Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher

[Shami-Amourae]

I think we need to embrace racism. No seriously. The Left uses it to silence and demonize us. If we make it normal and shrug our shoulders it wont have the same effect.

Labeling someone racist is like labeling someone a "witch" in the puritan days.

[Ares]

Will They Drone the Bundy Ranch 42514



Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2po...ature=youtu.be

[Tumbleweed]

I came across this story of another family like the Bundys that live close to the land and nature. The Dann family story in Cresent Valley, Nevada sounds similar to the Bundys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=JJ2N9-n-ka0

[monty]

I came across this story of another family like the Bundys that live close to the land and nature. The Dann family story in Cresent Valley, Nevada sounds similar to the Bundys. https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=JJ2N9-n-ka0 YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JJ2N9-n-ka0

The Dann Sisters are/were Shoshone Indians if they are still living. The Shoshone never ceded their land to the United States. Read up on the treaty of Ruby Valley. The treaty says the Shoshone people will live in peace and harmony with whites.


http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal...by_valley.html

http://www.h-o-m-e.org/nuclear-colon...-shoshone.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Dann_and_Carrie_Dann

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[monty]

There is much more:

Ben Colvin's cattle were seized:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/cattle.htm

http://www.livestockweekly.com/paper.../whlseized.asp

In 1972 every ranch in Nevada had cattle on the Forest and BLM land. By 2003 very few had cattle on the range. The ones who did were forced by the BLM to move thier cattle under the pretence of range managment. The ranchers were told where the cows would be allowed to graze and for how long. This constant moving the herds walked off any weight gain the cattle made. It also forced the ranchers to haul water to the cattle in tank trucks. The condition of the range was not one iota better in 2003 than in 1973. When I left to work in the truck shop in 1972 I could lay down on my belly and drink the water from any one of the mountain streams. It was clean and puré. In 2003 when I returned the streams were full of beaver fever. In 1972 there were very few government employees out here. By 2003 there numbers are many.

This isn't about range management at all,but simple a way to drive the cost of ranching up to the point It is not profitable.

The BLM has re vegetation seed kits for mining and gravel reclamation protects. Now we have weeds that never existed in the desert before. That is range management.

Another thing the BLM did was to lease Wayne Hage's allotments to a Gary Snow after forceing Hage's to remove their cattle.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[monty]

BLM allows Gary Snow to run cattle on Hage and Colvin allotments.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/591370/posts

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[Ares]

NEVADA RANCH STAND OFF ONE COWBOYS WITNESS



link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=suqzL7L9lJk

[Ponce]

But for a couple of places the US government CAN NOT OWN LAND but are only the caretakers of the same till it is given to the people.

V

[monty]

This bill board was unveiled in April 2005 along I-80 near Elko, Nevada after a BLM ranger pointed his pistol at a Nevada rancher.

Attachment 6321

Members of the Nevada Committee for Full Statehood and others hold up "Bye Bye BLM" bumper stickers at the site of a newly unveiled billboard Thursday along Interstate 80 east of Battle Mountain. (Ross Andréson/Elko Daily Free Press)

http://elkodaily.com/news/local/stat...a1a19b2f8.html

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[monty]

But for a couple of places the US government CAN NOT OWN LAND but are only the caretakers of the same till it is given to the people.

V

"Sage Brush Rebellion states now, having someone willing to stand, should seize this moment to remind the federal government that they too want their land back. If they stand together now it is more probable than ever that it will happen. One suggestion for Governor Brian Sandoval of Nevada is to declare the contested property Nevada’s and have Bundy begin paying Nevada for grazing rights. That would diffuse the standoff between citizen and federal government moving it to the state instead where it belongs, and give strength to the intended objective—getting back to the Constitution."




Ponce . . . I and this writer agree with 110%!


http://www.thetribunepapers.com/2014...nt-own-nevada/


Does the Federal Government own Nevada?

By Harold Pease, Ph. D- The most important question with respect to the Bundy Ranch Standoff remains unanswered. Why does the federal government own Nevada? It does not own New York or Virginia or Massachusetts. Cliven Bundy says that the state of Nevada owns the contested land. The Bureau of Land Management clearly considers the property the federal government’s, hence the 200 snipers posted on the property and the tasing of the Bundys for resisting when the feds confiscated their cattle. Who is right?



But the problem isn’t Nevada’s alone. The percentage of land owned by government exceeds fifty percent in Alaska (98.5), Idaho (63.8), Oregon (52.6), and Utah (63.6). Indeed, the federal government claims to own a third of all the landmass in the United States (Inventory Report on Real Property Owned by the United States Throughout the World, published by the General Services Administration, page 10). Government owns almost half of California (47.5). Basically the federal government did not give western states all their land when they qualified for statehood. States were so excited to get coveted statehood that they went along with the conditions despite the confiscation of, for most in the West, at least a third of their land.



States wanting their confiscated land returned, so as to be on equal footing as with 19 sister states who actually own their land, call their long-term bid to do so the Sage Brush Rebellion. Equality between states was established by giving them equal representation in the U.S. Senate, thus the assumption of the Founders was that property would follow. Without it they are not on equal footing and instead may be more servile to the federal government than states that own themselves. This could negatively affect our system of government known as federalism as states collectively serve as a check on federal overreach. This check is impaired when the federal government owns part or most of their land.


But this is not the most serious violation of the Constitution. The Founders understood that the size of land holding was proportionally related to the perceived size of the federal government and they intentionally wanted that perception small. The Federal government was permitted to have but 10 square miles for a federal capital. The only other land that they could acquire had to be for military purposes as specified in the common defense clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 which reads: “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.”



Any new acquisition, outside the capital, had (1) to be purchased, (2) have the consent of the State Legislature where the land exists, (3) and be for military purposes. None of these constitutional requirements were met with respect to any of the states cited above although some military bases do exist in most of them. Nor have there been any additional amendments to the Constitution authorizing additional federal ownership of land as required for any additional federal power. Constitutionally there exists no federal land or Bureau of Land Management or even public land.


Again, in the case of the Bundys, the land in dispute was not purchased by the federal government, did not receive the consent of the Nevada State Legislature for sale to the feds and is not for military purposes. The fact that the federal government acquired it fraudulently in the first place, or that both political parties have ignored this part of the Constitution for over a hundred years, does not make federal confiscation now constitutional. Constitutionally Bundy has more right to be there than does the Bureau of Land Management. Still, his stand is not practical given our long-term departure from the document and to get back to the Constitution some may do jail time, as have others like Martin Luther King, Jr. Freedom has never been cheap.


Sage Brush Rebellion states now, having someone willing to stand, should seize this moment to remind the federal government that they too want their land back. If they stand together now it is more probable than ever that it will happen. One suggestion for Governor Brian Sandoval of Nevada is to declare the contested property Nevada’s and have Bundy begin paying Nevada for grazing rights. That would diffuse the standoff between citizen and federal government moving it to the state instead where it belongs, and give strength to the intended objective—getting back to the Constitution.


Dr Harold Pease is a History and Political Science Teacher at Taft College, CA