Posted on 04/14/2014 11:30:47 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
MESQUITE, Nev. - A day after blinking in a showdown on the range, federal land managers pledged to pursue efforts to resolve a conflict with a southern Nevada rancher who has refused to pay grazing fees for 20 years.
Bureau of Land Management spokesman Craig Leff said the agency would continue to try to resolve the matter involving rancher Cliven Bundy "administratively and judicially." Bundy owes more than $1 million in grazing fees, according to the bureau.
"The door isn't closed. We'll figure out how to move forward with this," he said Sunday. He declined to comment on possible options.
Bundy did not respond to requests for comment.
The fight between Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management widened into a debate about states' rights and federal land-use policy. Bundy does not recognize federal authority on land he insists belongs to Nevada. The debate over who is right became so heated that a self-described armed local militia has come to his aide.
~~~snip~~~
In April 2012, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a notice of intent to sue the bureau for canceling a planned roundup of Bundy's cattle at the last minute.
The dispute that ultimately triggered last week's roundup dates to 1993, when the bureau cited concern for the federally protected desert tortoise in the region.
The bureau was implementing two federal court orders issued last year to remove Bundy's cattle after making repeated efforts to resolve the matter outside court.
http://www.moviesoundclips.net/download.php?id=1989&ft=mp3
Charley Waite:”You reckon them cows worth getting killed over?”
Boss Spearman:”Cows are one thing, but one man telling another man where he can go in this country is something else.”
http://www.moviesoundclips.net/download.php?id=1999&ft=mp3
Mack:”I didn’t raise my boys just to see them killed.”
Charley Waite:”Well you may not know this, but there’s things that gnaw at a man worse than dying.”
http://www.moviesoundclips.net/download.php?id=1994&ft=mp3
Charley Waite:”I’m almost certain they’ll be overly confident in their numbers, especially if we’re standing right out here in front of them. It’s not like we’ll have any advantage, but if they’re out there with us, they won’t have as much as they might have otherwise. I don’t figure all of them to be killers, maybe only two or three like Butler will have done much of it. I’ll be looking to him. The others will be hired men, probably saddle tramps, maybe ex-army. The rest will be cowpunchers. They won’t want to line up in front of us. It will happen fast once I start, so just keep yourself moving forward, they’ll either move or root, maybe even freeze up. It don’t matter which. You just start right in on them with that scatter gun. When you’ve done both barrels just drop it where you stand, pull your pistol and make a run for that building where we stashed them others. I’ll be trying to do the same if I can.”
Boss Spearman:”Sounds like you got it all worked out.”
Charley Waite:”Yeah, except the part where we don’t get killed.”
Meanwhile, the King will still own all the deer and people will still be more than happy to work as armed thugs for the Nobility
“All ye lowly, collateral-damaged, Feudal Serfs bow down to thine arrogant Feudal Lords at the Bureau of Feudal Land Management, (BFLM), who own the land beneath thy worthless feet!”
Commune-Style Obamantion is now the Law of the Land, - - - FOREVER!
FORWARD!
Comrade.... you will learn
Quote for that scene is “ Fill your hand you SOB”
What about Article IV, Section 3? “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.” That doesn’t limit it to the D.C. area.
Well excerpted...
This is classic yellow journalism, liberals know their audience and their attention span. If you read just the title and first paragraph it reinforces a liberals delicate world view. “States’ rights” => liberals dutifully read as homophobe, right to lifers. And...in the first paragraph we find that Bundy didn’t pay “his fair share”. Editors chose titles -someone whose bias has been well tested and in well established.
If you read long enough you get an obligatory glint of what the story really involves. Is the CBS reader still reading, not likely.
This is how print journalism typically buries the lead or buries relevant content. Let’s remember hear how news print in written and edited. The intent is to fill the page/screen etc. So, articles are written long and the length is culled by the editor -again, someone whose bias has been well tested and is long standing. The writer may well have preferred this tail end content would be cut all together...this is exactly why they bury to content they would rather not include. They are signaling that they are good liberals/leftists and their allegiance to the group think.
I read that as the Federal government protecting the territory of the “United “STATES”” That cannot be interpreted as the Federal government taking over land belonging to a state of the Untied States.
I don't think it means that the federal governent can take over land belonging to a state either. But it does not preclude the government owning land and other proptery within the borders of a state.
