What's new
By:

Yesterday - Bundy Ranch

PKM said:
and if you care to go back to the beginning of this thread, I called what the Bundy's are doing as 'douchey.' It is within my rights to have an opinion the government handled it wrong. They did. I think they're even admitting that now (no link).

I'm not 'siding' with the Bundy's... never have.

I have only a few thoughts on this.. and they're very simple (obviously);
1) I think the government handled it wrong.. they should have acted swiftly rather than slow and heavy-handed.
2) I think the Bundy's are wrong, legally.
3) It's been very cool to be part of this and witness it, I can't lie.
4) I hate dirty self-dealing politicians. We've tons of these problems (huge) right here in St. George for years.
5) I can't help but correct inaccuracies reported by whomever.
Click to expand...

1) I have acknowledge it in several of my post and agree with you.
2) Good you agree with me too.
3) This is the part I don't get. To me it is disturbing to watch anarchy.
4) I agree
5) Well you are entitled to correct what you see as wrong and I am entitled to express a different opinion.
 
If the issue is that the government should have worked swiftly then fine. I also think they probably should have just taken the cows away some 10+ years ago.
 
Sirkickyass said:
If the issue is that the government should have worked swiftly then fine. I also think they probably should have just taken the cows away some 10+ years ago.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I guess I'm asking that you take my word for it, but there was no real Bundy support when he lost his court cases (a little, of course, but nothing major). There wasn't even much support when the feds threatened to take his cattle.

The call for support only came when the feds showed up with massive fire power. I know it's silly.. I understand that, but it was a 'waco situation' that was trying to be averted by militia 'protecting' Bundy from the feds firing on him. It was only after that that it became a 'who's right and wrong' thing.. but it did not start that way.

I know you're thinking what difference does all that make.. and that's understandable, but for whatever reason, it's important to me to share the events in chronological order.. again, not that it really matters at this point.
 
American people you so brainwashed. This Bundy army is CIA false flag operation make you pay not attention to black ops in Ukraine. Why you think your Obama give him cattle now back? You don't ask yourself this?

Wake up American.
 
[size/HUGE] boobs [/size];808914 said:
American people you so brainwashed. This Bundy army is CIA false flag operation make you pay not attention to black ops in Ukraine. Why you think your Obama give him cattle now back? You don't ask yourself this?

Wake up American.
Click to expand...

Nazdravia komrad.
 
Sirkickyass said:
This is an issue that has been decided long ago in a variety of different contexts. For example, here is the (applicable) ninth circuit case on the issue of whether or not the Federal Government can "own" lands under the constitution rather than simply hold lands in reserve for states.

https://openjurist.org/107/f3d/1314/united-states-v-gardner

The primary thrust is, essentially, that the original thirteen states are special. They operated as thirteen sovereign entities that gave themselves over to the United States and early cases interpreting the relevant provision of the Constitution are about those specific states and their relationship to the US Government. For example, in Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan (cited as one of the "correct" cases in PKM's non-cited article) the case specifically dealt with the terms of Virginia and Georgia's land that was ceded to the US Federal Government to discharge debts incurred by those states during the revolutionary war. Other states (like Nevada) had no independent existence as a sovereign territory and were acquired in other ways, in this instance a treaty with Mexico.

While previous court cases dealt with states that belonged to the former category (like Virginia and Georgia), later court cases dealt with states that belonged to the latter category (like Nevada). Title with the USFG to the lands in question was consistent all the way from the original acquisition of the land from Mexico in 1848. Since the USFG has held title since 1848, and the Property Clause provides that Congress has the power "to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States," courts have uniformly held that the US retains title and newly created states do not automatically absorb all federal lands.

This is an instance of people who claim a thing is unconstitutional trying to make square pegs fit round holes. Not every state came into the nation the same way, and not every state's land dealings have been treated the same way because the chain of title differs. It turns out the very existence of potential Nevada wasn't on the framer's minds in the 1780s.

The Bundys and others like them have tried to claim that treating Nevada differently than the first thirteen colonies is also unconstitutional under a theory known as the Equal Footing Doctrine. This argument sounds better than it is because it has a catchy name. The actual Equal Footing Doctrine from Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan applied only to give new states rights, sovereignty and jurisdiction over applicable shores and navigable waters. This was for purely practical reasons involving difficulty of accurate surveying at the time of the decision and determining which entity would have sovereignty over the appropriate land. In fact, no Court has held that the Equal Footing Doctrine applies to inland lands for more than a Century. This has even applied to minor islands in stream beds and rivers where states can own the entire river and the US Government can maintain control of the islands therein.



It doesn't much matter to the electric company if I offer to pay their bill to the water utility.
Click to expand...

[size/HUGE] boobs [/size] My friend how you revise history? You watch too many of the Bugs Bunny brainwash episode do you Elmer Fuddy Duddy.

Nevada was sovereign state at the 1778 but they have fight with British Imperialism when Queen spies Meriwether and William Clark come under order of Thomas Jefferson to infiltrate Nevada government and take all history map from governor mansion. William Clark is born grandson Duke of Rutland David Manners and was 33 degree mason. Nobody know history of Lewis but speculation from Bolshevik Knight record in 1798 suggest same house allegiance.

Lewis and Clark make succeed in burn all map and find Washington reward from fellow 33 degree mason Thomas Jefferson. This does not end everything Jefferson acting under direction Queen know in Three generation plus one American will forget Nevada state. He buy time make official map Lewis and Clark get lost in national archive. It have no more Nevada.

When 33 degree mason Abraham Lincoln get placed as Queen puppet he find of convenience Official map Lewis and Clark. He say look my friends Nevada is not. Nevada is Atlantic City. American Patriot in south state know Lincoln soon wash white Nevada in 4th generation for Queen. Did I mention Queen know secret from Spanish mason in Nevada great gold? Estimate 5 million ton in one mine. This is why she want Nevada my friends.

This is reason civil war in America.
 
albundy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top