Speech 1NC Rd 1 2-3 1PM

Payroll Tax Backfile
Payroll DA ʹ 1NC

Payroll will pass - it͛s top of the docket and PC is key
Wong, writer for POLITICO, 1/16
[Scott, January 16, 2012, ³Payroll tax cut deal may come faster than expected´,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71509.html, 1/16/12, atl]

The one-year payroll tax deal that eluded Congress last month ² and set off a nasty brawl that bloodied
Republicans who opposed Democrats¶ short-term fix ² could get wrapped up surprisingly quickly in
the new session. The main sticking point from December¶s showdown is largely moot: Both parties are
now pushing for a full-year extension of the Social Security tax cut for 160 million Americans. Aides note
that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had been
on the cusp of a longer-term deal as time ran out just before Christmas. Democrats this time around also
won¶t be able to tie the payroll bill to legislation needed to keep the government running; President Barack
Obama already signed a $1 trillion spending bill into law. And Republicans say their House-passed, one-
year extension is primarily funded by offsets backed by the White House, though Democrats previously
voiced loud opposition to the bill. Sure, there are plenty of ways this negotiation could go off the rails
² the Keystone pipeline and other controversial provisions are still under scrutiny. But increasingly,
Republicans are signaling they want to cut a quick deal on the payroll tax holiday ² the issue has
divided their party and handed Obama ammunition to attack the GOP as opposing middle-class tax
cuts. Bruised from last month¶s payroll fight, they¶d rather turn the corner on the payroll tax and not allow
Obama to continue using congressional Republicans as a punching bag, the central theme of his reelection
campaign. A deal ³will obviously happen very quickly,´ Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), a former House
member, told POLITICO in a phone interview late last week. When House Republicans tried to block the
Senate-passed two-month extension, ³it became an issue of the president being for tax cuts and
Republicans not being for tax cuts ² because of that, nobody wants to revisit that debate during a
political year.´

PTC has momentum, but disagreements might still derail it
Peterson, 2/1/12
Kristina, ͞Payroll-Tax-Cut Extension Gets Bipartisan Backing,͟
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577197032787574276.html


Lawmakers came to quick agreement Wednesday that Congress should extend a
payroll-tax break for the remainder of the year, but Democrats cautioned that
disagreements over how to offset the cost could still derail the consensus.

In their second public meeting of the year, a bipartisan group of 20 lawmakers
appointed to work out a deal on extending several provisions expiring at the end of
this month easily concurred that a current break for workers paying Social Security
taxes should be kept in place until the end of 2012.


PTC will pass because of Obama agenda driving momentum
AP 2/1/12
͞Payroll tax, jobless benefits negotiations on Capitol Hill off to slow start as deadline nears,͟
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/payroll-tax-jobless-benefits-negotiations-on-capitol-
hill-off-to-slow-start-as-deadline-nears/2012/02/01/gIQAR4EMiQ_story.html

Working in a rare open meeting, a House-Senate panel Wednesday began its
negotiations on the payroll tax and jobless benefits measure ³ core components of
President Barack Obama·s jobs agenda Ͷ by signaling progress on second-tier issues
regarding overhauling unemployment insurance. But the talks soon ran aground over House
GOP proposals to permit states to require unemployed people to pass drug tests to receive
benefits or get high school diplomas.

A Feb. 29 deadline looms but the negotiating panel chair, Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., is
proceeding methodically and has yet to focus the talks, at least publicly, on the central issue:
how to find more than $150 billion in deficit savings through some combinations of spending
cuts, new fees and closures of tax loopholes.

͞You͛ve got to crawl before you can walk,͟ Camp said.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., the lead negotiator for Democrats,
hinted of potential problems ahead in assembling a bipartisan package of deficit cutting
proposals to pay for the full payroll tax extension. Baucus said negotiators might be forced to
accept a shorter renewal of the tax cut.

The 2-percentage-point cut in the payroll tax adds about $20 a week to the paycheck of a
worker making a $50,000 annual salary, while jobless benefits average about $300 a week.
Democrats argue that the two measures are pumping billions into an economy that͛s still
suffering from a lack of consumer demand. Obama seems to have the upper hand politically,
and Republicans are going along, though without much enthusiasm.

At the same time, the panel is grappling with how to address almost a 30-percent scheduled cut
in the fees that Medicare pays to doctors. The cut is the product a flawed funding-formula that
dates back to 1997, but the rapidly growing cost of fixing the mess is now in the range of $300
billion over 10 years. Lawmakers in both parties are grabbing at war savings to claim the fix
won͛t add to deficits still exceeding $1 trillion a year.

The negotiators have adopted a cooperative tone that contrasts sharply with the
vitriol of last year, but the panel is going to have to pick up the pace to meet a
deadline just four weeks away.


Links ʹ SBSP
Fossil fuel lobbies oppose the plan ʹ causes massive fights.
Darel Preble, President of Space Solar Power Institute, 12-15-2006, ͞Introduction,͟
http://www.sspi.gatech.edu/sunsatcorpfaq.pdf
Changing our nation and our world͛s baseload energy generation sources to introduce SSP is a
massive battle. The current oil, coal, and gas energy providers, nuclear as well, are not eager
to see their baseload investments face competition from SSP, which has zero fuel costs and
zero emissions and a billion years of steady supply projected. This is why SSP has been
unfunded since it was invented in 1968. Carter pushed through the SSP reference study in
1979-1980, but space transportation costs were far too high, and they were forced to plan to
use astronauts to bolt it together. This is too dangerous for astronauts outside the protection of
the Van Allen Radiation Belts. (The Space Station is inside the Van Allen Belts) People are also
too expensive to use for SSP construction. Telerobotics, the real way to assemble SSP, did not
exist in 1979. Now it is used in heart surgery every day worldwide and for a thousand other
uses. (The fossil fuel industry has battled environmentalists every inch during our struggle to
understand climate change effects. That is their right. Perhaps half the studies are wrong. But
half are right.) Most crucially, space transportation costs have stayed too high because there is
no market large enough to support a Reusable Launch Vehicle fleet. SSP IS just such a massive
market. Robert Zubrin mentions this battle and perspective in ͞Entering Space͟, page 51. He
quit space transportation and decided to work on Mars, which has no possibility of
commercialization this century. This is detailed in the Space Transportation chapter on the SSPW
website also. You can͛t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Fossil fuel lobbies oppose SPS
Peter Glaser, PhD, inventor of SPS idea, Spring 2008, ͞An Energy Pioneer,͟ Ad Astra,
http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf
No, because people can still get gas for their cars too easily. Those in the top levels of science
and government know what is coming, but the average man on the street will not care unless it
impacts his wallet. That is the biggest problem. The basic approach is unchanged from my initial
concept. We could have built this system 30 years ago. The technology just keeps getting
better. The design and implementation is a small problem compared to the much larger obstacle
of getting people to understand the potential benefits. Building such a system could provide
cheap and limitless power for the entire planet, yet instead of trying to find a way to make it
work, most people shrug it off as being too expensive or too difficult. Of course existing energy
providers will fight, too. It only makes sense that coal and oil lobbies will continue to find
plenty of reasons for our representatives in Congress to reject limitless energy from the sun.

Extension key to stop double dip.
Guardian 12-28-11
(͞Extending Obama's tax cuts should be new year's resolution for Republicans͟,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2011/dec/28/obama-tax-cuts-new-year-
resolution?newsfeed=true, DOA: 12-30-11, ldg)

However, research from the non-partisan Council on Foreign Relations reveals that extending the tax cuts is not just a political
debating point, but one of the few factors preventing the US sliding into a double-dip downturn in the new
year. Personal consumption ʹ spending, in other words ʹ accounted for 91% of the 1.2% GDP growth the
US economy achieved in the year to September, as Washington cut back and exports were weak. Using official
figures, the CFR shows that less than half of that crucial increase in consumption resulted from rising incomes, with the rest coming from what they call
"unsustainable items". More than a third ʹ 36% ʹ came from reduced savings, as Americans dipped into their rainy-day funds to cope with
unemployment and lacklustre wage growth. And another 20% came from the payroll tax. That shows that the emergency tax-cut
package, which included a 2% cut in the payroll tax (similar to national insurance contributions in Britain) was doing its job,
helplng to prevent the economy slldlng lnto u renewed recesslon ln 2011. But when they were introduced a year ago,
the cuts were meant to be a short-term boost to consumption, helping to prop up the economy until the good times returned. Recent data from
the US has been relatively upbeat, including news that American firms created 120,000 jobs in November. But unemployment
remains well above normal, at 8.6%; the housing market is still in the doldrums; and with America's trading
partners in Asia and Europe heading for hard times in 2012, the economic climate is about to get tougher.
Reverslng the tux cut ln two months' tlme could reduce workers' tuke-home puy ut the worst posslble
tlme.
Payroll DA ʹ 1NC

Decline causes war.
Royal, director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense,
2010
(Jedediah, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal, and Political Perspectives, pg 213-215,
ldg)

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate
degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been
considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008)
advances Modelski and Thompson͛s (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are
associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from
one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a
redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances,
increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of
power could lead to a permissive environment for conflicts as a rising power may seek to
challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel
leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections
between global economic conditions and security conditions remains unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland͛s (1996, 2000) theory of trade
expectations suggest that ͞future expectation of trade͟ is a significant variable in understanding economic
conditions and security behavior of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so
long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline,
particularly for difficult to replace item such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict
increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could
potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it
triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link
between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess
(2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods
of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing.
Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favor. Moreover,
the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external
conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg and Hess, 2002, p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked
with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess and Weerapana, 2004), which
has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises
generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. ͞Diversionary theory͟ suggests that,
when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased
incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a ͞rally around the flag͟ effect. Wang
(1996), DeRouen (1995) and Blomberg, Hess and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least
indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary
tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states due to the fact the democratic
leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic
support. De DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States and thus weak
Presidential popularity are statically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic
integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at
systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in economic-
security debate and deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a
decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic
interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As
such the view presented here should be considered ancillary to those views.


