Another Ruby Ridge on the Horizon?

[AUDub 11,158]

Area 51. Aliens man....aliens.

Alien tortoises? Is this country controlled by alien tortoises? Think about it.

Well there is that reptilian underground race theory......... ;D/>

David? Is that you?

[Weegle777 78]

Area 51. Aliens man....aliens.

Alien tortoises? Is this country controlled by alien tortoises? Think about it.

Well there is that reptilian underground race theory......... ;D/>

David? Is that you?

Ha! Ha! That guy is nuuuuuuttttssss.

[AUDub 11,158]

Maybe the government and the largest institutions should own 84% of everything? It will make central planning much more efficient comrades.Maybe the common denominator between the parties is that they both love the power of big government. Maybe the real concept behind the "rule of law" is the oldest legal concept, you know, the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. Is that barely possible when the concept of politicians being for sale is sanctioned by the legal system?

It is difficult to tell who is right and who is wrong in this particular case but, I am glad that the court of public opinion still has has some influence.

Do you think the federal government should own no land at all?

[alexava 6,973]

It's pretty damn simple to me. If you do not own land, any land anywhere then you obey whoever does own it. If you don't like it buy your own. He had his chance in court and blew it. I don't like violence of any kind but when wingnuts with weapons threatening a federal agency because they disagree with a law(right or wrong) that tells me they expect to be obliterated. So give them 4 hours to disperse peacefully or use an Apache helicopter to squash them. They are breaking laws. This is the U.S. There are no pockets of uncontrolled territory like Afghanistan. They can protest peacefully under the law or suffer stern consequence. Their choice.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Maybe the government and the largest institutions should own 84% of everything? It will make central planning much more efficient comrades.Maybe the common denominator between the parties is that they both love the power of big government. Maybe the real concept behind the "rule of law" is the oldest legal concept, you know, the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. Is that barely possible when the concept of politicians being for sale is sanctioned by the legal system?

It is difficult to tell who is right and who is wrong in this particular case but, I am glad that the court of public opinion still has has some influence.

Do you think the federal government should own no land at all?

I believe it is dangerous to democracy to limit the ownership class to the government, the largest institutions, and the elite. Then again, I do not care for the concentration of any form of wealth or power. I believe both are detrimental to democracy and capitalism.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Area 51. Aliens man....aliens.

Alien tortoises? Is this country controlled by alien tortoises? Think about it.

Well there is that reptilian underground race theory.........

The reptiles are merely emissaries for the amphibians. When the amphibian aliens show up, it will be too late.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

It's pretty damn simple to me. If you do not own land, any land anywhere then you obey whoever does own it. If you don't like it buy your own. He had his chance in court and blew it. I don't like violence of any kind but when wingnuts with weapons threatening a federal agency because they disagree with a law(right or wrong) that tells me they expect to be obliterated. So give them 4 hours to disperse peacefully or use an Apache helicopter to squash them. They are breaking laws. This is the U.S. There are no pockets of uncontrolled territory like Afghanistan. They can protest peacefully under the law or suffer stern consequence. Their choice.

So you are prepared for the government to fire the first shot? Just bring the Apache helicopter in and obliterate the Bundy familty? Kill the hundred who are there protesting? Kill them all? You don't like violence? And, what happens when you find out that this was some sort of land grab? What then?

[AUDub 11,158]

It's pretty damn simple to me. If you do not own land, any land anywhere then you obey whoever does own it. If you don't like it buy your own. He had his chance in court and blew it. I don't like violence of any kind but when wingnuts with weapons threatening a federal agency because they disagree with a law(right or wrong) that tells me they expect to be obliterated.

So give them 4 hours to disperse peacefully or use an Apache helicopter to squash them. They are breaking laws. This is the U.S. There are no pockets of uncontrolled territory like Afghanistan. They can protest peacefully under the law or suffer stern consequence. Their choice.

Hmm. Can't say I agree with this. Not all of them were acting a fool, and nobody should be killed over a few hundred head of cattle, even if they are morons.

That idiot in the picture above, though. If he's pointing that gun at federal agents, he deserves whatever he has coming.

[AUDub 11,158]

I believe it is dangerous to democracy to limit the ownership class to the government, the largest institutions, and the elite. Then again, I do not care for the concentration of any form of wealth or power. I believe both are detrimental to democracy and capitalism.

Are you aware of how the state of Nevada came to be?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I believe it is dangerous to democracy to limit the ownership class to the government, the largest institutions, and the elite. Then again, I do not care for the concentration of any form of wealth or power. I believe both are detrimental to democracy and capitalism.

Are you aware of how the state of Nevada came to be?

Yes.

[alexava 6,973]

It's pretty damn simple to me. If you do not own land, any land anywhere then you obey whoever does own it. If you don't like it buy your own. He had his chance in court and blew it. I don't like violence of any kind but when wingnuts with weapons threatening a federal agency because they disagree with a law(right or wrong) that tells me they expect to be obliterated.

So give them 4 hours to disperse peacefully or use an Apache helicopter to squash them. They are breaking laws. This is the U.S. There are no pockets of uncontrolled territory like Afghanistan. They can protest peacefully under the law or suffer stern consequence. Their choice.

Hmm. Can't say I agree with this. Not all of them were acting a fool, and nobody should be killed over a few hundred head of cattle, even if they are morons.

That idiot in the picture above, though. If he's pointing that gun at federal agents, he deserves whatever he has coming.

that is what i was referring to. tell them all to leave and the ones who stick around with weapons are getting what they are asking for. if you want to go with him stick around. you cannot let people think they are pushing the authorities around with assault weapons. that must be dealt with.

[AUDub 11,158]

I believe it is dangerous to democracy to limit the ownership class to the government, the largest institutions, and the elite. Then again, I do not care for the concentration of any form of wealth or power. I believe both are detrimental to democracy and capitalism.

Are you aware of how the state of Nevada came to be?

Yes.

Why do you think these particular areas of Nevada have not been privatized?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I believe it is dangerous to democracy to limit the ownership class to the government, the largest institutions, and the elite. Then again, I do not care for the concentration of any form of wealth or power. I believe both are detrimental to democracy and capitalism.

Are you aware of how the state of Nevada came to be?

Yes.

Why do you think these particular areas of Nevada have not been privatized?

I do not understand where you are going with this. To make sure Lincoln gets elected? Are you referring to how the borders of Nevada were expanded due to the discovery of precious metals?

[Tigermike 3,040]

Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy

On Saturday, I wrote about the standoff at Bundy Ranch. That post drew a remarkable amount of traffic, even though, as I wrote then, I had not quite decided what to make of the story. Since then, I have continued to study the facts and have drawn some conclusions. Here they are.

First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay. Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can graze and the number that can graze, and Bundy has ignored those directives. As a result, BLM has sued Bundy twice in federal court, and won both cases. In the second, more recent action, Bundy’s defense is that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question and therefore has no authority to regulate grazing. That simply isn’t right; the land, like most of Nevada, is federally owned. Bundy is representing himself, of necessity: no lawyer could make that argument.

That being the case, why does Bundy deserve our sympathy? To begin with, his family has been ranching on the acres at issue since the late 19th century. They and other settlers were induced to come to Nevada in part by the federal government’s promise that they would be able to graze their cattle on adjacent government-owned land. For many years they did so, with no limitations or fees. The Bundy family was ranching in southern Nevada long before the BLM came into existence.

Over the last two or three decades, the Bureau has squeezed the ranchers in southern Nevada by limiting the acres on which their cattle can graze, reducing the number of cattle that can be on federal land, and charging grazing fees for the ever-diminishing privilege. The effect of these restrictions has been to drive the ranchers out of business. Formerly, there were dozens of ranches in the area where Bundy operates. Now, his ranch is the only one. When Bundy refused to pay grazing fees beginning in around 1993, he said something to the effect of, they are supposed to be charging me a fee for managing the land and all they are doing is trying to manage me out of business. Why should I pay them for that?

The bedrock issue here is that the federal government owns more than 80% of the state of Nevada.

This is true across the western states. To an astonishing degree, those states lack sovereignty over their own territory. Most of the land is federal. And the federal agencies that rule over federal lands have agendas. At every opportunity, it seems, they restrict not only what can be done on federal lands, but on privately-owned property. They are hostile to traditional industries like logging, mining and ranching, and if you have a puddle in your back yard, the EPA will try to regulate it as a navigable waterway.

That is only a slight exaggeration.

One could say that Cliven Bundy is just one more victim of progress and changing mores. The federal government has gotten more environmentally-conscious, and now we really, really care about desert tortoises. (It was the designation of desert tortoises as an endangered species that gave BLM the opportunity to squeeze Bundy in the early 1990s.) But here’s the thing: the Bureau of Land Management–the federal government–is not necessarily anti-development. Rather, its attitude depends entirely on what sort of development is in question.

