The Bureau of Indian Affairs headquarters building was raided, ransacked, vandalized, and ultimately occupied for almost a week—November 3rd through the 9th of 1972...
Nearly 500 American Indians marching with the American Indian Movement (AIM – a liberally funded “progressive grassroots” movement) ended their attention grabbing parade called the Trail of Broken Treaties, in front of the BIA building in Washington D.C.. This cross-country political parade was intended to highlight American Indian’s social issues, such as their standard of living and obligated treaty rights as legally sovereign nations.
Activist and news contributor Bob Simpson would point out that “leaders of the Trail of Broken Treaties were negotiating with the Interior Department over the question of housing. Suddenly fighting broke out between several GSA security guards and a group of young Indians.” He goes on to say that “apparently the guards misunderstood that the BIA had given the Indians permission to stay in the building past closing time. The guards were quickly overpowered and escorted from the building. Indians ran through the BIA building at 19th & Constitution breaking up furniture to barricade entrances and manufacture makeshift weapons. The occupation was on.”
Once inside the Indian Affair’s building, protesters displayed their militant frustration towards the interior of the building. These radicals threw over furniture against windows and doors barricading against potential police interference. Other members of the group set multiple fires in different interior offices and vandalized the polished marble lobbies. Unfortunately many historic documents were destroyed in the vandalism—with a second estimated valued loss of $700,000 to American taxpayers.
The following day on November 4th—John Chancellor, reporting desk anchor for NBC News mentioned: “Several hundred American Indians remained in the Bureau of Indian Affairs building in Washington today. They took it over late yesterday after scuffles with police.” Moments later, news field-anchor John Cochran reported live stating: “It was peaceful if not quiet at the Indian Affairs Bureau, but nothing was settled today. The Indians are waiting for The Administration to respond to their demands for reforms in the way the government deals with Indians. And they’re asking for a decent place to eat and sleep while in Washington. Until they get it, they vow to stay in what they call ‘their embassy.”
After a few days of altercation, the protesters began to run out of supplies. There was quickly little food and provision to sustain their opportunistic operation. The AIM protesters would not allow any police or government representatives to cross into the Bureau of Indian Affairs building. Because of this, two children of BIA employees were recruited (whether by coercion or force is unknown) to bring in supplies and rations for the volatile American Indian protesters.
It was reported that the radical AIM’s actions created the loss, destruction, and theft of many historical records—mainly critical treaties, property deeds, and water rights documentation. Even Indian officials stated that the consequences to the American Indian Movement’s actions could set the North American Indian culture back 50 to 100 years—with a final estimated loss of nearly $2.28 million dollars in damages and theft by the hostile takeover of the BIA to the American taxpayer.
In the end, it was the Nixon Administration who would secretly sign the “Menominee Restoration Act” on December 22nd, 1973. This policy would ultimately give the Menominee Indians full recognized tribal status by the U.S. government, and returning their land assets to trust status. Although it was only one tribe benefiting from this policy, it was a direct message sent to those who understood Nixon’s political interests as a Democratic politician. Especially when it was obvious his administration passively gave in to the demands.
As I have researched, I have uncovered further evidence of the serious corruption and politicization that governmental and political entities tend to enable and create.
We all know that the Nixon Administration was deemed corrupt, but just how deep did this administration sink in enabling the American Indian Movement’s hostile takeover of the Bureau of Indian Affairs headquarters building? It’s a great question. And the answer lies in the aforementioned involvement of certain political and governmental parties.
After the short BIA building takeover of 1971, there was research and formal organization prepared for and recruited by AIM. These consisted of sympathetic volunteer lawyers, professors, and scholars that would look up legislative policies, executive orders, as well as the BIA budget and its formal practices. The Nixon administration was said to have supported the AIM financially through proxy. That is, sympathetic groups were committed to the financial backing of AIM. Financial backing could only be committed through allotted special funds to meet the rapidly growing liberal civil rights movements of the 1970’s.
The year prior to the BIA takeover in Washington D.C.— Democratic (and quite liberal) President Nixon stated in his 1970 address to Congress:
“The special relationship between Indians and the Federal government is the result instead of solemn obligations which have been entered into by the United States Government. Down through the years, through written treaties and through formal and informal agreements, our government has made specific commitments to the Indian people.
For their part, the Indians have often surrendered claims to vast tracts of land and have accepted life on government reservations. In exchange, the government has agreed to provide community services such as health, education and public safety, services which would presumably allow Indian communities to enjoy a standard of living comparable to that of other Americans.
This goal, of course has never been achieved…”
Younger American Indians and First Nations peoples would give the most support to the American Indian Movement’s radical cause. The groups and entities found sympathetic to the BIA takeover of 1972 were:
This is also this same type of ideology and behavior that commits citizens to the destruction of their own history that we will never, ever see again in America. This past historical event should also concern every single one of us regarding corruption in politics, including political and cultural “grassroots” movements… because “movements” only carry temporary momentum, and are contrary to societal continuity and perseverance.
Isaiah 5:20 says, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”
Daniel L. Smith,
 Simpson, Robert. "Native Americans Take Over Bureau of Indian Affairs: 1972." Washington Area Spark. Last modified May 10, 2013. https://washingtonareaspark.com/2013/03/26/native-americans-take-over-bureau-of-indian-affairs-1972/.
 The Washington Post (Washington D.C.). "Amnesty Denied To Indians." November 10, 1972. https://www.maquah.net/Historical/1972/images/72-11-10_amnesty_denied.jpg. Note: An initial first estimate was officialized at about $250,000 in damages within the building.
 "Occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs" NBC News, New York, NY: NBC Universal, 11/03/1972. Accessed Sat Jan 11 2020 from NBC Learn: https://highered.nbclearn.com/portal/site/HigherEd/browse/?cuecard=5170
 The Washington Post (Washington D.C.). " Justice Eyes Way to Charge Indians.” November 10, 1972. https://www.maquah.net/Historical/1972/images/72-11-1_justice_charge_indians.jpg.
 The Washington Post (Washington D.C.). " Damage to BIA Third Heaviest Ever in U.S..” November 11, 1972. https://www.maquah.net/Historical/1972/images/72-11-11_damage_to_BIA.jpg.
 Nixon, Richard. "Special Message to the Congress on Indian Affairs." The American Presidency Project. Last modified July 8, 1970. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/special-message-the-congress-indian-affairs.
They say... that the Progressive Era brought in a liberal social movement to deal with the various social needs of that time. Policies in which would eventually turn into one big mass-social reform. Progressives supposedly turned their attention to problems such as class warfare, poverty, violence, racism, poor health. They seemed determined to eradicate through better education, a safer environment, an honest government, and an efficient workplace...
John Dewey, a pragmatic humanistic (opposite of Christianity) philosopher once said, “We want to bring all things educational together, to identify the lower and higher education, so that it shall be demonstrated to the eye that there is no lower or higher, but simply education.” Dewey should have ended it with “but simple education.”
Dr. Stephen McDowell of Providence Foundation writes:
“According to the National Commission on Excellence in Education, America is 'A Nation at Risk.' The 1980's report stated: ‘If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.’ The consequences of this poor performance are not only declining knowledge but also declining morality, both of which are necessary for a free and prosperous nation. The mediocrity is primarily due to a state monopolized educational system that has rejected its Christian foundation, replacing it with a secular ideology that teaches man is the ultimate authority and source of truth.”
“Contrary to the belief of many ‘educrats,’ the underlying problem is not financial but ideological. We have replaced a Christian philosophy with a secular philosophy of education. The Apostle Paul warns us: “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ” (Col. 2:8).”
And if that doesn’t explain it clearly, try this on for size:
“Comparing the Christian and humanistic philosophies of law reveals why the left has such apoplectic rage at having lost power and why they are willing to do anything to regain it, while conservatives accept liberals ruling with relative calm.”
“Law, from a Christian perspective and as the Founders of America viewed it, originates in the will of God, revealed in general to man through nature and his conscience, and more specifically in the revelation of the Scriptures. Law from a humanistic view is rooted in man, ultimately autonomous man, but practically in the state, and in the consensus of the majority, or of a powerful minority.”
“From a Biblical perspective man is fallen and fallible, has a sinful nature, and thus needs to be restrained. The Biblical purpose of civil law is to restrain the evil action of men in society. True law reveals what is right and wrong, and hence, exposes law-breakers. But law in itself cannot produce what is right, nor can it change the heart or attitude of man; therefore, the Christian acknowledges the inability to legislate “good,” or to make people moral by passing laws. However, the Christian recognizes the moral basis of all laws. All laws everywhere are based upon the moral presuppositions of the law-makers. Laws against murder reflect a moral belief. Laws against theft are based upon the command to not steal. All law has a moral concern. The important question to the Christian is ‘whose morality does it legislate?’”
“Humanists see the evils in society and in man, but explain them differently than Christians. To the humanist there is no higher being than man. There is no incarnate Savior. From a humanistic perspective there is no hope of internal regeneration to save man, therefore, any salvation or transformation that occurs in men or nations must come from man. Historically, humanistic man has tended to use the instrument of law and government to attempt to bring such a transformation or ‘salvation.’”
“Having no other means of provision, of salvation, or of peace, humanistic man attempts to regulate and provide all things through government and law. It is only through the force of law that evil will be eliminated and utopia established on earth. Humanistic law is used to promote and advance humanistic morals. Such law, in conjunction with a corresponding educational system, is the only hope humanistic man has of establishing a ‘saved’ or ‘righteous’ — that is, good and progressing — society.”
“To restate this, if there is no God who redeems man internally, then any elimination of problems brought on by what is in the heart of man must be done by man — often collective man and his government. The attempt will thus be made by government (at least those that have a vision for a progressing society) to use the instrument of law to bring more peace and goodwill among men and to eliminate all that is negative, such as poverty, crime, war, disease, prejudice, and ignorance.”
“People with this worldview will also often look to government to provide their own personal material needs, and they usually vote for those who promise them the most. Therefore, it is not surprising that in the last election (as well as all recent elections) the vast majority of people receiving food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, disability, Obamacare subsidies, and various welfare benefits voted for liberal Democrats, who promised to continue and/or expand such programs.”
There are quite reasonable, and logical explanations for why certain individuals, societal entities, and leftist government have turned America into the breeding ground for vice, hostility, and confusion that we see around us every single day we step outside of our homes. This is not a fiction dystopian; this is a non-fiction reality that needs to be addressed with righteous continuity and perseverance. I fear that without pro-activity on our part; one day soon all of the practical ways to make money, how you teach your children, how you treat your health, and how you divvy up your own personal time will be completely framed-up by government and government proxies with no room for you to move socially, economically, or politically.
Sadly, a larger and larger percentage of the American population is knowingly and unknowingly inviting a personal life under a communal and socialist ideology. In a country where the government provides the mass majority of societies safety net—you really do start to see the demoralizing fruits of this condescending phenomena over a couple of decades. The intimate sense of self-value and worth that this nation is founded and built upon, are the same virtuous principles which have traditionally produced the truth in America’s success over societal progresses and advancements.
Our liberty is like a thick onion that is being peeled in layers; the more we see liberal government intrusively providing for the private citizenry of America—the less liberty we will have to enjoy. We are, and we will run out of the “freedom-of-option” that us American’s have come to appreciate. Get involved with your church, community and in local politics. It’s not an obligation, it’s truly an American responsibility. And, as always, continue to seek the truth…
Daniel L. Smith,
 "Democracy and Education, by John Dewey." Accessed June 5, 2020. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/852/852-h/852-h.htm.
 Dr. McDowell, Stephen K. "A Nation at Risk: Changing Textbooks Reveal the Secularization of American Education." Providence Foundation. Last modified June 19, 2018. https://providencefoundation.com/a-nation-at-risk-changing-textbooks-reveal-the-secularization-of-american-education/.
 Dr. McDowell, Stephen K. "Why Do the Leftists Rage?: A War of Worldviews." Providence Foundation. Last modified February 15, 2017. https://providencefoundation.com/why-do-the-leftists-rage-a-war-of-worldviews/.
The legacy of the Civil War is profound. Ramifications are felt all the way into our more modern times and today it’s in the fabric of our culture. It certainly was not a matter of “hero” and “villain”—because we all know that in life there is good and evil. It could be said that for some, the envisioning of good and evil is a regional concept. That is, as long as good and evil exist, it will fit into whatever struggle meets an individual or groups own societal political narrative.
While I myself would never condone the Confederacy, it is in our more recent history that American symbols for southern tradition and culture were either destroyed or removed. Whatever the matter, destroying history is a sin. At least in these eyes. General Robert E. Lee actually has a biography that is incredible. I highly recommend reading it if you ever have the time. Lee was a man of prestige, honor, and righteousness—even before and after the American Civil War.
A great example to give is this: In a conversation with a minister one Sunday morning shortly after the start of the war. Lee was asked: “Is it your expectation that the issue of this war will be to perpetuate the institution of slavery?” Lee replied: “The future is in the hands of Providence, but if the slaves of the South were mine, I would surrender them all without a struggle to avert a war.” This is just one fraction of the truthful character General Lee showed not just in public, but during private conversation. And besides virtues, his military record was pretty spectacular regardless of his personal decision and belief to take on the calling as a revered Confederate general.
I think we all have a pretty good idea that the Union was blessed by God throughout the Civil War. God is good, and a confederacy against God (and His ultimate final planning) is evil. Did you know that the Bible speaks of the Confederacy and Confederates throughout the Scriptures? True stuff. The Bible gives the origin and meaning behind “Confederate” and “Confederacy.” Check this out: Isaiah 7:2, and 8:12—speaks of a confederate rebellion . Also, even Genesis 14:13 speaks of those being confederate with Abram. Not convinced yet? Check out Obadiah 7 and Psalm 83:5 too!
The Confederacy was not just the title of a grey-dawning, slave-owning, southern aristocracy—it is a deep seated principle cloaked in rebellion. Ultimately, there was no way God was going to sanction the South to be allowed to continue slavery in a truly free society… especially after God Himself sent Moses to free the Israelites from captivity in Egypt. Answers-in-Genesis, ran by Ken Ham, also the Founder of the Creation Museum, explains that “[From Noah] Ham’s son Mizraim founded Egypt (still called Mizraim in Hebrew). Egypt was the first recorded nation in the Bible to have harsh slavery and it was imposed on Joseph, the son of Israel, in 1728 BC, according to Archbishop Ussher. Later, the Egyptians were slave masters to the rest of the Israelites, and Moses, by the hand of God, freed them.”
Under this same principle, is it not unreasonable to believe that Abraham Lincoln was brought up to his position to ultimately lead the southern slaves to freedom? Is it not unreasonable to believe that God sanctioned the Union’s cause? If America was founded by Divine Providence, that is, through the guidance and intervention of God in its national inception; the last bastion of liberty and freedom on the planet—than just how unreasonable is it to believe that the Confederacy was not included within God’s final plan?
And look, even further, Romans 8:31 states “If God is for us, Who can be against us?” It’s simple. Providentially, if the Union was sanctioned by God to achieve victory and emancipation, there was absolutely no way outside of a daydream that the South would have won the Civil War in the first place.
“And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.” – Romans 8:28
Daniel L. Smith,
 Dr. Beliles, Mark A., and Stephen K. McDowell. "The War for the Union." In America's Providential History, 3rd ed., 233. Charlottesville, 2010. Print.
 Hodge, Bodie, and Paul K. Taylor. "The Bible and Slavery." Answers in Genesis. Last modified February 2, 2007. https://answersingenesis.org/bible-history/the-bible-and-slavery/.