Wanishi (thank you) for coming to my blog.
Before I begin I want to be very clear that I am not attacking anyone’s political affiliation, nationhood or religion. If you feel I have done so, please send me a message and we can talk it out.
For those that don’t know, I am a Proud Citizen of the Lenape Nation. My Ancestors negotiated and signed the very first Treaty that the American People ever entered into, back when the United States was only two years old.
I’m not going to unpack our Treaty right now, but it is critical for anyone reading this to know that Article 6, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says, “All Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.“ It continues, and it’s important, but I have to keep this short. If you take anything away from what I’m saying right now, please let it be this:
“All Treaties”
“are the Supreme Law of the Land.”
Only a Sovereign Nation can enter into a legally binding Treaty with another Sovereign Nation, Treaties are one thing that makes a Sovereign Nation Sovereign. And Sovereign Indigenous Nations have 374 constitutionally protected Treaties that are ratified by the US Senate.
I believe that “All Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land” is self evident. The soldiers who defend/protect our 1A, and 2A rights are the same soldiers defending/protecting Article 6, on foreign soil, today. I think that is an undebatable fact.
Love it or hate it, the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) violates two Treaties that the Constitution says “are the Supreme Law of the Land.”
Let me be clear.
I am not against pipelines.
What I am against is pipelines that explicitly violate the Constitution, because I know who defends/protects our Constitution, and who defends/protects “All Treaties.”
My Ancestors take that seriously, and so do I.
I know what some of you are thinking. “Treaties don’t matter because they’re oLd.”
Please understand that time does not antiquate law. Law is based on precedent. Just because a law, or in this case, a “Supreme Law” is old, does not make it null and void. If that were true then the US Constitution, which is *older* than the hundreds of Treaties it protects, would also be null and void. If the Bible means anything to you like it does to me, then please note that the Bible is thousands of years older than the 374 Treaties that were ratified by the U.S. Senate. Time does not antiquate law.
Before I begin I want to be very clear that I am not attacking anyone’s political affiliation, nationhood or religion. If you feel I have done so, please send me a message and we can talk it out.
For those that don’t know, I am a Proud Citizen of the Lenape Nation. My Ancestors negotiated and signed the very first Treaty that the American People ever entered into, back when the United States was only two years old.
I’m not going to unpack our Treaty right now, but it is critical for anyone reading this to know that Article 6, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says, “All Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.“ It continues, and it’s important, but I have to keep this short. If you take anything away from what I’m saying right now, please let it be this:
“All Treaties”
“are the Supreme Law of the Land.”
Only a Sovereign Nation can enter into a legally binding Treaty with another Sovereign Nation, Treaties are one thing that makes a Sovereign Nation Sovereign. And Sovereign Indigenous Nations have 374 constitutionally protected Treaties that are ratified by the US Senate.
I believe that “All Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land” is self evident. The soldiers who defend/protect our 1A, and 2A rights are the same soldiers defending/protecting Article 6, on foreign soil, today. I think that is an undebatable fact.
Love it or hate it, the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) violates two Treaties that the Constitution says “are the Supreme Law of the Land.”
Let me be clear.
I am not against pipelines.
What I am against is pipelines that explicitly violate the Constitution, because I know who defends/protects our Constitution, and who defends/protects “All Treaties.”
My Ancestors take that seriously, and so do I.
I know what some of you are thinking. “Treaties don’t matter because they’re oLd.”
Please understand that time does not antiquate law. Law is based on precedent. Just because a law, or in this case, a “Supreme Law” is old, does not make it null and void. If that were true then the US Constitution, which is *older* than the hundreds of Treaties it protects, would also be null and void. If the Bible means anything to you like it does to me, then please note that the Bible is thousands of years older than the 374 Treaties that were ratified by the U.S. Senate. Time does not antiquate law.
A few days ago a jury found Greenpeace liable for what happened at Standing Rock. Greenpeace, which is an environmental group from Holland, has to pay $660MM to Energy Transfers Partners (the proprietors of DAPL) for the damages the oil company endured for illegally putting their pipeline through Treaty Land.
Again, I was at Standing Rock and it is not only wrong, but disgraceful to imply that Greenpeace was responsible for what was happening at Standing Rock because Standing Rock Nation is *on record* taking full responsibility for the call to action and the defense of their constitutionally protected Treaties. Greenpeace had to *ask permission* from Standing Rock before they could even step foot on their Treaty Land. How on Gods colonized earth is a group of Dutch environmentalists liable for Standing Rocks defending their Treaty Land? Greenpeace doesn't have constitutionally protected Treaties with the American People - Standing Rock Nation does!
