Nevada Rancher Standoff

[Cedar Park Dad]

Highly relevant. Your responses indicate how you hold the Constitution.

Anygunanywhere

You equate efficiency with the Bill of RIghts? Thats..unique.
EDIT: Are you aware of an efficient government?

There is a difference between inneficiency and tyranny.

Anygunanywhere

This is true. Thats not what you brought up though in somehow discerning "how I hold the Constitution. "

[Dadtodabone]

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.

No Sir. The reason it was a net loss then, was the reservation of mineral and water rights to the Feds.(bold red)

[The Annoyed Man]

More BLM hijinks....this time, in Texas:

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/ ... hers-land/
RED RIVER RUMBLE? BLM Wants to Seize 90,000 Acres of Texas Ranchers’ Land!

The Red River is the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma…or is it?

Byers, Texas along the Red River — The BLM stole 140 acres of the Tommy Henderson ranch thirty years ago. They took his land and paid him absolutely nothing. He sued and lost. Now the BLM is using that court case as precedent to do it again. The problem is, the land they want to seize is property that ranchers have a deed for and have paid taxes on for over a hundred years.

The BLM claims that about 90,000 acres (116 miles along the Red River) have never belonged to Texas in the first place. They will seize the land and it will seriously change the boundaries between the two states.

[sjfcontrol]

More BLM hijinks....this time, in Texas:

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/ ... hers-land/
RED RIVER RUMBLE? BLM Wants to Seize 90,000 Acres of Texas Ranchers’ Land!

The Red River is the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma…or is it?

Byers, Texas along the Red River — The BLM stole 140 acres of the Tommy Henderson ranch thirty years ago. They took his land and paid him absolutely nothing. He sued and lost. Now the BLM is using that court case as precedent to do it again. The problem is, the land they want to seize is property that ranchers have a deed for and have paid taxes on for over a hundred years.

The BLM claims that about 90,000 acres (116 miles along the Red River) have never belonged to Texas in the first place. They will seize the land and it will seriously change the boundaries between the two states.

Sooo…. Now we have a bureaucracy re-designing state boundaries?

[jmra]

More BLM hijinks....this time, in Texas:

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/ ... hers-land/
RED RIVER RUMBLE? BLM Wants to Seize 90,000 Acres of Texas Ranchers’ Land!

The Red River is the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma…or is it?

Byers, Texas along the Red River — The BLM stole 140 acres of the Tommy Henderson ranch thirty years ago. They took his land and paid him absolutely nothing. He sued and lost. Now the BLM is using that court case as precedent to do it again. The problem is, the land they want to seize is property that ranchers have a deed for and have paid taxes on for over a hundred years.

The BLM claims that about 90,000 acres (116 miles along the Red River) have never belonged to Texas in the first place. They will seize the land and it will seriously change the boundaries between the two states.

Sooo…. Now we have a bureaucracy re-designing state boundaries?

If it were me there would be a fight - I know I would lose, but there would be a fight.

[The Annoyed Man]

More BLM hijinks....this time, in Texas:

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/ ... hers-land/
RED RIVER RUMBLE? BLM Wants to Seize 90,000 Acres of Texas Ranchers’ Land!

The Red River is the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma…or is it?

Byers, Texas along the Red River — The BLM stole 140 acres of the Tommy Henderson ranch thirty years ago. They took his land and paid him absolutely nothing. He sued and lost. Now the BLM is using that court case as precedent to do it again. The problem is, the land they want to seize is property that ranchers have a deed for and have paid taxes on for over a hundred years.

The BLM claims that about 90,000 acres (116 miles along the Red River) have never belonged to Texas in the first place. They will seize the land and it will seriously change the boundaries between the two states.

Sooo…. Now we have a bureaucracy re-designing state boundaries?

Exactly. Do they do the same thing along the Colorado river (Utah, Nevada, Arizona, California), Missouri river (Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri), Ohio River (Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois)? That's just three rivers, affecting the boundaries between 16 states. And BLM got the authority to do this exactly how?

[mamabearCali]

You know eventually these alphabet agencies will come for all of us. The BLM may not have your number, but the EPA is about to give themselves authority over ever puddle in the US. So if your land ever gets wet or ever has gotten wet they will be there to tell you how the corn will now be grown on "their" land. They are intent of forcing us to all bow to them. They are intent on breaking and impoverishing all of us. When they come, they will have the support of the law because they wrote the law. They will have the courts because it is their guy that is judge. So disparage Bundy call him names, but one day all of us will be where he is unless something drastic happens.

[Right2Carry]

You know eventually these alphabet agencies will come for all of us. The BLM may not have your number, but the EPA is about to give themselves authority over ever puddle in the US. So if your land ever gets wet or ever has gotten wet they will be there to tell you how the corn will now be grown on "their" land. They are intent of forcing us to all bow to them. They are intent on breaking and impoverishing all of us. When they come, they will have the support of the law because they wrote the law. They will have the courts because it is their guy that is judge. So disparage Bundy call him names, but one day all of us will be where he is unless something drastic happens.

[mojo84]

You know, the more I see on TV of this the less I understand why the fight. I haven't seen a blade of grass yet. If Bundy is actually being charged anything for grazing cattle, he is getting charged way too much. Maybe he's holding back his payment until the guvment actually grows some grass for his cows to graze on. At this point, I can't imagine what they are eating based on what I've seen.

[mamabearCali]

I think they have some scrub bushes out there....but yeah....Nevada is sparse. I have only been there once and it was hands down the ugliest place I have ever been. Still does not mean that the FEds should own the ugly.

[mojo84]

Agreed

[RoyGBiv]

You know eventually these alphabet agencies will come for all of us. The BLM may not have your number, but the EPA is about to give themselves authority over ever puddle in the US. So if your land ever gets wet or ever has gotten wet they will be there to tell you how the corn will now be grown on "their" land. They are intent of forcing us to all bow to them. They are intent on breaking and impoverishing all of us. When they come, they will have the support of the law because they wrote the law. They will have the courts because it is their guy that is judge. So disparage Bundy call him names, but one day all of us will be where he is unless something drastic happens.

You've been very consistent in this thread, distilling the essence of what is most troublesome with what is going on in this case. I believe it's possible, based on available facts, to be on either side of the specific issue of whether Bundy is right or wrong, but as you have very succinctly stated several times, it would require burying your head in the sand, sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "la-la-la-la" at the top of your lungs to avoid seeing how wrong the BLM's actions have been. Is there any question that our government has become far, far too at ease with raising arms against those from whom it derives its authority?

[Beiruty]

Harry Reid now says the supporter of the Bundy Rancher are "Domestic Terrorists" It would be an other ugly Waco.
Video is here: http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/r ... terrorists" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[suthdj]

Harry Reid now says the supporter of the Bundy Rancher are "Domestic Terrorists" It would be an other ugly Waco.
Video is here: http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/r ... terrorists" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I figured this was the next logical step now all militas, oath keepers, etc will be tagged as the domestic terrorists.

[mojo84]

Wait till the government goons show up in their newly acquired MRAPs. Reid is stoking the fire.