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

Why Cliven Bundy Is Not Wrong- From A Fellow Rancher


Posted by Liberty On April 13, 2014 24 Comments
Via: Kena Lyle Gloeckner

And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow – - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land.

There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years.

The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not.

What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following:

“You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.”

The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to.

Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment.

In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years.

As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%.

In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3.

Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away.

And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow – - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land.

Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand.

Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen.

This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against.

Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.

-Kena Lytle Gloeckner

http://www.libertyandlead.com/2014/0...ellow-rancher/

Militia to BLM: ‘We Are Prepared to Use Deadly Force’




by Bob Price 24 Apr 2014 4368 post a comment

Ranchers from Nevada, Utah and Arizona gathered to protest the ongoing federal roundup of cattle and and show their support for the Bundy family ranch.




by Bob Price 4 days ago 3697

One of the militia groups who joined the effort to “protect” the Bundy family and their ranch from the armed Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rangers admitted they are prepared to use deadly force in self-defense in Nevada or Texas. Several militia groups have joined ranks to provide “protection” to keep the BLM from taking property from the Bundy Ranch, most of which operates on federally owned land.

Scott Shaw, co-founder of the Oklahoma Volunteer Militia says he is just an average American who goes to work every day and pays his taxes. He described his militia members as “every-day citizens ...We just have a strong conviction for freedom and liberty and upholding the Constitution. We are just here in case our court system fails us and we have to stand up to the federal government.”

In talking about the armed force of BLM rangers, Shaw described it as questionable. “If you’re there to get your money back that [Cliven Bundy] allegedly owes you, there are several ways you can do that in a court of law. You can put a lien on his property; you can put a lien on his cattle. If it truly was about getting back the back fees, why did [the BLM] take the cattle, or round the cattle up, which are the asset you’re going to sell--why would you kill several of those?” Recent reports revealed several cattle that were killed allegedly by the BLM during the standoff earlier this month.

Shaw affirmed that his militia members who deployed to Nevada were armed with a variety of military style weapons including AR-15s, AK-47s and others. They also include precision shooting firearms like deer hunting rifles and other military surplus items. He said the purpose of carrying the weapons is “number one, for self-defense. And then, if they have to defend unarmed protestors or the Bundy’s themselves.”

Breitbart Texas inquired about the militia’s rules of engagement and training.

“It’s similar to the military,” Shaw said regarding the rules of engagement. “We don’t fire unless fired upon. We’re not here to provoke anything. We’re just there to make sure the government doesn’t over-reach and that the government doesn’t overstep their bounds.” Shaw detailed the incidents at Waco and Ruby Ridge as precedents where the government took what many believe to be improper actions that led to the unnecessary deaths of American citizens.

Breitbart Texas inquired if they were prepared to use deadly force.

“Yes sir,” Shaw responded, “we are prepared…We certainly hope it doesn’t go that route but, with the track record of the federal government, it doesn’t look very promising that that’s going to happen.”

Shaw describes some of the scenarios that could bring his militia groups to the point of being forced into firing on federal agents. In one situation where the government might use rubber bullets against protesters or the militia, Shaw explained, “How are we supposed to know that they’re firing rubber bullets when it has been fired?”

This brings back the issue of training. Breitbart Texas attempted to drill down into what kind of training his militia members have received to prepare them to make possible life and death decisions. Shaw did not shed much light on their training or lack thereof.

“I would think most people,” Shaw began, “it’s pretty much common sense. You don’t have to a lot of training. It’s common sense, you don’t fire unless fired upon, number one. Other than that, we do have members that are prior military, some that are currently in the military and a lot of us have concealed weapons licenses--we’ve gone through that type of training. But to say, like a formal training by a licensed agency, I wouldn’t say all of the members have gone through training like that. But, we all understand the severity of the situation. We don’t take it lightly. It’s not like we’re out there carrying the weapons just to carry them around.”

“Nobody on our side wants this,” Shaw stated. “It’s being forced upon us. We’re not the aggressor; the aggressor is the federal government. They’re the ones who show up with the firearms.”

It was reported from the scene in Nevada that militia members were taking up what might be described as offensive positions, snipers behind barricades with rifles aimed at law enforcement officers. When asked if this was a proper use of force under the conditions on the ground at that time Shaw responded, “I think so…From the reports that I’ve seen, I know the BLM had snipers set up on hilltops having weapons pointed at the protesters.” He said the militia members were saying “hey, you have guns, we have guns, we’re not going to stand for this.”

Shaw argued that the government had other legal options on how to handle this situation without escalating to the point of both sides being heavily armed in a standoff. “I don’t understand their [the BLM’s] thought process. Who made this decision to go in there with armed rangers?”

Much closer to home, Shaw expressed his concern about the BLM’s alleged land grab along the Red River boundary between his home state of Oklahoma and Texas. Shaw expressed to the families of the land owners involved that his members are prepared to come to their aid, if asked by the property owners.

“We were willing to travel almost 1,200 miles to Nevada to help out our neighbors over there, we’ll definitely drive two hours to help out our neighbors on the Red River.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...e-Deadly-Force

Smoking BLM Gun – Public Records – Harry Reid Owns 93 Acres Next to Bundy Ranch

Posted on 1 May, 2014 by Rick Wells



While Senator Harry Reid professes that he is running the Bundy cattle off of public land because it’s the right thing to do, evidence indicates that Dirty Harry might have a personal interest in seeing that the Bundy’s join the other 52 ranchers they’ve run out of business.

Parcels held by an entity, Reid Bunkerville, LLC, which is partially owned by the Nevada Senator are in close proximity to the Bundy ranch.

The parcels appear to be in the path of future development, which may even involve a freeway interchange and loop, all west of Bunkerville in the same general area as those “trespass cattle.”

The parcel numbers below link to the Clark County Assessor’s Office, with all of the pertinent information and property descriptions shown.

They total 93.33 acres in size.

Reid Bunkerville L L C Dst-901 # 002-26-301-002

Reid Bunkerville L L C Dst-800 #002-26-301-004
Reid Bunkerville L L C Dst-800 #002-26-301-005
Reid Bunkerville L L C Dst-800 #002-26-701-001

Source: Before It’s News

Rick Wells is a conservative author who believes an adherence the U.S. Constitution would solve many of today’s problems. “Like” him on Facebook and “Follow” him on Twitter.

http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/05/0...o-bundy-ranch/

Start the Grand Jury and Get The RICO Act Roll'n

Sipsey Street Irregulars


The ORIGINAL gathering place for a merry band of Three Percenters. (As denounced by Bill Clinton on CNN!)

Thursday, May 1, 2014

"There is no teacher but the enemy." The Bundy Ranch Federally-Sponsored Cluster Coitus: Oath Keepers makes their case. My experiences and thoughts.

"There is no teacher but the enemy. No one but the enemy will ever tell you what the enemy is going to do. No one but the enemy will ever teach you how to destroy and conquer. Only the enemy shows you where you are weak. Only the enemy tells you when he is strong. And the rules of the game are what you can do to him and what you can stop him from doing to you." -- Mazer Rackham to Ender Wiggin in Ender's Game.

Oath Keepers makes their case of their actions and reactions at the Bundy Ranch in this video. It is necessarily long, reflecting as it does the testimony of five participants and a discussion of how they came to the decisions that they did. That said, it is worth watching all the way through. Please do that now and then return for my comments.

I have spoken with several independent militia commanders who spent time at the Bundy Siege, a couple of Three Percenters who were there from day one, and other Threepers and Oath Keepers who came later (none of whom are in the video). In addition, of course, I have my own experiences with -- and up-close observations of -- the personalities involved. These form the basis of my analysis below.

First, it is necessary to describe how I came to be there and what my relationship with Oath Keepers was and is. As readers know, the way that I came to be at the Bundy Ranch to give a speech on 19 April was strictly coincidental. The Buckeyes, you may recall, decided to dispense with my services without telling me and I was ejected from their meeting. When Stewart Rhodes found out I was available, he asked if I would be willing to come out and speak at the Bundy Ranch. I do not ask for anything for my speeches themselves, merely content with being provided with transportation to and from and provisions for a hotel room or a place to crash in a private home so that I can get a shower, dress the wound on my back in a semi-sterile environment and sleep in a comfortable chair (I have difficulty sleeping laying down since the rerouting of my digestive system). That's it. Generally I do not even ask for a rental car, content to depend upon catching rides with members of the host organization. Sometimes folks pick up the tab for my meals, sometimes not. Stewart agreed to these terms and paid for the economy tickets necessary to fly out to Las Vegas where he and Steve Homan picked me up at the airport for the ride out to the Bundy Ranch.

Further, it is important to remember that I am not a member of Oath Keepers, although I have always believed that their work reminding folks of the ramifications of the oath they took to be among the most important of tasks. There are Three Percenters who belong to Oath Keepers and Oath Keepers who are Three Percenters. That is a given. But I decided from the first that it was inappropriate of me to join the organization, having staked out a different area of operations as it were in the fight to defend the Founders' Republic.

It is also important to recall that Stewart Rhodes, the Oath Keepers board and I have not always seen eye to eye on some things. You may recall that OK at first committed to support, and then pulled out of, the armed march in Northern Virginia back in 2010. At the time there were those who wanted me to -- no, URGED me to -- loudly denounce Oath Keepers in general and Stewart Rhodes in particular for that decision. I did not not do so. I have long had a policy, dating from my work with the constitutional militia in the 90s, that I do not shoot my own side's wounded. I'm glad I had that policy, for Stewart Rhodes has come a long way since those days as a leader and the Oath Keepers are a valuable force in the fight for liberty. Those who accused Stewart then of being a coward did not see him later risk arrest last year at the hands of the Lexington, MA, police force when he refused their order to stay off the green and told them they would have to arrest him to stop him from administering the oath ceremony there. The Lexington PD, gritted their teeth and blinked, allowing the ceremony to go forward. That was entirely Stewart's doing. No, in my experience, Stewart Rhodes is no coward.

That said, Stewart stiffed me that first night at Bundy's, since we drove directly to the camp so that he could relieve some of his guys on outpost duty, despite his own lack of sleep. I got what rest I could in the car. Where Steve Homan -- the Vietnam vet in the OK video with the heart condition and an NVA bullet still lodged in his abdomen -- slept I have no idea, undoubtedly on the ground where he had no business being. Okay, I thought, improvise, adapt and overcome, although I was convinced then and remain convinced throughout my experiences there that neither Stewart, nor Steve Homan, nor Jerry, nor any of Jerry's command structure was getting enough sleep in order to make the best decisions. Tired commanders screw up. They should learn to delegate the routine stuff to subordinates even though it seems selfish, for it is a false economy to spare your troops some lost hours of their own sleep only to put them in harm's way because you lack sleep yourself. Indeed, I spent much of my time with those men urging them to get more sleep. As near as I could determine, they ignored me, which undoubtedly played a part -- a big part -- in what happened subsequently.

Given that US warfighters suffer from chronic sleep deprivation, they will almost certainly experience deleterious effects on performance. The most egregious example of the consequences of chronic and acute sleep debt is when combat troops fall asleep when they need to be vigilant. While less obvious, other effects of chronic and acute sleep debt such as microsleeps, lapses in attention, memory and judgment, alterations in mood, and degraded decision-making also have far-reaching consequences for combat effectiveness. Military leaders would never send troops into harm’s way without the safety afforded them by armor and other personal protective equipment; yet sending troops on missions when they are sleep deprived is equally as dangerous to themselves and to others in their organization. -- The Role of Sleep in the Military: Implications for Training and Operational Effectiveness by Nita Lewis Miller, et. al., Pg. 42.

It is important to remember that while OK did retain hotel rooms at a cheap casino -- the Virgin River -- in nearby Mesquite (including one room I shared with Steve Homan), they used the rooms mostly for giving their own members on the line a place to crash, refit and then go back into security role, not for the leadership to enjoy comfort while the membership slept in the dirt. This BS about Stewart and Co, "staying at the casino and gambling away 20K of the member's money," was to my experience a flat lie. In my time there, Stewart and the OKs were too damn busy to play the slots and I never observed any of them in the gambling area. As for me, my Grandpa Nace taught me that "gambling was a tax on the stupid," and I have never been one to waste my fragile and thin resources on a sure bet to nowhere. It would have irked me greatly if I had observed such conduct on the part of Oath Keepers. I did not. The few times I had meals with Oath Keepers at the Casino, they ate modestly and mostly paid for their own. I know I did, most often having breakfast at McDonald's across the street (I also kicked in $20.00 on a big bag of Egg McMuffins for the troops, which I dropped off to Jerry).

For those having trouble visualizing the layout, there were three layers of security at the Bundy Ranch and one layer of insecurity. The first, and outermost, was the "scouts out" operation run by the Oath Keepers that kept track of movement on the roads and back trails leading up to the Bundy property. The second was the main camp posted above the side road leading to the Bundy Ranch, and the shed on the road below that served as the chow hall. Here, eventually, Jerry commanded a mixed and constantly changing force of Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, and the best of the militia formations. The last was the Bundy Ranch security detail itself, hired by the Bundys and providing, at least in the beginning, the liason between the other formations and the Bundys.

Between the "scouts out" of the Oath Keepers and the camp containing Jerry's CP was the "lower camp" (actually the first militia presence that the press and public saw) of what was dubbed "The Fruits and Nuts Brigade." These were people who were not trusted by the other more competent formations, or did not themselves trust the other formations. These people were, in the main, excitable, prickly and resentful -- and ever ready to talk to the press. There was literally nothing the other formations could do about, or with, them, so they pretty much did a great job of representing the worst face of the Bundy defense operation and the militia to the press. They were often the source of unfounded rumors and dangerous weapon handling. One night they almost started the next American civil war by getting spooked by the arrival of six Las Vegas metro cars traveling in fast convoy down the public road that led to the Bundys. Some of them arranged themselves in a hasty ambush and were only persuaded not to fire first by the intervention of cooler heads who were staying down there. Like I said, "Fruits and Nuts" -- and a constant source of trouble.

Which highlights a principal cause of the chaos and confusion throughout the events that I witnessed. This was a come-as-you-are party, with volunteers flooding in from all over the country. I am quite sure that the Bundys were both gratified by the turnout and frightened by the character of some of those who did show up. This probably caused the arrangement that developed, with separate formations, different commanders with different styles of command (or no style of, or ability to, command), who had difficulty communicating with each other and with no shared SOP or rules of engagement other than to "protect the Bundys" -- an admirable if nebulous and constantly shifting target subject to the whims and agendas of individual "commanders," some of whom commanded nothing but themselves and their own egos. That the Oath Keepers donated $12.5K to the Bundys to help them defray expenses says much about the generosity of Stewart and his people. That the Bundys later embraced a person that anyone with any experience could tell was a sociopath and provocateur is to me inexplicable. (I was told that Ryan is attending LDS meetings now with the Bundys. Whether that bit of chameleon trickery plays into their decisions is anybody's guess.)

From the first there was thievery in "Jerry's camp." A $900 Ipad belonging to a media guy hired by the Oath Keepers came up missing. One militia leader I talked to said that they lost nothing because they always maintained a constant guard over their stuff. Heck, somebody even stole my official Knob Creek coffee cup, so I am not surprised that when faced with the temptation of sophisticated electronics that Oath Keepers loaned to "Jerry's Kids" that some came up missing.

At this date, Jerry (and especially his conduct since the failed coup attempt by Ryan Payne --if that is his real name), remains a puzzle to me. An impressive former Marine NCO, he had a real command presence, the absolute loyalty of those who came into contact with him and, like most NCOs, an absolute inability to delegate responsibility and tasks. I include Stewart Rhodes in that critique as well. Both men took on too much themselves, got little to no sleep and made bad decisions as a result.

Example: One afternoon a couple showed up at the camp: a young tattooed white male wearing a holstered pistol and his girlfriend toting a shotgun. In the entrance interviews, which Jerry insisted upon mostly conducting himself, it developed that the guy was an admitted felon, but he didn't believe that it was constitutional to deny him his firearm rights. This came with a long, sad story about how they had quit their jobs to volunteer for the Bundys and do their part. Both Jerry and Stewart were inclined to accept their help until I called them over and explained the ramifications of accepting a self-admitted, armed felon into camp. They were impressed by the man's "honesty and sincerity," in admitting up-front that he was a felon. I said, among other things, that of course he admitted it. If he hadn't, then they would have plausible deniability when later confronted about it. By stating it up front, it was actually worse for them because they could not later deny having known that fact.* "How do you think that is going to sound in the grand jury?" I asked them. They changed their minds and sent the couple on their way with gas money. I am convinced that neither man would have needed any assistance from me to take that decision had they been in their right minds. That is, if they had been even semi-rested and on the bounce, which commanders must be to the best of their ability if they are to carry out their solemn duty to do their best to take care of their people and execute the mission.

*NOTE: Throughout my stay at Bunkerville I gave a lot of advice to men and women for whom this was their first rodeo. Among the most often repeated (second, I think only behind my constant harping to get more sleep) was the old Marine intelligence officer's dictum when dealing with sources -- "Why is this SOB telling me this, and why is he telling me this NOW?"

As an aside, weapons handling in Jerry's camp was terrible and I observed numerous unsafe practices about muzzle discipline with loaded rifles. It was a wonder that no one was killed or injured by a negligent discharge during my stay. As they say, if I may paraphrase, God takes care of drunks, little children and the American militia. I counseled some of these safety scofflaws personally and privately. Eventually I gave it up as wasted effort and just tried to stay out of the line of potential fire. The sight of a newbie clerk sitting at the check-in table in the CP wearing a loaded FAL on a sling in front of his body muzzle-up while he filled out new arrival cards was as comical as it was appalling. That this was apparently with the tacit approval of Jerry, whose life was also endangered thereby, can only be excused by extreme sleep deprivation, which as I have mentioned is itself a command failure.

But this business of allying with the same guy -- a likely federal provocateur -- who tried to displace you at your job, and lying by omission and commission about Oath Keepers and the whole drone strike business at a joint presser with the same moke who stuck several knives in your back is inexplicable to me. One of the ploys of a sociopath or a provocateur is to shrink your perceived universe and get you reacting to him and his artificial constructs without reference to outside reality. At such moments you have to be able to have the presence of mind to step back out of the box that he has created for you so you can see the whole picture. It is evident to me that Ryan Payne (or whatever his real name is) is an expert at that trick. On my last day, the moke tried provoking me and I finally blew him off with the comment, "Well, like Grandpa Vanderboegh said, 'Don't try to to teach your Grandma how to suck eggs." He thought I was joking and broke off the engagement. I wasn't joking. This ain't my first rodeo and I ran into pukes like him all the time in the 90s. I am convinced that if there had been more Bob Wrights at the event and fewer wide-eyed newbies a lot of this debacle would not have happened.

Unfortunately Bob wasn't able to get away from some serious work commitments to be there. A Bob Wright anecdote to illustrate my point: In 2005 when Bob became what amounted to operations officer for the Minutemen in one of their first border vigils, he discovered that in the bible college they were using as a dorm for volunteers that some idiots had taken the mattresses from the beds and blocked the windows with them "because the Feds are going to come in the night and throw grenades in the windows." What Bob is reported to have said is not for delicate ears and the Minutemen volunteer roster was short a half-dozen idiots come the next dawn, but Bob did not, does not, EVER suffer fools gladly. We needed some hard heads and harder hearts like his at Bundy's Ranch. Nothing illustrates this more than the reaction to the drone strike.

Now, after talking to all the major participants in the Oath Keeper chain of decision and command regarding that remarkable and skillfully delivered piece of federal disinformation as well as some outside witnesses who were there when this came down, I am inclined to believe the Oath Keeper version of events as presented in the above video. Their failure was not one of cowardice as has been alleged. Stewart was sincerely motivated, I believe, by a concern for his troops, the Bundys and the innocents in the camps. The failure was one of lack of hard-headed analysis and an equal lack of hard-hearted decision taking.

When I was told that Oath Keepers was actually reacting to such an obvious piece of federal disinformation, I exploded on the phone. The guy I was talking to said that yes, they had initially thought that it was disinformation but they had it confirmed from multiple sources (as Stewart explained in the video), one of whom "was in the Governor's office" who had given them several smaller tips earlier that had all proven to be true. Of course it came from from the Governor's office, I blew up, for only if it came from an absolutely impeccable source would you believe it. The use of a drone strike on American soil would cause such an outcry that even Obama would be impeached within a week. Did they think that such calculating bastards were really that stupid? Besides, let us assume for the purposes of argument that the information was true. If the enemy is willing to make such a fatal mistake, it is our duty not to get in the way of it. Sure, they kill the folks on the scene, I argued, but their entire regime would be swept away. Isn't that our larger purpose? Indeed, I pointed out then and in subsequent conversations with others, our JOB is to fight and if need be to die interposing ourselves between the tyrants and the people. If someone is doing this and is unwilling to make that trade he should find another avocation. With the video explanation, I am mindful that Stewart was motivated by the highest concern for innocents and did not advocate the precipitate pullout as has been claimed by his federal enemies (Ryan Payne) and his erstwhile friends (Jerry). But the public reaction to inform the media (which we now know Jerry agreed to) was stupid. The smart thing to do was to make the adjustments that Stewart and Jerry did initially and then to sit down in the CP, drink coffee, "smoke 'em if you got 'em" and await events. If it was disinformation we win points for being smarter than the Feds think we are and if it wasn't disinformation we REALLY win.

The subsequent chaos and lack of discipline, including the wanton and unprovoked assault on a Vietnam Vet with a heart condition, is on Jerry's shoulders. That little out-of-control thug of his damn near killed a good man, a hero in my eyes, who because of his health had no business being there yet was because he saw it as his simple duty. I took the measure of the man named Steve Homan during my stay there and I say without fear of contradiction that there is no finer American. Lord knows how much the stress of the whole experience took off his life.

My final conclusion is that if Oath Keepers is guilty of anything it is that they were too trusting, too helpful and too eager to make peace with people who obviously had their own agendas, some simple thievery and others in service to their federal masters.

The key is, will they survive and learn from the experience. In conversations with Stewart and other board members, I have learned that they will be after-actioning this cruel lesson taught by the enemy -- and by people they thought were their friends. They will be developing rules of engagement and an SOP for future Bundy Ranches, and there WILL be future Bundy Ranches.

Lesson One: Get some things in writing up front from the folks you intend to protect, establishing a clear-cut chain of command and authority for the various spheres of action. Don't charge in without some vital issues clearly understood by all parties.

Another lesson: maintain control of your supplies. People donated good money to put them in your hands and you have a fiduciary duty to them to spend them wisely and to prevent their theft by people with other agendas.

Another lesson: Have a system of working with and integrating individuals and small units into larger ones, of vetting out the fruits and nuts and provocateurs and sending them on their way.

Another lesson: The Feds won back all the ground they lost by their direct attack on the Bundys with an indirect campaign of subversion and disinformation. If they destroy the Oath Keepers along with the Bundys' defensive arrangements it will be a huge win-win for them. They probably won't make the first mistake again, except with truly low-hanging fruit. They WILL repeat the other successful strategy. We need to be wise when dealing with disinformation and just as determined in our ability to physically interpose ourselves between the iron fist of tyrannical government and their intended victims, even if that means our lives.

There are many other lessons. The enemy has taught them to us at a great price at the Bundy Siege. The only question is can we be smart enough, self-critical enough, honest enough, to grasp them and to refuse to make such mistakes in the future. This is a long war, an eternal war really. The domestic enemies of the Constitution and the Founders' Republic will be there until we defeat them -- or we are ourselves defeated by our own failures to learn the lessons that they teach us.


http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogsp...emy-bundy.html

Bunkerville residents sound off about BLM, police, media

Posted: May 02, 2014 2:53 AM EST Updated: May 02, 2014 10:32 AM EST Written by Craig Huber - email

Bunkerville residents air concerns during a town hall meeting on Thursday, May 1, 2014. (FOX5)

BUNKERVILLE, NV (FOX5) - An emotional crowd gathered for a town hall meeting on Thursday evening in Bunkerville.

Video at the Page Link:

http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/25409...3FXTk.facebook

Restore the Tenth: Western States Now Want Feds, BLM Out

21WIRE + Chuck Baldwin | In reality, the federal government has no just standing, not even in Nevada.

21stcenturywire.com

Restore the Tenth: Western States Now Want Feds, BLM Out

May 2, 2014 By 21wire 5 Comments
21st Century Wire says…

Last month’s US Federal siege at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada tore open an old American wound.


FEDERAL BLM MERCENARIES: Pending financial deals in Washington may have motivated the BLM’s aggressive timetable.

As the federal government continues to feed off of the fat of the Union, the whole issue of states’ rights is one which sends chills down the thin spines of scoliotic technocrats in Washington DC. Indeed, the Tenth Amendment clearly deliniates political powers reserved for the U.S. state governments rather than the federal government.

For decades, bureaucrats and their lawyers in Washington DC have manged to duck, dive and manipulate the US Constitution’s Tenth Amendment through a long series of legal patches, age-old statutes and civil war era deals that were struck by the federal government in order maintain the upper hand in terms eminent domain over the western United States. The Bureau of Land Management’s debacle in Bunkerville, Nevada has only accelerated the debate, as the states begin to fully realize the ramifications of allowing federal agencies to overrun state sovereignty.

Forbes correspondent Geoffery Lawrence explained:

“For those of us who call the American West our home, federal ownership of state land has riled people up for decades. Rural and city-dwelling citizens have joined with lawmakers of both parties in an ongoing effort to free up land that Congress deprived Western states in a bygone era.”

Lawrence continues:

“In Nevada, federal authorities control 87 percent of the land, leaving just 13 percent to private citizens. That might have been an easy trade for Nevadans to make back when the state constitution that allowed them into the Union was approved in a landslide with only about 10,000 votes.”“Back in 1864, Nevada was rushed into the Union so its heavily Republican population could help ensure President Lincoln’s reelection. When Congress passed the enabling act for Nevada statehood, that act imposed a number of special conditions for entry into the union. Some of those conditions, like the provision requiring Nevada to outlaw slavery, have posed no problem. One important condition, however—requiring Nevadans to “disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory”—has long been twisted to justify burdening Nevada with challenges unknown to Eastern states, especially now that 2.7 million people call Nevada home.”
“Such enabling-act provisions — common to virtually every new state since the Northwest ordinance of 1785 – were originally intended simply to clear title to the territorial land so the federal government could quickly dispose of that land to private owners. However, by the latter half of the 19th Century, Congress increasingly began welshing on its obligations to appropriate Western lands and allow settlement akin to Eastern states”.

“Nevada citizens or lawmakers, united in opposition to this Congressional mistreatment, in 1979, 1993, 1995, and 1996 voted in favor of rejecting the now-hated disclaimer clause and removing it entirely from the state constitution.”

In reality, the federal government has no just standing, not even in Nevada. In the absence of any real authority, the activities of the BLM can only be described as a form of interstate racketeering. Despite cries of ‘domestic terrorism’ from federal bureaucrats whose own conflicts of interest have inflamed the Bundy Ranch crisis, namely US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV-D), the cat is already out of the bag, and cannot be put back in.

Runaway corruption and fiscal irresponsibility in Washington will only serve to empower the states in the long-run.

This issue is in its ascendancy now…


Time for Western States to Evict Feds



Chuck Baldwin
NewsWithViews.com

According to The Salt Lake Tribune, “It’s time for Western states to take control of federal lands within their borders, lawmakers and county commissioners from Western states said at Utah’s Capitol on Friday.

“More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal: wresting control of oil-,timber-and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.“‘It’s simply time,’ said Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, who organized the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands along with Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. ‘The urgency is now.’“Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo, was flanked by a dozen participants, including her counterparts from Idaho and Montana, during a press conference after the daylong closed-door summit. U.S. Sen. Mike Lee addressed the group over lunch, Ivory said. New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington also were represented.“The summit was in the works before this month’s tense standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management over cattle grazing, Lockhart said.“‘What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem,’ Lockhart said.”See the report here.Now we are getting somewhere!The western states have been used as both playground and sugar stick for big-government politicians since before most of the western states became states. Compare the percentage of State land owned by the federal government in the western states to that of the eastern states.


Here is the percentage of land owned by the federal government in seven eastern states:Illinois: 1.8%
Ohio: 1.7%
Alabama: 1.6%
Maine: 1.1%
New York: 0.8%
Rhode Island: 0.4%
Connecticut: 0.4%By contrast, here is the percentage of land owned by the federal government in seven western states:Wyoming: 42.3%
California: 45.3%
Arizona: 48.1%
Idaho: 50.2%
Oregon: 53.1%
Utah: 57.4%
Nevada: 84.5%The situation with the Bundys in Nevada highlights the heavy-handed tactics that the federal government employs against anyone who dares to challenge the manner in which the feds are attempting to kick hard-working, productive citizens off of federal lands. Remember that ranchers and farmers such as Cliven Bundy were promised access to these federal lands in perpetuity back in the nineteenth century when all of these land deals were being negotiated between the states and the federal government. Beyond that, ownership of the land by the federal government was supposed to preserve and protect the land for the people, not for the federal government.A few years ago, there were dozens of successful and prosperous ranchers in the area around the Bundys. But since the BLM was given legislative mandates when Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) in 1976, Cliven Bundy is now the only rancher in the area still standing.The BLM has grown into a totalitarian monster.Today, the BLM regulates hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, boating, hang gliding, shooting, off-highway vehicle driving, mountain biking, bird watching, and visiting natural and historical sites. The BLM also regulates logging, mining, fracking and other activities. What ranchers such as Cliven Bundy are going through loggers and miners are also experiencing. In fact, it is no hyperbole to say that, for all intents and purposes, the ranching, logging, and mining industries in the western states are being systematically regulated out of existence. And in the case of Cliven Bundy, it is not about saving the Desert Tortoise or grazing fees or anything of the sort. It is all about letting fat-cat politicians such as Harry Reid negotiate lucrative solar energy deals with Communist China. Hey, folks: if the land doesn’t belong to Cliven Bundy, it doesn’t belong to Harry Reid, either!The BLM’s evil twin sister is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which was established in 1970. These two federal agencies have become the Wicked Witch of the East and Wicked Witch of the West in what used to be a beautiful land paved with yellow brick roads.I dare say that if the eastern states were enduring the haranguing and harassment that the western states are enduring, the BLM would have been brought under control years ago. Absent national unity from eastern states on the matter, it is time for the western states to take matters into their own hands.The legislative action being contemplated by the above-mentioned State legislators who assembled in Salt Lake City last Friday is a terrific first step. It is absolutely time for the western states to use their eminent domain authority to reclaim the lands within their borders that are currently owned by Washington, D.C. With the exception of National Parks, states should serve notice that they are taking back the land owned by the federal government–land that should never have been ceded to the central government to begin with.The second problem that the siege against Cliven Bundy illustrates is the unconstitutional police powers assumed by federal agencies such as the BLM. Originally, the only federal agency that was lawfully allowed to make arrests on behalf of the U.S. government was the U.S. Marshals Service, which was created back in 1789–the year that the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Today, there are scores of alphabet agencies of the federal government who carry a badge and a gun and are allowed to enforce law at bayonet point. And the vast majority of these agencies are acting on assumed authority–authority not granted them constitutionally. Among these, there is no greater culprit than the BLM.“You don’t send the Seventh Cavalry to collect a bill, and that’s exactly what happened,” Pat Buchanan told Sean Hannity on his radio show last Monday.Buchanan went on to say:

“And when they put all those forces out there – that’s what attracted all the others, the history of what happened at Waco, Ruby Ridge. And so these folks came to that rancher’s defense. But the initial problem here is [the] sending of all the force of arms out there to that ranch, which was a provocation to which these folks responded.”See the report here.The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”The Constitution delegates only three crimes to the federal government: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. That’s it. No other crimes are mentioned. That means that all other crimes are the purview of the states–including local and State police, sheriff’s deputies, and citizen militias and posses.Of course, the problem is the Congress (and Court) in Washington, D.C., has used the “Necessary and Proper Clause” of Article. I. Section. 8. to justify all sorts of federal law enforcement enactments.The result of this unconstitutional federal expansion of police powers is we now have scores of federal agencies that are using unchecked and unbridled power–power that is turning the United States into a giant police state.The states must push back!Not only must states reclaim millions of acres of land within their borders that are now controlled by the federal government, they must also pass legislation requiring federal bureaucracies such as the BLM to obtain the consent of county sheriffs in order to execute arrest warrants. States must make it clear in unmistakable terms that only the U.S. Marshals Service may execute federal warrants within their states; otherwise, only the county sheriff is authorized to execute arrest warrants within their states.Furthermore, the U.S. Congress needs to disarm the countless federal bureaucracies that are currently terrorizing the American people. In truth, very few federal agencies need to carry guns. The politicians in Washington, D.C., love to try to disarm the American people, but the ones they should be disarming are most of the federal alphabet agencies.Why do employees of the federal Department of Education need to carry guns? Why do postal employees need to carry guns? Why do agents of the BLM need to carry guns? Why do employees at NASA need to carry guns? Why do employees of the EPA need to carry guns? Why do employees at NOAA need to carry guns? Why do employees of the National Weather Service need to carry guns? Why do employees of the Social Security Administration need to carry guns? Why do employees at the Department of Agriculture need to carry guns? Why do employees of the National Marine Fisheries Service need to carry guns?Ladies and gentlemen, law enforcement is mostly the responsibility of State and local governments. Why are so many federal bureaucracies carrying guns? Agencies of the federal government are not soldiers; and they are not even policemen. Furthermore, the American people are not the enemy!Pat Buchanan is right: had not BLM agents marched onto the Bundy ranch like Nazi Stormtroopers, none of the events that are still playing out in the Nevada desert would have taken place. The memory of Waco and Ruby Ridge are still very vivid in the collective memory of the people of the United States. If anything burns deep in our collective conscience, it is that THERE MUST NEVER AGAIN BE ANOTHER WACO OR RUBY RIDGE. And that is exactly why those Americans have put themselves between the federal government and the Bundy family down in Bunkerville, Nevada.

The events in Salt Lake City, Utah, conducted by dozens of legislators from the western states last Friday were as monumental as the events in Bunkerville, Nevada, conducted by the citizen militia the previous Saturday…

Read full article by Chuck Baldwin at News With Views.com

READ THE BUNDY RANCH STORY AT: 21st Century Wire Bundy Ranch Files


http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/05/0...-feds-blm-out/

Bunkerville Town Hall – Citizens Thank Militia – Angry at AWOL Sheriff, Officials

Posted on 3 May, 2014 by Rick Wells

A town hall meeting in Bunkerville City Hall on Thursday night was standing room only, with those in attendance having a lot of good things to say about militia members and nothing but criticism for the BLM, the Clark County Sheriff’s Office and the Metro Police Department.
One local citizen said emphatically, “the day the militia came is the day I felt safe again in Nevada.”
The TV 5 report describes every council member taking a turn decrying the inaccuracy of the national media reporting of the events. One councilman looked into the camera and said, “Tell the whole truth, don’t spin things to get your ratings.”
They were also very critical of Sheriff Gillespie, who they described as being AWOL, not being in Bunkerville to protect the citizens of when they needed them, ignoring their duty and not doing the job they are paid to do.
The common thread of anger towards an overreaching federal government combined with a “you’re on your own” attitude by those local authorities whose job it is to protect them was echoed by the over 40 speakers.
Oddly, the Democrat Rep, Steven Horsford tapped the reporter on the shoulder so that he would know that he was in attendance, but was unwilling to speak either at the meeting or to the reporter. Given the mood of the crowd, that may have been a wise move.

Rick Wells is a conservative author who believes an adherence the U.S. Constitution would solve many of today’s problems. “Like” him on Facebook and “Follow” him on Twitter.

http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/05/0...iff-officials/

Nevada rancher’s kin take grazing fight to sheriff

Posted on Saturday, May 3rd, 2014 at 12:39 am.
by: Thomas Jefferson



LAS VEGAS (AP) — Family members and other supporters took a Nevada rancher’s grazing rights fight against the U.S. government to the sheriff in Las Vegas on Friday, filing reports alleging crimes by federal agents against people protesting a roundup of cattle from public land.
Rancher Cliven Bundy wasn’t among those who filed handwritten complaints with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department — the agency with jurisdiction over Bundy’s ranch in the Bunkerville area and much of Clark County.
Sheriff Douglas Gillespie issued a statement saying the complaints would be investigated and the results shared with the Clark County district attorney and U.S. attorney for Nevada.
“We will then provide a response to the citizens who filed complaints as to the course of action taken,” the statement said.
In encampments around the Bundy ranch, self-described militia members from around the country continue to camp with handguns on their hips and heavier weaponry within reach in a show of support for Bundy.
But no weapons were seen Friday among those who responded to his call for supporters and witnesses of a tense April 12 standoff beneath an Interstate 15 overpass — and lesser confrontations in preceding days — to file complaints against U.S. Bureau of Land Management police.
Ammon Bundy of Phoenix headed a delegation of three Bundy sons, two sisters and perhaps 15 other supporters who filed reports accusing Bureau of Land Management agents of wielding high-powered weapons, using attack dogs and stun guns, closing public lands, blocking roads, harassing photographers and threatening people.
Police said the Bundy family members were joined by about 40 other people. Twenty-two filed what the department called voluntary statements alleging acts such as impersonating a police officer, assault, threats, aiming a firearm, blocking road access and intimidation.
“We fervently hope and pray that these heavy-handed tactics will not be used on us or any other Americans ever again,” Ammon Bundy said as he read a three-page media statement at the door of police headquarters.
“Will our sheriff keep his oath this time and use his lawful forces to stop them?” Bundy asked. “Or will the people be left to their own protection?”
Ammon Bundy said Cliven Bundy didn’t join supporters Friday in Las Vegas because he previously filed a complaint asking Gillespie to investigate.
Gillespie didn’t immediately respond to questions about Ammon Bundy’s comments.
Bureau of Land Management officials have accused Cliven Bundy of failing to pay grazing fees for 20 years, racking up more than $1.1 million in fees and penalties, and failing to abide by court orders to remove his cattle from vast open range that is habitat for the endangered desert tortoise.
The agency responded to the filing of police reports with a wry statement.
“We welcome Mr. Bundy’s new interest in the American legal system,” spokesman Craig Leff wrote.
Openly carrying a pistol or rifle is legal in Nevada, and permit holders can carry concealed weapons.
Ammon Bundy credited armed guardians with coming to the aid of his family when the sheriff in Las Vegas would not. He also worried that armed federal agents who pulled out after the standoff nearly three weeks ago will return to Bunkerville.
“Will they come back with greater force and more cunning tactics than before?” he asked.
Hundreds of people and law enforcement officers were involved in the April 12 incident. Las Vegas police officers massed nearby but remained on the sidelines while department brass negotiated a truce between Cliven Bundy and the BLM.
Well-armed bureau police and a group of roundup contractors faced off against protesters backed by a picket line of militia members on the overpass displaying handguns, AR-15 and AK-47 and other military-style arms.
“It was the most frightening thing in my life, to have federal agents of my government pointing guns at me,” said John Lauricella, 44, a Las Vegas resident who backs Bundy and said he was in the potential crossfire.
“I was walking right in the front,” he said. “They said, ‘Keep walking and we’re going to shoot you.’”
Lauricella said he filed a police report Friday accusing federal agents of violating his civil rights.
In the end, the BLM released about 350 Bundy cattle that had been rounded up during the previous week then left the area near Mesquite, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.
“We believe that the BLM men who pointed guns at over 1,000 people … committed a criminal act and that the Clark County sheriff’s office should be required to investigate,” Cliven Bundy and his wife, Carol, said in an overnight email asking supporters to file police reports.
Democratic U.S. Rep. Steven Horsford, who lives in Las Vegas and represents Bunkerville and Mesquite, has also called for federal authorities and Gillespie to investigate the gun-toting force that Horsford said was frightening for residents.
After the standoff, Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada branded Bundy supporters who pointed weapons at federal agents “domestic terrorists.” Nevada Republican U.S. Senator Dean Heller called them patriots.

http://townhall.com/news/politics-el...eriff-n1832708

http://patriotaction.net/profiles/bl...msg_share_post

Published on May 2, 2014
Pete Santilli joins Gary Franchi and reports live from Las Vegas on the latest from Bundy Ranch with regards to Reid Bunkerville LLC, the Federal Militia Probe, Cattle abuse, racism charges, and the criminal complaints being field against the BLM.





Published on May 2, 2014
Cliven Bundy and the Bundy Ranch disputes with the federal government, + controversy over perceived racism and militias in Nevada are discussed with Independent American Party candidate for Governor, David Lory VanDerBeek. State's rights and federal overstepping are addressed with the VanDerBeek, who asserts why Cliven Bundy has been spun by the media to appear racist and unreasonable. Water conservation, government oversight and third party politics, plus his campaign mission is all clarified with Sean Stone in this Buzzsaw interview.

GUEST BIO:
David Lory VanDerBeek have been a member of the Independent American Party of Nevada (Nevada's Constitution party) since 2010. I was a candidate for State assembly in 2010, U.S. Senate in 2012, and currently Governor for 2014.

Saturday, 03 May 2014 09:30

Feds vs. the West

Written by William F. Jasper



The Nevada cattle rancher in the white cowboy hat and his supporters had massed in defiance of federal policies and agencies that threatened to drive them into extinction. To the cheers of locals, the rancher climbed aboard a Caterpillar bulldozer and plowed open a county road that had been closed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Are we talking about Cliven Bundy in 2014? No, the white-hat rancher to whom we are referring was Richard “Dick” Carver, a longtime county commissioner in Nevada’s sprawling and sparsely populated Nye County, and the date was July 4, 1994 — Independence Day, 20 years ago.

Carver’s act of defiance earned him a cover on Time magazine, which showed Carver and some of his supporters, with a super-imposed headline “Don’t Tread on Me,” followed by the subtitle, “An inside look at the West’s growing rebellion.”

While the federal government claims 84.5 percent of Nevada — the highest of any state — in Nye County the federal footprint covers over 93 percent, and federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., dominate virtually every aspect of Nye County inhabitants’ lives. Nye County, the nation’s third largest county, was also home to the late Wayne Hage, the feisty rancher/scholar who, for decades, courageously fought the federal government in court — and won landmark decisions for property rights. Hage was also author of the 1989 book Storm Over Rangelands: Private Rights in Federal Lands, a ground-breaking work on the history of the Western states, particularly as it relates to politics, governance, land use, and property rights. It is not surprising then that Nye County became the face of what is known as the “Sagebrush Rebellion II,” an effort by citizens in Western states to wrest control away from oppressive federal bureaucrats. The efforts by Carver, Hage, and others in the late 1980s-1990s were a continuation and resurgence of earlier efforts in the 1970s-1980s, often referred to as Sagebrush Rebellion I. Carver challenged the federal road closures in court.

In 1866, Congress passed the Mining Act (Revised Statute 2477) providing the right of way for construction of roads over federal “public lands.” For a century this gave protection to county roads, many of which are literally lifelines for small towns and rural communities. But following passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act and the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and USFS began restricting and closing roads, even those that had been grandfathered in for protected legal status owing to their legacy under the 1866 Mining Act.

But in 1996, U.S. District Judge Lloyd D. George decided against Commissioner Carver and Nye County, ruling that the federal government “owns and has the power and authority to manage and administer the unappropriated public lands and National Forest System lands within Nye County, Nev.” Dick Carver died in 2003. Wayne Hage died in 2006. But Judge Lloyd George is still on the bench as a senior judge, and it was he who signed the permanent injunction against Cliven Bundy that initiated the recent standoff with the BLM. And, of course, the BLM, USFS, National Park Service (NPS), and the other federal agencies that dominate the Western public lands are still alive and kicking — more than ever. In fact, even though these agencies already “own” vast swaths of territory covering hundreds of millions of acres, virtually all of them have been on huge acquisition drives to acquire still more land. The map below graphically portrays the enormous fedgov footprint in the Western states.



Even a quick glance easily reveals there is a striking difference between the federal government’s claim to physical real estate in the states of the East and the Midwest versus those of the West. In Maine, for instance, federal agencies occupy only 1.1 percent of the state’s land area; in New York it’s a mere 0.8 percent. The federal government claims only 1.8 percent of Indiana, 1.6 percent of Alabama, and 1.7 percent of Ohio.

But in the Western states, the federal footprint covers from nearly one-third to over four-fifths of the area of the states. Consider and contrast the rest of the country with the federal government’s ownership in the Western states:

Nevada: 84.5 percent
Alaska: 69.1 percent
Utah: 57.4 percent
Oregon: 53.1 percent
Idaho: 50.2 percent
Arizona: 48.1 percent
California: 45.3 percent
Wyoming: 42.4 percent
New Mexico: 41.8 percent
Colorado: 36.6 percent
Washington: 30.3 percent
Montana: 29.9 percent

The Founding Fathers never intended that the federal government would permanently own and control these vast expanses of land in the new territories that would be admitted into the Union. In fact, at the time our nation was being formed, several of the original 13 eastern states (the former colonies) had laid claim to lands to the west. Those states without Western claims knew they would be disadvantaged and argued that the Western lands should be transferred to the federal government for temporary custody, until they could be “disposed” of to settlers, and, later, to what would become states, as the territories were admitted as sovereign states.

Virginia’s Act of Cession of 1784, which became a model for others, stipulated that the ceded lands would be disposed of for revenue for the United States and the creation of new member states, “and shall be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatsoever.”

Thomas Jefferson insisted that the federal government must dispose of all its vast domain, and that the land should “never after, in any case, revert to the United States.”

However, virtually from the beginning, the powerful East Coast commercial and banking interests sought to keep as much of the Western lands that they were unable to purchase bottled up, so that new dynamic centers of productivity and commerce would not emerge to compete with and challenge their dominance. Although the new states were promised that upon admission the federal government would “extinguish title,” the “Western states” of 1828 (Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama) had to force the federal government to dispose of the lands, as promised in their Admission Acts or Enabling Acts.

In a speech before Congress in 1828, Representative Joseph Duncan of Illinois reminded Congress of the duty to dispose of federally held lands. He noted:

If these lands are to be withheld, which is the effect of the present system, in vain may the People of these states expect the advantages of well settled neighborhoods, so essential to the education of youth.... Those states will, for many generations, without some change, be retarded in endeavors to increase their comfort and wealth, by means of works of internal improvements, because they have not the power, incident to all sovereign states, of taxing the soil, to pay for the benefits conferred upon its owner by roads and canals. When these States stipulated not to tax the lands of the United States until they were sold, they rested upon the implied engagement of Congress to cause them to be sold, within a reasonable time. No just equivalent has been given those states for a surrender of an attribute of sovereignty so important to their welfare, and to an equal standing with the original states.

This “equal standing” or “equal footing” principle was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1845 decision in Pollard v. Hagan. The court ruled against the federal government’s claims in Alabama, which had been created from territory ceded by Georgia. In the landmark Pollard decision, the court held:

The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction or right of soil in and for 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 with the French republic of the 30th of April, 1803, ceding Louisiana.

Moreover, said the court:

Alabama is, therefore, entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law, to the same extent that Georgia possessed it, before she ceded it to the United States. To maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states, the constitution, laws, and compact, to the contrary notwithstanding.

President Andrew Jackson, in 1833, described the commitment to dispose of land in agreements with the original states as “solemn compacts” where “the States claiming those lands acceded to those views and transferred their claims to the United States upon certain specific conditions, and on those conditions the grants were accepted.” Further, he stated:

The Constitution of the United States did not delegate to Congress the power to abrogate these compacts. On the contrary, by declaring that nothing in it “shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States or of any particular State,” it virtually provides that these compacts and the rights they secure shall remain untouched by the legislative power, which shall only make all “needful rules and regulations” for carrying them into effect. All beyond this would seem to be an assumption of undelegated power.

Much more recently, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs (2009) confirmed the importance of federal commitments made at the time of entry into the Union and the inability of Congress to renege on those commitments, stating:

The consequences of admission are instantaneous, and it ignores the uniquely sovereign character of that event … to suggest that subsequent events somehow can diminish what has already been bestowed. And that proposition applies a fortiori where virtually all of the State’s public lands … are at stake.

Now, after more than a century of delay, many of the Western states are demanding their “equal footing” as sovereign states, free from the shackles of an oppressive federal “landlord.” Which is to say, merely, that they are refusing to continue tolerating a second-class status that is not tolerated by the other supposedly co-equal states to their east.

On March 23, 2012, Utah Governor Gary R. Herbert signed House Bill 148, which demands the federal government make good on the promises made in Utah’s 1894 Enabling Act (UEA) to extinguish title to federal lands in Utah.

“We need a paradigm change when it comes to public lands management. This bill creates a mechanism to put the federal government on notice that Utah must be restored to its rightful place as a co-equal partner,” said Governor Herbert. “The federal government retaining control of two-thirds of our landmass was never in the bargain when we became a state, and it is indefensible 116 years later.”

“This is only the first step in a long proc*ess, but it is a step we must take. Federal control of our public lands puts Utah at a distinct disadvantage, specifically with regard to education funding,” Herbert continued. “State and local property taxes cannot be levied on federal lands, and royalties and severance taxes are curtailed due to federal land use restrictions. Federal control hampers our ability to adequately fund our public education system.”

The bill signed by Governor Herbert gave the federal government a deadline of December 2014 to relinquish tens of millions of acres of “public lands” to the state, excluding National Parks and Wilderness Areas, which are left under national control. That deadline date is fast approaching. However, considering the potential significance of this political move, it has received almost no media coverage, hence very few people have heard about it beyond the borders of the Beehive State. One explanation for the silence is that the powers that be in the political, financial, and chattering classes haven’t taken it seriously. However, that may be about to change, as more states are looking to follow Utah’s example.

On April 18, more than 50 political leaders from nine Western states gathered in Salt Lake City to attend the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands.

“Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands,” said Montana State Senator Jennifer Fielder, one of the organizers, who lives in the northwestern Montana town of Thompson Falls. “We have to start managing these lands. It’s the right thing to do for our people, for our environment, for our economy and for our freedoms,” Fielder said.

Utah State Rep. Ken Ivory, one of the summit organizers, pointed out that there is an estimated $150 trillion in mineral resources “locked up in federal lands” across the West — wealth that can be put to use to help struggling American families and make the American economy stronger, more competitive, and less dependent on foreign sources for energy and critical minerals.

Idaho Speaker of the House Scott Bedke noted that Idaho forests and rangeland managed by the state are in better health and have suffered less damage and watershed degradation from wildfire than have lands managed by federal agencies. “It’s time the states in the West come of age,” Bedke said. “We’re every bit as capable of managing the lands in our boundaries as the states east of Colorado.”

One of the absurd (and tragic) ironies of the “public lands” story is that the biggest political lobby for keeping the huge tracts under Washington, D.C.’s control is composed of urbanite “environmentalists” who have been duped into supporting the present system that is killing our national forests and destroying our wildlife, habitats, and natural wonders on a monumental scale. As we’ve reported in these pages before, many government and scientific reports have noted that tens of millions of acres of national forest are dying and burning up due to neglect and mismanagement. Likewise, a report released last October by Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) shows that, despite increases in funding, the National Park Service continues its decades-long trend of deferring maintenance, with the result that most of our “crown jewel” parks have fallen into serious disrepair — even as they continue to expand their holdings.

The report notes that, “despite a $256 million shortfall in maintenance funding and an $11.5 billion backlog, more than 35 bills have been introduced this year to study, create or expand national parks, monuments and heritage areas, including a bill to establish a national historic park on the moon.” Yes, a park on the moon — a fitting abode, many might think, for federal lunatics.

End Fedgov Occupation of the West

The critics who say Senator Harry Reid has never uttered a sentence that wasn’t a lie probably would exclude from that generalization the senator’s remark on April 14, “It’s not over.”

Reid was referring, of course, to the BLM-Cliven Bundy conflict, and his threatening comment implied that the next round would not end so auspiciously for the rancher. Senator Reid also must know that there are thousands more hardworking Americans like Bundy who face imminent economic ruin and loss of family farms, businesses, and homes due to the destructive policies that he and his ruling class collaborators are fastening upon our nation. This is especially true across the West, where the federal landlord’s lash falls hardest and has the longest reach. One thing is certain: The arrogant and oppressive federal agencies will drive many rural people to desperation, making more Bundy-BLM confrontations inevitable.

Perhaps Reid and his Beltway cohorts are prepared to label as “domestic terrorists” all those who oppose their steady usurpations. Perhaps they even want to provoke violent opposition as justification for ever more concentration of federal power to deal with the chaos and “civil unrest.”

But there is no need to continue on the same flawed course that will guarantee continued, and escalating, conflicts. The Western states can take the path that has been trod previously by other states. Now is the time, and the way is prepared for a peaceable, sensible, moral, and just solution to the long-standing inequity of federal dominance that has troubled the West for over a century.

Do the Western states not have same right as all the other states of these United States to determine their own destinies and manage their own affairs, free of the shackles imposed by federal bureaucrats and outside politicians? Is it not time to evict the federal bureaucrats from their Western empire and transfer the land, as originally intended, to the states and the people?

This article is an example of the exclusive content that's only available by subscribing to our print magazine. Twice a month get in-depth features covering the political gamut: education, candidate profiles, immigration, healthcare, foreign policy, guns, etc. Digital as well as print options are available!

Related articles:
Showdown on the Range
Western States Want Feds to Surrender “Federal” Land
Bundy Ranch Family vs. Big Gov., Big Green, Big Media
War on the West: Why More Bundy Standoffs Are Coming
Last Man Standing: Nevada Ranch Family in Fedgov Face-off
Bundy's Case: Feds Do Not Own the Land Where His Cattle Graze
BLM's Seizure of Nevada Rancher's Land Rights Unconstitutional
Federal Judge Rules for Property Rights, Smacks Down Abusive Feds

Is Cliven Bundy a “Racist”? Where’s the PROOF?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...ds-vs-the-west