»Home | »Philosophy  | »Advocacy | »Weblog
:: The Rule of Reason ::

:: Sunday, April 20, 2014 ::

Cliven Bundy's Justifiable Defiance: Part II 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 6:20 PM


At the end of Part One of this column, I asked: Was the law on the government's side and not on Cliven Bundy's? What kind of law is it? And how is it being enforced throughout the country?

Few sitting politicians have remarked on the Bundy/BLM standoff. However, Christopher Agee, in his Western Journalism article of April 18th, "Obama Accused by Congressman of Illegal Action at Bundy Ranch," reported:

Immediately after what many considered a victory against a tyrannical federal agency, a number of leftist voices – most notably, Sen. Harry Reid – indicated the action against this family will continue. In response, Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman sent a letter to Barack Obama, Department of the Interior Sec. Sally Jewell, and BLM Director Neil Kornze, laying out his position that any such action by the agency would violate the U.S. Constitution….

He cited the limited powers granted to the federal government, noting the bureau has no “right to assume preemptory police powers, that role being reserved to the States,” and explained “many federal laws require the federal government to seek assistance from local law enforcement whenever the use of force may become necessary.”

The letter included a section of the U.S. Code — 43 U.S.C. Section 1733, Subsection C — stating exactly that point. [Emphasis Stockman's]

When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary in enforcing Federal laws and regulations relating to the public lands or their resources he shall offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such laws and regulations.”

The local law enforcement authority in this instance is the Sheriff of Clark County, Nevada, Douglas C. Gillespie, who, apparently intimidated by the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) as the protesters were not, refused to intervene and demand that the illegal BLM vigilantes leave.

Gillespie, however, conspicuously took a back seat to BLM forces during the standoff.

“Indeed,” Stockman wrote, “the exact type of crisis that the federal government has provoked at the Bundy ranch is the very type of incident that Congress knew could be avoided by relying on local law enforcement officials.”

The stated purpose of the correspondence is for the Obama administration “to bring the BLM into compliance with 43 U.S.C. Section 1733.”

Which, if we know anything about President Obama, isn't going to happen. An abuse of federal powers is, by his authoritarian lights, an exercise of executive privilege or an action that transcends Constitutional authority.

John Fund, formerly of the Wall Street Journal, penned an interesting April 18th piece on the growth of government SWAT teams, "The United States of SWAT? Military-Style Units from Government Agencies are Wreaking Havoc on Non-Violent Citizens" for National Review Online.

Regardless of how people feel about Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s standoff with the federal Bureau of Land Management over his cattle’s grazing rights, a lot of Americans were surprised to see TV images of an armed-to-the-teeth paramilitary wing of the BLM deployed around Bundy’s ranch.

They shouldn’t have been. Dozens of federal agencies now have Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams to further an expanding definition of their missions. It’s not controversial that the Secret Service and the Bureau of Prisons have them. But what about the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? All of these have their own SWAT units and are part of a worrying trend towards the militarization of federal agencies — not to mention local police forces.

(I provide a link to a list of all these agencies in my June 2013 Rule of Reason column, "The Stinking Badges of Our Federales." Go here for the list.)

Fund writes:

The proliferation of paramilitary federal SWAT teams inevitably brings abuses that have nothing to do with either drugs or terrorism. Many of the raids they conduct are against harmless, often innocent, Americans who typically are accused of non-violent civil or administrative violations.

Underscoring Christopher Agee's point, Fund noted:

Brian Walsh, a senior legal analyst with the Heritage Foundation, says it is inexplicable why so many federal agencies need to be battle-ready: “If these agencies occasionally have a legitimate need for force to execute a warrant, they should be required to call a real law-enforcement agency, one that has a better sense of perspective. The FBI, for example, can draw upon its vast experience to determine whether there is an actual need for a dozen SWAT agents.”

Since 9/11, the feds have issued a plethora of homeland-security grants that encourage local police departments to buy surplus military hardware and form their own SWAT units. By 2005, at least 80 percent of towns with a population between 25,000 and 50,000 people had their own SWAT team. The number of raids conducted by local police SWAT teams has gone from 3,000 a year in the 1980s to over 50,000 a year today.

But whether they are actual federal SWAT teams, or local police hybrids, they are being used more and more to enforce law in a familiar totalitarian manner:

Once SWAT teams are created, they will be used. Nationwide, they are used for standoffs, often serious ones, with bad guys. But at other times they’ve been used for crimes that hardly warrant military-style raids. Examples include angry dogs, domestic disputes, and misdemeanor marijuana possession.

Fund cites the Heritage Foundation which regards as "inexplicable" the question of why so many federal agencies need to be battle-ready. Brian Walsh of that organization noted, among other frightening things:

In yet another Orwellian development, the Education Department IG provides an anonymous tip line encouraging Americans to inform on each other. This is reminiscent of the Obama White House asking Americans in 2010 to report on friends and neighbors who said anything "fishy" about Obamacare in private conversations.

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center says that it trains agents for "over 80 federal agencies." These include the Secret Service, Bureau of Prisons, and similar agencies that one would expect.

But the list includes dozens of federal agencies with no business training and fielding armed officers. Who wants early-morning armed break-ins by the Department of Agriculture, Railroad Retirement Board, Bureau of Land Management, Tennessee Valley Authority, Office of Personnel Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

It is "inexplicable" only if one doesn’t acknowledge the expansion of federal powers which dovetails into virtually every nook and cranny of American life.

Has the federal government any legal right to "own" or control this much land, and to claim that the states have no say in the matter? No. But, the feds just take it anyway. This is the behavior of tyranny in the name of the "public interest." The indefatigable "Hilda," mentioned in Part I, consulted the Justia US Law site, and found this information about Nevada. She wrote:

The State of Nevada has a legal claim to the public land retained by the Federal Government within Nevada's borders because:

"(a) In the case of the State of Alabama, a renunciation of any claim to unappropriated lands similar to that contained in the ordinance adopted by the Nevada constitutional convention was held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be void and inoperative because it denied to Alabama an equal footing with the original states in Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845);

(b) The State of Texas, when admitted to the Union in 1845, retained ownership of all unappropriated land within its borders, setting a further precedent which inured to the benefit of all states admitted later on an equal footing ; and

(c) The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, adopted into the Constitution of the United States by the reference of Article VI to prior engagements of the Confederation, first proclaimed the equal footing doctrine, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, by which the territory including Nevada was acquired from Mexico and which is the supreme law of the land by virtue of Article VI, affirms it expressly as to the new states to be organized therein."

The federal government's claim to the state's land is as fanciful as people believing that Area 51 is where the government hides evidence of alien spaceships. It's a kind of "urban legend." Furthermore, the Constitution specifically states, in Section 3, Clause 1:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned was well as of the Congress.

This has been ignored by the federal government, and to the detriment of not only the states, but of all Americans. The federal government has, for all practical purposes, erected its own states within and at the junctures of states, governed by federal laws enforced by the BLM, the National Park Service, the EPA, and myriad other federal agencies. For the history of this incremental, unconstitutional land-grab, see the history of specifically the BLM here.

National Review Online (NRO) is regarded as the chief herald and articulator of conservative causes and viewpoints. Yet its writers can't make up their minds about Cliven Bundy and the whole BLM issue. Their timidity is conspicuous, but also not a little snarky. Kevin D. Williamson, in his April 15th article, "The Case for a Little Sedition," remarked:

…There are of course questions of prudence and proportion to be answered here, and though I note that he uses the very strong phrase “lawless government,” I sympathize with Mr. Lowry’s desire that both sides should follow the law….

The thing that conservatives seek to conserve is the American order, which (1) insists that we are to be governed by laws rather than by men and (2) was born in a violent revolution. Russell Kirk described the conservative ideal as “ordered liberty,” and that is indeed what we must aim for — keeping in mind that it is order that serves liberty, not the other way around….

By some estimates, superfluous federal holdings amount to trillions of dollars in value. Surely not every inch of that 87 percent of Nevada under the absentee-landlordship of the federal government is critical to the national interest. Perhaps Mr. Bundy would like to buy some land where he can graze his cattle.

It's Williamson's tone that is repulsive, not the content on his article. Why do so many "conservatives" try to sound like Jon Stewart or David Letterman?

Meanwhile, Charles C.W. Cooke, in his April 15th NRO article, "The Problem with Cliven Bundy," worries that Bundy's actions may cause more trouble: 

…Bundy’s story is that of a family that has raised cattle in the West since before the automobile was invented being turned into a grotesque social experiment. Nevertheless, as one of the better of those statesmen once said, this is a nation with a “government of laws and not of men” — and not the other way around — and it seems to me that this principle should not be considered null and void because one of those men happens to have an agreeable tale, a photogenic complaint, and a romantic genealogical past.

