|
|
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
  
| QUIT SUCKING AT THE PUBLIC TEAT. Join the rest of us ranchers not fortunate enough to own a federal or state grazing allotment and buy a ranch, pay a mortgage, & pay land taxes. Then you can do as you d**n well please. You can graze it into the ground and kill every living creature that takes feed away from your cows. That will be your right as a land owner. But until then, you do not own the federal and state land that you graze your cows on. We all do, and everyone has a say in how it is utilized. You knew that when you accepted the insanely low grazing fees in exchange for following the rules set forth for you to follow. While record high beef prices are the norm now, ordinary ranchers’ profits are tempered with increasingly high pasture rents and feed costs. Sure, we can manage our land as we see fit, but we pay for it, out the nose, while those who pay next to nothing for pasture rent on Federal Land complain to anybody who will listen about how abused they are by the big, bad, Government. Well, I’ve got a solution for you; give up your allotments and practice what you preach. Let some of the young ranchers who would give their eye teeth to have the opportunity to graze their livestock for $1.35/AUM the chance to make it in an ever increasing hard area to break into. But you know what? They won’t do it. Why should they. They are content to have it both ways. Make a mint off the rest of us and get a national audience about how abused they are. They can pack their pistols and rifles around and talk about shooting federal agents, not pay their rent, and get a platform on Hannity. The rightwing media and the militia groups love it because they get noticed. Ratings, don’t you know. I wonder why, if they are so supportive of the Bundy family, rather than strut around threatening to shoot people, why don’t they just pay the $1M fees and fines they owe and defuse the situation? They are certainly making enough money off the family by hawking their troubles on tv and radio to be able to afford it. But that’s not what this is all about for them. It is really about exploiting a ranch family’s misguided sense of right and wrong to make money and push an anti-government agenda. Even though the Feds turned the cows out this weekend, we all know this is not over. When the cameras quit rolling, and the militia men go back to work on Monday, the Bundy family is still going to be in a world of trouble, only now it is not just for refusing to pay their pasture rent. Now they are forever in recorded history of making terroristic threats to law enforcement and public officials. They have backed themselves in a corner of their own making, and we can all hope that they don’t come out shooting, because odds are, it is not going to end pretty for anyone.
| |
| | |
Sock Snob
Posts: 3021
 
| It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. | |
| | |
  Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | What about you MRS Finney? Marry an existing ranching?! See "I" know more about you than you do me................................I kinda like research. And I know somewhat about your origins. | |
| | |
 Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | This is why ignorant people shouldn't claim an opinion. | |
| | |
| daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM
It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth.
Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away.
I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | musikmaker - 2014-04-13 11:58 AM
This is why ignorant people shouldn't claim an opinion.
And MRS JOE Finney continually proves HER abundance of Ignorance in regards World Affairs and ESPECIALLY in regards to Constitutional Matters. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM
daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM
It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth.
Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away.
I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
Bscanchaser, are you familiar with the reports that Harry Reid and Son are involved w/ China and Nevada Land for Energy Production? And these 'goings on' are dated to back to 2003 minimally. Historical Research is a good thing.
Also Obama and The Rest of The Executive Branch of Government is heavily influenced by The Chinese Government due to Chinese Government holding so much FEDERAL not State Debt. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 11:05 AM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
They supported the Democrats when they paid the bogus fees to a bogus agency to start with. Lol...
The 'mainstream media' is handling this with kid gloves...they didn't report anything until it was over...woosies.
Yesterday was a good day in America!
| |
| | |
| foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:15 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM
daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM
It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth.
Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away.
I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
Bscanchaser, are you familiar with the reports that Harry Reid and Son are involved w/ China and Nevada Land for Energy Production? And these 'goings on' are dated to back to 2003 minimally. Historical Research is a good thing.
Also Obama and The Rest of The Executive Branch of Government is heavily influenced by The Chinese Government due to Chinese Government holding so much FEDERAL not State Debt.
Yes I have read about this. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how a 9,000 acre solar/wind facility would shut down a 600,000 acre multi-use area...especially when there are windmills in various other regions in the state and other areas of BLM multi-use seem to function just fine. Research is a good thing... | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:15 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM
daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM
It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth.
Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away.
I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
Bscanchaser, are you familiar with the reports that Harry Reid and Son are involved w/ China and Nevada Land for Energy Production? And these 'goings on' are dated to back to 2003 minimally. Historical Research is a good thing.
Also Obama and The Rest of The Executive Branch of Government is heavily influenced by The Chinese Government due to Chinese Government holding so much FEDERAL not State Debt.
Yes I have read about this. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how a 9,000 acre solar/wind facility would shut down a 600,000 acre multi-use area...especially when there are windmills in various other regions in the state and other areas of BLM multi-use seem to function just fine. Research is a good thing...
Ok. Let me you ask a 'pointed' question. Do you support Harry Reid? | |
| | |
| foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:07 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 11:58 AM This is why ignorant people shouldn't claim an opinion. And MRS JOE Finney continually proves HER abundance of Ignorance in regards World Affairs and ESPECIALLY in regards to Constitutional Matters.
So I'm one that hates to assume anything so I have to ask... Is Joe your little Brother? Ex-boyfriend? Or are you lesbian and just p***ed off you're not able to legally marry yet? Just curious why the hate for the MRS part of this?
Edited by bscanchaser 2014-04-13 12:42 PM
| |
| | |
| foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:37 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:15 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM
daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM
It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth.
Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away.
I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
Bscanchaser, are you familiar with the reports that Harry Reid and Son are involved w/ China and Nevada Land for Energy Production? And these 'goings on' are dated to back to 2003 minimally. Historical Research is a good thing.
Also Obama and The Rest of The Executive Branch of Government is heavily influenced by The Chinese Government due to Chinese Government holding so much FEDERAL not State Debt.
Yes I have read about this. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how a 9,000 acre solar/wind facility would shut down a 600,000 acre multi-use area...especially when there are windmills in various other regions in the state and other areas of BLM multi-use seem to function just fine. Research is a good thing...
Ok. Let me you ask a 'pointed' question. Do you support Harry Reid?
No. I have never support or voted for Harry Reid. | |
| | |
 Veteran
Posts: 292
Location: Northeast Nebraska | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 10:32 AM QUIT SUCKING AT THE PUBLIC TEAT. Join the rest of us ranchers not fortunate enough to own a federal or state grazing allotment and buy a ranch, pay a mortgage, & pay land taxes. Then you can do as you d**n well please. You can graze it into the ground and kill every living creature that takes feed away from your cows. That will be your right as a land owner. But until then, you do not own the federal and state land that you graze your cows on. We all do, and everyone has a say in how it is utilized. You knew that when you accepted the insanely low grazing fees in exchange for following the rules set forth for you to follow. While record high beef prices are the norm now, ordinary ranchers’ profits are tempered with increasingly high pasture rents and feed costs. Sure, we can manage our land as we see fit, but we pay for it, out the nose, while those who pay next to nothing for pasture rent on Federal Land complain to anybody who will listen about how abused they are by the big, bad, Government. Well, I’ve got a solution for you; give up your allotments and practice what you preach. Let some of the young ranchers who would give their eye teeth to have the opportunity to graze their livestock for $1.35/AUM the chance to make it in an ever increasing hard area to break into. But you know what? They won’t do it. Why should they. They are content to have it both ways. Make a mint off the rest of us and get a national audience about how abused they are. They can pack their pistols and rifles around and talk about shooting federal agents, not pay their rent, and get a platform on Hannity. The rightwing media and the militia groups love it because they get noticed. Ratings, don’t you know. I wonder why, if they are so supportive of the Bundy family, rather than strut around threatening to shoot people, why don’t they just pay the $1M fees and fines they owe and defuse the situation? They are certainly making enough money off the family by hawking their troubles on tv and radio to be able to afford it. But that’s not what this is all about for them. It is really about exploiting a ranch family’s misguided sense of right and wrong to make money and push an anti-government agenda. Even though the Feds turned the cows out this weekend, we all know this is not over. When the cameras quit rolling, and the militia men go back to work on Monday, the Bundy family is still going to be in a world of trouble, only now it is not just for refusing to pay their pasture rent. Now they are forever in recorded history of making terroristic threats to law enforcement and public officials. They have backed themselves in a corner of their own making, and we can all hope that they don’t come out shooting, because odds are, it is not going to end pretty for anyone.
Your blindness to the real issues here is appalling. And it scares me how many people think like you do. | |
| | |
 Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | honestly, i've yet to figure out how Finney's didn't make it on the spread they had in NE..... | |
| | |
 Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. This happens all the time, I have read several articles about men and women in Congress buying land knowing that future legislation/projects will effect it's value- legal inside trading so to speak. One congressman keeps introducing a bill to make this illegal but bill he can't get enough support to get it to a vote.
Edited by rodeomom3 2014-04-13 12:46 PM
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:41 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:07 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 11:58 AM This is why ignorant people shouldn't claim an opinion. And MRS JOE Finney continually proves HER abundance of Ignorance in regards World Affairs and ESPECIALLY in regards to Constitutional Matters.
My POINT is Mrs Joe Finney is the #2 Mrs. She married an existing rancher and did not help build that ranch but married into an existing ranch. MRS. Finney was smart enough to ascertain EXACTLY what I was implying and to date has decided to decline to reply.
Like I previously stated, knowing people and being capable of doing research coupled w/ critical thinking skills can be a good thing.
Now about Harry Reid? Do you support Him?
Edited by foundation horse 2014-04-13 2:00 PM
| |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 292
Location: Northeast Nebraska | bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
It's about commie control. If they control the land, the water, the food, they control the people. Mass starvation is just another option in their book. Making illegal money while doing it is gravy. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | dhdqhllc - 2014-04-13 12:45 PM
honestly, i've yet to figure out how Finney's didn't make it on the spread they had in NE.....
Something about Cold Weather is what my sources indicate. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:43 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:37 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:15 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM
daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM
It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth.
Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away.
I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
Bscanchaser, are you familiar with the reports that Harry Reid and Son are involved w/ China and Nevada Land for Energy Production? And these 'goings on' are dated to back to 2003 minimally. Historical Research is a good thing.
Also Obama and The Rest of The Executive Branch of Government is heavily influenced by The Chinese Government due to Chinese Government holding so much FEDERAL not State Debt.
Yes I have read about this. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how a 9,000 acre solar/wind facility would shut down a 600,000 acre multi-use area...especially when there are windmills in various other regions in the state and other areas of BLM multi-use seem to function just fine. Research is a good thing...
Ok. Let me you ask a 'pointed' question. Do you support Harry Reid?
No. I have never support or voted for Harry Reid.
But your current comment(s) indicate differently. Does the definition of hypocrisy come to mind?
I always attempt to avoid the least indication of hypocrisy or conflict of interest along w/ jealousy and envy.............................. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | musikmaker - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 11:05 AM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
The 'mainstream media' is handling this with kid gloves...they didn't report anything until it was over...woosies.
Yesterday was a good day in America!
'That Day' ain't over yet. There are still multitudes of Feds in the Area, according to Hotel Booking Reservation Services. | |
| | |
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:07 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 11:58 AM This is why ignorant people shouldn't claim an opinion. And MRS JOE Finney continually proves HER abundance of Ignorance in regards World Affairs and ESPECIALLY in regards to Constitutional Matters.
I actually agree with just about everything she said. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 11:05 AM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
The 'mainstream media' is handling this with kid gloves...they didn't report anything until it was over...woosies.
Yesterday was a good day in America!
Sure it was if you're happy with selective enforcement of law. | |
| | |
| foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:50 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:43 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:37 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:15 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election. Bscanchaser, are you familiar with the reports that Harry Reid and Son are involved w/ China and Nevada Land for Energy Production? And these 'goings on' are dated to back to 2003 minimally. Historical Research is a good thing. Also Obama and The Rest of The Executive Branch of Government is heavily influenced by The Chinese Government due to Chinese Government holding so much FEDERAL not State Debt. Yes I have read about this. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how a 9,000 acre solar/wind facility would shut down a 600,000 acre multi-use area...especially when there are windmills in various other regions in the state and other areas of BLM multi-use seem to function just fine. Research is a good thing... Ok. Let me you ask a 'pointed' question. Do you support Harry Reid? No. I have never support or voted for Harry Reid. But your current comment (s ) indicate differently. Does the definition of hypocrisy come to mind? I always attempt to avoid the least indication of hypocrisy or conflict of interest along w/ jealousy and envy..............................
With all due respect... YOU are the one supporting a freeloader rancher. I support the honest ones that work hard to run their herds, pay their dues and take care of business.
Edited by bscanchaser 2014-04-13 12:59 PM
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-13 12:56 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 11:05 AM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
The 'mainstream media' is handling this with kid gloves...they didn't report anything until it was over...woosies.
Yesterday was a good day in America!
Speaking of Selective Law Enforcement............What is the difference between this BLM Event (which could actually have originally been legit) and the lack of INS to round up and deport Illegal Aliens on such a scale as happened in Nevada? | |
| | |
| foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:59 PM
TXBO - 2014-04-13 12:56 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 11:05 AM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
The 'mainstream media' is handling this with kid gloves...they didn't report anything until it was over...woosies.
Yesterday was a good day in America!
Speaking of Selective Law Enforcement............What is the difference between this BLM Event (which could actually have originally been legit ) and the lack of INS to round up and deport Illegal Aliens on such a scale as happened in Nevada?
Selective enforcement? Research the Dann sisters, Leonard Crutcher and the Casey's. All illegally grazed in Nevada and all were handled the exact same with stock being rounded up by the BLM and sold at auction. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:58 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:50 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:43 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:37 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:15 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election. Bscanchaser, are you familiar with the reports that Harry Reid and Son are involved w/ China and Nevada Land for Energy Production? And these 'goings on' are dated to back to 2003 minimally. Historical Research is a good thing. Also Obama and The Rest of The Executive Branch of Government is heavily influenced by The Chinese Government due to Chinese Government holding so much FEDERAL not State Debt. Yes I have read about this. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how a 9,000 acre solar/wind facility would shut down a 600,000 acre multi-use area...especially when there are windmills in various other regions in the state and other areas of BLM multi-use seem to function just fine. Research is a good thing... Ok. Let me you ask a 'pointed' question. Do you support Harry Reid? No. I have never support or voted for Harry Reid. But your current comment (s ) indicate differently. Does the definition of hypocrisy come to mind? I always attempt to avoid the least indication of hypocrisy or conflict of interest along w/ jealousy and envy..............................
Perhaps I am. However symbolically speaking I am SUPPORTING The U.S. Constitution, States Rights. And the FACT remains that the Feds (BLM) were on State Owned Land enforcing something that The LOCAL County Sherriff was responsible for..................... | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:59 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 12:56 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 11:05 AM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
The 'mainstream media' is handling this with kid gloves...they didn't report anything until it was over...woosies.
Yesterday was a good day in America!
Speaking of Selective Law Enforcement............What is the difference between this BLM Event (which could actually have originally been legit ) and the lack of INS to round up and deport Illegal Aliens on such a scale as happened in Nevada?
Probably not much. I guess it's ok for all of us to turn out our cattle on Public land and not pay any grazing fees. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 1:01 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:59 PM
TXBO - 2014-04-13 12:56 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 11:05 AM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
The 'mainstream media' is handling this with kid gloves...they didn't report anything until it was over...woosies.
Yesterday was a good day in America!
Speaking of Selective Law Enforcement............What is the difference between this BLM Event (which could actually have originally been legit ) and the lack of INS to round up and deport Illegal Aliens on such a scale as happened in Nevada?
Selective enforcement? Research the Dann sisters, Leonard Crutcher and the Casey's. All illegally grazed in Nevada and all were handled the exact same with stock being rounded up by the BLM and sold at auction.
Please humor me. Were these cases involving actual Federal Titled BLM Land? Or State Titled Land? | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-13 1:02 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:59 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 12:56 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 11:05 AM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
The 'mainstream media' is handling this with kid gloves...they didn't report anything until it was over...woosies.
Yesterday was a good day in America!
Speaking of Selective Law Enforcement............What is the difference between this BLM Event (which could actually have originally been legit ) and the lack of INS to round up and deport Illegal Aliens on such a scale as happened in Nevada?
The same way Illegal Aliens are free to mooch Federal Services ie Healthcare, Welfare, Food Stamps etc then? | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | TXBO - 2014-04-13 1:02 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:59 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 12:56 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 11:05 AM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
The 'mainstream media' is handling this with kid gloves...they didn't report anything until it was over...woosies.
Yesterday was a good day in America!
Speaking of Selective Law Enforcement............What is the difference between this BLM Event (which could actually have originally been legit ) and the lack of INS to round up and deport Illegal Aliens on such a scale as happened in Nevada?
bingo......not let's all start hauling out to Bundy's allotment and dump our cattle out there and get our share... | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:01 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:59 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 12:56 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 11:05 AM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
The 'mainstream media' is handling this with kid gloves...they didn't report anything until it was over...woosies.
Yesterday was a good day in America!
Speaking of Selective Law Enforcement............What is the difference between this BLM Event (which could actually have originally been legit ) and the lack of INS to round up and deport Illegal Aliens on such a scale as happened in Nevada? Selective enforcement? Research the Dann sisters, Leonard Crutcher and the Casey's. All illegally grazed in Nevada and all were handled the exact same with stock being rounded up by the BLM and sold at auction.
It would be prudent to keep in mind that 'policy' set by an agency that is NOT part of our gov't (Dept of Interior) is NOT law...refering to ranchers who 'caved' or those who 'pay' is akin to allowing a police officer to search your vehicle just because they asked. Say no! It's not against the law! Lol... | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| foundation horse - 2014-04-13 1:02 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:58 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:50 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:43 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:37 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:15 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election. Bscanchaser, are you familiar with the reports that Harry Reid and Son are involved w/ China and Nevada Land for Energy Production? And these 'goings on' are dated to back to 2003 minimally. Historical Research is a good thing. Also Obama and The Rest of The Executive Branch of Government is heavily influenced by The Chinese Government due to Chinese Government holding so much FEDERAL not State Debt. Yes I have read about this. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how a 9,000 acre solar/wind facility would shut down a 600,000 acre multi-use area...especially when there are windmills in various other regions in the state and other areas of BLM multi-use seem to function just fine. Research is a good thing... Ok. Let me you ask a 'pointed' question. Do you support Harry Reid? No. I have never support or voted for Harry Reid. But your current comment (s ) indicate differently. Does the definition of hypocrisy come to mind? I always attempt to avoid the least indication of hypocrisy or conflict of interest along w/ jealousy and envy.............................. Perhaps I am. However symbolically speaking I am SUPPORTING The U.S. Constitution, States Rights. And the FACT remains that the Feds (BLM ) were on State Owned Land enforcing something that The LOCAL County Sherriff was responsible for.....................
If the local sheriff had jurisdiction, then you're supporting an elected official who ignored the rule of law and failed to perform his duties. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:03 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 1:01 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:59 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 12:56 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 11:05 AM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
The 'mainstream media' is handling this with kid gloves...they didn't report anything until it was over...woosies.
Yesterday was a good day in America!
Speaking of Selective Law Enforcement............What is the difference between this BLM Event (which could actually have originally been legit ) and the lack of INS to round up and deport Illegal Aliens on such a scale as happened in Nevada? Selective enforcement? Research the Dann sisters, Leonard Crutcher and the Casey's. All illegally grazed in Nevada and all were handled the exact same with stock being rounded up by the BLM and sold at auction. Please humor me. Were these cases involving actual Federal Titled BLM Land? Or State Titled Land?
Non-titled...falls under Jurisdiction 4. The only rights are grazing & water. The fed claims the minerals, illegally, though. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-13 12:07 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 1:02 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:58 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:50 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:43 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:37 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:15 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election. Bscanchaser, are you familiar with the reports that Harry Reid and Son are involved w/ China and Nevada Land for Energy Production? And these 'goings on' are dated to back to 2003 minimally. Historical Research is a good thing. Also Obama and The Rest of The Executive Branch of Government is heavily influenced by The Chinese Government due to Chinese Government holding so much FEDERAL not State Debt. Yes I have read about this. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how a 9,000 acre solar/wind facility would shut down a 600,000 acre multi-use area...especially when there are windmills in various other regions in the state and other areas of BLM multi-use seem to function just fine. Research is a good thing... Ok. Let me you ask a 'pointed' question. Do you support Harry Reid? No. I have never support or voted for Harry Reid. But your current comment (s ) indicate differently. Does the definition of hypocrisy come to mind? I always attempt to avoid the least indication of hypocrisy or conflict of interest along w/ jealousy and envy.............................. Perhaps I am. However symbolically speaking I am SUPPORTING The U.S. Constitution, States Rights. And the FACT remains that the Feds (BLM ) were on State Owned Land enforcing something that The LOCAL County Sherriff was responsible for.....................
It all ended when the sheriff ended it. Fact. He sure didn't want to...tried to say it was a federal issue...anything! Lol...a few somebody's finally had the law read back to them. | |
| | |
Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| This may have been posted on the other thread, a letter ( if authentic) from Clive's daughter explaining how it got to this point. Hope this helps Finney, it is not a matter of he wants a free ride, he paisd his fees for years.
Here the letter just receive from Bundy’s daughter, Shiree Bundy Cox “I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight. Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it is in a nut shell. My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 or around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars. These rights to the land use are called preemptive rights. Somewhere down the line, to keep the cows from overgrazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches. [my highlighting, Don] My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these moneys against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with their own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a pittance he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down. So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes. In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business. Well when buying him out didn’t work, they used the endangered species card. You’ve already heard about the desert tortoise. Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years. Now they’re desperate. It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff. Everything they’re doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America. Now you may be saying, “how sad, but what does this have to do with me?” Well, I’ll tell you. They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again. Next, it’s Utah’s turn. Mark my words, Utah is next. Then there’s the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle do belong to him. Regardless of where the cattle is my father’s property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed. Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it. They think they can take them over two borders, which is illegal – ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfield Auction and sell them. All with our tax money. They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars. See how slick they are? Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks” Shiree Bundy Cox PS We Need you to show up tomorrow April 12th. We need lots – tons of people now. Date: April 12, 2014
Time: 8am - BLM goes home
Place: Bunkerville Exit on I-15, 3 miles south of Mesquite. Go east 2 miles toward Bunkerville.
Bring: sun protection, its getting hot. Water, food, cameras.
DO NOT bring: Guns or wear Cammo patterned clothing. This needs to be peaceful law-abiding people showing support. No more, no less. PPS – Please forward this to friends. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-13 1:06 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:01 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:59 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 12:56 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 11:05 AM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
The 'mainstream media' is handling this with kid gloves...they didn't report anything until it was over...woosies.
Yesterday was a good day in America!
Speaking of Selective Law Enforcement............What is the difference between this BLM Event (which could actually have originally been legit ) and the lack of INS to round up and deport Illegal Aliens on such a scale as happened in Nevada? Selective enforcement? Research the Dann sisters, Leonard Crutcher and the Casey's. All illegally grazed in Nevada and all were handled the exact same with stock being rounded up by the BLM and sold at auction.
True but the two judges that ordered him to remove the cattle are absolutely a legitimate constitutionally granted authority. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-13 12:12 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 1:06 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:01 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:59 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 12:56 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 11:05 AM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
The 'mainstream media' is handling this with kid gloves...they didn't report anything until it was over...woosies.
Yesterday was a good day in America!
Speaking of Selective Law Enforcement............What is the difference between this BLM Event (which could actually have originally been legit ) and the lack of INS to round up and deport Illegal Aliens on such a scale as happened in Nevada? Selective enforcement? Research the Dann sisters, Leonard Crutcher and the Casey's. All illegally grazed in Nevada and all were handled the exact same with stock being rounded up by the BLM and sold at auction.
Are they? Our judicial system is the biggest joke of all...
Remember the 9th Amendment.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-13 1:10 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 12:07 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 1:02 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:58 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:50 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:43 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:37 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:15 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election. Bscanchaser, are you familiar with the reports that Harry Reid and Son are involved w/ China and Nevada Land for Energy Production? And these 'goings on' are dated to back to 2003 minimally. Historical Research is a good thing. Also Obama and The Rest of The Executive Branch of Government is heavily influenced by The Chinese Government due to Chinese Government holding so much FEDERAL not State Debt. Yes I have read about this. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how a 9,000 acre solar/wind facility would shut down a 600,000 acre multi-use area...especially when there are windmills in various other regions in the state and other areas of BLM multi-use seem to function just fine. Research is a good thing... Ok. Let me you ask a 'pointed' question. Do you support Harry Reid? No. I have never support or voted for Harry Reid. But your current comment (s ) indicate differently. Does the definition of hypocrisy come to mind? I always attempt to avoid the least indication of hypocrisy or conflict of interest along w/ jealousy and envy.............................. Perhaps I am. However symbolically speaking I am SUPPORTING The U.S. Constitution, States Rights. And the FACT remains that the Feds (BLM ) were on State Owned Land enforcing something that The LOCAL County Sherriff was responsible for.....................
No, he shouldn't have allowed him to illegally graze that land for 20 years. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-13 1:16 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 12:12 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 1:06 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:01 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:59 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 12:56 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 11:05 AM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
The 'mainstream media' is handling this with kid gloves...they didn't report anything until it was over...woosies.
Yesterday was a good day in America!
Speaking of Selective Law Enforcement............What is the difference between this BLM Event (which could actually have originally been legit ) and the lack of INS to round up and deport Illegal Aliens on such a scale as happened in Nevada? Selective enforcement? Research the Dann sisters, Leonard Crutcher and the Casey's. All illegally grazed in Nevada and all were handled the exact same with stock being rounded up by the BLM and sold at auction.
Remember the 9th Amendment.
If you challenge the constitutional authority of the judiciary, I understand why I don't get many of your other constitutional arguments. Lol! | |
| | |
 Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| TXBO - 2014-04-13 1:07 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-13 1:02 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:58 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:50 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:43 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:37 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:15 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election. Bscanchaser, are you familiar with the reports that Harry Reid and Son are involved w/ China and Nevada Land for Energy Production? And these 'goings on' are dated to back to 2003 minimally. Historical Research is a good thing. Also Obama and The Rest of The Executive Branch of Government is heavily influenced by The Chinese Government due to Chinese Government holding so much FEDERAL not State Debt. Yes I have read about this. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how a 9,000 acre solar/wind facility would shut down a 600,000 acre multi-use area...especially when there are windmills in various other regions in the state and other areas of BLM multi-use seem to function just fine. Research is a good thing... Ok. Let me you ask a 'pointed' question. Do you support Harry Reid? No. I have never support or voted for Harry Reid. But your current comment (s ) indicate differently. Does the definition of hypocrisy come to mind? I always attempt to avoid the least indication of hypocrisy or conflict of interest along w/ jealousy and envy.............................. Perhaps I am. However symbolically speaking I am SUPPORTING The U.S. Constitution, States Rights. And the FACT remains that the Feds (BLM ) were on State Owned Land enforcing something that The LOCAL County Sherriff was responsible for.....................
Where has it been said that an agent from a Federal Court presented a court order to the Sheriff to enact? To say that he failed to do his duties is a reach. Isn't it odd thou as soon as the Sheriff did get involved the BLM backed down.....Hmmmmm I wonder why. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| jbhoot - 2014-04-13 1:29 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 1:07 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 1:02 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:58 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:50 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:43 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:37 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:15 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election. Bscanchaser, are you familiar with the reports that Harry Reid and Son are involved w/ China and Nevada Land for Energy Production? And these 'goings on' are dated to back to 2003 minimally. Historical Research is a good thing. Also Obama and The Rest of The Executive Branch of Government is heavily influenced by The Chinese Government due to Chinese Government holding so much FEDERAL not State Debt. Yes I have read about this. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how a 9,000 acre solar/wind facility would shut down a 600,000 acre multi-use area...especially when there are windmills in various other regions in the state and other areas of BLM multi-use seem to function just fine. Research is a good thing... Ok. Let me you ask a 'pointed' question. Do you support Harry Reid? No. I have never support or voted for Harry Reid. But your current comment (s ) indicate differently. Does the definition of hypocrisy come to mind? I always attempt to avoid the least indication of hypocrisy or conflict of interest along w/ jealousy and envy.............................. Perhaps I am. However symbolically speaking I am SUPPORTING The U.S. Constitution, States Rights. And the FACT remains that the Feds (BLM ) were on State Owned Land enforcing something that The LOCAL County Sherriff was responsible for..................... Where has it been said that an agent from a Federal Court presented a court order to the Sheriff to enact? To say that he failed to do his duties is a reach. Isn't it odd thou as soon as the Sheriff did get involved the BLM backed down.....Hmmmmm I wonder why.
I have no idea, Hoot. If he wasn't presented with a court order then he probably doesn't have the authority here that others are suggesting. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-13 1:35 PM
jbhoot - 2014-04-13 1:29 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 1:07 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 1:02 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:58 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:50 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:43 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:37 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:15 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election. Bscanchaser, are you familiar with the reports that Harry Reid and Son are involved w/ China and Nevada Land for Energy Production? And these 'goings on' are dated to back to 2003 minimally. Historical Research is a good thing. Also Obama and The Rest of The Executive Branch of Government is heavily influenced by The Chinese Government due to Chinese Government holding so much FEDERAL not State Debt. Yes I have read about this. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how a 9,000 acre solar/wind facility would shut down a 600,000 acre multi-use area...especially when there are windmills in various other regions in the state and other areas of BLM multi-use seem to function just fine. Research is a good thing... Ok. Let me you ask a 'pointed' question. Do you support Harry Reid? No. I have never support or voted for Harry Reid. But your current comment (s ) indicate differently. Does the definition of hypocrisy come to mind? I always attempt to avoid the least indication of hypocrisy or conflict of interest along w/ jealousy and envy.............................. Perhaps I am. However symbolically speaking I am SUPPORTING The U.S. Constitution, States Rights. And the FACT remains that the Feds (BLM ) were on State Owned Land enforcing something that The LOCAL County Sherriff was responsible for..................... Where has it been said that an agent from a Federal Court presented a court order to the Sheriff to enact? To say that he failed to do his duties is a reach. Isn't it odd thou as soon as the Sheriff did get involved the BLM backed down.....Hmmmmm I wonder why.
The Sheriff has the authority to order the cease and desist of harassment of a private citizen. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-13 12:25 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 1:16 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 12:12 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 1:06 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:01 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:59 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 12:56 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 11:05 AM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
The 'mainstream media' is handling this with kid gloves...they didn't report anything until it was over...woosies.
Yesterday was a good day in America!
Speaking of Selective Law Enforcement............What is the difference between this BLM Event (which could actually have originally been legit ) and the lack of INS to round up and deport Illegal Aliens on such a scale as happened in Nevada? Selective enforcement? Research the Dann sisters, Leonard Crutcher and the Casey's. All illegally grazed in Nevada and all were handled the exact same with stock being rounded up by the BLM and sold at auction.
Remember the 9th Amendment.
Lol...a person would have to wonder that if the fed doesn't have jurisdiction concerning the land in question then how could the federal courts have jurisdiction? Hmmm...
The 9th Amendment, here's something I wrote up long ago to 'break down' the words:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The 9th Amendment is simply a statement that other rights aside from those listed may exist, and just because they are not listed doesn't mean they can be violated.
So, when you look up the 9th amendment this is what you find pretty much. Unfortunately, no one digs any further....so lets do just that! It's important!!!
Enumeration:1 : to ascertain the number of
Construed:
1. To adduce or explain the meaning of; interpret: construed my smile as assent.explain. See Synonyms at
2. Grammar
a. To analyze the structure of (a clause or sentence).
b. To use syntactically: The noun fish can be construed as singular or plural.
3. To translate, especially aloud.
v.intr.
1. To analyze grammatical structure.
2. To be subject to grammatical analysis.
n. (knstr)
An interpretation or translation.
Interpret: 1. (tr) to clarify or explain the meaning of; elucidate
deny:de·ny (d-n)play_w2("D0138500")
tr.v. de·nied, de·ny·ing, de·nies
1. To declare untrue; contradict.
2. To refuse to believe; reject.
3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.
4.
a. To decline to grant or allow; refuse: deny the student's request; denied the prisoner food or water.
b. To give a refusal to; turn down or away: The protesters were determined not to be denied.
c. To restrain (oneself) especially from indulgence in pleasures.
disparage:dis·par·age (d-sprj)play_w2("D0278500")
tr.v. dis·par·aged, dis·par·ag·ing, dis·par·ag·es
1. To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle. See Synonyms at decry.
2. To reduce in esteem or rank.
retained:
tr.v. re·tained, re·tain·ing, re·tains
1. To maintain possession of. See Synonyms at keep.
2. To keep or hold in a particular place, condition, or position.
3. To keep in mind; remember.
4. To hire (an attorney, for example) by the payment of a fee.
5. To keep in one's service or pay.
So once you put translate this into modern language the 9th Amendment says...
There is no set number of certain Constitutional Rights and no man, government nor judge shall belittle you into thinking
they have the power to interpret the Constitution in any way that would deny you the inalienable rights that you possess & that this Constitution protects.
Feel free to play around with a better translation...translate the words anyway you want...does it not say that no matter, though?
It shouldn't matter a judge's person as long as they don't commit the crime of interpreting the Constitution! Lol!
I'm not alone or unique in my defense of our Constitution.
| |
| | |
 BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | Y'all scared her off. Shame on you.... | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | HotbearLVR - 2014-04-13 2:13 PM
Y'all scared her off. Shame on you....
Shame on 'us'? Okay I see your point. MRS Finney is famous for copy 'n paste hit 'n run posts. Her MO has been documented over her tenure here.
She just attempts to drop bombs and then run. However, there are many here who can and will go toe to toe w/ and she cannot stand the heat so to speak. So she heats up the kitchen and then leaves. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Here's a balanced article from a respected source that also includes the court orders. It also says that that land was, in fact, deeded to the federal govt in 1848.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bundy-Ranch | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-13 2:18 PM
Here's a balanced article from a respected source that also includes the court orders. It also says that that land was, in fact, deeded to the federal govt in 1848.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bundy-Ranch
Made the link live:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bund... | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-13 1:58 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 12:25 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 1:16 PM [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bundy-Ranchout the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
The 'mainstream media' is handling this with kid gloves...they didn't report anything until it was over...woosies.
Yesterday was a good day in America!
Remember the 9th Amendment.
If you challenge the constitutional authority of the judiciary, I understand why I don't get many of your other constitutional arguments. Lol! Lol...a person would have to wonder that if the fed doesn't have jurisdiction concerning the land in question then how could the federal courts have jurisdiction? Hmmm...
The 9th Amendment, here's something I wrote up long ago to 'break down' the words:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The 9th Amendment is simply a statement that other rights aside from those listed may exist, and just because they are not listed doesn't mean they can be violated.
So, when you look up the 9th amendment this is what you find pretty much. Unfortunately, no one digs any further....so lets do just that! It's important!!!
Enumeration:1 : to ascertain the number of
Construed:
1. To adduce or explain the meaning of; interpret: construed my smile as assent.explain. See Synonyms at
2. Grammar
a. To analyze the structure of (a clause or sentence).
b. To use syntactically: The noun fish can be construed as singular or plural.
3. To translate, especially aloud.
v.intr.
1. To analyze grammatical structure.
2. To be subject to grammatical analysis.
n. (knstr)
An interpretation or translation.
Interpret: 1. (tr) to clarify or explain the meaning of; elucidate
deny:de·ny (d-n)play_w2("D0138500")
tr.v. de·nied, de·ny·ing, de·nies
1. To declare untrue; contradict.
2. To refuse to believe; reject.
3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.
4.
a. To decline to grant or allow; refuse: deny the student's request; denied the prisoner food or water.
b. To give a refusal to; turn down or away: The protesters were determined not to be denied.
c. To restrain (oneself) especially from indulgence in pleasures.
disparage:dis·par·age (d-sprj)play_w2("D0278500")
tr.v. dis·par·aged, dis·par·ag·ing, dis·par·ag·es
1. To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle. See Synonyms at decry.
2. To reduce in esteem or rank.
retained:
tr.v. re·tained, re·tain·ing, re·tains
1. To maintain possession of. See Synonyms at keep.
2. To keep or hold in a particular place, condition, or position.
3. To keep in mind; remember.
4. To hire (an attorney, for example) by the payment of a fee.
5. To keep in one's service or pay.
So once you put translate this into modern language the 9th Amendment says...
There is no set number of certain Constitutional Rights and no man, government nor judge shall belittle you into thinking
they have the power to interpret the Constitution in any way that would deny you the inalienable rights that you possess & that this Constitution protects.
Feel free to play around with a better translation...translate the words anyway you want...does it not say that no matter, though?
It shouldn't matter a judge's person as long as they don't commit the crime of interpreting the Constitution! Lol!
I'm not alone or unique in my defense of our Constitution.
LOL! I'm a big fan of the 9th. Let me ask you this..... Do you believe a stable domestic food source is a matter of domestic security? How about energy? | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-13 2:24 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-13 1:58 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 12:25 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 1:16 PM [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bundy-Ranchout the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election.
The 'mainstream media' is handling this with kid gloves...they didn't report anything until it was over...woosies.
Yesterday was a good day in America!
Remember the 9th Amendment.
If you challenge the constitutional authority of the judiciary, I understand why I don't get many of your other constitutional arguments. Lol! Lol...a person would have to wonder that if the fed doesn't have jurisdiction concerning the land in question then how could the federal courts have jurisdiction? Hmmm...
The 9th Amendment, here's something I wrote up long ago to 'break down' the words:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The 9th Amendment is simply a statement that other rights aside from those listed may exist, and just because they are not listed doesn't mean they can be violated.
So, when you look up the 9th amendment this is what you find pretty much. Unfortunately, no one digs any further....so lets do just that! It's important!!!
Enumeration:1 : to ascertain the number of
Construed:
1. To adduce or explain the meaning of; interpret: construed my smile as assent.explain. See Synonyms at
2. Grammar
a. To analyze the structure of (a clause or sentence).
b. To use syntactically: The noun fish can be construed as singular or plural.
3. To translate, especially aloud.
v.intr.
1. To analyze grammatical structure.
2. To be subject to grammatical analysis.
n. (knstr)
An interpretation or translation.
Interpret: 1. (tr) to clarify or explain the meaning of; elucidate
deny:de·ny (d-n)play_w2("D0138500")
tr.v. de·nied, de·ny·ing, de·nies
1. To declare untrue; contradict.
2. To refuse to believe; reject.
3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.
4.
a. To decline to grant or allow; refuse: deny the student's request; denied the prisoner food or water.
b. To give a refusal to; turn down or away: The protesters were determined not to be denied.
c. To restrain (oneself) especially from indulgence in pleasures.
disparage:dis·par·age (d-sprj)play_w2("D0278500")
tr.v. dis·par·aged, dis·par·ag·ing, dis·par·ag·es
1. To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle. See Synonyms at decry.
2. To reduce in esteem or rank.
retained:
tr.v. re·tained, re·tain·ing, re·tains
1. To maintain possession of. See Synonyms at keep.
2. To keep or hold in a particular place, condition, or position.
3. To keep in mind; remember.
4. To hire (an attorney, for example) by the payment of a fee.
5. To keep in one's service or pay.
So once you put translate this into modern language the 9th Amendment says...
There is no set number of certain Constitutional Rights and no man, government nor judge shall belittle you into thinking
they have the power to interpret the Constitution in any way that would deny you the inalienable rights that you possess & that this Constitution protects.
Feel free to play around with a better translation...translate the words anyway you want...does it not say that no matter, though?
It shouldn't matter a judge's person as long as they don't commit the crime of interpreting the Constitution! Lol!
I'm not alone or unique in my defense of our Constitution.
LOL! I'm a big fan of the 9th. Let me ask you this..... Do you believe a stable domestic food source is a matter of domestic security? How about energy?
As long as said stable sources are not State or Foreign Controlled. What I am saying is Free Enterprise Market sources of Domestic Food and Energy is what I support. And let me add neither State, Federal or Foreign Influenced either! | |
| | |
 Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | Google Praetorian Class and read up. It explains quite a lot of what we're seeing. https://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/rise-praetorian-class
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | foundation horse - 2014-04-13 2:21 PM
TXBO - 2014-04-13 2:18 PM
Here's a balanced article from a respected source that also includes the court orders. It also says that that land was, in fact, deeded to the federal govt in 1848.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bundy-Ranch
Made the link live:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bund...
So per this article then Cliven Bundy is in the wrong and using Symbolism in order to extend this event. However, I must add that The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is quite commonly referred to as "The Ninth Circus". This particular Court does not hold much credibility with many people. This would include Legal Scholars. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas |
Wow! What a revealing story. This paragraph really gives One reason to think:
In Summary
The emergence and rise of the Praetorian Class is a common observation in societies that have transitioned from market-based meritocracies to societies governed by coercive syndicates formed by the Political Class. The Praetorian Class is formed and grown to defend the Political Class and in time becomes the dragon that rules its master. It represents a highly disturbing trend because it foretells the decline, not the advance, of a society. In some instances, the decline is peaceful, clearing the path for an improved future. Unfortunately, in many instances that is not the case. The Political Class leverages the full force of the Praetorian Class representing significant loss in wealth, personal freedom and, in many cases, human life. For this reason, it is critical that productive members of society take steps to protect themselves.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
|
When you have ever expanding laws and regulation, a growing praetorian class is inevitable. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | foundation horse - 2014-04-13 1:44 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 2:21 PM
Ick...that made me ill. Endangered species, fragil fauna, archeological sites...bad cows.
Still no proof of ownership. Poor poor fed.
Partial history...intent of Forefathers completely lacking.
Intent of current administrations completely transparent. Lol. | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | TXBO - 2014-04-13 3:03 PM When you have ever expanding laws and regulation, a growing praetorian class is inevitable.
I hadn't heard that term until someone brought it up in another conversation. Things like arming the IRS, the creation of DHS, this case with the BLM and other disturbing things make more sense now. Is escalation inevitable or can we stop it tho? | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-13 3:19 PM
TXBO - 2014-04-13 3:03 PM When you have ever expanding laws and regulation, a growing praetorian class is inevitable.
Good question. But currently the ballot box has been proven to be effective in curbing this. But I do know a surefire remedy to put an end to the Praetorian Class..................However it is bloody. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! |
Secure Connection Failed
An error occurred during a connection to www.caseyresearch.com. Peer's Certificate has been revoked. (Error code: sec_error_revoked_certificate)
The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified.
Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem. Alternatively, use the command found in the help menu to report this broken site. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-13 3:19 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 3:03 PM When you have ever expanding laws and regulation, a growing praetorian class is inevitable.
You have to stop the expanding laws and regulations. Law without consistent enforcement is anarchy. This Bundy case is a great example of the pitfalls. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-13 3:26 PM
Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-13 3:19 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 3:03 PM When you have ever expanding laws and regulation, a growing praetorian class is inevitable.
Now this I can and agree with! | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | TXBO - 2014-04-13 3:26 PM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-13 3:19 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 3:03 PM When you have ever expanding laws and regulation, a growing praetorian class is inevitable.
Can we just fire Congress then?  | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-13 3:39 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 3:26 PM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-13 3:19 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 3:03 PM When you have ever expanding laws and regulation, a growing praetorian class is inevitable.
That would be a good start. | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| FOUNDATION HORSE: What about you MRS Finney? Marry an existing ranching?! See "I" know more about you than you do me................................I kinda like research. And I know somewhat about your origins.
MUSIKMAKER: This is why ignorant people shouldn't claim an opinion.
FOUNDATION HORSE: And MRS JOE Finney continually proves HER abundance of Ignorance in regards World Affairs and ESPECIALLY in regards to Constitutional Matters.
GOGAITED: Your blindness to the real issues here is appalling. And it scares me how many people think like you do.
DHDQHLLC: honestly, i've yet to figure out how Finney's didn't make it on the spread they had in NE.....
FOUNDATION HORSE: Something about Cold Weather is what my sources indicate.
-----
FOUNDATION HORSE: My POINT is Mrs Joe Finney is the #2 Mrs. She married an existing rancher and did not help build that ranch but married into an existing ranch. MRS. Finney was smart enough to ascertain EXACTLY what I was implying and to date has decided to decline to reply.
Like I previously stated, knowing people and being capable of doing research coupled w/ critical thinking skills can be a good thing.
TXBO: I actually agree with just about everything she said. (thanks, Moses)
HOTBEARLVR: Y'all scared her off. Shame on you.... (hiya, Doc. Been awhile.)
FOUNDATION HORSE: Shame on 'us'? Okay I see your point. MRS Finney is famous for copy 'n paste hit 'n run posts. Her MO has been documented over her tenure here.
She just attempts to drop bombs and then run. However, there are many here who can and will go toe to toe w/ and she cannot stand the heat so to speak. So she heats up the kitchen and then leaves.
Kind of ugly when you see them all together like that, aren't they (not TXBO)?
My dad was a rancher. He didn’t own land, but he managed a 1200 cow ranch for 45 years. I was with him from the time I could walk till I graduated college and had to go out and pave my own way. He was a man of strong opinions, and not afraid to share them, face to face. That is probably why I hate it when people make comments hiding behind a nickname, and why I don’t do that. I respected him more than any other man I knew, besides maybe Mr. Joe Finney. People think what they want to, and mainly like a good, gossipy story. They are way more exciting than real life, in most instances, and you can just keep adding more things to keep it interesting the more times you tell it. Pretty soon, nothing is too outlandish to add. Mostly, we just laugh and wonder. However, my common soul is disturbed by all of the hate mongering that probably went on for more years than I am old, but for some reason seems especially bad since 2008. So I am going to take this opportunity to share some personal information that a couple of peoples’ research might not have uncovered. I do it to prove my point that some things are not always what they seem, something that I am betting the Bundy Family has not shared with their supporters.
As I told you before, my Dad was a ranch manager. He gave his heart and soul for a long time to an absentee owner that, when he died, his family gave my Dad an old “Park Avenue” car the old guy had. My mom and dad loved that car. Drove it till it passed on. I guess I wasn’t as attached to the ranch as my Dad, because when I would ask him why he didn’t ask for a raise, he would say “I guess if they think I’m worth it, they will give me one.” When I would ask why he didn’t look for a higher paying job, he would just give me a look that said “Don’t go there.” He loved that place. The wealthy owner donated it to the Catholic Church and they sold it to a rich Texan who wanted a place to hunt prairie chickens. He bought several of the neighbors’ places as well. I’m glad my Dad and Mom didn’t live to see that. Like I said, I moved on after college, but they stayed there. I wasn’t there the day he had a massive stroke while getting ready to ship calves. He missed his favorite day of the year, calf selling day. He was always so proud of them. We took him off life support that day. Like I said, I had moved on. With the help of a FSA loan, I had bought my own ranch at Thedford, NE. My son was in 7th grade and I wanted a better life for him. He was in the same grade as Mr. Joe Finney’s next door neighbor girl. Since both of us had made a bad first choice, we were a little hesitant to make a match, but similar backgrounds and values drew us together, and I became MRS. Joe Finney. Mr. Joe Finney was three years into a contentious divorce from a high school teacher that liked younger men, a lot younger if you know what I mean. They had been married nearly twenty years, but anybody that has ever divorced in a no fault divorce state after that period of time will understand that when I say she got half the ranch that I’m not exaggerating. She wanted her half in cash. I sold my place but it wasn’t enough. We could try to keep our heads above water by selling off a piece at a time, but as much as Mr. Joe Finney loved his place, he is a practical man. We sold it to a richTexan, Texas is evidently full of them, and moved to Oklahoma. I guess we figured our financial woes were really not any one’s business (dhdqhllc) so we just told them we wanted to go some place warmer. I love Oklahoma. Mr. Joe Finney at that point really didn’t care. We bought a ranch down there, and yes we had a mortgage and land taxes that both of us work to pay (Foundation Horse). The Federal and state lease allotments were all taken. Fortunately, another rich Texan showed up in our future and we sold the ranch in Oklahoma before oil wells covered up all of the grass. We are back in Nebraska now at a new place, although I still have a small place down south (it’s warmer there, you know). Mr. Joe Finney is happier here. Although the Sandhills will always be in his heart, he has adapted better than any man I know to a changing way of life, all the while coping with more changes than many people will know in a lifetime without one word of complaint. Who wouldn’t want to marry this guy (Foundation Horse)?
So bottom line, the next time, when you all speculate and make judgments on things you really know nothing about (both sides of the Bundy Saga would be a good place to start), recognize that some things are not always what they seem.
PS: Toe to Toe in a battle of wits with an unarmed combatant is not my style. Thank the good Doctor for the answers to your questions. At least he’s not afraid to hide behind a picture (oh, Wait…)
POINTS TO PONDER:
1. Conservatives love to talk about free market enterprise and big government ruining things. How long, in a free market ranching enterprise, would a renter be allowed to run cattle on grass he didn’t pay for, regardless of the alterations that the owner stipulates? If you answered “Zero Days” you would be correct and the owner can confiscate the cattle until the bill is paid. My question to the government is why didn’t you kick him off years ago?
2. Why aren’t the militia and conservative media lining the driveways of ranchers who are the legitimate owners of the places TransCanada is getting ready to condemn for a pipeline over a giant aquifer that sustains the entire central US? A foreign oil company given permission to take land away from a tax paying, US citizen against their will? But conservatives are ok with that?
I guess if I wasn’t so ignorant (Musikmaker) I would know the answer.
From now on, let's stay on the point. If the Bundys don't want to pay for a lease, why don't they give it up to someone that does before someone gets killed. | |
| | |
 Warmblood with Wings
Posts: 27846
Location: Florida.. | truth be known and I may regret saying this but I saw no reason to be so bold to finney for stating opinions and a few facts .. Shes only doing what others are doing on another thread and all over facebook. media frenzy . facts, statements etc.. we all have our thoughts . | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | Finney, you've always gotten on my nerves, but IMO you shouldn't have felt like you had to defend your personal life that way. I'm sorry you felt like you needed to do that.
That said, this particular case has opened up some dialogue that needed to take place and brought to light some cases that are much more cut and dried where you cannot argue justice is being served. I wonder how different things would be if the ranchers had had a way to communicate like we do now, where they could have more easily banded together to say NO at the beginning of all this BLM mess and negotiated better terms for themselves. Better yet, how about if none of these agencies with no accountability had been prevented from being created in the first place. I am sick to death of being regulated to infinity and beyond by people I can't vote out. That's not how our government was supposed to work. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-13 4:19 PM Finney, you've always gotten on my nerves, but IMO you shouldn't have felt like you had to defend your personal life that way. I'm sorry you felt like you needed to do that.
That said, this particular case has opened up some dialogue that needed to take place and brought to light some cases that are much more cut and dried where you cannot argue justice is being served. I wonder how different things would be if the ranchers had had a way to communicate like we do now, where they could have more easily banded together to say NO at the beginning of all this BLM mess and negotiated better terms for themselves. Better yet, how about if none of these agencies with no accountability had been prevented from being created in the first place. I am sick to death of being regulated to infinity and beyond by people I can't vote out. That's not how our government was supposed to work.
This is exactly how I feel about this.
And Finney...the ignorance I refer to is in the experience of dealing with the BLM. You recommended ranchers 'buying land & paying the taxes' like everyone else does...have you ever been 'out west'? Do you have any idea how many acres are required per cow? Do you think livestock & wildlife should be banned?
It's the ignorance of those who have no clue to what it takes to survive out here, yet, think they should have an opinion...one that is not educated...that is creating hardship for those who are fighting this battle. Get educated to ALL the facts...better yet, just watch and learn.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-13 5:19 PM Finney, you've always gotten on my nerves, but IMO you shouldn't have felt like you had to defend your personal life that way. I'm sorry you felt like you needed to do that.
That said, this particular case has opened up some dialogue that needed to take place and brought to light some cases that are much more cut and dried where you cannot argue justice is being served. I wonder how different things would be if the ranchers had had a way to communicate like we do now, where they could have more easily banded together to say NO at the beginning of all this BLM mess and negotiated better terms for themselves. Better yet, how about if none of these agencies with no accountability had been prevented from being created in the first place. I am sick to death of being regulated to infinity and beyond by people I can't vote out. That's not how our government was supposed to work.
I mostly share your sentiments however this is a matter of trespass not regulation. Cliven doesn't own the land and the land owner has a right who uses it and how it can be used.... Even if the land owner is the fed. | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| For the record, I am not "defending" my personal life. I am proud of who I am and my family. I meant it as a "teaching" moment.
Every private rancher I know would jump at the chance to own a federal or state grazing permit. The better terms are 1/50th of the rent we all pay if we want more pasture. Young people can't get a start anymore because the rent it too high, land prices are through the roof and a bred cow costs $2000+. If people's anti-government sentiment is so high that they will side with a family who has obviously gone around the bend, they need to rethink things. Grazing permits that come up for lease are few and very far between and priced way out of reach of a common "rancher". The government, by letting him use that pasture for free, is robbing all of us of revenue that goes to benefit everyone. Why don't they show the people on tv who pay their rent and think these people are cheats? Because "TV" is not interested in the real story, it's not sensational enough. They want the ratings killer. It's why people watch bull riding I think, for the wrecks. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-13 5:34 PM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-13 4:19 PM Finney, you've always gotten on my nerves, but IMO you shouldn't have felt like you had to defend your personal life that way. I'm sorry you felt like you needed to do that.
That said, this particular case has opened up some dialogue that needed to take place and brought to light some cases that are much more cut and dried where you cannot argue justice is being served. I wonder how different things would be if the ranchers had had a way to communicate like we do now, where they could have more easily banded together to say NO at the beginning of all this BLM mess and negotiated better terms for themselves. Better yet, how about if none of these agencies with no accountability had been prevented from being created in the first place. I am sick to death of being regulated to infinity and beyond by people I can't vote out. That's not how our government was supposed to work. This is exactly how I feel about this.
And Finney...the ignorance I refer to is in the experience of dealing with the BLM. You recommended ranchers 'buying land & paying the taxes' like everyone else does...have you ever been 'out west'? Do you have any idea how many acres are required per cow? Do you think livestock & wildlife should be banned?
It's the ignorance of those who have no clue to what it takes to survive out here, yet, think they should have an opinion...one that is not educated...that is creating hardship for those who are fighting this battle. Get educated to ALL the facts...better yet, just watch and learn.
That's got nothing to do with the argument. You're supporting trespass, entitlement and abandonment of rule of law while rewriting the constitution to support your ideology. All liberal stances. I laugh at the ignorant crying ignorance and hypocracy of so called conservatives abandoning their constructionist views of the constitution. | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| musikmaker - 2014-04-13 5:34 PM
Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-13 4:19 PM Finney, you've always gotten on my nerves, but IMO you shouldn't have felt like you had to defend your personal life that way. I'm sorry you felt like you needed to do that.
That said, this particular case has opened up some dialogue that needed to take place and brought to light some cases that are much more cut and dried where you cannot argue justice is being served. I wonder how different things would be if the ranchers had had a way to communicate like we do now, where they could have more easily banded together to say NO at the beginning of all this BLM mess and negotiated better terms for themselves. Better yet, how about if none of these agencies with no accountability had been prevented from being created in the first place. I am sick to death of being regulated to infinity and beyond by people I can't vote out. That's not how our government was supposed to work.
This is exactly how I feel about this.
And Finney...the ignorance I refer to is in the experience of dealing with the BLM. You recommended ranchers 'buying land & paying the taxes' like everyone else does...have you ever been 'out west'? Do you have any idea how many acres are required per cow? Do you think livestock & wildlife should be banned?
It's the ignorance of those who have no clue to what it takes to survive out here, yet, think they should have an opinion...one that is not educated...that is creating hardship for those who are fighting this battle. Get educated to ALL the facts...better yet, just watch and learn.
Here's what I know. It takes at least 20 acres to run a cow in Nebraska w/ supplemental feed. Land prices have increased to $1000-$1500 per grass acre. A 250 cow place would require at least 5000 acres of range land costing up to $7.5 million dollars. There is next to no federal and state grazing land in this state and what there is (besides school land) never, I repeat never, comes up for lease. Most real estate people will tell you that if you pay more than $10,000/cow, or $2,500,000, you can't make it pay. That is a $5 million dollar difference in making it and not.
"Out West", you can own 150 acres costing (@ $1500/ac) $225,000, pay a grazing permit for a thousand head of cattle (AUM) costing $1350, have the same 250 head as the Nebraska (and many other states) and laugh all the way to the bank. Then, it must be written in the contract somewhere, complain ad nauseum about the indignities you suffer.
If you don't like living "out west", move to somewhere that takes less grass per cow. It's not a hard concept, many people have done it, bought land and paid taxes. It's gotten so fashionable for ranchers to complain about the goverment interferring in their lives, they forget about the times they complain about the governement not helping them enough (SD Blizzard).
When people sign a BLM or State lease anywhere, they are read each page individually so there is no misunderstandings about their obligations as well as the government's. Sometimes people have been someplace for so long, it feels just like it IS theirs, just like my Dad's story, but it isn't, and if they forget that, sometimes bad things happen.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-13 5:34 PM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-13 4:19 PM Finney, you've always gotten on my nerves, but IMO you shouldn't have felt like you had to defend your personal life that way. I'm sorry you felt like you needed to do that.
That said, this particular case has opened up some dialogue that needed to take place and brought to light some cases that are much more cut and dried where you cannot argue justice is being served. I wonder how different things would be if the ranchers had had a way to communicate like we do now, where they could have more easily banded together to say NO at the beginning of all this BLM mess and negotiated better terms for themselves. Better yet, how about if none of these agencies with no accountability had been prevented from being created in the first place. I am sick to death of being regulated to infinity and beyond by people I can't vote out. That's not how our government was supposed to work. This is exactly how I feel about this.
And Finney...the ignorance I refer to is in the experience of dealing with the BLM. You recommended ranchers 'buying land & paying the taxes' like everyone else does...have you ever been 'out west'? Do you have any idea how many acres are required per cow? Do you think livestock & wildlife should be banned?
It's the ignorance of those who have no clue to what it takes to survive out here, yet, think they should have an opinion...one that is not educated...that is creating hardship for those who are fighting this battle. Get educated to ALL the facts...better yet, just watch and learn.
By the way, Musik.... I have owned land in both Arizona and Nevada. I've applied for both state trust and BLM grazing rights and I currently have a herd of over 600 Herfords.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Just a personal opinion..... If you give a dislike without a retort, you're either chickenshiitt or too freaking stupid to participate in an adult discussion.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-13 6:52 PM
Just a personal opinion..... If you give a dislike without a retort, you're either chickenshiitt or too freaking stupid to participate in an adult discussion.
LMAO! Now this I can also agree with and understand.
And No, I am not a Rancher. But here is what I do understand that any kind of 'leased land' is a monetary black hole. I don't care how money can be made off it! The economics say if One does not own said Land, then the same One does not control said land.
Now, onto the Bundy Deal again. TxBo per the Breibart Article the Land in question was deeded to Nevada in 1848. Then why are The Feds even involved in this squabble? That is the $64 Million Dollar right there!
Edited by foundation horse 2014-04-13 7:09 PM
| |
| | |
Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 6:10 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-13 5:34 PM
Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-13 4:19 PM Finney, you've always gotten on my nerves, but IMO you shouldn't have felt like you had to defend your personal life that way. I'm sorry you felt like you needed to do that.
That said, this particular case has opened up some dialogue that needed to take place and brought to light some cases that are much more cut and dried where you cannot argue justice is being served. I wonder how different things would be if the ranchers had had a way to communicate like we do now, where they could have more easily banded together to say NO at the beginning of all this BLM mess and negotiated better terms for themselves. Better yet, how about if none of these agencies with no accountability had been prevented from being created in the first place. I am sick to death of being regulated to infinity and beyond by people I can't vote out. That's not how our government was supposed to work.
This is exactly how I feel about this.
And Finney...the ignorance I refer to is in the experience of dealing with the BLM. You recommended ranchers 'buying land & paying the taxes' like everyone else does...have you ever been 'out west'? Do you have any idea how many acres are required per cow? Do you think livestock & wildlife should be banned?
It's the ignorance of those who have no clue to what it takes to survive out here, yet, think they should have an opinion...one that is not educated...that is creating hardship for those who are fighting this battle. Get educated to ALL the facts...better yet, just watch and learn.
Here's what I know. It takes at least 20 acres to run a cow in Nebraska w/ supplemental feed. Land prices have increased to $1000-$1500 per grass acre. A 250 cow place would require at least 5000 acres of range land costing up to $7.5 million dollars. There is next to no federal and state grazing land in this state and what there is (besides school land ) never, I repeat never, comes up for lease. Most real estate people will tell you that if you pay more than $10,000/cow, or $2,500,000, you can't make it pay. That is a $5 million dollar difference in making it and not.
"Out West", you can own 150 acres costing (@ $1500/ac ) $225,000, pay a grazing permit for a thousand head of cattle (AUM ) costing $1350, have the same 250 head as the Nebraska (and many other states ) and laugh all the way to the bank. Then, it must be written in the contract somewhere, complain ad nauseum about the indignities you suffer.
If you don't like living "out west", move to somewhere that takes less grass per cow. It's not a hard concept, many people have done it, bought land and paid taxes. It's gotten so fashionable for ranchers to complain about the goverment interferring in their lives, they forget about the times they complain about the governement not helping them enough (SD Blizzard ).
When people sign a BLM or State lease anywhere, they are read each page individually so there is no misunderstandings about their obligations as well as the government's. Sometimes people have been someplace for so long, it feels just like it IS theirs, just like my Dad's story, but it isn't, and if they forget that, sometimes bad things happen.
From a contractual perspective, Bundy agreed to the BLM terms and demonstrated so by the years he did pay his grazing rights. Even if unhappy, I don't know how he can say sorry changed my mind but I am going to keep using your land. I agree about the over regulation by agencies who have total power and no oversight but they are regulating land they own. If preemptive rights give him the rights to the land why did he pay the BLM to begin with? | |
| | |
Warmblood with Wings
Posts: 27846
Location: Florida.. | I dont know anything about it out there as far as land rights etc. Here I have always bought acreage at $18,000 - $24,000 a acre for my North Florida farms.
South Florida was much more..
and Im not the brightest when it comes to these type discussions..
all I am saying is a pretty simple thing .. The other ranchers have to pay so why not him. that is my "only" issue .. and not even directed at bundy for I dont know the man at all and am certain hes a well respected , hardworking man.. my aspect is what is right and what is wrong and felt ranchers paying got the bad end of the deal then.. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 5:10 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 5:34 PM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-13 4:19 PM Finney, you've always gotten on my nerves, but IMO you shouldn't have felt like you had to defend your personal life that way. I'm sorry you felt like you needed to do that.
That said, this particular case has opened up some dialogue that needed to take place and brought to light some cases that are much more cut and dried where you cannot argue justice is being served. I wonder how different things would be if the ranchers had had a way to communicate like we do now, where they could have more easily banded together to say NO at the beginning of all this BLM mess and negotiated better terms for themselves. Better yet, how about if none of these agencies with no accountability had been prevented from being created in the first place. I am sick to death of being regulated to infinity and beyond by people I can't vote out. That's not how our government was supposed to work. This is exactly how I feel about this.
And Finney...the ignorance I refer to is in the experience of dealing with the BLM. You recommended ranchers 'buying land & paying the taxes' like everyone else does...have you ever been 'out west'? Do you have any idea how many acres are required per cow? Do you think livestock & wildlife should be banned?
It's the ignorance of those who have no clue to what it takes to survive out here, yet, think they should have an opinion...one that is not educated...that is creating hardship for those who are fighting this battle. Get educated to ALL the facts...better yet, just watch and learn.
Here's what I know. It takes at least 20 acres to run a cow in Nebraska w/ supplemental feed. Land prices have increased to $1000-$1500 per grass acre. A 250 cow place would require at least 5000 acres of range land costing up to $7.5 million dollars. There is next to no federal and state grazing land in this state and what there is (besides school land ) never, I repeat never, comes up for lease. Most real estate people will tell you that if you pay more than $10,000/cow, or $2,500,000, you can't make it pay. That is a $5 million dollar difference in making it and not. "Out West", you can own 150 acres costing (@ $1500/ac ) $225,000, pay a grazing permit for a thousand head of cattle (AUM ) costing $1350, have the same 250 head as the Nebraska (and many other states ) and laugh all the way to the bank. Then, it must be written in the contract somewhere, complain ad nauseum about the indignities you suffer. If you don't like living "out west", move to somewhere that takes less grass per cow. It's not a hard concept, many people have done it, bought land and paid taxes. It's gotten so fashionable for ranchers to complain about the goverment interferring in their lives, they forget about the times they complain about the governement not helping them enough (SD Blizzard ). When people sign a BLM or State lease anywhere, they are read each page individually so there is no misunderstandings about their obligations as well as the government's. Sometimes people have been someplace for so long, it feels just like it IS theirs, just like my Dad's story, but it isn't, and if they forget that, sometimes bad things happen.
We're not in the cattle business...hotel, food & oil wells! Surrounded by lease land, though, and have good friends who are. Idk what the cow per acre is except that it's much more than that. The horizon is vast...the water is scarce. That's the expense out here. Water. Especially with the drought.
And believe me...the only thing I don't like about the new-west are the new-comers...lol. Oh yeah...and the people who think they know better than us how to run it. I know of some leases for sale...beware they come with environmentalists, archeologists, recreationalists...cow haters. The water tanks have been targeted lately along with cows...poisoned cows, too. But hey...sounds like a couple of you could buddy right up to the perps.
Tell ya what...just sit back and watch. The sheriff in Clark County just proved to the world that the jurisdiction falls in his hands. Deal with it.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| foundation horse - 2014-04-13 7:08 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 6:52 PM Just a personal opinion..... If you give a dislike without a retort, you're either chickenshiitt or too freaking stupid to participate in an adult discussion.
LMAO! Now this I can also agree with and understand. And No, I am not a Rancher. But here is what I do understand that any kind of 'leased land' is a monetary black hole. I don't care how money can be made off it! The economics say if One does not own said Land, then the same One does not control said land. Now, onto the Bundy Deal again. TxBo per the Breibart Article the Land in question was deeded to Nevada in 1848. Then why are The Feds even involved in this squabble? That is the $64 Million Dollar right there!
FH, the land was deeded to the fed. Nevada didn't even have statehood yet. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Everyone here is forgetting that Bundy tried to pay the lease...they refused as the 'tortoise' was more important at that time...also, the fees were to go towards improving the land and was instead used to shut down ranching.
It's a happening thing out here...we've been up against these goons for many years & are finally getting sick of it. Again...the fed does NOT 'own' this land.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| rodeomom3 - 2014-04-13 7:10 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 6:10 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 5:34 PM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-13 4:19 PM Finney, you've always gotten on my nerves, but IMO you shouldn't have felt like you had to defend your personal life that way. I'm sorry you felt like you needed to do that.
That said, this particular case has opened up some dialogue that needed to take place and brought to light some cases that are much more cut and dried where you cannot argue justice is being served. I wonder how different things would be if the ranchers had had a way to communicate like we do now, where they could have more easily banded together to say NO at the beginning of all this BLM mess and negotiated better terms for themselves. Better yet, how about if none of these agencies with no accountability had been prevented from being created in the first place. I am sick to death of being regulated to infinity and beyond by people I can't vote out. That's not how our government was supposed to work. This is exactly how I feel about this.
And Finney...the ignorance I refer to is in the experience of dealing with the BLM. You recommended ranchers 'buying land & paying the taxes' like everyone else does...have you ever been 'out west'? Do you have any idea how many acres are required per cow? Do you think livestock & wildlife should be banned?
It's the ignorance of those who have no clue to what it takes to survive out here, yet, think they should have an opinion...one that is not educated...that is creating hardship for those who are fighting this battle. Get educated to ALL the facts...better yet, just watch and learn.
Here's what I know. It takes at least 20 acres to run a cow in Nebraska w/ supplemental feed. Land prices have increased to $1000-$1500 per grass acre. A 250 cow place would require at least 5000 acres of range land costing up to $7.5 million dollars. There is next to no federal and state grazing land in this state and what there is (besides school land ) never, I repeat never, comes up for lease. Most real estate people will tell you that if you pay more than $10,000/cow, or $2,500,000, you can't make it pay. That is a $5 million dollar difference in making it and not. "Out West", you can own 150 acres costing (@ $1500/ac ) $225,000, pay a grazing permit for a thousand head of cattle (AUM ) costing $1350, have the same 250 head as the Nebraska (and many other states ) and laugh all the way to the bank. Then, it must be written in the contract somewhere, complain ad nauseum about the indignities you suffer. If you don't like living "out west", move to somewhere that takes less grass per cow. It's not a hard concept, many people have done it, bought land and paid taxes. It's gotten so fashionable for ranchers to complain about the goverment interferring in their lives, they forget about the times they complain about the governement not helping them enough (SD Blizzard ). When people sign a BLM or State lease anywhere, they are read each page individually so there is no misunderstandings about their obligations as well as the government's. Sometimes people have been someplace for so long, it feels just like it IS theirs, just like my Dad's story, but it isn't, and if they forget that, sometimes bad things happen. From a contractual perspective, Bundy agreed to the BLM terms and demonstrated so by the years he did pay his grazing rights. Even if unhappy, I don't know how he can say sorry changed my mind but I am going to keep using your land. I agree about the over regulation by agencies who have total power and no oversight but they are regulating land they own. If preemptive rights give him the rights to the land why did he pay the BLM to begin with?
Absolutely right, Rodeo. You can't say I got my rights to this land from the fed and then say I don't recognize the Feds authority so I'm not going to pay them. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-13 6:36 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 7:08 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 6:52 PM Just a personal opinion..... If you give a dislike without a retort, you're either chickenshiitt or too freaking stupid to participate in an adult discussion.
LMAO! Now this I can also agree with and understand. And No, I am not a Rancher. But here is what I do understand that any kind of 'leased land' is a monetary black hole. I don't care how money can be made off it! The economics say if One does not own said Land, then the same One does not control said land. Now, onto the Bundy Deal again. TxBo per the Breibart Article the Land in question was deeded to Nevada in 1848. Then why are The Feds even involved in this squabble? That is the $64 Million Dollar right there!
No...it was NOT deeded to the fed!!! Where is the deed? I'd really like to see that.
And the fed has absolutely NO constitutional leeway to own vast tracts of land for no 'national' purpose. (the General Welfare does not apply).
You seriously need to open your heart & head to what our forefathers intended.
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-13 6:39 PM rodeomom3 - 2014-04-13 7:10 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 6:10 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 5:34 PM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-13 4:19 PM Finney, you've always gotten on my nerves, but IMO you shouldn't have felt like you had to defend your personal life that way. I'm sorry you felt like you needed to do that.
That said, this particular case has opened up some dialogue that needed to take place and brought to light some cases that are much more cut and dried where you cannot argue justice is being served. I wonder how different things would be if the ranchers had had a way to communicate like we do now, where they could have more easily banded together to say NO at the beginning of all this BLM mess and negotiated better terms for themselves. Better yet, how about if none of these agencies with no accountability had been prevented from being created in the first place. I am sick to death of being regulated to infinity and beyond by people I can't vote out. That's not how our government was supposed to work. This is exactly how I feel about this.
And Finney...the ignorance I refer to is in the experience of dealing with the BLM. You recommended ranchers 'buying land & paying the taxes' like everyone else does...have you ever been 'out west'? Do you have any idea how many acres are required per cow? Do you think livestock & wildlife should be banned?
It's the ignorance of those who have no clue to what it takes to survive out here, yet, think they should have an opinion...one that is not educated...that is creating hardship for those who are fighting this battle. Get educated to ALL the facts...better yet, just watch and learn.
Here's what I know. It takes at least 20 acres to run a cow in Nebraska w/ supplemental feed. Land prices have increased to $1000-$1500 per grass acre. A 250 cow place would require at least 5000 acres of range land costing up to $7.5 million dollars. There is next to no federal and state grazing land in this state and what there is (besides school land ) never, I repeat never, comes up for lease. Most real estate people will tell you that if you pay more than $10,000/cow, or $2,500,000, you can't make it pay. That is a $5 million dollar difference in making it and not. "Out West", you can own 150 acres costing (@ $1500/ac ) $225,000, pay a grazing permit for a thousand head of cattle (AUM ) costing $1350, have the same 250 head as the Nebraska (and many other states ) and laugh all the way to the bank. Then, it must be written in the contract somewhere, complain ad nauseum about the indignities you suffer. If you don't like living "out west", move to somewhere that takes less grass per cow. It's not a hard concept, many people have done it, bought land and paid taxes. It's gotten so fashionable for ranchers to complain about the goverment interferring in their lives, they forget about the times they complain about the governement not helping them enough (SD Blizzard ). When people sign a BLM or State lease anywhere, they are read each page individually so there is no misunderstandings about their obligations as well as the government's. Sometimes people have been someplace for so long, it feels just like it IS theirs, just like my Dad's story, but it isn't, and if they forget that, sometimes bad things happen. From a contractual perspective, Bundy agreed to the BLM terms and demonstrated so by the years he did pay his grazing rights. Even if unhappy, I don't know how he can say sorry changed my mind but I am going to keep using your land. I agree about the over regulation by agencies who have total power and no oversight but they are regulating land they own. If preemptive rights give him the rights to the land why did he pay the BLM to begin with?
I didn't get my rights from the fed....wow. Our Constitution 'protects' our 'inalienable' rights... | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-13 7:36 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-13 7:08 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 6:52 PM Just a personal opinion..... If you give a dislike without a retort, you're either chickenshiitt or too freaking stupid to participate in an adult discussion.
LMAO! Now this I can also agree with and understand. And No, I am not a Rancher. But here is what I do understand that any kind of 'leased land' is a monetary black hole. I don't care how money can be made off it! The economics say if One does not own said Land, then the same One does not control said land. Now, onto the Bundy Deal again. TxBo per the Breibart Article the Land in question was deeded to Nevada in 1848. Then why are The Feds even involved in this squabble? That is the $64 Million Dollar right there!
Sorry, I just reread the article for clarification. The court reiterated its position that “the public lands of Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States.”
Now I am attempting to ascertain which Court declared this.............. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-13 7:37 PM Everyone here is forgetting that Bundy tried to pay the lease...they refused as the 'tortoise' was more important at that time...also, the fees were to go towards improving the land and was instead used to shut down ranching.
It's a happening thing out here...we've been up against these goons for many years & are finally getting sick of it. Again...the fed does NOT 'own' this land.
More misinformation. Bundy decided to stop making his lease payment and therefore lost his right. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-13 7:32 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 5:10 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 5:34 PM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-13 4:19 PM Finney, you've always gotten on my nerves, but IMO you shouldn't have felt like you had to defend your personal life that way. I'm sorry you felt like you needed to do that.
That said, this particular case has opened up some dialogue that needed to take place and brought to light some cases that are much more cut and dried where you cannot argue justice is being served. I wonder how different things would be if the ranchers had had a way to communicate like we do now, where they could have more easily banded together to say NO at the beginning of all this BLM mess and negotiated better terms for themselves. Better yet, how about if none of these agencies with no accountability had been prevented from being created in the first place. I am sick to death of being regulated to infinity and beyond by people I can't vote out. That's not how our government was supposed to work. This is exactly how I feel about this.
And Finney...the ignorance I refer to is in the experience of dealing with the BLM. You recommended ranchers 'buying land & paying the taxes' like everyone else does...have you ever been 'out west'? Do you have any idea how many acres are required per cow? Do you think livestock & wildlife should be banned?
It's the ignorance of those who have no clue to what it takes to survive out here, yet, think they should have an opinion...one that is not educated...that is creating hardship for those who are fighting this battle. Get educated to ALL the facts...better yet, just watch and learn.
Here's what I know. It takes at least 20 acres to run a cow in Nebraska w/ supplemental feed. Land prices have increased to $1000-$1500 per grass acre. A 250 cow place would require at least 5000 acres of range land costing up to $7.5 million dollars. There is next to no federal and state grazing land in this state and what there is (besides school land ) never, I repeat never, comes up for lease. Most real estate people will tell you that if you pay more than $10,000/cow, or $2,500,000, you can't make it pay. That is a $5 million dollar difference in making it and not. "Out West", you can own 150 acres costing (@ $1500/ac ) $225,000, pay a grazing permit for a thousand head of cattle (AUM ) costing $1350, have the same 250 head as the Nebraska (and many other states ) and laugh all the way to the bank. Then, it must be written in the contract somewhere, complain ad nauseum about the indignities you suffer. If you don't like living "out west", move to somewhere that takes less grass per cow. It's not a hard concept, many people have done it, bought land and paid taxes. It's gotten so fashionable for ranchers to complain about the goverment interferring in their lives, they forget about the times they complain about the governement not helping them enough (SD Blizzard ). When people sign a BLM or State lease anywhere, they are read each page individually so there is no misunderstandings about their obligations as well as the government's. Sometimes people have been someplace for so long, it feels just like it IS theirs, just like my Dad's story, but it isn't, and if they forget that, sometimes bad things happen.
And believe me...the only thing I don't like about the new-west are the new-comers...lol. Oh yeah...and the people who think they know better than us how to run it. I know of some leases for sale...beware they come with environmentalists, archeologists, recreationalists...cow haters. The water tanks have been targeted lately along with cows...poisoned cows, too. But hey...sounds like a couple of you could buddy right up to the perps.
Tell ya what...just sit back and watch. The sheriff in Clark County just proved to the world that the jurisdiction falls in his hands. Deal with it.
You're probably not in a position to call others ignorant then. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | I just reread the article (again) and found no specific reference(s) to which Courts of Law these motions were a product of. | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| rodeomom3 - 2014-04-13 7:10 PM
FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 6:10 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-13 5:34 PM
Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-13 4:19 PM Finney, you've always gotten on my nerves, but IMO you shouldn't have felt like you had to defend your personal life that way. I'm sorry you felt like you needed to do that.
That said, this particular case has opened up some dialogue that needed to take place and brought to light some cases that are much more cut and dried where you cannot argue justice is being served. I wonder how different things would be if the ranchers had had a way to communicate like we do now, where they could have more easily banded together to say NO at the beginning of all this BLM mess and negotiated better terms for themselves. Better yet, how about if none of these agencies with no accountability had been prevented from being created in the first place. I am sick to death of being regulated to infinity and beyond by people I can't vote out. That's not how our government was supposed to work.
This is exactly how I feel about this.
And Finney...the ignorance I refer to is in the experience of dealing with the BLM. You recommended ranchers 'buying land & paying the taxes' like everyone else does...have you ever been 'out west'? Do you have any idea how many acres are required per cow? Do you think livestock & wildlife should be banned?
It's the ignorance of those who have no clue to what it takes to survive out here, yet, think they should have an opinion...one that is not educated...that is creating hardship for those who are fighting this battle. Get educated to ALL the facts...better yet, just watch and learn.
Here's what I know. It takes at least 20 acres to run a cow in Nebraska w/ supplemental feed. Land prices have increased to $1000-$1500 per grass acre. A 250 cow place would require at least 5000 acres of range land costing up to $7.5 million dollars. There is next to no federal and state grazing land in this state and what there is (besides school land ) never, I repeat never, comes up for lease. Most real estate people will tell you that if you pay more than $10,000/cow, or $2,500,000, you can't make it pay. That is a $5 million dollar difference in making it and not.
"Out West", you can own 150 acres costing (@ $1500/ac ) $225,000, pay a grazing permit for a thousand head of cattle (AUM ) costing $1350, have the same 250 head as the Nebraska (and many other states ) and laugh all the way to the bank. Then, it must be written in the contract somewhere, complain ad nauseum about the indignities you suffer.
If you don't like living "out west", move to somewhere that takes less grass per cow. It's not a hard concept, many people have done it, bought land and paid taxes. It's gotten so fashionable for ranchers to complain about the goverment interferring in their lives, they forget about the times they complain about the governement not helping them enough (SD Blizzard ).
When people sign a BLM or State lease anywhere, they are read each page individually so there is no misunderstandings about their obligations as well as the government's. Sometimes people have been someplace for so long, it feels just like it IS theirs, just like my Dad's story, but it isn't, and if they forget that, sometimes bad things happen.
From a contractual perspective, Bundy agreed to the BLM terms and demonstrated so by the years he did pay his grazing rights. Even if unhappy, I don't know how he can say sorry changed my mind but I am going to keep using your land. I agree about the over regulation by agencies who have total power and no oversight but they are regulating land they own. If preemptive rights give him the rights to the land why did he pay the BLM to begin with?
He did not change his mind The BLM changed the lease. That's when this 21 year mess started. He has never claimed he owns the land only the lease which his father and his grandfather owned and transferred to him. Since the lease predates the BLM by about 60 years he feels he has preemptive rights to the lease. Some where along the way BLM revoked the lease and transferred the lease to the county without his signature. To me Bundy needed a much better attorney. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-13 7:41 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 6:36 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 7:08 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 6:52 PM Just a personal opinion..... If you give a dislike without a retort, you're either chickenshiitt or too freaking stupid to participate in an adult discussion.
LMAO! Now this I can also agree with and understand. And No, I am not a Rancher. But here is what I do understand that any kind of 'leased land' is a monetary black hole. I don't care how money can be made off it! The economics say if One does not own said Land, then the same One does not control said land. Now, onto the Bundy Deal again. TxBo per the Breibart Article the Land in question was deeded to Nevada in 1848. Then why are The Feds even involved in this squabble? That is the $64 Million Dollar right there!
And the fed has absolutely NO constitutional leeway to own vast tracts of land for no 'national' purpose. (the General Welfare does not apply).
You seriously need to open your heart & head to what our forefathers intended.
It was part of the Treaty of Hidalgo Guadelupe purchase of $15 million to end the Mexican War.
The fed does have a right to own land and it would be very easy to argue that there is a natl security reason to own the land. Given the courts interpretation of the commerce clause, there's absolutely no pragmatism to your ideological argument. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | What would John Wayne do? And...who is John Galt?  | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-13 7:42 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 6:39 PM rodeomom3 - 2014-04-13 7:10 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 6:10 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 5:34 PM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-13 4:19 PM Finney, you've always gotten on my nerves, but IMO you shouldn't have felt like you had to defend your personal life that way. I'm sorry you felt like you needed to do that.
That said, this particular case has opened up some dialogue that needed to take place and brought to light some cases that are much more cut and dried where you cannot argue justice is being served. I wonder how different things would be if the ranchers had had a way to communicate like we do now, where they could have more easily banded together to say NO at the beginning of all this BLM mess and negotiated better terms for themselves. Better yet, how about if none of these agencies with no accountability had been prevented from being created in the first place. I am sick to death of being regulated to infinity and beyond by people I can't vote out. That's not how our government was supposed to work. This is exactly how I feel about this.
And Finney...the ignorance I refer to is in the experience of dealing with the BLM. You recommended ranchers 'buying land & paying the taxes' like everyone else does...have you ever been 'out west'? Do you have any idea how many acres are required per cow? Do you think livestock & wildlife should be banned?
It's the ignorance of those who have no clue to what it takes to survive out here, yet, think they should have an opinion...one that is not educated...that is creating hardship for those who are fighting this battle. Get educated to ALL the facts...better yet, just watch and learn.
Here's what I know. It takes at least 20 acres to run a cow in Nebraska w/ supplemental feed. Land prices have increased to $1000-$1500 per grass acre. A 250 cow place would require at least 5000 acres of range land costing up to $7.5 million dollars. There is next to no federal and state grazing land in this state and what there is (besides school land ) never, I repeat never, comes up for lease. Most real estate people will tell you that if you pay more than $10,000/cow, or $2,500,000, you can't make it pay. That is a $5 million dollar difference in making it and not. "Out West", you can own 150 acres costing (@ $1500/ac ) $225,000, pay a grazing permit for a thousand head of cattle (AUM ) costing $1350, have the same 250 head as the Nebraska (and many other states ) and laugh all the way to the bank. Then, it must be written in the contract somewhere, complain ad nauseum about the indignities you suffer. If you don't like living "out west", move to somewhere that takes less grass per cow. It's not a hard concept, many people have done it, bought land and paid taxes. It's gotten so fashionable for ranchers to complain about the goverment interferring in their lives, they forget about the times they complain about the governement not helping them enough (SD Blizzard ). When people sign a BLM or State lease anywhere, they are read each page individually so there is no misunderstandings about their obligations as well as the government's. Sometimes people have been someplace for so long, it feels just like it IS theirs, just like my Dad's story, but it isn't, and if they forget that, sometimes bad things happen. From a contractual perspective, Bundy agreed to the BLM terms and demonstrated so by the years he did pay his grazing rights. Even if unhappy, I don't know how he can say sorry changed my mind but I am going to keep using your land. I agree about the over regulation by agencies who have total power and no oversight but they are regulating land they own. If preemptive rights give him the rights to the land why did he pay the BLM to begin with?
He doesn't have an inalienable right to graze land that he doesn't own.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-13 8:03 PM What would John Wayne do? And...who is John Galt?
John Wayne would have owned the land and John Galt was a fictitious character. | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | I must admit that I haven't been following this story very closely at all, for some reason. In fact, I haven't read most of this thread. I could see two sides of this right from the start.
As far as "likes" and "dislikes" on comments, I couldn't care less. I think they are a little silly even though I hit like or dislike often. I just don't get bent out of shape over them. In a way, I suppose they are a good way for people to express approval or disapproval without having to own their words. Maybe they are shy. Maybe they are afraid. Who knows? I don't care.
Honestly, Finney, I find it hard to get too excited about anything you post. You have a history of posting liberal-progressive talking points or incendiary cut-and-paste articles that trumpet progressivism, and then disappearing. It's hard to take you seriously when I have never ever seen you criticise, even remotely, any progressive-liberal, nor can I recall you ever esposing a position outside of the progressive liberal agenda.
As far as this topic is concerned, the one thing that it has done for me is it has served to remind me, once again, that this country is more sharply divided than at anytime that I can remember. The division is deep and getting wider and deeper almost by the day. More and more, I think people want to revolt. They are sick of a bloated, ever expanding, intrusive, meddlesome government that cannot sustain itself and is constantly seeking ways to usurp freedom, liberty, power, and money from the citizens. Regardess of whether Mr Bundy is right or wrong, that's all this really means to me. In fact, I think it's not merely a symptom....I think it is a harbinger of things to come. | |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:15 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-13 8:03 PM What would John Wayne do? And...who is John Galt?
So was John W... If you want a real American hero... look at James Stewart.. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Here ya go....someone who isn't ignorant of ranch life in the west, 2014:
Why Clive Bundy isn't WRONG.
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
-Kena Lytle Gloeckner
Btw: Did all of you 'landlords' inherit this by birth? Do you have a vested interest in it?
The fed does NOT own this land. It's in a 'reserved' status...
| |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:06 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-13 7:42 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 6:39 PM rodeomom3 - 2014-04-13 7:10 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 6:10 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 5:34 PM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-13 4:19 PM Finney, you've always gotten on my nerves, but IMO you shouldn't have felt like you had to defend your personal life that way. I'm sorry you felt like you needed to do that.
That said, this particular case has opened up some dialogue that needed to take place and brought to light some cases that are much more cut and dried where you cannot argue justice is being served. I wonder how different things would be if the ranchers had had a way to communicate like we do now, where they could have more easily banded together to say NO at the beginning of all this BLM mess and negotiated better terms for themselves. Better yet, how about if none of these agencies with no accountability had been prevented from being created in the first place. I am sick to death of being regulated to infinity and beyond by people I can't vote out. That's not how our government was supposed to work. This is exactly how I feel about this.
And Finney...the ignorance I refer to is in the experience of dealing with the BLM. You recommended ranchers 'buying land & paying the taxes' like everyone else does...have you ever been 'out west'? Do you have any idea how many acres are required per cow? Do you think livestock & wildlife should be banned?
It's the ignorance of those who have no clue to what it takes to survive out here, yet, think they should have an opinion...one that is not educated...that is creating hardship for those who are fighting this battle. Get educated to ALL the facts...better yet, just watch and learn.
Here's what I know. It takes at least 20 acres to run a cow in Nebraska w/ supplemental feed. Land prices have increased to $1000-$1500 per grass acre. A 250 cow place would require at least 5000 acres of range land costing up to $7.5 million dollars. There is next to no federal and state grazing land in this state and what there is (besides school land ) never, I repeat never, comes up for lease. Most real estate people will tell you that if you pay more than $10,000/cow, or $2,500,000, you can't make it pay. That is a $5 million dollar difference in making it and not. "Out West", you can own 150 acres costing (@ $1500/ac ) $225,000, pay a grazing permit for a thousand head of cattle (AUM ) costing $1350, have the same 250 head as the Nebraska (and many other states ) and laugh all the way to the bank. Then, it must be written in the contract somewhere, complain ad nauseum about the indignities you suffer. If you don't like living "out west", move to somewhere that takes less grass per cow. It's not a hard concept, many people have done it, bought land and paid taxes. It's gotten so fashionable for ranchers to complain about the goverment interferring in their lives, they forget about the times they complain about the governement not helping them enough (SD Blizzard ). When people sign a BLM or State lease anywhere, they are read each page individually so there is no misunderstandings about their obligations as well as the government's. Sometimes people have been someplace for so long, it feels just like it IS theirs, just like my Dad's story, but it isn't, and if they forget that, sometimes bad things happen. From a contractual perspective, Bundy agreed to the BLM terms and demonstrated so by the years he did pay his grazing rights. Even if unhappy, I don't know how he can say sorry changed my mind but I am going to keep using your land. I agree about the over regulation by agencies who have total power and no oversight but they are regulating land they own. If preemptive rights give him the rights to the land why did he pay the BLM to begin with?
It's public land and he is part of the public!!!! | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | TXBO - 2014-04-13 6:52 PM Just a personal opinion..... If you give a dislike without a retort, you're either chickenshiitt or too freaking stupid to participate in an adult discussion.
Take that.  | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| komet. - 2014-04-13 8:24 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:15 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 8:03 PM What would John Wayne do? And...who is John Galt? So was John W... If you want a real American hero... look at James Stewart..
Dude, John Wayne was real. | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | the govt is abusive and out of control but just because everyone is looking for an anti-govt hero, doesn't make Cliven Bundy the martyr you are looking for......in fact, this example is likely going to be used by many in our govt as an example of why the ag industry is getting fat off subsidies.....and unfortunately, many are going to be conviced by this... | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | It used to be.... we hanged people that rustled cows... and the people that gave the orders to rustle cows... I think it's time to go back to that... | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:35 PM
komet. - 2014-04-13 8:24 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:15 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 8:03 PM What would John Wayne do? And...who is John Galt? So was John W... If you want a real American hero... look at James Stewart..
John W was an actor... James served his country... | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | komet. - 2014-04-13 8:38 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:35 PM komet. - 2014-04-13 8:24 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:15 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 8:03 PM What would John Wayne do? And...who is John Galt? So was John W... If you want a real American hero... look at James Stewart.. John W was an actor... James served his country...
John Wayne was a persona.... | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | dhdqhllc - 2014-04-13 8:39 PM
komet. - 2014-04-13 8:38 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:35 PM komet. - 2014-04-13 8:24 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:15 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 8:03 PM What would John Wayne do? And...who is John Galt? So was John W... If you want a real American hero... look at James Stewart.. John W was an actor... James served his country...
So is Obozo to some people.. | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | komet. - 2014-04-13 8:41 PM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-13 8:39 PM komet. - 2014-04-13 8:38 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:35 PM komet. - 2014-04-13 8:24 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:15 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 8:03 PM What would John Wayne do? And...who is John Galt? So was John W... If you want a real American hero... look at James Stewart.. John W was an actor... James served his country... So is Obozo to some people..
to a lot of people..... | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-13 8:30 PM Here ya go....someone who isn't ignorant of ranch life in the west, 2014:
Why Clive Bundy isn't WRONG.
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
-Kena Lytle Gloeckner
Btw: Did all of you 'landlords' inherit this by birth? Do you have a vested interest in it?
The fed does NOT own this land. It's in a 'reserved' status...
1) I inherited nothing. I paid my way through college by working the tobacco fields of Appalachia. My herd is not my primary source of income and every GD head was paid for from the fruits of my labor. They graze on leased private land that costs many times more that the paltry sum charged for those crony capitalist corrupt BLM grants.
2) yes the fed does own that land. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| dhdqhllc - 2014-04-13 8:35 PM the govt is abusive and out of control but just because everyone is looking for an anti-govt hero, doesn't make Cliven Bundy the martyr you are looking for......in fact, this example is likely going to be used by many in our govt as an example of why the ag industry is getting fat off subsidies.....and unfortunately, many are going to be conviced by this...
Boom.
Prepare for unintended consequences. | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | I have a serious question. The federal government "owns" about one-third of the entire land mass of the USA. Why? Most of this is in the west. I'm sure many of you have seen those maps that illustrate, in color, the vast amount of land supposedly "owned" by the federal government. Why does the fed need to own 85% of Nevada, and nearly 50% of California, for example? Can someone explain this? Is it because most of this land is "useless" anyway? If you draw a line from the Montana-North Dakota border all the way down to Mexico, about two-thirds of the land is federally owned. Everything east of there is probably 5-10% government owned. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:48 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-13 8:30 PM Here ya go....someone who isn't ignorant of ranch life in the west, 2014:
Why Clive Bundy isn't WRONG.
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
-Kena Lytle Gloeckner
Btw: Did all of you 'landlords' inherit this by birth? Do you have a vested interest in it?
The fed does NOT own this land. It's in a 'reserved' status...
1) I inherited nothing. I paid my way through college by working the tobacco fields of Appalachia. My herd is not my primary source of income and every GD head was paid for from the fruits of my labor. They graze on leased private land that costs many times more that the paltry sum charged for those crony capitalist corrupt BLM grants.
2) yes the fed does own that land.
Paltry?? Millions?? How many million do you make from your cows? | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Ok...time to bring this 'pahr-tey' to an end.
Here's the jurisdictional map of all our 'public lands'...have fun.
http://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/Jurisdiction.pdf
http://www.blm.gov/flpma/FLPMA.pdf
http://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/Jurisdiction-UT.pdf
The Meat:
http://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/Jurisdiction-0report.pdf
http://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/Jurisdiction-NV.pdf
Edited by musikmaker 2014-04-13 9:08 PM
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| komet. - 2014-04-13 8:56 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 8:30 PM Here ya go....someone who isn't ignorant of ranch life in the west, 2014:
Why Clive Bundy isn't WRONG.
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
-Kena Lytle Gloeckner
Btw: Did all of you 'landlords' inherit this by birth? Do you have a vested interest in it?
The fed does NOT own this land. It's in a 'reserved' status...
1) I inherited nothing. I paid my way through college by working the tobacco fields of Appalachia. My herd is not my primary source of income and every GD head was paid for from the fruits of my labor. They graze on leased private land that costs many times more that the paltry sum charged for those crony capitalist corrupt BLM grants.
2) yes the fed does own that land. Paltry?? Millions?? How many million do you make from your cows?
What I make from my cattle is none of your business and has nothing to do with the cost of leases. His lease was not millions of dollars. It was $1.35 per head per month. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:03 PM komet. - 2014-04-13 8:56 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 8:30 PM Here ya go....someone who isn't ignorant of ranch life in the west, 2014:
Why Clive Bundy isn't WRONG.
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
-Kena Lytle Gloeckner
Btw: Did all of you 'landlords' inherit this by birth? Do you have a vested interest in it?
The fed does NOT own this land. It's in a 'reserved' status...
1) I inherited nothing. I paid my way through college by working the tobacco fields of Appalachia. My herd is not my primary source of income and every GD head was paid for from the fruits of my labor. They graze on leased private land that costs many times more that the paltry sum charged for those crony capitalist corrupt BLM grants.
2) yes the fed does own that land. Paltry?? Millions?? How many million do you make from your cows?
Look...what I was asking was how the general public feels they 'own' this land and are 'landlords'...every area will have it's hardships. If it were easy, someone else would be doing it. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | musikmaker - 2014-04-13 9:09 PM
TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:03 PM komet. - 2014-04-13 8:56 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 8:30 PM Here ya go....someone who isn't ignorant of ranch life in the west, 2014:
Why Clive Bundy isn't WRONG.
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
-Kena Lytle Gloeckner
Btw: Did all of you 'landlords' inherit this by birth? Do you have a vested interest in it?
The fed does NOT own this land. It's in a 'reserved' status...
1) I inherited nothing. I paid my way through college by working the tobacco fields of Appalachia. My herd is not my primary source of income and every GD head was paid for from the fruits of my labor. They graze on leased private land that costs many times more that the paltry sum charged for those crony capitalist corrupt BLM grants.
2) yes the fed does own that land. Paltry?? Millions?? How many million do you make from your cows?
So we go back to.. "Public Land" this man is part of the PUBLIC.... and his family has run cows there since the 1800S... and TXBO!! Maybe you would like to give your land back to the Mexicans?? | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| komet. - 2014-04-13 9:23 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 9:09 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:03 PM komet. - 2014-04-13 8:56 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 8:30 PM Here ya go....someone who isn't ignorant of ranch life in the west, 2014:
Why Clive Bundy isn't WRONG.
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
-Kena Lytle Gloeckner
Btw: Did all of you 'landlords' inherit this by birth? Do you have a vested interest in it?
The fed does NOT own this land. It's in a 'reserved' status...
1) I inherited nothing. I paid my way through college by working the tobacco fields of Appalachia. My herd is not my primary source of income and every GD head was paid for from the fruits of my labor. They graze on leased private land that costs many times more that the paltry sum charged for those crony capitalist corrupt BLM grants.
2) yes the fed does own that land. Paltry?? Millions?? How many million do you make from your cows? So we go back to.. "Public Land" this man is part of the PUBLIC.... and his family has run cows there since the 1800S... and TXBO!! Maybe you would like to give your land back to the Mexicans??
You're not making any sense. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1561
| Texans know NOTHING about public and, NOTHING! | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| Itsme - 2014-04-13 10:13 PM
Texans know NOTHING about public and, NOTHING!
well that's going to start a fight LOL | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Itsme - 2014-04-13 10:13 PM Texans know NOTHING about public and, NOTHING!
Texans that have lived in NV and AZ do. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1561
| TXBO - 2014-04-13 10:22 PM
Itsme - 2014-04-13 10:13 PM Texans know NOTHING about public and, NOTHING!
Texans that have lived in NV and AZ do.
When did the feds buy this land and how much was it per acre? | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Itsme - 2014-04-13 10:13 PM
Texans know NOTHING about public and, NOTHING!
Just ask the Texans ranching on The Red River what they know about Public Land and the BLM?
http://misguidedchildren.com/domestic-affairs/2014/04/red-river-rum...
http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/11/red-river-rumble-...
http://www.rfdtv.com/story/25206377/oklahoma-texas-border-dispute-h...
http://www.dailypaul.com/316530/blm-now-trying-to-seize-90000-acres...
http://www.texomashomepage.com/story/concern-over-property-along-re...
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/22s7z2/blm_also_trying...
Are YOU absolutely sure you are educated on this matter? After all YOU were the One who supported 'Firing The Shot' in an Shoot Scrape....................
You and Finney Quarter Horses really need to get together. Ya'll would excellent company for each other. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | A relevant series of questions:
A) Why does the BLM have Snipers?
B) Why was the airspace over the Nevada Controversy closed?
C) Why was the BLM showing so much force to begin with? | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1561
|
Im not reading your links...
Isn't that private land theyre trying to grab? | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1561
| Nevada=87% public land
texas=4% | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Itsme - 2014-04-13 10:56 PM
Im not reading your links...
Isn't that private land theyre trying to grab?
You have the privilege of remaining ignorant. Yes, it is private land. Overbearing BLM at it again. Or I should say Overbearing Government which is what BLM actually is. Still want to 'Fire The Shot'? And be the One responsible for telling Survivors that You started The Fire Fight that claimed Their Loved Ones?
That is not something I would care to claim.
Edited by foundation horse 2014-04-13 11:05 PM
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Itsme - 2014-04-13 11:00 PM
Nevada=87% public land
texas=4%
And your point is? Other than you can actually do simple math......................... | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1561
| foundation horse - 2014-04-13 11:02 PM
Itsme - 2014-04-13 10:56 PM
Im not reading your links...
Isn't that private land theyre trying to grab?
You have the privilege of remaining ignorant. Yes, it is private land. Overbearing BLM at it again. Or I should say Overbearing Government which is what BLM actually is. Still want to 'Fire The Shot'? And be the One responsible for telling Survivors that You started The Fire Fight that claimed Their Loved Ones?
That is not something I would care to claim.
Quote me where I said to fire the 1st shot. Ill be patiently waiting. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Itsme - 2014-04-13 11:18 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-13 11:02 PM
Itsme - 2014-04-13 10:56 PM
Im not reading your links...
Isn't that private land theyre trying to grab?
You have the privilege of remaining ignorant. Yes, it is private land. Overbearing BLM at it again. Or I should say Overbearing Government which is what BLM actually is. Still want to 'Fire The Shot'? And be the One responsible for telling Survivors that You started The Fire Fight that claimed Their Loved Ones?
That is not something I would care to claim.
Quote me where I said to fire the 1st shot. Ill be patiently waiting.
On the other thread. I quoted you in regards to it....................
I found the Post(s)/Quote I was looking for! heheheeheheh
Posted 2014-04-11 8:38 AM (#6974425 - in reply to #6974347)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government
Itsme - 2014-04-10 11:30 PM The true American citizens need to arm themselves and set up "road blocks" and get behind the snipers, dont let the feds surround you. Road blocks around the feds road blocks and snipers behind their snipers.
Itsme: I am about radical as they come where The Constitution is concerned...........but I am at least halfway sensible when it comes to starting a Shooting Civil War between Americans! The guy in the Youtube Video MM posted has it right! Let The Feds fire the first shot. I really have to wonder if you have ever studied any kind of history whatsoever. Also have you ever experienced the aftermath of a shooting event? Real People with Real Families get hurt and die who leave Loved Ones behind. Did you ever think of that?
I am not against a 'Civil War' per se. I am just not particularly interested in being the party or parties who are responible for the opening round.
This is the C&P from Page #9 of The Rancher VS. Government Thread in which I specifically quoted YOU about starting a Shooting Scrape. Inciting a Civil War is rather serious business is it not?
| |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | TXBO - 2014-04-13 9:30 PM
komet. - 2014-04-13 9:23 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 9:09 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:03 PM komet. - 2014-04-13 8:56 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 8:30 PM Here ya go....someone who isn't ignorant of ranch life in the west, 2014:
Why Clive Bundy isn't WRONG.
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
-Kena Lytle Gloeckner
Btw: Did all of you 'landlords' inherit this by birth? Do you have a vested interest in it?
The fed does NOT own this land. It's in a 'reserved' status...
1) I inherited nothing. I paid my way through college by working the tobacco fields of Appalachia. My herd is not my primary source of income and every GD head was paid for from the fruits of my labor. They graze on leased private land that costs many times more that the paltry sum charged for those crony capitalist corrupt BLM grants.
2) yes the fed does own that land. Paltry?? Millions?? How many million do you make from your cows? So we go back to.. "Public Land" this man is part of the PUBLIC.... and his family has run cows there since the 1800S... and TXBO!! Maybe you would like to give your land back to the Mexicans??
Ya know.. I could understand the Obama loving Alphabet Man supporting the feds on this... But when did you start believing anything the government says? Where is TxBo and what the he!! did you do with him? | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | Here we are hearing more and more words and expressions like "civil war", "revolution", "militia", "Tea Party", "revolt", etc.... Basically this is what is required before a social utopia can, once and for all, be achieved - chaos. The idea is to overload the social welfare system so drastically that collapse is inevitible. Cloward and Piven devised this and were inspired by Saul Alinski. All of these things are forces that contribute to the necessary chaos before the collapse, so that the social utopian state can arise. I think we are at a croosroads. | |
| | |
"Heck's Coming With Me"
Posts: 10797
Location: Kansas | Finney's a hoot. "Quit sucking at the public teat" coming from a liberal? The folks who are the reason half this country is on the government dole. Come on Finney..........
| |
| | |
 Famous for Not Complaining
Posts: 8848
Location: Broxton, Ga | Frodo - 2014-04-13 9:42 AM Finney's a hoot. "Quit sucking at the public teat" coming from a liberal? The folks who are the reason half this country is on the government dole. Come on Finney..........
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| komet. - 2014-04-14 1:28 AM Ya know.. I could understand the Obama loving Alphabet Man supporting the feds on this... But when did you start believing anything the government says? Where is TxBo and what the he!! did you do with him?
LOL! Komet, I can certainly align with the sentiment of fighting an over reaching federal government. However I don't see a legitimate conservative issue on Bundy's side.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Frodo - 2014-04-14 8:42 AM Finney's a hoot. "Quit sucking at the public teat" coming from a liberal? The folks who are the reason half this country is on the government dole. Come on Finney..........
Yet Cliven most certainly is sucking on the government teet.
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-14 8:34 AM komet. - 2014-04-14 1:28 AM Ya know.. I could understand the Obama loving Alphabet Man supporting the feds on this... But when did you start believing anything the government says? Where is TxBo and what the he!! did you do with him? LOL! Komet, I can certainly align with the sentiment of fighting an over reaching federal government. However I don't see a legitimate conservative issue on Bundy's side.
You're not 'teachable'! Did you even attempt to read the many links & gov't documents that prove juridiction & authority?
That's the 'chaos' Scott was referring to...when people refuse to let go of a pre-concieved notion...right or wrong.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| HotbearLVR - 2014-04-14 7:47 AM Here we are hearing more and more words and expressions like "civil war", "revolution", "militia", "Tea Party", "revolt", etc.... Basically this is what is required before a social utopia can, once and for all, be achieved - chaos. The idea is to overload the social welfare system so drastically that collapse is inevitible. Cloward and Piven devised this and were inspired by Saul Alinski. All of these things are forces that contribute to the necessary chaos before the collapse, so that the social utopian state can arise. I think we are at a croosroads.
I don't think we're close to the point of chaos yet but this is a great example of the growing sentiment for social disobedience against federal over reach. There are large factions that want to push back regardless of the legitimacy of the fight.
The first amendment fight with religious organizations has the potential for wide reaching yet mostly peaceful civil disobedience. What is the government going to do when when a Catholic organization refuses to comply with Obamacare or pay the fines? Are they going to close the churches and jail the Bishops and nuns? | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-14 9:40 AM TXBO - 2014-04-14 8:34 AM komet. - 2014-04-14 1:28 AM Ya know.. I could understand the Obama loving Alphabet Man supporting the feds on this... But when did you start believing anything the government says? Where is TxBo and what the he!! did you do with him? LOL! Komet, I can certainly align with the sentiment of fighting an over reaching federal government. However I don't see a legitimate conservative issue on Bundy's side.
That's the 'chaos' Scott was referring to...when people refuse to let go of a pre-concieved notion...right or wrong.
I'm teachable but I don't abandon my convictions to satisfy my personal idealism.
I also don't let a couple of op-ed pieces interfere with my constructionist view of our constitution. As much as I'd like to jump on board with your belief that the fed can't own land, I read just the opposite in the constitution. You're putting a judicial activism argument to this issue and I find that that the biggest threat of all to our liberty. | |
| | |
Warmblood with Wings
Posts: 27846
Location: Florida.. | I just watched a video and it gave me goosebumps. I just wish we the people would take this stand and type of againist alot of issues.. if we banded together.. but instead we dont.
it does prove however that the people have more balls then the men sitting in the whitehouse labeled republicans. .. they are pure wusses | |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 1857
| jbhoot - 2014-04-13 7:57 PM
rodeomom3 - 2014-04-13 7:10 PM
FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 6:10 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-13 5:34 PM
Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-13 4:19 PM Finney, you've always gotten on my nerves, but IMO you shouldn't have felt like you had to defend your personal life that way. I'm sorry you felt like you needed to do that.
That said, this particular case has opened up some dialogue that needed to take place and brought to light some cases that are much more cut and dried where you cannot argue justice is being served. I wonder how different things would be if the ranchers had had a way to communicate like we do now, where they could have more easily banded together to say NO at the beginning of all this BLM mess and negotiated better terms for themselves. Better yet, how about if none of these agencies with no accountability had been prevented from being created in the first place. I am sick to death of being regulated to infinity and beyond by people I can't vote out. That's not how our government was supposed to work.
This is exactly how I feel about this.
And Finney...the ignorance I refer to is in the experience of dealing with the BLM. You recommended ranchers 'buying land & paying the taxes' like everyone else does...have you ever been 'out west'? Do you have any idea how many acres are required per cow? Do you think livestock & wildlife should be banned?
It's the ignorance of those who have no clue to what it takes to survive out here, yet, think they should have an opinion...one that is not educated...that is creating hardship for those who are fighting this battle. Get educated to ALL the facts...better yet, just watch and learn.
Here's what I know. It takes at least 20 acres to run a cow in Nebraska w/ supplemental feed. Land prices have increased to $1000-$1500 per grass acre. A 250 cow place would require at least 5000 acres of range land costing up to $7.5 million dollars. There is next to no federal and state grazing land in this state and what there is (besides school land ) never, I repeat never, comes up for lease. Most real estate people will tell you that if you pay more than $10,000/cow, or $2,500,000, you can't make it pay. That is a $5 million dollar difference in making it and not.
"Out West", you can own 150 acres costing (@ $1500/ac ) $225,000, pay a grazing permit for a thousand head of cattle (AUM ) costing $1350, have the same 250 head as the Nebraska (and many other states ) and laugh all the way to the bank. Then, it must be written in the contract somewhere, complain ad nauseum about the indignities you suffer.
If you don't like living "out west", move to somewhere that takes less grass per cow. It's not a hard concept, many people have done it, bought land and paid taxes. It's gotten so fashionable for ranchers to complain about the goverment interferring in their lives, they forget about the times they complain about the governement not helping them enough (SD Blizzard ).
When people sign a BLM or State lease anywhere, they are read each page individually so there is no misunderstandings about their obligations as well as the government's. Sometimes people have been someplace for so long, it feels just like it IS theirs, just like my Dad's story, but it isn't, and if they forget that, sometimes bad things happen.
From a contractual perspective, Bundy agreed to the BLM terms and demonstrated so by the years he did pay his grazing rights. Even if unhappy, I don't know how he can say sorry changed my mind but I am going to keep using your land. I agree about the over regulation by agencies who have total power and no oversight but they are regulating land they own. If preemptive rights give him the rights to the land why did he pay the BLM to begin with?
He did not change his mind The BLM changed the lease. That's when this 21 year mess started. He has never claimed he owns the land only the lease which his father and his grandfather owned and transferred to him. Since the lease predates the BLM by about 60 years he feels he has preemptive rights to the lease. Some where along the way BLM revoked the lease and transferred the lease to the county without his signature. To me Bundy needed a much better attorney.
| |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | TXBO - 2014-04-14 9:46 AM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-14 7:47 AM Here we are hearing more and more words and expressions like "civil war", "revolution", "militia", "Tea Party", "revolt", etc.... Basically this is what is required before a social utopia can, once and for all, be achieved - chaos. The idea is to overload the social welfare system so drastically that collapse is inevitible. Cloward and Piven devised this and were inspired by Saul Alinski. All of these things are forces that contribute to the necessary chaos before the collapse, so that the social utopian state can arise. I think we are at a croosroads. I don't think we're close to the point of chaos yet but this is a great example of the growing sentiment for social disobedience against federal over reach. There are large factions that want to push back regardless of the legitimacy of the fight.
The first amendment fight with religious organizations has the potential for wide reaching yet mostly peaceful civil disobedience. What is the government going to do when when a Catholic organization refuses to comply with Obamacare or pay the fines? Are they going to close the churches and jail the Bishops and nuns?
We've been wanting to flip the Feds the bird for so long that it doesn't take much of an excuse. We are already waaaaay past the standards of the original patriots. | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-14 9:46 AM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-14 7:47 AM Here we are hearing more and more words and expressions like "civil war", "revolution", "militia", "Tea Party", "revolt", etc.... Basically this is what is required before a social utopia can, once and for all, be achieved - chaos. The idea is to overload the social welfare system so drastically that collapse is inevitible. Cloward and Piven devised this and were inspired by Saul Alinski. All of these things are forces that contribute to the necessary chaos before the collapse, so that the social utopian state can arise. I think we are at a croosroads. I don't think we're close to the point of chaos yet but this is a great example of the growing sentiment for social disobedience against federal over reach. There are large factions that want to push back regardless of the legitimacy of the fight.
The first amendment fight with religious organizations has the potential for wide reaching yet mostly peaceful civil disobedience. What is the government going to do when when a Catholic organization refuses to comply with Obamacare or pay the fines? Are they going to close the churches and jail the Bishops and nuns?
I see an increasing level of agitation across the spectrum. I also see an evolving chaos as a result. "Survivalism" is increasingly popular for a reason. The dependent sector of our society is feeling pressure. The producers are feeling pressure. People are seeing our status in the world decline. Moral relativism is the norm. The family unit is in a state of steady decline....it really is. Many feel our economy is fragile and ready to implode. People are seeing freedoms being usurped by an overreaching government. Nothing seems to make sense anymore. People are itching for a fight. That's how I see this Nevada incident. It's a symptom of a large segment of our society that is saying "I just want to hit someone!" We don't have a leader who strives to unite us. On the contrary, we have one whose goal it is to divide us, create chaos, and rebuild a socialist utopia. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-14 10:18 AM TXBO - 2014-04-14 9:46 AM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-14 7:47 AM Here we are hearing more and more words and expressions like "civil war", "revolution", "militia", "Tea Party", "revolt", etc.... Basically this is what is required before a social utopia can, once and for all, be achieved - chaos. The idea is to overload the social welfare system so drastically that collapse is inevitible. Cloward and Piven devised this and were inspired by Saul Alinski. All of these things are forces that contribute to the necessary chaos before the collapse, so that the social utopian state can arise. I think we are at a croosroads. I don't think we're close to the point of chaos yet but this is a great example of the growing sentiment for social disobedience against federal over reach. There are large factions that want to push back regardless of the legitimacy of the fight.
The first amendment fight with religious organizations has the potential for wide reaching yet mostly peaceful civil disobedience. What is the government going to do when when a Catholic organization refuses to comply with Obamacare or pay the fines? Are they going to close the churches and jail the Bishops and nuns?
Couldn't agree more. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-14 8:54 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 9:40 AM TXBO - 2014-04-14 8:34 AM komet. - 2014-04-14 1:28 AM Ya know.. I could understand the Obama loving Alphabet Man supporting the feds on this... But when did you start believing anything the government says? Where is TxBo and what the he!! did you do with him? LOL! Komet, I can certainly align with the sentiment of fighting an over reaching federal government. However I don't see a legitimate conservative issue on Bundy's side.
That's the 'chaos' Scott was referring to...when people refuse to let go of a pre-concieved notion...right or wrong.
I also don't let a couple of op-ed pieces interfere with my constructionist view of our constitution. As much as I'd like to jump on board with your belief that the fed can't own land, I read just the opposite in the constitution. You're putting a judicial activism argument to this issue and I find that that the biggest threat of all to our liberty.
I've never denied a certain idealistic view...not so much the pacifist, but I don't 'get' people who refuse to study & dig for the truth...no different than people saying we're a Democracy! Say something enough times and people believe it.
I never said the fed can't 'own' land...they can within the perimeters set forth by the Constitution...it does not include large tracts of land such as we are now dealing with, granted, a state can abandon land to fed, however, the fed is not in the position of accepting as it undermines the basic rights of the citizens.
The Eisenhower Report of 1962 lists ALL lands that the fed is affiliated with, the year it was 'acquired' and the jurisdictional code applied. My issue with the federal judicial authority concerning these lands is that it's been determined that the authority lies with the state. These are issues that people need to understand so we may get on the same page...I also take issue wth the many corrupt instances of judicial overreach. It happens. And I'm not the threat...apathy is.
Anyhow...I've posted all the info I have in this & other threads...for those who are interested in the letter of the law...it's there.
| |
| | |
 Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| I don't understand the concept of Goverment owned anything. The role of this Goverment is not to OWN anything that has been fought for by our men and women in uniform. The role they are supposed to take have nothing to do with impossing borders within borders. Of the People, by the People...
There is also the question of what is reasonable enforcement. Do any of you think the Feds were reasonable in the way they treated this American? I'm late to party and I need to read this thread throughly but this is my take on things as of now. | |
| | |
 Angel in a Sorrel Coat
Posts: 16030
Location: In a happy place | I'm like Ridden....I am late to the party and on top of that I am not intelligent enough to join this discussion. I need to read more. But I can tell you I lived in Waco when the Branch Dividian fiasco happened. I got to see first hand what the government can do. And it can be very scary. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1857
| RidenFly - 2014-04-14 10:31 AM
I don't understand the concept of Goverment owned anything. The role of this Goverment is not to OWN anything that has been fought for by our men and women in uniform. The role they are supposed to take have nothing to do with impossing borders within borders. Of the People, by the People...
There is also the question of what is reasonable enforcement. Do any of you think the Feds were reasonable in the way they treated this American? I'm late to party and I need to read this thread throughly but this is my take on things as of now.
There's a larger thread "Rancher vs Government" that has lots more info and pages. Good luck! | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-14 10:30 AM I've never denied a certain idealistic view...not so much the pacifist, but I don't 'get' people who refuse to study & dig for the truth...no different than people saying we're a Democracy! Say something enough times and people believe it.
I never said the fed can't 'own' land...they can within the perimeters set forth by the Constitution...it does not include large tracts of land such as we are now dealing with, granted, a state can abandon land to fed, however, the fed is not in the position of accepting as it undermines the basic rights of the citizens.
The Eisenhower Report of 1962 lists ALL lands that the fed is affiliated with, the year it was 'acquired' and the jurisdictional code applied. My issue with the federal judicial authority concerning these lands is that it's been determined that the authority lies with the state. These are issues that people need to understand so we may get on the same page...I also take issue wth the many corrupt instances of judicial overreach. It happens. And I'm not the threat...apathy is.
Anyhow...I've posted all the info I have in this & other threads...for those who are interested in the letter of the law...it's there.
What you don't get is people who dig for the truth and come to a different conclusion than you. You're deriving your position based on op-ed pieces and not the actual legal documents. Much of your info has included agenda drive commentary with documentation and at least once you left out a key phrase to a constitutional article.
Let me ask you this..... Nevada has had statehood since 1864. Why have they made no attemt to aquire deed to this land? Why are they not stepping up now saying this is our land?
BTW.... I'd love for the courts to rule that I'm wrong.
Edited by TXBO 2014-04-14 11:00 AM
| |
| | |
Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| FlyingJT - 2014-04-15 8:49 AM RidenFly - 2014-04-14 10:31 AM I don't understand the concept of Goverment owned anything. The role of this Goverment is not to OWN anything that has been fought for by our men and women in uniform. The role they are supposed to take have nothing to do with impossing borders within borders. Of the People, by the People...
There is also the question of what is reasonable enforcement. Do any of you think the Feds were reasonable in the way they treated this American? I'm late to party and I need to read this thread throughly but this is my take on things as of now. There's a larger thread "Rancher vs Government" that has lots more info and pages. Good luck!
I think I'd rather stab myself in the eye with a rusty fork and let the smaht people here figure it out. But just an interesting tid bit...my neighbor found an couple of illegals immigrants having relations in her barn. I just wonder where our priorities are as a nation. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 9:32 AM QUIT SUCKING AT THE PUBLIC TEAT. Join the rest of us ranchers not fortunate enough to own a federal or state grazing allotment and buy a ranch, pay a mortgage, & pay land taxes. Then you can do as you d**n well please. You can graze it into the ground and kill every living creature that takes feed away from your cows. That will be your right as a land owner. But until then, you do not own the federal and state land that you graze your cows on. We all do, and everyone has a say in how it is utilized. You knew that when you accepted the insanely low grazing fees in exchange for following the rules set forth for you to follow. While record high beef prices are the norm now, ordinary ranchers’ profits are tempered with increasingly high pasture rents and feed costs. Sure, we can manage our land as we see fit, but we pay for it, out the nose, while those who pay next to nothing for pasture rent on Federal Land complain to anybody who will listen about how abused they are by the big, bad, Government. Well, I’ve got a solution for you; give up your allotments and practice what you preach. Let some of the young ranchers who would give their eye teeth to have the opportunity to graze their livestock for $1.35/AUM the chance to make it in an ever increasing hard area to break into. But you know what? They won’t do it. Why should they. They are content to have it both ways. Make a mint off the rest of us and get a national audience about how abused they are. They can pack their pistols and rifles around and talk about shooting federal agents, not pay their rent, and get a platform on Hannity. The rightwing media and the militia groups love it because they get noticed. Ratings, don’t you know. I wonder why, if they are so supportive of the Bundy family, rather than strut around threatening to shoot people, why don’t they just pay the $1M fees and fines they owe and defuse the situation? They are certainly making enough money off the family by hawking their troubles on tv and radio to be able to afford it. But that’s not what this is all about for them. It is really about exploiting a ranch family’s misguided sense of right and wrong to make money and push an anti-government agenda. Even though the Feds turned the cows out this weekend, we all know this is not over. When the cameras quit rolling, and the militia men go back to work on Monday, the Bundy family is still going to be in a world of trouble, only now it is not just for refusing to pay their pasture rent. Now they are forever in recorded history of making terroristic threats to law enforcement and public officials. They have backed themselves in a corner of their own making, and we can all hope that they don’t come out shooting, because odds are, it is not going to end pretty for anyone.
Finally, someone gets it. | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| TXBO - 2014-04-14 9:36 AM
Frodo - 2014-04-14 8:42 AM Finney's a hoot. "Quit sucking at the public teat" coming from a liberal? The folks who are the reason half this country is on the government dole. Come on Finney..........
Yet Cliven most certainly is sucking on the government teet.
I meant it as a parody of a Conservative talking point, but it's like a joke, it takes all the fun out of it if you have to explain it to people.
Unfortunately, the Bundy saga is not a joke. It's not a revolution, a range war, a statement of any kind except that a family has convinced themselves that the Government has done them wrong. They are just like any other deadbeat that doesn't pay their bills and thinks everyone else owes them a living. Anyone who thinks "The American People" give a crap about the Bundys, their grievences, or what happens to them in the long run are watching the wrong news station. People who want their own Utopia to rise out of the ashes of a civil war of rightousness has been sniffing too much ether. Most people are just concerned about their kid's next track meet, hoping the snow storms are over for this year, talking about the last episode of Game of Thrones, and hoping their boss doesn't send their jobs overseas. You people who talk about picking up your rifles and killing people need to seek help. Now. | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-14 11:07 AM TXBO - 2014-04-14 9:36 AM Frodo - 2014-04-14 8:42 AM Finney's a hoot. "Quit sucking at the public teat" coming from a liberal? The folks who are the reason half this country is on the government dole. Come on Finney..........
Yet Cliven most certainly is sucking on the government teet.
I meant it as a parody of a Conservative talking point, but it's like a joke, it takes all the fun out of it if you have to explain it to people. Unfortunately, the Bundy saga is not a joke. It's not a revolution, a range war, a statement of any kind except that a family has convinced themselves that the Government has done them wrong. They are just like any other deadbeat that doesn't pay their bills and thinks everyone else owes them a living. Anyone who thinks "The American People" give a crap about the Bundys, their grievences, or what happens to them in the long run are watching the wrong news station. People who want their own Utopia to rise out of the ashes of a civil war of rightousness has been sniffing too much ether. Most people are just concerned about their kid's next track meet, hoping the snow storms are over for this year, talking about the last episode of Game of Thrones, and hoping their boss doesn't send their jobs overseas. You people who talk about picking up your rifles and killing people need to seek help. Now.
I do not want a war and pray it doesn't come to that. But people sticking their heads in the sand and only thinking about their kid's next competition, or what happened on TV last night is a big fat reason why we are where we are. Citizens have a responsibility to work to assure their liberty is upheld, but we have abdicated that responsibility to the government. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:02 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:58 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:50 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:43 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:37 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:15 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election. Bscanchaser, are you familiar with the reports that Harry Reid and Son are involved w/ China and Nevada Land for Energy Production? And these 'goings on' are dated to back to 2003 minimally. Historical Research is a good thing. Also Obama and The Rest of The Executive Branch of Government is heavily influenced by The Chinese Government due to Chinese Government holding so much FEDERAL not State Debt. Yes I have read about this. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how a 9,000 acre solar/wind facility would shut down a 600,000 acre multi-use area...especially when there are windmills in various other regions in the state and other areas of BLM multi-use seem to function just fine. Research is a good thing... Ok. Let me you ask a 'pointed' question. Do you support Harry Reid? No. I have never support or voted for Harry Reid. But your current comment (s ) indicate differently. Does the definition of hypocrisy come to mind? I always attempt to avoid the least indication of hypocrisy or conflict of interest along w/ jealousy and envy.............................. Perhaps I am. However symbolically speaking I am SUPPORTING The U.S. Constitution, States Rights. And the FACT remains that the Feds (BLM ) were on State Owned Land enforcing something that The LOCAL County Sherriff was responsible for.....................
Here is the thing – Bundy cattle being re-released to Federal Land, is not a win. In fact, I will bet that this is far, far from over. This man and his cattle have been illegally grazing on Federal land for 20+ years and he is counting on misinformation to make his case. The fact that he thinks that the land is state land versus federal land, shows his ignorance of the very land that has fed his cattle since 1877.
The BLM is ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. This is not a conspiracy, this is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, put into place by President Nixon at work. A completely different conservancy group went to the BLM to protect the turtles. The BLM is - by law - required to do an Environmental Assessment to determine if the two species can co-exist. They have to by law listen to other groups, and have public input. The work was done and Bundy was told to decrease his herd to 150 cattle per year. He did not do this, in fact, he continued to graze 500+ cattle on the land and then thumbed his nose at the fees.
I understand that many ranchers have been put out of business due to these new laws and environmentalists, which begs the question, “Why does your business not have a back-up plan? Why does your ranch depend on the Federal Govt., for your existence?” Isnt’ this exactly what we say to welfare recipients? That Welfare is not a “Career” option? Why are ranchers that MUST rely on Fed lands any different? They all had the opportuninty to homestead the land when it was open for homesteading but instead they bought what they wanted and relied on the kindness of the feds to get it done. If you have to rely on the feds for your existence in business, you've already lost a major battle.
As taken from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada#Before_1861: Over 80% of the state's area is owned by the federal government. The primary reason for this is that homesteads were not permitted in large enough sizes to be viable in the arid conditions that prevail throughout desert Nevada. Instead, early settlers would homestead land surrounding a water source, and then graze livestock on the adjacent public land, which is useless for agriculture without access to water (this pattern of ranching still prevails).**
Bundy was told his cattle were considered trespass cattle and he didn’t care. He went to court twice in 20 years and lost twice. His cattle were so poorly managed that some went feral and were a danger to others, see the photos attached.
The BLM was the GLO, which was put into place in 1812 and morphed into the BLM. Some have said that this man has some inherent right to graze because he was “there first, before the BLM.” But clearly, unless his family was there in 1812 or even in 1803 when the land was purchased from the French in the Louisiana Purchase, he was not there first. Now, Mexicans and Indians were, but I don’t see this type of support for their plight. So, we're going to use the "there first" argument for this white rancher and his family, but we're not too keen to use the same argument for illegal immigration - that's called hypocrisy in my book.
Someone said to me that he shouldn’t have to pay the fees, as they didn’t exist in 1877. That would be like telling your new landlord that just bought an apartment building as an investment that you were there first, therefore he can never raise your rent. Watch him laugh in your face.
There is another rumor that Harry Reid is all over this. Folks, this started in 1993, this has nothing to do with Reid, other than yes, there are plans for a solar farm as far as I can see - but that is recent. And so what? The BLM is the only govt., entity to MAKE money for the US Treasury, to the tune of 5 billion dollars a year. That’s BILLION with a B. The entire BLM budget per year is ONE billion. They PUT money into our economy and support their own budget - that ironically they have to ASK for from the federal govt., in the budgeting process. The make 5 billion and should be thankful that they get 1 billion to run their show.
IF they want to build a solar power plant on federal land and are stopped by feral cattle from a rogue rancher who refuses to manage his cattle or remove his cattle, then what are they do to? We are capitalists until it’s the federal govt., that wants to make money FOR US? Well, that sounds a bit hypocritical. We’re all for the ranchers right to make money, even at the cost of others, but not the BLM?
The BLM didn’t stop this round up – in my opinion – because they are wrong, they stopped because of the complete misinformation being put out, because someone MIGHT actually get hurt. This is what they were asked to do and now that they have, they must be “wrong” because they did it. It’s like dealing with a five year old mentality out there right now with militias and “cowboys”. This is making the real ranchers who pay their fees and abide by the rules look horrible.
BLM History and laws enacted:http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/arcata/headwaters/Falk.html
NEPA and the NEPA register: https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do
Environmentalist and activists feel that the BLM hides things from them, and in the past the NEPA documents were kept per state, there is work right now to have ALL state’s NEPA documents online within 2-3 years, all 10,000+ documents. That is what I mean by ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. The BLM folks are made of people like you and me. They do what they have to do because others make laws that make them do it!!
The land they manage is literally the most worthless land the US has to offer, and that is why no one – including Bundy – homesteaded the land when they could. You couldn’t feed a jack rabbit lunch on it if you had to. In addition, the Forest Service and other agencies are involved but no one is calling to disband the Forest Service?? Why is that??
I’ve heard the argument that these lands should be “turned over” to the states. If the states wanted that land, it should have happened long before now. I am not educated enough on how it was broken down in the years that followed 1803, but I am going to educate myself on it. The states in some cases don’t even want the land and can’t produce the type of revenue it takes to manage the lands, hence, we have the Forest Service and the BLM.
Educate yourself on federal lands: http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us
Edited by smiley 2014-04-14 11:42 AM
| |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | smiley - 2014-04-14 11:24 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:02 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:58 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:50 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:43 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:37 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:15 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election. Bscanchaser, are you familiar with the reports that Harry Reid and Son are involved w/ China and Nevada Land for Energy Production? And these 'goings on' are dated to back to 2003 minimally. Historical Research is a good thing. Also Obama and The Rest of The Executive Branch of Government is heavily influenced by The Chinese Government due to Chinese Government holding so much FEDERAL not State Debt. Yes I have read about this. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how a 9,000 acre solar/wind facility would shut down a 600,000 acre multi-use area...especially when there are windmills in various other regions in the state and other areas of BLM multi-use seem to function just fine. Research is a good thing... Ok. Let me you ask a 'pointed' question. Do you support Harry Reid? No. I have never support or voted for Harry Reid. But your current comment (s ) indicate differently. Does the definition of hypocrisy come to mind? I always attempt to avoid the least indication of hypocrisy or conflict of interest along w/ jealousy and envy.............................. Perhaps I am. However symbolically speaking I am SUPPORTING The U.S. Constitution, States Rights. And the FACT remains that the Feds (BLM ) were on State Owned Land enforcing something that The LOCAL County Sherriff was responsible for.....................
The BLM is ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. This is not a conspiracy, this is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, put into place by President Nixon at work. A completely different conservancy group went to the BLM to protect the turtles. The BLM is - by law - required to do an Environmental Assessment to determine if the two species can co-exist. They have to by law listen to other groups, and have public input. The work was done and Bundy was told to decrease his herd to 150 cattle per year. He did not do this, in fact, he continued to graze 500+ cattle on the land and then thumbed his nose at the fees.
I understand that many ranchers have been put out of business due to these new laws and environmentalists, which begs the question, “Why does your business not have a back-up plan? Why does your ranch depend on the Federal Govt., for your existence?” Isnt’ this exactly what we say to welfare recipients? That Welfare is not a “Career” option? Why are ranchers that MUST rely on Fed lands any different? They all had the opportuninty to homestead the land when it was open for homesteading but instead they bought what they wanted and relied on the kindness of the feds to get it done. If you have to rely on the feds for your existence in business, you've already lost a major battle.
As taken from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada#Before_1861: Over 80% of the state's area is owned by the federal government. The primary reason for this is that homesteads were not permitted in large enough sizes to be viable in the arid conditions that prevail throughout desert Nevada. Instead, early settlers would homestead land surrounding a water source, and then graze livestock on the adjacent public land, which is useless for agriculture without access to water (this pattern of ranching still prevails).**
Bundy was told his cattle were considered trespass cattle and he didn’t care. He went to court twice in 20 years and lost twice. His cattle were so poorly managed that some went feral and were a danger to others, see the photos attached.
The BLM was the GLO, which was put into place in 1812 and morphed into the BLM. Some have said that this man has some inherent right to graze because he was “there first, before the BLM.” But clearly, unless his family was there in 1812 or even in 1803 when the land was purchased from the French in the Louisiana Purchase, he was not there first. Now, Mexicans and Indians were, but I don’t see this type of support for their plight. So, we're going to use the "there first" argument for this white rancher and his family, but we're not too keen to use the same argument for illegal immigration - that's called hypocrisy in my book.
Someone said to me that he shouldn’t have to pay the fees, as they didn’t exist in 1877. That would be like telling your new landlord that just bought an apartment building as an investment that you were there first, therefore he can never raise your rent. Watch him laugh in your face.
There is another rumor that Harry Reid is all over this. Folks, this started in 1993, this has nothing to do with Reid, other than yes, there are plans for a solar farm as far as I can see - but that is recent. And so what? The BLM is the only govt., entity to MAKE money for the US Treasury, to the tune of 5 billion dollars a year. That’s BILLION with a B. The entire BLM budget per year is ONE billion. They PUT money into our economy and support their own budget - that ironically they have to ASK for from the federal govt., in the budgeting process. The make 5 billion and should be thankful that they get 1 billion to run their show.
IF they want to build a solar power plant on federal land and are stopped by feral cattle from a rogue rancher who refuses to manage his cattle or remove his cattle, then what are they do to? We are capitalists until it’s the federal govt., that wants to make money FOR US? Well, that sounds a bit hypocritical. We’re all for the ranchers right to make money, even at the cost of others, but not the BLM?
The BLM didn’t stop this round up – in my opinion – because they are wrong, they stopped because of the complete misinformation being put out, because someone MIGHT actually get hurt. This is what they were asked to do and now that they have, they must be “wrong” because they did it. It’s like dealing with a five year old mentality out there right now with militias and “cowboys”. This is making the real ranchers who pay their fees and abide by the rules look horrible.
BLM History and laws enacted:http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/arcata/headwaters/Falk.html
NEPA and the NEPA register: https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do
Environmentalist and activists feel that the BLM hides things from them, and in the past the NEPA documents were kept per state, there is work right now to have ALL state’s NEPA documents online within 2-3 years, all 10,000+ documents. That is what I mean by ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. The BLM folks are made of people like you and me. They do what they have to do because others make laws that make them do it!!
The land they manage is literally the most worthless land the US has to offer, and that is why no one – including Bundy – homesteaded the land when they could. You couldn’t feed a jack rabbit lunch on it if you had to (thanks for that line Jeri). In addition, the Forest Service and other agencies are involved but no one is calling to disband the Forest Service?? Why is that??
I’ve heard the argument that these lands should be “turned over” to the states. If the states wanted that land, it should have happened long before now. I am not educated enough on how it was broken down in the years that followed 1803, but I am going to educate myself on it. The states in some cases don’t even want the land and can’t produce the type of revenue it takes to manage the lands, hence, we have the Forest Service and the BLM.
Educate yourself on federal lands: http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us
You may share this status if you like, but I will ask that you do not change the content. I don't need my words or stance (opinion) taken out of context as some love to do on BOTH sides of every issue.
i kinda tend to think this way on this particular situation as well..... | |
| | |
Warmblood with Wings
Posts: 27846
Location: Florida.. | smiley - 2014-04-14 12:24 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:02 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:58 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:50 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:43 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:37 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:15 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election. Bscanchaser, are you familiar with the reports that Harry Reid and Son are involved w/ China and Nevada Land for Energy Production? And these 'goings on' are dated to back to 2003 minimally. Historical Research is a good thing. Also Obama and The Rest of The Executive Branch of Government is heavily influenced by The Chinese Government due to Chinese Government holding so much FEDERAL not State Debt. Yes I have read about this. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how a 9,000 acre solar/wind facility would shut down a 600,000 acre multi-use area...especially when there are windmills in various other regions in the state and other areas of BLM multi-use seem to function just fine. Research is a good thing... Ok. Let me you ask a 'pointed' question. Do you support Harry Reid? No. I have never support or voted for Harry Reid. But your current comment (s ) indicate differently. Does the definition of hypocrisy come to mind? I always attempt to avoid the least indication of hypocrisy or conflict of interest along w/ jealousy and envy.............................. Perhaps I am. However symbolically speaking I am SUPPORTING The U.S. Constitution, States Rights. And the FACT remains that the Feds (BLM ) were on State Owned Land enforcing something that The LOCAL County Sherriff was responsible for.....................
The BLM is ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. This is not a conspiracy, this is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, put into place by President Nixon at work. A completely different conservancy group went to the BLM to protect the turtles. The BLM is - by law - required to do an Environmental Assessment to determine if the two species can co-exist. They have to by law listen to other groups, and have public input. The work was done and Bundy was told to decrease his herd to 150 cattle per year. He did not do this, in fact, he continued to graze 500+ cattle on the land and then thumbed his nose at the fees.
I understand that many ranchers have been put out of business due to these new laws and environmentalists, which begs the question, “Why does your business not have a back-up plan? Why does your ranch depend on the Federal Govt., for your existence?” Isnt’ this exactly what we say to welfare recipients? That Welfare is not a “Career” option? Why are ranchers that MUST rely on Fed lands any different? They all had the opportuninty to homestead the land when it was open for homesteading but instead they bought what they wanted and relied on the kindness of the feds to get it done. If you have to rely on the feds for your existence in business, you've already lost a major battle.
As taken from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada#Before_1861: Over 80% of the state's area is owned by the federal government. The primary reason for this is that homesteads were not permitted in large enough sizes to be viable in the arid conditions that prevail throughout desert Nevada. Instead, early settlers would homestead land surrounding a water source, and then graze livestock on the adjacent public land, which is useless for agriculture without access to water (this pattern of ranching still prevails).**
Bundy was told his cattle were considered trespass cattle and he didn’t care. He went to court twice in 20 years and lost twice. His cattle were so poorly managed that some went feral and were a danger to others, see the photos attached.
The BLM was the GLO, which was put into place in 1812 and morphed into the BLM. Some have said that this man has some inherent right to graze because he was “there first, before the BLM.” But clearly, unless his family was there in 1812 or even in 1803 when the land was purchased from the French in the Louisiana Purchase, he was not there first. Now, Mexicans and Indians were, but I don’t see this type of support for their plight. So, we're going to use the "there first" argument for this white rancher and his family, but we're not too keen to use the same argument for illegal immigration - that's called hypocrisy in my book.
Someone said to me that he shouldn’t have to pay the fees, as they didn’t exist in 1877. That would be like telling your new landlord that just bought an apartment building as an investment that you were there first, therefore he can never raise your rent. Watch him laugh in your face.
There is another rumor that Harry Reid is all over this. Folks, this started in 1993, this has nothing to do with Reid, other than yes, there are plans for a solar farm as far as I can see - but that is recent. And so what? The BLM is the only govt., entity to MAKE money for the US Treasury, to the tune of 5 billion dollars a year. That’s BILLION with a B. The entire BLM budget per year is ONE billion. They PUT money into our economy and support their own budget - that ironically they have to ASK for from the federal govt., in the budgeting process. The make 5 billion and should be thankful that they get 1 billion to run their show.
IF they want to build a solar power plant on federal land and are stopped by feral cattle from a rogue rancher who refuses to manage his cattle or remove his cattle, then what are they do to? We are capitalists until it’s the federal govt., that wants to make money FOR US? Well, that sounds a bit hypocritical. We’re all for the ranchers right to make money, even at the cost of others, but not the BLM?
The BLM didn’t stop this round up – in my opinion – because they are wrong, they stopped because of the complete misinformation being put out, because someone MIGHT actually get hurt. This is what they were asked to do and now that they have, they must be “wrong” because they did it. It’s like dealing with a five year old mentality out there right now with militias and “cowboys”. This is making the real ranchers who pay their fees and abide by the rules look horrible.
BLM History and laws enacted:http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/arcata/headwaters/Falk.html
NEPA and the NEPA register: https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do
Environmentalist and activists feel that the BLM hides things from them, and in the past the NEPA documents were kept per state, there is work right now to have ALL state’s NEPA documents online within 2-3 years, all 10,000+ documents. That is what I mean by ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. The BLM folks are made of people like you and me. They do what they have to do because others make laws that make them do it!!
The land they manage is literally the most worthless land the US has to offer, and that is why no one – including Bundy – homesteaded the land when they could. You couldn’t feed a jack rabbit lunch on it if you had to (thanks for that line Jeri). In addition, the Forest Service and other agencies are involved but no one is calling to disband the Forest Service?? Why is that??
I’ve heard the argument that these lands should be “turned over” to the states. If the states wanted that land, it should have happened long before now. I am not educated enough on how it was broken down in the years that followed 1803, but I am going to educate myself on it. The states in some cases don’t even want the land and can’t produce the type of revenue it takes to manage the lands, hence, we have the Forest Service and the BLM.
Educate yourself on federal lands: http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us
You may share this status if you like, but I will ask that you do not change the content. I don't need my words or stance (opinion) taken out of context as some love to do on BOTH sides of every issue.
This is my thoughts as well. | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| smiley - 2014-04-14 11:24 AM
foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:02 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:58 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:50 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:43 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:37 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:15 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election. Bscanchaser, are you familiar with the reports that Harry Reid and Son are involved w/ China and Nevada Land for Energy Production? And these 'goings on' are dated to back to 2003 minimally. Historical Research is a good thing. Also Obama and The Rest of The Executive Branch of Government is heavily influenced by The Chinese Government due to Chinese Government holding so much FEDERAL not State Debt. Yes I have read about this. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how a 9,000 acre solar/wind facility would shut down a 600,000 acre multi-use area...especially when there are windmills in various other regions in the state and other areas of BLM multi-use seem to function just fine. Research is a good thing... Ok. Let me you ask a 'pointed' question. Do you support Harry Reid? No. I have never support or voted for Harry Reid. But your current comment (s ) indicate differently. Does the definition of hypocrisy come to mind? I always attempt to avoid the least indication of hypocrisy or conflict of interest along w/ jealousy and envy.............................. Perhaps I am. However symbolically speaking I am SUPPORTING The U.S. Constitution, States Rights. And the FACT remains that the Feds (BLM ) were on State Owned Land enforcing something that The LOCAL County Sherriff was responsible for.....................
The BLM is ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. This is not a conspiracy, this is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, put into place by President Nixon at work. A completely different conservancy group went to the BLM to protect the turtles. The BLM is - by law - required to do an Environmental Assessment to determine if the two species can co-exist. They have to by law listen to other groups, and have public input. The work was done and Bundy was told to decrease his herd to 150 cattle per year. He did not do this, in fact, he continued to graze 500+ cattle on the land and then thumbed his nose at the fees.
I understand that many ranchers have been put out of business due to these new laws and environmentalists, which begs the question, “Why does your business not have a back-up plan? Why does your ranch depend on the Federal Govt., for your existence?” Isnt’ this exactly what we say to welfare recipients? That Welfare is not a “Career” option? Why are ranchers that MUST rely on Fed lands any different? They all had the opportuninty to homestead the land when it was open for homesteading but instead they bought what they wanted and relied on the kindness of the feds to get it done. If you have to rely on the feds for your existence in business, you've already lost a major battle.
As taken from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada#Before_1861: Over 80% of the state's area is owned by the federal government. The primary reason for this is that homesteads were not permitted in large enough sizes to be viable in the arid conditions that prevail throughout desert Nevada. Instead, early settlers would homestead land surrounding a water source, and then graze livestock on the adjacent public land, which is useless for agriculture without access to water (this pattern of ranching still prevails).**
Bundy was told his cattle were considered trespass cattle and he didn’t care. He went to court twice in 20 years and lost twice. His cattle were so poorly managed that some went feral and were a danger to others, see the photos attached.
The BLM was the GLO, which was put into place in 1812 and morphed into the BLM. Some have said that this man has some inherent right to graze because he was “there first, before the BLM.” But clearly, unless his family was there in 1812 or even in 1803 when the land was purchased from the French in the Louisiana Purchase, he was not there first. Now, Mexicans and Indians were, but I don’t see this type of support for their plight. So, we're going to use the "there first" argument for this white rancher and his family, but we're not too keen to use the same argument for illegal immigration - that's called hypocrisy in my book.
Someone said to me that he shouldn’t have to pay the fees, as they didn’t exist in 1877. That would be like telling your new landlord that just bought an apartment building as an investment that you were there first, therefore he can never raise your rent. Watch him laugh in your face.
There is another rumor that Harry Reid is all over this. Folks, this started in 1993, this has nothing to do with Reid, other than yes, there are plans for a solar farm as far as I can see - but that is recent. And so what? The BLM is the only govt., entity to MAKE money for the US Treasury, to the tune of 5 billion dollars a year. That’s BILLION with a B. The entire BLM budget per year is ONE billion. They PUT money into our economy and support their own budget - that ironically they have to ASK for from the federal govt., in the budgeting process. The make 5 billion and should be thankful that they get 1 billion to run their show.
IF they want to build a solar power plant on federal land and are stopped by feral cattle from a rogue rancher who refuses to manage his cattle or remove his cattle, then what are they do to? We are capitalists until it’s the federal govt., that wants to make money FOR US? Well, that sounds a bit hypocritical. We’re all for the ranchers right to make money, even at the cost of others, but not the BLM?
The BLM didn’t stop this round up – in my opinion – because they are wrong, they stopped because of the complete misinformation being put out, because someone MIGHT actually get hurt. This is what they were asked to do and now that they have, they must be “wrong” because they did it. It’s like dealing with a five year old mentality out there right now with militias and “cowboys”. This is making the real ranchers who pay their fees and abide by the rules look horrible.
BLM History and laws enacted:http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/arcata/headwaters/Falk.html
NEPA and the NEPA register: https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do
Environmentalist and activists feel that the BLM hides things from them, and in the past the NEPA documents were kept per state, there is work right now to have ALL state’s NEPA documents online within 2-3 years, all 10,000+ documents. That is what I mean by ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. The BLM folks are made of people like you and me. They do what they have to do because others make laws that make them do it!!
The land they manage is literally the most worthless land the US has to offer, and that is why no one – including Bundy – homesteaded the land when they could. You couldn’t feed a jack rabbit lunch on it if you had to (thanks for that line Jeri). In addition, the Forest Service and other agencies are involved but no one is calling to disband the Forest Service?? Why is that??
I’ve heard the argument that these lands should be “turned over” to the states. If the states wanted that land, it should have happened long before now. I am not educated enough on how it was broken down in the years that followed 1803, but I am going to educate myself on it. The states in some cases don’t even want the land and can’t produce the type of revenue it takes to manage the lands, hence, we have the Forest Service and the BLM.
Educate yourself on federal lands: http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us
You may share this status if you like, but I will ask that you do not change the content. I don't need my words or stance (opinion) taken out of context as some love to do on BOTH sides of every issue.
Nice!! | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| HotbearLVR - 2014-04-13 7:53 PM I have a serious question. The federal government "owns" about one-third of the entire land mass of the USA. Why? Most of this is in the west. I'm sure many of you have seen those maps that illustrate, in color, the vast amount of land supposedly "owned" by the federal government. Why does the fed need to own 85% of Nevada, and nearly 50% of California, for example? Can someone explain this? Is it because most of this land is "useless" anyway? If you draw a line from the Montana-North Dakota border all the way down to Mexico, about two-thirds of the land is federally owned. Everything east of there is probably 5-10% government owned.
Hotbear, please read my post above with links. | |
| | |
"aint no Barbie"
Posts: 2272
Location: san antonio texas | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 5:43 PM For the record, I am not "defending" my personal life. I am proud of who I am and my family. I meant it as a "teaching" moment. Every private rancher I know would jump at the chance to own a federal or state grazing permit. The better terms are 1/50th of the rent we all pay if we want more pasture. Young people can't get a start anymore because the rent it too high, land prices are through the roof and a bred cow costs $2000+. If people's anti-government sentiment is so high that they will side with a family who has obviously gone around the bend, they need to rethink things. Grazing permits that come up for lease are few and very far between and priced way out of reach of a common "rancher". The government, by letting him use that pasture for free, is robbing all of us of revenue that goes to benefit everyone. Why don't they show the people on tv who pay their rent and think these people are cheats? Because "TV" is not interested in the real story, it's not sensational enough. They want the ratings killer. It's why people watch bull riding I think, for the wrecks.
I am not taking any one side over another as far as BHW members go.... I however very very rarely trust the government. I absolutely 100% believe Bundy when he says he paid for years to the BLM on what their agreement was supposed to be and stopped after the BLM did NOT hold to their end of the agreement. There is mile after mile of red tape to contend with when dealing with any government entity. It kind of sounds like ranchers that don't have a goverment grazing lease are a little jealous of the ranchers that do. That's life as life is just flat unfair. To be honest I don't care about any of that. I have a big problem with government not holding to what they were formed to do. HAPPENS IN ALL GOVERNMENT RUN PROGRAMS. How about this tortoise refuge that our beloved government has been funding... that no longer can fund, so those tortoises will just be euthanized. I know that is trivial but that's such a waste and that is SO TYPICAL of a government run program. So when BLM comes in and bullies a citizen I have a problem with that. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| carlos - 2014-04-14 10:59 AM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 5:43 PM For the record, I am not "defending" my personal life. I am proud of who I am and my family. I meant it as a "teaching" moment. Every private rancher I know would jump at the chance to own a federal or state grazing permit. The better terms are 1/50th of the rent we all pay if we want more pasture. Young people can't get a start anymore because the rent it too high, land prices are through the roof and a bred cow costs $2000+. If people's anti-government sentiment is so high that they will side with a family who has obviously gone around the bend, they need to rethink things. Grazing permits that come up for lease are few and very far between and priced way out of reach of a common "rancher". The government, by letting him use that pasture for free, is robbing all of us of revenue that goes to benefit everyone. Why don't they show the people on tv who pay their rent and think these people are cheats? Because "TV" is not interested in the real story, it's not sensational enough. They want the ratings killer. It's why people watch bull riding I think, for the wrecks. I am not taking any one side over another as far as BHW members go.... I however very very rarely trust the government. I absolutely 100% believe Bundy when he says he paid for years to the BLM on what their agreement was supposed to be and stopped after the BLM did NOT hold to their end of the agreement. There is mile after mile of red tape to contend with when dealing with any government entity. It kind of sounds like ranchers that don't have a goverment grazing lease are a little jealous of the ranchers that do. That's life as life is just flat unfair. To be honest I don't care about any of that. I have a big problem with government not holding to what they were formed to do. HAPPENS IN ALL GOVERNMENT RUN PROGRAMS. How about this tortoise refuge that our beloved government has been funding... that no longer can fund, so those tortoises will just be euthanized. I know that is trivial but that's such a waste and that is SO TYPICAL of a government run program. So when BLM comes in and bullies a citizen I have a problem with that.
The BLM did not start the turtle business, another conservancy group did and the BLM by LAW, as stated above, has to respond to those interest groups. From my understanding that conservancy group went out of business and basically dropped all their turtles on the BLM doorstep. Turtles were old and sick and dying and many were put down.
The BLM does not go and seek out conservance groups to make them do more paperwork. However, if something is started, they have to respond and or produce environmental assessments by LAW. Again, these laws were put into place in 1970. The law in my personal opinion has been very cumbersome and has created MORE govt., intervention where often none is needed, but you have environmentalist that consider this land THEIR land as well as ranchers who consider it theirs.
The BLM to my understanding re-establishes leases just like any other business. The ranchers "idea" of what consititutes upgrades and the BLM's idea of the same, is just like anyone that is forced to share a bathroom, one person thinks one thing and another thinks another.
I'm not really on sides either, I'm trying to show the other side, that is not being shown at all.
Here is a neat white paper I found that goes even deeper into the issue. I realize that the rancher thinks he's fighting a MUCH bigger issue - federal lands in states, but he's biting off a lot and I don't see any lawyers (shocking) rushing to his aid. If there is a case to be won, usually there will be a lawyer somewhere trying to get to him to help him. He's lost two court battles so far, again, because liberals - who want turtles and mice protected - and ranchers - who want cheap grazing land - are at odds - the BLM is simply trying to do their jobs based on the laws in place. IMO of course.
http://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/Jurisdiction.pdf
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-14 11:24 AM
foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:02 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:58 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:50 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:43 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:37 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:15 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election. Bscanchaser, are you familiar with the reports that Harry Reid and Son are involved w/ China and Nevada Land for Energy Production? And these 'goings on' are dated to back to 2003 minimally. Historical Research is a good thing. Also Obama and The Rest of The Executive Branch of Government is heavily influenced by The Chinese Government due to Chinese Government holding so much FEDERAL not State Debt. Yes I have read about this. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how a 9,000 acre solar/wind facility would shut down a 600,000 acre multi-use area...especially when there are windmills in various other regions in the state and other areas of BLM multi-use seem to function just fine. Research is a good thing... Ok. Let me you ask a 'pointed' question. Do you support Harry Reid? No. I have never support or voted for Harry Reid. But your current comment (s ) indicate differently. Does the definition of hypocrisy come to mind? I always attempt to avoid the least indication of hypocrisy or conflict of interest along w/ jealousy and envy.............................. Perhaps I am. However symbolically speaking I am SUPPORTING The U.S. Constitution, States Rights. And the FACT remains that the Feds (BLM ) were on State Owned Land enforcing something that The LOCAL County Sherriff was responsible for.....................
The BLM is ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. This is not a conspiracy, this is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, put into place by President Nixon at work. A completely different conservancy group went to the BLM to protect the turtles. The BLM is - by law - required to do an Environmental Assessment to determine if the two species can co-exist. They have to by law listen to other groups, and have public input. The work was done and Bundy was told to decrease his herd to 150 cattle per year. He did not do this, in fact, he continued to graze 500+ cattle on the land and then thumbed his nose at the fees.
I understand that many ranchers have been put out of business due to these new laws and environmentalists, which begs the question, “Why does your business not have a back-up plan? Why does your ranch depend on the Federal Govt., for your existence?” Isnt’ this exactly what we say to welfare recipients? That Welfare is not a “Career” option? Why are ranchers that MUST rely on Fed lands any different? They all had the opportuninty to homestead the land when it was open for homesteading but instead they bought what they wanted and relied on the kindness of the feds to get it done. If you have to rely on the feds for your existence in business, you've already lost a major battle.
As taken from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada#Before_1861: Over 80% of the state's area is owned by the federal government. The primary reason for this is that homesteads were not permitted in large enough sizes to be viable in the arid conditions that prevail throughout desert Nevada. Instead, early settlers would homestead land surrounding a water source, and then graze livestock on the adjacent public land, which is useless for agriculture without access to water (this pattern of ranching still prevails).**
Bundy was told his cattle were considered trespass cattle and he didn’t care. He went to court twice in 20 years and lost twice. His cattle were so poorly managed that some went feral and were a danger to others, see the photos attached.
The BLM was the GLO, which was put into place in 1812 and morphed into the BLM. Some have said that this man has some inherent right to graze because he was “there first, before the BLM.” But clearly, unless his family was there in 1812 or even in 1803 when the land was purchased from the French in the Louisiana Purchase, he was not there first. Now, Mexicans and Indians were, but I don’t see this type of support for their plight. So, we're going to use the "there first" argument for this white rancher and his family, but we're not too keen to use the same argument for illegal immigration - that's called hypocrisy in my book.
Someone said to me that he shouldn’t have to pay the fees, as they didn’t exist in 1877. That would be like telling your new landlord that just bought an apartment building as an investment that you were there first, therefore he can never raise your rent. Watch him laugh in your face.
There is another rumor that Harry Reid is all over this. Folks, this started in 1993, this has nothing to do with Reid, other than yes, there are plans for a solar farm as far as I can see - but that is recent. And so what? The BLM is the only govt., entity to MAKE money for the US Treasury, to the tune of 5 billion dollars a year. That’s BILLION with a B. The entire BLM budget per year is ONE billion. They PUT money into our economy and support their own budget - that ironically they have to ASK for from the federal govt., in the budgeting process. The make 5 billion and should be thankful that they get 1 billion to run their show.
IF they want to build a solar power plant on federal land and are stopped by feral cattle from a rogue rancher who refuses to manage his cattle or remove his cattle, then what are they do to? We are capitalists until it’s the federal govt., that wants to make money FOR US? Well, that sounds a bit hypocritical. We’re all for the ranchers right to make money, even at the cost of others, but not the BLM?
The BLM didn’t stop this round up – in my opinion – because they are wrong, they stopped because of the complete misinformation being put out, because someone MIGHT actually get hurt. This is what they were asked to do and now that they have, they must be “wrong” because they did it. It’s like dealing with a five year old mentality out there right now with militias and “cowboys”. This is making the real ranchers who pay their fees and abide by the rules look horrible.
BLM History and laws enacted:http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/arcata/headwaters/Falk.html
NEPA and the NEPA register: https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do
Environmentalist and activists feel that the BLM hides things from them, and in the past the NEPA documents were kept per state, there is work right now to have ALL state’s NEPA documents online within 2-3 years, all 10,000+ documents. That is what I mean by ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. The BLM folks are made of people like you and me. They do what they have to do because others make laws that make them do it!!
The land they manage is literally the most worthless land the US has to offer, and that is why no one – including Bundy – homesteaded the land when they could. You couldn’t feed a jack rabbit lunch on it if you had to. In addition, the Forest Service and other agencies are involved but no one is calling to disband the Forest Service?? Why is that??
I’ve heard the argument that these lands should be “turned over” to the states. If the states wanted that land, it should have happened long before now. I am not educated enough on how it was broken down in the years that followed 1803, but I am going to educate myself on it. The states in some cases don’t even want the land and can’t produce the type of revenue it takes to manage the lands, hence, we have the Forest Service and the BLM.
Educate yourself on federal lands: http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us
Here is a thought I have not stated before:
The BLM, IRS (to a certain extent) and EPA, all make and enforce Policy that is NOT Constitutional Legislation, but yet is ENFORCED as if said Policy IS Constitutional Legislation.
This observation is completely akin to the PROVEN Cause of The American Revolution: Taxation without Representation. IE: The Original Tea Party in the 1770s over a 3% on Tea. This event happened in Boston Harbor, Mass. | |
| | |
 Cyber World Challenged
Posts: 2526
Location: My Own Little World | OK, here's my 2 cents worth. I have read A LOT of the history of both the Bundy family lease and the ownership of the land by the Fed. I don't need to rehash it over again, as many of you have already read it too. For those of you that have stated that this is a bad situation on either side, well, that's the best assesment of any. I live here in Nevada and this family is part of our rodeo family too. I don't claim to have the perfect answer to resolve this situation for either side. What I do know is what this whole thing means to me as an American. I am weary of an overbearing hypocritical government. This is not about tortoises, it's a show of power. Here recently, the Fed euthanized more than 100 tortoises due to lack of funding to manage them. But yet they had over $3 million to do this round up? Yes, Mr. Bundy has been in and out of the courts for over 20 years trying to win their battle. Now, I wasn't in court to hear testimony of either side, so, I claim no knowledge of that part of the story. What I believe about it though is that Mr Bundy took the stand that many ranchers either could not or would not. The stand being that the BLM is not using consistent, common sense practices when it comes to our public lands. This happened when the Fed was shut down and denying citizens entrance to OUR national parks. (whole other argument) The BLM again mismanaged the situation with the cattle. They ran the s**t out of the cow calf pairs in 90 degree temps with helicopters. How did that help the precious tortoise? Just made the cattle run wild, trampling everything in their path. The cattle were literally run to death. Then they purposefully chased cow calf pairs through the river. Many calves drowned because of stress and being too young to cross. Many more calves were separated from their mothers and just left to fend on their own. Then BLM took in heavy equipment and destroyed the spring fed water sources. I get the fact that the courts may have been on the side of the BLM but I have 2 questions: Why did they wait so long to do this? And if they are so interested in recouping the money they are owed, why not use better tactics to gather cattle? Killing them means no financial return. I feel it is time the BLM be run by the public and have their positions be voted on. These are public lands and should be run by the public. | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | smiley - 2014-04-14 11:39 AM
HotbearLVR - 2014-04-13 7:53 PM I have a serious question. The federal government "owns" about one-third of the entire land mass of the USA. Why? Most of this is in the west. I'm sure many of you have seen those maps that illustrate, in color, the vast amount of land supposedly "owned" by the federal government. Why does the fed need to own 85% of Nevada, and nearly 50% of California, for example? Can someone explain this? Is it because most of this land is "useless" anyway? If you draw a line from the Montana-North Dakota border all the way down to Mexico, about two-thirds of the land is federally owned. Everything east of there is probably 5-10% government owned.
Hotbear, please read my post above with links.
You did a great job of explaining this, Smiley. I still don't understand how so much of the west is owned by the federal government. I do see what you are saying, but 50% of California?
Anyway, like I said, I think this is just a harbinger of things to come. I think we will see this sort of thing more and more. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | rodeorun68 - 2014-04-14 1:12 PM
OK, here's my 2 cents worth. I have read A LOT of the history of both the Bundy family lease and the ownership of the land by the Fed. I don't need to rehash it over again, as many of you have already read it too. For those of you that have stated that this is a bad situation on either side, well, that's the best assesment of any. I live here in Nevada and this family is part of our rodeo family too. I don't claim to have the perfect answer to resolve this situation for either side. What I do know is what this whole thing means to me as an American. I am weary of an overbearing hypocritical government. This is not about tortoises, it's a show of power. Here recently, the Fed euthanized more than 100 tortoises due to lack of funding to manage them. But yet they had over $3 million to do this round up? Yes, Mr. Bundy has been in and out of the courts for over 20 years trying to win their battle. Now, I wasn't in court to hear testimony of either side, so, I claim no knowledge of that part of the story. What I believe about it though is that Mr Bundy took the stand that many ranchers either could not or would not. The stand being that the BLM is not using consistent, common sense practices when it comes to our public lands. This happened when the Fed was shut down and denying citizens entrance to OUR national parks. (whole other argument) The BLM again mismanaged the situation with the cattle. They ran the s**t out of the cow calf pairs in 90 degree temps with helicopters. How did that help the precious tortoise? Just made the cattle run wild, trampling everything in their path. The cattle were literally run to death. Then they purposefully chased cow calf pairs through the river. Many calves drowned because of stress and being too young to cross. Many more calves were separated from their mothers and just left to fend on their own. Then BLM took in heavy equipment and destroyed the spring fed water sources. I get the fact that the courts may have been on the side of the BLM but I have 2 questions: Why did they wait so long to do this? And if they are so interested in recouping the money they are owed, why not use better tactics to gather cattle? Killing them means no financial return. I feel it is time the BLM be run by the public and have their positions be voted on. These are public lands and should be run by the public.
More legitimate unanswered questions......................................... | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | rodeorun68 - 2014-04-14 1:12 PM
OK, here's my 2 cents worth. I have read A LOT of the history of both the Bundy family lease and the ownership of the land by the Fed. I don't need to rehash it over again, as many of you have already read it too. For those of you that have stated that this is a bad situation on either side, well, that's the best assesment of any. I live here in Nevada and this family is part of our rodeo family too. I don't claim to have the perfect answer to resolve this situation for either side. What I do know is what this whole thing means to me as an American. I am weary of an overbearing hypocritical government. This is not about tortoises, it's a show of power. Here recently, the Fed euthanized more than 100 tortoises due to lack of funding to manage them. But yet they had over $3 million to do this round up? Yes, Mr. Bundy has been in and out of the courts for over 20 years trying to win their battle. Now, I wasn't in court to hear testimony of either side, so, I claim no knowledge of that part of the story. What I believe about it though is that Mr Bundy took the stand that many ranchers either could not or would not. The stand being that the BLM is not using consistent, common sense practices when it comes to our public lands. This happened when the Fed was shut down and denying citizens entrance to OUR national parks. (whole other argument) The BLM again mismanaged the situation with the cattle. They ran the s**t out of the cow calf pairs in 90 degree temps with helicopters. How did that help the precious tortoise? Just made the cattle run wild, trampling everything in their path. The cattle were literally run to death. Then they purposefully chased cow calf pairs through the river. Many calves drowned because of stress and being too young to cross. Many more calves were separated from their mothers and just left to fend on their own. Then BLM took in heavy equipment and destroyed the spring fed water sources. I get the fact that the courts may have been on the side of the BLM but I have 2 questions: Why did they wait so long to do this? And if they are so interested in recouping the money they are owed, why not use better tactics to gather cattle? Killing them means no financial return. I feel it is time the BLM be run by the public and have their positions be voted on. These are public lands and should be run by the public.
And The IRS Audit has yet to commence. | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | foundation horse - 2014-04-14 1:18 PM rodeorun68 - 2014-04-14 1:12 PM OK, here's my 2 cents worth. I have read A LOT of the history of both the Bundy family lease and the ownership of the land by the Fed. I don't need to rehash it over again, as many of you have already read it too. For those of you that have stated that this is a bad situation on either side, well, that's the best assesment of any. I live here in Nevada and this family is part of our rodeo family too. I don't claim to have the perfect answer to resolve this situation for either side. What I do know is what this whole thing means to me as an American. I am weary of an overbearing hypocritical government. This is not about tortoises, it's a show of power. Here recently, the Fed euthanized more than 100 tortoises due to lack of funding to manage them. But yet they had over $3 million to do this round up? Yes, Mr. Bundy has been in and out of the courts for over 20 years trying to win their battle. Now, I wasn't in court to hear testimony of either side, so, I claim no knowledge of that part of the story. What I believe about it though is that Mr Bundy took the stand that many ranchers either could not or would not. The stand being that the BLM is not using consistent, common sense practices when it comes to our public lands. This happened when the Fed was shut down and denying citizens entrance to OUR national parks. (whole other argument) The BLM again mismanaged the situation with the cattle. They ran the s**t out of the cow calf pairs in 90 degree temps with helicopters. How did that help the precious tortoise? Just made the cattle run wild, trampling everything in their path. The cattle were literally run to death. Then they purposefully chased cow calf pairs through the river. Many calves drowned because of stress and being too young to cross. Many more calves were separated from their mothers and just left to fend on their own. Then BLM took in heavy equipment and destroyed the spring fed water sources. I get the fact that the courts may have been on the side of the BLM but I have 2 questions: Why did they wait so long to do this? And if they are so interested in recouping the money they are owed, why not use better tactics to gather cattle? Killing them means no financial return. I feel it is time the BLM be run by the public and have their positions be voted on. These are public lands and should be run by the public. And The IRS Audit has yet to commence.
lol...isn't that the truth...... | |
| | |
Cyber World Challenged
Posts: 2526
Location: My Own Little World | foundation horse - 2014-04-14 11:18 AM rodeorun68 - 2014-04-14 1:12 PM OK, here's my 2 cents worth. I have read A LOT of the history of both the Bundy family lease and the ownership of the land by the Fed. I don't need to rehash it over again, as many of you have already read it too. For those of you that have stated that this is a bad situation on either side, well, that's the best assesment of any. I live here in Nevada and this family is part of our rodeo family too. I don't claim to have the perfect answer to resolve this situation for either side. What I do know is what this whole thing means to me as an American. I am weary of an overbearing hypocritical government. This is not about tortoises, it's a show of power. Here recently, the Fed euthanized more than 100 tortoises due to lack of funding to manage them. But yet they had over $3 million to do this round up? Yes, Mr. Bundy has been in and out of the courts for over 20 years trying to win their battle. Now, I wasn't in court to hear testimony of either side, so, I claim no knowledge of that part of the story. What I believe about it though is that Mr Bundy took the stand that many ranchers either could not or would not. The stand being that the BLM is not using consistent, common sense practices when it comes to our public lands. This happened when the Fed was shut down and denying citizens entrance to OUR national parks. (whole other argument) The BLM again mismanaged the situation with the cattle. They ran the s**t out of the cow calf pairs in 90 degree temps with helicopters. How did that help the precious tortoise? Just made the cattle run wild, trampling everything in their path. The cattle were literally run to death. Then they purposefully chased cow calf pairs through the river. Many calves drowned because of stress and being too young to cross. Many more calves were separated from their mothers and just left to fend on their own. Then BLM took in heavy equipment and destroyed the spring fed water sources. I get the fact that the courts may have been on the side of the BLM but I have 2 questions: Why did they wait so long to do this? And if they are so interested in recouping the money they are owed, why not use better tactics to gather cattle? Killing them means no financial return. I feel it is time the BLM be run by the public and have their positions be voted on. These are public lands and should be run by the public. And The IRS Audit has yet to commence.
Oh and the IRS......FH you are so right. I had best keep my mouth shut on that subject because I will probably be the next person on the terrorist list lol | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | rodeorun68 - 2014-04-14 1:21 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-14 11:18 AM rodeorun68 - 2014-04-14 1:12 PM OK, here's my 2 cents worth. I have read A LOT of the history of both the Bundy family lease and the ownership of the land by the Fed. I don't need to rehash it over again, as many of you have already read it too. For those of you that have stated that this is a bad situation on either side, well, that's the best assesment of any. I live here in Nevada and this family is part of our rodeo family too. I don't claim to have the perfect answer to resolve this situation for either side. What I do know is what this whole thing means to me as an American. I am weary of an overbearing hypocritical government. This is not about tortoises, it's a show of power. Here recently, the Fed euthanized more than 100 tortoises due to lack of funding to manage them. But yet they had over $3 million to do this round up? Yes, Mr. Bundy has been in and out of the courts for over 20 years trying to win their battle. Now, I wasn't in court to hear testimony of either side, so, I claim no knowledge of that part of the story. What I believe about it though is that Mr Bundy took the stand that many ranchers either could not or would not. The stand being that the BLM is not using consistent, common sense practices when it comes to our public lands. This happened when the Fed was shut down and denying citizens entrance to OUR national parks. (whole other argument) The BLM again mismanaged the situation with the cattle. They ran the s**t out of the cow calf pairs in 90 degree temps with helicopters. How did that help the precious tortoise? Just made the cattle run wild, trampling everything in their path. The cattle were literally run to death. Then they purposefully chased cow calf pairs through the river. Many calves drowned because of stress and being too young to cross. Many more calves were separated from their mothers and just left to fend on their own. Then BLM took in heavy equipment and destroyed the spring fed water sources. I get the fact that the courts may have been on the side of the BLM but I have 2 questions: Why did they wait so long to do this? And if they are so interested in recouping the money they are owed, why not use better tactics to gather cattle? Killing them means no financial return. I feel it is time the BLM be run by the public and have their positions be voted on. These are public lands and should be run by the public. And The IRS Audit has yet to commence.
You and I will be there together then! heheeheheh
| |
| | |
Cyber World Challenged
Posts: 2526
Location: My Own Little World | foundation horse - 2014-04-14 11:25 AM rodeorun68 - 2014-04-14 1:21 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 11:18 AM rodeorun68 - 2014-04-14 1:12 PM OK, here's my 2 cents worth. I have read A LOT of the history of both the Bundy family lease and the ownership of the land by the Fed. I don't need to rehash it over again, as many of you have already read it too. For those of you that have stated that this is a bad situation on either side, well, that's the best assesment of any. I live here in Nevada and this family is part of our rodeo family too. I don't claim to have the perfect answer to resolve this situation for either side. What I do know is what this whole thing means to me as an American. I am weary of an overbearing hypocritical government. This is not about tortoises, it's a show of power. Here recently, the Fed euthanized more than 100 tortoises due to lack of funding to manage them. But yet they had over $3 million to do this round up? Yes, Mr. Bundy has been in and out of the courts for over 20 years trying to win their battle. Now, I wasn't in court to hear testimony of either side, so, I claim no knowledge of that part of the story. What I believe about it though is that Mr Bundy took the stand that many ranchers either could not or would not. The stand being that the BLM is not using consistent, common sense practices when it comes to our public lands. This happened when the Fed was shut down and denying citizens entrance to OUR national parks. (whole other argument) The BLM again mismanaged the situation with the cattle. They ran the s**t out of the cow calf pairs in 90 degree temps with helicopters. How did that help the precious tortoise? Just made the cattle run wild, trampling everything in their path. The cattle were literally run to death. Then they purposefully chased cow calf pairs through the river. Many calves drowned because of stress and being too young to cross. Many more calves were separated from their mothers and just left to fend on their own. Then BLM took in heavy equipment and destroyed the spring fed water sources. I get the fact that the courts may have been on the side of the BLM but I have 2 questions: Why did they wait so long to do this? And if they are so interested in recouping the money they are owed, why not use better tactics to gather cattle? Killing them means no financial return. I feel it is time the BLM be run by the public and have their positions be voted on. These are public lands and should be run by the public. And The IRS Audit has yet to commence. You and I will be there together then! heheeheheh
It wouldn't be the first time I was on someone's list  | |
| | |
New Info Detective
Posts: 1551
| Have no idea to the validity of this article. If there is a shred of truth, I think it should be checked out.
http://www.independentsentinel.com/chilling-truth-siege-of-bundy-ranch-reaches-into-the-white-house/
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Here is another incident of The Feds fulfilling the role of Jack Booted Thugs.
This article also clearly articulates the reasoning, history and timeline of ranchers being forced out by The Feds!
Smiley & Hotbear, ya'll really need to read this!
http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-family...
FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH-Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!!
April 12, 2014 / Clark Kent / 141 comments
When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other.
Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property.
Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived.
Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service.
Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board.
Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.”
His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.”
Last hope for ranchers?
Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States.
Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution.
The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000 acres and includes some of the most beautiful land in southwest New Mexico, situated between and including portions of the http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&state=n... and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas.
Laney’s ancestors began the “Laney Cattle Company” there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, “prior appropriation” of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the “rights” to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water.
Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government.
In 1899, the federal government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney’s ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights.
Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered “public land.”
Specifically, “It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land,” according to Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co.
Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain.
Forest Service stepped in
When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas. The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes.
The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water. The designated area was called an “allotment.”
The ranchers paid the Forest Service a fee for their adjudication service, a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access. The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment.
Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a “license” required by the federal government.
Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations.
Problems from outset
Laney’s problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985.
The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner. The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch.
The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified. Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement.
When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land.
Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s.
They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government.
They believe the government’s original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land.
Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights.
Ridding the West of ranchers
For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states.
Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, there was a concerted, coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers. In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus.
The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans.
Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people. The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor.
Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government.
Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project.
Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol’-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives.
Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government’s willingness to advance the goals of the Wildlands Project.
The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands” which the federal government had claimed to be federal land.
Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.”
The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights.
Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build.
He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back.
These ranchers are from the same stock of ranchers who pushed the United States all the way to the Pacific ocean; once riled, they may push the Forest Service all the way back to Washington.
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-14 9:59 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 10:30 AM I've never denied a certain idealistic view...not so much the pacifist, but I don't 'get' people who refuse to study & dig for the truth...no different than people saying we're a Democracy! Say something enough times and people believe it.
I never said the fed can't 'own' land...they can within the perimeters set forth by the Constitution...it does not include large tracts of land such as we are now dealing with, granted, a state can abandon land to fed, however, the fed is not in the position of accepting as it undermines the basic rights of the citizens.
The Eisenhower Report of 1962 lists ALL lands that the fed is affiliated with, the year it was 'acquired' and the jurisdictional code applied. My issue with the federal judicial authority concerning these lands is that it's been determined that the authority lies with the state. These are issues that people need to understand so we may get on the same page...I also take issue wth the many corrupt instances of judicial overreach. It happens. And I'm not the threat...apathy is.
Anyhow...I've posted all the info I have in this & other threads...for those who are interested in the letter of the law...it's there.
What you don't get is people who dig for the truth and come to a different conclusion than you. You're deriving your position based on op-ed pieces and not the actual legal documents. Much of your info has included agenda drive commentary with documentation and at least once you left out a key phrase to a constitutional article.
Let me ask you this..... Nevada has had statehood since 1864. Why have they made no attemt to aquire deed to this land? Why are they not stepping up now saying this is our land?
BTW.... I'd love for the courts to rule that I'm wrong.
I posted links to the Eisenhower Report of 1962 and the listings of the land in Nevada whcich clearly shows Clark county & the land in question as a 'Code 4' jurisdiction. You continue to deny it has any bearing.
I don't know the answer to your question...I've asked it myself, but, that in no way is an abandonment. There've been attempsts over the century's to right this wrong, alas, the congressmen from the east have a vote...it's money out of their pockets. Which reminds me, Smiley...those $$$ you speak of is indeed the root of the evil...this is the money that congress 'fights' over year after year...it's the money that belongs rightfully to the states. Why can't we get our land? If we have to ask...This is the greed in America. This is why all of you maintain support for the fed...because you think it's yours now...it's the carrot on a stick & you won't give it to the rightful owners. The states in which it came from.
Shame. Shame.
I can see that this conversation will go nowhere because the choice of right & wrong demands admittance of immense greed & corruption.
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-14 11:32 AM smiley - 2014-04-14 11:24 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:02 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:58 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:50 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:43 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:37 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:15 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election. Bscanchaser, are you familiar with the reports that Harry Reid and Son are involved w/ China and Nevada Land for Energy Production? And these 'goings on' are dated to back to 2003 minimally. Historical Research is a good thing. Also Obama and The Rest of The Executive Branch of Government is heavily influenced by The Chinese Government due to Chinese Government holding so much FEDERAL not State Debt. Yes I have read about this. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how a 9,000 acre solar/wind facility would shut down a 600,000 acre multi-use area...especially when there are windmills in various other regions in the state and other areas of BLM multi-use seem to function just fine. Research is a good thing... Ok. Let me you ask a 'pointed' question. Do you support Harry Reid? No. I have never support or voted for Harry Reid. But your current comment (s ) indicate differently. Does the definition of hypocrisy come to mind? I always attempt to avoid the least indication of hypocrisy or conflict of interest along w/ jealousy and envy.............................. Perhaps I am. However symbolically speaking I am SUPPORTING The U.S. Constitution, States Rights. And the FACT remains that the Feds (BLM ) were on State Owned Land enforcing something that The LOCAL County Sherriff was responsible for.....................
The BLM is ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. This is not a conspiracy, this is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, put into place by President Nixon at work. A completely different conservancy group went to the BLM to protect the turtles. The BLM is - by law - required to do an Environmental Assessment to determine if the two species can co-exist. They have to by law listen to other groups, and have public input. The work was done and Bundy was told to decrease his herd to 150 cattle per year. He did not do this, in fact, he continued to graze 500+ cattle on the land and then thumbed his nose at the fees.
I understand that many ranchers have been put out of business due to these new laws and environmentalists, which begs the question, “Why does your business not have a back-up plan? Why does your ranch depend on the Federal Govt., for your existence?” Isnt’ this exactly what we say to welfare recipients? That Welfare is not a “Career” option? Why are ranchers that MUST rely on Fed lands any different? They all had the opportuninty to homestead the land when it was open for homesteading but instead they bought what they wanted and relied on the kindness of the feds to get it done. If you have to rely on the feds for your existence in business, you've already lost a major battle.
As taken from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada#Before_1861: Over 80% of the state's area is owned by the federal government. The primary reason for this is that homesteads were not permitted in large enough sizes to be viable in the arid conditions that prevail throughout desert Nevada. Instead, early settlers would homestead land surrounding a water source, and then graze livestock on the adjacent public land, which is useless for agriculture without access to water (this pattern of ranching still prevails).**
Bundy was told his cattle were considered trespass cattle and he didn’t care. He went to court twice in 20 years and lost twice. His cattle were so poorly managed that some went feral and were a danger to others, see the photos attached.
The BLM was the GLO, which was put into place in 1812 and morphed into the BLM. Some have said that this man has some inherent right to graze because he was “there first, before the BLM.” But clearly, unless his family was there in 1812 or even in 1803 when the land was purchased from the French in the Louisiana Purchase, he was not there first. Now, Mexicans and Indians were, but I don’t see this type of support for their plight. So, we're going to use the "there first" argument for this white rancher and his family, but we're not too keen to use the same argument for illegal immigration - that's called hypocrisy in my book.
Someone said to me that he shouldn’t have to pay the fees, as they didn’t exist in 1877. That would be like telling your new landlord that just bought an apartment building as an investment that you were there first, therefore he can never raise your rent. Watch him laugh in your face.
There is another rumor that Harry Reid is all over this. Folks, this started in 1993, this has nothing to do with Reid, other than yes, there are plans for a solar farm as far as I can see - but that is recent. And so what? The BLM is the only govt., entity to MAKE money for the US Treasury, to the tune of 5 billion dollars a year. That’s BILLION with a B. The entire BLM budget per year is ONE billion. They PUT money into our economy and support their own budget - that ironically they have to ASK for from the federal govt., in the budgeting process. The make 5 billion and should be thankful that they get 1 billion to run their show.
IF they want to build a solar power plant on federal land and are stopped by feral cattle from a rogue rancher who refuses to manage his cattle or remove his cattle, then what are they do to? We are capitalists until it’s the federal govt., that wants to make money FOR US? Well, that sounds a bit hypocritical. We’re all for the ranchers right to make money, even at the cost of others, but not the BLM?
The BLM didn’t stop this round up – in my opinion – because they are wrong, they stopped because of the complete misinformation being put out, because someone MIGHT actually get hurt. This is what they were asked to do and now that they have, they must be “wrong” because they did it. It’s like dealing with a five year old mentality out there right now with militias and “cowboys”. This is making the real ranchers who pay their fees and abide by the rules look horrible.
BLM History and laws enacted:http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/arcata/headwaters/Falk.html
NEPA and the NEPA register: https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do
Environmentalist and activists feel that the BLM hides things from them, and in the past the NEPA documents were kept per state, there is work right now to have ALL state’s NEPA documents online within 2-3 years, all 10,000+ documents. That is what I mean by ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. The BLM folks are made of people like you and me. They do what they have to do because others make laws that make them do it!!
The land they manage is literally the most worthless land the US has to offer, and that is why no one – including Bundy – homesteaded the land when they could. You couldn’t feed a jack rabbit lunch on it if you had to. In addition, the Forest Service and other agencies are involved but no one is calling to disband the Forest Service?? Why is that??
I’ve heard the argument that these lands should be “turned over” to the states. If the states wanted that land, it should have happened long before now. I am not educated enough on how it was broken down in the years that followed 1803, but I am going to educate myself on it. The states in some cases don’t even want the land and can’t produce the type of revenue it takes to manage the lands, hence, we have the Forest Service and the BLM.
Educate yourself on federal lands: http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us
Here is a thought I have not stated before: The BLM, IRS (to a certain extent ) and EPA, all make and enforce Policy that is NOT Constitutional Legislation, but yet is ENFORCED as if said Policy IS Constitutional Legislation. This observation is completely akin to the PROVEN Cause of The American Revolution: Taxation without Representation. IE: The Original Tea Party in the 1770s over a 3% on Tea. This event happened in Boston Harbor, Mass.
And there are groups that are taking on the Federal Govt., over just that. However, illegally grazing your cattle for 20+ years is not the way to respond, and then to put other people in dangers way, as well as your cattle, it's not only not responsible, but if someone gets hurt, I can easily see a family having a civil suit against Bundy.
One person's idea of "consitutional" is not anothers. Hence, the court system. There is a different NV family the Hages, who have won, finally in court, although they have yet to see a dime. They have written a book called Storms over Rangelands. I have yet to see that family or any of the other "ranchers that have been pushed out" coming to the Bundy's aid.
IT will be interesting to see the outcome, but again, fighting the system by hanging out in NV on your ranch, letting your cattle become feral is not the way to fight unconsitutional laws. | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | The wilderness area/corridor is part of Agenda 21. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| rodeorun68 - 2014-04-14 12:12 PM OK, here's my 2 cents worth. I have read A LOT of the history of both the Bundy family lease and the ownership of the land by the Fed. I don't need to rehash it over again, as many of you have already read it too. For those of you that have stated that this is a bad situation on either side, well, that's the best assesment of any. I live here in Nevada and this family is part of our rodeo family too. I don't claim to have the perfect answer to resolve this situation for either side. What I do know is what this whole thing means to me as an American. I am weary of an overbearing hypocritical government. This is not about tortoises, it's a show of power. Here recently, the Fed euthanized more than 100 tortoises due to lack of funding to manage them. But yet they had over $3 million to do this round up? Yes, Mr. Bundy has been in and out of the courts for over 20 years trying to win their battle. Now, I wasn't in court to hear testimony of either side, so, I claim no knowledge of that part of the story. What I believe about it though is that Mr Bundy took the stand that many ranchers either could not or would not. The stand being that the BLM is not using consistent, common sense practices when it comes to our public lands. This happened when the Fed was shut down and denying citizens entrance to OUR national parks. (whole other argument) The BLM again mismanaged the situation with the cattle. They ran the s**t out of the cow calf pairs in 90 degree temps with helicopters. How did that help the precious tortoise? Just made the cattle run wild, trampling everything in their path. The cattle were literally run to death. Then they purposefully chased cow calf pairs through the river. Many calves drowned because of stress and being too young to cross. Many more calves were separated from their mothers and just left to fend on their own. Then BLM took in heavy equipment and destroyed the spring fed water sources. I get the fact that the courts may have been on the side of the BLM but I have 2 questions: Why did they wait so long to do this? And if they are so interested in recouping the money they are owed, why not use better tactics to gather cattle? Killing them means no financial return. I feel it is time the BLM be run by the public and have their positions be voted on. These are public lands and should be run by the public.
This may have started over a turtle, but in now way shape or form is it over a turtle now. It's over blantant disregard for the law. You, and Bundy, can tell the BLM they are mismanging all over the place, but the time and place to do that, is at public meetings that the BLM holds, it's to you representatives, it's to Congress, it's to the President if you like, but he is not a real ranchman in my eyes, as HE LET the BLM - and it's NOT their job to care if the cows are calving - come in and round up his cattle (SOME FERAL) with helicopters. He could have stopped all this before now, he chose not to, because that doesn't solicit sympathy.
The BLM has to go through so many steps to do anythign it's crazy, they are simply following the laws put in place in 1970 by President Nixon. They don't sit around a table and think, "You know, that BUndy is really getting on my nerves"
They waited, because they were in court, to my understanding, from the outside looking in.
How would you have had them do it differently? They have clearly tried many different tactics. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Turner1 - 2014-04-14 1:29 PM
Have no idea to the validity of this article. If there is a shred of truth, I think it should be checked out.
http://www.independentsentinel.com/chilling-truth-siege-of-bundy-ranch-reaches-into-the-white-house/
There are many sources and references in this article that reveal just how much is @ stake w/ The Feds riding roughshod over Private American Citizens.
Live link:
http://www.independentsentinel.com/chilling-truth-siege-of-bundy-ra...
Chilling Truth: The Siege of the Bundy Ranch Reaches into the White House
April 13, 2014
By Sara Noble
Cliven Bundy
Cliven Bundy, can a cowboy defeat the Marxists?
In the end, there is only one reason why the Bundy ranch was besieged. President Obama had to have taken the lead. He knew it was going on and he sanctioned it. Beyond oil, solar, and Chinese Communists with money, lurks Obama’s Agenda.
InfoWars has found a smoking gun in the case of embattled rancher Cliven Bundy. A lucrative contract – which will benefit Harry Reid and his son Rory Reid – specifically mentions the need to rid the land of Cliven Bundy. In addition, Natural News pointed out that the BLM is in the business of selling lucrative oil and gas leases. It does answer the question, Why now?
There is a much bigger picture in all of this, however, and that is the fact Mr. Obama believes the government should control the land and water in the United States. He sees the government as the protector of the nation’s resources. It is his belief. He does not respect private property – it is the government’s to take. That should now be obvious to everyone.
Mr. Obama is social engineering citizens off their land into congested hubs to preserve the land for nature and to have it available for government use, maybe even to share the resources with U.N. member nations such as China, because he believes in globalism, an extreme form of globalism. He has already expressed a desire to share the wealth from our resources with the world through treaties such as The Law of the Sea treaty.
Natural News reported that the Bureau of Land Management is in the business of leasing government lands to energy companies. Significant exploratory drilling is being conducted in precisely the same area where the Bundy family has been running cattle since the 1870's. The “Gold Butte” area can be clearly seen in the map of areas drilled (purple demarcations).
drilling
Oil has been found in nearby areas but oil and gas drilling have worked alongside ranching over the years without a problem. Of course, if the government can lease the land on which the cattle graze, it will be lucrative for them.
In July 2011, the federal government agreed to allow China to buy up 600,000 acres of gas & oil fields in Texas. This is the same administration that would not allow new drilling; kicked Shell out of Alaska after billions of dollars of investments; shut down most offshore drilling; and tried to shut down Texas oil fields on the remote possibility that it might harm a tiny useless lizard that was most often known for being road kill.
The acreage takes in the Gold Butte area where Bundy grazes his cattle.
Mr. Obama prefers solar and windmills to oil and gas however.
Bundy’s name came up in a solar project that the government currently wants to put in place with the Chinese communists using Nevada land This time.
InfoWars posted documents found on the BLM website which BLM has since taken down. One document is titled, “Cattle Trespass Impacts” and it states that Bundy’s cattle negatively “impacts” solar development and would prevent the construction of utility-scale solar power generation facilities” on “public lands.”
They are talking about a very lucrative “investment” of $5 billion by Chines communists who will set up an enclave – a Chinese communist enclave – on U.S. land in Nevada.
Check out the document:
The first segment of the document pulled by the feds from BLM.gov.
The first segment of the document was pulled by the feds from BLM.gov.
Another BLM report entitled “Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone” (BLM Technical Note 444) reveals that Bundy’s land in question is within the “Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and surrounding area” which is part of a broad U.S. Department of Energy program for “Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States” on land “managed” by BLM.
Check that out:
The second segment of the document pulled by the feds from BLM.gov.
The second segment of the document was also pulled by the feds from BLM.gov.
The person who will directly and immediately benefit from this is “Dirty Harry” Reid. His son, Rory, is the lobbyist for the project and will also rake in the dollars.
It goes much further than that, reaching into the White House, to a president who is seizing land under the guise of necessary preservation.
A leaked memo uncovered in 2010 exposed the Obama Administration’s land grab initiative that is intended to spread across other western states. The land grab in this memo alone covered 10 million acres of Western land in 11 states.
As part of Obama’s “Great Outdoors Initiative”, the administration met quietly with environmental groups to map out government plans for acquiring untold millions of acres of both public and private land.
It’s a stealthy power grab through executive order that promises to radically transform the American way of life. Michelle Malkin had a thorough description of what the government was doing.
In April 2010, President Obama issued a memorandum outlining his “21st century strategy for America’s great outdoors”, calling for officials to conduct “listening and learning sessions” with the public to identify places that mean the most to Americans and leverage the support of the federal government to “protect” outdoor spaces. The memo bragged about the federal government being the nation’s “largest land manager.”
They looked at millions of acres and Secretary Vilsack pleaded for “the need for additional attention to the Land and Water Conservation Fund — and the need to promptly support full funding of that fund.”
Democrats put in a provision in these packages that would require the federal government to take over energy permitting in state waters.
The amount of land the federal government owns or controls is shocking. Check out the map. Areas in red are the federal government’s to control and we now know they are willing to shoot American citizens to keep it that way.
land owned by feds
The Obama administration believes in Agenda 21 and, no, it’s not a conspiracy theory, it is clearly outlined on the U.N. website. ICLEI, its offshoot, is active throughout the United States. Agenda 21 sees the government as the best protector of the land, water and resources. The government must own the land and dole out the resources for humans and animals. That is what Mr. Obama believes.
Toads, chickens, and tortoises are excuses for a much larger vision, a vision that will give the government the power and the wealth of the country’s resources.
Recently, the EPA seized the entire town of Riverton, Wyoming and gave it to the Native-Americans. They did this because they believe they own the land and have the right to do it.
The EPA seized control over all the water in the nation, even ditches with a “rule” that is actually an unconstitutionally-written law.
The EPA is redefining the meaning of the word ‘water’ in such a way as to allow them to seize control over all water and, as a consequence, all private property in the United States.
The Supreme Court of the United States has defined the meaning of ‘water’ as ‘navigable water.’ The EPA seeks to redefine the meaning of water as all ‘connected water,’ and they are seeking to define ‘connected water as all water, so they can assume power to regulate every body of water in the United States. Any water, even ditches, on private property will be controlled. They are using a bizarre theory found in a study which says all water is connected underground.
On August 2011, Executive Order 13575 was issued and it gave the government control over 16% of our rural lands. For what reason? Are the rural lands doing badly? Did the farmers ask for this?
Executive Order 13575 allows the President to develop “sustainable communities. The government has no constitutional authority to do this but they are. Last year, Mr. Obama announced his plan to develop “promise zones.” He’s starting small.
The order is in complete agreement with the UN’s Agenda 21 - The UN’s View on Property Rights – Straight From the Marxist Manual.
Obama created the White House Rural Council, chaired by the Secretary of Agriculture. It includes 25 Cabinet secretaries. Their mission, which will cover every government everything, is to promote prosperity and quality of life in rural USA.
This is the beginning of a complete takeover of rural lands and it won’t matter who owns them. Obama’s agencies have been besieging farmers with regulations since he came into office.
All over rural America, Obama’s agencies are seizing private property, but most particularly in the West, and they use toads, tortoises, frogs and wildflowers to make it happen. They often assume control through sue and settle cases by working hand-in-hand with radical environmental groups. It isn’t about the toads and the wildflowers per se. It’s about the federal government controlling all the land, water and resources in this country.
Remember his plan to map every neighborhood throughout the country? He plans to shuffle the resources and the people among neighborhoods until all share equally in the pie regardless of how much each contributes. He has a mortgage redistribution scheme to be executed through HUD that will help make this happen. A lazy person will gain the most under this system. It is social engineering and Obama believes in it.
Before the Bundy ranch was besieged, in March, The Center for Biodiversity, a truly powerful and radical environmental agency, released a memo falsely claiming that the tortoises were “suffering” because of cattle grazing and demanded the government do something. It specifically cited ranchers who “trespass cattle” for free, destroying the vegetation.
Why did they choose to do that at this time? Were they working with someone in the administration?
In November 2012, Obama gave 9.5 million acres of Western land to the spotted owl, even though the owl already had 4 million acres. It isn’t only about the owl. It’s about all the wildlife. He believes they should have preference to the humans in the area.
President Obama has been using executive orders (EO’s) in ways they have never been used before. He is using them to do end-runs around Congress by legislating from the White House. Some EO’s are dormant but pose a potential future threat.
One of those is EO 13603 which he signed on March 16, 2012. The purpose of the EO is to delegate authority and address national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950. It provides the framework and authority for the allocation or appropriation of resources, materials and services to promote national defense.
It’s an update to prior National Preparedness Orders and normally it wouldn’t be a concern but there were some subtle changes that seem unnecessary. The definition of “national emergency” was made broader and left quite vague. There are no checks and balances within the EO but it includes all of the Executive Branch agencies, agencies that would have unlimited power if the president declared a “national emergency”.
The Executive Branch would completely control our lives through the “industrial and technological base,” and he would have the power over all commodities and products capable of being ingested by human beings and animals; all forms of energy; all forms of civil transportation; all usable water from all sources; health resources; forced labor such as military conscription; and federal officials could issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources.”
EO 13603 is the plan to control our economy and our lives in the event of a crisis endangering our national security; there are no checks and balances written into the EO and “national emergency” is too broadly defined.
Could a cyber threat be used as an excuse to use this authority? Could an economic crisis cause the president to take over retirement funds using this EO?
In Obama’s hands, this EO does give one pause.
President Obama was most certainly aware of the two-week siege in Nevada. He most certainly sanctioned it or the BLM wouldn’t have been there, hiding behind cars, fully armored with helmets, wielding military-grade weapons. The entire affair was an overreaction on the part of the government. Could they overreact to an alleged national emergency as well?
The point of mentioning EO 13603 is to point to a pattern of behavior coming from this administration. Everything must be controlled by the Big Government.
One of the Big Government commissioners in Nevada Tom Collins threatened to kill people according to Darin Bushman, a Utah commissioner, who called him to offer help. Bushman wrote this on his Facebook page: “I was just told by commissioner Collins of Clark County NV that all of us folks from Utah are a bunch of ‘inbred bastards’ and if we are coming to Clark County NV to support Cliven Bundy we all ‘better have funeral plans’. We should ‘turn our asses around and mind our own f-ing business’. Now there’s some classy leadership for you.”
That’s a little more alarming than having one’s personal sensibilities ruffled. This man was threatening violence if people didn’t do as he and his Big Government colleagues demanded. The BLM law enforcement – their army of armed bureaucrats – threatened, repeatedly, to shoot the protesters at the Bundy Ranch because they had a court order, which in the 80% Democratic Clark County wouldn’t be hard to get. The BLM already roughed people up and tasered the son of the ranch owner.
Remember in 2008 when Mr. Obama said he’d build a domestic army?
Obama certainly knew about the attack on the ranch and when Harry Reid’s solar plan was tied into the BLM, the attack was called off. Our government wants the land, the water and the resources to dole out as they see fit. That is the goal. That is the reason Bundy’s ranch was under attack.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | This deal ain't over yet! And frankly I am not surprised.
https://www.teaparty.org/blm-flip-flops-deal-dropping-actions-bundy-...
Despite standoff defeat, feds assert case will continue
(Info Wars) – Despite being forced to release hundreds of seized cattle after an astounding standoff on Saturday, the Bureau of Land Management has vowed to continue its pursuit of Cliven Bundy, asserting that no deal has been made to cease its case against the Nevada cattle rancher.
Amazing scenes unfolded on Saturday as Bundy supporters and cowboys on horseback faced off against armed BLM agents and police, demanding that hundreds of cattle seized by the BLM over a grazing rights dispute be released from a nearby corral.
With feds and law enforcement at one point threatening to shoot protesters dead, Bundy supporters fearlessly held their ground and then began advancing on the corral.
SPECIAL: Join the Tea Party REVOLUTION! The Obama Regime must be dismantled!
Around 380 cattle were eventually released and BLM agents left the scene, a remarkable victory for property rights activists against big government. However, the ‘battle of Bunkerville’ as it is now being called is unlikely to mark the end of the saga.
Despite Clark County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie announcing on Saturday that the BLM had agreed to cease its operation against Bundy, the BLM now asserts that it played no part in the deal and will continue to pursue Bundy “administratively and judicially” for the $1 million in grazing fees it claims Bundy owes the feds.
Since Bundy has steadfastly refused to pay the fee, offering instead to pay it to Clark County, the feds will have no option other than to send armed men to arrest Bundy or restart the operation to confiscate his cattle. Such action will then prompt thousands of Americans to rally to Bundy’s defense just as they did last week, threatening another standoff.
“The door isn’t closed. We’ll figure out how to move forward with this,” BLM spokesman Craig Leff told the Associated Press, adding, “The BLM and National Park Service did not cut any deal and negotiate anything, there was no deal we made.”
This completely contradicts reports on Saturday which stated that, “A deal has been reached between the Bundy family and the Bureau of Land Management.”
In another twist, private investigator Doug Hagmann claims a Department of Homeland Security source told him that the federal stand down on Saturday was merely a temporary measure designed to “hoodwink” Bundy supporters into “believing that the situation is being resolved”.
Hagmann says his source told him the plan to release the cattle had been devised the day before and that Saturday’s activities were focused around a military assessment of the strength of the “resistance” shown by Bundy supporters.
Whatever the truth, the ‘battle of Bunkerville’ represents a seminal moment in the modern American liberty movement.
However, the notion that it represents the end of the federal government’s pursuit of Cliven Bundy is a naive conclusion to draw.
http://www.infowars.com/blm-flip-flops-no-deal-on-dropping-actions-...
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
|
the visuals on this article are great and I actually tried to upload them, they show how his feral cattle are interferring with others and other projects. It's shows how they have tried and tried to work with him..
However, thinking that Obama is personally involved in something that has been going on since 1993, is why most people on the left think most people on the right aren't stable.
This is a simple case being made into an ENORMOUS conspiracy theory and it's funny as someone sitting in the middle. Makes me wonder how many other trumped up crap stories I've bought into in the past. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-14 1:49 PM
the visuals on this article are great and I actually tried to upload them, they show how his feral cattle are interferring with others and other projects. It's shows how they have tried and tried to work with him..
However, thinking that Obama is personally involved in something that has been going on since 1993, is why most people on the left think most people on the right aren't stable.
This is a simple case being made into an ENORMOUS conspiracy theory and it's funny as someone sitting in the middle. Makes me wonder how many other trumped up crap stories I've bought into in the past.
Smiley I C&P'ed the text. There is a plethora of Executive Orders cited in this article. And I believe these EOs to be unConstitutional. Since there is NO Congressional Mandate for EOs. Remember Congress writes Legislation and The President either signs (approves/agrees with) or vetoes (disagrees/rejects it) legislation......................
Edited by foundation horse 2014-04-14 2:09 PM
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-14 12:35 PM Here is another incident of The Feds fulfilling the role of Jack Booted Thugs. This article also clearly articulates the reasoning, history and timeline of ranchers being forced out by The Feds! Smiley & Hotbear, ya'll really need to read this! http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-family... FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH-Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!! April 12, 2014 / Clark Kent / 141 comments When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other. Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property. Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived. Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service. Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board. Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.” His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.” Last hope for ranchers? Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States. Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution. The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000 acres and includes some of the most beautiful land in southwest New Mexico, situated between and including portions of the http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&... and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas. Laney’s ancestors began the “Laney Cattle Company” there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, “prior appropriation” of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the “rights” to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water. Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government. In 1899, the federal government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney’s ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights. Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered “public land.” Specifically, “It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land,” according to Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain. Forest Service stepped in When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas. The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes. The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water. The designated area was called an “allotment.” The ranchers paid the Forest Service a fee for their adjudication service, a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access. The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment. Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a “license” required by the federal government. Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations. Problems from outset Laney’s problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985. The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner. The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch. The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified. Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement. When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land. Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s. They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government. They believe the government’s original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land. Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights. Ridding the West of ranchers For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states. Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, there was a concerted, coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers. In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus. The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans. Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people. The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor. Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government. Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project. Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol’-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives. Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government’s willingness to advance the goals of the Wildlands Project. The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands” which the federal government had claimed to be federal land. Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.” The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights. Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build. He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back. These ranchers are from the same stock of ranchers who pushed the United States all the way to the Pacific ocean; once riled, they may push the Forest Service all the way back to Washington.
Yes, other ranches in other states have had their cheap grazing gravy train taken away as well. Sorry guys but this whole "they were there first" is just what illegal immigrants are using for their cases today. Don't buy it. If your ranch can't survive without federal land, then change your business. Life happens. My husband's family lost the family farm in the 80s, it happens. It's sad and frustrating but it's reality and the reality is that this PUBLIC land belongs to more than ranchers. And those people are starting to wonder why ranchers are so special that they get to pay these crazy low fees to use public land that then keep others off of it.
I don't think anyone is trying to end ranching - I think rather - they are asking ranchers to do it on their own property. There are three ranch conservancys ranches in Colorado that do quite well and have worked within the system to save the ranches. There are alternatives, but people don't like change, and they don't like to see traditional lives (cowboys/ranchers) up against challenges, well, that's life folks, for everyone. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-14 12:37 PM TXBO - 2014-04-14 9:59 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 10:30 AM I've never denied a certain idealistic view...not so much the pacifist, but I don't 'get' people who refuse to study & dig for the truth...no different than people saying we're a Democracy! Say something enough times and people believe it.
I never said the fed can't 'own' land...they can within the perimeters set forth by the Constitution...it does not include large tracts of land such as we are now dealing with, granted, a state can abandon land to fed, however, the fed is not in the position of accepting as it undermines the basic rights of the citizens.
The Eisenhower Report of 1962 lists ALL lands that the fed is affiliated with, the year it was 'acquired' and the jurisdictional code applied. My issue with the federal judicial authority concerning these lands is that it's been determined that the authority lies with the state. These are issues that people need to understand so we may get on the same page...I also take issue wth the many corrupt instances of judicial overreach. It happens. And I'm not the threat...apathy is.
Anyhow...I've posted all the info I have in this & other threads...for those who are interested in the letter of the law...it's there.
What you don't get is people who dig for the truth and come to a different conclusion than you. You're deriving your position based on op-ed pieces and not the actual legal documents. Much of your info has included agenda drive commentary with documentation and at least once you left out a key phrase to a constitutional article.
Let me ask you this..... Nevada has had statehood since 1864. Why have they made no attemt to aquire deed to this land? Why are they not stepping up now saying this is our land?
BTW.... I'd love for the courts to rule that I'm wrong.
I don't know the answer to your question...I've asked it myself, but, that in no way is an abandonment. There've been attempsts over the century's to right this wrong, alas, the congressmen from the east have a vote...it's money out of their pockets. Which reminds me, Smiley...those $$$ you speak of is indeed the root of the evil...this is the money that congress 'fights' over year after year...it's the money that belongs rightfully to the states. Why can't we get our land? If we have to ask...This is the greed in America. This is why all of you maintain support for the fed...because you think it's yours now...it's the carrot on a stick & you won't give it to the rightful owners. The states in which it came from.
Shame. Shame.
I can see that this conversation will go nowhere because the choice of right & wrong demands admittance of immense greed & corruption.
So Musicmaker, what is the answer? Is it to let the cattle ranches use public land free of charge? | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-14 12:52 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 1:49 PM
the visuals on this article are great and I actually tried to upload them, they show how his feral cattle are interferring with others and other projects. It's shows how they have tried and tried to work with him..
However, thinking that Obama is personally involved in something that has been going on since 1993, is why most people on the left think most people on the right aren't stable.
This is a simple case being made into an ENORMOUS conspiracy theory and it's funny as someone sitting in the middle. Makes me wonder how many other trumped up crap stories I've bought into in the past. Smiley I C&P'ed the text. There is a plethora of Executive Orders cited in this article. And I believe these EOs to be unConstitutional. Since there is Congressional Mandate for EOs.
And I would agree with you to an extent, that does NOT change that the BUNDYs have been illegally grazing for more than 20-25 years. Unconsitutional or not, this is NOT how our system works. They have done nothing other than to bring the full weight of the feds down on them.
What are your answers to this?? Allow Bundy's cattle to remain feral and a danger to others? Allow him to continue to run as many head as HE sees fit, despite clear and present over grazing? Allow him to use the land free of charge forever?? | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-14 1:38 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-14 11:32 AM smiley - 2014-04-14 11:24 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:02 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:58 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:50 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:43 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:37 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:33 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:15 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-13 12:05 PM daisycake123 - 2014-04-13 11:42 AM It was not about the taxes, or the turtles. It is about a the land those cows where on and harry reid building some solar/wind farm. look through the other threads andmthere a news release. But those blm thugs and snaipers there are better ways to handle, you need to read there the mainstream media propaganda and find the real truth. Harry Reid must have been some kind of amazing to be able to predict a solar/wind development would be installed 21 years after the BLM cancelled the permit. Guess its about like the fracking article that tried to connect the dots between the BLM land Bundy was trespassing on and the actual fracking permit that was sold for Elko County...300 miles away. I agree 100% with the OP and have talked to several Northern Nevada ranchers the feel like they were just slapped in the face because this guy takes resources that the rest pay for. This whole deal has made Democrats out of a whole lot of people I thought were Republicans. I have never seen so many people jump on a bandwagon in support of free services/rights/entitlement since the first Obama election. Bscanchaser, are you familiar with the reports that Harry Reid and Son are involved w/ China and Nevada Land for Energy Production? And these 'goings on' are dated to back to 2003 minimally. Historical Research is a good thing. Also Obama and The Rest of The Executive Branch of Government is heavily influenced by The Chinese Government due to Chinese Government holding so much FEDERAL not State Debt. Yes I have read about this. For some reason I can't seem to figure out how a 9,000 acre solar/wind facility would shut down a 600,000 acre multi-use area...especially when there are windmills in various other regions in the state and other areas of BLM multi-use seem to function just fine. Research is a good thing... Ok. Let me you ask a 'pointed' question. Do you support Harry Reid? No. I have never support or voted for Harry Reid. But your current comment (s ) indicate differently. Does the definition of hypocrisy come to mind? I always attempt to avoid the least indication of hypocrisy or conflict of interest along w/ jealousy and envy.............................. Perhaps I am. However symbolically speaking I am SUPPORTING The U.S. Constitution, States Rights. And the FACT remains that the Feds (BLM ) were on State Owned Land enforcing something that The LOCAL County Sherriff was responsible for.....................
The BLM is ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. This is not a conspiracy, this is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, put into place by President Nixon at work. A completely different conservancy group went to the BLM to protect the turtles. The BLM is - by law - required to do an Environmental Assessment to determine if the two species can co-exist. They have to by law listen to other groups, and have public input. The work was done and Bundy was told to decrease his herd to 150 cattle per year. He did not do this, in fact, he continued to graze 500+ cattle on the land and then thumbed his nose at the fees.
I understand that many ranchers have been put out of business due to these new laws and environmentalists, which begs the question, “Why does your business not have a back-up plan? Why does your ranch depend on the Federal Govt., for your existence?” Isnt’ this exactly what we say to welfare recipients? That Welfare is not a “Career” option? Why are ranchers that MUST rely on Fed lands any different? They all had the opportuninty to homestead the land when it was open for homesteading but instead they bought what they wanted and relied on the kindness of the feds to get it done. If you have to rely on the feds for your existence in business, you've already lost a major battle.
As taken from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada#Before_1861: Over 80% of the state's area is owned by the federal government. The primary reason for this is that homesteads were not permitted in large enough sizes to be viable in the arid conditions that prevail throughout desert Nevada. Instead, early settlers would homestead land surrounding a water source, and then graze livestock on the adjacent public land, which is useless for agriculture without access to water (this pattern of ranching still prevails).**
Bundy was told his cattle were considered trespass cattle and he didn’t care. He went to court twice in 20 years and lost twice. His cattle were so poorly managed that some went feral and were a danger to others, see the photos attached.
The BLM was the GLO, which was put into place in 1812 and morphed into the BLM. Some have said that this man has some inherent right to graze because he was “there first, before the BLM.” But clearly, unless his family was there in 1812 or even in 1803 when the land was purchased from the French in the Louisiana Purchase, he was not there first. Now, Mexicans and Indians were, but I don’t see this type of support for their plight. So, we're going to use the "there first" argument for this white rancher and his family, but we're not too keen to use the same argument for illegal immigration - that's called hypocrisy in my book.
Someone said to me that he shouldn’t have to pay the fees, as they didn’t exist in 1877. That would be like telling your new landlord that just bought an apartment building as an investment that you were there first, therefore he can never raise your rent. Watch him laugh in your face.
There is another rumor that Harry Reid is all over this. Folks, this started in 1993, this has nothing to do with Reid, other than yes, there are plans for a solar farm as far as I can see - but that is recent. And so what? The BLM is the only govt., entity to MAKE money for the US Treasury, to the tune of 5 billion dollars a year. That’s BILLION with a B. The entire BLM budget per year is ONE billion. They PUT money into our economy and support their own budget - that ironically they have to ASK for from the federal govt., in the budgeting process. The make 5 billion and should be thankful that they get 1 billion to run their show.
IF they want to build a solar power plant on federal land and are stopped by feral cattle from a rogue rancher who refuses to manage his cattle or remove his cattle, then what are they do to? We are capitalists until it’s the federal govt., that wants to make money FOR US? Well, that sounds a bit hypocritical. We’re all for the ranchers right to make money, even at the cost of others, but not the BLM?
The BLM didn’t stop this round up – in my opinion – because they are wrong, they stopped because of the complete misinformation being put out, because someone MIGHT actually get hurt. This is what they were asked to do and now that they have, they must be “wrong” because they did it. It’s like dealing with a five year old mentality out there right now with militias and “cowboys”. This is making the real ranchers who pay their fees and abide by the rules look horrible.
BLM History and laws enacted:http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/arcata/headwaters/Falk.html
NEPA and the NEPA register: https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do
Environmentalist and activists feel that the BLM hides things from them, and in the past the NEPA documents were kept per state, there is work right now to have ALL state’s NEPA documents online within 2-3 years, all 10,000+ documents. That is what I mean by ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. The BLM folks are made of people like you and me. They do what they have to do because others make laws that make them do it!!
The land they manage is literally the most worthless land the US has to offer, and that is why no one – including Bundy – homesteaded the land when they could. You couldn’t feed a jack rabbit lunch on it if you had to. In addition, the Forest Service and other agencies are involved but no one is calling to disband the Forest Service?? Why is that??
I’ve heard the argument that these lands should be “turned over” to the states. If the states wanted that land, it should have happened long before now. I am not educated enough on how it was broken down in the years that followed 1803, but I am going to educate myself on it. The states in some cases don’t even want the land and can’t produce the type of revenue it takes to manage the lands, hence, we have the Forest Service and the BLM.
Educate yourself on federal lands: http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us
Here is a thought I have not stated before: The BLM, IRS (to a certain extent ) and EPA, all make and enforce Policy that is NOT Constitutional Legislation, but yet is ENFORCED as if said Policy IS Constitutional Legislation. This observation is completely akin to the PROVEN Cause of The American Revolution: Taxation without Representation. IE: The Original Tea Party in the 1770s over a 3% on Tea. This event happened in Boston Harbor, Mass.
One person's idea of "consitutional" is not anothers. Hence, the court system. There is a different NV family the Hages, who have won, finally in court, although they have yet to see a dime. They have written a book called Storms over Rangelands. I have yet to see that family or any of the other "ranchers that have been pushed out" coming to the Bundy's aid.
IT will be interesting to see the outcome, but again, fighting the system by hanging out in NV on your ranch, letting your cattle become feral is not the way to fight unconsitutional laws.
I do not disagree with you. However Cliven Bundy has successfully "marketed" his saga in something that resonates w/ Constitutionalists. I do not necessarily agree with Cliven Bundy. But I do AGREE with The Constitution. Threeforluck made the most accurate observation earlier in this thread in regards to American Patriots are fed up with an overreaching Federal Government. And right or wrong, these same have chosen to display their displeasure w/ The Feds in the form of resistance in connection w/ Cliven Bundy.
Now as the Hage Family, The Original Hage are deceased. However there are Court Decision ceding in their favor under The Fourth Amendment and Illegal 'Takings'. To my knowledge the Hage Estate has not been compensated to date. And probably will not either. Re: The Red River Rancher in Texas who lost 140 Acres, 30 years ago and was not compensated for it. | |
| | |
Cyber World Challenged
Posts: 2526
Location: My Own Little World | foundation horse - 2014-04-14 11:35 AM Here is another incident of The Feds fulfilling the role of Jack Booted Thugs. This article also clearly articulates the reasoning, history and timeline of ranchers being forced out by The Feds! Smiley & Hotbear, ya'll really need to read this! http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-family... FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH-Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!! April 12, 2014 / Clark Kent / 141 comments When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other. Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property. Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived. Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service. Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board. Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.” His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.” Last hope for ranchers? Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States. Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution. The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000 acres and includes some of the most beautiful land in southwest New Mexico, situated between and including portions of the http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&... and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas. Laney’s ancestors began the “Laney Cattle Company” there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, “prior appropriation” of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the “rights” to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water. Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government. In 1899, the federal government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney’s ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights. Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered “public land.” Specifically, “It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land,” according to Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain. Forest Service stepped in When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas. The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes. The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water. The designated area was called an “allotment.” The ranchers paid the Forest Service a fee for their adjudication service, a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access. The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment. Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a “license” required by the federal government. Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations. Problems from outset Laney’s problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985. The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner. The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch. The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified. Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement. When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land. Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s. They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government. They believe the government’s original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land. Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights. Ridding the West of ranchers For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states. Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, there was a concerted, coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers. In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus. The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans. Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people. The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor. Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government. Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project. Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol’-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives. Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government’s willingness to advance the goals of the Wildlands Project. The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands” which the federal government had claimed to be federal land. Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.” The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights. Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build. He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back. These ranchers are from the same stock of ranchers who pushed the United States all the way to the Pacific ocean; once riled, they may push the Forest Service all the way back to Washington.
This is exactly what I'm saying. Mr Bundy did just this, make a stand. I hope that more folks do and more citizens stand with them. Our country should be run by the opinion of the people not the opinion of the beaurocrats. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-14 1:53 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-14 12:35 PM Here is another incident of The Feds fulfilling the role of Jack Booted Thugs. This article also clearly articulates the reasoning, history and timeline of ranchers being forced out by The Feds! Smiley & Hotbear, ya'll really need to read this! http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-family... FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH-Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!! April 12, 2014 / Clark Kent / 141 comments When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other. Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property. Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived. Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service. Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board. Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.” His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.” Last hope for ranchers? Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States. Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution. The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000 acres and includes some of the most beautiful land in southwest New Mexico, situated between and including portions of the http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&state=n... and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas. Laney’s ancestors began the “Laney Cattle Company” there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, “prior appropriation” of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the “rights” to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water. Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government. In 1899, the federal government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney’s ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights. Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered “public land.” Specifically, “It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land,” according to Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain. Forest Service stepped in When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas. The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes. The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water. The designated area was called an “allotment.” The ranchers paid the Forest Service a fee for their adjudication service, a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access. The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment. Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a “license” required by the federal government. Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations. Problems from outset Laney’s problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985. The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner. The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch. The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified. Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement. When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land. Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s. They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government. They believe the government’s original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land. Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights. Ridding the West of ranchers For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states. Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, there was a concerted, coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers. In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus. The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans. Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people. The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor. Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government. Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project. Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol’-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives. Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government’s willingness to advance the goals of the Wildlands Project. The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands” which the federal government had claimed to be federal land. Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.” The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights. Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build. He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back. These ranchers are from the same stock of ranchers who pushed the United States all the way to the Pacific ocean; once riled, they may push the Forest Service all the way back to Washington.
I don't think anyone is trying to end ranching - I think rather - they are asking ranchers to do it on their own property. There are three ranch conservancys ranches in Colorado that do quite well and have worked within the system to save the ranches. There are alternatives, but people don't like change, and they don't like to see traditional lives (cowboys/ranchers) up against challenges, well, that's life folks, for everyone.
However, The Constitutional Court System has recognized "Chain of Title" as per the Hage Family Court Decision. Smiley, are you sure you are not contradicting yourself here? | |
| | |
New Info Detective
Posts: 1551
| I realize it all started in 1993, the question I have, why has the BLM waited so long to do anything about Bundy? I think there are so many unanswered questions.
Like I said, I have no idea to the validity of the article.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | rodeorun68 - 2014-04-14 2:03 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-14 11:35 AM Here is another incident of The Feds fulfilling the role of Jack Booted Thugs. This article also clearly articulates the reasoning, history and timeline of ranchers being forced out by The Feds! Smiley & Hotbear, ya'll really need to read this! http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-family... FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH-Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!! April 12, 2014 / Clark Kent / 141 comments When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other. Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property. Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived. Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service. Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board. Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.” His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.” Last hope for ranchers? Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States. Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution. The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000 acres and includes some of the most beautiful land in southwest New Mexico, situated between and including portions of the http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&state=n... and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas. Laney’s ancestors began the “Laney Cattle Company” there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, “prior appropriation” of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the “rights” to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water. Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government. In 1899, the federal government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney’s ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights. Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered “public land.” Specifically, “It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land,” according to Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain. Forest Service stepped in When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas. The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes. The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water. The designated area was called an “allotment.” The ranchers paid the Forest Service a fee for their adjudication service, a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access. The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment. Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a “license” required by the federal government. Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations. Problems from outset Laney’s problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985. The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner. The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch. The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified. Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement. When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land. Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s. They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government. They believe the government’s original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land. Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights. Ridding the West of ranchers For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states. Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, there was a concerted, coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers. In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus. The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans. Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people. The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor. Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government. Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project. Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol’-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives. Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government’s willingness to advance the goals of the Wildlands Project. The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands” which the federal government had claimed to be federal land. Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.” The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights. Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build. He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back. These ranchers are from the same stock of ranchers who pushed the United States all the way to the Pacific ocean; once riled, they may push the Forest Service all the way back to Washington.
Hence a Representative Constitutional Republic! And America's current literal course of governing is just opposite! | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-14 12:55 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 12:37 PM TXBO - 2014-04-14 9:59 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 10:30 AM I've never denied a certain idealistic view...not so much the pacifist, but I don't 'get' people who refuse to study & dig for the truth...no different than people saying we're a Democracy! Say something enough times and people believe it.
I never said the fed can't 'own' land...they can within the perimeters set forth by the Constitution...it does not include large tracts of land such as we are now dealing with, granted, a state can abandon land to fed, however, the fed is not in the position of accepting as it undermines the basic rights of the citizens.
The Eisenhower Report of 1962 lists ALL lands that the fed is affiliated with, the year it was 'acquired' and the jurisdictional code applied. My issue with the federal judicial authority concerning these lands is that it's been determined that the authority lies with the state. These are issues that people need to understand so we may get on the same page...I also take issue wth the many corrupt instances of judicial overreach. It happens. And I'm not the threat...apathy is.
Anyhow...I've posted all the info I have in this & other threads...for those who are interested in the letter of the law...it's there.
What you don't get is people who dig for the truth and come to a different conclusion than you. You're deriving your position based on op-ed pieces and not the actual legal documents. Much of your info has included agenda drive commentary with documentation and at least once you left out a key phrase to a constitutional article.
Let me ask you this..... Nevada has had statehood since 1864. Why have they made no attemt to aquire deed to this land? Why are they not stepping up now saying this is our land?
BTW.... I'd love for the courts to rule that I'm wrong.
I don't know the answer to your question...I've asked it myself, but, that in no way is an abandonment. There've been attempsts over the century's to right this wrong, alas, the congressmen from the east have a vote...it's money out of their pockets. Which reminds me, Smiley...those $$$ you speak of is indeed the root of the evil...this is the money that congress 'fights' over year after year...it's the money that belongs rightfully to the states. Why can't we get our land? If we have to ask...This is the greed in America. This is why all of you maintain support for the fed...because you think it's yours now...it's the carrot on a stick & you won't give it to the rightful owners. The states in which it came from.
Shame. Shame.
I can see that this conversation will go nowhere because the choice of right & wrong demands admittance of immense greed & corruption.
The only answer is to put the states on equal footing by releasing the land...or, at the very least, stop fighting for jurisdiction that the fed does not have...the misinformation is appalling. There does exist documentation that proves jurisdiction & authority.
We need to stand up for the states rights. This isn't about the cattle...it never has b een...it's about a rancher who's standing up to an out of control gov't.
Thanks for asking!
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-14 1:53 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-14 12:35 PM Here is another incident of The Feds fulfilling the role of Jack Booted Thugs. This article also clearly articulates the reasoning, history and timeline of ranchers being forced out by The Feds! Smiley & Hotbear, ya'll really need to read this! http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-family... FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH-Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!! April 12, 2014 / Clark Kent / 141 comments When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other. Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property. Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived. Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service. Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board. Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.” His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.” Last hope for ranchers? Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States. Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution. The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000 acres and includes some of the most beautiful land in southwest New Mexico, situated between and including portions of the http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&state=n... and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas. Laney’s ancestors began the “Laney Cattle Company” there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, “prior appropriation” of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the “rights” to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water. Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government. In 1899, the federal government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney’s ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights. Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered “public land.” Specifically, “It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land,” according to Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain. Forest Service stepped in When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas. The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes. The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water. The designated area was called an “allotment.” The ranchers paid the Forest Service a fee for their adjudication service, a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access. The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment. Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a “license” required by the federal government. Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations. Problems from outset Laney’s problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985. The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner. The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch. The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified. Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement. When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land. Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s. They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government. They believe the government’s original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land. Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights. Ridding the West of ranchers For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states. Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, there was a concerted, coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers. In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus. The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans. Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people. The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor. Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government. Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project. Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol’-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives. Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government’s willingness to advance the goals of the Wildlands Project. The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands” which the federal government had claimed to be federal land. Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.” The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights. Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build. He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back. These ranchers are from the same stock of ranchers who pushed the United States all the way to the Pacific ocean; once riled, they may push the Forest Service all the way back to Washington.
I don't think anyone is trying to end ranching - I think rather - they are asking ranchers to do it on their own property. There are three ranch conservancys ranches in Colorado that do quite well and have worked within the system to save the ranches. There are alternatives, but people don't like change, and they don't like to see traditional lives (cowboys/ranchers) up against challenges, well, that's life folks, for everyone.
Then WHY are the attempting to confiscate BOTH ranches? Not just the disputed tract of real estate? | |
| | |
Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| musikmaker - 2014-04-15 12:16 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 12:55 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 12:37 PM TXBO - 2014-04-14 9:59 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 10:30 AM I've never denied a certain idealistic view...not so much the pacifist, but I don't 'get' people who refuse to study & dig for the truth...no different than people saying we're a Democracy! Say something enough times and people believe it.
I never said the fed can't 'own' land...they can within the perimeters set forth by the Constitution...it does not include large tracts of land such as we are now dealing with, granted, a state can abandon land to fed, however, the fed is not in the position of accepting as it undermines the basic rights of the citizens.
The Eisenhower Report of 1962 lists ALL lands that the fed is affiliated with, the year it was 'acquired' and the jurisdictional code applied. My issue with the federal judicial authority concerning these lands is that it's been determined that the authority lies with the state. These are issues that people need to understand so we may get on the same page...I also take issue wth the many corrupt instances of judicial overreach. It happens. And I'm not the threat...apathy is.
Anyhow...I've posted all the info I have in this & other threads...for those who are interested in the letter of the law...it's there.
What you don't get is people who dig for the truth and come to a different conclusion than you. You're deriving your position based on op-ed pieces and not the actual legal documents. Much of your info has included agenda drive commentary with documentation and at least once you left out a key phrase to a constitutional article.
Let me ask you this..... Nevada has had statehood since 1864. Why have they made no attemt to aquire deed to this land? Why are they not stepping up now saying this is our land?
BTW.... I'd love for the courts to rule that I'm wrong.
I don't know the answer to your question...I've asked it myself, but, that in no way is an abandonment. There've been attempsts over the century's to right this wrong, alas, the congressmen from the east have a vote...it's money out of their pockets. Which reminds me, Smiley...those $$$ you speak of is indeed the root of the evil...this is the money that congress 'fights' over year after year...it's the money that belongs rightfully to the states. Why can't we get our land? If we have to ask...This is the greed in America. This is why all of you maintain support for the fed...because you think it's yours now...it's the carrot on a stick & you won't give it to the rightful owners. The states in which it came from.
Shame. Shame.
I can see that this conversation will go nowhere because the choice of right & wrong demands admittance of immense greed & corruption.
We need to stand up for the states rights. This isn't about the cattle...it never has b een...it's about a rancher who's standing up to an out of control gov't.
Thanks for asking!
| |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | foundation horse - 2014-04-14 2:20 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 1:53 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 12:35 PM Here is another incident of The Feds fulfilling the role of Jack Booted Thugs. This article also clearly articulates the reasoning, history and timeline of ranchers being forced out by The Feds! Smiley & Hotbear, ya'll really need to read this! http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-family... FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH-Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!! April 12, 2014 / Clark Kent / 141 comments When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other. Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property. Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived. Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service. Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board. Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.” His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.” Last hope for ranchers? Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States. Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution. The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000 acres and includes some of the most beautiful land in southwest New Mexico, situated between and including portions of the http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&... and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas. Laney’s ancestors began the “Laney Cattle Company” there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, “prior appropriation” of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the “rights” to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water. Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government. In 1899, the federal government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney’s ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights. Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered “public land.” Specifically, “It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land,” according to Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain. Forest Service stepped in When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas. The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes. The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water. The designated area was called an “allotment.” The ranchers paid the Forest Service a fee for their adjudication service, a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access. The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment. Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a “license” required by the federal government. Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations. Problems from outset Laney’s problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985. The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner. The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch. The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified. Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement. When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land. Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s. They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government. They believe the government’s original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land. Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights. Ridding the West of ranchers For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states. Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, there was a concerted, coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers. In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus. The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans. Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people. The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor. Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government. Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project. Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol’-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives. Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government’s willingness to advance the goals of the Wildlands Project. The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands” which the federal government had claimed to be federal land. Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.” The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights. Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build. He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back. These ranchers are from the same stock of ranchers who pushed the United States all the way to the Pacific ocean; once riled, they may push the Forest Service all the way back to Washington.
I don't think anyone is trying to end ranching - I think rather - they are asking ranchers to do it on their own property. There are three ranch conservancys ranches in Colorado that do quite well and have worked within the system to save the ranches. There are alternatives, but people don't like change, and they don't like to see traditional lives (cowboys/ranchers) up against challenges, well, that's life folks, for everyone. Then WHY are the attempting to confiscate BOTH ranches? Not just the disputed tract of real estate?
both ranches??? | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-14 1:58 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-14 12:52 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 1:49 PM
the visuals on this article are great and I actually tried to upload them, they show how his feral cattle are interferring with others and other projects. It's shows how they have tried and tried to work with him..
However, thinking that Obama is personally involved in something that has been going on since 1993, is why most people on the left think most people on the right aren't stable.
This is a simple case being made into an ENORMOUS conspiracy theory and it's funny as someone sitting in the middle. Makes me wonder how many other trumped up crap stories I've bought into in the past. Smiley I C&P'ed the text. There is a plethora of Executive Orders cited in this article. And I believe these EOs to be unConstitutional. Since there is Congressional Mandate for EOs.
What are your answers to this?? Allow Bundy's cattle to remain feral and a danger to others? Allow him to continue to run as many head as HE sees fit, despite clear and present over grazing? Allow him to use the land free of charge forever??
All questions I have no answers to. However, in another quoted post of yours I addressed what I consider to have happened in regards to Cliven Bundy's scenario. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | dhdqhllc - 2014-04-14 2:20 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-14 2:20 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 1:53 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 12:35 PM Here is another incident of The Feds fulfilling the role of Jack Booted Thugs. This article also clearly articulates the reasoning, history and timeline of ranchers being forced out by The Feds! Smiley & Hotbear, ya'll really need to read this! http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-family... FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH-Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!! April 12, 2014 / Clark Kent / 141 comments When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other. Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property. Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived. Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service. Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board. Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.” His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.” Last hope for ranchers? Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States. Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution. The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000 acres and includes some of the most beautiful land in southwest New Mexico, situated between and including portions of the http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&state=n... and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas. Laney’s ancestors began the “Laney Cattle Company” there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, “prior appropriation” of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the “rights” to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water. Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government. In 1899, the federal government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney’s ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights. Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered “public land.” Specifically, “It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land,” according to Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain. Forest Service stepped in When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas. The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes. The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water. The designated area was called an “allotment.” The ranchers paid the Forest Service a fee for their adjudication service, a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access. The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment. Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a “license” required by the federal government. Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations. Problems from outset Laney’s problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985. The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner. The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch. The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified. Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement. When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land. Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s. They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government. They believe the government’s original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land. Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights. Ridding the West of ranchers For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states. Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, there was a concerted, coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers. In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus. The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans. Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people. The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor. Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government. Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project. Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol’-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives. Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government’s willingness to advance the goals of the Wildlands Project. The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands” which the federal government had claimed to be federal land. Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.” The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights. Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build. He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back. These ranchers are from the same stock of ranchers who pushed the United States all the way to the Pacific ocean; once riled, they may push the Forest Service all the way back to Washington.
I don't think anyone is trying to end ranching - I think rather - they are asking ranchers to do it on their own property. There are three ranch conservancys ranches in Colorado that do quite well and have worked within the system to save the ranches. There are alternatives, but people don't like change, and they don't like to see traditional lives (cowboys/ranchers) up against challenges, well, that's life folks, for everyone. Then WHY are the attempting to confiscate BOTH ranches? Not just the disputed tract of real estate?
Yes! Per the article's text, The Feds are targeting BOTH ranches, NOT just the disputed one. | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | foundation horse - 2014-04-14 2:25 PM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-14 2:20 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 2:20 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 1:53 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 12:35 PM Here is another incident of The Feds fulfilling the role of Jack Booted Thugs. This article also clearly articulates the reasoning, history and timeline of ranchers being forced out by The Feds! Smiley & Hotbear, ya'll really need to read this! http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-family... FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH-Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!! April 12, 2014 / Clark Kent / 141 comments When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other. Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property. Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived. Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service. Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board. Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.” His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.” Last hope for ranchers? Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States. Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution. The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000 acres and includes some of the most beautiful land in southwest New Mexico, situated between and including portions of the http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&... and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas. Laney’s ancestors began the “Laney Cattle Company” there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, “prior appropriation” of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the “rights” to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water. Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government. In 1899, the federal government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney’s ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights. Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered “public land.” Specifically, “It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land,” according to Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain. Forest Service stepped in When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas. The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes. The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water. The designated area was called an “allotment.” The ranchers paid the Forest Service a fee for their adjudication service, a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access. The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment. Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a “license” required by the federal government. Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations. Problems from outset Laney’s problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985. The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner. The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch. The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified. Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement. When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land. Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s. They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government. They believe the government’s original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land. Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights. Ridding the West of ranchers For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states. Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, there was a concerted, coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers. In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus. The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans. Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people. The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor. Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government. Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project. Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol’-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives. Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government’s willingness to advance the goals of the Wildlands Project. The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands” which the federal government had claimed to be federal land. Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.” The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights. Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build. He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back. These ranchers are from the same stock of ranchers who pushed the United States all the way to the Pacific ocean; once riled, they may push the Forest Service all the way back to Washington.
I don't think anyone is trying to end ranching - I think rather - they are asking ranchers to do it on their own property. There are three ranch conservancys ranches in Colorado that do quite well and have worked within the system to save the ranches. There are alternatives, but people don't like change, and they don't like to see traditional lives (cowboys/ranchers) up against challenges, well, that's life folks, for everyone. Then WHY are the attempting to confiscate BOTH ranches? Not just the disputed tract of real estate? Yes! Per the article's text, The Feds are targeting BOTH ranches, NOT just the disputed one.
Edited by dhdqhllc 2014-04-14 2:28 PM
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | dhdqhllc - 2014-04-14 2:27 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-14 2:25 PM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-14 2:20 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 2:20 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 1:53 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 12:35 PM Here is another incident of The Feds fulfilling the role of Jack Booted Thugs. This article also clearly articulates the reasoning, history and timeline of ranchers being forced out by The Feds! Smiley & Hotbear, ya'll really need to read this! http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-family... FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH-Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!! April 12, 2014 / Clark Kent / 141 comments When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other. Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property. Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived. Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service. Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board. Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.” His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.” Last hope for ranchers? Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States. Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution. The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000 acres and includes some of the most beautiful land in southwest New Mexico, situated between and including portions of the http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&state=n... and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas. Laney’s ancestors began the “Laney Cattle Company” there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, “prior appropriation” of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the “rights” to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water. Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government. In 1899, the federal government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney’s ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights. Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered “public land.” Specifically, “It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land,” according to Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain. Forest Service stepped in When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas. The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes. The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water. The designated area was called an “allotment.” The ranchers paid the Forest Service a fee for their adjudication service, a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access. The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment. Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a “license” required by the federal government. Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations. Problems from outset Laney’s problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985. The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner. The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch. The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified. Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement. When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land. Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s. They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government. They believe the government’s original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land. Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights. Ridding the West of ranchers For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states. Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, there was a concerted, coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers. In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus. The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans. Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people. The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor. Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government. Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project. Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol’-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives. Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government’s willingness to advance the goals of the Wildlands Project. The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands” which the federal government had claimed to be federal land. Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.” The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights. Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build. He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back. These ranchers are from the same stock of ranchers who pushed the United States all the way to the Pacific ocean; once riled, they may push the Forest Service all the way back to Washington.
I don't think anyone is trying to end ranching - I think rather - they are asking ranchers to do it on their own property. There are three ranch conservancys ranches in Colorado that do quite well and have worked within the system to save the ranches. There are alternatives, but people don't like change, and they don't like to see traditional lives (cowboys/ranchers) up against challenges, well, that's life folks, for everyone. Then WHY are the attempting to confiscate BOTH ranches? Not just the disputed tract of real estate? Yes! Per the article's text, The Feds are targeting BOTH ranches, NOT just the disputed one.
No mention of "back debts" in the text. And when I say 'targeting', I am saying The Feds are attempting confiscate the Laney's Home Ranch as well as the Adjoining Diamond Bar Ranch. I will have to open the link again so I can C&P the pertinent info. | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | foundation horse - 2014-04-14 2:33 PM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-14 2:27 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 2:25 PM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-14 2:20 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 2:20 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 1:53 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 12:35 PM Here is another incident of The Feds fulfilling the role of Jack Booted Thugs. This article also clearly articulates the reasoning, history and timeline of ranchers being forced out by The Feds! Smiley & Hotbear, ya'll really need to read this! http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-family... FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH-Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!! April 12, 2014 / Clark Kent / 141 comments When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other. Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property. Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived. Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service. Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board. Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.” His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.” Last hope for ranchers? Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States. Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution. The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000 acres and includes some of the most beautiful land in southwest New Mexico, situated between and including portions of the http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&... and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas. Laney’s ancestors began the “Laney Cattle Company” there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, “prior appropriation” of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the “rights” to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water. Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government. In 1899, the federal government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney’s ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights. Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered “public land.” Specifically, “It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land,” according to Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain. Forest Service stepped in When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas. The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes. The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water. The designated area was called an “allotment.” The ranchers paid the Forest Service a fee for their adjudication service, a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access. The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment. Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a “license” required by the federal government. Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations. Problems from outset Laney’s problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985. The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner. The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch. The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified. Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement. When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land. Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s. They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government. They believe the government’s original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land. Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights. Ridding the West of ranchers For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states. Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, there was a concerted, coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers. In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus. The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans. Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people. The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor. Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government. Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project. Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol’-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives. Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government’s willingness to advance the goals of the Wildlands Project. The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands” which the federal government had claimed to be federal land. Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.” The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights. Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build. He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back. These ranchers are from the same stock of ranchers who pushed the United States all the way to the Pacific ocean; once riled, they may push the Forest Service all the way back to Washington.
I don't think anyone is trying to end ranching - I think rather - they are asking ranchers to do it on their own property. There are three ranch conservancys ranches in Colorado that do quite well and have worked within the system to save the ranches. There are alternatives, but people don't like change, and they don't like to see traditional lives (cowboys/ranchers) up against challenges, well, that's life folks, for everyone. Then WHY are the attempting to confiscate BOTH ranches? Not just the disputed tract of real estate? Yes! Per the article's text, The Feds are targeting BOTH ranches, NOT just the disputed one. No mention of "back debts" in the text. And when I say 'targeting', I am saying The Feds are attempting confiscate the Laney's Home Ranch as well as the Adjoining Diamond Bar Ranch. I will have to open the link again so I can C&P the pertinent info.
sorry.....i was thinking that was a comment in reference to Bundy....not Laney....got it... | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | I found the text I was looking in the linked article.
Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights.
This passage right here indicates (to me anyway) that the Feds are going after BOTH ranches. Remember these of real estate adjoin each other.
Edited by foundation horse 2014-04-14 2:41 PM
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-14 1:37 PM I posted links to the Eisenhower Report of 1962 and the listings of the land in Nevada whcich clearly shows Clark county & the land in question as a 'Code 4' jurisdiction. You continue to deny it has any bearing.
I don't know the answer to your question...I've asked it myself, but, that in no way is an abandonment. There've been attempsts over the century's to right this wrong, alas, the congressmen from the east have a vote...it's money out of their pockets. Which reminds me, Smiley...those $$$ you speak of is indeed the root of the evil...this is the money that congress 'fights' over year after year...it's the money that belongs rightfully to the states. Why can't we get our land? If we have to ask...This is the greed in America. This is why all of you maintain support for the fed...because you think it's yours now...it's the carrot on a stick & you won't give it to the rightful owners. The states in which it came from.
Shame. Shame.
I can see that this conversation will go nowhere because the choice of right & wrong demands admittance of immense greed & corruption.
I read the report and came to a different conclusion. I wonder why you refer to it as the Eisenhower report when this is the proper name:
"Inventory Report on Jurisdictional Status of Federal Areas within the States"
That doesn't sound like the fed had ceeded the land to NV.
Here's a paragraph from the cover letter of the report:
"This inventory, which is enclosed herewith, directly cornplernents the Inventory Report on Real Property Owned by
the United States Throughout the World, as of June 30, 1962,
which was also published by GSA."
That sure seems to suggest that they still feel like the own it. | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | I wish I could read half of this stuff, but I'm working. I appreciate everyone's input though. It's interesting.
Pink eye seems to be the flavor of the week. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-14 2:43 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 1:37 PM I posted links to the Eisenhower Report of 1962 and the listings of the land in Nevada whcich clearly shows Clark county & the land in question as a 'Code 4' jurisdiction. You continue to deny it has any bearing.
I don't know the answer to your question...I've asked it myself, but, that in no way is an abandonment. There've been attempsts over the century's to right this wrong, alas, the congressmen from the east have a vote...it's money out of their pockets. Which reminds me, Smiley...those $$$ you speak of is indeed the root of the evil...this is the money that congress 'fights' over year after year...it's the money that belongs rightfully to the states. Why can't we get our land? If we have to ask...This is the greed in America. This is why all of you maintain support for the fed...because you think it's yours now...it's the carrot on a stick & you won't give it to the rightful owners. The states in which it came from.
Shame. Shame.
I can see that this conversation will go nowhere because the choice of right & wrong demands admittance of immense greed & corruption.
I read the report and came to a different conclusion. I wonder why you refer to it as the Eisenhower report when this is the proper name:
"Inventory Report on Jurisdictional Status of Federal Areas within the States"
That doesn't sound like the fed had ceeded the land to NV.
Here's a paragraph from the cover letter of the report:
"This inventory, which is enclosed herewith, directly cornplernents the Inventory Report on Real Property Owned by
the United States Throughout the World, as of June 30, 1962,
which was also published by GSA."
That sure seems to suggest that they still feel like the own it.
Does the term: "A Government for The People by The People and of The People" resonate w/ anyone? Your reference to The Federal Government as 'They' is contradictory then, is it not? | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | here.....maybe this is something we can all agree on....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/14/regulation-nation-breweries-fight-back-against-new-government-grain-rules/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| foundation horse - 2014-04-14 2:47 PM Does the term: "A Government for The People by The People and of The People" resonate w/ anyone? Your reference to The Federal Government as 'They' is contradictory then, is it not?
LMAO! FH, give me a freaking break. Don't look for profound meaning in my pronouns. LOL! | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-14 3:00 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-14 2:47 PM Does the term: "A Government for The People by The People and of The People" resonate w/ anyone? Your reference to The Federal Government as 'They' is contradictory then, is it not?
LMAO! FH, give me a freaking break. Don't look for profound meaning in my pronouns. LOL!
Hehehehe. I thought you would get a kick out of that.
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-14 1:04 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 1:53 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 12:35 PM Here is another incident of The Feds fulfilling the role of Jack Booted Thugs. This article also clearly articulates the reasoning, history and timeline of ranchers being forced out by The Feds! Smiley & Hotbear, ya'll really need to read this! http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-family... FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH-Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!! April 12, 2014 / Clark Kent / 141 comments When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other. Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property. Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived. Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service. Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board. Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.” His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.” Last hope for ranchers? Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States. Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution. The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000 acres and includes some of the most beautiful land in southwest New Mexico, situated between and including portions of the http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&... and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas. Laney’s ancestors began the “Laney Cattle Company” there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, “prior appropriation” of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the “rights” to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water. Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government. In 1899, the federal government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney’s ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights. Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered “public land.” Specifically, “It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land,” according to Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain. Forest Service stepped in When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas. The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes. The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water. The designated area was called an “allotment.” The ranchers paid the Forest Service a fee for their adjudication service, a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access. The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment. Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a “license” required by the federal government. Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations. Problems from outset Laney’s problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985. The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner. The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch. The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified. Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement. When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land. Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s. They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government. They believe the government’s original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land. Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights. Ridding the West of ranchers For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states. Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, there was a concerted, coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers. In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus. The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans. Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people. The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor. Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government. Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project. Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol’-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives. Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government’s willingness to advance the goals of the Wildlands Project. The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands” which the federal government had claimed to be federal land. Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.” The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights. Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build. He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back. These ranchers are from the same stock of ranchers who pushed the United States all the way to the Pacific ocean; once riled, they may push the Forest Service all the way back to Washington.
I don't think anyone is trying to end ranching - I think rather - they are asking ranchers to do it on their own property. There are three ranch conservancys ranches in Colorado that do quite well and have worked within the system to save the ranches. There are alternatives, but people don't like change, and they don't like to see traditional lives (cowboys/ranchers) up against challenges, well, that's life folks, for everyone. However, The Constitutional Court System has recognized "Chain of Title" as per the Hage Family Court Decision. Smiley, are you sure you are not contradicting yourself here?
I might be, I'm not a land lawyer. I'm simply saying that this particular rancher is wrong. I don't know anything about the Texas case and it scares me that they can come in and take hundreds of acres, I'm not arging that case, I'm arguing this case (bundy) and this case only, as it's the only one I've read up on.
My point was, this is hardly the only case. Everday something unfair happens in America, why is THIS rancher special? This rancher is actually wrong, wrong, wrong but everyone is jumping on a lynch style mobwagon of epic proportions and someone will end up dead over this if the feds come back in and cowboys and others show back up. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-14 1:16 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 12:55 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 12:37 PM TXBO - 2014-04-14 9:59 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 10:30 AM I've never denied a certain idealistic view...not so much the pacifist, but I don't 'get' people who refuse to study & dig for the truth...no different than people saying we're a Democracy! Say something enough times and people believe it.
I never said the fed can't 'own' land...they can within the perimeters set forth by the Constitution...it does not include large tracts of land such as we are now dealing with, granted, a state can abandon land to fed, however, the fed is not in the position of accepting as it undermines the basic rights of the citizens.
The Eisenhower Report of 1962 lists ALL lands that the fed is affiliated with, the year it was 'acquired' and the jurisdictional code applied. My issue with the federal judicial authority concerning these lands is that it's been determined that the authority lies with the state. These are issues that people need to understand so we may get on the same page...I also take issue wth the many corrupt instances of judicial overreach. It happens. And I'm not the threat...apathy is.
Anyhow...I've posted all the info I have in this & other threads...for those who are interested in the letter of the law...it's there.
What you don't get is people who dig for the truth and come to a different conclusion than you. You're deriving your position based on op-ed pieces and not the actual legal documents. Much of your info has included agenda drive commentary with documentation and at least once you left out a key phrase to a constitutional article.
Let me ask you this..... Nevada has had statehood since 1864. Why have they made no attemt to aquire deed to this land? Why are they not stepping up now saying this is our land?
BTW.... I'd love for the courts to rule that I'm wrong.
I don't know the answer to your question...I've asked it myself, but, that in no way is an abandonment. There've been attempsts over the century's to right this wrong, alas, the congressmen from the east have a vote...it's money out of their pockets. Which reminds me, Smiley...those $$$ you speak of is indeed the root of the evil...this is the money that congress 'fights' over year after year...it's the money that belongs rightfully to the states. Why can't we get our land? If we have to ask...This is the greed in America. This is why all of you maintain support for the fed...because you think it's yours now...it's the carrot on a stick & you won't give it to the rightful owners. The states in which it came from.
Shame. Shame.
I can see that this conversation will go nowhere because the choice of right & wrong demands admittance of immense greed & corruption.
We need to stand up for the states rights. This isn't about the cattle...it never has b een...it's about a rancher who's standing up to an out of control gov't.
Thanks for asking!
So, how does that look to you?? The BLM and the Forest Service and other agencies just hand over millions on millions of dollars of work and buildings and vehicles and say "Well, good luck guys, it's been fun."
I mean, it's a very unrealistic idea - just turn it over guys............at the very least Utah seems to have a plan for any lands that they want - Nevada doesn't have a state plan to take over federal lands, from what I can tell the STATE of Nevada does not want the lands, nor do they seem to side with Bundy. So, just force it on them?? Like I said, these agencies are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't.
And you still didn't broach bundy and his cattle - you think that the state of nevada isn't going to tell him there are rules (allowable cattle numbers) and grazing fees? | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| TXBO - 2014-04-14 1:43 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 1:37 PM I posted links to the Eisenhower Report of 1962 and the listings of the land in Nevada whcich clearly shows Clark county & the land in question as a 'Code 4' jurisdiction. You continue to deny it has any bearing.
I don't know the answer to your question...I've asked it myself, but, that in no way is an abandonment. There've been attempsts over the century's to right this wrong, alas, the congressmen from the east have a vote...it's money out of their pockets. Which reminds me, Smiley...those $$$ you speak of is indeed the root of the evil...this is the money that congress 'fights' over year after year...it's the money that belongs rightfully to the states. Why can't we get our land? If we have to ask...This is the greed in America. This is why all of you maintain support for the fed...because you think it's yours now...it's the carrot on a stick & you won't give it to the rightful owners. The states in which it came from.
Shame. Shame.
I can see that this conversation will go nowhere because the choice of right & wrong demands admittance of immense greed & corruption.
I read the report and came to a different conclusion. I wonder why you refer to it as the Eisenhower report when this is the proper name:
"Inventory Report on Jurisdictional Status of Federal Areas within the States"
That doesn't sound like the fed had ceeded the land to NV.
Here's a paragraph from the cover letter of the report:
"This inventory, which is enclosed herewith, directly cornplernents the Inventory Report on Real Property Owned by
the United States Throughout the World, as of June 30, 1962,
which was also published by GSA."
That sure seems to suggest that they still feel like the own it.
That's why I couldn't find it - I was looking for the wrong name. The Laney ranch issue is disturbing to me. The NV rancher is not. The NV rancher is simply in the wrong. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-14 2:16 PM The only answer is to put the states on equal footing by releasing the land...or, at the very least, stop fighting for jurisdiction that the fed does not have...the misinformation is appalling. There does exist documentation that proves jurisdiction & authority.
We need to stand up for the states rights. This isn't about the cattle...it never has b een...it's about a rancher who's standing up to an out of control gov't.
Thanks for asking!
The fed isn't fighting for legislative jurisdiction. Kicking Cliven off the land would be within proprietary rights of any landholder whose leesee failed to pay or breached the terms of use. Confusing people with legislative jurisdiction vs proprietary interest is certainly misinformation.
Edited by TXBO 2014-04-14 4:24 PM
| |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1857
| smiley - 2014-04-14 3:44 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 1:16 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 12:55 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 12:37 PM TXBO - 2014-04-14 9:59 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 10:30 AM I've never denied a certain idealistic view...not so much the pacifist, but I don't 'get' people who refuse to study & dig for the truth...no different than people saying we're a Democracy! Say something enough times and people believe it.
I never said the fed can't 'own' land...they can within the perimeters set forth by the Constitution...it does not include large tracts of land such as we are now dealing with, granted, a state can abandon land to fed, however, the fed is not in the position of accepting as it undermines the basic rights of the citizens.
The Eisenhower Report of 1962 lists ALL lands that the fed is affiliated with, the year it was 'acquired' and the jurisdictional code applied. My issue with the federal judicial authority concerning these lands is that it's been determined that the authority lies with the state. These are issues that people need to understand so we may get on the same page...I also take issue wth the many corrupt instances of judicial overreach. It happens. And I'm not the threat...apathy is.
Anyhow...I've posted all the info I have in this & other threads...for those who are interested in the letter of the law...it's there.
What you don't get is people who dig for the truth and come to a different conclusion than you. You're deriving your position based on op-ed pieces and not the actual legal documents. Much of your info has included agenda drive commentary with documentation and at least once you left out a key phrase to a constitutional article.
Let me ask you this..... Nevada has had statehood since 1864. Why have they made no attemt to aquire deed to this land? Why are they not stepping up now saying this is our land?
BTW.... I'd love for the courts to rule that I'm wrong.
I don't know the answer to your question...I've asked it myself, but, that in no way is an abandonment. There've been attempsts over the century's to right this wrong, alas, the congressmen from the east have a vote...it's money out of their pockets. Which reminds me, Smiley...those $$$ you speak of is indeed the root of the evil...this is the money that congress 'fights' over year after year...it's the money that belongs rightfully to the states. Why can't we get our land? If we have to ask...This is the greed in America. This is why all of you maintain support for the fed...because you think it's yours now...it's the carrot on a stick & you won't give it to the rightful owners. The states in which it came from.
Shame. Shame.
I can see that this conversation will go nowhere because the choice of right & wrong demands admittance of immense greed & corruption.
We need to stand up for the states rights. This isn't about the cattle...it never has b een...it's about a rancher who's standing up to an out of control gov't.
Thanks for asking!
I mean, it's a very unrealistic idea - just turn it over guys............at the very least Utah seems to have a plan for any lands that they want - Nevada doesn't have a state plan to take over federal lands, from what I can tell the STATE of Nevada does not want the lands, nor do they seem to side with Bundy. So, just force it on them?? Like I said, these agencies are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't.
And you still didn't broach bundy and his cattle - you think that the state of nevada isn't going to tell him there are rules (allowable cattle numbers) and grazing fees?
I think they are discusing it:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/Reports/history.cfm?billname=AB227
http://www.elynews.com/2014/02/28/nevada-land-management-task-force-continues-discussion-public-lands-issues-seeks-public-input-next-county-meeting/
http://www.lccentral.com/many-opportunities-hurdles-tap-rural-nevada-2014/
http://www.americanlegislator.org/nevada-becomes-the-5th-western-state-to-explore-the-transfer-of-public-lands/
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| TXBO - 2014-04-14 3:19 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-14 2:16 PM The only answer is to put the states on equal footing by releasing the land...or, at the very least, stop fighting for jurisdiction that the fed does not have...the misinformation is appalling. There does exist documentation that proves jurisdiction & authority.
We need to stand up for the states rights. This isn't about the cattle...it never has b een...it's about a rancher who's standing up to an out of control gov't.
Thanks for asking!
The fed isn't fighting for legislative jurisdiction. Kicking Cliven off the land would be within proprietary rights of any landholder whose leesee failed to pay or breached the terms of use. Confusing people with legislative jurisdiction vs proprietary interest is certainly misinformation.
Funny, I don't recall these usually being the people I agree with on this forum. LOL | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| FlyingJT - 2014-04-14 3:22 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 3:44 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 1:16 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 12:55 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 12:37 PM TXBO - 2014-04-14 9:59 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 10:30 AM I've never denied a certain idealistic view...not so much the pacifist, but I don't 'get' people who refuse to study & dig for the truth...no different than people saying we're a Democracy! Say something enough times and people believe it.
I never said the fed can't 'own' land...they can within the perimeters set forth by the Constitution...it does not include large tracts of land such as we are now dealing with, granted, a state can abandon land to fed, however, the fed is not in the position of accepting as it undermines the basic rights of the citizens.
The Eisenhower Report of 1962 lists ALL lands that the fed is affiliated with, the year it was 'acquired' and the jurisdictional code applied. My issue with the federal judicial authority concerning these lands is that it's been determined that the authority lies with the state. These are issues that people need to understand so we may get on the same page...I also take issue wth the many corrupt instances of judicial overreach. It happens. And I'm not the threat...apathy is.
Anyhow...I've posted all the info I have in this & other threads...for those who are interested in the letter of the law...it's there.
What you don't get is people who dig for the truth and come to a different conclusion than you. You're deriving your position based on op-ed pieces and not the actual legal documents. Much of your info has included agenda drive commentary with documentation and at least once you left out a key phrase to a constitutional article.
Let me ask you this..... Nevada has had statehood since 1864. Why have they made no attemt to aquire deed to this land? Why are they not stepping up now saying this is our land?
BTW.... I'd love for the courts to rule that I'm wrong.
I don't know the answer to your question...I've asked it myself, but, that in no way is an abandonment. There've been attempsts over the century's to right this wrong, alas, the congressmen from the east have a vote...it's money out of their pockets. Which reminds me, Smiley...those $$$ you speak of is indeed the root of the evil...this is the money that congress 'fights' over year after year...it's the money that belongs rightfully to the states. Why can't we get our land? If we have to ask...This is the greed in America. This is why all of you maintain support for the fed...because you think it's yours now...it's the carrot on a stick & you won't give it to the rightful owners. The states in which it came from.
Shame. Shame.
I can see that this conversation will go nowhere because the choice of right & wrong demands admittance of immense greed & corruption.
We need to stand up for the states rights. This isn't about the cattle...it never has b een...it's about a rancher who's standing up to an out of control gov't.
Thanks for asking!
I mean, it's a very unrealistic idea - just turn it over guys............at the very least Utah seems to have a plan for any lands that they want - Nevada doesn't have a state plan to take over federal lands, from what I can tell the STATE of Nevada does not want the lands, nor do they seem to side with Bundy. So, just force it on them?? Like I said, these agencies are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't.
And you still didn't broach bundy and his cattle - you think that the state of nevada isn't going to tell him there are rules (allowable cattle numbers) and grazing fees? I think they are discusing it:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/Reports/history.cfm?billname=AB227
http://www.elynews.com/2014/02/28/nevada-land-management-task-force-continues-discussion-public-lands-issues-seeks-public-input-next-county-meeting/
http://www.lccentral.com/many-opportunities-hurdles-tap-rural-nevada-2014/
http://www.americanlegislator.org/nevada-becomes-the-5th-western-state-to-explore-the-transfer-of-public-lands/
Thank you, I will look those over! I know Utah and WYoming are deep into trying to get control of their land in its entirety. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Makes for interesting bedfellows. What are you wearing?
Edited by TXBO 2014-04-14 5:41 PM
| |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-14 4:33 PM Makes for interesting bedfellows. What are you wearing, Jake...from State Farm? | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | FlyingJT - 2014-04-14 3:22 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 3:44 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 1:16 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 12:55 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 12:37 PM TXBO - 2014-04-14 9:59 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 10:30 AM I've never denied a certain idealistic view...not so much the pacifist, but I don't 'get' people who refuse to study & dig for the truth...no different than people saying we're a Democracy! Say something enough times and people believe it.
I never said the fed can't 'own' land...they can within the perimeters set forth by the Constitution...it does not include large tracts of land such as we are now dealing with, granted, a state can abandon land to fed, however, the fed is not in the position of accepting as it undermines the basic rights of the citizens.
The Eisenhower Report of 1962 lists ALL lands that the fed is affiliated with, the year it was 'acquired' and the jurisdictional code applied. My issue with the federal judicial authority concerning these lands is that it's been determined that the authority lies with the state. These are issues that people need to understand so we may get on the same page...I also take issue wth the many corrupt instances of judicial overreach. It happens. And I'm not the threat...apathy is.
Anyhow...I've posted all the info I have in this & other threads...for those who are interested in the letter of the law...it's there.
What you don't get is people who dig for the truth and come to a different conclusion than you. You're deriving your position based on op-ed pieces and not the actual legal documents. Much of your info has included agenda drive commentary with documentation and at least once you left out a key phrase to a constitutional article.
Let me ask you this..... Nevada has had statehood since 1864. Why have they made no attemt to aquire deed to this land? Why are they not stepping up now saying this is our land?
BTW.... I'd love for the courts to rule that I'm wrong.
I don't know the answer to your question...I've asked it myself, but, that in no way is an abandonment. There've been attempsts over the century's to right this wrong, alas, the congressmen from the east have a vote...it's money out of their pockets. Which reminds me, Smiley...those $$$ you speak of is indeed the root of the evil...this is the money that congress 'fights' over year after year...it's the money that belongs rightfully to the states. Why can't we get our land? If we have to ask...This is the greed in America. This is why all of you maintain support for the fed...because you think it's yours now...it's the carrot on a stick & you won't give it to the rightful owners. The states in which it came from.
Shame. Shame.
I can see that this conversation will go nowhere because the choice of right & wrong demands admittance of immense greed & corruption.
We need to stand up for the states rights. This isn't about the cattle...it never has b een...it's about a rancher who's standing up to an out of control gov't.
Thanks for asking!
I mean, it's a very unrealistic idea - just turn it over guys............at the very least Utah seems to have a plan for any lands that they want - Nevada doesn't have a state plan to take over federal lands, from what I can tell the STATE of Nevada does not want the lands, nor do they seem to side with Bundy. So, just force it on them?? Like I said, these agencies are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't.
And you still didn't broach bundy and his cattle - you think that the state of nevada isn't going to tell him there are rules (allowable cattle numbers) and grazing fees? I think they are discusing it:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/Reports/history.cfm?billname=AB227
http://www.elynews.com/2014/02/28/nevada-land-management-task-force-continues-discussion-public-lands-issues-seeks-public-input-next-county-meeting/
http://www.lccentral.com/many-opportunities-hurdles-tap-rural-nevada-2014/
http://www.americanlegislator.org/nevada-becomes-the-5th-western-state-to-explore-the-transfer-of-public-lands/
Lol...thank you! I have to laugh because I highly doubt that anyone here remembers the 'Sagebrush Rebellion' that started in Elko, NV back in the 1970's...one of the founders was a good friend...it lives on.
Most of this is 'new' fodder' for the public...it's not new to those of us who live here. I suppose that's why I recommend that if you're not directly affected on a daily basis (ugh...hard to draw the line there as the fed has MADE the public think they're some kind of 'honorary landlord' with benefits)...then listen to what the people who deal with them have to say.
This issue isn't about public opinion...it's about the states who have been denied 'equal footing'...the monies we pay in that are used against us (and you).
And...TXBO, a Code 4 jurisdiction gives the authority to the state. Period. Our sheriff is the power...
Smiley...I have no beef with you, I just want to point out to others that you work for the fed. Your posts don't say so, but, they do reflect it. I understand your desire to protect who signs your paycheck...however, people should take that into consideration when reading your posts.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-14 3:41 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-14 1:04 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 1:53 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 12:35 PM Here is another incident of The Feds fulfilling the role of Jack Booted Thugs. This article also clearly articulates the reasoning, history and timeline of ranchers being forced out by The Feds! Smiley & Hotbear, ya'll really need to read this! http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-family... FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH-Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!! April 12, 2014 / Clark Kent / 141 comments When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other. Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property. Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived. Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service. Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board. Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.” His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.” Last hope for ranchers? Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States. Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution. The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000 acres and includes some of the most beautiful land in southwest New Mexico, situated between and including portions of the http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&state=n... and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas. Laney’s ancestors began the “Laney Cattle Company” there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, “prior appropriation” of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the “rights” to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water. Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government. In 1899, the federal government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney’s ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights. Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered “public land.” Specifically, “It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land,” according to Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain. Forest Service stepped in When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas. The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes. The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water. The designated area was called an “allotment.” The ranchers paid the Forest Service a fee for their adjudication service, a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access. The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment. Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a “license” required by the federal government. Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations. Problems from outset Laney’s problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985. The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner. The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch. The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified. Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement. When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land. Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s. They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government. They believe the government’s original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land. Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights. Ridding the West of ranchers For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states. Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, there was a concerted, coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers. In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus. The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans. Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people. The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor. Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government. Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project. Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol’-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives. Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government’s willingness to advance the goals of the Wildlands Project. The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands” which the federal government had claimed to be federal land. Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.” The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights. Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build. He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back. These ranchers are from the same stock of ranchers who pushed the United States all the way to the Pacific ocean; once riled, they may push the Forest Service all the way back to Washington.
I don't think anyone is trying to end ranching - I think rather - they are asking ranchers to do it on their own property. There are three ranch conservancys ranches in Colorado that do quite well and have worked within the system to save the ranches. There are alternatives, but people don't like change, and they don't like to see traditional lives (cowboys/ranchers) up against challenges, well, that's life folks, for everyone. However, The Constitutional Court System has recognized "Chain of Title" as per the Hage Family Court Decision. Smiley, are you sure you are not contradicting yourself here?
I might be, I'm not a land lawyer. I'm simply saying that this particular rancher is wrong. I don't know anything about the Texas case and it scares me that they can come in and take hundreds of acres, I'm not arging that case, I'm arguing this case (bundy) and this case only, as it's the only one I've read up on.
My point was, this is hardly the only case. Everday something unfair happens in America, why is THIS rancher special? This rancher is actually wrong, wrong, wrong but everyone is jumping on a lynch style mobwagon of epic proportions and someone will end up dead over this if the feds come back in and cowboys and others show back up.
Per the timeline(s) listed and historical origins of both the Laney Scenario (New Mexico) and Bundy Debacle (Nevada) I find more similarities than disparities in their backstories that have led to The Feds becoming extremely heavy handed in dealing with these Ranchers.
Both Ranchers claim chain of title, although the Bundy Claim is not as well documented as the Laney Chain of Title has been listed to be.
Both Ranches' Origins predate the Current Federal Agencies in disagreement with.
Both Ranchers declined to sign "License Agreements" within a couple years of each.
The major difference is The Laney Ranch is dealt with by The Forest Service and The Bundy Ranch The BLM.
Please crosscheck what I am posting to either concur or dispute.
Edited by foundation horse 2014-04-14 5:07 PM
| |
| | |
Warmblood with Wings
Posts: 27846
Location: Florida.. | TXBO - 2014-04-14 5:33 PM Makes for interesting bedfellows. What are you wearing, Jake...from State Farm?   | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-14 4:50 PM......
And...TXBO, a Code 4 jurisdiction gives the authority to the state. Period. Our sheriff is the power...
.......
Here we go again.....
Yes the state has legislative jurisdiction but the fed owns the land and maintains a proprietary interest. That grants the fed all the rights of any land owner in NV as well as some additional.
Here's the easiest deliniation I can come up with:
Say I own 1000 acres in NV. If I want to allow people to hunt the land, I can. If I want to post the land and not allow hunting I can. The state has no say. I maintain the landowner rights. However, anybody that hunts there has to have a NV hunting license and follow all the laws of NV. I maintain proprietary rights. NV maintains jurisdiction and authority.
Same would be true for the fed's proprietary rights. Same would be true for leasing grazing rights.
BTW.... that report was written over 50 years ago. Jurisdiction may have changed.
Edited by TXBO 2014-04-14 5:20 PM
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | foundation horse - 2014-04-14 4:05 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 3:41 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 1:04 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 1:53 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 12:35 PM
Yes, other ranches in other states have had their cheap grazing gravy train taken away as well. Sorry guys but this whole "they were there first" is just what illegal immigrants are using for their cases today. Don't buy it. If your ranch can't survive without federal land, then change your business. Life happens. My husband's family lost the family farm in the 80s, it happens. It's sad and frustrating but it's reality and the reality is that this PUBLIC land belongs to more than ranchers. And those people are starting to wonder why ranchers are so special that they get to pay these crazy low fees to use public land that then keep others off of it.
I don't think anyone is trying to end ranching - I think rather - they are asking ranchers to do it on their own property. There are three ranch conservancys ranches in Colorado that do quite well and have worked within the system to save the ranches. There are alternatives, but people don't like change, and they don't like to see traditional lives (cowboys/ranchers) up against challenges, well, that's life folks, for everyone. However, The Constitutional Court System has recognized "Chain of Title" as per the Hage Family Court Decision. Smiley, are you sure you are not contradicting yourself here?
I might be, I'm not a land lawyer. I'm simply saying that this particular rancher is wrong. I don't know anything about the Texas case and it scares me that they can come in and take hundreds of acres, I'm not arging that case, I'm arguing this case (bundy) and this case only, as it's the only one I've read up on.
My point was, this is hardly the only case. Everday something unfair happens in America, why is THIS rancher special? This rancher is actually wrong, wrong, wrong but everyone is jumping on a lynch style mobwagon of epic proportions and someone will end up dead over this if the feds come back in and cowboys and others show back up. Per the timeline (s ) listed and historical origins of both the Laney Scenario (New Mexico ) and Bundy Debacle (Nevada ) I find more similarities than disparities in their backstories that have led to The Feds becoming extremely heavy handed in dealing with these Ranchers. Both Ranchers claim chain of title, although the Bundy Claim is not as well documented as the Laney Chain of Title has been listed to be. Both Ranches' Origins predate the Current Federal Agencies in disagreement with. Both Ranchers declined to sign "License Agreements" within a couple years of each. The major difference is The Laney Ranch is dealt with by The Forest Service and The Bundy Ranch The BLM. Please crosscheck what I am posting to either concur or dispute.
As noted earlier...this really isn't about 'cheap grazing' or cattle...it's much deeper than that. I've spent years trying to get some attention on these issues, I admit, I'm a bad teacher & I'm sorry I ever tried...guess the majority won't get it until it happens to them. Of course, it'll be far too late then... | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Bibliafarm - 2014-04-14 5:09 PM TXBO - 2014-04-14 5:33 PM Makes for interesting bedfellows. What are you wearing, Jake...from State Farm?
Hurt?! Last I heard you weren't very happy with me. Thought I better keep my cyber hands to myself. LOL! | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-14 3:50 PM FlyingJT - 2014-04-14 3:22 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 3:44 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 1:16 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 12:55 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 12:37 PM TXBO - 2014-04-14 9:59 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 10:30 AM I've never denied a certain idealistic view...not so much the pacifist, but I don't 'get' people who refuse to study & dig for the truth...no different than people saying we're a Democracy! Say something enough times and people believe it.
I never said the fed can't 'own' land...they can within the perimeters set forth by the Constitution...it does not include large tracts of land such as we are now dealing with, granted, a state can abandon land to fed, however, the fed is not in the position of accepting as it undermines the basic rights of the citizens.
The Eisenhower Report of 1962 lists ALL lands that the fed is affiliated with, the year it was 'acquired' and the jurisdictional code applied. My issue with the federal judicial authority concerning these lands is that it's been determined that the authority lies with the state. These are issues that people need to understand so we may get on the same page...I also take issue wth the many corrupt instances of judicial overreach. It happens. And I'm not the threat...apathy is.
Anyhow...I've posted all the info I have in this & other threads...for those who are interested in the letter of the law...it's there.
What you don't get is people who dig for the truth and come to a different conclusion than you. You're deriving your position based on op-ed pieces and not the actual legal documents. Much of your info has included agenda drive commentary with documentation and at least once you left out a key phrase to a constitutional article.
Let me ask you this..... Nevada has had statehood since 1864. Why have they made no attemt to aquire deed to this land? Why are they not stepping up now saying this is our land?
BTW.... I'd love for the courts to rule that I'm wrong.
I don't know the answer to your question...I've asked it myself, but, that in no way is an abandonment. There've been attempsts over the century's to right this wrong, alas, the congressmen from the east have a vote...it's money out of their pockets. Which reminds me, Smiley...those $$$ you speak of is indeed the root of the evil...this is the money that congress 'fights' over year after year...it's the money that belongs rightfully to the states. Why can't we get our land? If we have to ask...This is the greed in America. This is why all of you maintain support for the fed...because you think it's yours now...it's the carrot on a stick & you won't give it to the rightful owners. The states in which it came from.
Shame. Shame.
I can see that this conversation will go nowhere because the choice of right & wrong demands admittance of immense greed & corruption.
We need to stand up for the states rights. This isn't about the cattle...it never has b een...it's about a rancher who's standing up to an out of control gov't.
Thanks for asking!
I mean, it's a very unrealistic idea - just turn it over guys............at the very least Utah seems to have a plan for any lands that they want - Nevada doesn't have a state plan to take over federal lands, from what I can tell the STATE of Nevada does not want the lands, nor do they seem to side with Bundy. So, just force it on them?? Like I said, these agencies are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't.
And you still didn't broach bundy and his cattle - you think that the state of nevada isn't going to tell him there are rules (allowable cattle numbers) and grazing fees? I think they are discusing it:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/Reports/history.cfm?billname=AB227
http://www.elynews.com/2014/02/28/nevada-land-management-task-force-continues-discussion-public-lands-issues-seeks-public-input-next-county-meeting/
http://www.lccentral.com/many-opportunities-hurdles-tap-rural-nevada-2014/
http://www.americanlegislator.org/nevada-becomes-the-5th-western-state-to-explore-the-transfer-of-public-lands/
Most of this is 'new' fodder' for the public...it's not new to those of us who live here. I suppose that's why I recommend that if you're not directly affected on a daily basis (ugh...hard to draw the line there as the fed has MADE the public think they're some kind of 'honorary landlord' with benefits)...then listen to what the people who deal with them have to say.
This issue isn't about public opinion...it's about the states who have been denied 'equal footing'...the monies we pay in that are used against us (and you).
And...TXBO, a Code 4 jurisdiction gives the authority to the state. Period. Our sheriff is the power...
Smiley...I have no beef with you, I just want to point out to others that you work for the fed. Your posts don't say so, but, they do reflect it. I understand your desire to protect who signs your paycheck...however, people should take that into consideration when reading your posts.
Just like Finney's personal life, it shouldn't matter who I work for or don't work for. I've been at my new job a whopping 3 months, and my opinion would not be different in THIS case regardless. And in fact, some of the other cases I fully disagree with - so you're telling me that my opinion in other cases is good to go but in this one - well, I work for the feds. See, again, hypocrisy. I should not have to justify who signs my paycheck to have an opinion, since opinions are like *******s and we all have them.
It's just like people to assume that my opinions must be shaped via my work, but when I worked for the military I had opinions on the military that don't jive with others. When I worked for anyone, I can see what is wrong and I can have an opinion about it, such as the PRCA and antics I saw there. I don't sell my soul or my opinion for a paycheck, but that's a good try to make me look like some bought and paid for shill or stooge based on three whole months in a new job. SMH | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-14 4:05 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 3:41 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 1:04 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 1:53 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 12:35 PM Here is another incident of The Feds fulfilling the role of Jack Booted Thugs. This article also clearly articulates the reasoning, history and timeline of ranchers being forced out by The Feds! Smiley & Hotbear, ya'll really need to read this! http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/12/feds-seize-family... FEDS SEIZE FAMILY’S RANCH-Property owners fight government ‘land grab’!!! April 12, 2014 / Clark Kent / 141 comments When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other. Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property. Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived. Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service. Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board. Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.” His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.” Last hope for ranchers? Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States. Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution. The Diamond Bar Ranch is at least 180,000 acres and includes some of the most beautiful land in southwest New Mexico, situated between and including portions of the http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=stateView&... and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas. Laney’s ancestors began the “Laney Cattle Company” there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, “prior appropriation” of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the “rights” to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water. Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government. In 1899, the federal government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney’s ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights. Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered “public land.” Specifically, “It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land,” according to Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain. Forest Service stepped in When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas. The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes. The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water. The designated area was called an “allotment.” The ranchers paid the Forest Service a fee for their adjudication service, a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access. The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment. Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a “license” required by the federal government. Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations. Problems from outset Laney’s problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985. The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner. The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch. The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified. Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement. When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land. Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s. They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government. They believe the government’s original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land. Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights. Ridding the West of ranchers For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states. Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, there was a concerted, coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers. In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus. The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans. Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people. The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor. Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government. Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project. Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol’-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives. Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government’s willingness to advance the goals of the Wildlands Project. The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands” which the federal government had claimed to be federal land. Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.” The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights. Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build. He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back. These ranchers are from the same stock of ranchers who pushed the United States all the way to the Pacific ocean; once riled, they may push the Forest Service all the way back to Washington.
I don't think anyone is trying to end ranching - I think rather - they are asking ranchers to do it on their own property. There are three ranch conservancys ranches in Colorado that do quite well and have worked within the system to save the ranches. There are alternatives, but people don't like change, and they don't like to see traditional lives (cowboys/ranchers) up against challenges, well, that's life folks, for everyone. However, The Constitutional Court System has recognized "Chain of Title" as per the Hage Family Court Decision. Smiley, are you sure you are not contradicting yourself here?
I might be, I'm not a land lawyer. I'm simply saying that this particular rancher is wrong. I don't know anything about the Texas case and it scares me that they can come in and take hundreds of acres, I'm not arging that case, I'm arguing this case (bundy) and this case only, as it's the only one I've read up on.
My point was, this is hardly the only case. Everday something unfair happens in America, why is THIS rancher special? This rancher is actually wrong, wrong, wrong but everyone is jumping on a lynch style mobwagon of epic proportions and someone will end up dead over this if the feds come back in and cowboys and others show back up. Per the timeline (s ) listed and historical origins of both the Laney Scenario (New Mexico ) and Bundy Debacle (Nevada ) I find more similarities than disparities in their backstories that have led to The Feds becoming extremely heavy handed in dealing with these Ranchers. Both Ranchers claim chain of title, although the Bundy Claim is not as well documented as the Laney Chain of Title has been listed to be. Both Ranches' Origins predate the Current Federal Agencies in disagreement with. Both Ranchers declined to sign "License Agreements" within a couple years of each. The major difference is The Laney Ranch is dealt with by The Forest Service and The Bundy Ranch The BLM. Please crosscheck what I am posting to either concur or dispute.
How can the Bundy's predate the Louisanna purchase? The BLM IS the GLO, they simply had a name change and some other admin changes, the GLO - govt. land office - has been in existence since 1812.
And let's say he did predate the BLM - SO what? IT's STILL NOT HIS PROPERTY. That is not even in question by him! He admits, it's NOT his property. Again, that is like telling your new landlord that you "predate" him and that you're old agreement supersedes his authority, see how far you will get.
IF, and this is a big IF, the Bundy's go as far as the Hages did then we'll see if they too can win at that level, however, I don't think that will happen.
What you all seem to miss is that the ENVIRONMENTALISTS are doing the pushing, and they have a point - these are PUBLIC lands, not rancher's lands. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-14 4:18 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 4:05 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 3:41 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 1:04 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 1:53 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 12:35 PM
Yes, other ranches in other states have had their cheap grazing gravy train taken away as well. Sorry guys but this whole "they were there first" is just what illegal immigrants are using for their cases today. Don't buy it. If your ranch can't survive without federal land, then change your business. Life happens. My husband's family lost the family farm in the 80s, it happens. It's sad and frustrating but it's reality and the reality is that this PUBLIC land belongs to more than ranchers. And those people are starting to wonder why ranchers are so special that they get to pay these crazy low fees to use public land that then keep others off of it.
I don't think anyone is trying to end ranching - I think rather - they are asking ranchers to do it on their own property. There are three ranch conservancys ranches in Colorado that do quite well and have worked within the system to save the ranches. There are alternatives, but people don't like change, and they don't like to see traditional lives (cowboys/ranchers) up against challenges, well, that's life folks, for everyone. However, The Constitutional Court System has recognized "Chain of Title" as per the Hage Family Court Decision. Smiley, are you sure you are not contradicting yourself here?
I might be, I'm not a land lawyer. I'm simply saying that this particular rancher is wrong. I don't know anything about the Texas case and it scares me that they can come in and take hundreds of acres, I'm not arging that case, I'm arguing this case (bundy) and this case only, as it's the only one I've read up on.
My point was, this is hardly the only case. Everday something unfair happens in America, why is THIS rancher special? This rancher is actually wrong, wrong, wrong but everyone is jumping on a lynch style mobwagon of epic proportions and someone will end up dead over this if the feds come back in and cowboys and others show back up. Per the timeline (s ) listed and historical origins of both the Laney Scenario (New Mexico ) and Bundy Debacle (Nevada ) I find more similarities than disparities in their backstories that have led to The Feds becoming extremely heavy handed in dealing with these Ranchers. Both Ranchers claim chain of title, although the Bundy Claim is not as well documented as the Laney Chain of Title has been listed to be. Both Ranches' Origins predate the Current Federal Agencies in disagreement with. Both Ranchers declined to sign "License Agreements" within a couple years of each. The major difference is The Laney Ranch is dealt with by The Forest Service and The Bundy Ranch The BLM. Please crosscheck what I am posting to either concur or dispute.
As noted earlier...this really isn't about 'cheap grazing' or cattle...it's much deeper than that. I've spent years trying to get some attention on these issues, I admit, I'm a bad teacher & I'm sorry I ever tried...guess the majority won't get it until it happens to them. Of course, it'll be far too late then...
My husband's family lost a farm/ranch in the 80s due to the banking debacle. He moved on, got another career. IT happens every****day. The only reason that you're up in arms is that it's happening to people YOU know and not ones you don't.
I'm not saying there isn't stuff to fix, and I'm not taking offense to anyone in this conversation, it's a good conversation, but I think this rancher is wrong, just that simple. TXBO had great distincitions in the law and that is the part that people do not seem to get. And if the law is wrong, which it may be, you go to court, you don't put people in danger of being shot based on your misinformation. That's just how I look at it.Edited by smiley 2014-04-14 5:50 PM
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| And Musicmaker, it almost did happen to us. Our first home, a whopping 35 acres was going to be plown under for a super highway. Well, if it was going to happen it was going to happen. Everyone wants progress, they just never want it in their backyard.
I went to the protest meetings and I listened to the information. I wasn't against it per se, but I wasn't for it either. Life is about change, that's one reason I can't stand these global warming alarmists, weather is nothing BUT change. Life is change, everything changes, you roll with it or you get lost in the shuffle. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-14 4:17 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 4:50 PM......
And...TXBO, a Code 4 jurisdiction gives the authority to the state. Period. Our sheriff is the power...
.......
Here we go again.....
Yes the state has legislative jurisdiction but the fed owns the land and maintains a proprietary interest. That grants the fed all the rights of any land owner in NV as well as some additional.
Here's the easiest deliniation I can come up with:
Say I own 1000 acres in NV. If I want to allow people to hunt the land, I can. If I want to post the land and not allow hunting I can. The state has no say. I maintain the landowner rights. However, anybody that hunts there has to have a NV hunting license and follow all the laws of NV. I maintain proprietary rights. NV maintains jurisdiction and authority.
Same would be true for the fed's proprietary rights. Same would be true for leasing grazing rights.
BTW.... that report was written over 50 years ago. Jurisdiction may have changed.
Ahhhh...I now see the 'hangup'...you're assuming I have a complete disdain for the fed & am blind to any & all authority they may have..lol. You're kinda right! As said before, this isn't so much about Bundy & his cattle as it's about the states wanting our land...it became especially important to the masses out here during the gov't shutdown last year...many finally realized that we need the same 'Independence' as the originals....it's past time & the only way to achieve it is to finally recieve our equal footing.
Yes...the 'fed' is the agency in which Bundy owes the grazing fees.
Maybe we simply need to sign our own 'Declaration of Independence'? Hmmmm....
This is a c/p from the Inventory Report on Jurisdictional Status of Federal Areas Within the States (commonly refered to as the Eisenhower Report...sorry for that) which explains the 'Proprietary Jusrisdiction' (yeah it worked! New computers...all windows 8.1...headache):
Proprietorial Interest Only. This term is applied to
those instances wherein the Federal Government has
acquired some right of title to an area in a State
but has not obtained any measure of the State's
authority over the area. In applying this definition,
recognition should be given to the fact that the United
States, by virtue of its functions and authority under
various provisions of the Constitution, has many powers
and immunities not possessed by ordinary landholders
with respect to areas in which it acquires an interest,
and of the further fact that all its properties and
functions are held or performed in a governmental
rather than a proprietary capacity.
| |
| | |
Famous for Not Complaining
Posts: 8848
Location: Broxton, Ga | For those interested.......I believe Bundy will be on Hannity tonight........ | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-14 4:38 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 3:50 PM FlyingJT - 2014-04-14 3:22 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 3:44 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 1:16 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 12:55 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 12:37 PM TXBO - 2014-04-14 9:59 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 10:30 AM I've never denied a certain idealistic view...not so much the pacifist, but I don't 'get' people who refuse to study & dig for the truth...no different than people saying we're a Democracy! Say something enough times and people believe it.
I never said the fed can't 'own' land...they can within the perimeters set forth by the Constitution...it does not include large tracts of land such as we are now dealing with, granted, a state can abandon land to fed, however, the fed is not in the position of accepting as it undermines the basic rights of the citizens.
The Eisenhower Report of 1962 lists ALL lands that the fed is affiliated with, the year it was 'acquired' and the jurisdictional code applied. My issue with the federal judicial authority concerning these lands is that it's been determined that the authority lies with the state. These are issues that people need to understand so we may get on the same page...I also take issue wth the many corrupt instances of judicial overreach. It happens. And I'm not the threat...apathy is.
Anyhow...I've posted all the info I have in this & other threads...for those who are interested in the letter of the law...it's there.
What you don't get is people who dig for the truth and come to a different conclusion than you. You're deriving your position based on op-ed pieces and not the actual legal documents. Much of your info has included agenda drive commentary with documentation and at least once you left out a key phrase to a constitutional article.
Let me ask you this..... Nevada has had statehood since 1864. Why have they made no attemt to aquire deed to this land? Why are they not stepping up now saying this is our land?
BTW.... I'd love for the courts to rule that I'm wrong.
I don't know the answer to your question...I've asked it myself, but, that in no way is an abandonment. There've been attempsts over the century's to right this wrong, alas, the congressmen from the east have a vote...it's money out of their pockets. Which reminds me, Smiley...those $$$ you speak of is indeed the root of the evil...this is the money that congress 'fights' over year after year...it's the money that belongs rightfully to the states. Why can't we get our land? If we have to ask...This is the greed in America. This is why all of you maintain support for the fed...because you think it's yours now...it's the carrot on a stick & you won't give it to the rightful owners. The states in which it came from.
Shame. Shame.
I can see that this conversation will go nowhere because the choice of right & wrong demands admittance of immense greed & corruption.
We need to stand up for the states rights. This isn't about the cattle...it never has b een...it's about a rancher who's standing up to an out of control gov't.
Thanks for asking!
I mean, it's a very unrealistic idea - just turn it over guys............at the very least Utah seems to have a plan for any lands that they want - Nevada doesn't have a state plan to take over federal lands, from what I can tell the STATE of Nevada does not want the lands, nor do they seem to side with Bundy. So, just force it on them?? Like I said, these agencies are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't.
And you still didn't broach bundy and his cattle - you think that the state of nevada isn't going to tell him there are rules (allowable cattle numbers) and grazing fees? I think they are discusing it:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/Reports/history.cfm?billname=AB227
http://www.elynews.com/2014/02/28/nevada-land-management-task-force-continues-discussion-public-lands-issues-seeks-public-input-next-county-meeting/
http://www.lccentral.com/many-opportunities-hurdles-tap-rural-nevada-2014/
http://www.americanlegislator.org/nevada-becomes-the-5th-western-state-to-explore-the-transfer-of-public-lands/
Most of this is 'new' fodder' for the public...it's not new to those of us who live here. I suppose that's why I recommend that if you're not directly affected on a daily basis (ugh...hard to draw the line there as the fed has MADE the public think they're some kind of 'honorary landlord' with benefits)...then listen to what the people who deal with them have to say.
This issue isn't about public opinion...it's about the states who have been denied 'equal footing'...the monies we pay in that are used against us (and you).
And...TXBO, a Code 4 jurisdiction gives the authority to the state. Period. Our sheriff is the power...
Smiley...I have no beef with you, I just want to point out to others that you work for the fed. Your posts don't say so, but, they do reflect it. I understand your desire to protect who signs your paycheck...however, people should take that into consideration when reading your posts.
It's just like people to assume that my opinions must be shaped via my work, but when I worked for the military I had opinions on the military that don't jive with others. When I worked for anyone, I can see what is wrong and I can have an opinion about it, such as the PRCA and antics I saw there. I don't sell my soul or my opinion for a paycheck, but that's a good try to make me look like some bought and paid for shill or stooge based on three whole months in a new job. SMH
Sorry to 'bait' you....I apologize for that...making a point that we all seem to have opinions that are objective when they aren't. How is it that we all have something to lose here? Why would we allow our gov't to put us in such a position? Do divide in such a way? It's the 'chaos' that Scott mentioned...we all desperately need to get on the same page before it's too late.
You've put out some compelling arguements that if I didn't know better I'd buy into.
I live next to the Navajo Reservation & would like nothing more than for them to get title to their land...individually. If anyone wnats to know what socialism looks like...come for a visit. Or heck...just wait a bit it'll be in every neighborhood soon...Bundy's & others need the support, not to cheat anyone, but, to prevent the erosion of our inalieanable rights.
T hat's just it, bad breaks happen to people EVERYDAY. I don't see you trying to enforce old treaties with the Indians, I don't see you trying to support Spanish Land Grants with Mexicans. I don't see you fighting for black folks to get 40 acres and a mule.
My husband's family lost a farm/ranch in the 80s due to the banking debacle. He moved on, got another career. IT happens every****day. The only reason that you're up in arms is that it's happening to people YOU know and not ones you don't.
I'm not saying there isn't stuff to fix, and I'm not taking offense to anyone in this conversation, it's a good conversation, but I think this rancher is wrong, just that simple. TXBO had great distincitions in the law and that is the part that people do not seem to get. And if the law is wrong, which it may be, you go to court, you don't put people in danger of being shot based on your misinformation. That's just how I look at it.
| |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| Well after 11 pages of this thread. I have come a conclusion. Never ask for jury trial. Both sides have presented facts and arguments and both sides are still locked into their opinions. I think it is time to call this a hang jury. LOL!!! | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-14 5:57 PM Ahhhh...I now see the 'hangup'...you're assuming I have a complete disdain for the fed & am blind to any & all authority they may have..lol. You're kinda right! As said before, this isn't so much about Bundy & his cattle as it's about the states wanting our land...it became especially important to the masses out here during the gov't shutdown last year...many finally realized that we need the same 'Independence' as the originals....it's past time & the only way to achieve it is to finally recieve our equal footing.
Yes...the 'fed' is the agency in which Bundy owes the grazing fees.
Maybe we simply need to sign our own 'Declaration of Independence'? Hmmmm....
This is a c/p from the Inventory Report on Jurisdictional Status of Federal Areas Within the States (commonly refered to as the Eisenhower Report...sorry for that) which explains the 'Proprietary Jusrisdiction' (yeah it worked! New computers...all windows 8.1...headache):
Proprietorial Interest Only. This term is applied to
those instances wherein the Federal Government has
acquired some right of title to an area in a State
but has not obtained any measure of the State's
authority over the area. In applying this definition,
recognition should be given to the fact that the United
States, by virtue of its functions and authority under
various provisions of the Constitution, has many powers
and immunities not possessed by ordinary landholders
with respect to areas in which it acquires an interest,
and of the further fact that all its properties and
functions are held or performed in a governmental
rather than a proprietary capacity.
Musik, I love ya but that post is pure jiberish. There's not a hint of cognitive retort to my comment. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| jbhoot - 2014-04-14 5:13 PM Well after 11 pages of this thread. I have come a conclusion. Never ask for jury trial. Both sides have presented facts and arguments and both sides are still locked into their opinions. I think it is time to call this a hang jury. LOL!!!
LOL
On this case I am, but I also see the destruction of rural america as well. However, I also see the good old boys alive and well in many of these small towns and if you weren't raised there or married into it or brought money with you, you may as well move. There are pluses about federal oversight on some things. I think Wyoming would close its borders if it could.
Some cool links found while educating myself about this:
http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Enviros.html
http://americanlandscouncil.org/
| |
| | |
Famous for Not Complaining
Posts: 8848
Location: Broxton, Ga | jbhoot - 2014-04-13 7:13 PM Well after 11 pages of this thread. I have come a conclusion. Never ask for jury trial. Both sides have presented facts and arguments and both sides are still locked into their opinions. I think it is time to call this a hang jury. LOL!!!
 | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Now the Bundy's have a donate button on their blog. So, not paying grazing fees for 20-25 years didn't pad the savings account a bit?? | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| And they are called out the auction house that said they would take in the cattle. So, in their 15 minutes of fame, they are going to take someone's livelihood with them in the form of boycotting this auction house.
Shame on the Bundys. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-14 5:15 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 5:57 PM Ahhhh...I now see the 'hangup'...you're assuming I have a complete disdain for the fed & am blind to any & all authority they may have..lol. You're kinda right! As said before, this isn't so much about Bundy & his cattle as it's about the states wanting our land...it became especially important to the masses out here during the gov't shutdown last year...many finally realized that we need the same 'Independence' as the originals....it's past time & the only way to achieve it is to finally recieve our equal footing.
Yes...the 'fed' is the agency in which Bundy owes the grazing fees.
Maybe we simply need to sign our own 'Declaration of Independence'? Hmmmm....
This is a c/p from the Inventory Report on Jurisdictional Status of Federal Areas Within the States (commonly refered to as the Eisenhower Report...sorry for that) which explains the 'Proprietary Jusrisdiction' (yeah it worked! New computers...all windows 8.1...headache):
Proprietorial Interest Only. This term is applied to
those instances wherein the Federal Government has
acquired some right of title to an area in a State
but has not obtained any measure of the State's
authority over the area. In applying this definition,
recognition should be given to the fact that the United
States, by virtue of its functions and authority under
various provisions of the Constitution, has many powers
and immunities not possessed by ordinary landholders
with respect to areas in which it acquires an interest,
and of the further fact that all its properties and
functions are held or performed in a governmental
rather than a proprietary capacity.
Musik, I love ya but that post is pure jiberish. There's not a hint of cognitive retort to my comment.
And you are a complete pita...lol.
You wanted a 'retort'!
Ok...start over:
TXBO - 2014-04-14 4:17 PMmusikmaker - 2014-04-14 4:50 PM......
And...TXBO, a Code 4 jurisdiction gives the authority to the state. Period. Our sheriff is the power...
.......
Here we go again.....
Yes the state has legislative jurisdiction but the fed owns the land and maintains a proprietary interest. That grants the fed all the rights of any land owner in NV as well as some additional.
Here's the easiest deliniation I can come up with:
Say I own 1000 acres in NV. If I want to allow people to hunt the land, I can. If I want to post the land and not allow hunting I can. The state has no say. I maintain the landowner rights. However, anybody that hunts there has to have a NV hunting license and follow all the laws of NV. I maintain proprietary rights. NV maintains jurisdiction and authority.
Same would be true for the fed's proprietary rights. Same would be true for leasing grazing rights.
BTW.... that report was written over 50 years ago. Jurisdiction may have changed.
Jurisdiction has not changed...will not unless we have a change of gov't.
(Is that better?)
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-14 6:27 PM TXBO - 2014-04-14 5:15 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 5:57 PM Ahhhh...I now see the 'hangup'...you're assuming I have a complete disdain for the fed & am blind to any & all authority they may have..lol. You're kinda right! As said before, this isn't so much about Bundy & his cattle as it's about the states wanting our land...it became especially important to the masses out here during the gov't shutdown last year...many finally realized that we need the same 'Independence' as the originals....it's past time & the only way to achieve it is to finally recieve our equal footing.
Yes...the 'fed' is the agency in which Bundy owes the grazing fees.
Maybe we simply need to sign our own 'Declaration of Independence'? Hmmmm....
This is a c/p from the Inventory Report on Jurisdictional Status of Federal Areas Within the States (commonly refered to as the Eisenhower Report...sorry for that) which explains the 'Proprietary Jusrisdiction' (yeah it worked! New computers...all windows 8.1...headache):
Proprietorial Interest Only. This term is applied to
those instances wherein the Federal Government has
acquired some right of title to an area in a State
but has not obtained any measure of the State's
authority over the area. In applying this definition,
recognition should be given to the fact that the United
States, by virtue of its functions and authority under
various provisions of the Constitution, has many powers
and immunities not possessed by ordinary landholders
with respect to areas in which it acquires an interest,
and of the further fact that all its properties and
functions are held or performed in a governmental
rather than a proprietary capacity.
Musik, I love ya but that post is pure jiberish. There's not a hint of cognitive retort to my comment.
You wanted a 'retort'!
Ok...start over:
TXBO - 2014-04-14 4:17 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-14 4:50 PM......
And...TXBO, a Code 4 jurisdiction gives the authority to the state. Period. Our sheriff is the power...
.......
Here we go again.....
Yes the state has legislative jurisdiction but the fed owns the land and maintains a proprietary interest. That grants the fed all the rights of any land owner in NV as well as some additional.
Here's the easiest deliniation I can come up with:
Say I own 1000 acres in NV. If I want to allow people to hunt the land, I can. If I want to post the land and not allow hunting I can. The state has no say. I maintain the landowner rights. However, anybody that hunts there has to have a NV hunting license and follow all the laws of NV. I maintain proprietary rights. NV maintains jurisdiction and authority.
Same would be true for the fed's proprietary rights. Same would be true for leasing grazing rights.
BTW.... that report was written over 50 years ago. Jurisdiction may have changed.
Jurisdiction has not changed...will not unless we have a change of gov't.
(Is that better?)
You're just not catching on to the fact that a proprietary right is all the fed needs to evict Cliven from their land. Jurisdiction has absolutely nothing to do with it.
And yes jurisdiction certainly does change and has in the last 50 years without a change of government. Find any military interest that was built since that report and you will also find that jurisdiction changed. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Here is a strange tidbit, Peterson AFB is not on federal land, it's on city/state land!! Therefore the military on Peterson has to abide by City/State laws when Fort Carson and Schriever AFB do not have to. In fact, CSPD will come to Peterson and make arrests if and when needed and do not need permission to access the base.
There are many, many, many instances of ownership trumping what people think should happen. It's also been a big shock to many to find out that they own land, but not the rights to the minerals under that land. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-14 5:35 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 6:27 PM TXBO - 2014-04-14 5:15 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 5:57 PM Ahhhh...I now see the 'hangup'...you're assuming I have a complete disdain for the fed & am blind to any & all authority they may have..lol. You're kinda right! As said before, this isn't so much about Bundy & his cattle as it's about the states wanting our land...it became especially important to the masses out here during the gov't shutdown last year...many finally realized that we need the same 'Independence' as the originals....it's past time & the only way to achieve it is to finally recieve our equal footing.
Yes...the 'fed' is the agency in which Bundy owes the grazing fees.
Maybe we simply need to sign our own 'Declaration of Independence'? Hmmmm....
This is a c/p from the Inventory Report on Jurisdictional Status of Federal Areas Within the States (commonly refered to as the Eisenhower Report...sorry for that) which explains the 'Proprietary Jusrisdiction' (yeah it worked! New computers...all windows 8.1...headache):
Proprietorial Interest Only. This term is applied to
those instances wherein the Federal Government has
acquired some right of title to an area in a State
but has not obtained any measure of the State's
authority over the area. In applying this definition,
recognition should be given to the fact that the United
States, by virtue of its functions and authority under
various provisions of the Constitution, has many powers
and immunities not possessed by ordinary landholders
with respect to areas in which it acquires an interest,
and of the further fact that all its properties and
functions are held or performed in a governmental
rather than a proprietary capacity.
Musik, I love ya but that post is pure jiberish. There's not a hint of cognitive retort to my comment.
You wanted a 'retort'!
Ok...start over:
TXBO - 2014-04-14 4:17 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-14 4:50 PM......
And...TXBO, a Code 4 jurisdiction gives the authority to the state. Period. Our sheriff is the power...
.......
Here we go again.....
Yes the state has legislative jurisdiction but the fed owns the land and maintains a proprietary interest. That grants the fed all the rights of any land owner in NV as well as some additional.
Here's the easiest deliniation I can come up with:
Say I own 1000 acres in NV. If I want to allow people to hunt the land, I can. If I want to post the land and not allow hunting I can. The state has no say. I maintain the landowner rights. However, anybody that hunts there has to have a NV hunting license and follow all the laws of NV. I maintain proprietary rights. NV maintains jurisdiction and authority.
Same would be true for the fed's proprietary rights. Same would be true for leasing grazing rights.
BTW.... that report was written over 50 years ago. Jurisdiction may have changed.
Jurisdiction has not changed...will not unless we have a change of gov't.
(Is that better?)
And yes jurisdiction certainly does change and has in the last 50 years without a change of government. Find any military interest that was built since that report and you will also find that jurisdiction changed.
I'm quite certain that the entire arguement was whether the Sheriff had the jurisdiction/authority or the fed...see, the fed can request, the Sheriff can refuse. I'm right & I know it. Haha...
The Constitution is even older that the 'Report', but, the intent hasn't changed although many pretend it has.
There's so much more than this to present a case against federal land ownership....they don't 'own' it...they can claim 'some right of title' mostly by way of their failure to 'dispose' of it as agreed.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-14 6:23 PM
And they are called out the auction house that said they would take in the cattle. So, in their 15 minutes of fame, they are going to take someone's livelihood with them in the form of boycotting this auction house.
Shame on the Bundys.
What is wrong for outing an outfit that is willing to deal in stolen merchandise? | |
| | |
 I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | http://www.mynews4.com/news/local/story/Sen-Reid-on-Cattle-Battle-Its-not-over/nT5weKnqFkezV14I5GhESg.cspx
What a joke. This is what Harry Reid said..
"RENO, Nev. (MyNews4.com & KRNV) -- Senate majority leader Harry Reid hasn't been very vocal about the cattle battle showdown in recent days, but says "it's not over."
Reid tells News4's Samantha Boatman his take on the so-called cattle battle in southern Las Vegas. "Well, it's not over. We can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it's not over," Reid said.
Senator Reid had just wrapped up a speech and question and answer session with students at UNR."
I guess only Politicians and illegals can break the laws of this country. Illegals get rewarded for breaking the laws of entering this country.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-14 7:00 PM TXBO - 2014-04-14 5:35 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 6:27 PM TXBO - 2014-04-14 5:15 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-14 5:57 PM Ahhhh...I now see the 'hangup'...you're assuming I have a complete disdain for the fed & am blind to any & all authority they may have..lol. You're kinda right! As said before, this isn't so much about Bundy & his cattle as it's about the states wanting our land...it became especially important to the masses out here during the gov't shutdown last year...many finally realized that we need the same 'Independence' as the originals....it's past time & the only way to achieve it is to finally recieve our equal footing.
Yes...the 'fed' is the agency in which Bundy owes the grazing fees.
Maybe we simply need to sign our own 'Declaration of Independence'? Hmmmm....
This is a c/p from the Inventory Report on Jurisdictional Status of Federal Areas Within the States (commonly refered to as the Eisenhower Report...sorry for that) which explains the 'Proprietary Jusrisdiction' (yeah it worked! New computers...all windows 8.1...headache):
Proprietorial Interest Only. This term is applied to
those instances wherein the Federal Government has
acquired some right of title to an area in a State
but has not obtained any measure of the State's
authority over the area. In applying this definition,
recognition should be given to the fact that the United
States, by virtue of its functions and authority under
various provisions of the Constitution, has many powers
and immunities not possessed by ordinary landholders
with respect to areas in which it acquires an interest,
and of the further fact that all its properties and
functions are held or performed in a governmental
rather than a proprietary capacity.
Musik, I love ya but that post is pure jiberish. There's not a hint of cognitive retort to my comment.
You wanted a 'retort'!
Ok...start over:
TXBO - 2014-04-14 4:17 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-14 4:50 PM......
And...TXBO, a Code 4 jurisdiction gives the authority to the state. Period. Our sheriff is the power...
.......
Here we go again.....
Yes the state has legislative jurisdiction but the fed owns the land and maintains a proprietary interest. That grants the fed all the rights of any land owner in NV as well as some additional.
Here's the easiest deliniation I can come up with:
Say I own 1000 acres in NV. If I want to allow people to hunt the land, I can. If I want to post the land and not allow hunting I can. The state has no say. I maintain the landowner rights. However, anybody that hunts there has to have a NV hunting license and follow all the laws of NV. I maintain proprietary rights. NV maintains jurisdiction and authority.
Same would be true for the fed's proprietary rights. Same would be true for leasing grazing rights.
BTW.... that report was written over 50 years ago. Jurisdiction may have changed.
Jurisdiction has not changed...will not unless we have a change of gov't.
(Is that better?)
And yes jurisdiction certainly does change and has in the last 50 years without a change of government. Find any military interest that was built since that report and you will also find that jurisdiction changed.
The Constitution is even older that the 'Report', but, the intent hasn't changed although many pretend it has.
There's so much more than this to present a case against federal land ownership....they don't 'own' it...they can claim 'some right of title' mostly by way of their failure to 'dispose' of it as agreed.
That is complete BS! | |
| | |
 I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
Location: Online | Wow. How did I miss 12 pages of this? It's just a good thing I still have Finney on ignore. It's just easier that way. Easier on the blood pressure and prevents ulcers.
Media and Liberals are completely missing the point on the Bundy thing. Since it's been beat to death, I will refrain from typing for an hour.
 | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1561
| Nevertooold - 2014-04-14 10:50 PM
http://www.mynews4.com/news/local/story/Sen-Reid-on-Cattle-Battle-Its-not-over/nT5weKnqFkezV14I5GhESg.cspxWhat a joke. This is what Harry Reid said.."RENO, Nev. (MyNews4.com & KRNV ) -- Senate majority leader Harry Reid hasn't been very vocal about the cattle battle showdown in recent days, but says "it's not over." Reid tells News4's Samantha Boatman his take on the so-called cattle battle in southern Las Vegas. "Well, it's not over. We can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it's not over," Reid said. Senator Reid had just wrapped up a speech and question and answer session with students at UNR." I guess only Politicians and illegals can break the laws of this country. Illegals get rewarded for breaking the laws of entering this country.
The feds thought the Waco incident was over, its never over. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | Wait.. someone mentioned... Mexico/Spain selling us land... What about the Land Grants Mexico/Spain dished out before this.. remember those?? What about the land those governments no longer had authority go give away? | |
| | |
Sock Snob
Posts: 3021
| Since this,family has been grazing this land for over 100 years so i dont know how much of this is grandfathered. Hopefully thru this they will aquire a good national know lawyer. I dont think it is about the cattle. I would like to see an itemized bill from the government. Also the government owes those people for the cows that they killed. It is biggermthan the cows. Remember in california that the government cut off the water to a bunch of farmers over something that they said was on the endangered species. I know down here there was am issue with some beach beatle you could build a seawall or pier without some study over that beatle you could not even see. You know how the government goes stupid.
| |
| | |
 My Heeler owns me
Posts: 2855
Location: No place better...East TN!! | I've read some of the 12 pages on this thread, but I just saw a Youtube video going around on Facebook stating that the Feds backed down & gave Bundy his cattle back.....now.....I'm assuming this video is a load of crap. Any truth to him getting any cattle back? | |
| | |
 Thread Killer
Posts: 7545
| daisycake123 - 2014-04-15 1:59 AM Since this,family has been grazing this land for over 100 years so i dont know how much of this is grandfathered. Hopefully thru this they will aquire a good national know lawyer. I dont think it is about the cattle. I would like to see an itemized bill from the government. Also the government owes those people for the cows that they killed. It is biggermthan the cows. Remember in california that the government cut off the water to a bunch of farmers over something that they said was on the endangered species. I know down here there was am issue with some beach beatle you could build a seawall or pier without some study over that beatle you could not even see. You know how the government goes stupid.
Well I'm pretty sure I know why they wanted to protect those Beatles. Did you know that they could sing? Very rare, in fact. | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| STABALL - 2014-04-15 6:23 AM
I've read some of the 12 pages on this thread, but I just saw a Youtube video going around on Facebook stating that the Feds backed down & gave Bundy his cattle back.....now.....I'm assuming this video is a load of crap. Any truth to him getting any cattle back?
Yes the fed's gave him back the cattle. | |
| | |
My Heeler owns me
Posts: 2855
Location: No place better...East TN!! | jbhoot - 2014-04-15 8:15 AM
STABALL - 2014-04-15 6:23 AM
I've read some of the 12 pages on this thread, but I just saw a Youtube video going around on Facebook stating that the Feds backed down & gave Bundy his cattle back.....now.....I'm assuming this video is a load of crap. Any truth to him getting any cattle back?
Yes the fed's gave him back the cattle.
Ok....I hadn't read that he was given the cattle back, so I didn't know if there was any truth in the video. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| komet. - 2014-04-15 12:22 AM Wait.. someone mentioned... Mexico/Spain selling us land... What about the Land Grants Mexico/Spain dished out before this.. remember those?? What about the land those governments no longer had authority go give away?
Good point. The Tready of Guadalupe Hidalgo had a provision that all private property before the treaty would remain private property after.
Bundy doesn't claim to own it though. | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | smiley - 2014-04-14 6:46 PM Here is a strange tidbit, Peterson AFB is not on federal land, it's on city/state land!! Therefore the military on Peterson has to abide by City/State laws when Fort Carson and Schriever AFB do not have to. In fact, CSPD will come to Peterson and make arrests if and when needed and do not need permission to access the base.
There are many, many, many instances of ownership trumping what people think should happen. It's also been a big shock to many to find out that they own land, but not the rights to the minerals under that land.
My grandparents sold the mineral rights to our farm land early on. Some dude went around the county and snookered people into taking the easy money at a time when they needed it badly. I'm not sure if this is in perpetuity or if they revert back after a period of time if unused. I couldn't even tell you exactly WHO holds title to those rights today. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-14 9:33 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 6:23 PM And they are called out the auction house that said they would take in the cattle. So, in their 15 minutes of fame, they are going to take someone's livelihood with them in the form of boycotting this auction house.
Shame on the Bundys. What is wrong for outing an outfit that is willing to deal in stolen merchandise?
Again, if this man wants to go down in flames for his "right" to raise his family, then do so, but why take this auction house with him? They too are trying to raise a family in a Western business. These are NOT stolen cattle, these are a commodity for unpaid bills.
Edited by smiley 2014-04-15 9:00 AM
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| daisycake123 - 2014-04-14 11:59 PM Since this,family has been grazing this land for over 100 years so i dont know how much of this is grandfathered. Hopefully thru this they will aquire a good national know lawyer. I dont think it is about the cattle. I would like to see an itemized bill from the government. Also the government owes those people for the cows that they killed. It is biggermthan the cows. Remember in california that the government cut off the water to a bunch of farmers over something that they said was on the endangered species. I know down here there was am issue with some beach beatle you could build a seawall or pier without some study over that beatle you could not even see. You know how the government goes stupid.
More likely they will send HIM a bill for their cost to round up the cattle.
SMH at the creative ways people are letting this guy off the hook. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| STABALL - 2014-04-15 5:23 AM I've read some of the 12 pages on this thread, but I just saw a Youtube video going around on Facebook stating that the Feds backed down & gave Bundy his cattle back.....now.....I'm assuming this video is a load of crap. Any truth to him getting any cattle back?
They released the cattle but it's not over, there was no deal. The man still hasn't paid and his cattle are sill on ground that isn't his.
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-15 7:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-14 6:46 PM Here is a strange tidbit, Peterson AFB is not on federal land, it's on city/state land!! Therefore the military on Peterson has to abide by City/State laws when Fort Carson and Schriever AFB do not have to. In fact, CSPD will come to Peterson and make arrests if and when needed and do not need permission to access the base.
There are many, many, many instances of ownership trumping what people think should happen. It's also been a big shock to many to find out that they own land, but not the rights to the minerals under that land. My grandparents sold the mineral rights to our farm land early on. Some dude went around the county and snookered people into taking the easy money at a time when they needed it badly. I'm not sure if this is in perpetuity or if they revert back after a period of time if unused. I couldn't even tell you exactly WHO holds title to those rights today.
I think you can look it up, but not sure where. We have strangley half of our mineral rights - so 17.5 acres out of 35. I don't even know who owns the other half. Strange ways of doing business.
The fed govt., owns a huge, huge chunk of mineral rights under much land that people also don't seem to understand. | |
| | |
 BHW Jr. Cougar of the Year
Posts: 14957
Location: Heart of Texas | Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-15 8:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-14 6:46 PM Here is a strange tidbit, Peterson AFB is not on federal land, it's on city/state land!! Therefore the military on Peterson has to abide by City/State laws when Fort Carson and Schriever AFB do not have to. In fact, CSPD will come to Peterson and make arrests if and when needed and do not need permission to access the base.
There are many, many, many instances of ownership trumping what people think should happen. It's also been a big shock to many to find out that they own land, but not the rights to the minerals under that land. My grandparents sold the mineral rights to our farm land early on. Some dude went around the county and snookered people into taking the easy money at a time when they needed it badly. I'm not sure if this is in perpetuity or if they revert back after a period of time if unused. I couldn't even tell you exactly WHO holds title to those rights today.
It depends on what the Mineral/Royalty Deed says. Some are just the royalties for 20 years. I usually find that Royalty Deeds have a term on them. Actual Mineral Deeds, as in granting the oil, gas and mineral rights, don't have a term limit. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-15 7:31 AM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-15 7:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-14 6:46 PM Here is a strange tidbit, Peterson AFB is not on federal land, it's on city/state land!! Therefore the military on Peterson has to abide by City/State laws when Fort Carson and Schriever AFB do not have to. In fact, CSPD will come to Peterson and make arrests if and when needed and do not need permission to access the base.
There are many, many, many instances of ownership trumping what people think should happen. It's also been a big shock to many to find out that they own land, but not the rights to the minerals under that land. My grandparents sold the mineral rights to our farm land early on. Some dude went around the county and snookered people into taking the easy money at a time when they needed it badly. I'm not sure if this is in perpetuity or if they revert back after a period of time if unused. I couldn't even tell you exactly WHO holds title to those rights today.
The fed govt., owns a huge, huge chunk of mineral rights under much land that people also don't seem to understand.
It's so sad that many people didn't understand the value of mineral rights. The gov't sure did when they started retaining them...and removing land from homesteading. A lot of folks don't understand that much of the land that was viable for aggriculture, ranching, mining...was 'reserved' to the fed...they set themselves up as 'landlords' while preventing the states from enjoying economic independence. That's what this fight is really about.
I've been thinking that if those of you who are jeolous of our public land should give all yours to the fed & lease it from them like we have to do. I mean, it's such a great deal! Cheap land...someone always telling you exactly what you can & can't do...I highly recommend it! Oh wait, give it time...it'll happen.
| |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1857
| Just want to say that I am glad this post is still going and that we have many people that are willing to think on their own and make a decision on where they stand, be it one side or the other. Now days it's too common for people to jump on the bandwagon and have no clue why or what for.
Edited by FlyingJT 2014-04-15 9:25 AM
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | FlyingJT - 2014-04-15 8:07 AM Just want to say that I am glad this post is still going and that we have many people that are willing to think on their own and make a decision on where they stand, be it one side or the other. Now days it's too common for people to jump on the band wagon and have no clue why or what for.
I agree. It's just unfortunate that we have so much 'garbage' to sift through trying to find the truth...(from the varying groups who put out propaganda, including the gov't, politicians & others w/something to gain!).
This is an emotional issue for those of us who live out here...and we can't put any stock into who supports or doesn't support the Bundy's inparticular as we all know that people who have socialist leanings come from all walks of life.
It's been impossible to shine the light on the fact that our gov't has prevented the western states from having equal footing with the rest...and when ppl say to take it to court it shows how gullible & brainwashed we are to believe our courts aren't corrupt. If you can even get a hearing...it's stacked against you.
One judge & 2 lawyers = conspiracy.
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| carlos - 2014-04-14 11:59 AM
FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 5:43 PM For the record, I am not "defending" my personal life. I am proud of who I am and my family. I meant it as a "teaching" moment. Every private rancher I know would jump at the chance to own a federal or state grazing permit. The better terms are 1/50th of the rent we all pay if we want more pasture. Young people can't get a start anymore because the rent it too high, land prices are through the roof and a bred cow costs $2000+. If people's anti-government sentiment is so high that they will side with a family who has obviously gone around the bend, they need to rethink things. Grazing permits that come up for lease are few and very far between and priced way out of reach of a common "rancher". The government, by letting him use that pasture for free, is robbing all of us of revenue that goes to benefit everyone. Why don't they show the people on tv who pay their rent and think these people are cheats? Because "TV" is not interested in the real story, it's not sensational enough. They want the ratings killer. It's why people watch bull riding I think, for the wrecks.
I am not taking any one side over another as far as BHW members go.... I however very very rarely trust the government. I absolutely 100% believe Bundy when he says he paid for years to the BLM on what their agreement was supposed to be and stopped after the BLM did NOT hold to their end of the agreement. There is mile after mile of red tape to contend with when dealing with any government entity. It kind of sounds like ranchers that don't have a goverment grazing lease are a little jealous of the ranchers that do. That's life as life is just flat unfair. To be honest I don't care about any of that. I have a big problem with government not holding to what they were formed to do. HAPPENS IN ALL GOVERNMENT RUN PROGRAMS. How about this tortoise refuge that our beloved government has been funding... that no longer can fund, so those tortoises will just be euthanized. I know that is trivial but that's such a waste and that is SO TYPICAL of a government run program. So when BLM comes in and bullies a citizen I have a problem with that.
"It kind of sounds like ranchers that don't have a goverment grazing lease are a little jealous of the ranchers that do. That's life as life is just flat unfair."
Just a quick thought on this. My husband and I both rodeo'd for many years and if something happened that wasn't quite fair, I would be more inclined to point that out as possibly cheating, and he would just laugh and say "That's Competative Edge!" Rather than describing ranchers as "jealous" of people with Federal grazing permits, I think ranchers who do not have them compared to ranchers who do are at a decided financial disadvantage in the cattle industry. When you total cost of production for anyone who may have a mortgage on purchased land, plus taxes it far outweighs the total cost of production for people with government leases. They definately have the "Competative Edge". No matter how much they complain about the restrictions, seldom do you see anyone give up their lease. Since it is public land, maybe the lease structure should be changed from "perpetuity" to coming up every seven years like School Land leases. We rent a section of school ground for about $5000/year that will run about 30 head of cattle which comes to $13.88/month. That is ten times the rental rate of Federal Land. Every seven years, we have to "bid" against other people who want to rent the ground, paying at least the yearly rental rate plus any "bonus" to secure the lease, which in some people cases runs into the thousands of dollars. We accept that as the cost of doing business. If we refused to pay the rent, we would get kicked off, simple as that, because there is always someone waiting in line to pick up those leases. I simply can't understand why a man who went on TV and said he doesn't "recognize" there is a federal government is given a pass.
On another note, without reading what everyone has been talking about mineral leases, here in western Nebraska, a couple of oil companies have been buying up mineral leases from a bunch of old people for three bucks an acre and the old people are just happy as can be. The oil companies, too. Go figure. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-15 8:04 AM smiley - 2014-04-15 7:31 AM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-15 7:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-14 6:46 PM Here is a strange tidbit, Peterson AFB is not on federal land, it's on city/state land!! Therefore the military on Peterson has to abide by City/State laws when Fort Carson and Schriever AFB do not have to. In fact, CSPD will come to Peterson and make arrests if and when needed and do not need permission to access the base.
There are many, many, many instances of ownership trumping what people think should happen. It's also been a big shock to many to find out that they own land, but not the rights to the minerals under that land. My grandparents sold the mineral rights to our farm land early on. Some dude went around the county and snookered people into taking the easy money at a time when they needed it badly. I'm not sure if this is in perpetuity or if they revert back after a period of time if unused. I couldn't even tell you exactly WHO holds title to those rights today.
The fed govt., owns a huge, huge chunk of mineral rights under much land that people also don't seem to understand.
I've been thinking that if those of you who are jeolous of our public land should give all yours to the fed & lease it from them like we have to do. I mean, it's such a great deal! Cheap land...someone always telling you exactly what you can & can't do...I highly recommend it! Oh wait, give it time...it'll happen.
So, do tell, who forced you to live where you live?
This is snarky, but at some point, we tell the Mexicans to "go back" and we tell the Indians "that's over" and we tell Blacks "no 40 acres and a mule, that's history" but then we whine about what we have or do not have and think that somehow it should change for us. I'm not counting myself out of that, I've done it too "hey wait, it's MY turn, WTH?"
But again, if your business model depends on fed land, do soemthing about it. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| FlyingJT - 2014-04-15 8:07 AM Just want to say that I am glad this post is still going and that we have many people that are willing to think on their own and make a decision on where they stand, be it one side or the other. Now days it's too common for people to jump on the bandwagon and have no clue why or what for.
Agreed, and agreed! I'm not 100% on the feds owning land and learning more as I go. But think about Calif. and their activists who are often crazy, if they have complete control over the land, there will be no checks and balances, there will be no conservative view and how does that work?
Just think if we didn't have fed land we literally would NOT have Yellowstone or Yosemite. There have been good things to come out of fed control over some of the lands. And if Westerners are getting screwed, there are lands for sale in the East.
I always look at welfare people in the middle of a ghetto and wonder "why the HECK don't they MOVE?" | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 8:45 AM carlos - 2014-04-14 11:59 AM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 5:43 PM For the record, I am not "defending" my personal life. I am proud of who I am and my family. I meant it as a "teaching" moment. Every private rancher I know would jump at the chance to own a federal or state grazing permit. The better terms are 1/50th of the rent we all pay if we want more pasture. Young people can't get a start anymore because the rent it too high, land prices are through the roof and a bred cow costs $2000+. If people's anti-government sentiment is so high that they will side with a family who has obviously gone around the bend, they need to rethink things. Grazing permits that come up for lease are few and very far between and priced way out of reach of a common "rancher". The government, by letting him use that pasture for free, is robbing all of us of revenue that goes to benefit everyone. Why don't they show the people on tv who pay their rent and think these people are cheats? Because "TV" is not interested in the real story, it's not sensational enough. They want the ratings killer. It's why people watch bull riding I think, for the wrecks. I am not taking any one side over another as far as BHW members go.... I however very very rarely trust the government. I absolutely 100% believe Bundy when he says he paid for years to the BLM on what their agreement was supposed to be and stopped after the BLM did NOT hold to their end of the agreement. There is mile after mile of red tape to contend with when dealing with any government entity. It kind of sounds like ranchers that don't have a goverment grazing lease are a little jealous of the ranchers that do. That's life as life is just flat unfair. To be honest I don't care about any of that. I have a big problem with government not holding to what they were formed to do. HAPPENS IN ALL GOVERNMENT RUN PROGRAMS. How about this tortoise refuge that our beloved government has been funding... that no longer can fund, so those tortoises will just be euthanized. I know that is trivial but that's such a waste and that is SO TYPICAL of a government run program. So when BLM comes in and bullies a citizen I have a problem with that. "It kind of sounds like ranchers that don't have a goverment grazing lease are a little jealous of the ranchers that do. That's life as life is just flat unfair." Just a quick thought on this. My husband and I both rodeo'd for many years and if something happened that wasn't quite fair, I would be more inclined to point that out as possibly cheating, and he would just laugh and say "That's Competative Edge!" Rather than describing ranchers as "jealous" of people with Federal grazing permits, I think ranchers who do not have them compared to ranchers who do are at a decided financial disadvantage in the cattle industry. When you total cost of production for anyone who may have a mortgage on purchased land, plus taxes it far outweighs the total cost of production for people with government leases. They definately have the "Competative Edge". No matter how much they complain about the restrictions, seldom do you see anyone give up their lease. Since it is public land, maybe the lease structure should be changed from "perpetuity" to coming up every seven years like School Land leases. We rent a section of school ground for about $5000/year that will run about 30 head of cattle which comes to $13.88/month. That is ten times the rental rate of Federal Land. Every seven years, we have to "bid" against other people who want to rent the ground, paying at least the yearly rental rate plus any "bonus" to secure the lease, which in some people cases runs into the thousands of dollars. We accept that as the cost of doing business. If we refused to pay the rent, we would get kicked off, simple as that, because there is always someone waiting in line to pick up those leases. I simply can't understand why a man who went on TV and said he doesn't "recognize" there is a federal government is given a pass. On another note, without reading what everyone has been talking about mineral leases, here in western Nebraska, a couple of oil companies have been buying up mineral leases from a bunch of old people for three bucks an acre and the old people are just happy as can be. The oil companies, too. Go figure.
There's so many differences out here w/leased vs private land...it may seem 'cheap' until you figure the lack of water into it. That's a huge expense. Last month a group of 'Friends of ...something' decided to remove over 2k feet of pipeline that came down a cliff side because they thought it was ugly! The rancher spent many thousands of $'s installing this to water his cows...he's been finding dead cows due to bullets & poison, his water tanks shot up...because the environmentalists hate cows & are trying to run him out. Not to mention some mystery lizard. This is part of what some groups want the pres to declare Red Rock Wilderness & remove all but foot traffic.
You speak as though the ranchers haven't invested anything in the land...the water sources are used by wildlife & migrating birds, the ...never mind. It's not possible to explain what this means to our economy.
If you want info & numbers here's a good site...we all know that if you 'follow the money' much will be revealed:
http://americanlandscouncil.org/
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 8:45 AM carlos - 2014-04-14 11:59 AM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 5:43 PM For the record, I am not "defending" my personal life. I am proud of who I am and my family. I meant it as a "teaching" moment. Every private rancher I know would jump at the chance to own a federal or state grazing permit. The better terms are 1/50th of the rent we all pay if we want more pasture. Young people can't get a start anymore because the rent it too high, land prices are through the roof and a bred cow costs $2000+. If people's anti-government sentiment is so high that they will side with a family who has obviously gone around the bend, they need to rethink things. Grazing permits that come up for lease are few and very far between and priced way out of reach of a common "rancher". The government, by letting him use that pasture for free, is robbing all of us of revenue that goes to benefit everyone. Why don't they show the people on tv who pay their rent and think these people are cheats? Because "TV" is not interested in the real story, it's not sensational enough. They want the ratings killer. It's why people watch bull riding I think, for the wrecks. I am not taking any one side over another as far as BHW members go.... I however very very rarely trust the government. I absolutely 100% believe Bundy when he says he paid for years to the BLM on what their agreement was supposed to be and stopped after the BLM did NOT hold to their end of the agreement. There is mile after mile of red tape to contend with when dealing with any government entity. It kind of sounds like ranchers that don't have a goverment grazing lease are a little jealous of the ranchers that do. That's life as life is just flat unfair. To be honest I don't care about any of that. I have a big problem with government not holding to what they were formed to do. HAPPENS IN ALL GOVERNMENT RUN PROGRAMS. How about this tortoise refuge that our beloved government has been funding... that no longer can fund, so those tortoises will just be euthanized. I know that is trivial but that's such a waste and that is SO TYPICAL of a government run program. So when BLM comes in and bullies a citizen I have a problem with that. "It kind of sounds like ranchers that don't have a goverment grazing lease are a little jealous of the ranchers that do. That's life as life is just flat unfair." Just a quick thought on this. My husband and I both rodeo'd for many years and if something happened that wasn't quite fair, I would be more inclined to point that out as possibly cheating, and he would just laugh and say "That's Competative Edge!" Rather than describing ranchers as "jealous" of people with Federal grazing permits, I think ranchers who do not have them compared to ranchers who do are at a decided financial disadvantage in the cattle industry. When you total cost of production for anyone who may have a mortgage on purchased land, plus taxes it far outweighs the total cost of production for people with government leases. They definately have the "Competative Edge". No matter how much they complain about the restrictions, seldom do you see anyone give up their lease. Since it is public land, maybe the lease structure should be changed from "perpetuity" to coming up every seven years like School Land leases. We rent a section of school ground for about $5000/year that will run about 30 head of cattle which comes to $13.88/month. That is ten times the rental rate of Federal Land. Every seven years, we have to "bid" against other people who want to rent the ground, paying at least the yearly rental rate plus any "bonus" to secure the lease, which in some people cases runs into the thousands of dollars. We accept that as the cost of doing business. If we refused to pay the rent, we would get kicked off, simple as that, because there is always someone waiting in line to pick up those leases. I simply can't understand why a man who went on TV and said he doesn't "recognize" there is a federal government is given a pass. On another note, without reading what everyone has been talking about mineral leases, here in western Nebraska, a couple of oil companies have been buying up mineral leases from a bunch of old people for three bucks an acre and the old people are just happy as can be. The oil companies, too. Go figure.
"Land men" have been an issue for a LONG time and are up there with politicians in D.C.
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-15 9:04 AM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 8:45 AM carlos - 2014-04-14 11:59 AM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 5:43 PM For the record, I am not "defending" my personal life. I am proud of who I am and my family. I meant it as a "teaching" moment. Every private rancher I know would jump at the chance to own a federal or state grazing permit. The better terms are 1/50th of the rent we all pay if we want more pasture. Young people can't get a start anymore because the rent it too high, land prices are through the roof and a bred cow costs $2000+. If people's anti-government sentiment is so high that they will side with a family who has obviously gone around the bend, they need to rethink things. Grazing permits that come up for lease are few and very far between and priced way out of reach of a common "rancher". The government, by letting him use that pasture for free, is robbing all of us of revenue that goes to benefit everyone. Why don't they show the people on tv who pay their rent and think these people are cheats? Because "TV" is not interested in the real story, it's not sensational enough. They want the ratings killer. It's why people watch bull riding I think, for the wrecks. I am not taking any one side over another as far as BHW members go.... I however very very rarely trust the government. I absolutely 100% believe Bundy when he says he paid for years to the BLM on what their agreement was supposed to be and stopped after the BLM did NOT hold to their end of the agreement. There is mile after mile of red tape to contend with when dealing with any government entity. It kind of sounds like ranchers that don't have a goverment grazing lease are a little jealous of the ranchers that do. That's life as life is just flat unfair. To be honest I don't care about any of that. I have a big problem with government not holding to what they were formed to do. HAPPENS IN ALL GOVERNMENT RUN PROGRAMS. How about this tortoise refuge that our beloved government has been funding... that no longer can fund, so those tortoises will just be euthanized. I know that is trivial but that's such a waste and that is SO TYPICAL of a government run program. So when BLM comes in and bullies a citizen I have a problem with that. "It kind of sounds like ranchers that don't have a goverment grazing lease are a little jealous of the ranchers that do. That's life as life is just flat unfair." Just a quick thought on this. My husband and I both rodeo'd for many years and if something happened that wasn't quite fair, I would be more inclined to point that out as possibly cheating, and he would just laugh and say "That's Competative Edge!" Rather than describing ranchers as "jealous" of people with Federal grazing permits, I think ranchers who do not have them compared to ranchers who do are at a decided financial disadvantage in the cattle industry. When you total cost of production for anyone who may have a mortgage on purchased land, plus taxes it far outweighs the total cost of production for people with government leases. They definately have the "Competative Edge". No matter how much they complain about the restrictions, seldom do you see anyone give up their lease. Since it is public land, maybe the lease structure should be changed from "perpetuity" to coming up every seven years like School Land leases. We rent a section of school ground for about $5000/year that will run about 30 head of cattle which comes to $13.88/month. That is ten times the rental rate of Federal Land. Every seven years, we have to "bid" against other people who want to rent the ground, paying at least the yearly rental rate plus any "bonus" to secure the lease, which in some people cases runs into the thousands of dollars. We accept that as the cost of doing business. If we refused to pay the rent, we would get kicked off, simple as that, because there is always someone waiting in line to pick up those leases. I simply can't understand why a man who went on TV and said he doesn't "recognize" there is a federal government is given a pass. On another note, without reading what everyone has been talking about mineral leases, here in western Nebraska, a couple of oil companies have been buying up mineral leases from a bunch of old people for three bucks an acre and the old people are just happy as can be. The oil companies, too. Go figure.
You speak as though the ranchers haven't invested anything in the land...the water sources are used by wildlife & migrating birds, the ...never mind. It's not possible to explain what this means to our economy.
If you want info & numbers here's a good site...we all know that if you 'follow the money' much will be revealed:
http://americanlandscouncil.org/
NOW we're talking - it is these activists that are SO removed from the land it's not even funny. They are a threat to us all - now consider them having the control over all the land in your state!
I realize that ranchers make improvements. I have not ranched, but my husband has and we've worked for a rancher in KS and some in Calif., and I have some rancher friends in Calif., who deal with this type of idiocy all the time. Believe it or not, the BLM often protects you from the crazy crap these people want.
I say we find a way to cut off the actvists. They are the invasive species. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Another interesting site:
http://www.ewg.org/mining/report/index.php | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-15 8:56 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 8:04 AM smiley - 2014-04-15 7:31 AM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-15 7:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-14 6:46 PM Here is a strange tidbit, Peterson AFB is not on federal land, it's on city/state land!! Therefore the military on Peterson has to abide by City/State laws when Fort Carson and Schriever AFB do not have to. In fact, CSPD will come to Peterson and make arrests if and when needed and do not need permission to access the base.
There are many, many, many instances of ownership trumping what people think should happen. It's also been a big shock to many to find out that they own land, but not the rights to the minerals under that land. My grandparents sold the mineral rights to our farm land early on. Some dude went around the county and snookered people into taking the easy money at a time when they needed it badly. I'm not sure if this is in perpetuity or if they revert back after a period of time if unused. I couldn't even tell you exactly WHO holds title to those rights today.
The fed govt., owns a huge, huge chunk of mineral rights under much land that people also don't seem to understand.
I've been thinking that if those of you who are jeolous of our public land should give all yours to the fed & lease it from them like we have to do. I mean, it's such a great deal! Cheap land...someone always telling you exactly what you can & can't do...I highly recommend it! Oh wait, give it time...it'll happen.
This is snarky, but at some point, we tell the Mexicans to "go back" and we tell the Indians "that's over" and we tell Blacks "no 40 acres and a mule, that's history" but then we whine about what we have or do not have and think that somehow it should change for us. I'm not counting myself out of that, I've done it too "hey wait, it's MY turn, WTH?"
But again, if your business model depends on fed land, do soemthing about it.
I actually own mineral rights & land (I am a landlord! Gravel pits, lease to ranchers & businesses)...husband has some oil leases with the state, the fed & private. We're not complaining for us! Life is good!
I just want it to be good for others, too...including my friends, the Navajo, to the south, the rancher, the farmer, the miner...I want our state to be on equal footing. It's our right. We shouldn't have to fight for it, but, we're willing!
Don't forget that many of our ancestors came over as indentured servants...the indians fled Asia, Mexicans are a mix of Spanish/Inca etc...we're all here now...and I believe that we all have an inalienable right to succeed or fail according to our own ambition, without an oppressive gov't such as we fled to begin with.
| |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | musikmaker - 2014-04-15 9:04 AM smiley - 2014-04-15 7:31 AM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-15 7:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-14 6:46 PM Here is a strange tidbit, Peterson AFB is not on federal land, it's on city/state land!! Therefore the military on Peterson has to abide by City/State laws when Fort Carson and Schriever AFB do not have to. In fact, CSPD will come to Peterson and make arrests if and when needed and do not need permission to access the base.
There are many, many, many instances of ownership trumping what people think should happen. It's also been a big shock to many to find out that they own land, but not the rights to the minerals under that land. My grandparents sold the mineral rights to our farm land early on. Some dude went around the county and snookered people into taking the easy money at a time when they needed it badly. I'm not sure if this is in perpetuity or if they revert back after a period of time if unused. I couldn't even tell you exactly WHO holds title to those rights today.
The fed govt., owns a huge, huge chunk of mineral rights under much land that people also don't seem to understand.
I've been thinking that if those of you who are jeolous of our public land should give all yours to the fed & lease it from them like we have to do. I mean, it's such a great deal! Cheap land...someone always telling you exactly what you can & can't do...I highly recommend it! Oh wait, give it time...it'll happen.
That fear is in the back of my mind. How long until our food security/safety is deemed an issue that necessitates the govt taking control of the farm land. They've already done so to a degree by making it difficult to farm "out of the program" and tying conservation compliance to program eligibility, as well as EPA regs. Which I'm all for conservation measures and we've got some good things going with that, and we do need environmental regs (at the state level) but there is a lot of back room maneuvering and the fact that we "voluntarily" give up some control in exchange for a little economic security.(which is being phased out in steps) I can't help but think we're digging our hole deeper and I'm butt-deep in it with everyone else. | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| smiley - 2014-04-15 8:26 AM
foundation horse - 2014-04-14 9:33 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 6:23 PM And they are called out the auction house that said they would take in the cattle. So, in their 15 minutes of fame, they are going to take someone's livelihood with them in the form of boycotting this auction house.
Shame on the Bundys. What is wrong for outing an outfit that is willing to deal in stolen merchandise?
Again, if this man wants to go down in flames for his "right" to raise his family, then do so, but why take this auction house with him? They too are trying to raise a family in a Western business. These are NOT stolen cattle, these are a commodity for unpaid bills.
Smiley, you really should read the judges order before you comment. NO WHERE in the order does it give the right to the BLM to sell the cattle. The order only gives the BLM the right to remove the cattle. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Wow...they make this sound so bad when it isn't! Lots of big money has been made, millions of people put to work, communities built, roads, bridges, electricity brought in, water sources made available...ths is the stuff that built the west!!!
Now, all these ppl move out here & feel cheated somehow...think they should be able to build a million dollar home in a 'productive' zone...where do they come from?
Yeah...let's make it all nervana, buy all our beef & produce from some foreign country...rely on the middle east for oil, South America, Russia etc...for minerals. That ought to work real well. Who's going to grow their weed?
They conveniently leave out what mining does for the economy...as in jobs & $ circulation. And the risk...the start up costs...it's just too bad that the 'little guy' has been removed from the equation. All that's left are the big dogs. Nobody else can afford the payolla.
Who Owns The West?
In the ski resort town of Crested Butte, Colorado, land can sell for $100,000 for just one-tenth of an acre. On April 2, 2004, Crested Butte residents discovered that the federal government had sold 155 acres near the town to the Phelps Dodge mining company for just $875 despite a Phelps Dodge estimate that the land could produce up to $158 million in after-tax profits over 11 years (Lipsher 2004). This sale price may seem unbelievable, but under the Mining Law of 1872, the major federal law governing hardrock mining in the United States, it's business as usual.
• Click on the map (on the right) to view detailed information for each state, or go to the National Report
In the first comprehensive investigation of the hardrock mining industry's control of public assets, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has found that for as little as $0.84 an acre, mining companies and individuals control 5.6 million acres of valuable public lands and mineral rights scattered across 12 western states. Companies and individuals alike have obtained the right to mine gold, silver, copper and other metals on this property, with no requirement that they pay anything to the federal government for the value of the minerals they extract. Often the only returns the public sees are devastated landscapes, contaminated water and billions in cleanup costs.
The results of this investigation allow you to search the Western U.S. or individual states by claims, patents, plans & notices, companies, and individuals. See the previous "Site Contents" page under "Primer."
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Smiley, let Us revisit your reference to the Gov't Land the Ancestor to the Current Day BLM, Forest Service, and Dept. of Interior. I have researched and found the history of The Government Land Office:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Land_Management
History
The BLM's pure roots go back to the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. These laws provided for the survey and settlement of the lands that the original 13 colonies ceded to the federal government after the American Revolution. As additional lands were acquired by the United States from Spain, France and other countries, the United States Congress directed that they be explored, surveyed, and made available for settlement. In 1812, Congress established the General Land Office in the Department of the Treasury to oversee the disposition of these federal lands. As the 19th century progressed and the nation's land base expanded further west, Congress encouraged the settlement of the land by enacting a wide variety of laws, including the Homestead Act and the Mining Law of 1872.
These statutes served one of the major policy goals of the young country—settlement of the Western territories. With the exception of the Mining Law of 1872 and the Desert Land Act of 1877 (which was amended), all have since been repealed or superseded by other statutes.
The late 19th century marked a shift in federal land management priorities with the creation of the first national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges. By withdrawing these lands from settlement, Congress signaled a shift in the policy goals served by the public lands. Instead of using them to promote settlement, Congress decided that they should be held in public ownership because of their other resource values.
Sheep graze on BLM land in Snake Valley, Utah.
In the early 20th century, Congress took additional steps toward recognizing the value of the assets on public lands and directed the Executive Branch to manage activities on the remaining public lands. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 allowed leasing, exploration, and production of selected commodities, such as coal, oil, gas, and sodium to take place on public lands. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 established the U.S. Grazing Service to manage the public rangelands. The Oregon and California (O&C) Act of August 28, 1937, required sustained yield management of the timberlands in western Oregon.
In 1946, the Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office (a product of the country's territorial expansion and the federal government's nineteenth-century homesteading policies) to form the Bureau of Land Management within the Department of the Interior. When the BLM was initially created, there were over 2,000 unrelated and often conflicting laws for managing the public lands. The BLM had no unified legislative mandate until Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).
In FLPMA, Congress recognized the value of the remaining public lands by declaring that these lands would remain in public ownership. Congress used the term "multiple use" management, defined as "management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people."
The land management policy of the federal government before 1946 involved on the one hand rapid disposal to miners, ranchers and farmers, and on the other hand reservations for national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and military needs. The combination of 1946 of the General Land Office and the Grazing Service into the new Bureau of Land Management was filled with ambiguity. In terms of bureaucracy, there has been a constant tension between the local district rangers, who have typically been oriented toward the mining and ranching interests, and the centralized leadership in Washington that follows presidential guidance. Since the Reagan years of the 1980s, Republicans have emphasized local control giving priority to grazing, mining and petroleum production, while Democrats have emphasized environmentalism.[3]
Now remember the orginal intent of the Government Land Office was the disposition of land which I have defined below. The History goes on to state that the orginal intent has been completely changed by from its orginal.
Now to define the word disposition in a legal sense:
disposition legal definition of disposition. disposition ...  legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ disposition Disposition. Act of disposing; transferring to the care or possession of another. The parting with, alienation of, or giving up of property. The final settlement of a . This complete post is the reason the reason I am a Constitutitonal Orginalist! Not a Constructionist. I am all about the Orginal Intent (as stated in this History research) of Our Forefathers. Not this convoluted Federal Government of Current Day! | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-15 8:26 AM
foundation horse - 2014-04-14 9:33 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 6:23 PM And they are called out the auction house that said they would take in the cattle. So, in their 15 minutes of fame, they are going to take someone's livelihood with them in the form of boycotting this auction house.
Shame on the Bundys. What is wrong for outing an outfit that is willing to deal in stolen merchandise?
Again, if this man wants to go down in flames for his "right" to raise his family, then do so, but why take this auction house with him? They too are trying to raise a family in a Western business. These are NOT stolen cattle, these are a commodity for unpaid bills.
Per Former Judge Andrew Napolitano's comments I have read, the traditional and _(perhaps most peaceful way) to have addressed and solved this problem would have been to place a lien upon the property on the disputed merchandise ie cattle. Upon sale of any cattle, then proceeds to settle said lien would have withheld and paid to the lienholder.
I find this solution much more acceptable than the Armed Invasion of Cattle Country! | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | With the varying reports out there I don't know what to believe!
With an open mind...tell me if this one is even close to true?
http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-youre-not-being-told?utm_source=share-fb
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| jbhoot - 2014-04-15 10:24 AM smiley - 2014-04-15 8:26 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 9:33 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 6:23 PM And they are called out the auction house that said they would take in the cattle. So, in their 15 minutes of fame, they are going to take someone's livelihood with them in the form of boycotting this auction house.
Shame on the Bundys. What is wrong for outing an outfit that is willing to deal in stolen merchandise?
Again, if this man wants to go down in flames for his "right" to raise his family, then do so, but why take this auction house with him? They too are trying to raise a family in a Western business. These are NOT stolen cattle, these are a commodity for unpaid bills. Smiley, you really should read the judges order before you comment. NO WHERE in the order does it give the right to the BLM to sell the cattle. The order only gives the BLM the right to remove the cattle.
It also give them the right to impound them. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-15 11:14 AM
jbhoot - 2014-04-15 10:24 AM smiley - 2014-04-15 8:26 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 9:33 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 6:23 PM And they are called out the auction house that said they would take in the cattle. So, in their 15 minutes of fame, they are going to take someone's livelihood with them in the form of boycotting this auction house.
Shame on the Bundys. What is wrong for outing an outfit that is willing to deal in stolen merchandise?
Again, if this man wants to go down in flames for his "right" to raise his family, then do so, but why take this auction house with him? They too are trying to raise a family in a Western business. These are NOT stolen cattle, these are a commodity for unpaid bills. Smiley, you really should read the judges order before you comment. NO WHERE in the order does it give the right to the BLM to sell the cattle. The order only gives the BLM the right to remove the cattle.
The lien I mentioned actually makes more sense. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas |
WOW! Busted! | |
| | |
 Own It and Move On
Location: The edge of no where | What infuriates me is wasting 3 million dollars on a mess like this. Why is that ok?
The BLM/government is supposed to treat animals humanely, running cattle like that during calving season is cruel. No rancher would've done that. They caused a lot of death an suffering, why is that ok? Why don't they have to answer for that? That is not bundys fault, it falls squarely on the idiots of the BLM that organized this circus.
Working cattle is a skill, some people never get it. It's a matter of understanding how they think and being in the right place.
The more research I do on this, the more inclined I am to side with Bundy.
Why does the BLM have a police force and military style vehicles? | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| TXBO - 2014-04-15 11:14 AM
jbhoot - 2014-04-15 10:24 AM smiley - 2014-04-15 8:26 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 9:33 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 6:23 PM And they are called out the auction house that said they would take in the cattle. So, in their 15 minutes of fame, they are going to take someone's livelihood with them in the form of boycotting this auction house.
Shame on the Bundys. What is wrong for outing an outfit that is willing to deal in stolen merchandise?
Again, if this man wants to go down in flames for his "right" to raise his family, then do so, but why take this auction house with him? They too are trying to raise a family in a Western business. These are NOT stolen cattle, these are a commodity for unpaid bills. Smiley, you really should read the judges order before you comment. NO WHERE in the order does it give the right to the BLM to sell the cattle. The order only gives the BLM the right to remove the cattle.
Yes you are correct. That does not mean they can depose of the cattle. That would require another order from a judge. Impoundment doesn't mean you have tile. I am not saying that they could not at some date sell the cattle BUT that requires further action from the court. It is pretty darn clear that the BLM over reached the judges order in their attempt to sell. | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| "There's so many differences out here w/leased vs private land...it may seem 'cheap' until you figure the lack of water into it. That's a huge expense. Last month a group of 'Friends of ...something' decided to remove over 2k feet of pipeline that came down a cliff side because they thought it was ugly! The rancher spent many thousands of $'s installing this to water his cows...he's been finding dead cows due to bullets & poison, his water tanks shot up...because the environmentalists hate cows & are trying to run him out. "
You are not talking about environmentalists here, but domestic terrorists. You can't lump a person who works within the law for clean water, air and land with someone who destroys private property in support of an agenda. The militia that showed up at the Bundys with the guns that they showed on the news are domestic terrorists, not neighbors caring about a law abiding family. "Activists" is also a broad term with good an bad connotations and I think people have a tendency to lump them all into one bad group. If it wasn't for an activist, Lincoln, we would have had slavery for a lot longer.
No one is saying that federal land users do not have production costs and problems. Just not the production costs of ranchers on private or privately leased land. If they weren't getting a good deal, they wouldn't put up with it. I personally knew one family that didn't. They had a Forest Service lease in Wyoming. It was so remote, his teenage sons and their dogs stayed with the cattle all summer. Without informing them, the Game & Fish Div. started a Grizzly Bear study in an area where their cattle were. After several cattle and dog deaths, and a run in with his kids, they found out that they had been baiting bears near his camp. The Game & Fish said they couldn't confirm some of the kills, and were not wanting to pay for the dead animals, which were special high altitude bred cows/calves. He took them to court, he won, said it wasn't worth the trouble, sold his lease, for a lot, sold his small ranch, and bought a private ranch in another state. That is how he dealt with it. Like a grownup. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 10:41 AM "There's so many differences out here w/leased vs private land...it may seem 'cheap' until you figure the lack of water into it. That's a huge expense. Last month a group of 'Friends of ...something' decided to remove over 2k feet of pipeline that came down a cliff side because they thought it was ugly! The rancher spent many thousands of $'s installing this to water his cows...he's been finding dead cows due to bullets & poison, his water tanks shot up...because the environmentalists hate cows & are trying to run him out. " You are not talking about environmentalists here, but domestic terrorists. You can't lump a person who works within the law for clean water, air and land with someone who destroys private property in support of an agenda. The militia that showed up at the Bundys with the guns that they showed on the news are domestic terrorists, not neighbors caring about a law abiding family. "Activists" is also a broad term with good an bad connotations and I think people have a tendency to lump them all into one bad group. If it wasn't for an activist, Lincoln, we would have had slavery for a lot longer. No one is saying that federal land users do not have production costs and problems. Just not the production costs of ranchers on private or privately leased land. If they weren't getting a good deal, they wouldn't put up with it. I personally knew one family that didn't. They had a Forest Service lease in Wyoming. It was so remote, his teenage sons and their dogs stayed with the cattle all summer. Without informing them, the Game & Fish Div. started a Grizzly Bear study in an area where their cattle were. After several cattle and dog deaths, and a run in with his kids, they found out that they had been baiting bears near his camp. The Game & Fish said they couldn't confirm some of the kills, and were not wanting to pay for the dead animals, which were special high altitude bred cows/calves. He took them to court, he won, said it wasn't worth the trouble, sold his lease, for a lot, sold his small ranch, and bought a private ranch in another state. That is how he dealt with it. Like a grownup.
Well, I've had trigger happy feds draw beads on me...as have most people out here at one time or another, like in road blocks...my situation was when they were searching for some cop killers in the area and I was on MY property (not a suspect) speaking with an agent, looked down at the horses as they were doing the 'bunny ear...something in the brush thing' & I asked the fed if those guys w/guns jpointed at us were with him...he HID behind me!!! Lol...talk about terrorists. Never seen a patriot do that.
I'll take the patriot over the nervous guy who has taken NO oath to protect my rights.
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 616
Location: Texas | Have you seen anything about this on television ? Are they wearing it out like the search for the missing plane or the guy that shot his girlfriend because he thought she was an intruder? NO you are not seeing this all over the news,talk shows etc. There is a reason, it's a dirty deal and your government doesn't want it broadcast, it's all about power,money and greed,we are not being told the truth, I am going to side with Bundy, don't let the government run over you, if more of us don't start taking a stand against them , we are going to lose all of our rights and freedom, no different than Obama care, how can you be forced by the government to purchase a product in any market and fined if you don't???? We are losing our rights STAND up and be Americans!!! | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| MS2011 - 2014-04-15 11:26 AM
What infuriates me is wasting 3 million dollars on a mess like this. Why is that ok?
The BLM/government is supposed to treat animals humanely, running cattle like that during calving season is cruel. No rancher would've done that. They caused a lot of death an suffering, why is that ok? Why don't they have to answer for that? That is not bundys fault, it falls squarely on the idiots of the BLM that organized this circus.
Working cattle is a skill, some people never get it. It's a matter of understanding how they think and being in the right place.
The more research I do on this, the more inclined I am to side with Bundy.
Why does the BLM have a police force and military style vehicles?
I keep reading on here that the BLM killed cattle. I had not actually heard if that was true from a reliable news source. Did that really happen and if so how many? I knew they had people on horseback and helicopters but because of the vast amount of land, as well as some of the cattle being "Feral", or I took that to be mean, that seemed only logical.
Also, when the desert tortoise study ran out of money, only the ones that were sick or not able to be released back into the wild for some reason were euthanized. I think some people thought that they were all killed. | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| kickincans - 2014-04-15 11:50 AM
Have you seen anything about this on television ? Are they wearing it out like the search for the missing plane or the guy that shot his girlfriend because he thought she was an intruder? NO you are not seeing this all over the news,talk shows etc. There is a reason, it's a dirty deal and your government doesn't want it broadcast, it's all about power,money and greed,we are not being told the truth, I am going to side with Bundy, don't let the government run over you, if more of us don't start taking a stand against them , we are going to lose all of our rights and freedom, no different than Obama care, how can you be forced by the government to purchase a product in any market and fined if you don't???? We are losing our rights STAND up and be Americans!!!
That is not really true. I watched three different programs that mentioned it last night and all of them had clips from Fox News coverage of it. It is getting probably more coverage than it deserves. I really don't think it is a government conspiracy against the Bundys. I cringe every time I see it played on tv knowing that the people who are watching this are going to think ranchers are a bunch of ignorant hicks trying to shoot up the government that they don't recognize. The PR for ag people is terrible. You can't overinflate the amount of people who care about this issue, because there is just not that many of them in the big picture of things. | |
| | |
|
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21232.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-long-fight-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 677
Location: Texas Panhandle | foundation horse - 2014-04-15 11:24 AM WOW! Busted!
 WOW IS RIGHT !!! | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| jbhoot - 2014-04-15 9:24 AM smiley - 2014-04-15 8:26 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 9:33 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 6:23 PM And they are called out the auction house that said they would take in the cattle. So, in their 15 minutes of fame, they are going to take someone's livelihood with them in the form of boycotting this auction house.
Shame on the Bundys. What is wrong for outing an outfit that is willing to deal in stolen merchandise?
Again, if this man wants to go down in flames for his "right" to raise his family, then do so, but why take this auction house with him? They too are trying to raise a family in a Western business. These are NOT stolen cattle, these are a commodity for unpaid bills. Smiley, you really should read the judges order before you comment. NO WHERE in the order does it give the right to the BLM to sell the cattle. The order only gives the BLM the right to remove the cattle.
And do what with them?
Have lunch with them??
The ONLY reason that peole impound things are to sell them or charge you to get them back. Again, what else could they have done? | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:51 AM Smiley, let Us revisit your reference to the Gov't Land the Ancestor to the Current Day BLM, Forest Service, and Dept. of Interior. I have researched and found the history of The Government Land Office:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Land_Management
History
The BLM's pure roots go back to the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. These laws provided for the survey and settlement of the lands that the original 13 colonies ceded to the federal government after the American Revolution. As additional lands were acquired by the United States from Spain, France and other countries, the United States Congress directed that they be explored, surveyed, and made available for settlement. In 1812, Congress established the General Land Office in the Department of the Treasury to oversee the disposition of these federal lands. As the 19th century progressed and the nation's land base expanded further west, Congress encouraged the settlement of the land by enacting a wide variety of laws, including the Homestead Act and the Mining Law of 1872.
These statutes served one of the major policy goals of the young country—settlement of the Western territories. With the exception of the Mining Law of 1872 and the Desert Land Act of 1877 (which was amended ), all have since been repealed or superseded by other statutes.
The late 19th century marked a shift in federal land management priorities with the creation of the first national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges. By withdrawing these lands from settlement, Congress signaled a shift in the policy goals served by the public lands. Instead of using them to promote settlement, Congress decided that they should be held in public ownership because of their other resource values.
Sheep graze on BLM land in Snake Valley, Utah.
In the early 20th century, Congress took additional steps toward recognizing the value of the assets on public lands and directed the Executive Branch to manage activities on the remaining public lands. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 allowed leasing, exploration, and production of selected commodities, such as coal, oil, gas, and sodium to take place on public lands. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 established the U.S. Grazing Service to manage the public rangelands. The Oregon and California (O&C ) Act of August 28, 1937, required sustained yield management of the timberlands in western Oregon.
In 1946, the Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office (a product of the country's territorial expansion and the federal government's nineteenth-century homesteading policies ) to form the Bureau of Land Management within the Department of the Interior. When the BLM was initially created, there were over 2,000 unrelated and often conflicting laws for managing the public lands. The BLM had no unified legislative mandate until Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA ).
In FLPMA, Congress recognized the value of the remaining public lands by declaring that these lands would remain in public ownership. Congress used the term "multiple use" management, defined as "management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people."
The land management policy of the federal government before 1946 involved on the one hand rapid disposal to miners, ranchers and farmers, and on the other hand reservations for national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and military needs. The combination of 1946 of the General Land Office and the Grazing Service into the new Bureau of Land Management was filled with ambiguity. In terms of bureaucracy, there has been a constant tension between the local district rangers, who have typically been oriented toward the mining and ranching interests, and the centralized leadership in Washington that follows presidential guidance. Since the Reagan years of the 1980s, Republicans have emphasized local control giving priority to grazing, mining and petroleum production, while Democrats have emphasized environmentalism.[3]
Now remember the orginal intent of the Government Land Office was the disposition of land which I have defined below. The History goes on to state that the orginal intent has been completely changed by from its orginal.
Now to define the word dis position in a legal sense:
disposition legal definition of disposition. disposition ...
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ disposition
Disposition. Act of disposing; transferring to the care or possession of another. The parting with, alienation of, or giving up of property. The final settlement of a .
This complete post is the reason the reason I am a Constitutitonal Orginalist! Not a Constructionist. I am all about the Orginal Intent (as stated in this History research) of Our Forefathers. Not this convoluted Federal Government of Current Day!
Yes, I am learning quite a bit about this - however, that fight is with the STATE OF NEVADA, not the BLM. The BLM is unable to say "well, hey, this guy has a point you know, we should just not do this." Not quite how it works.
If and when the Feds give the land to the states - and let's face it, many if not all the states are going to screw it up, and line their pockets and those of their friends. This will be a more local good old boy system of corruption vs., having at least some checks and balances through the feds who have to listen to everyone and not just rich liberals who want to be richer.
I get this argument, I can even agree with this argument, but it's not Clive Bundy's fight, it's the State of Nevada's fight and if they won't do anything about it, he's not going to win. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-15 10:03 AM smiley - 2014-04-15 8:26 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-14 9:33 PM smiley - 2014-04-14 6:23 PM And they are called out the auction house that said they would take in the cattle. So, in their 15 minutes of fame, they are going to take someone's livelihood with them in the form of boycotting this auction house.
Shame on the Bundys. What is wrong for outing an outfit that is willing to deal in stolen merchandise?
Again, if this man wants to go down in flames for his "right" to raise his family, then do so, but why take this auction house with him? They too are trying to raise a family in a Western business. These are NOT stolen cattle, these are a commodity for unpaid bills. Per Former Judge Andrew Napolitano's comments I have read, the traditional and _ (perhaps most peaceful way ) to have addressed and solved this problem would have been to place a lien upon the property on the disputed merchandise ie cattle. Upon sale of any cattle, then proceeds to settle said lien would have withheld and paid to the lienholder. I find this solution much more acceptable than the Armed Invasion of Cattle Country!
So, you put a lein on cattle that are STILL on the property and then what? Wait another twenty years for those cattle to be sold and get asked "why'd ya wait so long?"
If he never sells then there is nothing to collect, or if he sells "other" cattle, then there is nothing to collect. It was about getting the cattle - some feral - OFF the land. | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | smiley - 2014-04-15 12:35 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:51 AM Smiley, let Us revisit your reference to the Gov't Land the Ancestor to the Current Day BLM, Forest Service, and Dept. of Interior. I have researched and found the history of The Government Land Office:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Land_Management
History
The BLM's pure roots go back to the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. These laws provided for the survey and settlement of the lands that the original 13 colonies ceded to the federal government after the American Revolution. As additional lands were acquired by the United States from Spain, France and other countries, the United States Congress directed that they be explored, surveyed, and made available for settlement. In 1812, Congress established the General Land Office in the Department of the Treasury to oversee the disposition of these federal lands. As the 19th century progressed and the nation's land base expanded further west, Congress encouraged the settlement of the land by enacting a wide variety of laws, including the Homestead Act and the Mining Law of 1872.
These statutes served one of the major policy goals of the young country—settlement of the Western territories. With the exception of the Mining Law of 1872 and the Desert Land Act of 1877 (which was amended ), all have since been repealed or superseded by other statutes.
The late 19th century marked a shift in federal land management priorities with the creation of the first national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges. By withdrawing these lands from settlement, Congress signaled a shift in the policy goals served by the public lands. Instead of using them to promote settlement, Congress decided that they should be held in public ownership because of their other resource values.
Sheep graze on BLM land in Snake Valley, Utah.
In the early 20th century, Congress took additional steps toward recognizing the value of the assets on public lands and directed the Executive Branch to manage activities on the remaining public lands. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 allowed leasing, exploration, and production of selected commodities, such as coal, oil, gas, and sodium to take place on public lands. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 established the U.S. Grazing Service to manage the public rangelands. The Oregon and California (O&C ) Act of August 28, 1937, required sustained yield management of the timberlands in western Oregon.
In 1946, the Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office (a product of the country's territorial expansion and the federal government's nineteenth-century homesteading policies ) to form the Bureau of Land Management within the Department of the Interior. When the BLM was initially created, there were over 2,000 unrelated and often conflicting laws for managing the public lands. The BLM had no unified legislative mandate until Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA ).
In FLPMA, Congress recognized the value of the remaining public lands by declaring that these lands would remain in public ownership. Congress used the term "multiple use" management, defined as "management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people."
The land management policy of the federal government before 1946 involved on the one hand rapid disposal to miners, ranchers and farmers, and on the other hand reservations for national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and military needs. The combination of 1946 of the General Land Office and the Grazing Service into the new Bureau of Land Management was filled with ambiguity. In terms of bureaucracy, there has been a constant tension between the local district rangers, who have typically been oriented toward the mining and ranching interests, and the centralized leadership in Washington that follows presidential guidance. Since the Reagan years of the 1980s, Republicans have emphasized local control giving priority to grazing, mining and petroleum production, while Democrats have emphasized environmentalism.[3]
Now remember the orginal intent of the Government Land Office was the disposition of land which I have defined below. The History goes on to state that the orginal intent has been completely changed by from its orginal.
Now to define the word dis position in a legal sense:
disposition legal definition of disposition. disposition ...
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ disposition
Disposition. Act of disposing; transferring to the care or possession of another. The parting with, alienation of, or giving up of property. The final settlement of a .
This complete post is the reason the reason I am a Constitutitonal Orginalist! Not a Constructionist. I am all about the Orginal Intent (as stated in this History research) of Our Forefathers. Not this convoluted Federal Government of Current Day!
If and when the Feds give the land to the states - and let's face it, many if not all the states are going to screw it up, and line their pockets and those of their friends. This will be a more local good old boy system of corruption vs., having at least some checks and balances through the feds who have to listen to everyone and not just rich liberals who want to be richer.
I get this argument, I can even agree with this argument, but it's not Clive Bundy's fight, it's the State of Nevada's fight and if they won't do anything about it, he's not going to win.
And IMO, that's a naive view of the federal government. The further away we are from the power, the smaller our voices. Bureaucracy lacks common sense and steamrolls individual rights in favor of "the common good". The larger the bureaucracy, the stupider it is. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| MS2011 - 2014-04-15 10:26 AM What infuriates me is wasting 3 million dollars on a mess like this. Why is that ok? The BLM/government is supposed to treat animals humanely, running cattle like that during calving season is cruel. No rancher would've done that. They caused a lot of death an suffering, why is that ok? Why don't they have to answer for that? That is not bundys fault, it falls squarely on the idiots of the BLM that organized this circus. Working cattle is a skill, some people never get it. It's a matter of understanding how they think and being in the right place. The more research I do on this, the more inclined I am to side with Bundy. Why does the BLM have a police force and military style vehicles?
You are right no real rancher would have done that. The BLM is not comprised of ranchers.
This rancher allowed it to get this far. This rancher allowed his cattle to be mismanaged and some to go feral. This rancher doesn't give to craps about his cattle or he'd have never let a helicopter be the one to "bring them in."
Do you think if someone comes to repo your car they are going to give two craps if you are busy having a baby and you need that car? Uh, no, they take it. Most won't wait 20 years to do it though.
Working cattle is a skill - and you'll notice in the videos there are big *** calves on momma's still, bulls running with bred and recently calved cows and all sorts of mixed up cattle going on. This guy to me is a **** poor example of a "cattleman."
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Speedy Cowgirl - 2014-04-15 11:13 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 11:24 AM WOW! Busted! WOW IS RIGHT !!!
This is ridiculous. I love how he debunks all the theories except the one he likes the best.
YES, the BLM makes MONEY - and they do that by using FEDERAL land for FEDERAL projects. They have this land in which feral cattle are a danger to others and in which they have tried to get this guy to comply for 20+ years and in order to use THEIR land, they have to remove this guys cattle.
What is the BUSTED??
That they actually want to use the land for something useful? Other than a rancher's uses? This land - as you have all said is Public land - you know there is more to the public in NV than ranchers right?
It's all good when a cow is on it but talk about putting a solar farm on it and by God, let's hang em high.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Capitalism is capitalism folks. | |
| | |
I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | The link that Musicmaker posted, IMO, pretty much nails it with this comment.
What happened in Clark County Nevada struck a nerve with the American people, but the response we saw had very little to do with this particular crisis. There is something much deeper brewing under the surface in the United States. This showdown was just a catalyst. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-15 11:45 AM Speedy Cowgirl - 2014-04-15 11:13 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 11:24 AM WOW! Busted! WOW IS RIGHT !!!
YES, the BLM makes MONEY - and they do that by using FEDERAL land for FEDERAL projects. They have this land in which feral cattle are a danger to others and in which they have tried to get this guy to comply for 20+ years and in order to use THEIR land, they have to remove this guys cattle.
What is the BUSTED??
That they actually want to use the land for something useful? Other than a rancher's uses? This land - as you have all said is Public land - you know there is more to the public in NV than ranchers right?
It's all good when a cow is on it but talk about putting a solar farm on it and by God, let's hang em high.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Capitalism is capitalism folks.
You do know this is a company from China? Maybe that makes no difference as there's solar farms in California & signs up saying it belongs to China. My folks saw it...so pics...they were shocked!
I say...turn it all into 'public land' in all states...or none of it (excepting what is necesssary for the protection ofour borders). Then we can all be on equal footing...as renters. Lmao...it's a comin!
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Nevertooold - 2014-04-15 12:52 PM The link that Musicmaker posted, IMO, pretty much nails it with this comment.
What happened in Clark County Nevada struck a nerve with the American people, but the response we saw had very little to do with this particular crisis. There is something much deeper brewing under the surface in the United States. This showdown was just a catalyst.
Yep, think you nailed it. | |
| | |
Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| TXBO - 2014-04-15 1:33 PM Nevertooold - 2014-04-15 12:52 PM The link that Musicmaker posted, IMO, pretty much nails it with this comment.
What happened in Clark County Nevada struck a nerve with the American people, but the response we saw had very little to do with this particular crisis. There is something much deeper brewing under the surface in the United States. This showdown was just a catalyst. Yep, think you nailed it.
Ditto. | |
| | |
Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| MusicMaker, run for office. Please. You are always so spot on. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | RidenFly - 2014-04-15 12:39 PM MusicMaker, run for office. Please. You are always so spot on.
Now that's funny! I cuss too much in real life...and not just when I'm drinking...
| |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | Nevertooold - 2014-04-15 12:52 PM The link that Musicmaker posted, IMO, pretty much nails it with this comment.
What happened in Clark County Nevada struck a nerve with the American people, but the response we saw had very little to do with this particular crisis. There is something much deeper brewing under the surface in the United States. This showdown was just a catalyst.
That's exactly how I saw it. | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | musikmaker - 2014-04-15 1:48 PM
RidenFly - 2014-04-15 12:39 PM MusicMaker, run for office. Please. You are always so spot on.
Now that's funny! I cuss too much in real life...and not just when I'm drinking...
People who cuss are more honest. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | HotbearLVR - 2014-04-15 12:51 PM Nevertooold - 2014-04-15 12:52 PM The link that Musicmaker posted, IMO, pretty much nails it with this comment.
What happened in Clark County Nevada struck a nerve with the American people, but the response we saw had very little to do with this particular crisis. There is something much deeper brewing under the surface in the United States. This showdown was just a catalyst. That's exactly how I saw it.
If the BLM link is still up it clearly shows what we're up against out here...we cannot win in their courts. It also proves the Chinese/Reid connection.
Corrupt, manipulating, self serving bast***. Waging war against Americans is what they're doing...who's the terrorist?
| |
| | |
Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| Good. I hope Americans get downright pi$$y. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Here's that link again, share it!
We have more tools available to us today than any time in the history of man...I just don't want to share stuff that's not true or is inciting violence, not that I'm completely opposed to violence because I am a realist (idealistic one?!), rather, I want this fight to be an honest one with an honest outcome.
http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-youre-not-being-told?utm_source=share-fb
| |
| | |
I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
Location: Online | musikmaker - 2014-04-15 1:38 PM Here's that link again, share it!
We have more tools available to us today than any time in the history of man...I just don't want to share stuff that's not true or is inciting violence, not that I'm completely opposed to violence because I am a realist (idealistic one?!), rather, I want this fight to be an honest one with an honest outcome.
http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-youre-not-being-told?utm_source=share-fb
Exactly.
For the nay sayers..... If the government is on the up and up, why was this taken off the BLM website?
 | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 2:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 1:38 PM Here's that link again, share it!
We have more tools available to us today than any time in the history of man...I just don't want to share stuff that's not true or is inciting violence, not that I'm completely opposed to violence because I am a realist (idealistic one?!), rather, I want this fight to be an honest one with an honest outcome.
http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-youre-not-being-told?utm_source=share-fb
although some of these seem like very legitimate concerns and crimes..... | |
| | |
I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas |
 (10007005_10152111087328717_2289516399613774353_n.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 10007005_10152111087328717_2289516399613774353_n.jpg (27KB - 240 downloads)
| |
| | |
I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
Location: Online | dhdqhllc - 2014-04-15 1:56 PM rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 2:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 1:38 PM Here's that link again, share it!
We have more tools available to us today than any time in the history of man...I just don't want to share stuff that's not true or is inciting violence, not that I'm completely opposed to violence because I am a realist (idealistic one?!), rather, I want this fight to be an honest one with an honest outcome.
http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-youre-not-being-told?utm_source=share-fb
Like what? It's considered open range. Meaning the public is responsible to keep the cattle out of their property. If you hit a cow with your car in open range, you are responsible, not the owner of the cow. That's an easy answer.... Build a fence to keep them out.
The other concerns are by environmentalist groups.
The most telling though, is this..
Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the DRY LAKE SOLAR ENERGY ZONE utilizes Gold Butte as the location of offsite mitigation for impacts from SOLAR DEVELOPEMENT, and those restoration activities are not durable with the presense of trespass cattle. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | dhdqhllc - 2014-04-15 1:56 PM rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 2:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 1:38 PM Here's that link again, share it!
We have more tools available to us today than any time in the history of man...I just don't want to share stuff that's not true or is inciting violence, not that I'm completely opposed to violence because I am a realist (idealistic one?!), rather, I want this fight to be an honest one with an honest outcome.
http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-youre-not-being-told?utm_source=share-fb
Nevada is a 'fence out state'. You're right though about concerns...I was alarmed & concerned about nearly all the 'charges'...most downright silly. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-15 12:06 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 11:45 AM Speedy Cowgirl - 2014-04-15 11:13 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 11:24 AM WOW! Busted! WOW IS RIGHT !!!
YES, the BLM makes MONEY - and they do that by using FEDERAL land for FEDERAL projects. They have this land in which feral cattle are a danger to others and in which they have tried to get this guy to comply for 20+ years and in order to use THEIR land, they have to remove this guys cattle.
What is the BUSTED??
That they actually want to use the land for something useful? Other than a rancher's uses? This land - as you have all said is Public land - you know there is more to the public in NV than ranchers right?
It's all good when a cow is on it but talk about putting a solar farm on it and by God, let's hang em high.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Capitalism is capitalism folks.
I say...turn it all into 'public land' in all states...or none of it (excepting what is necesssary for the protection ofour borders). Then we can all be on equal footing...as renters. Lmao...it's a comin!
Yes, let's make it a free for all, that worked so well before law and order came along | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 1:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 1:38 PM Here's that link again, share it!
We have more tools available to us today than any time in the history of man...I just don't want to share stuff that's not true or is inciting violence, not that I'm completely opposed to violence because I am a realist (idealistic one?!), rather, I want this fight to be an honest one with an honest outcome.
http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-youre-not-being-told?utm_source=share-fb
First, the ONLY charge they need is that the guy isn't paying.
Second, how is a car being charged by a cow not an issue?
Third, yes, it's a company out of China - that I know of - and? So, it's cool to work in China, send our manufacturing to China, buy at WalMart from China, but HECK no on a solar farm on our land, employing Americans. Heck, we can't have that.
And this page from the BLM proves MY point not yours. I don't know why they took it down, public outcry - consirpiracy theorists. I'm second guessing every "consipiracy" theory I've ever read about now. Why wouldn't Reid want to make use of the land in his state and employ people in his state and provide energy in his state. That bastard.
I'm no fan of any politicians but you guys are making a case that dances around the issue - the cattle do not belong on that land - especially dangerous, feral cattle. The two bulls that were shot were charging officers.
I've never been more thankful for laws and coming from ME that's quite something. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| A different and important article to read:
http://www.hcn.org/articles/bundy-tresspass-cattle-stand-off-with-blm-feds?utm_source=wcn1&utm_medium=email
Apparently, the turtle conservancy group bought up the remaining grazing permits that Bundy did not pay for and that is another reason his cattle were supposed to be removed. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-15 2:43 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 12:06 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 11:45 AM Speedy Cowgirl - 2014-04-15 11:13 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 11:24 AM WOW! Busted! WOW IS RIGHT !!!
YES, the BLM makes MONEY - and they do that by using FEDERAL land for FEDERAL projects. They have this land in which feral cattle are a danger to others and in which they have tried to get this guy to comply for 20+ years and in order to use THEIR land, they have to remove this guys cattle.
What is the BUSTED??
That they actually want to use the land for something useful? Other than a rancher's uses? This land - as you have all said is Public land - you know there is more to the public in NV than ranchers right?
It's all good when a cow is on it but talk about putting a solar farm on it and by God, let's hang em high.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Capitalism is capitalism folks.
I say...turn it all into 'public land' in all states...or none of it (excepting what is necesssary for the protection ofour borders). Then we can all be on equal footing...as renters. Lmao...it's a comin!
?
The BLM is under the umbrella of the Dept. of Interior...the 'public land' was purchased by the United States to be 'disposed' of to the people by way of purchase, patents, homesteading etc...so that individuals could attain to the American Dream...Liberty & the Pusuit of Happiness! Or not. People weren't 'forced' to own land nor were we to be 'prevented' from it. The dept of interior is NOT answerable to the people as they are not part of our gov't as structured in the Constitution...they are separate, a complete different 'branch' that is appointed by the president. They take no oath to protect your rights in any way.
They are not the 'law & order' that keeps America free. Quite the opposite.
How would it be if all the land was 'public'? All that land a few on were was complaining about because it's so expensive...would they really want it be managed by the fed?
| |
| | |
I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
Location: Online | smiley - 2014-04-15 2:46 PM rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 1:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 1:38 PM First, the ONLY charge they need is that the guy isn't paying.
Second, how is a car being charged by a cow not an issue?
Third, yes, it's a company out of China - that I know of - and? So, it's cool to work in China, send our manufacturing to China, buy at WalMart from China, but HECK no on a solar farm on our land, employing Americans. Heck, we can't have that.
And this page from the BLM proves MY point not yours. I don't know why they took it down, public outcry - consirpiracy theorists. I'm second guessing every "consipiracy" theory I've ever read about now. Why wouldn't Reid want to make use of the land in his state and employ people in his state and provide energy in his state. That bastard.
I'm no fan of any politicians but you guys are making a case that dances around the issue - the cattle do not belong on that land - especially dangerous, feral cattle. The two bulls that were shot were charging officers.
I've never been more thankful for laws and coming from ME that's quite something.
Where does it say a car was "charged" by a cow? Open range is open range. It's also unlawful to harass livestock on open range. Why was the BLM chasing them, especially with helicopters, during the most stressful time, calving season, separating cows from their calves and killing others? They could have done it differently. If they were worried about the money, put a lein on his property, fine him, garnish whatever income he gets. Don't take his cows.
How many Chinese solar companies have to come here, take over American soil just to pad the pockets of the politicians, in this case Harry Reid and his son, then just go bankrupt? Say they win, they run the Bundy's off. Spend millions of taxpayer dollars to build a solar plant. It goes bankrupt like all the others. Who's left with the bill? We the people. That's who.
Where'd they go? Where'd who go? Like Solyndra.... | |
| | |
I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 4:29 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 2:46 PM rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 1:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 1:38 PM First, the ONLY charge they need is that the guy isn't paying.
Second, how is a car being charged by a cow not an issue?
Third, yes, it's a company out of China - that I know of - and? So, it's cool to work in China, send our manufacturing to China, buy at WalMart from China, but HECK no on a solar farm on our land, employing Americans. Heck, we can't have that.
And this page from the BLM proves MY point not yours. I don't know why they took it down, public outcry - consirpiracy theorists. I'm second guessing every "consipiracy" theory I've ever read about now. Why wouldn't Reid want to make use of the land in his state and employ people in his state and provide energy in his state. That bastard.
I'm no fan of any politicians but you guys are making a case that dances around the issue - the cattle do not belong on that land - especially dangerous, feral cattle. The two bulls that were shot were charging officers.
I've never been more thankful for laws and coming from ME that's quite something. I don't know why he didn't pay his "fees". He's not the only one in this country who doesn't pay their taxes.
Where does it say a car was "charged" by a cow? Open range is open range. It's also unlawful to harass livestock on open range. Why was the BLM chasing them, especially with helicopters, during the most stressful time, calving season, separating cows from their calves and killing others? They could have done it differently. If they were worried about the money, put a lein on his property, fine him, garnish whatever income he gets. Don't take his cows.
How many Chinese solar companies have to come here, take over American soil just to pad the pockets of the politicians, in this case Harry Reid and his son, then just go bankrupt? Say they win, they run the Bundy's off. Spend millions of taxpayer dollars to build a solar plant. It goes bankrupt like all the others. Who's left with the bill? We the people. That's who.
Where'd they go? Where'd who go? Like Solyndra.... | |
| | |
| rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 4:29 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 2:46 PM rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 1:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 1:38 PM First, the ONLY charge they need is that the guy isn't paying.
Second, how is a car being charged by a cow not an issue?
Third, yes, it's a company out of China - that I know of - and? So, it's cool to work in China, send our manufacturing to China, buy at WalMart from China, but HECK no on a solar farm on our land, employing Americans. Heck, we can't have that.
And this page from the BLM proves MY point not yours. I don't know why they took it down, public outcry - consirpiracy theorists. I'm second guessing every "consipiracy" theory I've ever read about now. Why wouldn't Reid want to make use of the land in his state and employ people in his state and provide energy in his state. That bastard.
I'm no fan of any politicians but you guys are making a case that dances around the issue - the cattle do not belong on that land - especially dangerous, feral cattle. The two bulls that were shot were charging officers.
I've never been more thankful for laws and coming from ME that's quite something. I don't know why he didn't pay his "fees". He's not the only one in this country who doesn't pay their taxes.
Where does it say a car was "charged" by a cow? Open range is open range. It's also unlawful to harass livestock on open range. Why was the BLM chasing them, especially with helicopters, during the most stressful time, calving season, separating cows from their calves and killing others? They could have done it differently. If they were worried about the money, put a lein on his property, fine him, garnish whatever income he gets. Don't take his cows.
How many Chinese solar companies have to come here, take over American soil just to pad the pockets of the politicians, in this case Harry Reid and his son, then just go bankrupt? Say they win, they run the Bundy's off. Spend millions of taxpayer dollars to build a solar plant. It goes bankrupt like all the others. Who's left with the bill? We the people. That's who.
Where'd they go? Where'd who go? Like Solyndra....
Just out of curiousity... When a bank puts a lien on your house or car, do you get to keep it even if you continue to not pay? Here in Nevada they repossess those properties for non-payment so what makes this situation any different? Bundy is not the first to have his cattle gathered and removed from public ground that the owner did not have grazing rights to and that he is stealing resources from. He had plenty of time/opportunity to remove his property and chose not to. You do realize that a large number of companies using Nevada BLM grounds are also from other other countries and that these companies provide jobs, infrastructure and security to our little communities? I would imagine the same will occur when the solar/wind facility is built. It will create jobs for people residing in Nevada- Bundy has no rights to this ground so technically he should have been run-off 2 decades ago... His rights to this ground went away when his permit was cancelled for non-payment. | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| bscanchaser - 2014-04-15 5:07 PM
rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 4:29 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 2:46 PM rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 1:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 1:38 PM First, the ONLY charge they need is that the guy isn't paying.
Second, how is a car being charged by a cow not an issue?
Third, yes, it's a company out of China - that I know of - and? So, it's cool to work in China, send our manufacturing to China, buy at WalMart from China, but HECK no on a solar farm on our land, employing Americans. Heck, we can't have that.
And this page from the BLM proves MY point not yours. I don't know why they took it down, public outcry - consirpiracy theorists. I'm second guessing every "consipiracy" theory I've ever read about now. Why wouldn't Reid want to make use of the land in his state and employ people in his state and provide energy in his state. That bastard.
I'm no fan of any politicians but you guys are making a case that dances around the issue - the cattle do not belong on that land - especially dangerous, feral cattle. The two bulls that were shot were charging officers.
I've never been more thankful for laws and coming from ME that's quite something. I don't know why he didn't pay his "fees". He's not the only one in this country who doesn't pay their taxes.
Where does it say a car was "charged" by a cow? Open range is open range. It's also unlawful to harass livestock on open range. Why was the BLM chasing them, especially with helicopters, during the most stressful time, calving season, separating cows from their calves and killing others? They could have done it differently. If they were worried about the money, put a lein on his property, fine him, garnish whatever income he gets. Don't take his cows.
How many Chinese solar companies have to come here, take over American soil just to pad the pockets of the politicians, in this case Harry Reid and his son, then just go bankrupt? Say they win, they run the Bundy's off. Spend millions of taxpayer dollars to build a solar plant. It goes bankrupt like all the others. Who's left with the bill? We the people. That's who.
Where'd they go? Where'd who go? Like Solyndra....
Just out of curiousity... When a bank puts a lien on your house or car, do you get to keep it even if you continue to not pay? Here in Nevada they repossess those properties for non-payment so what makes this situation any different? Bundy is not the first to have his cattle gathered and removed from public ground that the owner did not have grazing rights to and that he is stealing resources from. He had plenty of time/opportunity to remove his property and chose not to. You do realize that a large number of companies using Nevada BLM grounds are also from other other countries and that these companies provide jobs, infrastructure and security to our little communities? I would imagine the same will occur when the solar/wind facility is built. It will create jobs for people residing in Nevada- Bundy has no rights to this ground so technically he should have been run-off 2 decades ago... His rights to this ground went away when his permit was cancelled for non-payment.
A lien on your car or your home is not the same as a judicial lien. Bundy has a judicial lien in place on him and his property. The judge has granted the BLM the right to remove and impound his cattle. And that is all. Right now neither Bundy or the BLM can sell his property with out further action from the court. | |
| | |
Own It and Move On
Location: The edge of no where | I don't give a **** about if the BLM had the rights to round up the cattle or not. SINCE when do we endorse animal abuse by a government agency? For those of you that say it's like repo'ing a car...... these are animals that deserve humane treatment. So maybe you don't agree with the way Bundy ran cattle, that gives the BLM the right to run them in the middle of calving season on incredibly hot days??? WTH?
Where it was complained that they were in the road and a hazard to cars... it's open range. We live in Texas, where we live, if you hit it, it's your fault. Not the animal owner's fault. NV is the same way. Doesn't have anything to do with this issue. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | MS2011 - 2014-04-15 5:56 PM
I don't give a **** about if the BLM had the rights to round up the cattle or not. SINCE when do we endorse animal abuse by a government agency? For those of you that say it's like repo'ing a car...... these are animals that deserve humane treatment. So maybe you don't agree with the way Bundy ran cattle, that gives the BLM the right to run them in the middle of calving season on incredibly hot days??? WTH?
Where it was complained that they were in the road and a hazard to cars... it's open range. We live in Texas, where we live, if you hit it, it's your fault. Not the animal owner's fault. NV is the same way. Doesn't have anything to do with this issue.
I'm pretty sure NV. is open range... I know ID is.... If you hit it, it's your fault..
But the BLM rounds up Mustangs the same way..
Edited by komet. 2014-04-15 6:01 PM
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-15 2:57 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 2:43 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 12:06 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 11:45 AM Speedy Cowgirl - 2014-04-15 11:13 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 11:24 AM WOW! Busted! WOW IS RIGHT !!!
YES, the BLM makes MONEY - and they do that by using FEDERAL land for FEDERAL projects. They have this land in which feral cattle are a danger to others and in which they have tried to get this guy to comply for 20+ years and in order to use THEIR land, they have to remove this guys cattle.
What is the BUSTED??
That they actually want to use the land for something useful? Other than a rancher's uses? This land - as you have all said is Public land - you know there is more to the public in NV than ranchers right?
It's all good when a cow is on it but talk about putting a solar farm on it and by God, let's hang em high.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Capitalism is capitalism folks.
I say...turn it all into 'public land' in all states...or none of it (excepting what is necesssary for the protection ofour borders). Then we can all be on equal footing...as renters. Lmao...it's a comin!
The BLM is under the umbrella of the Dept. of Interior...the 'public land' was purchased by the United States to be 'disposed' of to the people by way of purchase, patents, homesteading etc...so that individuals could attain to the American Dream...Liberty & the Pusuit of Happiness! Or not. People weren't 'forced' to own land nor were we to be 'prevented' from it. The dept of interior is NOT answerable to the people as they are not part of our gov't as structured in the Constitution...they are separate, a complete different 'branch' that is appointed by the president. They take no oath to protect your rights in any way.
They are not the 'law & order' that keeps America free. Quite the opposite.
How would it be if all the land was 'public'? All that land a few on were was complaining about because it's so expensive...would they really want it be managed by the fed?
You're not focusing: this is the state's fights not Bundy's fight. If the state, which it looks like they are fighting it, has not won yet, it's not on Bundy to fight that battle. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 3:29 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 2:46 PM rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 1:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 1:38 PM First, the ONLY charge they need is that the guy isn't paying.
Second, how is a car being charged by a cow not an issue?
Third, yes, it's a company out of China - that I know of - and? So, it's cool to work in China, send our manufacturing to China, buy at WalMart from China, but HECK no on a solar farm on our land, employing Americans. Heck, we can't have that.
And this page from the BLM proves MY point not yours. I don't know why they took it down, public outcry - consirpiracy theorists. I'm second guessing every "consipiracy" theory I've ever read about now. Why wouldn't Reid want to make use of the land in his state and employ people in his state and provide energy in his state. That bastard.
I'm no fan of any politicians but you guys are making a case that dances around the issue - the cattle do not belong on that land - especially dangerous, feral cattle. The two bulls that were shot were charging officers.
I've never been more thankful for laws and coming from ME that's quite something. I don't know why he didn't pay his "fees". He's not the only one in this country who doesn't pay their taxes.
Where does it say a car was "charged" by a cow? Open range is open range. It's also unlawful to harass livestock on open range. Why was the BLM chasing them, especially with helicopters, during the most stressful time, calving season, separating cows from their calves and killing others? They could have done it differently. If they were worried about the money, put a lein on his property, fine him, garnish whatever income he gets. Don't take his cows.
How many Chinese solar companies have to come here, take over American soil just to pad the pockets of the politicians, in this case Harry Reid and his son, then just go bankrupt? Say they win, they run the Bundy's off. Spend millions of taxpayer dollars to build a solar plant. It goes bankrupt like all the others. Who's left with the bill? We the people. That's who.
Where'd they go? Where'd who go? Like Solyndra.... | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Nevertooold - 2014-04-15 3:50 PM rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 4:29 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 2:46 PM rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 1:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 1:38 PM First, the ONLY charge they need is that the guy isn't paying.
Second, how is a car being charged by a cow not an issue?
Third, yes, it's a company out of China - that I know of - and? So, it's cool to work in China, send our manufacturing to China, buy at WalMart from China, but HECK no on a solar farm on our land, employing Americans. Heck, we can't have that.
And this page from the BLM proves MY point not yours. I don't know why they took it down, public outcry - consirpiracy theorists. I'm second guessing every "consipiracy" theory I've ever read about now. Why wouldn't Reid want to make use of the land in his state and employ people in his state and provide energy in his state. That bastard.
I'm no fan of any politicians but you guys are making a case that dances around the issue - the cattle do not belong on that land - especially dangerous, feral cattle. The two bulls that were shot were charging officers.
I've never been more thankful for laws and coming from ME that's quite something. I don't know why he didn't pay his "fees". He's not the only one in this country who doesn't pay their taxes.
Where does it say a car was "charged" by a cow? Open range is open range. It's also unlawful to harass livestock on open range. Why was the BLM chasing them, especially with helicopters, during the most stressful time, calving season, separating cows from their calves and killing others? They could have done it differently. If they were worried about the money, put a lein on his property, fine him, garnish whatever income he gets. Don't take his cows.
How many Chinese solar companies have to come here, take over American soil just to pad the pockets of the politicians, in this case Harry Reid and his son, then just go bankrupt? Say they win, they run the Bundy's off. Spend millions of taxpayer dollars to build a solar plant. It goes bankrupt like all the others. Who's left with the bill? We the people. That's who.
Where'd they go? Where'd who go? Like Solyndra.... | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| bscanchaser - 2014-04-15 4:07 PM rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 4:29 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 2:46 PM rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 1:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 1:38 PM First, the ONLY charge they need is that the guy isn't paying.
Second, how is a car being charged by a cow not an issue?
Third, yes, it's a company out of China - that I know of - and? So, it's cool to work in China, send our manufacturing to China, buy at WalMart from China, but HECK no on a solar farm on our land, employing Americans. Heck, we can't have that.
And this page from the BLM proves MY point not yours. I don't know why they took it down, public outcry - consirpiracy theorists. I'm second guessing every "consipiracy" theory I've ever read about now. Why wouldn't Reid want to make use of the land in his state and employ people in his state and provide energy in his state. That bastard.
I'm no fan of any politicians but you guys are making a case that dances around the issue - the cattle do not belong on that land - especially dangerous, feral cattle. The two bulls that were shot were charging officers.
I've never been more thankful for laws and coming from ME that's quite something. I don't know why he didn't pay his "fees". He's not the only one in this country who doesn't pay their taxes.
Where does it say a car was "charged" by a cow? Open range is open range. It's also unlawful to harass livestock on open range. Why was the BLM chasing them, especially with helicopters, during the most stressful time, calving season, separating cows from their calves and killing others? They could have done it differently. If they were worried about the money, put a lein on his property, fine him, garnish whatever income he gets. Don't take his cows.
How many Chinese solar companies have to come here, take over American soil just to pad the pockets of the politicians, in this case Harry Reid and his son, then just go bankrupt? Say they win, they run the Bundy's off. Spend millions of taxpayer dollars to build a solar plant. It goes bankrupt like all the others. Who's left with the bill? We the people. That's who.
Where'd they go? Where'd who go? Like Solyndra.... Just out of curiousity... When a bank puts a lien on your house or car, do you get to keep it even if you continue to not pay? Here in Nevada they repossess those properties for non-payment so what makes this situation any different? Bundy is not the first to have his cattle gathered and removed from public ground that the owner did not have grazing rights to and that he is stealing resources from. He had plenty of time/opportunity to remove his property and chose not to.
You do realize that a large number of companies using Nevada BLM grounds are also from other other countries and that these companies provide jobs, infrastructure and security to our little communities? I would imagine the same will occur when the solar/wind facility is built. It will create jobs for people residing in Nevada- Bundy has no rights to this ground so technically he should have been run-off 2 decades ago... His rights to this ground went away when his permit was cancelled for non-payment. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| MS2011 - 2014-04-15 4:56 PM I don't give a **** about if the BLM had the rights to round up the cattle or not. SINCE when do we endorse animal abuse by a government agency? For those of you that say it's like repo'ing a car...... these are animals that deserve humane treatment. So maybe you don't agree with the way Bundy ran cattle, that gives the BLM the right to run them in the middle of calving season on incredibly hot days??? WTH?
Where it was complained that they were in the road and a hazard to cars... it's open range. We live in Texas, where we live, if you hit it, it's your fault. Not the animal owner's fault. NV is the same way. Doesn't have anything to do with this issue.
Again, READ what has already been POSTED. Namely the BLM copy and paste. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | smiley - 2014-04-15 6:22 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-15 2:57 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 2:43 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 12:06 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 11:45 AM Speedy Cowgirl - 2014-04-15 11:13 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 11:24 AM WOW! Busted! WOW IS RIGHT !!!
YES, the BLM makes MONEY - and they do that by using FEDERAL land for FEDERAL projects. They have this land in which feral cattle are a danger to others and in which they have tried to get this guy to comply for 20+ years and in order to use THEIR land, they have to remove this guys cattle.
What is the BUSTED??
That they actually want to use the land for something useful? Other than a rancher's uses? This land - as you have all said is Public land - you know there is more to the public in NV than ranchers right?
It's all good when a cow is on it but talk about putting a solar farm on it and by God, let's hang em high.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Capitalism is capitalism folks.
I say...turn it all into 'public land' in all states...or none of it (excepting what is necesssary for the protection ofour borders). Then we can all be on equal footing...as renters. Lmao...it's a comin!
The BLM is under the umbrella of the Dept. of Interior...the 'public land' was purchased by the United States to be 'disposed' of to the people by way of purchase, patents, homesteading etc...so that individuals could attain to the American Dream...Liberty & the Pusuit of Happiness! Or not. People weren't 'forced' to own land nor were we to be 'prevented' from it. The dept of interior is NOT answerable to the people as they are not part of our gov't as structured in the Constitution...they are separate, a complete different 'branch' that is appointed by the president. They take no oath to protect your rights in any way.
They are not the 'law & order' that keeps America free. Quite the opposite.
How would it be if all the land was 'public'? All that land a few on were was complaining about because it's so expensive...would they really want it be managed by the fed?
You seem to have lost sight of the fact.... The feds are not rounding up cows that belong to the state.... | |
| | |
I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
Location: Online | So you don't think the government would run them off if they continued to pay their fees? What then?
Apparently they did everyone else who ran cattle there. He's just the last man in their way.
This is a huge government overreach, I don't care who's side you are on.
I should have stayed out of it like I said I would on page 12.  | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| komet. - 2014-04-15 5:35 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 6:22 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 2:57 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 2:43 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 12:06 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 11:45 AM Speedy Cowgirl - 2014-04-15 11:13 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 11:24 AM WOW! Busted! WOW IS RIGHT !!!
YES, the BLM makes MONEY - and they do that by using FEDERAL land for FEDERAL projects. They have this land in which feral cattle are a danger to others and in which they have tried to get this guy to comply for 20+ years and in order to use THEIR land, they have to remove this guys cattle.
What is the BUSTED??
That they actually want to use the land for something useful? Other than a rancher's uses? This land - as you have all said is Public land - you know there is more to the public in NV than ranchers right?
It's all good when a cow is on it but talk about putting a solar farm on it and by God, let's hang em high.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Capitalism is capitalism folks.
I say...turn it all into 'public land' in all states...or none of it (excepting what is necesssary for the protection ofour borders). Then we can all be on equal footing...as renters. Lmao...it's a comin!
The BLM is under the umbrella of the Dept. of Interior...the 'public land' was purchased by the United States to be 'disposed' of to the people by way of purchase, patents, homesteading etc...so that individuals could attain to the American Dream...Liberty & the Pusuit of Happiness! Or not. People weren't 'forced' to own land nor were we to be 'prevented' from it. The dept of interior is NOT answerable to the people as they are not part of our gov't as structured in the Constitution...they are separate, a complete different 'branch' that is appointed by the president. They take no oath to protect your rights in any way.
They are not the 'law & order' that keeps America free. Quite the opposite.
How would it be if all the land was 'public'? All that land a few on were was complaining about because it's so expensive...would they really want it be managed by the fed?
You seem to have lost sight of the fact.... The feds are not rounding up cows that belong to the state....
 | |
| | |
| komet. - 2014-04-15 6:00 PM
MS2011 - 2014-04-15 5:56 PM
I don't give a **** about if the BLM had the rights to round up the cattle or not. SINCE when do we endorse animal abuse by a government agency? For those of you that say it's like repo'ing a car...... these are animals that deserve humane treatment. So maybe you don't agree with the way Bundy ran cattle, that gives the BLM the right to run them in the middle of calving season on incredibly hot days??? WTH?
Where it was complained that they were in the road and a hazard to cars... it's open range. We live in Texas, where we live, if you hit it, it's your fault. Not the animal owner's fault. NV is the same way. Doesn't have anything to do with this issue.
I'm pretty sure NV. is open range... I know ID is.... If you hit it, it's your fault..
But the BLM rounds up Mustangs the same way..
The way Nevada state law reads is that it is an open range state so cattle owners cannot be sued for animal hit except in the case if an animal is hit within a fenced Right-of-Way for the state highway. In these cases, the owner can and most likely will be sued for any damages as a result of the animal collision. See NRS 568.360 | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 5:37 PM So you don't think the government would run them off if they continued to pay their fees? What then?
Apparently they did everyone else who ran cattle there. He's just the last man in their way.
This is a huge government overreach, I don't care who's side you are on.
I should have stayed out of it like I said I would on page 12.
The BLM did not run them off, the Turtle conservancy, as has been posted, created an "issue" out of it and forced hte BLM to do an EA, in that EA time frame there is a public scoping period, they have to take into account everyone that showsup and protests.
Bundy was told to decrease his cattle for his existing grazing permit, apparently he could have purchased more permits, but did not. The TURTLE People bought the remaining permits and paid their fees.
THINGS change folks - again, if you think it's govt., overreach, join the associations that are fighting it, go to court, go to the state, contact your congressmen, don't support a squatter and think it will make a bit of difference. This man is only making the law abiding ranchers look like fools.
I give up. You want to support a crook - go for it. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | bscanchaser - 2014-04-15 6:43 PM
komet. - 2014-04-15 6:00 PM
MS2011 - 2014-04-15 5:56 PM
I don't give a **** about if the BLM had the rights to round up the cattle or not. SINCE when do we endorse animal abuse by a government agency? For those of you that say it's like repo'ing a car...... these are animals that deserve humane treatment. So maybe you don't agree with the way Bundy ran cattle, that gives the BLM the right to run them in the middle of calving season on incredibly hot days??? WTH?
Where it was complained that they were in the road and a hazard to cars... it's open range. We live in Texas, where we live, if you hit it, it's your fault. Not the animal owner's fault. NV is the same way. Doesn't have anything to do with this issue.
I'm pretty sure NV. is open range... I know ID is.... If you hit it, it's your fault..
But the BLM rounds up Mustangs the same way..
The way Nevada state law reads is that it is an open range state so cattle owners cannot be sued for animal hit except in the case if an animal is hit within a fenced Right-of-Way for the state highway. In these cases, the owner can and most likely will be sued for any damages as a result of the animal collision. See NRS 568.360
I wonder how they do this. Is the state not responsible for keeping the cows OUT of their fenced in right-of-way? In Idaho they do this by placing cattle guards on ramps on and off the interstates.. but sometimes they will simply paint lines there to resemble a guard and hope the cows are too stupid to cross it,
Edited by komet. 2014-04-15 6:53 PM
| |
| | |
I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
Location: Online | komet. - 2014-04-15 5:52 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-15 6:43 PM komet. - 2014-04-15 6:00 PM MS2011 - 2014-04-15 5:56 PM I don't give a **** about if the BLM had the rights to round up the cattle or not. SINCE when do we endorse animal abuse by a government agency? For those of you that say it's like repo'ing a car...... these are animals that deserve humane treatment. So maybe you don't agree with the way Bundy ran cattle, that gives the BLM the right to run them in the middle of calving season on incredibly hot days??? WTH?
Where it was complained that they were in the road and a hazard to cars... it's open range. We live in Texas, where we live, if you hit it, it's your fault. Not the animal owner's fault. NV is the same way. Doesn't have anything to do with this issue. I'm pretty sure NV. is open range... I know ID is.... If you hit it, it's your fault.. But the BLM rounds up Mustangs the same way.. The way Nevada state law reads is that it is an open range state so cattle owners cannot be sued for animal hit except in the case if an animal is hit within a fenced Right-of-Way for the state highway. In these cases, the owner can and most likely will be sued for any damages as a result of the animal collision. See NRS 568.360 I wonder how they do this. Is the state not responsible for keeping the cows OUT of their fenced in right-of-way? In Idaho they do this by placing cattle guards on ramps on and off the interstates.. but sometimes they will simply paint lines there to resemble a guard and hope the cows are too stupid to cross it,
From what I understand is that there are designated open range areas, like in the most rural areas. Not the entire state is open range - the more urban areas are not. These areas are usually posted with signs saying they are open range. I could be wrong.
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | komet. - 2014-04-15 5:35 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 6:22 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 2:57 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 2:43 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 12:06 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 11:45 AM Speedy Cowgirl - 2014-04-15 11:13 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 11:24 AM WOW! Busted! WOW IS RIGHT !!!
YES, the BLM makes MONEY - and they do that by using FEDERAL land for FEDERAL projects. They have this land in which feral cattle are a danger to others and in which they have tried to get this guy to comply for 20+ years and in order to use THEIR land, they have to remove this guys cattle.
What is the BUSTED??
That they actually want to use the land for something useful? Other than a rancher's uses? This land - as you have all said is Public land - you know there is more to the public in NV than ranchers right?
It's all good when a cow is on it but talk about putting a solar farm on it and by God, let's hang em high.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Capitalism is capitalism folks.
I say...turn it all into 'public land' in all states...or none of it (excepting what is necesssary for the protection ofour borders). Then we can all be on equal footing...as renters. Lmao...it's a comin!
The BLM is under the umbrella of the Dept. of Interior...the 'public land' was purchased by the United States to be 'disposed' of to the people by way of purchase, patents, homesteading etc...so that individuals could attain to the American Dream...Liberty & the Pusuit of Happiness! Or not. People weren't 'forced' to own land nor were we to be 'prevented' from it. The dept of interior is NOT answerable to the people as they are not part of our gov't as structured in the Constitution...they are separate, a complete different 'branch' that is appointed by the president. They take no oath to protect your rights in any way.
They are not the 'law & order' that keeps America free. Quite the opposite.
How would it be if all the land was 'public'? All that land a few on were was complaining about because it's so expensive...would they really want it be managed by the fed?
You seem to have lost sight of the fact.... The feds are not rounding up cows that belong to the state....
Smiley...who do you think the law is? It's ME. It's YOU. The men/women wearing the badges simply represent US. Same with the politicians...the 'Fed' that we're refering to (dept of Interior) do NOT represent US in any way. I will never lose my focus. | |
| | |
| rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 6:57 PM komet. - 2014-04-15 5:52 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-15 6:43 PM komet. - 2014-04-15 6:00 PM MS2011 - 2014-04-15 5:56 PM I don't give a **** about if the BLM had the rights to round up the cattle or not. SINCE when do we endorse animal abuse by a government agency? For those of you that say it's like repo'ing a car...... these are animals that deserve humane treatment. So maybe you don't agree with the way Bundy ran cattle, that gives the BLM the right to run them in the middle of calving season on incredibly hot days??? WTH?
Where it was complained that they were in the road and a hazard to cars... it's open range. We live in Texas, where we live, if you hit it, it's your fault. Not the animal owner's fault. NV is the same way. Doesn't have anything to do with this issue. I'm pretty sure NV. is open range... I know ID is.... If you hit it, it's your fault.. But the BLM rounds up Mustangs the same way.. The way Nevada state law reads is that it is an open range state so cattle owners cannot be sued for animal hit except in the case if an animal is hit within a fenced Right-of-Way for the state highway. In these cases, the owner can and most likely will be sued for any damages as a result of the animal collision. See NRS 568.360 I wonder how they do this. Is the state not responsible for keeping the cows OUT of their fenced in right-of-way? In Idaho they do this by placing cattle guards on ramps on and off the interstates.. but sometimes they will simply paint lines there to resemble a guard and hope the cows are too stupid to cross it,
Nevada has cattleguards and fences in place on every state road. Some routes do not have continuous fence but are posted for cattle- I can honestly only think of about 2 routes that are this way in my immediate area and there is basically no traffic on them except for the people who live in the area. The stance the State tends to take is that they did their due diligence to keep cattle off the roadway by installing fences and cattleguards. If fencing gets knocked down, NDOT will fix it if they know about it but the responsibility still remains with the livestock owners to contain their animals. I know of one lawsuit currently where a cow was hit on IR80- the persons involved are suing the livestock owner.
Edited by bscanchaser 2014-04-15 7:10 PM
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-15 6:03 PM komet. - 2014-04-15 5:35 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 6:22 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 2:57 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 2:43 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 12:06 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 11:45 AM Speedy Cowgirl - 2014-04-15 11:13 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 11:24 AM WOW! Busted! WOW IS RIGHT !!!
YES, the BLM makes MONEY - and they do that by using FEDERAL land for FEDERAL projects. They have this land in which feral cattle are a danger to others and in which they have tried to get this guy to comply for 20+ years and in order to use THEIR land, they have to remove this guys cattle.
What is the BUSTED??
That they actually want to use the land for something useful? Other than a rancher's uses? This land - as you have all said is Public land - you know there is more to the public in NV than ranchers right?
It's all good when a cow is on it but talk about putting a solar farm on it and by God, let's hang em high.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Capitalism is capitalism folks.
I say...turn it all into 'public land' in all states...or none of it (excepting what is necesssary for the protection ofour borders). Then we can all be on equal footing...as renters. Lmao...it's a comin!
The BLM is under the umbrella of the Dept. of Interior...the 'public land' was purchased by the United States to be 'disposed' of to the people by way of purchase, patents, homesteading etc...so that individuals could attain to the American Dream...Liberty & the Pusuit of Happiness! Or not. People weren't 'forced' to own land nor were we to be 'prevented' from it. The dept of interior is NOT answerable to the people as they are not part of our gov't as structured in the Constitution...they are separate, a complete different 'branch' that is appointed by the president. They take no oath to protect your rights in any way.
They are not the 'law & order' that keeps America free. Quite the opposite.
How would it be if all the land was 'public'? All that land a few on were was complaining about because it's so expensive...would they really want it be managed by the fed? You seem to have lost sight of the fact.... The feds are not rounding up cows that belong to the state....
Edited by smiley 2014-04-16 8:04 AM
| |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| MS2011 - 2014-04-15 5:56 PM
I don't give a **** about if the BLM had the rights to round up the cattle or not. SINCE when do we endorse animal abuse by a government agency? For those of you that say it's like repo'ing a car...... these are animals that deserve humane treatment. So maybe you don't agree with the way Bundy ran cattle, that gives the BLM the right to run them in the middle of calving season on incredibly hot days??? WTH?
Where it was complained that they were in the road and a hazard to cars... it's open range. We live in Texas, where we live, if you hit it, it's your fault. Not the animal owner's fault. NV is the same way. Doesn't have anything to do with this issue.
Well this should further your rage. Fox news just showed a 20 x 40 grave with cattle in it. The number unknown at this point. Now we know why the BLM needed a backhoe and a dump truck to round up cattle. | |
| | |
I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | My point about Sharpton and why so many people are ticked off...is..this administration has picked and chosen who should follow the laws and who doesn't have to. If this is the only thing that has happened since 2009, there wouldn't have been such an uproar. We have a DOJ that does nothing but whine about being picked on all while he sits on his ass and has done nothing but get people killed. (Fast and Furious) The laws should be for everyone and what really ticks me off is the ones that make the laws (Congress) seem to be one of the biggest law breakers. It's gotten very old. The money and man power that they just spent is a bigger crime then what Bundy has done. All that has happened since 2009, is to divide this country all while our Great Lyin King says one thing and does the total opposite. I think the sleeping Giant isn't sleeping real well these days. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
|
And jsut like this story, Nevertooold, I am sure we are only getting the "right" side of Solyndra and every other issue. I'm not believing crap anymore. I have never seen a story so mangled as this one. There is no honor in journalism any longer, none. I used to think I could listen to some of these shows - like Hannity and get a fair view - I can't. They are all full of it. Daily Kos and a few others are the only ones even attempting to tell the real story.
SO, we get half the story to p*** us all off and then we react just like they plan. It's all a game, I for one am done playing.
If you don't like it - change it, not with guns and flags, but with votes and running for local office and contacting your reps and talking to others about voting. That's about all we have. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-15 6:09 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 6:03 PM komet. - 2014-04-15 5:35 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 6:22 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 2:57 PM smiley -
Yes, let's make it a free for all, that worked so well before law and order came along
The BLM is under the umbrella of the Dept. of Interior...the 'public land' was purchased by the United States to be 'disposed' of to the people by way of purchase, patents, homesteading etc...so that individuals could attain to the American Dream...Liberty & the Pusuit of Happiness! Or not. People weren't 'forced' to own land nor were we to be 'prevented' from it. The dept of interior is NOT answerable to the people as they are not part of our gov't as structured in the Constitution...they are separate, a complete different 'branch' that is appointed by the president. They take no oath to protect your rights in any way.
They are not the 'law & order' that keeps America free. Quite the opposite.
How would it be if all the land was 'public'? All that land a few on were was complaining about because it's so expensive...would they really want it be managed by the fed?
You seem to have lost sight of the fact.... The feds are not rounding up cows that belong to the state....
When they make a 'citizens arrest' against their law then I'll believe that.
We most certainly ARE the government & that includes our duty to police & stand up for ourselves.
This is important. I have every right to protect my rights when thsoewe hire to do it fail.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-15 12:35 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:51 AM Smiley, let Us revisit your reference to the Gov't Land the Ancestor to the Current Day BLM, Forest Service, and Dept. of Interior. I have researched and found the history of The Government Land Office:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Land_Management
History
The BLM's pure roots go back to the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. These laws provided for the survey and settlement of the lands that the original 13 colonies ceded to the federal government after the American Revolution. As additional lands were acquired by the United States from Spain, France and other countries, the United States Congress directed that they be explored, surveyed, and made available for settlement. In 1812, Congress established the General Land Office in the Department of the Treasury to oversee the disposition of these federal lands. As the 19th century progressed and the nation's land base expanded further west, Congress encouraged the settlement of the land by enacting a wide variety of laws, including the Homestead Act and the Mining Law of 1872.
These statutes served one of the major policy goals of the young country—settlement of the Western territories. With the exception of the Mining Law of 1872 and the Desert Land Act of 1877 (which was amended ), all have since been repealed or superseded by other statutes.
The late 19th century marked a shift in federal land management priorities with the creation of the first national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges. By withdrawing these lands from settlement, Congress signaled a shift in the policy goals served by the public lands. Instead of using them to promote settlement, Congress decided that they should be held in public ownership because of their other resource values.
Sheep graze on BLM land in Snake Valley, Utah.
In the early 20th century, Congress took additional steps toward recognizing the value of the assets on public lands and directed the Executive Branch to manage activities on the remaining public lands. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 allowed leasing, exploration, and production of selected commodities, such as coal, oil, gas, and sodium to take place on public lands. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 established the U.S. Grazing Service to manage the public rangelands. The Oregon and California (O&C ) Act of August 28, 1937, required sustained yield management of the timberlands in western Oregon.
In 1946, the Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office (a product of the country's territorial expansion and the federal government's nineteenth-century homesteading policies ) to form the Bureau of Land Management within the Department of the Interior. When the BLM was initially created, there were over 2,000 unrelated and often conflicting laws for managing the public lands. The BLM had no unified legislative mandate until Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA ).
In FLPMA, Congress recognized the value of the remaining public lands by declaring that these lands would remain in public ownership. Congress used the term "multiple use" management, defined as "management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people."
The land management policy of the federal government before 1946 involved on the one hand rapid disposal to miners, ranchers and farmers, and on the other hand reservations for national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and military needs. The combination of 1946 of the General Land Office and the Grazing Service into the new Bureau of Land Management was filled with ambiguity. In terms of bureaucracy, there has been a constant tension between the local district rangers, who have typically been oriented toward the mining and ranching interests, and the centralized leadership in Washington that follows presidential guidance. Since the Reagan years of the 1980s, Republicans have emphasized local control giving priority to grazing, mining and petroleum production, while Democrats have emphasized environmentalism.[3]
Now remember the orginal intent of the Government Land Office was the disposition of land which I have defined below. The History goes on to state that the orginal intent has been completely changed by from its orginal.
Now to define the word dis position in a legal sense:
disposition legal definition of disposition. disposition ...
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ disposition
Disposition. Act of disposing; transferring to the care or possession of another. The parting with, alienation of, or giving up of property. The final settlement of a .
This complete post is the reason the reason I am a Constitutitonal Orginalist! Not a Constructionist. I am all about the Orginal Intent (as stated in this History research) of Our Forefathers. Not this convoluted Federal Government of Current Day!
If and when the Feds give the land to the states - and let's face it, many if not all the states are going to screw it up, and line their pockets and those of their friends. This will be a more local good old boy system of corruption vs., having at least some checks and balances through the feds who have to listen to everyone and not just rich liberals who want to be richer.
I get this argument, I can even agree with this argument, but it's not Clive Bundy's fight, it's the State of Nevada's fight and if they won't do anything about it, he's not going to win.
Good Grief Smiley!
Originally, YOU supported the BLM (FEDS) and stated their pedigree to go back to The Gov't Land Office. I research out the Orginial Intent of the GLO and Once YOU read this bit of research You suddenly employ Your Woman's Perogative to 'change your mind' and support The State of Nevada!
Now per Bundy, State Fees have been paid to the State of Nevada, so the question remains why are the FEDS involved to begin with!?
And then when confronted with evidence to implicate Senator Harry Reid, again you scoff..............You see 'I' have attempted to keep up w/ all those debunked reports in that article holding Reid's feet to the fire. And I was/am familar with everything in that article. Reid's Former Chief of Staff is The Head of BLM.......See any Conflict of Interest here? I do! All the allegations in that article are easily validated. And have been!
Just WHY do You have such a hatred for this man? Are you jealous, envious or what? Cliven Bundy has persecuted by the FEDs and you support EVERYBODY but the persecuted! I just don't understand Your obstinatance in this matter. Everything under the Sun has been presented to support this Private American Citizen and His Family and You still cannot understand that.......................................
"I" really find this strange. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 3:19 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-15 1:56 PM rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 2:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 1:38 PM Here's that link again, share it!
We have more tools available to us today than any time in the history of man...I just don't want to share stuff that's not true or is inciting violence, not that I'm completely opposed to violence because I am a realist (idealistic one?!), rather, I want this fight to be an honest one with an honest outcome.
http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-youre-not-being-told?utm_source=share-fb
The other concerns are by environmentalist groups.
The most telling though, is this..
Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the DRY LAKE SOLAR ENERGY ZONE utilizes Gold Butte as the location of offsite mitigation for impacts from SOLAR DEVELOPEMENT, and those restoration activities are not durable with the presense of trespass cattle.
This here is the kicker of the whole document! | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-15 6:22 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 2:57 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 2:43 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 12:06 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 11:45 AM Speedy Cowgirl - 2014-04-15 11:13 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 11:24 AM WOW! Busted! WOW IS RIGHT !!!
YES, the BLM makes MONEY - and they do that by using FEDERAL land for FEDERAL projects. They have this land in which feral cattle are a danger to others and in which they have tried to get this guy to comply for 20+ years and in order to use THEIR land, they have to remove this guys cattle.
What is the BUSTED??
That they actually want to use the land for something useful? Other than a rancher's uses? This land - as you have all said is Public land - you know there is more to the public in NV than ranchers right?
It's all good when a cow is on it but talk about putting a solar farm on it and by God, let's hang em high.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Capitalism is capitalism folks.
I say...turn it all into 'public land' in all states...or none of it (excepting what is necesssary for the protection ofour borders). Then we can all be on equal footing...as renters. Lmao...it's a comin!
The BLM is under the umbrella of the Dept. of Interior...the 'public land' was purchased by the United States to be 'disposed' of to the people by way of purchase, patents, homesteading etc...so that individuals could attain to the American Dream...Liberty & the Pusuit of Happiness! Or not. People weren't 'forced' to own land nor were we to be 'prevented' from it. The dept of interior is NOT answerable to the people as they are not part of our gov't as structured in the Constitution...they are separate, a complete different 'branch' that is appointed by the president. They take no oath to protect your rights in any way.
They are not the 'law & order' that keeps America free. Quite the opposite.
How would it be if all the land was 'public'? All that land a few on were was complaining about because it's so expensive...would they really want it be managed by the fed?
Since you now are claiming to support the State of Neveda, why did you orginially support The BLM prior to learning of The Orgins of The BLM? | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | rodeomom13 - 2014-04-15 6:37 PM So you don't think the government would run them off if they continued to pay their fees? What then?
Apparently they did everyone else who ran cattle there. He's just the last man in their way.
This is a huge government overreach, I don't care who's side you are on.
I should have stayed out of it like I said I would on page 12.
This is historically true. All the other ranchers in this region paid their fees and were 'shut out' due to the AUMs allowed being reduced (for whatever stated reason) until Economically speaking The Ranchers could not make a living. This equates to being forced out of business by The Federal Gov't. I thought there were Fair Trade Practice Laws and Anti-Trust Laws in place (from The Federal Gov't) to prevent these scenarios from happening in the first place. This ain't Capitalism Folks! | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| foundation horse - 2014-04-15 8:38 PM
smiley - 2014-04-15 6:22 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 2:57 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 2:43 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 12:06 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 11:45 AM Speedy Cowgirl - 2014-04-15 11:13 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 11:24 AM WOW! Busted! WOW IS RIGHT !!!
YES, the BLM makes MONEY - and they do that by using FEDERAL land for FEDERAL projects. They have this land in which feral cattle are a danger to others and in which they have tried to get this guy to comply for 20+ years and in order to use THEIR land, they have to remove this guys cattle.
What is the BUSTED??
That they actually want to use the land for something useful? Other than a rancher's uses? This land - as you have all said is Public land - you know there is more to the public in NV than ranchers right?
It's all good when a cow is on it but talk about putting a solar farm on it and by God, let's hang em high.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Capitalism is capitalism folks.
I say...turn it all into 'public land' in all states...or none of it (excepting what is necesssary for the protection ofour borders). Then we can all be on equal footing...as renters. Lmao...it's a comin!
The BLM is under the umbrella of the Dept. of Interior...the 'public land' was purchased by the United States to be 'disposed' of to the people by way of purchase, patents, homesteading etc...so that individuals could attain to the American Dream...Liberty & the Pusuit of Happiness! Or not. People weren't 'forced' to own land nor were we to be 'prevented' from it. The dept of interior is NOT answerable to the people as they are not part of our gov't as structured in the Constitution...they are separate, a complete different 'branch' that is appointed by the president. They take no oath to protect your rights in any way.
They are not the 'law & order' that keeps America free. Quite the opposite.
How would it be if all the land was 'public'? All that land a few on were was complaining about because it's so expensive...would they really want it be managed by the fed?
Since you now are claiming to support the State of Neveda, why did you orginially support The BLM prior to learning of The Orgins of The BLM?
FH, And all of this over the terrible crime of trespass ...... A MISDENEANOR. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | jbhoot - 2014-04-15 8:50 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-15 8:38 PM
smiley - 2014-04-15 6:22 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 2:57 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 2:43 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 12:06 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 11:45 AM Speedy Cowgirl - 2014-04-15 11:13 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 11:24 AM WOW! Busted! WOW IS RIGHT !!!
YES, the BLM makes MONEY - and they do that by using FEDERAL land for FEDERAL projects. They have this land in which feral cattle are a danger to others and in which they have tried to get this guy to comply for 20+ years and in order to use THEIR land, they have to remove this guys cattle.
What is the BUSTED??
That they actually want to use the land for something useful? Other than a rancher's uses? This land - as you have all said is Public land - you know there is more to the public in NV than ranchers right?
It's all good when a cow is on it but talk about putting a solar farm on it and by God, let's hang em high.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Capitalism is capitalism folks.
I say...turn it all into 'public land' in all states...or none of it (excepting what is necesssary for the protection ofour borders). Then we can all be on equal footing...as renters. Lmao...it's a comin!
The BLM is under the umbrella of the Dept. of Interior...the 'public land' was purchased by the United States to be 'disposed' of to the people by way of purchase, patents, homesteading etc...so that individuals could attain to the American Dream...Liberty & the Pusuit of Happiness! Or not. People weren't 'forced' to own land nor were we to be 'prevented' from it. The dept of interior is NOT answerable to the people as they are not part of our gov't as structured in the Constitution...they are separate, a complete different 'branch' that is appointed by the president. They take no oath to protect your rights in any way.
They are not the 'law & order' that keeps America free. Quite the opposite.
How would it be if all the land was 'public'? All that land a few on were was complaining about because it's so expensive...would they really want it be managed by the fed?
Since you now are claiming to support the State of Neveda, why did you orginially support The BLM prior to learning of The Orgins of The BLM?
FH, And all of this over the terrible crime of trespass ...... A MISDENEANOR.
I think Contempt of Court will come into play as well...2 court orders to remove his cattle. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | jbhoot - 2014-04-15 8:50 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-15 8:38 PM
smiley - 2014-04-15 6:22 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 2:57 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 2:43 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 12:06 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 11:45 AM Speedy Cowgirl - 2014-04-15 11:13 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 11:24 AM WOW! Busted! WOW IS RIGHT !!!
YES, the BLM makes MONEY - and they do that by using FEDERAL land for FEDERAL projects. They have this land in which feral cattle are a danger to others and in which they have tried to get this guy to comply for 20+ years and in order to use THEIR land, they have to remove this guys cattle.
What is the BUSTED??
That they actually want to use the land for something useful? Other than a rancher's uses? This land - as you have all said is Public land - you know there is more to the public in NV than ranchers right?
It's all good when a cow is on it but talk about putting a solar farm on it and by God, let's hang em high.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Capitalism is capitalism folks.
I say...turn it all into 'public land' in all states...or none of it (excepting what is necesssary for the protection ofour borders). Then we can all be on equal footing...as renters. Lmao...it's a comin!
The BLM is under the umbrella of the Dept. of Interior...the 'public land' was purchased by the United States to be 'disposed' of to the people by way of purchase, patents, homesteading etc...so that individuals could attain to the American Dream...Liberty & the Pusuit of Happiness! Or not. People weren't 'forced' to own land nor were we to be 'prevented' from it. The dept of interior is NOT answerable to the people as they are not part of our gov't as structured in the Constitution...they are separate, a complete different 'branch' that is appointed by the president. They take no oath to protect your rights in any way.
They are not the 'law & order' that keeps America free. Quite the opposite.
How would it be if all the land was 'public'? All that land a few on were was complaining about because it's so expensive...would they really want it be managed by the fed?
Since you now are claiming to support the State of Neveda, why did you orginially support The BLM prior to learning of The Orgins of The BLM?
FH, And all of this over the terrible crime of trespass ...... A MISDENEANOR.
Dam/n sure a sight different than a felony ain't it? Such as selling stolen property? Or transporting stolen property across State Lines. These actions are exactly what The BLM was in the process of doing! Or how about Obstruction of Justice (The removal of 'that' webpage.)
Folks, the Misdemeanor of Trespassing ain't a pimple on a gnat's azz compared to the Felonies I just described........................... | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| komet. - 2014-04-15 8:56 PM
jbhoot - 2014-04-15 8:50 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-15 8:38 PM
smiley - 2014-04-15 6:22 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 2:57 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 2:43 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 12:06 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 11:45 AM Speedy Cowgirl - 2014-04-15 11:13 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 11:24 AM WOW! Busted! WOW IS RIGHT !!!
YES, the BLM makes MONEY - and they do that by using FEDERAL land for FEDERAL projects. They have this land in which feral cattle are a danger to others and in which they have tried to get this guy to comply for 20+ years and in order to use THEIR land, they have to remove this guys cattle.
What is the BUSTED??
That they actually want to use the land for something useful? Other than a rancher's uses? This land - as you have all said is Public land - you know there is more to the public in NV than ranchers right?
It's all good when a cow is on it but talk about putting a solar farm on it and by God, let's hang em high.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Capitalism is capitalism folks.
I say...turn it all into 'public land' in all states...or none of it (excepting what is necesssary for the protection ofour borders). Then we can all be on equal footing...as renters. Lmao...it's a comin!
The BLM is under the umbrella of the Dept. of Interior...the 'public land' was purchased by the United States to be 'disposed' of to the people by way of purchase, patents, homesteading etc...so that individuals could attain to the American Dream...Liberty & the Pusuit of Happiness! Or not. People weren't 'forced' to own land nor were we to be 'prevented' from it. The dept of interior is NOT answerable to the people as they are not part of our gov't as structured in the Constitution...they are separate, a complete different 'branch' that is appointed by the president. They take no oath to protect your rights in any way.
They are not the 'law & order' that keeps America free. Quite the opposite.
How would it be if all the land was 'public'? All that land a few on were was complaining about because it's so expensive...would they really want it be managed by the fed?
Since you now are claiming to support the State of Neveda, why did you orginially support The BLM prior to learning of The Orgins of The BLM?
FH, And all of this over the terrible crime of trespass ...... A MISDENEANOR.
I think Contempt of Court will come into play as well...2 court orders to remove his cattle.
It may but not yet. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | I will admit to some concerns about the states taking over the land....I sincerely feel it's a valid concern...especially if people continue to be apathetic. However (always that), at the least the 'elected' officials are more aware of local needs...and...we know where they live! Lol.
We can't continue to 'hand it over' to any agency...we must stay involved, officials who legally & Constitutionally represent us must be held accountable for their actions & how they spend 'our' money.
We are the power...we are the 'enablers' of a gov't gone wrong.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | musikmaker - 2014-04-15 9:02 PM
I will admit to some concerns about the states taking over the land....I sincerely feel it's a valid concern...especially if people continue to be apathetic. However (always that), at the least the 'elected' officials are more aware of local needs...and...we know where they live! Lol.
We can't continue to 'hand it over' to any agency...we must stay involved, officials who legally & Constitutionally represent us must be held accountable for their actions & how they spend 'our' money.
We are the power...we are the 'enablers' of a gov't gone wrong.
The above goes along w/ the saying
"A Gov't of The People for The People By The People".
And NONE of the Gov't Agencies represent The People! | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | George Washington's Original Cabinet consisted of just positions to include:
U.S. Treasury (Money collection/management)
War Department (Currently Dept. of Defense)
State Department (Foreign Affairs)
Attorney General (America's Chief Law Enforcement Officer)
and now look at all The Alphabet Agencies The Federal Gov't consists of! Does the term "Bloated" mean anything to anyone in regards to the current Federal Gov't?! | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:09 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-15 9:02 PM
I will admit to some concerns about the states taking over the land....I sincerely feel it's a valid concern...especially if people continue to be apathetic. However (always that), at the least the 'elected' officials are more aware of local needs...and...we know where they live! Lol.
We can't continue to 'hand it over' to any agency...we must stay involved, officials who legally & Constitutionally represent us must be held accountable for their actions & how they spend 'our' money.
We are the power...we are the 'enablers' of a gov't gone wrong.
The above goes along w/ the saying
"A Gov't of The People for The People By The People".
And NONE of the Gov't Agencies represent The People!
The last I checked we only need two more states to sign on to a constitutional convention. It may be the only way to put the power back in the hands of public. At least it would let us attempt to correct the federal over reach. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | jbhoot - 2014-04-15 9:17 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:09 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-15 9:02 PM
I will admit to some concerns about the states taking over the land....I sincerely feel it's a valid concern...especially if people continue to be apathetic. However (always that), at the least the 'elected' officials are more aware of local needs...and...we know where they live! Lol.
We can't continue to 'hand it over' to any agency...we must stay involved, officials who legally & Constitutionally represent us must be held accountable for their actions & how they spend 'our' money.
We are the power...we are the 'enablers' of a gov't gone wrong.
The above goes along w/ the saying
"A Gov't of The People for The People By The People".
And NONE of the Gov't Agencies represent The People!
The last I checked we only need two more states to sign on to a constitutional convention. It may be the only way to put the power back in the hands of public. At least it would let us attempt to correct the federal over reach.
I'm not sure allowing today's politicians a chance to get their dirty little hands on the constitution is a good idea.. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | jbhoot - 2014-04-15 9:17 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:09 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 9:02 PM I will admit to some concerns about the states taking over the land....I sincerely feel it's a valid concern...especially if people continue to be apathetic. However (always that), at the least the 'elected' officials are more aware of local needs...and...we know where they live! Lol.
We can't continue to 'hand it over' to any agency...we must stay involved, officials who legally & Constitutionally represent us must be held accountable for their actions & how they spend 'our' money.
We are the power...we are the 'enablers' of a gov't gone wrong.
The above goes along w/ the saying "A Gov't of The People for The People By The People". And NONE of the Gov't Agencies represent The People! The last I checked we only need two more states to sign on to a constitutional convention. It may be the only way to put the power back in the hands of public. At least it would let us attempt to correct the federal over reach.
I would like a Constitutional Convention. However, a CC can be a 'double edged sword' due to people like Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens who supports 'correcting' the 2nd Amendment.
http://www.guns.com/2014/04/15/retired-supreme-court-justice-advocates-correcting-second-amendment-guns-militias/
Retired Supreme Court Justice advocates ‘correcting’ the Second Amendment; guns for militias only
4/15/14 | by Chris Eger 0 812
Justice John Paul Stevens served on the Supreme Court from 1975-2010.
Justice John Paul Stevens served on the Supreme Court from 1975-2010. (Photo credit: Politico)
One of the longest serving justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens, now retired, is calling for a change in Second Amendment to limit it to militia use only.
Stevens, 93, retired from the Court in 2010 after having served 35 years in its chambers, proving himself the third longest-serving justice in history. In his time on the bench, he dissented against such high profile gun rights victories as Heller v District of Columbia and McDonald v Chicago.
“I dissented in both of those cases and remain convinced that both decisions misinterpreted the law and were profoundly unwise. Public policies concerning gun control should be decided by the voters’ elected representatives, not by federal judges,” wrote Stevens in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post April 11.
Stevens was, just before his retirement, called the “arguably most liberal justice,” and led the opposition on a number of polarizing 5-4 decisions by the court.
He currently maintains in his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” that the Second Amendment, which has since its inception in 1791 read:
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Be changed to include five extra words that, he argues, will change the scope of how it is currently interpreted. Steven’s version would read:
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.
The retired Justice states that, “The Second Amendment expressly endorsed the substantive common-law rule that protected the citizen’s right (and duty) to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia,” and, in effect, does not support the current views on self-defense and gun ownership held by the Court in rulings like Hellar and McDonald.
Further, it would seemingly limit the right to bear arms to only those in state National Guards, the body that replaced the regulated militia in the Dick Act in 1916.
Current law also details that the Unorganized Militia of the United States includes all able-bodied males over 17 year of age who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Stevens maintains that this would be the best way to prevent wide spread use of “high-powered automatic weapons” that he maintains were used in the “massacre of grammar-school children in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, have been used to kill innocent victims in more senseless public incidents.”
While the original op-ed piece has since been corrected to strike the incorrectly used word ‘automatic’ from Stevens’ piece, the larger implied meaning remains.
Guns.com asked some in the gun rights community to weigh in on this proposed change.
“Justice Stevens decries Congress’s failure to enact legislation to ‘limit the availability of automatic weapons.’ He is apparently unaware that Congress did so in 1934, with the very strict registration and tax system of the National Firearms Act, and did so again in 1986 (banning the sale of new automatics to the general public),” said Second Amendment scholar, Professor David Kopel to Guns.com Tuesday.
Kopel is Research Director of the Independence Institute, an Associate Policy Analyst with the Cato Institute, and adjunct Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.
He continued, “Justice Stevens imagines that current proposals to ban self-loading firearms like AR-15 are about automatic weapons. This is obviously incorrect. Justice Stevens is apparently a victim of the President Obama’s untruths regarding the matter, since the President has inaccurately referred to his gun prohibition plan as involving automatic weapons.”
“Justice Stevens is an example of the accuracy of President Lincoln’s observation that you can fool some of the people all of the time, even retired Supreme Court Justices,” Kopel concluded.
The firearm industry would tend to agree with Professor Kopel’s statements.
“Respectfully, Justice Stevens demonstrates why he was in the dissent in Heller,” said Lawrence G. Keane, Senior Vice President, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade industry for firearms manufacturers in the United States.
This is the kinda crap that would be detrimental to American Citizen's Rights!
And also Mark Levin's 'Liberty Amendments' more or less empower the Feds to continue operating in 'business as usual' mode.
http://noisyroom.net/blog/2014/04/14/mark-levins-liberty-amendments-legalizing-tyranny/comment-page-1/
Mark Levin’s “Liberty” Amendments: Legalizing Tyranny
Posted on April 14, 2014 by TMH
in
Share
.
By: Publius Huldah
Publius-Hulday’s Blog
For 100 years, the federal government has usurped powers not delegated to it in our Constitution.
What should we do about it? Should we reclaim our existing Constitution and put an end to the usurpations?
Or should we “modernize” the Constitution by delegating to the federal government the powers it has usurped – so as to legalize what is now unconstitutional?
Mark Levin begins “The Liberty Amendments” by saying he doesn’t believe the Constitution requires “modernization through amendments”. But he then proposes a series of amendments, six of which modernize our Constitution to delegate to the federal government most of the powers it has usurped during the last 100 years.
And each of his six amendments does the opposite of what its title promises. I’ll show you. 1
Levin’s amendment to “limit the federal bureaucracy” [p 99-100 of his book]
George Washington’s cabinet had four members: Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney General. Those functions are authorized by our Constitution. 2
But today there are numerous agencies in the Executive Branch of the federal government. Where is the constitutional authority? What Article, Section, and Clause authorizes the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Labor, Transportation, HHS, HUD, DHS, EPA, SBA, etc., etc., etc.?
There is no constitutional authority! Accordingly, all these agencies are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated in our Constitution.
Well then, a person who wanted to “limit the federal bureaucracy” would demand that these agencies be closed, and their functions returned to the States and The People, right?
But Mark Levin doesn’t do this. Section 1 of his amendment legalizes all these agencies. It says:
“All federal departments and agencies shall expire if said departments and agencies are not individually reauthorized in stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate.”
As long as Congress periodically “reauthorizes” the agencies – they remain.
Levin’s amendment thus changes the constitutional standard for whether an executive agency lawfully exists from whether it carries out an enumerated power [as in Washington’s Cabinet] to whatever the President wants and Congress agrees to. Do you see?
Now look at Section 2 of Levin’s amendment to “limit the federal bureaucracy”. It says:
“All Executive Branch regulations exceeding an economic burden of $100 million, as determined jointly by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office, shall be submitted to a permanent Joint Committee of Congress, hereafter the Congressional Delegation Oversight Committee, for review and approval prior to their implementation.”
Article I, §1, of our Constitution says only Congress may make laws. 3 But since Woodrow Wilson, executive agencies in the federal government have been churning out regulations which govern all aspects of our lives. These comprise the now gigantic Code of Federal Regulations.
All these regulations are unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, §1! 4
Well then, one would expect that a person who wanted to “limit the federal bureaucracy” would demand the repeal of existing regulations and an end to all future rulemaking, right?
Not Levin! Section 2 of his amendment legalizes all existing regulations and the rule making process. Levin’s “fix” is merely to form a congressional committee to review certain regulations before they are imposed on the American People.
And so, federal executive agencies will continue to churn out millions of pages of regulations – but now, they will be constitutional because Levin’s amendment makes it all lawful.
Do you see? Levin’s amendment legalizes the status quo and does the opposite of what he claims.
Levin’s amendment “to limit federal spending” (p 73 -74)
Our Constitution limits federal spending to the enumerated powers. If you go through the Constitution and highlight the powers delegated to Congress or the President, you will have a complete list of the objects on which Congress may lawfully spend money. That is how our Framers controlled federal spending. It is the enumerated powers which limit spending – not the amount of revenue the federal government generates or the size of the GDP. Do you see?
The reason we have a crushing debt is because for 100 years, the federal government has ignored the limits – already set forth in the Constitution – on its spending.
Well then, a person who wanted to “limit federal spending” would demand that Congress begin to downsize the federal government and restrict spending to the enumerated powers, right?
But Levin doesn’t do this. Section 1 of his amendment legalizes all the spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the enumerated powers. It says:
“Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration.”
Levin’s amendment thus legalizes the unconstitutional status quo where the President and Congress adopt a “budget” and spend money on whatever they put in the budget! Levin would permit Congress and the President to lawfully spend money on whatever they want – spending which is now unlawful because our Constitution doesn’t authorize it.
Furthermore, Levin’s amendment does nothing to control federal spending. While Sections 3 & 4 of his amendment pretend to limit spending to revenues or to a percentage of the GDP; Sections 6 & 7 permit Congress to suspend the spending limit and continue to raise the national debt. 5
Levin’s amendment “to limit federal taxing” (p 75)
Our Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to levy taxes so that Congress and the President will have the funds to spend on whatever they want.
Congress may lawfully levy taxes only to raise the funds to carry out the enumerated powers. Article I, §8, clauses 1 & 2 say:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States …” [and] “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;”
Immediately after clauses 1 & 2 follows the list of enumerated powers we delegated to Congress for the Country at Large. 6
Add to this short list of enumerated powers, the “housekeeping powers” itemized elsewhere in the Constitution (e.g., the census); the salaries authorized by Art. I, §6, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, next to last clause; Art. III, §1, cl. 1, and others on the civil list; and you see the purposes for which Congress is authorized to levy and collect taxes, borrow money, and spend money, for the Country at Large. 7
So! Congress should not be levying taxes except to generate revenue for its constitutional functions. If Congress restricted its spending to those few powers delegated in the Constitution, the federal government would need very little money from us.
One would expect that a person who wants to “limit federal taxation” would demand that the federal government stop taxing to raise money to spend on unconstitutional purposes, right?
Not Levin! While his amendment limits the federal income tax to 15% of income – it institutionalizes the present practice where Congress lays & collects taxes for any purposes whatsoever. 8
Levin’s amendment “to protect private property” (p 137)
The federal government has no lawful authority to own land for any purpose other than those enumerated in the Constitution: Article I, §8, next to last clause, permits the federal government to own the District of Columbia [which was not to exceed “ten Miles square”], and Places purchased with the Consent of the State legislatures for the erection of forts, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings (e.g., federal courthouses, post offices) to carry out the enumerated powers.
The federal government has no lawful authority to own national parks, grazing areas, forests, and such. 9
And the federal government has no lawful authority to restrict peoples’ use of their own land. Nowhere in our Constitution did we delegate that power to the federal government! Accordingly, all federal laws and regulations (EPA, etc.) which pretend to restrict an owner’s use of his land are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.
Furthermore, the States’ and local governments’ powers of eminent domain and other “takings” of private land are addressed in their own State Constitutions and laws. This is NOT a federal issue!
But Levin’s amendment “to protect private property” changes all of the above. It says:
“When any governmental entity acts not to secure a private property right against actions that injure property owners, but to take property for a public use from a property owner by actual seizure or through regulation, which taking results in a market value reduction of the property, interference with the use of the property, or a financial loss to the property owner exceeding $10,000, the government shall compensate fully said property owner for such losses.”
Levin’s amendment:
Changes the constitutional standard for federal ownership of lands from carrying out an enumerated power to whatever someone in the federal government deems a “public use” [which can be anything];
Legalizes what are now unconstitutional holdings of lands by the federal government – such as grazing lands;
Legalizes “takings” by regulation – restrictions via regulations on the use of private lands – by all levels of government;
Takes from the States and The People their retained powers over eminent domain and regulatory takings, and makes it a federal issue under the control of the federal government; 10 and
Provides that as long as a taking does not reduce the value of the property by more than $10,000, the governments don’t have to pay the property owner one red cent. So! If your local or State or federal government takes some of your land, or restrict its use by regulation, Levin’s amendment requires compensation to be paid if the “taking” exceeds $10,000. If the government decides that your loss is less than $10,000, you eat the loss. The amendment legalizes government theft of private property.
Levin’s amendment “to protect the vote” (p 183-184)
Before our Constitution was ratified, the States qualified & registered voters. Qualifications were set forth in their State Constitutions, and requirements differed from State to State. This power was expressly retained by the States with Art. I, §2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution. 11
The four voting amendments reduced this retained power of the States, and delegated to the federal government power to stop States from denying suffrage to citizens on account of race (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), failure to pay a tax (24th Amendment), or age for citizens eighteen years of age or older (26th Amendment).
Except as restricted by these four amendments, the States retain their pre-existing power to set qualifications for registering citizens to vote, as long as they do not deny it on account of race, sex, failure to pay a tax, or age for those 18 years or more. States remain free to deny registration on other grounds – such as conviction of a felony or illiteracy. And of course, States retained power to restrict voting to citizens!
But the retained powers of the States to set voter qualifications for registration were diminished far beyond the scope of the amendments, due to usurpations by the federal government, and because the States forgot that they retained at Art. I, §2, cl. 1 most of their original power to qualify & register voters.
In Arizona’s Proposition 200: What The Constitution Really Says About Voter Qualifications & Exposing The “Elections Clause” Argument, I show how the federal government infringed upon the States’ retained powers over voter qualifications & registration; and how the two judges in that case wrongly ruled that Arizona could not require applicants for registration to provide proof of citizenship!
So! What should we do about non-citizens voting? Here is a novel idea: The States should man up and reclaim their powers retained by Art. I, §2, cl. 1; tell Eric Holder to take a hike; require all currently registered voters to provide proof of citizenship; and refuse to register new voters unless they provide proof of citizenship. Enforce the Constitution we have!
But Section 1 of Levin’s amendment “to protect the vote” says:
“Citizens in every state, territory, and the District of Columbia shall produce valid photographic identification documents demonstrating evidence of their citizenship, issued by the state government for the state in which the voter resides, as a requirement for registering to vote and voting in any primary or general election for President, Vice President, and members of Congress.”
Levin’s amendment (it has 5 Sections) rewards the federal government for unlawfully forbidding States from requiring applicants to prove they are citizens, by transferring more power over voter qualifications & registration to the federal government. 10
But Levin’s amendment does even more harm than vesting in the federal government a power it already usurped – it ushers in a national ID card. Who thinks the feds won’t dictate the contents of the card and keep copies? [Do you really think a national ID card is a great idea?]
To add insult to injury, Levin’s amendment doesn’t even prohibit non-citizens from voting – it merely requires citizens to get an ID card before they can register to vote. Non-citizens are not required to get ID cards. The supreme Court (which will now lawfully have judicial power over this issue) will decide whether aliens can vote.
Levin’s amendment “to promote free enterprise” (p 117)
In Federalist No. 22 (4th para) and Federalist No. 42 (11th &12th paras), Hamilton & Madison explain the original intent of the “interstate commerce” clause: It is to prohibit States from imposing tolls & tariffs on articles of merchandize as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling. Until the mid-1930’s, this was widely understood. Here is a full proof of the original intent of that clause and the story of how the supreme Court usurped power over interstate commerce.
The original intent of that clause is still the supreme Law of the Land! 12 So the States must man up and enforce that original intent. They must ignore – nullify – all pretended federal laws, regulations, and judicial opinions which are contrary to that original intent.
Levin’s amendment “to promote free enterprise” says:
“SECTION 1: Congress’ power to regulate Commerce is not a plenary grant of power to the federal government to regulate and control economic activity but a specific grant of power limited to preventing states from impeding commerce and trade between and among the several states.
“SECTION 2: Congress’s power to regulate Commerce does not extend to activity within a state, whether or not it affects interstate commerce; nor does it extend to compelling an individual or entity to participate in commerce or trade.”
Section 1 broadens the powers of the federal government from prohibiting States from imposing tolls & tariffs on articles of merchandize as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling, to prohibiting the States from doing anything which “impedes” commerce and trade between and among the States.
Many things can be said to “impede” commerce and trade. And who will decide what “impedes” and what doesn’t “impede”? Five judges on the supreme Court.
Section 2 mentions two instances where Congress’ power to regulate Commerce does not extend. This is dangerous because of the legal maxim, Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other).
Accordingly, Congress’ power to regulate commerce would extend to other instances. Which ones? We don’t know – the supreme Court will decide – on a case by case basis.
Conclusion
Levin’s amendments legalize – make constitutional – the very abuses they purport to correct, nullify the natural rights of the people, and fundamentally change the constitutional design.
Even though our Constitution is not being enforced, it still declares this federal government lawless! The true rule of law is still on our side, but not for much longer if we foolishly allow our Constitution to be re-written.
Endnotes:
1 Telling the Truth about a person’s proposals isn’t “demonizing” him. People angrily reject valid criticism of Levin’s proposals because they have made an idol of him. If their loyalty were to Truth – instead of to their idol – they would want to be set straight.
2 Article II, §2, and:
Secretary of State: Art. I, §8, cl. 3
Secretary of Treasury: Art. I, §2, cl. 3; Art. I, §8, cl. 1; Art. I, §9, cl. 4-7; Art. VI, cl. 1
Secretary of War: Art. I, §8, clauses 11-14
Attorney General: Art. I, §8, cl. 6, 10 & 17; Art. III, §§2 & 3; Art. IV, §2, cl.2
3 Article I, §1, says: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…” [emphasis mine]
4 They are also unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government.
5 I explain the problems with “balanced budget” amendments here.
6 These are the enumerated powers over the Country at Large listed at Art. I, §8:
• Clause 3: regulate “commerce” [For the Truth about the “commerce clause”, go here];
• Clause 4: uniform laws on naturalization and bankruptcies;
• Clause 5: coin money & regulate its value, and fix standard of weights & measures;
• Clause 6: punish counterfeiting;
• Clause 7: establish post offices & post roads;
• Clause 8: issue patents & copyrights;
• Clause 9: set up federal courts inferior to the supreme court;
• Clause 10: punish piracies & felonies on the high seas and offenses against the Law of Nations;
• Clauses 11-14: war, letters of marque & reprisal, Army & Navy, and rules for the military
• Clause 15-16: the Militia.
7 The anti-federalists objected to Art. I, §8, cl. 1 & 2. They claimed:
“…the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.”
James Madison answered in Federalist No. 41 (last 4 paras) that clauses 1 & 2 permit Congress to levy taxes & borrow money only to carry out the enumerated powers! Madison said:
“Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it… But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? … Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning … is an absurdity…” [boldface mine]
So! Article I, §8, cl.1 is merely a “general expression”, the meaning of which is “ascertained and limited” by the clauses which “immediately follow” it. In other words, clauses 1 & 2 grant to Congress the power to raise money; and clauses 3-16 enumerate the objects on which Congress may appropriate the money so raised, thus limiting clauses 1 & 2. Do you see?
8 Levin’s amendment also corrects – on behalf of the feds – the following: When the 16th Amendment was ratified, “income” apparently didn’t include “wages”. Accordingly, it would be unconstitutional to force people to pay “income” taxes on “wages” – and such would thus be a proper object of nullification by States. But Levin’s amendment legalizes the status quo and rips this remedy from the States.
9 When our Constitution was ratified, the new federal government acquired (from its predecessor) the Western Territory (Federalist No. 7, 2nd & 3rd paras, and Federalist No. 43 at 5.) over which the new federal government was delegated, by Art. IV, §3, general legislative powers. As the Territory was broken up into new States, the general legislative powers would expire and sovereignty [except as to the few powers delegated exclusively to the new federal government] would be transferred to the new State.
10 Amendments to the Constitution generally increase the powers of the federal government: They usher in implementing federal statutes & executive agency regulations, and judicial power over the issue is transferred to the federal courts. Art. III, §2, cl.1, says, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases … arising under this Constitution …” Do you really not see?
11 Article I, §2, cl. 1, says:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” [boldface mine]
So! Whoever votes in elections for their State House, is eligible to vote for members of the federal House of Representatives. See also Federalist No. 57 (5th para) & Federalist No. 52 (2nd para).
12 Article VI, cl. 2, the “supremacy clause”, states that only our Constitution, federal laws made “in Pursuance” of the Constitution, and Treaties made “under the Authority of the United States”, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. Supreme Court opinions are NEVER part of the supreme Law of the Land! But we have wrongly made them the only Law of our Land. PH
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | komet. - 2014-04-15 9:27 PM
jbhoot - 2014-04-15 9:17 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:09 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-15 9:02 PM
I will admit to some concerns about the states taking over the land....I sincerely feel it's a valid concern...especially if people continue to be apathetic. However (always that), at the least the 'elected' officials are more aware of local needs...and...we know where they live! Lol.
We can't continue to 'hand it over' to any agency...we must stay involved, officials who legally & Constitutionally represent us must be held accountable for their actions & how they spend 'our' money.
We are the power...we are the 'enablers' of a gov't gone wrong.
The above goes along w/ the saying
"A Gov't of The People for The People By The People".
And NONE of the Gov't Agencies represent The People!
The last I checked we only need two more states to sign on to a constitutional convention. It may be the only way to put the power back in the hands of public. At least it would let us attempt to correct the federal over reach.
I'm not sure allowing today's politicians a chance to get their dirty little hands on the constitution is a good idea..
We don't agree on much, but on this subject I am not sure we are that far apart! | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:30 PM
komet. - 2014-04-15 9:27 PM
jbhoot - 2014-04-15 9:17 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:09 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-15 9:02 PM
I will admit to some concerns about the states taking over the land....I sincerely feel it's a valid concern...especially if people continue to be apathetic. However (always that), at the least the 'elected' officials are more aware of local needs...and...we know where they live! Lol.
We can't continue to 'hand it over' to any agency...we must stay involved, officials who legally & Constitutionally represent us must be held accountable for their actions & how they spend 'our' money.
We are the power...we are the 'enablers' of a gov't gone wrong.
The above goes along w/ the saying
"A Gov't of The People for The People By The People".
And NONE of the Gov't Agencies represent The People!
The last I checked we only need two more states to sign on to a constitutional convention. It may be the only way to put the power back in the hands of public. At least it would let us attempt to correct the federal over reach.
I'm not sure allowing today's politicians a chance to get their dirty little hands on the constitution is a good idea..
We don't agree on much, but on this subject I am not sure we are that far apart!
My dad warned me 30!! years ago we should never let this happen.... and they have only gotten worse in that time.. | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| komet. - 2014-04-15 9:36 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:30 PM
komet. - 2014-04-15 9:27 PM
jbhoot - 2014-04-15 9:17 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:09 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-15 9:02 PM
I will admit to some concerns about the states taking over the land....I sincerely feel it's a valid concern...especially if people continue to be apathetic. However (always that), at the least the 'elected' officials are more aware of local needs...and...we know where they live! Lol.
We can't continue to 'hand it over' to any agency...we must stay involved, officials who legally & Constitutionally represent us must be held accountable for their actions & how they spend 'our' money.
We are the power...we are the 'enablers' of a gov't gone wrong.
The above goes along w/ the saying
"A Gov't of The People for The People By The People".
And NONE of the Gov't Agencies represent The People!
The last I checked we only need two more states to sign on to a constitutional convention. It may be the only way to put the power back in the hands of public. At least it would let us attempt to correct the federal over reach.
I'm not sure allowing today's politicians a chance to get their dirty little hands on the constitution is a good idea..
We don't agree on much, but on this subject I am not sure we are that far apart!
My dad warned me 30!! years ago we should never let this happen.... and they have only gotten worse in that time..
It really depends on what agenda the last two states come in on. Yes sir it could be scary. But it brings it down to a more local level since we get to choose who we send. As of right now the agenda is very limited. It may be the only way to get term limits, reform the IRS, and rein in federal over reach. | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| Here Girls! Something to make you Bundy supporters nervous if you are out there on the front lines with the militia:
"It was Richard Mack, a former Arizona county sheriff and founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs, who had said Monday that the gathered self-described militia had considered using women as human shields if a gunfight with federal officials erupted. He elaborated on those comments Monday in an interview with radio host Ben Swann.
“It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,” Mack said in comments flagged by The Raw Story. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.”
“I’m sorry, that sounds horrible,” he continued. “I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. I would gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.”
If you feel a hand in your back, I'd run.
Also, Bundy says they have set up a PayPal Account for people to donate money to them (Color me surprised!), and they already have about $2000 in the Kitty.
Just a side note on the financial side again, I read where Bundy says they own 160 acres of deeded ground, and lease the rest. He figures that he owes the Feds $300,000 instead of the $1.2M in fees and fines. If he was a private rancher with 500 cows out on grass @ the going rate of $500-600/cow/year, even at $500, that puts a private rancher's bill at $250,000 per year or in Bundy Years ($250,000 x 20 years) $5,000,000. Yes that is 5 million dollars. You can haul a lot of water for that. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 10:34 PM
Here Girls! Something to make you Bundy supporters nervous if you are out there on the front lines with the militia:
"It was Richard Mack, a former Arizona county sheriff and founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs, who had said Monday that the gathered self-described militia had considered using women as human shields if a gunfight with federal officials erupted. He elaborated on those comments Monday in an interview with radio host Ben Swann.
“It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,” Mack said in comments flagged by The Raw Story. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.”
“I’m sorry, that sounds horrible,” he continued. “I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. I would gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.”
If you feel a hand in your back, I'd run.
Also, Bundy says they have set up a PayPal Account for people to donate money to them (Color me surprised!), and they already have about $2000 in the Kitty.
Just a side note on the financial side again, I read where Bundy says they own 160 acres of deeded ground, and lease the rest. He figures that he owes the Feds $300,000 instead of the $1.2M in fees and fines. If he was a private rancher with 500 cows out on grass @ the going rate of $500-600/cow/year, even at $500, that puts a private rancher's bill at $250,000 per year or in Bundy Years ($250,000 x 20 years) $5,000,000. Yes that is 5 million dollars. You can haul a lot of water for that.
Got a live link Finney, instead of some driveby copy 'n paste? Cause with nothing to validate your 'story', it didn't happen. Jus' sayin'. | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| foundation horse - 2014-04-15 10:41 PM
FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 10:34 PM
Here Girls! Something to make you Bundy supporters nervous if you are out there on the front lines with the militia:
"It was Richard Mack, a former Arizona county sheriff and founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs, who had said Monday that the gathered self-described militia had considered using women as human shields if a gunfight with federal officials erupted. He elaborated on those comments Monday in an interview with radio host Ben Swann.
“It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,” Mack said in comments flagged by The Raw Story. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.”
“I’m sorry, that sounds horrible,” he continued. “I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. I would gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.”
If you feel a hand in your back, I'd run.
Also, Bundy says they have set up a PayPal Account for people to donate money to them (Color me surprised!), and they already have about $2000 in the Kitty.
Just a side note on the financial side again, I read where Bundy says they own 160 acres of deeded ground, and lease the rest. He figures that he owes the Feds $300,000 instead of the $1.2M in fees and fines. If he was a private rancher with 500 cows out on grass @ the going rate of $500-600/cow/year, even at $500, that puts a private rancher's bill at $250,000 per year or in Bundy Years ($250,000 x 20 years) $5,000,000. Yes that is 5 million dollars. You can haul a lot of water for that.
Got a live link Finney, instead of some driveby copy 'n paste? Cause with nothing to validate your 'story', it didn't happen. Jus' sayin'.
Oh, I just "copy and pasted" the good part. You guys are manly men, aren't you. I think I agree with TXBO about the chickenshi** nature of your gossipy little comments. You don't know me but I know you Blah Blah Blah.... Try Taling Points Memo's lead story for the link. And next time you want to go toe to toe, let me know who you really are, instead of hiding behind a little nickname. That's so junior high boy. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | foundation horse - 2014-04-15 10:41 PM
FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 10:34 PM
Here Girls! Something to make you Bundy supporters nervous if you are out there on the front lines with the militia:
"It was Richard Mack, a former Arizona county sheriff and founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs, who had said Monday that the gathered self-described militia had considered using women as human shields if a gunfight with federal officials erupted. He elaborated on those comments Monday in an interview with radio host Ben Swann.
“It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,” Mack said in comments flagged by The Raw Story. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.”
“I’m sorry, that sounds horrible,” he continued. “I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. I would gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.”
If you feel a hand in your back, I'd run.
Also, Bundy says they have set up a PayPal Account for people to donate money to them (Color me surprised!), and they already have about $2000 in the Kitty.
Just a side note on the financial side again, I read where Bundy says they own 160 acres of deeded ground, and lease the rest. He figures that he owes the Feds $300,000 instead of the $1.2M in fees and fines. If he was a private rancher with 500 cows out on grass @ the going rate of $500-600/cow/year, even at $500, that puts a private rancher's bill at $250,000 per year or in Bundy Years ($250,000 x 20 years) $5,000,000. Yes that is 5 million dollars. You can haul a lot of water for that.
Got a live link Finney, instead of some driveby copy 'n paste? Cause with nothing to validate your 'story', it didn't happen. Jus' sayin'.
It's out there....
"......In a statement to Fox News on Monday that was first flagged by Glenn Beck’s The Blaze, former Sheriff Richard Mack talked about his strategy to put women on the front lines if a gunfight broke out....."
Here it is on video.. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/15/former-sheriff-women-need-to-...
Edited by komet. 2014-04-15 10:57 PM
| |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 10:34 PM
Here Girls! Something to make you Bundy supporters nervous if you are out there on the front lines with the militia:
"It was Richard Mack, a former Arizona county sheriff and founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs, who had said Monday that the gathered self-described militia had considered using women as human shields if a gunfight with federal officials erupted. He elaborated on those comments Monday in an interview with radio host Ben Swann.
“It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,” Mack said in comments flagged by The Raw Story. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.”
“I’m sorry, that sounds horrible,” he continued. “I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. I would gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.”
If you feel a hand in your back, I'd run.
Also, Bundy says they have set up a PayPal Account for people to donate money to them (Color me surprised!), and they already have about $2000 in the Kitty.
Just a side note on the financial side again, I read where Bundy says they own 160 acres of deeded ground, and lease the rest. He figures that he owes the Feds $300,000 instead of the $1.2M in fees and fines. If he was a private rancher with 500 cows out on grass @ the going rate of $500-600/cow/year, even at $500, that puts a private rancher's bill at $250,000 per year or in Bundy Years ($250,000 x 20 years) $5,000,000. Yes that is 5 million dollars. You can haul a lot of water for that.
Finney please go read the court orders for you really do not have a clue what the court has found as to date. Bundy was found guilty of trespass a misdemeanor and is liable for undetermined damages. The lease was null and void in 1993 which means he owes zip on the lease since it does not exist anymore. Damages yes lease no. And you comparing pasture rates in in another state which is totally not relevant to the case. The 1M that is claimed by BLM is just that a claim not proven in court yet. I have no clue how you came up with your ridicules math. If the court uses the rate quoted in the original lease (1.35 per AUM) Bundy is probably close to being right. He has never denied that he owes the money only to whom he owes it to. This is all on line as to the case. It took me all of 10 minutes to find it. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 9:34 PM Here Girls! Something to make you Bundy supporters nervous if you are out there on the front lines with the militia: "It was Richard Mack, a former Arizona county sheriff and founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs, who had said Monday that the gathered self-described militia had considered using women as human shields if a gunfight with federal officials erupted. He elaborated on those comments Monday in an interview with radio host Ben Swann. “It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,” Mack said in comments flagged by The Raw Story. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.” “I’m sorry, that sounds horrible,” he continued. “I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. I would gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.” If you feel a hand in your back, I'd run. Also, Bundy says they have set up a PayPal Account for people to donate money to them (Color me surprised!), and they already have about $2000 in the Kitty. Just a side note on the financial side again, I read where Bundy says they own 160 acres of deeded ground, and lease the rest. He figures that he owes the Feds $300,000 instead of the $1.2M in fees and fines. If he was a private rancher with 500 cows out on grass @ the going rate of $500-600/cow/year, even at $500, that puts a private rancher's bill at $250,000 per year or in Bundy Years ($250,000 x 20 years) $5,000,000. Yes that is 5 million dollars. You can haul a lot of water for that.
I'd heard of it then watched the link provided...I get what he was saying but don't agree w/the stratedy. The IRS employs this tactic all the time...actually they use children as a human shield...Ruby Ridge & Waco proved that if they intend to kill they will, they don't care if it's women and children. That Sheriff thought it would dial down the shooting potential.
With that said...I'm not afraid to die fighting. Being a woman has nothing to do with it, we wanted off our pedastal...here we are. At least he didn't say to use children like the IRS does(Yes, when they go in to confinscate property they have kids helping...it's a regular family affair).
We don't have 'pasture' out here much...not on public land, apples & oranges.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Nevertooold - 2014-04-15 7:57 PM My point about Sharpton and why so many people are ticked off...is..this administration has picked and chosen who should follow the laws and who doesn't have to. If this is the only thing that has happened since 2009, there wouldn't have been such an uproar. We have a DOJ that does nothing but whine about being picked on all while he sits on his ass and has done nothing but get people killed. (Fast and Furious) The laws should be for everyone and what really ticks me off is the ones that make the laws (Congress) seem to be one of the biggest law breakers. It's gotten very old. The money and man power that they just spent is a bigger crime then what Bundy has done. All that has happened since 2009, is to divide this country all while our Great Lyin King says one thing and does the total opposite. I think the sleeping Giant isn't sleeping real well these days.
I absolutely share your disgust. However, you're suggesting that two wrongs make a right. That makes our rally for consistent enforce of rule of law nothing more than politically motivated agenda.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| smiley - 2014-04-15 8:03 PM And jsut like this story, Nevertooold, I am sure we are only getting the "right" side of Solyndra and every other issue. I'm not believing crap anymore. I have never seen a story so mangled as this one. There is no honor in journalism any longer, none. I used to think I could listen to some of these shows - like Hannity and get a fair view - I can't. They are all full of it. Daily Kos and a few others are the only ones even attempting to tell the real story. SO, we get half the story to p*** us all off and then we react just like they plan. It's all a game, I for one am done playing. If you don't like it - change it, not with guns and flags, but with votes and running for local office and contacting your reps and talking to others about voting. That's about all we have.
There's no shortage of liberal slanted media. If there was a hint of validation for those Solyndra grants, we would have heard it. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-15 9:02 PM I will admit to some concerns about the states taking over the land....I sincerely feel it's a valid concern...especially if people continue to be apathetic. However (always that), at the least the 'elected' officials are more aware of local needs...and...we know where they live! Lol.
We can't continue to 'hand it over' to any agency...we must stay involved, officials who legally & Constitutionally represent us must be held accountable for their actions & how they spend 'our' money.
We are the power...we are the 'enablers' of a gov't gone wrong.
LOL! The irony in this case is that NV could be the most corrupt government in the continental US. Crony capitalism is on par with Chicago. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| jbhoot - 2014-04-15 9:17 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:09 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 9:02 PM I will admit to some concerns about the states taking over the land....I sincerely feel it's a valid concern...especially if people continue to be apathetic. However (always that), at the least the 'elected' officials are more aware of local needs...and...we know where they live! Lol.
We can't continue to 'hand it over' to any agency...we must stay involved, officials who legally & Constitutionally represent us must be held accountable for their actions & how they spend 'our' money.
We are the power...we are the 'enablers' of a gov't gone wrong.
The above goes along w/ the saying "A Gov't of The People for The People By The People". And NONE of the Gov't Agencies represent The People! The last I checked we only need two more states to sign on to a constitutional convention. It may be the only way to put the power back in the hands of public. At least it would let us attempt to correct the federal over reach.
The last I heard, we had reached the threshold but there was a question about wether a state had withdrawn its petition. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| jbhoot - 2014-04-15 11:45 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 10:34 PM Here Girls! Something to make you Bundy supporters nervous if you are out there on the front lines with the militia: "It was Richard Mack, a former Arizona county sheriff and founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs, who had said Monday that the gathered self-described militia had considered using women as human shields if a gunfight with federal officials erupted. He elaborated on those comments Monday in an interview with radio host Ben Swann. “It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,” Mack said in comments flagged by The Raw Story. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.” “I’m sorry, that sounds horrible,” he continued. “I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. I would gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.” If you feel a hand in your back, I'd run. Also, Bundy says they have set up a PayPal Account for people to donate money to them (Color me surprised!), and they already have about $2000 in the Kitty. Just a side note on the financial side again, I read where Bundy says they own 160 acres of deeded ground, and lease the rest. He figures that he owes the Feds $300,000 instead of the $1.2M in fees and fines. If he was a private rancher with 500 cows out on grass @ the going rate of $500-600/cow/year, even at $500, that puts a private rancher's bill at $250,000 per year or in Bundy Years ($250,000 x 20 years) $5,000,000. Yes that is 5 million dollars. You can haul a lot of water for that. Finney please go read the court orders for you really do not have a clue what the court has found as to date. Bundy was found guilty of trespass a misdemeanor and is liable for undetermined damages. The lease was null and void in 1993 which means he owes zip on the lease since it does not exist anymore. Damages yes lease no. And you comparing pasture rates in in another state which is totally not relevant to the case. The 1M that is claimed by BLM is just that a claim not proven in court yet. I have no clue how you came up with your ridicules math. If the court uses the rate quoted in the original lease (1.35 per AUM ) Bundy is probably close to being right. He has never denied that he owes the money only to whom he owes it to. This is all on line as to the case. It took me all of 10 minutes to find it.
You should be able to find that in the relief section of the first court order.
Edited by TXBO 2014-04-16 7:32 AM
| |
| | |
Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 10:51 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 10:41 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 10:34 PM Here Girls! Something to make you Bundy supporters nervous if you are out there on the front lines with the militia: "It was Richard Mack, a former Arizona county sheriff and founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs, who had said Monday that the gathered self-described militia had considered using women as human shields if a gunfight with federal officials erupted. He elaborated on those comments Monday in an interview with radio host Ben Swann. “It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,” Mack said in comments flagged by The Raw Story. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.” “I’m sorry, that sounds horrible,” he continued. “I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. I would gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.” If you feel a hand in your back, I'd run. Also, Bundy says they have set up a PayPal Account for people to donate money to them (Color me surprised!), and they already have about $2000 in the Kitty. Just a side note on the financial side again, I read where Bundy says they own 160 acres of deeded ground, and lease the rest. He figures that he owes the Feds $300,000 instead of the $1.2M in fees and fines. If he was a private rancher with 500 cows out on grass @ the going rate of $500-600/cow/year, even at $500, that puts a private rancher's bill at $250,000 per year or in Bundy Years ($250,000 x 20 years) $5,000,000. Yes that is 5 million dollars. You can haul a lot of water for that. Got a live link Finney, instead of some driveby copy 'n paste? Cause with nothing to validate your 'story', it didn't happen. Jus' sayin'. Oh, I just "copy and pasted" the good part. You guys are manly men, aren't you. I think I agree with TXBO about the chickenshi** nature of your gossipy little comments. You don't know me but I know you Blah Blah Blah.... Try Taling Points Memo's lead story for the link. And next time you want to go toe to toe, let me know who you really are, instead of hiding behind a little nickname. That's so junior high boy.
LOL, that is as looney as the armed loons who are coming out of the wood work to fight the government without a clue as to what it is really about. You believe that ????? WOW!!!!
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-16 6:37 AM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 9:34 PM Here Girls! Something to make you Bundy supporters nervous if you are out there on the front lines with the militia: "It was Richard Mack, a former Arizona county sheriff and founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs, who had said Monday that the gathered self-described militia had considered using women as human shields if a gunfight with federal officials erupted. He elaborated on those comments Monday in an interview with radio host Ben Swann. “It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,” Mack said in comments flagged by The Raw Story. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.” “I’m sorry, that sounds horrible,” he continued. “I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. I would gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.” If you feel a hand in your back, I'd run. Also, Bundy says they have set up a PayPal Account for people to donate money to them (Color me surprised!), and they already have about $2000 in the Kitty. Just a side note on the financial side again, I read where Bundy says they own 160 acres of deeded ground, and lease the rest. He figures that he owes the Feds $300,000 instead of the $1.2M in fees and fines. If he was a private rancher with 500 cows out on grass @ the going rate of $500-600/cow/year, even at $500, that puts a private rancher's bill at $250,000 per year or in Bundy Years ($250,000 x 20 years) $5,000,000. Yes that is 5 million dollars. You can haul a lot of water for that. I'd heard of it then watched the link provided...I get what he was saying but don't agree w/the stratedy. The IRS employs this tactic all the time...actually they use children as a human shield...Ruby Ridge & Waco proved that if they intend to kill they will, they don't care if it's women and children. That Sheriff thought it would dial down the shooting potential.
With that said...I'm not afraid to die fighting. Being a woman has nothing to do with it, we wanted off our pedastal...here we are. At least he didn't say to use children like the IRS does(Yes, when they go in to confinscate property they have kids helping...it's a regular family affair).
We don't have 'pasture' out here much...not on public land, apples & oranges.
I have a wife and two daughters. I'm willing to die to preserve their freedom. I'm not willing to have them die to preserve mine.
| |
| | |
Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| TXBO - 2014-04-16 7:30 AM jbhoot - 2014-04-15 11:45 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 10:34 PM Here Girls! Something to make you Bundy supporters nervous if you are out there on the front lines with the militia: "It was Richard Mack, a former Arizona county sheriff and founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs, who had said Monday that the gathered self-described militia had considered using women as human shields if a gunfight with federal officials erupted. He elaborated on those comments Monday in an interview with radio host Ben Swann. “It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,” Mack said in comments flagged by The Raw Story. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.” “I’m sorry, that sounds horrible,” he continued. “I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. I would gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.” If you feel a hand in your back, I'd run. Also, Bundy says they have set up a PayPal Account for people to donate money to them (Color me surprised!), and they already have about $2000 in the Kitty. Just a side note on the financial side again, I read where Bundy says they own 160 acres of deeded ground, and lease the rest. He figures that he owes the Feds $300,000 instead of the $1.2M in fees and fines. If he was a private rancher with 500 cows out on grass @ the going rate of $500-600/cow/year, even at $500, that puts a private rancher's bill at $250,000 per year or in Bundy Years ($250,000 x 20 years) $5,000,000. Yes that is 5 million dollars. You can haul a lot of water for that. Finney please go read the court orders for you really do not have a clue what the court has found as to date. Bundy was found guilty of trespass a misdemeanor and is liable for undetermined damages. The lease was null and void in 1993 which means he owes zip on the lease since it does not exist anymore. Damages yes lease no. And you comparing pasture rates in in another state which is totally not relevant to the case. The 1M that is claimed by BLM is just that a claim not proven in court yet. I have no clue how you came up with your ridicules math. If the court uses the rate quoted in the original lease (1.35 per AUM ) Bundy is probably close to being right. He has never denied that he owes the money only to whom he owes it to. This is all on line as to the case. It took me all of 10 minutes to find it.
You should be able to find that in the relief section of the first court order.
This is how the lawyers on FOX news explained it last night: It is Federal land- there is no consitutional issue state vs federal, Bundy has no legal standing for his actions and nonpayment. Whatever the motivation for wanting Bundy off the land or to restrict the number of cattle, his landlord is the federal government.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| jbhoot - 2014-04-15 9:53 PM komet. - 2014-04-15 9:36 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:30 PM komet. - 2014-04-15 9:27 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-15 9:17 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:09 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-15 9:02 PM I will admit to some concerns about the states taking over the land....I sincerely feel it's a valid concern...especially if people continue to be apathetic. However (always that), at the least the 'elected' officials are more aware of local needs...and...we know where they live! Lol.
We can't continue to 'hand it over' to any agency...we must stay involved, officials who legally & Constitutionally represent us must be held accountable for their actions & how they spend 'our' money.
We are the power...we are the 'enablers' of a gov't gone wrong.
The above goes along w/ the saying "A Gov't of The People for The People By The People". And NONE of the Gov't Agencies represent The People! The last I checked we only need two more states to sign on to a constitutional convention. It may be the only way to put the power back in the hands of public. At least it would let us attempt to correct the federal over reach. I'm not sure allowing today's politicians a chance to get their dirty little hands on the constitution is a good idea.. We don't agree on much, but on this subject I am not sure we are that far apart! My dad warned me 30!! years ago we should never let this happen.... and they have only gotten worse in that time.. It really depends on what agenda the last two states come in on. Yes sir it could be scary. But it brings it down to a more local level since we get to choose who we send. As of right now the agenda is very limited. It may be the only way to get term limits, reform the IRS, and rein in federal over reach.
The petitions are for a convention to require a balanced federal budget. The agenda has to be limited to the petitions. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| rodeomom3 - 2014-04-16 7:40 AM TXBO - 2014-04-16 7:30 AM jbhoot - 2014-04-15 11:45 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 10:34 PM Here Girls! Something to make you Bundy supporters nervous if you are out there on the front lines with the militia: "It was Richard Mack, a former Arizona county sheriff and founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs, who had said Monday that the gathered self-described militia had considered using women as human shields if a gunfight with federal officials erupted. He elaborated on those comments Monday in an interview with radio host Ben Swann. “It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,” Mack said in comments flagged by The Raw Story. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.” “I’m sorry, that sounds horrible,” he continued. “I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. I would gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.” If you feel a hand in your back, I'd run. Also, Bundy says they have set up a PayPal Account for people to donate money to them (Color me surprised!), and they already have about $2000 in the Kitty. Just a side note on the financial side again, I read where Bundy says they own 160 acres of deeded ground, and lease the rest. He figures that he owes the Feds $300,000 instead of the $1.2M in fees and fines. If he was a private rancher with 500 cows out on grass @ the going rate of $500-600/cow/year, even at $500, that puts a private rancher's bill at $250,000 per year or in Bundy Years ($250,000 x 20 years) $5,000,000. Yes that is 5 million dollars. You can haul a lot of water for that. Finney please go read the court orders for you really do not have a clue what the court has found as to date. Bundy was found guilty of trespass a misdemeanor and is liable for undetermined damages. The lease was null and void in 1993 which means he owes zip on the lease since it does not exist anymore. Damages yes lease no. And you comparing pasture rates in in another state which is totally not relevant to the case. The 1M that is claimed by BLM is just that a claim not proven in court yet. I have no clue how you came up with your ridicules math. If the court uses the rate quoted in the original lease (1.35 per AUM ) Bundy is probably close to being right. He has never denied that he owes the money only to whom he owes it to. This is all on line as to the case. It took me all of 10 minutes to find it.
You should be able to find that in the relief section of the first court order.
Yea but Fox News is known for their liberal bias. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-15 7:25 PM smiley - 2014-04-15 12:35 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 9:51 AM Smiley, let Us revisit your reference to the Gov't Land the Ancestor to the Current Day BLM, Forest Service, and Dept. of Interior. I have researched and found the history of The Government Land Office:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Land_Management
History
The BLM's pure roots go back to the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. These laws provided for the survey and settlement of the lands that the original 13 colonies ceded to the federal government after the American Revolution. As additional lands were acquired by the United States from Spain, France and other countries, the United States Congress directed that they be explored, surveyed, and made available for settlement. In 1812, Congress established the General Land Office in the Department of the Treasury to oversee the disposition of these federal lands. As the 19th century progressed and the nation's land base expanded further west, Congress encouraged the settlement of the land by enacting a wide variety of laws, including the Homestead Act and the Mining Law of 1872.
These statutes served one of the major policy goals of the young country—settlement of the Western territories. With the exception of the Mining Law of 1872 and the Desert Land Act of 1877 (which was amended ), all have since been repealed or superseded by other statutes.
The late 19th century marked a shift in federal land management priorities with the creation of the first national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges. By withdrawing these lands from settlement, Congress signaled a shift in the policy goals served by the public lands. Instead of using them to promote settlement, Congress decided that they should be held in public ownership because of their other resource values.
Sheep graze on BLM land in Snake Valley, Utah.
In the early 20th century, Congress took additional steps toward recognizing the value of the assets on public lands and directed the Executive Branch to manage activities on the remaining public lands. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 allowed leasing, exploration, and production of selected commodities, such as coal, oil, gas, and sodium to take place on public lands. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 established the U.S. Grazing Service to manage the public rangelands. The Oregon and California (O&C ) Act of August 28, 1937, required sustained yield management of the timberlands in western Oregon.
In 1946, the Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office (a product of the country's territorial expansion and the federal government's nineteenth-century homesteading policies ) to form the Bureau of Land Management within the Department of the Interior. When the BLM was initially created, there were over 2,000 unrelated and often conflicting laws for managing the public lands. The BLM had no unified legislative mandate until Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA ).
In FLPMA, Congress recognized the value of the remaining public lands by declaring that these lands would remain in public ownership. Congress used the term "multiple use" management, defined as "management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people."
The land management policy of the federal government before 1946 involved on the one hand rapid disposal to miners, ranchers and farmers, and on the other hand reservations for national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and military needs. The combination of 1946 of the General Land Office and the Grazing Service into the new Bureau of Land Management was filled with ambiguity. In terms of bureaucracy, there has been a constant tension between the local district rangers, who have typically been oriented toward the mining and ranching interests, and the centralized leadership in Washington that follows presidential guidance. Since the Reagan years of the 1980s, Republicans have emphasized local control giving priority to grazing, mining and petroleum production, while Democrats have emphasized environmentalism.[3]
Now remember the orginal intent of the Government Land Office was the disposition of land which I have defined below. The History goes on to state that the orginal intent has been completely changed by from its orginal.
Now to define the word dis position in a legal sense:
disposition legal definition of disposition. disposition ...
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ disposition
Disposition. Act of disposing; transferring to the care or possession of another. The parting with, alienation of, or giving up of property. The final settlement of a .
This complete post is the reason the reason I am a Constitutitonal Orginalist! Not a Constructionist. I am all about the Orginal Intent (as stated in this History research) of Our Forefathers. Not this convoluted Federal Government of Current Day!
If and when the Feds give the land to the states - and let's face it, many if not all the states are going to screw it up, and line their pockets and those of their friends. This will be a more local good old boy system of corruption vs., having at least some checks and balances through the feds who have to listen to everyone and not just rich liberals who want to be richer.
I get this argument, I can even agree with this argument, but it's not Clive Bundy's fight, it's the State of Nevada's fight and if they won't do anything about it, he's not going to win. Good Grief Smiley!
Originally, YOU supported the BLM (FEDS ) and stated their pedigree to go back to The Gov't Land Office. I research out the Orginial Intent of the GLO and Once YOU read this bit of research You suddenly employ Your Woman's Perogative to 'change your mind' and support The State of Nevada!
Now per Bundy, State Fees have been paid to the State of Nevada, so the question remains why are the FEDS involved to begin with!?
And then when confronted with evidence to implicate Senator Harry Reid, again you scoff..............You see 'I' have attempted to keep up w/ all those debunked reports in that article holding Reid's feet to the fire. And I was/am familar with everything in that article. Reid's Former Chief of Staff is The Head of BLM.......See any Conflict of Interest here? I do! All the allegations in that article are easily validated. And have been!
Just WHY do You have such a hatred for this man? Are you jealous, envious or what? Cliven Bundy has persecuted by the FEDs and you support EVERYBODY but the persecuted! I just don't understand Your obstinatance in this matter. Everything under the Sun has been presented to support this Private American Citizen and His Family and You still cannot understand that.......................................
"I" really find this strange.
Give this one last shot and then I'm really done. The state of nevada does not own the land, according to many other sources, he claims to have paid the county, the county does not own the land.
I support the state if they want to go to court and try to get "their" land, but I do not support this rancher - two totally different issues - in his blatant trespassing and thumbing his nose at the law.
Why do I have to "hate" anyone to see that they are wrong? I saw who was wrong in the Latte case, I don't hate him either. Why does everything come down to jealousy? I'm not jealous of anyone, why would I be. I've made my life, I like my live and I love my family. That is like throwing your lollipop in the dirt and using playground tactics. It's literally one of the dumbest arguments that exist - "he/she must be jealous."
The Reid facility everyone is questioning is 35 miles away from the Bundy ranch, and the BUNDY cattle have traveled that far and been a problem that far away. The other solar plant is 100 miles away.
I have presented everything under the sun to you to show you that this man and his "cause" isn't worth supporting, and you don't get that. *I* find that very strange. | |
| | |
Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| I didn't even know our goverment employed such tactics as using women and babies to do their dirty work. Reading this thread is turning my gut. People are such a dang disappointment to me. Its becoming harder for me to see the good in anyone anymore and especially Uncle Sam. Bundy broke laws and the Feds are escalating it and both are guilty of greed. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| RidenFly - 2014-04-16 8:13 AM I didn't even know our goverment employed such tactics as using women and babies to do their dirty work. Reading this thread is turning my gut. People are such a dang disappointment to me. Its becoming harder for me to see the good in anyone anymore and especially Uncle Sam. Bundy broke laws and the Feds are escalating it and both are guilty of greed.
That wasn't the government. That was the Bundy protesters. | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| It really kind of blows my mind that you guys (except TXBO) are willing to throw your women folk under the bus to prove a point. Do you know how insane and stupid that sounds? Why doesn't Fox News tell you why real, in office politicians are hands off this issue? After all, they have Obamacare. You might ask yourselves why only right wing media figures are like a dog with a bone on this story, and you might also ask the Bundys if they are willing to sacrifice their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters?
Look at yourselves in the mirror. Better yet, look at a little kid, and say "Sorry honey, you have to die so I can prove how awful the Feds are." Sick the way you can just brush off what that guy, representing many others, said and just go on with your narrative. | |
| | |
Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| TXBO - 2014-04-17 6:19 AM RidenFly - 2014-04-16 8:13 AM I didn't even know our goverment employed such tactics as using women and babies to do their dirty work. Reading this thread is turning my gut. People are such a dang disappointment to me. Its becoming harder for me to see the good in anyone anymore and especially Uncle Sam. Bundy broke laws and the Feds are escalating it and both are guilty of greed. That wasn't the government. That was the Bundy protesters.
Well then, if that's the truth then to hell with this topic. Both sides seem beyond reason at this point anyway. | |
| | |
Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-17 6:20 AM It really kind of blows my mind that you guys (except TXBO) are willing to throw your women folk under the bus to prove a point. Do you know how insane and stupid that sounds? Why doesn't Fox News tell you why real, in office politicians are hands off this issue? After all, they have Obamacare. You might ask yourselves why only right wing media figures are like a dog with a bone on this story, and you might also ask the Bundys if they are willing to sacrifice their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters? Look at yourselves in the mirror. Better yet, look at a little kid, and say "Sorry honey, you have to die so I can prove how awful the Feds are." Sick the way you can just brush off what that guy, representing many others, said and just go on with your narrative.
I don't care what adult women chose to do, but babies? No way. I'm throughly irritated now. Where are the intelligent people that can imploy some diplomacy to get a job done? Put one of my kids on the line to prove a point and see what happens and I don't care what side of this line your on... (figuratively speaking) | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| I actually agree with Ridenfly, for once, on this. This is a good place to stop. | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | If my husband said he was willing to use myself and our children as a human shield in a gun fight, he would be looking for a new wife. Real men would not do that for ANY cause. | |
| | |
Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-17 6:27 AM If my husband said he was willing to use myself and our children as a human shield in a gun fight, he would be looking for a new wife. Real men would not do that for ANY cause.
Apparently, real men aren't in charge of this situation. | |
| | |
I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
Location: Online | We may never know the real story. We have the Bundy's side of the story and the other side is what the BLM/government is allowing the media to tell us. I have yet to hear a consistent story. Other than he didn't pay his grazing fees for 20 years, and they are trying to protect some tortoise. So what? Why is the government going after them now and not 19 years ago when he was a year late paying? There is more than grazing fees and tortoises.
I don't agree with the militia tactics of putting women on the front, I cringed when I heard them say that. How is that going to help their cause? That's only going to make them look like cowardly idiots.
Right or wrong, I will take the side of someone like Bundy over the government any day. Especially the current government. Especially when Harry Reid is involved.
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| rodeomom13 - 2014-04-16 8:05 AM We may never know the real story. We have the Bundy's side of the story and the other side is what the BLM/government is allowing the media to tell us. I have yet to hear a consistent story. Other than he didn't pay his grazing fees for 20 years, and they are trying to protect some tortoise. So what? Why is the government going after them now and not 19 years ago when he was a year late paying? There is more than grazing fees and tortoises.
I don't agree with the militia tactics of putting women on the front, I cringed when I heard them say that. How is that going to help their cause? That's only going to make them look like cowardly idiots.
Right or wrong, I will take the side of someone like Bundy over the government any day. Especially the current government. Especially when Harry Reid is involved.
And that is exactly the problem, you've chosen a side even though you don't understand the issue. I have heard on my FB wall "I will side with the ones that look and act like me, white with cowboy hats" no kidding.
That is just how Obama got elected and what most of us have been complaining about since he was, but clearly it's a human condition to side with those that "look and act" like you do, despite facts to the contrary. | |
| | |
Warmblood with Wings
Posts: 27846
Location: Florida.. | first thing to came to mind was the Islam tactics.. give the children and women for sacrifice. might as well hook a bomb to them right. | |
| | |
Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| As is often the case, the point is lost by the actions of fools. They can wear a cowboy hat or a turbin. Makes no difference if you let your ego over ride your brain. | |
| | |
Own It and Move On
Location: The edge of no where | Bibliafarm - 2014-04-16 9:11 AM first thing to came to mind was the Islam tactics.. give the children and women for sacrifice. might as well hook a bomb to them right.
Women were used as a bluff, they knew the odds of the government shooting at them were slim to none. I wouldn't have had a problem being on the front line.
Where are children getting drug into this issue?
I will do some digging later, but it's been documented that MLK used children on the front lines to draw press and public sympathy. It did move the civil rights movement forward, but if you study some of the tatics used, I'm curious if everyone would still think they were the great leaders that they've been credited to be. I think the last book I read about it was "David and Goliath" by Malcom Gladwell. Anyone else read his books? Extremely well documented.
| |
| | |
Warmblood with Wings
Posts: 27846
Location: Florida.. | bluff or not it wasnt right. It was stupid to even say it.And this is over land .. good grief.. | |
| | |
Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| Bibliafarm - 2014-04-17 7:24 AM bluff or not it wasnt right. It was stupid to even say it.And this is over land .. good grief..
I'm sure this tactic is well documented through out history and whats true then remains true today. It's a BS cowardly move.
I hated it when Obama used them as a backdrop to sign his bill into law and I hate it now. | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | smiley - 2014-04-15 8:03 PM And jsut like this story, Nevertooold, I am sure we are only getting the "right" side of Solyndra and every other issue. I'm not believing crap anymore. I have never seen a story so mangled as this one. There is no honor in journalism any longer, none. I used to think I could listen to some of these shows - like Hannity and get a fair view - I can't. They are all full of it. Daily Kos and a few others are the only ones even attempting to tell the real story. SO, we get half the story to p*** us all off and then we react just like they plan. It's all a game, I for one am done playing. If you don't like it - change it, not with guns and flags, but with votes and running for local office and contacting your reps and talking to others about voting. That's about all we have.
MaryAnna, I'm going to assume you were being facetious about the Daily Kos. If there is a more radical, progressive left wing blog I'd like to see it. I seriously doubt the Daily Kos would ever seek to tell the real story, unless it served to support a progressive cause or agenda. All you need to do is examine the list of contributors and writers for the Daily Kos to determine what they are all about. As far as objective journalism is concerned, I'm afraid that's been dead for a long time. There was a time when there were journalists placed a quest for factual information and the truth above their own political leanings, because they believed it was their calling. Today, that is all but extinct. All we have today is a sharply divided country. As far as the "vote" being our only remaining tool, I'm afraid that's all but dead as well. The most powerful tool we have is the "vote" yet it seems to be irrelevant, both in terms of elections as well as in the legislatures. We have a President who can circumvent laws by executive order entirely for the purposes of political power. We are in trouble when the majority of voters elect a man who had an unimpressive resume' and virtually no record of noteworthy accomplishments. His election was all based on superficial impressions - speaking ability, skin color, and an ability to lie, deceive, and use cunning to mesmerize the masses. We all know about his role models, his associaltions, and his political appointees. This is not new. This is what happened in Germany in 1933. It's the same thing, except this is a different version, re-tooled for the new millennium. This entire topic has merely reinforced my personal view that we are witnessing our own demise as a nation. If there's anything to be learned about history, it's that all powerful nations are eventually replaced. I think we missed out on an opportunity to heal and recover as a nation in 2012. This incident in Nevada is just a sign that we are living in an ideological pressure cooker, and we are being led by an evil empty suit.
| |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | . | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| MS2011 - 2014-04-16 9:18 AM Bibliafarm - 2014-04-16 9:11 AM first thing to came to mind was the Islam tactics.. give the children and women for sacrifice. might as well hook a bomb to them right. Women were used as a bluff, they knew the odds of the government shooting at them were slim to none. I wouldn't have had a problem being on the front line.
Where are children getting drug into this issue?
I will do some digging later, but it's been documented that MLK used children on the front lines to draw press and public sympathy. It did move the civil rights movement forward, but if you study some of the tatics used, I'm curious if everyone would still think they were the great leaders that they've been credited to be. I think the last book I read about it was "David and Goliath" by Malcom Gladwell. Anyone else read his books? Extremely well documented.
I haven't read the book but it sounds interesting. I'll pick it up.
Are you suggesting that MLK was wrong to use that tactic or that MLK's use of the tactic makes it an appropriate tactic for these protestors?
Quid pro quo. Pick up a copy of "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo. Another leader that has been worshipped for abolishing slavery yet he was never an abolishinist. | |
| | |
 Swiffer PIcker Upper
Posts: 4015
Location: Four Corners Colorado | If you think that this about land, cattle and tortoises. I think you are wrong. I think this is about unelected officials stepping on Americans and American farmers and ranchers. I pray this is a sign of Americans are getting tired of it. In America if you are a small farmer it is illegal for you to produce food and sell it to your neighbors. If you have a milk cow and have extra milk in most places you have to dump it. If you sell it to a neighbor you are breaking the law. If you have extra meat birds or a pig or a steer. You cannot have it butchered and sell it to your neighbors without it being USDA inspected and you have to have a retail food establishment license. The FDA is coming down even harder on small farmers and if you want to grow your business it is becoming hard and harder to make it financially feasible. Even if you jump through regulatory hoops you can still have your farm raided at 3 am by heavily armed men who treat you and your family like they are terrorists and get no reasonable explanation for why. You can be happily raising your livestock and one day the Department of Natural Resources, issues a decree that the animals you are raising are an illegal invasive species and if you don’t kill them all you will be faced with fines reaching nearly a million dollars because your animals have, floppy ears or straight ears, and hundred other traits and some that are “not yet known” to the DNR so they can call all of your animals illegal! The BLM can just decide your cattle are killing turtles, or a plant or whatever and kick you animals off the lease. Or they can decide they want your land for whatever purpose and force you to sell it at what they want to pay, or threaten you with eminent domain.
I think these letter agencies need to answer to the American public. If we have them they need to be elected not appointed. If you are up against these letter agencies how do you get a fair trial? I know plenty of farmers and ranchers have gone broke fighting for what is right. They keep the farmers and ranchers in court for years and use their unlimited funds from the American tax payers to put these farmers and ranchers out of business by bleeding them dry going through the courts. The Bundy affair is just a symptom of a very broken system. Right or wrong it was inspiring to see Americans stand up for something in and age of such apathy. I don’t pretend to know the politics or all the laws or regulations, but I think there must be a better way where the American farmers and ranchers can get fair shake.
| |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | TXBO - 2014-04-16 9:35 AM MS2011 - 2014-04-16 9:18 AM Bibliafarm - 2014-04-16 9:11 AM first thing to came to mind was the Islam tactics.. give the children and women for sacrifice. might as well hook a bomb to them right. Women were used as a bluff, they knew the odds of the government shooting at them were slim to none. I wouldn't have had a problem being on the front line.
Where are children getting drug into this issue?
I will do some digging later, but it's been documented that MLK used children on the front lines to draw press and public sympathy. It did move the civil rights movement forward, but if you study some of the tatics used, I'm curious if everyone would still think they were the great leaders that they've been credited to be. I think the last book I read about it was "David and Goliath" by Malcom Gladwell. Anyone else read his books? Extremely well documented.
Are you suggesting that MLK was wrong to use that tactic or that MLK's use of the tactic makes it an appropriate tactic for these protestors?
Quid pro quo. Pick up a copy of "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo. Another leader that has been worshipped for abolishing slavery yet he was never an abolishinist.
The history we learned in school had only a vague resemblance to truth, (and is getting farther away from truth every year) but I don't think very many realize that, because history is "boring" and they never bothered to dig. My HS history teacher was a true lover of the subject, and being the mother of a good friend, we have kept in touch and have had some really cool conversations. It amazes me all the things she knows that she wasn't "allowed" to teach in public school, and she honestly was an exceptional teacher as it was. Given free rein, she would have rocked it.
I was was reading my 3rd grader's social studies book recently (he actually has that class with 4th grade) and I was absolutely APPALLED at what was written about the South, especially when compared to the other regions. We sat down and had an unschooling session. All they talked about was slavery due to cotton, segregation, and civil rights. That was it. Not a single positive word in the whole section, and nothing about the modern South (in great contrast to the info about other regions). I want to cry for all the kids that this is all they're getting. It's no freaking wonder the rest of the country looks down on us.
Shape and control the minds of the children, and you will rule all. | |
| | |
I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
Location: Online | smiley - 2014-04-16 8:10 AM rodeomom13 - 2014-04-16 8:05 AM We may never know the real story. We have the Bundy's side of the story and the other side is what the BLM/government is allowing the media to tell us. I have yet to hear a consistent story. Other than he didn't pay his grazing fees for 20 years, and they are trying to protect some tortoise. So what? Why is the government going after them now and not 19 years ago when he was a year late paying? There is more than grazing fees and tortoises.
I don't agree with the militia tactics of putting women on the front, I cringed when I heard them say that. How is that going to help their cause? That's only going to make them look like cowardly idiots.
Right or wrong, I will take the side of someone like Bundy over the government any day. Especially the current government. Especially when Harry Reid is involved.
And that is exactly the problem, you've chosen a side even though you don't understand the issue. I have heard on my FB wall "I will side with the ones that look and act like me, white with cowboy hats" no kidding.
That is just how Obama got elected and what most of us have been complaining about since he was, but clearly it's a human condition to side with those that "look and act" like you do, despite facts to the contrary.
The more I learn, the more I agree, he should have moved his cows. Then fought the constitutional fight if he felt there was one. I just don't trust this government any way shape or form and I will support anyone who stands up to them. That's my choice.
He comes off as a stubborn old kook, but what is he supposed to do when the BLM has bought out and run off all his neighbors? And for what? Ranchers are a dying breed, the government is issuing more and more rules and regulations across the country putting more ranchers out of business. What are they supposed to do?
I wonder if the current beef prices are having something to do with this. If I were him I would ship a few hundred and rebuild my herd on my own property. (just an afterthought) | |
| | |
Own It and Move On
Location: The edge of no where | TXBO - 2014-04-16 9:35 AM
MS2011 - 2014-04-16 9:18 AM Bibliafarm - 2014-04-16 9:11 AM first thing to came to mind was the Islam tactics.. give the children and women for sacrifice. might as well hook a bomb to them right. Women were used as a bluff, they knew the odds of the government shooting at them were slim to none. I wouldn't have had a problem being on the front line.
Where are children getting drug into this issue?
I will do some digging later, but it's been documented that MLK used children on the front lines to draw press and public sympathy. It did move the civil rights movement forward, but if you study some of the tatics used, I'm curious if everyone would still think they were the great leaders that they've been credited to be. I think the last book I read about it was "David and Goliath" by Malcom Gladwell. Anyone else read his books? Extremely well documented.
Are you suggesting that MLK was wrong to use that tactic or that MLK's use of the tactic makes it an appropriate tactic for these protestors?
Quid pro quo. Pick up a copy of "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo. Another leader that has been worshipped for abolishing slavery yet he was never an abolishinist.
I will add that to my list to read.
I didn't mean to imply that they are right/wrong to do this, more just stating another instance that tactic has been used successfully. I believe it depends on the circumstances. As a woman, knowing everything was filmed and that Feds were armed, I wouldn't hesitate to be on the front line. I would know that if they did resort to violence, it would socially be much worse if it was shown against a woman than a man and my cause would most likely win. It insults me a bit to see people think that women shouldn't be on the front line, IF they walk in knowing full well the strategy and are good with it.
Children, now that's a different story. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 8:30 AM smiley - 2014-04-15 8:03 PM And jsut like this story, Nevertooold, I am sure we are only getting the "right" side of Solyndra and every other issue. I'm not believing crap anymore. I have never seen a story so mangled as this one. There is no honor in journalism any longer, none. I used to think I could listen to some of these shows - like Hannity and get a fair view - I can't. They are all full of it. Daily Kos and a few others are the only ones even attempting to tell the real story. SO, we get half the story to p*** us all off and then we react just like they plan. It's all a game, I for one am done playing. If you don't like it - change it, not with guns and flags, but with votes and running for local office and contacting your reps and talking to others about voting. That's about all we have.
MaryAnna, I'm going to assume you were being facetious about the Daily Kos. If there is a more radical, progressive left wing blog I'd like to see it. I seriously doubt the Daily Kos would ever seek to tell the real story, unless it served to support a progressive cause or agenda. All you need to do is examine the list of contributors and writers for the Daily Kos to determine what they are all about. As far as objective journalism is concerned, I'm afraid that's been dead for a long time. There was a time when there were journalists placed a quest for factual information and the truth above their own political leanings, because they believed it was their calling. Today, that is all but extinct.
All we have today is a sharply divided country. As far as the "vote" being our only remaining tool, I'm afraid that's all but dead as well. The most powerful tool we have is the "vote" yet it seems to be irrelevant, both in terms of elections as well as in the legislatures. We have a President who can circumvent laws by executive order entirely for the purposes of political power. We are in trouble when the majority of voters elect a man who had an unimpressive resume' and virtually no record of noteworthy accomplishments. His election was all based on superficial impressions - speaking ability, skin color, and an ability to lie, deceive, and use cunning to mesmerize the masses. We all know about his role models, his associaltions, and his political appointees. This is not new. This is what happened in Germany in 1933. It's the same thing, except this is a different version, re-tooled for the new millennium.
This entire topic has merely reinforced my personal view that we are witnessing our own demise as a nation. If there's anything to be learned about history, it's that all powerful nations are eventually replaced. I think we missed out on an opportunity to heal and recover as a nation in 2012. This incident in Nevada is just a sign that we are living in an ideological pressure cooker, and we are being led by an evil empty suit.
I agree with most of what you said - and yes, I was serious. I know nothing bout the Daily Kos, it was the first time I've ever read it, but they got the closest to the most accurate article out there.
Sometimes even a blind cat catches a mouse.
As to the demise, based on the knee jerk reactions and total emotion controlled responses, I think you are correct. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| equussynergy - 2014-04-16 8:55 AM If you think that this about land, cattle and tortoises. I think you are wrong. I think this is about unelected officials stepping on Americans and American farmers and ranchers. I pray this is a sign of Americans are getting tired of it. In America if you are a small farmer it is illegal for you to produce food and sell it to your neighbors. If you have a milk cow and have extra milk in most places you have to dump it. If you sell it to a neighbor you are breaking the law. If you have extra meat birds or a pig or a steer. You cannot have it butchered and sell it to your neighbors without it being USDA inspected and you have to have a retail food establishment license. The FDA is coming down even harder on small farmers and if you want to grow your business it is becoming hard and harder to make it financially feasible. Even if you jump through regulatory hoops you can still have your farm raided at 3 am by heavily armed men who treat you and your family like they are terrorists and get no reasonable explanation for why. You can be happily raising your livestock and one day the Department of Natural Resources, issues a decree that the animals you are raising are an illegal invasive species and if you don’t kill them all you will be faced with fines reaching nearly a million dollars because your animals have, floppy ears or straight ears, and hundred other traits and some that are “not yet known” to the DNR so they can call all of your animals illegal! The BLM can just decide your cattle are killing turtles, or a plant or whatever and kick you animals off the lease. Or they can decide they want your land for whatever purpose and force you to sell it at what they want to pay, or threaten you with eminent domain.
I think these letter agencies need to answer to the American public. If we have them they need to be elected not appointed. If you are up against these letter agencies how do you get a fair trial? I know plenty of farmers and ranchers have gone broke fighting for what is right. They keep the farmers and ranchers in court for years and use their unlimited funds from the American tax payers to put these farmers and ranchers out of business by bleeding them dry going through the courts. The Bundy affair is just a symptom of a very broken system. Right or wrong it was inspiring to see Americans stand up for something in and age of such apathy. I don’t pretend to know the politics or all the laws or regulations, but I think there must be a better way where the American farmers and ranchers can get fair shake.
I agree, it is about way more than cattle and turtles and if it sheds light on all these other issues, then yes, it's been a good thing.
I will more than readily admit that most if not all of these strangeholds are produced via liberals who have no idea what it takes to make these things work, at the same time, there are a few nuggetts in the crap pile. | |
| | |
Own It and Move On
Location: The edge of no where | Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-16 9:55 AM TXBO - 2014-04-16 9:35 AM MS2011 - 2014-04-16 9:18 AM Bibliafarm - 2014-04-16 9:11 AM first thing to came to mind was the Islam tactics.. give the children and women for sacrifice. might as well hook a bomb to them right. Women were used as a bluff, they knew the odds of the government shooting at them were slim to none. I wouldn't have had a problem being on the front line.
Where are children getting drug into this issue?
I will do some digging later, but it's been documented that MLK used children on the front lines to draw press and public sympathy. It did move the civil rights movement forward, but if you study some of the tatics used, I'm curious if everyone would still think they were the great leaders that they've been credited to be. I think the last book I read about it was "David and Goliath" by Malcom Gladwell. Anyone else read his books? Extremely well documented.
Are you suggesting that MLK was wrong to use that tactic or that MLK's use of the tactic makes it an appropriate tactic for these protestors?
Quid pro quo. Pick up a copy of "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo. Another leader that has been worshipped for abolishing slavery yet he was never an abolishinist.
I was was reading my 3rd grader's social studies book recently (he actually has that class with 4th grade) and I was absolutely APPALLED at what was written about the South, especially when compared to the other regions. We sat down and had an unschooling session. All they talked about was slavery due to cotton, segregation, and civil rights. That was it. Not a single positive word in the whole section, and nothing about the modern South (in great contrast to the info about other regions). I want to cry for all the kids that this is all they're getting. It's no freaking wonder the rest of the country looks down on us.
Shape and control the minds of the children, and you will rule all.
You've got a great point. What is being taught in schools is moving further and further from the truth.
It's important for us (as a people in general) to research and try to truly understand history. A great history professor is priceless, especially one that makes you study from several prospectives.
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| rodeomom13 - 2014-04-16 9:04 AM smiley - 2014-04-16 8:10 AM rodeomom13 - 2014-04-16 8:05 AM We may never know the real story. We have the Bundy's side of the story and the other side is what the BLM/government is allowing the media to tell us. I have yet to hear a consistent story. Other than he didn't pay his grazing fees for 20 years, and they are trying to protect some tortoise. So what? Why is the government going after them now and not 19 years ago when he was a year late paying? There is more than grazing fees and tortoises.
I don't agree with the militia tactics of putting women on the front, I cringed when I heard them say that. How is that going to help their cause? That's only going to make them look like cowardly idiots.
Right or wrong, I will take the side of someone like Bundy over the government any day. Especially the current government. Especially when Harry Reid is involved.
And that is exactly the problem, you've chosen a side even though you don't understand the issue. I have heard on my FB wall "I will side with the ones that look and act like me, white with cowboy hats" no kidding.
That is just how Obama got elected and what most of us have been complaining about since he was, but clearly it's a human condition to side with those that "look and act" like you do, despite facts to the contrary.
He comes off as a stubborn old kook, but what is he supposed to do when the BLM has bought out and run off all his neighbors? And for what? Ranchers are a dying breed, the government is issuing more and more rules and regulations across the country putting more ranchers out of business. What are they supposed to do?
I wonder if the current beef prices are having something to do with this. If I were him I would ship a few hundred and rebuild my herd on my own property. (just an afterthought)
I agree and I don't trust anyone, let alone the govt., but in this case it was pretty cut and dried and I'll say it ONE more time - it is the environmentalists following laws that were put in place in 1970 creating the issues for ranchers. The BLM is simply the vehicle they are using to get their work done. Look into the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, that's what they are using mostly to get their "turtles" to trump cattle. | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | equussynergy - 2014-04-16 9:55 AM If you think that this about land, cattle and tortoises. I think you are wrong. I think this is about unelected officials stepping on Americans and American farmers and ranchers. I pray this is a sign of Americans are getting tired of it. In America if you are a small farmer it is illegal for you to produce food and sell it to your neighbors. If you have a milk cow and have extra milk in most places you have to dump it. If you sell it to a neighbor you are breaking the law. If you have extra meat birds or a pig or a steer. You cannot have it butchered and sell it to your neighbors without it being USDA inspected and you have to have a retail food establishment license. The FDA is coming down even harder on small farmers and if you want to grow your business it is becoming hard and harder to make it financially feasible. Even if you jump through regulatory hoops you can still have your farm raided at 3 am by heavily armed men who treat you and your family like they are terrorists and get no reasonable explanation for why. You can be happily raising your livestock and one day the Department of Natural Resources, issues a decree that the animals you are raising are an illegal invasive species and if you don’t kill them all you will be faced with fines reaching nearly a million dollars because your animals have, floppy ears or straight ears, and hundred other traits and some that are “not yet known” to the DNR so they can call all of your animals illegal! The BLM can just decide your cattle are killing turtles, or a plant or whatever and kick you animals off the lease. Or they can decide they want your land for whatever purpose and force you to sell it at what they want to pay, or threaten you with eminent domain.
I think these letter agencies need to answer to the American public. If we have them they need to be elected not appointed. If you are up against these letter agencies how do you get a fair trial? I know plenty of farmers and ranchers have gone broke fighting for what is right. They keep the farmers and ranchers in court for years and use their unlimited funds from the American tax payers to put these farmers and ranchers out of business by bleeding them dry going through the courts. The Bundy affair is just a symptom of a very broken system. Right or wrong it was inspiring to see Americans stand up for something in and age of such apathy. I don’t pretend to know the politics or all the laws or regulations, but I think there must be a better way where the American farmers and ranchers can get fair shake.
Now we're talking. I don't know anything, to speak of, about Mr Bundy and his woes. For all I know this man is a crackpot. I don't know what's fact and what's fiction, but I haven't looked very hard either. Equussynergy hit the nail on the head. I'm not ready to think of this as some cause celebre for conservatism any more than I think of Timothy McVeigh as a poster boy for conservatism or Ted Kozinsky for liberalism. Right now, people are eager to latch on to just about anything because they see tryanny everywhere. "I just want to hit someone" has become their motto. In so doing, many well intended people find themselves supporting a cause that may end up being hypocritical. Then we are no better than people like Finney who are eager to jump on something like this, while ignoring the hypocrisy on their own side. | |
| | |
Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-16 8:20 AM It really kind of blows my mind that you guys (except TXBO) are willing to throw your women folk under the bus to prove a point. Do you know how insane and stupid that sounds? Why doesn't Fox News tell you why real, in office politicians are hands off this issue? After all, they have Obamacare. You might ask yourselves why only right wing media figures are like a dog with a bone on this story, and you might also ask the Bundys if they are willing to sacrifice their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters? Look at yourselves in the mirror. Better yet, look at a little kid, and say "Sorry honey, you have to die so I can prove how awful the Feds are." Sick the way you can just brush off what that guy, representing many others, said and just go on with your narrative.
Those extemists are crazies who do not reperesent the right. They are a fringe element. I travel in very conservative circles and I do not know a single one of them who aspires to the nonsense you like to post from sights that jump on the words of these fringe elements and present them as the way the right thinks. | |
| | |
Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| I have to confess
I have written a dozen replies to this thread and yet I can't hit submit because of one, the facts are gone. We don't know them anymore...any links listed are strained through whatever political agenda that the certain writer aspires to.
Secondly, I think now, for the first time people in general have no idea what's really truly going on in this country anymore...how can you stand for something when every time you stand, you're standing in mud?
Third, my trust for everyone here there and everywhere is zero and I have no idea if anything I post will backlash on my professional career. That's pretty darn sad that I feel censored because I have witnessed the worst in people here there and everywhere....
I think Hotbear is right, all great civilizations have fallen and we are on the brink.
All of this is heartbreaking. | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | smiley - 2014-04-16 10:14 AM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 8:30 AM smiley - 2014-04-15 8:03 PM And jsut like this story, Nevertooold, I am sure we are only getting the "right" side of Solyndra and every other issue. I'm not believing crap anymore. I have never seen a story so mangled as this one. There is no honor in journalism any longer, none. I used to think I could listen to some of these shows - like Hannity and get a fair view - I can't. They are all full of it. Daily Kos and a few others are the only ones even attempting to tell the real story. SO, we get half the story to p*** us all off and then we react just like they plan. It's all a game, I for one am done playing. If you don't like it - change it, not with guns and flags, but with votes and running for local office and contacting your reps and talking to others about voting. That's about all we have.
MaryAnna, I'm going to assume you were being facetious about the Daily Kos. If there is a more radical, progressive left wing blog I'd like to see it. I seriously doubt the Daily Kos would ever seek to tell the real story, unless it served to support a progressive cause or agenda. All you need to do is examine the list of contributors and writers for the Daily Kos to determine what they are all about. As far as objective journalism is concerned, I'm afraid that's been dead for a long time. There was a time when there were journalists placed a quest for factual information and the truth above their own political leanings, because they believed it was their calling. Today, that is all but extinct.
All we have today is a sharply divided country. As far as the "vote" being our only remaining tool, I'm afraid that's all but dead as well. The most powerful tool we have is the "vote" yet it seems to be irrelevant, both in terms of elections as well as in the legislatures. We have a President who can circumvent laws by executive order entirely for the purposes of political power. We are in trouble when the majority of voters elect a man who had an unimpressive resume' and virtually no record of noteworthy accomplishments. His election was all based on superficial impressions - speaking ability, skin color, and an ability to lie, deceive, and use cunning to mesmerize the masses. We all know about his role models, his associaltions, and his political appointees. This is not new. This is what happened in Germany in 1933. It's the same thing, except this is a different version, re-tooled for the new millennium.
This entire topic has merely reinforced my personal view that we are witnessing our own demise as a nation. If there's anything to be learned about history, it's that all powerful nations are eventually replaced. I think we missed out on an opportunity to heal and recover as a nation in 2012. This incident in Nevada is just a sign that we are living in an ideological pressure cooker, and we are being led by an evil empty suit.
Sometimes even a blind cat catches a mouse.
As to the demise, based on the knee jerk reactions and total emotion controlled responses, I think you are correct.
I figured as much, because if you knew anything about the Daily Kos, you wouldn't have read anything from that blog to begin with. Google them, look at their contributors and bloggers. I have a hard time believing they are a reliable source for any information, but then again, as you said, "even a blind cat catches a mouse". Blogs like this are adroit at crafting misinformation. Again, this has been done quite successfully in the past. Julius Streicher was a rabid antisemetic in Nazi Germany and a Nazi journalist who published "Der Stuermer", a vitriolic antisemetic newspaper that proved to be enormously powerful. In fact, it was deemed so powerful and so instrumental in fanning the flames of antisemetic hatred that Streicher was found guilty of crimes against humanity at Neuremberg and hung, even though he was not in the military and was not directly involved in the holocaust. I'm not suggesting The Daily Kos has reached that level, but their power is achieved in a similar fashion......lies, clever metaphor, distortions, and fomenting hate. | |
| | |
 Elite Veteran
Posts: 614
| I see fault on both sides from what has been reported but what has been reported needs a filter and digging to sort it out. The first interview I saw Mr. Bundy was dancing all around the questions whether on purpose or what I don't know and the interview didn't press him. I am sad that some of the conservative media started out stooping to liberal tactics and spinning this. I don't know which way it is going now i refuse to watch them because of it.
What is even sadder is that the only time we get a visit from people like FinneyQuarterHorses among a few more is to stir the crap. Yes I don't comment a lot on threads and I do post horse stuff and not get back to it all the time but still so sad that is what their main use of this board is. Oh well I clicked on it I own it so I commented so don't tell me I dont have to open it. | |
| | |
I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
Location: Online | I just saw a report, not sure if it was the whole story. But the BLM offered to sell Bundy's cattle to a Utah rancher for nearly $1,000,000 and recruited his cowboys to gather the cattle. But the Governor said that he would not allow the cattle to enter Utah. How is that not theft on the BLM's part? And if they were allowed to do that where would that money for the cattle go?
This whole thing is so messed up.
And to Finney, since I still have her on ignore I haven't read any of her posts except for the one Rodeomom3 quoted. I agree with what RM3 said. Don't lump all of us in that group of right wing extremists. Finney isn't helping her argument by accusing us of supporting those who will put women and children on the front line. It doesn't help the Bundy's cause either. Bluff or not, it's wrong. I also don't like seeing guys in battle gear packing AR-15s and SKS's in support of the Bundy's. That is not helping either. The BLM shouldn't be full battle gear pointing their weapons at Americans either. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | komet. - 2014-04-15 10:52 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 10:41 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 10:34 PM Here Girls! Something to make you Bundy supporters nervous if you are out there on the front lines with the militia: "It was Richard Mack, a former Arizona county sheriff and founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs, who had said Monday that the gathered self-described militia had considered using women as human shields if a gunfight with federal officials erupted. He elaborated on those comments Monday in an interview with radio host Ben Swann. “It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,” Mack said in comments flagged by The Raw Story. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.” “I’m sorry, that sounds horrible,” he continued. “I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. I would gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.” If you feel a hand in your back, I'd run. Also, Bundy says they have set up a PayPal Account for people to donate money to them (Color me surprised!), and they already have about $2000 in the Kitty. Just a side note on the financial side again, I read where Bundy says they own 160 acres of deeded ground, and lease the rest. He figures that he owes the Feds $300,000 instead of the $1.2M in fees and fines. If he was a private rancher with 500 cows out on grass @ the going rate of $500-600/cow/year, even at $500, that puts a private rancher's bill at $250,000 per year or in Bundy Years ($250,000 x 20 years) $5,000,000. Yes that is 5 million dollars. You can haul a lot of water for that. Got a live link Finney, instead of some driveby copy 'n paste? Cause with nothing to validate your 'story', it didn't happen. Jus' sayin'. It's out there.... "......In a statement to Fox News on Monday that was first flagged by Glenn Beck’s The Blaze, former Sheriff Richard Mack talked about his strategy to put women on the front lines if a gunfight broke out....." Here it is on video.. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/15/former-sheriff-women-need-to-...
I am just now getting back to this..........................And watched the video and read the text. I am appalled! MY wife would NOT be in front of me! NO WAY NO HOW! Nor MY Sisters! However, this Retired Sheriff referenced what happened at Ruby Ridge Idaho in 1992 when The BATFE shot Vicki Weaver through her head holding a (I suspect her own ) baby in front of her daughter. Yes, this is HISTORICAL Fact! Ret. Sheriff Mack stated both in the text and verbally, he was attempting to employ this strategy, but he never claimed everyone was on board on with it. So, again Ms. Finney you are 'cherry picking' the event for your own use. Not surprising when You are defending Yourself. AND NO! I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS STRATEGY OR TACTIC!!!!!!!!!!!!! | |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 2036
Location: Montana | Just a quick comment; I am offended that some seem to think that women can't decide for themselves to take the lead... Women are just as formatible as men, though in different ways. All the comments condeming the "men" for putting their "women" out front; I say phhhhtttt, those women chose to stand up for what they believed was the right thing to do. As for the children; they should never be put into that type of situation. | |
| | |
I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | equussynergy - 2014-04-16 9:55 AM If you think that this about land, cattle and tortoises. I think you are wrong. I think this is about unelected officials stepping on Americans and American farmers and ranchers. I pray this is a sign of Americans are getting tired of it. In America if you are a small farmer it is illegal for you to produce food and sell it to your neighbors. If you have a milk cow and have extra milk in most places you have to dump it. If you sell it to a neighbor you are breaking the law. If you have extra meat birds or a pig or a steer. You cannot have it butchered and sell it to your neighbors without it being USDA inspected and you have to have a retail food establishment license. The FDA is coming down even harder on small farmers and if you want to grow your business it is becoming hard and harder to make it financially feasible. Even if you jump through regulatory hoops you can still have your farm raided at 3 am by heavily armed men who treat you and your family like they are terrorists and get no reasonable explanation for why. You can be happily raising your livestock and one day the Department of Natural Resources, issues a decree that the animals you are raising are an illegal invasive species and if you don’t kill them all you will be faced with fines reaching nearly a million dollars because your animals have, floppy ears or straight ears, and hundred other traits and some that are “not yet known” to the DNR so they can call all of your animals illegal! The BLM can just decide your cattle are killing turtles, or a plant or whatever and kick you animals off the lease. Or they can decide they want your land for whatever purpose and force you to sell it at what they want to pay, or threaten you with eminent domain.
I think these letter agencies need to answer to the American public. If we have them they need to be elected not appointed. If you are up against these letter agencies how do you get a fair trial? I know plenty of farmers and ranchers have gone broke fighting for what is right. They keep the farmers and ranchers in court for years and use their unlimited funds from the American tax payers to put these farmers and ranchers out of business by bleeding them dry going through the courts. The Bundy affair is just a symptom of a very broken system. Right or wrong it was inspiring to see Americans stand up for something in and age of such apathy. I don’t pretend to know the politics or all the laws or regulations, but I think there must be a better way where the American farmers and ranchers can get fair shake.
I agree and many people are not getting that it's not about this guy owing the government, it's way bigger then that. Too bad the government didn't use these resources to do something actually useful like defending our borders but we now know O doesn't want to defend our borders. It's not one of his chosen law breaking things he wants to address. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Here is something I've not seen yet:
I would be willing to bet that everyone in Nevada who has been videoed or photographed on the opposing side to the FEDS in and around Bunkerville has had their image(s) run through facial recognition software by The NSA via The DHS and will be 'hearing' from The FEDs either via The IRS or some other Alphabet Agency! | |
| | |
Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| foundation horse - 2014-04-17 9:58 AM Here is something I've not seen yet: I would be willing to bet that everyone in Nevada who has been videoed or photographed on the opposing side to the FEDS in and around Bunkerville has had their image(s) run through facial recognition software by The NSA via The DHS and will be 'hearing' from The FEDs either via The IRS or some other Alphabet Agency!
I trade them. All the illegals in my back yard for all the cattle and turtles in Nevada. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | RidenFly - 2014-04-16 12:00 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-17 9:58 AM Here is something I've not seen yet: I would be willing to bet that everyone in Nevada who has been videoed or photographed on the opposing side to the FEDS in and around Bunkerville has had their image(s) run through facial recognition software by The NSA via The DHS and will be 'hearing' from The FEDs either via The IRS or some other Alphabet Agency!
I trade them. All the illegals in my back yard for all the cattle and turtles in Nevada.
And I am confident you would come out ahead! hehheeeheh | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| foundation horse - 2014-04-16 11:30 AM
komet. - 2014-04-15 10:52 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-15 10:41 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-15 10:34 PM Here Girls! Something to make you Bundy supporters nervous if you are out there on the front lines with the militia: "It was Richard Mack, a former Arizona county sheriff and founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs, who had said Monday that the gathered self-described militia had considered using women as human shields if a gunfight with federal officials erupted. He elaborated on those comments Monday in an interview with radio host Ben Swann. “It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,” Mack said in comments flagged by The Raw Story. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.” “I’m sorry, that sounds horrible,” he continued. “I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. I would gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.” If you feel a hand in your back, I'd run. Also, Bundy says they have set up a PayPal Account for people to donate money to them (Color me surprised!), and they already have about $2000 in the Kitty. Just a side note on the financial side again, I read where Bundy says they own 160 acres of deeded ground, and lease the rest. He figures that he owes the Feds $300,000 instead of the $1.2M in fees and fines. If he was a private rancher with 500 cows out on grass @ the going rate of $500-600/cow/year, even at $500, that puts a private rancher's bill at $250,000 per year or in Bundy Years ($250,000 x 20 years) $5,000,000. Yes that is 5 million dollars. You can haul a lot of water for that. Got a live link Finney, instead of some driveby copy 'n paste? Cause with nothing to validate your 'story', it didn't happen. Jus' sayin'. It's out there.... "......In a statement to Fox News on Monday that was first flagged by Glenn Beck’s The Blaze, former Sheriff Richard Mack talked about his strategy to put women on the front lines if a gunfight broke out....." Here it is on video.. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/15/former-sheriff-women-need-to-...
I am just now getting back to this..........................And watched the video and read the text. I am appalled! MY wife would NOT be in front of me! NO WAY NO HOW! Nor MY Sisters! However, this Retired Sheriff referenced what happened at Ruby Ridge Idaho in 1992 when The BATFE shot Vicki Weaver through her head holding a (I suspect her own ) baby in front of her daughter. Yes, this is HISTORICAL Fact! Ret. Sheriff Mack stated both in the text and verbally, he was attempting to employ this strategy, but he never claimed everyone was on board on with it. So, again Ms. Finney you are 'cherry picking' the event for your own use. Not surprising when You are defending Yourself. AND NO! I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS STRATEGY OR TACTIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I could not agree more with you on this FH. The statement by the ex sheriff was by far the dumbest statement in this whole thing. Thankfully better heads prevailed. But I am far more outraged that at the fact that an agency of our government showed up as paramilitary to service a court order in a CIVIL case. A misdemeanor for crying out loud. | |
| | |
Own It and Move On
Location: The edge of no where | Bandit94 - 2014-04-16 11:50 AM Just a quick comment; I am offended that some seem to think that women can't decide for themselves to take the lead... Women are just as formatible as men, though in different ways. All the comments condeming the "men" for putting their "women" out front; I say phhhhtttt, those women chose to stand up for what they believed was the right thing to do. As for the children; they should never be put into that type of situation.
Thank you!!
I find it belittling to think that I couldn't make this kind of decision for myself. It's a matter of weighing the risks and deciding.
My man would never choose to make those decisions for me, he knew I would do whatever I ****ed well wanted when he married me! He respects my choices.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | This is as close to explaining this fiasco as anything I have seen:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=299412876875209&set=a.147847...
| |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 2036
Location: Montana | MS2011 - 2014-04-16 10:05 AM Bandit94 - 2014-04-16 11:50 AM Just a quick comment; I am offended that some seem to think that women can't decide for themselves to take the lead... Women are just as formatible as men, though in different ways. All the comments condeming the "men" for putting their "women" out front; I say phhhhtttt, those women chose to stand up for what they believed was the right thing to do. As for the children; they should never be put into that type of situation. Thank you!!
I find it belittling to think that I couldn't make this kind of decision for myself. It's a matter of weighing the risks and deciding.
My man would never choose to make those decisions for me, he knew I would do whatever I ****ed well wanted when he married me! He respects my choices.
I know, right... I am the same way.. NOBODY makes me do anything... | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Bandit94 - 2014-04-16 11:13 AM MS2011 - 2014-04-16 10:05 AM Bandit94 - 2014-04-16 11:50 AM Just a quick comment; I am offended that some seem to think that women can't decide for themselves to take the lead... Women are just as formatible as men, though in different ways. All the comments condeming the "men" for putting their "women" out front; I say phhhhtttt, those women chose to stand up for what they believed was the right thing to do. As for the children; they should never be put into that type of situation. Thank you!!
I find it belittling to think that I couldn't make this kind of decision for myself. It's a matter of weighing the risks and deciding.
My man would never choose to make those decisions for me, he knew I would do whatever I ****ed well wanted when he married me! He respects my choices.
You're also probably not a Mormon's wife - right? | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 9:48 AM equussynergy - 2014-04-16 9:55 AM If you think that this about land, cattle and tortoises. I think you are wrong. I think this is about unelected officials stepping on Americans and American farmers and ranchers. I pray this is a sign of Americans are getting tired of it. In America if you are a small farmer it is illegal for you to produce food and sell it to your neighbors. If you have a milk cow and have extra milk in most places you have to dump it. If you sell it to a neighbor you are breaking the law. If you have extra meat birds or a pig or a steer. You cannot have it butchered and sell it to your neighbors without it being USDA inspected and you have to have a retail food establishment license. The FDA is coming down even harder on small farmers and if you want to grow your business it is becoming hard and harder to make it financially feasible. Even if you jump through regulatory hoops you can still have your farm raided at 3 am by heavily armed men who treat you and your family like they are terrorists and get no reasonable explanation for why. You can be happily raising your livestock and one day the Department of Natural Resources, issues a decree that the animals you are raising are an illegal invasive species and if you don’t kill them all you will be faced with fines reaching nearly a million dollars because your animals have, floppy ears or straight ears, and hundred other traits and some that are “not yet known” to the DNR so they can call all of your animals illegal! The BLM can just decide your cattle are killing turtles, or a plant or whatever and kick you animals off the lease. Or they can decide they want your land for whatever purpose and force you to sell it at what they want to pay, or threaten you with eminent domain.
I think these letter agencies need to answer to the American public. If we have them they need to be elected not appointed. If you are up against these letter agencies how do you get a fair trial? I know plenty of farmers and ranchers have gone broke fighting for what is right. They keep the farmers and ranchers in court for years and use their unlimited funds from the American tax payers to put these farmers and ranchers out of business by bleeding them dry going through the courts. The Bundy affair is just a symptom of a very broken system. Right or wrong it was inspiring to see Americans stand up for something in and age of such apathy. I don’t pretend to know the politics or all the laws or regulations, but I think there must be a better way where the American farmers and ranchers can get fair shake.
Now we're talking. I don't know anything, to speak of, about Mr Bundy and his woes. For all I know this man is a crackpot. I don't know what's fact and what's fiction, but I haven't looked very hard either. Equussynergy hit the nail on the head. I'm not ready to think of this as some cause celebre for conservatism any more than I think of Timothy McVeigh as a poster boy for conservatism or Ted Kozinsky for liberalism. Right now, people are eager to latch on to just about anything because they see tryanny everywhere. "I just want to hit someone" has become their motto. In so doing, many well intended people find themselves supporting a cause that may end up being hypocritical. Then we are no better than people like Finney who are eager to jump on something like this, while ignoring the hypocrisy on their own side.
I do not normally agree with any of these people on most things and that makes me question my previous blindness in possible issues based on half assed media and information.
I think this is a cheap shot too - I'm not sure who Finney is but clearly he or she has garnered some real backlash on this site. I'm not sure if it's warranted, but as for me I think that he/she's been treated pretty poorly on this thread. Again, I haven't been around much, but there are some pretty rude comments to her for a view that many actually share.
| |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 2036
Location: Montana | smiley - 2014-04-16 10:18 AM Bandit94 - 2014-04-16 11:13 AM MS2011 - 2014-04-16 10:05 AM Bandit94 - 2014-04-16 11:50 AM Just a quick comment; I am offended that some seem to think that women can't decide for themselves to take the lead... Women are just as formatible as men, though in different ways. All the comments condeming the "men" for putting their "women" out front; I say phhhhtttt, those women chose to stand up for what they believed was the right thing to do. As for the children; they should never be put into that type of situation. Thank you!!
I find it belittling to think that I couldn't make this kind of decision for myself. It's a matter of weighing the risks and deciding.
My man would never choose to make those decisions for me, he knew I would do whatever I ****ed well wanted when he married me! He respects my choices.
HA...No, I am not Mormon. I do however have many friends that are and those that I know aren't going to do that unless they choose to. Honestly, most of those women are ranch or farm women who are concerned with the issues that are affecting their livelyhoods. For all of the comments pertaining to the legality of Mr. Bundy; I believe that it isn't really about Bundy, it is about the gov. taking over the west for its own interests. Destroying the western way of life in order to control our food, water and ulimately a section of the population that is far to independent for the governmental agenda. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Bandit94 - 2014-04-16 12:13 PM MS2011 - 2014-04-16 10:05 AM Bandit94 - 2014-04-16 11:50 AM Just a quick comment; I am offended that some seem to think that women can't decide for themselves to take the lead... Women are just as formatible as men, though in different ways. All the comments condeming the "men" for putting their "women" out front; I say phhhhtttt, those women chose to stand up for what they believed was the right thing to do. As for the children; they should never be put into that type of situation. Thank you!!
I find it belittling to think that I couldn't make this kind of decision for myself. It's a matter of weighing the risks and deciding.
My man would never choose to make those decisions for me, he knew I would do whatever I ****ed well wanted when he married me! He respects my choices.
I am woman.... Hear me roar! | |
| | |
Swiffer PIcker Upper
Posts: 4015
Location: Four Corners Colorado | TXBO - 2014-04-16 11:53 AM Bandit94 - 2014-04-16 12:13 PM MS2011 - 2014-04-16 10:05 AM Bandit94 - 2014-04-16 11:50 AM Just a quick comment; I am offended that some seem to think that women can't decide for themselves to take the lead... Women are just as formatible as men, though in different ways. All the comments condeming the "men" for putting their "women" out front; I say phhhhtttt, those women chose to stand up for what they believed was the right thing to do. As for the children; they should never be put into that type of situation. Thank you!!
I find it belittling to think that I couldn't make this kind of decision for myself. It's a matter of weighing the risks and deciding.
My man would never choose to make those decisions for me, he knew I would do whatever I ****ed well wanted when he married me! He respects my choices.
Lol I used to be one of those too but not anymore. I'd type more on the subject but that is a can of worms for another another day! | |
| | |
I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
Location: Online | Bandit94 - 2014-04-16 11:36 AM smiley - 2014-04-16 10:18 AM Bandit94 - 2014-04-16 11:13 AM MS2011 - 2014-04-16 10:05 AM Bandit94 - 2014-04-16 11:50 AM Just a quick comment; I am offended that some seem to think that women can't decide for themselves to take the lead... Women are just as formatible as men, though in different ways. All the comments condeming the "men" for putting their "women" out front; I say phhhhtttt, those women chose to stand up for what they believed was the right thing to do. As for the children; they should never be put into that type of situation. Thank you!!
I find it belittling to think that I couldn't make this kind of decision for myself. It's a matter of weighing the risks and deciding.
My man would never choose to make those decisions for me, he knew I would do whatever I ****ed well wanted when he married me! He respects my choices.
Now that's a good point Bandit. As long as it's the women's choice to be up front, than that's ok with me. As long as they are not forced. Women's rights, you know.
I grew up in a Mormon family and my mom, my sister and sister in law are practicing Mormons and I guarantee you know one has ever, or will never tell them what to do or how to do it. Not all Mormon men are women controlling pigs. But let's not turn this into a religion discussion. Please???
| |
| | |
Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| Has this scenario been discussed yet?
![From the Support Cliven Bundy FB Page:
Please Share, this needs to go viral.
From Doug Hagmann
At 1750 hours ET, I was contacted by my source within the Department of Homeland Security regarding the current situation at the Bundy Ranch. To put it bluntly, the people are being hoodwinked into believing that the situation is being resolved. It is not. It is a strategic de-escalation to fool the public. This source stated that the retreat of the BLM agents and the release of the cattle was actually crafted as a potential plan yesterday <b></b>(Friday, 11 April 2014<b></b>) based on the following:
1. A military assessment of satellite and drone surveillance imagery of the “patriot resistance. Drones under the control of the U.S. military were in use, taking real-time photographic images of not just the activity at the ranch, but "identifying the protesters, any arms and any supplies they might have or be carrying. “Mission accomplished.”
2. Real-time communication intercepts between patriots on-site and their off-site support;
3. Active monitoring of internet traffic regarding the coverage of events at ranch;
4. The monitoring of real-time video from the scene.
This source stated that a response by the patriot movement was anticipated, although exceeded their expectations. Although this was a real operation, they also ran this as a test case for future government operations once they saw the response. They were also actively managing the media, in some cases threatening to cut off White House access to anyone covering the event.
Despite this, the coverage by the alternative media began to create a public relations problem that was not easily managed. Note the lack of acknowledgment by the White House regarding this event. They are intentionally framing it as a state issue, despite the fact that all federal response has been and continues to be from the White House. There is a reason for this – a reason that has not been identified in any of the public reports to date. I will explain in further detail in a follow-up report on Sunday, after this source attends [redacted] to obtain more specific information about future federal operations. Regardless, according to this source, the government will take back ‘their land’ as they must to fulfill international obligations. It was never about grazing rights or anything other than <b></b>(1<b></b>) “securing clear title” to the land, and <b></b>(2<b></b>) further demonizing any patriotic resistance. It is my understanding, based on the information from this source, that it is a critical task to create a situation that will also advance their agenda of gun control and confiscation.
A more detailed report will follow on Sunday, 13 April 2014, with additional and much more specific information about their inside plans and future operations.PLEASE MAKE THIS VIRAL!
#OathBeforeOrders](https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/s851x315/10171018_10152030626247011_2229938292183078861_n.jpg)
Also did anyone realize that area 51 is very close to this ranch? I know I'm throwing noodles on the fridge but I always try and see if there is more to a situation than beats the eye. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | RidenFly - 2014-04-16 1:29 PM
Has this scenario been discussed yet?
![From the Support Cliven Bundy FB Page: <br/>
Please Share, this needs to go viral. <br/>
<br/>
From Doug Hagmann <br/>
<br/>
At 1750 hours ET, I was contacted by my source within the Department of Homeland Security regarding the current situation at the Bundy Ranch. To put it bluntly, the people are being hoodwinked into believing that the situation is being resolved. It is not. It is a strategic de-escalation to fool the public. This source stated that the retreat of the BLM agents and the release of the cattle was actually crafted as a potential plan yesterday <b></b>(Friday, 11 April 2014<b></b>) based on the following: <br/>
<br/>
1. A military assessment of satellite and drone surveillance imagery of the “patriot resistance. Drones under the control of the U.S. military were in use, taking real-time photographic images of not just the activity at the ranch, but]()
2. Real-time communication intercepts between patriots on-site and their off-site support;
3. Active monitoring of internet traffic regarding the coverage of events at ranch;
4. The monitoring of real-time video from the scene.
This source stated that a response by the patriot movement was anticipated, although exceeded their expectations. Although this was a real operation, they also ran this as a test case for future government operations once they saw the response. They were also actively managing the media, in some cases threatening to cut off White House access to anyone covering the event.
Despite this, the coverage by the alternative media began to create a public relations problem that was not easily managed. Note the lack of acknowledgment by the White House regarding this event. They are intentionally framing it as a state issue, despite the fact that all federal response has been and continues to be from the White House. There is a reason for this – a reason that has not been identified in any of the public reports to date. I will explain in further detail in a follow-up report on Sunday, after this source attends [redacted] to obtain more specific information about future federal operations. Regardless, according to this source, the government will take back ‘their land’ as they must to fulfill international obligations. It was never about grazing rights or anything other than (1 ) “securing clear title” to the land, and (2 ) further demonizing any patriotic resistance. It is my understanding, based on the information from this source, that it is a critical task to create a situation that will also advance their agenda of gun control and confiscation.
A more detailed report will follow on Sunday, 13 April 2014, with additional and much more specific information about their inside plans and future operations.PLEASE MAKE THIS VIRAL!
#OathBeforeOrders" class="_46-i img" src="https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/s851x315/10171018_10152030626247011_2229938292183078861_n.jpg" style="height:315px; left:-1px; top:0px; width:472px" /> Also did anyone realize that area 51 is very close to this ranch? I know I'm throwing noodles on the fridge but I always try and see if there is more to a situation than beats the eye.
Oh yes.... Go back and watch the video posted.. LOL!!! | |
| | |
I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls. | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | This is fun: Note to all Users: This is a Federal Government computer system. Use of this system constitutes consent to monitoring at all times.
Boo!!!! I wonder if they're watching me through my web cam and listening to me curse their stupid selves...jumping through more hoops every year.  My conspiracy theory tin-foil hat wearing side is having a hay-day right now. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 2:01 PM
They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls.
I wonder what they were 'prized' for.. | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | smiley - 2014-04-16 12:20 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 9:48 AM equussynergy - 2014-04-16 9:55 AM If you think that this about land, cattle and tortoises. I think you are wrong. I think this is about unelected officials stepping on Americans and American farmers and ranchers. I pray this is a sign of Americans are getting tired of it. In America if you are a small farmer it is illegal for you to produce food and sell it to your neighbors. If you have a milk cow and have extra milk in most places you have to dump it. If you sell it to a neighbor you are breaking the law. If you have extra meat birds or a pig or a steer. You cannot have it butchered and sell it to your neighbors without it being USDA inspected and you have to have a retail food establishment license. The FDA is coming down even harder on small farmers and if you want to grow your business it is becoming hard and harder to make it financially feasible. Even if you jump through regulatory hoops you can still have your farm raided at 3 am by heavily armed men who treat you and your family like they are terrorists and get no reasonable explanation for why. You can be happily raising your livestock and one day the Department of Natural Resources, issues a decree that the animals you are raising are an illegal invasive species and if you don’t kill them all you will be faced with fines reaching nearly a million dollars because your animals have, floppy ears or straight ears, and hundred other traits and some that are “not yet known” to the DNR so they can call all of your animals illegal! The BLM can just decide your cattle are killing turtles, or a plant or whatever and kick you animals off the lease. Or they can decide they want your land for whatever purpose and force you to sell it at what they want to pay, or threaten you with eminent domain.
I think these letter agencies need to answer to the American public. If we have them they need to be elected not appointed. If you are up against these letter agencies how do you get a fair trial? I know plenty of farmers and ranchers have gone broke fighting for what is right. They keep the farmers and ranchers in court for years and use their unlimited funds from the American tax payers to put these farmers and ranchers out of business by bleeding them dry going through the courts. The Bundy affair is just a symptom of a very broken system. Right or wrong it was inspiring to see Americans stand up for something in and age of such apathy. I don’t pretend to know the politics or all the laws or regulations, but I think there must be a better way where the American farmers and ranchers can get fair shake.
Now we're talking. I don't know anything, to speak of, about Mr Bundy and his woes. For all I know this man is a crackpot. I don't know what's fact and what's fiction, but I haven't looked very hard either. Equussynergy hit the nail on the head. I'm not ready to think of this as some cause celebre for conservatism any more than I think of Timothy McVeigh as a poster boy for conservatism or Ted Kozinsky for liberalism. Right now, people are eager to latch on to just about anything because they see tryanny everywhere. "I just want to hit someone" has become their motto. In so doing, many well intended people find themselves supporting a cause that may end up being hypocritical. Then we are no better than people like Finney who are eager to jump on something like this, while ignoring the hypocrisy on their own side.
I think this is a cheap shot too - I'm not sure who Finney is but clearly he or she has garnered some real backlash on this site. I'm not sure if it's warranted, but as for me I think that he/she's been treated pretty poorly on this thread. Again, I haven't been around much, but there are some pretty rude comments to her for a view that many actually share.
Smiley, as you said, you aren't sure who Finney is, but if you would have been on here with any degree of regularity for about a year before the 2012 election, you would understand. If the truth is a cheap shot, then so be it. She would post something much more partisan and incendiary, usually in the form of a long C&P from MSNBC or a blog such as the "Think Progress", the "Domcratic Underground", or...."The Daily Kos". Typically, she would preface the C&P with a comment of her own, mainly to make the post more caustic. She'd then disappear after stirring the pot and generating dozens of responses from predominately conservative-minded people. Sometimes she would respond, a day or two later with another 1-2 sentence retort, supplemented with another lengthy C&P, yada, yada, yada. That was the pattern, until eventually people got smart and refused to react. After a while, her threads tended to just drift away, and so did Finney. Perhaps Finney has re-tooled her tactics while away on sabbatical, but I am inclined to think not.
That's not a cheap shot. That's what happened. Personally, I didn't mind it at all, because it gave me an opportunity to shoot holes in the progressive-liberal agenda. I will admit, and I have said this several times before, I find it hard to repect the views of someone who has never ever been able to muster the intellectual courage to criticise someone in their own political party or someone who espouses the same political philosophy. She has never criticised anything progressive and has never criticised another Democrat.
Compare that with someone like TxBO who is unafraid to say when he thinks something or someone is wrong, regardless of their underlying political agenda. There are plenty of conservative-minded people on this board who have this kind of intellectual honesty. Finney doesn't. | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | komet. - 2014-04-16 2:06 PM Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 2:01 PM They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls. I wonder what they were 'prized' for..
prized bulls....that was funny
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 1:01 PM They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls.
Then if they were so prized - they shouldn't have been off the 160 acre Bundy ranch, which resides on private property. They charged the agents and were shot. Fencing would be destroyed if it was on federal land that they needed access to. They will probably send Bundy a bill for their work too. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 1:07 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 12:20 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 9:48 AM equussynergy - 2014-04-16 9:55 AM If you think that this about land, cattle and tortoises. I think you are wrong. I think this is about unelected officials stepping on Americans and American farmers and ranchers. I pray this is a sign of Americans are getting tired of it. In America if you are a small farmer it is illegal for you to produce food and sell it to your neighbors. If you have a milk cow and have extra milk in most places you have to dump it. If you sell it to a neighbor you are breaking the law. If you have extra meat birds or a pig or a steer. You cannot have it butchered and sell it to your neighbors without it being USDA inspected and you have to have a retail food establishment license. The FDA is coming down even harder on small farmers and if you want to grow your business it is becoming hard and harder to make it financially feasible. Even if you jump through regulatory hoops you can still have your farm raided at 3 am by heavily armed men who treat you and your family like they are terrorists and get no reasonable explanation for why. You can be happily raising your livestock and one day the Department of Natural Resources, issues a decree that the animals you are raising are an illegal invasive species and if you don’t kill them all you will be faced with fines reaching nearly a million dollars because your animals have, floppy ears or straight ears, and hundred other traits and some that are “not yet known” to the DNR so they can call all of your animals illegal! The BLM can just decide your cattle are killing turtles, or a plant or whatever and kick you animals off the lease. Or they can decide they want your land for whatever purpose and force you to sell it at what they want to pay, or threaten you with eminent domain.
I think these letter agencies need to answer to the American public. If we have them they need to be elected not appointed. If you are up against these letter agencies how do you get a fair trial? I know plenty of farmers and ranchers have gone broke fighting for what is right. They keep the farmers and ranchers in court for years and use their unlimited funds from the American tax payers to put these farmers and ranchers out of business by bleeding them dry going through the courts. The Bundy affair is just a symptom of a very broken system. Right or wrong it was inspiring to see Americans stand up for something in and age of such apathy. I don’t pretend to know the politics or all the laws or regulations, but I think there must be a better way where the American farmers and ranchers can get fair shake.
Now we're talking. I don't know anything, to speak of, about Mr Bundy and his woes. For all I know this man is a crackpot. I don't know what's fact and what's fiction, but I haven't looked very hard either. Equussynergy hit the nail on the head. I'm not ready to think of this as some cause celebre for conservatism any more than I think of Timothy McVeigh as a poster boy for conservatism or Ted Kozinsky for liberalism. Right now, people are eager to latch on to just about anything because they see tryanny everywhere. "I just want to hit someone" has become their motto. In so doing, many well intended people find themselves supporting a cause that may end up being hypocritical. Then we are no better than people like Finney who are eager to jump on something like this, while ignoring the hypocrisy on their own side.
I think this is a cheap shot too - I'm not sure who Finney is but clearly he or she has garnered some real backlash on this site. I'm not sure if it's warranted, but as for me I think that he/she's been treated pretty poorly on this thread. Again, I haven't been around much, but there are some pretty rude comments to her for a view that many actually share.
That's not a cheap shot. That's what happened. Personally, I didn't mind it at all, because it gave me an opportunity to shoot holes in the progressive-liberal agenda. I will admit, and I have said this several times before, I find it hard to repect the views of someone who has never ever been able to muster the intellectual courage to criticise someone in their own political party or someone who espouses the same political philosophy. She has never criticised anything progressive and has never criticised another Democrat.
Compare that with someone like TxBO who is unafraid to say when he thinks something or someone is wrong, regardless of their underlying political agenda. There are plenty of conservative-minded people on this board who have this kind of intellectual honesty. Finney doesn't.
Touche' | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM
Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 1:01 PM They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls.
Then if they were so prized - they shouldn't have been off the 160 acre Bundy ranch, which resides on private property. They charged the agents and were shot. Fencing would be destroyed if it was on federal land that they needed access to. They will probably send Bundy a bill for their work too.
And just how pray tell is a bull (prized or otherwise) going to fulfill it biological function (of breeding cows) if it is not out w/ the herd? | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| dhdqhllc - 2014-04-16 2:20 PM komet. - 2014-04-16 2:06 PM Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 2:01 PM They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls. I wonder what they were 'prized' for..
1st Place in the Bunkerville Fair and Rodeo | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-16 1:30 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 1:01 PM They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls.
Then if they were so prized - they shouldn't have been off the 160 acre Bundy ranch, which resides on private property. They charged the agents and were shot. Fencing would be destroyed if it was on federal land that they needed access to. They will probably send Bundy a bill for their work too. And just how pray tell is a bull (prized or otherwise ) going to fulfill it biological function (of breeding cows ) if it is not out w/ the herd?
They knew the BLM was coming, if they wanted to save their cattle they'd have rounded them up. Instead, they wanted chaos and anarchy and they wanted something to go down, well it did. And you can just as easily bring your cows to your bulls as you can just turn out a bull with all sizes and bred cows - I don't believe it's great cattle art to put your bull with cows that are already bred, close to calving, young steers and brand new calves. At least that's what my husband said and he has a bit of experience.
If they were prized - and to whom were they prized? I don't think they were hauling these bulls to shows were they? They they should have taken the preventative measures to ensure their bulls were not injured. JMO of course. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 2:07 PM
smiley - 2014-04-16 12:20 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 9:48 AM equussynergy - 2014-04-16 9:55 AM If you think that this about land, cattle and tortoises. I think you are wrong. I think this is about unelected officials stepping on Americans and American farmers and ranchers. I pray this is a sign of Americans are getting tired of it. In America if you are a small farmer it is illegal for you to produce food and sell it to your neighbors. If you have a milk cow and have extra milk in most places you have to dump it. If you sell it to a neighbor you are breaking the law. If you have extra meat birds or a pig or a steer. You cannot have it butchered and sell it to your neighbors without it being USDA inspected and you have to have a retail food establishment license. The FDA is coming down even harder on small farmers and if you want to grow your business it is becoming hard and harder to make it financially feasible. Even if you jump through regulatory hoops you can still have your farm raided at 3 am by heavily armed men who treat you and your family like they are terrorists and get no reasonable explanation for why. You can be happily raising your livestock and one day the Department of Natural Resources, issues a decree that the animals you are raising are an illegal invasive species and if you don’t kill them all you will be faced with fines reaching nearly a million dollars because your animals have, floppy ears or straight ears, and hundred other traits and some that are “not yet known” to the DNR so they can call all of your animals illegal! The BLM can just decide your cattle are killing turtles, or a plant or whatever and kick you animals off the lease. Or they can decide they want your land for whatever purpose and force you to sell it at what they want to pay, or threaten you with eminent domain.
I think these letter agencies need to answer to the American public. If we have them they need to be elected not appointed. If you are up against these letter agencies how do you get a fair trial? I know plenty of farmers and ranchers have gone broke fighting for what is right. They keep the farmers and ranchers in court for years and use their unlimited funds from the American tax payers to put these farmers and ranchers out of business by bleeding them dry going through the courts. The Bundy affair is just a symptom of a very broken system. Right or wrong it was inspiring to see Americans stand up for something in and age of such apathy. I don’t pretend to know the politics or all the laws or regulations, but I think there must be a better way where the American farmers and ranchers can get fair shake.
Now we're talking. I don't know anything, to speak of, about Mr Bundy and his woes. For all I know this man is a crackpot. I don't know what's fact and what's fiction, but I haven't looked very hard either. Equussynergy hit the nail on the head. I'm not ready to think of this as some cause celebre for conservatism any more than I think of Timothy McVeigh as a poster boy for conservatism or Ted Kozinsky for liberalism. Right now, people are eager to latch on to just about anything because they see tryanny everywhere. "I just want to hit someone" has become their motto. In so doing, many well intended people find themselves supporting a cause that may end up being hypocritical. Then we are no better than people like Finney who are eager to jump on something like this, while ignoring the hypocrisy on their own side.
I think this is a cheap shot too - I'm not sure who Finney is but clearly he or she has garnered some real backlash on this site. I'm not sure if it's warranted, but as for me I think that he/she's been treated pretty poorly on this thread. Again, I haven't been around much, but there are some pretty rude comments to her for a view that many actually share.
That's not a cheap shot. That's what happened. Personally, I didn't mind it at all, because it gave me an opportunity to shoot holes in the progressive-liberal agenda. I will admit, and I have said this several times before, I find it hard to repect the views of someone who has never ever been able to muster the intellectual courage to criticise someone in their own political party or someone who espouses the same political philosophy. She has never criticised anything progressive and has never criticised another Democrat.
Compare that with someone like TxBO who is unafraid to say when he thinks something or someone is wrong, regardless of their underlying political agenda. There are plenty of conservative-minded people on this board who have this kind of intellectual honesty. Finney doesn't.
Mrs. Finney's historical M.O. has been to C&P something very incendiary in analogy 'passing wind' in a crowd of people and then running off laughing.
And her last post that I quoted was as cherry picked as they come! She was attempting to stir the majority members (women's) emotions with the idea of morals, chivalry and the implication of cowardice. Notice she would not paste a validated live link to her info?
And when said Info was examined and analyzed, said action never actually took place. But VOILA! Mrs. Finney has created that proverbial sh!tstorm she is so historically famous for.
Let me put me it this way, should Mrs. Finney have something for sell: I AIN'T buying! I vote with my hard earned dollars and I DO NOT support Progressive/Liberal Politics! | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-16 2:39 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-16 1:30 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 1:01 PM They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls.
Then if they were so prized - they shouldn't have been off the 160 acre Bundy ranch, which resides on private property. They charged the agents and were shot. Fencing would be destroyed if it was on federal land that they needed access to. They will probably send Bundy a bill for their work too. And just how pray tell is a bull (prized or otherwise ) going to fulfill it biological function (of breeding cows ) if it is not out w/ the herd?
If they were prized - and to whom were they prized? I don't think they were hauling these bulls to shows were they? They they should have taken the preventative measures to ensure their bulls were not injured. JMO of course.
Your husband's opinion is accurate. However, One must remember, these are Range Cattle, I believe that is the reason the term "Feral" has been attached to them. Again, the FEDS are showing the lack of knowledge in dealing with range cattle. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-16 1:42 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 2:39 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-16 1:30 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 1:01 PM They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls.
Then if they were so prized - they shouldn't have been off the 160 acre Bundy ranch, which resides on private property. They charged the agents and were shot. Fencing would be destroyed if it was on federal land that they needed access to. They will probably send Bundy a bill for their work too. And just how pray tell is a bull (prized or otherwise ) going to fulfill it biological function (of breeding cows ) if it is not out w/ the herd?
If they were prized - and to whom were they prized? I don't think they were hauling these bulls to shows were they? They they should have taken the preventative measures to ensure their bulls were not injured. JMO of course. Your husband's opinion is accurate. However, One must remember, these are Range Cattle, I believe that is the reason the term "Feral" has been attached to them. Again, the FEDS are showing the lack of knowledge in dealing with range cattle.
Thanks, I'll tell him, first dang thing he's gotten right this week...............LOL/JK
Feds aren't hired for their ability to round up feral cattle. And it's not exactly kosher for employees to stop an employer and be like: "Uh, well, listen I was raised around cattle and now's not a good time."
LOL | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1857
| TXBO - 2014-04-16 2:45 PM
Who screwed up this freaking page?
Looks like it's just page 21 | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 2036
Location: Montana | TXBO - 2014-04-16 12:45 PM Who screwed up this freaking page?
LOL...Komet... | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | TXBO - 2014-04-16 2:45 PM Who screwed up this freaking page?
whaaaaaaaaaat?????? | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| dhdqhllc - 2014-04-16 2:46 PM TXBO - 2014-04-16 2:45 PM Who screwed up this freaking page? whaaaaaaaaaat??????
Never mind. It's over now. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| foundation horse - 2014-04-16 2:42 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 2:39 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-16 1:30 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 1:01 PM They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls.
Then if they were so prized - they shouldn't have been off the 160 acre Bundy ranch, which resides on private property. They charged the agents and were shot. Fencing would be destroyed if it was on federal land that they needed access to. They will probably send Bundy a bill for their work too. And just how pray tell is a bull (prized or otherwise ) going to fulfill it biological function (of breeding cows ) if it is not out w/ the herd?
If they were prized - and to whom were they prized? I don't think they were hauling these bulls to shows were they? They they should have taken the preventative measures to ensure their bulls were not injured. JMO of course. Your husband's opinion is accurate. However, One must remember, these are Range Cattle, I believe that is the reason the term "Feral" has been attached to them. Again, the FEDS are showing the lack of knowledge in dealing with range cattle.
Feral is an animal that was once domesticated but now lives wild. One of the biggest problems here is that he had many head that had wondered on and became wild.... unmanaged.
You know what you call feral cattle that wander onto one of my leases? Dinner | |
| | |
| Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 2:01 PM They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls.
Just to clarify... Is are these "prized" bulls branded? | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| My edit button is gone. Did Komet screw that up too. | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM
HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 1:07 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 12:20 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 9:48 AM equussynergy - 2014-04-16 9:55 AM If you think that this about land, cattle and tortoises. I think you are wrong. I think this is about unelected officials stepping on Americans and American farmers and ranchers. I pray this is a sign of Americans are getting tired of it. In America if you are a small farmer it is illegal for you to produce food and sell it to your neighbors. If you have a milk cow and have extra milk in most places you have to dump it. If you sell it to a neighbor you are breaking the law. If you have extra meat birds or a pig or a steer. You cannot have it butchered and sell it to your neighbors without it being USDA inspected and you have to have a retail food establishment license. The FDA is coming down even harder on small farmers and if you want to grow your business it is becoming hard and harder to make it financially feasible. Even if you jump through regulatory hoops you can still have your farm raided at 3 am by heavily armed men who treat you and your family like they are terrorists and get no reasonable explanation for why. You can be happily raising your livestock and one day the Department of Natural Resources, issues a decree that the animals you are raising are an illegal invasive species and if you don’t kill them all you will be faced with fines reaching nearly a million dollars because your animals have, floppy ears or straight ears, and hundred other traits and some that are “not yet known” to the DNR so they can call all of your animals illegal! The BLM can just decide your cattle are killing turtles, or a plant or whatever and kick you animals off the lease. Or they can decide they want your land for whatever purpose and force you to sell it at what they want to pay, or threaten you with eminent domain.
I think these letter agencies need to answer to the American public. If we have them they need to be elected not appointed. If you are up against these letter agencies how do you get a fair trial? I know plenty of farmers and ranchers have gone broke fighting for what is right. They keep the farmers and ranchers in court for years and use their unlimited funds from the American tax payers to put these farmers and ranchers out of business by bleeding them dry going through the courts. The Bundy affair is just a symptom of a very broken system. Right or wrong it was inspiring to see Americans stand up for something in and age of such apathy. I don’t pretend to know the politics or all the laws or regulations, but I think there must be a better way where the American farmers and ranchers can get fair shake.
Now we're talking. I don't know anything, to speak of, about Mr Bundy and his woes. For all I know this man is a crackpot. I don't know what's fact and what's fiction, but I haven't looked very hard either. Equussynergy hit the nail on the head. I'm not ready to think of this as some cause celebre for conservatism any more than I think of Timothy McVeigh as a poster boy for conservatism or Ted Kozinsky for liberalism. Right now, people are eager to latch on to just about anything because they see tryanny everywhere. "I just want to hit someone" has become their motto. In so doing, many well intended people find themselves supporting a cause that may end up being hypocritical. Then we are no better than people like Finney who are eager to jump on something like this, while ignoring the hypocrisy on their own side.
I think this is a cheap shot too - I'm not sure who Finney is but clearly he or she has garnered some real backlash on this site. I'm not sure if it's warranted, but as for me I think that he/she's been treated pretty poorly on this thread. Again, I haven't been around much, but there are some pretty rude comments to her for a view that many actually share.
That's not a cheap shot. That's what happened. Personally, I didn't mind it at all, because it gave me an opportunity to shoot holes in the progressive-liberal agenda. I will admit, and I have said this several times before, I find it hard to repect the views of someone who has never ever been able to muster the intellectual courage to criticise someone in their own political party or someone who espouses the same political philosophy. She has never criticised anything progressive and has never criticised another Democrat.
Compare that with someone like TxBO who is unafraid to say when he thinks something or someone is wrong, regardless of their underlying political agenda. There are plenty of conservative-minded people on this board who have this kind of intellectual honesty. Finney doesn't.
Hi Smiley,
I'm just a middle aged woman who raises horses and has ranched her whole life, unlike most of the commentors who wouldn't know the ass end of a cow if it **** on them. I don't live in their echo chamber of fact denial, but rather like to think I'm normal. Ever since I lived in Wyoming for many years, I have found that many ranchers who own federal and state allotments to be ungrateful whiners. When I expressed my liberal opinion that this guy should either pay for his pasture or get off the property, that sent some people into conservative hysteria. I quit commenting on here because I found it addictive and spent way too much time on my laptop, and not enough time working to make a living. These people don't want another opinion, they only want their opinion of revolution and anarchy validated. I can't do that nor do I want to live in that kind of reality. I have no idea how anybody that comments on here all day gets any work done. People believe what they want to believe. I don't try to sling insults because that implies ignorance nor do I hide behind a nickname because that implies cowardice. I was taught better than that. If you look up my nickname on the internet, you'll see who we are, and if you talk to our friends you'll know who we are and what we stand for. Thank you Smiley. Don't let them corrupt you. Your opinion is yours and be proud of it, but if you are scared to claim it, maybe you should rethink your position or get different friends. Lunch break's over. | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | It's interesting to see some similarities here with historical events. Bundy may be in the wrong here. In fact, in some ways it sure sounds like it to me. One of these days an indicent like this could very well be the spark that sets off the powder keg. That's what happened in the Boston Massacre in 1770. In that instance, it was the colonists who were actually in the wrong, initially. A few dozen angry patriots were teasing and harassing a British sentinel, and later they attacked others who were called in to assist with riot control. Eventually, the colonists started throwing snowballs and rocks at the Redcoats, and even attacked them with clubs. The Redcoats were outnumbered, and they eventually fired on the mob, killing some of them (three?). History doesn't remember that the colonials started the incident, nor does it typically place any blame on the colonials. In fact, the colonials are remembered as brave heroes. John Adams, the future second president, actually defended the British soldiers at trial, and they were acquitted. He was able to convince the court that this was provocation and this was an act of self defense. Clearly the colonials were in the wrong for what they did and the response was deemed justifiable. History has been generous to that that angry mob.
Sooner or later, I think an incident like this will wind up with a similar outcome, here in the 21st century. Five years after that incident in Boston the tension between the tyrannical rule and the colonials reached a critical level, and the Revolutionary War started at Lexington and Concord. It took 8 years for that War to end. Today, we have a tyrannical government and an egocentric, narcissistic tyrant imposing his laws on his citizens/subjects. It appears the evil man is succeeding in rousing the ire of the citizenry.
Maybe this sounds far fetched. I wouldn't discount the possibility.
| |
| | |
Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| As long as we remain free to still have these open discussions and as long as men are willing to stand together against tyranny without fear, we have a chance. I don't know the truth in this situation but I do see that the same passion once held by our founding Fathers still run hot in our blood. Isn't that a good thing? I think so. | |
| | |
Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-16 3:01 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 1:07 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 12:20 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 9:48 AM equussynergy - 2014-04-16 9:55 AM If you think that this about land, cattle and tortoises. I think you are wrong. I think this is about unelected officials stepping on Americans and American farmers and ranchers. I pray this is a sign of Americans are getting tired of it. In America if you are a small farmer it is illegal for you to produce food and sell it to your neighbors. If you have a milk cow and have extra milk in most places you have to dump it. If you sell it to a neighbor you are breaking the law. If you have extra meat birds or a pig or a steer. You cannot have it butchered and sell it to your neighbors without it being USDA inspected and you have to have a retail food establishment license. The FDA is coming down even harder on small farmers and if you want to grow your business it is becoming hard and harder to make it financially feasible. Even if you jump through regulatory hoops you can still have your farm raided at 3 am by heavily armed men who treat you and your family like they are terrorists and get no reasonable explanation for why. You can be happily raising your livestock and one day the Department of Natural Resources, issues a decree that the animals you are raising are an illegal invasive species and if you don’t kill them all you will be faced with fines reaching nearly a million dollars because your animals have, floppy ears or straight ears, and hundred other traits and some that are “not yet known” to the DNR so they can call all of your animals illegal! The BLM can just decide your cattle are killing turtles, or a plant or whatever and kick you animals off the lease. Or they can decide they want your land for whatever purpose and force you to sell it at what they want to pay, or threaten you with eminent domain.
I think these letter agencies need to answer to the American public. If we have them they need to be elected not appointed. If you are up against these letter agencies how do you get a fair trial? I know plenty of farmers and ranchers have gone broke fighting for what is right. They keep the farmers and ranchers in court for years and use their unlimited funds from the American tax payers to put these farmers and ranchers out of business by bleeding them dry going through the courts. The Bundy affair is just a symptom of a very broken system. Right or wrong it was inspiring to see Americans stand up for something in and age of such apathy. I don’t pretend to know the politics or all the laws or regulations, but I think there must be a better way where the American farmers and ranchers can get fair shake.
Now we're talking. I don't know anything, to speak of, about Mr Bundy and his woes. For all I know this man is a crackpot. I don't know what's fact and what's fiction, but I haven't looked very hard either. Equussynergy hit the nail on the head. I'm not ready to think of this as some cause celebre for conservatism any more than I think of Timothy McVeigh as a poster boy for conservatism or Ted Kozinsky for liberalism. Right now, people are eager to latch on to just about anything because they see tryanny everywhere. "I just want to hit someone" has become their motto. In so doing, many well intended people find themselves supporting a cause that may end up being hypocritical. Then we are no better than people like Finney who are eager to jump on something like this, while ignoring the hypocrisy on their own side.
I think this is a cheap shot too - I'm not sure who Finney is but clearly he or she has garnered some real backlash on this site. I'm not sure if it's warranted, but as for me I think that he/she's been treated pretty poorly on this thread. Again, I haven't been around much, but there are some pretty rude comments to her for a view that many actually share.
That's not a cheap shot. That's what happened. Personally, I didn't mind it at all, because it gave me an opportunity to shoot holes in the progressive-liberal agenda. I will admit, and I have said this several times before, I find it hard to repect the views of someone who has never ever been able to muster the intellectual courage to criticise someone in their own political party or someone who espouses the same political philosophy. She has never criticised anything progressive and has never criticised another Democrat.
Compare that with someone like TxBO who is unafraid to say when he thinks something or someone is wrong, regardless of their underlying political agenda. There are plenty of conservative-minded people on this board who have this kind of intellectual honesty. Finney doesn't. Hi Smiley, I'm just a middle aged woman who raises horses and has ranched her whole life, unlike most of the commentors who wouldn't know the ass end of a cow if it **** on them. I don't live in their echo chamber of fact denial, but rather like to think I'm normal. Ever since I lived in Wyoming for many years, I have found that many ranchers who own federal and state allotments to be ungrateful whiners. When I expressed my liberal opinion that this guy should either pay for his pasture or get off the property, that sent some people into conservative hysteria. I quit commenting on here because I found it addictive and spent way too much time on my laptop, and not enough time working to make a living. These people don't want another opinion, they only want their opinion of revolution and anarchy validated. I can't do that nor do I want to live in that kind of reality. I have no idea how anybody that comments on here all day gets any work done. People believe what they want to believe. I don't try to sling insults because that implies ignorance nor do I hide behind a nickname because that implies cowardice. I was taught better than that. If you look up my nickname on the internet, you'll see who we are, and if you talk to our friends you'll know who we are and what we stand for. Thank you Smiley. Don't let them corrupt you. Your opinion is yours and be proud of it, but if you are scared to claim it, maybe you should rethink your position or get different friends. Lunch break's over.
See Finney, pay attention, I am conservative and I agree that Bundy should pay his lease fees like every other rancher who gets that opportunity. There are plenty of us conservatives who can look at things objectively. You lose me however when you post gabage that women and children will be used as human shields and act like that is the majority thinking of conservatives. That is not a normal perspective. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | rodeomom3 - 2014-04-16 3:10 PM
FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-16 3:01 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 1:07 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 12:20 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 9:48 AM equussynergy - 2014-04-16 9:55 AM If you think that this about land, cattle and tortoises. I think you are wrong. I think this is about unelected officials stepping on Americans and American farmers and ranchers. I pray this is a sign of Americans are getting tired of it. In America if you are a small farmer it is illegal for you to produce food and sell it to your neighbors. If you have a milk cow and have extra milk in most places you have to dump it. If you sell it to a neighbor you are breaking the law. If you have extra meat birds or a pig or a steer. You cannot have it butchered and sell it to your neighbors without it being USDA inspected and you have to have a retail food establishment license. The FDA is coming down even harder on small farmers and if you want to grow your business it is becoming hard and harder to make it financially feasible. Even if you jump through regulatory hoops you can still have your farm raided at 3 am by heavily armed men who treat you and your family like they are terrorists and get no reasonable explanation for why. You can be happily raising your livestock and one day the Department of Natural Resources, issues a decree that the animals you are raising are an illegal invasive species and if you don’t kill them all you will be faced with fines reaching nearly a million dollars because your animals have, floppy ears or straight ears, and hundred other traits and some that are “not yet known” to the DNR so they can call all of your animals illegal! The BLM can just decide your cattle are killing turtles, or a plant or whatever and kick you animals off the lease. Or they can decide they want your land for whatever purpose and force you to sell it at what they want to pay, or threaten you with eminent domain.
I think these letter agencies need to answer to the American public. If we have them they need to be elected not appointed. If you are up against these letter agencies how do you get a fair trial? I know plenty of farmers and ranchers have gone broke fighting for what is right. They keep the farmers and ranchers in court for years and use their unlimited funds from the American tax payers to put these farmers and ranchers out of business by bleeding them dry going through the courts. The Bundy affair is just a symptom of a very broken system. Right or wrong it was inspiring to see Americans stand up for something in and age of such apathy. I don’t pretend to know the politics or all the laws or regulations, but I think there must be a better way where the American farmers and ranchers can get fair shake.
Now we're talking. I don't know anything, to speak of, about Mr Bundy and his woes. For all I know this man is a crackpot. I don't know what's fact and what's fiction, but I haven't looked very hard either. Equussynergy hit the nail on the head. I'm not ready to think of this as some cause celebre for conservatism any more than I think of Timothy McVeigh as a poster boy for conservatism or Ted Kozinsky for liberalism. Right now, people are eager to latch on to just about anything because they see tryanny everywhere. "I just want to hit someone" has become their motto. In so doing, many well intended people find themselves supporting a cause that may end up being hypocritical. Then we are no better than people like Finney who are eager to jump on something like this, while ignoring the hypocrisy on their own side.
I think this is a cheap shot too - I'm not sure who Finney is but clearly he or she has garnered some real backlash on this site. I'm not sure if it's warranted, but as for me I think that he/she's been treated pretty poorly on this thread. Again, I haven't been around much, but there are some pretty rude comments to her for a view that many actually share.
That's not a cheap shot. That's what happened. Personally, I didn't mind it at all, because it gave me an opportunity to shoot holes in the progressive-liberal agenda. I will admit, and I have said this several times before, I find it hard to repect the views of someone who has never ever been able to muster the intellectual courage to criticise someone in their own political party or someone who espouses the same political philosophy. She has never criticised anything progressive and has never criticised another Democrat.
Compare that with someone like TxBO who is unafraid to say when he thinks something or someone is wrong, regardless of their underlying political agenda. There are plenty of conservative-minded people on this board who have this kind of intellectual honesty. Finney doesn't. Hi Smiley, I'm just a middle aged woman who raises horses and has ranched her whole life, unlike most of the commentors who wouldn't know the ass end of a cow if it **** on them. I don't live in their echo chamber of fact denial, but rather like to think I'm normal. Ever since I lived in Wyoming for many years, I have found that many ranchers who own federal and state allotments to be ungrateful whiners. When I expressed my liberal opinion that this guy should either pay for his pasture or get off the property, that sent some people into conservative hysteria. I quit commenting on here because I found it addictive and spent way too much time on my laptop, and not enough time working to make a living. These people don't want another opinion, they only want their opinion of revolution and anarchy validated. I can't do that nor do I want to live in that kind of reality. I have no idea how anybody that comments on here all day gets any work done. People believe what they want to believe. I don't try to sling insults because that implies ignorance nor do I hide behind a nickname because that implies cowardice. I was taught better than that. If you look up my nickname on the internet, you'll see who we are, and if you talk to our friends you'll know who we are and what we stand for. Thank you Smiley. Don't let them corrupt you. Your opinion is yours and be proud of it, but if you are scared to claim it, maybe you should rethink your position or get different friends. Lunch break's over.
Now what I did say about cherry picked and manipulation? In that particular post both were rampant! | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | foundation horse - 2014-04-16 2:30 PM
smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM
Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 1:01 PM They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls.
Then if they were so prized - they shouldn't have been off the 160 acre Bundy ranch, which resides on private property. They charged the agents and were shot. Fencing would be destroyed if it was on federal land that they needed access to. They will probably send Bundy a bill for their work too.
And just how pray tell is a bull (prized or otherwise ) going to fulfill it biological function (of breeding cows ) if it is not out w/ the herd?
A.I.?? | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Since the edit feature is currently MIA:
I have claimed I support Cliven Bundy. I have opined and continue to support that I support The U.S. Constitution. I am an Originalist Constitutionalist not a Constructionist Constitutionalist which means I believe in The Original Intent of The Constitution. I believe I have supported this view time and time again with my research as posted.
From the time the land in dispute was ceded to America, The General Land Office was placed in charge of dispositioning said Real Estate which over time has been completely disregarded and changed to suit Bureaucrat's Foundation of Power over American Citizens! | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | komet. - 2014-04-16 3:22 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-16 2:30 PM
smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM
Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 1:01 PM They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls.
Then if they were so prized - they shouldn't have been off the 160 acre Bundy ranch, which resides on private property. They charged the agents and were shot. Fencing would be destroyed if it was on federal land that they needed access to. They will probably send Bundy a bill for their work too.
And just how pray tell is a bull (prized or otherwise ) going to fulfill it biological function (of breeding cows ) if it is not out w/ the herd?
A.I.??
I stand by and watch while You collect semen from a Range Bull. LMAO! | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | foundation horse - 2014-04-16 3:24 PM
komet. - 2014-04-16 3:22 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-16 2:30 PM
smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM
Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 1:01 PM They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls.
Then if they were so prized - they shouldn't have been off the 160 acre Bundy ranch, which resides on private property. They charged the agents and were shot. Fencing would be destroyed if it was on federal land that they needed access to. They will probably send Bundy a bill for their work too.
And just how pray tell is a bull (prized or otherwise ) going to fulfill it biological function (of breeding cows ) if it is not out w/ the herd?
A.I.??
I stand by and watch while You collect semen from a Range Bull. LMAO!
Well.... Of course you might have to sneak up on him...  | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| komet. - 2014-04-16 3:29 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-16 3:24 PM
komet. - 2014-04-16 3:22 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-16 2:30 PM
smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM
Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 1:01 PM They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls.
Then if they were so prized - they shouldn't have been off the 160 acre Bundy ranch, which resides on private property. They charged the agents and were shot. Fencing would be destroyed if it was on federal land that they needed access to. They will probably send Bundy a bill for their work too.
And just how pray tell is a bull (prized or otherwise ) going to fulfill it biological function (of breeding cows ) if it is not out w/ the herd?
A.I.??
I stand by and watch while You collect semen from a Range Bull. LMAO!
Well.... Of course you might have to sneak up on him...
One last thing. I know, hypocrytical. We knew a guy who went to visit his old rancher friend in Arizona to look at some own daughters of Driftwood Ike. The guy ranched in the desert on all of this federal ground. Our friend noticed some cows and a bull at a tank and asked the guy how he gathered his (prized) bulls. The old guy got a sly grin on his face and patted his .243. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| foundation horse - 2014-04-16 2:40 PM... Let me put me it this way, should Mrs. Finney have something for sell: I AIN'T buying! I vote with my hard earned dollars and I DO NOT support Progressive/Liberal Politics!
It looks like she has some really nice Driftwood blood on that ranch.
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-16 2:01 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 1:07 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 12:20 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 9:48 AM equussynergy - 2014-04-16 9:55 AM If you think that this about land, cattle and tortoises. I think you are wrong. I think this is about unelected officials stepping on Americans and American farmers and ranchers. I pray this is a sign of Americans are getting tired of it. In America if you are a small farmer it is illegal for you to produce food and sell it to your neighbors. If you have a milk cow and have extra milk in most places you have to dump it. If you sell it to a neighbor you are breaking the law. If you have extra meat birds or a pig or a steer. You cannot have it butchered and sell it to your neighbors without it being USDA inspected and you have to have a retail food establishment license. The FDA is coming down even harder on small farmers and if you want to grow your business it is becoming hard and harder to make it financially feasible. Even if you jump through regulatory hoops you can still have your farm raided at 3 am by heavily armed men who treat you and your family like they are terrorists and get no reasonable explanation for why. You can be happily raising your livestock and one day the Department of Natural Resources, issues a decree that the animals you are raising are an illegal invasive species and if you don’t kill them all you will be faced with fines reaching nearly a million dollars because your animals have, floppy ears or straight ears, and hundred other traits and some that are “not yet known” to the DNR so they can call all of your animals illegal! The BLM can just decide your cattle are killing turtles, or a plant or whatever and kick you animals off the lease. Or they can decide they want your land for whatever purpose and force you to sell it at what they want to pay, or threaten you with eminent domain.
I think these letter agencies need to answer to the American public. If we have them they need to be elected not appointed. If you are up against these letter agencies how do you get a fair trial? I know plenty of farmers and ranchers have gone broke fighting for what is right. They keep the farmers and ranchers in court for years and use their unlimited funds from the American tax payers to put these farmers and ranchers out of business by bleeding them dry going through the courts. The Bundy affair is just a symptom of a very broken system. Right or wrong it was inspiring to see Americans stand up for something in and age of such apathy. I don’t pretend to know the politics or all the laws or regulations, but I think there must be a better way where the American farmers and ranchers can get fair shake.
Now we're talking. I don't know anything, to speak of, about Mr Bundy and his woes. For all I know this man is a crackpot. I don't know what's fact and what's fiction, but I haven't looked very hard either. Equussynergy hit the nail on the head. I'm not ready to think of this as some cause celebre for conservatism any more than I think of Timothy McVeigh as a poster boy for conservatism or Ted Kozinsky for liberalism. Right now, people are eager to latch on to just about anything because they see tryanny everywhere. "I just want to hit someone" has become their motto. In so doing, many well intended people find themselves supporting a cause that may end up being hypocritical. Then we are no better than people like Finney who are eager to jump on something like this, while ignoring the hypocrisy on their own side.
I think this is a cheap shot too - I'm not sure who Finney is but clearly he or she has garnered some real backlash on this site. I'm not sure if it's warranted, but as for me I think that he/she's been treated pretty poorly on this thread. Again, I haven't been around much, but there are some pretty rude comments to her for a view that many actually share.
That's not a cheap shot. That's what happened. Personally, I didn't mind it at all, because it gave me an opportunity to shoot holes in the progressive-liberal agenda. I will admit, and I have said this several times before, I find it hard to repect the views of someone who has never ever been able to muster the intellectual courage to criticise someone in their own political party or someone who espouses the same political philosophy. She has never criticised anything progressive and has never criticised another Democrat.
Compare that with someone like TxBO who is unafraid to say when he thinks something or someone is wrong, regardless of their underlying political agenda. There are plenty of conservative-minded people on this board who have this kind of intellectual honesty. Finney doesn't. Hi Smiley, I'm just a middle aged woman who raises horses and has ranched her whole life, unlike most of the commentors who wouldn't know the ass end of a cow if it **** on them. I don't live in their echo chamber of fact denial, but rather like to think I'm normal. Ever since I lived in Wyoming for many years, I have found that many ranchers who own federal and state allotments to be ungrateful whiners. When I expressed my liberal opinion that this guy should either pay for his pasture or get off the property, that sent some people into conservative hysteria. I quit commenting on here because I found it addictive and spent way too much time on my laptop, and not enough time working to make a living. These people don't want another opinion, they only want their opinion of revolution and anarchy validated. I can't do that nor do I want to live in that kind of reality. I have no idea how anybody that comments on here all day gets any work done. People believe what they want to believe. I don't try to sling insults because that implies ignorance nor do I hide behind a nickname because that implies cowardice. I was taught better than that. If you look up my nickname on the internet, you'll see who we are, and if you talk to our friends you'll know who we are and what we stand for. Thank you Smiley. Don't let them corrupt you. Your opinion is yours and be proud of it, but if you are scared to claim it, maybe you should rethink your position or get different friends. Lunch break's over.
Well, Finney, that was probably me sometimes as well, yes, we do marry up to some opinions and have a hard time letting them go.
Thanks for the intro - clearly Hotbear can't stand you but that's okay, sometimes he and I have gone head to head too, but I like him and respect his ability to argue with me. Not many will actually.
And I agree with a lot that you've said on this thread to boot. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
|
On a side note, some of the cattle have turned feral. That was a part of the original concern of the BLM as posted on that BLM page here on this very thread. The cattle had charged (not sure if that was the right word) cars and damaged them or something similar.
That is a part of Bundy's mismanagement. I fear that all the ground conservatives have gained from O being such an A**hat, will be lost from this guy making a fool of himself and many of the right - like the idiot media turds that I will never take seriously again. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | This LIVE Link is from the Guy who actually walked out front up to the FED's Fence.
Also, there is invalidated info floating around that the FEDS were surrounded by 3000 Americans (Patriots/Militia Types) and something like 500 FEDs. Again, this is unconfirmed to my knowledge.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/footage-bundy-massacre/ | |
| | |
Regular
Posts: 91
| foundation horse - 2014-04-16 2:30 PM
smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM
Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 1:01 PM They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls.
Then if they were so prized - they shouldn't have been off the 160 acre Bundy ranch, which resides on private property. They charged the agents and were shot. Fencing would be destroyed if it was on federal land that they needed access to. They will probably send Bundy a bill for their work too.
And just how pray tell is a bull (prized or otherwise ) going to fulfill it biological function (of breeding cows ) if it is not out w/ the herd?
A lot of those southern Nevada operations actually "summer in" on the irrigated ground, and do their breeding there as well. That is hot desert country, where turnout (BLM) is typically in the winter. Little backwards from the majority of the country where cattle are turned out in summer months and irrigated ground is utilized as a hay base.
As for prized bulls though....not a lot of prized cattle in that country from what I have seen. Most have a lot of ear and a pretty rangey. Have to be too survive. | |
| | |
I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 1:01 PM They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls.
Then if they were so prized - they shouldn't have been off the 160 acre Bundy ranch, which resides on private property. They charged the agents and were shot. Fencing would be destroyed if it was on federal land that they needed access to. They will probably send Bundy a bill for their work too.
One bull was in an enclosed pen.
| |
| | |
Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| Let's not border on hypocritcal garbage here; Prized bull, or something that needs a bag over his head makes no difference, it is a living thing that didn't belong to the Feds. What if Bundy raised beautiful fluffy koala bears? Let's stick to what matters. | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | smiley - 2014-04-16 3:47 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-16 2:01 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 1:07 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 12:20 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 9:48 AM equussynergy - 2014-04-16 9:55 AM If you think that this about land, cattle and tortoises. I think you are wrong. I think this is about unelected officials stepping on Americans and American farmers and ranchers. I pray this is a sign of Americans are getting tired of it. In America if you are a small farmer it is illegal for you to produce food and sell it to your neighbors. If you have a milk cow and have extra milk in most places you have to dump it. If you sell it to a neighbor you are breaking the law. If you have extra meat birds or a pig or a steer. You cannot have it butchered and sell it to your neighbors without it being USDA inspected and you have to have a retail food establishment license. The FDA is coming down even harder on small farmers and if you want to grow your business it is becoming hard and harder to make it financially feasible. Even if you jump through regulatory hoops you can still have your farm raided at 3 am by heavily armed men who treat you and your family like they are terrorists and get no reasonable explanation for why. You can be happily raising your livestock and one day the Department of Natural Resources, issues a decree that the animals you are raising are an illegal invasive species and if you don’t kill them all you will be faced with fines reaching nearly a million dollars because your animals have, floppy ears or straight ears, and hundred other traits and some that are “not yet known” to the DNR so they can call all of your animals illegal! The BLM can just decide your cattle are killing turtles, or a plant or whatever and kick you animals off the lease. Or they can decide they want your land for whatever purpose and force you to sell it at what they want to pay, or threaten you with eminent domain.
I think these letter agencies need to answer to the American public. If we have them they need to be elected not appointed. If you are up against these letter agencies how do you get a fair trial? I know plenty of farmers and ranchers have gone broke fighting for what is right. They keep the farmers and ranchers in court for years and use their unlimited funds from the American tax payers to put these farmers and ranchers out of business by bleeding them dry going through the courts. The Bundy affair is just a symptom of a very broken system. Right or wrong it was inspiring to see Americans stand up for something in and age of such apathy. I don’t pretend to know the politics or all the laws or regulations, but I think there must be a better way where the American farmers and ranchers can get fair shake.
Now we're talking. I don't know anything, to speak of, about Mr Bundy and his woes. For all I know this man is a crackpot. I don't know what's fact and what's fiction, but I haven't looked very hard either. Equussynergy hit the nail on the head. I'm not ready to think of this as some cause celebre for conservatism any more than I think of Timothy McVeigh as a poster boy for conservatism or Ted Kozinsky for liberalism. Right now, people are eager to latch on to just about anything because they see tryanny everywhere. "I just want to hit someone" has become their motto. In so doing, many well intended people find themselves supporting a cause that may end up being hypocritical. Then we are no better than people like Finney who are eager to jump on something like this, while ignoring the hypocrisy on their own side.
I think this is a cheap shot too - I'm not sure who Finney is but clearly he or she has garnered some real backlash on this site. I'm not sure if it's warranted, but as for me I think that he/she's been treated pretty poorly on this thread. Again, I haven't been around much, but there are some pretty rude comments to her for a view that many actually share.
That's not a cheap shot. That's what happened. Personally, I didn't mind it at all, because it gave me an opportunity to shoot holes in the progressive-liberal agenda. I will admit, and I have said this several times before, I find it hard to repect the views of someone who has never ever been able to muster the intellectual courage to criticise someone in their own political party or someone who espouses the same political philosophy. She has never criticised anything progressive and has never criticised another Democrat.
Compare that with someone like TxBO who is unafraid to say when he thinks something or someone is wrong, regardless of their underlying political agenda. There are plenty of conservative-minded people on this board who have this kind of intellectual honesty. Finney doesn't. Hi Smiley, I'm just a middle aged woman who raises horses and has ranched her whole life, unlike most of the commentors who wouldn't know the ass end of a cow if it **** on them. I don't live in their echo chamber of fact denial, but rather like to think I'm normal. Ever since I lived in Wyoming for many years, I have found that many ranchers who own federal and state allotments to be ungrateful whiners. When I expressed my liberal opinion that this guy should either pay for his pasture or get off the property, that sent some people into conservative hysteria. I quit commenting on here because I found it addictive and spent way too much time on my laptop, and not enough time working to make a living. These people don't want another opinion, they only want their opinion of revolution and anarchy validated. I can't do that nor do I want to live in that kind of reality. I have no idea how anybody that comments on here all day gets any work done. People believe what they want to believe. I don't try to sling insults because that implies ignorance nor do I hide behind a nickname because that implies cowardice. I was taught better than that. If you look up my nickname on the internet, you'll see who we are, and if you talk to our friends you'll know who we are and what we stand for. Thank you Smiley. Don't let them corrupt you. Your opinion is yours and be proud of it, but if you are scared to claim it, maybe you should rethink your position or get different friends. Lunch break's over.
Thanks for the intro - clearly Hotbear can't stand you but that's okay, sometimes he and I have gone head to head too, but I like him and respect his ability to argue with me. Not many will actually.
And I agree with a lot that you've said on this thread to boot.
Honestly, that's not true. I make a distinction between the individual and their ideology. I dearly love my oldest daughter, and she is a liberal (BUT I'm making progress! LOL), so for me to dislike someone intensely purely on the basis of their ideology would be hypocritical. There were a couple of times I actually agreed with Finney back when she was on here regularly and I remember them. One was on the issue of gay rights, and the other was when she described the mess on their property as a result of oil drilling. I haven't met Diane, and for all I know we would get along fine. It's like any debate about vaccinations between me and Smiley. I like her, so I know enough to steer clear of those.....unless provoked, of course! ;-) Seriously, though, we get along great and I think we respect each other enough such that we might get into a heated debate over something, without letting it ruin our friendship. With rare exceptions, I don't hate liberals. I just hate the liberal-progressive ideology with a passion. I suspect Diane feels the same way about conservatism. I don't fit into any "party mold" and I don't walk the party line. That's why I'm not a Republicrat. | |
| | |
I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | RidenFly - 2014-04-16 4:27 PM Let's not border on hypocritcal garbage here; Prized bull, or something that needs a bag over his head makes no difference, it is a living thing that didn't belong to the Feds. What if Bundy raised beautiful fluffy koala bears? Let's stick to what matters.
They used the word prized bulls and I admit I know nothing about raising cattle. We had a friend that raised Black Angus and they had a neighbor with what he considered a prized bull that he would put in his his heifers every year and it sure wasn't for free. So in my mind Bundy bought some good bulls to cross on his heifers. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1857
| Could Bundy use prescriptive rights to when his argument in court against the BLM? | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1857
| Since I can't edit my post above I'll continue with my thought process down here.
Bundy has used the land for 20 years without permission. And isn't it after 5 years of use without the "owner" of the land taking legal action prescriptive rights come to play? I read this somewhere and thought I would ask here. He stopped paying in 1993, court order to remove in 1998 but then not another action until 2013 while he continually used the land. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| RidenFly - 2014-04-16 4:27 PM Let's not border on hypocritcal garbage here; Prized bull, or something that needs a bag over his head makes no difference, it is a living thing that didn't belong to the Feds. What if Bundy raised beautiful fluffy koala bears? Let's stick to what matters.
What does matter, Riden, is this is another example of media sensationalizing this. The legion keeps growing. Every new report says more protesters were there. It's getting like the million mom march. lol! | |
| | |
I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
Location: Online | foundation horse - 2014-04-16 1:40 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 2:07 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 12:20 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 9:48 AM equussynergy - 2014-04-16 9:55 AM If you think that this about land, cattle and tortoises. I think you are wrong. I think this is about unelected officials stepping on Americans and American farmers and ranchers. I pray this is a sign of Americans are getting tired of it. In America if you are a small farmer it is illegal for you to produce food and sell it to your neighbors. If you have a milk cow and have extra milk in most places you have to dump it. If you sell it to a neighbor you are breaking the law. If you have extra meat birds or a pig or a steer. You cannot have it butchered and sell it to your neighbors without it being USDA inspected and you have to have a retail food establishment license. The FDA is coming down even harder on small farmers and if you want to grow your business it is becoming hard and harder to make it financially feasible. Even if you jump through regulatory hoops you can still have your farm raided at 3 am by heavily armed men who treat you and your family like they are terrorists and get no reasonable explanation for why. You can be happily raising your livestock and one day the Department of Natural Resources, issues a decree that the animals you are raising are an illegal invasive species and if you don’t kill them all you will be faced with fines reaching nearly a million dollars because your animals have, floppy ears or straight ears, and hundred other traits and some that are “not yet known” to the DNR so they can call all of your animals illegal! The BLM can just decide your cattle are killing turtles, or a plant or whatever and kick you animals off the lease. Or they can decide they want your land for whatever purpose and force you to sell it at what they want to pay, or threaten you with eminent domain.
I think these letter agencies need to answer to the American public. If we have them they need to be elected not appointed. If you are up against these letter agencies how do you get a fair trial? I know plenty of farmers and ranchers have gone broke fighting for what is right. They keep the farmers and ranchers in court for years and use their unlimited funds from the American tax payers to put these farmers and ranchers out of business by bleeding them dry going through the courts. The Bundy affair is just a symptom of a very broken system. Right or wrong it was inspiring to see Americans stand up for something in and age of such apathy. I don’t pretend to know the politics or all the laws or regulations, but I think there must be a better way where the American farmers and ranchers can get fair shake.
Now we're talking. I don't know anything, to speak of, about Mr Bundy and his woes. For all I know this man is a crackpot. I don't know what's fact and what's fiction, but I haven't looked very hard either. Equussynergy hit the nail on the head. I'm not ready to think of this as some cause celebre for conservatism any more than I think of Timothy McVeigh as a poster boy for conservatism or Ted Kozinsky for liberalism. Right now, people are eager to latch on to just about anything because they see tryanny everywhere. "I just want to hit someone" has become their motto. In so doing, many well intended people find themselves supporting a cause that may end up being hypocritical. Then we are no better than people like Finney who are eager to jump on something like this, while ignoring the hypocrisy on their own side.
I think this is a cheap shot too - I'm not sure who Finney is but clearly he or she has garnered some real backlash on this site. I'm not sure if it's warranted, but as for me I think that he/she's been treated pretty poorly on this thread. Again, I haven't been around much, but there are some pretty rude comments to her for a view that many actually share.
That's not a cheap shot. That's what happened. Personally, I didn't mind it at all, because it gave me an opportunity to shoot holes in the progressive-liberal agenda. I will admit, and I have said this several times before, I find it hard to repect the views of someone who has never ever been able to muster the intellectual courage to criticise someone in their own political party or someone who espouses the same political philosophy. She has never criticised anything progressive and has never criticised another Democrat.
Compare that with someone like TxBO who is unafraid to say when he thinks something or someone is wrong, regardless of their underlying political agenda. There are plenty of conservative-minded people on this board who have this kind of intellectual honesty. Finney doesn't. Mrs. Finney's historical M.O. has been to C&P something very incendiary in analogy 'passing wind' in a crowd of people and then running off laughing. And her last post that I quoted was as cherry picked as they come! She was attempting to stir the majority members (women's ) emotions with the idea of morals, chivalry and the implication of cowardice. Notice she would not paste a validated live link to her info? And when said Info was examined and analyzed, said action never actually took place. But VOILA! Mrs. Finney has created that proverbial sh!tstorm she is so historically famous for. Let me put me it this way, should Mrs. Finney have something for sell: I AIN'T buying! I vote with my hard earned dollars and I DO NOT support Progressive/Liberal Politics!
She gets her incendiary tactics from her hero Rachel Maddow. | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | rodeomom13 - 2014-04-16 5:26 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-16 1:40 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 2:07 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 12:20 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 9:48 AM equussynergy - 2014-04-16 9:55 AM If you think that this about land, cattle and tortoises. I think you are wrong. I think this is about unelected officials stepping on Americans and American farmers and ranchers. I pray this is a sign of Americans are getting tired of it. In America if you are a small farmer it is illegal for you to produce food and sell it to your neighbors. If you have a milk cow and have extra milk in most places you have to dump it. If you sell it to a neighbor you are breaking the law. If you have extra meat birds or a pig or a steer. You cannot have it butchered and sell it to your neighbors without it being USDA inspected and you have to have a retail food establishment license. The FDA is coming down even harder on small farmers and if you want to grow your business it is becoming hard and harder to make it financially feasible. Even if you jump through regulatory hoops you can still have your farm raided at 3 am by heavily armed men who treat you and your family like they are terrorists and get no reasonable explanation for why. You can be happily raising your livestock and one day the Department of Natural Resources, issues a decree that the animals you are raising are an illegal invasive species and if you don’t kill them all you will be faced with fines reaching nearly a million dollars because your animals have, floppy ears or straight ears, and hundred other traits and some that are “not yet known” to the DNR so they can call all of your animals illegal! The BLM can just decide your cattle are killing turtles, or a plant or whatever and kick you animals off the lease. Or they can decide they want your land for whatever purpose and force you to sell it at what they want to pay, or threaten you with eminent domain.
I think these letter agencies need to answer to the American public. If we have them they need to be elected not appointed. If you are up against these letter agencies how do you get a fair trial? I know plenty of farmers and ranchers have gone broke fighting for what is right. They keep the farmers and ranchers in court for years and use their unlimited funds from the American tax payers to put these farmers and ranchers out of business by bleeding them dry going through the courts. The Bundy affair is just a symptom of a very broken system. Right or wrong it was inspiring to see Americans stand up for something in and age of such apathy. I don’t pretend to know the politics or all the laws or regulations, but I think there must be a better way where the American farmers and ranchers can get fair shake.
Now we're talking. I don't know anything, to speak of, about Mr Bundy and his woes. For all I know this man is a crackpot. I don't know what's fact and what's fiction, but I haven't looked very hard either. Equussynergy hit the nail on the head. I'm not ready to think of this as some cause celebre for conservatism any more than I think of Timothy McVeigh as a poster boy for conservatism or Ted Kozinsky for liberalism. Right now, people are eager to latch on to just about anything because they see tryanny everywhere. "I just want to hit someone" has become their motto. In so doing, many well intended people find themselves supporting a cause that may end up being hypocritical. Then we are no better than people like Finney who are eager to jump on something like this, while ignoring the hypocrisy on their own side.
I think this is a cheap shot too - I'm not sure who Finney is but clearly he or she has garnered some real backlash on this site. I'm not sure if it's warranted, but as for me I think that he/she's been treated pretty poorly on this thread. Again, I haven't been around much, but there are some pretty rude comments to her for a view that many actually share.
That's not a cheap shot. That's what happened. Personally, I didn't mind it at all, because it gave me an opportunity to shoot holes in the progressive-liberal agenda. I will admit, and I have said this several times before, I find it hard to repect the views of someone who has never ever been able to muster the intellectual courage to criticise someone in their own political party or someone who espouses the same political philosophy. She has never criticised anything progressive and has never criticised another Democrat.
Compare that with someone like TxBO who is unafraid to say when he thinks something or someone is wrong, regardless of their underlying political agenda. There are plenty of conservative-minded people on this board who have this kind of intellectual honesty. Finney doesn't. Mrs. Finney's historical M.O. has been to C&P something very incendiary in analogy 'passing wind' in a crowd of people and then running off laughing. And her last post that I quoted was as cherry picked as they come! She was attempting to stir the majority members (women's ) emotions with the idea of morals, chivalry and the implication of cowardice. Notice she would not paste a validated live link to her info? And when said Info was examined and analyzed, said action never actually took place. But VOILA! Mrs. Finney has created that proverbial sh!tstorm she is so historically famous for. Let me put me it this way, should Mrs. Finney have something for sell: I AIN'T buying! I vote with my hard earned dollars and I DO NOT support Progressive/Liberal Politics!
i have been dying to say that since this thread started...... | |
| | |
I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/16/feds-accused-leaving-trail-wreckage-after-nevada-ranch-standoff/
| |
| | |
Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| TXBO - 2014-04-17 2:53 PM RidenFly - 2014-04-16 4:27 PM Let's not border on hypocritcal garbage here; Prized bull, or something that needs a bag over his head makes no difference, it is a living thing that didn't belong to the Feds. What if Bundy raised beautiful fluffy koala bears? Let's stick to what matters. What does matter, Riden, is this is another example of media sensationalizing this. The legion keeps growing. Every new report says more protesters were there. It's getting like the million mom march. lol!
LMAO.... I cracked up reading that. You gotta love the media. They can only survive by the dollars of advertisers so in essence they are .... well, nevermind. You know what I mean. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 2036
Location: Montana | FlyingJT - 2014-04-16 2:40 PM Since I can't edit my post above I'll continue with my thought process down here. Bundy has used the land for 20 years without permission. And isn't it after 5 years of use without the "owner" of the land taking legal action prescriptive rights come to play? I read this somewhere and thought I would ask here. He stopped paying in 1993, court order to remove in 1998 but then not another action until 2013 while he continually used the land.
Not if there is a court order in place. Depending on the state, a property owner can have x amount of years to contest a property line. If the property line isn't surveyed within x, that becomes the property line. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | foundation horse - 2014-04-16 2:56 PM This LIVE Link is from the Guy who actually walked out front up to the FED's Fence. Also, there is invalidated info floating around that the FEDS were surrounded by 3000 Americans (Patriots/Militia Types ) and something like 500 FEDs. Again, this is unconfirmed to my knowledge. http://www.westernjournalism.com/footage-bundy-massacre/
Wow...that's a powerful video.
I went to town today & had some time to mull this over some more...(imagine).
Part of me fumes when I hear people say that the ranchers out here are on 'the government teat'...yet, I can see the point. It's like the reservations...we're the next area to be 'socialized'...and have very little support in fighting it. If we grab our guns we're 'radical', if we do nothing we're cowards. The short answer is to give us our land, then we won't be a 'welfare cause' anymore.
Can that happen? Without a stand?
I don't think so.
Many on here & everywhere, including Cliven Bundy, have been saying that this isn't about cattle, turtles or even solar. This is just the 'tool' to get a fair day in court. It can't happen any other way...and I don't know that it will happen this way...there's not a lot of options, though.
I now know that those of us out west naively thought that we could garner some support from the rest of Americans once they knew what was going on & how wrongly the citizens of the western states have been denied our equal footing...a chance to be economically strong and independent, to own our land.
Now we know that the majority of the Americans we hoped would help have come to rely on the gov't sharing our 'riches' with them & they're not about to free us from gov't bondage.
What was a great day in America has turned into a hard truth the rest of us hoped & prayed wasn't so...our Constitution is no longer the law of the land.
For those who would say, "If you don't like it move"...you're next so what's the point?
I used to think that this Nation was split by the Mississippi...it's moved to the Great Divide & is seeping westward.
Oh well! Spring is here & the lake is calling! Gonna enjoy it while I can cuz there ain't no glueing this world back together Humpty.
| |
| | |
Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| I don't know who is right. I do know that our government, the Reid's, is making a huge mistake saying "he broke the law and when you break the law you have consequences." Talk about selective enforcement of the law and harrasing a citizen. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-16 4:53 PM
RidenFly - 2014-04-16 4:27 PM Let's not border on hypocritcal garbage here; Prized bull, or something that needs a bag over his head makes no difference, it is a living thing that didn't belong to the Feds. What if Bundy raised beautiful fluffy koala bears? Let's stick to what matters.
What does matter, Riden, is this is another example of media sensationalizing this. The legion keeps growing. Every new report says more protesters were there. It's getting like the million mom march. lol!
What is significant is that FOX News has been the trendsetter on Coverage by The Networks though. Also, there is a fine line between 'getting the information out there' and 'sensationalism' in order to gain rating, hence revenue.
Speaking of Ratings/Revenue...........Mrs. Finney how is Your Hero Rachel Maddow doing along with MSNBC in ratings? | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | musikmaker - 2014-04-16 7:20 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-16 2:56 PM This LIVE Link is from the Guy who actually walked out front up to the FED's Fence. Also, there is invalidated info floating around that the FEDS were surrounded by 3000 Americans (Patriots/Militia Types ) and something like 500 FEDs. Again, this is unconfirmed to my knowledge. http://www.westernjournalism.com/footage-bundy-massacre/
I went to town today & had some time to mull this over some more...(imagine).
Part of me fumes when I hear people say that the ranchers out here are on 'the government teat'...yet, I can see the point. It's like the reservations...we're the next area to be 'socialized'...and have very little support in fighting it. If we grab our guns we're 'radical', if we do nothing we're cowards. The short answer is to give us our land, then we won't be a 'welfare cause' anymore.
Can that happen? Without a stand?
I don't think so.
Many on here & everywhere, including Cliven Bundy, have been saying that this isn't about cattle, turtles or even solar. This is just the 'tool' to get a fair day in court. It can't happen any other way...and I don't know that it will happen this way...there's not a lot of options, though.
I now know that those of us out west naively thought that we could garner some support from the rest of Americans once they knew what was going on & how wrongly the citizens of the western states have been denied our equal footing...a chance to be economically strong and independent, to own our land.
Now we know that the majority of the Americans we hoped would help have come to rely on the gov't sharing our 'riches' with them & they're not about to free us from gov't bondage.
What was a great day in America has turned into a hard truth the rest of us hoped & prayed wasn't so...our Constitution is no longer the law of the land.
For those who would say, "If you don't like it move"...you're next so what's the point?
I used to think that this Nation was split by the Mississippi...it's moved to the Great Divide & is seeping westward.
Oh well! Spring is here & the lake is calling! Gonna enjoy it while I can cuz there ain't no glueing this world back together Humpty.
| |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | RidenFly - 2014-04-16 4:27 PM Let's not border on hypocritcal garbage here; Prized bull, or something that needs a bag over his head makes no difference, it is a living thing that didn't belong to the Feds. What if Bundy raised beautiful fluffy koala bears? Let's stick to what matters.
You mean one of these??
 | |
| | |
Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| komet. - 2014-04-17 9:14 PM RidenFly - 2014-04-16 4:27 PM Let's not border on hypocritcal garbage here; Prized bull, or something that needs a bag over his head makes no difference, it is a living thing that didn't belong to the Feds. What if Bundy raised beautiful fluffy koala bears? Let's stick to what matters. You mean one of these??
Good grief, I'm going to have nightmares! Wth happened to him? LOL | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | TXBO - 2014-04-16 2:57 PM My edit button is gone. Did Komet screw that up too.
hmmppffff!!!
 | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | LMAO.....Clay just posts some clappy hands and someone hits dislike!
That struck me as funny. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | RidenFly - 2014-04-16 11:17 PM
komet. - 2014-04-17 9:14 PM RidenFly - 2014-04-16 4:27 PM Let's not border on hypocritcal garbage here; Prized bull, or something that needs a bag over his head makes no difference, it is a living thing that didn't belong to the Feds. What if Bundy raised beautiful fluffy koala bears? Let's stick to what matters. You mean one of these??
He got wet AND Photoshopped.... | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 11:19 PM
LMAO.....Clay just posts some clappy hands and someone hits dislike!
That struck me as funny.
Obliviously there is a contingent on this forum who seriously do not like me or anything I have to say. Oh well, I hope this contingent never runs into one of them 'First Amendment Zones'....................... | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 3:24 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 1:01 PM They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls.
Then if they were so prized - they shouldn't have been off the 160 acre Bundy ranch, which resides on private property. They charged the agents and were shot. Fencing would be destroyed if it was on federal land that they needed access to. They will probably send Bundy a bill for their work too.
One bull was in an enclosed pen.
I find this one hard to believe. If the bull was on federal land in a pen, then yes, they probably tried to round him out and get him loaded. I think that too many are willing to just take what they hear at face value and drive on.
I wasn't there, but from what I have read the bulls were shot because they charged the agents. Again, if the bulls had been on private property this would not have happened. The agents did not go on private property to get anything, including bulls. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 3:29 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 3:47 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-16 2:01 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 1:07 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 12:20 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 9:48 AM equussynergy - 2014-04-16 9:55 AM If you think that this about land, cattle and tortoises. I think you are wrong. I think this is about unelected officials stepping on Americans and American farmers and ranchers. I pray this is a sign of Americans are getting tired of it. In America if you are a small farmer it is illegal for you to produce food and sell it to your neighbors. If you have a milk cow and have extra milk in most places you have to dump it. If you sell it to a neighbor you are breaking the law. If you have extra meat birds or a pig or a steer. You cannot have it butchered and sell it to your neighbors without it being USDA inspected and you have to have a retail food establishment license. The FDA is coming down even harder on small farmers and if you want to grow your business it is becoming hard and harder to make it financially feasible. Even if you jump through regulatory hoops you can still have your farm raided at 3 am by heavily armed men who treat you and your family like they are terrorists and get no reasonable explanation for why. You can be happily raising your livestock and one day the Department of Natural Resources, issues a decree that the animals you are raising are an illegal invasive species and if you don’t kill them all you will be faced with fines reaching nearly a million dollars because your animals have, floppy ears or straight ears, and hundred other traits and some that are “not yet known” to the DNR so they can call all of your animals illegal! The BLM can just decide your cattle are killing turtles, or a plant or whatever and kick you animals off the lease. Or they can decide they want your land for whatever purpose and force you to sell it at what they want to pay, or threaten you with eminent domain.
I think these letter agencies need to answer to the American public. If we have them they need to be elected not appointed. If you are up against these letter agencies how do you get a fair trial? I know plenty of farmers and ranchers have gone broke fighting for what is right. They keep the farmers and ranchers in court for years and use their unlimited funds from the American tax payers to put these farmers and ranchers out of business by bleeding them dry going through the courts. The Bundy affair is just a symptom of a very broken system. Right or wrong it was inspiring to see Americans stand up for something in and age of such apathy. I don’t pretend to know the politics or all the laws or regulations, but I think there must be a better way where the American farmers and ranchers can get fair shake.
Now we're talking. I don't know anything, to speak of, about Mr Bundy and his woes. For all I know this man is a crackpot. I don't know what's fact and what's fiction, but I haven't looked very hard either. Equussynergy hit the nail on the head. I'm not ready to think of this as some cause celebre for conservatism any more than I think of Timothy McVeigh as a poster boy for conservatism or Ted Kozinsky for liberalism. Right now, people are eager to latch on to just about anything because they see tryanny everywhere. "I just want to hit someone" has become their motto. In so doing, many well intended people find themselves supporting a cause that may end up being hypocritical. Then we are no better than people like Finney who are eager to jump on something like this, while ignoring the hypocrisy on their own side.
I think this is a cheap shot too - I'm not sure who Finney is but clearly he or she has garnered some real backlash on this site. I'm not sure if it's warranted, but as for me I think that he/she's been treated pretty poorly on this thread. Again, I haven't been around much, but there are some pretty rude comments to her for a view that many actually share.
That's not a cheap shot. That's what happened. Personally, I didn't mind it at all, because it gave me an opportunity to shoot holes in the progressive-liberal agenda. I will admit, and I have said this several times before, I find it hard to repect the views of someone who has never ever been able to muster the intellectual courage to criticise someone in their own political party or someone who espouses the same political philosophy. She has never criticised anything progressive and has never criticised another Democrat.
Compare that with someone like TxBO who is unafraid to say when he thinks something or someone is wrong, regardless of their underlying political agenda. There are plenty of conservative-minded people on this board who have this kind of intellectual honesty. Finney doesn't. Hi Smiley, I'm just a middle aged woman who raises horses and has ranched her whole life, unlike most of the commentors who wouldn't know the ass end of a cow if it **** on them. I don't live in their echo chamber of fact denial, but rather like to think I'm normal. Ever since I lived in Wyoming for many years, I have found that many ranchers who own federal and state allotments to be ungrateful whiners. When I expressed my liberal opinion that this guy should either pay for his pasture or get off the property, that sent some people into conservative hysteria. I quit commenting on here because I found it addictive and spent way too much time on my laptop, and not enough time working to make a living. These people don't want another opinion, they only want their opinion of revolution and anarchy validated. I can't do that nor do I want to live in that kind of reality. I have no idea how anybody that comments on here all day gets any work done. People believe what they want to believe. I don't try to sling insults because that implies ignorance nor do I hide behind a nickname because that implies cowardice. I was taught better than that. If you look up my nickname on the internet, you'll see who we are, and if you talk to our friends you'll know who we are and what we stand for. Thank you Smiley. Don't let them corrupt you. Your opinion is yours and be proud of it, but if you are scared to claim it, maybe you should rethink your position or get different friends. Lunch break's over.
Thanks for the intro - clearly Hotbear can't stand you but that's okay, sometimes he and I have gone head to head too, but I like him and respect his ability to argue with me. Not many will actually.
And I agree with a lot that you've said on this thread to boot.
Well said, and that's why I remain an independent as well. I know some think of that as fence sitting, but I think of it as being able to think for myself. Sometimes - but not often - I actually agree with people on the left.  | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| FlyingJT - 2014-04-16 3:36 PM Could Bundy use prescriptive rights to when his argument in court against the BLM?
Actually, I've read in a couple of places where he is trying to do just that. I think he'll lose, but hey, we're only spending BLM money to deal with him anyway (tongue in cheek) | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| rodeomom13 - 2014-04-16 4:26 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-16 1:40 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 2:07 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 12:20 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 9:48 AM equussynergy - 2014-04-16 9:55 AM If you think that this about land, cattle and tortoises. I think you are wrong. I think this is about unelected officials stepping on Americans and American farmers and ranchers. I pray this is a sign of Americans are getting tired of it. In America if you are a small farmer it is illegal for you to produce food and sell it to your neighbors. If you have a milk cow and have extra milk in most places you have to dump it. If you sell it to a neighbor you are breaking the law. If you have extra meat birds or a pig or a steer. You cannot have it butchered and sell it to your neighbors without it being USDA inspected and you have to have a retail food establishment license. The FDA is coming down even harder on small farmers and if you want to grow your business it is becoming hard and harder to make it financially feasible. Even if you jump through regulatory hoops you can still have your farm raided at 3 am by heavily armed men who treat you and your family like they are terrorists and get no reasonable explanation for why. You can be happily raising your livestock and one day the Department of Natural Resources, issues a decree that the animals you are raising are an illegal invasive species and if you don’t kill them all you will be faced with fines reaching nearly a million dollars because your animals have, floppy ears or straight ears, and hundred other traits and some that are “not yet known” to the DNR so they can call all of your animals illegal! The BLM can just decide your cattle are killing turtles, or a plant or whatever and kick you animals off the lease. Or they can decide they want your land for whatever purpose and force you to sell it at what they want to pay, or threaten you with eminent domain.
I think these letter agencies need to answer to the American public. If we have them they need to be elected not appointed. If you are up against these letter agencies how do you get a fair trial? I know plenty of farmers and ranchers have gone broke fighting for what is right. They keep the farmers and ranchers in court for years and use their unlimited funds from the American tax payers to put these farmers and ranchers out of business by bleeding them dry going through the courts. The Bundy affair is just a symptom of a very broken system. Right or wrong it was inspiring to see Americans stand up for something in and age of such apathy. I don’t pretend to know the politics or all the laws or regulations, but I think there must be a better way where the American farmers and ranchers can get fair shake.
Now we're talking. I don't know anything, to speak of, about Mr Bundy and his woes. For all I know this man is a crackpot. I don't know what's fact and what's fiction, but I haven't looked very hard either. Equussynergy hit the nail on the head. I'm not ready to think of this as some cause celebre for conservatism any more than I think of Timothy McVeigh as a poster boy for conservatism or Ted Kozinsky for liberalism. Right now, people are eager to latch on to just about anything because they see tryanny everywhere. "I just want to hit someone" has become their motto. In so doing, many well intended people find themselves supporting a cause that may end up being hypocritical. Then we are no better than people like Finney who are eager to jump on something like this, while ignoring the hypocrisy on their own side.
I think this is a cheap shot too - I'm not sure who Finney is but clearly he or she has garnered some real backlash on this site. I'm not sure if it's warranted, but as for me I think that he/she's been treated pretty poorly on this thread. Again, I haven't been around much, but there are some pretty rude comments to her for a view that many actually share.
That's not a cheap shot. That's what happened. Personally, I didn't mind it at all, because it gave me an opportunity to shoot holes in the progressive-liberal agenda. I will admit, and I have said this several times before, I find it hard to repect the views of someone who has never ever been able to muster the intellectual courage to criticise someone in their own political party or someone who espouses the same political philosophy. She has never criticised anything progressive and has never criticised another Democrat.
Compare that with someone like TxBO who is unafraid to say when he thinks something or someone is wrong, regardless of their underlying political agenda. There are plenty of conservative-minded people on this board who have this kind of intellectual honesty. Finney doesn't. Mrs. Finney's historical M.O. has been to C&P something very incendiary in analogy 'passing wind' in a crowd of people and then running off laughing. And her last post that I quoted was as cherry picked as they come! She was attempting to stir the majority members (women's ) emotions with the idea of morals, chivalry and the implication of cowardice. Notice she would not paste a validated live link to her info? And when said Info was examined and analyzed, said action never actually took place. But VOILA! Mrs. Finney has created that proverbial sh!tstorm she is so historically famous for. Let me put me it this way, should Mrs. Finney have something for sell: I AIN'T buying! I vote with my hard earned dollars and I DO NOT support Progressive/Liberal Politics!
Oh my goodness, I finally watched some Maddow last night and while I don't agree with her condescending (sp) tone, she hit the nail on the head about the Bundy deal. It was embarassing to me as someone who falls on the right 90% of the time.
I doubt I'd watch her again, but she didn't have the horns and forked tongue I was expecting. | |
| | |
I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
Location: Online | foundation horse - 2014-04-16 10:34 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 11:19 PM LMAO.....Clay just posts some clappy hands and someone hits dislike!
That struck me as funny. Obliviously there is a contingent on this forum who seriously do not like me or anything I have to say. Oh well, I hope this contingent never runs into one of them 'First Amendment Zones'.......................
Yet no one comes to your defense, claiming that maybe you are just misunderstood.
(lets see how many dislikes I get for this.)
| |
| | |
I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
Location: Online | smiley - 2014-04-17 7:19 AM rodeomom13 - 2014-04-16 4:26 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-16 1:40 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 2:07 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 12:20 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 9:48 AM equussynergy - 2014-04-16 9:55 AM
Oh my goodness, I finally watched some Maddow last night and while I don't agree with her condescending (sp) tone, she hit the nail on the head about the Bundy deal. It was embarassing to me as someone who falls on the right 90% of the time.
I doubt I'd watch her again, but she didn't have the horns and forked tongue I was expecting.
I watch her if I'm in the mood to be ****ed off and yell at the TV. She is very condescending, and negative, and most of the time only tells part of the story with her own special spin. (Kinda like the mainstream media) | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-16 6:20 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-16 2:56 PM This LIVE Link is from the Guy who actually walked out front up to the FED's Fence. Also, there is invalidated info floating around that the FEDS were surrounded by 3000 Americans (Patriots/Militia Types ) and something like 500 FEDs. Again, this is unconfirmed to my knowledge. http://www.westernjournalism.com/footage-bundy-massacre/
I went to town today & had some time to mull this over some more...(imagine).
Part of me fumes when I hear people say that the ranchers out here are on 'the government teat'...yet, I can see the point. It's like the reservations...we're the next area to be 'socialized'...and have very little support in fighting it. If we grab our guns we're 'radical', if we do nothing we're cowards. The short answer is to give us our land, then we won't be a 'welfare cause' anymore.
Can that happen? Without a stand?
I don't think so.
Many on here & everywhere, including Cliven Bundy, have been saying that this isn't about cattle, turtles or even solar. This is just the 'tool' to get a fair day in court. It can't happen any other way...and I don't know that it will happen this way...there's not a lot of options, though.
I now know that those of us out west naively thought that we could garner some support from the rest of Americans once they knew what was going on & how wrongly the citizens of the western states have been denied our equal footing...a chance to be economically strong and independent, to own our land.
Now we know that the majority of the Americans we hoped would help have come to rely on the gov't sharing our 'riches' with them & they're not about to free us from gov't bondage.
What was a great day in America has turned into a hard truth the rest of us hoped & prayed wasn't so...our Constitution is no longer the law of the land.
For those who would say, "If you don't like it move"...you're next so what's the point?
I used to think that this Nation was split by the Mississippi...it's moved to the Great Divide & is seeping westward.
Oh well! Spring is here & the lake is calling! Gonna enjoy it while I can cuz there ain't no glueing this world back together Humpty.
Well, this was dramatically written.
But I agreed with some of your points, maybe not the way you think. You already were/are socialized, you basically had a benefit that no one else had and at a fraction of the cost of any other grazing land, access to public land in which your business was more viable than it would have been had you not had access to public land. It's not your land anymore than it's some wacky turtle loving liberals land. It's not their land either, which is why the BLM to my view, was the intermediary who was trying to keep BLM grazing while responding to the NEPA law and the activists. Again, they are danged if they do and danged if they don't.
You are asking, literally for the federal govt. to "give you your land" - but federal land was never yours to begin with. If it reverts back to the States, the sad fact is that these same activists will still be after the land, only now they too can go more locally to fight their battle as well. The sad fact is that the States will likely take the land and sell it to the highest bidder and then you have what you have in Wyoming and Colorado - people like Ted Turner buying up the prized land and raising the taxes of the locals and pushing them out another way. Do you really envision that the States will get the land and be all like "Ohhhhhhhhh, I know a perfect rancher to pay me $1.34 a head per month for this land." I just never see that happening. The BLM loses millions on their grazing permits, States won't settel for that once they get the land, if they get the land.
Who relies on the govt., to "share your riches"? The activists? Free you from govt., bondage?? I'm not sure I was able to keep up with your line of thinking here. Who put you in govt., bondage and what is stopping you from freeing yourself?
So, if someone does not support the federal land as a rancher's private reserve, then they are the problem??
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| rodeomom13 - 2014-04-17 7:21 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-16 10:34 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 11:19 PM LMAO.....Clay just posts some clappy hands and someone hits dislike!
That struck me as funny. Obliviously there is a contingent on this forum who seriously do not like me or anything I have to say. Oh well, I hope this contingent never runs into one of them 'First Amendment Zones'.......................
Is this directed at ME?  | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | smiley - 2014-04-17 8:15 AM Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 3:24 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 1:01 PM They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls.
Then if they were so prized - they shouldn't have been off the 160 acre Bundy ranch, which resides on private property. They charged the agents and were shot. Fencing would be destroyed if it was on federal land that they needed access to. They will probably send Bundy a bill for their work too.
One bull was in an enclosed pen.
I wasn't there, but from what I have read the bulls were shot because they charged the agents. Again, if the bulls had been on private property this would not have happened. The agents did not go on private property to get anything, including bulls.
It can and does happen on private property. Armed govt agents, whether police, ATF, whatever, plus aggressive animal...bang. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
|
OMGoodness, I can't edit my typos. This will drive me insane all day - Settle with an le, not an el.
I feel better now. And if I missed some, don't point them out. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-17 7:36 AM smiley - 2014-04-17 8:15 AM Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 3:24 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 1:01 PM They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls.
Then if they were so prized - they shouldn't have been off the 160 acre Bundy ranch, which resides on private property. They charged the agents and were shot. Fencing would be destroyed if it was on federal land that they needed access to. They will probably send Bundy a bill for their work too.
One bull was in an enclosed pen.
I wasn't there, but from what I have read the bulls were shot because they charged the agents. Again, if the bulls had been on private property this would not have happened. The agents did not go on private property to get anything, including bulls.
Oh, of course it can, but that wasn't what we were arguing about. I'm not saying that can't happen, I'm saying if this bull was in an enclosure, then it must have been one on the fed land, as by all reports they never stepped foot on private Bundy land. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-17 7:31 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-16 6:20 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-16 2:56 PM This LIVE Link is from the Guy who actually walked out front up to the FED's Fence. Also, there is invalidated info floating around that the FEDS were surrounded by 3000 Americans (Patriots/Militia Types ) and something like 500 FEDs. Again, this is unconfirmed to my knowledge. http://www.westernjournalism.com/footage-bundy-massacre/
I went to town today & had some time to mull this over some more...(imagine).
Part of me fumes when I hear people say that the ranchers out here are on 'the government teat'...yet, I can see the point. It's like the reservations...we're the next area to be 'socialized'...and have very little support in fighting it. If we grab our guns we're 'radical', if we do nothing we're cowards. The short answer is to give us our land, then we won't be a 'welfare cause' anymore.
Can that happen? Without a stand?
I don't think so.
Many on here & everywhere, including Cliven Bundy, have been saying that this isn't about cattle, turtles or even solar. This is just the 'tool' to get a fair day in court. It can't happen any other way...and I don't know that it will happen this way...there's not a lot of options, though.
I now know that those of us out west naively thought that we could garner some support from the rest of Americans once they knew what was going on & how wrongly the citizens of the western states have been denied our equal footing...a chance to be economically strong and independent, to own our land.
Now we know that the majority of the Americans we hoped would help have come to rely on the gov't sharing our 'riches' with them & they're not about to free us from gov't bondage.
What was a great day in America has turned into a hard truth the rest of us hoped & prayed wasn't so...our Constitution is no longer the law of the land.
For those who would say, "If you don't like it move"...you're next so what's the point?
I used to think that this Nation was split by the Mississippi...it's moved to the Great Divide & is seeping westward.
Oh well! Spring is here & the lake is calling! Gonna enjoy it while I can cuz there ain't no glueing this world back together Humpty.
But I agreed with some of your points, maybe not the way you think. You already were/are socialized, you basically had a benefit that no one else had and at a fraction of the cost of any other grazing land, access to public land in which your business was more viable than it would have been had you not had access to public land. It's not your land anymore than it's some wacky turtle loving liberals land. It's not their land either, which is why the BLM to my view, was the intermediary who was trying to keep BLM grazing while responding to the NEPA law and the activists. Again, they are danged if they do and danged if they don't.
You are asking, literally for the federal govt. to "give you your land" - but federal land was never yours to begin with. If it reverts back to the States, the sad fact is that these same activists will still be after the land, only now they too can go more locally to fight their battle as well. The sad fact is that the States will likely take the land and sell it to the highest bidder and then you have what you have in Wyoming and Colorado - people like Ted Turner buying up the prized land and raising the taxes of the locals and pushing them out another way. Do you really envision that the States will get the land and be all like "Ohhhhhhhhh, I know a perfect rancher to pay me $1.34 a head per month for this land." I just never see that happening. The BLM loses millions on their grazing permits, States won't settel for that once they get the land, if they get the land.
Who relies on the govt., to "share your riches"? The activists? Free you from govt., bondage?? I'm not sure I was able to keep up with your line of thinking here. Who put you in govt., bondage and what is stopping you from freeing yourself?
So, if someone does not support the federal land as a rancher's private reserve, then they are the problem??
You're not comprehending the fact that the states were supposed to recieve the land, water, minerals...and taxing authority...within their borders! The fed hasn't kept up their end of the bargain...the various 'enabling acts' allowed the states to gain statehood without the land 'until such a time as the land was disposed of' (as in sold, homesteaded etc...). It never happened.
So ranchers, miners, drillers etc...have put this land into production over the years & used their own funds to do so...they've taken risks...it's the American way.
You seem to think it's easy living...that they're getting 'rich' and you resent that. There's nothing wrong with making a living, even a good one, while providing product to a Nation.
In more recent years the fed has been closing the land to 'multiple use'...mostly at the urging of groups like the Sierra Club, Earth First, various 'Friends of_____' & Wilderness Associations. Non-profits with huge bank accounts who employ high wage lobbyists to close down land to the public it supposedly belongs to. In order for them to continue to ask for donations they must have 'emergencies'...they must have more & more land that they can target. They have many friends & appointments within the BLM...as pointed out over & over, the BLM is NOT answerable to the public...it can & should be dismantled.
Anyhow...I see how it is...sadly you do not. I suppose we all have a loyalty to who butters our bread regardless of the right or wrong of it.
And no, we're not 'asking' we'll be demanding & have every right to do so. Furthermore, it's nobody's business outside of the state what we do with the land.
You've twisted the thought process...I mean...a "ranchers private reserve"??? Lol...
One more time...the gov't used to claim 51% (their take as managers) of the land revenue while the states recieved 49%...until last year, the gov't decided (without public knowledge) to up their % to 53...they're broke ya know...because of a little known 'agreement' with the origianl 13 states concerning this revenue, it's split between the remaining states, as in, those are the monies that Congress fights over every year during the budget wars. So there's your 'greed'. The 'carrot on the stick'. And precisely 'who' put the western states in bondage to the eastern states.
Whoever thinks this is ok is the problem.
And it wouldn't take a court to make it right as it's already law...just decency & a desire to fix a major wrong.
| |
| | |
Own It and Move On
Location: The edge of no where | smiley - 2014-04-17 8:37 AM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-17 7:36 AM smiley - 2014-04-17 8:15 AM Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 3:24 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 1:01 PM They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls.
Then if they were so prized - they shouldn't have been off the 160 acre Bundy ranch, which resides on private property. They charged the agents and were shot. Fencing would be destroyed if it was on federal land that they needed access to. They will probably send Bundy a bill for their work too.
One bull was in an enclosed pen.
I wasn't there, but from what I have read the bulls were shot because they charged the agents. Again, if the bulls had been on private property this would not have happened. The agents did not go on private property to get anything, including bulls.
It was STILL in a PEN.
They took a half assed excuse to shoot them. Given the confrontational nature of the 'roundup', they were looking for any excuse. I've worked lots of cattle, I'm calling bullchit on shooting them being the only way to deal with the situation.
It's not just in NV. I still want to know why the BLM even has a police force? And why, no matter whose, where the cattle are...it's ok to use inhumance tactics like this to gather?
Why was this deemed a crisis that had to be address in this manner now?
Al Sharpton owes the IRS 1.9 million, and gets dinner with Obummer.....This guy 'might' owe a figure far south of 1 million, and we blow 3 million to go after it?
This is from Sid Miller's page...
As you may know, I have taken a strong stance against the abuses and federal overreach of the Obama Administration and by the President’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) here in Texas. What has taken place in recent days in Nevada is clear and compelling evidence that Barack Obama and his out-of-control thugs will stop at nothing to seize more power and exert their will, regardless whether doing so violates our constitution, impedes state’s rights, or infringes upon the private property and water rights of farmers, ranchers, and individual landowners. I will not stand by and let what happened in Nevada happen in Texas—not on my watch!
Earlier this week, I issued a press release urging Governor Perry to be prepared, if necessary, to mobilize our state’s military and law enforcement resources in order to protect Texas citizens and landowners from proposed actions that would put some 90,000 acres of land along a 116 mile stretch of the Red River at risk of a BLM takeover.
Yesterday, believe it or not, I received a call from a Republican State Legislator asking me to back down from my “aggressive” stance against the federal government and the BLM. He was concerned that our fellow Texans might show up armed on the Red River in order to defend their friends, neighbors and fellow citizens against the BLM and its heavy handed tactics by armed federal agents. This state lawmaker told me that since I issued my press release earlier this week alerting Texans to the very real danger to their private property rights his office has been receiving calls from what he described as “crazy, gun-toting Texans” and that caused him concern. He told me he wanted me to retract my statement and back down on my stance against the BLM. He told me that if didn’t do so he would retract his endorsement of me in my race for Texas Agriculture Commissioner.
If you know anything about Sid Miller, you know that I don’t back down from doing what is right. Gaining an endorsement from a politician is never worth giving up my beliefs, violating the constitution, or putting the individual rights of Texans and their property at risk. I will never back down from an over-reaching federal government no matter what the cost and most especially because I might lose a campaign endorsement.
The only endorsement I truly care about is yours and I pray that you will continue to stand with me and our fellow citizens here in Texas, Nevada, and across the United States who have been abused and victimized by Barack Obama and his out-of-control, overreaching, and over regulating federal agents and bureaucrats.
The stakes have never been higher in the race for Texas Agriculture Commissioner. I want you to know that as your next Ag Commissioner, I will always say what I mean, do what I say, and stand up in defense of our freedoms. You should demand that from all of your elected officials because you deserve no less.
If you agree, please share this with your friends and family. I won’t get the support of the Austin insiders who are afraid to take a stand, which means your vote and support in the May 27th Republican Primary run-off is even more important. I humbly ask for your vote and ask that you keep me in your prayers as I continue this fight.
---Sid Miller
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 926
| musikmaker - 2014-04-17 9:21 AM
smiley - 2014-04-17 7:31 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-16 6:20 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-16 2:56 PM This LIVE Link is from the Guy who actually walked out front up to the FED's Fence. Also, there is invalidated info floating around that the FEDS were surrounded by 3000 Americans (Patriots/Militia Types ) and something like 500 FEDs. Again, this is unconfirmed to my knowledge. http://www.westernjournalism.com/footage-bundy-massacre/
I went to town today & had some time to mull this over some more...(imagine).
Part of me fumes when I hear people say that the ranchers out here are on 'the government teat'...yet, I can see the point. It's like the reservations...we're the next area to be 'socialized'...and have very little support in fighting it. If we grab our guns we're 'radical', if we do nothing we're cowards. The short answer is to give us our land, then we won't be a 'welfare cause' anymore.
Can that happen? Without a stand?
I don't think so.
Many on here & everywhere, including Cliven Bundy, have been saying that this isn't about cattle, turtles or even solar. This is just the 'tool' to get a fair day in court. It can't happen any other way...and I don't know that it will happen this way...there's not a lot of options, though.
I now know that those of us out west naively thought that we could garner some support from the rest of Americans once they knew what was going on & how wrongly the citizens of the western states have been denied our equal footing...a chance to be economically strong and independent, to own our land.
Now we know that the majority of the Americans we hoped would help have come to rely on the gov't sharing our 'riches' with them & they're not about to free us from gov't bondage.
What was a great day in America has turned into a hard truth the rest of us hoped & prayed wasn't so...our Constitution is no longer the law of the land.
For those who would say, "If you don't like it move"...you're next so what's the point?
I used to think that this Nation was split by the Mississippi...it's moved to the Great Divide & is seeping westward.
Oh well! Spring is here & the lake is calling! Gonna enjoy it while I can cuz there ain't no glueing this world back together Humpty.
But I agreed with some of your points, maybe not the way you think. You already were/are socialized, you basically had a benefit that no one else had and at a fraction of the cost of any other grazing land, access to public land in which your business was more viable than it would have been had you not had access to public land. It's not your land anymore than it's some wacky turtle loving liberals land. It's not their land either, which is why the BLM to my view, was the intermediary who was trying to keep BLM grazing while responding to the NEPA law and the activists. Again, they are danged if they do and danged if they don't.
You are asking, literally for the federal govt. to "give you your land" - but federal land was never yours to begin with. If it reverts back to the States, the sad fact is that these same activists will still be after the land, only now they too can go more locally to fight their battle as well. The sad fact is that the States will likely take the land and sell it to the highest bidder and then you have what you have in Wyoming and Colorado - people like Ted Turner buying up the prized land and raising the taxes of the locals and pushing them out another way. Do you really envision that the States will get the land and be all like "Ohhhhhhhhh, I know a perfect rancher to pay me $1.34 a head per month for this land." I just never see that happening. The BLM loses millions on their grazing permits, States won't settel for that once they get the land, if they get the land.
Who relies on the govt., to "share your riches"? The activists? Free you from govt., bondage?? I'm not sure I was able to keep up with your line of thinking here. Who put you in govt., bondage and what is stopping you from freeing yourself?
So, if someone does not support the federal land as a rancher's private reserve, then they are the problem??
So ranchers, miners, drillers etc...have put this land into production over the years & used their own funds to do so...they've taken risks...it's the American way.
You seem to think it's easy living...that they're getting 'rich' and you resent that. There's nothing wrong with making a living, even a good one, while providing product to a Nation.
In more recent years the fed has been closing the land to 'multiple use'...mostly at the urging of groups like the Sierra Club, Earth First, various 'Friends of_____' & Wilderness Associations. Non-profits with huge bank accounts who employ high wage lobbyists to close down land to the public it supposedly belongs to. In order for them to continue to ask for donations they must have 'emergencies'...they must have more & more land that they can target. They have many friends & appointments within the BLM...as pointed out over & over, the BLM is NOT answerable to the public...it can & should be dismantled.
Anyhow...I see how it is...sadly you do not. I suppose we all have a loyalty to who butters our bread regardless of the right or wrong of it.
And no, we're not 'asking' we'll be demanding & have every right to do so. Furthermore, it's nobody's business outside of the state what we do with the land.
You've twisted the thought process...I mean...a "ranchers private reserve"??? Lol...
One more time...the gov't used to claim 51% (their take as managers) of the land revenue while the states recieved 49%...until last year, the gov't decided (without public knowledge) to up their % to 53...they're broke ya know...because of a little known 'agreement' with the origianl 13 states concerning this revenue, it's split between the remaining states, as in, those are the monies that Congress fights over every year during the budget wars. So there's your 'greed'. The 'carrot on the stick'. And precisely 'who' put the western states in bondage to the eastern states.
Whoever thinks this is ok is the problem.
And it wouldn't take a court to make it right as it's already law...just decency & a desire to fix a major wrong.
I just can't wrap my head around the fact that because Bundy doesn't believe it is national land, even though apparently someone knew it when they took up the offer to graze cattle on it for a little over a buck a head, but now that it's time to pay for it, well it belongs to the state. Huh? The Bundy's have had chances to remedy this through the appropriate channels, and there's always an excuse....we've had bad experiences with lawyers.....per the constitution Nevada owns this not the federal government, so we don't think we should pay the feds...bottom line so we don't pay anyone, and whip up a firestorm of Liberty and Injustice because it seems to me they just don't want to pay their bills. I know what would happen to me if I all of a sudden decided I didn't want to pay Chase my mortgage payment because I thought it belonged to Bank of America.
Don't we all own the land that the Bundy's have leased, but not paid for? What about National Parks? I think there's a few of those in Nevada, one pretty good sized one in a neighboring state, the Grand Canyon? I don't remember seeing big issues over those nationally owned pieces of land.
Now, it's become something way out of proportion to what it should be, and the longer it goes, the less I feel for this rancher. Like the original poster said, if he doesn't like the arrangement let someone else take it. Move your herd to the land you own and you can do what you dang well please.
| |
| | |
 I Don't Brag
Posts: 6960
| I have skipped the middle 10 or 15 pages of this thread because I just don't have the time or patience anymore. So now I am going to string together a bunch of random thoughts and opinions on what I have read.
First. This is about power and control vs individual rights. ANYBODY who thinks that they OWN their own land, that they bought and paid for.....it's all an illusion. Try not paying your taxes. Or not conforming to zoning laws. Or untold regulations put in place without your knowledge or consent. Or be in the path of some project either private or governmental, (the biggest example would be the Trans Texas Corridor, more aptly, the Trans American Corridor or whatever they want to call it going through Mexico, the US and Canada) and see what effect Eminent Domain will have on your "private and paid for property". Oh and don't forget the power grab by the EPA over any property with a drop of water on it. Does YOUR property have a drop of water on it? Beware! They didn't tell you that when you bought your "private" property did they, because they changed the rules midgame, kinda like in the issues facing ranchers out West.
Next, just because "It's the Law" does not make it right or Just. Bad laws are passed everyday, without our knowledge or consent and we are held beholden to them with the argument that ignorance of the "law" is no defense. Beyond that what was Law yesterday can be completely changed today with the stroke of "a pen'' through Executive order at the whim and political/personal opinion and agenda of whoever is holding that pen. NOT what we signed up for or were promised eh?
Next. Most people believe that we live in a Democracy. It's what we are taught. This country was form as a Republic, with individual States retaining the Right to govern within it's borders. The Federal Government, over time has pretty much usurped the States Rights to govern under the guise of the "better good". This is the battleground that the Bundy case is being fought on. What gives the Federal Government the right to
designate land as Federal in the first place? Out West vast tracts of land was retained by the Government to completely subsidized the Railroad for right of way and for timber to supply the rails. I'm pretty sure that politicians were lining their own, private pockets back then. And an aside...the railroad is heavily subsidized to this day.
While I abhor slavery and was taught that the Civil War was fought over slavery, I can see more and more that it was an issue of States Rights. Had they confined the issue to slavery then it was a just War, when you bring the issue of States Rights, then I can see where the issue becomes a very gray area indeed.
Some questions. Somewhere on this thread somebody stated that the BLM makes money....like that is OK. Our government was never intend to be in business. IMHO instead of, or in addition to the Separation of Church and State there should be a clause about the Separation of Business and State. Yes there are "laws" but they are conveniently overlooked and ignored when it comes down to political finagling. When government owns/operates business I believe that is called Fascism? I may conservative but not that far right!
Another question. Why is the BLM dressed and armed like the Military? I find that a frightening thing. Couple with the fact that the IRS and other arms of the government who are supposed to "help" us and look out for our welfare are similarly armed and equipped under the guise of "Homeland Security" and our "protection" and the "greater good" I am VERY frightened....by my own government, supposedly "...OF the People, BY the People and For the People. " It becomes more and more apparent that "I" have been removed from "the People."!
To the politically inclined. Those on the Left howl about Big Business, those on the Right howl about Big Government. IMHO anybody who think the two are separate are pretty much delusional. They go hand in hand these days. IMHO the Koch Brothers and Harry Reid are cut from the same cloth and are fighting over the same marbles....OUR marbles included. The cloth comes from the same shroud of politics no matter which end of the political spectrum they call home. I have never understood the lust for enormous political and financial power. I want power in my own life, FOR my own life. Why would I want power over someone else? I just don't get that. And how much money can you spend...really? Unless you spend it in a quest for more "power"??? ANYBODY with that mindset NEEDS to be questioned rather than followed blindly.
Now a random observation or two. Someone justified the shooting of a couple of bulls because they charged....ummm......solitary bulls are apt to charge. It's what they do, they are bulls....not domestic pets....they are bulls! Somebody should have clued those BLM guys in....or it was an intentional message sent. This is what will happen to you if you defy us.
I don't know if Bundy falls more on the side of right or wrong, but I am inclined to support him over Big Brother because of the increased abuse of power and law perpetuated by government.
I am pretty sure that I have more observations and opinions but I have lost track of them and even more sure that anyone who has bothered to read my ramblings here cares to read them.... Well all but one. Who in the heck CARES about how many Likes/Dislikes ?????!!!!! Not me, I guess...
That is all....for now.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-17 8:15 AM
Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 3:24 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 1:01 PM They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls.
Then if they were so prized - they shouldn't have been off the 160 acre Bundy ranch, which resides on private property. They charged the agents and were shot. Fencing would be destroyed if it was on federal land that they needed access to. They will probably send Bundy a bill for their work too.
One bull was in an enclosed pen.
I wasn't there, but from what I have read the bulls were shot because they charged the agents. Again, if the bulls had been on private property this would not have happened. The agents did not go on private property to get anything, including bulls.
Smiley, I would agree w/ you if said charged the agents. But there is video to indicate one bull was paneled corral and had the charged the agents the corral would have damaged would they not? For per the video of the corral panels there was no damage. Now granted this is from The Bundy Supporters, however The BLM has not debunked the idea that this bull was not in the corral shown. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | chicks2 - 2014-04-17 9:22 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-17 9:21 AM smiley - 2014-04-17 7:31 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-16 6:20 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-16 2:56 PM This LIVE Link is from the Guy who actually walked out front up to the FED's Fence. Also, there is invalidated info floating around that the FEDS were surrounded by 3000 Americans (Patriots/Militia Types ) and something like 500 FEDs. Again, this is unconfirmed to my knowledge. http://www.westernjournalism.com/footage-bundy-massacre/
I went to town today & had some time to mull this over some more...(imagine).
Part of me fumes when I hear people say that the ranchers out here are on 'the government teat'...yet, I can see the point. It's like the reservations...we're the next area to be 'socialized'...and have very little support in fighting it. If we grab our guns we're 'radical', if we do nothing we're cowards. The short answer is to give us our land, then we won't be a 'welfare cause' anymore.
Can that happen? Without a stand?
I don't think so.
Many on here & everywhere, including Cliven Bundy, have been saying that this isn't about cattle, turtles or even solar. This is just the 'tool' to get a fair day in court. It can't happen any other way...and I don't know that it will happen this way...there's not a lot of options, though.
I now know that those of us out west naively thought that we could garner some support from the rest of Americans once they knew what was going on & how wrongly the citizens of the western states have been denied our equal footing...a chance to be economically strong and independent, to own our land.
Now we know that the majority of the Americans we hoped would help have come to rely on the gov't sharing our 'riches' with them & they're not about to free us from gov't bondage.
What was a great day in America has turned into a hard truth the rest of us hoped & prayed wasn't so...our Constitution is no longer the law of the land.
For those who would say, "If you don't like it move"...you're next so what's the point?
I used to think that this Nation was split by the Mississippi...it's moved to the Great Divide & is seeping westward.
Oh well! Spring is here & the lake is calling! Gonna enjoy it while I can cuz there ain't no glueing this world back together Humpty.
But I agreed with some of your points, maybe not the way you think. You already were/are socialized, you basically had a benefit that no one else had and at a fraction of the cost of any other grazing land, access to public land in which your business was more viable than it would have been had you not had access to public land. It's not your land anymore than it's some wacky turtle loving liberals land. It's not their land either, which is why the BLM to my view, was the intermediary who was trying to keep BLM grazing while responding to the NEPA law and the activists. Again, they are danged if they do and danged if they don't.
You are asking, literally for the federal govt. to "give you your land" - but federal land was never yours to begin with. If it reverts back to the States, the sad fact is that these same activists will still be after the land, only now they too can go more locally to fight their battle as well. The sad fact is that the States will likely take the land and sell it to the highest bidder and then you have what you have in Wyoming and Colorado - people like Ted Turner buying up the prized land and raising the taxes of the locals and pushing them out another way. Do you really envision that the States will get the land and be all like "Ohhhhhhhhh, I know a perfect rancher to pay me $1.34 a head per month for this land." I just never see that happening. The BLM loses millions on their grazing permits, States won't settel for that once they get the land, if they get the land.
Who relies on the govt., to "share your riches"? The activists? Free you from govt., bondage?? I'm not sure I was able to keep up with your line of thinking here. Who put you in govt., bondage and what is stopping you from freeing yourself?
So, if someone does not support the federal land as a rancher's private reserve, then they are the problem??
So ranchers, miners, drillers etc...have put this land into production over the years & used their own funds to do so...they've taken risks...it's the American way.
You seem to think it's easy living...that they're getting 'rich' and you resent that. There's nothing wrong with making a living, even a good one, while providing product to a Nation.
In more recent years the fed has been closing the land to 'multiple use'...mostly at the urging of groups like the Sierra Club, Earth First, various 'Friends of_____' & Wilderness Associations. Non-profits with huge bank accounts who employ high wage lobbyists to close down land to the public it supposedly belongs to. In order for them to continue to ask for donations they must have 'emergencies'...they must have more & more land that they can target. They have many friends & appointments within the BLM...as pointed out over & over, the BLM is NOT answerable to the public...it can & should be dismantled.
Anyhow...I see how it is...sadly you do not. I suppose we all have a loyalty to who butters our bread regardless of the right or wrong of it.
And no, we're not 'asking' we'll be demanding & have every right to do so. Furthermore, it's nobody's business outside of the state what we do with the land.
You've twisted the thought process...I mean...a "ranchers private reserve"??? Lol...
One more time...the gov't used to claim 51% (their take as managers) of the land revenue while the states recieved 49%...until last year, the gov't decided (without public knowledge) to up their % to 53...they're broke ya know...because of a little known 'agreement' with the origianl 13 states concerning this revenue, it's split between the remaining states, as in, those are the monies that Congress fights over every year during the budget wars. So there's your 'greed'. The 'carrot on the stick'. And precisely 'who' put the western states in bondage to the eastern states.
Whoever thinks this is ok is the problem.
And it wouldn't take a court to make it right as it's already law...just decency & a desire to fix a major wrong.
I just can't wrap my head around the fact that because Bundy doesn't believe it is national land, even though apparently someone knew it when they took up the offer to graze cattle on it for a little over a buck a head, but now that it's time to pay for it, well it belongs to the state. Huh? The Bundy's have had chances to remedy this through the appropriate channels, and there's always an excuse....we've had bad experiences with lawyers.....per the constitution Nevada owns this not the federal government, so we don't think we should pay the feds...bottom line so we don't pay anyone, and whip up a firestorm of Liberty and Injustice because it seems to me they just don't want to pay their bills. I know what would happen to me if I all of a sudden decided I didn't want to pay Chase my mortgage payment because I thought it belonged to Bank of America. Don't we all own the land that the Bundy's have leased, but not paid for? What about National Parks? I think there's a few of those in Nevada, one pretty good sized one in a neighboring state, the Grand Canyon? I don't remember seeing big issues over those nationally owned pieces of land. Now, it's become something way out of proportion to what it should be, and the longer it goes, the less I feel for this rancher. Like the original poster said, if he doesn't like the arrangement let someone else take it. Move your herd to the land you own and you can do what you dang well please.
I'm honestly trying very hard to 'feel' this type of 'opinion'...it's nearly impossible for me because I keep going to that "what's right/wrong" place! And I'm not speaking of the Bundy Cattle...you see, it's not the issue. This is about a rancher who was being forced out of existance along with his neighbors by whatever means the fed could find. The fed was using the monies paid to them by the ranchers to destroy them...why should anyone be required to pay for their own demise?
Bundy 'fired' them back in 1993. They weren't using the fees he paid to maintain & manage the lease as agreed. He took a stand way back then regarding this issue.
I haven't searched for this myself, maybe someone on here has the time, but, I've heard that the Bundy case was originally heard by a local to court & when the rancher's case before him was dismissed the reps from the gov't left the court room & refused to have it heard there. That was when Bundy refused to acknowledge their authority & jurisdiction. This is the real issue...what authority and/or jurisidiction do these alphabet agencies truly and legally have over the citizens? The answer is none.
Let me repeat a portion of that...the representatives for the government...note...they don't represent the people as they are not a part of the people's gov't. Drink this in & know it to be the truth.
This is not about Bundy or his cattle or the tortoise or the solar...it's about gov't overreach and how the people have been scammed & bullied. Bundy has never said he didn't owe the grazing fees, he's just not going to pay it to an agency that cannot even prove their Constitutional right to exist.
I hope that helps...it's a very complicated matter, obviously, otherwise he'd already be off the land after all these years!
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | rodeomom13 - 2014-04-17 8:21 AM
foundation horse - 2014-04-16 10:34 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 11:19 PM LMAO.....Clay just posts some clappy hands and someone hits dislike!
That struck me as funny. Obliviously there is a contingent on this forum who seriously do not like me or anything I have to say. Oh well, I hope this contingent never runs into one of them 'First Amendment Zones'.......................
Does the term "Lone Voice in The Wilderness" come to mind? LMAO | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | rodeomom13 - 2014-04-17 8:21 AM
foundation horse - 2014-04-16 10:34 PM HotbearLVR - 2014-04-16 11:19 PM LMAO.....Clay just posts some clappy hands and someone hits dislike!
That struck me as funny. Obliviously there is a contingent on this forum who seriously do not like me or anything I have to say. Oh well, I hope this contingent never runs into one of them 'First Amendment Zones'.......................
Or maybe because I am crazy and know it! Remember there are those who are crazy and do not know it! heeheheheeheheheh | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-17 8:31 AM
musikmaker - 2014-04-16 6:20 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-16 2:56 PM This LIVE Link is from the Guy who actually walked out front up to the FED's Fence. Also, there is invalidated info floating around that the FEDS were surrounded by 3000 Americans (Patriots/Militia Types ) and something like 500 FEDs. Again, this is unconfirmed to my knowledge. http://www.westernjournalism.com/footage-bundy-massacre/
I went to town today & had some time to mull this over some more...(imagine).
Part of me fumes when I hear people say that the ranchers out here are on 'the government teat'...yet, I can see the point. It's like the reservations...we're the next area to be 'socialized'...and have very little support in fighting it. If we grab our guns we're 'radical', if we do nothing we're cowards. The short answer is to give us our land, then we won't be a 'welfare cause' anymore.
Can that happen? Without a stand?
I don't think so.
Many on here & everywhere, including Cliven Bundy, have been saying that this isn't about cattle, turtles or even solar. This is just the 'tool' to get a fair day in court. It can't happen any other way...and I don't know that it will happen this way...there's not a lot of options, though.
I now know that those of us out west naively thought that we could garner some support from the rest of Americans once they knew what was going on & how wrongly the citizens of the western states have been denied our equal footing...a chance to be economically strong and independent, to own our land.
Now we know that the majority of the Americans we hoped would help have come to rely on the gov't sharing our 'riches' with them & they're not about to free us from gov't bondage.
What was a great day in America has turned into a hard truth the rest of us hoped & prayed wasn't so...our Constitution is no longer the law of the land.
For those who would say, "If you don't like it move"...you're next so what's the point?
I used to think that this Nation was split by the Mississippi...it's moved to the Great Divide & is seeping westward.
Oh well! Spring is here & the lake is calling! Gonna enjoy it while I can cuz there ain't no glueing this world back together Humpty.
But I agreed with some of your points, maybe not the way you think. You already were/are socialized, you basically had a benefit that no one else had and at a fraction of the cost of any other grazing land, access to public land in which your business was more viable than it would have been had you not had access to public land. It's not your land anymore than it's some wacky turtle loving liberals land. It's not their land either, which is why the BLM to my view, was the intermediary who was trying to keep BLM grazing while responding to the NEPA law and the activists. Again, they are danged if they do and danged if they don't.
You are asking, literally for the federal govt. to "give you your land" - but federal land was never yours to begin with. If it reverts back to the States, the sad fact is that these same activists will still be after the land, only now they too can go more locally to fight their battle as well. The sad fact is that the States will likely take the land and sell it to the highest bidder and then you have what you have in Wyoming and Colorado - people like Ted Turner buying up the prized land and raising the taxes of the locals and pushing them out another way. Do you really envision that the States will get the land and be all like "Ohhhhhhhhh, I know a perfect rancher to pay me $1.34 a head per month for this land." I just never see that happening. The BLM loses millions on their grazing permits, States won't settel for that once they get the land, if they get the land.
Who relies on the govt., to "share your riches"? The activists? Free you from govt., bondage?? I'm not sure I was able to keep up with your line of thinking here. Who put you in govt., bondage and what is stopping you from freeing yourself?
So, if someone does not support the federal land as a rancher's private reserve, then they are the problem??
Smiley, are you discounting the original intent of The Gov't Land Office to disposition said land? | |
| | |
Swiffer PIcker Upper
Posts: 4015
Location: Four Corners Colorado | musikmaker - 2014-04-17 9:42 AM chicks2 - 2014-04-17 9:22 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-17 9:21 AM smiley - 2014-04-17 7:31 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-16 6:20 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-16 2:56 PM This LIVE Link is from the Guy who actually walked out front up to the FED's Fence. Also, there is invalidated info floating around that the FEDS were surrounded by 3000 Americans (Patriots/Militia Types ) and something like 500 FEDs. Again, this is unconfirmed to my knowledge. http://www.westernjournalism.com/footage-bundy-massacre/
I went to town today & had some time to mull this over some more...(imagine).
Part of me fumes when I hear people say that the ranchers out here are on 'the government teat'...yet, I can see the point. It's like the reservations...we're the next area to be 'socialized'...and have very little support in fighting it. If we grab our guns we're 'radical', if we do nothing we're cowards. The short answer is to give us our land, then we won't be a 'welfare cause' anymore.
Can that happen? Without a stand?
I don't think so.
Many on here & everywhere, including Cliven Bundy, have been saying that this isn't about cattle, turtles or even solar. This is just the 'tool' to get a fair day in court. It can't happen any other way...and I don't know that it will happen this way...there's not a lot of options, though.
I now know that those of us out west naively thought that we could garner some support from the rest of Americans once they knew what was going on & how wrongly the citizens of the western states have been denied our equal footing...a chance to be economically strong and independent, to own our land.
Now we know that the majority of the Americans we hoped would help have come to rely on the gov't sharing our 'riches' with them & they're not about to free us from gov't bondage.
What was a great day in America has turned into a hard truth the rest of us hoped & prayed wasn't so...our Constitution is no longer the law of the land.
For those who would say, "If you don't like it move"...you're next so what's the point?
I used to think that this Nation was split by the Mississippi...it's moved to the Great Divide & is seeping westward.
Oh well! Spring is here & the lake is calling! Gonna enjoy it while I can cuz there ain't no glueing this world back together Humpty.
But I agreed with some of your points, maybe not the way you think. You already were/are socialized, you basically had a benefit that no one else had and at a fraction of the cost of any other grazing land, access to public land in which your business was more viable than it would have been had you not had access to public land. It's not your land anymore than it's some wacky turtle loving liberals land. It's not their land either, which is why the BLM to my view, was the intermediary who was trying to keep BLM grazing while responding to the NEPA law and the activists. Again, they are danged if they do and danged if they don't.
You are asking, literally for the federal govt. to "give you your land" - but federal land was never yours to begin with. If it reverts back to the States, the sad fact is that these same activists will still be after the land, only now they too can go more locally to fight their battle as well. The sad fact is that the States will likely take the land and sell it to the highest bidder and then you have what you have in Wyoming and Colorado - people like Ted Turner buying up the prized land and raising the taxes of the locals and pushing them out another way. Do you really envision that the States will get the land and be all like "Ohhhhhhhhh, I know a perfect rancher to pay me $1.34 a head per month for this land." I just never see that happening. The BLM loses millions on their grazing permits, States won't settel for that once they get the land, if they get the land.
Who relies on the govt., to "share your riches"? The activists? Free you from govt., bondage?? I'm not sure I was able to keep up with your line of thinking here. Who put you in govt., bondage and what is stopping you from freeing yourself?
So, if someone does not support the federal land as a rancher's private reserve, then they are the problem??
So ranchers, miners, drillers etc...have put this land into production over the years & used their own funds to do so...they've taken risks...it's the American way.
You seem to think it's easy living...that they're getting 'rich' and you resent that. There's nothing wrong with making a living, even a good one, while providing product to a Nation.
In more recent years the fed has been closing the land to 'multiple use'...mostly at the urging of groups like the Sierra Club, Earth First, various 'Friends of_____' & Wilderness Associations. Non-profits with huge bank accounts who employ high wage lobbyists to close down land to the public it supposedly belongs to. In order for them to continue to ask for donations they must have 'emergencies'...they must have more & more land that they can target. They have many friends & appointments within the BLM...as pointed out over & over, the BLM is NOT answerable to the public...it can & should be dismantled.
Anyhow...I see how it is...sadly you do not. I suppose we all have a loyalty to who butters our bread regardless of the right or wrong of it.
And no, we're not 'asking' we'll be demanding & have every right to do so. Furthermore, it's nobody's business outside of the state what we do with the land.
You've twisted the thought process...I mean...a "ranchers private reserve"??? Lol...
One more time...the gov't used to claim 51% (their take as managers) of the land revenue while the states recieved 49%...until last year, the gov't decided (without public knowledge) to up their % to 53...they're broke ya know...because of a little known 'agreement' with the origianl 13 states concerning this revenue, it's split between the remaining states, as in, those are the monies that Congress fights over every year during the budget wars. So there's your 'greed'. The 'carrot on the stick'. And precisely 'who' put the western states in bondage to the eastern states.
Whoever thinks this is ok is the problem.
And it wouldn't take a court to make it right as it's already law...just decency & a desire to fix a major wrong.
I just can't wrap my head around the fact that because Bundy doesn't believe it is national land, even though apparently someone knew it when they took up the offer to graze cattle on it for a little over a buck a head, but now that it's time to pay for it, well it belongs to the state. Huh? The Bundy's have had chances to remedy this through the appropriate channels, and there's always an excuse....we've had bad experiences with lawyers.....per the constitution Nevada owns this not the federal government, so we don't think we should pay the feds...bottom line so we don't pay anyone, and whip up a firestorm of Liberty and Injustice because it seems to me they just don't want to pay their bills. I know what would happen to me if I all of a sudden decided I didn't want to pay Chase my mortgage payment because I thought it belonged to Bank of America. Don't we all own the land that the Bundy's have leased, but not paid for? What about National Parks? I think there's a few of those in Nevada, one pretty good sized one in a neighboring state, the Grand Canyon? I don't remember seeing big issues over those nationally owned pieces of land. Now, it's become something way out of proportion to what it should be, and the longer it goes, the less I feel for this rancher. Like the original poster said, if he doesn't like the arrangement let someone else take it. Move your herd to the land you own and you can do what you dang well please.
Bundy 'fired' them back in 1993. They weren't using the fees he paid to maintain & manage the lease as agreed. He took a stand way back then regarding this issue.
I haven't searched for this myself, maybe someone on here has the time, but, I've heard that the Bundy case was originally heard by a local to court & when the rancher's case before him was dismissed the reps from the gov't left the court room & refused to have it heard there. That was when Bundy refused to acknowledge their authority & jurisdiction. This is the real issue...what authority and/or jurisidiction do these alphabet agencies truly and legally have over the citizens? The answer is none.
Let me repeat a portion of that...the representatives for the government...note...they don't represent the people as they are not a part of the people's gov't. Drink this in & know it to be the truth.
This is not about Bundy or his cattle or the tortoise or the solar...it's about gov't overreach and how the people have been scammed & bullied. Bundy has never said he didn't owe the grazing fees, he's just not going to pay it to an agency that cannot even prove their Constitutional right to exist.
I hope that helps...it's a very complicated matter, obviously, otherwise he'd already be off the land after all these years!
The government tried to have the Bakers Green Acres case moved from the local court as well. They postponed the trial as long as they could. And when they couldn't postpone it or change where or what court they were going to have a trail in they dropped the case because the Bakers magically came into compliance with the DNR's requirements even though the Bakers didn't change a thing.
You can try to settle these matters through the "appropriate" channels but without it being decided in local courts with the option of a jury you can't get a fair trial.
You must remember that the government has unlimited funds to prosecute you and most farmers and ranchers I know don't. So before they even get a chance they run out of money.
| |
| | |
 Knowledge is Power
Posts: 4051
Location: wherever my daughter's running | Rodeoveteran - I know you don't care - but I really liked your post. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | rodeoveteran - 2014-04-17 10:39 AM
I have skipped the middle 10 or 15 pages of this thread because I just don't have the time or patience anymore. So now I am going to string together a bunch of random thoughts and opinions on what I have read.
First. This is about power and control vs individual rights. ANYBODY who thinks that they OWN their own land, that they bought and paid for.....it's all an illusion. Try not paying your taxes. Or not conforming to zoning laws. Or untold regulations put in place without your knowledge or consent. Or be in the path of some project either private or governmental, (the biggest example would be the Trans Texas Corridor, more aptly, the Trans American Corridor or whatever they want to call it going through Mexico, the US and Canada ) and see what effect Eminent Domain will have on your "private and paid for property". Oh and don't forget the power grab by the EPA over any property with a drop of water on it. Does YOUR property have a drop of water on it? Beware! They didn't tell you that when you bought your "private" property did they, because they changed the rules midgame, kinda like in the issues facing ranchers out West.
Next, just because "It's the Law" does not make it right or Just. Bad laws are passed everyday, without our knowledge or consent and we are held beholden to them with the argument that ignorance of the "law" is no defense. Beyond that what was Law yesterday can be completely changed today with the stroke of "a pen'' through Executive order at the whim and political/personal opinion and agenda of whoever is holding that pen. NOT what we signed up for or were promised eh?
Next. Most people believe that we live in a Democracy. It's what we are taught. This country was form as a Republic, with individual States retaining the Right to govern within it's borders. The Federal Government, over time has pretty much usurped the States Rights to govern under the guise of the "better good". This is the battleground that the Bundy case is being fought on. What gives the Federal Government the right to
designate land as Federal in the first place? Out West vast tracts of land was retained by the Government to completely subsidized the Railroad for right of way and for timber to supply the rails. I'm pretty sure that politicians were lining their own, private pockets back then. And an aside...the railroad is heavily subsidized to this day.
While I abhor slavery and was taught that the Civil War was fought over slavery, I can see more and more that it was an issue of States Rights. Had they confined the issue to slavery then it was a just War, when you bring the issue of States Rights, then I can see where the issue becomes a very gray area indeed.
Some questions. Somewhere on this thread somebody stated that the BLM makes money....like that is OK. Our government was never intend to be in business. IMHO instead of, or in addition to the Separation of Church and State there should be a clause about the Separation of Business and State. Yes there are "laws" but they are conveniently overlooked and ignored when it comes down to political finagling. When government owns/operates business I believe that is called Fascism? I may conservative but not that far right!
Another question. Why is the BLM dressed and armed like the Military? I find that a frightening thing. Couple with the fact that the IRS and other arms of the government who are supposed to "help" us and look out for our welfare are similarly armed and equipped under the guise of "Homeland Security" and our "protection" and the "greater good" I am VERY frightened....by my own government, supposedly "...OF the People, BY the People and For the People. " It becomes more and more apparent that "I" have been removed from "the People."!
To the politically inclined. Those on the Left howl about Big Business, those on the Right howl about Big Government. IMHO anybody who think the two are separate are pretty much delusional. They go hand in hand these days. IMHO the Koch Brothers and Harry Reid are cut from the same cloth and are fighting over the same marbles....OUR marbles included. The cloth comes from the same shroud of politics no matter which end of the political spectrum they call home. I have never understood the lust for enormous political and financial power. I want power in my own life, FOR my own life. Why would I want power over someone else? I just don't get that. And how much money can you spend...really? Unless you spend it in a quest for more "power"??? ANYBODY with that mindset NEEDS to be questioned rather than followed blindly.
Now a random observation or two. Someone justified the shooting of a couple of bulls because they charged....ummm......solitary bulls are apt to charge. It's what they do, they are bulls....not domestic pets....they are bulls! Somebody should have clued those BLM guys in....or it was an intentional message sent. This is what will happen to you if you defy us.
I don't know if Bundy falls more on the side of right or wrong, but I am inclined to support him over Big Brother because of the increased abuse of power and law perpetuated by government.
I am pretty sure that I have more observations and opinions but I have lost track of them and even more sure that anyone who has bothered to read my ramblings here cares to read them.... Well all but one. Who in the heck CARES about how many Likes/Dislikes ?????!!!!! Not me, I guess...
That is all....for now.
Bravo!
I was just thinking about you the last couple days and how you offered to me "You are welcome to park your trailer in my barn anytime" or words to that effect, and here You show preachin' what MM & I have been attempting to 'put out there' for over a week now on these various threads!
Again Thank You! | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-17 8:21 AM smiley - 2014-04-17 7:31 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-16 6:20 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-16 2:56 PM This LIVE Link is from the Guy who actually walked out front up to the FED's Fence. Also, there is invalidated info floating around that the FEDS were surrounded by 3000 Americans (Patriots/Militia Types ) and something like 500 FEDs. Again, this is unconfirmed to my knowledge. http://www.westernjournalism.com/footage-bundy-massacre/
I went to town today & had some time to mull this over some more...(imagine).
Part of me fumes when I hear people say that the ranchers out here are on 'the government teat'...yet, I can see the point. It's like the reservations...we're the next area to be 'socialized'...and have very little support in fighting it. If we grab our guns we're 'radical', if we do nothing we're cowards. The short answer is to give us our land, then we won't be a 'welfare cause' anymore.
Can that happen? Without a stand?
I don't think so.
Many on here & everywhere, including Cliven Bundy, have been saying that this isn't about cattle, turtles or even solar. This is just the 'tool' to get a fair day in court. It can't happen any other way...and I don't know that it will happen this way...there's not a lot of options, though.
I now know that those of us out west naively thought that we could garner some support from the rest of Americans once they knew what was going on & how wrongly the citizens of the western states have been denied our equal footing...a chance to be economically strong and independent, to own our land.
Now we know that the majority of the Americans we hoped would help have come to rely on the gov't sharing our 'riches' with them & they're not about to free us from gov't bondage.
What was a great day in America has turned into a hard truth the rest of us hoped & prayed wasn't so...our Constitution is no longer the law of the land.
For those who would say, "If you don't like it move"...you're next so what's the point?
I used to think that this Nation was split by the Mississippi...it's moved to the Great Divide & is seeping westward.
Oh well! Spring is here & the lake is calling! Gonna enjoy it while I can cuz there ain't no glueing this world back together Humpty.
But I agreed with some of your points, maybe not the way you think. You already were/are socialized, you basically had a benefit that no one else had and at a fraction of the cost of any other grazing land, access to public land in which your business was more viable than it would have been had you not had access to public land. It's not your land anymore than it's some wacky turtle loving liberals land. It's not their land either, which is why the BLM to my view, was the intermediary who was trying to keep BLM grazing while responding to the NEPA law and the activists. Again, they are danged if they do and danged if they don't.
You are asking, literally for the federal govt. to "give you your land" - but federal land was never yours to begin with. If it reverts back to the States, the sad fact is that these same activists will still be after the land, only now they too can go more locally to fight their battle as well. The sad fact is that the States will likely take the land and sell it to the highest bidder and then you have what you have in Wyoming and Colorado - people like Ted Turner buying up the prized land and raising the taxes of the locals and pushing them out another way. Do you really envision that the States will get the land and be all like "Ohhhhhhhhh, I know a perfect rancher to pay me $1.34 a head per month for this land." I just never see that happening. The BLM loses millions on their grazing permits, States won't settel for that once they get the land, if they get the land.
Who relies on the govt., to "share your riches"? The activists? Free you from govt., bondage?? I'm not sure I was able to keep up with your line of thinking here. Who put you in govt., bondage and what is stopping you from freeing yourself?
So, if someone does not support the federal land as a rancher's private reserve, then they are the problem??
So ranchers, miners, drillers etc...have put this land into production over the years & used their own funds to do so...they've taken risks...it's the American way.
You seem to think it's easy living...that they're getting 'rich' and you resent that. There's nothing wrong with making a living, even a good one, while providing product to a Nation.
In more recent years the fed has been closing the land to 'multiple use'...mostly at the urging of groups like the Sierra Club, Earth First, various 'Friends of_____' & Wilderness Associations. Non-profits with huge bank accounts who employ high wage lobbyists to close down land to the public it supposedly belongs to. In order for them to continue to ask for donations they must have 'emergencies'...they must have more & more land that they can target. They have many friends & appointments within the BLM...as pointed out over & over, the BLM is NOT answerable to the public...it can & should be dismantled.
Anyhow...I see how it is...sadly you do not. I suppose we all have a loyalty to who butters our bread regardless of the right or wrong of it.
And no, we're not 'asking' we'll be demanding & have every right to do so. Furthermore, it's nobody's business outside of the state what we do with the land.
You've twisted the thought process...I mean...a "ranchers private reserve"??? Lol...
One more time...the gov't used to claim 51% (their take as managers) of the land revenue while the states recieved 49%...until last year, the gov't decided (without public knowledge) to up their % to 53...they're broke ya know...because of a little known 'agreement' with the origianl 13 states concerning this revenue, it's split between the remaining states, as in, those are the monies that Congress fights over every year during the budget wars. So there's your 'greed'. The 'carrot on the stick'. And precisely 'who' put the western states in bondage to the eastern states.
Whoever thinks this is ok is the problem.
And it wouldn't take a court to make it right as it's already law...just decency & a desire to fix a major wrong.
Actually, I understand it fine and realize there are court cases in the works to take the feds to task. I agree with the states doing this. I agree that it sucks. I also agree that it happens because life changes, just like it did for all the millions that have come before you who were also screwed out of something they were promised and I will be following some of the other cases, like hte indian land they want to turn into a park.
I could care less who butters my bread, but again with the insinuation that I couldn't possibly have this opinion AND work for the govt. is noted. It's a sad time when I can't have a different opinion than you and that it makes me stupid and paid for. Of course I totally disagree. As I've mentioned several times, I don't support the texas case for example. That was private deeded land and that's outrageous. This Bundy case is NOT that case.
At least you pointed out all the "environ" groups who are a thorn in the side to ALL of us. As Bibs posted, they are now trying to charge people to ride horses in the forest. I think that greed is universal and both states, owners, activists and the feds are infected with it.
I fully the support the states vs. the feds going to court. THIS argument is about Bundy and his total lack of understanding on the issues and he has lost in court three times for this lack of understanding. I realize you think EVERYONE under the sun is bought and paid for, including lawyers and judges, but that simply is not reality.
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| MS2011 - 2014-04-17 8:23 AM smiley - 2014-04-17 8:37 AM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-17 7:36 AM smiley - 2014-04-17 8:15 AM Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 3:24 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 1:01 PM They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls.
Then if they were so prized - they shouldn't have been off the 160 acre Bundy ranch, which resides on private property. They charged the agents and were shot. Fencing would be destroyed if it was on federal land that they needed access to. They will probably send Bundy a bill for their work too.
One bull was in an enclosed pen.
I wasn't there, but from what I have read the bulls were shot because they charged the agents. Again, if the bulls had been on private property this would not have happened. The agents did not go on private property to get anything, including bulls.
They took a half assed excuse to shoot them. Given the confrontational nature of the 'roundup', they were looking for any excuse. I've worked lots of cattle, I'm calling bullchit on shooting them being the only way to deal with the situation.
It's not just in NV. I still want to know why the BLM even has a police force? And why, no matter whose, where the cattle are...it's ok to use inhumance tactics like this to gather?
Why was this deemed a crisis that had to be address in this manner now?
Al Sharpton owes the IRS 1.9 million, and gets dinner with Obummer.....This guy 'might' owe a figure far south of 1 million, and we blow 3 million to go after it?
This is from Sid Miller's page...
As you may know, I have taken a strong stance against the abuses and federal overreach of the Obama Administration and by the President’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM ) here in Texas. What has taken place in recent days in Nevada is clear and compelling evidence that Barack Obama and his out-of-control thugs will stop at nothing to seize more power and exert their will, regardless whether doing so violates our constitution, impedes state’s rights, or infringes upon the private property and water rights of farmers, ranchers, and individual landowners. I will not stand by and let what happened in Nevada happen in Texas—not on my watch!
Earlier this week, I issued a press release urging Governor Perry to be prepared, if necessary, to mobilize our state’s military and law enforcement resources in order to protect Texas citizens and landowners from proposed actions that would put some 90,000 acres of land along a 116 mile stretch of the Red River at risk of a BLM takeover.
Yesterday, believe it or not, I received a call from a Republican State Legislator asking me to back down from my “aggressive” stance against the federal government and the BLM. He was concerned that our fellow Texans might show up armed on the Red River in order to defend their friends, neighbors and fellow citizens against the BLM and its heavy handed tactics by armed federal agents. This state lawmaker told me that since I issued my press release earlier this week alerting Texans to the very real danger to their private property rights his office has been receiving calls from what he described as “crazy, gun-toting Texans” and that caused him concern. He told me he wanted me to retract my statement and back down on my stance against the BLM. He told me that if didn’t do so he would retract his endorsement of me in my race for Texas Agriculture Commissioner.
If you know anything about Sid Miller, you know that I don’t back down from doing what is right. Gaining an endorsement from a politician is never worth giving up my beliefs, violating the constitution, or putting the individual rights of Texans and their property at risk. I will never back down from an over-reaching federal government no matter what the cost and most especially because I might lose a campaign endorsement.
The only endorsement I truly care about is yours and I pray that you will continue to stand with me and our fellow citizens here in Texas, Nevada, and across the United States who have been abused and victimized by Barack Obama and his out-of-control, overreaching, and over regulating federal agents and bureaucrats.
The stakes have never been higher in the race for Texas Agriculture Commissioner. I want you to know that as your next Ag Commissioner, I will always say what I mean, do what I say, and stand up in defense of our freedoms. You should demand that from all of your elected officials because you deserve no less.
If you agree, please share this with your friends and family. I won’t get the support of the Austin insiders who are afraid to take a stand, which means your vote and support in the May 27th Republican Primary run-off is even more important. I humbly ask for your vote and ask that you keep me in your prayers as I continue this fight.
---Sid Miller
If you wait until the 9th hour and then the feds get to your property, then I can't defend you as you waited until the 9th hour and left your "property" on someone else's land. The BLM is not a police force, those in camo were not BLM.
They have rangers with weapons because their rangers patrol millions and millions of acres of rural, crap land in desolate areas where bears, snake, and convicts/homeless/drug dealers/drug growers tend to live/exist. Do you think that it would be okay to send these people into that type of situation without a weapon?? Not realistic at all.
Having said all this - if you did get a group for the texas case - I would fully support you. I might not spend hard money to drive down and ride a horse with a flag, but I'd be supportive. That case, to my limited understanding, is bullchit/
What some don't get or don't care to get is that I'm not supporting THIS rancher because THIS rancher is a loon and is wrong. I see what Hotbear (??) or someone said about this just being the shot, like the colonials that started something they didn't even mean to start, and if that's the case, then that's not all bad, for sure.
But I'm so exhausted seeing dead cattle and the bundy's crying foul. Go get your crap off the land that does not belong to you and NONE of them would be dead.
I get the chain of "rights" - sadly those have not been recognized and probably will not be recognized, the same way that many treaties have not been honored and many private people have lost land to city "needs" state "needs" and other "needs".
Farms that have had roads that go through. City houses that are lost due to road expansion - etc. there are so many unfair things that happen in life we could be here forever.
I am interested to see if the Hage decision will be upheld. I personally hope it will be. They will then be compensated for what they lost. They won't get the land use back, but from what I understand they will be paid for the years their family put into the land. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| rodeoveteran - 2014-04-17 9:39 AM I have skipped the middle 10 or 15 pages of this thread because I just don't have the time or patience anymore. So now I am going to string together a bunch of random thoughts and opinions on what I have read. First. This is about power and control vs individual rights. ANYBODY who thinks that they OWN their own land, that they bought and paid for.....it's all an illusion. Try not paying your taxes. Or not conforming to zoning laws. Or untold regulations put in place without your knowledge or consent. Or be in the path of some project either private or governmental, (the biggest example would be the Trans Texas Corridor, more aptly, the Trans American Corridor or whatever they want to call it going through Mexico, the US and Canada ) and see what effect Eminent Domain will have on your "private and paid for property". Oh and don't forget the power grab by the EPA over any property with a drop of water on it. Does YOUR property have a drop of water on it? Beware! They didn't tell you that when you bought your "private" property did they, because they changed the rules midgame, kinda like in the issues facing ranchers out West. Next, just because "It's the Law" does not make it right or Just. Bad laws are passed everyday, without our knowledge or consent and we are held beholden to them with the argument that ignorance of the "law" is no defense. Beyond that what was Law yesterday can be completely changed today with the stroke of "a pen'' through Executive order at the whim and political/personal opinion and agenda of whoever is holding that pen. NOT what we signed up for or were promised eh? Next. Most people believe that we live in a Democracy. It's what we are taught. This country was form as a Republic, with individual States retaining the Right to govern within it's borders. The Federal Government, over time has pretty much usurped the States Rights to govern under the guise of the "better good". This is the battleground that the Bundy case is being fought on. What gives the Federal Government the right to designate land as Federal in the first place? Out West vast tracts of land was retained by the Government to completely subsidized the Railroad for right of way and for timber to supply the rails. I'm pretty sure that politicians were lining their own, private pockets back then. And an aside...the railroad is heavily subsidized to this day. While I abhor slavery and was taught that the Civil War was fought over slavery, I can see more and more that it was an issue of States Rights. Had they confined the issue to slavery then it was a just War, when you bring the issue of States Rights, then I can see where the issue becomes a very gray area indeed. Some questions. Somewhere on this thread somebody stated that the BLM makes money....like that is OK. Our government was never intend to be in business. IMHO instead of, or in addition to the Separation of Church and State there should be a clause about the Separation of Business and State. Yes there are "laws" but they are conveniently overlooked and ignored when it comes down to political finagling. When government owns/operates business I believe that is called Fascism? I may conservative but not that far right! Another question. Why is the BLM dressed and armed like the Military? I find that a frightening thing. Couple with the fact that the IRS and other arms of the government who are supposed to "help" us and look out for our welfare are similarly armed and equipped under the guise of "Homeland Security" and our "protection" and the "greater good" I am VERY frightened....by my own government, supposedly "...OF the People, BY the People and For the People. " It becomes more and more apparent that "I" have been removed from "the People."! To the politically inclined. Those on the Left howl about Big Business, those on the Right howl about Big Government. IMHO anybody who think the two are separate are pretty much delusional. They go hand in hand these days. IMHO the Koch Brothers and Harry Reid are cut from the same cloth and are fighting over the same marbles....OUR marbles included. The cloth comes from the same shroud of politics no matter which end of the political spectrum they call home. I have never understood the lust for enormous political and financial power. I want power in my own life, FOR my own life. Why would I want power over someone else? I just don't get that. And how much money can you spend...really? Unless you spend it in a quest for more "power"??? ANYBODY with that mindset NEEDS to be questioned rather than followed blindly. Now a random observation or two. Someone justified the shooting of a couple of bulls because they charged....ummm......solitary bulls are apt to charge. It's what they do, they are bulls....not domestic pets....they are bulls! Somebody should have clued those BLM guys in....or it was an intentional message sent. This is what will happen to you if you defy us. I don't know if Bundy falls more on the side of right or wrong, but I am inclined to support him over Big Brother because of the increased abuse of power and law perpetuated by government. I am pretty sure that I have more observations and opinions but I have lost track of them and even more sure that anyone who has bothered to read my ramblings here cares to read them.... Well all but one. Who in the heck CARES about how many Likes/Dislikes ?????!!!!! Not me, I guess... That is all....for now.
I skipped most of your post because I didn't have the time or patience, but the BLM makes money because that is what they were designed to do.
For years and years and years, I have heard "why doesn't the gov., charge for that?" and similar complaints on how the gov., does NOT make money - so this gov entity does and it's still complained about. That is what I mean by danged if you do and danged if you don't.
If taxpayers pay for it, complaints, if BLM supports itself, complaints.
However, I agree - land has been taken, traded, sold and bought since America started. It's life. It has been worse in the West. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-17 9:52 AM smiley - 2014-04-17 8:31 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-16 6:20 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-16 2:56 PM This LIVE Link is from the Guy who actually walked out front up to the FED's Fence. Also, there is invalidated info floating around that the FEDS were surrounded by 3000 Americans (Patriots/Militia Types ) and something like 500 FEDs. Again, this is unconfirmed to my knowledge. http://www.westernjournalism.com/footage-bundy-massacre/
I went to town today & had some time to mull this over some more...(imagine).
Part of me fumes when I hear people say that the ranchers out here are on 'the government teat'...yet, I can see the point. It's like the reservations...we're the next area to be 'socialized'...and have very little support in fighting it. If we grab our guns we're 'radical', if we do nothing we're cowards. The short answer is to give us our land, then we won't be a 'welfare cause' anymore.
Can that happen? Without a stand?
I don't think so.
Many on here & everywhere, including Cliven Bundy, have been saying that this isn't about cattle, turtles or even solar. This is just the 'tool' to get a fair day in court. It can't happen any other way...and I don't know that it will happen this way...there's not a lot of options, though.
I now know that those of us out west naively thought that we could garner some support from the rest of Americans once they knew what was going on & how wrongly the citizens of the western states have been denied our equal footing...a chance to be economically strong and independent, to own our land.
Now we know that the majority of the Americans we hoped would help have come to rely on the gov't sharing our 'riches' with them & they're not about to free us from gov't bondage.
What was a great day in America has turned into a hard truth the rest of us hoped & prayed wasn't so...our Constitution is no longer the law of the land.
For those who would say, "If you don't like it move"...you're next so what's the point?
I used to think that this Nation was split by the Mississippi...it's moved to the Great Divide & is seeping westward.
Oh well! Spring is here & the lake is calling! Gonna enjoy it while I can cuz there ain't no glueing this world back together Humpty.
But I agreed with some of your points, maybe not the way you think. You already were/are socialized, you basically had a benefit that no one else had and at a fraction of the cost of any other grazing land, access to public land in which your business was more viable than it would have been had you not had access to public land. It's not your land anymore than it's some wacky turtle loving liberals land. It's not their land either, which is why the BLM to my view, was the intermediary who was trying to keep BLM grazing while responding to the NEPA law and the activists. Again, they are danged if they do and danged if they don't.
You are asking, literally for the federal govt. to "give you your land" - but federal land was never yours to begin with. If it reverts back to the States, the sad fact is that these same activists will still be after the land, only now they too can go more locally to fight their battle as well. The sad fact is that the States will likely take the land and sell it to the highest bidder and then you have what you have in Wyoming and Colorado - people like Ted Turner buying up the prized land and raising the taxes of the locals and pushing them out another way. Do you really envision that the States will get the land and be all like "Ohhhhhhhhh, I know a perfect rancher to pay me $1.34 a head per month for this land." I just never see that happening. The BLM loses millions on their grazing permits, States won't settel for that once they get the land, if they get the land.
Who relies on the govt., to "share your riches"? The activists? Free you from govt., bondage?? I'm not sure I was able to keep up with your line of thinking here. Who put you in govt., bondage and what is stopping you from freeing yourself?
So, if someone does not support the federal land as a rancher's private reserve, then they are the problem??
Smiley, are you discounting the original intent of The Gov't Land Office to dis position said land?
No, not ignoring that, simply trying to point out that that is a State vs. Feds fight, not a Bundy vs. Feds fight.
He has representatives in his state to help him fight his battle but for 25 years, no one has or will or was asked?? to assist him. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| foundation horse - 2014-04-17 10:52 AM Smiley, are you discounting the original intent of The Gov't Land Office to disposition said land?
What gives GLO legitimacy while BLM is an "alphabet agency"? | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-17 9:42 AM smiley - 2014-04-17 8:15 AM Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 3:24 PM smiley - 2014-04-16 2:22 PM Nevertooold - 2014-04-16 1:01 PM They just showed the destruction the Feds did to fencing, pens etc plus shooting 2 prized bulls.
Then if they were so prized - they shouldn't have been off the 160 acre Bundy ranch, which resides on private property. They charged the agents and were shot. Fencing would be destroyed if it was on federal land that they needed access to. They will probably send Bundy a bill for their work too.
One bull was in an enclosed pen.
I wasn't there, but from what I have read the bulls were shot because they charged the agents. Again, if the bulls had been on private property this would not have happened. The agents did not go on private property to get anything, including bulls. Smiley, I would agree w/ you if said charged the agents. But there is video to indicate one bull was paneled corral and had the charged the agents the corral would have damaged would they not? For per the video of the corral panels there was no damage. Now granted this is from The Bundy Supporters, however The BLM has not debunked the idea that this bull was not in the corral shown.
I doubt if the BLM will respond to any of this, just like Reid's comment "this is not over" it's all taken out of context and used to fuel fires.
I watched the question and answer with Reid and it was a simple statement of reality "it's not over" and he said it as a normal person would. He didn't grow horns and smile maniacally and say it.
I don't agree with them killing animals, I'm just showing the other side. Maybe they were stupid and not used to being around bulls and someone thought they were saving someone else, who knows. The bottom line to me is if my dog is in your chicken house, even though you can easily get my dog out of your chicken house, you are within your right to shoot my dog who is no longer on MY property. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-17 10:08 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-17 8:21 AM smiley - 2014-04-17 7:31 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-16 6:20 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-16 2:56 PM This LIVE Link is from the Guy who actually walked out front up to the FED's Fence. Also, there is invalidated info floating around that the FEDS were surrounded by 3000 Americans (Patriots/Militia Types ) and something like 500 FEDs. Again, this is unconfirmed to my knowledge. http://www.westernjournalism.com/footage-bundy-massacre/
I went to town today & had some time to mull this over some more...(imagine).
Part of me fumes when I hear people say that the ranchers out here are on 'the government teat'...yet, I can see the point. It's like the reservations...we're the next area to be 'socialized'...and have very little support in fighting it. If we grab our guns we're 'radical', if we do nothing we're cowards. The short answer is to give us our land, then we won't be a 'welfare cause' anymore.
Can that happen? Without a stand?
I don't think so.
Many on here & everywhere, including Cliven Bundy, have been saying that this isn't about cattle, turtles or even solar. This is just the 'tool' to get a fair day in court. It can't happen any other way...and I don't know that it will happen this way...there's not a lot of options, though.
I now know that those of us out west naively thought that we could garner some support from the rest of Americans once they knew what was going on & how wrongly the citizens of the western states have been denied our equal footing...a chance to be economically strong and independent, to own our land.
Now we know that the majority of the Americans we hoped would help have come to rely on the gov't sharing our 'riches' with them & they're not about to free us from gov't bondage.
What was a great day in America has turned into a hard truth the rest of us hoped & prayed wasn't so...our Constitution is no longer the law of the land.
For those who would say, "If you don't like it move"...you're next so what's the point?
I used to think that this Nation was split by the Mississippi...it's moved to the Great Divide & is seeping westward.
Oh well! Spring is here & the lake is calling! Gonna enjoy it while I can cuz there ain't no glueing this world back together Humpty.
But I agreed with some of your points, maybe not the way you think. You already were/are socialized, you basically had a benefit that no one else had and at a fraction of the cost of any other grazing land, access to public land in which your business was more viable than it would have been had you not had access to public land. It's not your land anymore than it's some wacky turtle loving liberals land. It's not their land either, which is why the BLM to my view, was the intermediary who was trying to keep BLM grazing while responding to the NEPA law and the activists. Again, they are danged if they do and danged if they don't.
You are asking, literally for the federal govt. to "give you your land" - but federal land was never yours to begin with. If it reverts back to the States, the sad fact is that these same activists will still be after the land, only now they too can go more locally to fight their battle as well. The sad fact is that the States will likely take the land and sell it to the highest bidder and then you have what you have in Wyoming and Colorado - people like Ted Turner buying up the prized land and raising the taxes of the locals and pushing them out another way. Do you really envision that the States will get the land and be all like "Ohhhhhhhhh, I know a perfect rancher to pay me $1.34 a head per month for this land." I just never see that happening. The BLM loses millions on their grazing permits, States won't settel for that once they get the land, if they get the land.
Who relies on the govt., to "share your riches"? The activists? Free you from govt., bondage?? I'm not sure I was able to keep up with your line of thinking here. Who put you in govt., bondage and what is stopping you from freeing yourself?
So, if someone does not support the federal land as a rancher's private reserve, then they are the problem??
So ranchers, miners, drillers etc...have put this land into production over the years & used their own funds to do so...they've taken risks...it's the American way.
You seem to think it's easy living...that they're getting 'rich' and you resent that. There's nothing wrong with making a living, even a good one, while providing product to a Nation.
In more recent years the fed has been closing the land to 'multiple use'...mostly at the urging of groups like the Sierra Club, Earth First, various 'Friends of_____' & Wilderness Associations. Non-profits with huge bank accounts who employ high wage lobbyists to close down land to the public it supposedly belongs to. In order for them to continue to ask for donations they must have 'emergencies'...they must have more & more land that they can target. They have many friends & appointments within the BLM...as pointed out over & over, the BLM is NOT answerable to the public...it can & should be dismantled.
Anyhow...I see how it is...sadly you do not. I suppose we all have a loyalty to who butters our bread regardless of the right or wrong of it.
And no, we're not 'asking' we'll be demanding & have every right to do so. Furthermore, it's nobody's business outside of the state what we do with the land.
You've twisted the thought process...I mean...a "ranchers private reserve"??? Lol...
One more time...the gov't used to claim 51% (their take as managers) of the land revenue while the states recieved 49%...until last year, the gov't decided (without public knowledge) to up their % to 53...they're broke ya know...because of a little known 'agreement' with the origianl 13 states concerning this revenue, it's split between the remaining states, as in, those are the monies that Congress fights over every year during the budget wars. So there's your 'greed'. The 'carrot on the stick'. And precisely 'who' put the western states in bondage to the eastern states.
Whoever thinks this is ok is the problem.
And it wouldn't take a court to make it right as it's already law...just decency & a desire to fix a major wrong.
I could care less who butters my bread, but again with the insinuation that I couldn't possibly have this opinion AND work for the govt. is noted. It's a sad time when I can't have a different opinion than you and that it makes me stupid and paid for. Of course I totally disagree. As I've mentioned several times, I don't support the texas case for example. That was private deeded land and that's outrageous. This Bundy case is NOT that case.
At least you pointed out all the "environ" groups who are a thorn in the side to ALL of us. As Bibs posted, they are now trying to charge people to ride horses in the forest. I think that greed is universal and both states, owners, activists and the feds are infected with it.
I fully the support the states vs. the feds going to court. THIS argument is about Bundy and his total lack of understanding on the issues and he has lost in court three times for this lack of understanding. I realize you think EVERYONE under the sun is bought and paid for, including lawyers and judges, but that simply is not reality.
I didn't intend to refer to only you on that one, more pointing out that everyone outside of the states who are being stolen from are recieving far more milk from the 'government teat' than they realize, or maybe they do realize it I don't know...I personally could not work for a bullying gov't agency that has no Constitutional right to exist, it's not in my 'make-up'.
Life changes? The more it changes the more it stays the same...I think it's interesting that there's only a few forms of gov't, it's not as if there's some 'new, improved' option available to us! People don't change. Ever.
I'll stand for freedom & justice to my dying day. (Hopefully that's not too 'dramatic?! Lol)
I've not heard of the 'Reservation Park' you refer to? The rez is a perfect example of socialism, it's not working out too well...they need title to their land, too...that I agree with.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-17 11:25 AM
foundation horse - 2014-04-17 10:52 AM Smiley, are you discounting the original intent of The Gov't Land Office to disposition said land?
What gives GLO legitimacy while BLM is an "alphabet agency"?
Good question. From that line of thinking, then BOTH are/were Alphabet Agencies.
However, from a current day perspective, The GLO did not have Armed Enforcers i.e. Troops, that the current day Alphabet Agencies have. (That I am aware of anyway.) | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | foundation horse - 2014-04-17 11:43 AM
TXBO - 2014-04-17 11:25 AM
foundation horse - 2014-04-17 10:52 AM Smiley, are you discounting the original intent of The Gov't Land Office to disposition said land?
What gives GLO legitimacy while BLM is an "alphabet agency"?
Good question. From that line of thinking, then BOTH are/were Alphabet Agencies.
However, from a current day perspective, The GLO did not have Armed Enforcers i.e. Troops, that the current day Alphabet Agencies have. (That I am aware of anyway. )
Also, the GLO's stated original intent was to disposition i.e. dispose of land. None of the current Alphabet Agencies are disposing of anything but American's money via their budgets and imposing upon American's Rights and Freedoms. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-17 10:34 AM smiley - 2014-04-17 10:08 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-17 8:21 AM smiley - 2014-04-17 7:31 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-16 6:20 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-16 2:56 PM This LIVE Link is from the Guy who actually walked out front up to the FED's Fence. Also, there is invalidated info floating around that the FEDS were surrounded by 3000 Americans (Patriots/Militia Types ) and something like 500 FEDs. Again, this is unconfirmed to my knowledge. http://www.westernjournalism.com/footage-bundy-massacre/
I went to town today & had some time to mull this over some more...(imagine).
Part of me fumes when I hear people say that the ranchers out here are on 'the government teat'...yet, I can see the point. It's like the reservations...we're the next area to be 'socialized'...and have very little support in fighting it. If we grab our guns we're 'radical', if we do nothing we're cowards. The short answer is to give us our land, then we won't be a 'welfare cause' anymore.
Can that happen? Without a stand?
I don't think so.
Many on here & everywhere, including Cliven Bundy, have been saying that this isn't about cattle, turtles or even solar. This is just the 'tool' to get a fair day in court. It can't happen any other way...and I don't know that it will happen this way...there's not a lot of options, though.
I now know that those of us out west naively thought that we could garner some support from the rest of Americans once they knew what was going on & how wrongly the citizens of the western states have been denied our equal footing...a chance to be economically strong and independent, to own our land.
Now we know that the majority of the Americans we hoped would help have come to rely on the gov't sharing our 'riches' with them & they're not about to free us from gov't bondage.
What was a great day in America has turned into a hard truth the rest of us hoped & prayed wasn't so...our Constitution is no longer the law of the land.
For those who would say, "If you don't like it move"...you're next so what's the point?
I used to think that this Nation was split by the Mississippi...it's moved to the Great Divide & is seeping westward.
Oh well! Spring is here & the lake is calling! Gonna enjoy it while I can cuz there ain't no glueing this world back together Humpty.
But I agreed with some of your points, maybe not the way you think. You already were/are socialized, you basically had a benefit that no one else had and at a fraction of the cost of any other grazing land, access to public land in which your business was more viable than it would have been had you not had access to public land. It's not your land anymore than it's some wacky turtle loving liberals land. It's not their land either, which is why the BLM to my view, was the intermediary who was trying to keep BLM grazing while responding to the NEPA law and the activists. Again, they are danged if they do and danged if they don't.
You are asking, literally for the federal govt. to "give you your land" - but federal land was never yours to begin with. If it reverts back to the States, the sad fact is that these same activists will still be after the land, only now they too can go more locally to fight their battle as well. The sad fact is that the States will likely take the land and sell it to the highest bidder and then you have what you have in Wyoming and Colorado - people like Ted Turner buying up the prized land and raising the taxes of the locals and pushing them out another way. Do you really envision that the States will get the land and be all like "Ohhhhhhhhh, I know a perfect rancher to pay me $1.34 a head per month for this land." I just never see that happening. The BLM loses millions on their grazing permits, States won't settel for that once they get the land, if they get the land.
Who relies on the govt., to "share your riches"? The activists? Free you from govt., bondage?? I'm not sure I was able to keep up with your line of thinking here. Who put you in govt., bondage and what is stopping you from freeing yourself?
So, if someone does not support the federal land as a rancher's private reserve, then they are the problem??
So ranchers, miners, drillers etc...have put this land into production over the years & used their own funds to do so...they've taken risks...it's the American way.
You seem to think it's easy living...that they're getting 'rich' and you resent that. There's nothing wrong with making a living, even a good one, while providing product to a Nation.
In more recent years the fed has been closing the land to 'multiple use'...mostly at the urging of groups like the Sierra Club, Earth First, various 'Friends of_____' & Wilderness Associations. Non-profits with huge bank accounts who employ high wage lobbyists to close down land to the public it supposedly belongs to. In order for them to continue to ask for donations they must have 'emergencies'...they must have more & more land that they can target. They have many friends & appointments within the BLM...as pointed out over & over, the BLM is NOT answerable to the public...it can & should be dismantled.
Anyhow...I see how it is...sadly you do not. I suppose we all have a loyalty to who butters our bread regardless of the right or wrong of it.
And no, we're not 'asking' we'll be demanding & have every right to do so. Furthermore, it's nobody's business outside of the state what we do with the land.
You've twisted the thought process...I mean...a "ranchers private reserve"??? Lol...
One more time...the gov't used to claim 51% (their take as managers) of the land revenue while the states recieved 49%...until last year, the gov't decided (without public knowledge) to up their % to 53...they're broke ya know...because of a little known 'agreement' with the origianl 13 states concerning this revenue, it's split between the remaining states, as in, those are the monies that Congress fights over every year during the budget wars. So there's your 'greed'. The 'carrot on the stick'. And precisely 'who' put the western states in bondage to the eastern states.
Whoever thinks this is ok is the problem.
And it wouldn't take a court to make it right as it's already law...just decency & a desire to fix a major wrong.
I could care less who butters my bread, but again with the insinuation that I couldn't possibly have this opinion AND work for the govt. is noted. It's a sad time when I can't have a different opinion than you and that it makes me stupid and paid for. Of course I totally disagree. As I've mentioned several times, I don't support the texas case for example. That was private deeded land and that's outrageous. This Bundy case is NOT that case.
At least you pointed out all the "environ" groups who are a thorn in the side to ALL of us. As Bibs posted, they are now trying to charge people to ride horses in the forest. I think that greed is universal and both states, owners, activists and the feds are infected with it.
I fully the support the states vs. the feds going to court. THIS argument is about Bundy and his total lack of understanding on the issues and he has lost in court three times for this lack of understanding. I realize you think EVERYONE under the sun is bought and paid for, including lawyers and judges, but that simply is not reality.
Life changes? The more it changes the more it stays the same...I think it's interesting that there's only a few forms of gov't, it's not as if there's some 'new, improved' option available to us! People don't change. Ever.
I'll stand for freedom & justice to my dying day. (Hopefully that's not too 'dramatic?! Lol)
I've not heard of the 'Reservation Park' you refer to? The rez is a perfect example of socialism, it's not working out too well...they need title to their land, too...that I agree with.
I didn't intend to refer to only you on that one, more pointing out that everyone outside of the states who are being stolen from are recieving far more milk from the 'government teat' than they realize, or maybe they do realize it I don't know...
Actually, I totally agree with this. My job and my soul are separate. I can see the waste, just like I could in the military. I see the "crazy" just like I did when I freelanced for different associations. I can see things - that doesn't mean I can change them and we all have bills to pay. There are good things about the govt agency I work for. But of course I can also see the typical GS slacky that shows up - barely - and works - barely - and it takes an act of Congress to fire said person. That is the same in any of these GS positions. I watched a GS 12 (good money) go shopping in the afternoons instead of her job!!!!!!!!! I actually brought this person to the higher ups several times, she's still there. It is a "mentality" quite like the welfare recips that is very difficult to change.
Hell, I'm on one of those "busy bee" conference calls now and typing to you - I'm ADD and can multi task better than some, but yes, I'm probably wrong for doing it. I should be hanging on every word as a dutiful employees. Even though I don't vote on the issues and I don't work daily on the issues.
We are not as far off as you think - I am for ranchers. I am for state's rights. I am not for Bundy throwing good people to the wolves and then starting a "donate" page on his site, and trying to make good people look bad for doing their jobs. I'm not for him throwing the name of the auction house out there, how do we know what the auction house even knew about the deal? We don't. WHy take others down with you in your 15 minutes of fame!
Reservations: I've driven through them. It's sickening what we've managed to do. Looks a lot like the democrat policies in Detroit. I don't have the link to that rez/park issue - does anyone know what i"m referring to?? I saw it on FB and now I can't find it and google searches turn up bundy, bundy, bundy. | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| The BLM is most certainly a police force. After a long history of convoluted jurisdiction Congress granted police authority in 1978. And yes everyone of the Agents that have been pictured dressed as paramilitary has a badge on from the BLM. You really should read up on the history of the present day BLM it is a prime example of how messed up the Federal Government has become. And If you had read the court orders issued in this case you would see NO such authority exists to destroy or dispose of Bundy's property. So it seems that in your mind it is ok for the agents of the BLM violate the court orders but not Bundy. Your stance on this makes zero sense to me. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | You have got to stand for something or You will fall for anything!  | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| jbhoot - 2014-04-17 12:02 PM
The BLM is most certainly a police force. After a long history of convoluted jurisdiction Congress granted police authority in 1978. And yes everyone of the Agents that have been pictured dressed as paramilitary has a badge on from the BLM. You really should read up on the history of the present day BLM it is a prime example of how messed up the Federal Government has become. And If you had read the court orders issued in this case you would see NO such authority exists to destroy or dispose of Bundy's property. So it seems that in your mind it is ok for the agents of the BLM violate the court orders but not Bundy. Your stance on this makes zero sense to me.
If I had to choose only three words to describe the BLM it would be bloated, inept and corrupt. | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| foundation horse - 2014-04-17 11:45 AM
foundation horse - 2014-04-17 11:43 AM
TXBO - 2014-04-17 11:25 AM
foundation horse - 2014-04-17 10:52 AM Smiley, are you discounting the original intent of The Gov't Land Office to disposition said land?
What gives GLO legitimacy while BLM is an "alphabet agency"?
Good question. From that line of thinking, then BOTH are/were Alphabet Agencies.
However, from a current day perspective, The GLO did not have Armed Enforcers i.e. Troops, that the current day Alphabet Agencies have. (That I am aware of anyway. )
Also, the GLO's stated original intent was to dis position i.e. dispose of land. None of the current Alphabet Agencies are disposing of anything but American's money via their budgets and imposing upon American's Rights and Freedoms.
If you look the history the BLM Is the GLO. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| jbhoot - 2014-04-17 12:11 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-17 11:45 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-17 11:43 AM TXBO - 2014-04-17 11:25 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-17 10:52 AM Smiley, are you discounting the original intent of The Gov't Land Office to disposition said land? What gives GLO legitimacy while BLM is an "alphabet agency"? Good question. From that line of thinking, then BOTH are/were Alphabet Agencies. However, from a current day perspective, The GLO did not have Armed Enforcers i.e. Troops, that the current day Alphabet Agencies have. (That I am aware of anyway. ) Also, the GLO's stated original intent was to dis position i.e. dispose of land. None of the current Alphabet Agencies are disposing of anything but American's money via their budgets and imposing upon American's Rights and Freedoms. If you look the history the BLM Is the GLO.
Yea, it sure is. That was kind of my point. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-17 10:49 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-17 10:34 AM smiley - 2014-04-17 10:08 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-17 8:21 AM smiley - 2014-04-17 7:31 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-16 6:20 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-16 2:56 PM This LIVE Link is from the Guy who actually walked out front up to the FED's Fence. Also, there is invalidated info floating around that the FEDS were surrounded by 3000 Americans (Patriots/Militia Types ) and something like 500 FEDs. Again, this is unconfirmed to my knowledge. http://www.westernjournalism.com/footage-bundy-massacre/
I went to town today & had some time to mull this over some more...(imagine).
Part of me fumes when I hear people say that the ranchers out here are on 'the government teat'...yet, I can see the point. It's like the reservations...we're the next area to be 'socialized'...and have very little support in fighting it. If we grab our guns we're 'radical', if we do nothing we're cowards. The short answer is to give us our land, then we won't be a 'welfare cause' anymore.
Can that happen? Without a stand?
I don't think so.
Many on here & everywhere, including Cliven Bundy, have been saying that this isn't about cattle, turtles or even solar. This is just the 'tool' to get a fair day in court. It can't happen any other way...and I don't know that it will happen this way...there's not a lot of options, though.
I now know that those of us out west naively thought that we could garner some support from the rest of Americans once they knew what was going on & how wrongly the citizens of the western states have been denied our equal footing...a chance to be economically strong and independent, to own our land.
Now we know that the majority of the Americans we hoped would help have come to rely on the gov't sharing our 'riches' with them & they're not about to free us from gov't bondage.
What was a great day in America has turned into a hard truth the rest of us hoped & prayed wasn't so...our Constitution is no longer the law of the land.
For those who would say, "If you don't like it move"...you're next so what's the point?
I used to think that this Nation was split by the Mississippi...it's moved to the Great Divide & is seeping westward.
Oh well! Spring is here & the lake is calling! Gonna enjoy it while I can cuz there ain't no glueing this world back together Humpty.
But I agreed with some of your points, maybe not the way you think. You already were/are socialized, you basically had a benefit that no one else had and at a fraction of the cost of any other grazing land, access to public land in which your business was more viable than it would have been had you not had access to public land. It's not your land anymore than it's some wacky turtle loving liberals land. It's not their land either, which is why the BLM to my view, was the intermediary who was trying to keep BLM grazing while responding to the NEPA law and the activists. Again, they are danged if they do and danged if they don't.
You are asking, literally for the federal govt. to "give you your land" - but federal land was never yours to begin with. If it reverts back to the States, the sad fact is that these same activists will still be after the land, only now they too can go more locally to fight their battle as well. The sad fact is that the States will likely take the land and sell it to the highest bidder and then you have what you have in Wyoming and Colorado - people like Ted Turner buying up the prized land and raising the taxes of the locals and pushing them out another way. Do you really envision that the States will get the land and be all like "Ohhhhhhhhh, I know a perfect rancher to pay me $1.34 a head per month for this land." I just never see that happening. The BLM loses millions on their grazing permits, States won't settel for that once they get the land, if they get the land.
Who relies on the govt., to "share your riches"? The activists? Free you from govt., bondage?? I'm not sure I was able to keep up with your line of thinking here. Who put you in govt., bondage and what is stopping you from freeing yourself?
So, if someone does not support the federal land as a rancher's private reserve, then they are the problem??
So ranchers, miners, drillers etc...have put this land into production over the years & used their own funds to do so...they've taken risks...it's the American way.
You seem to think it's easy living...that they're getting 'rich' and you resent that. There's nothing wrong with making a living, even a good one, while providing product to a Nation.
In more recent years the fed has been closing the land to 'multiple use'...mostly at the urging of groups like the Sierra Club, Earth First, various 'Friends of_____' & Wilderness Associations. Non-profits with huge bank accounts who employ high wage lobbyists to close down land to the public it supposedly belongs to. In order for them to continue to ask for donations they must have 'emergencies'...they must have more & more land that they can target. They have many friends & appointments within the BLM...as pointed out over & over, the BLM is NOT answerable to the public...it can & should be dismantled.
Anyhow...I see how it is...sadly you do not. I suppose we all have a loyalty to who butters our bread regardless of the right or wrong of it.
And no, we're not 'asking' we'll be demanding & have every right to do so. Furthermore, it's nobody's business outside of the state what we do with the land.
You've twisted the thought process...I mean...a "ranchers private reserve"??? Lol...
One more time...the gov't used to claim 51% (their take as managers) of the land revenue while the states recieved 49%...until last year, the gov't decided (without public knowledge) to up their % to 53...they're broke ya know...because of a little known 'agreement' with the origianl 13 states concerning this revenue, it's split between the remaining states, as in, those are the monies that Congress fights over every year during the budget wars. So there's your 'greed'. The 'carrot on the stick'. And precisely 'who' put the western states in bondage to the eastern states.
Whoever thinks this is ok is the problem.
And it wouldn't take a court to make it right as it's already law...just decency & a desire to fix a major wrong.
I could care less who butters my bread, but again with the insinuation that I couldn't possibly have this opinion AND work for the govt. is noted. It's a sad time when I can't have a different opinion than you and that it makes me stupid and paid for. Of course I totally disagree. As I've mentioned several times, I don't support the texas case for example. That was private deeded land and that's outrageous. This Bundy case is NOT that case.
At least you pointed out all the "environ" groups who are a thorn in the side to ALL of us. As Bibs posted, they are now trying to charge people to ride horses in the forest. I think that greed is universal and both states, owners, activists and the feds are infected with it.
I fully the support the states vs. the feds going to court. THIS argument is about Bundy and his total lack of understanding on the issues and he has lost in court three times for this lack of understanding. I realize you think EVERYONE under the sun is bought and paid for, including lawyers and judges, but that simply is not reality.
Life changes? The more it changes the more it stays the same...I think it's interesting that there's only a few forms of gov't, it's not as if there's some 'new, improved' option available to us! People don't change. Ever.
I'll stand for freedom & justice to my dying day. (Hopefully that's not too 'dramatic?! Lol)
I've not heard of the 'Reservation Park' you refer to? The rez is a perfect example of socialism, it's not working out too well...they need title to their land, too...that I agree with.
Actually, I totally agree with this. My job and my soul are separate. I can see the waste, just like I could in the military. I see the "crazy" just like I did when I freelanced for different associations. I can see things - that doesn't mean I can change them and we all have bills to pay. There are good things about the govt agency I work for. But of course I can also see the typical GS slacky that shows up - barely - and works - barely - and it takes an act of Congress to fire said person. That is the same in any of these GS positions. I watched a GS 12 (good money) go shopping in the afternoons instead of her job!!!!!!!!! I actually brought this person to the higher ups several times, she's still there. It is a "mentality" quite like the welfare recips that is very difficult to change.
Hell, I'm on one of those "busy bee" conference calls now and typing to you - I'm ADD and can multi task better than some, but yes, I'm probably wrong for doing it. I should be hanging on every word as a dutiful employees. Even though I don't vote on the issues and I don't work daily on the issues.
We are not as far off as you think - I am for ranchers. I am for state's rights. I am not for Bundy throwing good people to the wolves and then starting a "donate" page on his site, and trying to make good people look bad for doing their jobs. I'm not for him throwing the name of the auction house out there, how do we know what the auction house even knew about the deal? We don't. WHy take others down with you in your 15 minutes of fame!
Reservations: I've driven through them. It's sickening what we've managed to do. Looks a lot like the democrat policies in Detroit. I don't have the link to that rez/park issue - does anyone know what i"m referring to?? I saw it on FB and now I can't find it and google searches turn up bundy, bundy, bundy.
We have a lot to agree about...I think it's more the 'from which perspective' do we derive our opinions? Lol...I'm not a rancher, my husband get's to deal with the BLM concerning some oil leases & I know what a headache that is...they create a lot of bs rules & regs that don't make a bit of sense. It's also very hard to see roads closed that they have no right to close...it's much more insidious than people realize.
I see this case as a major plus for the 'States Rights Movement', not at all unlike Rosa Parks and her amazing stand and contribution to the 'Civil Rights Movement'.
Cliven Bundy is a patriot...and a well spoken one.
A lot of the video's that are making the rounds have nothing to do with him personally.
Part of the donations are for a party they're having tomorrow at the ranch & it will help pay for entertainment & food. I have no problem helping him to win this fight anyhow...it's for all of us.
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-17 11:17 AM jbhoot - 2014-04-17 12:11 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-17 11:45 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-17 11:43 AM TXBO - 2014-04-17 11:25 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-17 10:52 AM Smiley, are you discounting the original intent of The Gov't Land Office to disposition said land? What gives GLO legitimacy while BLM is an "alphabet agency"? Good question. From that line of thinking, then BOTH are/were Alphabet Agencies. However, from a current day perspective, The GLO did not have Armed Enforcers i.e. Troops, that the current day Alphabet Agencies have. (That I am aware of anyway. ) Also, the GLO's stated original intent was to dis position i.e. dispose of land. None of the current Alphabet Agencies are disposing of anything but American's money via their budgets and imposing upon American's Rights and Freedoms. If you look the history the BLM Is the GLO.
So how does the US Geological Survey fit into this? | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-17 11:10 AM jbhoot - 2014-04-17 12:02 PM The BLM is most certainly a police force. After a long history of convoluted jurisdiction Congress granted police authority in 1978. And yes everyone of the Agents that have been pictured dressed as paramilitary has a badge on from the BLM. You really should read up on the history of the present day BLM it is a prime example of how messed up the Federal Government has become. And If you had read the court orders issued in this case you would see NO such authority exists to destroy or dispose of Bundy's property. So it seems that in your mind it is ok for the agents of the BLM violate the court orders but not Bundy. Your stance on this makes zero sense to me. If I had to choose only three words to describe the BLM it would be bloated, inept and corrupt.
No doubt.
I vividly recall the day the BLM, Forest Service etc...got their 'arms'. Like most other 'laws' that are passed, the public was unaware until the 'public comment' time was up...you see they didn't arm themselves until much later...after the law had been on the books for however many years. (Although I recall the 'day' in memory, I don't recall the date...). Just another sneaky tactic.
| |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| musikmaker - 2014-04-17 12:28 PM
TXBO - 2014-04-17 11:17 AM jbhoot - 2014-04-17 12:11 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-17 11:45 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-17 11:43 AM TXBO - 2014-04-17 11:25 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-17 10:52 AM Smiley, are you discounting the original intent of The Gov't Land Office to disposition said land? What gives GLO legitimacy while BLM is an "alphabet agency"? Good question. From that line of thinking, then BOTH are/were Alphabet Agencies. However, from a current day perspective, The GLO did not have Armed Enforcers i.e. Troops, that the current day Alphabet Agencies have. (That I am aware of anyway. ) Also, the GLO's stated original intent was to dis position i.e. dispose of land. None of the current Alphabet Agencies are disposing of anything but American's money via their budgets and imposing upon American's Rights and Freedoms. If you look the history the BLM Is the GLO.
I am not sure on what question you are asking? | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | jbhoot - 2014-04-17 11:38 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-17 12:28 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 11:17 AM jbhoot - 2014-04-17 12:11 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-17 11:45 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-17 11:43 AM TXBO - 2014-04-17 11:25 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-17 10:52 AM Smiley, are you discounting the original intent of The Gov't Land Office to disposition said land? What gives GLO legitimacy while BLM is an "alphabet agency"? Good question. From that line of thinking, then BOTH are/were Alphabet Agencies. However, from a current day perspective, The GLO did not have Armed Enforcers i.e. Troops, that the current day Alphabet Agencies have. (That I am aware of anyway. ) Also, the GLO's stated original intent was to dis position i.e. dispose of land. None of the current Alphabet Agencies are disposing of anything but American's money via their budgets and imposing upon American's Rights and Freedoms. If you look the history the BLM Is the GLO. I am not sure on what question you are asking?
The USGS is still around & once upon a time they were the 'go to' agency when dealing with the land...I'm just lazy & don't wnat to look it up myself! | |
| | |
Famous for Not Complaining
Posts: 8848
Location: Broxton, Ga | musikmaker - 2014-04-16 1:32 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 11:10 AM jbhoot - 2014-04-17 12:02 PM The BLM is most certainly a police force. After a long history of convoluted jurisdiction Congress granted police authority in 1978. And yes everyone of the Agents that have been pictured dressed as paramilitary has a badge on from the BLM. You really should read up on the history of the present day BLM it is a prime example of how messed up the Federal Government has become. And If you had read the court orders issued in this case you would see NO such authority exists to destroy or dispose of Bundy's property. So it seems that in your mind it is ok for the agents of the BLM violate the court orders but not Bundy. Your stance on this makes zero sense to me. If I had to choose only three words to describe the BLM it would be bloated, inept and corrupt.
I vividly recall the day the BLM, Forest Service etc...got their 'arms'. Like most other 'laws' that are passed, the public was unaware until the 'public comment' time was up...you see they didn't arm themselves until much later...after the law had been on the books for however many years. (Although I recall the 'day' in memory, I don't recall the date...). Just another sneaky tactic.
Yesterday on Fox Talk it was brought up that the Sierre Club was also behind and using the BLM as the enforcement of their agenda...........back to the turtles again.......
The Sierra Club is one of the most powerful lobby groups and especially with this president.....
As for the federal land that too was discussed.........yes it is federal land and yes Bundy does own the land lease.......but apparently they way the land was deemed federal vs state was implied to be to the governments favor.......How this playes out will be interesting................
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-17 12:47 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-17 11:38 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-17 12:28 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 11:17 AM jbhoot - 2014-04-17 12:11 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-17 11:45 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-17 11:43 AM TXBO - 2014-04-17 11:25 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-17 10:52 AM Smiley, are you discounting the original intent of The Gov't Land Office to disposition said land? What gives GLO legitimacy while BLM is an "alphabet agency"? Good question. From that line of thinking, then BOTH are/were Alphabet Agencies. However, from a current day perspective, The GLO did not have Armed Enforcers i.e. Troops, that the current day Alphabet Agencies have. (That I am aware of anyway. ) Also, the GLO's stated original intent was to dis position i.e. dispose of land. None of the current Alphabet Agencies are disposing of anything but American's money via their budgets and imposing upon American's Rights and Freedoms. If you look the history the BLM Is the GLO. I am not sure on what question you are asking?
I don't know Musik but survey was one of the original functions of GLO. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 2036
Location: Montana | This was posted on Facebook. I thought it was pretty interesting.
It was posted by Tyler ShillingSo, Spencer and I got arrested (it wasn't detainment ) on Thursday. Steven was seconds away from being tased. Since then, I have been asked 'Why would you want t...o protect a tax-evading rancher?' by a number of people, my wife included. The reporting on the situation has been so poor that it's almost impossible to piece together the facts to determine why this was a fight worth fighting. Sorry it's so long; I'm just tired of simplistic arguments that boil down to 'he's a tax cheat' for the haters and vague states' rights arguments from supporters. Anyway, I was initially outraged by the BLM's (Bureau of Land Management ) attempt to restrict protests to 20' x 40' "Free Speech Zones". What a joke. This is America. And so I did a little research on the situation and we headed down to the ranch. While there, I talked with the Bundys, and started to get a better picture of the larger issues at stake. The remaining details were filled in during conversations that I had with two BLM officers: an extended one while I was in chains and locked up in a cage in the back of a truck, and the other at church with a friend that supported the Bundys who has also been working as a BLM employee for the past several years as a range management agent. To the best of my knowledge and after many hours of research and discussion, these are the relevant facts and why they matter: - 1880s: Bundy family begins ranching near Gold Butte, Nevada
- 1946: Bureau of Land Management is formed. "The BLM's stated mission is to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations"
- 1973: The Endangered Species Act is passed by congress. The stated purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to protect species and also "the ecosystems upon which they depend." After the listing of a species, 'critical habitat' must be provided, 'regardless of economic impact'. Of the 2000 species listed, only 15 have recovered--a ~1% success rate. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, fewer than 10% of listed species are improving at all. Of the 15 species that have recovered, only 2 of them had a designated 'critical habitat'. There have been very few thorough, quantitative studies on the effectiveness of the law.
-1993: The Gold Butte area is designated a critical habitat for the desert tortoise due to pressure from environmental groups. As a result of this designation, the BLM tells over 50 ranching operations in the area to reduce herd size by 50% or more. The Bundy ranch is told to reduce from 500 to 150 cattle, effectively a 70% reduction in income. THIS is the point where Bundy quit paying his range fees. Nobody can afford that kind of pay cut. I'd quit paying my fees as well if said organization was openly trying to shut me down.
-1998: The ranchers in the area are 'bought out' by the BLM based on the number of cattle they had and all ranching is forbidden. As a result of complying with the BLM instructions from 1993, 50 of the 51 ranchers had fewer than 50% of the cattle they previously owned. Convenient. Cliven Bundy's herd is still growing.
-1998-2013: The BLM brings several court cases against Cliven Bundy. The federal court rules in favor of the federal agency against the Bundys.
-2014: The BLM initiates the cattle roundup costing over $3 million dollars and using BLM agents from as far as Alaska as well as federal agents in full tactical gear with machine guns.
Aside from the 'first amendment zones' that were taken down on Thursday as a result of the Nevada governer commenting on how ridiculous they were, my main concern and reason for protesting is the amount of power that a federal agency (the BLM) has with very little congressional oversight and no elected officials to be accountable for their actions. And, when this powerful, unaccountable agency is openly influenced by environmental lobbyists they have a tendency to steamroll hard working folks who just don't have the time or experience to play the media/politics game. When the Gold Butte area was ruled a 'critical habitat' for the desert tortoise in 1993, that decision directly impacted over 50 ranching operations, several hundred people, and numerous small communities in the area.
Around the same time, in 1998 (the same year that all ranging was completely banned in the Gold Butte area), Harry Reid and John Ensign were sponsoring legislation to remove restrictions on the sale of certain federal wilderness lands in Nevada. In 2002 there was more legislation by Reid called "The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002", that allowed his billionaire donor friend Harvey Whittemore to build Coyote Springs, a real estate development on 10,000 acres of desert tortoise sanctuary. Pretty sketchy stuff--read the wikipedia article on Harvey Whittemore. And, these aren't conspiracy theories--they're fully documented by newspaper articles and public record. So all I'm saying is that the little guy gets run over while the corrupt politicians and businessmen are in bed together. It's not fair and it's not right. Cliven Bundy was completely legal until the BLM demanded that he cut his income by 70%. I've been to the Bundy homestead, and I can tell you that he's definitely not living large--a pay cut like that is essentially a financial death sentence. As I said before, I know that if I were in his shoes I definitely wouldn't pay anything to an agency that was putting me out of business, essentially forcing me to move from a homestead my family had settled almost 140 years before.
Interestingly, just last year the BLM euthanized up to 1000 desert tortoises being kept in a preserve due to a 'lack of funding'. Apparently the 'regardless of economic impact' clause applies to everyone else except the government themselves. Once again, the little guy is expected to play by the rules and the government is able to act however they see fit. Oh, and the current director of the BLM was Harry Reid's senior advisor for many years.
The second major concern revolves around states' rights and the fact that land in the east is owned almost exclusively by the state/privately, while in the West the majority of the land is federally owned. This is the argument the Bundys have focused almost exclusively on. States are promised equal treatment under the constitution. Historically when a state was approved for statehood, the federal government would turn over all land within the state's boundaries with the exception of some small plots of land for military bases or national parks. Yet, when the western states tried to do the same, the US government twisted their arms and forced them to relinquish control of huge swathes of land. 85% of the land in Nevada is owned by the federal government. How is that equal treatment? How is that constitutional? The states tried to protest this in the 'range wars' of the 1970s and 1980s, but (as expected), the federal courts ruled in favor of the federal government. Are we seeing a trend here? There is no system of checks-and-balances for the federal government. And that's what we all need to protest and stand up against. I'll be arrested every day of the week if it helps keep an overreaching, corrupt federal government in check. Oh, and in case you didn't know, yesterday the BLM backed down and left town. This is America.
| |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| musikmaker - 2014-04-17 12:47 PM
jbhoot - 2014-04-17 11:38 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-17 12:28 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 11:17 AM jbhoot - 2014-04-17 12:11 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-17 11:45 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-17 11:43 AM TXBO - 2014-04-17 11:25 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-17 10:52 AM Smiley, are you discounting the original intent of The Gov't Land Office to disposition said land? What gives GLO legitimacy while BLM is an "alphabet agency"? Good question. From that line of thinking, then BOTH are/were Alphabet Agencies. However, from a current day perspective, The GLO did not have Armed Enforcers i.e. Troops, that the current day Alphabet Agencies have. (That I am aware of anyway. ) Also, the GLO's stated original intent was to dis position i.e. dispose of land. None of the current Alphabet Agencies are disposing of anything but American's money via their budgets and imposing upon American's Rights and Freedoms. If you look the history the BLM Is the GLO. I am not sure on what question you are asking?
LOL, so you want me to do your home work do ya.........well maybe we'll see HAHAHA | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 12:55 PM
This was posted on Facebook. I thought it was pretty interesting.
It was posted by Tyler ShillingSo, Spencer and I got arrested (it wasn't detainment ) on Thursday. Steven was seconds away from being tased. Since then, I have been asked 'Why would you want t...o protect a tax-evading rancher?' by a number of people, my wife included. The reporting on the situation has been so poor that it's almost impossible to piece together the facts to determine why this was a fight worth fighting. Sorry it's so long; I'm just tired of simplistic arguments that boil down to 'he's a tax cheat' for the haters and vague states' rights arguments from supporters. Anyway, I was initially outraged by the BLM's (Bureau of Land Management ) attempt to restrict protests to 20' x 40' "Free Speech Zones". What a joke. This is America. And so I did a little research on the situation and we headed down to the ranch. While there, I talked with the Bundys, and started to get a better picture of the larger issues at stake. The remaining details were filled in during conversations that I had with two BLM officers: an extended one while I was in chains and locked up in a cage in the back of a truck, and the other at church with a friend that supported the Bundys who has also been working as a BLM employee for the past several years as a range management agent. To the best of my knowledge and after many hours of research and discussion, these are the relevant facts and why they matter: - 1880s: Bundy family begins ranching near Gold Butte, Nevada
- 1946: Bureau of Land Management is formed. "The BLM's stated mission is to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations"
- 1973: The Endangered Species Act is passed by congress. The stated purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to protect species and also "the ecosystems upon which they depend." After the listing of a species, 'critical habitat' must be provided, 'regardless of economic impact'. Of the 2000 species listed, only 15 have recovered--a ~1% success rate. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, fewer than 10% of listed species are improving at all. Of the 15 species that have recovered, only 2 of them had a designated 'critical habitat'. There have been very few thorough, quantitative studies on the effectiveness of the law.
-1993: The Gold Butte area is designated a critical habitat for the desert tortoise due to pressure from environmental groups. As a result of this designation, the BLM tells over 50 ranching operations in the area to reduce herd size by 50% or more. The Bundy ranch is told to reduce from 500 to 150 cattle, effectively a 70% reduction in income. THIS is the point where Bundy quit paying his range fees. Nobody can afford that kind of pay cut. I'd quit paying my fees as well if said organization was openly trying to shut me down.
-1998: The ranchers in the area are 'bought out' by the BLM based on the number of cattle they had and all ranching is forbidden. As a result of complying with the BLM instructions from 1993, 50 of the 51 ranchers had fewer than 50% of the cattle they previously owned. Convenient. Cliven Bundy's herd is still growing.
-1998-2013: The BLM brings several court cases against Cliven Bundy. The federal court rules in favor of the federal agency against the Bundys.
-2014: The BLM initiates the cattle roundup costing over $3 million dollars and using BLM agents from as far as Alaska as well as federal agents in full tactical gear with machine guns.
Aside from the 'first amendment zones' that were taken down on Thursday as a result of the Nevada governer commenting on how ridiculous they were, my main concern and reason for protesting is the amount of power that a federal agency (the BLM) has with very little congressional oversight and no elected officials to be accountable for their actions. And, when this powerful, unaccountable agency is openly influenced by environmental lobbyists they have a tendency to steamroll hard working folks who just don't have the time or experience to play the media/politics game. When the Gold Butte area was ruled a 'critical habitat' for the desert tortoise in 1993, that decision directly impacted over 50 ranching operations, several hundred people, and numerous small communities in the area.
Around the same time, in 1998 (the same year that all ranging was completely banned in the Gold Butte area), Harry Reid and John Ensign were sponsoring legislation to remove restrictions on the sale of certain federal wilderness lands in Nevada. In 2002 there was more legislation by Reid called "The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002", that allowed his billionaire donor friend Harvey Whittemore to build Coyote Springs, a real estate development on 10,000 acres of desert tortoise sanctuary. Pretty sketchy stuff--read the wikipedia article on Harvey Whittemore. And, these aren't conspiracy theories--they're fully documented by newspaper articles and public record. So all I'm saying is that the little guy gets run over while the corrupt politicians and businessmen are in bed together. It's not fair and it's not right. Cliven Bundy was completely legal until the BLM demanded that he cut his income by 70%. I've been to the Bundy homestead, and I can tell you that he's definitely not living large--a pay cut like that is essentially a financial death sentence. As I said before, I know that if I were in his shoes I definitely wouldn't pay anything to an agency that was putting me out of business, essentially forcing me to move from a homestead my family had settled almost 140 years before.
Interestingly, just last year the BLM euthanized up to 1000 desert tortoises being kept in a preserve due to a 'lack of funding'. Apparently the 'regardless of economic impact' clause applies to everyone else except the government themselves. Once again, the little guy is expected to play by the rules and the government is able to act however they see fit. Oh, and the current director of the BLM was Harry Reid's senior advisor for many years.
The second major concern revolves around states' rights and the fact that land in the east is owned almost exclusively by the state/privately, while in the West the majority of the land is federally owned. This is the argument the Bundys have focused almost exclusively on. States are promised equal treatment under the constitution. Historically when a state was approved for statehood, the federal government would turn over all land within the state's boundaries with the exception of some small plots of land for military bases or national parks. Yet, when the western states tried to do the same, the US government twisted their arms and forced them to relinquish control of huge swathes of land. 85% of the land in Nevada is owned by the federal government. How is that equal treatment? How is that constitutional? The states tried to protest this in the 'range wars' of the 1970s and 1980s, but (as expected), the federal courts ruled in favor of the federal government. Are we seeing a trend here? There is no system of checks-and-balances for the federal government. And that's what we all need to protest and stand up against. I'll be arrested every day of the week if it helps keep an overreaching, corrupt federal government in check. Oh, and in case you didn't know, yesterday the BLM backed down and left town. This is America.
Thank you Bandit for posting this. I was already familiar with the majority of the facts presented in this. And I completely agree with Post! | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| jbhoot - 2014-04-17 11:02 AM The BLM is most certainly a police force. After a long history of convoluted jurisdiction Congress granted police authority in 1978. And yes everyone of the Agents that have been pictured dressed as paramilitary has a badge on from the BLM. You really should read up on the history of the present day BLM it is a prime example of how messed up the Federal Government has become. And If you had read the court orders issued in this case you would see NO such authority exists to destroy or dispose of Bundy's property. So it seems that in your mind it is ok for the agents of the BLM violate the court orders but not Bundy. Your stance on this makes zero sense to me.
The BLM has limited agents, and they were the ones you saw in tan shirts and slacks - yes armed. As I said, which one of us would go into the territory they do and not be armed? They cleaned out homemade bombs in the colorado mountains not too long ago in a random tent of some yahoos camping illegally in the forest.
In the videos I saw, the floppy hat, camo, kevlar hatted were NOT BLM. I would venture to stay they are the Nevada National Guard or similar - as I have been around the Guard/military. If you can prove otherwise, I'm always willing to read. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 12:55 PM
This was posted on Facebook. I thought it was pretty interesting.
It was posted by Tyler ShillingSo, Spencer and I got arrested (it wasn't detainment ) on Thursday. Steven was seconds away from being tased. Since then, I have been asked 'Why would you want t...o protect a tax-evading rancher?' by a number of people, my wife included. The reporting on the situation has been so poor that it's almost impossible to piece together the facts to determine why this was a fight worth fighting. Sorry it's so long; I'm just tired of simplistic arguments that boil down to 'he's a tax cheat' for the haters and vague states' rights arguments from supporters. Anyway, I was initially outraged by the BLM's (Bureau of Land Management ) attempt to restrict protests to 20' x 40' "Free Speech Zones". What a joke. This is America. And so I did a little research on the situation and we headed down to the ranch. While there, I talked with the Bundys, and started to get a better picture of the larger issues at stake. The remaining details were filled in during conversations that I had with two BLM officers: an extended one while I was in chains and locked up in a cage in the back of a truck, and the other at church with a friend that supported the Bundys who has also been working as a BLM employee for the past several years as a range management agent. To the best of my knowledge and after many hours of research and discussion, these are the relevant facts and why they matter: - 1880s: Bundy family begins ranching near Gold Butte, Nevada
- 1946: Bureau of Land Management is formed. "The BLM's stated mission is to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations"
- 1973: The Endangered Species Act is passed by congress. The stated purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to protect species and also "the ecosystems upon which they depend." After the listing of a species, 'critical habitat' must be provided, 'regardless of economic impact'. Of the 2000 species listed, only 15 have recovered--a ~1% success rate. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, fewer than 10% of listed species are improving at all. Of the 15 species that have recovered, only 2 of them had a designated 'critical habitat'. There have been very few thorough, quantitative studies on the effectiveness of the law.
-1993: The Gold Butte area is designated a critical habitat for the desert tortoise due to pressure from environmental groups. As a result of this designation, the BLM tells over 50 ranching operations in the area to reduce herd size by 50% or more. The Bundy ranch is told to reduce from 500 to 150 cattle, effectively a 70% reduction in income. THIS is the point where Bundy quit paying his range fees. Nobody can afford that kind of pay cut. I'd quit paying my fees as well if said organization was openly trying to shut me down.
-1998: The ranchers in the area are 'bought out' by the BLM based on the number of cattle they had and all ranching is forbidden. As a result of complying with the BLM instructions from 1993, 50 of the 51 ranchers had fewer than 50% of the cattle they previously owned. Convenient. Cliven Bundy's herd is still growing.
-1998-2013: The BLM brings several court cases against Cliven Bundy. The federal court rules in favor of the federal agency against the Bundys.
-2014: The BLM initiates the cattle roundup costing over $3 million dollars and using BLM agents from as far as Alaska as well as federal agents in full tactical gear with machine guns.
Aside from the 'first amendment zones' that were taken down on Thursday as a result of the Nevada governer commenting on how ridiculous they were, my main concern and reason for protesting is the amount of power that a federal agency (the BLM) has with very little congressional oversight and no elected officials to be accountable for their actions. And, when this powerful, unaccountable agency is openly influenced by environmental lobbyists they have a tendency to steamroll hard working folks who just don't have the time or experience to play the media/politics game. When the Gold Butte area was ruled a 'critical habitat' for the desert tortoise in 1993, that decision directly impacted over 50 ranching operations, several hundred people, and numerous small communities in the area.
Around the same time, in 1998 (the same year that all ranging was completely banned in the Gold Butte area), Harry Reid and John Ensign were sponsoring legislation to remove restrictions on the sale of certain federal wilderness lands in Nevada. In 2002 there was more legislation by Reid called "The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002", that allowed his billionaire donor friend Harvey Whittemore to build Coyote Springs, a real estate development on 10,000 acres of desert tortoise sanctuary. Pretty sketchy stuff--read the wikipedia article on Harvey Whittemore. And, these aren't conspiracy theories--they're fully documented by newspaper articles and public record. So all I'm saying is that the little guy gets run over while the corrupt politicians and businessmen are in bed together. It's not fair and it's not right. Cliven Bundy was completely legal until the BLM demanded that he cut his income by 70%. I've been to the Bundy homestead, and I can tell you that he's definitely not living large--a pay cut like that is essentially a financial death sentence. As I said before, I know that if I were in his shoes I definitely wouldn't pay anything to an agency that was putting me out of business, essentially forcing me to move from a homestead my family had settled almost 140 years before.
Interestingly, just last year the BLM euthanized up to 1000 desert tortoises being kept in a preserve due to a 'lack of funding'. Apparently the 'regardless of economic impact' clause applies to everyone else except the government themselves. Once again, the little guy is expected to play by the rules and the government is able to act however they see fit. Oh, and the current director of the BLM was Harry Reid's senior advisor for many years.
The second major concern revolves around states' rights and the fact that land in the east is owned almost exclusively by the state/privately, while in the West the majority of the land is federally owned. This is the argument the Bundys have focused almost exclusively on. States are promised equal treatment under the constitution. Historically when a state was approved for statehood, the federal government would turn over all land within the state's boundaries with the exception of some small plots of land for military bases or national parks. Yet, when the western states tried to do the same, the US government twisted their arms and forced them to relinquish control of huge swathes of land. 85% of the land in Nevada is owned by the federal government. How is that equal treatment? How is that constitutional? The states tried to protest this in the 'range wars' of the 1970s and 1980s, but (as expected), the federal courts ruled in favor of the federal government. Are we seeing a trend here? There is no system of checks-and-balances for the federal government. And that's what we all need to protest and stand up against. I'll be arrested every day of the week if it helps keep an overreaching, corrupt federal government in check. Oh, and in case you didn't know, yesterday the BLM backed down and left town. This is America.
I have had Harry Reid pegged in this deal up to his eyeballs! And this guys research validates what I have always suspected in regards to Harry Reid. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| jbhoot - 2014-04-17 11:02 AM The BLM is most certainly a police force. After a long history of convoluted jurisdiction Congress granted police authority in 1978. And yes everyone of the Agents that have been pictured dressed as paramilitary has a badge on from the BLM. You really should read up on the history of the present day BLM it is a prime example of how messed up the Federal Government has become. And If you had read the court orders issued in this case you would see NO such authority exists to destroy or dispose of Bundy's property. So it seems that in your mind it is ok for the agents of the BLM violate the court orders but not Bundy. Your stance on this makes zero sense to me.
Do you have a link to these court orders? No, I'm not advocating for anyone to defy court orders, but I don't think they need a court order to make changes to things that are still on federal property after the owner has had a chance to remove them. Like 20 years.
If I go to a rental house and evict someone and they leave stuff behind, do you think I'm going to take it to them?? Get a storage unit for it?? No, I'm gonna get a roll off and throw it away. | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| smiley - 2014-04-17 1:08 PM
jbhoot - 2014-04-17 11:02 AM The BLM is most certainly a police force. After a long history of convoluted jurisdiction Congress granted police authority in 1978. And yes everyone of the Agents that have been pictured dressed as paramilitary has a badge on from the BLM. You really should read up on the history of the present day BLM it is a prime example of how messed up the Federal Government has become. And If you had read the court orders issued in this case you would see NO such authority exists to destroy or dispose of Bundy's property. So it seems that in your mind it is ok for the agents of the BLM violate the court orders but not Bundy. Your stance on this makes zero sense to me.
The BLM has limited agents, and they were the ones you saw in tan shirts and slacks - yes armed. As I said, which one of us would go into the territory they do and not be armed? They cleaned out homemade bombs in the colorado mountains not too long ago in a random tent of some yahoos camping illegally in the forest.
In the videos I saw, the floppy hat, camo, kevlar hatted were NOT BLM. I would venture to stay they are the Nevada National Guard or similar - as I have been around the Guard/military. If you can prove otherwise, I'm always willing to read.
Please You really have no understanding of the laws and jurisdictions you are commenting on. All you have to do is look it up and read. And No they are not part of any military. The national Guard requires an action from the Gov. of Nev. NO such action was taken. And it is very clear in every picture I have seen that all are carrying a badge from the BLM. Most have it on their belts. And no I am not going to do your home work you look it up. Latter I am off to work. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| CJE - 2014-04-17 11:50 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-16 1:32 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 11:10 AM jbhoot - 2014-04-17 12:02 PM The BLM is most certainly a police force. After a long history of convoluted jurisdiction Congress granted police authority in 1978. And yes everyone of the Agents that have been pictured dressed as paramilitary has a badge on from the BLM. You really should read up on the history of the present day BLM it is a prime example of how messed up the Federal Government has become. And If you had read the court orders issued in this case you would see NO such authority exists to destroy or dispose of Bundy's property. So it seems that in your mind it is ok for the agents of the BLM violate the court orders but not Bundy. Your stance on this makes zero sense to me. If I had to choose only three words to describe the BLM it would be bloated, inept and corrupt.
I vividly recall the day the BLM, Forest Service etc...got their 'arms'. Like most other 'laws' that are passed, the public was unaware until the 'public comment' time was up...you see they didn't arm themselves until much later...after the law had been on the books for however many years. (Although I recall the 'day' in memory, I don't recall the date...). Just another sneaky tactic.
The Sierra Club is one of the most powerful lobby groups and especially with this president.....
As for the federal land that too was discussed.........yes it is federal land and yes Bundy does own the land lease.......but apparently they way the land was deemed federal vs state was implied to be to the governments favor.......How this playes out will be interesting................
Just one small distinction, he CLAIMS to own a lease to the land - he has not proven that in court three times, nor is it provable without a verifiable chain of custody, and then he would still have to go to court over it, just like the Hage family did. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 11:55 AM This was posted on Facebook. I thought it was pretty interesting.
It was posted by Tyler Shilling
So, Spencer and I got arrested (it wasn't detainment ) on Thursday. Steven was seconds away from being tased. Since then, I have been asked 'Why would you want t...o protect a tax-evading rancher?' by a number of people, my wife included. The reporting on the situation has been so poor that it's almost impossible to piece together the facts to determine why this was a fight worth fighting. Sorry it's so long; I'm just tired of simplistic arguments that boil down to 'he's a tax cheat' for the haters and vague states' rights arguments from supporters. Anyway, I was initially outraged by the BLM's (Bureau of Land Management ) attempt to restrict protests to 20' x 40' "Free Speech Zones". What a joke. This is America. And so I did a little research on the situation and we headed down to the ranch. While there, I talked with the Bundys, and started to get a better picture of the larger issues at stake. The remaining details were filled in during conversations that I had with two BLM officers: an extended one while I was in chains and locked up in a cage in the back of a truck, and the other at church with a friend that supported the Bundys who has also been working as a BLM employee for the past several years as a range management agent. To the best of my knowledge and after many hours of research and discussion, these are the relevant facts and why they matter:
- 1880s: Bundy family begins ranching near Gold Butte, Nevada
- 1946: Bureau of Land Management is formed. "The BLM's stated mission is to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations"
- 1973: The Endangered Species Act is passed by congress. The stated purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to protect species and also "the ecosystems upon which they depend." After the listing of a species, 'critical habitat' must be provided, 'regardless of economic impact'. Of the 2000 species listed, only 15 have recovered--a ~1% success rate. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, fewer than 10% of listed species are improving at all. Of the 15 species that have recovered, only 2 of them had a designated 'critical habitat'. There have been very few thorough, quantitative studies on the effectiveness of the law.
-1993: The Gold Butte area is designated a critical habitat for the desert tortoise due to pressure from environmental groups. As a result of this designation, the BLM tells over 50 ranching operations in the area to reduce herd size by 50% or more. The Bundy ranch is told to reduce from 500 to 150 cattle, effectively a 70% reduction in income. THIS is the point where Bundy quit paying his range fees. Nobody can afford that kind of pay cut. I'd quit paying my fees as well if said organization was openly trying to shut me down.
-1998: The ranchers in the area are 'bought out' by the BLM based on the number of cattle they had and all ranching is forbidden. As a result of complying with the BLM instructions from 1993, 50 of the 51 ranchers had fewer than 50% of the cattle they previously owned. Convenient. Cliven Bundy's herd is still growing.
-1998-2013: The BLM brings several court cases against Cliven Bundy. The federal court rules in favor of the federal agency against the Bundys.
-2014: The BLM initiates the cattle roundup costing over $3 million dollars and using BLM agents from as far as Alaska as well as federal agents in full tactical gear with machine guns.
Aside from the 'first amendment zones' that were taken down on Thursday as a result of the Nevada governer commenting on how ridiculous they were, my main concern and reason for protesting is the amount of power that a federal agency (the BLM) has with very little congressional oversight and no elected officials to be accountable for their actions. And, when this powerful, unaccountable agency is openly influenced by environmental lobbyists they have a tendency to steamroll hard working folks who just don't have the time or experience to play the media/politics game. When the Gold Butte area was ruled a 'critical habitat' for the desert tortoise in 1993, that decision directly impacted over 50 ranching operations, several hundred people, and numerous small communities in the area.
Around the same time, in 1998 (the same year that all ranging was completely banned in the Gold Butte area), Harry Reid and John Ensign were sponsoring legislation to remove restrictions on the sale of certain federal wilderness lands in Nevada. In 2002 there was more legislation by Reid called "The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002", that allowed his billionaire donor friend Harvey Whittemore to build Coyote Springs, a real estate development on 10,000 acres of desert tortoise sanctuary. Pretty sketchy stuff--read the wikipedia article on Harvey Whittemore. And, these aren't conspiracy theories--they're fully documented by newspaper articles and public record. So all I'm saying is that the little guy gets run over while the corrupt politicians and businessmen are in bed together. It's not fair and it's not right. Cliven Bundy was completely legal until the BLM demanded that he cut his income by 70%. I've been to the Bundy homestead, and I can tell you that he's definitely not living large--a pay cut like that is essentially a financial death sentence. As I said before, I know that if I were in his shoes I definitely wouldn't pay anything to an agency that was putting me out of business, essentially forcing me to move from a homestead my family had settled almost 140 years before.
Interestingly, just last year the BLM euthanized up to 1000 desert tortoises being kept in a preserve due to a 'lack of funding'. Apparently the 'regardless of economic impact' clause applies to everyone else except the government themselves. Once again, the little guy is expected to play by the rules and the government is able to act however they see fit. Oh, and the current director of the BLM was Harry Reid's senior advisor for many years.
The second major concern revolves around states' rights and the fact that land in the east is owned almost exclusively by the state/privately, while in the West the majority of the land is federally owned. This is the argument the Bundys have focused almost exclusively on. States are promised equal treatment under the constitution. Historically when a state was approved for statehood, the federal government would turn over all land within the state's boundaries with the exception of some small plots of land for military bases or national parks. Yet, when the western states tried to do the same, the US government twisted their arms and forced them to relinquish control of huge swathes of land. 85% of the land in Nevada is owned by the federal government. How is that equal treatment? How is that constitutional? The states tried to protest this in the 'range wars' of the 1970s and 1980s, but (as expected), the federal courts ruled in favor of the federal government. Are we seeing a trend here? There is no system of checks-and-balances for the federal government. And that's what we all need to protest and stand up against. I'll be arrested every day of the week if it helps keep an overreaching, corrupt federal government in check. Oh, and in case you didn't know, yesterday the BLM backed down and left town. This is America.
The BLM was not "Formed" then, the BLM was the GLO and IT was formed in 1812.
So, if he starts off with wrong facts, then he is simply parroting what he heard from Bundy and family. And that is hardly the truth.
If you stop paying fees, you no longer get to use the land - your reasons why are for the courts to decide, which three times he lost. You can't simply stop paying fees.
What ranchers were "bought out" by the BLM? I would love to see a title transfer via an assessor's office where it said "John Smith" and then changed to "BLM" - maybe I'm wrong - it happens, but I don't think the BLM bought out anyone, rather I believe they excercised rights over land they already own (states ownership being a whole other ball of wax).
This stupid round up did not cost $3 mill, I believe that is what they have set aside for it, as that is what it cost in the 90s for the Hage ranch. To date, I've read in several places they have expended less than a million = STILL a ridiculous amount of money.
The BLM does have oversight by an elected official - the PRESIDENT. You want hte BLM gone, vote in a president that wants the same.
I've already argued the cut in numbers of cattle - the BLM is not your enemy the environmentalists are. The kicker in this "article" is where he says that Bundy wasn't illegal until . . . . So, I didn't steal that car until I needed one - I'm still gonna get arrested.
The Turtles that were put down - from what I read - was due to the turtle conservancy going out of business and they dumped the turtles on the BLM and they put down sick and old ones.
That's where I stopped. This may very well get the states off their *sses to do something or it might not, but it's not Bundy's fight. He is illegal and has been for some time and even right up to the point the helicopter got there, he had a choice to get his own cattle off the land.
This is NOT like the case in texas where deeded land, provable deeded land, is I believe trying to be taken away. WHy don't we find those cases and discuss their merits. Why don't we discuss the court cases already in the works for states to try to get the land from the feds? Why don't we find the rez story about turning their land into a national park?
I'm over bundy, he's a POS who has had his 15 minutes of fame. I don't care why you think they are raising money, to me it's tacky and wrong.
yes, this is America and you think when you fill out a job application and it asks if you've ever been arrested they give a hot chit what your misguided reasons for being arrested were??
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| smiley - 2014-04-17 1:32 PM Do you have a link to these court orders? No, I'm not advocating for anyone to defy court orders, but I don't think they need a court order to make changes to things that are still on federal property after the owner has had a chance to remove them. Like 20 years.
If I go to a rental house and evict someone and they leave stuff behind, do you think I'm going to take it to them?? Get a storage unit for it?? No, I'm gonna get a roll off and throw it away.
The appeal order is attached to that breitbart.com article.
I can't seem to find the ruling from the first court order. If anyone has that, I'd like to read it. | |
| | |
Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
|  | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| jbhoot - 2014-04-17 12:33 PM smiley - 2014-04-17 1:08 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-17 11:02 AM The BLM is most certainly a police force. After a long history of convoluted jurisdiction Congress granted police authority in 1978. And yes everyone of the Agents that have been pictured dressed as paramilitary has a badge on from the BLM. You really should read up on the history of the present day BLM it is a prime example of how messed up the Federal Government has become. And If you had read the court orders issued in this case you would see NO such authority exists to destroy or dispose of Bundy's property. So it seems that in your mind it is ok for the agents of the BLM violate the court orders but not Bundy. Your stance on this makes zero sense to me.
The BLM has limited agents, and they were the ones you saw in tan shirts and slacks - yes armed. As I said, which one of us would go into the territory they do and not be armed? They cleaned out homemade bombs in the colorado mountains not too long ago in a random tent of some yahoos camping illegally in the forest.
In the videos I saw, the floppy hat, camo, kevlar hatted were NOT BLM. I would venture to stay they are the Nevada National Guard or similar - as I have been around the Guard/military. If you can prove otherwise, I'm always willing to read. Please You really have no understanding of the laws and jurisdictions you are commenting on. All you have to do is look it up and read. And No they are not part of any military. The national Guard requires an action from the Gov. of Nev. NO such action was taken. And it is very clear in every picture I have seen that all are carrying a badge from the BLM. Most have it on their belts. And no I am not going to do your home work you look it up. Latter I am off to work.
This video shows BLM agents from many different areas - including Calif and Oregon to my understanding:
http://rt.com/usa/nevada-ranch-armed-feds-520/
This photo shows Forest Service agents/BLM also from various offices:
http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/21WIREa-Bundy-Fed-Standoff-April-12-2014-Copyright-GMN-2.jpg
This is clearly a swat team from Las Vegas:
http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/21WIREb-Bundy-Fed-Standoff-April-12-2014-Copyright-GMN.jpg
This shows people in kevalar helmets with POLICE on their backs, these are NOT BLM. I don't know who they are, but the ones toward the back of the pickup in the tan - ARE BLM:
http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/21WIREg-Bundy-Fed-Standoff-April-12-2014-Copyright-GMN.jpg
THESE are not BLM, if you know who they are, by all means, let us all know - they are NOT BLM:
http://static.libsyn.com/p/assets/5/f/8/5/5f85d4f7fcef1d47/21WIREi-Bundy-Fed-Standoff-April-12-2014-Copyright-GMN.jpg
Here is a shot with ONE BLM agent among?? WHO?? You clearly must know, so do inform us:
http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/21WIRE-11-BLM-Bundy-April-12-2014-GMN-Copyright.jpg
THis looks like the sheriff to me and one of bundy's sons packing a pistol:
http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/21WIRE-16-BLM-Bundy-April-12-14-GMN-Copyright.jpg
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| RidenFly - 2014-04-17 12:53 PM
Okay, this is funny! | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Please show me where there are BLM with POLICE on them?? This is a link to their RANGER opportunities. And next is their law enforcemnt page.
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Law_Enforcement/law_enforcement.Par.26988.File.dat/LErecruit100907.pdf
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/law_enforcement.html
| |
| | |
Swiffer PIcker Upper
Posts: 4015
Location: Four Corners Colorado | What do you guys think about what this guy is saying?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eooqqf26gsE
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! |
This is very well said.
I'm in good company!!!
(making it a 'live link')
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eooqqf26gsE
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
|
He hasn't said anything that you all haven't already said. Again, it's the states fight, not bundy's fight. I'm not sure what he wants us to reconsider - the end of the conversation is that he feds own the land and have owned it since long before bundy. Reconsider what??
He has brought a lot to the forefront so that is a silver lining. Now, if I had my druthers, we'd move on to real cases that have a chance to be changed - Texas - Indian vs. Park - and let's get all those militia and horses and flags to THOSE fights. Fights that have a chance of winning, fights that are clearly wrong.
Let the states fight for their land. Then the states can fight the environmentalists. I do think the BLM being one agency has made it easier for the activists to affect more than one state at a time through mimimal effort. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 2036
Location: Montana | foundation horse - 2014-04-17 11:08 AM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 12:55 PM This was posted on Facebook. I thought it was pretty interesting.
It was posted by Tyler Shilling
So, Spencer and I got arrested (it wasn't detainment ) on Thursday. Steven was seconds away from being tased. Since then, I have been asked 'Why would you want t...o protect a tax-evading rancher?' by a number of people, my wife included. The reporting on the situation has been so poor that it's almost impossible to piece together the facts to determine why this was a fight worth fighting. Sorry it's so long; I'm just tired of simplistic arguments that boil down to 'he's a tax cheat' for the haters and vague states' rights arguments from supporters. Anyway, I was initially outraged by the BLM's (Bureau of Land Management ) attempt to restrict protests to 20' x 40' "Free Speech Zones". What a joke. This is America. And so I did a little research on the situation and we headed down to the ranch. While there, I talked with the Bundys, and started to get a better picture of the larger issues at stake. The remaining details were filled in during conversations that I had with two BLM officers: an extended one while I was in chains and locked up in a cage in the back of a truck, and the other at church with a friend that supported the Bundys who has also been working as a BLM employee for the past several years as a range management agent. To the best of my knowledge and after many hours of research and discussion, these are the relevant facts and why they matter:
- 1880s: Bundy family begins ranching near Gold Butte, Nevada
- 1946: Bureau of Land Management is formed. "The BLM's stated mission is to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations"
- 1973: The Endangered Species Act is passed by congress. The stated purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to protect species and also "the ecosystems upon which they depend." After the listing of a species, 'critical habitat' must be provided, 'regardless of economic impact'. Of the 2000 species listed, only 15 have recovered--a ~1% success rate. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, fewer than 10% of listed species are improving at all. Of the 15 species that have recovered, only 2 of them had a designated 'critical habitat'. There have been very few thorough, quantitative studies on the effectiveness of the law.
-1993: The Gold Butte area is designated a critical habitat for the desert tortoise due to pressure from environmental groups. As a result of this designation, the BLM tells over 50 ranching operations in the area to reduce herd size by 50% or more. The Bundy ranch is told to reduce from 500 to 150 cattle, effectively a 70% reduction in income. THIS is the point where Bundy quit paying his range fees. Nobody can afford that kind of pay cut. I'd quit paying my fees as well if said organization was openly trying to shut me down.
-1998: The ranchers in the area are 'bought out' by the BLM based on the number of cattle they had and all ranching is forbidden. As a result of complying with the BLM instructions from 1993, 50 of the 51 ranchers had fewer than 50% of the cattle they previously owned. Convenient. Cliven Bundy's herd is still growing.
-1998-2013: The BLM brings several court cases against Cliven Bundy. The federal court rules in favor of the federal agency against the Bundys.
-2014: The BLM initiates the cattle roundup costing over $3 million dollars and using BLM agents from as far as Alaska as well as federal agents in full tactical gear with machine guns.
Aside from the 'first amendment zones' that were taken down on Thursday as a result of the Nevada governer commenting on how ridiculous they were, my main concern and reason for protesting is the amount of power that a federal agency (the BLM) has with very little congressional oversight and no elected officials to be accountable for their actions. And, when this powerful, unaccountable agency is openly influenced by environmental lobbyists they have a tendency to steamroll hard working folks who just don't have the time or experience to play the media/politics game. When the Gold Butte area was ruled a 'critical habitat' for the desert tortoise in 1993, that decision directly impacted over 50 ranching operations, several hundred people, and numerous small communities in the area.
Around the same time, in 1998 (the same year that all ranging was completely banned in the Gold Butte area), Harry Reid and John Ensign were sponsoring legislation to remove restrictions on the sale of certain federal wilderness lands in Nevada. In 2002 there was more legislation by Reid called "The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002", that allowed his billionaire donor friend Harvey Whittemore to build Coyote Springs, a real estate development on 10,000 acres of desert tortoise sanctuary. Pretty sketchy stuff--read the wikipedia article on Harvey Whittemore. And, these aren't conspiracy theories--they're fully documented by newspaper articles and public record. So all I'm saying is that the little guy gets run over while the corrupt politicians and businessmen are in bed together. It's not fair and it's not right. Cliven Bundy was completely legal until the BLM demanded that he cut his income by 70%. I've been to the Bundy homestead, and I can tell you that he's definitely not living large--a pay cut like that is essentially a financial death sentence. As I said before, I know that if I were in his shoes I definitely wouldn't pay anything to an agency that was putting me out of business, essentially forcing me to move from a homestead my family had settled almost 140 years before.
Interestingly, just last year the BLM euthanized up to 1000 desert tortoises being kept in a preserve due to a 'lack of funding'. Apparently the 'regardless of economic impact' clause applies to everyone else except the government themselves. Once again, the little guy is expected to play by the rules and the government is able to act however they see fit. Oh, and the current director of the BLM was Harry Reid's senior advisor for many years.
The second major concern revolves around states' rights and the fact that land in the east is owned almost exclusively by the state/privately, while in the West the majority of the land is federally owned. This is the argument the Bundys have focused almost exclusively on. States are promised equal treatment under the constitution. Historically when a state was approved for statehood, the federal government would turn over all land within the state's boundaries with the exception of some small plots of land for military bases or national parks. Yet, when the western states tried to do the same, the US government twisted their arms and forced them to relinquish control of huge swathes of land. 85% of the land in Nevada is owned by the federal government. How is that equal treatment? How is that constitutional? The states tried to protest this in the 'range wars' of the 1970s and 1980s, but (as expected), the federal courts ruled in favor of the federal government. Are we seeing a trend here? There is no system of checks-and-balances for the federal government. And that's what we all need to protest and stand up against. I'll be arrested every day of the week if it helps keep an overreaching, corrupt federal government in check. Oh, and in case you didn't know, yesterday the BLM backed down and left town. This is America.
Thank you Bandit for posting this. I was already familiar with the majority of the facts presented in this. And I completely agree with Post!
Your welcome. It is called "civil disobedience" folks. Remember the civil rights movement? Wonder where Obama would be right now without it. | |
| | |
|
Yep... You certainly are in good company of people who break the law.
In the 1997 case, Clifford Gardner was charged with trespass by the U.S. Forest Service for letting cattle from his Dawley Creek Ranch roam part of the Humboldt National Forest that had been ravaged by a wildfire. Although Gardner and his wife, Bertha, had a permit to graze there, the Forest Service had reseeded the burn area and closed it to grazing for two years.
Gardner violated the order by sending his cattle in and was fined for trespassing. He was sued by the Forest Service after refusing to pay the fine, arguing that the federal government didn't have title to the land so he couldn't be in trespass.
The 9th Circuit, however, held that the United States, not Nevada, owns public lands in the state and that they have power to regulate grazing under the Constitution's property clause. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 2036
Location: Montana | smiley - 2014-04-17 11:46 AM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 11:55 AM This was posted on Facebook. I thought it was pretty interesting.
It was posted by Tyler Shilling
So, Spencer and I got arrested (it wasn't detainment ) on Thursday. Steven was seconds away from being tased. Since then, I have been asked 'Why would you want t...o protect a tax-evading rancher?' by a number of people, my wife included. The reporting on the situation has been so poor that it's almost impossible to piece together the facts to determine why this was a fight worth fighting. Sorry it's so long; I'm just tired of simplistic arguments that boil down to 'he's a tax cheat' for the haters and vague states' rights arguments from supporters. Anyway, I was initially outraged by the BLM's (Bureau of Land Management ) attempt to restrict protests to 20' x 40' "Free Speech Zones". What a joke. This is America. And so I did a little research on the situation and we headed down to the ranch. While there, I talked with the Bundys, and started to get a better picture of the larger issues at stake. The remaining details were filled in during conversations that I had with two BLM officers: an extended one while I was in chains and locked up in a cage in the back of a truck, and the other at church with a friend that supported the Bundys who has also been working as a BLM employee for the past several years as a range management agent. To the best of my knowledge and after many hours of research and discussion, these are the relevant facts and why they matter:
- 1880s: Bundy family begins ranching near Gold Butte, Nevada
- 1946: Bureau of Land Management is formed. "The BLM's stated mission is to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations"
- 1973: The Endangered Species Act is passed by congress. The stated purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to protect species and also "the ecosystems upon which they depend." After the listing of a species, 'critical habitat' must be provided, 'regardless of economic impact'. Of the 2000 species listed, only 15 have recovered--a ~1% success rate. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, fewer than 10% of listed species are improving at all. Of the 15 species that have recovered, only 2 of them had a designated 'critical habitat'. There have been very few thorough, quantitative studies on the effectiveness of the law.
-1993: The Gold Butte area is designated a critical habitat for the desert tortoise due to pressure from environmental groups. As a result of this designation, the BLM tells over 50 ranching operations in the area to reduce herd size by 50% or more. The Bundy ranch is told to reduce from 500 to 150 cattle, effectively a 70% reduction in income. THIS is the point where Bundy quit paying his range fees. Nobody can afford that kind of pay cut. I'd quit paying my fees as well if said organization was openly trying to shut me down.
-1998: The ranchers in the area are 'bought out' by the BLM based on the number of cattle they had and all ranching is forbidden. As a result of complying with the BLM instructions from 1993, 50 of the 51 ranchers had fewer than 50% of the cattle they previously owned. Convenient. Cliven Bundy's herd is still growing.
-1998-2013: The BLM brings several court cases against Cliven Bundy. The federal court rules in favor of the federal agency against the Bundys.
-2014: The BLM initiates the cattle roundup costing over $3 million dollars and using BLM agents from as far as Alaska as well as federal agents in full tactical gear with machine guns.
Aside from the 'first amendment zones' that were taken down on Thursday as a result of the Nevada governer commenting on how ridiculous they were, my main concern and reason for protesting is the amount of power that a federal agency (the BLM) has with very little congressional oversight and no elected officials to be accountable for their actions. And, when this powerful, unaccountable agency is openly influenced by environmental lobbyists they have a tendency to steamroll hard working folks who just don't have the time or experience to play the media/politics game. When the Gold Butte area was ruled a 'critical habitat' for the desert tortoise in 1993, that decision directly impacted over 50 ranching operations, several hundred people, and numerous small communities in the area.
Around the same time, in 1998 (the same year that all ranging was completely banned in the Gold Butte area), Harry Reid and John Ensign were sponsoring legislation to remove restrictions on the sale of certain federal wilderness lands in Nevada. In 2002 there was more legislation by Reid called "The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002", that allowed his billionaire donor friend Harvey Whittemore to build Coyote Springs, a real estate development on 10,000 acres of desert tortoise sanctuary. Pretty sketchy stuff--read the wikipedia article on Harvey Whittemore. And, these aren't conspiracy theories--they're fully documented by newspaper articles and public record. So all I'm saying is that the little guy gets run over while the corrupt politicians and businessmen are in bed together. It's not fair and it's not right. Cliven Bundy was completely legal until the BLM demanded that he cut his income by 70%. I've been to the Bundy homestead, and I can tell you that he's definitely not living large--a pay cut like that is essentially a financial death sentence. As I said before, I know that if I were in his shoes I definitely wouldn't pay anything to an agency that was putting me out of business, essentially forcing me to move from a homestead my family had settled almost 140 years before.
Interestingly, just last year the BLM euthanized up to 1000 desert tortoises being kept in a preserve due to a 'lack of funding'. Apparently the 'regardless of economic impact' clause applies to everyone else except the government themselves. Once again, the little guy is expected to play by the rules and the government is able to act however they see fit. Oh, and the current director of the BLM was Harry Reid's senior advisor for many years.
The second major concern revolves around states' rights and the fact that land in the east is owned almost exclusively by the state/privately, while in the West the majority of the land is federally owned. This is the argument the Bundys have focused almost exclusively on. States are promised equal treatment under the constitution. Historically when a state was approved for statehood, the federal government would turn over all land within the state's boundaries with the exception of some small plots of land for military bases or national parks. Yet, when the western states tried to do the same, the US government twisted their arms and forced them to relinquish control of huge swathes of land. 85% of the land in Nevada is owned by the federal government. How is that equal treatment? How is that constitutional? The states tried to protest this in the 'range wars' of the 1970s and 1980s, but (as expected), the federal courts ruled in favor of the federal government. Are we seeing a trend here? There is no system of checks-and-balances for the federal government. And that's what we all need to protest and stand up against. I'll be arrested every day of the week if it helps keep an overreaching, corrupt federal government in check. Oh, and in case you didn't know, yesterday the BLM backed down and left town. This is America.
So, if he starts off with wrong facts, then he is simply parroting what he heard from Bundy and family. And that is hardly the truth.
If you stop paying fees, you no longer get to use the land - your reasons why are for the courts to decide, which three times he lost. You can't simply stop paying fees.
What ranchers were "bought out" by the BLM? I would love to see a title transfer via an assessor's office where it said "John Smith" and then changed to "BLM" - maybe I'm wrong - it happens, but I don't think the BLM bought out anyone, rather I believe they excercised rights over land they already own (states ownership being a whole other ball of wax).
This stupid round up did not cost $3 mill, I believe that is what they have set aside for it, as that is what it cost in the 90s for the Hage ranch. To date, I've read in several places they have expended less than a million = STILL a ridiculous amount of money.
The BLM does have oversight by an elected official - the PRESIDENT. You want hte BLM gone, vote in a president that wants the same.
I've already argued the cut in numbers of cattle - the BLM is not your enemy the environmentalists are. The kicker in this "article" is where he says that Bundy wasn't illegal until . . . . So, I didn't steal that car until I needed one - I'm still gonna get arrested.
The Turtles that were put down - from what I read - was due to the turtle conservancy going out of business and they dumped the turtles on the BLM and they put down sick and old ones.
That's where I stopped. This may very well get the states off their *sses to do something or it might not, but it's not Bundy's fight. He is illegal and has been for some time and even right up to the point the helicopter got there, he had a choice to get his own cattle off the land.
This is NOT like the case in texas where deeded land, provable deeded land, is I believe trying to be taken away. WHy don't we find those cases and discuss their merits. Why don't we discuss the court cases already in the works for states to try to get the land from the feds? Why don't we find the rez story about turning their land into a national park?
I'm over bundy, he's a POS who has had his 15 minutes of fame. I don't care why you think they are raising money, to me it's tacky and wrong.
yes, this is America and you think when you fill out a job application and it asks if you've ever been arrested they give a hot chit what your misguided reasons for being arrested were??
He isn't wrong, you are. Go to the BLM website and it states; "Grazing service merges with General land office to create the BLM in 1946."
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| bscanchaser - 2014-04-17 3:29 PM Yep... You certainly are in good company of people who break the law.
In the 1997 case, Clifford Gardner was charged with trespass by the U.S. Forest Service for letting cattle from his Dawley Creek Ranch roam part of the Humboldt National Forest that had been ravaged by a wildfire. Although Gardner and his wife, Bertha, had a permit to graze there, the Forest Service had reseeded the burn area and closed it to grazing for two years.
Gardner violated the order by sending his cattle in and was fined for trespassing. He was sued by the Forest Service after refusing to pay the fine, arguing that the federal government didn't have title to the land so he couldn't be in trespass.
The 9th Circuit, however, held that the United States, not Nevada, owns public lands in the state and that they have power to regulate grazing under the Constitution's property clause.
I love how these guys recognize the federal authority to grant them a lease but don't recognize their authority to manage their lands. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 2:35 PM smiley - 2014-04-17 11:46 AM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 11:55 AM This was posted on Facebook. I thought it was pretty interesting.
It was posted by Tyler Shilling
So, Spencer and I got arrested (it wasn't detainment ) on Thursday. Steven was seconds away from being tased. Since then, I have been asked 'Why would you want t...o protect a tax-evading rancher?' by a number of people, my wife included. The reporting on the situation has been so poor that it's almost impossible to piece together the facts to determine why this was a fight worth fighting. Sorry it's so long; I'm just tired of simplistic arguments that boil down to 'he's a tax cheat' for the haters and vague states' rights arguments from supporters. Anyway, I was initially outraged by the BLM's (Bureau of Land Management ) attempt to restrict protests to 20' x 40' "Free Speech Zones". What a joke. This is America. And so I did a little research on the situation and we headed down to the ranch. While there, I talked with the Bundys, and started to get a better picture of the larger issues at stake. The remaining details were filled in during conversations that I had with two BLM officers: an extended one while I was in chains and locked up in a cage in the back of a truck, and the other at church with a friend that supported the Bundys who has also been working as a BLM employee for the past several years as a range management agent. To the best of my knowledge and after many hours of research and discussion, these are the relevant facts and why they matter:
- 1880s: Bundy family begins ranching near Gold Butte, Nevada
- 1946: Bureau of Land Management is formed. "The BLM's stated mission is to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations"
- 1973: The Endangered Species Act is passed by congress. The stated purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to protect species and also "the ecosystems upon which they depend." After the listing of a species, 'critical habitat' must be provided, 'regardless of economic impact'. Of the 2000 species listed, only 15 have recovered--a ~1% success rate. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, fewer than 10% of listed species are improving at all. Of the 15 species that have recovered, only 2 of them had a designated 'critical habitat'. There have been very few thorough, quantitative studies on the effectiveness of the law.
-1993: The Gold Butte area is designated a critical habitat for the desert tortoise due to pressure from environmental groups. As a result of this designation, the BLM tells over 50 ranching operations in the area to reduce herd size by 50% or more. The Bundy ranch is told to reduce from 500 to 150 cattle, effectively a 70% reduction in income. THIS is the point where Bundy quit paying his range fees. Nobody can afford that kind of pay cut. I'd quit paying my fees as well if said organization was openly trying to shut me down.
-1998: The ranchers in the area are 'bought out' by the BLM based on the number of cattle they had and all ranching is forbidden. As a result of complying with the BLM instructions from 1993, 50 of the 51 ranchers had fewer than 50% of the cattle they previously owned. Convenient. Cliven Bundy's herd is still growing.
-1998-2013: The BLM brings several court cases against Cliven Bundy. The federal court rules in favor of the federal agency against the Bundys.
-2014: The BLM initiates the cattle roundup costing over $3 million dollars and using BLM agents from as far as Alaska as well as federal agents in full tactical gear with machine guns.
Aside from the 'first amendment zones' that were taken down on Thursday as a result of the Nevada governer commenting on how ridiculous they were, my main concern and reason for protesting is the amount of power that a federal agency (the BLM) has with very little congressional oversight and no elected officials to be accountable for their actions. And, when this powerful, unaccountable agency is openly influenced by environmental lobbyists they have a tendency to steamroll hard working folks who just don't have the time or experience to play the media/politics game. When the Gold Butte area was ruled a 'critical habitat' for the desert tortoise in 1993, that decision directly impacted over 50 ranching operations, several hundred people, and numerous small communities in the area.
Around the same time, in 1998 (the same year that all ranging was completely banned in the Gold Butte area), Harry Reid and John Ensign were sponsoring legislation to remove restrictions on the sale of certain federal wilderness lands in Nevada. In 2002 there was more legislation by Reid called "The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002", that allowed his billionaire donor friend Harvey Whittemore to build Coyote Springs, a real estate development on 10,000 acres of desert tortoise sanctuary. Pretty sketchy stuff--read the wikipedia article on Harvey Whittemore. And, these aren't conspiracy theories--they're fully documented by newspaper articles and public record. So all I'm saying is that the little guy gets run over while the corrupt politicians and businessmen are in bed together. It's not fair and it's not right. Cliven Bundy was completely legal until the BLM demanded that he cut his income by 70%. I've been to the Bundy homestead, and I can tell you that he's definitely not living large--a pay cut like that is essentially a financial death sentence. As I said before, I know that if I were in his shoes I definitely wouldn't pay anything to an agency that was putting me out of business, essentially forcing me to move from a homestead my family had settled almost 140 years before.
Interestingly, just last year the BLM euthanized up to 1000 desert tortoises being kept in a preserve due to a 'lack of funding'. Apparently the 'regardless of economic impact' clause applies to everyone else except the government themselves. Once again, the little guy is expected to play by the rules and the government is able to act however they see fit. Oh, and the current director of the BLM was Harry Reid's senior advisor for many years.
The second major concern revolves around states' rights and the fact that land in the east is owned almost exclusively by the state/privately, while in the West the majority of the land is federally owned. This is the argument the Bundys have focused almost exclusively on. States are promised equal treatment under the constitution. Historically when a state was approved for statehood, the federal government would turn over all land within the state's boundaries with the exception of some small plots of land for military bases or national parks. Yet, when the western states tried to do the same, the US government twisted their arms and forced them to relinquish control of huge swathes of land. 85% of the land in Nevada is owned by the federal government. How is that equal treatment? How is that constitutional? The states tried to protest this in the 'range wars' of the 1970s and 1980s, but (as expected), the federal courts ruled in favor of the federal government. Are we seeing a trend here? There is no system of checks-and-balances for the federal government. And that's what we all need to protest and stand up against. I'll be arrested every day of the week if it helps keep an overreaching, corrupt federal government in check. Oh, and in case you didn't know, yesterday the BLM backed down and left town. This is America.
So, if he starts off with wrong facts, then he is simply parroting what he heard from Bundy and family. And that is hardly the truth.
If you stop paying fees, you no longer get to use the land - your reasons why are for the courts to decide, which three times he lost. You can't simply stop paying fees.
What ranchers were "bought out" by the BLM? I would love to see a title transfer via an assessor's office where it said "John Smith" and then changed to "BLM" - maybe I'm wrong - it happens, but I don't think the BLM bought out anyone, rather I believe they excercised rights over land they already own (states ownership being a whole other ball of wax).
This stupid round up did not cost $3 mill, I believe that is what they have set aside for it, as that is what it cost in the 90s for the Hage ranch. To date, I've read in several places they have expended less than a million = STILL a ridiculous amount of money.
The BLM does have oversight by an elected official - the PRESIDENT. You want hte BLM gone, vote in a president that wants the same.
I've already argued the cut in numbers of cattle - the BLM is not your enemy the environmentalists are. The kicker in this "article" is where he says that Bundy wasn't illegal until . . . . So, I didn't steal that car until I needed one - I'm still gonna get arrested.
The Turtles that were put down - from what I read - was due to the turtle conservancy going out of business and they dumped the turtles on the BLM and they put down sick and old ones.
That's where I stopped. This may very well get the states off their *sses to do something or it might not, but it's not Bundy's fight. He is illegal and has been for some time and even right up to the point the helicopter got there, he had a choice to get his own cattle off the land.
This is NOT like the case in texas where deeded land, provable deeded land, is I believe trying to be taken away. WHy don't we find those cases and discuss their merits. Why don't we discuss the court cases already in the works for states to try to get the land from the feds? Why don't we find the rez story about turning their land into a national park?
I'm over bundy, he's a POS who has had his 15 minutes of fame. I don't care why you think they are raising money, to me it's tacky and wrong.
yes, this is America and you think when you fill out a job application and it asks if you've ever been arrested they give a hot chit what your misguided reasons for being arrested were??
Yes, the GLO morphed into the BLM, they combined a few things and renamed it. The GLO is still the BLM or vice versa.
http://www.blm.gov/es/st/en/prog/glo.html | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| TXBO - 2014-04-17 2:44 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-17 3:29 PM Yep... You certainly are in good company of people who break the law.
In the 1997 case, Clifford Gardner was charged with trespass by the U.S. Forest Service for letting cattle from his Dawley Creek Ranch roam part of the Humboldt National Forest that had been ravaged by a wildfire. Although Gardner and his wife, Bertha, had a permit to graze there, the Forest Service had reseeded the burn area and closed it to grazing for two years.
Gardner violated the order by sending his cattle in and was fined for trespassing. He was sued by the Forest Service after refusing to pay the fine, arguing that the federal government didn't have title to the land so he couldn't be in trespass.
The 9th Circuit, however, held that the United States, not Nevada, owns public lands in the state and that they have power to regulate grazing under the Constitution's property clause. I love how these guys recognize the federal authority to grant them a lease but don't recognize their authority to manage their lands.
Good way to put a lot of this selective understanding going on.......... | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 3:35 PM He isn't wrong, you are. Go to the BLM website and it states; "Grazing service merges with General land office to create the BLM in 1946."
Technically, you're correct. However the timeline is meant to mislead people to believe that the Bundy's were ranching before there was federal oversight of the land. That's just not true. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Remember in Legal Scholarly Circles and Constitutional Circles, The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court is commonly known/referred to as "The Ninth Circus".
I cannot restate this enough! The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court has the unenviable record for holding the most Court Decisions overturned actually reversed by The Supreme Court.
This is documented fact. Anyone cause to dispute this Fact, feel free to check out Google. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 2036
Location: Montana | TXBO - 2014-04-17 1:54 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 3:35 PM He isn't wrong, you are. Go to the BLM website and it states; "Grazing service merges with General land office to create the BLM in 1946."
Technically, you're correct. However the timeline is meant to mislead people to believe that the Bundy's were ranching before there was federal oversight of the land. That's just not true.
I agree with you.... I know that I am right, they took two gov entites threw in some more rules and regulations and created the BLM. It isn't the same entity ( this comment is for Smiley). They are being civilly disobedient but that is how we; 1) became a country, 2) women gained the right to vote, 3) civil rights movement...etc. The examles go on and on. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| foundation horse - 2014-04-17 4:00 PM Remember in Legal Scholarly Circles and Constitutional Circles, The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court is commonly known/referred to as "The Ninth Circus". I cannot restate this enough! The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court has the unenviable record for holding the most Court Decisions overturned actually reversed by The Supreme Court. This is documented fact. Anyone cause to dispute this Fact, feel free to check out Google.
I have no need to verify your scholarly research, FH.
However, off the top of my head, I can name one case from the 9th District that wasn't overturned by the Supreme Court....... US vs Bundy. | |
| | |
I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
Location: Online | So I guess the federal government can keep changing the rules to suit their current needs without the people's input or consent and we just have to roll over and take it. Ok.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."
| |
| | |
I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
Location: Online | Since the edit button is missing....
Last I checked, the Constitution of the United States of America predates Bundy's settling of Nevada as well and the BLM.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 4:04 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 1:54 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 3:35 PM He isn't wrong, you are. Go to the BLM website and it states; "Grazing service merges with General land office to create the BLM in 1946."
Technically, you're correct. However the timeline is meant to mislead people to believe that the Bundy's were ranching before there was federal oversight of the land. That's just not true.
Sure, good things can come from civil disobedience. You named some great ones. It can also give us anarchy. Our immigration system is the best example.
So do you think it's Bundy's civil disobedience gives anyone the right to graze as many animals as they want on public lands for free? | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| rodeomom13 - 2014-04-17 4:13 PM So I guess the federal government can keep changing the rules to suit their current needs without the people's input or consent and we just have to roll over and take it. Ok.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."
Congratulations on the first argument in 29 pages that actually has merit as a constitutional breach.
Article 1, Section grants the authority to congress.... not the executive branch. We should all have a voice through our congressmen in how these lands are used and managed. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 2036
Location: Montana | TXBO - 2014-04-17 2:20 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 4:04 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 1:54 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 3:35 PM He isn't wrong, you are. Go to the BLM website and it states; "Grazing service merges with General land office to create the BLM in 1946."
Technically, you're correct. However the timeline is meant to mislead people to believe that the Bundy's were ranching before there was federal oversight of the land. That's just not true.
So do you think it's Bundy's civil disobedience gives anyone the right to graze as many animals as they want on public lands for free?
No, I don't. That said, what are we to do? There are so many rules, fees, regulations that our beef industry is half what it was 15 years ago. You could buy a bottle baby for $100 a few years ago, now they are going for $600 plus. Meat prices have increased another 7% this year. Water rights are being taken by the feds, county by county. In some states you can't plant a veg garden without paying a tax or having it permited (Pennsylvania and some counties in Florida) or Oregon where they can dictate what you grow in your yard. How about Colorado where you are taxed on rainwater, that you are not allowed to collect, based on the size of your house. Ranchers and farmers have been trying to fight in the court system; it is kinda hard to do when the system has become corrupt. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-17 4:07 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-17 4:00 PM Remember in Legal Scholarly Circles and Constitutional Circles, The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court is commonly known/referred to as "The Ninth Circus". I cannot restate this enough! The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court has the unenviable record for holding the most Court Decisions overturned actually reversed by The Supreme Court. This is documented fact. Anyone cause to dispute this Fact, feel free to check out Google.
I have no need to verify your scholarly research, FH.
However, off the top of my head, I can name one case from the 9th District that wasn't overturned by the Supreme Court....... US vs Bundy.
To the best of My Knowledge, The Bundy Case has not reached The Supreme Court..............Yet. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 4:32 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 2:20 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 4:04 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 1:54 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 3:35 PM He isn't wrong, you are. Go to the BLM website and it states; "Grazing service merges with General land office to create the BLM in 1946."
Technically, you're correct. However the timeline is meant to mislead people to believe that the Bundy's were ranching before there was federal oversight of the land. That's just not true.
So do you think it's Bundy's civil disobedience gives anyone the right to graze as many animals as they want on public lands for free?
Let me first point out that Bundy's civil disobedience solves none of those challeges.
All of the civil disobedience victories that you mentioned improved liberty for generations of society. Unless we can all graze public land without fees, Bundy's civil disobedience served only him. Additionally, it put any rancher that follows the law at a competitive disadvantage to all of the challeges you mentioned. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 2036
Location: Montana | TXBO - 2014-04-17 2:45 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 4:32 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 2:20 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 4:04 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 1:54 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 3:35 PM He isn't wrong, you are. Go to the BLM website and it states; "Grazing service merges with General land office to create the BLM in 1946."
Technically, you're correct. However the timeline is meant to mislead people to believe that the Bundy's were ranching before there was federal oversight of the land. That's just not true.
So do you think it's Bundy's civil disobedience gives anyone the right to graze as many animals as they want on public lands for free?
All of the civil disobedience victories that you mentioned improved liberty for generations of society. Unless we can all graze public land without fees, Bundy's civil disobedience served only him. Additionally, it put any rancher that follows the law at a competitive disadvantage to all of the challeges you mentioned.
I already stated that I thought he should pay his taxes; as we all should. I don't think it is only serving him, it is bringing to light what is actually going on in the west. Is his avenue the right way? I have no idea. Maybe all of the ranchers need to get together and quit paying their taxes, that would definately send a message....I asked you a question too; what are we to do when the system has become so corrupt? | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:07 PM ....I asked you a question too; what are we to do when the system has become so corrupt?
Are you talking metaphorically of all govt corruption or the Bundy case specifically? | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 2036
Location: Montana | TXBO - 2014-04-17 3:15 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:07 PM ....I asked you a question too; what are we to do when the system has become so corrupt? Are you talking metaphorically of all govt corruption or the Bundy case specifically?
Honestly, the Bundy case and the other issues that I stated. How do you reign them in when our courts and representives have become so corrupt. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:22 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 3:15 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:07 PM ....I asked you a question too; what are we to do when the system has become so corrupt? Are you talking metaphorically of all govt corruption or the Bundy case specifically?
Civil Disobedience is certainly an option but hopefully a last resort. Vote for officials that want to follow the constitution.
Musik is so right about one thing.... the apathy of deteriorated rights is our biggest challege.
In Bundy's case, I don't think he was wronged by corruption. | |
| | |
 Hog Tie My Mojo
Posts: 4847
Location: Opelousas, LA | TXBO - 2014-04-17 5:32 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:22 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 3:15 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:07 PM ....I asked you a question too; what are we to do when the system has become so corrupt? Are you talking metaphorically of all govt corruption or the Bundy case specifically?
Musik is so right about one thing.... the apathy of deteriorated rights is our biggest challege.
In Bundy's case, I don't think he was wronged by corruption.
Are there any? Seems like they all say the right words to get elected then they get into office and decide it would be much nicer to gain social status and pad thier wallets. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | History is so...'rich'!
Reading through some of these links is so interesting & makes me realize even more how mankind just never changes...that's why we must be ever vigilant. It's the nature of the beast.
History of:
Dept of Interior (created in 1849)
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/utley-mackintosh/interior1.htm
More on Dept of Interior:
http://www.doi.gov/whoweare/history.cfm
USGS (created in 1879)
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1050/intro.htm
GLO (1812)
Taylor Grazing Act/US Grazing Service (1934)
Man has been fighting corruption, abuse of power & such since the beginning of time...all the 'checks & balances' we enjoy in our Nation have done wonders to help prevent our loss of liberty...yet, nothing has stopped it completely & some of it, even though it's been 'on the books', doesn't work & is long past it's expiration date.
| |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 2036
Location: Montana | TXBO - 2014-04-17 3:32 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:22 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 3:15 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:07 PM ....I asked you a question too; what are we to do when the system has become so corrupt? Are you talking metaphorically of all govt corruption or the Bundy case specifically?
Musik is so right about one thing.... the apathy of deteriorated rights is our biggest challege.
In Bundy's case, I don't think he was wronged by corruption.
I whole heartedly agree with this statement. One of the issues that I have been party to discussion of, by county and state officials is; six representives that were voted in as GOP have consistantly voted against the party in my state. I have seen their voting record so I know it is true. We citizens are held accoutable, unfortunately our officials are not. Just to clarify; I am not in favor of civil disobedience though it does have its place. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1857
| TXBO - 2014-04-17 5:32 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:22 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 3:15 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:07 PM ....I asked you a question too; what are we to do when the system has become so corrupt? Are you talking metaphorically of all govt corruption or the Bundy case specifically?
Musik is so right about one thing.... the apathy of deteriorated rights is our biggest challege.
In Bundy's case, I don't think he was wronged by corruption.
I'll have a better chance of finding a unicorn than finding a politician that follows the constitution. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Barnmom - 2014-04-17 4:44 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 5:32 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:22 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 3:15 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:07 PM ....I asked you a question too; what are we to do when the system has become so corrupt? Are you talking metaphorically of all govt corruption or the Bundy case specifically?
Musik is so right about one thing.... the apathy of deteriorated rights is our biggest challege.
In Bundy's case, I don't think he was wronged by corruption.
The Last Resort has arrived, I'm afraid.
Many see Cliven Bundy in the same light that they see Rosa Parks...it's about time somebody stood up to the bully and faced it down. I'm beginning to wonder that if we had social media back then that Parks would have been torn to shreds like Bundy is today.
The States Rights Movement's time has come. (Don't try to say that one out loud! Ha)
| |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 2036
Location: Montana | musikmaker - 2014-04-17 3:54 PM Barnmom - 2014-04-17 4:44 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 5:32 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:22 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 3:15 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 5:07 PM ....I asked you a question too; what are we to do when the system has become so corrupt? Are you talking metaphorically of all govt corruption or the Bundy case specifically?
Musik is so right about one thing.... the apathy of deteriorated rights is our biggest challege.
In Bundy's case, I don't think he was wronged by corruption.
Many see Cliven Bundy in the same light that they see Rosa Parks...it's about time somebody stood up to the bully and faced it down. I'm beginning to wonder that if we had social media back then that Parks would have been torn to shreds like Bundy is today.
The States Rights Movement's time has come. (Don't try to say that one out loud! Ha)
It has, there are some very strong groups forming who will hopefully turn some of the issues that we have been talking about, around legally. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-17 5:54 PM The Last Resort has arrived, I'm afraid.
Many see Cliven Bundy in the same light that they see Rosa Parks...it's about time somebody stood up to the bully and faced it down. I'm beginning to wonder that if we had social media back then that Parks would have been torn to shreds like Bundy is today.
The States Rights Movement's time has come. (Don't try to say that one out loud! Ha)
The states rights move is about 150 years past due. Time for a Constitutional Convention.
Clive = Rosa! LMAO!
| |
| | |
Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| Viva la
-----------------------------!!!!!
I just felt left out and wanted to post. Seemed like we are on the verge of a revolution and I don't want to miss out on the fun | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 3:04 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 1:54 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 3:35 PM He isn't wrong, you are. Go to the BLM website and it states; "Grazing service merges with General land office to create the BLM in 1946."
Technically, you're correct. However the timeline is meant to mislead people to believe that the Bundy's were ranching before there was federal oversight of the land. That's just not true.
It's just fact that the GLO was morphed into the BLM, not sure why that would even be an argument. Just like businesses grow and expand, so do govt. agencies.
story by
Mary Apple, Montana State Office,
with information compiled by the National Park Service, BLM, and Wikipedia   Ignatz Mrizek, in the 1930s near Camp Crook, South Dakota. How many of you live where you do because of the 1862 Homestead Act and its successor laws? Perhaps some of you live on land homesteaded by a family member or have a homesteader in your family tree. Many of you rural dwellers may live on a piece of land that was originally patented by a homesteader and was subsequently sold or divided. If you live by a river or creek, it’s more than likely your property was once part of a homestead. Don’t feel like you’re part of a select group though; 93,000,000 people alive today (or rather in 2007 when the stats were compiled) are descendants of homesteaders. The year 2012 is the 150th anniversary of the Homestead Act, an occasion we’re celebrating in the BLM. Why? The BLM’s precursor, the General Land Office (which has its 200th anniversary in 2012), was the administrator of homesteads, and many of those records now reside with the BLM. Some of the BLM-managed public lands were once homesteads that were abandoned or returned to the government. So we as an agency have a homesteading legacy too. Three Homestead Acts The Homestead Act of 1862 has been called one of the most important pieces of legislation in the history of the United States. Signed into law in 1862 by Abraham Lincoln after the secession of southern states, this act turned over vast amounts of the public domain to private citizens. Under the act, homesteaders claimed and settled over 270 million acres, or 10 percent of the area of the United States. Because much of the prime low-lying alluvial land along rivers had already been homesteaded by the turn of the twentieth century, a major update called the Enlarged Homestead Act was passed in 1909. It targeted land suitable for dryland farming, increasing the number of acres to 320. In 1916, the Stock-Raising Homestead Act targeted settlers seeking 640 acres of public land for ranching purposes. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 substantially decreased the amount of land available to homesteaders in the West. Because much of the prime land had been homesteaded decades earlier, successful homestead claims dropped sharply after this time. The Homestead Act remained in effect until it was repealed in 1976 by the Federal Land Management Policy Act, the BLM’s “organic act.” However, FLPMA included provisions for homesteading in Alaska until 1986. Alaska was one of the last places in the country where homesteading remained a viable option into the latter part of the 1900s. The Homestead Act of 1862 had an immediate and enduring effect on America and the world that is still felt today. Agriculture, industrialization, immigration, American Indian tribes, and prairie ecosystems-all were somehow impacted and forever changed by the implementation of this revolutionary land law. Research Your History Over the course of the Act’s 123-year history, more than two million individual homestead claims were made. Each and every one of these claims generated a written record known as a case file that was kept by the U.S. General Land Office. Today, these case files exist only as paper originals and nearly all are stored in the National Archives in Washington, D.C. The complete collection of case files created under the Homestead Act contains more than 30 million individual pieces of paper. Homestead case files are treasure troves of historical and genealogical information. Within them can often be found information about a homesteader’s date and place of birth, the names of children that lived on the homestead, naturalization information about immigrant homesteaders, notations regarding military service, the types of crops planted on the homestead, the value and kinds of homes and other buildings on the site, and more. The BLM’s General Land Office (GLO) Records Automation website (http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/) provides live access to federal land conveyance records for the public land states, including image access to more than five million federal land title records issued between 1820 and the present. It also has images related to survey plats and field notes dating back to 1810. Due to the organization of documents in the GLO collection, the site does not currently contain every federal title record issued for the public land states. Share Your History To demonstrate the impact of homesteading in Montana and the Dakotas, we’re asking you to send in a brief vignette of your homesteading history in these three states (hopefully we don’t get one from all 93 million descendants). We’ll publish as many of these as we can throughout the year in the Quarterly Steward and/or post them on our webpage. Please email them to aboucher@blm.gov or mail them to Ann Boucher, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, MT 59101. Electronic copies are much preferred over paper ones. Please note in your submission whether we can publish your name. Here’s my Montana/South Dakota homesteading history to get the ball rolling. About all I knew about my great-grandfather and mother Ignatz and Marie Mrizek, immigrants from Bohemia, was that they had homesteaded in Harding County, S.D., very near Capitol, Mont. After working for the BLM for several years and learning that some of my family history might reside in the Montana State Office (which has jurisdiction over North and South Dakota), I started my research. Through the information access center (commonly known as the public room), I obtained a copy of my great-grandfather’s land patents. From this information I could pinpoint on a map the heretofore unknown to me location of the homestead. I then wrote to the National Archives and Records Administration for a copy of the case files. After wading through many pages of affidavits, applications, reports, and petitions, I came across a big surprise—my grandfather Earl Newell’s signature. He vouched for my great-grandfather Ignatz on one of the applications. Earl was also married to Ignatz and Marie’s daughter Ann. Earl and Ann eventually moved to Sheridan, Wyo., and lo and behold, I was born (my parents entered the picture at some point). Thank you homesteaders! From the National Archives case file, I also learned the following: the Mrizek homestead consisted of 320 acres patented under the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909 and another 320 acres patented under the Stock-Raising Homestead Law of 1916. Ignatz entered the homestead in 1911, moving into the house in 1912. Between 1912 and 1918, when he received the first patent, he planted from 10 to 56 acres a year in corn, oats, barley, and wheat. In 1917, most of the crops failed because of “drouth.” He built a four-room house, two barns, a chicken house, a work shop, a hog pen, granary, hay corrals, outside cellar, two miles of two-wire fencing, and three shallow wells. The improvements totaled $1,300. He described the land in his homestead entry as “high and rough, cut up with draws, rocky, uneven, very rough.” Ignatz received the second patent in 1927. The GLO inspector reported that on the original homestead, “He and his wife care for 42 head cattle, 12 horses, 39 hogs and some chickens. . . . Entryman is a naturalized citizen and a successful farmer and stock raiser.” The land was described as “rolling to rough, the soil is a hardpan gumbo.” Ignatz wrote, “I have broken up 65 acres on my original entry, a few acres each year, and have planted crops each year, and have always cut the grain and corn for hay and fodder, and have never made a grain crop that could be considered a successful crop.” His three wells were too shallow to provide any irrigation water, and the land contained no flowing water. Furthermore, “That because of high altitude, short season, lack of rainfall, hot winds, and hard, compact soil, this land is not suitable for grain farming, and is chiefly valuable for grazing and raising forage crops.” At some point he sold the homestead and moved to Sheridan, but he is buried near Capitol in a very small cemetery. Compiled by Homestead National Monument of America Historian Todd Arrington, April 24, 2007 10: Percentage of U.S. land given away under the Homestead Act. 24: Presidential administrations during which the Homestead Act was in effect (Lincoln to Reagan). 30: Number of states in which homestead lands were located. 40: Percentage of homesteaders that “proved up” on their claims and earned the deed from the federal government. 45: Percentage of Nebraska’s acres distributed under the Homestead Act [Largest percentage of any state]. 123: Years the Homestead Act was in effect (1863-1986). 160: Number of acres in a typical homestead claim. 4,000,000: Approximate number of claims made under the Homestead Act. 11,000,000: Acres claimed in 1913, the peak year of homestead claims. 93,000,000: Estimated number of homesteader descendants alive today. 270,000,000: Total number of acres distributed by the Homestead Act. Montana (151,600 homesteads) — most of any state; 30,000 more than runner-up North Dakota Total acreage: 93,155,840 Total homestead acreage: 32,050,480—most of any state by 10 million acres Total percentage: 34% North Dakota (118,472 homesteads)
Total acreage: 44,156,160
Total homestead acreage: 17,417,466
Total percentage: 39%—second of all states South Dakota (97,197 homesteads)
Total acreage: 48,573,440
Total homestead acreage: 15,660,000
Total percentage: 32% For some great stories, both fiction and non-fiction, about the homesteading experience, check out one of these books. O Pioneers! Willa Cather Bad Land Jonathon Raban Letters of a Woman Homesteader Elinore Pruitt Stewart Little House books by Laura Ingalls Wilder Giants in the Earth Ole Rolvaag The Children’s Blizzard David Laskin When the Meadowlark Sings: The Story of a Montana Family Nedra Sterry In Open Spaces Russell Rowland On Sarpy Creek Ira S. Nelson Land in Her Own Name: Women As Homesteaders in North Dakota H. Elaine Lindgren 900 Miles from Nowhere: Voices from the Homestead Frontier Steven R. Kinsella The Long Death: The Last Days of the Plains Indians Ralph K. Andrist Winter Wheat Mildred Walker 
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| smiley - 2014-04-17 5:53 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 3:04 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 1:54 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 3:35 PM He isn't wrong, you are. Go to the BLM website and it states; "Grazing service merges with General land office to create the BLM in 1946."
Technically, you're correct. However the timeline is meant to mislead people to believe that the Bundy's were ranching before there was federal oversight of the land. That's just not true. story by
Mary Apple, Montana State Office,
with information compiled by the National Park Service, BLM, and Wikipedia
Ignatz Mrizek, in the 1930s near Camp Crook, South Dakota.
How many of you live where you do because of the 1862 Homestead Act and its successor laws? Perhaps some of you live on land homesteaded by a family member or have a homesteader in your family tree. Many of you rural dwellers may live on a piece of land that was originally patented by a homesteader and was subsequently sold or divided. If you live by a river or creek, it’s more than likely your property was once part of a homestead. Don’t feel like you’re part of a select group though; 93,000,000 people alive today (or rather in 2007 when the stats were compiled) are descendants of homesteaders.
The year 2012 is the 150th anniversary of the Homestead Act, an occasion we’re celebrating in the BLM. Why? The BLM’s precursor, the General Land Office (which has its 200th anniversary in 2012), was the administrator of homesteads, and many of those records now reside with the BLM. Some of the BLM-managed public lands were once homesteads that were abandoned or returned to the government. So we as an agency have a homesteading legacy too.
Three Homestead Acts
The Homestead Act of 1862 has been called one of the most important pieces of legislation in the history of the United States. Signed into law in 1862 by Abraham Lincoln after the secession of southern states, this act turned over vast amounts of the public domain to private citizens. Under the act, homesteaders claimed and settled over 270 million acres, or 10 percent of the area of the United States.
Because much of the prime low-lying alluvial land along rivers had already been homesteaded by the turn of the twentieth century, a major update called the Enlarged Homestead Act was passed in 1909. It targeted land suitable for dryland farming, increasing the number of acres to 320. In 1916, the Stock-Raising Homestead Act targeted settlers seeking 640 acres of public land for ranching purposes. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 substantially decreased the amount of land available to homesteaders in the West. Because much of the prime land had been homesteaded decades earlier, successful homestead claims dropped sharply after this time.
The Homestead Act remained in effect until it was repealed in 1976 by the Federal Land Management Policy Act, the BLM’s “organic act.” However, FLPMA included provisions for homesteading in Alaska until 1986. Alaska was one of the last places in the country where homesteading remained a viable option into the latter part of the 1900s.
The Homestead Act of 1862 had an immediate and enduring effect on America and the world that is still felt today. Agriculture, industrialization, immigration, American Indian tribes, and prairie ecosystems-all were somehow impacted and forever changed by the implementation of this revolutionary land law.
Research Your History
Over the course of the Act’s 123-year history, more than two million individual homestead claims were made. Each and every one of these claims generated a written record known as a case file that was kept by the U.S. General Land Office. Today, these case files exist only as paper originals and nearly all are stored in the National Archives in Washington, D.C. The complete collection of case files created under the Homestead Act contains more than 30 million individual pieces of paper. Homestead case files are treasure troves of historical and genealogical information. Within them can often be found information about a homesteader’s date and place of birth, the names of children that lived on the homestead, naturalization information about immigrant homesteaders, notations regarding military service, the types of crops planted on the homestead, the value and kinds of homes and other buildings on the site, and more.
The BLM’s General Land Office (GLO) Records Automation website (http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/) provides live access to federal land conveyance records for the public land states, including image access to more than five million federal land title records issued between 1820 and the present. It also has images related to survey plats and field notes dating back to 1810. Due to the organization of documents in the GLO collection, the site does not currently contain every federal title record issued for the public land states.
Share Your History
To demonstrate the impact of homesteading in Montana and the Dakotas, we’re asking you to send in a brief vignette of your homesteading history in these three states (hopefully we don’t get one from all 93 million descendants). We’ll publish as many of these as we can throughout the year in the Quarterly Steward and/or post them on our webpage. Please email them to aboucher@blm.gov or mail them to Ann Boucher, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, MT 59101. Electronic copies are much preferred over paper ones. Please note in your submission whether we can publish your name.
Here’s my Montana/South Dakota homesteading history to get the ball rolling.
About all I knew about my great-grandfather and mother Ignatz and Marie Mrizek, immigrants from Bohemia, was that they had homesteaded in Harding County, S.D., very near Capitol, Mont. After working for the BLM for several years and learning that some of my family history might reside in the Montana State Office (which has jurisdiction over North and South Dakota), I started my research. Through the information access center (commonly known as the public room), I obtained a copy of my great-grandfather’s land patents. From this information I could pinpoint on a map the heretofore unknown to me location of the homestead. I then wrote to the National Archives and Records Administration for a copy of the case files. After wading through many pages of affidavits, applications, reports, and petitions, I came across a big surprise—my grandfather Earl Newell’s signature. He vouched for my great-grandfather Ignatz on one of the applications. Earl was also married to Ignatz and Marie’s daughter Ann. Earl and Ann eventually moved to Sheridan, Wyo., and lo and behold, I was born (my parents entered the picture at some point). Thank you homesteaders!
From the National Archives case file, I also learned the following: the Mrizek homestead consisted of 320 acres patented under the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909 and another 320 acres patented under the Stock-Raising Homestead Law of 1916. Ignatz entered the homestead in 1911, moving into the house in 1912. Between 1912 and 1918, when he received the first patent, he planted from 10 to 56 acres a year in corn, oats, barley, and wheat. In 1917, most of the crops failed because of “drouth.” He built a four-room house, two barns, a chicken house, a work shop, a hog pen, granary, hay corrals, outside cellar, two miles of two-wire fencing, and three shallow wells. The improvements totaled $1,300. He described the land in his homestead entry as “high and rough, cut up with draws, rocky, uneven, very rough.”
Ignatz received the second patent in 1927. The GLO inspector reported that on the original homestead, “He and his wife care for 42 head cattle, 12 horses, 39 hogs and some chickens. . . . Entryman is a naturalized citizen and a successful farmer and stock raiser.” The land was described as “rolling to rough, the soil is a hardpan gumbo.” Ignatz wrote, “I have broken up 65 acres on my original entry, a few acres each year, and have planted crops each year, and have always cut the grain and corn for hay and fodder, and have never made a grain crop that could be considered a successful crop.” His three wells were too shallow to provide any irrigation water, and the land contained no flowing water. Furthermore, “That because of high altitude, short season, lack of rainfall, hot winds, and hard, compact soil, this land is not suitable for grain farming, and is chiefly valuable for grazing and raising forage crops.”
At some point he sold the homestead and moved to Sheridan, but he is buried near Capitol in a very small cemetery.
Compiled by Homestead National Monument of America Historian Todd Arrington, April 24, 2007
10: Percentage of U.S. land given away under the Homestead Act.
24: Presidential administrations during which the Homestead Act was in effect (Lincoln to Reagan).
30: Number of states in which homestead lands were located.
40: Percentage of homesteaders that “proved up” on their claims and earned the deed from the federal government.
45: Percentage of Nebraska’s acres distributed under the Homestead Act [Largest percentage of any state].
123: Years the Homestead Act was in effect (1863-1986).
160: Number of acres in a typical homestead claim.
4,000,000: Approximate number of claims made under the Homestead Act.
11,000,000: Acres claimed in 1913, the peak year of homestead claims.
93,000,000: Estimated number of homesteader descendants alive today.
270,000,000: Total number of acres distributed by the Homestead Act.
Montana (151,600 homesteads) — most of any state; 30,000 more than runner-up North Dakota
Total acreage: 93,155,840
Total homestead acreage: 32,050,480—most of any state by 10 million acres
Total percentage: 34%
North Dakota (118,472 homesteads)
Total acreage: 44,156,160
Total homestead acreage: 17,417,466
Total percentage: 39%—second of all states
South Dakota (97,197 homesteads)
Total acreage: 48,573,440
Total homestead acreage: 15,660,000
Total percentage: 32%
For some great stories, both fiction and non-fiction, about the homesteading experience, check out one of these books.
O Pioneers! Willa Cather
Bad Land Jonathon Raban
Letters of a Woman Homesteader Elinore Pruitt Stewart
Little House books by Laura Ingalls Wilder
Giants in the Earth Ole Rolvaag
The Children’s Blizzard David Laskin
When the Meadowlark Sings: The Story of a Montana Family Nedra Sterry
In Open Spaces Russell Rowland
On Sarpy Creek Ira S. Nelson
Land in Her Own Name: Women As Homesteaders in North Dakota H. Elaine Lindgren
900 Miles from Nowhere: Voices from the Homestead Frontier Steven R. Kinsella
The Long Death: The Last Days of the Plains Indians Ralph K. Andrist
Winter Wheat Mildred Walker
And this:
The 1946 debates over the Grazing Service led the Secretary of the Interior to combine that agency with the General Land Office to form the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM inherited the Grazing Service's mission of managing the public domain while it was still public and the General Land Office's mission of disposing of the public domain. In the eyes of some cattlemen, it was a temporary agency only necessary until they could gain title to the public domain.
But the Bureau survived and managed to hold on to most of its lands until 1976. In that year, Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which ended the policy of land disposal. This law--which was largely written by the BLM--attempted to bring that agency up to Forest Service standards by prescribing inventories, a planning process, and sustained-yield and multiple-use management.
FLPMA also readjusted the distribution of grazing fees, with 50 percent going to range improvement. Two years later, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act helped ranchers by fixing grazing fees well below market levels with a grazing fee formula that is still used today.
Which comes from here and appears to NOT be a fan of the BLM: http://www.ti.org/blmintro.html | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| TXBO - 2014-04-17 3:45 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 4:32 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 2:20 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 4:04 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 1:54 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 3:35 PM He isn't wrong, you are. Go to the BLM website and it states; "Grazing service merges with General land office to create the BLM in 1946."
Technically, you're correct. However the timeline is meant to mislead people to believe that the Bundy's were ranching before there was federal oversight of the land. That's just not true.
So do you think it's Bundy's civil disobedience gives anyone the right to graze as many animals as they want on public lands for free?
All of the civil disobedience victories that you mentioned improved liberty for generations of society. Unless we can all graze public land without fees, Bundy's civil disobedience served only him. Additionally, it put any rancher that follows the law at a competitive disadvantage to all of the challeges you mentioned.
Agreed. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | It would appear that Mr. Cliven Bundy has obtained some positive legal standing after all!
Thanks to The Legal Precedent of The Wayne Hage Case..............
http://www.mrconservative.com/2014/04/39421-federal-judge-rules-gov...
Federal Judge Rules Government Complicit In Rancher Conspiracy
Although many theories have been speculated upon as to why the government was so forceful in its recent dealings with the Nevada rancher, Clive Bundy, a federal judge has recently declared conspiracy. Further shocking the nation, the judge noted that this isn’t the first time the government has used its full force to bully a contesting rancher.
U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones recently spoke out, as he could contain no more the baffling resemblance in a similar instance. Sharing that the governments acts have formed a visible pattern, Jones claimed that he could accurately describe the intentions of the BLM.
Referring to the case of United States v. Estate of Hage, explains that similar circumstance fell upon a fellow Nevada rancher after he too defied the United States government. As we’ve reported before, the BLM claimed that in an effort to prevent land from being destroyed due to over grazing by ranchers using public land, they would be subject to grazing fees.
Bundy has ever since rejected the assertion that he owes the government money as he and his family had been using the land since long before even the creation of the BLM. At the time however, back in 1993, the BLM decided to start charging those who wished to use the public land in order to cut back on cheapskate land abusers.
When this was brought up, Nevada rancher E. Wayne Hage signed his grazing permit renewal but noted that he was in no way, forfeiting his families long standing rights to use the land for his cattle. Explaining that his family had the right to the land, and in so its grass and water, they were more than shocked when they received their permit back informing them that it had been rejected.
It seems as though Hage was being retaliated against by the full force of the United States Government in return for their blatant defiance. Hage was then said to state his intentions of taking the government to court in which he received further inconveniences in the form of retaliation from the governing entity.
The government even went so far at that point to invite other ranchers to apply for grazing rights such as, Mr. Gary Snow, who were then granted the privilege of land usage. When all the permits weren’t filled, the government even applied themselves, under the Nevada State Engineer, for grazing rights despite the state or government owning exactly zero cattle.
Sharing his outrage years later as the government illegally repeats their actions, Jones writes, “By filing for a public water reserve, the Government in this case sought specifically to transfer to others water rights belonging to the Hages.” Further his accusations he went on to say, “For this reason, the Court has held certain government officials in contempt and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. In summary, government officials, and perhaps also Mr. Snow, entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights.”
Concluding his thoughts he noted, “This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm to support the injunction described at the end of this Order.” Jones however is not alone in his findings as other’s believe the government has acted in a severed abuse of authority.
Of course, coming from this administration, it isn’t a shock as senior editor of The New American, William F. Jasper, asks, “Has Attorney General Eric Holder prosecuted any federal officials for criminal activity and violation of the Hage family’s constitutionally protected rights? No. Has Sen. Harry Reid denounced this lawlessness and criminal activity by government officials and call upon President Obama and Attorney General Holder to protect the citizens of his state from the depredations of federal officials under their command? No.”
Sharing the same sentiment as held by countless other Americans, Jasper concludes, “With attitudes such as those expressed above by Sen. Harry Reid, it is almost a certainty that the recently defused Bundy Ranch standoff will be replayed again — and in the not-too-distant future. And the outcome could be much less amicable for all concerned.”
End of Article.
I would like for TxBo, Smiley along with Finney Quarter Horses and others to include MusikMaker to see this.
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Thanks FH...if the courts 'fairly' hear the case for States Rights...we'll have our land.
The gov't shutdown last year proving federal ineptness & willingness to 'punish' the people provided much needed momentum to get er done!
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | musikmaker - 2014-04-18 8:59 AM
Thanks FH...if the courts 'fairly' hear the case for States Rights...we'll have our land.
The gov't shutdown last year proving federal ineptness & willingness to 'punish' the people provided much needed momentum to get er done!
Oh I agree! I believe there is much going on 'behind the scenes' on both sides that many are not aware of.............................. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | musikmaker - 2014-04-18 8:59 AM
Thanks FH...if the courts 'fairly' hear the case for States Rights...we'll have our land.
The gov't shutdown last year proving federal ineptness & willingness to 'punish' the people provided much needed momentum to get er done!
You are Welcome!  | |
| | |
Famous for Not Complaining
Posts: 8848
Location: Broxton, Ga | smiley - 2014-04-16 2:36 PM CJE - 2014-04-17 11:50 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-16 1:32 PM TXBO - 2014-04-17 11:10 AM jbhoot - 2014-04-17 12:02 PM The BLM is most certainly a police force. After a long history of convoluted jurisdiction Congress granted police authority in 1978. And yes everyone of the Agents that have been pictured dressed as paramilitary has a badge on from the BLM. You really should read up on the history of the present day BLM it is a prime example of how messed up the Federal Government has become. And If you had read the court orders issued in this case you would see NO such authority exists to destroy or dispose of Bundy's property. So it seems that in your mind it is ok for the agents of the BLM violate the court orders but not Bundy. Your stance on this makes zero sense to me. If I had to choose only three words to describe the BLM it would be bloated, inept and corrupt.
I vividly recall the day the BLM, Forest Service etc...got their 'arms'. Like most other 'laws' that are passed, the public was unaware until the 'public comment' time was up...you see they didn't arm themselves until much later...after the law had been on the books for however many years. (Although I recall the 'day' in memory, I don't recall the date...). Just another sneaky tactic.
The Sierra Club is one of the most powerful lobby groups and especially with this president.....
As for the federal land that too was discussed.........yes it is federal land and yes Bundy does own the land lease.......but apparently they way the land was deemed federal vs state was implied to be to the governments favor.......How this playes out will be interesting................
oppps........I meant owe.........I agree he does owe.......I reckon my biggest "beef" behind all this.....is the method of this madness............from the turtle to the federal land crap........... | |
| | |
Famous for Not Complaining
Posts: 8848
Location: Broxton, Ga | And now Harry Reid is calling the supporters domestic terrorist.............really Reid.........and Bundy not paying his taxes...........that is a lie just like he said about Mitt Romney...............Bundy owes for the land lease but he has paid his taxes.........why doesn't somebody call Reid out..............
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/17/sen-reid-calls-supporters-nevada-rancher-bundy-domestic-terrorists/
| |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | as predicted, the Bundy story is being touted in lots of media avenues as a great example of greedy subsidized ag waste......and corporate waste......and typical of those that want their subsidies but don't want anyone else to get govt subsidies.......what a mess...... | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1561
|
Now he can use drone strikes and detain them indefinitely... | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1857
| .
 (10155141_745112105521377_4504874543760986097_n.jpg)
 (1972450_748830565138527_4222739561327398743_n2.png)
Attachments
----------------
10155141_745112105521377_4504874543760986097_n.jpg (48KB - 239 downloads)
1972450_748830565138527_4222739561327398743_n2.png (75KB - 224 downloads)
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
|
This is the type of thing that drives me insane. Misinformation. Bad reporting. Taking a comment and running with it - i.e. Reid. They are not referring to taxes, this is about fees. Agreed. The misinformation on both sides is staggering. | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | smiley - 2014-04-18 9:57 AM
This is the type of thing that drives me insane. Misinformation. Bad reporting. Taking a comment and running with it - i.e. Reid. They are not referring to taxes, this is about fees. Agreed. The misinformation on both sides is staggering.
yes....but the bigger issue is the label of domestic terrorists...which is what the article is really about........just skip the tax/fee errors
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
|
Reid also said that Bundy not only didn't pay his grazing fees but refuses to pay taxes.
Anybody know if that is accurate? | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| dhdqhllc - 2014-04-18 10:00 AM smiley - 2014-04-18 9:57 AM
This is the type of thing that drives me insane. Misinformation. Bad reporting. Taking a comment and running with it - i.e. Reid. They are not referring to taxes, this is about fees. Agreed. The misinformation on both sides is staggering.
I wonder if it's an error. He doesn't recognize the fed's authority. Maybe he doesn't pay taxes. | |
| | |
I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
Location: Online |
Harry is a senile old coot who will verbally attack anyone who goes up against him, not matter how ridiculous it is. Example.... The Koch brothers. Since it's ok for Democrats to receive money from rich donors, i.e. George Soros, Warren Buffet, and most of the Hollyweird elite, just to name a few. But by golly if anyone starts a campaign against him or donates to Republicans, it's "unamerican".
Reid is the poster child for hypocrite. | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | TXBO - 2014-04-18 10:06 AM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-18 10:00 AM smiley - 2014-04-18 9:57 AM
This is the type of thing that drives me insane. Misinformation. Bad reporting. Taking a comment and running with it - i.e. Reid. They are not referring to taxes, this is about fees. Agreed. The misinformation on both sides is staggering.
i don't know....if it is true....that will take it to a whole other level as a 'tax protester' but i think if that were the case, we would have heard about that a lot already so i doubt it......could turn into the next Gordon Kahl incident except with social media it will be waay bigger and waay stupider.... | |
| | |
Famous for Not Complaining
Posts: 8848
Location: Broxton, Ga | TXBO - 2014-04-17 11:03 AM Reid also said that Bundy not only didn't pay his grazing fees but refuses to pay taxes.
Anybody know if that is accurate?
Edited by CJE 2014-04-18 10:27 AM
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-18 9:06 AM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-18 10:00 AM smiley - 2014-04-18 9:57 AM
This is the type of thing that drives me insane. Misinformation. Bad reporting. Taking a comment and running with it - i.e. Reid. They are not referring to taxes, this is about fees. Agreed. The misinformation on both sides is staggering.
Wow! Reid's an idiot & a liar. Bundy NEVER said he doesn't recognize the United States laws! Or that he considers the U.S. to be a 'foreign govt'! Nor were there women & children on the 'front line'...what a 'piece' Reid is.
There's a big difference between the foundation our country was built on (the Constitution) with it's many checks & balances & the federal agencies that are not within the perimeter of said foundation.
Here's a link from the Salt Lake Tribune concerning an ATV ride we're going on next month in the county I live in...Phil is awesome! He wanted to do this last year but the governor called him & asked him not to. A few months ago Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) pointed her finger at him in a meeting & said, "I hope you know you cost us a lot of money!" (refering to opening up the parks during the shutdown). The fed has still not re-paid the states as agreed...lol. Phil is very smart, kind & a true patriot. Soft spoken...I hope he survives this as he's a great leader. Interesting to read the 'comments' and see the hate we deal with on a daily basis in our own back yards...might explain our 'fed up attitude'!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57827295-78/blm-canyon-lyman-motorized.html.csp
| |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:31 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 9:06 AM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-18 10:00 AM smiley - 2014-04-18 9:57 AM
This is the type of thing that drives me insane. Misinformation. Bad reporting. Taking a comment and running with it - i.e. Reid. They are not referring to taxes, this is about fees. Agreed. The misinformation on both sides is staggering.
There's a big difference between the foundation our country was built on (the Constitution) with it's many checks & balances & the federal agencies that are not within the perimeter of said foundation.
Here's a link from the Salt Lake Tribune concerning an ATV ride we're going on next month in the county I live in...Phil is awesome! He wanted to do this last year but the governor called him & asked him not to. A few months ago Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) pointed her finger at him in a meeting & said, "I hope you know you cost us a lot of money!" (refering to opening up the parks during the shutdown). The fed has still not re-paid the states as agreed...lol. Phil is very smart, kind & a true patriot. Soft spoken...I hope he survives this as he's a great leader. Interesting to read the 'comments' and see the hate we deal with on a daily basis in our own back yards...might explain our 'fed up attitude'!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57827295-78/blm-canyon-lyman-motorized.html.csp
so what was the 'stunning' 300k in damages they refer too.... | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:31 AM
TXBO - 2014-04-18 9:06 AM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-18 10:00 AM smiley - 2014-04-18 9:57 AM
This is the type of thing that drives me insane. Misinformation. Bad reporting. Taking a comment and running with it - i.e. Reid. They are not referring to taxes, this is about fees. Agreed. The misinformation on both sides is staggering.
There's a big difference between the foundation our country was built on (the Constitution) with it's many checks & balances & the federal agencies that are not within the perimeter of said foundation.
Here's a link from the Salt Lake Tribune concerning an ATV ride we're going on next month in the county I live in...Phil is awesome! He wanted to do this last year but the governor called him & asked him not to. A few months ago Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) pointed her finger at him in a meeting & said, "I hope you know you cost us a lot of money!" (refering to opening up the parks during the shutdown). The fed has still not re-paid the states as agreed...lol. Phil is very smart, kind & a true patriot. Soft spoken...I hope he survives this as he's a great leader. Interesting to read the 'comments' and see the hate we deal with on a daily basis in our own back yards...might explain our 'fed up attitude'!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57827295-78/blm-canyon-lyman-motorized.html.csp
From the tone of the comments I read, I would believe the commenters are rather upset The BLM did not shed blood @ Bunkerville. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | dhdqhllc - 2014-04-18 9:36 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:31 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 9:06 AM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-18 10:00 AM smiley - 2014-04-18 9:57 AM This is the type of thing that drives me insane. Misinformation. Bad reporting. Taking a comment and running with it - i.e. Reid. They are not referring to taxes, this is about fees. Agreed. The misinformation on both sides is staggering.
There's a big difference between the foundation our country was built on (the Constitution) with it's many checks & balances & the federal agencies that are not within the perimeter of said foundation.
Here's a link from the Salt Lake Tribune concerning an ATV ride we're going on next month in the county I live in...Phil is awesome! He wanted to do this last year but the governor called him & asked him not to. A few months ago Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) pointed her finger at him in a meeting & said, "I hope you know you cost us a lot of money!" (refering to opening up the parks during the shutdown). The fed has still not re-paid the states as agreed...lol. Phil is very smart, kind & a true patriot. Soft spoken...I hope he survives this as he's a great leader. Interesting to read the 'comments' and see the hate we deal with on a daily basis in our own back yards...might explain our 'fed up attitude'!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57827295-78/blm-canyon-lyman-motorized.html.csp
The BLM has closed most of our back roads & trails...they did a 'Wilderness Study Area' that was to expire after 15 yrs (it was due a couple yrs ago...either declare it Wilderness or retract it...nothing yet). They hired college kids to come out and install closure signs & block the roads & trails...some of the ranchers & others (jeepers etc...) have spent much time removing the illegal signs and trash & re-opening the illegally closed roads...it is a mess. The gov't just does this on their own...they make their own policy daily...and I mean the rangers!
Edited by musikmaker 2014-04-18 10:50 AM
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | The comments in the SLT are typical of the environmental attitude.
Anyhow...if you don't hear from me after May 10th (Phil emailed to say he's moving it to Saturday so more ppl can attend)...send money! Lol...
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:49 AM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-18 9:36 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:31 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 9:06 AM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-18 10:00 AM smiley - 2014-04-18 9:57 AM This is the type of thing that drives me insane. Misinformation. Bad reporting. Taking a comment and running with it - i.e. Reid. They are not referring to taxes, this is about fees. Agreed. The misinformation on both sides is staggering.
There's a big difference between the foundation our country was built on (the Constitution) with it's many checks & balances & the federal agencies that are not within the perimeter of said foundation.
Here's a link from the Salt Lake Tribune concerning an ATV ride we're going on next month in the county I live in...Phil is awesome! He wanted to do this last year but the governor called him & asked him not to. A few months ago Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) pointed her finger at him in a meeting & said, "I hope you know you cost us a lot of money!" (refering to opening up the parks during the shutdown). The fed has still not re-paid the states as agreed...lol. Phil is very smart, kind & a true patriot. Soft spoken...I hope he survives this as he's a great leader. Interesting to read the 'comments' and see the hate we deal with on a daily basis in our own back yards...might explain our 'fed up attitude'!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57827295-78/blm-canyon-lyman-motorized.html.csp
The BLM has closed most of our back roads & trails...they did a 'Wilderness Study Area' that was to expire after 15 yrs (it was due a couple yrs ago...either declare it Wilderness or retract it...nothing yet). They hired college kids to come out and install closure signs & block the roads & trails...some of the ranchers & others (jeepers etc...) have spent much time removing the illegal signs and trash & re-opening the illegally closed roads...it is a mess. The gov't just does this on their own...they make their own policy daily...and I mean the rangers!
Here is a thought I have stated before:
The BLM, IRS (to a certain extent) and EPA, all make and enforce Policy that is NOT Constitutional Legislation, but yet is ENFORCED as if said Policy IS Constitutional Legislation.
This observation is completely akin to the PROVEN Cause of The American Revolution: Taxation without Representation. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:31 AM
Here's a link from the Salt Lake Tribune concerning an ATV ride we're going on next month in the county I live in...Phil is awesome! He wanted to do this last year but the governor called him & asked him not to. A few months ago Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) pointed her finger at him in a meeting & said, "I hope you know you cost us a lot of money!" (refering to opening up the parks during the shutdown). The fed has still not re-paid the states as agreed...lol. Phil is very smart, kind & a true patriot. Soft spoken...I hope he survives this as he's a great leader. Interesting to read the 'comments' and see the hate we deal with on a daily basis in our own back yards...might explain our 'fed up attitude'!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57827295-78/blm-canyon-lyman-motorized.html.csp
I understand the frustration with beauracracy. I've also seen the damage unrestricted motorized vehicle use can do to wilderness habitat. It's right on par with over grazed desert destruction. Seems like your willing to see the lands destroyed to benefit your political ideology. | |
| | |
Famous for Not Complaining
Posts: 8848
Location: Broxton, Ga | TXBO - 2014-04-17 11:57 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:31 AM
Here's a link from the Salt Lake Tribune concerning an ATV ride we're going on next month in the county I live in...Phil is awesome! He wanted to do this last year but the governor called him & asked him not to. A few months ago Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) pointed her finger at him in a meeting & said, "I hope you know you cost us a lot of money!" (refering to opening up the parks during the shutdown). The fed has still not re-paid the states as agreed...lol. Phil is very smart, kind & a true patriot. Soft spoken...I hope he survives this as he's a great leader. Interesting to read the 'comments' and see the hate we deal with on a daily basis in our own back yards...might explain our 'fed up attitude'!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57827295-78/blm-canyon-lyman-motorized.html.csp
Were they really overgrazing or was it about the tortoises.......... | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-18 9:57 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:31 AM
Here's a link from the Salt Lake Tribune concerning an ATV ride we're going on next month in the county I live in...Phil is awesome! He wanted to do this last year but the governor called him & asked him not to. A few months ago Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) pointed her finger at him in a meeting & said, "I hope you know you cost us a lot of money!" (refering to opening up the parks during the shutdown). The fed has still not re-paid the states as agreed...lol. Phil is very smart, kind & a true patriot. Soft spoken...I hope he survives this as he's a great leader. Interesting to read the 'comments' and see the hate we deal with on a daily basis in our own back yards...might explain our 'fed up attitude'!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57827295-78/blm-canyon-lyman-motorized.html.csp
Yup. That about sums it up. Those of us who make our living on this land...who are 4, 5, 6th generation 'settlers' don't give a hoot about nothing except tearing it up. Uh-huh.
I can't understand how they still consider it 'pristine' since we've been destroying it for so long...duh.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| CJE - 2014-04-18 11:06 AM Were they really overgrazing or was it about the tortoises..........
From everything i've read, it appears to be over grazing.... But that's just my opinion. | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | musikmaker - 2014-04-18 11:10 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 9:57 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:31 AM
Here's a link from the Salt Lake Tribune concerning an ATV ride we're going on next month in the county I live in...Phil is awesome! He wanted to do this last year but the governor called him & asked him not to. A few months ago Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) pointed her finger at him in a meeting & said, "I hope you know you cost us a lot of money!" (refering to opening up the parks during the shutdown). The fed has still not re-paid the states as agreed...lol. Phil is very smart, kind & a true patriot. Soft spoken...I hope he survives this as he's a great leader. Interesting to read the 'comments' and see the hate we deal with on a daily basis in our own back yards...might explain our 'fed up attitude'!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57827295-78/blm-canyon-lyman-motorized.html.csp
I can't understand how they still consider it 'pristine' since we've been destroying it for so long...duh.
honestly...that attitude is starting to **** me off a little....i would expect you, of all people, would have an interest for both sides and i can't imagine yuou haven't seen both sides....i've been involved in ag my whole life.....our family for generations....my wifes family for generations....so chew on that while you consider my ramblings for a minute.....i have seen just as many willing to abuse their private holdings to the point of practically destroying them for generations to try to make a buck and still go bankrupt..... they didn't give a **** about the land nor after.....i've seen tons and tons of topsoil lost forever because of **** poor farmers, some that are still there, some that aren't.....those that come after them have to deal with that forever......i realize you don't have water out west so i would think that you would be ****ed concerned about some dumbass that contaminates a water supply permanently......maybe not...maybe you really don't give a **** about how some of these landowners destroy the land for generations to come, as long as you can find a thread to hold up and say 'fight the govt'.......not everything is as black and white as you want this to be......
now i'm done with this %@*&%ing thread.. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:12 AM
CJE - 2014-04-18 11:06 AM Were they really overgrazing or was it about the tortoises..........
From everything i've read, it appears to be over grazing.... But that's just my opinion.
Then the tortoise(s) were a blatant excuse and the referenced Nature Conservancy (since bankrupt) was a ruse, was it not? Because The BLM mentioned numerous times the aforementioned supposed causes to the best of my memory. | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| CJE - 2014-04-18 11:06 AM
TXBO - 2014-04-17 11:57 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:31 AM
Here's a link from the Salt Lake Tribune concerning an ATV ride we're going on next month in the county I live in...Phil is awesome! He wanted to do this last year but the governor called him & asked him not to. A few months ago Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) pointed her finger at him in a meeting & said, "I hope you know you cost us a lot of money!" (refering to opening up the parks during the shutdown). The fed has still not re-paid the states as agreed...lol. Phil is very smart, kind & a true patriot. Soft spoken...I hope he survives this as he's a great leader. Interesting to read the 'comments' and see the hate we deal with on a daily basis in our own back yards...might explain our 'fed up attitude'!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57827295-78/blm-canyon-lyman-motorized.html.csp
I don't think it's about either. Like most things follow the money. Bundy's water rights are worth millions. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-18 11:10 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 9:57 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:31 AM
Here's a link from the Salt Lake Tribune concerning an ATV ride we're going on next month in the county I live in...Phil is awesome! He wanted to do this last year but the governor called him & asked him not to. A few months ago Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) pointed her finger at him in a meeting & said, "I hope you know you cost us a lot of money!" (refering to opening up the parks during the shutdown). The fed has still not re-paid the states as agreed...lol. Phil is very smart, kind & a true patriot. Soft spoken...I hope he survives this as he's a great leader. Interesting to read the 'comments' and see the hate we deal with on a daily basis in our own back yards...might explain our 'fed up attitude'!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57827295-78/blm-canyon-lyman-motorized.html.csp
I can't understand how they still consider it 'pristine' since we've been destroying it for so long...duh.
LOL! All of our families were settlers at some point.
One of those generations would have had the ability to own that land the 100 years it was available for sale. Now you want the the fed to just give you "your" land. It's always easier to destroy something you didn't have to pay for. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | dhdqhllc - 2014-04-18 10:19 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 11:10 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 9:57 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:31 AM
Here's a link from the Salt Lake Tribune concerning an ATV ride we're going on next month in the county I live in...Phil is awesome! He wanted to do this last year but the governor called him & asked him not to. A few months ago Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) pointed her finger at him in a meeting & said, "I hope you know you cost us a lot of money!" (refering to opening up the parks during the shutdown). The fed has still not re-paid the states as agreed...lol. Phil is very smart, kind & a true patriot. Soft spoken...I hope he survives this as he's a great leader. Interesting to read the 'comments' and see the hate we deal with on a daily basis in our own back yards...might explain our 'fed up attitude'!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57827295-78/blm-canyon-lyman-motorized.html.csp
I can't understand how they still consider it 'pristine' since we've been destroying it for so long...duh.
now i'm done with this %@*&%ing thread..
My response was an 'eye roll' for anyone thinking that we don't care about our land.
Here's a link to what Phil sent to a more conservative paper 2 weeks ago...it better articulates the love we have for our county:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865600723/Community-space-Recaptured.html?pg=1
I would also suggest that folks should consider the old adage: "Clean up your own backyard before you start cleaning up mine".
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-18 10:28 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 11:10 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 9:57 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:31 AM
Here's a link from the Salt Lake Tribune concerning an ATV ride we're going on next month in the county I live in...Phil is awesome! He wanted to do this last year but the governor called him & asked him not to. A few months ago Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) pointed her finger at him in a meeting & said, "I hope you know you cost us a lot of money!" (refering to opening up the parks during the shutdown). The fed has still not re-paid the states as agreed...lol. Phil is very smart, kind & a true patriot. Soft spoken...I hope he survives this as he's a great leader. Interesting to read the 'comments' and see the hate we deal with on a daily basis in our own back yards...might explain our 'fed up attitude'!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57827295-78/blm-canyon-lyman-motorized.html.csp
I can't understand how they still consider it 'pristine' since we've been destroying it for so long...duh.
One of those generations would have had the ability to own that land the 100 years it was available for sale. Now you want the the fed to just give you "your" land. It's always easier to destroy something you didn't have to pay for.
You're so off track with your hatred of who I am & what you think I represent. Your arguements are bordering on silly.
Much of the land out here was never available for sale...the gov't retracted it. After all, there might be gold in them thar hills...
Sorry that you didn't get one thing that I tried to express...it only makes me realize that the attempt to find common ground is not worth the effort. It's wasted breath.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| foundation horse - 2014-04-18 11:22 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:12 AM CJE - 2014-04-18 11:06 AM Were they really overgrazing or was it about the tortoises.......... From everything i've read, it appears to be over grazing.... But that's just my opinion. Then the tortoise (s ) were a blatant excuse and the referenced Nature Conservancy (since bankrupt ) was a ruse, was it not? Because The BLM mentioned numerous times the aforementioned supposed causes to the best of my memory.
This is just a hunch, FH, but I bet if they removed every one of Bundy's cattle and all improvements, rest the land for two years, I could fly over it and point out where is cattle were grazing. Just follow the mesquites that have replaced all the natural vegetation. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-18 11:34 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 10:28 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 11:10 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 9:57 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:31 AM
Here's a link from the Salt Lake Tribune concerning an ATV ride we're going on next month in the county I live in...Phil is awesome! He wanted to do this last year but the governor called him & asked him not to. A few months ago Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) pointed her finger at him in a meeting & said, "I hope you know you cost us a lot of money!" (refering to opening up the parks during the shutdown). The fed has still not re-paid the states as agreed...lol. Phil is very smart, kind & a true patriot. Soft spoken...I hope he survives this as he's a great leader. Interesting to read the 'comments' and see the hate we deal with on a daily basis in our own back yards...might explain our 'fed up attitude'!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57827295-78/blm-canyon-lyman-motorized.html.csp
I can't understand how they still consider it 'pristine' since we've been destroying it for so long...duh.
One of those generations would have had the ability to own that land the 100 years it was available for sale. Now you want the the fed to just give you "your" land. It's always easier to destroy something you didn't have to pay for.
Much of the land out here was never available for sale...the gov't retracted it. After all, there might be gold in them thar hills...
Sorry that you didn't get one thing that I tried to express...it only makes me realize that the attempt to find common ground is not worth the effort. It's wasted breath.
They retracted the land because nobody wanted it. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-18 10:36 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 11:34 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 10:28 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 11:10 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 9:57 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:31 AM
Here's a link from the Salt Lake Tribune concerning an ATV ride we're going on next month in the county I live in...Phil is awesome! He wanted to do this last year but the governor called him & asked him not to. A few months ago Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) pointed her finger at him in a meeting & said, "I hope you know you cost us a lot of money!" (refering to opening up the parks during the shutdown). The fed has still not re-paid the states as agreed...lol. Phil is very smart, kind & a true patriot. Soft spoken...I hope he survives this as he's a great leader. Interesting to read the 'comments' and see the hate we deal with on a daily basis in our own back yards...might explain our 'fed up attitude'!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57827295-78/blm-canyon-lyman-motorized.html.csp
I can't understand how they still consider it 'pristine' since we've been destroying it for so long...duh.
One of those generations would have had the ability to own that land the 100 years it was available for sale. Now you want the the fed to just give you "your" land. It's always easier to destroy something you didn't have to pay for.
Much of the land out here was never available for sale...the gov't retracted it. After all, there might be gold in them thar hills...
Sorry that you didn't get one thing that I tried to express...it only makes me realize that the attempt to find common ground is not worth the effort. It's wasted breath.
Some of it was never available to start with.
Look, I 'get' that you're liberal thinking on this issue & don't want to lose your 'cash cow'...you, like many others, support the gov't agenies that seem to make your life better...regardless of whether they're out of line or not. You try to look at the 'big picture' to see how it affects the 'general welfare' of ALL the people even if it denies the individual 'inalienable rights' that this country was based on. I get that.
Whatever...
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| dhdqhllc - 2014-04-18 9:00 AM smiley - 2014-04-18 9:57 AM
This is the type of thing that drives me insane. Misinformation. Bad reporting. Taking a comment and running with it - i.e. Reid. They are not referring to taxes, this is about fees. Agreed. The misinformation on both sides is staggering.
Yes and no, they are basically what we would consider domestic terrorists, picture the same response for an illegal? We'd call them illegal terrorists. Picture the same response for almsot anything other than a white rancher everyone sees as picked on.
I don't necessarily agree with his choice of words, but I do get where he is coming from. A very large group stopped a valid action by standing in their way. IT's not over. The fees/fines are just racking up to an even higher amount. There was no deal for them to back down. It might end up in court or arrest, but it's not over I'm sure. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-18 9:31 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 9:06 AM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-18 10:00 AM smiley - 2014-04-18 9:57 AM
This is the type of thing that drives me insane. Misinformation. Bad reporting. Taking a comment and running with it - i.e. Reid. They are not referring to taxes, this is about fees. Agreed. The misinformation on both sides is staggering.
There's a big difference between the foundation our country was built on (the Constitution) with it's many checks & balances & the federal agencies that are not within the perimeter of said foundation.
Here's a link from the Salt Lake Tribune concerning an ATV ride we're going on next month in the county I live in...Phil is awesome! He wanted to do this last year but the governor called him & asked him not to. A few months ago Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) pointed her finger at him in a meeting & said, "I hope you know you cost us a lot of money!" (refering to opening up the parks during the shutdown). The fed has still not re-paid the states as agreed...lol. Phil is very smart, kind & a true patriot. Soft spoken...I hope he survives this as he's a great leader. Interesting to read the 'comments' and see the hate we deal with on a daily basis in our own back yards...might explain our 'fed up attitude'!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57827295-78/blm-canyon-lyman-motorized.html.csp
When you say you don't recognize the federal govt., as existing and claim that Nevada is soveriegn (sp) state, that's pretty much the same thing. | |
| | |
I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
Location: Online | Is it domestic terrorism or workplace violence? | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-18 9:49 AM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-18 9:36 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:31 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 9:06 AM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-18 10:00 AM smiley - 2014-04-18 9:57 AM
This is the type of thing that drives me insane. Misinformation. Bad reporting. Taking a comment and running with it - i.e. Reid. They are not referring to taxes, this is about fees. Agreed. The misinformation on both sides is staggering.
There's a big difference between the foundation our country was built on (the Constitution) with it's many checks & balances & the federal agencies that are not within the perimeter of said foundation.
Here's a link from the Salt Lake Tribune concerning an ATV ride we're going on next month in the county I live in...Phil is awesome! He wanted to do this last year but the governor called him & asked him not to. A few months ago Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) pointed her finger at him in a meeting & said, "I hope you know you cost us a lot of money!" (refering to opening up the parks during the shutdown). The fed has still not re-paid the states as agreed...lol. Phil is very smart, kind & a true patriot. Soft spoken...I hope he survives this as he's a great leader. Interesting to read the 'comments' and see the hate we deal with on a daily basis in our own back yards...might explain our 'fed up attitude'!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57827295-78/blm-canyon-lyman-motorized.html.csp
The BLM has closed most of our back roads & trails...they did a 'Wilderness Study Area' that was to expire after 15 yrs (it was due a couple yrs ago...either declare it Wilderness or retract it...nothing yet). They hired college kids to come out and install closure signs & block the roads & trails...some of the ranchers & others (jeepers etc...) have spent much time removing the illegal signs and trash & re-opening the illegally closed roads...it is a mess. The gov't just does this on their own...they make their own policy daily...and I mean the rangers!
See this is what i mean by half info - the rangers do not "make their own policy" and they are doing all these things due to NEPA. You really need to look into it. This is all the things they have to "look into" and get feedback from just to do an assement:
Go to Chapter three and look it over, it's quite extensive. This is a direct result of the NEPA and CEQ laws.............LAWS, not some rogue ranger. I would have copied and pasted but that wasn't allowable or I coudln't figure it out. one or the other.
https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/37735/45744/49405/mdu9_pdf.pdf
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-18 10:22 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:12 AM CJE - 2014-04-18 11:06 AM Were they really overgrazing or was it about the tortoises.......... From everything i've read, it appears to be over grazing.... But that's just my opinion. Then the tortoise (s ) were a blatant excuse and the referenced Nature Conservancy (since bankrupt ) was a ruse, was it not? Because The BLM mentioned numerous times the aforementioned supposed causes to the best of my memory.
A ruse? For what?? Solar panels 25 years in the future? That's quite an ability to see that far ahead.
ENVIRONMENTALISTS. ACTIVISTS. THOSE are your enemies. Turns out they think they know a few uses for the land too. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:28 AM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-18 10:19 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 11:10 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 9:57 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:31 AM
Here's a link from the Salt Lake Tribune concerning an ATV ride we're going on next month in the county I live in...Phil is awesome! He wanted to do this last year but the governor called him & asked him not to. A few months ago Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) pointed her finger at him in a meeting & said, "I hope you know you cost us a lot of money!" (refering to opening up the parks during the shutdown). The fed has still not re-paid the states as agreed...lol. Phil is very smart, kind & a true patriot. Soft spoken...I hope he survives this as he's a great leader. Interesting to read the 'comments' and see the hate we deal with on a daily basis in our own back yards...might explain our 'fed up attitude'!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57827295-78/blm-canyon-lyman-motorized.html.csp
I can't understand how they still consider it 'pristine' since we've been destroying it for so long...duh.
now i'm done with this %@*&%ing thread..
Here's a link to what Phil sent to a more conservative paper 2 weeks ago...it better articulates the love we have for our county:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865600723/Community-space-Recaptured.html?pg=1
I would also suggest that folks should consider the old adage: "Clean up your own backyard before you start cleaning up mine".
Sorry, that is a silly comment for a "public" land discussion. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:45 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 10:36 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 11:34 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 10:28 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 11:10 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 9:57 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:31 AM
Here's a link from the Salt Lake Tribune concerning an ATV ride we're going on next month in the county I live in...Phil is awesome! He wanted to do this last year but the governor called him & asked him not to. A few months ago Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) pointed her finger at him in a meeting & said, "I hope you know you cost us a lot of money!" (refering to opening up the parks during the shutdown). The fed has still not re-paid the states as agreed...lol. Phil is very smart, kind & a true patriot. Soft spoken...I hope he survives this as he's a great leader. Interesting to read the 'comments' and see the hate we deal with on a daily basis in our own back yards...might explain our 'fed up attitude'!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57827295-78/blm-canyon-lyman-motorized.html.csp
I can't understand how they still consider it 'pristine' since we've been destroying it for so long...duh.
One of those generations would have had the ability to own that land the 100 years it was available for sale. Now you want the the fed to just give you "your" land. It's always easier to destroy something you didn't have to pay for.
Much of the land out here was never available for sale...the gov't retracted it. After all, there might be gold in them thar hills...
Sorry that you didn't get one thing that I tried to express...it only makes me realize that the attempt to find common ground is not worth the effort. It's wasted breath.
Look, I 'get' that you're liberal thinking on this issue & don't want to lose your 'cash cow'...you, like many others, support the gov't agenies that seem to make your life better...regardless of whether they're out of line or not. You try to look at the 'big picture' to see how it affects the 'general welfare' of ALL the people even if it denies the individual 'inalienable rights' that this country was based on. I get that.
Whatever...
Is TXBO really a liberal?
I'm not. So I don't really get how that is important in the debate.  That's right up there with saying all govt. workers should be without an opinion. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| rodeomom13 - 2014-04-18 10:59 AM Is it domestic terrorism or workplace violence?
hmmmmmmmmmmm | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-18 11:05 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 9:49 AM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-18 9:36 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:31 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 9:06 AM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-18 10:00 AM smiley - 2014-04-18 9:57 AM
This is the type of thing that drives me insane. Misinformation. Bad reporting. Taking a comment and running with it - i.e. Reid. They are not referring to taxes, this is about fees. Agreed. The misinformation on both sides is staggering.
There's a big difference between the foundation our country was built on (the Constitution) with it's many checks & balances & the federal agencies that are not within the perimeter of said foundation.
Here's a link from the Salt Lake Tribune concerning an ATV ride we're going on next month in the county I live in...Phil is awesome! He wanted to do this last year but the governor called him & asked him not to. A few months ago Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) pointed her finger at him in a meeting & said, "I hope you know you cost us a lot of money!" (refering to opening up the parks during the shutdown). The fed has still not re-paid the states as agreed...lol. Phil is very smart, kind & a true patriot. Soft spoken...I hope he survives this as he's a great leader. Interesting to read the 'comments' and see the hate we deal with on a daily basis in our own back yards...might explain our 'fed up attitude'!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57827295-78/blm-canyon-lyman-motorized.html.csp
The BLM has closed most of our back roads & trails...they did a 'Wilderness Study Area' that was to expire after 15 yrs (it was due a couple yrs ago...either declare it Wilderness or retract it...nothing yet). They hired college kids to come out and install closure signs & block the roads & trails...some of the ranchers & others (jeepers etc...) have spent much time removing the illegal signs and trash & re-opening the illegally closed roads...it is a mess. The gov't just does this on their own...they make their own policy daily...and I mean the rangers!
Go to Chapter three and look it over, it's quite extensive. This is a direct result of the NEPA and CEQ laws.............LAWS, not some rogue ranger. I would have copied and pasted but that wasn't allowable or I coudln't figure it out. one or the other.
https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/37735/45744/49405/mdu9_pdf.pdf
They can & do use their own 'discretion' concerning their dealings with individuals. It happens daily.
Some of you will continue to defend these agencies...some of us will continue to see them how they really are. Especially when we have personal experience! So, sorry you can't convince me that I have 'lying eyes'! Lol..
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| smiley - 2014-04-18 11:56 AM Yes and no, they are basically what we would consider domestic terrorists, picture the same response for an illegal? We'd call them illegal terrorists. Picture the same response for almsot anything other than a white rancher everyone sees as picked on.
I don't necessarily agree with his choice of words, but I do get where he is coming from. A very large group stopped a valid action by standing in their way. IT's not over. The fees/fines are just racking up to an even higher amount. There was no deal for them to back down. It might end up in court or arrest, but it's not over I'm sure.
Insurgents....yes. Terrorists....no | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-18 11:21 AM smiley - 2014-04-18 11:05 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 9:49 AM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-18 9:36 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:31 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 9:06 AM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-18 10:00 AM smiley - 2014-04-18 9:57 AM
This is the type of thing that drives me insane. Misinformation. Bad reporting. Taking a comment and running with it - i.e. Reid. They are not referring to taxes, this is about fees. Agreed. The misinformation on both sides is staggering.
There's a big difference between the foundation our country was built on (the Constitution) with it's many checks & balances & the federal agencies that are not within the perimeter of said foundation.
Here's a link from the Salt Lake Tribune concerning an ATV ride we're going on next month in the county I live in...Phil is awesome! He wanted to do this last year but the governor called him & asked him not to. A few months ago Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) pointed her finger at him in a meeting & said, "I hope you know you cost us a lot of money!" (refering to opening up the parks during the shutdown). The fed has still not re-paid the states as agreed...lol. Phil is very smart, kind & a true patriot. Soft spoken...I hope he survives this as he's a great leader. Interesting to read the 'comments' and see the hate we deal with on a daily basis in our own back yards...might explain our 'fed up attitude'!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57827295-78/blm-canyon-lyman-motorized.html.csp
The BLM has closed most of our back roads & trails...they did a 'Wilderness Study Area' that was to expire after 15 yrs (it was due a couple yrs ago...either declare it Wilderness or retract it...nothing yet). They hired college kids to come out and install closure signs & block the roads & trails...some of the ranchers & others (jeepers etc...) have spent much time removing the illegal signs and trash & re-opening the illegally closed roads...it is a mess. The gov't just does this on their own...they make their own policy daily...and I mean the rangers!
Go to Chapter three and look it over, it's quite extensive. This is a direct result of the NEPA and CEQ laws.............LAWS, not some rogue ranger. I would have copied and pasted but that wasn't allowable or I coudln't figure it out. one or the other.
https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/37735/45744/49405/mdu9_pdf.pdf
Some of you will continue to defend these agencies...some of us will continue to see them how they really are. Especially when we have personal experience! So, sorry you can't convince me that I have 'lying eyes'! Lol..
It's not a one size fits all. They are not always wrong. If you want to change the agencies - CHANGE THE LAW. Just like the liberals have been doing the last 50+ years. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Yep, I agree with the word insurgents over terrorists!! | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| smiley - 2014-04-18 12:11 PM Is TXBO really a liberal?
I'm not. So I don't really get how that is important in the debate. That's right up there with saying all govt. workers should be without an opinion.
LMAO! She's just trying to get under my skin. She loves me though. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-18 11:34 AM You're so off track with your hatred of who I am & what you think I represent. Your arguements are bordering on silly.
Much of the land out here was never available for sale...the gov't retracted it. After all, there might be gold in them thar hills...
Sorry that you didn't get one thing that I tried to express...it only makes me realize that the attempt to find common ground is not worth the effort. It's wasted breath.
Speaking of liberals, so if I disagree with you, it's hatred? That's very progressive of you. LOL | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:26 AM smiley - 2014-04-18 12:11 PM Is TXBO really a liberal?
I'm not. So I don't really get how that is important in the debate. That's right up there with saying all govt. workers should be without an opinion.
Only when you agree with me & you're not doing much of that lately...wah...lmao!
To be specific...I said 'liberal thinking on this issue'.
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:32 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 11:34 AM You're so off track with your hatred of who I am & what you think I represent. Your arguements are bordering on silly.
Much of the land out here was never available for sale...the gov't retracted it. After all, there might be gold in them thar hills...
Sorry that you didn't get one thing that I tried to express...it only makes me realize that the attempt to find common ground is not worth the effort. It's wasted breath.
Speaking of liberals, so if I disagree with you, it's hatred? That's very progressive of you. LOL
Why thank you! Do you think I'm making progress then? | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-18 12:39 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:32 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 11:34 AM You're so off track with your hatred of who I am & what you think I represent. Your arguements are bordering on silly.
Much of the land out here was never available for sale...the gov't retracted it. After all, there might be gold in them thar hills...
Sorry that you didn't get one thing that I tried to express...it only makes me realize that the attempt to find common ground is not worth the effort. It's wasted breath.
Speaking of liberals, so if I disagree with you, it's hatred? That's very progressive of you. LOL
Right now I think you need about 90 days in the looney bin. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:35 AM
foundation horse - 2014-04-18 11:22 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:12 AM CJE - 2014-04-18 11:06 AM Were they really overgrazing or was it about the tortoises.......... From everything i've read, it appears to be over grazing.... But that's just my opinion. Then the tortoise (s ) were a blatant excuse and the referenced Nature Conservancy (since bankrupt ) was a ruse, was it not? Because The BLM mentioned numerous times the aforementioned supposed causes to the best of my memory.
I have pulled all the mesquites on MY Land. It is something called 'management' and I would imagine the Bundy Family has been 'managing' this tract of real estate most likely better than The BLM.
Edited by foundation horse 2014-04-18 1:06 PM
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-18 12:08 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-18 10:22 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:12 AM CJE - 2014-04-18 11:06 AM Were they really overgrazing or was it about the tortoises.......... From everything i've read, it appears to be over grazing.... But that's just my opinion. Then the tortoise (s ) were a blatant excuse and the referenced Nature Conservancy (since bankrupt ) was a ruse, was it not? Because The BLM mentioned numerous times the aforementioned supposed causes to the best of my memory.
ENVIRONMENTALISTS. ACTIVISTS. THOSE are your enemies. Turns out they think they know a few uses for the land too.
Do you discount the documented reports of Harry Reid's Involvement with this dating to the same time that Bundy had his initial disagreement with The BLM?
Also, what that Legal Standing that The Federal Judge has assessed upon The Bundy Claim based upon The Precedent set by The Wayne Hage Case? | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| foundation horse - 2014-04-18 12:54 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:35 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 11:22 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:12 AM CJE - 2014-04-18 11:06 AM Were they really overgrazing or was it about the tortoises.......... From everything i've read, it appears to be over grazing.... But that's just my opinion. Then the tortoise (s ) were a blatant excuse and the referenced Nature Conservancy (since bankrupt ) was a ruse, was it not? Because The BLM mentioned numerous times the aforementioned supposed causes to the best of my memory. I have pulled all the mesquites on MY Land. It is something 'management' and I would imagine the Bundy Family has 'managing' this tract of real estate most likely better than The BLM.
Edited by TXBO 2014-04-18 1:16 PM
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-18 1:06 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-18 12:54 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:35 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 11:22 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:12 AM CJE - 2014-04-18 11:06 AM Were they really overgrazing or was it about the tortoises.......... From everything i've read, it appears to be over grazing.... But that's just my opinion. Then the tortoise (s ) were a blatant excuse and the referenced Nature Conservancy (since bankrupt ) was a ruse, was it not? Because The BLM mentioned numerous times the aforementioned supposed causes to the best of my memory. I have pulled all the mesquites on MY Land. It is something 'management' and I would imagine the Bundy Family has 'managing' this tract of real estate most likely better than The BLM.
To be perfectly honest with you I have not really paid attention to that aspect. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| foundation horse - 2014-04-18 1:08 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 1:06 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 12:54 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:35 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 11:22 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:12 AM CJE - 2014-04-18 11:06 AM Were they really overgrazing or was it about the tortoises.......... From everything i've read, it appears to be over grazing.... But that's just my opinion. Then the tortoise (s ) were a blatant excuse and the referenced Nature Conservancy (since bankrupt ) was a ruse, was it not? Because The BLM mentioned numerous times the aforementioned supposed causes to the best of my memory. I have pulled all the mesquites on MY Land. It is something 'management' and I would imagine the Bundy Family has 'managing' this tract of real estate most likely better than The BLM. To be perfectly honest with you I have not really paid attention to that aspect.
I don't think many paid attention. Take a look at this and tell me what you think.
 (web1_roundup_040714JL_08_6 (640x407) (500x318) (250x159).jpg)
Attachments
----------------
web1_roundup_040714JL_08_6 (640x407) (500x318) (250x159).jpg (66KB - 220 downloads)
| |
| | |
| So this to kind of a question for those who are big on the States taking control back over the lands that the Fed’s run. I know several other Western states have looked into this possibility- my question to you is what makes you certain that Nevada is wanting to move in that direction? I have attended my County Commissioner meeting regarding AB 221 and the impacts it would have to the State and Counties. From my prospective of these meetings, it doesn’t seem likely to go forward.
The County Commissioners indicated that the State would push down majority of the management responsibilities to the County levels if they pursue taking over the land. Our County is pretty well off financially but had major concerns about the overall costs of implementation, management and lack of personnel and equipment that would be necessary to move forward without change in use. They said that a large portion of the land that the State takes over would need to be sold to be private ground to limit the responsibilities that the County would have for management. Public concern seemed to revolve around the large stake holders in our area (meaning the large companies ie. mining, gas, power) that would likely purchase and take over majority of the ex-BLM land; you add this to the Rail Road checker board and this means there is no legal access to most properties- this means no hunting, no fishing, no atv, no horseback trail rides, and no open cattle grazing.
Right now, in my district there are 9,277,772 public land acres divided up into 104 allotments with 95 operators. So basically those 95 operators run an average of 97,660 acres each- if this ground were to be sold at a cheap $100/acre that would be an astounding $9,776,000 per user to maintain what they currently run. Large corporations are going to buy up this land and either close it to public use or charge for use. Seems like a lose-lose for most ranchers/users in my area. I’m guessing this will give smaller people an opportunity to purchase some cheap land but they won’t be able to sustain especially considering the current grazing number say it requires 50 acres support 1 AUM. That $1.35/AUM seems pretty cheap according to my business accounting. I honestly don’t know very many ranchers that have millions lying around to be able to purchase vast ground to protect their grazing rights- and the ranchers at these meeting had the same sentiments.
Edited by bscanchaser 2014-04-18 1:53 PM
| |
| | |
| TXBO - 2014-04-18 1:20 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 1:08 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 1:06 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 12:54 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:35 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 11:22 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:12 AM CJE - 2014-04-18 11:06 AM Were they really overgrazing or was it about the tortoises.......... From everything i've read, it appears to be over grazing.... But that's just my opinion. Then the tortoise (s ) were a blatant excuse and the referenced Nature Conservancy (since bankrupt ) was a ruse, was it not? Because The BLM mentioned numerous times the aforementioned supposed causes to the best of my memory. I have pulled all the mesquites on MY Land. It is something 'management' and I would imagine the Bundy Family has 'managing' this tract of real estate most likely better than The BLM. To be perfectly honest with you I have not really paid attention to that aspect.
This is Nevada as a whole- Fires and overgrazing are destructive- combine that with an average of 7" of rainfall (Bunkerville 5.73") it takes DECADES to get back what was lost. This is why management is so important and why majority of ranchers comply to grazing restrictions after wildfires and habitat loss- they know the future impacts it will have on them if they are ignorant and don't take care of what they have. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| foundation horse - 2014-04-18 12:54 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:35 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 11:22 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:12 AM CJE - 2014-04-18 11:06 AM Were they really overgrazing or was it about the tortoises.......... From everything i've read, it appears to be over grazing.... But that's just my opinion. Then the tortoise (s ) were a blatant excuse and the referenced Nature Conservancy (since bankrupt ) was a ruse, was it not? Because The BLM mentioned numerous times the aforementioned supposed causes to the best of my memory. I have pulled all the mesquites on MY Land. It is something called 'management' and I would imagine the Bundy Family has been 'managing' this tract of real estate most likely better than The BLM.
Edited by TXBO 2014-04-18 2:03 PM
 (mesquite.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
mesquite.jpg (11KB - 219 downloads)
| |
| | |
Famous for Not Complaining
Posts: 8848
Location: Broxton, Ga | If you can a good listen is Fox Talk Tom Sullivan is going over this now...........can listen on your laptop or iPhone........
http://radio.foxnews.com/fox-news-talk/
Edited by CJE 2014-04-18 2:18 PM
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-18 1:20 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-18 1:08 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 1:06 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 12:54 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:35 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 11:22 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:12 AM CJE - 2014-04-18 11:06 AM Were they really overgrazing or was it about the tortoises.......... From everything i've read, it appears to be over grazing.... But that's just my opinion. Then the tortoise (s ) were a blatant excuse and the referenced Nature Conservancy (since bankrupt ) was a ruse, was it not? Because The BLM mentioned numerous times the aforementioned supposed causes to the best of my memory. I have pulled all the mesquites on MY Land. It is something 'management' and I would imagine the Bundy Family has 'managing' this tract of real estate most likely better than The BLM. To be perfectly honest with you I have not really paid attention to that aspect.
It DOES appear to be barren of much if any ground cover. I do agree with that. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-18 2:01 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-18 12:54 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:35 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 11:22 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:12 AM CJE - 2014-04-18 11:06 AM Were they really overgrazing or was it about the tortoises.......... From everything i've read, it appears to be over grazing.... But that's just my opinion. Then the tortoise (s ) were a blatant excuse and the referenced Nature Conservancy (since bankrupt ) was a ruse, was it not? Because The BLM mentioned numerous times the aforementioned supposed causes to the best of my memory. I have pulled all the mesquites on MY Land. It is something called 'management' and I would imagine the Bundy Family has been 'managing' this tract of real estate most likely better than The BLM.
I absolutely despise mesquite! It's only good use to me is in the smoker or grill. There are many overgrown 'mesquite(ed) up' pastures in my area and I detest them! | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| foundation horse - 2014-04-18 2:29 PM
TXBO - 2014-04-18 1:20 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-18 1:08 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 1:06 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 12:54 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:35 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 11:22 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:12 AM CJE - 2014-04-18 11:06 AM Were they really overgrazing or was it about the tortoises.......... From everything i've read, it appears to be over grazing.... But that's just my opinion. Then the tortoise (s ) were a blatant excuse and the referenced Nature Conservancy (since bankrupt ) was a ruse, was it not? Because The BLM mentioned numerous times the aforementioned supposed causes to the best of my memory. I have pulled all the mesquites on MY Land. It is something 'management' and I would imagine the Bundy Family has 'managing' this tract of real estate most likely better than The BLM. To be perfectly honest with you I have not really paid attention to that aspect.
It DOES appear to be barren of much if any ground cover. I do agree with that.
Guys go to google maps and look at a Sat. view of the area you are talking about. All of the land that the BLM has looks the same. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| jbhoot - 2014-04-18 2:44 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 2:29 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 1:20 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 1:08 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 1:06 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 12:54 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:35 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 11:22 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:12 AM CJE - 2014-04-18 11:06 AM Were they really overgrazing or was it about the tortoises.......... From everything i've read, it appears to be over grazing.... But that's just my opinion. Then the tortoise (s ) were a blatant excuse and the referenced Nature Conservancy (since bankrupt ) was a ruse, was it not? Because The BLM mentioned numerous times the aforementioned supposed causes to the best of my memory. I have pulled all the mesquites on MY Land. It is something 'management' and I would imagine the Bundy Family has 'managing' this tract of real estate most likely better than The BLM. To be perfectly honest with you I have not really paid attention to that aspect.
It DOES appear to be barren of much if any ground cover. I do agree with that. Guys go to google maps and look at a Sat. view of the area you are talking about. All of the land that the BLM has looks the same.
Unfortunately, most people have only seen an overgrazed desert and don't know the difference.
Edited by TXBO 2014-04-18 3:08 PM
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Liberal handbook on how to remove cattle from the range:
http://books.google.com/books?id=KEhficL591MC&pg=PA360&dq=Storm+Over+Rangelands:+Private+Rights+in+Federal+Lands&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BYVRU6-fJseQyATxs4KwDA&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Storm%20Over%20Rangelands%3A%20Private%20Rights%20in%20Federal%20Lands&f=false | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-18 2:05 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-18 2:44 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 2:29 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 1:20 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 1:08 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 1:06 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 12:54 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:35 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 11:22 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:12 AM CJE - 2014-04-18 11:06 AM Were they really overgrazing or was it about the tortoises.......... From everything i've read, it appears to be over grazing.... But that's just my opinion. Then the tortoise (s ) were a blatant excuse and the referenced Nature Conservancy (since bankrupt ) was a ruse, was it not? Because The BLM mentioned numerous times the aforementioned supposed causes to the best of my memory. I have pulled all the mesquites on MY Land. It is something 'management' and I would imagine the Bundy Family has 'managing' this tract of real estate most likely better than The BLM. To be perfectly honest with you I have not really paid attention to that aspect.
It DOES appear to be barren of much if any ground cover. I do agree with that. Guys go to google maps and look at a Sat. view of the area you are talking about. All of the land that the BLM has looks the same.
Unfortunately, most people have only seen an overgrazed desert and don't know the difference.
Lol...wonder why they call it 'Mesquite Nv'? It's not sagebrush country...what you're probably seeing is a lot of Creosote brush, too...it's the Mojave Desert, not the Great Basin. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-18 11:59 AM smiley - 2014-04-18 12:08 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 10:22 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:12 AM CJE - 2014-04-18 11:06 AM Were they really overgrazing or was it about the tortoises.......... From everything i've read, it appears to be over grazing.... But that's just my opinion. Then the tortoise (s ) were a blatant excuse and the referenced Nature Conservancy (since bankrupt ) was a ruse, was it not? Because The BLM mentioned numerous times the aforementioned supposed causes to the best of my memory.
ENVIRONMENTALISTS. ACTIVISTS. THOSE are your enemies. Turns out they think they know a few uses for the land too. Do you discount the documented reports of Harry Reid's Involvement with this dating to the same time that Bundy had his initial disagreement with The BLM? Also, what that Legal Standing that The Federal Judge has assessed upon The Bundy Claim based upon The Precedent set by The Wayne Hage Case?
Also, one solar farm planned is 35 miles away from the Bundy ranch and the other is 100 miles away AND China met with 9 senators, not just Reid.
I do however shake my head at the guy in D.C. who had about 3 years of BLM experience when he got that cushy job. Then again, not many sane people want to move to D.C. and take some of those jobs, I would think.
Edited by smiley 2014-04-18 3:30 PM
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| bscanchaser - 2014-04-18 12:46 PM So this to kind of a question for those who are big on the States taking control back over the lands that the Fed’s run. I know several other Western states have looked into this possibility- my question to you is what makes you certain that Nevada is wanting to move in that direction? I have attended my County Commissioner meeting regarding AB 221 and the impacts it would have to the State and Counties. From my prospective of these meetings, it doesn’t seem likely to go forward.
The County Commissioners indicated that the State would push down majority of the management responsibilities to the County levels if they pursue taking over the land. Our County is pretty well off financially but had major concerns about the overall costs of implementation, management and lack of personnel and equipment that would be necessary to move forward without change in use. They said that a large portion of the land that the State takes over would need to be sold to be private ground to limit the responsibilities that the County would have for management. Public concern seemed to revolve around the large stake holders in our area (meaning the large companies ie. mining, gas, power) that would likely purchase and take over majority of the ex-BLM land; you add this to the Rail Road checker board and this means there is no legal access to most properties- this means no hunting, no fishing, no atv, no horseback trail rides, and no open cattle grazing.
Right now, in my district there are 9,277,772 public land acres divided up into 104 allotments with 95 operators. So basically those 95 operators run an average of 97,660 acres each- if this ground were to be sold at a cheap $100/acre that would be an astounding $9,776,000 per user to maintain what they currently run. Large corporations are going to buy up this land and either close it to public use or charge for use. Seems like a lose-lose for most ranchers/users in my area. I’m guessing this will give smaller people an opportunity to purchase some cheap land but they won’t be able to sustain especially considering the current grazing number say it requires 50 acres support 1 AUM. That $1.35/AUM seems pretty cheap according to my business accounting. I honestly don’t know very many ranchers that have millions lying around to be able to purchase vast ground to protect their grazing rights- and the ranchers at these meeting had the same sentiments.
Exactly, who thinks the states will be selling to ma and pa jones??
Not I, it will be just more land in the hands of a few. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-18 2:30 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-18 12:46 PM So this to kind of a question for those who are big on the States taking control back over the lands that the Fed’s run. I know several other Western states have looked into this possibility- my question to you is what makes you certain that Nevada is wanting to move in that direction? I have attended my County Commissioner meeting regarding AB 221 and the impacts it would have to the State and Counties. From my prospective of these meetings, it doesn’t seem likely to go forward.
The County Commissioners indicated that the State would push down majority of the management responsibilities to the County levels if they pursue taking over the land. Our County is pretty well off financially but had major concerns about the overall costs of implementation, management and lack of personnel and equipment that would be necessary to move forward without change in use. They said that a large portion of the land that the State takes over would need to be sold to be private ground to limit the responsibilities that the County would have for management. Public concern seemed to revolve around the large stake holders in our area (meaning the large companies ie. mining, gas, power) that would likely purchase and take over majority of the ex-BLM land; you add this to the Rail Road checker board and this means there is no legal access to most properties- this means no hunting, no fishing, no atv, no horseback trail rides, and no open cattle grazing.
Right now, in my district there are 9,277,772 public land acres divided up into 104 allotments with 95 operators. So basically those 95 operators run an average of 97,660 acres each- if this ground were to be sold at a cheap $100/acre that would be an astounding $9,776,000 per user to maintain what they currently run. Large corporations are going to buy up this land and either close it to public use or charge for use. Seems like a lose-lose for most ranchers/users in my area. I’m guessing this will give smaller people an opportunity to purchase some cheap land but they won’t be able to sustain especially considering the current grazing number say it requires 50 acres support 1 AUM. That $1.35/AUM seems pretty cheap according to my business accounting. I honestly don’t know very many ranchers that have millions lying around to be able to purchase vast ground to protect their grazing rights- and the ranchers at these meeting had the same sentiments. Exactly, who thinks the states will be selling to ma and pa jones??
Not I, it will be just more land in the hands of a few.
I've heard all the fearful 'what if's' and all I can really say is: every other state had the opportunity to grow their product...why not us? It's past time. Aside from the fears of what the state or private property owners would do...how about the fact that the public is already being locked out of the land?
Also...I know of large tracts of land that's for sale now and has been for many, many years...nobody wanted to buy it 100 yrs ago and they still don't.
Edited by musikmaker 2014-04-18 3:49 PM
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-18 3:29 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 2:05 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-18 2:44 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 2:29 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 1:20 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 1:08 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 1:06 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 12:54 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:35 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 11:22 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:12 AM CJE - 2014-04-18 11:06 AM Were they really overgrazing or was it about the tortoises.......... From everything i've read, it appears to be over grazing.... But that's just my opinion. Then the tortoise (s ) were a blatant excuse and the referenced Nature Conservancy (since bankrupt ) was a ruse, was it not? Because The BLM mentioned numerous times the aforementioned supposed causes to the best of my memory. I have pulled all the mesquites on MY Land. It is something 'management' and I would imagine the Bundy Family has 'managing' this tract of real estate most likely better than The BLM. To be perfectly honest with you I have not really paid attention to that aspect.
It DOES appear to be barren of much if any ground cover. I do agree with that. Guys go to google maps and look at a Sat. view of the area you are talking about. All of the land that the BLM has looks the same.
Unfortunately, most people have only seen an overgrazed desert and don't know the difference.
That depends on who you talk to. The lines are drawn differently by different experts. If it's very southern NV it could be Mojave. Some have Clark County as Sonoran. My personal experience is that it has more characteristics of Sonoran that either of the other two until you get north of Las Vegas. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-18 3:02 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 3:29 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 2:05 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-18 2:44 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 2:29 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 1:20 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 1:08 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 1:06 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 12:54 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:35 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 11:22 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:12 AM CJE - 2014-04-18 11:06 AM Were they really overgrazing or was it about the tortoises.......... From everything i've read, it appears to be over grazing.... But that's just my opinion. Then the tortoise (s ) were a blatant excuse and the referenced Nature Conservancy (since bankrupt ) was a ruse, was it not? Because The BLM mentioned numerous times the aforementioned supposed causes to the best of my memory. I have pulled all the mesquites on MY Land. It is something 'management' and I would imagine the Bundy Family has 'managing' this tract of real estate most likely better than The BLM. To be perfectly honest with you I have not really paid attention to that aspect.
It DOES appear to be barren of much if any ground cover. I do agree with that. Guys go to google maps and look at a Sat. view of the area you are talking about. All of the land that the BLM has looks the same.
Unfortunately, most people have only seen an overgrazed desert and don't know the difference.
This is north east of LV about 80 miles...go to or through there several times a year. It is considered the Mojave desert by locals. Either way there's no sagebrush..and plenty of mesquite, they don't grow like they do in Texas...of course, nothing does. Lol! | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-18 3:47 PM ....I've heard all the fearful 'what if's' and all I can really say is: every other state had the opportunity to grow their product...why not us? It's past time. Aside from the fears of what the state or private property owners would do...how about the fact that the public is already being locked out of the land?
....
Didn't you say you had oil leases on public land? If so, it doesn't sound like you are "locked out". | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| musikmaker - 2014-04-18 4:29 PM
TXBO - 2014-04-18 3:02 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 3:29 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 2:05 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-18 2:44 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 2:29 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 1:20 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 1:08 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 1:06 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 12:54 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:35 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-18 11:22 AM TXBO - 2014-04-18 11:12 AM CJE - 2014-04-18 11:06 AM Were they really overgrazing or was it about the tortoises.......... From everything i've read, it appears to be over grazing.... But that's just my opinion. Then the tortoise (s ) were a blatant excuse and the referenced Nature Conservancy (since bankrupt ) was a ruse, was it not? Because The BLM mentioned numerous times the aforementioned supposed causes to the best of my memory. I have pulled all the mesquites on MY Land. It is something 'management' and I would imagine the Bundy Family has 'managing' this tract of real estate most likely better than The BLM. To be perfectly honest with you I have not really paid attention to that aspect.
It DOES appear to be barren of much if any ground cover. I do agree with that. Guys go to google maps and look at a Sat. view of the area you are talking about. All of the land that the BLM has looks the same.
Unfortunately, most people have only seen an overgrazed desert and don't know the difference.
I just did a search EVERY map says it part of the Mohave. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-18 4:29 PM This is north east of LV about 80 miles...go to or through there several times a year. It is considered the Mojave desert by locals. Either way there's no sagebrush..and plenty of mesquite, they don't grow like they do in Texas...of course, nothing does. Lol!
The reason you see so many mesquites is because it has been overgrazed for so long.
BTW...I was a local. I lived in Clark County just north of the Las Vegas city limits. Many desert experts consider the Joshua Tree to be the distingushing characteristic of the Mojave. I don't recall seeing any there.
I don't want to fight over what desert range it is. LOL. Regardless of range there are 1,000's of desert plants as goung cover in the Mojave, Sonoran and Great Basin. Many areas have been ruined by grazing over the years as well as by the introduction of switchgrass (for grazing) that chocked out the indiginous species.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| jbhoot - 2014-04-18 4:44 PM This is north east of LV about 80 miles...go to or through there several times a year. It is considered the Mojave desert by locals. Either way there's no sagebrush..and plenty of mesquite, they don't grow like they do in Texas...of course, nothing does. Lol! I just did a search EVERY map says it part of the Mohave. Jeez Louis! 80 miles north of Las Vegas is so close to where many draw the line. It's very much a transitional area.
LOL! didn't look at the name. Thought that was musik fighting me.
Edited by TXBO 2014-04-18 5:08 PM
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-18 3:30 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 3:47 PM ....I've heard all the fearful 'what if's' and all I can really say is: every other state had the opportunity to grow their product...why not us? It's past time. Aside from the fears of what the state or private property owners would do...how about the fact that the public is already being locked out of the land?
....
Didn't you say you had oil leases on public land? If so, it doesn't sound like you are "locked out".
Oh boy...let me tell ya! There's some old tanks that have been sitting there since the 50's, old bullet ridden, graffitied, rusty..ugly...can't remove them, they fall under the antiquities act! Lol...now let's talk migrating birds...when drilling they have to net the mud pits to keep birds from getting in...know that this land is adjacent to the San Juan river & private property...how about the new thing this month that the pump jacks have oil on the moving parts! OMG! Or maybe the signs aren't easy to read from a mile away...or or or...really stupid things.
The land we have leases on used to belong to an estate that I'm part owner of...it was a land patent that the fed 'retracted' in 1934...who knows why or how. This oil field belongs to my husband & is the oldest producing field in the state. Pretty cool! (Most of his wells are on private or state property.) It's also next to what the enviros are trying to get Obama to declare Wilderness...so just outside of 'town' we can no longer access the river on an old road that's been there since the 1880's, nor can we travel the many other old roads or trails that have been there forever. The river runners don't like to see 'developement', I guess it ruins their nudist trips & sense of getting in touch with nature.
We just bought a new jeep Wednesday (!)...planning on doing our part to open up our roads.
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-18 3:45 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 4:29 PM This is north east of LV about 80 miles...go to or through there several times a year. It is considered the Mojave desert by locals. Either way there's no sagebrush..and plenty of mesquite, they don't grow like they do in Texas...of course, nothing does. Lol! The reason you see so many mesquites is because it has been overgrazed for so long.
BTW...I was a local. I lived in Clark County just north of the Las Vegas city limits. Many desert experts consider the Joshua Tree to be the distingushing characteristic of the Mojave. I don't recall seeing any there.
I don't want to fight over what desert range it is. LOL. Regardless of range there are 1,000's of desert plants as goung cover in the Mojave, Sonoran and Great Basin. Many areas have been ruined by grazing over the years as well as by the introduction of switchgrass (for grazing) that chocked out the indiginous species.
Ok...I don't want to fight, either...life's too short...or long.
There's a lot of Joshua trees just north of there towards St. George...pretty rough country! True grazing can be hard on a range...it can also be good for it. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion...aren't you glad? Lol...
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| jbhoot - 2014-04-18 4:44 PM I just did a search EVERY map says it part of the Mohave.
Most of my desert maps are old and in print but here are two maps. One would put Bunkerville in the Mojave. One would put Bunkerville in the Great Basin.
 (mojave.jpg)
 (sw_deserts (182x250).jpg)
Attachments
----------------
mojave.jpg (54KB - 226 downloads)
sw_deserts (182x250).jpg (70KB - 225 downloads)
| |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| TXBO - 2014-04-18 4:58 PM
jbhoot - 2014-04-18 4:44 PM This is north east of LV about 80 miles...go to or through there several times a year. It is considered the Mojave desert by locals. Either way there's no sagebrush..and plenty of mesquite, they don't grow like they do in Texas...of course, nothing does. Lol! I just did a search EVERY map says it part of the Mohave.
Jeez Louis! 80 miles north of Las Vegas is so close to where many draw the line. It's very much a transitional area. Freaking Women!
Look buckwheat I am Not a woman. And Look it up yourself. You are not even close on this one. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| jbhoot - 2014-04-18 5:11 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 4:58 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-18 4:44 PM This is north east of LV about 80 miles...go to or through there several times a year. It is considered the Mojave desert by locals. Either way there's no sagebrush..and plenty of mesquite, they don't grow like they do in Texas...of course, nothing does. Lol! I just did a search EVERY map says it part of the Mohave.
LOL! Hoot, I didn't look at who posted that. I assumed it was musik fighting me. I already edited the post. Please accept my apologies....But you're wrong. I just posted a couple pics for ya. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-18 5:09 PM Ok...I don't want to fight, either...life's too short...or long.
There's a lot of Joshua trees just north of there towards St. George...pretty rough country! True grazing can be hard on a range...it can also be good for it. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion...aren't you glad? Lol...
There most certainly are Joshua Trees north of Vegas but I never saw any that far east. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-18 4:15 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-18 5:11 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 4:58 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-18 4:44 PM This is north east of LV about 80 miles...go to or through there several times a year. It is considered the Mojave desert by locals. Either way there's no sagebrush..and plenty of mesquite, they don't grow like they do in Texas...of course, nothing does. Lol! I just did a search EVERY map says it part of the Mohave. Look buckwheat I am Not a woman. And Look it up yourself. You are not even close on this one.
I so needed that laugh! | |
| | |
| musikmaker - 2014-04-18 3:47 PM smiley - 2014-04-18 2:30 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-18 12:46 PM So this to kind of a question for those who are big on the States taking control back over the lands that the Fed’s run. I know several other Western states have looked into this possibility- my question to you is what makes you certain that Nevada is wanting to move in that direction? I have attended my County Commissioner meeting regarding AB 221 and the impacts it would have to the State and Counties. From my prospective of these meetings, it doesn’t seem likely to go forward.
The County Commissioners indicated that the State would push down majority of the management responsibilities to the County levels if they pursue taking over the land. Our County is pretty well off financially but had major concerns about the overall costs of implementation, management and lack of personnel and equipment that would be necessary to move forward without change in use. They said that a large portion of the land that the State takes over would need to be sold to be private ground to limit the responsibilities that the County would have for management. Public concern seemed to revolve around the large stake holders in our area (meaning the large companies ie. mining, gas, power) that would likely purchase and take over majority of the ex-BLM land; you add this to the Rail Road checker board and this means there is no legal access to most properties- this means no hunting, no fishing, no atv, no horseback trail rides, and no open cattle grazing.
Right now, in my district there are 9,277,772 public land acres divided up into 104 allotments with 95 operators. So basically those 95 operators run an average of 97,660 acres each- if this ground were to be sold at a cheap $100/acre that would be an astounding $9,776,000 per user to maintain what they currently run. Large corporations are going to buy up this land and either close it to public use or charge for use. Seems like a lose-lose for most ranchers/users in my area. I’m guessing this will give smaller people an opportunity to purchase some cheap land but they won’t be able to sustain especially considering the current grazing number say it requires 50 acres support 1 AUM. That $1.35/AUM seems pretty cheap according to my business accounting. I honestly don’t know very many ranchers that have millions lying around to be able to purchase vast ground to protect their grazing rights- and the ranchers at these meeting had the same sentiments.
Exactly, who thinks the states will be selling to ma and pa jones??
Not I, it will be just more land in the hands of a few.
I've heard all the fearful 'what if's' and all I can really say is: every other state had the opportunity to grow their product...why not us? It's past time. Aside from the fears of what the state or private property owners would do...how about the fact that the public is already being locked out of the land?
Also...I know of large tracts of land that's for sale now and has been for many, many years...nobody wanted to buy it 100 yrs ago and they still don't.
What exactly do you mean by “put the land into production” and “grow their product”? If you hadn't posted that you use to live in Clark county I would seriously say you come off as someone who has never been to Nevada or know our economy. This isn’t a green rolling grass state like Kentucky or corn rows for miles like Nebraska where people can make a living off a small portion of ground. Basically our State has 3 economic systems- Ranching, Mining and Tourism. All 3 use BLM public ground at the same time under the multi-use provision. By selling off the land for private use you basically limit what industry is available to that site... My bet is that mining wins since they have the most money.
I do not have fears about what private ownership will do- I know the reality. I have family in other states that do not have public ground. They are limited on what they can do and rely on neighbors/connections to fulfill their needs/wants if they can’t do something on their own property-not the case here. So I’m looking off my property onto BLM land right now and this is what I see- there are cows grazing the hill behind my house, an open pit mine hauling material, kids that ride their 4-wheelers up the canyon, a family that taking their kids to fish the creek and 3 people up riding horses up the canyon- all simultaneously - If this becomes private owned, none of this would be occurring. Do you use public land for anything? A large portion of the people in our area use it every day and see the value of keeping it public whether it’s for recreational use or business use and are against the State taking over ownership knowing there is a possibility the changes could affect their everyday activities. The fact that someone OWNS large tracts of land they can’t sell doesn’t mean much to me- the fact that this same land is private owned and not being USED for anything speaks volumes. This is basically where we will be if all Public land goes private- a bunch of bare ground that has been made useless to everyone.
You mention being locked out of public land- I have NEVER seen this under normal circumstances; during fires and round-ups of illegal grazers-yes, to protect people from getting into a place and not being able to get out, but not ever beyond these circumstances.
| |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| musikmaker - 2014-04-18 5:22 PM
TXBO - 2014-04-18 4:15 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-18 5:11 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 4:58 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-18 4:44 PM This is north east of LV about 80 miles...go to or through there several times a year. It is considered the Mojave desert by locals. Either way there's no sagebrush..and plenty of mesquite, they don't grow like they do in Texas...of course, nothing does. Lol! I just did a search EVERY map says it part of the Mohave. Look buckwheat I am Not a woman. And Look it up yourself. You are not even close on this one.
I so needed that laugh!
OK I know I am getting old BUT the last time I checked I was still a man and everything still works LOL | |
| | |
 That's White "Man" to You
Posts: 5515
| TXBO - 2014-04-18 5:19 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 5:09 PM Ok...I don't want to fight, either...life's too short...or long.
There's a lot of Joshua trees just north of there towards St. George...pretty rough country! True grazing can be hard on a range...it can also be good for it. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion...aren't you glad? Lol...
There most certainly are Joshua Trees north of Vegas but I never saw any that far east.
There are Joshua trees all around Mesquite Nevada, especially east. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Whiteboy - 2014-04-18 5:34 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 5:19 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 5:09 PM Ok...I don't want to fight, either...life's too short...or long.
There's a lot of Joshua trees just north of there towards St. George...pretty rough country! True grazing can be hard on a range...it can also be good for it. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion...aren't you glad? Lol...
There most certainly are Joshua Trees north of Vegas but I never saw any that far east.
Then I'd say that's Mohave desert. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Here's a link to that second map that's easier to see.
http://paulmirocha.com/projects/soutwestern-deserts/#.U1Gp1cJOW70 | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | jbhoot - 2014-04-18 5:33 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-18 5:22 PM
TXBO - 2014-04-18 4:15 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-18 5:11 PM TXBO - 2014-04-18 4:58 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-18 4:44 PM This is north east of LV about 80 miles...go to or through there several times a year. It is considered the Mojave desert by locals. Either way there's no sagebrush..and plenty of mesquite, they don't grow like they do in Texas...of course, nothing does. Lol! I just did a search EVERY map says it part of the Mohave. Look buckwheat I am Not a woman. And Look it up yourself. You are not even close on this one.
OK I know I am getting old BUT the last time I checked I was still a man and everything still works LOL
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas |
Per the second illustration/map, http://paulmirocha.com/projects/soutwestern-deserts/#.U1G6oekU9qV the Bunkerville Area is borderline or go both ways! | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
|
They're just picking on me, FH, cause I'm a tree-huggin' progressive. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-18 7:01 PM
They're just picking on me, FH, cause I'm a tree-huggin' progressive.
Literally LMAO
Yeah right!
heheeheheheehehehh | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | foundation horse - 2014-04-18 7:10 PM
TXBO - 2014-04-18 7:01 PM
They're just picking on me, FH, cause I'm a tree-huggin' progressive.
Literally LMAO
Yeah right!
heheeheheheehehehh
Now it is my turn for a laugh. Tears rolling from laughter! | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-18 7:01 PM
They're just picking on me, FH, cause I'm a tree-huggin' progressive.
You are about as much a Tree Hugging Progressive as I am The Man in The Moon! LMAO Still laughing!
Edited by foundation horse 2014-04-18 7:14 PM
| |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | foundation horse - 2014-04-18 7:13 PM
TXBO - 2014-04-18 7:01 PM
They're just picking on me, FH, cause I'm a tree-huggin' progressive.
You are about as much a Tree Hugging Progressive as I am The Man in The Moon! LMAO Still laughing!
You need glasses... He's got a tree right there in his hand!! | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | bscanchaser - 2014-04-18 4:32 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 3:47 PM smiley - 2014-04-18 2:30 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-18 12:46 PM So this to kind of a question for those who are big on the States taking control back over the lands that the Fed’s run. I know several other Western states have looked into this possibility- my question to you is what makes you certain that Nevada is wanting to move in that direction? I have attended my County Commissioner meeting regarding AB 221 and the impacts it would have to the State and Counties. From my prospective of these meetings, it doesn’t seem likely to go forward.
The County Commissioners indicated that the State would push down majority of the management responsibilities to the County levels if they pursue taking over the land. Our County is pretty well off financially but had major concerns about the overall costs of implementation, management and lack of personnel and equipment that would be necessary to move forward without change in use. They said that a large portion of the land that the State takes over would need to be sold to be private ground to limit the responsibilities that the County would have for management. Public concern seemed to revolve around the large stake holders in our area (meaning the large companies ie. mining, gas, power) that would likely purchase and take over majority of the ex-BLM land; you add this to the Rail Road checker board and this means there is no legal access to most properties- this means no hunting, no fishing, no atv, no horseback trail rides, and no open cattle grazing.
Right now, in my district there are 9,277,772 public land acres divided up into 104 allotments with 95 operators. So basically those 95 operators run an average of 97,660 acres each- if this ground were to be sold at a cheap $100/acre that would be an astounding $9,776,000 per user to maintain what they currently run. Large corporations are going to buy up this land and either close it to public use or charge for use. Seems like a lose-lose for most ranchers/users in my area. I’m guessing this will give smaller people an opportunity to purchase some cheap land but they won’t be able to sustain especially considering the current grazing number say it requires 50 acres support 1 AUM. That $1.35/AUM seems pretty cheap according to my business accounting. I honestly don’t know very many ranchers that have millions lying around to be able to purchase vast ground to protect their grazing rights- and the ranchers at these meeting had the same sentiments.
Exactly, who thinks the states will be selling to ma and pa jones??
Not I, it will be just more land in the hands of a few.
I've heard all the fearful 'what if's' and all I can really say is: every other state had the opportunity to grow their product...why not us? It's past time. Aside from the fears of what the state or private property owners would do...how about the fact that the public is already being locked out of the land?
Also...I know of large tracts of land that's for sale now and has been for many, many years...nobody wanted to buy it 100 yrs ago and they still don't.
What exactly do you mean by “put the land into production” and “grow their product”? If you hadn't posted that you use to live in Clark county I would seriously say you come off as someone who has never been to Nevada or know our economy. This isn’t a green rolling grass state like Kentucky or corn rows for miles like Nebraska where people can make a living off a small portion of ground. Basically our State has 3 economic systems- Ranching, Mining and Tourism. All 3 use BLM public ground at the same time under the multi-use provision. By selling off the land for private use you basically limit what industry is available to that site... My bet is that mining wins since they have the most money.
I do not have fears about what private ownership will do- I know the reality. I have family in other states that do not have public ground. They are limited on what they can do and rely on neighbors/connections to fulfill their needs/wants if they can’t do something on their own property-not the case here. So I’m looking off my property onto BLM land right now and this is what I see- there are cows grazing the hill behind my house, an open pit mine hauling material, kids that ride their 4-wheelers up the canyon, a family that taking their kids to fish the creek and 3 people up riding horses up the canyon- all simultaneously - If this becomes private owned, none of this would be occurring. Do you use public land for anything? A large portion of the people in our area use it every day and see the value of keeping it public whether it’s for recreational use or business use and are against the State taking over ownership knowing there is a possibility the changes could affect their everyday activities. The fact that someone OWNS large tracts of land they can’t sell doesn’t mean much to me- the fact that this same land is private owned and not being USED for anything speaks volumes. This is basically where we will be if all Public land goes private- a bunch of bare ground that has been made useless to everyone.
You mention being locked out of public land- I have NEVER seen this under normal circumstances; during fires and round-ups of illegal grazers-yes, to protect people from getting into a place and not being able to get out, but not ever beyond these circumstances.
You have mistaken me for someone else as I've never lived in Nv...I live in Utah. San Juan County, southeast corner...we have 6 national 'protected areas'& various other parks...Canyonlands Park, Glen Canyon (Lake Powell, Hovenweep, Natural Bridges, Rainbow Bridge, Manti-LaSal Forest...Valley of the Gods, Goosenecks State Park, Edge of the Cedars...oh yeah...Monument Valley...then there's Cedar Mesa (and Grand Gulch Primitive Area), White Canyon, Dark Canyon and the Abajo Mountains...and much more. Most of these 'areas' were open to travel...keep in mind that it's limited at best even 'open' as it's very rough & rocky terrain...there have been access roads & trails throughout as there used to be many uranium mines in the county and oil in some parts. The mountains we used to have access to for camping, hiking, horeback riding & hunting are now available by permit only...some places are a 2 year wait...that includes the river rafting (we own 2 miles of riverfront property and are not 'allowed' to raft it without a permit that takes 2-4 yrs to obtain). Cedar Mesa...what a wonderful place it used to be! We'd go up and camp, ride, gather wood and pinon nuts...now it's a hiking area only & parts of it you must have a permit for horses (they must wear a diaper!), the entire mesa is 'bugged' with cameras & noise activated devices that alarm the BLM that you're there...last year a Navajo family were gathering pinon nuts & a BLM ranger made them dump them on the ground, he impounded their vehicle & charged them. (Using his 'discretion'). This is the new norm.
Do we use public land for anything? Not so much anymore...
I hope that explains a bit more as I have no idea what different areas are dealing with...we're a 'hotspot' and a target for even more Wilderness. Something we're fighting & I won't apologize for my attitude about an out of control gov't that is two-faced.
We're either FOR big government or we're AGAINST it...can't have it both ways.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:03 PM ...
We're either FOR big government or we're AGAINST it...can't have it both ways.
I gotcha..... So even though I lost a good friend in the Oklahoma City bombing, I need to be in support of Timothy McVeigh? | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-19 8:41 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:03 PM ...
We're either FOR big government or we're AGAINST it...can't have it both ways.
I gotcha..... So even though I lost a good friend in the Oklahoma City bombing, I need to be in support of Timothy McVeigh?
I'm sorry for your loss, but, I certainly hope you're not comparing Bundy & our desire to control the land within our states to McVeigh???
It does help to understand your emotional views and support of 'some' big gov't.
Like I said...we can't have it both ways...we either give the control to the fed or keep it for ourselves as was the intent of our form of gov't. We have other options to replace & improve those agencies...hopefully ones that wouldn't require people to be targets, whether it be IRS agents or cattlemen.
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | You're either FOR big gov't or Against it...we can't have it both ways. And for all the people in states without the public lands issue...if you won't allow US to be on equal footing with YOU, then I suggest you give all your excess private property and parks to the fed, too...then we'll be on equal footing.
http://fox13now.com/2014/04/18/officials-discuss-federal-ownership-of-lands-in-western-states/ | |
| | |
| musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:03 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-18 4:32 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 3:47 PM smiley - 2014-04-18 2:30 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-18 12:46 PM So this to kind of a question for those who are big on the States taking control back over the lands that the Fed’s run. I know several other Western states have looked into this possibility- my question to you is what makes you certain that Nevada is wanting to move in that direction? I have attended my County Commissioner meeting regarding AB 221 and the impacts it would have to the State and Counties. From my prospective of these meetings, it doesn’t seem likely to go forward.
The County Commissioners indicated that the State would push down majority of the management responsibilities to the County levels if they pursue taking over the land. Our County is pretty well off financially but had major concerns about the overall costs of implementation, management and lack of personnel and equipment that would be necessary to move forward without change in use. They said that a large portion of the land that the State takes over would need to be sold to be private ground to limit the responsibilities that the County would have for management. Public concern seemed to revolve around the large stake holders in our area (meaning the large companies ie. mining, gas, power) that would likely purchase and take over majority of the ex-BLM land; you add this to the Rail Road checker board and this means there is no legal access to most properties- this means no hunting, no fishing, no atv, no horseback trail rides, and no open cattle grazing.
Right now, in my district there are 9,277,772 public land acres divided up into 104 allotments with 95 operators. So basically those 95 operators run an average of 97,660 acres each- if this ground were to be sold at a cheap $100/acre that would be an astounding $9,776,000 per user to maintain what they currently run. Large corporations are going to buy up this land and either close it to public use or charge for use. Seems like a lose-lose for most ranchers/users in my area. I’m guessing this will give smaller people an opportunity to purchase some cheap land but they won’t be able to sustain especially considering the current grazing number say it requires 50 acres support 1 AUM. That $1.35/AUM seems pretty cheap according to my business accounting. I honestly don’t know very many ranchers that have millions lying around to be able to purchase vast ground to protect their grazing rights- and the ranchers at these meeting had the same sentiments.
Exactly, who thinks the states will be selling to ma and pa jones??
Not I, it will be just more land in the hands of a few.
I've heard all the fearful 'what if's' and all I can really say is: every other state had the opportunity to grow their product...why not us? It's past time. Aside from the fears of what the state or private property owners would do...how about the fact that the public is already being locked out of the land?
Also...I know of large tracts of land that's for sale now and has been for many, many years...nobody wanted to buy it 100 yrs ago and they still don't.
What exactly do you mean by “put the land into production” and “grow their product”? If you hadn't posted that you use to live in Clark county I would seriously say you come off as someone who has never been to Nevada or know our economy. This isn’t a green rolling grass state like Kentucky or corn rows for miles like Nebraska where people can make a living off a small portion of ground. Basically our State has 3 economic systems- Ranching, Mining and Tourism. All 3 use BLM public ground at the same time under the multi-use provision. By selling off the land for private use you basically limit what industry is available to that site... My bet is that mining wins since they have the most money.
I do not have fears about what private ownership will do- I know the reality. I have family in other states that do not have public ground. They are limited on what they can do and rely on neighbors/connections to fulfill their needs/wants if they can’t do something on their own property-not the case here. So I’m looking off my property onto BLM land right now and this is what I see- there are cows grazing the hill behind my house, an open pit mine hauling material, kids that ride their 4-wheelers up the canyon, a family that taking their kids to fish the creek and 3 people up riding horses up the canyon- all simultaneously - If this becomes private owned, none of this would be occurring. Do you use public land for anything? A large portion of the people in our area use it every day and see the value of keeping it public whether it’s for recreational use or business use and are against the State taking over ownership knowing there is a possibility the changes could affect their everyday activities. The fact that someone OWNS large tracts of land they can’t sell doesn’t mean much to me- the fact that this same land is private owned and not being USED for anything speaks volumes. This is basically where we will be if all Public land goes private- a bunch of bare ground that has been made useless to everyone.
You mention being locked out of public land- I have NEVER seen this under normal circumstances; during fires and round-ups of illegal grazers-yes, to protect people from getting into a place and not being able to get out, but not ever beyond these circumstances.
Do we use public land for anything? Not so much anymore...
I hope that explains a bit more as I have no idea what different areas are dealing with...we're a 'hotspot' and a target for even more Wilderness. Something we're fighting & I won't apologize for my attitude about an out of control gov't that is two-faced.
We're either FOR big government or we're AGAINST it...can't have it both ways.
That's interesting. We do not have any National Parks within this area so we do not have the same experience you have. I would imagine it is managed this way to perserve the features for generations to come. I know the indian caves here recently had some empty minded teenager go and spray paint all over the site. I know in a way it sucks for all of us but if all the sites get destroyed then there wont be anything for our children/grandchildren to have to marvel at in future generations. I would imagine if the State took over then it would still be managed the same.
General BLM ground here is open for use. People collect and sell pine nuts all the time, they issue $5 wood cutting permits and Christmas tree cutting permits. No diapers on horses either. The wilderness areas are accepted and most outdoorsmen and rancher appreciate these areas because they aren't impacted by atv's and motorcycles. Cow are easily gathered without having people interfere with what you are doing.
I'm not a big government person- trust me it p!$$es me off that my horses are better identified, tested and tracked than any person is- that said there has to be some regulation... If people would follow the law and be considerate of things that are theirs then we wouldn't have all the regulations we have. They were all made for a reason-mostly ignorant people that have no respect for things that aren't theirs.
Edited by bscanchaser 2014-04-19 10:27 AM
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | bscanchaser - 2014-04-19 9:24 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:03 PM
What exactly do you mean by “put the land into production” and “grow their product”? If you hadn't posted that you use to live in Clark county I would seriously say you come off as someone who has never been to Nevada or know our economy. This isn’t a green rolling grass state like Kentucky or corn rows for miles like Nebraska where people can make a living off a small portion of ground. Basically our State has 3 economic systems- Ranching, Mining and Tourism. All 3 use BLM public ground at the same time under the multi-use provision. By selling off the land for private use you basically limit what industry is available to that site... My bet is that mining wins since they have the most money.
I do not have fears about what private ownership will do- I know the reality. I have family in other states that do not have public ground. They are limited on what they can do and rely on neighbors/connections to fulfill their needs/wants if they can’t do something on their own property-not the case here. So I’m looking off my property onto BLM land right now and this is what I see- there are cows grazing the hill behind my house, an open pit mine hauling material, kids that ride their 4-wheelers up the canyon, a family that taking their kids to fish the creek and 3 people up riding horses up the canyon- all simultaneously - If this becomes private owned, none of this would be occurring. Do you use public land for anything? A large portion of the people in our area use it every day and see the value of keeping it public whether it’s for recreational use or business use and are against the State taking over ownership knowing there is a possibility the changes could affect their everyday activities. The fact that someone OWNS large tracts of land they can’t sell doesn’t mean much to me- the fact that this same land is private owned and not being USED for anything speaks volumes. This is basically where we will be if all Public land goes private- a bunch of bare ground that has been made useless to everyone.
You mention being locked out of public land- I have NEVER seen this under normal circumstances; during fires and round-ups of illegal grazers-yes, to protect people from getting into a place and not being able to get out, but not ever beyond these circumstances.
Do we use public land for anything? Not so much anymore...
I hope that explains a bit more as I have no idea what different areas are dealing with...we're a 'hotspot' and a target for even more Wilderness. Something we're fighting & I won't apologize for my attitude about an out of control gov't that is two-faced.
We're either FOR big government or we're AGAINST it...can't have it both ways.
General BLM ground here is open for use. People collect and sell pine nuts all the time, they issue $5 wood cutting permits and Christmas tree cutting permits. No diapers on horses either. The wilderness areas are accepted and most outdoorsmen and rancher appreciate these areas because they aren't impacted by atv's and motorcycles. Cow are easily gathered without having people interfere with what you are doing.
I'm not a big government person- trust me it p!$$es me off that my horses are better identified, tested and tracked than any person is- that said there has to be some regulation... If people would follow the law and be considerate of things that are theirs then we wouldn't have all the regulations we have. They were all made for a reason-mostly ignorant people that have no respect for things that aren't theirs.
The big non-profits (Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy...et al) are the ones who create all this unfounded 'fear'...they have a lot of $$$ 'invested' from donors & when you think about it you realize that many of their donors also donate 'time' and hard work, while the 'executives' draw huge profits...some profits must be invested in self-preservation, expansion and/or plans. Hence, the constant land grab & don't forget the many 'connections' these people have.
This is a tough battle.
We used to enjoy the same freedoms as you...we saw this coming & it's not a new fight. I think the first meeting I attended here was in 1991...we were lied to then and continue to be.
Anyhow...nobody here intends to lose our public land, we simply want to have local control of it as we currently have no voice...they close roads & trails without public input.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-19 10:01 AM
TXBO - 2014-04-19 8:41 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:03 PM ...
We're either FOR big government or we're AGAINST it...can't have it both ways.
I gotcha..... So even though I lost a good friend in the Oklahoma City bombing, I need to be in support of Timothy McVeigh?
It does help to understand your emotional views and support of 'some' big gov't.
Like I said...we can't have it both ways...we either give the control to the fed or keep it for ourselves as was the intent of our form of gov't. We have other options to replace & improve those agencies...hopefully ones that wouldn't require people to be targets, whether it be IRS agents or cattlemen.
No, no. You're platitudes make you no different that the progressives. Somebody supports a legitimate function granted to the fed so lets call it "big government".
You want selective enforcement. That's as progressive as supporting illegal immigration.
You want to ignore the words of the constitution to support your agenda. That's judicial activism and progressivism at it's very finest. That's the most detrimental threat to our liberty and you're on board for your cause.
Here's Article 4, Section 3, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
Let's break that down, Congress has the authority to:
1) Sell property belonging to the US.
2) To make rules and regulations to property belonging to US
3) Nothing else in the constitution shall prejudice any claim of the US
Here's what it doesn't say: "The US must dispose of all property once a territory becomes a state"
I get it though, you're like Justice Ginsberg and think the Constitution could be better. I'll live with it just like it is. Even when it doesn't give me the results I like.
Owning and regulating property is a constitutionally legitimate function of the federal government......Like it or not. You want to change that....great....do it the right way with a constitutional amendment......otherwise, you're progressive judicial activist and just as big of a threat to my liberty as Barack Obama.
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-19 10:06 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-19 10:01 AM TXBO - 2014-04-19 8:41 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:03 PM ...
We're either FOR big government or we're AGAINST it...can't have it both ways.
I gotcha..... So even though I lost a good friend in the Oklahoma City bombing, I need to be in support of Timothy McVeigh?
It does help to understand your emotional views and support of 'some' big gov't.
Like I said...we can't have it both ways...we either give the control to the fed or keep it for ourselves as was the intent of our form of gov't. We have other options to replace & improve those agencies...hopefully ones that wouldn't require people to be targets, whether it be IRS agents or cattlemen.
No, no. You're platitudes make you no different that the progressives. Somebody supports a legitimate function granted to the fed so lets call it "big government". You want selective enforcement. That's as progressive as supporting illegal immigration. You want to ignore the words of the constitution to support your agenda. That's judicial activism and progressivism at it's very finest. That's the most detrimental threat to our liberty and you're on board for your cause. Here's Article 4, Section 3, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State." Let's break that down, Congress has the authority to: 1 ) Sell property belonging to the US. 2 ) To make rules and regulations to property belonging to US 3 ) Nothing else in the constitution shall prejudice any claim of the US Here's what it doesn't say: "The US must dispose of all property once a territory becomes a state" I get it though, you're like Justice Ginsberg and think the Constitution could be better. I'll live with it just like it is. Even when it doesn't give me the results I like. Owning and regulating property is a constitutionally legitimate function of the federal government......Like it or not. You want to change that....great....do it the right way with a constitutional amendment......otherwise, you're progressive judicial activist and just as big of a threat to my liberty as Barack Obama.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:
17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
and paragraph 1:
Section 3
1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
This was how the 'regional districts' were found to be unconstitutional in 1982 (?) although it's still used as a base of information.
When we look closely at the 10th Amendment:
Amendment X (10): Powers retained by the states and the people
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
...we find that the state 'owning' the land is not prohibited by the Constitution...of course, that takes an act of Congress! The real question is if the people of the state are served fairly & equally when compared to other states.
Look...you can call me all the names you want...it doesn't change the fact that many people much smarter than us are fighting for this cause & feel we have the power, jurisdiction & authority to get it done.
I support States Rights.
And what legitimate function are you refering to? I'm a simple person who supports 'elected officials' & small, local gov't that is answerable directly to the people it serves. There is no need to change the Constitution...it's all there!
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO, and anyone else...why are you opposed to the States having control of the land within their borders?
Is Texas so bad? Would you prefer it be under the fed?
Really curious...I've heard the arguments on here & so far I'm not convinced...maybe becasue I live here & see the vast amount of land that will never be habitable or usable for mineral extraction etc...I don't see the problem & don't see where the fed is protecting it so well, either.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-19 12:17 PM TXBO, and anyone else...why are you opposed to the States having control of the land within their borders?
Is Texas so bad? Would you prefer it be under the fed?
Really curious...I've heard the arguments on here & so far I'm not convinced...maybe becasue I live here & see the vast amount of land that will never be habitable or usable for mineral extraction etc...I don't see the problem & don't see where the fed is protecting it so well, either.
I'm not at all opposed to state's controlling public land. In most cases, I would prefer it.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-19 11:51 AM
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:
17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
and paragraph 1:
Section 3
1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
This was how the 'regional districts' were found to be unconstitutional in 1982 (?) although it's still used as a base of information.
When we look closely at the 10th Amendment:
Amendment X (10): Powers retained by the states and the people
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
...we find that the state 'owning' the land is not prohibited by the Constitution...of course, that takes an act of Congress! The real question is if the people of the state are served fairly & equally when compared to other states.
Look...you can call me all the names you want...it doesn't change the fact that many people much smarter than us are fighting for this cause & feel we have the power, jurisdiction & authority to get it done.
I support States Rights.
And what legitimate function are you refering to? I'm a simple person who supports 'elected officials' & small, local gov't that is answerable directly to the people it serves. There is no need to change the Constitution...it's all there!
1) US Constitution Article 1, sec 8, clause 17 Grants fed authority over places purchased from states. Has no bearing, this land was not purchased from the states. And as stated in Article 4, Sec 3, paragragh 2, does not "prejudice any claims of the United States".
2) Section 3 has absolutely no bearing. Don't know where you're going with that.
3) 10th Amendment doesn't come into play because the powers to own and regulate land are explicitly granted to congress in Article 4.
4) In Utah's case, The Enabling Act, 1894 Section 3, paragraph 4, states; " That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof;"
5) Nevada Enabling Act, 1864, Sec 4, Paragraph 4 states: "Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States ..."
Edited by TXBO 2014-04-19 1:36 PM
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| Lunch break thoughts. We spent all morning feeding than replanting trees in a shelter belt that we costshared with the NRCS (you know, the GOVERNMENT). Since planting trees is a fairly mindless task, it leaves a lot of time for thinking. People who I will call real ranchers are in the middle of the busiest time of the year. Calving, farming, feeding, branding, sorting to go to pastures, some A.I.ing already. I don't know one family who is sitting on their a$$ complaining about how abused they are. My mom's favorite quote "Busy Hands are Happy Hands." I watched another "Breaking News" story about the Bundy barbeque and fun time rally last night, and, I hate to be judgemental, but all I saw was a bunch of very overweight people with a sour look on their face, buying up t-shirts from some vender and I couldn't help but think, maybe if they spent less time feeling sorry for themselves and more time doing a little manual labor, maybe they could lose some pounds. While we were out working this morning, there was probably a bunch of the gun guys recovering from the night before, since I'm sure they are not all Mormons.
I just wish some of those news stations would follow real ranch families around and see what we really do, rather than portray us all like those people.
PS: Don't those militia people have jobs? How do they have time to go all over with their guns, and why, if I pointed a gun at a policeman they would kill me, but if they do, they get a pass? | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-19 11:48 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-19 11:51 AM
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:
17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
and paragraph 1:
Section 3
1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
This was how the 'regional districts' were found to be unconstitutional in 1982 (?) although it's still used as a base of information.
When we look closely at the 10th Amendment:
Amendment X (10): Powers retained by the states and the people
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
...we find that the state 'owning' the land is not prohibited by the Constitution...of course, that takes an act of Congress! The real question is if the people of the state are served fairly & equally when compared to other states.
Look...you can call me all the names you want...it doesn't change the fact that many people much smarter than us are fighting for this cause & feel we have the power, jurisdiction & authority to get it done.
I support States Rights.
And what legitimate function are you refering to? I'm a simple person who supports 'elected officials' & small, local gov't that is answerable directly to the people it serves. There is no need to change the Constitution...it's all there!
1) US Constitution Article 1, sec 8, clause 17 Grants fed authority over places purchased from states. Has no bearing, this land was not purchased from the states. And as stated in Article 4, Sec 3, paragragh 2, does not "prejudice any claims of the United States".
2) Section 3 has absolutely no bearing. Don't know where you're going with that.
3) 10th Amendment doesn't come into play because the powers to own and regulate land are explicitly granted to congress in Article 4.
4) In Utah's case, The Enabling Act, 1894 Section 3, paragraph 4, states; " That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof;"
And a few other things, including the complete text of paragraph 4:
AN ACT to enable the People of Utah to form a Constitution and State Government, and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States.
That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States; that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without the said State shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the lands belonging to residents thereof; that no taxes shall be imposed by the State on lands or property therein belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for its use; but nothing herein, or in the ordinance herein provided for, shall preclude the said State from taxing, as other lands are taxed, any lands owned or held by any Indian who has severed his tribal relations and has obtained from the United States or from any person a title thereto by patent or other grant, save and except such lands as have been or may be granted to any Indian or Indians under any act of Congress containing a provision exempting the lands thus granted from taxation; but said ordinance shall provide that all such lands shall be exempt from taxation by said State so long and to such extent as such act of Congress may prescribe.
Third. That the debts and liabilities of said Territory, under authority of the Legislative Assembly thereof, shall be assumed and paid by said State.
Section 4.....And if the Constitution and government of said proposed State are republican in form, and if all the provisions of this act have been complied with in the formation thereof, it shall be the duty of the President of the United States to issue his proclamation announcing the result of said election, and thereupon the proposed State of Utah shall be deemed admitted by Congress into the Union, under and by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the original States, from and after the date of said proclamation.
SEC. 9. That five per centum of the proceeds of the sales of public lands lying within said State, which shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said State into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to the said State, to be used as a permanent fund, the interest of which only shall be expended for the support of the common schools within said State.
SEC. 13. That all land granted in quantity or as indemnity by this act shall be selected, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, from the unappropriated public lands of the United States within the limits of the said State of Utah.
SEC. 15. That the circuit and district courts for the district of Utah and the judges thereof, respectively, shall possess the same powers and jurisdiction and perform the same duties possessed and required to be performed by the other circuit and district courts and judges of the United States, and shall be governed by the same laws and regulations.
SEC. 16. That the marshal, district attorney, and clerks of the circuit and district courts of the said district of Utah, and all other officers and other persons performing duty in the administration of justice therein, shall severally possess the powers and perform the duties lawfully possessed and required to be performed by similar officers in other districts of the United States, and shall, for the services they may perform, receive the same fees and compensation allowed by law to other similar officers and persons performing similar duties.
http://archives.utah.gov/research/exhibits/Statehood/1894text.htm
It's obviously not so simple...otherwise our lawmakers & elected officials wouldn't still be debating it...it's interesting, though!
Section 3...concerns the 'regions' that the fed once created to manage these lands...they overlapped many staes...actually, UT, NV CO, NM AZ...are all part of region 4 (I think...this is off the top of my head, but, I can find the documents some other day!)...it was during the Reagan Adm. that it was desolved because it was found to be unConstitutional. We still have the 'regions' but they no longer have ethe authority & jurisdiction they once were granted.
Anyhow...as always I'm interested in learning & have an open mind...I appreciate what you're doing as these arguments may be brought up in court when we finally have our day! So shoot holes in it!
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-19 2:36 PM And a few other things, including the complete text of paragraph 4:
AN ACT to enable the People of Utah to form a Constitution and State Government, and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States.
That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States; that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without the said State shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the lands belonging to residents thereof; that no taxes shall be imposed by the State on lands or property therein belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for its use; but nothing herein, or in the ordinance herein provided for, shall preclude the said State from taxing, as other lands are taxed, any lands owned or held by any Indian who has severed his tribal relations and has obtained from the United States or from any person a title thereto by patent or other grant, save and except such lands as have been or may be granted to any Indian or Indians under any act of Congress containing a provision exempting the lands thus granted from taxation; but said ordinance shall provide that all such lands shall be exempt from taxation by said State so long and to such extent as such act of Congress may prescribe.
Third. That the debts and liabilities of said Territory, under authority of the Legislative Assembly thereof, shall be assumed and paid by said State.
Section 4.....And if the Constitution and government of said proposed State are republican in form, and if all the provisions of this act have been complied with in the formation thereof, it shall be the duty of the President of the United States to issue his proclamation announcing the result of said election, and thereupon the proposed State of Utah shall be deemed admitted by Congress into the Union, under and by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the original States, from and after the date of said proclamation.
SEC. 9. That five per centum of the proceeds of the sales of public lands lying within said State, which shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said State into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to the said State, to be used as a permanent fund, the interest of which only shall be expended for the support of the common schools within said State.
SEC. 13. That all land granted in quantity or as indemnity by this act shall be selected, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, from the unappropriated public lands of the United States within the limits of the said State of Utah.
SEC. 15. That the circuit and district courts for the district of Utah and the judges thereof, respectively, shall possess the same powers and jurisdiction and perform the same duties possessed and required to be performed by the other circuit and district courts and judges of the United States, and shall be governed by the same laws and regulations.
SEC. 16. That the marshal, district attorney, and clerks of the circuit and district courts of the said district of Utah, and all other officers and other persons performing duty in the administration of justice therein, shall severally possess the powers and perform the duties lawfully possessed and required to be performed by similar officers in other districts of the United States, and shall, for the services they may perform, receive the same fees and compensation allowed by law to other similar officers and persons performing similar duties.
http://archives.utah.gov/research/exhibits/Statehood/1894text.htm
It's obviously not so simple...otherwise our lawmakers & elected officials wouldn't still be debating it...it's interesting, though!
Section 3...concerns the 'regions' that the fed once created to manage these lands...they overlapped many staes...actually, UT, NV CO, NM AZ...are all part of region 4 (I think...this is off the top of my head, but, I can find the documents some other day!)...it was during the Reagan Adm. that it was desolved because it was found to be unConstitutional. We still have the 'regions' but they no longer have ethe authority & jurisdiction they once were granted.
Anyhow...as always I'm interested in learning & have an open mind...I appreciate what you're doing as these arguments may be brought up in court when we finally have our day! So shoot holes in it!
Truly Musik, I wish I could help but I don't see a good argument here at all. Maybe somebody more intelligent than me will.
1) Equal footing. This act is saying that ratification by the state is acepting these terms as equal footing.
2) Sec 3 does not require the US to extinguish title. Furthermore the courts have held that a comma will deliniate two separate but related independent clauses. In this case, a semicolon is used between the first three clauses, making them both main, independent but related. Scalia discusses that in US vs Heller for one example. With those clauses of section 3 being main and independent, the disclaiming of right and title by the state is not subject to the time in which the US disposes of it. Additionally, be prepared for the argument that the extinguishing clause only pertains to the preceeding clause pertaining to indian land.
3) SEC 15 Your court do possess the same powers and jurisdiction as other judges of the US. Completely irelevant to ownership dispute.
4) SEC 16 Same as above. Jurisdiction and authority have nothing to do with ownership.
5) Additionally Sec 12 states, " The said State of Utah shall not be entitled to any further or other grants of land for any purpose
than as expressly provided in this Act; and the lands granted by this section shall be held, appropriated,
and disposed of exclusively for the purposes herein mentioned, in such manner as the legislature of the
State may provide."
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-19 2:36 PM SEC. 9. That five per centum of the proceeds of the sales of public lands lying within said State, which shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said State into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to the said State, to be used as a permanent fund, the interest of which only shall be expended for the support of the common schools within said State.
....
Anyhow...as always I'm interested in learning & have an open mind...I appreciate what you're doing as these arguments may be brought up in court when we finally have our day! So shoot holes in it!
From my shallow, uneducated veiwpoint, Sec 9 is your best argument but read in whole, not just the portion you have outlined..... but it's a longshot.
The state could argue the presumption of sale to satisfy the 5% interest owed to the state to support the school system. IMO, the forced sales couldn't exceed the needed funds to support the school system. That also doesn't give title to the state.
Overall, I think it's your best but also losing argument.
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-19 3:02 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-19 2:36 PM SEC. 9. That five per centum of the proceeds of the sales of public lands lying within said State, which shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said State into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to the said State, to be used as a permanent fund, the interest of which only shall be expended for the support of the common schools within said State.
....
Anyhow...as always I'm interested in learning & have an open mind...I appreciate what you're doing as these arguments may be brought up in court when we finally have our day! So shoot holes in it!
From my shallow, uneducated veiwpoint, Sec 9 is your best argument but read in whole, not just the portion you have outlined..... but it's a longshot.
The state could argue the presumption of sale to satisfy the 5% interest owed to the state to support the school system. IMO, the forced sales couldn't exceed the needed funds to support the school system. That also doesn't give title to the state.
Overall, I think it's your best but also losing argument.
I do want to say...to Finney...that calving season is different out here...a lot of ppl questioned the bulls being run with the cows, too...calves usually hit the ground here in December, likely sooner in Mesquite area.
I have more quetions and points to ponder...maybe later...tomorrow...Monday...lol.
eta an 'i' to my 'dong' in the 1st sentence...
Edited by musikmaker 2014-04-19 9:36 PM
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comments/865601377/Western-states-to-feds-Turn-over-public-lands.html
SALT LAKE CITY — A group of lawmakers and policymakers from eight Western states joined forces Friday in an all-day summit in Salt Lake City to declare "enough is enough" against the federal government when it comes to management of public lands.
"It is time states in the West came of age," said Idaho House Speaker Scott Bedke, R-Twin Falls. "We are every bit as capable of managing the lands within our boundaries as are the states to our east, those states east of Colorado."
Bedke, in a press conference at the Capitol after the summit, pointed to forest ecosystems degraded by mismanagement that have imperiled watersheds and led to catastrophic wildfires.
"We are burning up each summer in Idaho," he said, while stressing that state-managed lands in Idaho are faring better, despite parity in lightning strikes and drought impacts.
Bedke and representatives from Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Oregon and Utah, are part of a coalition of Western states where federal land ownership has been an enduring complaint they say locks up access to mineral resources, strips them of revenue and shreds their autonomy when it comes to control of their own house.
"There is a distinct difference in the way federal agencies are managing the federal lands today," said Montana Sen. Jennifer Fielder, a co-organizer of the summit.
"They used they to do a good job, but they are hamstrung now with conflicting policies, politicized science and an extreme financial crisis at the national level. It makes it impossible for these federal agencies to manage the lands responsibly any more."
Utah, where 67 percent of the land is in federal land ownership, has led a legislative charge to demand relinquishment of title to certain lands that exclude national parks and wilderness study areas.
The Transfer of Public Lands Act, sponsored by Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan and signed into law by Utah Gov. Gary Herbert in 2012, set the stage for a formal showdown with the government by demanding action under threat of lawsuit.
Other states are exploring similar options in a collaborative effort to not only signal a show of solidarity but craft like-mind solutions to the problem, said Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo.
"The majority of these states have more federal land within their borders than land of their own," she said. "It is about fairness."
She deflected questions about how much such an effort would ultimately cost the states involved, instead pointing to the cost of inaction, on both sides.
"I would counter with what is it costing the government to maintain control and management of the federal lands. What if we don't act? We believe the states can manage the lands better at lower costs and at greater returns for our taxpayers and our children."
Both she and Ivory added that the movement is not "new," with her saying the "great Western state of Illinois," once had 90 percent of its lands in federal ownership.
But the transfer of public lands movement by Utah has come under harsh criticism by environmental groups that claim it is a reckless, costly pursuit that will only cost millions and ultimately put landscapes at risk. Pristine land, they argue, will be auctioned off to the highest bidder with little regard to environmental impacts.
Lockhart said if the groups care about preserving landscapes, they will be at the table in negotiations because of watersheds that are destroyed in fires and wildlife that is decimated in their wake, jeopardizing resources for the American public in general.
"This is bigger than the West," she said. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-19 10:06 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-19 10:01 AM TXBO - 2014-04-19 8:41 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-18 10:03 PM ...
We're either FOR big government or we're AGAINST it...can't have it both ways.
I gotcha..... So even though I lost a good friend in the Oklahoma City bombing, I need to be in support of Timothy McVeigh?
It does help to understand your emotional views and support of 'some' big gov't.
Like I said...we can't have it both ways...we either give the control to the fed or keep it for ourselves as was the intent of our form of gov't. We have other options to replace & improve those agencies...hopefully ones that wouldn't require people to be targets, whether it be IRS agents or cattlemen.
No, no. You're platitudes make you no different that the progressives. Somebody supports a legitimate function granted to the fed so lets call it "big government". You want selective enforcement. That's as progressive as supporting illegal immigration. You want to ignore the words of the constitution to support your agenda. That's judicial activism and progressivism at it's very finest. That's the most detrimental threat to our liberty and you're on board for your cause. Here's Article 4, Section 3, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State." Let's break that down, Congress has the authority to: 1 ) Sell property belonging to the US. 2 ) To make rules and regulations to property belonging to US 3 ) Nothing else in the constitution shall prejudice any claim of the US Here's what it doesn't say: "The US must dispose of all property once a territory becomes a state" I get it though, you're like Justice Ginsberg and think the Constitution could be better. I'll live with it just like it is. Even when it doesn't give me the results I like. Owning and regulating property is a constitutionally legitimate function of the federal government......Like it or not. You want to change that....great....do it the right way with a constitutional amendment......otherwise, you're progressive judicial activist and just as big of a threat to my liberty as Barack Obama.
Since this was posted on a public forum I'm thinking I'll share it with those who are fighting this battle on the front lines & hopefully in the courts at some point...I'm sure they'll be interested to know (or not) that they're considered a threat to Liberty...the very thing they're fighting for! Lol...Geez, we don't need the courts anyhow! Just check out BHW...everything you ever wanted to know is right there in black & white!
Funny stuff!
BTW...the 9th Amendment protects me from being intimidated or belittled by the courts...it protects our Constitution & prevents the courts from interpreting it to say what it does not say.
Note I did not use semi-colons. Lol...
| |
| | |
Famous for Not Complaining
Posts: 8848
Location: Broxton, Ga | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-18 3:04 PM Lunch break thoughts. We spent all morning feeding than replanting trees in a shelter belt that we costshared with the NRCS (you know, the GOVERNMENT). Since planting trees is a fairly mindless task, it leaves a lot of time for thinking. People who I will call real ranchers are in the middle of the busiest time of the year. Calving, farming, feeding, branding, sorting to go to pastures, some A.I.ing already. I don't know one family who is sitting on their a$$ complaining about how abused they are. My mom's favorite quote "Busy Hands are Happy Hands." I watched another "Breaking News" story about the Bundy barbeque and fun time rally last night, and, I hate to be judgemental, but all I saw was a bunch of very overweight people with a sour look on their face, buying up t-shirts from some vender and I couldn't help but think, maybe if they spent less time feeling sorry for themselves and more time doing a little manual labor, maybe they could lose some pounds. While we were out working this morning, there was probably a bunch of the gun guys recovering from the night before, since I'm sure they are not all Mormons. I just wish some of those news stations would follow real ranch families around and see what we really do, rather than portray us all like those people. PS: Don't those militia people have jobs? How do they have time to go all over with their guns, and why, if I pointed a gun at a policeman they would kill me, but if they do, they get a pass?
Really..................
I ask myself about the Occupy Wall Street protesters.............. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | CJE - 2014-04-20 4:14 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-18 3:04 PM Lunch break thoughts. We spent all morning feeding than replanting trees in a shelter belt that we costshared with the NRCS (you know, the GOVERNMENT). Since planting trees is a fairly mindless task, it leaves a lot of time for thinking. People who I will call real ranchers are in the middle of the busiest time of the year. Calving, farming, feeding, branding, sorting to go to pastures, some A.I.ing already. I don't know one family who is sitting on their a$$ complaining about how abused they are. My mom's favorite quote "Busy Hands are Happy Hands." I watched another "Breaking News" story about the Bundy barbeque and fun time rally last night, and, I hate to be judgemental, but all I saw was a bunch of very overweight people with a sour look on their face, buying up t-shirts from some vender and I couldn't help but think, maybe if they spent less time feeling sorry for themselves and more time doing a little manual labor, maybe they could lose some pounds. While we were out working this morning, there was probably a bunch of the gun guys recovering from the night before, since I'm sure they are not all Mormons. I just wish some of those news stations would follow real ranch families around and see what we really do, rather than portray us all like those people. PS: Don't those militia people have jobs? How do they have time to go all over with their guns, and why, if I pointed a gun at a policeman they would kill me, but if they do, they get a pass? Really..................
I ask myself about the Occupy Wall Street protesters..............
Maybe some people manage their time & lives real well...and they don't make excuses when a fellow American needs help...they go divert another Waco/Ruby Ridge. That was a worthwhile effort even if you don't think so.
Edited by musikmaker 2014-04-20 6:58 PM
| |
| | |
Warmblood with Wings
Posts: 27846
Location: Florida.. | These are the cows being picked up after they were ran to death or shot. 
Edited by Bibliafarm 2014-04-20 8:33 PM
| |
| | |
Famous for Not Complaining
Posts: 8848
Location: Broxton, Ga | Sad | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| Bibliafarm - 2014-04-20 8:32 PM
These are the cows being picked up after they were ran to death or shot.
There are a lot more pictures on the site and there are more graves to dig up. There are also several videos posted of the damage they did to the water tanks. NO where in the court orders did it give them authority to do this. | |
| | |
New Info Detective
Posts: 1551
| http://rtfitchauthor.com/2011/07/30/nevada-tribal-leader-81-sues-bl...
Intersting article if interested.
| |
| | |
I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
Location: Online |
I saw this earlier. I just wonder why the Native Americans haven't gone after the BLM before now? Why did he wait this long? | |
| | |
New Info Detective
Posts: 1551
| rodeomom13 - 2014-04-20 9:15 PM I saw this earlier. I just wonder why the Native Americans haven't gone after the BLM before now? Why did he wait this long?
Maybe with all the publicity on the Bundy's, he just thought the time was right now!
Why did it take BLM so long to go after Bundy?
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Turner1 - 2014-04-20 9:44 PM rodeomom13 - 2014-04-20 9:15 PM I saw this earlier. I just wonder why the Native Americans haven't gone after the BLM before now? Why did he wait this long?
Why did it take BLM so long to go after Bundy?
That article is from July 2011...maybe there's an update somewher? On the Navajo Reservation the tribe and chapter houses 'manage' the land... | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-19 11:17 AM TXBO, and anyone else...why are you opposed to the States having control of the land within their borders?
Is Texas so bad? Would you prefer it be under the fed?
Really curious...I've heard the arguments on here & so far I'm not convinced...maybe becasue I live here & see the vast amount of land that will never be habitable or usable for mineral extraction etc...I don't see the problem & don't see where the fed is protecting it so well, either.
If the state wants the land, I encourage them to do it through the system. If they do not, I support that as well.
I have never ever ever said I don't support state's rights - I don't see a need for the Depart. of Education, for example, but it needs to be done the way our laws allow it to be done. Not through Moon-bat Bundy. That's all I was saying. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| jbhoot - 2014-04-20 8:11 PM Bibliafarm - 2014-04-20 8:32 PM These are the cows being picked up after they were ran to death or shot. There are a lot more pictures on the site and there are more graves to dig up. There are also several videos posted of the damage they did to the water tanks. NO where in the court orders did it give them authority to do this.
IF you dont' want your cows run to death, don't leave them on property that isn't yours.
If you don't want your improvements taken down, take them down yourself and save the pieces for recycling on your own land.
If you move out of an apt., NO ONE packs your crap for you and puts it in a storage unit, they get a big roll off dumpster and throw your stuff away.
THIS is why I will never quite believe another "shocking" case again. This is so blown out of proportion and sadly so many are misinformed or simply do not care to think about this any harder than a photo online. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-21 8:54 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-19 11:17 AM TXBO, and anyone else...why are you opposed to the States having control of the land within their borders?
Is Texas so bad? Would you prefer it be under the fed?
Really curious...I've heard the arguments on here & so far I'm not convinced...maybe becasue I live here & see the vast amount of land that will never be habitable or usable for mineral extraction etc...I don't see the problem & don't see where the fed is protecting it so well, either.
If the state wants the land, I encourage them to do it through the system. If they do not, I support that as well.
I have never ever ever said I don't support state's rights - I don't see a need for the Depart. of Education, for example, but it needs to be done the way our laws allow it to be done. Not through Moon-bat Bundy. That's all I was saying.
The whole point of this 'stand' is that it HAS been tried throught the 'system', alas, the system is not one of our peers. In one interview that Bundy gave he expressed it quite well when he said...(to this effect)..."Imagine, that you & I are having a disagreement & rather than duke it out we agree to take it to court...we get there & you take off your shirt & put on the robe"...that sums up why he refused to obey the court orders. We've never had our voice heard out here...never. We've been 'outvoted' by those who are not even affected by it.
It sometimes takes a brave & willing person/family to become the target so the rest can finally achieve the freedom & liberty that is our birthright. Bundy's had no idea that it would come to this...it happened becasue ppl are tired of watching & doing nothing to stop the erosion of our country.
I'm very happy to see these issues nit-picked & discussed...whatever the outcome we have a chance to right some wrongs. Part of our problem in this country is 'case law'...part are agencies that make policy which is not the way it should be done, either.
I'll back anyone who gets this to the forefront in a non-violent manner...if the violence starts, then I'll have to decide who started it & what it means to our freedom & the future of our families.
It seems that the fed was very willing to continue their violence as far as they deemed 'feasable'...which has no end...I have no doubt that they would have killed the Bundy family after killing their cattle. What else did they expect? For the Bundy's to walk away? Lol...sure. They were setting them up as yet another example of 'Don't mess with the Government'.
Truly...when I think of going up against the mob, a cartel or the gov't...whew...the gov't scares me the most.
| |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| smiley - 2014-04-21 9:59 AM
jbhoot - 2014-04-20 8:11 PM Bibliafarm - 2014-04-20 8:32 PM These are the cows being picked up after they were ran to death or shot. There are a lot more pictures on the site and there are more graves to dig up. There are also several videos posted of the damage they did to the water tanks. NO where in the court orders did it give them authority to do this.
If you don't want your improvements taken down, take them down yourself and save the pieces for recycling on your own land.
If you move out of an apt., NO ONE packs your crap for you and puts it in a storage unit, they get a big roll off dumpster and throw your stuff away.
THIS is why I will never quite believe another "shocking" case again. This is so blown out of proportion and sadly so many are misinformed or simply do not care to think about this any harder than a photo online.
So in your mind it ok for the BLM to ignore the court orders but not Bundy. NOWHERE in the court orders was the BLM given the authority to do this. But because YOU think Bundy is a nut job you seem to give the BLM a pass. Anything goes because Bundy was wrong. I call BS to this. I am far more concerned at the over reach and lawless actions of the BLM than the simple crime of trespass by Bundy's cattle.
Edited by jbhoot 2014-04-21 10:55 AM
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| jbhoot - 2014-04-21 9:45 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 9:59 AM jbhoot - 2014-04-20 8:11 PM Bibliafarm - 2014-04-20 8:32 PM These are the cows being picked up after they were ran to death or shot. There are a lot more pictures on the site and there are more graves to dig up. There are also several videos posted of the damage they did to the water tanks. NO where in the court orders did it give them authority to do this.
If you don't want your improvements taken down, take them down yourself and save the pieces for recycling on your own land.
If you move out of an apt., NO ONE packs your crap for you and puts it in a storage unit, they get a big roll off dumpster and throw your stuff away.
THIS is why I will never quite believe another "shocking" case again. This is so blown out of proportion and sadly so many are misinformed or simply do not care to think about this any harder than a photo online. So in your mind it ok for the BLM to ignore the court orders but not Bundy. NOWHERE in the court orders was the BLM given the authority to do this. But because YOU think Bundy is a nut job you seem to give the BLM a pass. Anything goes because Bundy was wrong. I call BS to this. I am far more concerned at the over reach and lawless actions of the BLM than the simple crime of trespass by Bundy's cattle.
That is my point - they don't need a court order to remove animals/contents from their own property.
I don't hate Bundy, I think it's similar to the Hages, it will be talked about and then forgotten and they will survive or they won't. Similar to millions of people who have come before them.
Bundy is simply in the wrong. I'm not saying all cases are in the wrong, I've been reading a few that make me shake my head and wonder, but THIS case is in the wrong. As Music stated, maybe it's still for the best, since people are talking about.
Like I said before, just because you can get my dog out of YOUR chicken house without killing him doesn't mean you don't have the right to kill him, since he's on YOUR property in YOUR chicken house.
Edited by smiley 2014-04-21 11:10 AM
| |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| smiley - 2014-04-21 11:09 AM
jbhoot - 2014-04-21 9:45 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 9:59 AM jbhoot - 2014-04-20 8:11 PM Bibliafarm - 2014-04-20 8:32 PM These are the cows being picked up after they were ran to death or shot. There are a lot more pictures on the site and there are more graves to dig up. There are also several videos posted of the damage they did to the water tanks. NO where in the court orders did it give them authority to do this.
If you don't want your improvements taken down, take them down yourself and save the pieces for recycling on your own land.
If you move out of an apt., NO ONE packs your crap for you and puts it in a storage unit, they get a big roll off dumpster and throw your stuff away.
THIS is why I will never quite believe another "shocking" case again. This is so blown out of proportion and sadly so many are misinformed or simply do not care to think about this any harder than a photo online. So in your mind it ok for the BLM to ignore the court orders but not Bundy. NOWHERE in the court orders was the BLM given the authority to do this. But because YOU think Bundy is a nut job you seem to give the BLM a pass. Anything goes because Bundy was wrong. I call BS to this. I am far more concerned at the over reach and lawless actions of the BLM than the simple crime of trespass by Bundy's cattle.
I don't hate Bundy, I think it's similar to the Hages, it will be talked about and then forgotten and they will survive or they won't. Similar to millions of people who have come before them.
Bundy is simply in the wrong. I'm not saying all cases are in the wrong, I've been reading a few that make me shake my head and wonder, but THIS case is in the wrong. As Music stated, maybe it's still for the best, since people are talking about.
Like I said before, just because you can get my dog out of YOUR chicken house without killing him doesn't mean you don't have the right to kill him, since he's on YOUR property in YOUR chicken house.
Your lack of understanding of the law is astounding. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-21 10:09 AM jbhoot - 2014-04-21 9:45 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 9:59 AM jbhoot - 2014-04-20 8:11 PM Bibliafarm - 2014-04-20 8:32 PM These are the cows being picked up after they were ran to death or shot. There are a lot more pictures on the site and there are more graves to dig up. There are also several videos posted of the damage they did to the water tanks. NO where in the court orders did it give them authority to do this.
If you don't want your improvements taken down, take them down yourself and save the pieces for recycling on your own land.
If you move out of an apt., NO ONE packs your crap for you and puts it in a storage unit, they get a big roll off dumpster and throw your stuff away.
THIS is why I will never quite believe another "shocking" case again. This is so blown out of proportion and sadly so many are misinformed or simply do not care to think about this any harder than a photo online. So in your mind it ok for the BLM to ignore the court orders but not Bundy. NOWHERE in the court orders was the BLM given the authority to do this. But because YOU think Bundy is a nut job you seem to give the BLM a pass. Anything goes because Bundy was wrong. I call BS to this. I am far more concerned at the over reach and lawless actions of the BLM than the simple crime of trespass by Bundy's cattle.
I don't hate Bundy, I think it's similar to the Hages, it will be talked about and then forgotten and they will survive or they won't. Similar to millions of people who have come before them.
Bundy is simply in the wrong. I'm not saying all cases are in the wrong, I've been reading a few that make me shake my head and wonder, but THIS case is in the wrong. As Music stated, maybe it's still for the best, since people are talking about.
Like I said before, just because you can get my dog out of YOUR chicken house without killing him doesn't mean you don't have the right to kill him, since he's on YOUR property in YOUR chicken house.
Although I do understand 'what' you're saying (Smiley), the debate is over more than 'ownership'...who has jurisdiction & authority? Is it the Sheriff or the fed? If it's the Sheriff then Bundy is answerable to that department only...we're not 'subjects' of the federal gov't....or are we? If so then we've already lost.
Concerning our possessions...they, too, would fall under the jurisdiction of the elected Sheriff. Does the fed have the authority to take possession of our personal property?
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-21 11:28 AM Although I do understand 'what' you're saying (Smiley), the debate is over more than 'ownership'...who has jurisdiction & authority? Is it the Sheriff or the fed? If it's the Sheriff then Bundy is answerable to that department only...we're not 'subjects' of the federal gov't....or are we? If so then we've already lost.
Concerning our possessions...they, too, would fall under the jurisdiction of the elected Sheriff. Does the fed have the authority to take possession of our personal property?
Read Article 1, Sec 2 of Constitution of State of Nevada.
It gives authority and jurisdiction to the Federal Government. It is so broad, it will turn your stomach.
| |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 464
| I've read most of these comments, and stopped for a while, then started back. I'm posting a link to a video of a gentleman that had the exact same situation as Mr. Bundy. One difference being he had the resources to fight the legal battle. It's 45 minutes long, and starts out a little boring, so stay with it if you are interested. Evident the "whole" story is told in the media because it's too long, and too confusing.
http://vimeo.com/m/8520897 | |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 464
| Part 2 of the video. Also lengthy. Both are worth watching if someone is interested.
http://vimeo.com/m/9776367 | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| jbhoot - 2014-04-21 10:19 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:09 AM jbhoot - 2014-04-21 9:45 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 9:59 AM jbhoot - 2014-04-20 8:11 PM Bibliafarm - 2014-04-20 8:32 PM These are the cows being picked up after they were ran to death or shot. There are a lot more pictures on the site and there are more graves to dig up. There are also several videos posted of the damage they did to the water tanks. NO where in the court orders did it give them authority to do this.
If you don't want your improvements taken down, take them down yourself and save the pieces for recycling on your own land.
If you move out of an apt., NO ONE packs your crap for you and puts it in a storage unit, they get a big roll off dumpster and throw your stuff away.
THIS is why I will never quite believe another "shocking" case again. This is so blown out of proportion and sadly so many are misinformed or simply do not care to think about this any harder than a photo online. So in your mind it ok for the BLM to ignore the court orders but not Bundy. NOWHERE in the court orders was the BLM given the authority to do this. But because YOU think Bundy is a nut job you seem to give the BLM a pass. Anything goes because Bundy was wrong. I call BS to this. I am far more concerned at the over reach and lawless actions of the BLM than the simple crime of trespass by Bundy's cattle.
I don't hate Bundy, I think it's similar to the Hages, it will be talked about and then forgotten and they will survive or they won't. Similar to millions of people who have come before them.
Bundy is simply in the wrong. I'm not saying all cases are in the wrong, I've been reading a few that make me shake my head and wonder, but THIS case is in the wrong. As Music stated, maybe it's still for the best, since people are talking about.
Like I said before, just because you can get my dog out of YOUR chicken house without killing him doesn't mean you don't have the right to kill him, since he's on YOUR property in YOUR chicken house. Your lack of understanding of the law is astounding.
A court order is just that, a court order. If your property is on mine and I hold a court order, I will simply throw your stuff away. Or load up your cattle as the BLM did.
I've never been served with a court order, thankfully. And I hope to never be served with one.
Edited by smiley 2014-04-21 1:33 PM
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Bigfoot - 2014-04-21 11:52 AM I've read most of these comments, and stopped for a while, then started back. I'm posting a link to a video of a gentleman that had the exact same situation as Mr. Bundy. One difference being he had the resources to fight the legal battle. It's 45 minutes long, and starts out a little boring, so stay with it if you are interested. Evident the "whole" story is told in the media because it's too long, and too confusing. http://vimeo.com/m/8520897
Very interesting. Not through the whole thing yet, but very interesting.
He wrote a book too Storm over Rangelands but used copies are now about $250 bucks............ | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| smiley - 2014-04-21 1:32 PM
jbhoot - 2014-04-21 10:19 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:09 AM jbhoot - 2014-04-21 9:45 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 9:59 AM jbhoot - 2014-04-20 8:11 PM Bibliafarm - 2014-04-20 8:32 PM These are the cows being picked up after they were ran to death or shot. There are a lot more pictures on the site and there are more graves to dig up. There are also several videos posted of the damage they did to the water tanks. NO where in the court orders did it give them authority to do this.
If you don't want your improvements taken down, take them down yourself and save the pieces for recycling on your own land.
If you move out of an apt., NO ONE packs your crap for you and puts it in a storage unit, they get a big roll off dumpster and throw your stuff away.
THIS is why I will never quite believe another "shocking" case again. This is so blown out of proportion and sadly so many are misinformed or simply do not care to think about this any harder than a photo online. So in your mind it ok for the BLM to ignore the court orders but not Bundy. NOWHERE in the court orders was the BLM given the authority to do this. But because YOU think Bundy is a nut job you seem to give the BLM a pass. Anything goes because Bundy was wrong. I call BS to this. I am far more concerned at the over reach and lawless actions of the BLM than the simple crime of trespass by Bundy's cattle.
I don't hate Bundy, I think it's similar to the Hages, it will be talked about and then forgotten and they will survive or they won't. Similar to millions of people who have come before them.
Bundy is simply in the wrong. I'm not saying all cases are in the wrong, I've been reading a few that make me shake my head and wonder, but THIS case is in the wrong. As Music stated, maybe it's still for the best, since people are talking about.
Like I said before, just because you can get my dog out of YOUR chicken house without killing him doesn't mean you don't have the right to kill him, since he's on YOUR property in YOUR chicken house. Your lack of understanding of the law is astounding.
A court order is just that, a court order. If your property is on mine and I hold a court order, I will simply throw your stuff away. Or load up your cattle as the BLM did.
I've never been served with a court order, thankfully. And I hope to never be served with one.
If you did what you say then you would be in violation of the court order and could be held in contempt of court. It would be a lot easier if you just read the court orders. The judge granted the BLM the authority to remove and impound the cattle. That's it. Not sell or destroy his property. Now Bundy has a very good case for damages really dumb on the BLM's part. | |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 464
| smiley - 2014-04-21 1:43 PM
Bigfoot - 2014-04-21 11:52 AM I've read most of these comments, and stopped for a while, then started back. I'm posting a link to a video of a gentleman that had the exact same situation as Mr. Bundy. One difference being he had the resources to fight the legal battle. It's 45 minutes long, and starts out a little boring, so stay with it if you are interested. Evident the "whole" story is told in the media because it's too long, and too confusing. http://vimeo.com/m/8520897
He wrote a book too Storm over Rangelands but used copies are now about $250 bucks............
This gentleman won his day in court, and the feds are yet to pay. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Here's something our county commissioner sent via fb...he's refering to a map of Utah w/our county outlined:
I sent this to the State BLM director a few weeks ago. This boundary means something. It is a geographic and jurisdictional boundary of the County. Land within this boundary is under the jurisdiction of the the State of Utah and of its sub-unit San Juan County. Commissioners are elected by the residents of this County. They are charged with safeguarding the health, safety, welfare, and morals of their constituents. The State and Federal government owns 92% of this county. The Federal government is a proprietor, they do not have the authority to close roads or enforce state law. They are obligated to conform to the County Master Plan in so far as that plan does not violate the law.
Further, the States have the right (and obligation) to frustrate Congress, but congress does not have the right to frustrate the States.
ETA: Phil:
I support Ken Ivory completely. The truth is that the federal government does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to federal real estate. Either they fall the jurisdiction test, or they are forced to acknowledge their obligation to dispose. The more they overstep their jurisdiction the louder will be the demand for disposition.
Edited by musikmaker 2014-04-21 2:25 PM
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| jbhoot - 2014-04-21 1:09 PM smiley - 2014-04-21 1:32 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-21 10:19 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:09 AM jbhoot - 2014-04-21 9:45 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 9:59 AM jbhoot - 2014-04-20 8:11 PM Bibliafarm - 2014-04-20 8:32 PM These are the cows being picked up after they were ran to death or shot. There are a lot more pictures on the site and there are more graves to dig up. There are also several videos posted of the damage they did to the water tanks. NO where in the court orders did it give them authority to do this.
If you don't want your improvements taken down, take them down yourself and save the pieces for recycling on your own land.
If you move out of an apt., NO ONE packs your crap for you and puts it in a storage unit, they get a big roll off dumpster and throw your stuff away.
THIS is why I will never quite believe another "shocking" case again. This is so blown out of proportion and sadly so many are misinformed or simply do not care to think about this any harder than a photo online. So in your mind it ok for the BLM to ignore the court orders but not Bundy. NOWHERE in the court orders was the BLM given the authority to do this. But because YOU think Bundy is a nut job you seem to give the BLM a pass. Anything goes because Bundy was wrong. I call BS to this. I am far more concerned at the over reach and lawless actions of the BLM than the simple crime of trespass by Bundy's cattle.
I don't hate Bundy, I think it's similar to the Hages, it will be talked about and then forgotten and they will survive or they won't. Similar to millions of people who have come before them.
Bundy is simply in the wrong. I'm not saying all cases are in the wrong, I've been reading a few that make me shake my head and wonder, but THIS case is in the wrong. As Music stated, maybe it's still for the best, since people are talking about.
Like I said before, just because you can get my dog out of YOUR chicken house without killing him doesn't mean you don't have the right to kill him, since he's on YOUR property in YOUR chicken house. Your lack of understanding of the law is astounding.
A court order is just that, a court order. If your property is on mine and I hold a court order, I will simply throw your stuff away. Or load up your cattle as the BLM did.
I've never been served with a court order, thankfully. And I hope to never be served with one. If you did what you say then you would be in violation of the court order and could be held in contempt of court. It would be a lot easier if you just read the court orders. The judge granted the BLM the authority to remove and impound the cattle. That's it. Not sell or destroy his property. Now Bundy has a very good case for damages really dumb on the BLM's part.
Those cattle were killed - if they were killed - in the process of doing just what you said. Again, I haven't seen the court orders, if you have a link I'll read it.
I'm not a lawyer by any shot, but I think that the BLM will win in this situation based on the implied ability to get the cattle off the land - the court order also did not state - to my understanding "HOW" they could do it. They did it their way. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Bigfoot - 2014-04-21 1:09 PM smiley - 2014-04-21 1:43 PM Bigfoot - 2014-04-21 11:52 AM I've read most of these comments, and stopped for a while, then started back. I'm posting a link to a video of a gentleman that had the exact same situation as Mr. Bundy. One difference being he had the resources to fight the legal battle. It's 45 minutes long, and starts out a little boring, so stay with it if you are interested. Evident the "whole" story is told in the media because it's too long, and too confusing. http://vimeo.com/m/8520897
He wrote a book too Storm over Rangelands but used copies are now about $250 bucks............ This gentleman won his day in court, and the feds are yet to pay.
Yes, I agree. It's a very interesting video.
And he did it the right way and from what I understand his family still has the ranch they started on, they don't use the public land, correct?
And they've likely gone broke doing so. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Bigfoot - 2014-04-21 12:52 PM
I've read most of these comments, and stopped for a while, then started back. I'm posting a link to a video of a gentleman that had the exact same situation as Mr. Bundy. One difference being he had the resources to fight the legal battle. It's 45 minutes long, and starts out a little boring, so stay with it if you are interested. Evident the "whole" story is told in the media because it's too long, and too confusing.
http://vimeo.com/m/8520897
I have just finished Part I and to say it is interesting would be an Understatement! The Term "Conspiracy" was coined by The Federal Government's Own Lawyer! Water Rights is at the very core of these actions! | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-21 1:25 PM Bigfoot - 2014-04-21 12:52 PM I've read most of these comments, and stopped for a while, then started back. I'm posting a link to a video of a gentleman that had the exact same situation as Mr. Bundy. One difference being he had the resources to fight the legal battle. It's 45 minutes long, and starts out a little boring, so stay with it if you are interested. Evident the "whole" story is told in the media because it's too long, and too confusing. http://vimeo.com/m/8520897 I have just finished Part I and to say it is interesting would be an Understatement! The Term "Conspiracy" was coined by The Federal Government's Own Lawyer! Water Rights is at the very core of these actions!
Yes, he puts his case out there MUCH better than most. Sadly, just like the Indians, I doubt he'll ever get those "rights" back but he should be paid for what he's lost.
I found his book for $35 used.........I'm looking forward to reading it, most - after this blm stuff are $350, no 35............. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-21 2:28 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-21 1:25 PM Bigfoot - 2014-04-21 12:52 PM I've read most of these comments, and stopped for a while, then started back. I'm posting a link to a video of a gentleman that had the exact same situation as Mr. Bundy. One difference being he had the resources to fight the legal battle. It's 45 minutes long, and starts out a little boring, so stay with it if you are interested. Evident the "whole" story is told in the media because it's too long, and too confusing. http://vimeo.com/m/8520897 I have just finished Part I and to say it is interesting would be an Understatement! The Term "Conspiracy" was coined by The Federal Government's Own Lawyer! Water Rights is at the very core of these actions!
I found his book for $35 used.........I'm looking forward to reading it, most - after this blm stuff are $350, no 35.............
Smiley, per Part I, Hage maintains and the CFC agrees that Hage did NOT require a Grazing Permit per the Western Water Doctrine(as close to the original title as I can remember.) And if I am not greatly mistaken, I believe Bundy is claiming the same Claim. Now remember there is a Federal Judge who has granted Positive Legal Standing to The Bundy Family Event. And the precedent cited is this same CLAIM that Wayne Hage successfully argued and won Legal Standing and Monies yet to be paid to the Hage Family in regards to this type of events......................................... | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns". | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 292
Location: Northeast Nebraska | foundation horse - 2014-04-21 3:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I don't believe "green weenies" are pawns at all. They are insane control freaks working together with the commie government. | |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 464
| Sickening, what has been done to these people. Then the insult to the injury is when the news reports, only half the story. Turning public opinion against hard working Americans exercising there rights. I own and operate a cattle operation that has been in my family for well over 200 years. I can see how a man pushed to the brink, and out of money to fight a legal battle would go to extreme measures to protect his heritage/livelihood. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | GoGaited - 2014-04-21 4:51 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-21 3:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I don't believe "green weenies" are pawns at all. They are insane control freaks working together with the commie government.
GoGaited, I would strongly recommend you (and everyone else) watch this approximately two hour videoed interview with Wayne Hage. He is/was an extremely articulate individual who has done quite in-depth research of just 'who', 'what' and 'why' of the opposition Private American Citizens are dealing with. An educational video to say the least. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Bigfoot - 2014-04-21 7:39 PM
Sickening, what has been done to these people. Then the insult to the injury is when the news reports, only half the story. Turning public opinion against hard working Americans exercising there rights. I own and operate a cattle operation that has been in my family for well over 200 years. I can see how a man pushed to the brink, and out of money to fight a legal battle would go to extreme measures to protect his heritage/livelihood.
Agreed. The Media is not neutral anymore. The Media has become Propagandist(s) for The Federal Government.
Edited by foundation horse 2014-04-21 8:28 PM
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| foundation horse - 2014-04-21 8:26 PM Bigfoot - 2014-04-21 7:39 PM Sickening, what has been done to these people. Then the insult to the injury is when the news reports, only half the story. Turning public opinion against hard working Americans exercising there rights. I own and operate a cattle operation that has been in my family for well over 200 years. I can see how a man pushed to the brink, and out of money to fight a legal battle would go to extreme measures to protect his heritage/livelihood. Agreed. The Media is not neutral anymore. The Media has become Propagandist (s ) for The Federal Government.
Interesting. The overwhelming majority of the coverage I've seen has been very sympathetic to Bundy. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-21 9:16 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-21 8:26 PM Bigfoot - 2014-04-21 7:39 PM Sickening, what has been done to these people. Then the insult to the injury is when the news reports, only half the story. Turning public opinion against hard working Americans exercising there rights. I own and operate a cattle operation that has been in my family for well over 200 years. I can see how a man pushed to the brink, and out of money to fight a legal battle would go to extreme measures to protect his heritage/livelihood. Agreed. The Media is not neutral anymore. The Media has become Propagandist (s ) for The Federal Government.
What about the Networks? Truly I have not watched enough TV lately to be knowledgeable enough to guess what the Networks are covering. I know 'Social Media' is supportive of The Bundy's as well as Drudge along w/ Hannity.
But One must remember much of the Info/News that 'Low Information Voters' consume is from Network Media only. And w/ that being said, Fox is the only Network that I am even remotely aware of covering this Constitutional Crisis! | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| foundation horse - 2014-04-21 9:27 PM TXBO - 2014-04-21 9:16 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 8:26 PM Bigfoot - 2014-04-21 7:39 PM Sickening, what has been done to these people. Then the insult to the injury is when the news reports, only half the story. Turning public opinion against hard working Americans exercising there rights. I own and operate a cattle operation that has been in my family for well over 200 years. I can see how a man pushed to the brink, and out of money to fight a legal battle would go to extreme measures to protect his heritage/livelihood. Agreed. The Media is not neutral anymore. The Media has become Propagandist (s ) for The Federal Government. What about the Networks? Truly I have not watched enough TV lately to be knowledgeable enough to guess what the Networks are covering. I know 'Social Media' is supportive of The Bundy's as well as Drudge along w/ Hannity. But One must remember much of the Info/News that 'Low Information Voters' consume is from Network Media only. And w/ that being said, Fox is the only Network that I am even remotely aware of covering this Constitutional Crisis!
You're right, FH, other than Fox, the network media has been largely absent.... Making very little coverage slanted to the gov. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-21 9:40 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-21 9:27 PM TXBO - 2014-04-21 9:16 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 8:26 PM Bigfoot - 2014-04-21 7:39 PM Sickening, what has been done to these people. Then the insult to the injury is when the news reports, only half the story. Turning public opinion against hard working Americans exercising there rights. I own and operate a cattle operation that has been in my family for well over 200 years. I can see how a man pushed to the brink, and out of money to fight a legal battle would go to extreme measures to protect his heritage/livelihood. Agreed. The Media is not neutral anymore. The Media has become Propagandist (s ) for The Federal Government. What about the Networks? Truly I have not watched enough TV lately to be knowledgeable enough to guess what the Networks are covering. I know 'Social Media' is supportive of The Bundy's as well as Drudge along w/ Hannity. But One must remember much of the Info/News that 'Low Information Voters' consume is from Network Media only. And w/ that being said, Fox is the only Network that I am even remotely aware of covering this Constitutional Crisis!
I must reiterate that many 'Low Information Voters' rely upon Network Media. Therefore, since there is little coverage of 'this' per The Network Media, it is not happening in the 'Low Information Voters' realm of reality anyway.............................. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Just saw this:
http://prepperchimp.com/2014/04/20/harry-reids-connection-to-bundy-...
And this author/researcher is no Harry Reid fan at all!
Also, some extremely tough relevant queries are opened in regards to Reid's Personal Claims as well. Quite interesting it is. I have applied the adage of "Follow The Money"............. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Here's some history! I'm thinking it puts the EPA and their grab of 'navigatable waters' in the toilet...as I'm sure many are aware of how they've laid claim to all sources that 'feed' navigatable waterways, including dry washes & rain...what a mess.
I find it interesting that the southern states had nearly identical 'enabling acts' in their Constitutions...also, this is the case that 'nuetered' the regional powers in the 1980's.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/44/212/case.html
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | I started to watch this and cannot..warning...it's the BLM abusing donkey's...it's bad, but, it's proof positive...wtf is wrong with people? Sick sob's.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXXzHj9MbKU&sns=fb
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | And here's a plan for how the EPA plans on 'abusing' their 'power'.
(I have to say, again, that I'm glad we're having this discussion, digging etc...it's our duty to be digilant & keep ourselves & our gov't in check...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze3GB_b7Nuo
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas |
WHY?! | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights.
| |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM
smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights.
FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!! | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:35 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM
smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights.
FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!!
It IS conceivable that the BLM would attempt via The IRS to TAKE that 150 Deeded Acres in lieu of fines................................... | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Happy Dance! For the first time in our lives we're on the brink of real, honest 'progress'! Yes! I said progress! Never before have we had such important dialogue concerning issues that will take us forward to become the Nation we were intended to be.
Senator Mike Lee (via fb)
I hope you will watch this an help me share it. People are starting to pay attention to the problems that come from the federal government's excessive ownership of land in the West. I participated in Ken Ivory's public land summit last week with other elected officials from around the country, and I am encouraged by the attention this issue is receiving.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0o95mkX20w&feature=youtu.be
Edited by musikmaker 2014-04-22 1:39 PM
| |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| foundation horse - 2014-04-22 12:55 PM
jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:35 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM
smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights.
FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!!
It IS conceivable that the BLM would attempt via The IRS to TAKE that 150 Deeded Acres in lieu of fines...................................
They don't need the IRS. The judge already gave a blanket judgment to the BLM. Right now he has granted them the right to remove and impound the cattle. But all they have to do is go in front of the judge to get the right to go after the deeded land. I have wondered from the beginning why the BLM waited so long to go after Bundy. I think it was all about running up the bill so they could justify taking the whole thing. If this was only about the cattle the BLM could have hired 12 wranglers on horse back and taken the cattle off at a couple truck loads at a time and this would have never made the news. They have had more than enough time to do so. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | jbhoot - 2014-04-22 1:44 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-22 12:55 PM
jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:35 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM
smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights.
FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!!
It IS conceivable that the BLM would attempt via The IRS to TAKE that 150 Deeded Acres in lieu of fines...................................
They don't need the IRS. The judge already gave a blanket judgment to the BLM. Right now he has granted them the right to remove and impound the cattle. But all they have to do is go in front of the judge to get the right to go after the deeded land. I have wondered from the beginning why the BLM waited so long to go after Bundy. I think it was all about running up the bill so they could justify taking the whole thing. If this was only about the cattle the BLM could have hired 12 wranglers on horse back and taken the cattle off at a couple truck loads at a time and this would have never made the news. They have had more than enough time to do so.
I suspect the BLM is still lickin' it wounds so to speak after the last face off.
Now seriously, there is absolutely no telling what is going through the Head Shed's minds in regards to this.
Obviously, there is copious amounts of money involved in this venture. The Question is: For Who?
My bet is still on Harry Reid and Company.
Also, others high up in The Federal Government.
Yes, I am a Conspiracy Theorist, however there is so much that is not Theory but Hard Cold Fact! | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
|
Is this the one where the guy can't get the donkey to move?? It's not abuse, come on already. That right there is a donkey getting the better part of a man. IT shows how smart the donkey is and how not smart the man is...............I laughed by the end. That donkey owned that man at the end, he never moved. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-21 1:52 PM smiley - 2014-04-21 2:28 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 1:25 PM Bigfoot - 2014-04-21 12:52 PM I've read most of these comments, and stopped for a while, then started back. I'm posting a link to a video of a gentleman that had the exact same situation as Mr. Bundy. One difference being he had the resources to fight the legal battle. It's 45 minutes long, and starts out a little boring, so stay with it if you are interested. Evident the "whole" story is told in the media because it's too long, and too confusing. http://vimeo.com/m/8520897 I have just finished Part I and to say it is interesting would be an Understatement! The Term "Conspiracy" was coined by The Federal Government's Own Lawyer! Water Rights is at the very core of these actions!
I found his book for $35 used.........I'm looking forward to reading it, most - after this blm stuff are $350, no 35............. Smiley, per Part I, Hage maintains and the CFC agrees that Hage did NOT require a Grazing Permit per the Western Water Doctrine (as close to the original title as I can remember. ) And if I am not greatly mistaken, I believe Bundy is claiming the same Claim. Now remember there is a Federal Judge who has granted Positive Legal Standing to The Bundy Family Event. And the precedent cited is this same CLAIM that Wayne Hage successfully argued and won Legal Standing and Monies yet to be paid to the Hage Family in regards to this type of events.........................................
Edited: wrong comment for wrong post, too many tabs open. The Judge said he agreed that Bundy was similar to Hage and likely had hte same argument, no one granted Bundy anything that I'm aware of, it was an op-ed, not court.
Edited by smiley 2014-04-22 2:55 PM
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-22 2:52 PM
Is this the one where the guy can't get the donkey to move?? It's not abuse, come on already. That right there is a donkey getting the better part of a man. IT shows how smart the donkey is and how not smart the man is...............I laughed by the end. That donkey owned that man at the end, he never moved.
This video also illustrates the use of Flying Helicopter Pilot employing the use of a landing skid to overturn a donkey in motion. Please do not out this description. For I watched the video. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| jbhoot - 2014-04-22 11:35 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!!
Let's be clear - they are NOT trying to take Bundy's deeded ranch. They are simply trying to get his cattle off federal land. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-22 2:53 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-21 1:52 PM smiley - 2014-04-21 2:28 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 1:25 PM Bigfoot - 2014-04-21 12:52 PM I've read most of these comments, and stopped for a while, then started back. I'm posting a link to a video of a gentleman that had the exact same situation as Mr. Bundy. One difference being he had the resources to fight the legal battle. It's 45 minutes long, and starts out a little boring, so stay with it if you are interested. Evident the "whole" story is told in the media because it's too long, and too confusing. http://vimeo.com/m/8520897 I have just finished Part I and to say it is interesting would be an Understatement! The Term "Conspiracy" was coined by The Federal Government's Own Lawyer! Water Rights is at the very core of these actions!
I found his book for $35 used.........I'm looking forward to reading it, most - after this blm stuff are $350, no 35............. Smiley, per Part I, Hage maintains and the CFC agrees that Hage did NOT require a Grazing Permit per the Western Water Doctrine (as close to the original title as I can remember. ) And if I am not greatly mistaken, I believe Bundy is claiming the same Claim. Now remember there is a Federal Judge who has granted Positive Legal Standing to The Bundy Family Event. And the precedent cited is this same CLAIM that Wayne Hage successfully argued and won Legal Standing and Monies yet to be paid to the Hage Family in regards to this type of events.........................................
Edited: wrong comment for wrong post, too many tabs open. The Judge said he agreed that Bundy was similar to Hage and likely had hte same argument, no one granted Bundy anything that I'm aware of, it was an op-ed, not court.
'I' have never argued "Vaccines" with you. To be downright truthful, I have mixed feelings in regards to vaccines. However, your POV is correct. The trail of money leads right back to Big Pharma. I had this 'thought discussion' in my own head last night.
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:44 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 12:55 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:35 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!! It IS conceivable that the BLM would attempt via The IRS to TAKE that 150 Deeded Acres in lieu of fines................................... They don't need the IRS. The judge already gave a blanket judgment to the BLM. Right now he has granted them the right to remove and impound the cattle. But all they have to do is go in front of the judge to get the right to go after the deeded land. I have wondered from the beginning why the BLM waited so long to go after Bundy. I think it was all about running up the bill so they could justify taking the whole thing. If this was only about the cattle the BLM could have hired 12 wranglers on horse back and taken the cattle off at a couple truck loads at a time and this would have never made the news. They have had more than enough time to do so.
This where you lose me, now we're saying the BLM has a blanket document, but earlier people were saying they had no rights to do anything they did other than remove cattle - so which is it?
They waited so long because it was in court and they had already had such bad press on Hage and the other ranchers. See how they are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't? You're seeing black helicopters.
12 wranglers and a few head at a time...............LOL - yeah, the BLM has the time and energy to do it that way. Come on, that is not realistic and it was the Bundy's that called for "people to show up in large numbers" - the BLM would be stupid to not show in numbers as well.
| |
| | |
| http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ancestral-rights-come...
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-22 1:55 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:52 PM
Is this the one where the guy can't get the donkey to move?? It's not abuse, come on already. That right there is a donkey getting the better part of a man. IT shows how smart the donkey is and how not smart the man is...............I laughed by the end. That donkey owned that man at the end, he never moved. This video also illustrates the use of Flying Helicopter Pilot employing the use of a landing skid to overturn a donkey in motion. Please do not out this description. For I watched the video.
And for the record, I disagree with that tactic, but what are the choices??
In the past they would have donkey roasts with the excess donkeys. I think the activists are ridiculous in what they expect, like the new story that the BLM sold cattle to Canada for slaughter.
They were not wild horses, they were left over rodeo stock, then the contractor died and never removed them and no one else did either, so they were rounded up and sold to the highest bidder. Can you imagine if the BLM took in all the unwanted horses in the US and called them "wild." Good night.
IF we were smart as a society, we would be feeding our homeless people horse and donkey steak. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| bscanchaser - 2014-04-22 2:00 PM http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ancestral-rights-come...
Oh heaven's, ask an Indian or two how that is working for them. Ancestral rights................Oh Lord. Come on - really? How about Spanish Land Grants?? Should the Mexicans come back to New Mexico and California and enforce their anscetral rights??
Treaties are sadly broken all the time - at least those are in writing and something to defend in my eyes. Like the guy who is fighting to keep his people's land from being turned into a national park. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-22 1:58 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:53 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 1:52 PM smiley - 2014-04-21 2:28 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 1:25 PM Bigfoot - 2014-04-21 12:52 PM I've read most of these comments, and stopped for a while, then started back. I'm posting a link to a video of a gentleman that had the exact same situation as Mr. Bundy. One difference being he had the resources to fight the legal battle. It's 45 minutes long, and starts out a little boring, so stay with it if you are interested. Evident the "whole" story is told in the media because it's too long, and too confusing. http://vimeo.com/m/8520897 I have just finished Part I and to say it is interesting would be an Understatement! The Term "Conspiracy" was coined by The Federal Government's Own Lawyer! Water Rights is at the very core of these actions!
I found his book for $35 used.........I'm looking forward to reading it, most - after this blm stuff are $350, no 35............. Smiley, per Part I, Hage maintains and the CFC agrees that Hage did NOT require a Grazing Permit per the Western Water Doctrine (as close to the original title as I can remember. ) And if I am not greatly mistaken, I believe Bundy is claiming the same Claim. Now remember there is a Federal Judge who has granted Positive Legal Standing to The Bundy Family Event. And the precedent cited is this same CLAIM that Wayne Hage successfully argued and won Legal Standing and Monies yet to be paid to the Hage Family in regards to this type of events.........................................
Edited: wrong comment for wrong post, too many tabs open. The Judge said he agreed that Bundy was similar to Hage and likely had hte same argument, no one granted Bundy anything that I'm aware of, it was an op-ed, not court. 'I' have never argued "Vaccines" with you. To be downright truthful, I have mixed feelings in regards to vaccines. However, your POV is correct. The trail of money leads right back to Big Pharma. I had this 'thought discussion' in my own head last night.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-22 3:01 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-22 1:55 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:52 PM
Is this the one where the guy can't get the donkey to move?? It's not abuse, come on already. That right there is a donkey getting the better part of a man. IT shows how smart the donkey is and how not smart the man is...............I laughed by the end. That donkey owned that man at the end, he never moved. This video also illustrates the use of Flying Helicopter Pilot employing the use of a landing skid to overturn a donkey in motion. Please do not out this description. For I watched the video.
In the past they would have donkey roasts with the excess donkeys. I think the activists are ridiculous in what they expect, like the new story that the BLM sold cattle to Canada for slaughter.
They were not wild horses, they were left over rodeo stock, then the contractor died and never removed them and no one else did either, so they were rounded up and sold to the highest bidder. Can you imagine if the BLM took in all the unwanted horses in the US and called them "wild." Good night.
IF we were smart as a society, we would be feeding our homeless people horse and donkey steak.
Hage's Part I (or perhaps Pt II) references just how and where the current day HUGE amounts of Wild Horses and Donkeys originated...............The BLM had a major hand in this! They had to justify themselves somehow. The timeline was the early 1970s. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-22 2:55 PM
jbhoot - 2014-04-22 11:35 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!!
Really? This remains to be seen. Remember how important (I.E. Valuable) Water Rights are in the arid desert of Nevada.
Now here is an analogy:
'I' "own" a section (640 acres) of pastureland. I do not "own" the mineral rights to said land. And Oil is discovered under that land.............The mineral rights owners can sell those minerals from under that land, thereby in effect, controlling or 'owning' that land.
The same concept applies to Water Rights and The Bundy Family owns the water rights controlling the land in question. Remember per the Hage Case, if One owns the Water Rights controlling a piece of rangeland, then One does NOT require a Grazing Permit in order to use said range. Or have you watched Pt. II of Hage's Interview yet. And The Federal Court of Claims (CFC) agrees with Hage.
The Bundy's OWN The Water Rights in that area!
| |
| | |
| smiley - 2014-04-22 3:04 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-22 2:00 PM http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ancestral-rights-come...
Oh heaven's, ask an Indian or two how that is working for them. Ancestral rights................Oh Lord. Come on - really? How about Spanish Land Grants?? Should the Mexicans come back to New Mexico and California and enforce their anscetral rights??
Treaties are sadly broken all the time - at least those are in writing and something to defend in my eyes. Like the guy who is fighting to keep his people's land from being turned into a national park.
I liked the part where the Bundy family purchased the ranch in 1948 and didnt start grazing until 1956. They didnt settle this area, instead they purchased it from someone else that had already established the ranch. Makes sense now why they never homesteaded. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:13 PM
smiley - 2014-04-22 2:55 PM
jbhoot - 2014-04-22 11:35 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!!
Really? This remains to be seen. Remember how important (I.E. Valuable ) Water Rights are in the arid desert of Nevada.
Now here is an analogy:
'I' "own" a section (640 acres ) of pastureland. I do not "own" the mineral rights to said land. And Oil is discovered under that land.............The mineral rights owners can sell those minerals from under that land, thereby in effect, controlling or 'owning' that land.
The same concept applies to Water Rights and The Bundy Family owns the water rights controlling the land in question. Remember per the Hage Case, if One owns the Water Rights controlling a piece of rangeland, then One does NOT require a Grazing Permit in order to use said range. Or have you watched Pt. II of Hage's Interview yet. And The Federal Court of Claims (CFC ) agrees with Hage.
The Bundy's OWN The Water Rights in that area!
Well, they CLAIM to own the water rights, that remains to be seen, but I did watch the Hage interviews and I thought they were interesting, well done and very informative and I bought his first edition of his book online as well. Looking forward to reading it. Having said all that, he's not Bundy and Bundy is not him.
NO ONE at this point is trying to take Bundy's land, nor was that even a consideration toward his deeded land by anyone's estimation. Now, if they end up taking it in the future, I would have a hard time feeling sorry for Bundy, who has been illegally grazing for close to 25 years. He racked up those bills, no one did it for him, and I would venture to say that stopping the BLM from doing their court ordered duty, is racking up even more debt for Bundy.
That is not a conspiracy, that is simply a man fighting a battle that he's going to lose. IMO of course. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:05 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 3:01 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 1:55 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:52 PM
Is this the one where the guy can't get the donkey to move?? It's not abuse, come on already. That right there is a donkey getting the better part of a man. IT shows how smart the donkey is and how not smart the man is...............I laughed by the end. That donkey owned that man at the end, he never moved. This video also illustrates the use of Flying Helicopter Pilot employing the use of a landing skid to overturn a donkey in motion. Please do not out this description. For I watched the video.
In the past they would have donkey roasts with the excess donkeys. I think the activists are ridiculous in what they expect, like the new story that the BLM sold cattle to Canada for slaughter.
They were not wild horses, they were left over rodeo stock, then the contractor died and never removed them and no one else did either, so they were rounded up and sold to the highest bidder. Can you imagine if the BLM took in all the unwanted horses in the US and called them "wild." Good night.
IF we were smart as a society, we would be feeding our homeless people horse and donkey steak. Hage's Part I (or perhaps Pt II ) references just how and where the current day HUGE amounts of Wild Horses and Donkeys originated...............The BLM had a major hand in this! They had to justify themselves somehow. The timeline was the early 1970s.
First of all, Hage can also be wrong or misled, having said that, I'm referring to a very recent case in which the BLM is being accused of selling off "wild mustangs" for slaughter to Canada, you can google it but you've likely seen it on your FB wall. I'm not arguing the 70s and wild horses, as that is where the activists come in - they do not want ANY cattle grazing on public land, in their eyes that is ALL for "wild" horses. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| bscanchaser - 2014-04-22 2:15 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 3:04 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-22 2:00 PM http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ancestral-rights-come... Oh heaven's, ask an Indian or two how that is working for them. Ancestral rights................Oh Lord. Come on - really? How about Spanish Land Grants?? Should the Mexicans come back to New Mexico and California and enforce their anscetral rights??
Treaties are sadly broken all the time - at least those are in writing and something to defend in my eyes. Like the guy who is fighting to keep his people's land from being turned into a national park. I liked the part where the Bundy family purchased the ranch in 1948 and didnt start grazing until 1956. They didnt settle this area, instead they purchased it from someone else that had already established the ranch. Makes sense now why they never homesteaded. | |
| | |
| foundation horse - 2014-04-22 3:13 PM
smiley - 2014-04-22 2:55 PM
jbhoot - 2014-04-22 11:35 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!!
Really? This remains to be seen. Remember how important (I.E. Valuable ) Water Rights are in the arid desert of Nevada.
Now here is an analogy:
'I' "own" a section (640 acres ) of pastureland. I do not "own" the mineral rights to said land. And Oil is discovered under that land.............The mineral rights owners can sell those minerals from under that land, thereby in effect, controlling or 'owning' that land.
The same concept applies to Water Rights and The Bundy Family owns the water rights controlling the land in question. Remember per the Hage Case, if One owns the Water Rights controlling a piece of rangeland, then One does NOT require a Grazing Permit in order to use said range. Or have you watched Pt. II of Hage's Interview yet. And The Federal Court of Claims (CFC ) agrees with Hage.
The Bundy's OWN The Water Rights in that area!
The only water rights they own is for their melon farm on the 160 acres that they own. Their water rights for stock water tanks on BLM ground expire 5 years after non-use or expiration of a permit. They technically do not have water rights since they quit paying their permit grazing fees.
Edited by bscanchaser 2014-04-22 3:26 PM
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-22 3:17 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:13 PM
smiley - 2014-04-22 2:55 PM
jbhoot - 2014-04-22 11:35 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!!
Really? This remains to be seen. Remember how important (I.E. Valuable ) Water Rights are in the arid desert of Nevada.
Now here is an analogy:
'I' "own" a section (640 acres ) of pastureland. I do not "own" the mineral rights to said land. And Oil is discovered under that land.............The mineral rights owners can sell those minerals from under that land, thereby in effect, controlling or 'owning' that land.
The same concept applies to Water Rights and The Bundy Family owns the water rights controlling the land in question. Remember per the Hage Case, if One owns the Water Rights controlling a piece of rangeland, then One does NOT require a Grazing Permit in order to use said range. Or have you watched Pt. II of Hage's Interview yet. And The Federal Court of Claims (CFC ) agrees with Hage.
The Bundy's OWN The Water Rights in that area!
Well, they CLAIM to own the water rights, that remains to be seen, but I did watch the Hage interviews and I thought they were interesting, well done and very informative and I bought his first edition of his book online as well. Looking forward to reading it. Having said all that, he's not Bundy and Bundy is not him.
NO ONE at this point is trying to take Bundy's land, nor was that even a consideration toward his deeded land by anyone's estimation. Now, if they end up taking it in the future, I would have a hard time feeling sorry for Bundy, who has been illegally grazing for close to 25 years. He racked up those bills, no one did it for him, and I would venture to say that stopping the BLM from doing their court ordered duty, is racking up even more debt for Bundy.
That is not a conspiracy, that is simply a man fighting a battle that he's going to lose. IMO of course.
I agree about the claim of owning the water rights. Let us say he does for the sake of argument. Then with that said Bundy controls the range land that this water flows on.....................This is in line with that convoluted named Western Water Doctrine that I cannot for the life of me remember its correct name! heheheehhhee
I may be barking up the wrong the tree here, I do not know. But I do know this for certain! The BLM's response was heavy handed and over the top! A simple lien on the sale of the disputed cattle would have sufficed. And again follow the money in this little deally whopper. Just WHO stands to gain the MOST with the control of said Range?
Again, this is bigger than a simple extended trespassing charge. The Culture of The BLM has been documented for decades.
Also Smiley, do You agree with Colorado's Claim of Rainfall Runoff on Private Citizen's Structures and that said Private Citizen's do not own said Rainfall Runoff? This issue falls under The Water Rights Question as well. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-22 2:01 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 1:55 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:52 PM
Is this the one where the guy can't get the donkey to move?? It's not abuse, come on already. That right there is a donkey getting the better part of a man. IT shows how smart the donkey is and how not smart the man is...............I laughed by the end. That donkey owned that man at the end, he never moved. This video also illustrates the use of Flying Helicopter Pilot employing the use of a landing skid to overturn a donkey in motion. Please do not out this description. For I watched the video.
In the past they would have donkey roasts with the excess donkeys. I think the activists are ridiculous in what they expect, like the new story that the BLM sold cattle to Canada for slaughter.
They were not wild horses, they were left over rodeo stock, then the contractor died and never removed them and no one else did either, so they were rounded up and sold to the highest bidder. Can you imagine if the BLM took in all the unwanted horses in the US and called them "wild." Good night.
IF we were smart as a society, we would be feeding our homeless people horse and donkey steak.
I got brave enough to watch it...you may not think it was abuse & the donkey 'won', but, in my world I don't know one person who would treat any animal like that. We eat meat & I agree that horses & donkeys could & should be used to feed people who are willing to eat them, however, I was raised to treat all animals with dignity, to make a clean kill a priority & to give thanks. Abuse is abuse. I cannot say that I saw 1 second of anything to laugh at. What are the choices? I'm sure that just about anyone could come up with something better than that. No small wonder that ppl support the Humane Society w/a-holes like that running things.
Look...I realize that you're not going to change your mind about how you think the Bundy's are wrong & the gov't can do NO wrong...but, to continue to defend them at this level is just...somehow.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-22 3:26 PM
It does, does it not? I agree, I could well wrong in believing Cliven Bundy's Claim. Wouldn't be the first time I have been hoodwinked.
However, The Hages and the Individuals in New Mexico and along The Red River in Texas, I believe are legitimate Stands Against An Overbearing Government! | |
| | |
 Roan Wonder
Location: SW MO | http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/04/22/blm-shame-shocking-animal-auschwitz-left-behind-at-the-bundy-ranch-in-the-nevada/ | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-22 2:59 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:44 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 12:55 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:35 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns". I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig. Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!! It IS conceivable that the BLM would attempt via The IRS to TAKE that 150 Deeded Acres in lieu of fines................................... They don't need the IRS. The judge already gave a blanket judgment to the BLM. Right now he has granted them the right to remove and impound the cattle. But all they have to do is go in front of the judge to get the right to go after the deeded land. I have wondered from the beginning why the BLM waited so long to go after Bundy. I think it was all about running up the bill so they could justify taking the whole thing. If this was only about the cattle the BLM could have hired 12 wranglers on horse back and taken the cattle off at a couple truck loads at a time and this would have never made the news. They have had more than enough time to do so.
They waited so long because it was in court and they had already had such bad press on Hage and the other ranchers. See how they are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't? You're seeing black helicopters.
12 wranglers and a few head at a time...............LOL - yeah, the BLM has the time and energy to do it that way. Come on, that is not realistic and it was the Bundy's that called for "people to show up in large numbers" - the BLM would be stupid to not show in numbers as well.
This 'bad press' as you call it is documented facts! Otherwise why would The Federal Court of Claims (CFC) have cided with The Hage Family referencing the Fourth Amendment and Illegal (or uncompensated) Takings? Ever think of that?
Reference:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Edited by foundation horse 2014-04-22 3:45 PM
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-22 3:19 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:05 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 3:01 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 1:55 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:52 PM
Is this the one where the guy can't get the donkey to move?? It's not abuse, come on already. That right there is a donkey getting the better part of a man. IT shows how smart the donkey is and how not smart the man is...............I laughed by the end. That donkey owned that man at the end, he never moved. This video also illustrates the use of Flying Helicopter Pilot employing the use of a landing skid to overturn a donkey in motion. Please do not out this description. For I watched the video.
In the past they would have donkey roasts with the excess donkeys. I think the activists are ridiculous in what they expect, like the new story that the BLM sold cattle to Canada for slaughter.
They were not wild horses, they were left over rodeo stock, then the contractor died and never removed them and no one else did either, so they were rounded up and sold to the highest bidder. Can you imagine if the BLM took in all the unwanted horses in the US and called them "wild." Good night.
IF we were smart as a society, we would be feeding our homeless people horse and donkey steak. Hage's Part I (or perhaps Pt II ) references just how and where the current day HUGE amounts of Wild Horses and Donkeys originated...............The BLM had a major hand in this! They had to justify themselves somehow. The timeline was the early 1970s.
No, He (Hage) was very clear on the timeline and the location he was referencing in regards to the ranch and BLM in regards to the BLM fining the ranch for range horses. Twas economically cheaper to leave the broodmares on the open range that BLM was fining em for than to pay the fines. I remember this part specifically. Because, I came to the conclusion, The BLM knew EXACTLY what They (BLM) were doing in manipulating the wild horse herds in the early 1970s. Remember, The BLM was Villain responsible for outlawing 'mustanging'. Which was rounding up wild mustangs, taming, breaking and generally domesticating wild mustangs for Human Use. This is all DOCUMENTED History, Smiley.
Remember Gov't Agencies are notorious for creating a problem to justify their own existence................................ | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| foundation horse - 2014-04-22 3:13 PM..... . The Bundy's OWN The Water Rights in that area!
Water rights vary but in many cases, it does not mean you own the water source. It simply means you have the right to use so much of the water for a particular purpose. Since the Bundy's don't seem to have any documentation to those rights, we have no idea what the truth is. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:27 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 3:17 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:13 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:55 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 11:35 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns". I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig. Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!! Really? This remains to be seen. Remember how important (I.E. Valuable ) Water Rights are in the arid desert of Nevada. Now here is an analogy: 'I' "own" a section (640 acres ) of pastureland. I do not "own" the mineral rights to said land. And Oil is discovered under that land.............The mineral rights owners can sell those minerals from under that land, thereby in effect, controlling or 'owning' that land. The same concept applies to Water Rights and The Bundy Family owns the water rights controlling the land in question. Remember per the Hage Case, if One owns the Water Rights controlling a piece of rangeland, then One does NOT require a Grazing Permit in order to use said range. Or have you watched Pt. II of Hage's Interview yet. And The Federal Court of Claims (CFC ) agrees with Hage. The Bundy's OWN The Water Rights in that area! Well, they CLAIM to own the water rights, that remains to be seen, but I did watch the Hage interviews and I thought they were interesting, well done and very informative and I bought his first edition of his book online as well. Looking forward to reading it. Having said all that, he's not Bundy and Bundy is not him. NO ONE at this point is trying to take Bundy's land, nor was that even a consideration toward his deeded land by anyone's estimation. Now, if they end up taking it in the future, I would have a hard time feeling sorry for Bundy, who has been illegally grazing for close to 25 years. He racked up those bills, no one did it for him, and I would venture to say that stopping the BLM from doing their court ordered duty, is racking up even more debt for Bundy. That is not a conspiracy, that is simply a man fighting a battle that he's going to lose. IMO of course. I agree about the claim of owning the water rights. Let us say he does for the sake of argument. Then with that said Bundy controls the range land that this water flows on.....................This is in line with that convoluted named Western Water Doctrine that I cannot for the life of me remember its correct name! heheheehhhee I may be barking up the wrong the tree here, I do not know. But I do know this for certain! The BLM's response was heavy handed and over the top! A simple lien on the sale of the disputed cattle would have sufficed. And again follow the money in this little deally whopper. Just WHO stands to gain the MOST with the control of said Range? Again, this is bigger than a simple extended trespassing charge. The Culture of The BLM has been documented for decades. Also Smiley, do You agree with Colorado's Claim of Rainfall Runoff on Private Citizen's Structures and that said Private Citizen's do not own said Rainfall Runoff? This issue falls under The Water Rights Question as well.
I think that water runoff (rain) is open to all and anything less than that is stupid. I think it's stupid I can' t "make a pond" on my own land. I think the govt., needs a real wake up call and I would agree that hte BLM has had some bad press and done some stupid things - and now O has put in a rock hard liberal in charge of the agency...............that's who "runs" the BLM for lack of a better term - the president. I got a book on the history of hte BLM and it' s quite the soap opera.
Edited by smiley 2014-04-22 3:53 PM
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-22 2:28 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:01 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 1:55 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:52 PM
Is this the one where the guy can't get the donkey to move?? It's not abuse, come on already. That right there is a donkey getting the better part of a man. IT shows how smart the donkey is and how not smart the man is...............I laughed by the end. That donkey owned that man at the end, he never moved. This video also illustrates the use of Flying Helicopter Pilot employing the use of a landing skid to overturn a donkey in motion. Please do not out this description. For I watched the video.
In the past they would have donkey roasts with the excess donkeys. I think the activists are ridiculous in what they expect, like the new story that the BLM sold cattle to Canada for slaughter.
They were not wild horses, they were left over rodeo stock, then the contractor died and never removed them and no one else did either, so they were rounded up and sold to the highest bidder. Can you imagine if the BLM took in all the unwanted horses in the US and called them "wild." Good night.
IF we were smart as a society, we would be feeding our homeless people horse and donkey steak.
Look...I realize that you're not going to change your mind about how you think the Bundy's are wrong & the gov't can do NO wrong...but, to continue to defend them at this level is just...somehow.
Yep, I dang sure laughed about the middle of the middle of the video when I went from being aghast at the man to realizing that donkey owned his azz.
Show me where I said the govt., can do no wrong or stop putting words in my mouth. I'm WELL aware that everything in life has pros and cons. Well aware. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-22 3:50 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-22 3:13 PM..... . The Bundy's OWN The Water Rights in that area!
Water rights vary but in many cases, it does not mean you own the water source. It simply means you have the right to use so much of the water for a particular purpose. Since the Bundy's don't seem to have any documentation to those rights, we have no idea what the truth is.
I can agree with this. There is a major lack of documentation in this scenario.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-22 3:51 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:27 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 3:17 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:13 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:55 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 11:35 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns". I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig. Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!! Really? This remains to be seen. Remember how important (I.E. Valuable ) Water Rights are in the arid desert of Nevada. Now here is an analogy: 'I' "own" a section (640 acres ) of pastureland. I do not "own" the mineral rights to said land. And Oil is discovered under that land.............The mineral rights owners can sell those minerals from under that land, thereby in effect, controlling or 'owning' that land. The same concept applies to Water Rights and The Bundy Family owns the water rights controlling the land in question. Remember per the Hage Case, if One owns the Water Rights controlling a piece of rangeland, then One does NOT require a Grazing Permit in order to use said range. Or have you watched Pt. II of Hage's Interview yet. And The Federal Court of Claims (CFC ) agrees with Hage. The Bundy's OWN The Water Rights in that area! Well, they CLAIM to own the water rights, that remains to be seen, but I did watch the Hage interviews and I thought they were interesting, well done and very informative and I bought his first edition of his book online as well. Looking forward to reading it. Having said all that, he's not Bundy and Bundy is not him. NO ONE at this point is trying to take Bundy's land, nor was that even a consideration toward his deeded land by anyone's estimation. Now, if they end up taking it in the future, I would have a hard time feeling sorry for Bundy, who has been illegally grazing for close to 25 years. He racked up those bills, no one did it for him, and I would venture to say that stopping the BLM from doing their court ordered duty, is racking up even more debt for Bundy. That is not a conspiracy, that is simply a man fighting a battle that he's going to lose. IMO of course. I agree about the claim of owning the water rights. Let us say he does for the sake of argument. Then with that said Bundy controls the range land that this water flows on.....................This is in line with that convoluted named Western Water Doctrine that I cannot for the life of me remember its correct name! heheheehhhee I may be barking up the wrong the tree here, I do not know. But I do know this for certain! The BLM's response was heavy handed and over the top! A simple lien on the sale of the disputed cattle would have sufficed. And again follow the money in this little deally whopper. Just WHO stands to gain the MOST with the control of said Range? Again, this is bigger than a simple extended trespassing charge. The Culture of The BLM has been documented for decades. Also Smiley, do You agree with Colorado's Claim of Rainfall Runoff on Private Citizen's Structures and that said Private Citizen's do not own said Rainfall Runoff? This issue falls under The Water Rights Question as well. I think that water runoff (rain ) is open to all and anything less than that is stupid. I think it's stupid I can' t "make a pond" on my own land. I think the govt., needs a real wake up call and I would agree that hte BLM has had some bad press and done some stupid things - and now O has put in a rock hard liberal in charge of the agency...............that's who "runs" the BLM for lack of a better term - the president. I got a book on the history of hte BLM and it' s quite the soap opera.
So would you disagree that the BLM just might have created the Wild Horse Problem in order to justify their own existence? | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:36 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:59 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:44 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 12:55 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:35 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!! It IS conceivable that the BLM would attempt via The IRS to TAKE that 150 Deeded Acres in lieu of fines................................... They don't need the IRS. The judge already gave a blanket judgment to the BLM. Right now he has granted them the right to remove and impound the cattle. But all they have to do is go in front of the judge to get the right to go after the deeded land. I have wondered from the beginning why the BLM waited so long to go after Bundy. I think it was all about running up the bill so they could justify taking the whole thing. If this was only about the cattle the BLM could have hired 12 wranglers on horse back and taken the cattle off at a couple truck loads at a time and this would have never made the news. They have had more than enough time to do so.
They waited so long because it was in court and they had already had such bad press on Hage and the other ranchers. See how they are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't? You're seeing black helicopters.
12 wranglers and a few head at a time...............LOL - yeah, the BLM has the time and energy to do it that way. Come on, that is not realistic and it was the Bundy's that called for "people to show up in large numbers" - the BLM would be stupid to not show in numbers as well.
Reference:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I did not say the bad press wasn't warranted. But like this case, they are taking alllllllllllllll this flack and now it's coming to light that Bundy MIGHT just be full of bile.
I would not refer to "facts" when some of it is not even close to facts, like the newest "wild horse" BS about Canada and slaughter. People run with a half-azzed story and get FB all worked up and it turns out to be BS. That's all I'm saying.
Again, this book on the history of hte BLM - a Book they would NOT allow to be published today I can say with certainty - talks about the conservatives being in charge of vs. the liberals. | |
| | |
I'll Be Your Huckleberry
Posts: 1488
Location: Arizona |
I just wanted to add my two cents about the BLM being abusive to the wild burros and mustangs. I actually own a BLM mustang, my husband was there when they loaded him up in the truck. These horses were beat the He%* up some with serious wounds and they were sent with the trainers anyway. They used cattle prods, and eared them down to get them in the chutes. (Now I understand these are wild horses and I'm not a weenie as far as "abusive" training goes just an FYI) However, my gelding STILL has issues with his left ear from these incidents. Also, they had so many horses crammed into such small spaces they were constantly kicking, biting, etc. My gelding was skin and bones and clearly wasn't getting enough feed against all the other geldings/studs he was jammed in there with. I've also seen videos of the roundups where their hooves have actually been worn to nubs and had to be euthanized from running from the choppers so long.
I don't know what the solution is to the overpopulation of mustangs and burros. I can just say I'd rather they be humanely euthanized than endure some of the things they have to. I am so grateful to have my boy, best horse I could ever ask for. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-22 3:59 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:36 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:59 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:44 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 12:55 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:35 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!! It IS conceivable that the BLM would attempt via The IRS to TAKE that 150 Deeded Acres in lieu of fines................................... They don't need the IRS. The judge already gave a blanket judgment to the BLM. Right now he has granted them the right to remove and impound the cattle. But all they have to do is go in front of the judge to get the right to go after the deeded land. I have wondered from the beginning why the BLM waited so long to go after Bundy. I think it was all about running up the bill so they could justify taking the whole thing. If this was only about the cattle the BLM could have hired 12 wranglers on horse back and taken the cattle off at a couple truck loads at a time and this would have never made the news. They have had more than enough time to do so.
They waited so long because it was in court and they had already had such bad press on Hage and the other ranchers. See how they are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't? You're seeing black helicopters.
12 wranglers and a few head at a time...............LOL - yeah, the BLM has the time and energy to do it that way. Come on, that is not realistic and it was the Bundy's that called for "people to show up in large numbers" - the BLM would be stupid to not show in numbers as well.
Reference:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I would not refer to "facts" when some of it is not even close to facts, like the newest "wild horse" BS about Canada and slaughter. People run with a half-azzed story and get FB all worked up and it turns out to be BS. That's all I'm saying.
Again, this book on the history of hte BLM - a Book they would NOT allow to be published today I can say with certainty - talks about the conservatives being in charge of vs. the liberals.
Since all of this is documented in Court Records in regards to The Hage Family and The CFC found The Federal Government to be in violation of The Fourth Amendment, what would these incidents and events be called then? Fairy Tales? Inaccurate Memories? Or just perhaps................Historical FACTS maybe? | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:44 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 3:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:05 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 3:01 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 1:55 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:52 PM
Is this the one where the guy can't get the donkey to move?? It's not abuse, come on already. That right there is a donkey getting the better part of a man. IT shows how smart the donkey is and how not smart the man is...............I laughed by the end. That donkey owned that man at the end, he never moved. This video also illustrates the use of Flying Helicopter Pilot employing the use of a landing skid to overturn a donkey in motion. Please do not out this description. For I watched the video.
In the past they would have donkey roasts with the excess donkeys. I think the activists are ridiculous in what they expect, like the new story that the BLM sold cattle to Canada for slaughter.
They were not wild horses, they were left over rodeo stock, then the contractor died and never removed them and no one else did either, so they were rounded up and sold to the highest bidder. Can you imagine if the BLM took in all the unwanted horses in the US and called them "wild." Good night.
IF we were smart as a society, we would be feeding our homeless people horse and donkey steak. Hage's Part I (or perhaps Pt II ) references just how and where the current day HUGE amounts of Wild Horses and Donkeys originated...............The BLM had a major hand in this! They had to justify themselves somehow. The timeline was the early 1970s. No, He (Hage ) was very clear on the timeline and the location he was referencing in regards to the ranch and BLM in regards to the BLM fining the ranch for range horses. Twas economically cheaper to leave the broodmares on the open range that BLM was fining em for than to pay the fines. I remember this part specifically. Because, I came to the conclusion, The BLM knew EXACTLY what They (BLM ) were doing in manipulating the wild horse herds in the early 1970s. Remember, The BLM was Villain responsible for outlawing 'mustanging'. Which was rounding up wild mustangs, taming, breaking and generally domesticating wild mustangs for Human Use. This is all DOCUMENTED History, Smiley. Remember Gov't Agencies are notorious for creating a problem to justify their own existence................................
Possibly, but I also think you give way too much "prior mind wrangling" to the BLM. Who was in charge then? A liberal or a conservative??
There are people within the BLM who don't even agree with everything they do. It's a political game and machine, no doubt. But they also have a job to do and it was NEPA (again with the NEPA) that caused them to do much of what followed. I'm not an expert on the wild horses, but I fail to see how Hage's timeline of "conspiracy" is provable. Facts are just like everything else, they mean different things to different people.
Your idea of a conspiracy and mine are different, but we might both be working with the same "facts" as evidenced by this whole Bundy ordeal. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-22 3:03 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 3:59 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:36 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:59 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:44 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 12:55 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:35 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!! It IS conceivable that the BLM would attempt via The IRS to TAKE that 150 Deeded Acres in lieu of fines................................... They don't need the IRS. The judge already gave a blanket judgment to the BLM. Right now he has granted them the right to remove and impound the cattle. But all they have to do is go in front of the judge to get the right to go after the deeded land. I have wondered from the beginning why the BLM waited so long to go after Bundy. I think it was all about running up the bill so they could justify taking the whole thing. If this was only about the cattle the BLM could have hired 12 wranglers on horse back and taken the cattle off at a couple truck loads at a time and this would have never made the news. They have had more than enough time to do so.
They waited so long because it was in court and they had already had such bad press on Hage and the other ranchers. See how they are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't? You're seeing black helicopters.
12 wranglers and a few head at a time...............LOL - yeah, the BLM has the time and energy to do it that way. Come on, that is not realistic and it was the Bundy's that called for "people to show up in large numbers" - the BLM would be stupid to not show in numbers as well.
Reference:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I would not refer to "facts" when some of it is not even close to facts, like the newest "wild horse" BS about Canada and slaughter. People run with a half-azzed story and get FB all worked up and it turns out to be BS. That's all I'm saying.
Again, this book on the history of hte BLM - a Book they would NOT allow to be published today I can say with certainty - talks about the conservatives being in charge of vs. the liberals. Since all of this is documented in Court Records in regards to The Hage Family and The CFC found The Federal Government to be in violation of The Fourth Amendment, what would these incidents and events be called then? Fairy Tales? Inaccurate Memories? Or just perhaps................Historical FACTS maybe?
LOL - this is funny. Do you know how many people who have COURT RECORDS saying they are guilty have been set free by the freedom folks who fight old cases to prove wrongful convictions?
So wht you are saying is that hte "facts" in the MANY court cases that the Hages lost, weren't facts at all, but now that they won - now they are "facts."
You see how that works - when it's in the favor you want or belieev in, then they are "facts" but when it's not in your favor, then they arne't facts.
Fact is verb for "who you talking to at the time"?
I'm not saying that that stuff didn't happen, I wasn't there, I haven't read hte court docs, I'm pointing out that screaming "facts" at me when I've been aruging that bundy is con artist from the start and now being dismissive because I don't jump on the "fact" wagon is hyocritical. We can literally read hte same "facts" and come away with much different opinions. I'm talking bigger picture, you want me to back track to 1970 and pick out specifics............
| |
| | |
| MsDuchessGoTe - 2014-04-22 4:00 PM
I just wanted to add my two cents about the BLM being abusive to the wild burros and mustangs. I actually own a BLM mustang, my husband was there when they loaded him up in the truck. These horses were beat the He%* up some with serious wounds and they were sent with the trainers anyway. They used cattle prods, and eared them down to get them in the chutes. (Now I understand these are wild horses and I'm not a weenie as far as "abusive" training goes just an FYI ) However, my gelding STILL has issues with his left ear from these incidents. Also, they had so many horses crammed into such small spaces they were constantly kicking, biting, etc. My gelding was skin and bones and clearly wasn't getting enough feed against all the other geldings/studs he was jammed in there with. I've also seen videos of the roundups where their hooves have actually been worn to nubs and had to be euthanized from running from the choppers so long.
I don't know what the solution is to the overpopulation of mustangs and burros. I can just say I'd rather they be humanely euthanized than endure some of the things they have to. I am so grateful to have my boy, best horse I could ever ask for.
Possible solutions to the wild horse populations-
1) let the Native Americans go back to rounding them up, branding them and selling them for slaughter. They typically did 200-300 per round up and didnt cost us tax payers anything for round up or transportation and they managed the herd numbers and made decent money doing it...better yet, open it up to anyone eager enough to round them.
2) do an open hunt season and manage them like the antelope, deer or elk. Horse meat is consumable and I would imagine most people would be 100% fine consuming it if it weren't for the mantra connected to eating horse meat.
3) round them and the illegal Mexicans up and ship them all back to Mexico. Maybe we will get a lower combined shipping rate and it will fix both problems. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-22 4:04 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:44 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 3:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:05 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 3:01 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 1:55 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:52 PM
Is this the one where the guy can't get the donkey to move?? It's not abuse, come on already. That right there is a donkey getting the better part of a man. IT shows how smart the donkey is and how not smart the man is...............I laughed by the end. That donkey owned that man at the end, he never moved. This video also illustrates the use of Flying Helicopter Pilot employing the use of a landing skid to overturn a donkey in motion. Please do not out this description. For I watched the video.
In the past they would have donkey roasts with the excess donkeys. I think the activists are ridiculous in what they expect, like the new story that the BLM sold cattle to Canada for slaughter.
They were not wild horses, they were left over rodeo stock, then the contractor died and never removed them and no one else did either, so they were rounded up and sold to the highest bidder. Can you imagine if the BLM took in all the unwanted horses in the US and called them "wild." Good night.
IF we were smart as a society, we would be feeding our homeless people horse and donkey steak. Hage's Part I (or perhaps Pt II ) references just how and where the current day HUGE amounts of Wild Horses and Donkeys originated...............The BLM had a major hand in this! They had to justify themselves somehow. The timeline was the early 1970s. No, He (Hage ) was very clear on the timeline and the location he was referencing in regards to the ranch and BLM in regards to the BLM fining the ranch for range horses. Twas economically cheaper to leave the broodmares on the open range that BLM was fining em for than to pay the fines. I remember this part specifically. Because, I came to the conclusion, The BLM knew EXACTLY what They (BLM ) were doing in manipulating the wild horse herds in the early 1970s. Remember, The BLM was Villain responsible for outlawing 'mustanging'. Which was rounding up wild mustangs, taming, breaking and generally domesticating wild mustangs for Human Use. This is all DOCUMENTED History, Smiley. Remember Gov't Agencies are notorious for creating a problem to justify their own existence................................
There are people within the BLM who don't even agree with everything they do. It's a political game and machine, no doubt. But they also have a job to do and it was NEPA (again with the NEPA) that caused them to do much of what followed. I'm not an expert on the wild horses, but I fail to see how Hage's timeline of "conspiracy" is provable. Facts are just like everything else, they mean different things to different people.
Your idea of a conspiracy and mine are different, but we might both be working with the same "facts" as evidenced by this whole Bundy ordeal.
I'll be honest. I have a MAJOR MAJOR Distrust of The Federal Government. So, my view can be construed as most likely slanted from that direction.
My Distrust breeds contempt and dislike, and stems from The Fed's DISREGARD for The Constitution.
Many call me a Conspiracy Theorist. However, when Theories are proven, then One cannot be labeled a Conspiracy Theorist.
And I still believe Harry Reid is in this current Nevada Deal up to His Eyeballs.
His Behavioral History indicates I am correct. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| foundation horse - 2014-04-22 3:54 PM TXBO - 2014-04-22 3:50 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 3:13 PM..... . The Bundy's OWN The Water Rights in that area! Water rights vary but in many cases, it does not mean you own the water source. It simply means you have the right to use so much of the water for a particular purpose. Since the Bundy's don't seem to have any documentation to those rights, we have no idea what the truth is. I can agree with this. There is a major lack of documentation in this scenario.
The investigative report that bs posted suggests that the Bundys only have water rights to their deeded land. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:56 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 3:51 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:27 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 3:17 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:13 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:55 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 11:35 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!! Really? This remains to be seen. Remember how important (I.E. Valuable ) Water Rights are in the arid desert of Nevada. Now here is an analogy: 'I' "own" a section (640 acres ) of pastureland. I do not "own" the mineral rights to said land. And Oil is discovered under that land.............The mineral rights owners can sell those minerals from under that land, thereby in effect, controlling or 'owning' that land. The same concept applies to Water Rights and The Bundy Family owns the water rights controlling the land in question. Remember per the Hage Case, if One owns the Water Rights controlling a piece of rangeland, then One does NOT require a Grazing Permit in order to use said range. Or have you watched Pt. II of Hage's Interview yet. And The Federal Court of Claims (CFC ) agrees with Hage. The Bundy's OWN The Water Rights in that area! Well, they CLAIM to own the water rights, that remains to be seen, but I did watch the Hage interviews and I thought they were interesting, well done and very informative and I bought his first edition of his book online as well. Looking forward to reading it. Having said all that, he's not Bundy and Bundy is not him. NO ONE at this point is trying to take Bundy's land, nor was that even a consideration toward his deeded land by anyone's estimation. Now, if they end up taking it in the future, I would have a hard time feeling sorry for Bundy, who has been illegally grazing for close to 25 years. He racked up those bills, no one did it for him, and I would venture to say that stopping the BLM from doing their court ordered duty, is racking up even more debt for Bundy. That is not a conspiracy, that is simply a man fighting a battle that he's going to lose. IMO of course. I agree about the claim of owning the water rights. Let us say he does for the sake of argument. Then with that said Bundy controls the range land that this water flows on.....................This is in line with that convoluted named Western Water Doctrine that I cannot for the life of me remember its correct name! heheheehhhee I may be barking up the wrong the tree here, I do not know. But I do know this for certain! The BLM's response was heavy handed and over the top! A simple lien on the sale of the disputed cattle would have sufficed. And again follow the money in this little deally whopper. Just WHO stands to gain the MOST with the control of said Range? Again, this is bigger than a simple extended trespassing charge. The Culture of The BLM has been documented for decades. Also Smiley, do You agree with Colorado's Claim of Rainfall Runoff on Private Citizen's Structures and that said Private Citizen's do not own said Rainfall Runoff? This issue falls under The Water Rights Question as well.
I think that water runoff (rain ) is open to all and anything less than that is stupid. I think it's stupid I can' t "make a pond" on my own land. I think the govt., needs a real wake up call and I would agree that hte BLM has had some bad press and done some stupid things - and now O has put in a rock hard liberal in charge of the agency...............that's who "runs" the BLM for lack of a better term - the president. I got a book on the history of hte BLM and it' s quite the soap opera.
So would you disagree that the BLM just might have created the Wild Horse Problem in order to justify their own existence?
No, not at all. I think it was likely in response to something else. You have to recall, the BLM takes care of all these things - not just horses:
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Some interesting stuff that I don't fully comprehend...lol. I went to the BLM patent search & found a few things, just don't have time/energy to be thorough, so thought I'd share some of it for those more interested in investigating.
This is from the land belong to a 'Leavitt' that the news article mentioned as the original owner...I don't have any clue that this is the property the Bundy's own...mostly, it looks like the land in that area was disposed of to the stae? Idk...I suck at multi-tasking & better get focused...Haha!
Land Disposals - Patents - Etc
The Land Disposals - Patents - Etc query selects all lands that have been disposed of by the federal government.
The specific selection criteria items that make up this query are as followed:
• NV-LIEU SELECTION
Authority:NV-Lieu Selection [June 16, 1880] (021 Stat. 0287)
BLM Serial Nr:NVNVAA 000199
Metes/Bounds:No
LR-2000 Doc ID:28
Counties:Churchill, Clark, Douglas,
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-22 4:08 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-22 3:03 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 3:59 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:36 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:59 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:44 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 12:55 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:35 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!! It IS conceivable that the BLM would attempt via The IRS to TAKE that 150 Deeded Acres in lieu of fines................................... They don't need the IRS. The judge already gave a blanket judgment to the BLM. Right now he has granted them the right to remove and impound the cattle. But all they have to do is go in front of the judge to get the right to go after the deeded land. I have wondered from the beginning why the BLM waited so long to go after Bundy. I think it was all about running up the bill so they could justify taking the whole thing. If this was only about the cattle the BLM could have hired 12 wranglers on horse back and taken the cattle off at a couple truck loads at a time and this would have never made the news. They have had more than enough time to do so.
They waited so long because it was in court and they had already had such bad press on Hage and the other ranchers. See how they are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't? You're seeing black helicopters.
12 wranglers and a few head at a time...............LOL - yeah, the BLM has the time and energy to do it that way. Come on, that is not realistic and it was the Bundy's that called for "people to show up in large numbers" - the BLM would be stupid to not show in numbers as well.
Reference:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I would not refer to "facts" when some of it is not even close to facts, like the newest "wild horse" BS about Canada and slaughter. People run with a half-azzed story and get FB all worked up and it turns out to be BS. That's all I'm saying.
Again, this book on the history of hte BLM - a Book they would NOT allow to be published today I can say with certainty - talks about the conservatives being in charge of vs. the liberals. Since all of this is documented in Court Records in regards to The Hage Family and The CFC found The Federal Government to be in violation of The Fourth Amendment, what would these incidents and events be called then? Fairy Tales? Inaccurate Memories? Or just perhaps................Historical FACTS maybe?
So wht you are saying is that hte "facts" in the MANY court cases that the Hages lost, weren't facts at all, but now that they won - now they are "facts."
You see how that works - when it's in the favor you want or belieev in, then they are "facts" but when it's not in your favor, then they arne't facts.
Fact is verb for "who you talking to at the time"?
I'm not saying that that stuff didn't happen, I wasn't there, I haven't read hte court docs, I'm pointing out that screaming "facts" at me when I've been aruging that bundy is con artist from the start and now being dismissive because I don't jump on the "fact" wagon is hyocritical. We can literally read hte same "facts" and come away with much different opinions. I'm talking bigger picture, you want me to back track to 1970 and pick out specifics............
I suspect You may be cross referencing the Hage Family and The Bundy Family. I was attempting to reference The Hage Family Court Decision in regards to The CFC and The Fed's Violation of The Fourth Amendment.
Perhaps I am errant in using The Hage Case to support The Bundy Deal. The Hage Family Case has been settled in The Court System (CFC) and The Bundy Case has not been to The CFC or SCOTUS, yet.
The Hage Family Case has set LEGAL PRECEDENT. The Bundy Family is attempting to use The Hage Family Case. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| MsDuchessGoTe - 2014-04-22 3:00 PM I just wanted to add my two cents about the BLM being abusive to the wild burros and mustangs. I actually own a BLM mustang, my husband was there when they loaded him up in the truck. These horses were beat the He%* up some with serious wounds and they were sent with the trainers anyway. They used cattle prods, and eared them down to get them in the chutes. (Now I understand these are wild horses and I'm not a weenie as far as "abusive" training goes just an FYI ) However, my gelding STILL has issues with his left ear from these incidents. Also, they had so many horses crammed into such small spaces they were constantly kicking, biting, etc. My gelding was skin and bones and clearly wasn't getting enough feed against all the other geldings/studs he was jammed in there with. I've also seen videos of the roundups where their hooves have actually been worn to nubs and had to be euthanized from running from the choppers so long. I don't know what the solution is to the overpopulation of mustangs and burros. I can just say I'd rather they be humanely euthanized than endure some of the things they have to. I am so grateful to have my boy, best horse I could ever ask for.
Again, danged if you do, danged if you don't. You have a horse that was dirt cheap and he has some ear issues - big deal. The list of rules for what you can't do to horses is ridiculous. They have a limited amount of time to round up, and adopt out. They have limited funds and people in which to do that, if you don't agree with their methods you should be a whole bunch of volunteers together to do the next one.
Honestly, I think that is EXACTLY what the BLM is missing - they continue to do the same things because they are feasible but they miss the wonderful PR opportunity to let people just like this go get their own dang horse. Go on and get your friends and go GET your new horse.
We'll see how many creative ways volunteers have with rounding up a large number of wild horses, most if not all of which have never interacted with humans before. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-22 2:51 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-22 2:28 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:01 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 1:55 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:52 PM
Is this the one where the guy can't get the donkey to move?? It's not abuse, come on already. That right there is a donkey getting the better part of a man. IT shows how smart the donkey is and how not smart the man is...............I laughed by the end. That donkey owned that man at the end, he never moved. This video also illustrates the use of Flying Helicopter Pilot employing the use of a landing skid to overturn a donkey in motion. Please do not out this description. For I watched the video.
In the past they would have donkey roasts with the excess donkeys. I think the activists are ridiculous in what they expect, like the new story that the BLM sold cattle to Canada for slaughter.
They were not wild horses, they were left over rodeo stock, then the contractor died and never removed them and no one else did either, so they were rounded up and sold to the highest bidder. Can you imagine if the BLM took in all the unwanted horses in the US and called them "wild." Good night.
IF we were smart as a society, we would be feeding our homeless people horse and donkey steak.
Look...I realize that you're not going to change your mind about how you think the Bundy's are wrong & the gov't can do NO wrong...but, to continue to defend the gov't at this level is just...somehow.
I'm sure the man 'won' eventually...You're right, you never said the gov't could do NO wrong...I'll remove those words from your mouth...forgive?! | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-22 3:16 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 4:08 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 3:03 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 3:59 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:36 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:59 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:44 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 12:55 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:35 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!! It IS conceivable that the BLM would attempt via The IRS to TAKE that 150 Deeded Acres in lieu of fines................................... They don't need the IRS. The judge already gave a blanket judgment to the BLM. Right now he has granted them the right to remove and impound the cattle. But all they have to do is go in front of the judge to get the right to go after the deeded land. I have wondered from the beginning why the BLM waited so long to go after Bundy. I think it was all about running up the bill so they could justify taking the whole thing. If this was only about the cattle the BLM could have hired 12 wranglers on horse back and taken the cattle off at a couple truck loads at a time and this would have never made the news. They have had more than enough time to do so.
They waited so long because it was in court and they had already had such bad press on Hage and the other ranchers. See how they are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't? You're seeing black helicopters.
12 wranglers and a few head at a time...............LOL - yeah, the BLM has the time and energy to do it that way. Come on, that is not realistic and it was the Bundy's that called for "people to show up in large numbers" - the BLM would be stupid to not show in numbers as well.
Reference:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I would not refer to "facts" when some of it is not even close to facts, like the newest "wild horse" BS about Canada and slaughter. People run with a half-azzed story and get FB all worked up and it turns out to be BS. That's all I'm saying.
Again, this book on the history of hte BLM - a Book they would NOT allow to be published today I can say with certainty - talks about the conservatives being in charge of vs. the liberals. Since all of this is documented in Court Records in regards to The Hage Family and The CFC found The Federal Government to be in violation of The Fourth Amendment, what would these incidents and events be called then? Fairy Tales? Inaccurate Memories? Or just perhaps................Historical FACTS maybe?
So wht you are saying is that hte "facts" in the MANY court cases that the Hages lost, weren't facts at all, but now that they won - now they are "facts."
You see how that works - when it's in the favor you want or belieev in, then they are "facts" but when it's not in your favor, then they arne't facts.
Fact is verb for "who you talking to at the time"?
I'm not saying that that stuff didn't happen, I wasn't there, I haven't read hte court docs, I'm pointing out that screaming "facts" at me when I've been aruging that bundy is con artist from the start and now being dismissive because I don't jump on the "fact" wagon is hyocritical. We can literally read hte same "facts" and come away with much different opinions. I'm talking bigger picture, you want me to back track to 1970 and pick out specifics............
I suspect You may be cross referencing the Hage Family and The Bundy Family. I was attempting to reference The Hage Family Court Decision in regards to The CFC and The Fed's Violation of The Fourth Amendment. Perhaps I am errant in using The Hage Case to support The Bundy Deal. The Hage Family Case has been settled in The Court System (CFC ) and The Bundy Case has not been to The CFC or SCOTUS, yet. The Hage Family Case has set LEGAL PRECEDENT. The Bundy Family is attempting to use The Hage Family Case.
I think we may both be lost on this one at this point - MY overall point is that the "facts" were presented to multiple courts prior to the Hages "win" and they did not see the "facts" as the last court did.
Facts are nothing but interpretation.
They weren't "facts" in the cases the Hages lost, but now that the Hages' won - they are "facts."
Does that make sense. You can't have it both ways - the first courts said they weren't facts - the later court said they were - you think they are "facts" because you want the Hages to win and so they did and now the first court cases are no longer a "factual" standing toward hte Hages.
This is all very clear in my head - LOLOL | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-22 3:20 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:51 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-22 2:28 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:01 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 1:55 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:52 PM
Is this the one where the guy can't get the donkey to move?? It's not abuse, come on already. That right there is a donkey getting the better part of a man. IT shows how smart the donkey is and how not smart the man is...............I laughed by the end. That donkey owned that man at the end, he never moved. This video also illustrates the use of Flying Helicopter Pilot employing the use of a landing skid to overturn a donkey in motion. Please do not out this description. For I watched the video.
In the past they would have donkey roasts with the excess donkeys. I think the activists are ridiculous in what they expect, like the new story that the BLM sold cattle to Canada for slaughter.
They were not wild horses, they were left over rodeo stock, then the contractor died and never removed them and no one else did either, so they were rounded up and sold to the highest bidder. Can you imagine if the BLM took in all the unwanted horses in the US and called them "wild." Good night.
IF we were smart as a society, we would be feeding our homeless people horse and donkey steak.
Look...I realize that you're not going to change your mind about how you think the Bundy's are wrong & the gov't can do NO wrong...but, to continue to defend the gov't at this level is just...somehow.
Of course. I know the govt., does wrong -- all the dang time -- I also know that small people with 5 ounces of power suck and there are more of them in govt - it seems - than anywhere else.
I'm not a "truster" of the govt., but no one is always wrong. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-22 4:20 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-22 3:16 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 4:08 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 3:03 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 3:59 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:36 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:59 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:44 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 12:55 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:35 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!! It IS conceivable that the BLM would attempt via The IRS to TAKE that 150 Deeded Acres in lieu of fines................................... They don't need the IRS. The judge already gave a blanket judgment to the BLM. Right now he has granted them the right to remove and impound the cattle. But all they have to do is go in front of the judge to get the right to go after the deeded land. I have wondered from the beginning why the BLM waited so long to go after Bundy. I think it was all about running up the bill so they could justify taking the whole thing. If this was only about the cattle the BLM could have hired 12 wranglers on horse back and taken the cattle off at a couple truck loads at a time and this would have never made the news. They have had more than enough time to do so.
They waited so long because it was in court and they had already had such bad press on Hage and the other ranchers. See how they are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't? You're seeing black helicopters.
12 wranglers and a few head at a time...............LOL - yeah, the BLM has the time and energy to do it that way. Come on, that is not realistic and it was the Bundy's that called for "people to show up in large numbers" - the BLM would be stupid to not show in numbers as well.
Reference:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I would not refer to "facts" when some of it is not even close to facts, like the newest "wild horse" BS about Canada and slaughter. People run with a half-azzed story and get FB all worked up and it turns out to be BS. That's all I'm saying.
Again, this book on the history of hte BLM - a Book they would NOT allow to be published today I can say with certainty - talks about the conservatives being in charge of vs. the liberals. Since all of this is documented in Court Records in regards to The Hage Family and The CFC found The Federal Government to be in violation of The Fourth Amendment, what would these incidents and events be called then? Fairy Tales? Inaccurate Memories? Or just perhaps................Historical FACTS maybe?
So wht you are saying is that hte "facts" in the MANY court cases that the Hages lost, weren't facts at all, but now that they won - now they are "facts."
You see how that works - when it's in the favor you want or belieev in, then they are "facts" but when it's not in your favor, then they arne't facts.
Fact is verb for "who you talking to at the time"?
I'm not saying that that stuff didn't happen, I wasn't there, I haven't read hte court docs, I'm pointing out that screaming "facts" at me when I've been aruging that bundy is con artist from the start and now being dismissive because I don't jump on the "fact" wagon is hyocritical. We can literally read hte same "facts" and come away with much different opinions. I'm talking bigger picture, you want me to back track to 1970 and pick out specifics............
I suspect You may be cross referencing the Hage Family and The Bundy Family. I was attempting to reference The Hage Family Court Decision in regards to The CFC and The Fed's Violation of The Fourth Amendment. Perhaps I am errant in using The Hage Case to support The Bundy Deal. The Hage Family Case has been settled in The Court System (CFC ) and The Bundy Case has not been to The CFC or SCOTUS, yet. The Hage Family Case has set LEGAL PRECEDENT. The Bundy Family is attempting to use The Hage Family Case.
Facts are nothing but interpretation.
They weren't "facts" in the cases the Hages lost, but now that the Hages' won - they are "facts."
Does that make sense. You can't have it both ways - the first courts said they weren't facts - the later court said they were - you think they are "facts" because you want the Hages to win and so they did and now the first court cases are no longer a "factual" standing toward hte Hages.
This is all very clear in my head - LOLOL
Good for you! heheeheheh
Now where does that leave the idea that The Fed's Violated The Hage's Family Fourth Amendment via the LAST Court Of Claims (CFC) decision? | |
| | |
I'll Be Your Huckleberry
Posts: 1488
Location: Arizona | bscanchaser - 2014-04-22 4:09 PM
MsDuchessGoTe - 2014-04-22 4:00 PM
I just wanted to add my two cents about the BLM being abusive to the wild burros and mustangs. I actually own a BLM mustang, my husband was there when they loaded him up in the truck. These horses were beat the He%* up some with serious wounds and they were sent with the trainers anyway. They used cattle prods, and eared them down to get them in the chutes. (Now I understand these are wild horses and I'm not a weenie as far as "abusive" training goes just an FYI ) However, my gelding STILL has issues with his left ear from these incidents. Also, they had so many horses crammed into such small spaces they were constantly kicking, biting, etc. My gelding was skin and bones and clearly wasn't getting enough feed against all the other geldings/studs he was jammed in there with. I've also seen videos of the roundups where their hooves have actually been worn to nubs and had to be euthanized from running from the choppers so long.
I don't know what the solution is to the overpopulation of mustangs and burros. I can just say I'd rather they be humanely euthanized than endure some of the things they have to. I am so grateful to have my boy, best horse I could ever ask for.
Possible solutions to the wild horse populations-
1 ) let the Native Americans go back to rounding them up, branding them and selling them for slaughter. They typically did 200-300 per round up and didnt cost us tax payers anything for round up or transportation and they managed the herd numbers and made decent money doing it...better yet, open it up to anyone eager enough to round them.
2 ) do an open hunt season and manage them like the antelope, deer or elk. Horse meat is consumable and I would imagine most people would be 100% fine consuming it if it weren't for the mantra connected to eating horse meat.
3 ) round them and the illegal Mexicans up and ship them all back to Mexico. Maybe we will get a lower combined shipping rate and it will fix both problems.
I think these are all plausible solutions. I see no reason why horse meat can't be consumed. Particularly wild horses and burros who aren't given all the injections/de-worming medications most domesticated horses do.
Oh and on solution #3 haha!
Edited by MsDuchessGoTe 2014-04-22 4:33 PM
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-22 3:27 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 4:20 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 3:16 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 4:08 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 3:03 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 3:59 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:36 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:59 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:44 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 12:55 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:35 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!! It IS conceivable that the BLM would attempt via The IRS to TAKE that 150 Deeded Acres in lieu of fines................................... They don't need the IRS. The judge already gave a blanket judgment to the BLM. Right now he has granted them the right to remove and impound the cattle. But all they have to do is go in front of the judge to get the right to go after the deeded land. I have wondered from the beginning why the BLM waited so long to go after Bundy. I think it was all about running up the bill so they could justify taking the whole thing. If this was only about the cattle the BLM could have hired 12 wranglers on horse back and taken the cattle off at a couple truck loads at a time and this would have never made the news. They have had more than enough time to do so.
They waited so long because it was in court and they had already had such bad press on Hage and the other ranchers. See how they are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't? You're seeing black helicopters.
12 wranglers and a few head at a time...............LOL - yeah, the BLM has the time and energy to do it that way. Come on, that is not realistic and it was the Bundy's that called for "people to show up in large numbers" - the BLM would be stupid to not show in numbers as well.
Reference:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I would not refer to "facts" when some of it is not even close to facts, like the newest "wild horse" BS about Canada and slaughter. People run with a half-azzed story and get FB all worked up and it turns out to be BS. That's all I'm saying.
Again, this book on the history of hte BLM - a Book they would NOT allow to be published today I can say with certainty - talks about the conservatives being in charge of vs. the liberals. Since all of this is documented in Court Records in regards to The Hage Family and The CFC found The Federal Government to be in violation of The Fourth Amendment, what would these incidents and events be called then? Fairy Tales? Inaccurate Memories? Or just perhaps................Historical FACTS maybe?
So wht you are saying is that hte "facts" in the MANY court cases that the Hages lost, weren't facts at all, but now that they won - now they are "facts."
You see how that works - when it's in the favor you want or belieev in, then they are "facts" but when it's not in your favor, then they arne't facts.
Fact is verb for "who you talking to at the time"?
I'm not saying that that stuff didn't happen, I wasn't there, I haven't read hte court docs, I'm pointing out that screaming "facts" at me when I've been aruging that bundy is con artist from the start and now being dismissive because I don't jump on the "fact" wagon is hyocritical. We can literally read hte same "facts" and come away with much different opinions. I'm talking bigger picture, you want me to back track to 1970 and pick out specifics............
I suspect You may be cross referencing the Hage Family and The Bundy Family. I was attempting to reference The Hage Family Court Decision in regards to The CFC and The Fed's Violation of The Fourth Amendment. Perhaps I am errant in using The Hage Case to support The Bundy Deal. The Hage Family Case has been settled in The Court System (CFC ) and The Bundy Case has not been to The CFC or SCOTUS, yet. The Hage Family Case has set LEGAL PRECEDENT. The Bundy Family is attempting to use The Hage Family Case.
Facts are nothing but interpretation.
They weren't "facts" in the cases the Hages lost, but now that the Hages' won - they are "facts."
Does that make sense. You can't have it both ways - the first courts said they weren't facts - the later court said they were - you think they are "facts" because you want the Hages to win and so they did and now the first court cases are no longer a "factual" standing toward hte Hages.
This is all very clear in my head - LOLOL Good for you! heheeheheh Now where does that leave the idea that The Fed's Violated The Hage's Family Fourth Amendment via the LAST Court Of Claims (CFC ) decision?
I think the Hages should have already been compensated for their losses based on the last court case! I'm sad that they have not been. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| bscanchaser - 2014-04-22 3:09 PM MsDuchessGoTe - 2014-04-22 4:00 PM I just wanted to add my two cents about the BLM being abusive to the wild burros and mustangs. I actually own a BLM mustang, my husband was there when they loaded him up in the truck. These horses were beat the He%* up some with serious wounds and they were sent with the trainers anyway. They used cattle prods, and eared them down to get them in the chutes. (Now I understand these are wild horses and I'm not a weenie as far as "abusive" training goes just an FYI ) However, my gelding STILL has issues with his left ear from these incidents. Also, they had so many horses crammed into such small spaces they were constantly kicking, biting, etc. My gelding was skin and bones and clearly wasn't getting enough feed against all the other geldings/studs he was jammed in there with. I've also seen videos of the roundups where their hooves have actually been worn to nubs and had to be euthanized from running from the choppers so long. I don't know what the solution is to the overpopulation of mustangs and burros. I can just say I'd rather they be humanely euthanized than endure some of the things they have to. I am so grateful to have my boy, best horse I could ever ask for. Possible solutions to the wild horse populations- 1 ) let the Native Americans go back to rounding them up, branding them and selling them for slaughter. They typically did 200-300 per round up and didnt cost us tax payers anything for round up or transportation and they managed the herd numbers and made decent money doing it...better yet, open it up to anyone eager enough to round them. 2 ) do an open hunt season and manage them like the antelope, deer or elk. Horse meat is consumable and I would imagine most people would be 100% fine consuming it if it weren't for the mantra connected to eating horse meat. 3 ) round them and the illegal Mexicans up and ship them all back to Mexico. Maybe we will get a lower combined shipping rate and it will fix both problems.
Somehow I missed this one - hard to keep up - totally agree. But can you picture the exploding activists if this were true??
I wish common sense was more common. I have a horse activist on my wall and she is beyond helping. They (BLM) is decreasing numbers in Nevada based on drought and forage and she claims they are rounding them up to be "destroyed" - uh, NO, they are not. Adopting them out - at considerable expense - is not "destroyed." | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-22 2:29 PM TXBO - 2014-04-22 3:26 PM It does, does it not? I agree, I could well wrong in believing Cliven Bundy's Claim. Wouldn't be the first time I have been hoodwinked. However, The Hages and the Individuals in New Mexico and along The Red River in Texas, I believe are legitimate Stands Against An Overbearing Government! | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | As much as we all love animals we know that we have to realistic...I think the entire wildhorse program is ridiculous myself. It could be taken care of humanely, though...I know that the old timers didn't abuse the horses, heck, they planned on using them! My great grandparents used to gather mustangs out here & take them to Oklahoma every year...Grandma would drive the wagon & 'train' them along the way to that while Grandpa would break them to ride...she said there were times she wouldn't see him all day long! They got to Ok. & had a good herd of broke & gentle horses to sell! Lol...
(I really like option #3...) | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-22 3:57 PM As much as we all love animals we know that we have to realistic...I think the entire wildhorse program is ridiculous myself. It could be taken care of humanely, though...I know that the old timers didn't abuse the horses, heck, they planned on using them! My great grandparents used to gather mustangs out here & take them to Oklahoma every year...Grandma would drive the wagon & 'train' them along the way to that while Grandpa would break them to ride...she said there were times she wouldn't see him all day long! They got to Ok. & had a good herd of broke & gentle horses to sell! Lol...
(I really like option #3...)
I knew we'd agree eventually ----- lol. | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| smiley - 2014-04-22 2:59 PM
jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:44 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 12:55 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:35 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!! It IS conceivable that the BLM would attempt via The IRS to TAKE that 150 Deeded Acres in lieu of fines................................... They don't need the IRS. The judge already gave a blanket judgment to the BLM. Right now he has granted them the right to remove and impound the cattle. But all they have to do is go in front of the judge to get the right to go after the deeded land. I have wondered from the beginning why the BLM waited so long to go after Bundy. I think it was all about running up the bill so they could justify taking the whole thing. If this was only about the cattle the BLM could have hired 12 wranglers on horse back and taken the cattle off at a couple truck loads at a time and this would have never made the news. They have had more than enough time to do so.
They waited so long because it was in court and they had already had such bad press on Hage and the other ranchers. See how they are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't? You're seeing black helicopters.
12 wranglers and a few head at a time...............LOL - yeah, the BLM has the time and energy to do it that way. Come on, that is not realistic and it was the Bundy's that called for "people to show up in large numbers" - the BLM would be stupid to not show in numbers as well.
Well I see you still have no clue what a judgment lien is. The court has issued a JUDGMENT LIEN that means that the court can take any asset that Bundy has. To date the judge has only given authority to remove and impound the cattle. That does not mean that the Judge can't at any time give BLM the authority to go after everything. The BLM has had year to remove the cattle they could have done as I suggest. And please BLM doesn't have the time. THEY HAVE HAD 20 years to solve this issue. And Bundy only asked for help after the BLM showed up in force. You have your facts backwards of what happened. Please go read the court orders and go back and review the videos. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| jbhoot - 2014-04-22 4:28 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:59 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:44 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 12:55 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:35 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!! It IS conceivable that the BLM would attempt via The IRS to TAKE that 150 Deeded Acres in lieu of fines................................... They don't need the IRS. The judge already gave a blanket judgment to the BLM. Right now he has granted them the right to remove and impound the cattle. But all they have to do is go in front of the judge to get the right to go after the deeded land. I have wondered from the beginning why the BLM waited so long to go after Bundy. I think it was all about running up the bill so they could justify taking the whole thing. If this was only about the cattle the BLM could have hired 12 wranglers on horse back and taken the cattle off at a couple truck loads at a time and this would have never made the news. They have had more than enough time to do so.
They waited so long because it was in court and they had already had such bad press on Hage and the other ranchers. See how they are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't? You're seeing black helicopters.
12 wranglers and a few head at a time...............LOL - yeah, the BLM has the time and energy to do it that way. Come on, that is not realistic and it was the Bundy's that called for "people to show up in large numbers" - the BLM would be stupid to not show in numbers as well.
Well I see you still have no clue what a judgment lien is. The court has issued a JUDGMENT LIEN that means that the court can take any asset that Bundy has. To date the judge has only given authority to remove and impound the cattle. That does not mean that the Judge can't at any time give BLM the authority to go after everything. The BLM has had year to remove the cattle they could have done as I suggest. And please BLM doesn't have the time. THEY HAVE HAD 20 years to solve this issue. And Bundy only asked for help after the BLM showed up in force. You have your facts backwards of what happened. Please go read the court orders and go back and review the videos.
Yes, of course, how silly of me, we know everything there is to know by videos and a court order. Come on already.
Yes, they let him illegally graze cattle for 20 + years - true. If the man was a cattle man and cared about his stock he would not have let hte BLM round up his cattle.
Clearly we are not going to agree on this and you're right, I'm not a lein expert in any fashion and I would venture to say that you likely don't know as much as you think you do either.
Again, if I go and "impound" your cattle for a debt you owe me, the implication is that I will also "sell" said cattle to recoup the debt. If YOU don't understand that, I'm not sure what to say. It may work that way, it may not. I doubt that you speak for the courts of Nevada, but hey, maybe you are a judge in Nevada and I just don't know it. But I doubt it.
Bundy had requests for "bodies" before the BLM went there, I've been watching this from the get-go and I'm pretty savvy about keeping up with stuff online. He then asked for more. He put his own family in harms way over CATTLE. He put his cattle in harm's way, he put other people in harm's way, he tried to take down the auction house over this too. He's a POS in my book for his 15 minutes of fame. Feel free to agree to disagree, no skin off my nose. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| In a civil court case, after a judge or jury hands down a verdict -- or after a court-approved settlement -- a judgment is entered by the court. As part of a typical judgment, the court orders the payment of money from one person to another. But the person who owes the money (the debtor) doesn't always pay up. A judgment lien is one way to ensure that the person who won the judgment (the creditor) gets what he or she is owed. A judgment lien gives the creditor the right to be paid a certain amount of money from proceeds from the sale of the debtor's property.
Judgement lien - FROM THE SALE OF DEBTOR"S PROPERTY.
What kind of property is subject to a judgment lien under Nevada law?
In every state, a judgment lien can be attached to the debtor's real estate -- meaning a house, condo, land, or similar kind of property interest. And some states also allow judgment liens on the debtor's personal property -- things like jewelry, art, antiques, and other valuables. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-22 5:12 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 4:28 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:59 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:44 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 12:55 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:35 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!! It IS conceivable that the BLM would attempt via The IRS to TAKE that 150 Deeded Acres in lieu of fines................................... They don't need the IRS. The judge already gave a blanket judgment to the BLM. Right now he has granted them the right to remove and impound the cattle. But all they have to do is go in front of the judge to get the right to go after the deeded land. I have wondered from the beginning why the BLM waited so long to go after Bundy. I think it was all about running up the bill so they could justify taking the whole thing. If this was only about the cattle the BLM could have hired 12 wranglers on horse back and taken the cattle off at a couple truck loads at a time and this would have never made the news. They have had more than enough time to do so.
They waited so long because it was in court and they had already had such bad press on Hage and the other ranchers. See how they are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't? You're seeing black helicopters.
12 wranglers and a few head at a time...............LOL - yeah, the BLM has the time and energy to do it that way. Come on, that is not realistic and it was the Bundy's that called for "people to show up in large numbers" - the BLM would be stupid to not show in numbers as well.
Well I see you still have no clue what a judgment lien is. The court has issued a JUDGMENT LIEN that means that the court can take any asset that Bundy has. To date the judge has only given authority to remove and impound the cattle. That does not mean that the Judge can't at any time give BLM the authority to go after everything. The BLM has had year to remove the cattle they could have done as I suggest. And please BLM doesn't have the time. THEY HAVE HAD 20 years to solve this issue. And Bundy only asked for help after the BLM showed up in force. You have your facts backwards of what happened. Please go read the court orders and go back and review the videos.
Yes, they let him illegally graze cattle for 20 + years - true. If the man was a cattle man and cared about his stock he would not have let hte BLM round up his cattle.
Clearly we are not going to agree on this and you're right, I'm not a lein expert in any fashion and I would venture to say that you likely don't know as much as you think you do either.
Again, if I go and "impound" your cattle for a debt you owe me, the implication is that I will also "sell" said cattle to recoup the debt. If YOU don't understand that, I'm not sure what to say. It may work that way, it may not. I doubt that you speak for the courts of Nevada, but hey, maybe you are a judge in Nevada and I just don't know it. But I doubt it.
Bundy had requests for "bodies" before the BLM went there, I've been watching this from the get-go and I'm pretty savvy about keeping up with stuff online. He then asked for more. He put his own family in harms way over CATTLE. He put his cattle in harm's way, he put other people in harm's way, he tried to take down the auction house over this too. He's a POS in my book for his 15 minutes of fame. Feel free to agree to disagree, no skin off my nose.
I only want to say that I've seen ads in the local paper when some cattle were 'impounded' on BLM, impounded by the sheriff's office. They posted it in the paper giving the owners so much time to claim them along with the info that they would be sold at auction if not claimed.
We're never going to agree on some of this...I have the utmost respect for Bundy & his supporters against our overeaching and bullying gov't agencies that should not exist...we have law enforcement who take an oath to protect our rights & have the jurisdiction to handle these issues, these agencies do not.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-22 6:12 PM
jbhoot - 2014-04-22 4:28 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:59 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:44 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 12:55 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:35 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!! It IS conceivable that the BLM would attempt via The IRS to TAKE that 150 Deeded Acres in lieu of fines................................... They don't need the IRS. The judge already gave a blanket judgment to the BLM. Right now he has granted them the right to remove and impound the cattle. But all they have to do is go in front of the judge to get the right to go after the deeded land. I have wondered from the beginning why the BLM waited so long to go after Bundy. I think it was all about running up the bill so they could justify taking the whole thing. If this was only about the cattle the BLM could have hired 12 wranglers on horse back and taken the cattle off at a couple truck loads at a time and this would have never made the news. They have had more than enough time to do so.
They waited so long because it was in court and they had already had such bad press on Hage and the other ranchers. See how they are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't? You're seeing black helicopters.
12 wranglers and a few head at a time...............LOL - yeah, the BLM has the time and energy to do it that way. Come on, that is not realistic and it was the Bundy's that called for "people to show up in large numbers" - the BLM would be stupid to not show in numbers as well.
Well I see you still have no clue what a judgment lien is. The court has issued a JUDGMENT LIEN that means that the court can take any asset that Bundy has. To date the judge has only given authority to remove and impound the cattle. That does not mean that the Judge can't at any time give BLM the authority to go after everything. The BLM has had year to remove the cattle they could have done as I suggest. And please BLM doesn't have the time. THEY HAVE HAD 20 years to solve this issue. And Bundy only asked for help after the BLM showed up in force. You have your facts backwards of what happened. Please go read the court orders and go back and review the videos.
Yes, they let him illegally graze cattle for 20 + years - true. If the man was a cattle man and cared about his stock he would not have let hte BLM round up his cattle.
Clearly we are not going to agree on this and you're right, I'm not a lein expert in any fashion and I would venture to say that you likely don't know as much as you think you do either.
Again, if I go and "impound" your cattle for a debt you owe me, the implication is that I will also "sell" said cattle to recoup the debt. If YOU don't understand that, I'm not sure what to say. It may work that way, it may not. I doubt that you speak for the courts of Nevada, but hey, maybe you are a judge in Nevada and I just don't know it. But I doubt it.
Bundy had requests for "bodies" before the BLM went there, I've been watching this from the get-go and I'm pretty savvy about keeping up with stuff online. He then asked for more. He put his own family in harms way over CATTLE. He put his cattle in harm's way, he put other people in harm's way, he tried to take down the auction house over this too. He's a POS in my book for his 15 minutes of fame. Feel free to agree to disagree, no skin off my nose.
Let Us go down the "20 year" deal. It just occurred to me this afternoon that the BLM did not 'go after' Bundy (for 20+ years) until Harry Reid's "Lieutenant" was installed The BLM Chief. Does this coincidence not strike anyone as peculiar? I really don't why I have noticed 'this' before afternoon. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-22 5:44 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 6:12 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 4:28 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:59 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:44 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 12:55 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:35 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!! It IS conceivable that the BLM would attempt via The IRS to TAKE that 150 Deeded Acres in lieu of fines................................... They don't need the IRS. The judge already gave a blanket judgment to the BLM. Right now he has granted them the right to remove and impound the cattle. But all they have to do is go in front of the judge to get the right to go after the deeded land. I have wondered from the beginning why the BLM waited so long to go after Bundy. I think it was all about running up the bill so they could justify taking the whole thing. If this was only about the cattle the BLM could have hired 12 wranglers on horse back and taken the cattle off at a couple truck loads at a time and this would have never made the news. They have had more than enough time to do so.
They waited so long because it was in court and they had already had such bad press on Hage and the other ranchers. See how they are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't? You're seeing black helicopters.
12 wranglers and a few head at a time...............LOL - yeah, the BLM has the time and energy to do it that way. Come on, that is not realistic and it was the Bundy's that called for "people to show up in large numbers" - the BLM would be stupid to not show in numbers as well.
Well I see you still have no clue what a judgment lien is. The court has issued a JUDGMENT LIEN that means that the court can take any asset that Bundy has. To date the judge has only given authority to remove and impound the cattle. That does not mean that the Judge can't at any time give BLM the authority to go after everything. The BLM has had year to remove the cattle they could have done as I suggest. And please BLM doesn't have the time. THEY HAVE HAD 20 years to solve this issue. And Bundy only asked for help after the BLM showed up in force. You have your facts backwards of what happened. Please go read the court orders and go back and review the videos.
Yes, they let him illegally graze cattle for 20 + years - true. If the man was a cattle man and cared about his stock he would not have let hte BLM round up his cattle.
Clearly we are not going to agree on this and you're right, I'm not a lein expert in any fashion and I would venture to say that you likely don't know as much as you think you do either.
Again, if I go and "impound" your cattle for a debt you owe me, the implication is that I will also "sell" said cattle to recoup the debt. If YOU don't understand that, I'm not sure what to say. It may work that way, it may not. I doubt that you speak for the courts of Nevada, but hey, maybe you are a judge in Nevada and I just don't know it. But I doubt it.
Bundy had requests for "bodies" before the BLM went there, I've been watching this from the get-go and I'm pretty savvy about keeping up with stuff online. He then asked for more. He put his own family in harms way over CATTLE. He put his cattle in harm's way, he put other people in harm's way, he tried to take down the auction house over this too. He's a POS in my book for his 15 minutes of fame. Feel free to agree to disagree, no skin off my nose. Let Us go down the "20 year" deal. It just occurred to me this afternoon that the BLM did not 'go after' Bundy (for 20+ years ) until Harry Reid's "Lieutenant" was installed The BLM Chief. Does this coincidence not strike anyone as peculiar? I really don't why I have noticed 'this' before afternoon.
Yes they did, that is even proved by the blm page that was shared on this thread, they have sent him multiple trespass notices and they had been to court. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Now, this might get Western, not that I believe EVERY word in this article, I will probably never fully believe articles again!
http://patriotupdate.com/2014/04/texas-blm-come-take/ | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | This is the original as linked to The Drudge Report.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/04/22/Exclusive-Greg-...
Exclusive--Texas AG Abbott to BLM: 'Come and Take It'
BLM Eyes 90,000 Acres of Texas Land
by Bob Price
1 day ago
After Breitbart Texas reported on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) intent to seize 90,000 acres belonging to Texas landholders along the Texas/Oklahoma line, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott questioned the BLM’s authority to take such action.
“I am about ready,” General Abbott told Breitbart Texas, “to go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.”
Gen. Abbott sent a strongly-worded letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, asking for answers to a series of questions related to the potential land grab.
“I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations,” General Abbott wrote. “The BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.”
In an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas, General Abbott said, “This is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country ...And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.”
Abbott challenged the BLM director directly stating in his letter, “Nearly a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River—subject to the doctrines of accretion and avulsion—was the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 606 (1923). More recently, in 1994, the BLM stated that the Red River area was “[a] unique situation” and stated that ‘[t]he area itself cannot be defined until action by the U.S. Congress establishes the permanent state boundary between Oklahoma and Texas.’ Further, the BLM determined that one possible scenario was legislation that established the ‘south geologic cut bank as the boundary,’ which could have resulted ‘in up to 90,000 acres’ of newly delineated federal land. But no such legislation was ever enacted.”
As to what kind of standoff might Texas might be facing with the BLM on this matter, Abbott said, “I think that we should be able to resolve this from a legal standpoint because, I believe, what the BLM is doing clearly violates the law. They don’t have any legal standing whatsoever to do this and that’s why I have issued this letter today.”
In the letter, Gen. Abbott details five issues for the BLM to address:
1.Please delineate with specificity each of the steps for the RMP/EIS process for property along the Red River.
2.Please describe the procedural due process the BLM will afford to Texans whose property may be claimed by the federal government.
3.Please confirm whether the BLM agrees that, from 1923 until the ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma was the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River. To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s position.
4.Please confirm whether the BLM still considers Congress’ ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact as determinative of its interest in land along the Red River? To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s new position.
5.Please delineate with specificity the amount of Texas territory that would be impacted by the BLM’s decision to claim this private land as the property of the federal government.
“The letter today,” Abbott explained, “is the first shot in the legal process. We expect answers from them and based upon their answers we will decide what legal action to take.”
“What Barack Obama’s BLM is doing,” Abbott continued, “is so out of bounds and so offensive that we should have quick and successful legal action if they dare attempt to tread on Texas land and take it from private property owners in this state.”
As to the timeline of how this matter moves forward Abbott explained that it is hard to tell how quickly or slowly the BLM might move on this matter. “One of the problems is, we can’t tell what they’re doing other than trying to operate in very suspicious ways. We want to make sure they are going to be open and transparent about what they are doing and that constitutional due process rights are going to be protected.”
Abbott told Breitbart Texas he wants to make sure the BLM understands that what they appear to be attempting to do is completely illegal. “This is Texas land. It belongs to Texas and the private property owners here,” Abbott firmly stated. “If we have to, we will assert quick and effective legal action to put a stop to it.”
Abbott said the next step now is for the BLM to respond to his letter and the five points detailed above. “The way these things work is,” Abbott explained, “what they say in response will lead to more questions. I anticipate another round of questions will follow in response to their answers.”
At that point, Abbott said it should be clear that either Texas will be taking legal action to stop them or the BLM will be backing off because they have no legal basis to support “their wrongful attempt to take Texas land.”
The BLM currently maintains roughly 40,000 acres of land in Collin County around Lake Lavon. When asked about this land, Abbott responded, “We’re looking at anything and everything BLM either has or is considering doing across the State of Texas. Anytime we see land grabs like this by federal authorities, it raises red flags that cause us to look into the full extent of their operations.”
Abbott said this issue comes down to a fundamental principle and that is, “private property rights and the rule of law are the foundation of democracy. Repeatedly we see the Obama Administration erode that foundation of democracy. As Attorney General, I will be restoring that bedrock foundation by restoring and protecting private property rights and the rule of law in Texas.”
Abbott summarized his position thusly, “If I have to, I will make this our 31st lawsuit against the Obama Administration.”
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-22 7:52 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 5:44 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 6:12 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 4:28 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:59 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:44 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 12:55 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:35 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns". I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig. Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!! It IS conceivable that the BLM would attempt via The IRS to TAKE that 150 Deeded Acres in lieu of fines................................... They don't need the IRS. The judge already gave a blanket judgment to the BLM. Right now he has granted them the right to remove and impound the cattle. But all they have to do is go in front of the judge to get the right to go after the deeded land. I have wondered from the beginning why the BLM waited so long to go after Bundy. I think it was all about running up the bill so they could justify taking the whole thing. If this was only about the cattle the BLM could have hired 12 wranglers on horse back and taken the cattle off at a couple truck loads at a time and this would have never made the news. They have had more than enough time to do so.
They waited so long because it was in court and they had already had such bad press on Hage and the other ranchers. See how they are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't? You're seeing black helicopters.
12 wranglers and a few head at a time...............LOL - yeah, the BLM has the time and energy to do it that way. Come on, that is not realistic and it was the Bundy's that called for "people to show up in large numbers" - the BLM would be stupid to not show in numbers as well. Well I see you still have no clue what a judgment lien is. The court has issued a JUDGMENT LIEN that means that the court can take any asset that Bundy has. To date the judge has only given authority to remove and impound the cattle. That does not mean that the Judge can't at any time give BLM the authority to go after everything. The BLM has had year to remove the cattle they could have done as I suggest. And please BLM doesn't have the time. THEY HAVE HAD 20 years to solve this issue. And Bundy only asked for help after the BLM showed up in force. You have your facts backwards of what happened. Please go read the court orders and go back and review the videos.
Yes, they let him illegally graze cattle for 20 + years - true. If the man was a cattle man and cared about his stock he would not have let hte BLM round up his cattle.
Clearly we are not going to agree on this and you're right, I'm not a lein expert in any fashion and I would venture to say that you likely don't know as much as you think you do either.
Again, if I go and "impound" your cattle for a debt you owe me, the implication is that I will also "sell" said cattle to recoup the debt. If YOU don't understand that, I'm not sure what to say. It may work that way, it may not. I doubt that you speak for the courts of Nevada, but hey, maybe you are a judge in Nevada and I just don't know it. But I doubt it.
Bundy had requests for "bodies" before the BLM went there, I've been watching this from the get-go and I'm pretty savvy about keeping up with stuff online. He then asked for more. He put his own family in harms way over CATTLE. He put his cattle in harm's way, he put other people in harm's way, he tried to take down the auction house over this too. He's a POS in my book for his 15 minutes of fame. Feel free to agree to disagree, no skin off my nose. Let Us go down the "20 year" deal. It just occurred to me this afternoon that the BLM did not 'go after' Bundy (for 20+ years ) until Harry Reid's "Lieutenant" was installed The BLM Chief. Does this coincidence not strike anyone as peculiar? I really don't why I have noticed 'this' before afternoon.
You are missing my Point (again). Which is there had been no physical action taken I.E. BLM Armed (unauthorized) Agents to confiscate Bundy's Cattle. Remember, The County Sheriff should have in been charge of Confiscation of Cattle. None of these actions took place until after Neil Kornze was installed as BLM Chief. Remember, Neil Kornze is a Harry Reid "Lieutenant". This has all been estashblished as factual.
Edited by foundation horse 2014-04-22 8:37 PM
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Now in regards to the Texas/BLM Controversy, I spoke with both Texas Senators' Offices and Two Texas Congressmen's Offices (My District and The Disputed One), I got much much more reassurances from The Senator's Staffer(s) than I did from either Congressmen's Staff Members. I was rather perturbed w/ the response(s) from The Congressmen's Staff. This was this morning. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Smiley, I will add that The County Sheriff is THE Authority for confiscation of propetry to include livestock. And I am not aware of any reports that The Clark County Sheriff of Nevada was requested or presented w/ Court Order(s) to confiscate any propetry from Cliven Bundy. You keep up w/ the on-line stuff, are you aware of any reports to this effect? | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | foundation horse - 2014-04-22 7:53 PM Smiley, I will add that The County Sheriff is THE Authority for confiscation of propetry to include livestock. And I am not aware of any reports that The Clark County Sheriff of Nevada was requested or presented w/ Court Order(s) to confiscate any propetry from Cliven Bundy. You keep up w/ the on-line stuff, are you aware of any reports to this effect?
Precisely.
Concerning the Red River...wow. What was once considered 'navigable waters' is so miscontrued! What a joke!!! This is exactly how the EPA has taken control of our most basic need. Look it up! Deny it & let's fire those thieves! Come on people...it's not that complicated. If you don't 'get it' then go to the back of the bus. Be a pushover if you so decide...but, stop voting! For all our sakes.
As to the animal abuse in the video...I will never ever give a 'pass' to anyone who torments a creature of any sort. Shame. If we need to kill them, fine...have some heart. That man was jerking the rope halter & creating the problem before there was one...are we not horse people who know what he did was wrong???? Jeez...I can't believe the bs...God have mercy.
No freaking wonder we're in this mess. We're so da** busy trying to pick 'sides' & judging the so-called character of a man that our own integrity has been flushed down the toilet.
God bless America...I sure hope we still have some hope...
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-22 7:53 PM Smiley, I will add that The County Sheriff is THE Authority for confiscation of propetry to include livestock. And I am not aware of any reports that The Clark County Sheriff of Nevada was requested or presented w/ Court Order(s) to confiscate any propetry from Cliven Bundy. You keep up w/ the on-line stuff, are you aware of any reports to this effect?
Nope, but that would make more sense - and maybe they did have a converstaion (BLM and Sheriff) that none of us are privvy to. I don't understand why the Sheriff stayed quiet so long either. You know darn well someone told him, whether that was the BLM or the gossip at the corner coffee shop, he knew it was going down. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-22 7:30 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 7:52 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 5:44 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 6:12 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 4:28 PM smiley - 2014-04-22 2:59 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:44 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 12:55 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-22 12:35 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 10:14 AM smiley - 2014-04-21 11:19 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-21 2:25 PM Still viewing the Part II, but an interesting point is "The Environmentalist(s) are pawns".
I agree, that was a good point. The water rights are what is bugging me at the moment, who the hell is United Water and why would we sell water rights to non-Americans.
I still think Bundy is wrong, but clearly there is a history here that is hard to comprehend unless you really dig.
Follow the money! There is literally millions of dollars at stake involved with these water rights. FH take a google sat. fly over of Bundy's deeded 150 acres. It is all irrigated he raises melons and hay on it. He has about two miles of river frontage. Hmmmm 150 acres of deeded land with river frontage just off a major interchange and just north of lake mead. Ya think it might have value to a developer. Plus his water rights. As you say follow the money!!!!! It IS conceivable that the BLM would attempt via The IRS to TAKE that 150 Deeded Acres in lieu of fines................................... They don't need the IRS. The judge already gave a blanket judgment to the BLM. Right now he has granted them the right to remove and impound the cattle. But all they have to do is go in front of the judge to get the right to go after the deeded land. I have wondered from the beginning why the BLM waited so long to go after Bundy. I think it was all about running up the bill so they could justify taking the whole thing. If this was only about the cattle the BLM could have hired 12 wranglers on horse back and taken the cattle off at a couple truck loads at a time and this would have never made the news. They have had more than enough time to do so.
They waited so long because it was in court and they had already had such bad press on Hage and the other ranchers. See how they are ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't? You're seeing black helicopters.
12 wranglers and a few head at a time...............LOL - yeah, the BLM has the time and energy to do it that way. Come on, that is not realistic and it was the Bundy's that called for "people to show up in large numbers" - the BLM would be stupid to not show in numbers as well.
Well I see you still have no clue what a judgment lien is. The court has issued a JUDGMENT LIEN that means that the court can take any asset that Bundy has. To date the judge has only given authority to remove and impound the cattle. That does not mean that the Judge can't at any time give BLM the authority to go after everything. The BLM has had year to remove the cattle they could have done as I suggest. And please BLM doesn't have the time. THEY HAVE HAD 20 years to solve this issue. And Bundy only asked for help after the BLM showed up in force. You have your facts backwards of what happened. Please go read the court orders and go back and review the videos.
Yes, they let him illegally graze cattle for 20 + years - true. If the man was a cattle man and cared about his stock he would not have let hte BLM round up his cattle.
Clearly we are not going to agree on this and you're right, I'm not a lein expert in any fashion and I would venture to say that you likely don't know as much as you think you do either.
Again, if I go and "impound" your cattle for a debt you owe me, the implication is that I will also "sell" said cattle to recoup the debt. If YOU don't understand that, I'm not sure what to say. It may work that way, it may not. I doubt that you speak for the courts of Nevada, but hey, maybe you are a judge in Nevada and I just don't know it. But I doubt it.
Bundy had requests for "bodies" before the BLM went there, I've been watching this from the get-go and I'm pretty savvy about keeping up with stuff online. He then asked for more. He put his own family in harms way over CATTLE. He put his cattle in harm's way, he put other people in harm's way, he tried to take down the auction house over this too. He's a POS in my book for his 15 minutes of fame. Feel free to agree to disagree, no skin off my nose. Let Us go down the "20 year" deal. It just occurred to me this afternoon that the BLM did not 'go after' Bundy (for 20+ years ) until Harry Reid's "Lieutenant" was installed The BLM Chief. Does this coincidence not strike anyone as peculiar? I really don't why I have noticed 'this' before afternoon.
You are missing my Point (again ). Which is there had been no physical action taken I.E. BLM Armed (unauthorized ) Agents to confiscate Bundy's Cattle. Remember, The County Sheriff should have in been charge of Confiscation of Cattle. None of these actions took place until after Neil Kornze was installed as BLM Chief. Remember, Neil Kornze is a Harry Reid "Lieutenant". This has all been estashblished as factual.
Ahhh, I see where you are going now, but really, this guys time was just up. No matter who asked to have it done or proposed now was the time - the man had been illegally grazine for 20+ years. It was time and frankly I think they should have done it 18 years ago. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-22 9:38 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 7:53 PM Smiley, I will add that The County Sheriff is THE Authority for confiscation of propetry to include livestock. And I am not aware of any reports that The Clark County Sheriff of Nevada was requested or presented w/ Court Order(s) to confiscate any propetry from Cliven Bundy. You keep up w/ the on-line stuff, are you aware of any reports to this effect? Precisely.
Concerning the Red River...wow. What was once considered 'navigable waters' is so miscontrued! What a joke!!! This is exactly how the EPA has taken control of our most basic need. Look it up! Deny it & let's fire those thieves! Come on people...it's not that complicated. If you don't 'get it' then go to the back of the bus. Be a pushover if you so decide...but, stop voting! For all our sakes.
As to the animal abuse in the video...I will never ever give a 'pass' to anyone who torments a creature of any sort. Shame. If we need to kill them, fine...have some heart. That man was jerking the rope halter & creating the problem before there was one...are we not horse people who know what he did was wrong???? Jeez...I can't believe the bs...God have mercy.
No freaking wonder we're in this mess. We're so da** busy trying to pick 'sides' & judging the so-called character of a man that our own integrity has been flushed down the toilet.
God bless America...I sure hope we still have some hope...
Are you not picking sides and judging? I don't even understand your comment, I gave the man and the donkey the benefit of the doubt and no I do NOT think that is abuse - I am choosing to NOT judge this man based on this one event in which I'm sure his frustration level was very HIGH. Abuse is real damage and real consequences and can result in death. A kick to a donkey who refuses to move is not abuse and belittles real abuse, IMO.
As to the Red River - I agree - I think THAT is a worthy case for our people to rise up and fight.
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-22 7:26 PM This is the original as linked to The Drudge Report. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/04/22/Exclusive-Greg-... Exclusive--Texas AG Abbott to BLM: 'Come and Take It' BLM Eyes 90,000 Acres of Texas Land by Bob Price 1 day ago After Breitbart Texas reported on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM ) intent to seize 90,000 acres belonging to Texas landholders along the Texas/Oklahoma line, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott questioned the BLM’s authority to take such action. “I am about ready,” General Abbott told Breitbart Texas, “to go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.” Gen. Abbott sent a strongly-worded letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, asking for answers to a series of questions related to the potential land grab. “I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations,” General Abbott wrote. “The BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.” In an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas, General Abbott said, “This is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country ...And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.” Abbott challenged the BLM director directly stating in his letter, “Nearly a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River—subject to the doctrines of accretion and avulsion—was the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 606 (1923 ). More recently, in 1994, the BLM stated that the Red River area was “[a] unique situation” and stated that ‘[t]he area itself cannot be defined until action by the U.S. Congress establishes the permanent state boundary between Oklahoma and Texas.’ Further, the BLM determined that one possible scenario was legislation that established the ‘south geologic cut bank as the boundary,’ which could have resulted ‘in up to 90,000 acres’ of newly delineated federal land. But no such legislation was ever enacted.” As to what kind of standoff might Texas might be facing with the BLM on this matter, Abbott said, “I think that we should be able to resolve this from a legal standpoint because, I believe, what the BLM is doing clearly violates the law. They don’t have any legal standing whatsoever to do this and that’s why I have issued this letter today.” In the letter, Gen. Abbott details five issues for the BLM to address: 1.Please delineate with specificity each of the steps for the RMP/EIS process for property along the Red River. 2.Please describe the procedural due process the BLM will afford to Texans whose property may be claimed by the federal government. 3.Please confirm whether the BLM agrees that, from 1923 until the ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma was the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River. To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s position. 4.Please confirm whether the BLM still considers Congress’ ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact as determinative of its interest in land along the Red River? To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s new position. 5.Please delineate with specificity the amount of Texas territory that would be impacted by the BLM’s decision to claim this private land as the property of the federal government. “The letter today,” Abbott explained, “is the first shot in the legal process. We expect answers from them and based upon their answers we will decide what legal action to take.” “What Barack Obama’s BLM is doing,” Abbott continued, “is so out of bounds and so offensive that we should have quick and successful legal action if they dare attempt to tread on Texas land and take it from private property owners in this state.” As to the timeline of how this matter moves forward Abbott explained that it is hard to tell how quickly or slowly the BLM might move on this matter. “One of the problems is, we can’t tell what they’re doing other than trying to operate in very suspicious ways. We want to make sure they are going to be open and transparent about what they are doing and that constitutional due process rights are going to be protected.” Abbott told Breitbart Texas he wants to make sure the BLM understands that what they appear to be attempting to do is completely illegal. “This is Texas land. It belongs to Texas and the private property owners here,” Abbott firmly stated. “If we have to, we will assert quick and effective legal action to put a stop to it.” Abbott said the next step now is for the BLM to respond to his letter and the five points detailed above. “The way these things work is,” Abbott explained, “what they say in response will lead to more questions. I anticipate another round of questions will follow in response to their answers.” At that point, Abbott said it should be clear that either Texas will be taking legal action to stop them or the BLM will be backing off because they have no legal basis to support “their wrongful attempt to take Texas land.” The BLM currently maintains roughly 40,000 acres of land in Collin County around Lake Lavon. When asked about this land, Abbott responded, “We’re looking at anything and everything BLM either has or is considering doing across the State of Texas. Anytime we see land grabs like this by federal authorities, it raises red flags that cause us to look into the full extent of their operations.” Abbott said this issue comes down to a fundamental principle and that is, “private property rights and the rule of law are the foundation of democracy. Repeatedly we see the Obama Administration erode that foundation of democracy. As Attorney General, I will be restoring that bedrock foundation by restoring and protecting private property rights and the rule of law in Texas.” Abbott summarized his position thusly, “If I have to, I will make this our 31st lawsuit against the Obama Administration.”
Did you already post this?? It's the AG's letter..........
http://www.scribd.com/doc/219684610/Abbott-Letter-to-BLM | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-23 9:19 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-22 7:26 PM This is the original as linked to The Drudge Report. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/04/22/Exclusive-Greg-... Exclusive--Texas AG Abbott to BLM: 'Come and Take It' BLM Eyes 90,000 Acres of Texas Land by Bob Price 1 day ago After Breitbart Texas reported on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM ) intent to seize 90,000 acres belonging to Texas landholders along the Texas/Oklahoma line, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott questioned the BLM’s authority to take such action. “I am about ready,” General Abbott told Breitbart Texas, “to go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.” Gen. Abbott sent a strongly-worded letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, asking for answers to a series of questions related to the potential land grab. “I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations,” General Abbott wrote. “The BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.” In an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas, General Abbott said, “This is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country ...And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.” Abbott challenged the BLM director directly stating in his letter, “Nearly a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River—subject to the doctrines of accretion and avulsion—was the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 606 (1923 ). More recently, in 1994, the BLM stated that the Red River area was “[a] unique situation” and stated that ‘[t]he area itself cannot be defined until action by the U.S. Congress establishes the permanent state boundary between Oklahoma and Texas.’ Further, the BLM determined that one possible scenario was legislation that established the ‘south geologic cut bank as the boundary,’ which could have resulted ‘in up to 90,000 acres’ of newly delineated federal land. But no such legislation was ever enacted.” As to what kind of standoff might Texas might be facing with the BLM on this matter, Abbott said, “I think that we should be able to resolve this from a legal standpoint because, I believe, what the BLM is doing clearly violates the law. They don’t have any legal standing whatsoever to do this and that’s why I have issued this letter today.” In the letter, Gen. Abbott details five issues for the BLM to address: 1.Please delineate with specificity each of the steps for the RMP/EIS process for property along the Red River. 2.Please describe the procedural due process the BLM will afford to Texans whose property may be claimed by the federal government. 3.Please confirm whether the BLM agrees that, from 1923 until the ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma was the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River. To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s position. 4.Please confirm whether the BLM still considers Congress’ ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact as determinative of its interest in land along the Red River? To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s new position. 5.Please delineate with specificity the amount of Texas territory that would be impacted by the BLM’s decision to claim this private land as the property of the federal government. “The letter today,” Abbott explained, “is the first shot in the legal process. We expect answers from them and based upon their answers we will decide what legal action to take.” “What Barack Obama’s BLM is doing,” Abbott continued, “is so out of bounds and so offensive that we should have quick and successful legal action if they dare attempt to tread on Texas land and take it from private property owners in this state.” As to the timeline of how this matter moves forward Abbott explained that it is hard to tell how quickly or slowly the BLM might move on this matter. “One of the problems is, we can’t tell what they’re doing other than trying to operate in very suspicious ways. We want to make sure they are going to be open and transparent about what they are doing and that constitutional due process rights are going to be protected.” Abbott told Breitbart Texas he wants to make sure the BLM understands that what they appear to be attempting to do is completely illegal. “This is Texas land. It belongs to Texas and the private property owners here,” Abbott firmly stated. “If we have to, we will assert quick and effective legal action to put a stop to it.” Abbott said the next step now is for the BLM to respond to his letter and the five points detailed above. “The way these things work is,” Abbott explained, “what they say in response will lead to more questions. I anticipate another round of questions will follow in response to their answers.” At that point, Abbott said it should be clear that either Texas will be taking legal action to stop them or the BLM will be backing off because they have no legal basis to support “their wrongful attempt to take Texas land.” The BLM currently maintains roughly 40,000 acres of land in Collin County around Lake Lavon. When asked about this land, Abbott responded, “We’re looking at anything and everything BLM either has or is considering doing across the State of Texas. Anytime we see land grabs like this by federal authorities, it raises red flags that cause us to look into the full extent of their operations.” Abbott said this issue comes down to a fundamental principle and that is, “private property rights and the rule of law are the foundation of democracy. Repeatedly we see the Obama Administration erode that foundation of democracy. As Attorney General, I will be restoring that bedrock foundation by restoring and protecting private property rights and the rule of law in Texas.” Abbott summarized his position thusly, “If I have to, I will make this our 31st lawsuit against the Obama Administration.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/219684610/Abbott-Letter-to-BLM
This is the original as linked to The Drudge Report.
I stated this in the original I posted. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| I will say that I think slant of the current "in charge" folks is very liberal. I can't possibly begin to argue in favor of a director with three whole years of B L M experience. I can't fathom such a bold placement, but who knows.
Wait and see I guess. Voting this next presidential election will be very important and maybe if we get a conservative this time, he or she can look into recent "appointments" that may or may not be justified! | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| foundation horse - 2014-04-22 8:53 PM Smiley, I will add that The County Sheriff is THE Authority for confiscation of propetry to include livestock. And I am not aware of any reports that The Clark County Sheriff of Nevada was requested or presented w/ Court Order(s) to confiscate any propetry from Cliven Bundy. You keep up w/ the on-line stuff, are you aware of any reports to this effect?
Go read Article 1, Sec 2 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada and tell me what you think? | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| The Constitution of the State of Nevada
Article 1
Sec: 2. Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States. All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.
Discuss amongst yourselves. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-23 10:21 AM The Constitution of the State of Nevada
Article 1
Sec: 2. Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States. All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
The text I highlighted turns my stomach! What happened to Individual Liberty and Freedom?! | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Smiley, and TxBo as well. Let "us" follow the money on the event so to speak and see just "WHO" would gain the most from Cliven Bundy losing access to this tract of Real Estate.
Rusty Hill is someone who has Real Estate Experience with verifiable credentials and is documented as a Whistle Blower.
The below video is approx. 35 minutes long but well worth the time and effort required to gain the information it presents.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-blm-whistleblower-reveal-rea...
This video validates the timeline of Harry Reid's "Lieutenant" being installed as the BLM Chief. It also mentions many different Entities that own Real Estate in Clark County Nevada to include Reid Bunkerville LLC. Interesting, is it not that the Reid Family Name (and per The Mormon Research, The Reid Family is a small Clan) is included in this list? Also, said Entity owns land adjoining this disputed BLM Real Estate that Cliven Bundy has been dealing with.
Also, per other research, The Bureau of Land Management is not recognized as a Government Organization, therefore it is classified as a Nongovernment Organization or NGO. With this status, just where does the BLM derive authority to have Armed Agents?
There is much much much more to this story than simple long term trespassing here folks!
Also there is another video that depicts Harry Reid's "body language" in regards to this event.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-harry-reids-body-language-li...
Now to me, body language is indicative as words, and with that said, then Harry Reid is in this up to his eyeballs. And I have repeatedly stated this. These videos just validate that there is something to this.
Again, Follow The Money!
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-23 11:29 AM Smiley, and TxBo as well. Let "us" follow the money on the event so to speak and see just "WHO" would gain the most from Cliven Bundy losing access to this tract of Real Estate. Rusty Hill is someone who has Real Estate Experience with verifiable credentials and is documented as a Whistle Blower. The below video is approx. 35 minutes long but well worth the time and effort required to gain the information it presents. http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-blm-whistleblower-reveal-rea... This video validates the timeline of Harry Reid's "Lieutenant" being installed as the BLM Chief. It also mentions many different Entities that own Real Estate in Clark County Nevada to include Reid Bunkerville LLC. Interesting, is it not that the Reid Family Name (and per The Mormon Research, The Reid Family is a small Clan ) is included in this list? Also, said Entity owns land adjoining this disputed BLM Real Estate that Cliven Bundy has been dealing with. Also, per other research, The Bureau of Land Management is not recognized as a Government Organization, therefore it is classified as a Nongovernment Organization or NGO. With this status, just where does the BLM derive authority to have Armed Agents? There is much much much more to this story than simple long term trespassing here folks! Also there is another video that depicts Harry Reid's "body language" in regards to this event. http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-harry-reids-body-language-li... Now to me, body language is indicative as words, and with that said, then Harry Reid is in this up to his eyeballs. And I have repeatedly stated this. These videos just validate that there is something to this. Again, Follow The Money!
Western Journalism is no longer a legit site to me, they have already passed on some really inaccurate info and reported a selective bit of info, as it pleased them.
There can always be a conspiracy made after the fact. I guess Nevada knows who butters its bread and they are willing to put it in their consititution!!
Looks like Bundy might want to read it.
As to the minion in the BLM for Reid - like I said - elect a different president and change the status quo in the blm, which reports to the top levels. As the admin's change from liberal to conservative and back again - so to the goals and people in charge at the blm.
Politics and activism = conspiracy's. Basically, when conservatives are getting their pockets lined they don't see conspiracies, but when liberals are doing it they see them and vice versa for liberals toward conservatives. Meanwhile, there is a whole truckload of us out here stuck in the middle of crazy town. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-23 11:29 AM Smiley, and TxBo as well. Let "us" follow the money on the event so to speak and see just "WHO" would gain the most from Cliven Bundy losing access to this tract of Real Estate. Rusty Hill is someone who has Real Estate Experience with verifiable credentials and is documented as a Whistle Blower. The below video is approx. 35 minutes long but well worth the time and effort required to gain the information it presents. http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-blm-whistleblower-reveal-rea... This video validates the timeline of Harry Reid's "Lieutenant" being installed as the BLM Chief. It also mentions many different Entities that own Real Estate in Clark County Nevada to include Reid Bunkerville LLC. Interesting, is it not that the Reid Family Name (and per The Mormon Research, The Reid Family is a small Clan ) is included in this list? Also, said Entity owns land adjoining this disputed BLM Real Estate that Cliven Bundy has been dealing with. Also, per other research, The Bureau of Land Management is not recognized as a Government Organization, therefore it is classified as a Nongovernment Organization or NGO. With this status, just where does the BLM derive authority to have Armed Agents? There is much much much more to this story than simple long term trespassing here folks! Also there is another video that depicts Harry Reid's "body language" in regards to this event. http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-harry-reids-body-language-li... Now to me, body language is indicative as words, and with that said, then Harry Reid is in this up to his eyeballs. And I have repeatedly stated this. These videos just validate that there is something to this. Again, Follow The Money!
Taken from Wiki:
Law enforcement and security[edit]
The BLM Office of Law Enforcement & Security, headquartered in Washington, D.C., is a federal law enforcement agency of the U.S. government. All Law Enforcement Rangers and Special Agents receive their training through Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). Law Enforcement Rangers attend the Land Management Police Training (LMPT) academy at FLTEC, while BLM Special Agents attend the Criminal Investigator Training Program (CITP) at FLETC.
BLM Law Enforcement Rangers and Special Agents make up the law enforcement capability of the BLM. Rangers and Special Agents are located in each of the western states that have BLM lands. Law Enforcement Rangers make up the uniformed high visibility enforcement of laws. Special Agents investigate crimes against property, visitors and employees.
Uniformed Law Enforcement Rangers enforce Federal laws and regulations governing BLM lands and resources. Law Enforcement Rangers also enforce some or all state laws on BLM lands. As part of that mission Law Enforcement Rangers carry firearms, defensive equipment, make arrests, execute search warrants, complete reports and testify in court. They establish a regular and recurring presence on a vast amount of public lands, roads, and recreation sites. The primary focus of their jobs is the protection of natural resources, protection of BLM employees and the protection of visitors. They use K-9s, helicopters, snowmobiles, dirt bikes and boats to perform their duties.
Special Agents are criminal investigators who plan and conduct investigations concerning possible violations of criminal and administrative provisions of the BLM and other statutes under the United States Code. Special agents are normally plain clothes officers who carry concealed firearms, and other defensive equipment, make arrests, carry out complex criminal investigations, present cases for prosecution to U.S. Attorneys, and prepare investigative reports. Criminal investigators occasionally conduct internal and civil claim investigations.
** I don't know why they have "law enforcement" but I dang sure know I would not go into the places they do without a weapon nor would I ask anyone else to.
That's something to bring up to your representatives, maybe they have answers?? | |
| | |
| Question- Does Cliven Bundy owe money to the government? | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| bingo - 2014-04-23 2:01 PM Question- Does Cliven Bundy owe money to the government?
Yes.
In grazing fees and fines for his cattle. There is a possible question of also owing taxes, but no one I have seen has been able to prove that one. | |
| | |
Famous for Not Complaining
Posts: 8848
Location: Broxton, Ga | smiley - 2014-04-22 5:00 PM bingo - 2014-04-23 2:01 PM Question- Does Cliven Bundy owe money to the government? Yes.
In grazing fees and fines for his cattle. There is a possible question of also owing taxes, but no one I have seen has been able to prove that one.
Harry Reid said he owed taxes just like he did about Mitt Romney............Mitt Romney didn't owe taxes...........js LOL | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | CJE - 2014-04-23 7:51 PM
smiley - 2014-04-22 5:00 PM bingo - 2014-04-23 2:01 PM Question- Does Cliven Bundy owe money to the government? Yes.
In grazing fees and fines for his cattle. There is a possible question of also owing taxes, but no one I have seen has been able to prove that one. LOL
Harry Reid has been proven a LIAR on innumerous occasions. | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| foundation horse - 2014-04-23 9:57 PM
CJE - 2014-04-23 7:51 PM
smiley - 2014-04-22 5:00 PM bingo - 2014-04-23 2:01 PM Question- Does Cliven Bundy owe money to the government? Yes.
In grazing fees and fines for his cattle. There is a possible question of also owing taxes, but no one I have seen has been able to prove that one. LOL
Harry Reid has been proven a LIAR on innumerous occasions.
*NY Times article this morning (4-24) is shaking things up with media and politicians who support Cliven Bundy*
Claim by Bundy Family:
We have been here for generations and have run cattle here since the 1870’s.
Claim by Bundy Supporter:
“Western states don’t have the control over their land that Eastern states have over their land,” said Ivan Jones, 60, a brick mason who came here from Northern California. “Someone like the Bundys, they have been here for generations, before the B.L.M. was ever created, using this land to graze their animals. And the B.L.M. comes in and changes the rule. A small little rancher trying to make a living and they come in like big bullies.” (small ranchers don’t have 600 cows)
But, are the Bundy Family the real liars here*:
(From Crooks and Liars) Also, a factcheck for the New York Times. This paragraph needs to be corrected:
Mr. Bundy, whose family has grazed cattle here since they homesteaded in the 1870s, owes the government more than $1 million in grazing fees. He stopped paying after the bureau ordered him to restrict the periods when his herd roamed the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area as part of an effort to protect the endangered desert tortoise.
You got taken for a ride, NYT. Bundy's family didn't buy that land until 1948 and didn't start grazing their cattle on it until 1954. (and when you follow this link….http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/bundys-ancestral-rights-story-load-crap) His cattle, until recently, roamed freely on land managed by the federal Bureau of Land Management. Before the roundup that sparked protests, confrontations and gunmen taking a bridge, Bundy explained his "ancestral rights" to the I-Team.(video)
"I've lived my lifetime here. My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley here ever since 1877. All these rights that I claim, have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water and the access and range improvements," Bundy said.*(that’s what the Native Americans thought before the Federal Government evicted them in favor of people like the Bundys)*
Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt.
Water rights were transferred too, but only to the ranch, not the federally managed land surrounding it. Court records show Bundy family cattle didn't start grazing on that land until 1954.
The Bureau of Land Management was created 1946, the same year Cliven was born.(those pesky public [government]records)
*But it was this comment at a Bundy daily news conference that had spokespeople for Dean Heller R-NV and Rand Paul R-KY saying “Whoa There! We didn’t sign on to this cattle drive.”:*
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
*Conservative Hero or Racist Lying Welfare Cowboy? The debate goes on.*
Links to the entire articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-break...
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/cliven-bundy-muses-what-he-knows-...
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/bundys-ancestral-rights-story-loa...
*my contributions*
| |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | Cliven Bundy is a stupid stupid man and those that have jumped in blindly with their support just to use this as their anti govt platform have SCREWED everyone else that has a legitimate anti govt complaint....THANKS ALOT.....i hope the feds confiscate all of Nevada and turn into one big solar panel..... | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| dhdqhllc - 2014-04-24 9:22 AM Cliven Bundy is a stupid stupid man and those that have jumped in blindly with their support just to use this as their anti govt platform have SCREWED everyone else that has a legitimate anti govt complaint....THANKS ALOT.....i hope the feds confiscate all of Nevada and turn into one big solar panel.....
LIKE | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| dhdqhllc - 2014-04-24 8:22 AM Cliven Bundy is a stupid stupid man and those that have jumped in blindly with their support just to use this as their anti govt platform have SCREWED everyone else that has a legitimate anti govt complaint....THANKS ALOT.....i hope the feds confiscate all of Nevada and turn into one big solar panel.....
Oh, the irony............
Also LIKE. | |
| | |
 Voice of Reason
Location: NOT at Wal Mart | I'm lovin it, all the fools that jumped on that bandwagon..... how do you like him now?  | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Not the first time I have been wrong. Nor will it be the last time.
However, I still stand by the idea The BLM's Armed Invasion was uncalled for and wrong!
And Harry Reid has still been proven a liar much more often than Cliven Bundy. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-24 8:53 AM
foundation horse - 2014-04-23 9:57 PM
CJE - 2014-04-23 7:51 PM
smiley - 2014-04-22 5:00 PM bingo - 2014-04-23 2:01 PM Question- Does Cliven Bundy owe money to the government? Yes.
In grazing fees and fines for his cattle. There is a possible question of also owing taxes, but no one I have seen has been able to prove that one. LOL
Harry Reid has been proven a LIAR on innumerous occasions.
*NY Times article this morning (4-24 ) is shaking things up with media and politicians who support Cliven Bundy*
Claim by Bundy Family:
We have been here for generations and have run cattle here since the 1870’s.
Claim by Bundy Supporter:
“Western states don’t have the control over their land that Eastern states have over their land,” said Ivan Jones, 60, a brick mason who came here from Northern California. “Someone like the Bundys, they have been here for generations, before the B.L.M. was ever created, using this land to graze their animals. And the B.L.M. comes in and changes the rule. A small little rancher trying to make a living and they come in like big bullies.” (small ranchers don’t have 600 cows )
But, are the Bundy Family the real liars here*:
(From Crooks and Liars ) Also, a factcheck for the New York Times. This paragraph needs to be corrected:
Mr. Bundy, whose family has grazed cattle here since they homesteaded in the 1870s, owes the government more than $1 million in grazing fees. He stopped paying after the bureau ordered him to restrict the periods when his herd roamed the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area as part of an effort to protect the endangered desert tortoise.
You got taken for a ride, NYT. Bundy's family didn't buy that land until 1948 and didn't start grazing their cattle on it until 1954. (and when you follow this link….http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/bundys-ancestral-rights-story-load-crap ) His cattle, until recently, roamed freely on land managed by the federal Bureau of Land Management. Before the roundup that sparked protests, confrontations and gunmen taking a bridge, Bundy explained his "ancestral rights" to the I-Team. (video )
"I've lived my lifetime here. My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley here ever since 1877. All these rights that I claim, have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water and the access and range improvements," Bundy said.* (that’s what the Native Americans thought before the Federal Government evicted them in favor of people like the Bundys )*
Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt.
Water rights were transferred too, but only to the ranch, not the federally managed land surrounding it. Court records show Bundy family cattle didn't start grazing on that land until 1954.
The Bureau of Land Management was created 1946, the same year Cliven was born. (those pesky public [government]records )
*But it was this comment at a Bundy daily news conference that had spokespeople for Dean Heller R-NV and Rand Paul R-KY saying “Whoa There! We didn’t sign on to this cattle drive.”:*
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
*Conservative Hero or Racist Lying Welfare Cowboy? The debate goes on.*
Links to the entire articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-break...
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/cliven-bundy-muses-what-he-knows-...
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/bundys-ancestral-rights-story-loa...
*my contributions*
So I suppose Harry Reid is not a liar. That was the whole point of my post. Nice Deflection there Mrs. Finney. | |
| | |
Voice of Reason
Location: NOT at Wal Mart | foundation horse - 2014-04-24 8:42 AM Not the first time I have been wrong. Nor will it be the last time. However, I still stand by the idea The BLM's Armed Invasion was uncalled for and wrong! And Harry Reid has still been proven a liar much more often than Cliven Bundy.
Yup, yup. | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | foundation horse - 2014-04-24 10:42 AM Not the first time I have been wrong. Nor will it be the last time. However, I still stand by the idea The BLM's Armed Invasion was uncalled for and wrong! And Harry Reid has still been proven a liar much more often than Cliven Bundy.
agreed.....but i will still say 'told you so'.... | |
| | |
| *Conservative Hero or Racist Lying Welfare Cowboy? The debate goes on.*
Yep, those pesky government records. I think our government has gone WAY too far into the abyss w/corruption, but that fact is now allowing others to play the same game. You see it everyday in people trying to live a life they can't support, yet think someone else should pay up. It will be interesting to see where all this leads. Has there been any discussion on simply throwing his tax evading butt in jail IF that is the case? Of course that's hard to do when members in our president's own administration have "avoided" paying their taxes too. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | dhdqhllc - 2014-04-24 10:49 AM
foundation horse - 2014-04-24 10:42 AM Not the first time I have been wrong. Nor will it be the last time. However, I still stand by the idea The BLM's Armed Invasion was uncalled for and wrong! And Harry Reid has still been proven a liar much more often than Cliven Bundy.
agreed.....but i will still say 'told you so'....
You have that right under The 1st Amendment. | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| foundation horse - 2014-04-24 10:44 AM
FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-24 8:53 AM
foundation horse - 2014-04-23 9:57 PM
CJE - 2014-04-23 7:51 PM
smiley - 2014-04-22 5:00 PM bingo - 2014-04-23 2:01 PM Question- Does Cliven Bundy owe money to the government? Yes.
In grazing fees and fines for his cattle. There is a possible question of also owing taxes, but no one I have seen has been able to prove that one. LOL
Harry Reid has been proven a LIAR on innumerous occasions.
*NY Times article this morning (4-24 ) is shaking things up with media and politicians who support Cliven Bundy*
Claim by Bundy Family:
We have been here for generations and have run cattle here since the 1870’s.
Claim by Bundy Supporter:
“Western states don’t have the control over their land that Eastern states have over their land,” said Ivan Jones, 60, a brick mason who came here from Northern California. “Someone like the Bundys, they have been here for generations, before the B.L.M. was ever created, using this land to graze their animals. And the B.L.M. comes in and changes the rule. A small little rancher trying to make a living and they come in like big bullies.” (small ranchers don’t have 600 cows )
But, are the Bundy Family the real liars here*:
(From Crooks and Liars ) Also, a factcheck for the New York Times. This paragraph needs to be corrected:
Mr. Bundy, whose family has grazed cattle here since they homesteaded in the 1870s, owes the government more than $1 million in grazing fees. He stopped paying after the bureau ordered him to restrict the periods when his herd roamed the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area as part of an effort to protect the endangered desert tortoise.
You got taken for a ride, NYT. Bundy's family didn't buy that land until 1948 and didn't start grazing their cattle on it until 1954. (and when you follow this link….http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/bundys-ancestral-rights-story-load-crap ) His cattle, until recently, roamed freely on land managed by the federal Bureau of Land Management. Before the roundup that sparked protests, confrontations and gunmen taking a bridge, Bundy explained his "ancestral rights" to the I-Team. (video )
"I've lived my lifetime here. My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley here ever since 1877. All these rights that I claim, have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water and the access and range improvements," Bundy said.* (that’s what the Native Americans thought before the Federal Government evicted them in favor of people like the Bundys )*
Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt.
Water rights were transferred too, but only to the ranch, not the federally managed land surrounding it. Court records show Bundy family cattle didn't start grazing on that land until 1954.
The Bureau of Land Management was created 1946, the same year Cliven was born. (those pesky public [government]records )
*But it was this comment at a Bundy daily news conference that had spokespeople for Dean Heller R-NV and Rand Paul R-KY saying “Whoa There! We didn’t sign on to this cattle drive.”:*
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
*Conservative Hero or Racist Lying Welfare Cowboy? The debate goes on.*
Links to the entire articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-break...
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/cliven-bundy-muses-what-he-knows-...
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/bundys-ancestral-rights-story-loa...
*my contributions*
So I suppose Harry Reid is not a liar. That was the whole point of my post. Nice Deflection there Mrs. Finney.
I stilll haven't figured out why you insist on calling me "Mrs. Finney" in that derogatory way. It would be interesting to know your thoughts on that.
What Harry Reid has said or done, truthful or otherwise, has nothing to do with Cliven Bundy and his anti-government fettish, so it really adds nothing to the conversation except titilation to his haters.
Some of this would actually be amusing if it wasn't for the fact that Waco gave rise to Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber who murdered many people, including 13 children, who never had any thoughts except to go to work and do their job. In fact, just like the BLM guys who were given a task by their boss, and could have been killed rounding up cows, for Pete's sake. With all the militia talk and fringe websites abuzz with their victory of "backing down the Feds with our guns" and "where can we go next" talk, I'm afraid that all Cliven Bundy did was add fuel to a smoldering fire that will never go out, but is just waiting to burn bright again. Questioning government overreach and the amount of land the BLM controls is everyone's right and can be handled through many avenues that don't include an armed insurgance against the Federal Government. I do have to agree with Harry on that one. The men and women who came to "stand with Bundy" are nothing more than domestic terrorists, and I do hope the new facial recognition software that the FBI has will identify those who brought guns across state lines and pointed them at law enforcement. They crossed the line between mere protesting and support and showed they are willing to shoot and kill innocent people, or be killed, for an ideology that is foreign to most Americans. And in that moment, they became a lot more dangerous than Harry Reid. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | I might not be right, but, I'm never wrong.. Lol!
Besides, It ain't over till the fat lady sings...and I'm not singing...yet.
Seriously, these types of discussions can either find us on the same page or we can continue to play childish games that only serve to divide us further. IF Cliven Bundy hasn't paid his income taxes...IF he lied about his heritage & family ties to the land...does that make what the BLM did okay? Wayne Hage didn't buy his land until 1978...his 'family ties' to the land had nothing to do with the jurisdiction or who holds authority....so why would the Bundy's lie? That's definitely a 'wait & see' thing.
This is why we have our judicial system, and regardless of what TXBO tried to say about me, I'm a huge supporter of being judged by a 'jury of our peers' in a court of law that is Constitutional & within the checks/balances of our federal responsibilities. Many folks continue to want the federal gov't to have the power over the people...and I don't. I absolutely support local power in all things that aren't specifically held by the fed as outlined & intended. I refuse to apologize for that attitude & find it very sad, perhaps even scary, that someone like Bundy is now under such a microscope & we allow it to tear us apart even more. This is what socialism looks like...
I honestly don't know what the real truth in his situation is concerning his family history...I don't really care excepting 'if' he lied. Other than that, we still need to determine who has the jurisdiction over 'public lands'. Careful there...let's not miss the point of what the problem is.
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
|
Yes, it does, IMO, the BLM showed in force based on previous encounters with this family and the fact that the family and others were protesting and asked for and rec'd "others" via militias and oath keepers.
Yes, HIS lies matter. He put REAL people - people who believed him in danger...........you're ability to let him off the hook is kinda annoying to be honest.
There is no doubt Reid is pond scum, but as Finney said - the two are not related. One does not negate the other. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-24 11:03 AM Yes, it does, IMO, the BLM showed in force based on previous encounters with this family and the fact that the family and others were protesting and asked for and rec'd "others" via militias and oath keepers.
Yes, HIS lies matter. He put REAL people - people who believed him in danger...........you're ability to let him off the hook is kinda annoying to be honest.
There is no doubt Reid is pond scum, but as Finney said - the two are not related. One does not negate the other.
I do believe he was in danger...the 1st 'snipers' were not representing 'the people'.
Anyhow...I just watched this video & I think it's by far the best summary of what is going on in our world...please watch. There are some great things that can come from this...we really don't need to be at each other's throats...it does the world no good & if ANY good can come from this...it needs to.
We all get to meet our Maker someday...in doing so we get to meet 'self'. Mercy.
This is good...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t84xLD2KbO4
| |
| | |
I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
Location: Online | foundation horse - 2014-04-24 9:42 AM Not the first time I have been wrong. Nor will it be the last time. However, I still stand by the idea The BLM's Armed Invasion was uncalled for and wrong! And Harry Reid has still been proven a liar much more often than Cliven Bundy.
Every time Bundy has opened his mouth he has dropped a rung on my support ladder. This last time, he fell off. What he said was wrong, but it is also his 1st Amendment right to say what he wants. (maybe he was in a "1st Amendment zone" when he said it) I'm not defending his words or actions, just his right.
(Since I still have Finney on ignore, I don't know what she copied and pasted, I'm assuming it had something to do with the racist comments. I'm sure it made her feel good).
I stand behind what I've said before, there is always more to the story than what the media reports. I agree with FH, the BLM was wrong in their handling of the situation. Just the fact that Harry is involved stinks to high hell. They just took advantage of an old senile crackpot's stupidity to get what they've wanted all along. He just made it way too easy.
I'm done with this subject. | |
| | |
 Undercover Amish Mafia Member
Posts: 9992
Location: Kansas | O shhhhhhhhhh...........how have I missed this thread for this long?!@?!?
 | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | musikmaker - 2014-04-24 11:11 AM smiley - 2014-04-24 11:03 AM Yes, it does, IMO, the BLM showed in force based on previous encounters with this family and the fact that the family and others were protesting and asked for and rec'd "others" via militias and oath keepers.
Yes, HIS lies matter. He put REAL people - people who believed him in danger...........you're ability to let him off the hook is kinda annoying to be honest.
There is no doubt Reid is pond scum, but as Finney said - the two are not related. One does not negate the other.
Anyhow...I just watched this video & I think it's by far the best summary of what is going on in our world...please watch. There are some great things that can come from this...we really don't need to be at each other's throats...it does the world no good & if ANY good can come from this...it needs to.
We all get to meet our Maker someday...in doing so we get to meet 'self'. Mercy.
This is good...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t84xLD2KbO4
I saw this & thought it was funny...for all those who are so ready to hang this man...settle down!
This is an old man who tells it like he sees it...sure, it's not pc...'negro' is an old fashioned referral that's no longer appropriate (since it changes every year it's hard to keep up)...in hearing his response it's clear he still doesn't 'get' how some chose to take it...I know if I heard that from some like minded people of his generation I would take it just how he said it...the 'new' slavery is no better and even worse than the 'old' slavery. He never intimated that it was better than freedom. We all need to get a grip & stop allowing the media to spin things.
This is concerning his 'heritage' that was brought into question...sorry to be so 'annoying'...lol.
This was posted by a supporter who did her homework-I figured out that the investigative reporter who wrote this article didn't do a very thorough job and was searching the wrong names. He should have searched for the surname Leavitt. Cliven Bundy is a direct decedent of Dudley Leavitt who would be Cliven's great great grandfather. It appears Dudley was the direct ancestor on Cliven's mother' side that first came to settle in Bunkerville,NV.
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ancestral-rights-come-under-scrutiny
There is inaccurate information in this article.
"Early census records show Cliven's maternal grandmother,Christena Jensen,was born in Nevada in 1901. One genealogical researcher says records indicate Jensen helped settle Bunkerville some years later."
This is INACCURATE: (they even spelled her name wrong): Clive's maternal grandmother's name is Abigail Christina ABBOTT Jenson born 22 JAN 1891 Bunkerville,Clark Co.,NV
"Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt."
Raoul Leavitt was a decedent of Dudley Leavitt,Clive's great great grandfather. Clive's great grandmother Mary Jane Leavitt's father was Dudley Leavitt who is Cliven Bundy's great great grandfather,he married a woman from Utah,Mary Huntsman in 1853,and eventually (probably 1877 as Clive has been saying) they settled in Bunkerville NV until Dudley died there in 1908.
Cliven Bundy inherited his ancestral rights that has been handed down through five generations in a direct line with the first generation being his great great grandfather Dudley Leavitt on his mothers side,who came from Salt Lake City Utah to settle in Bunkerville,NV sometime between 1853 when he married his wife Mary Huntsman to when he died in 1908 in Bunkerville (Cliven Bundy has claimed it was in 1877).
Cliven inherited his ancestral land rights from these ancestors in this order: Cliven's mother Margaret Bodel JENSON-Bundy - Cliven's grandmother,Margaret's mother,Abigail Christina ABBOTT-Jenson - Cliven's great grandmother,Mary Jane LEAVITT-Abbott. Abigail "Christina" Abbot-Jenson's mother, Cliven's great great grandfather Dudley Leavitt,Mary Jane Leavitt-Abbott's father.
This research was conducted here at the Rootsweb Ancestry website here:
http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi? op=PED&db=dowfam3&id=I549063
Edited by musikmaker 2014-04-24 1:32 PM
| |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | musikmaker - 2014-04-24 1:30 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-24 11:11 AM smiley - 2014-04-24 11:03 AM Yes, it does, IMO, the BLM showed in force based on previous encounters with this family and the fact that the family and others were protesting and asked for and rec'd "others" via militias and oath keepers.
Yes, HIS lies matter. He put REAL people - people who believed him in danger...........you're ability to let him off the hook is kinda annoying to be honest.
There is no doubt Reid is pond scum, but as Finney said - the two are not related. One does not negate the other.
Anyhow...I just watched this video & I think it's by far the best summary of what is going on in our world...please watch. There are some great things that can come from this...we really don't need to be at each other's throats...it does the world no good & if ANY good can come from this...it needs to.
We all get to meet our Maker someday...in doing so we get to meet 'self'. Mercy.
This is good...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t84xLD2KbO4
I saw this & thought it was funny...for all those who are so ready to hang this man...settle down!
This is an old man who tells it like he sees it...sure, it's not pc...'negro' is an old fashioned referral that's no longer appropriate (since it changes every year it's hard to keep up)...in hearing his response it's clear he still doesn't 'get' how some chose to take it...I know if I heard that from some like minded people of his generation I would take it just how he said it...the 'new' slavery is no better and even worse than the 'old' slavery. He never intimated that it was better than freedom. We all need to get a grip & stop allowing the media to spin things.
This is concerning his 'heritage' that was brought into question...sorry to be so 'annoying'...lol.
This was posted by a supporter who did her homework-I figured out that the investigative reporter who wrote this article didn't do a very thorough job and was searching the wrong names. He should have searched for the surname Leavitt. Cliven Bundy is a direct decedent of Dudley Leavitt who would be Cliven's great great grandfather. It appears Dudley was the direct ancestor on Cliven's mother' side that first came to settle in Bunkerville,NV.
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ancestral-rights-come-under-scrutiny
There is inaccurate information in this article.
"Early census records show Cliven's maternal grandmother,Christena Jensen,was born in Nevada in 1901. One genealogical researcher says records indicate Jensen helped settle Bunkerville some years later."
This is INACCURATE: (they even spelled her name wrong): Clive's maternal grandmother's name is Abigail Christina ABBOTT Jenson born 22 JAN 1891 Bunkerville,Clark Co.,NV
"Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt."
Raoul Leavitt was a decedent of Dudley Leavitt,Clive's great great grandfather. Clive's great grandmother Mary Jane Leavitt's father was Dudley Leavitt who is Cliven Bundy's great great grandfather,he married a woman from Utah,Mary Huntsman in 1853,and eventually (probably 1877 as Clive has been saying) they settled in Bunkerville NV until Dudley died there in 1908.
Cliven Bundy inherited his ancestral rights that has been handed down through five generations in a direct line with the first generation being his great great grandfather Dudley Leavitt on his mothers side,who came from Salt Lake City Utah to settle in Bunkerville,NV sometime between 1853 when he married his wife Mary Huntsman to when he died in 1908 in Bunkerville (Cliven Bundy has claimed it was in 1877).
Cliven inherited his ancestral land rights from these ancestors in this order: Cliven's mother Margaret Bodel JENSON-Bundy - Cliven's grandmother,Margaret's mother,Abigail Christina ABBOTT-Jenson - Cliven's great grandmother,Mary Jane LEAVITT-Abbott. Abigail "Christina" Abbot-Jenson's mother, Cliven's great great grandfather Dudley Leavitt,Mary Jane Leavitt-Abbott's father.
This research was conducted here at the Rootsweb Ancestry website here:
http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi? op=PED&db=dowfam3&id=I549063
ASOLUTELY NONE OF THIS DEBATE MATTERS ANYMORE BECAUSE HE IS AN IDIOT AND THE SMALL PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS THAT WERE PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS STORY ARE NOW CONVINCED THAT YOU ARE ALL A BUNCH OF CRACKPOTS.........
and for those actually following this, we already knew that the Finney info was incorrect......that whole history was brought up, i think even on here pages ago.........
BUT AGAIN IT DOESN'T MATTER.....NOW EVERYONE ONLY THINKS ABOUT A BUNCH OF CRACKPOT ANTI GOVT DOMESTIC TERRORIST GOP LOVING RACISTS.......AND BACK TO THE GOVT CHANNEL THEY GO......
SO QUIT TALKING ABOUT THIS IDIOT AND FIND SOMEONE OR SOMETHING DESERVING TO GET BEHIND..... | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | musikmaker - 2014-04-24 1:30 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-24 11:11 AM smiley - 2014-04-24 11:03 AM Yes, it does, IMO, the BLM showed in force based on previous encounters with this family and the fact that the family and others were protesting and asked for and rec'd "others" via militias and oath keepers.
Yes, HIS lies matter. He put REAL people - people who believed him in danger...........you're ability to let him off the hook is kinda annoying to be honest.
There is no doubt Reid is pond scum, but as Finney said - the two are not related. One does not negate the other.
Anyhow...I just watched this video & I think it's by far the best summary of what is going on in our world...please watch. There are some great things that can come from this...we really don't need to be at each other's throats...it does the world no good & if ANY good can come from this...it needs to.
We all get to meet our Maker someday...in doing so we get to meet 'self'. Mercy.
This is good...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t84xLD2KbO4
I saw this & thought it was funny...for all those who are so ready to hang this man...settle down!
This is an old man who tells it like he sees it...sure, it's not pc...'negro' is an old fashioned referral that's no longer appropriate (since it changes every year it's hard to keep up)...in hearing his response it's clear he still doesn't 'get' how some chose to take it...I know if I heard that from some like minded people of his generation I would take it just how he said it...the 'new' slavery is no better and even worse than the 'old' slavery. He never intimated that it was better than freedom. We all need to get a grip & stop allowing the media to spin things.
This is concerning his 'heritage' that was brought into question...sorry to be so 'annoying'...lol.
This was posted by a supporter who did her homework-I figured out that the investigative reporter who wrote this article didn't do a very thorough job and was searching the wrong names. He should have searched for the surname Leavitt. Cliven Bundy is a direct decedent of Dudley Leavitt who would be Cliven's great great grandfather. It appears Dudley was the direct ancestor on Cliven's mother' side that first came to settle in Bunkerville,NV.
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ancestral-rights-come-under-scrutiny
There is inaccurate information in this article.
"Early census records show Cliven's maternal grandmother,Christena Jensen,was born in Nevada in 1901. One genealogical researcher says records indicate Jensen helped settle Bunkerville some years later."
This is INACCURATE: (they even spelled her name wrong): Clive's maternal grandmother's name is Abigail Christina ABBOTT Jenson born 22 JAN 1891 Bunkerville,Clark Co.,NV
"Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt."
Raoul Leavitt was a decedent of Dudley Leavitt,Clive's great great grandfather. Clive's great grandmother Mary Jane Leavitt's father was Dudley Leavitt who is Cliven Bundy's great great grandfather,he married a woman from Utah,Mary Huntsman in 1853,and eventually (probably 1877 as Clive has been saying) they settled in Bunkerville NV until Dudley died there in 1908.
Cliven Bundy inherited his ancestral rights that has been handed down through five generations in a direct line with the first generation being his great great grandfather Dudley Leavitt on his mothers side,who came from Salt Lake City Utah to settle in Bunkerville,NV sometime between 1853 when he married his wife Mary Huntsman to when he died in 1908 in Bunkerville (Cliven Bundy has claimed it was in 1877).
Cliven inherited his ancestral land rights from these ancestors in this order: Cliven's mother Margaret Bodel JENSON-Bundy - Cliven's grandmother,Margaret's mother,Abigail Christina ABBOTT-Jenson - Cliven's great grandmother,Mary Jane LEAVITT-Abbott. Abigail "Christina" Abbot-Jenson's mother, Cliven's great great grandfather Dudley Leavitt,Mary Jane Leavitt-Abbott's father.
This research was conducted here at the Rootsweb Ancestry website here:
http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi? op=PED&db=dowfam3&id=I549063
How interesting! hehehehehehheehehe
Now ALL You Fence Sitters (whom I detest) can go back up to Ya'll's Fence and see how this thing shakes out before Ya'll take sides again!
And No, Smiley, TxBO, DHDQHLC and even FinneyQtrHorses, I am not directing these comments towards you folks. I understand and even respect those who oppose Cliven Bundy and believe Him to be wrong. 'You' folks have at least a spine! It is those 'cowardly vultures' who sit on the fence and await an outcome before committing to a side that make my skin crawl!
Remember, once again, there are those in The Media who oppose Bundy and their reporting and in this case their research shows their bias. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| foundation horse - 2014-04-24 2:09 PM How interesting! hehehehehehheehehe
Now ALL You Fence Sitters (whom I detest) can go back up to Ya'll's Fence and see how this thing shakes out before Ya'll take sides again!
And No, Smiley, TxBO, DHDQHLC and even FinneyQtrHorses, I am not directing these comments towards you folks. I understand and even respect those who oppose Cliven Bundy and believe Him to be wrong. 'You' folks have at least a spine! It is those 'cowardly vultures' who sit on the fence and await an outcome before committing to a side that make my skin crawl!
Remember, once again, there are those in The Media who oppose Bundy and their reporting and in this case their research shows their bias.
With all due respect, FH, sitting on the fence until one can make an informed conscientious decision is too rare today.
Edited by TXBO 2014-04-24 2:37 PM
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-24 2:28 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-24 2:09 PM How interesting! hehehehehehheehehe
Now ALL You Fence Sitters (whom I detest) can go back up to Ya'll's Fence and see how this thing shakes out before Ya'll take sides again!
And No, Smiley, TxBO, DHDQHLC and even FinneyQtrHorses, I am not directing these comments towards you folks. I understand and even respect those who oppose Cliven Bundy and believe Him to be wrong. 'You' folks have at least a spine! It is those 'cowardly vultures' who sit on the fence and await an outcome before committing to a side that make my skin crawl!
Remember, once again, there are those in The Media who oppose Bundy and their reporting and in this case their research shows their bias.
With all due respect, FH, sitting on the fence until one can make an informed conscientious decicion is too rare today.
In the context you are describing 'Fence Sitting' works and is appropriate. BUT not in the context I am employing the use of said term. | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | d*** you context!!!! d*** youuuuuuuuuuu........
Edited by dhdqhllc 2014-04-24 2:36 PM
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-24 1:30 "Early census records show Cliven's maternal grandmother,Christena Jensen,was born in Nevada in 1901. One genealogical researcher says records indicate Jensen helped settle Bunkerville some years later."
This is INACCURATE: (they even spelled her name wrong): Clive's maternal grandmother's name is Abigail Christina ABBOTT Jenson born 22 JAN 1891 Bunkerville,Clark Co.,NV
"Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt."
Raoul Leavitt was a decedent of Dudley Leavitt,Clive's great great grandfather. Clive's great grandmother Mary Jane Leavitt's father was Dudley Leavitt who is Cliven Bundy's great great grandfather,he married a woman from Utah,Mary Huntsman in 1853,and eventually (probably 1877 as Clive has been saying) they settled in Bunkerville NV until Dudley died there in 1908.
Cliven Bundy inherited his ancestral rights that has been handed down through five generations in a direct line with the first generation being his great great grandfather Dudley Leavitt on his mothers side,who came from Salt Lake City Utah to settle in Bunkerville,NV sometime between 1853 when he married his wife Mary Huntsman to when he died in 1908 in Bunkerville (Cliven Bundy has claimed it was in 1877).
Cliven inherited his ancestral land rights from these ancestors in this order: Cliven's mother Margaret Bodel JENSON-Bundy - Cliven's grandmother,Margaret's mother,Abigail Christina ABBOTT-Jenson - Cliven's great grandmother,Mary Jane LEAVITT-Abbott. Abigail "Christina" Abbot-Jenson's mother, Cliven's great great grandfather Dudley Leavitt,Mary Jane Leavitt-Abbott's father.
This research was conducted here at the Rootsweb Ancestry website here:
http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi? op=PED&db=dowfam3&id=I549063
It seems like everything has documentation except his ancestrial rights to graze half a million acres of Nevada.
Edited by TXBO 2014-04-24 2:36 PM
| |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | TXBO - 2014-04-24 2:35 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-24 1:30
"Early census records show Cliven's maternal grandmother,Christena Jensen,was born in Nevada in 1901. One genealogical researcher says records indicate Jensen helped settle Bunkerville some years later."
This is INACCURATE: (they even spelled her name wrong): Clive's maternal grandmother's name is Abigail Christina ABBOTT Jenson born 22 JAN 1891 Bunkerville,Clark Co.,NV
"Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt."
Raoul Leavitt was a decedent of Dudley Leavitt,Clive's great great grandfather. Clive's great grandmother Mary Jane Leavitt's father was Dudley Leavitt who is Cliven Bundy's great great grandfather,he married a woman from Utah,Mary Huntsman in 1853,and eventually (probably 1877 as Clive has been saying) they settled in Bunkerville NV until Dudley died there in 1908.
Cliven Bundy inherited his ancestral rights that has been handed down through five generations in a direct line with the first generation being his great great grandfather Dudley Leavitt on his mothers side,who came from Salt Lake City Utah to settle in Bunkerville,NV sometime between 1853 when he married his wife Mary Huntsman to when he died in 1908 in Bunkerville (Cliven Bundy has claimed it was in 1877).
Cliven inherited his ancestral land rights from these ancestors in this order: Cliven's mother Margaret Bodel JENSON-Bundy - Cliven's grandmother,Margaret's mother,Abigail Christina ABBOTT-Jenson - Cliven's great grandmother,Mary Jane LEAVITT-Abbott. Abigail "Christina" Abbot-Jenson's mother, Cliven's great great grandfather Dudley Leavitt,Mary Jane Leavitt-Abbott's father.
This research was conducted here at the Rootsweb Ancestry website here:
http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi? op=PED&db=dowfam3&id=I549063
It seems like everything has documentation except is ancestrial rights to graze half a million acres of Nevada.
600,000.....puuuuhleeez get your context straight..... | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | TXBO..,....you can't just rewrite context......the evidence is still there.....lol | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| dhdqhllc - 2014-04-24 2:36 PM 600,000.....puuuuhleeez get your context straight.....
LMAO!
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| dhdqhllc - 2014-04-24 2:37 PM TXBO..,....you can't just rewrite context......the evidence is still there.....lol
If the let Clive get away with this, I'm going to squat 500,000 acres in Utah.
Musik, throw a steak on the swing for me. I'm coming to claim our land. LOL! | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | TXBO - 2014-04-24 2:38 PM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-24 2:36 PM 600,000.....puuuuhleeez get your context straight..... LMAO!
well....i mean seriously....if he only had a half a million acres, he would be overgrazing....... | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| musikmaker - 2014-04-24 11:11 AM smiley - 2014-04-24 11:03 AM Yes, it does, IMO, the BLM showed in force based on previous encounters with this family and the fact that the family and others were protesting and asked for and rec'd "others" via militias and oath keepers.
Yes, HIS lies matter. He put REAL people - people who believed him in danger...........you're ability to let him off the hook is kinda annoying to be honest.
There is no doubt Reid is pond scum, but as Finney said - the two are not related. One does not negate the other.
Anyhow...I just watched this video & I think it's by far the best summary of what is going on in our world...please watch. There are some great things that can come from this...we really don't need to be at each other's throats...it does the world no good & if ANY good can come from this...it needs to.
We all get to meet our Maker someday...in doing so we get to meet 'self'. Mercy.
This is good...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t84xLD2KbO4
Another uneducated soul. TXBO has already shown us the very consititution of Nevada, that clearly this public servant has never read.
He is wrong.
WHY does everyone who supports this think that things only change in life for "other people" and not them. Oh, Taylor Grazing Act - all done without "compensation to the American Rancher."
WHAT?? You think the American Rancher should be compensated due to the Taylor Grazing ACT??????????
I stopped there.
The bottom line is that the land is fed land - bottom LINE - and this man was using it illegally. This guy in this video needs an email from me but who has that kind of time. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| smiley - 2014-04-24 1:50 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-24 11:11 AM smiley - 2014-04-24 11:03 AM Yes, it does, IMO, the BLM showed in force based on previous encounters with this family and the fact that the family and others were protesting and asked for and rec'd "others" via militias and oath keepers.
Yes, HIS lies matter. He put REAL people - people who believed him in danger...........you're ability to let him off the hook is kinda annoying to be honest.
There is no doubt Reid is pond scum, but as Finney said - the two are not related. One does not negate the other.
Anyhow...I just watched this video & I think it's by far the best summary of what is going on in our world...please watch. There are some great things that can come from this...we really don't need to be at each other's throats...it does the world no good & if ANY good can come from this...it needs to.
We all get to meet our Maker someday...in doing so we get to meet 'self'. Mercy.
This is good...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t84xLD2KbO4
He is wrong.
WHY does everyone who supports this think that things only change in life for "other people" and not them. Oh, Taylor Grazing Act - all done without "compensation to the American Rancher."
WHAT?? You think the American Rancher should be compensated due to the Taylor Grazing ACT??????????
I stopped there.
The bottom line is that the land is fed land - bottom LINE - and this man was using it illegally. This guy in this video needs an email from me but who has that kind of time.
Okay, I gave him a few more minutes, time I'll never get back.
The BLM is run by elected officials folks - CONGRESS and the PRESIDENT.
And Field and State offices and the directors of those offices have a LOT of leeway in what they choose to do in their areas.
He compared this to MLK?
UGH. Another tool. | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | *** ****....everyone needs to stop interjecting more **** context...... | |
| | |
I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | I can't believe anyone would take anything that the crooks and liars blog to be the truth. They are a very left leaning rag that gets a lot of their info from the greats like of Rachel Madcow and Chris Matthews.. LOL | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-24 1:42 PM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-24 2:37 PM TXBO..,....you can't just rewrite context......the evidence is still there.....lol If the let Clive get away with this, I'm going to squat 500,000 acres in Utah.
Musik, throw a steak on the swing for me. I'm coming to claim our land. LOL!
It still works in Florida! Lmao...
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/oddnews/soldier-in-battle-to-rid-home-of-squatters--florida-sheriff%E2%80%99s-office-says-it-can%E2%80%99t-do-anything-210607842.html
(the meat's always swingin at the Hat)...
BTW : Florida, Louisiana, Alabama...et al...have basically the same 'enabling acts' as the western states...the difference being that the gov't honored those...we only want the same consideration! And we'll get it!
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-24 1:53 PM smiley - 2014-04-24 1:50 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-24 11:11 AM smiley - 2014-04-24 11:03 AM Yes, it does, IMO, the BLM showed in force based on previous encounters with this family and the fact that the family and others were protesting and asked for and rec'd "others" via militias and oath keepers.
Yes, HIS lies matter. He put REAL people - people who believed him in danger...........you're ability to let him off the hook is kinda annoying to be honest.
There is no doubt Reid is pond scum, but as Finney said - the two are not related. One does not negate the other.
Anyhow...I just watched this video & I think it's by far the best summary of what is going on in our world...please watch. There are some great things that can come from this...we really don't need to be at each other's throats...it does the world no good & if ANY good can come from this...it needs to.
We all get to meet our Maker someday...in doing so we get to meet 'self'. Mercy.
This is good...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t84xLD2KbO4
He is wrong.
WHY does everyone who supports this think that things only change in life for "other people" and not them. Oh, Taylor Grazing Act - all done without "compensation to the American Rancher."
WHAT?? You think the American Rancher should be compensated due to the Taylor Grazing ACT??????????
I stopped there.
The bottom line is that the land is fed land - bottom LINE - and this man was using it illegally. This guy in this video needs an email from me but who has that kind of time.
The BLM is run by elected officials folks - CONGRESS and the PRESIDENT.
And Field and State offices and the directors of those offices have a LOT of leeway in what they choose to do in their areas.
He compared this to MLK?
UGH. Another tool.
Yup...and it's past time that they started making the policy vs allowing non-elected yahoos use their 'own discrecion'. THAT is wrong...
About state consitutions, if it gave untold power to the fed and/or threatened the inalienable rights of the individual then it should be repealed...easily.
Check out the 'enabling acts' of Florida, Louisiana, Araknsaw, Alabama...these western states weren't the 1st, our enabling acts were modeled after those, yet, the land is still held in trust...is this how we want our gov't to be ran? Inequality...hmmm...seems like that word just won't go away.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | It would appear the The Nevada State Constitution and 43 U.S.C Section 1733 are conflict of each other. Section 1733 states in effect The BLM should resolve all legal matters as locally as possible.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | foundation horse - 2014-04-24 3:33 PM
It would appear the The Nevada State Constitution and 43 U.S.C Section 1733 are conflict of each other. Section 1733 states in effect The BLM should resolve all legal matters as locally as possible.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=explorer&srcid=0BzoGoAqOi9feSHhkd...
Grrr! I cannot seem to be able to C&P the rest of the article.
However here is a live link to read it for ya'll's selves.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/congressman-pens-letter-obama-blas... | |
| | |
I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas |  | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas |
Thank you NTO!  | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-24 3:13 PM
....(the meat's always swingin at the Hat.....
I'm planning a trip ski trip for next winter in Park Lake. How long of a drive is it to "the Hat"? | |
| | |
That's White "Man" to You
Posts: 5515
| Interesting thing just happened. I just had the helicopter pilot that rounded up the cattle in my office. Mr. Carter is a local guy that has made a living rounding up wild horses for the blm and taking the Govt. trappers on predator reduction projects. He is probably the best man for this type of thing as far as his pilot skills go. He believes that Bundy has done nothing about the cattle because he can not. There were cows that would charge the helicopter and try to hook it from underneath. Several of the cattle killed were in self defense. He know of another pilot that had been contracted with bundy prior to this fiasco and they were only able to round up 4 head. | |
| | |
I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-24 3:58 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-24 3:13 PM ....(the meat's always swingin at the Hat..... I'm planning a trip ski trip for next winter in Park Lake. How long of a drive is it to "the Hat"?
It's on my list to make it up to Mexican Hat to meet Joy. | |
| | |
I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | Bundy has definitely just shot himself in the foot as he is on every left channel right now. What a dumb ass. His supporters will be dropping like flies. What is really sad is he made some valid points. The government does keep people enslaved when they are on government subsidies and living in public housing. They teach people to sit back and do nothing rather then teaching them to take care of themselves.
Edited by Nevertooold 2014-04-24 4:12 PM
| |
| | |
I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | Whiteboy - 2014-04-24 4:04 PM Interesting thing just happened. I just had the helicopter pilot that rounded up the cattle in my office. Mr. Carter is a local guy that has made a living rounding up wild horses for the blm and taking the Govt. trappers on predator reduction projects. He is probably the best man for this type of thing as far as his pilot skills go. He believes that Bundy has done nothing about the cattle because he can not. There were cows that would charge the helicopter and try to hook it from underneath. Several of the cattle killed were in self defense. He know of another pilot that had been contracted with bundy prior to this fiasco and they were only able to round up 4 head.
I guess they needed some cowboys to do the job instead of helicopters. My understanding the momma cows were wild but they were able to round the calves up. Why would he need to round up the heifers or the bulls?
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| foundation horse - 2014-04-24 3:33 PM It would appear the The Nevada State Constitution and 43 U.S.C Section 1733 are conflict of each other. Section 1733 states in effect The BLM should resolve all legal matters as locally as possible.
Steve Stockman is my Congressman. I know him well. He's mostly right about everything his letter stated. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-24 2:58 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-24 3:13 PM ....(the meat's always swingin at the Hat..... I'm planning a trip ski trip for next winter in Park Lake. How long of a drive is it to "the Hat"?
I don't know where Park Lake is? Park City is about 400 miles though...and, alas, we close during the winter, guess I'll have to rievise that to: "The meat's always swingin in the heat"? lol... | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-24 4:27 PM TXBO - 2014-04-24 2:58 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-24 3:13 PM ....(the meat's always swingin at the Hat..... I'm planning a trip ski trip for next winter in Park Lake. How long of a drive is it to "the Hat"?
LOL! Yes, Park City. When is your season? | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Nevertooold - 2014-04-24 3:11 PM Bundy has definitely just shot himself in the foot as he is on every left channel right now. What a dumb ass. His supporters will be dropping like flies. What is really sad is he made some valid points. The government does keep people enslaved when they are on government subsidies and living in public housing. They teach people to sit back and do nothing rather then teaching them to take care of themselves.
Interesting that the 'left media' had nothing to say until this...then, in my mind, they really took it out of context.
I've known way too many older folks who talk just like him...they just don't hear how it sounds to those of us raised after the '60's" ...I gave up trying to 'educate' them to the 'new pc' long ago...I get their point.
For those willing to drop the issue of gov't overreach because of this, it never was about the cattle...or even Bundy. We should ask why he's suddenly 'enemy #1'. THAT'S scary! They're after him now...why? Hmmm...
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-24 3:32 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-24 4:27 PM TXBO - 2014-04-24 2:58 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-24 3:13 PM ....(the meat's always swingin at the Hat..... I'm planning a trip ski trip for next winter in Park Lake. How long of a drive is it to "the Hat"?
March 1st thru Oct. 15th or so...since it's all outdoors! I'm currently (supposed to be) opening a new restaurant tomorrow, though! Lol...I'm just pulling odds & ends together...menus, pricing, recipes, phones, merchant acct, hiring, scheduling...um...is it beer thirty yet??? This isn't a steak house, just breakfast & mostly Navajo tacos for lunch/dinner, catering to buses, too. I love/hate my job. Hence my 'escape' to argue! Keeps me playing nice to everyone else....Hahahaha.... | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | Wait, what? Now we're vilifying someone for saying negro? Negro negro negro. It's not a bad word. Neither is colored people, mulatto, or black. High yellow...I might give you that one. African American is not in my vocab and I'm not changing.  | |
| | |
| musikmaker - 2014-04-24 4:36 PM
Nevertooold - 2014-04-24 3:11 PM Bundy has definitely just shot himself in the foot as he is on every left channel right now. What a dumb ass. His supporters will be dropping like flies. What is really sad is he made some valid points. The government does keep people enslaved when they are on government subsidies and living in public housing. They teach people to sit back and do nothing rather then teaching them to take care of themselves.
Interesting that the 'left media' had nothing to say until this...then, in my mind, they really took it out of context.
I've known way too many older folks who talk just like him...they just don't hear how it sounds to those of us raised after the '60's" ...I gave up trying to 'educate' them to the 'new pc' long ago...I get their point.
For those willing to drop the issue of gov't overreach because of this, it never was about the cattle...or even Bundy. We should ask why he's suddenly 'enemy #1'. THAT'S scary! They're after him now...why? Hmmm...
Funny how the tables have turned. I would imagine majority of the candidates speaking out against Bundy are trying to save face and votes for the upcoming elections. | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | It's storming. I'm bored. But not bored enough to fold clothes. | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| I do have a couple of questions for the people who would like the Federal Government to turn over the Nevada land to the State of Nevada. No meaness implied, I just would like to know what people think:
First, the BLM grazing fees are $1.35 AUM, and State of Nevada grazing fees are $12 AUM (that is what I was told). On that note alone, it doesn't seem to make financial sense to want to pay $12 per month instead of $1.35 per month. Are state regulations and grazing practices that much loser in Nevada that a nearly 10 times increase in rent would be beneficial to the rancher? And if the rules do allow more livestock, would adequate grazing be maintained? I don't know about the rest of you folks but the terrain looked like you needed that 1/2 million acres to support 500 cows, plus, the cows looked like marathon runners instead of tender beef on the hoof.
Secondly, if the State of Nevada (or other states) could not adequately care for the land, wouldn't it be logical for them to sell it to the highest bidder or raise grazing rates, a lot? It just seems that the Ted Turners of the world would take an opportunity to buy up that much land and run with it, leaving the ranchers, recreational people, hunters, etc. with no access at all. I don't think there is any outbidding people like TT for large parcels of land like that. It certainly wasn't possible in Nebraska when he bought up large chunks of Nebraska Sandhills, tore out all the fences and kicked all the ranch help off.
It just seems to me that this is a case of being careful what you wish for. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-24 4:32 PM I do have a couple of questions for the people who would like the Federal Government to turn over the Nevada land to the State of Nevada. No meaness implied, I just would like to know what people think: First, the BLM grazing fees are $1.35 AUM, and State of Nevada grazing fees are $12 AUM (that is what I was told). On that note alone, it doesn't seem to make financial sense to want to pay $12 per month instead of $1.35 per month. Are state regulations and grazing practices that much loser in Nevada that a nearly 10 times increase in rent would be beneficial to the rancher? And if the rules do allow more livestock, would adequate grazing be maintained? I don't know about the rest of you folks but the terrain looked like you needed that 1/2 million acres to support 500 cows, plus, the cows looked like marathon runners instead of tender beef on the hoof. Secondly, if the State of Nevada (or other states) could not adequately care for the land, wouldn't it be logical for them to sell it to the highest bidder or raise grazing rates, a lot? It just seems that the Ted Turners of the world would take an opportunity to buy up that much land and run with it, leaving the ranchers, recreational people, hunters, etc. with no access at all. I don't think there is any outbidding people like TT for large parcels of land like that. It certainly wasn't possible in Nebraska when he bought up large chunks of Nebraska Sandhills, tore out all the fences and kicked all the ranch help off. It just seems to me that this is a case of being careful what you wish for.
I'm quite certain you hit on the very reason this has been 'left under the rug' for so so long.
It has been discussed...the end opinion being that the state & fed should still do the right thing simply because it's the kingpin of our country...the ownership of real property. To deny that possibility & opportunity is to deny our basic right. I also know that we have anti-trust & anti-monopoly laws which should prevent the scenario you described. Aside from that...I don't see anyone buying most of the land as it's remote, rough, roadless...there's little or no water...we haven't come far enough to make it habitable and I doubt we ever will.
Fear is the controlling factor here...and there's lots of 'groups' who want to cntrol it with tax payer money.
Archeologists come to mind. I find archeology interesting, however, it's become nothing more than a gov't sponsored hobby & the laws (antiquities act) surrounding it are ridiculous. Are we willing to continue to sponsor this kind of waste? Does it do us one bit of good studying what people ate however many years ago? They have an open top bucket of our $$'s to grab right now...
As always, it seems to come down to money. Power. While the majority of the world is playing Candy Crush for fun, some play the real power game for keeps. In the end it's still just a game, though. A sick one. With us the 'voting' pawns...almost makes ya laugh.
Yes. Most of us out here still support the fed disposing of the land as intended. We'll deal with the aftermath, but, it's the right thing to do. There's hope that the states can provide better management for most areas that would include mining, grazing, exploration...and tourism. At least for Utah, we know that tourism is a boost to our economy, we also know that it's not 'productive' and is reliant on global economy...we must 'produce' to stay afloat. Right now the fed controls the land that could produce & be a viable resource for the citizens of Utah.
| |
| | |
Swiffer PIcker Upper
Posts: 4015
Location: Four Corners Colorado | I saw the video with the "racist" comments they were nothing more than obvserving that those people on goverment assistance are still slaves only to a different master.
The only difference was they had to work for their housing and care and now they don't have to do a thing for it.
In the past at least they had to learn to work for what they get now all they learn is to stick a hand out. This statement can be made about every race.
| |
| | |
I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | equussynergy - 2014-04-24 6:17 PM I saw the video with the "racist" comments they were nothing more than obvserving that those people on goverment assistance are still slaves only to a different master.
The only difference was they had to work for their housing and care and now they don't have to do a thing for it.
In the past at least they had to learn to work for what they get now all they learn is to stick a hand out. This statement can be made about every race.
I agree but we are now in a ridiculous world where people just love playing the race card and the majority are afraid to say it like it is. Just think..Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be out their money making ponzhi scheme if the race card BS ended and we were able to say it like it is. Then add on all the civil right lawyers that are getting rich on this BS also while they do anything but help the people that they are supposedly representing. | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | equussynergy - 2014-04-24 6:17 PM I saw the video with the "racist" comments they were nothing more than obvserving that those people on goverment assistance are still slaves only to a different master.
The only difference was they had to work for their housing and care and now they don't have to do a thing for it.
In the past at least they had to learn to work for what they get now all they learn is to stick a hand out. This statement can be made about every race.
You're wrong. They don't "do nothing", they vote for it. | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| musikmaker - 2014-04-24 6:05 PM
FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-24 4:32 PM I do have a couple of questions for the people who would like the Federal Government to turn over the Nevada land to the State of Nevada. No meaness implied, I just would like to know what people think: First, the BLM grazing fees are $1.35 AUM, and State of Nevada grazing fees are $12 AUM (that is what I was told). On that note alone, it doesn't seem to make financial sense to want to pay $12 per month instead of $1.35 per month. Are state regulations and grazing practices that much loser in Nevada that a nearly 10 times increase in rent would be beneficial to the rancher? And if the rules do allow more livestock, would adequate grazing be maintained? I don't know about the rest of you folks but the terrain looked like you needed that 1/2 million acres to support 500 cows, plus, the cows looked like marathon runners instead of tender beef on the hoof. Secondly, if the State of Nevada (or other states) could not adequately care for the land, wouldn't it be logical for them to sell it to the highest bidder or raise grazing rates, a lot? It just seems that the Ted Turners of the world would take an opportunity to buy up that much land and run with it, leaving the ranchers, recreational people, hunters, etc. with no access at all. I don't think there is any outbidding people like TT for large parcels of land like that. It certainly wasn't possible in Nebraska when he bought up large chunks of Nebraska Sandhills, tore out all the fences and kicked all the ranch help off. It just seems to me that this is a case of being careful what you wish for.
I'm quite certain you hit on the very reason this has been 'left under the rug' for so so long.
It has been discussed...the end opinion being that the state & fed should still do the right thing simply because it's the kingpin of our country...the ownership of real property. To deny that possibility & opportunity is to deny our basic right. I also know that we have anti-trust & anti-monopoly laws which should prevent the scenario you described. Aside from that...I don't see anyone buying most of the land as it's remote, rough, roadless...there's little or no water...we haven't come far enough to make it habitable and I doubt we ever will.
Fear is the controlling factor here...and there's lots of 'groups' who want to cntrol it with tax payer money.
Archeologists come to mind. I find archeology interesting, however, it's become nothing more than a gov't sponsored hobby & the laws (antiquities act) surrounding it are ridiculous. Are we willing to continue to sponsor this kind of waste? Does it do us one bit of good studying what people ate however many years ago? They have an open top bucket of our $$'s to grab right now...
As always, it seems to come down to money. Power. While the majority of the world is playing Candy Crush for fun, some play the real power game for keeps. In the end it's still just a game, though. A sick one. With us the 'voting' pawns...almost makes ya laugh.
Yes. Most of us out here still support the fed disposing of the land as intended. We'll deal with the aftermath, but, it's the right thing to do. There's hope that the states can provide better management for most areas that would include mining, grazing, exploration...and tourism. At least for Utah, we know that tourism is a boost to our economy, we also know that it's not 'productive' and is reliant on global economy...we must 'produce' to stay afloat. Right now the fed controls the land that could produce & be a viable resource for the citizens of Utah.
"Yes. Most of us out here still support the fed disposing of the land as intended. We'll deal with the aftermath, but, it's the right thing to do. There's hope that the states can provide better management for most areas that would include mining, grazing, exploration...and tourism. At least for Utah, we know that tourism is a boost to our economy, we also know that it's not 'productive' and is reliant on global economy...we must 'produce' to stay afloat. Right now the fed controls the land that could produce & be a viable resource for the citizens of Utah."
Ah... I see where you are coming from now. By most of us, I assume you mean the hotel & tourism, oil, gas and mineral industry which is becoming increasingly incompatible with grazing. Your concern isn't the rancher who will have to pay ten times more to graze his cattle, if he is allowed to graze at all, but for the people like yourself who are involved in a more lucrative industry. Power and money. You said it. Just don't pretend that you are advocating it for "freedom" and the "poor, abused rancher". | |
| | |
Famous for Not Complaining
Posts: 8848
Location: Broxton, Ga | Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-23 6:30 PM It's storming. I'm bored. But not bored enough to fold clothes.
I hate folding clothes too! | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-24 7:54 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-24 6:05 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-24 4:32 PM I do have a couple of questions for the people who would like the Federal Government to turn over the Nevada land to the State of Nevada. No meaness implied, I just would like to know what people think: First, the BLM grazing fees are $1.35 AUM, and State of Nevada grazing fees are $12 AUM (that is what I was told). On that note alone, it doesn't seem to make financial sense to want to pay $12 per month instead of $1.35 per month. Are state regulations and grazing practices that much loser in Nevada that a nearly 10 times increase in rent would be beneficial to the rancher? And if the rules do allow more livestock, would adequate grazing be maintained? I don't know about the rest of you folks but the terrain looked like you needed that 1/2 million acres to support 500 cows, plus, the cows looked like marathon runners instead of tender beef on the hoof. Secondly, if the State of Nevada (or other states) could not adequately care for the land, wouldn't it be logical for them to sell it to the highest bidder or raise grazing rates, a lot? It just seems that the Ted Turners of the world would take an opportunity to buy up that much land and run with it, leaving the ranchers, recreational people, hunters, etc. with no access at all. I don't think there is any outbidding people like TT for large parcels of land like that. It certainly wasn't possible in Nebraska when he bought up large chunks of Nebraska Sandhills, tore out all the fences and kicked all the ranch help off. It just seems to me that this is a case of being careful what you wish for. I'm quite certain you hit on the very reason this has been 'left under the rug' for so so long.
It has been discussed...the end opinion being that the state & fed should still do the right thing simply because it's the kingpin of our country...the ownership of real property. To deny that possibility & opportunity is to deny our basic right. I also know that we have anti-trust & anti-monopoly laws which should prevent the scenario you described. Aside from that...I don't see anyone buying most of the land as it's remote, rough, roadless...there's little or no water...we haven't come far enough to make it habitable and I doubt we ever will.
Fear is the controlling factor here...and there's lots of 'groups' who want to cntrol it with tax payer money.
Archeologists come to mind. I find archeology interesting, however, it's become nothing more than a gov't sponsored hobby & the laws (antiquities act) surrounding it are ridiculous. Are we willing to continue to sponsor this kind of waste? Does it do us one bit of good studying what people ate however many years ago? They have an open top bucket of our $$'s to grab right now...
As always, it seems to come down to money. Power. While the majority of the world is playing Candy Crush for fun, some play the real power game for keeps. In the end it's still just a game, though. A sick one. With us the 'voting' pawns...almost makes ya laugh.
Yes. Most of us out here still support the fed disposing of the land as intended. We'll deal with the aftermath, but, it's the right thing to do. There's hope that the states can provide better management for most areas that would include mining, grazing, exploration...and tourism. At least for Utah, we know that tourism is a boost to our economy, we also know that it's not 'productive' and is reliant on global economy...we must 'produce' to stay afloat. Right now the fed controls the land that could produce & be a viable resource for the citizens of Utah.
"Yes. Most of us out here still support the fed disposing of the land as intended. We'll deal with the aftermath, but, it's the right thing to do. There's hope that the states can provide better management for most areas that would include mining, grazing, exploration...and tourism. At least for Utah, we know that tourism is a boost to our economy, we also know that it's not 'productive' and is reliant on global economy...we must 'produce' to stay afloat. Right now the fed controls the land that could produce & be a viable resource for the citizens of Utah." Ah... I see where you are coming from now. By most of us, I assume you mean the hotel & tourism, oil, gas and mineral industry which is becoming increasingly incompatible with grazing. Your concern isn't the rancher who will have to pay ten times more to graze his cattle, if he is allowed to graze at all, but for the people like yourself who are involved in a more lucrative industry. Power and money. You said it. Just don't pretend that you are advocating it for "freedom" and the "poor, abused rancher".
Now "Who" is looking for a Government Teat? | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-24 6:54 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-24 6:05 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-24 4:32 PM I do have a couple of questions for the people who would like the Federal Government to turn over the Nevada land to the State of Nevada. No meaness implied, I just would like to know what people think: First, the BLM grazing fees are $1.35 AUM, and State of Nevada grazing fees are $12 AUM (that is what I was told). On that note alone, it doesn't seem to make financial sense to want to pay $12 per month instead of $1.35 per month. Are state regulations and grazing practices that much loser in Nevada that a nearly 10 times increase in rent would be beneficial to the rancher? And if the rules do allow more livestock, would adequate grazing be maintained? I don't know about the rest of you folks but the terrain looked like you needed that 1/2 million acres to support 500 cows, plus, the cows looked like marathon runners instead of tender beef on the hoof. Secondly, if the State of Nevada (or other states) could not adequately care for the land, wouldn't it be logical for them to sell it to the highest bidder or raise grazing rates, a lot? It just seems that the Ted Turners of the world would take an opportunity to buy up that much land and run with it, leaving the ranchers, recreational people, hunters, etc. with no access at all. I don't think there is any outbidding people like TT for large parcels of land like that. It certainly wasn't possible in Nebraska when he bought up large chunks of Nebraska Sandhills, tore out all the fences and kicked all the ranch help off. It just seems to me that this is a case of being careful what you wish for. I'm quite certain you hit on the very reason this has been 'left under the rug' for so so long.
It has been discussed...the end opinion being that the state & fed should still do the right thing simply because it's the kingpin of our country...the ownership of real property. To deny that possibility & opportunity is to deny our basic right. I also know that we have anti-trust & anti-monopoly laws which should prevent the scenario you described. Aside from that...I don't see anyone buying most of the land as it's remote, rough, roadless...there's little or no water...we haven't come far enough to make it habitable and I doubt we ever will.
Fear is the controlling factor here...and there's lots of 'groups' who want to cntrol it with tax payer money.
Archeologists come to mind. I find archeology interesting, however, it's become nothing more than a gov't sponsored hobby & the laws (antiquities act) surrounding it are ridiculous. Are we willing to continue to sponsor this kind of waste? Does it do us one bit of good studying what people ate however many years ago? They have an open top bucket of our $$'s to grab right now...
As always, it seems to come down to money. Power. While the majority of the world is playing Candy Crush for fun, some play the real power game for keeps. In the end it's still just a game, though. A sick one. With us the 'voting' pawns...almost makes ya laugh.
Yes. Most of us out here still support the fed disposing of the land as intended. We'll deal with the aftermath, but, it's the right thing to do. There's hope that the states can provide better management for most areas that would include mining, grazing, exploration...and tourism. At least for Utah, we know that tourism is a boost to our economy, we also know that it's not 'productive' and is reliant on global economy...we must 'produce' to stay afloat. Right now the fed controls the land that could produce & be a viable resource for the citizens of Utah.
"Yes. Most of us out here still support the fed disposing of the land as intended. We'll deal with the aftermath, but, it's the right thing to do. There's hope that the states can provide better management for most areas that would include mining, grazing, exploration...and tourism. At least for Utah, we know that tourism is a boost to our economy, we also know that it's not 'productive' and is reliant on global economy...we must 'produce' to stay afloat. Right now the fed controls the land that could produce & be a viable resource for the citizens of Utah." Ah... I see where you are coming from now. By most of us, I assume you mean the hotel & tourism, oil, gas and mineral industry which is becoming increasingly incompatible with grazing. Your concern isn't the rancher who will have to pay ten times more to graze his cattle, if he is allowed to graze at all, but for the people like yourself who are involved in a more lucrative industry. Power and money. You said it. Just don't pretend that you are advocating it for "freedom" and the "poor, abused rancher".
RFC (Read For Comprehension). | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | musikmaker - 2014-04-24 8:34 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-24 6:54 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-24 6:05 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-24 4:32 PM I do have a couple of questions for the people who would like the Federal Government to turn over the Nevada land to the State of Nevada. No meaness implied, I just would like to know what people think: First, the BLM grazing fees are $1.35 AUM, and State of Nevada grazing fees are $12 AUM (that is what I was told). On that note alone, it doesn't seem to make financial sense to want to pay $12 per month instead of $1.35 per month. Are state regulations and grazing practices that much loser in Nevada that a nearly 10 times increase in rent would be beneficial to the rancher? And if the rules do allow more livestock, would adequate grazing be maintained? I don't know about the rest of you folks but the terrain looked like you needed that 1/2 million acres to support 500 cows, plus, the cows looked like marathon runners instead of tender beef on the hoof. Secondly, if the State of Nevada (or other states) could not adequately care for the land, wouldn't it be logical for them to sell it to the highest bidder or raise grazing rates, a lot? It just seems that the Ted Turners of the world would take an opportunity to buy up that much land and run with it, leaving the ranchers, recreational people, hunters, etc. with no access at all. I don't think there is any outbidding people like TT for large parcels of land like that. It certainly wasn't possible in Nebraska when he bought up large chunks of Nebraska Sandhills, tore out all the fences and kicked all the ranch help off. It just seems to me that this is a case of being careful what you wish for. I'm quite certain you hit on the very reason this has been 'left under the rug' for so so long.
It has been discussed...the end opinion being that the state & fed should still do the right thing simply because it's the kingpin of our country...the ownership of real property. To deny that possibility & opportunity is to deny our basic right. I also know that we have anti-trust & anti-monopoly laws which should prevent the scenario you described. Aside from that...I don't see anyone buying most of the land as it's remote, rough, roadless...there's little or no water...we haven't come far enough to make it habitable and I doubt we ever will.
Fear is the controlling factor here...and there's lots of 'groups' who want to cntrol it with tax payer money.
Archeologists come to mind. I find archeology interesting, however, it's become nothing more than a gov't sponsored hobby & the laws (antiquities act) surrounding it are ridiculous. Are we willing to continue to sponsor this kind of waste? Does it do us one bit of good studying what people ate however many years ago? They have an open top bucket of our $$'s to grab right now...
As always, it seems to come down to money. Power. While the majority of the world is playing Candy Crush for fun, some play the real power game for keeps. In the end it's still just a game, though. A sick one. With us the 'voting' pawns...almost makes ya laugh.
Yes. Most of us out here still support the fed disposing of the land as intended. We'll deal with the aftermath, but, it's the right thing to do. There's hope that the states can provide better management for most areas that would include mining, grazing, exploration...and tourism. At least for Utah, we know that tourism is a boost to our economy, we also know that it's not 'productive' and is reliant on global economy...we must 'produce' to stay afloat. Right now the fed controls the land that could produce & be a viable resource for the citizens of Utah.
"Yes. Most of us out here still support the fed disposing of the land as intended. We'll deal with the aftermath, but, it's the right thing to do. There's hope that the states can provide better management for most areas that would include mining, grazing, exploration...and tourism. At least for Utah, we know that tourism is a boost to our economy, we also know that it's not 'productive' and is reliant on global economy...we must 'produce' to stay afloat. Right now the fed controls the land that could produce & be a viable resource for the citizens of Utah." Ah... I see where you are coming from now. By most of us, I assume you mean the hotel & tourism, oil, gas and mineral industry which is becoming increasingly incompatible with grazing. Your concern isn't the rancher who will have to pay ten times more to graze his cattle, if he is allowed to graze at all, but for the people like yourself who are involved in a more lucrative industry. Power and money. You said it. Just don't pretend that you are advocating it for "freedom" and the "poor, abused rancher".
Too busy looking for the Government Teat to comprehend! | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | This lady gets it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0zoee4k7yE
I like this one, too, just gotta love people!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10202088548923932
| |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | You better start watching what the Feds are doing. The obozo administration has realized they are suspended over a hole that is 17000000000000 (yes.. 17 trillion) dollars deep and they might decide all that land they control is better off sold to help fill that hole.
Edited by komet. 2014-04-24 9:17 PM
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Nevertooold - 2014-04-24 2:51 PM
...and this one...convo over... | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | komet. - 2014-04-24 8:07 PM You better start watching what the Feds are doing. The obozo administration has realized they are suspended over a hole that is 17000000000000 (yes.. 17 trillion) dollars deep and they might decide all that land they control is better off sold to help fill that hole.
The land was once used as collateral to pay for the Revelutionary War...the debt was paid, land was to be disposed of at that point...makes a person wonder now if it's being used as collateral with China, huh? | |
| | |
I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
Location: Online | On a side note.... I know I said I was done with this subject, but I just had to say......
Maybe Bundy should just go to work for the IRS. That's where you get bonuses and rewarded while not paying your taxes. Guess who blocked a law to prevent these leeches from getting bonuses from going to the Senate floor? That's right Harry himself. But he's too busy going after a senile old rancher from Nevada.
Liberals are always the first people to attack a known non liberal for breaking the rules, yet when it's one of their own, or from a federally run organization, then it's a non issue.
I love hypocricy.
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| rodeomom13 - 2014-04-25 8:59 AM On a side note.... I know I said I was done with this subject, but I just had to say......
Maybe Bundy should just go to work for the IRS. That's where you get bonuses and rewarded while not paying your taxes. Guess who blocked a law to prevent these leeches from getting bonuses from going to the Senate floor? That's right Harry himself. But he's too busy going after a senile old rancher from Nevada.
Liberals are always the first people to attack a known non liberal for breaking the rules, yet when it's one of their own, or from a federally run organization, then it's a non issue.
I love hypocricy.
I don't want to sound too snarky here, but there are like 42 + pages of info and you still think this is about taxes................ | |
| | |
 BHW's Lance Armstrong 
Posts: 11134
Location: Somewhere between S@%&# stirrer and Saint |
She does get it! I don't know what a biggot is personally because I don't go to that area in my thought. Clive Bundy is not racist, he just used a sensitive top as a parralel topic to make his point. If I under stand what he was saying is that black people are just as inslaved by the government dole as slavery. Many Native Americans are in the same boat. The Federal Government thought they would put pesky Indians on a Reservation so they could keep an eye on them in hopes that they would die off so now they developed a people that is dependant on a hand out and not motivated to work and progress.
Clive Bundy is just a country guy that doesn't use PC language!
| |
| | |
I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
Location: Online | smiley - 2014-04-25 10:00 AM rodeomom13 - 2014-04-25 8:59 AM On a side note.... I know I said I was done with this subject, but I just had to say......
Maybe Bundy should just go to work for the IRS. That's where you get bonuses and rewarded while not paying your taxes. Guess who blocked a law to prevent these leeches from getting bonuses from going to the Senate floor? That's right Harry himself. But he's too busy going after a senile old rancher from Nevada.
Liberals are always the first people to attack a known non liberal for breaking the rules, yet when it's one of their own, or from a federally run organization, then it's a non issue.
I love hypocricy.
It started with grazing fees, a tortoise, a bunch of copy and pastes that I didn't care to read - a little history about when who had what first, who's rights have been violated, who's right and whos wrong, who did or didn't pay taxes, who's living off the government teat, and more c&p about "racist" comments. Who can keep up?
ETA: Oops, I forgot to add folding clothes.
Edited by rodeomom13 2014-04-25 11:30 AM
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-25 11:14 AM She does get it! I don't know what a biggot is personally because I don't go to that area in my thought. Clive Bundy is not racist, he just used a sensitive top as a parralel topic to make his point. If I under stand what he was saying is that black people are just as inslaved by the government dole as slavery. Many Native Americans are in the same boat. The Federal Government thought they would put pesky Indians on a Reservation so they could keep an eye on them in hopes that they would die off so now they developed a people that is dependant on a hand out and not motivated to work and progress.
Clive Bundy is just a country guy that doesn't use PC language!
There's probably a lot of truth to that. The irony is that ol' Clive has been sponging off the government for decades.
Maybe that's hypocracy, not irony. | |
| | |
BHW's Lance Armstrong
Posts: 11134
Location: Somewhere between S@%&# stirrer and Saint | TXBO - 2014-04-25 11:43 AM Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-25 11:14 AM She does get it! I don't know what a biggot is personally because I don't go to that area in my thought. Clive Bundy is not racist, he just used a sensitive top as a parralel topic to make his point. If I under stand what he was saying is that black people are just as inslaved by the government dole as slavery. Many Native Americans are in the same boat. The Federal Government thought they would put pesky Indians on a Reservation so they could keep an eye on them in hopes that they would die off so now they developed a people that is dependant on a hand out and not motivated to work and progress.
Clive Bundy is just a country guy that doesn't use PC language!
Maybe that's hypocracy, not irony.
I am waiting to see what the FDA does to my product! The FDA charges my ANADA 200-333 (SUPERIORBUTE POWDER) $35,000 a year. This socalled fee is for them to generate revenue so they can review more applications for drugs. But the problem is they don't control and protect the drugs that are registered.
The FDA bills me the $35,000 every year and I tell them I will be gladly to pay it when they control the borders and stop the illegal smuggling of phenylbutazone powder and shut down the illegal compounding of phenylbutazone powders. Will I win probably not! But I am p-issed off and this is the only way I know how to show the USA Government that things aren't right.
| |
| | |
 You just got to get mean and mean it.
Location: Arkansas | Good Grief...Bundy is getting his more than 15 minutes of fame. He's going to hold ANOTHER press conference. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Lobo - 2014-04-25 11:13 AM Good Grief...Bundy is getting his more than 15 minutes of fame. He's going to hold ANOTHER press conference.
** I will give him credit for giving us lots to talk about and this did bring other cases to the forefront. If nothing else.
FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE - BUNDY RANGE WAR - 4-25-14
We are trading one form of slavery for another.
What I am saying is that all we Americans are trading one form of slavery for another. All of us are in some measure slaves of the federal government. Through their oppressive tactics of telling the ranchers how many cows they can have on their land, and making that number too low to support a ranch, the BLM has driven every rancher in Clark County off the land, except me. The IRS keeps the people of America in fear, and makes us all work about a third or a half of the year before we have earned enough to pay their taxes. This is nothing but slavery from January through May. The NSA spies on us and collects our private phone calls and emails. And the government dole which many people in America are on, and have been for much of their lives, is dehumanizing and degrading. It takes away incentive to work and self respect. Eventually a person on the dole becomes a ward of the government, because his only source of income is a dole from the government. Once the government has you in that position, you are its slave.
I am trying to keep Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream alive. He was praying for the day when he and his people would be free, and he could say I’m free, free at last, thank God I’m free at last! But all of us here America, no matter our race, are having our freedom eroded and destroyed by the federal government because of its heavy handed tactics. The BLM, the IRS, the NSA--all of the federal agencies are destroying our freedom. I am standing up against their bad and unconstitutional laws, just like Rosa Parks did when she refused to sit in the back of the bus. She started a revolution in America, the civil rights movement, which freed the black people from much of the oppression they were suffering. I'm saying Martin Luther King's dream was not that Rosa could take her rightful seat in the front of the bus, but his dream was that she could take any seat on the bus and I would be honored to sit beside her. I am doing the same thing Rosa Parks did--I am standing up against bad laws which dehumanize us and destroy our freedom. Just like the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord, we are saying no to an oppressive government which considers us to be slaves rather than free men.
I invite all people in America to join in our peaceful revolution to regain our freedom. That is how America was started, and we need to keep that tradition alive.
Cliven D. Bundy | |
| | |
I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | I agree that Cliven is not a racist. He pretty much said it like it is but wasn't PC.
| |
| | |
BHW's Lance Armstrong
Posts: 11134
Location: Somewhere between S@%&# stirrer and Saint | Black Marine says Clive Bundy is NOT a racist Below is what a black Marine has to say about the Clive Bundy comment. The media distorts information to the point of social division. This is a photo of myself and the resilient, often charismatic, and maybe not so tactful Cliven Bundy. He’s a cowboy and a helluva family man, not an orator. One thing he definitely isn’t – a racist. I found his comments to not only be NOT racist, but his own view of his experiences. Who the heck are we to determine another man’s perspective on the world around him?! Just because Picasso’s view of the world was abstract, does it negate the fact that his art was genuine? Furthermore, if you take the time to do your own research, you’ll find that his statements about some black Americans actually hold weight. He posed a hypothetical question. He said, “I wonder IF” … Hell, I’m black and I often wonder about the same about the decline of the black family. Bottom line is that we are all slaves in this waning republic, no matter our skin color. Mr. Bundy could have used any racial demographic as an example: Native Americans on reservations, whites in trailer parks, etc. He noticed the crippling effects of receiving government “assistance” and the long term result of accepting handouts. It’s not progress at all. I challenge Sean Hannity, Rand Paul, and others to read my comment and reconsider their position in this matter. Individual liberties are at stake here, yours and mine. THAT is the issue. Don’t let the liberal media and ignoramuses like Glenn Beck and that weasel Harry Reid make you lose sight of the real issue here: The federal government is a burgeoning behemoth and a bully on a once constitutional playground.I sincerely hope you real patriots out there who can see through the smoke.
Semper Fidelis | |
| | |
You just got to get mean and mean it.
Location: Arkansas | Shades of Posse Comitatus. | |
| | |
Famous for Not Complaining
Posts: 8848
Location: Broxton, Ga | I thought this was a good read......
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2014/0425/In-Cliven-Bundy-beef-about-the-Negro-shades-of-white-privilege
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas |
I was 'going along with' this article..........until I read this:
“It’s coming out of religious white supremacy, which is that slavery wasn’t so bad, because slaves were well treated, and the Civil War was unfortunate because the federal government acted lawlessly and overwhelmed the states,” says Garrett Epps, a University of Baltimore law professor and author of “Wrong and Dangerous: Ten Right-Wing Myths About Our Constitution.”
I vehemently disagree with this statement. And I resent the idea of 'religious white supremacy'! The Civil War issue of Slavery was a 'side issue', hence why did Lincoln wait to sign The Emanipaction Proclamation until after the Surrender of The South was signed at Appomattox in April 1865?
This 'history' falls under the category of "To The Victor goes The Spoils" which includes the writing of history.............
I disagree (and always have) with slavery. However, this Author must be blatant to World History which illustrates that Slavery has existed since the beginning of Recorded History.
This Author's Statement reveals His Liberal/Progressive Left Leaning Beliefs!
In other words Garrett Epps is an Academic Intellectual Idiot!
Edited by foundation horse 2014-04-26 7:03 AM
| |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 464
| Mr. Bundy is not a great public speaker, but on the other hand that's not his job. He is a rancher. He's also not very politically correct. I think his point just got lost along the way. Unfortunately, now he has severely limited the number of people that will publicly align themselves with him. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| What time is ol' Clive's news conference today. Can't wait to hear words of wisdom. | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | Why do we as a society seem to NOT be able to merely respect someone's accoplishments or beliefs without putting them on a pedastal so we can point and laugh when they topple down?
Edited by Three 4 Luck 2014-04-26 11:20 AM
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-26 11:18 AM Why do we as a society seem to NOT be able to merely respect someone's accoplishments or beliefs without putting them on a pedastal so we can point and laugh when they topple down?
Society didn't put Clive on a pedastal. He jumped up there all by himself. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1956
Location: Ky | This dude is a racist, freeloading hypocrite. Just what the Teabag party ordered for their new hero. | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | TXBO - 2014-04-26 11:34 AM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-26 11:18 AM Why do we as a society seem to NOT be able to merely respect someone's accoplishments or beliefs without putting them on a pedastal so we can point and laugh when they topple down? Society didn't put Clive on a pedastal. He jumped up there all by himself.
He put himself out there, but if folks hadn't decided he was Davie Crockett come again, there wouldn't be so many "supporters" jumping ship at his perceived flaws. He may be a jackass when it comes down to it, but I still haven't seen where the dude is a freakin racist.  | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | jd&ez - 2014-04-26 11:58 AM
This dude is a racist, freeloading hypocrite. Just what the Teabag party ordered for their new hero.
When the Left runs out of options to combat someone politically, the race card is almost always used. This quoted post fits this to a 'T'. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-26 12:45 PM TXBO - 2014-04-26 11:34 AM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-26 11:18 AM Why do we as a society seem to NOT be able to merely respect someone's accoplishments or beliefs without putting them on a pedastal so we can point and laugh when they topple down? Society didn't put Clive on a pedastal. He jumped up there all by himself.
I would argue that The BLM's unsucessful attempted Use of Deadly Force really contributed to Cliven Bundy's Stardom...................................... | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | foundation horse - 2014-04-26 2:35 PM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-26 12:45 PM TXBO - 2014-04-26 11:34 AM Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-26 11:18 AM Why do we as a society seem to NOT be able to merely respect someone's accoplishments or beliefs without putting them on a pedastal so we can point and laugh when they topple down? Society didn't put Clive on a pedastal. He jumped up there all by himself.
This is a summary of events that led up to the 'pedastal'...I think it shows more desperation & fear than grandstanding:
http://www.tsln.com/news/11160796-113/blm-bundy-ammon-cattle
Here's someting else interesting, a task force that's been working on the land transfers w/a look at $$$ involved (I'm sot sure if I support the education system being the biggest beneficiaries, in my mind it should go to level the playing field for ALL citizens, infrastructure, lowering our tax burden etc...):
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/report-nevada-would-benefit-transfer-federal-lands
| |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1956
Location: Ky | foundation horse - 2014-04-26 3:32 PM jd&ez - 2014-04-26 11:58 AM This dude is a racist, freeloading hypocrite. Just what the Teabag party ordered for their new hero. When the Left runs out of options to combat someone politically, the race card is almost always used. This quoted post fits this to a 'T'.
Figured you for an attack on me in defense of your new racist hero.
Nor am I combatting the guy. I just described him. You can fall in line behind him if you want. Says more about you than me. | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | I have yet to see anything racist except the edited crap that could make anyone say anything they wanted to portray and the race baiters pretending to be offended at the word "negro". Give me a freakin break. Both sides play that game all the time but some people only want to believe the other side does it. | |
| | |
Cold hands and Warm Heart
Location: oklahoma | Three 4 Luck - 2014-04-26 6:01 PM I have yet to see anything racist except the edited crap that could make anyone say anything they wanted to portray and the race baiters pretending to be offended at the word "negro". Give me a freakin break. Both sides play that game all the time but some people only want to believe the other side does it.
people use the race card whenever they have no point to make and have to toss that out there...lame. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | jd&ez - 2014-04-26 4:52 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-26 3:32 PM jd&ez - 2014-04-26 11:58 AM This dude is a racist, freeloading hypocrite. Just what the Teabag party ordered for their new hero. When the Left runs out of options to combat someone politically, the race card is almost always used. This quoted post fits this to a 'T'.
Nor am I combatting the guy. I just described him. You can fall in line behind him if you want. Says more about you than me.
I am falling against the overwhelming unsuccessful attempted use of Deadly Force by an Out of Control Government not falling behind an individual (an older non politically correct man) whom You are accusing of being Racist.
Does Your Judgment indicate You support Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as well?
Edited by foundation horse 2014-04-27 7:31 AM
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | I do believe the 'Government Teat' federally speaking anyways would eliminated with this concept.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/report-nevada-would-benefit-transfer-federal-lands
Report: Nevada would benefit from transfer of federal lands  Contractors for the Bureau of Land Management round up cattle belonging to rancher Cliven Bundy with a helicopter near Bunkerville on April 7, 2014. A new report analyzing the financial ramifications of a takeover of some of Nevada’s millions of acres of federal lands suggests the state would benefit from such a transfer. (John Locher/Las Vegas Review-Journal file ) Buy PhotoBy SEAN WHALEY
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU CARSON CITY — A new report analyzing the financial ramifications of a takeover of some of Nevada’s millions of acres of federal lands suggests the state would benefit from such a transfer. A transfer of 4 million acres of U.S. Bureau Land Management land could bring in anywhere from $31 million to $114 million a year, based on a review of four Western states that have significant amounts of trust lands under their control, the report says. The preliminary draft report from the Nevada Public Land Management Task Force was prepared with the assistance of a consultant and will be reviewed Thursday by the Legislative Committee on Public Lands when it meets in Tonopah. The task force was created by the 2013 Legislature to evaluate the feasibility of the state taking control of some of the federally controlled public lands in Nevada. A final report is due from the task force by Sept. 1. The discussion of such a public lands transfer has received heightened interest since the recent cattle grazing dispute between Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM. Demar Dahl, an Elko County rancher and chairman of the task force, said the analysis by Intertech Services Inc. shows that a transfer is not only economically feasible but even beneficial to Nevada. “The way those numbers turned out it looks like we can surely afford it,” he said. “Not only afford it but the state could make a lot of revenue having the land and managing it ourselves.” The revenues would come from the sale and lease of the resources on the lands, including through mining and grazing, Dahl said. In recent comments U.S. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., said he supports the work of the task force. But not everyone is on board with the effort. In a presentation to the task force in November, David von Seggern, chairman of the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, asked how the state would replace the hundreds of federal workers now working in Nevada. He questioned whether Nevada has the financial resources needed to meet the demands for firefighting or assisting in activities that would support mining, grazing and energy production. According to the draft report, 81.1 percent of Nevada is under the control of various federal agencies. The analysis looked at the states of Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico and Utah where federal lands make up less of the total, from 34.7 percent in New Mexico to 66.5 percent in Utah. The analysis looked at acres of “state trust lands” controlled by the states. Nevada has only 3,000 acres of such lands, while Arizona has more than 9 million acres and New Mexico has nearly 9 million trust land acres. State trust lands were granted to states upon statehood and were set aside primarily to support public schools. Dahl said Nevada just didn’t do a good job of evaluating the potential benefits of statehood back in 1864 and so ended up with few trust lands. “The state was controlled by mining interests that did not reside in the state,” he said. “They saw an advantage to statehood and went into it blind.” But von Seggern noted in his testimony that Nevada originally received 4 million acres in trust lands for the public schools. It is difficult to trace the benefit of the now disposed trust lands to the state school system, he said in his presentation. Jim Lawrence, who works for the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said Nevada did receive about 4 million acres of random sections of land upon statehood. The state’s congressional delegation in 1880 persuaded Congress to let Nevada officials instead designate which lands they wanted in exchange for reducing the total acreage by half. The trust lands were then sold off to private individuals as a way of trying to entice people to move into the state, he said. According to the task force report, the five-year average net revenues to the four states from 2008 to 2012 from the trust lands ranged from $518.8 million in New Mexico to $41.9 million in Idaho. In 2012 the state of New Mexico distributed $544 million from the trust land revenues to its public school system, $9 million to the University of New Mexico and nearly $3 million to New Mexico State University, among other beneficiaries. Looking at the four state models, the analysis came up with the range of $31 million on the low end to $114 million with a transfer of the 4 million BLM acres to the state of Nevada. The task force is recommending a phased-in transfer of public lands, starting with lands in the original railroad corridor across Northern Nevada and lands already identified for disposal by federal agencies. Other priorities are lands designated by the secretary of Interior as solar energy zones, land designated by the BLM as suitable for geothermal leasing but not yet leased, and lands authorized for disposal in current federal legislation. The task force is not supportive of transferring lands controlled by the U.S. Departments of Energy or Defense, current wilderness areas, national conservation areas, lands managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the National Park Service. Dahl said it will likely take action by Congress to allow for the transfer of public lands on such a scale. Nevada is working with Utah officials on the issue. “I think if we can get enough states to pass legislation saying we want our land, and we all go together to Congress, I think we can get it done,” he said. Contact Capital Bureau reporter Sean Whaley at swhaley@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3900. Follow him on Twitter @seanw801.
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | All I can say is: At least people are realizing that we have issues 'out west' with the federal bureaucracy & their insidious control in our lives, our pocketbooks & denial of our right to gain independence as a state & as citizens.
Cliven Bundy did well...he's a kind man who loves his family, his God, his country & his cattle. He spoke of the disparity of the races & the regions...and how the fed should be held accountable for most if not all of it...good for him. These topics should never, ever be 'off limits'. Taboo. Who makes it such? Surely not the subjects of conversation...it's the do-gooders. If you sincerely want to introduce 'change' and 'progress' then it must be discussed.
As an employer next to the reservation I see daily what the citizens must endure...and ultimately, how impossible it is for many of them to walk away from the oppression. It's not right.
No matter how high they turn up the heat on Bundy or how awful some people think he must be, what he's accomplished is amazing...it's put the issues on the table & I know he'll win...if not for himself then for the rest of Americans. Education...the kind you don't learn in school...you learn it from brave men & women who're willing to stand up to the bully & tell them to go home...they're fired.
All over the net ppl are wondering how an armed resistance could back down a gov't agency...ppl live in fear of the 'law'! We ARE the law! That's how. It's perfect & it's time we all realized that a badge does not give the wearer the right to break the law...indeed, the badge represents the duty to protect OUR rights. Law enforcement has slowely evolved into 'gangs'...them against us. We must stop this!
We're a nation of laws...however, they must all be carefully considered before being passed...and they haven't been. We have 'lawmakers' who don't think they're doing anything unless they pass 1,000's of laws a day when in office...that must stop, too. It's a mess.
I'm NOT anti gov't nor am I anti law...I'm simply anti-bs.
We, as a nation, have a chance to right some wrongs & for those who stand against it...back up and be ojective...lose the fear, the paranoia, the false sense of 'ownership'...give us a chance...the same one every other state had so we may all live under the safety net of the federal governement in it's rightful role of protecting our Nations borders so the citizens may govern themselves within...with the right to fail along with the opportunity to succeed.
It can be done!
Happy Sunday!
| |
| | |
| foundation horse - 2014-04-26 3:32 PM
jd&ez - 2014-04-26 11:58 AM
This dude is a racist, freeloading hypocrite. Just what the Teabag party ordered for their new hero.
When the Left runs out of options to combat someone politically, the race card is almost always used. This quoted post fits this to a 'T'.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it ain't a chicken! | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | If lawmakers ever stopped constantly tinkering with our laws, then we might realize they're overpaid and over-powerful. Can't have that happen. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | IB1UKNO - 2014-04-27 9:53 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-26 3:32 PM jd&ez - 2014-04-26 11:58 AM This dude is a racist, freeloading hypocrite. Just what the Teabag party ordered for their new hero. When the Left runs out of options to combat someone politically, the race card is almost always used. This quoted post fits this to a 'T'. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it ain't a chicken!
I didn't hear anything racist in Bundy's remarks when I listened to ALL of it in context with the issue at hand..."federal overreach', and considered where/how he lives, his age etc...
I don't understand when anyone is 'offended'???
What does that mean? Ouch...you weally hurt my little feelers, I'm sensitive, ya know.
Lol.
People need to stop validating the 'over-sensitive' types who need to get a life.
I give nobody the power to offend me.
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| foundation horse - 2014-04-27 7:27 AM
I do believe the 'Government Teat' federally speaking anyways would eliminated with this concept. http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/report-nevada-would-benefit-transfer-federal-lands Report: Nevada would benefit from transfer of federal lands Contractors for the Bureau of Land Management round up cattle belonging to rancher Cliven Bundy with a helicopter near Bunkerville on April 7, 2014. A new report analyzing the financial ramifications of a takeover of some of Nevada’s millions of acres of federal lands suggests the state would benefit from such a transfer. (John Locher/Las Vegas Review-Journal file ) Buy PhotoBy SEAN WHALEY
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU CARSON CITY — A new report analyzing the financial ramifications of a takeover of some of Nevada’s millions of acres of federal lands suggests the state would benefit from such a transfer. A transfer of 4 million acres of U.S. Bureau Land Management land could bring in anywhere from $31 million to $114 million a year, based on a review of four Western states that have significant amounts of trust lands under their control, the report says. The preliminary draft report from the Nevada Public Land Management Task Force was prepared with the assistance of a consultant and will be reviewed Thursday by the Legislative Committee on Public Lands when it meets in Tonopah. The task force was created by the 2013 Legislature to evaluate the feasibility of the state taking control of some of the federally controlled public lands in Nevada. A final report is due from the task force by Sept. 1. The discussion of such a public lands transfer has received heightened interest since the recent cattle grazing dispute between Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM. Demar Dahl, an Elko County rancher and chairman of the task force, said the analysis by Intertech Services Inc. shows that a transfer is not only economically feasible but even beneficial to Nevada. “The way those numbers turned out it looks like we can surely afford it,” he said. “Not only afford it but the state could make a lot of revenue having the land and managing it ourselves.” The revenues would come from the sale and lease of the resources on the lands, including through mining and grazing, Dahl said. In recent comments U.S. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., said he supports the work of the task force. But not everyone is on board with the effort. In a presentation to the task force in November, David von Seggern, chairman of the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, asked how the state would replace the hundreds of federal workers now working in Nevada. He questioned whether Nevada has the financial resources needed to meet the demands for firefighting or assisting in activities that would support mining, grazing and energy production. According to the draft report, 81.1 percent of Nevada is under the control of various federal agencies. The analysis looked at the states of Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico and Utah where federal lands make up less of the total, from 34.7 percent in New Mexico to 66.5 percent in Utah. The analysis looked at acres of “state trust lands” controlled by the states. Nevada has only 3,000 acres of such lands, while Arizona has more than 9 million acres and New Mexico has nearly 9 million trust land acres. State trust lands were granted to states upon statehood and were set aside primarily to support public schools. Dahl said Nevada just didn’t do a good job of evaluating the potential benefits of statehood back in 1864 and so ended up with few trust lands. “The state was controlled by mining interests that did not reside in the state,” he said. “They saw an advantage to statehood and went into it blind.” But von Seggern noted in his testimony that Nevada originally received 4 million acres in trust lands for the public schools. It is difficult to trace the benefit of the now disposed trust lands to the state school system, he said in his presentation. Jim Lawrence, who works for the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said Nevada did receive about 4 million acres of random sections of land upon statehood. The state’s congressional delegation in 1880 persuaded Congress to let Nevada officials instead designate which lands they wanted in exchange for reducing the total acreage by half. The trust lands were then sold off to private individuals as a way of trying to entice people to move into the state, he said. According to the task force report, the five-year average net revenues to the four states from 2008 to 2012 from the trust lands ranged from $518.8 million in New Mexico to $41.9 million in Idaho. In 2012 the state of New Mexico distributed $544 million from the trust land revenues to its public school system, $9 million to the University of New Mexico and nearly $3 million to New Mexico State University, among other beneficiaries. Looking at the four state models, the analysis came up with the range of $31 million on the low end to $114 million with a transfer of the 4 million BLM acres to the state of Nevada. The task force is recommending a phased-in transfer of public lands, starting with lands in the original railroad corridor across Northern Nevada and lands already identified for disposal by federal agencies. Other priorities are lands designated by the secretary of Interior as solar energy zones, land designated by the BLM as suitable for geothermal leasing but not yet leased, and lands authorized for disposal in current federal legislation. The task force is not supportive of transferring lands controlled by the U.S. Departments of Energy or Defense, current wilderness areas, national conservation areas, lands managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the National Park Service. Dahl said it will likely take action by Congress to allow for the transfer of public lands on such a scale. Nevada is working with Utah officials on the issue. “I think if we can get enough states to pass legislation saying we want our land, and we all go together to Congress, I think we can get it done,” he said. Contact Capital Bureau reporter Sean Whaley at swhaley@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3900. Follow him on Twitter @seanw801.
Transferring Federal land to State land has a lot of pros and cons for a state, but I don't think anyone can argue that it will be better for the ranchers to increase their fees from $1.35 to $12 /AUM on land that remains state owned. Probably most will be sold off to private industry. Cliven Bundy was alway just an excuse to raise a ruckas and elicit sympathy, which he did until he kept talking, and to give the public the idea this was about Freedom and the cowboy way of life. As with everything else, this is really about money and power, which Musikmaker (who says he is into oil and hotels) laid out in a prior comment. I have attached a little piece that outlines some of same points that FH's news story does, but gives a little more indepth look at who will benefit from the transfer. If politicians and business people want the land to develop and try to improve their economy, just say it, and don't try to pretend it is about preserving the ranching way of life.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/25/the-money-behind-foxs-promo...
The Money Behind Fox's Promotion Of Cliven Bundy's Battle With The Feds
Blog››› April 25, 2014 4:24 PM EDT ››› OLIVIA KITTEL
1550
Right-wing media have been rushing to distance themselves from the Nevada rancher they've spent weeks championing after Cliven Bundy revealed his racist worldview, but two of Bundy's biggest cheerleaders -- Sean Hannity and Fox News -- have vested corporate, financial, and political interests in the promotion of Cliven Bundy's anti-government land ownership agenda.
Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy became Fox News' favorite folk hero after he refused to comply with court orders directing him to remove his trespassing cattle from public land. Hannity and many other right-wing media rallied around Bundy and his armed supporters as they threatened violence against federal law enforcement officials attempting to impound Bundy's cattle and collect the $1 million he owes in fines and fees after decades of noncompliance with the law.
Bundy has said he doesn't recognize the existence of the federal government nor its authority over the land and has attacked the federal ownership of lands as subverting Nevada's "state sovereignty."
Hannity has promoted Bundy's anti-government rhetoric, arguing that the federal government owns far too much land and pushing Bundy's claim that not only does the federal government not have land-ownership authority but that they don't need or use the land they claim to own. On the April 23 edition of his show, Hannity attacked the government for owning too much land, agreeing with Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano that they do not have the constitutional authority to own any of the land. Throughout the land battle, Hannity continuously argued that the government is irresponsibly fighting for land they have no intended use for -- such as building hospitals, schools, or roads -- and should focus their efforts elsewhere to rapists, murderers, criminals, and pedophiles.
Bundy and Hannity's promotion of state ownership of federal lands gives airtime to an issue that conservatives have long been campaigning for but have had difficulty getting voters excited about -- an issue in line with the land interests of the Koch brothers. Slate reported on April 23 that the Fox News corporate, financial, and political interests being served by Hannity's promotion of Bundy lie in the network's connection to the Koch brothers:
Bundy's anti-federal agenda is closely aligned with that of Charles and David Koch, major Republican donors who have been pushing for states to gain control over federal lands - so they can be sold or leased to people like the Koch brothers in deals.
Fox News Network and Sean Hannity have a particular interest in the promotion and realization of such Koch interests because their funding depends on it -- Hannity receives major funding and large ad buys from Koch-affiliated Heritage and Tea Party Patriots.
Hannity's Koch-affiliated funders have a long history of promoting the privatization of public lands and condemning the federal ownership of land. Tea Party groups have supported local efforts to transfer federal lands. Heritage has advocated shrinking the U.S. government's control by selling its physical assets such as "huge swaths of land (especially out west)." Heritage was also a loyal promoter of the Federal Land Freedom Act of 2013, advocating for the transfer of federal land management to state regulators for energy resource development.
Giving airtime to an issue that is obscure but significant to his conservative funders makes perfect sense for Hannity. Politico reported that Heritage began sponsoring Hannity in 2008 and in 2013 Hannity began advertising for the Tea Party Patriots, "lending his name to fundraising drives, hosting its leaders on his radio and Fox News shows, and even using the Fox airwaves to promote the Tea Party Patriots website."
The Koch brothers have been covertly funding right-wing organizations such as Heritage Action and the Tea Party Patriots through the non-profit business league Freedom Partners whose tax code status as a trade association allows the organization to conceal its donors. Freedom Partners is one of the largest donors of conservative groups and its board has deep ties to the Koch brothers with many of its members being longtime employees of Koch Industries and the Charles G. Koch Foundation.
The Koch-funded Freedom Partners made grants of $236 million in 2011; among many conservative groups its recipients include Heritage as well as the Tea Party Patriots. Heritage Action received $500,000 in 2011 from the Koch brothers through Freedom Partners and additional funds from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. In 2012, the Tea Party Patriots received $200,000 from Freedom Partners.
The legislative efforts of such groups to transfer control of federal lands to states are "nothing more than corporate-backed messaging tools" initiated by conservative groups like the Koch-affiliates. Such efforts are rooted in the interests of the Kochs and other conservative groups to use the land in whichever way is most profitable to them such as mining, drilling, and other resource extraction.
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-27 11:00 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-27 7:27 AM I do believe the 'Government Teat' federally speaking anyways would eliminated with this concept.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/report-nevada-would-benefit-transfer-federal-lands
Report: Nevada would benefit from transfer of federal lands
Contractors for the Bureau of Land Management round up cattle belonging to rancher Cliven Bundy with a helicopter near Bunkerville on April 7, 2014. A new report analyzing the financial ramifications of a takeover of some of Nevada’s millions of acres of federal lands suggests the state would benefit from such a transfer. (John Locher/Las Vegas Review-Journal file )
Buy Photo
By SEAN WHALEY
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU
CARSON CITY — A new report analyzing the financial ramifications of a takeover of some of Nevada’s millions of acres of federal lands suggests the state would benefit from such a transfer.
A transfer of 4 million acres of U.S. Bureau Land Management land could bring in anywhere from $31 million to $114 million a year, based on a review of four Western states that have significant amounts of trust lands under their control, the report says.
The preliminary draft report from the Nevada Public Land Management Task Force was prepared with the assistance of a consultant and will be reviewed Thursday by the Legislative Committee on Public Lands when it meets in Tonopah.
The task force was created by the 2013 Legislature to evaluate the feasibility of the state taking control of some of the federally controlled public lands in Nevada. A final report is due from the task force by Sept. 1.
The discussion of such a public lands transfer has received heightened interest since the recent cattle grazing dispute between Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM.
Demar Dahl, an Elko County rancher and chairman of the task force, said the analysis by Intertech Services Inc. shows that a transfer is not only economically feasible but even beneficial to Nevada.
“The way those numbers turned out it looks like we can surely afford it,” he said. “Not only afford it but the state could make a lot of revenue having the land and managing it ourselves.”
The revenues would come from the sale and lease of the resources on the lands, including through mining and grazing, Dahl said.
In recent comments U.S. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., said he supports the work of the task force.
But not everyone is on board with the effort.
In a presentation to the task force in November, David von Seggern, chairman of the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, asked how the state would replace the hundreds of federal workers now working in Nevada.
He questioned whether Nevada has the financial resources needed to meet the demands for firefighting or assisting in activities that would support mining, grazing and energy production.
According to the draft report, 81.1 percent of Nevada is under the control of various federal agencies. The analysis looked at the states of Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico and Utah where federal lands make up less of the total, from 34.7 percent in New Mexico to 66.5 percent in Utah.
The analysis looked at acres of “state trust lands” controlled by the states. Nevada has only 3,000 acres of such lands, while Arizona has more than 9 million acres and New Mexico has nearly 9 million trust land acres.
State trust lands were granted to states upon statehood and were set aside primarily to support public schools.
Dahl said Nevada just didn’t do a good job of evaluating the potential benefits of statehood back in 1864 and so ended up with few trust lands.
“The state was controlled by mining interests that did not reside in the state,” he said. “They saw an advantage to statehood and went into it blind.”
But von Seggern noted in his testimony that Nevada originally received 4 million acres in trust lands for the public schools. It is difficult to trace the benefit of the now disposed trust lands to the state school system, he said in his presentation.
Jim Lawrence, who works for the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said Nevada did receive about 4 million acres of random sections of land upon statehood. The state’s congressional delegation in 1880 persuaded Congress to let Nevada officials instead designate which lands they wanted in exchange for reducing the total acreage by half.
The trust lands were then sold off to private individuals as a way of trying to entice people to move into the state, he said.
According to the task force report, the five-year average net revenues to the four states from 2008 to 2012 from the trust lands ranged from $518.8 million in New Mexico to $41.9 million in Idaho.
In 2012 the state of New Mexico distributed $544 million from the trust land revenues to its public school system, $9 million to the University of New Mexico and nearly $3 million to New Mexico State University, among other beneficiaries.
Looking at the four state models, the analysis came up with the range of $31 million on the low end to $114 million with a transfer of the 4 million BLM acres to the state of Nevada.
The task force is recommending a phased-in transfer of public lands, starting with lands in the original railroad corridor across Northern Nevada and lands already identified for disposal by federal agencies. Other priorities are lands designated by the secretary of Interior as solar energy zones, land designated by the BLM as suitable for geothermal leasing but not yet leased, and lands authorized for disposal in current federal legislation.
The task force is not supportive of transferring lands controlled by the U.S. Departments of Energy or Defense, current wilderness areas, national conservation areas, lands managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the National Park Service.
Dahl said it will likely take action by Congress to allow for the transfer of public lands on such a scale. Nevada is working with Utah officials on the issue.
“I think if we can get enough states to pass legislation saying we want our land, and we all go together to Congress, I think we can get it done,” he said.
Contact Capital Bureau reporter Sean Whaley at swhaley@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3900. Follow him on Twitter @seanw801.
Transferring Federal land to State land has a lot of pros and cons for a state, but I don't think anyone can argue that it will be better for the ranchers to increase their fees from $1.35 to $12 /AUM on land that remains state owned. Probably most will be sold off to private industry. Cliven Bundy was alway just an excuse to raise a ruckas and elicit sympathy, which he did until he kept talking, and to give the public the idea this was about Freedom and the cowboy way of life. As with everything else, this is really about money and power, which Musikmaker (who says he is into oil and hotels) laid out in a prior comment. I have attached a little piece that outlines some of same points that FH's news story does, but gives a little more indepth look at who will benefit from the transfer. If politicians and business people want the land to develop and try to improve their economy, just say it, and don't try to pretend it is about preserving the ranching way of life. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/25/the-money-behind-foxs-promo... The Money Behind Fox's Promotion Of Cliven Bundy's Battle With The Feds Blog››› April 25, 2014 4:24 PM EDT ››› OLIVIA KITTEL 1550 Right-wing media have been rushing to distance themselves from the Nevada rancher they've spent weeks championing after Cliven Bundy revealed his racist worldview, but two of Bundy's biggest cheerleaders -- Sean Hannity and Fox News -- have vested corporate, financial, and political interests in the promotion of Cliven Bundy's anti-government land ownership agenda. Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy became Fox News' favorite folk hero after he refused to comply with court orders directing him to remove his trespassing cattle from public land. Hannity and many other right-wing media rallied around Bundy and his armed supporters as they threatened violence against federal law enforcement officials attempting to impound Bundy's cattle and collect the $1 million he owes in fines and fees after decades of noncompliance with the law. Bundy has said he doesn't recognize the existence of the federal government nor its authority over the land and has attacked the federal ownership of lands as subverting Nevada's "state sovereignty." Hannity has promoted Bundy's anti-government rhetoric, arguing that the federal government owns far too much land and pushing Bundy's claim that not only does the federal government not have land-ownership authority but that they don't need or use the land they claim to own. On the April 23 edition of his show, Hannity attacked the government for owning too much land, agreeing with Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano that they do not have the constitutional authority to own any of the land. Throughout the land battle, Hannity continuously argued that the government is irresponsibly fighting for land they have no intended use for -- such as building hospitals, schools, or roads -- and should focus their efforts elsewhere to rapists, murderers, criminals, and pedophiles. Bundy and Hannity's promotion of state ownership of federal lands gives airtime to an issue that conservatives have long been campaigning for but have had difficulty getting voters excited about -- an issue in line with the land interests of the Koch brothers. Slate reported on April 23 that the Fox News corporate, financial, and political interests being served by Hannity's promotion of Bundy lie in the network's connection to the Koch brothers: Bundy's anti-federal agenda is closely aligned with that of Charles and David Koch, major Republican donors who have been pushing for states to gain control over federal lands - so they can be sold or leased to people like the Koch brothers in deals. Fox News Network and Sean Hannity have a particular interest in the promotion and realization of such Koch interests because their funding depends on it -- Hannity receives major funding and large ad buys from Koch-affiliated Heritage and Tea Party Patriots. Hannity's Koch-affiliated funders have a long history of promoting the privatization of public lands and condemning the federal ownership of land. Tea Party groups have supported local efforts to transfer federal lands. Heritage has advocated shrinking the U.S. government's control by selling its physical assets such as "huge swaths of land (especially out west )." Heritage was also a loyal promoter of the Federal Land Freedom Act of 2013, advocating for the transfer of federal land management to state regulators for energy resource development. Giving airtime to an issue that is obscure but significant to his conservative funders makes perfect sense for Hannity. Politico reported that Heritage began sponsoring Hannity in 2008 and in 2013 Hannity began advertising for the Tea Party Patriots, "lending his name to fundraising drives, hosting its leaders on his radio and Fox News shows, and even using the Fox airwaves to promote the Tea Party Patriots website." The Koch brothers have been covertly funding right-wing organizations such as Heritage Action and the Tea Party Patriots through the non-profit business league Freedom Partners whose tax code status as a trade association allows the organization to conceal its donors. Freedom Partners is one of the largest donors of conservative groups and its board has deep ties to the Koch brothers with many of its members being longtime employees of Koch Industries and the Charles G. Koch Foundation. The Koch-funded Freedom Partners made grants of $236 million in 2011; among many conservative groups its recipients include Heritage as well as the Tea Party Patriots. Heritage Action received $500,000 in 2011 from the Koch brothers through Freedom Partners and additional funds from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. In 2012, the Tea Party Patriots received $200,000 from Freedom Partners. The legislative efforts of such groups to transfer control of federal lands to states are "nothing more than corporate-backed messaging tools" initiated by conservative groups like the Koch-affiliates. Such efforts are rooted in the interests of the Kochs and other conservative groups to use the land in whichever way is most profitable to them such as mining, drilling, and other resource extraction.
I am woman. Lol.
To be honest we have a lot invested in our properties, money & otherwise! It would NOT be in our personal favor for the land surrounding our 900 acres to become available to the public, however, it's the right thing to do. We currently enjoy nearly full control of our end of the county...my support of the transfer of land has nothing to do with my finances, power or anything other than my patriotism.
Concerning the fear of oil compainies, mining etc...just this last year the BLM stopped a deal in Utah of 100k acres being put into oil production ...at the very last minute! After years of negotiation & with no real reasoning (excepting big $$ from the environmental corner). The land in question is not part of any wilderness study area or anything 'special'. It's part of the 1% that the Clinton administration deemed useless to the public. It would have provided many jobs & a good tax base.
The media & the left loves to accuse the right of being 'anti-government' when the truth is most of us simply want them to stay within their perimeters that our Constitution set forth. You're right, though, when people (on both sides) see an opportunity for money & power it's often too tempting to resist...this is why we need to limit the powers of the gov't....state, local AND fed.
The agencies in question were to be a temporary answer to a short term issue...the fact that the United States bought land! Our nation was founded on the premise that the people would own property...not the government (limited to what was necessary for them to fulfill their role of protecting our borders...the fed...all other gov't roles "not given to the fed specifically" would be handled by the states).
The dept of Interior is not answerable to the people in any way. They make their own policy of which strictly goes against the very fabric of our Nation! The BLM is under the Dept of Interior. The Secretary of Interior is appointed by the president, though not necessarily answerable to him.
Someone...find out who signs the checks...careful now...you might wake up dead.
Of course big corporations are going to invest in things that make money! Duh!
I'm a little fish...in a little puddle. I have nothing to gain from the land transfer except the knowledge that my grandkids might have a fighting chance to maintain their freedom & liberty...
It's a dog eat dog world...but, when the gov't becomes the enemy to the people we have to stand up and prevent it.
Who will benefit if we don't tranfer the land to the rightful owners?
And...I've yet to hear anyone deny that the states want to be on equal footing so we may be economically independent. This has never been about the cattle or the tortoise or the rancher way of life.
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| musikmaker - 2014-04-27 1:34 PM
FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-27 11:00 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-27 7:27 AM I do believe the 'Government Teat' federally speaking anyways would eliminated with this concept.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/report-nevada-would-benefit-transfer-federal-lands
Report: Nevada would benefit from transfer of federal lands
Contractors for the Bureau of Land Management round up cattle belonging to rancher Cliven Bundy with a helicopter near Bunkerville on April 7, 2014. A new report analyzing the financial ramifications of a takeover of some of Nevada’s millions of acres of federal lands suggests the state would benefit from such a transfer. (John Locher/Las Vegas Review-Journal file )
Buy Photo
By SEAN WHALEY
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU
CARSON CITY — A new report analyzing the financial ramifications of a takeover of some of Nevada’s millions of acres of federal lands suggests the state would benefit from such a transfer.
A transfer of 4 million acres of U.S. Bureau Land Management land could bring in anywhere from $31 million to $114 million a year, based on a review of four Western states that have significant amounts of trust lands under their control, the report says.
The preliminary draft report from the Nevada Public Land Management Task Force was prepared with the assistance of a consultant and will be reviewed Thursday by the Legislative Committee on Public Lands when it meets in Tonopah.
The task force was created by the 2013 Legislature to evaluate the feasibility of the state taking control of some of the federally controlled public lands in Nevada. A final report is due from the task force by Sept. 1.
The discussion of such a public lands transfer has received heightened interest since the recent cattle grazing dispute between Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM.
Demar Dahl, an Elko County rancher and chairman of the task force, said the analysis by Intertech Services Inc. shows that a transfer is not only economically feasible but even beneficial to Nevada.
“The way those numbers turned out it looks like we can surely afford it,” he said. “Not only afford it but the state could make a lot of revenue having the land and managing it ourselves.”
The revenues would come from the sale and lease of the resources on the lands, including through mining and grazing, Dahl said.
In recent comments U.S. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., said he supports the work of the task force.
But not everyone is on board with the effort.
In a presentation to the task force in November, David von Seggern, chairman of the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, asked how the state would replace the hundreds of federal workers now working in Nevada.
He questioned whether Nevada has the financial resources needed to meet the demands for firefighting or assisting in activities that would support mining, grazing and energy production.
According to the draft report, 81.1 percent of Nevada is under the control of various federal agencies. The analysis looked at the states of Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico and Utah where federal lands make up less of the total, from 34.7 percent in New Mexico to 66.5 percent in Utah.
The analysis looked at acres of “state trust lands” controlled by the states. Nevada has only 3,000 acres of such lands, while Arizona has more than 9 million acres and New Mexico has nearly 9 million trust land acres.
State trust lands were granted to states upon statehood and were set aside primarily to support public schools.
Dahl said Nevada just didn’t do a good job of evaluating the potential benefits of statehood back in 1864 and so ended up with few trust lands.
“The state was controlled by mining interests that did not reside in the state,” he said. “They saw an advantage to statehood and went into it blind.”
But von Seggern noted in his testimony that Nevada originally received 4 million acres in trust lands for the public schools. It is difficult to trace the benefit of the now disposed trust lands to the state school system, he said in his presentation.
Jim Lawrence, who works for the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said Nevada did receive about 4 million acres of random sections of land upon statehood. The state’s congressional delegation in 1880 persuaded Congress to let Nevada officials instead designate which lands they wanted in exchange for reducing the total acreage by half.
The trust lands were then sold off to private individuals as a way of trying to entice people to move into the state, he said.
According to the task force report, the five-year average net revenues to the four states from 2008 to 2012 from the trust lands ranged from $518.8 million in New Mexico to $41.9 million in Idaho.
In 2012 the state of New Mexico distributed $544 million from the trust land revenues to its public school system, $9 million to the University of New Mexico and nearly $3 million to New Mexico State University, among other beneficiaries.
Looking at the four state models, the analysis came up with the range of $31 million on the low end to $114 million with a transfer of the 4 million BLM acres to the state of Nevada.
The task force is recommending a phased-in transfer of public lands, starting with lands in the original railroad corridor across Northern Nevada and lands already identified for disposal by federal agencies. Other priorities are lands designated by the secretary of Interior as solar energy zones, land designated by the BLM as suitable for geothermal leasing but not yet leased, and lands authorized for disposal in current federal legislation.
The task force is not supportive of transferring lands controlled by the U.S. Departments of Energy or Defense, current wilderness areas, national conservation areas, lands managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the National Park Service.
Dahl said it will likely take action by Congress to allow for the transfer of public lands on such a scale. Nevada is working with Utah officials on the issue.
“I think if we can get enough states to pass legislation saying we want our land, and we all go together to Congress, I think we can get it done,” he said.
Contact Capital Bureau reporter Sean Whaley at swhaley@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3900. Follow him on Twitter @seanw801.
Transferring Federal land to State land has a lot of pros and cons for a state, but I don't think anyone can argue that it will be better for the ranchers to increase their fees from $1.35 to $12 /AUM on land that remains state owned. Probably most will be sold off to private industry. Cliven Bundy was alway just an excuse to raise a ruckas and elicit sympathy, which he did until he kept talking, and to give the public the idea this was about Freedom and the cowboy way of life. As with everything else, this is really about money and power, which Musikmaker (who says he is into oil and hotels) laid out in a prior comment. I have attached a little piece that outlines some of same points that FH's news story does, but gives a little more indepth look at who will benefit from the transfer. If politicians and business people want the land to develop and try to improve their economy, just say it, and don't try to pretend it is about preserving the ranching way of life. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/25/the-money-behind-foxs-promo... The Money Behind Fox's Promotion Of Cliven Bundy's Battle With The Feds Blog››› April 25, 2014 4:24 PM EDT ››› OLIVIA KITTEL 1550 Right-wing media have been rushing to distance themselves from the Nevada rancher they've spent weeks championing after Cliven Bundy revealed his racist worldview, but two of Bundy's biggest cheerleaders -- Sean Hannity and Fox News -- have vested corporate, financial, and political interests in the promotion of Cliven Bundy's anti-government land ownership agenda. Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy became Fox News' favorite folk hero after he refused to comply with court orders directing him to remove his trespassing cattle from public land. Hannity and many other right-wing media rallied around Bundy and his armed supporters as they threatened violence against federal law enforcement officials attempting to impound Bundy's cattle and collect the $1 million he owes in fines and fees after decades of noncompliance with the law. Bundy has said he doesn't recognize the existence of the federal government nor its authority over the land and has attacked the federal ownership of lands as subverting Nevada's "state sovereignty." Hannity has promoted Bundy's anti-government rhetoric, arguing that the federal government owns far too much land and pushing Bundy's claim that not only does the federal government not have land-ownership authority but that they don't need or use the land they claim to own. On the April 23 edition of his show, Hannity attacked the government for owning too much land, agreeing with Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano that they do not have the constitutional authority to own any of the land. Throughout the land battle, Hannity continuously argued that the government is irresponsibly fighting for land they have no intended use for -- such as building hospitals, schools, or roads -- and should focus their efforts elsewhere to rapists, murderers, criminals, and pedophiles. Bundy and Hannity's promotion of state ownership of federal lands gives airtime to an issue that conservatives have long been campaigning for but have had difficulty getting voters excited about -- an issue in line with the land interests of the Koch brothers. Slate reported on April 23 that the Fox News corporate, financial, and political interests being served by Hannity's promotion of Bundy lie in the network's connection to the Koch brothers: Bundy's anti-federal agenda is closely aligned with that of Charles and David Koch, major Republican donors who have been pushing for states to gain control over federal lands - so they can be sold or leased to people like the Koch brothers in deals. Fox News Network and Sean Hannity have a particular interest in the promotion and realization of such Koch interests because their funding depends on it -- Hannity receives major funding and large ad buys from Koch-affiliated Heritage and Tea Party Patriots. Hannity's Koch-affiliated funders have a long history of promoting the privatization of public lands and condemning the federal ownership of land. Tea Party groups have supported local efforts to transfer federal lands. Heritage has advocated shrinking the U.S. government's control by selling its physical assets such as "huge swaths of land (especially out west )." Heritage was also a loyal promoter of the Federal Land Freedom Act of 2013, advocating for the transfer of federal land management to state regulators for energy resource development. Giving airtime to an issue that is obscure but significant to his conservative funders makes perfect sense for Hannity. Politico reported that Heritage began sponsoring Hannity in 2008 and in 2013 Hannity began advertising for the Tea Party Patriots, "lending his name to fundraising drives, hosting its leaders on his radio and Fox News shows, and even using the Fox airwaves to promote the Tea Party Patriots website." The Koch brothers have been covertly funding right-wing organizations such as Heritage Action and the Tea Party Patriots through the non-profit business league Freedom Partners whose tax code status as a trade association allows the organization to conceal its donors. Freedom Partners is one of the largest donors of conservative groups and its board has deep ties to the Koch brothers with many of its members being longtime employees of Koch Industries and the Charles G. Koch Foundation. The Koch-funded Freedom Partners made grants of $236 million in 2011; among many conservative groups its recipients include Heritage as well as the Tea Party Patriots. Heritage Action received $500,000 in 2011 from the Koch brothers through Freedom Partners and additional funds from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. In 2012, the Tea Party Patriots received $200,000 from Freedom Partners. The legislative efforts of such groups to transfer control of federal lands to states are "nothing more than corporate-backed messaging tools" initiated by conservative groups like the Koch-affiliates. Such efforts are rooted in the interests of the Kochs and other conservative groups to use the land in whichever way is most profitable to them such as mining, drilling, and other resource extraction.
To be honest we have a lot invested in our properties, money & otherwise! It would NOT be in our personal favor for the land surrounding our 900 acres to become available to the public, however, it's the right thing to do. We currently enjoy nearly full control of our end of the county...my support of the transfer of land has nothing to do with my finances, power or anything other than my patriotism.
Concerning the fear of oil compainies, mining etc...just this last year the BLM stopped a deal in Utah of 100k acres being put into oil production ...at the very last minute! After years of negotiation & with no real reasoning (excepting big $$ from the environmental corner). The land in question is not part of any wilderness study area or anything 'special'. It's part of the 1% that the Clinton administration deemed useless to the public. It would have provided many jobs & a good tax base.
The media & the left loves to accuse the right of being 'anti-government' when the truth is most of us simply want them to stay within their perimeters that our Constitution set forth. You're right, though, when people (on both sides) see an opportunity for money & power it's often too tempting to resist...this is why we need to limit the powers of the gov't....state, local AND fed.
The agencies in question were to be a temporary answer to a short term issue...the fact that the United States bought land! Our nation was founded on the premise that the people would own property...not the government (limited to what was necessary for them to fulfill their role of protecting our borders...the fed...all other gov't roles "not given to the fed specifically" would be handled by the states).
The dept of Interior is not answerable to the people in any way. They make their own policy of which strictly goes against the very fabric of our Nation! The BLM is under the Dept of Interior. The Secretary of Interior is appointed by the president, though not necessarily answerable to him.
Someone...find out who signs the checks...careful now...you might wake up dead.
Of course big corporations are going to invest in things that make money! Duh!
I'm a little fish...in a little puddle. I have nothing to gain from the land transfer except the knowledge that my grandkids might have a fighting chance to maintain their freedom & liberty...
It's a dog eat dog world...but, when the gov't becomes the enemy to the people we have to stand up and prevent it.
Who will benefit if we don't tranfer the land to the rightful owners?
And...I've yet to hear anyone deny that the states want to be on equal footing so we may be economically independent. This has never been about the cattle or the tortoise or the rancher way of life.
Oh course it hasn't been about the rancher. However, the people who the conservative media targeted were led to believe it was about the rancher because it doesn't sound good if you tell the truth about what it's really about, does it? | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-27 1:17 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-27 1:34 PMI am woman. Lol.
To be honest we have a lot invested in our properties, money & otherwise! It would NOT be in our personal favor for the land surrounding our 900 acres to become available to the public, however, it's the right thing to do. We currently enjoy nearly full control of our end of the county...my support of the transfer of land has nothing to do with my finances, power or anything other than my patriotism.
Concerning the fear of oil compainies, mining etc...just this last year the BLM stopped a deal in Utah of 100k acres being put into oil production ...at the very last minute! After years of negotiation & with no real reasoning (excepting big $$ from the environmental corner). The land in question is not part of any wilderness study area or anything 'special'. It's part of the 1% that the Clinton administration deemed useless to the public. It would have provided many jobs & a good tax base.
The media & the left loves to accuse the right of being 'anti-government' when the truth is most of us simply want them to stay within their perimeters that our Constitution set forth. You're right, though, when people (on both sides) see an opportunity for money & power it's often too tempting to resist...this is why we need to limit the powers of the gov't....state, local AND fed.
The agencies in question were to be a temporary answer to a short term issue...the fact that the United States bought land! Our nation was founded on the premise that the people would own property...not the government (limited to what was necessary for them to fulfill their role of protecting our borders...the fed...all other gov't roles "not given to the fed specifically" would be handled by the states).
The dept of Interior is not answerable to the people in any way. They make their own policy of which strictly goes against the very fabric of our Nation! The BLM is under the Dept of Interior. The Secretary of Interior is appointed by the president, though not necessarily answerable to him.
Someone...find out who signs the checks...careful now...you might wake up dead.
Of course big corporations are going to invest in things that make money! Duh!
I'm a little fish...in a little puddle. I have nothing to gain from the land transfer except the knowledge that my grandkids might have a fighting chance to maintain their freedom & liberty...
It's a dog eat dog world...but, when the gov't becomes the enemy to the people we have to stand up and prevent it.
Who will benefit if we don't tranfer the land to the rightful owners?
And...I've yet to hear anyone deny that the states want to be on equal footing so we may be economically independent. This has never been about the cattle or the tortoise or the rancher way of life.
Oh course it hasn't been about the rancher. However, the people who the conservative media targeted were led to believe it was about the rancher because it doesn't sound good if you tell the truth about what it's really about, does it?
I'm not following you...??? The desire for equal footing & state sovereignity isn't anything to be ashamed of!
So if hire a manager for say...my cafe...it still belongs to me & I have the option of firing this person if he/she doesn't do things according to our agreement. That's all this issue is about...the BLM does NOT own the public land...they are managers & they failed. I don't know how else to express it where everyone would comprehend.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Hey FinneyQtrHorses, how about a Rural Ranching Course in Reading Comprehension? Would You be able to comprehend what cow and horse manure looks around a oh say An Active Oil Well? An Active Wind Turbine? Cause I certainly see saw both cows and horses as well as the manure around both on my travels the last couple days.
And I am confident these devices were on Public as well as Private Land! | |
| | |
BHW's Lance Armstrong
Posts: 11134
Location: Somewhere between S@%&# stirrer and Saint | My nephew called the BLM about using Google earth to search for places to gold mine. BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth and they wanted to know who he was and where he was from and he told them ot Eff off and hung up. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-27 2:41 PM My nephew called the BLM about using Google earth to search for places to gold mine. BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth and they wanted to know who he was and where he was from and he told them ot Eff off and hung up.
Before the recent happenings I would've had a hard time believing this attitude of the BLM was common amongst them. I no longer have any doubts.
Here's something very educational...only for those who want to claim an opinion by way of knowledge...he even said some things that 'I' didn't know about the Territories!!! Lol. Yes, it's Ryan Bundy answering questions...but, it's very interesting for those who seek the truth & want to know 'why' we're in the mess we're in & what we can do about it, regardless of your feelings about the Bundy's this is how most of us feel out west.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GLC9oDHUaYI
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| foundation horse - 2014-04-27 3:24 PM
Hey FinneyQtrHorses, how about a Rural Ranching Course in Reading Comprehension? Would You be able to comprehend what cow and horse manure looks around a oh say An Active Oil Well? An Active Wind Turbine? Cause I certainly see saw both cows and horses as well as the manure around both on my travels the last couple days.
And I am confident these devices were on Public as well as Private Land!
Your comment makes no sense. Now, read slowly and let this message sink in. Federal grazing fees are $1.35 per AUM. State grazing fees are $12 per AUM. If ranchers with a federal lease lose that lease and it becomes a state lease or a private property lease which will be more like $35 to $50 per AUM, that will add an enormous burden to their operating costs. Now, do you follow that or should I type more slowly? While turning federal land into state and private land opens up business opportunity for those who can afford it, like, say the Koch Bros., it will limit the opportunities for ranchers, because some of the lease holders will not allow cattle. Not that they can't graze under a windmill or oil rig, just that some owners will restrict that practice. Ted Turner is one that comes to mind that terminated a lot of leases on purchases in Montana. Now, if you can't understand that, I can't help you anymore. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-27 6:24 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-27 3:24 PM
Hey FinneyQtrHorses, how about a Rural Ranching Course in Reading Comprehension? Would You be able to comprehend what cow and horse manure looks around a oh say An Active Oil Well? An Active Wind Turbine? Cause I certainly see saw both cows and horses as well as the manure around both on my travels the last couple days.
And I am confident these devices were on Public as well as Private Land!
Your comment makes no sense. Now, read slowly and let this message sink in. Federal grazing fees are $1.35 per AUM. State grazing fees are $12 per AUM. If ranchers with a federal lease lose that lease and it becomes a state lease or a private property lease which will be more like $35 to $50 per AUM, that will add an enormous burden to their operating costs. Now, do you follow that or should I type more slowly? While turning federal land into state and private land opens up business opportunity for those who can afford it, like, say the Koch Bros., it will limit the opportunities for ranchers, because some of the lease holders will not allow cattle. Not that they can't graze under a windmill or oil rig, just that some owners will restrict that practice. Ted Turner is one that comes to mind that terminated a lot of leases on purchases in Montana. Now, if you can't understand that, I can't help you anymore.
Here is something for You and Others who feel the same You do to chew on Ya'll Minds. Does the word subsidy mean anything to Ya'll?
Here I'll define it:
sub·si·dy
/'s?bside/
noun
noun: subsidy; plural noun: subsidies
1. a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
"a farm subsidy"
Which is exactly what You are describing and requesting! Now I know why You started this Thread in regards to "The Government Teat"! You are jealous because you could not get in on 'this' teat!
This is at least the third (and perhaps fourth) post you have complained about NOT getting a Subsidy and accused (perhaps accurately) of Cliven Bundy getting something that You and Others did not. Now, You are definitely jealous per Your typed out Posts.
Your idea of Someone Else (The Federal Government) taking care of You is what the Difference is between Liberal/Lefties like Yourself and Others and those who oppose You Folks! This Subsidy You have continued to WHINE about absolutely proves it!
You A) either do not understand Free Enterprise or B) disagree, either way You and The Liberal/Left are dead set against it!
Some have called my behavior towards You, 'ugly', I believe my behavior towards You has been from discernment and these post in regards to the lease rates in relationship to subsidies proves my discernment. No wonder I refuse to do business w/ The Left when I know who I am dealing with. "They" (The Left) are taking money both ways I.E. Frontwise from my hand as I pay them and backwise from my wallet via The Federal Government!
| |
| | |
BHW's Lance Armstrong
Posts: 11134
Location: Somewhere between S@%&# stirrer and Saint | Judge Jeanine connects the dots of the Bundy Ranch invasion to 'Dirty Harry' Reid.
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/04/27/judge-jeanine-connects-the-dots-of-t...
Judge Jeanine Connects the Dots of the Bundy Ranch Invasion to 'Dirty Harry' Reid
Judge Jeanine Pirro had an epic takedown of Harry Reid on Saturday’s edition of her show on FOX News, Justice with Judge Jeanine. (WATCH VIDEO BELOW) In...
tpnn.com
I think this is good! | |
| | |
| foundation horse - 2014-04-27 7:25 PM
FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-27 6:24 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-27 3:24 PM
Hey FinneyQtrHorses, how about a Rural Ranching Course in Reading Comprehension? Would You be able to comprehend what cow and horse manure looks around a oh say An Active Oil Well? An Active Wind Turbine? Cause I certainly see saw both cows and horses as well as the manure around both on my travels the last couple days.
And I am confident these devices were on Public as well as Private Land!
Your comment makes no sense. Now, read slowly and let this message sink in. Federal grazing fees are $1.35 per AUM. State grazing fees are $12 per AUM. If ranchers with a federal lease lose that lease and it becomes a state lease or a private property lease which will be more like $35 to $50 per AUM, that will add an enormous burden to their operating costs. Now, do you follow that or should I type more slowly? While turning federal land into state and private land opens up business opportunity for those who can afford it, like, say the Koch Bros., it will limit the opportunities for ranchers, because some of the lease holders will not allow cattle. Not that they can't graze under a windmill or oil rig, just that some owners will restrict that practice. Ted Turner is one that comes to mind that terminated a lot of leases on purchases in Montana. Now, if you can't understand that, I can't help you anymore.
Here is something for You and Others who feel the same You do to chew on Ya'll Minds. Does the word subsidy mean anything to Ya'll?
Here I'll define it:
sub·si·dy
/'s?bside/
noun
noun: subsidy; plural noun: subsidies
1. a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
"a farm subsidy"
Which is exactly what You are describing and requesting! Now I know why You started this Thread in regards to "The Government Teat"! You are jealous because you could not get in on 'this' teat!
This is at least the third (and perhaps fourth ) post you have complained about NOT getting a Subsidy and accused (perhaps accurately ) of Cliven Bundy getting something that You and Others did not. Now, You are definitely jealous per Your typed out Posts.
Your idea of Someone Else (The Federal Government ) taking care of You is what the Difference is between Liberal/Lefties like Yourself and Others and those who oppose You Folks! This Subsidy You have continued to WHINE about absolutely proves it!
You A ) either do not understand Free Enterprise or B ) disagree, either way You and The Liberal/Left are dead set against it!
Some have called my behavior towards You, 'ugly', I believe my behavior towards You has been from discernment and these post in regards to the lease rates in relationship to subsidies proves my discernment. No wonder I refuse to do business w/ The Left when I know who I am dealing with. "They" (The Left ) are taking money both ways I.E. Frontwise from my hand as I pay them and backwise from my wallet via The Federal Government!
"When ignorant people want to advertise their ignorance, you don't have to do anything, you just let'um talk" President Obama, regarding Clippers coach, but;
Seems quite appropriate to insert here. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | foundation horse - 2014-04-27 6:25 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-27 6:24 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-27 3:24 PM Hey FinneyQtrHorses, how about a Rural Ranching Course in Reading Comprehension? Would You be able to comprehend what cow and horse manure looks around a oh say An Active Oil Well? An Active Wind Turbine? Cause I certainly see saw both cows and horses as well as the manure around both on my travels the last couple days. And I am confident these devices were on Public as well as Private Land! Your comment makes no sense. Now, read slowly and let this message sink in. Federal grazing fees are $1.35 per AUM. State grazing fees are $12 per AUM. If ranchers with a federal lease lose that lease and it becomes a state lease or a private property lease which will be more like $35 to $50 per AUM, that will add an enormous burden to their operating costs. Now, do you follow that or should I type more slowly? While turning federal land into state and private land opens up business opportunity for those who can afford it, like, say the Koch Bros., it will limit the opportunities for ranchers, because some of the lease holders will not allow cattle. Not that they can't graze under a windmill or oil rig, just that some owners will restrict that practice. Ted Turner is one that comes to mind that terminated a lot of leases on purchases in Montana. Now, if you can't understand that, I can't help you anymore. Here is something for You and Others who feel the same You do to chew on Ya'll Minds. Does the word subsidy mean anything to Ya'll? Here I'll define it: sub·si·dy /'s?bside/ noun noun: subsidy; plural noun: subsidies 1. a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive. "a farm subsidy" Which is exactly what You are describing and requesting! Now I know why You started this Thread in regards to "The Government Teat"! You are jealous because you could not get in on 'this' teat! This is at least the third (and perhaps fourth ) post you have complained about NOT getting a Subsidy and accused (perhaps accurately ) of Cliven Bundy getting something that You and Others did not. Now, You are definitely jealous per Your typed out Posts. Your idea of Someone Else (The Federal Government ) taking care of You is what the Difference is between Liberal/Lefties like Yourself and Others and those who oppose You Folks! This Subsidy You have continued to WHINE about absolutely proves it! You A ) either do not understand Free Enterprise or B ) disagree, either way You and The Liberal/Left are dead set against it! Some have called my behavior towards You, 'ugly', I believe my behavior towards You has been from discernment and these post in regards to the lease rates in relationship to subsidies proves my discernment. No wonder I refuse to do business w/ The Left when I know who I am dealing with. "They" (The Left ) are taking money both ways I.E. Frontwise from my hand as I pay them and backwise from my wallet via The Federal Government!
Finney...I'm pretty sure that the 'state' lease varies state to stae...it's not like a federal lease. Besides, grazing rights are 'owned'. Not leased.
Please, get over thinking everybody wants something for nothing! My very first reply to this post was something about ignorant opinions aren't real opinions...we ALL have the opportunity to learn, to educate ourselves...to get on the same page & support one another. Your refusal to contemplate something foreign to your mind isn't doing anyone any good, especially you...now....let's do get down to brass tacks & figure out how we're going to help save this country! It's in the palm of our hands...
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | IB1UKNO - 2014-04-27 9:34 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-27 7:25 PM
FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-27 6:24 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-27 3:24 PM
Hey FinneyQtrHorses, how about a Rural Ranching Course in Reading Comprehension? Would You be able to comprehend what cow and horse manure looks around a oh say An Active Oil Well? An Active Wind Turbine? Cause I certainly see saw both cows and horses as well as the manure around both on my travels the last couple days.
And I am confident these devices were on Public as well as Private Land!
Your comment makes no sense. Now, read slowly and let this message sink in. Federal grazing fees are $1.35 per AUM. State grazing fees are $12 per AUM. If ranchers with a federal lease lose that lease and it becomes a state lease or a private property lease which will be more like $35 to $50 per AUM, that will add an enormous burden to their operating costs. Now, do you follow that or should I type more slowly? While turning federal land into state and private land opens up business opportunity for those who can afford it, like, say the Koch Bros., it will limit the opportunities for ranchers, because some of the lease holders will not allow cattle. Not that they can't graze under a windmill or oil rig, just that some owners will restrict that practice. Ted Turner is one that comes to mind that terminated a lot of leases on purchases in Montana. Now, if you can't understand that, I can't help you anymore.
Here is something for You and Others who feel the same You do to chew on Ya'll Minds. Does the word subsidy mean anything to Ya'll?
Here I'll define it:
sub·si·dy
/'s?bside/
noun
noun: subsidy; plural noun: subsidies
1. a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
"a farm subsidy"
Which is exactly what You are describing and requesting! Now I know why You started this Thread in regards to "The Government Teat"! You are jealous because you could not get in on 'this' teat!
This is at least the third (and perhaps fourth ) post you have complained about NOT getting a Subsidy and accused (perhaps accurately ) of Cliven Bundy getting something that You and Others did not. Now, You are definitely jealous per Your typed out Posts.
Your idea of Someone Else (The Federal Government ) taking care of You is what the Difference is between Liberal/Lefties like Yourself and Others and those who oppose You Folks! This Subsidy You have continued to WHINE about absolutely proves it!
You A ) either do not understand Free Enterprise or B ) disagree, either way You and The Liberal/Left are dead set against it!
Some have called my behavior towards You, 'ugly', I believe my behavior towards You has been from discernment and these post in regards to the lease rates in relationship to subsidies proves my discernment. No wonder I refuse to do business w/ The Left when I know who I am dealing with. "They" (The Left ) are taking money both ways I.E. Frontwise from my hand as I pay them and backwise from my wallet via The Federal Government!
"When ignorant people want to advertise their ignorance, you don't have to do anything, you just let'um talk" President Obama, regarding Clippers coach, but;
Seems quite appropriate to insert here.
Hey BHW Newbie! Have You ever studied economics? Ever leased anything? Land maybe? What did You have for Yourself at the end of that land lease? Any real estate to show for that land lease? Simple Economics.
I see you support The Current Elected Leader. With that said, I have to believe that you would not recognize Leadership if Leadership walked up to You and slapped You upside Your head!
How many Government Subsidies would You care to partake of? Keep supporting BHO and see what You and Your Cronies can leech off the Working Man/Woman!
Yes, I said leech, as in a sucking insect! Cause that is exactly what The Liberal Left is attempting to do! | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | IB1UKNO - 2014-04-27 9:34 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-27 7:25 PM
FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-27 6:24 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-27 3:24 PM
Hey FinneyQtrHorses, how about a Rural Ranching Course in Reading Comprehension? Would You be able to comprehend what cow and horse manure looks around a oh say An Active Oil Well? An Active Wind Turbine? Cause I certainly see saw both cows and horses as well as the manure around both on my travels the last couple days.
And I am confident these devices were on Public as well as Private Land!
Your comment makes no sense. Now, read slowly and let this message sink in. Federal grazing fees are $1.35 per AUM. State grazing fees are $12 per AUM. If ranchers with a federal lease lose that lease and it becomes a state lease or a private property lease which will be more like $35 to $50 per AUM, that will add an enormous burden to their operating costs. Now, do you follow that or should I type more slowly? While turning federal land into state and private land opens up business opportunity for those who can afford it, like, say the Koch Bros., it will limit the opportunities for ranchers, because some of the lease holders will not allow cattle. Not that they can't graze under a windmill or oil rig, just that some owners will restrict that practice. Ted Turner is one that comes to mind that terminated a lot of leases on purchases in Montana. Now, if you can't understand that, I can't help you anymore.
Here is something for You and Others who feel the same You do to chew on Ya'll Minds. Does the word subsidy mean anything to Ya'll?
Here I'll define it:
sub·si·dy
/'s?bside/
noun
noun: subsidy; plural noun: subsidies
1. a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
"a farm subsidy"
Which is exactly what You are describing and requesting! Now I know why You started this Thread in regards to "The Government Teat"! You are jealous because you could not get in on 'this' teat!
This is at least the third (and perhaps fourth ) post you have complained about NOT getting a Subsidy and accused (perhaps accurately ) of Cliven Bundy getting something that You and Others did not. Now, You are definitely jealous per Your typed out Posts.
Your idea of Someone Else (The Federal Government ) taking care of You is what the Difference is between Liberal/Lefties like Yourself and Others and those who oppose You Folks! This Subsidy You have continued to WHINE about absolutely proves it!
You A ) either do not understand Free Enterprise or B ) disagree, either way You and The Liberal/Left are dead set against it!
Some have called my behavior towards You, 'ugly', I believe my behavior towards You has been from discernment and these post in regards to the lease rates in relationship to subsidies proves my discernment. No wonder I refuse to do business w/ The Left when I know who I am dealing with. "They" (The Left ) are taking money both ways I.E. Frontwise from my hand as I pay them and backwise from my wallet via The Federal Government!
"When ignorant people want to advertise their ignorance, you don't have to do anything, you just let'um talk" President Obama, regarding Clippers coach, but;
Seems quite appropriate to insert here.
Well via the fact you support Obama, you are doing the talking about being ignorant ain't ya? | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | musikmaker - 2014-04-27 5:17 PM Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-27 2:41 PM My nephew called the BLM about using Google earth to search for places to gold mine. BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth and they wanted to know who he was and where he was from and he told them ot Eff off and hung up. Before the recent happenings I would've had a hard time believing this attitude of the BLM was common amongst them. I no longer have any doubts.
Here's something very educational...only for those who want to claim an opinion by way of knowledge...he even said some things that 'I' didn't know about the Territories!!! Lol. Yes, it's Ryan Bundy answering questions...but, it's very interesting for those who seek the truth & want to know 'why' we're in the mess we're in & what we can do about it, regardless of your feelings about the Bundy's this is how most of us feel out west.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GLC9oDHUaYI
I have questions!!!! I thought I was pretty educated about our Constitution and such...but, history is complex...the intent and the application of laws. So...has anyone checked out the possibility that the citizens of the past 'territories' were not protected by our Constitution? It makes sense...the United States of America...territories were not states, the citizens had no such protection under our Constitution...so, IF certain agencies of the federal government now insist that the public land is still under 'territorial law' then guess what...the majority of land in Nevada & other western states provide absolutely nothing when it comes ot our rights. This is important. This is why the Bundy's are saying no...we do not recognize the 'federal' government's 'power' or ownership...because they do not represent the 'United States of America'. I know it seems beyond comprehension, however, when you consider the actions of these agencies...it fits. Like the 'First Amendment Zones'...
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | musikmaker - 2014-04-27 9:57 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-27 5:17 PM Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-27 2:41 PM My nephew called the BLM about using Google earth to search for places to gold mine. BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth and they wanted to know who he was and where he was from and he told them ot Eff off and hung up. Before the recent happenings I would've had a hard time believing this attitude of the BLM was common amongst them. I no longer have any doubts.
Here's something very educational...only for those who want to claim an opinion by way of knowledge...he even said some things that 'I' didn't know about the Territories!!! Lol. Yes, it's Ryan Bundy answering questions...but, it's very interesting for those who seek the truth & want to know 'why' we're in the mess we're in & what we can do about it, regardless of your feelings about the Bundy's this is how most of us feel out west.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GLC9oDHUaYI
And someone 'dislikes' this why? Could you please stand up & be counted?
Did you dislike that I asked or ??? You make absolutely no sense.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | musikmaker - 2014-04-27 11:48 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-27 9:57 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-27 5:17 PM Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-27 2:41 PM My nephew called the BLM about using Google earth to search for places to gold mine. BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth and they wanted to know who he was and where he was from and he told them ot Eff off and hung up. Before the recent happenings I would've had a hard time believing this attitude of the BLM was common amongst them. I no longer have any doubts.
Here's something very educational...only for those who want to claim an opinion by way of knowledge...he even said some things that 'I' didn't know about the Territories!!! Lol. Yes, it's Ryan Bundy answering questions...but, it's very interesting for those who seek the truth & want to know 'why' we're in the mess we're in & what we can do about it, regardless of your feelings about the Bundy's this is how most of us feel out west.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GLC9oDHUaYI
Did you dislike that I asked or ??? You make absolutely no sense.
MM, I suspect You have garnered a similar 'following' to yourself, that I have. There are certain individuals on this forum who dislike any and everything I have post. I have finally learned to discount that dislike feature from the aspect that some people are going dislike I.E. whine about ALL I have to say.
Those people are beyond reaching and therefore I pay no attention to them. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | foundation horse - 2014-04-28 6:49 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-27 11:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-27 9:57 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-27 5:17 PM Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-27 2:41 PM My nephew called the BLM about using Google earth to search for places to gold mine. BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth and they wanted to know who he was and where he was from and he told them ot Eff off and hung up. Before the recent happenings I would've had a hard time believing this attitude of the BLM was common amongst them. I no longer have any doubts.
Here's something very educational...only for those who want to claim an opinion by way of knowledge...he even said some things that 'I' didn't know about the Territories!!! Lol. Yes, it's Ryan Bundy answering questions...but, it's very interesting for those who seek the truth & want to know 'why' we're in the mess we're in & what we can do about it, regardless of your feelings about the Bundy's this is how most of us feel out west.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GLC9oDHUaYI
Did you dislike that I asked or ??? You make absolutely no sense.
MM, I suspect You have garnered a similar 'following' to yourself, that I have. There are certain individuals on this forum who dislike any and everything I have post. I have finally learned to discount that dislike feature from the aspect that some people are going dislike I.E. whine about ALL I have to say. Those people are beyond reaching and therefore I pay no attention to them.
Lol...I'm sure I have a dislike stalker! I must have hurt someones little feelers. I can forgive them for being wrong...they just can't forgive me for being right..so sad, too bad...lol. It was just an invitation to join the convo!
Anyhow I really am curious about the question of territorial citizens rights or lack of.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-27 10:57 PM I have questions!!!! I thought I was pretty educated about our Constitution and such...but, history is complex...the intent and the application of laws. So...has anyone checked out the possibility that the citizens of the past 'territories' were not protected by our Constitution? It makes sense...the United States of America...territories were not states, the citizens had no such protection under our Constitution...so, IF certain agencies of the federal government now insist that the public land is still under 'territorial law' then guess what...the majority of land in Nevada & other western states provide absolutely nothing when it comes ot our rights. This is important. This is why the Bundy's are saying no...we do not recognize the 'federal' government's 'power' or ownership...because they do not represent the 'United States of America'. I know it seems beyond comprehension, however, when you consider the actions of these agencies...it fits. Like the 'First Amendment Zones'...
I'm not really following you here, Musik.
Whether it's territorial land or other federal property, it still falls under the authority of congress.
| |
| | |
BHW's Lance Armstrong
Posts: 11134
Location: Somewhere between S@%&# stirrer and Saint | foundation horse - 2014-04-28 7:49 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-27 11:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-27 9:57 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-27 5:17 PM Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-27 2:41 PM My nephew called the BLM about using Google earth to search for places to gold mine. BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth and they wanted to know who he was and where he was from and he told them ot Eff off and hung up. Before the recent happenings I would've had a hard time believing this attitude of the BLM was common amongst them. I no longer have any doubts.
Here's something very educational...only for those who want to claim an opinion by way of knowledge...he even said some things that 'I' didn't know about the Territories!!! Lol. Yes, it's Ryan Bundy answering questions...but, it's very interesting for those who seek the truth & want to know 'why' we're in the mess we're in & what we can do about it, regardless of your feelings about the Bundy's this is how most of us feel out west.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GLC9oDHUaYI
Did you dislike that I asked or ??? You make absolutely no sense.
MM, I suspect You have garnered a similar 'following' to yourself, that I have. There are certain individuals on this forum who dislike any and everything I have post. I have finally learned to discount that dislike feature from the aspect that some people are going dislike I.E. whine about ALL I have to say. Those people are beyond reaching and therefore I pay no attention to them.
Totally agree! Some people at noon day you can say it is sunshinning and they would say it was midnight. | |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| TXBO - 2014-04-28 10:05 AM
musikmaker - 2014-04-27 10:57 PM I have questions!!!! I thought I was pretty educated about our Constitution and such...but, history is complex...the intent and the application of laws. So...has anyone checked out the possibility that the citizens of the past 'territories' were not protected by our Constitution? It makes sense...the United States of America...territories were not states, the citizens had no such protection under our Constitution...so, IF certain agencies of the federal government now insist that the public land is still under 'territorial law' then guess what...the majority of land in Nevada & other western states provide absolutely nothing when it comes ot our rights. This is important. This is why the Bundy's are saying no...we do not recognize the 'federal' government's 'power' or ownership...because they do not represent the 'United States of America'. I know it seems beyond comprehension, however, when you consider the actions of these agencies...it fits. Like the 'First Amendment Zones'...
I'm not really following you here, Musik.
Whether it's territorial land or other federal property, it still falls under the authority of congress.
I too am a little confused on your question. I think that the S.C. has on several cases ruled that the Constitution applies no matter what. | |
| | |
BHW's Lance Armstrong
Posts: 11134
Location: Somewhere between S@%&# stirrer and Saint | musikmaker - 2014-04-27 10:57 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-27 5:17 PM Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-27 2:41 PM My nephew called the BLM about using Google earth to search for places to gold mine. BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth and they wanted to know who he was and where he was from and he told them ot Eff off and hung up. Before the recent happenings I would've had a hard time believing this attitude of the BLM was common amongst them. I no longer have any doubts.
Here's something very educational...only for those who want to claim an opinion by way of knowledge...he even said some things that 'I' didn't know about the Territories!!! Lol. Yes, it's Ryan Bundy answering questions...but, it's very interesting for those who seek the truth & want to know 'why' we're in the mess we're in & what we can do about it, regardless of your feelings about the Bundy's this is how most of us feel out west.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GLC9oDHUaYI
I am following you. I like your question! | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | jbhoot - 2014-04-28 9:35 AM TXBO - 2014-04-28 10:05 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-27 10:57 PM I have questions!!!! I thought I was pretty educated about our Constitution and such...but, history is complex...the intent and the application of laws. So...has anyone checked out the possibility that the citizens of the past 'territories' were not protected by our Constitution? It makes sense...the United States of America...territories were not states, the citizens had no such protection under our Constitution...so, IF certain agencies of the federal government now insist that the public land is still under 'territorial law' then guess what...the majority of land in Nevada & other western states provide absolutely nothing when it comes ot our rights. This is important. This is why the Bundy's are saying no...we do not recognize the 'federal' government's 'power' or ownership...because they do not represent the 'United States of America'. I know it seems beyond comprehension, however, when you consider the actions of these agencies...it fits. Like the 'First Amendment Zones'...
I'm not really following you here, Musik.
Whether it's territorial land or other federal property, it still falls under the authority of congress.
I too am a little confused on your question. I think that the S.C. has on several cases ruled that the Constitution applies no matter what.
I'd never considered that aspect myself until I watched the video where he said that his brother was arrested & told he had no rights on that property as it was the district of Nevada...his only rights were in the 'protest area' (1st amendment zone)...his brother later called the gov. of Nevada & was told by the assistant that the gov had no authority there, either. He then explained that prior to the territories gaining statehood the citizens were not protected by our Consitution as it only protects citizens of the United States of America...the territories were not 'states', therefore the people residing in the territories were not citizens of the U.S.A.
This may or may not be correct, but, I can certanly follow the thought process.
To take it a bit further...IF the land in question does not belong to the states then we still have no Consitutional rights while on that land...it doesn't belong to the U.S.A. if it's not part of the state...That sounds perfectly logical. Ugh. Ok...consider that the Dept of Interior is not answerable to the people...neither are their goons. I would really like to know this! It sounds pretty far out...yet...
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-27 2:41 PM My nephew called the BLM about using Google earth to search for places to gold mine. BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth and they wanted to know who he was and where he was from and he told them ot Eff off and hung up.
Sorry, not buying that anyone said this. I'm not calling your son a liar, but I am saying that this is a ridiculous comment and I find it hard to believe anyone working for the BLM would say that looking at Google Earth is trespassing. | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| musikmaker - 2014-04-27 9:40 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-27 6:25 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-27 6:24 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-27 3:24 PM Hey FinneyQtrHorses, how about a Rural Ranching Course in Reading Comprehension? Would You be able to comprehend what cow and horse manure looks around a oh say An Active Oil Well? An Active Wind Turbine? Cause I certainly see saw both cows and horses as well as the manure around both on my travels the last couple days. And I am confident these devices were on Public as well as Private Land! Your comment makes no sense. Now, read slowly and let this message sink in. Federal grazing fees are $1.35 per AUM. State grazing fees are $12 per AUM. If ranchers with a federal lease lose that lease and it becomes a state lease or a private property lease which will be more like $35 to $50 per AUM, that will add an enormous burden to their operating costs. Now, do you follow that or should I type more slowly? While turning federal land into state and private land opens up business opportunity for those who can afford it, like, say the Koch Bros., it will limit the opportunities for ranchers, because some of the lease holders will not allow cattle. Not that they can't graze under a windmill or oil rig, just that some owners will restrict that practice. Ted Turner is one that comes to mind that terminated a lot of leases on purchases in Montana. Now, if you can't understand that, I can't help you anymore. Here is something for You and Others who feel the same You do to chew on Ya'll Minds. Does the word subsidy mean anything to Ya'll? Here I'll define it: sub·si·dy /'s?bside/ noun noun: subsidy; plural noun: subsidies 1. a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive. "a farm subsidy" Which is exactly what You are describing and requesting! Now I know why You started this Thread in regards to "The Government Teat"! You are jealous because you could not get in on 'this' teat! This is at least the third (and perhaps fourth ) post you have complained about NOT getting a Subsidy and accused (perhaps accurately ) of Cliven Bundy getting something that You and Others did not. Now, You are definitely jealous per Your typed out Posts. Your idea of Someone Else (The Federal Government ) taking care of You is what the Difference is between Liberal/Lefties like Yourself and Others and those who oppose You Folks! This Subsidy You have continued to WHINE about absolutely proves it! You A ) either do not understand Free Enterprise or B ) disagree, either way You and The Liberal/Left are dead set against it! Some have called my behavior towards You, 'ugly', I believe my behavior towards You has been from discernment and these post in regards to the lease rates in relationship to subsidies proves my discernment. No wonder I refuse to do business w/ The Left when I know who I am dealing with. "They" (The Left ) are taking money both ways I.E. Frontwise from my hand as I pay them and backwise from my wallet via The Federal Government!
Please, get over thinking everybody wants something for nothing! My very first reply to this post was something about ignorant opinions aren't real opinions...we ALL have the opportunity to learn, to educate ourselves...to get on the same page & support one another. Your refusal to contemplate something foreign to your mind isn't doing anyone any good, especially you...now....let's do get down to brass tacks & figure out how we're going to help save this country! It's in the palm of our hands...
I found this chart interesting. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Grazing_Fees/gf_am.asp
If I mess up and the picture won't load, this is a map of the western US with each state's 2013 & 2014 grazing fees.
Grazing rights are not "Owned", but leased without fear of someone else getting them since they do not come up for "bid" like a school land lease does periodically (ours is every 7 years) which might lead someone to believe that they are owned. It is my understanding transfers have conditions and parties do "sell" their allotment, but they are basically selling their contract.
 (State Grazing Fees.gif)
Attachments
----------------
State Grazing Fees.gif (54KB - 248 downloads)
| |
| | |
BHW's Lance Armstrong
Posts: 11134
Location: Somewhere between S@%&# stirrer and Saint | smiley - 2014-04-28 1:06 PM Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-27 2:41 PM My nephew called the BLM about using Google earth to search for places to gold mine. BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth and they wanted to know who he was and where he was from and he told them ot Eff off and hung up. Sorry, not buying that anyone said this. I'm not calling your son a liar, but I am saying that this is a ridiculous comment and I find it hard to believe anyone working for the BLM would say that looking at Google Earth is trespassing.
First of all Smiley you can't read. Second of all if you can't read your opinion in the matter doesn't matter. I have no reason not to believe my nephew. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-28 12:07 PM musikmaker - Finney...I'm pretty sure that the 'state' lease varies state to stae...it's not like a federal lease. Besides, grazing rights are 'owned'. Not leased.
Please, get over thinking everybody wants something for nothing! My very first reply to this post was something about ignorant opinions aren't real opinions...we ALL have the opportunity to learn, to educate ourselves...to get on the same page & support one another. Your refusal to contemplate something foreign to your mind isn't doing anyone any good, especially you...now....let's do get down to brass tacks & figure out how we're going to help save this country! It's in the palm of our hands...
I found this chart interesting. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Grazing_Fees/gf_am.asp If I mess up and the picture won't load, this is a map of the western US with each state's 2013 & 2014 grazing fees. Grazing rights are not "Owned", but leased without fear of someone else getting them since they do not come up for "bid" like a school land lease does periodically (ours is every 7 years ) which might lead someone to believe that they are owned. It is my understanding transfers have conditions and parties do "sell" their allotment, but they are basically selling their contract.
Not being in that business...thanks for the info. I guess that's a big difference between the federal & the state...I do know that out here on the 'federal' land the rights are sold...I say 'rights' because there seems to be a lot of confusion what it really is. I find it interesting due to the fact that my tin foil hat is askew for the moment...trying to figure out who the bad guy really is...of course, there must be one, huh? Lol.
This also makes me wonder that if the states took control of the excess lands, would they then be able to adjust the grazing fees down or will they assume the greed? At least it would be a more local issue as there's no way the ranchers could afford those high fees out here...it wouldn't happen. I don't know any who're getting rich at this rate! And beef prices keep climbing...so many 'middle men'. It's the consumer who ends up paying in all cases for inflation.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | musikmaker - 2014-04-27 6:17 PM
Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-27 2:41 PM My nephew called the BLM about using Google earth to search for places to gold mine. BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth and they wanted to know who he was and where he was from and he told them ot Eff off and hung up.
Before the recent happenings I would've had a hard time believing this attitude of the BLM was common amongst them. I no longer have any doubts.
Here's something very educational...only for those who want to claim an opinion by way of knowledge...he even said some things that 'I' didn't know about the Territories!!! Lol. Yes, it's Ryan Bundy answering questions...but, it's very interesting for those who seek the truth & want to know 'why' we're in the mess we're in & what we can do about it, regardless of your feelings about the Bundy's this is how most of us feel out west.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GLC9oDHUaYI
The reference in regards to States vs. Territories is located in this video @ 32:41 mark.
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| You guys just have to stop searching for truth from the Bundy bunch.
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| musikmaker - 2014-04-28 2:03 PM
FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-28 12:07 PM musikmaker - Finney...I'm pretty sure that the 'state' lease varies state to stae...it's not like a federal lease. Besides, grazing rights are 'owned'. Not leased.
Please, get over thinking everybody wants something for nothing! My very first reply to this post was something about ignorant opinions aren't real opinions...we ALL have the opportunity to learn, to educate ourselves...to get on the same page & support one another. Your refusal to contemplate something foreign to your mind isn't doing anyone any good, especially you...now....let's do get down to brass tacks & figure out how we're going to help save this country! It's in the palm of our hands...
I found this chart interesting. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Grazing_Fees/gf_am.asp If I mess up and the picture won't load, this is a map of the western US with each state's 2013 & 2014 grazing fees. Grazing rights are not "Owned", but leased without fear of someone else getting them since they do not come up for "bid" like a school land lease does periodically (ours is every 7 years ) which might lead someone to believe that they are owned. It is my understanding transfers have conditions and parties do "sell" their allotment, but they are basically selling their contract.
This also makes me wonder that if the states took control of the excess lands, would they then be able to adjust the grazing fees down or will they assume the greed? At least it would be a more local issue as there's no way the ranchers could afford those high fees out here...it wouldn't happen. I don't know any who're getting rich at this rate! And beef prices keep climbing...so many 'middle men'. It's the consumer who ends up paying in all cases for inflation.
An Example of taxes out of whack for agricultural producers: from Farm Bureau in Nebraska, farmers and ranchers make up 3% of the population but pay nearly 26% of the taxes, due to the 75% property tax valuation of ag land. The state legislature tried to reduce the valuation down to 65% but there is not much appetite for it because farmers and ranchers do not have a very effective lobby, unlike other business interests who are perfectly happy to have us pick up their slack. Therefore, being a rancher, I am torn between wanting what's best for all of us (ranchers), and feeling like the 2% of ranchers who get subsidized grazing fees in western states are getting an unfair advantage (see grazing fee chart and compare NE's fees to AZ's for ex.) plus they have no property taxes on that land. However, for now, that is just the way it is, but complaining about how abused they are doesn't set well with many people who have to pay to play in the private sector that 98% of the ranchers are in. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-28 2:41 PM
You guys just have to stop searching for truth from the Bundy bunch.
If I remember correctly, you have stated that Nevada has one of the most corrupt Governments in the Nation. Now with that being said, did you watch the video regarding A Bundy Son's Phone to The Nevada Governor's Office? And the response that The Bundy Son claims to have received?
Just perhaps, maybe, The Bundy Family has done Their Constitutional Research and said Research does not coincide with current day politics? | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-28 2:47 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-28 2:03 PM
FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-28 12:07 PM musikmaker - Finney...I'm pretty sure that the 'state' lease varies state to stae...it's not like a federal lease. Besides, grazing rights are 'owned'. Not leased.
Please, get over thinking everybody wants something for nothing! My very first reply to this post was something about ignorant opinions aren't real opinions...we ALL have the opportunity to learn, to educate ourselves...to get on the same page & support one another. Your refusal to contemplate something foreign to your mind isn't doing anyone any good, especially you...now....let's do get down to brass tacks & figure out how we're going to help save this country! It's in the palm of our hands...
I found this chart interesting. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Grazing_Fees/gf_am.asp If I mess up and the picture won't load, this is a map of the western US with each state's 2013 & 2014 grazing fees. Grazing rights are not "Owned", but leased without fear of someone else getting them since they do not come up for "bid" like a school land lease does periodically (ours is every 7 years ) which might lead someone to believe that they are owned. It is my understanding transfers have conditions and parties do "sell" their allotment, but they are basically selling their contract.
This also makes me wonder that if the states took control of the excess lands, would they then be able to adjust the grazing fees down or will they assume the greed? At least it would be a more local issue as there's no way the ranchers could afford those high fees out here...it wouldn't happen. I don't know any who're getting rich at this rate! And beef prices keep climbing...so many 'middle men'. It's the consumer who ends up paying in all cases for inflation.
An Example of taxes out of whack for agricultural producers: from Farm Bureau in Nebraska, farmers and ranchers make up 3% of the population but pay nearly 26% of the taxes, due to the 75% property tax valuation of ag land. The state legislature tried to reduce the valuation down to 65% but there is not much appetite for it because farmers and ranchers do not have a very effective lobby, unlike other business interests who are perfectly happy to have us pick up their slack. Therefore, being a rancher, I am torn between wanting what's best for all of us (ranchers ), and feeling like the 2% of ranchers who get subsidized grazing fees in western states are getting an unfair advantage (see grazing fee chart and compare NE's fees to AZ's for ex. ) plus they have no property taxes on that land. However, for now, that is just the way it is, but complaining about how abused they are doesn't set well with many people who have to pay to play in the private sector that 98% of the ranchers are in.
Now in regards to The State of Nebraska's Tax Structure, I will agree with you! It is one of, if not the most heavily burdened tax structures in America! And I will agree with you again in regards to The Ag Sector paying the majority of Taxes in The State of Nebraska. Only State that I am aware that taxes a vehicle on A) Weight, B)/C Age, Current Market Value which ties in w/ age, and D) Type of Use.
Ex: An Ag Use Ranch Pickup has a greater tax burden than a Passenger Car. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| No, I didn't see that part.
I listened to some of his constitutional research. Some was expedient and abreviated and some was just plain wrong so I clicked off. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2014-04-28 3:01 PM
No, I didn't see that part.
I listened to some of his constitutional research. Some was expedient and abreviated and some was just plain wrong so I clicked off.
I just happen to have a Copy of The Constitution by my machine so I followed along. I agree about abbreviating parts of The Constitution. However, I found no wrongful quotes from following along. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-28 12:51 PM smiley - 2014-04-28 1:06 PM Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-27 2:41 PM My nephew called the BLM about using Google earth to search for places to gold mine. BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth and they wanted to know who he was and where he was from and he told them ot Eff off and hung up. Sorry, not buying that anyone said this. I'm not calling your son a liar, but I am saying that this is a ridiculous comment and I find it hard to believe anyone working for the BLM would say that looking at Google Earth is trespassing.
I don't think someone is that stupid to say that looking at anything provided by Google Earth is tresspassing.
Of course, if you want to believe it was said and by someone that is actually employed at the BLM, by all means, I'm just participating on a public forum as to what I think about it.
Oh, what part of this did I not read? "BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth"
Edited by smiley 2014-04-28 3:46 PM
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | foundation horse - 2014-04-28 2:00 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-28 2:47 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-28 2:03 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-28 12:07 PM musikmaker - Finney...I'm pretty sure that the 'state' lease varies state to stae...it's not like a federal lease. Besides, grazing rights are 'owned'. Not leased.
Please, get over thinking everybody wants something for nothing! My very first reply to this post was something about ignorant opinions aren't real opinions...we ALL have the opportunity to learn, to educate ourselves...to get on the same page & support one another. Your refusal to contemplate something foreign to your mind isn't doing anyone any good, especially you...now....let's do get down to brass tacks & figure out how we're going to help save this country! It's in the palm of our hands...
I found this chart interesting. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Grazing_Fees/gf_am.asp If I mess up and the picture won't load, this is a map of the western US with each state's 2013 & 2014 grazing fees. Grazing rights are not "Owned", but leased without fear of someone else getting them since they do not come up for "bid" like a school land lease does periodically (ours is every 7 years ) which might lead someone to believe that they are owned. It is my understanding transfers have conditions and parties do "sell" their allotment, but they are basically selling their contract.
This also makes me wonder that if the states took control of the excess lands, would they then be able to adjust the grazing fees down or will they assume the greed? At least it would be a more local issue as there's no way the ranchers could afford those high fees out here...it wouldn't happen. I don't know any who're getting rich at this rate! And beef prices keep climbing...so many 'middle men'. It's the consumer who ends up paying in all cases for inflation.
An Example of taxes out of whack for agricultural producers: from Farm Bureau in Nebraska, farmers and ranchers make up 3% of the population but pay nearly 26% of the taxes, due to the 75% property tax valuation of ag land. The state legislature tried to reduce the valuation down to 65% but there is not much appetite for it because farmers and ranchers do not have a very effective lobby, unlike other business interests who are perfectly happy to have us pick up their slack. Therefore, being a rancher, I am torn between wanting what's best for all of us (ranchers ), and feeling like the 2% of ranchers who get subsidized grazing fees in western states are getting an unfair advantage (see grazing fee chart and compare NE's fees to AZ's for ex. ) plus they have no property taxes on that land. However, for now, that is just the way it is, but complaining about how abused they are doesn't set well with many people who have to pay to play in the private sector that 98% of the ranchers are in. Now in regards to The State of Nebraska's Tax Structure, I will agree with you! It is one of, if not the most heavily burdened tax structures in America! And I will agree with you again in regards to The Ag Sector paying the majority of Taxes in The State of Nebraska. Only State that I am aware that taxes a vehicle on A ) Weight, B )/C Age, Current Market Value which ties in w/ age, and D ) Type of Use. Ex: An Ag Use Ranch Pickup has a greater tax burden than a Passenger Car.
I agree that the producers (especially the 'little guy') are the ones carrying the load...but, this goes for ALL producers, and everywhere. It's breaking us.
So...this is leading back to the topic of Bundy's and how some see them as complaining about how abused they are...I don't know the Bundy's personally, I just don't see or hear what you do on this. Maybe because it's a fight that's been brewing for so long out here...and it's close to our hearts, the land, I mean.
We support multiple use...that's ranching, hunting, mining & recreation. They're shutting Americans out of it little by little. Creating unnecessary parks, closing roads & trails that have been here for a very long time & under county maintenance. They even install rv parks & other 'businesses' that are in direct competition with private enterprise...these things fly in the face of what our Nation is supposed to be. And it certainly is in our Constitution.
Bundy's are merely another voice...one that they're trying to shut up. With reason...they know their stuff. They know the Constitution & are instisting that the gov't live up to their end of the bargain. It really doesn't have anything to do with states that aren't fighting this same fight...it's our fight & one we can win if we could remove pretend 'stakeholders' from the mix. Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, Hollywood, Earth First...and yes, the uneducated voter who bought into all it, literally.
As to the state grazing fees, that's a state issue & again, our governments on all levels are out of control. For the money they rake in we don't get much out of it...they forgot the KISS (take that any way! Lol).
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | smiley - 2014-04-28 2:45 PM Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-28 12:51 PM smiley - 2014-04-28 1:06 PM Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-27 2:41 PM My nephew called the BLM about using Google earth to search for places to gold mine. BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth and they wanted to know who he was and where he was from and he told them ot Eff off and hung up. Sorry, not buying that anyone said this. I'm not calling your son a liar, but I am saying that this is a ridiculous comment and I find it hard to believe anyone working for the BLM would say that looking at Google Earth is trespassing.
I don't think someone is that stupid to say that looking at anything provided by Google Earth is tresspassing.
Of course, if you want to believe it was said and by someone that is actually employed at the BLM, by all means, I'm just participating on a public forum as to what I think about it.
Oh, what part of this did I not read? "BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth"
This isn't the first time I've heard of this...it was sometime last year, just cannot recall the details. Sorry! If I remember I'll let you know... | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | smiley - 2014-04-28 3:45 PM Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-28 12:51 PM smiley - 2014-04-28 1:06 PM Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-27 2:41 PM My nephew called the BLM about using Google earth to search for places to gold mine. BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth and they wanted to know who he was and where he was from and he told them ot Eff off and hung up. Sorry, not buying that anyone said this. I'm not calling your son a liar, but I am saying that this is a ridiculous comment and I find it hard to believe anyone working for the BLM would say that looking at Google Earth is trespassing.
I don't think someone is that stupid to say that looking at anything provided by Google Earth is tresspassing.
Of course, if you want to believe it was said and by someone that is actually employed at the BLM, by all means, I'm just participating on a public forum as to what I think about it.
Oh, what part of this did I not read? "BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth"
I think the intent of his statement was using google earth to search for likely gold deposits. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Although I'm not a big fan of Glenn Beck's I AM a fan of Ken Ivory, he was on on the show (by phone) and shared more interesting informatin about the history of the public lands...please watch! This summit was planned before the Bundy thing...I'm just very glad this issue is getting some attention.
And we're digging for the truth...it's been covered up & forgotten for too long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDll5zHV2Dk&feature=youtu.be
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | musikmaker - 2014-04-29 8:12 AM Although I'm not a big fan of Glenn Beck's I AM a fan of Ken Ivory, he was on on the show (by phone) and shared more interesting informatin about the history of the public lands...please watch! This summit was planned before the Bundy thing...I'm just very glad this issue is getting some attention.
And we're digging for the truth...it's been covered up & forgotten for too long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDll5zHV2Dk&feature=youtu.be
Just watched this video. History is an amazing thing! And Historical Precedent dating back to 1780 is even more amazing! Folks watch this video!
Edited by foundation horse 2014-04-29 12:04 PM
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | And here is another video validating the research that indicates the original intent of The Government Land Office was to disposition I.E. dispose of land. The Federal Government per Constitutional Research was only designed to be a Trustee of land until disposal. The historical evidence of this can be traced back to The Revolutionary War.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQrF8PnSdMQ | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | foundation horse - 2014-04-29 10:48 AM And here is another video validating the research that indicates the original intent of The Government Land Office was to dis position I.E. dispose of land. The Federal Government per Constitutional Research was only designed to be a Trustee of land until disposal. The historical evidence of this can be traced back to The Revolutionary War.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQrF8PnSdMQ
It's about time this stuff became 'public knowledge'!
Here's something else some may find interesting....
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865602023/Gov-Gary-Herbert-slammed-for-wild-horse-comments.html?pg=all#4MjQ7DQDOUpJuOEI.01
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas |
Ugh! Another Environmental Group attempting to dictate policy! Even The BLM backhandedly acknowledged that they (The BLM) were failing @ managing Wild Horse Herds.
Wayne Hage touched on the Wild Horse Herd Issue in that 40 minute video interview that is I believe in this thread. Frickin' Treehuggers! If they had 'their' way there would no PEOPLE on this Planet! | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| Yes, horses populate very well even in drought conditions and from what I understand, they do have a struggle to satisfy the activists and to manage the herds AND keep what cattle grazing is left, still available.
These videos were great! I had an opportunity to defend Bundy yesterday in a Diversity class and I wasn't 100% gung ho but I did mention that if he had been having a conversation with us in a room, he would have been understood better than just hearing words tossed out in a youtube video. He is roundly seen as a racist, and I don't actually see him that way, I got his point, he just said it very poorly. I just basically said that even if he did seem uneducated, he's entitled to his opinion same as anyone else.
Hard to be in diversity training when you're the white chick from the sticks. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | smiley - 2014-04-30 8:52 AM
Yes, horses populate very well even in drought conditions and from what I understand, they do have a struggle to satisfy the activists and to manage the herds AND keep what cattle grazing is left, still available.
These videos were great! I had an opportunity to defend Bundy yesterday in a Diversity class and I wasn't 100% gung ho but I did mention that if he had been having a conversation with us in a room, he would have been understood better than just hearing words tossed out in a youtube video. He is roundly seen as a racist, and I don't actually see him that way, I got his point, he just said it very poorly. I just basically said that even if he did seem uneducated, he's entitled to his opinion same as anyone else.
Hard to be in diversity training when you're the white chick from the sticks.
Smiley, are you aware that the NYT Video was edited? Down from 3+/- minutes to approx. 1 1/2 minutes? I have seen both versions. They are located on The World Net Daily website. Here I will go find them.
I found the link!
http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/04/bundy-times-sting-worse-than-i-though... | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | My previous link is proof positive that the Left is spinning this event for all it is worth to smear Cliven Bundy and just generally lie about this scenario! | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
| foundation horse - 2014-04-30 10:54 AM smiley - 2014-04-30 8:52 AM Yes, horses populate very well even in drought conditions and from what I understand, they do have a struggle to satisfy the activists and to manage the herds AND keep what cattle grazing is left, still available.
These videos were great! I had an opportunity to defend Bundy yesterday in a Diversity class and I wasn't 100% gung ho but I did mention that if he had been having a conversation with us in a room, he would have been understood better than just hearing words tossed out in a youtube video. He is roundly seen as a racist, and I don't actually see him that way, I got his point, he just said it very poorly. I just basically said that even if he did seem uneducated, he's entitled to his opinion same as anyone else.
Hard to be in diversity training when you're the white chick from the sticks. Smiley, are you aware that the NYT Video was edited? Down from 3+/- minutes to approx. 1 1/2 minutes? I have seen both versions. They are located on The World Net Daily website. Here I will go find them. I found the link! http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/04/bundy-times-sting-worse-than-i-though...*edited for weird spacing Yes, I saw both video clips, I did not see them as "edited" as much as shortened. His words did not change and frankly it has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING, so he should have just said "let's stick to the fed vs. state land issues" but then they don't have a PR person to let them know that the reporter or whoever posted the clip doesn't have their best interests at heart.
Of course the left will spin it - the right spun it too - I was getting dizzy from the spinning frankly. Edited by smiley 2014-04-30 12:23 PM
| |
| | |
BHW's Lance Armstrong
Posts: 11134
Location: Somewhere between S@%&# stirrer and Saint |
But, Harry Reid is a piece of Shizz!
Smoking BLM Gun – Public Records – Harry Reid Owns 93 Acres Next to Bundy Ranch
While Senator Harry Reid professes that he is running the Bundy cattle off of public land because it’s the right thing to do, evidence indicates that Dirty Harry might have a personal interest in seeing that the Bundy’s join the other 52 ranchers they’ve run out of business.
Parcels held by an entity, Reid Bunkerville, LLC, which is partially owned by the Nevada Senator are in close proximity to the Bundy ranch.
The parcels appear to be in the path of future development, which may even involve a freeway interchange and loop, all west of Bunkerville in the same general area as those “trespass cattle.”
The parcel numbers below link to the Clark County Assessor’s Office, with all of the pertinent information and property descriptions shown.
They total 93.33 acres in size.
Reid Bunkerville L L C Dst-901 # 002-26-301-002
Reid Bunkerville L L C Dst-800 #002-26-301-004
Reid Bunkerville L L C Dst-800 #002-26-301-005
Reid Bunkerville L L C Dst-800 #002-26-701-001
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | The more the research is done, the more Harry Reid's fingerprints or in this case, Land ownership will be revealed. | |
| |
|
