| Author |
Message |
    
Sifo
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2014 - 10:29 am: | 
|
WE do still have control!
In the context of this thread, we really don't have control any more. Control has been transferred from elected representatives to an alphabet soup of appointed agencies. Sure, in theory the executive branch still controls them, but do you really expect ANY President to micro-manage those agencies? It just isn't possible, and that was never intended to be the roll of a President. That leaves you with unelected people with and almost unlimited control over the people that they have been given authority over. Given that sort of power and control, said agencies will almost certainly look to protect it's power and control by seeking even more. This is exactly why this sort of power should not be given to the federal government. The federal government was not GIVEN this control either. They simply took that control. This is plain to see when you look at the map that shows how much land in each state is owned by the federal government. In the original states, it's a very small percentage. As you start looking at the newer states, federal owner ship steadily rises, until suddenly it spikes up to where the last dozen or so states to join the union have very little control of their own land. This is obviously NOT what the founders had in mind. This is the kind of management that has turned so many forests into tinderboxes that produce insanely large forest fires, just to give a single example. To think that someone setting policy over land management from over a thousand miles away, instead of those who live there locally takes a special kind of stupid! That's why this very weekend my brother is doing some illegal erosion control. Why should we not be able to take erosion control measures on land that we hold title to and are forced to pay taxes on? Should a SWAT team swoop in to apprehend my brother and the friend bringing in the heavy equipment to get this done? Can some bureaucrat provide erosion control for us? Why do they even lay claim to our land? Is this not the very definition of tyranny? Kind of like pornography, it can be hard to provide an exact definition, but you know it when you see it. |
Bob_thompson
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2014 - 12:09 pm: |
|
I think your somewhat right about that right now Tom, but I also believe that with a whole new administration and some new thinkers in the House and Senate, as well as some newly appointed conservative Supreme court judges we can take back the majority of control of all things that affect our lives. Its just going to take some time to undo all the bad that Obama and his cronies have done to us. Keep the faith my friend and definitely, as we both agree......keep your powder dry and your intentions true. |
Macbuell
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2014 - 10:03 am: |
|
I hate to say it, but a Tea Party candidate is a pipe dream. While they can and will do well in local elections, the establishment, both D and R have done a good job of painting them as radicals and too many people believe it and that will prevent that candidate from doing well nationally. If the Republicans pick a Tea Party member as their candidate for the WH in 2016, they might as well just give the Presidency to Clinton or whoever is the D candidate.
I honestly think the best hope for the Republicans and our Nation is Bobby Jindal. He gets it. He's extremely smart, a minority, a great speaker. Anyway, that is just my opinion and he is the guy I am hoping for. And please, for the love of God, no Jeb Bush. He might be great but his name alone will cost him votes.
(Message edited by macbuell on May 12, 2014) |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2014 - 10:20 am: |
|
What makes you think Jindal wouldn't be a Tea Party endorsed candidate? |
Macbuell
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2014 - 10:33 am: |
|
I have no issues with a Tea Party endorsement. In fact, that would be a good thing but there is a difference between being endorsed by the Tea Party and being a Tea Party candidate. By Tea Party candidate I am talking about Ted Cruze or Mike Lee or other Tea Party members that were part of the movement and elected in 2010.
Jindal would be the former, as in a good candidate who has been around a while and has a good history and gets the Tea Party endorsement. As opposed to the latter. By not being a direct Tea Party candidate, he can avoid the negative connotations and stereotypes the Dems will attach to the Tea Party. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2014 - 10:52 am: |
|
I think your somewhat right about that right now Tom, but I also believe that with a whole new administration and some new thinkers in the House and Senate, as well as some newly appointed conservative Supreme court judges we can take back the majority of control of all things that affect our lives. Its just going to take some time to undo all the bad that Obama and his cronies have done to us. Keep the faith my friend and definitely, as we both agree......keep your powder dry and your intentions true.
