- Messages
- 6,072
- Reactions
- 15,024
Hage lost in court at least twice before finally being awarded $4.5 million in damages. The fact that someone has lost a case in a lower court means nothing.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
- Thread Starter jjackffrost
- Start date
Hage lost in court at least twice before finally being awarded $4.5 million in damages. The fact that someone has lost a case in a lower court means nothing.
- Messages
- 1,559
- Reactions
- 396
Wow! Had to go to work today…and I come home to this?
Great responses by all! Even those of you I have taken issue with.
Jamie, I have agreed with you…mmmm probably never since I've been on this forum. However, you broke my winning streak! Thanks for your input my friend!
Will
Great responses by all! Even those of you I have taken issue with.
Jamie, I have agreed with you…mmmm probably never since I've been on this forum. However, you broke my winning streak! Thanks for your input my friend!
Will
Member 34319
- Messages
- 17,146
- Reactions
- 37,069
This thread got lost somewhere.
JRuby neither parties actually own the land. I think you, as do many others out there, still think this land actually belongs to the federal government.
Imagine your neighbor leaves to live in Europe. He doesn't want to sell his property nor maintain or pay taxes on it so he creates a trust were the land becomes owned by the people of the neighborhood. He allows anyone in the neighborhood rights to use his property so as long as they respect a few choice rules. Rules like no oil drilling, no private business, or no drug growing. Common things that would benefit everyone to be in place. However, things like growing your own produce, using the well water, or having your livestock graze were ok. Say three years pass, the neighborhood sees you have grown a large vegetable garden on the land near your properties side of the land. They also notices that others have done the same. They get together with a handful of folks on the trust and start an agency to oversee things. They call it NLM "neighborhood land management". They make new laws stating the size of a garden you can grow on the land. Anything bigger than X pays a fee. Your garden is too big, your a good person and want no trouble, you pay the fee. Ten years later the NLM has passed so many laws you have lost track. However you have always paid your fees. Now the NLM is stating you can no longer grow a vegetable garden on the land anymore without much reasoning other than they said so. Your pretty sure the land still belongs to the neighborhood. However, the laws enforced by the NLM have you all confused. So you, being a good ole boy, you decide to harvest your crops and call it a day. But, NLM won't let you, they state those crops are now theirs as they were grown on the NLM land, not yours. Being conflicted and not knowing what to do, what would you do? JRuby?
Thing is we should not be asking the Bundy's to produce documentation on anything. I want to see the federal government provide documentation stating they own the land.
JRuby neither parties actually own the land. I think you, as do many others out there, still think this land actually belongs to the federal government.
Imagine your neighbor leaves to live in Europe. He doesn't want to sell his property nor maintain or pay taxes on it so he creates a trust were the land becomes owned by the people of the neighborhood. He allows anyone in the neighborhood rights to use his property so as long as they respect a few choice rules. Rules like no oil drilling, no private business, or no drug growing. Common things that would benefit everyone to be in place. However, things like growing your own produce, using the well water, or having your livestock graze were ok. Say three years pass, the neighborhood sees you have grown a large vegetable garden on the land near your properties side of the land. They also notices that others have done the same. They get together with a handful of folks on the trust and start an agency to oversee things. They call it NLM "neighborhood land management". They make new laws stating the size of a garden you can grow on the land. Anything bigger than X pays a fee. Your garden is too big, your a good person and want no trouble, you pay the fee. Ten years later the NLM has passed so many laws you have lost track. However you have always paid your fees. Now the NLM is stating you can no longer grow a vegetable garden on the land anymore without much reasoning other than they said so. Your pretty sure the land still belongs to the neighborhood. However, the laws enforced by the NLM have you all confused. So you, being a good ole boy, you decide to harvest your crops and call it a day. But, NLM won't let you, they state those crops are now theirs as they were grown on the NLM land, not yours. Being conflicted and not knowing what to do, what would you do? JRuby?
Thing is we should not be asking the Bundy's to produce documentation on anything. I want to see the federal government provide documentation stating they own the land.
- Messages
- 959
- Reactions
- 796
Good post, Z.Z.Zeke.
Agree forefather.
