Cliven Bundy is a welfare rancher and is not a friend of Liberty

[otherone]

Where do all these fees go?

 

[twomp]

He could have moved his cattle to another chunk of land that he bought. He did not, and wants to continue to mooch from the government dole.

Can you tell me what he is "mooching" off of? Did the federal government water the grass? Did they plow the fields? Sounds to me, they just want a piece of his pie for absolutely no reason. He is paying his taxes or else the IRS would send their army in now wouldn't they? So what exactly is he mooching? A piece of the sunlight from the sun? Or are you telling me that starting in 1993, the government said, "Hey Bundy, start paying me!" and he automatically should?

 

[Weston White]

So, in effect, you are actually arguing that (while realizing of course that welfare is a method of mandating subjugation):

1. The federal government possesses the constitutional power to subjugate any portion of its population it desires, for any purpose, and to any ends.
2. That the portion of the population it has worked to subjugate, themselves become unfriendly to liberty should they make positive use of their being subjugated.
3. That the portion of the population it has worked to subjugate, themselves become hypocrites should they ever dare speak out in disfavor of their subjugation.

Regardless, I don’t think you are representing all of the underlying facts correctly.

The federal government has acted unlawfully, by using its own armed federal bureaucratic goon-squad to come in and act on behalf of its own interests. It should have gone through the local sheriff’s department for enforcement of any court orders.

The fact that the federal government has been obviously working to zealously move out of the rancher’s from the area by increasing grazing fees and limiting the number of permitted grazing animals, while also raising pseudo environmental issues.

Mr. Bundy is not refusing to play the $300,000 due; he is refusing to cede his families historical rights to the lands that they have been occupying for over a century.

The fines involved are extraordinarily excessive, totaling over $700,000; thus, making them downright unconstitutional.

Mr. Bundy’s family along with many other prior tenets had invested their time, funds, and energy into the lands in question, effectively making upgrades to support the future grazing of their cattle.

The BLM has no constitutional authority to run around inside Nevada parading as armed law enforcement personnel threatening to Taser, arrest, or shoot and kill its residents.

It is called the State of Nevada not the Nevada Territory, that title ended in 1864 when it became the thirty-sixth state of our Union. So why is the federal government still claiming control of around 90% of its land?

Your quoting of Article IV, does not justify they inappropriateness of the federal government’s actions. That power is still limited to what the U.S. Constitution stipulations throughout the entirety of its contextual breadth. More to the point is that the clause in reference addresses “all needful Rules and Regulations”, nothing about Mr. Bundy’s situation falls within that context. Ergo, the notion of protecting the desert turtles of Nevada by running out cattle ranchers is a blatantly ludicrous falsehood.

However, if you really would like to address welfare recipients and people that are unfriendly to liberty, how about you start with the tyrannically corporatist Reid family?

 

[RJB]

So I am a "squatter" too because I walk my dogs on the same exact Nevada BLM land? Yeah, I live here.

We have a terrorist among us!!!

See something, say something. Austin is calling the cops right now.

 

[William Tell]

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I do not subscribe to the principle that a property rights battle is won by making it more expensive for your opponent to win. Property rights are not justly obtained by "might makes right" on either side.

Right.

That's not how the government attained "its" land.

And that's not how the government maintains its control over it.

Fining people $25,000 dollars a day for moving fill from one side [of ultimately the king's property] to another.

 

[Danke]

I already posted that information -- Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. It gives Congress unlimited powers to dispose of the land that it is owned by the Federal government.

http://www.infowars.com/blm-action-in-nevada-is-unconstitutional-heres-why/

 

[squarepusher]

Are you even aware that they have pushed out 54 other ranchers in that area, by making it unaffordable to ranch there? He's the last man standing.

I believe they bought the land from the other ranchers, meaning they offered a dollar amount, and the rancher accepted it (btw this is the state of Nevada not the Feds). The grazing fee on BLM land is like $1.35 per mother/calf pair per month seems really low.

