Sheet her in before that thar boom does just that! Don't yaw.

aye, mateys, she luffs just before yer struck by the boom! shiver me timbers!

Aye, no luffing, or the cappy will lash ye.

Robbie;

I don't know how well they'd perform, but I like them all. His jovial demeanor, Georgia accent and southern speech patterns disguise the fact that Cain's actually a fairly smart cat; BS mathematics, MS computer science. They're all smart and accomplished and they'd get my vote.

I wish I could give you another point for "complicorny"

point for the sailing education

they already do -- must be the luffing jib! -- j
p.s. not a reference to a jib crane, but a jib sail, and luffing is oscillating in the wind ... things are just so complicorny!

I can't picture Bachman anywhere near goats...

very interesting lineup, sir! got my cogitator going, there!!! -- j

Oh my goodness, that truly cut to the heart of it! I don't think she exists, but add to that some Native American ancestry and you have a winner. I've been enjoying reading the comments, and was glad to see the development of the arguments, which must logically stem from the laws as they exist. Truly not as one would wish them to be, but wishes are not actions.
The only person who could pull this off might be Condolezza Rice. Maybe. She just needs to start raising goats.

If the video was truly an experiment we would be able to compare the reverse--black onlookers, white and black thieves.

This is a good one to watch:
http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.c...

For a moment, I thought that you were defining Obama, but then you added "Objectivist" and implied that he or she was actually working for a living...

Strug;

Our hero's got to be bullet proof; eloquent, educated, probably female or transgendered, definitely not Caucasian. Think we can find an Objectivist nonCaucasian female Harvard grad running an organic goat ranch on BLM land?

You are making a very good point - the States do need to assert their constitutional rights. They don't. Not only the States, but more and more of us willingly fall under the heel of the federal tyrant. Maybe Bundy, in a somewhat ackward manner, will be a catalyst for this to happen, although I'm not holding my breath.

Strug;

I believe what I wrote is: your interpretation would be laughed at by EVERY Supreme Court Justice. It's obvious no one, including the founders, interpreted the Constitution to mean the Federal Government couldn't own land within a state. From our founding the Federal Government has owned land outside DC. All that was required was the state's acceptance of such ownership. Nevada's Territorial Legislature accepted 85% Federal ownership at the time it became a state. Wyoming's Territorial Legislature accepted 49.5% Federal ownership when it became a state. Not only did Nevada's Territorial Legislature approve, the US Congress granted the Territory's wishes as regards to their borders, taking land from Utah and Arizona. So you see, at the time of statehood the necessary Constitutional requirements were met. Everyone involved agreed. The fact that we wish they hadn't doesn't mean it was unconstitutional.

I am not changing the Constitution, nor did the founders, shortly after the convention think they were changing it by acquiring various state lands for Federal purposes, because those Federal purposes made sense.

Many years ago the Federal Government acquired land containing strategic minerals. Recently the Federal Government acquired large tracts of private land in southern Colorado. Some of the ranchers objected, but the Feds used eminent domain to take the land. The Feds weren't being malicious. The newly acquired land will allow the army to move from Fort Carson to much cheaper, more remote ranch land, allowing for development of the prime front range real estate it now occupies, Colorado did not object, so those ranches became Federal property.

I sense this is the real argument here; you wish the states would object, had objected, but they didn't. They have made and continue to make Federal land ownership constitutional by not objecting. Your argument is not with the Federal Government, it's with the States.

The way forward is for States to petition the Congress to sell the Federal land contained within their borders and not necessary for the Federal Government's purposes, as it did for most Midwestern states. It worked in the case of the Presidio. It will work in the case of Fort Carson. However, for some lands I predict the Congress will refuse, because the mineral royalties derived from said lands are huge and the Federal Government is broke.

Perhaps we need a definition of "racism." If the preponderance of people arrested for a certain crime happens to be black, is that racism? If the cops search out balcks specifically to arrest, then yes, but if what whatever reason the preponderance of offenders happens to be balck, is that still racism? I see as many black cops as white and I see plenty of black judges. So, I don't see where does racism come into this. Oh, yes, you can say that a particular white cop has an attitude towards blacks, and there are black cops that have an attitude toward whites. So what? But in total, I don't see a specific racist direction in the "war on drugs." Please don't take anything that I'm saying here as supporting or defending the "war on drugs," which I do not support, but I don't see it as racist.

wanderer,
I agree with the solution, but there is moral imperative behind ownership of grazing rights. Those rights have a bound and the BLM not only denied those rights to be exercised they tricked ranchers into handing them over in exchange for consideration that was not delivered. It's a complicated situation and discussion. Thanks for your information. Hope to see you contribute on other posts.

Good information; I was not aware of some of the details you presented – thank you. So, the issue comes down to whether the fed government can and should own those lands. You think that my literal reading of the Constitution is laughable and that, presumably, the Constitution needs to be modified with the changing times. Fine, but then why limit such modifications for only a selection from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? For example, political correctness is a fact of life in the current United States – does that make it a legal basis for limited freedom of speech and only in the “free speech zones?” And those black, ugly, threatening looking “assault” weapons – those need to be eliminated. And search without probable cause – well, it’s for everyone’s safety. Need I go on? There is a constitutional process to amend the Constitution – but that was not exercised with regard to land ownership. It has been accepted and now sets a precedent, true, and if the laws are based on precedent, then it only takes one illegal act gone unchecked to collapse the entire legal system, which is what, incidentally, has been happening ever since Lincoln. The above is my “legal” take on the situation, but it is yet another matter altogether with regard to the moral issues – Harry Reid’s profits and the use of the paramilitary for civil issues. I think that one must be a seriously perverted to socialist to find any defense for the federal government’s actions on this basis.

And I agree with Robbie that nothing that he or I said in any way indicates that the federal government could not buy or otherwise acquire land. But they need to be transferred to a state or be a semi-autonomous territory (like Puerto Rico or Guam) and not a wholly owned property of the federal government. Keep in mind that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not written to give rights to the subjects; they were written to expressly limit the rights and powers of the federal government.