California Grant Deed From Individual To Trust: Fill & Download for Free

There will be certain fees charged by the mortgage company, primarily fees for underwriting, processing and document preparation. Some lenders may not charge all these fees. Some may not enumerate them but will instead charge a slightly higher rate.You can expect to pay for an appraisal in connection with the mortgage process.The lender will require a lender’s title policy to protect their security interest in the property.You will also get an owner’s policy of title insurance. It protects you from possible “clouds” on the title that could potentially surface after your purchase. You pay only once and the policy is good for as long as you own the property. While this is technically optional, almost everyone buys the policy, in my experience,You will pay certain “administrative” fees:Notary. A person who is appropriately licensed and bonded will be present when you sign any documents that will be recorded with your county clerk. The notary attests that the person signing (you) is who you represent yourself to be to the best of his or her knowledge and belief.Recording. You’ll pay fees to the county for recording certain documents, such as the grant deed, deed(s) of trust and other documents that are customarily entered into the public record.There may be other fees paid to your local county or municipality. Here in California, for example, there is a transfer tax, which amounts to $1.10 per thousand dollars transferred. The seller customarily pays the transfer tax (sometimes called document stamps) in Northern California, but it varies by region. Some cities have an additional transfer tax. Hayward, California, for example, imposes an additional transfer tax of $4.50 per thousand. It is customarily split between buyer and seller, but is always subject to negotiation.You may opt to get other property inspections:Pest control (termite). It’s required if you are getting a VA loan. It may be required for an FHA loan if the appraiser notes evidence of termites or other wood-destroying organisms on the property.RoofSwimming PoolHome inspection. This covers all aspects of the home, including appliances, plumbing, electrical, air conditioning and foundation. The buyer gets a comprehensive narrative report for a fee that may run between $400 and $650. It’s a very good investment.There may also be fees charged to the buyer if there is a homeowner’s association (HOA) involved. They may charge $200 or more to change the property owner’s name for your new purchase. If your property is a condominium, you may have to pay the HOA an additional fee for a condo questionnaire. This is typically a one-page report outlining the HOA’s status and the number of rental units in the complex, as well as the existence of any litigation against the HOA.There may be other fees to pay, depending on your individual location and situation. If you are fortunate to have mortgage credit certificates (MCC) available in your area, you’ll pay an application fee for that program. MCC is a c=first-time buyer program available in many states. It allows the first-time buyer to claim a portion of the mortgage interest they pay each year as a tax credit.Knowing what you closing costs are likely to be is very important at the very beginning of your home buying process. Any loan officer should be able to provide you with an accurate, written estimate once you have begun working with them.I hope this is helpful.

Yes. BUT, you know, there’s a lot more to it than that.Here’s the TL;DR for you.INTRODUCTION:(Much longer than I’d hoped)Funny thing. I’ve been writing this answer since the day it was asked and a few people messaged me about it, one saying, “Hey, this is a great chance for you to pocket the snark and just be honest, you know.” And so I did. I sat about writing it, using Outlook to email myself the drafts. It prompted me—like all good Quora questions should—to reflect on what I think I am and why I think what I do.One of the most important things to know about me is this: I’m unsentimental about almost everything, any tribe I could belong to or any title that one might add to their name (like: “American” or “liberal” or “atheist”—they are meaningless). I care, above all else, about being right, not winning an argument nor being a good member of my ideological tribe. I’ll casually dispense with the descriptors and most of my tribe if it means being more right than I was before. This is offensive to some—people come first for most of us, as they do for me—as they want to have some permanent paradigm to judge you by. Being too “wishy washy” scares people. That said, I believe that a good friend/family members will accept you for who you are on your ideological journey. I want to be right and in that, I will change my mind rather quickly. This part will come across douchey and I’m okay with that: I’ve proven that I’ll admit my mistakes quickly and I’ll change my mind until I find what’s right without much emotional effort.My frustration with liberals is that they have fallen victim to the same exact forces that sabotage every identity-based movement: it keeps attempting to be all-inclusive to the point of self-destruction and is now attempting to be all things to all members, doing too many things and getting nothing done at all. Instead of being honest and dispassionate, the left has become as completely insane as Trump. Of course, using the patented left-wing insanity test (“Developed by people on the left, so you know it’s true,”) only the right is insane and Trump is the most insane ever. When your entire paradigm depends on people who agree with you telling you that you’re right, OF COURSE, your dogmatic beliefs will become entrenched and unassailable. This is why I keep a fairly even number of conservative and liberal friends. I make sure to immunize my frail mind to the ideas that conservatives spout. I discovered along the way that they’re mostly as well-meaning and loving as every other liberal out there. Conservatives aren’t the enemy any more than liberals are. I refuse to see them that way and I refuse to let liberals off the hook when it comes to their stupid behavior even if it means sabotaging the larger efforts of liberals because, as with all things, it’s the journey and not the destination.What matters is how we act today. The utopian visions of the future are pointless. I love my species and I want us to endure but not just to endure. Enduring is meaningless. Everything ends, including our species one day. If everything ends and our species will end, our planet will end, our sun will end, then what does matter? What matters is that we cease pretending that we can plan a utopian future. What matters is letting people live their lives today and use a small amount of idealism to pragmatically direct the flow of events to help ensure that we last longer, but even then, it only delays the inevitable. Our extinction will come whether it takes 100 years or 100 quintillion years. In that, I care FIRST about the living and how we act towards them, SECOND about our descendants and leaving them a free society they can live in. We can invent the technology (and I dare say, we could have it now if we were sufficiently motivated) to plant enough humans in space for our progeny to survive. Survival isn’t good enough reason to remove freedoms from our lives. I’m more worried about people being born into a utopian tyranny than pretending like the planet is some living creature to be preserved forever (as, of course, forever never comes).This answer, having been in the works for about a week now, has grown very long. Nothing like a pragmatic liberal sitting around, virtue signaling (never let it be said that we all don’t do that some times) his values to people who he barely knows (if at all) on a Q&A website. I’m a cluster of faults, none of which I avoid and all of which I admit to. I change my mind frequently and I’ll change it on a few of these again one day.PART ONE: ANSWERING THE QUESTIONI’d describe myself as a liberal both in the classical and modern sense. Words have a tendency of taking on a life of their own. They can cease being just descriptive and become aspirational. You’ll never hear me say, “I want to be a better liberal” because I don’t want to be a liberal or conservative or moderate. I just want to be right. In doing so (at least attempting, however poorly), I have to accept that to be right will mean disagreeing. If the ONLY time you ever disagree with someone is that they aren’t polarized enough in your direction (saying things like, “not liberal enough” or “not conservative enough”) then you’re intellectually dishonest. It’s statistically impossible for every liberal or conservative notion to be factually correct all the time. In that, I don’t give a shit about being anything but right even if it costs me my tribe (which it has).Side note. In terms of the transient political issues and the opinions I hold on them, I tend to come down more liberal than not: I want something similar to universal health care, I want voluntary actions between consenting, well-minded adults to be decriminalized, I support a woman’s right to choose (for at least the first 18 weeks of pregnancy), strong protections for the environment, LGBT rights and universal post secondary education for all citizens.I have very few things about which I’m sentimental. (Some exist: my home town, my family, cats, Spain.) I see all things as transient and ephemeral. All that we love and cherish and prize and aspire to be will one day be scoured from the face of the cosmos by the very same forces of nature that gave us the planet, life and Popeye’s chicken sandwiches to riot over. They will have their time and then be gone. As I repeatedly say, “Nothing endures forever. One day, even the memory of the rumor of the history of humanity will end and not even a twinkling of a molecule will remain to remind some far distant intelligence of our small and fleeting existence of Humanity.” Or, to quote a far more intelligent android, “A thing isn’t beautiful because it lasts.” In that, I try to cling to nothing even while loving it while I have it in my life.I once said the above statement to my friend Brenda —deep thinker, philosopher, devout Christian of the “born again variety”—and she froze. The idea to her (and I submit, many religious types) was horrifying. I submit (an in line with at least one mainstream thought on our evolution) that we must’ve evolved some psychological mechanism tied with the hope and expectation of transcendence as a survival mechanism. It’s not a bad tool. In that, I respect the grounding and inspirational nature of religion in so many lives and why I’m deeply distrustful of BOTH religion and the secular forces that have decided that religion is bad or dumb (as if humans can’t be just as dumb without it).But for me, knowing our time is limited and that there is no grand purpose is my single biggest motivation. I have ceased fretting about appealing to a religious force and started recognizing the beauty in today and the goodness done to the people I love for nothing more than to make them (and thus me) happy. I have no sentimental attachments to old ways or ancient traditions. They will perish one day, regardless of how long it takes. So I see no reason to cause them to endure out of sentiment. I cherish a thing for the time it lasts and brings joy to life but when it goes, I let it go.Where, to a great many people, I may appear conservative is in my extreme distrust of all people, especially those who agree with me. I have a very negative reaction to people who agree with me or any group think, nodding their heads as if they’ve invested all the time and energy to think about the things they’re agreeing with. Liberals and my strong tendency to call them out. Even the most sagacious, intelligent liberal thinkers I know are next to incapable of letting go of the aspirational qualities of liberalism. They’re married to their tribe of liberals and their values have become a part of their “self” and are defended as passionately as any dogmatic Christian. In this, while my friend User-11218432271599916107 and I agree here, I will state that this is the new religion of so many liberals: the tribe of leftists who’ve replaced the old religions with a new religion filled with songs and marches and chants and rituals.I didn’t give up Christianity —a religion that mandates my blind and unwavering obedience to Christ— to replace it with blind obedience to a tribe of liberals. Just as well, modern American liberalism demands that I take all matters on faith. Want a conversation about the totally new idea of trans women in sports? Too bad. You WILL accept it as a fait accompli or have people go out of their way to call you “transphobe” and a bigot. Doesn’t matter if you are supportive in EVERY OTHER WAY, if you don’t absolutely and categorically accept every offering from the left, you’ll be called out and attacked. I have a problem with that. New social ideas need to be discussed and explored. It’s how we grow and evaluate an idea. Attempts to shut down the conversation actually throw us back. The mechanism for allowing people to digest a change openly in a healthy way is shut down and thus, they never change and the politics get more divisive.PART TWO: MY BIG CONCERNS WITH THE FAR, FAR LEFT AND LIBERAL IDEALISTSNote: I tried very hard to use “left-wing idealists” or “liberal ideologues” where appropriate. Sometimes I truncated it to the general “liberals”, which is something I tried to correct upon re-reading and editing this monstrosity. I failed in a few places.Everything is Manichean. If you have differences with a conservative, make sure to call them a bigot or sexist or racist. Even if you have to erect a Rube Goldberg Machine of illogical connected factors between aspects of their beliefs and negative outcomes, go ahead. Throw logic out the door. Call them as many names as you like but also pretend that name calling is super insensitive and triggers people (that last part only when it’s conservatives calling you names, you are allowed to call them “fuckwads” and stuff). Make sure to constantly talk about how evil they are in an effort to tell people how good you are. Never allow it to just be a difference of opinion. Invent snarky rejoinders and self-serving quips to justify this hyperbolic behavior. Also, make sure to scream as loud as you can and of course, make sure to remind everybody with every breath that you’re oppressed.I refuse to do that. I think all fringe idealists, utopians, Marxists, racists, revolutionaries and players-of-identity-politics are the enemy. Of course, the left is allowed to play identity politics because they’ve declared themselves to be the good guys (see the logic) and so because of that, their form of identity politics is good but the right wing version is bad. Wait, you want more reasons? Well fuck you, you racist and you sexist and you monster. Just submit to the group think of the far left and obey them. Don’t question it. Don’t ever ask them to substantiate their claims. No. Just obey. Now granted, most liberals aren’t like that and there are just as many conservatives who behave that way (so it’s easy to get lost in the nuance). The liberals with whom I keep company think a lot like most people (conservative or liberal): they find the leftist utopian idealism to be foolishly rigidity to be appalling when extrapolated out in any event that they gain power.Doesn’t matter where the idealism and utopianism comes from, it’s dangerous from either side. Conservatives are the only check on the insanity of the left, my left. Just the same, my left is the only check on the insanity of the right. This isn’t false balance to placate everybody. It’s the truth. The GOP cannot be trusted to police Trump and Trump makes it easy for the left to justify its terrible behavior. That works quite well for many liberals; it doesn’t work for me. I see no reason why decrying terrible ideas on the left should come at the expense of decrying the same on the right.The elevation of tribal identity above all else. This is a very confusing occurrence on the left as it was until very recently, the party of “judge a person by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin”. Somehow, some way, the Democratic party has become, “Unless you pre-judge everybody by the content of their character, assigning a power-value and oppression-matrix to each one and then adjusting for those assumptions, you’re a racist/bigot/sexist.” Yes, I know the retorts and the cries coming back from liberals who behave this way, but every single argument they present depends on me either submitting to the mass cries of people acting like whining hysterics (because, in the freest, richest, most transparent time in recorded history, sure, you’re systemically oppressed).Complicating this, the far left has basically required me to accept their emotional arguments FIRST and then reframe current events (facts) second to suit the moral message (in essence, the “ought” before the “is”). All of this is done at the expense of the individual and the attacks really heat up when I present myself as an individual because to these idealists, an individual is nothing more than the sum total of the tribe to which he (oops … I mean “they”) belong. Here on Quora and in every day life, I’ve been told “As a white man, I have un-earned confidence” (whatever that means) or have been regaled with stories that begin with “As a black woman, I …” … yeah. I don’t care. To serve a great many of these “liberal” idealists, I’m required to be racist in order to not be racist. The MLK dream of judging someone by the content of their character is now—strangely—something I hear from Conservatives (who have plenty of shit on their aprons so don’t think they are innocent in all of this). From liberals, I’m told that if I try to be color blind, I’m now racist.The assumption here is that if you aren’t of X identity group, you cannot know of their special history or suffering. That’s a lie. There is nothing anybody on Earth experiences any where, any how, any why that cannot be conveyed to a non-experiencer-of-that-event with reasonable effort. Nothing. It is in the openness and comfort with being around diversity that is THE strength and THE power for a given people. It is not THE DIVERSITY of skin type or genitals that is the strength. It is the ability to BE diverse and the embrace diversity—diversity in shape, color or thought—that is our strength.But your culture? Your experience? Your values? Nothing about them is so special that only your “in group” can emotionally understand it. That’s the very HEIGHT of bigotry and racism. The sooner we all accept this fact, the better for all of us. You aren’t special. You may be to the people who love you, but you cannot be to the whole world. Yes you are unique. But special is, well, different. Your experiences as a black man or mine as a gay man or someone else’s as a woman is not special or difficult to understand. This is heresy to the far right (“god loves you, you are special”) and the far left (“your black/gay/Latino community is special and you are special too and your experiences can only be understood by you”). Of course, the identity politics playing partisans NEED all of what I’m saying to be wrong. The entire foundation of intersectionality and the diversity-delusion is that there’s some special quantum that comes with being in X group that ONLY someone in that group can understand and thus contribute to the whole.To that end, the tribe/community comes before the individual. This is one of the most frightening thing of all from the far left. It’s the embodiment of the Marxist principle that individuals are representative of the tribe and the tribe is supreme. The morality of a thing reflects which tribe you belong to. Since I’m a white male, my cohort has power so things I do are expressions of that cohort (even though white people aren’t hive creatures and do not gather for “power hoarding” meetings—I, ahhh, I didn’t pay my dues).Because of that weird moral rule, whatever a person says is made to be a reflection of that cohort; and one’s membership in that cohort (or class, race, tribe) will make a thing more or less moral as a consequence. So when a white man complains about how he’s discriminated against, tribes of left wing idealists will make him from being an individual person who is suffering to “white men whining about their lot in life after centuries of running the world.” I’m a gay man, the only thing I have in common with other gay men is that I like dick. That’s all you can ascertain from my group identity. White men aren’t a power-hoarding tribe of “others”. White men don’t have a secret society and a single white man is not the rep for all white men. This shouldn’t be too hard for the left-wing idealists since they’ve been (correctly) complaining about black men being treated as a hive. In that, the old racist cries whenever a black man commits a crime that, “Typical n***ers. Always a bunch of thugs.” Otherizing, generalizing a person based on group identity is racism and it’s wrong no matter who you do it to.This then leads to weird rules about the morality of a thing you say or do changing based upon which group you belong to. My white, straight friend Sean Kernan had the audacity to respond to a Quoran (who was complaining, on Facebook in an open forum, about her treatment by some partisans on Quora) that “this is why I avoid politics” and had it re-shuffled into an oppressive statement by white men. Sean isn’t white men. He’s a man. He’s white. And the advice was sound and appropriate to the complaint issued. If he were a black woman, nobody would’ve said anything. But because he’s white, he’s supposed to be reverse-racist and change his statement by dint of being a white man. This is the problem with the far left elevation of tribal morality above individualism. It’s blatant racism and sexism but the left has decided that it’s okay because Sean is a member of a group and that means racism directed at him is okay even while he’s expected to behave with MORE emotional composure because …. reasons, that’s why.The only way they get around this reshuffling of morality is through rhetorical trickery: re-define “racism”. In the late 70s, tired of logic and having to play by rules, the whiny crybabies on the left decided to add “systemic oppression + power” to the definition of racism to make it easier for non-whites to claim “we cannot be racist; we don’t have power”. It’s rubbish. It’s rubbish because the quantum of “power” is undefinable, un-inspectable and cannot be validated. Worse, the power in question is rarely ever considered personal (where most power lies) but is some “essence” he wields by being a member of an empowered tribe so by offering even this reasonable advice, he was oppressing someone … who was whining for attention and asking for advice. We are being told to un-learn the truth and learn a lie or be destroyed in the process.BUT, what is power? Who has it? We don’t know because it shifts depending on the scenario and the person responding. To accommodate this illogical nonsense, the left-wing idealists have to make every white man a part of some hive mind of white men. So when a white man says a racist thing, because white men have power, he’s representative of white men. But when that same nonsense is applied to—say—black men (A majority of black children are born without black fathers in their lives; 70% are born to homes of single parents, mostly mother), then it delivers unsavory results: it hints that black men make terrible fathers. See how racist that is? People are individuals and you don’t get to “otherize” an entire cohort by cherry picked statistics. I’m not representative of gay men. Sean isn’t representative of white men. None of us are bound by the arbitrary rules invented by liberals and forced on the world just because liberals think they’re the king-makers of morality.The source of a statement / report is more important than the actual information itself. Why? Reasons. Emotions. “Just have some empathy”. Same slippery words I’m supposed to accept as fact because reasons which only make sense to the left-wing idealists who are demanding that everybody clone them. It’s really about power, of course. When you see the world through the lens of power, everything becomes about power. In that, anything you do to “fight tyranny” becomes existential and it becomes justified.When has that ever gone wrong?Replacing personal responsibility with tribal responsibility. If you fail, it’s the tribe. If you succeed, that’s also the tribe. Of course, I agree with liberals that we don’t live on an island of “our selves” and that every successful person here owes back to the community in the form of a higher marginal tax bracket. But what they do NOT owe is the deed to their wealth or confiscatory taxes. Likewise, if the rich people owe us back, what do the poor people owe us? Right. I forgot. That’s wrong thinking. Leftist idealists rank everything by power so if you have power, you deserve to be attacked and mobbed to pay more but if you don’t have any money, you’re virtuous and need help. 150,000 mostly drug addicted homeless in the California is “a failure of society” and cannot possibly be a failure of those individuals to NOT use drugs and to apply themselves. Nope. That’s a dirty word these days. It’s important to virtue signal how evil white men are and how noble poor people are or homeless people or gang members. I know, I know, some liberals will chime in and say, “Well, of course that’s not liberal but you have to explain why there are so many poor black people or homeless in the US.”Some of that is going to be racism. We have the really appalling history behind us and a collection of current events today. Still, without an effective test that can peer into the minds of people, none of us knows the difference between the loser who is just lazy and the person who’s been destroyed by an oppressive system. In the absence of a meaningful test that can be validated and replicated and falsified, all we have are rough estimates as to what some of us decide to believe is an appropriate number.Even then, it’s utter rubbish and is simply cherry-picked to support a foregone conclusion: the tribe is guilty when any of them fail. It’s anathema to liberals to look at the washed up drug addict living in a tent under a bridge and say, “You have choices in life. This is yours.” Why? Because liberals invented rules that say, “Oh, it’s wrong to say that to people like that. They’re suffering.” So what. Why does suffering become some moral value? Suffering is a part of life and it’s an important one. Fretting over suffering as the defining feature of morality (with its opposite being the other bugbear for liberals: wealth)? Every moral value here is basically special pleaded into existence with little more than yelling the equivalent of “because I said so”.Of course, I believe in universal healthcare (including addiction treatment and mental healthcare). Of course I believe that we have utterly failed our veterans. Of course, I think we have abrogated our responsibility to our urban centers: decaying bridges and utilities. Of course, our system of education is awful. Those are subjects I care about IMMENSELY as a liberal and I’m appalled that the far left has failed to address those issues in favor of stuff that cannot be inspected or validated. It’s just “conjured” into being by idealists who insist that they’re right and if you argue, well, you’re a bigot or racist. (The new meme being apropos: “What is the definition of a Nazi? Anybody who disagrees with a liberal.”) And I think we need to think and act fast to fix all of those broken things I mentioned.But know what? None of that comes at the expense of holding individuals accountable and refusing to allow them to abuse our system. I don’t accept excuses from adults nor do I see the utility in me paying 10% more in taxes so we can increase EVEN MORE social spending to provide housing for homeless adults. “Dan, they’re mostly ill!” Yes genius, they’re mostly addicts who’ve been addicts for so long that they destroyed their bodies and brains. So yeah. They’re ill, duh. I believe welfare schemes should exclusively be directed at children, the elderly and the infirm. Adults don’t get excuses.Along with this, is some new mutant extension of “don’t blame the victim”. That’s dogma, not a rule. Blaming the victim can be abuse, of course. But if you walk down a dark alley and you get attacked, you’re an idiot and you got NOT what you deserved but what you failed to stop through some intelligent behavior (and thus deserving of shaming later on). That’s not a tribal problem because crime is the result of a free society—bad things happen and it isn’t the tribe’s job to prevent them, that’s yours. There’s the difference that many liberals don’t want to say out loud: You are the captain of your life. Don’t go to frat parties and get fall down drunk you idiot—male or female. Don’t use drugs. Don’t tolerate a relationship where you’re being abused.But that is the false dilemma we live in: to mention those things somehow comes at the expense of holding the other perpetrator responsible. It’s an ugly truth to some on the far left that choice does matter and it’s the single biggest “maker” of your life. Not whitey. Not patriarchy. Not racism. Your life is in your hands. Life isn’t fair. People of any race or sex continuously enter the top 1% from the bottom 1% across the US, so it is possible. Others have faced far bigger odds and succeeded, but again, that’s not a point we’re supposed to admit, only that when individuals fail, it’s important to blame society. Of course, this doesn’t mean I don’t accept that economic immobility is the biggest problem facing the US and that it’s only going to get worse. That’s the result of technology and globalism, not racism or sexism and it’s only going to get worse. The solution to that WILL take the whole community because it impacts the fabric of our existence. Despite that, the individual still is the biggest dictator of where their life goes and I see no reason to constantly blame the community when individuals refuse to do the basic things necessary to succeed in life.You have choices and if you put yourself in harm’s way, expect to suffer. Yes, if someone harms you, they should be punished but you too need to be criticized and educated a bit more about the difference between being a raging idealist, insisting that society remove every peril from in front of you vs. being reasonably pragmatic in your self-care. You don’t get to feign a case of the vapors when you wander into a dangerous situation and bad things happen. It’s called an “earned hassle” for a reason. You earned it through stupid choices and I refuse to accept that you aren’t to blame even while someone else is (and should be) punished for harming you. In a free society, people will be free to make horrible decisions. Suffering the painful consequences of those decisions is a consequence of freedom. It’s by design and not a bug in the system. Crime can’t be waved away and you make choices based on accepting that possibility and accepting the blame when you gamble wrong.The simplification of relationships down to power. Everything is about power, which of course you heard. The entire intersectional and left-wing argument is about power. Arbitrarily selected above other aspects that drive human relationships like: love, charity, compassion, empathy, the instinct for hierarchy and order, etc. Somehow POWER became everything. I’ve read the sundry writings of Kimberly Crenshaw and while I can agree that intersectionality may help explain a given person’s starting point, it is inadequate for group identity (people aren’t hive creatures, they’re individuals) and is woefully inadequate for crafting government policy.Intersectionality creates a dual standard whereby there are separate rules invented for separate people to “balance things out”. White people can’t say the “n” word, but black people can without the same social repercussions. Gay men can say “fag” but other people can’t. And these are but the tip of the iceberg of dual standards that exist—so we are told—to balance out history (as if somehow we are in a position to fix the past). This utterly fails one of the basic mechanisms to determine the morality of a thing: the substitution test. You can identify the horrible moral values of anybody demanding separate standards by swapping out different people of different identities to see if it delivers the same value. If it doesn’t, there could be an explanation but barring extreme examples, if you can’t get the same moral outcome using the substitution test, your proposition is problematic to say the least.Today, in order to justify the “power rules” that are invented by the left, we have to lie and re-fashion the West into an oppressive, racist patriarchy. Only that the West is the freest, richest, most racially equal, most gender equal, pro LGBT, most transparent, most democratic place in all of human history. It’s OBJECTIVELY the best place to live, that’s why so many non-whites come here. It’s not oppressive. But liberal idealists (like their right-wing idealist counterparts) need it to be worse than what it is. They (the right-wing and left-wing) idealists might as well make common cause, complaining about how terrible the world is, how it’s falling apart, how bad everybody is. Problem is: it isn’t. This is the greatest time to be alive. Europeans did a lot of bad things in the past but they are the ONLY power holding tribe on Earth that willingly re-evaluated its behavior and dismantled every one of the old oppressive constructs (or is in the process of doing it). China? The Middle East? India? Africa? Where do you go to find anything like in the West? You can’t. Even if it were all about power (which it isn’t), then they still cannot define what power is on an individual basis. This of course, leads to…The infantilization of women, non-whites, LGBT people. As if “power” were everything, to suit that end, the left-wing idealists have to remake the world into the oppressors and the oppressed class. This class is any cohort who has a statistical disparity in results. The left-wing idealists need gay people, women and non-whites to be weak willed, simpering crybabies who need the “tribe” (i.e. the left) to come and help them. If I were more conspiratorial in nature, I’d conclude that there’s an explicit policy of weakening various cohorts, telling them how frail they are and forcing them to surrender more and more power to the tribe to exercise on their behalf. Of course, this means we have to conclude that women are super weak and cannot “topple the patriarchy” in –say—engineering fields despite having toppled the patriarchy in Medicine and Psychology. Everybody the far left needs to be weak must be weak or they are the enemy.Several months ago, I was lectured by a woman here on Quora about how horrible I am for not “retaining the important message of empathy”. She said that I surrendered it as I became a power-holder and that I should care more about the marginalized people across the US. While I agree there are lots of marginalized people (mostly through economics) in the US, I don’t agree that they need the government interfering with their lives. Never mind that she cannot (nor can any liberal for that matter) quantify the difference between those who are just lazy idiots and those who’ve been hurt so much that they are broken. Liberals fill in the blanks here with, “just trust them”, meaning that any smart lazy minority can lie and say they are broken by society, fashion an excuse that liberals love and then move forward with it. Of course, those liberals have a grain of truth to them: it’s hard to figure out who’s been destroyed by the system so they—doing what liberals do