Making Matters Worse

thP3866XB1What a strange and unusual beginning to 2016.  It began with a protest in a small Oregon town, over the perceived abuses of Federal Agents and members of the Judicial branch and quickly turned into a take over of a Federally owned building.  A wrong headed move with no support from the militia/Patriot movement, including the Oathkeepers.  At this point, things are quiet.  Arrest warrants have been issued and it appears to be an “isolate and wait” event.  Let’s hope it remains that way, because if this becomes another Waco event all bets are off.

That’s not really the subject of this short article.  I’m going to focus on Obama’s anticipated Executive actions concerning gun violence.  Frankly, I thought the whole thing was a bad joke played upon the fears of the American people.  Gun sales are booming again, which seems to happen every time he talks about the subject.   As far as his whiny talk about who needs to have a license to sell guns, it has been law since 1968 that those in the business to sell guns must be licensed.  I didn’t hear anything that actually did anything but reaffirm that existing law.

While some changes seem to have been made, probably outside of his authority, none seem to have any real affect on the real problems that plague this country. Additionally, Obama wants a several hundred new employees (more than he sent to fight ISIS) to allow for background checks to be 24/7.  This actually INCREASES opportunities for people to buy guns.  Good for the law abiding citizens who are night owls, bad for the idea of trying to quell gun violence.  Why?

thLZCSSH5MObama also has made some more changes involving mentally ill people and the reporting of said to the NICS system.  While none of us want those who are mentally ill AND violent to have access to firepower, those who understand this change, both the violent and non-violent may well likely avoid any attempts to get treatment for their problems.  Would anyone here go to a doctor now and complain of being depressed, knowing that there is a possibility that cops will show up and steal your guns?  Of course not.  Most will try to deal with these issues on their own.

What Obama has done is put in place a series of possible events that will make matters even worse than had he just kept his big mouth shut.  Those who need mental help may not seek it, for fear of losing their Rights.  Gun sales will be available 24/7.  So now a person that is having some evil thoughts of committing violence (or suicide), at anytime during the day or night, having not been treated so as to remain a legal gun buyer, can go to any 24 hour big box store that sells guns and purchase the weapon of his/her choice. That doesn’t usually end well.

I have no illusion that Obama and his ilk want a complete gun ban and confiscation.  That isn’t happening, at least not in our lifetimes.  As is the usual with Progressive agenda group think, Obama and his minions have simply made matters worse.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Let the debates continue! 🙂

  2. gmanfortruth says:
    • Just A Citizen says:

      EXISTING definition included in the Code of Federal Regulations.

      “Dealer. Any person engaged in the
      business of selling firearms at wholesale
      or retail; any person engaged in
      the business of repairing firearms or of
      making or fitting special barrels,
      stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms;
      or any person who is a pawnbroker.
      The term shall include any person
      who engages in such business or occupation
      on a part-time basis.”

      Somebody has to clue me in as to how there is a “loophole” at gun shows for those who meet this definition.

      Or is it that they are bothered by private collectors selling their guns to others?

      Or is it that sellers are breaking the law by not declaring their “business”. Well if this is the case I suggest they are probably violation the Federal and State TAX LAWS as well. Has the FBI forgotten how to get rid of bad buys using TAX EVASION?

      Why do they use this method to go after white collar crime, and regular folks who are self employed, but can’t seem to stop “illegal” sales of guns at shows???

      Someone can correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me there is not really a “legal loophole” for gun shows as a lack of resources to enforce the law at these shows. And I don’t see how 200 more BATS will solve this problem.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I agree JAC, The loophole was a Liberal fallacy that just turned into a talking point. Since the regulation already identifies who requires license, and regulations can be changed without Congressional approval, why did it take this long for this to happen? Answer: Obama is lying to his minions. I figure if I’m going to sell guns on a fairly regular basis, even one or two a month, and do so to make a profit, I would say I’m conducting an official business for tax purposes. That would require a license under the law. I don’t see how anything changed. But I do see the fallacy of the gun show loophole.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          gman

          Selling a couple guns a month for profit is NOT conducting a business per IRS rules.

          No different than buying old furniture, fixing it up and then selling it. Try deducting the expenses from your taxable income and see how quickly the IRS decides that is actually a HOBBY.

          The rumors are that Mr. O is going to propose a specific “number” as criteria for “business”. Of course, how will they know if the guns are not being registered????

          • gmanfortruth says:

            That would be a hobby. I wonder if Obama has thought to change that to further his nonsense? Have to watch, but your right about registration. As far as registration, Obama would be seriously dillusional if he thinks that is going to happen.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Strange. The time on your comment: January 6, 2016 at 1:37 pm (Edit) It’s not even 1 pm est as I type this.

      • I actually wonder myself. I have a collection, Mostly WW 1 WW 2 military. A few pieces have gone to the $ 1,000 range over the years but most would be $ 250-$450. If the docs ever say, you have 6 months, all but 6 will be sold. I was thinking that I would rent a table at a PA gun show. It would be a one time event.

        Cuomo’s “Safe Act” requires all sales at a Gun show to go through NICS. So, for the past year they have a table at the shows where you pay $ 25.00 and they run you.

  3. gmanfortruth says:

    This is a good commentary on the BLM who has a much different story to tell than JAC. http://elkodaily.com/news/opinion/commentary-fifteen-facts-about-ranchers-and-rights/article_1e4a7e70-3957-11e4-8a10-f760dea42179.html

    For the record, when there are stories like what’s going on in Oregon and even the Bundy stand-off, I will generally tend to side against the government. This commentary is an example of why. The government and it’s agencies are corrupt. They lie and use the compliant media to tell their lies. It is no wonder that frustrated ranchers get pissed off at these criminals and act out. If this issue in Oregon turns into the new Waco or Ruby Ridge, there will likely be a major problem, at least that’s what many in the militia are saying, despite their opposition to the current situation.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      This is NOT a good commentary. You really need to do more homework. But I expect it will not matter what actual facts are to you. It is increasingly obvious that the standard for truth on these issues is far beyond anything possible in your mind.

      But since you have decided to insult me personally of late regarding my like or dislike for “ranchers” let me fill you in a little.

      I PERSONALLY know three of the four ranching families listed in this person’s story. In fact I spent many nights dancing and drinking with the fairer members of the Filippini and Mariluche families. I buckarooed a little with one of the Mariluche boys. I attended college with several of them. Both families are great people. Both had a long standing POSITIVE working relationship with the US Forest Service and to a lesser extent the BLM.

      Now it happens that these families were part of the Sagebrush rebellion which tried to get BLM lands in Nevada administered by the US Forest Service. I say this because you will see that the author lumps the USFS with the BLM with respect to ineptitude and corruption.

      As for Mr. Hage, he was an absolute jackass. Oh, as is the author of this article. These two men came to Elko and helped destroy a working relationship between federal officials and ranchers that had evolved over decades of cooperation.

      The ranch that Mr. Hage owned, per the two articles, was not his ranch when water rights, if any would have been established. He purchased this ranch from a long standing ranching family in Nevada. The daughter of which married my best friend, who was also the best man at my wedding. Oh, and Mr. Hage ran the ranch into the ground.

      I never could understand what Helen Chenowith saw in Mr. Hage. He could be personable but his nastiness towards ANY federal employee was uncalled for and obnoxious. He was not beyond stretching the truth or outright LYING when it suited his narrative. That was not Helen but then again her first husband was a real piece of work as well.

      Last I checked the Hage family still had the ranch in question. They were struggling some but that is largely due to the drought which has destroyed much of the grass production in the state.

      One other thing. The water rights case you posted is for New Mexico. We discussed an issue in New Mexico during the Bundy standoff, involving the USFS. Per New Mexico water rights laws I stated I thought the FS was out of bounds. But Nevada water laws are not the same and most water developments on federal lands are NOT privately owned. In my years working in the State I never came across a water development that was privately owned. The permittee might own the equipment, windmill/tanks/pipes, but there was no “water right”. held by anyone. It was simply water located on federal lands.

      Again, I do not know personally about the claimed water rights in the Hage case. But I saw nothing in your references that confirms such a “water right” existed. It is simply being claimed using a cross reference to a case in a different state.

      If fairness, this whole issue of water rights on federal lands has been in the courts for decades and changes from state to state and even places within states. Part of this was driven by the Clinton administration when the realized you cannot maintain fish habitat in a stream being dewatered by private inholders. So the Feds started filing for formal water rights on upstream sources based on “prior use”. Same as the Indian tribes used to secure power over water bodies, like Coeur d’Alene and Flathead lakes as well as the upper Klamath. The latter “rights” are why farmers in the Klamath basin are now running out of water. That and the drought that limited the volume available.

      Now I will address all this corruption accusations you throw around. These federal agencies are carrying out the policies and laws passed by CONGRESS and signed by POTUS AND upheld by SCOTUS. Maybe you should focus your anger where it belongs.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Maybe you should focus your anger where it belongs. The Fed’s, all of them. The BLM ois no better than the hitmen and muscle of the organized crime families. Add the TSA, FBI, CIA and every other agency and you has THE PROBLEM! And yes, the head needs cut off.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Here is the appellant court slapping down the Federal Claims court ruling on the Hage case.

          http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1607341.html

          Apparently much of the rhetoric in the articles you “choose to believe over the govt” is just hyperbole. Because in the end, the court found Hage’s claims to be empty and flawed.

          Part of the problem with the Hage example is the number of court cases and rulings. I have not been able to sort them all out this morning. Except for the appeal of the first claims court ruling. The judge’s claim of conspiracy sounds far fetched to me, but then it does involve people much later in the time line of the Hage’s war with the Govt.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      One more bit of history to put this in perspective. Ranchers did not have any great heartburn over the BLM until the 1970’s. After FLPMA was enacted by Congress, the BLM started revising allotment plans, per the Act, which greatly reduced permitted grazing.

      These reductions were due to the poor range conditions, overgrazing, as well as changes in environmental laws. Again……..Congress.

      This angered the Ranchers who thought things should not change. So they took their anger out on the federal agencies. The reason the USFS was not hated in Nevada was because that agency had already gone through the pain of reducing grazing and had had the time to do it in a more cooperative manner, as well has having more time. Reductions were often spread over several years, where as the BLM reductions were sudden and large scale.

      During this time the Greenies were hauling both agencies to court for violation of federal laws due to there grazing management. The agencies LOST these cases, driving even greater reductions in permitted AUM’s (animal unit months).

  4. gmanfortruth says:

    In his opinion of United States v. Estate of Hage, U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones reveals that after late Nevada rancher E. Wayne Hage indicated on his 1993 grazing permit renewal that by signing the permit, he was not surrendering his family’s long-standing water and forage rights on the land, the BLM not only rejected the permit but also conspired for decades to both deny his family’s property rights and to destroy their cattle business.
    https://earththreats.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/federal-judge-blm-engaged-in-a-criminal-conspiracy-against-ranchers/

  5. gmanfortruth says:

    The Oregon Farm Bureau believes that the BLM pursued this purely as a land grab and that it is using mandatory minor offense laws to its advantage, going after relatively unimpactful offenses in order to gain control of land allotted to farmers and ranchers.

    Oregon Farm Bureau has declared its support for the Hammond family as they face these charges and has announced that thousands of Americans have already signed a petition at http://www.savethehammonds.com to inform the BLM and the Department of Justice of what they claim is an egregious offense against the agriculture industry.

    At the top of the page, OFB declares in large, bold lettering: “Tell the Department of Justice: Don’t brand hardworking ranchers as terrorists. End this cruel and unusual punishment. It’s unjust, unfair and un-American. Sign the Petition.”
    http://protecttheharvest.com/2015/10/13/blm-pursued-eco-terrorism-charges-against-oregon-ranchers/

  6. gmanfortruth says:

    http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2015/11/texas-ranchers-counties-sue-feds-over-blm-land-grab/

    This goes back to the story that D13 has posted about. Here’s a good question, why would the BLM want all of this land that they tried to STEAL!

  7. gmanfortruth says:

    Another example of BLM theft and jackboot thug mentality. This time it’s Shosone Indians . Check out Dirty Harry Reid’s idea for fixing the problem, talk about pathetic: http://westgatehouse.com/art114.html

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      So you believe people should be able to run cattle on federal lands without a permit?

      And isn’t Harry’s proposal exactly what you want to happen? A proposed “privatization” of the federal lands is the proper thing to do, I thought.

      Or is your heartburn with WHO might purchase those lands?

      By the way, I would be shocked if Reid introduced any legislation that actually disposed of that much federal land in Nevada.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I forgot…………OH THE IRONY.

      Gman using a United Nations finding as having some binding affect on the US Govt.

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    Gman, and others.

    Here are some excerpts from a book by one of my professors……… and a person we all called friend and mentor back in the 70’s.

    It includes some detail on the Hage “Pine Creek Ranch” along with an overview of what happened in Nevada. It supports what I was trying to explain about the history and how the Federal Laws and lawsuits by Environmentalists changed the game. Tony was always a much better story teller so I think you will enjoy his writing.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=wtVOBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT589&lpg=PT589&dq=arcularius+ranch+monitor+valley&source=bl&ots=mminVo5nd8&sig=hCe5PNQ0VpstsWeksmfBYcIRd6o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2zomSh5bKAhVBT2MKHS_AD6cQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&q=arcularius%20ranch%20monitor%20valley&f=false

  9. gmanfortruth says:

    Yep, Here’s a perfect example of what a Islamic terrorist looks like before getting on a plane:
    http://www.kcentv.com/story/30899867/video-shows-tsa-agent-pat-down-10-year-old-girl-over-and-over

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    Here is a key, and I believe flawed, part of the judges decision in US vs. Hage. One that has been exaggerated in the way it is presented by people like the Bundies.

    “The Government may not revoke exclusive grazing permits arbitrarily or deny initial or
    renewal exclusive grazing permits where an applicant has applied for a permit for appropriate use and consistent with the historical grazing practices of himself and his predecessors-in-interest.
    The Government has abused its discretion in the present case through a series of actions designed to strip the Estate of its grazing permits, and ultimately to strip Defendants of their ability to use their water rights, for reasons unrelated to the appropriate use of the range or ensuring that historical grazing use is respected.”

    On first look this appears correct in that it is actually a ruling on violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. But therein also lies another problem You see it is the ACA that has been used against the agencies FOR renewing permits based solely on prior grazing uses. Which is what this judge is claiming the agency MUST do.

    There is actually NOTHING in the laws that require an agency to renew a permit under prior terms. In fact there are many laws pushing just the opposite. Resulting in renewal or cancellation. The judge also appears to be including both the FS and BLM under rules of the Taylor Grazing Act when it only applied to BLM lands. Maybe I missed something but appears to the court’s argument.

    The supposed water rights that would be stripped are not rights as most of you would think of them. They are not titled rights to a volume of water. They are rights that exist ONLY because of the adjacent grazing. The Judge here, despite the appeals court ruling, is claiming a water right independent of any adjacent grazing and is falling for Hage’s argument that because the water right exists the Feds MUST renew the permit. Unless damage to the range can be proven. Again ignoring all other environmental laws passed by Congress with constrain grazing to meet other standards, such as Clean Water Act.

    I also find the courts claim of conspiracy and “contemptible behavior” to be void of any substantive evidence. Although I did not review the separate hearing notes on this issue. The Judge simply makes a finding because the Govt issued Tresspass notices to people who were trespassing cows on the federal allotements where Hage had permits, before he let them expire. These people were not “harassed”. They had made arrangements for Hage to lease or run their cows on his ranch. One problem…Hage believes all the federal land is “his ranch”. So he turned their cows out on federal land without his brand on them. So the feds issue citations and send these people a bill for collection. They claim Hage is responsible and he admits he is……… but there are NO contracts or agreements for the Feds to see.

    This was an obvious ploy to skirt the grazing permit rules by Hage and to create a confrontation. It obviously worked. But maybe you know now why I have little tolerance for people like this. It is worth noting, since it came up at the trial, nobody else in the area had the same problems with the USFS or BLM. Just the usual trespassing notices, chasing the cows off to prevent fines, and occasional reductions in use for normal reasons.

    The judge takes a normal agency procedure of rejecting applications that contain suprfulous claims of rights and construes the agency SHOULD have just ignored this instead of declaring the application non responsive. The judge also ignores the fact that Hage was told this and could have filed a new application but did not do so because of his BS interpretations of federal laws. Note, rejecting an application or other contract form due to pencil notes by the contractor is pretty normal when dealing with agencies, banks and other institutions. I have tried making such notations, the latest being an escrow agreement. It was immediately rejected………. “because their lawyers had written the language”. It will be interesting if this is appealed and what happens if it is.

    Gman……….. you will love this. Hages claims about the law were in fact found FALSE by the same Judge. That is all his claims about having “forage” or “grazing rights” because he holds water rights. Now go back and review your citations and find where anyone admits this.

    Despite finding his argument FALSE the judge then rules in his favor and directs the Govt to grant him a permit because he has water rights and the Govt. has not shown damage from grazing. But the permits were cancelled because Hage did not apply for renewal. Not per agency procedure. Others were cancelled for his failure to adhere to the permit requirements. A condition stipulated in such permits. Yet this didn’t seem to matter to the judge. Very, very, strange.

    I am sure most of you are now bored stiff with this. So let me conclude with my view that this judge’s ruling is contrary to all prior rulings and interpretations which the agencies have been told regarding the issuance of grazing permits and their relationship to water rights.

    Oh, and water rights in this case are “beneficial use” rights linked to adjacent grazing. D13 will understand this part. The reason the Feds applied for the water rights was due to the strange ruling of the federal claims judge. Otherwise the Feds would have had all the land and NO WATER. This would have given NON permit holders rights of veto or control over all future Federal permits. Can’t wait to see how this is unraveled.

  11. gmanfortruth says:

    One of the interesting things about blogs, they contain some interesting historical stuff that one can go back a find stuff that may be relevant to situations many years from the original blog postings. One, which was uncovered in Spring of 2014, is a leaked memo which outlined the preliminary plans to buy out “willing sellers” to allow The Fed’s to close in their vast holding of Federal lands. This document is linked in this article: http://govtslaves.info/obama-administration-land-grab-memo-leaked/
    It’s a PDF file and kind of long. While I haven’t dug into other areas like the Red River and some others that the BLM and the Fed’s have seemingly targeted, This area in Oregon, is mentioned in the leaded document. The area, rather large and consisting of land in several states, is called the Owylee desert. Obviously, the Fed’s don’t own the whole thing, but have significant holdings, including the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which, even in it’s website, promotes its land as a desert oasis. This document is dated 2010. While probably a coincidence, it would show that the Fed’s likely wanted to purchase lands that were within their holdings. Considering the lack of trust that many seem to have in the Fed’s, it would not be a stretch to have some ill feelings on both sides of the issue. Just thought I’d throw this into the mix.

    • gmanfortruth says:
      • gmanfortruth says:

        Rep. Waldon at the end of his floor speech says something very, very telling. Let’s see if anyone catches it.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Gman

      News Flash. The federal govt. has made it quite clear they wish to purchase or exchange lands in order to 1) protect what they see as key resources and/or 2) to block up their ownership. The latter being an effort to create solid blocks without inholders.

      Everyone in this part of the world know this. Anyone claiming that this is a conspiracy or hidden agenda is playing people for fools.

      And this land grab as you call it has been going on like since the National Forests, parks and refuges were created.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      One other thing. This strategy of creating National Monuments is not new and each Democratic president since Carter has abused this power to give the Wilderness Society and Sierra Club what they could not get via the normal land management planning process with the federal agencies.

      If you read the stuff I posed you will know that the “Steen Mtn. cooperative management area” was created by a cooperative group of environmentalists, ranchers, miners and Govt. agencies to AVOID having the area designated a Monument by I think it was Clinton.

      The Monument designation does not take private land. It does change the management objectives of the Federal Lands however, which could then impact the private lands, especially ranches.

      This strategy has been used primarily by Dems to prevent mining. In Alaska it was oil. In Utah it was coal.

      But you need to understand that these Monument designations are not pushed by the federal Agencies. At least not the BLM or USFS. I am sure the Park Service may love it because they get to manage it……….. more land ………. more money and people.

  12. gmanfortruth says:

    Beginning the last half or so of last year, imports of beef from several states in Brazil were once again allowed to come into the US. It’s expected to reach about 100,000 tons and may be combined with imports from Argentina. While that is only about 10% of beef imports, it’s an addition that hurts our ranchers, even locally here (so I have been directly told). I don’t buy beef at the store, maybe someone could give a brief update on prices as of late.

    The whole import issue started in 2013 and is not directly related to the Oregon issue, unless there is a connection between politician investments and the newly allowed imports.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      BEEF prices are at all time highs and have been for about ten years now.

      A good rib eye in the store runs at or above $12.00 per pound.

      • Please…..go eat more steak. I appreciate it. Baby needs a new pair of shoes……no..wait..that is not it……D13 needs more fuel for his airplane so he can create a larger carbon footprint. Yeah….that’s the ticket.

        • Oh, please ask whether or not the steak house you go to or buy from is serving or providing grass fed ( no steroid ) Brangus. I certainly would appreciate that.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Do ya’ll have in your wide flung businesses your own aging and packing facility?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            d13

            I don’t go to steak houses very often. But there is a Texas Roadhouse in town now and I have eaten there. Seems to me they do have “grass fed” but you have to pay more. Do not know the breed but I remember them labeling some from different breeds. Might have to drop in to check it out.

            Otherwise, I haven’t seen Brangus “labeled” in these parts. Used to see it in southern Idaho and Nevada, but have not in years.

            Several of our grocery stores carry mostly “Angus” beef as a specialty product. It is obviously NOT grass fed. But it is also more expensive than the other beef.

            So that rib-eye in regular (unknown, aka probably Hereford) beef is around 12 per pound. The Angus is higher, usually around 14 per pound.

            Common breeds up here have changed the past ten years. Far less Hereford and Black Angus with increases in Red Angus and Beefmaster cross, along with Texas Longhorn (Mexican cattle). The Longhorns have been increased in areas where the WOLVES have increased. Along with reductions in polled varieties of other breeds in favor of those varieties with HORNS.

  13. gmanfortruth says:

    Stocks in trouble again, Asian trading halted, YUAN devalued again. What’s next? That is a question for those who are more up to date on these economic issues.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Gman….was the question you had in the last discussion about Oslo a rhetorical question? It interesting to note that just the other year Merkel slammed the door on the experiment of muslim assimulation. Saying no more. To date she allowed 1M “mirgrants” in during 2015. The PM of Norway won her election on a anti-immigration (muslim) platform. In Oslo whole neighborhoods are being taken over and sharia law is being declared. Gronland most notible. The crimes against Norwegians detailed in the articles are just like what D13 noted in Texas. The police don’t go into those areas. How can a nation tolerate a “foreign” I’ll say cancer to thrive not two blocks from parliment. The comment “we have lost” came from the police. It sounds like no matter what the police do, the government undoes through it’s compassion.

      It also is interesting to note that the leaders are being elected on anti-immigration (muslim) platforms as per the people wishes, but then turn around and do the opposite.
      In Amsterdam gangs of muslim youths are accosting the dutch girls riding their bike without decent cover. ie scarfs etc much less riding the bike. The police do nothing and the girls to be left alone cover up and lose their rights. In Sicily if a muslim tourist is offended by the indecent bating attire on a public beach, the girls get arrested and fined. Not that they can not wear the suits, it’s EU laws that are in place that if you do anything that offend its concidered hate speech. Why come to Europe to begin with. There are plenty of muslim countries with fine beaches. That is a rhetorical comment and no need to answer.

      This Gandhi style invasion is so far proving extremely successful. The people are awake, but the leaders have other plans regardless of party. Question, where is all the money coming from that these migrants are using to migrate with. They are looking altogether still well dressed and have cellphones and look pretty healthy. Usually refugees that have battled through the hardships that are being described in the media, should have a beat to death appearance. Like all refugees in the past. I guess even in the war torn countries they are coming from their businesses are doing quite well.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Yes, I did bring it up and Rick posted an article from American Thinker that explained it. This a another subject that should be talked about too, because the Left wants this kind of crap here. I have read numerous articles on the rape epidemic from various countries over there. No one has bothered to really look at how the native citizens of these countries are going to end it and how. There is going to be a spark and the crap will hit the fan over there, I’m fully expecting that. This isn’t talked about by the MSM, which is no surprise because Obama’s desire for these refugees is, or should I say, WAS, under serious attack after the terrorist attack in California. There is little talk about the refugees and nothing about the rape issues. This is a travesty waiting to happen here.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          There is a route I used to routinely take since ’80 from Maine to NY. Skirted Boston, cut across to the Mass Pike then into CT. Just the other year I had to make a stop on that cut across and Boston skyline is still visible. I thought I was in a 3rd world country. And not hispanic. It was all muslim. The blue collar workers were all gone. Most everyone looked at you as though you had 3 eyes when a question was asked. NO ENGLISH. All service jobs, and obviously serving the local populous. The disrepair and run down condition of everything was shocking, at least compared to what it was. RESOLVED: In the future take alternate routes.

          The one thing I used to track routinely was “vandalism” of the telecommunications cross connection boxes. I’d plot every instance in the US. The area surrounding Boston ouside of rte 128 for about 25-50 miiles was the most dense accumulation of markers in the US. There is nothing in those boxes to steal, mostly all fiber optics today. But vandalizing one can sure raise havoc in an area and banking networks etc.

    • hmmmmmm….seems I remember someone on this very blog saying to watch China and the yuan very closely and not to worry about them over taking the USD…..yes, I am sure someone on here made that statement…..hmmmmm.

  14. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Just started to watch an OLD Mike Hammer movie from back in the 50’s. He pulls his sports car into a gas station, and I saw the sign. “Calabasas” I remember the station had the old fashion pumps where you hand pump the amount of gas up into the measured glass container on top. Then you let the gas flow by gravity into your car. Sure enough the station had those old pumps so it had to be the same station, given also that there was only one in town.

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    More fundamental question for all you supposed “conservatives” and “libertarian”/”anarchist” types.

    Since G raised the issue.

    What is wrong with importing beef, or lumber or anything else that reduces the cost of living for “consumers” in the USA?????

    Are you now going to argue that we should embargo imports to provide “subsidy” for American made products?? Is that not Govt. favoritism? You know, that thing we call Crony Capitalism???

    Along those lines, KUDOS to Mr. Cruz for having the brass to stand in the State of Iowa and call for eliminating ethanol subsidies.

    • Absolutely ( Idon’t know what the hell I am ) but I would be against any importation that is not done on an equal basis. We do not trade with JAC’s Land unless the trade and tariff barriers are totally removed and it is free and even trade. So, if Colonelville wishes to sell to JAC’s Land widgets cheaper and better than JAC;s Land has…..then I would not expect tariffs from JAC’s land to penalize Colonelville to make the playing field even, so to speak. Free trade and no tariffs or taxes designed to supplement local….compete free and even, then I have no problem with imports.

      So, what does that make me? Libertarian? Conservative? Capitalist? Communist? Martian? Liberal? Stupid?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        What it makes you Colonel is someone who understands trade when it comes to beef. Same with oil, as I have learned not long ago. While opinions may vary, Federal intrusion in one’s life is ever growing. It will continue to grow unless people make them STOP.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Correct-o-mundo. tit for tat. Wasn’t that one of the main reasons prompting the “Constitutional Convention” way back when. To eliminate or greatly reduce the “internal” obstruction of trade within the new nation?

        I still will buy only French Brie. Our local store buys large wheels and cuts it into pieces. It is less expensive than any american product…..plus better. Spanish cheeses, Italian cheeses are best from their homelands. American reproductions are not even in the same league…..With that, the home grown US Artisan cheeses are second to none. Just like American Micro brews…totally awesome.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13

        No whining about differences in how our two lands manage their internal economic affairs? That is you are not going to go declaring unfair trade because JAC Land uses a different method to grow and sell its XYZ than Colonelville.

        Real life example is the difference in how Canada and US sell timber from their federal/State lands.

        And………. as long as the JAC Land bank is not manipulating currency via deliberate changes in quantity and rates, I assume you have no problem with differing exchange rates. True?

        I suspect you are in the same camp as I, or least very close. Radical right wing liberal as we are. 🙂 Which does make us crazy by modern standards and absolutely stupid by left wing standards.

        • You are watching waaay too much news, my intrepid friend,,,,,,nice trap you set but allow me to side step……..

          ” And………. as long as the JAC Land bank is not manipulating currency via deliberate changes in quantity and rates, I assume you have no problem with differing exchange rates. True?”

          Correct, I have no problem with differeing exchange rates…..with ONE caveat. Colonelville is going to let you bring 100 units of timber in as long as you let me bring 100 units of timber. Your devaluation is not going to allow you to double your exports while my imports remain the same. Now, if you wish to ship 100 units and I ship 100 units and there are no tariffs raising the costs and there are no internal penalties for buying Colonelville lumber…..my fair trade is in the units shipped. 1 for 1 and let the market decide who is best.

          When one looks up the definition of fair trade….all of it stems around developing countries with the aspect that developing countries cannot compete with established countries with infrastructure already in place. The definition of fair trade needs to change because right off the bat, you just placed someone in a better position simply because they are “a developing country.”

          Trade should be based on equality and equality should be defined as 1 for 1.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            d13thecolonel

            I like your definition as it enures any benefit of exchange rates to the buyers and thus consumers. No advantage is given to the sellers by devaluing their currency.

            One question remains using your method. What if I do not want to trade timber to you but wish to ship rice. How are you going to balance the equivalency of units of timber vs. rice?

            • AAhhhhhhhh…you sly dog……I suppose that you want me to say one grain of rice for one 2×4….but, alas, you do know that is not possible as I. But, I shall apply the KISS theory ( Better known as Keep it simple stupid )……It matters not at this point for if the trade is equal, then it is negotiations between the parties. It is the parties that decide how much rice equals the timber. If I produce my own rice, then that would not be a tradeable item for me. ( Remember, we are still talking trade…by and between states )….However, if you also produce beans and I do not, then our negotitations will center around need and the parties agree hereto as to the value and worth of trade.

              Now,let us proceed to commerce…in an open and free market situation, if My people were producing rice and you could produce rice cheaper….in a free and open market, you should be able to bring your rice to me and, as Supreme Leader of the Order of Benevolence, I would graciously allow you to compete openly in my markets and if you bring something cheaper to the table, then it benefits my people. My own people would then have to compete or lose. If I enacted limits, then that is not free and equal open markets. I would expect the same from you. Failing this, then there would be NO trade or commerce with you, regardless of need and/or profit because we would not be on equal terms. I would not engage in trade deficits nor credits. I would simply go elsewhere to try to find what I need….that is what Supreme leaders of the Order of Benevolence would do.

              Quality of the product would then reign. If your rice tasted something like the sweat off a dead bull’s scrotum, then cost would not be an issue with me as a consumer. I would not eat your lousy rice if it was free. If, however, your rice took my country by storm and it was delicious and cheaper, then it would be incumbent upon my rice producers to match your quality and price. I call that…..**ahem*** ….. productivity. ( Something that is not in the Progressive playbook ) ( Please forgive my falling into rational concern ).It could boil down that my quality could eventually outstrip your quality and perhaps the cost becomes second to quality. I often pay more for higher quality. Now, if my rice producers came to me crying foul because they cannot compete and, therefore, I must subsidize or enact tariffs to protect them. ( Something else progressives do not understand is the word subsidy. Tariffs are subsidy ).

              If this becomes the case, as the Supreme Leader of the Order of Benevolence, I now make a choice. Continue as I am, thinking of my country and my people ( oh, the horror ) or I could become a member of the Order of the Greed and Unworthy and sell my soul and create a sister state of USA, in its current form or align myself with such noteworthy Republics as I understand one resides in the lands of USA, known as Texas.

              THen I would immediately recruit worthy souls to join my crusade….but they would have to read…speak and write in coherent and properly structured sentences ( have keyboards that spell correctly ) and understand the principles of true freedom. In addition, the idiotic principle of political correctness would not exist. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and even looks like a duck……it will be a frigging duck. It will not be a water fowl,,it wll be a goddamned duck that swims on the water, walks on the land, and quite possible at certain times of the year….grace my plate surrounded by your delicious rice and beans in my house of my superior lumber.

              Pretty cool, huh?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                d13thecolonel

                I am afraid your on the right track but wandering off course. Stuck in the rut of STATE.

                Why should the STATE have any say in trade at all?

                If it is FREE then should not the INDIVIDUALS of each “land” decide for themselves whether they agree to the terms of each trade. Which of course included rice for money instead of your rotten timber. Your Southern pine just holds no stature with our fantastic Larch and White Pine.

                I see no way to have FREE trade when a STATE can be involved in the trades at all. As for tariffs those would rightly be determined by the owners of the ship yards. As the fees for loading and unloading at these yards is their concern, not the State’s.

                Bottom line, I do not think you can control for currency manipulation. What you can do is demand unfettered access to ALL MARKETS by BOTH PARTIES. Then the traders will decide if the exchange rates work for them. If the value exists they will capture it.

                The minute we start trying to control for money values we fall right back into some scheme of protection for someone. Usually our manufacturers.

                Now with this new policy I think the isolationists will get their way, as no other STATE in the world will allow such an arrangement. They all have their golden ox to protect.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      I believe I said this before. Back in ’70 a company I worked for used a lot of plywood. We certainly would have preferred to “BUY” American. The preferred mill was Coos Bay. But, price and costs became an issue. We started buying from Japan. The ironic thing was that the logs came from and were shipped to Japan from Coos Bay. Processed into plywood and other wood products, shipped back to the US markets and available a far less cost than mills just up the coast.

      A few years ago I started camping again. Needed to buy a tent. Usually my go to company was LL Bean for most outdoor items. I did live one town down from Freeport ME. It was a neighborhood store. The tent I was looking for was very expensive from them. Totally US made. The quality would be without question very good and completely backed on warranty. The second company I usually use is Coleman. They’ve been around also forever and design and make excellant products. They’ve shifted most if not all manufacturing the asia. They had a model tent I was looking for at 2/3’s less expensive than LL Bean. I got the tent from Coleman, it was made in Thailand. And there were NO flaws or any lack of quality in manufacturing or materials used.

      You can have excellent quality at much reduced costs from overseas vendors. The QC resides at all times with the parent company, be it dog food, meat, wine,electronics you name it. That’s fair. However to design product to fail in a little over two years just to keep the consumption and revenue flowing. Not paying attention to labor abuses as in Indonesia and PI and elsewhere, and the CEO’s just brag on return to the shareholder. That is just plain wrong. Our discussion also was around Chipolte. I’ve asked several people if they’d or would they eat there. 100% said NO. They also had no idea of the problems the company has been inducing. They objected to the gut busting and calorie laden products advertised and sold. So what if it was “green”, ‘organic” or “sustainable” it was just plain unhealthy. But with all the diverse providers of food staples to the company it is paramount that they UP their QC and records keeping, not go the other way and have as the CDC states in their reports “SKETCHY” records.

  16. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Well worth reading. Fmr Virginia Gov would certainly be a leading republican candidate for president if the Holder DOJ had not gone hyperactive and stretched the law beyond all reasonable interpretation….certainly the track record is there. With the charges against the former TX gov. Granted it was the Austin prosecuter who brought charges there but there they also have a record of trying to nail gop powers. The DOJ certainly tried on Christie with just a silly thing like closing a lane at the GW bridge.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/virginias-former-governor-faces-prison-over-politics/2016/01/06/2af3ff74-b3e6-11e5-9388-466021d971de_story.html

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Not just the DOJ. Notice the first judge and then the appellant court upheld the “revised” definition.

      • I had an employee that had the perfect campaign slogan. “I’ll only take half as much as the other guy!’

  17. One question I have wrt to the Hammond case. In the plea bargain deal they granted the Feds first right of refusal should the ranch go on the market. Who was pushing for this clause? If this was one of the Feds negotiating points then it would enforce the idea that this about the land and very little else.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      TRay

      I am not sure it is even true. I could not find a copy of the plea and the only issues raised about it during the sentencing was over the rights to appeal and timing of the sentences. The dollar amounts in the sentencing hearing were also far lower than has been reported. The only reference to this “deal” was by those running the hard core sites that distorted other facts, like the Bundy Ranch site.

      I have not confirmed but I am thinking that either two things happened. There was another case that dealt with the trespasses and damages OR, the Hammonds agreed to give a first right of refusal as collateral for the fines they owe. The first option is very unlikely. Although there could be a State case over the poaching this would not have involved the Feds.

      But here is the thing. A first right of refusal is nothing more than an agreement to give the Feds the FIRST shot at meeting the Hammond price IF they ever decide to sell. So it really would not enforce the idea the Feds want the land or were trying to use this to get the land.

      Remember, the Hammonds committed many other violations against the BLM and USFWS, including setting other fires on federal land. Including harassing and threatening a USFWS fence contractor. Yet the Feds never took action that could have forced their ranch to fail some time ago.

      As I posted to GMan. The Feds probably do want the Hammond place and have probably told them long ago they would be interested in buying the place if they ever wanted to sell or even to exchange for some other land. I really find it hard to believe the Fed agency staff are playing some covert game to TAKE the Hammond ranch.

      Oh, as to WHO suggested the deal if it were true. I would bet my bottom dollar it was a DOJ attorney. Once these things start those people pretty much drive the boat. The agency people are simply there to provide witness, testimony and support. One reason I always go back to the Algorians that were placed in DOJ system.

      I have seen situations where those attorneys refused to defend the Agencies when they could win and to prosecute cases the Agencies did not want prosecuted.

      There is another factor that could be at play here. One I warned Gman about after the Bundy standoff when he started bragging about how nothing was being done. It is very possible that the US Attorney who appealed this case is part of a larger strategy to start hammering these radical ranchers who carry on like the Bundys This might have been an early shot across the bow. This would not be outside the bounds of probable given how vindictive some federal attorneys can be.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      TRay

      Just found a new posting that is the record of the Appeals court ruling. it discusses the plea agreement. NO MENTION of any money or First Right of Refusal.

      On the other hand, the other conditions and reasons for the deal are explained. The Hammonds did the deal because there were other charges not decided and the Jury had found them guilty of two.

      One major item that popped out. This record states the last fire, the backfire, only burned ONE acre of public land. This does not match any of the other records I have found and posted. It doesn’t match the other stories.

      http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1656649.html

    • Just A Citizen says:

      TRay

      Just found Hammond’s appeal to SCOTUS. It includes verbatim the “plea agreement” which was apparently made orally and not in writing. The transcript of the District court is thus the record. NO MENTION of any financial agreement. Here is the discussion about the plea bargain:

      Their agreement was oral, not written, and the terms were
      placed on the record in open court:
      Prosecutor: My understanding is that Dwight
      Hammond – Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Junior,
      and Steven Hammond have agreed that
      they would waive their appeal rights and accept
      the verdicts as they’ve been returned
      thus far by the jury.
      The government will agree to run any sentences
      that apply to Steven Hammond, recommend
      that they run concurrent. And
      would agree that they should remain released
      pending the court’s sentencing decision.
      And the government does have only one recommendation
      as an additional condition. The
      court, of course, has discretion to impose.
      That they need to waive any and all appellate
      rights and [18 U.S.C. §] 2255 rights,
      except for, of course, ineffective assistance of
      counsel, which, quite frankly, in this case I
      think would be real difficult to prove. I think
      that’s a summary of our understanding.
      Counsel for Steven Hammond: Yes, Your
      Honor. Mr. Steven Hammond has indicated
      after these discussions with the government
      that we want this case to be over. The idea is
      there will be no further proceedings beyond
      this court and will be done with at the sentencing.
      Mr. Steven Hammond has agreed to
      that. He understands where we are.
      Court: All right. Mr. Hammond –
      Counsel for Steven Hammond: He wants it
      to be over. He wants this matter to be finished.
      Court: Mr. Hammond, do you agree to that?
      Steven Hammond: Yes.
      Court: Do you have any other questions of
      your lawyer before I accept that?
      Steven Hammond: I accept that.
      Court: Is that a voluntary decision on your
      part?
      Steven Hammond: Yeah.
      Court: Thank you. Mr. Blackman?
      Counsel for Dwight Hammond: Yes, Your
      Honor. I’ve conferred with Dwight Hammond.
      He is agreeable to waive his appellate
      rights to bring this matter to a close. And it’s
      our understanding that this would be a resolution
      of this case with the sentence the
      court imposes. And the parties would accept
      the – your judgment as to the sentence that’s
      imposed.
      Court: Mr. Dwight Hammond, is that your
      agreement?
      Dwight Hammond: Yes, it is.
      Court: Is it a voluntary decision on your
      part?
      Dwight Hammond: Yes, it is.
      Court: Do you have any questions of your
      lawyer before – or me before we accept that?
      Dwight Hammond: I guess not.
      Court: I accept the waivers.
      ER-1268-70. The court then received the jury’s partial
      verdicts. ECF-192, 194.

      This appeal also states that the second fire only burned ONE acre of public lands. The District Judge rejected the Feds claims of damages and costs in the first hearing. The jury set damages at less than 1,000 per fire.

      One other thing, that casts a shadow on the many blog posts. The 9th circuit appeal and the Hammond’s appeal to SCOTUS both mention that the BLM testified that the “range conditions” were improved by the first fire, the one over 100 acres on Fed lands. The various blogs claimed the judge did not allow this into testimony, yet it is in the records.

      The SCOTUS appeal is quite well done and a very convincing argument against the 9th Circuit decision. Doesn’t mean it will work but it does a great job of showing how 5 years is way out of bounds considering the “intent” of the law, the NON “malicious” nature of the fires, and the “actual” damage done

      • I would offer that the Fed attorney then broke the no appeal agreement. If the Hammonds agreed to not appeal and have this be the final decision this should also force the Feds to agree to whatever the trial lawyer ruled.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          TRay

          The fed attorney, at first sentencing, explained that the Feds had not given up their right to appeal the sentence. The Sentencing judge agreed that they could not have given up this right given the statutes governing Federal prosecutions.

          However, that is one of the issues being appealed to SCOTUS. Although it is obvious the defense attorneys are not putting there real hope in that issue. They spend most of their effort showing the 5 yr. minimum is “cruel and unusual” because the actual crime was not “malicious” act related to terrorism.

          From what I have found a defendant giving up rights of appeal does not require the state to give up theirs. Prior courts have ruled on this.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      TRay

      Found the first source of the right of refusal. It was in the Bundy Ranch blog first posted here a few weeks back. Here is the paragraph:

      “In the meanwhile the BLM is refusing to renew the Hammonds’ grazing permits, forcing them to find alternative feed for their cattle. In a separate suit, the BLM is also charging the Hammonds $400,000 for alleged costs of fighting fires and damage to the public lands. In the event the Hammonds must sell some or all their private ranch land to meet that monetary demand, the BLM has filed first option to buy the land forcing the Hammonds to sell to them.”

      I have not seen any confirmation on the grazing permit being suspended. It could be if the Hammonds have not be running cows the past few years. Does not mean it cannot or will not be renewed.

      This says “in a separate case”. I have found no records of any other court proceeding. But it says the Hammonds “agreed” to the fines. Not sure whether that refers to the criminal case or the 400,000 but the inference was it was the 400,000.

      I could then see how the Fed govt might file a “claim” of some kind to guarantee payment of the fine. I don’t think it would be an “option to purchase” however. It would be a “lien” on the property pending payment of the fine. At least that is what should have happened.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Back in the ’60’s Johnny Cash took his camper truck up into the Ojai mtns in CA. I believe it was in part of the Los Padre NF. This was specifically the area where the last at the time 12 breeding pairs of CA Condors lived. It is posted everywhere that a SPARK arresting system is required on all motor vehicles that enter the area. HE DID not. There was a fire caused by the truck backfiring. To cut to the chase, yes he was arrested, he probably even reported the fire, Yes he got convicted on what ever violation existed. HE HAD TO PAY the fire fighting expense and whatever other fines were imposed. It could not have been cheap even back rhen in those rugged mountains and endangering a rare species of bird. Was his action malicious, NO. Stupid and careless YES.

        Now to be fair to nature, the area usually burned naturally every 7-10 years anyway.

        Deep in my bones I feel that this Hammond episode could have been settled probably quite simply, but got totally out of hand and then an example had to be made to forestall further repetitions…..

        the algorians those imbedded in the government and out as JAC puts it are a whole other discussion. They have caused so much mayhem on agencies that have a legitimate reason and responsibility to manage the land, and by the same token those private owners who are also tied up for the same alterior and overzealous reasons. I’ve seen environmental groups destroy private property to make it valueless, for the good of nature made it excusable. Then the same environmental groups are all in on cuting forests and blowing the tops off of granite mtns to put windfarms, where they ARE not needed and will do not one jot of good on carbon reduction. I’ve seen so many nefarious groups act as fronts to save nature, and then worse damage is done by the groups behind them. The courts ruled against the original owners in favor of the enviros (fronts) and then when reality comes home to roost the courts do not step in to block what had been an obvious lie and subtrafuge. The original land owners by that time are so bankrupt they just plain had no means or energy to counter-sue….this is how so many conspiracy theories can get started and believed by so many people. To truly be beieved one has to touch it, feel it, live it and get to the REAL information, as JAC does when a discussion about BLM or other US forest agencies actions.

  18. gmanfortruth says:

    Another example of how the Fed’s are in the peoples business where they not only don’t belong, but have no Constitutional authority to do so (I don’t see this as regulating commerce, it’s regulating product, quite a different thing). D13 would know more about this. One thing I know for a fact, if a cow dies, it must be buried. It can’t be butchered and eaten, even when the death has no bearing on the quality of meat. http://personalliberty.com/depression-era-laws-raise-your-annual-food-bill-by-hundreds-of-dollars/

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Notice how the author claims the USDA is waging war on consumers yet admits the USDA is simply carrying out the LAW as passed by Congress.

      Why has no congress repealed this law? Why has no congress seriously amended this law?

      Oh, the author forgot to include the relationship of the “Raisin Commission” to the raisin farmer case. This is important because such “commissions” are not elected and wind up having de facto taxing authority over everyone involved with the commission.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        I believe that it is one of Congress’s paramount missions is to keep the laws they write relevent and up to date. NOT just leave old laws that have absolutely any bearing in todays world. Leaving the old stuff laying around leaves nothing but opportunity for abuse. Law should NOT be something that is open for interpretation. If should be written clearly and understood by all as to it’s intent and boundries for ALL people. The people and governing bodies. Leaving the law loose does nothing but create abuse by any party because of “interpretation”

        On NPR this AM, Obama vetoed the bill that would repeal the ACA. The 1st that actually hit his desk. He proudly stated that since it’s adoption, 4 years ago, 17M people have been able to get health care…..question is where did the 40M+ go that didn’t have coverage back then……political BS.

  19. gmanfortruth says:

    http://personalliberty.com/make-sure-your-lawmakers-know-you-support-these-bills-to-shut-down-obamas-anti-gun-agenda/

    I liked what Tara Kyle said on FOX news this morning. Gun control laws aren’t getting passed because legislators are afraid of how their constituents will react (like not reelecting them). This is how it’s supposed to work, when the people’s desires are at the forefront. Too bad it doesn’t happen as often as it should.

  20. gmanfortruth says:

    Reading the stuff from the Southern Poverty Law center almost sounds like………http://personalliberty.com/oregon-situation-gives-left-fodder-government-critics/

    Interesting note. They claim militia’s are up 37%. There is a reason for this, if true. It’s exactly what I have been showing over the course of these comments, that the actions of unelected bureaucrats have everything to do with the actions of these ranchers. When a HoR member gives a 25 minute speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, supporting this thinking, I figured that I didn’t really need to keep posting stuff on the matter, as it has been settled. And yes, I do consider that matter settled. It was the actions of the Federal agents and prosecutors that led to the current mess in Oregon.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Yes in your mind the people who broke the law had absolutely nothing to do with this situation.

      Now extend that thinking to all the other examples you have raised. Like illegal immigration. Not the illegal aliens fault. It is the Federal agency personnel.

  21. Just A Citizen says:

    Note: A TRULY “Liberal” court would have ruled with the defendant and against the prosecutors request. Because “liberal” courts traditionally side with Rights against the Govt.

    This shows how our language and understandings have changed.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/baltimore_judge_guts_the_5th_amendment.html

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    Thought of the day for those who blankly accept all this Govt corruption garbage posted on various blog sites over federal land mgt.

    In each of the cases we have evaluated the Govt showed great leniency for prior trespasses and violations in an attempt to get the permittees and/or users to comply with federal rules.

    The rancher/logger/person continues to defy these warnings over an extended period of time. After numerous offenses the Govt.. finally gives up the nice guy approach and follows through on its threats and prosecutes.

    The Govt is then accused of nefarious behavior for enforcing the law.

    So would you rather have the Govt. crack the whip on the very first offense instead of trying to work with its neighbors??

    Should ONE cow in trespass cause the Feds to issue criminal trespass citations? If they find 50 cows on an allotment two weeks after they are supposed to be gone should the Feds simply confiscate them immediately and then fine the rancher for two weeks additional fees as well as prosecute them for violating the terms of their permit. Which by the way would result in them losing the permit.

    You tell me. What is it that you want. I can tell you that the Bundy solution is NOT going to happen. So what is it you expect?

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    Thought of the Morning

    Given Progressive logic shouldn’t the eventual winner of the power ball lottery have to pay anyone who previously purchased a tick a “share” of the winnings.

    After all, the winner did not build the jackpot. It was all those losers who created it.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      I like that, but then I do have to play, right? ……That discussion in a round about way came up with the ME/NH/VT Tri-State Megabucks lottery. VT was complaining that they did NOT win their fair share. The commission said, VT even by population percentage played way below the other two States.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Dale

        Yes, you would have to play. I was not aware of the Tri-State megabucks complaint. Does sound similar, except of course it is the STATES doing the complaining about not getting their fair share of the “gambling receipts”.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          P.S.

          My opinion is that Govt’s should be prohibited from conducting lotteries for money or other assets where the players must purchase a ticket. Govt should not be running gambling.

          At the same time Govt should not be able to ban private parties from conducting such events.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            It is just like the numbers games the mob runs. Ones legal and one is not. I’d like to see how long a numbers guy would last if he welched. It’s all about the tax revenue.

            What if you played a street numbers game. Won a bunch of money. Declared those winnings on your income tax. Would you be prosecuted for having played in a NON government sanctioned game?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Dale

              YES you will. That was the Catch 22 with using the tax code to get Capone.

              If he reported the income he had admitted his criminal activity. Not reporting the income simply made him a tax dodge.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            The police continually say that they can not possibly stop a crime from being commited, but will follow-up if for example if you are robbed. The ultimate conviction rate is deplorable. Not only apprehension, but is there even a prosecution, and then even a conviction. On top of that the Insurance company nickel dimes you to death and pay out like a pawn shop. Not only getting hit by the city and State, but by insurance. While in Sicily I contracted with the local “protection” service. We all know who that was. For the equivalant of $4.80/mth My house was guarded by a guy right out of the godfather movies. He was outside my gate as I left and returned. They guarenteed that I would NEVER get robbed. If by some remote chance somebody actually had the stones to break in, they guarenteed my belongings back. Not some reduced amount of Lira. The “skull & crossbones” wired to my gate and a sticker on the windshield of my car was warning enough. There would be no trial or police involvement. The sentence was predetermined and executed without prejudice.

            Now to be fair, the implication also was that it was almost guarenteed that I would be robbed if I did not pay. In my case though it was a bad risk, Military, the owner was a Caribinari officer, we both would be armed when he was present which was most of the time. Just like here in New Bern. At my last house it abutted a pretty nasty area that was rife with crime. However, on our side of the street, there had NOT been a B/E in 13 years even though the houses were routinely empty during the day and upscale. Most people flew their former military affiliations flags. Mostly USMC and one neighbor was a retired sniper. A total bad bet for a perp to survive. One retired colonel said while we were discussing large capacity magazines. He said that he doesn’t care. If you require more than one round go to the range and practice some more.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          sort of a “stretch” I do keep looking up at the lottery bill boards and say…that’d be nice, but then never plop down the buck.

          There actually was two parts of the complaint…..the people were whining about the people in Maine winning all the time, or mostly. But your point was also part. The state was not getting the revenue. Gotta play to win. I’m sure the State got some small percentage of the game proceeds regardless, but their chief revenue came from the actual winner.

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    Continuing saga………. A copy of the CIVIL case brought against the Hammonds.

    TRay……….. this is where the huge settlement comes from. Note it is based on several fires not just the two included in the criminal case.

    I am now wondering something. WHY did the US decide to pursue criminal conviction when they were going to pursue the Civil Case. Or were they hoping to get a criminal conviction that would support their Civil action. These are questions that could only be answered by interviewing Govt. staff involved.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiXv_Xt-prKAhVW7WMKHVIpDy0QFggiMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdeathandtaxes.com%2Fhammond_civil.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEmg1Zk2kOMlwds57yRAZdUHtW1_A

    P.S. I have yet to find a record of the supposed plea bargain over the Civil Case.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Interesting that the Judge denied the 5th because of the Corporation issue, but the individuals are spending time in jail for a criminal conviction. While the Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations don’t have a 5th Amendment Right, one would think that recent decisions that Corporations have a 1st Amendment Right, in several cases, would have been considered. Considering that they also have a 2nd, 3rd, 4th and several other RIGHTS it would seem like an odd ruling. That’s a good one for a lawyer, for sure. Let me also state, just for the record that I have personal experience on how the courts misuse the laws to get what they want (in my case, money). All of those involved, Judge, Prosector, and the defense attorney most likely agreed to take an illegal action, then tell me that I would have to pay the defense attorney another 2.5K to appeal, and guaranteed I would win. They all knew that I would pay the 100 dollar fine, versus pay 2.5K. Regardless, it was ethically and morally wrong and I am considering a civil case against all of them. Just not really sure I want to spend so much time travelling to a court room where I already know is chock full of corruption and lies.

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    More Hammond news:

    Apparently the SCOTUS denied a review of their case back in March. They had exhausted all legal avenues and thus reported to serve out their 5 year sentences.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Any wonder the Hammonds plead out of the criminal charges? This is the BLM denial of the grazing permit following the criminal trial. It contains the testimony of the criminal trial that was not included in the records previously posted here. I can now see why they pursued the criminal action but still wonder why the Civil action was not linked to it. That may require an actual lawyer to explain.

      http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0ahUKEwibr-fHgZvKAhUU5WMKHV9QC4UQFgg9MAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Flandrights.org%2For%2FHammond%2FFINAL-Decision-Hammond_Redacted.pdf&usg=AFQjCNE7dps22ySokA26tF9wkWFL8-5i-w&bvm=bv.110151844,d.cGc

      It must be a real bitch when your heroes turn out to be such jack asses. Oh, I know. All these federal employees are certainly lying because they all stand to gain some mysterious economic windfall.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        You must be snowed in to be so active today. It’s raining again so the outside work on the porch restoration is dormant AGAIN. Ducks even have to be sick of all the rain.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Dale

          Three days of warming with some rain this AM. Snow, ice and slush.

          But in effect, YES I am taking a couple days to deal with this Fed. land mgt issue and AVOID getting back to more heavy work on the house.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Must be equally a bitch to look in the mirror and see a gullible man who seems to believe everything the government says or puts on paper. Do you actually expect the Federal agents to declare their own wrongdoing? Are you really that stupid? Of course they aren’t going to tell the truth, even their original charges, at least 8, were found to be WRONGFUL charges. So let’s see, they got a jury to find 2 of 10 arson charges to be true. Not much of a record, Slick. Geez, you must really love your beloved government to be that gullible. What a shame.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Did you even read the record? The case was halted when the Hammonds agreed to the first two charges found by the jury in their plea agreement.

          As I predicted. All those low grade Govt. employees are lying. And you wonder why it is so hard for the liberty movement in this country to gain traction.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Yes, but I haven’t said the Hammond’s were not in the wrong, ever. You seem to think that I’m fully on their side, and I have only taken a position on the law used in the prosecution. The issue with the BLM has been ongoing with me and verified by the Representative from that area, on the floor of the House of Representatives. Did YOU watch that video in the link I provided? I’m guessing not or you wouldn’t be making such foolish comments about how innocent they are.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              You heard what you wanted to hear. And the Congressman said what others wanted him to say, otherwise he might not be elected. But where is the beef? You know, the legislation he has introduced to fix these “problems”?

              He confirmed nothing in his stump speech. He simply tried to explain there are real issues and conflicts that should be addressed, separately from the stupid Bundys.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Your bias for the Bundy’s is amazing. Last I checked they still aren’t in jail and still are raising cows.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              You and the Bundys……………beware of FALSE PROPHETS.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I have no doubt that the Fed’s will eventually get the Bundy’s. I’m not a Mormon or a cattle rancher out West either. Isn’t it interesting that actions, protest or otherwise, of the many militia types have only really occurred in your neck of the woods? I read your Mises link, good article. I was thinking about how Government ownership of all that land in the West is not what was intended in the Constitution, concerning the restrictions of ownership placed on the Federal Government. The problems today are not that much different than 100 or more years ago in the West. Those who have the power of government are still doing what they did then, the difference now is that the corruption is so beyond fixing, it’s easy for the Fed’s to wield the power of violence they have, via either jackboot thugs or wrongful prosecution. Even if the prosecution fails, the cost can wipe people out. It’s not just a problem out West, it’s just where the current BIG issue is occurring.

                As long as the Fed’s have the ownership of such vast property, there will always be big problems. People can police themselves. It would be a good discussion talking about how private ownership can be done out there, cuz we don’t have these issues where there is little Federal ownership. Maybe it’s time for a batter way of doing things because the current way isn’t working very well.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Gman

              You probably don’t want to hear this either but since you brought up the “jack booted thugs” otherwise known as Federal Employees, I think you need to know how this came to be.

              In the good ol days a LEO was not needed to remove cattle from an allotment that were in trespass. Neither was impounding them or sending them to sale to recoup fees.

              But then the Bundys, Hammonds and Hages of the world started showing up. Them along with the new “militias” and their revisionist history.

              Suddenly Federal officials were finding themselves being “threatened” while carrying out their duties. Regular employees do not carry weapons so they had to call in LEO’s to carry out certain duties while under these threats.

              This is not to say that some of the LEO’s didn’t get carried away. Had a couple run ins of that type myself while working for the Shoshone/Bannocks in McDermott, Nevada. They seriously over reacted. But that was also partly due to past threats made by other groups so they took any comment as a potential threat requiring LEO response.

              So this jack booted thing you complain about also has a history with BOTH sides being responsible for what we now see as over reactions.

              There is also the fact that fewer federal employees out here, on federal lands, have ranching or logging or mining backgrounds. They are from the city and thus feel far more threatened by a rancher cussing them out while resting his hand on the pistol strapped to his hip.

              I have always found it strange that this while LEO approach was largely started by the freakin HIPPIES who tried growing pot on federal lands in northern Calif. and western Oregon. They were the first to start shooting af USFS employees who were just doing their jobs. After that, the threats from others were taken much more seriously. Then of course there was the bombing of a USFS office in Carson City by these “militia” types back in the late 80’s.

              This escalation and reaction is not much different to what you now see in regular LEO response to people on the street as the number of “ambushes” of police increases. EVERYONE is getting gun shy………. so to speak.

              Which goes to my dislike for people like Hage and the Bundys. The ESCALATE the problem and get NOTHING RESOLVED. They also have played on the ignorance of a lot of good honest ranchers who were struggling with changes in Federal priorities on federal lands. Again, priorities set by Congress, not just the land mgt. agencies.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I think you just made the perfect case for privatization. Ranchers who own their land don’t have near the problems that are occurring on Government leased lands. I think the good Colonel would agree, private property owners have more power to protect their assets. A rancher with cattle on Federal property can wake one morning to find they no longer own the cattle, simply because the government decides so.

  26. gmanfortruth says:
  27. Just A Citizen says:

    Contains what I would consider a few minor errors but is otherwise a pretty good summary of the history of federal lands vs. private uses in the West.

    https://mises.org/blog/how-feds-got-all-western-land-and-why-its-problem

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Good article, at least trying to see things from a historical aspect. I think there is a wrongheadedness about Federal ownership and the ranchers. First, private land that charges considerably more than Federal grazing rights also provide far better grazing with less land. This would provide for better, larger, healthier animals that would sell faster, allowing for better turnover, and more profit. I have seen this argument before, but with today’s farming methods, there are ways of doing things that were not available 50 years ago. A rancher, using better grazing could raise less cattle per year, due to better turnover, on less land, without the frustration of dealing with the Fed’s. Maybe privatization would produce a better product because it would naturally force ranchers to utilize modern farming to increase production in less time. This is not possible on Federal lands today. A good company, using modern farming technology could raise the same amount of cattle on possible 1/4 of the land. The price difference for grazing private versus federal land is extreme, but so are the positive results. Few people consider this.

  28. Dale A Albrecht says:

    There is one guy that I wish the government would bring charges against and just make his life as miserable as he has made ours over the years….I am being sarcastic. That is charge Al Gore wth 1) “inventing” the internet. I’m sure there is some laws that will cover the absolute mayhem and costs the internet has caused the public. 2) is for fraud and the “AGW” movement alias “climate change” when global warming didn’t pan out. And all the loss of what was beautiful public land, now industrialized. The logic being we have to destroy it to save it.

    The NC Aquarium today sent out an emergency request for donations and help. This is to help deal with the “cold” that has caused them to be inundated with sea turtles suffering from “hypothermia”.

  29. Dale A Albrecht says:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/chipotle-sued-allegedly-misleading-investors-about-food-safety-n493036?cid=par-sy-suddenlink

    Not only are shareholders suing Chipolte, but there are now criminal charges being filed. Here a successful small franchise decided to bark with the big dogs, Not by incremental growth, but by a massive infusion of cash from shareholders. I’ve seen it to many times. but one of the 1st things to go is quality control, EXPENSIVE, for return to the shareholder. The loses and damage done to Chipolte are huge for their careless managment. The shareholder has to trust the management…..but they also are pressuring those very same people for returns on their investment. Here is a case, where I hope the shareholder case goes nowhere, they are the bottom line of the cause. The other health cases I hope succeed and oh by the way…..All the owners are liable.

  30. Dale A Albrecht says:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/defy-america-pay-no-price/2016/01/07/7d8da57c-b57c-11e5-9388-466021d971de_story.html

    Says it all. All of these actions fall within the interview Khomanei gave in 1979. Goals sated, no timetable, technologies evolve, but when opportunity arises,,,,,,,,,take advantage

  31. Damn, this woman is a complete idiot-nothing like excusing the perverted and blaming the victim-guess all those women with fast disappearing freedom and cellphones should just allow themselves to be raped to help these poor mistreated people.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/08/cologne-attacks-hard-questions-new-years-eve

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      On this mornings news on NPR, many of the perpetrators are identified as to whence they came from. Mostly recent new emigrees under merkel’s humanitarian cover.

      I’ve said it before, I am not a timid person, not looking like someone that is begging to be assulted. While teaching in Amsterdam, in the span of 1 month, right in the heart of the historical area, peoples of north african, african and M/E decent attempted muggings upon my person. 3 were directly aimed at me and one was a by-product of a black attempting to mug an old dutch lady. I intervened. That was in 2001. It has NOT gotten better…..The rub of it all is that if I had in the act of defending myself somehow injured the assailant……I WOULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED.

  32. Dale A Albrecht says:

    I was just looking at some interior dept jobs. You used to got to the mountains for your health. The job listings in Sequoia NP stated that the air quality in the summer is hazardous……how bad can it possibly have gotten? My last visitation to CA was that the air quality was infinitely better than when I lived there. Even in Mid August which at the time was truly hazardous to breathe unless you were in the mountains or far out at sea..

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Dale

      Change in standards and FOREST FIRES.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        There were forest fires before. With standards changed, no wonder even though the air quality in LA is pristine compared to before the people complain about the air quality which was down right lethal. I usually ask the complainers when they moved to LA and it was usually a recent migration. No comparison to judge against. The way the winds blew in the San Fernando Valley, the west end most of the year was clear. Right around where I-5 now bisects the valley was a wall of yellow smog that you could not see through. Go into the mtn’s and look down and there was a layer of smog that was impeneratable. The difference between then and now, The last I was there in a mid Aug visit, awhile back, you could see with only a little summer haze, clearly downtown LA buildings from the San Gabriel Mtn near Mt Baldy. Impossible in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. No eyes tearing from the smog even after having not being there for 25 years and living in New England and EC where there really isn’t any air problems. Except forest fires and field burns.

        Here’s a bit of SoCal history. Even when Portola was 1st exploring California back in the 1700’s the now LA area was known by the indians as the “Valley of the Smokes” The air currents trap smoke etal against the mtns and valleys.

        • It is like lead paint. they keep raising the standard. So, you did not have to de-lead an apartment in NYC twenty years ago that you do now. Basically you are chasing your tail.

    • They complain a lot out here but the air quality is much better than the east coast. In the foothills we do burn wood on cold nights so there is wood smoke in the air but it is not obnoxious except in some low spots. In late summer you can get smoke and sometimes ash from fires. Only seen it real bad for a few days in the last 20 years.

      Occasionally you can see the brown cloud (NOx) blow over the coastal range and settle on Sacramento. Still it is much better than the omnipresent cloud that hung over Boston and NYC. When I lived on the east coast, I frequently had headaches and sinus problems. Totally gone once I moved out here.

      SF is considered an area with good air quality because they have a fresh breeze from the west and send all their pollution to the central valley. So the EPA comes down hard on Sac but leaves SF alone. It is all money and politics.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Just like the water…SF was pretty much left alone until the final set of restrictions established in early 2015 after 4 years of drought. I goes to the political power…..it does not reside in the countryside anymore, but in those few concentrated areas from Gmans maps.

        Which of these three cities is furthest west, San Diego, CA, Los Angeles CA or Reno NV?

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    Cruz stepped in it. I really didn’t think he would make such a blunder. Oh well.

    Who is next on the list??

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Oh, almost forgot. I have seen the first comments on leftwing sites mentioning the physical similarities between Cruz and McCarthy.

      SK, was that you who called that one? Or was it Dale?

      Now that a few have put it out there watch it spread like wild fire.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Not a comment from me. If Cruz was to look like McCarthy he’d have to grow a single eyebrow, and look like a mafia hitman thug.

      • No, I noticed it. Funny how people can look so similar. I have a picture in one of my old Roman History books of a bust of Emperor Vespasian circa 60-70 AD. LBJ was a dead ringer for him!

    • What blunder?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.

        He mad some crack about spanking his 5 year old daughter when she lies and Hillary needs to be “spanked” by the voters over her lying. Not going to work well for him in this day and age.

        There are people actually calling for child protective services to visit the Cruz home. The Feminazies are playing off the spanking Hillary part as, well obviously misogynistic.

        Never, never, ever give your political opponents this kind of opportunity.

        • Yea, that was a stupid thing to say-I keep hoping Clinton will be charged-but what are the odds of that happening?

          It’s also really interesting that they’re reporting that 20 % of dems are for Trump.

        • Hey, it’s cool, he can just claim it is a “Cuban” cultural thing. That’ll shut them up!

  34. JAC…JAC…JAC……………………..you do not readeth closely enough, Padewan….We have said the same thing but in different prose…..

    ROTTEN TIMBER?????? TEAK? I am not your run o’ th’ mill Colonel…you sound like you must be from Oregon or somewhere up there…….Larch and white pine burns well in the fireplace but not as hot as good old mesquite….

    I guess I need to take you under the wing fer a spell……..nah…….you are smart enough to learn….you will do fine in the land of Tejas……..come on down. Bring your weapons….it is a requirment to get a Texas passport. Then, of course, I will have to show you how to lasso and ride a raptor. Of course, your spousal unit is invited as well as your brood. However, we don’t teach common core down here….yore younguns will have to learn real stuff…..and we speak English despite the Hispanic invasion.

    By the by….will be in Reno again in June. Wanna play somewhere? At least get together to break the proverbial bread? I owe you a steak dinner….I have not forgotten.

    • I’m just over the hill from Reno in old Hangtown (Placerville).

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      Teak, ah yes. I forgot you have some shrubs down there that you use from time to time.

      I agree that mesquite is a fine wood for BBQ and heating. Our Mountain Mahogany is very similar.

      I will confess you have some finer hardwoods than we as ours are limited to birch, aspen and cottonwood. That being native anyway.

      Reno in June might be a great opportunity, as I may be in that area at that time. If not I suggest you just plan on flying a little farther north and spend a couple days. I will keep in touch as June weather may dictate the opportunities. Normal June in North Idaho can be very COOL and WET.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Mesquite also makes beautiful cabinets. With a black granite counter, totally outstanding.
        Lots of work to get the pieces and plan the cabinets, but worth it.

  35. JAC and gman, thanks for all the info on Oregon. It has been helpful. Keep it friendly.

    Twenty years ago, I would have accepted most of what the government agents have said. However, I am now quite suspicious of their actions. Too many government workers have thought more about their paycheck than about right and wrong. All you need to do is look at the IRS scandal, the gun running, Benghazi, the persecution of Scott Walker’s supporters in WI, etc. It is frustrating when good folks follow orders despite knowing they are either wrong or borderline. I expect it that from the politicians but the bureaucrats, judges, etc. are becoming just as bad. It seems as a nation we have lost all sense of ethics and knowing the difference between right and wrong. It does not help when the chief executive selectively enforces the law and actually willfully changes it.

    Somehow we need to change this culture.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Hi T-Ray, LOL, JAC and I just have a difference of opinion on things, but that doesn’t mean I dislike him. I don’t think all government folks are bad, but there are plenty enough that they need to be called out. I’m sure he has his reasons for what he believes, so be it. When it becomes the equal of how the Liberal Progressives disregard Islamic extremist’s as a non issue, to the point where they just label people, then I will call him out as well, but, not anywhere close yet, (benefit of the doubt). I took a different approach to the Oregon issue, by getting the opinions of the average person who knows the history, on an obscure site, it helped to show that what the government and media wants people to believe is still working. The abuses of the BLM are well documented, just not well believed. After all, our government wouldn’t do that 🙄 At this point it would be counter productive to continue the debate, it’s time to just watch and see how the issue is handled from this point out.

      There are several Patriot groups that are concerned about another Waco and are calling people to go there, without the military clothing and without showing the long arms, but showing their cameras instead. They just want to ensure that if the Fed’s act, they do so carefully, as it will be documented. Not sure how that’s going to work, the worst of winter is still to come. I think we have several bigger issues to be concerned with, the economy isn’t looking well, these Islamic nuts are starting to act out with violence in places where it’s least expected and of course the weather, which is always a story. Speaking of weather, after a few great days of sunshine, although cold, the clouds are back, it’s warmed a little and rain is the word of the day. Then snow on Tuesday. Yippee 🙂

  36. More and more Federal personnel are being armed. More and more citizens are being disarmed. This has nothing to do with ‘extra money’ in the budget. Something more nefarious is afoot.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/7/golden-hammer-feds-spending-millions-to-arm-agenci/?page=all#pagebreak

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Howdy Rick 🙂

      We have been watching their purchases for some time now. A couple billion rounds of ammo, all kinds of “war” gear etc. Government agents have been acting above the law for ever, it’s really not that uncommon. Ethics and morals be damned, let’s get the job done. Those who get screwed don’t matter, as long as the mission gets accomplished. This is why so many people are beginning to stand up and say enough. Sadly, groups like Black Lies Matters and the Bundy boys do some stupid stuff and make the whole subject hard to talk about. Do we have cops that are really not cops, but armed thugs with a badge, yes we do. But we also have far more good cops who care. I suggested a solution long ago, don’t let the cops serve to long in the worst places, they need a break. They probably have PTSD just as much as our soldiers who serve in a war. I have never heard anyone recommend dealing with our police in that manner. We have some bad government agents too, but not all of them are bad either. I think if things went down hill, they would just go home and protect their families, there numbers are not what people make of them

      I’m sure you read some of the same stuff I do, as well as comments. There are a lot of folks with some amazing imaginations. There are also a lot of folks fed up with the government and their constant interference in our lives. I’m not talking about just the Fed’s either. I think Ferguson Mo was an example of this, and those on the streets took the blame, mainly because people fail to understand the root cause, those they elect. We have a problem. It’s not just some rogue government people who have lost focus on right and wrong, but the problem can be tracked right straight to those folks who push these people to doing these things. We are not a free country, we are a police state. I find that unacceptable.

      • Greetings Gman,

        Working in the mental health field, especially on night shift, I have a lot of contact with local LEO’s. There are good ones and there are bad ones. There are the ones that were probably good at first but are now ‘burned out’ and are not so good now. The majority of the LEO’s around here are pretty decent people, though. And, you are right, if things go down hill they will be more concerned about protecting their family just like you and I. I do have a distant relative that is on the sheriff’s dept in Texas. They rotate their officers through different departments to avoid the burn out. I can’t remember exactly how he said it, but they are only allowed x months in homicide then they get transferred someplace else. I’m sure a small county like where I live doesn’t have the man power to do that, though.

        The bloated, over reaching federal government needs to be cut. And then cut some more. I don’t know what the answer is concerning BLM and the Bundy’s and Hammond’s etc. I’ve heard stories that those big ranchers out there aren’t any better than the federal government they are fighting. Personally, I don’t think the Feds should own land. If the Feds own land, it’s only because they stole the money from the citizens to buy it. It should be citizen land, or taxpayer land. I do know that two wrongs don’t make a right. And a red flag went up for me when this all started with the Hammond’s. Something is not right…something else is going on, smoke and mirror type stuff. That could just be the paranoid, conspiracy theorist part of me though. 🙂

        As for the stuff we read. It is entertaining reading about the Planet X or the Reptilian men living under the oceans. lol

        Hope you are prepared for this cold front, or two that’s coming through. We are supposed to drop to the single digits starting tomorrow night. They still are not sure how much snow we are getting. Right now they are saying just a few inches. I can bring in enough firewood for about three days. And I’m off work the next two nights. So I’m going to be staying inside and watching football the next two days.

        Hope your foot is doing better. I know cold weather is rough on injuries. And it seems to get worse the older we get. 😉

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Lately I have been able to take some long 5 mile or so walks with the Flintlock in tow and have had very little discomfort, so things are getting better. It is much better than the first week of October, when I needed a cane to help get to the tree stand. I did force me to be a little more patient and sit still more, which paid off the first day of rifle season.

          I also believe that the ranchers out West have some of the blame for things, but that seems to be historic, as ranchers have always seemed to have issues with someone, either other ranchers, Indians or the government. I do agree with the government being far too big and I feel have far exceeded there intended limited power, including land ownership. But there isn’t a darn thing we can do about it. Nothing will change until the collapse under their own weight.

          We have snow coming Tuesday, but no mention of how much. This usually means we will get more than they finally predict. No problem, I like the snow when it’s not to cold. Mid 20’s is fine with me, I can still get outside and get things done.

          Enjoy your time off, I’ll be watching the games as well. 🙂

  37. gmanfortruth says:

    What is being talked about:

    But Obama didn’t hold back when asked by CNN moderator Anderson Cooper about the notion that the federal government — and Obama in particular — wants to seize all firearms as a precursor to imposing martial law. He blamed that notion on the NRA and like-minded groups that convince its members that “somebody’s going to come grab your guns.”

    “Yes, that is a conspiracy,” Obama said. “I’m only going to be here for another year. When would I have started on this enterprise?”

    Why didn’t Obama use the word “theory”. Without theory, the meaning of his statement changes. Was he finally telling the truth?

  38. gmanfortruth says:

    One of the issues involving the land ownership out West seems to lead back to this:

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; — And

    These are the powers of Congress. Is the Federal land ownership out West consistent with this clause?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Gman

      Yes they are. Because this clause is not related to the Federal lands in the west. It would apply only to lands purchased from the States by the Feds.

      The western lands were acquired by TREATY.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Yes, and many States that are in the area of the Louisiana Purchase don’t have the same ownership as those from the further West. Regardless, the Constitution seems pretty clear as to what is allowable, because there is no part that says, except for future purchases or other forms ownership. I guess I have a curiosity as to why the States, really aren’t truly States, just Federal Land with a different name, especially Nevada. These States should be the same as all the rest, which I would consider in accordance with the restrictions put on the Federal Government by that clause.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Treaties, do not give the Fed’s the authority to violate the Constitution. So how exactly does these treaties differ?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Gman

            The provision you cited has nothing to do with the original acquisition of lands in the West nor their retention as federal lands since then. Period.

            The various treaties differ in ways related to how they were formed. Louisiana was an outright purchase. The southwest was by conquest and later treaty with payment. The SW treaty honored the Spanish land grants existing prior to the treaty. These were later ignored by the States but litigation in either the 60’s or 70’s confirmed the Treaty priority over landowners granted lands under State laws. People lost homes and ranches because the Spanish ancestors could show they actually owned the lands under the Treaty of Hidalgo.

            As far as I know there was not significant differences in the treaties relative to private ownership prior to treaty. Because those nations involved operated under many of the same Common and State law theories. Thus titles given by the original govt’s prior to treaty were honored by the US after treaty.

            I am sure there may be some exceptions, but none are as large as those the US dishonored on its own treaties with the American Indians.

            In case you did not know this, issues of land ownership, resource use and water rights in western states are also subject to these Indian Treaties. Especially where these treaties pre dated Statehood.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            gman

            Just how do you think Federal ownership of land is in violation of the Constitution?

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Since I figured a Constitutional attorney is far smarter than you or I, I found one that expresses my opinion on the matter below. All Ya have to do is watch.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                gman

                I have watched this lady before and provided some comments to this one below.

                You claim the fallacy of appeal to authority. Her theories are obviously driven largely by her ideology. My OPINION.

                Why? Because there are actual SCHOLARS of said document who seriously disagree with this “lawyer”. And yes, that is my appeal to authority trumping yours. 🙂

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

          Add this to the mix, just to see how it fits in. A good experiment that we can look at.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Gman

            The western states waived all rights and claims against the Federal lands within their borders when admitted to the Union. Otherwise the privileges and immunities were identical to existing states. After statehood all Fed acquisitions have come via “agreement” or via “condemnation”. The latter is covered by the Constitution.

            I believe this issue has been litigated and lost by the States.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          The amount of federal vs. private land in western states vary depending upon WHEN they became States and when the various Homestead and other acts of Congress were passed that allowed transfer of Federal lands into private ownership.

          The federal lands passed to Nevada in the Las Vegas area for example. And without a lot of attention, there are lands being transferred in Alaska from Fed to State ownership as part of prior agreements and legislation.

        • Under the Articles of Confederation, the states ceded all the land in the old NW Territory to the Federal government. This is OH, IN, IL, MI & WI. IL became a state in 1818. I know for a fact that my ancestors bought land in IL from the feds in 1847/8/9.

  39. gmanfortruth says:

    Members of the Idaho 3% join in on the fun in Oregon: https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/751

    I feel better about Idaho now, BWAHAHAHA!

  40. gmanfortruth says:

    I think we could use some advice from an attorney

    • Just A Citizen says:

      “Don’t tell Me” ………………. Yep, no matter how much evidence of actual legal history will not matter. Because she has settled on her narrow view and that is the end of the discussion.

      As a “constitutional lawyer” she shows are real deliberate ignorance of Constitutional history and thus law.

      I have never said there have not been deviations and attacks on the actual meaning. But here claims go beyond original intent. She seems to be using the theory that the words alone matter. But that creates problems because the actual words do not address many legal issues and in some cases grant more power than was intended.

      She is saying in essence that from the first day the Constitution was violated. OK, but despite 200 years of The People accepting most/many of these concepts she now claims they are all false. That is not how law works. Whether we like it or not, that is how it works. Especially Common Law, the one we claim to support so often here.

      I tried to post earlier the two primary arguments against ownership. She is using one of them to an extent. That being that if there is no specific authority granted regarding acquisition of lands then it is prohibited. But she is entirely wrong in her claim about what constitutes a “Territory”. Congress changed the boundaries of territories all the time. Those boundaries were used only for purposes of Administering Congressional and Executive powers within the territories. Such as Territorial Governors. These were FEDERAL offices, for example.

      However, she is absolutely wrong in claiming the Constitution PRHOBITS federal ownership. It does not. Her claim here is really a back door reference to her actual argument. Absence of EXPLICIT authority is a Prohibition.

      But as I noted earlier, the provisions does not Prohibit ownership at large. It only set the terms of the DC acquisition and that any future acquisitions for stated reasons had to be approved by the States.

      Do you realize that given this woman’s argument we need to rescind the Louisiana Purchase, the Alaskan purchase and perhaps the Southwest acquisition. In the first two cases the territories held by France and Russia were SOLD to the United States.

      If the US has no authority to purchase those lands then the purchases were illegal and should be voided. Which of course means the later States are also illegal and must be voided.

      There is a good argument that the US Govt does not OWN federal lands but only holds it in Trust. But this argument is on more solid ground when referring to the AGENCIES and not the US Govt. as an entity. Old land ownerships maps showed US as the owner, they did not show BLM or USFS. Modern maps tend to show the agency in control, not the US.

      But the Trustee issue raises another problem, given her logic. Where in the Constitution is Congress granted the authority to establish Trusts or to take on Trustee status over lands within territories? And if such an authority is granted, then the US CONGRESS gets to establish the rules of the trustee relationship. Thus the clean water act, clean air act and ESA are all terms of said trustee responsibility. After all, the lands are held in trust for the USA, not a given state. Why? Because the States waived all claims on federal lands when admitted to the Union.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Do you realize that given this woman’s argument we need to rescind the Louisiana Purchase, the Alaskan purchase and perhaps the Southwest acquisition. In the first two cases the territories held by France and Russia were SOLD to the United States.

        Yes and the approval for purchase was given by Congress, which means that the States approved of the purchase. This is not a problem. It’s a lame strawman argument which is rather stupid Not meaning to ridicule you). Where your theory stops is when the new States are granted Statehood. At that point in time, short of a few places outlined in the Constitution, ALL of the land within the borders should have immediately became State property. This would then concur with the LIMITATIONS outlined in the Constitution. Treaties, laws, and future events cannot change the meaning of the Constitution, your argument is based on the “Living Document” theory that you have opposed many times. The INTENT of the Constitution is to establish the government and establish it’s authority and LIMITATIONS. You do know what limitations means , yes?

        • Do not forget that AFTER the Mexican War, we paid good old Yankee Gold to Mexico for the property we took. Not many folks know that!

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            By the same token, the US could have kept the whole darn thing, but I’m sure the leaders of the day read history and deemed it was not worth the trouble. Such foresight.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            SK

            I know, that is why I included it as not valid if one rejects the authority to purchase land. Once again………. we stole it fair and square.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Gman and SUFA

      Here is a better and more scholarly argument. One I agree with for the most part, except that there never was an explicit requirement for the Govt. to dispose of lands. That is based more on the intent of the Founders and that value systems of our earlier colonists and then citizens. And why federal lands in the east were disposed of almost entirely.

      Which brings us back to the west. There were many attempts to dispose of western federal lands. Those lands still in federal ownership at statehood were “unclaimed” or had been lost back under homesteading rules. As the mises article I posted noted, these failures were a reflection of the flawed homestead laws.

      http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/04/25/ownership-of-federal-land-answers-suggested-by-the-bundy-standoff/

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I actually agree with the points of your linked article. That makes me wonder why we seem to be arguing, when the article and I agree that the BLM land should have been given up long ago. That’s what it’s all about, in a nutshell.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Because the REASONS are vitally and absolutely important.

          The MEANS are not justified by the ends.

          I have not challenged the idea that federal lands should have been disposed of. I have challenged the various arguments you presented about corruption of Govt. employees, about the validity of laws, and in this latest example the young woman’s constitutional arguments. In short, matters of actual law not wishful law.

          But here is the part that neither Natelson or you are addressing in claiming they should have been disposed of earlier. NOBODY wanted them.

          The Ranchers did not want to OWN the federal land they used. They would have had to pay taxes on that land as well as paid for all improvements out of their own pockets.

          As the American Public became wealthier they became more enamored with environmental issues and the desire to protect some remaining wilderness. So how is The People’s desire to establish certain uses on these lands, which nobody wanted previously, inconsistent with Constitutional concepts?

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I reject the “nobody wanted them” claim, because there are STATE borders and by default it should belong to the State. The ranchers, which you posted a good link about all that, are probably the biggest problem then and NOW as you so like to state. The bottom line is the Federal Government, upon granting Statehood, failed to abide by the Constitutional limitations, because they were negotiating with themselves when it came to the eventual granting of statehood. Now, it’s being challenged. Maybe one day it will be ruled on by the 9 wizards in black robes, LOL.

            “I have challenged the various arguments you presented about corruption of Govt. employees, about the validity of laws, and in this latest example the young woman’s constitutional arguments.”

            Yes you have and I have consistently posted accounts of the abuses of the Federal agencies, including that which is now Congressional record. D13 has also verified their abuses along the Red river. You must have missed all of that. I’ll take the word of an educated successful attorney over your simple opinion all day long. What credentials do you have above her? Are you an attorney as well? Studied Constitutional law with scholars and got that quite expensive piece of paper? You’re qualified how? Just curious because I have no illusions about my lack of qualifications, that’s why I present the Pro’s 😉

            • Just A Citizen says:

              gman

              Here is a perfect example of why I argue with you:

              ” The bottom line is the Federal Government, upon granting Statehood, failed to abide by the Constitutional limitations, because they were negotiating with themselves when it came to the eventual granting of statehood.”

              This is a FALSE statement. One, there is no Constitutional prohibition for the US GOVT to own property. Two, there was no requirement that any US lands be transferred to the States upon statehood. Three, the Congress as the The People’s Representative was fully within its authority to ask the States to forfeit any claims against said federal lands. Think about it, any private party or even the States conveying lands to a city would make the same request. Four, the territorial governors did not decide the compact. They were ratified by the “legislatures” of the territories who were both elected and appointed. I believe some even put the decision up to popular vote. Now even if your accusation were true it is not prevented by the Constitution. The US GOVT and CONGRESS certainly has the authority to protect the PEOPLE”S interest in any land deal. In fact that would be their duty as Trustee, would it not.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I can read the Constitution and the Federal Government is most certainly limited in what they can own. The US govt, by virtue of the representatives of the several states, purchased land all the way to the West coast (they became owners regardless of how). That’s a fact. then these territories became States and the Constitutional limitations still apply. I have a lawyer and your article that agrees, why are you arguing?

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        My educated guess and question earlier was in alignment with what you just stated. At the time of statehood, much of what is now still federal land went unclaimed as not worth owning….at the time. Granted there have been many abuses of power by the government and mis-management…..but and I put a big but here……I’d hate to see what would have been left if the government either had not stepped in and saved the land from PRIVATE use or had not retained land they had. Yosemite would have gone the way of Hetch Hetchy and now be supplying water to SF. I’ve seen far greater land abuse in the private sector than the government management for all its problems…..As JAC consistantly has said, the thorn in everyones side are now what can be termed “algorian” They’re throwing a monkey wrench into ALL’s management of the land.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Going with the thinking of the attorney, the land within the borders agreed to as State borders, other than what the fed’s can own via the Constitution, would automatically become State property, if not already private property. Most of these States had territorial governors, put in that position by the President. So, in a sense, the negotiations were one sided. I reject the unclaimed property claim, because of the borders. That is an automatic claim. It seems that as the government aged, they wanted to wield more and more power, which has become this 80000 lb gorilla we have today.

  41. gmanfortruth says:

    These are a part of historical record that may be relevant today. Are they relevant?

    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

  42. gmanfortruth says:
    • Just A Citizen says:

      So within this post is the leader of oathkeepers telling people they need to go out and break the law so the oathkeepers can come defend them. And of course this law breaking is intended to show how the rule of law needs to be followed and somehow this creates “justice”.

      Illegal occupation of federal lands, whether by people or cattle, needs to be way down the list of actions. And I would suggest that trespassing cattle is the least persuasive of all options. That will only destroy credibility as it becomes the “spoiled few” against the rest. Instead the PEOPLE need to demonstrate. But first they need to do some things that set the stage.

      That is what the various letters of complaint sent to the King were all about. Ignoring those letters led to the final Declaration.

      And once again, because people like Bundy, Hage and even the Hammonds become the catalyst the entire effort fails under scrutiny. You cannot show corruption of federal officers while displaying 30 years of absolute disregard for LAW.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        As for us, Oath Keepers has a standing offer out to the people of Harney County, OR to assist them with security if they chose to start working the land again, in defiance of unjust Federal edicts, and most importantly, a standing offer to help train and organize them so that they can provide for their own security, as the Founders intended (which is the core purpose of our Community Preparedness Teams (CPT)). If the people will stand, we will stand with them, and we will train them, but they need to be in charge, and they have to make that momentous decision to take a stand. We cannot do it for them. Looks to us like they are well on their way, so long as the maintain momentum.

        Where exactly are they saying to go out and break laws? Really JAC, you should stop drinking.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          The guy calls for all the ranchers to turn their cows lose on federal lands, in violation of the very permits they hold. That my friend is a violation of LAW.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I posted the Oathkeepers position above. What are you referring too?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              gman

              Stewarts posted comments following the Safety Committee

              “Stewart Rhodes

              MORE DETAILS ON OUR OFFER OF HELP TO TRAIN THEM

              Here is what I wrote in the post linking to the live feed of the meeting last night:

              This is exactly what needs to be done in every county in the West – the people coming together to take the bull by the horns and stand together with THEM in charge.

              It was a very good meeting, and it was good to see the community come together and start to stand. Now that we DO support.

              The next step needs to be that at least one, but preferably several, ranchers need to turn their cattle out on the public land and then we (all groups, all patriots) can defend them, and most importantly, train and organize them to defend themselves and each other. ”

              ….”turn their cattle out on the public land and then we can defend them……”

              Translation: The ranchers need to break the law so we can come defend them.

              Now in that context can you address my questions as to how this is supposed to solve the underlying problem?

              Worse yet, how is this going to help galvanize public support for the cause?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                It was an offer to help, if they chose. That’s not a call to do anything, how silly. “Worse yet, how is this going to help galvanize public support for the cause?” An offer to help the public isn’t doing anything except supporting what the public wants. Geez, your going full British now, LMAO

      • gmanfortruth says:

        If it were January 9, 1776, you Sir would be standing for the British. Character, quite an interesting thing to learn.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          I suggest you suspend your tendency to attack my “character”. It will not lead to productive commentary.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            This was NOT an attack at all, it is an educated observation. Quite the difference.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              It was not. It was just one more of your unfounded claims of absolute knowledge based on the wind.

              Look at your now claiming the oathkeeper did not make a call for anything. Really?

              “The next step needs to be that at least one, but preferably several, ranchers need to turn their cattle out on the public land……….” Nope, not a call for anything. Do you even understand the concept of honest debate or dialogue? Does logic and reason completely escape you?

  43. gmanfortruth says:

    A little tidbit of information: Chicago shooting deaths just hit 16. How many more before there are none left to kill each other?

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Quite an interesting piece on Rahm Emanual on NPR yesterday. IT WAS NOT IN ANY WAY endearing towards him. One of the commentators had many dealings with him when he was in the Clinton WH and also Obamas. Rahm is quite foul. They started discussing Chicago and his management of the city. The concensus was that it was all about him and not the well being of the city at the center of focus. Made a comparison to his predecessor who for all his faults had the reverse attitude. He was a servant of the city not the other way around, opposite of Emanual’s attitude. Who only squeeked into a 2nd term.

  44. gmanfortruth says:

    A comment from another sites comment section. This is being repeated a lot:

    ” FDA, EPA, VA spend tens of millions on SWAT and military – style equipment ”
    To all of these alaphabet agencies, are you prepared to die for a paycheck? Do you think you will be immune from the government once your “usefulness” has expired? Do you really think that the government cares for you? Do you think ” We the People ” are going to simply comply? You are nothing more then usefull idiots. Once the status quo changes, YOU will be the first to be eliminated. I know this because I know history and it happens every single time.
    ” We the People ” are close to our breaking point. You have robbed us, you continually lie to us, you KILL us and now you’re trying to disarm us. We will fight to the death if need be. Why?….because you have taking everything from us except our lives, and now, you want that also. If you think Oregon will be another Waco, you have seriously underestimated the spirit and the will of the American patriot.
    We are watching you very closely government….it’s your move… will you kill more Americans as you have done in the past? Are you prepared for the consecuences of your actions?

  45. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Going to make New Orleans style Barbecued Shrimp here shortly. Got a couple dozen freshly harvested oysters from the Pamlico sound, so was the shrimp, and a good local IPA.

  46. Just A Citizen says:

    Gman

    Download the pdf file and if you want to skip the long stuff go to page 50 for Natelson’s conclusion. There is a very critical point in his argument that you and the lady lawyer ignore. You claim ownership was prohibited. IT was NOT. You claim the US HAD to dispose of all lands. IT DID NOT.

    Now lets see if you can figure out the situation where it was expected and should occur vs,. not. Because until you understand this “situation” you and the lady lawyer are blowing smoke into a stiff wind. Please notice that Natelson, who you areed with above, shreds the lady lawyer’s arguments, which you continue to agree with.

    http://constitution.i2i.org/sources-for-constitutional-scholars/federal-land-retention-and-property-clause/

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Let’s see here. Obama is a “Constitution Scholar” so his resume says. Look where that has gotten us. I am so tired of not hearing “the law says” clear and unambiguous by all and NOT subject for interpretation. Unfortunately, laws are written by lawyers to feed a never ending gravy train for them arguing the meaning or intent. Enabling abuse, sorry interpretation, on both sides of the spectrum.

      • Anybody can hang out a shingle saying “scholar” or “expert”. If I have a PHD in Soviet Studies does that make me a Communist? There are many PHD’s in History who will tear each others throats out over what you or I would consider minutiae. The big “O” may be a constitutional scholar which in no way implies he supports the document or for that matter agrees with the interpretations he has been taught. I don’t think that it is too far a stretch to say that in the “Heller” decision, he would come down strong on the side of the minority. Now, THAT would have been a good question to ask the other night!

        Back when I was a Psych major, you could hang out a sign saying Psychotherapist with no credentials or license. Probably still can.

        • Been thinking of this from the stories my Dad used to tell. Another example of how “experts” in the Russian Orthodox religion broke it up 400 years ago and it is still fracturing to this day.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          My belief is that he took constitutional law, just to analyze the document and case studies and learn how to twist it to his own end and agenda.

    • Just A Citizen says:
      • gmanfortruth says:

        Even the author doesn’t know which of the theories he mentioned is correct. Simple opinion piece. No different than yours or mine.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I reckon I fall into the first, narrowest, version of thinking. I’m not sure where you would place though.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      JAC,

      This is a perfect example of why this nation is heading into the gutter, both morally and ethically. When it takes over 50 pages to try and explain the meaning of a sentence written in perfect simple English, people like you fall for the bullshit. So tell us JAC, what is the meaning of “IS”? It isn’t that hard to read the Constitution and understand it. It’s in 3rd grade English, and probably written that way so it was easy to understand. This dissertation is a prime example of Liberal acadamia nonsense, and also an example of how and why this government is acting far beyond their enumerated powers. Basically, smart people who want to be seen as smart, when the reality is they aren’t very smart at all, if they can’t understand 3rd grade English and what a simple sentence means. You are free to fall down that rabbit hole, but you won’t be dragging me with you. One day you will wonder why we have become a corrupt police state, you can look back to this paragraph and find at least one answer as to why it occurred.

      • Gman

        Have to give credit where it’s due. You put up a good fight this time. A paragraph above had me thinking ‘geez, if he’d offer commentary like this more consistently, he’d be much easier to talk to..as opposed to ‘this govt aint shit and don’t get shit’ ‘

        Where your flaw comes in is that things are much more complex than you’re willing to accept. I figure the best way to put this is in a list.

        -The preamble states that in order to form a MORE PERFECT union….that is admission that nothing was or is going to be perfect. The Constitution itself is an update of the Articles of Confederation. And the Bill of Rights shows that even the Constitution was not perfect.

        -Where there are laws and rulings, there is also rationale. Dale noted something above …something about ‘ can you imagine what would have become of our scenic treasures had there been no laws concerning them’ . The mind wanders on what could have happened. Your ‘3rd grade’ comment doesn’t allow for rationale.

        -Which is why JAC harps about governing to principles. Laws wouldn’t be so complicated if principles were spelled out first.Then, there have been advances in technology, along with a population explosion, creating problems that could never had been imagined in the 1700s. I have always lost interest on days when the ‘principles’ have been drooooaned on about, but have to admit that JAC is right.

        But, I’ve enjoyed this conversation. I’ve purposely been avoiding getting too deep in the weeds of politics lately because it’s only made me angry, and I’m tired of being angry. First glance at the headlines of this latest rancher problem had me on the side of the ranchers and that another knife in the heart of big govt was welcome. But after seeing JAC’s links, it’s easy to see how people can be just as bad as govt.

        Break out the snow shovel, it’s coming down pretty good here right now…and it’s beautiful.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Good Morning Anita!

          Yes, snow is on the way. I can’t believe that our snow shovel is still in the shed and not on the porch, that is how little we have had to this point. Could get a couple inches late today and tonight. They are not saying how much Monday night/Tuesday yet, should be fun!

          Actually, JAC’s last two links on the subject have led me to some conclusions that some won’t like. One, life really isn’t that complicated, neither is the Constitution. It is a well written document that really doesn’t need a 50 plus page dissertation to explain one sentence. This is the actions of people who simply don’t like the meaning of the sentence, in it’s simplest forms. People have been complicating things for a very long time. Why? Who knows. Just think about the tax code and one has to wonder why it needs to be so complicated. Just an example.

          Sorry about the 3rd grade English comment, but isn’t the sentence just that? You can own X, plus this , this and this. Not exactly something I think would need a 50 plus page explanation. JAC’s second link helped provide the explanation of what my opinion is, along with other different examples. That was very helpful, at least to help me understand how others may think (plus it actually calmed me down a bit, so as not to be so “in your face”). I’m working on changing that, gots a long way to go LOL.

          I quit getting mad about politics. I’ve made my conclusions, others have as well. I think the Oregon issue will be settled with little fan fare and no bloodshed. I just can’t see Obama empowering the Patriot movement by doing something violent. That would not be a wise thing right now. As far as the issues with the BLM, there is more coming out daily. I’m just not putting them on here. At some point, like Hillary’s emails, the truth will come out. Speaking of Hillary, go below and give your opinion on that issue. It will be a much funner conversation. I know, funner isn’t a word, LOL.

          Hope you and your kids are doing well and staying healthy, PEACE!

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Whispers are slowly coming out that the US prosecutor in the Hammond case had a witness he did not inform the defense attorney about. That’s because the witness saw the BLM folks start one of the fires that the Hammonds were accused of starting. These are now unverified whispers, so let’s see what happens down the road. If true…………

  47. Hope that Trump is as smart as he thinks he is. It is pretty obvious that the anti forces will be infiltrating rallies and looking for fights so they can slap the Ketchup packs on their heads for the cameras. Then they can claim that the troglodyte Nazi’s beat them up.

    Would be wise for him to start calling them Brownshirts and Blackshirts and then explain that this is what the real Fascisti and Nazi’s did in the ’20’s and ’30’s to silence the opposition. Good line though the other day in Vermont when he said he lost all respect for Sanders when he allowed those Black Lives Matter ladies to “steal” the mike from him.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      It’s early. Bush is working Pa with ads on a regular basis. I almost think he is letting the early states go. I would like to see what ads are being placed in the Super Tuesday states. I think that is a good sign of what the candidates are thinking.

  48. gmanfortruth says:

  49. gmanfortruth says:

    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/shock-poll-nearly-20-of-likely-democratic-voters-would-cross-over-and-vote-trump/

    Since there are some significant difference of opinions concerning the meaning of a simple sentence in the Constitution, it’s probably best to just let that subject rest and move on to something else. While the above link is interesting, it does allow me to pose a scenario that I think may occur in the next couple months. That would be how the FBI is going to deal with Hillary Clinton’s missteps concerning her emails.

    So, I pose this, If the FBI puts together a case and announces that they are recommending charges being filed, what are two things that could happen and how will it be received by the average person/voter?

    1. The DOJ files the charges in Federal Court, as recommended.
    2. The DOJ don’t file the charges as recommended by the FBI.

    I’m undecided about number 1, although the hardcore Clinton supporters will all cry foul. The Liberal media will call it a witch hunt (probably the most correct thing they will say about the whole matter). This will kill any chance of the Democrats winning the Whitehouse. I’m not sure why Obama would do this, but my thoughts are not good. He may simply do it to blame her for his failed legacy.

    On number 2, this is simple. The Democrats will have lost credibility in the eyes of many, especially those who are Independent and undecided. How could any intelligent person vote for someone who should be on trial?

    What are your opinions SUFA?

  50. gmanfortruth says:
  51. GO SPIETH !!!!!

  52. gmanfortruth says:
  53. Intersting…..seems there was someone on here that mentioned the Chinese and their building of the islands…and no one seemed to be upset about that……seems that someone on here mentioned something about expanding territorial waters and no fly zones…..seems like there was someone on here that mentioned the UN and NATO and Russia would not do anything about it……I don’t know who it was that mentioned all of this….but…..today….the United Nations has said that it will respect the new Chinese territories and their claims to the new region that was created out of International Waters and that all Nations should respect the Chinese “lands”

    But, what the hell…..who does it affect anyway…..who cares that International shipping lines now have to pay passage ( toll, for those who do not understand nautical terms ) and that, according to the UN this morning,,,,on a Sunday when not many people watch….the UN spokesman said it does not consider the new islands as part of any expansion of Chinese boders.

    Ahhhh….well….so be it.

    Now that the UN has more or less given in….I wonder what the Russians will now say about their encroachment…errr, establisment of military and civilian assets on the far western end or the near eastern end ( depending upon your point of reference ) of the now inhabited islands of the Allleutians…..if the Russians decide to claim a 200 mile territorial limit….that actually closes a passage…wonder what will happen.

    • I would recommend that people familiarize themselves with a little known issue known as the ” Nine Dash Line” and China’s claim over all the islands in that area. I would recommend that everyone familiarize themselves with the Spratly Islands, claimed by the Phillipines, and the Paracel Islands, claimed by Vietnam…..

      Now, to make matters a little more interesting, China is expanding a reef off the coast of Malaysia and laying claim to a Malaysian Island off the coast of Brunei….thereby expanding its territory to close off the sea lanes to Singapore.

      Is there anyone on here that really believes anyone will intervene and stop this?

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Yes Sir….you brought it up and so have i. The rub is the claim of 200 miles. That overlaps both PI and Vietnam “claimed” territorial waters and land. ALL international waterways have always when the lines cross, always split that waterway right down the middle, with freedom of passage with two lanes. Just like Hormoz, as an example. If the stronger claimant now can push right up to and including land territory of the abutting country and the UN doesn’t even blink…..The courts will be busy. But all they do in brussels and The Hague is talk, talk and talk some more. So in a nutshell…the stronger party will prevail regardless of established law….so stop me if you dare. He who blinks first loses. We blinked, the UN has now gone to sleep. They should be euthanized and put out of our misery.

        Iran WILL block, hormoz, And I did say WILL. Spain actually may be uppity and block the Straits of Gibraltar, More likely it will be Morocco because the EU is spineless. Any number of roque african states on the west side of the RED SEA can block and have blocked that transit area with pirates. Cuba could block between themselves and Key West, it’s only 50 miles. We abandoned Yemen to al-queda and have slapped down Saudi Arabia for stepping in and trying to stop that from occuring. Libya during Reagan’s tour tried with the Gulf of Sidra. Gaddafi then lost some sleep when a few bombs and missiles took out his house. To bad he was camping out in the front yard, but he did get the message. Turkey, could block the Bosporus, And Turkey is on both sides of that transit area. no encroaching required. Greece has islands right up against mainland Turkey. This is going to be interesting, messy and a complete reordering of civilization as we know it.

        If this stands and China starts charging transit fees for going by these created islands all established “international” law is moot. Freedom of navigation have been around for centuries. Does Holland charge Germany to go into the Rhine River through Rotterdam. Using port facilities is one thing, but to enter and exit Germany proper with no stops I’ll bet NO CHARGE.

        • Ok…so you go to the Hague…..and the so called “toothless” International Courts render a judgement in favor of….it does not matter. Who enforces the Court? The UN…? LOL.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Nothing is likely going to happen. I think you already know this. Question for you….Why won’t anyone do anything?

  54. gmanfortruth says:

    Shooting deaths in Chicago now at 19 after three more gang bangers get whacked last night. Got to wonder, who’s importing these people to Chicago, because they have to be running low on gang bangers.

    • The same source that supplies virgins to Muslims?

    • G, they are Youths! They will show up on statistics as “children” killed by gun violence.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Eventually they will run out of gang bangers, of any age, because killing each other isn’t sustainable. I guess when they finally get to this point, the Liberal’s will then claim that gun control laws really do work. 🙂 It’s very sad what is going on in our inner cities. One must wonder what to conclude, when there are so many conclusions to consider.

  55. gmanfortruth says:
  56. Just A Citizen says:

    Regarding Federal authority to pass legislation and to manage federal lands that were a territory once a State is established.

    Camfield v. United States (1897). The Court said:

    While we do not undertake to say that Congress has the unlimited power to legislate against nuisances within a State, which it would have within a Territory, we do not think the admission of a Territory as a State deprives it of the power of legislating for the protection of the public lands, though it may thereby involve the exercise of what is ordinarily known as the police power, so long as such power is directed solely to its own protection. A different rule would place the public domain of the United States completely at the mercy of state legislation.

    Simple “3rd grade” question on logic. If the Govt does not have authority to own the land how could it have authority to pass laws governing its use????

    • i own land but do not have police power over it. I can dictate how the land is used up to a point. The restrictions on the land use is ever increasing. For forts and ports where the states have agreed to Federal ownership, then the Feds should have police authority. For land that is just owned by the Feds, it and they should be treated no different than any other land owner. The police powers reside with the state. With that comes the power to tax. States should be allowed to tax the land to cover the policing and other costs. The Feds can still dictate how the land is used in exactly the same manner as other land owners within the state.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        TRay

        That is an excellent concept. One that is worthy of exploring and one that IS consistent with the original meaning of the Constitution.

        However, you need to recognize that setting grazing rules and such is not a policing power. That comes with the enforcement. Notice what the court said. The federal cannot be at the mercy of the States.

        But I think the idea has merit and needs fleshed out a bit more.

        As for the tax issue, I believe the States ceded that power on statehood as well. But that is not to say that Congress couldn’t revisit those compacts. They were sure willing to “renegotiate” the Indian treaties.

  57. http://www.kfbk.com/media/play/26631616/

    This is a local talk show host that advertises himself as the Cowboy Libertarian. He is a former political consultant, appeared on Fox, and has rode the range. In his opening segment he has an author/advocate talk about what is/has happened with the BLM and Federal lands. Later in the show, he comes as close to sedition as I have heard on the air.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      TRay

      For some reason I could not here the broad cast. But I did catch the guests name and it does not surprise me that he approaches sedition in his rhetoric. I met Perry several times during the Clinton administration. We were working together on several environmental law cases and he was advising my clients on litigation for contract breach due to cancellations under ESA. I like a lot of his arguments but their win v. loss record wasn’t the greatest.

      Largely because the courts are stuck on the precedent set by the left leaning judges.

      I did not know he was still out there raising hell. Here is a bio for Mr. Pendley.

      http://prfamerica.org/biography/Biography-Pendley-William-Perry.html

      • Sorry you could not here it. If you go to KFBK and look up Patrick Dorinson’s podcasts you may be able to hear it. Hear is Pat’s website.

        http://cowboylibertarian.com/

        • Just A Citizen says:

          TRay

          That worked. Listened to the whole thing. Not sure where the almost sedition came in.

          Did notice that Perry Pendley validated what I have been posting here for several years.

          One point of order: Note that Pendley is responding to the Hammond issue based on what he had read and heard in the media. Which included many falsehoods spread by folks like Bundy. For example, the Hammonds were NOT CHARGED with Terrorism.

          Otherwise he hit the nail on the head when pointing to the US Attorneys. That is why I often defend the “on the ground agency people”. Sometimes they get out of control, but for most of these egregious examples it is the attorneys who drive the case.

          For example, if you read all the stuff I posted you will remember that the two BLM employees who caught the younger Hammond lighting fires did not throw his arse on the ground and cuff him. They initially scolded him and told him to “git home”. Not the behavior of someone who is just being corrupt and vindictive.

          Part of the problem with fighting this “land war in the west” is that the examples which arise and get media attention involve bad players. Nobody is around when a truly outlandish behavior happens against someone who is actually pretty innocent. Or where the Govt’s reaction is far out of proportion to the action.

  58. Just A Citizen says:

    SK, Dale

    I think it was you two a couple days ago talking about Obama the “law professor”. Was going to set the record straight but thought you just being sarcastic. But then an article showed up dealing with this MISCONCEPTION, so I thought I would share it. Just in case somebody did not know the truth.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/heres_what_constitutional_scholar_obama_really_taught_at_law_school.html

    • I’ve got more published academic papers then O. Infinitely more.

    • I always had the sense that he had no clue what the hell he was talking about. Funny thing for the younger folks, if you get interested in something like the 2nd amendment where you actually research it and its origins, you start acquiring much broader knowledge than you intended or thought you would. That in turn sends up warning flags when you hear something not quite right.

      Fifty years ago, when I was an undergraduate there were rumbles, loud rumbles in the academic community over people being hired because they “looked” good, were controversial, or managed to fool the media into thinking they were “experts” in something. , The AT article never even gets into the fact that this allowed his employer to add an additional checkmark in the non-white column.

      Now if someone could please explain to me what the hell exacty Cornell West is an expert in I’d appreciate it.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Of course I was being sarcastic. Anyone can be scholarly, but to carry the title of Professor requires just a tad more.

      The sad thing about all of this, is how lying, trimming, shading and completely mis-representing and semblence of the truth has become so commonplace, people are numb and just do not care, for the most part, anymore.

      Just look how Biden’s presidential dreams ended in the 80’s with just a “little” (sarc) misrepresentation of his thesis. Today, over and over holes are driven through Obamas story and people just yawn and elect again. Hillary is just taking this whole concept to another level. She has transformed herself so many times she’s like “Max Headroom” she must have quite a secretary to somehow keep her lies straight. Gary Hart’s little peckadillos crashed his dreams and he, I believe he was even a single man.

%d bloggers like this: