Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

[AuH20]

Progs are contradicting themselves all over the place on this thing. They hate big ag but the govt is destroying ranchers who free range their cattle rather than pack them into factories like sardines. They demand Bundy pay the 1 million in fees, but the BLM has spent three times that going after them. The tortoises are endangered, but that's ok as long as the fee is paid. Did I miss anything?

Progs keep referring to federal lands as "their" land and keep reinforcing the concept that "they" need to be compensated for it's use. Little do they know that if they took a visit to "their" land, they wouldn't be welcomed with red carpets or bouquets of flowers. More like tazers and handcuffs.

 

[Carlybee]

Progs keep referring federal lands as "their" land and keep reinforcing the concept that "they" need to be compensated for it's use. Little do they know that if they took a visit to "their" land, they wouldn't be welcomed with red carpets or bouquets of flowers. More like tazers and handcuffs.

Yes they seem to have forgotten how well their Occupy movement was received.

 

[AuH20]

More eywitness reports:

I was on that I-15 bridge, glassing the Federales while a few hundred extremely brave Americans confronted them. I was sitting on a bridge railing using my binoculars when I focused on a grey Silverado just to the south of the gate ... lo and behold 5-6 BLM "sharpshooters" using their riflescopes to check the crowd. The pucker factor went up a bit when a "sharpshooter" and I met eye-to-eye ... me with binoculars, him with a rifle scope. I turned to the Idaho militia member behind me, gestured to his AR and asked "what are you zeroed at?" He lowered his binos, turned to the NHP officer beside him and asked him to contact Las Vegas Metro (who took control of the situation) and have the "sharpshooters" 'knock that shit off.' No sooner said than done. Kudos to the Nevada Highway Patrol and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department for standing up for American citizens! As the BLM left (I counted 82 vehicles) they did indeed have to run a "gauntlet" of Patriots, who were, all in all, fairly quiet, most of us waving, although a few chose to be a bit more efficient and not use all of their fingers as they did (I chalked it up to a bad case of sunburn on their hands.) During the day I spent at the Ranch, I heard NO inflammatory anti-American, anti-government language ... quite the contrary in fact. A lot of patriotism and a lot of prayer. The Bundys are good, faithful, strong family, with deep roots. I was proud to stand with them.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Seriously, Nevada?

Nevada Constitution?

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Const/NvConst.html

ORDINANCE

Slavery prohibited; freedom of religious worship; disclaimer of public lands. [Effective until the date Congress consents to amendment or a legal determination is made that such consent is not necessary.]  In obedience to the requirements of an act of the Congress of the United States, approved March twenty-first, A.D. eighteen hundred and sixty-four, to enable the people of Nevada to form a constitution and state government, this convention, elected and convened in obedience to said enabling act, do ordain as follows, and this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada:

First. That there shall be in this state neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment for crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

Second. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship.

Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States.

[Amended in 1956. Proposed and passed by the 1953 legislature; agreed to and passed by the 1955 legislature; approved and ratified by the people at the 1956 general election. See: Statutes of Nevada 1953, p. 718; Statutes of Nevada 1955, p. 926.]

Sec: 2.  Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States.  All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

 

[AuH20]

 

[phill4paul]

Seriously, Nevada?

Nevada Constitution?

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Const/NvConst.html

And they started off so well before tumbling in section 2.

Section. 1.  Inalienable rights.  All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness[.]

in·al·ien·a·ble
inˈālēənəbəl/Submit
adjective
1.
unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

 

[Lucille]

h/t https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203012919118149&set=p.10203012919118149&type=1&theater

I did miss a few. Progs claim they're champions of the little guy and against corporate welfare, but then cheer when small businessmen are forced off their land and out of business to benefit big business and fascist politicians who stand to make millions.

Progs are all about treating animals humanely, expect for Bundy cattle.

"My baby cows, they're under the bushes dying because you took their mothers."

 

[PRB]

^ It's still not enough to satiate the fedgov's greed:

Obama Administration Set to Seize Millions of Acres in the West
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...on-Set-to-Seize-Millions-of-Acres-in-the-West

Strike the Root linked to an old article today on that wrt the Bundy Ranch situation.

This also:
Lawmakers, Utah sheriffs want to rein in renegade BLM, Forest Service officers
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...egade-BLM-Forest-Service-officers.html?pg=all

the graph is misleading if not utterly pointless when you stripped it of context, which is : how much land is uninhabited, and how much is privately owned. without such a comparison, it says nothing. such a graphic seems to assume federal government should never own and control any land, ignoring national parks, among other things. Not even counting that federal government may be happy to lease it out to state governments if not individuals.

 

[phill4paul]

the graph is misleading if not utterly pointless when you stripped it of context, which is : how much land is uninhabited, and how much is privately owned. without such a comparison, it says nothing. such a graphic seems to assume federal government should never own and control any land, ignoring national parks, among other things. Not even counting that federal government may be happy to lease it out to state governments if not individuals.

Why should a state have to lease its land from the federal government? Why should individuals of a state have to lease land from the federal government and not the state?

 

[Cap]

Something interesting....here is the Clark County Property Records search engine, which Bunkerville is a part of. Go there and type in Reid and see what comes up. It appears that Harry Reid has been busy buying up property. If it is the same Harry Reid. There even is a Reid LLC. Worth a look anyways.

http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/Depts/...cords.aspx?H=redrock&P=assrrealprop/ownr.aspx



HT TommyPaine

 

[GunnyFreedom]

the graph is misleading if not utterly pointless when you stripped it of context, which is : how much land is uninhabited, and how much is privately owned. without such a comparison, it says nothing. such a graphic seems to assume federal government should never own and control any land, ignoring national parks, among other things. Not even counting that federal government may be happy to lease it out to state governments if not individuals.

How would the land become inhabited when it is restricted by the federal government? That's circular. You can't say "it's not inhabited anyway" when a big part of the reason it's not inhabited is that it's owned by fedgov. It's begging the question. You cannot possibly know whether people want to live in certain places or not until after the federal restrictions on land use and ownership are lifted.

"Look! There is nobody living there. Therefore the law we've always had saying 'nobody can live there' doesn't really harm anyone..."

It's a broken argument where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

 

[Cap]

Something interesting....here is the Clark County Property Records search engine, which Bunkerville is a part of. Go there and type in Reid and see what comes up. It appears that Harry Reid has been busy buying up property. If it is the same Harry Reid. There even is a Reid LLC. Worth a look anyways.

http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/Depts/...cords.aspx?H=redrock&P=assrrealprop/ownr.aspx



HT TommyPaine

The old adage of follow the money trail never seemed so appropriate.

 

[PRB]

How would the land become inhabited when it is restricted by the federal government? That's circular.

And you're just assuming it's A causing B, not vice versa.

You can't say "it's not inhabited anyway" when a big part of the reason it's not inhabited is that it's owned by fedgov. It's begging the question. You cannot possibly know whether people want to live in certain places or not until after the federal restrictions on land use and ownership are lifted.

Actually you CAN, if you actually counted land which is neither owned by private nor owned by federal government, does that not exist at all?

Not to mention, have you bothered checking to see if any land was WANTED, but government has REFUSED to lease, sell or otherwise open up?

"Look! There is nobody living there. Therefore the law we've always had saying 'nobody can live there' doesn't really harm anyone..."

It's a broken argument where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

again, how about we first get the numbers together, then compare? you automatically assume, it seems, that there's nothing to compare it to and it's always the governments' fault.

 

[PRB]

Why should a state have to lease its land from the federal government? Why should individuals of a state have to lease land from the federal government and not the state?

basically the federal government should never own any land?

 

[pcosmar]

basically the federal government should never own any land?

Basically.. yeah.

Except for Federal buildings and Military bases/Forts.

And I don't believe that States should own anything more than the necessary land for administrative buildings either.

Open Range is just that,, open and free for any and all to use.

 

[Lucille]

Something interesting....here is the Clark County Property Records search engine, which Bunkerville is a part of. Go there and type in Reid and see what comes up. It appears that Harry Reid has been busy buying up property. If it is the same Harry Reid. There even is a Reid LLC. Worth a look anyways.

http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/Depts/...cords.aspx?H=redrock&P=assrrealprop/ownr.aspx

Good find. From DP:

The principal owner of "Reid Bunkerville LLC" is Bruce Gamett.

Bruce Gamett is referenced here as an "Accountant" who can be paid to sign any document.
http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/jared-shafer/las-vegas-nevada-...

"Bruce Gamett and Shawn King are certified public accountants who will sign any document Mr. Shafer places in front of them. Bruce Gamett and Shawn King have made a lot of money backing Mr. Shafers frauds. The trio has been involved in wire fraud, selling securities without a license, submitting false documents to courts of law, Medicare fraud and suspected embezzlement in senior trust accounts. Public officials living in Clark County have been engaged in a lifelong occupation of covering up Mr. Shafers crimes. Mr. Shafer was able to gain access to North Las Vegas officials because Patience Bristol was dating an influential member from North Las Vegas investment committee. Rumor has it Senator Harry Reid has been involved because the senator and Mr. Shafer have a history dating back to 1985. "

Bruce appears to be a "principal" of over 21 companies
http://www.bizapedia.com/people/BRUCE-GAMETT.html

Speaking of the devil:

Sen. Reid on Cattle Battle: "It's not over"
http://www.mynews4.com/news/local/s...ttle-Its-not-over/nT5weKnqFkezV14I5GhESg.cspx

 

[Lucille]

the graph is misleading if not utterly pointless when you stripped it of context, which is : how much land is uninhabited, and how much is privately owned. without such a comparison, it says nothing. such a graphic seems to assume federal government should never own and control any land, ignoring national parks, among other things. Not even counting that federal government may be happy to lease it out to state governments if not individuals.

And you're just assuming it's A causing B, not vice versa.

Actually you CAN, if you actually counted land which is neither owned by private nor owned by federal government, does that not exist at all?

Not to mention, have you bothered checking to see if any land was WANTED, but government has REFUSED to lease, sell or otherwise open up?

again, how about we first get the numbers together, then compare? you automatically assume, it seems, that there's nothing to compare it to and it's always the governments' fault.

Oh yay. Another hair-splitter defending the fedgov. Can't have enough of those around here!

Here's one with more detail, since you got so upset about the one that put it in simple percentages:

http://modernsurvivalblog.com/retreat-living/government-owned-land-near-you/ < Click here for maps of individual states.

You may be interested to see a map of each individual State and where the government owned land is within each State.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

And you're just assuming it's A causing B, not vice versa.

No, actually I'm not. I've not made any assumptions at all, I'm simply challenging yours.

Actually you CAN, if you actually counted land which is neither owned by private nor owned by federal government, does that not exist at all?

money is fungible, land is not. Two parcels of land 30 foot apart can have a different value. The lack of interest in one plot 300 miles away is not a statement of the level of interest in another plot right over there.

Not to mention, have you bothered checking to see if any land was WANTED, but government has REFUSED to lease, sell or otherwise open up?

Well, there is this guy named Clive Bundy who has apparently become the symbol of a larger movement of abused ranchers...

again, how about we first get the numbers together, then compare? you automatically assume, it seems, that there's nothing to compare it to and it's always the governments' fault.

No, I simply refuse to presume to know what the market will do or not, I just know that the market does best when it's free. "Federally managed" is not free, especially when the regulators rule like petty kings on fiat, and carry with them their own extrajudicial police forces...

 

[Carlybee]

http://benswann.com/exclusive-sourc...ce=newsletter&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=nl

Sorry can't paste the text on ipad

 

[Tod]

http://benswann.com/exclusive-sourc...ce=newsletter&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=nl

Sorry can't paste the text on ipad

That deserves its own thread!