Chat with Author of "Dying in Indian Country"

The true story of an American Indian who realized just how much tribal and federal government policies were destroying his extended family.  

Roland grew up watching members of his family die of alcoholism, child abuse, suicide, and violence on the reservation. Like many others, he blamed all the problems on “white people.”  

Beth Ward grew up in a middle class home in the suburbs. Raised in a politically left family, she also believed that all problems on the reservation originated with cruel treatment by settlers and the stealing of land. Meeting her husband, her first close experience with a tribal member, she stepped out of the comfort of suburban life into a whole new, frightening world.  

After almost ten years of living with his alcoholism and the terrible dangers that came with it, they both realized that individual behavior and personal decisions were at the root of a man’s troubles, including their own, and no amount of entitlements would change that.  

What cannot be denied is that a large number of Native Americans are dying from alcoholism, drug abuse, suicide, and violence. The reservation, a socialistic experiment at best, pushes people to depend on tribal and federal government rather than God, and to blame all of life’s ills on others. The results have been disastrous. Roland realized that corrupt tribal government, dishonest federal Indian policy, and the controlling reservation system had more to do with the current pain and despair in his family and community than what had happened 150 years ago.  

Here is the plain truth in the eyes of one family, in the hope that at least some of the dying in Indian Country — physical, emotional, and spiritual — may be prevented.  

Dr. William B. Allen, Emeritus Professor, Political Science, MSU and former Chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1989) has called the book, “…truly gripping, with a good pace.”  

Meet the author at an online book signing, Saturday, October 13th, 3 pm eastern time, 12 noon pacific, at https://dyinginindiancountry.campfirenow.com/room/533942

The book sells for $29.99 and is available online. For more information about the author and to purchase the book, please visit http://dyinginindiancountry.com/

###

Beautiful Michelle hanged herself in a closet

.

“Lisa you can and are free. Free to go on, free to thank God for your life with Roland...free to learn from the craziness and free to take what you can and to leave the rest in God's hands.”

How beautiful, wonderful, comforting those words are.

I respond: “You are right - the memories pain me, but even so, I do thank God for my life with Roland. He actually asked me before he died how I felt about our life together. And I actually had an answer ready—because I'd been thinking about it for awhile.

I told him that we had traveled from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We’ve lived in Canada and helped out at a Children’s home in Mexico. We’ve owned businesses and we’ve been on welfare. At times we had little or no food - and other times we ate at some of the finest restaurants. We have slept on dirty floors with dirty blankets in tribal housing, and we have stayed in upscale hotels on Capitol Hill in Washington DC and in Windsor, BC. I told him our life had been full. He seemed to relax into his pillow upon hearing me say it.

We felt just as comfortable talking to a drunk on Franklin Ave. as we did talking to a US Senator. I've called a US Senator looking for my husband, who was in his office at the time. The Senator made a real joke of it, as he handed Roland the phone, about how I can track him down anywhere. And...I've had an impossible time finding my husband on the reservation just after our son was born. No one would hand the phone to him then, as they were drinking with him.

A law professor and a state legislator both helped carry Roland’s casket. A retired US Navy Submarine officer carried Roland's body back to the reservation in the back of his pickup.

Who would I have been without all those experiences?

It's the truth, isn't it? Who would I have been if I had married an average man and lived with two cars and 2.5 kids in the suburbs? Really - would I even be a Christian right now? Because it was Roland that essentially led me to Christ.

And ...as I correspond with the various families that write to CAICW...how would I even begin to understand them and their fears if I hadn't been there myself? I am able to write two simple words that mean the world to them... "I understand."

And it is with that background: the birth mother to five members, the adoptive mother of one, the legal custodian of three, the step mother to four, and aunt to innumerable members of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe - and as a former licensed Day care provider, foster care provider, as well as registered nurse - I am able to ‘withstand the barbs of the enemy’ and stand tall whenever anyone tries to call me a racist for speaking up on this issue.

I can unashamedly stand up and say what many others can't bring themselves to say - because I don't care what names they call me. And I can speak loudly. And I can help that no more children be treated as chattel for the benefit of a corrupt tribal government.

The idea some have that children "belong" on the reservation is racism at its core. It ignores who the child might factually be, who the child is connected to, what the child really wants and, importantly, what the child’s best interests are. It’s well known to everyone that the high school drop out rate, drug abuse, crime, fetal alcohol rate, child abuse, corruption, child neglect, sexual abuse, violence and suicide, etc. is so high on many reservations that no Congressman would ever willingly send their own child to live there...yet everyone is supposed to just go along with the lie that children of heritage must live with it because tribal and federal government say so. It’s not only insane but criminal.

I'm not going to diplomatically dance around so as not to step on toes. Kids are dying. Beautiful Michelle hanged herself in a simple closet, where all she had to do was stand up to save herself.

Others have died of overdose, accident, and violence.

So you are right. I have a job to do, and it is because of my life with Roland that I am able to do it.

- to be the loud-mouthed, angry witch that I am.

Bless you My Friends, you’ve been so good to hang in there with us through all these tough years.

Merry Christmas!

Read "Dying in Indian Country"

Letters from Families, asking for Help - Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare

Original Meaning of the Indian Commerce Clause

.
Contrary to the belief of those that want control over our children, the Indian Commerce Clause did not give Congress the right to enact a law giving those entities that control.

Professor Rob Natelson, Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Montana, Missoula, researched the issue in 2007. The results of his study were documented in a lead article published in vol 85 page 201 of Denver University Law Review (85 Denv. U. L. Rev. 201 (2007)

According to Professor Natelson, "the U.S. Constitution gives Congress only limited powers, and it says nothing about legislating for “Indian child welfare.”

So what gives Congress the power to pass a law like the ICWA?

Some say the Founding Fathers intended to give Congress that power by a section in the Constitution allowing Congress to “regulate Commerce with the Indian Tribes.” But is that true? Are laws like ICWA really constitutional as regulating “Commerce with the Indian Tribes?”

His answer: Absolutely not.

Professor Rob Natelson is one of the country’s top experts on the original meaning of the Constitution. He concluded that the purpose of the section giving power to Congress to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes was to allow Congress to regulate trade between Indians and whites – no more. Foster care, adoption, parental rights, etc. were be governed by state law, not federal law.

Professor Natelson documented his findings in a lead article published in Denver University Law Review. He also examined other claimed bases for laws like the ICWA, including the “Indian trust doctrine” – and he found they didn’t have any merit, either.

“There is not much doubt on the question,” he said. “At least according the Founding Fathers, Congress had absolutely no authority to adopt the ICWA. Eventually, the courts may see their error and strike it down as unconstitutional.”

This article – and some of Professor Natelson’s other research – can be found at www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm

The Original Meaning of the Indian Commerce Clause - 85 Denv. U. L. Rev. 201 (2007)

The Legal Meaning of "Commerce" In the Commerce Clause - 80 St. John's L. Rev. 789 (2006)
.

Treaties that don't Exist

From http://electriccityweblog.com/?p=4202#more-4202
June 30th, 2009 by Rob Natelson

"Government agencies and pressure groups campaigning for more taxpayer money can create a fictitious “history” almost overnight. First, they make some claim about how something has been recognized since (whenever), and before you know it, journalists are uncritically repeating it, and it is plastered all over the Internet.

"Recently I’ve seen a burst of allegations that the U.S. government assumed a treaty obligation in 1787 to provide reservation Indians with free health care. If you Google “health care treaty Indian 1787,” you will find a long list of sources – including supposedly objective news stories – making that assertion. Here’s a sample from Montana’s Lee newspapers: “A treaty dating to 1787 requires the government to provide tribal members living on reservations with free health care.”

"Now when presented with such a claim, a journalist’s crap-o-meter should start sounding like a fire alarm, because the claim is so inherently improbable. First, the reservation system as we know it didn’t exist in 1787. Second, the cash-strapped Confederation Congress would not have had the resources to meet such a commitment. (Remember that shortage of funds was one reason Congress called the constitutional convention.) Third, a treaty is a bilateral document – even if the Confederation Congress had committed itself to provide health care to the Delaware tribe, for example, it wouldn’t follow that the government had committed itself to provide health care to all Indians for all time.

"So I checked into the claim and found that — sure enough — it is flatly false. Here are some details:
* According to Charles Kappler’s authoritative collection of treaties between the U.S. Government and Native American tribes, there was no such treaty in 1787. In fact, 1787 was a year in which no U.S.-Indian treaties were signed at all!

* There were over 20 U.S.-Indian treaties before 1800, but none obligated the federal government to provide Indians with health care, free or otherwise.

* The last U.S.-Indian treaty was signed in 1868. Some of the later ones provided that the government would pay annuities to some Indians – but often even this term was left discretionary with the government. Neither my own search nor the Kappler index of all treaties disclosed any reference to a treaty obligation to provide free (or any) health care.

We can’t blame the myth wholly on activists and inattentive journalists, however — the U.S. Government bears some responsibility as well. The journalist who authored the story quoted above referred me to a PR webpage from the U.S. Indian Health Service. It states: “The provision of health services to members of federally-recognized tribes grew out of the special government-to-government relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes. This relationship, established in 1787, is based on Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and has been given form and substance by numerous treaties, laws, Supreme Court decisions, and Executive Orders.”

Now, this statement certainly does not say that any treaties created an obligation to provide free health care. But it has problems of its own. It repeats the false 1787 date. And by stating that the Indian-federal “relationship” has been “given form and substance” by . . . treaties,” it implies that treaties created an obligation to provide health care, although they have not.

The website refers to Article I, Section 8, a part of the Constitution that creates congressional powers (not treaty obligations). Clause 3 of that section provides in part that “The Congress shall have Power . . . to regulate Commerce . . . with the Indian tribes.” It is true that Congress claims this “Indian Commerce Clause” gives it plenary authority to regulate Indian affairs. But as I have shown elsewhere, the only authority this provision actually granted to Congress was a power to regulate trade between tribes and non-Indians. It certainly did not confer authority to turn tribes into wards, to meddle in internal tribal affairs, or to put tribal members on the federal dole.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 30th, 2009 at 1:56 pm and is filed under Blogging. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. "

Tell Your Representatives to Make These Legislative Changes! Part Three

.
7. Finally, if tribal membership is a political rather than racial designation, (as argued) than is it constitutional for the definition of an Indian child to include "enrollable" children, rather than "enrolled" children?

25 USC Chapter 21 § 1903. Definitions: (4) ''Indian child'' means any unmarried
person who is under age eighteen and is either:
(1) member of an Indian tribe or
(2) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of
a member of an Indian tribe;

However;

a) Tribal governments have been given the right as sovereign entities to determine their own membership at the expense of the rights of any other heritage or culture as well as at the expense of individual rights.

b) ICWA does not give Indian children or their legal guardians the choice whether to accept political membership in the tribe. Legal guardians have the right to make that choice for their children, not governments. (ftn11)

c) Non-member relatives are being told that these children are now members of an entity that the family has had no past political, social or cultural relationship with.

d) So IS it then the blood relationship that determines membership? Bridget R., (ftn6) stated, "If tribal determinations are indeed conclusive for purposes of applying ICWA, and if, ... a particular tribe recognizes as members all persons who are biologically descended from historic tribal members, then children who are related by blood to such a tribe may be claimed by the tribe, and thus made subject to the provisions of ICWA, solely on the basis of their biological heritage. Only children who are racially Indians face this possibility." Isn’t that then an unconstitutional race-based classification?

e) Keeping children, no matter their blood quantum, in what the State would normally determine to be an unfit home on the basis of tribal government claims that European values don’t apply to and are not needed by children of tribal heritage is racist in nature and a denial of the child’s personal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (ftn5)

f) Even with significant relationship with Indian tribal culture, forced application of ICWA runs afoul of the Constitution in three ways: (1) it impermissibly intrudes upon a power ordinarily reserved to the states, (2) it improperly interferes with Indian children's fundamental due process rights; and (3) on the sole basis of race, it deprives them of equal opportunities to be adopted that are available to non-Indian children.

PLEASE PRESS YOUR LEGISLATORS TO CHANGE ICWA LAW

.

Campbell Brown, you were RIGHT about Leech Lake. Stay Strong!

.
Campbell Brown, please don't bow to the negative comments you have been recieving. I am the mother of several enrolled children of the Leech Lake Tribe, and what you said was correct!

However, whenever anyone speaks out against the obvious happening on the reservations, they are tore limb from limb. They are bullied to make them shut up, and that is exactly what is happening to you. I know this because it has has happened me and even to my husband, who was a member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe - Leech Lake, born and raised on Leech Lake Reservation. He spoke out because he was tired of watching his friends and relatives die. He knew that it was the reservation system itself that was destructive to them. He took our entire family and moved 1200 miles away and became politically active in an effort to bring change, happiness and hope to the people he loved.

However, getting any word out that is contrary to the image that the tribal government (industry?) chooses to project is very difficult. Although my husband went to Washington DC several times to speak to Congressmen, it was very hard as a small person to combat the lobbying the tribes do. Remember Abramoff?

Senator Burns' staff, (he was our Senator at the time), told me that the only way he would ever agree to any legislation changing Indian law is if all 500 tribes agreed to it. Never mind what's constitutional and never mind the civil rights of millions of US citizens. Just please the tribal governments. They pay very well.

And yes, there are many constitutional attorneys and professors that say that much of Indian law is unconstitutional. Please contact me and I can refer you to some.

Look at the last US census and ask yourself why so many enrolled members have moved off the reservation. #1) life is dangerous there. #2) many enrollable people are primarily NON-indian; meaning, their blood quantums are less than 1/2 tribal heritage. They have other lives, other family, and other world views, not always the same as the tribal governents.

However, if they should die, no matter their personal choice, the tribal government has jurisdiction over their children.

Please stay strong in the truth that you spoke! Don't let them bully you!
.