Nevada....surprised this has not been posted yet.

[Trinity]

A 20-year dispute between a Nevada rancher and federal rangers over illegal cattle grazing erupted into an Old West-style showdown on the open range this week, even prompting self-proclaimed members of militia groups from across the country to join the rancher in fighting what they say is U.S. "tyranny."
What began as a legal fight between longtime rancher Cliven Bundy and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has escalated as Bundy kept his cattle on the federal land, and the government has responded by beginning roundups of the livestock.
A confrontation teetered on violence Wednesday when Bundy family members and dozens of supporters angrily confronted a group of rangers holding Tasers and barking dogs on leashes near Bunkerville, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.
Federal officials say a police dog was kicked and officers were assaulted.

Bundy family members say they were thrown to the ground or jolted with a Taser.
In the end, the rangers got into their white SUVs and drove away, a YouTube video of the incident showed.
"Get out of our state!" the cheering protesters yelled at the rangers as they departed in several vehicles. "BLM go away! BLM go away!" they added, referring to the Bureau of Land Management.
The entire incident is now under investigation, Amy Lueders, the bureau's director in Nevada, said Thursday.
To some, the 67-year-old Bundy is a hero who hails from a long family of ranchers stretching back to the Wild West.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/us/nevada-rancher-rangers-cattle-showdown/


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/07/nevada-officials-blast-feds-over-treatment-cattle-rancher-cliven-bundy/




and then there's this.............


Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/cliven-bundy/)’s decades-long battle against the federal government over grazing rights has heated to the point where militia groups have joined in and taken up spots against the feds who’ve circled his land — and talk is, they’re not afraid to open fire.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/11/militias-head-nevada-ranchers-standoff-feds-were-n/#ixzz2yavF4GVR

[Trinity]

and there is this too.....


Update: Word on the street from sources close to the militia movement is that up to 5,000 armed militia members will be arriving in Bunkerville, Nevada sometime today. (See full report below)

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/video-militias-are-on-route-is-the-2nd-american-revolution-starting-in-bunkerville-nevada_04102014

[NightTrain]

That would truly be awesome if a great show of support for Bundy manifested in the form of the appearance of armed Militia from around the country.

BLM and the Parks Service has greatly overstepped their authority in recent years, and they've done some jack-booted thuggery here in Alaska as well recently.

This could be the start of something great that's been a long time coming.

[Nukeman]

That would truly be awesome if a great show of support for Bundy manifested in the form of the appearance of armed Militia from around the country.

BLM and the Parks Service has greatly overstepped their authority in recent years, and they've done some jack-booted thuggery here in Alaska as well recently.

This could be the start of something great that's been a long time coming.You have forgotten to include the EPA in there as well. they make the rules that these guys follow.... It is all a land grab and an attempt to take away more of our rights. I still point at Agenda 21. Some may call it "tin-foil-hat" but everything points to this process with what our govt is doing......

I do hope they get the numbers that have been stated. That would be a VERY large message to the govt........

[NightTrain]

Yep. The EPA has been a loose cannon for quite a while now, as well.

[fj1200]

What exactly are his grazing rights on public lands?

[namvet]

their using the power of Eminent Domain to get rid of him.


BOMBSHELL: Is Sen. Harry Reid Behind the BLM Land Grab of the Bundy Ranch?

link (http://toprightnews.com/?p=2422)

[NightTrain]

Nice link, Namvet!



The BLM’s official reason for encircling the Bundy family with sniper teams and helicopters was to protect the endangered desert tortoise, which the agency has previously been killing in mass due to “budget constraints.” (http://www.infowars.com/before-nevada-cattle-rancher-dispute-blm-was-euthanizing-endangered-desert-tortoise/)


“A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher; they want his land,” journalist Dana Loesch wrote (http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-story-of-the-bundy-ranch/). “The tortoise wasn’t of concern when [U.S. Senator] Harry Reid worked with BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore.”


“Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests,” she added. “BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area.”

[NightTrain]

Excellent! Fox picked up the militias headed to Nevada. Sounds like there's quite a few of groups on the road.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/11/militia-groups-come-to-aid-nevada-rancher-in-battle-with-feds/#

[Trinity]

Found these too.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcvEb7m3LMg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfOVg5R4ngA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k8hS7DJj5k


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEX2eBGipdE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c63ke6QgGnE

[namvet]

wonder what the state of NEV thinks of scary harry now???

[NightTrain]

wonder what the state of NEV thinks of scary harry now???

The Mob's codename for Reid is "Mr. Clean Face". Look that up on google and you'll quickly see how crooked the bastard is and how he's been on the take for many many years now.

[Gaffer]

Here's the reason for the fed land grab. Nevadans should start impeachment proceedings again this scum right away.

http://grapevinexus.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/


BLM attempted cover-up of Sen. Reid/Chinese govt takeover of ranch for solar farm

Kit Daniels
Infowars.com
April 11, 2014

The Bureau of Land Management, whose Acting Deputy Director was Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) former senior adviser, has purged documents from its web site stating that the agency wants Nevada rancher Clive Bundy’s cattle off of the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations.

Deleted from BLM.gov but reposted for prosperity by the Free Republic, the BLM document entitled “Cattle Trespass Impacts” directly states that Bundy’s cattle “impacts” solar development, more specifically the construction of “utility-scale solar power generation facilities” on “public lands.”

“Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle,” the document states.

Another BLM report entitled Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone (BLM Technical Note 444) reveals that Bundy’s land in question is within the “Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and surrounding area” which is part of a broad U.S. Department of Energy program for “Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States” on land “managed” by BLM.

“In 2012, the BLM and the U.S. Department of Energy published the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States,” the report reads. “The Final Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement assessed the impact of utility-scale solar energy development on public lands in the six southwestern states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.”

Why am I not surprised by this news?

[NightTrain]

Here's a description of what's happened in the words of Bundy's daughter:

Shiree Bundy Cox
I have had people ask me to explain my dad's stance on this BLM fight. Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much [more] to it, but here it is in a nut shell. My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887, around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars. These rights to the land use are called preemptive rights.


Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges, while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment, which was to be used to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches. My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM, until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead, they began using these money's against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out, with their own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a pittance, he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren't doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down. So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.


In essence, the BLM was managing my dad out of business. Well, when buying him out didn't work, they used the endangered species card. You've already heard about the desert tortoise. Well that didn't work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years. Now they're desperate. It's come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff. Everything they're doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.


Now you may be saying,"how sad, but what does this have to do with me?" Well, I'll tell you. They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again. Next, it's Utah's turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.


Then there's the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See, even if dad hasn't paid them, those cattle do belong to him. Regardless where they are, they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed. Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad's signature on it. They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Auction and sell them. All with our tax money. They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner, as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars. See how slick they are?
Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks
April 10 2014

[logroller]

I hope the attention this is getting will lead to a revamp of NEPA rules regarding the unsustainable practice of habitat conservation plans, but at the crux of this case is a guy who is trespassing. The land owner is the USA, not the Bundy family. The constitution expressly grants the federal government the authority to make rules on federally-owned lands; they have done so. There's no law, state or federal that supports his claim to use the land in violation of the rules set forth by the managing agency. You don't like the rules, work to get them changed; but if you unrepentantly break the rules, thumbing your nose at the lawful owner's authority, don't be too pissy when you get punished.

[Gaffer]

You wonder why the state and county don't get involved? Scary reid told them to stay out of it. If the state doesn't intervene it's going to get really nasty there.

The one thing that really convinced me the feds are totally in the wrong and agenda driven was the little plot of land designated as a first amendment speech area. That's got me up in arms right now. How dare they do that. That is an affront to everything this country stands for. Time to water the tree of Liberty again.

[NightTrain]

You wonder why the state and county don't get involved? Scary reid told them to stay out of it. If the state doesn't intervene it's going to get really nasty there.

The one thing that really convinced me the feds are totally in the wrong and agenda driven was the little plot of land designated as a first amendment speech area. That's got me up in arms right now. How dare they do that. That is an affront to everything this country stands for. Time to water the tree of Liberty again.


Funny you should say that. That same quote keeps popping into my head the more I see what's going on out there.


I agree with you, and there's a whole lot more armed men enroute there that feel the same way.

[Gaffer]

I hope the attention this is getting will lead to a revamp of NEPA rules regarding the unsustainable practice of habitat conservation plans, but at the crux of this case is a guy who is trespassing. The land owner is the USA, not the Bundy family. The constitution expressly grants the federal government the authority to make rules on federally-owned lands; they have done so. There's no law, state or federal that supports his claim to use the land in violation of the rules set forth by the managing agency. You don't like the rules, work to get them changed; but if you unrepentantly break the rules, thumbing your nose at the lawful owner's authority, don't be too pissy when you get punished.

Read the article I posted. This is about one federal person aka reid abusing his authority to take over land to use for windmills. 20 years ago there were 52 ranchers in that area using that land to graze their cattle, today there is one hold out. Agency rules are not law. They don't apply to me or anyone else that isn't part of that agency. They can make all the rules they want and I will not obey them.

This is exactly the kind of stuff that's going to trigger a major eruption in this country.

[NightTrain]

From Namvet's link was another link.

A 5 billion dollar deal to build a solar panel farm in Clark County, with Reid and his son helping the Chinese that want to build it.

Lots more at this link :

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/energy/item/12730-harry-reid-bolsters-son%E2%80%99s-interests-in-chinese-solar-plant-deal


Rory Reid, the eldest son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), is the chief representative for a Chinese energy firm planning to build (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/04/Harry-Reid-s-Son-Representing-Chinese-Solar-Panel-Plant-In-5-Billion-Nevada-Deal) a $5-billion solar plant on public land in Laughlin, Nevada. ENN Energy Group, a clean-energy firm that manufactures a range of renewable-energy products, is seeking to construct its solar panel facility on a 9,000-acre stretch of land on a Clark County desert plot.

The controversy stems from the fact that Clark County officials voted to sell ENN the public land for $4.5 million, a figure startlingly below the $38.6-million appraisal. Conveniently, Sen. Reid has been one of ENN’s most prominent supporters, having helped mobilize the firm during a 2011 trip to China. Reid’s influence in the Chinese company has been so compelling that, according to Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/us-usa-china-reid-solar-idUSBRE87U06D20120831), last month he tried to “pressure Nevada’s largest power company, NV Energy, to sign up as ENN’s first customer.”

[namvet]

this could be Obozo's Ruby Ridge. or Waco

[Gaffer]

From Namvet's link was another link.

A 5 billion dollar deal to build a solar panel farm in Clark County, with Reid and his son helping the Chinese that want to build it.

Lots more at this link :

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/energy/item/12730-harry-reid-bolsters-son%E2%80%99s-interests-in-chinese-solar-plant-deal





[/FONT][/COLOR]

Your , I was thinking wind farms when it's solar panels. It was past my bed time whe I posted that. :laugh:And namvet is right this is a Ruby Ridge or Waco deal but could be much worse with a lot more people involved. But it's the weekend now and the media won't be out covering what happens till Monday.

[namvet]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9weUhdvFqww

[NightTrain]

Kind of odd that the brand-new Director of BLM, Neil Kornze, was Harry Reid's own Senior Policy Adviser for 8 years and this all started as soon as Kornze was confirmed by the Senate a few days ago.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/bundy_ranch_the_federal_government_and_the_nevada_ water_tipping_point.html


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has kept his official statement simple over the past few days. Senator Reid, “hopes that the transpassing of cattle are rounded up safely so the issue can be resolved.” While it is not clear exactly what “transpassing” means, what is more obvious is that some in the media have overlooked the small detail that the head of the Bureau of Land Management, a division of the Department of Interior, is Neil Kornze, who was also the former Senior Policy Advisor to Senator Reid from 2003 to 2011. Mr. Kornze has served as the BLM Principal Deputy Director for a little over a year until the U.S. Senateconfirmed him as the Director of the BLM (http://www.doi.gov/whoweare/blm-dir.cfm)a few days ago.On April 8th, three days ago, Senator Reid posted the following press release (http://www.reid.senate.gov/press_releases/2014-04-08-reid-statement-on-the-confirmation-of-neil-kornze-as-blm-director#.U0hg2167HZc)on his website:



“I’m pleased that the Senate confirmed Neil Kornze as the Director of the Bureau of Land Management today. Neil is just perfect for this position. Raised in Elko, Nevada, Neil really understands the role of public lands in rural America, and natural resources across the West.”


Senator Reid continued,



“His expertise is going to be invaluable to the Bureau of Land Management. I have every bit of confidence that Neil Kornze will be the best director we have ever had at BLM and I wish him success in this role.”

[namvet]

Kind of odd that the brand-new Director of BLM, Neil Kornze, was Harry Reid's own Senior Policy Adviser for 8 years and this all started as soon as Kornze was confirmed by the Senate a few days ago.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/bundy_ranch_the_federal_government_and_the_nevada_ water_tipping_point.html

[/FONT]
[/INDENT]

Follow the Money
"The real wealth is in the water to support the plush green golf courses, and surrounding housing developments, gleaming swimming pools, and other demands by hotels and households in Las Vegas, Arizona, and Southern California".

under Eminent domain this is illegal. but, consdering the stakes here and the lawless liberals they can take what ever they want.

[Trinity]

So now the FAA has restricted airspace over the Bundy Ranch.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4mCo3zrpfA

[namvet]

So now the FAA has restricted airspace over the Bundy Ranch.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4mCo3zrpfA

thanks for posting. Obastard's ruby ridge is underway

[jimnyc]

IF they try to bully these people and IF they are the first to "use force", then I hope these people stand their ground. And these IF's also include the back stories to this story. It sure does seem like the government is trying to play an end around to confiscate the land for profit. If that's the case, I would fight too. It sounds like they have exhausted the legal avenues and the government is still gunning for their land. I don't think these people should do anything unlawful, other than simply standing their ground and protecting the property. Don't get violent at all unless struck first.

I don't claim to understand all of the legalities behind this mess. But people should have learned from places like Waco. The government can't go in and kill, and the land owner or militia shouldn't either. And obviously there can't be a standoff forever. Something needs to be hashed out to make both parties happy. If the owner gives in and then goes to the government to look for changes, for example, and even if he wins 10 years down the road - by then everything he had will be long gone.

[namvet]

IF they try to bully these people and IF they are the first to "use force", then I hope these people stand their ground. And these IF's also include the back stories to this story. It sure does seem like the government is trying to play an end around to confiscate the land for profit. If that's the case, I would fight too. It sounds like they have exhausted the legal avenues and the government is still gunning for their land. I don't think these people should do anything unlawful, other than simply standing their ground and protecting the property. Don't get violent at all unless struck first.

I don't claim to understand all of the legalities behind this mess. But people should have learned from places like Waco. The government can't go in and kill, and the land owner or militia shouldn't either. And obviously there can't be a standoff forever. Something needs to be hashed out to make both parties happy. If the owner gives in and then goes to the government to look for changes, for example, and even if he wins 10 years down the road - by then everything he had will be long gone.

nor do I Jim. but this thing is running like a freight train

[Abbey Marie]

As an aside, does anyone doubt that Pale will be in attendance at this militia gathering? I believe he even lives in Nevada, though he may have moved to the Midwest.

[NightTrain]

Bundy says he HAS paid the grazing fees to Clark County, but the BLM wants him to reduce his herd to 150 cattle - which won't support his ranch and will essentially starve him out like all the other ranchers that used to be his neighbors.

http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-story-of-the-bundy-ranch/


BLM has also tried to argue that the rules have changed, long after Bundy claims he secured rights and paid his dues to Clark County, Nevada. BLM says they supersede whatever agreement Bundy had prior; they demanded that he reduce his living, his thousand-some-odd head of cattle down to a tiny herd of 150.


It’s easy for the government to grant itself powers of overreach, but it doesn’t make it right. Many bad things are done in the name of unjust laws. Just look at Obamacare. This heavy-handed tactic has run the other ranchers from the area and now Bundy is the last one. He’s the last one because he stood up to the federal government.

[NightTrain]

As an aside, does anyone doubt that Pale will be in attendance at this militia gathering? I believe he even lives in Nevada, though he may have moved to the Midwest.


You know, if I weren't several thousand miles away here in Alaska, I'd go.

My Mom is probably less than 80 miles from where this is all going down.

[namvet]

Armed govt. siege of Bundy ranch rapidly escalating into America's Tiananmen Square showdown

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/044688_Bundy_ranch_siege_Tiananmen_Square_governme nt_violence.html#ixzz2ygmHVPtr

[logroller]

Read the article I posted. This is about one federal person aka reid abusing his authority to take over land to use for windmills. 20 years ago there were 52 ranchers in that area using that land to graze their cattle, today there is one hold out. Agency rules are not law. They don't apply to me or anyone else that isn't part of that agency. They can make all the rules they want and I will not obey them.


This is exactly the kind of stuff that's going to trigger a major eruption in this country.


Rules can, and do carry the weight of law. In accordance with the state and county of my residence, I have a vested right in the property I own. I can make rules about what can and cannot be done in my house. Break those rules and I tell you to leave, and you must or else you are trespassing, right? Its pretty simple; in fact, this type of ownership is called fee-simple.


There's a 150 years of case law and several pertinent laws, not just rules, but laws that cover grazing on public lands. All repeatedly and unequivocally express that there is no property right conveyed by grazing permits. A preference exists, perhaps even a privilege, but not a right. Legally, the ranchers haven't a leg to stand on. Period.


Politically they do though and this is why they've scared up so much hoopla over what they consider to be customary; playing upon the public sentiment because, as I said, they're legally wrong. They don't have any right to graze the land any more than I have a right to clear cut a national forest-- they are permitted to do so as long as the government suffers it unto them. Whether the management agency decides that land held in public trust is to be used for grazing land or wildlife habitat, a wind farm or a nuclear plant, it doesn't matter from a legal context, (so long as prescribed rules and applicable laws are followed, of course)-- it's the role of government to manage lands held in the public trust.

A question : what is the highest valued use of the land; is it for a $5B energy project or grazing a few hundred head of cattle?

it's the former IMO, but that's not the whole of the story; for as I mentioned, the land isn't wanted for development as I understand it, but rather as a mitigation for environmental impact. I do this for a living,mapping and finding lands to be used to offset impacts done by development; a solar plant for example or oil wells, a cogeneration plant, a commercial development etc etc; NEPA laws force the hand...if you want to develop, creating jobs and thus tax revenue for the local economy, something must be set aside to offset the impact on the environment, else no development can happen. The problem is there's only so much viable land that can be used, so when it runs out...what to do? That's what needs to be addressed; that's the problem; that lies as the root cause IMO, not big bad Reid and his cronies and whatever land/water grab narrative that others premise it to be.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Armed govt. siege of Bundy ranch rapidly escalating into America's Tiananmen Square showdown

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/044688_Bundy_ranch_siege_Tiananmen_Square_governme nt_violence.html#ixzz2ygmHVPtr A couple years ago before the ffing bambastard got another term I made numerous comments stating he will go full bore if he gets his second term. That prediction was met with much criticism. Yet his recent actions bear it out. This is going to be a lesson in --"you simply can not ffkk with us we are the all powerful government and you will die if you do!! Also they are looking for an excuse to pass more gun restrictions laws.
America's citizens are now being assaulted by their own government CONSTANTLY and this just highlights how they will kill or murder to maintain their ever increasing Unconstitutional power!!!!!!
If a shot is fired it will not matter which side fired it because the media will declare it was not the government regardless and then savage the opposition for rebellion..
This could easily lead to a civil war if shots are fired and the government yet again massacres an innocent family.. Its been done before back when another dem piece of shit was in charge!! Real Americans already know that the dems are enemies to every law abiding and decent American!!

[NightTrain]

Rules can, and do carry the weight of law. In accordance with the state and county of my residence, I have a vested right in the property I own. I can make rules about what can and cannot be done in my house. Break those rules and I tell you to leave, and you must or else you are trespassing, right? Its pretty simple; in fact, this type of ownership is called fee-simple.


There's a 150 years of case law and several pertinent laws, not just rules, but laws that cover grazing on public lands. All repeatedly and unequivocally express that there is no property right conveyed by grazing permits. A preference exists, perhaps even a privilege, but not a right. Legally, the ranchers haven't a leg to stand on. Period.


Politically they do though and this is why they've scared up so much hoopla over what they consider to be customary; playing upon the public sentiment because, as I said, they're legally wrong. They don't have any right to graze the land any more than I have a right to clear cut a national forest-- they are permitted to do so as long as the government suffers it unto them. Whether the management agency decides that land held in public trust is to be used for grazing land or wildlife habitat, a wind farm or a nuclear plant, it doesn't matter from a legal context, (so long as prescribed rules and applicable laws are followed, of course)-- it's the role of government to manage lands held in the public trust.

A question : what is the highest valued use of the land; is it for a $5B energy project or grazing a few hundred head of cattle?

it's the former IMO, but that's not the whole of the story; for as I mentioned, the land isn't wanted for development as I understand it, but rather as a mitigation for environmental impact. I do this for a living,mapping and finding lands to be used to offset impacts done by development; a solar plant for example or oil wells, a cogeneration plant, a commercial development etc etc; NEPA laws force the hand...if you want to develop, creating jobs and thus tax revenue for the local economy, something must be set aside to offset the impact on the environment, else no development can happen. The problem is there's only so much viable land that can be used, so when it runs out...what to do? That's what needs to be addressed; that's the problem; that lies as the root cause IMO, not big bad Reid and his cronies and whatever land/water grab narrative that others premise it to be.


The Bundy family has been grazing cattle on this land since the Lincoln administration, when it was encouraging settlers to move out West and settle the area.

They've paid Clark County the grazing fees, then the BLM stepped in and decided that the tortoise had to be protected and somehow the cows were endangering them.

This was a sham of an excuse, and one they're not even trying to argue anymore, since it was brought to light that the BLM has been euthanizing those very same tortoises because there's an overabundance of them and they are tired of spending money on feeding them. Doesn't sound very endangered when the same agency responsible to protect them is the one killing them en mass, does it?

So now that it's been established that this all isn't really about the damned tortoise, what is it all really about?

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness doesn't apply to the Bundy Family after doing this very same thing for the last 150 years with the government's blessing?

This is bullshit, Logroller, and it's an attempt by the Federal Government to railroad the last holdout of a true pioneer family that settled the area so that backdoor deals can be made by crooked politicians and foreign Communist Chinese investors.

[jimnyc]

A question : what is the highest valued use of the land; is it for a $5B energy project or grazing a few hundred head of cattle?

I agree with what you wrote. Unfortunately, due to the way the legal system developed over the years, the law is against him, even if stupid. I just wanted to comment on the above, outside of what the law states. While the $5 billion dollar project might be better use of the land, I think it's a scary precedent to set. Just because they think they can do better, this man must give in to something he has been doing, like forever. It "feels" like people with bigger pockets and government power are making a maneuver that they will profit from, and this guy loses everything. The saddest part is what you point out, that he may not even have a legal leg to stand on at all, no matter how crappy this situation is. But it still doesn't seem right that they will take the property to make money off of it while he loses.

I think in a perfect world they would work something out. Let him buy out all the rights, or an agreed upon plan for him to make some sort of payments and keep things as they are.

As an aside, I read somewhere in there that a portion of this had something to do with protecting turtles, at least at one point. It just seems that they were trying to reach for various reasons to get the property without a big fight. I wonder if they'll still demand to keep the land protected for the turtles?

I hate when these things happen even in the cities. Eminent domain and other fancy legal jargon to take the property away from a rightful owner. If they can surround the property, kill cattle and eventually seize land - it puts images in my head of WHAT ELSE down the road will we see being surrounded and taken by force? I guess if the courts continually rule against the home owner, and they never give in, eventually the state has to recover somehow. But this is one big clusterF&^%k. The ONLY way at all that I see the state having a point is based on law that is on paper. We are a nation of laws, and would fail without. But this one stinks to high heaven and needs to be altered in some manner.

[Trinity]

latest so far.....

LAS VEGAS -- The Bureau of Land Management has announced it will stop the roundup of cattle owned by rancher Cliven Bundy. The BLM says the animals have been illegally grazing on public lands for 20 years.
The BLM made the announcement Saturday morning, a week after rangers started gathering the animals from land near Gold Butte.


http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25230368/major-development-in-bunkerville-cattle-battle-between-cliven-bundy-and-blm

[Trinity]

I should also add.... that I don't trust the government and this is a ploy of some kind. They are waiting for the attention to die down, so they can swoop in for the kill.

[NightTrain]

latest so far.....

LAS VEGAS -- The Bureau of Land Management has announced it will stop the roundup of cattle owned by rancher Cliven Bundy. The BLM says the animals have been illegally grazing on public lands for 20 years.
The BLM made the announcement Saturday morning, a week after rangers started gathering the animals from land near Gold Butte.


http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25230368/major-development-in-bunkerville-cattle-battle-between-cliven-bundy-and-blm


I saw that... I've been trying to see if anyone else confirmed that, but so far they're the only ones saying it.

[jimnyc]

Good news, I hope...

LIVE: Clark Co. Sheriff Announces BLM ‘Will Cease Operation,’ Open Land to Public (http://www.infowars.com/breaking-cliven-bundy-to-meet-with-clark-co-sheriff/)

On Saturday, Clark County Sheriff Douglas C. Gillespie announced that the Bureau of Land Management would cease their persecution of cattle rancher Cliven Bundy. He also stated that Bundy’s cattle would be allowed to graze on the land.

In an emotional response, Bundy presented the Sheriff with an ultimatum, stating he had one hour to disarm the federal agency, to bring the arms to the protest site to be destroyed, and to remove their barricades.

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-cliven-bundy-to-meet-with-clark-co-sheriff/

[jimnyc]

Nevada Cattle Rancher Wins 'Range War' With Feds

A Nevada cattle rancher appears to have won his week-long battle with the federal government over a controversial cattle roundup that had led to the arrest of several protesters.

Cliven Bundy went head to head with the Bureau of Land Management over the removal of hundreds of his cattle from federal land, where the government said they were grazing illegally.

Bundy claims his herd of roughly 900 cattle have grazed on the land along the riverbed near Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, since 1870 and threatened a "range war" against the BLM on the Bundy Ranch website after one of his sons was arrested while protesting the removal of the cattle.

"I have no contract with the United States government," Bundy said. "I was paying grazing fees for management and that's what BLM was supposed to be, land managers and they were managing my ranch out of business, so I refused to pay."

The federal government had countered that Bundy "owes the American people in excess of $1 million " in unpaid grazing fees and "refuses to abide by the law of land, despite many opportunities over the last 20 years to do so."

However, today the BLM said it would not enforce a court order to remove the cattle and was pulling out of the area.

"Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public," BLM Director Neil Kornze said.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-cattle-rancher-wins-range-war-federal-government/story?id=23302610

[Gaffer]

BLM was getting too much bad press so they are pulling back for a time. But they will return. reid isn't going to give up that easily. The IRS and FBI will be next to harass Bundy and family.

I think they ought to make a little expedition into where that backhoe was and see what was going on there.

As for rules verses laws. Breaking a law makes you a criminal, breaking a rule makes you an annoyance and pisses of the rule makers. The problem with govt agencies is that they, too often, think their rules are laws.

[Abbey Marie]

Big picture:

These types of things will be much easier for the government to do once it further restricts our right to bear arms. Then these messy protests will be much less messy.

And never forget that our illustrious and oh-so-political Supreme Court stands ready to take away any right it deems unconstitutional.

[NightTrain]

Big picture:

These types of things will be much easier for the government to do once it further restricts our right to bear arms. Then these messy protests will be much less messy.

And never forget that our illustrious and oh-so-political Supreme Court stands ready to take away any right it deems unconstitutional.


I was thinking the same thing.

Holder must have been grinding his teeth in impotent fury because he hasn't gotten his radio-control bracelets out yet so they were unable to remotely deactivate all non-Federal firearms in Nevada.

I'm positive it was the news that armed Militias were enroute to Nevada from all over the USA that forced the BLM's puppeteers to cave. It was a wise move on their part to do so. There are some in those militias that are itching for a fight and this was a huge tinderbox waiting to erupt.

I think what really pissed me off was the restriction of the 1st Amendment by the BLM, of all agencies. Totally illegal and it really smacked of Federal thuggery run amok.

Tasing a pregnant woman and body slamming another 60+ year old woman to the ground was real classy, too.

[hjmick]

From Namvet's link was another link.

A 5 billion dollar deal to build a solar panel farm in Clark County, with Reid and his son helping the Chinese that want to build it.

Lots more at this link :







That plan is dead:


[URL="http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/solar/photovoltaic-pv/nevada-solar-factory-canceled.html"]Project that would have included a solar power station and a million-square-foot solar panel factory a few miles from the California state line won't be built, its backers announced last month. The $5 billion, Chinese-backed ENN Mojave Energy project at the southernmost corner of Nevada couldn't find utilities that wanted to buy its power, either in Nevada or across the line in California. (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/energy/item/12730-harry-reid-bolsters-son%E2%80%99s-interests-in-chinese-solar-plant-deal)

[logroller]

The Bundy family has been grazing cattle on this land since the Lincoln administration, when it was encouraging settlers to move out West and settle the area.
I heard 1877, but whatever--a long time for sure.
But let it be noted that they pushed out native people who'd been living off the land since before Christ. So cry me a trail of years, cuz as Christ's cautioned, he who takes up the sword, shall perish by the sword. Irony is so cruel sometimes.



They've paid Clark County the grazing fees, then the BLM stepped in and decided that the tortoise had to be protected and somehow the cows were endangering them.
They paid fees to someone who didn't own the land....whoopty do. If I pay your neighbor a sewer fee, do I get to use your toilet?


This was a sham of an excuse, and one they're not even trying to argue anymore, since it was brought to light that the BLM has been euthanizing those very same tortoises because there's an overabundance of them and they are tired of spending money on feeding them.
Maybe do a little fact-finding before you buy whole-heartedly into a narrative proffered by those who have their own agenda. For example, these turtles you speak of lived in the wild, in natural habitat, free to roam and exist as they have for millions of years? Then WHY did the BLM need to feed them? Once again the narrative you share doesn't actually contain an abundance of facts that accurately describe the issue. It's just a red herring.



Doesn't sound very endangered when the same agency responsible to protect them is the one killing them en mass, does it? perhaps not, but it doesn't change the fact the land he uses isn't his, nor the county's, nor the state's....its federal land held in public trust. If I was in your house and thumbed my nose at your rules; you're saying that's a ok?



So now that it's been established that this all isn't really about the damned tortoise, what is it all really about?
its about a lot if things to a lot of different people. Some people see it as a way of preserving natural habitat and wildlands for the enjoyment of future generations while still allowing for development today. Other people think its a land grab by the federal government...which is completely irrational and divorced from the truth since its federal land, not bundy's...so now that it's been established this guy has no right to graze the public lands; what's this really about? Trespass.



Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness doesn't apply to the Bundy Family after doing this very same thing for the last 150 years with the government's blessing?

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness doesn't include squatting on others' land, blessing or not. but that's bs anyways, multiple court rulings have said the government suffers these uses so long as they are compatible, not blesses them.



This is bullshit, Logroller, and it's an attempt by the Federal Government to railroad the last holdout of a true pioneer family that settled the area so that backdoor deals can be made by crooked politicians and foreign Communist Chinese investors.
Getting Railroaded /westward expansion / the Chinese...I'm not sure how much attention you paid in history class but you're not exactly arguing from a moral high ground. Practically the entirety of the west was settled by government endorsed conquest. Now all of the sudden the tides change, and after 150 years a lot has, now its 'look at the big bad federal government'. He who takes up the sword...

[logroller]

I agree with what you wrote. Unfortunately, due to the way the legal system developed over the years, the law is against him, even if stupid. I just wanted to comment on the above, outside of what the law states. While the $5 billion dollar project might be better use of the land, I think it's a scary precedent to set. Just because they think they can do better, this man must give in to something he has been doing, like forever. It "feels" like people with bigger pockets and government power are making a maneuver that they will profit from, and this guy loses everything. The saddest part is what you point out, that he may not even have a legal leg to stand on at all, no matter how crappy this situation is. But it still doesn't seem right that they will take the property to make money off of it while he loses.
If I left my car parked on your driveway after you told me to move it, what would you do? Have it towed, right? And what do you think the impound yard would do if I refused to pick it up? Sell it, right? Same exact thing. Twenty years of legal fighting and Bundy lost; he was ordered to remove his property (cattle) from the land (which wasn't his) and he refused.


