Advancing Into Feudalism

What she is really upset about is the group of folks that committed arson on federal land are being denied rights to the land after Trump gave them the rights back on 31 December of 2020..


The Biden administration’s Bureau of Land Management on Friday rescinded a grazing permit that was granted to Eastern Oregon ranchers who were previously convicted of arson on public lands.

It reverses the decision by former President Donald Trump’s Interior secretary, David Bernhardt. He had granted the permit to Dwight and Steven Hammond on Trump’s final day in office. The permit gave the Hammonds the right to graze livestock on public land for 10 years.

Friday’s decision comes one day after a coalition of environmental groups sued the government over Bernhardt’s decision. Their lawsuit alleged that Bernhardt cut short the required public and environmental review processes before issuing permits to the Hammonds.



That is based on lies.
There was no "arson" committed.
It is essential to burn off land.
If you don't, then the debris does not get reclaimed into the soil, and the inedible brush takes over and chokes off the grass needed for grazing.
And what happened specifically is that a controlled burn accidentally also burned some supposed federal land.
But that is NOT arson because the federal land SHOULD also have been burned off.
The natives were the ones who started the practice of doing these burn offs, tens of thousands of years ago.
It is a necessary procedure.
The federal government is in violation by NOT doing it.
 
In the broadest sense, they’re areas of land that are open to the public and managed by the government. You can think of it as land you own (and share with everyone else in the United States). There are three types of government that manage public lands: federal, state and local. Remember, public lands aren’t just national parks—your state and local city parks count, too. And there’s a difference among them. Federal public lands are held in trust for all Americans and the goal is to manage the land for the long-term health of both the land and citizens, according to The Conservation Alliance. Many federal agencies manage public lands for multiple uses, from recreation to timber, but in some form or another every American has a say in how these places get used. For states, it’s hard to generalize. For some lands, there’s no requirement to involve citizens in public land management decisions.
It was public land already...they just said nobody can rape it of it's resources.

Public has nothing to do with it.
The problem is when the federal government claims land as theirs.
There should be no federal land.
The only reason there originally was any federal land is that new, poor states were at first unable to afford to administer all of their land themselves.
That should no longer be true, so all federal land should have been returned to the states by now.
There is a risk then that some local wealthy may have inordinate power in each state, but tough. That is the way it goes.

Then you should start a thread about that. The fact is that these were already federal lands and the federal government is simply saying you can't rape it of its resources. They didn't "grab" anything.



If you ever get around to reading a book......



'View attachment 462297
natural heritage to rape the land and leave it barren and polluted...

If you do not burn off open prairie, then is does become barren and polluted. It is only by burning off the old debris and scrub brush, that grass can grown and protect the soil from rain.
 
Such is life, just like the dept. of conservation is the guard .

Ultimately the goal of leftism is to undo the renascence. Marxism, Nazism, whatever we call it, is just a return to feudalism. All is owned by the crown and managed by barons and earls appointed by the crown.

That is silly.
Leftism is what ended feudalism, monarchies, and aristocracies.
Marxism is not centralized, but supposed to be local.
It is just that Stalin killed all the Marxists and implemented state capitalism instead.
Nazism never even pretended to be leftist at all, and was purely a coalition of the businesses, military, and aristocracy.
If you study the Russian revolution, the major players were Anarchists, who clearly were not in favor of a centralized powerful government at all.
They were against any coercive government, so really were nearly identical to the current Libertarians.
So you view is way to simpllistic and unreal.
 
What she is really upset about is the group of folks that committed arson on federal land are being denied rights to the land after Trump gave them the rights back on 31 December of 2020..


The Biden administration’s Bureau of Land Management on Friday rescinded a grazing permit that was granted to Eastern Oregon ranchers who were previously convicted of arson on public lands.

It reverses the decision by former President Donald Trump’s Interior secretary, David Bernhardt. He had granted the permit to Dwight and Steven Hammond on Trump’s final day in office. The permit gave the Hammonds the right to graze livestock on public land for 10 years.

Friday’s decision comes one day after a coalition of environmental groups sued the government over Bernhardt’s decision. Their lawsuit alleged that Bernhardt cut short the required public and environmental review processes before issuing permits to the Hammonds.