Thus, BLM has developed a grandiose plan to develop vast solar energy installations on federal land across the Southwest. Wind power projects are favored, too. In fact, the same BLM that has driven Nevada’s ranchers out of business has welcomed solar projects with open arms. Some have claimed that Harry Reid is behind the BLM’s war against Cliven Bundy, on the theory that he wants the land for a solar project in which his son Rory is involved, along with the Chinese. I don’t believe this is correct. The solar projects are located north of Las Vegas, 30 miles or so from the area where Bundy ranches.

But the connection is nevertheless important in two respects. First, BLM has promulgated a regional mitigation strategy for the environmental impacts of the solar developments. Let’s pause on that for a moment: the excuse for limiting Bundy’s rights is the endangered desert tortoise. But wait! Don’t they have desert tortoises a few miles away where the solar projects are being built? Of course they do. That’s where they get to the mitigation strategy, which may involve, among other things, moving some desert tortoises to a new location:

The Gold Butte ACEC is preliminarily recommended as the best recipient location for regional mitigation from the Dry Lake SEZ. This ACEC is located 32 miles (51 km) east of the Dry Lake SEZ.

Gold Butte is the area where Bundy ranches. There are a few problems with the Gold Butte location as a mitigation area; one of them is that there are “trespassing” cattle:

The resource values found in the Gold Butte ACEC are threatened by: unauthorized activities, including off-road vehicle use, illegal dumping, and trespass livestock grazing; wildfire; and weed infestation.

So it is possible that the federal government is driving Bundy off federal lands to make way for mitigation activities that enable the solar energy development to the north. But I don’t think it is necessary to go there. Rather–this is the second and more important point–it is obvious that some activities are favored by the Obama administration’s BLM, and others are disfavored. The favored developments include solar and wind projects. No surprise there: the developers of such projects are invariably major Democratic Party donors. Wind and solar energy survive only by virtue of federal subsidies, so influencing people like Barack Obama and Harry Reid is fundamental to the developers’ business plans. Ranchers, on the other hand, ask nothing from the federal government other than the continuation of their historic rights. It is a safe bet that Cliven Bundy is not an Obama or Reid contributor.

Solar energy projects don’t draw BLM snipers

The new head of the BLM is a former Reid staffer. Presumably he was placed in his current position on Reid’s recommendation. Harry Reid is known to be a corrupt politician, one who has gotten wealthy on a public employee’s salary, in part, at least, by benefiting from sweetheart real estate deals. Does Harry Reid now control more than 80% of the territory of Nevada? If you need federal authority to conduct business in Nevada–which is overwhelmingly probable–do you need to pay a bribe to Harry Reid or a member of his family to get that permission? Why is it that the BLM is deeply concerned about desert tortoises when it comes to ranchers, but couldn’t care less when the solar power developers from China come calling? Environmentalists have asked this question. Does the difference lie in the fact that Cliven Bundy has never contributed to an Obama or Reid campaign, or paid a bribe to Reid or a member of his family?

Based on the evidence, I would say: yes, that is probably the difference. When the desert tortoises balance out, Occam’s razor tells us that the distinction is political.

So let’s have some sympathy for Cliven Bundy and his family. They don’t have a chance on the law, because under the Endangered Species Act and many other federal statutes, the agencies are always in the right. And their way of life is one that, frankly, is on the outs. They don’t develop apps. They don’t ask for food stamps. It probably has never occurred to them to bribe a politician. They don’t subsist by virtue of government subsidies or regulations that hamstring competitors. They aren’t illegal immigrants. They have never even gone to law school. So what possible place is there for the Bundys in the Age of Obama?

Here's the link and yes it's a blog.

[autigeremt 6,652]

It's pretty damn simple to me. If you do not own land, any land anywhere then you obey whoever does own it. If you don't like it buy your own. He had his chance in court and blew it. I don't like violence of any kind but when wingnuts with weapons threatening a federal agency because they disagree with a law(right or wrong) that tells me they expect to be obliterated. So give them 4 hours to disperse peacefully or use an Apache helicopter to squash them. They are breaking laws. This is the U.S. There are no pockets of uncontrolled territory like Afghanistan. They can protest peacefully under the law or suffer stern consequence. Their choice.

We broke a lot of laws when we separated from Great Britain. Just saying.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I am amazed that so many so quickly conclude this situation to be of the black and white variety. Its not that simple because of many extenuating circumstances. True enough the Bundy's dont have much of a legal leg to stand on but to me the issue is more complicated than Bundy just being behind on grazing fees. Look at how this was handled and at what cost.

Bundy is said to owe $1million in past due grazing fees but this BLM operation cost taxpayers more than $3 million. How does this kind of show of force make sense to anyone especially when you consider you have a puke like Al Sharpton who owes the IRS almost twice that amount of money? Sharpton's advantage is simple - Obama and Holder have got his back.

Obama has been quoted to have said, "we're going to punish our enemies and reward our friends" Presumably he meant that literally because that's certainly the way its playing out in the Nevada desert.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I am amazed that so many so quickly conclude this situation to be of the black and white variety. Its not that simple because of many extenuating circumstances. True enough the Bundy's dont have much of a legal leg to stand on but to me the issue is more complicated than Bundy just being behind on grazing fees. Look at how this was handled and at what cost.

Bundy is said to owe $1million in past due grazing fees but this BLM operation cost taxpayers more than $3 million. How does this kind of show of force make sense to anyone especially when you consider you have a puke like Al Sharpton who owes the IRS almost twice that amount of money? Sharpton's advantage is simple - Obama and Holder have got his back.

Obama has been quoted to have said, "we're going to punish our enemies and reward our friends" Presumably he meant that literally because that's certainly the way its playing out in the Nevada desert.

I don't like the racial undertones of the Sharpton reference but, I would say the distinction between Sharpton and Bundy would be, Sharpton is of value to a politician, Bundy is nothing more than a single vote. Sadly, that's what makes a difference. Sadly, that is an accepted corruption of pure politics even if, it is challenged in the world of partisan politics.

[AUDub 11,158]

I do not understand where you are going with this.

Sating my own curiosity and making sure I know where you're coming from. Lot going on at home this week, brain is operating a bit slower than usual.

To make sure Lincoln gets elected?

That was the main reason Nevada was granted statehood, but no.

So, given your words above, can I assume you believe the government managing these unappropriated public lands, as opposed to them being in private ownership, constitutes a concentration of wealth? I would think lands remaining in public trust would be the antithesis of that.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I am amazed that so many so quickly conclude this situation to be of the black and white variety. Its not that simple because of many extenuating circumstances. True enough the Bundy's dont have much of a legal leg to stand on but to me the issue is more complicated than Bundy just being behind on grazing fees. Look at how this was handled and at what cost.

Bundy is said to owe $1million in past due grazing fees but this BLM operation cost taxpayers more than $3 million. How does this kind of show of force make sense to anyone especially when you consider you have a puke like Al Sharpton who owes the IRS almost twice that amount of money? Sharpton's advantage is simple - Obama and Holder have got his back.

Obama has been quoted to have said, "we're going to punish our enemies and reward our friends" Presumably he meant that literally because that's certainly the way its playing out in the Nevada desert.

I don't like the racial undertones of the Sharpton reference but, I would say the distinction between Sharpton and Bundy would be, Sharpton is of value to a politician, Bundy is nothing more than a single vote. Sadly, that's what makes a difference. Sadly, that is an accepted corruption of pure politics even if, it is challenged in the world of partisan politics.

It doesn't matter to me that you dont like what I posted. You have never liked what I post. I am not shocked. Al Sharpton is a busted drug dealer and a race hustler. He masterminded the Tawana Brawley hoax and has inflamed racial tensions in NYC for the past 30 years. If you doubt it google "Al Sharpton controversy". Hi s race hustling antics are too numerous to list.

BTW when did vomit have anything to do with race?

[alexava 6,973]

Tigermike, your link is compelling and incites sympathy. He would have had a decent chance with proper legal representation. He chose to represent himself and blew it. Now he is using armed idiots and some are saying "militias " to take his stand. Because of that he should lose. As far as pointing the finger at Obama and Reid, where were they in 1993 when this started? So many love to hate the fed government, but he was given a 20 year grace period and wasted it.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

How can anyone doubt Harry Reid's involvement in this? The current head od BLM is a young, former staffer for Reid with NO experience in land management. If he had any sense he would have never pulled this Janet Reno type fiasco. Reid wants the land to put a new fed funded solar energy farm on, another energy boondoggle Reid will profit from. He couldn't hide his disappointment when he said "it's not over." I don't think Bundy has a legal leg to stand on but I would ride by his side against an over reaching fed army empowered by the likes of Harry Reid.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

It's pretty damn simple to me. If you do not own land, any land anywhere then you obey whoever does own it. If you don't like it buy your own. He had his chance in court and blew it. I don't like violence of any kind but when wingnuts with weapons threatening a federal agency because they disagree with a law(right or wrong) that tells me they expect to be obliterated. So give them 4 hours to disperse peacefully or use an Apache helicopter to squash them. They are breaking laws. This is the U.S. There are no pockets of uncontrolled territory like Afghanistan. They can protest peacefully under the law or suffer stern consequence. Their choice.

No alexa, it's not a simple situation. We, the people, don't want our govt to turn on us to fulfill law with firepower, a la Waco and Koresh. That event is lamentable and the Bundy situation would have been one of greater disparity. Koresh had broken laws involving children. With the Bundy situation we're talking about money and cows. The issue could have been resolved peacefully, just not quickly. The land could have been attached. The BLM escalated an event unnecessarily and could have killed many, including women. The new BLM Chief doesn't have a clue as to what to do and proved the Republicans concern of K's confirmation.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

I've tried to follow this Bundy situation as closely as possible. My conviction over the years has been that the BLM and the EPA have been encroaching on private land use for decades and thought that this might have been a similar black and white issue but have concluded that this is a confluence of different agendas.

The first situation being that Bundy just refused to pay his fees to the BLM as required by law because he refused to acknowledge the federal govt's rights. A misguided man misled many disgruntled people into a life/death situation where they don't have legal support. The new BLM chief almost foolishly obliged their death wish.

The second situation is that both Republicans and Dems have questionably ceded power to the BLM/EPA . Private citizens are resentful, yet some citizens support these agencies' efforts because it fulfills their agendas, mainly greenies and business or political opportunists. The govt has the ability to fulfill these agendas because the land is under their auspices and it fulfills the ecological sway from the past 4 decades. This has brought us to the interface between the govt and private citizens with the Bundy case. As one person I quoted earlier stated, "the federal govt can nuke these lands", and they have. Moving cattle off federal land is a much smaller issue. The nation has raised it's eyebrows as to what/who is using the Nevadan lands because of this eye-popping event with the Bundys.

For those that think that this issue is one of just collecting a debt, you're foolish to think so. IF the BLM were genuine in their effort to collect money they would not have been so careless with the $500,000 +/- value of the cattle, instead, apparently they may have inadvertently or purposefully killed part of those financial assets, maybe as many as 200 head of cattle, worth well in excess of $200K, which could have paid down a significant portion of the debt. The BLM didn't have that in mind. Even their method of herding the cattle demonstrated such. This issue is about exerting raw power over the citizenry.

My conjecture is that Harry Reid and his former policy asst Kornze, the new BLM chief, have been working the slow-burn effort over the use of Nevadan land to fulfill their own, and others, financial/political desires. As days unfold more info will possibly surface to support that idea. btw, HR opened his fat mouth over this dilemma yesterday so now he's opened the door further for additional unwanted scrutiny. HR and his family are neck deep in this issue. We'll see.

[AUDub 11,158]

Here's a map I found interesting. Before he stopped paying the fees for his allotment, the red outlined area was the land he was permitted to graze. He deliberately expanded the area of his cattle's trespass to areas he wasn't permitted to graze to begin with.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I do not understand where you are going with this.

Sating my own curiosity and making sure I know where you're coming from. Lot going on at home this week, brain is operating a bit slower than usual.

To make sure Lincoln gets elected?

That was the main reason Nevada was granted statehood, but no.

So, given your words above, can I assume you believe the government managing these unappropriated public lands, as opposed to them being in private ownership, constitutes a concentration of wealth? I would think lands remaining in public trust would be the antithesis of that.

Your brain is just fine.

The Lincoln reference was suppose to be funny. My humor doesn't seem to be working properly.

The government holding land doesn't really make it public. I mean, take it to the extreme. What if the government owned all of the land? Would that situation represent a perfect concentration or absolute dilution? Is that a dilution of power or, a concentration of power that undermines the concept of communism (or any system for that matter). Power is a funny thing. When an individual or entity holds enough power, they tend to wield that power rather than acting honorably and fairly. The rules begin to reflect the authority of power rather than a moral and ethical legitimacy.