Posted on 04/10/2014 11:32:07 AM PDT by xzins
You know Daxton. We here in the area have known this since the bastard has been around. Yet, the blinders are on most folk and hence, we go the way of Germany prior to WW2.
Thank you for your contributions to society. YOU are a real brave person.
The U.S. purchased all of that from Mexico? I think not.
Again; Article one “1” Section eight “8” the 17th enumerated power.
A1S8 does not apply because the land in question was purchased from Mexico by lawful treaty and not “purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be.” Nevada was not even a state when the U.S. purchased that land.
prescriptive easement
grazing rights (historical)
not so cut and dried
and protector of the turtles and killer of cattle?
Point me to the rules. I’ll read them and then answer accordingly. Generally, I do not support most of what the EPA does. I think the agency should be dissolved.
In fact just talking about these looting trespassers makes you a racist.
This could only happen in a country run by corrupt, controlling evil lunatics.
But I sure like how events like this expose some here, who clearly think it's perfectly legitimate and honorable for the Fedgov to pick and choose which laws to enforce, as they recklessly use the fees and fines to destruct and divide this once great country.
wish i could. saw on FB that a bunch of folks are headed that way. God speed.
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Lynn/My%20Documents/Downloads/LW-EPA-proposed-waters-rule%20(1).pdf
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/04/EPA-Proposal-Seeks-Huge-Power-Grab-Over-Farmlands
No, I do not support the EPA’s proposed rules. The EPA’s regulatory authority is restricted to “relatively permanent waters” that connect to “navigable waterways.”
Whether or not the pools, ponds, and creeks existed before a particular state is irrelevant. The federal government does not own those pools, ponds, and creeks. The proposed EPA rules are not the same as the BLM removing “trespass cattle” from land owned by the federal government.
You are appropriately subservient. Please kneel and kiss the boot on your neck...NOW!
No. The federal government bought the land in 1848 from Mexico under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
I just watched a video on that today...heck I didn’t even know there was an issue with the Gov grabbing his cattle....but I understand the fight’s been going on for many years over this to begin with...looks like it’s coming to a head...course with Obama’s team in office expect anything like this!
This thing BTW has nothing to do with Turtles being protected..as usual. All to do with EPA throwing their weight around again.......’they want the money’ they say he owes... a milllion or so in lease fees...so they will always put the heat on...they are after all the Governments “Thugs”.....like the IRS...going after the money!
The only means of enforcing a "peace" treaty is through threat of war. Eventually thre will be enough Mexicans in the Southwest that Mexico will be able to annex it and our limp wristed leadership will do nothing about it.
In this case, they use the endangered species act.
“Thank you for your contributions to society. YOU are a real brave person.”
Or stupid.
Jon Ralston, John L Smith, Steve Sebelius all blackballed my expose on Harry Reid.
I believe there are some things the government was never supposed to own....land being one of them. That much control will always need restraint, and not being able to own the land would have kept temptation on the back burner.
In the Bible the Levi Tribe were the Priests, Spiritual power, however they could not own land...the sacrifices and the temple were their part.
Power has to be God controlled and reigned in, and if they can own what you have, it will always be corrupted by individuals who manipulate... to take away what others have worked for, or their ancestors.
I agree about the illegals, and the behavior of leftist vote fraudsters. These people love chaos.
Be thankful...there could have been a slew of Ted Bundy, serial killer pics.
Let's say there are a couple of hundred thousand or a couple of million dollars in grazing fees in dispute. An amount that could be paid tonight simply by them asking for donations.
Let's put aside that al sharptounge owes the irs far more, as does hijackson.
Let's put aside that the regime has no problem with tens of millions of illegal invaders illegally "grazing" on federal property.
The questions are: Why are they doing this and why are they doing this now?
No, they are not even close to being the same.
They use these “rules” to illegally take property. In this case, they use the endangered species act.
No, the BLM is using a valid court order not arbitrary rules created by an Executive branch agency.
I wish Nevada would claim Imminent Domain and take possession of the “fed property” in their state.
I wonder what the feds would have to say about that?
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.