Barbara Boxer: Family Profits From Fake Indian Tribe She Helped Create

By Proof

Funny thing! I wasn't even going to write about this, I was just going to post a link to it in the Saturday Linkaround and let people read or not read it as they will. Then, getting ready to post the link, I went to The Hill and found this:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Although, if you look, the comments below the "page not found" reference this story. But, I guess it could have been a "broken link", so I took their advice and searched "Barbara Boxer Indian", was taken to this page:
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

And when I clicked on the link guess where it took me? (Bonus points if you guessed "page not found"). Here's from a helpful email from the Fiorina camp:

The Hill’s Pundits Blog: Barb Boxer’s Indian tribe take
By Rick Manning
October 30, 2010
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/lawmaker-news/126619-barb-boxers-indian-tribe-take


For the past 10 years Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) has been playing a game that would make Jack Abramoff blush, a game that can best be described using the language of “Get Smart’s” Maxwell Smart as “the ole family-profiting-off-of-the-Indian-tribe-that-you-created trick.”


Here’s the story.


In 1998, Lynn Woolsey introduced legislation reinstating an Indian tribe in the wine country of Northern California that had been declared defunct by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1958. None of the Indians of the tribe objected at that time; they received a payment and went about their lives. The Woolsey bill would reinstate the tribe but specifically prohibited them from starting a casino. The legislation ran into trouble when the Bureau of Indian Affairs opposed the legislation because it had not seen any evidence that the tribe was significantly tied to the terminated tribe.


In 2000, Boxer helpfully picked up the Woolsey bill, but changed the prohibition against gaming, and designated any land that the group owned to be considered as a reservation.


In the same year, Boxer got her language into the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act of 2000, and with the changes unbeknownst to either fellow Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) or House sponsor Woolsey (D), the bill was signed into law by then-President Clinton.


With us so far? A defunct tribe of Indians gets reinstated and Boxer inserts language that states in essence, any land they purchase becomes a "reservation". Neat, huh? Get around all those federal and local laws and taxes with the stroke of a pen. But as they say on the infomercials, Wait! There's more!

Shortly after passage, the newly minted Indian tribe declared that after much soul-searching, the only thing it could do was open a casino on the outskirts of San Francisco in the town of Rohnert Park.


The tribe turned its fortunes over to two firms to make its dreams of wealth come true — Platinum Advisers, a political consulting/lobbying firm, and Kenwood Investments 2. Amazingly, and I’m certain quite coincidentally, Barbara Boxer’s son, Doug, was a partner in each firm.


To avoid immediate citizen concern about a casino popping up in their posh neighborhood, Doug Boxer’s Kenwood Investments 2 kindly fronted for the casino interests in purchasing a tract of land in Rohnert Park, as well as helpfully taking options on adjoining parcels of land for themselves to sweeten the pot. (Can I say pot and Sonoma County, Calif., in the same breath?)


Then Platinum Advisers sprang into action to try to gain community support for the casino. They apparently didn’t do a very good job, because the casino still is not built 10 years later.


According to Reference.com, Doug Boxer’s take from the project was a very Abramoff-like $8 million.


What makes the story timely is that the federal government just a couple of weeks ago was compelled to declare the land that Boxer’s son had purchased on behalf of the Indian casino a reservation, effectively killing the local zoning and lawsuits that had tied the project up in knots for most of the past decade.


The Santa Rosa Press Democrat rightly pinned the federal decision right on the Senate Ethics* Committee chairwoman’s doorstep by pointing out that since she used the word shall, rather than may, in the legislation that birthed this tribe, the federal government had no choice but to declare the property that the tribe subsequently purchased to be tribal lands.


The rest of the post goes on to examine the, shall we say, less than stellar (or convincing) bona fides of this "tribe." Read the whole thing if it ever goes back up.

Both Boxer and Harry Reid have done very well by their children, by steering millions of dollars their way. Now if someone could only remind them to do right by the people who elected them and the taxpayers of this country.

Could you remind them for me next Tuesday?

*"Senate Ethics" - under Boxer, an oxymoron. (See: "Obama Justice Department")

Cross posted at Proof Positive

Update: Welcome Red Staters! Moe Lane has written on this as well here.

Update x2: The Hill article that was taken down can be viewed, cached, here.

6 comments:

  1. Not surprisingly there has not been a peep from the LSM about this. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    People need to remember this when they cast their vote on Tuesday.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I had always wondered what gave Indian tribes the right to buy any old piece of property (so long as it had freeway access) and call it "tribal Indian" land.

    Now, I guess we know!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Notwithstanding how the whole "tribal land" as separate entities from the US and it's laws is a pretty direct and straightforward violation of our Constitution (in spirit, if not in technicality), I have to be impressed: that's a pretty creative and bold way to steal money. As a bonus, the "separate laws" treatment for Indian "reservations" means the surrounding residents have no recourse whatsoever.

    Of course, Boxer needs to step up her game; sealing $8 million might seem like a lot of money, but you're playing in the big leagues. Obama printed and handed out over $800 Billion to his cohorts; that's roughly 10,000 times as much embezzlement from the people as Boxer's theft. Of course Obama didn't literally give away part of the country also, so Boxer probably wins in style points, and perhaps in lasting damage... but really, $8 million is an accounting error in the Obama administration's grand theft.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "$8 million is an accounting error in the Obama administration's grand theft" True, but had not Babs resurrected the 40 year defunct tribe, and inserted the absurd notion that any land they buy is "tribal land" and a "reservation", there would have been no multimillion dollar payoff for her family.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Democrats and Indians? I seem to remember the current WA governor armpit deep in indian corruption, too.

    Listen, Democrats and progressives: You all whine about Republicans being "bought and paid for" by "Big Business". They're merely HONEST about it, and usually unabashed cheerleaders for business. The Democrats LIE about it, allowing actual corruption. Because they assume you are too STUPID to hold them to account. Which you are. Because you DON'T.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Christians should not vote for "Senator" Boxer:

    Christians cannot vote for Senator Barbara Boxer because: (1) She is willing to tolerate infanticide, (2) she supports gay marriage, (3) she thinks global warming is more of a threat than Islamic terrorism,
    (4) she values the environment more than jobs, (5) she opposes Proposition 23 along with Communist Van Jones, (6) and most importantly, her views if fully realized as social policy, will lead to the persecution of Christians in this country, as Liberals are truly the greatest persecutors of those who dare do disagree with them. That is why no Christian should vote for Boxer. If they truly loved their brothers and sisters they would not support someone who wants to persecute them for their beliefs.

    ReplyDelete

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.