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

Guest Post by Carl Herman

“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 racist “Manifest 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.