Cattle Battle Widens

[CaféAuLait]

Get That parasitic libertarian off MY land.

Just as much his land as it is yours, except you can use it for free, as 6 million people do each year. Hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, horses, ATVs, cars, camp fires, etc., you can use it as a virtual hotel for as long as you like and a toilet, crap anywhere you want. Your dogs and horses use it as a toilet too, trampling everything in site. again, for free. But none of those people are considered "free-loaders". Strange that.

http://www.birdandhike.com/Areas/GoldButte/_gb_area.htm

 

[Flopper]

OWS is, in part, a protest against the rich being above the law for all practical purposes.

The "cattle battle" was a protest to protect a rich man's continual opinion that he is above the law.

That's the major difference in conservative opinion I see here. If a poor person, a OWS protester for example, takes part in a protest "the authorities" do not approve of they are to be forcibly removed and punished (yay cops). If a rich man, say a rancher, decides on a course of civil disobedience then he is to be protected (boo cops).

Civil disobedience can be righteous thing when it is done for the good of all but in this case it's a selfish impulse that benefits no one except one man. Those dummies could have ended up shot and for what? Another man's cows, nothing is more frightening than stupid in action.

Lot of cons sticking up for a guy that says he doesn't recognize the federal government. The same ones that would like the see the country go to hell so it could make Obama look like a failure.

There are lot of Republicans that would love see the country go to hell in order to discredit Obama. I'm sure there will be plenty of Democrats that will do the same thing when the government is controlled by Republicans.

It's really pretty silly. Each party takes it's turn at screwing up the country.

 

[CaféAuLait]

OWS is, in part, a protest against the rich being above the law for all practical purposes.

The "cattle battle" was a protest to protect a rich man's continual opinion that he is above the law.

That's the major difference in conservative opinion I see here. If a poor person, a OWS protester for example, takes part in a protest "the authorities" do not approve of they are to be forcibly removed and punished (yay cops). If a rich man, say a rancher, decides on a course of civil disobedience then he is to be protected (boo cops).

Civil disobedience can be righteous thing when it is done for the good of all but in this case it's a selfish impulse that benefits no one except one man. Those dummies could have ended up shot and for what? Another man's cows, nothing is more frightening than stupid in action.

I keep seeing the 'rich' card. I keep looking for his income, but have yet to find it. Many a time farmers and ranchers are in debt up to their ears.

Those protestors were removed as the violence of the camps became worse and worse, rapes galore, ODs, and at least one shooting. The protestors at Occupy were not all poor, in fact many were influential. Susan Sarandon is worth 50 million and Michael Moore is worth 50 million too. Both rich to the hilt- BY CHOICE. If they really care don't you think they would dump their wealth to all those "poor" people?

As far as Bundy's protest, he has a point. The feds sell state lands for a profit.

If those federal lands were given to the states it would benefit many, that is what he is protesting against.

The Feds sell state lands and profit from those lands within states. From BLM website:

Does the Federal Government ever sell public land?

The answer is yes. Lands identified as excess to the public's and Government's needs or more suited to private ownership are sometimes offered for sale. This brochure explains the procedures and where to go for more details.

Selling Public Land

The Federal Government’s $128 Trillion Stockpile: The Answer to Our Debt Problems?

•More than 900,000 separate real assets covering more than 3 billion sq. ft.
•Mineral rights, on and offshore, covering 2.515 billion acres of land, more than the total surface land in Canada
•45,190 underutilized buildings, the operating costs of which are $1.66 billion annually
•Oil and gas resources on and offshore worth $128 trillion, roughly eight times the national debt of the country

Can the U.S. Government's $128 Trillion Stockpile Ease Debt Problems? | TIME.com

Perhaps Bundy has a point?

 

[Katzndogz]

If Bundy didn't have a point would 50 state officials from 9 states be discussing it. He pulled on the scab of a very pus filled infection. The federal government owns 86% of Nevada and increases its holdings by seizing the property of private citizens.

 

[OKTexas]

Indeed.

The Government should ban all from land where nature exists.

Well stated...and what of those poor micro organisms in the soil being trod upon?
Boggles the mind...

the BLM crushed a couple of the beloved tortoise

during their hasty retreat the other day btw

--LOL

That's OK they are over populating the area anyways, they are planning to kill about a thousand of them.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Well stated...and what of those poor micro organisms in the soil being trod upon?
Boggles the mind...

the BLM crushed a couple of the beloved tortoise

during their hasty retreat the other day btw

--LOL

That's OK they are over populating the area anyways, they are planning to kill about a thousand of them.

I think they already did.

Here is the mass grave BLM dug, shot cattle, and one which was actually shot within a pen.

Did BLM Bury Bundy Cattle In Mass Grave? WARNING, GRAPHIC IMAGES | Ben Swann Truth In Media

So, perhaps he should sue for the value of his cattle they killed? After all, Occupy is suing for PERSONAL ITEMS they left on PUBLIC LAND after being ordered by the courts many times to leave the PUBLIC LAND and WINNING hundreds of thousands...

 

[OKTexas]

No, it has to do with stupid motherfuckers thinking that they don't have to obey the laws of our nation.

Bundy was breaking the law, cops showed up to enforce the law, and then stupid fucking yokels who didn't know shit about the situation showed up with guns because they hate having a black President. That is all that happened here.

And when the cops backed off so as to avoid slaughtering all of the stupid fucking yokels like Confederate rebels, the stupid fucking yokels claimed it as a "victory". A "victory" for protecting a rich man's "right" to not obey the laws of this country.

Fuck Cliven Bundy and the "militia". I'll give those assholes some respect if they cross the border to storm the NSA data-mining headquarters in Utah and burn it to the ground. Let's see these dumb fuckwits actually try to take on the government over something that matters.

This whole episode was just a bunch of stupid yokels protecting a criminal.

We don't have to obey bad laws.

Really? So when are these dumbass yokels going to stand up for every American who has had their homes and land seized by the US Federal government over some marijuana?

No, these stupid right-wing yokels just don't want to obey those laws which they think are wrong, and that isn't how a successful society functions.

The government does not have the authority to seize land, doesn't matter what's being grown on it. They can seize cars, jewelry or pretty much on the land, but not the land itself.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's the cows. The desert tortoise lives on the dung of other animals. Cows assure a bountiful ready food source.

 

[Vigilante]

OWS is, in part, a protest against the rich being above the law for all practical purposes.

The "cattle battle" was a protest to protect a rich man's continual opinion that he is above the law.

That's the major difference in conservative opinion I see here. If a poor person, a OWS protester for example, takes part in a protest "the authorities" do not approve of they are to be forcibly removed and punished (yay cops). If a rich man, say a rancher, decides on a course of civil disobedience then he is to be protected (boo cops).

Civil disobedience can be righteous thing when it is done for the good of all but in this case it's a selfish impulse that benefits no one except one man. Those dummies could have ended up shot and for what? Another man's cows, nothing is more frightening than stupid in action.

But, OWS BREAKS laws, that's why they are arrested, aren't you all for Bundy being arrested for breaking a REGULATION? You're right, Bundy is fighting for us all to keep the oppressive socialist regime of the Manchurian muslim, from sweeping away our RIGHTS under the Constitution. But you say NOTHING of the rape, robbery, and assaults perpetrated by OWS and many of those crimes on it's own members... You HYPOCRISY is hanging out of your pants...again!

 

[Vigilante]

Federal Jurisdiction



[snip] In June 1957, the government of the United States published a work entitled Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States: Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, Part II, which report is the definitive study on this issue. Therein, the Committee stated:

"The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means of Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction -- by State consent under Article I, section 8, clause 17 .... Justice McLean suggested that the Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction, and that if this mode is not pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can take place," Id., at 41.
​

"It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise by the State, subject to non-interference by the State with Federal functions," Id., at 45.
​

"The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State," Id., at 46.
​

"On the other hand, while the Federal Government has power under various provisions of the Constitution to define, and prohibit as criminal, certain acts or omissions occurring anywhere in the United States, it has no power to punish for various other crimes, jurisdiction over which is retained by the States under our Federal-State system of government, unless such crime occurs on areas as to which legislative jurisdiction has been vested in the Federal Government," Id., at 107.
​

Thus, from an abundance of case law, buttressed by this lengthy and definitive government treatise on this issue, the "jurisdiction of the United States" is carefully circumscribed and defined as a very precise portion of America. The United States is one of the 51 jurisdictions existing on this continent, excluding Canada and its provinces.[/snip]

Federal Jurisdiction

 

[Vigilante]

The Ranch Davidians

Grazing controversy shines floodlight on growing distrust of government

We don’t know who’s right in the case of the Nevada rancher vs. the federal government. But we do know that the government is losing the public relations battle, and for good reason.

When the government moved to seize Cliven Bundy’s cattle for his failure to pay grazing fees on public land, a growing group of supporters came to his defense – literally. On April 12, after a tense and heated standoff with them, heavily armed federal agents released the cattle back and retreated.
The situation was eerily reminiscent of past ill-fated federal standoffs, such as Ruby Ridge and Waco, where federal agents raided the Branch Davidian compound and 76 people died.

This situation is different, though.

Whether right or wrong in their actions, the Bundy family can’t be caricatured as a cult or a danger to anyone. And the family’s predicament has ignited a firestorm of anti-government fervor, particularly in the West. Bundy backers traveled miles to show their support and face down the feds. Conservative locales in cyberspace and on the radio dial crackled with anti-government rhetoric.

The thing is, we suspect the government and media elites, if they’re paying any attention to this powder keg at all, likely don’t get it.
The West, thanks to geographic and ideological distances, has always had an arm’s length relationship with both government and media. But the flashpoint in Nevada can’t be dismissed as cowboy rebelliousness. There’s plenty of sympathy for their position around the country.

The Eastern elites probably have no clue why, either.

They doubtless have no idea how poorly the federal government is viewed today – despite all the evidence in polls and surveys. After being spied on by the NSA and targeted by the IRS and having jackbooted federal agents show up to tell them how it’s going to be, folks – good, hardworking, taxpaying, God-fearing people – are tired of being abused.

As a practical matter, whether the Bundy family is in the right has ceased to matter. Like any other civil rights hotspot, all it needed was a spark.
Nor does it help that the Obama administration is so loath to deal with illegal immigrants in such a manner as it has the Bundy family. The government can’t secure the border – and is even insisting on amnesty for the illegals already here. But they send armed officers to crack down on American ranchers? Outrageous.

And the manner in which they’ve done it is just as galling. As The Las Vegas Review-Journal noted in a recent editorial, to tamp down protests, government officials “closed off hundreds of square miles of public land. They’ve closed roads. And they prohibited protected assembly and expression across huge areas of Clark County. They even took the step of creating ‘First Amendment areas’ – where no federal official or contractor directly involved in the roundup would ever have to see protesters.
“You see, even peaceful protests can be intimidating to government types. If government types feel slightly threatened, they arm themselves to the teeth. When they arm themselves to the teeth, they’re far more likely to view a peaceful protest as cover for an attack on the government. And if they believe someone holding a sign or a camera might also have a gun, agents are more likely to hurt someone. Thus, the government suspends the First Amendment as a public safety measure: Citizens are denied their rights to peacefully assemble and engage in political speech because the content of that expression might be ‘intimidating’ enough to make government agents overreact and hurt them.”

The problem is, inside the government it is impossible to consider the possibility that the government can ever do any wrong.
We don’t know if the Bundy family is the best rallying point. But the support they’ve gotten from angry citizens is evidence that the government has a much bigger problem on its hands than a few head of hungry cattle.

The Ranch Davidians | The Augusta Chronicle

 

[Vigilante]

QUESTION: Is it true that nearly 80% of Nevada is still owned by the Federal Government who then pays no tax to the State of Nevada? This seems very strange if true as a backdrop to this entire Bundy affair.
You seem to be the only person to tell the truth without getting crazy.
Thank you so much
HF

REPLY: The truth behind Nevada is of course just a quagmire of politics. Nevada was a key pawn in getting Abraham Lincoln reelected in 1864 during the middle of the Civil War. Back on March 21st, 1864, the US Congress enacted the Nevada Statehood statute that authorized the residents of Nevada Territory to elect representatives to a convention for the purpose of having Nevada join the Union. This is where we find the origin of the fight going on in Nevada that the left-wing TV commenters (pretend-journalists) today call a right-wing uprising that should be put down at all costs. The current land conflict in Nevada extends back to this event in 1864 and how the territory of Nevada became a state in order to push through a political agenda to create a majority vote. I have said numerous times, if you want the truth, just follow the money.

The “law” at the time in 1864 required that for a territory to become a state, the population had to be at least 60,000. At that time, Nevada had only about 40,000 people. So why was Nevada rushed into statehood in violation of the law of the day? When the 1864 Presidential election approached, there were special interests who were seeking to manipulate the elections to ensure Lincoln would win reelection. They needed another Republican congressional delegation that could provide additional votes for the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery. Previously, the attempt failed by a very narrow margin that required two-thirds support of both houses of Congress.

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 876x432.
The fear rising for the 1864 election was that there might arise three major candidates running. There was Abraham Lincoln of the National Union Party, George B. McClellan of the Democratic Party, and John Charles Frémont (1813–1890) of the Radical Democracy Party. It was actually Frémont who was the first anti-slavery Republican nominee back in the 1940s. During the Civil War, he held a military command and was the first to issue an emancipation edict that freed slaves in his district. Lincoln maybe credited for his stand, but he was a politician first. Lincoln relieved Frémont of his command for insubordination. Therefore, the Radical Democracy Party was the one demanding emancipation of all slaves.
With the Republicans splitting over how far to go with some supporting complete equal rights and others questioning going that far, the Democrats were pounding their chests and hoped to use the split in the Republicans to their advantage. The New York World was a newspaper published in New York City from 1860 until 1931 that was the mouth-piece for the Democrats. From 1883 to 1911 it was under the notorious publisher Joseph Pulitzer (1847–1911), who started the Spanish-American war by publishing false information just to sell his newspapers. Nonetheless, it was the New World that was desperately trying to ensure the defeat of Lincoln. It was perhaps their bravado that led to the Republicans state of panic that led to the maneuver to get Nevada into a voting position.

The greatest fear, thanks to the New York World, became what would happen if the vote was fragmented (which we could see in 2016) and no party could achieve a majority of electoral votes. Consequently, the election would then be thrown into the House of Representatives, where each state would have only one vote. Consequently, the Republicans believed they needed Nevada on their side for this would give them an equal vote with every other state despite the tiny amount of people actually living there. Moreover, the Republicans needed two more loyal Unionist votes in the U.S. Senate to also ensure that the Thirteenth Amendment would be passed. Nevada’s entry would secure both the election and the three-fourths majority needed for the Thirteenth Amendment enactment.

​

The votes at the end of the day demonstrate that they never needed Nevada. Nonetheless, within the provisions of the Statehood Act of March 21, 1864 that brought Nevada into the voting fold, we see the source of the problem today. This Statehood Act retained the ownership of the land as a territory for the federal government. In return for the Statehood that was really against the law, the new state surrendered any right, title, or claim to the unappropriated public lands lying within Nevada. Moreover, this cannot be altered without the consent of the Feds. Hence, the people of Nevada cannot claim any land whatsoever because politicians needed Nevada for the 1864 election but did not want to hand-over anything in return. This was a typical political one-sided deal.

Republican Ronald Reagan had argued for the turnover of the control of such lands to the state and local authorities back in 1980. Clearly, the surrender of all claims to any land for statehood was illegal under the Constitution. This is no different from Russia seizing Crimea. The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated “that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State.” The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it “conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.”

The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:
The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.
So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.

Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land – not federal.

Blog | Armstrong Economics | Forecasting the World

 

[JakeStarkey]

Vigilante, you fulfill Einstein's axiom. Nothing will change because of your argument. Go back and read it carefully about the SCOTUS decision on rivers in Alabama. It does not mean what your source wants it to mean.

 

[Vigilante]

Vigilante, you fulfill Einstein's axiom. Nothing will change because of your argument. Go back and read it carefully about the SCOTUS decision on rivers in Alabama. It does not mean what your source wants it to mean.

And your doctorate is law, is from where?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I am sorry BUT horse back with hunting riffles? LOL. The battle would of lasted all of maybe a hour.

The feds probably would of won outright. Much faster if they brought in the military. Please get out of the 19th century!

 

[skookerasbil]

I am sorry BUT horse back with hunting riffles? LOL. The battle would of lasted all of maybe a hour.

The feds probably would of won outright. Much faster if they brought in the military. Please get out of the 19th century!

Cant bring in the military s0n.......need to go study up on the old Constitution s0n!!!

 

[Vigilante]

I am sorry BUT horse back with hunting riffles? LOL. The battle would of lasted all of maybe a hour.

The feds probably would of won outright. Much faster if they brought in the military. Please get out of the 19th century!

Yes, and our Revolutionary war was won with many of our fine young men fighting the British with no shoes but rags tied around their feet.... Why do you hate American patriots so much, both past and present?

 

[Moonglow]

The article points out that state managed lands, particularly those lands open to the use of private citizens are in much better condition.

And why Local/State control in most affairs is preferable...and why the States are Sovereigns I their own right via the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Unless the territory of the future state signs away the rights to unmanaged lands like the future state of Nevada did..

 

[Vigilante]

I am sorry BUT horse back with hunting riffles? LOL. The battle would of lasted all of maybe a hour.

The feds probably would of won outright. Much faster if they brought in the military. Please get out of the 19th century!

Cant bring in the military s0n.......need to go study up on the old Constitution s0n!!!

But you forget, the USURPER has a pen and a phone, and LOVES those Executive Orders, that the Feckless Republican leadership refuse to take to court, or even PROTEST over. If we can't get rid of "BONER" and his "Democrat lites" in 2014 a THIRD PARTY is called for!

 

[Moonglow]

Clintoon and BOOSh did the same thing, yet no one helped these victims

In 1992 and again in 2002, armed BLM posses rounded up the Dann Sisters’ cattle and sold them for grazing fees. The New York Times reported in 2002 that the Dann Sisters had been fined $3 million for “trespass.”
Read more at How Did I Miss That? Militia: God Gave Land to Settlers, Not Shoshone - ICTMN.com

Written by a friend of a friend of mine...