Is it cow farts again?

Environmentalists just seem to hate cows.  The W.H. recently mentioned methane produced by cows while discussing climate change initiatives.  We have an armed stand off in Nevada with over 200 federal agents.  I’ m wondering here when the talk about protecting the environment for the desert tortoise.

Rob Mrowka of the Center for Biological Diversity..

“Mrowka complains that after more than 20 years of disputes between the embattled Bunkerville rancher and the federal government , Bundy’s cattle still roam the range that has been closed to them to protect the habitat of the endangered desert tortoise.

“This situation is simply outrageous,” Mrowka, a senior scientist with the center, said. “It’s high time for the BLM to do its job and give the tortoises and the Gold Butte area the protection they need and are legally entitled to. As the tortoises emerge from their winter sleep, they are finding their much needed food consumed by cattle.””

Sorry, but I don’t think the BLM give’s a rat’s gnash about any turtles.  Them may pay lip service to the need & their duty to protect.  But if so, how will Mr. Bundy  paying a tax per head of cattle to the federal government any any way help the turtles?  Will Uncle Sam mail them a check?  Rancher Bundy claims he’s helping them more by providing irrigation & the cow’s dropping provide fertilizer.

What I see in the governments actions describe motive.  Show me the money or we will take it and punish you.  George Washington quashed the “Whiskey Rebellion”, sending a message that the new United States government was serious about collecting it’s revenue.  Is this not just the same message?  Is this not them sending a loud, clear message to any taxpayer having thoughts on refusing to pay Uncle Sugar?  The government won in court.  Mr. Bundy has/is defying a court order to pay or to not graze on BLM land.  Mr. Bundy’s view, that what his family has legally done since the 1800’s is & should be the law.

I’m not a lawyer or an accountant, but to have 900 head of cattle, doesn’t Mr. Bundy buy & sell things?  Doesn’t he have a bank account?  Isn’t the normal practice of the government to take it’s money first?  The government’s tactics are clearly to intimidate and even to terrorize.  We are watching our government wag a war against a citizen over taxes.  The message is ancient, almost biblical…  I wonder if the will salt his lands when they leave?



  1. Really liked JAC’s post & it was about time for a new thread.

    Just A Citizen says:
    April 9, 2014 at 9:00 pm (Edit)


    Mr. Bundy’s view of the law is Bull Shit. There is reason the Courts have ruled against him.

    The date of the BLM’s creation is irrelevant to HIS claims. The date of US GOVT acquisition of the territory and what said Federal Govt did with that land is the ONLY legal issue.

    And for the record, the Govt left the land in Govt Ownership for the most part. The Govt later passed laws creating the BLM to manage these lands. It later passed more laws giving the BLM an “environmental and multiple use mission”. And of course requiring the BLM to meet all Clean Water, Clean Air and Endangered Species laws.

    Bundy’s claim is based on old concepts of “prescriptive” rights. But NO Court has recognized these rights relative to grazing on public lands. And more recently they have even overturned such rights regarding water use. See the Klamath Basin litigation.

    This is why Bundy is not getting the HUGE support he should get. WRONG issue to take this type of stand. You can’t get people who know the laws to risk anything when they know he is WRONG.

    Now, that does not mean the BLM should not have its ass handed to it via Congressional and State action if needed. The ACTION by the BLM is OVERKILL as usual.

    I want you to notice who is cheering this whole thing on with the most enthusiasm. It is the Environmental Groups. These are the same groups who worked with the Clinton/Gore administration to get laws passed that CREATED the Law Enforcement runaway in these land mgt agencies.

    It has taken some time but now the reason for that support is more clear. The LE people are NOT SUPERVISED by their local agency bosses. They are enforcing the laws as THEY see it and as told by bosses. But their actions or reactions are NOT controlled by the local Govt officials.

    So when the day comes that the Greenies want us all JAILED they will have the INDEPENDENT Law Enforcement power to make it happen.

    These types of stand offs and SWAT responses rarely happened when the local Agency officials were in charge of the Law Enforcement within their areas of responsibility.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I’m not all that familiar with grazing laws and beneficial use at this moment. Maybe when I get more time to study the issue. In the meantime, I will continue to support farmers and continue to fight against these enviro-nuts. I wholly doubt that the grazing is causing any damage, if anything it’s lowering the wildfire hazards. 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Grazing in Nevada HAS CAUSED damage and still causes damage. But as with most things, “damage” largely depends on the criteria used to measure it.

        Grazing or Rangeland Management was developed to address the detrimental affects of uncontrolled grazing under Open Range. A typical case of “Tragedy of the Commons”.

        That and the extremely dry desert environs of Southern Nevada and the Great Basin to the north contributed to conversion of grasslands to low shrub/sagebrush and degradation of a very fragile “fishery”. Fragile because the native fish lived on the edge of “natural” extinction due to the desert climate.

        Where Mr. Bundy runs cows we used to have a saying about the “breed” of the cattle required to survive there. We called them 10/80 cows. They need a mouth Ten feet wide and must run 80 Miles per Hour in order to get enough food in a day to survive.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          The land recovers as the cattle move on, but that is not the issue . The Frds moved the goal posts because of a tortoise . sorry, but it seems they have coexisted for over a century now.

          Our food sources are far more important than some damn turtle. My support remains with the farmer, screw the Feds , the enviro nuts and the damn turtle 🙂

          • Just A Citizen says:


            The land does NOT RECOVER when the cows move on. Not unless their grazing is held to a sustainable level. And over much of Nevada it was NOT held at that level until recent decades.

            Permitted levels were improving things, including Cattle gains, until the extended drought the State is suffering.

            If you have a problem with reducing grazing to protect a tortoise then take up the issue with the proper people. But it isn’t in supporting this crackpot’s theories about “grazing rights” and State jurisdiction.

            When you push for starting a revolution over the WRONG issue you will most likely lose the revolution.

            More importantly, when you aim at the wrong people you will not create the change you desire.

            • JAC…..this issue with me is not the grazing rights nor the tortoise. They are using grazing fees as an excuse. Right or wrong…..this is not the way to handle it. The government, while legally correct,is wrong.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I agree. That was the very point I tried to make to GMan in the beginning.

                Govt STRONG ARM ACTIONS are wrong.

                But the Govt taking his cattle off the range is right.

                The Rancher has no legal standing, but the BLM “free speech zones”, blocked State/US highway, and snipers aiming at innocent civilians is “criminal” in itself.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                JAC, I think you may be misunderstanding D13’s position. As I said, the Govt is dead wrong and the farmer should do everything possible to shut them down. Giving in to govt tyranny is not a answer, EVER!

            • Grazing needs to be controlled. Uncontrolled, it takes the land approximately three years to recover the grasses. We have to constantly manage pastures to avoid over grazing.

              Now, the irony of all of this is what I mentioned before. West of Las Vegas, in Clarke County, there is public land….this is in the Red Rock Canyon….. Have climbed many a formation there…….this land has UNCONTROLLED masses of wild burros and wild horses. The BLM was successful in running off the rancher some years ago doing the same thing as the cattleman. The result is…… appease the stupid desert tortoise lobby……there are now herds of wild burros and wild horses….doing incredible damage to the land and no one cares. However, to help control this, the is allowing THE SAME rancher to come back in round up several hundred head per year, with no range or management fee……because the stock is now wandering out on the highways and getting hit.

              Oh, and the tortoise they are worried about… so prolific that they are now capturing them and sending them to ZOOS…….this is what the environmental lobby does. The point being that the Burros and Horses are causing ten times the damage that cattle are doing….and no one cares.

              It is all about power.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Power as in the Environmental groups. On that I would agree. The Govt agencies are operating some out of power seeking and largely out of fear of litigation.

                All REASONABLENESS in the various laws, including NEPA have been destroyed by the radical Judges in the Federal System.

                I always love the wild horse and burro crowd. Going on about the “wildlife” when the damn horses and burros are EXOTIC meaning they are an INVASIVE species.

                When I was writing allotment management plans we had to allocate grass to Horses/Burros and Desert Bighorn sheep along with Antelope. Cattle primarily conflicted with the grass eaters but could conflict with Mule Deer on the winter range. They like Bitterbrush which the deer need for winter forage. One of the last ones I worked on got stopped after I got the Draft EIS together. The MX missile site cut the allotment in half. Suddenly the Wild Horses did not matter either as the MX FENCE cut the winter range off……….as in behind the fence.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Right on Colonel. I highly doubt that a 5th generation cattle farmer is going to let his herd over graze the land his family has been using for over a century. This is not even part of the problem, It is nothing but control, and it should be resisted to the fullest extent possible!

  2. A fellow at Forbes by name of David Blackmon offers a level-headed analysis, filed in a different cabinet as it were, of what many consider to be the by-and-large unreported substance of the enmities:

    The dispute in question goes back to 1993, when the BLM cut the grazing rights of the rancher in question, Mr. Cliven Bundy, from a herd of thousands of head of cattle to one of no more than 150 head in order to “protect” a species of desert tortoise that inhabits the same area of the state. Most mainstream news media reports on this story naturally did not inform their readers of this fact, or of the fact that this tiny herd allotment would be spread over the 158,000 acres of land to which Bundy held the grazing rights.

    Thus, by effectively slaughtering the bulk of Bundy’s herd in such a blunderbuss way that the varmint interest is scarcely served, BLM can be understood by reasoning folk to have attempted to run Bundy — and other ranchers — off the land entirely. Here again is Blackmon:

    When one understands these key facts, one realizes that such a tiny herd of cattle on such an enormous space would have no impact at all on the desert tortoise or any other plant or animal that lives there, and that no rancher could possibly make any sort of a living running such a tiny herd. Thus, the obvious conclusion is that BLM rendered its absurd decision with the clear expectation of running the Bundys off the land entirely. And that is a very reasonable conclusion to reach. After all, Mr. Bundy is in fact the “last man standing” here – the BLM strategy has worked so well that every other rancher with grazing rights in the region has given up and abandoned what had been their family’s way of life, in many cases, for generations.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      As I said, I support the Bundy’s, period and I don’t care about some idiot law made up by idiots thousands of miles away. In simple terms, fu(k them

  3. Going to bring this over from the previous topic. It was a reply to BF about the Killing Fields of the 20th Century and an add on that should give Charlie a special glow.

    Yup, and there is a whole big theory I am working on regarding how that led to the current mess(es).

    It seems that around 1900, at the turn of the century, most intellectuals felt the world had reached a point of knowledge and sophistication that would result in the dawn of a new age. A new enlightenment if you will. Europe and America were leading the way in science and in social science too. The progressives were pretty much ensconced in the “civilized” world and were in the process of bringing the benefits of civilization to the less fortunate.

    Then there was this shooting thing in Sarajevo exactly 100 years ago. The world went mad for the next four years. The social order was totally destroyed. Four years of unprecedented bloodshed led to grievances still reverberating today. That led to Versailles where another “progressive” American president was shown the rank amateur he really was by the “big boys” of Europe. The seeds were set for 1939 to 1945 and beyond.

    After another 120 million or so dead, everybody finally got worn out. I would postulate that the net result of 1900-2000 was to destroy hope, universally. It certainly destroyed this feeling that progress was a naturally occurring thing. If people were still adding to the Bible which perhaps they should be, one could see where hubris led the human race in that century. I think that we are in the beginnings of a new dark Age. Reason has been overtaken by magic. Look at entertainment, Zombies and Vampires, conspiracy theories about lost airplanes, the new religion of environmentalism with a strong likelihood that those who don’t worship at its altar will wind up little better than early Christians did.

    I consider myself a pretty knowledgeable, amateur historian on the WW 1 era but I am constantly learning new things about the period. last week I received VFW magazine with an article on Vera Cruz. I urge all of you to read it. It is an almost totally unknown aspect of American History which will be a slam-dunk to Charlie, maybe Black Flag and a few others. Those of us who like to play connect-the-dots can see why, a few years later, Pancho Villa crossed the border, killed some Americans, fled back to Mexico and led that rocket scientist Wilson to invade Mexico. Sorta also explains why the Mexicans are not particularly fond of us today too.,+1914%3A+%E2%80%98An+Affair+Of+Honor%E2%80%99/1648695/0/article.html

    • Regarding the Vera Cruz thing, What exactly were these people thinking?

    • I read the article and don’t see 1) the heroics and/or 2) the insult … is that what you meant by a slam dunk?

      As for the killing fields (i.e., Cambodia/Kampuchea) … a direct DIRECT result of Nixon’s illegal war (not that any of that war was legal) but his “menu” bombings of a neutral state (after we installed a puppet leader (Lon Nol ?) … nothing but the Khmer Rouge could result … we remain the imperialists today we were when we destroyed Native American culture … great progress … I saw the other day where the Navy now has some super weapon that can penetrate, bla, bla, bla … one more step in our (humanity’s) GUARANTEED self destruction.

