Who is talking about penumbras? You are the one who is trying to avoid the actual language which is very specific and states "all places" and trying to come up with some artificial interpretation to support your argument. To show you how far off you are, lets take your email and substitute the actual language of the Constitution for your belief of "military installations"
The first portion of this pertains to the establishment of the District of Columbia (not to exceed 10 Miles square). The second portion gives the U.S. Government the authority over all places established with consent of the legislating body within said state. So your repetition of this particular clause in the Constitution is a moot point, as it is referring to all places and does not apply in this scenario.
If that is true and the federal government can use the Enclave Clause in this scenario, then why did they not claim “military installations and anything else” and leave it at that? Intead, they had to introduce the “endangered” (debatable) Desert Tortoise in 1998 and claim “ownership” (ie, “seizure”) of these lands, which in their world justifies revoking established, 100-year-old preemptive grazing rights to the property.
I repeat again: You aren’t defending the Constitution. You are defending an increasingly lawless and corrupt administration. And you’re defending Harry Reid’s claims to these lands, too, which is truly abominable.