Featured This is what happens when Americans believe the Government is overreaching

That's got the potential to start a range war, which could easily boil over into a civil war. The government is out of bounds so far as to be in another stadium.

 

I have read some on this and based on what i have read the rancher is in the wrong. Someone please correct this is I am wrong. The ranchers in the area were all told they could no longer run their cattle on open range and lost their case in court. This man has decided he is above the law and is getting the results of his rebellion. So like I said please correct this with documentation if I am incorrect.

 

My personal jury is still out on this one....but my impression so far is that Bundy is in the wrong also.

It IS Federal Land apparently, and the Government is not required to allow him to let his cows graze from now until eternity. Especially since he has refused to pay the associated fees:

While I have not read anyone use so many words, I am getting the impression that Bundy is of the so-named "Sovereign Citizen" viewpoint, which essentially denies the validity of all Federal Government powers altogether.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement

We'll see, I guess, but I'm getting the distinct impression that Bundy is thoroughly in the wrong here too.

 

That is prety much what I have come up with. The real problem is if this is true, and I think it is, that so many who claim to be Christians are also becoming law breakers by supporting this law breaker.

 

No that is not a bit off topic. That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

 

How is he a lawbreaker? The BLM is supposed to give grazing permits and they're not allowed to raise the fee past a certain percentage.
If he's had a permit and he was paying the fees, then they just decided to raise the fees to an insane amount, it's wrong and violates the grazing act. The only reason there even IS an act in place is to protect the land. Otherwise, it wouldn't even cost anything.

I'm betting the end of the article is right. He's being pushed off because someone wants that land. They had to find a reason to get the cattle off so it can be repurposed. Too bad people are watching now. Wonder how easy it would be to check and see what the most recent survey on the land was and who had it done. It might be public. I'll have to grab rough coordinates of the land off the info given and see if I can dig that out a little. Hrm. Interest officially peaked...I smell a story. (maybe there's gold in them thar hills. LOL)

 

The Bureau of Land Management, whose director was Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) former senior adviser, has purged documents from its web site stating that the agency wants Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle off of the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations.

Deleted from BLM.gov but reposted for posterity by the Free Republic, the BLM document entitled “Cattle Trespass Impacts” directly states that Bundy’s cattle “impacts” solar development, more specifically the construction of “utility-scale solar power generation facilities” on “public lands.”

“Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle,” the document states.

Another BLM report entitled Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone (BLM Technical Note 444) reveals that Bundy’s land in question is within the “Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and surrounding area” which is part of a broad U.S. Department of Energy program for “Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States” on land “managed” by BLM.

“In 2012, the BLM and the U.S. Department of Energy published the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States,” the report reads. “The Final Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement assessed the impact of utility-scale solar energy development on public lands in the six southwestern states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.”

Update: The Drudge Report, the #1 news aggregate site in the world, has now picked up this story. Unfortunately for the BLM, the documents they wanted to delete are now exposed for the world to see.

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/

 

All the ranchers lost in court. The court is the final say in the matter in this country so he is wrong.

 

The people have the last say in this country. And that's said in the 10th amendment.

Yeah but your link goes to a "conspiracy site" and mine had two extra videos. Didn't want to leave out the part where the good Sheriff doesn't even have an "official public statement" on the matter.

But wait there's more!

BLM Action in Nevada is Unconstitutional, Here’s Why

A direct violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution

The clause, known as the Enclave Clause, authorizes Congress to purchase, own and control land in a state under specific and limited conditions, namely “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings,” and not, as the feds now insist, to protect an endangered tortoise.

The Founders were opposed to providing a centralized federal government with unlimited authority to purchase and, as is routinely the case today, seize state and private land.

During the federal convention debates in September, 1787, Elbridge Gerry, who later went on to serve as vice president under James Madison, contended federal purchase of land “might be made use of to enslave any particular State by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the State into an undue obedience.”
In order to make certain the federal government did not abuse the Enclave Clause, the words “Consent of the Legislature of the State” were added.

Madison, Jefferson and the Founders were primarily interested in limited government and the diffusion of federal authority over the states for the protection of individual liberty. In 1992, the Supreme Court issued an opinion on the framers’ reasoning behind the state consent requirement (New York v. U.S):

“The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.” (Emphasis added.)

Madison knew unlimited federal power inevitably results in unbridled tyranny. “I venture to declare it as my opinion that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America,” he wrote.

Despite the desire of the founders and the originating principles of the nation, conceived as a constitutional republic, the federal government has repeatedly and habitually exacted dictatorial authority in Nevada and throughout much of the West.

“The United States government owns and has broad authority to regulate federal lands in Nevada,” the BLM arrogantly insists. “In response to challenges of federal ownership of the lands in Nevada, the 9th circuit held that the federal government owned all federal lands in Nevada, and that those lands did not pass to the state upon statehood.”

This is in direct conflict with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.

Cliven Bundy’s struggle with the BLM in Nevada is exactly the situation Madison and the founders tried to prevent. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to own land, beyond what is stipulated in the Enclave Clause, and its seizure of land, under the obviously fallacious pretense of protecting a tortoise, is a serious violation of the Constitution.

Madison made if perfectly clear in Federalist Paper 45:

http://www.infowars.com/blm-action-in-nevada-is-unconstitutional-heres-why/

CLICK HERE


County Commissioner Says Bundy Supporters “Better Have Funeral Plans”

The BLM shows criminal intent by attempting to hide documents exposing Sen. Reid’s involvement with this land grab.

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
April 11, 2014

Clark County Commissioner Tom Collins has caused outrage by remarking that Utahns planning to travel to Nevada to support Cliven Bundy in his standoff against the feds “better have funeral plans”.

The comments were revealed by Darin Bushman, a Piute County, Utah, commissioner after he spoke with Collins about Utah ranchers and his colleagues on the County Commission complaining about tactics used by Bureau of Land Management agents during their seizure of Bundy’s cattle in southern Nevada. “I was just told by commissioner Collins of Clark County NV that all of us folks from Utah are a bunch of

Read More At: http://www.infowars.com/county-commissioner-says-bundy-supporters-better-have-funeral-plans/

BLM Rangers Brought in From Out of State for Nevada Ranch ‘Emergency’

‘They’re almost like a hired gun’

Armed Rangers were brought in from out of state by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to assist in security surrounding the Bundy Ranch, according to the family.

A heated confrontation on Wednesday resulted in Cliven Bundy’s son Ammon being tasered by BLM officials and a 57-year-old protester being shoved to the ground.

Stetsy Bundy Cox, Cliven’s daughter, told the Washington Free Beacon that some of the rangers had Oregon and California license plates.

“You know, some of these guys don’t even know why they’re here,” she said. “A few people have talked to them and they got called in here on an emergency feed and they didn’t know what it was for, it just said they had to be here.”

“They’re almost like a hired gun,” Cox said. “Because what they’re supposed to do is they each have a road, and are told to stay on that road, and they’re supposed to keep people off that road, whatever means possible. That’s their job. They don’t even know how many cows have been gathered.”

The BLM did not respond to requests for comment by press time.

The BLM did not respond to requests for comment by press time.

Cox said she spoke with an out-of-state Ranger who was ashamed of his job.

“I actually went and talked to one, he was in the back, nobody was even talking to him. He didn’t say much,” she said. “He had a huge big gun on him, but he didn’t really even touch his gun.”

“I asked him, ‘What are you doing? Do you know what you’re doing? You’re stealing an old man’s cattle, his livelihood. He’s a poor man that doesn’t have anything,’” she said. “And I said, ‘You’re pushing baby cows’—I watched a baby cow not want to move and a helicopter swoop down and honk at him till he had to move.”

Cox said the Ranger said, “No, no, we don’t want that.”

“But I saw it,” she said.

“‘Well, well,’ and he goes, ‘I don’t even want to be here. Do you think my grandfather’s proud of me? You think I like this? You think this is fun for me?’”

“Then what are you doing here?” Cox asked him.

“He said, ‘It’s my job.’”

http://freebeacon.com/issues/blm-rangers-brought-in-from-out-of-state-for-nevada-ranch-emergency/

"I'm just following orders" . . .

 

The state is NOT in control of federal land and is not contesting this action ruled on by the courts. This man is trying to exercise his own law. The courts do have the final say in this country as that is how the people set things up.

 

^ This ^ :thumbsup: