Does that look like it, tax?
Should they put it next to the tortoise Forts, or by the Arsenals?
Posted on 04/10/2014 10:48:03 PM PDT by ponygirl
Watch this excellent speech given by a Bundy friend & neighbor at a town hall meeting.
This LONG before the government prohibited the land use for the tortoises When that didn't work, the BLM dragged in the tortoise red herring, even though the tortoises actually eat the cow plop for sustenance.
I don't know where you got that information but at this point, I don't really care anymore.
It's obvious which side you are supporting and it's definitely not Mr. Bundy's...
So much for that "conservative" thing, eh?
Yes this has nothing to do with grazing fees or tortoises. This whole thing is Agenda 21 at work.
I guess Tax Control doesn’t like steak. Its a good thing too because soon he wont’ be able to afford it. The idea is to push everyone into urban areas, shut down all small ranching and farming and make sure you are buying your food in the GMO grocery store. Or if you act out you don’t get to shop for awhile.
The states better wise up and soon or you will see the militia’s taking care of business.
My view is that the BLM wants to put the tortoise Forts next to the dock-Yards, and across the street from the Magazines.
They're probably contacting the Army Corpse™ of Engineers to get a navigable Waterway in there as we speak...
It would be a hit!
BTW - if he asks about the tortoise-Forts or them eating the cowplop, just dummy up. You don't have to let on that you read about that stuff on Free Republic - he'll never know the difference.
If only he could be understood. Is this Boomhower?
Why would I do that and why would you even bring that up? It was discussed today.........
Duh!
I pinged you so you wouldn't miss the entertainment.
“You really should get on Hannity and explain the dock-Yards thingee to him.
It would be a hit!”
LOL! Or a big Hoover type dam in the desert of Nevada. :-)
Repeating yourself does not advance your cause. You are still wrong.
Does the US Government own the land in question - yes or no
Ok, here is some legal and historical background:
At the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, Mexico and the U.S. signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which granted title to that land to the U.S., for which the U.S. paid Mexico $15 million.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a super-majority of the United States Senate. Upon the signing of the treaty, the US government took ownership and title of the land.
March 3, 1849 Creation of the Home Department consolidating the General Land Office (Department of the Treasury), the Patent Office (Department of State), the Indian Affairs Office (War Department) and the military pension offices (War and Navy Departments). This is what we call the Department of the Interior.
Sixteen years later in 1864, Nevada became a state. A provision of the Nevada Statehood Act of 1864 promised that Nevada would disclaim all rights to the unappropriated public lands lying within its boundaries, and that such land would remain at the sole disposition of the United States. Again, at this point in time the US is the owner of the land. See the constitution of the state of Nevada for conformation.
1873 Congress transferred territorial oversight from the Secretary of State to the Secretary of the Interior.
The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934[1] (P.L. 73-482) is a United States federal law that provides for the regulation of grazing on the public lands (excluding Alaska) to improve range land conditions and regulate their use. Note that this was before Bundy was even born.
1946 Interior’s General Land Office and Grazing Service are merged into the Bureau of Land Management.
At no time has the US government sold or transferred title to Bundy or any other person for the land in question. The US government owns the land.
Actually, while we weren't looking, the government went and built a dam in Nevada that actually floats in the air.
I think it's called "The Hover Dam", or something like that.
Maybe somebody around here can post more info on "The Hover dam"?
Dang! I'll bet it's for the Arsenals, and sechlike!
You claim that I am wrong but you refuse to show where and why.
Did I ever tell you about the time we mocked ol' Eschoir off his own "Gardens of Stone" thread, and got M. Larry Lawrence's corpse dug up out of Arlington National in the dead of night, and shipped back to California?
Man, those were the days...
I think I might still have that thread laying around somewhere.
You posted it. Just read Art 1 Sec 8. The proof that you are wrong is right in front of your nose.
:::: high five! ::::::
“Bundy Ranch
2 hours ago.
Ryan Payne one of the Main Militia who has been here protecting Cliven has reported it was HIS brother in law who reported the confiscating of weapons. This has been confirmed by Militia. If this happens to anyone else please call us or put it on blast, if you can get pictures, please do! Thank you for your support everybody!”
https://www.facebook.com/bundyranch
Sorry, you are incorrect. The plain reading of Article 1 Section 8 clearly shows that the US Government not only owns the land in question but has exclusive legislative authority over that land.
Does that look like it, tax?
Should they put it next to the tortoise Forts, or by the Arsenals?
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.