Skip to comments.Cliven Bundy II? Utah protesters prepare for new face-off with feds
Posted on 05/10/2014 10:21:14 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
This eye-blink of a town in the states scenic southeastern corner bills itself as the Gateway to Adventure. But this weekend it promises to be more like a launchpad for civil unrest.
A band of angry citizens plans to ride all-terrain vehicles onto closed-off, federally managed public land Saturday in protest against the federal Bureau of Land Management, which many say has unfairly closed off a prized area, cheating residents of outdoor recreation.
The ride, organized by San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman, is a gambit to assert county sovereignty over Recapture Canyon, known for its archaeological ruins, that BLM officials say has been jeopardized from overuse. The canyon was closed to motor vehicles in 2007, the agency said, after two men forged an illegal seven-mile trail. Hikers and those on horseback are still allowed there.
Lyman and his supporters want the BLM to act more quickly on a years-old request for a public right-of-way through the area. You cant just arbitrarily shut down a road in San Juan County, he said. If you can do that and get away with it, what else can you do?
The revolt has received national attention, coming at the heels of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundys successful standoff last month against the BLM that suggests a rising battle across the West over states rights on federally managed public lands...
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I sense we will be seeing some level of video feed from Utah rather short order.
There’s enough trouble brewing without stirring up more of it.
This is not murder, drug pushing, or even illegal influence peddling like our elected representatives do.
This is guys using a road on public land to protest the fact that it has been shut down.
Civil disobediance in the finest tradtion of our forefathers. I say: good for them and Godspeed. And may the Federal government be damned.
So in other words the land is not closed off. It's just closed to people who want to rip up the place with their ATVs. It's full of archeological sites and is sacred to the Navaho.
So here's a compromise. The BLM allows the ATV riders to have open season on the canyon and ride all over the places where the Navaho hold their ceremonies and gather their herbs and have their archeological sites. And the BLM also allow the Navaho to have a no limit open season on the ATV riders. See who's standing at the end.
Yes their goal is to "rip up the place". Your bias reveals itself.
It's full of archeological sites and is sacred to the Navaho.
The final arrow in the quiver of NIMBYism.
The point of all this, which you missed, is challenging the BLM's ongoing land grabs.
You obviously haven't assessed the type of ATV riders we are talking about here.
Next you'll be crying about all the ATV riders rushing over to play Cowboys and Indians.
The Next Bundy? BLM Backs Down Over Recapture Canyon, Utah Protest
The BLM after a huddle with the FBI, the Utah attorney generals office, the
Utah Department of Public Safety and San Juan County Sheriff Rick Eldredge
has decided once again to stand back and avoid a confrontation as it
did several weeks ago on the Bundy ranch in Nevada, Eldredge said.
It was decided that, at the end of the day, it is not worth it to spill any
blood, Eldredge said of the decision. . .
Bottom line: the Feds have way too much land.
And anything else they can tear up.
Never did Veterans fight for the feds to keep control of lands that should belong to those the Vets fought for. It was no problem to give lands to former slaves from Southern farms, Lincoln said the lands out West should not belong to any government, managed by the South in particular.
What is it that this government has no respect of declarations and history?
Obviously there is a cabal of fiction people who think they are the heirs to the Founding Fathers’ National Treasure and the world.
The real bottom line is the lawyers that are behind the environmental groups. They are worse than ambulance chasers.
Typically, the federal government defends itself vigorously against lawsuits challenging its actions. But not always: Sometimes regulators are only too happy to face collusive lawsuits by friendly foes that are aimed at compelling government action that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to achieve. Rather than defend these cases, regulators settle them in a phenomenon known as sue and settle. This tactic has exploded under the Obama Administration, costing the economy tens of billions of dollars while eroding political accountability and public participation in government. There are solutions: The executive branch should return to the principles adopted during the Reagan Administration by Attorney General Edwin Meese III, and Congress should require transparency and accountability in settlements that commit agencies to action.
This article explains Some of the who and why behind govt land grabs and use exemptions.
If you want to learn about some of the outrageous acts the environmentalists read the following link about how the gov handles FOIA requests to land users vs how they bend over backwards for environmental groups. (3 page PDF easy reading.)
It was decided that, at the end of the day, it is not worth it to spill any
blood, Eldredge said of the decision. . .