That is based on lies.
There was no "arson" committed.
It is essential to burn off land.
If you don't, then the debris does not get reclaimed into the soil, and the inedible brush takes over and chokes off the grass needed for grazing.
And what happened specifically is that a controlled burn accidentally also burned some supposed federal land.
But that is NOT arson because the federal land SHOULD also have been burned off.
The natives were the ones who started the practice of doing these burn offs, tens of thousands of years ago.
It is a necessary procedure.
The federal government is in violation by NOT doing it.
The instance referencing was the act of burning off the land yet not controlling the burn..
 
That is silly.
Leftism is what ended feudalism, monarchies, and aristocracies.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

:lmao:

BWAHHAHAHAHHHAHHHA

:rofl:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

:lol:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Marxism is not centralized, but supposed to be local.
It is just that Stalin killed all the Marxists and implemented state capitalism instead.
Nazism never even pretended to be leftist at all, and was purely a coalition of the businesses, military, and aristocracy.
If you study the Russian revolution, the major players were Anarchists, who clearly were not in favor of a centralized powerful government at all.
They were against any coercive government, so really were nearly identical to the current Libertarians.
So you view is way to simpllistic and unreal.

You don't need to convince me; you need to convince this guy:

comm_man.pdf (slp.org)
 
natural heritage to rape the land and leave it barren and polluted...

Yeah those liberal run cities have devastated the environment. Dems didn't damage the environment Dems obliterated it with concrete and asphalt. Barely a tree remains in their sprawling skin cancers on the environment. Wherever you see nature destroyed and animals chased off you will find a Dem city.
 
What she is really upset about is the group of folks that committed arson on federal land are being denied rights to the land after Trump gave them the rights back on 31 December of 2020..


The Biden administration’s Bureau of Land Management on Friday rescinded a grazing permit that was granted to Eastern Oregon ranchers who were previously convicted of arson on public lands.

It reverses the decision by former President Donald Trump’s Interior secretary, David Bernhardt. He had granted the permit to Dwight and Steven Hammond on Trump’s final day in office. The permit gave the Hammonds the right to graze livestock on public land for 10 years.

Friday’s decision comes one day after a coalition of environmental groups sued the government over Bernhardt’s decision. Their lawsuit alleged that Bernhardt cut short the required public and environmental review processes before issuing permits to the Hammonds.


Hi!

What to do?
 
In the broadest sense, they’re areas of land that are open to the public and managed by the government. You can think of it as land you own (and share with everyone else in the United States). There are three types of government that manage public lands: federal, state and local. Remember, public lands aren’t just national parks—your state and local city parks count, too. And there’s a difference among them. Federal public lands are held in trust for all Americans and the goal is to manage the land for the long-term health of both the land and citizens, according to The Conservation Alliance. Many federal agencies manage public lands for multiple uses, from recreation to timber, but in some form or another every American has a say in how these places get used. For states, it’s hard to generalize. For some lands, there’s no requirement to involve citizens in public land management decisions.
It was public land already...they just said nobody can rape it of it's resources.

Public has nothing to do with it.
The problem is when the federal government claims land as theirs.
There should be no federal land.
The only reason there originally was any federal land is that new, poor states were at first unable to afford to administer all of their land themselves.
That should no longer be true, so all federal land should have been returned to the states by now.
There is a risk then that some local wealthy may have inordinate power in each state, but tough. That is the way it goes.

Then you should start a thread about that. The fact is that these were already federal lands and the federal government is simply saying you can't rape it of its resources. They didn't "grab" anything.

Wrong. There were no federal lands are not supposed to be any.
It is just that when states first started out west, they could not afford to administer at first. The feds were only requested to administer temporarily, and they never were given or supposed to have ownership.
They were NOT already federal lands. In theory, there should be no such thing as any federal lands at all, anywhere, except DC. Even military bases are supposed to be state lands.
And the federal government is incapable of defending resources.
They are more distant and larger, so are MORE corrupt, not less.
"There were no federal lands are not supposed to be any."

