Yesterday - Bundy Ranch
- Thread starter GoJazz
- Start date
For my buddy Franklin. . . . you do a pretty good job of bringin' it on. . .
Besides all that, I am actually a descendant of King George III. true story. I have this little intra-family feud sort of thing, yah know. . . . .
My thinking for myself was done mostly while loitering in public schools being a discouragement to hard-working and altruistic teachers. . . . I didn' t like the government very much, like everyone was trying to dictate. . . . .
I've read Karl Marx, and a bunch of socialist economic philosophers too. I remember I had a book about The Worldly Philosophers when I was only a sophomore in hs. There was one I liked because of his lifestyle. Veblen, I believe. Reputedly, he hated to wash his dishes, so he let them stack up for a month until they were all gone. Then he'd take them all out on the lawn and spray them with a garden hose. Now there's a man who knows how to do economies of scale. . . .
yah, so what. Mohandas Gandhi was thrown in jail for violating laws he disagreed with too.
But he had some liberal media friends who would make a legend of him. Gandhi really was a very intelligent exploiter of all kinds of media and public displays, and such. From the very beginning of his career when he burned his government ID and got his face kicked in much like Dave Bundy. . . . .
Pat Shea was on the news tonight, a former head of the BLM under Clinton. I knew him in 1991-3 when he was a frequent visitor/hanger-on around Peter Billings' law office. Peter Billings was then the head of the Utah Democratic Party. Peter Billings' personal secretary was my wife at that time. One thing you can say about Pat, he sure is a staunch player for the Establishment that has been running our country for a long long time. . . ignoring our founding Constitution wholesale.
But I have to assume you are yourself a government employee, though I suspect you do environmental assay work in a lab or something. . . .
Yes indeed, we do live in a country where ideas HAVE to compete to get anywhere. Ideas about human rights, innate or god-given, have to compete against nearly insurmountable opposition, just like the British Government in Gandhi's India.
I am in essentially the same position as Clive Bundy, except my grazing right goes back to 1890. When I bought the ranch, with all appurtenant rights, I took a pretty sad view of the BLM and figured, since I was dirt poor and couldn't spend ten million dollars whistling at judges in the courts while the BLM could do so without any substantial concern at all. I predicted that within my lifetime, the BLM would just deny me any use of that grazing at all.
And I don't have confidence in our voting public with democratic delusions, either. I see it as a real threat to all private landholders in very remote rural settings that there will be public notions about open spaces and fed agency actions determined to remove those landholders from their nuisance holdings.
I decided I couldn't even mount a political opposition, considering the billions likely spent by cartels. . . such as feedlot/slaughter/meatpacking companies. . . . to beat down their small competitors with the government stick.
So put me down as one who is absolutely grateful to Cliven Bundy for his stand. . . . although I have some objective criticisms of the way he's gone about it. . . . .
And I still don't think I've addressed your question. . . .
respectfully disagree. Every living thing has a birthright. Some religious folks hypothesize they are children of the King, meaning Jesus, because he have accepted Jesus as Lord. As a Son of the Republic, I maintain that humans have inalienable rights, and that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Which would naturally infer that a voting public. . . a democracy, so to speak. . . . cannot claim any power not inherent in the people. yah we didn't get very perfect at that from the outset, with slavery and the expulsion of natives from tribal lands, even treaty-recognized tribal lands. . . .you have probably heard that the US is not supposed to be a "pure" democracy, but a "Constitutional Republic" with limited federal powers. . . . . with the undelegated powers reserved to the States, or to the People. . . .
Besides all that, I am actually a descendant of King George III. true story. I have this little intra-family feud sort of thing, yah know. . . . .
My thinking for myself was done mostly while loitering in public schools being a discouragement to hard-working and altruistic teachers. . . . I didn' t like the government very much, like everyone was trying to dictate. . . . .
