US land claims in Bundy case based on lie-started, treaty-violating, unlawful war on Mexico

“The only thing new in the world is the history you don’t know.”  – President Harry Truman, Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman (1974), Merle Miller, pg. 26.

The Bundy land case raises questions of US federal authority on the ~80% of Nevada they claim to “own.” It’s also a spark for Americans to act on a local issue within a context of US government “leaders” engaging in OBVIOUS crimes centering in war, money, and media (also in ~100 other crucial areas).

US land claims (and here) in Nevada and throughout the US Southwest originate in similar crimes to current US lie-started, treaty-violating, unlawful Wars of Aggression. These claims are from violating treaties with Native Americans, and a lie-started, treaty-violating, unlawful invasive war on Mexico.

If the land in question was stolen by the US federal government, and used US military to do so only with unlawful orders and lies to our trusting soldiers and families, then we have strong arguments that all ensuing claims of the federal government are void because anything passed as so-called “law” in obvious violation to the US Constitution is void with zero legal force.

US land claims on this stolen land are closer to the argument, “All land is the King’s land” than comprehensively truthful public consideration of what is and is not in the public’s best interests under a representative democratic republic of limited government under the US Constitution. US key policies are also far closer to fascism than a republic limited under law.

And that said, again, the big picture action is to arrest US “leadership” from more obvious crimes and lies in the present in war, money, and media (plus ~100 other crucial areas)

The Mexican-American War is vitally important to understand because it sets the precedent of a US president lying, violating clear treaty, and the US stealing resources at the expense of thousands of deaths of US soldiers, and many multiples of those deaths of the people we attacked. Then, as today, the majority of Americans believed their “leaders” in ignorance of the facts, and without media’s coverage of clear voices like Abraham Lincoln’s to explain the facts.

The US invaded Mexico in 1846 despite it being a clear treaty violation and upon clear lies of US President Polk: “American blood shed upon the American soil.” The result of the war was the US taking 40% of Mexico’s land. Although historians note that freshman member of Congress Abraham Lincoln was/is correct that the president lied and violated a treaty with criminal complicity of Congress, both parties’ and media propaganda allowed the war to move forward without criminal prosecution. The House of Representatives had enough votes to censure the president for, “a war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States,” but not to impeach. Importantly, I’m unaware of any historian’s rational challenge to this history, despite the lies of omission you’ll read in corporate media textbooks today.

But don’t believe any expert or me; use your critical thinking skills. This is as easy as our baseball rule analogy that when a person knows the rule when a runner is safe or out at first base, there’s no need to ask anyone. If you know that:

  • a treaty is defined in Article Six of the US Constitution as the “Supreme Law of the Land,”
  • the US had the Adams-Onís Treaty with Mexico (originally with Spain and formally transferred to Mexico in 1831) in crystal-clear language regarding the areas of the now Southwest US (including Texas with all the “border dispute” lands because the Sabine River between Louisiana and today’s Texas was the agreed border):  “The two high contracting parties agree to cede and renounce all their rights, claims, and pretensions to the territories described by the said line, that is to say: The United States hereby cede to His Catholic Majesty, and renounce forever, all their rights, claims, and pretensions, to the territories lying west and south of the above-described line; and, in like manner, His Catholic Majesty cedes to the said United States all his rights, claims, and pretensions to any territories east and north of the said line, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, renounces all claim to the said territories forever.”
  • Therefore, the US Supreme Law was to forever recognize Texas and the now Southwest as Mexico’s land.

In baseball, you can (and do) say, “I know where first base is. I know when a runner is clearly safe or out at first base.” In this “current event” of life and death from our past, you can and should say, “I know what a treaty means. I know what a border means. I know when the US is 400 miles over the border that was defined in a treaty that they’re obviously into Mexico and not on American soil.” You may even artistically add, “Duh.”

Abraham Lincoln recognized claimed “reasons” for a “defensive war” against Mexico were obvious lies when inspected. Lincoln’s speech as a Member in the House of Representatives:

“I carefully examined the President’s messages, to ascertain what he himself had said and proved upon the point. The result of this examination was to make the impression, that taking for true, all the President states as facts, he falls far short of proving his justification; and that the President would have gone farther with his proof, if it had not been for the small matter, that the truth would not permit him… Now I propose to try to show, that the whole of this, — issue and evidence — is, from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.”

And Lincoln in a letter to his law partner:

“Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, — “I see no probability of the British invading us”; but he will say to you, “Be silent: I see it, if you don’t.””

I invite you to read Lincoln’s “Spot Resolutions” for yourself to explain, document, and prove the US president of his day lying and leading an unlawful war for resources as an example of why Lincoln is considered to be one of the most brilliant writers in American history. If passed, Congress would have demanded President Polk to come before them and respond to Lincoln’s questions.

Henry David Thoreau refused to pay his taxes to support the unlawful war, and was jailed. Despite Lincoln having all the facts on his side, because the president, majority of Congress, and majority of the press wanted this war as an expression of the racistManifest Destiny,” Lincoln didn’t have the votes to pass the Spot Resolutions. In fact, Lincoln was called “unpatriotic” and “Spotty” in derision by both parties’ “leadership” and the press.

Lincoln became so unpopular from these intentional lies and propaganda that he had no chance for re-election.

The war killed over 50,000 Mexicans and over 5,000 Americans, and is a clear historical precedent for US “leadership” to choose lies, dictatorship, and War of Aggression rather than truth, limited government under the law, and peace. In addition, the concluding Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo under Article VIII stated property ownership remained under those current owners. The long history from then to US “ownership” claims today I’m sure has abundant hypocrisy and crimes.

Although this history of the Mexican-American War is uncontroversially factual and as far as I’m aware undisputed among professional historians, corporate media-published high school textbooks will only state that the causes of war were a “border dispute” and repeat President Polk’s claims that Mexico invaded the US with “American blood shed on American soil.”

This is a massive lie of omission and commission to not communicate at least the preceding few paragraphs.

If history texts explained that a US President was the war-mongering liar that Lincoln explained in his speech and documented in the Spot Resolutions, and that Congress voted in criminal complicity to shred a US treaty, lie to the American public about who invaded whom, and be guilty of war-murdering tens of thousands of human beings, would you look at current US wars from the benefit of that accurate history?

“At first blush, a man is not capable of reporting truth; he must be drenched and saturated with it first.”      – Henry David Thoreau, I to myself: an annotated selection from the journal of Henry D. Thoreau, 1837. Thoreau, like Abraham Lincoln, recognized claimed “reasons” for a “defensive war” against Mexico were obvious lies when inspected.

Perhaps this famous quote makes better sense now:

“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

  – George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Vol. 1.

Note: has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers). Some links in current articles are therefore now blocked. If you’d like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. I’ll update as “hobby time” allows; including updating my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (my blocked author pages: here, here).

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Ranchers and Empire in the American West Mises Daily: Monday, April 14, 2014 by Ryan McMaken

    The militarized siege of a cattle ranch near Bunkerville, Nevada has drawn national attention as dozens of federal agents, armed with machine guns, sniper rifles, helicopters, and more, have descended on the ranch to seize cattle, people, and generally show everyone who’s boss.

    • Dawg_em

      The fascists are coming! The fascists are coming!

      • They are already here!

        • indio

          Hey! Haven’t come across you since the Breitbart days!

          • I discovered this site a couple of years ago, and post here time to time. I hope all has been well with you indio and yours, and you have a blessed Easter Sunday patriot!

            The Bundy Ranch Standoff – Agenda 21 In The Nevada Desert

            Apr 14, 2014 In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth explains how the real agenda behind the attempted takeover of the Bundy’s family ranch has nothing to do with the rule of law and everything to do with agenda 21.


          • SoSezYou

            Isn’t it great that these stupid posts stay up here to show how mediocre you twits are in picking your heroes?

  • Menschenrechte

    Carl, you almost hit the target. The relevant treaty is the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), which concluded the Mexican-American war. What does it say about title to (i.e. property in) land? To the extent it talks about title (i.e. property in land) at all, rather than transferring any “property” rights to the United States, it confirms the property of existing owners! See Article VIII: “In the said territories, property of every kind, now belonging to Mexicans not established there, shall be inviolably respected.
    The present owners, the heirs of these, and all Mexicans who may hereafter acquire said property by contract, shall enjoy with respect to it guarantees equally ample as if the same belonged to citizens of the United States.” Search as you may, you will not find one sentence in that treaty transferring title or
    ownership of one square inch of land to the United States. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was peace treaty, and as such it merely adjusted the jurisdictional boundaries between the two belligerents. It was transfer of jurisdiction; no transfer of property was involved. According to the international law of 1848, neither cession nor conquest conferred title (i.e. a property interest) in the conquered land on the conquering sovereign. What the conquering power acquired is jurisdiction (hint: the U.S. federal government doesn’t own us or our land, it merely exercise jurisdiction over both). The U.S. government’s claim to title is built instead on its massive, systematic, and intentional seizures of land in, violation, of its treaty obligations, international law, and incidentally the constitution. The last time in human history when mere conquest was conferred on a conqueror both jurisdiction (imperium) and property (dominium) was in antiquity. The Roman republic, e.g. obtained title over both the moveable and immoveable property as well as the persons of the conquered, meaning it could enslave them. This doctrine, however, has NOT formed part of international law for at least a millennium.

