AMERICA’S NEWEST HERO: MEET THE REAL CLIVEN BUNDY

By Sarah Kupelian via WND

Cliven Bundy doesn’t normally do interviews on Sundays. But this Easter Sunday, the 67-year-old Nevada cattle rancher stepped out of his church, leaned up against the side wall and talked to America about what really matters to him deep down, revealing a side to him not normally seen in media interviews.

The first order of business, of course, was the Nevada standoff that has mesmerized the nation, and his response to Sen. Harry Reid’s incendiary accusation that the Bundy side are a bunch of “domestic terrorists.”

“The thing about what Harry Reid’s saying,” the rancher told radio talker Dianne Linderman on Talk Radio Network’s nationally syndicated “Everything That Matters” show, is that “he seems to be a warmonger, saying let’s have civil war!”

In fact, Bundy said, “We people are not gonna put up with that no more. We’re not gonna have them guns pointin’ at us anymore. Not when we’re talking about an army of ‘We the People’ against ‘We the People.’ We can’t allow that to happen in America. That’s civil war!”

Bundy confirmed that he and the ranchers and others standing with him, tired of being abused by a government with unlimited power, are ultimately willing to die for their stance. But, he added, “I do respect the United States government. I pledge allegiance to that flag and honor it very much. But [the government] has its place. It doesn’t have its place in the state of Nevada and … Clark County, and that’s where my ranch is. The federal government has no power and no ownership of this land, and they don’t want to accept that.”

Then, maybe because it was Easter Sunday, the interview went in a very different direction.

Asked by Linderman what makes him so unafraid in his current situation, Bundy replied:

“I don’t stand alone. I have all of the prayers from lots of people around the world, and I feel those prayers. And those prayers take the tremble out of my legs. And I can stand strong and straight. And you know the spirit from our heavenly Father, I seek that every morning on my knees. And he gives me some guidance, and I go forth and I actually feel good. My health is good, my spirit is good and I feel strength. I do, I feel strength, I feel even happiness. And I have no idea where I’m going with this. It’s a day-by-day spiritual thing for me.”

Toward the end of the interview, Linderman asked, “One more question: Is there anything you’d like to say to the American people? Because I truly believe you’re a patriot.”

“You know,” replied Bundy, “I woke up, I got out of my house, went down to my trail and watched the sun come up over the hills and the mountains here. And, of course, I thought of Jesus. And then the thought that I thought was that we the people of America, not only of America but of the whole world, what Jesus would want us to do, was forgive. Forgive our enemies, and He’ll take care of all the rest. So my message to the world today is: Forgive your neighbors, forgive your wives, forgive your husbands and children, and feel the love of Jesus. That’s what He suffered for.

“I thank the people for their prayers and, again, I put my faith in my heavenly father and … we’re OK.”

Bundy’s wife, Carol, expressed the same faith to this writer when booking the radio interview: “This is the Lord’s battle,” she said. “He is calling the shots, and we are just standing here.”

Listen to Dianne Linderman’s entire 18-minute Easter interview with Cliven Bundy:

Sarah Kupelian is producer of Talk Radio Network’s nationally syndicated weekly show, “Everything That Matters,” hosted by Dianne Linderman and broadcast live Sundays from 12-2 Pacific. Sarah has previously written for WND as an intern and is an owner-partner of the Great American Entertainment Company LLC.

 

THE ESSENCE OF LIBERTY: Volume 1Volume 2 and Volume 3

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History chronicles the rise and fall of the noble experiment with constitutionally limited government. It features the ideas and opinions of some of the world’s foremost contemporary constitutional scholars. This is history that you were not taught at the mandatory government propaganda camps otherwise known as “public schools.” You will gain a clear understanding of how America’s decline and decay is really nothing new and how it began almost immediately with the constitution. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II (The Economics of Liberty)The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty Volume II will introduce the reader to the fundamental principles of the Austrian School of Economics. The Austrian School traces its origins back to the Scholastics of Medieval Spain. But its lineage actually began with Carl Menger and continued on through Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and many others. It is the one and only true private property based, free market line of economic thought. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic. This is the volume that pulls it all together. With reference to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s description of Murray Rothbard’s work, it is a “unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.” Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Posted in Private Property Rights | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Western States Want Feds to Surrender “Federal” Land

Written by   via The New American

Western States Want Feds to Surrender “Federal” Land

Elected officials from across the American West, from top lawmakers to county commissioners, held a historic gathering in Utah in recent days to discuss how Western states could wrest control of the almost 50 percent of land in the region currently claimed by the federal government. Aside from constitutional concerns — with a few exceptions, the U.S. Constitution does not authorize ownership or control over land by the political class in Washington, D.C. — the Western leaders and legislators cited economic harm, environmental degradation, loss of tax revenue, and numerous other reasons for the effort.

Meeting at the Utah Capitol late last week for the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands were more than 50 elected officials from nine Western states: Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. Multiple state House speakers were in attendance. Even U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), who is developing a reputation as one of the few solid Constitution-supporting lawmakers in the Senate, addressed the gathering in support of Western states and their mission to gain control of the territory in their borders.

Meanwhile, across America, and especially the West, growing masses of citizens celebrated the effort to put the out-of-control federal government back where it belongs — inside its constitutional cage rather than in states where it has no legitimate business. Following the nationwide scandal surrounding the abuse of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his supporters in an effort to crush his business by the Obama administration’s Bureau of Land Management, the outrage over out-of-control federal land machinations is reaching a boiling point.

While the summit was organized before the Bundy-BLM fiasco stirred national fury against the federal actions, the confrontation at the ranch between productive citizens and rogue bureaucrats reportedly provided additional urgency to the efforts. “What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem,” explained Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart, one of many high-profile leaders in the state who say the federal government needs to hand over the land. “The majority of these states have more federal land within their borders than land of their own. It is about fairness.”

Utah State Rep. Ken Ivory, one of the summit organizers, noted that there is an estimated $150 trillion in mineral resources “locked up in federal lands” across the West — wealth that is desperately needed by struggling American families in a flailing economy. Aside from that, the federal government has been an especially poor steward of the land, he added, endangering Utahans and other citizens across the Western states.

“The acres harvested are dropping precipitously,” Ivory was quoted as saying. “At the same time, the catastrophic wildfires are increasing dramatically, the cost, the acreage. That’s killing millions of animals; it’s destroying habitat and watershed. So, if we don’t stand up to act now, and seeing that trajectory of what’s coming, we know that down the road those problems are only going to get bigger.”

Indeed, state officials in Utah, facing an increasingly power-hungry federal government with a “current fiscal trajectory” that is “unsustainable,” have been taking the lead on the effort. Among other initiatives, state policymakers are preparing for a future where Utah will have to become financially independent of a federal behemoth that is drowning the public in debts. To that end, the state passed a law in 2012 demanding that the federal government surrender control over the land inside Utah borders that bureaucrats and politicians in D.C. claim to own.

Outside of Utah, those sentiments are growing as well. Numerous state lawmakers and leaders from across the West said the time had come for the people of the Western states to take control of their destiny. Instead of mandates from faraway politicians and bureaucrats infamous for their inability to balance a budget or properly manage much of anything, participants said states could do a better job.

“It’s time the states in the West come of age,” Idaho Speaker of the House Scott Bedke was quoted as saying, adding that land managed by states was being kept in far better condition than forests and rangeland controlled by the federal government. “We’re every bit as capable of managing the lands in our boundaries as the states east of Colorado.” Others said much of the land should simply be put in private hands, perhaps auctioned off to bidders with the proceeds used to pay down the federal government’s gargantuan and growing debts.

Organizers of the summit also said states could and would do a better job — although that is far from the only reason for the feds to relinquish the vast expanses of territory it purports to own. “Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands,” declared Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder, one of the summit organizers, adding that federal lands have increasingly been managed with “politicized science” and bad policy. “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.”

While the federal government claims to “own” relatively small amounts of land in the east of the country, when it comes to states on the other side of the Mississippi river, the situation is radically different. Nevada, for example — the site of the recent showdown between heavily armed federal “land” bureaucrats and the ranching family — Washington, D.C., purports to own more than 80 percent of the state’s territory. In Alaska, the figure is about 70 percent. In Utah, where the meeting was held, the feds claim about two-thirds of the land. By comparison, in New York, it is less than one percent.

Much of the land purportedly under federal jurisdiction contains extremely valuable resources: oil, timber, coal, minerals, water, and more. If it was under state or private control, the people of the American West would be able to benefit from that vast wealth much more directly. Instead, with the feds claiming to be in charge, states and citizens are reduced to begging the D.C.-based political and bureaucratic classes for permission to do anything and for crumbs that may be left over from whatever economic activities are permitted.

Perhaps the most important factor in the escalating showdown, though, is the U.S. Constitution — the contract whereby state governments delegated certain limited powers to the federal government. In Article I, Section 8, the American people, acting through their sovereign states, granted this authority to their agent: “To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.”

In other words, the federal government’s purported claims of jurisdiction over an estimated one-third of America’s landmass are brazenly unconstitutional. Whether federal courts are willing to concede that should be irrelevant — the language of the Constitution is clear, and there is no need for “interpretation” by federal supremacists in the federal judiciary.

Federal land-lording is also unwise for a variety of pragmatic reasons, experts argue, and there can be little doubt as to how America’s Founders would have felt about it. “I would say the last thing you want is the federal government’s ownership of lands,” R.J. Smith, a senior fellow in environmental policy at the National Center for Public Policy Research, told Newsmax. “That’s not why this country was founded. That’s what the Founding Fathers were trying to escape — the king’s house, the king’s land, the king’s everything.”

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached atanewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

Photo of Arches National Park

Related articles:

War on the West: Why More Bundy Standoffs Are Coming

Feds Exploit “Threatened” Bird for Massive Land Grab

Questions Raised About Senator Reid’s Connection to Bundy Ranch Dispute

Burning Up the West: Feds, Greens Cause Catastrophic Fires

Judge Blasts Federal Conspiracy; Ranch Family Vindicated — Again!

Remembering a Champion: Helen Chenoweth-Hage

The United Nations’ Big Green Machine, by Helen Chenoweth-Hage

The EPA’s Property Wrongs in America

Eco-Villains? No — Just Pawns in the Federal Land-grab Scam

This Land Is My Land — Isn’t It?

Obama EPA Hands Control Over Wyoming City to Indian Tribes

National Heritage Areas: The Land Grabs Continue

The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked

Exploiting Indians to Seize Land

A Handbook for Ranch Managers

A Handbook for Ranch Managers.  In keeping with the “holistic” idea that the land, the livestock, the people and the money should be viewed as a single integrated whole: Part I deals with the management of the natural resources. Part II covers livestock production and Part III deals with the people and the money. Not only would this book make an excellent basic text for a university program in Ranch Management, no professional ranch manager’s reference bookshelf should be without it. It is a comprehensive reference manual for managing the working ranch. The information in the appendices and extensive bibliography alone is worth the price of the book.

Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualPlanned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual. This is the ideal squeal to A Handbook for Ranch Managers.  Although the ecological principles remain the same, what was originally known as “The Savory Grazing Method” now answers to a multitude of different names: ranching for profit, holistic management, managed grazing, mob grazing, management intensive grazing, etc. Land & Livestock International, Inc. uses “Restoration Grazing” under its “Managing the Ranch as a Business” program.” No mater what you call it, this summary and synopsis will guide you step by step through the process and teach you how to use it as it was originally intended. No more excuses for failing to complete your grazing plans.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Posted in Private Property Rights | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Texas AG to Feds: ‘Come And Take’ Disputed Land

“The BLMs newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles — including the rule of law — that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.”

Calling all Texians. Those bastards do not realize who they are messing with. — jtl, 419

Image: Texas AG to Feds: 'Come And Take' Disputed Land

By Jason Devaney via NewsMax

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has a message for the Bureau of Land Management about disputed land along the Oklahoma-Texas border: “Come and take it.”

Abbott was referring to a potential land grab of 90,000 acres that belong to Texas residents. According to Breitbart Texas, the federal government is considering taking the land, which stretches 116 miles along the Red River.

“I am about ready to go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas,” Abbott said.

Abbott wrote a letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze about the matter, expressing his concerns about the government’s interest in taking the land from Texans, who have owned it for decades.

“I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations,” Abbott wrote in the letter.

“The BLMs newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles — including the rule of law — that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.”

Abbott expanded on the subject in an interview with Breitbart.

“What Barack Obama’s BLM is doing is so out of bounds and so offensive that we should have quick and successful legal action if they dare attempt to tread on Texas land and take it from private property owners in this state,” Abbott said.

The issue with the land dates to the 1803 Louisiana Purchase. The physical boundary between Texas and Oklahoma along the Red River can fluctuate, depending on the river itself. This has led to countless legal battles over the years between the two states and the federal government.

According to Breitbart, the Texas Farm Bureau thinks the border moves south when the river shifts in that direction. But when the flow of water shifts to the north, the organization maintains that the border stays where it is supposed to be.

The BLM has stepped in and wants to take over the land to settle the matter once and for all.

“This is the latest line of attack by the Obama administration, where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country,” Abbott told Breitbart. “And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the state of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the attorney general of Texas, I am not going to allow this.”

The situation comes on the heels of the case between the BLM and Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy.

The BLM says Bundy had been illegally grazing his cattle on 600,000 acres of federal land for 20 years. Bundy disagrees, saying the land belongs to the state. The BLM had started toconfiscate Bundy’s cattle, but returned the animals 10 days ago.

Related Stories:

A Handbook for Ranch Managers

A Handbook for Ranch Managers.  In keeping with the “holistic” idea that the land, the livestock, the people and the money should be viewed as a single integrated whole: Part I deals with the management of the natural resources. Part II covers livestock production and Part III deals with the people and the money. Not only would this book make an excellent basic text for a university program in Ranch Management, no professional ranch manager’s reference bookshelf should be without it. It is a comprehensive reference manual for managing the working ranch. The information in the appendices and extensive bibliography alone is worth the price of the book.

Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualPlanned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual. This is the ideal squeal to A Handbook for Ranch Managers.  Although the ecological principles remain the same, what was originally known as “The Savory Grazing Method” now answers to a multitude of different names: ranching for profit, holistic management, managed grazing, mob grazing, management intensive grazing, etc. Land & Livestock International, Inc. uses “Restoration Grazing” under its “Managing the Ranch as a Business” program.” No mater what you call it, this summary and synopsis will guide you step by step through the process and teach you how to use it as it was originally intended. No more excuses for failing to complete your grazing plans.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

MSNBC Smears Bundy Supporters as “Insurgents,” Attacks Infowars, Drudge

by Paul Joseph Watson via Infowars.com

In a 15 minute-long ideological crusade, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes smeared Cliven Bundy supporters as ‘insurgents’ while lamenting the threat posed to the establishment by an Alex Jones-Drudge-Fox News-Rand Paul “axis” that threatens to rock the 2016 presidential race.

Implicitly siding with Harry Reid’s widely derided claim that Cliven Bundy and his supporters are “domestic terrorists,” Hayes linked Nevada Republican Senator Dean Heller’s labeling of Bundy ranch advocates as “patriots” to Alex Jones and Infowars, which he sophomorically described as “a paranoid online haven”.

Similar to other White House fronts like Media Matters, Hayes then whines about the fact that Infowars stories, in particular relating to the Bundy siege, are routinely linked by powerhouse news aggregator the Drudge Report and find their way “into the mainstream GOP establishment” and Fox News, terming this effect the “Alex Jones-ification of the GOP”.

To a cheesy Twilight Zone-style backing soundtrack, Hayes then attempts guilt by association by linking “paranoid conspiracy theorist” Jones to Republican candidates like Greg Brannon who are running against establishment GOP figures. From this we can only infer that Chris Hayes and MSNBC are attempting to demonize such candidates in an attempt to bolster the chances of establishment Republican candidates, a bizarre concept for the supposedly left-leaning network.

Hayes implies that Brannon’s skepticism of the 9/11 Commission report is a kooky “fringe” conspiracy theory, failing to mention that six of the ten 9/11 commissioners have all publicly questioned the report, including co-chair Lee Hamilton, who said the Commission was “set up to fail”.

Hayes goes on to imply that Agenda 21, a public United Nations “sustainable development” program is another “Jones backed conspiracy” and doesn’t exist, despite the fact that it appears on the UN’s own official website.

Hayes moves on to target Senator Rand Paul, labeling him a “fan” of Alex Jones before describing the Bilderberg Group as a “fringe obsession” which represents nothing more than a “yearly meeting of people.” Hayes asserts that describing Bilderberg as a cabal that “secretly runs the world” is a baseless conspiracy despite the fact that Bilderberg clearly does openly run the world given that it consists of the most powerful people on the planet from titans of industry, banking and politics to power brokers in media, academia and international relations.

Hayes moves on to interview Senator Harry Reid’s son Rory Reid, taking the opportunity to describe Bundy supporters as an “insurgency” in the same context as the Nevada Senator’s “domestic terrorist” slur, while Rory Reid refuses to comment on his father’s remark but insists that Americans can’t point guns at government agents. The fact that BLM agents pointed sniper rifles and other weapons at unarmed Americans during last weekend’s standoff (after tasing a Bundy family member the previous week for exercising his first amendment right) is not addressed.

Hayes then welcomes leftist author Michelle Goldberg, who wastes little time in describing Bundy supporters as “right wing insurgents” while doling out clichéd pejorative terms such as “black helicopters,” presumably under the delusion that child-like taunts actually constitute an argument.

Ignoring the difficult fact that the federal government itself, via FBI provocateuring of patsies, has been behind virtually every major recent domestic terror plot (as the New York Times documented), Goldberg then puts Bundy supporters in the same league as Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and ludicrously asserts that Bundy ranch advocates are plotting to “overthrow the United States government”. Last time I checked, they just wanted the feds to return Bundy’s cattle.

Hayes then proceeds to smear Bundy supporters as violent, obfuscating the fact that it was BLM agents who threatened to shoot protesters during the standoff, as our own David Knight and many others on the front line of the dispute personally heard and witnessed.

Hayes and Goldberg only manage to embarrass themselves further, implying that the Second Amendment should only be about Americans protecting themselves from common criminals, an assertion with which the founding fathers vehemently disagreed.

Hayes ends by citing the “Alex Jones-Drudge-Fox News-Rand Paul axis” as being responsible for “moving these ideas quite to the center of the Republican Party and the Republican presidential campaign,” a notion that patently terrifies the Democratic hierarchy for which MSNBC fronts given that it would represent a genuine alternative to America either being under the control of establishment Democrats or establishment Republicans, between which there is little real difference.

Apparently, Chris Hayes, Rory Reid, Michelle Goldberg and their ilk think that if they blithely regurgitate pejorative buzzwords like “conspiracy theory,” “black helicopters” and “fringe” that this somehow wins the debate and legitimizes the characterization of Bundy supporters as domestic insurgents.

Perhaps Hayes didn’t get the memo, but by continuing to pursue such divisive and lazy rhetoric, MSNBC is hemorrhaging viewers.

A recent Pew Research study shows that MSNBC has recently lost a quarter of its viewers. The new figures followed on from reports in November last year that both CNN and MSNBC had lost nearly half their audience over the previous 12 months, with the two networks losing 59% and 52% respectively in the crucial demographic of viewers aged 25 to 54. A recent Gallup poll also found that trust in television news was at an all time low.

This is by no means the first time that the flailing network has resorted to extremist and deceptive rhetoric in an effort to smear its ideological adversaries. Last year, MSNBC host Alex Wagner and guests all but blamed Alex Jones for the Boston bombings, claiming with no evidence that the Tsarnaev brothers were inspired to carry out the attack by the “deeply racist” Jones and his website.

Wagner and her guests couldn’t present a single example of Alex Jones being “racist,” a shred of evidence that he was “getting paid to be racist,” nor was any proof offered that the Tsarnaev brothers were fans of Infowars.com.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

Related Articles

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits. Although woven around the experiences and adventures of one man, this is also the story of the people who lived during the period of time in American history that an entire generation was betrayed It is the story of the dramatically changing times in which this personal odyssey took place. It is the story of the betrayal of an entire generation of Americans and particularly the 40% (of the military aged males) of that generation that fought the Vietnam war.

Combat Shooter's Handbook Combat Shooter’s Handbook. Call for a pizza, a cop, and an ambulance and see which one arrives first. So, who does that leave to protect you, your life, property and family? The one and only answer is: YOU This Handbook is intended to help you exercise that right and meet that responsibility. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Posted in Government Corruption, Private Property Rights | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Oklahoma Joins the Fight: Militia Members Migrate to Nevada to Join Fight Against Feds

Oklahoma Joins the Fight: Militia Members Migrate to Nevada to Join Fight Against Feds.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Ken Ivory on Glenn Back Radio Discussing the Transfer of Public Lands

Ken Ivory has been fighting the good fight for years via the American Lands Council. He is probably the most knowledgeable man alive (rest Wayne Hage’s soul) on the “public domain” issue. I’m hoping that posts like this will educate, inform and help slow down the stupid shit that has been flying around since the Bundy standoff. — jtl, 419 

Ken Ivory on Glenn Back Radio Discussing the Transfer of Public Lands

If the link doesn’t work for you, copy and paste the URL into your browser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDll5zHV2Dk

THE ESSENCE OF LIBERTY: Volume 1Volume 2 and Volume 3

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History chronicles the rise and fall of the noble experiment with constitutionally limited government. It features the ideas and opinions of some of the world’s foremost contemporary constitutional scholars. This is history that you were not taught at the mandatory government propaganda camps otherwise known as “public schools.” You will gain a clear understanding of how America’s decline and decay is really nothing new and how it began almost immediately with the constitution. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II (The Economics of Liberty)The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty Volume II will introduce the reader to the fundamental principles of the Austrian School of Economics. The Austrian School traces its origins back to the Scholastics of Medieval Spain. But its lineage actually began with Carl Menger and continued on through Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and many others. It is the one and only true private property based, free market line of economic thought. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic. This is the volume that pulls it all together. With reference to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s description of Murray Rothbard’s work, it is a “unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.” Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

FOLLOW LAND & LIVESTOCK INTERNATIONAL ON FACEBOOK

Posted in Private Property Rights | Tagged | Leave a comment

Imagine the Bundy Ranch Showdown With Well Regulated Militias

The bottom line is that if the government didn’t have a “standing army” in the form of the BLM and the system’s enforcers were the very people that tyranny would be inflicted on they couldn’t even have tried to do what they did.

 via The International Libertarian

Recently, Cliven Bundy and his supporters had a showdown with the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over grazing rights on land claimed by the federal government. They started rounding up Mr. Bundy’s cattle but were confronted by armed, liberty-minded people. Fortunately, the feds backed down. (Those needing to get up to speed on this can do sohere.) LewRockwell.com published a great article written by a former federal agent speculating on how the US government will retaliate titled “What’s Next for the Bundys?”. All of this got me thinking about the power the federal government has and why it shouldn’t have it.

The useless constitution seems to be clear about what the federal government can and can’t do. Article I, Section 8, clause 15 is the only part of the constitution that mentions how the federal government can enforce its laws. It reads “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” [emphasis added] That’s it, nowhere else does the constitution mention how to enforce federal law. The 10th Amendment limits the federal government’s powers to only those listed. Nowhere does the constitution give the US government the power to create law enforcement agencies. This makes the BLM and the rest of the alphabet soup of federal law enforcement agencies unconstitutional.

The point of having a well regulated militia is to avoid arming the government in the first place. Informing the Founders on this subject was one of John Trenchard’s Cato’s Letters, No. 95 Further Reasonings against Standing Armies. In it he warns:

It is certain, that all parts of Europe which are enslaved, have been enslaved by armies; and it is absolutely impossible, that any nation which keeps them amongst themselves can long preserve their liberties; nor can any nation perfectly lose their liberties who are without such guests: And yet, though all men see this, and at times confess it, yet all have joined in their turns, to bring this heavy evil upon themselves and their country.

Modern readers can be forgiven for thinking that we don’t have an army among us. In order to get around the people’s antipathy to having soldiers on the streets ruling us police forces were introduced in the mid-nineteenth century. Think of the standing army not as literally a military force but as any organized bodies of armed men under the government’s control. Today’s standing law enforcement establishment functions domestically the way a standing army would. That’s exactly what we saw on display at the Bundy ranch. During the debates over the Second Amendment Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts argued:

What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

Imagine if the government didn’t have the BLM and its thugs to bully Cliven Bundy. Imagine if to go after him congress would have had to meet and then vote to call forth the Nevada militia. Does anyone seriously think that a militia composed of Mr. Bundy’s neighbors would have even tried to enforce the federal government’s tyranny on him? Of course not. If we don’t give the government the power to oppress it won’t. The only way to secure our rights is to disarm the government while arming and organizing the people.

A note on the “militias” that protected the Bundy ranch. They were brave, determined people that I’m glad succeeded in defending the ranch. What they aren’t is militias in the sense meant by the Founders and thinkers like Trenchard. The militias are supposed to be part of the system not groups or individuals outside of it. Explaining the issue from a constitutional point of view Edwin Viera wrote an excellent article on the subject titled “True Vs. False Militia And Why The Difference Matters”. In it he wrote:

As wholly private organizations with no legal authority peculiar to themselves– for certainly not a single one of them has been empowered by a State statute to participate in the activities they have taken upon themselves — these “militias” are necessarily not parts of the government of any State or Locality. Indeed, they view themselves as at least potential antagonists and opponents of “the government” in general

“Militias” set up outside of the system are revolutionary groups. (I don’t want to be misunderstood here. I’m not saying opposing the government is wrong or bad, I’m just trying to set the record straight about what militias really are.) Mr. Viera gets the principle right though his application is wrong. As an anarchist libertarian I’m more anti-government than any “militia” member will ever be. What we need aren’t constitutional militias but militias that are part of a stateless system.

The bottom line is that if the government didn’t have a “standing army” in the form of the BLM and the system’s enforcers were the very people that tyranny would be inflicted on they couldn’t even have tried to do what they did. Imagine that, our liberties would be secure and the Bundy ranch free of federal invaders.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers

A Handbook for Ranch Managers.  In keeping with the “holistic” idea that the land, the livestock, the people and the money should be viewed as a single integrated whole: Part I deals with the management of the natural resources. Part II covers livestock production and Part III deals with the people and the money. Not only would this book make an excellent basic text for a university program in Ranch Management, no professional ranch manager’s reference bookshelf should be without it. It is a comprehensive reference manual for managing the working ranch. The information in the appendices and extensive bibliography alone is worth the price of the book.

Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualPlanned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual. This is the ideal squeal to A Handbook for Ranch Managers.  Although the ecological principles remain the same, what was originally known as “The Savory Grazing Method” now answers to a multitude of different names: ranching for profit, holistic management, managed grazing, mob grazing, management intensive grazing, etc. Land & Livestock International, Inc. uses “Restoration Grazing” under its “Managing the Ranch as a Business” program.” No mater what you call it, this summary and synopsis will guide you step by step through the process and teach you how to use it as it was originally intended. No more excuses for failing to complete your grazing plans.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Posted in Government Corruption, Private Property Rights | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

US Government Can Kill US Citizens, But Not Strip Their Citizenship

Why would the US government do that when it can collect taxes on all of your worldwide income?

While Daniel Swalm researched his family’s genealogy, he learned about a particular episode in which his grandmother, born and raised in Minnesota, was stripped of her US citizenship after marrying an immigrant from Sweden.

Under the obscure 1907 law called the Expatriation Act, a US born woman who married a foreigner was required to “take the nationality of her husband.”

His grandmother was forced to fill out an alien registration form.

“I could not figure out why Grandma Elsie had to fill one out, because she was born in the United States,” Daniel said.

He’s not alone. Others have discovered similar information.

“There are all these people doing their genealogy, and they come across relatives who were declared alien enemies during World War I, and they’re trying to figure out why that would be if they were born in the United States,” said Candice Bredbenner, a history professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington.

A bill recently brought forth in Senate, which is likely to pass in a symbolic gesture expressing regret over the law, cites other women who lost their citizenship, including Ethel Mackenzie of San Francisco, who unsuccessfully challenged the law before the Supreme Court in 1915. The law was repealed and it has not been so easy to strip US citizens of their citizenship. Not as easy as in Britain, that’s for sure!

BRITAIN STRIPPING CITIZENSHIPS

In this week’s TDV Newsletter we go over how 42 Britons have lost their citizenship in just the past decade, 20 of which have been revoked in the last year alone!

How can Briton get away with it? Quite simply.

UK law states two grounds on which citizenship can be stripped: the Home Secretary finding a person’s presence not conducive to the public good, or a person receiving citizenship in a fraudulent way.

In the US, laws make it very hard to involuntarily strip someone of their US citizenship. But, rest assured, Barack O’bomber has a plan to get around that hurdle! Joshua Keating writes:

Since [a 1967 Supreme Court case called Afroyim v. Rusk], it’s been nearly impossible for someone to be involuntarily stripped of U.S. citizenship. Even if you join a foreign army fighting against the United States, the law says you will only lose your citizenship if you do so “with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.” That intention can be tough to prove, and in Awlaki’s case, the administration made no effort to do so.

GOP House members have introduced legislation to investigate whether joining a terrorist organization constitutes a renunciation of citizenship. But frankly, given that US citizenship doesn’t seem to provide much protection when a drone has you in its sights, I’m not sure there would be any point.

US GOVERNMENT CAN KILL CITIZENS BUT NOT STRIP THEIR CITIZENSHIP

And that brings us to the bitter truth about the United States. Although it has a history of stripping citizenship, it does not use the technique like Great Britain, which can summarily strip somebody of their citizenship, and generally does so while that unlucky person is abroad.

What the US can do, however, is kill its citizens. Or at least detain them indefinitely. The National Defense Authorization Act spells that out, a law the Obama adminstration defends fervently.

But detaining its citizens indefinitely is not enough for a rogue government. Killing them is a reasonable proposition as well.

If you plotted to kill an American, you could end up in jail on a bunch of charges. When it’s the president doing the killing, it’s fine. You know, “legal.”

Remember when the US went after an American abroad in Pakistan because he was planning attacks against the US?

He wasn’t  the only American the Obama administration had killed. According to the administration, it has killed four americans as part of its “War Of Terror.”

On May 7, 2011, a US drone aimed at American citizen and key terror suspect Anwar al-Awlaki. The missile blew up a car with two other people in it, quickly labeled “Al Qaeda operatives.”

That was not the first time the US tried to kill al-Awlaki. In one attack on his life, they blew up his teenage son. Nobody has argued that the boy was a part of any terrorist group, though former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs did commented that the killing was justified as he “should have had a more responsible father.”

FBI Director Robert Mueller gave some interesting answers before a House subcommittee in 2012. Asked if the president could order the killing of an American in the United States, he replied “Uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not…. I’m going to defer that to others in the Department of Justice.”

Hmm…

Senator Rand Paul asked in 2013 if the president could authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against an American citizen in the United States. Attorney General Eric Holder answered that while the question was “hypothetical,” he could imagine “an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.”

TIME IS RUNNING OUT

The American public is being conditioned to accept the indefinite detention and possible killing of US citizens.  If you want to relocate with no strings attached, look into TDV Passports today and find out the steps to permanent travelerhood.  For those with considerable assets (small businesses, etc.), The TDV Wealth Management Crisis could help you save millions.

But, it’s not all bad, US citizens! Remember, your citizenship probably won’t be stripped. Why would the US government do that when it can collect taxes on all of your worldwide income?

Join The Discussion At The Dollar Vigilante.

picAnarcho-Capitalist.  Libertarian.  Freedom fighter against mankind’s two biggest enemies, the State and the Central Banks.  Jeff Berwick is the founder of The Dollar Vigilante, CEO of TDV Media & Services and host of the popular video podcast, Anarchast.  Jeff is a prominent speaker at many of the world’s freedom, investment and gold conferences as well as regularly in the media including CNBC, CNN and Fox

 

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits. Although woven around the experiences and adventures of one man, this is also the story of the people who lived during the period of time in American history that an entire generation was betrayed It is the story of the dramatically changing times in which this personal odyssey took place. It is the story of the betrayal of an entire generation of Americans and particularly the 40% (of the military aged males) of that generation that fought the Vietnam war.

Combat Shooter's Handbook Combat Shooter’s Handbook. Call for a pizza, a cop, and an ambulance and see which one arrives first. So, who does that leave to protect you, your life, property and family? The one and only answer is: YOU This Handbook is intended to help you exercise that right and meet that responsibility. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Posted in Anarcho-Capitalism, Expatriation, Government Corruption | Tagged , | 2 Comments

HARRY REID’S LAST ROUNDUP

 BLM had posted on its website documents stating the agency wanted Bundy’s cattle off of the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations. The agency removed it when the standoff became national news.

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy performed a remarkable public service for America over the last couple weeks.

He exposed the utter ruthlessness, brutishness and Gestapo tactics of the federal government in dealing with honest, hard-working Americans who live off the land – our land.

Claiming Bundy’s cattle ranching operation was endangering desert tortoises, the Bureau of Land Management treated him like he was Ted Bundy. I take that back. The serial rapist, mass murderer and necrophile got due process.

When Cliven Bundy’s neighbors turned out to support him, as good American neighbors should, the BLM sent in helicopters, four-wheel-drive vehicles and an estimated 200 armed officers to deal with the cowboy and his family, threatening another Ruby Ridge or Waco-style slaughter.

But I don’t think it was about tortoises. No, sir. In fact, with all the gear and manpower the BLM brought to Clark County to round up the cowboy and his cattle, they did more environmental damage to the area than Cliven Bundy ever could have dreamed of doing.

This was about something else.

It’s always about something else.

Maybe – just maybe – it had to do with another Nevadan by the name of Harry Reid.

It seems the Senate majority leader has been doing favors for a Chinese energy giant ENN, which has plans to build massive solar facilities in that area – tortoises or no tortoises.

It seems the director of BLM is Reid’s former senior adviser, Neil Kornze. BLM had posted on its website documents stating the agency wanted Bundy’s cattle off of the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations. The agency removed it when the standoff became national news.

“Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle,” the document states.

That would be the Chinese solar plant – the Management, or BLM.

They were getting a mega-deal. On April 3, 2012, Bloomberg reported Chinese billionaire Wang Yusuo, one of China’s richest citizens and the founder of ENN, had teamed up with Harry Reid to win incentives including land 113 miles southeast of Las Vegas that ENN sought to buy for $4.5 million, less than one-eighth of the land’s $38.6 million assessed value.

But the story gets better. Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid, was the chief representative for a Chinese energy firm planning to build a $5-billion solar plant on public land in Laughlin, Nev.

A Reuters report stated: “[Reid] and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert. Reid has been one of the project’s most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on behalf of the project in Nevada. His son, a lawyer with a prominent Las Vegas firm that is representing ENN, helped it locate a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site that it is buying well below appraised value from Clark County, where Rory Reid formerly chaired the county commission.”

And there’s an even bigger story of scandal and corruption still beneath this show of force by the BLM, orchestrated by Harry Reid.

On Jan. 20, 2013, WND warned Chinese government-backed economists were proposing a plan to allow Chinese corporations to set up “development zones” in the United States as part of a plan proposed by the Chinese government to convert into equity the more than $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury debt owned by the Chinese government.

The next day, Jan. 21, 2013, WND documented the Obama administration had begun to allow China to acquire major ownership interests in oil and natural gas resources across the USA.

The first major intrusion of China in the U.S. oil and natural gas market can be traced to the Obama administration decision in October 2009 to allow state-owned Chinese energy giant China Offshore Oil Corporation, or CNOOC, to purchase a multi-million-dollar stake in 600,000 acres of South Texas oil and gas fields.

By allowing China to have equity interests in U.S. oil and natural gas production, the Obama administration reversed a policy of the Bush administration that in 2005 blocked China on grounds of national security concerns from an $18.4-billion deal in which China planned to purchase California-based Unocal Corp.

China’s two, giant, state-owned oil companies acquiring oil and natural gas interests in the USA are CNOOC, 100 percent owned by the government of the People’s Republic of China, and Sinopec Group, the largest shareholder of Sinopac Corporation, an investment company owned by the government of the People’s Republic of China, incorporated in China in 1998, largely to acquire and operate oil and natural gas interests worldwide.

On March 6, 2012, the Wall Street Journal compiled a state-by-state list of the $17 billion in oil and natural gas equity interests CNOOC and Sinopec have acquired in the United States since 2010.

  • Colorado: CNOOC gained a one-third stake in 800,000 acres in northeast Colorado and southwest Wyoming in a $1.27-billion pact with Chesapeake Energy Corporation.
  • Louisiana: Sinopec has a one-third interest in 265,000 acres in the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale after a broader $2.5-billion deal with Devon Energy.
  • Michigan: Sinopec gained a one-third interest in 350,000 acres in a larger $2.5-billion deal with Devon Energy.
  • Ohio: Sinopec acquired a one-third interest in Devon Energy’s 235,000 Utica Shale acres in a larger $2.5-billion deal.
  • Oklahoma: Sinopec has a one-third interest in 215,000 acres in a broader $2.5-billion deal with Devon Energy.
  • Texas: CNOOC acquired a one-third interest in Chesapeake Energy’s 600,000 acres in the Eagle Ford Shale in a $2.16-billion deal.
  • Wyoming: CNOOC has a one-third stake in northeast Colorado and southeast Wyoming after a $1.27-billion pact with Chesapeake Energy. Sinopec gained a one-third interest in Devon Energy’s 320,000 acres as part of a larger $2.5-billion deal.

On March 6, 2012, in a separate story, the Wall Street Journal described that China’s strategy implemented since 2010 by Fu Chengyu, who has served as chairman of both CNOOC and Sinopec, involved the following components: “Seek minority states, play a passive role, and, in a nod to U.S. regulators, keep Chinese personnel at arm’s length from advanced U.S. technology.”

But back to Cliven Bundy and Harry Reid.

Remember Solyndra?

ENN intended to create solar energy farms on the Nevada land, despite the nearly 50 percent plunge in solar panel prices globally in the previous 15 months that led to the bankruptcy of solar equipment maker Solyndra LLC, which had received approximately $535 million in U.S. government loan guarantees.

And, yes, money exchanged hands between ENN and Reid. The Chinese energy company contributed $40,650 individually and through its political action committee to Sen. Reid over the previous three election cycles.

Reid was recruited by ENN during a 2011 trip he took to China with nine other U.S. senators, supposedly to invite Chinese investment in the United States. The Senate group accompanying Reid on his 2011 trip to China included six other Democrats and three Republicans: Richard Shelby, R-Ala.; Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.; Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.; Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.; and Michael Bennet, D-Colo.

Thank you, Cliven Bundy for bringing all of this to the public’s attention.

America is with you.

I am with you.

Enough is enough.

Thank you for exposing how crony capitalism works hand in hand with phony environmentalism.

Indeed, as Kris Kristofferson once wrote, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”

Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact media@wnd.com.

THE ESSENCE OF LIBERTY: Volume 1Volume 2 and Volume 3

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History chronicles the rise and fall of the noble experiment with constitutionally limited government. It features the ideas and opinions of some of the world’s foremost contemporary constitutional scholars. This is history that you were not taught at the mandatory government propaganda camps otherwise known as “public schools.” You will gain a clear understanding of how America’s decline and decay is really nothing new and how it began almost immediately with the constitution. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II (The Economics of Liberty)The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty Volume II will introduce the reader to the fundamental principles of the Austrian School of Economics. The Austrian School traces its origins back to the Scholastics of Medieval Spain. But its lineage actually began with Carl Menger and continued on through Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and many others. It is the one and only true private property based, free market line of economic thought. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic. This is the volume that pulls it all together. With reference to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s description of Murray Rothbard’s work, it is a “unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.” Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Posted in Government Corruption, Private Property Rights | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Do the Fed’s Really Own the Land in Nevada? Nope!

Yet another angle: If Cliven Bundy has not done anything else, he has sure prompted a long over-due history lesson for the great unwashed masses. Here is yet another angle. This one demonstrates why, still to this day, the old South and the Far West should be seriously considering secession. (We will let them keep the Left Coast). — jtl, 419

by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Is it true that nearly 80% of Nevada is still owned by the Federal Government who then pays no tax to the State of Nevada? This seems very strange if true as a backdrop to this entire Bundy affair.

You seem to be the only person to tell the truth without getting crazy.

Thank you so much

HF

REPLY: The truth behind Nevada is of course just a quagmire of politics. Nevada was a key pawn in getting Abraham Lincoln reelected in 1864 during the middle of the Civil War. Back on March 21st, 1864, the US Congress enacted the Nevada Statehood statute that authorized the residents of Nevada Territory to elect representatives to a convention for the purpose of having Nevada join the Union. This is where we find the origin of the fight going on in Nevada that the left-wing TV commenters (pretend-journalists) today call a right-wing uprising that should be put down at all costs. The current land conflict in Nevada extends back to this event in 1864 and how the territory of Nevada became a state in order to push through a political agenda to create a majority vote. I have said numerous times, if you want the truth, just follow the money.

The “law” at the time in 1864 required that for a territory to become a state, the population had to be at least 60,000. At that time, Nevada had only about 40,000 people. So why was Nevada rushed into statehood in violation of the law of the day? When the 1864 Presidential election approached, there were special interests who were seeking to manipulate the elections to ensure Lincoln would win reelection. They needed another Republican congressional delegation that could provide additional votes for the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery. Previously, the attempt failed by a very narrow margin that required two-thirds support of both houses of Congress.

The fear rising for the 1864 election was that there might arise three major candidates running. There was Abraham Lincoln of the National Union Party, George B. McClellan of the Democratic Party, and John Charles Frémont (1813–1890) of the Radical Democracy Party. It was actually Frémont who was the first anti-slavery Republican nominee back in the 1940s. During the Civil War, he held a military command and was the first to issue an emancipation edict that freed slaves in his district. Lincoln maybe credited for his stand, but he was a politician first. Lincoln relieved Frémont of his command for insubordination. Therefore, the Radical Democracy Party was the one demanding emancipation of all slaves.

With the Republicans splitting over how far to go with some supporting complete equal rights and others questioning going that far, the Democrats were pounding their chests and hoped to use the split in the Republicans to their advantage. The New York World was a newspaper published in New York City from 1860 until 1931 that was the mouth-piece for the Democrats. From 1883 to 1911 it was under the notorious publisher Joseph Pulitzer (1847–1911), who started the Spanish-American war by publishing false information just to sell his newspapers. Nonetheless, it was the New World that was desperately trying to ensure the defeat of Lincoln. It was perhaps their bravado that led to the Republicans state of panic that led to the maneuver to get Nevada into a voting position.

The greatest fear, thanks to the New York World, became what would happen if the vote was fragmented (which we could see in 2016) and no party could achieve a majority of electoral votes. Consequently, the election would then be thrown into the House of Representatives, where each state would have only one vote. Consequently, the Republicans believed they needed Nevada on their side for this would give them an equal vote with every other state despite the tiny amount of people actually living there. Moreover, the Republicans needed two more loyal Unionist votes in the U.S. Senate to also ensure that the Thirteenth Amendment would be passed.  Nevada’s entry would secure both the election and the three-fourths majority needed for the Thirteenth Amendment enactment.

The votes at the end of the day demonstrate that they never needed Nevada. Nonetheless, within the provisions of the Statehood Act of March 21, 1864 that brought Nevada into the voting fold, we see the source of the problem today. This Statehood Act retained the ownership of the land as a territory for the federal government. In return for the Statehood that was really against the law, the new state surrendered any right, title, or claim to the unappropriated public lands lying within Nevada. Moreover, this cannot be altered without the consent of the Feds. Hence, the people of Nevada cannot claim any land whatsoever because politicians needed Nevada for the 1864 election but did not want to hand-over anything in return. This was a typical political one-sided deal.

Republican Ronald Reagan had argued for the turnover of the control of such lands to the state and local authorities back in 1980. Clearly, the surrender of all claims to any land for statehood was illegal under the Constitution. This is no different from Russia seizing Crimea. The Supreme Court actually addressed this issue in Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) when Alabama became a state in 1845. The question presented was concerning a clause where it was stated “that all navigable waters within the said State shall forever remain public highways, free to the citizens of said State, and of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor imposed by said State.” The Supreme Court held that this clause was constitutional because it “conveys no more power over the navigable waters of Alabama to the Government of the United States than it possesses over the navigable waters of other States under the provisions of the Constitution.”

The Pollard decision expressed a statement of constitutional law in dictum making it very clear that the Feds have no claim over the lands in Nevada. The Supreme Court 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 in other words, once a territory becomes a state, the Fed must surrender all claims to the land as if it were still just a possession or territory.

Sorry, but to all the left-wing commentators who call Bundy a tax-cheat and an outlaw, be careful of what you speak for the Supreme Court has made it clear in 1845 that the Constitution forbids the federal rangers to be out there to begin with for the Feds could not retain ownership of the territory and simultaneously grant state sovereignty. At the very minimum, it became state land – not federal.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers

A Handbook for Ranch Managers.  In keeping with the “holistic” idea that the land, the livestock, the people and the money should be viewed as a single integrated whole: Part I deals with the management of the natural resources. Part II covers livestock production and Part III deals with the people and the money. Not only would this book make an excellent basic text for a university program in Ranch Management, no professional ranch manager’s reference bookshelf should be without it. It is a comprehensive reference manual for managing the working ranch. The information in the appendices and extensive bibliography alone is worth the price of the book.

Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualPlanned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual. This is the ideal squeal to A Handbook for Ranch Managers.  Although the ecological principles remain the same, what was originally known as “The Savory Grazing Method” now answers to a multitude of different names: ranching for profit, holistic management, managed grazing, mob grazing, management intensive grazing, etc. Land & Livestock International, Inc. uses “Restoration Grazing” under its “Managing the Ranch as a Business” program.” No mater what you call it, this summary and synopsis will guide you step by step through the process and teach you how to use it as it was originally intended. No more excuses for failing to complete your grazing plans.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Posted in Private Property Rights | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments