It isn't about the man, black woman speaks out about Bundy:

[editec]

For those of us still interested in the FACTS, rather than our emotional reactions>

Here's some lowdown on

GRAZING LIVESTOCK GRAZING
Federal Expenditures and Receipts Vary,
Depending on the Agency and the
Purpose of the Fee Charged




http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05869.pdf

 

[Asclepias]

If there is no constitutional provision for the federal govt owning State land then the federal govt doesn't own any State land. They cannot lease what they do not own. End of story.

You are showing your lack of knowledge about the constitution.

Show us in the constitution where it states that the federal government can own land and lease it for profit. Include a link please. Thank you.

They can pretty much do anything they damn well please except violate your rights.....unless they conflict with theirs.

Supremacy Clause legal definition of Supremacy Clause. Supremacy Clause synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

 

[Asclepias]

If there is no constitutional provision for the federal govt owning State land then the federal govt doesn't own any State land. They cannot lease what they do not own. End of story.

You are showing your lack of knowledge about the constitution.

Your post just reflected on you, more than him.

That would only be correct if I was wrong like him.

 

[SAYIT]

You know... I just glanced through this thread, and some of the posts here are so unbelievably stupid, I don't know how you people have the intelligence to even turn on your computer, let alone navigate here and post.

Back when I was in high school, I had this moment where I started thinking about the issues I believed in, and realized my logic was insane, stupid, and didn't make sense. When that happened, I stopped being a leftist, and started being a right-winger.... because my leftist beliefs were stupid.

I kind of assumed everyone else had a similar enlightening experience at some point... and then I come here and read that Cliven Bundy is like a welfare queen.

Cliven Bundy is like a welfare queen? How absolutely retarded must a person be, to make a statement like that, and not know how idiotic they are sounding!

Welfare queen.... sitting at home, watching TV, doing absolutely nothing of any value to society...

Verses Cliven Bundy up at dawn, working in the hot sun all day long, and only going home at dusk, providing food for the entire nation.

Oh yes.... very very similar.... Mindless idiots.

Welfare Queens cost me in taxes. The government comes and confiscates money from my pay check that I rightfully earned, and then gives that money out, and cuts a check which is sent to the Welfare Queen who has not earned it.

You show me in the government budget where Cliven Bundy is getting paid by the Federal Government for anything. You prove that to me, and I'll at least grant you that he's getting my money. Of course it's not there, but the Welfare Queen's line item is there. Idiots.

If you people want to really find a similar comparison, try the Occupy protests. March down city streets blocking traffic and causing disruption to citizens, all without a permit. Taking over parks and other public places, all without permits. Taking over private property without permission or a lease to put up tents and tarps, and all the rest of their crap. Blocking traffic over Brooklyn Bridge, trapping driving citizens on the bridge with no ability to avoid the protesters, and still no permit.

This is a more accurate similarly to Cliven Bundy. But of course the hypocrites known as "leftist" have no problem with all these protests not paying the dues.

Of course the difference is, those protests were causing problems for entire cities and all their citizens, and Cliven had some cattle eat wild grass. Occupy people were protesting they were not handed enough free stuff like a welfare recipient, Cliven was trying to get work done.

But back in leftard land, OWS good, Cliven bad. OWS complaining government is not giving them enough while they do nothing in a park, is not like a welfare queen, but Cliven working for a living for the past 50 years, somehow is.

Thankfully I am no longer associated with these people. To think that so many years ago, I would have looked at idiocy like this, and believed it. My excuse was a too young, and too ignorant to know better. What are the excuses for you people?? HUH!?

The only point on which we disagree is that Cliven's cows were not eating grass that was his. Cliven may well be guilty of, as you stated, "Taking over private (public) property without permission or a lease." The gov't should just have put a lien on his prop which would have forced his hand. You can't get new financing with that on your record and at the end of the day, the gov't gets their pint of blood.

I never said it was his grass. Only that it's ironic (read hypocritical) how the left is screaming over this guy letting his cattle eat wilderness grass, but somehow a mass of people disrupting an entire city of people, is somehow ok. Do I want my entire day ruined by a bunch of spoiled brat yuppy kids, or do I want some cattle eating grass in the wilderness? I'll take Cliven and the cows eating wild grass, over the poop in the park crowd blocking traffic any day.

Now if you want to talk about the grass, let's talk.

You are right, it's not Cliven's grass...... because the government has made it impossible for Cliven to get grass. Government has a monopoly on the land.

Look at Nevada. There is no state in the entire Union with a higher percentage of Federally owned land.

Do you understand now? Cliven can't get his own grass. I'm sure he'd love to have some grass land to let his cattle feed on without being harassed and bothered by some bureaucrats from DC.

Now granted, I still disagree with Cliven on how he's going about this, but the fact is, he's got a point.

Further, there is no provision in the Constitution for the Federal government owning state land. Period. There is none. I've looked. There is no provision allowing the Federal government to setup a land lease system. I've read it. It's not there.

Outside of the states, there is no constraint on buying land, or owning land. But inside the bounds of the constitution, the Federal government has no provision for operating leases on land.

To the point, the Federal government should not be owning any land at all, inside individual states. I understand that the Federals purchased land, and thus owned land to start with. But once each state was formed, all land within that state should have reverted to the property of the states.

Now if the states want to operate a lease system, that's totally up to the state, and is within the framework of the constitution. "all rights reserved for the state.
So based on my reading of the constitution, Cliven is right.

He's had his days in court. He was judged and found to owe for the grazing his cows did on land which wasn't his. Others in the same boat pay their way. He CHOSE not to.
Case closed.

 

[NLT]

Nope, he's not a freeloader.

Sorry, that doesn't fly.

Try again. Racist...nope. Freeloader...nope.

The next one to use is "White trash"....

Yeah he is a free loader. I said so. You may have a different term for people that purposely don't pay their dues but........

liberals

 

[Asclepias]

Nope, he's not a freeloader.

Sorry, that doesn't fly.

Try again. Racist...nope. Freeloader...nope.

The next one to use is "White trash"....

Yeah he is a free loader. I said so. You may have a different term for people that purposely don't pay their dues but........

liberals

What about them?

 

[SAYIT]

Nope, he's not a freeloader.

Sorry, that doesn't fly.

Try again. Racist...nope. Freeloader...nope.

The next one to use is "White trash"....

Yes he is. He is grazing his cattle on federal land that is owned by the US Government and he refuses to pay the fees. He is as guilty of fraud as a welfare mother that steals from social services. He owns a ranch that is probably worth millions though, so he is okay in the Republican book of approval.

...the money Bundy was willing to pay for grazing his cattle was set aside for the State.

You wouldn't happen to have any evidence of such an escrow fund? It would certainly change a lot of minds about Bundy's intent but I have seen nothing of it.
Thanks in advance.

 

[S.J.]

I've noticed it's the welfare parasites who are the ones bitching the most about Bundy getting something for nothing.

 

[Asclepias]

I've noticed it's the welfare parasites who are the ones bitching the most about Bundy getting something for nothing.

I thought you sided with Bundy you welfare parasite?....

 

[S.J.]

I've noticed it's the welfare parasites who are the ones bitching the most about Bundy getting something for nothing.

I thought you sided with Bundy you welfare parasite?....

You're the one on welfare and you're the one bitching about him, not me.

 

[Asclepias]

I've noticed it's the welfare parasites who are the ones bitching the most about Bundy getting something for nothing.

I thought you sided with Bundy you welfare parasite?....

You're the one on welfare and you're the one bitching about him, not me.

I make more in one month than you do on welfare trailer trash. i'm not bitching, I'm laughing at Bundy. He is on welfare just like you.

 

[Vigilante]

[b\BLM Restrictions- Not Just a Bundy Ranch Problem[/b]

Ranchers throughout the West are dealing with the United States Government’s encroachment on their lives. And many times there are deeper issues involved than the surface ones. Idaho, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Colorado, Texas…all are seeing heavy-handed attempts to take land or severely restrict the use of that land by any means necessary. The main ploy of the federal government is to RESTRICT THE SIZE OF THE RANCHER’S HERDS, and bully the ranchers into compliance. The problem is that those restrictions make it nearly impossible for ranchers to continue their business…which forces them out. The following are examples:
Idaho
68 ranchers from the Owyhee Mountain area in Idaho have taken the BLM to court over their restrictions. The BLM claims it is regulating the size of rancher’s herds in order to “protect the sage grouse.” But ranchers say that without the cattle grazing on the lands, grasses dry out and become fodder for prairie wildfires- which are far more damaging to those grazing lands and the sage grouse.
The ranchers believe the BLM is not to blame because of frivolous lawsuits against the land management system by environmentalists. But there may be a deeper agenda here, just as there was in Nevada. Idaho’s utility companies and corporations are subject to Presidential executive orders too.
Shrink the herds is not a viable answer
Ranchers in Idaho, as they do around the West, pay a fee for each head of cattle that graze on public lands. Instead of coming up with an alternative, the BLM simply demands the amount of cattle a rancher has be reduced. With Cliven Bundy, that number was to be reduced to 150 head. In Idaho, ranchers say they that the BLM is trying to reduce their herds by anywhere from 30% to 50%, and it is not economically feasible.
The court case filed by the Owyhee ranchers claims that the science used to come up with the amount of cattle is off base. And the issue of cattle ranchers affects everyone, whether the liberals realize it or not. While Idaho ranchers believe they can win this fight in court, the day may soon come when a lawless government will attempt an armed confrontation in their own back yard regardless of any court.
KIVI TV News reports it like this:

“But the reduction of grazing cows doesn’t just affect the rancher. Fewer cows on the market raises the price of beef. Idaho ranchers hope with less restrictive grazing they can bring your grocery bill down.”
​

The House Committee Hearing, 2013
Ranchers from Thermopolis, Wyoming; Tonopah, Nevada; Fairview, New Mexico; Jordan Valley, Oregon; Murphy, Idaho; and Cheyenne, Wyoming appeared before the House Natural Resources Committee to testify regarding “Threats, Intimidation and Bullying by Federal Land Managing Agencies.” The hearing took place on October 29, 2013.
Video streaming by Ustream
Executive orders
Obviously a “hearing” did not stop the federal government’s over-reaching issues. And with the signing of the executive order in 2013 regarding “climate change,” nearly every natural resource across the country is now at risk of federal oversight and intervention. This excerpt from a previous MC article reveals the problem:

“Sec. 3. Managing Lands and Waters for Climate Preparedness and Resilience. Within 9 months of the date of this order and in coordination with the efforts described in section 2 of this order, the heads of the Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, and other agencies as recommended by the Council established in section 6 of this order shall work with the Chair of CEQ and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to complete an inventory and assessment of proposed and completed changes to their land- and water-related policies, programs, and regulations necessary to make the Nation’s watersheds, natural resources, and ecosystems, and the communities and economies that depend on them, more resilient in the face of a changing climate.”
In effect, this executive order puts all water bodies, property, farms, etc. in the direct path of the Federal Government by the use of the “Climate Change” excuse. Whether it is punishing people who use energy or water resources, the effect of this Executive Order is to place communities and all of their resources under Obama’s Control.
​

Where will the next Bundy Ranch confrontation happen? It isn’t a question of “if.” It is a question of when and where.

Federal BLM Restrictions Not Just a Bundy Ranch Issue

 

[Vigilante]

BLM Restrictions- Not Just a Bundy Ranch Problem

Ranchers throughout the West are dealing with the United States Government’s encroachment on their lives. And many times there are deeper issues involved than the surface ones. Idaho, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Colorado, Texas…all are seeing heavy-handed attempts to take land or severely restrict the use of that land by any means necessary. The main ploy of the federal government is to RESTRICT THE SIZE OF THE RANCHER’S HERDS, and bully the ranchers into compliance. The problem is that those restrictions make it nearly impossible for ranchers to continue their business…which forces them out. The following are examples:
Idaho
68 ranchers from the Owyhee Mountain area in Idaho have taken the BLM to court over their restrictions. The BLM claims it is regulating the size of rancher’s herds in order to “protect the sage grouse.” But ranchers say that without the cattle grazing on the lands, grasses dry out and become fodder for prairie wildfires- which are far more damaging to those grazing lands and the sage grouse.
The ranchers believe the BLM is not to blame because of frivolous lawsuits against the land management system by environmentalists. But there may be a deeper agenda here, just as there was in Nevada. Idaho’s utility companies and corporations are subject to Presidential executive orders too.
Shrink the herds is not a viable answer
Ranchers in Idaho, as they do around the West, pay a fee for each head of cattle that graze on public lands. Instead of coming up with an alternative, the BLM simply demands the amount of cattle a rancher has be reduced. With Cliven Bundy, that number was to be reduced to 150 head. In Idaho, ranchers say they that the BLM is trying to reduce their herds by anywhere from 30% to 50%, and it is not economically feasible.
The court case filed by the Owyhee ranchers claims that the science used to come up with the amount of cattle is off base. And the issue of cattle ranchers affects everyone, whether the liberals realize it or not. While Idaho ranchers believe they can win this fight in court, the day may soon come when a lawless government will attempt an armed confrontation in their own back yard regardless of any court.
KIVI TV News reports it like this:

“But the reduction of grazing cows doesn’t just affect the rancher. Fewer cows on the market raises the price of beef. Idaho ranchers hope with less restrictive grazing they can bring your grocery bill down.”
​

The House Committee Hearing, 2013
Ranchers from Thermopolis, Wyoming; Tonopah, Nevada; Fairview, New Mexico; Jordan Valley, Oregon; Murphy, Idaho; and Cheyenne, Wyoming appeared before the House Natural Resources Committee to testify regarding “Threats, Intimidation and Bullying by Federal Land Managing Agencies.” The hearing took place on October 29, 2013.
Video streaming by Ustream
Executive orders
Obviously a “hearing” did not stop the federal government’s over-reaching issues. And with the signing of the executive order in 2013 regarding “climate change,” nearly every natural resource across the country is now at risk of federal oversight and intervention. This excerpt from a previous MC article reveals the problem:

“Sec. 3. Managing Lands and Waters for Climate Preparedness and Resilience. Within 9 months of the date of this order and in coordination with the efforts described in section 2 of this order, the heads of the Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, and other agencies as recommended by the Council established in section 6 of this order shall work with the Chair of CEQ and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to complete an inventory and assessment of proposed and completed changes to their land- and water-related policies, programs, and regulations necessary to make the Nation’s watersheds, natural resources, and ecosystems, and the communities and economies that depend on them, more resilient in the face of a changing climate.”
In effect, this executive order puts all water bodies, property, farms, etc. in the direct path of the Federal Government by the use of the “Climate Change” excuse. Whether it is punishing people who use energy or water resources, the effect of this Executive Order is to place communities and all of their resources under Obama’s Control.
​

Where will the next Bundy Ranch confrontation happen? It isn’t a question of “if.” It is a question of when and where.

Federal BLM Restrictions Not Just a Bundy Ranch Issue

 

[Andylusion]

The only point on which we disagree is that Cliven's cows were not eating grass that was his. Cliven may well be guilty of, as you stated, "Taking over private (public) property without permission or a lease." The gov't should just have put a lien on his prop which would have forced his hand. You can't get new financing with that on your record and at the end of the day, the gov't gets their pint of blood.

I never said it was his grass. Only that it's ironic (read hypocritical) how the left is screaming over this guy letting his cattle eat wilderness grass, but somehow a mass of people disrupting an entire city of people, is somehow ok. Do I want my entire day ruined by a bunch of spoiled brat yuppy kids, or do I want some cattle eating grass in the wilderness? I'll take Cliven and the cows eating wild grass, over the poop in the park crowd blocking traffic any day.

Now if you want to talk about the grass, let's talk.

You are right, it's not Cliven's grass...... because the government has made it impossible for Cliven to get grass. Government has a monopoly on the land.

Look at Nevada. There is no state in the entire Union with a higher percentage of Federally owned land.

Do you understand now? Cliven can't get his own grass. I'm sure he'd love to have some grass land to let his cattle feed on without being harassed and bothered by some bureaucrats from DC.

Now granted, I still disagree with Cliven on how he's going about this, but the fact is, he's got a point.

Further, there is no provision in the Constitution for the Federal government owning state land. Period. There is none. I've looked. There is no provision allowing the Federal government to setup a land lease system. I've read it. It's not there.

Outside of the states, there is no constraint on buying land, or owning land. But inside the bounds of the constitution, the Federal government has no provision for operating leases on land.

To the point, the Federal government should not be owning any land at all, inside individual states. I understand that the Federals purchased land, and thus owned land to start with. But once each state was formed, all land within that state should have reverted to the property of the states.

Now if the states want to operate a lease system, that's totally up to the state, and is within the framework of the constitution. "all rights reserved for the state.
So based on my reading of the constitution, Cliven is right.

He's had his days in court. He was judged and found to owe for the grazing his cows did on land which wasn't his. Others in the same boat pay their way. He CHOSE not to.
Case closed.

Isn't it funny that when the court rules against leftist, then we should fight the system, and stand up for what is right, and change the laws if necessary.

But if the leftist win, then case closed.

When blacks sued for freedom, and the courts ruled against them, would you be that one guy saying "hey they had his day in court, the judge ruled against them, case closed!".

Would you be that one guy saying "Hey the court said you black people are only 3/5 of a person! Case closed! The courts have ruled!".

The court ruled against Cliven Bundy. I get that. The courts are enforcing the laws as they exist. The laws are wrong. We have many unconstitutional laws, and this is one of them.

Don't sit there and pretend that the Courts are the divine arbiter of what is right and wrong. Sometimes the courts are wrong, this is one of those times.

 

[Andylusion]

Nope, he's not a freeloader.

Sorry, that doesn't fly.

Try again. Racist...nope. Freeloader...nope.

The next one to use is "White trash"....

Yeah he is a free loader. I said so. You may have a different term for people that purposely don't pay their dues but........

liberals

I know.... In Libtard land, "... well ok the dictionary might have a definition that doesn't fit my ideology but.........."

This is why I stopped being a Leftist. I couldn't making myself be dumb enough to remain a leftist.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Which doesn't make any difference. The question isn't... have you been perfect your whole life? Because honestly people on the left who hold up that standard are automatically hypocrites. And you know it.

Many people who are Christians, have made massive mistakes in their past. I have. If you read the Bible, you'll find most of the key figures also made massive mistakes, with of course the exception of Jesus himself.

I'll freely admit. I haven't been perfect. Which is why I DON'T go around judging other people's life choices as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. Ms. Prejean took off her clothes for money. That doesn't make her a bad person. What makes her a bad person is judging other people in committed relationships over what kind of sex they have.

[

Further, Jeo the Plumber, was a catch phrase referring to all people who are trying to make something of themselves, and are tired of government beating the crap out of them for trying to succeed.

He didn't need a license. We've been over that a million times, it's still wrong, and still ignorant of the laws. Many plumbers operate without licenses. Get over it.

Oh, please. I frankly get tired of listening to small businesses whine about the government. Frankly, a lot of small businesses shouldn't be in business to start with.

In this case, I want my plumber to be licensed and certified, because if he messes it up, that's going to be thousands of dollars of damage to my home.

[

And lastly, yes of course some fruits that show up at the anti-government party, are going to be nutz.

Who cares? Question, does Cliven have a point. Answer: YES! End of story in my book. All this red herrings, trying to misdirect attention to something completely irrelevant to the point, is just proof the other said can't argue their case. If you could, you wouldn't be pointing out all this irrelevant crap.

No, he doesn't have a point.

He is grazing his cattle on public land and not paying for the privilage like thousands of honest ranchers are doing. He's been doing this for 20 years, and every time he has gone to court on this issue, he's lost.

 

[Andylusion]

[

Which doesn't make any difference. The question isn't... have you been perfect your whole life? Because honestly people on the left who hold up that standard are automatically hypocrites. And you know it.

Many people who are Christians, have made massive mistakes in their past. I have. If you read the Bible, you'll find most of the key figures also made massive mistakes, with of course the exception of Jesus himself.

I'll freely admit. I haven't been perfect. Which is why I DON'T go around judging other people's life choices as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. Ms. Prejean took off her clothes for money. That doesn't make her a bad person. What makes her a bad person is judging other people in committed relationships over what kind of sex they have.

[

Further, Jeo the Plumber, was a catch phrase referring to all people who are trying to make something of themselves, and are tired of government beating the crap out of them for trying to succeed.

He didn't need a license. We've been over that a million times, it's still wrong, and still ignorant of the laws. Many plumbers operate without licenses. Get over it.

Oh, please. I frankly get tired of listening to small businesses whine about the government. Frankly, a lot of small businesses shouldn't be in business to start with.

In this case, I want my plumber to be licensed and certified, because if he messes it up, that's going to be thousands of dollars of damage to my home.

[

And lastly, yes of course some fruits that show up at the anti-government party, are going to be nutz.

Who cares? Question, does Cliven have a point. Answer: YES! End of story in my book. All this red herrings, trying to misdirect attention to something completely irrelevant to the point, is just proof the other said can't argue their case. If you could, you wouldn't be pointing out all this irrelevant crap.

No, he doesn't have a point.

He is grazing his cattle on public land and not paying for the privilage like thousands of honest ranchers are doing. He's been doing this for 20 years, and every time he has gone to court on this issue, he's lost.

Yes, we should have have to pay up for the "privilage" to use Federal property.

feudalism [( fyoohd -l-iz-uhm)]

"A system of obligations that bound lords and their subjects in Europe during much of the Middle Ages. In theory, the king owned all or most of the land and gave it to his leading nobles in return for their loyalty and military service. The nobles in turn held land that peasants, including serfs, were allowed to farm in return for the peasants' labor and a portion of their produce."

Or updated.... a system where federal government owns all the land in Nevada, and peasants are allowed to graze on that land in return for a portion of the peasants wages and produce.

It's wrong sir. I'm sorry, you are wrong. If the people of Nevada want the state of Nevada to run that system, fine... Constitution: All rights are reserved for the State. But our Federal government is not supposed to be running a Feudal system. PERIOD. I don't give a CRAP about the rest of your absolute sh!t. This system is wrong.

"But but the courts blaw blaw blaw"

I Don't care. Period. It's wrong. The Federal government is not to be running a Feudal system. End of story. Save your puke spewing bull crap for someone else.

 

[S.J.]

I thought you sided with Bundy you welfare parasite?....

You're the one on welfare and you're the one bitching about him, not me.

I make more in one month than you do on welfare trailer trash. i'm not bitching, I'm laughing at Bundy. He is on welfare just like you.

Really? I didn't know selling crack to prostitutes was that lucrative. Must be all that welfare money Obama be handin' out.

 

[Vigilante]

You're the one on welfare and you're the one bitching about him, not me.

I make more in one month than you do on welfare trailer trash. i'm not bitching, I'm laughing at Bundy. He is on welfare just like you.

Really? I didn't know selling crack to prostitutes was that lucrative. Must be all that welfare money Obama be handin' out.

I thought it was 25 cent BJ's... walks around with a bag full of quarters!

 

[R.C. Christian]

You're the one on welfare and you're the one bitching about him, not me.

I make more in one month than you do on welfare trailer trash. i'm not bitching, I'm laughing at Bundy. He is on welfare just like you.

Really? I didn't know selling crack to prostitutes was that lucrative. Must be all that welfare money Obama be handin' out.

He should be able to afford a lifetimes worth of malt liquor in that line of work.