The picture say it all.

[93gc40]

Funny how the libs are real fast to enforce the LAW when it restricts US Citizens and property owners.... Yet the are perfectly willing to IGNORE laws when it comes to the IRS, illegals and terrorists.

Bundy may be wrong in nit paying the fees.. The Government may also be in the wrong for demanding them in the first place.
This is not the Only case of this type of thing.. Between the US and California governments.. We will soon be dependant on OTHER countries for our FOOD. Not to mention nowhere to WHEEL. You do realize the FEDs want to CLOSE the rubicon and most of the rest of the sierra nevadas to HUMAN use.

 

[nosigma]

Did you know that the paycheck for upper management in government is directly related to the budget of the organization? The more money they can collect and spend the more they get paid.

I need to strongly disagree with your statement quoted above.
As one of those "upper management" guys (DoD) I can tell you that pay is not directly related to budget. As with any enterprise the more responsibility the more that is expected of you and the greater your pay can be (assuming you perform). Pay is NOT proportionally tied to budget authority in any way shape or form. I have a half dozen project leads working for me that make more than I do but have a hundredth of my budget authority. The next few lines of management above me each have an order of magnitude more budget authority than the one below each of them but their pay is not proportional to that budget authority, its more like fractionally higher on each level up.

Sec Def has a budget of $526 Billion.
His pay is NOT 2.1 million times bigger than a project lead with a budget of $250,000.
Sec Def pay is more like three times the pay of that PI. Both of them could make a hell of a lot more in private industry. Most of us (but not all) do what we do because we love our jobs and what we accomplish for the trigger pullers that we support and not for the money.

In no part of the Government is there a "bounty system" where the more you collect the more you get paid nor is pay tied directly budget authority.

I am no fan of the bloated bureaucracy, I have to fight it every day, but saying that pay is proportional to budget authority or fees collected is just flat wrong.

John

 

[nosigma]

The underlying problem we have is that bureaucracies believe they are authorized to restrict the rights of the people. Congress NEVER passed a law that allowed our first amendment rights (or any other rights) to be restricted to specified areas. But yet the BLM (in this case) believes it can do just that. Why?

Congress does, by laws it passes, give an authority to a bureaucracy, in this case BLM, to "oversee the management of public lands". BLM then create regulations and policy's to carryout that objective as it sees fit. Congress never approves those regulations which can carry civil or criminal penalties if broken.

The vast majority of laws we live under were never approved by any elected body. Long ago Congress ceded the power to create law to the Federal bureaucracy as it saw fit in carrying out Congressional intent AS DEFINED BY THE BUREAUCRACY (by the way you have no legal standing to challenge this). This gives the unelected people in the executive branch the ability to write laws that we must abide by. So now we have the executive branch (unaccountable bureaucrats) writing law, and executive branch bureaucrats enforcing law (who called in the heavily armed thugs to respond in Nevada?) and an executive branch prosecuting law breakers as it selectively sees fit depending on its political objectives (Proprietorial Discretion).

This is how some cube dwelling low life in DC can decide that its OK to restrict your right to free speech to the time and place of that persons choosing.

John

 

[8Mud]

I need to strongly disagree with your statement quoted above.
As one of those "upper management" guys (DoD) I can tell you that pay is not directly related to budget. As with any enterprise the more responsibility the more that is expected of you and the greater your pay can be (assuming you perform). Pay is NOT proportionally tied to budget authority in any way shape or form. I have a half dozen project leads working for me that make more than I do but have a hundredth of my budget authority. The next few lines of management above me each have an order of magnitude more budget authority than the one below each of them but their pay is not proportional to that budget authority, its more like fractionally higher on each level up.

Sec Def has a budget of $526 Billion.
His pay is NOT 2.1 million times bigger than a project lead with a budget of $250,000.
Sec Def pay is more like three times the pay of that PI. Both of them could make a hell of a lot more in private industry. Most of us (but not all) do what we do because we love our jobs and what we accomplish for the trigger pullers that we support and not for the money.

In no part of the Government is there a "bounty system" where the more you collect the more you get paid nor is pay tied directly budget authority.

I am no fan of the bloated bureaucracy, I have to fight it every day, but saying that pay is proportional to budget authority or fees collected is just flat wrong.

John

Semantics, I said "related" not proportional. One major argument for getting a bump in pay (grade increase). is supervision of more people, another is budget, another is volume. I've watched upper management politicking for a higher grade to an existing position, it usually takes years. They usually spend a *proportionally* large part of their day working at it.

Department of the Interior isn't DOD, the State Department isn't either. But I'd be willing to bet *most* of upper management didn't get to their position (solely) by ability. A lot of politicking going on and one major factor is budget.

I'll grant you *most* of my experience is with the State Department. But I did work directly for a General for awhile, one of those jobs where you heard pretty much everything and didn't say much. A long time ago, but I doubt things have changed much. A good buddy of mine writes (rather large) budget proposals, he does it for a living, I don't. We are actually buddies because I have absolutely never had anything to do with what he does and know absolutely nobody he works with or for. He is usually pretty straight with me, no reason to not be.

Let me ask you a question or two, how many of your employees actually do much of anything? Sure there are a few who actually keep the machine running, but in my experience the majority are drones. How much of the average day do your *peers* actually spend doing the job and how many spend the vast majority of their day communicating with their peers and higher. In my experience the majority of the day is spent doing self promotion and polishing the image, the communications are mostly volume and not content.