      • Sometimes I wonder about you. If you re-read my comment on the article, you will see that we are in total agreement.

        The point of my posting was how the hubris of ALL these western nations in the early 1900’s led to the First World War which pretty much led to everything else that went wrong, including Cambodia! There was a sobering up after Vietnam, We had the Weinberger and Powell doctrines, remember Powell’s comment while General Clarke wanted to invade Kosovo or Serbia or some other former Yugoslavian snake pit, about “We do deserts not mountains”? All that has been lost again.

        • I always wonder about me. Okay, we agree … so, let’s take down the 1% (the causes of all these wars) and start taking care of one another 🙂

          • Let’s start by taking down Goldman Sachs. After that, Jon Corzine and Angelo Mozzilo seem likely candidates. Any ideas?

            • I’m all for tossing them off buildings, but they’ll have to wait in line for the Koch brothers, et al … Corzine is a peanut compared to the big dogs.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                Charlie…why don’t you give equal time and dump on Soros. He donates to his PACS and organizations, far more than the Koch Brothers. George Soros almost single handedly destroyed the English pound with his currency manipulation.

                But I quess you look at all his political contributions are to a GOOD cause, socialism, and all the Koch Brothers contributions are EVIL.

              • “The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”.

                Now it would seem to me that if you start with the peanut (I like that!) and knock him off and then become an enemy of Angelo, you have A. Done some good in the world, B. Demonstrated that it can be done and C. taken that first step.

                Most of us on this site are in no way apologists for people who have done bad things. You have a fairly good sized following on your own. So, use some of those street smarts of yours to come up with a mechanism to take down the low hanging scum. Perhaps that will pave the way for the higher hanging scum. I’m game. I’m retired and short of doing something that will land me in jail, or get me sued, I will follow.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                The Koch Bros. #59 in political contributions since ’08, yet, they are these evil monsters to the Left. What a joke this is, and worse, people fall for the BS hook, line and sinker. That’s what happens when people can’t think for themselves, they fall in line and goose step down the road. HUT 2,3,4. Go get em Charlie! 🙂

  4. Judy Sabatini says:
    • gmanfortruth says:

      My hope is the local sherif or national guard send the Feds packing. If not , let the Revolution begin 😀

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        I’m with you there G, if not one or the other, maybe both, who knows. What do they need that land for anyway? It’s not like they’re going to do anything with it. Look at what they’re doing with the wild mustangs too. They’re rounding them up & putting them in pens, or killing them off or selling them for slaughter. Nothing more than greed, if you ask me. And, look what they’re doing with ranchers & their crops, limiting their water supply., & that’s not just here in Nevada, it’s California as well.

        • gmanfortruth says:
          • Just A Citizen says:

            I thought you were bitching about the Obama administration ignoring the laws.

            Now you want the BLM to ignore the Wild Horse and Burro Act???

            Seems your pretty damn selective about who is on your hate list.

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            I know horses aren’t stupid. If there isn’t a lot food for them, then go where it is. Isn’t that true for most wild animals? I know there have been cases too, where some of the mustangs have been shot, but, by who, , who knows, most likely, just some random person for what I’ve read & heard. As for the tortoises, just how in the heck can they possibly eat 600,000 acres of land? I know here in Hidden Valley, some of the horses have been known & seen wandering into peoples yards eating the grass. Some people don’t care, & some get irritated about it, but, still let the horses be. Heck, I’ve even had a couple come up to my car, didn’t bother me any. No, to me, all this with Mr. Bundy, sounds more like a vendetta, than anything else. If they didn’t do anything about horses, then why bother with the cows. I even read, that a judge said it’s the law, but, at the same time, he said it was an unconstitutional law. Figure that one out. What did they do back in the day, when horses & cows grazed anywhere & everywhere?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              The law protecting wild horses does not allow the BLM to simply remove them as needed. And most of them need to be removed as they are devastating the range in Nevada.

              They are more populated now than ever because people like my family used to catch them or shoot them when they got to numerous. WWI was fought upon the back of the Mustang. They also FED many in those days.

  5. Judy Sabatini says:

  6. Judy Sabatini says:

    Here is another video.

  7. Judy Sabatini says:

  8. gmanfortruth says:
    • I am not so sure this is the thing to do….although, I do not know what is…..if it sparks a confrontation with snipers………the militia will be branded extremists and feed the left….however, and it may be too late for this…….we found out about it too late….my veterans group wanted to take atv’s up there to impede the rounding up of his cattle. We are still looking at that option…..everytime they try to round up, since it is public land, we have the right to access……unless the BLM wants to block all access which will be hard to do…..Also, we want to bring in supplies to the family since they are prevented from going into the store.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Just heard that the BLM are running the cows via helicopter. Much concern about the health of the cows now. What’s your take on the helicopter issue?

        • Running cattle in that environment (high and dry) will kill them.

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            In one of those videos I posted, that gal said, that the blm are taking away water troughs & all the new baby calves will die, because they won’t be able to get any water.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Here’s an interesting kicker. There has been no mention of a legal warrant as of yet (I haven’t heard of one, correct me if I’m wrong). The BLM are confiscating another persons property/and or causing their death. What ever happened to DUE PROCESS? You know, those Amendments in the Bill of Rights that makes it illegal to take ones property without due process! Is there a legal warrant?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Don’t you read the articles you post here and then rant about?

                A JUDGE ruled against this rancher and ordered his cows REMOVED.

                They are trespassing.

                What would you do if your neighbors were trespassing livestock on your land?

                Due process was followed. The Feds are within their authority to remove the cattle. There is a court order in affect for that purpose.

                Remember, this guy has been dragging this out for 20 years.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I finally found it 🙂 So, a corrupt judge orders the cattle removed, because of a fu(%ing turtle. I have actually also read how the rights were paid for and sold long before the BLM claimed authority. Is it true? I’ll wait and see, but for now, I’ll stick with the farmer. The more I read on the subject the more I’m supporting whatever action takes place on his behalf as well! Screw the BLM, the Judge and the turtle! Can I be any clearer? 🙂

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          That’s how they roundup the wild horses too, with helicopters.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I am now hearing that Bundy OWNS the grazing rights. Many of the other farmers were BOUGHT out, which included all the rights to grazing. Bundy has been offered a bye out as well, he declined!

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Nobody OWNS grazing rights on federal lands. They hold a PERMIT issued by the Govt.

          Ranchers have been trying to claim “Rights” and even advertise the Federal Permit Allotment when selling a ranch. They and the realtors have been warned before they are MISREPRESENTING the sale. They can be sued for FRAUD by claiming that these “permits” are a right or that they are “owned” by the rancher.

          The transfer or renewal of a PERMIT is completely at the discretion of the Federal Agency.

          Seems to me you don’t give a rats behind about any truth in this matter. Just keep feeding the frenzy. Watch your precious 5000 militia disappear in Area 51, never to be seen again.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Quote” I am now hearing that Bundy OWNS the grazing rights” That’s in I’m just hearing it, that don’t meant that I can prove it or even believe it. I would like more evidence on the matter. But since your reading comprehension seems a bit weak today, you just go on loving your precious government 😉

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Unless there is a frenzy going on here at SUFA, which doesn’t appear that way, I’m not feeding anything. For the record, I’m simply passing along information while adding my opinion, which is the central purpose of a blog. Take a valium or something, GEEZ

  9. gmanfortruth says:

    Ammon Bundy, the son of besieged Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, told Infowars reporter David Knight today around 20 cowboys went on land claimed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and retrieved cattle.

    “We gathered about 30 head,” said Bundy. “We did have a small confrontation with them, but they didn’t have the forces to do a whole lot. They couldn’t mobilize fast enough and we were able to gather those cattle and get them to the ranch.”

    No arrests and NO CHARGES. What does that tell you?

    • It tells me that snipers will be guarding the cattle next.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        It tells me that Bundy’s rights are being violated. Snipers? Leaving them out in the open would be a dream come true for the right people! They’d be walking back naked with lipstick on, BWAHAHAHA! 😀

        • Perhaps but the two special forces operative units at Nellis that are just sitting there, with their black hawks on strip alert, are desert trained and not BLM.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Who’s side would they take, considering it’s illegal for them to engage in police activities in the US!

            • YOu would have to make sure that it is defined as police activity. Armed militia throws it into a martial law situation. There are other ways to combat this….by the people without weapons…such as what I suggested and we still might do it. ATV’s ridden on public lands impeding the rounding up of cattle is one way.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I would support any non violent actions used in this matter! One thing about martial law I’d like to address. Outside of suspending Habeus Corpus, the Feds have no Constitutional authority to deny any other rights that the people have today. While the Feds don’t care about the law, I would consider martial law as an act of war against the people. Just my opinion of course 😀

    • gmanfortruth says:

      This event is quite different than Ruby Ridge and Waco. The people have had enough. I think the feds will back down, mainly because it’s becoming a national story that they likely can’t win the propaganda war. IMHO, if they can’t control the story, they can’t win. I don’t believe that this will get violent. The feds have already lost the infowar!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        The support for this farmer is growing by leaps and bounds. This is a comment on Bundy’s site I linked earlier, thought ya’ll might like it:

        Lindsey Ann April 7, 2014 at 4:12 PM

        Mr. Bundy, my name is Lindsey Ann and I am 15 years old . I live 60 miles from Las Vegas in a town of about 30,000 people, and I just wanted to thank you for what you are doing. I suppose most people are not educated enough to see how life works, and that “man” does have a major part in the ecosystem . They cannot understand if there were no cattle, grass would be overgrown and cause huge brush fires, and those little springs that the cattle use would get so choked out with grasses and reeds there would be no springs left, just a little cluster of green plants, taking up all the water. All of the ecosystem need “man” to be a part of it , and all of those game birds , they use water troughs for drinking, and the little springs too.But you see where I live used to be the best place to go bird hunting, when the cattle where still here. The BLM put in guzzlers to give water to the birds and more than 80% of them are not pitched right, and doesn’t even catch rain water, now all the birds are gone, and lets not forget a major contributor to that (the crow) who eats all of the eggs that the birds lay, and without “man” as a part of the ecosystem to “depopulate” some of them ,crows would become overpopulated and “bye bye” game birds. “oh” but all of that doesn’t matter lets all clear out for a tortoise who would do so much better with the cattle their anyhow. Well, I think I might of gotten carried away, but again I just wanted to thank you, I have been working on having my own cattle ranch for a long time now and I’ve got a long way to go still, but Mr. Bundy without you to fight for our rights for this land I might not even be able to have my own cattle ranch. Its still a long way away, but the least that I want from my country is the reassurance to know that I might have a future ahead of me. So once again thank you , and I tip my hat to you , Mr. Bundy.

  10. gmanfortruth says:

    @D13, With the prices of beef on the rise, there is now a serious disease hitting piglets. Word is this will cause pork prices to explode. Any comments?

    • Beef prices are determined by demand. Not only have the porkers in the US been hit….but so has China and Japan…….they are demanding beef as well and they are willing to pay a premium to get it. Speculators also try to buy up beef herds and hold them….now…most ranchers will not deal with speculators…as we do not. It does not matter the price because we end up paying in the long run. However, the foreign market right now is very robust…and they are willing to pay ” by the hoof” and transportation. Right now, China is offering .25 per hoof pound premium ++.

      What would you do?

      ++ = paying round up charges as well as local and international transportation.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        That tells me prices are gonna go through the roof because farmers are gonna get the most that’s offered.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Beef is at an all time high and pork will be very soon.

  11. Judy Sabatini says:
    • gmanfortruth says:

      Thanks JUDY, We are making up quite a big frenzy here, BWAHAHAHA!

    • Just A Citizen says:

      The son states they have “preemptive” rights. Well here is what that means.

      Pre-emption right

      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      A pre-emption right, or right of pre-emption, is a contractual right to acquire certain property newly coming into existence before it can be offered to any other person or entity.[1] Also called a “first option to buy.”[1] It comes from the Latin verb emo, emere, emi, emptum, to buy or purchase, plus the inseparable preposition pre, before. A right to acquire existing property in preference to any other person is usually referred to as a right of first refusal.

      I am curious WHO the grandfather claimed to have purchased the land from? Especially when the family’s name apparently does not show up on any title for the land in question.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        JAC, Maybe Obuttcrust should call off the dogs and revisit the issue (or simply refuse to uphold the law, like he like to do when it’s politically expedient). If the cattle and the tortoise have survived together for a century, it’s logical that they will continue to survive together without government interference.

        Best case scenario, Feds pull back, change the tortoise issue so as NOT to interfere with ranching, come to a reasonable settlement and move on. This isn’t likely to happen with this corrupt government, but, it don’t hurt to wish 😉

        While I understand the law and ALL of the issues surrounding this situation, I have chosen to side with the rancher trying to save his livelihood vs. some damn turtle. YOU, chose the law, regardless of how ridiculous or incorrect it is, that is your choice and you are entitled to it. You don’t have to like my position, I don’t really give a rats behind if you like it or not. I believe in a families livelihood holds a higher ground than government involving themselves where they have no business and rarely ever succeed. Just like the BLM was brought into existence to HELP farmers and ranchers, they have been perverted into tortoise police, and I wouldn’t pay the bastards either, so I stand with Bundy on that decision as well. Once the help ends, he “fired them”, any good businessman would have done them same.

        As was seen on TV many times “Gooooo Bundy” 😀

        • Just A Citizen says:

          1. Apparently the tortoise and cattle have not coexisted well or the tortoise would not have been listed as Endangered.

          2. Nevada has suffered two major droughts since 1960. One is currently ongoing. This has depleted grasslands throughout the state but even more so in the Southern ranges. So “logically” speaking you could expect current conditions to be different than the past couple hundred years.

          Note here: Texas, in response to the drought has sold off thousands of cows. Helping drive up beef prices. Bundy has responded to the drought by INCREASING his herd size.

          3. I have not chosen anything in this except to point out the truth as opposed to the bullshit story Bundy is spinning, along with all the web sites using this to gin up more “Govt hate” crap. As I said, if you want to start a revolution it had better be for a Good reason. When all the facts come out on this many people who participated will look like fools.

          This will in turn AID the opposition in perpetuating their stereo-type of the Tea Party as a bunch of “Hate Govt Loons”.

  12. Judy Sabatini says:
    • gmanfortruth says:

      Wait till the story about how Harry Reid had the borders of the turtle protection area moved for one of his developer friends!

      If these trespassing cattle were people, the feds would be running guns to them and begging them to sign up for Obamacare and welfare. Then they would move the turtles and build section 8 housing for them.

      • They can put all this effort into rounding up some cattle and intimidating US citizens but they can’t stop the flow of people across our southern border. Seems we need to find some turtle or salamander that is being trampled along the border so we can get them to do their job.

  13. G, I’m late to this cattle party. Don’t know all the details. I am only aware of the main story. Feds had been allowing rancher’s cattle to graze on Fed land until he quit buying permits. Feds have been putting up with it until now they have had enough. rancher still refuses to buy permits.

    You keep defending the rancher’s rights. What right does he have with no permit? Seems you’re giving him an entitlement. Fill me in.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      You do have some catching up to do, but I’ll try a short version 🙂

      Ranchers family grazes land for over a Century, Government invents BLM to HELP ranchers manage the land so as not to overgraze (so far so good, until the government stuck there noses where it don’t belong again). In 1993, government puts tortoise on list of endangered species (wait till the Harry Reid story comes out). BLM no longer helping ranchers in area, most ranchers were regulated out of business. Bundy with holds payment from BLM, which any businessman would, for failing in their duties (helping rancher)

      Bundy told to limit herd to 150 (not sure what he had before, but he has over 900 now). SO, the BLM, a government body he was paying to help him manage the land, changes teams and now became tortoise police because of new rules made in DC (this all reminds me of the 1700’s when King George was pulling shit like this). Bundy ordered to remove cattle, he has refused. His claim is his family was there long before the government got involved and is, for lack of a better term, grandfathered. I happen to agree with him.

      In short, bureaucrats from thousands of miles away made a decision (protect the tortoise) that would destroy the ranchers livelihood. Sounds so King George like, don’t it? Rancher tells bureaucrats to piss off. Sounds so 1776 Patriotic, LOL! We are where we are now. There are two sides here those who are acted all Bloody British and those who believe in freedom and independence from government interference.

      Is Bundy legally correct, that’s quite debatable, but likely not. Is he right to fight this, damn tootin’! Is the government acting legally, in some ways NO, in others yes, both of which are debatable. I picked a side, and I’m stickin too it! 🙂

      How’s that? I’m in a great mood this morning, the weather was nice and going to be wonderful this weekend! I hope your weather can give you some joy as well 🙂

      • I’m not up to speed because our weather has been fantastic. Cannot get enough. Garden cleaned up and waiting for round two. Ready for a crowd to gather ’round the firepit tonight.

        I’m not picking a side in this fight. Seems both sides have a legit argument. The feds will likely win this battle, but the bigger fight of Feds v People will gain more support. Don’t know how much more evidence is needed but people are waking up more and more every day. That’s a good thing. Still think you’re giving the rancher an entitlement. What if another rancher decided to move in with his cattle..and a permit? There has to be some kind of order. Jus sayin.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          It’s all good, and I agree mostly, the government will likely win (depends on how accurate the militia issue is, that could make things interesting). But, I give the govt 75-25 odds of winning, but it will cost them well over the 3 million bucks they are wasting.

          There were plenty of other ranchers using the area (600,000 acres) prior to 1993, at which time all but one was regulated out of business. Bundy is the last man standing, so to speak. Entitlement? Well, it’s open range, uninhabited, that is being used to raise cattle to feed people. It’s owned by the Federal government, I mean, it’s really owned by the citizens of the united states of America who OWN the Federal government. So, think of it this way, reasonably priced hamburger and beef or a tortoise? Pick one and you have a new position, LOL 🙂

          I have managed to till the garden once and get all the manure spread about, not easy with a foot still healing from surgery. One more tilling in May than start planting potatoes, carrots, onions and beets! 😀

          • A lot of people down here, who do not pay attention to the Farmer’s Almanac, have planted too much, too early……..big frost and possible light freeze coming this Monday…….down here……80 one day to 36 the next……… and there is a lady from New Jersey down here that wants to file a law suit against Lowes Home Improvement store because they put out spring flowers and vegetables too early inducing people to buy early.

            Does no one pay attention to seasons any longer? Are they stuck on calendars thinking that late April is perfect for planting? Geez, even retired old Colonel’s who know nothing, know not to put in bedding plants until the equinox flips…….

  14. gmanfortruth says:

    D13, this may interest you. It also may serve as the “follow the money” mantra we all seem to look at:

    • Oh, I don’t know… mean the same administration that is denying the Canadian Pipeline is,,,,,is,,,,,,is,,,,,,,possibly involved in fracking leases to its friends on lands… Reid’s backyard????? YOu mean that you would actually accuse this administration of…..of…….of….skulduggery? Are you telling me that this administration, who has filed multiple lawsuits against Texas fracking operations to try to stop it but has filed NO lawsuits in any other state’s fracking operations, because the BLM has NO jurisdiction in Texas. That Administration?????

      Shame on you, G Man…….how dare you suggest that this administration would sink lower than ANY OTHER presidential administration ever…..and that includes Wilson and Roosevelt…….even Nixon. I’m gonna tell your mommy on you.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        ROFLMAO! 🙂 My mom, bless her heart, thinks Obama is from another planet, BWAHAHAHA!

    • Just A Citizen says:


      • gmanfortruth says:

        Your doing your best pro government work ever! Your handlers should be proud, as should Charlie BWAHAHAHA! 😀

        • I’m very proud of the Swedish Government … most of the European socialist countries, in fact … yous are the ones defending the very system you’re complaining about … it’s a common occurrence called delusion. No charge.

    • Is fracking and cattle grazing mutually exclusive?

      I agree there is more here than meets the eye. There were claims in some of the other documents that this was about mineral rights, water rights, and potential land development. The land along the highway could be developed into houseing. There are also claims that it could be a potential solar farm although the solar farm only takes a small fraction of the land. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Reid is up to his neck in this and he or his family will eventually have a financial stake in the land once it is freed from the greed grasp of this old curmudgeon.

      The number of assets in place to round up a few head of cattle far exceeds the value of the cattle. So if there is no other pay off in the future, then I would say the administration is guilty of gross mismanagement of our tax dollars.

      900 cows over 158,000 acres is 175 acres/cow. How could that even come close to killing off a turtle?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        In parts of Nevada the proper stocking levels exceed 200 acres per cow. For comparison, the grasslands of eastern Montana are about Ten times more productive and many “private” ranches exceed 20,000 acres but hold only 300 cows. That is about 66 acres per cow. But that is only in Good Moisture years. Some are double that for about 130 acres per cow. Again, far more productive than most range in Nevada.

        Notice in the stories that he admits a smaller number of “branded” cattle than the 900. Speculation here, but I’ll bet the difference are the number OVER his original permit. The branded number is probably closer to the proper number. Again, speculation but that would be the normal practice. Nobody runs cattle on Govt range without brands. Not unless they are knowingly Trespassing.

        Fracking and grazing are compatible. The BLM does not have to remove the cattle in order to issue leases. Furthermore, the leases referenced in the article are near Wells. That is at the “North” end of the State, very, very far from Mesquite.

        The Desert Tortoise has been a contentious issue since its listing. It is nothing compared to the coming issues over the Sage grouse, however. The issue here with the tortoise is not just the “number” of them or whether they have existed.

        Once the tortoise was listed the Govt is COMPELLED BY LAW to designate “Critical Habitat”. This designation is the weapon of choice used by the Greenies to LITIGATE against Federal Agencies. Per the various reports, this area was designated “Critical Habitat”. This means that BY LAW it gets a much more stringent level of protection.

        What is missing from all the reports is any summary of the Environmental Impact Statement that would have been done to modify the Allotment Management Plan and Grazing Lease. Without that we do not have a good understanding of what the cow/tortoise conflict was for this area.

        What is also missing is the arrangement made for a Non Profit to take over the Tortoise habitat in the area. I have seen references but cannot find the details. I can tell you that such “partnerships” came about as the result of “free market” proposals for managing habitat.

        Congress got involved in these cases and passed laws allowing transfer of land or the management authorities.

        • My question is why does the government control so much land and when did animals become so much more important than people?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            The Fed Govt owns that much because nobody else wanted it at the time of Statehood. Remember, west of the Mississippi the Fed Govt owned ALL of the land in the beginning. Some was disposed of via the Homestead laws after that but the Feds retained most of it.

            The Why of the current ownership lies within the various “environmental laws” passed since 1900, most of which were in the 60’s and 70’s. It is assumed that Fed ownership is needed to protect the environment. OH, and most of it is still NOT WANTED by anyone. Nobody wants to pay taxes on land that is not productive. Especially when they can “lease” the use they want and then walk away when they are done.

            Every now and then Congress gives the BLM or other agency the authority to dispose of some land. In Nevada this has been primarily aimed at Las Vegas. Without the additional land the city could not have grown to its current size.

            So only Congress can shrink the Federal ownership. Which of course means that the Greenies and others who do not want Fed ownership to shrink get a say. And by the way, many of those opposed to shrinking Fed Ownership LIVE in the Western States.

            They want the access afforded by Federal Ownership but then complain about Federal Mgt which restricts use.

            As for WHEN did animals become more important? When the Endangered Species Act was passed. It was reinforced with the National Forest Management Act and some other laws which REQUIRE agencies to MAINTAIN “Biological Diversity” and “existing populations of wildlife”.

            • And how much land does it realistically take to run a herd of 900? And if we assume the government would sell the land to ranchers wouldn’t the other ranchers complain about losing leasable grazing land? Is the problem over taxation? We obviously need cattle-so what is the solution?

              • Oh and what difference does it make whether you own the land anymore or not-if the government can use the endangered species act to control what you do on your land either way?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                If a little worm that lived in your neighborhood was deemed endangered, the feds can swoop in with their guns and helicoptors and tanks and make you and your neighbors LEAVE your property, forever. But, that can’t happen here in Amerika, can it?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                In southern Nevada it could take three times as many acres for 900 cows. But in Montana it would take much less.

                What is missing from this discussion it the Bigger Picture and the tradeoffs we make when trying to have our cake and eat it to.

                The People support the ESA and preservation of species, that is preventing them from extinction. When a case like this rancher hits the news what is not told is how “his range” became “critical habitat”.

                In this case the Tortoise became Endangered, as at risk of extinction, because of how much habitat was lost due to OTHER activities which we humans place higher value. Thinks like creating energy for Southern California, using water for cites and even expanding those cities.

                So you see, the animal was sacrificed for the good of humans. But then when it becomes endangered the PAIN of protecting it falls on those where the remaining populations exist. Or on those who the Govt can control without making the majority angry.

