Tim Giago on the Huffington Post, and other places!

By: John Cornsilk
April 24, 2008

Mr. Tim Giago wrote an article, apparently for the Huffington post, it turned up in the local media, with no comment section, so I sent Mr Giago an email, the following will be what I sent him, with a few type-o´s corrected some comment expanded where needed.

I tracked down the Article to the Huffington Post, and their comment section is so limited in space, to 250 words you can barely say hi and bye and be over the limit. I commented that I had sent Mr Giago the email, he ignored it at first, but did finally acknowledge he had received it with this sound-byte as a general statement where I had addressed another posters ignorance:

Mr. Cornsilk should apologize to tbone99 because his comment is right on. When Cornsilk emailed me I did not respond because I never respond to someone with such a hatred for a tribal leader like Chad Smith. It smacks of political revenge. I stand by my article as do the many, many members of the Cherokee Nation that contacted me with their definite approval of what I wrote.

Tim

And of course, I responded with the following sound byte:

Well Mr. Giago,

As you said of your article, I stick by my comment to tbone, facts are facts as I lay them out in my articles I suggested he read, and the ones by my Son David on the same page as well.

And if you wish to persist in babbling on Cherokee issues, my suggestion would be you seriously read them as well and for corroboration of my words simply click the links you will find there...

As I tell other folks that accuse me of hating Chad smith, I tell you the same thing, I do not hate him, actually I pity him, for his apparent mental deficiency...what kind of a sane man does what he did to 2 women and 6 children?

I do most assuredly despise what he is and stands for. Now as for the Cherokee that wish to stand by your article, I would guess ALL are connected at the hip to the Swimmer/Mankiller Machine and beholden for their exaggerated salaries to driver of the machine, Smith the dictator.

Now if you would like to discuss Cherokee issues such as Sovereignty, Cherokee Freedmen, Bogusness of CNO, history/culture of the Cherokee, go to www.cornsilks.com then click on John's Place Banner!

John Cornsilk
Cherokee, CNO Member!



And let me say folks if you have not been to the Huffington Post simply CLICK HERE And BTW, to see the articles mentioned above CLICK HERE

Now for the email:

Mr. Giago,

I just read your article titled "Congressional Black Caucus Attacks Sovereign Status of Indian Nations"

And as a near full blood Cherokee, that lives here in the land of the "Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma" I am thoroughly disgusted with the article, on several points...With your stature as a Native American Author it would appear to me you would get prepared before you begin a subject, specially out of the element of YOUR TRIBE!

Point number 1.

You said:

The Congressional Black Caucus, in attacking the sovereign status of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, is placing in question and in jeopardy, the sovereign status of all Indian nations. At least that is the conclusion drawn by many tribal leaders across America.

I say!

My Question is who are these Tribal leaders other than Chad Smith, and the NCAI? Where Chads flunky Deputy Chief Joe Grayson is a supposed leader...Joe as a Cherokee Man totally inept, who fills the stereotypical drunken Indian bill to the max, and uneducated fool. who is only there for the Indian appearance of the dynamic duo of top Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (CNO) aficionados!!

Point Number 2.

You said

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the CBC, of which Presidential Candidate Barack Obama is member, demanded that he support their efforts to deny federal funding to the Cherokee Nation.

The letter reads:

When H. R. 2786, the Native American Housing and Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007, was considered and passed the House Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and others insisted that the bill include a provision that would prevent the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma from receiving any benefits or funding under the bill until the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is in full compliance with the Treaty of 1866 and recognizes all Cherokee Freedman and their descendants as tribal citizens.

We understand that the Senate may be considering a version of this bill that does not include these critically important requirements. We are writing to advise you that the members of the CBC will not support, and will actively oppose, passage of a NAHASDA bill that does not include this limitation. We must send the unequivocal message to the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma that failure to provide full citizenship rights to the Cherokee Freedmen will have severe consequences.

I say!

I would have to assume this is more of the CNO babble of blatant out-right lie!! rather than your statement, it matches what they hawk, the question is, what is Obama's status, is he a Senator or Congressman, Senator I think, then the question would be, is The CBC made up of both house members?

As for the Watson Bill and what it is and does only requires a simply reading, NO where in the Bill will you find the term of anyone or any Indian Nation Mentioned other than CNO, except under the Severance Section at "#(3) OTHER FREEDMAN INDIANS- Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a public report to Congress on the status of freedmen in the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muscogee (Creek), and Seminole Nations of Oklahoma. The report shall address whether each of those Indian tribes is complying with all treaty obligations and Federal laws with respect to its freedmen members, the level of participation of freedmen in tribal leadership positions, tribal benefits received by the freedmen, and previous or current efforts on the part of those Indian tribes to disenfranchise its freedmen members".

Point number 3.

You Said:

This is probably the first time in history that a Congressional Black Caucus, or any other Black organization for that matter, has severely threatened not only the sovereign status of an Indian nation, but also the withholding of funds that could cause widespread damage to the citizens of an Indian nation.

The people of the Cherokee Nation exercised their democratic rights when 70 percent of them voted to extinguish the tribal citizenship to the Cherokee Freedmen. The Freedmen are former Black slaves that became a part of the Cherokee Nation under the provisions of the Treaty of 1866.

I say!

First part of the this statement almost true, we are Cherokee People!! BUT, there is NO Cherokee Nation!! It was abolished by the Curtis Act of 1898, we are simply descendants of Cherokee Citizens of the Dawes era...We are "members" (of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (CNO), that was born in 1975, of Ross O. Swimmer) now as for who exercised their right to extinguish freedmen citizenship, It was NOT 70 percent of the people as you say, the fact of the matter it was actually 75% of the people that voted, which was a grand total of 8,000 give or take a few, 6,000 75% for kicking them out 2,000 25% said no by their vote...

Here comes the rub with your statement, you are not alone though, every writer is guilty of the same thing, makes for drama in the article I guess...The populace of the members of the CNO totals 300,000 give or take a few, So do the math the vote of 8,000 was a whopping 2.66 % of the Cherokee members/people of CNO voted to kick out the freedmen...You are absolutely correct the Freedmen Descendant of the Cherokee Freedmen of the Dawes era, are Cherokee absolutely no different than the rest of we Cherokee and members of CNO.

Point number 1, Continuation:

You said:

The bill was introduced by Representative Diane Watson (D-CA). Tribal leaders across America feel that this bill could threaten Indian housing nationwide. They also believe that this action by the Congressional Black Caucus could set a precedent where any Indian legislation could be threatened by any special interest group.

In a memo sent out by Indian activist Ron Andrade it was noted that Obama is also a member of the CBC. "Someone needs to ask him how he can reconcile his support of the Congressional Black Caucus and his rhetoric about supporting the sovereign status of tribal governments," Andrade wrote.

The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina met on Wednesday of last week in a joint tribal council meeting. At the meeting they denounced legislation that would cut federal funds to the Cherokee Nation unless the Freedmen are restored to citizenship. The Eastern Band of Cherokee would not be affected by the legislation.

A joint resolution issued after the meeting reads, "This alarming, inappropriate and unacceptable overreach could set a precedent that undermines the sovereign tribal governments throughout Indian country. These proposed legislative actions threaten to turn back the clock on hard-won rights and to cease a nation's right to exist."

I say!

See my response to point 1 above, WHAT leaders besides Smith and Garcia, I ask???

Point number 4.

You said:

It should be noted that California is one of the worst states in the Union where tribes are systematically removing and denying citizenship to members.

Rep. Watson represents a voting district in that state. What has she done about this problem in her own district? And what about the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus? Are they not concerned that Indian people are often removed from tribes in California without even a democratic vote? Or will they only speak up when Black Americans are involved?

And the final question: What gives the Congressional Black Caucus the right to interfere in the internal affairs of an independent sovereign Indian nation?

These are all questions that every Native American leader and citizens should be asking every member of the CBC including presidential candidate Barak Obama.

I say!

The simple fact to remember, is when the California Tribes do what the Cherokee Nation is doing and in the complete racist fashion against or in violation of their own Law, or State Law, which they are not, they have the right as a Legal Government to determine their membership, as long as it is not a violation of federal civil right Laws, as RACISM...And were it so, or happens to be proven so, then it will be up to California to step in first, because they are a Public Law 280 State, that has jurisdiction in Indian matters. If they refuse then the feds will get involved!

You finish with:

And isn't ironic that the very word "Caucus" is derived from the Algonquin Indian language and means, "A group of people united to promote an agreed -upon cause."

When the CBC begins to use its power to go after some of the tribes of California for ejecting and denying citizenship to their members then, and only then, will their actions against the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma have the appearance of justice or otherwise their objectivity will always be in question to the sovereign people of the Indian nations.

My finale!

Not ironic at all, in that the CBC is only doing what their job and the fiduciary role they assume with the plenary act of Congress requires of them as representatives of ALL Cherokee People! And see my response above, the CBC will only act in California when the state fails to address any RACIST issue, or refuses to, because California does have jurisdiction!

John Cornsilk
Cherokee, CNO member
Purveyor of Simple Truth!