It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Straight Look at the Recent Nevada Land Dispute

page: 8
30
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
A recent episode of the "Congressional Dish" podcast covered the lame attempts of certain politicians in the house (of the elephant party) to transfer federal land to the states, which in turn could sell it off to the Koch brothers. It covers Bundy as well.

Congressional Dish: Giving away your land




posted on May, 2 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

Perhaps you could entertain the notion that this thread is for a discussion of the OP and not your personal hatred of/for republicans.

You can always make a different thread for those topics not covered in the OP.

There is an awful lot of growing up that needs to be done in this country.
edit on 2-5-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: gariac

Perhaps you could entertain the notion that this thread is for a discussion of the OP and not your personal hatred of/for republicans.

You can always make a different thread for those topics not covered in the OP.

There is an awful lot of growing up that needs to be done in this country.


Take a look at which party is trying to steal government land, then you can apologize to me if you have it in you.

We anxiously await your survey.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

Well... lets see...

Bundy is not a member of ANY party... hell to him the United States doesn't even exist.

Lets go from there, to the fact that I... as a republican... am against Bundy and his militia... my husband also being republican and against these actions of Bundy...

And I would say there are idiots on both sides of this issue.

It's not democrat or republican... its a clammer for who can get the most voting mileage out of this... and it seems neither sides gives a # about the truth or what is actually right.

Well I would like to think I am not the only grown up in this world, or on this forum, that can look objectively at the facts and well beyond any "party line" and decide with intelligence right from wrong on this issue, based on facts.

It's not a damn mudslinging contest for goodness sake! Time to GROW UP! We aren't in preschool anymore.

Here is more of my "survey" of the situation... you might like it!
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 2-5-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   
In an effort to clear things up a bit, this isn't about party in any way. In the most obvious example of that, the findings against Bundy came in 1998, and carried right through the 8 years of Republican control. Some of that with White House and FULL Congressional control.

It's fair to say that not much happened against Bundy in those years, compared to 2012-14 in court activity and physical moves to remove the cattle. However, it's also fair to say that no deals were made and not a dime was forgiven in the daily building fines. The BLM and NPS just watched quietly, it seems, keeping track of head vs. days for that growing number. It shows neither party cares either way, on that basis. One's approach is a bit different...but neither stopped the actions and ongoing support of them, from 1998 onward.

To add a bit to that, in what pretty much has support across what I posted in my OP pages here, Breitbart had an interesting article when it was starting. I don't usually use Breitbart as a source for their obvious bias, but in this case, it's that very bias which makes the story interesting.


Bundy’s Mormon family has ranched in the contested area of Clark County, Nevada, since the 1880s. He owns a 150-acre ranch, and his cattle also graze on adjacent public lands. Those lands are called part of Gold Butte in Lake Mead National Recreation Area, which is federally-owned public land. Bundy claims--incorrectly--that the federal government cannot legally own such land, and therefore that he has full ownership rights to use it at will without paying fees to Washington, D.C.

Large parts of many western states are owned by federal or state governments. While U.S. forests are part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), most other types of federally-owned land are under the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). The department has regulated private ranchers grazing their herds on these lands since Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934.
Source: Nevad a Ranch War: Feds Right on Property, But Wrong on Constitution and Limited Government

If this carries on somehow, it'll be the next President's headache. Party won't change that fact then, either IMO. Only a new court (or higher one) with a different decision really will.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB

Except my post was about legislation to turn over federal land to the states. The elephant party and sympathizers used Bundy to fight for their cause, well at least until Bundy was more trouble than he was worth.

Bundy was a useful idiot, but now is just a problem child. Pols are distancing themselves from Bundy and his ilk.
edit on 2-5-2014 by gariac because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Check our the podcast I linked. There is an omnibus bill to take back land from the feds. It will be DOA in the Senate. But to say this issue isn't political simply ignores the facts.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: gariac

Take a look at which party is trying to steal government land, then you can apologize to me if you have it in you.



Make up your mind.

Are they "stealing" land, or are they selling/buying it?

I think it's just funny as hell if white folks are having land "stolen" from them that they "stole" from someone else.

Can't take it with you, huh?

