Last I heard. . . .
Gatecrashing Dr. Jones
- Thread starter babe
- Start date
Last I heard. . . .
He is illegally administering the pad, paying the bills, the taxes, and the bank. . . wait. . . or is he the bank?. . . ., mowing the lawns and cleaning the pool. He has no right to the place because the Shivwits never signed the treaty ceding the land to the United States. Furthermore, Utah is an illegal and unconstitutional state because Congress violated the separation of State and Church clause of the Constitution by making a deal to admit the Mormons into the Union as a State. In addition, there are several other competing claims, properly speaking, clouding title. . . . First of all, the US Constitution does not specifically give the Federal government the power to own land, so all Federal claims, and all Federal-sourced deeds transferring property either to States or individuals under illegal and unconstitutional Act Of Congress are just unconstitutional, and therefroe void. Secondly, the Mexican-American War was an act of aggression, and Mexico today rejects the treaty it illegally signed transferring title to the Federal government. Thirdly, Mexico never militarily occupied the land, so their claim can be questioned, and therefore the treaty ceding title to the United States is void. Fourthly, the Shivwit Paiute band, a subgroup of the Shoshone, never filed any recorded deed or other claim to the property, which they stole from the Fremont indian band, who in turn stole it from the Anasazi, who in turn stole it from some Bonneville-age settlers who used to be snowbirds 10000 years ago, and who would come to Dixie for the sunshine in the cold Bonneville winters when the lake was frozen over and engulfed in a bitter cold inversion layer. It is rumored that there were settlements in the area dating to 15000 years ago, and so I think the land belongs to me. I'm the oldest member of JazzFanz, and therefore the closest relative of the original title-holders. I'll be filing probate to claim title soon.
Last edited:
The whole conspiracy theory about wandering Siberian bands coming across a land bridge just 10000 years ago and claiming title to the Americas is hogwash. Everyone knows some Africans came over the Atlantic in some pretty decent boats they built 35000 years ago, and that some Frenchmen came over during the ice age by fishing and killing sea lions along the fringes of the Atlantic ice limits about 28000 years ago, as well, and that after huge genocidal racial wars between these groups , and the bears, saber-toothed tigers, and lions, the land was left desolate, except for a few bands of fishermen living on the offshore Califormia islands ten thousand years ago. That is why the Southwest is a gentic isolate dissimilar from other native Americans.
All that pre-dates the claims of the Lamanites and Nephites just 2600 years ago, and the Jaredites just 4500 years ago, and the Mulekites also about 2500 years ago.
All of which goes to the point that Peeks is a Johnny-come-lately to land ownership in Washington County, Utah. . . . and proves my point that guns, not deeds, provide peaceable title to any scrap of land. Mark my words, a government that comes to pick up your guns will also burn the County Recorder's Office records, and call you names like Kulaks and bourgeoise, and some honcho with a pen and phone will soon be telling you who can live and who must die. There's just no middle ground with power in human nature.
All that pre-dates the claims of the Lamanites and Nephites just 2600 years ago, and the Jaredites just 4500 years ago, and the Mulekites also about 2500 years ago.
All of which goes to the point that Peeks is a Johnny-come-lately to land ownership in Washington County, Utah. . . . and proves my point that guns, not deeds, provide peaceable title to any scrap of land. Mark my words, a government that comes to pick up your guns will also burn the County Recorder's Office records, and call you names like Kulaks and bourgeoise, and some honcho with a pen and phone will soon be telling you who can live and who must die. There's just no middle ground with power in human nature.
Yep
You need a special spell check function to pick up on this sort of type. The correct spelling is "Rep".
Of course the present honcho with a pen and a phone is in some particularly more noticeable position our sitting Pres. Obama, we've got another one sitting in our courts, a good specific example of the whole racial issue with property rights:
https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=91h48gf2oe6nt
In the long run, historically
, property rights have existed only consequently to the power of arms to repel other interested humans. Because "race" has historically been a basis for forming communities, nations, etc beginning with some tribal allegiances, property rights have always been a racial issue.
La Raza, today, maintains that US aggression in the past was unjust, and that therefore Mexico properly should own the US Southwest, including the Gadsen Purchase, which was a cash deal. La Raza is clearly a racist organization, which Obama implicitly validates by maintaining liasons with them and advisors from among them. Properly speaking, Obama's action in using his pen to legitimize Mexicans is a capitulation to this point of view. Why shouldn't they come here, who are we to say no.
When the US Federal government makes second class citizens of a racial segment of it's citizenry, while giving another racial class special privileges it is provoking race war. When folks buy into the historical racial issues of the past and inject them into today's issues as a basis for analysis, criticism, and proposed special treatment of any group, the poison of real racism is just perpetuated.
We no long hear of the principle of "equal justice under the law" as an absolute. There are so many reasons why someone or another should be treated special. . . .
In a political climate like this is becoming, a white(I'd guess), fairly well-to-do, land developer needs to be pretty light-footed rather than deep-rooted. Get in, build, sell, take the money and run.
Oh, to Iceland or somewhere. . . .lol
, property rights have existed only consequently to the power of arms to repel other interested humans. Because "race" has historically been a basis for forming communities, nations, etc beginning with some tribal allegiances, property rights have always been a racial issue.
La Raza, today, maintains that US aggression in the past was unjust, and that therefore Mexico properly should own the US Southwest, including the Gadsen Purchase, which was a cash deal. La Raza is clearly a racist organization, which Obama implicitly validates by maintaining liasons with them and advisors from among them. Properly speaking, Obama's action in using his pen to legitimize Mexicans is a capitulation to this point of view. Why shouldn't they come here, who are we to say no.
When the US Federal government makes second class citizens of a racial segment of it's citizenry, while giving another racial class special privileges it is provoking race war. When folks buy into the historical racial issues of the past and inject them into today's issues as a basis for analysis, criticism, and proposed special treatment of any group, the poison of real racism is just perpetuated.
We no long hear of the principle of "equal justice under the law" as an absolute. There are so many reasons why someone or another should be treated special. . . .
In a political climate like this is becoming, a white(I'd guess), fairly well-to-do, land developer needs to be pretty light-footed rather than deep-rooted. Get in, build, sell, take the money and run.
Oh, to Iceland or somewhere. . . .lol
La Raza is racist and your post is not?
Of course we're not giving the South West back to Mexico. But to label the argument that the people whom it was forcibly taken from have a claim to it as racist? Do we really exist according to the laws of the jungle? We are not better than that?
I got a bigger dick so back off my bitch! I don't care how hard she cries.
what a sexist post you have.
If we lose our humor we lose some of our humanity and our capacity for civility with others who may be different in any way.
I'm just making jokes here. This is a joke thread. Bizarre or extreme caracatures of stuff I see elsewhere in this forum.
Does drinking beer impair good humor? sometimes, apparently.
Not sure how I missed this (except for not reading the board).
I love you guys and you're welcome at my pad any time.
If you're going to protest, please protest the hatred of Demarcus Cousins. It's just not fair.
Why? I'll tell ya Tuesday.
Babe: your posts are f'n long.
I love you guys and you're welcome at my pad any time.
If you're going to protest, please protest the hatred of Demarcus Cousins. It's just not fair.
Why? I'll tell ya Tuesday.
Babe: your posts are f'n long.