                Thus the ranchers and loggers paid the price to recover Salmon in the Columbia river system, when the Dams and Cities along the river system were the primary cause of their population decline.

                Thus the ranchers in N. California and S. Oregon pay the price of losing their water to protect a fish endangered by BIG AG and the Cities along the Sacramento River.

                Now to one very KEY question you raised.

                Thanks to the Federal Courts your ownership of your land means NOTHING in the face of the Endangered Specie Act. Congress has done NOTHING to fix that egregious decision. I am not sure that they would fix it even if the R’s controlled BOTH houses and the white house.

                However, as it relates to this Rancher in Nevada, he NEVER OWNED the land in question.

                The court case which set the private land precedent involved the Red Cockaded Woodpecker somewhere in your part of the country. Maybe a little further south but it was over the taking of land for the woodpecker without compensating the timber company that owned the land. The land was not actually taken but the Feds prevented the company from using the land as they had planned.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Missed one of your questions.

                The Fed Govt pays the western states a thing called Payment in Lieu of Taxes. This is to compensate the States for the lost property tax revenue due to Federal Ownership.

                Ironically these payments are part of what many call Subsidy to the Red States in the west.

                As I said, we Westerners are a strange bunch. We hate the Govt controlling everything but will fight like hell to keep all the land in Federal Ownership so that we can have OPEN spaces to hunt, play and enjoy the great views.

              • Why federal ownership-why not State ownership?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Some info on the Desert Tortoise.


            In this particular case the ESA listing and risks are due to a specie which is small in number and very vulnerable due to the harsh habitat it lives in.

            I do think that some of the listed “threats” are overblown to say the least.

            Crushing, loss of vegetation and predation by Ravens and Coyotes are the bigger issues.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            VH, Check out the snail darter and how it has negatively affected hundreds of farmers in California and you will see WHY most of this is happening in Nevada. The people are tired of the feds screwing the people over an animal. People who support these types of government actions are only asking for it to continue until all rural land will be protected and people will be living in sardine can apartments in megacities. Sorry, but the snail darter is enough for most of us to dispute the governments actions. Those who support the government, well, can’t see liberty through their blurry glasses! 🙂

            • gmanfortruth says:

              One thing that has perplexed me somewhat. If Bundy is doing something illegal, such as not abiding by a court order or not paying government fees, that would be breaking the law, Yes? If Bundy is breaking the law, then why has he not been arrested for such actions?

              JAC, take a shot at this, I’m quite curious. My view, no arrest, no violation of law. If no law is broken, then there is a bit of a conundrum.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I have not seen the court order so I can’t tell you the specifics on this case.

                I can tell you that it has long been the practice to remove trespass cattle instead of arresting the rancher doing the trespassing. Contrary to the impressions created, the agencies do not like to create conflict beyond that needed to carry out their management objectives. In this case it is to get the cows removed.

                However, when push comes to shove Federal Agents can and will arrest him for willfully violating the order or failure to pay the fines.

                One other thing for you to consider, that has not been discussed in any article cited. Mr. Bundy is part of the Mormon heritage in this part of the world. They are an arrogant bunch with a long history of defying any laws other than those they wish to enforce. The corruption they represented at one time was so bad that the US Forest Service PURGED them from management positions within the agency throughout Idaho, Nevada, Utah and parts of Arizona. While the USFS prided itself on its local and decentralized style, the Mormon connection had resulted in outright misconduct by agency managers as they allowed the local folk to do what ever they wanted.

                There is a good chance that Mr. Bundy’s story about his family’s control of this land is a revisionist version of that period of time.

        • JAC, I am aware that cattle density on western range is very low. The probability of caw stepping on a turtle is very low given the hoof area to turf area ratio. If as D13 says, there is a large horse and burro population, then why doesn’t the BLM manage that instead of running out the cows. Also I suspect you are correct in that other dangers to the turtles are greater than the cattle.

          I am also aware that oil wells and cattle are compatible.

          The D. of Ag and BLM have been closing forest lands up hill from here as well. There is a on going discussion locally about this. Unfortunately, the government is winning.

          We had an incident a couple of years ago when state DFW agents went into a local historic foothill hotel/bar and confiscated a stuffed great horned owl. The walls of the bar had been lined with stuffed animals as far back as any of the locals could remember. One of the 2 agents spotted an animal on the wall and said that bobcats were endangered and they would have to confiscate it. The barkeep pointed out that it was a coon not a bobcat. Such is the level of knowledge we are dealing with. The stuffed animals all predated the ESA but they still confiscated the owl w/o benefit of warrant.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            The cow issue relative to the turtle is over FORAGE. Although I suspect there is also some risk discussed in Environmental documents tied to the management of those cattle. Namely use of ORV’s to herd, ride fence, etc. But the real issue is FORAGE.

            The horse and burro populations are out of control in much of the state. BLM efforts to reduce them are OPPOSED by many environmental and animal loving groups. Ignorance at its finest but that is the reality.

            As for this particular area I don’t know what the horse and burro numbers are so I cannot confirm nor deny the Colonel’s comment. I do know that the conflict between the wild horse and tortoise is recognized. But mitigation is stifled by litigation and reductions in funding to remove horses from the range.

            This is a great example of the CONFLICTS in the laws and the desires of various groups when it comes to the Environment and our use of the land. When you add it all up it is not only confusing but can make little sense. Like the stuffed owl situation. Which I had heard about when down that way some time back.

            My effort here is to make sure SUFA understands facts and truths. The agency people have handled this badly. But they are not alone.. Even the LE response they made was due to threats made by Bundy. I think they overreacted to those threats. I also think that is what Bundy hoped would happen.

            I can tell you that agency staff are feeling more threatened these days. The “hate govt” rhetoric is partly responsible. Actual actions, like shooting at agents, is also adding to the fire. Add a pesky rancher threatening “range war” and you get 200 armed agents surrounding the guys ranch.

            This tells me that either the local BLM Manager does NOT have a good understanding of Bundy and thus over reacted, or she DOES have a good understanding and felt the threat real.

            I was involved in a similar thing about ten years ago. While working for an Indian tribe to secure access to federal lands for a religious ceremony a joke was made about the Ghost Soldiers getting involved if the Feds didn’t get with the program.

            Permits were eventually issued but about 100 ARMED Federal Agents showed up to follow the Indians around and make sure they complied with the permits. WHY? Because the stupid local ranger viewed the comment about the Ghost Soldiers as a Threat.

            When he later asked why they never saw any of these soldiers around I had to explain to him they were “GHOSTS”. If he had ever spent any time actually trying to get to know the local Indian tribe he would have understood the joke and not cost the taxpayers all that money for travel and overtime for those agents.

            • If they fell for the Ghost Soldier comment, then they were ignorant of history especially Wounded Knee.

      • Just A Citizen says:
  15. Waaah……boo hoo….boo hoo……Eric Holder is upset because a couple of Texas Senators are taking him to task and not backing down.

    So, according to Holder this morning, Texas is a “hotbed of racists”…, I am sorry SUFA….allowing me to stay on this blog makes you associate with racists….since we are now all that way in Texas.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      No problem Colonel, as a veteran gun owning liberty loving white guy, I’m considered the same 🙄

  16. canineweapon says:

    Let’s play a game called “dodge the shoe”!



    Not going to lie.. I think George did a better job.. plus he didn’t look like this when he did it.


  17. Kathleen Sebilius is taking the sword…….taking one for the team.

  18. @ canine………is this really you?

  19. gmanfortruth says:


    No arrest, which likely would have preceded the theft of the cattle did not and has not occurred. I have not read one thing that stated they had cause for an arrest, so at this point, I will stand that he has broken no laws. This could change, we shall see.

    The bottom line, it’s about a damn tortoise. Enough is enough with this BS and the environuts. The designation of the land as protected territory was CHANGED when it was made at the request of Harry Reid for one of his rich developer friends. I’m waiting on a link on this at which time I will share. That’s another issue though, but it shows just how unimportant this designation is.

    It’s been 20 years since the designation, do you know the current status of the tortoise? I haven’t looked into that as of yet.

    The old Mormon reminds me of my Grandfather, who would have done the same thing, and he isn’t a Mormon, so I think it’s a slippery slope to put religion in this situation, it takes away from the main issue, use of public land to raise food vs. no use of public land to protect a turtle. After the damage that has been done to folks over the snail darter, it should be easy to see why I feel enough is enough with this issue. I don’t want to get started on how the government tends to abuse laws to help their cronies.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Considering that our Constitution LIMIT’s the federal Governent, maybe this should apply!:

      It is the BLM, not Cliven Bundy, who is in violation of the law and the Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.

      The clause, known as the Enclave Clause, authorizes Congress to purchase, own and control land in a state under specific and limited conditions, namely “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings,” and not, as the feds now insist, to protect an endangered tortoise.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        If you want to play that interpretation then the PURCHASE of the Louisiana Territory, the Spanish Territory, the Mexican Territory and Alaska were all in violation of the Constitution and should be VACATED. I am sure my Nez Perce, Crow and Sioux cousins would be OK with that, but I think the rest might disagree.

        Actually Jefferson shared concerns over the Constitutionality of his deal with Napoleon. But once done, the cat was out of the bag forever. So the Article you describe does not apply as it was dealing with the acquisition of land for those purposes. It was written for a Nation where most of the land was privately owned.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      “No arrest, which likely would have preceded the theft of the cattle did not and has not occurred. ”

      WRONG. As I clearly stated, an arrest prior to removing the cattle would not have been standard procedure. You can ignore my knowledge and experience on this if you wish.

      I can bring truth to the table. You certainly don’t have to swallow it.

      Now you are correct in that there is some key information missing from all the stories. I am trying not to make claims on points that remain open to question.

      As for bringing religion into the discussion. It is not religion per se’. It is THAT particular religion in THAT particular region of the country.

      If you have not lived in that part of Nevada/Utah/Idaho affected by the Clannish habits (not KKK but Clan/Family) of the Mormons then you do not have a basis to understand how it affects virtually everything that happens. Whether directly by modern actions or indirectly by the history of the area.

      It is part of the history and current culture. If you do not understand it then you will not fully understand the things that happen in that region.

      Not much different than being able to understand the undercurrents in Texas or somewhere in the Bible Belt of the South.

  20. Just A Citizen says:


    “Why federal ownership-why not State ownership?”

    There has been a movement to get State ownership or at least Management Control since the 90’s. Yours truly was part of this.

    There is NOT agreement however among the people, due to past issues with State control. Corruption and cronyism being part of that concern. States also have their own environmental laws and they must also comply with Federal Laws, like the ESA.

    So in the end what is gained? Very little. What is lost? More State Taxes to pay for the management. Possibly some public access due to land sales and “favored” management.

    The Indian Tribes would also be opposed as they have Nation to Nation status with the US Govt.. The State Govts are traditionally less sympathetic to the Indian demand or desires.

    The Greenies are dead set against it and they have the power in Congress. They oppose it because they fear States will sell land or manage in ways they don’t like.

    Like I said, we “westerners” are a strange bunch. Strong willed, a sense of freedom and liberty and filled with contradictions and conflicting views. Pretty much like the rest of the United States.

    Personally, I would like to see the lands transferred to the States. Maybe withhold the Federal “Parks” but transfer the rest.

    Then eliminate all SUBSIDIES to the States.

    • You’ve given me a lot to think about-but I’m thinking that out of control –environmental controls is the biggest problem.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        That is CORRECT. The laws are bad enough but the courts have changed them even further. Siding with the greenies most of the time. Congress has done NOTHING to fix it.

        But we also need to ask ourselves just how far we want “environmental protection” to go. When and where do we trade off the existence of another specie to allow humans to meet their wants and desires?

        • I agree-unfortunately in our current political atmosphere we seem to be forced into an all or nothing mentality. Talking over the pros and cons of any action is drowned out by all the screaming voices-So I say again our society supports causes without looking at the details. Their are so many different environmental voices screaming for something or another that they are actually fighting against each other but most of them seem to put MAN at the bottom of the list in terms of priority.

          • All the compromises have been done over the past 50 years we are now at the point where it is all for them, nothing for us. First they half then they want half of your half then they want half of your remaining quarter and so on and so on and so on.

  21. I know we are talking about something else today-but I’m just dying to hear peoples response to this little gem. 🙂

    Would Legalizing Prostitution Free Men’s Sexuality From Female Control?
    April 7th, 2014 – 12:15 pm

    I have been thinking about this lately after a reader of my book pointed out to me that he felt prostitution should be made legal in order to give men more freedom from marriage and being tied down to a relationship in the hopes of getting sex. If prostitution were legal, men could get sex more readily and not be so dependent on getting involved with women. Given how dangerous it can be these days for men, between being called a rapist, a sexual harasser or a pervert, it makes sense that legal prostitution might be a good solution for some men that want to avoid the risks inherent in taking on a wife or long term (or short term) relationship with a woman. I looked at a couple of articles about why prostitution was illegal and found this article at Slate:

    In 1999, Sweden made it legal to sell sex but illegal to buy it—only the johns and the traffickers can be prosecuted. This is the only approach to prostitution that’s based on “sex equality,” argues University of Michigan law professor Catherine MacKinnon.

    It treats prostitution as a social evil but views the women who do it as the victims of sexual exploitation who “should not be victimized again by the state by being made into criminals,” as MacKinnon put it to me in an e-mail. It’s the men who use the women, she continued, who are “sexual predators” and should be punished as such.

    ….Sweden’s way of doing things is a big success. “In the capital city of Stockholm the number of women in street prostitution has been reduced by two thirds, and the number of johns has been reduced by 80%.” Trafficking is reportedly down to 200 to 400 girls and women a year, compared with 15,000 to 17,000 in nearby Finland. Max Waltman, a doctoral candidate in Stockholm who is studying the country’s prostitution laws, says that those stats hold up. He also said the police are actually going after the johns as ordered: In 2006, more than 150 were convicted and fined. (That might not sound like many, but then Sweden has a population of only 9 million.)

    For feminists like MacKinnon (with whom Waltman works), this sure looks like the solution: Go after the men! Take down Eliot Spitzer and leave the call girls alone! On the other hand, the group SANS, for Sex Workers and Allies Network in Sweden, doesn’t like the 1999 law.

    My question after reading this mind-numbing drivel? How can it be legal to sell sex but illegal to buy it? Who are you selling sex to if no men are allowed to buy it? Of course, any time one sees a feminist of the Catherine MacKinnon ilk, all logic goes out the window as long as men are rounded up and put in jail. This is sick, twisted logic and has no place in a free society. It was a group of women who apparently banned prostitution in the US according to this Wikipedia entry:

    Originally, prostitution was widely legal in the United States. Prostitution was made illegal in almost all states between 1910 and 1915 largely due to the influence of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union.

    Perhaps women don’t want the competition from prostitutes for resources from men? Or they just feel disgusted that a man might be able to get sex so easily? I do wonder if men were able to go freely to prostitutes without fear of jail time if it would free them sexually from female and (and state) control? Or do you think there would be more problems caused by it?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      LOL, It’s a woman’s body and a woman’s choice. Haven’t we heard that before? 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:


      While the reasons given for the Swedish success are BS the idea of “legalizing” prostitution is a good one, in my opinion.

      The Swedish law was not to recognize men as predators. It was to target the DEMAND side and especially the “Pimps”. It is the “pimps” where the exploitation occurs.

      This exploitation is limited in Nevada where prostitution is legal.

      If legal the working girls can form their own management systems and the “exploitation” drops significantly.

      Willing buyer and willing seller………… coercion or exploitation.

      The other notions of avoiding marriage are equally silly. Throughout history men have married and still used prostitutes. Why is known only to them and I am guessing the reasons are as numerous as the stars in the sky. Such is the case when people try to rationalize bad behavior.

  22. Judy Sabatini says:

    Okay, here’s one for you. Here in Nevada, they have brothels, which are legal, right? Okay, my question is, what’s the difference in a brothel or a woman selling herself? It’s still prostitution. So, why not just make it legal all the way around. If a woman wants to sell her body for sex, so what, who’s it hurting? Why go after the men then? But, that’s just my opinion on it.

    • I don’t agree that it should be legal-but I’m thinking it should be one or the other. Although I do see some truth in young girls being victimized-I still don’t think woman should be allowed to legally entice men to do something that will land them in jail. And I find the “free men from the control of woman” just funny. Also no mention what-so-ever of love and the little fact that sex produces children.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        V. If they ban prostitution, like just about everything else they want to ban or make it illegal, they will find a way, one way or another. Here’s another thing that doesn’t make sense, that I did forget to mention is this. Here on 4th street, which is known for prostitution, they have sting operations. Under cover cops will approach a prostitute, make a deal with her, then arrest her for prostitution, which I think is unfair, when we have legal brothels. As for love, well, who knows, maybe they’re not looking for love, just sex. And, as for sex producing a child, I would think or hope, that they use some sort of birth control for safety. Again, just my opinion on the matter.

        • I posted the article because I found the reasoning used was, well I’m not sure which word fits better funny or just stupid. 🙂 Not to discuss whether or not prostitution should be legal- mainly because although people have a lot of logical sounding reasons to make prostitution legal-I don’t think any of those reasons will ever convince me. Because I don’t believe that the exploitation starts with pimps-I simply think the whole idea of woman selling the use of their sexual organs as if they are just a commodity is exploitative-Just as no argument will ever convince me that guns should be banned because bottom line people have the right to defend themselves or that abortion should be legal because bottomline it destroys human life or in other words it’s murder. Some things are just sooooooooooo wrong -there is no real argument that overcomes the bottomline.

  23. gmanfortruth says:

    • gmanfortruth says:

      There is much more to this issue than the government is telling. Not surprising.

      JAC, just laughing about breaking laws and such, apparently, the cows are breaking the laws as they are the only ones getting arrested and/or killed, LOL 🙂

      • gmanfortruth says:

        It’s all fixing to come out and it all leads to Harry Reid. This is getting more and more interesting everyday. The links and stories are forthcoming, please be patient.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        The web site was unavailable for much of this morning
        ……….Here is their Mission Statement…..
        The BLM’s mission is to manage and conserve the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations under our mandate of multiple-use and sustained yield.
        Is the land that is being contested for tortise preservation the same land that is being looked at for development of a multi-thousand acre solar farm? To me that is contradictory to the mission statement. Having tortises, cattle hikers etc use the land concurrently defines multiple use. Turning it over for development to a foreign corporation, where nobody will be allowed to venture, even the tortise will leave due to the heat generated and the obscene amount of water required for cooling will change the environment drastically.

        I like using personal examples for how the court is manipulated for commercial agendas by environmental groups. Many years ago NBC shot “Little House on the Praire” across the street from our house in SoCal. It was a movie lot use infrequently. They never restricted access to the land. However, an environmental group sued NBC and Michael Landon for damaging the natural habitat. NBC basically said that if we have to not use the land, which was very heavily taxed they would have no choice but to relocate and sell. Needless to say, the court sided with the environmentalists, the land was sold. The environmentalists were a front group for developers and within months the acreage was razed and all the trees cut down and a whole lot of mega mansions were built. So instead of scenic views of the Santa Monica Mountainsand access the neighborhood looked at a gated community with armed guards and NO access……

        So is the courts via the BLM being manipulated for “environmental” reasons so when Bundy is finally evicted the land will be developed to be irrepairably damaged and also no access for today’s and future generations of people and wildlife?

  24. Judy Sabatini says:
  25. I’ve been trying to get a handle on common core for awhile now-most articles simply ridiculed without any actual information-this article actually gave some information.

    Common Core Continues Teaching Kids the Most Important Lesson of All:
    Life is a Fog of Confusion and Every Choice is Wrong


    Kids shouldn’t have to wait until they’re 30 to make this realization, like I did, last year. (Ahem.) They should be taught the Lessons of Kaboom while they’re still young enough to give up without exerting too much futile effort.

    The pic (at the link) shows a Common Core question. What they want kids to do is this:

    Rather than just memorizing that 13 – 7 = 6, they instead want them only to memorize the minus tables up to ten.

    Then they want them to realize that 13 = 10+3, so the problem of 13-7 can be thought of as (10 + 3) – 7. 10 minus seven is three. So, three plus three. The answer is six, of course.

    Here’s the problem with this, and I’ve said this before, so I won’t belabor it: The method that they are offering to avoid rote memorization or the mechanical method of subtraction involving two digit numbers is actually more conceptually difficult than the memorization or mechanical “carry-over-the-one” method.

    It is true that there is a mathematical insight in realizing that 13 is just 10+3, and that various mathematical laws (the Associative property, maybe? I forget) permit one to subtract 7 from 10 and then add 3.

    But this is a higher-level, higher-conceptual-insight view of the problem.*

    Confronted with kids who aren’t proficient with the low-level, low-conceptual-insight view of the problem, they decide… we’ll teach them the high-conceptual-insight method of doing it.

    If kids “aren’t getting math,” it seems to me the wrong way to go is to go higher concept on them.

    In addition, parents don’t understand this. Parents were taught the old method of doing this problem. And parents are, let’s face it, the primary teachers of children. (The actual in-class teacher is really just the pacesetter for any kid who’s learning — because that kid is really learning at home, from his parents. It’s the parents who sit with him over homework and serve as in-house personal tutors, after all. A kid who is learning primarily from his teacher probably isn’t learning very much at all, alas. Ultimately, you either learn from your parents or you learn on your own.)

    The mistake here seems to be the exact same mistake that these Professional Education Theorists made with respect to reading. They realized that high reading ability kids weren’t using Phonics to sound out words, but instead were reading new words via the “whole word” method– they were just looking at the word and saying it.

    So educators said, “Hey, let’s stop teaching this stodgy Phonics stuff, and start teaching Whole Word reading, like the proficient readers employ!!!”

    Well, one problem with that: The proficient readers had begun as Phonics readers, but then, having become adept at reading, then began Whole Word reading only when they were reading at a near-young-adult level.

    By attempting to treat the lower-level readers like the more accomplished readers, the educators stopped teaching the lower-level readers the skill that the accomplished readers had used to become accomplished readers in the first place. And that skill was Phonics.

    Similarly, it seems these people have realized that kids who have internalized the times tables and arithmetic tables have, after a few years of fluency with them, noticed certain patterns and rules they could employ — tricks, shortcuts. Stuff like breaking 13 into 10 and 3 (and invoking the Associative Property, even if they don’t know what that is) to make computation simpler.

    And once again they are trying to teach lower-performing kids the tricks that higher-performing kids are using, but skipping over the basic stuff that higher-performing kids had to internalize themselves to become higher-performing kids.

    This just seems wrong to me, and faddish, like Whole Word learning was — the Cult of the New, you know. If it’s New, it must be Better.


    Well, if Whole Word reading was indeed Better, why can’t Johnny read?

    * Frankly, these tricks usually occur to someone when they understand the subject well enough that they no longer need tricks at all. At least not to get the answer; but understanding the math, they begin looking for faster (or at least different) methods of getting the answer.

    I really do not get the idea being sold here that the way to make a kid who’s struggling with math understand math better is to teach him the insights that come from a deeper understanding of the material.

    He doesn’t have the basics down yet. Why are you getting tricky with the second and third order deductions?

    Understanding that 13 – 7 is the same as 10 + 3 – 7 is a very useful insight. And all higher mathematics — and note that modifier, “higher” — relies greatly on such manipulations-of-the-numbers-for-computational-convenience.

    Right? Algebra is (almost) nothing but manipulating figures for computational convenience. When you factor out (x -2) from x(squared) -4 so you can divide both sides by (x-2), that’s manipulating the expression to make it easier for you to work on.

    But note this manipulation of expressions for computational convenience is chiefly introduced at… the algebra level, 8th grade at the earliest. (Oh, sure, the ideas of the Communicative and Associative properties are introduced before that, but that’s like a day or two in the lesson plan.)

    It’s a tricky business. Memorization and mechanical operation (“carry over the one…”) are boring, of course, these methods will get you the right answer.

    And they’re conceptually dead-simple. Why is 13-7 equal to six? Because 1, it just is, but 2, if you don’t believe me, count out 13 jelly beans, then take away seven of them, and count up what you have left. You have six jelly beans left.

    Dead simple from a conceptual standpoint.

    People mistake memorization as some kind of high-level mental task. It’s not. It’s hard, it’s tedious, it takes time. But it’s conceptually easy. Just like walking 5 miles is conceptually easy. I don’t want to walk 5 miles, but I know exactly how to do it. As a conceptual matter, it’s as easy as putting one foot in front of the other. It’ll take hours and hours, but it will be done with little mental exertion.

    Executing a proper flop on a high-jump is much more conceptually difficult, although, once you know how, it will only take a second.

    I am very skeptical that the way to cure a problem in learning conceptually-simple things is to teach some revolutionary new method of conceptually-difficult things.

    That’s why they were taught as the primary pedagogy in math for like… 2000 years.

    Until now, I guess. Now our kids, who are struggling, are all geniuses who are going to be routinely manipulating expressions for computational convenience just like the first-track eighth grade algebra kids.
    Posted by Ace at 05:47 PM Comments

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Common core is the continued dumbing down of America by the Fascist pigs running the Federal govt. 🙂

      • Why? Give me your reasoning-I don’t feel like I have enough information to arrive at that conclusion-I’ve read articles on this but I haven’t had the time to really research it.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      For those that grew up in SoCal in the 60’s, you might remember an experiment called “New Math” It was performed on those of us in the 8th grade to enable us to conceptualize, algebra the following year. It would have been better to have just jumped into algebra. As it turned out the experiment was a failure, creating a slug of students that absolutely got messed up when it came to math. Luckily the course was taught for one year but the damage was done to those of us that were the quinea pigs. It took years to re-learn the “normal” way of doing math and undo the confusion created in our minds.

      • We had it too in the East! Same result. Problem is the “Schools of Education”. A good teacher does not need to be taught to teach. You either have it or you don’t.

    • Most beginning arithmetic students learn through there finger tips. As such they need to learn the easiest and most direct way to the proper end result. Adding conceptual tricks in the middle just confuses them. By using these methods, they actually make a simple subject difficult. Part of this is because the elementary teachers themselves are not proficient in math. I can remember many times in grade school when a teacher would preface the topic by saying, :I know this is hard.”. Many students thus had a reason to fail and acquired a mental block that prevented them from having an open mind and learning the lesson. I recognized those words as incentive killers even at that age.

      Learning technical skills such as math is time consuming. Using multiple methods, indirect methods, and time consuming methods merely frustrates the kids and turns them off.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        Joan River’s says that she knew a guy who was so dumb, he couldn’t count to 21 unless he was naked in the shower.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        There is one course that I wish they’d teach differently. That is general world history. You’d start so far back in the stone age and only in the last week they’d jam in the post world war II to present. That was the most relevent. I believe they should teach history backwards. Take a current event and work backwards. Trynosky would probably agree and see that kids would then see how much the idiots after WWI created much of the crisis of today……The concept would be based on the old science program “Connections”

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Howdy Dale! I wish they’d just teach what people need to know to excel and be productive in society so those that are productive don’t have to pay their way in life..I wish they’d teach that being in government is a great responsibility and failure means that everyone eventually suffers that failure. Now, I wish that they would teach about Democide, so we can move forward at making a better life for everyone, without the threat of being killed by those who are supposed to work for you.

          You know, things that are important 🙂

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Oh how I and the kids LOVED that show.

          Start at today, then jumped backwards and went forward………..back to the present.

          Based on my kids view of the show I would say your on to something.

        • I agree. This is not a new problem . How many of us ever finished a textbook without racing through ten chapters in the last month? Up at the beginning of this topic I talk about the effect 1900-1918 had on EVERYTHING since. If you miss that, if kids can’t see what a mess Versailles made of everything then they will just continue blundering along. I can’t stop thinking about how that Vera Cruz incident in 1914 and our over reaction is still affecting our relations with Mexico and I never even knew about it until I read last months jingoistic article in VFW magazine!

          I loved ancient history and consider it relevant. However, we do not teach history anymore worth a damn. In the fifties, you started with ancient in fifth grade and worked to modern in eighth. In High School, the same. In a liberal arts college we did the same. People bothering to pay attention and stay awake learned quite a bit about predicting outcomes. You sure as hell ain’t going to learn the history of the world in one year.

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            I always got an A in history, I loved it. While in high school there were some people that always were disrupting by shouting out “What is the relevence” The point was they were correct. The old method put most kids to sleep because nothing was tied to the present, ergo irrelevant. You can’t save the seminar approach for college when it comes to history. You could take any number of paths from just a headline from Iraq. Go all the way back to the “Cradle of Civilization” Or religion, global economics, natural resources, high adventure, war, geopolitics, you name it. I taught some seminars in college on the causes and consequences of the American Revolution. Most people couldn’t discuss the topic due to having slept through the basic courses in high school. The professor and I spent the semester usually teach the basics not debating.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      I received this essay this morning from one of the financial newsletters that are sent out daily….thought it might go along with the discussion here on education…..

      Editor’s note: As an economic model, socialism is dead. But in society, it still thrives…

      The proof, Richard Maybury says: The birth of the nuclear family and instant popularity of “expert” child-rearing books in America.

      Richard is one of the foremost free-market thinkers and historians today. His
      Uncle Eric
      book series is a must-read for anyone interested in money, business, history, and government. And we’ve featured his views on the American ”
      federal government empire,” political corruption, and government hubris many times before.

      In today’s edition of our weekend Masters Series – the first part of an essay originally published in the March 2009 issue of his Early Warning Report – Richard examines how socialism is destroying the American way of life and manipulating how we raise our children…

      Why Are They So Ruthless?

      By Richard Maybury, Early Warning Report

      It’s dead, but alive

      After the Soviet socialist empire collapsed in the early 1990s, many pundits jumped to the conclusion that socialism is dead and we no longer need to pay much attention to it.

      They are right, in the sense that as an economic model, socialism is dead.

      As an emotional response to trouble, I think socialism is more alive now than ever, and the wise investor will study it in depth.

      My evidence? In recent months, I’ve seen numerous calls for “stimulus” by staunch conservatives who are so frightened, they cannot bring themselves to allow the shakeout of the malinvestment to continue. The cover of the Feb. 16 [2013] issue of Newsweek declares, “We Are All Socialists Now.”

      Here, I think, is what has happened

      For thousands of years before the 20th century, the “extended family” was the norm. Parents and grandparents lived with or near their offspring, in tribes or clans.

      It is not hard to imagine some of their economic practices, particularly specialization of labor and the child-rearing routine growing from it.

      The healthy young parents were out every day doing the dangerous, exhausting work. Males were risking their lives hunting mastodons. And women were dodging rattlesnakes in the effort to dig up roots and squirm through briar patches for berries.

      With the strong young parents doing the heavy lifting, the child-rearing was left to older members of the family, the grandparents.

      It was a great system for raising kids. The parents were too young to know much, but grandparents had some wisdom, including, very likely, skepticism about fads.

      In the 20th century…

      … family life changed drastically. The Federal Reserve’s stop-start monetary policy caused hot and cold spots to dance all over the landscape. Extended families were destroyed as the members scattered to the four winds in search of jobs.

      All that remained was the “nuclear” family. For the first time, children were raised by their parents. Grandparents, who often lived hundreds or thousands of miles away, faded from the child-rearing scene.

      Parents realized they didn’t know much and began reading books and articles about child-rearing. These items were written by “experts.”

      That’s when today’s economic Godzilla was hatched.

      Socialism had become the latest craze – the hot new political and economic fad – and like other intellectuals, the child-rearing experts had bought into it.

      The opportunity left by the breakup of the extended family enabled these socialists to take advantage of the naiveté of young parents.

      The experts spun off various child-rearing ideas based in socialist theory, but rarely disclosed this bias in their writings. Socialism was known in those days as “scientific socialism,” and the experts said they were not being socialistic so much as they were being scientific.

      Thus, the World War II generation was unknowingly raised under these socialist theories, which they passed along to their kids – the Baby Boomers – and so on thereafter.

      A premise of these socialist theories…

      … is that the child’s mind is the property of the state. The plan is that the mind should be programmed for statist purposes, to produce a harmonious society in which each person is a well-disciplined cog in the machine, and the machine is guided by – you guessed it – professional socialists.

      The objective was to raise a nation of sheep who would understand nothing except their jobs and, perhaps, sports and entertainment.

      In other words, each child was to be raised as a flaming statist with complete faith in the government’s ability to plan and organize the economy. No one said it so bluntly, but that was the scheme. Like the socialists in China and the USSR, those in the U.S. were trying to create “the new socialist man,” who would believe everything the government said and follow its every order.

      In case parents botched the job, the education system became a backup. Schools in Gary, Indiana had been converted to a regimented, mass-production system, called platoon schools. In 1914, this merciless “Gary Plan” was adopted by the Federal Bureau of Education, then foisted onto the whole country. It’s the system we have today.

      In the 1940s, socialist George Orwell jumped ship and tried to warn against the brainwashing in his novels Animal Farm and 1984, but he was too late. The last generation to be raised outside the great socialist experiment was born before 1910.

      When that generation went to their graves, they took with them thousands of years of accumulated grand parenting wisdom. This wisdom was replaced by the ruthless procedures for creating the new socialist man.

      If you will examine the behavior…

      … of the three Baby Boomer presidents – Clinton, Bush, and Obama – I think you will see the middle-aged results of this kind of upbringing: an unquestioning religious faith in political power. The solution to every problem is more government.

      These presidents are not unusual. In millions of cases, the socialists were successful in creating their new breed of human.

      And today, as you read this, some of their star pupils – or maybe I should say star victims – are in the White House and Congress, deciding what will happen to the rest of us.

      You can’t make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society. – John Dewey, 1859-1952, socialist, “father of modern education,” member of 15 Marxist organizations, and admirer of Soviet education.

      This gives us a lot of insight into what they are likely to do to us economically. It all leads to the same place, more power for the government and less freedom, peace, and abundance for us, until the economy collapses under the burden – because socialism does not work.

      In other words, even in the most conservative Republican households, the World War II generation and all subsequent generations have been raised as guinea pigs in a grand socialist experiment, and very few of them realize it.

      Some of us fell through the cracks – readers of this newsletter, for instance – but nearly the whole population has been raised to be worker bees in a vast hive and to expect the queen bee in the White House to do their thinking for them and solve their problems.

      This process was repeated almost identically all over the world because, for roughly a century, nearly all intellectuals were socialists. And grandparents, who had some wisdom and skepticism, had been removed from the child-rearing mix.

      The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. — Margaret Thatcher

      Today’s economic crisis…

      … is the beginning of the failure of the global socialist experiment. The entire world population is starting to realize that all the queen bees in all the world’s capitals are as lost as they are.

      I think the psychological shock will be similar to that experienced by freed slaves at the end of the Civil War. Millions will have no idea how to get along without an “owner” to tell them what to think and do.


      Richard Maybury

  26. gmanfortruth says:

    More info I’m looking confirmation on. The local farmer I get my meat and feed from texted me today to tell me that the US has approved the shipping of live chickens to China so they can be butchered, packaged and then exported back to the US to bypass the USDA.

    Is anyone else wondering who the feds represent these days?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Speaking of meat, get your pork soon, it’s going to explode in price. Picked up a half pig today, 102 lbs, cut (some smoked) wrapped and frozen for 194.00 total. Great price in today’s market. 🙂

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      I could only find an article that the chicken has to be raised and slaughtered here in the US. The chicken then can be cooked and processed in China and shipped back to the US.

      I believe it is purely economic. In the early 70’s I used to use a lot of plywood in a job I had. Used to buy from Japan. It was cheaper that from buying plywood from Coos Bay, Oregon. The log was cut in Oregon, loaded on a freighter, made into plywood, shipped back and it was cheaper that the “Made in US” plywood directly from Coos Bay.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        The new change allows for slaughter to be done in China and Frozen chicken returned. I will try and find a video of the Chinese slaughter houses and post it. Beware, you may never eat chicken again if you watch.

  27. plainlyspoken says:


    • gmanfortruth says:

      How are you feeling my friend? I’m improving daily myself and hope to be 100% by mid May. 🙂

      • plainlyspoken says:

        So-so. Lab results indicate I still have stones in my pancreas (as does the pain). May end up having another procedure done to go in and get the stones out.

        Plus my doc is concerned by some other things found during my CT while I was in the hospital. I saw him yesterday and we are working out a plan of action for treatment.

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    There is Justice in the world.

    Now if only the MSM would pound on this until the average person starts getting the message.

  29. Judy Sabatini says:

  30. Just A Citizen says:

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    OK, lets look at the Director of the BLM who used to work for Reid.

    Please notice in his bio that he went to work at BLM as a “policy” consultant to the Director. These were the positions I told SUFA about after Obama was elected. They were placed in various agencies to “direct” the Agency Heads on what they should be doing. Notice that his area of strength was in the Renewable Energy area.

    So with his background working for Reid, being a Dem hooked on Renewable Energy and being more than likely tied financially to the Solar complexes slated for Nevada, the Obama White House placed him in the BLM. He has now moved all the way up to “Director”.

    This does not mean the Bundy Ranch fiasco is related to the Solar projects or that any of the accusations regarding land grab of Bundy’s ranch are true. Reids pet Solar project was closer to Searchlight, where he calls home.

    But this does reveal the Solar industry and lobby connection from Reid to Obama to the BLM.

    One more thing. This guy had to have had some connections to money.

    The college in Walla Walla aint cheap and then to the London School of Economics?? Wow. Pretty awesome for a boy from the small mining/cow town of Elko.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Is the plan still on to develop for solar projects the beautiful and unique geological valley to the east of Elko?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I don’t know of any solar projects planned near Elko. But I can make some calls.

        Which valley are you thing about? Lamoille Canyon, Spring Valley, ???

  32. plainlyspoken says:

    Been reading the discussion on the Nevada rancher – BLM thing. One thing that made me laugh was the idea of 5k militia going to help the rancher.

    Won’t happen. First off, if 50 showed up that would be surprising and secondly – from the experience of dealing with these type of groups – I have to say, white boys have no heart. Meaning they ain’t got the cojones to stand up like that and take on the feds. They’d be cut to pieces in more than one way and I would expect any military troops to readily move against them without a moments hesitation.

    As to the rancher, like it or not, he’s in the wrong and he won’t win the fight in any meaningful way.

  33. Just A Citizen says:


    You said the other day you had hiked the Red Rock Canyon area near Bundy’s ranch.

    Curious…………. have you ever played golf in Mesquite? I have not but would like to some day. One looks particularly “interesting”.

    I was told by the locals that you must play before April or the temps will get in the 100’s. But I figure that would be just getting “comfy” for you.

    • Wolf Creek is my favorite course out there. I have played five of them. However, 100 degrees in Nevada is nothing. Just carry plenty of water because it is a dry climate and you can dehydrate without knowing it. 100 degrees in Texas is quite different…..with humidity running above 50%. except in the Western areas of Texas. I have played all over Las Vegas and Mesquite in 110 heat.

      I even made my spousal unit climb Turtle Head in Red Rock Canyon in 100 degree heat but we carried water and had to dodge the most dreaded of Desert Tortoise that is protected by the BLM. Ya, know, those critters can be dangerous. And, they are all over the place.

      • Actually, Mesquite is the best place to go around there because it is away from the strip and all….a really great secret and you let it out on here.

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    Calling D13, Mathius and Buck the Wala

    I want to see the WHOLE return. It is possible, very likely, that the author screwed up the description. But if not then the Obama’s had over $20,000 in “deductions” from income on page 1 of the 1040. Notice the author says “after deductions” their “ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME” was…………….. AGI is BEFORE what most people call “deductions”.

    So what “expenses” did they claim that reduced their Gross Income by $20 K???

    Now for the real kicker. WHY didn’t they pay their FAIR share? They are in the upper 1% so why did they not pay the top marginal rate like they are supposed to pay. You know, like the rest of those stinking 1% people.

    • Adjusted Gross Income is a really interesting aspect of our tax code……it is merely “expenses” taken off gross income to arrive at taxable income. Those expenses are listed.

      This is the really funny part about it and I don’t think that Buck will address it ( Yes, Buck, you are challenged ). As an individual, you can form LLC’s, Sub “s” corporations, etc. All of these reflect to your personal income. In other words, you can “write off” certain things off your total income. For example, and I will use myself….IF I have an LLC. (Limited Liability Corporation), a Sub S, or the like, and I decide to buy an airplane. So, hypothetically, I form D13 Investments, LLC. This means that any income that comes into D13 Investments can be offset by recognized deductions, adjustments, or expenses before income taxes. Since I am an LLC, all income is personal and I can lump all income into this LLC and that is classified as gross income. Let’s keep it simple……I can take two types of depreciation on my million dollar aircraft and deduct it from gross income. Conceivably, I can actually make $500,000 income and have a depreciation deduction of 600 k and end up having a loss of 100k and that becomes a loss carry forward to next year…and effectively pay NO taxes on my personal LLC. In other words, I sheltered 500k… that particular year.

      Fast forward to Obama…..if they have set up several little enterprises that have legitimate deductions to specific entities and their income is adjusted downward to taxable. Consequently, you can be a one percenter, and have deductions that bring your adjusted gross income to NOT be a one percenter. That is why the Walla’s of the world are in business…they know how to take the tax code and adjust it accordingly.

      Now, some people, like Charlie, will holler about the one percent but the poorest of the poor can do the same thing. The tax code does not discriminate against them at all. A normal individual can go to the library and even to the IRS and do the same things that Buck does…….it just takes work, due diligence, and research. Now, where the Buck’s of the world come into play, is in the INTERPRETATION of the wording of the tax code and the ability to convince the IRS employees, mostly not even high school graduates, that their interpretation is correct. So, everyone has the same ability to use the tax code…..but it does take some smarts.

      And JAC, I know that you were being sarcastic….but some on here might not actually know. I just gave a simplistic version.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I was being more than sarcastic. The author used “adjusted gross income” implying that was the taxable income. The itemized deductions/standard deduction, exemptions and other “credits” all come AFTER the AGI is calculated.

        So if the number reported was AGI then I want to see the page one “reductions”. The type you mentioned. I then want to see what other “deductions” and “credits” they claimed.

        Of course if the AHOLE didn’t go around denigrating everyone who is “rich” I wouldn’t really care. But hypocrisy needs to be called out.

        Sorry about spilling the beans on Mesquite. Quite nice there but most can’t handle that heat. Farther north we usually stopped working when it hit 105 and looked for shade at 110.

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    Great sign Charlie Brown………….Great Sign.

    • It seems that there is a veterans group that has decided to go to Nevada with ATV’s and will run the blockades. The Feds will not shoot….not now…..I don;t know whom is behind it but I support it.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        The MSM has finally showed up in Nevada and are making live reports. More eyes on the Feds. The FAA has also made a “no-fly” zone over the area, below 3000 feet. Gotta keep them news choppers from getting good video after all.

        I just listened to an interview with a rancher who was bought out by the Feds. There was once 57 ranches, now only one. There were 10x the cattle on the range vs. what Bundy has now.

        To think that the Feds will spend this kind of money and resources on a turtle is also naïve. There is much more to this than a turtle, it’s all about money.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          With many of the info pointing toward Reid and DC, I’ll just coin the term “BundyGate” here and now. 😀

        • Just A Citizen says:


          The Feds DESTROYED the entire Timber Industry in Oregon and Washington over an Owl.

          This is probably about nothing more than the tortoise. At least that is how it started.

  36. Just A Citizen says:


    I finally found an article that summarizes the court order dealing with Bundy’s cattle.

    The order was for him to not trespass and to NOT INTERFERE with the BLM removal of his cattle. Note that in the article the court recognized that Bundy was trespassing on BLM lands beyond his “claimed” allotment.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Question….does the Federal government actually own the land, or do the “People” of the United States own the land and the government manages it like a “Trust”?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        The title books I have reviewed show the ownership as “US GOVT”. Some more modern books will show the agency which administers the lands but there is no evidence that “title” ever actually changed. Recorders simply inserted the administrative agency to identify the differences in “Federal Lands”.

        The claim of “public ownership” is in reality a fallacy. Public use and access is completely dependent upon Govt. granting such access. People have tried to claim “their piece” and have been removed and/or jailed.

        Govt lands were either acquired by Treaty which conveys ownership and control to the United States or by purchase via condemnation. In which case the title is transferred from private to United States Govt.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          But the government is “We the People” The government didn’t pay for the territory, the people did by taxes, tariffs etc. The government was just the agent. Even if the territory was transfered by treaty, ie war, it was still paid for by the people….just playing devils advocate.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Conceptually Public Lands would be “owned” by the public.

            But in reality, title lies with the US Govt and the Congress of the USA has historically decided the disposition of those lands.

            Now in our early history that same Govt understood its “fiduciary” responsibility to act as Trustee of those lands, and other assets like our tax money. That “sense of responsibility” has waned over time to where now most in the Govt simply view Govt as the determinant in anything related to Federal Lands.

            Thus you will only see Federal Agents or Environmentalists invoke “these are public lands” when they are targeting a smaller group of the “public” for removal, management, constraint, etc.

            There is not as much “devil” in your advocacy as confusing history of Govt land ownership and disposal in the USA.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            We the People are NOT THE GOVT.

            We “established” a Govt to act on our behalf on certain matters. WE forgot what Govt entails and have now lost control of it.

            If WE the People were in fact the Govt there would be NO GOVT, as WE could never agree on any singular form, purpose or function.

    • JAC

      What stands out to me is how the government has gone about this. Why not seize his bank accounts? Be there every time he sells a cow with a lean or warrant and take the money they say he owes. They are using force to deliberately destroy him. If Israel did this, Obama would be on every network blasting them, same if it happened in China or Russia. Maybe Putin will weigh in & advise America on how to peacefully settle differences of opinion, like civilized people should….

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Because it is not about the money. It is about getting his cows removed from the range.

        The money is just the fines and fees he owes for 20 years of trespassing and nonpayment.

        People get things all mixed up because reporters and editorial writers have to add something to spice up a story. So they made a big deal out of Million plus the Feds claim he owes. But that is not the primary issue here. It is secondary.

        However, once the cows are removed the Feds will then decide how much money to pursue for his fines.

        If he is not careful, he might wind up in jail for violating the Court Order to “not interfere” with the cattle removal.

  37. gmanfortruth says:

    A ranch being taken in New Mexico, similar reasons. WTF?

    • Looks like…

      Seems to be two things here, one is environmentalism run amuck. The second, someone is bound to make money from this..

      Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has kept his official statement simple over the past few days. Senator Reid “hopes that the transpassing of cattle are rounded up safely so the issue can be resolved.” While it is not clear exactly what “transpassing” means, what is more obvious is that some in the media have overlooked the small detail that the head of the Bureau of Land Management, a division of the Department of Interior, is Neil Kornze, who was also the former senior policy advisor to Senator Reid from 2003 to 2011. Mr. Kornze has served as the BLM principal deputy director for a little over a year, until the U.S. Senate confirmed him as the director of the BLM a few days ago.

      On April 8, three days ago, Senator Reid posted the following press release on his website:

      I’m pleased that the Senate confirmed Neil Kornze as the Director of the Bureau of Land Management today. Neil is just perfect for this position. Raised in Elko, Nevada, Neil really understands the role of public lands in rural America, and natural resources across the West.

      Senator Reid continued:

      His expertise is going to be invaluable to the Bureau of Land Management. I have every bit of confidence that Neil Kornze will be the best director we have ever had at BLM and I wish him success in this role.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      That is actually a pretty good story. And notice the significant difference between their dispute and Bundy’s. They had “filed” and “recognized” water rights and attending land use.

      But then notice that they purchased the ranch in question after the other laws were instated.

      The article discusses the same set of laws and changes in Federal policies that I have mentioned on SUFA many times.

      Our environmental laws are run amok but even worse are the administrators and attorneys assigned to agencies by the Algorians. They have changed the entire culture of cooperation that once existed in these land management agencies.

      • I think this has become bigger than just the specifics in Bundy’s situation. People are just tired of all the BS.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I believe you are correct. But that makes them vulnerable to manipulation or going after the wrong people or fighting on the wrong issue.

          Which is why I spent so much time on this trying to explain how it all works.

          But in the end, if folks are fed up they could explode over anything that pushes the Go button. It won’t matter whether the specifics fit or not.

          Of the two examples provided I would be focused on the New Mexico case where the ranchers had documented water rights and linked grazing rights PRIOR to statehood or Territorial claims. Much like the Spanish land grants were eventually upheld by the courts against the Federal and State claims.

  38. Sedgewick says:

    I – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    IX – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    X – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    — —————— – ———– —— —— ——

    The ninth amendment says not to use the amendments against each other? You can’t legally argue that or or say this many verses that many or any such nonsense? If it’s in there, it counts? It mentions the people as pertaining to them to retain these rights, as a backstop?

    The tenth amendment says that US Congress can only do what the constitution allows it, while the states can do whatever so long as it is not prohibited by it? The backstop is, again, the people?

    The first amendment says that CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW to violate said rights.

    So, …

    since the first amendment limits these protections to the US Congress and ultimately leaves it to the state, if the state authority has nothing in place to protect these rights, they are essentially unprotected as a matter of state law and must be dealt with on a local/county level among the people? It essentially pushes authority in the direction of decentralized power?

    Now, …

    If it is ultimately up to the people to retain these listed rights in the event of state failure to do so, the people must retain/protect their right to US Congress to not make a law to violate these rights?

    Do people have a constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion and expression and to gripe to their government, or a right to a federal congress that cannot touch state law?

    Do people even have a constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion and expression and to gripe to their state or local government? Would that be dependent upon the state or county law?

    What if the wording of the first amendment said “There shall be no law in congress or among the states…” instead of limiting it to congress? Would that classify as being “prohibited by it to the States”? How does that apply to local law? Should it be mentioned too?

    What is law if words have no meaning?

    What is there to prevent a state from becoming a theocracy, censor media or violate protestors? If a state passed a law to violate the right to freedom of religion and expression, do the counties have authority to protect these rights, or a US Congress that cannot touch state law?

    Where in the USA can you live with the security that your freedom of religion and of expression and to gripe is protected? Does it mater if you’re an “abomination”, witch, “lying” and/or not practicing “a real religion”?

    As mentioned above, the whole constructs of US/State laws are generally designed to push governing authority to a decentralized local level. It ultimately comes down to the people.

    Coincidentally, that’s how natural law works as well.


    If it is really about the people anyway, then it is all about human nature at it’s core. It would seem to me, that rather than trying to manage all this legal jargon paper and guns, instead of grouping up and struggling for dominance, that things would be a lot simpler, easier, more efficient, and better balanced if we could all just try to focus on the human nature side of it, live our lives right, mind our own business, and so long as we are not being violated otherwise, tolerate others and respect their right to live their lives as they see fit.

    …maybe even try to look out for them when the opportunity presents itself or is appropriate.

    Are humans even capable of harmony, or are we more like monkeys throwing poop?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      All States have constitutions and the county and local govts of all states are subject to the STATE laws.

      So your theory of decentralization is limited to the particular State laws. But generally that was the “original” American tradition. In reality it did not last long as people realized the rewards they could reap from controlling which ever level of Govt would be most “rewarding” to them.

      • Sedgewick says:

        …Of course.

        But that doesn’t address the question of how the right to freedom of religion expression and assembly are protected by the US Constitution outside of congress making laws.

        The 1st amendment basically says that congress is to stay out of it.

        The 10th says it is up to the states, or the people.

        So, hypothetically speaking, if in the case of what V posted below, what would protect the rights of the Islamic Society, the Catholic society, the Christian Medical Fellowship and the Christian Union, as well as individual students from every course, political affiliation and background, both pro-life and pro-choice, if the judge[s] were to somehow rule that their protests are practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State?

        Then what? US Congress didn’t make a law against their right to freedom of religion expression and to peaceably assemble.

        Where is the stop at the federal level? What prevents states from violating said rights?

        SCOTUS? Executive Branch? …similar to Brown v. Board of Education maybe?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          SCOTUS is the one that TOOK that authority.

          They TOOK it when they started applying the 14th Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

          However, said “application” has not been uniform. See the lack of Second Amendment protection against State laws up until now.

          • Sedgewick says:

            In other words, you are suggesting people only have a protected right to freedom of religion expression and to gripe if their state government says so, or if the SCOTUS feels like bothering with it? Otherwise, they have a constitutional right to congress staying out of it?

            When SCOTUS does decide to bother with it, what is the premise of their legal framework? Is it whether or not the CONGRESS makes a law? Why rule at all? Wouldn’t it be apparent, a matter of record?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Your questions/comments are cryptic.

              What are you trying to ask?

              SCOTUS already interfered in States Rights and has undermined the Constitution in many ways.

              I suggest you do some research on the Courts use of the 14th amendment as it relates to the First Amendment as well as others.

              But here is the thing. After the Court made that ruling Congress did nothing to overturn it. Instead the Congress went forward and passed other laws interfering with people under the authority the SCOTUS created by its ruling.

              • Sedgewick says:

                ” Your questions/comments are cryptic. What are you trying to ask? ”

                This is all a continuation from our conversation on the last thread.

                I am trying to figure out if there is any real clear protection of freedom and rights. If so, exactly what is it and how does it work.

                As best as I can tell, your right to freedom of religion expression and to gripe, is protected and/or ‘kind of’ protected, sometimes, …depending…

                When in doubt, refer to the SCOTUS so they can ponder whether or not they want to consider if they will think about seeing your case or if they should sort of maybe wonder if they might consider it having legal ‘legitimacy’ IF in such case they might want to consider maybe sort of making a clear decision…depending on if it is within their authority in this or that case, but only when that and the other thing, etc

                If the whole basis for the legal framework is the first amendment, then it is all about congress making a law or not. Anything that deviates beyond the powers of congress is null and void.

                If this is the case, and if SCOTUS rules, it is limited by whether or not congress made a law, …which is obvious anyway. What’s the point?

                Should the first amendment be scratched and moved to the powers of congress?

                If you decide to loosely interpret the meaning to include things beyond congress, then words have no meaning and you can say the first amendment means anything you want it to.

                While the constitution and Bill of Rights is very cleverly written with all of its interwoven parameters, it is still a bunch of legal jargon of ‘this but not that, except in this or those instances, and only pertaining to those when combined with that’ ..kind of bullshit.

                Californians have very little doubt as to if they have a protected freedom of religion expression and to gripe, because their state constitution uses language such as ” …shall forever be allowed in this State”.

                …No bullshit there.

                What difference would it make if the first amendment were stated…”There shall be no law by any government anywhere ever in the United States of America respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

                Now where is your constitutionally protected right?

  39. Follow the Money

    The real wealth is in the water to support the plush green golf courses, and surrounding housing developments, gleaming swimming pools, and other demands by hotels and households in Las Vegas, Arizona, and Southern California.

    The same anonymous source claims that there has been a pattern of behavior: land in Clark County has been targeted as property that the BLM can use; the BLM makes an offer to buy the property from the owner (prices vary, but it can be a very low market price); the BLM purchases the land; the property is then stripped of the water rights; and the land is resold without the right to water resources. But what good is a farm or ranch without water?

  40. I guess will wait and see what the Feds next move will be. Feel like I’m reading a western.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      VH, it is no coincidence that this ended shortly after Harry Reid was outed, and that will go viral. His career was suddenly a blaze and it didn’t take long to end the issue. The MSM showed up and the governments illegal actions were halted. Now they claim they will deal with it in court, WTF, seems they didn’t get that part right the first time. If the Government was RIGHT they wouldn’t have stood down. Bravo to all who stood up for freedom and liberty . Shame on those who supported the Jackboots, your reputation has been smudged!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Objection. Calls for SPECULATION.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Over Ruled: You lost, as did the government. They caved because they were WRONG and the freedom loving people took a stand and WON! It’s only a battle, but the war against government over reach and tyranny has just grown stronger. Pick a side Clyde! 😀

    • I was wondering about the cattle they had already rounded up-am surprised they are going to be returned-notice the statement that the protesters wanted the cattle returned to Bundy -not paid for.

      Deal reached; BLM will release confiscated cattle to rancher
      Posted: Apr 12, 2014 2:06 PM CST Updated: Apr 12, 2014 3:57 PM CST
      By Caroline Bleakley, Senior Online Editor – email

      LAS VEGAS — A deal has been reached between Bundy family leaders and the BLM, but not without some very tense moments.

      Armed Bundy family leaders met with BLM officers Saturday afternoon in Mesquite to discuss the fate of the Bundy’s cattle that the feds removed from BLM land, over the past week. The cattle are being held at a holding area in Mesquite.

      Prior to the meeting, hundreds of protesters, some armed, tried storming the BLM’s cattle gate, but weren’t successful. The crowd was urged to wait 30 minutes and give both sides a chance to talk. An agreement was reached that the cattle will be released to the Bundy family later Saturday.

      At one point, I-15 was closed in both directions, about seven miles south of Mesquite, because protesters had blocked the freeway. Nearly two dozen police officers and a SWAT unit were at the scene to keep the peace and assist the BLM enforcement officers to safely leave the area.

      Protesters have been gathering all week in support of rancher Cliven Bundy, who has been locked in a legal battle for the past 20 years over grazing rights with the federal government

      Follow 8 News NOW on Twitter for real-time updates

      It was announced Saturday morning that Sheriff Douglas Gillespie, Bundy and the BLM were able to reach an agreement over the cattle the BLM has already removed from the federal property.

      The BLM had offered to pay Bundy for the cattle already confiscated, sources said, but the protesters wanted the cattle returned to Bundy.

      This is a developing story. Please refresh this page for updates.

  41. I find it horrifying that we have young people who would actually vote against their fellow students right to simply hold a rally-an action I feel sure they believe they themselves should have a right to do-but I found some hope within the horror.

    And for some reason this seems to fit right in with our main area of discussion the last couple of days!

    • Sedgewick says:

      ” And for some reason this seems to fit right in with our main area of discussion the last couple of days! ”

      Indeed. Good find!

      US Constitution Bill of Rights;

      I – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      IX – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      X – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

      — —————— – ———– —— —— ——

      California State Constitution; Article 1

      Sec. 4. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this State: and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience, hereby secured, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.

      Sec. 9. Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions on indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libellous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.

      Sec. 10. The people shall have the right freely to assemble together, to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives, and to petition the legislature for redress of grievances.

      Looks like the state of California is legally obligated to allow the protestors to assemble.

  42. Just A Citizen says:
  43. Utah county orders round up of federally-protected wild horses to protect local ranchers
    By Reuters
    Friday, April 11, 2014 21:35 EDT

    By Jennifer Dobner

    ENTERPRISE, Utah (Reuters) – A Utah county, angry over the destruction of federal rangeland that ranchers use to graze cattle, has started a bid to round up federally protected wild horses it blames for the problem in the latest dustup over land management in the U.S. West.

    Close to 2,000 wild horses are roaming southern Utah’s Iron County, well over the 300 the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has dubbed as appropriate for the rural area’s nine designated herd management zones, County Commissioner David Miller said.

    County officials complain the burgeoning herd is destroying vegetation crucial to ranchers who pay to graze their cattle on the land, and who have already been asked to reduce their herds to cope with an anticipated drought.

    Wild horse preservation groups say any attempt to remove the horses would be a federal crime.

    On Thursday county workers, accompanied by a Bureau of Land Management staffer, set up the first in a series of metal corrals designed to trap and hold the horses on private land abutting the federal range until they can be moved to BLM facilities for adoption.

    “There’s been no management of the animals and they keep reproducing,” Miller said in an interview. “The rangeland just can’t sustain it.”

    The conflict reflects broader tension between ranchers, who have traditionally grazed cattle on public lands and held sway over land-use decisions, and environmentalists and land managers facing competing demands on the same land.

    The Iron County roundup comes on the heels of an incident in neighboring Nevada in which authorities sent in helicopters and wranglers on horseback to confiscate the cattle herd of a rancher they say is illegally grazing livestock on public land.

    In Utah, county commissioners warned federal land managers in a letter last month that the county would act independently to remove the horses if no mitigation efforts were launched.

    “We charge you to fulfill your responsibility,” commissioners wrote. “Inaction and no-management practices pose an imminent threat to ranchers.”

    The operation was expected to last weeks or months.

    “The BLM is actively working with Iron County to address the horse issue,” Utah-based BLM spokeswoman Megan Crandall said, declining to comment further.

    Attorneys for wild horse preservation groups sent a letter this week to Iron County commissioners and the BLM saying the BLM, under federal law, cannot round up horses on public lands without proper analysis and disclosure.

    “The BLM must stop caving to the private financial interests of livestock owners whenever they complain about the protected wild horses using limited resources that are available on such lands,” wrote Katherine Meyer of Meyer, Glitzenstein and Crystal a Washington, DC-based public interest law firm representing the advocates.


    The BLM puts the free-roaming wild horse and burro population across western states at more than 40,600, which it says on its website exceeds by nearly 14,000 the number of animals it believes “can exist in balance with other public rangeland resources and uses.”

    Wild horse advocates point out that the tens of thousands of wild horses on BLM property pales into comparison with the millions of private livestock grazing on public lands managed by the agency.

    Wild horses have not been culled due to budget constraints, according to Utah BLM officials, who say their herds grow by roughly 20 percent per year.

    Pressure on rangeland from the horses may worsen this summer due to a drought that could dry up the already sparse available food supply, according to Miller.

    “We’re going to see those horses starving to death out on the range,” he said. “The humane thing is to get this going now.”

    Adding to frustration is BLM pressure on ranchers to cut their cattle herds by as much as 50 percent to cope with the drought, Miller said.

    A tour of Iron County rangeland, not far from the Nevada border, illustrates the unchecked herds’ impact on the land, said Jeremy Hunt, a fourth generation Utah rancher whose cattle graze in the summer in a management area split through its middle by a barbed wire fence.

    On the cattle side of the fence, the sagebrush and grass landscape is thick and green. The other, where a group of horses was seen on Thursday, is scattered with barren patches of dirt and sparse vegetation.

    “This land is being literally destroyed because they are not following the laws that they set up to govern themselves,” said Hunt, who also works as a farmhand to make ends meet for his family of six.

    “I want the land to be healthy and I want be a good steward of the land,” he added. “But you have to manage both sides of the fence.”

%d bloggers like this: