Quantcast
This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Nevada Rancher VS Fed…. Patriots: The Real Battle is in Your Own State

Print Friendly and PDF
Jan Morgan
 

About the author: Jan is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment Advocate/Speaker/ NRA Certified Firearms Instructor/ Associated Press Award winning investigative journalist/ Owner/Editor JanMorganMedia.com, Sr. Editor/Patriot Update/ Independent Constitutional Conservative. She is closely aligned with the Republican/ ... [read 's FULL BIO]

Screen Shot 2014-04-08 at 11.56.23 AM

I watch as Patriots begin to divide the base (which is what this government wants) by claiming that people who do not rush to the aid of this rancher pledging gun battle with the feds, are NOT REAL PATRIOTS.

What I want all Americans to do is look at the larger picture of the problem here.. which is NOT about Bundy..
The larger picture here is about state’s rights and how much land in our states that the federal government is now in control of.
The abusive federal government and extent of corruption at the federal level is so rampant, there are much larger battle fronts to be addressed in all our states.
Whether you agree or disagree with Bundy’s position, what we can all agree on is that federal bullying of our state’s citizens is unacceptable and out of control.

The battle of state’s rights is much larger than this one case and the fact is, bullying of citizens by the feds is happening all over the United States.

The solution is making sure that the governors of your respective states understand state sovereignty and state’s rights and have the balls to take a stand against the federal government on ALL ISSUES RELATED TO THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS IN THEIR STATES AND BEGIN TO REPRESENT THE CITIZENS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN representing the federal government to the citizens.

I am all for standing up for the rights of citizens… I have proven to Patriots when I produced the documentary, Rampant Injustice, that I was not afraid to take on the Justice Department and the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service, however, I was convinced that the citizens involved who were subjected to the abusive Gestapo tactics of the feds, had in no way threatened violence and therefore it was not necessary to raid those mom and pop businesses with armed agents.

I come to the aid of law abiding citizens… If you don’t like the laws governing you, i.e. the gun rights battle in Connecticut, then you do what the folks in Colorado did, you remove the lawmakers who are attempting to strip you of your rights and you elect people who understand and abide by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then you change the laws.

I believe in fighting like our founders… you fight smart… you pick your battles wisely… and be sure when you decide to take stand, that the ground you stand on is completely defensible and sound.

How about citizens in all states use this case as a wake up call and get on the ball regarding leadership in their respective states standing for states rights. This battle begins in your own state with your own leaders BEFORE federal over reach becomes an issue.
I have endorsed a man to be the next governor of my home state, who has already formed a coalition of governors of southern states who will come together to stand against the federal government on all issues regarding state’s rights and representing the citizens of the state to the federal governent rather than representing the federal government to the citizens..

Don’t fall into the government trap of a divided base and excuse for martial law. If you want to go stand up for Bundy, do it… but don’t accuse those who chose to fight this battle in another way, i.e., States Rights as being cowardly.

Print Friendly and PDF
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • MommaBear

    The 7 year squatters rights law applies. It’s his land. This needs to go to court.

    • Jim Mannor

      I think you might look into that idea a little further. The last time I looked you could not claim the so-called “squatter’s rights”, which is actually the laws concerning “adverse possession”, against a government agency. Might have changed but I doubt it.

      • Janet

        the state of Nevada has those right.
        if your family has been here over 100 yrs.
        and his family found this ranch 140 yrs ago.

        • Aristophanes

          It states in the article that he cannot prove the land is his. So, if I want some land, I can just claim my ancestors have been on it for the last 100+ years and do not need any proof of ownership.

          • Josh Perkins

            I think that the issue people are mad about goes further than land. I think it is more about the miss use of goverment power that people are mad over. Do you really want another Wacco Aristophanes?

          • Aristophanes

            What has this guy claiming land by stating he has, basically, squatter rights have to do with Waco? Wait. Duh. You are talking about government out of control (like we have now).

          • RowdyD

            I agree Josh, I have dealt with the new BLM Federal Officers and they are thugs that harass even casual use folks out for a picnic…They have unlimited Jurisdiction and can do whatever they feel like and that is no joke…We are seeing it now with the Bundy Ranch. The BLM closed all the public land and air space and are patrolling it with an arsenal of weapons…
            They also have drones. Easy to see the BLM is well prepared and staffed, land and air, all paid for by tax dollars and grazing fees…

          • Chad3434

            My property joins so called Federal land. They bring equipment across my property so they can close an old logging road. They can cut ruts on my land but I am not allow on their so called land.
            I parked my truck on a county road just below my home. Up pulls this BLM guy. He steps out of his big fancy gov truck pulling up gun belts and all that other stuff he has. Never see so much crap on a person.
            He ask, “are you planning on leaving that truck there?” I said well yes unless you expect me to put it up one of these trees. This guy has no authority on that county road. The road was not even on the so called Federal land. Long story short I had had enough. One word led to another and he finally said he could take me end. I told him he best call for back up because he did not have enough butt in his paints to take me in.
            I am not a violent person but enough is enough and I was full up.
            Would you believe it, that dude got back into his truck and drove off. He knew he had no authority on that road.

          • Nunnyah Biz

            This time it’ll be REVERSE WACO!

          • Chad3434

            You hit the nail on the head. The government had no right to retain the land once the state was formed. Nevada or any other western state was on equal footing with the first 13 states and the Constitution backs that up. The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and not other laws can trump the Constitution.
            The government is out of control.

          • Nunnyah Biz

            That statement is grossly false! The contract is online!

        • Clint

          I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that he owns a 150 acre ranch, but has been allowing his cattle to roam free grazing his them on 600,000 acres that he does not own, called Gold Butte and managed by the Bureau of Land Management. I think he is on very shaky ground legally.

          • Janet

            THE RANCH IS 525 ACRES.

          • Clint

            Thank you for the correction Janet. It is still a far cry from 600,000 acres. I am not at all coming down on the BLM’s side, but it appears from what I read that Bundy has been adding to the problems by his own actions, justified or not. Our government is doing many things that make this nation called the United States of America, seem like a very different country than I grew up in.

          • Janet

            I GREW UP WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT PULL THIS KIND OF CHIT.
            THE BLM IS A BUCH THAT IS PROTECTING THE AREA WHER HARRY REID OWNS A LOT OF PROPERTY AND WILL MAKE LOTS OFG MONEY WHEN THE SOLOR PANELS AND WINDMILLS GO UP, AS FOR PROTECTING THE TORTISE, WHY THEN DID THAY KILL TOUSAND IN NO. VEGAS SO THEY COULD BUILD HIGH PRICE HOMES NO WEST OF NELLIS AIR BSASE,
            PS WHAT TIME IN AMERICA DID YOU GROW UP FOR ME IT WAS AFTER GRADUATION IN ’52

          • Clint

            I was born in 1944.

          • Marla Hughes

            She’s not correct. His ranch is 150 acres. He’s never needed more because he depends upon the tax payers to help maintain federal land that he rented cheaply. Ooops. For free for the last 20 years.

          • Clint

            Thanks Marla, I thought I was right to begin with.

          • Chad3434

            He may owe grazing fees but he owes them to the state of Nevada not the Federal government. The Federal government has no claim to the land per the Constitution.

        • Marla Hughes
      • reggiec

        Adverse possession is not valid against the federal government and this is a situation that needs to be addressed.

    • Wayne

      There is no justice in court when it comes to land-use! The desert protection act closed 7,100,000 acres for supposed threat to the desert tortoise by humans when it was found out 20 years ago that it was the ravens, it’s natural predator. Those lands have never been reopened regardless of the facts. But Sen. Feinstein’s husband continues to mine on those lands with impunity!
      The time for justice from courts is over!

      • ADRoberts

        Mormons. Just one more group of people who focus on MONEY and lust. Sorry, but I will leave him to his own resources. The government may be wrong, but Mormons are WAY OUT THERE wrong.

        • Wayne

          Missed that section of the Constitution that omits Mormons from its protections!

          • Nunnyah Biz

            Me too!

          • Wayne

            Harry Reid is a Mormon and benefiting from this fellow Mormons misery! Harry’s waiting for this man to be murdered by the government in the name of justice for his own personal benefit.

        • Robert Rivera

          You are the one that is way-out there wrong, knucklehead and the sad part is you are too pathetically stupid to know it.

      • Janet

        THE GOVERNMENT THANKS TO WHORE-HOUSE REID WANT THE AREA FORASOLOR AND WINDFARM. SO REID CAN MAKE MONEY FOR HIS COMMIES

        • sac76

          Actually BLM sold $Ms of leases to oil fracking companies of the Gold Butte area

        • Wayne

          Not to mention Reid is huge whore!

      • Nunnyah Biz

        Right!

        The traitors infesting all three branches of Our gov’t. have made it quite clear that the only law, in Our Nation, IS THE POINT OF A GUN!!!

    • Nunnyah Biz

      He has a Grandfather Clause in his contract and fought this in court for the last 20+ years and was betrayed by the traitors infesting Our “just-us” system!

  • Mathew Gibbs

    i agree completely but the feds kinda went to far.they could have just pushed the cows back to his land and reset the fence.

    • Douglas Moore

      I agree. So the cattle ate a little of their grass. Big deal. It’ll grow back!!!

      • Chad3434

        Not their grass. It is Nevada’s grass. There in lies the problem. Under the Constitution the government could not retain the land once Nevada became a state. It was illegal then and it is illegal today.

    • Janet

      BLM WILL NOT ALLOW HIM A FENCE

      • TexasOlTimer

        I worked for a natural gas pipeline company back in the ’80s. It was basically desert areas in West Texas. On state, county, or railroad right of way, no problem. When we finished laying a pipeline, we restored the land and within a year you couldn’t see where the line lay (except for our markers) because Mother Nature took over. On BLM right of way, we had to reseed, water, reseed and water until they were satisfied that it looked the way they wanted it to. The hot sun evaporated the water and the seed never took. Mother Nature did it her way and after a year, the BLM usually approved that we had done a good job doing it their way.

        For measurement buildings on land that couldn’t be seen unless you drove for miles on a dirt road out in the wilderness, the buildings had to be painted “BLM brown” to “blend with the landscape” and be repainted every other year because of the weather conditions. The fact that no one except our employees ever saw them was beside the point – spend the money to do it our way even if it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!

        • Janet

          THE BLM GOES AFTER CITIZEN HERE, BUT WHEN HARRY REID ON BLM LAND NEXT TO A RANCH THAT WAS OVER AN UNDERGROUND LAKE DRILLED TO FIND WATER AND SELL IT TO VEGAS. NO ON AT BLM TRIED TO STOP HIM
          HE SPENT A LOT ,BUT DID NOT GET WATER. HA HA

    • Janet

      THER IS NO FENCE !!!

  • Ann Wilson

    If that is the case Jan and he didn’t pay his fee’s I owe Patriots an apology and I am sorry. Not that it’s an excuse but I feel like so many Patriots, that it is like you say the fourth quarter and almost too late to turn the game around. With seeing the government attacking homes in the California desert, abusing citizens in New Mexico, taking guns in Connecticut and New York coupled with watching the Muslims take over it seems like time for action. Voting, protests and petitions do not seem to be having much effect. This could clearly have been the case of another group feeling entitled and I did not research before wondering where the militia’s are to back them.

    • Kenneth Leon Martin

      He stopped paying them after they told him to get off and refused the payment. There is a lot more to this story than was written here. He has exhausted his court options, with every judge ruling for the government. It is true that his family has ranched this land longer than these government agencies have existed. So, are we to only stand against the evils of government when the author says we should? Obviously, at least in this case, she is short on facts. This is a very complicated case, and involves generations of people ranching the same land. Personally, I think he pushed too far, but I am not sure that I would have done any differently. Do you think you would just give up your only source of livelihood because the government said so? The harshness of this article, by someone obviously short on facts, serves absolutely no purpose and only divides us. If you want to join in this fight, I will pray for you all, but I will not be joining you. I do feel that there are other fights, closer to home, where I am needed. Godspeed.

    • wolf

      Ann, Thank You for standing up. I agree 100% that we are in the fourth quarter and continue to play those who would normally be on the benches. Mr. Bundy believes in what he is doing and at least has the balls to draw the line instead of being patriot in mouth only as Jan Morgan seems to be. It is so easy to sit on the other side of the country and tell someone what they SHOULD do to kiss the gov’ts ass. It is time for patriots across the nation to unite, arm themselves, and flock to Bundy’s defense. As long as people such as Jan Morgan whine against standing armed and firm against this corrupt gov’t, the more of this crap you will see. Lady who went off the grid is persecuted by city gov’t for not adhering to what officials WANTED. UNARMED people being shot for camping in New Mexico. The list goes on and on and people shake their heads and go back to having their heads up their asses hoping that none of this will affect them. These people will not learn until gov’t steps on them and by then it will be too late and so they will get on the train just as the Jews and meet the same fate.

      I WILL GLADLY DIE TO SAVE MY COUNTRY FOR MY GRANDCHILDREN. HOW ABOUT YOU..

      • Ann Wilson

        Yes I will die for my country if necessary, I do not want my children and grandchildren to live under Muslim and Communist persecution. As a matter of fact I wish this would have happened some years ago when I was strong and armed. I’m in a bad situation now but I can still be a part in some way. Action is needed. If truckers shut down for a few days the politicians would be hurting with no food and supply’s. Bikers and patriots could take care of these jihad protestors. I feel we need to do something. I am not strategist but I pray for some strong leaders to decide on some offensive tactics instead of having to be on the defense all the time.

        • meatwad_SSuppet

          You don’t want them to live under a muslim dictate,,, but you can’t even see the noahide scam running wild across our nation. Pity you only accept the propaganda as truth.

          • Ann Wilson

            Wrong. I do my research and the only real truth is God’s Word, The Bible.

          • meatwad_SSuppet

            Sad that grown adults can not comprehend when they have been lied to. Tell me, with so many direct contradictions your Gods werd bible has, does that mean your God is a forgetful skitso mental case?

          • wade

            Show me a contradiction in the Bible genius….

          • snidely
          • snidely
          • Ann Wilson

            ANSWER: Mount Sinai

            Exodus 31:18
            When the Lord finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the covenant law, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God.

            Exodus 32:19
            19 When Moses approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, his anger burned and he threw the tablets out of his hands, breaking them to pieces at the foot of the mountain.

            Deuteronomy 10:1-2
            Tablets Like the First Ones
            10 At that time the Lord said to me, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones and come up to me on the mountain. Also make a wooden ark.[a] 2 I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. Then you are to put them in the ark.”

            1 Corinthians 14:33
            33 For God is not the author of confusion . . .

          • snidely
          • Clint

            snidely, I understand what you are saying, but you, me, or anyone else not understanding what the Bible teaches is not proof that the Bible is wrong or that it has errors in it. Proof in point, saying that it is true that something was done in, or given to someone in the United States of America, by a person from another country, does not change just because you find out that it all happened in Colorado. Mt. Horeb is a mountain peak in the Sinai mountain range and located in present day Saudi Arabia, not the so called Sinai peninsula of Egypt, just as Colorado is one state in the country of The United States of America. Try again, for that is not an error in the Bible.

          • Ann Wilson

            As you can see this is not a contradiction. Do your homework.

            Deuteronomy 4:29
            But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find him if you seek him with all your heart and with all your soul.

          • meatwad_SSuppet

            There are so many, where to start?

            ACT 1:18: “Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”

            MAT 27:5-7: “And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests…bought with them the potter’s field.”

            Jesus’ last words

            MAT 27:46,50: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” …Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.”

            LUK 23:46: “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:” and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.”

            JOH 19:30: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished:” and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”


            I could write a book on the contradictions your mental case of a god imagined men wrote. What??

          • Ann Wilson

            Instead try taking time to see exactly why they are not. I answered one question now you do your own homework.

          • meatwad_SSuppet

            You obviously have not heard that those long dead hebrews made it up by mixing together myths from surrounding cultures. Pity that you can’t break free from your childhood brainwashing.

          • US Army (retired)

            In the end there will be only two kinds of people, those who say to God, “Thy will be done.” and those to whom God will say. “Thy will be done.”

          • Chad3434

            And here I have been thinking I am in bad shape.

          • meatwad_SSuppet

            If you follow the lost one, I can understand that. Did you know that long dead hebrews made up that religion of yours. If not you have a lot to learn.

          • Chad3434

            Get back to me when you stand before God.

          • Nunnyah Biz

            AMEN! Fool!……………………not you Ann!

        • Nunnyah Biz

          There are strong leaders, mostly high ranking Military that the usurper has purged from the ranks for not bending over to him and his controllers!!!

          It’s coming! Get Prepared!!!

    • Nunnyah Biz

      Bundy’s contact clearly states a Grandfather Clause! He is exempt from any fees!

      • Marla Hughes

        Show me where in the contract please. I’ve read the court documents and didn’t see one. Btw, Mr. Bundy admitted he had no rights other than ‘rights to forage’. His daughter did as well on her Facebook statement. He decided to pay the state instead of the BLM because he didn’t like how the BLM spends his leasing money. That’s like me deciding I don’t like my landlord spending my rent on his new truck so giving my rent money to his son. That’ d go over well, I’m sure.

        • Chad3434

          No he decided to pay the state because under the Constitution the land belongs to the state. There are many articles on this. The Framers never meant for the government to retain the land once a state was formed. This is very clear.

          • Marla Hughes

            That makes no sense. Mr. Bundy and his father paid the BLM for decades and then, because Mr. Bundy decides it’s so, their mission statement changes? Even though Nevada itself says the BLM is responsible for the land?
            btw, he says he tried to pay Clark County, not the state of Nevada so you’re not even agreeing with him.

          • Chad3434

            The BLM was taking care of the land for the state of Nevada. Mr Bundy paid them for that service. Then the BLM stopped keeping the land up. That is when he stopped paying the BLM. At first they used the money paid to improve the land and later on they threw it up a wild hogs a** and hollered suie. At that time he stopped payment. Bottom line the land belongs to the state of Nevada. If he owes any one it is the state of Nevada.

          • Marla Hughes

            No, the federal government ALWAYS owned that land. Since we won it from Mexico. Congress set up the BLM to manage it for us, the taxpayers. Mr. Bundy’s opinion of his landlord is not important as to whether he should have paid his bill or not. As two judges have told him repeatedly. Try telling your landlord that you’re going to pay someone else the rent instead of him. Good luck with that. You can keep arguing differently until you’re blue in the face and will keep losing because the facts don’t agree with you. You and Mr. Bundy can enjoy that screaming from the side lines position. I prefer to play by the rules and remain on the field.

          • Chad3434

            If you cannot believe me then can you consider this.
            “There were many lengthy debates in Congress on issues dealing with public lands. Senator Hendricks made one while speaking of the ordinance of 1787: “this union is in theory formed of sovereign, equal people and independent states. In the older members of this Confederation, the federal government sets up no claim to the waste and unappropriated lands, has no land office, derives no revenue from the sale of land. The ordinance contemplated the public lands as belonging to new states, after their admission in the union… As a further inducement to the new states to join the Confederation the ordinance stipulated that they should be admitted into the union… on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever, and the Constitution in substance of the same policy, provides that all engagements entered into before the adoption of the Constitution shall be as valid against the United States, under the Constitution as under the Confederation so that the Articles of Confederation, the Acts of Cessions, the ordinance of 1787 and the Constitution itself, form a perfect and harmonious chain of policy – the grand object of which was the union and equality of the states. Then Mr. President, if at all correct in this view, it may well be asked by what means have the new states been. deprived of their equality of the right of soil… The public lands should be ceded to the states in which they lie because their present condition is not warranted by the letter of the Constitution of this government… Its powers are carefully enumerated and specified. I deny, sir, the limits of the states, except for the purpose designated by the Constitution such as forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings, and to enable Congress to hold lands even for these purposes, the consent of the legislature of the states is declared to be necessary by the expressed language of the Constitution…” (Id 154, 155).
            As one can see, waste or unappropriated lands, later public domain, and still later, public lands were always a concern and discussed, but their ownership and control were retained by the states through the 10th amendment to the Constitution.”

          • Marla Hughes

            K, you found an argument against what happened to become a legitimate way for the US to acquire more territory. What do you want to do about it? Declare any state that was formed from a territory, like Nevada, for example, illegitimate and restore it to the nation it was acquired from? In some cases, that would be either France, England or Portugal.
            In Nevada’s case, it would be Mexico and it still would not have been a sovereign state under Mexican rule, either. For a bit it was under California’s attempt to become a separate entity from Mexico, but Mexico didn’t recognize it.

            You keep trying to turn Nevada into a little mini-nation when that simply was not true of it before we acquired it or afterwards.

  • Jenna Jones

    Only problem with your article is that the local government agrees with him and is backing him… its the federal agencies which we can not vote for who are calling the shots. Federal overreach. Period. “Washington county commissioners held an emergency meeting Thursday afternoon to discuss the range war.
    The meeting ended with a resolution urging Nevada BLM administrators to leave free-range cattle where they are.” http://fox13now.com/2014/04/04/nevada-cattle-at-center-of-battle-between-federal-county-officials/

    • vernabc_is_a_liberal_troll
      • Jenna Jones

        Washington county commissioners held an emergency meeting Thursday afternoon to discuss the range war.

        The meeting ended with a resolution urging Nevada BLM administrators to leave free-range cattle where they are. http://fox13now.com/2014/04/04/nevada-cattle-at-center-of-battle-between-federal-county-officials/

        • Jenna Jones

          Realize, while I agree violence should be the last resort and I mean last.. self defense only, I think the Federal government will kill him instead of negotiating. Local government should have the final say here, it is the peoples state, This is simply the EPA out of control protecting a turtle over humans. They have driven every cattle rancher in the area out of business. These environmental wackos are out of their minds..

          • Danni Lynn Spencer

            They are not the ones threatening violence. I lived there, my husband personally knows the family.
            This man’s son was filming them stealing cows from the road and agents came over surrounding them with guns and beat him to the ground and then stomped him with their boots! Then told them they weren’t in first amendment zone.

          • http://janmorganmedia.com/ Jan Morgan

            Danni Lynn, I think you are embellishing the arrest. We stick to facts here… While they may have surrounded him with guns, I do not believe you can prove he was “beaten to the ground and stomped on with their boots.” I will be waiting to see the proof of that.

          • TR
          • http://janmorganmedia.com/ Jan Morgan

            As I said, people like Danni Lynn over exaggerating what happened is beyond irresponsible… In the video Bunday says they threw him to the ground which is pretty standard for people being arrested… He was not beaten to the ground and he was not stomped by their boots.

          • Marla Hughes

            I’ve watched every video that’s out there, I think and the people in question 50 year old grandma and Mr. Bundy’s son were impeding the BLM vehicle. Grandma said she jumped up on the hood of a BLM truck while it was moving and the agents grabbed her off before she could injure herself. The son (Ryan, who’s been in trouble with the law before and claims ‘sovereign citizenship and thus above federal law) ran his ATV into the BLM truck and refused to move it. When BLM agents demanded he move it, he charged the agents so one of the K-9′s lunged at him. He kicked out at the dog instead of retreating so got tazed.

          • Chad3434

            I am not violent but if one of them guys ever stomps me he best sit up at night. That is just wrong.

          • http://janmorganmedia.com/ Jan Morgan

            Jenna, you are correct.. it is he people’s state and the state government should be in the middle of this.

          • Marla Hughes
          • CAS04

            Jenna, it’s not about any animal. It is about oil leases the government sold for that land. Look it up.

          • Chad3434

            I don’t think they will kill him. Too many spot lights on this one. They kill this guy and all you know what will break loose.

        • Steve Rogers

          At least someone is trying to be reasonable. What ever happend to the Sheriff knocking on the door and having a cup of coffee and trying to resolve the matter — the government has to always resort to SWAT Teams, Sniper Teams and Tanks. What in the hell did they do before they had SWAT Teams, Sniper Teams and Tanks?

      • Nunnyah Biz

        The Clarke County Sheriff, Doug Gillespie, is a democrat and refuses to obey his oath………………………………’nuff said!

    • http://janmorganmedia.com/ Jan Morgan

      Jenna, but where is the state government… the state government in this case as in all states, should be stepping up to the plate and taking a stand against federal bullying of their states citizens… this should be a wake up call for all citizens to push their state governments to take a stand on state sovereignty ..

      • Jenna Jones

        Jan, I agree. I am so saddened that situations like this have arisen all over our country. This man and his heritage have worked this land since before any of these agencies existed. I fear that even though his local government is supporting his rights it wont matter. The Feds have proven to not care for our laws and act above them. May God be with this family and may they be able to keep this family farm even though 50+ others have lost theirs to the feds- Lost years of work and sacrifice over government worship of the environment and placing the life of a turtle over a human being.I dont know how this family is standing so strong against tyranny, and I pray for peace and resolve. May God, the author of Liberty intervene.

      • CAS04

        The governor of the state of Nevada has condemned BML for their actions. The local sheriff has said that it is a federal matter and cannot interfere. The family has a great deal of local support but because the local sheriff has given into the “federal” over the “State” mentality, he can get no support from him. What is a person to do?

        • Marla Hughes

          The local ranchers and cattleman’s association does not support Mr. Bundy’s claims.

      • Marla Hughes

        The reason the state of Nevada isn’t stepping up nor accepting money from Mr. Bundy for his lease is because it’s not state land. Back when Nevada joined the Union, 23 years before Mr. Bundy’s family moved to the state, Nevada legislature signed The Ordinance. The Third part states that they gave over all public land to the federal government. That includes the land that Mr. Bundy’s family subsequently leased. They’ve always leased it from the federal government, no matter what the name of the federal agency was they sent their checks to. There was no ‘grandfathering’ in of any previous deals because they didn’t exist.

  • vernabc_is_a_liberal_troll

    “Bundy’s cattle have been grazed illegally on public lands”

    “Bundy’s cattle have been grazed illegally on public lands”

    public lands… illegally…

    does not compute. Unless you’re a power hungry fed.

    • CornellUG1993

      Maybe try reading our Constitution. Article IV Section 3 Clause 2 states in relevant part:

      “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules
      and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to
      the United States;”

      • Windwalker

        It also states where the Fed can own land… Might want to look at that cause it sure seems like its kinda outside 10 square miles…. I am with the author here, this is a situation every one is a little trigger happy. I do not like the response from either side… But dont go defending the fed using that land, they have no right to it at all.

        • CornellUG1993

          No part of our constitution limits all ownership of land by the federal government to only 10 square miles, heck not even the clause you’re talking about, Art 1 Sec 8 Clause 16 doesn’t. It just limits the capital district to that, and then contains a provision for acquisition outside that 10 square miles.

          I swear, you internet const. scholars should at least freaking read the document you pretend to be experts on.

          • Casey Hindman

            You can make a point without ridiculing, or belittling people who are part of the same team. I respect your views, but there’s nothing wrong with being mistaken or pointing someone in the right detection with facts and sources. There is a problem when you defer to name calling or character attacks to do so. I know it gets frustrating, but a friendly reminder to let you know we’re all on the same side here and we shouldn’t hurt feelings or morale.

          • CornellUG1993

            Thanks, you’re absolutely right. I let my frustration get the best of me, I’ll keep it in check in the future.

          • Nunnyah Biz

            Right, and that’s all the land the fed is allowed to own……………………………..GET IT NOW!!!

          • CornellUG1993

            So, when our very first Congress accepted the Northwest territory and in their eight act of government made a system for managing the land, they were violating the Constitution? That law wasn’t even controversial at the time, everyone thought they could do that.

            Think about it this way, the Enclave Clause contains its own grant of right to regulate the land at issue in it, what purpose does the Property Clause serve that the Enclave Clause doesn’t if the Property Clause is only talking about Enclave Clause land?

      • Nunnyah Biz

        “Belonging to the United States” means IT BELONGS TO WE, THE PEOPLE, not the traitors infesting our gov’t.!!!

        • CornellUG1993

          Do you have trouble reading? CONGRESS has the power here.

          • Nunnyah Biz

            NO Only WE, THE PEOPLE HAVE POWER IN OUR NATION, thru our elected officials! THE POWER IS OURS We just have to exercise it!!!

          • CornellUG1993

            Not sure how that helps this rancher, we the people elected the Congress that made the laws that required him to pay fees to use federal land for grazing.

  • sha49tn

    I agree with Jan. In this particular case, he has brought repercussions on his head. If he had continued to pay his grazing fees, then he might have some grounds for his stance. But to deliberately threaten the feds to an armed battle is beyond stupid. He should have taken his case to court, & gone from there.

    • Wayne

      Obviously you have not been to court!

    • GuestSpeaker

      It WAS taken to court. The Judge ruled against Mr. Bundy. Case closed as far as I’m concerned.

    • Nunnyah Biz

      The traitors infesting our “just-us” system have rendered the courts MOOT!!!

  • Tomcat01

    All I can say is this how fed up Americans are becoming with the government. It may be just the beginning of a new civil war. I do not say this lightly either.

    • Nunnyah Biz

      Not “civil war” REVOLUTIONARY WAR!

      Just a friendly FYI!

      • Tomcat01

        Either way, it will not be good. American soldiers and law enforcement forced to fire on American citizens and visa versa.

        • Nunnyah Biz

          American soldiers will not fire on their own! That’s why they brought in foreign mercenaries to pose as blm agents!
          Watch the videos blm agents have no badges, nor identifying patches!

          • Tomcat01

            There have been certain law enforcement and military personnel who said they would fire so that could also be an explanation. Certain police chiefs have stated their objection to your rights as uner the 2d Amendment.

          • Marla Hughes

            I’ve watched the videos and they most certainly do have identifying badges. In fact, you can find them at the local diners at lunch time. Sheesh.

          • Chad3434

            Take a good look at those jokers. Pot guts, full breads you name it. Mercenaries to the hilt.

  • Wayne

    To a real patriot talk is cheap and do not telegraph intentions.
    if need be the stick.

    • Wayne

      For every action, a reaction

  • HDMania

    Kenneth is right..there is more to this..also the govt said they didnt know where the line was so how is the rancher suppose to know where the line is ?.

  • Wayne Ogilvy

    There are always two sides to a story, however as any homeowner can tell you, If you don’t pay your property taxes you will find out in short order who really owns the house.

    • GQ4U

      Not the same situation.

      • Wayne Ogilvy

        No it’s not but according to the story and his interview, He quit paying for land usage so should he still be allowed to use the land for free when others had to pay to use it ?

        • GQ4U

          I guess you missed the part where the government acted in bad faith and illegally rescinded their binding lease agreement. Why do you suppose two separate court decided in favor of the Rancher. One court awarded them over $4-Million in 2008 and the government hasn’t paid them yet. It was reported that the cows were allowed to wander onto land that wasn’t part of the original contract and the rancher was fined $186.00. This is clearly a case of federal bullying and willful misconduct by fat cat bureaucrats. How does any of this match up with property taxes? They are spending 100′s of thousands fighting a citizen that has won at every turn but that doesn’t matter to them so they they continue to abuse this family. Its about the fed’s winning and not about justice.

          • CornellUG1993

            What court has awarded the rancher anything? Where is this lease agreement? Go to PACER and you can see all the documents that show there was no pereputual lease agreement, just a renewable one that ran out. The government offered new terms for a renewal, as is the right of any landowner when dealing with a tenant, and they refused, and then squatted.

            The case is docket: Case 2:12-cv-00804-LDG-GWF

            Pacer will have all the docs I’m discussing.

          • GQ4U

            My error — you are correct.

          • Wayne Ogilvy

            Now you are mistaken. These are two separate ranchers and two different incidents my friend !

          • GQ4U

            You are correct, I watched a video of a different case after reading this article on hot heads advocating violence and conveyed sentiments on the wrong issue. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

          • Wayne Ogilvy

            That’s OK my friend I believe we are still on the same side and I feel for this rancher, However we can’t just stop paying our bills because we don’t agree with the owner of the property “In this case it’s the government” Heck I don’t agree with the IRS but three hours ago I sent them 500.00 dollars so I can keep my house and property. Stay safe and keep your powder dry !!

          • GQ4U

            Thanks for understanding. You might want to check into HR-25 & S-122 which if passed into law (someday) would eliminate federal withholding of Medicare, FICA & income taxes. These mirror the http://www.FairTax.org plan if you want to know more.

          • Wayne Ogilvy

            Thanks for the info, !

          • Ruth May Cothron

            That’s a fact, we never truly own anything. If you don’t pay property taxes you lose your property, if you don’t buy a tag, (which buying a tag is just another tax), you can’t drive your car, if you don’t pay for a license, you can’t drive your car. Taxed and re-taxed over and over again. This is in response to Wayne Ogilvy.

          • Marla Hughes

            Love the Fair Tax although I hate the name. Fair is everyone paying the same rate.

          • http://janmorganmedia.com/ Jan Morgan

            Of course it is about the feds winning..

          • GQ4U

            Your article is well put.

          • CornellUG1993

            I live in Clark County, and this guy’s herds are causing more trouble than just failing to remit a few thousand in lease payments. He’s expanded the territory he “claims” into the Lake Meade National Recreational Area, vehicular accidents have been caused by his cattle standing in the road in the NRA at dusk, as well as destroying archeological sites in other protected zones.

            BLM and NPS had only taken court actions against Bundy over the past 20 years, and not engaged in physical enforcement, but these new violations aren’t just missed payments. I’d agree the response is extreme, but the herd had to be removed.

          • GuesSpeaker

            I don’t think the response is extreme given the fact that he threatened to do harm to people.

          • Nunnyah Biz

            He only threatened to do harm to the traitors infesting our gov’t……………………………………NO FOUL!!!

  • kevin

    Hypothetical question……….what if he did everything right and they are fabricating The narrative of him doing wrong The federal Government is Not a Honest Government !…..The feds did that to Randy Weaver ….

  • Bruce_in_San_Jose

    But the fact is, he had the rights, for nearly 15 years. A contract that the government unlawfully rescinded.

    Government has unlimited resources against the individual and even when Government is found wrong, they disobey the rulings and the laws upon which the runings were based.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

    • CornellUG1993

      The government didn’t rescind any contract, you can see the entire legal case on PACER and it was a renewable rights lease. He didn’t like the new terms of the rights lease, and instead of vacating like tenants should, he kept using the land, and even decided to start using new land.

  • Peter Furman

    What annoys me the most is that so many people come here and talk like tough guys/gals but the Fact of the matter is that this Government is lead by a “Community Organizer” which is exactly what he did,does,every day to the “Community” of takers,of Constitutional criminals,of corrupt politicians,of extremist parasites who are “doing” what Patriots,real,effective Patriots Must do which is “Organize”,Unify,work with like minded individuals at home,in your state,in D.C.,those who are more than willing but have Nowhere to go,to “team up” and to NATIONALIZE,to JOIN,to come with NUMBERS of fellow Americans who believe in the Constitution,our Constitutional Rights,our States Rights,our Inalienable G-D given Rights which millions and millions of “Legal” immigrants risked everything to embrace,shed their “blood sweat and tears” to build,fought to defend,too often died to protect to pass on the “Legacy” that Every generation created,believed in UNTIL NOW!

    • Nunnyah Biz

      We are organizing, modernmilitiamovement.com

  • CornellUG1993

    What is at all objectionable about the federal government, which has held title to this land since 1848, deciding after over 20 years of their now former tenant refusing to pay or vacate (despite court orders to do so) to effect an eviction?

    • Steve Rogers

      Yes, I see, and understand a ruling to vacate requires “twelve” SWAT teams and armored vehicles (Ms. Jan forgot that part), It also requires beating the mans son and throwing him in jail overnight because he was “filming” the SWAT teams (did Ms. Jan forget to print that part also – must have), yeah, seems totally logical and reasonable to me. All reportedly over a desert “turtle” — please tell me your not that stupid! It has nothing to do with grazing or a turtle. What in the hell does BHL have SWAT / Sniper Teams for anyway? Yeah, must be to protect those turtles, to keep the cows from stepping on them.

      • CornellUG1993

        Oh come on, read the actual cases on PACER, the turtles aren’t the issue at all. He stopped paying 5 years before the turtles were even protected. He’s had more than 20 years to either pay up or vacate, and he’s threatened to use force and his dozen children to fight the government over land he’s never owned.

        • tellis68

          I’ll be the first to admit that I haven’t read everything there is related to this case, but did he ACTUALLY threaten them or are they just saying he did because we all know how honest the government is.

          • CornellUG1993

            I’ll post the documents and link them if you’d like to read them and decide for yourself, I’m not at home right now so i don’t have them, but I can when I get home later tonight. The government, in their filing, quoted from a deposition with him stating that he would do whatever it takes to stop the government from rounding up his cattle if they won. When asked if that included physical action, he said yes. When asked if that also included requesting help from family and friends, he said yes. I understand mistrust of the government, but forging a deposition is extremely difficult and very unlikely.

            I wish all the bloggers and news sources talking about this would just post the two filings and let people decide for themselves. You can see what the government argues in there own words and what Bundy argues in his own words in response.

        • Nunnyah Biz

          Sorry, it’s not about the fees either!

          It’s
          about the oil fracking leases that the blm illegally sold to foreign
          invaders/investors! They now own the land and have ordered the usurper
          to boot Bundy off of “their land”! And the usurper always obeys his
          controllers!

          That’s the Heart of this matter…………………………money and control!!!

          • CornellUG1993

            FFS, this land is dual use, three people already own the oil and drilling rights under Gold Butte, they bought them back 50 years ago, and they drill there to this day without a problem. Fracking so close to the only water source in Southern Nevada would never be approved, water is already an extremely touchy issue in Clark County, no one would ever accept fracking.

    • splooshman

      The rancher also has had grandfathered land use rights since the 1800′s.AND by law, because he has continuously held cattle on those lands, he has a legal easement to continue using that land. Land use fees are another question that should be settled by cooler heads in court , or out of court even better! Let’s no forget these are PUBLIC lands owned by the PEOPLE, not the federal government.

      • CornellUG1993

        You cannot have a common-law easement right on federal lands. The very idea doesn’t even make sense. Under the Constitution, only Congress can regulate the territory and property of the United States Government, and they have never created or allowed such a right.

        • hawkiye

          The federal government has not right to own state lands except by permission of the state…

        • Nunnyah Biz

          It wasn’t federal land when his family claimed it in 1810!

          • CornellUG1993

            His family claimed it in 1810? 19 years before Antonio Armijo passed through the area? That would be absolutely astounding.

  • splooshman

    I appreciate the call to choose our battles wisely. I get a bit hot tempered when I see the events like WACO and Ruby Ridge by over-zealous federal agencies and law enforcement agents. Considering the track record of cover-ups. lies and railroading Americans over something so ridiculous, it’s hard to have any respect for federal agents at any level. Where is the Sheriff in this? Seems to me he’s ducking out of the situation like a yellow-bellied coward afraid to do his Constitutional Duty and stand up for citizen rights. And while Bundy may not have done everything right, he has a grandfathered right to graze his cattle on lands since the 1800;s. But that doesn’t stop the Feds. Just as they did to Native Americans, they made and broke treaties as was convenient to their agenda, often slaughtering unarmed men, women and children in the process. Respect is earned. The Fed has no respect because it continues to lie, cheat, steal and murder its way up the food chain for total control over property and populace. The ATF and DHS are most culpable in doing this, but the FBI has record of doing it too, Look at the cover-up and lies about TWA Flight 800 that was shot down by two missiles/rockets seen by hundreds of eye witnesses, The FBI covered it up, tampered with evidence, prevented the NTSA from doing their job, and threatened witnesses to keep their mouths shut… all fully documented facts. Obviously, running to Clark County with your guns blazing is a really stupid idea. Jan’s got the right idea that using the legal process and elections to make changes is the best approach. But what do you do when the judicial system is also corrupt and sides with the Feds regardless of facts or laws broken on their part? The Count Sheriff has a Constitutional Duty to stand as a check and balance against such over-zealous federal officers and remove them from his county by force if need be, especially if it can prevent another tragedy like WACO. I suggest phone calls to the Clark County Sheriff’s Office in Nevada and politely demand he take action. Naturally, there’s no email contact, so you can reach the combined city police department and Sheriff’s Office line at (702) 828-3111. Keep it polite while asking him to do his job!

    • CornellUG1993

      So the federal government granted his family permission to use the lands for over a century, if he didn’t like the new terms, he should have vacated. I’m sick of tenants telling landlords they should own the property because they rented “for so long.” The federal government has continuously held the title to the property since 1848, he claims his family showed up in 1880. Congress has the right to make general rules and regulations regarding the territory and property of the federal government, the constitution explicitly states this. The state doesn’t get to intervene. Think about it this way, if the federal government can’t own land inside territory that it makes a state, then Nevada isn’t a state anymore, because the Nevada Admission Acts made assurance that the titles held by the federal government would remain valid a precondition to admission to the union. If that condition wasn’t met, Nevada’s still a territory, and the federal government owns it anyway.

      Kindly leave my sheriff alone, he has real problems to deal with.

      • splooshman

        Obviously the law means nothing to you. You’re the same kind of dumbass that’s running this country into the ground in Washington. Go study the law, get your facts, and set your irrational emotions aside.

        • CornellUG1993

          What is wrong with my legal argument? What have I stated that’s inaccurate regarding the law?

          • Chad3434

            Everything.

      • Chad3434

        Have you ever remotely read the Constitution? ” The federal government has continuously held the title to the property since 1848,”
        How can the Federal Government hold the title to a states land per the Constitution? It can not. Once the territory is granted statehood then the land goes to the state. For the Federal government to retain the land is unconstitutional. Read it. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.

      • Chad3434

        The Federal government can own land in a state but it is very limited. Ten miles square in any one location and even then it can only purchase the land with the approval of the state legislator. If the state does not own the land then why does the Federal government need approval from the state legislator to purchase it. That does not even remotely make any sense. What the government did was illegal then and it is illegal now. The Framers said so.

    • Nunnyah Biz

      He won’t answer and as soon as you mention Mr. Bumdy, they hang up! They also refused 911 calls when they foreign blm mercenaries attack his son, a pregnant woman and a 53 year old cancer victim!

      Clarke County is now lawless, anarchy reigns!

      • splooshman

        And so it begins. Looks like Clark County is due for a new Sheriff. He’s absolutely shameful.

    • Desertcatn

      Agree. The problem I have with being told to stand down, is that there is a big Harry Reid stink bomb in the middle of this, that isn’t being addressed.

  • RedMeatState

    If they really want to save the desert tortoises then they would put a bounty and open season on ravens. Ravens have decimated the tortoise population, not people, cattle, or OHV’s!!!

  • man50

    The last time I checked the U.S. Constitution does not delegate to the Legislative nor the Executive branches the enumerated powers to regulate land or animals per Article I Section VIII of the Constitution and Article II. Regulating either by the Federal Government is unconstitutional as it is a power reserved to the States or to the People per Amendment X in the Bill of Rights. Statute law does not supersede the Constitution. In fact it is not law if it is repugnant to the Constitution(Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury V Madison 1803). Government acting upon something does not make the act constitutional or lawful by default. Moreover, The People created Government. The People are the Sovereign while Government is the Servant. The Servant cannot order the Sovereign anymore than an employee of a business can issue orders to the owner of that business. It’s understandable those who support the Constitution may rally to Mr. Bundy’s defense. Somehow these fundamental points are lost on Ms. Morgan.

    The solution to this problem is by the People invoking the Amendment V Common Law Grand Jury. The Founding Fathers wrote it into the Bill of Rights as to be separate from the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of Government so as to be a check and balance against a tyrannical, runaway Government as we the People are experiencing and as Mr. Bundy is experiencing.

    There is a nationwide movement to reassert the Amendment V Common Law Grand Jury through the group National Liberty Alliance (www.nationallibertyalliance.org). Register to become a Grand Jurist and defend our unalienable rights.

    • CornellUG1993

      “The last time I checked the U.S. Constitution does not delegate to the
      Legislative nor the Executive branches the enumerated power to regulate
      land or animals per Article I Section VIII of the Constitution and
      Article II.”

      Maybe try reading the whole thing then, it’s really not that long. Article IV Section 3 Clause 2 states in relevant part:

      “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules
      and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to
      the United States”

      • hawkiye

        State land is not federal territory the states are sovereign and above the federal government… Sigh

      • Chad3434

        “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules
        and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to
        the United States”
        Your understanding of that is flawed. See the word territory? Territory is not a state. Once the territory becomes a state then the land belongs to the state. The Framers made it very clear that the western states were to have the same rights as the first 13 states. The government under the Constitution can not grant statehood and retain the land. It was illegal then and it is illegal today..

  • Illbethe Lastmanstanding

    I read this earlier and at first agreed with you. I still do … to a point. I don’t think it makes a difference what brings on a confrontation between the “Patriot Groups” and the government. Whatever sparks it will start a wildfire across the nation. The American people are sick of corrupt and incompetent government and those representatives that perpetuate it. Unlike Ruby Ridge, we now have a majority of unhappy, Government hating people. It won’t be a good thing.
    Amen,
    Rev

    • Mike_Hunt

      You guys voted for it, like it or not.

      The system isn’t broken, the people are.

  • kebozarth

    In accord. with information I received from the family, the 600,000 ac. at issue has been in the family for over 120 years and that it is the federal government, etc. who have encroached on the family’s right of property. Get your facts straight Jan.

    • CornellUG1993

      According to land records from the area, the federal government acquired the property in 1848 from Mexico and has never transferred title over to anyone.

      • kebozarth

        I don’t believe you; prove it.

        • CornellUG1993

          Here’s the treaty with Mexico granting title to the United States Government: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=009/llsl009.db&recNum=975

          • kebozarth

            Thanks for your response but your response is non-responsIve to the subject matter at issue, i.e., rights of property.

            The treaty with Mexico is irrelevant.

            I gave you the benefit of the doubt. You do know of the Bundy family purchases of rights of property on the 600,000 ac. at issue for over 120 years ago?

          • CornellUG1993

            The treaty with Mexico establishes a transfer of ownership from Mexico to the United States government. If you want to prove the Bundy’s own it, the burden is now on you to show a trail from the US government’s ownership to Bundy’s family.

            I do not, and Bundy presented no evidence of it in his case, available from PACER at docket: 2:12-cv-00804-LDG-GWF
            Please present a document, as I have, evidencing that transfer.

          • kebozarth

            The question is: Did aforementioned treaty with the Republic of Mexico (1848) under the protection of Almighty God transfer ownership to the federal government of the United States or to the United States of America which part became the sovereign State of Nevada (1864)?

            The land which became the State of Nevada was settled by brave American settlers who exercised their unalienable God-given Rights of Property and gained allodial property over said land as acquired by the United States of America in the Peoples’ behalf as secured and protected by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

            I’ll have to get back with Bundy. I’ve personally had dealings with federal and state courts where I observed that the court records were changed to favor the State.

          • CornellUG1993

            The state’s sovereignty doesn’t extend to land that the federal government has held title to since 1848, the Constitution clearly states that Congress has absolute authority to dispose of or regulate the use of federal territory and property (Article IV, Clause 3, Section 2). When Nevada was created as a state, a condition of that creation was that the land owned by the federal government would only fall to the state if the federal government sold or otherwise explicitly transferred title fee simple to a non-federal entity (a private citizen or the state directly) (see: ACT OF CONGRESS (1864) ENABLING THE PEOPLE OF NEVADA TO FORM A
            CONSTITUTION AND STATE GOVERNMENT, 13 United States Statutes at Large (1864)). That agreement is enshrined in our state constitution.

            If the federal government doesn’t have the authority to retain property in a state after it becomes sovereign, then the enabling act is invalid since the clause is conditional, and Nevada is still a territory, again subject to Article IV Clause 3 Section 2.

          • kebozarth

            The Republic of the United States of America is not equivalent to our federal government as you assert. Our federal government is an agent of the several States and the People (9th and 10th Amendments, United States Constitution).

            Your idea of our federal government’s authority “to retain property in a state after it becomes sovereign” is a new notion and was unknown in the beginning years of our Republic.

            However, as the years past our federal government began to exercise this new notion until when Alaska became a sovereign State it had to give up over 90% of its land mass to our federal government. One can see this unconstitutional federal land grab as our American setters moved westward and new States were formed.

            Indeed; and Article IV Clause 3 Section 2 and our Congress of the United States of America is limited by Article I, Sec. 8, Cl. 16 to land for Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings.

            The 600,000 ac. in question is none of the above over which our federal government has no Constitutional jurisdiction.

            This land is Nevada land not federal land.

          • CornellUG1993

            The Constitution only refers to one I’m afraid.

            “Your idea of our federal government’s authority “to retain property in a
            state after it becomes sovereign” is a new notion and was unknown in
            the beginning years of our Republic”

            You might want to change that to “year”, the Residence Act of 1790 authorized the federal acquisition of property from the state of Pennsylvania. The Enabling Act of 1802, which authorized the creation of the State of Ohio, contained provisions that granted land to Congress in much the same way that Nevada’s enabling statute did. Your statements are blatantly false.

            Nothing in Article IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2 states it is limited by Article I, Sec. 8, Cl. 16, you’re literally making that up from nothing. In fact, Article I, Sec. 8, Cl. 16 already contains the necessary language to give Congress power to make rules regulating the land acquired under it, you’re arguing Article IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2 is completely superfluous and intended to have no novel effect.

            Your arguments are devoid of logic and ignore the actual history of our nation.

          • kebozarth

            You are mistaken. The Republic of the united States of America comprised of 50 several sovereign States is not equivalent to our federal government. To say so destroys the idea of a Federation of sovereign States as understood and originally intended by our American Founding Fathers.

            Our Constitution must be interpreted as a whole or the meaning of our Constitution is twisted and one part of our Constitution can be made to contradict another part or completely redefined to mean something contrary to the original intent of our American Founding Fathers.

            No where in Article IV of our Constitution is authority granted to our federal government to compel a new State to give up land other than that expressly provided by Article, I, Sec. 8 Cl. 16 in order to join the American Union.

          • CornellUG1993

            “The Republic of the united States of America comprised of 50 several
            sovereign States is not equivalent to our federal government. To say so
            destroys the idea of a Federation of sovereign States as understood and
            originally intended by our American Founding Fathers.”

            So what’s the problem with providing textual support from the Constitution that this is relevant to its delineation of powers.

            “Our Constitution must be interpreted as a whole or the meaning of our
            Constitution is twisted and one part of our Constitution can be made to
            contradict another part or completely redefined to mean something
            contrary to the original intent of our American Founding Fathers.”

            That is true, and is in large part why your interpretation Article IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2 must be wrong. If your interpretation is correct, Article IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2 adds nothing new, it’s already completely covered by Article, I, Sec. 8 Cl. 16. That makes no sense.

            “No where in Article IV of our Constitution is authority granted to our federal government to compel a
            new State to give up land other than that expressly provided by
            Article, I, Sec. 8 Cl. 16 in order to join the American Union.”

            The power to decide how federal territory AND property are disposed of and regulated is contained in Article IV, Article I Sec. 8 Cl. 16 doesn’t deal with property of the federal government writ large, only federal property actually acquired from a state. The property at issue here wasn’t acquired from a state, it was acquired from the Mexican government, the condition on entry into the union isn’t giving up property, it’s recognizing an existing right to property.

            And you completely ignored the actual historical evidence I presented.

          • kebozarth

            “The power to decide how federal territory AND property are disposed of and regulated is contained in Article IV, Article I Sec. 8 Cl. 16 doesn’t deal with property of the federal government writ large, only federal property actually acquired from a state. The property at issue here wasn’t acquired from a state, it was acquired from the Mexican government, the condition on entry into the union isn’t giving up property, it’s recognizing an existing right to property.”

            As I read it, Article IV, Sec. 2, Cl. 3 applies to a Territory (not a sovereign State) or other Property belonging to the United States (see Article I, Sec. 8, Cl 16). This is separate and new from the jurisdiction / authority over all Places purchased from the State.

            No where do I read in Article IV of our Constitution is authority granted to our federal government to compel a new sovereign State to recognize in perpetuity within its sovereign borders an a priori federal right in a Territory acquired from the Republic of Mexico in order to join the American Union as a soverign State.

          • CornellUG1993

            It doesn’t say “a territory or property belonging to the United States”, it doesn’t say “the Territories or property of the United States” (which is what your interpretation would require), it says “the territory …” writ large. Your interpretation again ignores the text of the Constitution.

            And you again ignore the actual history I’ve presented, where just a few years after the signing, the federal government included a requirement to recognize federal rights to property contained within the borders of a prospective state as a condition to becoming a state.

          • kebozarth

            Now you’re just being argumentative. A Territory is simply federal land acquired one way or another.

            ” . . . included a requirement . . . “? Sounds unconstitutional to me.

            State sovereign jurisdiction is shown in white. Notice the increased federal presence in each State as the western expansion began. All eleven western States are nearly all federal territory.

            Somethings wrong with this picture.

            fedlands3.gif

          • kebozarth

            Now you’re just being argumentative.

            A Territory, as it re: the subject matter herein, is land acquisition from a foreign jurisdiction by our federal government on behalf of the united sovereign several States of America and its People. The last time I read the Federalist Papers, I was instructed that the Union of sovereign American States was a compound constitutional Republic.

            ” . . . a few years after the signing, the federal government included a requirement to recognize federal rights to property contained within the borders of a prospective state as a condition . . . . “?

            Sounds and looks like unconstitutional legislation to me.

            Check it out.

            Take a look at the following link and see what happened since then (a few years?) after the western expansion there was significant increase in the federal presence within the States.

            The majority of the thirteen western States are federal territory and as you can see they are colored-in. Looks to me like some administrative agency bureaucrat had lots of fun with his crayolas. Twelve western States are all but overshadowed by the federal presence and so for all practical purposes non-existent.

            Sovereignty, inter alia, has as much to do with land and the borders of that land as anything else.

            The rest of the 38 States are predominantly white color and very little federal presence.

            Click on the following link, to wit:

            http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/fedlands.html

            Then Scroll down and click on:
            “All Federal and Indian Lands”

            Don’t you think something’s wrong with this picture?

          • CornellUG1993

            I’m not just being argumentative, you’re making specious arguments, and I’m addressing them. I’m aware what you thinK “a Territory” means, I’m also aware that the constitution doesn’t refer to “a Territory”, and that it’s only reference to territory at all cannot mean:

            “land acquisition
            from a foreign jurisdiction by our federal government on behalf of the
            united sovereign several States of America and its People.’

            Unless you’re going to argue that you know the intent of the framers of the Constitution better than the people who actually wrote and signed it, because they thought it was perfectly legal for the *states* (not a foreign government) to transfer large swaths of territory to the federal government for general management. The eighth act of Congress after the formation of the new government was to accept the secession of all territory west of the Ohio river from the states, and create a governing scheme for the territory. (An act to provide for the government of the territory north-west of the river Ohio, 1 Stat. 50, August 7, 1789). In fact, it passed without roll call in both houses, meaning it was fairly uncontroversial (although hammering out amendments did take a few weeks) and it was signed in a day by Washington.

            “I was instructed that the Union of sovereign American States was a compound constitutional Republic.”

            I’m not sure why you think that makes your argument correct. Yes, our system of government involves dual sovereignty, the states maintain some aspects of a sovereign, the federal government maintains some, and they both maintain others in parallel. None of that precludes what I’ve stated.

          • kebozarth

            Our Constitution makes a distinction between what is a Territory such as the Northwest Territory and what is a State such as the State of Nevada.

            I understand that distinction as our Constitution was written in the common vernacular of the time so it could be easily read and understood by the People. A State may arise from within a Territory as Nevada arose out of the Nevada Territory which arose out of the Territory acquired by Treaty with the Republic of Mexico.

            But you say that the Northwest Territory was created by United States’ acceptance of the secession of all territory west of the Ohio river from the State and thereby was ceded by the original States to our federal government by way of the Ordinance of 1787. I’m not aware of any such offer by the States to our federal government.
            It seems you are a better reader than me. What part of the Northwest Ordinance says that the original States offered what became the Northwest Territory to the United States of America? I don’t read it anywhere in the Ordinance’s text.

            Of course an Article !V, Se. 2, Cl. 3 Territory is expressly applicable both to the Northwest Territory the Territory organized by the Northwest Ordinance (1787) and the Indiana Territory (1800), which you correctly observed as well as the Territory acquired by the United States by Treaty with the Republic of Mexico (a foreign jurisdiction) which we discussed earlier.

            . . . . of course I believe in the original intent of our American Founding Fathers and that “original intent” was expected to be and can be learned and understood by “the People” of America who are the final guardians of our Unalienable God-given Responsibilities and those Rights and Liberties derived therefrom and our compound Constitutional Republic. See the Militia referenced in our 2nd Amendment and Article I, Sec. 8, Cl. 15 – 16; Article II, Sec. 2, United States Constitution.

            Well that was an interesting side bar midrash.

            That being said lets continue with the relevant subject matter of the 600,000 ac. of federal territory within your State of Nevada.

            you say: ” . . . a few years after the signing, the federal government included a requirement to recognize federal rights to property contained within the borders of a prospective state as a condition to becoming a State”

            Sounds unconstitutional to me. Why?

            Check it out.

            Take a look at the following link and see what happened since then. After the western expansion there was significant increase in the federal territorial presence within the States.

            The majority of the thirteen western States are federal territory and as you can see they are colored-in. Looks to me like some administrative agency bureaucrat had lots of fun with his crayolas. Twelve western States are all but
            overshadowed by the federal territorial presence and so for all practical purposes non-existent.

            One wonders what the real borders of the western States
            are.

            Sovereignty, inter alia, has as much to do with land and the borders of that land as anything else.

            The rest of the 37 States are predominantly white color and very little federal territorial presence.

            Click on the following link, to wit:

            http://nationalatlas.gov/print

            Then Scroll down and click on:
            “All Federal and Indian Lands”

            Don’t you think something’s wrong with this picture?

            Now we know that the Southwest Territory was formed by land ceded to our federal government by North Carolina in payment of debt owed to the federal government.

            I wonder.

            What debts do you thing the 13 western States owe our federal government that our federal government could induce the twelve western States to enter into such an agreement with the federal government in order to join the American Union?

          • Marla Hughes
          • kebozarth

            Thanks for the confirmation.

          • Chad3434

            There were many lengthy debates in Congress on issues dealing with public lands. Senator Hendricks made one while speaking of the ordinance of 1787: “this union is in theory formed of sovereign, equal people and independent states. In the older members of this Confederation, the federal government sets up no claim to the waste and unappropriated lands, has no land office, derives no revenue from the sale of land. The ordinance contemplated the public lands as belonging to new states, after their admission in the union… As a further inducement to the new states to join the Confederation the ordinance stipulated that they should be admitted into the union… on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever, and the Constitution in substance of the same policy, provides that all engagements entered into before the adoption of the Constitution shall be as valid against the United States, under the Constitution as under the Confederation so that the Articles of Confederation, the Acts of Cessions, the ordinance of 1787 and the Constitution itself, form a perfect and harmonious chain of policy – the grand object of which was the union and equality of the states. Then Mr. President, if at all correct in this view, it may well be asked by what means have the new states been. deprived of their equality of the right of soil… The public lands should be ceded to the states in which they lie because their present condition is not warranted by the letter of the Constitution of this government… Its powers are carefully enumerated and specified. I deny, sir, the limits of the states, except for the purpose designated by the Constitution such as forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings, and to enable Congress to hold lands even for these purposes, the consent of the legislature of the states is declared to be necessary by the expressed language of the Constitution…” (Id 154, 155).
            As one can see, waste or unappropriated lands, later public domain, and still later, public lands were always a concern and discussed, but their ownership and control were retained by the states through the 10th amendment to the Constitution.

          • Chad3434

            TERRITORY TERRITORY TERRITORY. STATE STATE STATE.
            See the difference. Two separate words.

          • Chad3434

            No one says it belongs to the Bundy family. It belongs to the state of Nevada. That’s how it works.

          • Chad3434

            So.

      • Chad3434

        Makes no difference who they acquired it from. Once it become a state then the land belongs to the state. Once they granted statehood the transfer of title was automatic according to the 10th amendment to the Constitution. For the government to say it has the right to retain the title is pure hogwash.

  • SEAWOLF607

    If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
    ― Samuel Adams

  • Stealth

    Well Jan…. I do not agree with you here…. YOU my dear, are the one who is in error. It IS all of these ( to you ) ‘minor’ battles that once lost…constitute setting a HUGE PRECEDENT.. in that a LOT of ‘small’ battles lost….causes people to start to believe that whatever the ( battle ) YOU plan to choose in the future… is FUTILE!! How about if it was YOUR freeking ranch and cattle????

    • CornellUG1993

      It’s the federal government’s land, they’ve owned it continuously since 1848.

      • Native Born American

        The federal government owns nothing. It’s owned by We the People.

        • CornellUG1993

          If the federal government owns nothing, how can there be territory property belonging to the United States?

          • Chad3434

            There are no territory’s. The last time I checked we only have states. Oh by the way the states own the land.

  • Stormhaven

    In this day and age, it is important not to be used as a pawn in the war between the feds and We the People! To avoid this ruse, one must keep yourself informed and proceed with caution to avoid being fooled by “pretenders” hoping to agitate, divide and conquer. Keep your ears open and your senses will tell you who are the “great pretenders” and who are TEA Partiers. The left likes nothing better than to divide and conquer and it never pays to fall in line behind imposters. Proceed with caution!

  • Janet

    Bundy had grazing rights and paid then in 93 when
    the government took them he did take it to court and won.
    we in Nevada stand with our rights. and the government
    is bullying use in many ways and our Senator Reid will not
    help because their no profit for him
    there will be more patriots showing up this weekend.

    • CornellUG1993

      He did not pay in ’93, he admitted that in court filings. No court has found in his favor anywhere, his latest case is docket 2:12-cv-00804-LDG-GWF you can find it on PACER with all of the documents or you can view the final order here: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2012cv00804/87613/35

      As a Nevadan, please don’t associate me or the populous writ large with this nut. Even Sandoval explicitly disclaimed Bundy’s crack-brained legal theories when he was AG.

      • Chad3434

        Oh so the courts can not flaw. I got you. Especially when it is a Federal court. Common sense will tell you which way the Federal courts will lean.
        Our founders had nothing good to say about the Federal courts.

  • CQQL33

    You mean Dingy Harry did nothing to assist this rancher ? That is difficult to believe considering all the things Dingy stands for……………lol.

  • http://www.civilrightstaskforce.info Gary De Capua

    Nevada Constitution: We need to Amend this part: This needs to be amended: the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the (State of Nevada) RE MOVE THIS [Federal Government]; and [no] power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United
    States.

    ORDINANCE

    Slavery
    prohibited; freedom of religious worship; disclaimer of public lands.
    [Effective until the date Congress consents to amendment or a legal
    determination is made that such consent is not necessary.]  In obedience to the requirements of an act of the Congress
    of the United States, approved March twenty-first, A.D. eighteen hundred and
    sixty-four, to enable the people of Nevada to form a constitution and state
    government, this convention, elected and convened in obedience to said enabling
    act, do ordain as follows, and this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the
    consent of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada:

    First. That there shall be in
    this state neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the
    punishment for crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

    Second. That perfect
    toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said
    state shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her
    mode of religious worship.

    Third. That the people
    inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all
    right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory,
    and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the
    United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States,
    residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land
    belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said
    state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be
    purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of
    the United States.

    Section. 1.  Inalienable
    rights.  All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain
    inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and
    liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and
    obtaining safety and happiness[.]

    Sec: 2.  Purpose of
    government; paramount allegiance to United States.  All political power
    is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection,
    security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform
    the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance
    of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its
    Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme
    Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any
    other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or
    perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority
    of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States
    confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its
    existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people
    thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the
    Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the
    Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

    This needs to be amended: the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is
    due to the (State of Nevada) RE MOVE THIS [Federal Government]; and [no] power
    exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to
    dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,]
    subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United
    States.

    Now are you ready to start the LEGAL battle?

  • kebozarth

    I am re-posting this comment received within the hour from another web-site from someone purporting to be Sheriff Cameron M. Noel. of Beaver County, Beaver, Utah 84713
    http://www.infowars.com/federal-snipers-train-guns-on-family-for-filming-cattle/

    “Dear Sheriff,

    As a 22 year law enforcement officer and current
    sheriff, I write to you today with disappointment in your failure to be
    involved in the BLM cattle round up within your county. I was so happy
    with your decision last year and you using your authority to put a stop
    to this unlawful activity. This year you have chosen to give in and let
    these federal bullies walk all over you and your citizens. How could you
    ever allow this agency to close down a county road? These BLM agents
    have NO law enforcement authority in your county. I just read that the
    arrest of Bundys son took place by 11 BLM agents on a state highway. How
    can you not do anything about this? You swore an oath to protect and
    defend and I’m asking you to do that. How much more are the citizens of
    Clark County going to have to take from these federal clowns! They shoot
    an unarmed man last month, conduct a cattle seizure to the tune of over
    $2 million dollars of tax payer money, close down a county road and are
    making unlawful arrests with no jurisdictional authority! It’s time to
    take a stand and shut these yahoos down.

    Cameron M. Noel
    Sheriff Cameron M. Noel
    Beaver County Sheriff
    Po Box 391
    Beaver, Utah 84713
    Sent from my iPad”

    • Chad3434

      Good sheriff here. In my case I did not need a sheriff. I was told by a BLM agent to remove my truck from the side of a county road. I told him to stick it. He got into his nice tax paid truck and drove away. If you let them push you they will.
      I will go to jail before I will let them push me one inch. I got more behind me than I have in front of me so I really do give a rats rear end.

      • kebozarth

        Rah . . Rah . . Rah . . good for you. I’ve been there and back again. Your disrespect for the office of the Sheriff is noted.

  • Slim

    war is never the first answer. And all out gun battle will just lead to more more violence and the deaths of countless people for no apparent reason. we as Patriots must stand together and not divide.yes this man was wronged by the injustice of are society of idiots.but to take up arms now would be suicide. If you do not believe me go ahead raise your weapons fight against impossible odds unless we work together we will fall apart.

    • Chad3434

      If they cross that line I could care less about the odds. Some where you have to take a stand.

  • Bill1966

    This seems like the type of event that bam bam has been dreaming would happen. The cattle grazing on the land can actually have a beneficial effect, as the droppings help to fertalize the land and the cattle themselves help by mushing it up into the ground. While I would agree that protecting habitat is important, this land is also being used in other ways such as mining. They fail to mention all the damage THAT is having to the environment, but that is how libtards think, one sided. As for having to pay a FEE to use public lands, I personally feel this to be yet another example of over taxation. On a side note, these same government agencies have been selling off national forest at an alarming rate so that people can build homes in a woodsy setting. If you do not believe this is happening, look at the area around Murphy North Carolina. Some developer is getting very rich selling off plots, which have insane restrictions on the kind of home you can build.

  • kebozarth

    A Federal Territory, as it re: the 600,000 acres herein in pursuance of the Treaty with the Republic of Mexico, is land acquisition by our federal government from a foreign jurisdiction on behalf of our Nation and its People. The last time I read the Federalist Papers, I was instructed that the Union of sovereign American States was a compound constitutional Republic. The government our Constitution created is both federal and national.

    I am told that: A few years after the ratification of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the federal government included a requirement to recognize federal rights to property contained within the borders of a prospective state as a condition to join the Union.

    Sounds and looks like unconstitutional legislation to me.

    Check it out.

    Take a look at the following link and see what happened since then (a few years after the ratification). After the western expansion there was significant increase in the federal presence within the States.

    The majority of the thirteen western States are federal territory and as you can see they are colored-in. Looks to me like some administrative agency bureaucrat had lots of fun with his crayolas. Twelve western States are all but overshadowed by the federal presence and so for all practical purposes the States are non-existent. Federal lands are Article IV, Sec. 2, Cl 3 Territory or in other words United States soil not unlike the District of Columbia and our Embassy Compound in Benghazi. Federal Territory is United States’ soil within the State of Nevada and is therefore of a jurisdiction foreign to the State of Nevada.

    State Sovereignty, inter alia, has as much to do with the land within the borders of that State as anything else. One wonders what the boundaries of the western States really look like after you exclude the federal Territory within each State.

    The rest of the 38 States of our American Union are predominantly white in color and very little federal presence.

    Please go to the following link, to wit:
    http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/fedlands.html

    Then scroll down and click on:
    “All Federal and Indian Lands”

    Don’t you think something’s wrong with this picture?

  • kebozarth

    I am re-posting this comment from anther web-site from someone that purports to be passing on the testimony of a member of the Bundy family. I have not confirmed this but it is consistent with information I gathered from what I considered a credible source. Please read the following in this light.

    FROM: GOLOC

    a day ago

    This is a re-post from earlier so you all know the truth
    Just read this,
    NOW FOR THE OTHER SIDE’S VERSION………………………….
    Cheyenne Harvey Words from Shiree Bundy Cox…..
    I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight.
    Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much
    to it, but here it s in a nut shell. My great grandpa bought the rights
    to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold
    them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These
    men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters,
    fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their
    own money, not with tax dollars. These rights to the land use is called
    preemptive rights. Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over
    grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to
    assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers
    paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to
    help with repaires and improvements of the ranches. My dad did pay his
    grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his
    fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these money’s
    against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the
    area out with they’re own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad
    out for a pittance he said no thanks and then fired them because they
    weren’t doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his
    grazing fees to the county, which they turned down. So my dad just went
    on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own
    equipment and his own money, not taxes. In essence the BLM was managing
    my dad out of business. Well when buying him out didn’t work, they used
    the endangered species card. You’ve already heard about the desert
    tortoise. Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the
    court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these
    years. Now their desperate. It’s come down to buying the brand inspector
    off and threatening the County Sheriff. Everything their doing at this
    point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United
    States of America. Now you may be saying,” how sad, but what does this
    have to do with me?” Well, I’ll tell you. They will get rid of Cliven
    Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they
    will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again. Next, it’s
    Utah’s turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.
    Then there’s the issue of
    the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn’t
    paid them, those cattle do belong to him. Regardless where they are they
    are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a
    hundred years, long before the BLM even existed. Now the Feds think
    they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal
    brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it. They think they
    can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then
    they plan to take them to the Richfield Auction and sell them. All with
    our tax money. They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction
    owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars. See
    how slick they are?
    Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks
    http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com

    • CornellUG1993

      Why has Bundy never provided evidence of his family purchase of ” the rights
      to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887″ in his several court cases? He’s never even argued that in a court case. This seems fake to me.

      • rivahmitch

        Why are you willing to accept the Gestapo’s word as gospel? If you haven’t observed that the government lies regularly, you’ve been in hibernation.

  • KellyKAFIR

    this really should go to court.

  • jq2intx

    Excellent points Jan, thank you for your intelligent work. If we want to defeat the federal government overreach we have to do so at our State level, by standing for the rights granted in the Constitution. We also should be pushing our States to pass a resolution in each state calling for a Constitutional Amending Convention for the purpose of returning the States to their proper place in the governing of our nation. Mark Levin has proposed a number of very good amendments, it is high time we got those at least discussed and acted upon.

  • duder

    I understand your point of view when writing this article however you are talking about submitting to the government that wishes to take all of your rights away. An inch here, and inch there. pretty soon there will be no more room to give. Why wait until you are backed into a corner to do something?
    With even mentioning that we have a choice about removing those in power is a gaff. People that are in power will do anything to maintain that power including fighting every one including you.

  • bubbabigdog

    Jan, I don’t believe violence in necessary here, lots of voices, lots of civility, and lots of bodies on the ground will do wonders for Cliven Bundy’s case. Now lets get to the meat of this, your statement is that he has been grazing his cattle for years here illegally. While that may be true you have to know the back story. Cliven’s family purchased a grazing right on this land in 1877, they grazed these lands effectively, efficiently and with grand stewardship for 60+ years. Along comes the Taylor Grazing Act and the BLM, they arbitrarily assigned him a number of cattle he was now allowed to graze on a right that he had purchased, then they began to harass him out of business. They converted a purchased “right” into an annual rent, at the drop of a pen! No compensation was made for converting these purchased rights into annual rent on the land (this is the real problem for every rancher on public land) After many years of this he felt compelled to quit paying his grazing fees to the BLM as his money was being used to make his life miserable not for range improvement as the BLM states these fees are for. He began paying his fees to the rightful owner – the Political Subdivision of the State of Nevada ie.. Clark County. Clark County accepted those fees for a few years and then started returning the checks. As with all land in the west that is now federally held, the land was to be disposed of by the Federal Gvt. and the remaining unclaimed land was to revert to the state. This is spelled out in the enabling acts of every state west of Colorado, the same promise made to the states east of colorado (the ones who actually go their land). So Cliven was right in his claim that the land actually belongs and should belong to the state of Nevada. Along comes the ESA and lists the Desert Tortoise(on really bad science BTW). They tell the ranchers they have to quit grazing the land. Clark County cuts a deal for a bunch of BLM land near Las Vegas for development as they were land locked, in exchange Clark County agrees to buy all the ranchers out and retire their permits. According to Cliven his neighbors all got a new pickup out of the deal, Cliven on the other hand wanted to do what his family has done for well over 100 years, raise called on the land that he had bought the grazing right to graze. He refused to sell out. Clark County is not supporting Cliven because they still have a debt to the BLM for the land exchange they made with the feds. So it’s not so cut and dried that Cliven is a criminal !

    In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

    I contend in this case, we are talking about unjust laws! and it’s time to stand up to an overbearing landlord. I don’t advocate the use of violence to get there.

    • CornellUG1993

      “Cliven’s family purchased a grazing right on this land in 1877″

      do you have any evidence of that? He has yet to produce any, or even claim that in any court filings.

  • Horatio Bullwink

    Jan…you have presented a good argument…BUT…the people that are being most directly effected today by the policies of this country are those who don’t know how to wage a battle against the police or government IN COUNCILS AND COURTROOMS. I recently became engaged with a group that protested on overpasses and even with a brother that teaches law, I had to go and define what I could or could not do to effect change…the local police were relentless in their harassment causing many to leave because they feared tickets, court costs and time off work which they could not afford. It was I, after learning how to play their game that finally felt confident enough to stand up to them and only then did they back down.

    and respectfully, I have never heard your name before…so rather than get on your high horse and tell these folks that want to support a cause that they believe in, right or wrong, that this is not the battler to be fought…this is all they know they can do!…and while you trivialize it here, THIS IS EVERYTHING TO THEM! THEY UNDERSTAND THIS LEVEL OF FRUSTRATION!

    and I support them in showing a government out of control that there are people that will come to the aid of their country men…right or wrong! against a government out of control!

    • SirDanMur

      Bundy is an “old man” his livelihood is over no matter what. They take his cattle, he has no business. He pays the fines, he has no business. They’ve backed the man into a corner. Notice it’s been going on since the Clinton Presidency, and neither Bush nor Clinton felt it necessary to confront the man with this force. It’s under the Tyranny of the Obama Presidency that the BLM feels they can pull this crap.

    • rivahmitch

      You left out that all-important adjective… IN “CORRUPT” COUNCILS AND COURTROOMS.

  • dawndawnb

    Have to agree with you 100%, Jan. Bundy brought this on himself.

  • Mario

    You know what? It’s just a damn turtle! Has the turtle helped our nation?, protected the constitution?, or is it a food supply for other animals? Maybe, just maybe, we should stop pandering to the lost liberals and PETA jackasses and tell the federal government to back off!!! This rancher is going about this the wrong way… And the Feinsteins need to be stopped! I suggest we all write our reps and remind them of the soap box and voting boxes, that’s where we change things! If and/or when the reps ignore those two boxes, then and only then with God’s backing do we use the ammo box. The government wants us first to go the “ammo box” root, then they can begin the slaughter and take what tyrants would. We must take the right posture and oppose them till they bend back to a “government for the people by the people”, instead of the current stance of “government for the government by the government” or “ruling class”…

    • CornellUG1993

      Bundy stopped paying in ’93, 5 years before the “turtle” issue ever came up.

  • Ruth May Cothron

    So right, this is not the battle we need to fight. If so, what about the other farmers that are paying the tax and the farmers that were “ran out”. They weren’t protected and i don’t think this one should be either.

  • Josh Perkins

    I
    believe that running in with guns blazing is not the best course of action, but
    I do believe we must do something. I believe we need to put pressure on our
    media and our representatives to resolve this. I do however disagree on the
    fact that this is a big issue. This case shows the Governments blatant misuse
    of power and their willingness to attack US their citizens.

  • Gina Bradford McKinney
  • Jeff

    He has tried to pay for his cows grazing but they won’t take his money. He wants to pay the state not the Feds. I think that’s the way it goes. I read this the other day….

    • terry1956

      The state of Nevada might be who he should pay the lease money to since Constitutionally the federal government does not, can not own the land.

  • Messenger

    If not now when!? Don’t down play this like it’s not worth the time! When they come for you and ours what then? If this is allowed to happen to one of us what makes you think they are going to stop there!? This man’s livelihood is the livelihood of every single AMERICAN CITIZEN!! SO I SAY IF NOT NOW WHEN?!! YOU CANNOT USE A CORRUPT AND BROKEN SYSTEM/GOVERNMENT TO FIX A CORRUPT AND BROKEN SYSTEM/GOVERNMENT WAKE UP THAT IS INSANITY AT IT’S CORE!!!!

    • CornellUG1993

      In 1993, he stopped paying for the rights to graze his 50ish cattle on federal lands that allowed for grazing and where he had paid for rights for years before. Now he has over 900 cattle, many on lands, like the Lake Mead NRA, that haven’t allowed grazing for half a century.

  • Jimmy Carter

    to contrar, a real patriot would stand behind the rancher and against this tyrannical government. who gives them the right to go in and confiscate everything this guy has worked for.

    • CornellUG1993

      Well, the fact that he’s stolen the use of land from them for some 2 decades probably gives them some rights.

      • Jimmy Carter

        he did not steal it from a homesteaders law that he had been there for a 140 years and now this tyrannical government now wants to take it away, its bullshit. no the feds do not have any rights

        • CornellUG1993

          Not a single one (nor any combination) of the homestead Acts would allow someone to accumulate 600,000 acres. Not even close.

          • terry1956

            Not so although the homestead act likely has nothing to do with this since Nevada became a state sooner, once homesteaders became owners they could sell their land.

      • terry1956

        he stole nothing from the federal government because legally it never was the federal government’s anyway and it still is not the federal governments.

  • Alta

    This article is shallow, it is always proper to take a stand on personal freedom and state’s rights.

  • Chris Lowe

    So because the federal government has unconstitutionally seized control of PUBLIC LAND that WE THE PEOPLE hold dominion over, and levied a tax for its use that this man refused to submit to, he is in the wrong and his life is worth less? Sorry Jan Morgan, but you disappoint me with your response. All of our lives are worth the least of us. You can’t pick and choose which rights you support, or which violations you overlook. Even the smallest violation of our creator given rights is a violation. You seem to be arguing FOR this man to pay “mafia protection money” in order to continue doing business as usual (in this case, allowing his cows to do what cows naturally do, and in the process, refresh and fertilize the land).

    I support Mr. Bundy’s defense of both his family, and his property, as well as his right to use and improve PUBLIC LAND.

    We should be fighting EVERY fight.

  • chuck

    Yes there are bigger issues that face us but when is its enough. How much more do we put up with before we stand up and fight. The more we let them do to us the Kore they will do. When we show them we are willing to fight for what’s right and our rights and property an our lives. Then they will know we are serious and either withdraw or start a war against us citizens on us soil

  • RowdyD

    Somewhat off topic but yet it still applies to what is happening all over the western United States.
    The BLM has been very subtly gearing up to close hundreds of thousands of acres in the west…They call it Public Access control when in reality once they get the lands closed down to foot traffic only then they move to have it designated a wilderness and that prohibits any kind of usage for even small time miners, ranchers, etc…The new BLM Officers now have long arm Jurisdiction, they can write you a ticket for no seat belt on some dirt road. They carry weapons and harass, they can search your vehicle without your permission…Their forces are growing as is the new Forest Service Officers…Think I am exaggerating??? It happened to me, all the above. I filed complaints made phone calls, sent emails, all I got was it is now the law, those Federal Officers have no limitations…Let me state, I never got snooty with the Officer. I did ask why he needed overhead lights and a siren to pull me over on a dirt road. He said it was for his protection. Then I asked why was I pulled over, he said, you are not wearing a seat belt…All I said was (I didn’t know BLM were traffic cops) I was very serious as that so called Officer had ruined a very good rare day off. I guess, Me being upset about getting pulled over on a rugged dirt road that one couldn’t go faster then 5 MPH set him off and he kept me and another guy there for 40 minutes,searched my vehicle, I had to give him a written chronological statement of what we had done that day while on BLM property…This was just 2 years ago, I still watch my side mirror whenever I see one of them, literally in fear of what they might do…I always thought these public lands belonged to The people…Be careful out there people, these guys act like they are God and the Government backs them 100 percent!!! I will also believe this guy was doing his best to entice me or my buddy to try something stupid as his insults and arrogance were unreal…

    • terry1956

      Legally within the states the federal government can only have land for military bases and customs houses for inspecting imports/ exports and immigrants.
      Even with that the federal government needs the permission of the state legislator to acquire the land.
      I don’t know the legal status of ownership of the rancher in question but the US Constitution is clear the land does not belong to the federal government .

      • RowdyD

        Agreed. But it is happening and has been moving along rapidly in the say last 5 years…They have taken all our rights to the land away and they fully control it now…
        The BLM Officers are suppose to patrol the land, mainly for the well being of it’s users and owners (The People.) They also keep track of grazing rights, some water usage and keep an eye on hunters…Now it is to the point to where they are closing huge parcels and prohibiting usage, even doing away with primitive camp sites where one is not even allowed to build their own fire pit…Then they have the 10 year wilderness study which is nothing more then a clever way to take control of our lands…The lands I have lived my entire life enjoying, paying my taxes, which are outrageous in my county as it is densely populated…Yet now we can’t even go out and cut firewood, even though there is no shortage of healthy trees…Matter of fact the undergrowth is getting out of hand so now they are conducting controlled burns…
        The bullying thug tactics have upset many locals. Our Sheriff used to keep them in check but he retired 2 years ago and the new one is intimidated by them…

  • kebozarth

    http://patriotupdate.com/2014/04/rancher-armed-feds-surrounding-farm/

    Where is Clark County Sheriff Douglas C. Gillespie?

  • numenorean

    I am sure that this author would have tried to talk the founders out of the revolution too.

  • Art L Gumm

    I disagree with you on this matter, his family has owned this land since the 1880′s. But, you are correct with regard to choosing our battles. The time will come when gun play will happen, and all those who talk the loudest will be the ones running and crying the loudest. In my opinion, the government has over stepped their authority. If I were in this farmers position, I would fight!

  • freedomordie

    If you don’t stand for what you call small battles what makes you so sure you will stand for the big ones that you might have to sacrifice your freedom or life in order to defend. I won’t judge the people who decide to fight for bundys cause and what he supports. It takes just as much for those people to do that than you to sit back and criticize. It’s time we stand no matter how big the fight.

  • Ron

    If I had the money to go I would be there ASAP, time to take the Feds to the trenches and run them the hell out of town on a shingle.

  • Randy Wright

    agenda 21

  • rocquedog

    we had the same thing happen here in SE AZ. with the Gomez family. They fought it in the courts for about 7 yrs and won. Not sure if the same outcome can be expected now with the Usurper and his thugs running things but it is the smart play.

  • kenny price

    sooo john…how many wacos and ruby ridge and gordon call do you need before we stand?? you are a coward!!

  • GUest

    Where is the Nevada governor in all this?
    Doesn’t he have anything to say about what’s going on in his state?
    Or is he just rolling over for the Feds?

  • YelowJezamin

    You are completely misinformed. The family has been grazing their cattle on these lands long before the BLM was formed and took possession of the ‘public land’. The family paid the fees since then. It was the BLM who decided to ‘protect the endangered desert tortoise’ (which, BTW, can be found in other prairie states) and who refused Bundy’s payments in 1993, telling him he no longer had the right to graze his cattle there. The BLM has systematically done this to other ranchers in the area, virtually closing down their ranches by reducing their productivity – and then taking possession of them. Bundy took them to court – and the decision is still forthcoming. Not to mention that Nevada is a “fence-out state” – which means that livestock are allowed to roam freely, and if you don’t want them on your property, you must fence them out – and the BLM has demanded that Bundy and the other ranchers use their own money and resources to build and maintain BLM fences.

    As for your straw man argument about being Cherokee, rest assured that the Indians out West DO graze their animals on ‘public land’, for exactly the reasons you stated – but they are stewards of the land, just as Bundy is. If you had any knowledge of cattle grazing or biology, you would know that cattle grazing HELPS desert land, by reducing the chance of wildfires, and also helps cause the reclamation of desert by effective use of ingested plant materials by rapidly releasing their carbon instead the slower process of live-to-dead-to-rotted plants. You would also know that 700,000 acres of BLM-claimed land won’t be overgrazed by 800 cattle.

    That is all aside from the unconstitutional violation of this family’s rights by the BLM.

    You are apparently either self-determinedly ignorant or another government apologist.

  • SierraCheryl

    Thankfully, Ms. Morgan does not speak for all of us. No wonder our country is in such a mess with “patriots” such as she. Which battle would you choose, madam? When they’re rounding us up, I suppose.

  • vonnie

    I stand with the Indians. but the “chest pounding American” thing is a bit much. my Grandma, both Choctaw, Cherokee and irish told me that Indians are Americans THE FIRST AMERICANS. So I do not hold myself separate from one or the other. He does have the right to Use land for cattle etc. he does not have the right to move onto the land.

  • http://www.buzzcreek.com/ me3tv

    I think they can come to a reasonable agreement to allow something like life Estate rights with most blm land use fees. On his death the Ranch would dissolve from the blm property. The feds in this showdown have already spent a hundred times what he would have paid for this remote and sparse grazing fee Over 20 years. And Blm already drove out 70 other rancher families over the years. .

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

    How tragic, and It’s all for not, because these people are appealing to the very document that made this possible.

    Thanks to Amendment 5 of the federal Constitution and its establishment of eminent domain, leading to the appropriation (theft) of private land turned into public land, and the Constitutional Republic’s insidious property taxes, every square inch of land in America is owned by the government of the Constitutional Republic and therefore these
    protesters don’t have standing in this situation. Appealing to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights in this and similar situations is the epitome or irony!

    For more, see online Chapter 14 “Amendment 5: Constitutional vs. Biblical Judicial Protection” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt14.html.

  • Clint

    Discretion has always been, and continues to be the better part of valor. Jan is absolutely right in this case. I for one have no desire to thoughtlessly run into a situation created by someone who has very few, if any, legal grounds for his actions. It would be really foolish for anyone to react to a statement by someone implying that one is not a patriot if one does not grab a weapon and run to this or any other battle, without first assessing the merits of such action. I believe we need patriots much like our founding fathers, rather than a bunch of hotheads who may very well get people killed needlessly, and accomplish nothing for the sacrifice.

  • Loren Schofield

    The family used the land a long time before NLM even existed. They came to an agreement saying the teachers would pay a fee to use the land, but the BLM Was supposed to use that fee for maintenance and upkeep of the land roads, fence etc. The BLM stopped using the money for what it was intended and was actually using that money to get rid of the farmers. Cliven then chose, instead of paying the BLM who was breaking the contract, to use the money for what it was intended and continued the upkeep on his own.

    It’s not just some guy who didn’t want to pay, its much more than that.

  • CAS04

    You missed one point. He stopped paying his fees because BLM was already taking him to court over any little thing they could. He stated that he was paying his fees while they were trying to shut him down. He decided to quit paying because he felt he was just funding their harassment of him and his family. BTW, check out the fracking oil leases the BML sold recently… I think we now know why the BML showed up with garbage trucks and back hoes instead of cattle trucks. Just saying.

