Why? Harry Reid is from Nevada, so, if you believe that the Feds should own this much land, like they do in that state, It would seem logical to user Mr. Reid.
The tiresome ignorance of so many folks as to federal land ownership, and the way western (and eastern) states acquired lands (or gave them up) upon entering the union, is indeed frustrating. That such as Faux and the Bund case only increase the ignorance, is blatantly stupid, and those who support this thief, and yes, bigot, need a refresher on many things, including the Constitution.
Hmm, as another point on that lands issue, anyone ever looked at the ORIGINAL western boundaries of the original 13 states, or asked where WEST Virginia came from? How ’bout that breakup of the “Ohio territory”?
If Harry Reid were actually trying to acquire private land for government, I suppose the cartoon might make sense. But it doesn’t. Harry Reid was perfectly correct — when you break the law, and then threaten law enforcement with death because your case has been tried and failed in court, you’re a terrorist.
There is a thing called “The Red Book” we used in studying land law, it lists all the land legislation passed by Congress, including the documents granting statehood to the states. You can also google state histories if you choose.
As to “bureaucracy” and growth, “W” added 32 departments in creating “Homeland Security”, a key job of many of those departments is growth of contracting to corporations to provide “security” in the U.S.. Before constantly getting bent about state and federal bureaucracies, one should also look at what’s happened in the “corporate ruling class”, since Reagan expanded on what was already happening.
There’s no take-back involved in this. Once we pushed the Indians off, the federal gov’t owned all the land. They sold some, some was acknowledged to be under Mexican land grants from before that war, some was awarded to railroad barons for resale in exchange for extending their lines, some of that was set aside for towns along the track, and some went out in the Homestead Act. The rest — including the ranges that cattle men insisted nobody owned — was under federal ownership in the Land Bank. So they didn’t TAKE anything.
curtisls87 almost 10 years ago
Why? Harry Reid is from Nevada, so, if you believe that the Feds should own this much land, like they do in that state, It would seem logical to user Mr. Reid.
Dtroutma almost 10 years ago
The tiresome ignorance of so many folks as to federal land ownership, and the way western (and eastern) states acquired lands (or gave them up) upon entering the union, is indeed frustrating. That such as Faux and the Bund case only increase the ignorance, is blatantly stupid, and those who support this thief, and yes, bigot, need a refresher on many things, including the Constitution.
Dtroutma almost 10 years ago
Hmm, as another point on that lands issue, anyone ever looked at the ORIGINAL western boundaries of the original 13 states, or asked where WEST Virginia came from? How ’bout that breakup of the “Ohio territory”?
ARodney almost 10 years ago
If Harry Reid were actually trying to acquire private land for government, I suppose the cartoon might make sense. But it doesn’t. Harry Reid was perfectly correct — when you break the law, and then threaten law enforcement with death because your case has been tried and failed in court, you’re a terrorist.
DaveBNM almost 10 years ago
Isn’t Reid’s son or some relative brokering a deal with the Chinese to buy that land in question?
Dtroutma almost 10 years ago
There is a thing called “The Red Book” we used in studying land law, it lists all the land legislation passed by Congress, including the documents granting statehood to the states. You can also google state histories if you choose.
As to “bureaucracy” and growth, “W” added 32 departments in creating “Homeland Security”, a key job of many of those departments is growth of contracting to corporations to provide “security” in the U.S.. Before constantly getting bent about state and federal bureaucracies, one should also look at what’s happened in the “corporate ruling class”, since Reagan expanded on what was already happening.
Michael Peterson Premium Member almost 10 years ago
There’s no take-back involved in this. Once we pushed the Indians off, the federal gov’t owned all the land. They sold some, some was acknowledged to be under Mexican land grants from before that war, some was awarded to railroad barons for resale in exchange for extending their lines, some of that was set aside for towns along the track, and some went out in the Homestead Act. The rest — including the ranges that cattle men insisted nobody owned — was under federal ownership in the Land Bank. So they didn’t TAKE anything.