Indians Recognize No Limits, Even Those by Contract

David Patchek of Wayland Township in Michigan won a victory for majority/white Americans today, June 18, 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court (Sotomayor dissenting of course) said he can proceed with a lawsuit to have removed a casino placed on "tribal lands" of disputed authenticity. The issue, simply is that a tribe placed a casino on lands NOT recognized as tribal when the treaties were negotiated and signed. Casinos under state contract can be placed on non-tribal land only under specific exceptions. None was granted to the tribe that built this casino. That the state of Michigan allowed this is not unusual, the current Ambassador to China and former VERY racist governor of Washington, Gary Locke, allowed the same practice when he was "governor" of Washington. Locke allowed one tribe to build on land in a commercial area because the only tribal land was not "suitable" or sufficiently near a commercial area to "assure" success. Locke's racism, by the way, was his frequent proclamation, "I am the first Chinese American to..."


The Blacks and Indians of America are indelibly of the entitlement mentality. I worked for the state of Washington for most of my career and whenever the Indians declared "we are a sovereign nation" a long string of sympathetic governors gave them whatever they wanted. Not that the governors were intimidated; they found comfort hiding behind the unquestioned Indian proclamations. The Federal law that allows for states to contract for Indian casinos does not require states to do so and because the relationship is indeed contractual, the state can include any reasonable clause the state wishes. The Indians do not have to accept the clause and either a satisfactory compromise is achieved or the Indians do not get the casino. A clear example is employment law. On tribal land the Indians are not subject to Federal or state employment law. In other words they can discriminate at will. Can the state make it a condition of contract that the Indians will comply with larger society employment law? Of course, but they don't because, again the Indians shriek "we are a sovereign nation" and then get whatever they want. Another example in Washington was the passage of an idiot law outlawing smoking in (among other places) dining establishments. The law did not apply to tribal land but that same policy could be a requirement of contract. No dice; Christine Gregoire, one of many in the long line of Indian sympathizers, and governor, asked nicely if the Indians might comply. Boy was she careful to not offend the Indians. They did not comply of course and the matter was shoved under the rug. To the credit of the Indians, many tribes did establish smoking and non-smoking areas but they were not required to do so and in the non-Indian sector that non-physical separation does not comply with the law.

Return to Mr. Patchek, who is a hero because he will, if he has not already, come to enjoy words like "racist," "Aryan," you know, the vilification the leftists heap upon those who do not agree with them. The Indians reap the benefits white society has created for them. I have yet to hear an Indian deny medical care because of "Sovereign Nation." Nor have the tribes declined food stamps, education dollars or welfare checks which we do not owe a "sovereign nation." In the Western part of the country the Indians object to river dams (significant generators of electricity) because they injure the precious "tribal fishing grounds" but no Indians to my knowledge have said "we are willing to have electricity to our reservation shut off." Mr. Patchek does not own these issues but he is insisting that the tribes have to play by the rules and government of sympathetic whites has to as well. Will his lawsuit win? I am not sufficiently familiar with enabling statute and precedent but my guess is it will unless there is an avenue for the current governor (who is NOT a leftist) to grant an exception after the fact. Even if that occurs, congratulations to Mr. Patchek for having the courage to remind the Indians and their sympathizers that they too must play by the rules and shrieking "sovereign nation" creates no exemption from the law.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&