[quote]pushharder wrote:
Still no speculation on your part, Doc, about “the rest of the story?” [/quote]
If it’s not homestead laws…why not surprise me?
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Still no speculation on your part, Doc, about “the rest of the story?” [/quote]
If it’s not homestead laws…why not surprise me?[/quote]
“This is The West, Sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”
–The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.", 1962.
For the history of water and development in the Colorado Plateau and intermountain west, there was no better writer than Wallace Stegner, and in particular, Beyond the One Hundredth Meridian. The first two-third is about John Wesley Powell’s two trips down the Colorado, the remaining third is about his views of development in the arid west.
“Gentlemen, you are piling up a heritage of conflict and litigation over water rights, for there is not sufficient water to supply the land.”
–JWP, 1983.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Still no speculation on your part, Doc, about “the rest of the story?” [/quote]
If it’s not homestead laws…why not surprise me?[/quote]
Improvements to the federal lands made by the private individuals. These are not necessarily insignificant.
BLM lands are not just leased lands like other typical leased properties. There are often heavy private investments and significant operational planning and tailoring involved. Then when the landlord comes along and pulls the rug out from under the the lessee catastrophic results can ensue. [/quote]
Well, that would fit under the general rubric of homestead laws, but for this:
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/noc/business/eforms.Par.26383.File.dat/2920-001.pdf
That is the current application for improvement to BLM lands, following laws enacted in 1976. Read the conditions.
Are you saying that Bundy–who didn’t pay fees and was found to be in trespass after 1993–had an immutable right to “improve” the land? Sorry. Not without BLM permission. I bet Bundy did not get legal application to improve, since he denied the fees and denied that the BLM had a right to administer the Federal property. Remember others may have legitimate claims, and the BLM reserved the right to withdraw improvement rights.
You may not like it, but there are laws and regulations that allow ranchers like Bundy to survive or thrive on BLM lands. Bundy’s trespass and squatting don’t happen to fit in, according to the Federal District Court ruling.
And before someone gets all twisted up that The Feds held the rights of desert tortoise more dear than those of a rancher, remember it was Clark County that held water rights—for the benefit of casinos, golf courses and the people of Las Vegas–and refused Bundy.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Still no speculation on your part, Doc, about “the rest of the story?” [/quote]
If it’s not homestead laws…why not surprise me?[/quote]
Improvements to the federal lands made by the private individuals. These are not necessarily insignificant.
BLM lands are not just leased lands like other typical leased properties. There are often heavy private investments and significant operational planning and tailoring involved. Then when the landlord comes along and pulls the rug out from under the the lessee catastrophic results can ensue. [/quote]
Well, that would fit under the general rubric of homestead laws, but for this:
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/noc/business/eforms.Par.26383.File.dat/2920-001.pdf
That is the current application for improvement to BLM lands, following laws enacted in 1976. Read the conditions.
Are you saying that Bundy–who didn’t pay fees and was found to be in trespass after 1993–had an immutable right to “improve” the land? Sorry. Not without BLM permission. I bet Bundy did not get legal application to improve, since he denied the fees and denied that the BLM had a right to administer the Federal property. Remember others may have legitimate claims, and the BLM reserved the right to withdraw improvement rights.
You may not like it, but there are laws and regulations that allow ranchers like Bundy to survive or thrive on BLM lands. Bundy’s trespass and squatting don’t happen to fit in, according to the Federal District Court ruling.
And before someone gets all twisted up that The Feds held the rights of desert tortoise more dear than those of a rancher, remember it was Clark County that held water rights—for the benefit of casinos, golf courses and the people of Las Vegas–and refused Bundy. [/quote]
No, no, no. Bundy’s operation had been making the improvements since the 1870’s over several generations. It doesn’t have anything to do with anything I like or not. You missed the whole point.[/quote]
Yes, yes, yes. I did not miss the point–at all.
Read that little application form.
- The homestead laws are pertinent to those lands not “owned” and managed by the BLM. (The homestead laws seem currently to apply almost uniquely to Alaska.)
- Putting an improvement on BLM territory does not grant the lessor rights in perpetuity.
- The law allows the BLM to withdraw the rights of improvement. That means that if someone doesn’t pay their fees–even after generations–they do not have a continued right to the land, regardless of improvement.
- And that is the way the District Court ruled and Bundy and his attorneys did not appeal to the Supreme Court.
Anyone reading these posts would think that I must like the BLM. This is not true. For anyone who does anything more than apply for a hiking permit, the BLM is hated nearly as much as the IRS or the post office.
The BLM is hated by those who live near BLM land borders, by “ecoterrorists,” by hippies with flowers in their hair, by over-larded beer-swilling dust tycoons motoring in off-road vehicles. (Perhaps the BLM is only held in contempt by oil and gas drillers.) There seems always to be controversy where different interests contend.
I know pushharder is familiar with the deliquescent headwaters of the Virgin River, as am I.
Now I happen to be one of those outsiders who happens to love southern Utah. (Nevada…not so much.) So I happen to support this organization, but not all of its premises:
http://www.suwa.org/category/land-use-plans/
(As a consequence of its stands, this organization and its members are hated by ranchers, Utahns, ORV drivers, petroleum drillers, etc.)
Note that the BLM in court loses cases–on their merits–and not by threat of armed militias. Perhaps Mr. Bundy needs better attorneys. Or perhaps his trespass could never be sanctioned in an arena of conflicting claims that includes Mesquite’s casinos, Clark County, a desert tortoise, and his fellow fee-paying ranchers.
What if this, Judge?
[quote]Bauber wrote:
What if the Constitution no longer applied?
What if the whole purpose of the Constitution was to limit the government?
What if Congress’ enumerated powers in the Constitution no longer limited Congress, but were actually used as justification to extend Congress’ authority over every realm of human life?
What if the president, meant to be an equal to Congress, has instead become a democratically elected, term-limited monarch?
What if the president assumed everything he did was legal, just because he’s the president?
What if he could interrupt your regularly scheduled radio and TV programming for a special message from him?
What if he could declare war on his own?
What if he could read your emails and texts without a search warrant?
What if he could kill you without warning?
What if supreme court justices no longer looked to the constitution to determine the constitutionality of a law, but rather simply to justices who preceded them thought about it?
What if the rights and principles guaranteed in the Constitution have been so distorted in the past 200 years as to be unrecognizable by the Founders?
What if the fifty states were no longer sovereign entities equals to each other, and parents to the federal government they voluntarily constituted?
What if the states were mere provinces of a totally nationalized and fully centralized government?
What if the Constitution was amended stealthily, not by constitutional amendments duly passed by the states, but by the constant and persistent expansion of the federal government’s role in our lives?
What if the federal government decided if its own powers were proper and constitutional?
What if the Constitution, was no longer the supreme law of the land?
What if you needed a license from the government to speak, to assemble or to protest the government?
What if the government didn’t like what you had to say so it didn’t give you the license?
What if the right to keep and bear arms only applied to the government?
What if posse comitatus ? the federal law that prohibits our military from occupying our streets ? were no longer in effect?
What if the government considered the military an adequate dispenser of domestic law enforcement?
What if cops looked and acted like troops and you couldn’t distinguish the military from the police?
What if you where not secure in your person, in your papers, and in your property?
What if federal agents could write their own search warrants in defiance of the Constitution?
What if the government could decide when you were, and when you weren’t entitled to a jury trial?
What if the government could take your property whenever it wanted it?
What if the government could continue prosecuting you until it got the verdict it wanted?
What if the government could force you to testify against yourself simply by labeling you a domestic terrorist?
What if the government could torture you until you said what the government wanted to hear?
What if people running for president actually supported torture?
What if the government tortured your children to get to you?
What if government judges and government lawyers intimidated juries into convicting the innocent?
What if the government could send you to your death and your innocence meant nothing so long as the government’s procedures were followed?
What if America’s prison population, the largest in the world, was the result of a cruel and unusual way for a country to be free?
What if half the prison population never harmed anyone but themselves?
What if the people had no rights except those the government chose to let them have?
What if the states had no rights except to do as the federal government commanded?
What if our elected officials didn’t really live among us, but all instead had their hearts and their homes in Washington, D.C.?
What if the government could strip you of your rights because of where your mother was when you were born?
What if the income tax was unconstitutional?
What if the states were convinced to give up their representation in Congress?
What if the government tried to ban you from using a substance older than the government itself?
What if voting didn’t mean anything anymore because both political parties stand for Big Government?
What if the government could write any law, regulate any behavior and tax any event, the Constitution be damned?
What if the government was the reason we don’t have a Constitution anymore?
What if you could love your country but hate what the government has done to it?
What if sometimes to love your country, you had to alter or abolish the government?
What if Jefferson was right?
What if that government is best which governs least?
What if I’m right? What if the government is wrong?
What if it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong?
What if it is better to perish fighting for freedom than to live as a slave?
What if freedom’s greatest hour of danger is now?
- Judge Napolitano[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Anyone reading these posts would think that I must like the BLM. This is not true. For anyone who does anything more than apply for a hiking permit, the BLM is hated nearly as much as the IRS or the post office.
The BLM is hated by those who live near BLM land borders, by “ecoterrorists,” by hippies with flowers in their hair, by over-larded beer-swilling dust tycoons motoring in off-road vehicles. (Perhaps the BLM is only held in contempt by oil and gas drillers.) There seems always to be controversy where different interests contend.
I know pushharder is familiar with the deliquescent headwaters of the Virgin River, as am I.
Now I happen to be one of those outsiders who happens to love southern Utah. (Nevada…not so much.) So I happen to support this organization, but not all of its premises:
http://www.suwa.org/category/land-use-plans/
(As a consequence of its stands, this organization and its members are hated by ranchers, Utahns, ORV drivers, petroleum drillers, etc.)
Note that the BLM in court loses cases–on their merits–and not by threat of armed militias. Perhaps Mr. Bundy needs better attorneys. Or perhaps his trespass could never be sanctioned in an arena of conflicting claims that includes Mesquite’s casinos, Clark County, a desert tortoise, and his fellow fee-paying ranchers.[/quote]
Perhaps.
(Someone else used the “perhaps” word on another thread here today and I’ve been digging it all day long since)
[/quote]
I thought perhaps you would dig the word “deliquescent.” Perhaps…
Placing women on the front line? Cowards, the whole lot of them, from Bundy on down.
Anyone remember the scene in “The Dead Zone” where the presidential hopeful held a baby up in front of himself when the shooter aimed at him? Did anyone here think THAT was heroic?
[quote]CLINK wrote:
Placing women on the front line? Cowards, the whole lot of them, from Bundy on down.
Anyone remember the scene in “The Dead Zone” where the presidential hopeful held a baby up in front of himself when the shooter aimed at him? Did anyone here think THAT was heroic?
[/quote]
I watched a few videos from guys who were actually out there when that happened and this is not what took place. As soon as the BLM showed aggression and moved towards the group, all the men who were armed or not got in front of the women and children.
[quote]Bauber wrote:
Anyone else have some insight into this?[/quote]
The rancher is a complete loon, but the underlying problem is Harry Reid uses the BLM to get sweet heart deals for his cronies and families. In this case, land for a solar panel farm backed by Chinese interest and Reid’s son.
The whole “it’s for the turtles” hooey is an excuse. There are so many of these turtles that the USA government actually culled about 1,000 of them recently because they were too numerous.
Bundy on “the Negro”:
“They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/nevada-rancher-bundy-condemned-racist-remarks-23457303
[quote]Will207 wrote:
Bundy on “the Negro”:
“They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
Race is the means to help create the greatest disparity within class. W.E.B. Dubois thought that working class whites and poor blacks should band together because there is a common cause against class imperialism. However, he stated that the powers that be would initiate a counter revolution to that and it would falsely appropriate the message of the poor whites and middle class whites using race as the catalyst. He said that if those disparaged white groups allow this to happen then the civil liberties, civil rights etc will begin to be dialed back in mass. This is not for the power elite mind you. They are practically insulated from the process. It will be for those poor whites and blacks with blacks suffering the overwhelming bulk. History has shown him to have been prophetic in this regard.
Most of the poor regardless of race have become slaves to the government institution. I think that is what Bundy was referring too. Although his language was not PC, I did not take his comments are inherently deviant and racist.
[quote]Will207 wrote:
Bundy on “the Negro”:
“They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
So the guy is a wacko. I don’t think anyone disagrees with that.
Doesn’t mean it’s OK to send in the 7th Cavalry to enforce a civil judgment at the behest of Harry Reid.
[quote]Bauber wrote:
Most of the poor regardless of race have become slaves to the government institution. I think that is what Bundy was referring too. Although his language was not PC, I did not take his comments are inherently deviant and racist.[/quote]
He isolated black people in his comments. He could have made his point without involving race. To suggest that black people are the only ones on government assistance, having abortions, and questioning whether or not black families would be better off enslaved is ridiculous.
[quote]Will207 wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
Most of the poor regardless of race have become slaves to the government institution. I think that is what Bundy was referring too. Although his language was not PC, I did not take his comments are inherently deviant and racist.[/quote]
He isolated black people in his comments. He could have made his point without involving race. To suggest that black people are the only ones on government assistance, having abortions, and questioning whether or not black families would be better off enslaved is ridiculous.
[/quote]
Dude, find a post on here where people said he was a good guy.
This is about Reid, his son, the Chinese and his lackey former staff member that runs the BLM.