Threats, Intimidation and Bullying by Federal Land Managing Agencies

originally posted by: Informer1958
I believe a serious investigation needs to be done against the BLM and their ties to certain corrupt government in Congress.

However, who can be trusted to do such an investigation with subpoena power?

Excellent question. Congress has the power, but neither the will nor the motivation.

I would think an independent investigation by various government agencies and private interests, in utter and complete transparency to the public.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Phage

It comes a time in our country when enough is enough.

I have yet to hear anything positives about the BLM. Many of these men working for the BLM and their behavior remind me of corrupt police officers who abuses their powers.

It's pretty much the same but, in this case there is no accountability with many of these gun toting sociopaths.

I agree, and I believe the rot starts at the top. The feds have encouraged and empowered the abuse within lower law enforcement agencies, and helped make transparency and accountability difficult -- if not impossible. That's just more reason that I believe we have address/redress/reform the federal agencies first, and then deal with the related issues appropriately.

My opinions is, it's time to do away with the BLM and turn over all the land to the States.

I also believe that is a big part of the solution. The feds have no right to "own" so much valuable property within the states, and increasingly no good reason to own or manage it.

I would like to see a new modern homesteading program, not just turning it back over to the states, but give folks the chance to own some/much of that property through their own sweat equity -- in other words, at no or minimal initial cost to the homesteaders.

a reply to: Boadicea

I would think an independent investigation by various government agencies and private interests, in utter and complete transparency to the public.

I agree. But the government will never allow it, it's to corrupt. This alone should tell us the system is broken and it is not working for We The People any longer.

However, most American could careless, to do anything about this problem, their I phones, Xbox's, Facebook, Kim Kardation, and sports are more important to them.

This is why BLM is allowed to get away with everything they have been doing. Most Americans look at it this way as well, if BLM isn't bothering me, I don't care.

And that is the problem with America today. To much self interests, and selfishness.

a reply to: Informer1958

However, most American could careless, to do anything about this problem, their I phones, Xbox's, Facebook, Kim Kardation, and sports are more important to them.

This is more true than I want it to be... and I think it is at least partly by design... but I also believe it's increasingly changing. I think the rot is now so widespread that virtually everyone has been adversely affected by government overreach. Those people who can still feel empathy and sympathy are more inclined to likewise see the harm done to others in other ways. We got too complacent... too busy... too arrogant... too confident... and we ignored the bad behavior in our government for too long. But I don't think anyone can ignore it anymore -- though some will still make excuses for them!

originally posted by: Phage

This will come to a breaking point sooner or later, one way or another. We can do it the hard way or the easy way; the right way or the wrong way.

What's the "easy way?"
Roll over? Just give them what they want? This stuff?
pbs.twimg.com...



Or this?

"Citizens for Constitutional Freedom request Harney County Government petition and give notice to the Federal Government for the transfer and unconditional return to local control of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge as allowed by Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2," of the U.S. Constitution.

"Harney County Government in equal Partnership with the Burns Paiute Tribe will manage and administer this publicly owned land to the values and vision of the local community."

Ah, a partnership with the savages. Here is the thing Bundy started (Harney County Committee of Safety) actually thinks of American indians.

Prior to the Revolutionary War, Committees of Safety existed in the frontier or wilderness areas where the government did not provide any troops or other protection against Indian attacks. The community got together and built stockades, enrolled militia, commissioned officers, and set watches, all to secure the property and lives of the association members from threats from the savages.

www.hccommitteeofsafety.org...

Isn't it a just a little bit deceptive to take a paragraph which is describing the history of the institution of Committees of Safety and say that is the view of native people by the present Committee of Safety?

How is local control of land not better than control from an office clear across the continent with a "manager" who has never laid eyes on said land and resources?

Here's a clear explanation of the overstepping of federal agencies---it isn't a new thing at all. It has been on-going since Teddy Roosevelt and his band of Progressives violated the Constitution to establish Federal Lands.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: diggindirt

Isn't it a just a little bit deceptive to take a paragraph which is describing the history of the institution of Committees of Safety and say that is the view of native people by the present Committee of Safety?

No. The committee posted a statement which defines American indians as savages. Their word. They chose it.


Your youtube "talks show host?" Well, she's right that the SCOTUS cannot make laws, and it doesn't. But the Constitution quite clearly states that it is the job of the SCOTUS to determine the Constitutionality of all issues.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

a reply to: Phage
You forgot to add that she's also a Constitutional attorney---not just a talk show host. When you gain your JD you can put forth your arguments. She has experience in working for the very government which she is now attempting to hold accountable and whose power she is attempting to reign in.

KrisAnne is a disabled Army veteran, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor’s wife and a patriot. Born and raised in St. Louis, MO, she received her undergraduate degree in Bio-Chemistry from Blackburn College in 1991 and her J.D. from the University of Florida, Levin College of Law and is a former Russian Linguist for the US Army. KrisAnne worked as a state prosecutor and with a prominent law firm defending religious liberty and First Amendment rights. KrisAnne lives in North Florida with her husband JC, a pastor and former Russian instructor for the US Navy, and their adopted son Colton.

krisannehall.com...

You've not answered my question about how it is better that the land and resources are controlled by managers in DC rather than the local folk who actually know the land and its resources and the community and its inhabitants. The founders were fairly intelligent men who knew human nature. They had reasons, good ones, it seems for not allowing large swaths of land to be controlled by an entity with no skin in the game.

a reply to: diggindirt

When you gain your JD you can put forth your arguments.

I can put forth my arguments anytime I wish.

You've not answered my question about how it is better that the land and resources are controlled by managers in DC rather than the local folk who actually know the land and its resources and the community and its inhabitants.

Well, that would depend. Because local folk can do a pretty fair job of screwing stuff up, stuff that they don't actually own. Do you think National Parks are a bad idea too?

But you seem to have missed my posts where I said that abuses by the federal government should not be allowed.

They had reasons, good ones, it seems for not allowing large swaths of land to be controlled by an entity with no skin in the game.

Please show where in the Constitution it is stated that the federal government cannot exert control of land.

a reply to: Phage
Had you watched the video you would have the answer to your question from a Constitutional attorney.

National Parks---NO. As explained in the video by a Constitutional attorney, there is no provision in the Constitution that allows the federal government to own any land except DC and lands for military purposes, Post Offices and post roads.
Please try to keep up. Don't be one of those people who scans the chapter titles and tries to bluff your way through the essay exam.
The Constitution is a contract between the feds and the states. The Tenth Amendment is the answer to your land ownership question. If the Constitution doesn't reserve powers to itself, those powers reside with the states.

Here's the part that says what the feds CAN own:

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;

Had you actually listened to the video you wouldn't be asking these silly questions. Caught by your own trap!

a reply to: diggindirt

As explained in the video by a Constitutional attorney, there is no provision in the Constitution that allows the federal government to own any land except DC and lands for military purposes, Post Offices and post roads.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Seems pretty clear. I don't see where it says the United States government cannot own property anywhere but Washington. Read it again:

nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

The Tenth Amendment is the answer to your land ownership question.

How so?

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

The clause cited previously gives the United States the authority to own property.

Here's the part that says what the feds CAN own:

That's not from the Tenth, but read it again.
The clause states that some areas are to be set reserved, as necessary, in order for the federal government to build stuff for specific purposes. That would include DC. That would include military bases. Federal enclaves, one particular classification in addition to the two others specified above; territories and other possessions. Each with its different rules.


Here something from the Fifth Amendment:

“The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says ‘nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.’ This is a tacit recognition of a preexisting power to take private property for public use, rather than a grant of new power.”160 Eminent domain “appertains to every independent government. It requires no constitutional recognition; it is an attribute of sovereignty.”161

Are you saying the United States government has no rights of eminent domain? That the Framers did not consider the United States to be a sovereign entity? If the Constitution is granting that right to the United States doesn't it make sense that the United States can own property?

Had you actually listened to the video you wouldn't be asking these silly questions.

The thing is, the question aren't silly. And they have been discussed by other "Constitutional lawyers" who disagree with your talk show host. And guess what, the laws stand because the courts says those laws are constitutional. So guess who wins?

And none of this has much to do with the thread topic.

a reply to: Phage
Again, had you actually watched (and listened) the video you wouldn't be asking these questions. You're an intelligent guy and she isn't the least bit unclear.

One simple class on the history of the Constitution and Constitutional law will answer your questions. The Fifth Amendment refers to "capital or otherwise infamous crimes." It is what makes the forfeiture laws now in force illegal.
Congress passed those laws in violation of the Constitution. It wasn't the first time, nor the last time they acted in direct opposition to the Constitution. The states have allowed it, much to the detriment of the entire population of the US.
This argument has gone on since shortly after the original document was ratified. Read up a bit on the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

You can study and learn our history and how SCOTUS has indeed gone far astray from time to time. They are NOT the ultimate law of the land. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It can't be overturned by SCOTUS. It contains the means for change internally.

Or you can sit back and scoff at people who are out there actually exercising their rights---radicals all of them, who dare to stand up for the rights for which thousands of men and women have given their property, treasure and lives to protect.
You can be an internet keyboard warrior by suggesting that "abuses by the federal government should not be allowed." but offering no solutions to the very real abuses which are taking place on a daily basis by some branch of federal government and mocking those who are attempting to right this listing ship by putting the federal government back into the tiny box envisioned by the founders.

If we value our freedoms and believe in liberty we must stand with anyone who is being abused by government under any pretense. Any other way is suicide.
It means you don't allow government to abuse idiots, crazy people, addicted people, felons, your neighbors or your family. If I only protested abuse when it happened to people with which I'm in complete political, spiritual and emotional harmony---well, see,---those people don't exist so I could always find a reason to mock or stay silent.

I come from a long line of activist law-breakers. My great, great grandmother taught her slaves to read, write and cipher. Her daughter spent the majority of her adult life championing the right of women to vote. Having finally won that right, she was threatened with arrest on many occasions for "abducting" wives of men who would not take them to the polls to exercise their right to vote.
I don't know exactly who or what inspired my ancestors to envision a better world and work for it. Mine was the words of JFK in 1960. I was six years old. My grandparents had gotten a tv for Christmas so when they found out that the inauguration was going to be on tv they insisted that I watch it with them. This man was going to tell us how he was going to lead the nation.
Despite the fact that I was just six, I'd been reading the newspaper for almost two years. I'd read a lot about this man who was going to be president. But I couldn't really understand why my grandparents thought it was important that I sit and watch this speech with them.
They explained it this way: You know you should pay attention when the pastor gives a sermon because he's teaching us how we can be better Christians. The pastor is the leader of the church. The president is the leader of our nation. His speech is like a sermon in that he will teach us to be better citizens.
Like it was yesterday, I remember my grandmother turning to my grandfather when the speech was concluded and saying, "May God bless and keep him."
Maybe because it was the end of the speech but these words still echo in my head.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

Thus was shaped my vision of what good citizens could and should do. Work together for a better country.
If you can't work with and support people who share your values because of the way they look, or the way they sound, or they way they arm themselves, their "criminal" record or whatever....we have lost our nation.
Only two classes are frightened by people exercising their rights: tyrants and slaves.
The people in Oregon are attempting to exercise their rights to meet and associate peacefully, speak freely about their grievances without interference from government. They have not been able to exercise those rights due to interference of local government. Public spaces that should be available to them have become unavailable due to intimidation by local government.
Could you stand by and let your trusted neighbors and friends go to jail to serve out a cruel and unusual punishment without speaking out against such injustice?

a reply to: diggindirt

Public spaces that should be available to them have become unavailable due to intimidation by local government.

According to whom?

Could you stand by and let your trusted neighbors and friends go to jail to serve out a cruel and unusual punishment without speaking out against such injustice?

Prison is not cruel and unusual punishment. The Hammonds were convicted by a jury of their peers. But aside from that, Bundy is using the Hammonds. The Hammonds are neither his neighbors or friends.

a reply to: Boadicea

Oh man I am pooped out, so glad to see this thread up and running. Was considering jumping in on this issue as well. Reply to me so in the am I can find this thread and follow up/read some more. Keep the info coming there is tons to be had and people need to listen to those who like yourself are willing to jump into the shark infested waters to tell about it.

a reply to: Informer1958

That and this has become a delusional nation of deniers, they figure the stronger they refute the truth, the less it is the truth. Like sticking your head in a bag to protect yourself from a category 5 tornado.

a reply to: Phage

According to whom?

Several on-scene people, including the former Fire Marshall. Please keep up if you're going to discuss the issue.
Local government is intimidating people who are attempting to exercise their right to complain about the federal government. Has msm been your sole source of information on this issue?

Prison is not cruel and unusual punishment. But aside from that, Bundy is using the Hammonds. The Hammonds are neither his neighbors or friends.

A federal judge said that mandatory sentencing in this case would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. But I suppose his decades of service on the bench don't qualify him to interpret the Constitution, which supersedes Congressional actions.

Face it, the litany of publicized abuses exceeds in many instances those of the King. The polite way to wake people up is to give voice to those who have suffered. That what the citizen protests are about. The ones that aren't so polite are the ones that usually grab the national news because they feature fire, destruction and bloodshed. So, as a result of the bad intents and actions of a minuscule minority of the people involved, their voices are drowned out.
When you gather 50 or so people together you're going to get a mixture of the population. Some will be smarter than others, some will be more articulate than others. Some will be hot-headed and aggressive, some will be laid-back and contemplative. It's that very mix of people with grievances that brought forth our founders---those radicals.

a reply to: diggindirt

Has msm been your sole source of information on this issue?

No. Has youtube been yours?

But I suppose his decades of service on the bench don't qualify him to interpret the Constitution, which supersedes Congressional actions.

He can interpret the Constitution. His sentencings can also be overruled. Especially when he takes it upon himself to lower a minimum sentence. As you pointed out, judges can make mistakes. But until those mistakes are corrected, those judgements carry the weight of law. That's why the Hammonds were released...for a while.

It's that very mix of people with grievances that brought forth our founders---those radicals.

Sorry, I see no evidence of any of these "occupiers" getting close to the rationality of the founders.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Phage
Again, had you actually watched (and listened) the video you wouldn't be asking these questions. You're an intelligent guy and she isn't the least bit unclear.

One simple class on the history of the Constitution and Constitutional law will answer your questions. The Fifth Amendment refers to "capital or otherwise infamous crimes." It is what makes the forfeiture laws now in force illegal.
Congress passed those laws in violation of the Constitution. It wasn't the first time, nor the last time they acted in direct opposition to the Constitution. The states have allowed it, much to the detriment of the entire population of the US.
This argument has gone on since shortly after the original document was ratified. Read up a bit on the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

You can study and learn our history and how SCOTUS has indeed gone far astray from time to time. They are NOT the ultimate law of the land. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It can't be overturned by SCOTUS. It contains the means for change internally.

Or you can sit back and scoff at people who are out there actually exercising their rights---radicals all of them, who dare to stand up for the rights for which thousands of men and women have given their property, treasure and lives to protect.
You can be an internet keyboard warrior by suggesting that "abuses by the federal government should not be allowed." but offering no solutions to the very real abuses which are taking place on a daily basis by some branch of federal government and mocking those who are attempting to right this listing ship by putting the federal government back into the tiny box envisioned by the founders.

If we value our freedoms and believe in liberty we must stand with anyone who is being abused by government under any pretense. Any other way is suicide.
It means you don't allow government to abuse idiots, crazy people, addicted people, felons, your neighbors or your family. If I only protested abuse when it happened to people with which I'm in complete political, spiritual and emotional harmony---well, see,---those people don't exist so I could always find a reason to mock or stay silent.

I come from a long line of activist law-breakers. My great, great grandmother taught her slaves to read, write and cipher. Her daughter spent the majority of her adult life championing the right of women to vote. Having finally won that right, she was threatened with arrest on many occasions for "abducting" wives of men who would not take them to the polls to exercise their right to vote.
I don't know exactly who or what inspired my ancestors to envision a better world and work for it. Mine was the words of JFK in 1960. I was six years old. My grandparents had gotten a tv for Christmas so when they found out that the inauguration was going to be on tv they insisted that I watch it with them. This man was going to tell us how he was going to lead the nation.
Despite the fact that I was just six, I'd been reading the newspaper for almost two years. I'd read a lot about this man who was going to be president. But I couldn't really understand why my grandparents thought it was important that I sit and watch this speech with them.
They explained it this way: You know you should pay attention when the pastor gives a sermon because he's teaching us how we can be better Christians. The pastor is the leader of the church. The president is the leader of our nation. His speech is like a sermon in that he will teach us to be better citizens.
Like it was yesterday, I remember my grandmother turning to my grandfather when the speech was concluded and saying, "May God bless and keep him."
Maybe because it was the end of the speech but these words still echo in my head.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

Thus was shaped my vision of what good citizens could and should do. Work together for a better country.
If you can't work with and support people who share your values because of the way they look, or the way they sound, or they way they arm themselves, their "criminal" record or whatever....we have lost our nation.
Only two classes are frightened by people exercising their rights: tyrants and slaves.
The people in Oregon are attempting to exercise their rights to meet and associate peacefully, speak freely about their grievances without interference from government. They have not been able to exercise those rights due to interference of local government. Public spaces that should be available to them have become unavailable due to intimidation by local government.
Could you stand by and let your trusted neighbors and friends go to jail to serve out a cruel and unusual punishment without speaking out against such injustice?

My wife is an atty and she said this woman doesn't know what she's talking about. Said in law school they learn about the the Property Clause. This specifically gives the government the power to own land. Over time, the Supreme Court has ruled that not only does the government own the land, but it enjoys broad rights in deciding what happens on that land.

So I had her point me in the direction and after checking out out myself ill tell you she's either a liar or inept. Here read for your self

constitution.laws.com...

PS the supreme court has already visited this issue as well and they confirmed the govts constitutional right to own federal lands and manage them as they see fit. You are aware that the US government owned everything there before there was a state. And granted the state lands? And even continue to do so Congress can sell US property in fact government property is sold around Las Vegas for purchase. This was done to allow the city to grow.

a reply to: dragonridr
Nobody is disputing what SCOUTUS has done or what laws have passed.
I don't doubt one iota what she learned in law school.

It is simply a continuation of an argument begun in the days following the ratification of the contract. We're still seeking a more perfect union and trying to secure liberty and prosperity for ourselves and our posterity.
The very government that was instituted to protect our rights are violating them! It's at that stage of a society that if arms are available they'll be taken up.
These Oregon protesters have so far proven that an armed protest doesn't need to be violent. People in DC should be paying attention. Every person who eats beef or owns an acre of ground should be firing off letters to their federal representatives.

a reply to: Phage
I see the punishment as cruel and unusual because I don't believe the men should have ever been charged with any crimes at all. They did what the federal government could not do---protect their lives and property. That's what the contract called the Constitution is all about.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Phage
I see the punishment as cruel and unusual because I don't believe the men should have ever been charged with any crimes at all. They did what the federal government could not do---protect their lives and property. That's what the contract called the Constitution is all about.

You do realize there was witnesses that testified against him in court. He intentionally set the fires because he was illegally shooting deers and was confronted by a ranger. Who actually testified he left because there were to many of them. Even his own family testified against him saying he made him set the fires. I'm done its obvious your trying to make there mistakes fit in to your world view of how evil the govt is. That's fine but don't make these A holes out to be some kind if heroes they aren't have police reports of intimidation of neighbors and even child abuse. Lets just say they aren't popular with the locals. People just picked this up as a cause to get thr federal govt to release more lands to the state. And don't think this isn't because the state would love to get access to those lands to rent them for mineral extraction. There's a lot of money trying to grab up federal lands since it takes a vote in congress for them to grant the right to remove resources. And that's a hard sell for congressman wouldn't be popular and never happen. That dont mean Russia isn't going to keep trying since there company wants it for extraction uranium for example.You have been suckered into supporting Russias company.

mobile.nytimes.com...