Rebane's Ruminations
April 2014
S M T W T F S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

When tyrannies make the laws, all opponents of tyranny are then seen and treated as criminals.

The ownership and control of our public lands is a mess, both legally and constitutionally.  Save for military bases (an arguably constitutional provision), why does the federal government claim ownership – laughably in the name of ‘the public’ – of large parts of the country?  Save for preserving certain particularly scenic locales as public parks, why do states need to own land?  (I find federal ownership of land for parks and recreation to also be constitutionally unfounded.)  Yes, there are reasons for state governments to share control of ‘infrastructure land’ that contain navigable rivers, flood control dams and levees, and water reservoirs, but owning thousands of square miles of open range, mountains, and forests, the case for such has no reasonable constitutional basis.

PublicLands
(Recall the definition of ownership, you ‘own’ something only to the extent that you can dispose of it as you wish.)

Due to the Bundy Ranch gathering of citizens concerned with the jackboot behavior of various fed and state agencies, the BLM has decided to withdraw in order to regroup and replan their next assault, because they apparently expected none of what happened – e.g. consider the set aside of a little ‘First Amendment Rights’ pen for the few people who might show up to quietly protest as permitted by their betters.

I was heartened that this event finally demonstrated what can happen when citizens ‘just say NO!’, both in their courage to unambiguously state that a limit to overreach had been broached, and also by the rapid gathering of supportive citizens who were willing to take an unknown risk against militarized government units armed with machine guns, snipers, and helicopters.  I hope that this might set an inspiring example for locals all over the country to resist the next diktat that comes down from above to perfunctorily limit more of what/how/when people can do, say, wear, eat, build, travel, stay, read, watch, learn, work, recreate, worship, display, spend, receive, join, … .  If the Bundy standoff can serve as the starting point for Americans everywhere to change their recently inbred docile acceptance to one of critical examination and consideration before compliance or its rejection, then this will have been a productive milestone on the road back to liberty.  (Nevada County electeds please take note.)

As to resolving the grazing on public lands matter, I expect that the feds will be back after an appropriate media propaganda blitz that will demonize the Bundys and others who may have similar thoughts.  Here we can hope that this will raise the country’s awareness of the public lands issue, and after appropriate debate, lead to a resolution that gets the feds out of the land management business and, perhaps, shuts down a tax consuming bureaucracy.  Important and exciting times ahead.

[19apr14 update]  Contrary to the somewhat bombastic interpretations of our progressive constitutional pundits, the legitimacy of federal retention of vast tracts of western lands is being called to question by lawmakers in western states (more here).  The historical legality of such federal retention which I and a number of other observers have criticized is now coming to the attention of some of our conservative political leadership.  The bottom line is still that the feds have usurped the states’ intended rights to own and control (i.e. dispose of as they will) public lands within their borders, and a progressive judicial system has made mockery of the clear original intent of the Constitution in this matter.

Perhaps now a reasoned debate can start on the most appropriate process through which we can erase the overwhelming amount of the western red areas in the above map.  To be sure, the big government collectivists will fight tooth and nail to retain as much central control of domestic policies in Washington as possible.  America’s historical standards of liberty and self-determination demand the devolution of such central controls to the states and counties where the people live.

Posted in , , , ,

318 responses to “A Takeaway from Bundy Ranch (updated 19apr14)”

  1. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    I recall the Presidio went to the “friends” of Nancy, Babs and Diane.

    Like

  2. Gary Smith Avatar

    You are right that nobody cared before and you could pretty much graze or mine with no problem. We just have so many people that now it is a issue. I have had a personal problem right here in Yuba County with BLM. The Daguerre Point dam on the Yuba River owned by the Army Corps is a awesome fishing spot surrounded by BLM land and private property. BLM will not you through the land to access the river. I used to access through private property till idiots screwed it up for all. Myself and several fisherman had tried to access locally through the Folsom office, with out success and eventually gave up. I am not convinced the state at this point could do a better job. This is a great subject and the Nevada story is something that I have been following for years. This battle between the Feds and Bundy is only the latest chapter.

    Like

  3. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Exciting times, bro. While in college as a greenhorn freshman, there was an elementary school nearby on a tree lined road shared by both institutions for their respective entrances. I was shocked, shocked I tell ya when a tree crew showed up to cut down all the trees for widening the street. A kindergarten teacher came running out from her class with tots in tow and lifted up the young sprouts into the branches. The crew looked at the kids in the trees, got on the walkie talkie and left. Moral of the story?? When summer break came, the crew returned and not a tree was left standing.
    Big Bro will be back when the lime light of the drive by media has long dimmed and this whole episode will be just another short chapter in a long sad book. Expect a 3:00am raid in a few months akin to the Cuban boy Janet Reno took flack for. Flack or no flack, the Cuban boy is gone, Branch Davidians are no more, and nobody can bring back the baby shot in the head by a sniper’s bullet at Ruby Ridge. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.
    What’s that old saying about winning the battle but losing the war? I wish The Brady Bunch well.
    https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1.0-9/1958447_10151941217690911_274557925_n.jpg
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1.0-9/59560_10151996958470911_1714246494_n.jpg
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1.0-9/1912346_10151975737505911_2086026177_n.png
    And more more, should be under the heading “Who is that man”.
    https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/1463929_10152020903765911_5767888115789943227_n.jpg