best—focus on “the least of us” as a reminder that there are real consequences that impact even small groups of people.That message is important even while we acknowledge that the system cannot be nimble and serve all of us while being obsessed with patching every single crack. Each new policy weighs down the system and the accumulation of policies and agencies means that you end up with a top-heavy system obsessed with patching every “inequity” in society even when a great many inequities are self-imposed by culture and individual choices. Nobody makes people fuck and make babies before they’re married. That’s not “whitey” doing that. He’s not in the room making people produce babies they cannot raise. The patriarchy didn’t make 150k homeless people in California become drug addicts and fail to care for themselves. Some of that can be attributed to failures in the community (which I clearly believe we must address: our education, health care and infrastructure sucks—but those should serve everybody equally, not some group liberals have elevated as “the most harmed” warranting more racism to fix the past racism). Some of those inequities are consequences of living in a free society where people can choose to succeed or not.I presume that everybody I meet is strong and resilient. I refuse to allow the left to special-plead rules into existence without a wider discussion involving everybody in society. OF course, their motivation isn’t from an evil place any more than most conservatives don’t come at this from an evil place. That’s why I refuse to consider conservatives “bad guys”. Which leads us to … a sudden interruption.<Pause for a restroom break><hold music>♫ Dance with me. I want to be your partner. Can’t you see, the music is just starting? Night is falling, and I am falling … oh oh Dance with me… ♫</hold music>PART THREE: MORE THINGS I’M ANNOYED WITH FROM THE IDEALISTIC LEFTCatastrophizing everything. D. Patrick Moynihan correctly said that there is an inverse correlation of freedom in a country to the shrieking cries of oppression. The freer a society is, the louder the cries. The US has never been richer. Black people have never been richer in the US. Gays have never been freer. More women are in power across all industries and government than ever before. The ONLY things afflicting our society on a potentially existential level are pollution/climate change and the impending collapse of our economy due to health care issues. But those can be fixed. We are making progress in race, sex, sexuality and other discrimination like no time in history. The fact that you are SEEING so many things (video captures of police brutality) isn’t because it’s necessarily on the rise but because of technology putting cameras everywhere. So the spike you see, it’s because we are freer and can discuss it. I like that, but don’t pretend like this isn’t the best time to be alive in the US for a non-white person. The only thing systemic across the US is our systemic liberalization over the past multiple generations. Despite that, the past has been trawled for excuses to make emotional arguments.A case in point: a Christmas song about snowy weather has in recent years been selected by the left-wing religion as evil. Why is it evil? Something something something “hey, what’s in this drink” means someone is getting drugged and raped. When it has been explained that that was a common saying in that era as an excuse for poor behavior, that isn’t enough. Nope, the goal posts are moved. The whiny crybabies cannot EVER admit to being wrong (sure, they’ll admit that they can be wrong, but try to narrow it down a bit to the last time they admitted specifically to being wrong about a major philosophical belief—watch them lock up).Even when all arguments about facts are presented, it doesn’t matter. To the hyperbolic left, you must consider women frail crybabies who cannot handle hearing a song from the 40s because BAD (despite it not being even bad, but whatever) and that it hurts people. Ask about who’s hurt? Get no answers or pointed to an anonymous article written “by a victim of rape” who was triggered by the song. Never mind that that is irrelevant and has no bearing on the song. Never mind that that is her problem to take up with her counselor. To the idealists on the left, it’s about power and they need the power to force you to obey and un-learn what you know to be true so that they can win and impose their utopian vision on the world. When they are proven wrong (like with a song) they have to refuse to change because that would mean admitting they could be wrong about something, so instead they’ll just attack you instead because that’s easier and more comfortable.But there’s a problem: It comes down to facts, germane facts and not cherry picked ones or fallacious attempts at red herrings. If the US is an “oppressive, patriarchal, cisgender, Christian, white, racist, homophobic, capitalistic hegemony”, I’m compelled to ask … “Compared to whom or what?” Name a time in or place in RECORDED history (not your douchey made up past where you think others are required to “just take you on faith” that “like oh my god, it was like totally so much better dude”. Was Africa 1000 years ago better for Africans than what Africans across the world experience today? Is there a less patriarchal place than the West? Is there a place more free than the West? See, the idealists don’t like this. They cannot answer the question of WHAT SYSTEM is better if this is so terrible? What place is so better if this is so terrible? What time is so better if this time is so bad? They can’t answer that because the truth is: if you live in the West—barring rare and well-understood exceptions—you have won history’s great lottery. Shut up and stop whining. Get out and enjoy it.Re-framing the past and using that to justify the future. The big one is slavery of course but can include gender differences in society. Because of slavery eight generations ago, today the far left has decided to elevate “slavery reparations” as some holy quest. Questions about “what is the end goal” of that government policy are shouted down. Arguments that are valid are casually dismissed with, “Well, that was covered in the Congressional hearing and we’ve dismissed it” as if the left is the supreme arbiter of what is a valid argument or not. Because of this, there’s no meaningful conversation. Never mind that a majority of black people in the US are middle class or above. Never mind that not a single person alive was enslaved. Liberals have decided that there’s a special-ness about how black people were treated in the past and there needs to be some repayment. Never mind that that 360,000 Union soldiers perished preserving the union which had a direct causal connection to the manumission of slaves. Never mind that the US has had three generations of social policies.What bothers me isn’t just the abortion it is to reframe the past according to such terms, it’s toxic to the listeners especially children. If you think children aren’t impressionable and don’t absorb your stupid messaging, then you wouldn’t get upset about how the KKK raises their kids or how right-wing Mormons raise their kids. You know that kids are sponges and absorb the messaging their adults give them. If your assumption is that you are the good guy and everybody else is the bad guy, you’re an idiot. You’re worse than an idiot. You’re a fool and a moron. If you think that your values are objectively right and the other guys are wrong, then you are foolish in the extreme. Someone, someone just like you in the future will re-interpret what you do and likely in a negative way. The people in a time and place aren’t required to be prescient and look into the future and live for the people who may or may not come into existence millennia from now. They live in their time and place. They succumb to pressures we do not know about. Life in the past was harsh and the men and women didn’t get a choice in the “patriarchy” into which they were born just like you didn’t get a choice in being born today and succumbing to the pressures YOU THINK are important today. You’re just like them, only snobbier.Today, the left has made entire moral arguments about history and economics which (yes, I know the analogy does get abuse) allows the far left idiots to sneak Marxist language about redistributing wealth and power into the dialogue. Every corner of intersectionality and left-wing politics is dripping with redistribution of power and wealth away from people they’ve arbitrarily decided used it poorly as if the left (and especially Marxists) don’t have a history filled with blood and viscera of those who they slaughtered without mercy. But sure, the left are good guys!But the Marxists and identity politics playing far-left justify it in “well, we will make a better future” (despite there being NO example of Marxists and revanchists making anything better). But the left has made the entire argument about “power” and “wealth” and the redistribution of the same BASED on cherry picked details and some esoteric formula of who deserves what. This is because the far left has decided that the tribal affiliation or immutable characteristics represent a moral obligation of one tribe to the other. I’m white and my ancestors did bad things so I’m obligated to be reverse-racist to be not-racist. I have to want financial hand-outs to people I’m supposed to otherize in order to not otherize them, whose systemic suffering cannot be demonstrated (the “is” in the “is/ought conundrum”) as purely based on the wider society to which they belong, but by individual choices their parents or grandparents made.I would submit that nobody of any decent moral or intellectual caliber can dismiss the horrible history that black people suffered in the US. Nor can anybody pretend like racism is done and we just suck it up and pretend like ther aren’t millions of poor, struggling black people who are poor not by choice but as a consequence of long entrenched bigotry across the US. In this, I believe the US needs serious infrastructure, education and health-care spending directed at the poorest places in the US with the goal of lifting the living standards and ending generational poverty.Admitting that does NOT come at the consequence of holding individuals accountable. Nobody can claim that the disparities of results in a given cohort are exclusively due to discrimination—some are by culture and individual choice. There are LOTS of non-whites who have prospered in the US, the majority of the black population, in fact, is richer than the wildest dreams of their ancestors. Still, because there isn’t a sufficiently small gap (if any) in annual income (stuff), that’s a sign of discrimination and not at least in part personal choices people make in their lives. It’s not like Nigerians aren’t black, but when they come to the US they out-earn white people. Dark skinned Indians (indeed all Indians) and Chinese people have prospered here. But of course, the entire conversation has been pre-mined with bigoterring bombs that are set to explode the moment you try to compare different cohorts. That’s because facts come last and emotional arguments come first.In the US, we cannot casually wash our hands of the past. That’s certain. The US will owe—for generations—a debt to the people that were nearly exterminated by white settlers: American Indians. I’m not onboard with the US owing a lingering debt to the descendants of slaves because, well, why again? And how will that debt be repaid? Money? Is money going to fix this? An apology? Free college tuition? In the end, the disparity between rich and poor and the growing class of poor in the US is the most important thing to remedy and in that, we know the formula and it’s directed at children: education, healthcare and infrastructure. In the US, we don’t do those things (which, violates my liberal sensibilities—we need to fix those FOR EVERYBODY). Fix those and then you have to step back and let individuals and individual sub-cultures within the US decide whether or not it’s worth trying. That will mean disparate results. I see no reason to obsess over it just to achieve picturesque integration and equalization that would make the WB tween shows giggle with joy.Pro logic and science … except when it contradicts their worldview. The social sciences have always been full of kooks who offer up half-baked ideas about the world and then refuse to substantiate them. I get it, that proposing ideas about society is really hard and it’s super hard to follow a logical process because we’re largely dealing with emotional factors. Problem is, that if you claim to be a scientist and you offer up ideas, you bear the burden of proof. On the far left, from “micro aggressions” to “matrix of oppression” to “oppressive patriarchy”, the ideas offered up are utterly un-inspectable, cannot be tested and, like with a lot of bullshit out of the social sciences, cannot be evaluated at all. Every single test on “micro aggressions” is correlational and based on memory recall. This is where the science fails but of course, that won’t matter to those who are obsessively married to them. It’s a religion now. WE know in social science experiments that you have to account for the effects of mass hysteria (in the extreme, or philosophical trends that slant how people remember the past and see the present). To the KKK member, the white race is in danger and no facts matter. To the far left Marxist, history is an oppressive, European, patriarchal tyranny (despite history NOT being that in any way close to what they claim).If you live and work in the corporate world, the disparity between men and women is explained by how evil men are and NEVER by choices women make of their own accord. Of course, when that comes up, the idealist will talk about how women just give up and surrender to the patriarchy, walking away from their dreams but in the same breath, we hear how “just leave women alone” and “trust women to know what they want” when it comes to Hijabs but we apparently cannot trust women to make decisions in their careers (avoiding engineering and choosing nursing, for example) because they didn’t make the right choices. Science goes out the door when it comes to microaggressions (which is rich, because it’s not like science and the social “sciences” ever got along anyway). Microaggressions are simply cherry picked annoyances from the environment that the left-wing idealist has decided are wrong based on reasons … oh right … that liberals invented. Never mind that we all deal with annoyances and microaggressions regardless of race. (At work, I have to listen to “white patriarchy” which is as macro and bigoted an aggression as any).If you pour a toxic slurry of this kind of idealism into a child, of course they will claim they exist, thus adding to the cacophony of cries supporting them … duh! Any dogmatic idea—Christ died on the cross for your sins; Allah wants you to submit to his will; the Proletariat knows better how to run the economy than rich industrialists—if taught to impressionable people will result in something mirroring group hysteria. Likewise, if you feed a child a toxic slurry of racism, that child will grow up to be a racist. Under tests (conducted by such morons as Jonathan Hadit, Alice Eagly, Paul Bloom … but what do they know), telling people they might get triggered results in higher rates of triggering. If you surround yourself with a cacophony of people saying they were micro aggressed, of course you’re going to absorb that mentality. We know this and it’s basic psychology but the people advocating for this thinking cannot allow it to be just an unsubstantiated opinion, they need it to be catastrophic. Worse, they need those “victimized” by it to be suffering terribly, so the victims are infantilized to the point where they need the tribe to bail them out.Suffering and learning to endure the suffering of everyday life is a strength and it’s the random peppering of that suffering that makes us stronger, not weaker. If you are told it makes you weaker and to fear it, of course that toxic message will destroy you. But the far left has insulated itself from that message: it’s simply declared that any suffering from the tribe is wrong and should be treated as an existential threat. There’s an important thing about anti-fragility. It’s the reality that disorder, suffering and complexity make us stronger. If we are told that the complexity has secret or evil messaging built into it that will oppress us and that we are too weak to manage it, we will forever be handicapped by that silly idea.Life is hard—it should be hard, equal parts pain and pleasure. Far left idealists in their good quest to remind us of human consequences have run way too far into the direction of reducing suffering to the point where they invent problems and have us neurotically obsessed with the fine print. We are creatures engineered to do battle, we are strong and we can manage most of what life throws at us. Yes, our surplus of technology will make us softer and that’s okay. We want a softer life, not a harder one. In the future, our ancestors will be way weaker than us, but there’s no reason that physical luxury should lead us to be such simpering crybabies. We need to be reminded that life is hard work and that it’s impossible to accurately separate the necessary suffering from the bigotry and oppression that really does exist. Yes, it exists in the US but it’s not even close to the level of suffering the far left needs it to be in order to justify their behavior.The tolerance of terrible behavior. There are just too many to point out, from the Evergreen College idiots to Greta whats-her-nuts from Sweden. As long as the people shouting and behaving badly drop the right bon mots, use the right collection of self-serving words, then we must forgive them. A couple of teenage boys wearing “MAGA” hats in front of the SCOTUS behaving within the range of how teenage boys act (with notable exceptions—when some of them cat-called the girl on the bench, that was extremely poor taste), protesting for something I find really a terrible idea (restricting abortion) are allowed to do just that. They behaved mostly appropriately. While there, some really evil black extremists said terrible things, but the left wing idealists cannot allow that to be factored in so more group identity (“Those black people have suffered under the hands of white people…”) to dismiss the horror of what was said.Later, an American Indian idiot marched up to them chanting some song from his tribe loudly and that’s okay. Of course, he lied about what he did and the video shows it, but that doesn’t matter. When it’s a white kid in question, they’re guilty first. But if those were black boys and it were a white southern Baptist preacher marching up to them, the same liberal idealists would concoct an excuse as to how he’s oppressive. This is because (as I said) you aren’t an individual, you are the sum of your group identity. Since black people and American Indians have been oppressed, an individual black person or American Indian has more of a leash than a white guy. The substitution test is a good way to test the morality of a given scenario but apparently the far left hates that and needs those teenage boys to be the sum total of all white people, so they aren’t allowed to protest and if they are shouted at, because they’re white (note: not all of them were white, but that is irrelevant, a black conservative is a traitor due to group identity politics, so he doesn’t count), they bear some extra burden to just shut up and listen. That of course, is how it’s done by idealists – move the goal posts, shout really loud, excuse terrible behavior on the part of your people and of course, make sure to make the cost of having a civil discussion on a divisive issue so high that you scare people away from it.Pre-mining entire conversations with “social explosives” to make the cost of discussing the issue so high that people just avoid it. Are you very pro-trans rights like me (including the notion that our universal healthcare system should cover transition treatment options) but want there to be an open discussion about trans women in sports? Yes? Then prepare to be called a transphobe and a bigot. Even saying out loud that a trans woman has an advantage invites all the shrieking cries of people who are so idiotic that they think that “cries” = “morally right”. Of course, nobody can blame them. When you create a cultural value of “oppressed people get our attention”, you inadvertently create an incentive to be oppressed (or at least to look it). When your only way to evaluate “oppression” is the equivalent of the Medical [“on a scale of one to ten, describe your pain”] system that means YOU have to say it out loud. To validate your pain, you have to show pain, which means vocalizing it. This complex incentivization means that people are motivated to shriek as loudly as possible to get attention and they are incentivized to say as many salacious things to prove how they are right. The whole idea collapses under inspection … if you can get a word in without being told you’re committing acts of violence by not just believing them or that by asking Socratic questions, you’re inflicting “epistemic violence” on them.While I agree that it’s possible to inflict “epistemic violence”, in the wider community, involving debates and dialectic exchanges, we MUST question each other. So if a woman runs up to you and begs for help after she was attacked, it would be epistemic violence to say back to her, “Where is your proof? Do you have video recording?” because she needs help now. But when an idea is being proposed to be incorporated into our wider ken or moral system, questioning it and talking about it is required. It’s not violence. It’s literally our method of testing the notion and seeing if it can fit into our society. The far left has demanded that you do what you are told, don’t ask too many questions and if you do, you’ll be destroyed. This has fashioned it into a new faith and a new dogma to replace the old one.Replacing old dogma with new dogma. Dogma can be a religion or not (psychologically, there’s no difference between the feelings you get from being a chanting Stalinist or a devout Catholic—the esprit de corps, the songs, the chants, the marches, the sacred places and the threats of grave punishment all parallel each other, only that one is missing supernatural powers). Liberals have lost the“Today is an oppressive patriarchy. You’re being systematically oppressed.” Um no. If you live in “The West” (loosely used), you live in the freest, richest, most transparent, most mobile time in human history. BUT, the new liberal dogma hates that fact. (So does the right one one, but that argument for when I have to confront the simpering conservatives who need that not to be true.) If you live in the west and you end up poor and worthless—barring some well understood examples (abused kids, pockets of deep oppression we find in some cities and in the US south, and yes, to the consternation of conservatives, it exists)—you’re at fault. You failed to study in school. You got someone pregnant or got pregnant before getting a good job. Whitey McOppressiveJerk didn’t stick your penis in a woman or inversely, stick that guy’s penis in your vagina. Birth control isn’t rocket science. You have choices and when you make bad once, it’s not that racism is “baked into the system” (whatever that means, and I’m sure if I ask 100 idealists on the left, I’ll get 100 different examples of how without a single bit of evidence I can validate other than argumenta ad popula and arguments from authority.The formula for NOT being poor in the US is pretty simple:Go to school and finish high school.Bonus points if you: study hard, get good grades, go to a trade school, to a college AND study something economically in demand and not like whatever it is your dream subjects would be because the economy doesn’t give a shit about your wishes. You do what works.Don’t make babies until you are financially sound and in a committed relationship.Get a job. Work hard. Show up every fucking day. Never make excuses. Do your best work.But those are dirty thoughts now. If adults make babies without the means of supporting them? Tribal responsibility and not their stupid choices. In all the cries about showing them empathy, I’ve yet to see the left-wing idealist wag their fingers at the idiots living off the system for life with, “show some empathy for the tribe/community; how dare you have babies you cannot support. It cannot be that individuals have choices and are responsible for themselves. The far left needs that to NOT be true. Correlative studies are cited and trumped out with the demand that the end-result they’ve declared to be the cause be put first before analyzing all possible contributing factors.Take for instance the fact that superior cultural behaviors in some groups like Asians are widely accepted as reasons for their success here, but suddenly that factor disappears in favor of “systemic oppression”, when discussing those who “under-perform”. Why? Because the very fringe left liberals don’t care about the truth, they care about winning first. You’ll know they were right when they’ve won and re-educate you. If you fail to blindly agree with their assessments, you will be destroyed. They have pre-engineered excuses by noble liberals that you can throw out. “I failed cuz patriarchy.” or “I failed cuz racism.” It is so much easier than, “I failed because I didn’t act appropriately for the vocation I chose. I didn’t finish school. I got pregnant in high school. I got a bunch of chicks pregnant that I couldn’t support. I have poor hygiene. I dress like an idiot. I was rude. I was a jerk. I wasn’t self-aware. I couldn’t take criticism.” Those are harder than just blaming some un-examinable, un-testable essence in the aether around us.PART FOUR: CHECKING OUT OF THIS MESSTo achieve those ends, partisan idealists have entire glossaries of terms that are probably useful in the hands of professionals and in academic settings, but I’ve yet to read anybody indulge in using them that improves the conversation and usually ends it. In the end, what matters is shifting the goal posts once the left-wing idealist gets caught and to deny facts. This worked great for Mussolini and Mao and Stalin and it’s precisely the formula the far left is using (to be fair, the far right is just as adept at using those techniques to deny science, but then never let it be said that liberals are immune). Say the wrong thing, detonate the wrong social landmine and hordes of people will come charging at you with a peppering of weasel words and ill-defined (let alone, logically valid) claims about how you’re basically raping every woman and enslaving every minority in the country. In a world without word meanings, truth ceases being valid. All that matters is the real or fake emotions you signal when you shout at the top of your lungs.The left is my focus because I’m on the left and there’s just no chance of me joining the ranks of evolution denying, climate change denying, abortion denying, hyper religious people on the far right. I’m not interested in fixing them, leave that to Jon Davis. I want the left to get its fucking house in order because it used to be correct on a great many things that it’s forgotten. It used to care about people and individuals over tribalism and mindless activism. Today, it’s become as dogmatically religious as the conservatives it opposes except the god that the left worships is far more insidious than the one the right worships.

