One freedom at a time, one right at a time, one battle at a time, we the people are losing each and every one of our liberties to federal authorities, and will continue to do so until we stand up against them together.
The story below is yet another example of the police state USSA in action.
Once again a situation where federal authorities arbitrarily change laws and rules and just expect the general public to blindly follow those rules.
Well one man, a rancher by the name of Cliven Bundy, has refused and does not recognize any federal authority over the land and now dozens of armed federal officers, rangers and agents, are preparing a showdown with this one older gentleman you will see in the video below.
To understand the principle Bundy is fighting for, one has to know that Mr. Bundy�s forefathers have been up and down that area since 1877, yet in 1993 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) decided to change the grazing rules for Gold Butte to protect the endangered desert tortoise, an area Bundy and his family had been using since before the BLM even existed.
Bundy�s message is simple: �This has become a police state, and this is an example of it right here.�
The example he talks about is how the Feds have set up a �free speech zone� in the area, a media zone and have created a wall of agents to prevent the general public from entering a 600,000-acre section of �public land,� as they prepare to round up Bundy�s cattle and sell it off.
�With all these rangers and all this force that is out here, they are only after one man right now. They are after Cliven Bundy. Whether they want to incarcerate me or whether they want to shoot me in the back, they are after me. But that is not all that is at stake here. Your liberty and freedom is at stake,� Bundy said.
Bundy continues on to tell reporters �My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley ever since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and water. I have been here longer. My rights are before the BLM even existed.�
He has fought this battle politically, legally and through the media, he says, his neighbors support him, and he vows he will �fight it on the ground if I have to.�
One man is standing up for not only his rights, but for freedom and liberty�� who will stand with him?
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."-- Thomas Jefferson
LOVE God, LOVE your family, LOVE your country, LIKE guns and sports.
About 2016 team "R" candidates "We definitely need a crew with a sack of balls the size of hot water bottles, bloviated estrogen leaking feel-gooders need not apply." Gunner 500
Unless his neighbors are willing to shoot the FedGovs in their backs as they hover around Cliven's land like vultures, they're giving passive support to FedGov. When the federal stooges start catching hot lead from every direction, they'll change their tune. In my opinion. Other folks will have something else to say, too.
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."-- Thomas Jefferson
There's more to the story than that article implies.
That family has been illegally grazing cattle on the land for over 40 years, and has never paid a grazing fee in their lives. More than 25 other cattle grazers have been filing complaints about the family, for quite some time; in addition to the BLM. His "claim" to the land is nothing more than, "that's where we have taken our cows since 1877." The father has been court-ordered to remove his cattle from the area 3 times since 1998, but adamantly refuses to comply.
But most importantly, last week he told multiple new agencies, the BLM and Forestry officials present, that he would do "whatever it took" to win the fight and stop the government from interfering with his herd or collecting their grazing fees. When asked for clarification about whether that was legal action or something else, he simply responded "whatever it takes".
So, when you have a man claiming he will do "whatever it takes" to stop government agencies from carrying out a court order, you have to assume there might be the possibility of something a little more serious than filming agents during the roundup.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
It appears that Mr Bundy is just another guy trying to avoid paying the same fees and cost as everyone else in his region, stealing would be a good word.
What he is doing is akin to a logger going on to public land and harvesting timber without permission and without paying Stumpage fees, stealing is the word.
You don't own the land, you can't use the land without permission or without paying for it. Just cuz you have always broken the Law doesn't mean you are above the law.
He is a thief and now he is paying for it.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
Federal Snipers Train Guns on Family For Filming Cattle
Man arrested for expressing free speech outside of designated �First Amendment Area� Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com April 7, 2014 Federal snipers with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) trained guns on members of a family yesterday after they dared to stop and take video footage of cattle outside the bounds of a designated �First Amendment Area,� before arresting one of the men for non-compliance.
Image: Sniper Training (YouTube). The cattle were being rounded up by BLM officers as part of a crackdown on Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who has refused to pay �grazing fees� demanded by the feds as a result of a re-classification of 600,000 acres of federal land in northeastern Clark County which Bundy claims has been in his family for generations. Some fear the dispute could turn into a Ruby Ridge-style violent standoff because Bundy has said he is prepared to become a martyr for what he perceives as a constitutional stance against tyranny. As we reported earlier, the feds have now started rounding up Bundy�s cattle in the name of protecting a supposedly endangered species, the desert tortoise, forbidding Bundy from interfering or even entering the vast area. The case is quickly turning into another iconic battle between big government and a besieged family. Fears that the confrontation may turn violent and concerns that Bundy is drawing increased support from liberty activists and the local community prompted the feds to tape off two ridiculous �First Amendment Areas,� outside of which free speech in support of Bundy is banned. A sign placed inside the area reads �Welcome to Amerika � Wake Up� alongside a hammer and sickle logo. When Bundy�s family members violated that rule yesterday in an attempt to peacefully document the cattle roundup, they were met with a barrage of loudspeaker warnings and four BLM snipers with their guns trained on the dissenters. �Several members of the family had gone out for a drive in several vehicles to try to monitor the ongoing federal action to remove their father�s cattle from the range,� reports the Moapa Valley Progress. �They were not travelling on recently restricted federal land, but were travelling along the state highway looking north across the valley for signs of cattle, Ryan Bundy said.� �He was doing nothing but standing there and filming the landscape,� Bundy said of his brother Dave. �We were on the state highway, not even off of the right-of-way. Even if they want to call [the area that we were filming] federal land; which it�s not; we weren�t even on it. We were on the road.�
Image: BLM �First Amendment Area� (YouTube). None of the family members were armed, but as soon as Dave Bundy began filming the cattle in the distance, 11 BLM vehicles each with two agents arrived and surrounded him. �They also had four snipers on the hill above us all trained on us. We were doing nothing besides filming the area,� said Ryan Bundy. The family were told to leave the area via loudspeaker because they had violated the crudely established �First Amendment Area�. �They said that we had no first amendment rights except for up by the bridge where they had established an area for that,� Bundy said. When Dave Bundy didn�t immediately heed the warning and return to his vehicle, a dog was set on him and he was subsequently arrested. �He was filming and talking on the phone, I don�t know to whom,� Ryan Bundy said. �It happened pretty fast. They came down on him hard and had a German Shepherd on him. And then they took him.� When Dave Bundy�s father Cliven attempted to contact emergency response in both Mesquite and for Metro in an attempt to discover the whereabouts of his son, he was told to, �get off the phone or he would be arrested,� according to Ryan Bundy. Should the Bundy case escalate any further, what has up to this point remained a largely local news story threatens to explode into a national controversy � re-igniting resentment over big government and a federal bureaucracy increasingly trampling on the rights of the American people to be left alone.
So, he doesnt own the land, his family hasnt paid for it, they used to use it for quite some time, now the owner or new manager (BLM) doesnt want him to use it, and he wont stop?
Freestuffer.
Originally Posted by Archerhunter
Quit giving in inch by inch then looking back to lament the mile behind ya and wonder how to preserve those few feet left in front of ya. They'll never stop until they're stopped. That's a fact.
Just cuz you have always broken the Law doesn't mean you are above the law.
It works for illegal aliens. But then again, they do it as an "act of love".
So you are saying Bundy is no better than an Illegal Alien mooching and stealing from the American citizens.
I agree.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
A retort often heard in these parts. "What do you mean? I can't hunt on your land? I've hunted here all my life." This when you catch poachers. Another one is, "I didn't think those posted signs meant me." miles
Just cuz you have always broken the Law doesn't mean you are above the law.
It works for illegal aliens. But then again, they do it as an "act of love".
So you are saying Bundy is no better than an Illegal Alien mooching and stealing from the American citizens.
I agree.
Kind of, but all that I know about the situation is what you and the op have posted. What I do find funny is the government's priorities when it comes to enforcing laws. Enter the country illegally with unknown intentions, meh who cares. Graze some cows on the wrong pasture, get the full weight of FedGov brought down upon you.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. - Thomas Jefferson
Unless his neighbors are willing to shoot the FedGovs in their backs as they hover around Cliven's land like vultures, they're giving passive support to FedGov. When the federal stooges start catching hot lead from every direction, they'll change their tune. In my opinion. Other folks will have something else to say, too.
If that happened, martial law would be declared, and the tanks would roll in.
"All that the South has ever desired was that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be preserved, and that the government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth." – Robert E. Lee
Isn't Nevada a "fence out" state instead of a "fence in" state? That is to say if a property owner wishes to keep someone's livestock off of his property, it is his responsibility to build a fence in order to do it. If so, why is the federal government any different than any other land owner?
Their tactics suck as they set up a area the feds called a first amendment area and you can't go out of it. How can the feds just declare a small area the only area you can be. Bundy�s son Dave Bundy was arrested on Sunday by BLM officials after refusing to follow a dispersal order as he filmed cattle from a state highway. According to Dave�s brother Ryan Bundy, snipers had guns trained on them throughout the incident. Feds claimed Dave Bundy had violated the ludicrous �First Amendment Area,� outside of which free speech is banned. His son was on a state hwy.
Here is a story about an old man that refused to be bullied by the feds. Read it. I know the family personally, and have been to the site many times on McGregor Range.
If the feds, or more particularly the bunny/tree huggers want you off an area, they concoct a scheme to have something declared endangered and find your ranch "suitable habitat"... and Presto! The ranch your family has had since 1877 is not yours any more.
The feds and others make YOU out to be the criminal, with their propaganda, and apparently even some here drink that Kool-Aid.
The only way he can win is if hundreds of ranchers, hunters, trappers, or any other American that is tired of the way liberals are taking what is our freedom and heritage away with their lies will stand together, and make a media free for all event.
Sometimes even the press doesn't save them. The media filmed all those children being burned to death at Waco...
Public land paid through taxes? Yet a guy needs to pay more to let his cattle graze? Government needs to get their hand out of everything. Funny how we are ingrained at birth about what is right because the "law" says it? It's this thinking that causes people to be divided instead of united. For being a supposedly free country we really are not? Pay us and everything is good, if not then you are a criminal.
This whole thing was started and spurred on by environmentalists.
These are the same environmental groups that will stop your hunting on public land (or private too if they can), they will keep you from driving on public roads through BLM and forests by closing them, they will stop oil drilling because of a lizard, they ban lead in your bullets...the list goes on and on.
Radical environmental groups are nothing more than communist terrorist groups that apply the liberal laws and get liberal politicians to do their dirty work.
There's more to the story than that article implies.
That family has been illegally grazing cattle on the land for over 40 years, and has never paid a grazing fee in their lives. More than 25 other cattle grazers have been filing complaints about the family, for quite some time; in addition to the BLM. His "claim" to the land is nothing more than, "that's where we have taken our cows since 1877." The father has been court-ordered to remove his cattle from the area 3 times since 1998, but adamantly refuses to comply.
But most importantly, last week he told multiple new agencies, the BLM and Forestry officials present, that he would do "whatever it took" to win the fight and stop the government from interfering with his herd or collecting their grazing fees. When asked for clarification about whether that was legal action or something else, he simply responded "whatever it takes".
So, when you have a man claiming he will do "whatever it takes" to stop government agencies from carrying out a court order, you have to assume there might be the possibility of something a little more serious than filming agents during the roundup.
before the tin foil crowd soils themselves, read above although you guys read what you want to read...
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
The enviro's and blm are saying the cows endanger the toad. The cows have been there since 1877. If the toads were going to be gone,because of the cows, they would have expired a long time ago. The toads eat the cow dung to enhance their diet. How can the feds come in and shut down state hwys?
If you owned a cow, and had to feed him, how much do you think it would cost a month? $20? $50? $100? Last I heard, which was admittedly a long while ago, ranchers paid $5 a month to graze public land. What's the current rate?
_______________________________________________________ An 8 dollar driveway boy living in a T-111 shack
Bundy is a giant family in the area. I don't know this gent. The folks I know of (very slightly)over on the Arizona side, are always very gracious and friendly when I bump into them. As I said, they have been in the country a long time, with huge families, there might be 1000 Bundys within a 100 mile circle.
When someone decides to stop buying a hunting license to hunt, or a grazing permit, to graze publicly held land, you are asking for trouble.
This issue was settled in 1934 with the Taylor Grazing act. Private herds on Public land needed to get a permit, and be monitored for long term impact.
If the land had been homesteaded in 1934, this wouldn't be public land.
But it is public land. Bundy can no more graze it with out a permit than you can.
What do you think the locals would say if you showed up with a new hat, and 2 semi trucks full of cows, and moved in on the open range with out a permit?
On some level, this case is like an old fashioned union, holding a strike at the end of the factories life.
They want things to stay the same, but they never will.
Anybody who has set their life up, to succeed or fail, based on grazing cows on land that gets 6" of rain a year, has made a bad call.
It does touch a lot of buttons, about cowboys, and the government, and the old days.
thats why it is on the news, it hits those buttons.
If you have money than they will name a price if you wish to do it? What is worst is it has been ingrained that you need to pay to do this otherwise your labeled a criminal. Nice to see .gov has it's priorities straight on which laws they choose to enforce. Screw em!
"This issue was settled in 1934 with the Taylor Grazing act. Private herds on Public land needed to get a permit, and be monitored for long term impact"
That about settles it right there, except for that thin line between "freedom" and some kind of goverment controls which obviously has gotten out of control in many areas. Problem here is a lot of folks confuse "freedom" with total anarchy..
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
Do you guys really think that a rancher just woke up one day and said "I'm tired of paying for my BLM lease, since I'm above the law, and can buck the government, I can do as I please?"
Get real. The guy was having his ranch that his family homesteaded in the 1800's taken away because environmental groups sued the government to remove his cattle from the land, and he objected by non-compliance.
The guy isn't a criminal any more than the guys in NY hanging on to their guns after they passed unconstitutional laws against them.... One day you are legal, the next day you are labeled a criminal.
There had better be a lot of heads pulled out of their butts very soon, or these type actions will have each of us hung out to dry with one thing or another. Liberals are out to take your freedom and beat you into submission whether you realize it or not.
The guy was having his ranch that his family homesteaded in the 1800's taken away because environmental groups sued the government to remove his cattle from the land, and he objected by non-compliance.
Except that that's not what happened.
The facts are that this is land that his family never owned. Ever. They didn't own it.
Instead, it was land that they used. Somebody else's land that they had been using since the 1800's.
In no sense of any law does that make it his land.
The new land owners, which now happen to be the Federal Government, are saying "Get off my lawn!"
It's not his property, he needs to butt out. Unless of course, you don't actually believe in property rights...
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
The guy was having his ranch that his family homesteaded in the 1800's taken away because environmental groups sued the government to remove his cattle from the land, and he objected by non-compliance.
Except that that's not what happened.
The facts are that this is land that his family never owned. Ever. They didn't own it.
Instead, it was land that they used. Somebody else's land that they had been using since the 1800's.
In no sense of any law does that make it his land.
The new land owners, which now happen to be the Federal Government, are saying "Get off my lawn!"
It's not his property, he needs to butt out. Unless of course, you don't actually believe in property rights...
Yes, and no. Nevada is an Open Range state. It recognizes Open Range and said range is free for anyone to graze. This guy's family had been grazing said range before there even was a state of Nevada and it continued with everyone doing. The actual "ranches" that were homesteaded were relatively small because everyone could utilize the commonly held range to graze their herds. Look it up, it is still the state law.
Then, the federal government comes in and says, "This is our land you have to pay us a fee to graze here." So, the ranchers started paying the fees. Maybe they would have preferred to actually own the land, but guess what, by then the feds weren't selling any of it, so they didn't have that option anymore. So they paid the fees which were nominal and continued on living as they always had in grazing the commonly held range with other families.
Fast forward to modern times and now the environmentalists take over the government and the government says, "You can't graze that land because you are harming the tortoise." This guy is refusing to comply.
I sort of get the guy's point. The cattle industry in that entire part of the world was built on the scheme of open range that was commonly held by all for the benefit of all. Then the government moved in and put conditions on it. Now, they claim the right to tell people they can't do what they've always done.
Cliven Bundy, a descendant of Mormons who settled in Bunkerville more than 140 years ago, claims an inherent right to graze the area and casts the conflict as a states' rights issue. He said he doesn't recognize federal authority on land that he insists belongs to Nevada.
His dispute with the government dates to 1993, when land managers cited concern for the federally protected desert tortoise and capped Bundy's herd at 150 animals on his 158,666-acre Bunkerville allotment of rangeland.
Bundy protested by withholding his monthly grazing fees and kept using the range. The BLM canceled his grazing permit in 1994. A federal court in 1998 ordered him to remove the animals, and federal authorities in 1999 officially closed the Bunkerville allotment to cattle.
Conservationists say the cows eat scarce forage needed by wildlife including the tortoise and horses.
Federal officials tried to round up Bundy's livestock two years ago, but he refused to budge.
Since then, he has lost two federal court rulings � and a judge last October prohibited him from physically interfering with any seizure or roundup operation.
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails. William Arthur Ward
Cliven Bundy, a descendant of Mormons who settled in Bunkerville more than 140 years ago, claims an inherent right to graze the area and casts the conflict as a states' rights issue. He said he doesn't recognize federal authority on land that he insists belongs to Nevada.
His dispute with the government dates to 1993, when land managers cited concern for the federally protected desert tortoise and capped Bundy's herd at 150 animals on his 158,666-acre Bunkerville allotment of rangeland.
Bundy protested by withholding his monthly grazing fees and kept using the range. The BLM canceled his grazing permit in 1994. A federal court in 1998 ordered him to remove the animals, and federal authorities in 1999 officially closed the Bunkerville allotment to cattle.
Conservationists say the cows eat scarce forage needed by wildlife including the tortoise and horses.
Federal officials tried to round up Bundy's livestock two years ago, but he refused to budge.
Since then, he has lost two federal court rulings � and a judge last October prohibited him from physically interfering with any seizure or roundup operation.
So is 150 animals or 150 cows? That is not very many. A man could go broke on that.
It appears that Mr Bundy is just another guy trying to avoid paying the same fees and cost as everyone else in his region, stealing would be a good word.
What he is doing is akin to a logger going on to public land and harvesting timber without permission and without paying Stumpage fees, stealing is the word.
You don't own the land, you can't use the land without permission or without paying for it. Just cuz you have always broken the Law doesn't mean you are above the law.
He is a thief and now he is paying for it.
So you call him a thief with no first hand knowledge that anything you posted is true???
Its all right to be white!! Stupidity left unattended will run rampant Don't argue with stupid people, They will drag you down to their level and then win by experience
He's a mormon so he's halfway to kookdom as it is...
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
In no sense of any law does that make it his land.
The new land owners, which now happen to be the Federal Government, are saying "Get off my lawn!"
He isn't claiming it is his.
He is claiming the right to use it as they have for many generations, and protesting the management that has stooped to allow special interest groups to control it.
At what point do YOU stand up and say enough from the liberals?
When they make a wide sweep and declare that nobody can drive and hunt or shoot or camp, or fish on public lands?
"Federal snipers with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)"- WTF? I don't know if this rancher is right, wrong, or just a nut case... but I do know that the feds are WAY over the top. Doesn't this quote bother anyone else?
Most of all he loved the fall The leaves yellow on the cottonwoods Leaves floating on the trout steams and above the hills The high blue windless skies Now he will be part of them, forever - Earnest Hemingway, Idaho- 1939
The new land owners, which now happen to be the Federal Government, are saying "Get off my lawn!"
Could you show me in the US Constitution where it authorizes the US Government to own land other than the District of Columbia, military bases, post offices and post roads, and other authorized government buildings.
Some people like plumbers and the like have to pay occupational taxes to the state. Those are, for the most part, nominal fees with no real strings attached, much like grazing fees were in the past. One pays a small fee and recognizes the authority of the government, whether one really thinks it is warranted or not, because it is easier than not doing it.
Now, just imagine the uproar if suddenly state governments started saying, "Well, there are too many plumbers in your area and they are having a negative impact on the installation and adoption of new environmentally friendly toilets and the like because they are repairing too many of the old ones. Therefore, we will not be accepting any occupational taxes from plumbers in that area or issuing any licenses in that area." Plumbers who had built their entire livelihoods, probably in some cases learned their trades from their fathers and having built family businesses, would ignore the state's edict and keep right on plumbing.
Oh, that would never happen you say. Well, I'm sure at one point or another someone has said, "The government will always allow grazing on its lands. After all, cheap beef production is in the best interest of the public and the cattle industry is too powerful to ever allow that to happen."
"This issue was settled in 1934 with the Taylor Grazing act. Private herds on Public land needed to get a permit, and be monitored for long term impact"
That about settles it right there, except for that thin line between "freedom" and some kind of goverment controls which obviously has gotten out of control in many areas. Problem here is a lot of folks confuse "freedom" with total anarchy..
I don't know what to tell you except no sane person wants anarchy...
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
I don't know what to tell you except no sane person wants anarchy...
And it wasn't anarchy. It was a scheme developed by the earliest settlers for the use of public land often referred to as open range. It was developed so that many might utilize the same resource instead of having it fenced in and owned by one person. It was a way to raise cows in the region without having to have the capital necessary to purchase and maintain the hundreds of thousands of acres needed to keep a decent sized cow herd in that sparsely watered area. It was established by custom and practice and codified into state statutes. There is case law on it going back to the 1870s setting for the rules governing the use of open range by cattle owners and everyone else. There are rules about grazing too close to water and use of water and everything else one can imagine going all the way back and governed by the state. It was not anarchy.
Is that the one that allows the feds to own certain land, but not other land?
Amendment 10
"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."
Article I, Section 8
"The Congress shall have Power To ... " Then follows activities authorized, none of which includes holding ownership, dominion, and control, over vast stretches of land. It makes allowance for post offices, dockyards, arsenals, and other needful buildings, but makes no mention of vast stretches of land not necessary for the placing of said structures.
Are you arguing state law does not apply on federal land? Do the feds exercise exclusive federal jurisdiction on this land?
The feds argue that it has always been federal land and that the states are creations of the federal government. The constitution seems to say that the federal government is a creation of the states.
And it is by this same reasoning, this same rational that the feds will one day completely ban hunting from federal lands. Don't forget that. The hunting industry is nothing compared to what the cattle industry used to be and as our numbers continue to wane, the political price will be less and less and one day, it will be banned from federal lands.
any of ya all that don't think the federal govt has not gone completely completely over the top on this case , I suggest you actually watch the video posted towards the start of this thread.........
a million dollar operation to gather 500 cows....?......come on...
and since when does a person get arrested for taking pics from a public right of way ?
Haven't there always been range wars because one bunch don't want another bunch using public land. Only difference is, this time one bunch is the Gov. miles
I've not bothered to read this thread from end to end, but we need to recognize that public land grazing permits are a privilege and not an inalienable right. In pre-agency days, might did make right. The one that got there first with the most cattle, or the one that controlled water could and did dictate policy. Those days left though in the 1930's when the ranching communities were begging the government to do something about unregulated grazing. One could try to set aside or safe some forage for winter use, and one with no property at all could waltz in with a herd or band and ravage the ground. Select folks were thrown off the land then, and some select folks were allowed to stay.
Here in eastern Oregon probably 80% of our county is public land supporting the cattle industry. I fully back those grazing programs, feel they offer several benefits to the landscape and wildlife, and hope they will continue.
In this instance, however, when one is dealing with a T&E critter, some accomodations need to be made by both sides. Given time and patience, other permits will be available as they are abandoned by others and life could continue.
A long history on the land, however, often leads to the feeling that one rules that domain. I've known a rancher or two that actually buffaloed the public by physically posting 10 to 20 linear miles of public land. Just a year ago the wife and I went right through a no trespassing sign that I know full well from county records lead to nothing but public land.
One pretty much controls deeded land, but that's most certainly not the case with federal property. I'm sure this has been a long evolving issue and it's not a spur of the moment overnight taking. I'm sad for Mr. Bundy, his history, and his lifestyle, but I think he's been a bit inflexible and perhaps slow at moving into the modern world.
There are families within just a mile or so of my keyboard that rely heavily on public grazing lands. The progressive examples, however, are siezing every opportunity to acquire deeded lands sufficient to sustain their operation and lifestyle for their children and grandchildren. They fully realize that privileges can vaporize, and they may someday have to rely solely on deeded property.
Our public lands are indeed owned by the public, and the public's interest in their management is expanding every day. Cattle used to rule, but now hunters, fishermen, birdwatchers, hikers, bikers, wild horse lovers, miners, enviros, and little old ladies that read National Geographic are all realizing they have a say in management. The times are a changing.
Why in the hell would I, as a member of the public, have as great an interest in a piece of land in Nevada as someone who actually lives in Nevada does?
Why in the hell would I, as a member of the public, have as great an interest in a piece of land in Nevada as someone who actually lives in Nevada does
Maybe for the same reason that I don't support the Pebble Mine development in Alaska. I may or may not ever hunt or fish there again, but I'd like to know that some day I just might.
Why in the hell would I, as a member of the public, have as great an interest in a piece of land in Nevada as someone who actually lives in Nevada does
Maybe for the same reason that I don't support the Pebble Mine development in Alaska. I may or may not ever hunt or fish there again, but I'd like to know that some day I just might.
So, you consider the fact that you MIGHT hunt and/or fish there again of greater importance than the economic well being of those who live there? That is in essence what you are saying.
Our public lands are indeed owned by the public, and the public's interest in their management is expanding every day.
Well, what happens when the greenies shut down all public lands to hunting and shooting?
Is someone going to stand up then?
Will you silently comply?
The liberals believe that the second amendment is antiquated. They say the Constitution is an evolving document, and the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply any more.
When they "evolve" that amendment to 'best serve the public interests', will you take a stand then?
Just because some politicians make a law, it doesn't make it "right".
That is the thing I don't get. Hunting is the next target. The people in charge of BLM lands really don't want ANYBODY out there. Lots of them would like to see it a nature preserve with no one being allowed in, EVER. But, they'll pick the easy targets first on their way to getting there and hunters will be the next targets. Hide and watch.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
That is the thing I don't get. Hunting is the next target. The people in charge of BLM lands really don't want ANYBODY out there. Lots of them would like to see it a nature preserve with no one being allowed in, EVER. But, they'll pick the easy targets first on their way to getting there and hunters will be the next targets. Hide and watch.
Absolutely correct.
They already ARE targeting hunting and shooting.
There are those that feel that as long as THEY are not in the crosshairs then they back what the govt does. By the time that alarm bell rings in their heads, it will be too late.
The new land owners, which now happen to be the Federal Government, are saying "Get off my lawn!"
Could you show me in the US Constitution where it authorizes the US Government to own land other than the District of Columbia, military bases, post offices and post roads, and other authorized government buildings.
5th Amendment
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
The new land owners, which now happen to be the Federal Government, are saying "Get off my lawn!"
Could you show me in the US Constitution where it authorizes the US Government to own land other than the District of Columbia, military bases, post offices and post roads, and other authorized government buildings.
5th Amendment
Not hardly.
The exercise of eminent domain is for taking private property for the good of the public WITH due process.
In other words, it has to be condemned and judged and accepted as for "the public good". Then, fair compensation must be made.
Of course, since the US Constitution was brought up, are there any restrictions or prohibitions on the Feds (or the states for that matter) on owning land?
The answer is: no.
I find it incredulous that sportsmen would decree public lands when Teddy Roosevelt's greatest legacy to all of us - especially sportsmen - was the creation of the public lands system we have in the US today; one that makes the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation possible. To have a problem with that, and then to still be a sportsmen, boggles my mind.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
TRH asked where in the Constitution it said that the US Government could own land.
I never said any such thing. I gave several situations in which land ownership by the US Government was authorized by the US Constitution. What's not authorized is land ownership by the US Government of any other sort, such as the land presently under discussion.
Now you are saying that you didn't demand that I show you where the US Constitution authorizes the Government to own land?
Here it is in your own words...
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Could you show me in the US Constitution where it authorizes the US Government to own land other than the District of Columbia, military bases, post offices and post roads, and other authorized government buildings.
The answer is still the same. The 5th Amendment.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
[quote=JoeBob]That is the thing I don't get. Hunting is the next target. The people in charge of BLM lands really don't want ANYBODY out there. Lots of them would like to see it a nature preserve with no one being allowed in, EVER. But, they'll pick the easy targets first on their way to getting there and hunters will be the next targets. Hide and watch
The exercise of eminent domain is for taking private property for the good of the public WITH due process.
In other words, it has to be condemned and judged and accepted as for "the public good". Then, fair compensation must be made.
---------- ----------------
Oh you mean like this: a guy gets to use E D against another property owner so he can build himself a friggin shopping center ?
Of course, since the US Constitution was brought up, are there any restrictions or prohibitions on the Feds (or the states for that matter) on owning land?
The answer is: no.
I'm a little surprised that you would make this mistake, as ordinarily you're very well informed.
The powers of the Federal Government are restricted to only those delegated to it by the states and the people via the US Constitution. In other words, it's a government of strictly limited and enumerated powers. The Founders well understood this, but fearing that future generations might forget it, or be deceived, they insisted that one of the ten articles of the Bill of Rights should lay this out in clear language, and that took the form of the Tenth Amendment.
State governments are different, however, in that they were established as governments of plenary power, apart from specific powers denied to them by the US Constitution and by the various state Constitutions. In other words, the state governments have every power conceivable, except those prohibited to them, while the US Government (precisely the opposite) has no powers at all, except those delegated to it by the US Constitution.
Madison also makes this point clear in Federalist No. 45, which was written before the Bill of Rights.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
Now you are saying that you didn't demand that I show you where the US Constitution authorizes the Government to own land?
I have to admit I didn't realize you were capable of this level of disingenuousness. Were you unable to read the words you left out, i.e., "... other than the District of Columbia, military bases, post offices and post roads, and other authorized government buildings." You included them in the quote, but your statement above was composed as if you weren't aware of them. They make all the difference in the world.
It appears that Mr Bundy is just another guy trying to avoid paying the same fees and cost as everyone else in his region, stealing would be a good word.
What he is doing is akin to a logger going on to public land and harvesting timber without permission and without paying Stumpage fees, stealing is the word.
You don't own the land, you can't use the land without permission or without paying for it. Just cuz you have always broken the Law doesn't mean you are above the law.
He is a thief and now he is paying for it.
This is exactly what's going on. I've followed this from the start, and he has been stealing grazing on our lands for years. Grazing fees go to management of a fragile resource, given that the annual precipitation is only about 5". Deserts are the most fragile systems, and they can and are being damaged by guys like this one.
I'm all for open range, but that range belongs to all of us as a resource. He has no right to use it at his whim for his economic generator.
Hunt with Class and Classics
Religion: A founder of The Church of Spray and Pray
Acquit v. t. To render a judgment in a murder case in San Francisco... EQUAL, adj. As bad as something else. Ambrose Bierce “The Devil's Dictionary”
It appears that Mr Bundy is just another guy trying to avoid paying the same fees and cost as everyone else in his region, stealing would be a good word.
What he is doing is akin to a logger going on to public land and harvesting timber without permission and without paying Stumpage fees, stealing is the word.
You don't own the land, you can't use the land without permission or without paying for it. Just cuz you have always broken the Law doesn't mean you are above the law.
He is a thief and now he is paying for it.
This is exactly what's going on. I've followed this from the start, and he has been stealing grazing on our lands for years. Grazing fees go to management of a fragile resource, given that the annual precipitation is only about 5". Deserts are the most fragile systems, and they can and are being damaged by guys like this one.
I'm all for open range, but that range belongs to all of us as a resource. He has no right to use it at his whim for his economic generator.
Exactly.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
I don't have anything against the government owning public lands. It is the management of that land that I have a problem with.
Anyone that doesn't see what the special interest environmentalists are doing, and the instrument of all our evictions IS the BLM and Forest Service, has not lived in around, or dealt with any aspect of the management of those two agencies.
I can post story after story of battles just like Bundy's where hunters and ranchers and loggers are forced out because of an owl, or a turtle, or a salamander, or a lizard.
Holy Christ guys...If you think he's just trying to avoid paying fees for grazing permits, you need to go re-read the story... His permit was revoked and cut because of a tortoise. That family had ranched it since 1877. If it's so phooking threated by cattle, then why is it still there in the first place?
For cryin' out loud, read the damned story before accusing someone of trying to steal something....
I read a post on Facebook from his daughter. The grazing rights in that allotment were his exclusively. His grandfather first purchased them in 1887 and they have been in the family ever since. They were allowed to make improvements build fences, drill wells, and all the normal things associated with a long term lease or ownership. BLM tried to buy the current guy out at a fraction of the market rate. He refused to be bought out like his everyone else around had been. He wanted to ranch. So, failing to buy him out, BLM started trying to run him out and started doing things that actually interfered with his ranching and making it more difficult. He quit paying when they did that. Then they tried the endangered species route.
This is just an episode in a long history of the BLM trying to get rid of ranching in the area. He played into their hands by not paying his fees, but one can understand the frustration.
Now you are saying that you didn't demand that I show you where the US Constitution authorizes the Government to own land?
I have to admit I didn't realize you were capable of this level of disingenuousness. Were you unable to read the words you left out, i.e., "... other than the District of Columbia, military bases, post offices and post roads, and other authorized government buildings." You included them in the quote, but your statement above was composed as if you weren't aware of them. They make all the difference in the world.
No, it's not disingenuous in the least. The Constitution does not list any of the things you mentioned in the 5th Amendment, so despite what you imagine, they make zero difference.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
Now you are saying that you didn't demand that I show you where the US Constitution authorizes the Government to own land?
I have to admit I didn't realize you were capable of this level of disingenuousness. Were you unable to read the words you left out, i.e., "... other than the District of Columbia, military bases, post offices and post roads, and other authorized government buildings." You included them in the quote, but your statement above was composed as if you weren't aware of them. They make all the difference in the world.
No, it's not disingenuous in the least. The Constitution does not list any of the things you mentioned in the 5th Amendment, so despite what you imagine, they make zero difference.
Article I, Section 8.
"Congress shall have the power ... to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession [read "gift"] 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."
He's a mormon so he's halfway to kookdom as it is...
Don't know this case or the specifics, and I ain't Cuban or Irish Catholic, or Southern Baptist, or Midwestern Lutheran, or Northeast or Northwest Episcopalion, or Orthodox Jew, or whatever...but that quote up above should be recognized for what it is...horseschidt...
Last edited by chas05; 04/08/14. Reason: and I ain't Mormon, I'm nothing my lack of faith comes from [bleep] like this
His elementary understanding of the constitution and related Articles always has him stumbling,especially when it pertains to nuanced issues which requires further study, such as land ceded to the US, much like this BLM land in Nevada.
Link him a copy of essay 43 of the Federalist Papers and invite him to educate himself.
Last edited by isaac; 04/08/14.
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails. William Arthur Ward
Hell, Nevada is a one of a kind state, with approximately 86% of the state's land owned by various jurisdictions of the U.S. federal government, both civilian and military.
His elementary understanding of the constitution and related Articles always has him stumbling,especially when it pertains to nuanced issues which requires further study, such as land ceded to the US, much like this BLM land in Nevada.
Link him a copy of essay 43 of the Federalist Papers and invite him to educate himself.
I just wonder if he knows what an amendment is...
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
No they're not. Most articles I've read were against his actions and one new's reporter stated he went to one of the so-called rallies and no one showed up.
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails. William Arthur Ward
So, you consider the fact that you MIGHT hunt and/or fish there again of greater importance than the economic well being of those who live there?
Yep. Guess I'm a bit selfish when it comes to irreversible economic/environmental damage.
This from another thread today
Quote
Kennecott�s parent company, Rio Tinto, is pulling out of a proposed copper mine in southwest Alaska that sparked strong opposition because of the environmental harm it could cause in salmon-rich Bristol Bay.
The London-based multinational company announced Monday it will donate its majority interest in the Pebble Project � a 19.1 percent shareholding � to two charitable organizations in Alaska.
Rio Tinto�s withdrawal is another major blow to what would have been a massive open-pit copper, gold and molybdenum mine on an isolated bay that produces nearly 50 percent of the world�s wild sockeye salmon, supporting 14,000 full- and part-time jobs.
You wouldn't believe what my uncle went through trying to protect his land on Utah lake from the EPA. They didn't realize that he had the money and will to fight them over it.
The EPA ordered him to clean up a dike on his land that had been there long before he purchased it. It got so bad that they pad locked his gate saying it was government property and arrested him for going in to feed his bison. He was released on bail and then got a call in the middle of the night from a federal agent that didn't agree with what was going on who warned him that they had snipers in place with orders to shoot him if he so much as made a threatening gesture. He said they agents were really wanting to just "take him out" and were trying to set him up to do it.
This anonymous caller said that an environmental group with ties to the Clinton administration was pushing for it because they wanted his property for a refuge.
They said he violated the wet lands protection act because he dumped some dirt on a dike that that had been in place since before he owned the land claiming he reinforced the dike. He had a federal permit issued in 1991 allowing him to reinforce the existing dike. The said dike was well behind the property line on his deed and deeded as dry land and he had not seen water anywhere near it the whole time he owned the land.
The EPA claimed his actions threatened the June sucker, an endangered fish, and that the land was "located in the area of a recorded prehistoric site used by Native Americans." What in this country isn't. They could use that excuse to take anyone's land.
They went so far as to fine him over 1 Billion in fines and then started to seize his other assets. He finally beat the wetlands violations in court but was convicted on federal charges for disobeying their orders and going on his own land. The governor of Utah later pardoned him. The government seized his land under false pretense and then prosecuted him for his actions related to that seizure.
Basically they seized his land without a trial and then prosecuted him for going on his own land. He told me he could not believe how dirty and corrupt the agency was and how thug like most of their agents were. He said it scared him for the future of the country. He said the government can just change laws and then bully anyone off their land.
Most of this happened around 2000 and it might have not stopped if Gore would have been elected.
Federal Snipers Train Guns on Family For Filming Cattle
Man arrested for expressing free speech outside of designated �First Amendment Area� Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com April 7, 2014 Federal snipers with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) trained guns on members of a family yesterday after they dared to stop and take video footage of cattle outside the bounds of a designated �First Amendment Area,� before arresting one of the men for non-compliance.
Image: Sniper Training (YouTube). The cattle were being rounded up by BLM officers as part of a crackdown on Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who has refused to pay �grazing fees� demanded by the feds as a result of a re-classification of 600,000 acres of federal land in northeastern Clark County which Bundy claims has been in his family for generations. Some fear the dispute could turn into a Ruby Ridge-style violent standoff because Bundy has said he is prepared to become a martyr for what he perceives as a constitutional stance against tyranny. As we reported earlier, the feds have now started rounding up Bundy�s cattle in the name of protecting a supposedly endangered species, the desert tortoise, forbidding Bundy from interfering or even entering the vast area. The case is quickly turning into another iconic battle between big government and a besieged family. Fears that the confrontation may turn violent and concerns that Bundy is drawing increased support from liberty activists and the local community prompted the feds to tape off two ridiculous �First Amendment Areas,� outside of which free speech in support of Bundy is banned. A sign placed inside the area reads �Welcome to Amerika � Wake Up� alongside a hammer and sickle logo. When Bundy�s family members violated that rule yesterday in an attempt to peacefully document the cattle roundup, they were met with a barrage of loudspeaker warnings and four BLM snipers with their guns trained on the dissenters. �Several members of the family had gone out for a drive in several vehicles to try to monitor the ongoing federal action to remove their father�s cattle from the range,� reports the Moapa Valley Progress. �They were not travelling on recently restricted federal land, but were travelling along the state highway looking north across the valley for signs of cattle, Ryan Bundy said.� �He was doing nothing but standing there and filming the landscape,� Bundy said of his brother Dave. �We were on the state highway, not even off of the right-of-way. Even if they want to call [the area that we were filming] federal land; which it�s not; we weren�t even on it. We were on the road.�
Image: BLM �First Amendment Area� (YouTube). None of the family members were armed, but as soon as Dave Bundy began filming the cattle in the distance, 11 BLM vehicles each with two agents arrived and surrounded him. �They also had four snipers on the hill above us all trained on us. We were doing nothing besides filming the area,� said Ryan Bundy. The family were told to leave the area via loudspeaker because they had violated the crudely established �First Amendment Area�. �They said that we had no first amendment rights except for up by the bridge where they had established an area for that,� Bundy said. When Dave Bundy didn�t immediately heed the warning and return to his vehicle, a dog was set on him and he was subsequently arrested. �He was filming and talking on the phone, I don�t know to whom,� Ryan Bundy said. �It happened pretty fast. They came down on him hard and had a German Shepherd on him. And then they took him.� When Dave Bundy�s father Cliven attempted to contact emergency response in both Mesquite and for Metro in an attempt to discover the whereabouts of his son, he was told to, �get off the phone or he would be arrested,� according to Ryan Bundy. Should the Bundy case escalate any further, what has up to this point remained a largely local news story threatens to explode into a national controversy � re-igniting resentment over big government and a federal bureaucracy increasingly trampling on the rights of the American people to be left alone.
This gov't is SO out of control..
Filming? And feds draw guns on 'em?? What BS...
Ex- USN (SS) '66-'69 Pro-Constitution. LET'S GO BRANDON!!!
The exercise of eminent domain is for taking private property for the good of the public WITH due process.
In other words, it has to be condemned and judged and accepted as for "the public good". Then, fair compensation must be made.
Here's a question for the legal scholars. What if the govt. doesn't need to condemn the land or exercise eminent domain; it just negotiates a fair price with the landowner and purchases the land?
Article 1, section 8: 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;
Combined with the tenth amendment, which prohibits the congress from doing things not specifically authorized.
And a familiar story to all westerners! Research White Sands Missile Range, and .gov's promise to return it to the landowners after WW2.
Thoughts differ widely between easterners (where nearly all land is private) - and westerners (where various govt. entities own from 70 - 90% of the land - and want to control the rest)
Mark
I've always been a curmudgeon - now I'm an old curmudgeon. ~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
And a familiar story to all westerners! Research White Sands Missile Range, and .gov's promise to return it to the landowners after WW2.
Thoughts differ widely between easterners (where nearly all land is private) - and westerners (where various govt. entities own from 70 - 90% of the land - and want to control the rest)
Mark
I've honestly and somewhat sadly come to the realization that , fine folks though they may well be, those who have never LIVED, and worked in constant concern for the sanctity of their property or water rights will FAIL to perceive the realities of just what the situation here in the West is.
It's a headshaker at times, ain't it ?
..........BLM "SWAT" teams,......WTF, over
GTC
Member, Clan of the Border Rats -- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain
Ive often wondered Gregg, what will the outcome be when some govt truck pulls up to our privately owned properties here in Arizona, and demands to place a meter on our private wells? Might be a lot more folks in the "crosshairs" of the govt troops I suspect?
Ive often wondered Gregg, what will the outcome be when some govt truck pulls up to our privately owned properties here in Arizona, and demands to place a meter on our private wells? Might be a lot more folks in the "crosshairs" of the govt troops I suspect?
Methinks there needs to be another, equally adjusted, set of 'crosshairs' pointin' right back at 'em...from other, say, 'grassy knolls'.. IYGMD
Ex- USN (SS) '66-'69 Pro-Constitution. LET'S GO BRANDON!!!
Gregg...help me understand how under any semblance of reality this Bundy rancher could actually believe he owned this land.
2 Federal courts have stated his position is absurd. He never paid any inheritance tax for this land; he simply had to pay grazing fees and he wouldn't pay them.
If the Feds could lose here, which isn't a possibility, how about every rancher moving his cattle to this public land?
The Feds own the land. They have since the middle 1800s.
It's Bundy's land over my land how?
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails. William Arthur Ward
Gregg...help me understand how under any semblance of reality this Bundy rancher could actually believe he owned this land.
2 Federal courts have stated his position is absurd. He never paid any inheritance tax for this land; he simply had to pay grazing fees and he wouldn't pay them.
If the Feds could lose here, which isn't a possibility, how about every rancher moving his cattle to this public land?
The Feds own the land. They have since the middle 1800s.
It's Bundy's land over my land how?
Good question. Simple grazing rights do not equate to ownership of public land, an argument I've had to make on a couple of occasions while hunting public land where I had every right to be and to hunt upon legally, only to be harrassed by some idiot who behaved as though he owned the land. That dog won't hunt...
If you're fixin' to put a hole in something, make it a hole to remember.
Gregg...help me understand how under any semblance of reality this Bundy rancher could actually believe he owned this land.
2 Federal courts have stated his position is absurd. He never paid any inheritance tax for this land; he simply had to pay grazing fees and he wouldn't pay them.
If the Feds could lose here, which isn't a possibility, how about every rancher moving his cattle to this public land?
The Feds own the land. They have since the middle 1800s.
It's Bundy's land over my land how?
I'll say it again,......there are folks INCAPABLE of "Understanding" the way that a Westerner views this situation, and MANY others like it.
TOTALLY phuggin' INCAPABLE.
As well, there are those of us who don't see much authentic AMERICAN content in the recent decisions of your "Federal Courts".
I'm not going to waste my time or breath,.....
GTC
Member, Clan of the Border Rats -- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain
I'll say it again,......there are folks INCAPABLE of "Understanding" the way that a Westerner views this situation, and MANY others like it.
TOTALLY phuggin' INCAPABLE.
GTC
You have a point to some degree - but most of it is rooted in simple inexperience with the west.. People CAN understand it, but they have to BE THERE to do so..
I'm probably not stating it well. Wife's relatives in MT have schooled me a bit. Their father was a former MT state Sen and a landowner of square MILES, not just mere 'acres'.. Water rights are indeed something we, in other parts of the country, have little experience in..
Time for me to shut up..
Ex- USN (SS) '66-'69 Pro-Constitution. LET'S GO BRANDON!!!
You have a point to some degree - but most of it is rooted in simple inexperience with the west.. People CAN understand it, but they have to BE THERE to do so.. ========
Thank goodness for laws. Laws even educate those who believe the law doesn't apply to them.
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails. William Arthur Ward
yes Isaac, but not all laws are just and fair. also laws are constantly being misused according to some pinhead in a position of slight power. laws yes, regulations issued by some brain dead, never did a lick of real work punk NO.
the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded. Robert E Lee ~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
What law is unfair as to this case? Are you saying fairness mandates the land which clearly belongs to 360 million citizens actually belongs to this one single rancher?
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails. William Arthur Ward
What is fair about someone in Nevada being governed by the rules and laws some yahoo in Virginia thinks are right?
Maybe we should belong to a system where people who choose to live in Nevada can live under rules and laws that make sense to them and those in Virginia can live under the rules and laws they think make sense to them.
If you'd ever seen Alex Jones in action you'd know he's several notches below the National Enquirer as a news source. he preaches to a gullible choir.
Jones would love nothing more than to fan the flames here. Looks like its working.
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
On one hand: The family has an almost 150 year old business which was built on the ability to lease a set of land from the government. To all accounts the land was cared for and improved under their stewardship and the family paid the money required.
On the other hand: Nobody ever promised that family that they would be able to lease that land forever. Not even sure there's ever been competitive bidding for the use of the land, which would seem fair in order to utilize public resources.
Life sucks. I don't know the totality of the story, but I know I'd be seriously ticked off losing a large portion of a 150 year old family business due to a court ruling in regards to tortoises.
I do know that the government's approach to this with the huge number of armed federal agents and establishment of 1st Amendment Free zones is a frigging joke that an entire host of government employees should be fired over.
“The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
So, basically, you are in favor of the power of the government being used against people 2000 miles from you in order to enforce edicts and rules with which they do not agree, but with which you do.
Is it ok with you if Virginians keep you off Virginia's public lands?
I haven't seen anyone wishing to keep anyone off of any public lands except the BLM. Have you?
As for Virginia, that craphole can fall into the Atlantic ocean for all I care.
==========
I can see you're not that well informed. Have you seen Bundy try to keep the Federal government off the land the Federal government owns? Those Nevada ranchers who do pay grazing fees have had their fill of Bundy's HS, as well.
As to Va, If you do live in Nevada, I wouldn't go there,my boy. You're what... ranked 48th out of the 50 states?
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails. William Arthur Ward
If they are rounding up his cattle now this rancher is losing the battle now. Unfortunately if the rancher is right or wrong makes no difference, the government will win with shear numbers. Going down as many surrounding the one. Unless the rancher gets help they will finish rounding up his cattle and selling them. All because of a environmental group threaten to sue BLM because of a turtle which has been there forever.
when were they terminated, when he stopped paying the fees many years ago, or more recently than that?
They were reduced from 600,000 acres and from more than 500 cows to 158,000 and 150 cows way back in the early 90s. He stopped paying his fees after that and his grazing allotment was terminated in 1998.
If you sell the "base" property the grazing rights go with it. Or I suppose you could sell your rights to a neighbor who also owned real property that qualified as a "base" property. The base property gets preference and the current owner gets preference. So, the current owner can transfer that preference and "sell" his rights if he so chooses.
Dude. For the last time... Please tell me when or where he claims to own the land? -----
Dude...you're the one who posted they took his ranch. Did you get confused after your post?
I can see why people think lawyers are fuuucking azzholes. (Even if both my brothers are attorneys.)
Are you really so GD ignorant to believe that people that ranch on BLM have no ranch?
The BLM cut his permit and kicked him off of the largest portion of his ranch 20 years ago...thus ruining the ranch. What is it you don't understand? The terminology? My ranch in NM isn't quite as big as my neighbor's ranch. They both sit on BLM. WTF is so hard to understand about that?
If he owns the grazing rights, he can sell them, give them away, pay taxes on them. It is a ranch. His neighbor has a ranch too. Although the grazing allotment may be smaller, or larger, or more valuable, or less valuable.
I think what the problem is here, is that city folks don't phooking understand what is what outside the city limits.
You guys remind me of the media talking about an AR15, when it was really any other rifle. They lump them all into one category and don't have a phuucking clue as to the facts.
Twenty years ago when they reduced his acreage and his number of cows to less than what someone in East Texas could run on two hundred acres, they killed his ranch. Since then he has had less than nothing left to lose.
Twenty years ago when they reduced his acreage and his number of cows to less than what someone in East Texas could run on two hundred acres, they killed his ranch. Since then he has had less than nothing left to lose.
That is correct.
The land was taken because a special interest group lobbied to have the land set aside as suitable habitat for the tortoise.
You must be careful saying that it was "his ranch" though, because some asshat lawyer will come along claiming you said he now owns the land, and it wasn't BLM.
I think what the problem is here, is that city folks don't phooking understand what is what outside the city limits. wink
You guys remind me of the media talking about an AR15, when it was really any other rifle. They lump them all into one category and don't have a phuucking clue as to the facts. _________________________
As noted earlier, that is a very SAD realization to make. Wishing it weren't so, I've made it, and probably won't be inclined to see it any different.
A lot of otherwise great people have their heads right up their azzes.
GTC
Member, Clan of the Border Rats -- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain
You must be careful saying that it was "his ranch" though, because some asshat lawyer will come along claiming you said he now owns the land, and it wasn't BLM. wink
Yup, it's "interesting" how many of these former leases wind up being SOLD to "Private Entities" and wind up as "Estate grade development",....ain't it......?
Gag a bloody maggot, the stink from BLM's daily activities and practices.
GTC
Last edited by crossfireoops; 04/10/14.
Member, Clan of the Border Rats -- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain
You keep babbling irrelevance though, if it helps you somehow.
Why don't you grab your 2x4, and drag your fat ass out from behind your desk and some show me some education...?
The "irrelevance" you speak of is the misconception that Bundy is claiming he owns the land now. The liberal media is saying that all over the TV and internet. It makes Bundy seem like a guy that is now claiming to own the land, or get something for free. He, nor I never claimed he help deed to it. YOU are the one that brought that up.
After 20yrs of litigation and now this massive group of people it takes to rustle the man's cows, probably cost about $300,000 per\cow for Govt. to rustle cows.
--- CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE --- A Magic Time To Be An Illegal In America---
Whoever owns the land makes the rules. If the rancher admits that he doesn't own the land then he should pound sand.
He wants to steal resources that the rest of us pay for.
I don't get why land ownership is such a complicated thing to understand.
By this same logic, I should be able to dump all the Mercury I want into the city water supply.
Well, by this logic, then when the anti gun crowd tells the American public that they can no longer hunt or shoot on public land, then you will be pounding sand?
Oh yeah. I forgot. You are in Alabama where none of this applies.... or you have not had the issue to deal with, or know what you are talking about.
Firearms aren't allowed on a ton of Federal property.
sounds like you support that, HAJ
....you don't feel, just even a LITTLE bit that posting that off the wall chit here is a bit like biting a hand that's FED you ?
....."Our Military will NEVER turn on us",....yadda
HMMMMmmmm, WHERE have we all heard THAT from,in multiples of 10 ?
GTC
Member, Clan of the Border Rats -- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain
Firearms aren't allowed on a ton of Federal property.
Hit me with your next excuse on why it's okay to steal resources from your neighbors.
The government owns a HUGE amount of forest or BLM lands out west. So, it's OK with you if they tell us we can't hunt or shoot on it?
Who is stealing anything?
That's WFT you don't understand. The man's ranch was ruined by BLM and environmentalists. He was evicted. He refused to leave. It's been a 20 year court battle, boiling down to what it is now.
Firearms aren't allowed on a ton of Federal property.
Hit me with your next excuse on why it's okay to steal resources from your neighbors.
The government owns a HUGE amount of forest or BLM lands out west. So, it's OK with you if they tell us we can't hunt or shoot on it?
Who is stealing anything?
That's WFT you don't understand. The man's ranch was ruined by BLM and environmentalists. He was evicted. He refused to leave. It's been a 20 year court battle, boiling down to what it is now.
I'd support him 100% in his protests if he wasn't taking resources from public land.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
Again, one does not own grazing rights on BLM properties here in the west. They are privileges typically attached to a nearby deeded base property. Sell the ranch (base property) and the new owner has the option of picking up or abandoning the permits. The old owner does not retain those privileges and he cannot market them to someone else independent of his base property.
Simply put, one can not sell his grazing privileges to another individual, because he does not actually own the BLM acres. There are instances of folks leasing the grazing to someone else if the permit holder is short on cows. I'm not schooled in the intricacies of those deals though. One can also loose a permit if his priviliges are not exercised for some years. If a permit is abandoned, nearby base property owners (ranchers) may be offered the option of picking it up, and we have several instances of those events when ranches are sold or developed. The Enviro crowd at one time thought of purchasing ranches and gaining access to permits as a method of getting cattle off of public land. Without stock though, they could not sustain the privilege.
While permits have been assumed to add value to a ranch, there are no warranaties. The new owner may be willing to put a high value on a one section ranch because it has access to 200 square miles of BLM rangeland the may support 3 times the base property potential in stock. There is associated risk though, because the new owner could just as well loose those privileges a week after taking ownership. Banks may or may not be willing to loan $$$ against that assumed value.
The system was established in the 1930's to eliminate the grazing of the commons issues. Folks with no property but a wealth of stock were raping the landscape. It was impossible for anyone to bank or save forage. The solution was to run off transient users, and offer privileges to those with deeded water and property in the immediate vicinity. They had the capacity, via harvested forage, to support stock during the winter and in spring months when the forages need some periods of unmolested growth to sustain themselves.
Permits come up and permits are abandoned all the time. Grizzly bear, wolves, black footed ferrets, or even turtles can lead to substantial changes in management. At the moment, sage grouse may be the undoing public land grazing in Wa, Id, Mt, Co, Ut, and Nv. Oregon might escape that one or get swept in too. I think the decision will be made in 2014 or 2015. Mostly we can thank the endangered species act for many of these problems.
Yes it does SLM. Plenty of Washington politicians trying to dictate and micromanage our lives as well. It's too bad they can't abide by the Constitution.
Actually, the United States 'owned" Nevada, California, Arizona, & New Mexico since 1848, when they paid $15,000,000 for it in the Treaty of Guadelupe-Hidalgo, after we whipped Mexico's ass in the Mexican War. It was incorporated into the Territory of Utah in 1851 and became the Territory of Nevada in 1861. The concept of Federally owned land is not a new one, and the Feds did not just sneak into Nevada and steal it. They've probably owned it since 1848. This guy has refused to pay grazing fees on "Federal" land since 1994. If you study the history of the cattle in the West, Ranchers have been required to pay grzing fees to graze on Federal land gong back to the beginning of the cattle industry in this country. I side with those who call this guy a thief. From what I read here, even his neighbors have complained about his illegal grazing. He says his family has been grazing cattle since 1877. I wonder whose cows the started out with. I do agree that the snipers and the "Free Speech Zone are a bit much.
"Again, one does not own grazing rights on BLM properties here in the west. They are privileges typically attached to a nearby deeded base property. Sell the ranch (base property) and the new owner has the option of picking up or abandoning the permits. The old owner does not retain those privileges and he cannot market them to someone else independent of his base property...."
Just an unwelcome Texan checking in, but you either own it, or you don't. There ain't no grey area.
Well, that is confusing now isn't it. My deed says I own it in fee simple. But the government tells me that if I don't pay this thing called property taxes, they'll come take it from me and sell it. So, do I own it or not? I guess since there is no grey area according to you, I can't be said to own it if I have to pay the government "rent" for the privilege.
All the deeded, leased, private vs public BS aside, it amazes me everyone is missing the big picture.
While everybody is on their soap box about some producer stealing from their public land,(even though they will never lay eyes on it) another group of the likes of Defenders of Wildlife is able to push their agenda and dictate the use.
So, he doesnt own the land, his family hasnt paid for it, they used to use it for quite some time, now the owner or new manager (BLM) doesnt want him to use it, and he wont stop?
Freestuffer.
It was my understanding he WAS paying his fees until the .gov wanted him to remove the cattle so the desert tortoise could have the land. .gov pulled his permits I assume for various reasons. I seem to recall there were 25 other ranches in the same area 20 years ago and the feds have chased all out but him and he says he won't go. He is the last. kwg
For liberals and anarchists, power and control is opium, selling envy is the fastest and easiest way to get it. TRR. American conservative. Never trust a white liberal. Malcom X Current NRA member.
One freedom at a time, one right at a time, one battle at a time, we the people are losing each and every one of our liberties to federal authorities, and will continue to do so until we stand up against them together.
The story below is yet another example of the police state USSA in action.
Once again a situation where federal authorities arbitrarily change laws and rules and just expect the general public to blindly follow those rules.
Well one man, a rancher by the name of Cliven Bundy, has refused and does not recognize any federal authority over the land and now dozens of armed federal officers, rangers and agents, are preparing a showdown with this one older gentleman you will see in the video below.
To understand the principle Bundy is fighting for, one has to know that Mr. Bundy�s forefathers have been up and down that area since 1877, yet in 1993 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) decided to change the grazing rules for Gold Butte to protect the endangered desert tortoise, an area Bundy and his family had been using since before the BLM even existed.
Bundy�s message is simple: �This has become a police state, and this is an example of it right here.�
The example he talks about is how the Feds have set up a �free speech zone� in the area, a media zone and have created a wall of agents to prevent the general public from entering a 600,000-acre section of �public land,� as they prepare to round up Bundy�s cattle and sell it off.
�With all these rangers and all this force that is out here, they are only after one man right now. They are after Cliven Bundy. Whether they want to incarcerate me or whether they want to shoot me in the back, they are after me. But that is not all that is at stake here. Your liberty and freedom is at stake,� Bundy said.
Bundy continues on to tell reporters �My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley ever since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and water. I have been here longer. My rights are before the BLM even existed.�
He has fought this battle politically, legally and through the media, he says, his neighbors support him, and he vows he will �fight it on the ground if I have to.�
One man is standing up for not only his rights, but for freedom and liberty�� who will stand with him?
I have no idea which side here is "legally" right but I do know this administration and any more, the government overall. So with that said, I have to automatically come down on the side of the landowner and the state of Nevada.
1minute- You are mostly right, but I wanted to correct a few details. BLM grazing permits, or more accurately preference, can be marketed independently of the base property. This is a common practice. The buyer of the preference must meet the requirements of holding a grazing permit and one of those is base property. The preference is easily, and often, transferred from one base property to the next. Some permittees transfer their permits between different properties they own or they can be transferred to the property owned by someone else. It's a bit different for USFS grazing permits as they are tied to the livestock herd and not to property IIRC.
Similarly, the base property no longer has to provide the forage to feed the livestock for the time they are not permitted on BLM lands. The basic reasoning for this is twofold; 1. feed can be hauled to the livestock even if they are on a parking lot and 2. the act of calculating forage production on private property by the BLM had the ability to affect a property's value. So, yes, base property is still required to hold a BLM grazing permit, but it no longer has to be reciprocal.
Permits can be taken away for non-use if that occurs, without BLM approval, for I think 3 years. However, if non-use is approved by the authorized officer it can go on for a long time! The Grand Canyon Trusts has held permits for a long time that they make no use of, but since it's been approved they still hold the permit. Any amount of non-use can be applied for by anyone else meeting the requirements of holding a grazing permit, though this is very rarely granted.
All the deeded, leased, private vs public BS aside, it amazes me everyone is missing the big picture.
While everybody is on their soap box about some producer stealing from their public land,(even though they will never lay eyes on it) another group of the likes of Defenders of Wildlife is able to push their agenda and dictate the use.
Yessir.
I have repeatedly made that point. As long as it isn't THEM in their sights....
Trouble is, that really IS all of us in their sights. It just hasn't sunk in yet.
All the deeded, leased, private vs public BS aside, it amazes me everyone is missing the big picture.
While everybody is on their soap box about some producer stealing from their public land,(even though they will never lay eyes on it) another group of the likes of Defenders of Wildlife is able to push their agenda and dictate the use.
Yessir.
I have repeatedly made that point. As long as it isn't THEM in their sights....
Trouble is, that really IS all of us in their sights. It just hasn't sunk in yet.
When .gov wants to make a point or an example of somebody, they are careful to go against somebody that is flawed in the public's eyes. Somebody who they can paint as a villain. People love to point fingers at the other guy's guilt. "Oh, this guy wasn't paying for some permit, [bleep] him." Then it's off to work so they can tread water one more day or back to the regularly scheduled foosball game. "Randy Weaver was a racist." Etc.
Bear in mind I'm not accusing him of this but just for the sake of making the point...Randy Weaver may have been a racist. That said, we KNOW the government is a murderer.
It was my understanding he WAS paying his fees until the .gov wanted him to remove the cattle so the desert tortoise could have the land. .gov pulled his permits I assume for various reasons. I seem to recall there were 25 other ranches in the same area 20 years ago and the feds have chased all out but him and he says he won't go. He is the last. kwg
Ultimately, the elite believe that it's ecologically "unsustainable" for common folks to eat beef, and want to make it the food only of the very wealthy, thus the efforts to damage the beef industry.
Actually, the United States 'owned" Nevada, California, Arizona, & New Mexico since 1848, when they paid $15,000,000 for it in the Treaty of Guadelupe-Hidalgo, after we whipped Mexico's ass in the Mexican War. It was incorporated into the Territory of Utah in 1851 and became the Territory of Nevada in 1861. The concept of Federally owned land is not a new one, and the Feds did not just sneak into Nevada and steal it. They've probably owned it since 1848. ~snip~ ...If you study the history of the cattle in the West, Ranchers have been required to pay grazing fees to graze on Federal land gong back to the beginning of the cattle industry in this country.
Very interesting post 308rajincajun. Very interesting. And it gets to an issue that is VERY rarely discussed when American history comes up: How did ownership of land in the US come about. IOW who was allowed to purchase or was granted ownership of lands that had never been "owned".
We have a myth in our shared history that says "Well settlers moved in and took it a quarter section at a time!"
Sometimes that is true and sometimes it is not. Some of the ways land rights have been granted is very unsavory. Criminal even. And it has been contentious from day one. Hell, Davy Crockett himself lost his seat in congress (for the most part) by taking on very powerful forces that were guiding land rights allocation in ways he thought were unethical.
But some here are right, we easterners probably don't understand the mindset of those who are up in arms over this.
I can't find the story because the search engines are all clogged up with all the controversy surrounding BLM going on in more recent times, but there is a story about BLM and the ranchers...
If I remember the story correctly, years ago, the BLM was defunded by the government. (I think it was the General Land Office then, and not BLM.) Anyway, the ranchers and the agency had close working relationships and had formed alliances and friendships. They helped each other.
When the government de-funded the agency, they sent out termination notices to all the employees. They fired them. Many of the agency employees had families to feed, and had nowhere to turn.
The ranchers came together and organized a fund that pretty much every rancher contributed to, that allowed the BLM to keep working, and feed their families. This support rally went on for awhile until the government created a new agency and put the government employees back to work within the scope of duties they were supposed to be doing.
The BLM employees were very grateful to the ranchers, and pledged that they would support the ranchers and help them as long as the agency existed.
My how times change.
If anyone can find that historical story, I would much appreciate a link.
Seems to be folks are all focusing on the cows and turtles.
Spending 3 million to recover a 1.1 million debt of fees and fines doesn't make any sense...
Spending 3 million to clear the way for opening the land for shale oil and natural gas exploration and the feds being in talks with companies out of Texas for leasing mineral rights makes things a bit more clear.
In either case the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
Seems to be folks are all focusing on the cows and turtles.
Spending 3 million to recover a 1.1 million debt of fees and fines doesn't make any sense...
Spending 3 million to clear the way for opening the land for shale oil and natural gas exploration and the feds being in talks with companies out of Texas for leasing mineral rights makes things a bit more clear.
In either case the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
Things are a lot closer to a boiling point in this country than I really could have imagined. The Internet is doing its work. Twenty years ago, a few shots on the evening news or CNN would have been about all we got to see on this.
Things are a lot closer to a boiling point in this country than I really could have imagined. The Internet is doing its work. Twenty years ago, a few shots on the evening news or CNN would have been about all we got to see on this.
How can you have "Free Speech Zones" declared by the government? Some here say it's okay for the government to tell us all what to do on that land, if they even allow us on it, because the government owns it. We're supposed to own the government. For years you can't carry here or there because the [bleep] government says so. Pretty soon there will be zones for everything. People are still being arrested in DC over stuff that is settled law since Heller. The whole government is lawless and unlike many here think, it ain't just the Democrat wing...
I have no idea where Bundy has a legal, inherited or ethical right to graze his cattle on land without paying fees
but I will say that placing snipers and general bullying being displayed by the government here is the exact reason why I support Ron and Rand Paul.
This is the kind of government tyranny they fight against and few if any high level GOP or Democrats will lift a finger to support other than give it some lip service.
I urge you to think long and hard about just how important it is to you to stop this kind of approach our government has regarding its own people as opposed to the issues you don't agree with the Paul's or other libertarians on.
at the end of the day, getting these storm troopers out of Washington is one of the most important issues we have to address. Sadly, it is a constant threat from those in power and will continue to be long after the Paul family fades out of the public eye.
have you paid your dues, can you moan the blues, can you bend them guitar strings
but I will say that placing snipers and general bullying being displayed by the government here is the exact reason why I support Ron and Rand Paul. =======
TFF. When the facts don't work and your situation is totally F'd up, try to replace them with a RP candidacy.
I'm rolling.
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails. William Arthur Ward
It's funny reading about our so called staunch conservatives acting just like entitlement democrats.
The whole conservative vs. liberal thing is just a paradigm to control people through categorization. Human beings with the exception of One are flawed. Some more than others. The politicians tend towards "more" in a very large way. Good and evil OTOH are not just constructs. They exist in actions and humans. A blank slate is a good thing, just like the 2nd Amendment. When that is the case, compromise is not a good thing because it only trends towards evil.
but I will say that placing snipers and general bullying being displayed by the government here is the exact reason why I support Ron and Rand Paul. =======
TFF. When the facts don't work and your situation is totally F'd up, try to replace them with a RP candidacy.
I'm rolling.
That's strange because most of your posts make you seem like you've already passed the rolling stage and are well into the toking.
I'm sure you're aware why your posts just seem to fall away without a response.
You hang in there though, Opie.
Folks began laughing when you began your blathering posts after admitting you didn't have a clue as to what was legal or not legal as to this matter. Sure didn't keep you from your dumb-assed WACO nonsense.
Hang in there,pop-tart. You'll touch down somewhere.
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails. William Arthur Ward
but I will say that placing snipers and general bullying being displayed by the government here is the exact reason why I support Ron and Rand Paul. =======
TFF. When the facts don't work and your situation is totally F'd up, try to replace them with a RP candidacy.
I'm rolling.
I'm not even sure what you mean by that - my point isn't about whether the guy is right or wrong, its about countless examples of our government using the barrel of a gun to resolve issues.
And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that there aren't many politicians out there that are going to fight the status quo.
Of course if you're a status quo supporter, then I can see why you'd have a problem with my point.
Last edited by KFWA; 04/11/14.
have you paid your dues, can you moan the blues, can you bend them guitar strings
I'm not even sure what you mean by that - my point isn't about whether the guy is right or wrong, its about countless examples of our government using the barrel of a gun to resolve issues. ========
Exactly. And the basis for your silly pulpit pitch was premised in what again?
The fact anyone can attempt to turn this freeloading scumball into some kind of freedom fighter cracks me the F***k up.
He's a nwa and you guys either want to love him now or twist it into something having nothing to do with what we're discussing.
Too F'ing funny. The only difference between me and Bundy is I have to pay more than him to graze his frikken cattle.
Last edited by isaac; 04/11/14.
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails. William Arthur Ward
I'm sure you're aware why your posts just seem to fall away without a response.
You hang in there though, Opie.
Folks began laughing when you began your blathering posts after admitting you didn't have a clue as to what was legal or not legal as to this matter. Sure didn't keep you from your dumb-assed WACO nonsense.
Hang in there,pop-tart. You'll touch down somewhere.
Wow, a two-fer. This apparently constitutes �debate� in the mind of this site�s smallest mental midget.
I do agree that the snipers and the "Free Speech Zone are a bit much.
![[Linked Image]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bk7JHfOCAAAhtYI.jpg)
