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

[jkob]

I don't care if Cliven Bundy is a "welfare queen"; I will not support the federal government sending in their squad of trained assassins to murder him, his family, and his supporters. They call him a freeloader, a domestic terrorist, and worst of all A RACIST! I wouldn't be surprised if you start hearing the classic fed justification of "child abuse" and "illegal guns" before they move in. There is deliberate effort right now on the behalf of the government with their paid shills in the MSM and online to poison public opinion against Bundy because if they can do that then they justify it when they massacre Bundy and his family. I hear it a lot when I talk to people about Waco, they shill the government line of suspected "child abuse" and somehow in their minds that justifies the government murdering all of them. Likewise, the federal government euthanized hundreds of these poor desert turtles in this same area that they supposedly want to protect so badly. Make no mistake, whatever reason the government gives when it responds like this it is really because they cannot tolerate any challenge to their authority because the entire charade would collapse if their threat of legally-sanctioned overwhelming force wasn't taken serious. It doesn't matter how small and harmless the challenge is to the rest of us, they can't let us slaves start actually believing we too can free ourselves from the bonds of their tyranny. The government is just a protection racket, they're no different than the mafia or a street gang, if you don't pay up they'll come get your ass.

 

[Carlybee]

Tell me how do you think private property magically came to be... God farted out a constitution and Americans with their city-blocks magically appeared?

Bwahaha ....sig worthy

 

[Sonny Tufts]

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

The disinformation site known as Family Guardian is usually the last place to go to get an accurate description of the law. However, this time they were honest enough to cite a portion of the 1956 Report that discusses a way for the federal government to acquire exclusive jurisdiction apart from the state cession method referred to in I.8.17. It's on the page right after the page that you linked to. The following is the full discussion from the Report:

In Fort Leavenworth R.R. v. Lowe, supra, the Supreme Court approved second method not specified in the Constitution of securing legislative jurisdiction in the United States. Although the matter was not in issue in the case, the Supreme Court said (p. 526):

The land constituting the Reservation was part of the territory acquired in 1803 by cession from France, and until the formation of the State of Kansas, and her admission into the Union, the United States possessed the rights of a proprietor, and had political dominion and sovereignty over it. For many years before that admission it had been reserved from sale by the proper authorities of the United States for military purposes, and occupied by them as a military post. The jurisdiction of the United States over it during this time was necessarily paramount. But in 1861 Kansas was admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with the original States, that is, with the same rights of political dominion and sovereignty, subject like them only to the Constitution of the United States. Congress might undoubtedly, upon such admission, have stipulated for retention of the political authority, dominion and legislative power of the United States over the Reservation, so long as it should be used for military purposes by the government; that is, it could have excepted the place from the jurisdiction of Kansas, as one needed for the uses of the general government... [Emphasis added.]

Almost the same language was used by the Supreme Court of Kansas in Clay v. State, 4 Kan. 49 (1866), and another suggestion of judicial recognition of this doctrine is to be found in an earlier case in the Supreme Court of the United States, Langford v. Monteith, 102 U.S. 145 (1880), in which it was held that when an act of congress admitting a State into the Union provides, in accordance with a treaty, that the lands of an Indian tribe shall not be a part of such State or Territory, the new State government has no jurisdiction over them. The enabling acts governing the admission of several of the States provided that exclusive jurisdiction over certain areas was to be reserved to the United States. In view of these development, an earlier opinion of the United States Attorney General indicating that a State legislature, as distinguished from a State constitutional convention, had to give the consent to transfer jurisdiction specified in the Federal Constitution (12 Ops. A.G. (1868)), would seem inapplicable to a Federal reservation of jurisdiction.

Since Congress has the power to create States out of territories and to prescribe the boundaries of the new States, the retention of exclusive legislative jurisdiction over a federally owned area within the State is admitted into the Union would not appear to pose any serious constitutional difficulties.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Really, what bothers me more than fed.gov holding so much land, is why they are holding it. They'll happily give it up as collateral for loans foreign counties make us and basically sell this country out from under us.

"Oh, well, we're not gonna pay you back that 30 trillion dollars, so, uh, just take everything west of the Mississippi River." - - Congress

 

[austin944]

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

If Bundy were to graze his cattle on private lands, the cost would likely be a lot higher. This GAO report says:

"The grazing fee BLM and the Forest Service charge, which was $1.43 per AUM in 2004 [it's now even lower], is established by formula and is generally much lower than the fees charged by the other federal agencies, states, and private ranchers."
http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/248043.pdf

This welfare rancher knows that he had been getting a sweet-heart deal from the government. That's why he turns to the government, and doesn't run those cattle on private ranch lands, where'd he be charged higher fees.

If the land was sold by the government, Bundy would probably would not recognize the property rights of the new owners and would continue to insist on grazing his cattle on the land, given his apparent entitlement mentality.

You can certainly find fault with the government in this matter, but I am particularly surprised to see anyone defending Bundy's right to suck off the government's teat and receive subsidized grazing rights at taxpayer expense. He is no different from the Wall Street banks and automakers receiving low-interest loans and bail-outs from the government.

 

[pcosmar]

If Bundy were to graze his cattle on private lands, the cost would likely be a lot higher. This GAO report says:

You just love fellating the Government don't you.

The BLM should have never been created (by the stroke of a pen) in the first place.

The whole and entire purpose of creating the Agency,, WAS TO DO WHAT THEY WERE NOT LEGALLY AUTHORIZED TO DO..

GAO be damned.

They have successfully run off 50 ranchers from that land,, Destroyed their Livelihood and their legacy.
Clive Bundy is the last one in their way.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Since the federal government may acquire ownership of land other than through the methods set forth in I.8.17, must it use such land for the limited purpose set out in that provision? The 1956 Report and the Supreme Court say the answer is no:

Cessions of legislative jurisdiction are free not only from the requirements of article I, section 8, clause 17, as to purchase--and, with it, ownership--but they are also free from the requirement that the property be used for one of the purposes enumerated in clause 17, assuming that however broad those purposes are under modern decisions the term "other needful Buildings" used therein may have some limitation. In Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U.S. 518 (1938), in which the Supreme Court sustained the exercise of Federal legislative jurisdiction acquired pursuant to a State cession statute, it was said (pp. 529-530):

* * * There is no question about the power of the United States to exercise jurisdiction secured by cession, thought this is not provided for by Clause 17. And it has been held that such a cession may be qualified. It has never been necessary, heretofore, for this Court to determine whether or not the United States has the constitutional right to exercise jurisdiction over territory, within the geographical limits of a State, acquired for purposes other than those specified in Clause 17. It was raised but not decided in Arlington Hotel v. Fant, 278 U.S. 439, 454. It was assumed without discussion in Yellowstone Park Transportation Co. v. Gallatin County, 31 F.2d 644. On account of the regulatory phases of the Alcoholic Beverage control Act of California, it is necessary to determine that question here. The United States has large bodies of public lands. These properties are used for forests, parks, ranges, wild life sanctuaries, flood control, and other purposes which are not covered by Clause 17. In Silas Mason Co. v. Tax commission of Washington, 302 U.S. 186, we upheld in accordance with the right of the United States to acquire private property for use in "the reclamation of arid and semiarid lands" and to hold its purchases subject to state jurisdiction. In other instances, it may be deemed important or desirable by the
National Government and the State Government in which the particular property is located that exclusive jurisdiction be vested in the United States by cession or consent. No question is raised as to the authority to acquire land or provide for national parks. As the National Government may, "by virtue of its sovereignty" acquire lands within the border of states by eminent domain and without their consent, the respective sovereignties should be in a position to abject their jurisdiction. There is no constitutional objecting to such an adjustment of right. * * *

This quoted excerpt suggests that the Federal Government may exercise legislative jurisdiction, ceded to it by a State, over any area which it might own, acquire, or use for Federal purposes. In Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19 (1939), the Supreme Court again indicated that it was constitutionally permissible for the Federal Government to exercise over a national park area legislative jurisdiction which might be ceded to it by a State...

LIMITATIONS ON AREAS OVER WHICH JURISDICTION MAY BE RETAINED BY FEDERAL RESERVATION: The courts have not, apparently, had occasion to consider whether any limitations exist with respect to the types of areas in which the Federal Government may exercise legislative jurisdiction by reservation at the time of granting statehood. There appears, however, to be no reason for concluding that Federal legislative jurisdiction may not be thus retained with respect to all the variety of areas over which Federal legislative jurisdiction may be ceded by a State.

 

[jclay2]

You got to love how people throw court cases out like its a law of mathematics. Just because a clown dressed up in a gown says something does not make it true. All it takes is a couple insane court rulings and the Fed's have the power to do anything.

 

[phill4paul]

If Bundy were to graze his cattle on private lands, the cost would likely be a lot higher. This GAO report says:

"The grazing fee BLM and the Forest Service charge, which was $1.43 per AUM in 2004 [it's now even lower], is established by formula and is generally much lower than the fees charged by the other federal agencies, states, and private ranchers."
http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/248043.pdf

This welfare rancher knows that he had been getting a sweet-heart deal from the government. That's why he turns to the government, and doesn't run those cattle on private ranch lands, where'd he be charged higher fees.

If the land was sold by the government, Bundy would probably would not recognize the property rights of the new owners and would continue to insist on grazing his cattle on the land, given his apparent entitlement mentality.

You can certainly find fault with the government in this matter, but I am particularly surprised to see anyone defending Bundy's right to suck off the government's teat and receive subsidized grazing rights at taxpayer expense. He is no different from the Wall Street banks and automakers receiving low-interest loans and bail-outs from the government.

Sucking off the government teat? It's fucking shrub land.

The government doesn't put a cent into it except for it's bureaucracy.

I'm sure that if the government goes ahead and slaps a tax on cow farts like they are contemplating then you will be fine with the EPA SWATting a scofflaw with that regard. Let anyone and everyone run their cattle. Lower beef prices all around.
I'm particularly surprised to see anyone defending the governments ability to charge grazing rights and to land holding by the government in general.

 

[klamath]

I love how the keyboard economists and lawyers pontificate on how easy and welfare like it is to extract the minerals, wood and food that support their fat asses in front of their raw resources rich computer. The profit margins are very small and it takes blood sweat and tears to extract those resources and many lives to do it. The keyboard economists like to tell the public that those riches are just laying there on government land like gold in fort Knox. When those profit margins are destroyed to pay "their fair share", on top of income taxes, property taxes and yes grazing rights taxes the country turns elsewhere to find profitable resources. Places like Afghanistan, Iraq, the middle east, China, Russia ETC. When those supplies get cut off, then OMG we must spend trillions to secure our national interests.....

 

[Origanalist]

If Bundy were to graze his cattle on private lands, the cost would likely be a lot higher. This GAO report says:

"The grazing fee BLM and the Forest Service charge, which was $1.43 per AUM in 2004 [it's now even lower], is established by formula and is generally much lower than the fees charged by the other federal agencies, states, and private ranchers."
http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/248043.pdf

This welfare rancher knows that he had been getting a sweet-heart deal from the government. That's why he turns to the government, and doesn't run those cattle on private ranch lands, where'd he be charged higher fees.

If the land was sold by the government, Bundy would probably would not recognize the property rights of the new owners and would continue to insist on grazing his cattle on the land, given his apparent entitlement mentality.

You can certainly find fault with the government in this matter, but I am particularly surprised to see anyone defending Bundy's right to suck off the government's teat and receive subsidized grazing rights at taxpayer expense. He is no different from the Wall Street banks and automakers receiving low-interest loans and bail-outs from the government.

Ok, this is just plain ridiculous. Next you will be telling me if I don't pay my air tax I'm just a welfare bum.

 

[erowe1]

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

Why are you referring to court cases?

 

[pcosmar]

Ok, this is just plain ridiculous.

Yes it is.. He is a staunch supporter of the FedGov.. despite their having no legitimate authority over Nevada Open Range,, or any Open Range land.

He is opposed to a Family Farm that has been in operation legally,, Producing Beef and employing hundreds.. for well over 100 years befor the creation of a Federal agency that was created to destroy these businesses.

 

[pcosmar]

Why are you referring to court cases?

He think Kangaroo Courts give the Bureaucracy legitimacy.

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

I have no doubt that it was rejected,, but doubt that it was considered.

The purpose of the court was to uphold the law that was written by the law breaker.

 

[Dr.3D]

Why are you referring to court cases?

Guess he can't understand the court doesn't have jurisdiction in this case. Any government entity must be recused from this case as it is biased toward the government and did not exist when the contract was made.

 

[klamath]

Why are you referring to court cases?

Because that is how it is done in federal land law. It is called case law. In briefs filed to federal courts Statute law is very rarely even mentioned. It is very far removed from any representative government. It is case law based on case law based on case law and the intent of congress in statute law has long been lost. He is using a very sweet setup the agencies and the environmentalists have worked out to accomplish their goals.

 

[Dr.3D]

That's like saying a tax-evader is a freeloader and a welfare recipient. His unlawful grazing of cattle on the King's Land is not comparable to the government taking the fruits of my labor at gunpoint and handing it out to others.

Well, it seems we still have some crabs who would pull those who are close to escape, back into the pot.

 

[austin944]

Why are you referring to court cases?

Because Bundy's attorneys have cited prior court cases to show that he has some legal claim to the land. If he's going to bring those claims, it's proper to show the error in his reasoning, even if you may not agree with the underlying premise that the courts are the proper venue to settle this matter.

Have you actually read these court cases? Bundy never claims, like some here, that the government should not own the land. Rather he claims that the State of Nevada owns the land, and that he should continue to receive subsidized access from the State to this grazing land.

Put yourself in the place of a land owner in Nevada who wants to lease out their land to cattle ranchers for grazing. How are these land owners expected to compete in the market place with a government that sets ridiculously low grazing fees? Because that's the situation that Bundy wants continued. He is an anti-free market, pro-government, pro-welfare for Bundy, goon.

 

[pcosmar]

Bundy never claims, like some here, that the government should not own the land. Rather he claims that the State of Nevada owns the land, and that he should continue to receive subsidized access from the State to this grazing land.

You contradict yourself and don't even have the mental capacity to realize it.

He clams that it is Nevada land (It IS)

Therefore the Federal Government has no claim to the land. NO Authority.

IT is Nevada. The BLM.. an agency created in the 1990s has no right to make laws that contradict Nevada Laws. Laws that have been in place since Nevada became a state. Open Range Laws.

The Federal Government has no Authority over these lands. It is just that simple.

And it is not Subsidized.. It is open for use and the Bundy Family (and the other Ranchers that were displaced) has made improvement to that land for the benefit of ALL.

 

[austin944]

And it is not Subsidized..

"The complex formula used to calculate the BLM and Forest Service fee for grazing on their lands incorporates factors that consider ranchers’ ability to pay; the purpose of the fee is therefore not primarily to recover the agencies’ expenditures or to capture the fair market value of forage."

http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/248043.pdf

The "ability to pay" sounds like a subsidy to me.