While I have little disagreement with what you said, I don't really think it applies to the topic of this thread. This stuff goes on at a glacial pace and seems to be every bit as difficult to stop. I really don't even have any idea if the speed changes from times of liberal control vs. conservative. I just understand that ANY government agency ensures it's existence by always pushing for more power and control. I don't think I would ever recognize the problem if my family hadn't been in the middle of it for the past 45 years or so.
As far as Republican vs. Tea Party goes, notice that there is no body with a (T) after their name at any level of government. At this point at least, they are not trying to be a true third party. They have pretty much simply given a name to the conservative wing of the (R) party. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - 08:00 pm: |
|
New Mexico county defies U.S. government over cattle grazing
quote:(Reuters) - A rural New Mexico county has voted to defy the federal government and give a rancher's cattle access to a watering hole fenced off by the Forest Service in the latest dispute over federal control of public land in the U.S. West.
Commissioners in Otero County voted 2-0 on Monday night to authorize Sheriff Benny House to open a gate allowing nearly 200 head of cattle into the 23-acre area despite Forest Service restrictions. A third commissioner was out of town for the vote.
"We are reacting to the infringement of the U.S. Forest Service on the water rights of our land-allotment owners," Otero County Commissioner Tommie Herrell told Reuters. "People have been grazing there since 1956."
But a U.S. Forest Service spokesman said the fence has also been there for decades, protecting a delicate ecosystem surrounding a natural spring as well as an endangered species of mouse from being trampled by cattle.
The dispute is the latest squabble between federal authorities and conservative states' rights advocates in the West, who want to take back millions of acres of public land from central government agencies.
...
|
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2014 - 12:15 pm: |
|
The latest federal land grab.
Obama seizes N.M. land for national monument in Bundy-like showdown
How much is enough?
Just a little bit more! |
Pwnzor
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2014 - 07:04 pm: |
|
Endangered mice?
We need more mice? |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - 11:59 am: |
|
So I found out a couple of days ago that the NPS is going ahead with plans to put a hiking trail in on the "Bow Lakes area of the National Lakeshore". The ONLY attraction of this area is the lakes themselves, the natural spring, and the bog area. ALL of this is on private land! The area that they can legally put this hiking trail is nothing but dime a dozen for the area forest. The problem is that they are promoting this as the Bow Lakes area trails. People will be expecting to see the lakes. Another problem is that for years now, they have been publishing maps that show the lakes as park land.
It's important to keep in mind at this point, the whole stated purpose of them wanting this land is to "protect" it as largely untouched wilderness. The obvious result of this will be people who are frustrated with a legal trail that provides no view of anything, and they will certainly go off trail on private land into environmentally fragile areas. Frankly, the bog can be quite a dangerous area for those who don't understand what they are venturing into. This is a disastrous plan that will only lead to people being enticed to trespass on private land, and doing damage to fragile areas. No doubt they hope to frustrate the land owners to the point that they want to get rid of it. Yeah, that includes me.
So come on down, see the lakes. Don't be surprised when you are met by someone carrying a gun. |
Chauly
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2014 - 03:55 pm: |
|
That's one way to finally meet you, Tom...
 |
Sifo
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2014 - 05:53 pm: |
|
More likely to meet my family, or my neighbors. I'm not living there yet. I'm a bit less pro-gun than some others in my family. 
One kind of funny story... When my nephews were still in grade school, the school took an unauthorized hike down to the lake. No permission slips, no permission from land owners. He was wise enough to ask about crossing the No Trespassing signs along the way. The teacher said it was OK, nobody would ever know. There was a VERY heated parent/teacher/principal conference the next day. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2014 - 07:35 pm: |
|
Of course with a more polite approach, you could find yourself enjoying a nice pig roast or something.
|
Just_ziptab
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2014 - 01:16 pm: |
|
"USDA seeks submachine guns"
Google that and see what you come up with!
JUST WOW! |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2018 - 03:47 pm: |
|
https://news.unclesamsmisguidedchildren.com/bundy- ranch-standoff-case-dismissed-prejudice-no-new-tri al/
When do the govt thugs go on trial? |
|
