To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nikita Khrushchev:"We will bury you"
"Your grandchildren will live under communism."
“You Americans are so gullible.
No, you won’t accept To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ."
We’ll so weaken your To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. until you’ll To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. like overripe fruit into our hands."
Silent because they are "all in" with government thuggery.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
I’m sure that Cliven Bundy probably could have cut a deal with the Bureau of Land Management and should have. Of course, it’s never wise to let a federal court order hang over your head. And certainly we cannot have a world of Cliven Bundys if a legal system is to function.
In a practical sense, I also know that if I were to burn brush on a no-burn day, or toss an empty pesticide container in the garbage bin, or shoot a coyote too near the road, I would incur the wrath of the government in a way someone does not who dumps a stripped stolen auto (two weeks ago) in my vineyard, or solvents, oil, and glass (a few months ago), or rips out copper wire from the pump for the third time (last year). Living in a Winnebago with a porta-potty and exposed Romex in violation of zoning statutes for many is not quite breaking the law where I live; having a mailbox five inches too high for some others certainly is.
So Mr. Bundy must realize that in about 1990 we decided to focus on the misdemeanor of the law-abiding citizen and to ignore the felony of the lawbreaker. The former gave law enforcement respect; the latter ignored their authority. The first made or at least did not cost enforcers money; arresting the second began a money-losing odyssey of incarceration, trials, lawyers, appeals, and all the rest.
Mr. Bundy knows that the bullies of the BLM would much rather send a SWAT team after him than after 50 illegal aliens being smuggled by a gun-toting cartel across the southwestern desert. How strange, then, at this late postmodern date, for someone like Bundy on his horse still to be playing the law-breaking maverick Jack Burns (Kirk Douglas) in (the David Miller, Dalton Trumbo, Edward Abbey effort) Lonely Are the Brave.
But the interest in Mr. Bundy’s case is not about legal strategies in revolving fiscal disagreements with the federal government.
Instead, we all have followed Mr. Bundy for three reasons.
One, he called attention to the frightening fact that the federal government owns 83% of the land in Nevada. Note that “federal” and “government” are the key words and yet are abstractions. Rather, a few thousands unelected employees — in the BLM, EPA, Defense Department, and other alphabet soup agencies — can pretty much do what they want on the land they control. And note, this is not quite the case in Silicon Valley or Manhattan or Laguna Beach. The danger can be summed up by a scene I see about once a month on a Fresno freeway: a decrepit truck stopped by the California Highway Patrol for having inadequate tarps on a trailer of green clippings, just as a new city garbage truck speeds by, with wet garbage flying over the median. Who will police the police?
Two, this administration has a long record of not following the law — picking and choosing when and how to enforce immigration statutes, depending on the particular dynamics of the next election; picking and choosing which elements of Obamacare to enforce, again depending on perceived political advantage; and picking and choosing when to go after coal companies, or when not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, or when to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, or when to allow Lois Lerner to destroy the credibility of the IRS for partisan advantage.
In other words, the Obama administration regularly breaks the law as it sees fit. So we wonder why a federal agency sends out swarms of armed security agents to the empty desert on behalf of a tortoise, when it could just as easily storm Jay Carney’s press conference and demand that the president promise to enforce the Affordable Care Act. Or start apprehending those who are not just violating immigration law, but also serially signing false federal affidavits or providing employers with fraudulent identities.
Finally, Bundy, for all his contradictions, is a throwback to a different age. As the photo atop this article suggests, I had a Bundy-like Swedish grandfather — gassed in the Meuse-Argonne and left with charred lungs — who became a sort of recluse. He broke horses for a living and in his long widowhood survived on his chickens, goats, rabbits, cows, and sheep, in subsistence fashion from 40 acres. He taught me how to dress out a pig, skin goats, and shoot. He also gave me lessons about the world of riding bareback on matched mules. He slept with a bottle of port on his nightstand and a loaded .30-40 Krag leaning against the headboard.
When we acted up, he “locked up” his grandchildren for ten minutes in his six-foot high birdcage with the quail and pheasants. I can remember his Swedish accented “eye yeye yi” each time one of us got bucked off his horse (one was called “Paint,” of course). He raised Fox Terriers for sale with names like “Rex” and “Skipper.” Frank looked like a Cliven Bundy, or a Slim Pickens (whom he knew well as a fellow Kingsburgian cowboy), and sounded exactly like Douglas Spencer (“Swede”) in Shane or John Qualen (“Lars”) in The Searchers.
My other grandfather was a refined Welsh version of the rural way, but no less independent as a small farmer who worked all his land himself until he quit one day at 86 and died that night in the hospital. He was as wiry as my other Swedish grandfather was a hulk. The one was a master horse rider, the other an expert at plowing with horses. Growing up with them, I never much learned about the secrets of “business” or “how to make it” (sometimes I wish I had). Making it, as I at sixty look back at them now, was probably defined as talking bluntly, gaining a reputation for “straight shooting,” paying all your bills on time, never making excuses for failure, and in general being loyal to friends and of some worry to enemies. To understand Bundy’s fatalism is to appreciate the rural way and its polite contempt for the softer world of the city and the mush that now passes for making it. Losing nobly was preferable to winning badly — Old Ajax to the core.
