Skip to comments.Ron Paul warns that Bundy ranch standoff isnít over just yet
Posted on 04/15/2014 10:34:02 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
A heated land dispute between the federal government and a Nevada cattle rancher subsided over the weekend, but longtime lawmaker and former presidential hopeful Ron Paul says tensions might soon worsen once again.
An armed standoff between Cliven Bundy and the United States Bureau of Land Management ended on Saturday with the federal agency agreeing to release around 400 head of cattle it had seized from the Clark County, Nevada rancher. The bureau said Bundy owed roughly $1 million to the government because for the last two decades he failed to pay a fee for letting his cattle graze on federal land, but the rancher insisted that he owed the agency nothing. Supporters soon took up arms and flocked to the Bunch ranch to stand by in support as feds began to seize nearly 1,000 head of cattle, but over the weekend the BLM aborted their attempt to confiscate the animals in order avoid any violent showdown that might have emerged.
Paul the former Republican congressman for Texas and a three-time contender for the office of US president said on Monday that things arent necessarily over on the Bundy ranch, even though the feds have for now relinquished their war with the rancher.
They may come back with a lot more force like they did at Waco with the Davidians, Paul told Fox News host Neil Cavuto on Friday, adding that he wished for a non-violent resolution.
Only days earlier, the ranchers wife told the Huffington Post that the mobilization of heavily armed federal agents around her land was all too similar to the 1993 raid on the Branch Davidians Waco, Texas compound that ended with the deaths of 87 civilians.
"If you saw the artillery and their presence -- the intimidation they are tryingto put on us...
(Excerpt) Read more at rt.com ...
None of this is funny at all, but I was amused by a post last night saying Putin should pay the million dollars. What would that do to Obama and company? Something to think about.
You, Sir are absolutely correct. They will turn this into all kinds of political gold and also point at the lack of coverage by MSM to show that U.S. hides things and can’t be trusted with the truth.
I wish the media would get out the whole story on this. They start with the Rancher refusing to pay federal grazing fees. They leave out that the fed confiscated his land, of which has been in the family for generations, years ago and then turned around and told him to pay for his cattle to graze on it. The land was confiscated and dedicated to the fed in order to protect a tortoise (and something else). But in the same vacinity, the fed allowed commercial development on the same land that was previously undeveloped.
The family refused to pay the fed to use their own property and refused to recognize the feds ownership of the property. So 20 years later, the fed decides to enforce the fees retroactively and confiscate the cattle that graze there.
What recourse did the family have? You can’t very well take the government to court or file a law suit against the fed or the BLM. Property rights are (or were) a founding fundamental right established by our founding fathers. It’s one of the things our freedom and existence is based on.
At this point, the “causal” issue is not the issue.
The issue is that the fedgov came a thuggin’,
and the People resisted.
The issue is that the fedgov came a thuggin,
and the People resisted.
Does bundy own the land? No. (see below)
Does the state of Nevada own the land. No (not according to the Nevada constitution, passed in 1864 before the bundys began ranching there)
Does the federal government own the land. Yes! (see below)
Does bundy owe a million bucks for failing to pay his grazing fees for twenty years. Yes
Does grazing the land for decades give you an ownership interest in the land. No. see the Taylor Grazing Act below, written by a Colorado rancher and put in law in 34 (see below)
"I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada," Bundy said in a radio interview last Thursday. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I dont recognize the United States government as even existing." Ironically, this position directly contradicts Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:
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 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.
But Bundy's understanding of states' rights is far different. As he told Sean Hannity in an interview last week (emphasis added):
"Well, you know, my cattle is only one issuethat the United States courts has ordered that the government can seize my cattle. But what they have done is seized Nevada statehood, Nevada law, Clark County public land, access to the land, and have seized access to all of the other rights of Clark County people that like to go hunting and fishing. They've closed all those things down, and we're here to protest that action. And we are after freedom. We're after liberty. That's what we want."
ORDINANCE (Nevada state constitution, 1864)
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.
Does the grazing act give bundys a property right in the land
Bundy also claims that it his right to graze these BLM public lands. This is not the case. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 specifically states that the issuance of a grazing permit does not confer any right to graze or right to own the land. The Taylor Grazing Act is the granddaddy of the U.S. laws governing grazing on federal land. Taylor was a rancher and a congressman from Colorado, hardly someone to want government tyranny over ranching.
