Rand needs to pounce on the Nevada rancher situation

I don't even watch the news or read 'MSM' news. I have talked in person to more than 20 people not one of them supports the guy, Red republicans, a few libertarians, and a democrat. one exact quote from libertarian 'Fight it in the courts and get the fuck off the land if you aren't paying'

It's obvious to me that you don't live in the Ozark mountains..

It's really difficult to find a native here that supports federal intervention for anything.

Even harder to find one who won't side with a farmer/rancher over government employees..
 
Absolutely should not get involved if he planning a serious presidential run. This is a divisive fringe issue in the mind of the average voter.
 
Absolutely should not get involved if he planning a serious presidential run. This is a divisive fringe issue in the mind of the average voter.

This is primary red meat.

If Clinton questions him on it, he can simply respond by asking if she is planning to reappoint Janet Reno.
 
This is primary red meat.

If Clinton questions him on it, he can simply respond by asking if she is planning to reappoint Janet Reno.

Or, simply, "I was defending the Constitution for people like the Bundys, while you were defending lies of Benghazi."

So easy to spin this back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cap
Bundy could not have a skeleton in his closet big enough to justify what the fed is doing right now. It is time to contact all Senators and tell them we insist they stop this right now.
 
This issue resounds with country folks, especially, and not with city folks who think their meat magically appears at the grocery store all shrink wrapped.
 
This issue resounds with country folks, especially, and not with city folks who think their meat magically appears at the grocery store all shrink wrapped.

*ahem* Some of us live in major metropolitan areas and we know where food comes from. Very glad of it, too. Broad brushing does not help get anything done about this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cap
I don't care who you are. There will always be skeletons to dig up about anyone to paint them in a bad light. No body is perfect.

Just because they dig up this guys skeletons doesn't make what the feds are doing right.

Bundy could not have a skeleton in his closet big enough to justify what the fed is doing right now.

I don't think anyone's saying that what the feds are doing is right or justified.

The issue is this. Bundy's not the only guy in the country being victimized by the feds. There are LOTS of landowners facing similar problems. And all 300+ million of us are being screwed one way or another. Rand's job is to change the whole system, and to do that he needs to get elected President. Risking that larger effort to (maybe) help one guy just doesn't make sense.
 
This issue resounds with country folks, especially, and not with city folks who think their meat magically appears at the grocery store all shrink wrapped.

Yeah, they think it's magic, but don't realize it's really the guy in the back of the supermarket who makes the meat.
 
I assure you that mine is the most relevant in the thread. Pay attention.

Do you really want to debate this here? Because I'm not Maddow. You'll get a real debate on the matter from me.
I am genuinely curious.

Please explain the relevance.

As for the 1.7 million, the Federal Government (through the BLM) controls over 264,000,000 acres. 1.7 million is pennies in the scheme of things. Literally pennies. When dealing with billions and trillions (simply on land worth, not even their budget being considered), I am hard pressed to get worked up over (the still high number of) 1.7 million. At 50 bucks an acre we are talking 13.2 billion dollars. They control prime estate and the resources within them. Try a thousand dollars an acre (264 billion dollars). Or ten thousand dollars for certain acreage. The land is worth well over a trillion, I'd be a fool not to wager.

And considering the many homeless, while the government squanders over a couple hundred million acres of land only adds insult to injury. Not that people could even legally build in much of the area. Desert tortoises, or imaginary wetlands as a bonus injustice.

Basically I'm just curious as what conclusions you draw from the rather minute sum of 1.7 million in fracking bribes (assuming for argument's sake that that is what they are) to the BLM, and Rand Paul who is admittedly an advocate of various American energy ventures, or simply that they ought be free to do so (within lawful limits). Rand Paul has said quite a bit about the BLM, the FWS, the EPA, etc., by the way.

Not specifically regarding the business killing atmosphere of many of the draconian policies, but speaking of the tyranny many bureacracies enact over common citizens and the broader injustice done to the concept of law.
 
I don't think anyone's saying that what the feds are doing is right or justified.

The issue is this. Bundy's not the only guy in the country being victimized by the feds. There are LOTS of landowners facing similar problems. And all 300+ million of us are being screwed one way or another. Rand's job is to change the whole system, and to do that he needs to get elected President. Risking that larger effort to (maybe) help one guy just doesn't make sense.
Washington Times Op-Ed: EPA regulations violate constitutional rights

Out-of-control agency turns everyday life into a federal crime

Since its creation in 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency has done more harm than good. EPA regulations cost more than 5 percent of our annual gross domestic product - the equivalent of the costs of defense and homeland security combined. Since EPA regulations have expanded, unemployment in America has increased by 33 percent. This abuse of power by the implementation of regulations infringes upon our basic constitutional rights.

