Posted on 04/10/2014 11:32:07 AM PDT by xzins
I think that if you don’t like what the government is doing with YOUR money you should not have to give them any more. I really do believe that. We shouldn’t just let them waste our hard-earned money on stupid crap or just pocketing it. It’s not fair or right.
Yep. They should be shot, and their spring calves left to die in the desert.
Of course I know that. And I think it’s wrong. I don’t care for the American way of doing things in this regard but I’m stuck here for now because I started a family when I was young and before I knew how jacked up things were in this system.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3142500/posts?page=331#331
Beat him over the head with the Declaration of Independence if you want to leave him speechless.
It's an uncomfortable topic for his ilk.
It's about "First Amendment areas", and beatings, and swarms of officers harassing and eating out the substance of the taxpayers & Cliven Bundy.
You cannot have a prescriptive easement on federal lands. Plus, the memo shows that he had been trespassing for many years and has lost his court battles.
This should have been handled by someone local. The Sheriff would have likely only send a half a dozen deputies at most. This is why I favor taking away para-military forces from federal agencies and requireing them to use the local sheriff’s office for on the ground man power for any raids or other direct action.
Correct, Bundy only owns about 150 acres. The 600,000 acres in question have been owned by the US Government since the US/Mexico war back in the early 1800’s. Bundy was leasing the grazing rights to that land and then decided to stop paying those fees yet still use that land.
Yes there is a national park on the land. The land in question is a small part of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. That is the lake that is formed behind Hover Dam.
I have never worked for BLM.
What is a “ first amendment area”?
There seem to be two clearly different types of property involved. That owned by the rancher in fee simple, 150 acres or so and perhaps the remnant of an old homestead of 160 acres.
The rest is property owned by the government and not homesteaded or other wise conveyed since acquired in the 1840’s. Over time, methods were evolved for using the property that did not involve actual ownership. It is this contract evolution that is at issue. It appears that the rancher allowed the contract to lapse.
I agree with you Tax. This one is not one to hang your hat upon. If it was his land (outright owned like he does his 150 acres), and they suddenly said “you can’t raise cattle there anymore”, I would be up in arms. But that ain’t the case.
Yes folks, the government owns too much land. Yes, the government usually is a bully, but in this case I think the bully is the cattle rancher that just got pissed at having to pay a range tax that he thought was unfair.
you are correct, time does not run against the king.
Truer words were never spoken, yet look at many of the responses on this thread.
The King's Men set this up for the peasants in the middle of "nowhere near the Despotic brutalities".
If you want to get tased and beaten, go outside the "First Amendment area".
Interestingly, when a Roman citizen was arrested back in the day, he wasn't beaten, made to crawl before the Emperor's Men, eat dirt and he wasn't curbstomped...
We've progressed a lot since the Roman Republic.
It appears that the government began conspiring to lock up the land and kick all the ranchers off of it shortly after Bill Clinton's first election victory.
What is important in this story?
1. The Fed brought an atomic bomb to kill a cow.
2. The Fed tazes first, talks laterorders around
3. This rancher believes he's right, and there are some points clearly on his side.
“I have never worked for BLM.”
You could have fooled everyone here with that statement. If you did work for the BLM, I would recommend you get a raise for your faithful spouting of the Government Party line. Great job Comrade!
recent land court battle in California goes back before treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo..
.......The original owner of the property was Jose Maria Alviso, who received a provisional land grant from the Mexican government in the late 1830s. He later transferred the property to his brother, Jose Antonio Alviso, whose rights to the property were upheld under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which settled the Mexican-American War. The U.S. government challenged Alviso’s land patent, but the Supreme Court confirmed Alviso’s ownership in 1859.
All that complicated history led Buchwald to a basic conclusion: The nation’s high court exempted this property from the full reach of California law.
“What the Supreme Court was saying was that a claim exactly like the one being made here now was extinguished,” Buchwald said. “And it doesn’t matter that the claim is being made all these years later.”............
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_24380282/vinod-khosla-wins-key-martins-beach-battle
EVERYONE SHOULD VIEW THIS VIDEO FOR BACKGROUND ON NEVADA LAND AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?314028-1/federal-land-rights-nevada
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.