Περί του πώς αποκτούμε την κυριότητα ενός άλλου έθνους χωρίς να το ρωτήσουμε

Sovereignty is classically defined as supreme legal authority. The concept was formulated by sixteenth century legal philosopher Jean Bodin and elaborated by many theorists since then. One basic controversy has been whether to trace supreme authority to the people or to a "divine right" of rulers. Another has been about the relation between legal authority and political-economic power which may influence or dominate law. The definition of sovereignty in federal Indian law partakes of both ancient controversies. An ambiguous concept from the start, surrounded by disagreement, sovereignty is perhaps most cryptic in federal Indian law.
The legal history of "tribal sovereignty" starts with colonialism. From their earliest contacts with the "new world," colonizing powers asserted sovereignty over indigenous peoples, based a theological-legal theory built on "divine right." Spain, Portugal, France, England, and other colonial regimes explicitly based their sovereignty claims on religious doctrines decreed by the Pope, who was regarded as having power to grant titles to portions of the earth for purposes of Christian civilization.
The result of colonial assertions of sovereignty was that indigenous nations were legally stripped of their independent status. Their existence was in some instances not recognized at all and their lands treated as legally "vacant" (terra nullius). In other instances, indigenous peoples were declared to have a "right of occupancy" but not ownership of their lands. In either instance, the fundamental principle was that supreme legal authority lay outside the indigenous nations.
In 1823, in Johnson v. McIntosh, 8 Wheat. 543, the Supreme Court adopted for the United States the "right of occupancy" version of colonial sovereignty. This remains the basic legal position of federal Indian law, despite the fact that "divine right" is not accepted elsewhere in United States law. The Johnson v. McIntosh decision may be seen as a laundry for sovereignty theory, washing out the theology and transferring "divine" powers to a secular state.
The debate about legal authority versus political and economic power also informs the definition of sovereignty in federal Indian law. In the earliest treaties, statutes, and cases, indigenous nations were regarded as having a "subordinate" sovereignty related to their "right of occupancy." Denied full sovereignty as independent nations, they were nevertheless regarded as having authority over their own relations amongst themselves --an "internal" or "tribal" sovereignty.

The brits DID discuss the money system

It was a funny thing. A conservative mp, some Baker fellow, moved the motion. Makes one wonder: how come a pro-property guy attack the money system? There is something strange about it. If you recognise as fraudulent the current money system, a system that has been in place for over two centuries, how come you stand for property that has been aquired within this fraudulent money system? Does it make sense?

It was a good thing, though, this discussion. I can now answer to my capitalist friends: It's on the record: capitalism is a fraud. All parties agreed on that!

Nov 20: the brits will discuss the money system

MM88 - Brits Debate Money: http://youtu.be/QjR6xRN0PjY

Different phenomena

These are two different phenomena: in the first case, there is dust and pieces of wall clearly distinguishable and the pieces of the building do NOT leave a trail of dust while falling. Only in the last photo you can be confused with the falling piece in the middle of the frame. But in this case the dust is not thick and does not originate from the falling pieces.

In the second case you can see thick dust trails emanating from the falling pieces of steel all the way down. 

These are two different phenomena.

Building 6

Evidence of building 6 losing its core AFTER the destruction of the north tower

The second picture is taken AFTER the destruction of the north tower. There is still a portion of it that is missing from the first photo. The first photo is taken when wtc7 has fallen.

The third photo confirms that building 6 still has a portion of its core that is missing from the first picture AFTER the destruction of the north tower because the cars in the parking lot at the bottom of the photo only started burning AFTER the destruction of the north tower.

Dust trails

Building 4