More Paranoia From the Ranch

Nancy Crawford Hall, owner of the Santa Ynez Valley Journal, in a recent commentary said she believed that local, state and federal legislators are having discussions with quasi-sovereign nations to give away not only our freedoms our properties as well.

She believes that part of the community is trying to steal all of the homes, farms, and ranches right out from under us and that Santa Barbara County is in cahoots with this dastardly faction of our community.

Seems like everyone is out to get the paranoid NCH and she wants to share her paranoia with us all. She must be scared to death, poor thing.

This recent commentary is just another episode in the never ending alarmist propaganda generated by a very small faction in our community.

It was based on testimony by Vincent Armenta before the United States House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 27. Mr.Armenta was before the committee to testify against the recent policy changes by the Dept of Interior regarding “land into trust” rules.

As is the policy of NCH, she will not divulge the complete story and contexts of which she speaks. She just says enough and twists enough to try and scare people. Seems to be the modus operandi of these anti-Chumash folks. They seem to use the word “scary” a lot.

I guess that’s why I’m here. Here is the whole story.

On Jan. 3 of this year, the Department of Interior, more specifically Assistant Interior Secretary Carl Artman, sent out an internal memo that instructed its employees to greater scrutinize off-reservation land-into-trust applications based on their distance from a tribe's existing reservation.

The memo can be found here: http://www.indianz.com/docs/bia/artman010308.pdf

The next day, James Cason, associate deputy secretary of the Interior, sent rejection form letters to 11 tribes who had applications pending claiming the distance the tribal members would have to drive would have a negative impact. Very thoughtful of them don’t ya think?

All in all, The Department of Interior rejected 22 of 30 off-reservation proposals in the month of January 08’ based on this new “commuter rule”

This did not sit well with the many tribes that had gone through the arduous process and where some had been waiting for 12 years or more for a decision on the applications.

It should be noted that while anti-Indian gaming groups and states have targeted off-reservation casinos for the past several years, in reality only three such casinos have been allowed in the 20 years since the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was implemented.

A week after the rejection notices went out, one tribe, The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe in N.Y.,filed suit against Interior Department Secretary Dirk Kempthorne for denying the tribe’s application to take land into trust – an action the tribe alleges was unlawful, arbitrary and capricious, and an abuse of authority.

Tribes view the “new policy” as nothing more than a way for the BIA, because of its complete ineptitude to process the applications in a timely manner, to erase them from their books.

Lorraine M. White, St. Regis Mohawk Tribal Chief, at the Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 27 said it this way. “Exactly how dumb do you think we Indians are? Parading the guidance out to Indian country and the U.S. House of Representatives as a management tool that allowed the agency to simply clear their desks of land-into-trust applications in one fell swoop and testifying that this is not policy is altogether laughable.

During testimony Committee Chairman Nick Rahall pointedly asked Artman, ''What tribes and with whom did the department consult with?'' Artman replied, in a barely audible tone, that he was ''not sure.'' Artman testified that Interior believed in tribal consultation, but reserved it for ''special occasions'' and explained that there was ''some communication'' with tribes, but he was unable to name any.

So, this is the context in which Mr.Armenta was testifying at the hearing. He was there to voice his objection to the “new policy”. Mr. Armenta’s entire testimony can be found here:

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/Documents/20080227/testimony_armenta.pdf

His message, as I understood it, was that the new “commuter rule” was a policy that would effectively restrict the Indians to their reservations. Given the fact that the Chumash are surrounded by 7000 sq miles that was once their aboriginal land it is very ironic that the BIA is now worried that the Chumash should have to commute very far from their 99 acres on a flood plain to go to work.

Mr.Armenta cited the The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which was passed to enable tribes to develop formal governments on reservations and give them a means to buy back lands lost in the allotment system of Dawes Act which essentially obliterated many reservations. The Dawes Act resulted, through the sale of "surplus" lands, in the Indians eventually losing eighty-six million acres which is over sixty percent of the land that they had held prior to 1887.

In closing, Mr. Armenta did indeed say,” We ask the House Resources Committee to work with Tribes and at least permit us to go through the indignity of having to buy back our aboriginal territories. Instead we are being labeled as desiring to Reservation Shop. The Chumash desire to regain the lands of their ancestors even if it means buying them a piece at a time.”

This is the context of Mr. Armenta’s words.

Do the Chumash intend to buy, even if it were for sale or possible, your house, my house, and every sq mile from SLO to Malibu including ALL of the Santa Ynez Valley? No.

Are our local, state and federal legislators working behind our backs to take away our houses from us as NCH tells us? Talk about “fantastical, absurd even”. The answer is of course … No

NCH used the word chicanery to describe the testimony in front of the House Resources Committee where Mr. Armenta spoke. She defined the word as “behavior that is purposely hidden from public view” What are you smokin’? It was not hidden from the public.

All of the information and testimony may be found here:

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=54&extmode=view&extid=142

She then reverts back to the small circle of misinformation perpetuated by these anti-Chumash groups. She believes there seems to be some question as to whether the current reservation is land that is actually held in trust for Chumash. In other words she is questioning the legitimacy of the Chumash as a Federally recognized tribe.

She believes there is a question based on the research of a professional air conditioner salesman (he admitted in court that that’s how he actually made his living) who has no training in land titles or surveying and who was hired by POLO to research then write an op-ed that questioned the Chumash’s legitimacy.

The man was a hired gun who has, under sworn testimony, admitted that he has never ever concluded that any Indian tribe he investigated met the standards for federal acknowledgement. Gee, how surprising.

She then, in her infinite wisdom declares that Congress is the beneficiaries of “untaxed, unreported and unregulated political contributions”

Untaxed? Well that one is fairly obvious. You receive a tax credit for political contributions. Just more ignorance.

As far as unreported and unregulated, that is just the same old myths and lies that these anti-Indian individuals and groups spew.

In December of 2006 the California Supreme Court ruled that Indian tribes cannot use claims of sovereign immunity to avoid filing timely and complete reports that reveal how much is being spent on influencing state elections and legislation. In other words, they must follow the same rules as other special interests when it comes to disclosing campaign contributions and lobbying efforts. Even before this ruling most tribes in the state reported their contributions.

As for regulation, an Indian tribe is subject to the contribution limitations and prohibitions in the federal campaign finance law. An Indian tribe may contribute up to $2,100 per election to federal candidates, $5,000 per year to PACs, $10,000 per year to the federal account of state parties and $26,700 to national parties. These rules have been in place for many years.

Lastly she then compares Russia to the Chumash in referring to sovereign nations. A crowning ignorant statement in an essay of biased, false, misinformation.

Take the ear plugs out and the blinders off NCH. Turn on the lights open the drapes and doors. It’s a beautiful day outside, enjoy it. No one is coming to steal anything.

Sources:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061222/news_1n22tribes.html
http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2008/01/07/daily36.html?surround=lfn
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096416749 http://www.syvjournal.com/archive/6/10/1427