I've read Karl Marx, and a bunch of socialist economic philosophers too. I remember I had a book about The Worldly Philosophers when I was only a sophomore in hs. There was one I liked because of his lifestyle. Veblen, I believe. Reputedly, he hated to wash his dishes, so he let them stack up for a month until they were all gone. Then he'd take them all out on the lawn and spray them with a garden hose. Now there's a man who knows how to do economies of scale. . . .
yah, so what. Mohandas Gandhi was thrown in jail for violating laws he disagreed with too.
But he had some liberal media friends who would make a legend of him. Gandhi really was a very intelligent exploiter of all kinds of media and public displays, and such. From the very beginning of his career when he burned his government ID and got his face kicked in much like Dave Bundy. . . . .
Pat Shea was on the news tonight, a former head of the BLM under Clinton. I knew him in 1991-3 when he was a frequent visitor/hanger-on around Peter Billings' law office. Peter Billings was then the head of the Utah Democratic Party. Peter Billings' personal secretary was my wife at that time. One thing you can say about Pat, he sure is a staunch player for the Establishment that has been running our country for a long long time. . . ignoring our founding Constitution wholesale.
But I have to assume you are yourself a government employee, though I suspect you do environmental assay work in a lab or something. . . .
Yes indeed, we do live in a country where ideas HAVE to compete to get anywhere. Ideas about human rights, innate or god-given, have to compete against nearly insurmountable opposition, just like the British Government in Gandhi's India.
I am in essentially the same position as Clive Bundy, except my grazing right goes back to 1890. When I bought the ranch, with all appurtenant rights, I took a pretty sad view of the BLM and figured, since I was dirt poor and couldn't spend ten million dollars whistling at judges in the courts while the BLM could do so without any substantial concern at all. I predicted that within my lifetime, the BLM would just deny me any use of that grazing at all.
And I don't have confidence in our voting public with democratic delusions, either. I see it as a real threat to all private landholders in very remote rural settings that there will be public notions about open spaces and fed agency actions determined to remove those landholders from their nuisance holdings.
I decided I couldn't even mount a political opposition, considering the billions likely spent by cartels. . . such as feedlot/slaughter/meatpacking companies. . . . to beat down their small competitors with the government stick.
So put me down as one who is absolutely grateful to Cliven Bundy for his stand. . . . although I have some objective criticisms of the way he's gone about it. . . . .
And I still don't think I've addressed your question. . . .
You should change your handle to "Chicken Little" SRS
hey, heyhey,. . . . . what's up.
I think the gun-totin' civilians are idiots, too.
I call it the John Singer deficit in reasoning.
If you draw first you still need to shoot first. . . . and shoot last. No little militia is gonna be able to do that. The Brits would have shot Gandhi, too, if he had carried a gun. In fact, I believe his very meager/simple garb and meditative posturing was crafted to ensure that if he ever did get shot, the Brits couldn't say he pulled a gun on them. . . . . . Of course, though, the Brits weren't above blaming it on a Moslem or fomenting a shooting war between Buddhists and Moslem. . . . .
John Singer was the Utah fundamentalist/polygamist who turned his back on the cops, who shot him. I worked for a while next to the UofU medcenter autopsy room. Someone told me John Singer was shot in the back, but the Utah governor dictated the autopsy report to state otherwise. . . . yep, I think of that every time I drive by the monument named for the officer who was shot by Singer's son. Just never know who to believe anymore.
Seriously, we don't need yahoos with guns on the roads around Mesquite. We need a Gandhi sort of man who will make the case strictly and purely "civil disobedience. . . nonviolent disobedience" yah, but it's not time even for that. All we need is about 5% of Americans reading the Constitution and voting the honchos out.
And there's the meat of your position. Why does it always take a little firing back for you to have everyone's ear?
This is the message that should be put in front of some last stand for liberty. Not hiding behind S.W.A.T. carrying sniper rifles, or feigned outrage over "free speech zones", or "my granddaddy took this property from natives off the Santa Maria". If this is about bought and paid for government acting against a free enterprise system then let's tell the story that needs to be told. Meat with substance.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
It is not real property. If it was you would have a deed or title. An appurtenant right is a form of an easement and easements are extinguishable by public authority. Water rights in Utah are real property and you get a deed.
Last edited:
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I own guns and believe in gun rights. I believe the ultimate purpose for our right to bear arms is to protect ourselves from government. This guy is an idiot. This specific group is ridiculous.
You should change your handle to "Chicken Little" SRS
How does that make any sense? All I'm doing is explaining to you who real 3% are. I'm not a 3%. Are you really unable to tell the difference between panic and interest? Between explanation and agreance?
Appears this is coming to pass. Feds appear to be packing their bags.
I predict that now they will come back and handle this responsibly, as they should have from the beginning... after spending millions doing it wrong the first time.
I'm just glad/hopeful no blood was shed. That is a victory for us all.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
You can be a little bit of an alarmist.
I am just now home. Sorry I kept you hanging so long.
Too tired to post today's events tonight.. will tomorrow.
Interesting take. I'll look at that. It really is only interest.
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
You are wrong on so many levels. Over 60% of Utah land is owned by the federal government, and it is a similar ratio in most of the West. Grazing rights may be gained on private real property by a prescriptive easement or by adverse possession. It does not apply to government owned land (federal, state, municipal...). If Bundy was allowed to graze on federal land, it was because it was allowed (gov't chose to not stop it). Much of this land was acquired early in the history of the United States as a result of purchases, wars, or treaties made with foreign countries. The federal government used this land to encourage growth, settlement, and economic development.
The sheer fact that grazing rights were never codified for many years caused a plethora of range wars to start in the West. However, in 1934, the Taylor Grazing Act formally set out the federal government's powers and policy on grazing federal lands by establishing the Division of Grazing and procedures for issuing permits to graze federal lands for a fixed period of time. The Division of Grazing was renamed the US Grazing Service in 1939 and then merged in 1946 with the General Land Office to become the Bureau of Land Management, which along with the United States Forest Service oversees public lands grazing in 16 western states today. Some grazing land was homesteaded, but not much in the West. Today, the federal government employs principles of land use planning and environmental protection to preserve the natural resources and scenic beauty found on public land. The land in question is unequivocally owned by the federal government. Permits have been issued here before the BLM existed. And yes, it sucks if they aren't improving the land as they said they would, but it is public land, and I would HOPE the government charges a business to use it.
In regards to principles of ex post facto laws, you are wrong as well. Laws can always change, but they apply prospectively. Here is a hypothetical: lets say grazing on federal lands was legal for 50 years but illegalized today. If you kept grazing tomorrow, you would be breaking the law and subject to penalty. The fact is, the law was never codified before the Taylor act, but when it was first grazed by Bundy's family it was a federal territory, subject to their control. And permanent grazing rights were never established, that is a large part in what allowed two district courts to rule the cattle could be removed.
Basic constitution courses should be taught to everyone somewhere between middle and high school. It is so sad what so many people incorrectly believe regarding basic constitutional rights.
I have many times stated I don't have a dog in the fight.. but some of these arguments are such a circle-jerk.
So the way we prove something is 'right' is through an act? The Taylor Grazing Act took lands that were intended/destined to be state held (with state tax base) and placed them in a quassi-permanent state exempt from ever being able to become private lands.
This is a clear violation of the intent, the expressed purpose and the explicit provisions, of the treaties, the ordinances, and the state compacts... and the constitution of the United States.
So the way we prove something is 'right' is through an act? The Taylor Grazing Act took lands that were intended/destined to be state held (with state tax base) and placed them in a quassi-permanent state exempt from ever being able to become private lands.
This is a clear violation of the intent, the expressed purpose and the explicit provisions, of the treaties, the ordinances, and the state compacts... and the constitution of the United States.
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
The Taylor grazing act only applied to federal lands that were not granted to states. It did not take away state land.
You are right in regards to the express purpose of the treaties and original state compacts, but you have to look at the historical context for those compacts. The U.S. Constitution addresses the relationship of the federal government to own land. The Property Clause of the Constitution gives Congress authority over the lands, territories, or other property of the United States. It reads:
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.
This provision provides broad authority for Congress to govern the lands acquired by the federal government as it sees fit, and to exercise exclusive authority to decide on whether or not to dispose of those lands. The U.S. Supreme Court has described this power as “without limitation,” stating that: while Congress can acquire exclusive or partial jurisdiction over lands within a State by the State’s consent or cession, the presence or absence of such jurisdiction has nothing to do with Congress’ powers under the Property Clause....
People have argued that Equal footing laws should allow new western states to own most if not all of their land similar to states in the east. But for years courts have consistently ruled that this clause does not require the federal government to "any limitations on holding lands ceded by the original states did not apply to western lands acquired after the Constitution went into effect, and that the equal footing doctrine did not mean new western states were entitled to all federal lands in their borders".
The Constitution reserves to Congress the authority to decide which federal lands to sell or keep. And the rulings make a lot of sense. Prior to the constitution, the states in existence would have never joined the U.S. if they couldn't keep their Eastern lands. They did however give up lands owned to them at the time in the West (IIRC almost to the Mississippi, but was expanded as the federal government was held to own all territories as well). All of the states agreed that land to the west would be federal territories. As all of the western territories were federal territories that were not yet states, those wanting statehood with an already established government were on much different footing. When they agreed to statehood, the federal government determined how much land would be granted to them. Unfortunately as all of the states in existence at the time were in the East, their agreements had a major affect on state ownership in the west.
Thanks. Could you please reference the stated clauses? I mean this sincerely when I say you obviously know more in this than I do and I am a fact/context guy.. not one that twists words to fit an agenda, so I really am being sincere.
How does what your citing above reflect/line up with the Enclave clause? SECTION 1, ARTICLE 8, CLAUSE 17.
Yesterday was one of the most incredible things I have ever witnessed. Please let's keep the negative rhetoric to a minimum.. especially for those that haven't actually done something with a purpose in their lives. Tia.
That I know of, there were armed and organized militia from GA, TX, UT, NV, AZ, NH, TN, KY, and FL.
They became well organized as a unit and had a plan.. to the surprise of the federal agents.
As they approached the fed's compound and the confiscated cattle on horseback and most everyone with sidearms, the feds warned to disperse or they would chemical spray. The protesters refused to back down and kept coming fwd, but with hands up (mostly). They lulled the feds to sleep with their passive aggression... the feds kept coming closer as well...
It was then the feds found they had been flanked and their were armed malitia hiding in the k-bars of the overpasses and then the long guns (mostly AR's) emerged from the overpasses above and were trained on the feds.
The feds retreated and the cattle were taken back.
I have incredible footage of all this that has been uploading for 12 hours now (wtf).
I know it isn't over, obviously. But I loved watching Americans stick together and fight for a belief (whether they're right or wrong). These were good people and not a single one came off as some trigger-happy knuckledragging hero looking to make a name for himself.
It was a TENSE time, I will admit, but I never felt like someone was going to lose their cool.
That I know of, there were armed and organized militia from GA, TX, UT, NV, AZ, NH, TN, KY, and FL.
They became well organized as a unit and had a plan.. to the surprise of the federal agents.
As they approached the fed's compound and the confiscated cattle on horseback and most everyone with sidearms, the feds warned to disperse or they would chemical spray. The protesters refused to back down and kept coming fwd, but with hands up (mostly). They lulled the feds to sleep with their passive aggression... the feds kept coming closer as well...
It was then the feds found they had been flanked and their were armed malitia hiding in the k-bars of the overpasses and then the long guns (mostly AR's) emerged from the overpasses above and were trained on the feds.
The feds retreated and the cattle were taken back.
I have incredible footage of all this that has been uploading for 12 hours now (wtf).
I know it isn't over, obviously. But I loved watching Americans stick together and fight for a belief (whether they're right or wrong). These were good people and not a single one came off as some trigger-happy knuckledragging hero looking to make a name for himself.
It was a TENSE time, I will admit, but I never felt like someone was going to lose their cool.