Battle Over Western Lands is Far Bigger Than the Bundy Controversy

Spread the love

Loading

J.D. Tuccille:

The recent face-off between the Bundy family and its supporters on the one hand, and the Bureau of Land Management and its enablers on the other, is hardly the first word in the tussle between westerners and the federal government over control of land. The battle has probably been inevitable since western settlers ceded control of the lion’s share of the open spaces around them to distant Washington, D.C. in return for admission to the union. Now, those spaces aren’t quite so open, and their inhabitants are more assertive—and see themselves (often with good reason) as better stewards of their turf than distant officials who seem to pride themselves on inefficiency and lousy accounting practices.

So, why the fuss? As the Congressional Research Service points out in a 2012 report, “more than 60% of the land in Alaska is federally owned. … Nearly half of the land in the 11 coterminous western states is federally owned. … In the rest of the country, the federal government owns 4% of the lands.”

Nevada, home of the Bundy standoff, is 81 percent federal land. Even in the open West, that can be confining.

This massive absentee ownership, concentrated in half of the country, created conflicts from day one. Debates raged over use of that land, access to resources, taxes, and whether such vast areas should be held by government authorities in general, and distant officials in particular.

At the Christian Science MonitorBrad Knickerbocker writes:

In Salt Lake City Friday, representatives from Utah, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon, and Washington met for a “Legislative Summit on the Transfer of Public Lands.”

“Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands,” Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder said at a news conference. “We have to start managing these lands. It’s the right thing to do for our people, for our environment, for our economy and for our freedoms.”

In other words, today’s revival of the “Sagebrush Rebellion” is as much about political philosophy as it is about great stretches of the largely-arid territory west of the 100thmeridian splitting the Dakotas and running down through Texas.

Without a doubt, Utah takes the lead in the effort by westerners to assert local control over land and its resources. Last year, state lawmakers passed the Transfer of Public Lands Act, essentially demanding that the federal government surrender the two-thirds of the state controlled by Washington, D.C. Utahns explicitly did so as part of a Financial Ready Utah (PDF) movement that says “the current fiscal trajectory of the federal government is unsustainable” and foresees a day when state residents will have to pay all of their own bills.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

30 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Rory Reid has been making the argument on local news (What’s Your Point) political program that: Since the Federal Government first owned the Louisiana Purchase and those lands acquired following the Spanish American War, They still belong to the Federal Government. This argument ignores that He has also been arguing that the Nevada Constitution declares that the State of Nevada is wholly subservient to the Federal Government.

Videos of Democratic Weasel Rory Reid spinning the facts to demonize Bundy and those who came out to support Bundy.

Rory Reid advises that if an armed Federal Agent approaches you, you should do what he says.

Tarkanian lists Nevada Republicans who go to the area to look into the case, Reid discounts this as them showing up for the cameras, and claims that the Republicans were escalating the issue by being there.

Rory comes out in support of the BLM “Free Speech Zones” and disparages opposition to the BLM’s heavy handed actions.

Here is Where Reid “Claims” that the Nevada Constitution declares the Federal Governemnt “Owns the land” (The Nevada Constitutions says nothing declaring that the land in question belong to the Feds,) Reid also tries to claim that because the citizens paramount allegiance clause means that Nevada’s citizens must kowtow to the federal government will. Reid then goes on to make his claim that the Federal Government owns the land because of the Guadalupe Hildago handed it over in 1848,

The Nevada Constitution:

Third. That 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; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state,

The problem with Rory’s lawyer twistings of this statement, is that he is improperly including appropriated public lands (i.e. State of Nevada’s and Clark County’s lands ) as being of the same juristriction as unappropriated lands that the United States has “sole and entire disposition” to. He does this to make it appear that the Federal Government has all the power to make decisions on the management of ALL public lands, including those that are owned by the state and County. The Bundy grazing issue has nothing to do with unappropriated US Government public lands.

Reid ridiculously tries to claim that Bundy is the “hero” and face of Republicans in this matter.

Harry Reid and Dean Heller debate the Bundy – BLM case.

(Sadly the Moderator of the program favors the Left heavily in how he presents the discussions and questions the panelist, quoting heavily from the leftist political pages.)

The problem with Rory’s arguments is that the Nevada Constitution in it’s preamble states:

The Act of Congress Approved March Twenty First A.D. Eighteen Hundred and Sixty Four “To enable the People of the Territory of Nevada to form a Constitution and State Government and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the Original States,” requires that the Members of the Convention for framing said Constitution shall, after Organization, on behalf of the people of said Territory, adopt the Constitution of the United States.—Therefore, Be it Resolved,

How can the Western States be treated with unequal standing in regards to public lands by the BLM when they are supposed to have an equal footing with the “Original States”?

I’m guessing that the Bundy Ranch incident has resulted in:

(1) More people joining a militia, and more militia units forming.
(2) Western stares uniting to get the land that was supposed to be deeded over to them like federal land was in the east.
(3) More people feeling like the obama administration is overstepping its authority, and they might be next.
(4) More people joining Tea Parties.
(5) More guns and ammo sales.

@Smorgasbord: “(5) More guns and ammo sales. ”

Which will result in the federal government buying more ammunition with taxpayer dollars, making ammunition more expensive for the taxpaying citizen and less available.

Article 1. Section 2 of the Nevada State Constitution:

Sec: 2.  Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States.  All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

@Greg: So, where does the Constitution mention a Buereau of Land Management deciding how much land to absorb in states and then charging citizens to use the land that is of no use to anyone else (but for Harry and Rory, of course)?

I don’t recall the left remembering this clause as the OWS gangs destroyed parks, burned buildings, fought with police and shit on police cars. It all seems pretty selective and, in this particular case, greed-driven.

@Bill, #5:

The Bureau of Land Management isn’t absorbing anything. The land in question was federal to begin with. It belongs collectively to the people of the United States. It is Bundy who is trespassing on it, in defiance of federal law and multiple court decisions. He has made use of it without paying applicable fees.

By the way, the Nevada State Constitution also addresses the issue of the state’s militia. The armed rabble that showed up to confront and defy federal and state law and authority aren’t it.

GREG
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES ARE
CLIVEN BUNDY FAMILY,including their help in managing the land and protecting the BIG TURTLES,
from and against the illegals wanting to set housing in that land
they are doing a DAMN better jobs than any CHINEESE COMING TO INSTALL THOSE TOWERS,
KILLERS OF LAND AND ANY LIVINBEING IN IT, AS THE BLM DID IN ONE WEEK RAMPAGE INTO A DESTRUCTION OF THE TOURTOISE BURROW, AND PRIZE BULLS AND COWS BELONING TO THE RANCHER AND HIS FAMILY,
THE FEDERALS HAD MANY MORE EXTORTIONS DONE TO RANCHERS WHO WHERE NOT EQUIPT WITH THE POWER TO FIGHT THEM, AND THEY LEFT THEIR BUSINESS UNABLE TO WIN THEIR CAUSE,
THAT’S WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING TO THE GOOD RANCHERS, EXTORTING THEM VICIOUSLY,
AND INHABITANTS, like the horses who where killed BY THEM, before just for living there,
THE CHINEESE WANT LAND DESPERATLY BECAUSE THEY ARE OUT OF IT, THE MUSLIMS WANT LAND DESPERATLY BECAUSE THEY ARE OUT OF IT, AND BOTH ARE OVER POPULATED,
WHEN THEY MOVE IN
THEY BRING A LOT OF THEM AND BUILD THEIR COMMUNITY ALL FOR THEMSELVES, IN A VERY SHORT TIME, NOT COUNTING THE MULTIPLE ILLEGALS FROM HATER’S COUNTRIES, SEEPING HERE,
HIDDING IN TUNNELS, UNTIL THEY CAN JOIN OTHER, WITHOUT BEING NOTICED,
AND THEY CHOOSE THE BEST LANDS OF THIS AMERICA , FROM THE NORTH TO THE SOUTH,
TO EAST TO WEST,
AND DEFEND THEIR LAND AGAINST THE OTHER CITIZENS DESPERATLY ALSO,
ONE STREET GATHERING SHOWED US ON CAMERA, A FOREIGNER LAUNCH AT A CITIZEN ACROSS THE STREET,
RUNNING AT HIM A MARINE WHO NEVER SAW HIM COME,
HE THE FOREIGNER SLASH HIS FACE FROM ONE EAR TO THE OTHER WITH A BROKEN BOTLE, AND RAN AWAY BEFORE ANY REACT TO IT, THAT’S WHAT IS GOING ON, NO STREETS IS SAFE ANYMORE, THE SMALL CRIMINALS ARE IN THE OPEN,

@Greg: Bundy and other ranchers have been paying grazing fees to the states for decades; some over a century. Suddenly, under Clinton, the federal government decided they needed to wet their beak as well. There is where it turned sour.

Many ranchers simply went out of business. Bundy, however, has chosen to stand up for his way of life and the threat to it. A threat, by the way, that has no reasonable purpose. Bundy is, of course, legally in the wrong and he, of course, does not get to simply decide which laws he wants to honor and which ones are inconvenient (that perk is reserved for the royalty of the government). He is, however, morally right and has every right to oppose laws, rules and regulations he feels are unfair… as long as he is willing to suffer the consequences.

The left held the Occupy thugs as high-minded, righteous protesters, even as they destroyed and violated. The left gave them a pass, if not supported outright, because it was a left wing protest with left wing characteristics (they have more, I want it, therefore I shall destroy a third party’s property). However, when a working man stands up to the government, under pretty much the same circumstances, he is the villain. We don’t even know if Bundy is a Republican or Democrat; it only matters that he opposes a grab Big Government wants to execute.

And what, exactly, makes the people who braved dogs, tasers and snipers “rabble”? Because they became an inconvenient impediment to the Reid’s schedule of reaping benefits?

@Bill: #3

Which will result in the federal government buying more ammunition with taxpayer dollars, making ammunition more expensive for the taxpaying citizen and less available.

Glenn Beck is keeping a list of gun manufacturers and retailers who refuse to sell guns to any government entity that restricts the right to own guns. I would like to see ammo companies on the list.
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/02/21/who-are-gun-manufacturers-refusing-to-do-business-with/

@Greg: #6
I should have saved the story that told how the agreement between territories who wanted to become states. The territories had to give the land to the federal government. In return, the federal government would give it back, under certain conditions, to the newly formed states, except for certain very small areas. I don’t remember what they were. This is how the eastern states got there land from the feds, but the feds don’t want to keep the agreement with us western states.

I guess the feds figure it is like the MANY treaties they made with Native Americans to end wars. We broke EVERY treaty we signed with them, and they KEPT every treaty they signed with us. Just because the federal government signed a treaty with a certain group, doesn’t mean that they have to abide by it.

@Greg:

The Bureau of Land Management isn’t absorbing anything. The land in question was federal to begin with. It belongs collectively to the people of the United States. It is Bundy who is trespassing on it, in defiance of federal law and multiple court decisions. He has made use of it without paying applicable fees.

Well, that’s the directive that the Collective has assigned to its drones for parroting, but here’s the actual history from Utah retired law enforcement officer and educator Laron Fred Woods;

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.

So you can definitely see a significant difference between what the Collective preaches, and what people who actually know what they’re talking about have to say. Note how the Collective’s broad proclamations are devoid of specifics and details, as opposed to Mr. Wood’s specific and detailed recollection of history, which is corroborated by the information presented in the BLM’s own website.

Keep in mind, that all of this is under the pretext of protecting a desert tortoise.

And the flakes from PETA have finally responded.

@Greg:

The land in question was federal to begin with.

Typical Statist propaganda, ignorant to law. While your claim might be true under centrally controlled Socialist and Communist governments it is not here.

Since when can you cede, sell,grant, give away, or otherwise contractually transfer ownership of property and then claim it still belongs to you because “you owned it at one time?” No, Greg, the legal designations Federal Land, State Land, County Land, and Privately Owned Land have very real meaning. The Federal government can not simply declare land not owned by them to suddenly be Federal Land once they have ceded or deeded it to another legal entity over one hundred years ago. Nor can they seize it through brute force. That’s called illegal confiscation. If the Federal Government decides it wants the land, they have to go through the normal imminent domain due process, which is not so easy when the property in question is owned by a State Government. The Federal Government owns 85% of Nevada. They do not own all of Nevada, Nor does any court recognize that ALL the land of the various states belongs 100% solely to the Federal Government. There would be no need of Imminent Domain if the Federal Government already owned the land. What you and Rory Reid are trying to do, is declare all land as belonging to your great all-powerful fascist central Socialist State. We are still a Republic ,and the States and people of that public have legal property rights that can not be dismissed by mere quasi-legal semantics.

The “land in question” belongs to the State of Nevada, and to Clark County. It is not Federal Land and indeed has not been since the state was created. The BLM was only allowed by the State of Nevada to “manage” the land to protect the endangered species on it from development. Killing cattle, wild horses that have been living in peaceful coexistence and committing mass euthanasia of the endangered species they are supposed to be protecting, and intimidating the State’s citizens with potential lethal force, in order for Rory and Harry Reid to develop wind and solar farms on the property is in complete opposition with the professed mission of the BLM, it is in direct violation of the Endangered Species Act, and contrary to the management agreement it had with the state of Nevada to protect the land from developers. The BLM is not the ultimate legal authority of State and County land. That jurisdiction belongs to each State’s Governor and the relevant County Sheriff (who has higher legal authority than the Federal agents. as well as the power to arrest or eject them from his jurisdiction).

By the way, the Nevada State Constitution also addresses the issue of the state’s militia. The armed rabble that showed up to confront and defy federal and state law and authority aren’t it.

Note how the drone composes these sentences as though they have meaning, when in fact they have none.

If a conflict occurs, perhaps Greg will be willing to stand in the Nevada desert and lecture the armed rabble about the nuanced Newspeak definition of militia as the bullets fly by his empty head.

Ditto
i HEARD THE SHERIF DID NOT BOTHER TO COME AND STOP THE BLM,
I HEARD IT TWICE, AND COMPARE TO OTHER SHERIFTS IT’S A BIG DIFFERENCE OF BEHAVIOR,
it lead us to believe he the SHERIF OF NEVADA WAS SOLD TO THE REIDS AND SON,
HE LET DOWN HIS PEOPLE, HE SHOULD RESIGN,AT ONCE,
the people need the protection of a sherif, if not they don’t need him,

@Kraken, #11:

When Nevada became a state in 1864, the state had control of its land because of its sovereignty.

Laron Fred Woods is full of beans. The territory including Nevada had been under the authority of the federal government since 1848, when it was ceded by Mexico to the United States by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Why does he believe land that was not the property of any private owner at the time statehood was granted automatically became property of the newly formed state? The difference between later states and the eastern states that originally joined to form the Union is that those original state entities predated the federal government. In those cases the chain of ownership begins with the state governments.

Maybe Bundy should form a mutual defense treaty alliance with the Republic of Molossia.

Greg continues to show his ignorance of the facts and the English language. The year isn’t 1848 it’s 2014 and the Federal government Transferred ownership of the lands on which Bundy was grazing his cattle (once called the Pah-Ute Territory) on May 5, 1866 when the United States Congress approved legislation transferring the portions of Pah-Ute and Mohave counties, west of the Colorado River and west of 114 degrees west longitude to the state of Nevada (essentially all of present day Nevada south of the 37th parallel). This was in part done to punish the Arizona Territory which had been on the Confederate side during the Civil War. The assignment took effect on January 18, 1867. (Arizona was not accepted into statehood as our 48th state until February 14, 1912,) The transfer was prompted by the discovery of gold in the area, and it was thought by officials that Nevada would be better able to oversee the expected population boom. This area includes most of what is now Clark County.

Again: Congress transferred ownership of these lands to the State of Nevada in 1866 Since you insist showing us how stupid you are, let us clarify that by Federal law the State of Nevada was wholly deeded all rights to the territory and given full ownership of same by the US Congress, and the President of the United States (Andrew Johnson) signed it into law. Are you so ignorant of property transfers that you can’t understand this unquestionably means that this land belongs to the State of Nevada?

THEY are preparing to lodge the 20 MILLIONS ILLEGALS,
BY TAKING THE SPACE USED BY THE ROOTED AMERICANS,
HE BEGAN BY PAYING THE ABORTIONIST OF AMERICAN BABIES,
TO MINIMIZE THE FUTUR AMERICANS, NOW HE’S ON TAKING THE SPACE OF THE AMERICANS,
WHAT A MESS HOW TO GET OUT OF IT?

Ditto
I like this one,

Laron Fred Woods is full of beans.

Beans are a staple of the cowboy diet.

Why does he believe land that was not the property of any private owner at the time statehood was granted automatically became property of the newly formed state? The difference between later states and the eastern states that originally joined to form the Union is that those original state entities predated the federal government. In those cases the chain of ownership begins with the state governments.

Because of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845). Where it states:

The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana.

So the Federal Government is required to relinquish all claims of land ownership once a territory becomes a state.

What’s also interesting to note here, is that when we consult the historical record, we find the following quote written in 1881:

“The cattle scatter over immense tracts of country being left pretty much to their own keeping, and straying ten, twenty, or even fifty miles from home.”

So clearly this has been common practice for some time.

This is why it’s so important not to build your knowledge base with consensus WikiPedia essays written by teenage activists.

Maybe Bundy should form a mutual defense treaty alliance with the Republic of Molossia.

It’s important to understand that micronations like the Republic of Molossia are mostly intended as parodies. As opposed to say, the “socialist paradise” of Jonestown, which apparently was supposed to be a real thing. Maybe he could sign a treaty with them. Oh, wait…

Kraken
I’m looking at the old movie ,which happen to be; THE RED RIVER,
JOHN WAYNE, getting ready to leave TEXAS RED RIVER,
to go with 10 thousands heads to MISSOURI BY HORSE BACK,
with 100 MEN , THE INDIANS WHERE NOT FRIENDLY THAN,
WHAT A MOVIE, AND RIGHT ON THE NEWS OF TODAY,

OH BOY A STAMPEDE OF 10 THOUSANDS COWS,
IT MUST BE SEEN,
THEY DON’T MAKE MOVIES LIKE THAT ANYMORE,
BYE

@Kraken: #19

So the Federal Government is required to relinquish all claims of land ownership once a territory becomes a state.

Unfortunately, sometimes the federal government CHOOSES not to obey a treaty they signed. Look at all of the treaties we signed with the Native Americans. I don’t think we kept ANY of them. Politicians, even up to the president of the United States, sometimes chooses which laws they will enforce, and which laws they will ignore. The present president probably holds the record for the most laws ignored. I’m for a law that has been introduced into congress that makes it illegal for a president to NOT enforce an existing law.

The BLM claims Civen Bundy owes them a million in grazing fees, Bundy claims that he owes $300,000 but only to the County and State of Nevada who owns the land. Although asked, the BLM has not given an itemized accounting to the press or the fees it claims Bundy owes. But, how much does Cliven Bundy really owe, and to whom?

U.S. Raelian Movement says Cliven Bundy owes grazing fees to Native Americans, not the federal government

(D)does the federal government really own the land it’s assessing grazing fees for?

Not according to the U.S. Raelian Movement.

“The Moapas, a band of the Paiute Indians, still have a map showing that the land comprising the Bundy ranch was promised to them by federal treaty,” explained Las Vegas resident Thomas Kaenzig, who is a Raelian Guide and spokesperson for the U.S. Raelian Movement. “That means the land really belongs to them. If Bundy should be paying grazing rights fees to anyone at all, it’s to these Native American descendants of the original owners. They were there first!”

According to Kaenzig, the government’s claim to lands that once belonged to indigenous tribes is illegal.

“The U.S. federal government repeatedly violated its own constitution by seizing large amounts of territory that belonged to Native Americans by treaty,” he said. “That includes much of the 80 percent of Nevada that is today referred to as public land, since it was illegally appropriated. The particular area used by Cliven Bundy for cattlegrazing, along with the surrounding region, was taken from the Moapas. It’s outrageous that the U.S. government claims that land when the Moapas clearly had a treaty designating otherwise.”

In the case of the United States v. Bundy One US District Court Judge (Lloyd D. George, United States District Court, D. Nevada) by fiat essentially rules that the Federal government owns all lands ceded by Mexico the the United States, while ignoring laws passed by Congress and various Presidents, whereby the Federal government transferred ownership and all rights to specific portions of the Western States in their creation , retaining ownership of specifically bordered lands, (which do not include the grazing lands in question). As the State of Nevada had was not a party to the US v. Bundy case, they could not protest the Judge’s arbitrary fiat ruling that in one (absurd) fell swoop declares that the Western States no longer own the lands that were transferred to them by the US government because he says so. It is patently ridiculous to think that one US Lower District judge, on his own opinion, has the all encompassing power to throw out US law passed by Congress and signed by various President’s (including Lincoln) and steal away ALL Western State owned lands (including those outside of the Judge’s district,) and hand them to the BLM in order to punish one ornery rancher.

@Ditto: #23

It’s outrageous that the U.S. government claims that land when the Moapas clearly had a treaty designating otherwise.

The politicians of those days treated laws just like the obama administration does today. They have the attitude that they only have to obey the laws they want to. EVERY TREATY we signed with them, we broke.

If you think about it, EVERY TREATY we signed with them is still a legal document. The politicians CHOSE to ignore them, since we could outfight them. “Might makes right” seemed to be the attitude back then. Legally, the only land the United States Government owns is the land left to them in the first treaties agreed to by the Native Americans.

This reminds me of a full blooded Native American comedian. All I remember of his routine is, “You know, a lot of people say we should get rid of the foreigners in this country. I’m for that.”

WHO IS THAT LOYED GEORGE JUDGE ANY WAY,
WHERE DOES HE COME FROM, WHO DOES HE FOLLOW,
AND WHAT KIND OF LAW IS HE TRYING TO SCREW, SO TO GIVE THE BENEFIT TO THE FEDS,
IT LOOK LIKE THE NATIVE INDIANS HAVE BEEN VERY KIND TO ALLOW PEOPLE ON THEIR LAND,
WE NOW BEGIN TO UNCOVER THE GOVERNMENT SCAM

Sheriff urged to clamp down on armed militiamen around Bundy ranch

Nevada Militia Sets Up Armed Checkpoints, Demands to See Drivers’ I.D.

Armed militia, setting up checkpoints? This is the United States and not Ukraine, correct?

This sh-t must cease.

why should it stop,
why them, when the leader is still getting more weapon,
it’s for the people to defend themselves, who else would do it,
this is not UKRAINE, SURE, EXCEPT FOR THAT WEEK IT WAS,
THEY CAME AS A MOB TO TAKE HIS CATTLE, THEY IN ONE WEEK DID KILL TWO PRIZE BULLS,
AND DEMOLISH SOME OF THE ENCLOSURE, DEMOLISH THE BURROUGH OF THE TOURTOISES
AND TERRORIZE THE CITIZENS, WITH THEIR POWERFULL WEAPON, AND TRAIN DOGS,AND
TAISER, AND THEY HURT SOME CITIZENS, THEY CAUSE THE BABY COW TO BE SEPARATED
AT A CRITICAL TIME FOR THEIR NEED, AND KILL OTHER COWS MILKING THEIR BABY,
THEY CAUSE A STRESS TO THOSE CATTLE ALSO BY TAKING THEM PRISONER NOT FEEDING THEM,
AND THEY OUT RUN THE YOUNG TO EXAUSTION, THIS ALL IS CRIMINAL ACTION ON ABUSE TO ANIMAL AND ABUSE TO THE FAMILY OF A PEACEFULL MAN, THE BLM IS GUILTY AS HELL,
THEY CANNOT DENY IT, THIS YOU DON’T SEE IN THIS AMERICA, NOT SUPPOSE TO SEE,
YOU HAVE SEEN IT, AND IF IT’S LEFT NOT PUNISH, IT WILL CET WORSE OF ABUSE,
THE SHERIF SHOULD BE THINKING OF WHAT THEY WENT THROUGH OF STRESS, AND STILL NOT
OVER IT, THE SHERIF SHOULD PUT HIMSELF IN THEIR FEET TO UNDERSTAND HOW BIG THIS WAS, AND THANK GOD FOR THE MILICIA, AND THEY WILL STILL BE NEEDED MORE AND MORE, AND THE EPA HAS SOME OTHER TRICK TO USE
WITH REGULATING THE WATERWAY, SO IT’S NOT FINISH,
THE PREVIOUS RANCHER WHO SAW HIS FATHER DIED AND HIS MOTHER AFTER HAVING BEEN TARGETTED, THEY GOT SICK AND LOST A LIFE PREMATURELY, BECAUSE OF HAVING BEEN
HARASS, AND INTIMIDATED, THE SON IS STILL TRAUMATIZE AND LET GO HIS RANCH FOR ALL THE TROUBLE HE LIVED WITH YEARS OF IT, THEY HAVE CREATED A CLIMAX OF HATE AND
REPRESSION EMPOWERING THAT FAMILY, NO MONEY CAN PAY FOR THE DAMAGE THEY CAUSE,
what they do is telling of what stress they had, and this time they are getting ready,

@Greg: #26
With any large group of people there will always be the ones who are extreme in their words and action. These are the ones who ALWAYS get the attention of the propaganda media. There are also the organizations who infiltrate other organizations to give the organization a bad name. This is why most, if not all of the conservative organizations DEMAND certain standards of their members. For example:

(1) No cussing
(2) No violence
(3) No threats
(4) No racist signs
(5) Leave the place cleaner than when you arived

It would be interesting to find out who the ones who were yelling at the officers, and confronting them were. Were they actual militia members, or were they instigators? Anybody could have showen up and said they were anybody.

As for the people asking for ID on public highways, again I would like to know who they were. I know there are extreme militia members who HATE the government. Who knows if it is for fear of taking more of their rights away, or for fear of the government finding out about their illegal activity.

As with many other things going on around the country, I NEED MORE FACTS before I decide what I think about them.

Smorgassbord
all the facts where in front of them,
easy to figured out,
THEIR ACTIONS WHERE OFFENSIVES TO THE MAXIMUM,
BYE

@ilovebeeswarzone: #29

all the facts where in front of them,
easy to figured out,
THEIR ACTIONS WHERE OFFENSIVES TO THE MAXIMUM,

I still don’t know who the people were who stopped traffic. It is like the people striking at McDonald’s for higher wages. It turns out that NO McDonald’s employees were in the group of strikers. They were union members, because some unions have their wages based on the minimum wage. When the minimum wages goes up, so do their union wages.