——————————————————————————————— Good Even a small battle won means a lot in the war to gain back control from the environazi’s who have the govt’s favor.
But, But,, the treaty of...
What a crock.
The federal government has no authority to HOLD ANY land other than what is listed, art 1, sec 8, 17th enumerated power.
It's sand, for cryin' out loud. What else gets your panties in a bunch? When the snow isn't aligned just right because of animal migration?
Wrong. Its time to stir the pot. Past time.
I’m looking for the politician who will call for BLM to be disbanded and the lands they administer to be handed over to the states.
Aside from military bases and office buildings, the federal government should not own vast swaths of land. The land grab was a power grab and needs to be reversed.
For me the better answer would be to sell the land to US citizens, perhaps by lottery, with leaseholders having first shot at the land they lease. But BLM itself needs to go.
Under no circumstance should BLM arm itself beyond whatever right-to-bear-arms any other citizen has.
IIRC, the road was ‘temporarily closed’ in 2007 and has not been reopened. That is pretty typical of what has been a gradual closing off of access to motorized vehicles all over the west.
Are you my 5th grade teacher? Someone chewed gum, so no one goes out for recess?
There are laws to deal with the people who broke the law.
Your comment is perfect liberal speak; incrimination by association.
There is no logical connection to people having fun in a designated ATV area and what people will do in a sensitive area.
If people act badly then discuss that with them. To assume everyone will act badly just displays the likelihood that you act badly when you think no one is watching.
Since you are handy with search, look up the meaning of character. It may be enlightening.
People go to the outdoors for recreation. And there are many ways to recreate outdoors. Hiking, camping, horses, fishing, picnicking, etc. Whether to go to the desert, the mountains, the beach, or wherever, there is one thing that you will find that all these people doing all these different activities have in common: they all detest the people on the ATVs. Because the ATVers are loud, obnoxious, and could care less about other peoples activities.
It doesn't make any difference who's land it is. Feds, state, county, timber company, private pasture, or the church across the street from me, the ATVers will tear it up.
Same thing at the lake. Some are boating, skiing, fishing, camping, hiking, picnicking, etc. But everyone of them detest the obnoxious ass-hole on the waverunner/skidoo.
Well, we will agree to disagree for this reason; Your comment says by implication (and nearly outright) that ALL people who use ATV’s are obnoxious and could care less about other people.
I do believe (and know for a fact) that this is not true. I know responsible people who use ATV’s and who certainly care about other peoples experience wherever they are.
Are there obnoxious people? Of course.
I am a life-time motorcycle rider and know that the vast majority of motorcycle riders are not obnoxious, care-less people.
The one-size-fits-all approach to problems is the slippery slope causing many of the abysmal conditions in our country today.
You do not have to look far to see abject failure by our current government (assuming they actually want to help) in trying to use this kind of approach to ‘help’ build more jobs, healthcare, help the disadvantaged and we could go on for hours on this vein.
Instead of focusing on the behavior of some people try looking at the illegal and unconstitutional actions by the non-elected ‘agencies’ that have grown like mushrooms to effect the destruction of America.
"...the illegal and unconstitutional actions by the non-elected agencies that have grown like mushrooms to effect the destruction of America"
You say that because you are a kooky posse comitatus guy who has no earthly idea how the govt works.
Congress created the Grazing Division to manage the grazing lands and a few years later the name was changed to the US Grazing Service which would later be merged with the General Land Office to create the BLM. It all changed in 1976 when Congress enacted FPLMA and told BLM to manage the lands for multi-use.
Which means managed for ATV, horseback, hikers, campers boaters, hunters, target shooters, fishermen, cattle, sheep, wild horses, burros, oil and gas, coal, gold, silver, Indians, lands that Congress sets aside; parks, forests, monuments, endangered and threatened species, and the list goes on.
So are these ATVers getting their share of use of these lands? They were shut out of Recapture canyon for breaking the regs. But there are 2800 miles of ATV trails close by. And if you go to the ATV Utah website, you see that is a lot available for ATVers.
But the ATVers are gonna bitch, moan, complain, threaten to kill people, and have a revolution if the BLM doesn't give more land to tear up. Squeeky wheel gets the grease.
The grazers complain about the wild horses. The horse lovers complain about the grazers. The grazers complain about the tortoise and the enviros complain about the grazers. Everybody complains.
In your ignorance, you complain about BLM, but Congress enacted FLPMA and the endangered species act, and the Wild Horse Act
If you don't like the way BLM is doing it, or think that someone is getting more use of the land than you are you can get congress to amend the act. And if that doesn't work you can go to court and get the judges to change it.
But sometimes that doesn't work. Bundy lost in court numerous times so he called in the militia and threatened to kill BLM agents and their round-up contractor.
It’s kind of you to offer me a 10-1 bet but I will decline. People acting responsibly rarely show off their adult behavior.
This comment ‘You say that because you are a kooky posse comitatus guy who has no earthly idea how the govt works. ‘ tells me you either don’t read past huffington post or are embedded deep in the liberal progressive agenda.
BLM is not the only agency that does not need an armed force. Neither does NOAA, IRS, EPA or any other non-sworn law enforcement agency. I will not attempt to educate you on why these quasi-cops and gear queers have proliferated. If you want to know, a little reading beyond your norm will serve you well.
As far BLM’s innocuous behavior; the many ranchers who have been forced out of ranching by the ruinous fees and regulations imposed arbitrarily by these non-elected agencies have not been silent, just not news-worthy. Look up Wayne Gage or many of the other ranchers who have had well documented and terrible experiences with these agencies.
The tortoise that was the ‘supposed’ reason for initially attacking Mr. Bundy’s ranch is not endangered by any measure. So much so that the BLM was killing them by the hundreds just last year.
The tortoise thrives where the cattle are because of a symbiotic relationship. The land thrives where cattle are because of brush removal and fertilization. All of these facts are easily discovered with minor searching, which you have demonstrated you are good at doing.
The amusing but painfully predictable result of a little investigative journalism showed that the real reason for the entire affair was that Mr. Bundy inconveniently was using land promised to Chinese investors by Sen. Reid. Bundy had to be removed. The Reid son was the go-between with the Chinese and a Reid staffer became the head of the BLM just weeks before the whole affair.
It all stinks to high heaven.
Your quite outrageous statement here ‘But sometimes that doesn’t work. Bundy lost in court numerous times so he called in the militia and threatened to kill BLM agents and their round-up contractor.’ requires a link to prove that Mr. Bundy A: called in the militia and B; any of those American citizens threatened to kill any BLM or other law enforcement officer in the stand off.
In fact it is well documented by a television reporter on the scene with a camera that it was the BLM and their contractors the provided the death threats and overt pointed weapons.
I saw one picture (from several angles making it look like more than one) of one person apparently aiming a rifle through a concrete bridge guard. There is no mention of who he was aiming at. It could have easily been from that position that person was a BLM contractor to shoot any woman or child in the protest group to spark the gunfight.
There is ample evidence that a gunfight was the expected and desired end result of the entire stand off. I am sure it was not desired by the many NV LE without body armor or long guns out in the heat. No doubt a few sacrifices had to be made.
The sheriff negotiated with the BLM to leave the area, no one told the agents guarding the cattle but the Bundy sons were told and they went to get their cattle.
This was probably the tensest moment of the entire affair. No doubt the protesters disappointed the government because all of them behaved with perfect decorum despite being told by the BLM agents that the BLM had authorization to fire on them.
Ben, get your head screwed on right and start reading up on these issues from more than one side. You will be a happier person for it.
I disagree. It is time to vigorously stir the pot. Bring it to a boil. Inevitable confrontations are less dangerous sooner than later. The longer the people wait to stand up against federal despotism, the less likely they will succeed and more likely have it turn into a violent disaster.
You say that many ranchers are being forced out by "ruinous fees". They pay a $1.35 per month per unit. That is so cheap it probably doesn't cover the administrative costs, much less management costs.
Then you tell me I need to read up Wayne Gage. You don't even know the man's name but somehow you are an expert. I'll be glad to tell you, and point out that he did it right, and won, though he didn't win much. He didn't call in the militia. One element of the Hage case was that the courts ruled that the agency did have the authority to require Hage(or any other grazer including Bundy) to reduce their herd. The second element was that the agency could not trump Hage's water rights, and that is what he won on. Hage's prior appropriation water rights were in conflict with Federal Reserved water rights. Federal Reserved water rights had been established by SCOTUS in 1908 but the courts had been re-interpreting these rights late in the 20th century. Its possible another Hage type case could come up but not likely.
Cases like Hage and Bundy are few and far between. Of the over 13,000 grazers there very few conflicts and most everybody pays on time. Many conflicts center around one grazer's stock on another grazer's allotment. And conflicts over the wild horses are common. More importantly, the Nevada Cattlemans Assos doesn't support Bundy
It is a fact that the grazers face uncertainty and the land available to graze will continue to shrink. You can look at it as shrinkage during that period from the Taylor Grazing Act up until FPLMA in 1976 plus the shrinkage from FPLMA in 1976 up until today.
We know a lot about the post FLPMA changes because BLM has published this data. That data covers the time period of 1976 to 2000 and we can say that trends during that period continue on until today, 2014.
For a couple of examples.
In 1976 there were around 11,000 cataloged archeological sites covering about a million acres. By 2000 there were over 235,000 covering over 14 million acres.
During that same period coal production on these western federal lands increased 7 fold. There were grazing allotments converted to coal production. This happened because of the Clean Air Act. Who do you hate worse? The BLM administrating FLPMA or EPA administrating the Clean Air Act? Or could it be the Wild Horse and Burro Act. Or the Endangered Species Act.
You say the tortoise is not endangered. If you have done the science, you need to call Bundy and tell him to sue, and you can be his expert witness.
“I disagree. It is time to vigorously stir the pot. Bring it to a boil.”
Whether or not I agree with you, seems a good context to make a point to many:
For most, the decision of “when?” will be made by someone else with whom you may deeply disagree. Be ready for the consequences.
I don't disagree with that.
We can never really be prepared for the consequences, things like this take on their own life and never play out as we expect.
But, unless we are willing to descend into a full fledged, high tech police state like something only imagined in a movie, the pot will have to boil over. It's way too far along. Assuming I am correct on that point, I believe that the severity of the (unforeseen) consequences will be worse the longer it takes for the "societal correction" to occur.
It is very scary to contemplate. But I believe it is scarier to contemplate (at least) 5 generations of complete serfdom in this country.
There are no good scenarios in our future.
One interesting tidbit about Bundy I found interesting if it in fact is true.
Bundy, based upon info I’ve seen published owns less than 160 acres of land.
The rest is gov’t land he was running his cattle on and not paying the grazing
fees for many years now. If his land acreage is correct then Bundy is
essentially a tenent rancher using someone else’s land. Based upon the
contractual arrangement to use the land Bundy depends upon someone else
to establish the rules.
It is true and what most people don't realize, is that Congress set it up that way.
In earlier times I read history books on the west, and settling the west.
Congress had an aversion to dispersing these lands in large tracts. That wasn't a problem back to the east in the wet zone, because settlers could make a living off of small tracts. But in the west, it was a problem.
So an individual could get the land, often by homesteading, and could then graze out onto the federal lands. And Bundy claimed that his family homesteaded/owned that 160 acres and grazed those federal lands since the 19th century and because of that, he owned not just the 160 acres but also those grazing lands.
But then it came to light that Bundy's claims about this land is not true.
The TV station KTLA 8 has done a great job of reporting on the Bundy issue. One of their reporters went to the courthouse to research the deed and found out that Bundy's parents bought that 160 acres in 1948 and didn't begin grazing that federal land until 1954.
Channel 8 also did those extensive interviews with Metro police officers who were on the scene. These interviews took place after the FBI interviewed the officers.
Gilespie insisted that the officers wear no protective gear or carry long guns because he didn't want to agitate the militia. All these officers were talking how threatening the militia was. But they negotiated the deal between Bundy's son and the BLM on releasing the cattle, but before they could do that, Bundy gave the order to the militia to move on the corral. The officers all fled the scene and the BLM was in the corral and that is where the shooting almost occurred.
Channel 8 also covered that story about the militia making the bomb threats to the Holiday Inn in Mesquite because the BLM was staying there.
Is that a Nevada or CA station? I can’t find it on the web. Thanks
Thanks for the links. I was looking for KLTA 8 and kept getting a Los Angeles station.
I was using the wrong call letters in my search.
I was looking for KLTA 8.....
I was looking for KTLA 8 and not KLAS 8
Interesting links and info....... Again thanks..
We won the last time they tried that.
I laugh in Ben Ficklin’s direction...
What “history books” did you used to read??? Those depicting the settling of the “west”??? What part of the “west”???
Did you not in an earlier post insinuate that the Navaho should not have a “bag limit” on ATV’ers trespassing on “government land”???
Are you saying the BLM or other alphabet government enforcement agency needs to contract out to native American tribe to conduct violent acts upon citizens rights???
You certainly bring another level of strain into the overall discussion again...
You ask what part of the west? The west is those lands between the 98th meridian and the Cascades/Sierra Nevada. The 98th meridian is the eastern wet/dry line: To the east is wet and to the west is dry. The Cascades/Sierra Nevada is the western wet/dry line: To the west is wet and to the east is dry.
These lands are called the Great Plains but in the past were often called the Great American Desert. Its the western plains, the intermountain west, and the "islands of trees", which is those lands above a certain elevation that receives rain/snow because the height of the Rockies squeezes(condenses) the last bit of moisture from the air.
The western plains are anchored on the south by the Chihuahuan desert and the intermountain west is anchored by the Sonoran desert.
So we really define the west by geography and rainfall/evaporation rate. The difference between the evaporation rate in San Antonio and Williston is equal to 15 inches of rain.
There's lots of history books that deal with history of the west broadly and narrowly and are organized around dates and events.
But there is the book "The Great Plains" written by the Texas historian Walter Prescott Webb. Published in 1931, it is still considered to be the bible on settling the west and is still in publication because many western colleges and universities use it as a textbook.
It doesn't deal with dates and events. Its a characterization of the west and how man had to change to occupy the lands. It covers geology, geography, flora as in long, short, and bunch grass prairies plus the brush lands. Fauna as in buffalo, prairie dogs, etc. It discusses water and range law. Also the invention of the Colt revolver, variable pitch windmill, and barb wire and how settlement couldn't proceed without these. The book does cover the dam building in the west that occurred prior to publication in'31 but many, many more were built later. Even though the Ogalala aquifer was known at the time, the impact of that aquifer on farming and ranching would not happen until after '31. The book doesn't cover Reserved water rights because in '31 that wasn't controversial. It was only after the courts began re-interpreting that law later in the century that it did affect the west.
It also thoroughly discusses the successes and failures of the methods which Congress used to disperse the public lands in the west. These policies worked well to the east in the wet zone or wetter zones, such as the northwest territories to the west and north of the Ohio river.
Congress obviously had an aversion to turning over large tracts of land in the west to individuals the way Texas, Spain, and Mexico did. Maybe this was egalitarianism or perhaps Congress, which was composed of those from the north and south, was intent on limiting the political and economic power of the west after the west became states in the union.
That's all history and you can't change history.
You should read this book. You can buy it new for $23 at Amazon and used copies are a few bucks. I bought mine used 20 years ago at the Half Price Book Store in Arlington.
Another book you should read is Cadillac Desert because it covers the history and future of water in the west.
Well, you look at geographic interfaces, while I look at cardinal directions as points on a compass, west being one direction and not a condition of moisture content/retention or quantity over a period of time...
Got to go back and look closer, I could have sworn you made mention of the Navaho, and bag limits on ATV’ers, muh bad...It was up in one of the earlier posts on this thread...It was late/early this morning and I was a bit bleary eyed from a bit of insomnia...
I minored in History, and did more to enhance my interests in engineering with a heavy physics load...So I feel my outlook is based more upon the mechanics of an issue with a flair for Louis L’Amour in my presentation...
You seem to be more of an absolute-ionist in your accounts...I’ve seen it before (in the past that I can recall here in FR), but kept my peace, to see a better picture of your approach to additional debate...
Just take my words as constructive criticism until I see more data...
The whole premise of these issues we are having with the FEds (land ownership, property rights etc etc etc) is not about anything more than a federal shakedown from a cash strapped government run amok...You know this...
just as it could be argued that personal property ownership is a temporary stewardship from a certain point of view, the same could be said about the government and its desire to “control” as much tangible property and personal liberties it can, for as long as it can get away with...
I always caution people who comment here to be very careful about what they post in a publically accessible forum as this...We are ALWAYS under scrutiny and we are not as anonymous as one would think you are...Even in the backroom messaging system on this website...
No one has a hole card anymore...
And trying to bait people into writing something they shouldn’t is not debate, it is inflammatory, borderline inciting premeditation to do drastic things detrimental to all of us who value free speech, not to condone illegal acts...
We are a lot smarter than that...Guidance, restraint, know where it really is that you can effect change, and course corrections is wiser, creates lasting relationships whether you agree or disagree with someone...
Just my opinion...
If the west is defined as being east of the Cascades/Sierra Nevada and dry, then Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco are not part of the west, but Los Angelus and San Diego are.
But of course they are part of the west.
So there is another criteria. Where did mankind have to change to live.
As settlement moved west it reached the 98th meridian wet/dry line and stopped, then jumped to the west coast wet zone, where there was adequate rainfall such that they could just like they did back east.
The exceptions were the Mormons who wanted to locate away from any and everybody, as well as those who weren't actually settlers but were seeking gold and silver.
Sure there were wet places along rivers and streams in the west that could be settled but that was a very small area compared to the vast west
After the windmill came along, the dry west could be settled because the windmill gave them enough water to drink, grow a garden and shade trees, water a milk cow, a pig, and some chickens. Plus take a bath on Sat night. But they still had to depend on dry land farming to raise a crop.
Barb wire allowed them to fence out the open range so that a drovers cattle herd could not destroy/eat property and crop.
You can see this in the water rights doctrines. The east uses Riparian water rights that originated in Europe. But in the west Riparian water rights didn't work, so Prior Appropriation water rights were developed. The states that straddle the 98th meridian(TX, OK, KS, etc) use the dual doctrine of Riparian and Prior Appropriation. Like wise with CA, OR, and WA because they straddle the Cascades/Sierra Nevada. But NM, AZ, CO, UT, NV, etc use Prior Appropriation.
Even though adjustments were made and tool came along, there was still the problem of acquiring land in the west. Congress was willing to sell cheaply or give away to homesteaders small tracts of land but they would not do that with large tracts. And many of these lands were suitable only for grazing.
So settlers would locate on these small tracts and graze their livestock out on these federal lands for free. But eventually Congress established the system of grazing leases that are still in use today, which is almost free or very cheap at $1.35 per month per grazing unit.
And as time went by Congress made more changes such as more regulations, more set asides, and multiple use which means there are fewer grazing leases available for lease and there are more regulations on those leases.
Which means fewer head of livestock being grazed.
You can identify the significant changes as the Taylor Grazing Act 1936 and the Federal Lands and Policy Management Act 1976. Also NEPA, Endangered Species Act, Wild Horse and Burro Act, Clean Water Act, and others.
The building of Lake Mead no doubt benefitted farmers by giving them water for irrigation, but it reduced land available to the grazers. Cliven Bundy was in conflict with the BLM over the Bunkerville grazing lease for quite awhile(since 1992), but when he moved his livestock onto the Lake Mead wildlife management area in 2012, that set in motion the wheels that would lead to the 2014 standoff.
You can say the same thing about coal. Today they mine 10-15 times more coal on these western federal lands than they did 40 years ago, which means land previously used for grazing is now used for coal production. We have to use this coal because of the Clean Air Act.
All these federal lands in the west are multi-use and all the different groups using these lands want to not just keep their share, they all want more.
The grazers want more land. The people that love wild horses want these wild horses to have more. ATV riding is a popular and growing sport so they want more land/trails. Campers and hikers want more. Everybody wants more.
“And may the Federal government be damned.”
Many of them will be if you believe what the Bible says about the goings on inside that Beltway.
On the contrary - this type of resistance to the fedgov needs to happen EVERYWHERE.
So some stupid lizard, toad, owl goes extinct because humans are in their habitat. Do the biologists ever admit that many just move away and still exist? No. More species have gone extinct than exist today, and not because of human activity.
Really, a sardine sized fish (forgot name) is reducing the water supply to California's fertile food-producing central valley and causing farms to shut down. I hate, yes said hate, the EPA. I get to say hate because it is a natural (which you love) and legitimate human emotion. Deal with it all you environmental nazis.
"I get to say hate because it is a natural (which you "LIBS" love natural) and a legitimate human emotion."
Probably should cut back on the Samuel Adams...haha. Hope you and family are doing well. We're okay here and enjoying the local post of the American Legion and our charities. Still in the mix.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.