Defending his rights or avoiding taxes?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

So not allowing individuals to obstruct law enforcement activities is national socialism?  What happens when these innocent protesters get caught in the cross fire?

 

I don't disagree with you though.  If people are ready to die to support this guys illegal activities then I say have at it, but is that really in the best interest of public safety?  Are they free to protest anywhere they want when law enforcement isn't    seizing cattle? 

I guess not because they can also shut down access to Federal memorials and keep Vets out. They have proven that also.

[mmkay]

d-bone20917...some day you might be saying the following: but I believe you are most likely the one thats going to do the knocking on the door in the middle of the night.

“First they came for the 1 percenters, and I did not speak out—

because I was not a 1 percenter

Then they came for the Journalist, and I did not speak out—

because I was not a Journalist;

Then they came for the tea partiers, and I did not speak out—

because I was not a tea party member;

Then they came for hard worker taxpayers, and I did not speak out—

because I was not a taxpayer;

Then they came for me—

and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

[d-bone20917]

Everyone has their own perspective on this issue.  I'm a big supporter of public land and the public's right to use that land.  I also believe everyone should follow the rules to protect that land.  

[Mr VJP]

This is a classic example of the Federal Government making laws that are illegal under the US Constitution, with regard to individual and state's rights. The Fed was the one who threatened violence first. The Federal Courts have been found to be wrong in their rulings many times by the SCOTUS. Federal Laws, even when unconstitutional, are often rubber stamped by Federal Courts. When you have right on your side, but laws are passed to say you are now wrong, you don't let Big Bully Government get away with it, unless you want to surrender even more people's rights in the future. This man did what he should have done. He is a Patriotic HERO and we should all be applauding him for what he stood up for. Live Free Or Die!

If you disagree, you don't know all of the legal facts in the case, or you want a bigger, more powerful government that will control more people by taking away more rights. This government is corrupt. More so than any administration that has ever existed. Wake the fugg up people!

[Mr VJP]

This is all FACT!

[Mr VJP]

Reid Says Ranch Battle 'Isn't Over'

Harry Reid weighed in on the standoff at the Nevada ranch after federal authorities at least temporarily retreated, saying, "Well, it's not over." He added, "We can't have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it's not over." What's he talking about? People that habitually violate the law currently run the country. But that's not over, either.

[Mr VJP]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd9zdjMvzlk

[d-bone20917]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp

[Doewhacker]

Soros owns Snopes:

 

http://vickigoestowashington.com/2011/11/soros-owns-snopes-and-kagan-protects-obamas-lie/

 

 

 

 

http://www.snopes.com/info/aboutus.asp

[Doewhacker]

I guess this means I can go plant food plots on public land and log and do what ever I want then?

 

Am I then a patriot and do I get a pin or something to prove that I am?

[d-bone20917]

Soros owns Snopes:

 

http://vickigoestowashington.com/2011/11/soros-owns-snopes-and-kagan-protects-obamas-lie/

 

Feel free to fact that. 

[ncountry]

I guess this means I can go plant food plots on public land and log and do what ever I want then?

Am I then a patriot and do I get a pin or something to prove that I am?

My thoughts as well.. While the government oversteps it's bounds often, this does not seem like such a case. We are too populated of a country now to have the opportunity to use our lands as we personally see fit without regulations. I am sure there are other farmers in the same area that would love to pasture their cattle for free, but are playing by the rules.

[philoshop]

My thoughts as well.. While the government oversteps it's bounds often, this does not seem like such a case. We are too populated of a country now to have the opportunity to use our lands as we personally see fit without regulations. I am sure there are other farmers in the same area that would love to pasture their cattle for free, but are playing by the rules.

 

Actually Bundy is the last cattle rancher remaining in that part of Nevada. The other 52 have given up and left, due in large part to the increasing restrictions in the federal grazing contracts. This is one reason why he stopped paying the fees. That and the fact that the govt wasn't keeping their end of the agreement. He offered to pay the county and/or the state rather than the feds because he realized the money he was paying the feds was essentially being used to force him and the other ranchers out. As they say, "That's when the fight started."

This has been going on for 20+ years. It's become 'recent' news because the federal govt opted for the use of draconian measures of intimidation and sent a small 'army' to try and settle things. No one really knows when the BLM became an armed force, but that's for another thread.

People from the area decided enough was enough and rallied to stand up to what they consider an unlawful invasion. Can't say that I blame them.

[ELMER J. FUDD]

My opinion on the matter: 'Merica.

[dbHunterNY]

so what's up with this?

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/beck-debunks-nevada-chicom-solar-plan-but-reid-has-another-one

 

I'm not against pursuing alternative energy but it creates a bit of a motive on behalf of the government doesn't it?

Edited April 17, 2014 by dbHunterNY

[HectorBuckBuster]

I wonder if this all goes back to this order signed by Obama in 2011 ? Executive Order 13575 - Establishment of the White House Rural Council

     By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America and in order to enhance Federal engagement with rural communities, it is hereby ordered as follows:

     

     Section 1. Policy. Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential. The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.

     

     To enhance the Federal Government's efforts to address the needs of rural America, this order establishes a council to better coordinate Federal programs and maximize the impact of Federal investment to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in our rural communities.

     

     Sec. 2. Establishment. There is established a White House Rural Council (Council).

     

     Sec. 3. Membership. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture shall serve as the Chair of the Council, which shall also include the heads of the following executive branch departments, agencies, and offices:

     

           (1) the Department of the Treasury;

        

           (2) the Department of Defense;

        

           (3) the Department of Justice;

        

           (4) the Department of the Interior;

        

           (5) the Department of Commerce;

        

           (6) the Department of Labor;

        

           (7) the Department of Health and Human Services;

        

           ( the Department of Housing and Urban Development;

        

           (9) the Department of Transportation;

        

           (10) the Department of Energy;

        

           (11) the Department of Education;

        

           (12) the Department of Veterans Affairs;

        

           (13) the Department of Homeland Security;

        

           (14) the Environmental Protection Agency;

        

           (15) the Federal Communications Commission;

        

           (16) the Office of Management and Budget;

        

           (17) the Office of Science and Technology Policy;

        

           (18) the Office of National Drug Control Policy;

        

           (19) the Council of Economic Advisers;

        

           (20) the Domestic Policy Council;

        

           (21) the National Economic Council;

        

           (22) the Small Business Administration;

        

           (23) the Council on Environmental Quality;

        

           (24) the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs;

        

           (25) the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs; and such other executive branch departments, agencies, and offices as the President or the Secretary of Agriculture may, from time to time, designate.

        

     ( A member of the Council may designate, to perform the Council functions of the member, a senior-level official who is part of the member's department, agency, or office, and who is a full-time officer or employee of the Federal Government.

     

     © The Department of Agriculture shall provide funding and administrative support for the Council to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations.

     

     (d) The Council shall coordinate its policy development through the Domestic Policy Council and the National Economic Council.

     

     Sec. 4. Mission and Function of the Council. The Council shall work across executive departments, agencies, and offices to coordinate development of policy recommendations to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in rural America, and shall coordinate my Administration's engagement with rural communities. The Council shall:

     

     (a) make recommendations to the President, through the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and the Director of the National Economic Council, on streamlining and leveraging Federal investments in rural areas, where appropriate, to increase the impact of Federal dollars and create economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America;

     

     ( coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, health-care providers, telecommunications services providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America;

     

     © coordinate Federal efforts directed toward the growth and development of geographic regions that encompass both urban and rural areas; and

     

     (d) identify and facilitate rural economic opportunities associated with energy development, outdoor recreation, and other conservation related activities.

     

     Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) The heads of executive departments and agencies shall assist and provide information to the Council, consistent with applicable law, as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Council. Each executive department and agency shall bear its own expense for participating in the Council.

     

     ( Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

     

          (i) authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

        

          (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

        

     © This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

     

     (d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,

      June 9, 2011.

 

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/09/executive-order-establishment-white-house-rural-council

[philoshop]

^^^^^ Exceptions shall be made in the event that enough money changes hands, in which case all of the above may be disregarded.

[ncountry]

^^^^^ Exceptions shall be made in the event that enough money changes hands, in which case all of the above may be disregarded.

So true.

[philoshop]

I'm all for 'the rule of law'. It's the basis of the Republic the founding fathers set forth with our Constitution.

Courts have ruled that Cliven Bundy has broken the law by not paying the required fees. No argument there.

The problem here is 'the law' itself, specifically how it has been written and enacted, and rewritten and reenacted numerous times, often to benefit a privileged few.

This situation comes down to Senator Harry Reid against Rancher Cliven Bundy. Reid has the power to make the laws and receive the backing of the federal government, including the military, in pursuit of his agenda. Bundy has a handful of supporters who are tired of the federal lawmakers having this kind of essentially unlimited power.

[d-bone20917]

He's a welfare rancher who's sucking off the government teet.  He should boot strap it and quit relying on government handouts.  Why should our tax money support these type of free loaders?  It's this sort of entitlement mentality that is ruining our country. 

[philoshop]

I'm not sure why you would think he's being supported in any way by our tax money.

'Our tax money' is being used to get him off the land and out of the way so that the land can be used in a more lucrative way by a few people in the US government. This would include selling it to the highest bidder for any reason whatsoever.

If China pays the price, they'll be welcomed with open arms to graze as many head as they please on that land, or do anything else for that matter.

 

Entitlement mentality? Really?

If this includes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness maybe.

Some in the federal government have made it abundantly clear that he's not entitled to even that because he's in the way of their concept of "progress".

 

The federal government is the largest landowner in the country right now. And they have dominion over a huge portion of this country through agencies like the BLM and the EPA who's powers grow almost daily. There is a proposal in congress right now to grant dominion to the EPA over our ponds, puddles and drainage ditches, expanding their current hold of 'navigable waterways'. This is not the government our forefathers envisioned.

 

At what point will you say enough is enough? I have a drainage ditch on my property that is dry for most of the year. The pending EPA legislation  could put that little ditch in the hands of the federal government. I don't like that at all. I can maintain it just fine without bureaucratic oversight. Are you going to wait until someone in power in the federal government decides it's in the national interest to own NYS?

[HectorBuckBuster]

The federal government (or the crooks who are in the government) are trying to steal whats left of our natural resources. Clean Water is going to be a very valuable asset in the not to distant future, and they are trying to steal that from all land owners. Bundy is paying Nevada the fee's its just the the Federal government has taken or state property 20 years ago, and it appears this was done to steal the Gas/Oil and now solar resources from the state of Nevada and the cattle farmers.Bundy is the last cattle farmer of the 52 there was 20 years ago. The government has run them out of business.

[Doc]

Perhaps the government is sucking up the land, and to some extent, some of it may be justified. Quite frankly, when it comes to state and national parks and public hunting lands, I am very happy that they have made those purchases and maintain the availability of those lands for public use. As far as any commercial use of these lands that is reserved for a few businessmen, I guess I don't really see why a few should be afforded that kind of subsidized resource. Of course that is the view of an outsider who has no history with such transactions. Perhaps somebody does have some logical rationale for granting a selected few such profit options. I guess I would like to hear some of those reasons.

[HuntOrBeHunted]

In the end right or wrong it has more to do than some grass on the " Freeland " .. It boils down to the same two things, Money and power.

 

 

And it's not HIS rights their fighting for ... It's OUR's !!!!

 

 

Land of the free, home of the brave !!! Right !??

[d-bone20917]

 

In the end right or wrong it has more to do than some grass on the " Freeland " .. It boils down to the same two things, Money and power.

 

 

And it's not HIS rights their fighting for ... It's OUR's !!!!

 

 

Land of the free, home of the brave !!! Right !??

 

 

Exactly.  It's OUR land, not his.  So what right does he have to pretend he owns it?  He shouldn't rely on the use or our land to subsidize his business.  When I hunt, fish, camp, etc. on public land I follow all the rules in place and I'll pay a fee if needed.  So we should just throw all that out the window and say public land should be a free for all in the name of freedom?  Should we just kill all the animals we want anytime we want?  To hell with any government agency trying to manage a public resource... this is land of the free and home of the brave.

 

On the flip side, I think the Feds have handled this very poorly.