    Like

  4. Walt Avatar

    Just to slightly change the subject,, It seems ONE LIB with a gun was more damaging that 300(?) armed “patriots”. A member of the Progressive LIB Klan,( the grand bastard himself) goes on a shooting spree targeting people of Jewish Faith, and got a Christian or two while he was at it.
    It was us gun lover’s fault… Right?

    Like

  5. Walt Avatar

    Yes, BLM left the aria with a ” black eye”, and NO.. They are NOT happy about that. I think I heard one official yell from the last SUV to pass,, ” WE WILL BE BACK!!,, And we will have the EPA WITH US!!! Then you’ll be sorry!!”
    Any wonder why the EPA wants control of every drop of water? ” That cow just stepped in a mud hole! Here is your court date.”

    Like

  6. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Walt, a cow patty in a mud hole is no laughing matter. I just wish our Government (Feds, State, and local) would send in the tanks, helicopters, and various All Terrain Assault Vehicles to stop all those idiots leaving piles of trash in our sacred wetlands near the Mexican border. Never happen. Illegals can leave piles of garbage in our protested wetlands, but one cow patty and the full force and unlimited resources of government bureaucracy will squash ya like a bug. Only thing left of us Joe Blows will be our bug guts stuck to the bottom of EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s spiked stiletto or Eric Holder’s jack booted loafers. Progressive means never having to say you’re sorry.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgPePk3kGZk

    Like

  7. George Rebane Avatar

    BillT 101pm – A well-chosen and apt comparison Mr Tozer.

    Like

  8. Russ Steele Avatar

    This is only one incident that made the national news. The government, BLM and Forest Service, are forcing ranchers off the land in Nevada, Idaho, New Mexico and Oregon. Cows produce methane and manure and that is bad for the environment. In the governments environmentalist wackos eyes the fewer cows the better so the little animals in the forest do not have to compete. If you dig deeper in to the BLM and Forest Service Planning documents you will find all the Agenda 21 code words embedded in paragraph after paragraph.
    Once the cows, the wild houses and mules are going, the people will be next. The Forest Service planning documents allow for the creation of Restoration Areas, they will be market and humans are not allow into these area, except for Forest Service personnel and researchers. Just like in the National Parks, they create Restoration Area, were humans are not allowed. In the Forest Service case instead of a few acres, it will be square miles were unapproved humans are not allowed to treed.
    NOAA is trying to take control of all streams, even those that have water in them only when it rains. They are trying to have the environmental law change from “navigable” water to all water sheds. Again the Agenda 21 finger prints are all over these changes.
    There will be more challenges ahead, as the people fight to return control to the people of the land and reject the wackos Agenda 21 religion that permeates many of our government agencies.
    Bottom line, if your think the price of beef is high now, wait until they drive all the cows off of public grazing lands. The wackos do not think we should be eating beef any way, and they are about to create sever lack of supply.

    Like

  9. Brad Croul Avatar
    Brad Croul

    Fish, sorry, I could not find the link to Modern Government mag- it sounds pretty hot though!
    I would think that, proportionally, superfund sites are a tiny percentage of all government lands.
    But, superfund sites, water contamination, soil compaction, overgrazing, dustbowls, are mostly unintended consequences and the result of a lack of understanding or nonchalance by large scale corporate operators. The government has to step in because people don’t want to accept and mitigate the consequences of their actions because it would cut into their profits.
    BTW- don’t you think you should change your handle to “chicken”?

    Like

  10. fish Avatar
    fish

    BTW- don’t you think you should change your handle to “chicken”?
    Nahh I’ve had for a long time and everybody is used to it! I think I’ll hang on to it!
    The government has to step in because people don’t want to accept and mitigate the consequences of their actions because it would cut into their profits.
    Proportionally you would be right…..because government “owns” a whole lot of empty space. Where they have elected to actually engage in the business of government (military, weapons, etc.) they generally do as crappy a job as everybody else. The statement was to remind that the government is frequently every bit the poor steward of the land as the private sector.
    The government has to step in because people don’t want to accept and mitigate the consequences of their actions because it would cut into……government profits…..? What are these government profits of which you speak?

    Like

  11. Walt Avatar

    I decided to live a little dangerously. Media matters ran this story with the guaranteed Lefty slant. I ventured into enemy territory and did some “business” on their lawn.
    Well,, I sure found what I was looking for.. And yes,, poke a stick into a hornet’s nest and “things happen”. OHHH the disdain of the 2ND Amendment.
    But when the subject of “mooching” comes up, the hypocrisy is on display.
    It’s just fine for LIBS to mooch off the government teet, but not a few cows
    out in the boonies.
    I’m sure there is a bounty out on me by now from that site.
    Yes,,, I went “trolling” and caught my limit. BOY, that was a lot of fun!

    Like

  12. Bonnie McGuire Avatar

    Strange that no one mentioned that the Chinese energy giant ENN Energy Group wants to use federal land as part of its effort to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel-building plant in the southern Nevada desert. Rory Reid, the son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, is representing ENN in their efforts to locate in Nevada.
    Someone please enlighten me ….Where’s the transparency government is always pretending until something happens to expose its clandestine activity? And since I’m treading in never-never land…Captain America where are you when we need you? Oh yeah, maybe he sent the second amendment militia to the Bundy family’s rescue.
    Personally, I’m sick and tired of corrupt elected officials and their minions of grant sucking activists. Most of them don’t give a damn about we the people. The only thing they think about is “what’s in it for me.” They twist and interpret the constitution accordingly. That’s why the founders said it should be interpreted as they intended then, not according to modern times with limited, ulterior motives.

    Like

  13. Russ Steele Avatar

    I was watching FoxNews tonight and it was reported that tortoises were removed from the land China wants to use for a solar farm, and move to the BLM used by Bundy and the reason that BLM used to move in and remove the cows was to save the tortoises. I agree, if Bundy owed the grazing fees, he should pay. However, if the reason was to save the tortoises that were removed from the public BLM land for a China solar farm, promoted by Harry Ried and his son, then some young reporter has a Pulitzer opportunity. There is a story here that needs to be told.

    Like

  14. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    The final take-a-way from all of this is what the fed govt considers appropriate fire power for the given situation. The fed govt tells armed protectors of our borders to run away from rock throwers. What if the protesters in Nevada had started throwing rocks? The Bundys never intended to break the law, but those coming across our borders out in the desert are. What is SteveF’s response to that sort of law breaking that he claims he is against? Suddenly the master of the Constitution falls strangely silent. How about snipers at the border to take down law breakers? Does that pathetic county commissioner in Nevada tell border hoppers to say their prayers? Oops – SteveF and the left are once again bending over for their masters of the fascist left and the crony capitalists. Pathetic.

    Like

  15. Russ Steele Avatar

    This is just the conclusion from a longer post on the PowerLine Blog by John Hinderaker:
    So it is possible that the federal government is driving Bundy off federal lands to make way for mitigation activities that enable the solar energy development to the north. But I don’t think it is necessary to go there. Rather–this is the second and more important point–it is obvious that some activities are favored by the Obama administration’s BLM, and others are disfavored. The favored developments include solar and wind projects. No surprise there: the developers of such projects are invariably major Democratic Party donors. Wind and solar energy survive only by virtue of federal subsidies, so influencing people like Barack Obama and Harry Reid is fundamental to the developers’ business plans. Ranchers, on the other hand, ask nothing from the federal government other than the continuation of their historic rights. It is a safe bet that Cliven Bundy is not an Obama or Reid contributor.
    The new head of the BLM is a former Reid staffer. Presumably he was placed in his current position on Reid’s recommendation. Harry Reid is known to be a corrupt politician, one who has gotten wealthy on a public employee’s salary, in part, at least, by benefiting from sweetheart real estate deals. Does Harry Reid now control more than 80% of the territory of Nevada? If you need federal authority to conduct business in Nevada–which is overwhelmingly probable–do you need to pay a bribe to Harry Reid or a member of his family to get that permission? Why is it that the BLM is deeply concerned about desert tortoises when it comes to ranchers, but couldn’t care less when the solar power developers from China come calling? Environmentalists have asked this question. Does the difference lie in the fact that Cliven Bundy has never contributed to an Obama or Reid campaign, or paid a bribe to Reid or a member of his family?
    Based on the evidence, I would say: yes, that is probably the difference. When the desert tortoises balance out, Occam’s razor tells us that the distinction is political.
    So let’s have some sympathy for Cliven Bundy and his family. They don’t have a chance on the law, because under the Endangered Species Act and many other federal statutes, the agencies are always in the right. And their way of life is one that, frankly, is on the outs. They don’t develop apps. They don’t ask for food stamps. It probably has never occurred to them to bribe a politician. They don’t subsist by virtue of government subsidies or regulations that hamstring competitors. They aren’t illegal immigrants. They have never even gone to law school. So what possible place is there for the Bundys in the Age of Obama?

