Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[/B]
AND has a powerful close friend in Washington like Sen. Harry Reid.
Harry Reid - Coyote Springs
This long history between the two men caused some to claim that actions which Senator Reid took to assist Mr. Whittemore in getting the environmental rulings needed to develop the property were improper and beyond what would be done for a non-donor.
He is the last of the Ranchers' who has not caved in. The rest all sold out.
By the end of the 1990s, the government had bought out all of the existing grazing permits from Clark County ranchers; all, that is except for Cliven Bundys. Bundy refused to sell his rights.
Bunkerville Rancher Prepares To Battle Feds Again For Land - Moapa Valley Progress
So the feds purchased the grazing rights from other ranchers and they accepted. Good for them, I'm glad they found a deal they liked.
Of course none of that changes the fact that this guy is about 20 years behind on his grazing fees and is rightfully having his cattle removed.
In fact NONE of the smokescreens provided by the Action Alert talking points change that very basic fact. Pay up or get off our land. I only regret that they're not gonna make him clean up all that cow shit he's leaving behind on my land.
Yeah, just focus on the one point and not the whole picture of what is really gong on here.
Why should he have to pay double? He is paying the State Fees but not the Federal Fees.
Paying State and Federal for the same thing, brings up the cost on beef prices for us the consumers.
Sorry if the metaphor was a bit too intricate for you. So I'll try to explain.Are you talking about the Davidians or the federal Cossacks?
It happened in Russia too?
The Cossacks were the highest level of what in Czarist Russia might be considered "law enforcement." Their primary function was to protect the aristocracy but they often were used to enforce collection of tribute (taxes) and to punish dissenters, which they were notoriously proficient at. When it was necessary to set an example for the peasantry they would brutally murder an offender and set fire to his house.
If you saw the movie, Doctor Zhivago, you saw the Cossacks in action during an early scene when they rode down a small group of political dissenters on a public street, trampling them with their horses and hacking at them with swords.
Is the metaphor a bit more clear now?
And that is why it is abuse of government power.
The government Changed The Rules via bureaucratic regulatory fiat.
That is not the Rule of Law, it is the Whim of the Bureaucrat, and a hallmark of totalitarianism.
Yeah, now THERE'S a report to hang your hat on - they call this public land the rancher's "ancestral" land in their headline.
LOL - What a crock.
So I guess the family that has lived in public housing long enough can claim the building as their "ancestral" property ?????????
What a croc
Did you know if you squat in a house long enough, you can file to own it legally?
I really don't mean to be disrespectful, but you've repeatedly posted ill-informed, falsehoods regarding this issue.
First- this guy doesn't live on the public lands in question. And none of his family have ever lived on any of the public lands in question. There is no such thing as squatter's rights (adverse possession) to a piece of land you've never squatted on.
Second - This guy (or his family that preceded him) could have filed a homestead claim to at least some of the land in question, but they didn't.
Third - this man has NEVER claimed ownership of the land his cattle are grazing on. But he HAS acknowledged his unpaid debt of grazing fees. The amount is disputed, but the fact that he owes at least $300,000 in back grazing fees is undisputed.
Four - Do you STILL believe that anyone should be allowed to set up their private commercial enterprise on public lands without restriction? If so, what do you think strip malls, clusters of fast food restaurants and maybe a Walmart or two would do for our national parks?
Commercial enterprises DO exit in national parks and on public lands if the business owner pays the appropriate fees.
What's really going on is the man has ignored a court order from a federal judge and hasn't paid fees for 20 years because he doesn't follow federal laws. " his words".So the feds purchased the grazing rights from other ranchers and they accepted. Good for them, I'm glad they found a deal they liked.
Of course none of that changes the fact that this guy is about 20 years behind on his grazing fees and is rightfully having his cattle removed.
In fact NONE of the smokescreens provided by the Action Alert talking points change that very basic fact. Pay up or get off our land. I only regret that they're not gonna make him clean up all that cow shit he's leaving behind on my land.
Yeah, just focus on the one point and not the whole picture of what is really gong on here.
That's what is going on. It's not that complicated of a story
B'loney. The rancher's family had used that land without paying fees for decades. The Feds are trying to harass him out of business. It's also eco-terrorism. The Fed's have declared the grazing area a protective habitat for a tortoise.
1. The rancher's family had been allowed to graze for free on federal land until the Taylor land use act was passed, creating the BLM.
2. No one is "harassing him out of business". He's been actively and admittedly breaking the law for more than 20 years.
3. That area has NOT been declared a "protective habitat" for the tortoise. It's still BLM land, and all of the ranchers that followed the law are still grazing there.
The family started ranching the area in the 1870s. The feds moved in and interfered with their property rights. You can use whatever apparatchik excuse you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact that it's an abuse of government power and an infringement on states' rights.
Why should the Federal government control so much land? There is no national security interest in this.
Did you know if you squat in a house long enough, you can file to own it legally?
I really don't mean to be disrespectful, but you've repeatedly posted ill-informed, falsehoods regarding this issue.
First- this guy doesn't live on the public lands in question. And none of his family have ever lived on any of the public lands in question. There is no such thing as squatter's rights (adverse possession) to a piece of land you've never squatted on.
Second - This guy (or his family that preceded him) could have filed a homestead claim to at least some of the land in question, but they didn't.
Third - this man has NEVER claimed ownership of the land his cattle are grazing on. But he HAS acknowledged his unpaid debt of grazing fees. The amount is disputed, but the fact that he owes at least $300,000 in back grazing fees is undisputed.
Four - Do you STILL believe that anyone should be allowed to set up their private commercial enterprise on public lands without restriction? If so, what do you think strip malls, clusters of fast food restaurants and maybe a Walmart or two would do for our national parks?
Commercial enterprises DO exit in national parks and on public lands if the business owner pays the appropriate fees.
My response was to the living in public housing post.
I never said he claimed ownership of the land, I said his family has grazed their cattle there for generations.
I don't consider grazing your cattle to be in the same vein as putting up a restaurant. Grass grows back, you know that, don't you? In fact, without the grazing it could become so overgrown as to be useless for camping and such.
Why do you equate eating grass with building stores?
I really don't mean to be disrespectful, but you've repeatedly posted ill-informed, falsehoods regarding this issue.
First- this guy doesn't live on the public lands in question. And none of his family have ever lived on any of the public lands in question. There is no such thing as squatter's rights (adverse possession) to a piece of land you've never squatted on.
Second - This guy (or his family that preceded him) could have filed a homestead claim to at least some of the land in question, but they didn't.
Third - this man has NEVER claimed ownership of the land his cattle are grazing on. But he HAS acknowledged his unpaid debt of grazing fees. The amount is disputed, but the fact that he owes at least $300,000 in back grazing fees is undisputed.
Four - Do you STILL believe that anyone should be allowed to set up their private commercial enterprise on public lands without restriction? If so, what do you think strip malls, clusters of fast food restaurants and maybe a Walmart or two would do for our national parks?
Commercial enterprises DO exit in national parks and on public lands if the business owner pays the appropriate fees.
AND has a powerful close friend in Washington like Sen. Harry Reid.
Harry Reid - Coyote Springs
This long history between the two men caused some to claim that actions which Senator Reid took to assist Mr. Whittemore in getting the environmental rulings needed to develop the property were improper and beyond what would be done for a non-donor.
He is the last of the Ranchers' who has not caved in. The rest all sold out.
By the end of the 1990s, the government had bought out all of the existing grazing permits from Clark County ranchers; all, that is except for Cliven Bundys. Bundy refused to sell his rights.
Bunkerville Rancher Prepares To Battle Feds Again For Land - Moapa Valley Progress
So the feds purchased the grazing rights from other ranchers and they accepted. Good for them, I'm glad they found a deal they liked.
Of course none of that changes the fact that this guy is about 20 years behind on his grazing fees and is rightfully having his cattle removed.
In fact NONE of the smokescreens provided by the Action Alert talking points change that very basic fact. Pay up or get off our land. I only regret that they're not gonna make him clean up all that cow shit he's leaving behind on my land.
I really don't mean to be disrespectful, but you've repeatedly posted ill-informed, falsehoods regarding this issue.
First- this guy doesn't live on the public lands in question. And none of his family have ever lived on any of the public lands in question. There is no such thing as squatter's rights (adverse possession) to a piece of land you've never squatted on.
Second - This guy (or his family that preceded him) could have filed a homestead claim to at least some of the land in question, but they didn't.
Third - this man has NEVER claimed ownership of the land his cattle are grazing on. But he HAS acknowledged his unpaid debt of grazing fees. The amount is disputed, but the fact that he owes at least $300,000 in back grazing fees is undisputed.
Four - Do you STILL believe that anyone should be allowed to set up their private commercial enterprise on public lands without restriction? If so, what do you think strip malls, clusters of fast food restaurants and maybe a Walmart or two would do for our national parks?
Commercial enterprises DO exit in national parks and on public lands if the business owner pays the appropriate fees.
My response was to the living in public housing post.
I never said he claimed ownership of the land, I said his family has grazed their cattle there for generations.
I don't consider grazing your cattle to be in the same vein as putting up a restaurant. Grass grows back, you know that, don't you? In fact, without the grazing it could become so overgrown as to be useless for camping and such.
Why do you equate eating grass with building stores?
1) Yes, you did - you claimed squatter's rights which is a claim of ownership.
2) I equate government giving freebies to commercial enterprises with government giving freebies to commercial enterprises.
3) You do realize that people are not "camping and such" amongst the cows don't you?
April 19, 1993 - Waco Tragedy
The 51-day Branch Davidian standoff, with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Fire Arms and Explosives, in Waco, Texas ends in the fiery death of approximately 76 people, including 27 children.
April 19, 1995 - Oklahoma City Bombing
The deadly bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, a government building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma took place killing 168 people and injuring over 800 more.
For more information on this date in history, visit April 19
April 20, 1999 - Columbine School Shooting
Two deranged students stalk classmates and teachers killing twelve students and one teacher before killing themselves at the Columbine High School in Colorado.
For more information on this date in history, visit April 20
April 16, 2007 - VA Tech Massacre
Crazed lunatic kills two students in the early hours of the morning and then goes across the campus of VA Tech to kill 30 more students and wound nearly 30 more.
For more information on this date in history, visit April 16
The Bloody Month of April
Wars that began during the month of April are:
The American Revolution (1775)
The American Civil War (1861)
The Armenian Genocide (1914)
The Bosnian War (1992)
The Rwandan Genocide (1994)
Assassinations during the month of April:
President Abraham Lincoln (1865)
Martin Luther King Jr (1968)
These are just the tip of the iceberg. Visit the link below, click on each day of the month of April and read what has occurred during this bloody month.
April, Bloody April: Waco Tragedy, Oklahoma City Bombing, Columbine School Shooting and VA Tech Massacre - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com
The Illuminati goes back to the very beginning of our nations history. They are satanists. The first Illuminati / Satanist family to arrive in America were the Collins family. Some changed their name to Todd. You'll note quite a few in politics, Hollywood films, the occult / horror films, Look up John Collins - there is quite a history there and these dates have been their high holy days for hundreds of years.
OK - now I get it.
Have a nice day and enjoy your meds.
[/B]
AND has a powerful close friend in Washington like Sen. Harry Reid.
Harry Reid - Coyote Springs
This long history between the two men caused some to claim that actions which Senator Reid took to assist Mr. Whittemore in getting the environmental rulings needed to develop the property were improper and beyond what would be done for a non-donor.
He is the last of the Ranchers' who has not caved in. The rest all sold out.
By the end of the 1990s, the government had bought out all of the existing grazing permits from Clark County ranchers; all, that is except for Cliven Bundys. Bundy refused to sell his rights.
Bunkerville Rancher Prepares To Battle Feds Again For Land - Moapa Valley Progress
So the feds purchased the grazing rights from other ranchers and they accepted. Good for them, I'm glad they found a deal they liked.
Of course none of that changes the fact that this guy is about 20 years behind on his grazing fees and is rightfully having his cattle removed.
In fact NONE of the smokescreens provided by the Action Alert talking points change that very basic fact. Pay up or get off our land. I only regret that they're not gonna make him clean up all that cow shit he's leaving behind on my land.
You think that they liked it?
How do you know for certain?
It can get pretty darn scary when the Feds come down on people with heavy handedness.
These are some the same Ranchers that are backing him up with the protests.
It would certainly be easier than looking for you to actually post facts. You seem woefully incapable of doing that.
The man is stealing food for his cattle off of public lands.
You have insinuated that the gov't is stealing and that the rancher is not. Do you have any facts to go along with that? Or should we just assume you are posting bullshit and trying to look like you know something?
All i can say is, read up a bit more on this story. It goes back a long long way. Who is the 'Thief' and 'Criminal' in this? Read up a bit more, you may be surprised to find your perception changing on this. Check it out.
You keep insinuating that there is more to this story then we are aware of.
Please fill us in.
From what I've been able to find out the BLM has every right to kick the guy and his cattle off the land.
My response was to the living in public housing post.
I never said he claimed ownership of the land, I said his family has grazed their cattle there for generations.
I don't consider grazing your cattle to be in the same vein as putting up a restaurant. Grass grows back, you know that, don't you? In fact, without the grazing it could become so overgrown as to be useless for camping and such.
Why do you equate eating grass with building stores?
1) Yes, you did - you claimed squatter's rights which is a claim of ownership.
2) I equate government giving freebies to commercial enterprises with government giving freebies to commercial enterprises.
3) You do realize that people are not "camping and such" amongst the cows don't you?
Oh please, you equate keeping the plants under control with building a building. The truth is, this originally was a beneficial arrangement. The ranchers got to let their cattle graze and the government didn't have to cut back the weeds. Then the government decided they could make some money off of the ranchers, so they brought in the idea of endangering the turtles, which the government themselves killed.
It doesn't make since from start to finish, nor does your greed (I want my money!) Do you really think you get any of that money? No, you get bigger prices on your beef, that's what you get.
Yeah, now THERE'S a report to hang your hat on - they call this public land the rancher's "ancestral" land in their headline.
LOL - What a crock.
So I guess the family that has lived in public housing long enough can claim the building as their "ancestral" property ?????????
What a croc
And that is why it is abuse of government power.
The government Changed The Rules via bureaucratic regulatory fiat.
That is not the Rule of Law, it is the Whim of the Bureaucrat, and a hallmark of totalitarianism.
What "rule" was changed by regulatory fiat?
So the feds purchased the grazing rights from other ranchers and they accepted. Good for them, I'm glad they found a deal they liked.
Of course none of that changes the fact that this guy is about 20 years behind on his grazing fees and is rightfully having his cattle removed.
In fact NONE of the smokescreens provided by the Action Alert talking points change that very basic fact. Pay up or get off our land. I only regret that they're not gonna make him clean up all that cow shit he's leaving behind on my land.
Yeah, just focus on the one point and not the whole picture of what is really gong on here.
Why should he have to pay double? He is paying the State Fees but not the Federal Fees.
Paying State and Federal for the same thing, brings up the cost on beef prices for us the consumers.
I'm sorry. You mad because I'm not swallowing all the BS distractions. You are back on "the price of beef" distraction?
You don't like the law? Get your votes together and change 'em. UNTIL THEN - dude is gonna pay what he owes or get the heck off my land.
And more Americans should become educated on Eminent Domain. Do you really own anything? What's yours, is actually Big Brother's. That's what our Supreme Court ruled a few years back. Most Americans probably don't even realize that.
