Thread: Bundy Ranch Standoff is “Becoming the Last Straw” With This Admin & Big Government

MUST SEE VIDEO: BLM Whistleblower — Reid Bunkerville LLC. Owns Land Around the Bundy Ranch

by Glenn Rhee
April 20, 2014
Socialism, Tyranny
6 Comments

BUNDY RANCH | You saw his proof. (below) Now meet BLM Whistleblower Rusty Hill who uncovered the corporations and shady land deals connected to Reid Bunkerville LLC, Zion Bank Corp, and BLM lands surrounding the Bundy properties.



Bundy Ranch: The Land and its Masters Revealed



Since the Bundy Ranch story broke last week and culminated in a tense standoff with Federal agents on Saturday resulting in the release of the Bundy Ranch cattle we have been following the money. On the 10th we reported the Militia arrived in the area and cited a former BLM volunteer and Nevada Land Broker who revealed to us the true value of the land and the parties interested in it. In our on-going investigation into the money behind the Bundy Ranch Land Grab we present former BLM Volunteer Rusty Hill’s Records Research detailing his first hand experience in the Bunkerville area, its value to the Military Industrial complex – and most notably the corporations that bear Harry Reid’s own name in Bunkerville,- bordering USA lands and the Bundy Ranch.
So why do they want this land? Water, access to land, privacy and mineral rights – notably Magnesium Dolomite with one of its military applications as solid rocket fuel found in Tomahawk cruise missiles – friends it is much more than Chinese solar power.
In this investigation we provide the historical context to the lands around the Bundy Ranch, the mineral value of the land and it’s application in weapons manufacturing.
But here is where it get’s interesting. Using the public records from Clark County we disclose irregularities and anomalies in the public record of the sale prices of land surrounding the Bundy Ranch owned by the BLM, Cedar Development Corp, Zion Bank Corp, Bunkerville Compound LLC, AND Reid Bunkerville LLC who you will discover “paid nothing for the land”
This research reveals the highly suspicious activity surrounding the Bureau of land management, Cedar Development Corp, Zion Bank Corp and Reid Bunkerville LLC.
Due to the use of government force to remove Bundy “trespass cattle” and the lands that Reid Bunkerville LLC received at ZERO cost we can draw a line to their desire to run him off his land for their own gain – an American whose family settled that land over 100 years ago.

It’s time for a congressional investigation.

Who is Reid Bunkerville LLC.?

You can search Clark County parcel’s here

http://prepperchimp.com/2014/04/20/m...e-bundy-ranch/

Cliven Bundy and the Origins of the American Abundance Revolution




by James P. Pinkerton 19 Apr 2014 456 post a comment

Today, in the year 2064, as we look back over the last 50 years, it might seem as if the Abundance Revolution was inevitable, since so much wealth was involved. After all, it was wealth just waiting to be unleashed.

Yet paradoxically, on the eve of the Abundance Revolution, many of America’s leaders, on the right as well as the left, were preaching a strict doctrine of overall austerity.

Indeed, as we look back and study the events of 2014, we can see the results of the Green elite’s ideologically-driven effort to squelch even the relatively small amount of prosperity that Americans were then enjoying. That is, it was the Green elites who unwittingly opened the door to the Abundance Revolution and the fantastic increase in wealth that Americans have since realized over the last half-century.

We can point to three events, all occurring in April 2014.

The first triggering event, now the stuff of lore and legend, was the incident in Bunkerville, Nevada, in which Cliven Bundy, then an anonymous citizen, joined by several hundred supporters, faced down a federal army led by an ally of then-Sen. Harry Reid. The incident began on April 5, 2014, when the federal government attempted to seize Bundy’s property; that attempt, which struck many as overkill, led to a series of confrontations that ultimately inspired national news coverage.

What highlighted the incident further were the comments of Sen. Reid, who referred to Bundy and his allies as “terrorists.” That seemed such an excessive reaction that observers grew curious as to why Reid felt so strongly.

Some clues as to the government’s behavior were found in an opinion piece on Fox News by Wayne Allyn Root, the future national leader, in which Root asked, “Why is US Senator Harry Reid so concerned with a local Nevada rancher?” Presciently, Root noted that Reid allies were involved in “green energy” efforts, which required vast tracts of land for solar facilities. As Root opined:

Reid and the BLM [Bureau of Land Management, a now-defunct federal agency] needed a “cover story” to take the land away from the ranchers. So they claim it’s about protecting the “endangered” desert tortoise.

But if the protection of the desert tortoise was so important to the BLM, why did the same BLM kill hundreds of desert tortoises last fall?

If protecting the tortoises was so important, why has the BLM constantly waived rules protecting the desert tortoise for multiple solar and wind projects? If cattle are a danger to tortoises, why are solar panels and wind turbines not a danger?

Root concluded, “There’s much more to this story.” Then he added:

My educated guess is that someone in the government already has big plans lined up for the Bundy Ranch. Someone is going to make a financial killing with this forceful land grab. Someone powerful in government wants the Bundy family off their land (after 140 years).

Exactly. Root’s suspicions were vindicated, as we know, in surprising ways that made Root famous and left Reid’s career and reputation in ruins.

The second triggering incident occurred a few hundred miles away in Salt Lake City on April 17, 2014. The first of a series of assemblies of local officials and state land commissioners focused on
one goal: reasserting state sovereignty over federal lands.

“What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem,” declared state representative Becky Lockhart. At the time, of course, Lockhart was merely Speaker of the Utah House; she had yet to launch her illustrious career in national politics. The manifesto that she and the other leaders agreed to, remembered in history as the Salt Lake Statement, is regarded today as one of the most important writings of the Abundance Revolution.

In the nation as a whole, the states’ lack of sovereignty over their own territory had indeed been scandalous. In 2014, for example, the federal government owned 57 percent of Utah, 84 percent of Nevada, and 69 percent of Sarah Palin's Alaska. Indeed, Uncle Sam owned 47 percent of the land in the 11 Western states and about 28 of the total land of the US. Back in the 19th century, this federal ownership of land had begun innocently enough, for the simple reason that nobody else wanted the land; it had no economic value, unless it could be “reclaimed” by federal irrigation efforts.

Yet beginning in the 1970s, the federal government’s approach to land management changed dramatically. Whereas once Uncle Sam had supported development where possible, through dams and other kinds of infrastructure, the new federal policy was the opposite: The Greens, gaining control of federal policymaking during the 1970s, saw federal ownership of the land as an opportunity to stop any sort of development or economic growth.

And a key tool for the Greens was the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. ESA represented a radical expansion of federal power: In the past, the national parks had been set aside to protect endangered species; yet after ESA was passed, the entire country became, in effect, a national park. As a result, in any location where activists could identify an “endangered species,” they could squelch development. And so enforcement of ESA became a kind of racket, in which clever biologists and litigators could team up to block any sort of development and take effective control of any land.

Yet as a reminder of the wisdom that power begets hubris and then nemesis, it was overreaching on the ESA’s power that led to the Battle of Bunkerville; Bundy and other ranchers in Nevada were pushed off their land to protect the desert tortoise, a species that could easily have been protected—if that were really the issue—in zoos or nature preserves. But instead, the Greens got greedy, and that led to the moment when Bundy drew his famous Line in the Desert.

The repercussions in Nevada and nationwide were seismic in their long-run shock value. Most Nevadans, Westerners, and Americans came to see the folly of—and the poverty of—federal restrictiveness on resource development. As Kerry Picket, author of the classic history of that era, From Bunker Hill to Bunkerville: The Inside Story, observed later, “Everything started to change the moment that Cliven stood up for himself, his land, and his way of life.” Yes, great events came from small beginnings—in this case, a tortoise. (Indeed, the Nevada tortoise population is doing fine; sound management enables four-leggers and two-leggers not only to coexist together, but also to flourish.)

The third triggering incident came on April 18, 2014, when the Barack Obama administration announced that it was delaying, yet again, any decision on the Keystone Pipeline. This move was widely regarded as cynical pandering to a sect of Green billionaires, led by the infamous Tom Steyer of San Francisco. The Obama administration and many Democrats seemed happy enough to bow to Steyer’s wishes in return for campaign cash, but in this instance, the pandering was so flagrant that the decision blew up in the administration’s face.

While the liberal media were happy with the Keystone decision, the legacy press was no longer powerful enough to sway public opinion. Instead, the struggle for public opinion was swayed by activists who took to alternative and social media to make the case in favor of Keystone—and against the Reign of Steyer.
One key activist of that era was Phil Kerpen, who launched an aggressive Twitter campaign, pounding away on the seeming corruption of the nexus of the Keystone decision and Green campaign contributions. As Wayne Allyn Root said many years later, “I couldn’t have spearheaded my investigation, let alone my presidential campaign, without Phil’s muckraking.”

The fourth triggering event was America’s belated realization, during March and April 2014, that Russian leader Vladimir Putin was not a friend. The Obama administration had been notably slow to grasp the full implications of Putin’s incursion into Crimea and eastern Ukraine, but the rest of the world could see the need for an urgent campaign of energy independence from Russia. And that’s what happened: The 2016 presidential election, for example, is remembered as the Energy Election.

So in our review of the origins of the Abundance Revolution, we can cite three domestic events and one foreign event: first, the Battle of Bunkerville; second, the Salt Lake Statement; third, the Obama administration’s last failed attempt to block the Keystone Pipeline; and fourth, the Russian incursion into Ukraine and the beginning of Cold War II.

Yet we must also note a larger trend, which had been building for decades prior to the events of April 2014. And that trend was the greater scientific and technical knowledge that led to a deeper understanding of how to exploit natural resources and use them for ever-accelerating wealth creation.

We might recall that a similar effort in the West against federal control, the “Sagebrush Rebellion” of the late 1970s and early 1980s, had fired up and then fizzled. Looking back now at the Sagebrush Rebellion, we can see that the Rebels had the right idea, but the financial stakes were too low for them to succeed. That is, yes, there were timeless principles of a state’s sovereignty and freedom at issue, but most Americans of the 1970s and 1980s didn’t see that the issue of Western land was that big of a deal.

That lack of appreciation for the value of natural resources did not change, of course, until the fracking boom of the early 21st century. Once fracking started happening on a large scale, and once North Dakota grew to be one of the richest states in the union, people across the country began to realize that fracking could make them rich, too.

Still, it took a while for the political system to absorb the idea that America could be truly rich. In 2009, for example, President Obama launched a “stimulus” program for the economy that completely ignored the idea of expanding energy production—even as a study from the Congressional Research Service found that the US had the greatest energy resources of any country in the world; the study found that American possessed greater energy reserves than Saudi Arabia, China, and Canada combined.

Yet the Obama administration, focused on “climate change,” chose to ignore this data; indeed, it did everything it could to oppose greater energy production. The administration instead pursued such nostrums as printing money through the “quantitative easing” monetary process.

Meanwhile, during the Obama presidency, Americans could see that North Dakota wasn’t unique in its energy abundance; it was simply early. News reports began to notice that huge reserves of energy were to be found all through the Midwest and Northeast, in California and everywhere offshore, everywhere, period.

In 2013, the Institute for Energy Research issued a report noting that the total value of oil and natural gas under federal lands and federal waters amounted to $128 trillion. In that era, $128 trillion was more than seven times the GDP of the US, more than 10 times the national debt held by the public, and more than 40 times annual federal revenues. A few observers took note of the report, suggesting policies to make use of that wealth, and yet most figures, in both parties, seemed not to notice the bonanza beneath their feet.

Why this lack of interest? Why this blindness to future gushers of wealth? Looking back to that hinge period, we can see that both major political parties were so heavily invested in their approach to economic and fiscal issues that they didn't want to see any change at all.

The Democrats, firmly in the grip of their Malthusian wing, were simply not interested in seeing more energy production. It took several election cycles for them to realize that the wealth of Steyer and his Green allies was, in fact, a poisoned chalice.

The Republicans, meanwhile, although receptive to the idea of greater energy production, were slow to fully champion the idea, because they were locked into their priority of cutting federal spending; it seemed that the Abundance Revolution was a threat to their idea of shrinking government. And so it took time for Republicans to realize that rapidly enriching the private sector was a better way to “starve the beast,” at least on a relative basis, than the familiar frontal attack on entitlement spending. It was the prospect of tens of trillions in new wealth in the private sector that eventually motivated the GOP to embrace a truly comprehensive “all of the above” energy strategy.

In addition, both parties contained a group of well-meaning centrists who worried about “climate change.” Half a century later, the debate over whether climate change was happening back then has never been settled, but as we know, the climate-change issue was mooted by the Carbon Sequestration Revolution of the teens and twenties. And so we could freely burn not only natural gas and oil but also, in addition, coal—and coal added many trillions more to national wealth.

In other words, technology once again changed the game: Today, when we think of carbon dioxide, we think of such wondrous carbon sinks as high-rises built of carbon nanotubes, thousand-yard-high “Avatar Trees,” and the new Carbon Islands archipelago in the Pacific, which now vies with the Hawaiian Islands as a resort destination.

At about the same time, in 2014, as the US was waking up to the crisis of scarcity, as well as the enticing prospect of energy abundance, Americans also began to realize that we faced other shortfalls, too.
In particular, we needed to secure our access to Rare Earth Elements (REE). For most of human history, such exotic REE as Lanthanum, Scandium, and Ytrrium were just mineral curiosities. Yet by the late 20th century, human ingenuity had found vital uses for REE in the new information economy. We found that it simply wasn't possible to run computer chips, lasers, batteries, and other advanced technology without REE.

Yet to our national consternation, we came to realize that the Greens had been drastically restricting domestic REE production, just as they had restricted domestic energy production. In both instances, vast wealth had been locked under federal lands, and not released until big pro-growth political change came to Washington, DC. Just as we didn't want our allies to be dependent on Russia for energy production, we didn’t want ourselves to be dependent on China for REE.

Today, America is not only exponentially richer than it was 50 years ago, it is also safer and more secure. Powered by cheap energy, we make things here at home, and we use our brains to keep finding more energy, more REE, and more wealth. We enjoy all the wonders that we once thought we could not afford, from first-rate infrastructure and generous old-age pensions to organ regeneration to minimal taxes—even a budget surplus. We are protected by missile defense, even as adventurous Americans embark on deep-space travel.

Yes, it’s been a great half-century for America, and we owe much of our good fortune to the bravery of Cliven Bundy.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...nce-Revolution

The Power Of Resistance And Alternative Media

April 15, 2014 by Bob Livingston

SCREENSHOT

Rancher Cliven Bundy, with the support of hundreds of U.S. patriots, seems to have won the latest skirmish with the Federal government.
As we told you Friday, Bundy has been embroiled in a squabble with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management over his cattle and their ability to graze on Nevada land Bundy’s family has used for more than 100 years. Last week, BLM agents began rounding up Bundy’s cattle with plans to sell them at auction.
On Saturday, confronted by Bundy, his family, friends and members of Oath Keepers, various militia groups and other organizations, BLM backed down and backed out. The agency released Bundy’s rustled cattle and pulled its resources — which included snipers poised around the protest location — from the area.
News reports indicated some deal had been brokered by Clark County Sheriff Douglas Gillespie. But the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Sunday that the BLM claims there is no deal:

BLM spokesman Craig Leff told the Associated Press the agency would continue to try to resolve the matter involving rancher Cliven Bundy and the $1 million in owed grazing fees “administratively and judicially.”
“The door isn’t closed. We’ll figure out how to move forward with this,” he said, adding that the BLM did not participate in the negotiation moderated by Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie that deescalated tensions on Saturday.
“The BLM and National Park Service did not cut any deal and negotiate anything,” Leff said. “There was no deal we made.”
Bundy supporters are not quite declaring victory yet either.

