Moron Wildlife Occupied Arrested

[pt0217]

Why don't you call the local state police/county Sheriff & ask for any documentation on calls to the Islamberg community under FOIL?

As far as the "liberal media"? Why would the billionaires that now control all major media sources have an interest in promoting a "liberal agenda"?

I don't have time. I'm too busy reading all of the angry crap that you write. Your second question is a great mystery. Why would anyone promote a liberal Agenda?

[wildcat junkie]

I don't have time. I'm too busy reading all of the angry crap that you write. Your second question is a great mystery. Why would anyone promote a liberal Agenda?

 

Why do you & all of the Papist zombies think my posts are angry while Papist & his ilk are the ones spewing hate? Are all politically incorrect (to conservatives) posts "angry"?

Edited February 1, 2016 by wildcat junkie

[woodchuck]

If you bought property next to public land so you could hunt out of your back door & it was sold to an individual that posted it & then sold the mineral rights to a strip mining corporation how would you feel?

I wouldn't be happy, but it's not my land so what you gonna do. It could be bs but there are reports of uranium rights being sold to Russia. There is only a few ranchers left and the blm wants there land. True or untrue I don't know but the msm isn't reporting about the refuge anymore

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

[pt0217]

Thanks for not calling me zombie.

[philoshop]

If you bought property next to public land so you could hunt out of your back door & it was sold to an individual that posted it & then sold the mineral rights to a strip mining corporation how would you feel?

 

 

If you owned land next to public land and the government decided to take your land so they could include it in their theirs and make it off-limits to you, how would you feel?

Edited February 1, 2016 by philoshop

[wildcat junkie]

Why do you & all of the Papist zombies think my posts are angry while Papist & his ilk are the ones spewing hate? Are all politically incorrect (to conservatives) posts "angry"?

 

 

Thanks for not calling me zombie.

Well, if you follow papist's hate & aren't interested in finding out the facts through the local law enforcement & FOIL you seem to be a blind follower also metaphorically know as a zombie.

[pt0217]

Well, if you follow papist's hate & aren't interested in finding out the facts through the local law enforcement & FOIL you seem to be a blind follower also metaphorically know as a zombie.

I would love to know the facts and hope we will get them soon. Foiling the Police? You are smarter than that to think that would get you anything other than a target on your back.

Is everyone that disagrees with you a blind follower or "zombie"? If so, what does that make the few that agree with you?

[ants]

Your thinking is wrong as usual. You failed to comprehend the very 1st line of that post.

 

I get so sick of the vomit you spew about how blacks are lawless thugs that are never held accountable. Are you saying that nobody was arrested beaten, & gassed in Ferguson for protesting? (let alone rioting) Because if you try to sell that fantasy, I can post numerous pictures, law suits & media that says you are full of shit.

 

You are accusing me of hate while YOU denigrate Muslims, gays, blacks or anyone that doesn't look, act the same as you or share your narrow minded views.

I never said any of that B.S. Your making things up. This is just another one of your irrational Leftist rants, where you denigrate some one who doesn't think like you. And if I have unkind words to say about  anyone, I do it based on their actions, not what they look like. You look at a persons race, religion sexual preference etc.. first and their actions last. But thats what hard  core Leftists/Socialists do. And yes you are extremely hateful towards anyone who doesn't think like you.

[Huntscreek]

How would you feel if your livelihood was threatened by this act of extortion? Do you really want all of the National parks & public lands privatized. Why stop there? Why not privatize all state controlled public land. Then we would be like Europe., only the rich would be able to afford to hunt when hunting lease prices soared due to no public land to hunt..

 

If I was a rancher paying grazing fees & my deadbeat neighbors (the Bundys) weren't I would want them held accountable. Have you taken the time to research just what kind of shit the Hammonds were involved in? They threatened BLM employees, endangered hunters & guides as well as fire fighters. Then they threatened to blame the BLM for setting the fires they did if the BLM didn't make the charges go away. That allegation was supported by the bullshit video that VJP posted a while back.

 

To top it all off they involved a 13 year old child in committing a felony & it was his testimony that landed them in prison in the 1st place. Maybe that 's why they decided to take their medicine & serve out the minimum sentence prescribed by law W/O a fight.

 

Most of the ranchers in Oregon had good relations with the BLM after some land use practices were changed. these asshats

 

"Federal lands"  the BLM did take some of it from the Indians. You know it is ok for US citizen's to question their governments actions. Our government should be more concerned about land over seas, that US men & women died for. Instead there more worried about millions here but  unconcerned about Billions there. Now when any citizen is killed by Law enforcement, we should want all the Facts. That's not anti government that's checks & balances, without that we are ruled. 

[Mr VJP]

I'm saying don't point at black people thinking they are getting preferential treatment.

 

When large numbers of people are out of control, it's a tough situation to deal with.

 

If you think that black people should be arrested (or worse) for rioting  because of their (sometimes valid) perceptions of police brutality, then people rioting over the winning or loosing of sporting events should earn the very same treatment.

 

As far as the shooting in Oregon?

 

When a person that is known to be armed has vowed to not be taken alive, and that person reaches inside of his jacket where a shoulder holster would normally be slung, that person should expect to be shot.

 

Where in my post did you see any reference to race?  Are you that narrow minded that anyone making a comment about riots is racist?

 

I was pointing out the government's tendency to allow PRIVATE PROPERTY to be occupied, looted or destroyed, with impunity.  There is a point being made about FEDERAL PROPERTY and the governments intolerance of being challenged.

 

How the hell you see me pointing anything out about black people is a mystery to me.  

 

You really do suffer from a major "white guilt" complex.

[philoshop]

Full disclosure: The info I get is from a friend of mine who is a 4th generation rancher in Idaho, just across the Oregon border. He has a number of friends and acquaintances in Oregon, and their concerns are very real. These folks are losing their livelihoods to an out-of-control Federal Government. Are these folks biased in their opinions? They most certainly are. Am I biased? I'm finding it difficult to not be biased, given the facts.

 

It's not about "rancher welfare" or the maintenance of bird-watching sanctuaries. It's about a handful of people who wish to be kings, and a populace deciding whether they prefer servitude to citizenry.

[ants]

Where in my post did you see any reference to race?  Are you that narrow minded that anyone making a comment about riots is racist?

 

I was pointing out the government's tendency to allow PRIVATE PROPERTY to be occupied, looted or destroyed, with impunity.  There is a point being made about FEDERAL PROPERTY and the governments intolerance of being challenged.

 

How the hell you see me pointing anything out about black people is a mystery to me.  

 

You really do suffer from a major "white guilt" complex.

 

You are obviously speaking "in code" which, conveniently only  racially paranoid nut jobs, and the real racists, can understand. That makes you a racist, to the leftist loons. Its like how only they can write the definitions of anything.

[wheelieman]

The ongoing Cliven Bundy situation in Nevada has raised awareness of the hazards of federal land management.

In Nevada, the federal government owns a stunning 81 percent of the land. On the land they manage, the feds are threatening to evict tenants who refuse to pay outrageous fees. Bundy is the last of a dying breed, the only holdout who hasn’t been driven off land in Clark County in recent years, land his family has utilized and improved for nearly a century.

This behavior raises and important question: Is this how the Founding Fathers intended for the federal government to manage land when they created the Constitution? A 2005 University of Colorado Law Review article by Robert G. Natelson of the Independence Institute titled “Federal Land Retention and the Constitution’s Property Clause: The Original Understanding” attempts to answer that question by carefully examining the historical record against conservative and liberal interpretations of the Property Clause of the Constitution.

The article begins by talking about the case of a Bozeman, Montana native by the name of Casey Emerson. Emerson wants the feds to cede their land holdings back to the people. He argues that the feds don’t tend to the land as well as local folks could, and make blunders that harm the environment and livelihood of Montana residents. Natelson argues that while Emerson’s opinion doesn’t reflect present case law, there is a strong historical basis for his argument against the excessive hoarding of land by the federal government.

This becomes clear when you examine the core principles that the Republic was based upon. It is widely recognized that the principles of republicanism and decentralization were crucial in founding the United States of America, but there were also some principles that fell by the wayside as time passed. While they aren’t necessarily acknowledged now, they were considered to be essential for the continuance of a well-functioning Republic by our predecessors. These principles are fiduciary government, sympathy and independence.

Fiduciary government refers to the idea of government officials as “guardians, agents, servants, or trustees of the people.” Sympathy meant that public officials and private individuals are meant to share an “identity of interest, rather than conflict of interest.” Government officials are therefore expected to serve the public as a whole rather than serve a specific faction or political party. Independence is necessary to prevent collusion between government actors, to keep them free from each other and dependent only upon the public. Knowing these bedrock principles upon which the Republic was founded is key in understanding the appropriate purpose of federal land management.

Natelson brought up an example to illustrate how these principles weren’t respected during the Articles of Confederation era. In the early Republic, an angry band of former soldiers who felt they weren’t properly compensated stormed Congress. This was when Congress still operated out of Philadelphia, rather than Washington D.C. The Congress didn’t have the means to defend itself. Delegates asked Pennsylvania to send militiamen to help, and the state refused. Although nobody was injured, this incident was harmful to the principle of independence. The founders did not want one state to receive preferential benefits over another. They didn’t want a mob of folks from Pennsylvania intimidating Congress into granting special favors to people of that state at the expense of others.

The Constitution therefore allows the federal government to possess land in three forms: territories, enclaves and other property. Territories referred to land that was owned by the federal government but had not been formally made into states. Enclaves referred to land within a state that was owned by the federal government for essential purposes such as ‘Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards.’ Other property refers to land holdings for enumerated purposes, and gives the federal government limited discretion to possess land.

However, the Constitution does not authorize permanent land-grabs by the federal government. It authorizes Congress to make “all needful Rules and Regulations” pertaining to land. ‘Needful’ was a word carefully chosen to indicate that the regulatory power only expanded to powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The feds were expected to sell off non-essential land and distribute the subsequent monies in ways that benefited the public good such as paying off the debt or tax cuts.

The current regime of federal land management is blatantly unconstitutional. The founding fathers never intended to create a Republic where the feds could impose draconian fees on peaceful individuals and force them from the land. As a matter of fact, that is exactly the arrangement that the Constitution was written to prevent, as it clearly violates the principles of fiduciary government, sympathy and independence.

When the historical record is examined, it makes it abundantly clear that the Republic has gone awry since the days of the founders. Systematic attacks on the property rights of Americans have been justified through deliberate misreadings of the Constitution. This will only be changed when the public wakes up, re-discovers their rights and takes action against unjust federal power. Natelson’s article can provide a kick start toward creating a proper understanding of the Constitution amongst the American people.

[wildcat junkie]

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/propertyclausepower.html

[pt0217]

Thank you Wheeliman. Very informative.

[pt0217]

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/propertyclausepower.html

I read this and am having a difficult time understanding how it directly relates( I admit I'm a little slow to see things). I would guess it conflicts with what Wheeliman is saying. If so, is it an example of a court that had misinterpreted the constitution?

[wildcat junkie]

I read this and am having a difficult time understanding how it directly relates( I admit I'm a little slow to see things). I would guess it conflicts with what Wheeliman is saying. If so, is it an example of a court that had misinterpreted the constitution?

 

t does delve into specific cases that really don't pertain directly to the dispute in Oregon but the language of the clause is pretty plain.

 

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States....

 

Edited February 1, 2016 by wildcat junkie

[pt0217]

What I took from Wheeliman's post was the emphasis on "needful" and how that is interpreted. A strict constitutionalist would say since the founding fathers believed in a limited government than needful would be meant to be limited. However, more progressive minded people,who believe the constitution should be allowed to be interpreted for the needs of the period, would allow the word to be used for more broad control.

[philoshop]

t does delve into specific cases that really don't pertain directly to the dispute in Oregon but the language of the clause is pretty plain.

 

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States....

 

 

The establishment of the State of Oregon constituted a release of territorial control by the Federal government.

[pt0217]

The establishment of the State of Oregon constituted a release of territorial control by the Federal government.

That would support the protestors position, asking the federal Government to turn the control of the land over to the state.

[wildcat junkie]

The establishment of the State of Oregon constituted a release of territorial control by the Federal government.

 

Please cite the language that specifies that.

 

[philoshop]

Please cite the language that specifies that.

 

 

Article 1, section 8, paragraph 17.

[EspressoBuzz]

The Feds arrest Bundy and others even kill one of the activists. However, in Baltimore, the police are ordered to stand down and let the protesters throw rocks at police and burn and destroy property. In Ferguson activists are allowed to destroy private property steal and shoot at police. BLM groups all over the country are allowed to take over bridges. The 1%ers were allowed to take over parks in our country for weeks, destroying them. Why aren't the Feds arresting the leaders of these groups as well?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Only the White Right can take over a federal building with weapons and threaten violence and not be approached or even surrounded for 3 weeks and you honestly want to equate it with rock throwing and Wall Street protesters who were liberally seasoned with pepper spray while peacefully being handcuffed?? Burning federal land, putting hunter hikers and firemen at danger don't register huh? DOMESTIC TERRORISM but no blip on your radar.

[EspressoBuzz]

Full disclosure: The info I get is from a friend of mine who is a 4th generation rancher in Idaho, just across the Oregon border. He has a number of friends and acquaintances in Oregon, and their concerns are very real. These folks are losing their livelihoods to an out-of-control Federal Government. Are these folks biased in their opinions? They most certainly are. Am I biased? I'm finding it difficult to not be biased, given the facts.

 

It's not about "rancher welfare" or the maintenance of bird-watching sanctuaries. It's about a handful of people who wish to be kings, and a populace deciding whether they prefer servitude to citizenry.

Given who's facts?

 

These ranches were saved during the great depression by selling their land to the federal gov't. No one forced them to sell except for perhaps the old farming and ranching practices that CAUSED the dust bowls of that time. Still I suppose you're right when you own 16000 to 20000 acres it hard not to imagine yourself a King and refuse the intervention of hundreds of scientist and conservationists who mange, care for and protect the land adjacent to your land. Which is leased for lower prices than any other country allows and allow to be grazed barren. Set fires near firefighters when warned not to, threaten hunters on federal land, park farm machinery so as to block federal work and allow cattle to water at a wildlife refuge. What's next? There is a reason why federal land is federal land and has rules for its use.

 

I need to ask are you basing your opinion on the areas history and the facts? 

[pt0217]

Only the White Right can take over a federal building with weapons and threaten violence and not be approached or even surrounded for 3 weeks and you honestly want to equate it with rock throwing and Wall Street protesters who were liberally seasoned with pepper spray while peacefully being handcuffed?? Burning federal land, putting hunter hikers and firemen at danger don't register huh? DOMESTIC TERRORISM but no blip on your radar.

How do you know I'm white?