TexasCHLforum.com

Cutting through some of the chaff.
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=HFiosLqjoQQ[/youtube]

sjfcontrol wrote:Cutting through some of the chaff.
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=HFiosLqjoQQ[/youtube]

Pretty much underscores what I posted earlier.

Hard to sift through the information and misinformation on this one, but the fact that we have yet another government agency that's been exposed to be militarized combined with the shady solar farm dealings pretty much forces my hand in favor of Mr. Bundy.

sjfcontrol wrote:Cutting through some of the chaff.
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=HFiosLqjoQQ[/youtube]

"All we need is a law enforcement official with a spine" - narrator should read "All we need is a law enforcement official with a spine who is not a card carrying member of a hijacked political movement of deep corruption".

From the government website. This is a cached snapshot. Those of you that are trying to claim the government didn't make a claim about the tortoise, you are wrong.
http://archive.today/nvlzr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is obviously a divisive topic with myriad opinions on who's right or wrong or who is at fault or how it could've been handled better (or more drastically). It bother's me that some would use derisive terms regarding Mr. Bundy. One could call him a scofflaw for his unpaid fees I would allow, but he believes he's right just as someone fighting the IRS thinks they're right. It's not a direct anology, but I think the point is made. However, he's neither a grifter nor a welfare queen. I don't know if the terms were used to incite responses and get a rise out of others or the poster doesn't know the definition of the terms.

I do not think the man will prevail and after it's a done deal we will all go back to our routines. Some of us will be of the opinion we have slipped further toward the precipice of an overbearing out of control government; some will view it as a victory of the a law; some will even be glad he gets his comeuppance. I hope it ends without further confrontation, but I have my doubts the feds will allow themselves to lose face again.

I guess the Boston Tea Party could be defined as a group of scofflaws.

Word is starting to get out about what the real motivation behind this is. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/ ... n-did-he-/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's not about a tortoise, grazing fees or over grazing cattle. As usual, follow the money.

I am certain the Feds will find a way to take their pound of flesh from him. I hope we can avoid violence. Let this go back to the courts get Bundy a crack lawyer and a new judge not in the BLM's favorite list. Hopefully that will give Bundy a more fair shot.

What I am hopeful about is that perhaps this will put the spotlight on how legislators are taking "our land" and leading it to foreign entities. I am also hopeful that perhaps we can reign in the BLM and force them through the legislature both state and federal to treat ranchers with more respect, and put a check on them being a law into themselves.

If these sort of things cannot happen, if the system is do corrupted that none if this is possible, then we might really be looking at trouble.

sjfcontrol wrote:Cutting through some of the chaff.
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=HFiosLqjoQQ[/youtube]

Exactly. I watched it earlier today. It helps that the narrator also takes time to debunk some of the wilder conspiracy claims, and his other facts are rock-solid. If you watch this and you aren't convinced that something deeply scurrilous and corrupt is going on, then you simply don't want to let go of your cherished shibboleths.

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:What raid? Where was the raid and when? Because all I know id that the BLM was going to close the range and seize cattle that were on it. I never heard anything about a raid. That is my issue. The lies to support a position. It isn't that I agree with the BLM, it's that if you are right you shouldn't have to lie to make your point. If it is right then make the case with the truth. And I really don't want you to take that personal. I'm not trying to say you are lying it's just that the "FACTS" that people are throwing around just are not. They are not the facts. They are not an accurate representation of the conflict and how and why it's going on. I try and point that out and suddenly I'm 100% fed loving and any second someone will start calling me a liberal flunky. It just isn't true.

You've got a mighty funny definition of raid. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/raid?s=t" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"a sudden assault or attack, as upon something to be seized or suppressed: a police raid on a gambling ring."

The feds suddenly showed up at the location and began seizing cattle legally owned by the Bundy family. If that isn't a raid, please tell us what is.

Since it was on property under their control I still say "RAID" doesn't fit these circumstances.

mojo84 wrote:From the government website. This is a cached snapshot. Those of you that are trying to claim the government didn't make a claim about the tortoise, you are wrong.
http://archive.today/nvlzr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A Claim? What claim? It doesn't say that Bundy's lease was revoked because of the tortoise. It lists damage to the habitat as occurring because of someone who doesn't even have a lease anymore and that "The Center for Biological Diversity has demanded action to resolve trespass in designated critical desert tortoise habitat in several letters." They did notify BLM that they would sue to make the BLM remove the cattle but they aren't the "government"

EEllis wrote:Again that just isn't accurate. Hoover tried to give most of the lands to the States in 32 and they wouldn't take them but it was federal land from the point that it was part of the US and the land still belongs to us which is why the BLM manages it instead of them just anyone being able to do anything on the land. And you still haven't stated why it's criminal.

Your statement appears on the surface to be accurate. The Western Governors Conference did, in 1932, reject the Hoover Administrations 1929 proposal to turn control of Federally administered public land over to the States. I've also read in this thread that it was due to the lack of revenue said lands would generate, resulting in a net loss of revenue to the States that accepted said proposal. Thus leaving the Feds to "Protect" the lands the states didn't want.
Cow Flop.
While cloaking the proposal in a States Rights banner in a letter to the Governor's Conference "It may be stated at once that our Western states have long since passed from their swaddling clothes and are today more competent to manage much of their affairs than is the federal government. Moreover, we must seek every opportunity to retard the expansion of federal bureaucracy and to place our communities in control of their own destinies." however condescending, President Hoover's intent was to increase federal revenue.
What you failed to include in your statement is the fact that the proposal reserved all water and mineral rights to the Federal government. Utah Gov. George Dern in 1932 stated his position this way: "The states already own, in their school-land grants, millions of acres of this same kind of land, which they can neither sell nor lease, and which is yielding no income. Why should they want more of this precious heritage of desert?"
Unable to sell, lease, develop, mine, farm or ranch without the approval of a Federal bureaucracy.
How much power does that Bureaucracy wield when it controls the water you drink, use to farm or ranch and create industry?
How about a President who can lock up $350 Billion of low sulphur/low ash coal with the sweep of his pen to enrich foreign contributors?http://www.energyunites.us/Post/energy- ... a093eae885
How many Billions of $s in revenue do those lands now generate annually for the U.S. Treasury?
Newmont Mining extracted 849 Tons of gold from the Carlin Trend in N.E. Nevada between 1965 and 2001. New discoveries have propelled reserve estimates into multiple thousands of tons.
The Western States are no less sovereign than their eastern brethren. Washington isn't London and the Western States aren't Crown Colonies administered for the enrichment of a few at the expense of those who reside within their borders.

Dadtodabone wrote:

EEllis wrote:Again that just isn't accurate. Hoover tried to give most of the lands to the States in 32 and they wouldn't take them but it was federal land from the point that it was part of the US and the land still belongs to us which is why the BLM manages it instead of them just anyone being able to do anything on the land. And you still haven't stated why it's criminal.

Your statement appears on the surface to be accurate. The Western Governors Conference did, in 1932, reject the Hoover Administrations 1929 proposal to turn control of Federally administered public land over to the States. I've also read in this thread that it was due to the lack of revenue said lands would generate, resulting in a net loss of revenue to the States that accepted said proposal. Thus leaving the Feds to "Protect" the lands the states didn't want.
Cow Flop.
While cloaking the proposal in a States Rights banner in a letter to the Governor's Conference "It may be stated at once that our Western states have long since passed from their swaddling clothes and are today more competent to manage much of their affairs than is the federal government. Moreover, we must seek every opportunity to retard the expansion of federal bureaucracy and to place our communities in control of their own destinies." however condescending, President Hoover's intent was to increase federal revenue.
What you failed to include in your statement is the fact that the proposal reserved all water and mineral rights to the Federal government. Utah Gov. George Dern in 1932 stated his position this way: "The states already own, in their school-land grants, millions of acres of this same kind of land, which they can neither sell nor lease, and which is yielding no income. Why should they want more of this precious heritage of desert?"
Unable to sell, lease, develop, mine, farm or ranch without the approval of a Federal bureaucracy.
How much power does that Bureaucracy wield when it controls the water you drink, use to farm or ranch and create industry?
How about a President who can lock up $350 Billion of low sulphur/low ash coal with the sweep of his pen to enrich foreign contributors?http://www.energyunites.us/Post/energy- ... a093eae885
How many Billions of $s in revenue do those lands now generate annually for the U.S. Treasury?
Newmont Mining extracted 849 Tons of gold from the Carlin Trend in N.E. Nevada between 1965 and 2001. New discoveries have propelled reserve estimates into multiple thousands of tons.
The Western States are no less sovereign than their eastern brethren. Washington isn't London and the Western States aren't Crown Colonies administered for the enrichment of a few at the expense of those who reside within their borders.

Yep it was a net loss back in 32 which is why the feds wanted to get rid of them. The States understandably didn't want the land but now that there are chances to provide income it's unconstitutional for the feds to have the land? Yeah OK. Not now but back then it was fine.

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:From the government website. This is a cached snapshot. Those of you that are trying to claim the government didn't make a claim about the tortoise, you are wrong.
http://archive.today/nvlzr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A Claim? What claim? It doesn't say that Bundy's lease was revoked because of the tortoise. It lists damage to the habitat as occurring because of someone who doesn't even have a lease anymore and that "The Center for Biological Diversity has demanded action to resolve trespass in designated critical desert tortoise habitat in several letters." They did notify BLM that they would sue to make the BLM remove the cattle but they aren't the "government"

Twist it however you want. It was on the BLM website as one of the justifications the government used to justify their actions and it directly counters your comment that Bundy is the one that originally made the assertion it was about a tortoise. I understand you love to argue and you and the government are never wrong a even when it's obvious you are. I'll let it go at that as it is obvious to any objective person that the government was determined to remove the man and his cattle. I do find it interesting they removed the page from their website.

Now, how about the part where the actions of the government further enrich Reid's family? Is that not worthy of being addressed? Is it no big deal since he is part of the all righteous government?

What you failed to include in your statement is the fact that the proposal reserved all water and mineral rights to the Federal government. Utah Gov. George Dern in 1932 stated his position this way: "The states already own, in their school-land grants, millions of acres of this same kind of land, which they can neither sell nor lease, and which is yielding no income.

Yep it was a net loss back in 32 which is why the feds wanted to get rid of them. The States understandably didn't want the land but now that there are chances to provide income it's unconstitutional for the feds to have the land? Yeah OK. Not now but back then it was fine.[/quote]

Defend the theft of state property by your larcenous fed government.