Waco and Ruby ridge all over again

Look. I'm not a lawyer, especially a constitutional lawyer.

All I know is a man stood up against the government for whatever reasons he had. The whole deal smacked of the very hostile take overs of our rights and privileges that each one of us on this site, and those like it ought to be supporting.

When special interest groups can use big government to push their own agendas, then it is you and I that lose in the end.

The reason the government backed down, and even returned the man's cows was because public opinion was in his favor, and people have had enough of the type of behavior they witnessed in Nevada. The drumbeat of this sort of event where everyday people stand up for what they believe is right is becoming a drumroll now. In the near future, it will be so loud you cant ignore it.

If the government can kick off an old rancher whose family has homesteaded the land and ranched it for 140 years, then what kind of rights do you have?

I firmly believe the line is drawn in the sand.

People that used to be "like minded" in places like this are on different sides of the line.

Some are on the side that wants a smaller responsible government that is FOR the people, and recognizes that the PEOPLE are the boss. Not the government ruling the people.

Some people are on the side that fits with their ideals of the government being the supreme power of the land, and anything the government wishes to do is fine with them.

I know what side I am on. And further, I also know to what extent I will go for my beliefs. I'm one of those that has had a bellyful. I may not be anymore right, or any less stubborn than a hard headed old man in Nevada, but I have seen 6 years of crap like the EPA, IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Attacks on the Second Amendment, Environmental terrorist with a blank check and carte blanche, NSA spying, and all the other atrocities that our current administration perpetrates daily.

If given the choice of standing with a stubborn old rancher that believes he is in the right, or standing with BLM agents doing the bidding of an overreaching government. I reckon I'll choose the rancher. No regrets.
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: rockinbbarStu, the County and State level governments WANT the lands under their control.

I was involved in that at the grass roots in Otero County.

At the local level, proper forest management can occur, jobs are created, public safety is brought back into consideration because of the fire hazards being reduced because logging is allowed again...the list goes on and on.

Figures also prove that on the local government level, ONLY the public lands under state control operate in the black. Those under federal control operate at huge losses.





And, we wonder why we have such a huge deficit that the Federal Government can't fix????

They keep buying up land, and buying up land, and managing it at a greater and greater loss to serve the causes of radical environmental groups, with our tax dollars.

Here at home, the US Forest Service just last year planted 9,000 acres of Long Leaf Pine, by hand. Literally, by hand. No tractors, no planters, as is customary here in the flatwoods; whole crew of people walking around with a dibble stick poking holes in the ground, sticking seedlings in the holes, for MONTHS. Not Slash Pine that mature and can be harvested in 15 - 20 years, Long Leaf Pine that take 50 - 75 years to mature to a point where they can maybe be harvested, more nearly 100+ years to harvest.

And, yes this is on the same tract where they refuse a bee lease, where 85% of the roads do not allow vehicular travel, where none of the roads, including those that do allow vehicular travel, aren't maintained at all, where you aren't allowed to hunt nuisance species out of season, aren't allowed to carry a gun out of season unless you have a permit, and where you have to buy a special permit, on top of your state hunting license to hunt during season.
 
Originally Posted By: rockinbbar

The reason the government backed down, and even returned the man's cows was because public opinion was in his favor, and people have had enough of the type of behavior they witnessed in Nevada. The drumbeat of this sort of event where everyday people stand up for what they believe is right is becoming a drumroll now. In the near future, it will be so loud you cant ignore it.


The reason they backed down was someone with common sense saw that it could eventually lead someone to starting a shooting war. The cattle were let go because the protestors stormed the pens, by ten the Interstate was blocked. It was better to let them have the cattle and get the mess of the day settled. You can bet it isn't over. I have no clue what the government has up it's sleeve, but it will happen.
 
Originally Posted By: rockinbbar

I know what side I am on. And further, I also know to what extent I will go for my beliefs. I'm one of those that has had a bellyful. I may not be anymore right, or any less stubborn than a hard headed old man in Nevada, but I have seen 6 years of crap like the EPA, IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Attacks on the Second Amendment, Environmental terrorist with a blank check and carte blanche, NSA spying, and all the other atrocities that our current administration perpetrates daily.

If given the choice of standing with a stubborn old rancher that believes he is in the right, or standing with BLM agents doing the bidding of an overreaching government. I reckon I'll choose the rancher. No regrets.
smile.gif



That bears repeating!! And, I'll damm well stand with the rancher too.
thumbup.gif


I for one have had my fill of government, it is time we start making an attempt to take our country back.
 
Originally Posted By: dogcatcherOriginally Posted By: rockinbbar

The reason the government backed down, and even returned the man's cows was because public opinion was in his favor, and people have had enough of the type of behavior they witnessed in Nevada. The drumbeat of this sort of event where everyday people stand up for what they believe is right is becoming a drumroll now. In the near future, it will be so loud you cant ignore it.


The reason they backed down was someone with common sense saw that it could eventually lead someone to starting a shooting war. The cattle were let go because the protestors stormed the pens, by ten the Interstate was blocked. It was better to let them have the cattle and get the mess of the day settled. You can bet it isn't over. I have no clue what the government has up it's sleeve, but it will happen.


The more coverage it gets, the bigger the crowd will get. People all over the country are waking up, and they're all tired of it.
 
I'm thinking the reason the revenues for state land are higher in the chart is because state lands are sold to create revenue and federal lands are not. That's why there is a desire to transfer federal lands to the states. So the land can be sold to private interests, developers, ranchers, etc. I would hate to see this in the west because hunters would lose access to public lands that become private property and have less places to hunt.

Edit: Revenue from state land, whether it's from sales or leases, are allocated to specific beneficiaries (mostly the school system) and none of the profits are allocated back to the land for maintenance. State lands are not managed for future use, only for their present value.

Originally Posted By: rockinbbarFigures also prove that on the local government level, ONLY the public lands under state control operate in the black. Those under federal control operate at huge losses.

 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: rockinbbar
I thought the SCOTUS ruling in 2009 about States vs Federal was the latest ruling of any sort on the matter.

Quote:
However, in 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declared that Congress doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally change “the uniquely sovereign character” of a state’s admission into the Union, particularly “where virtually all of a state’s public lands are a stake.” Hawaii v. OHA.

This is an apples versus oranges and has nothing to do with Bundy issues. The Hawaii land was Hawaii land and they wanted too sell it, and the some of the citizens of Hawaii said no, Hawaii took it to court and the citizens lost.

Quote: The Supreme Court today restored Hawaii's authority to sell 1.2 million acres of state land without resolving prior claims by native Hawaiians.

"The state Supreme Court incorrectly held that Congress, by adopting the Apology Resolution, took away from the citizens of Hawaii the authority to resolve an issue that is of great importance to the people of the state," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court in a unanimous decision, which reversed and remanded the case.

In 1994, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and four native Hawaiians filed a lawsuit to prevent the state from selling public land to residential developers.

In 2002, a state court ruled that Hawaii could sell the lands. But in January, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed the ruling, contending that Congress' 1993 Apology Resolution prohibited the state from selling or exchanging any of its land unless and until a political settlement was reached with native Hawaiians.

Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett (R) asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. Attorneys general of 29 other states filed a friend-of-the-court brief, agreeing with state officials who contend that the Apology Resolution should be construed as strictly symbolic.

During oral arguments before the court in February, Bennett urged the justices to go beyond addressing the effect of the apology resolution and consider who had proper ownership of the ceded land.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed reservations about doing so. "Why is it necessary? Why isn't it sufficient just to say that this resolution has no substantive effect, period?" she asked during the arguments.

Meanwhile, Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to be leaning in the opposite way.

"As I read federal law, it extinguished all property rights in these lands," Scalia argued at the time. "If you are telling me the Hawaii Supreme Court is now finding as a matter of state law that there is a property interest on the part of the native Hawaiians -- I don't care what you call it, equitable or whatever -- it seems to me that is flat contradiction of federal law, and probably is an issue that we ought to address in this opinion."

Today's opinion did not "venture in that direction," said Matthew Fletcher, director of Michigan State University's Indigenous Law Center.

"While the court imagined during oral argument -- in particular, Justice Scalia -- that it could rule that under no circumstances under federal or state law could the Office of Hawaiian Affairs prevent the sale of the land by the state, it did not venture in that direction, leaving it to the state court to decide," he said.

Fletcher added, "The case on remand to the Hawaii Supreme Court will be about whether there is an independent state law ground for the outcome reached below. I suspect both parties to the case are reasonably pleased with the result -- which is a remand."
 
Originally Posted By: dogcatcherOriginally Posted By: tnshootistI have not heard who asked for the military looking people to be involved or who approved and sent the military looking people. State and local law I understand, but those guys look to be from out of town. Who would have the authority to OK such an action. Why was the Guard not used if they wanted to protect the public as stated. Military looking people with no patches on their uniform don't seem an above board public service.

If I was guessing I would guess they are employees of the BLM and other government agencies. Quite a few former military service members go to work for various government agencies when they get out of the military. Therefore they look like the military in both dress and demeanor.

I think it is important that any government agency be easily identified. How would anyone know who to hold accountable for their actions. The issue of land lease is an important one. To take the point of some, those people work for the citizens or if they don't, who do they work for. This may be more important to the whole nation. If someone wants to enforce their will on citizens they better be telling who they are, otherwise they might be mistaken for thugs. We had better not put up with armed men in unmarked vehicles with unmarked uniforms enforcing the will of unnamed bosses. That can only lead to bad trouble. In this case in NV uniformed officers were willing to taze citizens in broad daylight while on camera. What would unnamed military looking folks from "some government agency" be willing to do after dark.
 
I predict the Feds will be back with substantially more force and will perform a fast and powerfull "shock and awe" style operation. They experienced quite an opposition the first time around alone with lots of cameras and coverage. They won't make that mistake again. By the time the public here's about it, it will be over. With no video evidence.
 
FS,

I should have posted the link on that. It is revenues only reflected only. Not land sales.

http://landandlivestock.wordpress.com/20...ed-by-the-feds/

Ken Ivory is pretty reliable about bringing the facts to the table on those issues of public lands. But, I agree that sale of state lands and even other public lands should not happen unless the same rules of eminent domain are followed. After all, it is sale of land that belongs to someone. FWIW, NM has completely stopped selling state land. For awhile under a couple of land commissioners, and corrupt governor Bill Richardson, it did happen though.

The USDA Forest Service sells way more public land than the states ever did.

http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/disposal.shtml

Most of the lands for sale are re-entrant tracts of land that are essentially land locked within private land.

Most of the state land I saw change hands was in fact a "land swap" where it was in the better interest of both parties to make the adjustments for boundary reasons.

DC, I differ with your opinion of apples to oranges somewhat. The very substance of who controls public lands in state vs federal is exactly the issue. But, we can split hairs on court cases and post stuff until the server gets hot, supporting our side. Bottom line is that much of the public is fed up with the federales management, or mismanagement of public lands, and are seeking or exploring other remedies.
 
I wonder if the turtle people see that they have been used by reid and cronies yet. On a world note, I hear putin is going to get an unlisted phone number. oboma is getting on his nerves. The same government who shows overwhelming force to a rancher in the US looks like a punk to the rest of the world. oboma would be better suited leading the protesters in NV ,he might be good at that.
 
In the Hawaii case the state of Hawaii wanted to sell state land to private developers. Some other Hawaiian didn't want the sale to go through. The Supreme Court ruled the feds had no business telling the state of Hawaii what to do with their state owned land. Nothing was in the case about federal lands. The Bundy issue is completely different.
 
It ain't over yet. Dingy Harry to the rescue.