However, it is clear that a combination of resistance by the American people and news reports revealing Senator Harry Reid’s involvement in a deal with a Chinese energy company put the Federal government on its heels.
Late Friday, alternative media began reporting on Reid’s ties to the Chinese company ENN Energy Group, which wanted the land to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel-building plant. Reid’s son Rory, a former Clark County commissioner, was also involved with the deal. And former Harry Reid adviser Neil Kornze is BLM chief.
Without the presence of the hundreds of volunteers and reporting by the alternative media, Bundy today would be without his cattle and he and his family would likely have suffered a fate similar to that of the Randy Weaver family or the Branch Davidians.
The big question now is: Was this a victory for Bundy and the American people over an overreaching Federal government, or was the BLM retreat just a strategic de-escalation?

http://personalliberty.com/power-res...rnative-media/

Standing Up To Government Is Now Domestic Terrorism

April 21, 2014 by Bob Livingston

PHOTOS.COM

The political class is now demonstrating a level of hubris rarely, if ever, seen in the American system.
Within just a few hours, three of the top four most post powerful politicians in the country unabashedly revealed the low opinion they have of liberty and the American people and a willingness to persecute, prosecute and lie to those who advocate and fight for Constitutional government. And by their silence, the rest of the political class nodded their agreement.
First, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Bunkerville, Nev., rancher Cliven Bundy and the hundreds of Americans who rallied to Bundy’s defense domestic terrorists. Then, President Barack Obama brazenly lied to the American people in claiming that 8 million people had signed up for Obamacare and that the program was a success, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And early Friday morning, we learned Speaker of the House John Boehner has proclaimed once again to big money donors and crony capitalists that an immigration bill would be passed this year over the wishes of the majority of Americans.
Within hours of reports circulating in alternative media of Reid’s use of the Bureau of Land Management in his land grab on behalf of a Chinese solar energy firm, BLM pulled its goon squad of armed enforcers out of the area. It also scrambled to delete evidence from its own website that the area the Bundy family has used to graze their cattle is needed for “utility-scale solar power generation facilities on public lands” and that need was hindered by “trespass grazing” cattle.
Reid and his son Rory have worked in lockstep with the BLM and transnational green energy firms to wrestle land and use rights from American ranchers for years. Bundy is the last rancher standing in an area that once saw dozens of them.
What few reports on the standoff between Bundy and BLM that have made it into the mainstream media speciously claim the Bundy ranch is some 200 miles from the proposed site of the ENN Energy Group’s solar farm and panel building plant, and that the ENN project was shelved last year. Even the supposedly reliable “right wing” websites Breitbart.com and Glenn Beck’s The Blaze have carried the Federal government’s water on this dispute. The two-faced Beck — who has called for a pitchfork revolution and sells shirts calling for one — even went so far as to call Bundy supporters “frightening” and compared them with Occupy Wall Street, which was a CIA-funded operation designed to foment unrest in America.
Claims have also been made that the Federal government owns the land in question. But the Constitution specifically describes in Article I, Section 8 what land the Federal government can possess, and there are subsequent Supreme Court decisions that lay out the legal framework. (Hint: It does not include protecting tortoises or building solar plants.)
A BLM document discusses the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and specifically mentions the Gold Butte area (which includes Bunkerville) and “cattle trespass grazing” as being part of critical concern to future utility-scale solar energy development. In short, Reid is using the BLM (headed by his lackey and former adviser Neil Kornze) to turn all Nevada “Federal lands” into a green energy zone for his and his son’s personal gain and Bundy’s cattle are hindering this effort. This is proven by information on the BLM website (since removed) that states grazing by Bundy’s cattle “impacts” solar development and the construction of solar development on public lands.
Understand the implications of Reid’s claim that those who bravely stood with Bundy, stared into the barrels of heavily armed oppressors who were threatening to shoot them and faced down the BLM’s armed goons are “domestic terrorists.”
Thanks to the National Defense Authorization Act, the government can simply designate Americans as terrorists and they can then be disappeared into gulags never to be charged, tried or heard from again. Habeas corpus, in the cases deemed “domestic terrorism,” is now nonexistent. Obama has already ordered drone strikes to kill Americans in foreign lands without due process. The step from indiscriminate extrajudicial killings of American “terrorists” overseas to indiscriminate extrajudicial killings of “domestic terrorists” in America has just been shortened considerably.
This is common knowledge in circles of people who depend upon the alternative media and understand the truth about the Federal police state. Don’t think that Reid is not aware of this. And he understands that those who sided with the Bundys recognize this as well.
Reid is too savvy and too skilled a politician to make a slip of the tongue statement accusing Americans of domestic terrorism.
Obama’s claim that 8 million people have now signed up for Obamacare and the law is working as intended is an incredible stretch even for a man who is such a consummate liar that more than half of Americans know he lies on important issues. The law is working “so well” that even in the face of monetary penalties, tens of millions of people who are eligible to sign up for Obamacare insurance have avoided doing so.
Boehner is said to be “hell-bent” on passing an amnesty bill this year. This has been an important issue for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for some time and is, therefore, an important issue for the Republican establishment.
Understand that, for the Republican elite, amnesty is not about trying to win over Hispanics in order to bolster chances for carrying national elections. It’s about providing cheap labor for big corporations. The plight of millions of unemployed Americans does not concern the establishment.
I have been writing for many years that the U.S. government is democracy in name only. In truth, it is fascist and ruled by one party with two names under the control of the globalists.
The only goal of the globalists and their psychopathic political class stooges is to loot and pillage. They have done so to the point that America is now a giant rock rolling downhill toward collapse.
As regimes get to closer to collapse, they inflict increasingly greater pain and controls on their people. It is now evident in America for those who would see it.
The domestic terrorists in question are not the American people. They are Reid, Obama, Boehner and the rest of the political and bureaucratic class who ignore the rule of law and oppress the American people.

http://personalliberty.com/standing-...tic-terrorism/

Martin Armstrong Asks "Do The Feds Really Own The Land In Nevada?"

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/20/2014 21:34 -0400




QUESTION: Is it true that nearly 80% of Nevada is still owned by the Federal Government who then pays no tax to the State of Nevada? This seems very strange if true as a backdrop to this entire Bundy affair.

Via Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Economics,

REPLY: The truth behind Nevada is of course just a quagmire of politics. Nevada was a key pawn in getting Abraham Lincoln reelected in 1864 during the middle of the Civil War. Back on March 21st, 1864, the US Congress enacted the Nevada Statehood statute that authorized the residents of Nevada Territory to elect representatives to a convention for the purpose of having Nevada join the Union. This is where we find the origin of the fight going on in Nevada that the left-wing TV commenters (pretend-journalists) today call a right-wing uprising that should be put down at all costs. The current land conflict in Nevada extends back to this event in 1864 and how the territory of Nevada became a state in order to push through a political agenda to create a majority vote. I have said numerous times, if you want the truth, just follow the money.
The “law” at the time in 1864 required that for a territory to become a state, the population had to be at least 60,000. At that time, Nevada had only about 40,000 people. So why was Nevada rushed into statehood in violation of the law of the day? When the 1864 Presidential election approached, there were special interests who were seeking to manipulate the elections to ensure Lincoln would win reelection. They needed another Republican congressional delegation that could provide additional votes for the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery. Previously, the attempt failed by a very narrow margin that required two-thirds support of both houses of Congress.

The fear rising for the 1864 election was that there might arise three major candidates running. There was Abraham Lincoln of the National Union Party, George B. McClellan of the Democratic Party, and John Charles Frémont (1813–1890) of the Radical Democracy Party. It was actually Frémont who was the first anti-slavery Republican nominee back in the 1940s. During the Civil War, he held a military command and was the first to issue an emancipation edict that freed slaves in his district. Lincoln maybe credited for his stand, but he was a politician first. Lincoln relieved Frémont of his command for insubordination. Therefore, the Radical Democracy Party was the one demanding emancipation of all slaves.
With the Republicans splitting over how far to go with some supporting complete equal rights and others questioning going that far, the Democrats were pounding their chests and hoped to use the split in the Republicans to their advantage. The New York World was a newspaper published in New York City from 1860 until 1931 that was the mouth-piece for the Democrats. From 1883 to 1911 it was under the notorious publisher Joseph Pulitzer (1847–1911), who started the Spanish-American war by publishing false information just to sell his newspapers. Nonetheless, it was the New World that was desperately trying to ensure the defeat of Lincoln. It was perhaps their bravado that led to the Republicans state of panic that led to the maneuver to get Nevada into a voting position.
The greatest fear, thanks to the New York World, became what would happen if the vote was fragmented (which we could see in 2016) and no party could achieve a majority of electoral votes. Consequently, the election would then be thrown into the House of Representatives, where each state would have only one vote. Consequently, the Republicans believed they needed Nevada on their side for this would give them an equal vote with every other state despite the tiny amount of people actually living there. Moreover, the Republicans needed two more loyal Unionist votes in the U.S. Senate to also ensure that the Thirteenth Amendment would be passed. Nevada’s entry would secure both the election and the three-fourths majority needed for the Thirteenth Amendment enactment.

The votes at the end of the day demonstrate that they never needed Nevada. Nonetheless, within the provisions of the Statehood Act of March 21, 1864 that brought Nevada into the voting fold, we see the source of the problem today. This Statehood Act retained the ownership of the land as a territory for the federal government. In return for the Statehood that was really against the law, the new state surrendered any right, title, or claim to the unappropriated public lands lying within Nevada. Moreover, this cannot be altered without the consent of the Feds. Hence, the people of Nevada cannot claim any land whatsoever because politicians needed Nevada for the 1864 election but did not want to hand-over anything in return. This was a typical political one-sided deal.
Republican Ronald Reagan had argued for the turnover of the control of such lands to the state and local authorities back in 1980. Clearly, the surrender of all claims to any land for statehood was illegal under the Constitution. This is no different from Russia seizing Crimea. The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated “that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State.” The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it “conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.”
The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court states:
The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.
So in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.
Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land – not federal.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...wn-land-nevada

Originally Posted by AirborneSapper7

Martin Armstrong Asks "Do The Feds Really Own The Land In Nevada?"

---------------------------------------------------

The Feds are in for one helluva an awakening - AND THEY ARE THE ONES WHO TURNED THE LIGHTS ON by attacking Cliven Bundy.

This Pandora's not going back in the box ..

Do the Fed’s Really Own the Land in Nevada? Nope!

Conservative Lady

“War” BLM Eyes Texas and Oklahoma Land Now Not Just Bundy Ranch



“War” BLM Eyes Texas and Oklahoma Land Now Not Just Bundy Ranch

E.T. Williams http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TmaI...&feature=share...
gopthedailydose.com



“War” BLM Eyes Texas and Oklahoma Land Now Not Just Bundy Ranch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UU...layer_embedded

What’s Next For The Bundys?

April 22, 2014 by LewRockwell

This article originally ran on LewRockwell.com on April 21.
The Federal response will definitely come. It will likely be in three areas, two of which don’t involve the Bundys specifically. First, a multifaceted attack will be made on the Bundys; second, a broad-front regulatory response against other land users will be made for the purpose of retaliation against the whole group and as a deterrent; and third, new provocateur deployments will probably be made across the West into similar situations.
The attack on the Bundys will be planned to be large enough so as to not fail, since precedents are being considered by the Feds. To give an historical example, the precedent of voluntary militias forming in the 1990s as a Constitutional concept in lieu of standing armies was effectively derailed for 20 years when the whole movement was painted as obscene by multiple Federal law enforcement agencies intensely targeting them, or anything that looked like them, while prosecuting a <acronym title="Google Page Ranking">PR</acronym> campaign in conjunction with the sycophant mass media in the wake of the provocateured Oklahoma City fiasco.
There is the possibility that doors will be smashed down in the darkness of early morning raids for all the Bundy family members, supporters and ranch hands. There is the possibility that plants are feigning inside knowledge at this very moment and are seated with prosecutors scrolling through video and pointing out participants and ascribing statements or actions to them. Such violent raids on houses and places of business targeting these designated domestic terrorists represent one possibility. If that happens, it probably won’t be immediate. The following factors all affect the timeline for the response, which I estimate to be in about three weeks, give or take a week or two.
The most likely first step for the violent option involves the impaneling of a grand jury that will be brought along slowly with presentations by government “experts” giving sensational overviews of generic un-American activities, terrorist groups and right-wing extremists. All of the activity involving the grand jury will be officially in “secret.” PowerPoint presentations will be made to the grand jury showing pipe bombs, smoking buildings and Nazi symbolism. It will be blatantly prejudicial to the eventual case presented for indictment, but there is no “other side” in this process to object. There is just a prosecutor, government agents and the grand jury eating doughnuts in a little room. Period. The massaging of the jury’s mindset is done long before they are shown case-specific information. This process can go on for a week. It is not adversarial. It is a one-sided show. There is no defense. It is designed to paint a picture of a general evil class of people. It’s kind of like the process used to get police cadets ready to shoot people. There is no danger that the grand jurors will ever be identified by the Bundys or feel any guilt from having to face those they bravely accuse.
Next, with the extent of the balderdashing that needs to be done to the grand jury to obfuscate the truth in this case, the prosecutor will need another week of ominous head-nodding alongside the agent witnesses’ general summarizing of the evil network masterminded by the Bundys. That puts us at two weeks. Then, the grand jury would be asked to give a “true bill,” an indictment. The grand jury always indicts if asked to do so. Always, always, always. Because if they don’t, they are dismissed and another one is impaneled until the indictment is handed down. The warrants on the indictment will then be issued by the Federal magistrate by the following week.
And finally, the law enforcement agencies need a few days to draw up plans, print out Google Earth photos of all the target locations, bring in temporary duty support from other Federal agencies, assemble for briefings, give out team assignments and pick a date to execute search warrants and arrest warrants. All of that puts us at three weeks. The three weeks also gives a period of apparent peace and quiet. It will be hoped that this quiet period will cause any supporters to give up and go home. Agents from other agencies will be enticed, probably with notices going out right now, to volunteer for an all-expense-paid week living on the Las Vegas strip at taxpayer expense enjoying wine, women and song at a premier hotel. This is one of the possible approaches against the Bundys.
Another possibility will be considered by agency heads who are reviewing the news coverage, the iconic images of cowboys waving flags displaying historic “American” individualism and the favorable reaction by much of the public to the visible stand taken by Bundy supporters. This possibility would probably begin to slowly go into effect along the same three-week timeline as the smash-and-grab scenario above. This one may involve the grand jury also, but as an “investigative tool.” While a grand jury is “investigating” a suspect or a “criminal organization,” unlimited secret subpoenas may be issued for anything. No other reason for the subpoena is needed other than the fact that the grand jury is investigating something. Anything and everything will be scarfed up. The Feds will get financial information, phone information and witnesses who will be compelled to testify or be incarcerated if they refuse to testify. There is no “I stand on the 5th” when the grand jury asks you about something. You will be held in contempt merely for refusing to testify when in front of a grand jury. No day in court. No due process. No good time. No parole. No probation. You are locked up as a grand jury witness until you change your mind and decide to go along with the government.
Ex-parte orders would be obtained to obtain Internal Revenue Service records for all involved. Asset forfeiture orders for substitute assets could be obtained that would identify Bundy or supporter assets and forfeit those assets to the government in lieu of supposed specific losses sustained by the government from unpaid grazing fees or other claimed damages or from an estimated value of the illegal proceeds of the criminal activity (ranching). These designated substitute assets may have no identifiable connection to the asset classes designated as losses or as illegal income by the government. Money laundering charges could be filed for “conversion” of “illegally obtained” assets or income.
Archived call data or live “pen registers” may be obtained to make conspiracy connections within the “criminal organization.” Wiretaps may be initiated, although this would be more time consuming and would lead to jury-sympathetic recorded conversations with fewer co-conspirator and criminal hierarchy connections than those that could be manufactured by experts analyzing the call data with link charts to be shown to a jury.
This alternate slower attack against the Bundys would be the nickel-and-dime approach that would result in service of seizure orders to banks and persons. Seizure notices would be posted on residential or business property accompanied by lis pendens filings recorded at the county courthouse against those properties. Notices would be mailed out. Administrative or judicial forfeiture action would commence against personal assets depending on value thresholds. Bank accounts would be frozen and then drained. People would be detained individually when they went shopping away from their homes to avoid video clips of militarized Feds attacking the houses of ordinary Americans in military operations. Businesses and vehicles would be seized over time. Cars would be grabbed when driven away from home when the owners were alone in their vehicles so as to not precipitate a defensive response from supporters.
Both of these types of attacks on the Bundys would likely involve the task force concept where multiple agencies would be brought in to confer and participate in either the slow or fast takedown of the Bundys and their livelihood. The other three-letter agencies would likely be tapped to lend equipment, manpower, administrative authority or proprietary investigative techniques to wage the good fight against the hard-working American cowboys and their loyal families.
The most likely response will involve the above techniques in a hybrid operation with the sheriff’s office or Nevada State authorities. Up to half of current Federal agency prosecutions are done through county prosecutor offices or the offices of State attorneys general. The Federal prosecutors don’t object, since their resources haven’t always kept up with the expansion of Federal law enforcement agencies. They are all too happy to see a Federal law enforcement agency prosecute a case, or parts of a case, through State and county channels when similar laws exist on the Federal and State sides. Charging the core case via the county or State would be somewhat complex in this situation, however, since the base charges are primarily Federal in nature regarding lands that the Feds have proclaimed off-limits to various citizen and resident uses. That wouldn’t be a stopper, though.
Cliven Bundy has indicated that he would surrender or submit to justice if the sheriff was the one making the request on behalf of the county or State. It is likely that the Feds will approach the sheriff and suggest that he be part of the face of leviathan when Bundy is approached with a combination of charges. The Feds will pressure the county and State authorities to come up with a few token charges that could be dovetailed with the Federal charges so that a county warrant, summons, writ or subpoena could be presented by a local officer tacitly or overtly working with the Feds. Local officers are quite often deputized with Federal authority for the duration of a certain case or longer. Once the Bundy case is in the State system, criminally or civilly, the State charges could then be dropped or held in abeyance while county authorities defer to Federal prosecutors awaiting the outcome of the Federal case.
Aside from the Bundy family, all other ranchers will likely be punished by the Feds via enhanced regulatory interventions in response to the actions on display in Nevada. This is common fare as a mechanism to teach the public to not mimic others who are standing up for themselves. U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management staff will be told at the headquarters level to crack down on ranchers in general and to give no quarter when dealing with “grazing permits” and “grazing fees.” The continual downward trend for the number of cattle allowed on historical grazing lands (i.e., “Federal allotments”) will be announced to ranchers during their recurring annual grazing permit meetings with the Feds. The continually reduced allotments will be enforced with vigor to teach the rancher scum a lesson. My family has had to deal for generations with perpetually reduced livestock “allowances” on grazing lands in Arizona, along with the more recent “endangered species” excuse to stomp on the land and water rights of ranchers who willingly maintain infrastructure that benefits both livestock and wildlife at no taxpayer expense. This happens and will continue to happen on both private deeded ranching land and on historical grazing “permit” lands used by ranchers for generations that were beyond the acreage amounts permitted for official deeded homesteading claims. (By the way, these grazing “permits” on specific land parcels with their documented historical homestead linkages convey and are bought and sold just like other real estate.)
The final likely type of general response by the Feds will be a chaotic, unpredictable deployment of provocateurs throughout the West trying to simulate the crisis presented in this trendy new visible law enforcement category. More visible crises are needed to allow Fox News and CNN to delineate between the good guys (the police state) and the bad guys (ranchers). Attempts will be made to catch evil ranchers operating their ranches while scheming, in recorded conversations, to keep operating their ranches despite growing opposition by the Feds to the presence of ranchers. That won’t work since cowboys are wary and hard to trap, so provocateurs will try to find a bozo in a cowboy hat and suggest to him, after he consumes a 12-pack purchased by the provocateur, that the drunk pretend cowboy and his newfound friend should have some fun and smash some turtles out in the desert. The Feds would then save us from that fate just on the cusp of it occurring with Federal planning, financing and taxpayer-purchased plastic turtle props. It would be made clear in press releases that no real turtles were harmed, lest we worry. The Federal press releases for this activity would be glorious and be seen by most being read verbatim by a horrified network newsreader tossing her hair incredulously while sports scores scroll underneath the screen. A hammer over a turtle outline could be the graphic floating next to the newsreader’s head.
Or attempts may be made to paint a rancher as evil by trying to compile statistics of drug loads arriving in the interior of the U.S. that Federal experts would suggest must have traversed the rancher’s land, proving unequivocally that the rancher can’t manage the grazing land as effectively as armed Federal bureaucrats who will keep us safe from beef cattle on that land and other productive uses. These actions will all increase to prove that the Feds will not be dictated to.
Although I cheer for the Bundys and applaud the courage of their sweet family, my heart would much rather see them running now and hiding out in a freer country like Mexico as opposed to becoming a decimated family of martyrs ravaged by the state.

