Posted on 04/17/2014 6:42:06 PM PDT by Kaslin
The showdown between federal authorities and rancher Cliven Bundy, his family and supporters in Nevada is one of those rare topics from the libertarian-conservative news agenda that actually made its way into the establishment media. Between last Thursday and Monday, ABC, CBS and NBC gave the story a total of nearly 16 minutes of coverage on their morning and evening newscasts.
Network journalists have consistently framed the case as one of a rancher failing to pay the requested fees for his use of government land. But they have failed to use the case to tell the larger story of how environmental rules — in this case, regulations to protect the desert tortoise, have been implemented in ways that help favored interests (land developers, or solar companies) while hurting others (cattle ranchers, for example).
The networks have focused on the amount of money the government has demanded of Cliven Bundy, and let the Bundy side talk about the government’s heavy-handed tactics in seeking collection. On Saturday’s Good Morning America, for example, ABC’s Mike Boettcher framed the story this way: “For 20 years, rancher Cliven Bundy has refused to pay rent to herd his cattle on government land, $1.1 million in grazing fees.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Please remember that the Supreme Court has reversed more than 150 of earlier Supreme Court decisions on natural law. Is that what you would consider as someone being consistent and reliable in interpreting the Constitution?
The Resolution of 1780, "the federal trust respecting public lands obligated the united States to extinguish both their governmental jurisdiction and their title to land that achieved statehood."
In the Constitutional Convention of 1787, The Charter of Liberty contained these words, "The new Federal Government is an agent serving the states.", "The delegated powers are few and defined", "All powers not listed are retained by the states or the people", "The Resolution of 1780 formed the basis upon which Congress was required to dispose of territorial and public lands", "All laws shall be made by the Congress of the United States". (not agency bureaucrats!)
That should be sufficient for you to determine who all public lands belong to, hint - NOT the Federal Government!
"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, it's meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted. it means now". So said the Supreme Court in South Carolina v United States in 1905
Articles of Confederation, Article VI, clause 1 All engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. In Article IX "... no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States."
Formation of a "more perfect union" does not absolve that union of prior engagements, including those obligations establish by the resolution of 1780 and the Articles of Confederation.
Our government system is established by compact, not between the Government and the State Governments but between the States as Sovereign Communities. By James Madison 1821 (This is what make the County Sheriffs the highest law enforcement officer in that County and gives him/her the authority to tell the BLM, the FBI or any other Federal Agency to get out of the County or they will be arrested and jailed.)
What I have written here is but a short piece of the process that the Founder went through to establish our Constitution and system of government.
Please view these videos and see if they don't change your mind about whether or not Cliven Bundy is in the wrong by defying the BLM.
1of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference
2of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference
3of3 Stephen Pratt speaking to Sheriffs at WSSA conference
Here's one that shows why the Sheriff of Clark County is duty bound to keep the BLM and all Federal agents from arresting Cliven Bundy.
Networks ar to busy with feel good stories or human interest stories
The only surprise anymore is if anyone did anything about it.
Or a congress critter stood up to inform and educate the masses. That aint goin to happen.
bttt
Bump. Thank you B4
This is just the beginning, it was only a couple of weeks ago that the PoS Obama had the lesser prairie chicken designated as a threaten species among five states (TX, OK, NM, KS & CO). This will be another land grab attempt to be added to the others. Marxism at work. What amazes me is that my congressman doesn’t think this president has done anything that warrants impeachment.
Because they’re the propaganda arm of the Progressives.
That’s what I expected from these Bolsheviks, TASS news agencies.
Thanks for posting this.
Newsbusters is Consistently excellent.
Like who just came out as "gay" or what movie star is getting divorced.
You know, IMPORTANT stuff.
I still don’t understand. WHY didn’t he pay the fees?
Best explanation of the environmentalist roots of this conflict that I’ve seen yet.
In order for that to happen, the congress critter would have to know and understand constitutional principles. I think you would be hard pressed to find even a handful who were well versed.
Read post #2 and learn why he doesn’t owe any fees to the BLM.
He refused to sign the contract and they wouldn’t accept the fees without the signed contract.
Read the article to understand the environmental roots of the original conflict.
Your post is much appreciated, Thank You!
Just like Cliven Bundy was saying...Thank you!!
It included a contract giving them power over almost every decision he made about the herd, in addition to drastically reducing it ( because cattle are not environmentally loved).
I have read that story three times.
Paragraph one: focuses on new media giving 16 min of it in their broadcasts.
Paragraph two: focuses on how the rancher failed to pay his fees and the network journalists ‘they have failed to use the case to tell the larger story of how environmental rules — in this case, regulations to protect the desert tortoise, have been implemented in ways that help favored interests’.
Paragraph three: focuses on the interviews with the Bundy side and how he hasn’t paid his fees.
Paragraph four: Bundy family tells about intimidating forces of the feds.
Paragraph five: What’s ‘omitted from the network coverage: How cattle ranchers like Bundy have been victimized by federal government plans to protect the desert tortoise, and how the current showdown was provoked by an environmentalist lawsuit.’
Paragraph six: Networks not admitting regulations about tortoises.
Paragraph seven: ‘federal government has for decades permitted some destruction of tortoise habitats if they like the project, while cracking down on others as they see fit.’
Paragraph eight: ‘BLM has enforced these rules in ways that favor projects endorsed by federal bureaucrats, such as solar projects, while being tough on the cattle ranchers.’
Paragraph nine: Clinton sold land in favor of LV land developers.
So where in here does it tell of WHY he didn’t pay the fees!
It tells of why these regs are unfair, but WHY did he not pay fees that were a legal responsibility of his. Any lawyer will focus on that.
After all if you don’t like the law and break it you are not going to win. No matter how unfair it is.
I can sympathize with him but I cannot find his reason for not paying. Have read several articles.
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.