Maybe you are one of those guys who keep the machine running, usually despite the best efforts of your peers, that more often than not, just get in the way.

 

[8Mud]

The underlying problem we have is that bureaucracies believe they are authorized to restrict the rights of the people. Congress NEVER passed a law that allowed our first amendment rights (or any other rights) to be restricted to specified areas. But yet the BLM (in this case) believes it can do just that. Why?

Congress does, by laws it passes, give an authority to a bureaucracy, in this case BLM, to "oversee the management of public lands". BLM then create regulations and policy's to carryout that objective as it sees fit. Congress never approves those regulations which can carry civil or criminal penalties if broken.

The vast majority of laws we live under were never approved by any elected body. Long ago Congress ceded the power to create law to the Federal bureaucracy as it saw fit in carrying out Congressional intent AS DEFINED BY THE BUREAUCRACY (by the way you have no legal standing to challenge this). This gives the unelected people in the executive branch the ability to write laws that we must abide by. So now we have the executive branch (unaccountable bureaucrats) writing law, and executive branch bureaucrats enforcing law (who called in the heavily armed thugs to respond in Nevada?) and an executive branch prosecuting law breakers as it selectively sees fit depending on its political objectives (Proprietorial Discretion).

This is how some cube dwelling low life in DC can decide that its OK to restrict your right to free speech to the time and place of that persons choosing.

John

Like I said in another thread, the people who write policy tend to ignore the law, especially the Bill of Rights, often the Ten Commandments. Sometimes they write policy and eventually change the law to fit the policy. Slowly but surely policy seems to trump the law.

Pretty much Fascism by default, they write the policy and then hide in the system. They most always say it is for the public good and some may even believe that. The major players do it because it benefits them and not the citizenry. In effect making Democracy a worse system than a benevolent Dictatorship.

It evolves and morphs over time. I remember when the "no Knock" discussion was going on (in the early 70's). It was already policy in my Police Department at that time, all they had to say was it was to prevent a serious felony, a chase in progress or to stop a violent crime in progress. Eventually the law caught up with the policy and "No knock" became moot. Now they knock by flash banging the kids, shooting the dog and roughing up the suspects. If they get the wrong address or some crappy neighbor files a bogus complaint, they say we are OK we were following policy.

 

[XJEEPER]

More states are drawing a line in the sand with the BLM.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...feds-over-concerns-of-new-land-grab-in-texas/

For the record, while I agree with Mr. Bundy's position that the BLM's actions are excessive and there needs to be some serious course correction regarding the management and federal claims to state land......

I DO NOT agree with his position regarding breaking of laws and most recently, his disturbing remarks regarding blacks. To imply that anyone, regardless of race, would be better off a slave, is ludicrous.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/u...s-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?hp

I'm sure that the MSM who has all but ignored this incident will now pile on and try and associate ANYONE who is against the BLM's actions as a racist domestic terrorist......stand by for the latest statement by Crazy Harry Reid.

 

[Boatwrench]

Was he paying the fees to the BLM for grazing rights?

That is what this should really be about, was he right? or was he wrong?

 

[kastein]

I on the other hand don't give a rats ass about his quarrel with the BLM. Whether he was right or wrong, they were handling things in the characteristically heavy handed federal way until a number of private citizens exercised their second amendment rights (as well as their first amendment rights and a number of other rights, which were being trampled badly.)

*THAT* is what I care about here. If Bundy was out of line, he can go hang for all I care

 

[8Mud]

Was he paying the fees to the BLM for grazing rights?

That is what this should really be about, was he right? or was he wrong?

From what I understand he is/was being passive aggressive. He refused to pay the fees because he felt the fees were being miss appropriated and miss used. The Fees weren't being used to administer or maintain the disputed area.

He said his refusals to pay was an act of protest. The Feds can claim anything they want and have the firepower to back up their claims. Joe citizen has little recourse but to be a spoiler.

As far as I know the Indians haven't given up claim to the same land, refused the payoff and have been disputing the Governments claim in federal court since around 1971 through 2006 and are likely still litigating. In other words who does Bundy pay the rent to, the Federal Engorgement of the Shoshone?

I'b be willing to bet, from observation of past record, that they claim Tortoise protection, but within five years, ten at the most, the same land will leased to some mining venture.

I've actually read the treaty, right of passage, right to way stations, mining and mining communities and a Fort. It prohibits homesteading and holding property. Of course in Lawyer speak, it probably doesn't say that, it is just what is written in the treaty.

I was once beaten stupid for trespassing in a State Park (how is this possible?) by County Sheriffs (out of their jurisdiction), hauled off to hospital/jail and my dog abandoned, never to be seen again. I was actually on Federal Lands at the time. The Sherrif's lied (CYA) the Judge sided with them. I stopped paying taxes, sold my business. moved me and what money I had overseas and said Auf Wiedersehen. I could have been proactive or reactive, I decided defense in depth was the better option than going to war ( I was tempted, really really tempted). Bundy decided to fight.
There are now around a hundred Iranians living on my small farm and around the same number of Mexicans on my brothers place. What I'm getting at is, if Bundy wins or looses, that is unlikely to be the end of the story. As often as not upsetting the status-quo is the poorer choice. All the Engorgement (Government) is really concerned with is projecting power so their extortion racket stays intact and making as much money as possible.

Right or wrong, lawful or unlawful may not be the right questions. I keep hoping common sense may someday prevail, I guess I'm a dreamer.