Thursday, April 10, 2014

Good show, boys.

The whole situation in Nevada stinks.  Either the federal government thinks that the general public won't do anything should they perpetrate another mass murder a la Ruby Ridge or Waco, or the federal government is trying to provoke a fight.  Either sickening, or terrifying. 

It really doesn't look like people are taking this lying down, this time: twenty cowboys bypassed the unconstitutional Bureau of Land Management, and rounded up some of Bundy's cattle, and returned them to his property.  Good show, there.

What I want to know is this: since when is the federal government permitted to appropriate land without due compensation.  Since they seized lands held in common, they should have paid the full market value to each person who owned/used the land for grazing. 

Since they didn't, it's my read of the situation that Bundy is entirely in the right, and the federal government is entirely in the wrong.

Then again, any time the government is up against the citizen who has committed no crime, the citizen is always in the right, and the government is always in the wrong. 

Our Founding Fathers knew this.  It's why they wrote into the constitution that the government is not permitted to write a law naming someone a criminal, nor are they allowed to criminalize behavior after it's been committed, then prosecute, to deliberately turn someone into a criminal. 

I really miss my country. 

26 comments:

  1. once yet again it all depends on who you talk to , more important on who you listen too! I live in the county where all this is going on. He has never, ever owned the land in question. Never. It was not "appropriated". It is federally owned land managed by the Bureau of Land Management who charges $1.35 per month per steer for grazing. That is a good deal if you have ever tried to feed a steer. Mr. Bundy has never paid one dime of the grazing fee to the BLM and has been delinquent over a decade. Try not paying your bills for 20 years and see what happens. He is wrong! Just like Randy Weaver was wrong to saw off shotguns! It is not a case of the big bad government picking on the little guy. It is a case of a person who thinks if he yells loud enough about the constitution he will get away without paying like he has for 20 years! There are legal channels to use when there is a dispute with the BLM. He would rather gather up a bunch of malcontents and cry victim. I am sick of trouble making malcontents thinking they can just arbitrarily ignore the laws they don't like. If you don't like a law, take the appropriate measures to have it changed,don't think that sedition bordering on treason is somehow patriot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the "free speech area" is okay by you? Good to know.

      Delete
    2. They also assaulted a female cancer victim and a pregnant woman..... I wonder if that floats his boat. That's what his big government wet dream likes to do.... attack people they know that can't defend themselves.

      Delete
    3. Oh, you mean like Obama not enforcing the laws he and Holder don't like? Or making them up as he goes along? That kind of malcontent?

      Delete
    4. why don't you address me directly Matt! You have got the whole internet to hide behind.I knew all the hate mongers would crawl out of the wood work to attack the old rat for having the audacity to mention some facts. Oh, well. I am used to it. If you don't want me commenting on your blog HH just say so. I will leave and not come back.

      Delete
    5. What is it you want me to say to you?

      If I call you out, like Senior and JUGM did last year, you still won't do anything. You'll just chicken out like you did year with Senior, go on back to your own blog, write some stupid crap and beat up on religious people, beat up on tea party types, whine to Lotta Misery some more and declare victory.

      So why don't you answer HH's question about free speech? Is free speech only allowable in areas defined by the feds?

      BTW, you had your chance buddy. You had a lot of people who tried to be your friend, but because they are conservatives and/or religious you mocked them relentlessly, belittled them because they offered to pray for you, got some of your sorry friends to do the same on your blog and and finally ran your mouth once too often on Stephen's blog until he put a stop to it.

      Take your so called big government "facts" and shove them making sure you don't damage the one nut you have left in the process.


      Delete
    6. ouch! that really hurt. Stephen took offense at something I said on my blog as I recall. No matter. Free speech is free speech. You can make fun of my injuries and that is free speech. You can voice your deluded opinions all you want and that is free speech. Advocating sedition is not free speech. For the record I chose not to name call Senior or his wife and show them more respect than they showed me. It's called turning the other cheek you ignorant bible thumper. It is the way you believers are supposed to act and don't.

      Delete
    7. Yeah yeah heard it all before.....

      Delete
    8. didn't learn anything then either did you!

      Delete
    9. Gee, buddy, I think you've been giving the feds some lessons..... they chickened out today just like you did last year to Senior.

      No insult to me will change that. If HH allows to let this thread continue, then insult me all you want. It's just more of your hot air that we've all gotten used to. Disparage me if you want, accuse of sedition, insult my beliefs..... doesn't change anything. You guys backed down. YES, I said you. One big chicken amongst many.

      It must really irritate you that a bunch of folks that you despise, many of them "ignorant bible thumpers" made your all powerful federal government turn tail and back down. All your jackbooted heroes backed down today to people many of some of whom were unarmed. You can paint it any color you want, claim anything you want, but I've already seen the video footage of your buddies leaving with their tail between there legs after their threat to shoot people today was ignored. While they were leaving, I saw "WE THE PEOPLE" standing there applauding.

      When it comes down to playing "cowboys and communists", you communists will ultimately lose just like they lost today in Clark County, Nevada.

      Delete
  2. by the way, the bureau of land management is not now nor has it ever been unconstitutional. Anytime an ignorant malcontent thinks his precious rights to be a ignorant malcontent are stepped on suddenly everything becomes unconstitutional. Whey those people can discuss the Homestead Act, the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, or the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 for that matter then maybe a discussion of the constitutionality of ignoring grazing fees can be addressed. Until then, they are wrong and in violation of clearly established law which has been in effect since before most of them were born. They need to buy fewer guns and read more books.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just because a law is on the books doesn't make it constitutional. Most of them aren't.

      And just because something is legal, doesn't make it right--same as making something illegal doesn't make it wrong.

      I have read the United States Constitution, and everything not enumerated in the constitution as something the federal government is responsible for is reserved to the states or the people. And the federal government is not constitutionally responsible for land management. That is reserved entirely to the states. In this case, the federal government is overstepping its boundaries.

      Delete
    2. I am not going to debate this with you. The land started out belonging to the government when they acquired it for the people. Some is still federal land and the grazing and the mineral rights are protected for all, not the few. If a law is wrong then see about changing it lawfully, not with threats and name calling and complaining and violence. The lawful way. Not as much fun as wearing camo and eating MRE's but the correct grownup adult way to do it none the less.

      Delete
    3. By the way, before the Gadsden Purchase it all belonged to Mexico not Joseph Smith and his followers. Joseph Smith didn't buy it, the United States of America bought it.

      Delete
  3. Sweet Lady, we both are in agreement. The Mormon's of the west have grazed cattle on that land since the middle 19th century. Long before the Fed's moved in and seized control, and long before the west became part of the current federal government. If I'm not mistaken, we the people, the taxpayers of this nation, own the land. Not the damn BLM.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Long before the land was even recognized as part of the United States--the Mormons ran out there because it wasn't, because the United States refused to recognize Mormonism as a religion to be left alone like all the others. They have preemptive rights over some damn endangered tortoise species.

      Delete
    2. federal land is held in trust for the American people. Do you want to build a house at Yellowstone or the bottom of the Grand Canyon, you don't have that right. It belongs to all of us. If you want to own more cattle than you can afford to feed, the American people charge $1.35 a month per cow. The fees go to offset taxes that would have to be spent on maintenance , upkeep and administration .Not obeying the laws of the land is the same as advocating anarchy. It is not peaceful protest or civil disobedience it is treason.

      Delete
    3. Stephen, be careful not to make any sudden turns. You might break Tewshooz's neck .

      Delete
  4. Constitutionally the federal government is not to own land beyond 10 square miles (the District of Columbia) and any land that it deems necessary for the defense of this nation. Land that has been purchased by consent of the individual states, such as for military bases. The Acts, you cite that created this mess, thumbed its nose at the Constitution. They fail to follow the rule of this land.... the Constitution.

    To help you along with how the feds have come into 'ownership' of these huge acreages of land I offer you this article to read - Our Federal Landlord, written by Dr. Michael Coffman. Dr. Coffman's article offers an excellent explanation based upon years of research. You may find the Hage families' experience with the BLM and USFS agencies in Nevada in this article quite interesting, too. Enjoy your read.

    http://rangemagazine.com/specialreports/range-wi12-our_federal_landlord.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. one more time for all the good it will do.It is the Bureau of Land Management. Management. The country (meaning it's citizens) own the land and the government agency manages it. Like hiring a management company to manage rental property. They collect fees for its use. Every year thousands of RVers descend on BLM land to dry camp for the winter months. They pay a small fee which helps to cover maintenance and cleanup . Grazing fees have been around a long time. So have property taxes, business licenses and many other things that try and regulate our great country in a sane and orderly fashion. A anti government ministry is not in a position to give "fair and balanced" opinion, ironically. Every law quoted has stood the test of time. Most of the farms in Oklahoma were started by the Homestead Act. Deeded mining claims provided a way to secure ownership and profits and have been administered for a long time by the government. Malcontents and law breakers experiences with the government do not concern me. The law is the law until it is changed legally. If all this is so unconstitutional why aren't you guys trying to change it. The republcans have been the majority for awhile and all they have done is deny Veterans much needed help, take food out of the mouths of orphans and attempt 50 times to repeal Obamacare. No jobs, no worthwhile legislation of any kind has come. Bush was President for 8 years. Why didn't anyone complain about all this unconstitutional stuff when you had a President who would have been sympathetic to your arguments? I don't want to read an article in Rangemagazine written by a malcontent about how unfair everything is. Of course, you would cite that reference , he agrees with you. The law is the law.

      Delete
    2. You're just another know it all Liberal. Boring.

      -Moe

      Delete
    3. Wow, you have a burr under your saddle and you're bitter. Republicans are no better than Democrats. The division is a blur. Quit voting for them because of the letter behind the name unless they are worthy of the vote. Many don't deserve the office. Quit buying crap from China. Quit buying food products that come from south of the border or overseas. Let these companies know we want American made. And we want Americans employed, not border jumpers who are breaking the law. As for Obamacare - the whole thing should go in the dumpster and be burned. Make the insurance companies open their books and allow plans to cross state lines. My family was one of those 'fictional' people who lost their healthplan and given a new one at a higher cost with less coverage. Go figure. And, yes, the vets are getting screwed. They deserve much more than what they are given. The government would much rather give some illegal border jumper the nation's bounty than give our vets the justice they deserve. Scream at your congress critter - tell him/her that they are doing a lousy job and you are not voting for them. Look at their voting record and their finances. Are they worth what you are paying for? They are working for us - not the other way around.

      You really should read the article instead of plugging your ears and humming to yourself because you just may be wrong. People have been screaming about these issues for YEARS! Dr. Coffman isn't a malcontent. His writing is based on fact and research that is not dictated by the government. More than what I can say about the greenie groups and universities.

      Read the article. Seriously. You just don't get it - they (govt) go after the little guy first (ranchers, farmers, individual land owners) and find the bleeding hearts (city people who rely on the government to give them their daily bread) or special interest group to support their 'cause'. Then little by little they expand their reach to the next group and eventually we're all in the same hole. The weak, 'undesirables' and dissenters will be the first to go. History has taught us that.

      Delete
  5. And if the BLM & FS are like rental management companies of 'our' land then they are doing a crappy job of managing it. Look at any of the proposed or claimed areas for any pseudo endangered species of choice. The majority of it is on private land, not public. Why is that? Reason why - government does not have a vested interest in the well being of the land. They are lousy stewards because they have a different agenda. Individual property owners who make a living from their land are interested in keeping their land in working order and many love animals, too. Shocker. How many acres of forests have been scorched because of the lack of grazing or logging to thin out overgrown brush, diseased or overgrown trees? Have you ever entered a burn area? Some places burn so hot that the ground becomes sterile and crystallized. It takes decades for them to recover. Then whatever grows are weedy invasive species that choke out any native vegetation.

    How many generational farmers and ranchers have been run out of business and forced to sell off their land at below market value because their property was deemed unusable from the laws and restrictions enforced upon them from their land being designated as a 'sanctuary', 'national monument' or 'park' either by congressional act or executive order?

    Here's a fine example: A rancher whose family owned part of Santa Cruz Island for many years. An agreement was made to allow the family to continue to ranch on their portion of the island (Nature Conservancy owned the other half) for an additional 30 years upon his death, in which after the 30 year period the property would be donated to the Nature Conservancy and Park Service. That agreement didn't last even 10 years before they were sued and removed so the Conservancy and Park Service could play 'god', in which they poisoned and massacred animals that they deemed unfit for their island utopia. Look up Santa Cruz sheep. The Nature Conservancy hired helicopter 'hunters' to kill the sheep and let their carcasses lie, rotting in the Pacific sun. A group of citizens were allowed to rescue the sheep since they felt that the massacre was a waste of money and a fine breed of sheep. These sheep are now listed on the Critically Endangered livestock species list because of their unique breed characteristics. The Nature Conservancy also did an aerial massacre of the wild pigs on the island - shot and left to die and rot in heaps. Someone offered to do the deed if they could collect the pigs to be slaughtered an give the meat to the homeless shelters and food banks. But that was denied. Much better to let it become a toxic waste than allow the poor and hungry to have a decent meal. The Golden Eagle was to be shot because it preyed upon the fox that lives on the island. Shot only because the feds weren't smart enough to know that capturing and moving the birds to northern CA, that the birds would migrate back to their home turf. Rats were poisoned because they preyed upon a certain bird. The name of Nature Conservancy is somewhat an oxy-moron, eh?

    But you are correct that the law is the law and that if it is unjust that it should be changed. But the law is not the issue here - at least not completely - the point being is that constitutional rights are being trampled upon and they are just as much your rights as they are mine and anyone other American citizen. You should be outraged but go ahead, ignore this minor fact of the Constitution and continue along with your life in your government authorized housing, eating your gmo-toxic laden-government authorized rations that go along with your government authorized healthcare that treats you for the ailments caused by your imported, factory farmed frankenfood.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm the one who is bitter? The whole point I was trying to make is anger and confrontation is not the answer. This is not the wild wild west. This is 2014. It is time to leave the gunfight at the OK corral in the history books and move into the new century. We have a system. We have laws. There is a right way to effect change and anger and militia is not the way. I know the government is not perfect, not even close, but throwing it all in the garbage can and starting over is not the answer. That is anarchy and I respectfully disagree with that option.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And how was this country founded, lets see, maybe by anarchy? Yes we have laws, but it's ok for your boy, Barack to circumvent the health care law how many times now, 30 plus times to appease the poll numbers and his political contributors. What is your answer to HH's question about free speech area's without googling it!!!!!!!!!!! ANSWER IT!!!!!

    ReplyDelete