Press Release From
United Native America
12-24-04
American Indian Community standing up against
"One Nation Group"
One Nation organization is just another fear monger group focused on American Indian sovereignty, and that is covered by U.S. treaties made with Indian nations. One Nation boast of a large membership, one has to think that they are counting all people doing business with companies associated with One Nation. Most people doing business with these companies have not heard of One Nation and what they stand for.
If they did, you would see a lot of people leaving and doing business with other companies not associated with One Nation. Indian groups around the country are getting the word out to the public as to what One Nation really stands for, and that is to do away with all Indian governments and their land rights.
One Nation is basically made up of oil and gas companies plus convenient stores owned by them, and realty groups. Each of them are covered by state and federal laws, they have no say over Indian business operations. One Nation wants people to think Indian nations are ripping the tax payers off and Indian nations are bringing about the down fall of America in the way they are allowed to conduct business in our country.
What is really at hand with One Nation is they want Indian nations out of the way. Companies aliened with this group would have access to millions of acres of land held in federal trust for Indians, thus they would have a free hand in getting access to more land for their companies to develop for their profit. Eliminating tribal sovereignty competition would bring in hundreds of billions of dollars each year for companies associated with One Nation and their stated goals.
Under federal law Indian nations are allowed to operate casinos within a state, the two parties are to work together bringing about a compact that would allow the state to collect a tax from these tribal operations. Money made by tribal business are used to support their programs within that state, the point made here is that their money stays in the state and helps other businesses and create new business in support of their operations. That brings about a tax dollar gain for the state, not a loss for the state as One Nation would have you believe.
Now, on the other hand oil and gas companies, national realty companies, convenience stores chains, Insurance's companies are franchise, when they come into your state and neighborhood a large part of their profits are sent out of the state to their corporate office. When a Walmart opens in your community small businesses cannot compete, they have to close. You can almost hear the sucking sound of money leaving your community and state.
State governments offer great tax breaks plus a ton of free-bees to national companies to locate within their state, is this fair to Mom and Dad businesses in full support of their community and states well being?
You do not have to read between the lines to see what One Nation is all about. Their almost right when they say they do not hate Indians, their just in the way of big businesses getting bigger. Big businesses compete against each other all the time, no big deal, they have the money to hang in there. But, they also have no problem going after Mom and Dad small businesses in a community by cutting their prices and driving them out. You see no matter what your race is it's just about doing business and running over anyone that gets in their way no matter what it cost a community or state.
One Nation want's us to think they are being done wrong, stop the Indians, they are being given special treatment, we cannot compete, the sky is falling. I have never heard of any "big business" going bust because of an Indian operated business, have you?
Now, lets not get into how Indians and their governments for decades have been treated by federal and state governments and big business in this great land we call America, one nation under God. One Nation states it's name comes from the American pledge of allegiance.
One Nations new leader Barbara Linsay, tell us she wants Indian leaders reigned in, their over reaching. Groups like One Nation are all about one thing, filling unnecessary litigation against tribes in courts and bringing about legislation in governments that will not stand up in courts. Tribal nations have to spend millions of dollars each year in courts countering these groups action against them, that in itself keeps attorneys pockets full of money. Again, the state gets money through the back door through keeping tribes tied up in state court actions.
One issue you will not see groups like One Nation talking about or taking on is big businesses ripping Americans off in the stock market. Groups like One Nation are riding across America like the 1800s U.S. Army in trying to contain Indians, taking away their chance at the American dream they are close to having and that is financial independence.
One Nation wraps itself in patriotism, it's plain to see their just another group in support of corporate financial pigs looking for a bigger feeding trough. One Nation must think American Indians live in other countries and do not pay tax on goods they buy here in the good old USA, as a member of the Oklahoma Cherokee Nation I pay tax's everyday, what's up with this One Nation? Where's my tax break?
This website stands watch over One Nation
One Nation OK Lies.com
http://www.onenationoklies.com
Mike L. Graham, member Oklahoma Cherokee Nation
Founder United Native America
www.UnitedNativeAmerica.com
Sunday, December 26, 2004
Sunday, December 19, 2004
United Property Owners is merging with One Nation of Oklahoma
United Property Owners is merging with another national group, One Nation of Oklahoma
One Nation, Inc., the Oklahoma-based business and agriculture coalition that has stirred nationwide attention by raising public awareness over what it calls "flawed federal Indian policies" will merge with our twenty-year-old grassroots organization based in Redmond, Washington. The new group will focus its energies on seeking equality of opportunity, an equal voice in government, and equality under the law for ALL U.S. citizens by championing individual rights, the consent of the governed, private property rights, and a level free enterprise playing field.
Effective on January 1, 2005, One Nation United, a new 501(c) 4 nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, will emerge from the combination of One Nation, Inc. and United Property Owners, a group with more than 100,000 members based in Washington State since its inception in the 1980s. The new organization is made up of thousands of individuals, families, and companies in energy, agriculture, retailing, and manufacturing as well as local governments, elected officials, law enforcement, and community groups. The organization will continue to be led by Barb Lindsay of Thousand Oaks, CA., the only Executive Director in UPO's history, who will serve as National Director and Spokesperson.
The merger of these organizations will combine the tremendous business-industry support behind One Nation with the proven effective grassroots reach of United Property Owners. Most of these issues require a federal government focus and a nationwide reach. As a large and growing coalition, we’ll continue to act as your eyes, ears, and voice in Washington, DC, working to defend the civil liberties of all concerned citizens, taxpayers and business owners.
The mission of the new One Nation United organization will continue to be to positively impact local, state, and federal government policies relating to protection of private property rights, tax fairness, and environmental regulatory certainty. We are committed to returning America to the basic principles laid down by our Founding Fathers by championing individual rights over group rights and special privilege. We've begun recruiting a larger national governing board and look forward to continuing this important work in the years ahead.
One Nation, Inc., the Oklahoma-based business and agriculture coalition that has stirred nationwide attention by raising public awareness over what it calls "flawed federal Indian policies" will merge with our twenty-year-old grassroots organization based in Redmond, Washington. The new group will focus its energies on seeking equality of opportunity, an equal voice in government, and equality under the law for ALL U.S. citizens by championing individual rights, the consent of the governed, private property rights, and a level free enterprise playing field.
Effective on January 1, 2005, One Nation United, a new 501(c) 4 nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, will emerge from the combination of One Nation, Inc. and United Property Owners, a group with more than 100,000 members based in Washington State since its inception in the 1980s. The new organization is made up of thousands of individuals, families, and companies in energy, agriculture, retailing, and manufacturing as well as local governments, elected officials, law enforcement, and community groups. The organization will continue to be led by Barb Lindsay of Thousand Oaks, CA., the only Executive Director in UPO's history, who will serve as National Director and Spokesperson.
The merger of these organizations will combine the tremendous business-industry support behind One Nation with the proven effective grassroots reach of United Property Owners. Most of these issues require a federal government focus and a nationwide reach. As a large and growing coalition, we’ll continue to act as your eyes, ears, and voice in Washington, DC, working to defend the civil liberties of all concerned citizens, taxpayers and business owners.
The mission of the new One Nation United organization will continue to be to positively impact local, state, and federal government policies relating to protection of private property rights, tax fairness, and environmental regulatory certainty. We are committed to returning America to the basic principles laid down by our Founding Fathers by championing individual rights over group rights and special privilege. We've begun recruiting a larger national governing board and look forward to continuing this important work in the years ahead.
Indian policy comes under fire
By Lornet Turnbull
Seattle Times staff reporter
Two national organizations — including a locally based group that emerged 15 years ago in a shellfish dispute with Western Washington tribes — have joined forces to push for reform of what they call the nation's flawed and fractured policy on Native people.
Redmond-based United Property Owners has merged with One Nation of Oklahoma, which includes oil producers and farm interests, and in its two years has aggressively challenged American Indian sovereignty.
The merger, effective Jan. 1, will form a megagroup called One Nation United, with 300,000 members in 50 states.
The combined group has taken aim at federal Indian policies, including tax allowances, which they say erode state and local tax bases and undermine free enterprise. They contend that a century and a half after many Indian treaties were negotiated, they are in need of review.
"We know that we've got truth, justice and the American way on our side and that ultimately reforms will happen," said Barbara Lindsay, executive director of United Property Owners and national director of the combined group.
Tribal leaders across Washington say organizations such as Lindsay's are emerging just as wealth from gaming and other businesses is, for the first time, giving some of the nation's poorest citizens a shot at economic independence.
