Feds vs. Bundy Explained

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Apr 14, 2014.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
  2. SolaSaint

    SolaSaint
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,824
    Likes Received:
    25
    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?
     
  3. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    The ranchers and the militia were getting ready to go after the Bundy's cattle that had been stolen by the BLM. They had prayed and were moving toward the armed BLM when they decided to release the cattle.

    The problem the BLM ran into was that they wanted to take the cattle to the Utah cattle auction but the Utah Livestock chief would not allow it.

    The feds have over reached. Let them learn this as an example of what Americans will do should they continue to act like this. As I have said, this concern for the federal government is building up and Americans are growing more and more animosity. The libs were caught off guard by this event but now they know. I think the problem yet remains is they still think they can get around stuff like this.

    Push American too far and it will not be good.
     
    #3 Revmitchell, Apr 15, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 15, 2014
  4. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
  5. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    We have to wonder why the BLM had armed troops there. The BLM is not a law enforcement agency.
     
  7. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  8. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,550
    Likes Received:
    213
    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."
     
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    At this point I am not sure how reliable the source is but there is a real estate agent in the area that says there are some developers who are tied to the military who have sent him out to the Bundy's a bunch of times over the years to sell their property. Much of it runs along I-15 and is prime property because there is a natural gas line going through, there is lots of underground water, weapons grade minerals to be mined.

    He says he has been sent out to them many times with crazy amounts offered to the Bundy's.
     
  10. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,246
    Likes Received:
    1,324
    The problem with the Bundy ranch grazing cattle on public land is that the Preamble to the Nevada Constitution of 1864 (entitled "[PRELIMINARY ACTION" and precedes Article 1) says, "That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States."

    The federal government claims the public land in Nevada (85% of Nevada) on the basis of that statement in the Nevada Constitution. The problem is that the issue was settled by Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution, which disallows the federal government from owning any land in the states except that it may "exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

    The federal government rightly owns the property occupied by Nellis Air Force Base, Creech Air Force Base, the Nellis Range (which includes Area 51), and Navel Air Station, Fallon. With the exception of the federal building in Las Vegas that is the extent of "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." Nowhere does the US Constitution (which is a "document of enablement") allow for the federal government to own countless 100s of 1000s of empty acres that are not being used for defense purposes.
     
    #10 TCassidy, Apr 18, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 18, 2014
  11. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  12. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    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?
     
  13. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    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.
     

Share This Page

Loading...