Sponsored by

Comments on

House committee OKs bill to block O'odham casino in Glendale

A U.S. House committee gave overwhelming approval Wednesday to a bill that would block development of a Tohono O’odham casino on land the tribe bought inside Glendale. The bill would reverse years of failed legal challenges to the project, which opponents say violates a 2002 agreement among tribes not to build new casinos in the metropolitan Phoenix area.... Read more»

have your say   

14 comments on this story

1
1768 comments
Jul 26, 2013, 7:42 am
-0 +0

Aside from a desire by some elitists to tell other people how to live, I can not see any reason whatsoever to block this casino.

I wish I had access to a time machine. Had I such access, I would take opponents of this casino for a drive on Valencia Road from Cardinal Avenue to Camino Verde in 1993, and then the same drive today. Casino of the Sun, and then Casino del Sol, have been nothing but good for that area. Not only is the Pascua-Yaqui nation self-sufficient, but the result has also been greatly improve infrastructure, and many improvements to the area both civic and private. The one and only negative thing that happened to that area is the installation of a revenue camera slightly west of Camino de la Tierra.

2
542 comments
Jul 26, 2013, 8:12 am
-0 +0

@Bret Linden,

The basis for opposition isn’t so much rooted in a moral objection as it is in dollars: tribal casinos already in the Phoenix area don’t want another competitor.

3
Jul 26, 2013, 8:45 am
-0 +0

Dear Readers, these questions have never been asked by Arizona citizens or in any court.
U.S. Constitutional questions:
1.  “Where is the proclamation ratified by the voting citizenry of the U.S. that amends our U.S. Constitution making another U.S./Arizona citizen with “Indian ancestry/race” distinguishable because of their race?” 
2.  “Where is the proclamation ratified by the voting citizenry of the U.S. that amends Article I, Section 8 Clause 17 whereby the National govt. can 'take land’ from the sovereign State of Arizona to give to a faux “Indian tribal government” to create a racial de jure legislative enclave in contravention of the U.S. Constitution in accordance with Leavenworth v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525 (1885)?”
As of The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, there are no more “Indians” within the original meaning of the United States Constitution…ONLY U.S./Arizona citizens with “Indian ancestry/race.” 
 
Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 738 738 (1824) A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.
Paul R. Jones
Federal Indian Programs Consultant and Researcher

4
1768 comments
Jul 27, 2013, 2:16 pm
-0 +0

@Dylan Smith

If what you’re saying is true (and I don’t really doubt it), that’s a pretty lame reason. I think the native nations should leave well enough alone without asking for government assistance to exempt themselves from capitalistic forces.

5
Jul 27, 2013, 3:20 pm
-0 +0

Dear Bret Linden/Dylan Smith,
A careful re-read of my original post will show that there are no “Native Nations” under our U.S. Constitution Standards.  There are U.S./Arizona citizens with “Indian ancestry/Race” and they can call themselves any thing they like i.e. sovereign “Native Nations;” but, our U.S. Constitution Standards has no such thing.  U.S.C. Title 25: Indians-is an “Irregular Engineering Standards Change to the United States Constitution” (IERS) never ratified by the voting citizenry to amend our U.S. Constitution to make the health, welfare, safety and benefits of a select group of U.S./Arizona citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” distinguishable.  Our elected/appointed servants-Federal and State-are ‘tricking’ U.S. citizenry in the whole of federal Indian programs with fallacious logic on steroids.  There is absolutely nothing in our federal/state common law that has U.S. Constitution Standards authority to make any U.S./State citizen distinguishable from another citizen based on “Indian ancestry/race!”  I would ask you Bret Linden/Dylan Smith to present the citizen ratified proclamation making distinguishable U.S./Arizona citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” for the readers of TUCSON SENTINEL to review.  Cheers, Paul R. Jones

6
1768 comments
Jul 27, 2013, 8:02 pm
-0 +0

So Dylan, does this mean that you and I are the same person now? I’ll leave it to you to “reread” that guys’ posts…I can’t get more than about 20 words in without getting dizzy.

7
542 comments
Jul 27, 2013, 9:37 pm
-0 +0

@Bret, I think Brittanicus may have found a friend.

Somebody needs to go read Article 1, Section 8, along with Johnson v. M’Intosh, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, Worcester v. Georgia, and Montana v. U.S.

8
Jul 28, 2013, 4:53 am
-0 +0

Dear Bret, sorry you are getting dizzy.  Dear Dylan, sorry, but as of The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, there are no more “Indians” within the original meaning of our U.S. Constitution….only U.S./Arizona citizens with “Indian ancestry/race.”  Johnson v. M’Intosh, Cherokee Nation v. George, Worcester v. Georgia et al are no longer good case law…Stare Decisis forecloses any application of such decisions.  Dylan please present to the TUCSON SENTINEL readership the proclamation ratified by the voting public of the United States that amends our U.S. Constitution to make the health, welfare, security and benefits of a U.S./Arizona citizen with “Indian ancestry/race” distinguishable.  Without such an amendment making such distinctions, there is no law.  Cheers, Paul R. Jones

9
542 comments
Jul 28, 2013, 10:21 am
-0 +0

Mr. Jones,

If you somehow believe that a law can override and/or change the Constitution, then you really don’t know what’s happening here.

