The Return of the Ancient Ones

American Moors (Gaia, Mother Earth, hasnt forgotten whats happened to her children)

Our True Identity


You state that the Olmecs were of Mali. Doesn't that make them Moors?

Absolutely! The Olmecs were indeed Malian Moors. The Mayans were descendants of the Malian Moors and were often referred to as "Black Mexicans" or Quetzacoatl. There are ancient Mexican wall paintings that depicts these "Negroid" kings and rulers as unmistakably African.

Black Mayans in Pre-Columbian America

These Moors were the people who built the great pyramids all over South America, Peru, Canada, Alaska, and Georgia that scattered all throughout North America along the Mississippi River and it's tributaries are found mounds built out of tons and tons of earth. The people who built them were called the Mound Builders and they were the descendants of the Malian Moor Olmecs. These Moors eventually migrated to North America from Mexico and became known as Wa****aw, Yamasee and the Ben-Isma-EL tribe. The Ben-Isma-EL tribe was a collection of what is now known as Lenape, Wapanoag and Nanticoke Indians who migrated to Indiana and Illinois and referred to themselves as "Moors" even though the United States Government continued to classify them as "Negroes" in order to strip them of their Indigenous rights.

It is often not talked about, but the Moors had enslaved the Europeans before they enslaved blacks. Their women were sold like commodities into the harems and as concubines of wealthy Moors. This is the reason why the Moorish noble were for the most part bleached out, and became known as "tawny-moors", Turks and Arabs, which are no more than "fixed mulatto races". This also is the reason for the Moors in the coats of arms of noble Europeans family.


The so-called "Black Nobility" of Europe, and the Bilderberger group. The European nations paid tribute to the Moors well into the 18th century. In the book, "United States and Barbary Powers" the English, French, Dutch, Danes, and Swedes, and I may say all nations are tributary to them." David Macritchie in the book "Ancient and Modern Britons" says that the word "Blackmail" is the result of this tribute paid to the "Black Army", or "Black Oppressors" as the English referred to them. The Moors had control of the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. This is why the Marines sing of defeating the Moors " From the halls of Montezuma (Mexico) to the shores of Tripoli", confirming in song the extent of the Moorish empire or dominions of Amexem, or Atlantis. Below is the first page of the Moroccan Treaty of 1787. It should also be noted that Shakespeare's most famous Moor, Othello, is also described as a Black African. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin worked closely with the Moors in the Continental Congress to secure this treaty. In the Bevans collection there are over 200 letters to the Bey of Morocco from the Continental Congress. There were many Moors in the Continental Congress working with the European Masons originally taught by Moors, to form a "Novus Ordo Seclorum" [ new secular order of the ages, "E Pluribus Unum" out of many peoples and nations, one]. The Moroccan Treaty is very powerful because according to the Constitution, treaties are the "Law of the Land".



This treaty specifically deals with Moors. The question then may arise, " How do we know that where the treaty says Moors, that so-called "Black" people of that time is being referred to"? The Moors were considered citizens or part of "We the People" who ratified the Constitution. It says; "thus an act was passed in Massachusetts on 6th of March, 1788, forbidding any Negro not a subject of the emperor of Morocco, or a citizen of the United States, from tarrying in the Commonwealth." This for one show that those who were referred to as "Negroes" were actually Moors and that they were on the same footing or status as "State Citizens". Those who remembered that they were Moors, used the Moroccan Treaty of 1787 to secure their rights on the same footing as the state citizens without otherwise being obligated members of their "Social Equality". While those who were brainwashed into believing they were "Negroes" descendants of Africans brought here by the Europeans were unprotected by the Moroccan Treaty, as well as the articles of Confederation and the Constitution. This document says" A petition was presented to the house from sundry free Moors, subjects of the emperor of Morocco; and residents in this state, praying that in case they should commit any fault amenable to be brought to justice, that they as subjects to a prince (here in North America) in alliance with the United States of America ( via the Moroccan Treaty of 1787 ), may be tried under the same laws as the citizens of this state would be liable to be tried, and not under the Negro Act, which was received and read." Thus you had Moors back in 1789 saying what we say now; our nationality is Moorish and not Negro, colored, black etc..
Below: two pictures of European Coat of Arms showing their Moorish origins.

[weishaupt1776]

Good Stuff, KG. Keep it comin'

I can't wait till The BUCS DESTROY THE FALCONS this year !!!!

Vick is Goin' down, SON !!!

Bucs? who they got now? who is their quarterback?

TREATIES & TRIBAL DETERMINATION

Question: Is there a universal definition of the term Indian?

Answer: No! The U.S. Federal Government has yet to define what an "Indian" is. The Indigenous American cannot be successfully defined without linking him to Africa. This is what the Federal Government is trying to avoid. Scientist has thus invented ridiculous blood dropping qualifications. Ethnologist will classify a person as "Indian" only if that individual contains more than one half Indian blood. Although there is no ethnological definition of "Indian", there are various legal definitions implemented to regulate federal provisions upon person, tribe and land. The legal standards are very inconsistent. A so-called "Indian" may qualify as an "Indian" for educational benefits but not for health benefits. The U.S. Census Bureau takes a more simplistic approach. The Bureau list everyone as "Indian" who claims to be one. Each Indian tribe has their own qualification for determining exactly who is an Indian. Some tribes require as much as 1/2 while others require 1/16th.

