Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters

Sure. Government always kept its bargains with the Indians.

The reality is:

 

I'm failing to see why you are arguing the government took land from 500 tribes as if that makes anything better

 

Lavoy's daughters have released a song.

 

I don't think it matters about 1840. The map I showed wasn't so red at that point. The feds owned none of it, eh? Or did they buy it in the La Purchase? Did the French have the right to sell the Indians' land to the US government?

 

Seems violent.

 

I'm looking forward to the rap remix.

 

Every state that entered the union east of the Mississippi, the federal government sold off or gave away the vast majority of any land it owned as a result of the state joining.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...egon-occupiers-complaint-explained-in-9-maps/

Early in the history of the country, the government took over land that was then distributed to citizens for farming and economic growth. As the United States expanded westward, the land was increasingly inhospitable, including the Rockies and the deserts of Nevada and Utah. By the end of the 19th century, a new focus was placed on conserving the land, with Yellowstone becoming the first national park in 1872. At that point, very few people lived in the area, as this 1890 Census Bureau map suggests.

Over the course of the 20th century, the government's emphasis shifted away from releasing the land to private citizens and toward managing it itself. The passage of 1976's Federal Land Policy and Management Act made that policy concrete, keeping the land as the property of the government. After the federal government's shift, there was a push from some in the West, including governors and members of Congress, to shift control from the federal to the state or local government. The Sagebrush Rebellion, as it was known, tapered off during the relative friendly administration of Ronald Reagan.

...


"From the earliest days," the CRS researchers write, "these policy views took on East/West overtones, with easterners more likely to view the lands as national public property, and westerners more likely to view the lands as necessary for local use and development."

That's one reason for the objection from Westerners. The other is that the lock-down on the land came after the East was heavily settled but before the West had been. In the East, land was turned over to farmers. In the West, settled later in the country's history, there were fewer people to hand it to.

 

My offer to pick you up at PDX and drive you to Bend still stands. There's a rally noon tomorrow in Burns.

 

Only if I pick you up in SD and get you on a GreenPeace boat.

 

Deal! Can I spend a couple of nights at your house?

 

Nope.

 

My house isn't government land.

 

I'm more of a sea lion fan, they're the dogs of ocean mammals.