SO -

is it being "stolen", or bought? Makes a difference on my humor meter.





edit on 2014/5/2 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

Oh, now I never said it wasn't political. This thing is defined by it's politics and from both sides. However, it's not Democrat and Republican since both parties will stand and fight together from the Government side on this one. No question. It's Federalism vs Statism in our nation. Bundy is still the very very wrong time or place for this fight, because he outright loses on too many other things.

Still... I would love to see multiple states get together and see about correcting some of what has been done. The most direct insult to State's rights for the history here is the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. In what it does well, it does very well and the idea that each state has either the resources or particular interest in managing the hundreds of millions of acres the BLM does is rather silly. Many states are at the bankrupt or beyond point now, and to throw this back to them at this stage would be the mother of crushing unfunded mandates ....asking for real negative outcomes, IMO.

Having said that, there is another interpretation on the FLPMA and it's worth noting as well. It's why I can never be entirely Government friendly on these topics, even when the law IS on their side. Just..No. Not on this, and this is why:


The last straw. The spark that ignited the revolt was the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which says that public land must be kept in perpetual trust by the federal government. The legislation dashed Western hopes that the U.S. would gradually turn control of public lands over to local governments, which residents argue could do a better job of managing public land than bureaucrats stationed in Washington. "We've been robbed blind for 100 years by mismanagement of federal lands," declares Huey Johnson, director of California's Resources Agency.
Source: The Sagebrush Rebellion (Emphasis Mine)

Until some of the specifics of that act are changed or removed for how they read? There is a big problem, but it is the law governing how this all functions. That runs through the Department of the Interior and this is who heads it.. Ultimately the Department of the Interior and to really get technical, the Congress for who passed this mess, is who it all comes back to...and we could literally ask some still serving in Congress. They were serving then, too.

For Presidents and year it passed, if anyone cares, this would have been called Gerald Ford's baby. Dirty deals, perpetuity and all.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I'm dealing with the reality of the situation today. And today, the elephant party is trying to steal the federal land. Well it is my land land, since I am a US citizen. It is not Nevada land, Montanta land, etc. It is my land, and I don't want to sell it to an owner that will just trash it, such as the Koch brothers.

Oh, and an appropriate internet meme photo:
Bundy and the constitution



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
And now, the consequences of not following through on fines. We have yet another Nevada resident that thinks he can do whatever he wants.

Iteam on the trash D-bag




"So, I'm going to pay the $9 million, right? That's not going to happen," Little said.

Little calls himself a “simple farmer” and says no matter how many judges tell him to stop, he pledges to keep going and build his dream one pile at a time.


So I guess the operative phrase in Nevada will become "to pull a Bundy."



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: gariac

Your effort to turn this into a partisan issue is just not working. Elephant party? You mean Republicans? How precisely do we get THAT from anything?? Reid is Bundy's nemisis..and he's the head of the Senate by majority leader status of the Democratic Party. The Department of the Interior..NOT the BLM itself, is who took out the public notice and entered notice in the Federal Register, as required, for the cattle removal operation. The Department of the Interior is a Cabinet level positon for it's secretary and that secretary is an Obama appointee.

Now if I were partisan about this myself, I could make a slam dunk case right there, that everyone involved in the HERE AND NOW of this situation, on the Government side, is either a political appointee of Obama, major power individuals within the Democratic party or directly beholden to one of those two. I could make the case, and a very good one, that this is a Democratic attack on the United States of America by way of it's citizens...

....and I'd be about as sincere as a $3 bill. I know this started in the 70's and has carried through 3 Democratic Presidents and 3 Republican Presidents for the law it's all properly based on. It's run since just about the time Clinton took office in 1993, for the direct action against Bundy. That, of course...being a Democratic President.

...so I really cannot, for the life of me, see where anything partisan fits here. Even Bundy isn't partisan to those outside his own circle, as neither side I know in real life has any desire to claim him as being on their side of the political isle.

** Sorry if I seem a bit harsh on this one, but the very LAST thing I made this thread for was to see a look into facts become another look into the mud pit of partisan politics. It's just not something that fits, in any way here IMO.
edit on 3-5-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

Maybe this is a trend of farmers and ranchers that believe they are being unjustly charged/taxed to live their lifestyle.

Maybe they are right.

If so many people disagree with the rules, then maybe it is time for the government to represent the people and chamge the policies.

Why are you so against people standing up for what they believe is right?

Just as you are standing up for "the law", these people feel the current laws are unjust.

Just because you don't believe in what they are doing or stand for, does not make you right.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Again, I claim you didn't listen to the Congressional Dish podcast. She makes her point very very clear. Look at the bill in the house to steal federal land, including phrasing that judicial review is not allowed.

This goes way way way beyond Bundy. Don't focus on Bundy. He is a useful idiot that is no longer useful. You need to look at the big picture.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01

You obviously failed to read the article. People have to pay for the damage caused by others.


The I-Team first met Little, a candidate for lieutenant governor under the Independent American Party, in April. Margaret Sanchez found Little’s waste piles on her North Las Vegas property. She was forced to swallow the $108,000 bill to clean up her property.


How would you like to pay a hundred thousand dollars to clean up the damage of your hillbilly neighbor?

This is why we have government and don't live the situation of Mad Max.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

Oh, I will focus on Bundy and that's the problem here. We aren't using some generic precedent. We are, by fighitng this here and now, fighting HIS battle for him and insuring he gets his 900+ head to market for the paycheck at the end.

I cannot remove the motivations and nature of the man at the center of it from the maelstrom he's created for his own direct personal benefit and profit.

When we see a case outside these circumstances (and there are several ongoing right now, if people wanted the cause over the man) I may very well change my position entirely. It depends on whether the case being used as the mount to fight from is clean in it's own right, or if it's entangled in several directions on illegal action itself.

He is so entangled..and so, removing the man from the cause, when the fight is on HIS claimed land for HIS cattle is just not going to happen. The example being fought for is what defines the just nature of any given fight, not JUST the overall cause (which I absolutely support in that sense).

* BTW... Please stop suggesting I don't review the material others post. I may consider it lacking in all credibility or I may consider it totally irrelevant..and either reason may cause me to just not reply to it or acknowledge whatever the material may be. I DO look at what I'm replying about or to, though.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

The Congressional Dish podcast presented cases of Democratic (albeit one) and Republican land grabs, yet you act as if I am picking on the Republicans. Thus I assume you haven't listened to the podcast. What else would I assume given that you claim I bash the Republicans when the evidence I provide bashes both sides?

I am an equal opportunity basher. I can't help it is the majority of the time the elephant party is on the wrong side of the law.  



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01




Just because you don't believe in what they are doing or stand for, does not make you right.


The court says I am right.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

I think the issue here is, first, I can listen to your evidence and still find it entirely and totally irrelevant. Now, this is the second time I've had to say, I didn't ignore what you posted. I've chosen to discount it in my own thinking on this matter. There is a big difference and it's a critical one.

My position on Bundy isn't about what has happened in the last 30 days. I could care less what has or hasn't happened since the end of March. That has Z E R O to do with the basis of this whole matter.

Does this man have current, legal and established rights to graze cattle on that land and do those rights exist in a documented way for historic claim? To the best of my ability in researching, and as shown in the source documents I formed the OP with, NO...he does NOT have existing or ongoing rights to graze his cattle across the land areas marked off for removal of Trespass Cattle in the original public notices.

Right, Left, Solar Plants, Scary Harrys and Militia a plenty....all ADD NEW ISSUES...but the underlying issue that dates back to 1992/1993 and what this whole thing is, regardless of what has come since, BASED on ..is clear, without question on a legal basis and actionable under court order. Which is what has been attempted and I have little doubt, will be finished at a time of the Governments choosing, least workable to mount any protest too.

You can focus on the Politics of Washington Red's and Blues and Purples inbetween. I wrote this thread and am now kinda back and forth about finishing the set, for a straight and strictly fact based look on the status and proper truth of this matter. I'd love to read about what folks think is partisan about this situation, but it kinda clashes with the Joe Friday approach.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Nothing happens in a vacuum. You are free to pretend otherwise. If truth were all that matters, Bundy would have been gone in day one. But 20 years later he is still here.

Sticking your head in the stand tends to gets one's rear end damaged. but I wish you luck in your short sighted approach to the problem at hand.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join