes] how to run their government,” he told a reporter in a brief interview. “That’s been one of the weaknesses of the American government, trying to tell people what to do.” “

Does anyone else read the doublespeak in theses statements. It’s fine if you don’t interfere , however I fail to see how a meeting with protestors would be an interference. The request is for U.S. officials to stop aiding and abetting the human rights violations with financing and compacts. he could have said I call on you to help me help you continue to violate the human rights of your own people, and that would most certainly be considered an act of interference.
Allen L. Lee

Anonymous said...

I wonder how Senator Inouye feels about what the United States government did in regards to tens of thousands of Americans of Japanese descent during World War 2 who were put into relocation camps?

I realize that it was done during the stressful time of war but it was still wrong and those American citizens and their families have never really been adequately taken care of.

But what if this had occured during peacetime and other nations protested the actions would it just be an internal affair and no one else's business then?

I am sure Inouye wouldn't think it was just an internal affair if he was one of the people who was put into one of those camps.

Anonymous said...

So much “double-talk” that it is very difficult to get the “straight” answer; possibly because there is no answer; only rhetoric and ideas. Consider, however, that within the rhetoric and ideas lay the path to change.
To exhibit wisdom enough to discard neither, but to envelop the words we have heard over and over with new ideas that may appear foreign and impossible. A mixture penetrating our minds, added with the catalyst of emotion, to formulate paths that show a blend of past and future.
We cannot move if we are fixed in past traditions, yet we cannot progress without a resolute dream.
Peacefully and utterly, join me in this commitment to absorb…., reflect…., formulate…., calculate…., and unify.

Anonymous said...

Since our disenrollment was not legally done, then those who have been disenrolled are still legally enrolled in the tribe. I propose that next election all those who have been illegally disenrolled show up and vote. If they try to get the local police involved to keep us out, we can evoke the "this is an internal matter clause", as we were never legally disenrolled and are still proper enrolled members of the tribe they can not interfere in the matter.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Senator Inouye would have turned a blind eye to his fellow Japanese Americans during World War II who were put in camps and made to suffer.

I wonder if Sen. Inouye knows that some of his WWII soldiers who risked their lives for this country are now subject to these unjust tribal disenrollments 65 years later.

Sen. Iouye fought for freedom in WWII but wont today. There is two sides of the story and to shut out the other side is not part of Americas Judiciary duties.

They take American Citizens money and use it to fund tribal governments that violate civil rights and even worse our destroy our culture.

Anonymous said...

Well if the protesters are disenrolled members then there would be no harm in meeting with them since they're are no longer part of the tribe. Senator should of met with them as fellow Americans. Obviously the Senator doesn't believe in their Rights either.

Anonymous said...

January 31, 2009 11:32 am Anonymous, I like the idea.
Let’s generate some chatter about this idea.
Do you all see it as just a defiant effort that would have little results? Or do you think it could cause the “erroneous Pechangas” to marvel at our united statement?
Do you think we could have the efforts videoed?
Do you think it could be the beginning of a separate Pechanga nation that generates power and number as the momentum builds and they are seen fueled with truthful, intelligent, and precise energy?

Anonymous said...

The anonymous vote proposal,
I think it would be a good idea to continue to exercise a right even if it is continously denied.
However, I would conduct a poll which includes those who have been dis-enrolled separately from the poll tallied by the enrolled, then I'd combine the two and consider the combination the official results. I'm not talking about a separate election, but a separate poll voting on the same issues as the enrolled at the same time.
The reason for this is the enrolled are not likely to include the data of dis-enrolled people, but you can, showing a more accurate reflection of the total tribe.
Your combined data will be more accurate if it reflects the votes of those who lawfully should be included, but weren't.