G. Edward Griffin: Should We Support Russell Means and the Lakota Indians?

You don't. You need the recognition of other countries. That's an easy way to get it. If I could declare myself a country and join the UN, I would. Then I'd no longer be subject to US law, US taxation, etc. If my neighborhood wanted to do that, I would support it.

Whether the US should be involved in the UN is another subject entirely. So you're addressing an issue I'm not even talking about.

And if you did, you would have jumped from the frying pan into the fire.
 
Initially, you might be, but you would have sold your soul to the devil. If you haven't noticed, the UN is not big on national sovereignty.


And the US does not respect my sovereignty one single bit. So I'd call that a wash at best, or a point in my favor as far as who recognizes my sovereignty.

Everything else is a positive. My country would have zero taxes, zero social programs, and zero law enforcement. I'd initiate no warfare.

The US would not recognize the sovereignty of the Lakota, either, but they'd have a chance if the UN did. In case you haven't noticed, the US has zero respect for sovereignty around the world as well. The US is likely worse than the UN on that point.
 
Last edited:
And the US does not respect my sovereignty one single bit. So I'd call that a wash at best, or a point in my favor as far as who recognizes my sovereignty.

Everything else is a positive. My country would have zero taxes, zero social programs, and zero law enforcement. I'd initiate no warfare.

The US would not recognize the sovereignty of the Lakota, either, but they'd have a chance if the UN did.

You haven't been keeping up if you believe that you would be better off with the UN. Global taxes, World Court, IMF, WTO, Agenda 21, etc. They would be all down in your skivvies.

Ron Paul was never about moving power in the direction of a world ruling body. Just the opposite, in fact. He has been trying to move power from the higher areas back down to the states and the people. The UN, he has been trying for years to get the U.S. out of and have the organization kicked out of the U.S..
 
Last edited:
You haven't been keeping up if you believe that you would be better off with the UN. Global taxes, World Court, IMF, WTO, Agenda 21, etc. They would be all down in your skivvies.

Ron Paul was never about moving power in the direction of a world ruling body. Just the opposite, in fact. He has been trying to move power from the higher areas back down to the states and the people. The UN, he has been trying for years to get the U.S. out of and have the organization kicked out of the U.S..


I wouldn't be the US. I'd be me. Same with the Lakota. If they would have been able to get the UN to recognize them, it would have caused problems for the US refusal to recognize them. I'm not advocating that the US be part of the UN and never have. However, I will stand by my statement that the UN recognizes sovereignty more than the US. UN invasions are advocated, coordinated, and led by the US. Then on top of that, the US does not respect sovereignty when acting alone, either. So I'll stick by my statement that the UN is better at recognizing sovereignty than the US, and also that the Lakota would be better off if recognized by the UN.

I agree with Paul regarding the US and the UN, but that is not inconsistent with any of my other statements.
 
FYI, all of the Indians I know HATE being called "native American". They take umbrage to it.

As a native American I would take offense to being called Indian. I was born in America not India.
 
Back
Top