"These groups are trying to get more organized to counter the fact that tribes have become more organized — and they see themselves losing this battle," said W. Ron Allen, chairman of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal Council in Sequim.
"We are making progress, and people like these want to undermine us. They'll say that is not their intent, but if their agenda is accepted as political policy, we would set back the conditions of Indian Country by decades."
Robert Anderson, a University of Washington assistant law professor and director of the Native American Law Center, sees such groups as a national disruption.
"They are way out there on the lunatic fringe ... either racists or just so tied up with their hatred for the federal government and recognition of Indian rights that they foment unnecessary litigation," Anderson said.
"They ignore the fact that tribes have legitimate roles in governing themselves in their own territory. What they are doing is really harmful to what happens in most of Indian Country — where tribes and non-Indians are trying to work together for the betterment of those communities."
Lindsay, who defends her organization as neither racist nor anti-Indian, said, "We need to find a resolution to some very complex problems, including the impact of federal Indian policy on nontribal property owners and businesses. All we're asking for is balance and fairness and common sense to be injected."
A lobbying force
With trade members that include the Oklahoma Farm Bureau and Oklahoma Petroleum Marketers, One Nation has been a lobbying force in that state, which has one of the nation's highest concentrations of tribally owned casinos.
In Washington, United Property Owners was formed by a group of mostly beachfront landowners in a legal dispute with Puget Sound-area tribes claiming their treaty rights to take shellfish from public and private beaches. U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie imposed some restrictions on access but sided with the tribes.
Among the items on the merged group's agenda:
• Protecting private-property rights — primarily of nontribal residents who live on or adjacent to Indian reservations and are subject to regulation by tribes.
• Lessening sovereign immunity, which protects tribes from lawsuits.
• Ending the tribes' exemption from federal campaign-contribution limits.
• Changing the process that allows the transfer of property from local and state tax rolls into federal trust exclusively for Indian use.
• Equalizing sales- and excise-tax policies for tribal and nontribal businesses.
• Overturning the policy under which tribes are allowed regulatory authority over water, air quality, pesticide and Superfund cleanup on land on or near reservations.
"Tribes already have such a distinct advantage in so many other ways because they are not subject to so many of the other regulatory burdens that other business have to bear," Lindsay said.
"Our peace treaties"
The sovereignty of tribes, which puts them on a par with states and foreign nations, is established in the U.S. Constitution. Sovereignty affords certain benefits and advantages. Tribes don't pay some state taxes that non-Indians living on or off reservations do. However, tribes finance much of their own infrastructure, including building and maintaining roads within reservations, and they pay for tribal police and fire services, housing, health clinics and other public services.
Tribal members aren't required to pay sales taxes on items purchased on the reservation, whether from a car dealership or a Wal-Mart store.
Lindsay thinks many aspects of U.S. policies on Indians hurt all taxpayers. A key concern for her group is a 1934 act that allows land to be transferred from fee status, where it's subject to state and local taxes, to trust status, where it's exempt.
Some tribes, with money from tax-exempt casino profits, are buying property, and "as more and more lands move off local tax rolls, everyone else's taxes have to be raised," Lindsay said. "We're concerned over the loss to state and county governments of more and more property-tax dollars."
Matt Mattson, Snoqualmie Tribe administrator, said Lindsay tries to "paint tribes as special-interest groups who receive certain exemptions that are somehow unfair.
"The fact is, the U.S. government made deals with tribes hundreds of years ago. If the government doesn't like these deals, then give the land back. These were our peace treaties."
Competition vs. obligation
Mike Chandler, a non-Indian who owns two gas stations in Toppenish, Yakima County, within the boundaries of the Yakama Reservation, is torn between what he sees as unfair tribal competition vs. the nation's obligation to the Indian people.
He gets many tribal customers at his two Conoco stations, located within blocks of a tribally owned station. And he said his business, in his family for three generations, is at a pricing disadvantage.
While non-Indian station owners are taxed 28 cents a gallon on their purchases of gasoline and diesel, a federal agreement reduces that rate for stations owned by the Yakama Tribe and its members by 70 percent (to 8.4 cents) per gallon for gasoline and eliminates the tax entirely on diesel, according to the Washington Department of Licensing.
