Replies to post #221326 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[BullNBear52]

His understanding of how American democracy is supposed to work is a total mess, and his complete lack of faith in the legitimacy of the federal government is even worse. But in this, unfortunately, he’s far from alone. And perhaps most discouragingly of all, there’s reason to believe that the aged cowboy — with his libertarian populism and his all-consuming hatred of the federal government — is actually onto something.

Snowden used the same argument. And then he naively asked Putin if he was doing the same thing the US did.

Bundy doesn't like a law so he chooses to ignore it then in his defense he claims NV never became a state.

Of course the government screws up from time to time. Now I'm not that stupid or naïve. But there is a big difference between civil disobedience and breaking a law or armed rebellion.

So leaking our dirty little secrets and defying the laws we don't like can now we called mistrusting the government.

Nice defense!

[StephanieVanbryce]

Western lawmakers gather in Utah to talk federal land takeover

‘It’s time’ » Lawmakers from 9 states gather in Utah, discuss ways to take control of federal lands.

By Kristen Moulton Apr 18 2014 03:07 pm

It’s time for Western states to take control of federal lands within their borders, lawmakers and county commissioners from Western states said at Utah’s Capitol on Friday.

More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal: wresting control of oil-, timber -and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.

"It’s simply time," said Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, who organized the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands along with Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. "The urgency is now."

Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo, was flanked by a dozen participants, including her counterparts from Idaho and Montana, during a press conference after the daylong closed-door summit. U.S. Sen. Mike Lee addressed the group over lunch, Ivory said. New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington also were represented.

The summit was in the works before this month’s tense standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management over cattle grazing, Lockhart said.

Fielder, who described herself as "just a person who lives in the woods," said federal land management is hamstrung by bad policies, politicized science and severe federal budget cuts.

"Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands," Fielder said, who lives in the northwestern Montana town of Thompson Falls.

"We have to start managing these lands. It’s the right thing to do for our people, for our environment, for our economy and for our freedoms," Fielder said.

Idaho Speaker of the House Scott Bedke said Idaho forests and rangeland managed by the state have suffered less damage and watershed degradation from wildfire than have lands managed by federal agencies.

"It’s time the states in the West come of age," Bedke said. "We’re every bit as capable of managing the lands in our boundaries as the states east of Colorado."

Ivory said the issue is of interest to urban as well as rural lawmakers, in part because they see oilfields and other resources that could be developed to create jobs and fund education.

Moreover, the federal government’s debt threatens both its management of vast tracts of the West as well as its ability to come through with payments in lieu of taxes to the states, he said. Utah gets 32 percent of its revenue from the federal government, much of it unrelated to public lands.

"If we don’t stand up and act, seeing that trajectory of what’s coming … those problems are going to get bigger," Ivory said.

He was the sponsor two years of ago of legislation, signed by Gov. Gary Herbert, that demands the federal government relinquish title to federal lands in Utah. The lawmakers and governor said they were only asking the federal government to make good on promises made in the 1894 Enabling Act for Utah to become a state.

The intent was never to take over national parks and wilderness created by an act of Congress Lockhart said. "We are not interested in having control of every acre," she said. "There are lands that are off the table that rightly have been designated by the federal government."

A study is underway at the University of Utah to analyze how Utah could manage the land now in federal control. That was called for in HB142, passed by the 2013 Utah Legislature.

None of the other Western states has gone as far as Utah, demanding Congress turn over federal lands. But five have task forces or other analyses underway to get a handle on the costs and benefits, Fielder said.

"Utah has been way ahead on this," Fielder said.


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57836973-90/utah-lands-lawmakers-federal.html.csp

[arizona1]

Tea Party Militias plan American Spring

Tell me again how these people are not terrorists?

I wrote about this several days ago and went poking around some teahadists sites and saw this rhetoric but RW watch is reporting in more detail. It will be interesting to see how the Homeland Security responds.

These people are wanting a Ruby Ridge or Waco type confrontation and it is not going to work out well. They came armed this time.

Some news from RW Watch

Operation American Spring, the far-right, militia-aligned group that’s planning a pro-coup rally next month to force President Obama out of office by shutting down Washington D.C., got a shout-out this week from Tea Party Nation.

TPN head Judson Phillips emailed members a column — “Declaring War on Americans” — by Alan Caruba, in which he applauds the militias defending the Cliven Bundy ranch and plugs Operation American Spring, while hinting that the demonstration may provoke a violent response from the government

The Occupy Movement was peaceful but these hayseeds get to make threats against our lawfully elected President and We the People?
Gen. Paul Vallely of Stand Up America US, who is also helping to spearhead "Operation American Spring" beginning May 16th in DC, has suggested that to counter Obama's imperious overreaching that Congress should tender a vote of "no-confidence" against him.
…
It is past time to round these folks up and declare them what HArry Reid has already said they were, " Domestic Terrorists".

Going forward, the most compelling remedial grassroots action we should all get solidly behind is, of course, "Operation American Spring" which will be launched in earnest on May 16th. I urge readers to check it out on the Patriots for America site. You have the option of participating in the protracted occupation or volunteering your services and talents in support of the operation.

Finally and very importantly, if all of these peaceful remedies fail to achieve our constitutional goals, then ALL other remedies sanctioned by our Founders and "natural law" must necessarily be relied upon by the American people. Let the Founders ALWAYS be our guide.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/19/1293168/-Tea-Party-Militias-plan-American-Spring

[fuagf]

Cliven Bundy Has No Claim to Federal Land and Grazing

By Ken Cole On April 14, 2014 · 332 Comments · In Cattle, Grazing and Livestock, Nevada, Politics, Public Lands

.. this has been done like a Limbaugh cartoon, lol, just i thought it had been posted before, yet can't find the quotes ..

By Ralph Maughan and Ken Cole In the acrimonious case of Cliven Bundy, it is important that folks understand a bit about the history of the U.S. public lands. Cliven Bundy, the rancher whose cattle were rounded up and then released by the BLM .. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/14/us-usa-ranchers-nevada-idUSBREA3B03Q20140414 .. over the weekend, claims that his family has used the land in question since 1880 but the Nevada Constitution pre-dates this by 16 years. When Nevada became a state in 1864, its citizens gave up all claims to unappropriated federal land and codified this in the state’s Constitution .. http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html . The Nevada Constitution states:

---
“Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; …..”
---

If Bundy “owns the land then where is the deed? Where are the records he paid property taxes? It’s not his land. Bundy also claims that it his “right” to graze these BLM public lands. This is not the case. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 .. http://www.thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Taylor-Grazing-Act-1934.pdf .. specifically states that the issuance of a grazing permit does not confer any right to graze or right to own the land. The Taylor Grazing Act is the granddaddy of the U.S. laws governing grazing on federal land. “Taylor” was a rancher and a congressman from Colorado, hardly someone to want government tyranny over ranching.

So far as consistent with the purposes and provisions of this subchapter, grazing privileges recognized and acknowledged shall be adequately safeguarded, but the creation of a grazing district or the issuance of a permit pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands.

In Public Lands Council v. Babbitt .. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17217648517619106766&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr .. the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the new grazing regulations promulgated by the Department of Interior under former Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt to conform to Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 .. http://www.blm.gov/flpma/FLPMA.pdf (FLPMA) and found:

---
The words “so far as consistent with the purposes . . . of this subchapter” and the warning that “issuance of a permit” creates no “right, title, interest or estate” make clear that the ranchers’ interest in permit stability cannot be absolute; and that the Secretary is free reasonably to determine just how, and the extent to which, “grazing privileges” shall be safeguarded, in light of the Act’s basic purposes. Of course, those purposes include “stabiliz[ing] the livestock industry,” but they also include “stop[ping] injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration,” and “provid[ing] for th[e] orderly use, improvement, and development” of the public range.
---

He has no “right” to graze it. The federal courts have struck down every challenge Bundy has made about his claims, and has issued not one .. http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/las_vegas_field_office/cattle_trespass.Par.0116.File.dat/Dkt%2035%20Order%20Granting%20MSJ%207-9-13.pdf , but two .. http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/las_vegas_field_office/cattle_trespass.Par.40211.File.dat/Dkt%2056%20Order%20Granting%20Motion%20to%20Enforce%2010-9-13.pdf , court orders to remove his trespass cattle. It’s not his land and he has no right to graze it. The simple truth of the matter is that Bundy is a freeloading, welfare rancher who has an inflated sense of entitlement. It also appears that he and his supporters’ use of threats and intimidation likely violated several federal laws .. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/04/14/3426222/militia-rancher-behind-bars/ . Inasmuch as they used (such as pointed) weapons to cause the government back down, it can be considered an armed insurrection. What about Bundy’s claim that his forebears bought the land he is now accused of trespass grazing upon? This land was once Mexican land, and was won by the United States after the Mexican-American War. It is part of what is known as the “Mexican Cession.” All of Nevada, California, Arizona and most of New Mexico were part of the Cession. Much of this land was privatized under various grants and laws such as the Homestead Act and the Desert Lands Act, plus mining claims. Several million acres were granted to Nevada for state lands, but those lands that were not privatized have always been Mexican lands or United States lands owned by the U.S. government. Before the Taylor Grazing Act, these government lands were called “the public domain.” They could be privatized, as mentioned, under the Homestead Act and such, but the acreage allowed per homesteader was limited to 160 acres. There were no 158,000 acre homestead privatizations and certainly no 750,000 acre privatizations. Livestock owners ran their livestock freely without a permit on the public domain. They didn’t even need a home base of property (a ranch). The result was disaster because the operator to find green grass and eat it first won out, promoting very bad grazing practices. That was the reason for Taylor Grazing Act — ranchers and others could see the public domain system led to disaster on the ground. Therefore, the more powerful ranchers with “base” private property received grazing permits. This got rid of the landless livestock operators. Taylor Grazing was administered on the ground by the U.S. Grazing Service. Now, ranchers with grazing permits had to pay a grazing fee to use their permits. Bundy’s ancestors probably got one of these grazing permits, but they most certainly did not buy the land. That was not possible. The public domain was not for sale and ranchers generally did not want it. After all, if they owned it, they would owe local property tax. In 1948 the Bureau of Land Management was created by executive order of President Truman to replace the Grazing Service. The Service had been defunded in a dispute between the House and the U.S. Senate. The BLM has since been affirmed by law rather than a mere executive order. It is supposed to manage the public lands for multiple uses and for sustained production (“yield”) of renewable resources such as grass. As before, you need a grazing permit for cattle, sheep, goats, or horses to legally graze. It is a privilege, not a right, and this has been firmly stated by the U.S. courts. Hopefully, this explains why Bundy’s assertions are wrong. It is too bad that few citizens are taught public land law or history in high school or college. We think it is vital for everyone to know these things because these are in a real sense your lands, held in trust by the government. Yes we know the government often does a poor job. They did in Bundy’s case by letting this go for 20 years. He should have been gone before the year 2000. End of story.

About The Author

Ken Cole, Western Watershed Project’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Coordinator, is a 5th generation Idahoan, an avid fly fisherman, wildlife enthusiast, and photographer. He is also serves as a member of the board of directors for Buffalo Field Campaign and as a member of the Sierra Club Grazing Core Team.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/04/14/cliven-bundy-has-no-claim-to-federal-land-and-grazing/

and i wasn't sure if Bundy actually owns any land, even though i think it's been 'covered' before .. here's one .. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=100759286 ..