Who's land? It all lands in the lap of who defines ownership. Think about it.
 
natural heritage to rape the land and leave it barren and polluted...

Yeah those liberal run cities have devastated the environment. Dems didn't damage the environment Dems obliterated it with concrete and asphalt. Barely a tree remains in their sprawling skin cancers on the environment. Wherever you see nature destroyed and animals chased off you will find a Dem city.
You dumb ass Red Necks! FO and stop procreating ignorance.
 
natural heritage to rape the land and leave it barren and polluted...

Yeah those liberal run cities have devastated the environment. Dems didn't damage the environment Dems obliterated it with concrete and asphalt. Barely a tree remains in their sprawling skin cancers on the environment. Wherever you see nature destroyed and animals chased off you will find a Dem city.
You dumb ass Red Necks! FO and stop procreating ignorance.

Truth hurts doesn't it. Now you stupid shit Dems stop running your big mouths about the environment. It would also help if Dem cities would stop spilling hundreds of millions of gallons of raw untreated sewage into rivers and oceans. God but the left are filthy.
 
Can somone point out, in the rules for the fed gov't employees, where the authority to land grab is granted?

What Does the Constitution Say About Federal Land Ownership? - Independence Institute

That is an incorrect interpretation.
The federal lands referred to in the constitution were actually just things like DC, forts, etc.
It does NOT include things like BLM grazing land, which the federal government should have returned to the states as soon as they were able to administer them, on their own.
 
It was public land already...they just said nobody can rape it of it's resources.

It is the Crown's land. The peasants are forbidden by law from trespassing or using the Crown's land.

Some of the best 4-wheeling I've done has been on public land here in Nevada! The King's soldiers can't be everywhere now, can they? :muahaha: (I've even been chased by Bundy's cattle on public land on my quad south of Mesquite! Great times....).
 
Can somone point out, in the rules for the fed gov't employees, where the authority to land grab is granted?

What Does the Constitution Say About Federal Land Ownership? - Independence Institute

That is an incorrect interpretation.
The federal lands referred to in the constitution were actually just things like DC, forts, etc.
It does NOT include things like BLM grazing land, which the federal government should have returned to the states as soon as they were able to administer them, on their own.

That is correct. You misread something.

"As for acreage (“other Property”) within state boundaries: Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government may acquire and retain land necessary for carrying out its enumerated powers." Read that as only enumerated powers.

That is the gist of the article.
 
What she is really upset about is the group of folks that committed arson on federal land are being denied rights to the land after Trump gave them the rights back on 31 December of 2020..


The Biden administration’s Bureau of Land Management on Friday rescinded a grazing permit that was granted to Eastern Oregon ranchers who were previously convicted of arson on public lands.

It reverses the decision by former President Donald Trump’s Interior secretary, David Bernhardt. He had granted the permit to Dwight and Steven Hammond on Trump’s final day in office. The permit gave the Hammonds the right to graze livestock on public land for 10 years.

Friday’s decision comes one day after a coalition of environmental groups sued the government over Bernhardt’s decision. Their lawsuit alleged that Bernhardt cut short the required public and environmental review processes before issuing permits to the Hammonds.



That is based on lies.
There was no "arson" committed.
It is essential to burn off land.
If you don't, then the debris does not get reclaimed into the soil, and the inedible brush takes over and chokes off the grass needed for grazing.
And what happened specifically is that a controlled burn accidentally also burned some supposed federal land.
But that is NOT arson because the federal land SHOULD also have been burned off.
The natives were the ones who started the practice of doing these burn offs, tens of thousands of years ago.
It is a necessary procedure.
The federal government is in violation by NOT doing it.
The instance referencing was the act of burning off the land yet not controlling the burn..

No, the burn was controlled.
The fact it slightly encroached on BLM land was an accident, but clearly did no harm and was not deliberate. So in no way does it fit the definition of arson. And BLM is negligent for not doing enough of their own burn offs. It should be done annually. Not only is it good for deer and other grazing animals, but it reduces fire hazard from fuel build up.
For example, the CA fires can be attributed to a lack of BLM burn offs.
 
