[Delwin]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

FOX News covered this last night and they came up with some interesting facts:

1. The grazing fees that were originally agreed to were raised retroactively to 1993 earlier this year by the new Director of the BLM. This retroactive increase is unique in that only Mr. Bundy had his fees raised. The contracted amount due is still significant, at almost $200,000. But that's far short of the now $1.3 million the BLM says they want.

2. The new Director of the BLM, Neil Kornze, is a personal friend of and former staffer of US Senator Harry Reid. Can you say CONFLICT OF INTEREST???

3. As noted, Bundy is the last of 53 ranchers in the region that the BLM has 'helped' with their wonderful land management policies. Given that the fee arrangement was presented as providing assistance to the ranchers then Bundy has every right in the world to refuse to pay it since the BLM is now determined to put him out of business and maybe even kill him.

4. Yesterday the BLM served Mr. Bundy with multiple lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions, the intent of which Director Neil Kornze made clear was to deliberately bankrupt Mr. Bundy and to deny him the financial resources to continue to fight the BLM.

Cool story got link? I'm pretty sure no one would make anything up here but I like to fact check. It's kind of like a hobby.

[rickc]

Delwin Delwin:

rickc rickc:

sandorski sandorski:

It wasn't his land. Whether that would have killed his Ranch is moot.

You are correct, it is not his land. However his family, and several other families have been illegally ranching on that land for decades.

Fixed that for you.

I was hoping you would show up, I thought the thread had died out. I actually like your work. I do not agree with you on this issue, but you take the time to do some research and get your facts straight. I like that! Yes you are factually correct that Mr. Bundy has been illegally ranching on that land for years. I will concede that point to you. The whole point of this story is that sometimes the law is wrong. Just because you have the color of law on your side, does not always make you right. Rosa Parks was breaking the law when she refused to give up her seat to a white man. The gays were breaking the law when they were dancing together at the stonewall Inn. American women trying to vote in the early 1900s were breaking the law. Am I putting Mr. Bundy on the same pedestal as these people? No I am not. I am trying to make the point that sometimes the law is wrong. Sometimes the law needs to be changed. The BLM has put countess ranchesr, loggers, farmers, etc. out of business with the stroke of a pen. These people are not elected officials. Who the hell do they think they are putting these people out of business on a whim? The BLM tried to reduce Mr. Bundys heard from thousands down to 150. Where was he going to go? The feds own almost all of Nevada. Why should he give up what his family has been doing for generations just because some pointy headed bureaucrat from some trashy shithole back east tells him too? Oh thats right, its the law. He should be a good boy. Shuffle along now, and do not make a scene.

We have over 11 million illegals living in the States. I do not see this kind of concentrated firepower coming their way. If the feds showed up with this kind of firepower and started rounding up the illegals,where would you stand on that? Would you still be so firm in your law and order stance? Would it be so black and white to you then?

I just love how some Canadian lefties (speaking in general here, not calling you out) think that a strong U.S. government hand is a good thing when its taking on U.S. right wing groups, and depriving us of our rights. They love it when they are harassing us. The government consists of swell, level headed people only pursuing justice. Let that strong federal hand start taking on some Canadian interests like softwood, Marc Emery, the border, etc. Than its a whole different ball of wax. Than the very same people are bemoaning the outrageous arrogance of the U.S. federal government.

[andyt]

How should the law be changed in this case? What exactly does it say, and what should it say in your opinion?

[Public_Domain]

If we're going to be talking about unjust laws...

There are at least 5 times more empty houses in the United States as there are homeless people.
18.9 million empty houses, 3.5 homeless Americans.

Some say there are 24 times as many empty homes versus homeless people.

I fully support people squatting these foreclosed/abandoned homes, because I believe the law is wrong and cruel.
People should be allowed to occupy a residence they are willing to take care of.
I could care less about the potential for profit a house has, I care about people being housed.

Would you support a mass acceptance of squatting?

[rickc]

andyt andyt:

How should the law be changed in this case? What exactly does it say, and what should it say in your opinion?

An excellent question. This is where it gets tricky. Laws are made by elected officials. They hammer it out, come to an agreement, and someone in an executive branch signs off on it. How these elected members vote is a matter of public record. The populace can hold these elected members accountable for how they vote. The BLM consists of unelected people. The head is appointed. The government has abdicated their responsibility on land management affairs. They have delegated that authority to the BLM. The BLM has a free hand to do whatever they want to do. They are a law unto themselves. Whatever they say goes. Thats not right. No government agency should have that kind of absolute power. There should be some people who answer to the voters overseeing this agency. They should not be free to go around screwing hard working loggers, ranchers, and farmers on a whim with no other government oversight.

[andyt]

The BLM is an agency of the govt. THe elected officials don't act on the laws, their agents do. I don't see the diff between BLM and FBI, OSHA, FDA what have you. You say it's a whim, but I really doubt theres BLM people sitting in an office, saying, hey let's screw Bundy today just for shits and giggles. I think like any other agency they act on the laws as they understand them. Is the head of the CIA elected? FBI?

If these people are so convinced of their cause, by all means stage protests. Just without guns. People here have compared this to Occupy. Imagine the outcry (rightly so) if Occupy had come armed, and how quick that would be over. But when you protest you have to be willing to go to jail if you practice civil disobedience.

I admit I don't know much of the US system, but so far I don't see you making the case that this is different than the IRS moving in to seize his cattle because he didn't pay his income taxes.

[Delwin]

rickc rickc:

I was hoping you would show up, I thought the thread had died out. I actually like your work. I do not agree with you on this issue, but you take the time to do some research and get your facts straight. I like that! Yes you are factually correct that Mr. Bundy has been illegally ranching on that land for years. I will concede that point to you. The whole point of this story is that sometimes the law is wrong. Just because you have the color of law on your side, does not always make you right. Rosa Parks was breaking the law when she refused to give up her seat to a white man. The gays were breaking the law when they were dancing together at the stonewall Inn. American women trying to vote in the early 1900s were breaking the law. Am I putting Mr. Bundy on the same pedestal as these people? No I am not. I am trying to make the point that sometimes the law is wrong. Sometimes the law needs to be changed. The BLM has put countess ranchesr, loggers, farmers, etc. out of business with the stroke of a pen. These people are not elected officials. Who the hell do they think they are putting these people out of business on a whim? The BLM tried to reduce Mr. Bundys heard from thousands down to 150. Where was he going to go? The feds own almost all of Nevada. Why should he give up what his family has been doing for generations just because some pointy headed bureaucrat from some trashy shithole back east tells him too? Oh thats right, its the law. He should be a good boy. Shuffle along now, and do not make a scene.
We have over 11 million illegals living in the States. I do not see this kind of concentrated firepower coming their way. If the feds showed up with this kind of firepower and started rounding up the illegals,where would you stand on that? Would you still be so firm in your law and order stance? Would it be so black and white to you then?

I just love how some Canadian lefties (speaking in general here, not calling you out) think that a strong U.S. government hand is a good thing when its taking on U.S. right wing groups, and depriving us of our rights. They love it when they are harassing us. The government consists of swell, level headed people only pursuing justice. Let that strong federal hand start taking on some Canadian interests like softwood, Marc Emery, the border, etc. Than its a whole different ball of wax. Than the very same people are bemoaning the outrageous arrogance of the U.S. federal government.

OK, so you are complaining that that the laws in this case are somehow unjust, you have yet to explain which laws or why. So before we start quoting Jefferson's right to revolution, maybe we should look at the laws which govern the case themselves.

1.Constitution of Arizona - Written in 1864, before Bundy moved their.

2.The Taylor grazing act of 1934 - Written by Edward Taylor, Colorado Rancher

3.The Grazing Fee Schedule - Signed into law in 1986 by Ronald Regan, Fellow Rancher

Are you arguing the grazing fees are too high ? Because the program actually loses about 140 Million a year and the formula was written by ranchers (Ronald Regean) for ranchers.

It has actually lowered and now stands at the lowest legal level.$1.35 per cattle head per month, or $16.20 for the year. In 3 years it equates to $48.60.
http://cals.arizona.edu/media/archives/10.11.html

This is all the money that is required to feed your cattle for 3 years and bring it's value from zero to ~$2500. Any business owner would consider this a fixed cost, and pay the fucking thing, as they all do. There is no sob story here. The 900 or so cattle this guy owns is worth millions of dollars. He is a multimillionaire. It's not the story of the poor factory worker who lost his job and is being evicted by the cruel slumlord. Far from it. He chooses to not contribute.

And 53 people who went out of business in a state of 16,000 ranchers is a testament to just what a lucrative business model this is. Have you ever even heard of a business with a 99% success ratio ?

[martin14]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

If we're going to be talking about unjust laws...

There are at least 5 times more empty houses in the United States as there are homeless people.
18.9 million empty houses, 3.5 homeless Americans.

Some say there are 24 times as many empty homes versus homeless people.

I fully support people squatting these foreclosed/abandoned homes, because I believe the law is wrong and cruel.
People should be allowed to occupy a residence they are willing to take care of.
I could care less about the potential for profit a house has, I care about people being housed.

Would you support a mass acceptance of squatting?

Send them all to Detroit, lots of free houses there.

So why don't all the homeless go there ? Problem solved !

[N_Fiddledog]

Here is another one.

The Bureau of Land Management should not actually exist. It is against the law. So what law is being broken if the agency enacting it is itself illegal, I wonder.

$1:

Pursuant to Article 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the Constitution and constitutionally-compliant laws are “supreme law of the land.” This establishes the Constitution as the centerpiece of American law, thus leaving us with a second question: Is the Bureau of Land Management’s control over land in an individual state constitutional?

The Bureau of Land Management was created by Congress. The powers of Congress are listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Pursuant to the Tenth Amendment, powers not specifically enumerated to the Federal Government here are left to the States and people, unless specifically prohibited under Article 1, Section 10.

Thus, what Congress can do is fairly straight forward. Among these specifically enumerated powers is not the power to control land within a single state.

https://undercoverporcupine.bangordaily ... ranch-war/

Wanna see how real lawbreakers work though, check out that link and read what the Reid clan has been up to. No not with the Chinese. There is more.

[Delwin]

Cool, more complete balogna. Here's what you are looking for:


U.S. Constitution
Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2


Clause 2: Federal Property and Territory Clause[edit]
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.[8]

[N_Fiddledog]

But what does the phrase "all needful Rules and Regulations" refer to? Does that not refer back to Article 1, Section 8 unless prohibited by Article 1, Section 10?

Is that not what the 10th amendment refers to?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Does it not mean powers specifically delegated or prohibited by section 8 or 10 of Article 1?

Wouldn't "all needful rules and regulations" fall within the parameters of those articles? If not what is the purpose of them?

Oh and this one's not important, but it's bugging me; when you are talking about the Constitution of Arizona above, is that a typo? Do you mean Nevada? If not what am I missing?

There's some other stuff, but I'll wait and see if Rick hits on it.

[N_Fiddledog]

Oh and did you see what those BLM guys did to Bundy's cattle?

http://www.westernjournalism.com/graphi ... undy-ranch

Bastards.

I heard they crushed one of those tortoise habitats too.

[Delwin]

Yeah, not really convinced it was the BLM though. Let's try to remember the front line BLM workers are just doing their jobs, they really have nothing to gain in all this.

I wouldn't put it by the protesters though, seeing these are the same kind of chicken shit cowards that would put women in the front lines so that the media would see them getting shot first.

Yup real men. Let's put Wifey and Grandma in the front while we play G.I. Joe way back here. A strategy taken from someone else's book. Can't quite place it.

These guys really have no credibility with me. Maybe you can relate on some other level I don't understand but there is no wonder most rational thinking Conservatives are doing their best to distance themselves from them.

Fox News’ “The Real Story” on Monday:

Former Sheriff Richard Mack said he and other protesters “were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZd61_9hofE

[Delwin]

And with regards to the Constitutional law claim,

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

These powers were delegated so there is zero argument there. And this has already been addressed, so now it's just the recycling of old ideas that have already been proven to be wrong.

And yes I meant Nevada whose constitution was formed in 1864 not that it makes any difference.

[N_Fiddledog]

Delwin Delwin:

I wouldn't put it by the protesters though, seeing these are the same kind of chicken shit cowards that would put women in the front lines so that the media would see them getting shot first.

I also heard that Richard Mack guy make that claim to Fox. I don't know who he is, or where he came from.

I do know this, because I saw it on multiple sources, and at least one video has been posted here: when the Bundy boys and their fellow ranchers said their prayer, then walked up to where the BLM guys were waiting with automatic weapons threatening to shoot them if they advanced there were no women. When the Bundy kid told the agent to step down, because they were coming through I didn't see any weapons on the ranchers. When they did come through to get the cattle, I didn't see any women.

Again, did I miss something?