Moral Low Ground

US Government

Conservative Crackpots: ‘Obama Wants to Give Manhattan Back to Native Americans’

December 29, 2010 by Brett Wilkins in Conservatives, White House with 0 Comments
(Photo: Flickr Creative Commons)

(Photo: Flickr Creative Commons)

It all began a couple of weeks ago when President Obama announced that the United States would sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. Part of the non-binding declaration affirms that indigenous peoples “have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used and acquired.”

And that’s what’s got certain elements of the far-right fringe all worked up. Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, a hate group rooted in Christian ideology, wrote: “President Obama wants to give the entire land mass of the United States of America back to the Indians. He wants Indian tribes to be our new overlords… Perhaps he figures that, as an adopted Crow Indian, he will be the new chief over this revived Indian empire. But for the other 312 million of us, I think we’ll settle for our constitutional ‘We the people’ form of government, thank you very much.”

Fischer was referring to Obama’s adoption by the Crow Nation under the name “One Who Helps People Throughout the Land” during the 2008 Presidential Campaign.

Not to be outdone, World Net Daily, a blog prone to questioning President Obama’s citizenship, ran a post titled “Obama to give Manhattan back to Native Americans?” The ridiculous article asserts that “President Obama is voicing support for a U.N. resolution that could accomplish something as radical as relinquishing some U.S. sovereignty and opening a path for the return of ancient tribal lands to American Indians, including even parts of Manhattan.” Yeah, right.

Even serious conservatives like John Bolton, a Bush-era US ambassador to the United Nations, seem worried about Obama’s signing of the legally non-binding declaration. “It’s a kind of feel-good document that has so many unclear phrases in it that nobody’s really sure what it means when you agree to it,” he said. “It’s wrong and potentially dangerous to sign onto a document that you don’t fully understand the implications of.”

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Douche Du Jour
  • GOP Congressman Robert Pittenger Says Charlotte Protesters ‘Hate White People Because They’re Successful’
  • Israel Nominates Col. Eyal Karim, Who Endorsed Rape of Non-Jews to ‘Boost Troop Morale,’ for Chief Military Rabbi
  • The Hateful 8: Anti-Gay Christian Leaders Praise Orlando Massacre
  • Koch Brother’s Youth Education Program Teaches ‘Sacrificing Lives for Profits’
  • Tracy Murphree, GOP Texas Sheriff Candidate, Threatens to Beat Transgender Women Unconscious