The Real Story Behind The Bundy Ranch Harassment

...Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to

the unappropriated public lands

lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;”

Were the lands actually unappropriated? If they’d been occupied and in use at the time of statehood, that would not seem to apply. There are other treaty provisions requiring the U.S. government to recognize U.S. citizenship and property title for Mexican owners in the territories at the time of the Treaty of Hildago.

This is clearly a complicated situation, at least in its history.

“If they’d been occupied and in use at the time of statehood, that would not seem to apply. There are other treaty provisions requiring the U.S. government to recognize U.S. citizenship and property title for Mexican owners in the territories at the time of the Treaty of Hildago.”

Very true. In the Hage case, which asserted many of the same things Bundy claims, the judge wrote:

“If Defendants’ predecessors-in-interest had vested grazing rights in the disputed areas prior to the TGH [Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo], the United States may be bound to respect these rights. The TGH required the United States to honor the property rights of Mexicans in the ceded territories, and Indians were apparently viewed by the Mexican government to be full Mexican citizens under the Mexican Constitution of 1824 in effect when the TGH was signed. If there had been some right to graze upon land owned by the Mexican government vested in the owners of the lands constituting the Pine Creek Ranch under Mexican private property law, such rights would potentially be protected even in succession as against the United States under the TGH. However, because there was no evidence presented that any of Defendants’ predecessors-in-interest engaged in ranching operations on the lands that eventually became the Pine Creek Ranch prior to the signing of the TGH, there is no need to determine whether any such predecessors were “Mexicans” under the TGH and Ritchie, or whether as Indians such predecessors inherently lacked the property rights protections of the TGH under Sandoval regardless of whether the Mexican government considered them to be Mexicans.

The Court concludes that Defendants do not have a general right to graze their cattle on federal lands without a permit...”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/144609491/United-States-v-Estate-of-Hage-No-2-07-cv-01154-RCJ-VCF-Findings-of-Fact-Conclusions-of-Law-and-Injunction-D-Nev-May-24-2013

So have any of the good lefties asked what impact the solar farm will have on the tortoises?

Same for the spotted owl in Oregon. Our state, federal and county timber lands have been shut down for over 20 years now. Now there are thousands of raptor birds, eagles, owls, pelicans, etc, being killed by the wind turbines every year, "any lefties asking what impact the wind farms will have on the spotted owl?"

“If you side with the BLM do not expect any support from FR.”

I don’t side with either. The BLM & USFS are anti-grazing, while I am pro-grazing. They are anti-logging, and I’m pro-logging. They love the Endangered Species Act and Wilderness Act, and I think both should be repealed ASAP.

However, Bundy rejects being a US citizen. He paid grazing fees for years, and then decided the federal government isn’t allowed to own land - a view not shared by the Founders or the states that ratified the Constitution, since those states turned around a deeded large amounts of land to the federal government, and the Constitution gives Congress the right to make all the rules for administering federal lands.

As a legal matter, Bundy has lost and will continue to lose. His arguments have been rejected at least since the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. As I’ve pointed out, the federal government took away over 30,000 sq miles from Utah and Arizona and placed it in the state of Nevada by a simple act of Congress in 1866.

A person can loathe an overreaching federal government and also believe in SOME government. After all, the US Constitution gives us a federal government, and I spent 25 years in the US Air Force. When I was shot at, I was being shot at as an American, not as a citizen of Arizona. One can loathe Obama and respect Ronald Reagan, and understand that both served terms as President. I hate the Pima County zoning regulators, but I also believe in SOME zoning.

It is the abuse of government I hate, not the existence of a government. If that makes me a freak, then I’m a freak. I want good & honest government, not anarchy and the absolute rule of the weak by the strong.

I’ll add this:

“As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America.”

I agree with every one of those. That does not mean I want all laws to be repealed, or that I agree with someone who lives in America but who says he is not a citizen of America.

This looks like a textbook case in how to discredit the Tea Party movement and conservatives, and promote the idea that conservatives are domestic terrorists.

Where have you been? The MSM has successfully been doing that for the past 7 years.......

Can't say where I've heard or read a word where Bundy admits to being a member of the Tea Party......

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.