What this does is circumnavigate Tribal Sovereignty. It suppresses free speech and the right to peacefully assemble by holding non-violent civil disobedience, not to mention the defense/protection of Article 6, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution a crime. And this also whitewashes what really happened at Standing Rock (and why) because now a court has opined that this is a case about environmental terrorism instead of a case about a self-identified Christian Nation that constitutionally says "All Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land" while doing the opposite, "in God we trust."
One last time for the record, I am not against Christians. I am a Christian. I just have different theology. I believe that when the Bible says “honor thy word” I believe that means honor thy constitutionally protected Treaties. Especially when our motto is “in God we trust.”
Think about all the social causes the church has supported, both good and bad. Can anyone, anywhere cite one example of a Christian Pastor or Priest getting up to the pulpit and telling their congregation that “honor thy word” = honor thy Treaties? I've been engaged with Christianity for over 20 years and I've never heard a Pastor take this position.
In my opinion, honoring our word, especially our constitutional word, “in God we trust” is a slam dunk position. But here we are.
How would you feel if your constitutionally protected rights to free speech or to carry a firearm were rendered null and void? All parts of the Constitution is defended/protected by Soldiers, including Article 6.
I know what some of you are thinking because I've had this conversation literally thousands of times: "the iNdiAnS loSt tHe wAr." Which war? Congress has declared exactly zero wars against Sovereign Indigenous Nations.
Some of you might be thinking "tHe iNdiAnS wErE cOnqUeRed." Well, if we were "cOnQueReD' then why doesn't the US Gov't argue that in court? If it were a fact then America could simple cite that in court and case closed, right? Why is the US Gov't arguing, as recently as 2005, Indigenous Nations and Peoples do not have the right to hold title to the Land God Created us on because it was "discovered" by European Christian Monarchs. And why isn't the church standing up against this?
We still have Treaties, elections, self-government, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and Treaty Land that the US Gov't does not hold the exclusive title too. If we were conquered why can't an Oklahoma Highway Patrolman write you a speeding ticket in Eastern Oklahoma? If we were conquered why do Indigenous Peoples and Nations get to enjoy liberties and freedoms like hunting/fishing/gaming in places where the American People are not allowed to have the same liberty and freedom? Because those are our laws, not yours. Legislated by dually elected Tribal Councils in elections that Americans cannot participate in. America can't write laws on land that America doesn't have jurisdiction over. US Gov't calls it's relationship with Tribal Nations as a "government to government relationship." We are still here.
What 99.99% of Americans do not know is that Indigenous Peoples are not only an ethnic classification of peoples. We are also a political classification of peoples, with governments, constitutions, elections and courts, just like you. We are a body politic the same way American, Canadians and Mexicans are their own respective body politic.
---
THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN DISOCVERY
The four Supreme Court decisions that cement the doctrine of Christian "discovery" as the cornerstone of US Property Law are:
Johnson v. McIntosh (1823)
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903)
Tee Hit Ton Indians v. USA (1955)
and, most recently, City of Sherril v. Oneida Nation (2005).
How does one, "discover" land that is already inhabited and being governed by tens of millions of people? The only way to do that is by dehumanization. The Supreme Court ruled, and the law still remains to this day, that Native Americans cannot hold the title to our land *today* because our ancestors weren't baptized in 1492. I wish I was making this up.
Again, I was at Standing Rock and it is not only wrong, but disgraceful to imply that Greenpeace was responsible for what was happening at Standing Rock because Standing Rock Nation is *on record* taking full responsibility for the call to action and the defense of their constitutionally protected Treaties. Greenpeace had to *ask permission* from Standing Rock before they could even step foot on their Treaty Land. How on Gods colonized earth is a group of Dutch environmentalists liable for Standing Rocks defending their Treaty Land? Greenpeace doesn't have constitutionally protected Treaties with the American People - Standing Rock Nation does!
What this does is circumnavigate Tribal Sovereignty. It suppresses free speech and the right to peacefully assemble by holding non-violent civil disobedience, not to mention the defense/protection of Article 6, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution a crime. And this also whitewashes what really happened at Standing Rock (and why) because now a court has opined that this is a case about environmental terrorism instead of a case about a self-identified Christian Nation that constitutionally says "All Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land" while doing the opposite, "in God we trust."
One last time for the record, I am not against Christians. I am a Christian. I just have different theology. I believe that when the Bible says “honor thy word” I believe that means honor thy constitutionally protected Treaties. Especially when our motto is “in God we trust.”
Think about all the social causes the church has supported, both good and bad. Can anyone, anywhere cite one example of a Christian Pastor or Priest getting up to the pulpit and telling their congregation that “honor thy word” = honor thy Treaties? I've been engaged with Christianity for over 20 years and I've never heard a Pastor take this position.
In my opinion, honoring our word, especially our constitutional word, “in God we trust” is a slam dunk position. But here we are.
How would you feel if your constitutionally protected rights to free speech or to carry a firearm were rendered null and void? All parts of the Constitution is defended/protected by Soldiers, including Article 6.
I know what some of you are thinking because I've had this conversation literally thousands of times: "the iNdiAnS loSt tHe wAr." Which war? Congress has declared exactly zero wars against Sovereign Indigenous Nations.
Some of you might be thinking "tHe iNdiAnS wErE cOnqUeRed." Well, if we were "cOnQueReD' then why doesn't the US Gov't argue that in court? If it were a fact then America could simple cite that in court and case closed, right? Why is the US Gov't arguing, as recently as 2005, Indigenous Nations and Peoples do not have the right to hold title to the Land God Created us on because it was "discovered" by European Christian Monarchs. And why isn't the church standing up against this?
We still have Treaties, elections, self-government, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and Treaty Land that the US Gov't does not hold the exclusive title too. If we were conquered why can't an Oklahoma Highway Patrolman write you a speeding ticket in Eastern Oklahoma? If we were conquered why do Indigenous Peoples and Nations get to enjoy liberties and freedoms like hunting/fishing/gaming in places where the American People are not allowed to have the same liberty and freedom? Because those are our laws, not yours. Legislated by dually elected Tribal Councils in elections that Americans cannot participate in. America can't write laws on land that America doesn't have jurisdiction over. US Gov't calls it's relationship with Tribal Nations as a "government to government relationship." We are still here.
What 99.99% of Americans do not know is that Indigenous Peoples are not only an ethnic classification of peoples. We are also a political classification of peoples, with governments, constitutions, elections and courts, just like you. We are a body politic the same way American, Canadians and Mexicans are their own respective body politic.
---
THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN DISOCVERY
The four Supreme Court decisions that cement the doctrine of Christian "discovery" as the cornerstone of US Property Law are:
Johnson v. McIntosh (1823)
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903)
Tee Hit Ton Indians v. USA (1955)
and, most recently, City of Sherril v. Oneida Nation (2005).
How does one, "discover" land that is already inhabited and being governed by tens of millions of people? The only way to do that is by dehumanization. The Supreme Court ruled, and the law still remains to this day, that Native Americans cannot hold the title to our land *today* because our ancestors weren't baptized in 1492. I wish I was making this up.
Chief Justice John Marshall, who was a land prospector in Virginia and Kentucky (definitely not a conflict of interest) wrote the unanimous decision for the court. "Indians, who are heathens" do not have the right to hold land title because Pope Alexander V declared in a 1493 Papal Bull that any lands occupied by non-Christians is considered "terra nullis" (which means empty land) and can consequently be taken by virtue of discovery. That is the argument of the U.S. Gov't, today. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the late liberal darling cited the doctrine of Christian discovery, in her 2005 majority opinion of City of Sherill v. Oneida Nation. Footnote #1
"Per the doctrine of discovery, fee title (to the land) is vested in the Sovereign. First the "discovering" European Nation, then the Original States and then the United States." This is in 2005. RBG, btw, is rewriting history in her decision by her using the words "European Nation." What she is doing is secularizing Christianity's role and responsibility in the doctrine of discovery by falsely claiming that Europe was a body politic in 1492. Europe was not Europe in 1492. There was no EU 533 years ago. It was Christendom. That is a fact.
"Per the doctrine of discovery, fee title (to the land) is vested in the Sovereign. First the "discovering" European Nation, then the Original States and then the United States." This is in 2005. RBG, btw, is rewriting history in her decision by her using the words "European Nation." What she is doing is secularizing Christianity's role and responsibility in the doctrine of discovery by falsely claiming that Europe was a body politic in 1492. Europe was not Europe in 1492. There was no EU 533 years ago. It was Christendom. That is a fact.
If there is anything that both the Republican and Democrat parties agree on, it's Treaty noncompliance. Can anyone, anywhere, cite a single Republican or Democrat legislating, or even campaigning on honoring constitutionally protected Treaties?
I went to Standing Rock during the Obama administration because I was pissed he was breaking Treaties. Standing Rock continued during the Trump Administration and ended when the Biden Administration dropped it's case against the Energy Transfer Partners. Neither one of these political parties have ever campaigned or legislated a challenge to the Doctrine of "Discovery."
I love Jesus. And my salvation is in Him, but I have a fundamental disagreement with Christians here in America because I believe when God commands us, "thou shall not steal" that includes "discovering" If you don't believe that taking someone's private property, without their consent, by virtue of Christian discovery is theft, then please leave your cell phone and your car keys out next time we see each other and I'll gladly "discover" them from you.
Lets look at another brilliant example of the Supreme Court exhibiting exceptional reasoning for the execution of justice. USA v. Great Sioux Nation (1980). The Sioux Nation sued the United States for stealing the Black Hills by illegally breaking both Treaties of Fort Laramie. Believe it or not, the Supreme Court agreed with the Sioux Nation. The court conceded that the "United States improperly took the Black Hills from the Sioux." Now, I'm not a legal scholar, but can anyone here tell me what the court means by the words "improperly took?" That would be a euphemism for theft, am I correct? Then, as punishment for America "improperly taking" the Black Hills, which is where all the gold from Fort Knox came from, SCOTUS made America pay ten cents on the dollar, to the land that The Great Sioux Nation never put up for sale. That $2 billion dollars, btw, still sits in the US Treasury today because the Black Hill are not for sale and have never been for sale.
Could you imagine someone stealing you car, and then a court saying that although a thief stole your vehicle, the thief has to pay ten cents to the dollar AND the thief still gets to keep your car.
What a time to be alive.
----
Here's why I have hope.
Martin Luther King Jr. said, "the moral arch of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice." I am so convinced that Indigenous Nations and Peoples have the moral high ground. I believe that one day the American People will have more respect for their constitution. And I believe one day American Christians will ask God if He thinks "honor thy word" = honor thy Treaties. When that happens, my Nation and Peoples will be closer to being free. We've been dealing with this for 533 years and we will continue for another 533 years if need be.
I am going to continue using my art, my music and my platform for the Seventh Generation. That is part of my duty as a Lenape.
The American People have cornered themselves into a very precarious position. Does every word of the Constitution mean anything? Because Article 6, Section 2 would like to have a word.
I believe that one day the American People are going to connect their head and their heart.
Wanishi,
Brian Ernst
Below is a video a shot at Standing Rock.
The pictures below are also mine.
I went to Standing Rock during the Obama administration because I was pissed he was breaking Treaties. Standing Rock continued during the Trump Administration and ended when the Biden Administration dropped it's case against the Energy Transfer Partners. Neither one of these political parties have ever campaigned or legislated a challenge to the Doctrine of "Discovery."
I love Jesus. And my salvation is in Him, but I have a fundamental disagreement with Christians here in America because I believe when God commands us, "thou shall not steal" that includes "discovering" If you don't believe that taking someone's private property, without their consent, by virtue of Christian discovery is theft, then please leave your cell phone and your car keys out next time we see each other and I'll gladly "discover" them from you.
Lets look at another brilliant example of the Supreme Court exhibiting exceptional reasoning for the execution of justice. USA v. Great Sioux Nation (1980). The Sioux Nation sued the United States for stealing the Black Hills by illegally breaking both Treaties of Fort Laramie. Believe it or not, the Supreme Court agreed with the Sioux Nation. The court conceded that the "United States improperly took the Black Hills from the Sioux." Now, I'm not a legal scholar, but can anyone here tell me what the court means by the words "improperly took?" That would be a euphemism for theft, am I correct? Then, as punishment for America "improperly taking" the Black Hills, which is where all the gold from Fort Knox came from, SCOTUS made America pay ten cents on the dollar, to the land that The Great Sioux Nation never put up for sale. That $2 billion dollars, btw, still sits in the US Treasury today because the Black Hill are not for sale and have never been for sale.
Could you imagine someone stealing you car, and then a court saying that although a thief stole your vehicle, the thief has to pay ten cents to the dollar AND the thief still gets to keep your car.
What a time to be alive.
----
Here's why I have hope.
Martin Luther King Jr. said, "the moral arch of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice." I am so convinced that Indigenous Nations and Peoples have the moral high ground. I believe that one day the American People will have more respect for their constitution. And I believe one day American Christians will ask God if He thinks "honor thy word" = honor thy Treaties. When that happens, my Nation and Peoples will be closer to being free. We've been dealing with this for 533 years and we will continue for another 533 years if need be.
I am going to continue using my art, my music and my platform for the Seventh Generation. That is part of my duty as a Lenape.
The American People have cornered themselves into a very precarious position. Does every word of the Constitution mean anything? Because Article 6, Section 2 would like to have a word.
I believe that one day the American People are going to connect their head and their heart.
Wanishi,
Brian Ernst
Below is a video a shot at Standing Rock.
The pictures below are also mine.
RSS Feed