Moron Wildlife Occupied Arrested

[pt0217]

Liberals that are celebrating this may want to remember that Expresso.

[EspressoBuzz]

Liberals that are celebrating this may want to remember that Expresso.

 

Tell ya what I will remember. America is GREAT! It has always been and if we adhere to the RULE OF LAW that our GREAT nation was based on we will continue to be GREAT. LAWS and a system of laws that ALL immigrants who came to America from other less than great systems of government agree is better than most of the world's system of laws. While not perfect we have many means of challenging our laws and refining them to make them better and more just.

 

Yes, I will remember that Cliven Bundy broke the laws of our country was tried and convicted, then created a situation where armed men threatened violence against FEDERAL officers, and when he thought he had gotten away with it, he didn't.

 

"Federal courts have consistently ruled against Bundy, finding that he is a trespasser with no right to graze on federal land and authorizing the BLM to remove his cattle and levy damages for unauthorized use." - http://www.scribd.com/doc/218116757/1998-U-S-Dist-LEXIS-23835

 

Anyone who thinks this hasn't happened before should look up the "Whiskey Rebellion" and see how America has dealt historically with people who believe themselves above the law or chooses to not recognize the government that gave them the freedom and opportunity in the first place.

[pt0217]

Government didn't give them freedom. The people did.

[EspressoBuzz]

And here in lies the problem. WE are the government and the government is US. The CONSTITUTION which is the basis of our government begins:

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

We the PEOPLE.

 

Your statement that the "Government didn't give them freedom. The people did." is simply a dumb attempt at distraction. We are a country of majority rule and if you are not in the majority you have FREE SPEECH to try and convince others of your point of view. When you threaten violence because of a law the majority has enacted you are either a sore loser, a terrorist or both.

 

ter·ror·ist

ˈterərəst/

noun

 

1. a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

   synonyms: extremist, fanatic; 

   revolutionary, radical, insurgent, guerrilla, anarchist,freedom fighter; 

   bomber, gunman, assassin, hijacker, arsonist, incendiary

 

[EspressoBuzz]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/upshot/why-the-government-owns-so-much-land-in-the-west.html

 

 

Why the Government Owns So Much Land in the West

By QUOCTRUNG BUI and MARGOT SANGER-KATZ JAN. 5, 2016

Federal Agency

• Bureau Of Land Management
• National Park Service
• Forest Service
• Fish and Wildlife

The United States government owns 47 percent of all land in the West. In some states, including Oregon, Utah and Nevada, the majority of land is owned by the federal government. Of course, it used to own nearly all of it.

And that remaining ownership and management of large tracts of forest and grazing lands is the core of the problem for antigovernment protesters in Oregon. They have taken over a federal building, the latest in a long history of fights between the government and Western settlers about how the lands should be used.

How did the federal government get the land?

The history of federal land ownership has been largely one of divestiture and public use, not acquisition. As the United States expanded across the continent, it did so by purchasing or taking the land that became new states. (Among the groups it took land from were Native Americans.)

Over time, it transferred land to state governments and individuals, largely through homesteading and land grants, which allowed farmers to procure parcels of land for agricultural use. The government also tended to allow free use of unclaimed lands by ranchers and others, though there were skirmishes over the years when settlers tried to fence in public land or claimed land in Indian territories.

That strategy worked well in the Midwest, where very little land remains in federal hands. East of the Mississippi, for example, the federal government owns only 4 percent of land.

But in the 11 states in the West (including New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming and Montana, and not counting Alaska), a combination of geography and politics slowed things down.

“The whole disposal system sort of hits a speed bump,” said Patricia Limerick, a history professor and director of the Center of the American West at the University of Colorado.

The many mountainous, arid and difficult-to-reach tracts of land in the West simply weren’t attractive to farmers. Settlers claimed the few valleys where farming was feasible and built towns. The only thing most of the remaining land was good for was grazing, but cattle ranchers and sheep herders needed large tracts of land to feed their livestock, not the smaller parcels they could claim through homestead policies.

More recently, federal law eliminated homesteading and set up more formal systems for management of the remaining land.

Continue reading the main story Which Federal Agency Controls the Most Land?

In Millions of Acres

Source: Congressional Research Service

Isn’t the government protecting that land?

As conservation became a more important public policy goal, and politicians became concerned about substantial corruption involved in earlier land sales, efforts to hand over large tracts of federal land slowed. Some land was set aside for parks, wilderness and conservation.

Much of the 247 million acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management is available for leases to ranchers seeking grass for their cattle and to companies that extract minerals or oil. The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, where Ammon Bundy and his supporters have occupied a building this week, is set aside as conservation land, where no development can take place. The federal land in Nevada that was central toCliven Bundy’s 2014 dispute with federal officials was available for grazing to cattlemen willing to pay a lease fee, but with restrictions meant to protect the endangered desert tortoise.

Why are there cattle grazing on it? In the early 1900s, cattle farming became a speculative boom because farmers realized that the federal government was basically giving away a valuable free commodity: grass. This quickly became a problem that economists call the “tragedy of the commons.” Everyone was allowed to let cattle graze the millions of acres of public grass. Ranchers, local officials and lawmakers got together and created a law called the Taylor Grazing Act, which effectively created a federal body called the Division of Grazing to manage the grazing of these lands.

So, why the anger? Grumbling about federal control of local lands is nothing new. But research from the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service suggests that the federal government is a decent, if inflexible, landlord. Compared with private owners, it tends to charge lower rents for grazing and mining permits.

Some of the land could be sold to individuals, and some has been — the government has sold hundreds of thousands of acres in the last 25 years. But that probably won’t help the protesters. “The ranchers couldn’t afford to buy these lands anyway,” said John Freemuth, a professor of public policy at Boise State University, who studies land-use policy.

In recent years, Congress has considered legislation to transfer ownership of public lands from federal hands into state control. Advocates say that state ownership would be more responsive to the preferences of the people who wish to use the land.

But studies have established that there would be substantial administrative costs for states if they took over. And the federal government transfers a lot of its leasing revenue back to states to compensate for the taxes the states might have collected if the land were in private hands. If they owned the land, the states would have to collect rents and administer permits themselves.

An economic study from Utah in 2012 found that taking over land management would cost the state government a substantial sum: $275 million a year.

It may turn out that if the states own it, the ranchers will just be angry at another level of government for a different set of reasons.

 

[greg54]

Throw the pig in jail too

[pt0217]

I remember you saying a week ago that you were done with this topic. I am glad that you have something more to offer. In the future just give me the link, saves you from having to type so much.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Anyone who thinks this hasn't happened before should look up the "Whiskey Rebellion" and see how America has dealt historically with people who believe themselves above the law or chooses to not recognize the government that gave them the freedom and opportunity in the first place.

interesting research if you look into the driving force behind the Whiskey Rebellion. Apparently many of the founding fathers that had pledged their lives freedom and finances, had their 'finance part heavily tied to not only tobacco, other cash crops, slaves and land, but also owned distilleries. The bootlegging not only deprived the new nation of tax revenue but took profit away from the distilleries. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/11/nevada-rancher-cliven-bundy-arrested-by-fbi-in-portland.html

 

Apparently the law has a long arm and longer memory. He was still wanted by the feds for his refusal to pay ONE MILLION DOLLARS (Pinky finger touching corner of mouth ala Dr Evil) in grazing fees and trespassing fines. They will probably add the charges of interfering with with federal agents when he called (repeatedly) for the wildlife refuge occupying militia to not give up after his son asked then to surrender.

I wonder when they will be going after Rev. Al's back tax money

[Culvercreek hunt club]

 

And here in lies the problem. WE are the government and the government is US. The CONSTITUTION which is the basis of our government begins:

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

We the PEOPLE.

 

Your statement that the "Government didn't give them freedom. The people did." is simply a dumb attempt at distraction. We are a country of majority rule and if you are not in the majority you have FREE SPEECH to try and convince others of your point of view. When you threaten violence because of a law the majority has enacted you are either a sore loser, a terrorist or both.

 

 

To the contrary. Majority rule is a true Democracy. We are not. We are a Representative Republic. There is a reason why one of the branches of Government (Congress and most specifically the Senate) was set up as it is. To protect states with less population than the larger states.  RI has equal voice as CA in the Senate regardless of population. We are not majority rule. In fact the Constitution was set up for protections of out rights in the face of majority opposition. There is a defined process to modify the Constitution. If is seldom used becasue there is seldom enough wide spread support for any of the process to be carried out. 

[EspressoBuzz]

Thanks! I meant to say it's majority rules in both houses of Congress.

[Mr VJP]

As far as the reference to Rule of Law, why is it nobody on the Left is upset about the current administration's complete disregard of it, as well as the rights identified and enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

 

That lawlessness affects American citizens much more than anything any western rancher could ever do.

[EspressoBuzz]

I remember you saying a week ago that you were done with this topic. I am glad that you have something more to offer. In the future just give me the link, saves you from having to type so much.

 Copy and paste works instead of typing and I was done with the "conspiracy" concerning the death of LeVoy. I could not sit by and watch the truth distorted and bent. 

[EspressoBuzz]

As far as the reference to Rule of Law, why is it nobody on the Left is upset about the current administration's complete disregard of it, as well as the rights identified and enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

 

That lawlessness affects American citizens much more than anything any western rancher could ever do.

 

Blah Blah Blah off topic as usual when you've nothing to fuel your side of the discussion.

 

If you don't realize the damage ranchers can do just look it up, see how between the ranching and the farming practices early in the 1900's cause the great dust bowl.

[EspressoBuzz]

The Koch Brothers Are Now Funding The Bundy Land Seizure Agenda

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/11/3748602/koch-brothers-funding-bundy-agenda/

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/koch-backed-lobbying-group-is-spreading-ammon-bundys-lies-misspellings-and-all/

 

http://www.triplepundit.com/2016/02/oregon-takeover-update-plot-thickens/

 

BLM also controls mineral extraction and fees.

Edited February 12, 2016 by EspressoBuzz

[pt0217]

I agree with Culvercreek. The founders did not want a simple majority rule. Not sure how far back it goes but the senate doesn't pass bills on a simple majority. They must have a 2/3 majority to pass a bill (except Obamacare which was passed with 51 votes).

[pt0217]

The Koch Brothers Are Now Funding The Bundy Land Seizure Agenda

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/11/3748602/koch-brothers-funding-bundy-agenda/

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/koch-backed-lobbying-group-is-spreading-ammon-bundys-lies-misspellings-and-all/

http://www.triplepundit.com/2016/02/oregon-takeover-update-plot-thickens/

BLM also controls mineral extraction and fees.

Good!!!

[DirtTime]

 

And here in lies the problem. WE are the government and the government is US. The CONSTITUTION which is the basis of our government begins:

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

We the PEOPLE.

 

Your statement that the "Government didn't give them freedom. The people did." is simply a dumb attempt at distraction. We are a country of majority rule and if you are not in the majority you have FREE SPEECH to try and convince others of your point of view. When you threaten violence because of a law the majority has enacted you are either a sore loser, a terrorist or both.

 

ter·ror·ist

ˈterərəst/

noun

 

1. a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

   synonyms: extremist, fanatic; 

   revolutionary, radical, insurgent, guerrilla, anarchist,freedom fighter; 

   bomber, gunman, assassin, hijacker, arsonist, incendiary

 

Fanatic....    ..... Really? So when you keep shoving your views down people throats, in a round about way you are a terrorist? No way! 

 

So...................A few people in here wold fall into the fanatic category........

[pt0217]

I welcome the Koch brothers money to get to the truth in this.

[Mr VJP]

Blah Blah Blah off topic as usual when you've nothing to fuel your side of the discussion.

 

If you don't realize the damage ranchers can do just look it up, see how between the ranching and the farming practices early in the 1900's cause the great dust bowl.

 

Uh.....you're the one who brought up the subject of people being respectful of the Rule of Law and suffering the consequences for violations.

 

Quote:

 

"Tell ya what I will remember. America is GREAT! It has always been and if we adhere to the RULE OF LAW that our GREAT nation was based on we will continue to be GREAT. LAWS and a system of laws that ALL immigrants who came to America from other less than great systems of government agree is better than most of the world's system of laws." 

 

 

Do you not see how much damage this administration is doing to our freedoms and the future of this country?  It will be much harder to correct than the damage experienced during the Dust Bowl.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Mr VJP

[pt0217]

The modern Liberal; that which is good is evil and that which is evil is a victim.

The Evil Koch brothers want to help the Evil Bundy's.

And those Evil farmers of 1900 for destroying the plains.

[EspressoBuzz]

I agree with Culvercreek. The founders did not want a simple majority rule. Not sure how far back it goes but the senate doesn't pass bills on a simple majority. They must have a 2/3 majority to pass a bill (except Obamacare which was passed with 51 votes).

Congress may pass bills by simple majority votes. If the president vetoes a bill, Congress may override the veto by a two-thirds supermajority of both houses. Constitutional amendments require a supermajority.

[pt0217]

Congress may pass bills by simple majority votes. If the president vetoes a bill, Congress may override the veto by a two-thirds supermajority of both houses. Constitutional amendments require a supermajority.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

[EspressoBuzz]

No one is calling anyone evil. Certainly not the farmers who didn't have MODERN science helping them conserve land and water during the great dust bowl. I don't think you're suggesting we should not learn from that experience or that we should forget all about it.

 

However, if you look historically at how land abuse has occurred in the past and by whom the TRUTH comes out. And BTW the States don't want the land that the militia wants transferred to them from the feds and it's too expensive for many ranchers to purchase. Thanks to lobbying by cattlemen grazing fees are less expensive than on private lands.

 

The truth is there if you look for it but expecting the truth from mineral extraction companies is questionable.

[pt0217]

No one is calling anyone evil. Certainly not the farmers who didn't have MODERN science helping them conserve land and water during the great dust bowl. I don't think you're suggesting we should not learn from that experience or that we should forget all about it.

However, if you look historically at how land abuse has occurred in the past and by whom the TRUTH comes out. And BTW the States don't want the land that the militia wants transferred to them from the feds and it's too expensive for many ranchers to purchase. Thanks to lobbying by cattlemen grazing fees are less expensive than on private lands.

The truth is there if you look for it but expecting the truth from mineral extraction companies is questionable.

Of course we should learn from mistakes we've made in the past.

There are several people on this site that think that the Bundys and Hammonds are evil. Specifically the person that started this post.