More Teabaggery

That 26% is still out there.

16 comments:

6:44 pm • Wednesday • April 29, 2009

A poor sad fat old man. Berry Bitterz of the Tennessee Bitterz. Not to be confused with the Carolina Bitterz. Or West Virginia branch of same. Though they are related to the Florida and Oklahoma Bitterz they claim closer kinship with the Louisiana and Mississippi Bitterz. There is reputed to be a branch in Alabama but no one there knows how to spell their name.

6:49 pm • Wednesday • April 29, 2009

@Benedick:
Ha!

6:52 pm • Wednesday • April 29, 2009

I love how gun owning is a “God-given” right. Remember when the Virgin Mary mowed down Pontius Pilate in the Bible? That was sweet.

6:52 pm • Wednesday • April 29, 2009

Something tells me these guys have more to fear from their arteries than from Obama.

7:00 pm • Wednesday • April 29, 2009

@Marcel Parcells: Remember that Congress left the right to bear arms out of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (which extended provisions analogous of most of the Bill of Rights plus the equal protection clause to persons subject to tribal government jurisdiction). Last thing they wanted was a bunch of armed Indians running around out in the sagebrush (again).

Heh.

BTW, you all knew the constitution didn’t apply to tribal governments, right?

7:09 pm • Wednesday • April 29, 2009

@redmanlaw:

For some reason I thought that the Constitution applied to everyone, even non-USA Americans (which I hope doesn’t include Native Americans- you guys have dual citizenship, right?). But upon reflection, I can’t think of a section of the document that says that.

It doesn’t say that at all, does it? I just disillusioned myself a little.

7:18 pm • Wednesday • April 29, 2009

Re: moran wearing the “Defend Frisco” shirt with the machine gun – I assume he’s referring to Frisco, Texas, because anyone who has lived in or has more than a passing knowledge of my fair city knows that the only person allowed to call San Francisco “Frisco” is the late Herb Caen…

7:19 pm • Wednesday • April 29, 2009

@redmanlaw: My understanding was that people who live on the rez under the control of tribal governments still have all of the Constitutional rights enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights – it’s just that the local guvmint (in this case tribal guvmint) can’t be constrained the way states and municipalities can be.

7:27 pm • Wednesday • April 29, 2009

Okay. Yeah. That was the antidote I needed after watching that Waco film this AM.

7:32 pm • Wednesday • April 29, 2009

@redmanlaw: I always thought the Indian nations were just that: sovereign nations with their own laws and constitutions. Not unlike Scotland.

7:47 pm • Wednesday • April 29, 2009

@Benedick: Pfft. I wish. The govts (fed and state) keep chipping away at Indian sovereignty, and the introduction of casinos has allowed the states to further meddle in Indian affairs.

The last major holdouts, the Din’e (Navajo) and the Lakota (Sioux) have also opened casinos. Gar!

7:49 pm • Wednesday • April 29, 2009

Hey… what about that Civil Defense force that was supposed to patrol the streets and outnumber the Army? Just another broken Obama campaign promise, I guess!

8:07 pm • Wednesday • April 29, 2009

Phew! Am I ever glad I’ve got that legal-to-own .22 rifle at home! And my right to own it was granted by their bizarro-world sky-man. ‘Cause when Obama’s zombie minions arrive to put me into a FEMA detainment camp, I’ll be able to shoot them all over and over and over until I’ve run out of bullets but they keep coming. Or something. Heil zombie Hitler!

I’ve received something of a mixed message from this video, but the mixing medium is 100% pure polyunsaturated crazy.

8:50 pm • Wednesday • April 29, 2009

@Benedick, t.gato, lefty, et al: True, to a certain extent. Federally recognized Indian tribes do have their own laws (either codified or non-written like back home) and have civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indians within their boundaries, and civil (not criminal) jurisdiction over some non-Indians with “consensual relations” with the tribe of whose actions affect the health safety or welfare of a tribe. Recognition of the right of Indian self-government goes all the way back to Worchester v. Georgia (1832), part of the “Marshall trilogy” that forms the foundation of federal Indian law. That is where the concept that the constitution doesn’t apply to Indian tribal governments that pre-dated the US and the constitution comes from.

Right now, sitting in my living room watching Black Eagle do his thing, I enjoy all the rights and priviliges as a US American citizen (per act of congress in 1924; we didn’t get the right to vote in New Mexico until 1948, however.) Once on the rez, my rights and yours as well viz a viz the tribal government in question are protected by the ICRA. There is no enforcement mechanism, so essentially you have to hope that the tribal government does the right thing because you generally can’t sue a tribal government for a federal civil rights violation.

@JNOV: That’s why the late great Mescalero Apache leader Wendell Chino opposed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. “We don’t need that shit – we are sovereign nations and can do what we want.” At that time, he was right.

9:34 pm • Wednesday • April 29, 2009

@redmanlaw: I knew!! I knew!!!

10:45 pm • Wednesday • April 29, 2009

If these guys were reall into the badass, they’d be selling vans stuffed with fertilizer and gasoline. Interviewer should have asked them why they don’t have the sack to just build and use proven weapons of mass destruction, instead of buying Hitler fandom crap.

Add a comment