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.

 

Threats, Intimidation and Bullying by Federal Land Managing Agencies

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Good idea to link it here too -- thanks!




posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
Threats, Intimidation and Bullying by Federal Land Managing Agencies

That's not my title. That's the title given by the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Public Lands to this transcript of the congressional oversight hearing in October 2013.


I found my answer here, early on.

The US House is reviewing the legality of actions by the BLM.

System working as intended.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


I found my answer here, early on.

The US House is reviewing the legality of actions by the BLM.

System working as intended.


I'm not sure what the question was that you found your answer to, so if I'm off base here, I apologize...

But "reviewing" doesn't solve the problem, and direct and appropriate corrective actions have not been taken. So no, the system is not working as intended. Our Constitution provides for redress of grievances, which requires a remedy -- not just a "review" of grievances.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

The implied question answered is "What is this thread about and is it reasonable?"

The assertion of your thread title is that "Threats, Intimidation and Bullying by Federal Land Managing Agencies" is going on.

Usually, this is either followed or preceded by the implication that this activity is unchecked and is the standard for all Federal activity.

"Review" is a first logical (and legal, procedural, and Constitutional (oversight) step. I know that many favor acting on their disagreements and dislikes at their whim, outside of the law, reason and the Constitution, but that is not favored by the majority of the People who choose to act in accordance with the rule-of-law.

The Constitution does indeed provide for PETITION to redress of grievance and provides the means of doing so.

See Article III and Amendments V and XIV specifically. (Hint: phrases like "due process.")



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

The implied question answered is "What is this thread about and is it reasonable?"

The assertion of your thread title is that "Threats, Intimidation and Bullying by Federal Land Managing Agencies" is going on.


As noted in the OP, as per T&Cs, the thread title is the title given to the Congressional hearing and/or report on the issue.


Usually, this is either followed or preceded by the implication that this activity is unchecked and is the standard for all Federal activity."


I would say the "presumption" rather than the "implication," especially in this specific instance, as the hearing focused on the particular abuse of federal "land managing" agencies. But I personally would agree that virtually all agencies of the federal government have been, are, and continue to be threatening, intimidating, and bullies, thus setting a standard for the entire federal government.


"Review" is a first logical (and legal, procedural, and Constitutional (oversight) step.


Review or examination of the facts and evidence is indeed a first step... not the ONLY step. Further steps have not been taken, hence the continuing threats, intimidation and bullying by federal land managing agencies.


I know that many favor acting on their disagreements and dislikes at their whim, outside of the law, reason and the Constitution, but that is not favored by the majority of the People who choose to act in accordance with the rule-of-law.


You also know, as evidenced by this discussion, that the folks being threatened, intimidated and bullied by these federal agencies have sought legal and peaceful redress of grievances, and the abuse of force and power by the federal agencies has not been curbed, and has increased. While some might blame the little guy... the one with the least power and resources, and also the most abused and oppressed... some of us demand better of the abusers -- with neither apology nor excuses.

edit on 17-2-2016 by Boadicea because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Yes, precisely ... "Congressional hearing" ... as I said Constitution working as intended. Oversight is occurring between the three branches of govt.

You are talking about semantics, i.e. word choice. Yes, I know that you believe that "all" of the Federal government is bullying, et. al. That is, all due respect, your opinion, not fact. If you meant this thread to be an extended editorial, rather than an exploration of the facts of the matter, it's time for me to be out of it. So, just let me know and I won't distract, LOL.


I believe you are patently incorrect. Various Federal agencies, from time to time, have been corrected in the Courts. If you'd like to speak of specific instances, I'll do my best to oblige.

In fact, I do not know what you state as truth is true. I prefer to make up my own mind, if you don't mind.

What I do know is that there are times when PEOPLE in government make poor choices and act outside their purview. Another thing I do know is that there are American citizens who feel like they are not subject to the same laws as the rest of us. Another thing I do know is that when anyone starts speaking in generalities rather than specifics, they are usually not speaking of facts, but of their beliefs.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

"Semantics" indeed. Talk is cheap and doesn't get the job done. Rather, talk often serves as a distraction, obfuscation, intimidation, and many other purposes meant to avoid and preclude transparency and solutions. Too often, facts and truths are intentionally difficult/impossible to come by. Folks have to do the best with what they have. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is not available to any of us.

You fight your fight... I'll fight mine.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Gryphon66

"Semantics" indeed. Talk is cheap and doesn't get the job done. Rather, talk often serves as a distraction, obfuscation, intimidation, and many other purposes meant to avoid and preclude transparency and solutions. Too often, facts and truths are intentionally difficult/impossible to come by. Folks have to do the best with what they have. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is not available to any of us.

You fight your fight... I'll fight mine.



So, answer given, editorializing and generalization.

Fair enough.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yup! That's my response. Qualify and judge it as you will. Since you didn't ask me any questions, I'm not sure what you wanted or expected.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join