Itsme - 2014-04-10 8:53 PM Need more info=sheeple. Take a stand for something.

TXBO - 2014-04-11 8:19 AM  There's nothing sheeple about needing more facts than a couple of newspaper articles.



 

musikmaker - 2014-04-11 9:34 AM As long as the 'info needed' isn't who's winning so you can choose the winning side!  Lol...

Seriously, there's all the info & links you need to make an educated decision on the other thread...oh yeah....and look into your heart, check your sense of right/wrong concerning the Liberty & free will that we expect our Creator promised us.  It's all right there!

 

TXBO - 2014-04-11 12:27 PM Well, I'm torn because I think there is plenty of blame.



1) There is corruption in the granting of BLM leases.

2) Many leases are nothing but welfare.

3) Many leases do not maximize revenue.

4) Many leases are overgrazed, destroying wildlife and natural habitat.

5) BLM doesn't manage the leases until the land is ruined.

5) Many ranchers illegally deny access to public citizens that have a right to use the land.

6) This farmer should have paid his paltry lease payment.

7) BLM should not have let it go this long.

 

FlyingJT - 2014-04-11 12:39 PM It was denied, even if he sent in his payment it would have been returned. He offered his "payments" to the county which also denied it. He's the last of 15 ranchers in that area. 14 of which could not keep fighting the Feds off and sold out. This isn't about grazing fees, cattle, tortoises, or over grazed land, its about the federal government seeing more profitable uses for that land and they are going to take it.

FlyingJT - 2014-04-11 12:39 PM It was denied, even if he sent in his payment it would have been returned. He offered his "payments" to the county which also denied it. He's the last of 15 ranchers in that area. 14 of which could not keep fighting the Feds off and sold out. This isn't about grazing fees, cattle, tortoises, or over grazed land, its about the federal government seeing more profitable uses for that land and they are going to take it.

TXBO - 2014-04-11 10:27 AM Well, I'm torn because I think there is plenty of blame.



1) There is corruption in the granting of BLM leases.

2) Many leases are nothing but welfare.

3) Many leases do not maximize revenue.

4) Many leases are overgrazed, destroying wildlife and natural habitat.

5) BLM doesn't manage the leases until the land is ruined.

5) Many ranchers illegally deny access to public citizens that have a right to use the land.

6) This farmer should have paid his paltry lease payment.

7) BLM should not have let it go this long.

 

halter_ego - 2014-04-11 1:44 PM


I agree with you.  There so many issues here, you really can't form one "for" or "against".  Of course I am in support of ranching, however, I am a law abidding citizen too.  The rancher was told to remove his cattle how many years ago?  16? And continued to do what he felt he had the right to.  Just because he felt he had the right to, does not give him that right.  The land does not belong to him (I am sure he would have been irrate if another rancher had decided he also had the right to run his cattle in the same spot, but it is "public ground" and since he was not paying the lease, I guess that would give the right to anyone to put their cattle there).  It was unlawful for him to continue doing "what he wanted" no matter if anyone thinks that the law is bogus or not.  And making a decision to support one side or other other is near impossible if you are using only the media sources for your information.  They are all biased, and incomplete.

foundation horse - 2014-04-11 2:15 PM What about An American Citizen's Constitutional Right to a Fair Trial by His/Her Peers? The BLM has in essence become Judge, Jury and Executioner in this debacle. While Cliven Bundy may well be 'in the wrong' here, His Constitutional Right to a Fair Trial to decide has been usurped by Government Employees not Elected Officials. Or has anyone thought of this?

FlyingJT - 2014-04-11 2:23 PM


Foundation: that is correct, that's what started this whole thing 20 years ago. This man did not decide that he just wasn't going to pay anymore(after years of paying), it's when they kept hammering the restrictions at them, cutting permits, raising fees, it's then that he went to the courts to help him in this battle and they ignored him. Like I posted in the other thread: What if this the government suddenly controlled the street in front of your house. Imagine that you start paying a toll each month to utilize that street as well as paying your taxes, and then the toll increases, and then it goes from monthly to daily, and it continues to get more and more restrictive and then you attempt to take these matters before your representatives and before your courts but they just ignore your problems because they are getting paid by the same people that you are butting heads with. Then you realize that you are going into Court and the things said within the court room are not reflected in the transcripts and your right to record it yourself is prohibited. And then let it sink in that every dime you pay in taxes and tolls is being used in every way to combat all that you do to bring awareness to the situation

foundation horse - 2014-04-11 2:32 PM There are certainly more relevant legitimate questions than there are any kind of answers in this scenario.

dhdqhllc - 2014-04-11 2:37 PM


that is a very accurate statement..... 

FlyingJT - 2014-04-11 12:39 PM It was denied, even if he sent in his payment it would have been returned. He offered his "payments" to the county which also denied it.

foundation horse - 2014-04-11 2:15 PM What about An American Citizen's Constitutional Right to a Fair Trial by His/Her Peers? The BLM has in essence become Judge, Jury and Executioner in this debacle. While Cliven Bundy may well be 'in the wrong' here, His Constitutional Right to a Fair Trial to decide has been usurped by Government Employees not Elected Officials. Or has anyone thought of this?

TXBO - 2014-04-11 2:57 PM


Apparently, two judges have ordered him to remove them.

If this was your land and ol' Clive decided he had the right to graze it, how long would you take to get his cattle off?  Would you be satisfied with 20 years? 

TXBO - 2014-04-11 1:57 PM Apparently, two judges have ordered him to remove them.



If this was your land and ol' Clive decided he had the right to graze it, how long would you take to get his cattle off?  Would you be satisfied with 20 years? 

musikmaker - 2014-04-11 5:33 PM  I'm baaack!  Had to attend the funeral of an elderly & lovely lady...

Anyhow...I find this all very interesting mainly because when the we first became the 'United' States of America & ended up purchasing (against the belief of many, including James Madison) some of these Territories from other countries, the Treaty's stipulated that when the territory's gained statehood they would have the same exact rights as the original 13 states "...and own the land from border to border to the core of the earth, including all minerals & water...".  Alas, enter the 'public debt' from buying said lands...they had to 'think fast' as this was not allowed per the Constitution...enter the Homestead Act...part of the Treaty agreement was the immigration of people to this country & things were going pretty good except there was a lot of land that wasn't habitable.  Some of the states did get there land...some didn't.  Enter the Revolutionary War...then the railroads (think transportation...as in federal $'s and big corporations)...now enter the only men serving in Congress were from the original 13 states!  See where this is going?

They vetoed allowing new congreessmen from the newly formed states until they became populated...yet, they didn't want to encourage the movement west...who would work their factories?

This is all recorded...it's our history.

Ultimately, the original states 'borrowed' money from the 'coffers'.  Yep.  That is who owes the money to this day.  The east owes the treasury because they utilized the 'public land' as payment to THEM...they split the proceeds from the sale of land & the gold, silver....  This is quite hidden in the history books!



So here we are.  Congress still has the power to return the land to the individual states...but they won't.  Why would they?  They all fight over the monies year after year...they've come to depend on it as a political football...you know, when they promise how much they will bring to each of us?  THAT is the greed!!!!

Now they have most of the people convinced that this is 'their' land & they are the landlords.  What a crock.

This land was never meant to be a money maker 'for the people' or the 'general welfare' of the nation.  It was meant to be lived on, worked, to provide opportunity for the risk taking citizens of our great Capitalistic country.

Welfare?  No.  Opportunity for the gutsy.

The revenue is in having a strong local economy...providing jobs etc...that is the gold.

I'll stop...for now!

 

TXBO - 2014-04-11 5:11 PM I haven't studied the history of the the deeding of land in Nevada but the fact is the federal government owns this BLM land.



It's certainly not unconstitutional for the fed to own land in the states unlike many of you seem to think. 

musikmaker - 2014-04-11 6:22 PM They do NOT own this land.  It is a Jurisdiction 4...I'll get the info later to show you what it means, suffice it to say that it allows the fed to manage it along with the county/state.  I'll post the gov't papers when I can (really busy!)...google Doyel Shamely Apache County...he's awesome.

TXBO - 2014-04-11 5:28 PM Who owns it?  They must have asked BLM to manage it for them then. 

musikmaker - 2014-04-11 10:47 PM It's under the jurisdiction & authority of the state in which it resides...hence the fact that the Sheriff is the ultimate authority as he/she is an elected official.  Nobody holds title as the 'disposal' has yet to be accomplished per treaty.  This alone should prove that the federal gov't has not completed their role and the land should now be forfeited to the states due to incompetence.  At the least.  Corruption if they want to get nasty about it.

It's all so convoluted & you'd have to ask..."Why?". 

Still...the fact remains that the western states have not yet recieved their rights.  Cannot argue that in any discussion.



To go back a little more....when so much of the 'wasteland' was not 'disposed' of, the fed 'offered' to manage it and most of the states agreed.  It seemed to be a pretty good 'deal' at the time I guess.  Off the top of my head, the cut was 49/51% w/the fed getting the 51.  Just last year the fed raised their 'share' to 53%, we're broke  (I may be off a % or 2...forgive me if I am).  They use this money to 'bargain, threaten & buy' politicians and the public.  They pull our 'funds', they make deals w/the insurance company's...this is a big chunk of the funds they use to make the states tow the line.

We're paying for our own bondage.



Who owns the land?  The devil's in the details.

 

musikmaker - 2014-04-11 10:47 PM It's under the jurisdiction & authority of the state in which it resides...hence the fact that the Sheriff is the ultimate authority as he/she is an elected official.  Nobody holds title as the 'disposal' has yet to be accomplished per treaty.  This alone should prove that the federal gov't has not completed their role and the land should now be forfeited to the states due to incompetence.  At the least.  Corruption if they want to get nasty about it.

It's all so convoluted & you'd have to ask..."Why?". 

Still...the fact remains that the western states have not yet recieved their rights.  Cannot argue that in any discussion.



To go back a little more....when so much of the 'wasteland' was not 'disposed' of, the fed 'offered' to manage it and most of the states agreed.  It seemed to be a pretty good 'deal' at the time I guess.  Off the top of my head, the cut was 49/51% w/the fed getting the 51.  Just last year the fed raised their 'share' to 53%, we're broke  (I may be off a % or 2...forgive me if I am).  They use this money to 'bargain, threaten & buy' politicians and the public.  They pull our 'funds', they make deals w/the insurance company's...this is a big chunk of the funds they use to make the states tow the line.

We're paying for our own bondage.



Who owns the land?  The devil's in the details.

 

TXBO - 2014-04-12 7:41 AM

musikmaker - 2014-04-12 8:59 AM

musikmaker - 2014-04-11 10:47 PM  It's under the jurisdiction & authority of the state in which it resides...hence the fact that the Sheriff is the ultimate authority as he/she is an elected official. 

musikmaker - 2014-04-11 10:47 PM  .....  Nobody holds title as the 'disposal' has yet to be accomplished per treaty.  This alone should prove that the federal gov't has not completed their role and the land should now be forfeited to the states due to incompetence.  ....

dhdqhllc - 2014-04-12 7:06 AM

Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-12 9:02 AM This was never state land, first it was that of the American Indians, and then later claimed by Mexico. As part of the treaty to end the Mexican-American war it became part of the USA. When New Mexico Territory was organized it became part of that, and then later became part of Arizona Territory. The US Constitution gives control of territories and their lands to Congress. Nevada became a state in 1864, and the state constitution gave all property not claimed by settlers to the federal government. The very southern tip of Nevada (where this grazing allotment was) was taken from Arizona Territory and added to Nevada in 1867. The same stipulation applied, land not already claimed was given to the US government.



The Bundy family came about 10 years later and received a grazing allotment from the feds; the land was already federal property. In the early 1990s, the Bundy family began to abuse that allotment by not paying their fee and letting some of the animals go feral. Too many supporters are chanting the Bundy clan has been their longer than the BLM. The Department of Interior who runs the BLM had been around since 1849, and the General Land Office (the forerunner of the BLM) has been around since 1812. Anyhow these issues of property ownership and rights have been through the courts for 20 years, lawyers on both sides took a look at records and saw Mr. Bundy did not own the property; he lost. 

Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-12 10:02 AM This was never state land, first it was that of the American Indians, and then later claimed by Mexico. As part of the treaty to end the Mexican-American war it became part of the USA. When New Mexico Territory was organized it became part of that, and then later became part of Arizona Territory. The US Constitution gives control of territories and their lands to Congress. Nevada became a state in 1864, and the state constitution gave all property not claimed by settlers to the federal government. The very southern tip of Nevada (where this grazing allotment was) was taken from Arizona Territory and added to Nevada in 1867. The same stipulation applied, land not already claimed was given to the US government.



The Bundy family came about 10 years later and received a grazing allotment from the feds; the land was already federal property. In the early 1990s, the Bundy family began to abuse that allotment by not paying their fee and letting some of the animals go feral. Too many supporters are chanting the Bundy clan has been their longer than the BLM. The Department of Interior who runs the BLM had been around since 1849, and the General Land Office (the forerunner of the BLM) has been around since 1812. Anyhow these issues of property ownership and rights have been through the courts for 20 years, lawyers on both sides took a look at records and saw Mr. Bundy did not own the property; he lost. 

musikmaker - 2014-04-12 10:30 AM I've read this c/p somewhere myself and although it seems to make sense...it just doesn't.  Mainly because the state had no authority to 'give' the land away & the Constitution forbids the fed from accepting said land other than for the erection of forts, dockyards, arsenals etc ( Article l Section 8 Clause 17).