Anyone who thinks I believe the Feds are blameless is wrong. But before we go throwing out accusations and taking sides, we better check our facts thoroughly. Merely saying "I read it on the internet" only undermines the credibility of your side, as does not taking into consideration all sources of information, be they tree huggers, Alex Jones, the mainstream media, or those you love to hate.
Agree forefather.
Anyone who thinks I believe the Feds are blameless is wrong. But before we go throwing out accusations and taking sides, we better check our facts thoroughly. Merely saying "I read it on the internet" only undermines the credibility of your side, as does not taking into consideration all sources of information, be they tree huggers, Alex Jones, the mainstream media, or those you love to hate.
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 460
- Reactions
- 851
ZIGGY, That's what I was trying to articulate. Just because you loose in court does not mean you were wrong. Thanks, I agree.
- Messages
- 1,559
- Reactions
- 396
- Messages
- 6,072
- Reactions
- 15,024
I love HST.
- Messages
- 57
- Reactions
- 45
It's Funny to me that this is in part about fees. The ultra rich People and corps use offshore tact all the time to avoid "fees". Guess Bundy should of had his ranch headquarters in some Island somewhere. GE pays almost no tax but we try too seize his property (being cattle) over in part FEES. I wonder if LEO went to a high end area posted snipers and knocked around miss Jones, how that would go over. God knows they owe the gov plenty of fees. Wealthy have a long history of refusing or holding out on fines, fees and taxes as they fight it out with gov. I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL ... yeah right.
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL ... yeah right.
- Messages
- 230
- Reactions
- 159
- Thread Starter
- #149
let see if I can rap this up in a few words.
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levey war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levey war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
- Messages
- 78
- Reactions
- 70
Did anyone notice in the news coverage from television that the guys on the BLM side carried themselves and weapons like they were merc's? Ex special-ops or something, but not law enforcement. You would expect fish-and-game or deputy types but some of these guys are definitely not from law enforcement. They talked to the civilians like they were Taliban. Just my observation and gut feeling. Hopefully I'm wrong and they are ex military that needed a job and BLM was hiring. Another observation, why all the heavy armor out in the desert? This should have been handled by the local sheriff. One accidental discharge and the bloodshed would have be appalling. These ranchers are simple folk, they are just trying to survive. All I know is if the bullet do start to fly the cowboys will win the public eye and there will be politicians in deep trouble for letting it get to that point.
- Messages
- 7,000
- Reactions
- 9,862
Read this Bundy. Tell me the correlation.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/16/colo-eminent-domain-case-settled-with-115000-sale/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/16/colo-eminent-domain-case-settled-with-115000-sale/
- Messages
- 5,630
- Reactions
- 8,848
I think I would take them to court. I would also find a new place to grow a garden and it certainly would not take 21 years to figure that out.
- Messages
- 5,630
- Reactions
- 8,848
It is my understanding from what I have read that as a territory became a state that the land of public domain was passed to the federal government, speciffically to be controlled by congress and that the states are now wanting control of that property which I understand. Am I wrong?
Here is a good read on the subject
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf
Here is a good read on the subject
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf
- Messages
- 5,630
- Reactions
- 8,848
Grazing Lands
36,000 Legal Forms - USLegalForms
Find any forms you need. 8 year winner of the best legal forms site from TopTenReviews. Visit Today!.
Generally, use of public land for grazing or pasturing comes under the absolute authority of Congress. Congress can prohibit or regulate such use by fixing terms and conditions.
Congress permits grazing on public land for the following reasons:
However, the administration of state grazing lands lies within the discretion of a state. A state shall enact reasonable statutes and regulations governing grazing that are consistent with federal enactments and regulations. In case of a conflict between a federal statute and a state statute governing grazing rights and privileges, the former shall supersede.
A state usually exercises the administration of state grazing land through a state land board or commission. The state land board or commission shall make its decision either in the party's presence or in the form of a written record that is available to the public.
Upon violation of grazing regulations, both the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture can cancel, suspend, or modify a grazing permit either in whole or in part. Since the issuance of a grazing permit does not create a right, title, interest, or estate in the land, the grazing permit can be withdrawn at any time without compensation. But in cases where a permit or lease is cancelled to devote the land to another public purpose, the permittee or lessee is entitled to a reasonable compensation[iii]. Where such withdrawal is for war or national defense purposes, the permittee or lessee will be paid a reasonable sum for the losses suffered due to the use.
Generally, the Secretary of the Interior need not arrange for a formal hearing upon committing grazing land to another purpose. Therefore, witnesses need not testify or be cross-examined. But, in cases where an agency's decision partly rests upon the applicant's failure to establish certain facts, a reasonable opportunity to be heard should be afforded to the applicant.
Fallini v. Hodel, 963 F.2d 275 (9th Cir. Nev. 1992).
[ii] 43 USCS § 315.
[iii] 43 USCS § 1752.
- See more at: http://publiclands.uslegal.com/governmental-authority-and-management/grazing/#sthash.RIv3JqgV.dpuf
36,000 Legal Forms - USLegalForms
Find any forms you need. 8 year winner of the best legal forms site from TopTenReviews. Visit Today!.
Generally, use of public land for grazing or pasturing comes under the absolute authority of Congress. Congress can prohibit or regulate such use by fixing terms and conditions.
Congress permits grazing on public land for the following reasons:
- to promote the highest use of the public lands pending their final disposal; and
- to stabilize the livestock industry.
- to establish grazing districts or make additions to existing grazing districts;
- to provide for the protection, administration, regulation, and improvement of grazing districts by necessary rules and regulations;
- to permit free grazing of livestock kept for domestic purposes within grazing districts;
- to cooperate with local associations of stock owners, state land officials, and official state agencies engaged in the conservation of wildlife and interested in the use of grazing districts;
- to cooperate with a government department in carrying out the law relating to grazing districts and in coordinating range administration;
- to issue permits for the grazing of livestock in grazing districts upon the annual payment of reasonable fees;
- to lease public lands for grazing purposes; and
- to permit the construction of fences, wells, reservoirs, and other improvements necessary to the care and management of permitted livestock on public lands within a grazing district.
However, the administration of state grazing lands lies within the discretion of a state. A state shall enact reasonable statutes and regulations governing grazing that are consistent with federal enactments and regulations. In case of a conflict between a federal statute and a state statute governing grazing rights and privileges, the former shall supersede.
A state usually exercises the administration of state grazing land through a state land board or commission. The state land board or commission shall make its decision either in the party's presence or in the form of a written record that is available to the public.
Upon violation of grazing regulations, both the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture can cancel, suspend, or modify a grazing permit either in whole or in part. Since the issuance of a grazing permit does not create a right, title, interest, or estate in the land, the grazing permit can be withdrawn at any time without compensation. But in cases where a permit or lease is cancelled to devote the land to another public purpose, the permittee or lessee is entitled to a reasonable compensation[iii]. Where such withdrawal is for war or national defense purposes, the permittee or lessee will be paid a reasonable sum for the losses suffered due to the use.
Generally, the Secretary of the Interior need not arrange for a formal hearing upon committing grazing land to another purpose. Therefore, witnesses need not testify or be cross-examined. But, in cases where an agency's decision partly rests upon the applicant's failure to establish certain facts, a reasonable opportunity to be heard should be afforded to the applicant.
Fallini v. Hodel, 963 F.2d 275 (9th Cir. Nev. 1992).
[ii] 43 USCS § 315.
[iii] 43 USCS § 1752.
- See more at: http://publiclands.uslegal.com/governmental-authority-and-management/grazing/#sthash.RIv3JqgV.dpuf
- Messages
- 7,000
- Reactions
- 9,862
Ruby. The emails you send don't help your cause. If you think the government is in the right here, then your a government kind of guy. You will never see the light when you view life this way. Your an east lemming to control when you trust so much.
- Messages
- 5,630
- Reactions
- 8,848
I believe in laws and trying to do the right thing. I am not a government hater that feels teh federal government is out to get me - in short not everything the feds do is wrong. There are indiivduals that are crooks on both sides. I do not support theives, squatters and crooks and call them grass root heroes.
- Messages
- 6,597
- Reactions
- 19,383
- Messages
- 5,630
- Reactions
- 8,848
Read that this morning - if true not good. I hope they can prove that accusation. Who ever caused that needs to pay to fix it with fines added on, perhaps jail time included.
- Messages
- 30
- Reactions
- 24
I have been reading this thread and found it really fascinating. Unfortunately these things are rarely Black or White, but entirely gray, partly IMO by design. The string shows effectively how they can divide us into camps to fight each other over technicalities and regulatory interpretations as opposed to the fact that Big Governments eliminate liberty and property rights by their very existence.
The principle of standing against government taking what is not theirs to take, and slowly removing liberty and rights through increasing regulatory strangulation, is a positive thing. Right and wrong used to be rather easy to determine but watching, in this string, all the quotations of precedent and legal rulings as wells as the citations on rules, regulations and 100 year old documents requiring attorneys to understand is out of control.
Both sides have technicalities that make them in the right. If Bundy had actually paid his fees to the government each year "under protest" he would have the strongest case against an out of control bureaucracy. The constant regulatory changes work to create situations where the law abiding peoples become criminals either by intent or unintentionally, living in the gray areas.
It is a fact that the BLM has driven out nearly all the ranchers, this is wrong, and worthy of the fight. It is also wrong that Mr. Bundy did not pay the fees that he in fact paid in previous decades.
The confusion of the gray areas works to separate and divide the public support of both sides, thus making it easier for the Government to get their way. They have unlimited resources at their disposal. And if the people are not united against them they will manage to continue the bureaucratic regulatory overthrow of the people.
The increasing militarization of the numerous federal agencies concerns me, what does the BLM need an army for, if not to put down the people, which is the reason for an army.
I am not a doomsayer but resistance to these types of things is imperative to bring light to the gray areas, highlighting the increasing control over everyday citizens. It may prove that Mr. Bundy may be wrong, but not sure his resistance is wrong, and the people rising to his defense are certainly not wrong even if proved misplaced, (though I still have doubts this will be the final result).
We must stand united on principle and rule of law equally applied to all citizens, as opposed to being divided by technical interpretations of regulations created by bureaucracy, selectively applied to make policy points with superiors. Or they will win through action while we are looking up precedents.
The principle of standing against government taking what is not theirs to take, and slowly removing liberty and rights through increasing regulatory strangulation, is a positive thing. Right and wrong used to be rather easy to determine but watching, in this string, all the quotations of precedent and legal rulings as wells as the citations on rules, regulations and 100 year old documents requiring attorneys to understand is out of control.
Both sides have technicalities that make them in the right. If Bundy had actually paid his fees to the government each year "under protest" he would have the strongest case against an out of control bureaucracy. The constant regulatory changes work to create situations where the law abiding peoples become criminals either by intent or unintentionally, living in the gray areas.
It is a fact that the BLM has driven out nearly all the ranchers, this is wrong, and worthy of the fight. It is also wrong that Mr. Bundy did not pay the fees that he in fact paid in previous decades.
The confusion of the gray areas works to separate and divide the public support of both sides, thus making it easier for the Government to get their way. They have unlimited resources at their disposal. And if the people are not united against them they will manage to continue the bureaucratic regulatory overthrow of the people.
The increasing militarization of the numerous federal agencies concerns me, what does the BLM need an army for, if not to put down the people, which is the reason for an army.
I am not a doomsayer but resistance to these types of things is imperative to bring light to the gray areas, highlighting the increasing control over everyday citizens. It may prove that Mr. Bundy may be wrong, but not sure his resistance is wrong, and the people rising to his defense are certainly not wrong even if proved misplaced, (though I still have doubts this will be the final result).
We must stand united on principle and rule of law equally applied to all citizens, as opposed to being divided by technical interpretations of regulations created by bureaucracy, selectively applied to make policy points with superiors. Or they will win through action while we are looking up precedents.
- Messages
- 7,000
- Reactions
- 9,862
Big picture is my way.
You are so rightright
You are so rightright
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
-
Complete M4 Upper w/ BCG & CH 5.56x45 "Block II Inspired" * Free Ship- Started by Aero Denezol
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-