So we are not threatened by the likes of Cliven Bundy. Instead, the scary lawlessness extends to the bureaucracy itself, given that under Obama the government is becoming tainted and an ideological tool of social transformation. After just six years, we shrug that, of course, the IRS is biased. The Justice Department is politicized; ask Dinesh D’Souza or the AP reporters. No need to mention the NSA. The EPA makes laws up as ideologically required. No one believes the State Department that in the weeks before the election a video-caused “riot” led to expert jihadists zeroing in with their GPS-guided mortars on a CIA annex in Benghazi. And so on.
Bundy is just different from what is now America — he looks different, talks differently, and dresses differently. These are the superficial veneers to someone who lives mostly through different premises from those of Pajama Boy nation, the world of Jay Carney and his cute Stalinist posters, the cosmos of Anita Dunn and her Mao gushes, or the metrosexual networking that is the gospel of Silicon Valley or the DC beltway. Few of us rely on human muscle anymore to survive one more day. Fewer of those who do combine that with horse-power, and its world of leather and wood and rope. Bundy is self-employed, without an SEIU union, a PERS pension, or a GS-15 health plan.
Given all that, I suggest Cliven Bundy is far more endangered than is the desert tortoise, and that his kind will be gone shortly in a way the federally protected tarantula and Gila monster or delta smelt will not. He, not they, is in the federal crosshairs. So, yes, I can make some allowances for the nihilism of Cliven Bundy. We could not live in a modern, high-tech world only of Cliven Bundys, but perhaps we cannot live in a world without a few of them now and then to remind us of what we have become.
Almost everything, natural and human, has conspired against these sorts: a hail storm that wrecked the plum crop two days before harvest, or a swaggering psychopathic neighbor who stole the irrigation canal water until stopped, or a no-good who filed a phony workers’ compensation claim for a stubbed toe, or an ancient wobbly grinder that sliced off a finger, or the thieving Packing Company that always sent back slips each year saying “45% cull rate,” whether the fruit was small or big, scarred or smooth, ripe, overripe, or green.
To be a cattleman in the Nevada desert in America of 2014 is to live on Mars, or rather to live among 24/7 enemies, human and animal alike. How a man survives from cattle ranching on leased land in the Nevada badlands I cannot imagine, but I wonder nonetheless and in that amazement wish to see him continue.
My cowboy grandfather, Frank Hanson, died at 80, while Reese Davis, my maternal one, died at 86, in a world where the former never, until his last day, went to the doctor after his year in a Belgium hospital (he was a Lewis machine gunner before the gassing), and the latter went just twice. Theirs was a pre-cholesterol-testing, no-colonoscopy world, in which you just chugged on eating the wrong food, getting up to hard physical work each morning until you “got a cancer” or “the ticker quit” and at your funeral the neighbors said “ya, he worked hard” and went home. I remember the oncologist saying to my father about his dead father, “Are you sure he didn’t smoke? Take a look at those burned lungs on the X-ray.” And my dad curtly answered the specialist, “That’s what mustard gas does.”
The point is Mr. Bundy is no Rahm Emanuel, Al Gore, or Jay Carney. He is no Jay-Z or Sean Penn. He is a world away from the Kardashians and the BMW meets Mercedes crowd of the California coastal corridor or the psychodramas of brats at Dartmouth. Bundy does not have the white privilege that those who have it — mostly liberal, wealthy, and seeking an apartheid existence — damn in others.
Money is not Bundy’s point. Pleasing Harry Reid or the federal bureaucracy is not either. Making a living from the scrub of a desert by providing people good food probably is.
Grant him that. He’s our past, Harry Reid and the bunch in Washington our future. To paraphrase the ancients, sometimes we’d rather be wrong with Cliven Bundy than right with Harry Reid — and the SWAT teams that will revisit Mr. Bundy and his clan very, very soon to enforce a dispute over grazing fees and insensitivity to a tortoise.
Left unresolved is the government’s claim that Bundy owes more than $1.1 million for letting some 900 cows trespass for 20 years…
Bundy does not owe the government mafia anything for running his cows on his land. This is nothing but a shakedown that goes way back to the original settlement of the Western Frontier. Anyone who doesn’t believe that needs to quit passing false information and read Wayne Hage’s Storm over Rangeland.
This book is rare and getting more so since Wayne died. Therefore it is very expensive but readily available on amazon.com. I would offer to lend my copy but it has had so much use that it is already falling apart. I am currently working on a version of the story that is told from an Austrian Economist’s perspective and it won’t be as expensive. It should be ready for publication by the end of the summer…I hope. - jtl,419
A week after a tense standoff between gun-toting states’ rights advocates and federal Bureau of Land Management police, self-described militia members are still protecting Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his family.
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada calls the armed campers “domestic terrorists.” He says a federal task force was being formed to deal with the unrest.
Nevada Republican Sen. Dean Heller says those who Reid may call domestic terrorists, he calls patriots.
The Bundy ranch is the latest skirmish in a dispute about whether states or the federal government should control public range lands in the West.
Left unresolved is the government’s claim that Bundy owes more than $1.1 million for letting some 900 cows trespass for 20 years on rangeland 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Posted on April 21, 2014 by Land & Livestock Interntional, Inc.
Yet another angle: If Cliven Bundy has not done anything else, he has sure prompted a long over-due history lesson for the great unwashed masses. Here is yet another angle. This one demonstrates why, still to this day, the old South and the Far West should be seriously considering secession. (We will let them keep the Left Coast). — jtl, 419
QUESTION: Is it true that nearly 80% of Nevada is still owned by the Federal Government who then pays no tax to the State of Nevada? This seems very strange if true as a backdrop to this entire Bundy affair.
You seem to be the only person to tell the truth without getting crazy.
Thank you so much
HF
REPLY: The truth behind Nevada is of course just a quagmire of politics. Nevada was a key pawn in getting Abraham Lincoln reelected in 1864 during the middle of the Civil War. Back on March 21st, 1864, the US Congress enacted the Nevada Statehood statute that authorized the residents of Nevada Territory to elect representatives to a convention for the purpose of having Nevada join the Union. This is where we find the origin of the fight going on in Nevada that the left-wing TV commenters (pretend-journalists) today call a right-wing uprising that should be put down at all costs. The current land conflict in Nevada extends back to this event in 1864 and how the territory of Nevada became a state in order to push through a political agenda to create a majority vote. I have said numerous times, if you want the truth, just follow the money.
The “law” at the time in 1864 required that for a territory to become a state, the population had to be at least 60,000. At that time, Nevada had only about 40,000 people.
So why was Nevada rushed into statehood in violation of the law of the day? When the 1864 Presidential election approached, there were special interests who were seeking to manipulate the elections to ensure Lincoln would win reelection. They needed another Republican congressional delegation that could provide additional votes for the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery. Previously, the attempt failed by a very narrow margin that required two-thirds support of both houses of Congress.
The fear rising for the 1864 election was that there might arise three major candidates running. There was Abraham Lincoln of the National Union Party, George B. McClellan of the Democratic Party, and John Charles Frémont (1813–1890) of the Radical Democracy Party. It was actually Frémont who was the first anti-slavery Republican nominee back in the 1940s. During the Civil War, he held a military command and was the first to issue an emancipation edict that freed slaves in his district. Lincoln maybe credited for his stand, but he was a politician first. Lincoln relieved Frémont of his command for insubordination. Therefore, the Radical Democracy Party was the one demanding emancipation of all slaves.
With the Republicans splitting over how far to go with some supporting complete equal rights and others questioning going that far, the Democrats were pounding their chests and hoped to use the split in the Republicans to their advantage. The New York World was a newspaper published in New York City from 1860 until 1931 that was the mouth-piece for the Democrats. From 1883 to 1911 it was under the notorious publisher Joseph Pulitzer (1847–1911), who started the Spanish-American war by publishing false information just to sell his newspapers. Nonetheless, it was the New World that was desperately trying to ensure the defeat of Lincoln. It was perhaps their bravado that led to the Republicans state of panic that led to the maneuver to get Nevada into a voting position.
The greatest fear, thanks to the New York World, became what would happen if the vote was fragmented (which we could see in 2016) and no party could achieve a majority of electoral votes. Consequently, the election would then be thrown into the House of Representatives, where each state would have only one vote. Consequently, the Republicans believed they needed Nevada on their side for this would give them an equal vote with every other state despite the tiny amount of people actually living there.
Moreover, the Republicans needed two more loyal Unionist votes in the U.S. Senate to also ensure that the Thirteenth Amendment would be passed. Nevada’s entry would secure both the election and the three-fourths majority needed for the Thirteenth Amendment enactment.
The votes at the end of the day demonstrate that they never needed Nevada. Nonetheless, within the provisions of the Statehood Act of March 21, 1864 that brought Nevada into the voting fold, we see the source of the problem today. This Statehood Act retained the ownership of the land as a territory for the federal government. In return for the Statehood that was really against the law, the new state surrendered any right, title, or claim to the unappropriated public lands lying within Nevada.
Moreover, this cannot be altered without the consent of the Feds. Hence, the people of Nevada cannot claim any land whatsoever because politicians needed Nevada for the 1864 election but did not want to hand-over anything in return. This was a typical political one-sided deal.
Republican Ronald Reagan had argued for the turnover of the control of such lands to the state and local authorities back in 1980. Clearly, the surrender of all claims to any land for statehood was illegal under the Constitution. This is no different from Russia seizing Crimea. The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated “that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State.” The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it “conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.”
The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:
The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.
So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.
Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land – not federal.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
‘It’s time’ Lawmakers from 9 states gather in Utah, discuss ways to take control of federal lands.
April 18, 2014
It’s time for Western states to take control of federal lands within their borders, lawmakers and county commissioners from Western states said at Utah’s Capitol on Friday.
More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal: wresting control of oil-, timber -and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.
"It’s simply time," said Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, who organized the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands along with Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. "The urgency is now."
Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo, was flanked by a dozen participants, including her counterparts from Idaho and Montana, during a press conference after the daylong closed-door summit. U.S. Sen. Mike Lee addressed the group over lunch, Ivory said. New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington also were represented.
The summit was in the works before this month’s tense standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management over cattle grazing, Lockhart said.
"What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem," Lockhart said.
Fielder, who described herself as "just a person who lives in the woods," said federal land management is hamstrung by bad policies, politicized science and severe federal budget cuts.
"Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands," Fielder said, who lives in the northwestern Montana town of Thompson Falls.
"We have to start managing these lands. It’s the right thing to do for our people, for our environment, for our economy and for our freedoms," Fielder said.
Idaho Speaker of the House Scott Bedke said Idaho forests and rangeland managed by the state have suffered less damage and watershed degradation from wildfire than have lands managed by federal agencies.
(Before It's News)
Source: 2127news.net
Please make this viral all signs point to something happening quite soon! Below is the text of the Video.
UPDATE!!! April 20th
I'm talking with J right now. He said that a Law Enforcement Officer
told him last night that Federal agents are being moved into Las Vegas.
The Officer claimed that there were about 140 agents in the city. Recon
sent in by J found that there are more agents than can be counted!
The hotels are being filled with Federal Agents, Rangers and FBI
arriving in unmarked vehicles. Most of the vehicles are white, some are
black. They are being parked in secure areas and are under lock and key
and some are in back parking as well. So no one can nosing around. Never
mind those who may be flying in. They're obviously building up for
something. Three guesses what they could be up to. More Patriots are
needed out there. Rotation is indeed in place. The Patriots who are
there need all the help they can get in every way possible. It's still
very serious out there. Las Vegas is 80 miles away from the Bundy
property. So maybe an hour a half away. NOT FAR!! If you're planning to
answer to the call, gear up and bring food. They're running a little low
right now and Pray, Pray, Pray. Please share this one like mad!!!
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., — April 21, 2014. The standoff at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada was just the tip of the iceberg—and it is a very large iceberg indeed. All over the West, the federal government is planning to take over millions of acres of land—and kick the humans off.
A case in New Mexico going on this month but attracting almost no attention, pits rancher Kit Laney against the U.S. Forest Service. The service claims Laney’s Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico is federal land; Laney can show that his rights go back to 1883—before there was a State of New Mexico and before there was a Forest Service (1905).
Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government. His full story is chronicled at WND.
A 1997 federal court ruling sides with the Forest Service. In cases like this, it’s a bit like the fox guarding the henhouse. Environmental groups or federal agencies bring a case to federal court and—surprise!—the federal court sides with the federal government and orders it—in this case the U.S. Forest Service, in the Bundy case, the Bureau of Land Management—to do exactly what it wanted to do all along.
Cliven Bundy’s case is similar. His family has been grazing cattle on the land for more than 120 years. Yet in 1993, the Bureau of Land Management decreed that the land on which Bundy and his neighbors grazed their cattle was actually the habitat of the desert tortoise.
Bundy’s cattle herd size was reduced from 900 to 150 head of cattle. Laney’s had been reduced from 1188 to 300. These are two ranchers, to be sure, but others have been driven off their ranches entirely. Is it any wonder that the price of beef is today at an all-time high?
Who is behind this?
In the 1990s, Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, was Interior Secretary under Clinton. George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. Just this month, former Harry Reid staffer Neil Kornze, 35, was confirmed as director of the BLM. He had been the acting director for the previous year.
Said Reid of the appointment, “Neil really understands the role of public lands in rural America, and natural resources across the West. His expertise is going to be invaluable to the Bureau of Land Management.”
We’re already seeing the effects of his expertise. The BLM seized and killed Bundy’s cattle, destroyed his water-system improvements and in the process also crushed multiple tortoise burrows with their heavy equipment. (Ironically, the Forest Service forbade the use of mechanized equipment on Laney’s land.)
What’s the point?
The turtles and the cattle coexist on the land in a mutually beneficial way, so the tortoise argument is a red herring. Some reports credit corruption on the part of Reid and his son who have in interest in building solar arrays on the land with a Chinese partner. There appears not to be an active contract at this point, but all the pieces are in place to make it happen. For an account of the mafia-like corruption of the Reid family, simply read Chapter 9 of Peter Schweizer’s book Extortion.
Yet the issue is much larger than the Reid family business in Nevada. As early as 2010, then-Senator Jim DeMint raised the alarm about a planned, 10 million acre Western land grab by the Obama administration. This was during the infamous Pelosi-Reid 111th Congress when radical Democrats ran the government unchecked.
According to the memo, around 380,000 acres of BLM and private land in Colorado would be part of the grab, subject to a “conservation designation” under the National Monument portion of the 1906 Antiquities Act. The Vermillion Basin, northwest of Craig, and the Alpine Triangle near Ouray were listed in the memo. This designation would close the areas off to multi-use activities including, mining, hunting, grazing, oil and gas development and other recreational activities.
Colorado Representatives Doug Lamborn and Mike Coffman introduced legislation to prevent the federal government from seizing these lands; predictably, the bill died in committee.
The point is not just cattle nor desert tortoises: the point is to end human use of vast portions of Western lands. Conservation in the traditional sense is not enough for the advocates of “biocentrism”; for these eco-extremists, humans and property rights stand in second place behind animal rights.
Reid said this week that it isn’t over. He called those wanting to save their property rights and livelihood “domestic terrorists.”
READ ALSO: KERNS: The Bundy Ranch beef is not over cattle, but Government control
The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans. Now called the Western Wildway Network, activists envision an unbroken stretch of land from Mexico to Canada that they “are urgently working to connect.”
Ranchers like Bundy, Laney, their neighbors, their cattle and their property rights are all expendable. And if the rest of America has to pay more for beef or forgo it altogether, so be it.
by Kerry Picket 21 Apr 2014 698post a comment
Protesters against the BLM and the situation at Bundy Ranch traveled to Searchlight today
The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is criticizing the Bureau of Land Management for apparently euthanizing an unknown number of cattle at the Bundy Ranch.