    • General Washington

      The nomothetics behind Lincoln’s Emancipation was his use of both imperium and dominium in wiping out the south. As his army took the land of the south, he claimed ownership of their property (slaves) and thus emancipated them as they marched. Thus permitting Lincoln to enforce the Federal Slave Act while simultaneously waging an (illegal) war on the sovereign states of the confederate.

      • Menschenrechte

        General Washington, I completely agree that the manner in which Lincoln waged war violated the generally accepted laws and customs of war. The greatest war crime of Lincoln’s republicans, however, is arguably is the decade of post-war occupation to which the South was subjected. Under the laws of war, a conquering power can either ‘subjugate’ (a conquered territory) or subject it to belligerent occupation. It is binary choice. Subjugation legally concludes the state of war and is effected by annexation through which the conquered persons acquire all the rights of the other citizens of the conqueror. Belligerent Occupation is a continuation of the state of war and means that the occupier is obligated by international law to respect all the existing laws of the conquered territory, except in very limited circumstances as excused by military necessity. The Republicans choose neither. Instead they embarked on decade long illegal occupation whose closest analog is the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe following World War II.

        Coming back to the Emancipation Proclamation. That is red herring. The much overlooked reason is that the emancipation proclamation did not violate the laws of war, it that it did not by its terms apply to any territory actually under occupation by union armies! The federally occupied states of Kentucky, and Maryland were simply omitted from the proclamation. West Virginia as well as the federally occupied counties of Virginia and the occupied parishes of Louisiana were specifically exempted from the proclamation. Contrary to a century of public school propaganda, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free one person.

        • Complete garbage history.

          Thousands upon thousands of slaves left the plantations and followed the Union army because of the Emancipation Proclamation. As many as 130,000 former slaves joined the Union army to free even more slaves.

          It is not like we don’t have history books filled with letters and diaries from soldiers. You want to promote the “Lost Cause” lie in the 21st century, yet all you are doing is proving you don’t have any idea what you are talking about.

          Jefferson Davis started the war by bombing Fort Sumter when he was under absolutely no threat of invasion. He even admits to it in his April 29, 1861 address to his congress.

          Lincoln did not wage an illegal war. Lincoln was forced to defend the Union from invasion. On April 18, 1861 Lincoln ordered the destruction of 15,000 weapons at Harpers Ferry just 70 miles from Washington. People who want war do not destroy their weapons first.

          Garbage history is simply that. Garbage.

          • Menschenrechte

            Brother Jonathan,

            I happen not be a southerner. Nor do I have any ancestors who lived in the South or fought for the confederacy. Dismissing my comments as Southern chauvinism doesn’t actually work. If you think my arguments are garbage, then please show they are with a better argument or with evidence. The fact that slaves were inspired to flee their plantations by the Proclamation does not prove that the Proclamation had any legal effects in the Confederacy. It proves that Proclamation had a moral effect on the slaves without altering a single law in the Confederacy. By way of analogy, the ideas of U.S. declaration of independence may well have inspired Frenchmen to abolish the Monarchy in France in 1789, but the U.S. declaration of Independence had no legal effects within France. I’m not sure what you mean by an “illegal war.” Under international law, ‘war’ is a legal status of relations between two states. Once a war is started, there are certain rules that attach, that would not otherwise apply in peace. My argument is focused on these laws of war. As I said above, “the manner in which Lincoln waged war violated the generally accepted laws and customs of war.” How do we know? Because, the Union army, much to its credit, created the first ever national codification of the laws of war: Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., Originally Issued as General Orders No. 100, Adjutant General’s Office, 1863, Washington 1898: Government Printing Office. Article 37 of the Lieber Code provides for the protection of the civilian population and the strict protection of their property: “The United States acknowledge and protect, in hostile countries occupied by them, religion and morality; strictly private property; the persons of the inhabitants, especially those of women: and the sacredness of domestic relations. Offenses to the contrary shall be rigorously punished. This rule does not interfere with the right of the victorious invader to tax the people or their property, to levy forced loans, to billet soldiers, or to appropriate property, especially houses, lands, boats or ships, and churches, for temporary and military uses.” Sherman’s Savannah campaign during November-December 1864 and Major General Philip Sheridan’s Shenandoah Valley campaign during August – October 1864 violated these rules.

          • Sherman’s march to the sea ended the war. Jefferson Davis waged war on the Union and would not quit killing people for four years. Jefferson Davis had previously won every war he ever fought until Sherman’s march to the sea. Total defeat was the only thing that Jefferson Davis understood. Davis even wanted to keep killing people after Lee surrendered to Grant. Lincoln NEVER wanted the war. That is a lie that has been perpetuated for 150 years, and the fact is that Lincoln DID NOT WANT WAR, ever.

            The Emancipation Proclamation is what won the war. The slaves left the plantations in droves and many of them joined the Union army to free their brothers and sisters. Legal or not makes no difference. It was brilliant on Abraham Lincoln’s part. The black soldiers fighting for freedom against their former slave masters is what won the war for the Union.

    • Carl_Herman

      Nice point, Menschenechte! I’ll put that in the article; thank you.

    • Chris T.

      “The last time …when mere conquest conferred … jurisdiction (imperium) and property (dominium) was in

      If that is true, how come NONE of the 12 milion Germans that were forced to fell or forcibly evacuated from German terriotory east of the Oder and Neisse line do not have property titles to the land they owned until 5/8/1945?

      The German state didn’t cede it, and really couldn’t have if you were right, certainly the owners didn’t. But all that land is now owned by subjects of the EU member Poland.

      This goes back further, what about the property rights of those whose lands whose jurisdiction was moved by the treaty of Versailles?

      • Menschenrechte

        Chris T,
        You hit the nail on the head. They all do have, incidentally valid, claims. They have been litigating them for at least twenty-five years since the fall of the Iron Curtain. Here
        is one case here
        argued before the European Court of Human Rights. In a bad decision, the ECHR, ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. There is a long line of such cases, dealing not only with Poland, but German, the Czech republic, Slovak republic, and even Belgium. These cases are political hot potatoes so the ECHR bends over backwards to reach the determination that it lacks jurisdiction. The logic is as follows. The ECHR was created by the Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms came into effect in 1952, it was ratified by Poland in 1994. It only has jurisdiction over claims arising after 1952. The ECHR claims that as the property as seized in 1945-6, the ECHR does not have jurisdiction. The ECHR, however, dances around the issue of whether a confiscation in contravention of the Hague Convention produces legal effects. Without making an explicit ruling (for which it would lack competence anyways – it only has competence to interpret the Human Rights Convention) it merely assumes the problem away, by assuming that the confiscations by the Soviet occupation regime produced legal effects in 1945-6. Now there is an extensive body of cases and commentary going back to the Napoleonic wars that says that is absolutely not the case. This is because the Hague Convention could not be clearer. In the authentic French version, Article 46 reads: “La propriété privée ne peut pas être confisquée.” In English, “Private property cannot be confiscated.” (emphasis added). In other words, the Hague Convention does not say that private property ‘shall not’ be confiscated. It says literally that it cannot be, meaning that confiscation is legally impossible. Calling this the majority interpretation dramatically understates the consensus. This is the conclusion that Nuremberg Tribunal and countless state courts in post-war Europe reached following the National Socialist occupation of Europe 1939-1945. In fact, none of the property confiscated by the National Socialists would ever have been returned if the post-war tribunals had concluded the National Socialist confiscation had produced legal effects. The only cases that reach a contrary conclusion (apart from the ECHR) are the notorious Bodenreform (land reform) cases of the German Federal Constitutional Court (Das Bundesverfassungsgericht). In three separate equally muddled decisions, the German Federal Constitutional Court determined that the Soviet Confiscations in the Soviet Occupation Zone (‘East Germany’) produced legal effects. The court needs to reach this result in order to justify the German Federal Republic’s decision to assert ownership over all the land and property confiscated by the Soviets in the Soviet occupation zone in 1945 (i.e. 1/3 the entire surface area of the former ‘East Germany). This land has not been returned to its owners to this day, but was used instead (illegally) to finance the ‘re-unification.’ It turns out there is one international law for National Socialists and quite another for Soviet Socialists. The confiscations of the National Socialists were unanimously found to be null and void. The confiscations of the Soviets were ever so conveniently found to be legally effective! Following the conventional (i.e. correct interpretation of the Hague Convention) none of the Soviet occupation confiscations was legally effective. Meaning that the owners were still the owners when the Iron Curtain fell. When the legitimate sovereign returned, a silent confiscation occurred in which the returning sovereign attempted to retro-actively (usually through bad court decisions) give legal effect to the null and void confiscations of the Soviets. Now, why would they do that? Simple, so they could blame on the Soviets confiscations that they themselves were effectuating in 1991-94.

    • BusterDog

      Please help me understand something. Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Montana, Washington and California ceded huge swaths of land to the US when they became a state. What specifically was unlawful about that?

      I know the US governments position and it’s pretty rotten if you ask me.

      • Menschenrechte

        I would argue that Article IV was intended to cover pre-statehood territories and that the enclave clause Article I Section 8, Clause 17 was intended to cover post-statehood territory. If the federal government wanted to retain Article IV land in Nevada, after admitting Nevada to the union, then it should have followed the Article I Section 8, Clause 17 enclave process. Instead, the federal government pulled a fast one by trying to hold land on an pre-statehood article IV basis through ‘agreement’ with Nevada. The Nevada enabling act says: “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.” This type of ‘quit claim’ language first shows up in the Louisiana enabling act of 1811. It is also in the Mississippi enabling act of 1817 and the Alabama enabling act (1819), but not in Illinois (1818) or Missouri (1821). Maine (1820) had no federal enabling act. Arkansas (1836) doesn’t have this language; neither does Michigan (1837), nor Wisconsin (1848), nor Iowa (1846), nor California (1850), nor Minnesota (1858); nor Oregon (1859). Texas (1845) had the opposite clause: Texas “shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said republic of Texas; and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said state may direct.” In Texas, the federal government was ceded title only to fortifications, i.e. the typical enclaves you would expect to get under the enclave clause -Article I Section 8, Clause 17. Vermont (1791), Kentucky (1792) and Tennessee (1796) were all admitted without enabling acts. The states without the disclaimer (i.e. quit claim) language typically promise merely never to interfere with the federal government’s sale of land. I’ve never seen a satisfactory explanation for all this variation. None of the Northwest Territory states have the disclaimer. None of the other states created from territory ceded from existing states (e.g. Kentucky and Tennessee) have it. It first appears with the Louisiana purchase territory (ceded by France) and Mississippi territory ceded by Spain. My theory is that a power hungry federal government would have imposed the disclaimer on all territory if it had thought it could get away with it. The Northwest Territory was a cession from the original 13 colonies, who never would have sat still for the federal government creating vast federal ‘colonies’ within the new states through retention of Article IV lands post statehood. Texas was a sovereign state and so had equal bargaining power. Texas, was also not about to sit still while the federal government appropriated itself vast colonial holding within Texas, which is why Texas only ceded authentic enclaves. Where the federal government succeeds in retaining Article IV land post statehood thereby creating vast ‘colonial’ land holdings within the new states is when the federal government was on both sides of the negotiating table. For example, where the federal government created a territorial government and then imposed one-sided terms on its own creation as a condition of granting that territory ‘independence’ as a state. Nevada, is such an example. The state of Nevada is, in fact, a tiny enclave within a vast bloated federal ‘province’ created through the unconstitutional retention of Article IV territory following statehood. Incidentally, the Supreme Court in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan (1845) reached a similar conclusion. A ‘compact’ between a state and the federal government granting the federal government extra-constitutional rights in state land is void.

  • Jason Calley

    While I agree with the author’s conclusions, I do not think that the Adams-Onis Treaty has any relevance here. In 1835 (four years after the Adams-Onis Treaty was transferred to Mexico) the Mexican Constitution was repealed and the Mexican government effectively dissolved. That dissolving of the old Constitutional Republic of Mexico was the justification for the people of Texas to wage a war of independence. Texas had no legal allegiance to the totalitarian Santa Anna — and the US was no longer bound by Adams-Onis.

    Usually reliable sources are reporting that the current land grab against the Bundy family is a result of Senator Harry Reid and his son in an attempt to get a sweetheart deal on the land and resell to foreign investors.

    • Carl_Herman

      Hi Jason,
      The treaty would have had to be rescinded; a change of Constitution in a nation doesn’t dissolve the nation. What Texans chose to do was independent of the US treaty obligations. It would have been easy to make the case and end the treaty, but a big part of the article is to see this pattern in history of the US pretending to honor treaties for peace, justice, truth, and acting for war, theft, and psychopathic lies.

      • Jason Calley

        Hey Carl, thanks for the thoughtful reply. The Republic of Mexico did not just modify their constitution; Santa Anna (the elected President under the Republic) staged a coup and dissolved the republican form of government with its process of electing leaders, and installed himself a tyrant for life. You apparently disagree, but to me (and I hope to at least some others!) this is such a major change that it is a bit disingenuous to claim that the political entities involved in previous treaties still exist. After the establishment of the Soviet Union, were the nations which had treaties with Czarist Russia automatically bound to the same terms with the USSR?

        Anyway, we may disagree about this part — but it is a relatively small matter, and overall I think your article’s points are well taken. Would that we lived in a world where treaties were not even needed and the non-aggression principle were the unspoken default of all interactions, whether group or individual.

        Thanks, Carl!

        • Carl_Herman

          You’re welcome, Jason; thank you for your contributions to our understanding here, and in the broader work for justice 🙂

  • mike2000917

    What self flagellating nonsense. Mexico was not a coherent power and they had sparse dominion over the lands of the Southwest in 1846. Putting all of that aside, the USA had no moral obligation not to take that territory by force. Every national boundary on this planet was taken and established by force. The tie in to the Bundy case is just plain silly.

    • Carl_Herman

      So you argue that it’s ok for the US to violate treaties when we can sufficiently insult the other nation? Why not act with integrity and rescind the treaty first?

      You miss the point of using history to understand our world of the present. The US pretends to honor law, peace, justice, truth while waging unlawful Wars of Aggression. You want that to continue?

      • CyberEd65

        I believe when the first shot is fired both sides know the treaty has been rescinded.

        As for Texas those living in that area, which included a large number of Mexican citizens, fought a war against the tyranny of the Mexican government under President Antonio López de Santa Anna to win their independence from Mexico in 1836. I was not until later that the Republic of Texas government decided to seek statehood from the United States.
        You really should look at the boundaries of the Republic of Texas before saying the US stole all the land from Mexico. Actually the Republic of Texas which including most of New Mexico and parts of Oklahoma, Nebraska, Colorado and Wyoming, ASKED the US government if they could VOLUNTARILY JOIN THE UNION and did so in 1845; nine years later.

        • Carl_Herman

          Nope: shooting a gun does not compel a government to end a treaty, especially when the US invaded what the treaty said was Mexican land by 400 miles. Texan claims of independence does not change the US treaty agreement with Mexico. If the US wanted to recognize Texas, they would rescind the treaty and be clear to everyone (especially US military and families) of their proposal to risk war by ending a clear treaty and claiming territory previously promised to Mexico.

          But the point is seeing the present clearly.

          The US attacking Iraq does not end the treaty to prevent Wars of Aggression that all our families sacrificed to win with two world wars. This is more important than the history you choose to comment upon, yes?

        • Sojourner

          When the Mexicans tried to retrieve a disputed piece of their lost Texas
          territory, James K. Polk accused them of shedding American blood on
          American soil, had Congress declare war, sent Gen. Winfield Scott and a
          U.S. army to Mexico City, and annexed the entire northern half of
          Mexico, which is now the American Southwest and California.

          • CyberEd65

            So? By the time Polk was president that land Mexico invaded was “American Soil” … the loss of the rest of the territory was the price AGREED TO & DEEDED TO the US by the Mexican government at the end of that war. Just as with the Texas territory it Mexico didn’t want to give it up, then they should NOT HAVE SIGNED THE AGREEMENT. Don’t like it 200 years after the fact? Tough!

          • Carl_Herman

            Nope. The US had a treaty with Mexico as documented in the article that all that land would forever belong to Mexico. The US violated the treaty to take Texas and then all the land after the invasion. If I violate your deed, invade your house, kill family members, and then with a gun to your head get you to sign over half your property for a few dollars, then tough for you, right?

          • CyberEd65

            You can’t rearrange the facts of history to suit your agenda. The area known as Texas was a part of Mexico. The United States did NOT invade Texas to take it in violation of any treaty. Tejanos (Mexicans) of the Texas state of Mexico along with Anglo-American immigrants that had legally been invited to settled in 3 small settlements (that are still relatively small cities in east Texas today), and had purchased farm from the Mexican government, decided along with the Tejanos of the Coahuila state that they had had enough of the dictator in power. Together they rose up and defeated El Presidente Antonio López de Santa Anna who relinquished all of the lands north of the Rio Grande River in defeat. That is the way wars were settled back them. Nearly a decade later, during the first term of Presidential James Polk Texas sought and was admitted to the Union.

