None of this is funny at all, but I was amused by a post last night saying Putin should pay the million dollars. What would that do to Obama and company? Something to think about.
You, Sir are absolutely correct. They will turn this into all kinds of political gold and also point at the lack of coverage by MSM to show that U.S. hides things and can’t be trusted with the truth.
I wish the media would get out the whole story on this. They start with the Rancher refusing to pay federal grazing fees. They leave out that the fed confiscated his land, of which has been in the family for generations, years ago and then turned around and told him to pay for his cattle to graze on it. The land was confiscated and dedicated to the fed in order to protect a tortoise (and something else). But in the same vacinity, the fed allowed commercial development on the same land that was previously undeveloped.
The family refused to pay the fed to use their own property and refused to recognize the feds ownership of the property. So 20 years later, the fed decides to enforce the fees retroactively and confiscate the cattle that graze there.
What recourse did the family have? You can’t very well take the government to court or file a law suit against the fed or the BLM. Property rights are (or were) a founding fundamental right established by our founding fathers. It’s one of the things our freedom and existence is based on.
Does bundy own the land? No. (see below)
Does the state of Nevada own the land. No (not according to the Nevada constitution, passed in 1864 before the bundys began ranching there)
Does the federal government own the land. Yes! (see below)
Does bundy owe a million bucks for failing to pay his grazing fees for twenty years. Yes
Does grazing the land for decades give you an ownership interest in the land. No. see the Taylor Grazing Act below, written by a Colorado rancher and put in law in ’34 (see below)
"I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada," Bundy said in a radio interview last Thursday. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing." Ironically, this position directly contradicts Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.
But Bundy's understanding of states' rights is far different. As he told Sean Hannity in an interview last week (emphasis added):
"Well, you know, my cattle is only one issue—that the United States courts has ordered that the government can seize my cattle. But what they have done is seized Nevada statehood, Nevada law, Clark County public land, access to the land, and have seized access to all of the other rights of Clark County people that like to go hunting and fishing. They've closed all those things down, and we're here to protest that action. And we are after freedom. We're after liberty. That's what we want."
ORDINANCE (Nevada state constitution, 1864)
Slavery prohibited; freedom of religious worship; disclaimer of public lands. [Effective until the date Congress consents to amendment or a legal determination is made that such consent is not necessary.] In obedience to the requirements of an act of the Congress of the United States, approved March twenty-first, A.D. eighteen hundred and sixty-four, to enable the people of Nevada to form a constitution and state government, this convention, elected and convened in obedience to said enabling act, do ordain as follows, and this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada:
First. That there shall be in this state neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment for crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Second. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship.
Third. 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.
Does the grazing act give bundy’s a property right in the land
Bundy also claims that it his “right” to graze these BLM public lands. This is not the case. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 specifically states that the issuance of a grazing permit does not confer any right to graze or right to own the land. The Taylor Grazing Act is the granddaddy of the U.S. laws governing grazing on federal land. “Taylor” was a rancher and a congressman from Colorado, hardly someone to want government tyranny over ranching.
So far as consistent with the purposes and provisions of this subchapter, grazing privileges recognized and acknowledged shall be adequately safeguarded, but the creation of a grazing district or the issuance of a permit pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands.
Did you notice that the feds hired outside pro-cowboys to round up the 400 head of cattle at the rate of $966K (almost $1M).... That’s $2500/head...
Why the excessive price?
Because after the sale of the livestock, the Feds can get a judgement against the Brundy’s for the difference of the sale price and cost to round up.....
Then they can legally take the ranch....