  • rivahmitch

    “Screaming at the top of your lungs” is never productive. If you take your guns, settle back and use them. It’s obviously coming soon and we’ll all be dead or slaves anyway. Might as well take a few with us before we go. If the Republic is to become a fascist or communist global empire, let it go out with a bang rather than some lawyer’s snivelling whimper or, as Spielberg predicted> “toth underous applause”. Semper Fi!

  • CaptainUSA
  • Alexsandyr Troutnoodler

    There are four boxes to liberty, as you all know very well. You might know the boxes, but I wonder how many arm-chair warriors actually *understand* what they mean.

    The Soapbox: This means getting off the computer, except to print out pamphlets and informational materials, and speaking in public. It means being seen, answering questions, and asking them, too. It means requesting time off from work, and burning up your preciously scarce vacation time to attend rallies, be a speaker, and stand out in the crowd of sheep.

    The Ballot Box: This doesn’t just mean going out on Election Day and voting. It’s a lot more than that. The Ballot Box ties into The Soap Box. When you learn that your local election place is going to be using e-voting machines made by ES&S and Diebold, you need to start making phone calls, pressing for boycotts and filing lawsuits. It means filing FOIA requests of the local election boards to obtain the Chain-of-Custody forms for the machines, the data cards, and the access keys. It means requesting time off from work, and burning up your preciously scarce vacation time to do these things.

    The Jury Box: It’s not just jury duty, which far too many people try to dodge. It’s a combination of the FIRST TWO boxes, whereby the failure of the first two requires the use of the third. If you’ve had to get to the Jury Box, then you have failed in your duty to the first two. It means you slacked off and allowed a politician, a banker, a stock broker, or some other malevolent snake-in-the-grass to get too powerful, expand too far, and take too much. Now you don’t just have to request time off, NOW you have to suffer the loss of pay. NOW you have to experience real financial pain, as you sit in courtroom after courtroom, speaking with expensive lawyers, fighting deadlines and living with endless frustration.

    The Ammo Box.

    You are a failure. You have completely and totally failed as an American citizen. There is no, “Well, I tried?!”, because you didn’t try hard enough. You are a failure. You are done. The Republic is dead, and it cannot be revived.

    If you resort to the Ammo Box, you have killed off the Republic with YOUR OWN HANDS by measure of YOUR INACTION when the Soap, Ballot and Jury boxes would have sufficed.

    NOW you must endure the chaos. NOW you must endure the Jesus Freaks who want to bring the Bible back as the law of the land, and they’ve got enough guns to shoot anyone who thinks the Constitution should be the law again. NOW you must endure the anarchists, preppers and every other swinging deek out there who’s trying to go it alone.

    Now you have nothing but rubble from which to rebuild.

    Hopefully, the sting of failure and the disgrace of your inaction will give you the energy you need to put it all back together again from scratch, because if you couldn’t hack using the Soap, Ballot and Jury boxes, then you sure as Hell don’t have the steel needed to rebuild the nation.

    And to answer the arm-chair warriors: Tu quoque.

    • Kb3etz

      The constitution IS the law of the land, our government has disregarded its own laws, making lawlessness like the BLM possible, so I’m not sure what republic can survive without the law. You can blame preppers all you like, just don’t come to me for food.

    • terry1956

      jurybox.org

  • reggiec

    It often takes a single person to stand up for their rights to draw attention to abuse by federal agencies. This is such a case! So far the protesters have drawn attention to long term abuses by BLM, Utah and 22 counties are suing BLM, BLM and Forest Service regulations have caused private property owners and states massive problems that need to be recognized.

    Without protests like this, many abuses are not addressed or even noticed.

    • Alexsandyr Troutnoodler

      Excellent reply! Yes, definitely protest. Take part in chastising the BLM for their over-the-top tactics and ruthless over-reach. But do so peacefully, or all is lost.

  • Nunnyah Biz

    You are grossly misinformed or too lazy to do any real research! The Bundy Family has been on their land since 1810. They have a contract from the government for perpetual grazing rights AND a Grandfather Clause exempting them from any future gov’t. laws and fees!
    The Bundy Family has broken no laws that are in strict compliance with the Constitution!!! He has posted it all on the internet! He did his part and fulfilled his obligations as an American by trying to settle this matter in court for the last 20+ years, but was betrayed by the dishonest traitors infesting our “just-us” system!!! He has every RIGHT to exercise His God Given, Unalienable, Constitutional RIGHTS to protect his Home, Family and Property from any and all Intruders, both foreign and/or domestic!!! And He has every RIGHT to ask for the support of His Fellow Americans, which I have promised to give him! I’m on my way there right now!
    By the way, those posing as blm agents at the bundy ranch are really foreign mercenaries brought in by the usurper thru the UN. In all of the videos they have no badges, nor identifying patches, two were speaking a foreign language! The traitors infesting Our gov’t. know that Our Military will not fire on their own People!
    As far as the indians go, how about the fact that they stole land in Milwaukee and are going to build a casino without permission form the State of WI. So don’t spew your rhetoric about the indians!
    As for you and your vile hatred for Patriots and America, I strongly suggest that you get out of my Country while you still can! When the war gets going your liberal/fascist ilk will not be shown any mercy!!!

    • Marla Hughes

      The Bundy family moved into Nevada 23 years after it became a state. When Nevada became a state it agreed to have the federal government manage all of it’s public lands. Mr. Bundy and his family paid a yearly lease on the property to whatever federal government agency was responsible for it at the time they paid. Mr. Bundy himself paid the BLM yearly until 1993. You cannot ‘stop’ doing something unless you’ve been doing it previously.

      • terry1956

        Nevada could not legally agree for the federal government to manage the land once it became a state because the US Constitution does not authorize the federal to do so thus any agreement the new state made not specifically to the enumerated federal buildings the federal government may build and only with proper state legislator permission was null and void from the start and still is.

    • terry1956

      Well the federal government had no right to the land anyway once NV became a state in what 1864? Except for use as forts and other needful buildings only if they got permission properly from the state legislator to build the needful buildings.

  • Nunnyah Biz

    Let’s not forget that this is NOT about grazing rights, nor an endangered tortoise!
    It’s about the oil fracking leases that the blm illegally sold to foreign invaders/investors! They now own the land and have ordered the usurper to boot Bundy off of “their land”! And the usurper always obeys his controllers!

    That’s the Heart of this matter…………………………money and control!!!

  • Deb Weller

    The only problem with “pick your battles” and doing something in your home state is that many people will wait until that “battle” comes to their backyard and then they’ll be wondering where everyone is to help! Sometimes, you have to take the battle to them.

  • kebozarth
  • kebozarth

    Press release:

    Coalition of Western State Legislators, Sheriffs, and
    Veterans Stand Vigil in Support of Embattled Nevada Rancher, Cliven
    Bundy ‘To Prevent Another Ruby Ridge or Waco”

    A Delegation of state legislators, lead by Washington
    State Representative Matt Shea, along with a delegation of current
    serving Sheriffs, lead by Sheriff Richard Mack of the Constitutional
    Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, and military and police members
    of Oath Keepers, are converging on the site of a stand-off between
    federal law enforcement and Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy, to prevent
    bloodshed and to stand in defense of hardworking rural Americans who are
    under assault by a runaway federal government.

    LAS VEGAS, NV, April 10, 2014

    The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association
    (CSPOA.org), led by retired Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, and the Oath
    Keepers organization (oathkeepers.org)
    are assisting Washington State Representative Matt Shea in organizing a
    delegation of current serving Western state legislators and Sheriffs to
    travel to the site of a tense stand-off between Bunkerville, Nevada
    rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The
    delegation is traveling to Nevada to support a coalition of current
    serving Nevada legislators being organized by Nevada State Assemblywoman
    Michele Fiore, of Las Vegas, to stand vigil at the Bundy ranch to
    prevent Federal Government provocation of violence resulting in another
    Ruby Ridge or Waco type incident. They also hope that their example of
    oath-sworn public servants defending the rights of the people will
    prompt Clark County, Nevada Sheriff Douglas Gillespie and Nevada
    Governor Brian Sandoval to honor their oaths of office by taking real
    action to defend the rights of the Bundy family, the rights of all
    Nevadans, and the sovereignty of the State of Nevada.

    Yesterday, April 9, 2014, Nevada State Assemblywoman Michele Fiore
    served the first watch in this vigil shortly after Cliven Bundy’s son,
    Ammon Bundy, was tazered by BLM “Rangers” during a heated
    confrontation. The video of that confrontation can be seen here:

    The courage and resolve displayed by Ammon Bundy and his relatives is
    inspiring, and may well go down in history as a watershed moment – a
    turning of the tide. But the above video also amply demonstrates the
    heavy-handed behavior of the BLM that risks escalating an already
    volatile situation into open bloodshed, that, once begun, may spiral out
    of anyone’s control.

    It is necessary that current serving public servants step
    in-between the protesters and the BLM, to protect the rights of the
    people and to prevent violence against them by the militarized federal
    law enforcement that are massing near the ranch to continue the forced
    confiscation (theft) of Bundy’s cattle, while they also restrict all
    access to huge tracts of public land, and attempt to restrict the free
    speech of protesters with their absurd “First Amendment Area” (which the
    protesters are ignoring, to their honor).

    The Oath Keepers organization, comprised of 40,000 current serving
    and former military, police, and first responders, is also calling on
    its members and all other patriotic Americans to join the vigil at the
    Bundy ranch under the leadership of the current serving legislators and
    sheriffs. The goal is to have at least one current serving state
    legislator and at least one sheriff on the ground at all times until
    this is over. And they will be backed by a large number of military and
    police veterans, as well as dedicated patriotic Americans from all
    walks of life, to interpose and defend the rights of the protesters and
    to keep an eye on the actions of the BLM and any other federal law
    enforcement present, to prevent a recurrence of the horrid abuses seen
    at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and to hopefully pressure the Clark County
    Sheriff and the Nevada Governor to step up and do their constitutional
    duty.

    Regardless, please tell everyone you know to be praying for a
    peaceful resolution to this situation and for the safety of the brave
    patriots headed there and on the ground there right now.

    As Assemblywoman Fiore said yesterday during the launch of her vigil, “we are here because the Governor is not.”
    And she will remain there until Governor Sandoval steps up to do his
    job, by defending the Constitution of the United States and the
    Constitution of the State of Nevada, as he swore to do when he took
    office. And Assemblywoman Fiore will not stand alone. Other brave
    public servants will honor their oaths by standing with her, and there
    are thousands of Americans now on their way to stand
    shoulder-to-shoulder with them. Governor Sandoval did at least,
    finally, state the following:

    “Most disturbing to me is the BLM’s establishment of a ‘First
    Amendment Area’ that tramples upon Nevadans’ fundamental rights under
    the U.S. Constitution. To that end, I have advised the BLM that such
    conduct is offensive to me and countless others and that the ‘First
    Amendment Area’ should be dismantled immediately. No cow justifies the
    atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of
    constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans. The BLM needs to
    reconsider its approach to this matter and act accordingly.”

    But the Governor needs to take the next step and go there in person,
    as is his duty, and order the Nevada Highway Patrol to actively
    interpose and stand between the people and an out of control BLM, to
    make sure the BLM actually reconsiders its approach to this
    matter and acts accordingly. And he needs to speak out directly on the
    issue of federal subversion of what were supposed to be state lands, and
    the intentional destruction of rural America. Silence in the face of
    tyranny implies consent. Governor Sandoval needs to be sure he is not
    silent.

    This is not about cattle. This is about power, and the trampling of
    rights. It’s about a systemic power grab and abuse of power by the
    federal government as it runs roughshod over the rights of honest,
    hard-working rural Americans and over the rights of all the Western
    states. This is not an isolated incident. It is but the latest in a
    long train of abuses aimed at subjecting rural Americans to absolute
    despotism while destroying the property rights, economy, and
    independence of the rural West, in particular, and eventually wiping out
    all of rural America. This is an attack on all of the West, which is
    why patriotic legislators and lawmen from all over the West are
    answering the call to defend it.

    And it is not just ranching that is under attack. It is also mining,
    farming, logging, fishing, oil and gas, and any other industry that
    uses natural resources or the land. This is a full spectrum, frontal
    assault on the rural West. Ultimately, it is about bankrupting and
    impoverishing independent rural Americans to bring on a planned
    depopulation of the West.

    This is truly a range war, and it is being waged by all three
    branches of the federal government, including complicit federal judges
    who “make it legal” through their willful rulings that strip away any
    meaningful redress or shelter for ranchers and farmers who have worked
    the land for generations only to now be told that they can no longer do
    so because of one endangered species or another. Entire regions of the
    West are being shut down and impoverished using this tactic.

    In this case, the Bundy family has run cattle on that same range
    since 1877 and they used to have fifty-two neighboring ranchers who did
    the same. Now, using the Desert Tortoise as the weapon of choice, the
    federal government has run all the other ranchers in Clark County,
    Nevada out of business, and Cliven Bundy truly is the last man
    standing. And it is also about all Nevadans being “prohibited” from
    using their own “Public Land” and the fact that the Feds were imposing
    their will over the state and it’s people at gun-point.

    Unless We the People begin to take a meaningful stand now, in full
    support of our patriotic state public servants who are willing to lead
    us, the domestic enemies of the Constitution will not stop until the
    West is a land of ghost towns, devoid of people, and we are all crammed
    into city slums, totally dependent and weak, with no protection of our
    rights, like third-world urbanized peons under the arbitrary and
    capricious control of corrupt dictators. Remember the immortal words of
    Frederick Douglass:

    Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it
    never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you
    have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be
    imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with
    either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are
    prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

    Under the Founders design, the states were to control their own land,
    unless, and until, the federal government purchased a particular piece
    of land, with the consent of the state legislature, for a fort,
    magazine, arsenal, dock-yard, etc.

    As Article One, Section 8, Clause 17 states, Congress has the power:

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over
    such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
    particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
    the Government of the United States, and to exercise like
    Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of
    the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
    Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

    When did the Federal government purchase the millions of acres in
    Nevada it claims to own? When did the legislature of Nevada ever
    consent to it? Where are the forts, magazine, arsenals, dock-yards,
    and other needful buildings on that land? Where in the Constitution
    does it say the federal government can keep 80% of a state when it is
    admitted into the Union? Nowhere. And yet the federal government
    totally ignores the limited powers of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17,
    doctrine of equal footing, whereby new states admitted to the Union were
    to enter it on an equal footing with the original states. Why doesn’t
    Virginia have 80% of its land claimed by the federal government? Why
    doesn’t Ohio? It is only in the West that this absurdity exists (and it
    is not just in Nevada. Similar abuses are seen in the rest of the
    West).

    And now, the federal government is not even content with that. It wants to control all of the land, and stop all
    beneficial use, by having complicit federal judges use the catch-all
    “commerce clause” to turn the Constitution on its head, inventing a
    general police power of Congress to regulate anything and everything,
    which is the basis for the entire modern regulatory leviathan that is
    now strangling and stomping rural America into the dust in the name of
    the Desert Tortoise, the Spotted Owl, the Delta Smelt (used to deny
    water to California farmers) and even prairie dogs (with Utah farmers
    who have farmed for generations told by the EPA that they could no
    longer till their land because it is now “prairie dog habitat”).

    We must stand now, or see our children impoverished and enslaved in their own country.

    As Thomas Paine said: “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”
    That is a timeless truth that we must accept and embrace, lest we be
    cursed by future generations as cowards who sold them into slavery for
    the sake of our own fleeting comfort. As Paine also said, “those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.”

    It is vital that the Western States stand up now for the
    rights of their people and in defense of their state sovereignty. As
    Thomas Jefferson and James Madison taught us in 1798, in the Kentucky
    and Virginia Resolutions, when the federal government violates the
    Constitution by claiming powers never granted, it is the duty of the
    states – all three branches of the state, and at every level, from the
    Governor down to the local dog catcher – to nullify and interpose to
    protect the rights of the people and to defend the dual-sovereignty
    design of this Republic.

    In contrast to Sheriff Gillespie, who is truly AWOL in his failure to
    defend the people of his county, there have been Nevada Sheriffs who
    take their oaths seriously, such as the legendary Sheriff Jones of
    Eureka County, Nevada and Nye County Sheriff Tony De Meo, who
    successfully defended rancher Wayne Hage against BLM abuse.

    We wouldn’t even be in this confrontation at the Bundy Ranch if
    Gillespie took his oath seriously, but even without him, it is time to
    get it done, and with Nevada State Assemblywoman Fiore and her brave
    coalition of Nevada legislators leading the way, and joined by a growing
    coalition of staunch constitutionalist public servants from many
    states, we will defend the West.

    We therefore call on all liberty-loving Americans who can possibly
    make it to Bunkerville, Nevada to join us in this vigil, NOW, in direct
    support of oath-keeping Western lawmakers and lawmen as they stand guard
    over the rights of the people and begin to push back against federal
    abuse. Come take a meaningful stand, in a real fight where it counts
    the most – in our states. This is far, far more important than
    any trip to Washington D.C. to wave signs and yell at a deaf and blind
    Congress, White House, or Supreme Court. This is where the real battle
    is, and where you belong. This is where you can make a real difference,
    and begin the restoration of the Republic, from the bottom up.

    And we call on all who cannot be there in person to be there in
    spirit, and to hold a prayer vigil for the duration of this struggle,
    asking that the Lord grant us wisdom, courage, humility, and His
    protection while we take this stand for our children’s future. Truly, “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” 2 Corinthians 3:17

    We humbly endeavor, to the utmost extent of our power, to
    follow in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers when, in their time of
    great trial, they proclaimed “and for the support of this Declaration,
    with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually
    pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

    Michele Fiore, Nevada State Assemblywoman, District 4, on behalf of a growing coalition of Nevada State legislators

    Matt Shea, Washington State 4th District State Representative, on behalf of a growing delegation of Western state legislators.

    Sheriff Richard Mack (Retired), for the CSPOA (as well as a member of the Board of Directors of Oath Keepers), on behalf of a delegation of current serving Sheriffs

    Stewart Rhodes, Founder and President of Oath Keepers on behalf of the Board of Directors of Oath Keepers and 40,000 Oath Keepers members

    CONTACT:

    Michele@votefiore.com

    matt@voteshea.com

    sheriffmack@hotmail.com

    contact@oathkeepers.org

  • Dolphieness

    Jan Morgan – this is one time it is FAR past time to stand tall for our fellow Americans. I strongly disagree with you.
    THIS IS THE TIME to stand tall and fight. You may not have all the facts, however, if one invests focused time they can find the documentation, evidence and valid reason to stand tall with the Bundy family. YOU may not think fighting for Americans is important. However, it is like that meme – first they came for… you did nothing … next they came for … you did nothing … next they came for… you did nothing… when they came for you – no one was there to help you.
    I am _not_ advocating violence.
    I AM advocating a show in force. The more bodies on the ground. The more phone calls, social media and more the better.
    HOWEVER – be informed. There is misinformation out there – even from people like Jan Morgan, Megyn Kelly, et al.
    About the only ones getting to the bottom of this are: Hannity, Dana Loesch, Breitbart.

  • kebozarth

    Oath Keepers Salutes Emerging New American Iconic Hero Cliven Bundy
    http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/04/11/oath-keepers-salutes-emerging-new-american-iconic-hero-cliven-bundy/

    Action Alert: Boots On The Ground Need Donations for food and water at Bundy Ranch Standoff
    http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/04/10/action-alert-boots-on-the-ground-need-donations-for-food-and-water-at-bundy-ranch-standoff/

    Coalition of Western State Legislators, Sheriffs, and Veterans
    Stand Vigil in Support of Embattled Nevada Rancher, Cliven Bundy ‘To
    Prevent Another Ruby Ridge or Waco”
    http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/04/10/coalition-of-western-state-legislators-sheriffs-and-veterans-stand-vigil-in-support-of-embattled-nevada-rancher-cliven-bundy-%E2%80%98to-prevent-another-ruby-ridge-or-waco%E2%80%9D/

    From Stewart Rhodes – A Call To All Oath Keeper Bikers
    http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/04/10/from-stewart-rhodes-a-call-to-all-oath-keeper-bikers/

  • Kb3etz

    This writer is full of bull crap, these “fees” the BLM are talking about are the fees due because they “pulled” his permits on that land, and now these are fines…Oh on the same land that the govt has been killing those “protected” tortoises on because of overpopulation…

    • Kb3etz

      Oh, and when DO we stand? After we are forced to our knees??

    • Marla Hughes

      He and his family paid federal agencies until 1993 for a lease on the land. He paid them himself until 1993. They didn’t pull his permits, he stopped paying for them.

      • terry1956

        the federal government under the constitution has no authority over the land as a owner or even a public manager thus the rancher was within his rights to refuse to continue to pay the federal government.
        Maybe the state of Nevada has the authority to manage the land, maybe the county government but its a legal fact the federal government does not.

  • gwwilliams

    Jan, it is my understanding the land has been in his family for over 100 years. Also the EPA changed the boundaries of the “protect the turtle” zone so it would include land he was using as grazing land. Reid is also behind this as he has a deal with the Chinese to build a solar panel plant on the land!

  • splooshman

    THIS IS REALLY DIRTY FOLKS!

    Amid the growing standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal government, reports are growing that Senate Majority Harry Reid’s little-known ties to a Chinese solar energy giant could be playing a major role in the confrontation.

    Reid, D-Nev., and his oldest son, Rory, a former chairman of the Clark County, Nev., County Commission, are both deeply involved in a plan by ENN Energy Group to build a huge solar farm in southern Nevada, according to a Reuters report from August 2012.

    Land the Bundy family has been using for cattle ranching is getting in the way of that project, according to documents formerly posted on the Bureau of Land Management’s government website but since removed.

    IT GETS WORSE!

    The acting director of the Bureau of Land Management is Neil Kornze, a former senior policy advisor for Reid.

    DOCUMENTS REMOVED

    The federal government’s story so far is that the whole showdown is necessary for the protection of gopher tortoises.

    From the document purged from the BLM website, it’s clear there are more than tortoises at stake….

    “Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle.”

    A HORRID STORY OF CORRUPTION AND ABUSE OF POWER

    There’s a $5 billion foreign energy project in the works, with Reid and his son directly involved, and his former go-to guy on development issues in the driver’s seat at the Bureau of Land Management.

    And there’s an American citizen and cattle rancher standing in the way of federal agents armed with guns and the full power of the federal government behind them.

    What could go wrong?

    http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04/12/bombshell-harry-reid-behind-bundy-cattle-ranch-scandal-according-to-purged-documents-112136

    Final note: in 2013 BLM was already planning to euthanize desert tortoises. Now they want to save them? How convenient for Harry Reid.

    • Marla Hughes

      The proposed solar area is near Las Vegas and Ellis Air Force base. Las Vegas is over 80 miles from Mr. Bundy’s allotment. Not even close.

  • dawndawnb

    I initially agreed with you, Jan, when you stated that Bundy brought this on himself. However, after acquiring more info, I have to change that stance. The overreaching, oppressive, repressive arm of unaccountable government bureaucracy brought this on Mr. Bundy. Good for him for standing his ground and God bless all those who went out there to back him up. The line needs to drawn, and it seems the line HAS been drawn.

  • dbrandell

    The Bundys and the tortoises have been living together just fine for over a century. It is the FEDs, Reid and his solar/wind farms and UNESCO ‘Sustainable land’, that are the problem. Bundy had no problem paying fees to the state, he did for decades. It was when the Feds claimed the land as sanctuary under UNESCO and the Feds increased the fees while limiting the land. They haven’t even clearly marked the ‘buffer zone’ around the ‘biosphere’. As for the judges ruling against him, what do you want to bet, they were appointed and not elected? I think the real criminal hear, is the Feds and politicians selling our land, water and freedom to the highest bidder, even China. Reid and his son have made millions of these bioenergy contracts. That is the crime.
    If we can support millions of illegal immigrants, I don’t mind helping out American producers of foods, especially when the government just decides to redraw property lines and use the land as personal profits…

  • DL Hancock

    Jan, I agree that no one should be bullkying anyone as far as being a Patriot and who is not. I havent seen what you described, so I dont know who’s done that. However, if you check out the facts, Nevada has now created a Bill that demands their land back from the feds, all b/c of Bundy’s position. Also, as far as Bundy’s position let it be noted that the gripe he has is that the grazing fee’s were supposed to be used by the BLM to help with the control of ranges, the maintenance and all ionvolved. Bundy stopped paying grazing fee’s oncve he realized that ther BLM was NO LONGER providing any of the things that the grazing fee was being collected for and instead was being used to buy out all of the other farms around him. Sorry for any typos in here, I get to typing and it happens. LOL.
    Anyway, this has turned into a case for State rights and Nevada is now demanding its land back. Utah has done the same. I agree that each one of our states has its own issues, however IF we ignore those in trouble as the issues evolve, the govt will see that we are NOT going to help anywhere else and will pick us off one at a time.

  • Ann Wilson

    Jan you are the one causing division. These AMERICANS were standing in unison with Sheriff Mack and many other Patriots and made a huge statement to the libs and the rest of the nation. Not only were you not there you now speak against them?

  • Ann Wilson

    Thank you for being there Patriots!

  • Ann Wilson

    I see Jan when I ask what your stance truly is you erase my post. Acting like the lib media now. I’m done with this site. You have disappointed me. You can’t serve two masters are you on the side of Patriots or Harry Reid?

    Sean Hannity spoke to the Bundy family, Judge Andrew Napolitano and attorney Tamara Holder tonight about the latest in the Nevada “range war” between the federal government and the Bundy family.The federal government backed down this weekend, but Sen. Harry Reid has said that it’s “not over.” Former Sheriff Richard Mack said the federal government was considering pulling back and then raiding the ranch.

    Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/04/nevada-ranch-standoff-last-straw-obama/#LVzuzyeSBuv1YaoK.99

  • frank jackson

    I am not going to go into who is right or who is wrong. I am only going to make a couple of comments of things that I saw. First although Bundy was not paying money to BLM, he has stated that he was paying money to the State of Nevada for the grazing. For those that may not realize how much a steer/bull/cow will eat, I have 40 acres in AZ.. Forty acres is about a 1/4 mile on a side and it will only handle 2 steer/cows/bulls for a year. Second This is the FIRST time I have heard that Bundy threatened violence. I have been following this as well as I can and have gotten my info from the net as I trust the news networks about as far as I can through one of his steers.

  • JJM123

    Jan has lost all credibility with me.
    What violence did Bundy threaten? We see what violence the BLM was threatening to hand out!!
    Grazing Rights were acquired in 1877. A new management company cannot wantonly violate preexisting agreements.
    BLM broke an agreement that a large % of grazing fees would be used to maintain and improve the property. I suppose Jan would agree to keep paying on a breached contract for services that aren’t being received…

  • Chad3434

    “There were many lengthy debates in Congress on issues dealing with
    public lands. Senator Hendricks made one while speaking of the ordinance
    of 1787: “this union is in theory formed of sovereign, equal people and
    independent states. In the older members of this Confederation, the
    federal government sets up no claim to the waste and unappropriated
    lands, has no land office, derives no revenue from the sale of land. The
    ordinance contemplated the public lands as belonging to new states,
    after their admission in the union… As a further inducement to the new
    states to join the Confederation the ordinance stipulated that they
    should be admitted into the union… on an equal footing with the
    original states in all respects whatever, and the Constitution in
    substance of the same policy, provides that all engagements entered into
    before the adoption of the Constitution shall be as valid against the
    United States, under the Constitution as under the Confederation so that
    the Articles of Confederation, the Acts of Cessions, the ordinance of
    1787 and the Constitution itself, form a perfect and harmonious chain of
    policy – the grand object of which was the union and equality of the
    states. Then Mr. President, if at all correct in this view, it may well
    be asked by what means have the new states been. deprived of their
    equality of the right of soil… The public lands should be ceded to the
    states in which they lie because their present condition is not
    warranted by the letter of the Constitution of this government… Its
    powers are carefully enumerated and specified. I deny, sir, the limits
    of the states, except for the purpose designated by the Constitution
    such as forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful
    buildings, and to enable Congress to hold lands even for these purposes,
    the consent of the legislature of the states is declared to be
    necessary by the expressed language of the Constitution…” (Id 154,
    155).
    As one can see, waste or unappropriated lands, later public
    domain, and still later, public lands were always a concern and
    discussed, but their ownership and control were retained by the states
    through the 10th amendment to the Constitution.

  • Chad3434

    I worked and was associated with Mercenaries in the Congo during operation dragon rouge in 1964 during the Simba Rebellion. After closely reviewing some of the photos of the BLM agents in Nevada I say paid Mercenaries. Pot guts, full beards the works.
    Our government is loading up on these guys. I wonder why.

  • Chad3434

    In 1787, the Constitution for the United States of America was written, and ratified in 1789, fully in 1791. Also in 1787, the Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance, which detailed how new states would be formed within the Northwest Territory. In that document, the concept of “equal footing” was established. The basic idea is that any new state would have equal footing (rights, powers, authority, whatever) as the original 13 states had. They would be equal partners in the union of states.
    When the state of Nevada was formed the equal footing was kicked out the door.
    Alabama got some of its land from Ga when Alabama become a state. Ga handed the land over to the government before AL become a state. Once AL become a state the government said it was going to retain the land that come from GA. This went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme court said no you can not keep the land because if you do that then AL will not be on equal footing with other sates and that would be illegal. Same deal in Nevada. When Nevada become a state it was not on equal footing with other states because the Fed retained most of the land which was illegal.