    Remember this story as you reach into the meat case at the Safeway and gasp at the prices of the steak you had hope to buy. You can thank Harry Reid, his family and his Obama Cronies, as you put back the steak and go in search of some chicken to BBQ.

    Like

  16. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Oh my God! Those damn Democrats are going to make you eat chicken! Those bastards!

    Like

  17. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Hello my fellow gentle libholes and Progressives: All we are saying here is give Peace a Chance.
    http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2014/04/13/video-real-bundy-ranch-story-shows-confrontation-and-feds-retreating-from-the-ground/

    Like

  18. Walt Avatar

    There is another story out about a vary similar situation.
    That dragged through the system for years as well. In those cases the rancher won and the government was ordered to pay millions.. yet not one dime has been paid. The government doesn’t abide by court orders every day. So what makes what this guy doing any different? ” Following the law” has to be a two way street, and government needs to be held to a higher standard. Government being held accountable hasn’t been happening for a VARY long time.
    It took some good ol’ cowboys and cowgirls willing to face government guns
    to tell the government ” They have gone too far”.
    If you see any of the video from siege, the citizen “army” had the same conviction and focus as seasoned fighters. there was NO fear.
    Also in that footage, it was obvious that some of the “officers” were on “loan” from the military. These were not regular cops.
    How does the ” posse comitatus act rule on that?
    And apparently the people don’t trust the word of BLM, because their not leaving. This is the one time they believe the words of Harry Reid.

    Like

  19. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    It ain’t over until the fat man sings. Sending the paddy wagon to pick up cow paddies? What’s next? Cow pie ring toss? This is now they treat us. Christians, vets, gun owners are on the domestic terrorist list. Big Bro is the biggest repeat offender in town.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jer1YidkfPY&feature=youtu.be

    Like

  20. Walt Avatar

    Since Steve showed up,, How bout that Tyranny definition according to the all knowing Steve? Or that just a thing of the past and can never happen.. Especially with Liberals in charge.

    Like

  21. Walt Avatar

    One more thing for Steve to chew on since he likes to say “the law is the law” ( or close to that)
    Just because it’s ” law” in no way makes it right. Repubs have historically fought and won to change laws that were wrong. Slavery for one. Then the overturning of Jim Crow. ( LIBS didn’t do that) Heck. the first anti gun laws were targeting minorities. Who came to their defense? That would be the NRA. The VARY first civil rights org. for minorities.
    So count on a new breed of Conservative that’s ready to right these wrong laws.

    Like

  22. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Some intelligent nice folks actually believe that the solution to the country’s problems lay at the feet of bigger Federal government, more Federal government, expanding Federal government and just plain ole Federal government. A dummy like me does not share that opinion, a skewed opinion in my seldom humble opinion.
    Had an interesting conversation with one of my daughters. She told me she listens to Amy Goodman and was thinking I would call her a lib. I surprised her by saying at her age she better be a lib, but then again she has been drawing a paycheck since she was 16 so she ain’t anything close to a full blown bleeding heart liberal. But I digress.
    I really surprised her when I said I listen to Amy Goodman as well on occasion. That perked her interest. Then I said Amy Goodman and I have some things in common. We both fear and distrust our government. Now my daughter was almost sitting on my lap. Then I told her that the difference between Amy and I is simply that while we both fear our government, I love my country. Conversation ended.
    https://www.facebook.com/beingconservative/photos/pb.134193140910.-2207520000.1397538570./10152002984300911/?type=3&theater

    Like

  23. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Man where to begin, and whether to do it one at a time or all at once? So many rich targets so little time.
    Let’s start with the most important question: the Constitutionality of federal land ownership. I have presented direct references and back up for my position, that the federal government has a Constitutionally authorized right to own land, and that once owned, it has the right to enforce rules on that land the govern its operation.
    That right is ensconced in the Constitution in Article IV Section III Clause II.
    The Supreme Court has decided on this issue numerous times throughout US history, the most recent being Klepp v. New Mexico where the court stated, “…Congress may limit the disposition of the public domain consistent with its views of public policy….It [the Property Clause] empowers Congress to act as both proprietor and legislature over the public domain; Congress has complete power to make those ‘needful rules’ which in its discretion it deems necessary. When Congress acts with respect to those lands covered by the {property] clause, its legislation overrides conflicting state laws.”
    This is standing case law, and that it is standing law is without dispute. There may be equal footing claims by some states in other cases, but those cases would need to make their way through federal courts and set a precedent to be applied here. In this case the State of Nevada does not make an equal footing case and does not dispute the federal governments right to manage the land. Mr. Bundy is making the case that the State of Nevada has sovereignty over the land, a claim Nevada disputes.
    Mr. Bundy’s family never owned this land. The land was ceded to the United States of America under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and when Nevada became a State it agreed to the terms that these land belonged to the federal government pending future disposition. Mr. Bundy’s claim that he enjoys prescriptive rights is superseded by federal Constitutional rights and Treaty.
    None of you have disputed in any direct way, or citing any case law, this case. You have presented emotional arguments about how you think things should be.
    If you want to make the case that Mr. Bundy has or should have some legal right to this land you have to make the case.

