|
|
 BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25351
  
Location: Bastrop, Texas | 1DSoon - 2016-03-12 9:40 AM
Bear - 2016-03-12 9:20 AM Vickie - 2016-03-10 5:44 PM A song that has been an inspiration to me is CCR: God Bless the Child Who Has His Own. If you do not own the land you have no right to it. If you are renting, you don't own it and you don't control it. Ranchers need to wake up and face it. Your landlord can pull your lease if you do not pay your rent, just like anyone in an apartment. Please, no more useless deaths. WWJD? I thought that was done by "Blood, Sweat, and Tears".
Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. It was a Blood Sweat and Tears hit when I was a kid. |
|
| |
|
 Tried and True
Posts: 21185
Location: Where I am happiest | Nevertooold - 2016-03-12 12:52 PM foundation horse - 2016-03-12 10:34 AM Let me ask y'all folks something that are in disagreement with this thread. Do y'all believe in the Constitution? People believe in the Constitution when it fits their needs. Obama is a perfect example of this.
Yep. It's the whole liberal left. They only believe and give relevance to the constitution when it suits them. |
|
| |
|
 I Don't Brag
Posts: 6960
| foundation horse - 2016-03-11 5:55 PM
cyount2009 - 2016-03-11 12:09 PM
Silly Filly - 2016-03-11 11:28 AM Vickie - 2016-03-10 4:44 PM A song that has been an inspiration to me is CCR: God Bless the Child Who Has His Own. If you do not own the land you have no right to it. If you are renting, you don't own it and you don't control it. Ranchers need to wake up and face it. Your landlord can pull your lease if you do not pay your rent, just like anyone in an apartment. Please, no more useless deaths. WWJD?
What kind of a landlord refuses to take your payment for their lease, and then claims that you won't pay them?
They had signed federal leases and then refused to pay the Federal Government. Instead they attempted to pay the State, which by means of the Constitution is the rightful owner of the land. The State refused the payments because the contract was not signed with them I stand with the ranchers who are legitimately paying their leases to the institution and not getting to use the land they have paid for. This is the problem I have in supporting the Bundys. They have singed with the Federal Government and not the state. They have not paid their leases and now the government wants them off the property. The government makes up their own rules whether they are constitutional or not BUT they signed to abide by those rules. They are making it really hard for the men and women with leases that are following the rules.
\ The Bundys are also fighting for those guys who are playing by the rules which makes them a double edged sword to me. As badly as I do not want to support them, I see the struggles of our local guys because of mustangs, frogs, turtles and sage grouse. As for Finicum's "useless death"; no death is ever useless. They all carry meaning and importance. We can learn from every death just as we can learn from every life. Grouping all ranchers into a statement as vague and uninformed as this is ludicrous, it's like saying all barrel horses are psychotic time bombs waiting to blow up. Please research and see what's really going on out here. Look at all sides and not just that of the national media, who is bought and paid for by the Federal Government.
I understand your perspective of the conflict between who Bundy had a contract with. However, w/o a signed agreement, which to the best of my knowledge, Cliven Bundy had not signed in over ten years, then just WHO has authority to collect anything??????????
Also, Constitutionally Speaking The Federal Government has no right to own land outside 10 miles in Washington D.C. as Forts and Ports. People need to do the research on just i.e. READ The Constitution!
Now, I am not defending or supporting Cliven Bundy per se, but I have read Storm Over Rangelands by Wayne Hage of Nevada as well. From there I started digging into the background of The BLM and NFS. Their predecessor is The General Land Office whose sole responsibility was to SELL OFF The Real Estate in their charge!
Ummm, I know that you can't believe everything you read, but it seems like I read that the root of the Bundy issue was/is that Mr Bundy signed a lease agreement with the state years BEFORE the BLM was ever created. That he did NOT sign another with the BLM , that the lease was grandfathered or something like that, so Mr Bundy continued to try to pay the state and put said payments into escrow pending a legal solution. The BLM put their heels in to the ground (with a particular politician to benefit directly if he could acquire Bundy's deeded land when Mr Bundy cannot pay all the fines the BLM is heaping on the bill). |
|
| |
|
 Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | rodeoveteran - 2016-03-13 1:55 PM
foundation horse - 2016-03-11 5:55 PM
cyount2009 - 2016-03-11 12:09 PM
Silly Filly - 2016-03-11 11:28 AM Vickie - 2016-03-10 4:44 PM A song that has been an inspiration to me is CCR: God Bless the Child Who Has His Own. If you do not own the land you have no right to it. If you are renting, you don't own it and you don't control it. Ranchers need to wake up and face it. Your landlord can pull your lease if you do not pay your rent, just like anyone in an apartment. Please, no more useless deaths. WWJD?
What kind of a landlord refuses to take your payment for their lease, and then claims that you won't pay them?
They had signed federal leases and then refused to pay the Federal Government. Instead they attempted to pay the State, which by means of the Constitution is the rightful owner of the land. The State refused the payments because the contract was not signed with them I stand with the ranchers who are legitimately paying their leases to the institution and not getting to use the land they have paid for. This is the problem I have in supporting the Bundys. They have singed with the Federal Government and not the state. They have not paid their leases and now the government wants them off the property. The government makes up their own rules whether they are constitutional or not BUT they signed to abide by those rules. They are making it really hard for the men and women with leases that are following the rules.
\ The Bundys are also fighting for those guys who are playing by the rules which makes them a double edged sword to me. As badly as I do not want to support them, I see the struggles of our local guys because of mustangs, frogs, turtles and sage grouse. As for Finicum's "useless death"; no death is ever useless. They all carry meaning and importance. We can learn from every death just as we can learn from every life. Grouping all ranchers into a statement as vague and uninformed as this is ludicrous, it's like saying all barrel horses are psychotic time bombs waiting to blow up. Please research and see what's really going on out here. Look at all sides and not just that of the national media, who is bought and paid for by the Federal Government.
I understand your perspective of the conflict between who Bundy had a contract with. However, w/o a signed agreement, which to the best of my knowledge, Cliven Bundy had not signed in over ten years, then just WHO has authority to collect anything??????????
Also, Constitutionally Speaking The Federal Government has no right to own land outside 10 miles in Washington D.C. as Forts and Ports. People need to do the research on just i.e. READ The Constitution!
Now, I am not defending or supporting Cliven Bundy per se, but I have read Storm Over Rangelands by Wayne Hage of Nevada as well. From there I started digging into the background of The BLM and NFS. Their predecessor is The General Land Office whose sole responsibility was to SELL OFF The Real Estate in their charge!
Ummm, I know that you can't believe everything you read, but it seems like I read that the root of the Bundy issue was/is that Mr Bundy signed a lease agreement with the state years BEFORE the BLM was ever created. That he did NOT sign another with the BLM , that the lease was grandfathered or something like that, so Mr Bundy continued to try to pay the state and put said payments into escrow pending a legal solution. The BLM put their heels in to the ground (with a particular politician to benefit directly if he could acquire Bundy's deeded land when Mr Bundy cannot pay all the fines the BLM is heaping on the bill ).
This scenario makes more sense than anything else that has been presented.
|
|
| |
|
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Nevertooold - 2016-03-12 12:52 PM
foundation horse - 2016-03-12 10:34 AM Let me ask y'all folks something that are in disagreement with this thread. Do y'all believe in the Constitution?
People believe in the Constitution when it fits their needs. Obama is a perfect example of this.
Speaking of this only applying on a convenience basis, I have been involved in quite the discussion on a FaceBook Thread of a friend of mine who has Sanders Supporters for friends. The Sanders Supporters (to date) have not even attempted to touch the Constitutional Issues surrounding Bernie Great Plan of increased taxes to support health care and a gradual minimum wage increase to $15 hour over four years......................
I have repeatedly mentioned Economics and used The Soviet Union's collapse along with Venezuela's current implosion to illustrate how Bernie Brand of "Democratic Socialism" does not work or follow The Constitution. They have earplugs in! |
|
| |
|
 Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| rodeoveteran - 2016-03-13 1:55 PM
foundation horse - 2016-03-11 5:55 PM
cyount2009 - 2016-03-11 12:09 PM
Silly Filly - 2016-03-11 11:28 AM Vickie - 2016-03-10 4:44 PM A song that has been an inspiration to me is CCR: God Bless the Child Who Has His Own. If you do not own the land you have no right to it. If you are renting, you don't own it and you don't control it. Ranchers need to wake up and face it. Your landlord can pull your lease if you do not pay your rent, just like anyone in an apartment. Please, no more useless deaths. WWJD?
What kind of a landlord refuses to take your payment for their lease, and then claims that you won't pay them?
They had signed federal leases and then refused to pay the Federal Government. Instead they attempted to pay the State, which by means of the Constitution is the rightful owner of the land. The State refused the payments because the contract was not signed with them I stand with the ranchers who are legitimately paying their leases to the institution and not getting to use the land they have paid for. This is the problem I have in supporting the Bundys. They have singed with the Federal Government and not the state. They have not paid their leases and now the government wants them off the property. The government makes up their own rules whether they are constitutional or not BUT they signed to abide by those rules. They are making it really hard for the men and women with leases that are following the rules.
\ The Bundys are also fighting for those guys who are playing by the rules which makes them a double edged sword to me. As badly as I do not want to support them, I see the struggles of our local guys because of mustangs, frogs, turtles and sage grouse. As for Finicum's "useless death"; no death is ever useless. They all carry meaning and importance. We can learn from every death just as we can learn from every life. Grouping all ranchers into a statement as vague and uninformed as this is ludicrous, it's like saying all barrel horses are psychotic time bombs waiting to blow up. Please research and see what's really going on out here. Look at all sides and not just that of the national media, who is bought and paid for by the Federal Government.
I understand your perspective of the conflict between who Bundy had a contract with. However, w/o a signed agreement, which to the best of my knowledge, Cliven Bundy had not signed in over ten years, then just WHO has authority to collect anything??????????
Also, Constitutionally Speaking The Federal Government has no right to own land outside 10 miles in Washington D.C. as Forts and Ports. People need to do the research on just i.e. READ The Constitution!
Now, I am not defending or supporting Cliven Bundy per se, but I have read Storm Over Rangelands by Wayne Hage of Nevada as well. From there I started digging into the background of The BLM and NFS. Their predecessor is The General Land Office whose sole responsibility was to SELL OFF The Real Estate in their charge!
Ummm, I know that you can't believe everything you read, but it seems like I read that the root of the Bundy issue was/is that Mr Bundy signed a lease agreement with the state years BEFORE the BLM was ever created. That he did NOT sign another with the BLM , that the lease was grandfathered or something like that, so Mr Bundy continued to try to pay the state and put said payments into escrow pending a legal solution. The BLM put their heels in to the ground (with a particular politician to benefit directly if he could acquire Bundy's deeded land when Mr Bundy cannot pay all the fines the BLM is heaping on the bill ).
Ahh Bundy Never put any money in escrow I looked that up last year when this was all over the news. He did try to pay it to the state but they refused to take it. While I agree with Bundy's fight on this matter he has been his worst enemy in this by acting as his own attorney. A lot of this could have been avoided if he had hired a good attorney. Now as to the fact that this should be state land and not the Federal Gov. I totally agree. I do agree that there may be an attempt to take his deeded land. If you look in to the surrounding land there has been several swaps between the state and the Fed's that end up in developer's hands and some are traced back to good old Harry Reed. It's all there to look up on the county records go have a look. Bundy's deeded land does hold quite a value it has a lot of river frontage that has access to lake mead and that is rare in Nev. |
|
| |
|
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25351
Location: Bastrop, Texas | I wish someone could post one of those maps of the U.S., including Alaska, showing how much of the land is federally owned. It's staggering. |
|
| |
|
 Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | jbhoot - 2016-03-13 5:31 PM rodeoveteran - 2016-03-13 1:55 PM foundation horse - 2016-03-11 5:55 PM cyount2009 - 2016-03-11 12:09 PM Silly Filly - 2016-03-11 11:28 AM Vickie - 2016-03-10 4:44 PM A song that has been an inspiration to me is CCR: God Bless the Child Who Has His Own. If you do not own the land you have no right to it. If you are renting, you don't own it and you don't control it. Ranchers need to wake up and face it. Your landlord can pull your lease if you do not pay your rent, just like anyone in an apartment. Please, no more useless deaths. WWJD?