Question: Isn't there a law that states a person has the right to self determination?

Answer: Yes! According to the Convention Concerning Inigenous and Tribal People in Independent Countries, Article 1 Section 2, It states that a person has the right to determine themselves as Indigenous. Article 39 of that same document states that the only way to declare someone "non-indigenous" is that the Indigenous nation has to prove Indigenous status and denounce the above convention. The Draft of Declaration Article 8 also gives "People" the right to identify themselves as Indigenous.


Article 8
Indigenous People have the collective and individual right to maintain and develop their distinct identities and characteristics, including the right to identify themselves as Indigenous and to be recognized as such.


Question: Do you have to belong to a recognized tribe to classify yourself as Indigenous?

Answer: Of the over 500 Indian tribes in North America, the Federal Government only recognizes less than three hundred. Of course, as usual, the Federal Government regulates tribal politics. Tribes may have lost federal recognition or failed to gain federal recognition for several reasons. Some tribes were terminated (economic collapse of Indian tribes), In the opinion of the government, some tribes lacked leadership and relations with the Federal Government and lost their tribal identity and refuse to grant the blood ancestors recognition. The Federal Government will also not recognize tribes that display hostility or bitterness. These tribes can call themselves tribes and be recognized by other tribes, but they will not be recognized or eligible for federal benefits. So the answer is, it doesn't matter if you belong to a tribe or not. The federal Government will stick it to you either way.

Question: What about broken treaties, didn't they give Indians certain rights?

Answer: Once again, the Federal Government has tricked you! Indian treaties are not grant of rights to Indians, but a grant of rights from them. The purpose of an Indian treaty was never to give rights to Indians but to remove rights they had. Indians had more rights before they entered into treaties.

Question: Were the Indians tricked into signing these treaties?

Answer: Before the war of 1812 the United States and Indian Nations negotiated treaties on relative equals. After 1812 which ended the threat of British intervention in U.S. Internal affairs, friendship with Indians became a thing of the past with the United States. Indians "allowed" whites to share the land, it then turned into the Federal Government wanted land in which they began taking by force. In 1814, the Creeks and Cherokees were forced to relinquish 23 million acres of land to the federal government. In 1835, Andrew Jackson forced the Cherokees to sign the treaty of New Echota in which gave up their land east of the Mississippi in exchange for small land in Oklahoma which was not good harvesting land. After the treaty was signed, Jackson forced the Cherokees to walk to 1098 miles to Mississippi in which hundreds died on the journey. White settlers then moved into the former Indian land. One by one, the government forced tribes to sign treaties and push them onto reservation. Tribes that refused were exterminated.

Question: So all treaties involves the taking of land?

Answer: Yes! All treaties contains at least two provisions, Indians promise to relinquish their land and the government promises to create federally protected reservations. The government also promised to never again remove Indians from their habitat. A promise that the U.S. Government has hardly kept!

Question: Does the United States still make treaties with Indian tribes?

Answer: No! Why should they when they never kept the ones they did make? In 1871, Congress passed a law that prohibited the making of treaties with Indians (Title 25, Section 71) declared that Indian tribes were not sovereign nations with whom the Unites States could make treaties. However, this was a political trick. Indian tribes were at once sovereign nations until the section 71 which ended that. Treaties were thus made to strip Indians of certain rights. Congress then regulated Indian affairs through legislation and creating laws because laws, unlike treaties do not need the consent of Indians. Section 71 was the beginning of the end. Section 71 allowed Congress the right to no longer negotiate with Indians to obtain land. If Congress wanted Indian land, all they had to do was pass a law and the land was theirs.

Question: So all treaties have been breached?

Answer: Yes! Section 71 states, "no obligation of any treaty shall be hereby invalidated or impaired." Section 71 did not typically effect existing treaties but all treaties have been breached nonetheless. In 1903 the Supreme Court held in Lone Wolf vs. Hitchcock that Indian treaties have the same dignity as federal statues. A successful milestone for Indians right? Wrong! Another political ploy! Making Indian treaties equal to federal statues gives the government the power to amend or repeal a treaty just like any other statue. It literally gave the government the right to break treaties simply on a signature.

Question: Give me an example?

Answer: Recently the court reviewed a treaty in which Congress promise never to diminish the size of a tribe's reservation without the consent of the tribe. Not long after the treaty was signed, Congress passed a law diminishing the size of the reservation in which was in direct violation of the signed treaty. They eventually reduced the size of the reservation to the point where they took the land.

Question: But doesn't the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states that Congress shall not deprive anyone of private land?

Answer: Sure it does, but when did the Constitution of the United States apply to minorities? Realistically, any monetary compensation hardly equals the lost of homes and sacred land.

Question: Has the U.S. ever honored treaties?

Answer: No! The government has broken nearly every one of it's treaties. Most of them broken to obtain land.

Question: Can Indians sue the United States for past crimes?