    Like

  24. Al Avatar
    Al

    The public land known as the Bundy Ranch is planned to become an
    Offsite Mitigation Bank that allows for development elsewhere,
    for a fee.
    Removal of the Bundys will re-establish onsite cashflow and is
    useful as a precedent for other actions, and for other purposes.

    Like

  25. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Tyranny, Mr. Dirtmover, is a state where all power is vested in a single or a small clique of rulers who use that power to oppress others.
    In this case we have a Constitutional system, with power checked and balanced between three branches of government, with popular sovereignty, and the rule of law, based on both governing documents and historic precedent.
    You say you love the Constitution, and wish to hew to its original intent, you need to use the Constitution, and some rational system of laws, to make your case.
    Law balances the competing interested of multiple parties. In this case there is a legitimate public interest in the management of lands owned by the public, and a set of competing interests, including the publics right to access to public lands, the publics right to use those public lands for societal benefit, the publics right to the protection of species and habitat that are in the public domain, and the private property owners rights to use public property for public good. When those interests compete the owner of the land, the federal government, has the right to make rules governing the use of their land.
    That is not tyranny, that is a modern society using the rule of law to balance competing interests. Absent a system to do that we have anarchy.

    Like

  26. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Let’s be clear boys, you cannot say you love the Constitution, and stand for the rule of law, then show up with guns threatening legal processes, and claim to love that system.
    That position is inherently inconsistent.
    I applaud the BLM and other federal law enforcement agencies for backing off in this case, particularly because there is now ample photo and other anecdotal evidence that heavily armed militia members have been showing up in the community and training their guns on federal law enforcement. I think the decision not to precipitate an armed exchange was smart. I wish the feds had done that in the case of Waco and Ruby Ridge.
    But lets be clear, in the case of WACO David Koresh was fu*#ing children. Get it? He was breaking the law. There was ample evidence that he was breaking the law.
    Randy Weaver was questioned by the Secret Service for threatening the life of the President, and was under indictment at the time for making and possessing illegal firearms and was served notice to appear in court. The standoff occurred when Mr. weaver failed to appear. I believe that given Mr. Weaver’s history and the circumstances the effort to arrest him at his home should not have been made. But that does not mean that Mr. Weaver was not breaking the law when the incident happened. He was.
    Avoiding this sort of senseless armed incident in the Bundy case is not a sign of weakness it is a sign of strength and smart law enforcement by federal agencies.

    Like

  27. Barry Pruett Avatar

    Did Bundy break the law? Yes. Is the law just? No. He certainly is shedding light on the ever-growing and expanding federal government. The issues with the BLM trying to remove people from federal land on trumped up studies is never ending. There are likely a thousand Bundy’s who are paying for their alottment but are still being tormented by BLM because a single cow wandered. While armed conflict needs to be avoided, a big bright light needs to be shined on the BLM. Bundy is doing just that.
    What about the Harry Reid/Chinese connection? I found that very interesting.

    Like

  28. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    My, my, the tables have turned. Mr. stevenfrisch is arguing the Constitution of the United States of America in a clear calm matter of fact manner while us Righties are making emotional appeals. Its called role reversal.
    Sure, the Brandy Bunch don’t have a legal horse to ride on. But, can’t we make an exception for him? People are dying out in the desert trying to illegally sneak in here and seek a better life here and deportation is tearing apart families!!!! They are just hard working families. Can’t we make an exception here?
    Yep, it must be frustrating for Mr. stevenfrisch to argue with us hysterical types. Has he no heart?

    Like

  29. fish Avatar
    fish

    I applaud the BLM and other federal law enforcement agencies for backing off in this case, particularly because there is now ample photo and other anecdotal evidence that heavily armed militia members have been showing up in the community and training their guns on federal law enforcement. I think the decision not to precipitate an armed exchange was smart. I wish the feds had done that in the case of Waco and Ruby Ridge.
    But lets be clear, in the case of WACO David Koresh was fu*#ing children. Get it? He was breaking the law. There was ample evidence that he was breaking the law.
    Randy Weaver was questioned by the Secret Service for threatening the life of the President, and was under indictment at the time for making and possessing illegal firearms and was served notice to appear in court. The standoff occurred when Mr. weaver failed to appear. I believe that given Mr. Weaver’s history and the circumstances the effort to arrest him at his home should not have been made. But that does not mean that Mr. Weaver was not breaking the law when the incident happened. He was.

    Oh Stevie…..you were doing so well. You finally had a federal law enforcement standoff where the Feds maintained calm and didn’t embarrass themselves. Don’t try and fold examples of previous failures into your argument.

    Like

  30. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Barry, I think it is important to note that Bundy began breaking the law long before there was a proposal to construct a solar project 93 miles from his home ranch. His failure to pay federal grazing fees, which almost every other rancher using public land pays, began more than 20 years ago. He has at least three federal court orders against him ordering him to pay fees dating back to 1993. The original issue, from whence all future issues have derived, is failure to pay rent (his lease payment).
    I would say that is a pretty open and shut case.
    Who decides if a law is just? We decide if a law is just by challenging its merits in court. If we lose in court we can pass a new law through the legislative process. If we disagree with the courts interpretation of a law we can appeal that decision all the way to the Supreme Court. If we disagree with the decision of the courts and the legislature we can decide to not comply with that law. The price of non-compliance is facing prosecution, and through that prosecution you can argue your case again, and the jury may nullify the implementation of the law by finding a defended not guilty. Finally, if one is convicted of a crime, they serve their time (or pay their penalty) and use their case to make a larger point in society in an effort to change the law. That is the system we have. Many good people have decided not to follow the law and become prisoners of conscience to prove their point.
    But if they shoot a federal law enforcement agent in the pursuit of their conscience, they are a murderer, and subject to prosecution.
    If we look at the case itself we see that Bundy argued his case in 1993, and did so without any claims of state sovereignty. It was only after he lost his case in 1993 that he began to make the state sovereignty case, which the State of Nevada did not support him on. Once losing his case again he is now saying he does not even recognize the United States of America as a legal entity.
    I ask you, as an attorney, is this how law is made? Would you advise your client to deny the existence of the United States of America as a legal entity?
    Next, lets go to the ‘trumped up studies’ charge. If you are going to make a case that studies of the impact of Mr. Bundy’s cows on public resources are trumped up, the burden of proof is on you to produce the studies and argue the case. There is a very well established process to do so, and many people dispute scientific finding in court, and some even win.
    Finally, to the ‘Harry Reid’ connection. It is actually irrelevant in this case, because federal land managers have the right, granted in the Constitution, and upheld by the Supreme Court, to make decisions about public land management.
    But let’s pretend for a minute that there is an issue of competition over the use of public lands for public benefit. Under those circumstances would you deny the right of the federal government to decide what is a ‘highest and best use’ or a ‘public interest use’ on federal land. Can I decide the best use by simply seizing federal land and using it to my will regardless of competing claims? If a neighboring rancher wants to use the land to graze his/her cattle, whose will predominates?
    In a bygone era the best use of this land owned by the public may very well have been grazing. But today the best use may be generating energy, or recreation, or water supply, or any number of other uses. Some system has to be in place to decide who has rights of use and who does not? In the absence of the federal system would we have the ‘law of the west’?
    I fail to see how any rational conservative could support the rights of an individual member of the public to exert their property rights over their neighbors. Protection of property is central to liberty, as conservatives are fond of saying, and if that is the case there must be a rational system for the protection of property, including the public property.

    Like

  31. fish Avatar
    fish

    Stevie,
    Were you ever going to take a flyer on answering why the federal government need to own the majority of the land in any state (other than that needed for demonstrated needs)?

    Like

  32. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 14 April 2014 at 07:48 PM
    Mr. Bundy has “intended” to break the law since the first time he violated the 1993 court order. He knew exactly what he was doing.
    “The fed govt tells armed protectors of our borders to run away from rock throwers. What if the protesters in Nevada had started throwing rocks? The Bundys never intended to break the law, but those coming across our borders out in the desert are. What is SteveF’s response to that sort of law breaking that he claims he is against?”
    Crossing the border illegally is a crime. If people are apprehended crossing the border they are arrested and sent back where they came from. I support that. I do not support shooting people in the head for throwing a rock (proportional response). In the Bundy case the BLM and other agencies backed off because people with guns were showing up and the doctrine of proportional response requires de-escalating the situation.
    One day Mr. Bundy is going to drive down to Vegas for a beer, and my guess is he is not going to come back for a while.
    One day his cattle are going to trespass on federal land in violation of a court order, and they are probably going to get shot.
    Finally, I never claimed to be a master of the constitution, but playing one here is awfully damn easy when you guys don’t even read the Constitution and the laws and decisions that support it. I have a little advise for all ya’all ‘conservatarians’; if you are going to claim to love the document you might start making you case based on it.
    What legal doctrine recognized in the Constitution was Mr. Bundy standing up for?

    Like

  33. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: fish | 15 April 2014 at 07:33 AM
    Because those lands were either purchased by the federal government or ceded to them by treaty. As such they became property of the United States of America under the terms of Constitution, and CONGRESS is authorized to dispose of them as they will. If Congress decides to dispose of portions of those lands, as they did in the 1862 Homestead Act, or by sale which they do on a regular basis, or by granting them to a state as they have as many states have been admitted to the union, then they can.
    The question ‘why’ has an answer if you disagree with how the land is disposed of; change the law.

    Like

  34. fish Avatar
    fish

    Finally, to the ‘Harry Reid’ connection. It is actually irrelevant in this case, because federal land managers have the right, granted in the Constitution, and upheld by the Supreme Court, to make decisions about public land management.
    No it might be real relevant in this case. Harry working through an appointed minion placed in charge of the BLM in association with a firm employing his son representing foreign interests regarding the use of the land.
    Probably enough for an inquiry there.
    C’mon Steve you gave Barry and Scott Essay length responses……can I just get a number…..I won’t even ask for an explanation initially as to the reason behind it….? Just a percentage of the land that the feds should own. Something as simple as XX% will do nicely for now.

    Like

  35. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    This one is for Bill Tozer:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2hkw-qYEWQ

    Like

  36. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: fish | 15 April 2014 at 07:53 AM
    Jesus Fish, when I was a kid I wanted a pony.
    The feds own what they own due to the exigency of history. It is not for me (or you) to say how much; it is simply a fact.
    You want to change that, more power to you to try. I have actually worked on federal land sales, I think a good chunk of it should be privately owned. But it isn’t.
    But really, are you asking “why”? or how much?

    Like

  37. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    By the way, you don’t want to read the essay, go watch American Idol.

    Like

  38. fish Avatar
    fish

    The question ‘why’ has an answer if you disagree with how the land is disposed of; change the law.
    I’m not asking for you to restate the mechanism of how the federal government came to be in possession of the land or it’s method for releasing it should it choose to do so. I’m asking you personally if there is a percentage of land you believe that the federal government should own in any state. I’m not even going to try and pin you down if you come up with a number bigger than most posters here are likely to be comfortable with.
    Just a number.

    Like

  39. fish Avatar
    fish

    By the way, you don’t want to read the essay, go watch American Idol.
    I read the “essay” Steve.
    You want to change that, more power to you to try. I have actually worked on federal land sales, I think a good chunk of it should be privately owned. But it isn’t.
    But really, are you asking “why”? or how much?

    In the other thread that spawned this one I acknowledged that in this area I was going to defer to your expertise on the topic. When you decided blow JoKes dog whistle over taxes followed up by your nonsensical rants about the Weaver standoff and Ruby Ridge I started to lose interest but no biggie there….there is ample evidence that your conclusions regarding the follow on to both of those incidents is incorrect. I even gave you a heads up regarding the discussion I heard on the radio that supported your position.
    My question was how much land should the federal government own in any state in your opinion? I may have follow up questions…..but maybe not.

    Like

  40. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: fish | 15 April 2014 at 08:10 AM
    Fish, there is not any set percentage of land I believe the federal government ‘should’ own.
    I don’t believe the question can be answered with a simple number without a great deal on analysis.
    I will tell you that I do not object to the federal government releasing lands to the states, or selling lands, if a rational process is used to make that determination. I also do not object to the federal government purchasing lands as a result of a rational process.

    Like

  41. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    Steve does a nice evasion tactic there.
    “I do not support shooting people in the head for throwing a rock”
    Straw man argument – no one said you did. I asked why border agents are told to run away if border hoppers start throwing rocks, but if the protesters in Nevada had no guns and started throwing rocks, you know what would have happened. The feds backed down because they were out gunned. Try throwing rocks at the local sheriff here in this county and see what happens. Glad to hear that you are for arresting border hoppers in principle. But they often don’t. Border agents are frustrated over the ‘rules of engagement’ that hinder them in doing just that. My point is the different way the feds ‘enforce’ the law depending skin color and political affiliation. Steve is Mr LawnOrder when it suits him, but seems to not remember the Constitution when it gets in the way of his pet projects. The situation with Bundy didn’t have to be done the way the feds went about it. Why did they bring in a backhoe and dump truck?
    Waco was an epic fail by the feds. Koresh often went to town and they could have just arrested him quietly there. Instead, the feds bungled a stupid raid that was doomed to fail. They knew there was no element of surprise and let the agents drive right into a crossfire of machine gun fire. Surviving agents were told to shut up and not talk to the press. All the children were burned alive. Way to go, Reno! Sure saved the day.

    Like

  42. fish Avatar
    fish

    You can disregard if you want….I didn’t see “good chunk” until after the fact. That’ll do for now.

    Like

  43. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 15 April 2014 at 08:25 AM
    Scott, I answered your question directly. You asked, “What is SteveF’s response to that sort of law breaking [throwing rocks] that he claims he is against?”
    My answer was, “I do not support shooting people in the head for throwing rocks.”
    I do expect to get arrested for throwing rocks at a law enforcement officer.
    No evasion whatsoever, you asked a question and I answered it.

    Like

  44. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: fish | 15 April 2014 at 08:25 AM
    Now see how you guys are? I am not disregarding your question; I answered it directly. You just don’t like the answer.
    Re; Scott’s comment: I have to assume that people here are looking at other media. I mentioned Waco and Rub Ridge because they are being discussed in the media as analogous situations. I wholeheartedly agree with Scott that Waco was a disaster.
    I think that it was wise for law enforcement not to escalate the current situation. Get Bundy at the grocery store. The man has to eat sometime.

    Like

  45. fish Avatar
    fish

    Now see how you guys are? I am not disregarding your question; I answered it directly. You just don’t like the answer.
    No dummy…..”a good chunk” is as descriptive as a random number. I didn’t see it until I reread my 8:23.
    My “disregard” comment was an acknowledgment that you had indeed answered my question.

    Like

  46. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Fish, I wonder how a sovereign state can be so if another entity owns most of its property? Are we a state with our own Constitution? Or are we the vassal of the federal government? Seems Putin has exercised his power to federalize the Crimea and now eastern Ukraine is next. He also has the “law” on his side as they “voted” to annex to Russia. If the BLM Rangers with their automatic weapons and sniper rifles (aling with “tanks”) are a threat, how is that different than Putin’s forces in Eastern Ukraine?

    Like

  47. Walt Avatar

    Since Steve is on a “rule of law kick”, and right there with Harry Reid,
    “No one should break the law, and walk away from it.”.
    Now that’s rich coming from the likes of Reid. How many LIBS have broke the law and have walked away scott free? Holder has yet to be held accountable for his law breaking, Same goes for people at the IRS, and the list goes on.
    But one cow poke, get’s the FED sniper treatment. Let’s see some jailed LIBS before a jailed rancher.
    ( And the government pay the fines that have been levied against it.)

    Like

  48. fish Avatar
    fish

    Report: Agenda 21 conspiracy theories spread by extremists,
    politicians pose real danger

    Oh Jeffy…you’re on such sounder footing when you prattle on about community theater. Once you’ve pried your self off the super duty fainting couch drop by and chat!
    Oh and JoKe…. much like your aphorism that “You can spell conservatism without ‘Con’…” it’s impossible to spell joke without JoKe.

    Like

  49. Walt Avatar

    Todd. It looks like the Ukraine government was watching what was going on in Nevada. A handful of cowboys took on the “O”‘s government and won the day.
    ” If THEY can do it,, we can stick it to Putin.”,, and have won some battles of their own. Nope,, the W.H. isn’t happy Ukraine is fighting back. Just watched Jay “the Carney” voice the W.H. opinion on that.

    Like

  50. Bonnie McGuire Avatar

    When I look at Mr. Rebane’s map of Nevada it looks like the Feds own it. Those who have been watching the takeover of all our natural resources can compare it with socialist Russia and Germany. Nevada is mineral rich. Years ago some people were digging a water well that that turned out to be artisian. There was a big battle with the gov.
    I learned something valuable from the Weaver’s Ruby Ridge horror story. Originally he was supposed to appear in court for owning a sawed off shotgun. He went to court, but wasn’t listed so he went home. That resulted in a contempt of court warrant, so the Swat team went out to arrest him. A gov sniper shot Weavers wife who was near the door on the back deck. Then the war broke out? What happened there was a warning regarding our court system. Not many years some law enforcement and Judges targeted log truckers. A slightly overweight load was an excuse to charge Mel excessive bail, and in another truckers case the Judge applied past, paid for offenses to the his bail. Upon appearing for court on the appointed day none of the courts listed our case, so I went to the desk and asked the clerk to sign the summons so there wouldn’t be any contempt charges for not appearing. She then assigned me to a court. You can read our experiences below that made us decide to quit trucking. Since then we’ve watched what the Gov’s done to everyone who uses a vehicle to earn a living using global warming as an excuse.
    http://www.mcguiresplace.net/A%20Point%20of%20Law
    http://www.mcguiresplace.net/Modern%20Day%20Highwaymen%201
    http://www.mcguiresplace.net/Old%20Lady%20In%20Tennis%20Shoes%20Is%20A%20Winner
    Some of you mentioned what happened at Waco to save the children (who wound up being BBQed by their saviors). One of the earliest reports was that David Koresh had called the local Sheriff (before the raid) to check out the planes flying into an abandoned airport at night. Were they drug smugglers? The Waco survivors were just as quiet as the Benghazi embassy survivors. No wonder Hillary Clinton labelled those who ask questions “right wing conspiracy theorists.”

    Like

Leave a comment