112 thoughts on “This Abusive Government”

  1. ” we are going to rebel against it”

    Okay, Who is the We he is talking about?

    Is George Will one of those “we”? Is George Willing to get his hands dirty?
    Are you?

    2. I wonder what will happen to people like dn-guy and Red Jim when the Feds can no longer pay their security forces due to massive $200 trillion unfunded liabilities?

      1. I suppose what will happen to most americans.

        Oil prices will rise, but, that’s okay my Hybrid is getting replaced this next 12 months with a Volt.
        I’m going solar and the organic garden is going great guns.

        1. I doubt that people like dn-guy and Red Jim will exist after the Federal Government’s collapse. Instead, my bets are on people like the Bundy ranching family continuing to exist after the collapse.

          1. Do you have a problem with a man exercising personal choice to grow
            vegetables?

            Do you have a problem with individual freedom?

          3. “Did you check with the BLM?”

            I own my place, I don’t depend upon trespassing upon public land
            to do this.

          4. So you had passed the environmental impact study? Not using to much water or fertilizer? OSHA compliant work area? I bet there are any number of violations if someone chose to go all Obama on you. I doubt you even meet the regs to legally call it organic. You could be breaking the law by posting a comment claiming to be organic. tsk tsk

          1. Are you okay with Massive Public Subsidies to Nuclear Power, including
            Multi Billion dollar Loans to build each station, the tax payers insuring
            all the risks when they explode and Electricty prices higher then wind or
            hydro.

            http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704804204575069301926799046

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Estimates

        4. Going solar and having an organic garden? Didn’t you just say in another post that your apartment landlord didn’t allow cable so you moved to another unit?

          2. in 2001, my LL wouldn’t let us have Cable or Directv in the building,
            so in 2003, I moved a block away, where, said same LL let me have
            Cable TV. In 2010, I set up an organic garden with his permission
            in the back of the apt and a year later, I got a deal on house, so
            I did. The yard is a little smaller and it’s definitely much closer to larger drug markets then my place in Arlington, but, It’s letting me put a solar array up on the roof. 13 KW of Solar, should take me off the Oil/gas grid, and the 5 KW solar array for next year should take me grid neutral.

            Let’s just see how tedious the DC Govt can make the permitting process.

          3. Assumption creates issues, so I don’t want to assume in this case, but my question may come across as being based in assumption.

            That said, for this planned 5-13 KW solar installation, will the cost be covered completely out-of-pocket, or will you be accepting subsidies in the form of “rebates” from your fellow citizens who use oil/gas/nuke for their electricity? Please explain your reasoning for your choice in either case.

          4. I will take advantage of any tax incentives or market incentives offered,
            because it’s good business.

            FWIW, Elon Musk probably has 50% of his net worth because of Public incentives.
            Tesla takes advantage of ZEV credits, EV tax credits. Solar City takes advantage of Solar credits and SpaceX has to date about 90% of their income from NASA and DoD.

            The tax code has all sorts of social policy in it, from deductions to homeowner interest to low capital gains taxes. I take advantage of the tax code, as any entity would.

          5. Lol you went from subsidies are bad to they are good and Elon Musk does it so you can’t criticize me.

  2. Is the Nevada rancher guilty of grazing his cattle illegally? The courts say yes. Did BLM have the right to confiscate his cattle? Assuming they had a court order then yes. So what is the problem? The problem is the militarization of non-police or non-military governmental departments. What should have happened is BLM goes to the local Sherriff, shows him the court order and the local police force provides escort to BLM contractors. Instead, BLM comes in with a military strike force (that obviously has never been trained in proper police procedure when dealing with the public) and threatens the rancher along with anybody else who supports the rancher. The show of force had nothing to do with cattle and everything to do with who is in charge.

    Do I support the rancher? Not really but I am absolutely against all of the para-military units that have been created throughout government.

    BTW Maybe the reason for all of these military units is because the government also believes there will be a rebellion?

    1. Maybe, but I also think that it’s fun to play soldier, and provides a thrill of power, and no one really thought through the consequences of handing out all this military equipment to government agencies, both local and federal.

      1. It ‘s a pity republicans didn’t care when Militarized SWAT teams were kicking the ass of
        OWS or Black teens in the ghetto.

        2. SWAT teams never went after OWS, except maybe the ones plotting to blow up bridges. Most of the police bent over backwards to accommodate OWS. OWS received unprecedented preferential treatment from the state even after they turned violent.

          I won’t say anything on about your habitual race baiting except that perhaps you should refrain in light on racist statements you have made in the past.

          1. If you support a separate standard of law, based upon color or neighborhood,
            don’t get upset when I point that out.

            All you have to say is “Black Teens in the Hood have the right to mind their
            own business and hang out with friends w/o being stopped, frisked and
            harassed”.

          2. You said SWAT teams going after black people and nothing about stop and frisk. Write a coherent comment initially and you. won’t have to make stuff up to CYA after.

            It is incredibly funny to see you talking about equal enforcement of the “law” in light of your posts on the Mann suit, IRS targeting,and Obamacare. The law means nothing to you.

        3. “t ‘s a pity republicans didn’t care when Militarized SWAT teams were kicking the ass of
          OWS or Black teens in the ghetto.”

          There was nothign to care about because what you allege never happened. IN fact police were called of in Boston, and the OWS were allowed to fragrantly break the law.

          Nice try.

          2. I’m convinced DN is not sentient. Over and over, he posts follow up arguments that lack self-awareness of his previous comments. He starts with “police kicking the ass of OWS and black teens” and then provides questionable evidence of two white women being pepper sprayed to back up his argument.

          5. Maybe OWS would have less problems with cops if it wasn’t their intention to provoke a police response by escalating the violence until the police were forced to respond? Most of the OWS stuff happened in blue cities with the blessing of Democrat politicians. The cops were just pawns in Democrat militant activist street theatre.

    2. Maybe the reason for all of these military units is because the government also believes there will be a rebellion?

      That sounds like it falls under the category of “self-fulfilling prophecy”.

      “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

      People don’t start rebellions willy-nilly because they are bored and have nothing better to do. Usually they have reasons. A government that is increasingly arrogant, lawless, and despotic is pretty high on the list.

    3. Hasn’t he been operating on agreements that predate Nevada joining the United States? I haven’t seen much on this but I haven’t really looked either. This whole things seems ridiculous, cattle and tortoises can coexist and have been. IMO, this has nothing at all do to do saving animals.

      1. it doesn’t matter, BLM changed policy, and as a tenant he has to accept it.
        I had a landlord wouldn’t allow Cable TV or Dishes. I moved to his other building
        which had those. Irrational? yes. Landlord’s call? Yep.

        1. There’s no indication that BLM should or actually did have the authority to make that change in policy. Suppose some future president just arbitrarily decides that virtually all federal land should have no human presence and kicks everyone off – not just of BLM land, but also national forest and national park land too. It’s just changing the mind, but in a way that is illegal by both legislative law and constitution.

        2. dn-guy is okay with the idea of a Chinese general’s solar panel company using the BLM to remove Bundy’s cattle…

        3. BLM changed policy, and as a tenant

          The Constitution begins with “We the People”. We are not “tenants”. Our government, at least when created, couldn’t just change policy without compensation. Maybe they did compensate in this case, I don’t know. I haven’t followed the story at all. But your argument based on personal experience is moronic. It’s not how our government works or should ever work. If you see Uncle Sam as your landlord, you don’t understand liberty at all.

          Sadly, too many people think like you.

          1. I live down the block from a Federal park.

            Can I take it over for my personal use, and threaten park rangers who want to kick me out?

          4. Can I take it over for my personal use, and threaten park rangers who want to kick me out?

            Are you homeless and living in that federal park? Is that why you think of the US government as your landlord?

          5. threaten park rangers who want to kick me out?

            Did you notice how the WWII vets handled the park rangers? I assure you, they read the US Constitution, and they don’t look at Uncle Sam as a landlord.

          6. Sadly, too many people think like you.

            They have a form of thinking that proves false in its power.

        4. “it doesn’t matter”

          It should matter if the arrangement predates that existence of the relationship between the Untied States and Nevada. If it was wrong to break treaties with the natives, this is just as wrong.

          But as I said earlier, I don’t know the details. To me this is just another case of gonzo environmentalism run amok like Bill Clinton in a brothel.

          “and as a tenant he has to accept it.”

          You should know that sometimes even when the landlord changes, the prior owner or other parties can sometimes retain some rights to the land. Think of mineral rights and easements.

          3. if you knew anything of American law, you can’t get an easement
            against the state. The state may create a road which benefits one person
            mostly, but, easements exist on private land not public land.

          4. easements exist on private land not public land.

            Fascinating. I work for a power company, and I suppose that all our existing easements across the state-owned parks, sixteenth section lands, and federally-owned national forests in our service area are simply figments of our imagination?

            When I was seventeen I thought I knew everything. It’s time for you to grow up.

        5. The landlord in this case is the State of Nevada, not the BLM. The Feds don’t have jurisdiction, which is why he refused to pay.

          1. Nice theory, pity, it’s ungrounded in Federal Law and State Constitution.

            The Nevada constitution specifically recognizes federal ownership of land within the state.

    4. George, perhaps the BLM went to the sheriff and he gave them a center-fingered salute.

      As Rand says, some low- to medium-level Fed might’ve gotten all excited about the chance to do a geared-up take-down of the rancher. But the use of overwhelming militarized force against what seems to amount to a family business–“We’re willing to send in hundreds of black-masked SpecOps guys with machine guns to shoot this family over their cows”– along with associated First Amendment violations, has horrible optics for the Feds and unpleasant implications for us rabble. There are probably bloggers out there right now typing, “See? Told you so! They really ARE sending the Army after you!” Their cred just went way up.

      If this was really about “sending a message”– sure, most people will be cowed by the black-masked Feds and crawl away and hide. But especially if a catastrophe had occurred here, others would see it as a good excuse to shoot first next time.

      And don’t let get me started on the suggestion that Harry Reid’s involved in this. Not that it would actually surprise me.

      1. The sheriff might have told them to take a hike. Then they should have done what they did in the olden times, bring in the US Marshall.

        This is a civil case. Nobody was in danger, no threat of terrorism, no nothing. Keep playing army and you’ll put your eye out.

      2. Harry Reid and a Chinese solar panel company is involved with this extortion. It was never about tortoises. Next time the Feds try to take land from producer Americans in the name of a bird or a small fish, it’s time to do a little dirt digging to find the real reasons behind the land grab.

      3. Infowars been talking about this a lot. I may not agree with them on everything, but a lot of what is said I concure with.

        1. One of the sad things about living in the times that we do is that Alex Jones is looking a little less insane than some of us thought.

    5. “Is the Nevada rancher guilty of grazing his cattle illegally? The courts say yes.”

      Is that really true?

      “We were told they did it because the Bundys had broken federal laws by not paying what amounted to retroactive grazing fees to the federal government. But the Governor of the state of Nevada told us that Bundy had paid every ounce of state tax, met the state requirements, and their family had been /improving/ the property more than 100 years previous.”

      http://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2014/04/13/why-the-feds-chickened-out-on-a-nevada-ranch-n1823838/page/full

  3. One other thought; The new Capetian America movie is very timely in its message and to answer Dn-guy’s question – The “we” is any person who values freedom over safety.

  4. I don’t think this is over by a long shot. I just can’t see the Feds slinking off with their tails between their legs after putting on such an outrageous show of force.

    See this article for the story of another rancher, Wayne Hage, in the 1980s and 90s. It explores the complex legal issues of water and grazing rights, how Federal agencies were taken over by environmentalists who were openly hostile to ranching, and shows the lengths the government will go to if they decide they want what you have.

    I can only imagine that the situation has gotten worse in the 20+ years since that story unfolded.

    1. “how Federal agencies were taken over by environmentalists who were openly hostile to ranching”

      This ^^

      1. This ^2

        The problem isn’t just the guy at the top. The entire thing is rotten all the way down. You could throw all the bums out in the next few elections, and the nameless bureaucratic horde will still be there. I really have no idea what can be done about that problem.

    2. The “environmentalism” is just a thin veil of a pretext for ulterior and base motives for the land grabs.

  5. Meanwhile back in Ukraine…….

    Reuters, by Pavel Polityuk and Thomas Grove Original Article
    Posted By: NorthernDog- 4/12/2014 3:29:19 PM Post Reply
    KIEV/MOSCOW – Armed separatists took virtual control of a city in eastern Ukraine on Saturday and Kiev prepared troops to deal with what it called an “act of aggression by Russia”. Pro-Russian activists carrying automatic weapons seized government buildings in Slaviansk and set up barricades on the outskirts of the city. Official buildings in several neighboring towns were also attacked. The developments have increased concerns of a possible “gas war” that could disrupt energy supplies across the continent. “The Ukrainian authorities consider the events of the day as a display of external aggression from Russia,”

    1. I’m surprised the gunfighting hasn’t already given Putin the pretext to move his troops in already.

  6. Is it a coincidence that the feds backed off shortly after a possible connection to Senator Harry Reid was revealed?

    1. I don’t think so. Imagine the blood bath if neither side backed off. Then imagine the political firestorm when Reid’s (his son’s actually) involvement is revealed in the post-tragedy investigation. Someone may have made some calls to shutdown the escalation.

      That doesn’t mean the BLM won’t be back after the militia types go home. I’m pretty sure they will. I think though they’ll try to be a little more subtle next time.

  8. I believe the incredibly bad optics for Feds were the only thing that saved the rancher and his family in this go around. For whatever reason, this story struck a chord with the American public through the alternative media and there were far too many cameras and people looking on before the BLM could accomplish their goals. Once things settle down, the rancher may not be as fortunate next time the BLM comes knocking. Hopefully in the meantime the Sheriff will better understand his duties and be more proactive and send the Fed goons packing, or better yet, arrest them for illegally brandishing weapons in a threatening manner on county and state property (my understanding the land is managed by the BLM, but owned by the state of Nevada).

    Just as the Feds are surely coming back to make the rancher an example and make his life a living hell through the court system (if they don’t physically come after him again), let’s hope that the opposition has also gained more confidence and learned valuable lessons on shaming the jackbooted Fed goons on their intimidation tactics.

  9. Gee does this mean the government and MSM LIED to us? Nahhh can’t be….

    “We were told they did it because the Bundys had broken federal laws by not paying what amounted to retroactive grazing fees to the federal government. But the Governor of the state of Nevada told us that Bundy had paid every ounce of state tax, met the state requirements, and their family had been /improving/ the property more than 100 years previous.”

    http://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2014/04/13/why-the-feds-chickened-out-on-a-nevada-ranch-n1823838/page/full

          1. It never occurs to state shtuppers (can’t spell yiddish) that the state (meaning fed) assertions can be wrong. It’s really funny actually.

          2. The Supreme court is not irreversible because it’s infallible,
            The Supreme court is infallible because it’s irreversible.

          4. “The Supreme Court is not irreversible, you idiot. Any future court can reverse the decision of a previous one.”

            Yeah. That’s why the D-Party desperately wants to hold onto a Senate majority in 2014 (and beyond) and elect Hillary in 2016. Then time is on their side for installing correct-thinking replacements for Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas. Correct-thinking in this case means stare decisis is an out-dated principle that can be ignored. If that happens, welcome to the United States of dn-guy and Jim.

        2. US v Bundy 178 F.3d 1301 “Cliven D. Bundy appeals pro se from the district court’s entry of summary judgment for the United States in its action for trespass and to enjoin Bundy from grazing his livestock on land administered Bureau of Land Management. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s entry of summary judgment, see United States v. Gardner, 107 F.3d 1314, 1317 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.
          Bundy contends that the district court erred by exercising jurisdiction over the action. For the reasons stated by the district court in its November 4, 1998 order, we reject Bundy’s contention.”

  10. You know how in the American Revolution the Brits raised Loyalist regiments among the Tories to help the redcoats fight the rebels? You know that in a new American revolution, dn-guy is going to be in one of the DNC’s New Tory regiments. The good news is that he’s so stupid he’ll probably shoot himself.

  11. DN Guy,

    You still haven’t explained how you’re going to make all that electricity for your utopian electric car future.

    Who gives a rats rear end about subsidies (in this case?) I asked about electricity.

    Guess if you have no answer, throw red herrings. It’s what democrats do best.

    1. My plan is to put about 7 KW on the roof of the house. Depends, I may need to get some buffering
      battery installed first, and have a bit of a throw down w/ the DCRA regarding the size of my
      SE Cable. I’m disputing NEC 690.8.

        1. Well, a throwdown with the DC Government, around here involves who
          can bring more books and paper to the fight. The Hearing officer measures the
          stack and the taller stack wins.

          Welcome to white collar fighting.

      2. I’m confused. Are you putting up 5-14 KW of solar, or 7 KW of solar? Those differing numbers both appear within this very same thread of comments. It’s not a distinction without a difference, since the conductor requirements in NEC 690.8 depend on the current running through the system.

        How does one go about disputing the NEC? I’m pretty sure that there are few, if any, challenge paths to ANSI/NFPA 70. It’s not even legally binding. The only thing that creates any sort of pseudo-codification of ANSI/NFPA 70 is when a municipality incorporates it as a requirement of their own building code. What exactly is the fight with DCRA’s building and zoning department? Is it over their incorporation of ANSI/NFPA 70, or are they picking and choosing which parts of ANSI/NFPA 70 to require or ignore?

        Also, as I asked on your other post in this topic, is this project being paid for out-of-pocket, or will you be using subsidies in the form of “rebates” from customers who pay for gas/oil/coal/nuke/wind/hydro electricity? Please explain your reasoning for your choice in either case.

        1. it’s a 2 part system, one part is solar Thermal in 2 hotside loops, one for DHW, and
          the second for Radiant heat. The second part is going to be a Solar PV system.
          The Solar PV system, I would like to be 4.5 KW(Electrical), and when i get the Volt, i’d like to
          upgrade to 7 KW(Electrical). That means I need a system that has the growth capacity
          on that and the future proofing to allow battery to support the system.
          That likely means a 48 V DC system, charging batteries, in parallel and the inverter taking power off that. The Solar Thermal system will be 6 panels so ballpark, we are talking effecitively some 14KW (Thermal) up on the roof, and later some 7 KW of Electrical on the
          roof and south wall (Mostly as window awnings).

          So the 7 KW system will likely be producing either 60 Amps 110 or 30 amps at 220 (I’m rounding off here. NEC 690.8 sizes conductors, the Local jurisdictions interpret this to be 20% of the House SE cable sizing, while, my reading of 690.8 says i can load the SE cable to 80%. Essentially DCRA wants me to upgrade to a 200 amp SE cable, and me, i’d really like to stick to the existing SE cable, because if my array comes on line, my pull on the grid will be dropping down to a few amps. Worse, adding a 200 Amp SE cable means the local utility will upgrade the drop line, and the local transformer from single phase to three phase, and have to provision the local substation to handle more amperage, which adds to the rate base while the amount of electricity i’ll be consuming will actually be dropping.

          That’s going to really mess up electricity rates.

          1. What you would like to do and what is physically possible and safe may or not be the same thing in this case.

            It’s one thing to argue that DCRA is interpreting ANSI/NFPA 70 incorrectly, it’s another to say that the ANSI/NFPA 70 requirements are inconvenient to you because you don’t want to re-size your conductors and upgrade your service line.

            Does your utility use bi-directional meters? If so, then your sizing for your service line needs to be based on your maximum sell-back capacity to the grid, not just to the net difference between your maximum needs and your solar capacity. If your installation overloads the service line capacity, that’s a much bigger concern than just the local effects to your property (thus a possible transformer upgrade).

            I haven’t done the math, because there are plenty of calculators and tools available, and I have no plans to install a solar grid myself, so I have no need to do the research to find out whether DCRA is being unreasonable in this case. But if the ANSI/NFPA 70 standards say that your service line needs to be upgraded to protect against thermal overload, that’s a cost you need to take into account in determining the value of installing a solar array.

            It’s one thing to say that local aesthetic code compliance and misinterpretation of standards is a hindrance to individual solar installations. It’s another matter entirely to say that one doesn’t like the ANSI/NFPA 70 and that they shouldn’t have to follow it because it’s too expensive to design and install in a safe manner. The latter is a feature, not a bug, and is the main reason why reduced rebates have slowed, stalled, or killed off other “green” projects, because they’re not actually financially viable on their own.

          2. “It’s one thing to argue that DCRA is interpreting ANSI/NFPA 70 incorrectly, it’s another to say that the ANSI/NFPA 70 requirements are inconvenient to you because you don’t want to re-size your conductors and upgrade your service line.”

            1) Pepco engages in net metering here, it’s part of the economic package for Solar. I sell Power to the grid by day, i buy grid power at night, at least until my battery install happens.

            2) I’ts my position the local AHJ(Authority) is misinterpreting NEC 690.8.
            NEC 690.8 says a conductor cannot have an interrupting capacity more then 80% of the ampacity of the conductor. (So if the line is good for 125 amp i can have a 100 Amp main breaker.) The AHJ interprets 690.8 that if a line is sized to an interrupting capacity, I cannot load more then 20% of the circuit breaker to solar, so if i have a 100 amp main breaker, I can only put 20 amps on the roof solar feed
            inverter output.

            when I talk with my electrician, he concurs with my interpretation, and isn’t sure
            where the AHJ comes up with the 20% rule as opposed to the 80% rule.

            when I talk with Solar Installers and the DCRA staff, it’s all 20%, but nobody from
            the AHJ wants to have a formal meeting on this.

            My take is if the DCRA wants to be more annoying about this, i can always install some battery, and store up my excess power, it’s only a little more to buy battery
            then to pay for a new SE Cable and new meter box.

  12. dn-guy, April 12, 2014 at 7:50 pm says…
    “You apparently know nothing of American law.”

    Whereas dn-guy knows nothing about American history. Laws are made by politicals for political purposes. Not all of those purposes are for the betterment of mankind. In this case we clearly see a senator looking to line his pockets in cahoots with an unfriendly nation which borders on treason even more than just financial gain and would risk the lives of a family with no concern.

    A friend of mine in SD lost land his father owned before him because it was riverfront and the BLM wanted it. They took it saying he would have first right of return if they didn’t develop and use it. They lied. They gave it to the local indian tribe instead. They never paid a dime for it. This is a standard practice apparently. Would they have sent in an army if my friend had protested and put up a fight? How many others have they done this to?

    1. Did your friend sue for a “Taking”.

      If he owned the land, the Feds cannot take land without just compensation.

  13. It’s federal land. Bundy is a welfare rancher — he thinks he can have something for nothing from the rest of us (yes, us taxpayers) by not paying his dues to use our (yes, our) public land. The BLM was wise to back off in the interest of not turning an otherwise mundane matter of “fees” into a tragedy because there are fools who think sedition is some kind of noble ideal.

    1. Doesn’t sound like something for nothing. He pays his state taxes and his family has been making improvements on the land for over a century. It is nice you are so concerned about the law. Now, hold Obama and the Democrats to the same standard you hold a poor rancher in the middle of nowhere.

  14. BLM changed policy, and as a tenant he has to accept it.

    This is a key part of our countries problems in a nutshell and I’m not talking about just the BLM.

    Funny how they don’t mind things outside of a democratic legislative process when it suits them.

Comments are closed.