Can somone point out, in the rules for the fed gov't employees, where the authority to land grab is granted?

What Does the Constitution Say About Federal Land Ownership? - Independence Institute

That is an incorrect interpretation.
The federal lands referred to in the constitution were actually just things like DC, forts, etc.
It does NOT include things like BLM grazing land, which the federal government should have returned to the states as soon as they were able to administer them, on their own.

That is correct. You misread something.

"As for acreage (“other Property”) within state boundaries: Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government may acquire and retain land necessary for carrying out its enumerated powers." Read that as only enumerated powers.

That is the gist of the article.

That does NOT include large portions of grazing land that was promised to early settlers in order to get them to homestead.
I am not saying the the laws do not exist for the federal government to purchase land for things like airports, naval ports, training facilities, etc.
I am saying that the federal government has no business or authority over state grazing land.
That is illegal.
 
That is silly.
Leftism is what ended feudalism, monarchies, and aristocracies.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

:lmao:

BWAHHAHAHAHHHAHHHA

:rofl:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

:lol:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Marxism is not centralized, but supposed to be local.
It is just that Stalin killed all the Marxists and implemented state capitalism instead.
Nazism never even pretended to be leftist at all, and was purely a coalition of the businesses, military, and aristocracy.
If you study the Russian revolution, the major players were Anarchists, who clearly were not in favor of a centralized powerful government at all.
They were against any coercive government, so really were nearly identical to the current Libertarians.
So you view is way to simpllistic and unreal.

You don't need to convince me; you need to convince this guy:

comm_man.pdf (slp.org)

No, Karl Marx did not envison a strong central government.
By its very nature, communism has to be cooperative, communal, and collective, which can only be done with local autonomy.
But what you are missing is that Karl Marx was writing theory only, around 1840 or so, and had nothing at all to do with Bolsheviks.

Just go back to the liberals of the 1700s, like the French revolution, the American revolution, etc.
Liberals are who ended the monarchies.
 
Can somone point out, in the rules for the fed gov't employees, where the authority to land grab is granted?

What Does the Constitution Say About Federal Land Ownership? - Independence Institute

That is an incorrect interpretation.
The federal lands referred to in the constitution were actually just things like DC, forts, etc.
It does NOT include things like BLM grazing land, which the federal government should have returned to the states as soon as they were able to administer them, on their own.

That is correct. You misread something.

"As for acreage (“other Property”) within state boundaries: Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government may acquire and retain land necessary for carrying out its enumerated powers." Read that as only enumerated powers.

That is the gist of the article.

That does NOT include large portions of grazing land that was promised to early settlers in order to get them to homestead.
I am not saying the the laws do not exist for the federal government to purchase land for things like airports, naval ports, training facilities, etc.
I am saying that the federal government has no business or authority over state grazing land.
That is illegal.

From the article -

"But within state boundaries the Constitution grants no [federal] authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks."

I don't understand your point, if you are making one.
 
Can somone point out, in the rules for the fed gov't employees, where the authority to land grab is granted?

What Does the Constitution Say About Federal Land Ownership? - Independence Institute

That is an incorrect interpretation.
The federal lands referred to in the constitution were actually just things like DC, forts, etc.
It does NOT include things like BLM grazing land, which the federal government should have returned to the states as soon as they were able to administer them, on their own.

That is correct. You misread something.

"As for acreage (“other Property”) within state boundaries: Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government may acquire and retain land necessary for carrying out its enumerated powers." Read that as only enumerated powers.

That is the gist of the article.

That does NOT include large portions of grazing land that was promised to early settlers in order to get them to homestead.
I am not saying the the laws do not exist for the federal government to purchase land for things like airports, naval ports, training facilities, etc.
I am saying that the federal government has no business or authority over state grazing land.
That is illegal.

From the article -

"But within state boundaries the Constitution grants no [federal] authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks."

I don't understand your point, if you are making one.

I don't know what your point is?
Clearly BLM can manage state grazing land for the state, but does not own it in any way.
And the grazing land the BLM does manage for the state, is solely to be used for the benefit of the ranchers who were promised access, so that they would start ranches there.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top