What kind of a landlord refuses to take your payment for their lease, and then claims that you won't pay them?
They had signed federal leases and then refused to pay the Federal Government. Instead they attempted to pay the State, which by means of the Constitution is the rightful owner of the land. The State refused the payments because the contract was not signed with them
I stand with the ranchers who are legitimately paying their leases to the institution and not getting to use the land they have paid for. This is the problem I have in supporting the Bundys. They have singed with the Federal Government and not the state. They have not paid their leases and now the government wants them off the property. The government makes up their own rules whether they are constitutional or not BUT they signed to abide by those rules. They are making it really hard for the men and women with leases that are following the rules. \
The Bundys are also fighting for those guys who are playing by the rules which makes them a double edged sword to me. As badly as I do not want to support them, I see the struggles of our local guys because of mustangs, frogs, turtles and sage grouse.
As for Finicum's "useless death"; no death is ever useless. They all carry meaning and importance. We can learn from every death just as we can learn from every life.
Grouping all ranchers into a statement as vague and uninformed as this is ludicrous, it's like saying all barrel horses are psychotic time bombs waiting to blow up. Please research and see what's really going on out here. Look at all sides and not just that of the national media, who is bought and paid for by the Federal Government.
I understand your perspective of the conflict between who Bundy had a contract with. However, w/o a signed agreement, which to the best of my knowledge, Cliven Bundy had not signed in over ten years, then just WHO has authority to collect anything?????????? Also, Constitutionally Speaking The Federal Government has no right to own land outside 10 miles in Washington D.C. as Forts and Ports. People need to do the research on just i.e. READ The Constitution! Now, I am not defending or supporting Cliven Bundy per se, but I have read Storm Over Rangelands by Wayne Hage of Nevada as well. From there I started digging into the background of The BLM and NFS. Their predecessor is The General Land Office whose sole responsibility was to SELL OFF The Real Estate in their charge! Ummm, I know that you can't believe everything you read, but it seems like I read that the root of the Bundy issue was/is that Mr Bundy signed a lease agreement with the state years BEFORE the BLM was ever created. That he did NOT sign another with the BLM , that the lease was grandfathered or something like that, so Mr Bundy continued to try to pay the state and put said payments into escrow pending a legal solution. The BLM put their heels in to the ground (with a particular politician to benefit directly if he could acquire Bundy's deeded land when Mr Bundy cannot pay all the fines the BLM is heaping on the bill ). Ahh Bundy Never put any money in escrow I looked that up last year when this was all over the news. He did try to pay it to the state but they refused to take it. While I agree with Bundy's fight on this matter he has been his worst enemy in this by acting as his own attorney. A lot of this could have been avoided if he had hired a good attorney. Now as to the fact that this should be state land and not the Federal Gov. I totally agree. I do agree that there may be an attempt to take his deeded land. If you look in to the surrounding land there has been several swaps between the state and the Fed's that end up in developer's hands and some are traced back to good old Harry Reed. It's all there to look up on the county records go have a look. Bundy's deeded land does hold quite a value it has a lot of river frontage that has access to lake mead and that is rare in Nev.
Cliven DID pay the fed for quite some time...as his father did before...it started in 1932 (?) with the Taylor Grazing Act which seemed 'desperately' needed at the time due to the range wars...especially in Wyoming (google Tom Horn). The ranchers were grateful for the 'intrusion' and a 'fix'...even though it wasn't Constitutional. Do know that before 1913 we had no income tax, therefore, it was to the governments benefit to sell the land as required...after that? Not so much. The fed lost all interest in completing the sell of the 'public lands'. It morphed into a da** mess! One that was never intended...so here we are...Cliven was paying as were all his neighbors...it was how they expected it to be done. Then one day the gov't decided that the Desert Tortoise was more important than the ranchers and refused their leases. You know...the 'endangered species act'. THAT is when Cliven tore up the lease that he claims to this day wasn't worth the paper it was written on anyhow! And I agree. Out of 53 ranchers he's the ONLY one left in that area! All the others gave up...he didn't. He has nothing to gain...except going to his Maker 'debt free' knowing he gave all.
I obviously have tremendous respect for the Bundy's. No...I'm not LDS. But, I know sincere people when I meet them.
|
|
| |
|
 Champ
Posts: 19623
Location: Peg-Leg Julia Grimm | Try this again. Graphic provided by the American Lands Council.
 (AmericanLandsCouncilMap.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 AmericanLandsCouncilMap.jpg (99KB - 156 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Champ
Posts: 19623
Location: Peg-Leg Julia Grimm | This one shows the difference between the state managed lands and the federal managed lands.
 (State vs Federal Management Costs vs Return.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
State vs Federal Management Costs vs Return.jpg (26KB - 168 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
 Own It and Move On
Location: The edge of no where | OregonBR - 2016-03-15 11:32 AM This one shows the difference between the state managed lands and the federal managed lands.
I don't understand the justification for not returning the lands to the states. We're broke anyway as a country - this is costing taxpayers far too much. |
|
| |
|
Champ
Posts: 19623
Location: Peg-Leg Julia Grimm | MS2011 - 2016-03-15 9:36 AM
OregonBR - 2016-03-15 11:32 AM This one shows the difference between the state managed lands and the federal managed lands.
I don't understand the justification for not returning the lands to the states. We're broke anyway as a country - this is costing taxpayers far too much.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. There is a much more going on. I'm glad that you see what some people refuse to see. The government hasn't worked for the people for a while now. The elites are trying to get richer off our backs.
One of the first things one must do is follow the money.
Edited by OregonBR 2016-03-15 12:31 PM
|
|
| |
|
 Expert
Posts: 1898
| Here is the latest in the news regarding Finicum
http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-...
And it looks like Sheriff Palmer, the sheriff they were trying to go meet is under investigation now too.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/03/oregon_standoff_a... |
|
| |
|
Location: In my own little world | OregonBR - 2016-03-15 11:08 AM MS2011 - 2016-03-15 9:36 AM OregonBR - 2016-03-15 11:32 AM This one shows the difference between the state managed lands and the federal managed lands. I don't understand the justification for not returning the lands to the states. We're broke anyway as a country - this is costing taxpayers far too much. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There is a much more going on. I'm glad that you see what some people refuse to see. The government hasn't worked for the people for a while now. The elites are trying to get richer off our backs. One of the first things one must do is follow the money.
Not taking a stand but just throwing this out there as I have read some articles recently that made me wonder. Is anyone sure all states want the Federal lands turned over to them? I can see a huge amt of expenses that go with it that some states can not afford to pay. Fire suppression is one thing that comes to mind.
|
|
| |
|
 Hugs to You
Posts: 7546
Location: In The Land of Cotton | ropenrun - 2016-03-15 3:58 PM OregonBR - 2016-03-15 11:08 AM MS2011 - 2016-03-15 9:36 AM OregonBR - 2016-03-15 11:32 AM This one shows the difference between the state managed lands and the federal managed lands. I don't understand the justification for not returning the lands to the states. We're broke anyway as a country - this is costing taxpayers far too much. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There is a much more going on. I'm glad that you see what some people refuse to see. The government hasn't worked for the people for a while now. The elites are trying to get richer off our backs. One of the first things one must do is follow the money. Not taking a stand but just throwing this out there as I have read some articles recently that made me wonder. Is anyone sure all states want the Federal lands turned over to them? I can see a huge amt of expenses that go with it that some states can not afford to pay. Fire suppression is one thing that comes to mind.
Edited by 3canstorun 2016-03-15 3:07 PM
|
|
| |
|
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | OregonBR - 2016-03-15 12:08 PM
MS2011 - 2016-03-15 9:36 AM
OregonBR - 2016-03-15 11:32 AM This one shows the difference between the state managed lands and the federal managed lands.
I don't understand the justification for not returning the lands to the states. We're broke anyway as a country - this is costing taxpayers far too much.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. There is a much more going on. I'm glad that you see what some people refuse to see. The government hasn't worked for the people for a while now. The elites are trying to get richer off our backs.