            The useless El Presidente Antonio López de Santa Anna was without honor and refused to keep him word or signature on the surrender of Texas. He refused to recognize Texas and disputed the territory he had ceded between the Rio Grande and the Nueces Rivers. Santa Anna sent troops into Texas even capturing San Antonio at one point.
            After Texas became a state a 2000 man army attacked a 70 man American expedition in the area north of the Rio Grande. THIS is the AMERICAN BLOOD that was spilled that you referred to. And the result of this ill-advised attack by Mexican troops cost Mexico more land and removed them as any kind of military power ever since.

          • Carl_Herman

            CyberEd65: this is the kind of history President Polk needed to give Congress WITH Lincoln’s info that the treaty with Mexico was “in force.” Democracy only counts when those with votes have comprehensive facts.

            What Polk delivered was a lie. The result was not just in Texas but contrived to take what we received as all the southwest US.

    • Rob Thomas

      The question is not Mexico’s power or dominion – the question is did the US unlawfully break a standing treaty it had with Mexico to not do what we did. And in breaking that treaty – we then claimed “ownership” of that land. Consequently if our ownership was illegal then the legality of any treaties we later enter into with whoever concerning this land are null and void. Stolen property is not yours to sell. I think this is the point of the article. And this is what Mr. Bundy is claiming. We illegally broke treaties with Mexico and we also illegally broke treaties with native american indians – we dont have a very good track record in this area. But how does 70% of Nevada not belong to Nevada anymore? What gives the federal government the jurisdiction to “claim” this land as federal land?

      • Carl_Herman

        Right! Well said; thank you, Rob.

        Part of our revolution is to have all facts on the table. Those facts, leading to the present, is the “Big Lie” crimes of our oligarchy in the present centering in war, money, and media “coverage” of those crimes.

      • tionico

        The Constitution (the true Supreme Law of the Land) declares that FedGov can ONLY “own” or control that ten mile square patch of dirt next the Potomac River, military bases and ports, and post office properties (and I suppose we could include the present Federal Highway system rights of way as “post roads” and allow them as well). NOTHING FURTHER can be owned by FedGov. So WHY is some eighty percent of the State of Nevada “owned” illegally by FedGov? Some 70% of Utah? in total, about 55% of the twelve western states, including Alaska? WHY? IF the Constitution is enforced, FedGov MUST cede ALL non-military lands back to the states within whose borders those lands lie. Bundy is correct: those lands belong to the State of Nevada, and to Clark County. THAT is why he wanted to pay the “grazing fees” to either of those entities. Why wart over “treaty rights” when FedGov is completely outside the bounds of the Constitution in “owning” those lands?

  • AntiGnostic

    So Imperial America took lands from Imperial Spain, who took lands from scattered hunter-gatherer tribes with no concept of titled ownership of real property. Am I supposed to be upset over this?

    • Dawg_em

      And didn’t the people on those lands prefer US citizenship to the tyranny of Santa Anna?

    • Carl_Herman

      You should be upset about the present, and honor victims past; but that’s up to you. And you miss the point: this long history of treaty-violations, lies, and wars are a place for Americans to demand arrests and end that history. The easiest understanding is the present; history provides context to place the present as a continuation of those criminal policies.

      • AntiGnostic

        Arrests for what, and who? Pursuant to what legal code?
        You are in way, way over your head.

        • Carl_Herman

          You need to read the links to have a question I’ve already answered. But look here:

          All of our families sacrificed through two world wars: if there’s one law that Americans should know as least as well as rules of their favorite sport, it’s war law. If we don’t know war law, we dishonor our families’ sacrifices, and destroy any victories for freedom.

          Current US wars, including any attack on Syria and/or Iran, are Orwellian unlawful because US armed attacks, invasions, and occupations of foreign lands are unlawful Wars of Aggression. Two US treaties, the Kellogg-Briand Pact and UN Charter, make armed attacks on another nation unlawful unless in response to armed attack by that nation’s government. Under Article Six of the US Constitution, a treaty is our “supreme Law of the Land;” meaning that no order can compromise a US active treaty.

          Importantly, compare the simplicity of war law to far more complex sports rules we master, such as baseball’s infield fly rule, what makes’s a “legal” punt in football, a charging foul in basketball, theprovisional ball rule for golf, and even when one can make an “out” call in tennis.

          Citizen: do you really want to continue commanding sports laws more than laws to save millions of lives by war-murder?

          Also importantly: all “reasons” given for war to Americans, our military, and the world are now disclosed by US official documents as known to be false as they were told.

          • AntiGnostic

            None of that matters. The US is a sovereign entity. Sovereignty means you don’t answer to a higher power. If the US declares a treaty null and void or declares a casus belli, then the only remedy for those who disagree is to exercise countervailing sovereignty. You are perfectly free to take a shot at overthrowing the current US governors and shooting them. Then you’ll be the sovereign.

            Like I said, you really have no clue how international law operates. Ironically, you don’t even recognize how far you’re down the same ideological rabbit holes as the US State Department lawyers have been since the end of WW2.

          • Carl_Herman

            AntiGnostic, you seem to argue that law itself doesn’t matter. The treaties in question are intentional limits of law, as all laws are. The US does not reject those treaties; they wage unlawful Wars of Aggression while pretending to be law-abiding. Therefore, it is the current US “governors” who have overthrown the US Constitution.

            Those of us for ethical law don’t shoot people under those conditions; we demand their arrests.

            To be clear: you say a US treaty doesn’t matter because the US can do whatever they want when they say they want it? Is that your argument?

          • AntiGnostic

            States can condemn other states’ autonomous decisions. They can drop bombs on each other, but there’s no executive authority to ‘arrest’ a sovereign and execute a judgment. Sovereigns can be conquered in war, but in a juridical sense, they can’t be made to do anything they don’t actually agree to do. The moment a State is made to do something it doesn’t agree to do, then it’s no longer sovereign and somebody else is the actual sovereign. Obviously, sovereign status is something the State’s agents take very seriously.

            The principle of sovereignty isn’t limited to States. Individuals can acquire sovereign status as well. If there’s some natural or economic disaster and all the police leave and go home to protect their families, then anybody with enough firepower is a sovereign. That’s how international law actually works–it’s the law of sovereigns, not subjects.

            Back to the point of your essay: the US took lands from Spain, which took them from hunter-gatherer tribes with no conception of title to real property. Tribes simply followed the law of possession: if you can take it and can keep it, it’s yours. (That’s why the Pueblo lived in cliffs hundreds of feet above the ground: they were terrified of their neighbors taking them and their stuff.) Then the Spaniards came with horses and rifles. Spain, an over-stretched, broke, imperial power was unable to exercise sovereignty over her lands, so another sovereign took them. You see why your righteous anger over this is so misplaced?

          • Carl_Herman

            Ok, we’re getting closer. A sovereign state can form itself as a constitutional republic, as the US does on paper. This idea of “limited government” changes the form of “dictatorial” or unlimited government to the ideal Enlightenment thinkers wanting to upgrade that Americans translated into unalienable rights and government power limited by the Constitution. Agreed?

            Among the limits the US “sovereign” agreed to is Article 6 that creates treaties as “Supreme law;” that is, a limit we must respect under how the US defines its own sovereignty. Agreed?

          • AntiGnostic

            No. If a sovereign wants to abrogate a treaty, it can do so. If a pro-Venezuelan government in the US signs a treaty requiring the US to remit tribute to Venezuela, and the next election cycle the government changes and puts the treaty in the shredder, then that’s that. If you don’t like it, go to war.

            In reality, as opposed to ideological thought experiments, the only limit on government is its agents’ fear of being overthrown. In other words, if you want a constitutional republic that operates according to Lockean principles, then you’ve got to carve out a territory and keep all the non-Lockeans out.

          • Carl_Herman

            AntiGnostic: you are therefore claiming your preference for unlimited/dictatorial form of government rather than what America is: limited government under our Constitution.

            Good luck with your view that law is whatever power says it is whenever they choose to say it. Given an informed choice, I’d say you’d have about 5% support among Americans to give government the unlimited power you argue.

        • tionico

          Arrests of BLM personnel for unlawfully attacking the Bundy family, for theft of their proiperty, destruction of improvements to that property, kiling of his cattle unlawfullly. Firing of weapons from helicopters, unlawful restrictioin of First Ammendment rights of Freedom of Speech, unlawful arrest of citizens (at least one of Bundy’s sons, for the “crime” of videotaping the FedGoons), unlawful prevention of the guaranteed freedom of association, unlawful establishment of the “no fly zone”, violating their own rules about use of vehicles on “protected area”, their trucks, four wheelers, tractors, etc, have done considerable damage to the “protected” rangelands, if Bundy had done that he’d be in jail….. violation of prior treaty rights granted the Bundy family a hundred or more years ago, taking of property without due process of law, reckless endangerment of the public (pointing loaded firearms at innocents who were not threatening), conflict of interest on the part of Harry Reid for his unlawful involvement and power-mongering to facilitate the chinese solar generation project, conflict of interest on the part of his son Rory for his role in approving a crooked land sale to the chinese solar folks, when he served on the County Board of SUpervisors, selling the property for about one eights its appraised value.. and the list goes on. Yes ALL of these are jailable offenses.. THAT’s who should be arrested. Oh, and Reid for using his former employee/friend to manipulate behind the scenes… as present head of the BLM, the illegal agency now trying to force Bundy off the land……. nothing quite as effective as “friends” in high places, eh? Conflict? Graft? Corruption? Yes indeed.

          • SoSezYou

            Wow, what an amazing ability to be totally insane.

    • TomTomUSA

      Don’t cry…all it means is white Europeans come in like ISIS thus setting the precedent ISIS and Americans now/still uses…I KILL YOU I GET YOUR STUFF. Hawaii 1893…excellent example.

  • Dawg_em

    Speaking of baseball; boy that Abe Lincoln is quite the “switch hitter”. He certainly hit one out of the park when it came to unjustified aggression. Over 600,000 dead and numerous cities burned to the ground. Couldn’t a better spokesman be found to oppose the violation of treaties?

    • Carl_Herman

      Agreed, and you miss the point: this long history of treaty-violations, lies, and wars are a place for Americans to demand arrests and end that history. The easiest understanding is the present; history provides context to place the present as a continuation of those criminal policies.

    • You believe the lie that Lincoln started the Civil War. A careful reading of history proves that Jefferson Davis waged war on the Union and Lincoln went on defense to save his life, his family, the free blacks living in Washington, and the Union as he swore an oath to do. Lincoln was not a warmonger. Jefferson Davis was.

      • CyberEd65

        Boy, go read a history book written in the 19th century for the facts and disregard the “altered history”, AKA lies, that were taught to the masses as “facts” starting in or around 1920. You really are a doofus to believe what they said in history classes without going back to the time when that history was still fresh on everyone’s mind and could be ridiculed if not accurate. There is a reason they waited until everyone from that era was dead before changing the facts.

        • I read the words of Jefferson Davis from April 29, 1861 to learn why he started the war. I read the words of Abraham Lincoln from July 4, 1861 to confirm the facts. Jefferson Davis admits to starting the war.

          • Gum Boocho

            OK Bro Jonathan,

            I read: “On April 15, 1861, just three days after the attack on Fort Sumter, President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation calling forth the state militias, to the sum of 75,000 troops, in order to suppress the rebellion.” This is about 2 weeks before April 29. On April 29 there was a declaration made that the South must defend itself vs Lincoln. My mind is open; make your case that J Davis started the war. Do you think that by firing on Ft Sumter Davis intended to start a war? I agree that it was an act of war.

            It is fascinating to ponder what would have happened had the South just ignored Sumter.

          • I do believe that Davis intended to start the war by bombing Fort Sumter, and I also believe that he knew Virginia would secede if he could make it look like Lincoln provoked the war. And I believe there was a conspiracy behind it. See: The Knights of the Golden Circle.

            On April 8, 1861 Abraham Lincoln sent messenger Robert S. Chew to South Carolina to inform Governor Pickens: “I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort-Sumpter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or amunition, will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort.” General Beauregard was there with Gov. Pickens.

            Jefferson Davis later lied to his congress in his April 29th speech: “Early in April the attention of the whole country, as well as that of our commissioners, was attracted to extraordinary preparations for an extensive military and naval expedition in New York and other Northern ports. These preparations commenced in secrecy, for an expedition whose destination was concealed, only became known when nearly completed, and on the 5th, 6th, and 7th of April transports and vessels of war with troops, munitions, and military supplies sailed from-Northern ports bound southward.”

            Davis went on to say: “That this maneuver failed in its purpose was not the fault of those who contrived it. A heavy tempest delayed the arrival of the expedition and gave time to the commander of our forces at Charleston to ask and receive the instructions of this Government. Even then, under all the provocation incident to the contemptuous refusal to listen to our commissioners, and the tortuous course of the Government of the United States, I was sincerely anxious to avoid the effusion of blood, and directed a proposal to be made to the commander of Fort Sumter, who had avowed himself to be nearly out of provisions, that we would abstain from directing our fire on Fort Sumter if he would promise not to open fire on our forces unless first attacked. This proposal was refused and the conclusion was reached that the design of the United States was to place the besieging force at Charleston between the simultaneous fire of the fleet and the fort. There remained, therefore, no alternative but to direct that the fort should at once be reduced. This order was executed by General Beauregard with the skill and success which were naturally to be expected from the well-known character of that gallant officer; and, although the bombardment lasted but thirty-three hours our flag did not wave over its battered walls until after the appearance of the hostile fleet off Charleston.”

            While Lincoln did send warships, he sent them to protect the expedition because when President Buchanan had earlier tried to send provisions to Fort Sumter, South Carolina military had fired on the UNARMED “Star of the West.” This expedition was dangerous and it would have been irresponsible to send another UNARMED ship with provisions. Yet, Davis knew that Lincoln only wanted to hold the Union fort in Union hands so as to not surrender the Union.

            Abraham Lincoln – July 4, 1861
            “In a purely military point of view this reduced the duty of the Administration in the case to the mere matter of getting the garrison safely out of the fort.

            It was believed, however, that to so abandon that position under the circumstances would be utterly ruinous; that the necessity under which it was to be done would not be fully understood; that by many it would be construed as a part of a voluntary policy; that at home it would discourage the friends of the Union, embolden its adversaries, and go far to insure to the latter a recognition abroad; that, in fact, it would be our national destruction consummated. This could not be allowed. Starvation was not yet upon the garrison, and ere it would be reached Fort Pickens might be reenforced. This last would be a clear indication of policy, and would better enable the country to accept the evacuation of Fort Sumter as a military necessity.”

            Lincoln went on to say,
            “As had been intended in this contingency, it was also resolved to notify the governor of South Carolina that he might expect an attempt would be made to provision the fort, and that if the attempt should not be resisted there would be no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the fort. This notice was accordingly given, whereupon the fort was attacked and bombarded to its fall, without even awaiting the arrival of the provisioning expedition.

            It is thus seen that the assault upon and reduction of Fort Sumter was in no sense a matter of self-defense on the part of the assailants. They well knew that the garrison in the fort could by no possibility commit aggression upon them. They knew—they were expressly notified—that the giving of bread to the few brave and hungry men of the garrison was all which would on that occasion be attempted, unless themselves, by resisting so much, should provoke more. They knew that this Government desired to keep the garrison in the fort, not to assail them, but merely to maintain visible possession, and thus to preserve the Union from actual and immediate dissolution, trusting, as hereinbefore stated, to time, discussion, and the ballot box for final adjustment; and they assailed and reduced the fort for precisely the reverse object—to drive out the visible authority of the Federal Union, and thus force it to immediate dissolution.”

            Jefferson Davis: “The President of the United States called for an army of 75,000 men, whose first service was to be to capture our forts. It was a plain declaration of war which I was not at liberty to disregard because of my knowledge that under the Constitution of the United States the President was usurping a power granted exclusively to the Congress.”

            It was just another lie from Davis to his congress. The first service of the militia units Lincoln called up were not to capture their forts as Davis claims. The militia units went straight to Washington where they remained until July 21, 1861 when the Union troops left Washington to drive out the 30,000 Confederate troops camped just 30 miles outside of Washington. If the Confederates did not want war, then they would have disbanded rather than held Washington in siege. The Confederates fired the first shot at the “Star of the West”, the second shot at Fort Sumter, and the third shot which killed Lincoln’s good friend Elmer Ellsworth. And the war came.

            There is strong evidence that Jefferson Davis intended to be living in the White House by May 1, 1861.

          • jjwest

            Nothing here proves Davis lied.

          • Jefferson Davis KNEW Lincoln’s intentions were a peaceful. He told his Congress that Lincoln’s intentions were invasion. That is a huge lie.

      • bilejones

        Have someone read Lincoln’s first inaugural address to you.

        It perfectly describes why he attacked the south.

        • Lincoln did not attack the South. The South attacked the Union. The South were the aggressors.

          First nine Southern states kept the Republicans off the ballot in 1860. When they lost the election anyway they “seceded”. Union soldiers stationed in Fort Moultrie feared for their lives because Fort Moultrie was not a stronghold fort so they moved from Fort Moultrie to the more secure Fort Sumter. The South Carolina cowards held the Union soldiers in siege.

          When President Buchanan sent a supply ship to resupply Fort Sumter, the South Carolina cowards fired upon the UNARMED “Star of the West” merchant ship keeping them from resupplying hungry soldiers.

          When Lincoln made his way from Springfield to Washington in February 1861, the Southern cowards plotted to assassinate him.

          When Lincoln gave his First Inaugural Address, he told them secession was illegal, but the government would not assail them for it.

