What's new
By:

Bundys Go Free

During the April 2014 Bundy standoff, in which the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) attempted to round up cattle belonging to rancher Cliven Bundy, who refused to vacate public land,[22] Jerad Miller was said to have been among the armed protesters who joined Bundy during the incident. According to Bundy's son, Ammon Bundy, the Millers were present during the standoff for a few days, but had been instructed by a militia member to leave due to "their radical beliefs", which did not align with the protest's main issues.[17][23] They were also instructed to leave because Jerad Miller was a felon in possession of a firearm.[16] Carol Bundy later commented, "I have not seen or heard anything from the militia and others who have came to our ranch that would, in any way, make me think they had an intent to kill or harm anyone."[24]
Click to expand...

Because some people like to skew reality to conform with their agenda/bias. #fakenews
 
franklin said:
Wow, Thriller finally made a decent post. Glad I didn't log in before reading the site or I wouldn't have seen it.
Click to expand...


A good post while he skews reality, wishes death on people and makes LaVoy Finicum, who was outright murder look like he was Osama Bin Ladin and worse than ****ing Al Qaeda? Dude...
 
Last edited:
Fair enough, even with all your various inaccuracies. Show me the the Secretary of the Interior's signature on a license under the Stock-Raising Homestead Act and I could buy into Bundy's case.

You are referring to The Enabling Act, which came years before the Stock-Raising Homestead Act and the Utah Constitution.

Second. That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States; that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without the said State shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the lands belonging to residents thereof; that no taxes shall be imposed by the State on lands or property therein belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for its use; but nothing herein, or in the ordinance herein provided for, shall preclude the said State from taxing, as other lands are taxed, any lands owned or held by any Indian who has severed his tribal relations and has obtained from the United States or from any person a title thereto by patent or other grant, save and except such lands as have been or may be granted to any Indian or Indians under any act of Congress containing a provision exempting the lands thus granted from taxation; but said ordinance shall provide that all such lands shall be exempt from taxation by said State so long and to such extent as such act of Congress may prescribe.
Click to expand...
babe said:
sure guvmint employees, both of you. I think a guvmint that pays morons is a bad guvmint.

So the Fed government has broken faith with states like Utah, Arizona and Nevada because it was essentially a cardinal principle that federal lands would be open to private use and ownership.

Congress in the 1800s played to the interests of settlers..... farmers.... and really gave ranchers the short shrift by not recognizing private grazing rights. Caused range wars, Americans killing Americans, the stuff of movies like "Shane".

Congress passed the Homestead Act, and a lot of states, even states with marginal water resources went almost entirely into private hands. But John Wesley Powell, one of the worst characters in US history, a virulent anti-Mormon and one of the first "progressives", born and raised by a Methodist minister near Palmyra New York, didn't think the Homestead Act should be honored. It's still the law of the land.

Bundy's range is in Shoshone territory governed by a treaty with the Shoshone nation, as most of Nevada is. Paiutes are a southern Shoshone branch of American natives, distinct from Hopi and Navajo. The US guvmint has never done right by the Shoshone, any more than the grazing range cattlemen. The land was in Utah territory, then Arizona, then Nevada across less than fifty years from the 1860s when the Bundy's started grazing there into the 1910s when it finally went into Nevada state hands as it was shaved off of Arizona territory when Arizona was made a state. The recorded grazing property right makes the case for the Bundy's. It has to be administered by Clark County NV, that is the only legal administrative unit with any jurisdiction over the tract. And until Clark County buys the grazing right, the only fees they can legally assess are those directly attributable to the maintenance of the tract. If they do some work , like improve some water resource, or put a fence up, sure send a bill. The Bundys don't claim to own the land itself, or the minerals on or under the land, just the grazing use.

The grazing property right was recorded under the administration of three territories as a taxable property interest. The US Constitution denies that the Federal government can take private property interests from citizens without paying a fair price for them.

modern communists/self-styled "progressives" don't believe in personal or private property. Dems don't think your business is yours, or your money or income. They believe they the smartass knowitalls of superior rank who are the true "enlightened" elites, who should have everything at their disposal.

That's why Harry Reid and his son Cory.... damned Mormons if there ever will be such cretins properly labeled.... thought their deal with the Chinese solar company that wanted to carpet the turtle heaven with solar panels, believed they could just get their handy honcho thugs at the BLM and FBI to run the Bundys off. Reids Harry and Cory should go to jail for life for abuse of guvmint authority and threatening citizens with bodily harm while attempting to convert private property to their own financial gain.

Utah had lands shaved off of its territory by several acts of Congress. The first rancher to graze my land recorded a deed to the grazing in relevant Utah recorders office. It is the same fact with a whole lot of old grazing rights that existed prior to the Taylor grazing act.

But I feel damn sorry for the native Americans. The US guv has violated every treaty they ever made with the native Americans, and it's gonna be a helluva social justice fight to ever get such "inconvenient" property rights recognized.

Frank, the Federal guvmint has no authority over local land use issues. Utah State does have such authority, as do cities and counties. You should not be defending Federal usurpation. The mining, grazing and Homestead Acts should be, properly, things that States administer.

We got a whole crapload of States who got theirs first who want to run Utah too.
Click to expand...

You're talking in circles.

1. You feel bad for the Natives, they own the land.
2. But a state owns all the land within their boundaries (even though they agreed they didn't when they were permitted part of a union that controlled that territory in the first place, a territory they most likely migrated from).
3. Bundy's should be allowed to graze illegally without paying the feds or the state or dealing with Shoshone.
4. The Federation allowed that conquered land to become a state, with stipulations, but those stipulations don't matter, and by your implication, should be returned back to the natives in a revolving game of musical chairs based on whatever research comes up proving the oldest lineage. But states rights are still somehow magically in place.
4. Unsaid: There was a war with Mexico that took control of these lands.

So who owns the land? The people who can prove today that their ancestors occupied it first? Okey dokey. Let's go on and readjust every single boundary line like we are Europe in the 900-1800 era, or like Jerusalem today. Sounds like lots of fun. Or, we can get over it.

BTW, it wasn't Homestead Act; there were several homestead acts and the one you should be pointing to was the Stock -Raising Homestead Act of 1916, which was plenty of years past the accepted Utah Constitution that set those lands aside. Also, despite Bundy's claims, they didn't start raising cattle there until something like 1948 or so. Plus, I haven't seen a legal permit or application from the Department of the Interior for their homestead claim (which it might not be one anyway as they don't live there as their primary residence).

Show me that issuance and explain how probate law allows multi-generational transfer and then you can make a legal case as far as I'm concerned.
 
franklin said:
Fair enough, even with all your various inaccuracies. Show me the the Secretary of the Interior's signature on a license under the Stock-Raising Homestead Act and I could buy into Bundy's case.

You are referring to The Enabling Act, which came years before the Stock-Raising Homestead Act and the Utah Constitution.




You're talking in circles.

1. You feel bad for the Natives, they own the land.
2. But a state owns all the land within their boundaries (even though they agreed they didn't when they were permitted part of a union that controlled that territory in the first place, a territory they most likely migrated from).
3. Bundy's should be allowed to graze illegally without paying the feds or the state or dealing with Shoshone.
4. The Federation allowed that conquered land to become a state, with stipulations, but those stipulations don't matter, and by your implication, should be returned back to the natives in a revolving game of musical chairs based on whatever research comes up proving the oldest lineage. But states rights are still somehow magically in place.
4. Unsaid: There was a war with Mexico that took control of these lands.

So who owns the land? The people who can prove today that their ancestors occupied it first? Okey dokey. Let's go on and readjust every single boundary line like we are Europe in the 900-1800 era, or like Jerusalem today. Sounds like lots of fun. Or, we can get over it.

BTW, it wasn't Homestead Act; there were several homestead acts and the one you should be pointing to was the Stock -Raising Homestead Act of 1916, which was plenty of years past the accepted Utah Constitution that set those lands aside. Also, despite Bundy's claims, they didn't start raising cattle there until something like 1948 or so. Plus, I haven't seen a legal permit or application from the Department of the Interior for their homestead claim (which it might not be one anyway as they don't live there as their primary residence).

Show me that issuance and explain how probate law allows multi-generational transfer and then you can make a legal case as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

yah, I insinuated you're something of a moron, so do you really have to prove it.

to participate in a discussion intelligently, where there is another point of view, the highest objective should be to state the case accurately before you begin to prattle on and on about it.

My position amounts to, in it's simplest form, the assertion that our Fed gov had no history of doing anybody any justice. That premise runs through the American Revolutionary War where the Brits got a lot of native American tribes to help them, presenting the difficulties for the rebels of fighting on all kinds of "fronts", besides the best organized military and navy on planet earth. The understandable, but unfortunate result was pretty severe mistreatment of the natives afterwards. Abe Lincoln fought in the Blackhawk War, and plainly stated his belief that the native Americans should be exterminated. So much for Abe being any kind of humanitarian.

I could go on about the Cherokees and Andrew Jackson, and Kit Carson and the Navajo trail of tears, or General Miles and Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce. Or the plains Indians and the great Buffalo extermination that put them into starvation.

Do you really want to believe that such Federal meddling against humanity is the side you want to stand for.

I consider the dems today to be pretty racist, attempting continually to exploit political division of human beings. The objective of many UN-type dreamers is to run humans off the land to such a large extent they can achieve a "sustainable" population reduction of rather significant proportions. Their reason for wanting to bring third worlders into advanced nations is so they can get the runaway population under modern forms of controls.

So where we made treaties, and there are remnants of the treaty peoples, there needs to be some campaign to bring the Fed gov into compliance. Most natives would not run off ranchers.... a lot of ranchers are natives. I think Bundy was on to something in believing blacks should have such opportunities. Grazing property rights on treaty lands would be a stable tax base for the tribes. And the lands would be better managed, I'd say.

The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to administer lands except small tracts purchased from the States or private parties, a minimal allowance that should never make such a nuisance of the Fed authorities. The Fed has reneged on its promises made with the State of Utah in the Statehood enabling act to turn over ownership in the customary manner it did with many other states, enabling humans to own land and improve it.

The Fed gov did great injustice to native Americans with the reservation system, and with the BIA administering the reservations in a manner that practically made slaves of the natives, who were denied citizenship rights for decades while being treated like cattle.

Now the Fed gov under the dem sort of management.....hell, under RINO management as well.... will in effect reduce the entire population to an "Urban Corral" sort of existence. We will all be treated like cattle.

It takes a lot of arrogance to even begin to make the argument the Federal Government is ever going manage things right.
 
I don't really expect things to change much.... not anytime soon. I don't expect courts to suddenly realize people's rights, or Congress to do anything, really. Not even Trump. DOJ head Jeff Sessions is a complete moron obsessed with enforcing useless pot laws where States have legalized it, for hell's sake.

But in the long run, when the "progressives" have totally failed in bringing world management to mankind and have become the hiss and byword of a reprehensible age of darkness for mankind, people will think things through all over again. Those of us who somehow, either in ourselves or our kind, survive all that mayhem, will determine to seriously put real shackles on guvmint megalomaniacs of all kinds.

very little of what Congress has ever done has been in accord with the careful determination of our founders to define Federal delegated powers, and the Bill of Rights, notably the Tenth Amerndment, have been universally trampled on by our "representatives". So to hell with all those acts, Franklin. They have no basis or merit for any human respect, just a determined political crusade to get that kind of bum outta office.... and keep them out.
 
I don't really expect things to change much.... not anytime soon. I don't expect courts to suddenly realize people's rights, or Congress to do anything, really. Not even Trump. DOJ head Jeff Sessions is a complete moron obsessed with enforcing useless pot laws where States have legalized it, for hell's sake.

But in the long run, when the "progressives" have totally failed in bringing world management to mankind and have become the hiss and byword of a reprehensible age of darkness for mankind, people will think things through all over again. Those of us who somehow, either in ourselves or our kind, survive all that mayhem, will determine to seriously put real shackles on guvmint megalomaniacs of all kinds.

very little of what Congress has ever done has been in accord with the careful determination of our founders to define Federal delegated powers, and the Bill of Rights, notably the Tenth Amerndment, have been universally trampled on by our "representatives". So to hell with all those acts, Franklin. They have no basis or merit for any human respect, just a determined political crusade to get that kind of bum outta office.... and keep them out.
 
Whatever happened to law and order? Think these guys would still be pardoned if they were black, Latino, or Muslim? This is nuts. Does this encourage more anti-BLM actions?

SALEM, Ore. — Two imprisoned ranchers who were convicted of intentionally setting fires in 2012 on public land in Oregon will be freed after President Donald Trump pardoned them on Tuesday.

The move by Trump raised concerns that others would be encouraged to actively oppose federal control of public land.
Click to expand...

https://www.deseretnews.com/article...rs-in-case-that-inspired-2016-occupation.html
 
Today Trump pardoned the Bend, Ore ranchers.

reality can be simple. You own a ranch near a freakin' overgrown meadow area with tons of tinder-dry grass, and a lightning strike anywhere within five miles can burn you down on your own land.

what to do...... what to do..... you pick a nice spring day with no wind and the grass is still a bit green, and you do a sort of tactic used in fire control professionally.... you lose some of your grass near your fringes, but you can relax a little until next spring.

The "backfire" went onto federal property. BLM management should have smiled and said thanks.

But an Oregon politician was doing a deal with some Chinese outfit, looking for access to resources which existed on the private ranch. "No problem I've got some friends. We'll clear them deadbeat taxpayers off the land for you".

Trump dismays me sometimes, but once in a while he does the right thing. The pardon was way overdue. The case should never have gone to court.
 
The Thriller said:
Whatever happened to law and order? Think these guys would still be pardoned if they were black, Latino, or Muslim? This is nuts. Does this encourage more anti-BLM actions?



https://www.deseretnews.com/article...rs-in-case-that-inspired-2016-occupation.html
Click to expand...

So a nutjob like George Soros with megalomanical visions of managing planet earth hires some more or less impressionable suffering blacks to burn some businesses in protest? nah, that's not my idea of law and order.

But I'm all for clearing our jails of people who've been redded up on purpose and fed a lot of trash talk about racial injustices, just like we should clear our jails of petty potheads who wouldn't hurt a fly.

law and order means we should prosecute those who incite violence. We should prosecute official misdeeds done unter the color of law. We should have standards of conduct for police officers.

And we should clear our jails of folks whose offense was to try to protest some guvmint mismanagement and unconstitutional actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top