The 1AC is a typical leftist response to oppression that remains silent in the face
of the on-going colonization of native North America. The plan serves as a mask
for the state, but its existence is contingent upon a continuing legacy of
colonization that guarantees exploitation ʹ only by giving back the land and
rethinking our relationship to this colonization as THE starting point to
oppression can we solve the classism, racism, sexism, and militarism which
make violence and extinction inevitable

Our alternative is US off the planet

Ward Churchill 1996 (Professor of Ethnic Studies at University of Colorado, Boulder, BA and
MA in
Communications from Sangamon State, From A Native Son pgs 520 ± 530)

I¶ll debunk some of this nonsense in a moment, but first I want to take up the posture of self-
proclaimed leftist radicals in the same connection. And I¶ll do so on the basis of principle, because
justice is supposed to matter more to progressives than to rightwing hacks. Let me say that the
pervasive and near-total silence of the Left in this connection has been
quite illuminating. Non-Indian activists, with only a handful of exceptions,
persistently plead that they can¶t really take a coherent position on the matter of
Indian land rights because ³unfortunately,´ they¶re ³not really conversant with the
issues´ (as if these were tremendously complex). Meanwhile, they do virtually
nothing, generation after generation, to inform themselves on the topic of
who actually owns the ground they¶re standing on. The record can be played
only so many times before it wears out and becomes just another variation of
³hear no evil, see no evil.´ At this point, it doesn¶t take Albert Einstein to figure
out that the Left doesn¶t know much about such things because it¶s never
wanted to know, or that this is so because it¶s always had its own plans for
utilizing land it has no more right to than does the status quo it claims to
oppose. The usual technique for explaining this away has always been a sort
of pro forma acknowledgement that Indian land rights are of course ³really
important stuff´ (yawn), but that one´ really doesn¶t have a lot of time to get into
it (I¶ll buy your book, though, and keep it on my shelf, even if I never read it).
Reason? Well, one is just ³overwhelmingly preoccupied´ with working on
³other important issues´ (meaning, what they consider to be more important issues).
Typically enumerated are sexism, racism, homophobia, class inequities,
militarism, the environment, or some combination of these. It¶s a pretty
good evasion, all in all. Certainly, there¶s no denying any of these issues their
due; they are all important, obviously so. But more important than the question of
land rights? There are some serious problems of primacy and priority imbedded in
the orthodox script. To frame things clearly in this regard, lets hypothesize for a
moment that all of the various non-Indian movements concentrating on each of
these issues were suddenly successful in accomplishing their objectives . Lets
imagine that the United States as a whole were somehow transformed into an entity defined by
the parity of its race, class, and gender relations, its embrace of unrestricted sexual preference,
its rejection of militarism in all forms, and its abiding concern with environmental protection (I
know, I know, this is a sheer impossibility, but that¶s my point). When all is said and done,
the society resulting from this scenario is still, first and foremost, a colonialist
society, an imperialist society in the most fundamental sense possible with
all that this implies. This is true because the scenario does nothing at all to
address the fact that whatever is happening happens on someone else¶s
land, not only without their consent, but through an adamant disregard for
their rights to the land. Hence, all it means is that the immigrant or invading
population has rearranged its affairs in such a way as to make itself more
comfortable at the continuing expense of indigenous people. The colonial
equation remains intact and may even be reinforced by a greater degree of
participation, and vested interest in maintenance of the colonial order among the
settler population at large. The dynamic here is not very different from that evident
in the American Revolution of the late 18th century, is it? And we all know very
well where that led, don¶t we? Should we therefore begin to refer to socialist
imperialism, feminist imperialism, gay and lesbian imperialism, environmental imperialism, African
American, and la Raza imperialism? I would hope not. I would hope this is all just a matter of
confusion, of muddled priorities among people who really do mean well and who¶d like to do
better. If so, then all that is necessary to correct the situation is a basic
rethinking of what must be done., and in what order. Here, I¶d advance the
straightforward premise that the land rights of ³First Americans´ should
serve as a first priority for everyone seriously committed to accomplishing
positive change in North America. But before I suggest everyone jump off and adopt this
priority, I suppose it¶s only fair that I interrogate the converse of the proposition: if making things
like class inequity and sexism the preeminent focus of progressive action in North America
inevitably perpetuates the internal colonial structure of the United States, Does the reverse hold
true? I¶ll state unequivocally that it does not. There is no indication whatsoever that a restoration
of indigenous sovereignty in Indian Country would foster class stratification anywhere, least of all
in Indian Country. In fact, all indications are that when left to their own devices, indigenous
peoples have consistently organized their societies in the most class-free manners. Look to the
example of the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy). Look to the Muscogee
(Creek) Confederacy. Look to the confederations of the Yaqui and the Lakota, and those pursued
and nearly perfected by Pontiac and Tecumseh. They represent the very essence of enlightened
egalitarianism and democracy. Every imagined example to the contrary brought forth by even the
most arcane anthropologist can be readily offset by a couple of dozen other illustrations along the
lines of those I just mentioned. Would sexism be perpetuated? Ask one of the Haudenosaunee
clan mothers, who continue to assert political leadership in their societies through the present
day. Ask Wilma Mankiller, current head of the Cherokee nation , a people that traditionally led by
what were called ³Beloved Women.´ Ask a Lakota woman²or man, for that matter²about who it
was that owned all real property in traditional society, and what that meant in terms of parity in
gender relations. Ask a traditional Navajo grandmother about her social and political role among
her people. Women in most traditional native societies not only enjoyed political, social, and
economic parity with men, they often held a preponderance of power in one or more of these
spheres. Homophobia? Homosexuals of both genders were (and in many settings still are) deeply
revered as special or extraordinary, and therefore spiritually significant, within most indigenous
North American cultures. The extent to which these realities do not now pertain in native societies
is exactly the extent to which Indians have been subordinated to the mores of the invading,
dominating culture. Insofar as restoration of Indian land rights is tied directly to the reconstitution
of traditional indigenous social, political, and economic modes, you can see where this leads: the
relations of sex and sexuality accord rather well with the aspirations of feminist and gay rights
activism. How about a restoration of native land rights precipitating some sort of ³environmental
holocaust´? Let¶s get at least a little bit real here. If you¶re not addicted to the fabrications of
Smithsonian anthropologists about how Indians lived, or George Weurthner¶s Eurosupremacist
Earth First! Fantasies about how we beat all the wooly mammoths and mastodons and saber-
toothed cats to death with sticks, then this question isn¶t even on the board. I know it¶s become
fashionable among Washington Post editorialists to make snide references to native people
³strewing refuse in their wake´ as they ³wandered nomadically about the ³prehistoric´ North
American landscape. What is that supposed to imply? That we, who were mostly ³sedentary
agriculturalists´ in any event. Were dropping plastic and aluminum cans as we went? Like I said,
lets get real. Read the accounts of early European arrival, despite the fact that it had been
occupied by 15 or 20 million people enjoying a remarkably high standard of living for nobody
knows how long: 40,000 years? 50,000 years? Longer? Now contrast that reality to what¶s been
done to this continent over the past couple of hundred years by the culture Weurthner, the
Smithsonian, and the Post represent, and you tell me about environmental devastation. That
leaves militarism and racism. Taking the last first, there really is no indication of racism in
traditional Indian societies. To the contrary, the record reveals that Indians habitually intermarried
between groups, and frequently adopted both children and adults from other groups. This
occurred in precontact times between Indians, and the practice was broadened to include those
of both African and European origin²and ultimately Asian origin as well²once contact occurred.
Those who were naturalized by marriage or adoption were considered members of the group,
pure and simple. This was always the Indian view. The Europeans and subsequent Euroamerican
settlers viewed things rather differently, however, and foisted off the notion that Indian identity
should be determined primarily by ³blood quantum,´ an outright eugenics code similar to those
developed in places like Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. Now that¶s a racist
construction if there e\ver was one. Unfortunately, a lot of Indians have been conned into buying
into this anti- Indian absurdity, and that¶s something to be overcome. But there¶s also solid
indication that quite a number of native people continue to strongly resist such things as the
quantum system. As to militarism, no one will deny that Indians fought wars among themselves
both before and after the European invasion began. Probably half of all indigenous peoples in
North America maintained permanent warrior societies. This could perhaps be reasonably
construed as ³militarism,´ but not, I think, with the sense the term conveys within the
European/Euro-American tradition. There were never, so far as anyone can demonstrate,, wars
of annihilation fought in this hemisphere prior to the Columbian arrival, none. In fact, it seems that
it was a more or less firm principle of indigenous warfare not to kill, the object being to
demonstrate personal bravery, something that could be done only against a live opponent.
There¶s no honor to be had in killing another person, because a dead person can¶t hurt you.
There¶s no risk. This is not to say that nobody ever died or was seriously injured in the fighting.
They were, just as they are in full contact contemporary sports like football and boxing. Actually,
these kinds of Euro-American games are what I would take to be the closest modern parallels to
traditional inter-Indian warfare. For Indians, it was a way of burning excess testosterone out of
young males, and not much more. So, militarism in the way the term is used today is as alien to
native tradition as smallpox and atomic bombs. Not only is it perfectly reasonable to
assert that a restoration of Indian control over unceded lands within the
United States would do nothing to perpetuate such problems as sexism and
classism, but the reconstitution of indigenous societies this would entail
stands to free the affected portions of North America from such maladies
altogether. Moreover, it can be said that the process should have a tangible
impact in terms of diminishing such oppressions elsewhere. The principles
is this: sexism, racism, and all the rest arose here as a concomitant to the
emergence and consolidation of the Eurocentric nation-state form of
sociopolitical and economic organization. Everything the state does,
everything it can do, is entirely contingent on its maintaining its internal
cohesion, a cohesion signified above all by its pretended territorial integrity,
its ongoing domination of Indian Country. Given this, it seems obvious that
the literal dismemberment of the nation-state inherent to Indian land
recovery correspondingly reduces the ability of the state to sustain the
imposition of objectionable relations within itself. It follows that realization
of indigenous land rights serves to undermine or destroy the ability of the
status quo to continue imposing a racist, sexist, classist, homophobic,
militaristic order on non-Indians.


GBTL: 1NC (Long)

The 1AC is a typical leftist response to oppression that remains silent in the face
of the on-going colonization of native North America. The plan serves as a mask
for the state, but its existence is contingent upon a continuing legacy of
colonization that guarantees exploitation ʹ only by giving back the land and
rethinking our relationship to this colonization as THE starting point to
oppression can we solve the classism, racism, sexism, and militarism which
make violence and extinction inevitable

Ward Churchill 1996 (Professor of Ethnic Studies at University of Colorado, Boulder, BA and
MA in
Communications from Sangamon State, From A Native Son pgs 520 ± 530)

I¶ll debunk some of this nonsense in a moment, but first I want to take up the posture of self-
proclaimed leftist radicals in the same connection. And I¶ll do so on the basis of principle, because
justice is supposed to matter more to progressives than to rightwing hacks. Let me say that the
pervasive and near-total silence of the Left in this connection has been
quite illuminating. Non-Indian activists, with only a handful of exceptions,
persistently plead that they can¶t really take a coherent position on the matter of
Indian land rights because ³unfortunately,´ they¶re ³not really conversant with the
issues´ (as if these were tremendously complex). Meanwhile, they do virtually
nothing, generation after generation, to inform themselves on the topic of
who actually owns the ground they¶re standing on. The record can be played
only so many times before it wears out and becomes just another variation of
³hear no evil, see no evil.´ At this point, it doesn¶t take Albert Einstein to figure
out that the Left doesn¶t know much about such things because it¶s never
wanted to know, or that this is so because it¶s always had its own plans for
utilizing land it has no more right to than does the status quo it claims to
oppose. The usual technique for explaining this away has always been a sort
of pro forma acknowledgement that Indian land rights are of course ³really
important stuff´ (yawn), but that one´ really doesn¶t have a lot of time to get into
it (I¶ll buy your book, though, and keep it on my shelf, even if I never read it).
Reason? Well, one is just ³overwhelmingly preoccupied´ with working on
³other important issues´ (meaning, what they consider to be more important issues).
Typically enumerated are sexism, racism, homophobia, class inequities,
militarism, the environment, or some combination of these. It¶s a pretty
good evasion, all in all. Certainly, there¶s no denying any of these issues their
due; they are all important, obviously so. But more important than the question of
land rights? There are some serious problems of primacy and priority imbedded in
the orthodox script. To frame things clearly in this regard, lets hypothesize for a
moment that all of the various non-Indian movements concentrating on each of
these issues were suddenly successful in accomplishing their objectives . Lets
imagine that the United States as a whole were somehow transformed into an entity defined by
the parity of its race, class, and gender relations, its embrace of unrestricted sexual preference,
its rejection of militarism in all forms, and its abiding concern with environmental protection (I
know, I know, this is a sheer impossibility, but that¶s my point). When all is said and done,
the society resulting from this scenario is still, first and foremost, a colonialist
society, an imperialist society in the most fundamental sense possible with
all that this implies. This is true because the scenario does nothing at all to
address the fact that whatever is happening happens on someone else¶s
land, not only without their consent, but through an adamant disregard for
their rights to the land. Hence, all it means is that the immigrant or invading
population has rearranged its affairs in such a way as to make itself more
comfortable at the continuing expense of indigenous people. The colonial
equation remains intact and may even be reinforced by a greater degree of
participation, and vested interest in maintenance of the colonial order among the
settler population at large. The dynamic here is not very different from that evident
in the American Revolution of the late 18th century, is it? And we all know very
well where that led, don¶t we? Should we therefore begin to refer to socialist
imperialism, feminist imperialism, gay and lesbian imperialism, environmental imperialism, African
American, and la Raza imperialism? I would hope not. I would hope this is all just a matter of
confusion, of muddled priorities among people who really do mean well and who¶d like to do
better. If so, then all that is necessary to correct the situation is a basic
rethinking of what must be done., and in what order. Here, I¶d advance the
straightforward premise that the land rights of ³First Americans´ should
serve as a first priority for everyone seriously committed to accomplishing
positive change in North America. But before I suggest everyone jump off and adopt this
priority, I suppose it¶s only fair that I interrogate the converse of the proposition: if making things
like class inequity and sexism the preeminent focus of progressive action in North America
inevitably perpetuates the internal colonial structure of the United States, Does the reverse hold
true? I¶ll state unequivocally that it does not. There is no indication whatsoever that a restoration
of indigenous sovereignty in Indian Country would foster class stratification anywhere, least of all
in Indian Country. In fact, all indications are that when left to their own devices, indigenous
peoples have consistently organized their societies in the most class-free manners. Look to the
example of the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy). Look to the Muscogee
(Creek) Confederacy. Look to the confederations of the Yaqui and the Lakota, and those pursued
and nearly perfected by Pontiac and Tecumseh. They represent the very essence of enlightened
egalitarianism and democracy. Every imagined example to the contrary brought forth by even the
most arcane anthropologist can be readily offset by a couple of dozen other illustrations along the
lines of those I just mentioned. Would sexism be perpetuated? Ask one of the Haudenosaunee
clan mothers, who continue to assert political leadership in their societies through the present