There have been too frequent reports of individual rights being violated by abusive and power-hungry EPA bureaucrats. These regulations have hampered landowners' ability to manage their private property as they please and have impaired job creation. Americans are suffering from the overreach of regulatory agencies such as the EPA.

In Pennsylvania, take the story of John Pozsgai, an immigrant from Hungary, who worked as a mechanic and eventually saved enough money to purchase the land bordering his home in Morrisville, Pa. This land was an old auto junkyard, and Mr. Pozsgai, taking pride in his home, proceeded to clean up this landfill by removing 7,000 old tires and rusted-out automobiles. However, the EPA did not view this effort as a clean-up but rather a violation of the Clean Water Act. You see, Mr. Pozsgai's property was a wetland, ambiguously defined by the EPA as any property that has some sort of connection to a wetland. That connection to a wetland was a small drainage ditch located on the edge of his property.

Mr. Pozsgai did not need a permit to dump topsoil on an isolated wetland. However, the Army Corps of Engineers insisted he apply for one. Next, the EPA set up surveillance cameras to capture Mr. Pozsgai filling his land with topsoil. EPA agents then arrested him for "discharging pollutants into waters of the United States." These "pollutants" consisted of earth, topsoil and sand. The EPA openly admits that no hazardous wastes were involved in the case, yet Mr. Pozsgai was found guilty and sentenced to three years in prison and fined $202,000. Mr. Pozsgai spent 1 1/2 years in prison, 1 1/2 in a halfway house, and was under supervised probation for five years. His family went bankrupt and was unable to pay its property taxes on the land.

A similar breach of power can be studied in the case of John Rapanos. Federal officials prosecuted Mr. Rapanos for shoveling dirt around on his property in Bay County, Mich. The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers filed charges against Mr. Rapanos for "polluting" the wetlands by leveling the soil on his property. Under the "migratory molecule" rule, the Army Corps claims that any isolated wetland can fall under federal jurisdiction because there is a speculative possibility that a water molecule from one wetland may reach another navigable waterway. In Mr. Rapanos' case, the nearest navigable water is roughly 20 miles from his property.

The federal officials had little evidence and U.S. District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff threw out the conviction and refused to follow the unjust federal guidelines enforced by the EPA. Unfortunately, Judge Zatkoff was overruled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Mr. Rapanos later appealed his conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court, yet the court refused to hear his case. He now faces possible jail time.

Mr. and Mrs. Michael Sackett, of Priest Lake, Idaho, also have fallen victim to the EPA's abusive and overbearing practices. The Sackett family sought to build a house on its half-acre of land, yet after construction broke ground, the EPA interfered, claiming the family violated the Clean Water Act by placing fill materials into "wetlands." Their property was designated as a wetland, yet their neighbors have built houses on either side of their lot and their lot already has established sewage lines. Their lot does not harbor a lake, pond or stream, yet the EPA is requiring them to obtain a building permit that would cost more than the value of their land. The Sacketts proceeded by filing suit, but the request was dismissed by a federal judge. The Supreme Court is now considering these violations.

The repeated abuse of power by the EPA has been noted across the country, infringing on the lives of all Americans. Property rights were once regarded as fundamental to the protection of liberty, and it is time that legislators restore the value of personal property and do something about governmental overreach.

On Feb. 7, I introduced the REINS Act (Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act). This act is designed to increase accountability in the federal regulatory process. By opening the regulatory process to public scrutiny, government agencies will be held accountable by all American citizens. This is a common-sense reform that will increase congressional liability, improve the regulatory process and protect citizens from restrictions being placed on their economic and private practices. The REINS Act ensures that federal agencies cannot destroy jobs, our economy or our way of life by implementing unnecessary regulations. Harmful and abusive regulations must be put to rest.

Seventy-five percent of Americans believe that the size of the federal government must be reduced and with the imposition of such regulatory abuse, it is no wonder why. Americans are being treated as subjects of an administrative state rather than citizens of a free nation. I am certain that the REINS Act will reduce the power of regulatory bureaucrats and place the power in the hands of the people, allowing them to act and operate as they please.

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=blog&id=301
 
Yep, Rand's been on this issue for a while.

I know he's been working with a number of organizations around the country that are trying to fight this stuff.

All great IMO.
 
Rand could make a statement and stress that he supports peaceful resistance while pointing out that the feds are already not being peaceful.
 
All Senators should be stepping up to say something for liberty and property rights.
 
Aren't there a bunch of politicians heading out there for a photo op or two? I would imagine Rand and his staff are doing some background reading to make sure he is up on all the local laws, history, etc. Then, if he wants, he can give his views of the current situation and overall, and then praise the individuals supporting the Bundy's and even those who may not agree with tem but are acting in a civil manner. ...or he can just go out there and be part of the developing circus. Bundy's meeting with the sheriff at 9AM local time. Not sure what time that would be here. Probably midnight.
 
I am genuinely curious.

Please explain the relevance.

As for the 1.7 million, the Federal Government (through the BLM) controls over 264,000,000 acres. 1.7 million is pennies in the scheme of things. Literally pennies. When dealing with billions and trillions (simply on land worth, not even their budget being considered), I am hard pressed to get worked up over (the still high number of) 1.7 million. At 50 bucks an acre we are talking 13.2 billion dollars. They control prime estate and the resources within them. Try a thousand dollars an acre (264 billion dollars). Or ten thousand dollars for certain acreage. The land is worth well over a trillion, I'd be a fool not to wager.

And considering the many homeless, while the government squanders over a couple hundred million acres of land only adds insult to injury. Not that people could even legally build in much of the area. Desert tortoises, or imaginary wetlands as a bonus injustice.

Basically I'm just curious as what conclusions you draw from the rather minute sum of 1.7 million in fracking bribes (assuming for argument's sake that that is what they are) to the BLM, and Rand Paul who is admittedly an advocate of various American energy ventures, or simply that they ought be free to do so (within lawful limits). Rand Paul has said quite a bit about the BLM, the FWS, the EPA, etc., by the way.

Not specifically regarding the business killing atmosphere of many of the draconian policies, but speaking of the tyranny many bureacracies enact over common citizens and the broader injustice done to the concept of law.

The 1.7 million dollar number is irrelevant. It's the process that is important. I've spent a great deal of time over the last week or two explaining (actually predicting, I should say) this and what we are now seeing is a mad scramble from opposing industries to grab land and prop up the foreign policies of some rather shortsighted politicians who spoke too soon about Sanctioning Russia. This is why Rand should just stay away because he's another one who is going to look completely incompetent given Russia's recent actions both in house and on the international scale. There is a far more important underlying issue here and I think this thing with the rancher, although unfortunate, is a bit of a useful idiot type of distraction during this infighting between some opposing elites who need to act quick.

I'll pm you if you're truly interested though. Not a good idea to do it here. At least conforming to "board rules". Personally, I think the intricates need to be out there so that folks can better understand the shortsightedness and amateurism of their respective representatives regarding foreign policy. Unfortunately, what we have here are Americans coming under attack in order to prop up the foreign policies and bottom lines of a couple of opposing industries while at the same time buying them more time to fight among themselves . It's brilliant, really. It's a great distraction because it's something that average people will jump on while politicians can come in and "save the day" on what is essentially a manufactured crisis. Except they won't save themselves from the red faces that they have already reserved for themselves when this all pans out. It's too late for that.

Anyhow. Like I said. I'll pm you later or something. What I've added here is very, very shallow and doesn't even explain the situation anywhere near relevant depth. It's too early for this shit. I haven't even had coffee yet. Have to coach a double header today too so will probably be this evening or something.
 
Last edited:
The 1.7 million dollar number is irrelevant. It's the process that is important. I've spent a great deal of time over the last week or two explaining (actually predicting, I should say) this and what we are now seeing is a mad scramble from opposing industries to grab land and prop up the foreign policies of some rather shortsighted politicians who spoke too soon about Sanctioning Russia. This is why Rand should just stay away because he's another one who is going to look completely incompetent given Russia's recent actions both in house and on the international scale. There is a far more important underlying issue here and I think this thing with the rancher, although unfortunate, is a bit of a useful idiot type of distraction during this infighting between some opposing elites who need to act quick.

I'll pm you if you're truly interested though. Not a good idea to do it here. At least conforming to "board rules". Personally, I think the intricates need to be out there so that folks can better understand the shortsightedness and amateurism of their respective representatives regarding foreign policy. Unfortunately, what we have here are Americans coming under attack in order to prop up the foreign policies and bottom lines of a couple of opposing industries while at the same time buying them more time to fight among themselves . It's brilliant, really. It's a great distraction because it's something that average people will jump on while politicians can come in and "save the day" on what is essentially a manufactured crisis. Except they won't save themselves from the red faces that they have already reserved for themselves when this all pans out. It's too late for that.

Anyhow. Like I said. I'll pm you later or something. What I've added here is very, very shallow and doesn't even explain the situation anywhere near relevant depth. It's too early for this shit. I haven't even had coffee yet. Have to coach a double header today too so will probably be this evening or something.
That is fine. By all means, take your time.

I'd only add for people following this, that this is not the first time the BLM has acted corruptly.

They've designated thousands of acres next to a baron's home a National Park so as to restrict who could build, they've seized worthless land that was bought with the intention of having the BLM seize it so that the wealthy landowners could petition the government for the same amount of acreage seized. It then gave those politically connected prime estate well under market value. It has squandered millions upon millions of acres. Well over fifty percent of certain states.

That's just the tip of the ice berg.

PM whenever you get a chance.
 
Back
Top