New Raid on Nevada Ranch could be Coming: Senator Harry Reid Threatens Rancher ‘it’s not over’

Filed under News, Police State April 14, 2014 Posted by: Rob Richardson

Senator Harry Reid, who has been implicated in using the BLM to steal a Nevada Rancher’s land for his friends at a Chinese Solar Company, is now threatening the rancher with further federal action.

In a statement given to NBC4 in Reno, Reid said, “it’s not over.” … “We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.”

But as many in the area are pointing out, this has little to do with the cattle, and more to do with Reid’s attempt to steal even more Nevada land to enrich himself and help fund his son’s political ambitions. It’s pretty ironic that someone who has made millions violating the law, is now using the “law” as a justification for an armed invasion on American soil.

Harry Reid: the architect of the Bundy Ranch Invasion?

The Bureau of Land Management is headed by longtime friend and former Reid aide Neil Kornze, who was confirmed by the Senate as BLM director on Tuesday, just as armed BLM agents descended on the cattle ranch outside Mesquite, Nevada. Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid, has been the chief representative to the Chinese solar firm, which is trying to use land near the Bundy Ranch to build a $5 billion solar plant.

Over the years, the Harry Reid has used his political influence to make a number of similar shady deals throughout Nevada. He’s been accused of doing business with the mob and using his influence to manipulate zoning ordinances throughout the state – in one instance making over $700,000 that he failed to disclose, because of his partnership with a Las Vegas lawyer whose name has surfaced in federal investigations involving organized crime.

Supporters still at Bundy Ranch, armed and ready for a possible confrontation.

Bundy supporters remain at the ranch, fully expecting a raid from the Federal Government. According to World News Daily, The executive director of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association says his sources inside the federal government is warning that the BLM’s weekend retreat was only a move to distract attention and diffuse tensions, and that a raid on the family’s ranch still is planned.

Richard Mack, the former sheriff of Grisham County, Ariz. told WND “I don’t think it would be possible” to launch a raid without violence. “I don’t think the Bundys would lie down and be taken.” In a separate Radio Interview given late this afternoon, Mack said his sources at the BLM and inside the Las Vegas Metro Police Department confirmed that a raid was imminent.

This afternoon, federal officers could be seen moving back into the area, along with a number of Clark County officers who arrived with a large prison transportation bus.

http://offgridsurvival.com/harryreid-threatens-bundyranch/
 
If Harry Reid wants the land so bad? Why isn't he there packing a taser instead of our LEO's??

It's time this country comes back too the people! The government is going to get a wake up call and we will see exactly who wins very soon I am afraid!


The word about dirty politicians is spreading like wildfire and the Sleeping Giant is awakening!
 
Originally Posted By: dogcatcherIn the Hawaii case the state of Hawaii wanted to sell state land to private developers. Some other Hawaiian didn't want the sale to go through. The Supreme Court ruled the feds had no business telling the state of Hawaii what to do with their state owned land. Nothing was in the case about federal lands. The Bundy issue is completely different.

You don't have to convince me...

I'm just quoting the legal precedent that state governments are using to pursue public lands within their own borders. It's not for me to decide whether it's apples and oranges, that's above my pay scale.
smile.gif
Evidently though, lots of lawyers for lots of states feel it probably applies.
wink.gif


http://landandlivestock.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/public-lands-held-in-trust/

Quote: This decision led to further investigation into the terms of statehood and why the federal government ever held title to the public lands in the first place. Based on these investigations, five states have now passed legislation (ID, MT, NV, UT, and WY) to analyze the process for the transfer of public lands to willing western states. The South Carolina Assembly passed a resolution supporting the transfer of public lands because eastern states are spending billions – the federal government doesn’t have – to pay western states to not utilize their own lands and resources to care for themselves. Other states, east and west, are presently contemplating similar legislation.
 
youv been hitting the nail right on the head rockinbbar what we the people want to do with our lands we should be able to do i am sick and tired of being told what we can and cant do

Im sure glad we still have real patriots in this country like Bundy. for now on i am going to hunt what i want when i want how i want. The gov has no business regulating that. These are our lands i dont see them out taking care of game populations.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top