So far as consistent with the purposes and provisions of this subchapter, grazing privileges recognized and acknowledged shall be adequately safeguarded, but the creation of a grazing district or the issuance of a permit pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands.
Does a fascist government control the land and the people? Yes.
Does a fascist government make “laws” to control the land and the people? Yes.
Does a fascist government make unconstitutional laws to control the land and the people? Yes.
Does a fascist government have its own judges to rule that the unconstitutional laws are valid? Yes.
Does a fascist government use heavily-armed, jack-booted storm troopers to enforce the unconstitutional “legal” laws, driving people off the land, bankrupting them, and even killing entire families and communities that resist? Yes.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
Here's one that shows why the Sheriff of Clark County is duty bound to keep the BLM and all Federal agents from arresting Cliven Bundy.
What the defenders of the government don’t understand is our government has been out of control for a long, long, time.
And the lesson that's true throughout history just might have happened. We have real unlikely, imperfect heroes in this Bundy clan. But, gosh darn, they stood THEIR ground to those BLM bullies. Didn't back off after they were assaulted. Maybe more average people will do that when a situation arises.
Don't wait for the pols. They're probably still in strategy meetings figuring out what response will garner the most votes. And that includes our beloved Ted Cruz.
LIvestock removal successes - (choose it from the menu)
Owyhee River Canyon, ID
Blitzen River, OR
Owyhee River, OR
Warner Wetlands, OR
Great Basin National Park, ID
Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge/Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, OR/NV
Steens Mountain, OR
Salmon River Breaks Allotment, ID
Lower Campbell Blue Grazing Allotment, AZ
California Desert Conservation Area, CA
Peninsula Ranges Bighorn Sheep Critical Habitat, CA
Gila River Basin, AZ/NM
Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, OR/ID
Did you notice that the feds hired outside pro-cowboys to round up the 400 head of cattle at the rate of $966K (almost $1M).... That’s $2500/head...
Why the excessive price?
Because after the sale of the livestock, the Feds can get a judgement against the Brundy’s for the difference of the sale price and cost to round up.....
Then they can legally take the ranch....
This is a dispute that’s history goes back more than 140 years. Since the Bundy family ha utilized the land in question for considerably longer than any laws or regulations have covered it, Bundy has a valid claim to the use of the land so long as he and his heirs choose to.
The fact that Nevada, before statehood, ceded to the federal government all lands within its borders that were under public ownership at that time is moot.
A few years later, the Bundy family legally homesteaded a portion of that land, and then used the remainder for grazing purposes, again legally.
After about five decades, the Taylor Grazing Act was passed by congress, and the Bundy family accepted that, and continued to use the land legally. In 1946, the BLM was formed, and among other activities, was charged with regulating the Taylor Grazing Act, and again, the Bundy family agreed to abide by this, with grazing fees paid to the county.
Now comes the year 1993, in which the federal government not only threw out the prior agreements with respect to all grazing rights, along with timber and other natural resources, and then had the temerity to charge fees those they were stripping of their previous legal rights. Many ranchers and others, agreed to the changes (and charges), and before long were deprived of their rights and their fortune.
Bundy, being a bit more savvy, disagreed, but did agree to honor previously contracts with the federal, state, and county and to continue to pay the grazing fees to Clark County, as he had done under the previous contract. The County declined to accept these fees. Thus it seems, there is a question whether the attempt to pay were refused, thereby considered paid in full.
Next, the fact that Bundy have used the land for 120+ years without objection, while it does cede that the ownership in the property by the federal gov’t is not in question, the arbitrary and radical changes in the contract are very questionable.
Bundy himself agrees that he owes about $300,000 in grazing fees, and appears willing to pay that amount to the county, and it would be no stretch of the imagination that the county could ppay that anount the federal gov’t in Bundy’s name, what is the problem here?
The BLM claims the amount is more than a Million Dollars, and it is likely they base this amount on various penalties and interest.
If there were a settlement between Bundy and the BLM on the differences in amount, likely the BLM would insist on a new contract, which would likely deprive the ranch of its grazing area and therefor loss of livelihood.
Welcome to the new America!
This is not the America I grew up in and went to war for in my youth.