Clark County (Vegas) commissioner tells lawful Americans to make funeral plans

[IIFFOFRDB]

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

From the comments ...

"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."

-Kena Lytle Gloeckner

Really?

You're quoting the COMMENTS section now? How desperate are you?

He is an anti-government nut and a disgrace. He thinks laws don't apply to him if he doesn't like them. And he will cook up any whacky legal argument he needs to support his "theory" of government.

And mouth breathers like you will swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

The Purpose Of The Constitution

What the Constitution Does

The founding fathers established the Constitution to do just two things:

1. Establish a federal government for the United States of America
2. Delegate to the federal government certain, limited (and enumerated) powers.

The Constitution was written by the thirteen original states. The federal government created by the states, via the Constitution, exists to serve the states. Until the states delegated some powers to the new federal government, those powers belonged to the states. The states, of course, delegated only some of their powers to the federal government while retaining most of their powers for themselves.
It is important to recognize that the states are the "boss" of the federal government! The states "hired" the federal government and set forth the rules as to how it should operate. The Constitution is a list of those rules. Just as a manager is expected to enforce company rules to manage employees, it is the responsibility of the states to enforce the Constitution to manage the federal government.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Really?

You're quoting the COMMENTS section now? How desperate are you?

He is an anti-government nut and a disgrace. He thinks laws don't apply to him if he doesn't like them. And he will cook up any whacky legal argument he needs to support his "theory" of government.

And mouth breathers like you will swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

I suppose the Brits felt the same way about the Colonials... ... nyH8Ter

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by CJ7

right to be there ?... what right ?

The right to assemble.


Jim

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

The right to assemble.


Jim

horseshit

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. This is a classic example of the failure to understand the difference between POWER and RIGHTS.

The Constitution protects the RIGHTS of the American people, NOT their power.

The Constitution actually LIMITS the power of the American people by limiting the power of both the federal government and the state governments.

The Constitution (i.e., the mind of James Madison) implicitly understands that good old regular PEOPLE frequently act like assholes and will use the power of the majority to crush the minority.

Despite all the high-falutin' rhetoric about "democracy", at the end of the day, democracy is nothing more than the power of 51% of the people to piss in the corn flakes of the other 49%.

So we have a Constitution to limit the POWER of the American people (as expressed through their state and federal government) to abuse the RIGHTS of individual citizens.

Which brings us back to the case of Cliven Bundy.

What RIGHT of Cliven Bundy is being violated when the federal government prevents him from grazing his cattle - free of charge - on land owned by the federal government?

The answer is NONE.

Bundy has NO RIGHT to graze on that land - at least none that I have heard yet. He has been losing in court for 20 years and deserves to lose.

[CJ7]

this assembly IS NOT A RIGHT

http://www.businessinsider.com/bundy...delemus-2014-4





fucking idiots

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

I suppose the Brits felt the same way about the Colonials... ... nyH8Ter

I see you decided to double down on stupid.

[Whirlaway]

Until Bundy exhausts ALL his legal remedies it is idiotic to make the claim that NONE of Bundy's rights have been violated !

The seizure of his cattle being one obvious violation of his rights ! The BLM held onto the Bundy seized cattle for a week before deciding to release them. Had the BLM thought they were on firm legal ground they could have easily taken the cattle from Bundy permanently!

Do you even know if Bundy has exhausted all his legal remedies ?

And Bundy has NOT been grazing his cattle "free of charge".

Originally Posted by ExNYer

...
What RIGHT of Cliven Bundy is being violated when the federal government prevents him from grazing his cattle - free of charge - on land owned by the federal government.

The answer is NONE.

Bundy has NO RIGHT to graze on that land - at least none that I have heard yet. He has been losing in court for 20 years and deserves to lose...

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Until Bundy exhausts ALL his legal remedies it is idiotic to make the claim that NONE of Bundy's rights have been violated !

Do you even know if Bundy has exhausted all his legal remedies ?

And Bundy has NOT been grazing his cattle "free of charge".

horseshit !

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I see you decided to double down on stupid.

The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and tyrants --- Thomas Jefferson


nyH8ter = tyrant

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Until Bundy exhausts ALL his legal remedies it is idiotic to make the claim that NONE of Bundy's rights have been violated !

The seizure of his cattle being one obvious violation of his rights ! The BLM held onto the Bundy seized cattle for a week before deciding to release them. Had the BLM thought they were on firm legal ground they could have easily taken the cattle from Bundy permanently!

Do you even know if Bundy has exhausted all his legal remedies ?

And Bundy has NOT been grazing his cattle "free of charge".

He has exhausted all of his legal remedies. Frankly, he exhausted them YEARS ago. The BLM tolerated his bullshit far longer than they should have.

If you think he hasn't, then the burden of proof is ON YOU to spell out what legal rights are left to be adjudicated.

So, name or identify what appeal he has left. Otherwise, shut up.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and tyrants --- Thomas Jefferson

nyH8ter = tyrant

You are an idiot. Now you are tripling down on stupid.

I asked you to answer a SIMPLE question:

"What RIGHT of Cliven Bundy is being violated when the federal government prevents him from grazing his cattle - free of charge - on land owned by the federal government?"

You have avoided answering the question, because you can't. You KNOW he is in the wrong, but you can't bring yourself to admit it because of your hatred of the federal government.

Instead, you post more posters with slogans on them. That is not a substitute for an argument.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by CJ7

horseshit

They aren't committing any criminal acts they have a right to assembly under the U.S. Constitution in opposition of a Government action or policy. It doesn't even matter what the final outcome of the incident is. The point is they should be able to assemble without fear of any Government scrutiny. Harry Reid is dead wrong in calling these people " Domestic Terrorist" they are far from it. If they were they would be firing shots, and attempting to thwart the efforts of authorities with force unprovoked, that never happened.


Jim


http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...olumn/7674165/