I think in a perfect world they would work something out. Let him buy out all the rights, or an agreed upon plan for him to make some sort of payments and keep things as they are.

As an aside, I read somewhere in there that a portion of this had something to do with protecting turtles, at least at one point. It just seems that they were trying to reach for various reasons to get the property without a big fight. I wonder if they'll still demand to keep the land protected for the turtles?

Hold on. I thought by '!property' you meant his cattle. The land is and always has been federal property. This isn't an eminent domain situation. What it is there's a huge development on federal land that impacts natural communities in said land elsewhere, so the Feds are going to allot the land that Bundy uses for grazing (in violation of federal law and court ruling) into preservation land to offset the development's impact. More of a land use swap. But Bundy doesn't own the land in question.

[NightTrain]

I heard 1877, but whatever--a long time for sure.
But let it be noted that they pushed out native people who'd been living off the land since before Christ. So cry me a trail of years, cuz as Christ's cautioned, he who takes up the sword, shall perish by the sword. Irony is so cruel sometimes.

The Indians have nothing to do with this - that's a completely different subject. We're talking about the same United States Government that urged the family to move west.


They paid fees to someone who didn't own the land....whoopty do. If I pay your neighbor a sewer fee, do I get to use your toilet?

They paid fees to Clark County until the BLM decided there were endangered tortoises. It is STATE land, not FEDERAL land. See the difference?

The BLM stepped in because of the tortoise, but that's not even an issue anymore.


Maybe do a little fact-finding before you buy whole-heartedly into a narrative proffered by those who have their own agenda. For example, these turtles you speak of lived in the wild, in natural habitat, free to roam and exist as they have for millions of years? Then WHY did the BLM need to feed them? Once again the narrative you share doesn't actually contain an abundance of facts that accurately describe the issue. It's just a red herring.

I don't really care for your tone. I've researched this in depth; have you? If the BLM is killing the tortoises they're so concerned about, then they aren't really endangered, are they? If Reid tells the BLM to trade his political donor some land he wants to develop that these almighty tortoises are on and they willingly go along with it, they aren't really endangered, are they?


perhaps not, but it doesn't change the fact the land he uses isn't his, nor the county's, nor the state's....its federal land held in public trust. If I was in your house and thumbed my nose at your rules; you're saying that's a ok?

It's Nevada land that he paid Clark County the grazing fees until the 90s. If Nevada didn't own the land, then why in the hell was he paying Clark County?


its about a lot if things to a lot of different people. Some people see it as a way of preserving natural habitat and wildlands for the enjoyment of future generations while still allowing for development today. Other people think its a land grab by the federal government...which is completely irrational and divorced from the truth since its federal land, not bundy's...so now that it's been established this guy has no right to graze the public lands; what's this really about? Trespass.

NEVADA LAND. The Bundys worked this all out over a century ago.


Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness doesn't include squatting on others' land, blessing or not. but that's bs anyways, multiple court rulings have said the government suffers these uses so long as they are compatible, not blesses them.

He isn't squatting. His cattle free range on public Nevada land.


Getting Railroaded /westward expansion / the Chinese...I'm not sure how much attention you paid in history class but you're not exactly arguing from a moral high ground. Practically the entirety of the west was settled by government endorsed conquest. Now all of the sudden the tides change, and after 150 years a lot has, now its 'look at the big bad federal government'. He who takes up the sword...

I paid attention very closely; it was my favorite subject.

I'm not going to get into the Indian / Whitey thing with you, as I said before, it's a completely different subject.

Reid sicked the BLM on this family because they wouldn't sell out, and it's fucking wrong!

Especially in light of any large political donor to the Harry Reid Fund getting anything they want - and to hell with those tortoises.

Clearly you didn't bother clicking on any of the links that I and quite a few others provided in this very thread. Every one of those links had multiple other links that varied from BLM's page to Reid's page to the Park Service page to hundreds of independent reporters and MSM reporters.

[logroller]

The Indians have nothing to do with this - that's a completely different subject. We're talking about the same United States Government that urged the family to move west.

The same us government that URGED the displaced the indigenous people who reaped a life from the land before the us (or the Bundy family) had any involvement. So it has much to do with this because legally the USA owns the land, not Bundy; all you have is a moral argument and it falls flat unless you just dismiss the general shittyness of how Bundy came to use the land in the first place-- By hook and crook to begin with, albeit with Feds encouragement, from a people that had just as much a right use the land as those who came before them.


They paid fees to Clark County until the BLM decided there were endangered tortoises. It is STATE land, not FEDERAL land. See the difference?
The USA owns the land/ the blm manages it--Bundy does neither. See the difference?


I don't really care for your tone. I've researched this in depth; have you?

sorta. Among other things, I've read this,


Bundy principally opposes the United States’ motion for summary judgment on the8 ground that this court lacks jurisdiction because the United States does not own the public
9 lands in question. As this court previously ruled in United States v. Bundy, Case No. CV-S-
10 98-531-JBR (RJJ) (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998), “the public lands in Nevada are the property of the
11 United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when
12 Mexico ceded the land to the United States.” CV-S-98-531 at 8 (citing United States v. Gardner,
13 107 F.3d 1314, 1318 (9th Cir. 1997)). Moreover, Bundy is incorrect in claiming that the
14 Disclaimer Clause of the Nevada Constitution carries no legal force, see Gardner, 107 F.3d at
15 1320; that the Property Clause of the United States Constitution applies only to federal lands
16 outside the borders of states, see id. at 1320; that the United States‘ exercise of ownership
17 over federal lands violates the Equal Footing Doctrine, see id. at 1319; that the United States
18 is basing its authority to sanction Bundy for his unauthorized use of federal lands on the
19 Endangered Species Act as opposed to trespass, see Compl. at ¶¶ 1,3, 26-39; and that
20 Nevada’s “Open Range” statute excuses Bundy’s trespass. See e.g., Gardner, 107 F.3d at 1320
21 (under Supremacy Clause state statute in conflict with federal law requiring permit to graze
22 would be trumped).http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2012cv00804/87613/35/0.pdf?1373464715

and this too,

as aforementioned, Congress' power under the Property Clause to administer its own property is virtually unlimited.   See, e.g., Kleppe, 426 U.S. at 539, 96 S.Ct. at 2291-92.   Indeed, the United States retains title to the public lands within states such as Nevada not due to “any agreement or compact with the proposed new State,” but rather “solely because the power of Congress extend[s] to the subject.”  Coyle, 221 U.S. at 574, 31 S.Ct. at 693. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1061959.html#sthash.mijE4mBV.dpuf
and I've read this too, which covers a myriad of oppositional points;
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/article/viewFile/9241/8853


plus, I've researched environmental resource management in depth. I have a degree in it. Along with that I'm employed as geospatial analyst tasked with, among a blend of planning and engineering tasks, analyzing a 4000 square mile area at the parcel level, including ownership data. Never have I seen land managed by the blm that wasn't owned by the USA. Not once. So unless you have Clark county's ownership data that disputes the fact the USA owns the land and the blm manages it, I'm afraid you don't have anything even remotely contradictory to a federal court order. As the quip sayeth, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. I can own land and appoint whomever I want to manage it and some squatter doesn't have the right to use my land. Tell your congressman if you don't like it but the Feds have at least the same rights to their land that any other property owner does and Bundy has none.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The same us government that URGED the displaced the indigenous people who reaped a life from the land before the us (or the Bundy family) had any involvement. So it has much to do with this because legally the USA owns the land, not Bundy; all you have is a moral argument and it falls flat unless you just dismiss the general shittyness of how Bundy came to use the land in the first place-- By hook and crook to begin with, albeit with Feds encouragement, from a people that had just as much a right use the land as those who came before them.


The USA owns the land/ the blm manages it--Bundy does neither. See the difference?


sorta. Among other things, I've read this,

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2012cv00804/87613/35/0.pdf?1373464715

and this too,

and I've read this too, which covers a myriad of oppositional points;
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/article/viewFile/9241/8853


plus, I've researched environmental resource management in depth. I have a degree in it. Along with that I'm employed as geospatial analyst tasked with, among a blend of planning and engineering tasks, analyzing a 4000 square mile area at the parcel level, including ownership data. Never have I seen land managed by the blm that wasn't owned by the USA. Not once. So unless you have Clark county's ownership data that disputes the fact the USA owns the land and the blm manages it, I'm afraid you don't have anything even remotely contradictory to a federal court order. As the quip sayeth, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. I can own land and appoint whomever I want to manage it and some squatter doesn't have the right to use my land. Tell your congressman if you don't like it but the Feds have at least the same rights to their land that any other property owner does and Bundy has none.



Never have I seen land managed by the blm that wasn't owned by the USA. Not once. So unless you have Clark county's ownership data that disputes the fact the USA owns the land and the blm manages it, I'm afraid you don't have anything even remotely contradictory to a federal court order. As the quip sayeth, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. I can own land and appoint whomever I want to manage it and some squatter doesn't have the right to use my land. Tell your congressman if you don't like it but the Feds have at least the same rights to their land that any other property owner does and Bundy has none.

Feds, "their land"!!! Perhaps you forget that the government is not a private concern and that land you claim as "their land" actually belongs in part to every citizen of this country! I only felt the need to remind you of "this little fact" because your comment put such high stock in the land actually be "their land" and yes that's how they view it too. Same way as they view any freedoms we have to be allowances they make! Allowances that they get to pull out on a mere whim .. It doesn't work that way here Hoss and a damn lot of fine men and women have died making damn sure it doesn't.

THIS LITTLE TIN POT MAGGOT RUNNING THE SHOW NOW DOESNT GET TO EITHER AND IF HE PUSHES THINGS TOO FAR TOO FAST HE'LL FIND THAT OUT.

Sure they backed down for now and the reason is they simply can not risk the harmful effects having a full blown showdown now will have on the 2014 elections in November. Elections in which they know they must find a way to keep control of the Senate and keep that lousy corrupt traitor Reid in power to do the maggot's bidding.-Tyr


plus, I've researched environmental resource management in depth. I have a degree in it. Impressive but that degree is not in Constitutional law is it? Or States rights? Or even patriotism. Or individual's rights.. The government doesn't get to trump all those now simply because a ffing so-called "messiah" step onto a newly made throne.

Don't you find it strange that this has went on for 21 years and suddenly the GESTAPO choses to step in to rough hand that man and his family? Or doesn't your concern for your fellow man ever reach such a level? -Tyr

The man paid the duly appointed authorities there and who gives a pig's shat what the lousy dictatorial Feds want? Or do you think they backed down out of kindness and concern for their fellow man? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Here is a hint, they backed down because they knew they were in the wrong and the citizens were about to upset their little applecart right when they were not ready to have it upset. Now don't you worry Hoss , they plan out not backing down in the near future and you will get to see some of your fellow citizens murdered to prove their power.
Next time you say your prayers ask God what the price is for having very little or no concern for your fellow man. Myself, I guess it is a high one.. -Tyr

[DragonStryk72]

Nevada Cattle Rancher Wins 'Range War' With Feds



A Nevada cattle rancher appears to have won his week-long battle with the federal government over a controversial cattle roundup that had led to the arrest of several protesters.

Cliven Bundy went head to head with the Bureau of Land Management over the removal of hundreds of his cattle from federal land, where the government said they were grazing illegally.

Bundy claims his herd of roughly 900 cattle have grazed on the land along the riverbed near Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, since 1870 and threatened a "range war" against the BLM on the Bundy Ranch website after one of his sons was arrested while protesting the removal of the cattle.

"I have no contract with the United States government," Bundy said. "I was paying grazing fees for management and that's what BLM was supposed to be, land managers and they were managing my ranch out of business, so I refused to pay."

The federal government had countered that Bundy "owes the American people in excess of $1 million " in unpaid grazing fees and "refuses to abide by the law of land, despite many opportunities over the last 20 years to do so."

However, today the BLM said it would not enforce a court order to remove the cattle and was pulling out of the area.

"Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public," BLM Director Neil Kornze said.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-cattle-rancher-wins-range-war-federal-government/story?id=23302610

lol, could also have something to do with the fact that they were acting in a blatantly Unconstitutional manner, and that a Senator was about to come under scrutiny for several conflicts of interest in the whole scenario.

http://www.infowars.com/blm-action-in-nevada-is-unconstitutional-heres-why/

[DragonStryk72]

Never have I seen land managed by the blm that wasn't owned by the USA. Not once. So unless you have Clark county's ownership data that disputes the fact the USA owns the land and the blm manages it, I'm afraid you don't have anything even remotely contradictory to a federal court order.

Well, there's the fact that the Enclave clause supercedes that. Seriously, Arctile 1, Section 8. Have fun. Then of course, then there's the fact that it is not the FBI that is stepping in, but the BLM. Now, the BLM can get the ball rolling, certainly, but that's not what's happening here, is it?


And, thanks to the Enclave Clause, any rules the BLM put down to affect this are completely irrelevant, because the US Constitution trumps all state and federal laws.

As the quip sayeth, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. I can own land and appoint whomever I want to manage it and some squatter doesn't have the right to use my land. Tell your congressman if you don't like it but the Feds have at least the same rights to their land that any other property owner does and Bundy has none.

Well, actually, the Federal ownership of the land is un-Constitutional in the first place. Yeah, turns out they screwed Nevada over hard when they were getting statehood, and thus, the federal government owns 84% of Nevada, which is in direct affront to the Enclave Clause that was put in to stop this very thing from happening. Sorry, you know I hate to admit it, but Tyr's correct here.

[jimnyc]

Maybe do a little fact-finding before you buy whole-heartedly into a narrative proffered by those who have their own agenda. For example, these turtles you speak of lived in the wild, in natural habitat, free to roam and exist as they have for millions of years? Then WHY did the BLM need to feed them? Once again the narrative you share doesn't actually contain an abundance of facts that accurately describe the issue. It's just a red herring.

I did fact finding on this yesterday and it turns out that the BLM were planning on or did euthanize tortoises. That makes little to no sense when they were previously talking about how they had to protect and save them. If they were free to roam for millions of years without an issue, then why any need to euthanize them?

Government plans to euthanize hundreds of threatened desert tortoises it was supposed to protect

Federal funds for a Nevada-based desert tortoise conservation center are running dry and wildlife officials plan to close the facility and euthanize hundreds of tortoises that were once classified as “endangered” and are currently considered “threatened.”

The desert tortoise can be found in the southwestern United States, but its population has been dwindling. In some areas, the tortoise population has decreased by 90 percent since the 1980s, and in the Mojave desert the population is considered “threatened.” It is illegal to touch, harm or harass these animals, and the Desert Tortoise Conservation Center has tried to increase their population ever since they were added to the endangered species list in 1990.

Still, only 100,000 desert tortoises are estimated to remain in the wild.

But federal funds are running dry at the Las Vegas Valley facility, and rather than release the animals, officials plan to euthanize about half of the 1,400 tortoises. The 220-acre facility will shut its doors in 2014, and the tortoises deemed feeble to survive in the wild will be set free. Many of the tortoises at the center were formerly kept as pets and are unable to survive in the desert.

“It’s the lesser of two evils, but it’s still evil,” US Fish and Wildlife Service desert tortoise recovery coordinator Roy Averill-Murray told the Associated Press.

The facility usually takes in diseased or injured tortoises and nurtures them back to health, but new arrivals will most likely be put to sleep.

The Bureau of Land Management currently funds the conservation and research center with fees inflicted on those who disturb tortoise habitats. During the housing boom in the early 2000s, the conservation center had plenty of cash, since developers were frequently fined for disturbing such habitats. But since the recession, the BLM has struggled to meet its annual $1 million budget.

http://rt.com/usa/desert-tortoises-euthanize-nevada-024/

[NightTrain]

The same us government that URGED the displaced the indigenous people who reaped a life from the land before the us (or the Bundy family) had any involvement. So it has much to do with this because legally the USA owns the land, not Bundy; all you have is a moral argument and it falls flat unless you just dismiss the general shittyness of how Bundy came to use the land in the first place-- By hook and crook to begin with, albeit with Feds encouragement, from a people that had just as much a right use the land as those who came before them.

This is the 3rd time you've tried to change the subject. If you want to discuss the injustice dealt to the Indians by the U.S. Government, then by all means please do start a thread to discuss it.


The USA owns the land/ the blm manages it--Bundy does neither. See the difference?

Bundy is a resident of the State of Nevada and is also a tax paying citizen of the United States. If he were a non-resident, then I think you might have a point.


sorta. Among other things, I've read this,

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2012cv00804/87613/35/0.pdf?1373464715

and this too,

and I've read this too, which covers a myriad of oppositional points;
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/article/viewFile/9241/8853

Excellent.

Now read this link that Dragon already posted and Tyr discussed :

http://www.infowars.com/blm-action-in-nevada-is-unconstitutional-heres-why/


It is the BLM, not Cliven Bundy, who is in violation of the law and the Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_17.html)of the Constitution.

The clause, known as the Enclave Clause, authorizes Congress to purchase, own and control land in a state under specific and limited conditions, namely “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings,” and not, as the feds now insist, to protect an endangered tortoise.
The Founders were opposed to providing a centralized federal government with unlimited authority to purchase and, as is routinely the case today, seize state and private land.



plus, I've researched environmental resource management in depth. I have a degree in it. Along with that I'm employed as geospatial analyst tasked with, among a blend of planning and engineering tasks, analyzing a 4000 square mile area at the parcel level, including ownership data. Never have I seen land managed by the blm that wasn't owned by the USA. Not once. So unless you have Clark county's ownership data that disputes the fact the USA owns the land and the blm manages it, I'm afraid you don't have anything even remotely contradictory to a federal court order. As the quip sayeth, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. I can own land and appoint whomever I want to manage it and some squatter doesn't have the right to use my land. Tell your congressman if you don't like it but the Feds have at least the same rights to their land that any other property owner does and Bundy has none.

As Dragon and Tyr pointed out already, the BLM doesn't have a constitutional leg to stand on - what they're up to is illegal.

Perhaps you really like our Nevada Senator Reid and his backdoor politics to bully and ruin people that stand in the way of him making a shitload of money and the way he directs federal agencies to run them out. (See what I did there?)

Personally, it really pisses me off when I see hardworking Americans getting railroaded by a Federal Agency unleashed by a corrupt liberal like Harry Reid first claiming one thing, then another when the lies are exposed.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I did fact finding on this yesterday and it turns out that the BLM were planning on or did euthanize tortoises. That makes little to no sense when they were previously talking about how they had to protect and save them. If they were free to roam for millions of years without an issue, then why any need to euthanize them?

Government plans to euthanize hundreds of threatened desert tortoises it was supposed to protect

Federal funds for a Nevada-based desert tortoise conservation center are running dry and wildlife officials plan to close the facility and euthanize hundreds of tortoises that were once classified as “endangered” and are currently considered “threatened.”

The desert tortoise can be found in the southwestern United States, but its population has been dwindling. In some areas, the tortoise population has decreased by 90 percent since the 1980s, and in the Mojave desert the population is considered “threatened.” It is illegal to touch, harm or harass these animals, and the Desert Tortoise Conservation Center has tried to increase their population ever since they were added to the endangered species list in 1990.

Still, only 100,000 desert tortoises are estimated to remain in the wild.

But federal funds are running dry at the Las Vegas Valley facility, and rather than release the animals, officials plan to euthanize about half of the 1,400 tortoises. The 220-acre facility will shut its doors in 2014, and the tortoises deemed feeble to survive in the wild will be set free. Many of the tortoises at the center were formerly kept as pets and are unable to survive in the desert.

“It’s the lesser of two evils, but it’s still evil,” US Fish and Wildlife Service desert tortoise recovery coordinator Roy Averill-Murray told the Associated Press.

The facility usually takes in diseased or injured tortoises and nurtures them back to health, but new arrivals will most likely be put to sleep.

The Bureau of Land Management currently funds the conservation and research center with fees inflicted on those who disturb tortoise habitats. During the housing boom in the early 2000s, the conservation center had plenty of cash, since developers were frequently fined for disturbing such habitats. But since the recession, the BLM has struggled to meet its annual $1 million budget.

http://rt.com/usa/desert-tortoises-euthanize-nevada-024/

Their original bullshit reason was just part of a larger scam .. So typical of this much larger and more powerful government the newly crowned King is building.-Tyr

[jimnyc]

If I left my car parked on your driveway after you told me to move it, what would you do? Have it towed, right? And what do you think the impound yard would do if I refused to pick it up? Sell it, right? Same exact thing. Twenty years of legal fighting and Bundy lost; he was ordered to remove his property (cattle) from the land (which wasn't his) and he refused.

And I never stated otherwise, just that I think it stinks. But I agree that the law is the law. But sometimes things have a way of working themselves out, and now I think they need to change the writing, or other changes, to prevent this from happening again.

And an Fyi - if someone parked on my driveway, would it make sense to surround the car with weapons and try to forcibly change things? Or perhaps euthanize the kids in the back seat? :)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This is the 3rd time you've tried to change the subject. If you want to discuss the injustice dealt to the Indians by the U.S. Government, then by all means please do start a thread to discuss it.



Bundy is a resident of the State of Nevada and is also a tax paying citizen of the United States. If he were a non-resident, then I think you might have a point.



Excellent.

Now read this link that Dragon already posted and Tyr discussed :

http://www.infowars.com/blm-action-in-nevada-is-unconstitutional-heres-why/






As Dragon and Tyr pointed out already, the BLM doesn't have a constitutional leg to stand on - what they're up to is illegal.

Perhaps you really like our Nevada Senator Reid and his backdoor politics to bully and ruin people that stand in the way of him making a shitload of money and the way he directs federal agencies to run them out. (See what I did there?)

Personally, it really pisses me off when I see hardworking Americans getting railroaded by a Federal Agency unleashed by a corrupt liberal like Harry Reid first claiming one thing, then another when the lies are exposed.

You see how fast the roaches ran for cover once the light of truth galvanized the concerned and true citizens into real action!!! They are just not ready yet to murder thousands of citizens. When they get ready in the future it will be with the mindset to murder tens of millions. Do not ever doubt that the graven coward in there now would not do that if it furthered his real agenda and it would. The time is just not right and they are all about having every advantage when that time comes("seizing our guns must come first!") and yet again having total control of Congress and the Executive office.
Looks like a conspiracy theory but instead its a rather fair judgment of facts and reality!!
These leftist, dems and asshats in charge now are nothing but self-serving traitors. ff them all is this man's view.. --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And I never stated otherwise, just that I think it stinks. But I agree that the law is the law. But sometimes things have a way of working themselves out, and now I think they need to change the writing, or other changes, to prevent this from happening again.

And an Fyi - if someone parked on my driveway, would it make sense to surround the car with weapons and try to forcibly change things? Or perhaps euthanize the kids in the back seat? :)

And where the hell is that reasoning --"the law is the law"-- when Obama just chooses to ignore or even completely counterman existing Federal laws??
Perhaps our friend Logroller can explain how that reasoning works when it is not applied to the President who is "supposed to be the people's loyal servant" not their ffing dictator!
Tossing out double standards does nothing to enhance his case IMHO.
And hell no , I'll not bother if he should ask me to list all the laws the scum ignores or even does just the opposite on. Its ffing common knowledge by now. And even a simple Google search will bring up hundreds of examples.
I am simply tired of people saying after I point out that 1512 people perished in the Titanic disaster. OK, now name them... Its ploy to damn often used for me to continue to indulge such tactics. Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

And where the hell is that reasoning --"the law is the law"-- when Obama just chooses to ignore or even completely counterman existing Federal laws??
Perhaps our friend Logroller can explain how that reasoning works when it is not applied to the President who is "supposed to be the people's loyal servant" not their ffing dictator!
Tossing out double standards does nothing to enhance his case IMHO.
And hell no , I'll not bother if he should ask me to list all the laws the scum ignores or even does just the opposite on. Its ffing common knowledge by now. And even a simple Google search will bring up hundreds of examples.
I am simply tired of people saying after I point out that 1512 people perished in the Titanic disaster. OK, now name them... Its ploy to damn often used for me to continue to indulge such tactics. Tyr

Sometimes, "The law is an ass"
-Oliver Twist

[namvet]

why the feds backed off


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU

[NightTrain]

why the feds backed off


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU

Never heard of Steve Lee before, seems like a pretty cool Aussie. I was surprised to see him playing with an RPG... I'd give a lot to be able to shoot one of those bad boys!

Yeah, if there weren't a bunch of militias hauling ass for the Bundy Ranch to assist them in their time of need, the BLM would not have backed off.

Plus the thousands, if not millions, of people suddenly very interested in (and most importantly, actively researching) what Reid was up to with this maneuver.

Backing down was the correct thing to do, but I suspect that if everything was above board and there was nothing to hide, the Feds would have righteously escalated by sending in heavily armed agents & armored vehicles to forcibly win the confrontation.

I saw quite a few comments by individual liberals around the country as I was researching different aspects of this that were commenting about how all the right-wingers were gathering in one area and how they were looking forward to seeing the Feds kill off as many gun owners as possible. Despicable little bastards and craven cowards.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Sometimes, "The law is an ass"
-Oliver Twist
Sometimes, these times , an ass makes himself the law. Some think the ass a messiah too. ;)-Tyr

[Gaffer]

The law is the law is a stupid statement. It implies all laws are just and should followed no matter what until a law is changed. Often stupid and even evil laws don't get changed they just stop enforcement and the law stays on the books but is forgotten.

Laws can be used to target groups and individuals. Our current govt does this all the time. It's the law is the famous fall back line when they are called on it.

What if there were a law against:
Smoking
Obesity
Baldness
Skin color
Hair length
Clothing

You can make a long list of things to be outlawed. And any one of these things could be put into a large bill such as ACA and get passed. And when people complain the response is " the law is the law".

In Bundy's case he was not disobeying any laws he was disobeying an agencies regulations. Regulations are not laws. They are just a means of exerting control over people and property. Usually a means of extorting money to pay for the agency itself. As the tortoise scenario shows.

There are three basic laws needed. Murder, Theft, Assault. These can be broke down into categories. Any laws beyond that are control of the people laws. And those have become very extensive in our society.

We are said to be a nation of laws. What we are, is a nation of too many laws, regulations and rules that are encumbering everything we stand for and that this nation was built on.

[NightTrain]

A friend of mine's son took his .50 cal & went to help the Bundy family during all this.

He's saying the Feds had drones, Apaches and lots of snipers. He said his group had 10 snipers watching government snipers and it was pretty tense.

They all firmly believe this will erupt again as soon as things settle down and everyone disperses.

Apaches would be Army or Nat'l Guard if I'm not mistaken... and I didn't hear about BLM using military personell & assets.

[logroller]

Feds, "their land"!!! Perhaps you forget that the government is not a private concern and that land you claim as "their land" actually belongs in part to every citizen of this country! I only felt the need to remind you of "this little fact" because your comment put such high stock in the land actually be "their land" and yes that's how they view it

Perhaps you haven't read what I've been posting where I actually said the land was held in public trust, managed by the Feds in accordance with constitutional law. Maybe read what I wrote, referenced and explained instead of ignorantly sniping.
You can read right? Do you need me to show the abundance of quotes that showed I know exactly what that land is and who it belongs to. ? Seriously. Better back up that one partner, cause I know what I'm talking about here. Don't believe it-- I challenge you to a one on one on this exact subject; using only the evidence thus far presented by you or I in this thread. You game?


Same way as they view any freedoms we have to be allowances they make! Allowances that they get to pull out on a mere whim ..

first off, most any rule change takes years--this one included.

Our freedoms don't include using what doesn't wholly belong to us as individuals. Do you not understand that just because I'm an American I cant move into Monticello?


It doesn't work that way hoss. Its clear you have no idea how it works. Other than if you're loud enough and stomp your feet, spreading lies about land grabs you get your way. Childish IMO.


Impressive but that degree is not in Constitutional law is it? Or States rights? Or even patriotism. Or individual's rights.. The government doesn't get to trump all those now simply because a ffing so-called "messiah" step onto a newly made throne.
Yes Actually, it covers all applicable fed and state laws, administrative rules and regulations-- including constitutional authority and relevant case law. There's no degree in patriotism that I'm aware; nor individual rights specifically. So why ask such a question??? Why- What do you have a degree in; professional experience? By all means, point out your qualifications to speak to how to best balance the right to use public goods. I'd settle for a demonstration of your ability to do so.
How do your think the Feds should manage lands? Should they forgo economic development so a man can graze his cattle? Doesn't the public have a say over how to use public lands? Was there a public meeting on this exact project--does that suffice? I can go on and on because I do, and have participate in these discussions where it actually counts-- ie not a debate exercise. There's a lot of things at stake that you seem ignorantly blissful not to consider. Its just big bad government...a broken record in a world of digital media. :lol:


21 years and suddenly the GESTAPO choses to step in to rough hand that man and his family? Or doesn't your concern for your fellow man ever reach such a level? -Tyr

It took twenty years because a) he was afforded his right to due process and b) the land didn't have another use to necessitate forcible removal. He was afforded every right protected by the constitution but that wasn't enough for him; he wants to rip off others of their rights.


The man paid the duly appointed authorities there and who gives a pig's shat what the lousy dictatorial Feds want? Or do you think they backed down out of kindness and concern for their fellow man? :laugh::laugh::laugh:
He didn't pay the appointed authorities though; he paid someone who didn't own the land. Its land owned by the USA, managed by the blm and he's been Ripping off the USA for. 20 years. He's a mooch at best IMO. I'd like to go there and get my due too; in the form of a few cattle. Its our land after all-- so all it contains belongs to me as much as Bundy, right?


Here is a hint, they backed down because they knew they were in the wrong and the citizens were about to upset their little applecart right when they were not ready to have it upset. Now don't you worry Hoss , they plan out not backing down in the near future and you will get to see some of your fellow citizens murdered to prove their power.
Next time you say your prayers ask God what the price is for having very little or no concern for your fellow man. Myself, I guess it is a high one.. -Tyr
That's great news; the people of Clark county just have to forgo $5B of local investment and the taxes and jobs that go with it. The price is high indeed.

[namvet]

It came to a screeching halt and a 180º as soon as dirty Harry Reid, his son, the Chinese and Harry's dirty land deals in Nevada were mentioned.

[Gaffer]

A friend of mine's son took his .50 cal & went to help the Bundy family during all this.

He's saying the Feds had drones, Apaches and lots of snipers. He said his group had 10 snipers watching government snipers and it was pretty tense.

They all firmly believe this will erupt again as soon as things settle down and everyone disperses.

Apaches would be Army or Nat'l Guard if I'm not mistaken... and I didn't hear about BLM using military personell & assets.

I was reading a comment on the blaze and some of this was mentioned. It was watched over with satellites and drones by the military to get information on militia members and as a dress rehearsal for things to come. I agree with them, this will erupt again. But they don't want to push too far because of the coming elections. Once the dems lose the house and senate completely then the gloves will come off and it will be no holds barred.

I fully expect Mr. Bundy to get a visit in the middle of the night by federal marshals who kick in his door. It might be a while, but it will happen.

[tailfins]

I was reading a comment on the blaze and some of this was mentioned. It was watched over with satellites and drones by the military to get information on militia members and as a dress rehearsal for things to come. I agree with them, this will erupt again. But they don't want to push too far because of the coming elections. Once the dems lose the house and senate completely then the gloves will come off and it will be no holds barred.

I fully expect Mr. Bundy to get a visit in the middle of the night by federal marshals who kick in his door. It might be a while, but it will happen.

I see him being played like a fisherman reeling in a Marlin. I predict the Feds will just go after his assets and credit. Short circuiting his ability to get income will severely limit Bundy's options.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Perhaps you haven't read what I've been posting where I actually said the land was held in public trust, managed by the Feds in accordance with constitutional law. Maybe read what I wrote, referenced and explained instead of ignorantly sniping.
You can read right? Do you need me to show the abundance of quotes that showed I know exactly what that land is and who it belongs to. ? Seriously. Better back up that one partner, cause I know what I'm talking about here. Don't believe it-- I challenge you to a one on one on this exact subject; using only the evidence thus far presented by you or I in this thread. You game?



first off, most any rule change takes years--this one included.

Our freedoms don't include using what doesn't wholly belong to us as individuals. Do you not understand that just because I'm an American I cant move into Monticello?

Its clear you have no idea how it works. Other than if you're loud enough and stomp your feet, spreading lies about land grabs you get your way. Childish IMO.


Yes Actually, it covers all applicable fed and state laws, administrative rules and regulations-- including constitutional authority and relevant case law. There's no degree in patriotism that I'm aware; nor individual rights specifically. So why ask such a question??? Why- What do you have a degree in; professional experience? By all means, point out your qualifications to speak to how to best balance the right to use public goods. I'd settle for a demonstration of your ability to do so.
How do your think the Feds should manage lands? Should they forgo economic development so a man can graze his cattle? Doesn't the public have a say over how to use public lands? Was there a public meeting on this exact project--does that suffice? I can go on and on because I do, and have participate in these discussions where it actually counts-- ie not a debate exercise. There's a lot of things at stake that you seem ignorantly blissful not to consider. Its just big bad government...a broken record in a world of digital media. :lol:


It took twenty years because a) he was afforded his right to due process and b) the land didn't have another use to necessitate forcible removal. He was afforded every right protected by the constitution but that wasn't enough for him; he wants to rip off others of their rights.


He didn't pay the appointed authorities though; he paid someone who didn't own the land. Its land owned by the USA, managed by the blm and he's been Ripping off the USA for. 20 years. He's a mooch at best IMO. I'd like to go there and get my due too; in the form of a few cattle. Its our land after all-- so all it contains belongs to me as much as Bundy, right?


That's great news; the people of Clark county just have to forgo $5B of local investment and the taxes and jobs that go with it. The price is high indeed.

That is all mighty enlightening and leaves me with this direct reply for a start.
If you have just proved the government's case for them and the Bundy and their supporters are so damn wrong then tell me why the government backed down!! I'll do one better and tell you why . My points had great merit and they knew their actions were indeed absolutely Unconstitutional just like we have been saying all along. Or do you think the ffing government backed down because they knew they were in the right??--Tyr

A suggestion for you amigo. Send your highly enlightened post into the government and chastise them for backing down. Let me know how that turns out. -Tyr



There's no degree in patriotism that I'm aware; nor individual rights specifically. So why ask such a question??? Why- What do you have a degree in; professional experience? By all means, point out your qualifications to speak to how to best balance the right to use public goods. I'd settle for a demonstration of your ability to do so.
So the elitist you now demands that I have degrees to impress you with. And how would you know if I did post certain qualifications? Would you simply take my word for it as you now question both my character and intelligence?-Tyr ty


Maybe read what I wrote, referenced and explained instead of ignorantly sniping.

My posts are my views and certainly not ignorant sniping. IMHO your false accusation stands as a weak mark in your character amigo. We all have our abilities but some here actually do not try to insult the intelligence of others when they know their debate has been shot down. Think yours has not been shot full of holes then explain why this magnificent government backed down and maybe convince that holy entity the error of its ways because you know better than they how they should proceed. Let me know how that endeavor works out. :laugh:

They ran and it therefore follows they were in the wrong despite your protestations declaring otherwise.
That's the reality that truly defeats the conglomeration you just blessed we poor peons with amigo.
I know its sad isn't it??? --Tyr

[DragonStryk72]

Perhaps you haven't read what I've been posting where I actually said the land was held in public trust, managed by the Feds in accordance with constitutional law. Maybe read what I wrote, referenced and explained instead of ignorantly sniping.
You can read right? Do you need me to show the abundance of quotes that showed I know exactly what that land is and who it belongs to. ? Seriously. Better back up that one partner, cause I know what I'm talking about here. Don't believe it-- I challenge you to a one on one on this exact subject; using only the evidence thus far presented by you or I in this thread. You game?

Enclave Clause, Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. Your turn

first off, most any rule change takes years--this one included.

Our freedoms don't include using what doesn't wholly belong to us as individuals. Do you not understand that just because I'm an American I cant move into Monticello?

And the federal government is barred by the Constitution from owning 84% of a state, precisely for the point that they can then have undue authority over the citizenry. Enclave Clause, Article, Section of the US Constitution.

Its clear you have no idea how it works. Other than if you're loud enough and stomp your feet, spreading lies about land grabs you get your way. Childish IMO.

Yes, it was very childish on the part of the BLM, who were doing something that they knew they had no standing for, and had to back out of.

Yes Actually, it covers all applicable fed and state laws, administrative rules and regulations-- including constitutional authority and relevant case law. There's no degree in patriotism that I'm aware; nor individual rights specifically. So why ask such a question??? Why- What do you have a degree in; professional experience? By all means, point out your qualifications to speak to how to best balance the right to use public goods. I'd settle for a demonstration of your ability to do so.

Was the Enclave Clause in your studies of Constitutional Authority?

How do your think the Feds should manage lands? Should they forgo economic development so a man can graze his cattle? Doesn't the public have a say over how to use public lands? Was there a public meeting on this exact project--does that suffice? I can go on and on because I do, and have participate in these discussions where it actually counts-- ie not a debate exercise. There's a lot of things at stake that you seem ignorantly blissful not to consider. Its just big bad government...a broken record in a world of digital media. :lol:

1. By not owning 84% of the land in Nevada, in express violation of the US Constitution's Enclave Clause.

2. No Land management group should be managing all of the ranchers into bankruptcy over a period of decades. Again, this would be in direct violation of the Constitution. The government has no business, and no right, to manage people into the dirt.


It took twenty years because a) he was afforded his right to due process and b) the land didn't have another use to necessitate forcible removal. He was afforded every right protected by the constitution but that wasn't enough for him; he wants to rip off others of their rights.

Except the use for holding the "federal" lands was Unconstitutional, again. He is ripping no rights, as the government itself is guilty of breaking Constitutional lines to begin with, and then we have the severe conflict of interest involved in the point that Senator Reid, who is overseeing the project, has billions of dollars on the line to a foreign power.

He didn't pay the appointed authorities though; he paid someone who didn't own the land. Its land owned by the USA, managed by the blm and he's been Ripping off the USA for. 20 years. He's a mooch at best IMO. I'd like to go there and get my due too; in the form of a few cattle. Its our land after all-- so all it contains belongs to me as much as Bundy, right?

They were not authorities at the time. They were a management group put together to aid ranchers in the management of their lands.

That's great news; the people of Clark county just have to forgo $5B of local investment and the taxes and jobs that go with it. The price is high indeed.

Actually, thanks to the Enclave Clause of the Constitution, all of what the government was doing was completely illegal and un-Constitutional. The US Constitution trumps all local, county, state, and federal laws, as it should.

[namvet]

im going. im in


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ddg7fYtdGUY

http://operationamericanspring.org/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

im going. im in


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ddg7fYtdGUY

http://operationamericanspring.org/



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to namvet again.-Tyr

[fj1200]

If you have just proved the government's case for them and the Bundy and their supporters are so damn wrong then tell me why the government backed down!! I'll do one better and tell you why . My points had great merit and they knew their actions were indeed absolutely Unconstitutional just like we have been saying all along. Or do you think the ffing government backed down because they knew they were in the right?

Because they didn't want to start a shootin' war over cows. And possibly what namvet said.


Actually, thanks to the Enclave Clause of the Constitution, all of what the government was doing was completely illegal and un-Constitutional. The US Constitution trumps all local, county, state, and federal laws, as it should.

I don't think that says what you think it says.

[DragonStryk72]

Because they didn't want to start a shootin' war over cows. And possibly what namvet said.



I don't think that says what you think it says.

I not only read the Clause, but read from John Adams on why that clause was put in, FJ. There was no necessary thing on that land that the feds owned, nor do they have any necessary buildings planned for the property. So the enclave clause is pretty clear in this instance. The federal government, by the Constitution, cannot just own whatever land it wants, and indeed, that was why the clause was put there in the first place, to prevent incidences where the fed owned significant portions of the individual states.

It's already been determined that they're already euthanizing the desert tortoises, and they backpedaled from that reason, so clearly that is not the use. So what was the "necessary" use for the land? Remember, they weren't originally going to shut him down, but put the herd back to 150, but what, then, were they going to do with it? It wasn't because a federal park, nothing, it was just a bunch of land in a state that the Fed owned, part of 84% of NV that is apparently owned by the federal government. That's directly against the Constitution.

[namvet]

I not only read the Clause, but read from John Adams on why that clause was put in, FJ. There was no necessary thing on that land that the feds owned, nor do they have any necessary buildings planned for the property. So the enclave clause is pretty clear in this instance. The federal government, by the Constitution, cannot just own whatever land it wants, and indeed, that was why the clause was put there in the first place, to prevent incidences where the fed owned significant portions of the individual states.

It's already been determined that they're already euthanizing the desert tortoises, and they backpedaled from that reason, so clearly that is not the use. So what was the "necessary" use for the land? Remember, they weren't originally going to shut him down, but put the herd back to 150, but what, then, were they going to do with it? It wasn't because a federal park, nothing, it was just a bunch of land in a state that the Fed owned, part of 84% of NV that is apparently owned by the federal government. That's directly against the Constitution.

does a wind farm qualify?? that's what Reid and his Chinese Ilk had in mind. and the Chinese own land in this country. here?? im not sure. but they could give a rat's ass less about turtles

http://i60.tinypic.com/2litrnn.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Because they didn't want to start a shootin' war over cows. And possibly what namvet said..

Yet they were armed and ready to waste that man and his family over "cows"??? Don't delude yourself amigo, it was never over cows. It was over "power" and land(money)!! When the burner got turned up the ffin' weasely cowards ran like the ffing vermin they truly are!

"Shine da lite on da roaches" and they scurry back into the darkness every damn time. :laugh: -Tyr

[DragonStryk72]

does a wind farm qualify?? that's what Reid and his Chinese Ilk had in mind. and the Chinese own land in this country. here?? im not sure. but they could give a rat's ass less about turtles

http://i60.tinypic.com/2litrnn.jpg

Yeah, but non-US business enterprise isn't a valid "necessary" item, either, so we're still at the same point. However, it does also represent a major conflict of interest, since Senator Reid had a significant personal gain out of using the federal lands in such a manner. Quite likely, had the situation been pushing further, it could've exposed him to scandal.

[logroller]

Q
Actually, thanks to the Enclave Clause of the Constitution, all of what the government was doing was completely illegal and un-Constitutional. The US Constitution trumps all local, county, state, and federal laws, as it should.
That's interesting, the land in question isn't an enclave, nor a national seat. Indeed most case law regarding that clause is concerning electors, not police powers on government property. Perhaps you have some evidence otherwise but, on its face, your argument fails because the land it question here isn't an enclave, a national seat, nor was it ceded by a state. Plus the historical context of the enclave clause stems from the following event:


While congress was gathered at independence hall they were marched on by continental soldiers and Philadelphia refused to lend assistance despite the the pleas of those assembled to draft the constitution and the representatives were forced to flee. From this the need for a national seat, not beholden to any state and under plenary control of the federal government was deemed a necessity to the proper governance of the USA. Delaware and Virginia would each cede ten miles square on each side of the Potomac in exchange for revolutionary war debt forgiveness.


So that's the simple extent of the enclave clause, and unless you're willing to submit further statutes and case law that has expanded the meaning, the clear and indelible nexus of founding intent was the creation of lands exclusive of any state power, not exclusive of any federal power.


But that doesn't quite cover the issue at hand regarding federal property that isn't a enclave.
The constitutional convention occurred around the same time as the northwest ordinance. Indeed many of the same representatives were responsible for the drafting of both. The property clause was meant to constitutionalize provisions in northwest ordinance that were ill-addressed by the articles if confederation in the post-war era. Such considerations included the governs ace of territories, the formation of states from territories, and the authority to hold and protect public property of the United States. In short, article IV. Even in the most conservative application of the property clause, the very least power the USA/blm has is proprietary interest, which would include the power to decide who gets to use the land and for what purpose.


An intriguing premise that the enclave clause renders the USA to less than a simple proprieter. However, its completely divorced from case law, historical context and indeed the founders' intent of both clauses.

[fj1200]

I not only read the Clause, but read from John Adams on why that clause was put in, FJ. There was no necessary thing on that land that the feds owned, nor do they have any necessary buildings planned for the property. So the enclave clause is pretty clear in this instance. The federal government, by the Constitution, cannot just own whatever land it wants, and indeed, that was why the clause was put there in the first place, to prevent incidences where the fed owned significant portions of the individual states.

It's already been determined that they're already euthanizing the desert tortoises, and they backpedaled from that reason, so clearly that is not the use. So what was the "necessary" use for the land? Remember, they weren't originally going to shut him down, but put the herd back to 150, but what, then, were they going to do with it? It wasn't because a federal park, nothing, it was just a bunch of land in a state that the Fed owned, part of 84% of NV that is apparently owned by the federal government. That's directly against the Constitution.

First things first. The world of Con law is completely different 200+ years later, whether it should be or not we can discuss later but as it stands now the land is, and has been, owned by the Federal government. Correct?

And Constitutional or not, Federally owned or not, what is Bundy's "right" to use the land?

BTW, this was more informative than most of the links out there.

Why the Nevada vs. BLM Land Ownership Issue is Confusing (http://www.dailypaul.com/316860/why-the-nevada-vs-blm-land-ownership-issue-is-confusing&sss=1)

[fj1200]

Yet they were armed and ready to waste that man and his family over "cows"??? Don't delude yourself amigo, it was never over cows. It was over "power" and land(money)!! When the burner got turned up the ffin' weasely cowards ran like the ffing vermin they truly are!

"Shine da lite on da roaches" and they scurry back into the darkness every damn time. :laugh: -Tyr

I don't care about cows, I said they weren't going to start shootin' over cows. Whether they start shootin' to enforce court orders is another question altogether.

[NightTrain]

Why the Nevada vs. BLM Land Ownership Issue is Confusing (http://www.dailypaul.com/316860/why-the-nevada-vs-blm-land-ownership-issue-is-confusing&sss=1)



That's a great article, FJ... thank you.

[DragonStryk72]

Q
That's interesting, the land in question isn't an enclave, nor a national seat. Indeed most case law regarding that clause is concerning electors, not police powers on government property. Perhaps you have some evidence otherwise but, on its face, your argument fails because the land it question here isn't an enclave, a national seat, nor was it ceded by a state. Plus the historical context of the enclave clause stems from the following event:



While congress was gathered at independence hall they were marched on by continental soldiers and Philadelphia refused to lend assistance despite the the pleas of those assembled to draft the constitution and the representatives were forced to flee. From this the need for a national seat, not beholden to any state and under plenary control of the federal government was deemed a necessity to the proper governance of the USA. Delaware and Virginia would each cede ten miles square on each side of the Potomac in exchange for revolutionary war debt forgiveness.


So that's the simple extent of the enclave clause, and unless you're willing to submit further statutes and case law that has expanded the meaning, the clear and indelible nexus of founding intent was the creation of lands exclusive of any state power, not exclusive of any federal power.


But that doesn't quite cover the issue at hand regarding federal property that isn't a enclave.
The constitutional convention occurred around the same time as the northwest ordinance. Indeed many of the same representatives were responsible for the drafting of both. The property clause was meant to constitutionalize provisions in northwest ordinance that were ill-addressed by the articles if confederation in the post-war era. Such considerations included the governs ace of territories, the formation of states from territories, and the authority to hold and protect public property of the United States. In short, article IV. Even in the most conservative application of the property clause, the very least power the USA/blm has is proprietary interest, which would include the power to decide who gets to use the land and for what purpose.


An intriguing premise that the enclave clause renders the USA to less than a simple proprieter. However, its completely divorced from case law, historical context and indeed the founders' intent of both clauses.

Actually, the Clause is invoked due to the fact that the land was never ceded by Nevada in the first place. I'm certain that the federal government can imagine all the powers it wishes in Court, but Nevada still got screwed over outside the realm of federal power when it was made a state. Nevada was not given its due process, something extremely un-Constitutional. The Clause was, quite clearly, built so that the federal government couldn't just take whatever land it wanted within the states, and that's exactly what happened in Nevada.

To answer FJ's point, Bundy's "right" to use the land is overshadowed by the US Government lack of right to own the land. If a landlord owns the land I'm living on illegally, and continues shrinking my very ability to live there, that is the point focused on, not my right to live there. Same thing here.

[fj1200]

Actually, the Clause is invoked due to the fact that the land was never ceded by Nevada in the first place. I'm certain that the federal government can imagine all the powers it wishes in Court, but Nevada still got screwed over outside the realm of federal power when it was made a state. Nevada was not given its due process, something extremely un-Constitutional. The Clause was, quite clearly, built so that the federal government couldn't just take whatever land it wanted within the states, and that's exactly what happened in Nevada.

To answer FJ's point, Bundy's "right" to use the land is overshadowed by the US Government lack of right to own the land. If a landlord owns the land I'm living on illegally, and continues shrinking my very ability to live there, that is the point focused on, not my right to live there. Same thing here.


You may have more of a point when all National Parks and such are declared unconstitutional and land is returned to the states. :poke:

Nevertheless Bundy's 'right' to the land is not overshadowed it is attempted to be obfuscated by the question of government ownership. He only has grazing rights if they are granted by the owner, insert the State of Nevada in place of the Feds and it doesn't grant him perpetual use. The whole "Reid and the Chinese" line of argument is a bit on the ridiculous side IMO because they would have exactly the same 'right' to the land that Bundy does; a private entity wishing to use public land for a private purpose.

[DragonStryk72]

You may have more of a point when all National Parks and such are declared unconstitutional and land is returned to the states. :poke:

Nevertheless Bundy's 'right' to the land is not overshadowed it is attempted to be obfuscated by the question of government ownership. He only has grazing rights if they are granted by the owner, insert the State of Nevada in place of the Feds and it doesn't grant him perpetual use. The whole "Reid and the Chinese" line of argument is a bit on the ridiculous side IMO because they would have exactly the same 'right' to the land that Bundy does; a private entity wishing to use public land for a private purpose.

Incorrect, federal park lands were properly ceded by the states for the express use of creating the federal parks. Therefore, it's an apples and oranges comparison. Nevada never ceded the land to the fed, the fed took it, and refused to hand it back over.

Sure, we can change the whole situation, but the situation is what it is. Seeing as the State of Nevada had no issue with him being on the land in the first place, this situation would not exist save for the federal government overstepping its bounds. Having a multi-billion dollar conflict of interest does play into it as well, since we have a US Senator dependent on a foreign power for billions of dollars. Yeah, that's a pretty sizable conflict there, and needs to be brought up.

[fj1200]

Incorrect, federal park lands were properly ceded by the states for the express use of creating the federal parks. Therefore, it's an apples and oranges comparison. Nevada never ceded the land to the fed, the fed took it, and refused to hand it back over.

Sure, we can change the whole situation, but the situation is what it is. Seeing as the State of Nevada had no issue with him being on the land in the first place, this situation would not exist save for the federal government overstepping its bounds. Having a multi-billion dollar conflict of interest does play into it as well, since we have a US Senator dependent on a foreign power for billions of dollars. Yeah, that's a pretty sizable conflict there, and needs to be brought up.

So the issue is proper ceding? That's only a hiccup in the whole story especially if you're going to question why the Federal Government is even supposed to own land Constitutionally speaking. Nevertheless I can agree with conflicts of interest, overstepping bounds, etc. but that doesn't alter the basic question IMO. Everyone is lining up behind one private interest and opposing the idea of another private interest. Strip away all of the extraneous information and what basic right does he have to use public lands.

[Gaffer]

So the issue is proper ceding? That's only a hiccup in the whole story especially if you're going to question why the Federal Government is even supposed to own land Constitutionally speaking. Nevertheless I can agree with conflicts of interest, overstepping bounds, etc. but that doesn't alter the basic question IMO. Everyone is lining up behind one private interest and opposing the idea of another private interest. Strip away all of the extraneous information and what basic right does he have to use public lands.

He's a member of the public. The only purpose for the govt to be involved with public lands is for maintenance. In this case they weren't even doing that. Some agency chief decided to flex his muscles and got called on it. They slaughtered cattle and buried them, that's what the backhoes were for. That in itself is criminal.

Federal agencies have gotten way out of hand. This is just a flash point. If the govt and politicians won't reign in these agencies the people will.

[fj1200]

He's a member of the public.

Maybe I forgot to add, "for a profit-generating purpose." Because no, he doesn't/shouldn't get to do that without oversight/royalties/etc.

[Gaffer]

Maybe I forgot to add, "for a profit-generating purpose." Because no, he doesn't/shouldn't get to do that without oversight/royalties/etc.

Why is oversight necessary? And what purpose would royalties be used for? These are cows eating grass and drinking from streams. The BLM hasn't done anything as far as maintaining the land. They actually destroyed fencing and water storage areas.

Your right it is about profit, but not Bundy's profit. It's about the profits of Dirty Harry and his cohorts.

[NightTrain]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5955&stc=1

[fj1200]

Why is oversight necessary? And what purpose would royalties be used for? These are cows eating grass and drinking from streams. The BLM hasn't done anything as far as maintaining the land. They actually destroyed fencing and water storage areas.

Your right it is about profit, but not Bundy's profit. It's about the profits of Dirty Harry and his cohorts.

I'm not concerned about Bundy specifically. I'm interested in use of public lands for private purposes. Would you make the same argument for mining rights?

[NightTrain]

I'm not concerned about Bundy specifically. I'm interested in use of public lands for private purposes. Would you make the same argument for mining rights?

Grass that regrows naturally to feed cattle is a far cry from a mining operation.

[fj1200]

Grass that regrows naturally to feed cattle is a far cry from a mining operation.

I know, that's why I'm not concerned about Bundy specifically. I'm more interested so I can have Federal lands to ride my motorcycle across someday.

http://www.transamtrail.com/

:bunny4:

[namvet]

What The BLM Really Did To Bundy’s Cows


Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/graphic-photographic-evidence-slaughtered-cows-bundy-ranch/#jqIYrVrRqVoL0yUU.99

[namvet]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zd2SG6jXdo

[Gaffer]

I know, that's why I'm not concerned about Bundy specifically. I'm more interested so I can have Federal lands to ride my motorcycle across someday.

http://www.transamtrail.com/

:bunny4:

You should be able to ride on any public lands you want to.

[logroller]

Actually, the Clause is invoked due to the fact that the land was never ceded by Nevada in the first place.
Correction: it was never ceded to the State of Nevada by the United States. Indeed the following ordinance of the nevada constitution, which is merely declaratory btw, states that the public land remained under control of the United States.



Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.
http://leg.state.nv.us/Const/NVConst.html

To disclaim something is to say it should not be thought to be. That at the bottom of an opinion piece where it says, "disclaimer: this is solely the views of the author and not that of the publisher", that is to say that is not to be construed as the view of the publisher. Add to that, the declaration says "forever."

To wit, the property clause clearly offers such a disclaimer as well, that nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
So as that clause indicates, there is no presupposition of what should be ordained as a property claim by the US, or any State; yet that is exactly what is being done in assuming that, upon admission to the Union, the State of Nevada assumes ownership over all public lands within her borders.


I'm certain that the federal government can imagine all the powers it wishes in Court, but Nevada still got screwed over outside the realm of federal power when it was made a state
National and State sovereignty is no less imagined. Some even believe that We ourselves aren't sovereign over ourselves but rather predestined by The Lord Almighty.
What is more so imaginative is any claim to lands of the United States by the State of Nevada. At this point I've spent nearly 15 hours researching this and I know that when one begins questioning the validity of the Court's rulings, then it's just a matter of brutish tenacity, not reason. And so it is with the Bundy clan who piss on the United States whilst enjoying the harbor of its protection and, indeed its grace. Name me one other country where he wouldn't have been arrested for obstruction or worse ?

So while it may be a waste of my time and energy, I'm compelled to share that there exists a Supreme Court ruling that has considered the US property issue among newly formed States, and just a few years before Nevada became a state. So surely She was aware of such upon admission, as were many States.
See: pollard's lessee v hagan, then consider the following:

The land in question was federal territory prior to their(Nevada's) enabling; it wasn't private property, or state land ceded to form a new state--it was public land ceded to the United States from Mexico. There were terms to such cession, none applicable in the instant case. (Eg, residents could stay and become full US citizens etc) never did the cession include any promise of formation of a new State. Equal footing doesn't apply in this case because no State was ever afforded any right to lands that no State ever possessed-- in this instance the land is the sole property of the United States. Were it a jurisdictional issue over sovereignty, representation etc, ie political issues, or even if the lands were ceded by another state with the express purpose of creating additional states, as was done by Georgia in the pollard case, then it may well be different.....but thats not the case here. These lands have always been, since their cession from Mexico, PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES.



Nevada was not given its due process, something extremely un-Constitutional. The Clause was, quite clearly, built so that the federal government couldn't just take whatever land it wanted within the states, and that's exactly what happened in Nevada.

due process.... for what--not giving them something which wasn't their's to begin with? They were admitted to the Union without title to the land. If that wasn't so then why did the state delegates include a declaration that disclaimed any title or right to public lands in their constitution?



To answer FJ's point, Bundy's "right" to use the land is overshadowed by the US Government lack of right to own the land. If a landlord owns the land I'm living on illegally, and continues shrinking my very ability to live there, that is the point focused on, not my right to live there. Same thing here.

maybe the landlord doesn't want them there-- I don't know-- but as the case before us is not a one of illegal ownership, but rather one of lawful ownership, the land is still in lawful control of the landlord and you can't just pay someone else the rent, reject a lawful order to leave and be lawfully present. The Nevada constitution even declares scotus the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality, and the court has so ruled on property of the US in newly formed states, and found

"that they forever disclaim all right and title to the waste or unappropriated lands lying within the said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States"
cannot operate as a contract between the parties, but is binding as a law. Full power is given to Congress "to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States." This authorized the passage of all laws necessary to secure the rights of the United States to the public lands, and to provide for their sale, and to protect them from taxation.
And all constitutional laws are binding on the people, in the new States and the old ones, whether they consent to be bound by them or not. Every constitutional act of Congress is passed by the will of the people of the United States, expressed through their representatives,
Page 44 U. S. 225
on the subject matter of the enactment; and, when so passed, it becomes the supreme law of the land, and operates by its own force on the subject matter, in whatever State or territory it may happen to be. The proposition, therefore, that such a law cannot operate upon the subject matter of its enactment without the express consent of the people of the new State where it may happen to be contains its own refutation, and requires no farther examination. The propositions submitted to the people of the Alabama territory, for their acceptance or rejection, by the act of Congress authorizing them to form a constitution and State government for themselves, so far as they related to the public lands within that territory, amounted to nothing more nor less than rules and regulations respecting the sales and disposition of the public lands. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/44/212/case.html

[logroller]

Incorrect, federal park lands were properly ceded by the states for the express use of creating the federal parks.

Yellowstone, the first national park was dedicated by Congress in 1872. The States in which it now resides, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming didn't become States until 1889/1890. So how did these States properly cede the land prior to their admittance to the Union?

[DragonStryk72]

Correction: it was never ceded to the State of Nevada by the United States. Indeed the following ordinance of the nevada constitution, which is merely declaratory btw, states that the public land remained under control of the United States.

Which was illegal, log. Please try to keep up with the class. It's nice of you to point out how my point stands.

http://leg.state.nv.us/Const/NVConst.html

To disclaim something is to say it should not be thought to be. That at the bottom of an opinion piece where it says, "disclaimer: this is solely the views of the author and not that of the publisher", that is to say that is not to be construed as the view of the publisher. Add to that, the declaration says "forever."

To wit, the property clause clearly offers such a disclaimer as well, that nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
So as that clause indicates, there is no presupposition of what should be ordained as a property claim by the US, or any State; yet that is exactly what is being done in assuming that, upon admission to the Union, the State of Nevada assumes ownership over all public lands within her borders.

As per the Northwest Ordinance, and Enclave Clause, yes, they were. If the land did not have needful buildings on it (an argument can be made about Yellowstone, but I'll get to that in a minute.

National and State sovereignty is no less imagined. Some even believe that We ourselves aren't sovereign over ourselves but rather predestined by The Lord Almighty.

Exactly, and how is a State to maintain its sovereignty when over 80% is owned by the Federal? You've again helped make my point for me on the purpose of the Enclave, as well as the Northwest Ordinance.

What is more so imaginative is any claim to lands of the United States by the State of Nevada. At this point I've spent nearly 15 hours researching this and I know that when one begins questioning the validity of the Court's rulings, then it's just a matter of brutish tenacity, not reason. And so it is with the Bundy clan who piss on the United States whilst enjoying the harbor of its protection and, indeed its grace. Name me one other country where he wouldn't have been arrested for obstruction or worse ?

Also known as 84% of Nevada? Weird, so the State of New York, for instance, isn't in the United States? Oh wait, it is, of course, and the government owning 84% of it would be insane, and would basically turn NY into a puppet of the government, wouldn't it? Yeah, exactly what John Adams wrote about when they were writing the Enclave Clause.

This isn't another country, so quit trying to switch the subject. Name one other country where they adhere to the Constitution.

So while it may be a waste of my time and energy, I'm compelled to share that there exists a Supreme Court ruling that has considered the US property issue among newly formed States, and just a few years before Nevada became a state. So surely She was aware of such upon admission, as were many States.
See: pollard's lessee v hagan, then consider the following:

The land in question was federal territory prior to their(Nevada's) enabling; it wasn't private property, or state land ceded to form a new state--it was public land ceded to the United States from Mexico. There were terms to such cession, none applicable in the instant case. (Eg, residents could stay and become full US citizens etc) never did the cession include any promise of formation of a new State. Equal footing doesn't apply in this case because no State was ever afforded any right to lands that no State ever possessed-- in this instance the land is the sole property of the United States. Were it a jurisdictional issue over sovereignty, representation etc, ie political issues, or even if the lands were ceded by another state with the express purpose of creating additional states, as was done by Georgia in the pollard case, then it may well be different.....but thats not the case here. These lands have always been, since their cession from Mexico, PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES.

As was Texas, and New Mexico. Funny, but they got to keep their lands within their states, so why the direct prejudicial treatment of Nevada? (BTW, as prejudicial/discriminatory legal practices are, in fact, illegal, this again only aids my point.)




due process.... for what--not giving them something which wasn't their's to begin with? They were admitted to the Union without title to the land. If that wasn't so then why did the state delegates include a declaration that disclaimed any title or right to public lands in their constitution?

For giving them that which was supposed to be theirs from the outset. To treat them like every other state in the union (The Northwest Ordinance), and not to hold land that it is not Constitutionally allowed to hold.

maybe the landlord doesn't want them there-- I don't know-- but as the case before us is not a one of illegal ownership, but rather one of lawful ownership, the land is still in lawful control of the landlord and you can't just pay someone else the rent, reject a lawful order to leave and be lawfully present. The Nevada constitution even declares scotus the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality, and the court has so ruled on property of the US in newly formed states, and found
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/44/212/case.html

Actually, it is also about illegal ownership. You don't want it to be, because you can't sustain the argument, but that doesn't change the argument. It is also unlawful, btw, for the government to run an entire industry out of business (BLM was purposely managing the other ranchers into insolvency, hence the problem starting with them), so again, you're helping to make my point for me. BLM also doesn't own the land, and thus, they are not the landlords, making your analogy inaccurate.

[DragonStryk72]

Yellowstone, the first national park was dedicated by Congress in 1872. The States in which it now resides, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming didn't become States until 1889/1890. So how did these States properly cede the land prior to their admittance to the Union?

Ah yes, pretty simple, actually. The States cut a deal, since Yellowstone, being not entirely in any one state, would not have directly fell under any authority by an individual state. So instead, the federal government owns it, and they reap the benefits of extra tourism and such.

Now, a question: What is on 84% of the land that State of Nevada doesn't own that is needful? It's not all federal park land, it's not federal buildings, in fact most of it is just empty land to no purpose. It's nice that you only want to apply the Constitution situationally, but it doesn't work that way. You still can't get around the main point that the US Government is not supposed to own 84% of any state, period.

[jimnyc]

Excellent thread and excellent arguments from everyone. I only know where my heart leads me in situations like this, and we all know that the heart and the law are 2 different animals. I'm actually learning a lot from reading this thread and the many great points brought up. :)

[jimnyc]

Rand Paul has chimed in, and I'm curious what others think about his comments? As we know, he's one of the leading contenders to run for the presidency.

Rand Paul Backs Bundy in Nevada Standoff With Feds

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul became the first 2016 GOP presidential contender to take a stand on the land battle between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal government, The Hill reported.

The libertarian-leaning Paul is siding with Bundy, though he said the matter should be settled in court.

On April 14, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, weighed in on the issue. "It's not over," he told News4 in Reno. "We can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it's not over."

The next day, in a radio interview with WHAS in Louisville, Paul said, "I think there's an opposite thing to what Harry Reid said, and that's the federal government shouldn't violate the law, nor should we have 48 federal agencies carrying weapons and having SWAT teams," according to The Hill.

The dispute involves land Bundy says his family homesteaded since 1877 and that the federal government says belongs to the United States. As part of a conservation effort to protect the endangered desert tortoise, the Bureau of Land Management announced in 1989 that the land could no longer be used for cattle grazing. Bundy continued to graze his cattle and refused to pay fines calling the federal policy a land grab, The Washington Post reported.

Paul argued that the land should be controlled by Nevada and local authorities, not by the federal government. He said the Bundy family had leased the land from the county and that federal officials should return it to local control, according to The Hill.

Over the weekend, Bureau of Land Management personnel withdrew from a confrontation with Bundy and his militia supporters, the Arizona Republic reported.

"Can everybody decide what the law is on their own? No, there has to be a legal process," Paul said. "But I think there is definitely a philosophic debate over who should own the land. I hope it'll go through a court. But if it were in a court, I would be siding and wanting to say that look, the states and the individuals in the state should own these lands," according to The Hill.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Bundy-Nevada-land-BLM/2014/04/17/id/566107/

[aboutime]

Rand Paul has chimed in, and I'm curious what others think about his comments? As we know, he's one of the leading contenders to run for the presidency.

Rand Paul Backs Bundy in Nevada Standoff With Feds



Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul became the first 2016 GOP presidential contender to take a stand on the land battle between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal government, The Hill reported.

The libertarian-leaning Paul is siding with Bundy, though he said the matter should be settled in court.

On April 14, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, weighed in on the issue. "It's not over," he told News4 in Reno. "We can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it's not over."

The next day, in a radio interview with WHAS in Louisville, Paul said, "I think there's an opposite thing to what Harry Reid said, and that's the federal government shouldn't violate the law, nor should we have 48 federal agencies carrying weapons and having SWAT teams," according to The Hill.

The dispute involves land Bundy says his family homesteaded since 1877 and that the federal government says belongs to the United States. As part of a conservation effort to protect the endangered desert tortoise, the Bureau of Land Management announced in 1989 that the land could no longer be used for cattle grazing. Bundy continued to graze his cattle and refused to pay fines calling the federal policy a land grab, The Washington Post reported.

Paul argued that the land should be controlled by Nevada and local authorities, not by the federal government. He said the Bundy family had leased the land from the county and that federal officials should return it to local control, according to The Hill.

Over the weekend, Bureau of Land Management personnel withdrew from a confrontation with Bundy and his militia supporters, the Arizona Republic reported.

"Can everybody decide what the law is on their own? No, there has to be a legal process," Paul said. "But I think there is definitely a philosophic debate over who should own the land. I hope it'll go through a court. But if it were in a court, I would be siding and wanting to say that look, the states and the individuals in the state should own these lands," according to The Hill.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Bundy-Nevada-land-BLM/2014/04/17/id/566107/

jimnyc. The main, underlying aspect of this story will eventually lead back to the involvement of Harry Reid, and his Appointed friends to the BLM in Nevada.
Seems there is a connection to eventual profiteering on that FED land, destined to become a WIND FARM, where Harry the RAT, and Prime-Idiot stands to make BIG...OBAMA...BUCKS.

[fj1200]

Excellent thread and excellent arguments from everyone. I only know where my heart leads me in situations like this, and we all know that the heart and the law are 2 different animals. I'm actually learning a lot from reading this thread and the many great points brought up. :)

Pick a side ya pansy. :slap:


Rand Paul has chimed in, and I'm curious what others think about his comments? As we know, he's one of the leading contenders to run for the presidency.

Rand Paul Backs Bundy in Nevada Standoff With Feds

...

The libertarian-leaning Paul is siding with Bundy, though he said the matter should be settled in court.

I thought it was already settled in court.

[jimnyc]

Pick a side ya pansy. :slap:



I thought it was already settled in court.

Well, I kinda did when I sorta kinda sided with Bundy in the beginning of this thread. But that was me doing so based on my gut feeling, something seemed off about a bunch of government people showing up armed to take land/cows. But admittedly I didn't know much at all about the law pertaining to this, and the length of the court history already involved here. Then I read posts by Logroller, and some legal pages out there, and started thinking Bundy might be wrong, hence the fact he was always ruled against in court. But then the feds backed off, and I read posts like I did from Nighttrain and DS (and others), and felt that maybe there was protection here, even if the courts did rule against him. And I've read quite a few legal people out there making cases on Bundy's side. Maybe we'll see the SC finishing this one off one day?

And that was my first thought when Paul said that. Maybe he is like me and shooting from the hip without knowing the entire history? Or perhaps he thinks that Bundy has a case in a higher court? Time shall tell!

[fj1200]

Well, I kinda did when I sorta kinda sided with Bundy in the beginning of this thread. But that was me doing so based on my gut feeling, something seemed off about a bunch of government people showing up armed to take land/cows. But admittedly I didn't know much at all about the law pertaining to this, and the length of the court history already involved here. Then I read posts by Logroller, and some legal pages out there, and started thinking Bundy might be wrong, hence the fact he was always ruled against in court. But then the feds backed off, and I read posts like I did from Nighttrain and DS (and others), and felt that maybe there was protection here, even if the courts did rule against him. And I've read quite a few legal people out there making cases on Bundy's side. Maybe we'll see the SC finishing this one off one day?

And that was my first thought when Paul said that. Maybe he is like me and shooting from the hip without knowing the entire history? Or perhaps he thinks that Bundy has a case in a higher court? Time shall tell!

It didn't sound like Paul really stepped very far out on a limb based on what you quoted but there are I'm sure far reaching implications beyond just Bundy's cows, farmers' water rights in Oregon for example. But I tell ya trying to get an idea about the issues from most of the web sites that pop up when googling is an exercise in self abuse. My gut is legally he doesn't have a leg to stand on because it's not his land; politically is an entirely different story.

[fj1200]

http://news.yahoo.com/list-cliven-bundys-supporters-now-know-hes-pro-133625625.html

:facepalm99:

[namvet]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=49864a43e81b" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

a family tradition


http://i62.tinypic.com/1zwzp14.jpg

[jimnyc]

http://news.yahoo.com/list-cliven-bundys-supporters-now-know-hes-pro-133625625.html

:facepalm99:

I think maybe he lost some supporters with this one. I don't think it changes anything in the original saga - but surely will change ones view on Bundy himself.

[namvet]

Reid and Son Called Crooks by Their Own Hometown Paper


Dingy Harry Reid has a problem. His hometown paper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal (LVRJ) is calling him out for his latest criminal caper. Reid has been trying to help his son Emaciated Rory steal from us and his scheme has been exposed by the LVRJ. Rory is a slimy lawyer who is trying to use Harry’s influence to strong-arm the state of Nevada, its main electric power supplier and the federal government to line their pockets with phony “green job” money.

story (http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/04/19/harry-reid-son-called-crooks-hometown-paper/)

[namvet]

I think maybe he lost some supporters with this one. I don't think it changes anything in the original saga - but surely will change ones view on Bundy himself.

hold the phone here. the source is from the NY slime. since when did they start telling the truth?? the post is bogus

[namvet]

the son's a bitch's are trying to land grab in TX and OK as well. including private property

http://htmlimg2.scribdassets.com/6b4pdh3u2o3phqe2/images/1-b351bf7767.jpg

[jimnyc]

hold the phone here. the source is from the NY slime. since when did they start telling the truth?? the post is bogus

Agreed, but I looked further, and there's even video:

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9I-7FN6lWvk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Abbey Marie]

:uhoh:

[NightTrain]

Well, there goes 75% of his support base.

That shouldn't change the fact that the BLM is wrong in the dispute, but there will be a lot less people willing to go take time off work and drive a thousand miles to stand with him the next time they assemble the BLM swat team.

Oh yeah, and no politician is going to defend him or have anything to do with him now. What a knucklehead, he had a good thing going and then he opened his mouth.

[Gaffer]

The man does a poor job of expressing himself. I understand what he was trying to say, he just said it in a bad way. All the interviews I have seen of him show him as not very articulate. But you can bet this is going to be blown way out of proportion and everyone associated with him or supporting him will be branded a racist. This is the kinda stuff the media looks for.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The man does a poor job of expressing himself. I understand what he was trying to say, he just said it in a bad way. All the interviews I have seen of him show him as not very articulate. But you can bet this is going to be blown way out of proportion and everyone associated with him or supporting him will be branded a racist. This is the kinda stuff the media looks for.

He expressed himself poorly but he made one great valid point. The black race has sold itself into servitude to the dem party, the government and handouts. I dare anybody here to call me a racist or a liar for pointing that truth out!! If such a person does I can and will call that person the ignorant , lying graven dog -that person - IS.. I am tired of the truth being destroyed in the name of PCNESS. DEMS HAVE LIED TO THE BLACKS FOR 60+ YEARS and now how them worse off than when the blacks first bought into the great lie. Fact..
The old man put it poorly but the truth was still there to be found..Tyr

[namvet]

to me its not about him but rather the armed militia standing down this socialist regime

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

to me its not about him but rather the armed militia standing down this socialist regime

The Obama spent 20 years in Rev. Wrights racist hate filled church and the dem/libs told us he was not tainted at all but if you ever supported Bundy's cause they now say you are racist because of words Bundy spoke. More hypocrisy from the usual scummy suspects...-Tyr

[namvet]

The Obama spent 20 years in Rev. Wrights racist hate filled church and the dem/libs told us he was not tainted at all but if you ever supported Bundy's cause they now say you are racist because of words Bundy spoke. More hypocrisy from the usual scummy suspects...-Tyr

least we forget


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYqrXVNfYUI

[aboutime]

Despite knowing I have been accused of being a racist many times over the last several years. I do believe. Despite his poorly chosen words that did nothing to help in fighting the real problems of an ILLEGALLY Operating Government agency, condoned, and supported by known LIBERAL RACISTS.

We all know the man had the best intentions. And what we saw, and heard were the result of literally being pushed into a CORNER, by Admitted, Law Breakers from OBAMA, on Down to the lowest, weasel who collects a Government Check...WE PAY FOR.

They can call me racist as much as they want. But when they do. They are helping to prove WHO, and WHERE the real racists are.
There is literally a POLITICALLY CORRECT War of Words overtaking this nation. The masters of DOUBLE-SPEAK, and DOUBLE-TALK just happen to hold all of the Political Power right now.

Americans with real BRAINS, who know, and understand the REAL Truth WILL Overcome all of the ILLEGAL, LAW BREAKING being commanded from Both ends of Pennsylvania Ave.

[namvet]

Agreed, but I looked further, and there's even video:

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9I-7FN6lWvk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

ok. the assumption here is at the beginning he use's the word "nigger" am i correct??? if so listen again. sounds like "nigo" or "nego". if fact its "negro". the video was edited. then posted by the NY slime. do you agree or hear something i don"t ??? listen and you'll hear some guy in the background lead this off.

[fj1200]

hold the phone here. the source is from the NY slime. since when did they start telling the truth?? the post is bogus

Yeah, that's the way to go with this. :rolleyes:

‘That’s exactly what I said’ (http://news.yahoo.com/cliven-bundy-stands-by-racially-charged-comments---that-s-exactly-what-i-said-192309857.html)

[fj1200]

ok. the assumption here is at the beginning he use's the word "nigger" am i correct???

No, not that I've heard.

[namvet]

No, not that I've heard.

i think the guy in the background did

[NightTrain]

I heard Bundy say 'negro'.

All that aside, the only way for Bundy to win is to have political allies on his side.

And now he has none.

Growing political opposition combined with armed militia showing up is what made the BLM back down. Now all Bundy can expect is a lesser number of militia showing up than before, and that's not going to stop anything.

If Obama & Holder didn't have a personal interest in this whole affair, they certainly do now. Reid will launch another operation and this time all Politicians will keep silent.

[fj1200]

i think the guy in the background did

Either way, not the issue.


All that aside, the only way for Bundy to win is to have political allies on his side.

And now he has none.

Why does the right need to elevate these people or why don't they know when to not say anything?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I heard Bundy say 'negro'.

All that aside, the only way for Bundy to win is to have political allies on his side.

And now he has none.

Growing political opposition combined with armed militia showing up is what made the BLM back down. Now all Bundy can expect is a lesser number of militia showing up than before, and that's not going to stop anything.

If Obama & Holder didn't have a personal interest in this whole affair, they certainly do now. Reid will launch another operation and this time all Politicians will keep silent.

So how much of what Bundy was saying is true? Are blacks better off now than they were in the 50's?? In my judgment they are not. I know the racist angle is all the media and Obama bots/sycophants will play out of this but Bundy had a point no matter how poorly he explained it.
Sure Hannity dropped him and political supporters did to but the militia shouldn't drop. Some will but the point of government over reach, high handed tactics to bully the man are still there.

Is it now ok to deny a man his fundamental rights as a citizen because he may be a racist??
He expressed no hatred for blacks just stated he wondered how much better off they are now while under the current government enslavement of (dem designed )freebie programs. . Hell, I wonder that much myself and do not give a damn who doesn't like me saying so..--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Either way, not the issue.



Why does the right need to elevate these people or why don't they know when to not say anything?

Why do so many fools eagerly hop on the race card bandwagon the leftists/libs and media play so often!??

Nothing racist about the point Bundy was making except to asshats, liars, morons, libs and other dumbasses. Gullible cowardly pieces of shat that are eager to surrender their rights and ability to think to these vermin ruling us now. -FF-THAT..--Tyr

[fj1200]

Why do so many fools eagerly hop on the race card bandwagon the leftists/libs and media play so often!??

Nothing racist about the point Bundy was making except to asshats, liars, morons, libs and other dumbasses. Gullible cowardly pieces of shat that are eager to surrender their rights and ability to think to these vermin ruling us now. -FF-THAT..--Tyr

Unfortunately the fool Bundy is not only on the race wagon, he's driving the damn thing.

And it's completely racist to paint an entire group as either worthy of slavery or welfare.


“That’s exactly what I said. I said I’m wondering if they’re better off under government subsidy, and their young women are having the abortions and their young men are in jail, and their older women and their children are standing, sitting out on the cement porch without nothing to do, you know, I’m wondering: Are they happier now under this government subsidy system than they were when they were slaves, and they was able to have their family structure together, and the chickens and garden, and the people had something to do? And so, in my mind I’m wondering, are they better off being slaves, in that sense, or better off being slaves to the United States government, in the sense of the subsidies. I’m wondering. That’s what. And the statement was right. I am wondering.”
http://news.yahoo.com/cliven-bundy-stands-by-racially-charged-comments---that-s-exactly-what-i-said-192309857.html

:facepalm99:

The man should have kept his opinions to cows and his non-existent rights to government land.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Unfortunately the fool Bundy is not only on the race wagon, he's driving the damn thing.

And it's completely racist to paint an entire group as either worthy of slavery or welfare.


http://news.yahoo.com/cliven-bundy-stands-by-racially-charged-comments---that-s-exactly-what-i-said-192309857.html

:facepalm99:

The man should have kept his opinions to cows and his non-existent rights to government land.

Worthy of welfare my ass!! He stated just the opposite of that...
He actually pointed out how bad welfare is for them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
And he did not say they were worthy of either.
Are you always this gullible when reading or viewing videos??

[jimnyc]

ok. the assumption here is at the beginning he use's the word "nigger" am i correct??? if so listen again. sounds like "nigo" or "nego". if fact its "negro". the video was edited. then posted by the NY slime. do you agree or hear something i don"t ??? listen and you'll hear some guy in the background lead this off.

As far as I know, no one is accusing him of saying "nigger" but rather "negro", which some saw as offensive by itself. But the backlash was the racially charged comments he made about slavery and what/how/where the black folks might be better off today. It was the words about how they would have been better off the way they were, more or less. But no, it was "negro" he stated and I don't think anyone stated otherwise.

Hopefully this won't take away from the original issue and his stance, and those supporting him.

[fj1200]

Worthy of welfare my ass!! He stated just the opposite of that...
He actually pointed out how bad welfare is for them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
And he did not say they were worthy of either.
Are you always this gullible when reading or viewing videos??

You should try critically thinking about what those whom you support say. I'll save my support for those who can eloquently express a viewpoint rather than those who knee jerk their way around an issue they know little about.

[namvet]

You should try critically thinking about what those whom you support say. I'll save my support for those who can eloquently express a viewpoint rather than those who knee jerk their way around an issue they know little about.

eloquently express a viewpoint?? anyone in mind or your waiting on old age to set in ???

[fj1200]

eloquently express a viewpoint?? anyone in mind or your waiting on old age to set in ???

There are plenty of people out there but they'll probably be overshadowed by people like this.

[aboutime]

As far as I know, no one is accusing him of saying "nigger" but rather "negro", which some saw as offensive by itself. But the backlash was the racially charged comments he made about slavery and what/how/where the black folks might be better off today. It was the words about how they would have been better off the way they were, more or less. But no, it was "negro" he stated and I don't think anyone stated otherwise.

Hopefully this won't take away from the original issue and his stance, and those supporting him.


jim. Most all of us know. The use of almost ANY WORD these days, becomes the ammunition the real RACISTS need to distract, and re-direct attention from topics they Liberally Do Not Wish to discuss. So. Blaming the man for using such words...in 'their feeble little minds'..is all they need to begin the SCREAMING MATCHES...talking louder than everyone else...and SAYING NOTHING.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You should try critically thinking about what those whom you support say. I'll save my support for those who can eloquently express a viewpoint rather than those who knee jerk their way around an issue they know little about.

Eloquence is often a mark of a scoundrel or con artist. Smooth talkers very often use that ability to deceive. Most con artists are smooth talkers and eloquent when they want to be .
Eloquent talking is highly over rated. While substance and truth is very greatly under appreciated. That is the sad reality of the world we live in. Truth is now as hated as lies should be but are now not!!
I'll take truth and honesty over eloquence any day!!
Then again I am nobody's damn fool!!! ----------------Tyr

[aboutime]

Eloquence is often a mark of a scoundrel or con artist. Smooth talkers very often use that ability to deceive. Most con artists are smooth talkers and eloquent when they want to be .
Eloquent talking is highly over rated. While substance and truth is very greatly under appreciated. That is the sad reality of the world we live in. Truth is now as hated as lies should be but are now not!!
I'll take truth and honesty over eloquence any day!!
Then again I am nobody's damn fool!!! ----------------Tyr

Tyr. Agreed. That eloquence (just an act) from Obama, is what the less educated, and easily-led admired in him, and everyone who works for him. His beloved followers are amazed, and in wonderment when Obama, Jesse Jackson, and Holder use words...most of them have never heard before, nor can they use those ELOQUENT words in any sentence...they understand.

Just AX them!

[fj1200]

Eloquence is often a mark of a scoundrel or con artist. Smooth talkers very often use that ability to deceive. Most con artists are smooth talkers and eloquent when they want to be .
Eloquent talking is highly over rated. While substance and truth is very greatly under appreciated. That is the sad reality of the world we live in. Truth is now as hated as lies should be but are now not!!
I'll take truth and honesty over eloquence any day!!
Then again I am nobody's damn fool!!! ----------------Tyr

:rolleyes: Eloquence is knowing the subject matter and succeeding in not being an idiot. Bundy failed at both.

[namvet]

:rolleyes: Eloquence is knowing the subject matter and succeeding in not being an idiot. Bundy failed at both.

how many Rancher's do you know that are Eloquent ??

[aboutime]

how many Rancher's do you know that are Eloquent ??


FJ only knows ONE. Himself. An Eloquent Idiot!

[NightTrain]

Why does the right need to elevate these people or why don't they know when to not say anything?

I don't know.

This baffles me, it's like he's deliberately sabotaged himself. He has to know better at his age - he had plenty on his plate without wading into this arena.

[NightTrain]

So how much of what Bundy was saying is true? Are blacks better off now than they were in the 50's?? In my judgment they are not. I know the racist angle is all the media and Obama bots/sycophants will play out of this but Bundy had a point no matter how poorly he explained it.
Sure Hannity dropped him and political supporters did to but the militia shouldn't drop. Some will but the point of government over reach, high handed tactics to bully the man are still there.

Is it now ok to deny a man his fundamental rights as a citizen because he may be a racist??
He expressed no hatred for blacks just stated he wondered how much better off they are now while under the current government enslavement of (dem designed )freebie programs. . Hell, I wonder that much myself and do not give a damn who doesn't like me saying so..--Tyr


My point was, this little video did nothing to help and everything to hurt his cause.

Whether or not anyone thinks he was correct in his statements is irrelevant.

He had a slim chance of winning before he pulled this stunt, and now he has none because no relevant politician will touch him with a 10 foot pole or be vilified as a racist - which doesn't fly in this day and age to the voting public. Do you think Rand Paul will continue to support him now? Not a chance in hell.

The media is lurking right now, trying to find anyone stupid enough to support Bundy and will gleefully ruin that person all because of this stupid video.

Bundy ruined his chances at winning this and he has no one to blame but himself for his poor judgement.

[NightTrain]

how many Rancher's do you know that are Eloquent ??

Good point, but none that I've ever known would have willingly shot themselves in the foot for no reason.


This is disappointing, I was really hoping this would be the catalyst to begin a movement to reduce Fed land ownership and in general, federal government.

It was a slim chance, admittedly, but a chance nevertheless.

[namvet]

My point was, this little video did nothing to help and everything to hurt his cause.

Whether or not anyone thinks he was correct in his statements is irrelevant.

He had a slim chance of winning before he pulled this stunt, and now he has none because no relevant politician will touch him with a 10 foot pole or be vilified as a racist - which doesn't fly in this day and age to the voting public. Do you think Rand Paul will continue to support him now? Not a chance in hell.

The media is lurking right now, trying to find anyone stupid enough to support Bundy and will gleefully ruin that person all because of this stupid video.

Bundy ruined his chances at winning this and he has no one to blame but himself for his poor judgement.

this little vid was edited by the NY slime. he's free and clear of it.

[bullypulpit]

1. Ain't no one throwing him off "his" land.
2.The land he's "fighting" for is federal land...you know, owned by all of us.
3. Bundy's in arrears for more than $300,000 in grazing fees. Fees that are about 8 times less than what he'd be paying on private land.
4. The land was established as environmentally sensitive 21 years ago.
5. twenty years of court fights have netted him not a single win.
6. He's never paid the $300,00 federal judgement against him.
7. in 1998, he was issued an order to remove his cattle
8. A few months ago, Bundy was ordered to remove his cattle or have them confiscated. He chose not to do so.

Bundy is no "hero". He's little more than a seditious liar who, apparently, has never recognized the federal government...even before a black man was elected POTUS. He is, in short, the antithesis of a patriot.

Here's a link to everything you need to know about Bundy's "battle".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-long-fight-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/

[bullypulpit]

Eloquence is often a mark of a scoundrel or con artist. Smooth talkers very often use that ability to deceive. Most con artists are smooth talkers and eloquent when they want to be .
Eloquent talking is highly over rated. While substance and truth is very greatly under appreciated. That is the sad reality of the world we live in. Truth is now as hated as lies should be but are now not!!
I'll take truth and honesty over eloquence any day!!
Then again I am nobody's damn fool!!! ----------------Tyr

So the eloquence of the Founding Fathers as expressed in the Declaration of Independence was "over rated" bafflegab? Truth an honesty are most often simply, and eloquently, stated.

[NightTrain]

The very fact that Bully is against Bundy refreshes my faith in St. Cliven.

I knew I was missing something.

Go Bundy!!

[namvet]

http://i58.tinypic.com/2rw8dis.jpg

luv this photo. Americans stand fast against an illegal regime that needs to be destroyed by force

Bundy offered to pay the back tax's to NV. NOT to the terrorists in DC. provide some of the tx money is used to reinforce border patrol. nobody can prove to me he's a racist. just another god damned fuckin' ruse by the retarded left MSM. that' my story and im stickin to it !!!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So the eloquence of the Founding Fathers as expressed in the Declaration of Independence was "over rated" bafflegab? Truth an honesty are most often simply, and eloquently, stated.






Quote Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot View Post

1. Eloquence is often a mark of a scoundrel or con artist. 2.Smooth talkers very often use that ability to deceive. 3.Most con artists are smooth talkers and eloquent when they want to be .
4.Eloquent talking is highly over rated. 5.While substance and truth is very greatly under appreciated. 6.That is the sad reality of the world we live in. 7.Truth is now as hated as lies should be but are now not!!
8. I'll take truth and honesty over eloquence any day!!
9. Then again I am nobody's damn fool!!! ----------------Tyr

Context being so very important I numbered my words so you could get a better grasp of its summation.
For clearly your straw man comparison tossed at me in regards to my supposed disregard of the Constitution and its eloquence is just that an entirely made up concoction !!
For had I been asked I'd gladly admitted the combination of truth and eloquence which that documents represents. However my comment did not discuss directly and specifically our Constitution and its greatness. Did it??

As far as which rates higher truth or eloquence my judgment shall always be that TRUTH is for eloquent words that are lies are only admired foolishly and adored by the ignorant, gullible and evil minded that infest the world.

Furthermore , 8 and 9 were my summation of my previous words in that comment.
Care to address those without erecting a straw man have it pedro. Be careful , number 9 is the damn truth about me. I fight using only one weapon, the best, == truth. -Tyr

[namvet]

constitution ?? founding fathers?? that was systematically eliminated years ago. IMO by 2016 there won't be any country left to govern

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

constitution ?? founding fathers?? that was systematically eliminated years ago. IMO by 2016 there won't be any country left to govern

The bamboy certainly plans on having the job finished by then. His problem is that some of us are going along with the damn program. And murdering us is going to be a hard job and may upset his little applecart methinks ....:laugh: Seeing as how he is truly a leftist coward at heart. -Tyr

[namvet]

The bamboy certainly plans on having the job finished by then. His problem is that some of us are going along with the damn program. And murdering us is going to be a hard job and may upset his little applecart methinks ....:laugh: Seeing as how he is truly a leftist coward at heart. -Tyr

he knows his ass in new mown grass in 2016 so him and his storm troopers wanna do as much damage as possible. burnt offerings

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The bamboy certainly plans on having the job finished by then. His problem is that some of us are going along with the damn program. And murdering us is going to be a hard job and may upset his little applecart methinks ....:laugh: Seeing as how he is truly a leftist coward at heart. -Tyr

Too late to edit.

Should be =


"His problem is that some of us are --NOT-- going along with the damn program."

[jimnyc]

The very fact that Bully is against Bundy refreshes my faith in St. Cliven.

I knew I was missing something.

Go Bundy!!

Odd that Bully appeared out of thin air, and this was the topic he chose to dive into. Regardless...

Hey Bully, since I know you hate executive orders so much - what is your thought on Obama setting records with them? It was odd that you kinda got more and more silent as he wrote more and more orders! :lol:

[fj1200]

how many Rancher's do you know that are Eloquent ??

I would hope for eloquent or smart enough to not speak.

This.


I don't know.

This baffles me, it's like he's deliberately sabotaged himself. He has to know better at his age - he had plenty on his plate without wading into this arena.

And this.


My point was, this little video did nothing to help and everything to hurt his cause.

Whether or not anyone thinks he was correct in his statements is irrelevant.

He had a slim chance of winning before he pulled this stunt, and now he has none because no relevant politician will touch him with a 10 foot pole or be vilified as a racist - which doesn't fly in this day and age to the voting public. Do you think Rand Paul will continue to support him now? Not a chance in hell.

The media is lurking right now, trying to find anyone stupid enough to support Bundy and will gleefully ruin that person all because of this stupid video.

Bundy ruined his chances at winning this and he has no one to blame but himself for his poor judgement.


this little vid was edited by the NY slime. he's free and clear of it.

Just keep telling yourself that.


Odd that Bully appeared out of thin air, and this was the topic he chose to dive into.

Blood in the water. Now if only Republicans would stop throwing out chum.

[namvet]

BTY Reid is not just after Bundy, he's after ALL the rancher's out there. a scam that goes back years and billions in profit for Reid, his bastard son and his chinese "relations"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRjllqYPz4I

[NightTrain]

Odd that Bully appeared out of thin air, and this was the topic he chose to dive into. Regardless...

Hey Bully, since I know you hate executive orders so much - what is your thought on Obama setting records with them? It was odd that you kinda got more and more silent as he wrote more and more orders! :lol:


Just got back from my 300 mile drive from Homer, and was thinking about this whole event and how all the liberals have suddenly embraced thuggish Fed behavior.

Strange, is it not?

As long as they see Obama & Company waving the commie/socialist flag as they force the country down that path, they willingly accept any means to that end.

It's not too far of a stretch to see how Hitler did it as I observe their fervor in this.


However, I still get a chuckle about Bully shaving his head over the oil spill. That made a real difference and I'm sure BP took note. I know I did.

[Gaffer]

It's time to pick nominees for congress and senate. The voting will be in the next week or two in most states. And suddenly here comes bully. He'll ramp up his rhetoric over the next couple of weeks then dis appear again until Nov. I still think he's a paid stooge.

[NightTrain]

It's time to pick nominees for congress and senate. The voting will be in the next week or two in most states. And suddenly here comes bully. He'll ramp up his rhetoric over the next couple of weeks then dis appear again until Nov. I still think he's a paid stooge.


That's something I never considered. He very well could be a paid hack.

If so, he's all for raising minimum wage, because that's a lot more than his debating skills are worth.

Have you ever read the comments down below the articles online for the NY Times and Washington Post and the others? There are clearly quite a few paid stooges disrupting any thoughtful debate that isn't inline with the liberal mindset. One will log off and another will take over with the exact same talking points & misdirects and attacks.

[bullypulpit]

http://i58.tinypic.com/2rw8dis.jpg

luv this photo. Americans stand fast against an illegal regime that needs to be destroyed by force

Bundy offered to pay the back tax's to NV. NOT to the terrorists in DC. provide some of the tx money is used to reinforce border patrol. nobody can prove to me he's a racist. just another god damned fuckin' ruse by the retarded left MSM. that' my story and im stickin to it !!!

Sedition much?

[jimnyc]

Sedition much?

You nitwits talk about how it's a good thing to stand up against authority, about how it's "civil disobedience" when it's done on an agenda you agree with. Now it's somehow wrong - even though the ONLY people who got violent there at all were the Feds. Hypocrite.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Quote Originally Posted by bullypulpit View Post

So the eloquence of the Founding Fathers as expressed in the Declaration of Independence was "over rated" bafflegab? Truth an honesty are most often simply, and eloquently, stated.



Quote Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot View Post

1. Eloquence is often a mark of a scoundrel or con artist. 2.Smooth talkers very often use that ability to deceive. 3.Most con artists are smooth talkers and eloquent when they want to be .
4.Eloquent talking is highly over rated. 5.While substance and truth is very greatly under appreciated. 6.That is the sad reality of the world we live in. 7.Truth is now as hated as lies should be but are now not!!
8. I'll take truth and honesty over eloquence any day!!
9. Then again I am nobody's damn fool!!! ----------------Tyr














Context being so very important I numbered my words so you could get a better grasp of its summation.
For clearly your straw man comparison tossed at me in regards to my supposed disregard of the Constitution and its eloquence is just that an entirely made up concoction !!
For had I been asked I'd gladly admitted the combination of truth and eloquence which that documents represents. However my comment did not discuss directly and specifically our Constitution and its greatness. Did it??

As far as which rates higher truth or eloquence my judgment shall always be that TRUTH is for eloquent words that are lies are only admired foolishly and adored by the ignorant, gullible and evil minded that infest the world.

Furthermore , 8 and 9 were my summation of my previous words in that comment.
Care to address those without erecting a straw man have it pedro. Be careful , number 9 is the damn truth about me. I fight using only one weapon, the best, == truth. -Tyr


^^^^^^^ Bully either did not read this or else chose to it ignore it because TRUTH and he are mortal enemies and he has a record of running from Truth.
I strongly suspect the later is the case.. :laugh:-Tyr

[NightTrain]

^^^^^^^ Bully either did not read this or else chose to it ignore it because TRUTH and he are mortal enemies and he has a record of running from Truth.
I strongly suspect the later is the case.. :laugh:-Tyr


Ignored it, definitely.

The only way to get him to slug it out for a few rounds is to piss him off enough, but invariably he takes his bloody nose & disappears just like Gabby.

Jim summed up what I was driving at earlier - Bully is a true blue hypocrite. It only matters to him that BamBam is driving the bus.