          “In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.” – Abraham Lincoln

          Article IV of the Confederate Constitution permanently enslaved the negro. Ratified March 11, 1861

          “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” – Alexander Stephens Confederate VP – March 21, 1861

          As supplies were running out at Fort Sumter, Lincoln once again tried to send bread to his Union soldiers being held in siege off the coast of South Carolina.

          The Southerners started bombing. They bombed the fort for 36 hours. The war had begun. Lincoln called up 75,000 militia volunteers to come to Washington to defend against invasion.

          A few days later, Lincoln ordered the destruction of 15,000 weapons to keep them out of enemy hands.

          The Union militia volunteers beat the Confederate army to Washington. The Confederate army camped 30,000 troops 30 miles from Washington holding them in siege.

          150 years later, the Southerners are still lying about their aggression. Yet, sophistry is dead in the age of the Internet. They can no longer get away with their lies.

          There is NO HONOR in what the Southerners did in 1860/65. Cheating, Stealing, Beating, Shooting, and Sieging, to keep an entire race of people enslaved is not honorable. It is disgusting.

      • triliberty

        Brother Ignoramus fiction is not fact. And this conclusion is but State approved fiction.

      • tionico

        that’s the “history” of similar “quality” to that of the Mexican war cited above. Jeff Davis did NOT provoke the war. Seems a false flag operation tricked some South Carolinians into firing on their own fort in Charlston Harbor, creating an “attack” out of whole cloth which was then used as an “excuse” to begin hostilities by the Union Army under Lincoln. The South had as much right to secede as they did to join in the first place. The continual economic bullying from the Northern states and FedGov forced the South to secede.. to avoid total financial ruin. It began as a war of economics, and devloved into a war of total domination. Sort of like a recent “war” started as an “attempt” to “protect” a turtle (which the assailants were killing by the hundreds elsewhere), but was at base a semi-comical effort to impress upon its intended victims the “right” and “power” of total domination over the victims. Thanksfully, this recent skirmish did NOT include gunfire. This time. Would that we’d had the internet back when we launched our war against Mexico. Perhaps a few smatterings of truth, and some reminders of history (such as that “supreme law of the land” treaty that was trashed…… like the unilateral imposition and modification of “range fees” recently was exposed.

        • There was no false flag at Fort Sumter. The Confederates gave Lincoln an ultimatum. Either surrender the Union or face war. Those are the facts of history that anyone can find for themselves. When Lincoln sent food to Union soldiers who were occupying a Union fort off the coast of South Carolina, a defensive fort, the Confederates responded by bombing them for 36 hours on April 12, 1861 before the food even arrived.

          “Jeff Davis did NOT provoke the war.” – tionico

          That is laughable. Slave owning tyrant Jefferson Davis was a West Point graduate, a Mexican War hero, a former Secretary of War, and Chairman of the Committee of Military affairs and you want me to believe that Abraham Lincoln, who had only a few months of military training in the Illinois militia decades prior to the war, “tricked” Jefferson Davis into bombing Fort Sumter.

          Not everyone is a gullible as you would like us to be. Some of us actually read history.

      • Naytchureboy9

        i dont know where your reading your history, but it requires spedning hundreds of not thousans of hours loking in the archves through extesnice first and secondary sources and families who have carried on their own visual and handed down oral history to make a careful synthesis of the facts.

        When you are the victor of any aggression what then is your motive to write that history if it make it out to be that your the aggressor?

        Most dont even know for instance why the British had hundreds of thousdands of soldiers stationed on the Canadian borer and why?

        It was not to potentially back up the Yankee banking and industrial north.

        What most people never consider ion any geopolitical context the true human histry of the ages where the paradigm in place since the time of Babylon has been what?

        Empire building by those who wield the strongest sword.

        And to what purpose?

        To secure the wealth, human capitol and control over others in order that the few who control that empire get the benefits and priveleges that being a part of the inner circle gives you that is centered on one central primary chatacteristic of human behavior-

        That is a narcissistic psychopathic machiavellian view of the world that does not see themselves as equals as soverign as the rest that everyone else is born unto as Jefferson said as, “omalienables rights” but one of entitlement”.

        And that entitlement comes by way of violence, aggression and the destruction of others way of life in order to control them and monopolize what resources those indigeneous people have within their local carrying capacity, that those with the bigger stick appropritae for themselves.

        And it did not always used to be that way.

        The one author and professor with a strong economic, anthropological and ecological background who wrote a seminal book in recent years who captures the essence of empore of how we got to where we are today and what we can do to change the paradogm of living in greater harmony and balance with the world around us, especially as we are facing the most unprecedented challenges humanity has ever faced before, cause the truth is that the paradigm I just desrbied has extrsacted so much resources and energy from the planet, that ens up ultimately becomeing the pollution we put into every waste stream on the planet, known as waste-sinks in the sir, the land and the waters of the planet which are now all in a rapid state of decline notwithstanding the entire genetic pollution taking place to the entire web of life and food network is why there is the largest and most rapid extinction event taking place right now that sauys in plain words that if we do not change this paraigm we will be responsible for tha extinction of our own species.

        As newevolutionary biology cleary demonstraes, the spcies that have achieved “stasis equilibrium” or in plain words they only take what they need as the essentoals of life and give back to nature what they have taken in ways that help to sustain that balance are the spcues who have gone on to survive into the millineums.

        The species who have been the most competetive aggresssors of taking ecological resoirces are the spcies who go extinct first.

        The wealthiest families that are remants of family dynasties and the banking family empires of many past empires did not die off and their wealth and influence die with them.

        They are still very much in control behiond the scenes much like the House of Windsor in England and especially the Pope and the Vatican.

        Connect the dots, or follow the money trialand what you see is our ability to use clandestine covert insurgencies of our own along with direct military action to secure the resources and exploit human capitol they call globalization is the same as it was in 1492 as it is now to assure global dominance of people energy and resoircs and anyone staning in the way of that are crushed and why they use the cannon for of the ignorant in this society through law enforcement, FBI, NSA, CIA and the military to make sure there is complicanjce to maintain this system of dominance.

        LOOK NO FURTHER THAN hOUSE rESOLUTI9ON hr 192 and look at it very carefully in the congressional record when in 19333 the US Government went officially bankrupt.

        That means how can this country use currency in international trade to continue bysiness of the federal reserve private commercial paper is no longer backed by gold?

        Tell me that if you know?

        My Father and Mother survive3d the crash of 20′ and depression and when FDR became Prz and a bnking holiday to reorganize the financial system from that bankruptcy, meant they had to come up with a quick fix to back thje currency.

        Well guess how this federal reserve notes are backed up if not by gold anymore?

        Us-our The lifetime value of our labor, and what hard assets we accumulate in our life time was used in actuarial tables on the NY Stiock exchange that came out to be approx $680,000

        Every American born after 1933 had a copy of their birth certificate esent to the us epartment of commerce, treasury and state department.

        it is in actuallty an application for a stock certificate in the corporation. And that corporation is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Thats right the united states is not a government but a fiction as a corporation and why when so many people were upset when the Supreme Court in Citizens United said corporatio0ns are “persons” the court was absolutely correct by the defintions useed in commerical admiralty maritime law.






        tHATS THE FICTIOUS PERSON THEY CREATED UNDER COMMERICLA LAW NOW THt you are a collateralized debt obligation and why since the president now knows so many americans have now opted out by redeeming control of who you are back to a sovergn, signed the executive order that is called the NDAA the national defense authorization act of 2012 that former NY Times pullitzer Chirs Hedges and Professopr Noam Chomsky filed a civil complaint aganst in federal distruct court that the won the first time around but lost on appeal the Suprme Court in April said they wont hear, is because they know what NDAA means.

        It means the Preisdent can sezie the assets of all Americans.

        But not just any Americans.

        Only the Americans who are still a part of the Corporation and not those who are soverign. And why so many people through filing a UCC 1 finaicng ststement are reclaming the right to their property and assets being held as collateral against all the commerical paper owned by the coporatin which is the FED, the IMF and World back that is backing it up.

        And if you have not figured this out, is that if a large percentage of people reclaim their soverignity and are no longer backing up the worlds reserve currency what then happens?

        You got a it a global collapse of the dollar.

        And now you know why the FEMA camps and all the hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo was ordered by FEMA the fema camps have been setup for that will after now that 1/2 of americans are now in the poverty indesx will cause a mass social disorder.

        And all this because the paradigm of empire and those who are greedy bastards who want to control everyone so they can live like kings wil destroy this planet and along with it trillions upon trillions of living life forms along with what humanity could of been if only they learned by nature to live in peace, harmony, and love in the world instead of believing falsely that happiness and ultimate self-actualization to the higest intellectual, emotional and spiritual state of being with your creater will never come by bthe worship of money and meteriality and shows just how sick and fucked up this culture is and why its on the vrge of collapse as all empires do eventually.

        And we did nothing but listen to the PR bastards of Madison avenue who said you cant find happines if you dont look like everyone else with a new SUV or home or tv or Apple v cell phone.

