Another Waco? Here We Go Again...

[4-2-7]

Whether this is about oil, or yet another attempt by the feds to limit State Rights isn’t really clear at this point. What is clear, is this is much larger than the Bundy family or their Cattle.
In the process of shutting down the land, the BLM has suspended Free Speech in the Area and has actually setup so-called free speech zones miles away from the ranch. That’s right, the federal government has actually banned free speech on over 600,000 acres of public land.



http://offgridsurvival.com/militia-o...nch-in-nevada/

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Whether this is about oil, or yet another attempt by the feds to limit State Rights isn’t really clear at this point. What is clear, is this is much larger than the Bundy family or their Cattle.
In the process of shutting down the land, the BLM has suspended Free Speech in the Area and has actually setup so-called free speech zones miles away from the ranch. That’s right, the federal government has actually banned free speech on over 600,000 acres of public land.



http://offgridsurvival.com/militia-o...nch-in-nevada/

Which is ridiculous and doesn't appear to be working at all, now does it?

Dave

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Which is ridiculous and doesn't appear to be working at all, now does it?

Dave

This administration has been passing laws like this, where they can cordon off free speech.

Dave we are heading for a civil war. This government you all want is not what most americans want.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Whether this is about oil, or yet another attempt by the feds to limit State Rights isn’t really clear at this point. What is clear, is this is much larger than the Bundy family or their Cattle.
In the process of shutting down the land, the BLM has suspended Free Speech in the Area and has actually setup so-called free speech zones miles away from the ranch. That’s right, the federal government has actually banned free speech on over 600,000 acres of public land.



http://offgridsurvival.com/militia-o...nch-in-nevada/

This is about a teabagger wanting a freebie to the tune of 1 MILLION dollars.

Now we have other Jethro's determined that he get this grazing freebie but voting to take a carton of milk from poor children.

I hope the feds unloads on them.

Shoot em all the ass with rubber bullets and send them home having learned a valuable lesson.

Baggers, good grief.

[hillbilly]

Originally Posted by noonereal

This is about a teabagger wanting a freebie to the tune of 1 MILLION dollars.

Now we have other Jethro's determined that he get this grazing freebie but voting to take a carton of milk from poor children.

I hope the feds unloads on them.

Shoot em all the ass with rubber bullets and send them home having learned a valuable lesson.

Baggers, good grief.

So your ok with being lied to? By the government?

This is the way I understand it, in a nutshell. The feds claimed they were making him leave not just because of owed fee's, but also because they were preserving that land for turtles. Even if he paid the hyper inflated fee's ( he only owed 300k, not over 1 million ), NOBODY COULD USE THE LAND FOR ANYTHING AT ALL EVER AGAIN BECAUSE IT WAS BEING PRESERVED FOR TURTLES TO SURVIVE.

So how would you feel about a 9000 acre operation being planned on said land if you were told you had to leave because it was being preserved for turtles only and nobody could ever use the land for anything again?

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by hillbilly

So how would you feel about a 9000 acre operation being planned on said land if you were told you had to leave because it was being preserved for turtles only and nobody could ever use the land for anything again?

I'm completely OK with it. The Endangered Species Act takes precedence over anyone's commercial use of the Federal lands in this case.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by hillbilly

So your ok with being lied to? By the government?

This is the way I understand it, in a nutshell. The feds claimed they were making him leave not just because of owed fee's, but also because they were preserving that land for turtles. Even if he paid the hyper inflated fee's ( he only owed 300k, not over 1 million ), NOBODY COULD USE THE LAND FOR ANYTHING AT ALL EVER AGAIN BECAUSE IT WAS BEING PRESERVED FOR TURTLES TO SURVIVE.

So how would you feel about a 9000 acre operation being planned on said land if you were told you had to leave because it was being preserved for turtles only and nobody could ever use the land for anything again?

Well let's see, when I lived in Brooklyn my lease was not renewed one year. I had lived there 5 years. (BTW, I owed nothing unlike this low life) I did not call baggers from across the country to sit on my stoop and prevent anyone from forcibly evicting me. I simply moved.

Now if this bagger did not feel entitled he would have moved off the damned land. It's not his land. That is the long and the short of it.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Well let's see, when I lived in Brooklyn my lease was not renewed one year. I had lived there 5 years. (BTW, I owed nothing unlike this low life) I did not call baggers from across the country to sit on my stoop and prevent anyone from forcibly evicting me. I simply moved.

Now if this bagger did not feel entitled he would have moved off the damned land. It's not his land. That is the long and the short of it.

Exactly. That's the question I can't seem to get anyone to answer;

Was this ever his land to begin with?

The best answer I've gotten so far is; "Some of it was.".

Oh, so long as he owned "some of it" it's okay for him to use all of it?

I like that logic. Think I'll go take my neighbors Corvette for a drive. What the hell, why not? It's close enough to my property to count. Long as I can get some jackasses with guns to park on my lawn and keep the cops away, it should be well within my rights..............

Dave

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by hillbilly

So your ok with being lied to? By the government?

This is the way I understand it, in a nutshell. The feds claimed they were making him leave not just because of owed fee's, but also because they were preserving that land for turtles. Even if he paid the hyper inflated fee's ( he only owed 300k, not over 1 million ), NOBODY COULD USE THE LAND FOR ANYTHING AT ALL EVER AGAIN BECAUSE IT WAS BEING PRESERVED FOR TURTLES TO SURVIVE.

So how would you feel about a 9000 acre operation being planned on said land if you were told you had to leave because it was being preserved for turtles only and nobody could ever use the land for anything again?

Not exactly. It's just that nothing can be done on that land that endangers the habitat of an endangered species. This results from an Act of Congress, signed into law by Richard Nixon in 1973, to protect critically imperiled species from extinction as a "consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation." The U.S. Supreme Court found that "the plain intent of Congress in enacting" the ESA "was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost."

To me it's not a close call with respect to the current happenings in Las Vegas. Unregulated grazing on marginal land is highly destructive of the habitat, not only for the desert tortoise, but for pretty much anything else inhabiting that land. Were it not for the destructive nature of such grazing on marginal lands, there would be no issue here. The policy for grazing on federal land is clear and it definitely represents a subsidy to those ranchers who chose to use it. They pay $1.35 for each cow to graze for a year. Not a bad deal if you can get it.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Not exactly. It's just that nothing can be done on that land that endangers the habitat of an endangered species. This results from an Act of Congress, signed into law by Richard Nixon in 1973, to protect critically imperiled species from extinction as a "consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation." The U.S. Supreme Court found that "the plain intent of Congress in enacting" the ESA "was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost."

To me it's not a close call with respect to the current happenings in Las Vegas. Unregulated grazing on marginal land is highly destructive of the habitat, not only for the desert tortoise, but for pretty much anything else inhabiting that land.

Thnx for this overdue clarification to the thread.:thmsup: