Replies

Does a fascist government control the land and the people? Yes.

Does a fascist government make “laws” to control the land and the people? Yes.

Does a fascist government make unconstitutional laws to control the land and the people? Yes.

Does a fascist government have its own judges to rule that the unconstitutional laws are valid? Yes.

Does a fascist government use heavily-armed, jack-booted storm troopers to enforce the unconstitutional “legal” laws, driving people off the land, bankrupting them, and even killing entire families and communities that resist? Yes.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

This is a dispute that’s history goes back more than 140 years. Since the Bundy family ha utilized the land in question for considerably longer than any laws or regulations have covered it, Bundy has a valid claim to the use of the land so long as he and his heirs choose to.
The fact that Nevada, before statehood, ceded to the federal government all lands within its borders that were under public ownership at that time is moot.
A few years later, the Bundy family legally homesteaded a portion of that land, and then used the remainder for grazing purposes, again legally.
After about five decades, the Taylor Grazing Act was passed by congress, and the Bundy family accepted that, and continued to use the land legally. In 1946, the BLM was formed, and among other activities, was charged with regulating the Taylor Grazing Act, and again, the Bundy family agreed to abide by this, with grazing fees paid to the county.
Now comes the year 1993, in which the federal government not only threw out the prior agreements with respect to all grazing rights, along with timber and other natural resources, and then had the temerity to charge fees those they were stripping of their previous legal rights. Many ranchers and others, agreed to the changes (and charges), and before long were deprived of their rights and their fortune.
Bundy, being a bit more savvy, disagreed, but did agree to honor previously contracts with the federal, state, and county and to continue to pay the grazing fees to Clark County, as he had done under the previous contract. The County declined to accept these fees. Thus it seems, there is a question whether the attempt to pay were refused, thereby considered paid in full.
Next, the fact that Bundy have used the land for 120+ years without objection, while it does cede that the ownership in the property by the federal gov’t is not in question, the arbitrary and radical changes in the contract are very questionable.
Bundy himself agrees that he owes about $300,000 in grazing fees, and appears willing to pay that amount to the county, and it would be no stretch of the imagination that the county could ppay that anount the federal gov’t in Bundy’s name, what is the problem here?
The BLM claims the amount is more than a Million Dollars, and it is likely they base this amount on various penalties and interest.
If there were a settlement between Bundy and the BLM on the differences in amount, likely the BLM would insist on a new contract, which would likely deprive the ranch of its grazing area and therefor loss of livelihood.

Welcome to the new America!