TexasCHLforum.com

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I can't believe people are taking the side of a __________ just because he's ginning up anti government resentment.

I find it rather easy to believe this. Americans are pretty fed up with government intrusion. Many folks don't need a legitimate cause before they weigh in. We can't even make a phone call without it being recorded (and please don't say metadata, we know the whole thing is recorded, NSA admitted it last week). Hopefully November elections will result in some steam being let off and a change in tone.

IMO, we're only a few weeks away from seeing the Bundy's behind bars, after a better organized raid on them.

Agreed. There is a lot of resentment out there.

I have not done enough research to have a strong opinion one way or the other on this issue. However, with all that has been going on lately and what has recently come to light about what our government has been doing and is doing to citizens, I am not so quick to give them the benefit of the doubt. In my opinion the benefit of the doubt has to be earned similar to respect.

What makes you so sure this is not another Catherine Engelbrecht situation? You can give them the benefit of the doubt if you want but don't expect me to.

mojo84 wrote:I have not done enough research to have a strong opinion one way or the other on this issue. However, with all that has been going on lately and what has recently come to light about what our government has been doing and is doing to citizens, I am not so quick to give them the benefit of the doubt. In my opinion the benefit of the doubt has to be earned similar to respect.

What makes you so sure this is not another Catherine Engelbrecht situation? You can give them the benefit of the doubt if you want but don't expect me to.

I'm not giving them "the benefit of the doubt" The feds have won 20 years of court cases against this guy. Its government land, not his.

Government or public land?

This may have already been brought up, but if the Feds think they are owed money why don't they put a lien against his property instead of being such instigators. Putting a lien will allow the issue to play out in the courts.

BLM came long after the Bundy family. The Bundys had a deal with the county when BLM showed up and changed the terms unilaterally. If that was wrong to do to the Indians, it's wrong to do to the Bundys.

Cedar Park, there are many things the courts get wrong. Many times court cases come down to who can afford the best legal team and not necessarily what is right and legal. As an attorney, you are well aware of that.

The lien has been brought up by many.


I think all Texans should remember something. In 1836 Texas by all rights belonged to Mexico. By all rules of law in the area the freedom fighters were nothing more than land pirates deserving of no quarter. They died at Goliad and at the Alamo, but they set up San Jacinto. The desire for freedom from a corrupt state was overwhelming and in the end they were victorious.

These ranchers have been oppressed and abused by the govt. A govt which colludes with itself to deprive men of their property, their livelihood, and sometimes their lives at the slightest provocation. We have all started to feel the pinch of the Feds of late. We are all feeling the weight of corruption on us, The FEDS and all govt in general would be wise not to set up an Alamo, unless they want a San Jacinto.


So for everyone saying the laws the law.......perhaps you think we should be swearing fealty to a green and red flag with an eagle on it. Because that was the law in 1836.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:[quote

The rancher took his argument back to the 19th century, when Nevada became a state. According to him, the federal government did, in fact, control the land when Nevada was a territory. But, he claimed, when the territory became a state, the government turned that land over to the sovereignty of the state of Nevada, and thus the federal government lacks the power to control it today.

Then he's wrong, a liar, and a grifter. Two courts affirm he's wrong.

I can't believe people are taking the side of a grifter and welfare queen just because he's ginning up anti government resentment.

welfare queen? this guy WORKS and probably WORKS harder than you or any two of you.
I can't believe you're ok with your government setting up snipers on an old man and his family. I can't believe you're ok with your government throwing women to the ground. Several calves were left orphaned because of the methods of the round-up, because for some reason it had to be done NOW, during calving season, but hey he's a bad guy.
you've repeatedly said you're mad at this guy and you're ok with what happened, you do understand what happened? and that this is what happened, right?

there are better ways of collecting debts, much better ways....this wasn't about collected debts, this was about making a scene, this was about running him off of his land, they want him off all the land, not just off the fed land.

mamabearCali wrote:The lien has been brought up by many.


I think all Texans should remember something. In 1836 Texas by all rights belonged to Mexico. By all rules of law in the area the freedom fighters were nothing more than land pirates deserving of no quarter. They died at Goliad and at the Alamo, but they set up San Jacinto. The desire for freedom from a corrupt state was overwhelming and in the end they were victorious.

These ranchers have been oppressed and abused by the govt. A govt which colludes with itself to deprive men of their property, their livelihood, and sometimes their lives at the slightest provocation. We have all started to feel the pinch of the Feds of late. We are all feeling the weight of corruption on us, The FEDS and all govt in general would be wise not to set up an Alamo, unless they want a San Jacinto.


So for everyone saying the laws the law.......perhaps you think we should be swearing fealty to a green and red flag with an eagle on it. Because that was the law in 1836.

Eloquently said. The same applies to the actions of certain individuals preceding the American Revolution. Although it didn't deal with land, there was a certain party in Boston where some private property protected by the crown was purposefully destroyed. Since we won that skirmish, those individuals a hailed as patriots. Had we lost, they'd be known as criminals.

Yeah, many of the Brits think we are nothing nothing more than traitors because of the Revolution. Sure glad those rabble rousers did what they did.

Me and sjf were typing at the same time.

I agree with Judge Nap. Armed agents in the BLM, why? http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/04/15/ju ... med-troops" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mamabearCali wrote:The lien has been brought up by many.


I think all Texans should remember something. In 1836 Texas by all rights belonged to Mexico. By all rules of law in the area the freedom fighters were nothing more than land pirates deserving of no quarter. They died at Goliad and at the Alamo, but they set up San Jacinto. The desire for freedom from a corrupt state was overwhelming and in the end they were victorious.

These ranchers have been oppressed and abused by the govt. A govt which colludes with itself to deprive men of their property, their livelihood, and sometimes their lives at the slightest provocation. We have all started to feel the pinch of the Feds of late. We are all feeling the weight of corruption on us, The FEDS and all govt in general would be wise not to set up an Alamo, unless they want a San Jacinto.


So for everyone saying the laws the law.......perhaps you think we should be swearing fealty to a green and red flag with an eagle on it. Because that was the law in 1836.

Please this isn't the Texas Revolution. This is a grifter in the middle of nowhere cheating the govenrment because he can.
Its federal property. They can do what they want. I propose they an artillery range there.

mojo84 wrote:I agree with Judge Nap. Armed agents in the BLM, why? http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/04/15/ju ... med-troops" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Considering Bundy was making threats to them, I can understand why.

Incrementalism.

If fed.gov gets away with it this time, their next incursion will be worse. None of our oxen are gitting gored this tiem. What about the next time?

None of my family has had BLM snipers aiming at us. None of my brothers have been tazed for protesting. None of my sisters have been slammed to the ground by federal thugs. Why should I care? Why should you care?

Incrementalism.

Eventually it will happen more and more.

The only reason they backed off is because the feds are shaking off dirt from everything else that is going on. Election year.

It will not stop.

Who is next?

You better think again about trusting federal courts to dole out justice. The courts stopped being about justice a long time ago, just like the Constitution is no longer the rule of the country.

Anygunanywhere