One of the first things one must do is follow the money.
There are multiple reports that there are valuable natural resources (uranium) under the surface of many of these unconstitutionally held federal lands. And many of the career politicians (Harry Reid & Hillary Clinton) have had their hands in illegal backroom deals to sell their minerals to foreign powers.................................
|
|
| |
|
Own It and Move On
Location: The edge of no where | foundation horse - 2016-03-17 8:35 AM OregonBR - 2016-03-15 12:08 PM MS2011 - 2016-03-15 9:36 AM OregonBR - 2016-03-15 11:32 AM This one shows the difference between the state managed lands and the federal managed lands. I don't understand the justification for not returning the lands to the states. We're broke anyway as a country - this is costing taxpayers far too much. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There is a much more going on. I'm glad that you see what some people refuse to see. The government hasn't worked for the people for a while now. The elites are trying to get richer off our backs. One of the first things one must do is follow the money. There are multiple reports that there are valuable natural resources (uranium ) under the surface of many of these unconstitutionally held federal lands. And many of the career politicians (Harry Reid & Hillary Clinton ) have had their hands in illegal backroom deals to sell their minerals to foreign powers.................................
It seems like the uraium trail isn't that difficult to trace to Clinton. Good grief, even the NY Times wrote about it.
I guess my question is this - Why doesn't anyone care? How can you vote for Hillary knowing this? How can it be stopped? |
|
| |
|
Champ
Posts: 19623
Location: Peg-Leg Julia Grimm | This lady is so good at explaining the purpose of the constitution and how our government has been subverting it for a long time. I listened to this one just now. It's awesome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjb4is33rVQ
|
|
| |
|
 Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | MS2011 - 2016-03-17 9:37 AM foundation horse - 2016-03-17 8:35 AM OregonBR - 2016-03-15 12:08 PM MS2011 - 2016-03-15 9:36 AM OregonBR - 2016-03-15 11:32 AM This one shows the difference between the state managed lands and the federal managed lands. I don't understand the justification for not returning the lands to the states. We're broke anyway as a country - this is costing taxpayers far too much. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There is a much more going on. I'm glad that you see what some people refuse to see. The government hasn't worked for the people for a while now. The elites are trying to get richer off our backs. One of the first things one must do is follow the money. There are multiple reports that there are valuable natural resources (uranium ) under the surface of many of these unconstitutionally held federal lands. And many of the career politicians (Harry Reid & Hillary Clinton ) have had their hands in illegal backroom deals to sell their minerals to foreign powers.................................
I guess my question is this - Why doesn't anyone care? How can you vote for Hillary knowing this? How can it be stopped?
I was reading a conversation on FB earlier and someone brought up Benghazi. A Hillary supporter came back with "it's just noise". So, my take from that is the people who want to vote for her have their fingers in their ears singing lalalalalalala. |
|
| |
|
Tried and True
Posts: 21185
Location: Where I am happiest | Three 4 Luck - 2016-03-17 1:29 PM MS2011 - 2016-03-17 9:37 AM foundation horse - 2016-03-17 8:35 AM OregonBR - 2016-03-15 12:08 PM MS2011 - 2016-03-15 9:36 AM OregonBR - 2016-03-15 11:32 AM This one shows the difference between the state managed lands and the federal managed lands. I don't understand the justification for not returning the lands to the states. We're broke anyway as a country - this is costing taxpayers far too much. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There is a much more going on. I'm glad that you see what some people refuse to see. The government hasn't worked for the people for a while now. The elites are trying to get richer off our backs. One of the first things one must do is follow the money. There are multiple reports that there are valuable natural resources (uranium ) under the surface of many of these unconstitutionally held federal lands. And many of the career politicians (Harry Reid & Hillary Clinton ) have had their hands in illegal backroom deals to sell their minerals to foreign powers.................................
I guess my question is this - Why doesn't anyone care? How can you vote for Hillary knowing this? How can it be stopped?
Edited by ThreeCorners 2016-03-17 2:00 PM
|
|
| |
Folks on-line