        Its sick perverted and of small shallow charactert that people could never mature into becoming the best of what they can become instead following some pr campign designed to buy things you dont need with money you dont have in order to be accpted into this sick culture as the herd mentality of a detrovore no different than a yeast cell in a petry dish who will when put into a wine vat will eat itself out of house and home just as they did when they cut down the last rtee on Easter Islkand.

        Here are some great learning resources to wake tfu.


        Professor David Korten: C-Span Book TV

        Free download of David Kortens Book
        [PDF] The
        Great Turning: From Culture of Empire to Earth Community,d.b2U

        Professor Richard Wolfe: A Cure for Capitalism Palo Alto

        London School of Economics Presentation: Distinguished
        Professor David Harvey: 17 Contradictions of Capitalism

        Penn Humanities Forum: Professor
        David Harvey, “The End of Capitalism”.

        Post Carbon Institute:
        Richard Heinberg: Snake Oil: How Fracking’s False Promise of
        Plenty Imperils Our Future

        Prosperity Without Growth: Tim Jackson – Part Two
        York University: Managing Growth by Design Not Disaster:

        Professor Richard Wolff: Global
        Capitalism: May 2014 Monthly Update

        Webster University 2014: Professor
        Emeritus of Economics, Richard Wolff:

        Professor Emeritus of Economics, Richard Wolff’s book presentation,
        “Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism”

        TED: Professor Tim Jackson: An Economic Reality Check

        Pulitzer Author,
        Chris Hedges: “Our Only Hope Will Come Through Rebellion”

        Professor Emeritus, William Catton Jr. Interview on his
        seminal book, “Overshoot: The Ecological Basis for Revolutionary

        BBC Sustainability Initiative: Richard Heinberg, Post Carbon

        Institute presentation: ‘Snake Oil: Frackings False Promise…”

        ASPO: Matthew Simmons – The 51st State: Peak Oil Denial

        Smithsonian: Perspectives on Limits to Growth; Professor Lester Brown

        Smithsonian: Perspectives on Limits to Growth Professor Neva Goodwin

        Professor Joseph Stiglitz: Road to Ruin?

        Council on Foreign Relations: Foreign Affairs” The Tuth
        About Geoengineering

    • deepseer

      Aggression is warranted in defensive cases, like millions of slaves not able to live in freedom.

  • US land claims in Bundy case based on the FIFTH AMENDMENT.

    Thanks to Amendment 5 of the federal Constitution and its establishment of eminent domain, leading to the appropriation (theft) of private land turned into public land, and the Constitutional Republic’s insidious property taxes, every square inch of land in America is owned by the government of the Constitutional Republic (something impossible under Biblical law) and therefore the Bundys and the protesters ultimately don’t have standing in this situation. Appealing to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights in this and similar situations is the epitome or irony!

    For more, see online Chapter 14 “Amendment 5: Constitutional vs. Biblical Judicial Protection” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at

    • tionico

      NO THEY ARE NOT. Again, that Fifth Article of Ammendment deals with PRIVATE land being taken by government for PUBLIC use. This land is NOT private, nor is it being taken for public use. READ that Constitutin again. Ted. You’ve got it real wrong. The Constitution clearly spells out that FedGov can ONLY own that section of land we call Washington DC, military and port facilities, and post office lands (and roads.. which we could concede to mean today’s federal highway system). Thus, any claim by FedGov to ownership of this land is false, and unconstitutioina.. It has nothing to do with the Fifth Article of Ammendment. The text itself of that Article clearly says so.

      • And how do you suppose the BLM ended up with the land they lease to the Bundys?

        Furthermore, as always, you ignore the much more consequential point: Had the framers established government and society upon Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments (including Exodus 19:5 and Leviticus 25:23), this confiscation (abusive or otherwise) could have never occurred and this conflict would be impossible.

      • BusterDog

        Here’s the CRS Report to Congress 2007, Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority and the History of Acquisition, Disposal and Retention.

        Sickening to see what they’ve done to these states.

        Basically, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Utah ceded huge swaths of land to the federal government as a condition of statehood. Big mistake.

        All these states are in a big mess now that the EPA has become so oppressive with it’s Wildlife corridors policies pushed by the environmentalists and the Endangered Species Act.

        We have a massive, overzealous, militarized centralized government that think it’s in the right just because Congress passed laws giving them control.

        It will take an act of Congress to change this. Vote accordingly.

  • DJohn1

    I think the proper forum is to quit saying Harry Reid has done anything. Rather lets put the man on trial and see if anyone finds him guilty. It is his good name and long record in Congress that should be respected. He has also been chair of the Ethics Committee in the past. I suggest that same Ethics Committee needs to be involved instead of hiding from what has gone on.
    I suggest the Bureau involved might need to be disbanded.
    I suggest that the Congress also investigate the Tortoise allegation by the EPA. If ti is found to be true, then perhaps the EPA needs to be brought down. If it is brought down, the Congress is the proper channel to do so.
    We do not need super powerful agencies acting against the best interests of our citizens. This has been going on for a very long time. It needs to be corrected by the Congress.
    I suggest the entire tax thing might be illegal and unconstitutional.
    Since most of the Congress are lawyers, I feel they are better qualified to determine legal things than I am. But they need to be aware that this is going to be a very public event.

    That means a lot of people will be voting with their hearts this November. It means public approval at least until November is very important to this group of Congress people.
    As it stands right now, the chief gain in the Congress is likely to be the over whelming response of unelecting a majority of the Democrats in Congress.
    I think everyone in this Congress needs to tread very carefully in the way this Bundy Ranch thing is handled. I think the tax increases of this administration are very ill-timed.

    We often call the demoncrats as the ones that commission change. The republican opposition often ignores the changes rather than correcting them. This policy only works if no one knows you are doing it. So no matter what happens in November, both parties are on notice that the public that is often apathetic, is paying close attention to both parties this fall.
    The public is seening an image of failure. That has to change in the near future if any resemblance of credibility and faith in our political parties can be retained.

  • Freespirit

    I put a link to this article on “Personal Liberty Digest “

  • Man on the street

    Since we got on Abraham Lincoln, please let me submit this as a question to all of you readers.

    A man and a woman got together as friends, and ELECTED to join forces and become one family in marriage. Such union was born by both sides wanted to join. Now, assume that the man started taking that woman for granted, wasting her money on gambling for example? The woman would eventually feel that it is better for her to split from that union? So, suppose the man does not want to lose the income that woman brings in, and he beats her up to stop her from demanding a divorce? Would you call that man Abraham Lincoln?

    There is no complication here! It is that simple. Partnership cannot be forced on two sides by guns, if one side wants out. Worshiping Lincoln is the biggest lie ever made on the sheeple.

    • Carl_Herman

      Agreed. And that said, where are you on the point that the history Lincoln correctly pointed to ~15 years earlier is a pattern continuing to our world of the present: the US lies our soldiers into unlawful and treaty-violating Wars of Aggression?

    • The lie that Lincoln waged war to keep the South from seceding is a lie that will die in the age of the Internet. Sophistry is dead.

      Lincoln was forced to defend liberty against invasion by the Southern slave powers.

      • Man on the street

        Let me just ask if you Mr. Liberty was a citizen of Belgium, or Austria, or Switzerland living in an apartment and driving a VW? Would you feel less LIBERTY than another dude living in an Apartment in New York City?

        The fact is both the American man and the Swiss man live their lives – eat and sh’t and die at the end? One man lived in a small civilized country, and the other lived in a huge country that waged 230 wars in about 200 years of its existence.

        In my writing early today, I talked about the social engineering in this country. I name racial harmony, and acceptance of homosexuals, and a new generation of WAR MONGERS.

      • tionico

        once again, you demonstrate you have swallowed the kool ade of revistionist history. The root of the south’s secession had naught to do with slavery or slaves. It was the extreme economic pressure put upon the South by unconstitutional tariffs imposed by the north, and other unlawful trade restrictions. WHY did the North blockade southern ports? To prevent the southern states trading directly with the nations of Europe, and the Caribbean. Read that part of the history…. how corrupt was the Congress at that time, etc. Slavery was an emotional appeal to “justify” the northern aggression. “We have to save the slaves”….. no, there is NO constitutional authority for FedGov to intervene in such matters…… any more than there is today to “intervene” on behalf of a desert turtle (which BLM are killing by the thousand.. yes, the identical species they are alledgedly “protecting” by stealing and killing Bundy’s livestock. Their (BLM) equipment running wild about that rangeland killed and destroyed MORE turtle habitat than all Bundy’s cattle have done in a hundred years. Have you not heard of “false flag” operations? Throw up a sacrificial scapegoat, declare THAT to be the justification to do what you want, and win everyone’s hearts because of the emotional pull, the “moral high gound”, of yuour false premise……. slavery in the south, WMD in Iraq, Taliban in Afghanistan, turtles in Nevada….. but, with the internet, enough is now brought back into the discussion the false flags are revealed for what they are. The chinese solar project pushed by the Reid family dynasty, the slaughter of the turtles alledgedly being “rescued” by removing Bundy’s cattle, the “grazing fees”, illegal on their face and unilaterally imposed, then modified, etc……. seems there are always two sides to the story….. the government “line”, and something approaching the truth.

