To paraphrase Harry Reid, "this isn't over yet."

[JD Barleycorn]

The first battle against an oppressive government resulted in a victory for the patriots but it is not over. In Texas, Oklahoma, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada the federal government is still moving to transfer land to the federal government. Ranchers will still be able to use the land but for a cost. Under the logic here;

The federal government can take a piece of land owned by no one and say that it is now theirs with just a piece of paper. Then they can charge you money to use the land (which does not involve building roads, houses, or other structures) like you did before they decided that the federal government owned it.

We have a few people on this site who agree. In fact, I read a couple of posts where someone said that the federal government owns all the land in the end. Kind of like those that say the government owns all the money so it is okay to tax someone at 70, 80, or 90%. After all, they let you keep some of their money.

So let me ask you budding socialists, what if the local government decides that your backyard would look good added to a city park. Not exactly added but used as a buffer zone for the park. It will not be used, it will not be maintained but you will not own it anymore. You can use it (for touch football, picnicking, or just walking your dog or grazing your goat but you have to pay a fee to use it. Would you accept that? Some of you sound like you would. What do you think if you decided to use the land anyway and screw the fee? How would you react if 200 armed federal agents showed up on the street and started catching your pets?

The federal government in the likes of Harry Reid have not learned a lesson yet. They follow the game plan that is two decades old. Blame the patriots, call them names, and try to change the conservation from "should this even be legal?" to "how dare they break our unfair laws".

The next battle won't be in Kansas or Missouri but it may be in Texas. It is one of the states that is trying to take back land that was stolen by the federal government.

[Guest123018-4]

Harry Reid is a criminal and should be charged.

[i'va biggen]

According to the Guadalope Hidalgo treaty it belongs to the federal government. If you think a person who won't pay their bills is a patriot you are a strange bunch.

[Old-T]

JD, you make some very odd arguments.

My back yard is not the same as part of the US that no one owns.

If no individual/company/organization owns it, but it is part of the US, then the most logical "owner" is the fed gov't. It you want to argue it should be the states, I can at least acknowledge that as a valid argument.

However, in this case you are advocating freeloaders sucking free stuff from the rest of us. Very strange how you are so vocal against things like subsistence food for kids, but you want free land access for corporate cowboys. Typical RWW, all against any free lunch unless it's for people/causes they support.

[LexusLover]

Legally, the cowboys will not win.

IMO when one of the cowboys announced they would put the women and children up front as "shields" (and none of the cowboys denounced the idea) then they lost the social debate as well.

A strength of this country is the concept that it is one of "laws" ..

........ and not marauding bands of outlaws.

Some of the same people cheerleading the cowboys attack Obaminable's "Executive Orders."

[Jewish Lawyer]

Respectfully, JD, as a friend I ask this as someone who is concerned about Federal overreach, so I'm not attacking you. Look at the Keystone pipeline - in the name of being "pro business" people want to run that pipeline across private ranch land, aided and abetted by the Feds with imminent domain and for the public good, certain landowners are fighting that but getting no traction. The land grab is only stopped by the typical environmental nonsense, not a popular uprising - how is that different?

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Legally, the cowboys will not win.

IMO when one of the cowboys announced they would put the women and children up front as "shields" (and none of the cowboys denounced the idea) then they lost the social debate as well.

A strength of this country is the concept that it is one of "laws" ..

........ and not marauding bands of outlaws.

Some of the same people cheerleading the cowboys attack Obaminable's "Executive Orders."

Well said.
Like I said in another thread, there is no place in The United States where a citizen can point a weapon, or threaten force against a certified a Peace Officer if the Peace Officer is carrying out is official duties.

That is a funkin bunch of dead beat ranchers who for some strange reason think they are above the law. It makes no difference if Harry Reid is a scumbag piece of shit, and it makes no difference if President Obama would rather lie about anything when the truth would be better. This is a legal matter that has been handled in the courts, the courts ruled, the ranchers chose to ignore it.

That is a damned good way to end up in Prison.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The first battle against an oppressive government resulted in a victory for the patriots but it is not over. In Texas, Oklahoma, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada the federal government is still moving to transfer land to the federal government. Ranchers will still be able to use the land but for a cost. Under the logic here;

The federal government can take a piece of land owned by no one and say that it is now theirs with just a piece of paper. Then they can charge you money to use the land (which does not involve building roads, houses, or other structures) like you did before they decided that the federal government owned it.

We have a few people on this site who agree. In fact, I read a couple of posts where someone said that the federal government owns all the land in the end. Kind of like those that say the government owns all the money so it is okay to tax someone at 70, 80, or 90%. After all, they let you keep some of their money.

So let me ask you budding socialists, what if the local government decides that your backyard would look good added to a city park. Not exactly added but used as a buffer zone for the park. It will not be used, it will not be maintained but you will not own it anymore. You can use it (for touch football, picnicking, or just walking your dog or grazing your goat but you have to pay a fee to use it. Would you accept that? Some of you sound like you would. What do you think if you decided to use the land anyway and screw the fee? How would you react if 200 armed federal agents showed up on the street and started catching your pets?

The federal government in the likes of Harry Reid have not learned a lesson yet. They follow the game plan that is two decades old. Blame the patriots, call them names, and try to change the conservation from "should this even be legal?" to "how dare they break our unfair laws".

The next battle won't be in Kansas or Missouri but it may be in Texas. It is one of the states that is trying to take back land that was stolen by the federal government.

Who says the land is owned by "no one"? You? Provide a link, liar.

If the land is in Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, or Nevada, the federal government owns the land after transfer from Mexico - unless the federal government subsequently turned the land over to either the state or a private owner. In which case, the federal government cannot get it back without paying fair market value (Takings Clause of the Constitution).

I'm not sure what the rules are for OK, but it is probably the same situation. I think the feds owned all of OK at one time until they opened it in the OK land rush.

In Texas, I have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

But the default assumption is that you are lying, especially when you don't provide any links.

Provide links, asshole.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Harry Reid is a criminal and should be charged.

You and JD should be charged with criminal stupidity.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Well said.
Like I said in another thread, there is no place in The United States where a citizen can point a weapon, or threaten force against a certified a Peace Officer if the Peace Officer is carrying out is official duties.

That is a funkin bunch of dead beat ranchers who for some strange reason think they are above the law. It makes no difference if Harry Reid is a scumbag piece of shit, and it makes no difference if President Obama would rather lie about anything when the truth would be better. This is a legal matter that has been handled in the courts, the courts ruled, the ranchers chose to ignore it.

That is a damned good way to end up in Prison.

Wow, a conservabot that recognizes the inherent hypocrisy of cloaking yourself in the Constitution on the one hand and engaging in obviously unlawful activity on the other. I thought the whole constitutional concept of Rule of Law was lost on all of you.....I guess it's just some.

Admiral, take notes here.....

[CJ7]

its over ... the deadbeat hick and his army of idiots can sing "I fought the law and the law won" ... in harmony

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by timpage

I thought the whole constitutional concept of Rule of Law was lost on all of you.....I guess it's just some......

"just some" very few .. extreme edges.

The "problem" is defining the "Law" made the basis of the "Rule."

These cowboys, if they were actually "true" to their convictions, don't actually have any grazing rights to the land, which was taken from the indigenous peoples before them. They should be paying the Indians, if there were faithfully abiding by the "The Law" of ownership as they define it now.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"just some" very few .. extreme edges.

The "problem" is defining the "Law" made the basis of the "Rule."

These cowboys, if they were actually "true" to their convictions, don't actually have any grazing rights to the land, which was taken from the indigenous peoples before them. They should be paying the Indians, if there were faithfully abiding by the "The Law" of ownership as they define it now.

The Indians should pay rent to "Clovis Point Man". and so on...

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

The Indians should pay rent to "Clovis Point Man". and so on...

Does that mean any descendants of "Clovis Man" can open a Casino?

But wait. Clovis man migrated fro what is now Siberia, which is in Russia.

Good grief. We may owe Putin money.

[i'va biggen]

Americas new patriot hero has been found to be a raciest , and pro slavery. Cheer him on supporters...