“These animals shouldn't be killed either by the government, or by the rancher who plans to send the cows off to slaughter. The best thing anyone can do to stop the suffering of animals is to go vegan,” PETA's Senior Vice President Lisa Lange said in a written statement to Breitbart News.
The Bundy Ranch Facebook Page, run by Cliven Bundy’s daughter Bailey Bundy Logue, posted photos on Saturday night of a mass grave of their livestock found in a large hole in the ground on the land where the BLM was impounding Bundy’s cattle.
“This is unjust,” the Bundy Ranch said in a statement on their Facebook page Saturday. “Understand that this is beyond the cattle and it is overall about freedom but this is one of many incidents where the corrupt and unjust government is taking away our freedom little by little.”
The Bundy family has refused to stop allowing their cattle to graze on federally-owned land, saying the federal government does not have any authority over them. The impasse led to a tense standoff last-week in which both federal agents and Bundy supporters had sniper rifles trained on each others. The government ultimately backed down, at least for now.
Nevada Republican Assemblywoman Michele Fiore told Breitbart News on Friday that the treatment of the cattle by the BLM is “cruel” and she has heard from ranchers across the state with similar experiences with the BLM and its livestock seizure practices.
The deaths to the herd could have a serious financial impact on the ranch. Cliven Bundy told FOX News last week that one cow could go for as much as $2200 at market.
The impoundment of Bundy’s cattle happened during calving season and as a result, left a number of Bundy’s calfs without mothers. Bundy Ranch also posted photos of calfs who finally received milk.
Fiore tweeted a photo out over a week ago after the cattle seizure, “At the Bundy ranch working to save this calf retrieved nearly dead from BLM.”
After the recent Bundy Ranch episode by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Texans are becoming more concerned about the BLM’s focus on 90,000 acres along a 116 mile stretch of the Texas/Oklahoma boundary. The BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover and ownership of privately-held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners.
Sid Miller, former Texas State Representative and Republican candidate for Texas Agriculture Commissioner, has since made the matter a campaign issue to Breitbart Texas.
“In Texas,” Miller says, “the BLM is attempting a repeat of an action taken over 30 years ago along the Red River when Tommy Henderson lost a federal lawsuit. The Bureau of Land Management took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.”
Miller referred to a 1986 case where the BLM attempted to seize some of Henderson’s land. Henderson sued the BLM and lost 140 acres that had been in his family for generations. Now the BLM is looking at using the prior case as a precedent to claim an additional 90,000 acres.
Congressman Mac Thornberry (R-TX) represents the ranchers in this region of north Texas. According to Thornberry’s legislative analysts, the issue of the ownership of this land dates back to the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. When the BLM made the claim on Henderson’s land, their position was that Texas never had the authority to deed the land to private parties and therefore it would fall under federal control.
In 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to settle the boundary dispute in Oklahoma v. Texas and declared the boundary to be defined by wooden stakes set on the river bank. That boundary apparently lasted no longer than anyone could expect wooden stakes to last in the shifting sands of a meandering river. In 2000, Texas and Oklahoma’s legislatures agreed to a “Red River Boundary Compact” which defined the border between the states as the southern vegetation line. However, Congress must ratify agreements of this kind between the states according to Article 1, Section 10 (Clause 3) of the U.S. Constitution. Congressman Thornberry introduced House Joint Resolution 72 during the 106th Congress to codify the compact into U.S. Law.
The matter became somewhat of a national question drawing the attention of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, “The U.S. Supreme Court has tried twice to settle this dispute, which at one point brought the governor of Oklahoma to the border in a tank…However, true to the slogan 'One Riot, One Ranger,' the good governor of Oklahoma and his tank was held off by a lone Texas Ranger on his horse."
Tanks aside, the Texas Farm Bureau has produced a video that explains the problems left open by the current border definition from north Texas ranchers’ perspectives. This issue reportedly centers on Oklahoma’s definitions on the various forms of movement with the river.
The Texas Farm Bureau asserts the State of Oklahoma believes that whenever the river shifts south, the state line moves south. But when the river moves north, the line remains in place. Now, the BLM seems to want to settle the matter by simply confiscating the land.
According to a BLM document provided to Breitbart Texas courtesy Rep. Thornberry’s staff, the BLM is going through a scoping period where they are gathering facts on land whose ownership they believe to be in question in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. The BLM is in the process of developing a Resource Management Plan. The plan will cover a total of 411,585 square miles, or 263 million acres of land. The BLM describes its “decision area as about 104,000 acres of BLM administered surface lands, 593,000 acres of split-estate land (private land with federal mineral interests) and 5,270,000 acres of federal mineral interests on land managed by other federal agencies."
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
By John M. Glionna This post has been corrected. See below for details. April 21, 2014, 2:39 p.m.
The battle lines are hardening in Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy's so-called range war against the federal government over his right to graze cattle on public lands.
Arguments have moved from the Nevada desert to the nation’s capital, where Nevada's two U.S. senators, Republican Dean Heller and Democrat Harry Reid, recently faced off on a television public affairs show in Las Vegas.
Heller described Bundy's cadre of armed supporters as “patriots” during the show, "What's the Point," on KSNV-TV News 3. Reid repeated his claim that the so-called militia men are “domestic terrorists.”
Officials from the Bureau of Land Management say Bundy is illegally running hundreds of head of cattle in the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area, habitat of the federally protected desert tortoise. Bundy, 68, has refused to pay BLM grazing fees since 1993, arguing in court filings that his Mormon ancestors worked the land long before the BLM was formed, giving him rights that predate federal involvement. For years, he has threatened to forcefully protect his cattle.
Federal officials moved in to remove the animals, but called off the roundup nine days ago, saying they wanted to avoid violence, a specter presented when dozens of supporters - many armed with rifles and automatic weapons - gathered at the Bundy ranch 90 miles north of Las Vegas.
For now, the standoff has remained a war of words, with Bundy seen as a modern folk hero among free-speech advocates and others who believe that the federal government has no right to tell a Nevada rancher how to run his cattle on state land. Environmentalists call Bundy an illegal squatter.
In the television interview, Heller called for a Senate hearing on the dispute.
For his part, Reid appeared to get testy when asked on the show to explain his remark. “Just what I said,” he responded tersely.
Heller then prompted another face-off, saying, "What Sen. Reid may call domestic terrorists, I call patriots," Heller said. "We have a very different view on this."
"If they are patriots, we are in trouble," Reid shot back, criticizing the supporters for showing up with assault weapons and boasting about putting children in the front of the pack.
Heller says the BLM amped tensions in the long-simmering dispute over Bundy’s cattle by dispatching armed officials to help round up the animals. "I want to talk about the fact that they have this kind of authority and the ability to bully and come in with 200 armed men into a situation like this," he said.
Reid replied that the armed supporters were breaking federal laws: "These characters walk around with their Constitution in their pocket. They should read the Nevada Constitution.”
Reid refused to speculate what will happen next. “I don't think it is going to be tomorrow that something is going to happen, but something will happen.”
The government has said the cattle roundup was a “last resort” to enforce court orders ruling that Bundy has failed to pay more than $1 million in fees since 1993 for his cattle to graze on public land. Forcing him either to pay or to give up his cattle is a matter of fairness to the 16,000 ranchers who do follow the rules, U.S. officials say.
On his own blog, Bundy has posted the creed of a national militia movement that has come to his support. Over the weekend, he also posted pictures of cattle that had been killed and buried during the BLM collection earlier this month.
“Digging up 1 of the HUGE holes where they threw the cows that they had ran to death or shot,” reads a website caption under the picture of a bulldozer removing an animal carcass. “I feel that this NEEDS to be put out for the public to see.”
Bundy says he has as much right to graze his cattle on public lands as those who hike, camp – or even advocate the protection of the threatened desert tortoise and other wildlife.
For years Bundy has insisted that his cattle aren't going anywhere. He acknowledges that he keeps firearms at his ranch, 80 miles north of Las Vegas, and has vowed to do "whatever it takes" to defend his animals from seizure.
"I've got to protect my property," he has told The Times. "If people come to monkey with what's mine, I'll call the county sheriff. If that don't work, I'll gather my friends and kids and we'll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws."
But environmentalists said Monday that his actions set a bad precedent. “It’s not just about the desert tortoise. The precedent this sets is dangerous – to let people like Bundy have free rein over public lands,” said Ken Cole, National Environmental Policy Act coordinator for the nonprofit Western Watershed Project, to the Los Angeles Times.
“It’s very clear that these public lands are not his. Under a public trust doctrine, the BLM and National Park Service manage these lands for the American people." [For the record, April 21, 2:56 p.m. PDT: An earlier version of this post incorrectly referred to Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy as Clive Bundy.]
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Support: Rancher Cliven Bundy, middle, addresses his supporters alongside Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie, right, on April 12. The Associated Press">
Support: Rancher Cliven Bundy, middle, addresses his supporters alongside Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie, right, on April 12. The Associated Press
Written by
Eli Federman
Cliven Bundy, a rancher in Clark County, Nevada, has been battling U.S. Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, fees for decades, culminating last week in an intense standoff between armed BLM agents, the Bundy family and dozens of protesters.
Regardless of who may be right, citizens and media spotlighting this conflict represents much needed oversight over government.
The BLM started imposing grazing fees after declaring the land habitat for federally protected tortoises. Bundy refused to pay the fees, arguing it was a states rights issue and that he was licensed to use the land since the 1870s, well before the BLM existed. Last year, a federal judge authorized impounding the cattle to pay BLM grazing fees.
Last week impounding began, culminating on Saturday with a peaceful ending after BLMs seizure of almost 400 cows.
The lesson here has nothing to do with endangered tortoises, or contract rights predating the formation of the BLM, grazing fees, states right or even whether the government is acting heavy-handedly by using armed men to seize cattle. Standing up for a cause
Rather the lesson is about caring citizens standing up for a cause, while openly criticizing and scrutinizing the government. That is the activity democracies are made of.
Whether the cause of Cliven Bundy is legitimate is beside the point. We have citizens peaceably forming a protest against what they believe is government overreaching.
That alone has drawn scrutiny over the governments actions. Such scrutiny and oversight are instrumental in a democracy.
Freedom of speech and assembly are the central pillars of our democracy that have historically been instrumental in exposing wrongs and bringing about positive social change.
So far it appears that the demonstrators at the Bundy Ranch have done nothing illegal. They were exercising their rights to assemble, protest, what they believe was government overreaching.
The BLM, on the other hand, has been accused of excessive force, reckless tazing and even attempting to geographically relegate protesters to presumably unconstitutional "First Amendment Zones." Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval even criticized the BLM for creating "an atmosphere of intimidation."
In the long-run, the value of citizens exposing the BLM's response will be more telling than the arcane details of dispute about grazing fees.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Posted Updated Heller calls for congressional hearings into how BLM handled Bundy roundup
Nevada's senators, Dean Heller (R) left, and Harry Reid (D), discuss the botched roundup of Cliven Bundy's cattle, the Affordable Care Act, and other topics while appearing on "What's Your Point?" on the KSNV Channel 3 studio in Las Vegas, Friday, April 18, 2014. The show is hosted by Jeff Gillan, right, and Amy Tarkanian, back to camera. (Jerry Henkel/Las Vegas Review-Journal) Buy PhotoNevada's senators, Dean Heller (R) left, and Harry Reid (D), discuss the botched roundup of Cliven Bundy's cattle, the Affordable Care Act, and other topics while appearing on "What's Your Point?" on the KSNV Channel 3 studio in Las Vegas, Friday, April 18, 2014. The show is hosted by Jeff Gillan and Amy Tarkanian. (Jerry Henkel/Las Vegas Review-Journal) Nevada's senators, Dean Heller (R) left, and Harry Reid (D), discuss the botched roundup of Cliven Bundy's cattle, the Affordable Care Act, and other topics while appearing on "What's Your Point?" on the KSNV Channel 3 studio in Las Vegas, Friday, April 18, 2014. The show is hosted by Jeff Gillan and Amy Tarkanian. (Jerry Henkel/Las Vegas Review-Journal)
By LAURA MYERS
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
U.S. Sen. Dean Heller on Friday called for congressional hearings into how the Bureau of Land Management handled the roundup of cattle around Cliven Bundy’s Bunkerville ranch, which turned into an armed stand off between the BLM and militia groups and launched a new debate about the federal government’s 85 percent ownership of Nevada land.
“I want to find out who’s accountable for this,” said the Nevada Republican on a Las Vegas political talk show, where Heller appeared for the first time on live television with U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Heller said he hoped he and Reid could agree on holding hearings, but the Senate majority leader didn’t respond to the suggestion, making it unclear if Democrats who control the Senate would agree to such a public examination.
Heller’s staff said he would push for hearings before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which the Nevada senator sits on, when he gets back to Washington, D.C., after the Easter break.
Heller said he wanted to look into why the BLM needed “200 armed men,” including some reportedly with sniper rifles, to monitor the roundup, which was cut short on April 12 by the BLM to avoid open violence.
Nevada’s two senators were questioned on KSNV-TV, Channel 3’s “What’s Your Point?” by hosts Jeff Gillan and Amy Tarkanian, whose husband, Danny, lost the GOP primary in 2010 in the contest for Reid’s Senate seat. The show lasted about 30 minutes and covered a range of topics, from Bundy to extending unemployment benefits.
The day before the TV appearance, Reid called supporters of Bundy “domestic terrorists” because they defended him against the BLM cattle roundup with guns and put their children in harm’s way.
“Those people who hold themselves out to be patriots are not. They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,” Reid said during an appearance at a Las Vegas Review-Journal “Hashtags & Headlines” event at the Paris.
On the Friday show, Reid defended his characterization of the supporters, repeating that some had carried assault weapons and automatic weapons and put women and children in the line of fire. No shots were fired.
“If there were ever an example of people who were domestic violent terrorist wannabes, these are the guys,” Reid said.
Heller objected, saying he didn’t agree and that most were regular folks, including grandmothers, veterans and Boy Scouts.
“I have a very different view,” Heller said, sitting next to Reid. “… What Senator Reid may call domestic terrorists, I call patriots.”
Reid countered: “If they’re patriots, we’re in very big trouble.”
Heller said he wondered why the BLM sent an army of armed men to take back Bundy’s cattle.
“There was no army,” Reid muttered, although neither man raised his voice during the tense exchange.
Last week, Heller and GOP Gov. Brian Sandoval both criticized BLM tactics, which included tasing one of Bundy’s sons and having him arrested. At the same time, both Sandoval and Heller defended the federal government’s right to enforce court orders to round up the cattle and they called for the situation to end without violence.
Bundy, who said his family homesteaded the land in the 1870s and has a right to use it, has not paid federal grazing fees for 20 years and owes about $1 million to the government.
Heller and Reid disagreed about what’s at the heart of the Bundy dispute: control of federal public lands.
“It’s federal land, take it or leave it,” Reid said, while noting some counties had been able to take back some U.S. lands.
Heller said cattlemen “have lost over half of the range land they’re able to run on in the last 30 years.”
Reid blamed the loss of grazing land to global warming, however. Heller disagreed and said the situation could grow worse if the federal government decides to list the sage grouse as an endangered species.
“Wait until the sage grouse comes,” Heller said, predicting more public lands versus environment battles to come.
Contact Laura Myers at lmyers@reviewjournal.com or 702-387-2919. Follow her on Twitter: @lmyerslvrj.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Liberals scoff at armed government agencies raiding the properties and homes of American families and confiscating private lands. They’re [sic] minds cannot process the idea that things such as tyranny is an incrementally administered goal, especially in a nation such as America. Freedoms and liberties have to be done away with a little at a time. Public attitudes have to be conditioned to be willing to give up liberties and rights via catastrophic events, whether real or perceived. Now that we’ve been “softened up,” so to speak, the federal government has become much more brazen under team Obama. Obama and company successfully use “racism” to keep from being prosecuted for the multitude of unconstitutional acts Barack commits daily. No one wants to call Barack or Eric Holder out on the lawless acts they do for fear of being called “racist.”
Example: When Holder was called into question about his blatant stonewalling by Rep. Louie Gohmert and smart-assed Holder said “You don’t want to go there, buddy!”
Next thing you know Holder is standing next to king race pimp Al Sharpton suggesting racism has something to do with people being concerned about his contempt of Congress charge and his continual obstruction of investigations.
Because of this Obama and company have escalated their agenda and lawlessness. Now that the waters have been tested with the stand-off between the Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management, the BLM is going after land in Texas. One side note here. Senator Harry Reid issued a threat for Cliven Bundy and his family …
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says “something is going to happen” to get Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy to stop letting his cattle graze on federal land.
“It’s obvious that you can’t just walk away from this. And we can speculate all we want to speculate to what’s going to happen next,” Reid told KSNV-TV. “But I don’t think it’s going to be tomorrow that something is going to happen, but something will happen. We are a nation of laws, not of men and women.”
Getting back to the BLM intention to seize landowner’s property in Texas. I’m glad Texas has an Attorney General like Greg Abbott who won’t back down to team Obama.
Exclusive–Texas AG Abbott to BLM: ‘Come and Take It’
After Breitbart Texas reported on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) intent to seize 90,000 acres belonging to Texas landholders along the Texas/Oklahoma line, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott questioned the BLM’s authority to take such action.
“I am about ready,” General Abbott told Breitbart Texas, “to go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.”
Gen. Abbott sent a strongly-worded letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, asking for answers to a series of questions related to the potential land grab.
“I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations,” General Abbott wrote. “The BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.”
In an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas, General Abbott said, “This is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country …And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.”
The BLM might find that coming to Texas to seize anything could be rather difficult. First they’ll have to get past the Texas Governor, the Texas Attorney General and then a whole bunch of angry Texans.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids - and there is ... Ranchers like Cliven Bundy are moochers
Appearing on a local news program, Nevada Sen. Harry Reid once again weighed in on the continuing saga between federal agents and the Bundy family in Clark County. After Bureau of Land Management forces left the area earlier this month, Reid declared the ordeal was “not over” for the Bundys.
Not only did he condemn patriarch Cliven Bundy, accused of withholding federal grazing taxes for the past two decades; he also referred to the hundreds of men and women who stood alongside the family as “domestic terrorists.”
Reid doubled down on his rhetoric during the recent television appearance. He explained that he has been in contact with local Sheriff Doug Gillespie, Attorney General Eric Holder, FBI Director James Comey, and other high-profile figures in an effort to determine what the government’s next step will be.
Responding to a question regarding the assembly of a federal taskforce, Reid proclaimed, “I assume that’s what they’re going to do.”
He concluded that the parties involved “can’t just walk away from this,” predicting some abstract force that will compel the Bundys to comply with federal demands.
“I don’t think it’s going to be tomorrow that something’s going to happen,” he said, “but something’s going to happen.”
He concluded America is “a nation of laws, not of men and women.”
That proclamation, however, seems to stand in stark contrast to Reid’s predilection toward excusing the criminal acts of illegal immigrants.
Reid’s appearance was balanced by the state’s other senator, Republican Dean Heller.
He said he was far more concerned about the excessive force used by BLM officers than the presence of protesters. Heller called the demonstrators “patriots,” contrasting Reid’s accusation that the group was made up of “domestic violent terrorist wannabes.”
Heller said he wants to get to the bottom of the federal action in Clark County, explaining he is pursuing congressional hearings regarding the situation.
“I want to find out who’s accountable for this,” he said. “I hope someone at the BLM feels some accountability on exactly what happened; and I fear that there will be no answer to that question.”
The federal government owns 85 percent of the land in Nevada, he added, noting that is a major contributing factor in the ongoing overreach in his state.
He concluded the outrage across America stemmed from the basic fact that “to have your own government with sniper lenses on you made a lot of people very uncomfortable.”
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Posted on April 24, 2014 by LadyRavenSDC How did we miss this? All the publicity, videos, posts. This surreal photo is from several hundred taken during the standoff by photographer Shannon Bushman. Were the police/SWAT/BLM partying after hours – or just enjoying a cool one between shooting cattle and confrontations? I flat out just can’t get my mind around it. Share this
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: Range War: Feds vs The People
Originally Posted by vector7
Citing armed protesters, BLM returns seized cattle to Nevada rancher
Nevada governor and senator join criticism of federal cattle roundup
Authorities on defensive over Nevada cattle roundup on federal land
Support: Rancher Cliven Bundy, middle, addresses his supporters alongside Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie, right, on April 12. The Associated Press">
B. Christopher Agee — April 22, 2014
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks