Feds vs. Bundy Explained

Thanks for the link Rev. Our wonderful Govt. What else don't we know about? I used to snicker at the TV show "Conspiracy Theory" with Jesse Ventura, but he may have been on to some crazy stuff?

 

I'm pretty sure everyone is about to hear "eminent domain" explained. Give things time to calm down, then they'll grab everything out from under him.
It's usually what happens when they want to punish someone for not going away quietly.

 

I know you won't read this, given it is posted by yours truly, but this is for all those your comment will potentially mislead.

The land is not his. It isn't the government's, either. All the feds did was declare the land to be a "protected preserve" for the desert tortoise. But that was done in 1993, by a federal agency that did not exist before 1977. The Bundys have been grazing cattle on the land since 1887. They have "prior use" rights that the preservation declaration ignored. That is illegal. That is why the Bundys are correct in standing against the federal government.

There is nothing to condemn under eminent domain. The Bundys actual land is not part of the preserve. The land they are using to graze their cattle cannot legally be subject to grazing fees, the issue the BLM is attempting to use to seize his cattle, because the family's operations have continually existed for 127 years, and predate the federal agency attempting to illegally regulate them by 90 years.

In other words, the feds have nothing to stand on except illegal regulations.

 

Kind of ominous, actually, that an agency called the "Bureau of Land Management" is the agency sent -- armed, no less -- to attempt to enforce a declaration that is not a legal basis for denying prior use rights, and especially not any basis whatsoever for depriving use or property.

There's an agenda there that was unintentionally exposed, which is probably the real reason the "troops" backed out of the area.

 

I shouldn't be; but I found myself completely surprised by the reaction on a liberal-leaning website about this situation. Many of the people making comments about the news on this subject were identifying the militia and Bundy as "rabble-rousers," "tax-avoiding anarchists," even going so far as to identify Bundy as a "thief stealing from the government for years, but now calling the government thieves when they try to take what Bundy legally owes them."

 

Has anyone bothered to inform you that a preamble is not a binding portion of any legal document, but is instead a preliminary or preparatory statement. It is essentially nothing more than an introduction to the document that follows.

Anything else?

 

Still going with believing they'll try the eminent domain card eventually, since nothing else worked yet. Anyone really believe it was ever about cattle or tortoises or grazing fees, to start with?

 

I agree with the video. It seems that Clinton upped the ante and Obama turned loose a gestapo on a westerner in order to benefit Dingy Harry G. Reid and his son in a Chinese solar panel scheme for "green" energy.

It is the fact that the feds own so much land west of the Mississippi that gives them a lot of power. Obama has to sign every lease to drill for oil and he refuses so we suffer an energy shortage. The Democrats have exceeded the search for minerals by going into habitat issues, as you know.

Clearly, the Democrats intended to execute the rancher in another Ruby Ridge and they wanted to slaughter his cattle. And the Democrats are warning that this is not over yet.