Answer: Let's just say that Indians have the right to file suit in federal court for government violations. Indian tibes have been granted various rights (federal, state, executive order, agency rulings) and at one time, almost every right was violated by a federal official or agency. What we fail to realize is that the Federal Government can not be sued unless the Federal Government consents to it. Sovereign Immunity makes it difficult to sue the United States.

Question: Can Indians sue the Federal Government for reparations for land theft?

Answer: No! Indians can recover compensation for personal injuries suffered when a government official violates an Indian's Civil rights. There are several recovery options ( Personal loss of land, personal injury, workers compensation, flooding, improper medical care, negligent conduct, breach of contract) but not for past deeds of stolen land. Land taken from Indians were taken during a time of discovery, war and/or conquest and even though much of the land was taken without an official declaration of war, or declaration of discovery (obviously), Indians do not have natural deeds to the land. Treaties were drawn up to "officially" take land. Indians cannot sue the Federal Government for treaty breech.


.

Question: Well, doesn't the Due Process Law protect Indians from unfair treatment?

Answer: That is what the Due Process Law is "designed" to do. Due Process Clause is part of the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (in which never applied to minorities.) The Due Process Clause supposedly prohibits Congress from enforcing any law that is arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and discriminatory on the account of race or religion. The same mumbo jumbo they said to American Negroes. However, you know that the Federal Government has passed laws that are quite unfair and discriminatory towards Native Americans and have imprisoned American Indian leaders charging them as felons and threats to national Security. The Just Compensation prohibits Congress from taking private property "without" just compensation. But it still allows them to "take" the land! The Due Process and Just Compensation Laws are simply theoretical clauses with no true applicable intent.

.

[charlesa6]

kgod999, good stuff,good reading,and well emphazised. Keep it rolling,very interesting indeed.

The Origin of Tribes


You mentioned that the Olmecs mixed in with the Chinese to produce the American Indian, explain?


In the 4th century, a Chinese missionary under the Shang Dynasty named Hsu-Shen (Hoshan) came to America in search of his people who were the East Yi (Black Chinese). When the Chinese arrived, they encountered the Olmecs who had already been living on the land. The Chinese considered the black Olmecs as the descendants of the Black Chinese "Yi" people. Hoshan's people settled and mixed in with the Olmecs and produced the "Aboriginal." The Olmecs gave the lower kingdom to these aborigines. The aborigines called the land 'Mu-Xian' which is a combination of the Olmeccan-Ashuric-Aramaic word 'Mu' which means "one", and the Chinese word 'Xian' named after Hsu-Shen. Did you know that there is a province in China today called 'Xian', and that this is the site of the only Chinese pyramids? Mu-Xian became 'Mixian' and eventually 'Mexian' or 'Mexico.' The aborigines called themselves 'Mexicans' and they re-mixed with the Olmecs, which resulted in a sub-tribe called 'Hopi'. The Hopi clan was taught the religion of the Dogon and given the secrets of the stars. Several hundred years later the Hindu East Indians arrived in Mexico and they bred in with the Mexicans and produced Mongoloid tribes like the Inuit and Eskimo who migrated far north to Canada and Alaska.




The Chinese Imperial Dragon / The Olmeccan serpent

Out of the Mexican also came the Aztec, Inca, Toltec, Mixtec, and Mayans which were the five barbarian nations. The Mayans rejected their Olmec ancestry and gravitated toward their Chinese ancestry. The Mayans began practicing human sacrifice and cannibalism. The Mayans were banished by the original Olmecs and were told to leave or be destroyed. The Mayan relocated and sailed east to Asia and mixed in with the Mongols of Southeast Asia and became known as 'Angkor.' Today the Angkors no longer go by their ancient name; their modern day name is 'Cambodian.' Yes, the Cambodians are really the Native Americans that were banished. This is why the ruins of ancient Cambodia are identical to the ruins of the Mayan Empire. Historians claim that the Mayan civilization just vanished. The word 'Maya' means "illusions", because it seemed as if they disappeared over night. The Mayans didn't just disappear; an entire ethnic group just doesn't simply vanish over night, they simply packed up and moved to the other side of the planet.


So you're saying that the Red Indian is an aborigine?

The Red Indian is a result of mixing between the Olmec and Chinese. This is why you have some Native Americans with dark skin with Negroid feature and some with light skin and Mongoloid features.

1. Olmecs - Indigenous Americans
2. Chinese - Immigrants
3. Mexican - Aborigines who were the combination of Olmecs and Chinese
4. East Indian - Immigrants







What about the tribes of North America, where did they come from?

The tribes of North America were a result of Olmec and Mexicans; however, some of the Mexicans continued to mix with the remaining Chinese and produced yellow tribes like Pueblo and Manso. The yellow tribes mixed in with each other and produced tribes like Chinook, Tutuni, Calapuya, Chumash, Oynut, and others. Tribes broke off from each other and produced even more tribes that settled in California. The darker skinned tribes were the tribes that managed to contain much of the Olmec blood like Arapaho, Arikara, Blackfoot, Cheyenne, Crow, Apache, Mandan, Pawnee, Shoshoni. In the 15th century all of this changed, the Europeans arrived for the first time (Spaniards, French, British, Italians, and Portuguese). The Europeans mixed in with all of the tribes (black, red, and yellow), and they produced even more stocks. Today you will find white Native American tribes. Tribes that did not wish to mix with the Europeans were destroyed. The Incas were destroyed by the Spanish who stole their culture and are now calling themselves "Hispanic."


What about the black tribes?

The Olmecs migrated into two directions. One group of Olmecs migrated to the Eastern islands near the Bermuda Triangle and settled in the islands of Jamaica, Haiti, Bahamas, Trinidad, and Barbados. The Olmecs set up colonies on the islands and became known as 'Arawak.' These were the people Christopher Columbus encountered. The Spaniards and British mixed in with the Arawaks. The Olmecs of Haiti went back to their African roots and began practicing their religion of Yoruba which was mistakenly called, "Voodoo." The Arawaks mixed in with the Portuguese and produced a tribe of half Negroid-half Latin called, 'Taino." The Taino were invaded by another tribe called 'Caribs' who were sadistic cannibals. The Caribs migrated to an island what is now known as 'Caribbean.' The other group of Olmecs traveled North and settled into Southeast America and became known as 'Washo' which means, "Raccoon People." These people settled into areas of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Georgia. The Washo mixed with the Malian Moors of Africa who had also come over. The result of this mixing was a tribe of pure blooded black Native Americans called 'Yamasee' (yaa-mass-e or yama-see). The Yamasee resided in Georgia and were the mother tribe of all dark Southeastern and Eastern tribes.


Are you saying that the Yamasee is the mother tribe of all Southeastern and Eastern tribes, and that they were black?

The Yamasee is a direct descendant of the Olmecs through the Wa****aw Moors. The Wa****aw is a derivative of the term 'Wichita' who are known as 'Kitikitish' which means, "Raccoon eyes," which referred to the black Native Americans because of their black faces, thus the term 'Coons' was used to identify a black person. The Yamasee lived in Georgia on the Ocmulgee River near Macon, Georgia and where early Yamasee mounds were discovered. Today, Macon is also the home of the Harriet Tubman African-American Museum. The Yamasse is the mother tribe of the Creeks, Seminoles, Apalachees, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Catawbas, and Cherokee. In the 1700's, the British, French, and Spaniards mixed into many of these tribes. In 1715, the Yamasee rose in rebellion against the English and allied with the Spaniards. Some of the Yamasee-Creeks migrated to what is now known as Savannah Georgia and became outlaws under the tribal name of Yamacraw. When the British began taking women and children into slavery, many black Native American men mixed in with runaway African slaves. A war broke our between the Yamasee and the British in 1715, 'The Yamasee Uprising.' Throughout the 1700's, many tribes were slaughtered. Remnants of these tribes banded together to create an alliance. These newly formed tribes of Yamasee, Coosah, Chowan and Congaree were known as 'Catawbas.' The Catawbas spoke a dialect of the ancient Cu****e language, which was bits and pieces of the original Olmec-African language. The Catawba lived in South Carolina and were the enemies of the Shawnee and Iroquois who were tribes that had mixed in with the French and became almost full blood European. Some of the Catawba joined the Alabama Creeks and mixed in with the Spaniards, and loosing much of their African traits. After the Yamasee Uprising, Native American power collapsed in Georgia and Alabama.

Many of the Yamasee escaped to Florida where they joined runaway African slaves to form what would later be called "Runaways" or 'Seminole.' Other tribes, which came from this union, were the Oconee and the Hitchiti. The Oconee relocated from the Oconee River and moved westward to the Chattahootchie where they mixed in with the Lower Creeks, which resided in the areas of Pensacola and Tallahassee Florida. All of these tribes were originally black tribes of the Yamasee.







You mentioned that some of the Yamasee mixed in with African slaves, could you explain a little more?

The Yamasee scattered throughout the Southeast and East, however a large number of Yamasee escaped from Alabama. The Yamasee and African runaways had a few things in common:

1. Both were of the same ethnic background;
2. Both were able to blend in with each other; and
3. Both had a hatred for the British.

Throughout slavery, thousands of African slaves escaped the plantations and sought refuge with neighboring Native American tribes. The natives had an incredible knowledge of outdoor survival and location. It is often believed that Harriet Tubman, who freed slaves via the Underground Railroad, was herself a black Native American because of her knowledge of paths and terrain. Many African slaves and Native Americans mixed. Even the red tribes took in African slaves. Some tribes even owned African slaves, however, unlike the European, Africans were mostly considered indentured servants and treated as human beings by their Native American slave owners. Today there are red Seminoles and black Seminoles, red Creeks and black Creeks, red Cherokee and black Cherokee.

.

Didn't the Seminoles oppose slavery of Africans?

Yes. The U.S. Army persecuted the Seminoles because they opposed slavery. The Seminoles realized that the people who were being sold into slavery were a faction of them, distant cousins, relatives in a way. The black Seminoles was the only tribe at that time that opposed slavery. U.S. slave holders tried to cause tension between the red Seminoles and the black Seminoles; thus a war erupted between the Seminoles and the U.S. slave holders. Seminoles and African slaves joined together and attacked slave plantations. General Andrew Jackson prepared to wipe out the Seminole. Jackson gathered Creek tribes along with U.S. soldiers to destroy the Seminole. This war lasted for decades and extended all throughout Florida. By 1826, wealthy Creeks who also owned African slaves were sent to persuade the Seminole to join in the slave trade, when the Seminole once again refused, Seminoles were kidnapped and sold on the Southern slave markets. The U.S. Army was also trying to push the red Seminoles out of Florida onto reserved Indian Territory west of the Mississippi. The Army was faced with much opposition with the resistance of the Seminole who were guided by the red Seminole chief Osceola. The red Seminole knew that the whites would not follow after them for their fear of alligators and snakes. The black Seminoles remained in Texas and moved out into Oklahoma, Idaho, and mixed in with Blackfeet, Comanchee, Kiowa, Apache, Mandan, Omaha, Osage, Pawnee, Arikara, and their closest relatives, the Wichita.


Is it true that the tribe 'Blackfoot' got their name because they were black Native Americans?

Not necessarily so. The Blackfoot Indians got their name because they would stain their moccasins with burnt ashes. The Blackfoot tribe was, at one time, Saskatchewan Native Americans who relocated to Montana in search for buffalo. The Blackfoot or Blackfeet consist of three divisions: 1. Siksika, 2. Kainah, and 3. Piegan. The entire group is known as Bloods and are descendants of the Wa****aw Yamasee Moors. If you look closely at many of the Native American tribes, you can still see the African traits.


Are there any pure black tribes left?

There is a woman named Verdiacee Wa****aw-Turner Goston El-Bey, and she is the legal heir by blood to the Maison Rouge land grants that were willed to her great-great-grandfather, Henry Turner. Verdiacee's land is the district of Louisiana which is named after her great-great-great- grandfather's friend Louis Boullingny, who sold the land to Joseph De Maison Rouge in 1795. Joseph had a daughter named Annie in which the land went to her. Annie named the land Louisiana after 'Louis' and 'Annie.' In 1848 the U.S. government took the Turners to court to take the district of Louisiana, however the government lost and the land was granted to the heirs of Henry Turner. Verdaicee has set up a Sovereign Nation of Wa****aw Moors that is recognized by the U.S. Government. The Sub Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities Working Groups on Indigenous Populations recognized the Wa****aw as the oldest indigenous people on earth. The U.S. government does not own the district of Louisiana, as we may believe. Also, the state of Georgia is also owned by the Yamasee, it's documented! Many Native Americans signed treaties with the U.S. government, but never actually sold any of the land over. Technically the land still belongs to the so-called Indians, not the Federal Government.


So you're saying that out of the 550 some Native American tribes, all descended from blacks?

I am saying that all so-called American Indians descended from the Mexican Olmecs and the various African and Asian mixtures throughout. How does that make other Native Americans feel, especially today's Red Indian? It is important that we as Americans understand the origin of the so-called American Indian and it is more important that we accept that truth. Black Indians are no more Native than the so-called "Red Man" in culture. The culture and religion that is practiced today by Native Americans is the natural (non-theological) concepts of the Malian Moors of Africa, the Olmecs and Aztecs of Mexico, as well as the early concepts of the Mound Builders. There are various Indian tribes today that will admit to their African ancestry. The Hopis, Apache, Aztec, Zuni, Nez Perce, Miami, Blackfoot, Catawba, Seminole all possess knowledge of African ancestry. What's more important is not the feelings concerning Indigenous people, but more so the truthful data and the validity and acceptance of that data.


Why do red Native Americans believe that they were the first?

Many red Native Americans that I have run into are well aware of the information that I have just presented to you, some are not aware. Tribes like Hopi, Aztec, Apache, Pueblo, Seminole, Creek, Tuscarora, Susquehanna, have documents in their possession that tells of the stories of the black Gods who gave birth to them. In fact, the Hopi book of the stars that was given to them by the Dogons tells that when the forefathers (Africans) reclaim their throne, the black and red tribes will join together and kill all of the whites. There is a similar parable in most Native American cultures that speaks of the white eagle who captured the red eagle until the black eagle freed the red eagle. The white eagle retreated in the caves from which he came. Look this story up, it's an actual story in Native American culture. It is just as important for red Native Americans to understand true history as it is for blacks in America. Blacks have been convinced that they are all ex-African slaves, of course this is a lie! There had been blacks in this country for thousand of years before the first Europeans. There are millions of blacks in America who, if they traced their family heritage, will not find any African slavery in their family.

Many blacks are children of Yamasee, Seminole, Creek, Cherokee, Blackfoot, Shoshoni, etc. However, the U.S. Government in order to protect their best interest, has kept most of us from true history. The U.S. has also convinced us to classify ourselves as a title that the European political system created in order to place us in a certain social bracket, "African American." As an African American, we have no inalienable or indigenous rights under the Constitution, even worse, as an African American Christian, we dig an even deeper hole for ourselves. As black Christians we have admitted to two things: 1. We are former slaves by calling ourselves African and 2. We are former slaves who converted to the slave owner's religion, thus we sever any connection to Sovereignty or self-identity. As African American Christians, we literally become dependent on the Government and relinquish all indigenous and self-governing classifications, thus we throw ourselves on the mercy of the U.S. Judicial system. Native Americans have what is called 'Autonomy' or 'Self Government' similar to Diplomatic Immunity. As Indigenous people, we have the right to set up our own sovereign nations where we govern our own Judicial, Legislative and Penal system. As an African American, we wave the right of self government and indigenous rights by admitting that we are immigrants (came over from somewhere else), and not indigenous. The 12 arrows in the presidential seal symbolize the distruction of the 12 tribes of the Yamasse Confederation in the southeast, primarily Georgia.

[weasel]

IMMUNITY

I am sure you have heard ELECTED and APPOINTED officials say, they have immunity from prosecution for any thing they have done wrong. Prosecutors and police officers are notorious for that statement. There is a U.S. Supreme Court case that says they are liable. George D Owen V. City of Independence, Missouri. Decided April 16, 1980. When you look this up scroll down to 25 See, e.g., Globe 365 (remarks of Rep. Arthur) (For Owen v Independence Click (HERE)



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...iBookMark=S-2e
5e420-25379-b&CiBookmarkSkipCount=-10&CiRestriction=Immunity

George M. WALLACE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

David HAYSE, in his Official Capacity as Judge in Fayette

District Court, Defendant-Appellee.



No. 93-5382.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Aug. 6, 1993.

E.D.Ky., No. 92-00510; Forester, J.

E.D.Ky.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Before: GUY and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER



George M. Wallace, a pro se Kentucky prisoner, appeals from a judgment of the district court dismissing as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d), his civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).



Wallace's suit was filed against Fayette County District Court Judge David Hayse. Judge Hayse was sued in his official capacity, and Wallace sought injunctive and declaratory relief. The magistrate judge's report determined that Judge Hayse was absolutely immune from suit because the allegations of Wallace's complaint indicated that Judge Hayse was acting in his judicial capacity. Over Wallace's objections, the district judge determined that when a judge is performing an adjudicative function, he is absolutely immune from all suits brought pursuant to Sec. 1983. On appeal, Wallace argues that judicial immunity does not extend to Sec. 1983 suits which request injunctive and declaratory relief.



In Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42 (1984), the court concluded "that judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in her judicial capacity." See also Berger v. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n, 983 F.2d 718, 721 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2416 (1993); Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262, 269 (6th Cir.1984). Therefore, we conclude that the district court committed error when it dismissed Wallace's suit based upon the determination that Judge Hayse enjoyed absolute immunity against Sec. 1983 suits which request injunctive and declaratory relief.



Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration. Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

1 F.3d 1243, Wallace v. Hayse, (C.A.6 (Ky.) 1993)

http://landrights.com/immunity1.htm

Black Seminoles

The Resistance


You mentioned earlier the tribe called Wa****aw Moor. Was this a Native American tribe and where are they now?



The Wa****aw were direct descendants of the Olmecs who mixed in with the Malian Moors. The name "Wa****aw" comes from the Wa****a River which flows along Northwest Texas and Oklahoma to the Red River, where the Cheyenne Native Americans lived with the Chawasha, meaning "Racoon People" . The Washo were a tribe of Negroids who lived above the New Orleans Bayou and were of Tunican linguistic stock. The name "Wa****aw" is a derivative of the term "Ouachita" or what is now "Wichita". The term is a Choctaw term which means "Big Arbor" which represented the Grass thatched arbor homes that the people lived in.

The Wa****aw was originally from lower Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama (named after Nubian-Sudanese Ali Baba). The tribe was officially named "Wichita" by the U.S. Government in the Camp Holmes Treaty of 1835. This tribe were unmistakably a Negroid tribe! The Wichita were also known as "Paniwassaha" or by the French "Panioussa" which means "Black Pawnee." French traders from Illinois called them "Pani Pique" which means "Tattooed Pawnee." The Wa****aw or "Racoon People" were called Racoons because of their black faces. When describing the Wa****aw, the French describes the blacks who lived in large grass houses. The Wa****aw called themselves "Kitikitish" which is an interpretation of "Raccoon Eyed." The term was later shortened to "Coon" which became a term used in reference to blacks in America. The Wa****aw were an offshoot of the Pawnee Confederation. When the Moors came to America, they mixed in with the Wa****aw Native Americans and became known as "Washo." So the Wa****aw Moors are the so-called "Lost" tribe of Indians that are spoken of in the history books? Yes! They are the hidden tribe that were the descendants of the Olmecs and Toltecs of Mexico. The Wa****aw tribe are also the ancestors to such tribes as Pawnee, Osage, Creek, Seminole, Cherokee, Catawba, Comanche, Nez Perce, Tuscarora, Gingaskin, Mattaponi, Powhatten, Micmac, Lumbi, Mandan, Blackfoot, Natchez, Chickasaw, and many more tribes.




left to right: Cherokee woman, Rampo woman, Seminole woman, Mantincock man
Photos by Louis B Myers courtesy of African Native Americans - We are still here



Were the Black Indians ever sold into slavery?

The misconception is that Black Indians were never taken into slavery. This is not the case. Black Indians were also captured and sold into slavery along with their African cousins. The land of the Black Indians were taken. Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Illinois, Florida, Delaware, Tennessee, Kansas, Iowa, Indiana all belonged to the Wa****aw Moors. The land was invaded by the French and British. The women were sold as sex slaves and the men were sold into slavery as "Negros." The U.S. Government even persuaded the red Indian tribes to own slaves. The Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, and Chickasaw tribes all agreed to slave holding of black Indians and Africans. The only tribe to resist the idea of slavery was the Seminole tribe. The Seminoles rejected the idea because they were the descendants of African explorers who settled in Florida and mixed with Muskogee refugees who had mixed in with the Spanish. They called themselves "Runaways." These black Seminoles who settled in the swampy terrain of Florida established cultivation methods that were identical to that of the methods of Sierre Leone in Africa. Georgia slave holders were soon invading Florida looking for runaway slaves and were soon met with opposition with Seminoles.

The Seminoles tried to live a peaceful life in their own territory but Georgia militias were preparing to raid Florida looking for African slaves (many whom had already sought refuge with the Seminoles and blended in perfectly since both Africans and Seminoles were black.) The Seminoles, African runaways, and the Spanish all aligned with each other to fight off the slave holders. In 1739 slave fugitives in St. Augustine built a fort to protect themselves and the British. Black Seminoles led the coalition against slavery in the North. Black Seminoles even planted "spies" posing as African slaves being sold by Creeks to the British just to gather information. Eventually the red Seminoles began to join the resistance. This is when the U.S. Government became worried. The government never anticipated the well working relationship between the reds and blacks. Georgia slave holders soon realized that the Seminole Nation could put an end to slavery. This caused the first Seminole War. Seminoles struck U.S. slave plantations. When the St. Augustine blacks joined in the Seminole raids were destructive and the Seminoles could not be stopped. General Andrew Jackson of the U.S. Military vowed to wipe out the Seminoles. The Seminoles took control of a British fortress and re-named it "Fort Negro" which was manned by black Seminole officers. The Seminole army consisted of 300 Seminole men in which only 34 were red Indians.

African slaves began to join the army the Seminoles seemed indestructible. With General Andrew Jackson's rank on the line, he gathered U.S. troops, Marines and sought the assistance of 500 Creek Indians. Jackson's orders were to kill the Seminoles, blow up the fort and restore the Africans to their rightful owners. A war erupted after the Seminoles refused surrender and a cannon ball was fired into the Fort Negro's ammunition barracks which blew up the fort. In the ruins, 270 Seminoles were dead, 64 were fatally wounded and the leader of the Seminole resistance, Garcia was captured alive and then executed. General Jackson kept this incident a secret from the public for 20 years because Jackson never had an official declaration of war signed, therefore it was considered murder, not war. However, this massacre was only the beginning of the Seminole resistance and was only the first of three Seminole wars that would carry on for years. The remaining black Seminoles relocated to the Tampa Bay area where they nursed their wounds and prepared for the next battle. The Seminoles this time joined forced with Chief Billy Bowlegs. Without the U.S. Congress knowledge, Andrew Jackson went on a rampage throughout Florida burning black Seminole villages of Fowltown. When James Monroe took the U.S. Presidency in 1817, Jackson proposed a secret plan to take Florida from the Seminoles who at the time owned certain territories of Florida.

Jackson soon captured Pensacola and without a declaration of war, Florida passed into U.S. hands! Another state owned by blacks that the U.S. captured. Since Florida was officially Spanish territory, the U.S. paid Spain $5 million for Florida, making Jackson's illegal seizure appear as a real estate purchase. The U.S. then tried to separate the black and red Seminoles by trying to convince the Seminole leader King Hatchy to turn over anyone who had black skin. King Hatchy replied that he would use force if any government tried to pass through the Seminole territory and he would not hand over any black Seminoles. To disrupt racial alliance between blacks and reds, the U.S. promoted slavery among the Seminoles and tried to convince them that the other "Indian" nations were also interested in slavery. The Seminoles rejected. The U.S. then sent in wealthy Creek Indians who owned slaves to persuade their tribal cousin the red Seminoles to become slave holders. Whites and Creek Indians were encouraged to raid black Seminole villages for slaves. Free Seminole men, women, and children were carried off and sold in southern slave markets as "Negros." Many black Seminoles relocated further into the swamps and became known as "Maroon." Other black Seminoles agreed to be taken into slavery as long as they were able to own their own cattle, horses, hogs, and were treated like family rather than like their African cousins.

These black Seminoles had equal liberty with whites. These Seminoles were not considered slaves but they were considered Seminoles who maintained their African names, dressed in fine Seminole clothing, and turbans. The remaining Seminoles migrated to Mexico for 20 years and others migrated to Texas and mixed in with the black tribes of the Wa****aw.

Washo

Our First Nation


What about the African Slave Trade?

Much of the so-called African Slave Trade was fabricated. There was no trade! An independent source showing that the so-called Indians on the Eastern Seaboard (also called Terra Nova), were Moors, is a book called; "Africans and Native Americans", by Jack D. Forbes. He shows in the book how many so-called Native American Indians were sold into slavery in Africa and Europe. This is the opposite direction in which we were taught the slave trade went in. These Native Americans or Indians were classified as Negroes and Blacks in the slaves books of Seville Spain and elsewhere. On page 29 he says; " slaves from Terranova show up in the slave markets of Seville and Valencia very soon after 1500. For example; in Valencia during the period to 1516, we find in 1503 Miguel, Manne, in 1505 Juan and Pedro, in 1507 Antonio and Juan Amarco, in 1515 Ali, now Melchor, in 1516 Catalina. ... they were all classified as Negroes...". if we were first brought to North America around 1619 or even 1555, for that matter, then how were they taking slaves from Newfoundland, to Europe? Keep in mind that one of the "Native Americans" even had the name "Ali" and all were classified as Negro once they reached Yalencia. How did a Native American in 1515 have the Moorish name "Ali"?





At least 3,000 Americans (so-called Indians) are known to have been shipped to Europe between 1493 and 1501 (the Columbus Expeditions), with the likely total being possibly double that. Most were sent to the Seville area, where they seem to show up in the slave markets as Negroes. These are major contradictions to the whole slave trade myth. Blacks were always in America! The "Missing Indians" are Negroes! The slaves sold on the slave markets in the South were initially the black people from right here in this Hemisphere. As they took the lands here, they enslaved the inhabitants of those lands who were blacks. The tens of millions of Americans (so-called Indians) who disappeared after 1492 did not all die in the 'holocaust' inflicted within America. Many thousand were sent to Europe and Africa as slaves. The whole slave trade myth is that the whole story was given to us in reverse. A mass colony of Africans were not shipped from Africa to America, but the truth is that Black Indians were shipped from America to Europe! They were then shipped from Spain to Africa as commodity for African resources. These Black Indians (now mistaken as Africans) were shipped back to America and classified as "African Slaves." This part of our history is what the school systems failed to mention in their history programs!



Are you saying that there was no Slave Trade?

There was indeed a kidnapping of Africans from Africa to America. However, it was a result of the mass shipment and slaughter of Moors in America at the hands of Columbus' expeditions. Columbus' first journey in 1492 was a mission to capture gold but he was side tracked by the presence of the black Moors. Columbus sent word back to the Monarchs of Spain that there were (what he referred to in his logs as the people of Queen Sheba). Columbus kidnapped Arawak Indians along with gold nuggets, exotic birds, and grain. Queen Isabella provided Columbus with seventeen ships, 1500 men, cannons, crossbows, guns, and attack dogs for the second voyage. Columbus' new mission was to conquer the West. When Columbus returned to the West (Haiti) and South America in 1493, he not only took raw materials and resources but he abducted women. After a short time the Arawaks resisted Columbus and on March 25, 1495 Columbus slaughtered thousands of Arawak natives of men, women, and babies. Columbus also rounded up 1500 Arawaks and shipped them to Spain.



Columbus became the first man known in history to send the first slaves across the Atlantic. Other nations rushed to emulate Columbus. In 1501 the Portuguese began to depopulate the Beotuk Indians to Cape Verde as slaves. The black Indian slavery destroyed the Indian nations of Natchez, Yamasee, Pequots. Because of this, the first African slave raid took place in 1505 and was spearheaded by Columbus' son. When the Moors (Indians) of America began dying and committing suicide the labor was replaced with slaves from the Sahara in West Africa. Also, the gold and silver that Columbus extracted from America fueled a 400% inflation that eroded the economies of non European nations and helped Europe to develop a global market system. Africa suffered a great economical blow. The Trans-Saharan trade collapsed because America supplied more precious gems than the African West Coast. African traders now only had one commodity that Europe wanted, slaves! African Sultans thus sold their own black people into slavery to whites. It is safe to say that Columbus is solely responsible for the slavery of the Moors from West to East and from East to West.



The bottom half of an African slave ship. These ships were called "Big Bottoms" as they were constructed to hold hundreds of Africans packed in like sardines. These trips from Africa to America took up to three to four months from east to west. According to history, these hundreds of Africans urinated on themselves during the journey. Four months of constant urination? These slaves would have literally drowned! Does this story make sense?


How did the Dogons (Malian Moors-Olmecs) arrive in America?

The Dogons were already on American land because they simply sailed over by way world wide wind and currents. The first of Africans to set foot on American soil were infact the Dogons of Mali who used such currents as The Canary and North Equilateral Current that recycles from West Africa to America and into the upper Atlantic Ocean. This was before the invention of sails. The Guinea Current flows eastward along the Guinea Coast with frequent cycles out to the sea where it joins the South Equatorial. The second group of Africans to land in America were under the leadership of Abubakari in 1311 and had mixed in with the Olmecs and became known as "Washo." The third group of Africans to land on American soil were the Idrisids who were the ruling dynasty of Southern Morocco and Mauritania who came into Morocco before the invasion by the Dogon Malians and the Senegalese. This group of Moors arrived in 1727 with Mansa Khan Musa who was searching for his ancestors of Abubakari.