–David Hathaway

http://personalliberty.com/whats-next-bundys/

Never Mind Cliven Bundy: Here’s the Real David vs. Goliath Story Between Ranchers and Feds

Shoshone sisters have battled against the U.S. over land and cattle.


Photo Credit: Ronnie Farley

April 19, 2014 |

The decades-long standoff between Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and federal officials trying to push his cows off public, protected land came to a head last week when Bundy's armed supporters forced the feds to back off on live TV, scoring a public relations victory. Now Bundy is a folk hero, at least to Libertarians, the Tea Party, conservative talk-show hosts and other right-wing critics of the government.
Bundy, a multi-millionaire farmer who hasn't paid for grazing rights on public lands for more than 20 years, also stands to garner substantial support from some very wealthy enemies of President Obama. Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group backed by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch (which spent $122 million trying to defeat Obama and other Democrats in 2012), is already instigating a campaign against the Bureau of Land Management on Bundy's behalf. It began a social media campaign, using the hashtag #BundyBattle, and is taking to the Internet to mock the time and money the bureau has wasted (some $1 million according to its poster) fighting the "little guy."
But Nevada is home to another epic battle between ranchers and the feds. As in Bundy's case, it involves ranchers Mary and Carrie Dann, whose ancestors lived on the land long before the federal government staked a claim to it.
Unlike Bundy, who claims his ancestors were homesteaders on his ranch in 1877 and never ceded it to the federal government, the Danns, two Western Shoshone sisters, were not trampling over land set aside for sensitive plants and animals. Nor were they getting rich off the land while, in essence, robbing the taxpayers of grazing fees.
The Danns have lived without running water or electricity their entire lives. Their tribe, the Western Shoshone, have lived in Nevada and parts west since time immemorial. The land was Shoshone land, and the U.S. formally agreed that was the case when it signed the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley, which explicitly stated that the Shoshone would never have to give up their land. That is, until the U.S. began encroaching on the land, claiming it for its own without the tribe's consent or knowledge.
The Danns' battle goes back to the early 1970s, when the federal government first sued them to stop grazing horses and cattle on land the U.S. claimed as its own. The Danns said the land was Western Shoshone land that the U.S. had taken illegally, and refused to pay grazing fees. Mary waged this battle until her death in 2005 at age 82, in an accident while she was repairing a fence. Carrie, 82 years old, is still fighting.
Unlike Bundy, the Danns endured five roundups of their herds starting in 1998. These were operations more suited for what the feds confronted at Bundy’s ranch than at the ramshackle farmhouse of two elderly sisters barely five feet tall. Scores of heavily armed, jack-booted federal agents descended on their homestead, usually at dawn, and would confiscate hundreds of cattle and horses in helicopter roundups with dozens of trucks and other vehicles plowing through the land, as if anticipating an army. Many horses and cattle died during the roundups, starving to death in holding corrals where they were provided no food or water. The horses and cattle that managed to survive were sold at auction.
Both the Danns and their tribe tried legal means of support. The Western Shoshone filed suit decades ago to try to clear up the ownership of their land, which the U.S., through congressional legislation, began taking for various means. Some of the land was used for nuclear testing— the Department of Energy has detonated more bombs there than anywhere else on earth—while other plots were leased to mining companies digging for gold.
Here's the catch to the Western Shoshone's suit against the feds: A now-defunct U.S. department, the Indian Claims Court, ruled against the Western Shoshone's claims that the U.S. had stolen their land on the grounds that the U.S. had already encroached on it for decades. In other words, the Western Shoshone couldn't reclaim the land because the U.S. had already taken in. Finders, keepers.
The case continued, with the Western Shoshone losing each time. In 1979, the tribe was awarded $26 million for more than 20 million acres the U.S. had taken illegally, but the tribe, refusing the claim, refused the money. This backfired on them when the Department of Interior, acting on the tribe's behalf without its consent, agreed to take the money (which has gathered interest ever since). When the Danns sued the federal government, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government, claiming that because the U.S. had paid the tribe for the land, even though the tribe had refused the money, the payment extinguished the Shoshone's land claims.
Desperate for relief, the Danns finally asked the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination for help to recover the millions of acres of land in Nevada and bordering states that belonged to the Western Shoshone. The U.N. ordered the U.S. to stop its actions against the Western Shoshone, and agreed with all the tribe’s grievances. This victory on paper did nothing; the U.S. government ignored it.
The kicker to this story is that while the Bureau of Land Management’s fight against the Danns claimed the sisters' herds were overgrazing—and thus harming—the land, much of the land the Danns have fought for has been leased to gold mining companies that have conducted resource-intensive extraction methods.
The land surrounding the Danns' ranch sits atop one of the most significant deposits of gold ever found in the United States. Only a few months after the Danns' horses were first rounded up, Nevada's headlines blared about gold finds in Crescent Valley, at the exact locations where the horses were removed. Most of the world's largest gold mining companies have some interest in the land, which involves using cyanide to extract minuscule amounts of gold from rock. Because the gold dust sits under the water table, it also involves pumping 20,000 to 70,000 gallons of water per minute every day and moving tons of soil and rock, leaving open pits. The extraction methods are so energy-intensive that the production of a single gold ring generates 20 tons of waste land.
Carrie Dann is no Tea Party hero. But she vows to fight until her last breath.
"Right is right," she said in an interview. "And wrong is wrong."
Evelyn Nieves is a senior contributing writer and editor at AlterNet, living in San Francisco. She has been a reporter for both the New York Times and the Washington Post.

http://www.alternet.org/heres-real-d...age=1#bookmark

Statists Call For Drone Strike on Bundy Supporters

(Info Wars) – As a federal appeals court rules that the Obama administration must divulge its legal basis for launching drone strikes against American citizens, many statists opposed to Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy’s stand against the...

WWW.TEAPARTY.ORG

http://www.teaparty.org/statists-cal...ampaign=social