As a result, Chandler said, the tribe can undersell all its competitors — even retailers such as Costco that use low-priced gasoline as a way to lure customers. If he's lucky, he said, he can come within 5 cents, on average, of the tribe's price.
"When I go by the tribally owned station, there'll be 16, 20 cars at the pumps, while here we have three, maybe. Who doesn't want less-expensive gas?
"It kills volumes. And when we try to get close to them, there's no profit."
The gas-tax arrangement with the Yakamas is different from the one Washington state has with 13 other tribes, which are reimbursed monthly the amount of taxes tribally owned stations pay when they buy gasoline from wholesalers. The amount of the refund is based on a formula that considers the number of enrolled tribal members living on or adjacent to reservations.
The arrangement removes any advantage the tribes might have at the pumps, because the reimbursement goes to the tribe, not the individual stations.
Through November, gasoline and diesel reimbursements to the tribes this year totaled $2.2 million.
Allen, the Jamestown S'Klallam leader, points out that for every Indian-owned business that gets a pass on gas and sales taxes, there are nine others off the reservations that do not.
"The fact is when it comes to things like sales taxes, no government has the authority to tax another government," he said.
Allen believes the debate comes down to a question of economic self-reliance for Native people.
"The ability of tribes to become more self-reliant based on business opportunity has emerged in the last 10 years," he said. "If you look at the socioeconomic conditions of Indian people, we've always been at the very bottom of every measurement.
"Now, we are addressing generations of need in our communities, providing housing opportunities, jobs, health care, education for our people. And they want to take those opportunities away."
Lornet Turnbull: 206-464-2420 or lturnbull@seattletimes.com
Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company
Seattle Times staff reporter
Two national organizations — including a locally based group that emerged 15 years ago in a shellfish dispute with Western Washington tribes — have joined forces to push for reform of what they call the nation's flawed and fractured policy on Native people.
Redmond-based United Property Owners has merged with One Nation of Oklahoma, which includes oil producers and farm interests, and in its two years has aggressively challenged American Indian sovereignty.
The merger, effective Jan. 1, will form a megagroup called One Nation United, with 300,000 members in 50 states.
The combined group has taken aim at federal Indian policies, including tax allowances, which they say erode state and local tax bases and undermine free enterprise. They contend that a century and a half after many Indian treaties were negotiated, they are in need of review.
"We know that we've got truth, justice and the American way on our side and that ultimately reforms will happen," said Barbara Lindsay, executive director of United Property Owners and national director of the combined group.
Tribal leaders across Washington say organizations such as Lindsay's are emerging just as wealth from gaming and other businesses is, for the first time, giving some of the nation's poorest citizens a shot at economic independence.
"These groups are trying to get more organized to counter the fact that tribes have become more organized — and they see themselves losing this battle," said W. Ron Allen, chairman of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal Council in Sequim.
"We are making progress, and people like these want to undermine us. They'll say that is not their intent, but if their agenda is accepted as political policy, we would set back the conditions of Indian Country by decades."
Robert Anderson, a University of Washington assistant law professor and director of the Native American Law Center, sees such groups as a national disruption.
"They are way out there on the lunatic fringe ... either racists or just so tied up with their hatred for the federal government and recognition of Indian rights that they foment unnecessary litigation," Anderson said.
"They ignore the fact that tribes have legitimate roles in governing themselves in their own territory. What they are doing is really harmful to what happens in most of Indian Country — where tribes and non-Indians are trying to work together for the betterment of those communities."
Lindsay, who defends her organization as neither racist nor anti-Indian, said, "We need to find a resolution to some very complex problems, including the impact of federal Indian policy on nontribal property owners and businesses. All we're asking for is balance and fairness and common sense to be injected."
A lobbying force
With trade members that include the Oklahoma Farm Bureau and Oklahoma Petroleum Marketers, One Nation has been a lobbying force in that state, which has one of the nation's highest concentrations of tribally owned casinos.
In Washington, United Property Owners was formed by a group of mostly beachfront landowners in a legal dispute with Puget Sound-area tribes claiming their treaty rights to take shellfish from public and private beaches. U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie imposed some restrictions on access but sided with the tribes.
Among the items on the merged group's agenda:
• Protecting private-property rights — primarily of nontribal residents who live on or adjacent to Indian reservations and are subject to regulation by tribes.
• Lessening sovereign immunity, which protects tribes from lawsuits.
• Ending the tribes' exemption from federal campaign-contribution limits.
• Changing the process that allows the transfer of property from local and state tax rolls into federal trust exclusively for Indian use.
• Equalizing sales- and excise-tax policies for tribal and nontribal businesses.
• Overturning the policy under which tribes are allowed regulatory authority over water, air quality, pesticide and Superfund cleanup on land on or near reservations.
"Tribes already have such a distinct advantage in so many other ways because they are not subject to so many of the other regulatory burdens that other business have to bear," Lindsay said.
"Our peace treaties"
The sovereignty of tribes, which puts them on a par with states and foreign nations, is established in the U.S. Constitution. Sovereignty affords certain benefits and advantages. Tribes don't pay some state taxes that non-Indians living on or off reservations do. However, tribes finance much of their own infrastructure, including building and maintaining roads within reservations, and they pay for tribal police and fire services, housing, health clinics and other public services.
Tribal members aren't required to pay sales taxes on items purchased on the reservation, whether from a car dealership or a Wal-Mart store.
Lindsay thinks many aspects of U.S. policies on Indians hurt all taxpayers. A key concern for her group is a 1934 act that allows land to be transferred from fee status, where it's subject to state and local taxes, to trust status, where it's exempt.
Some tribes, with money from tax-exempt casino profits, are buying property, and "as more and more lands move off local tax rolls, everyone else's taxes have to be raised," Lindsay said. "We're concerned over the loss to state and county governments of more and more property-tax dollars."
Matt Mattson, Snoqualmie Tribe administrator, said Lindsay tries to "paint tribes as special-interest groups who receive certain exemptions that are somehow unfair.
"The fact is, the U.S. government made deals with tribes hundreds of years ago. If the government doesn't like these deals, then give the land back. These were our peace treaties."
Competition vs. obligation
Mike Chandler, a non-Indian who owns two gas stations in Toppenish, Yakima County, within the boundaries of the Yakama Reservation, is torn between what he sees as unfair tribal competition vs. the nation's obligation to the Indian people.
He gets many tribal customers at his two Conoco stations, located within blocks of a tribally owned station. And he said his business, in his family for three generations, is at a pricing disadvantage.
While non-Indian station owners are taxed 28 cents a gallon on their purchases of gasoline and diesel, a federal agreement reduces that rate for stations owned by the Yakama Tribe and its members by 70 percent (to 8.4 cents) per gallon for gasoline and eliminates the tax entirely on diesel, according to the Washington Department of Licensing.
As a result, Chandler said, the tribe can undersell all its competitors — even retailers such as Costco that use low-priced gasoline as a way to lure customers. If he's lucky, he said, he can come within 5 cents, on average, of the tribe's price.
"When I go by the tribally owned station, there'll be 16, 20 cars at the pumps, while here we have three, maybe. Who doesn't want less-expensive gas?
"It kills volumes. And when we try to get close to them, there's no profit."
The gas-tax arrangement with the Yakamas is different from the one Washington state has with 13 other tribes, which are reimbursed monthly the amount of taxes tribally owned stations pay when they buy gasoline from wholesalers. The amount of the refund is based on a formula that considers the number of enrolled tribal members living on or adjacent to reservations.
The arrangement removes any advantage the tribes might have at the pumps, because the reimbursement goes to the tribe, not the individual stations.
Through November, gasoline and diesel reimbursements to the tribes this year totaled $2.2 million.
Allen, the Jamestown S'Klallam leader, points out that for every Indian-owned business that gets a pass on gas and sales taxes, there are nine others off the reservations that do not.
"The fact is when it comes to things like sales taxes, no government has the authority to tax another government," he said.
Allen believes the debate comes down to a question of economic self-reliance for Native people.
"The ability of tribes to become more self-reliant based on business opportunity has emerged in the last 10 years," he said. "If you look at the socioeconomic conditions of Indian people, we've always been at the very bottom of every measurement.
"Now, we are addressing generations of need in our communities, providing housing opportunities, jobs, health care, education for our people. And they want to take those opportunities away."
Lornet Turnbull: 206-464-2420 or lturnbull@seattletimes.com
Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)