JFK and Trump







This is the first time that I am reading JFK’s Acceptance Speech of 1960.   In 1960, I was only seven years old, I was not aware really of what JFK was saying at the time; however, I was aware of what my father was doing and how he felt about JFK. My father took my sister and me on the campaign trail with him when he campaigned for JFK locally around Dallas, Texas. I remember my Dad being so enthusiastic when he spoke of JFK to others while his daughters put paper “footsteps” campaign messages on the sidewalks of Dallas leading to the election of JFK.

My Dad admired JFK immensely and the autographed photograph he had from JFK was always proudly displayed in his livingroom next to my Dad’s chair for over 30 years.

As I read JFK’s speech of 1960, and thought about Kennedy’s Presidency, I understood why my Dad admired JFK so much.  Then, when I read Trump’s speech of 2016, and thought about Trump’s first year in office, I wondered if the sons and daughters of Trump supporters will understand why their parents voted for Trump when they read Trump’s speech 60 years after Trump’s election and Presidency?

Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960:


John F. Kennedy Acceptance Speech, Hyannis Armory, Hyannis, Massachusetts, November 9, 1960:

Ladies and gentlemen, I have received the following wire from Vice President Nixon. In that wire he says, “Senator John F. Kennedy, Hyannis Port, Massachusetts. I want to repeat through this wire the congratulations and best wishes I extended to you on television last night. I know that you will have united support of all Americans as you lead the nation in the cause of peace and freedom during the next four years.” I reply to the vice president– I sent him the following wire: “Vice President Nixon, Los Angeles, California. Your sincere good wishes are gratefully accepted. You are to be congratulated on a fine race. I know that the nation can continue to count on your unswerving loyalty in whatever effort you undertake, and that you and I can maintain our long-standing cordial relations in the years ahead. Sincerely, John Kennedy.”

I received also a wire from President Eisenhower which says, “My congratulations to you for the victory you have just won at the polls. I will be sending you promptly a more comprehensive telegram suggesting certain measures that may commend themselves to you as you prepare to take over next January the responsibilities of the Presidency. Signed, Dwight D. Eisenhower. And I have sent to President Eisenhower the following wire: “I am grateful for your wire and good wishes. I look forward to working with you in the near future. The whole country is hopeful that your long experience in the service of your country can be drawn upon further in the years to come. With every good wish, signed, John Kennedy.”

May I say in addition to all citizens of this country, Democrats, independents, Republicans, regardless of how they may have voted, that it is a satisfying moment to me and I want to express my appreciation to all of them and to Mr. Nixon personally. I particularly want to thank all of those who worked so long and so hard in this campaign on our behalf and who were generous to me in my visits throughout the country and who were generous enough to support me in the election on yesterday. To all Americans I say that the next four years are going to be difficult and challenging years for all of us. The election may have been a close one, but I think that there is general agreement by all of our citizens that a supreme national effort will be needed in the years ahead to move this country safely through the 1960s. I ask your help in this effort and I can assure you that every degree of mind and spirit that I possess will be devoted to the long-range interests of the United States and to the cause of freedom around the world. So now my wife and I prepare for a new administration and for a new baby. Thank you.


Kennedy Inaugural Address, 20 January 1961, video:






Donald Trump’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention on July 21, 2016, Video (fact-checked) and full transcript:



JFK’s last speech he never got to deliver warned about a Donald Trump as president:



Mace vs. Pepper Spray?

Just thinking that it is absolutely outrageous that I, as a US Citizen, am “googling” different chemical warfare products because I am worried about the health of the Water Protectors?

I was curious as to what kind of information is offered to the customer buying these products? Does the Morton County Sheriff’s Office understand the health dangers in using these chemical warfare weapons on the multi-generational Water Protectors?

Mace & Pepper Spray Store 

What kind of world have we allowed to emerge where Corporations are considered People and control our property, our lives, our water! And, all over and above United States Constitutional Law and Treaty Law (which is the supreme law of the land)?


‘New salmon run:’ Planes now fly in fish as Yukon chinook decline

Warrior Publications

Salmon Chinook 1 Chinook salmon.

‘It is funny, but it’s also sad,’ says Duane Aucoin of the Teslin Tlingit Council

The Canadian Press, August 2, 2016

Salmon no longer collect in the nets along the Teslin River where the Tlingit people have harvested them for
thousands of years. Now, they come from the sky.

“It’s the new salmon run,” Duane Aucoin, member of the Teslin Tlingit Council, said recently.

View original post 830 more words

12 people hospitalized, another 200 injured as North Dakota police use water cannons, rubber bullets on #NoDAPL supporters

Where is Amnesty International? Where is the UN? Where is ACLU?

Warrior Publications

dapl-backwater-bridge-4 A police armoured vehicle mounted with a water cannon hoses down protesters at Backwater Bridge in North Dakota near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation (Stephanie Keith/Reuters)

APTN National News, November 21, 2016
Twelve people are in hospital and another 200 were injured after anti-pipeline demonstrators clashed with local and state police in North Dakota who used pepper spray, rubber bullets, and water cannons in freezing temperatures on hundreds of #NoDAPL supporters who call themselves water protectors.

View original post 1,152 more words

Dakota Access pipeline protester ‘may lose her arm’ after police standoff

Prayers for this brave Water Protector. #NoDAPL #WaterIsLife #StandingRock

Warrior Publications

sophia-wilansky-1 Sophia Wilansky.

Sophia Wilansky, 21, was seriously injured after being hit by projectile when officers threw less-than-lethal weapons at demonstrators, her father said

by Julia Carrie Wong, The Guardian, November 22, 2016

A 21-year-old woman was severely injured and may lose her arm after being hit by a projectile when North Dakota law enforcement officers turned a water cannon on Dakota Access pipeline protesters and threw “less-than-lethal” weapons, according to the woman’s father.

View original post 520 more words

Standing Rock Sioux Trail of Broken Treaties

If treaties are the supreme law of the land, as the U.S. Constitution states, then how is it that treaties can be so easily broken by a government that claims to uphold a respect for the law? An even more unsettling question: how is it that the trail of broken treaties has been able to span generations under an outdated, imperial logic unknown to the majority of the U.S. citizens? The founding of the United States is predicated on this painful contradiction between principles of equality and rule of law on one side, and the colonial appropriation of land from native peoples who have inhabited them for millennia, on the other.

The current resistance against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) is inscribed in this contradiction, making evident the non-rule of law when it comes to appropriating native lands.

The history of Standing Rock is marked by the history of colonization predicated on the Doctrine of Discovery. The progressive erosion of its Sioux territory goes hand in hand with the logic of terra nullius, which framed land in the Americas as “empty” in order to justify settler colonization.

The Sioux Nation has historically engaged in sovereign government-to-government relations with the US government. The first treaty in which the two parties engaged as diplomatic equals was the Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1851. It was the U.S. government who sought the treaty to allow for safe passage of the influx of settlers travelling west through Sioux territory during the Gold Rush from the east coast to California.

The process of negotiating the Treaty of Fort Laramie followed the colonial settler standard used in contemporary treaty negotiations. While the process was equal in theory to the traditional communal decision-making processes under which many Native Nations operated, the colonial method, which uses elected representatives, heavily favored the interests of the colonial government. Ultimately, the treaty established distinct territories for just under 10 Great Plain tribes. The treaty also permitted settlers to travel on the Platte River Road, achieving the U.S. government’s goal.

The 1851 treaty defined Sioux territory as the land where the DAPL is now being constructed. The territory fell within the western half of modern South Dakota, northwest Nebraska, a portion of northeast Wyoming, and a small part of southeast Montana and southwest North Dakota.

From the very beginning, various parties continuously broke the Treaty of Fort Laramie. Many tribes, unaware of the existence of the treaty, continued to carry out raids on tribes on legally different territories. Furthermore, settlers increasingly trespassed into the treaty territories, disrupting the buffalo hunting grounds of Native Nations. The settlers’ wrongful presence on native land led to various hostile skirmishes and bloody battles in which natives were massacred often without provocation.

But the violation of the Treaty of Fort Laramie didn’t stop there. Over the years, the U.S. government has continued to appropriate Sioux land in an ongoing process of colonization that disregards the treaty. (See map.)

In 1861, the discovery of gold in present-day Montana accentuated the flood of fortune-seekers overrunning Sioux lands in violation of the decade-old Laramie Treaty. Sioux protests to defend their rights and territory were ignored, so the Sioux took matters into their own hands to stop the trespassers. The U.S. responded by sending in a military presence.

Instead of adhering to the terms of the treaty, the U.S. government attempted to negotiate another treaty more preferential to its interests. Treaty making, instead of a diplomatic engagement between two equally powerful sovereign nations had turned into a destructive means of grabbing land and resources from native people; a form of ‘conquest by law’ as per the book by Lindsay G. Robertson.

The result was a second treaty of Fort Laramie signed in 1868. This new treaty shrank the territorial boundaries of the Great Sioux Reservation in exchange for the U.S. federal government’s removal of all existing forts in the Powder River area, among other specifications. Yet it was a flawed treaty from the start. Most importantly, it stipulates that no changes can be made to the legally binding agreement unless ¾ of all adult Sioux males consent. Many members of the Sioux nation, particularly those within the boundaries of the territory signed the treaty. But many more bands residing north of the Bozeman Trail, such as the Hunkpapa and Sihasapa bands, did not. The treaty was not signed by three quarters of all adult Sioux males.

Yet, again, the U.S. government violated the treaty. The second Laramie treaty granted the tribes the right of regulating the entry of persons into their territory. Article II of the 1868 Treaty stipulates that nobody can enter the territory without tribal permission. But time and time again settlers have encroached on Sioux territory.

Some Americans may know that in 1874 the U.S. government sent George Custer with a group of scientists to search for natural resources, especially gold, in the isolated mountain range known today as the Black Hills. The gold they found led to an influx of miners, again in direct violation of the treaty.

Eventually, the U.S. government decided to pursue its strategy of land appropriation without bothering with the pretense of legality. The Sioux learned to be wary of treaties with the U.S. and refused to sign away their land.

In 1877, Congress unilaterally passed an act removing the sacred Black Hills from the Great Sioux Reservation, without the ¾ consent of the Sioux mandated by the Laramie Treaty of 1868. This illegal grab of sacred land brought no legal repercussions to the party that violated the treaty—the U.S. government.

In 1889, Congress again diminished the Great Sioux Reservation with the Dawes Act and Allotment Act, partitioning it into six sections, one of which was the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. This opened up parts of the reservation to outside settlement, even though the native government still controls all reservation lands.

Sioux struggles for water are embedded in such displacements. In 1948, the U.S. government began construction of Oahe Dam, despite resistance from local tribes. Its creation flooded tribal land and forced a quarter of the reservation’s inhabitants to move.

In 1958, a federal court ruled that Lake Oahe was part of the Standing Rock territory according to the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty. In this ruling the court said, “Where there is a treaty with Indians which would otherwise restrict the Congress, Congress can abrogate the treaty in order to exercise its sovereign right.” The court openly articulated the self-arrogated right of the U.S. government to go back on treaty obligations with Native Americans to unilaterally exercise its sovereign power.

The U.S. did just that, taking the Lake Oahe land from the Standing Rock tribe through legislation passed by Congress in September 1958 [Public Law 85-915].

Legal abrogation, or repealing legislation, dispenses with any idea of fair treaty making between equals. It undermines native sovereignty, following a racist logic of colonial elimination. It dispenses with numerous prior legal precedents that granted Native Americans some rights, such as the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871, which declared that no treaty obligation with an Indian nation before March 3, 1871 can be “invalidated or impaired.” It puts into question the idea of the “federal Indian trust responsibility,” articulated in the Seminole Nation v. United States case of 1942, which entailed an obligation on the part of the U.S. government to protect tribal treaty rights, land, assets and resources, per the Department of the Interior Indian Affairs branch.

As a federally recognized tribe, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is legally entitled to these obligations. However, as history has shown, U.S. principles and laws do not seem to have the same meaning when it comes to Native Americans.

The United States claim that it can abrogate treaties with Native Americans has been upheld by US courts as legal. Law in our modern eyes carries the weight of legitimacy.

But because something is legal does not make it right. In the case of the Sioux, alongside every other Native American nation, laws and treaties have all too often been used not as a protective shield, or even as a neutral arbitrator, but as a weapon. That weapon is predicated on a racist, colonial history that invalidated native people’s rights to their land, to their sovereignty, to their cultural expression, to their very lives.

Whether it is the gold rush or the oil rush, the U.S government continues even now to invade native land and break treaties. The proposed DAPL would pass under Lake Oahe, the land that was openly, “legally” taken from the Sioux tribe in 1958 by Congress, despite the prior 1868 Treaty that had legallygranted the Sioux rights to the land.

Today’s protests at Standing Rock today can only be fully understood in light of this colonial legacy, which from the beginning proclaimed that native lands were empty and that native people, were, in effect, nothing more than the rocks, the trees, the water that they now so valiantly strive to protect.

Let us fight against this narrative, and show through Standing Rock that native tribes are sovereign nations that possess the inherent right to life on their territories. Let us show that Native American lands are not empty, but that proud sovereign peoples live there, alongside the earth, water, rocks and trees, wind and sky, encompassing a vibrant fullness in their long defense of life.

There never was terra nullius. The only emptiness to be found exists in the hollow promises of the United States, in the historic lack of equitable substance in the U.S. legal system.

In that spirit, many U.S. citizens are now, finally, refusing to turn a blind eye to the trail of broken treaties. They stand with Standing Rock, and are petitioning President Obama to honor the treaties (petition here): “The Native nations have upheld their end of the bargain; it is time the U.S. government did the same.”

 No KXL Through Treaty Lands‘s post.

Standing Rock Sioux, Water Protectors & Journalists Denied U.S. Constitutional Rights & International Human Rights


This slideshow requires JavaScript.

This is what it is all about:  Corporations making the laws, Corporations denying US citizens Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, First Amendment Constitutional rights to assemble and address grievances. Corporations giving orders to the County, State “police” forces and Corporations hiring mercenaries to deny American citizens the rights supposedly afforded to them under the United States Constitution.

This is shocking and so sad.  I Stand with Standing Rock to defend my Constitutional rights!  My ancestors served the USA in the military and fought for the very freedoms that are in danger every day at Standing Rock.  My ancestors have served the USA all the way back to the Revolutionary War.  In fact, I have three Revolutionary War ancestors.  I dare say my ancestors are turning over in their graves now because what they fought for is gone. We no longer have Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press!

These freedoms have been violated by President Obama with his EXECUTIVE ORDERS that give him the power of a Dictator and his signing of the NDAA .  Obama will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law! An Obama executive order that creates a council of state governors who will work with the feds to expand military involvement in domestic security, together with PDD 51, a Bush era executive order that gives the President dictatorial power in times of national emergency, eliminate the last roadblocks to declaring martial law in the United States.

As in a video production of the “Young Turks,” the commentator stated that the military police force at Standing Rock were facing the wrong way when arresting people!  They needed to turn around because the ones that are breaking the laws were behind them: the DAPL employees!  Not the water protectors.

Turn Around! The DAPL workers are breaking the law, not the water protectors!

Wake up Amerika!


Water Protectors being doused with pepper spray when they attempted to walk up the mountain to pray  at Sacred Site.

The Sheeple of the country are asleep and believing in whatever mainstream media doses them with; or they are so unaware of what is taking place in this country; or they just don’t care what happens to “other” citizens that they will be the ones that do not even question why they should be herded into the “safe” internment camps (prisons) of the New World Order.

“In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.” –Pastor Martin Niemöller, 1945
“It goes back to concentration camp days,” asserted Oceti-Sakowin coordinator Mekasi Camp-Horinek, who, along with his mother, was marked and detained in a mesh kennel, reports the Los Angeles Times.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”

Dr. King was a national leader in the struggle to end the racial segregation laws of the American south. These laws restricted black Americans from lodging, voting, hotels, provisions, educational opportunities and participation in community life. Such laws were so deeply unshakeable that when Dr. King led a peaceful march in protest, local authorities resisted with might, arresting the leaders and dispersing the participants with fire hoses and police dogs. This reaction caused a change in public opinion, leading to the enactment of the landmark caused a change in public opinion, leading to the enactment of the landmark Civil rights act of 1964, the most sweeping legislation ever enacted to protect majority rights in the United States. This legislation helped change social and legal attitudes to bring the “American dream” of justice, equality, and freedom to all Americans, regardless of their race, religion, or ethnic background.


The “American Dream” has still been a nightmare for the Indigenous on Turtle Island encompassed within the United States of America.  The Standing Rock Sioux certainly do not enjoy the “American Dream” when they are denied justice, equality and freedom! The Journalists arrested and the Water Protectors have been denied basic Constitutional rights (1), their rights under the International Bill of Human Rights (2) and their rights under The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (3)

1).  U.S. Constitution, First Amendment 

2).   International Bill of Human Rights

3).  The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Denied Rights -video


I Stand with Standing Rock!

I want my Grandchildren to know what clean water is!

Mni Wiconi


Glitter Queen

There’s nothing more that intrigues the Gypsy Glitter Queen than a mystery. She invites her soul down to the sea shore to contemplate the change in light. Finally, when all the “Texas” in her could not be silenced any longer, she just wondered:

What the HELL happened?


A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for Monsanto!

Please, for the sake of our children and grandchildren, unto the seven generations, do not vote for Hillary Clinton!

Hillary Clinton’s “SEVEN TIES” to MONSANTO ….

Will there be another “SEVEN GENERATIONS” if YOU VOTE for MONSANTO?