Skip to comments.What the Networks Aren't Telling You About the Nevada Cattle Battle
Posted on 04/17/2014 6:42:06 PM PDT by Kaslin
The showdown between federal authorities and rancher Cliven Bundy, his family and supporters in Nevada is one of those rare topics from the libertarian-conservative news agenda that actually made its way into the establishment media. Between last Thursday and Monday, ABC, CBS and NBC gave the story a total of nearly 16 minutes of coverage on their morning and evening newscasts.
Network journalists have consistently framed the case as one of a rancher failing to pay the requested fees for his use of government land. But they have failed to use the case to tell the larger story of how environmental rules in this case, regulations to protect the desert tortoise, have been implemented in ways that help favored interests (land developers, or solar companies) while hurting others (cattle ranchers, for example).
The networks have focused on the amount of money the government has demanded of Cliven Bundy, and let the Bundy side talk about the governments heavy-handed tactics in seeking collection. On Saturdays Good Morning America, for example, ABCs Mike Boettcher framed the story this way: For 20 years, rancher Cliven Bundy has refused to pay rent to herd his cattle on government land, $1.1 million in grazing fees.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Please remember that the Supreme Court has reversed more than 150 of earlier Supreme Court decisions on natural law. Is that what you would consider as someone being consistent and reliable in interpreting the Constitution?
The Resolution of 1780, "the federal trust respecting public lands obligated the united States to extinguish both their governmental jurisdiction and their title to land that achieved statehood."
In the Constitutional Convention of 1787, The Charter of Liberty contained these words, "The new Federal Government is an agent serving the states.", "The delegated powers are few and defined", "All powers not listed are retained by the states or the people", "The Resolution of 1780 formed the basis upon which Congress was required to dispose of territorial and public lands", "All laws shall be made by the Congress of the United States". (not agency bureaucrats!)
That should be sufficient for you to determine who all public lands belong to, hint - NOT the Federal Government!
"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, it's meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted. it means now". So said the Supreme Court in South Carolina v United States in 1905
Articles of Confederation, Article VI, clause 1 All engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. In Article IX "... no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States."
Formation of a "more perfect union" does not absolve that union of prior engagements, including those obligations establish by the resolution of 1780 and the Articles of Confederation.
Our government system is established by compact, not between the Government and the State Governments but between the States as Sovereign Communities. By James Madison 1821 (This is what make the County Sheriffs the highest law enforcement officer in that County and gives him/her the authority to tell the BLM, the FBI or any other Federal Agency to get out of the County or they will be arrested and jailed.)
What I have written here is but a short piece of the process that the Founder went through to establish our Constitution and system of government.
Please view these videos and see if they don't change your mind about whether or not Cliven Bundy is in the wrong by defying the BLM.
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.
Networks ar to busy with feel good stories or human interest stories
The only surprise anymore is if anyone did anything about it.
Or a congress critter stood up to inform and educate the masses. That aint goin to happen.
Bump. Thank you B4
This is just the beginning, it was only a couple of weeks ago that the PoS Obama had the lesser prairie chicken designated as a threaten species among five states (TX, OK, NM, KS & CO). This will be another land grab attempt to be added to the others. Marxism at work. What amazes me is that my congressman doesn’t think this president has done anything that warrants impeachment.
Because they’re the propaganda arm of the Progressives.
That’s what I expected from these Bolsheviks, TASS news agencies.
Thanks for posting this.
Newsbusters is Consistently excellent.
Like who just came out as "gay" or what movie star is getting divorced.
You know, IMPORTANT stuff.
I still don’t understand. WHY didn’t he pay the fees?
Best explanation of the environmentalist roots of this conflict that I’ve seen yet.
In order for that to happen, the congress critter would have to know and understand constitutional principles. I think you would be hard pressed to find even a handful who were well versed.
Read post #2 and learn why he doesn’t owe any fees to the BLM.
He refused to sign the contract and they wouldn’t accept the fees without the signed contract.
Read the article to understand the environmental roots of the original conflict.
Your post is much appreciated, Thank You!
Just like Cliven Bundy was saying...Thank you!!
It included a contract giving them power over almost every decision he made about the herd, in addition to drastically reducing it ( because cattle are not environmentally loved).
I have read that story three times.
Paragraph one: focuses on new media giving 16 min of it in their broadcasts.
Paragraph two: focuses on how the rancher failed to pay his fees and the network journalists ‘they have failed to use the case to tell the larger story of how environmental rules in this case, regulations to protect the desert tortoise, have been implemented in ways that help favored interests’.
Paragraph three: focuses on the interviews with the Bundy side and how he hasn’t paid his fees.
Paragraph four: Bundy family tells about intimidating forces of the feds.
Paragraph five: What’s ‘omitted from the network coverage: How cattle ranchers like Bundy have been victimized by federal government plans to protect the desert tortoise, and how the current showdown was provoked by an environmentalist lawsuit.’
Paragraph six: Networks not admitting regulations about tortoises.
Paragraph seven: ‘federal government has for decades permitted some destruction of tortoise habitats if they like the project, while cracking down on others as they see fit.’
Paragraph eight: ‘BLM has enforced these rules in ways that favor projects endorsed by federal bureaucrats, such as solar projects, while being tough on the cattle ranchers.’
Paragraph nine: Clinton sold land in favor of LV land developers.
So where in here does it tell of WHY he didn’t pay the fees!
It tells of why these regs are unfair, but WHY did he not pay fees that were a legal responsibility of his. Any lawyer will focus on that.
After all if you don’t like the law and break it you are not going to win. No matter how unfair it is.
I can sympathize with him but I cannot find his reason for not paying. Have read several articles.
And I heard on Fox even if Bundy now agreed to pay the fees, they would not agree to let his heard back on the land.
A country or two have had beginnings about unfair, unjust, an unethical taxes or fees.
So how do you think he’ll do in court?
In other words, unfair and how I can sympathize with his plight, he’s going to lose this battle in the end. Or at least get a lawyer who will take on the Federal government and that sounds pretty slim to win.
I get it. Not fair. Big government. Crooked government yes, but...
if you had a business and didn’t pay the required fees and kept on running the business what would YOU think would eventually happen? Financial ruin.
I’m pretty practical, I would not do this. He kind of turned his back and waited for the wolf to come to the door. Not a good plan.
The cattle grazing rights were fraudulently extinguished in the 90’s. He was not supposed to be grazing, hence no fees.
“The cattle grazing rights were fraudulently extinguished in the 90s. He was not supposed to be grazing, hence no fees.”
So if the grazing rights were FRAUDULENTLY extinguished wouldn’t that mean they are still in effect?
“He was not supposed to be grazing...but he was? So then he has to pay fees, because the grazing rights were FRAUDULENTLY extinguished?
This is confusing. Do you have a source for these rights even being fraudulently extinguished? I’m going to look for it but if you know...
but’ FRAUDULENTLY extinguished, suggests they are still in effect?
He’d likely lose, but that doesn’t mean laws are right or correct. I’d suspect many if not most of the ranchers do not agree with the government and agree with Bundy, but the other ranchers pay the fees as to avoid the harassment.
It’s a financial windfall for government to get income for actually doing next to nothing.
The desert shrubs and plants were there way before the US was ever a country. The government does not water the desert shrubs. The government does not pay for fertilizers for the shrubs. The government does not pay for the sunshine to grow the grassy shrubs. The desert shrubs naturally grow back year after year and century after century despite being eaten by cows. The government has no overhead to pay for as the land custodian. No, the whole thing is an easy money maker for the government bureaucrats to spend as they see fit. This country was built on the premise of honest men working in government, which is no where near happening (see Harry Reid) in the hear and now.
Depends on who you talk to and on just who's mouth the Law comes from these days.
he refused to pay fees to the feds because they weren't doing their job and they were trying to destroy him.
Look up the related Wayne Hage case.
There is also water rights involved, states rights, state sovreignity etc
The government does not pay to have the rancher’s cattle collect, concentrate and distribute food and water to the tortoises across the desert.
Reason I am so particular is I know a bunch of Dems who are claiming he’s just not paid his fees...indicating he’s a deadbeat, and it’s not said nicely.
I’d like to understand it better.
I sympathize with the rancher but if I had to represent him legally...going to be a tough go.
Will look up the Wayne Hage case.
This is a brave man who, along with his family, friends and supporters are facing down a corrupt federal Leviathan.
Ask yourself why the federal government would spend millions of dollars, send hundreds of federal agents armed with automatic weapons in full battle rattle, dogs, drones, helicopters, planes, heavy equipment; essentially everything tthat we used to use to fight jihadis, all to collect a couple hundred thousand dollars in disputed fees.
All the while facilitating the invasion of the US by tens of millions of illegal aliens and arming mexican drug cartels and al queda.
But if you have to, remind them that all their friends were destroying property, destroying businesses, killing people (spiked timber) destroying families and long established settlements (all acts of breaking the law) to get their prize entitlement . . . The endangered species act.
So you know what. Even i say Mr. Bundy is clearly wrong by the letter of the law. The law be damned, these people set out to destroy him 30 plus years ago and he stood up to them. He is the last man standing in his area.
First lesson I learned in my Political Science class in 1970. If you want to change a law you must break the law. I have watched the communist break all the laws and get away with it with impunity.
Most ranchers that I know prefer a hide brand to ear tags, especially if the livestock are out in open range land. We still have rustlers out here in the West and swapping ear tags is a quick and easy thing to do when you’re looking to grab some fast money.
I just posted the following on another thread where the entire 1939 essay on the New Deal is (see my tagline!).
I figured there would be a parallel from the essay on the Bundy Ranch affair. And there is:
Business is in itself a power. In a free economic system it is an autonomous power, and generally hostile to any extension of government power. That is why a revolutionary party has to do something with it....Always in business there will be a number, indeed, an astonishing number, who would sooner conform than resist [49 out of 50 ranchers in Bundys county?], and besides these there will be always a few more who may be called the Quislings of capitalism. Neither Hitler nor Mussolini ever attempted to liquidate business. They only deprived it of its power and made it serve.
“How seriously the New Deal may have considered the possibility of liquidating business we do not know. Its decision, at any rate, was to embrace the alternative; and the alternative was to shackle it.
In his second annual message to Congress the President said: In the past few months, as a result of our action, we have demanded of many citizens that they surrender certain licenses to do as they please in their business relationships; but we have asked this in exchange for the protection which the State can give against exploitation by their fellow men or by combinations of their fellow men.
....There, unconsciously perhaps, is a complete statement of the revolutionary thesis. It is not a question of law. It is a question of power. There must be a transfer of power. The President speaks not of laws; he speaks of new instruments of power, such as would provide shackles for the liberties of the people if they should ever fall in other hands. What then has the government done? Instead of limiting by law the power of what it calls economic autocracy the government itself has seized the power.
I should have probably included that ear tags frequently get ripped off when the cattle on open range. They get hung up in the brush and tree branches. Then there’s the potential for ear infections from open wounds. They work fine for livestock in cleared pastures. Country cows don’t like wearing plastic jewelry, I guess.
I remember reading that only about 90% of Bundy’s cattle were branded (given that no one else’s cattle were mixed in and this year’s offspring were excepted - a reasonable assumption apparently).
Probably state law/rules differences too.
I’ve talked with ranchers who have rounded up three year old cattle without a brand on their own property. Somehow they slipped past the roundup crews. In other cases it wasn’t worth the effort to go and chase down some young bull that was spooked by peoples voices. Just let him go about his business and when he gets old enough or the feed gets poor enough, he’ll come down out of the hills.
A few days ago I found some academic papers studying/explaining how well various sources of cattle did in a desert environment (results- duh - indigenous cattle and their offspring did the best) .
The BLM Helicopter Cowboys apparently gave themselves 30 days to get the job done. They still would have likely missed a few.
Thank you for sharing
I’m surprised that the Crony Jornolist Networks have reported anything at all.
Not sure if you went to the original thread (from years ago) that has the entire long essay. The essay is entitled “The Revolution Was”. And Obama is just trying to finishing what FDR could not complete.
Every section in that essay I read and think “Obama and his solar handouts”. “Obama attacking the wealthy”. “Obama ‘defending’ the helpless.” MANY of the phrases that FDR used in his speeches are the same that Obama uses.
BLM Seeks Public Interest for Solar Energy Development in the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone
WASHINGTON, D.C. Washington, D.C. - The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) today announced that it is accepting preliminary right-of-way (ROW) applications and expressions of interest from interested parties for conducting a solar competitive auction on the 5,717acre Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone in Clark County, Nevada.
For study and reference.