day. Ask Wilma Mankiller, current head of the Cherokee nation , a people that traditionally led by
what were called ³Beloved Women.´ Ask a Lakota woman²or man, for that matter²about who it
was that owned all real property in traditional society, and what that meant in terms of parity in
gender relations. Ask a traditional Navajo grandmother about her social and political role among
her people. Women in most traditional native societies not only enjoyed political, social, and
economic parity with men, they often held a preponderance of power in one or more of these
spheres. Homophobia? Homosexuals of both genders were (and in many settings still are) deeply
revered as special or extraordinary, and therefore spiritually significant, within most indigenous
North American cultures. The extent to which these realities do not now pertain in native societies
is exactly the extent to which Indians have been subordinated to the mores of the invading,
dominating culture. Insofar as restoration of Indian land rights is tied directly to the reconstitution
of traditional indigenous social, political, and economic modes, you can see where this leads: the
relations of sex and sexuality accord rather well with the aspirations of feminist and gay rights
activism. How about a restoration of native land rights precipitating some sort of ³environmental
holocaust´? Let¶s get at least a little bit real here. If you¶re not addicted to the fabrications of
Smithsonian anthropologists about how Indians lived, or George Weurthner¶s Eurosupremacist
Earth First! Fantasies about how we beat all the wooly mammoths and mastodons and saber-
toothed cats to death with sticks, then this question isn¶t even on the board. I know it¶s become
fashionable among Washington Post editorialists to make snide references to native people
³strewing refuse in their wake´ as they ³wandered nomadically about the ³prehistoric´ North
American landscape. What is that supposed to imply? That we, who were mostly ³sedentary
agriculturalists´ in any event. Were dropping plastic and aluminum cans as we went? Like I said,
lets get real. Read the accounts of early European arrival, despite the fact that it had been
occupied by 15 or 20 million people enjoying a remarkably high standard of living for nobody
knows how long: 40,000 years? 50,000 years? Longer? Now contrast that reality to what¶s been
done to this continent over the past couple of hundred years by the culture Weurthner, the
Smithsonian, and the Post represent, and you tell me about environmental devastation. That
leaves militarism and racism. Taking the last first, there really is no indication of racism in
traditional Indian societies. To the contrary, the record reveals that Indians habitually intermarried
between groups, and frequently adopted both children and adults from other groups. This
occurred in precontact times between Indians, and the practice was broadened to include those
of both African and European origin²and ultimately Asian origin as well²once contact occurred.
Those who were naturalized by marriage or adoption were considered members of the group,
pure and simple. This was always the Indian view. The Europeans and subsequent Euroamerican
settlers viewed things rather differently, however, and foisted off the notion that Indian identity
should be determined primarily by ³blood quantum,´ an outright eugenics code similar to those
developed in places like Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. Now that¶s a racist
construction if there e\ver was one. Unfortunately, a lot of Indians have been conned into buying
into this anti- Indian absurdity, and that¶s something to be overcome. But there¶s also solid
indication that quite a number of native people continue to strongly resist such things as the
quantum system. As to militarism, no one will deny that Indians fought wars among themselves
both before and after the European invasion began. Probably half of all indigenous peoples in
North America maintained permanent warrior societies. This could perhaps be reasonably
construed as ³militarism,´ but not, I think, with the sense the term conveys within the
European/Euro-American tradition. There were never, so far as anyone can demonstrate,, wars
of annihilation fought in this hemisphere prior to the Columbian arrival, none. In fact, it seems that
it was a more or less firm principle of indigenous warfare not to kill, the object being to
demonstrate personal bravery, something that could be done only against a live opponent.
There¶s no honor to be had in killing another person, because a dead person can¶t hurt you.
There¶s no risk. This is not to say that nobody ever died or was seriously injured in the fighting.
They were, just as they are in full contact contemporary sports like football and boxing. Actually,
these kinds of Euro-American games are what I would take to be the closest modern parallels to
traditional inter-Indian warfare. For Indians, it was a way of burning excess testosterone out of
young males, and not much more. So, militarism in the way the term is used today is as alien to
native tradition as smallpox and atomic bombs. Not only is it perfectly reasonable to
assert that a restoration of Indian control over unceded lands within the
United States would do nothing to perpetuate such problems as sexism and
classism, but the reconstitution of indigenous societies this would entail
stands to free the affected portions of North America from such maladies
altogether. Moreover, it can be said that the process should have a tangible
impact in terms of diminishing such oppressions elsewhere. The principles
is this: sexism, racism, and all the rest arose here as a concomitant to the
emergence and consolidation of the Eurocentric nation-state form of
sociopolitical and economic organization. Everything the state does,
everything it can do, is entirely contingent on its maintaining its internal
cohesion, a cohesion signified above all by its pretended territorial integrity,
its ongoing domination of Indian Country. Given this, it seems obvious that
the literal dismemberment of the nation-state inherent to Indian land
recovery correspondingly reduces the ability of the state to sustain the
imposition of objectionable relations within itself. It follows that realization
of indigenous land rights serves to undermine or destroy the ability of the
status quo to continue imposing a racist, sexist, classist, homophobic,
militaristic order on non-Indians.

Our alternative is US off the planet

Only rejecting the state in every instance solves ʹ it is the only hope we have
for imagining a world without the US

Churchill, 04
Ward Churchill; August 24, 2004, Resistance to War, Occupation, and Empire,
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6088,

Every square inch of terra firma of Turtle Island that purportedly forms this
corporate structure, the geographical integrity, the territorial integrity of
these mega-States is land that was taken directly from Native people. That
consolidation of an internal colonial empire is what it is that makes the
outward power projection known as globalization possible now. Of course, it
is in itself a part of an earlier phase of globalization. We used to call globalization
by its proper name: we called it imperialism. We called it imperialism and we
fashioned ourselves to be anti- imperialists, and we took that as a priority, a basic
formative aspect of our consciousness. So what I'm suggesting to you right
now is that in order to combat in an effective fashion this process that now
goes under the name of globalization we have consciously to restore our
understanding of the necessity of being - as a first priority - anti-imperialist.
But we need to be anti-imperialists who have learned from the past mistakes of anti-imperialism,
and that is: you don't find the symptoms when you are approximate to the cause. If you want to
stop globalization you have to stop it where it lives. You do not purport to be a revolutionary in the
context of an internal colonial construction. To be a revolutionary is to overthrow the
existing apparatus of the State and replace it with yourselves. If you do that
you perpetuate the problem. The State is contingent on its existence both in
the United States and in Canada, upon the perpetual colonization,
subjugation, subordination, exploitation, expropriation, of Indigenous
peoples, it will continue to be illegally occupied territory until the principles
of anti-imperialism are applied here not only analytically, but forcefully. The
decolonisation of North America is the absolutely essential ingredient in
halting the process of globalization and making it impossible ever to
resuscitate it again. See it clearly for what it is, and understand the
implications. All of my adult life, I've been an activist. I've been an activist full time
one way or another. Every aspect of what I do is [connected] to that central task, and that central
task of activism is to clarify and organize around the clarification. In the course of that activist
adulthood, I have encountered and agreed with and participated in movements that aspired to
certain slogans. When I started out it was "U.S. out of Vietnam," and then that was
changed and it became "U.S. out of Indochina," and then it became "U.S. out of Southern Africa,"
and it was "U.S. out of the Caribbean and Central America," and then it became "U.S. out
of the Persian Gulf." I agreed with every one of those, but ultimately there's
only one way that any of them will be possible and that is: US out of North
America, U.S. off the planet, and take Canada with you when you go! That creates
the basis for that future alternative. That understanding and that understanding alone
will create that basis. Every square inch of terra firma that is removed from the
corpus of either of these mega-States, and understand when we're in Canada we are
only on the Northern provinces of the United States Empire. This is the tail wagged by the dog in
Washington, D.C. and never be confused about that. Ultimately, it matters not whether the end
structure of Canadian proclaimed soil or US proclaimed soil, every square inch that is
returned to Native control, to Native sovereign control, is one inch less they
have of consolidated territory to base their power projection upon.
Ultimately, if that process was complete, they would have no basis, either
materially in terms of territory or materially in terms of resources, in order to
conduct themselves in the world elsewhere the way they do now. And in the
process they would not be able to conduct themselves here. You say that this
is privileging Native rights, perhaps, beyond that of others? You say I am opposed to sexism as a
first priority; you say I am opposed to ageism as a first priority; you say I am opposed to classism;
I am a good Marxist, dialectical materialist; I am opposed to something else as being prior in
importance to native rights? In the restoration of territory though Native rights, you place things
back under Native governance in accordance with the Native tradition, and we were not ageist,
we were not sexist, we were not classist, none of these 'isms ' or 'ologies' pertained. In
defeating one you defeat the other and that cannot be said by reversing the
order and priority of things. First Nations, first priority, first always, that has
to be the rule if we are going to understand the beast and ultimately defeat
it. That said, we are going right to the nerve centre of what makes the thing
function and it will not stop functioning painlessly; it will resist. There is not
a petition campaign that you can construct that is going to cause the power and
the status quo to dissipate. There is not a legal action that you can take; you can't
go into the court of the conqueror and have the conqueror announce the conquest
to be illegitimate and to be repealed; you cannot vote in an alternative, you cannot
hold a prayer vigil, you cannot burn the right scented candle at the prayer vigil,
you cannot have the right folk song, you cannot have the right fashion statement,
you cannot adopt a different diet, build a better bike path. You have to say it
squarely: the fact that this power this force, this entity, this monstrosity called the
State maintains itself by physical force, and can be countered only in terms that it
itself dictates and therefore understands. That's a deep breath time; that's a real
deep breath time. It will not be a painless process, but, hey, newsflash: it's not a
process that is painless now. If you feel a relative absence of pain, that is testimony only to your
position of privilege within the Statist structure. Those who are on the receiving end, whether they
are in Iraq, they are in Palestine, they are in Haiti, they are in American Indian reserves inside the
United States, whether they are in the migrant stream or the inner city, those who are 'othered'
and of colour, in particular but poor people more generally, know the difference between the
painlessness of acquiescence on the one hand and the painfulness of maintaining the existing
order on the other. Ultimately, there is no alternative that has found itself in
reform; there is only an alternative that founds itself - not in that fanciful
word of revolution - but in the devolution, that is to say the dismantlement
of Empire from the inside out.

Space Race
No Space Race ʹ China
China is way behind ʹ US attempts to develop space cause them to try and
catch up
Baohiu Zhang, associate professor of political science at Lingnan University and director of the
Center for Asia Pacific Studies, March/April 2011, ͞The Security Dilemma in the U.S.-China
Military Space Relationship,͟ Asian Survey vol 51 no 2, ProQuest
The first factor that caused the security dilemma in the Sino-U.S. military space relationship is
the professed American quest for space dominance. This quest is a reflection of the U.S. obsession with primacy
that predates the Obama administration. The primacy strategy demands undisputed military dominance
in different areas, including space, to ensure the best possible protection of U.S. national security. The U.S. is the
only country in the world that has articulated a coherent national strategy for space
dominance. As emphasized by Michael W. Wynne, former Air Force secretary, ͞America͛s domination of the space domain
provides an unrivaled advantage for our nation and remains critical to creating the strategic and tactical conditions for victory.͟12
The U.S. is the leader in the militarization of space. It was the first country that established a dedicated
command, the U.S. Space Command, to unify military operations in space. In fact, as its Vision for 2020 proclaims, the Space
Command seeks to achieve ͞full spectrum dominance͟ in space.13 Furthermore, it envisions permanent dominance
in the military dimension of space operations: ͞Today, the U.S. is the preeminent military space power. Our vision
is one of maintaining that preeminenceͶproviding a solid foundation for our national security.͟14 General Lance W. Lord, former
commander, Air Force Space Command, points out the importance of space dominance: ͞Space superiority is the future of warfare.
We cannot win a war without controlling the high ground, and the high ground is space.͟15 In December 2007, the U.S. Air Force
released a White Paper called The Nation͛s Guardians: America͛s 21st Century Air Force, in which General T. Michael Moseley made
a similar statement: ͞No future war will be won without air, space and cyberspace superiority͟; thus, ͞the Air Force must attain
cross-domain dominance. Cross-domain dominance is the freedom to attack and the freedom from attack in and through the
atmosphere, space and electromagnetic spectrum.͟16 This strategy of space dominance, however, generates
the classic security dilemma between the U.S. and other countries. Although the U.S. may be motivated
by defensive purposes, such as shielding the American population from nuclear weapons and other threats, other countries have to
assume the worst in an anarchic world. As observed by Joan Johnson-Freese, ͞I would argue that the rest of the world accepts U.S.
space supremacy. What the Bush Administration claims is space dominance, and that͛s what the rest of the world won͛t accept.͟17
Chinese strategists certainly perceive the U.S. quest for space dominance as damaging to
China͛s national security; whoever controls space will have the edge in winning the next war.
Indeed, Chinese military and civilian strategists argue that the U.S. search for ͞absolute security͟
jeopardizes other countries͛ security. It is widely reported in Chinese military literature that the U.S. has already
developed and is in fact implementing a master plan for military dominance in space. The challenge for China is to
prevent the U.S. from jumping too far ahead. As observed by a major study organized by the General Staff of
the PLA, ͞In recent decades the U.S. has been consistently pursuing dominance in space in order to become its overlord.͟ There is a
difference between supremacy and dominance, which is a stronger form of U.S. superiority over other states. Thus, while the
Chinese accepts the U.S. as the no. 1 military power, they reject any scenario of being
dominated by the U.S. The study also points out that the U.S. is the first country to develop a
full set of doctrines for space militarization and dominance: In April 1998, the U.S. Space Command
published its long-term strategic development plan, Vision for 2020, which specifically proposed the concept of space dominance
and revealed the goals of allowing the American military to use space weapons to attack the enemy͛s land, sea, air, and space
targets. World opinion believes this represented the formal debut of U.S. space war theory and indicated an important first step by
the U.S. military toward space war.19 Li Daguang, one of the most influential PLA experts on space war, also alleges that the U.S. has
initiated ͞a new space war͟ to maintain its status as ͞the overlord of space.͟ He claims that the ultimate goal of the U.S. space
program is to ͞build a powerful military empire in outer space that attempts to include any space between earth and moon under
American jurisdiction.͟ Under this empire, ͞without U.S. permission, any country, including even its allies, will not be able to use
outer space for military or other purposes.͟20 One particular concern for the Chinese military is that the
U.S. may no longer be content with merely militarizing space, which involves extensive use of
satellites for military operations. Instead, weaponization of space is on the agenda. The PLA now believes that the U.S.
is on the verge of important breakthroughs in the development of weapons for space war. As one study claims: ͞Currently, the U.S.
military already possesses or will soon possess ASAT technologies with real combat capabilities, such as aircraft-launched ASAT
missiles, land-based laser ASAT weapons, and space-based energy ASAT weapons.͟21 Moreover, the PLA suggests that the U.S. is
trying to acquire space-based weapons to attack targets on earth: The U.S. military is developing orbital bombers, which fly on low
altitude orbits, and when given combat orders, will re-enter the atmosphere and attack ground targets. This kind of weapon has high
accuracy and stealth capability, and is able to launch sudden strikes. These capabilities make it impossible for enemies to defend
against. Orbital bombers thus can strike at any target anywhere on the planet. It is the major means for the U.S. military to perform
global combat in the 21st century.22 This perception of the American lead in space militarization and
attempts for its weaponization is a major motive for the Chinese military to develop similar
projects and thus avoid U.S. domination in future wars. The PLA believes that control of the commanding
heights will decide the outcome of future wars, and China cannot afford to cede that control to the U.S. As a result, space war is a
key component of the PLA Air Force͛s (PLAAF) new doctrines. In 2006 the PLAAF released a comprehensive study called Military
Doctrines for Air Force, which makes the following statement: In future wars, merely possessing air superiority will no longer be
sufficient for seizing the initiative of battles. In significant ways, only obtaining space superiority could ensure
controlling the initiative of war. The contest in outer space has become the contest for the new commanding heights.
Seizing control of space will mean control of the global commanding heights, which will in turn enable dominance in air, land, and
sea battles. Thus, it is impossible to achieve national security without obtaining space security.23
No Space Race ʹ China
Chinese militarization is driven by being way behind
Baohiu Zhang, associate professor of political science at Lingnan University and director of the
Center for Asia Pacific Studies, March/April 2011, ͞The Security Dilemma in the U.S.-China
Military Space Relationship,͟ Asian Survey vol 51 no 2, ProQuest
Another driver of the PLA͛s efforts to counter U.S. dominance in space is the time factor.
There is a genuine sense of urgency about controlling the commanding heights in space. The
U.S. is seen as already possessing a decisive lead in the race toward space hegemony. As
observed by Lieutenant General Ge Dongsheng, vice president of the PLA Academy of Military
Sciences: Establishing space capability is not only important but also urgent. This is due to the
fact that the U.S. and Russia have already taken the steps and now enjoy a vast lead over us.
Even India, Japan, and European countries have ambitious plans to develop their own space
capabilities. Under this situation, if we do not hasten implementing our own plan, there will be
the possibility of having to face a generational gap in space capabilities.24