How DOES Energy Effect Us?

Seekers of light and those basking in it, talk Energy. Energy work, healing... the energy of color and sound.

Well there is a Dark Side to Energy too. And here is a story about it.

~~~ energy work ~~~

This is why i am opposed to digging up graves of the ancestors. specifically my american indian ancestors.

the other day my mom and i went to a museum in alabama, and found that they have human remains on display, in violation of NAGPRA.

what disturbed me even more was the fact that they had all the items of a medicine person, that the medicine person was buried with on display.

to many native peoples. this is a grave (pardon the pun) mistake.... to disturb the ancestors like this.

this medicine woman/man was buried with a big shell behind the right side of her head, a crystal at her left elbow, a clay water pitcher, and some other things at her knees and her hip bones.

all of this stuff should be put back with the bones of the ancestor.

Earth is a living organism, and is a part of the whole energy that makes up the cosmos. the ancient people had a far better understanding than what christianized, moslemized world society has today, of the workings of the energy, the universe and our place in it.

natives also believe that we come from Earth, that we are part of Earth... for what energy reasons?

to disturb the energy the way the archaeologists did, to me, might be one reason why things are screwed up.

yes, and i feel this way about Egyptology, and all other intelligent homo sapiens that have walked Earth and who have burial rites and reasons for being put to rest the way they were.

we should return all of these things to ther rightful place and with the right people with whom these objects were buried, and how. and we should have people knowledgeable of the rites and ceremonies -- or as close to it as possible, perform the repatriation ceremonies.

maybe then things might be better on this planet, energy-wise. maybe not 100% cured, but better.

where these people's graves were disturbed and violated by the ignorant archaeologist, now lays a nuclear power plant.

tell me, that isn't something?

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia -- Banana Commentary

The Supreme Court of the United States (hereafter called SCOTUS), held that the United States Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter of "The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia," because the Cherokee Nation was neither a State nor was it a Foreign Nation.

Chief Justice John Marshall argued that the United States Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, because the Cherokee Nation is not a State, because there were Cherokee policies that were adverse to the United States' interests. Well that is a whole enchilada of an argument there, but even if the Cherokee Nation could is not a State, what would the Cherokee nation be? Wouldn't it be a foreign nation?

According to Chief Justice John Marshall, no. Justice Marshall reasoned that the Cherokee Nation is not a Foreign Nation, because they are not "foreign" to the United States. We could take the Scalia approach and break down the dictionary meaning of "foreign" to make it mean what we say it means in relation to the United States, but John Marshall did not even bother rationalizing his error, knowing clearly that he was in error in finding that SCOTUS did not have jurisdiction over the case.

But even if one lets Justice Marshall have his way, without reason, the meaning "foreign" as it refers to Indian Nations relations with the United States, the Supreme Court of the United States does indeed have jurisdiction to hear the case.

Article III, Section 8 of the United States Constitution: Congress has the Power to ‘regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.' This is a case where the Cherokee Nation was in dispute with the State of Georgia over "hunting lands." This is clearly within the scope of Congress' commerce powers. The State of Georgia did not have the Power to determine the hunting lands of the Cherokee Nation, for this land was under Cherokee control at the time of this dispute. And Congress, on the other hand, under Treaty, could work symbiotically with the Cherokee Nation, then its regulatory function in this case might not be unconstitutional itself.

So basically, this case is an example of how words can be manipulated to mean one thing when they really could mean something else, all depending on who is making the decision and whether he can do it without Prejudice, something John Marshall should have learned better in Law School.