Nevada Ranch Dispute Getting Ugly, Another Waco Or Ruby Ridge Coming?

Just saw this.

 

Actually, I'm hoping you tea partiers get your ideas out front and center this year. I truly want the public to hear even more from you.

 

This from a self proclaimed communist.

 

Preamble: The Tea Party Movement is an all-inclusive American grassroots movement with the belief that everyone is created equal and deserves an equal opportunity to thrive in these United States where they may “pursue life, liberty and happiness” as stated in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

No one is excluded from participation in the Tea Party Movement. Everyone is welcomed to join in seeking to achieve the Tea Party Movement goals, which are as follows:
1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes
2. Eliminate the National Debt
3. Eliminate Deficit Spending
4. Protect Free Markets
5. Abide by the Constitution of the United States
6. Promote Civic Responsibility
7. Reduce the Overall Size of Government
8. Believe in the People
9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics
10. Maintain Local Independence



So...Rectum...which of these ideas do you oppose? Other than 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10...of course.

 

Don't you also want the tea party to get more press this year?

 

you'll love this:

"Yowell, 84, is a former chief of the Te-Moak Band of the Western Shoshone tribe. His ancestors were among the signatories of the 1863 Ruby Valley Treaty with the federal government, which recognized the tribe’s sovereignty over a 24 million acre swath of western lands the Shonshone called Newe Segobia – “The Land of the People of Mother Earth.”

As is the case with every such agreement, the federal government acted in cynical bad faith, using the treaty to secure a foothold within a territory slated for assimilation into the continent-straddling behemoth being constructed through Manifest Destiny.

While demanding that the Shoshone refrain from interfering with telegraph lines and stagecoach routes, the Feds did nothing to discourage or deter illegal settlements on Shoshone land. In 1962 – one year shy of the centennial of the Ruby Valley Treaty – the federal Indian Claims Commission proclaimed that this pattern of federally abetted “gradual encroachment” by Euro-American settlers and speculators had “extinguished” all Shoshone claims to their lands.

In the fashion of a rapist who offers to buy his victim breakfast in order to re-fashion his crime into a “date,” the Feds offered to “compensate” the Shoshones through a settlement amounting to fifteen cents an acre. This figure was based on a valuation of the lands conducted in 1872 – long before the discovery of significant mineral wealth on the property, which included the Carlin Trend, which contain North America’s largest gold deposits.

The Shoshones refused to accept the federal proposal. Those in charge of the land grab bureaucracy replied with a “Sucks to be you shrug” and “paid” the money to itself, insisting that this bookkeeping feint somehow made the “transaction” legally binding.

At this point it’s worth remembering this pious utterance by Commissar Harry Reid: “We can’t have an American people that [sic] violate the law and then just walk away from it.” This is precisely how the purulent Regime Reid serves acquired its supposedly legal claim to lands in the state he supposedly represents."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/william-norman-grigg/scourge-of-lesser-breeds-without-the-law/

 

I'm curious too. For the amount of time he spends railing against the Tea Party, let's see what he says (if he says anything other than a dodge).

 

From Bundy To The Keystone XL: Where's The Property Rights Outrage Here?
By Kate Sheppard
Posted: 04/30/2014 7:30 am EDT Updated: 04/30/2014 7:59 am EDT

"WASHINGTON -– Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy has become something of a folk hero among the anti-government, pro-property rights crowd, thanks to his recent standoff with the federal Bureau of Land Management. Some landowners in the path of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline want to know where the support for them has been, since their private property will actually be taken away without their approval.

"Bundy and his supporters don't recognize federal ownership of the land where his cattle have been grazing illegally for more than two decades. He refuses to pay grazing fees, arguing that he has "ancestral rights" to the land -- an argument that a federal court has rejected, and which may not be historically accurate. The issue came to a head earlier this month after BLM officials seized hundreds of Bundy's cattle, and armed right-wing and anti-government groups flocked to the desert for a standoff. BLM returned the cattle shortly thereafter, citing concerns about the safety of its employees and the public.

"Federal control of land has also flared lately in Texas, where state Attorney General Greg Abbott recently accused BLM of "hijacking private property rights" in updating management plans for land bordering Oklahoma.

"But many of the pundits and talking heads who rallied behind Bundy (at least before his racist outburst) are also advocating the Keystone XL pipeline -- despite the ranchers and farmers up in arms about pipeline owner TransCanada Corp. trying to force its way onto their land.

"That includes third-generation Texas farmer Julia Trigg Crawford, who has been fighting for years to prevent TransCanada from running the southern portion of the Keystone XL pipeline through her property."

More>>

 

I'm just curious, but why should the Federal Government have ANY land? Shouldn't states own all of it? Isn't that where it's located? In the state?

 

Other than government installations and bases I can't think of any reason for the feds to "own" any land. But then I'm a big believer in the US Constitution, so what do I know.