Posted by Jack
(As you know I am not a fan of Cliven Bundy, but I do understand why people have issues with the BLM and after you read this maybe you’ll understand too.)
The specific Nevada dispute, such as it is, has been simmering for 21 years between a Mormon cattle rancher named Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management, better-known in the West as BLMM, the Bureau of Land Mis-Management.
But the far larger issue, most intense in the West, involves a mounting distrust and suspicion of all things federal — Congress, the bureaucracy and especially an aloof president. His perceived interests are inserting an over-reaching government into the lives of every American for their own good from closing coal mines and rewriting restaurant menus to seizing private property and regulating cow farts.
The leaders of Syria and Russia are not the only ones who’ve noticed Barack Obama’s empty words, faux red lines and chronic inaction. It’s registered on his own countrymen as well.
Little known in the urban East, BLM is charged with managing nearly 300 million federal acres mostly across the West. That’s an area equivalent to the second and fourth largest states combined, Texas and Montana.
Nevada is the seventh-largest state with 110,567 square miles. That’s 1,626 times larger than all of Washington, D.C., 84% of it still owned by the federal government.
Anyone here ever rented from a landlord located clear across the continent? You get the set-up for conflicting priorities, miscommunication, misinterpretation, misunderstanding and missteps. Bundy’s family has ranched the area since even before Joe Biden was born, back in the 1880’s when Rutherford B. Hayes was president.
Sixty-six years later in 1946 BLM was created, ostensibly to organize a crazy-quilt of laws and regulations governing federal lands. In 1993, BLM notified Bundy that he could not graze his cattle on federal lands anymore because the desert tortoise there was now endangered.
Forget that this same federal government exploded atomic bombs in Nevada for generations with little concern for natural impacts. And it would like to store thousands of tons of nuclear waste there too.
cid:4B557AF3-978C-4331-A4A3-FDE89E0AEB92
George Frey / Getty Images (Cliven Bundy)
So, for the sake of an endangered wild tortoise the Bundy family ranch became an endangered species. The feds are doing the same to thirsty California farms for the sake of an endangered minnow.
Bundy’s response was very Western. He went ahead anyway. Legally, Bundy hasn’t a leg to stand on. He doesn’t own the land. He hasn’t paid rent. And he’s lost three court battles.
Armed with a court order, BLM decided the time had come for action, eviction of about 1,000 of Bundy’s cattle, even separating newborn calves and mothers.
BLM saw no contradiction sending in dozens of armed federal agents to confront a 67-year-old man behind in his rent while the president of the United States and the nation’s chief law enforcement officer traveled to New York to dine with and speak on behalf of the notorious Al Sharpton, who’s been more than $1 million behind in his income taxes.
That’s the kind of double-standard cronyism and de facto discrimination that gets people’s backs up. Even if they don’t drink tea.
So, in pickups and on horseback hundreds of angry strangers and militia members, alerted by email and texts, became Bundy supporters. They converged on the ranch. Tensions rose. And the BLM, remembering past deadly government-citizen conflicts named Waco, Ruby Ridge and Wounded Knee, released the seized cattle.
Now, here comes the political part that will seem quite familiar to Chicagoans:
A Chinese company has wanted to build an immense solar-panel farm in Nevada under the name ENN Mojave Energy. It would need additional tortoise habitat to mitigate its complex.
The local lobbyist who’s represented the Chinese-backed firm is a failed Democrat politician named Rory Reid, who got his gully washed in the 2010 race for governor by Republican Brian Sandoval.
Oh, look! Reid also happens to be the son of Harry Reid, the dottering Democrat Senate majority leader for a few more months, who’s somehow managed to become a millionaire on congressional pay.
Now, perhaps you understand why Bundy Ranch supporters smell a cattle-thieving, land-grabbing Washington political conspiracy where, clearly, none exists.
Oh, one other thing. Last week the Senate confirmed a brand-new director of BLM. He’s Neil Kornze, at 35 an unusually inexperienced youngster to be running such a powerful agency with sprawling powers.
However, Nevada native Kornze had something special going for him in the Senate and Obama White House drive to get him the job. He was a senior policy aide to — Wait for it! — Harry Reid, whose son represented the Chinese solar farm.
Now, go wash your hands.
Yep…that’s what I see happening. I enjoyed reading about it in your particular style…this was priceless:
Ehhh, oh my…still wiping the tears from my cheeks!
“Anyone here ever rented from a landlord located clear across the continent?”
You gotta making these untrue imputations. There are six BLM district offices in Nevada and three times that many field offices. (And they all employ people.) The BLM actively manages our public lands for the benefit of our posterity.
Bundy was grazing cattle on land he did not own and, for the lease of which, he had not paid … in quite some time. Any creditor is entitled to file a lien on your assets for an unpaid debt.
This whole thing is the very last word in BS.
Breitbart, et al., having no legitimate plots and conspiracies to feed you … MAKE THINGS UP!
And I LOVED Steve pointing out to Tina that her fantasies about the Governor usurping Republican spots on the County Council were just that … fantasies.
Chill, people.
So what do you think is wrong with Bundy? And don’t give me that racist BS. Just listen to what this coloured man has to say:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/volunteer-bundy-bodyguard-educates-cnn-hotshot-himbo/
Bundy’s family has ranched the area since even before Joe Biden was born, back in the 1880′s when Rutherford B. Hayes was president.
I dunno, I think Uncle Joe was born 1878 or at least he looks like he was.
Jack, I’m glad you posted this. It’s never been just about Bundy’s cattle. It’s been about the growing out of control federal government beginning with Carter, ramped up under Clinton and full speed ahead now with Obama and Reid.
There’s a long list of states suing this administration, including Arizona and Texas. Texas is filing it’s 40th law suit against Obama. Their latest is over the Red River 90,000 acres land grab which private landowners have been paying taxes on since they purchased the land.
While all of the neighboring ranchers gave up fighting the feds Bundy said enough and took a stand. I believe he has a valid argument to have Nevada’s courts hear the case instead of the federal courts ruling on a federal agency. It’s like the IRS investigating itself for targeting conservative and religious groups and the State Dept. and the CIA investigating Benghazi.
Bundy wants and impartial hearing and I think he’s entitled to one.
If Reid’s really big on upholding, “the law of the land” I strongly suggest he uphold the laws passed for Yucca Mt.
There are several reasons why State of Jefferson has disregarded and avoided the Bay area in its undertaking to rid itself from the decay of current California politics;
One major reason is ….. Bay area colonist’s
” There are six BLM district offices in Nevada …”
All getting their marching orders from DC particularly in this case Mr. Reid and the EPA!
“And I LOVED Steve pointing out to Tina that her fantasies about the Governor usurping Republican spots on the County Council…”
He has the power, It wasn’t a fantasy but a concern…still a possibility. Just because he considered the makeup of a county before doesn’t mean he’ll do it again…especially considering that greenie Rino’s run in the heard. We have no idea what his motivations were or if deals were made…we do know this is politics!
Chill yerself!
Peggy you nailed the reason behind Bundy’s refusal to pay the fees to the feds…apparently he paid Nevada?
The federal government has no business removing people from their property through nefarious means for the desires of special interest groups or powerful politicians. Through intimidation most citizens relent figuring they don’t have the money to match the federal government’s limitless resources.
Given the deals Reid and his son have been involved in I suggest Reid should follow his own advice, get a conscience, and resign!
LOL Harold…you got that right. The Bay Area seems to be under an exremely radical spell.
Interesting. “Giving” the states carte blanche?
Does this statement ring any bells: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Constitution Center, Annenberg Classroom:
We are people of The United States…not a bunch of serfs! People have forgotten this important part of our heritage that helps to guarantee our basic freedoms…including property rights!
This is one more example of an Obama failure. Bundy and his militia terrorists should be in jail. He is a welfare stooge and don’t even get me started at the BLM and their mismanagement of themselves. This whole grazing thing is one more taxpayer subsidy and it costs more to run the program than the program makes. That’s government math for you!
I have always been a huge gun supporter and my family owns multiple firearms. This Bundy guy is just plain scary and the fact that Obama has allowed a militia to basically set up check points and even talk to American citizens is terrifying. The images of snipers on the freeway is horrifying. It is no wonder Obama has managed to keep us losing two wars.
The BLM is pathetic. Bundy has no right to keep his cattle on public land for free and I would rather save a tortoise than let some cattle rancher use public land for free while other ranchers pay.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/the-not-so-jolly-rancher-106117_Page3.html#ixzz30JebxFtZ
Yes Tina, Bundy did pay all due fees and taxes to Nevada. He even tried to pay the graving fees to Nevada, but they refused him saying they weren’t set up to accept it.
My memory of the “supremacy clause” was it was
directed at the states. Meaning the states were supreme over the feds which had “limited” powers.
The uniting of the states was finally accepted and approved only when the states were assured/guaranteed they would maintain power and control of everything that took place within its borders, unless assigned to the feds.
Now it’s completely the opposite with the fed being supreme and dictating from DC what states can and can not do.
Is my memory wrong or are we not on the verge of our Constitution being rendered just an old historical document?
Peggy legal Dictionary explains the intent and the history well. Looks like we lost our way around 1932:
…a vision of freedom, property rights, and the rule of law that ensured every citizen had the opportunity to pursue his goals and dreams and no high kingly authority could rule over him tyrannically. It’s incredible and sad what our citizens don’t know about what they are giving up.
From your link Tina. Very interesting. Especially this, “..the Supremacy Clause reassured the states that courts (both federal and state) would keep the federal government within the bounds of its assigned powers. Thus, in effect, the Clause reserves all remaining powers to the states, or to the people.”
The Supremacy Clause as a Constraint on Federal Power:
Bradford R. Clark
George Washington University Law School
George Washington University Law Review, Vol. 71
Abstract:
Today, it is widely accepted that the Constitution authorizes courts to review and invalidate state laws that conflict with federal statutes. At the same time, prominent commentators and even some judges maintain that courts should not seriously review the constitutionality of federal statutes alleged to exceed the scope of Congress’ enumerated powers. In their view, the constitutional structure protects the states (and thereby reduces the need for judicial review of federal power), but establishes no comparable safeguards to deter states from interfering with federal prerogatives. Contrary to this position, there is an express textual basis for judicial review of federal statutes alleged to exceed Congress’ enumerated powers. The Supremacy Clause establishes a rule of decision for courts adjudicating the rights and duties of parties under both state and federal law. Under our federal system, the States possess sovereignty concurrent with that of the Federal Government, subject only to limitations imposed by the Supremacy Clause. The Clause, in turn, designates as the supreme Law of the Land only those Laws of the United States . . . made in Pursuance of the Constitution. If a federal statute satisfies this condition, courts must apply the statute notwithstanding contrary state law. If the federal statute fails this condition, however, it does not qualify as the supreme Law of the Land and courts remain free to apply state law. Thus, in order to apply the Supremacy Clause, courts must necessarily consider and resolve challenges to the constitutionality of federal statutes. The text, history, and structure of the Constitution confirm that the Supremacy Clause authorizes judicial review of federal statutes alleged to exceed the scope of federal power. The Founders considered three alternative mechanisms for resolving conflicts between state and federal law: coercive military force, congressional power to negative state laws, and adjudication under the Supremacy Clause. The decision to enlist courts – rather than Congress or the President – indicates that the Founders preferred to treat conflicts between state and federal law as judicial, rather than political questions. In addition, by expressly conditioning the supremacy of federal statutes on their constitutionality, the Supremacy Clause reassured the states that courts (both federal and state) would keep the federal government within the bounds of its assigned powers. Thus, in effect, the Clause reserves all remaining powers to the states, or to the people. These conclusions find support in the Supreme Court’s early invocation of the Supremacy Clause to explain judicial review of federal statutes in cases like McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden.”
It’s to bad we’ve changed from the people of the states being supreme to a handful in DC and more sitting on a bench wearing black robes.
How true! Now, Peggy, how to inform and educate the young?
Lots of prayers Tina to keep from grabbing them and shaking some sense into them.