So the fed govt declares that it now owns your home and that you must pay them to stay there. They are wrong to do so, have no valid authority to do so, so you rightly refuse. You continue paying the true owner of your home the rent due.
The fed govt then invades your home with para-military forces oppresses peaceful observers and protesters, and commences destroying and confiscating your property.
People who cling to the propaganda of corrupt govt officials are the same as those who blindly stood loyal to King George and informed on and fought against the American revolutionaries who founded the United States of America.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen. — Samuel Adams
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! — Patrick Henry
What worries me is that there are now at least six of these in Iowa police departments. The last one was delivered to a little podunk town of 7,000 people a couple weeks ago.Never mind the small stuff... M-16s plus night vision scopes, helmets and breathing masks.
"Goodman and his counterparts in other cities tend to describe the MRAP as merely “another tool” to keep officers safe when a pistol and body armor are insufficient."
Merely? Sounds like gearing up for a police state to me.
I'm on the fence on some of what was going on with the Bundy ranch. I have serious doubts that this is over either.
From what I can gather, the feds have always maintained control of this land, even prior to Nevada being a state. If that's true, perhaps they do have jurisdiction. One thing that's quite clear to me though is that they collect grazing fees from the ranchers that is supposed to be used to maintain the land for that purpose. At some point they started taking those fees and using them for purposes that conflict with cattle grazing. Bundy made the decision to not let his money be used against him, and did various improvements to the land on his own instead. It seem clear that the BLM was not acting in the interests of the ranchers any more, in fact most have give up ranching in the area, folding to BLM pressure.
This is an insane and unsustainable ideology that the BLM fell into. They used the ranchers grazing fees for purposes that conflicted with the grazing, including maintaining a tortoise sanctuary, and drove off the ranchers in the process. Now they get no grazing fees, and can't maintain their tortoise sanctuary because of lack of funding. Last year the killed off a couple hundred tortoises that they could no longer afford to "protect".
Now I see the BLM has problems with ranchers in Utah dealing with wild horses that the BLM is supposed to be managing. Unfortunately, lacking natural predators that they once had, they over populate, and the BLM has not done their part, claiming lack of funding. Time to shut down the cattle grazing to protect the horses that they have failed to manage, again shutting down the income from grazing fees required to do anything.
Can anyone spot a pattern here? These are ranchers who have managed the land for generations and can generally do it better than any huge government agency that decides to claim authority. These are the food produces for our country that are being put out of business by our governments "management".
I've mentioned in the past that my family owns land in Michigan that the feds suddenly laid claim to. Rather than offer a fair price though, they put restrictions on use and sale of the land driving down fair market value. Some families in the area found their properties condemned by the government, who then paid them pennies on the dollar and forced them out. Just a few short years later this land was sold at a huge profit to a developer to build the Homestead resort. This is a clear misuse of eminent domain laws. Our family, and our neighbors certainly feel like we are likely to be targeted next. Meanwhile we are strangled by use restrictions for ourselves, but the government hands out maps at their visitors center showing our land to be park land. We have gone to them numerous times asking the to stop this practice to no avail. We aren't really in a position to take them on in court. The Bundy's tried this, but as they point out, when two parties have a disagreement, and go to court to settle it, if one of the parties is the Judge, you have little hope of justice.
It's time for us to start using some common sense again, and stop letting big government dictate every little thing that we can do. Locals can almost always find better solutions for local issues. Big government tends to trample everything in sight.
It's a bit frightening when those tools that protect law enforcement and governmental entities are considered too dangerous or improper for the common man to own by the same.
Oh, They'll come back. If I was those ranchers I would have someone on watch 24/7 with some nice night visions goggles because when they do come back it will be heavy and in the middle of the night.
My friends - the Swains fell victim to Eminent Domain theft when Hyundai pressed to have their area declared to be "urbanized and blighted" They had hoped it would be a retirement place on which they could build in the future.
This is a summary of public comments that were "asked" for regarding a nature trail in the Bow Lakes area.
quote:
On April 15, 2013, a letter was mailed to 80 federal, state, and local agencies, tribes, elected officials, groups, and interested individuals asking for ideas on what issues and concerns should be considered in this planning effort. Simultaneously, the letter was placed on the park’s website (nps.gov/slbe) with a link to the NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) website, which allowed the public to comment electronically. On April 16, 2013, a press release was distributed electronically to the 58 media outlets in the National Lakeshore’s media database. The official comment period ended on May 20, 2013.
What they did NOT do was directly notify the owners of the land involved!
quote:
Private Property and Trespass: Many of the commenters were concerned about potential for trespass on private lands near the Bow Lakes and how the project proposal might impact the pristine nature of these areas. Some suggested that the NPS maps are not clear, and should indicate that most of the land north of Lanham Road, including the Bow Lakes, is private. There appears to be a misconception on ownership, particularly since the unit is called the “Bow Lakes Area.” One commenter suggested changing the National Lakeshore boundary to omit all private lands.
Trust me, there is no misconception on the ownership of this land when I have to write a check twice a year to pay the property taxes. Yes, the area north of Lanham Rd IS private, including the Bow Lakes! The problem is that the NPS puts out maps showing the lakes to be park land.
The circled area is Bow Lakes, and is in fact private! I can't begin to imagine the difficulties that these ranchers in NV, and now in UT are dealing with from reading a few bits of information, just I can't begin to expect the reader of this to fully comprehend what my family and our neighbors have dealt with in dealing with a dishonest, all powerful government. Misconception on ownership indeed!
Credit to my wife for digging into our situation this morning after watching what was going on out West.
If they do this to my family, and they do it to the Bundy family, and they have done it to many other families, just how safe exactly is your family?
Listen, if the world can loose a large airplace with many souls aboard, then these freedom fighters can blend back into the darkness!
The big problem near the Bundy ranch, if the SHTF, they would find themselves in the open with little cover or concealment. They were just betting on the Feds not wanting the insanely bad publicity of having an open shooting war in front of the media. It is interesting that they had a no-fly-zone in the area. Was that to keep media out, or keep it open for air to ground fire power?
Sifo, careful when claiming OUR waterways, OUR ocean(s), OUR sky, OUR airwaves and RF spectrum, OUR inland waterways, OUR aquifers, OUR night sky, and OUR land. There are many who will disagree who have gubbmint behind them.
I do fear the next steps the Gubbmint will take. I feel (and fear) they LEARNED from Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Sifo, careful when claiming OUR waterways, OUR ocean(s), OUR sky, OUR airwaves and RF spectrum, OUR inland waterways, OUR aquifers, OUR night sky, and OUR land. There are many who will disagree who have gubbmint behind them.
Well, when I said our land, i didn't mean our, as in our oceans, etc. I meant our as in MINE, and MY BROTHER's. Those are pictures of people hiking on MY land that I have direct tax liability for. I can tell you from memory exactly where some of those pictures were taken. That's land that I have a deed to!
BTW, many years ago, we had an armed park ranger try to kick us off of our land when we camping out there. I was only about 14 at the time but still had the good sense to tell him to stuff it.
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow – - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
A little domestic crack down and need for some trampling of the Constitution ? Right on time. This is not the Martial Law event of 2014; but it has the flavor of it - watch closely; there is more of this shiate to come this summer.
you know - to distract you from how bloody awful shape the country is in, and the minions that led us there.
keep your powder dry
that foul wind that smells of shiate coming from the capital .... is only gonna get stronger.