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

[klamath]

If a business operation cannot survive without government hand-outs, then those businesses should be allowed to fail. It's not the proper role of government to prop up businesses that can't go it alone. That principle goes for ranchers, banks, automakers, manufacturers, individuals, or anyone else who wants to feed at the public trough.

The vast majority of ranchers use private land to feed their cattle, and are able to make a profit without needing government-subsidized access to grazing land.

What business do you work in?

 

[JK/SEA]

//

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[osan]

Just curious; do we apply that basis to all the people receiving payments from "the government". There's another thread that stated

... and I'd just like to make certain we're all using the same scale when it comes to payments/monies-received from "the government".

Depends on the nature of the benefit; specifically, how it is funded. If I pay into SSI for 35 years, receiving the so-called "benefit" is not mooching: it is recovering (at substantial loss) that which was stolen from me at gunpoint in the first place. If I accept a welfare check, the underlying subsidy of which came out of YOUR wallet, I am a parasitic scumbag, any purported "need" notwithstanding.

 

[erowe1]

Depends on the nature of the benefit; specifically, how it is funded. If I pay into SSI for 35 years, receiving the so-called "benefit" is not mooching: it is recovering (at substantial loss) that which was stolen from me at gunpoint in the first place. If I accept a welfare check, the underlying subsidy of which came out of YOUR wallet, I am a parasitic scumbag, any purported "need" notwithstanding.

I don't think either scenario would make you a scumbag. But SSI comes from someone else's wallet just as much as every other kind of welfare does.

 

[Pericles]

Only when it was Territory..
Once it became a state it is no longer under Federal Control. It is then a State issue. And the State in question had rules and laws governing Open Range.

The trouble I see here is that City Dwellers and folks Herd district states can not grasp the concept.


But it has worked for hundreds of years.

Correct and supported by this SCOTUS decision https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/44/212/case.html

Point at issue: The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.
Upon the admission of Alabama into the union, the right of eminent domain, which had been temporarily held by the United States, passed to the State. Nothing remained in the United States but the public lands.
The United States now hold the public lands in the new States by force of the deeds of cession and the statutes connected with them, and not by any municipal sovereignty which it may be supposed they possess or have received by compact with the new States for that particular purpose.
That part of the compact respecting the public lands is nothing more than the exercise of a constitutional power vested in Congress, and would have been binding on the people of the new States whether they consented to be bound or not.
Under the Florida treaty, the United States did not succeed to those rights which the King of Spain had held by virtue of his royal prerogative, but possessed the territory subject to the institutions and laws of its own Government.



Bottom line:
Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law,
to the same extent that Georgia possessed it before she ceded it to the United States. To maintain any other doctrine is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, the Constitution, laws, and compact to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Weston White]

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:

The underlying problem with asserting that the powers of the federal government are unlimited or virtually ever-expansive is that through correlation the powers ensured the states and their residents under, namely, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are as well unlimited or virtually ever-expansive—with exception only to what is specifically enumerated throughout the U.S. Constitution on behalf of the federal governments own interests. Thus, holding the former notion as fact under common law of course places the federal government and the several states (including their residents) into irreconcilable conflict with one another.

But of course the context of the quoted cases is in address of a national park here, a flood control zone or grazing pasture there, and the like, not more than three-quarters of the entire Western portion of the United States remaining under federal control, save for whatever ambiguities left unchallenged, at least for the time being, that is until such conveniences are to be reined by whatever newest federal bureaucrat entering the picture, be it the BLM, EPA, NASA, or whoever else.


P.S. Family Guardian endlessly provides great information, even going so far as to consistently reference its sources, unlike that negligent basketcase of Website you have founded—which is why all of you are running around the entire Web posting your lies and deception under anonymity.

 

[pcosmar]

Jan. 8 2018

 

[Danke]

The underlying problem with asserting that the powers of the federal government are unlimited or virtually ever-expansive is that through correlation the powers ensured the states and their residents under, namely, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are as well unlimited or virtually ever-expansive—with exception only to what is specifically enumerated throughout the U.S. Constitution on behalf of the federal governments own interests. Thus, holding the former notion as fact under common law of course places the federal government and the several states (including their residents) into irreconcilable conflict with one another.

But of course the context of the quoted cases is in address of a national park here, a flood control zone or grazing pasture there, and the like, not more than three-quarters of the entire Western portion of the United States remaining under federal control, save for whatever ambiguities left unchallenged, at least for the time being, that is until such conveniences are to be reined by whatever newest federal bureaucrat entering the picture, be it the BLM, EPA, NASA, or whoever else.


P.S. Family Guardian endlessly provides great information, even going so far as to consistently reference its sources, unlike that negligent basketcase of Website you have founded—which is why all of you are running around the entire Web posting your lies and deception under anonymity.

+rep