10
Jul 28, 2013, 12:55 pm
-0 +0

Dear Dylan Smith,
In all of my posts to date, my constant U.S. Constitution Standards point was:  1.  As of The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, there are no more “Indians” within the original meaning of our U.S. Constitution to-whit:  United States Code 25-Indians is a fraud!  It is federal “IERS” faux law that is in conflict with our U.S. Constitution.  2.  No one has produced a ratified proclamation amending our U.S. Constitution to make the health, welfare, safety and benefits of a U.S./Arizona citizen distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race” and 3. The whole of this Tohono O’odham ‘land-to-trust,’ casino is a hoax foisted off on citizens of the U.S./Arizona by Federal/State elected/appointed servants.  Mr. Smith, you are absolutely correct…“no law can override and /or change the Constitution.”  Now, our job is to bring this “Indian hoax” to the attention of Arizona citizenry they are being duped by Federal/State elected/appointed servants who cannot produce a ratified proclamation by the citizenry of the U.S. to amend our Constitution to make distinguishable other U.S./Arizona citizens because of their “Indian ancestry/race.”  Cheers, Paul R. Jones

11
1768 comments
Jul 28, 2013, 10:42 pm
-0 +0

OK, I finally tried to decode this guy’s rambling, incoherent posts. And, I have to agree with one thing he said…“Indians is a fraud”. Sure is. The only reason they’re referred to as “Indians” is because Christopher Columbus was an idiot and an asshole. I refuse to use that term, instead preferring “Native”. And, as anti-pc as I am, that means a lot.

That said, I can see nothing in those rambling diatribes that is relevant to the issue at hand. Nothing there legitimately explains how or why the Glendale casino should be blocked. In fact, I have yet to see anyone at all offer a good reason.

12
Jul 29, 2013, 4:10 am
-0 +0

Dear Mr. Linden,
You have reduces this conversation to a “Strawman” attack against me personally.  Fallacious logic is the last bastion of those who cannot provide facts.  Your “Anti-pc” is showing through.  Unimpeachable U.S. Constitution Standards reasons where placed squarely before you….facts you did not dispute; it is a U.S. Constitution Standards guarantee assured by “Citizenship” there are no more “Indiana” only U.S./Arizona citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” entitled to no authority to build a casino in the sovereign State of Arizona because of their race!  Race-based du jure legislation like the Tohono O’odham land deal is not supported by our U.S. Constitution…that simple fact is your “GOOD REASON” whether you agree or not!
Cheers, Paul R. Jones

13
1768 comments
Jul 29, 2013, 7:08 am
-0 +0

Who says it is about race? Technically, it could be. However, this is different. Any regular reader of my posts would tell you that I hate anyone being given any perk based on skin color, and in no case is that more true then when it comes to Raul Grijalva being handed a blatantly rigged district to he can continue his reign of terror in the halls of Congress.

However, this is different. It isn’t so much about color of skin than it is sovereignty of the land.

The U.S. Government has broken so many treaties with the Native peoples over the last two centuries that I doubt any historian could ever come up with an accurate count of how many. Since the government herded these tribes on to these reservations (in many cases being located to regions that particular nation had never been before), the least the government can do is leave them alone and let them do what they want, so long as they’re not hurting anyone else. If the nation was proposing a toxic waste storage facility then I would also be opposed. But, this casino isn’t going to hurt anyone.

I am a strong proponent of Native American sovereignty.

This casino would give the state a 5% cut of the take, another move I’m opposed to. But, there’s a few more million the idiot state government can mismanage. Doesn’t that make you happy?

14
Jul 29, 2013, 8:17 am
-0 +0

Dear Bret,
It is ALL about U.S. Constitution Standards! There is nothing “different” about federal/state racial de jure common law that makes distinguishable a U.S./Arizona citizen to have their health, welfare, safety and benefit enlarged because of their “Indian ancestry/race” while every other non-Indian citizen of the U.S./Arizona is denied the same ‘enlarged’ health, welfare, safety, and benefits. Bret, you have staked out your position and you are welcome to do so…but, you have not presented to the TUCSON SENTINEL readership the following 3-proclamations ratified by the U.S. electorate to amend our U.S. Constitution I have asked for several times to prove your staked out position: 1.  Distinguishable citizen by “Indian ancestry/race and 2.  Amending our U.S. Constitution’s treaty clause whereby the National Government makes treaties or holds to treaties with its own constituency and 3. Provides for ‘sovereign “Indian nations comprised of U.S./Arizona citizen since 1924” in accordance with our U.S. Constitution. Bret, absent your presentation of these 3-proclamations, you have nothing but your opinion.  And, your opinion remains jealously guarded by our U.S. Constitution Standards.Cheers, Paul R. Jones

Sorry, we missed your input...

You must be logged in or register to comment

Click to enlarge

An architectural rendering of the proposed Tohono O’odham casino in Glendale.

Categories

news, politics & government, business, trans/growth, local, arizona, breaking, Cronkite News
Sponsored by

Top Commenters

  • Bret Linden: 1766
  • Dylan Smith: 540
  • Cactus Dave: 339
  • buddhaboy: 316
  • Roberto De Vido: 270
  • Brittanicus: 176
  • Quietwoman2: 172
  • EllieMae: 151
  • TucsonGirl: 116
  • janamg: 88
Sponsored by

Yes!

I want to help TucsonSentinel.com offer a real news alternative!

We're committed to making quality news accessible; we'll never set up a paywall or charge for our site. But we rely on your support to bring you independent news without the spin. Use our convenient PayPal/credit card donation form below or contact us at donate@tucsonsentinel.com today.

Subscribe and stretch your donation over time:

$10/mo. Printer's Devil
$15/mo. Cub Reporter
$20/mo. Stringer
$40/mo. Correspondent
$50/mo. Senior Correspondent
Enter your own monthly amount (number only)

Or give a secure one-time gift with PayPal or your credit card:

$5,000 Newshound
$2,500 Copy desk chief
$1,000 Trusted source
$500 Correspondent
$250 Stringer
$100 Cub reporter
$50 Printer's Devil
$25 Informed Source
$10 Dear Reader
Enter your own amount (below)

TucsonSentinel.com is an Arizona nonprofit organization fiscally sponsored by FCIR.org, a 501c3 charity. Your contribution is tax-deductible.

User Guidelines

Please be respectful and relevant. Thought-provoking. Or at least funny.

We want comments to advance the discussion and we need your help. Debate, disagree, yell (digitally) or laugh, but do it with respect.

We won't censor your comments if we don't agree with you; we want viewpoints from across the political spectrum. We're dedicated to sparking an open, active discussion. We believe people with differing opinions can spark debate and effect change.

Comments are open to registered users of TucsonSentinel.com.

Keep in mind:

  • A conversation involves sharing and respect. Support your viewpoint with facts, not attacks.
  • Ask questions. Search out answers.
  • Remember that being part of a community requires tolerance for differing views.
  • We can't ensure that all comments are based in truth. The only comments we endorse are those we write ourselves.

TucsonSentinel.com does not allow:

  • Hate speech. Blatantly racist, sexist or homophobic slurs or calls for violence against a particular type of person, etc. will be removed.
  • Obscenity & excessive cursing. Sometimes a well-placed curse word - if you're creative enough to get it past our auto-censor - can express your point in just the right way. But we say '%*$& no' to cursing for cursing's sake. And lose the explicit sexually-descriptive language. It doesn't contribute to the debate and there are plenty of other places on the Internet to find it.
  • Flaming. During a heated discussion, unkind words may be spoken. We can live with a certain amount of rudeness in the name of provocative conversation, but a pattern of personal attacks (name-calling, mocking, or baiting) is not acceptable nor are threatening or harassing comments. Show some respect, please.
  • Explicit political endorsements. As a nonprofit we can't allow electioneering. Analysis and explanation of political issues and candidates are encouraged, but specific calls to vote for or against a measure or politician should be done elsewhere.
  • Spam. Solicitation of products or services isn't allowed; contact us about advertising, we'd love to talk to you. Links to off-topic sites may be deleted.
  • Copyright or IP infringement. Lengthy quotes and violations of 'Fair Use' aren't allowed. Anything you post should be your own work.
  • Overposting. Don't bore people and waste electrons with identical comments on multiple stories or repetitive comments that don't advance a conversation.
  • Trolling, sockpuppetry, and other abusive behavior. Please don't feed the trolls and don't pretend to be someone you're not.
  • Gossip. Don't bring up others who can't defend themselves. We don't give out personal information; you shouldn't either.

Comments that violate these guidelines may be removed. We reserve the right to make up the rules as we go along.

Flagging

Commentors are solely responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. Users who violate these standards may lose their privileges on TucsonSentinel.com.

Sentinel editors can't read every comment. Trolls, spammers and other troublemakers can slide under the bridge. We rely on you to help maintain a healthy conversation - more than likely, you're reading these comments before the editors.

What if you see something inappropriate? Use the 'Flag' button to send it to a moderation queue. Help us out and tell us why you're reporting it; please don't report someone just because you disagree with them. Boy who cried wolf and all that. We'll take appropriate action on violations.

We will not edit comments to alter their meaning or censor comments because of political content.

We will not remove comments solely because they are heartless, cruel, coarse, foolish or just plain wrong. Your disapproval can maintain a decent signal to noise ratio. Ultimately, however, self-policing is the best method.

Bottom line, don't be a jerk.

Sign up for TucsonSentinel.com email newsletters!

find us on facebook
Sponsored by
Sponsored by
Sponsored by