Rancher in Nevada being harassed by the FEDS and confiscating his cattle

[Jefpainthorse]

I propose the population backing Bundy effectively nullifying the court's decision. I understand your concerns about anarchy, but at what point do the people say enough?

That's what we are saying. You may not be old enough to understand this... but this idea that no authority exists above the county level has deep roots in Montana.

As a political theory, anarchy is as far to the right as you can go. No law- just let natural order sort things out.

Many Historians understand the founders intent. Federal government is simply a frame work to bind the confederated states for common defense and international treaty. The original intenion was to limit Federal goverment and make the peoples voice louder and more authoratative on a township, county or State level with the Federal government of very limited scope.

BLM sure keeps to that idea.... As a further point of law... the basis of thos suits years ago in the midwest was once the Federal government allowed a new state to enter the Union the federal govt lost claim to the real estate within the borders of that state. And that was the way things were for the most part until we got to Colorado... the feds needed to control the mineral content - and the Western region is chock full of minerals. Nevada got statehood way early simply because the Feds needed a legal way to keep the South away from the gold and silver out here. Nevada Statehood was really a matter of Federal financial solvency. The State Motto -"Battle Born" stems from a minor Civil War battle where Union forces turned some Texas Rebs away at a place known as Battle Mountain today... the Texans were heading to take a Silver mine or two- they needed the currency too. As a default... the Feds ended up with a State that's huge and had no one of real count to live there... so they controlled the real estate... eventually created the BLM and here we are today.

This state eyeballs about the size of West Texas and has the head count of maybe Conneticut in it. The only real taxable assets here are farmland (needing stored water) and minerals. If the State cannot develop those resources the State cannot collect revenue enough to take care of what we have or support any economic growth.

If you ever come out here... drive out I-80 and turn south on US 95.... Washington DC is holding on to this to give the other 49 states something to pay for.

 

[Hobbes]

Just to get in my daily dose of prick.. OK was a territory and your family has been there since territory days. Were they entitled to whatever land they were allowed to claim? Or did they buy in from some one who was granted title by the government? Yea... it's a sticky wicket. Nevada's opinion is the land is the property of a ratified state and when stathood was granted all real estate became part of the State.

The analogy with OK breaks down though because OK was purchased from France and the feds have a receipt and cashed check to prove it.

 

[RugersGR8]

Harry Reid is a major player in this event:

http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-story-of-the-bundy-ranch/
The Real Story Behind The Bundy Ranch Harassment
Posted on April 11, 2014 by Dana radio

"Harvey Whittemore was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Senator Reid. Reid’s former senior adviser is now the head of BLM."


&

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/
Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch
BLM attempted cover-up of Sen. Reid/Chinese gov’t takeover of ranch for solar farm
Kit Daniels
Infowars.com
April 11, 2014

 

[CHenry]

Harry Reid is a major player in this event:

http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-story-of-the-bundy-ranch/
The Real Story Behind The Bundy Ranch Harassment
Posted on April 11, 2014 by Dana radio


&

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/
Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch
BLM attempted cover-up of Sen. Reid/Chinese gov’t takeover of ranch for solar farm
Kit Daniels
Infowars.com
April 11, 2014

I saw this too. Makes perfect sense if its true.

Sent from outer space or somewhere from my mobile device

 

[Jefpainthorse]

The analogy with OK breaks down though because OK was purchased from France and the feds have a receipt and cashed check to prove it.

Not really... who did France get it from.... Hmmmmnnnn (just screwin with ya)

 

[Jefpainthorse]

I saw this too. Makes perfect sense if its true.

Sent from outer space or somewhere from my mobile device

I'd stayed away from the Dingy Harry angle... he is an easy target. But this may be as big a factor as the drilling on private land all over the area too.

 

[Hobbes]

Not really... who did France get it from.... Hmmmmnnnn (just screwin with ya)

It's off topic but... this is what Teddy Roosevelt had to say about that subject:

Theodore Roosevelt: False Sentimentality About the Indians

It is greatly to be wished that some competent person would write a full and true history of our national dealings with the Indians. Undoubtedly the latter have often suffered terrible injustice at our hands. A number of instances, such as the conduct of the Georgians to the Cherokees in the early part of the present century, or the whole treatment of Chief Joseph and his Nez Percés, might be mentioned, which are indelible blots on our fair fame; and yet, in describing our dealings with the red men as a whole, historians do us much less than justice.

It was wholly impossible to avoid conflicts with the weaker race, unless we were willing to see the American continent fall into the hands of some other strong power; and even had we adopted such a ludicrous policy, the Indians themselves would have made war upon us. It cannot be too often insisted that they did not own the land; or, at least, that their ownership was merely such as that claimed often by our own white hunters. If the Indians really owned Kentucky in 1775, then in 1776 it was the property of Boone and his associates; and to dispossess one party was as great a wrong as to dispossess the other. To recognize the Indian ownership of the limitless prairies and forests of this continent--that is, to consider the dozen squalid savages who hunted at long intervals over a territory of 1,000 square miles as owning it outright--necessarily implies a similar recognition of the claims of every white hunter, squatter, horse thief, or wandering cattleman.

Take as an example the country round the Little Missouri. When the cattlemen, the first actual settlers, came into this land in 1882, it was already scantily peopled by a few white hunters and trappers. The latter were extremely jealous of intrusion; they had held their own in spite of the Indians, and, like the Indians, the inrush of settlers and the consequent destruction of the game meant their own undoing; also, again like the Indians, they felt that their having hunted over the soil gave them a vague prescriptive right to its sole occupation, and they did their best to keep actual settlers out. In some cases, to avoid difficulty, their nominal claims were bought up; generally and rightly, they were disregarded. Yet they certainly had as good a right to the Little Missouri country as the Sioux have to most of the land on their present reservations.

In fact, the mere statement of the case is sufficient to show the absurdity of asserting that the land really belonged to the Indians. The different tribes have always been utterly unable to define their own boundaries. Thus the Delawares and Wyandots, in 1785, though entirely separate nations, claimed and, in a certain sense, occupied almost exactly the same territory.

Moreover, it was wholly impossible for our policy to be always consistent. Nowadays we undoubtedly ought to break up the great Indian reservations, disregard the tribal governments, allot the land in severalty (with, however, only a limited power of alienation), and treat the Indians as we do other citizens, with certain exceptions, for their sakes as well as ours.

But this policy, which it would be wise to follow now, would have been wholly impracticable a century since. Our central government was then too weak either effectively to control its own members or adequately to punish aggressions made upon them; and even if it had been strong, it would probably have proved impossible to keep entire order over such a vast, sparsely peopled frontier, with such turbulent elements on both sides. The Indians could not be treated as individuals at that time. There was no possible alternative, therefore, to treating their tribes as nations, exactly as the French and English had done before us. Our difficulties were partly inherited from these, our predecessors; were partly caused by our own misdeeds; but were mainly the inevitable result of the conditions under which the problem had to be solved--no human wisdom or virtue could have worked out a peaceable solution.

As a nation, our Indian policy is to be blamed because of the weakness it displayed, because of its shortsightedness and its occasional leaning to the policy of the sentimental humanitarians; and we have often promised what was impossible to perform; but there has been little willful wrongdoing. Our government almost always tries to act fairly by the tribes; the governmental agents (some of whom have been dishonest and others foolish, but who as a class have been greatly traduced) in their reports are far more apt to be unjust to the whites than to the reds; and the federal authorities, though unable to prevent much of the injustice, still did check and control the white borderers very much more effectually than the Indian sachems and war chiefs controlled their young braves.

The tribes were warlike and bloodthirsty, jealous of each other and of the whites; they claimed the land for their hunting grounds, but their claims all conflicted with one another; their knowledge of their own boundaries was so indefinite that they were always willing, for inadequate compensation, to sell land to which they had merely the vaguest title; and yet, when once they had received the goods, were generally reluctant to make over even what they could; they coveted the goods and scalps of the whites, and the young warriors were always on the alert to commit outrages when they could do it with impunity.

On the other hand, the evil-disposed whites regarded the Indians as fair game for robbery and violence of any kind; and the far larger number of well-disposed men, who would not willingly wrong any Indian, were themselves maddened by the memories of hideous injuries received. They bitterly resented the action of the government which, in their eyes, failed to properly protect them, and yet sought to keep them out of waste, uncultivated lands which they did not regard as being any more the property of the Indians than of their own hunters. With the best intentions, it was wholly impossible for any government to evolve order out of such chaos without resort to the ultimate arbitrator--the sword.

Yeah, I know...

 

[Jefpainthorse]

I was sorta looking at the whole chain of owners. But hey... none of that is going to change the fact that our courts decided a long time that OUR STATES own their lands....

If Teddy had left a few more like him we'd have a better country today... IMHO. And we'd have the conservation he loved without this Facist goverment we have now

 

[Hobbes]

If Teddy had left a few more like him we'd have a better country today... IMHO. And we'd have the conservation he loved without this Facist goverment we have now

I'm not sure how you got that out of that TR quote.
Seemed to me he was justifying acquisition of new land by force of federal troops.

I'm open to other interpretations tho.

 

[Jefpainthorse]

Teddy is saying that these Indians were not the noble savages modern media would like us to believe.

Inter tribal wars, and a little double dealing among themselves .... Of course with small pix and gunpowder on outside they didn't have a chance

100 years ago nobody knew the Reservation system was going to work out like it did