That there is a point beyond which the state may not advance without expecting legitimate pushback is acknowledged by even the most committed of the state’s enablers. Indeed, this principle is baked into America’s instruction manual — albeit with a caveat. “Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive,” the Declaration reads, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” But it also chides the hotheaded among us, inviting us to remember that “prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes.” As far as we know, Bundy is not set on starting a revolution.

When can one refuse to obey the law without expecting to bring the whole thing down? Certainly such instances exist: I daresay that I would not stand idly by quoting John Adams if a state reintroduced slavery or herded a religious group into ovens or even indulged in wholesale gun confiscation. But Bundy’s case is not remotely approaching these thresholds. Are we to presume that if the government is destroying one’s livelihood or breaking one’s ties with the past, one can revolt? If so, one suspects that half the country would march on Washington, with scimitars drawn, and that West Virginia would invade the Environmental Protection Agency.

As government expands and civil society retreats, bad laws pile atop bad laws, and the cause for dissent is magnified and deepened. Cliven Bundy has been dealt a raw hand by a system that is deaf to his grievances and ham-fisted in its response. But this is a republic, dammit — and those who hope to keep it cannot pick and choose the provisions with which they are willing to deign to comply.

I don’t know, Mr. Cook. Is this still a "republic," or is it a "democracy" governed by Marxists, Progressives, and vacillating conservatives afraid of their own shadows? I would say the latter. When is it morally proper to refuse to comply with the bullying commands of a rampaging Goliath? Who gave the federal government aegis over so much land and so many industries, such as the energy or power industry? Perhaps it was some ambiguously worded or sloppily interpreted clauses in the Constitution. Chief Justice John Roberts was not the first to quibble over "definitions" and "meanings."

Back to U.S. Senator Harry Reid, the one who called the Bundy protestors "domestic terrorists." Reid has a history of hating coal. GOPUSA reported in September 2012, in "Harry Reid demands closure of coal-fired power plant":

U.S. Sen. Harry Reid on Tuesday called for the closure of a coal-fired power plant outside Las Vegas, saying he expects opposition from NV Energy Inc. but the facility is antiquated and a health risk to American Indians who live nearby. "There is no clean coal," the Senate Democratic leader declared after meeting with several members of the Moapa Band of Paiutes who live near the Reid Gardner station and a handful of representatives of the Sierra Club and Nevada Conservation League who want the plant to close.

"We have to stop further degradation of the land and air as a result of burning coal," Reid said. "The solution is to close the plant. We want the boilers shut off."

A Republican Party spokesman, Darren Littell, accused Reid of wanting to throw 150 people out of work in a state where unemployment tops 12 percent.

Reid wants the boilers shut off. Of course, his concerns about the Paiutes and the environment had nothing to do with his wanting to convert BLM land into solar, wind, and geothermal power sources. If you believe that, you believe in the Moon People. See James Simpson's, April 16th WND article, "Clinton/Obama/Cronies Behind Bundy Showdown." However, Reid got his way.

The Las Vegas Sun reported in its June 4th article, "NV Energy Bill wins passage, signaling state's shift from coal" reported:

Legislators have officially moved Nevada out of the coal business. In a vote Monday night, the Assembly approved a landmark energy shift away from coal-fired power plants like Reid Gardner in Clark County and mandated investment in renewable energy and natural gas. [Reid Garner was no relation to Harry Reid]….

While Nevada has long had a policy to invest in renewable energy, it has never before excluded a fossil fuel like coal from its energy portfolio. The policy shift comes with significant political weight behind it: NV Energy, U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval, the state's major casinos, the environmental lobby, and major labor unions all support the move.

In the meantime, and finally, here is a larger connection between Cliven Bundy, Harry Reid, and the fact that the federal government has taken over realms over which it was never intended to reign supreme or have anything to say at all about. The Wall Street Journal reported on April 18th that "Obama Extends Review of Pipeline Project":

The Obama administration is indefinitely extending its review of the Keystone XL pipeline, likely delaying a decision on the project until after November's U.S. midterm elections.

The State Department, which has jurisdiction over TransCanada Corp.'s TRP.T-0.33%, 1,700-mile long pipeline project because it crosses the Canadian-U.S. border, cited as a key reason ongoing litigation over a Nebraska law that allowed the pipeline's route through the state.

We live in a command, by-your-leave economy and political state (that is, a fascist one), dependent on the whims and fortunes of political parties, lobbyists, and corrupt politicians.

The pipeline would send more than 700,000 barrels of carbon-heavy oil from Canada's oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries in the U.S….Business interests contend it will create jobs and offer a safer alternative than transporting the oil by rail.

The decision could help the Obama administration sidestep for now a tricky political issue that has divided the Democratic Party in an election year.

If that weren't bad enough, we have creeping censorship to contend with. Mark Horne of Political Outcast reported in his April 2014 article, "Senate Dems Ready to Smash 1st Amendment for TV, Radio, Internet."

No, the bill doesn’t enforce open censorship yet, but that’s never how it starts. …[T]he Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 demands the tracking of so-called “hate speech” without any enforcement yet.

If Senators Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) were looking for a way to rile talk radio hosts, their Hate Crimes Reporting Act seems like a good way to get the job done.  With bills in the House and Senate, the lawmakers would direct the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to “analyze” media outlets — including radio — to determine if they’re working to “advocate and encourage” hate crimes.

Tying their bill to this week’s alleged white supremacist shootings in Kansas, Markey says it is “critical to ensure the internet, television and radio are not encouraging hate crimes or hate speech.”  He brushes aside expected First Amendment arguments, saying “criminal and hateful activity” isn’t covered by the Constitution.  The bill would look closely at discussions related to gender, race, religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation. [Emphasis Horne's]….It gives the government a new tool to force an "orthodoxy” on the populace in the name of a recent crime that had absolutely nothing to do with talk radio.

The next thing you know, the NTIA will have its own SWAT team, ready to raid Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Michael Savage. And I'm sure there are plenty of armed-to-the-teeth men who'd like to pat down Megyn Kelly TSA-style for her ill-advised "hate speech." After all, when she asks so many inconvenient questions of taqiyya-happy Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR, isn't she encouraging "hate crimes" against Muslims?  Isn't reasoned inquiry a form of "criminal activity"?  To Hooper, to Markey, to Jeffries, yes, it is.

The next step, as Horne suggests, is for the government to want to "track" what's said in print, as well. Any words written and published in support of Cliven Bundy and critical of the BLM, can be frowned upon and perceived as encouraging "domestic terrorism" and "hateful activity." I'm sure Senator Harry Reid will vote in favor of the Hate Crimes Reporting Act. And then, as the BLM did, he'll want to see vocal Americans rounded up and corralled in another "First Amendment" cattle pen.

Ready for the slaughter.

:: Permalink | 3 Comments ::

 

:: Saturday, April 19, 2014 ::

Cliven Bundy's Justifiable Defiance: Part I 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 7:43 AM


On a morning In April, 1775, the British army, based in Boston, Massachusetts, set out to seize and/or destroy caches of arms and powder stockpiled by colonists in anticipation of trouble with the Crown. Along the way, this "search and destroy" army, between 600 and 700 strong, encountered a tiny band of armed American colonists, about 40 in number, on Lexington Green. There was a confrontation. The commanding officer ordered the colonists, the "damned rebels" – who weren't even blocking the path of the army – to lay down their arms. The colonists refused.

A shot was fired – from which side? That's always been a subject of speculation, and it hardly matters. A "violent" confrontation was bound to happen, later if not sooner, and if not on Lexington Green, then elsewhere, as the Crown arrogantly pushed its weight around in an attempt to subdue resistance by the colonists to Crown rule and regulations.

The British fired a volley into the colonists. Some colonists returned fire before dispersing in the face of the superior force. The survivors of the volley faded into the woods.

The pattern was repeated on a far greater scale on Bunker or Breed's Hill in June.

In April, 2014, in Nevada, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), together with the U.S. Park Service, sent in about 200 officers prepared for war against other Americans to seize the cattle of Cliven Bundy, a recalcitrant rancher who refused to pay "grazing fees" on federal land. This force was augmented with military-style communications, tasers, attack dogs, snipers in the hills, and the best weaponry money could buy.  In response, hundreds of Americans, many of them armed and ready to defend Bundy, his family, and his ranch, arrived on the scene. On Saturday, April 12th, the BLM "backed off" from what promised to be a clash of arms between its hired guns and the impromptu American militia. Some cattle it had collected were released. It promised to pursue Bundy "administratively and judicially" in court.

The rapidity with which events unfolded in Nevada caused no little amount of confusion, two or three baker's dozens of rumors and allegations, and muddled coverage of what Cliven Bundy did or didn't do, what actually happened on April 12th, and what may happen next. This column is an attempt to sort the calves from the heifers.

But, first, back to April 1775 and Lexington Green. When the French & Indian War was concluded in 1763, King George III issued a Proclamation, which, among other things, stated that British subjects in North America could no longer flee Crown taxation and regulation by going over the transmontane, that is, the mountain range separating the "wild west" from the colonies that lined the eastern seaboard. They would be stopped by British troops, and if they managed to slip through, these unpatriotic citizens would be at the mercy of the Indians and no British troops would go to their rescue. The Stamp Act of 1765 was intended to partly offset the cost of maintaining a standing British army in North America.

It was the Proclamation which seeded colonial resentment against the Crown. It climaxed, first, during the Boston Massacre in March, 1770, and finally on Lexington Green in April, 1775. The colonists did not perceive His Majesty's Proclamation as an expression of gratitude for their having helped the British evict the French from North America, or, at least, helping to put a stop to the French and Indians who had been raiding the colonies that lay below Canada.

Similarly, in parallel, the BLM has assumed complete control of a swath of land out West, forbidding any and all from stepping foot on it without BLM permission. It sent troops to enforce a court order to Bundy to pay what the BLM claimed he owed, and also to collect what one can only guess it treated as collateral, Bundy's cattle. The BLM, along with the Park Service and the Environmental Protection Agency, had banded together to put 52 other ranches out of business in that area. Bundy is the "last man standing."

Laron Fred Woods, a resident of Utah, supplied this brief history of the land under dispute:

When Nevada became a state in 1864, the state had control of its land because of its sovereignty. The federal government started taking control back in the 1930's. Until then, the General Land Office managed public lands. Even though the GLO was a national agency, it was administered locally. After the Taylor Grazing act of 1934, passed under Franklin D. Roosevelt, a "U.S. Grazing Service" office was created. The "U.S. Grazing Service" office was merged with the General Land Office in 1946 (under Harry S. Truman) and the BLM (Bureau Of Land Management) was created. They then assumed control of all "public" lands and took over management from the state. Cliven Bundy's Grandfather purchased grazing rights from the General Land Office in the 1880's. Note: He PURCHASED those rights. Not the land, just the grazing rights.

After the BLM took over management, they [the BLM] no longer recognized as legitimate those actions of purchasing grazing rights. Right or wrong, they still refuse to recognize the purchased grazing rights from the Bundy's.

Two BLM sites carry the same official history.

The "roundup" of Bundy's cattle by the feds, given the context in which Bundy is acting, is simply a naked seizure of his property, under the guise of protecting the habitat of the desert tortoise. But even that pretext was exploded when it was learned that the BLM was actually euthanizing these tortoises. Watch Stefan Molyneux's YouTube observations on this subject, and also listen to Mark Levin's comments on Family Security Matters.

Unfortunately, Cliven Bundy's rationale for his resistance and defiance lacks any rational cohesion. It is basically an action taken on an emotional reaction to the overbearing and authoritarian behavior of the BLM and other federal agencies. His strongest suit is the fact that his ancestors purchased the "grazing rights" to the land in dispute, as described by Laron Fred Woods, rights which are no longer recognized by the BLM. Cliven Bundy isn't an intellectual; he deserves the support of those who claim to be.

Of course, if the government needn't recognize the right to property secured over a century ago, never mind property secured within the last half century, the last decade, the last year. Private property rights of any kind, whether prescriptive or outright or common law, have been drowned in an avalanche of fiat law and legalized theft under the rubric of the "public" or "common" good" or the "public interest."

Freedom Outpost's Ben Swann reveals the cluelessness of the BLM in his April 16th article, "BLM: We Were Worried Cliven Bundy Might Have Prescriptive Rights and He Might Use that Defense in Court." He asks:

Why this year, spend nearly $1,000,000 of taxpayer money to round up 400 cattle that ultimately have to be returned? Why didn't the BLM just place a lien on the cattle rather than attempting to take them by force and then auction them off? The Bureau of Land Management has suffered a huge black eye this week because of their response to the Bundy situation. Perhaps though, there is a reason the BLM chose force over the courts.

Swann contacted Montana cattleman Todd Devlin, who is also County Commissioner in Prairie County, Montana. Devlin made his own enquiries about the BLM's ham-fisted, Gestapo-like behavior towards Bundy.

Among the questions Devlin asked of the BLM, "Is it possible that this guy (Cliven Bundy) has prescriptive rights?" The response from top officials at the BLM, "We are worried that he might, and he might use that defense."

So what exactly are prescriptive rights? Prescriptive right to property is an easement that gives some one the right to use land owned by someone else for a particular purpose. An example is using a path through Party A's land to get to your land; a prescriptive easement is allowed which gives the user the right to get to his land through A's property.

Swann explained that if no one, even a government agency, challenges a prescriptive right in five years, then the right is secured and trespass cannot be legally claimed.

Granted, there have been court actions over the years. In 1998, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against Bundy, ordering him to remove his cattle from the federal lands. He lost an appeal to the San Francisco 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Yet, the "trespass cattle" remained on the BLM land. In fact, it took until August of 2013 for a court order to be issued saying Bundy had 45 days to remove his cattle from federal land. 15 years went by from the time of the last court case over the cattle until the BLM attempted to remove the livestock.
 
Bundy as been in between a rock and a hard place when it comes to dealing with bureaucracies.

Of course, Bundy has not made the claim that he will not pay the fees, he simply says he will not pay those fees to the BLM because he doesn't recognize federal authority over the land. Bundy has said that in the past that he would pay fees to Clarke County, Nevada, though Clarke County has refused to accept them. The BLM has insisted that Bundy owes $1.1 million dollars in grazing fees for his trespass cattle. "The actual number is probably around $200,000. The $1.1 million claimed by the BLM is probably mostly interest and penalties for trespass cattle." says Devlin…. (Italics mine)

Swann concludes his article:

Finally, Devlin says instead of allowing the situation with Bundy's cattle to grow completely out of control, the BLM could have simply placed a lien on the cattle in the first place. Of course, that lien might have been rejected in court if Bundy were able to demonstrate those prescriptive rights. Then again, the courts so far have sided with the government; therefore, it is even more baffling why the lien wasn't placed on the livestock. (Italics mine)

Days after the BLM has claimed they will stand down, they are now reportedly considering a lien on the cattle, "I asked why you didn't put a lien against the cattle?" Devlin asked the BLM. "They hadn't thought about that, but they are considering it now."

DUH!!!! But then, those with a congenital, larcenous state of mind and method of doing things, don’t usually, as a matter of habit, think ahead, do they? Their first impulse is to initiate force.

The BLM, like the National Park Service, wields a lot of clout on land in the U.S., especially in the West. In December 2013, Freedom Outpost published a map of the continental U.S., including Alaska. Beginning half-way through Colorado, moving west, it looks like a bucket of red paint had been dumped on every state: the red is federally owned and controlled land. The Appalachian Range is federal and the largest chunk in the east. Half of California is federal. But virtually all of Nevada is federal; the little white dot in the furthest southeast corner of the state is the Las Vegas Metro area.

The New Energy News site, which is pro-"renewable," features a map of where the BLM and the federal government plan to implement solar, wind, and geothermal power projects. It also has a link to a map of the all the states with the percentage of federally-owned land in each state, published by the General Services Administration under the title, "Who Owns the West?" About 86% of Nevada is federal land.

Aside from the government's ongoing campaign to "green" America, there is a class of corrupt politicians who wish to collect another kind of "green" – money. U.S. Senator Harry Reid, one of the most notorious corrupt politicians in Congress,  may have had a hand in the BLM fiasco. He and his son, Rory Reid, may have instigated the offense against Cliven Bundy in an exercise of vendetta. "Crony capitalism" is the vehicle.

James Simpson, in his April 16th WND article, "Clinton/Obama/Cronies Behind Bundy Showdown," noted:

A BLM document unearthed last week discusses mitigation strategies for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone, just southwest of the Bundy ranch. The “mitigation strategy” proposed to use the grazing lands near the Bundy ranch as a kind of sanctuary for the desert tortoise, because the entire region is slated for a large number of solar, wind and geothermal energy generation facilities. The solar projects will obliterate most of the turtle’s natural habitat.

Bloggers quickly made a connection between the effort to remove Bundy’s cattle and a solar energy project in Southern Nevada financed by the communist Chinese energy firm ENN. It was to be the largest solar farm in the U.S.

Reid had lobbied heavily for the company’s business, even traveling to China. Reid’s son, Rory Reid, formerly a Clark County commissioner, became a lobbyist for ENN, and the Senate majority leader’s former senior adviser, Neil Kornze, now leads the BLM.
But the solar energy complex financed by the communist Chinese was not at the heart of the Bundy Ranch fiasco after all. The project died last year.

The federal government has plans for the country, and especially for the west. If you ever wondered why the Keystone oil project has been denied approval, this is why:

However, the BLM’s library of renewable energy projects revealed it was only one of more than 50 solar, wind and geothermal projects planned for Nevada, California, Arizona and other Western states. Reid was focused on at least one, and maybe more, of the projects, much closer to the Bundy ranch.

Simpson concludes:

But that is not all. A company called First Solar is listed on a BLM renewable energy project map of southern Nevada, one of 11 sited in Clark County. Additionally, the map shows six wind projects in Clark County and also lists the K Road Moapa project under “transmission projects.” In other words, there is a lot more going on than media have reported.

First Solar investors comprise a who’s who of Democratic insiders, including major Obama campaign bundlers, billionaire investor Paul Tudor Jones, Al Gore, Ted Turner and Goldman Sachs. First Solar’s CEO is Michael Ahearn, former fundraiser for both Obama and Harry Reid. First Solar has at least three other solar projects in California. So it becomes apparent why the BLM, Reid and many other interested parties have such an intense interest in the desert tortoise.

Yet, Harry Reid piously pronounced Bundy's supporters as terrorists. Laura Myers of the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported on April 17th:

U.S. Sen. Harry Reid on Thursday called supporters of Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy “domestic terrorists” because they defended him against a Bureau of Land Management cattle roundup with guns and put their children in harm’s way.

“Those people who hold themselves out to be patriots are not. They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,” Reid said during an appearance at a Las Vegas Review-Journal “Hashtags & Headlines” event at the Paris. “… I repeat: what went on up there was domestic terrorism.”

You really have to hand a pound of brass to Reid. Men rallying to help someone protect his property from thieves are "terrorists," not the thieves. He cited the "rule of law" as above all else, when he is a first-class lawbreaker.

Reid accused Bundy backers of bringing their children to protest the BLM so that federal authorities might harm them, which would prompt negative headlines around the world and hurt the government’s case against the rancher.

“There were hundreds — hundreds of people from around the country — that came there,” Reid said. “They had sniper rifles on the freeway. They had assault weapons. They had automatic weapons.”

According to Reid, some protesters said they had “children and women lined up because if anyone got hurt we wanted to make sure they got hurt first, because we want the federal government hurting women and children. … What if others tried the same thing?”

The first charge is simply a lying smear, that the protesters put women and children in jeopardy. It can be dismissed as not worthy of comment. But, who first brought automatic weapons to the party? Who stationed snipers in the hills? Who showed up first in the "hundreds"? Who declared the whole area a "no-fly zone," thus preventing news agencies in their choppers from monitoring the cattle roundup? Who created a "First Amendment" cattle pen in which protesters were supposed to be contained, fruitlessly sequestered miles away from the scene of the crime?

Who committed the only acts of violence during the confrontation? It was BLM personnel tasering one of Bundy's sons and manhandling one of his sisters.  Children? These were adults and so someone's children. In all the videos I've seen of the confrontation and of the protesters, I saw not one person who could have been under the age of twenty. All the people in the video shown advancing on foot and on horseback on the armed, barricaded, bug-eyed sunglass-wearing BLM thugs were adults. No responsible adult would take his children to such a tinderbox of a protest.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal article featured an excerpt of the Nevada Constitution, only partly quoting from it, allowing Harry Reid to slip a mickey into his two-faced taqiyya.

Nevada’s 1864 Constitution, however, cedes rights to the vast stretches of public land to the federal government.

“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,” the state Constitution says in the ordinance section. Reid noted many of the protesters care deeply about the Constitution, both state and federal.

“Nevada’s Constitution sets out very clearly the situation,” Reid said.

One reader of that article, named Hilda, went to the trouble in her comments to educate the writer and Nevadans by citing that part of the Nevada Constitution:

Reid says, “Nevada’s 1864 Constitution, however, cedes rights to the vast stretches of public land to the federal government.” Reid fails to mention that despite that, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of all western states to have all the land returned to them under the "equal footing" doctrine. Also, the US Constitution allows for the federal government to own property only for "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." No other ownership of land is permitted by the government for a reason. The Founding Fathers wanted to ensure limits on the federal government precisely to prevent the abuse of federal power we are witnessing now.

Federally-owned land was never intended to be space for the government to experiment with its preferred "energy" projects, with the hands of corrupt politicians and companies doing the experimenting.

Fox News' Megyn Kelly , a lawyer, remains confused about Cliven Bundy's actions, citing his defiance of two court orders as serious offenses, but nevertheless struggles to grasp the larger picture and sympathizes with Bundy. Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox consultant, explained to Dana Loesch of The Blaze why the BLM and the feds bungled:

The problem here is that the federal government — as is typical when it wins its case — has overplayed its hand and has completely turned the dynamics in which it won, into a case in which it’s probably going to lose, because of the manner in which it’s enforcing its victory,” he explained.

Napolitano described how the Nevada rancher, Cliven Bundy, has claimed the land on which he was grazing his cattle belonged to the state, not the federal government, and that’s why he chose not to pay federal grazing fees.

“A federal court decided that it belonged to the federal government, and that position was upheld on appeal,” Napolitano said. “Now, that is a decision that never should have been made by a federal court, for two reasons. The federal government should never be in a position in which it is deciding on the extent of its own power … And secondly, when you have a dispute over real estate, there’s a universal principle of law everywhere in the United States of America … that real estate disputes are resolved by state courts.”

Napolitano said that the Bureau of Land Management, which is “supposed to be a bunch of bureaucrats” preserving land for the “future enjoyment of all Americans” quickly became “a group of thugs dressed in military uniform with loaded M16s pointed at a rancher and his family.” “By doing all of that, they have succeeded in snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory,” Napolitano said.

The judge concluded: “With respect to Bundy, he’s lost. But in the hearts and minds of Americans he’s won, because he has resisted the uber-aggressive enforcement by the federal government of their victory in court.”

The law was on the government's side. But, what kind of law is it? And how is it being enforced throughout the country? Those subjects will be addressed in Part II.

:: Permalink | 0 Comments ::

 

 

» Recent Posts

» Cliven Bundy's Justifiable Defiance: Part II
» Cliven Bundy's Justifiable Defiance: Part I
» Book Review: "Fear Itself"
» No Honor at Brandeis University
» The Death of Adult Movies
» Hollywood: Sharia-Compliant
» An Open Letter to Disney/ABC Family Group
» The Pathological Roots of Islam
» Pearls of James Madison: Part II
» A Moss-Covered Rolling Stone

» RSS Feed


» Capitalist Book Club
Purchase the essential texts on capitalism.


» Feedback
We want to hear from you!

 


Blogs We Love:
» Alexander Marriot
» Armchair Intellectual
» Best of the Web Today
» Daily Dose of Reason
» Dithyramb
» Dollars & Crosses
» Ego
» Ellen Kenner
»
GMU Objectivists
» Gus Van Horn
» Harry Binswanger List
»
History At Our House
» How Appealing
» Illustrated Ideas
» Intel Dump
» Instapundit
» Liberty and Culture
» Michelle Malkin
»
Mike's Eyes
» NoodleFood
» Objectivism Online
» Outside the Beltway
» Overlawyered
» Powell History Recommends
» Quent Cordair's Studio
» Randex
» Sandstead.com
» SCOTUSBlog
» Scrappleface
» Selfish Citizenship 
» Southwest Virginia Law Blog
» The Dougout
» The Objective Standard
»
Thrutch
» Truth, Justice and the American Way

» Link Policy
» Comments Policy


SPONSORED LINKS


 

Copyright © 1998-2013 The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism. All Rights Reserved.
Email: 
info-at-capitalismcenter.org · Feedback · Terms of Use · Comments Policy · Privacy Policy · Webmaster