        • You, and your “Lost Cause” lies are tiring. When Abraham Lincoln gave his “House Divided” speech in 1858 it alarmed the slave powers in the South. Lincoln gave that speech at the same time the Knights of the Golden Circle were PLANNING on waging war on Mexico, Central America, Venezuela, the Caribbean Islands, and Cuba to create a SLAVE EMPIRE. The Civil War in America was waged on the Union specifically by the Confederacy to nationalize and expand slavery. See: Article IV of the Confederate Constitution March 11, 1861.

          Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens March 21, 1861 tells us,
          “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

          Nine states in the South kept the Republicans off the 1860 ballot. The Southerners cheated the 1860 election, they held men in siege for months trying to starve them into submission at Fort Sumter, they shot at an UNARMED “Star of the West” merchant ship, Georgia voted against secession but they forced them to secede anyway, the Southerners held men in slavery simply because they had darker skin and beat them if they tried to escape to freedom, they destroyed families by selling members of families to various other slave owners, they bombed Union soldiers who were being held in siege to starvation, and they waged war on the Union to keep their slaves. Those are the facts of history.

          There is nothing honorable about the actions the Southerners took in 1861. Cheating, stealing, beating, starving, shooting, and bombing others in order to keep an entire race of people enslaved is not honorable. It is disgusting. Defending their actions in 2014 is pathetic.

  • Arizona

    YOU KNOW,everyone might want to ask yourselves,WHATS really going on here,TWO THINGS,they PLAN to start a WAR and they PLAN TO CAUSE A “FAMINE” either way, americans can’t see the forest for the trees,BUT you better wakup,you got russian and chinese military here AND IT AIN’T for your safety,they plan to KILL all of you,AND TAKE EVERYTHING YOU OWN,including your children,IF you can’t see this,your blind,and you and your family will DIE in a FEMA DEATH CAMP,is that how you prefer to go??..STOP ARGUING AND GET EVERYONE READY…….RED DAWN IS COMING…….and GET OUT OF THE CITIES,they will bomb them all………………..

  • Despite a change on paper in 1831, maybe Polk and elites were leary of the Spanish and anti-catholic? Mexicans seem innocent. Spain always seems to get a pass for its aggressions.

  • Gregory Alan of Johnson

    Must be time for that ‘reset” to the “Garden of Eden”.

  • triliberty


  • li zhangsan

    The Following Ought To Be The Top Kept herbal remedies for acne Secrets In The World.
    remedies for acne

  • deepseer

    Bundy argued in court that his Mormon ancestors worked the land since the 1880s, long before the BLM was formed, giving him rights that predate federal involvement. What a lame FN excuse. Clive needs to go back to elementary school and learn about how the Mormons stole the land from the Shoshone and Paiute Indian tribes.

  • Sojourner

    Damn good article.

  • tionico

    Interesting: “Honest Abe” was quick to document the false premises, and the dangers of the President usurping power to declare and wage way, when he was a Senator. Later, as President himself, he followed closely in James K. Polk’s footsteps…. usurping an unconstitutinal authority to declare and persue war. Over half a million soldiers and untold civilians dead. Dozens of cities destroyed. Huge areas of our nation laid waste in a wanton destruction without basis.

  • Gum Boocho

    IMHO: It is debatable that there is such a thing as a “lawful war” or “unlawful war.” I find the following interesting: ”
    a treaty is defined in Article Six of the US Constitution as the “Supreme Law of the Land,”
    the US had the Adams-Onís Treaty with Mexico (originally with Spain and formally transferred to Mexico in 1831) in crystal-clear language regarding the areas of the now Southwest US (including Texas with all the “border dispute” lands because the Sabine River between Louisiana and today’s Texas was the agreed border): “The two high contracting parties agree to cede and renounce all their rights, claims, and pretensions to the territories described by the said line, that is to say: The United States hereby cede to His Catholic Majesty,
    1) The Constitution did not state WHO was the interpreter of the Constitution. So regardless of what it says about treaties, the Supreme Law of the Land is whatever the interpreter says it is. I think the reference is defective and out of context.

    2) I wish to see proof that a treaty can be transferred. Where is the proof of a “formal transfer”? Now since the treaty refers to “His Catholic Majesty,” that is no one in Mexico. And moreover, the whole thing could be tossed out as an unconstitutional establishment of religion, the recognition of a Catholic Majesty. It reminds me a a man who worked under a non-compete clause and thus could not start his own business in the same trade line. But when the company with whom the non-compete was agreed restructured (forming a new corporation), the non-compete was void.

    • Carl_Herman

      Nope, Gummy: you argue that laws mean nothing because someone can say the law means whatever we say it means. You argue in Orwellian language, pal. Traffic laws, baseball rules, and murder law all are meant to communicate limits of actions in reality that are objective and independently verifiable.

      Technically, the US and Mexico created a new treaty: the Treaty of Limits in 1831 that transferred the same borders as the Adams-Onis Treaty.

  • Gum Boocho

    It should be noted that at the start of the Adams-Onis Treaty these words are found: “There shall be a firm and inviolable peace and sincere friendship between the United States and their citizens and His Catholic Majesty, his successors and subjects, without exception of persons or places.”

    Now it appears to me that if this opening provision was violated, the whole treaty became null and void. And since it says “without exception,” the whole thing would be void as soon as an exception occurred, an inevitable occurrence.

    • Carl_Herman

      No way, Gummy. If a party violates a treaty, then what that means is that a party violated the treaty, not that the treaty is voided. Analogy: if someone burns your house down that does not mean that the law against arson is void, it means someone violated the law and is subject to criminal and civil prosecution under the law.

  • KPM921

    So if you take this to the extreme. We need to take all the white people and move them to New England. Sound OK? The rest we cede back to the original owners. But then we could take that further and we could go back to Europe, Africa, Asia or where ever. Better yet we can go back to then Garden of Eden.

    Impossible to put the jeanie back in the bottle. And you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

    • Carl_Herman

      Really? That’s your contribution to this serious history leading to the present of US Wars of Aggression and armed thugs killing cattle to take more federal land when they already claim over 70% of Nevada?

      Thanks for your solution.

  • whysomuchhate

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Mexican–American War, also known as the Mexican War, the U.S.–Mexican War, the Invasion of Mexico, the U.S. Intervention, or the United States War Against Mexico, was an armed conflict between the United States and the Centralist Republic of Mexico (which reestablished its 1824 federal constitution during the war, becoming the Second Federal Republic of Mexico) from 1846 to 1848 in the wake of the 1845 U.S. annexation of Texas, which Mexico considered part of its territory despite the 1836 Texas Revolution.

    Combat operations lasted a year and a half, from the spring of 1846 to the fall of 1847. American forces quickly occupied New Mexico and California, then invaded parts of Northeastern Mexico and Northwest Mexico; meanwhile, the Pacific Squadron conducted a blockade, and took control of several garrisons on the Pacific coast further south in Baja California. Another American army captured Mexico City, and the war ended in a victory for the United States.

    The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo specified the major consequence of the war: the forced Mexican Cession of the territories of Alta California and New Mexico to the United States in exchange for $15 million. In addition, the United States assumed $3.25 million of debt owed by the Mexican government to U.S. citizens. Mexico accepted the loss of Texas and thereafter cited the Rio Grande as its national border.

    American territorial expansion to the Pacific coast had been the goal of President James K. Polk, the leader of the Democratic Party.[6] However, the war was highly controversial in the United States, with the Whig Party, anti-imperialists and anti-slavery elements strongly opposed. Heavy American casualties and high monetary cost were also criticized. The political aftermath of the war raised the slavery issue in the United States, leading to intense debates that pointed to civil war; the Compromise of 1850 provided a brief respite.

  • whysomuchhate

    The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo specified the major consequence of the war: the forced Mexican Cession of the territories of Alta California and New Mexico to the United States in exchange for $15 million. In addition, the United States assumed $3.25 million of debt owed by the Mexican government to U.S. citizens. Mexico accepted the loss of Texas and thereafter cited the Rio Grande as its national border.

  • whysomuchhate

    to the United States in exchange for $15 million. In addition, the United States assumed $3.25 million of debt owed by the Mexican government to U.S. citizens.

  • whysomuchhate

    $15 million

  • whysomuchhate

    all of your misdirected hostility belongs at the government of mexico who sold your people out. they made a profit.

  • Mia Seths

    The US should take over all of Mexico so that we can end illegal immigration and restore the rule of law and normalcy to border security. We have already absorbed the equivalent of half of the Mexican population and a poll conducted in 2009 showed that 1/3 of Mexicans would move here if they could. Let’s give them their wish and get more land and water in return.