Apparently you have stopped believing that.
It isn't our land anymore if some rancher believes he can use our public land for his profit seeking ranching business. How do you think he'd feel if a bunch of other ranchers showed up and started grazing 10x as many cattle on it? Would he still be for the concept of "our land" being free for anyone to use?
His family had ranched cattle on that land since the 1870s. Nevada has an open range law. The bigger issue is 'why on earth should the Feds own over 80% of the land in Nevada?'.
But let's assume for a moment that the Rancher should have owed $1M in fines. The proper process is to put a lien on his property. Instead, the Feds tried to pull off some black ops maneuver to seize the cattle. Where was the proper due process?
The Indians had it before anyone. Perhaps we should just give it back to them. Hell, maybe we should give a good chunk of the SW back to Mexico while we're at it.
Do you know how many different Indian tribes there were in the US before white men came? A lot!
And they all fought each other over the land here before white men arrived.
American Indian's History: Iroquois and Cherokee Tribes, Distribution, Language
As the Cherokee were the principal tribe on the borders of the southern colonies and occupied the leading place in all the treaty negotiations, they came to be considered as the owners of a large territory to which they had no real claim. Their first sale, in 1721, embraced a tract in South Carolina, between the Congaree and the South Fork of the Edisto,but about one-half of this tract, forming the present Lexington County, belonging to the Congaree. In 1755 they sold a second tract above the first and extending across South Carolina from the Savannah to the Catawba (or Wateree), but all of this tract east of Broad River belonged to other tribes. The lower part, between the Congaree and the Wateree, had been sold 20 years before, and in the upper part the Broad River was acknowledged as the western Catawba boundary. In 1770 they sold a tract, principally in Virginia and West Virginia, bounded east by the Great Kanawha,but the Iroquois claimed by conquest all of this tract northwest of the main ridge of the Alleghany and Cumberland Mountains, and extending at least to the Kentucky River, and two years previously they had made a treaty with Sir William Johnson by which they were recognized as the owners of all between Cumberland Mountains and the Ohio down to the Tennessee. The Cumberland River basin was the only part of this tract to which the Cherokee had any real title, having driven out the former occupants, the Shawnee, about 1721. The Cherokee had no villages north of the Tennessee (this probably includes the Holston as its upper part), and at a conference at Albany the Cherokee delegates presented to the Iroquois the skin of a deer, which they said belonged to the Iroquois, as the animal had been killed north of the Tennessee. In 1805, 1806, and 1817 they sold several tracts, mainly in 79middle Tennessee, north of the Tennessee River and extending to the Cumberland River watershed, but this territory was claimed and had been occupied by the Chickasaw, and at one conference the Cherokee admitted their claim. The adjacent tract in northern Alabama and Georgia, on the headwaters of the Coosa, was not permanently occupied by the Cherokee until they began to move westward, about 1770.
The argument that the US rightfully "belonged" to the Indians is a spurious one since the boundaries within it were only formed from the amount of territory which each separate tribe was able to conquer and hold for itself.
No doubt the disputes among the various tribes of Indians over property rights bore some resemblance to the disputes which Europeans had been engaged in.
The upshot is that throughout the history of man, men have always FOUGHT for CONQUEST of LAND and other rights.
The warring nature of man has not been limited to white Europeans.
I would bet you that if you looked into the history of any other people's in the world that you would find the same type of behavior.
I would be the last person to say that this form of conduct is "good".
I would be the last person to say that "slaughtering" the Indians was "good" either.
But it should be remembered that not all Indians were as noble or peaceful as the Hollywood Jews have attempted to portray them in their efforts to vilify the Western European Anglo Saxon "Christians".
I'm sure that TRUE history is replete with many instances of numerous atrocities committed not only against white settlers, but against other Indians as well.
Are these kinds of actions any less reprehensible when they are committed by folks of a darker complexion or even those who live below the Rio Grande?
I don't think so. So why the constant smears against "white men" alone?
I suggest that is because only those attacks have been sanctioned by the Kosher press as "politically correct".
People who learn their "history" from TV, movies, and off the backs of cereal boxes may easily get the impression that the only acts of violence in the history of men were committed by white men. This impression is constantly being conveyed by the Zionist propagandists of Hollywood, in universities, in the press, and in literature in general.
I'm certain that this lop sided presentation will be intensified with the adaptation of the "Common Core Curriculum".
None of what I am saying is intended to imply that killing other people or committing acts of genocide, whether it be quickly and openly as someone like Andrew Jackson may have done it, or slowly and furtively as the Israelis are committing it against the Palestinians is a "good thing" , desirable, or even the best means to settle territorial disputes. I'm just trying to accentuate the point that not all people in the world believe in the teachings of Christ when it comes to "trespassing against ones neighbors".
I venture to say that God almighty disapproves when ANY MAN robs or murders another man.
Indeed, the doctrines of Christ prohibit such behavior. The fact that these doctrines have been so pervasive in the US for so long may be the main reason why so many white people are so susceptible to the argument that they are to blame for "massacring" the Indians and that perhaps they owe not only the Indians, but anyone and everyone else in the world whom the Jewish media has declared to be among their victims.
My guess is that as the assault on formal Christianity continues and as more and more people become "secularized " and indoctrinated into the principles of the Secular Humanism, that this foolish willingness to relinquish land as well as their own heritage among white people, will become supplanted by the Machiavellian ethics of the Talmudic Neo-Cons whose war like policies we see being conducted in the mideast presently.
Then the US will become more accustomed to the idea of "to the victor goes the spoils".
As you know, the Neo-Cons are headed up by pragmatic Zionists who understand as Mao did that "political power comes out of the barrel of a gun".
Such was the power that the Neo-Con controlled Bureau of Land Management was threatening to use against the Nevada ranchers, who, had they cow towed down like the obedient subjects of King Obama they were expected to be, would have lost the contest with scarcely a whimper.
Fortunately, the citizen ranchers of Nevada had not forgotten their cowboy heritage and decided that King Yomamma was about to go to far.
And the Neo-Cons watching the situation unfold undoubtedly decided that to gun down so many flag waving "angry white man" at this stage of the game might cause a premature eruption which they were not quite ready to handle.
They intuitively understood that the rest of the nation was watching and might not cotton to seeing so many ordinary people being gunned down in broad daylight by Federalist thugs.
It isn't that the Neo-Cons lack the firepower to put down a national uprising of "angry white men". It's just that, why should they if they can get them to all agree to just surrender whatever they have to the Jews and third world interlopers without any resistance at all?
In essence, all these namby pamby goyim have been so inundated with the "turn the other cheek" doctrine of Christ that they may be
talked out of whatever they have.
The Neo-Con hawks and their Talmudic brethren within the US and abroad have no such childish illusions about "Christian" principles when it comes to property rights. They're just happy that the JUDEO xtion ZOGbots do!