You're right...the land was never handed over to the states as stipulated.  The fed saw an opportunity to steal it, prevent the people from ever being on equal footing.  Do we support that?  Just because it was done?

The land that the various Indians now reside is in a 'reserved' satus, much like the public land we're discussing...we can go there but the water's deep!



As explained in an earlier post about the Territory's...when the land was disposed of the states were to be on 'equal footing' with the origianl 13 states...never happened.  That is a fact.



 

musikmaker - 2014-04-12 10:30 AM.... I've read this c/p somewhere myself and although it seems to make sense...it just doesn't.  Mainly because the state had no authority to 'give' the land away & the Constitution forbids the fed from accepting said land other than for the erection of forts, dockyards, arsenals etc ( Article l Section 8 Clause 17).



...



 

TXBO - 2014-04-12 9:06 AM Or one could argue that since Nevada hasn't paid for it after all these years that they have forfeited their right to the land. 

TXBO - 2014-04-12 10:00 AM


 Jurisdiction and ownership are two completely different things.

musikmaker - 2014-04-12 10:30 AM    As explained in an earlier post about the Territory's...when the land was disposed of the states were to be on 'equal footing' with the origianl 13 states...never happened.  That is a fact.

 

Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-12 11:17 AM I am stopping reading everything I see posted.  The more I read the more I get confused!

TXBO - 2014-04-12 9:46 AM   I must have missed that earlier post.  Where is that stipulated?  What land was disposed?

musikmaker - 2014-04-12 12:32 PM Stipulated in the various Treaty's (The Louisiana Purchase, Gadston Exchange, the Treaty of Paris...).

And...as the Constitution doesn't allow for the gov't to own land not affiliated with the protection of our borders the only way they could purchase these large tracts was to promise to 'dispose' as quickly as possible utilizing the Homestead Act, placer claims etc...there was so much land that wasn't disposed of as it wasn't habitable at that time (much of it still isn't), some that was patented was later retracted due to the anti-trust laws.  Also...the gov't later started denying the minerals to the new property owners...that is flat out wrong.

Hope that helps!

 

TXBO - 2014-04-12 1:46 PM


This would have been a part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.  USA paid several million dollars for the aquisition of that land.

Again, what article of the US Constitution forbids owning land for anything other than protection of the borders? 

musikmaker - 2014-04-12 1:42 PM C/p'd...so very excited to say that when the people stand up...things really do happen!  Victory dance!
Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie made an announcement moments ago and ordered BLM off the Bundy land. People from around the country that traveled to Nevada in support of states rights and property rights are rejoicing at the end to this federal land grab and overreach. It looks like the one person who has the authority to tell BLM to leave the premises and cease operations has done so.
 

jbhoot - 2014-04-12 1:51 PM No that treaty was for lands farther south to secure a right off way for southern railway. The area in Question would have acquired from the Mexican war.

TXBO - 2014-04-12 12:46 PM This would have been a part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.  USA paid several million dollars for the aquisition of that land.



Again, what article of the US Constitution forbids owning land for anything other than protection of the borders? 

musikmaker - 2014-04-12 3:02 PM  I give...you're saying that the fed has every right to own land...they can even purchase the rest...ok.  Game over.  What does that make us as a country?  What form of government is that?

 

musikmaker - 2014-04-12 3:02 PM     As to the Bundy news of today...it's not over.  There's people trying as we speak to take the cattle back to the range...it's still very scary out there.

I hope American's win...I hope the Constitution prevails.

 

TXBO - 2014-04-12 2:19 PM  The rhetoric is high.  I'm all for fighting for the constitution.  I'm not convinced that this is a legitimate constitutional battle.  I just hope nobody gets hurt.

TXBO - 2014-04-12 1:56 PM BLM said they had concluded their operation.  The last I heard, they had rounded up 500 head.  I have read that the sherriff was involved in the negotiations but I see nothing of him ordering the feds out.

Whiteboy - 2014-04-12 6:08 PM I went down there today, pretty wild!  They had about 400 head and agreed to release all of them back to Cliven. Talk about a serious waste of tax payer dollars.