People do not know that black people are the owners of the lands in North America because that is a falsehood. Black people who have bought land or who have inherited land own the land on which they hold the title to.Native American Indians, the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, have proof that they were living on the land as far back as 40,000 years ago. They had no “titles” to the land other then the fact they had lived on it for hundreds of generations. The only land they now own, is the land “granted” to them through treaties with the United States Government. Some tribes were “given” their traditional lands or parts of it, to liveon as reservations or reserve. In actuality, they don’t “own” the land as it is held in trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and under the Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management. The United States Government retained “ownership” over the surface and mineral rights of the land.The Alaska Natives (except Metlakatla) do “own” the land they finally received under The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,or ANCSA, signed into law by President Nixon in 1971. “It abrogated Native claims to aboriginal lands except those that are the subject of the law.“In return, Natives received up to 44 million acres (180,000 km2) of land and were paid $963 million.The land and money were to be divided among regional, urban, and village tribal corporations established under the law, often recognizing existing leadership.” WikipediaHowever, it took the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) is a United States federal law passed on November 12, 1980, by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on December 2 of that year to expedite certain provisions under the ANCSA.“Under Title VIII, Subsistence Management And Use,of the ANILCA, Alaska Natives and other rural residents were granted hunting and fishing rights when fish and game are not under outside threat. In addition the bill expedited the complete enactment of the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which were still dragging along.” Wikipedia“ANILCA provided varying degrees of special protection to over 157,000,000 acres of land, including national parks, national wildlife refuges, national monuments, wild and scenic rivers, recreational areas, national forests, and conservation areas.” Wikipedia“ The Act provided for 43,585,000 acres of new national parklands in Alaska; the addition of 9.8 million acres to the National Wildlife Refuge System; twenty-five wild and scenic rivers, with twelve more to be studied for that designation; establishment of Misty Fjords and Admiralty Island National Monuments in Southeast Alaska; establishment of Steese National Conservation Area and White Mountains National Recreation Area to be managed by the Bureau of Land Management; the addition of 9.1 million acres to the Wilderness Preservation System, and the addition of 3,350,000 acres to Tongass and Chugach National Forests. “ The passage of ANILCA helped to expedite provisions of the earlier 1971 ANCSA.In parts of America, that had been under the control of Spain, primarily California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and Florida, the King of Spain gave out land grants for the purposes of establishing settlements, missions, and farms. These lands had been “conquered” by the Spanish Conquistadors in the 16th century in the name of the King and Queen of Spain, who had bankrolled the expeditions. Part of the land grants were made to the Catholic Church and the Pope.In America, starting in the 16th century, land grants were given for the purpose of establishing settlements, missions, and farms. In addition to Spain, other countries granting land included Portugal, the Netherlands, and Britain.“Between 1783 and 1821, Spain offered land grants to anyone who settled in their colony of Florida. When that colony was transferred to the United States, the resulting treaty agreed to honor all valid land grants. As a result, years of litigation ensued over the validity of many of the Spanish Land Grants.” Wikipedia“Spain and later Mexico, were offered land grants along the Rio Grande River near the Texas/Mexico border. These grants were given to help colonization of the area by Mexican and Spanish nationals, and strengthen frontier towns along the Texas border.” WikipediaAfter Spain gave up control of its colonies in America, Mexico took over the colonies and land formerly granted by Spain. “During the Mexican period of California (and other portions of Mexican territories inherited from New Spain), hundreds of ranchos and large tracts of land were granted to individuals by the Mexican government. The ranchos established land-use patterns that are recognizable in the California of today.”“Controversy over community land grant claims in New Mexico persist to this day.”New Mexico was unique because of the 1680 Pueblo Revolt. During that time, most if not all proof/paper work of land granted by the Spanish was destroyed.“Land grants were made both to individuals and communities during the Spanish (1598–1821) and Mexican (1821–1846) periods of New Mexico's history. Nearly all of the Spanish records of land grants that were made in what is now New Mexico prior to the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 were destroyed in the revolt.”After the Pueblo revolt, historians can often only be certain of land grants that were made after the Spanish Reconquest of New Mexico in 1693."The two major types of land grants were private grants made to individuals, and communal grants made to groups of individuals for the purpose of establishing settlements. Communal land grants were also made to Pueblos for the lands they inhabited." Wikipedia“Of the hundreds of grants, Spain made only a few. The remainder were granted by Mexico after 1821. The ranchos established land-use patterns that are recognizable in the New Mexico of today.” WikipediaToday, in New Mexico, there are still land grants from the Spanish and Mexican era of rule that are recognized. Some of the very large land grants were seized by the United States after the Mexican-American War.There are other types of land grants in the United States. One type is the Public colleges and universities which are the most notable examples of land grants. “In 1862, the Morrill Land-Grants Act was signed into law to support the educational advancement of agricultural and industrial studies.” Home | GRANTS.GOV”States received 30,000 acres of land for each congressional seat at the time. The states used the sale of the land, or the land itself, to establish new schools or new programs within existing schools to advance the purpose of the grant.” Home | GRANTS.GOV“In 1890 and 1994, the Land Grant University (LGU) System was expanded to establish and support historically black colleges and universities as well as tribal colleges and universities respectively.” Home | GRANTS.GOVLand Grants for “Homesteading” “The passage of the Homestead Act of 1862 established a land grant program that allowed individuals, both U.S. citizens and intended citizens, to apply for 160-acre plots of land. “Homesteading” was a term referring to the process of moving west onto land in unsettled territories and cultivating the land. Recipients of the Homestead Act land grants were required to live on the land for 5 years and improve it by growing crops and building a dwelling of at least 12 by 14 (the legislation didn’t specify feet or inches, which presented some problems—current grant policies are more thorough and careful now). After five years, recipients could apply for the deed of title to own the land permanently.” Home | GRANTS.GOV“It is worth noting that the Homestead Act of 1862 and the Morrill Land-Grants Acts of 1862 & 1890 were signed into law amidst the historical backdrop of one of the most important and transformational periods in U.S. history. These land grant programs were created and implemented during the American Civil War, Reconstruction Era, and industrialization of the United States.” Home | GRANTS.GOVAre there still land grants available today ? “There are grants that involve land, but the current land grant programs are much different than the historical land grant programs we’ve covered here.” http://Gov.gov