 

[Weston White]

Imagine you are wondering around your local mall one day and happen inside of an oddly oversized store that is dimly lit inside. Upon your entering you hear a loud banging, clanking sound coming from behind you, startled, you hastily turn around, realizing that the only door in the store has just shut and locked you inside. Now in attempting to avoid near panic you peer around in confusion, trying to focus your eyes to account for the sudden loss of light, you quickly realize that there is a group of creepy looking mostly white males, some overly skinny, but most plumply overweight, all congregating closely to one another, making odd snake like hissing noises from under their breath. As you cautiously approach them, one following another, as if they were in chorus, rapidly whispers for you to approach them and pay them a determined wade of cash as a fee and they will permit you the privilege of sitting upon each of their laps, for that is the only way to reopen the now sealed door—the federal government in a nutshell.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I believe they bought the land from the other ranchers, meaning they offered a dollar amount, and the rancher accepted it (btw this is the state of Nevada not the Feds). The grazing fee on BLM land is like $1.35 per mother/calf pair per month seems really low.

What are the fees of noncompliance?

And then, what is the process for due process regarding original claims of noncompliance and the fines levied?

Is it even heard in a courtroom with the defendant able to be present?

 

[Carlybee]

If the Federal government tried to sell the land, they would have to sell it with this freeloader still using the land to graze his cattle, if Bundy's supporters had their way. Don't you think the selling price would be negatively affected by the presence of this moocher? I think it is more reasonable for the US taxpayers to receive the full fair value of the land (to reduce the debt or their tax load) and to eject this intruder, rather than continue to provide welfare benefits to this deadbeat rancher.

The taxpayers wouldn't see a dime anyway. It would go into the huge black hole called the treasury never to be seen again. So screw them. I'm not attached at the hip to the federal govt like you appear to be. Or maybe you're right...it could help pay for all those new Tahoes they drive or for Obama to go to Hawaii. Or maybe to buy up more guns and bullets so they can go take over more land at the barrel of a gun. I would rather my tax dollars go toward an investment in liberty than see more go to the crooks in Washington.

What's next? A fee to breathe?

 

[pcosmar]

What's next? A fee to breathe?

Yes,, a Carbon Tax.

 

[pcosmar]

The grazing fee on BLM land is like $1.35 per mother/calf pair per month seems really low.

It is not when you add in the requirement to eliminate the herd to be allowed to pay that fee.

Which is exactly what they did to the rest and what Bundy has objected to.

 

[austin944]

http://famguardian.org/Publications/PropertyRights/exclufed.html

The Equal Footing doctrine was considered and rejected by the Federal court in Bundy's case.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/grazing/pdfs/Bundy_I_Notice7-26-13.pdf

(I'm sorry for the source; it's only one a few sites that has carried one of the two rulings against Bundy).

This doctrine was also considered in a prior, similar case to Mr. Bundy's, where the court also rejected that rancher's use of the doctrine:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1061959.html

Remember, I'm saying that in order to change the law you first have to understand it.

 

[klamath]

This is the legal issue of grazing rights. It is funny how the irs can tax you for those right that on the other hand does not exist.....

“Private Rights in Public Lands”-The Legal Argument
Rancher and advocate Wayne Hage (1989, p. 4) asserts his case
clearly: “The federal government owns the federal lands, but it
does not own range rights to the federal lands. The orivate rancher
owns the ranee rights to the federal lands.” Hage bases his
position on 2 primary lines of thought. The first is that specific
ranchers earned a right to forage on public lands through the venerable
western doctrine of “first in time, first in right.” Initial settlers
of the west staked a claim to a base property and to the associated
rangelands surrounding it. The fee-simple claim on the
base property was made under one of the various homesteading
acts and is recognized by the government. The claim to the sur-
JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 50(4), July 1997 431
rounding range forage is based upon a preference right to graze
those lands that stems from prior appropriation of the water and
forage therein combined with a “customary occupancy of the
range” (Hage 1989, p. 11). These rights were recognized by the
Supreme Court, according to Hage, in the 1890 decision &&&
v. Houtz (133 U.S. 320). In Buford, Hage claims that the court
declared a license created for graziers on the federal lands with
the full endorsement and encouragement of the federal government.
“Many,” he argues, “viewed [this decision] as a federal
endorsement of preemption as a means of recognizing private
title to the range” (Hage 1989, p. 90). The subsequent development
of permit systems by the Forest Service and later the
Grazing Service were essentially codifications of these preference
rights to graze. Thus, the grazing permit is different from and
dependent upon the pre-existing right to graze. ‘The granting of a
permit did not create any rights,” Hage (1989, p. 187) argues, “it
acknowledged pre-existing rights. . .” This distinction between a
permit and an alleged underlying preference right is critical
because of a long string of court cases that private rights advocates
say find no property rights inherent in a grazing tit but
remain silent on the issue of a preemptive or preference right to
grazing (Falen and Budd-Falen 1993).
Hage (1989) cites 4 common transactions involving a grazing
permit in support of his position. They are:
(1) grazing rights to public lands are attached to base properties
and transfer with them under private sales;
(2) rights are therefore bought and sold from ranchers rather than
the federal government;
(3) the military pays compensation to ranchers when taking permit
land formerly used for grazing; and,
(4) the IRS includes the value of the grazing right in calculating
estate and other taxes on ranch property.

 

[pcosmar]

The Equal Footing doctrine was considered and rejected by the Federal court in Bundy's case.

Again,, A Federal court backing up a Federal Bureaucracy that made up laws out of thin air with NO oversight or representation.

I realize that you just don't comprehend the concept of Open Range, but is was the Law for well over 100 years before BLM even existed.
And it was the law before Nevada became a state.

It is NOT federal land,, despite any claims of such. The Federal government CAN NOT Own Land. period, save for what it is strictly allowed.

and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

A Wiki reference,, just for a clue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_range

 

[Carlybee]

The Equal Footing doctrine was considered and rejected by the Federal court in Bundy's case.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/grazing/pdfs/Bundy_I_Notice7-26-13.pdf

(I'm sorry for the source; it's only one a few sites that has carried one of the two rulings against Bundy).

This doctrine was also considered in a prior, similar case to Mr. Bundy's, where the court also rejected that rancher's use of the doctrine:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1061959.html

Remember, I'm saying that in order to change the law you first have to understand it.

Are you by any chance a lawyer and a Democrat?

 

[CPUd]

Again,, A Federal court backing up a Federal Bureaucracy that made up laws out of thin air with NO oversight or representation.

I realize that you just don't comprehend the concept of Open Range, but is was the Law for well over 100 years before BLM even existed.
And it was the law before Nevada became a state.

It is NOT federal land,, despite any claims of such. The Federal government CAN NOT Own Land. period.

A Wiki reference,, just for a clue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_range

Are you saying it is unconstitutional for the federal govt to own land?

 

[Deborah K]

Are you saying it is unconstitutional for the federal govt to own land?

Look at their enumerated powers as per Article I section 8 clause 17. Then look at this:
http://famguardian.org/Publications/PropertyRights/exclufed.html and scroll down to the bottom

 

[erowe1]

If the Federal government tried to sell the land, they would have to sell it with this freeloader still using the land to graze his cattle, if Bundy's supporters had their way. Don't you think the selling price would be negatively affected by the presence of this moocher? I think it is more reasonable for the US taxpayers to receive the full fair value of the land (to reduce the debt or their tax load) and to eject this intruder, rather than continue to provide welfare benefits to this deadbeat rancher.

They shouldn't sell the land. It's not theirs to sell. They should just say, "For many years we unjustly behaved as though we owned land that we don't own. We're going to stop doing that now. As for who gets to do what there, you all can work that out among yourselves. It's none of our business."