Well I have a problem with that. Did the government purchase that land? Was that purchase approved first by the state and then by the peoples representatives?
This is simple. The Federalist makes clear and indeed the founding fathers were likewise clear that the federal geographic footprint was to be kept at a minimum. Cattle grazing land and indeed any land that is not “needful” for the federal government to function should be relenquished immediately.
Yes the Government did purchase the land, for $15 million at the end of the US Mexico war per the treaty of Guadalupe Hildago. Note that was before Nevada was even a state. Further Nevada ceded any control or even taxation of the land in their state constitution.
(From another website, available upon request):
Also, this is still a dynamic situation, meaning that federal assets and plans are still in play.
Narrative: As indicated in my report dated yesterday, 12 April 2014, I have been in contact with my primary source within the DHS as well as a secondary source outside of the DC area on multiple occasions throughout today.
It is important for people to understand that the “breakdown” of the federal exercise is nearly as methodical and time consuming as the run-up to their arrival.
The situation is still fluid, and there are federal assets still being debriefed. Based on the information obtained from both sources who are known to this investigator but who are requesting anonymity for obvious reasons, however, the federal initiative to claim the land at the center of controversy in Nevada remains intact.
Perhaps the most important information derived from both contacts is that the situation is not over. In the words of the DHS source, “they [the BLM and other support agencies] will be back.”
According to both sources, plans are being made to physically return on or about the date of the “American Spring,” which is scheduled for 16 May 2014.
The purpose for choosing that date or approximate time period should be obvious. The most vocal and visible leaders of the patriot movement will be busy organizing and attending the DC event.
It is during this period that the BLM and support agencies, by way of their physical presence combined with court actions, is intended.
Additionally, I was advised by a separate intelligence source that it is important for us in the patriot movement to understand that the situation is much more important to the federal government than just the visible components , or the stand-off, at the Bundy ranch alone. Consider the following:
1. The current leadership wants to create [2014] as “the summer of rage.” They are astutely aware of the difference in public perception between the rural population and the urban areas, and intend to shape public perception against the patriot movement. They are already spinning the situation at the Bundy ranch into a “display of reasonableness” exhibited by the BLM, DHS and all federal agencies.
2. The current leadership is attempting to ramp up the rhetoric in the mainstream media about the dangers of the patriotic movement and the threat they posed to life, limb and liberty. Of course, this is untrue. The intent is to cast an even wider net of anti-gun ownership initiatives over those displaying such “radical” tendencies as shown at the Bundy ranch.
3. It is important to note that the intelligence source contacted by this investigator stressed that the leadership has every intention to stretch out future stand-offs and events, as such ultimately work to (or will be spun) to their benefit. It is their intent to “game the resolve and practicality of the people.
4. Additionally, it must be noted that Cliven Bundy is literally “the last man standing” in the way of this federal land grab. Over four dozen ranchers have fallen victim to the federal land grabs. Clear title to the state-owned land cannot be claimed unless and until all claims to that land, (the Bundy presence) can be removed. As many already know, the intent is for the federal government to hold clear title as collateral and ultimately conveyance to global interests. While many are aware of its value to Harry Reid and others, this is also about the resources under the ground.
Additional updates will be provided as further data is developed from source – and not before.
DoodleDawg - Article 1 section 8 is the relevant section here and yes, the government can own the land. Also relevant is how the government obtained the land as Nevada was not even a state at the time.
The land came to the use as a result of the end of the US Mexico war in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo where Mexico ceded the land to the US Government. That means the treaty clause under Article II section 2 comes into play as well.
So why did the government allow Nevada to become a state with states rights under the constitution? Isn’t the purchase of anything by the federal government owned by the people of all the United Sates?
This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the gratuitous possession of land that is not needed for the federal government to function. If the Feds don’t need it, why do they have it? And likewise, why would any constitutionalist argue for a larger federal power when it is not necessary?
The land in question NEVER belonged to the state of Nevada.
Forgive me, I thought it was Clark county Nevada, my mistake.
Several factors were involved in Nevada becoming a state. No small part of it was President Lincoln wanting more votes in the electoral college. However, to directly answer your question, Nevada territory applied for statehood and was rejected by Congress. They were told that they would not be accepted for statehood unless certain ordinances were added to the constitution of the state. One of those was the ceding of US Government lands to the US Government forever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.